A Voice crying in the wilderness, 5

This work on the ecumenical agenda was also accompanied by independent statements by individual representatives of the Orthodox Churches, not only those from the Throne of Constantinople - statements which have nothing in common with the positions and teachings of the Holy Fathers. The boundaries established by our Fathers between truth and falsehood, light and darkness, Christ and Belial, had been violated. The fundamental task of all the outpourings of sentimental (in essence, mutually hypocritical) love supposedly manifested in these statements was to develop a consciousness among Orthodox Christians that they were brothers in Christ with the un-Orthodox, and members together of the one and true Church of Christ. This was stated at meetings and conferences, printed in magazines and books, and broadcast on radio and television. And all this was supposed to lead to “a common Cup,” i.e. to common communion (intercommunio), which is the basic goal of the so-called “dialogue of love.”

According to Fr Justin Popovich, this is in fact “the most evil betrayal of the Lord Christ, the betrayal of Judas, and the betrayal of the Church of Christ as a whole.”

The Serbian Orthodox Church joins the WCC

Following the example of the other local Orthodox Churches, especially the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Serbian Orthodox Church from the very beginning made an effort to keep in step with the times. Although it was not yet formally a member of the WCC, it inaugurated close and frequent contacts with this “council of heresy,” as Fr Justin has referred to it, and began to receive official visits from members of the WCC, above all individuals responsible for sending inter-ecclesial assistance, such as Mr. Tobias, Mr. Maxwell, and Ms. Meyhoffer, and finally, the General Secretary, Mr. Visser’t Hooft.

Although it is true that the Serbian Church did not have an official representative-observer at the WCC’s Second Assembly in Evanston, U.S.A. in 1954, or at the Third Assembly in New Delhi in 1961, it had a three-member delegation (headed by Bishop Visarion). At this assembly, there was a complete turnabout with regard to the participation of local Orthodox Churches.

Apparently under the pressure from the Communist Soviet government, the Moscow Patriarchate and all of the Churches in the satellite countries along with it became members of the WCC. Joining at that time were the Patriarchates of Moscow, Georgia, Romania and Bulgaria, as well as the Churches of Poland and Czechoslovakia.

The Serbian Church became a member of the WCC by way of the “back door” and somewhat dishonourably. Namely, the WCC General Secretary, W. A. Visser’t Hooft paid a visit to Serbia and proposed that the Serbian Orthodox Church become a member without necessarily signing certain theological documents that were dogmatically and canonically unfounded. The Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church at that time (not the Assembly of Bishops), with Patriarch German as its head, decided that the Serbian Church should become a member. This was accepted and made official at a meeting of the WCC’s Central Committee in Africa, in 1965. Subsequently, the Serbian Church, like the other local Orthodox Churches, has become an organic member of the WCC. Through our official representatives (bishops and theologians), we took part in all later assemblies, conferences, symposiums, meetings, prayer gatherings and everything else that occurred to the WCC, to which we agreed without question. The result of this participation was reflected in certain material aid which the Serbian Orthodox Church periodically received from the WCC in the form of medicine, medical care and rehabilitation of some individuals in Switzerland, student scholarships, and financial donations for certain concrete purposes and needs of the SOC, such as the construction of a new building for the Theological School. We paid for these crumbs of material assistance by losing, on the spiritual plane, the purity of our faith, canonical consistency and faithfulness to the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church.

The presence of our representatives (and Orthodox representatives in general) at various and sundry ecumenical gatherings has no canonical justification. We did not go there in order to boldly, openly and unwaveringly confess the eternal and unchangeable Truth of the Orthodox Faith and Church, but in order to make compromises and to agree more or less to all those decisions and formulations offered to us by the non-Orthodox. That is how we ultimately arrived at Balamand, Chambésy, and Assisi, which taken as a whole represent infidelity and betrayal of the Holy Orthodox Faith.

During this entire period of the decline and ruin of the Church of Saint Sava in every respect, the only voice that could be heard was that of Fr Justin of Chelije, who was and remains the vigilant and unchanging conscience of the Serbian Orthodox Church. Deeply feeling and liturgically experiencing the spirit of Apostolic and Patristic Truth, he wrote, regarding the ecumenical “labour” of Patriarch Athenagoras: “And the Patriarch of Constantinople? By his neo-Papist behaviour, his words and deeds, he has scandalised Orthodox consciences for decades, renouncing the unique and all-saving Truth of the Orthodox Church and Faith, acknowledging the Roman Pontifex Maximus with demonic pride....” These words clearly express a mature, sincere and patristic position toward a heretical Patriarch and a precise diagnosis of the basic intentions of Constantinople, which the successors of Patriarch Athenagoras are carrying out to this day under the eyes and with the silent acquiescence of officials from the other Orthodox Churches.

And what would Fr Justin say today? The only good thing in this whole affair is that our official representatives and participants in various ecumenical gatherings are not writing or publishing anything in the church press upon their return home that would poison the Orthodox people. Frequently, even we Bishops gathered in Assembly receive no official reports from our brother Bishops who represent us, which I consider unacceptable.