"Dialogue with Non-Christian Religions" By Saint Seraphim Rose:
Ours is an age of spiritual instability, when many Orthodox Christians feel themselves “tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting” ( Eph. 4:14 ). It seems that the time has truly come when people “will not endure sound doctrine, but having itching ears, they shall heap up for themselves teachers according to their own lusts; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” ( 2 Tim. 4:3-4 ).
One reads with bewilderment about the latest actions and statements of the ecumenical movement. At the highest academic level, Orthodox theologians representing the Standing American Council of Orthodox Bishops and other official Orthodox organizations are conducting scholarly dialogues with Catholics and Protestants and issuing "joint statements" on issues such as the Eucharist, spirituality, and the like, without even pointing out to those of other faiths that the Orthodox Church is the Church of Christ, to which all must be called, that only its sacraments bring grace, that Orthodox spirituality can be attained through personal experience only within the bosom of the Orthodox Church, and that all these "dialogues" and "joint statements" are merely an academic parody of a truly Christian debate—a debate whose goal is the salvation of souls.
In truth, many of the Orthodox participants in these “dialogues” know or suspect that there is no place for an Orthodox there, that the very atmosphere of ecumenical “liberalism” rejects any true word spoken there; but they remain silent, because in our day the “spirit of the times” is often stronger than the voice of the conscience of an Orthodox Christian (See: “Diakonia” No. 1, 1970, p. 72; “Theological Almanac of St. Vladimir” No. 4, 1969, p. 225).
At a more public level, ecumenical "conferences" and "discussions" are organized, often featuring an "Orthodox speaker" or even the celebration of an "Orthodox liturgy." The statements at such conferences are often so ignorant, and the overall atmosphere so lacking in seriousness, that not only do they fail to foster the "unity" their organizers crave, but they even serve as proof that an impassable chasm lies between true Orthodoxy and the "ecumenical" worldview (See: "Sobornost" - Winter, pp. 494-498, etc.).
In their actions, active ecumenists take advantage of the fact that intellectuals and theologians are unsteady in their convictions and divorced from Orthodox tradition, using their own pronouncements on fundamental agreement on a number of points concerning sacraments and dogmas to justify provocative ecumenical demonstrations, not excluding the distribution of Holy Communion to heretics. This state of conceptual confusion, in turn, gives ecumenical ideologists pretext for empty statements aimed at the broadest possible audience, which reduce fundamental theological themes to the level of cheap farce, such as what Patriarch Athenagoras allows himself to say: “Does your wife ask you how much salt to put in her soup? Of course not. She is infallible. So let the Pope have it, too, if he so desires” (Hellenic Chronicle, April 9, 1970).
An enlightened and conscious Orthodox Christian may well ask: How will all this end? Are there really no limits to the betrayal, perversion, and self-destruction of Orthodoxy?
Until now, no one has fully understood where all this is leading, but logically the path is perfectly clear. The ideology that underlies ecumenism, which inspires the actions and statements cited above, is itself a certain heresy: the Church of Christ does not exist, no one possesses the Truth, the Church is still only being formed. But without further ado, it is clear that the self-liquidation of Orthodoxy, the "Church of Christ," is simultaneously the self-destruction of Christianity as such: for if no single church is "that Church of Christ," then the combination of all sects will not be "that Church" either, at least not in the sense intended by its founder, Christ. And if all "Christian" groups are related to one another, then all of them taken together are akin to other "religious" groups, and Christian ecumenism can only lead to a syncretic world religion.
This is the truly undisguised goal of the Masonic ideology that inspires the ecumenical movement, and this ideology has now so completely taken hold of the movement's participants that "dialogue" and subsequent reunification with non-Christian religions are becoming the logical next step in today's perversion of Christianity. Here are some examples from the many recent events that may confirm the direction of the "ecumenical" future beyond Christianity.
*******************************************************
Orthodoxy, heterodoxy, ecumenism (St Philaret of New York)
Older people remember well what Mother Rus' once had; they remember well how many different theological educational institutions we had—higher ones like academies, secondary ones like seminaries, and lower ones like theological schools. Conditions are completely different now. And as you yourself, of course, know, in the Church Abroad, the only truly full-fledged theological institution is our seminary, which has been operating for several years at Holy Trinity Monastery in Jordanville. To assist this spiritual institution, pastoral courses are being opened, for which God be praised, because in our time, we must value, support, and protect in every way those organizations and institutions where it is possible to offer people ecclesiastical teaching.
Of course, compared to the past, we have one advantage. You know well, friends, as they used to say in Mother Rus', that the most ardent blasphemers and atheists came from the seminary. Perhaps, when phrased this way, it sounded too extreme and exaggerated, but there's no smoke without fire, because, indeed, this used to be the case all the time. People who were completely unsuited to the seminary would end up there, and they would ultimately emerge as enemies of the faith.
I'll allow myself to recall something I didn't intend to say at first, but now I do – a story by the writer A. V. Amfiteatrov about how the renowned scholar, professor, and Archpriest Nikolai Sergievsky once taught theology at Moscow University . One day, a young man from a highly educated aristocratic family was answering a theology exam. His answer was exceptionally brilliant. So vast was the young man's knowledge that at times it devolved almost into a debate between professor and student. The nearly hour-long exam ended. Archpriest Nikolai Sergievsky, giving him an "A," said, "You are probably a complete atheist in your convictions?" The student blushed. "How could you know?" "By the nature of your knowledge and answers. You study this so you can argue with us." And then, a year later, when his younger brother, a very modest and God-fearing youth, also answered very well, but not nearly as brilliantly as his older brother, the professor, also giving him an "A," asked, "Aren't you so-and-so's brother? Your answer was brilliant, thank you. Your brother's answer was even better, but I give you a full mark with much greater pleasure."
That was then. Now, the likelihood that an opponent of the faith could emerge from a theological school is much lower, because now the seminary and even the pastoral courses will be attended by people truly seeking both spiritual edification and spiritual enlightenment. And may God grant that our modest undertaking will succeed and serve as a support for our only theological seminary.
Once in Harbin, I happened to read a book by a theosophist who, defending his theosophical doctrines, said: "There is no religion higher than truth. This is our fundamental dogma, theosophical. All religions are valuable because they all seek truth." It seems like a rather attractive assertion, but it is, however, inherently false. Why? Because if all religions seek truth but speak of it differently, then can they really be considered equal? It would be like having twelve identical clocks hanging side by side on the wall, each showing different times, and then arguing that since they were all designed to tell time, all their readings are equal. In fact, some are correct, others incorrect, and perhaps all are incorrect. In any case, truth is one, and although they may show different times, they cannot all be telling the truth.
The same can be said about religion. Of course, religion is the highest point of the human spirit, so a believing Christian will never ridicule another's religion, no matter how primitive. But that's one thing. On the other hand, if this theosophical assertion is so false, then, I repeat, on the surface it seems quite attractive. And so the author of this book, a theosophist, says: "We have succeeded in uniting representatives of almost all religions, in particular, almost all Christian faiths, with the exception of one stubborn one – Orthodoxy. It simply refuses to accept this point of view. It says that it does not seek the truth, but possesses it in its entirety; it has nothing to seek. And therefore, it can offer this truth to anyone who desires it, to anyone who seeks it, who aches for it in their soul. And Orthodoxy has nothing to seek; it is a religion that contains divinely revealed truth. And since there is only one truth, it therefore refuses to unite with any other religion."
Absolutely correct. What is valuable about Orthodoxy is that it professes its faith, that divinely revealed truth, which people did not invent in their own speculations about God and faith, but which was brought from heaven to earth by the Lord Jesus Christ , the incarnate Son of God, the mind of God, the power of God, the wisdom of God. This is precisely what determines the eternity, steadfastness, and constancy of our faithful Orthodox religion, our Orthodox faith, this true, authentic Christianity. The Lord Jesus Christ said to His apostles: "All things that I have heard from My Father, I have spoken." This is why the Apostle Peter once pointed out: "All things that pertain to life and godliness have been given to us by the Lord." These words of the Savior are not contradicted by His other words, spoken at that same Last Supper, when He said: "I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now." It's not that they were told an incomplete truth, but only that they couldn't fully comprehend it. "But when the Spirit, the Comforter, comes, He will remind you of what He told you and will illuminate your mind so that it will understand the truth, perceive it in its entirety." The Church has always taught that the fullness of truth, the fullness of vision, belongs to the entire Universal Church, and not to any one individual. So, therefore, the content of our faith has already been given. It was formulated at the Ecumenical Councils and succinctly contained in the exhaustive Creed . The Church further says that it is revealed in its depths in the history of the Church, in the writings of the Holy Fathers, and is assimilated as saving truth by every human soul through the struggle of life, through study, and through reverent acceptance of what the Church offers as divinely revealed truth. But nothing else, nothing entirely new, can be added.
Our Orthodox Church firmly stands on this. The foundations of this understanding were once cautioned by the Apostle Paul, who wrote to the Galatian Christians: "If not we only, but an angel from heaven, brings you a gospel contrary to what you have received (meaning, something entirely new), let him be accursed." Therefore, if truth is revealed to you in a new way, then in order to accept this explanation, a Christian must, first of all, ensure full conformity with the truth already present in our Orthodox Church. This should not be some kind of innovation, but merely a conclusion drawn from what the Church offers, a revelation of what has already been given. And in this, I repeat, lies the constancy, fidelity, strength, and steadfastness of our Orthodoxy.
There was once an original thinker and philosopher in Russia, Vasily Vasilyevich Rozanov, a true original. A man whose thinking was sometimes not only not entirely ecclesiastical, but also completely non-ecclesiastical—at least in his expressions. He articulated paradoxes, sometimes simply attacked Christianity , saying that Christianity robs life of its light, robs it of its joyful aspects, and turns it into something gloomy, utterly joyless for the soul. But if they say of a Russian that his mind and heart are at odds, then this was precisely the case with such an original as Rozanov. His mind clearly rebelled against Christianity often, and his pen followed his mind, writing much that a Christian should not have written. But his heart was drawn to the Church, drawn to Orthodoxy. He himself said that if he were to die, he wanted to invite a priest before his death and confess to him his entire sinful life.
So, this original thinker said: "Why, when I enter a church, does my restless soul feel calm? Why, when I enter the smallest, most rural church, there is a deacon reading and singing something in the choir, perhaps not always understanding the words he sings and reads, old women stand and pray reverently, and they hardly understand half of what is being sung, but why is there such peace and tranquility in my soul? Because we have entered an atmosphere of eternity, because here is the power of our faith, our Orthodoxy, the significance of our Orthodox Church.
This humble servant of the Church—the psalm-reader, the servant of God—is reading and singing something in his place, and I know that for hundreds of years before this, this same thing had been read and sung. The Church sang and read it, the Church offered it to its children. We will be gone; others will follow us into Church, and they will hear the same thing, feel the same blessed atmosphere. So what if these old women perhaps don't understand everything? They are nourished here, they feel this blessed atmosphere, they live by it. And my sinful soul,” he says, “likewise feels the vitality of this spiritual atmosphere and senses a stone, a rock upon which to lean, this constancy, this immutability.” It exists, as he rightly noted, only in the Orthodox Church. Beyond the threshold of the church, the most astonishing changes sometimes occur. Generations succeed generations, states disappear, and others arise in their place. And the Church does its work as it did in apostolic times, as it does now and will do until the end, until this earthly history of humanity ends.
If we turn to the heterodox confession of Catholicism, we know that its honest and sincere representatives openly acknowledge that it is the Orthodox Church that preserves the truth as it was under the apostles and the Ecumenical Councils, while Catholicism has added something new to it. They consider these additions divinely inspired, consider them dogmas, but they acknowledge that it is the Orthodox Church that inviolably preserves what it contains. And Catholicism, as you know, has invented much that is new. There is no time to discuss it in detail; you yourselves are familiar with many points where Catholicism has departed from Orthodoxy, from true Christianity.
Every misfortune begins with a bad beginning. Admit anything new, admit any innovation, and a stone will roll down a sloping slope, as if on a slippery slope, and life shows how terrible, how dangerous this is. We are now witnessing the terrible tragedy of Catholicism. Once upon a time, a philosopher—I think it was Vysheslavtsev—wrote, recalling the terrible years of life in the Soviet Union in the first years after the revolution: “The Soviet government issued many decrees, issued many orders. How did we live? We lived when we circumvented them, did not implement them, because to implement would mean death.” And this is what I am constantly reminded of when I now hear that devout Catholics, raised in the faith of their fathers, strive precisely to preserve the old ways and live by some kind of pious aspiration, insofar as they completely reject the innovations of Catholicism, the destructive ones associated with the so-called innovations of the so-called Roman Pontiff himself.
You see for yourself what's happening here, you see the tragedy of Catholicism, which seemed to stand like an indestructible rock. They used to always look down on us, saying we were always in turmoil, lacking unity, lacking a central center, lacking a single authority, but we were as solid as a rock. Look how this rock has crumbled, or at least is beginning to crumble now.
As for Protestantism, which emerged as a protest against the, frankly, atrocities with which Catholicism had disgraced itself by the Middle Ages, it emerged as a healthy protest against these distortions of the truth. But, alas, it turned out that it protested and protested, and in the process strayed further from true Christianity, from Orthodoxy, than Catholicism had strayed from it. If we imagine a pendulum hanging straight and steady (that would be Orthodoxy), and Catholicism swinging away from it, then Protestantism swung in the opposite direction, but didn't stop where Orthodoxy did; rather, having flown away, it ended up even further away.
Protestantism has also broken with much that Catholicism still retained. Protestantism lacks continuity of ordination and many sacraments, and hence the result: with such a lack of internal fidelity to apostolic teaching, with such arbitrary rule, Protestantism fragments, fragments, and fragments into sects, denominations, all manner of branches and divisions, sometimes practically mutually exclusive and, in their extreme conclusions, reaching almost the complete denial of Christianity, even the denial of its very foundations. They do not venerate the Mother of God and even doubt the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ—that is, they essentially depart from Christian principles and beliefs altogether.
And it was these tragedies of heterodox faiths that gave rise to the phenomenon that now threatens as a poisonous temptation many souls, weak or insufficiently understanding. This is what is now called "ecumenism." I repeat, there is no space to discuss it in detail here. But I will say first of all this; in a few words, I will try to point out its main point of inconsistency. Ecumenists say: we call for the unification, the merging of all Christian faiths. Each of them has a share of truth; they teach differently, they speak differently. And if they unite, share the truth, and cast aside their errors, then a new Church will emerge, a true Christian Church in complete unity.
It seems, again, a rather attractive prospect. But look at the price they're offering us? We, like all other faiths, are told: you have a grain of truth. A grain! This means that in our faith, in our holy, saving faith, we must acknowledge only a grain of truth, and declare the rest to be error. So I ask: what Orthodox conscience, what heart, what soul of a Russian Orthodox person would agree to such a thing? In that saving faith by which people once lived in ancient times, by which the Holy Fathers, our pious ancestors, the ardent Father John of Kronstadt , and our great righteous ones lived, would we declare only a grain of truth, and the rest to be error? Of course, the consciousness of an Orthodox person, the soul of an Orthodox person, would never agree to anything like that.
Dwelling a little longer on this diagram, we can see the paradoxes of ecumenism, which again point to its inconsistency despite its apparent external appeal. First of all, what is causing this? Of course, it's because the world is experiencing a period of all sorts of upheavals and turmoil. To endure all this calmly, one must have a spiritual foundation. Fragmented Christianity , especially the fragmented sects of Protestantism, have completely lost their unity, their strength, their sense of a possible connection with the triumphant Church in heaven, of which they have no thought, turning their gaze to earth, always talking about establishing the Kingdom of God on earth. And from this perspective, as you yourself know, they cannot find the truth, because it cannot be found that way.
They think that if fragmented, faithless, and fainthearted sects and confessions merge, they will create something powerful and spiritual in their unity, whereas it's well known that no matter how many zeros you add, it still comes to zero. Ecumenism is built on the assertion that all faiths are only partially correct, and the conclusion is drawn that if they unite, a new teaching, a true Christianity, will emerge. But this is paradoxical and implausible. Moreover, even more implausible is the fundamental idea from which it derives: that there is no truly true Church among humanity on earth. Because if there were, there would be no need for ecumenism; everyone would simply join this Church. And ecumenism preaches its doctrine precisely because it believes that there is no true Church, truly possessing its fullness, but only confessions, groups of people who possess bits and pieces of the truth. I repeat: for Orthodox self-awareness, such a formulation of the question is completely unacceptable.
I'd also like to say something else. While you and I, of course, as Orthodox Christians, as children of the Church, would never consider joining the kind of ecumenism that says you're only partially right and wrong about the rest, we still have to meet with dissenters. Please remember that if you have to converse with dissenters, several factors must be taken into account. On the one hand, as the late Bishop Anthony pointed out, when discussing our faith and offering its truths to dissenters, we must offer our faith as it is, without in the least lowering its strict, precise requirements and lofty principles to please anyone—whether our interlocutor or some dominant current.
Bishop Anthony once pointed out that the so-called adaptability of the Catholic clergy to their flock is explained by the fact that they don't elevate their flock, but rather reduce their faith to its level. But this is something an Orthodox pastor, a missionary, or anyone who has to speak about faith should never do. Present it as it is, in all its loftiness, in all its purity, in all its luminous yet rigorous form, without belittling, without cutting it off, without, I repeat, truncating it to please anyone.
On the other hand, when conversing with dissenters, one must always do so with a certain warmth and friendliness, offering all this in a spirit of love. As Bishop Anthony said: "Eliminate, whenever possible, anything that might offend, hurt, or alienate your interlocutor. Offer the truths of the faith as they are, but warm them with the warmth of sincere goodwill."
One church writer wrote: “I recently attended a debate between an Orthodox missionary and a sectarian. The Orthodox missionary out-argued his interlocutor, to the triumph and joy of the Orthodox listeners. But,” the narrator says, “I left with the heaviest feeling. Both opponents used texts of Holy Scripture and beat each other over the head with them, like sticks. With a certain ill will, with bitterness, with unkind notes. It was truly a struggle. Not a Christian, brotherly discussion of a controversial issue with the goal of clarifying the truth, revealing it to the erring, but a desire to win at any cost, and therefore it turned into a real battle. And who knows what would have happened,” the narrator notes, “if the sectarian had been more accustomed to debate, more well-read, stronger in dialectics and logic. Who knows what else would have happened.” But it is necessary that the person you are explaining to feels that light and warmth are coming to him from the Orthodox Church.”
I'll say one more thing to Orthodox pastors. My heart aches especially now for the youth, who are buffeted by a variety of anti-church, anti-religious, and anti-moral influences. It's battering young souls from all directions like a hurricane. What can we do to counter this? Not just educate our heads. We need children, young people, and adolescents to feel the warmth and light of the Church. Such youth exist—we have them here, we have them everywhere our Church has its hearths and nests. If young people feel the warmth and light of the Church, they are already ours. But, alas, there are very few of them. And pastors must strive to attract young people, not simply to prove something to them logically, but to make sure that the young, blossoming soul, I repeat, feels comfortable near the Church, feels at home, feels the light and warmth that the Orthodox faith and the Church spread around them. And when a young soul feels this, I repeat, it is ours, because he who has tasted sweetness will not want bitterness.
*************************************************
“If, while remaining true to our dogmatic positions, we could reach a mutual understanding, especially in what distinguishes us from each other, this would certainly be a more reliable path to union than one that would bypass these differences.”
Vladimir Lossky
**************************************************
Today, every Orthodox Christian must clearly answer the question: are they on the side of ecumenism or on the side of Orthodoxy? Vague and abstract discussions of this painful issue are increasingly taking on the character of outright lies. The spirit of ecumenism, the ecumenical movement, has manifested itself quite clearly, very specific statements have been made, and it is no longer acceptable for Orthodox Christians to pretend that "nothing terrible is happening yet." Although many laypeople, pastors, and even archpastors of our Church claim that ecumenism can play a positive role if approached with the right approach, such a view is entirely false . Ecumenism will remain a destructive force for the true faith, no matter how it is approached. It is an obvious evil, and a subtle and insidious evil, cunningly seductive, killing saving faith, an evil that acts upon the soul imperceptibly, yet paralyzing the most fundamental centers of a Christian's spiritual life.
We affirm, based on the teaching of the Holy Orthodox Church, relying on countless testimonies from Holy Scripture and patristic Tradition, on the rules of the Holy Apostles, on the Nomocanon of the Church, on examples from the lives of the Holy Fathers of Orthodoxy, on the prevailing views of modern monks, priests, and laymen of the Church, also citing as irrefutable evidence the holy blood of the great host of Orthodox martyrs - we affirm that any religious communication with heretics, attempts at unity with them while remaining silent, concealing the differences, the dogmatic irreconcilability of the teaching of Orthodoxy with the teaching of any heretics or infidels, and similar double-minded, hypocritical behavior that accustoms Orthodox people to conceal the most important foundation of their faith, the essence of their entire spiritual life - that the Truth is only in Orthodoxy and nowhere else - all this is a betrayal of Christ, a departure from the True God!
We, Orthodox Christians, firmly believe and have no doubt that the Truth is found only in Orthodoxy. We believe that only an Orthodox Christian, whose life is in complete agreement with the teachings of the Orthodox Church, who partakes of the Sacraments preserved by our Church, is nourished by their grace, assimilates the spirit of repentance, strives in the spirit of meekness and humility of Christ, and not in the spirit of delusion and pride, and follows the teachings of the Holy Fathers, can be saved, inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, and achieve the main goal of human life – deification.
No matter how kind, decent, pleasant, or merciful non-believers may seem to us, even when we have the friendliest external relations with them, we must not hesitate to recognize the incorrectness and heresy of their teaching about God. We must not be seduced by their apparent kindness: there are different kinds of kindness. Due to our spiritual blindness, we are often unable to discern the roots of a person's external actions—from what depths of the spirit they spring, what foundation, and what motives they have. Only a careful study of the spiritual legacy of our mentors, the Holy Fathers, can teach us this discernment. Only they, and their divinely inspired writings, teach us today to distinguish the goodness of the Gospel from the illusory goodness of man. Our reason alone is blind in this regard.
Ecumenism most often attempts to find a unifying theme, uniting various religions, cults, teachings, and all manner of cultural movements within humanity, using sly, flowery phrases, ambiguous statements, and artistic asides. Words like "love," "world peace," "mutual understanding," and "humanity" are heard; Slogans are heard: “division is a sore on the body of the Church,” “seek the unity commanded by God,” “the call for the unity of all believers is especially relevant now,” “we are facing the threat of a nuclear catastrophe,” “pray that divisions will disappear and mutual, all-understanding love will come closer to us,” etc., etc. Often fragmentary, falsely interpreted quotes from the Holy Scripture are given , especially the words of the Lord: that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, so that they also may be one in Us ( John 17:21 ) and others.
Anything "unifying," if discovered by ecumenists, rises above people's heads with delight and jubilation—as a new banner, as another level of division overcome, as further proof of the unity of all faiths. Yet all the differences and divisions, so difficult to conceal, are vilified, declared the product of evil, fanaticism, and spiritual blindness. They are urged to ignore them and overcome these unfortunate disagreements by any means necessary. The most dexterous defenders of ecumenism even assert that "the walls of separation between churches do not reach to heaven itself, to Christ the Head, nor do they descend to the very heart of the Church, to the Holy Spirit."
Yes, indeed: these walls do not reach Heaven, nor do they reach the "heart" of the Church. They simply separate, like an insurmountable barrier, the true Church from false churches. Heaven from Hell, Truth from lies, the faithful to Christ from an apostate world! These "dividing walls" are the dogmatic truths of the Orthodox Faith, the purpose of which is to clearly demarcate the path to salvation from the paths to destruction (it is clear who could have the idea of erasing and destroying them—the father of lies, the murderer from the beginning, who himself did not stand in the truth ( John 8:44 ) and strives in every way to undermine it in others!). Anyone who distorts the dogmas of faith cannot cross the threshold of the Church, cannot even begin the path to salvation. This "wall" becomes an obstacle on their path to Heaven. It can be eliminated only by fully accepting the teachings of the Orthodox Church and strictly following the spirit of its gracious life.
Often, supporters of ecumenism respond to the accusations leveled at them: "Ecumenism is something completely different; you don't understand what 'ecumenism' means. We have no intention of conceding anything to heretics in matters of faith; on the contrary, we wish to attract them to Orthodoxy. We have no right to withdraw into ourselves, seeking salvation only when the whole world is perishing!" But is this true? Let's consider!
What divides us from the heretics? How did this division begin? What is the destructive nature of their teaching? Did we part ways with them, or did they themselves depart from the Truth, disbelieving the voice of the Church, which collectively called upon them not to commit such madness, which explained their errors to them, examining in detail every point of their pernicious innovations? Did they not disregard the clarion call of our Church? It was not we who separated from them, but they themselves who departed from the Truth! If we wish to bring them back to the bosom of Orthodoxy, then what should we first discuss with them? Is it not the cause of the division? Is it not the same disagreements and differences in matters of faith about which similar discussions have already taken place? But how is this possible when the very "statutes" of ecumenical assemblies forbid debate about the dogmas of faith? Indeed, one has never heard of ecumenists discussing dogmas anywhere. If they do explore dogmatic issues, it's with only one goal: to find a way to somehow circumvent differences in their understanding. This was the case recently, during an attempt at reunification with the Monophysites, when ecumenists attempted to dismiss the fundamentally different interpretations of the dogma of the Divine and Human Natures of the Lord Jesus Christ as a misunderstanding arising from "slightly different theological terminology." Any other truly serious, necessary discussion of dogma is absent, neither at ecumenist gatherings, nor at private meetings, nor during joint travel to conferences, nor at parties and banquets during and after meetings.
Why?! After all, we know, we believe, that their heretical creed is fatally flawed, their faith distorts the teaching of salvation, they have lost the source of life, the path to salvation has eluded them, and they are on the wrong path, and yet we remain silent? We cheerfully drink coffee and champagne, chat pleasantly about this and that with friendly faces, treat each other to chocolate, and remain silent about the most important thing, the question of life and death? Or do we simply no longer consider this question a matter of life and death?
Most likely, we will be told that this is a kind of "diplomacy," that outward friendliness can attract heretics to us, and then the depths of Orthodoxy will be revealed to them. They will cite the example of the Apostle Paul, who became as a Jew to the Jews, in order to win Jews; to those under the law, as under the law, in order to win those under the law; to those outside the law, as outside the law—not being outside the law before God, but under the law of Christ—in order to win those outside the law. To the weak, he became as weak, in order to win the weak. He became all things to all people, in order to save by all means some ( 1 Cor. 9:20-22 ). They will recall the Venerable Macarius of Egypt , who, with a friendly address, converted a pagan priest to the true faith. They will also point to the words of the Lord Himself: He who is not against you is for you ( Mark 9:40 ). They will recall the admonition of St. John Chrysostom about a "gentle" attitude toward heretics with the goal of saving them, and will say much, much in their own defense. But the same Apostle Paul says: A man who is a heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he such a one is perverse and sins, being condemned of himself ( Titus 3:10-11 ). The Apostolic Rules categorically forbid praying with heretics, receiving their blessing, celebrating with them, accepting their festal gifts, or allowing them to enter the house of God (Apostolic Rules - 10, 11, 45, 46; Rules of the Council of Laodicea - 32, 33, 37, 6). One could cite countless warnings from the Fathers, teaching us to treat unbelievers with extreme caution and to beware in every possible way of the poison of their heresies.
But the most fundamental misunderstanding here is this: all the aforementioned "techniques" of the Apostle Paul, the affability of St. Macarius, the Lord's admonition not to reject those who are not against us—all this is like a bait that attracts a person who is not yet aware of the truth, making him more trusting and open. But at the same time, it is certainly implied that he will subsequently be thoroughly taught the true teaching—not only about the pleasant and joyful aspects of our faith, but also the teaching of the Cross, of self-denial, of the crucifixion of one's passions and lusts, of renunciation of one's own will, and of strict adherence to all the teachings of the Church. However, the ecumenists bring the “captured” non-believers, who, it would seem, have already become quite friendly with them, and are well-disposed towards them, they finally bring them to the doors of the Church, lead them inside, bring them to the altar, lead them into the altar, and there they pray and kiss them, but they still do not start a conversation about the truth of our faith, about the heresy, and therefore, the perniciousness of their doctrine!
Another characteristic trait of ecumenists has been noted: when a Catholic, Protestant, Monophysite, or other lost soul, suddenly uplifted by God's calling, after a long search and suffering, is ignited with the desire to convert to Orthodoxy, our "loving" ecumenists, contrary to all expectations, turn to these sheep who have turned to them for help, sheep returning to their homes, sheep who had been lost in the mountains! Then, for some reason, the faces of these shepherds show no joy, delight, or former enthusiasm; rather, the opposite—a kind of boredom, indifference, and even discontent! It seems that soon enough, those who have converted from heresy will hear: "Why such a sacrifice?! It's not at all necessary! "Go back, go back to your own people, don't upset them!" And truly—how can there be joy here? The popes, cardinals, priests, pastors, and doctors won't appreciate such defections—their sheep—to the Orthodox court! They might even get angry at our pastors, and the task of "unifying Christians for the sake of world peace" will become complicated and protracted. Is it worth squabbling over one or two pathetic sheep when the overall goal is so much greater!
And here's another point that would be, at the very least, strange to ignore. We Orthodox Christians are deeply tempted when, during services, we see non-believers praying alongside our bishops in our churches, when we see heretics entering the altar, when we learn that an Orthodox priest has administered communion to a non-believer. And even more so when we watch how, at ecumenical assemblies, our pastors and archpastors share their "life experience," their "peacemaking experience," and even their "spiritual experience" with representatives of all religions, even with shamans and sorcerers. We are deeply tempted, grieved, and murmured, witnessing the many, many blasphemies of ecumenism. Why do ecumenists, so lovingly disposed toward heretics, ignore this sorrowful, spiritually dangerous situation among their own church children, for whom, as pastors, they must first and foremost answer before God? And how many truly Orthodox people, unable to find a compromise solution to such an ugly situation within the Church, are leaving us and ceasing to live within the Church! Many categorical people are coming to Orthodoxy today, striving for purity of faith and intolerant of falsehood. They have seen enough of the world's hypocrisy and are now seeking honesty and sincerity among Orthodox Christians. They cannot reconcile the Church's strict dogmatic teachings, the canons of the Apostles and the Fathers, with the modern, duplicitous, hypocritical behavior of many of our pastors and laity. We know of many cases where believers, seduced by ecumenism itself, have left the Church. Yes, one can accuse them of pride and inflexibility. But why are ecumenists so willing to so lovingly and tenderly tolerate, tolerate, and cover up any inflexibility of heretics, to show them any "flexibility," any spinelessness—even to the point of concealing almost all the fundamental concepts of their faith—while for those who wish to strictly adhere to Orthodox teaching, there are only contemptuous sneers, accusations of dullness, a failure to understand "elementary things," fanaticism, being out of touch with the spirit of the times, and so on? But let the ecumenists show us a list of those whom they brought to Orthodoxy with their "flexible diplomacy," and we will show them a list of those who, seduced by their hypocritical activities, departed from the Church! What end justifies these means?
Perhaps this goal is to convert all heretics to Orthodoxy? But how? If we don't discuss the dogmas of faith, how will they believe that we possess the Truth? If we wish to debate these issues again, we will have to return to the debates that have already taken place—at the Councils! The Holy Fathers long ago denounced every heretical distortion of the faith, and we cannot do it better than they did. But here's the problem! Ecumenists are positively shaken by the mere mention of these Councils. They would rather convene a new Council—their own—to review all the decisions of the previous Councils. And even if we were to admit that a significant number of non-believers, thanks to the dedicated work of our ecumenists, decide to convert to the Orthodox Church, would the latter be pleased? Hardly! After all, the conversion of a huge number of non-believers to Orthodoxy, as noted earlier, will cause a scandal and provoke protest from those who remain faithful to their teachings. And that means more hostility, more divisions, more strife! And what about "peace throughout the world" then?
Ecumenists vary in the degree of their commitment to ecumenical ideas: some do not deny that the "fullness" of Truth resides only in Orthodoxy, but also allow for its partial presence in other confessions; others consider Orthodoxy superior in a moral and ascetic sense, but not in the sense of preferring the Orthodox Church as the custodian of God's grace; others generally reject differences between faiths and are convinced that truth is partially present in all teachings, and therefore the unity of religions can only lead to mutual enrichment.
As for "Orthodox" ecumenists, they certainly favor Orthodoxy (although, surprisingly, there are exceptions to this rule), but again, to varying degrees. Some would like to find in ecumenism a way to resolve global problems associated with the constant hostility between nations. They believe that, at the very least, we need to reach an agreement so that people do not quarrel over differing religious beliefs, but rather unite and draw closer. After all, all religions teach something, at least some kind of "good," and therefore we must try to sidestep these "prickly" subtleties of dogmatic disagreements and, by ignoring all that divides, select all that is "best," "reconciling," and "unifying," building peace and love on this foundation. These people believe that ecumenism is a non-religious phenomenon, its goals external to religion. But there are also ecumenists who strive to resolve religious issues specifically. They see in ecumenism the germ of a "new religion"—more perfect, universal, accessible, and all-pervasive—which alone can solve the world's problems—not externally, not through mere verbal collusion between people of different faiths, but through their inner reunification, when one central connecting center is found, close, understandable, and desired by every soul, and everything "superficial," divisive, and secondary is wisely rejected. Then, they say, people will appreciate the significance of this "essential" thing in their lives and find the key to their happiness. Then they will see the naivety and inadequacy of their fanatical desire to cling to particular, narrow, lifeless religious concepts, rituals, laws, prohibitions, and dogmas, which, like a dried-up cocoon, no longer live but merely cover the life of a beautiful being. The time has come, they say, for this bright, life-thirsty, joyful butterfly to fly free! We must live, live generously, embrace everything and everyone into the joy of our lives! A new era! It's time to shake off the dried-up shell of ancient, boring concepts of God and man! We must live and love, love and live! Religion must give people peace, love, happiness, fellowship and mutual understanding, brotherhood, joy, laughter, and life—and right here, today! Laughter, not tears, not sadness and fear, not strife, slaughter, curses, prohibitions, threats, anathemas, schisms, etc.
There are also some ecumenists among the "Orthodox" who are very modest in their hopes for the cause of ecumenism. For them, ecumenism is simply a way to enter the world arena, to appear before all educated humanity and say something of their own. After all, everyone is declaring their own "I" from this global platform. Why should we hide, remaining on the sidelines of such important events, aloof from religious people who are collectively seeking solutions to global problems? We can quietly bring something of our own to this gathering, for the benefit and good of suffering humanity; we can inject a healthy current into the peacemaking movement...
In general, the motives for the appearance of "Orthodox" Christians at ecumenical conferences and assemblies can be very varied, from a desire not to offend the important and dignified patrons and organizers of these gatherings by their absence to a "heavy-hearted" commitment to the selfless task of "sanctifying" this host of lost souls with their "graceful" presence, secretly offering fervent prayer for them. It is quite possible that some "Orthodox" ecumenists believe that their mere inner fervor of Christian love, the grace they secretly bear, their decorous, "spiritual" behavior, and the piety of their personalities can work a miracle, and that people, drawn by some mysterious call, will turn to Orthodoxy. There are also Christians today (and they are not uncommon) who are "burning with zeal" and imagine that "grace" flows from them like the fragrance of incense, sanctifying everything around them, that their prayerful, ascetic life transforms and ecclesiasticizes the world around them. Such people believe that it is good and beneficial for them to attract everyone and everything to themselves, that their very presence anywhere is already an invocation of God's mercy to those present, and will certainly be salutary for them. They are ready to overcome all obstacles, nothing frightens them, with cross and hagiasma, with psalmody, they are ready to walk through cities and villages, mountains and fields; they sprinkle holy water on prisons and hospitals, stadiums and theaters, streets, houses, shops, and statues. Just as the ancient martyrs, under the guise of worshiping idols, entered the temples and destroyed them with prayer, so they want to transform and save today’s entire apostate, pagan world with prayer.
What are the roots of such a dreamy, naively enthusiastic approach to the Christian life? Most likely, the reason lies in the following: modern people have grown too fond of the earth, the world, their souls in this world, their activities on earth, their fallen state, their wealth, their entire "spiritual" culture, their arts, and their "progress." They have dug into the earth, become entrenched in this world. Secondly, the human mind has become rationalistic, accustomed to thinking only in terms of space and time. Everything beyond the visible world is beyond the comprehension of modern man. To understand, that is, to accept truly spiritual truths on faith, one must transcend one's ordinary thinking, surrender to faith, change, elevate one's mind, as if transcending one's mind. But for a rationalist, this is madness. Indeed, it was precisely excessive logic and the fear of stepping outside one's rationality that most often led to the rejection of dogmatic truths by heretics condemned by the Church and anathematized by it. And thirdly: spiritual blindness, the lack of real, unadulterated spiritual experience in discerning thoughts, feelings, and actions, ignorance of one's true spiritual state. And the root of all three of these evils lies in a person's entrenchment in pride, selfishness, and arrogance. Hence the self-indulgence of modern "preachers of Orthodoxy."
A person who sees their sins, who has recognized their own weakness, and a person who is blind to their own sin may appear equally religious and Orthodox, know the fundamental truths of our faith, and say equally correct things, but their spiritual difference is extremely great. The entire life of a person who perceives in the depths of their heart the beginnings of passions ready to kill them is turned inward. Their entire way of thinking is repentant, their actions restrained and modest. Prayer is for the forgiveness of their sins, for the healing of their leprous soul. When asked to pray for others, it is extremely difficult; when they pray for another, sweat pours down their face, wishing, better than anyone else, to leave everything and save their soul as quickly as possible. Such a person needs no explanation of the inner life, of the most essential spiritual activity: before them lies their soul, slain by sin. Weeping—what other activity could be useful? They may be accused of egotism, of being self-absorbed. But in reality, only his path is the true one. By repenting, weeping for his sins, and praying to God to cleanse him of them, he truly becomes a new man, a "new creation" ( 2 Cor. 5:17 ). And the grace of God, resting in his meek and humble heart, inevitably turns the gaze of people to him, seeing in him a model of truly spiritual Christian life, drawing them to correction.
A person who is blind to their own sin finds themselves in a strange, unnatural elation, as if drunk! What can they do? They don't recognize any grave sins, and they don't see anything special inside, and even if they do, "So, God is merciful and will forgive! We are all passionate." They don't understand what to do within themselves and strive to get outward. All their activity is external, they constantly pour out their light and goodness: almsgiving, prayer for others are so "joyful" for them! They seem like saints, and how much they differ from the repentant, self-absorbed Christian. In reality, however, this is a terrible deception! But how difficult it is to detect this deception! Truly spiritual vision is needed here; it would reveal that in the heart, instead of Christ, there is an idol of pride, an idol of self, which considers not God, but oneself, the source of all good. It's important to understand: the vision of one's sin is not a mental knowledge of one's faults, but a repentant spirit, a zealous demand for oneself, a hatred of deceit, hypocrisy, pretense, a hatred of people-pleasing, theatricality, any falsehood, and not just obvious sinful desires. The vision of one's sin is a gift from God, the first gift bestowed by the grace of the Holy Spirit upon one who sincerely seeks God. It crushes the soul, humbles it, prevents it from thinking highly of itself, sobers it up, and draws its attention inward. He who has not discerned his sin has not yet begun the spiritual life. Even if such a person gives advice, it is powerless; it is taken from a dream, from a dreamlike vision. Such a person's words are slogans, his actions are mere theatrics. His knowledge of spiritual life is amateurish, his preaching is literary fiction. His energy stems not from zeal for true pleasing to God, but from a thirst for activity in this world. "Self-sacrifice"—not a desire to "destroy one's soul" for the sake of one's own salvation, but rather to revive it for the sake of avoiding the death required of a Christian in Christ. Such a person does not bear the Cross of Christ, but rather carries it about, deceiving himself and others. Let us recall the story of St. Peter of Damascus : once upon a time, an elder was dying, whom people revered as a saint, their spiritual father, and wept inconsolably over his deathbed. But to another, truly spiritual elder, it was revealed by God at that time that the dying man had not, in fact, given the Lord rest in his heart for a moment . St. Peter of Damascus explains what prevented the Lord from resting in the heart of this ascetic, so highly revered by the people— pride and conceit , truly nothing more terrible in spiritual life.
And it is precisely from ignorance of one's own corruption by sin, from a misunderstanding of the process of illness itself, from self-confidence, and boasting about one's own goodness and efforts that a cold, dismissive attitude toward dogma is born. This often happens to people interested only in moral and ascetic questions: they fail to see the connection between dogma and life. And so they often think, "Why do we need dogma ?", "What's the difference between religions?", "Does it even exist?" and so on. But sometimes a state arises in spiritual life when a person completely loses faith in their own strength and, no longer relying on themselves, necessarily turns to supernatural help—to God. It is here that the great, even the only, value of "so-called dogmas" is revealed.
Extremely dangerous is the trend toward adogmatism, which is becoming so widespread today. It most often denies not the very truth of Divine dogmas, but only the necessity of a clear knowledge of them for the moral and spiritual Christian life. This view considers dogmas to be something abstract, unrelated to real life; it devalues them, considers them practically unnecessary, and denies the inseparable connection between dogmas and commandments. But again: when a person loses faith in their own strength, it suddenly becomes clear that "dogmas" are not merely "truths"—that is, not abstract ideas, not knowledge, not the object of mere intellectual belief, cold acceptance, not teaching—but, on the contrary: they are where true life lies, or, even better, they are the very life of the soul, and only on them is Christian moral life itself, our good behavior, founded, rooted, and strengthened. For the life of the soul consists in participation in that supernatural life about which dogma speaks abstractly... Then dogma acquires central significance, and "moral questions" become derivative, subordinate, secondary... When the soul understands this experientially, it moves from an interest in moral and ascetic questions to "living by dogma," and they become most precious to it. A heartfelt , rather than intellectual, relationship with dogma begins, begins to emerge; initial knowledge develops into communion, and this communion, or inner union, yields true knowledge. And the very Creed itself then seems no longer a cold "confession," but a living confession, a fervent testimony of inner communion with God, of heartfelt love for Him. And dogmatic truths that once seemed cold are suddenly ignited by an inner fire and warm the heart more than any other means, for life from God pours into the heart of those who confess Him. To faith united with love, God responds with self-revelation, or communication, to the invocation of His Name – Life in Him.
It is essential to understand that Orthodoxy is not simply a teaching about God and man, not a philosophical system attempting to explain the world through abstract concepts and abstract formulas of thought, but rather a truly real life in God, a constant, living, and active communion with Him. No other religion has even a clue about the genuine mystical experience that Orthodoxy possesses. This is precisely why we believe in the sanctity of our dogmas: they are the most direct reflection, the imprint on the level of reason, of what has been revealed to people through mystical experience. The theology of the Church, the dogmas of our faith, are the general expression of what has been experientially known by Christian ascetics, and these are the divinely revealed truths that can be experientially known by every Orthodox believer. Christian theology itself is only a means, only a certain body of knowledge, destined to serve a purpose that transcends all knowledge. This ultimate goal is union with God or deification " 2 . And therefore: "Christian theory has a highly practical meaning, and the more mystical this theory is, the more directly it strives for its highest goal - union with God, the more "practical" it is 3 . The teaching of the Church is most closely connected with the inner experience, which is revealed to varying degrees to the believer. "And the entire complex struggle for dogmas, which the Church has waged over the centuries, appears to us, if we look at it from a purely spiritual point of view, first of all as the tireless concern of the Church in each historical era to provide Christians with the opportunity to achieve the fullness of mystical union with God. And indeed, the Church fights against the Gnostics in order to defend the very idea of deification as universal completion: "God became man so that man could become God." She affirms the dogma of the Consubstantial Trinity against the Arians, for it is the Word, the Logos, who opens for us the way to union with the Divine, and if the incarnate Word is not of the same essence as the Father, if He is not the true God, then our deification is impossible. The Church condemns the teaching of the Nestorians in order to destroy the dividing wall by which, in Christ Himself, they sought to separate man from God. She rebels against the teaching of Apollinaris and the Monophysites in order to demonstrate that, since the true nature of man in all its fullness was assumed by the Word, our nature in all its integrity must enter into union with God. She combats the Monothelites, for without the union of two wills in Christ—the Divine will and the human will—we cannot attain deification: "God created man by His sole will, but He cannot save him without the cooperation of the human will." The Church triumphs in the struggle for the veneration of icons, affirming the possibility of expressing divine realities in matter as a symbol and guarantee of our deification. In the questions that subsequently arise—about the Holy Spirit, about grace, about the Church itself—the dogmatic question posed by our times—the Church's primary concern and the guarantee of its struggle always remain the affirmation and indication of the possibility, mode, and means of human union with God. The entire history of Christian dogma develops around a single mystical core, which, over the course of successive eras, was defended with various weapons against a great variety of adversaries. The theological systems developed during and throughout this struggle can be considered in their most direct relationship to the vital goal, the achievement of which they were intended to facilitate . 4 This goal is the union of man with God. In this case, they are perceived by us as they should be—as the very foundation of Christian life.
Today, the words "dogma" and "dogmatic theology" have become almost swear words for some, as if dogma were the enemy of life. But the absence of dogma is an open door to all kinds of error. Adogmatism deprives Christians of the ability to think, to distinguish true teaching from false. Dogma or heresy is light or darkness, good or evil, love or hate, life or death. Acceptance of dogma is the only condition for knowing the truth and freeing a person from all lies and from following the deeds of the "father of lies." Zeal without true, grace-filled knowledge of dogma can become fanaticism, just as knowledge without zeal can remain dead, leading to no salvation.
Church Christianity stands by its dogmas, yet nevertheless shows tolerance for those who have gone astray. According to Saint Theophan the Recluse , "true religious tolerance sincerely loves and reverently honors its one faith (that is, the Orthodox faith), is zealous for its purity and glory, rejoices in its exaltation, yet at the same time allows a place alongside it for other faiths, not because it considers them equally honorable and salvific, but out of leniency toward the weaknesses of those who have gone astray. It does not oppress, does not persecute, does not persecute; but at the same time, it does not miss the opportunity to lovingly point out error and offer free conviction and conscience the choice of what is best . "
Dogma carries out a stern judgment on those Christian societies that ignore the long history of the Church and begin to rebuild their own "Christianity." Dogmatic theology expresses the essence of the Christian faith, the divinely revealed knowledge preached in the Gospel, proclaimed by the Apostles, revealed and carried through the centuries by the Fathers of the Church, and confirmed in the life and death of the greatest Saints. Therefore, dogma is a cherubic sword falling between the Spirit, who is truth ( 1 John 5:6 ), and the spirit of error ( 1 John 4:6 ), that is, between Christ and the Antichrist, between the Christian and the world. The dogmas of the true faith describe the conditions for the possibility of our salvation! Could an era ever come in which dogmatic disagreements between divinely revealed tradition and heresies become irrelevant?
Indifference in matters of faith is the plague of the human race. Saint Theophan says: "If faith alone leads to salvation, so that all heterodox beliefs do not save but bring destruction, does not he who retains them destroy all whom he retains? When a plague rages and a skilled physician invents a single cure, then anyone who insists, 'It's all right, even that medicine is good,' destroys all who listen to him. Such is indifference: it weakens and kills the spirit. Those who hold it are almost the same as atheists, for it is clear that for them faith is an unrelated matter, that they hold it out of custom, in imitation of others, or, even worse, as if it were some kind of political means. All these reproaches also fall on those who say: it makes no difference, as long as there is Christian faith, or any other. Where does this idea come from? The Apostles cared so zealously for unanimity, so actively tried to restore it when it was somehow violated, so strictly armed themselves against those who thought differently, that they decreed excommunication for them, and now it has become customary to say: it makes no difference, as long as it is Christian, even if it is heresy? How did the Lord say: If the Church listen, be to you like a publican and a pagan ( Matthew 18:17 )? And then, how did the Church throughout its history so strongly fight and arm itself against all those who thought differently? As if all this were so? 6
It's important to note how ecumenism, in tearing down the "walls of division"—that is, the system of dogma—relies on utterly fraudulent methods: religious concepts, terms, and the meaning of cited quotations are eroded, replaced, shuffled, and inverted in every way. From seemingly the same sacred and dear words, a completely unheard-of teaching is concocted! Thus, Western theologians emphasize the "merciful neighbor" rather than the "merciful God." This shift in dogmatic emphasis inevitably impacts spiritual life: the second commandment—about love for one's neighbor—begins to take the place of the first—about love for God. (And if love for one's neighbor gains such predominance, then, as St. Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain asserts , it can alienate us from the love of God, cause us great harm, and plunge us into destruction.) Words are selected and adjusted to suit a modern psychology. People no longer speak of redemption, but of liberation, with all the ambiguity that this word entails. Opinions arise that dogmatic content can be expressed in different verbal formulations, that there is no absolute truth, no dominant ideology—there are many ideologies, each partially true. There is no single Truth—there are many relative, partial truths.
But this is a terrible and pernicious error. Science and philosophy ask themselves: WHAT is truth? Meanwhile, genuine Christian religious consciousness is always drawn to the truth of "WHO." They do not understand the full negativity of their "WHAT"; they do not understand that genuine, absolute Truth can only be "WHO" and in no way "WHAT," because TRUTH is not an abstract formula or an abstract idea, but is LIFE ITSELF. In religious life, a person who embarks on the path of rational search inevitably falls into a pantheistic worldview. Every time the theological mind attempts to comprehend the truth about God by its own power, it fatally falls into the same error in which science, philosophy, and pantheism are immersed—namely, the search for and contemplation of the truth of "WHAT." The truth of "WHO" is in no way cognizable by reason. God “WHO” is known only through communication in being, that is, only by the Holy Spirit” 7 . Let us now ask: can the Truth – “WHO” be broken into pieces, losing its fullness and integrity?
Ecumenist views, like modern thinking in general, are characterized by fragmentation, a mosaicism, a rupture in the holistic religious perception of doctrine, worship, and, in general, all aspects of life, both spiritual and material. A holistic dogmatic perception implies monism, an approach to everything based on one question: "To what extent is this useful for the salvation of my soul?" Or, conversely, "To what extent does this distract me from the Christian path?" A fragmented consciousness, however, is not particularly concerned with the salvation of the soul, and therefore is unable to find a single, true criterion of evaluation. It lacks unity—a holistic approach to life, a holistic worldview; it lacks a single, evangelical law that should determine all the actions, thoughts, and spiritual movements of a Christian. And so, a "supporter of Christian liberalism" can attend church services, "satisfy his religious needs" in church, and at the same time find aesthetic pleasure in the vulgarity of Hollywood films, while in his academic work he preaches pantheism, Darwinism, or other non-Christian views. In the realm of reason, the loss of intellectual autocracy, combined with intuitionism, leads to spontaneity, to a loss of the habit of thinking through his statements, forming them as if "on the fly." This leads to strong suggestibility, a willingness to be convinced of any nonsense, so long as it is wrapped in a beautiful package and preached with great self-confidence. A person allows himself to express opinions that are not logically substantiated by either dogma or rational arguments, but are born solely of the emotions of the heart and secular values; he introduces his own anthropomorphic judgments into his conception of God, adapting the truth to his own views. The secularization of consciousness and the mind's subordination to emotions leads to outright heresy, to a situation where dogma no longer judges a person's conscience and life, but, on the contrary, dogmas are accepted and rejected by the individual depending on whether they correspond to their own conception of God and whether they offend their conscience. The individual thus engages in heretical selection, acting according to "personal taste," or even whim, choosing from the system of doctrine those dogmas and moral requirements that they "like," rejecting others. A general atmosphere of ambiguity and subjectivity is created, in the gray haze of which the criteria of Truth and Goodness blur. This leads to a misunderstanding of the laws of spiritual life, a desire to skip certain stages, a thirst for Christian love without the Cross, its replacement by an imaginary, delusional love, the substitution of reason for imagination, and common sense for subjective arbitrariness. The modern world exhibits a striking insensitivity to sin, does not want to see its own sinfulness, which exposes it, as a result of which a theology appears that directly contradicts Christian teaching on many important points 8 .
Ecumenists constantly repeat the words "PEACE", "LOVE", "UNITY". But the meaning they give them is far from Christian, and do not the words of Holy Scripture apply to such preachers: ... from the prophet even to the priest - all deal falsely. They heal the wounds of My people lightly, saying, "Peace! Peace!" when there is no peace. Are they ashamed, when they have committed abomination? No, they are not ashamed at all, nor do they blush. Therefore they will fall among those who fall, and at the time of My visitation they will be cast down ( Jer. 6:13-15 )? And again the Lord says: Think not that I am come to send peace on the earth: I did not come to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. And a man's enemies will be those of his own household. Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me … ( Matthew 10:34–37 ). My peace I give to you; not as the world gives, give I to you ( John 14:27 ). It is impossible, it is unacceptable, to forget that in this world there is a constant struggle between God and the devil , between Truth and sin. This struggle is taking place in the world itself, on earth and in heaven, not only in the heart of man, but also in his very nature, including the mind and body, a struggle that encompasses the entire universe. Therefore, we are still very, very far from “peace” and “unity,” while we must seek ways of reconciliation with God—and precisely through the struggle with sin and everything sinful, through separation from those who teach incorrectly about salvation, who sin and teach others to sin, through constant, fierce battle with ourselves, with everything passionate and vicious in ourselves. Therefore, from pastors, above all, a word of reproof is required—a word often harsh, cutting, striking at sin and falsehood, sobering, terrifying. The Last Judgment is approaching; this is no time for sweet, seductive, comforting, or soothing speeches. Let us recall the recently glorified saint of Georgia, Bishop Gabriel Kikodze , and his ardent, accusatory sermons , born of pain and love for his people : he did not flatter the flock, but laid bare all the wounds of an apostate world. Such words are needed today, more than ever! “The path to salvation is cruel,” said the renowned ascetic Abbess Arsenia, “and sometimes the word spoken about it is cruel, too. It is a double-edged sword, and it cuts through our passions, our sensuality, and along with it, it creates pain in the very heart from which they are cut. And will there ever be a time when this sword will no longer have a place in our hearts?” 9 Christianity , “freed” from this heartache, from this sword that cuts and divides, having fallen in love with this world lying in evil, wanting to comfort and console man in his sick, fallen state, no longer raising him from the fall, rebuking, forbidding, exhorting with all authority ( 2 Tim. 4:2 ; Titus 1:13, 2, 15 ) – such a Christianity without the Cross, without salt – is merely a decorous curtain behind which sin lives and operates peacefully. Love for one's neighbor is impossible without victory over one's passions, without pain, without struggle, without bloodshed, without hating one's soul in this world, without destroying it for Christ's sake. In order to be able to say that we love our neighbor, we must "put him in the place where you yourself stand," which means: first we must leave the place where you stand. Where is this place? It is the whole world, visible and invisible. Everywhere, the self has seized everything for itself, does not want to yield anything to its neighbor, and how can the soul love its neighbor when it feels that he takes everything from it, having the same rights to everything as it does. "One must take everything from oneself in order to yield everything to one's neighbor, and then, together with one's neighbor, the soul will also find the Lord." 10 The proponents of ecumenism, perhaps without realizing it, are reviving the heresy of chiliasm: even before the Last Judgment, before the separation of the wheat from the chaff, they want to bake delicious bread from this wheat; they want now to establish a kingdom of peace and happiness on earth, bypassing the Cross and all the suffering and divisions associated with It. Hence the constant enthusiastic expectations of the "radiance" of spirituality, faith, and religiosity. But it must be noted that the very concepts of religion and the Church are extremely confused today. Alas, "in the eyes of many of our contemporaries, the differences between religions lose their meaning, and it is enough to believe in God for the concept of the Church to dissolve in the general concept of religion (and not even just Christian) and disappear. As a result, we are faced with a concept of the Church that is either distorted or vague, vaguely merging with the concept of Christianity in general. "Ecclesiology has fallen out of favor. 'Secular' interpretations and various forms of charismaticism have rendered ecclesiology, as such, seemingly unnecessary. The Church has come to be viewed almost as an idol and, in any case, as an obstacle to the recognition of man's calling in history and the direct reception of spiritual gifts." A chaos of indifference reigns in both the dogmatic and canonical spheres. We have suddenly "understood" what the Holy Fathers did not: that canons are "human inventions," and not the implementation of the Church's dogmas. "Councils, canons—all this is obsolete," and now the prerogatives of the Council ("as it pleased the Holy Spirit and us") are transferred to each person for himself. " 11
One could discuss ecumenism at length, for ultimately, one would have to examine the entire teaching of the Holy Fathers, not only on dogma but on all aspects of spiritual life. The terrible distortion underlying this movement lies, above all, in its distance from the spiritual center of Orthodox teaching, in its deviation from the main axis of all Christian life—the Cross, the spirit of repentance, the spirit of humility. Therefore, the entire edifice of ecumenism, no matter how adorned, is built on a different foundation—the sand of human selfishness. This is "Resurrection" before death on Golgotha, "Easter" before Holy Week. The entire tree of ecumenism grows on the soil of apostasy; it is all evil seed, the very tares that the angels of God will consume in unquenchable fire. It is utterly mistaken to think that with "a certain amount of diplomacy" one can pluck nourishing, beneficial fruit from this tree. Do men gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles ? ( Matthew 7:16 )
“Therefore, brothers,” says St. John of Damascus , “let us stand on Church Tradition, as on the rock of our faith, without moving the boundaries that our holy Fathers set, without giving place to those who desire innovations and the destruction of the building of the Holy, God’s, Ecumenical and Apostolic Church, for if everyone acts according to his own will, little by little the whole Body of the Church will be destroyed!”
Amen.
For more resources on ecumenism see here: