The Rush to Embrace

Last week, Pope Leo XIV and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew met in Iznik, Turkey—a town built on the ruins of ancient Nicaea—for an ecumenical prayer meeting. The event was billed, in both Catholic and Orthodox circles, as an “historic moment”: a prelude to reunion between East and West. 

There are a couple of things wrong with this narrative, however. 

First, the Orthodox bishops who appeared at Iznik represented less than ten percent of Orthodox Christians. The Patriarch of Moscow, whose flock accounts for about forty percent of our Communion, was absent. John X of Antioch had planned to attend but, after discussing the matter with his synod, withdrew his participation.

Second, this was not an intimate gathering between Catholic and Orthodox leaders. The Coptic, Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, and Mennonite churches were also represented at the event, as were leaders from the World Council of Churches. 

To be honest, it was one of the most depressing things I’ve ever seen. All those Christian leaders crowded on a plywood stage… It was difficult to watch. One could argue that the theatrics were not the point—that the modest setting was appropriate for the event. Well, maybe. Then again, the “Christian leaders” assembled on the stage weren’t addressing each other. They were all facing a single television camera, though most of them stood with their heads bowed. (Where were they supposed to look? Not at the icons: those, too, were facing outward, for the camera.) 

For better or worse, this was very much a performance. And it wasn’t a very good one. I couldn’t help but wince as the photographers shoved past bishops and cardinals as they tried to get the perfect shot of the gold-plated Gospel on the wooden ambo.

To my mind, the gathering did as much to emphasize our differences as it did our similarities. The Gospel was processed solemnly to the ambo by a Greek Orthodox bishop, to the haunting drone of a Byzantine choir. It was then read by a Presbyterian minister, who neither chanted the text nor reverenced the Book itself. That’s not really his fault, of course. In the Reformed tradition, to chant the Gospel would be considered popery; to kiss it would be an act of idolatry. But, then, who are we kidding?

This is what worries me about the ecumenical movement. I am all for Catholics and Orthodox coming together and trying to hash out our differences. I know some of my fellow Orthodox think even that is going too far, but the Cheiti and Alexandria documents are both fruits of “interfaith dialogue,” and both vindicate the Orthodox position. That’s what I call progress!

Yet hashing out our differences is one thing. Pretending they don’t exist is another. Worst of all is to pretend that these differences somehow don’t matter.

This speaks to another, worrying trend I’ve seen in online discourse lately. It’s this concept of "Apostolic Christianity": a novel way of referring to the Orthodox, Catholic, Miaphysite and (at least sometimes) Nestorian churches, collectively. More and more, we hear calls for unity between the "Apostolic Churches." We're told to lay aside old "misunderstandings" over christology and triadology for the sake of unity.

This what Fr. Alexey Young called the “rush to embrace”. By most historians’ reckoning, the Orthodox and Catholic churches have been separated for about 1,000 years. With our Miaphysite and Nestorian friends, it’s closer to 1,600 years. And yet, all of a sudden, we feel the urgent need to heal all these schisms right now, or else… 

Well, no one can explain what will happen if we fail. The feeling is real, though. And it’s spreading. More and more, we’re all possessed by this “rush to embrace.”

For instance, many Catholics and Orthodox, feel that we can end the Great Schism if Rome simply drops the word filioque from the Creed. It’s not that simple, however. At the Council of Florence (1431), Rome dogmatized the Double Procession of the Holy Spirit: the belief that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son “as from one principle.” This is totally antithetical to the Orthodox position. The Orthodox Church dogmatized the Single Procession of the Holy Spirit—the belief that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, the Father being the sole principle—at the Council of Blachernae (1285). This doctrine was reaffirmed by the Hesychast Councils (14th century). 

There are those who say we should simply put our differences aside for the sake of unity. But wait! The whole point of a Magisterium—i.e., the Church’s living teaching authority—is to clarify doctrinal disputes. So, is the Double Procession infallibly revealed dogma? If so, then the Orthodox must accept it. If not, then the Catholic Church does not have a living magisterium. Or is the Single Procession infallibly revealed dogma? If so, then Catholics must accept it. If not, then the Orthodox Church does not have a living magisterium.

This isn’t just about which Church has the correct triadology (though that’s important!). This is about whether we can trust our Church’s teachings—her dogmatic pronouncements. Because if we can simply handwave Florence and/or Blachernae, we can handwave any Council that we find inconvenient.

Indeed, many are tempted to do just that in regards to our Oriental Orthodox friends. 

We often hear it said nowadays that the schism over the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) was “semantic misunderstanding.” Yet Chalcedon both dogmatizes Dyophysitism and anathematizes the Miaphysites, expelling them from the Church. Likewise, at their Second Council of Ephesus (A.D. 553), the Oriental Orthodox Church dogmatized Miaphysitism and anathematized the Diophysites, expelling them from the Church.

Again, we must ask: Do we affirm Chalcedon? Do we believe, not only in its definitions, but also in its magisterial authority as an Ecumenical Council to bind the whole Church to those definitions? If so, then we can't say that the Oriental Orthodox are an "Apostolic Church" equal to the Orthodox Church. We must respectfully insist that they accept Chalcedon, as the Holy Fathers did. Our Oriental friends must ask the same question about Ephesus II, and they can't be afraid to hurt our feelings either!

Let me restate my argument, because I think some people struggle with this line of reasoning. 

The Council of Chalcedon says (in so many words), “You must accept this Council and its teachings in order to be part of the One True Church.” If we say that the Oriental Orthodox are/can be part of the One True Church without accepting the Council and its teachings, we are saying that Chalcedon is wrong. We are denying that the Council—and, by extension, the Church—possesses the Office of the Keys: the power to bind and loose. 

And if we handwave Chalcedon, why not do the same with Ephesus? What's to say that our disagreement with the Nestorians wasn’t simply a misunderstanding? As a matter of fact, several prominent Catholic and Protestant thinkers do precisely that! And if this is fine for the Nestorians, why not the Arians, the Gnostics, the Judaizers…?

We often hear modern Ecumenists accuse anti-Ecumenists of “hairsplitting” over theological concepts that are “ultimately beyond human comprehension.” But, again, no Church ever considered this to be hairsplitting. That’s why we called the Ecumenical Councils: to debate these exact topics! We believed that these questions have answers. And we believed that these answers came, not from human reason, but from the Holy Spirit guiding the Church into all truth (cf. John 16:13) 

Each communion has also canonized the saints who formulated our respective dogmas. For instance, the Orthodox have Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo of Rome, Photius of Constantinople, etc. Why would the Church hold these Fathers up as examples to the faithful if all they did was “split hairs?” 

The Orthodox also venerate St. Flavian of Antioch, a pro-Chalcedon patriarch who was martyred by Miaphysites in the 5th century. We honor the thirteen monks who were martyred by Latin Crusaders in the 13th century for refusing to renounce Orthodoxy. Did they die for the true Faith taught by the true Church, or for a “semantic misunderstanding?”

Yes: the Orthodox, Catholics, Miaphysites, and Nestorians have all dogmatized specific christological and triadological definitions. None of us is innocent of the charge of hairsplitting. Who are we to then turn around and say that debates over theology are somehow un-Christian? 

Who is truly acting from pride? Is it the radical ecumenists, who say that every Christian church was consumed with intellectual vanity from the 5th century until about 1964? Or is it those of us who strive to resolve our differences slowly, carefully, without betraying our respective patrimonies?

Radical Ecumenism is like Pandora’s box. Once those forces have been released, they can’t be put away again. Once we start handwaving Ecumenical Councils that no longer seem “relevant” to our “modern context,” we have cut off the Magisterial Church at its knees. We may still look to the Ecumenical Councils and the Church Fathers as important wayposts, but we no longer accept their normative authority. At that point, we have become High-Church Protestants—whether we realize it or not.

Let me say again that I am not strictly opposed to ecumenical dialogues. By no means. Nor am I saying that the various schisms are totally insurmountable and we shouldn’t bother trying to resolve them. That’s not my point at all.

My point is that many “Christian leaders”—including some in the Orthodox Church—have already embraced Radical Ecumenism. This is the whole basis of the "Apostolic Churches" nonsense. At the end of the day, it's just another form of relativism.

The proper way to love our fellow Christians is not to abandon our Councils, our saints, or our martyrs. It is not humility, but the height of arrogance, to dismiss the magisterial authority of the Church. None of us—Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, Miaphysite, or Nestorian—should succumb to this temptation. We should continue our search for an authentic Eucharistic communion—one based, not on legal fictions, but on unity of faith, as the Fathers taught! And, yes, we should love one another as we do so.

In his opening speech at the gathering in Iznik, Patriarch Bartholomew quoted the Psalms: “Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!” And that, of course, is true! Yet we must remind His Holiness of the words spoken by the Righteous Amos: “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

Read also