RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH LEAVES WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES
Protest against the "Westernizing" of Ecumenical Institution

MOSCOW, DEC 31 (ZENIT).- The Russian Orthodox Church has decided to leave the World Council of Churches (WCC), at least for the time being. As the Patriarch of Moscow explained, the measure is due to differences of a theological and moral nature with the Directors of the organization.

The decision was made known after a meeting held by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, at which the Patriarch of Moscow, Alexis II, presided. The suspension will last until the publication of a document prepared by a mixed commission of members of various Orthodox churches and the World Council of Churches. The document will confront a series of dogmatic questions.

At the General Assembly for the World Council of Churches that was held at the beginning of December in Harare, Zimbabwe, to celebrate the institution's 50th anniversary, Rev. Hilarion Alfeyev of the Russian Orthodox Church, alerted: "If there aren't changes, other Orthodox churches will leave the World Council of Churches. This is not blackmail, but a painful reality that we cannot put up with. We want to continue on, but we also want a transformation in the WCC to make it a home for everyone."

The Russian Orthodox Church, with its 123 dioceses, located principally in territories of the old Soviet Union, is not the first Christian confession to abandon the Council. The Georgian Orthodox Church has already taken a similar measure.

Among the 332 Christian churches that belong to the WCC are the Anglicans, the Lutherans, the Reformed Churches and the Orthodox. The Catholic Church, however, has never been a member.

Rev. Alfeyev mentioned two essential problems making an understanding between the Orthodox and the ecumenical institution difficult: the ordination of women and the use of inclusive language. The positions adopted by the World Council of Churches on these issues contrast greatly with the Orthodox tradition.
ZE98123108

Great news.

Just a little late reading it.

The World Council of Churches had become a liberal organization, full of neo-protestant sects which hijacked the WCC. Now these sects are everywhere (in Eastern Europe).
Nothing succesful came from the WCC dialogues, it is impossible to reach unity with people who believe in an invisible Church, that would be indifferentism.

It speaks well for the Catholic Church that it never joined. I could never appreciate the arguments some Orthodox Churches made for being in the organization, and am happy to see some of them leaving.

Dan Lauffer

The RCC did not join after Vatican II because it knows and appreciates, and the WCC knows and appreciates, that its size and scope would dwarf and swamp the organization. But the RCC maintains an official representative presense in the WCC offices, and still takes a very active part in WCC endeavors by contributing advice and perspective in numerous WCC theological and service initiatives.
The Orthodox were a founding spirit of the ecumencial movement. (See "The Orthodox Church in the Ecumenical Movement: Documents and Statements 1902-1975," ed. Constantin Patelos, WCC, 1978.)True, during the cold war the Moscow Patriarchate used international platforms provided by the WCC to spew forth Soviet propaganda, but the fact that the WCC expresses sincere regret after each Orthodox leave-taking is itself an ecumenical accomplishment.

Slava Isusu Christu!

Didn't the MP leave the WCC a couple times or am I mistaken? I think it would help MP/ROCOR relations/unity if they did. I think it is good that the Orthodox Churches join in the ecumenical movement; it gives Protestants exposure to Orthodox teaching and praxis and is a good way to evangelize the non-Orthodox in these groups. As far as charges of syncretism et al; that's a bunch of hoowey. No Orthodox Church could be charged with unionism or syncretism. The Orthodox presence, as one Greek priest explained to me, at the WCC is to reach these groups in charity and lead them to the true Faith. This Old Caledarist/Non-Canonical "Orthodox" attack of the Canonical Orthodox is just slander-based propaganda.

durak,

You may be correct and if you are I am disappointed. Nevertheless, for whatever reason, the Catholics did not join. For that I am thankful.

Dan Lauffer

The Pope and other high Catholic officials have repeatedly praised the work of the WCC and called its effort "essential". The Catholic Church has joined various national and local counterparts to the WCC. It also serves on various commissions of the WCC and the financial contributions the Catholic Church makes to the WCC and its various organs actual EXCEEDS what its dues would be if it was a member.

If you wish to point out that the Catholic Church is not a member, you are accurate. If you wish to suggest that the Catholic Church has any ill-will towards the WCC, you are mistaken and inaccurate.

The sects in Eastern Europe are almost entirely outside the WCC.

OCA has no plans to leave and an Orthodox Christian leads the US National Council.

Cardinal Francis Arinze, Roman Prefect of the Congregation of Divine Worship, was very close to the WCC if I am not mistaken, and had praised the labour of good will Christians who participate in the WCC.

It is also my understanding that the RC didn't join the WCC not because of any special reason but because its npresence would lessen the "importance" of the other communities that are part of the Council and who are less powerful. If things were different the RC would have joined the WCC for sure.

It's music to my ears! And a fine start to the Lenten season during which we should abstain from all manner of uncleanliness.

Of course the other Orthodox Churches will be following suit over time. This is especially true of the OCA, still beholden to the Church of Russia for its autocephaly.

Perhaps the WCC will changes its positions, but cows don't fly.

In Christ,
Andrew

Dear Reader Andrew,

If so, perhaps the Moscow Patriarchate shouldn't stop with the WCC, but make a public act of penance for "ecclesiacide" with respect to the Ukrainian Catholic Church in 1946 as well?

That would truly be a blessed Lent!

Alex

Whatever the reasons and motivations, the point is that the Catholic Church never joined in WCC, as did the Orthodox Churches. Since the reasons for this action (of refusing to enter the WCC) will never be known, I think it's safe to say that this will probably help the Catholic Church's image...at least maybe a little.

Logos Teen

But isn't intent important from a Latin point of view? :p

They should stay in the WCC but finally take the long-standing invitation of the Greek Catholic Ukrainian CHurch to make a gesture of mutual forgiveness for the terrible events of 1946-47 during the Stalinist period. It is long overdo on the part of the MP.

Dear Alex,

I noticed that the (Ecumenical) Patriarch of Constantinople didn't excommunicate the Patriarch of Moscow for this "ecclesiacide," so it must have been canonical.

Technically, from the Eastern Orthodox perspective, what Stalin did was just "church growth." It must have been his seminary training showing through. But not all growth is good.

In Christ,
Andrew.

Dear Reader Andrew,

Perhaps Stalin went to the same seminary as did Ivan the Terrible?

And there are those who would like to see both canonized!

But if anyone wants an akathist to either, sorry, I'm busy with others . . .

Alex

In mnay ways, the WCC is quite irrelvant as a pseudo-ecclesial body. Worship, etc. is something that is basicly the function of an individual person and then of the group to which he or she belongs; 'prayer-type' activities of the WCC inasmuch as they involve verbalizations, can't really get beyond anything except basic, core Unitarianism.

But, the great thing about the WCC is the fact that people are both talking with each other and also cooperating in making the world a better place through charitable works and offerings.

I get truly frightened when folks suggest that I shouldn't visit with and talk to "them" (whoever 'them' might be!).
It's hard to love your neighbors if you don't know who they are. (But I would prefer not to be asked to venerate your cow.) Mooooo.

Blessings!

Dear Dr. John,

Now that would be quite the tail . . .

Social action (now that I've got your full attention ) is always an important part of the Christian commitment to the world.

But I think Christians bring to such something more than the simplistic solutions of revolutionary Marxism, class struggle, or bleeding-heart social action committees.

If that is all the WCC and other bodies can do - why have Christianity?

Why not, as some Jesuits and others in Latin America have done, go and join Marxist guerrilla groups?

Christ is a true liberator in every which way, but He works, as you would be the first to tell us as well, through His Church, His people, His martyrs - in short through His Grace working in the flesh-and-blood daily situations of human conflict.

Christ is presented in a myriad ways today.

When someone tells me they speak for Christ, we should ask to see if their "Christ" has the nail marks of Calvary.

If not, it is not "Christ."

Alex

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dr John:
[QB]In mnay ways, the WCC is quite irrelvant as a pseudo-ecclesial body.

The WCC's consistent self-definiton of its identity, nature, and purpose from the time of its foundation specifically denies the attempt to be an ecclesial (much less a "pseudo-ecclesial") body of any sort. To dismiss or condemn it as such is quite unjust.
(We Byzantine Catholics claim the right to define who we are and reject being portrayed as "wolves in sheep clothing intent on converting the Orthodox to Catholicism" as imputed by those who do not think well of us. So let us not define others by a definition they themselves reject.
It leads nowhere.)

I just know that the WCC does hold group sessions that are more intentionally "prayer-ful" than performances. Thus, if there's a group praying together, out loud, I call it: "churchy". And not "Hollywood Squares".

Blessings!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Orthodox Catholic:
[QB]
But I think Christians bring to such something more than the simplistic solutions of revolutionary Marxism, class struggle, or bleeding-heart social action committees.

Alex,

I would certainly not put social action in the same group as Marxism or class struggle or characterize it as "Bleeding Heart" That is too often the words used by conservatives to deny that the Church has any social mission (not to say that you are this kind of conservative but just pointing out that these words are too often micharacterized and used as buzzwords) Yes, Christians cannot make their religion over into a complete "social Gospel" without the Cross but also, we must not fall into the trap of keeping to ourselves, our particular prayer rules etc and think that is all that is sufficient. We must all remember the examples of Mother Maria of Paris, Dorothy Day and so many others who were deeply rooted im their Faith and did not see this as excluding a radical love of people and of the poorest. Our Faith cannot become a complacent religion for Sundays.

Dear Comrade Brian

I didn't condemn social action as such, but "bleeding heart social action."

I too am involved in social action. As for my being a conservative, I don't know if I am.

Whatever the Church teaches is what I'm for. I want to "conserve" the Gospel and authentic Church teaching, free of modern "with it" trends. Does that make me a conservative?

I've helped build homes for the poor, marched in demonstrations, written letters to protest the detainment of human rights activists and some other things whenever my wife gives me permission

I don't like Christianity being tied to any sort of ideology. The situation winds up being one in which Christ is reduced to a member of a political party.

Christ, in and of Himself, is our all-sufficient "platform" of action.

Does that also make me a conservative?

Alex

Durak,

I am not completely disputing your explanation as to why the RCC is not a formal member of the WCC. However when I was a seminarian, our ecclesiology professor explained that the essence of the Roman Catholic Church's reluctance to officially join that body has much to do with Catholic ecclesiology. In many documents - especially most recently in Dominus Iesus - the RCC defintion of what constitutes a "Church" has made it necessary to distinguish between bona fide churches (such as the Eastern churches) and what the Holy See calls ecclesial communities. These groups, while possessing some measure of the Christain faith, are in the final analysis deemed deficient.

This is why cooperation with the WCC is permissable, but membership would compromise the Church's definition that the "Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church." The rationale is to avoid the notion of denominationalism. Of course, the Orthodox world is seen as sister churches and not in the same category of other Christian denominations. This line of thinking influences everything from inter-communion to recognition of other bodies' ministers and sacraments.

Granted, it is a fine-line example of making distinctions and nuance, but hey isn't that the Latin way? :p

PAX

Dear Brian,

We agree? So you'll remain in communion with Rome?

What do you think you are going to do with that giant censor?!

Careful with that - it still has burning coals in it!

BRIAN!!! OUCHHH!!

Alex

Alex,

"I didn't condemn social action as such, but "bleeding heart social action."

One would be naive in the extreme to believe that Liberation theology isn't simply Marxism with a few Christian sounding words thrown in. My complaint with that isn't so much the policies of nations that are still Marxists. My complaint is the same as yours. Liberation Theology and its spin offs are not essentially Christian.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan,

You da man, Dan!

Say something to Brian, will you? He tried to hit me . . .sniff . . .

Alex

Geez, it was only a hand censer!!!! Get over it!

Dear Brian,

O.K. Brian, I forgive you!

Your aim was off anyway!

Alex

Alex,
Glory to Jesus Christ!
We tell our new altar servers that a good deacon can flick the fly off the nose of a server with the censer. The eyes of the young men then become as wide as the ones on the icons.
Deacon El

Dear Deacon El,

Funny you should mention that . . .

When I attended a Western Rite Orthodox conference in Toronto, it was mentioned that one of their priests "defected" to the Eastern Rite Antiochian Church.

"I guess he liked the icons with the big eyes . . ." he said to which everyone snickered.

Hmmmm . . .

My eyes widened quite a lot at that comment!

Alex

While the Catholic Church does not belong to the WCC, it does belong to simliar bodies at the national level. I don't see how that is possible if your professor's thinking is one with the Catholic Chruch.

One would also have to be naive in the extreme to think that their is not an active secular conservative effort to dismiss all Christian social action as somehow related to Liberation Theology and therefore to be dismissed.

In truth, Liberation Theology has never been a movement of significant action in North America. To speak of it in the context of our societies is a red herring.

Axios

I think that Brother Axios has made a good point.

Theologies come and go. While in the hegemony, it seems that the principles of one or another theology rule and represent the standard.

For those old enough to have survived one or another epoch, it is clear that this is NOT true.

There is absolutely no question that the Lord's mandate to love God and love one's neighbor is the core of our Christian (and Catholic/Orthodox) belief and practice. HOW we love our neighbors can be predetermined only by the Gospel itself and not by the prevailing "theology-of-the-day".

I think of the good people of the Salvation Army. They are no slaccards in terms of serving those who are most in need: i.e., the addicted, the poor, the less-gifted, etc. And they have an "approach" that involves uniforms, disciplined life actions and prayers, and structured lifestyles. And they reach and save many people.

But I would be foolish to assume that the Salvationist approach is going to work with club-kids, i.e, the late teens early twenties folk. And so, I'd be remiss if I just accepted the Salvationist approach and attempted to impose that on the kids. It would probably not work. The "kids" don't have parental responsiblities, or job responsiblities, or a sense of self-worth that the Salvationist approach would presume to be present, and that their apporach would adress.

We've got to find something else for them.

The same is true for the people of Russia. Is it fair to assume that "Russian Orthodoxy" and all it pomps and works, is going to be the best response to the REAL spiritual needs of the people? I have no problem whatsoever - as a "Catholic" -- in supporting Russian Orthodoxy, but I wonder deep in my heart if I am best serving the needs of the people by telling them that Russian Orthodoxy is "their only pathway" to salvation? I'll support "THE CHURCH!!!!" as best I can (Catholic or Orthodox or Orienal Orthodox), but I must also be attuned to the realities of the people and how best to bring them to God.

Can I do less for these children of God?

Blessings! And conundrums.

Dear Axios,

You say that the Roman Catholic Church, while not a member of the WCC is part of national bodies that are similar. Well I looked up the web site of the National Council of Churches USA and as I suspected, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops - the official hierarchy of the Catholic Church is NOT listed. Here is a quote from the NCC site describing their membership:

"The 36 Protestant, Orthodox and Anglican member communions (denominations) of the National Council of Churches include 140,000 local congregations and 50 million persons in the United States."

Notice no mention of the Catholic church. That is because it does not see itself as a "denomination" among others. Oh sure the Church does have official ecumenical dialogue with other Christians. This has been a priority since Vatican II. It is just the idea that the Church of Christ is splinted into various factions that the Church rejects. Remember one of the signs of the Catholic church is that it is ONE [along with HOLY and CATHOLIC].

Dr. John you speak of the "theology of the day". Is this just in reference to liberation theology, or are you saying that one ecclesiology is just as valid as another? Well I don't agree with that. Even in your post you say:

"I'll support "THE CHURCH!!!!" as best I can (Catholic or Orthodox or Orienal Orthodox)"

But if one follows the WCC/NCC church models - what of Protestant denominations? How about non-denominational para-church organizations like the Salvation Army who for the sake of concord dispensed with the necessity of baptism? I have to say, for my part, while I can admire the zeal & faith of some of the individual members of these groups I don't subscribe to the model of church they represent.

PAX

Benedictine,

When I said "similiar bodies at the national level", I had thought the use of the plural in bodies was sufficient to indicate that the use of the term national was not specifically in reference to this nation (the nation the BF is hosted in; I realize we have Canadian and British posters here).

The Catholic Church is a full member of 55 national Church Councils. It also belongs to uncountable local councils of churches both in the USA and elsewhere.

Axios

Dear Axios,

I stand corrected. I did a little on-line research and did indeed discover that the Catholic Church is part of both the Canadian Council of Churches and "Churches Together in Britain and Ireland" - the successor of the British Council of Churches.

However the point that I was making, and I think my former professor was getting at, is best explained in this quote from Dominus Iesus:

The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach". In fact, "the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities". "Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church".

This rationale is one reason, my instructor believes, why Rome is not part of the WCC. Now how the bishops of local churches are able to negotiate this in order to participate in national ecumenical bodies... I don't know the answer. It does seem however that there is some official credibility & recognition to the line of thinking I described in my initial post.

PAX

Dear Dr. John,

At the outset, when a Ukie Cath'lic like me rises to the defence of Russian Orthodoxy, you know there's just got to be a lot of sincerity involved!

You asked if Russian Orthodoxy, with all its pomp and works, is the best thing for the Russians?

Why can't the Russians themselves answer that, rather than have Catholic and Protestant missionaries (and now a Byzantine ex-Jesuit) tell them?

But that's just an aside . . .

I think it is because it is the most culturally and spiritually relevant form of religious faith and praxis that they have - and it is something they keep coming back to, no matter how many New Martyrs made it into the calendar.

But before we can ask that question, shouldn't we answer the question with respect to the West itself?

How has the horizontal emphasis of social and political theology assisted with the fulfillment of vertical spiritual hunger in the West?

How has the identification of Christianity with a number of contemporary ideologies and "isms" helped make Christian faith "relevant" without altering the message of its Founder?

How has the separation of Christian faith from culture in the West aided with social progressivism?

For the Russian and other Christians, the West represents a kind of decadence that some of them would now like to try on for size.

Let's not flatter ourselves into thinking that we can actually teach the Russians and others who suffered for Christ in ways we cannot imagine about what it means to follow Christ as individuals, families and societies.

Social action for them means tearing down oppressive political parties and governments that acted "in the name of the people" without ever having asked them what it was they wanted or needed.

Alex

Esteemed Benedictine,
May I attempt a poor stab at articulating how bishops of local churches "negotiate" Dominus Iesus?
Maybe their thinking goes along this line:
"If we don't fully *join* in dialogue and mutual efforts with what we consider to be defective ecclesial communities, we end up talking only to ourselves (as do, for example, Greek Old Calendarists and myriad other small sects). The Catholic Church is more than these. God's will that *all* may be one is not served by isolationism on anyone's part."

Yes, PEACE, more now than ever.

Dear Benedictine,

Yes, I understand and appreciate the point you were making as a point you were making. My point was simply that the position outlined by your professor seems to be one judgement some Catholics hold, while other Catholics, including the episcopate of 55 countries, make a different judgement.

It is a matter of judgement, and something that a legitimate diversity of opinion can exist within the Catholic church. Just as within Orthodoxy, various jurisdictions have made various judgements.

Axios