Una sancta 349 (основания экуменизма)

The movement towards “union of churches” presents something of a dogmatic paradox. It proceeds from the assumption that there is One Holy Church, Una Sancta, and, moreover, not as something only sought, but as a higher, overwhelming reality - not only an idea, but also a fact. At the same time, it presupposes the existence of a number of churches (or confessions), each of which has the attribute of ecclesiasticality, is a Church, at least in the sense of belonging to Una Sancta. The latter, of course, is not divided into parts and does not consist of parts, but at the same time, obviously, in some sense it contains all of them, if not statically, in a single organization, then dynamically, in a single being. This is exactly how the Church is portrayed in the Apostolic Epistles: as the single Body of Christ and at the same time an indefinite plurality of ecclesiastical communities or “churches.” No difficulty would arise from this even now if, apparently, there was only one Church, which would rightfully assert itself as One and all-embracing and thereby deny the very possibility of the existence of the Church outside the boundaries of this given organization or confession. Then the Church and the non-Church would be differentiated and opposed to each other, and there could be no talk of a movement aimed at unifying churches within the Church. In a certain sense, things stood in a similar way in Christianity before the emergence of the new “ecumenical consciousness,” which stubbornly refuses to accept such a simplified view as some kind of self-evidence, but asserts the exact opposite. For pre-ecumenical or anti-ecumenical consciousness, the only consistent line of behavior is the denial of even the very thought of relating to “heterodox” as a Church. Instead, only proselytism is appropriate here, the desire to attract heterodox people, who are actually equated with pagans or non-Christians, into the bosom of the one-saving Church. The ecumenical idea for such militant confessionalism, recognizing the Church only within one confessional organization, is some self-evident contradiction or nonsens. It recognizes either only Orthodox, or Roman Catholics, or Protestants as the Church. The very name simply “Christians,” which the disciples of Christ adopted for themselves for the first time in Antioch (Acts 11:26), evokes a negative, ironic or suspicious attitude toward itself for militant confessionalism (this is how the expression “pan-Christians” sounds in the mouth of the Roman Pontiff Pius XI in the bull Mortalium animos, dedicated to the Lausanne Conference). Therefore, the question involuntarily creeps into our souls: isn’t participation in the ecumenical movement actually some kind of amateurish libertinism and undue connivance, as if betraying the truth for the sake of pleasing people? How can it be comprehended and justified in its existence and in what norms should it be clothed? This basic and preliminary question of “ecumenical” theology has not yet had sufficient discussion and does not find resolution, especially from both branches of the Catholic Church - the Roman, which officially still remains aloof from the ecumenical movement, although privately it is already retreating from this abstinence, and the Eastern Orthodox, which, although it does not deny such participation, has not yet expressed its dogmatic justification. Therefore, the “ecumenical” movement in dogmatic terms remains somehow semi-legal and, at most, only tolerant, although suspicious. Of course, such an attitude cannot be considered normal and final, and therefore it is quite natural to seek positive justification for it in the Christian teaching about the Church, as it is set out in the Word of God and further contained in Church Tradition. The Church, as it is defined in the Apostolic Epistles, has for itself, so to speak, two dimensions: ontological, relating to its essence, depth and vitality, and empirical, revealed in the fact of its historical existence. Therefore, there is a distinction between the one Church and the churches as communities existing in different places. Turning to the first definition, as it is given in the Word of God, we do not find in it any empirical specific signs of the Church, as they are given in human history. The Church is the worldly foundation of the universe and its final goal (“the building up of the mystery that has been hidden from eternity in God,” “the manifold Wisdom of God,” Eph. 3:9–10). She is the abiding Incarnation of God, like the Body of Christ (“You are one body in Christ” (Rom. 12:5), “Your bodies are members of Christ” (1 Cor. 6:15). “And you are the body of Christ, and individually members” (1 Cor. 12:27), and, like the abiding Pentecost, there is a temple of the Holy Spirit (“Do you not know that you are the church of God, and the Spirit of God lives in you? ( 1 Cor. 3:16). To this we must also add such mystical definitions as the Bride of Christ or the Wife of the Lamb, the City of God descending from heaven to earth (Apocalypse), as Fullness (Eph. 1:22), Glory, the Kingdom of God. Belonging to the Church itself is determined by the extent of the believers’ involvement in all these spiritual benefits and highest values. The Church is perfect God-manhood, the fullness of Him who fills “all in all” (Eph. 1:23), life in Christ, acquisition of the Holy Spirit. This life in the Church, accompanied by the growth of its Body (Eph. 4:16), is defined by the Apostle as the difference in the gifts of the Spirit, corresponding to the difference in the members of the Body of Christ. “For just as we have many members in one body, but not all the members have the same body, so we, who are many, are one body in Christ, and individually members of one another. And since, by the grace given to me, we have various gifts, then if you have prophecy, prophesy according to the measure of faith; (do you have) service, (stay) in service; whether a teacher - in teaching, or an exhorter - exhort; whether the distributor, (distribute) in the open air; Whether you are a boss, lead with zeal; If you are a benefactor, do good with cordiality” (Rom. 12:4–8. Cf. 1 Cor. 12:4–30). In these, of course, not exhaustive, but only approximate enumerations, we find, so to speak, evidence of the reality of the Church in human life. It is expressed in various gifts and in different ways of being in the Church, as a spiritual organism, a mystical reality. That's not all, of course; what can be said about the Church as a mystical being. The crown of this teaching would be the teaching of the New Testament Apocalypse, and even more so of the Old Testament: the Song of Songs, dedicated to the mystery of the mutual love of the Creator and creation, Christ and the Church, which love is the Holy Spirit. This love, which gathers many into multi-unity, catholicity, is the image of the Holy Trinity, the Divine Trinity, in created multi-unity. These definitions generally apply to all Christian humanity, united in private and local, historical churches (“Asian churches,” domestic churches, etc.), without any limitation or even distinction, so that the only boundary separating from the church is sin (for example, the case of the Corinthian incest). This strongly emphasizes the ecumenical, universal nature of salvation, and therefore of belonging to the Church. Christ came for the salvation of all people (Luke 2:10–11, 2:30–32; Titus 2:11; 1 Tim.1:15), and not only the elect and predestinated, just as the Holy Spirit, who came into the world, is poured out on all flesh (Acts 2:17). This universality of salvation extends through man to all creation, “which waits with hope for the revelation of the sons of God” (Rom. 8:19–22). For the final purpose and revelation of the Church in creation is that “God may be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:24–28). Carefully delving into this teaching about the Church, we find in it an indication of a number of internal, spiritual signs, evidence of the presence of many powers and gifts, as well as the mystical depth in which the existence of individual churches is rooted. But along with this, we note, not without amazement, the absence of certain features that we would primarily expect to find here: namely, almost everything that relates to the life of the Church as a hierarchical-sacramental organization, to the “potestas clavium” (the power of the keys (Latin) - Ed.) with all the images of its implementation in various ramifications is almost absent. With our current concept of the Church as an organization or institution, supposedly coming directly from the Lord, we should feel helpless and even embarrassed, finding in the Word of God, although not the opposite, but a different concept of the Church. True, here too we find some rudiments of a hierarchical system. Of course, “bishops”, “presbyters” and “deacons” in the primacy of the Church represent something other than our current three-degree hierarchy, the emergence of which dates back only to the 2nd century, being associated with the order established at that time for the celebration of the Eucharist, and later other Sacraments. 350 From this Eucharistic power, which is acquired primarily by the hierarchy and belongs to the potestas clavium, the entire hierarchical structure of the Church develops, which represents, as it were, an external fence, and at the same time the skeleton, the backbone of the Church Body. In the Apostolic Church, where the holy apostles themselves still acted, as in the post-apostolic age, you will not find in the Word of God any mention of a ramified higher hierarchy, nor of bishops and archdioceses, nor of metropolises and patriarchates, nor of jurisdictions and jurisdictional feuds. Here we find a kind of hiatus (gap (Latin) - Ed.) between the mystical body of the Church and the historical hierarchical organization. Potestas clavium further extends not only to the organization of sacramental life, but also to the protection and observance of the right faith and right teaching, which is gradually clothed in a system of dogmas that make up the law of faith. In all doctrinal confessions (“symbolic books”) we find as signs of the Church the presence of correctly performed Sacraments, hierarchy (no matter how different its definitions may be: sacerdotium or ministerium (priesthood or ministry (Latin) - Ed.) and the doctrine of faith. (It is curious that the first example of such a definition of the Church was given by Protestantism, and the Reformation was followed by the Counter-Reformation, both in the West and in the East). The question now is, how to correlate these two definitions of the Church, the mystical, as the Body of Christ or the Divine-Humanity accomplished by the power of the Incarnation and Pentecost, and our current idea of ​​the Church as a clear empirical organization, or as invisible in the visible and empirical? Can we overcome this hiatus, or are there actually two incompatible understandings of the Church here? What is the relationship between these two images of the Church, ontological and empirical, mystical body and organization? Do they unite in some higher identity, or do they maintain an irreconcilable duality? Our understanding of the problem of ecumenism depends on one answer or another to this question. In the first case, we affirm the unity of the Church as the Body of Christ, as life in Christ and in the Holy Spirit, for which there are no confessional boundaries and no one’s monopoly. In the second case, the desire for the unity of churches in the Church is a false task, since there is only one true Church as one specific hierarchical organization. Outside of it, there is only room for heresy or schism, in which there is no and cannot be a church at all: all or nothing. There is no place for chiaroscuro, half-truth, relativity, so the only path to church unity is the cessation of the very existence of rival church organizations, which must all merge into a single flock with a single Shepherd. Only individual affiliations remain possible, which clearly do not solve the “ecumenical” problem and even deny it. Discussing this issue on its merits, first of all, we cannot allow any gap between the depth and the empirical shell of the Church, since both belong to one Body and relate to one life. We have no right to deny the existence of church life both among individuals and entire groups or organizations that confess the Name of Jesus, call on the name of the Heavenly Father and seek the Holy Spirit “Ask and it will be given to you,” “seek and you will find” (Matthew 7:7). And this gift of God is a mystery of God, known only to the One who gives it. On this basis, we do not have the right to say that “non-Orthodox” do not belong to the Church, are not members of the Body of Christ, are not in unity with us, although at a depth inaccessible to our gaze. The implementation of visible unity must already presuppose an existing, although not yet manifested, not conscious unity. One cannot strive for a non-existent unity; one cannot accept a task that no longer has a basis in the given. The Church as God-Humanity, along with the Divine and indestructible principle, also contains a human principle, which is subject to history, has its own historical destinies, is subject to historical development, differentiation and change. That is why the Church in the Word of God is depicted as a plurality of local historical organizations, which, moreover, correspond to different images of churchliness, or its types (as is clear from the presence of seven images of churches in the Apocalypse). With its side, facing human history, the Church accepts into its life the principles of created, human freedom and the associated relativity and even limitation in every moment of its existence, since it is subject to human development. Her external destinies reflect not only the eternal Divine principle that lives within her, but also the historical environment with all its complexity. That individual difference between Local Churches, which existed from the beginning and was already evident in the difference between Judeo-Christianity and Hellenic Christianity, and later East and West, was always reflected in the types of Local Churches. This same difference, having passed a certain stage, leads first to disagreements and then to divisions within the midst of united Christianity, giving rise to heresies and schisms. Consistently developing, it leads to the diversity of its faces and the multitude of religions in front of which we stand. The differences run deep and comprehensive: they concern hierarchy, jurisdiction, Sacraments and worship, and, finally, dogma itself. Of course, there is a certain line, after which Christianity no longer remains at all (with the denial of faith in the God-manhood of Christ and the Holy Trinity). However, within the framework of a single Christian faith, and even with a common Christian confession in the Creeds, there are still so many dogmatic differences that they erect an almost impenetrable wall between different confessions. The latter also cease to communicate with each other in the Sacraments and worship, as if representing different religions. At the same time, each confession affirms itself - and cannot but affirm itself as one and true, but considers difference from itself to be a falling away from the truth, an error and a sin against the Church, which must be repented of. Thus, the logic of confessional piety should lead to self-affirmation in its own particularity, to pure confessionalism, to the plurality and fragmentation of the Christian world. Each religion, asserting its truth, is repelled with greater force from all others, inevitably imbued with the spirit of jealous and militant proselytism. This is now having such a sad effect on missionary work among non-Christians. Here, precisely, where we return, as it were, to the very origins of Christian history, the question arises in all its nakedness: is there even a single Christian faith, the preaching of which at one time was carried to the whole earth and the ends of the universe by the holy apostles, or are there only “religions” remaining, competing with each other, each of which considers itself only true Christianity, and all other confessions are, as it were, other religions? It is remarkable that such confessional self-affirmation exists equally for all confessions. It leads either to the further fragmentation of Christianity, or to the aggressive ecclesiastical imperialism of Rome, or in general to “Romanization,” which exists outside the boundaries of the Roman Church. Ecumenism, in this case, naturally becomes an impossibility or apostasy, at best only religious syncretism. And yet, despite this seemingly inexorable evidence, from the depths of the Christian consciousness rises this prophetic call of ecumenism, which opposes confessional exclusivity and sees in the fratres separati (separated brothers (Latin) - Ed.) real brothers in Christ, members of the Body of Christ. That nature of church existence, which is transcendental to a separate church organization, although it lies at its basis, becomes tangible and self-evident, along with the isolation and exclusivity of a separate church organization and even despite it. A sense of distinction appears between the fundamental, noumenal and empirical, phenomenal existence of the Church, along with the desire to bring empirical plurality closer to the transcendental unity of the Church. Translating this philosophical formula into the language of practical Christianity, we can say that mutual church love arises, the unity in Christ of persons belonging to different confessions. This love also requires fulfillment in practical unity, which, although it cannot achieve the fullness of church communion, nevertheless seeks its possible maximum in prayer, confession, mutual knowledge and understanding. New paths of ecumenical piety and ecumenical theology are emerging. The boundaries of church provincialism are gradually being overcome, which manifests itself, however, in the relationships not only of different confessions, but also of national churches within a single confession (“phyletism”). We cannot close our eyes to all the difficulty and even the danger of this ecumenical path, which can indeed lead, instead of ecumenical unity, to a kind of amateurism and syncretism at the cost of the loss of a vital and integral faith. This danger, however, is no less real for the opposite path, which leads to Pharisaic arrogance and un-Christian fanaticism. The danger lurks equally on both paths. The Lord's work is difficult. The most difficult and pressing question of ecumenism is whether there is a real way out of this Babylonian confusion of languages, overcoming religious differences and contradictions? If it is generally unthinkable and impossible, then the entire ecumenical movement is false and is doomed to fruitlessness and contradiction. It must be admitted that a direct human answer to this question cannot be given; it remains a tea only on the paths of the ongoing Pentecost, like a church miracle: what is impossible for men is possible for God. However, it must become absolutely impossible for a person to put up with Christian divisions without being sick of them and without seeking to overcome them on the paths of faith, hope and love. To do this, one must cultivate in oneself a kind of confessional asceticism, which consists in not allowing oneself to have thoughts and feelings that are opposed to the recognition of Christianity in the “non-Orthodox” and the church’s love for them. But at the same time, and in antinomic connection with the previous statement, we must confess with all our strength the truth that has been revealed to us in our faith. We Orthodox Christians must not only confess, but also preach Orthodoxy as the fullness and purity of the faith, which is contained intact in the Orthodox Tradition. Therefore, in our relations with non-Orthodox people, we must not fall into confessional indifferentism, for which all faiths are the same; on the contrary, we must distinguish the degree to which they are removed from Orthodoxy. However, this does not mean that in their lives the Orthodox themselves fully realize their Orthodoxy and are free from the sin of the heresy of life. Through this they may turn out to be even less Orthodox than other non-Orthodox people, and in this sense, they may be edified in Orthodoxy by the latter. Orthodoxy has all the power of the Sacraments and their fullness. However, this in no way means that other confessions are completely devoid of sacramental gifts, or that the Sacraments performed by them do not have saving power for them at all (as even Blessed Augustine taught). True, the heterodox remain separated from us in their sacramental life (and the desire to prematurely or superficially overcome these boundaries in the overly widely and easily applied “Intercommunion” not only does not achieve the goal, but rather even moves away from it). But we are not allowed to measure this more and less in the power of the Sacrament, although we are not allowed to diminish the practical significance of this difference for us. However, in addition to the sacramental reality (“ex ore operato”, due to the fact that the action is done (Latin) – Ed.), there is also a different image of its human acceptance (“ex ore operantis”, because of who did the action (Lat.) – Ed.) which can also accept small things as great (“according to their faith it will be given to them,” St. Theophan the Recluse once expressed about the sacraments Protestants). But besides this - and this is the most important thing here - sacramentalism, as a hierarchical organization of the Sacraments, itself has its own boundary. It is not absolute in the sense that it does not close or abolish other, direct ways for the action of God’s grace. This is already clear from the apostolic list of spiritual gifts, not one of which is connected with the hierarchy and the Sacraments given through it. This possibility of the non-hierarchical-sacramental side of church life in general relates to the royal and prophetic ministry of Christ, to the Kingdom of God and the gifts of the Spirit, and it cannot be described or regulated. This spirit of the Spirit especially marked the life of the primal Church; it is the mystery of early Christianity, which has not been taken away from the present era. In general, it marks all the heroic times in the life of the Church and the highest achievements of the Christian spirit. Prophecy is the dynamics of church life, just as hierarchism is its statics. Only the combination of both forms Una Sancta, as the accomplished acceptance of God, God-manhood in actif (in action (lat.) - Ed.). This life does not fit into the visible church organization, but overflows beyond its edges. She turns her face to all humanity, which will be judged by Christ on the basis of His presence in them, and even to all creation, about which the Lord said: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18). Thus, we come to the conclusion that we cannot deny in principle either the hierarchical nature of the hierarchy, or the sacramentality and salvific nature of the Sacraments performed outside of Orthodoxy (of course, to varying degrees, in different confessions), although these paths remain hidden and insufficient for us. But our prayer “for the unification of all” and our search for it should be all the more fervent. The cup of Christ remains one, although those who approach it are divided. And the “same” is the Spirit who gives different gifts. And what is especially remarkable is that mutual comprehension is most fully achieved through the deepening of our own church life, for here, in this depth, we meet and recognize each other in our unity in Christ and in the Holy Spirit, as children of the one Heavenly Father. However, there still remains the question of unity in dogma, which has been lost over the centuries in various Local Churches and individual church communities, and here the difficult, but also the most fruitful work awaits us in the ecumenical movement. Despite the disagreements, the Christian world still maintains significant unity in the most basic tenets of faith, expressed in the main confessions and creeds accepted by all (Nicaenum, Apostolicum, Athanasianum). It is generally possible to feel our agreements and disagreements with different strengths, placing primary emphasis on the first, then on the second. There is evidence here of changing word usage. If the comparative study of the dogmatic teachings of different confessions was previously called primarily “accusatory” theology, inspired by the pathos of reproof or self-defense, now it more often receives the name symbolic or comparative theology. The latter is inspired, first of all, by the desire to understand and explain the very origin of disagreements and their real meaning, and only in the light of this understanding to expose its weaknesses. And the task of ecumenical theology is, first of all, mutual precise understanding in order to eliminate inevitable misunderstandings, and then real disagreements, which can not only be simply rejected, but also outgrow in the process of mutual rapprochement. Of course, here Orthodoxy (as well as every confession that believes in its truth) faces a responsible task - the steadfast confession of its faith and hope - however, not in the spirit of arrogance and exclusivity, in the consciousness of possessing the privilege of infallibility, but in the spirit of love and patience, with the faith that the truth prevails. In this sense, we Orthodox Christians must believe and hope that the vital truth of Orthodoxy will show its victorious, for convincing, power, not as a “creed,” but as the universal truth of Christianity. Other confessions, having understood it, will find it as their own faith, as exactly the one thing they needed that they were looking to find and protect - although not always by means that were appropriate, because they were limited. Dogmatic barriers between Christians will become transparent and therefore powerless and ineffective. For “in My Father’s house are many mansions” (John 14:2), but they all belong to the Father’s house. “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit,” just as Christ is “the same yesterday and today and forever” (Heb. 13:8). This should be the spirit of ecumenism - faith and patience in hope and love. “That they all may be one: just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, so that they also may be one in Us” (John 17:21). This unity is not the unity of a hierarchical organization, which is only its external manifestation, but first of all the unity of life, which is already contained in its Divine primary source. It is present in the Church as its Divine depth and power, but at the same time it is also sought after, as a task of historical life. This task is currently a priority; it is the touchstone on which Christian consciousness and will are now tested. Report at the Anglo-Russian Student Conference in High Leigh in 1938. The theme of the conference was: growth into completeness... Published according to "The Path"... 58. November, December, January 1938–1939. P.3–14 – Approx. edit See our essay on Ministry and Sacraments in the collection of the Edinburgh Theological Conference (in Russian in “The Way”).