(ROCOR Studies) - The Church Abroad has historically had strong reservations about ecumenism. For example, one may point to the “Sorrowful Epistles” of Metropolitan Philaret (Voznesensky). His First Epistle was written in response to the events of the 1969 assembly of the World Council of Churches in Uppsala, Sweden. Metropolitan Philaret cites a number of disturbing developments that, in his opinion, amount to a blurring of the boundaries of the Church. For example, he mentions that one Orthodox delegate called upon the “Church Universal” to bear witness before the world, apparently referring to the whole assembly. In Metropolitan Philaret’s eyes, this was an implicit admission of the “branch theory” of ecclesiology– in other words, an implication that Orthodoxy constitutes “the Church” only when it is considered together with the many heterodox denominations. He concludes that Orthodox participation in the ecumenical movement has crossed the line into heresy. [1] Although Metropolitan Philaret raises a valid concern, it is perhaps unfair to paint the entire phenomenon of ecumenism with the brush of heresy. Fr. Alexander Schmemann offers poignant insight on this question, writing that “the unity of ‘Ecumenism’ is a myth which makes it impossible to use this term as the name of a ‘heresy.’ There is good ‘ecumenism’ and bad ‘ecumenism.”’ [2] Fr. Alexander himself was an active participant in the ecumenical movement, and he offers a very nuanced perspective. He had high hopes for the ecumenical movement, seeing it as an opportunity to bear witness to the Orthodox faith and to seek cooperation with other Christians in the struggle against secularism. However, he never lost sight of the substantial doctrinal disagreements between Orthodox and heterodox Christianity, and he firmly resisted any attempt to gloss over the differences between the two. This paper seeks to more closely define Fr. Alexander’s opinion of the ecumenical movement, and, in doing so, challenge the notion that engagement with the ecumenical movement per se constitutes heresy. I will argue that Fr. Alexander’s life and work demonstrate that it is possible to participate in constructive dialogue with heterodox Christians without giving in to problematic forms of ecumenism.
From the very beginning, Fr. Alexander hoped that much good would come out of the ecumenical encounter. He saw the ecumenical movement first and foremost as an opportunity to witness to the truth of Orthodox Christianity – an opportunity that, in his opinion, could not be neglected. In his day as in ours, the Orthodox faith remained largely unknown among people living in the West. Many Westerners, doubtless, would have never even heard of the Orthodox Church. The ecumenical encounter gives the Orthodox Church a chance to manifest itself and make a case for its claim to possess the truth. As Fr. Alexander writes...
Complete article here.
Posts
This is quoted from Fr. Schmemann towards the end of Mr. Grabowski's essay:
ReplyDelete"Alien to the acute Western controversies and frustrations, the Orthodox Church could contribute, at least in her own eyes, a tertium datum, not as her tradition, but as a common heritage in which everyone can discover the starting point of his own spiritual and theological development..."
This "tertrium datum" - a beginning and ground from which to theologize, form ecclesiology, and interpret Scripture/earlier tradition *is* what Florovsky termed "Neo-patristic Synthesis". Of course that phrase has now been twisted and bastardized by both the ultra-dox and the secularized/academic reformers of the last 40 years or so in their rhetorical back-and-forth and agendas.
In my opinion, since the deaths of Schmemann & Florovsky the *institutionalized* form of ecumenism has died in spirit (if not quite as an institution), mostly because the Protestant's themselves have lost their inner spirit, swallowed up by the secularism that is the endpoint of Protestant theology/thinking/principles. This means that an actualization of a Neo-Patristic Synthesis would have to take place in some other manner. However, neither the RC nor the various Orthodoxies appear to have any place to stand to accomplish this, and appear to be suffering from an inner spiritual rot/crises from the onslaught of secularism in substance if not the same form as the Protestants.
In other words, a Neo-Patristic Synthesis is something for another time and place - the house(s) is on fire and everyone is attending to more urgent manners, or simply succumbing to the flames.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFather Alexander Schmemann's thinking was problematically influenced by the liturgical reform movement of Vatican II, which he participated in as an observer. To say that he didn't give in to problematic forms of ecumenism sounds completely backwards. A common argument he would employ is trying to find the original or "purer" form of tradition in the Early Church. This is essentially the same thought process as employed by Protestants who ignore the natural development of tradition through the ages. Protestants seemingly believe as if the Church ended with the book of Acts and started up again with Martin Luther. Similarly, it's as if the Schmemann-ites believe the Church ended somewhere and started up again with Fr. Alexander Schmemann. The fruit of this is an unfortunate liturgical chaos and a strange and arrogant subculture that still exists among the priests/parishes that he influenced.
ReplyDeleteWhhhhaaaattttttt??? It strikes me Joseph that you have a very narrow and skewed view of Fr. Alexander Schmemann. Perhaps you confuse one or more "Schmemman-ites" for the man himself.
DeleteJake, I challenge anyone to find much of any patristic quotes in Fr. Alexander Schmemann's work. Rather, some of his main ideological influence came from the Vatican II Roman Catholic "theologians" Louis Bouyer and Jean Danielou. Fr John Meyendorf fully confirmed this in the epilogue he wrote to Fr. Schmemann's published journals.
DeleteAlso typical of Fr. Schmemann was a Protestant-like denigration of the "cult of saints" and of the "Peace of Constantine". Bad ecumenism indeed.
Your right Joseph, neither Schmemann nor Florovsky script quoted the Fathers much at all because to do so was not relevant to their work, which was theologizing in our context and not the Greek-Christian synthesis of the first millennium. In this way they were more like the Father's themselves, who theologized on problems and situations that was before them and the Church at the time.
DeleteSchmemann (and Florovsky) were true polymaths, and payed close attention to Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians/theology because it was "modern" problems/circumstances (e.g. Realism vs. Nominalism) that they were addressing, because it is the "modern" religious/cultural world that Orthodoxly finds itself in (again, not the Greek-Christian synthesis of the 1st millennium). Far from being influenced by the "ideology" of such theologians, both men critiqued it and explained the relevancy to Orthodoxy within our context.
Orthodoxy is only beginnning to understand the modern world and it's "ideologies", and both men were veritable prophets when it comes to doing the hard work grappling with such philosophies as "secularism". Most Orthodox - in particular modern academic "theologians" on both the 'traditionalist' and the 'progressive' side - can not even follow the work of both men because they themselves are so poorly trained in the 'history of ideas' of western culture and are usually in the grip of their agendas, so they end up script quoting Schmemann and Florvorsky for their own ends.
No offense, but your understanding of Schmemann is not even an inch deep. I suggest you take in the two essay's Schmemann wrote on secularism at the end of "For the Life of the World" (i.e. the "appendices")...to say such critique is "Protestant" is just silly - on the contrary, it is the Greek-Christian Synthesis of the 1st millennium *properly applied* to the post Christian west and frightenly, most Orthodox because as Schmemann rightly pointed out, almost all Orthodox today accept the metaphysical presuppositions of western thought, such as Transubstantiation...
The writings of St. Nicholas Kabasilas, from the 14th century, are so much more superior to anything that Fr. Schmemann ever wrote. St. Nicholas Kabasilas was also countering secularism in Byzantine society. Try comparing his book, "The Life in Christ", to Schmemann's "For the Life of the World". The spiritual depth and substance of St. Nicholas' work is on a completely different level.
Delete