HOPE FOR EUROPE

By Priest Marco Mannini Giorgi

ORTHODOXY AS HOPE FOR THE PEOPLES OF EUROPE

Twenty-first-century Europe has undoubtedly given itself a well-defined socio-political identity,

shaping itself according to a capitalist-liberal model and the cohesion of its member states, as a

united, cohesive, and compact bloc, now representing a clear and distinct geopolitical space in

terms of international action. This article, however, does not aim to discuss this political aspect —

Although we Orthodox should not remain passive in receiving the world around us — but rather to

address a second chapter of the European Union. In the early 2000s, much was said about European

identity, as though there could exist a single denominator for all the peoples that compose it, despite

their profound differences in cultural, religious, linguistic, and social heritage. Yet the European

Commission eventually defined a term for this supposed unity: Christian civilization. Indeed,

despite the liberalism and strong secularism of the EU, its members could only agree on one

principle: that Europe as it exists today is such because Christianity lies at its foundation.

Now, defining what Christian civilization is, is both very simple and very complex at the same time.

While it is true that, in principle, the Bible and its teachings have shaped the foundation of

European peoples from the end of the Roman Empire until today, it is equally true that since the

fourth century significant doctrinal differences have existed among Christian groups, from the

Arians to the Eastern Nestorians, followed later by the painful Western Schism of 1054, and from

there the various ruptures of the Protestant Reformation, the Anglican Communion, and so forth.

We Orthodox, however, by remaining faithful to the Church of the first centuries, have endured in

this Europe suffering, persecution, and centuries of violence, especially in Poland and in the nations

subjected to Austria and the Ottoman Empire. We Orthodox firmly believe in the principle of non-

contradiction, namely that there cannot exist, for a single subject, two “different yet possible”

truths. There is only one Truth. The various European “Christianities” contradict one another.

Therefore, religion — for us Orthodox, the path that manifests and safeguards Truth — is

something profoundly serious. If today’s ecumenism — very convenient for the generalized

“Christian identity” of the EU — is precisely the opposite of the principle of non-contradiction, then

it becomes evident that for the serious Orthodox Christian, identifying “Christian civilization” in

Europe becomes not merely an intellectual vice, but also a necessary work of conscience.

What, then, does the “Christian identity of Europe” mean for us Orthodox? How can we receive this

historical proposal? How truly “Christian” is this heritage in which the peoples of Europe live?

Although European governments, having abandoned for several centuries now the idea of the

religious identity of the State, pursue total secularism — and even a certain hostility toward religion

— European peoples still see in confessional belonging a certain degree of local culture. Fear of

migratory flows, ethnic and religious change (since migrating peoples are often of the Islamic faith),

and even a certain popular hysteria among those who feel displaced, all of this creates resistance to

integration and a certain rebirth of identity-based political phenomena.

Our conscience as Orthodox Christians obliges us to recognize the value of faith not only in the

private sphere, but also in the public sphere and in the social order. While we certainly cannot

advocate forced conversion (would such a conversion be genuine?), we can nevertheless defend our

values and, especially within the framework of a non-confessional state, the social presence of the

Church in supporting the vulnerable sectors of society and in communal action becomes of great

Christian value — not out of mere nationalist populism, but above all to demonstrate that the

commandment of Christ’s love is still the very axis of the Church’s life.We Orthodox are blessed by the good God with the seal of the Holy Spirit, received at Baptism, and

with the perfection of the Apostles’ dogmatic and Eucharistic theology. As the Apostle says, “the

unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (cf. Ephesians 4:3).

We carry the precious fragrance of Truth in earthen vessels (2 Cor. 4:7), often in a rough or

imperfect manner, but never incompletely, because the Orthodox Church is the ark that carries

humanity toward the Parousia — not merely a culture or an ethnicity, but the conscience of those

who believe.

In the centuries following the Ottoman conquest, in order to defend the Truth and the Holy Church,

the Balkan peoples offered their own blood for the faith, while the Slavic peoples suffered under the

yoke of Uniatism and the contempt of the Papists. Today, neo-Protestants offer comfortable and

worldly alternatives to the European peoples emerging from communism and poverty.

To be Orthodox today, in Europe as well as in countries “traditionally” Orthodox, represents a new

kind of martyrdom. The word martyr, in Greek, means witness. Martyrs are all those who bear

witness to the name of Christ and to the fullness of His teaching in the dogmatic Truth expressed by

the Church. The search for historical and dogmatic Truth leads many Westerners to seek Orthodoxy,

often misunderstood or avoided by the ethnic communities that have formed in the West.

Westerners seek not an anthropocentric reality, but rather the theophanic and theocentric reality of

Orthodoxy. When the means are offered to return to the Faith of the Fathers, Westerners perceive

conversion as a natural event, even if a complex one. Unfortunately, the dominant syncretistic

ecumenism not only within Western religions, but also within official Orthodoxy, destroys the

missionary spirit of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. The theories of branches or “sister

churches” completely annihilate the missionary zeal of Orthodoxy.

Lukewarm Orthodox Christians, afflicted by the disease of ecumenism, see no problem in

modifying the liturgical form. For example, baptism by immersion, of Christic origin, is deformed

in the Western practice of sprinkling or partial baptism, historical heresies such as the Filioque are

considered irrelevant; and generally, one observes not only a loss of orthopraxy, but also of the

dogmatic solidity that distinguishes the patristic spirit.

In the frantic search for a union based on compromise, this superficial ecumenism sacrifices both

form and substance for a certain good-natured and sentimental enthusiasm — I would even dare say

diplomatic — which nevertheless distances Grace. And this pernicious movement is one of the

cornerstones of the “common European identity.” The search for an amorphous, conciliatory, trivial

Christianity, incapable of stirring consciences precisely because it is so comfortable, is what has

transformed European civilization into a cauldron without real identity, but merely something

artificial and constructed in order to please everyone and no one.

This ideology of compromise is harmful to the Orthodox Church, which is instead founded upon the

Nicene Creed, which crystallized and dogmatized the very essence of the Church in four adjectives.

The Church is called one, holy, catholic, and apostolic because it is one and holy; it belongs to the

entire world and is not tied to a particular locality, for through it all humanity and the whole earth

are sanctified, not one people in particular nor one specific region, because its nature consists in the

agreement and unity of spirit and life among all its members throughout the earth who recognize it;

and finally, because in the writings and doctrine of the Apostles is contained the totality of its faith,

hope, and love.

The visible or earthly Church lives in complete communion and unity with the entire ecclesial

Body, whose Head is Christ. It possesses within itself the continual presence of Christ and the Grace

of the Holy Spirit in all their fullness, which is the source of life, though not in the totality of their

manifestations.

Orthodox ecclesiology recognizes in the people of God a particular and irreplaceable role in the

preservation and transmission of the truth of the faith. The term “people of God” (λαὸς τοῦ Θεού)

does not simply refer to a collection of believers, but to the entire body of the Church — clergy and

laity alike — who actively participate in the life and confession of the faith. The theological

tradition of the Eastern Church has constantly emphasized the importance of the people as

guardians of Tradition, without this implying that such a role is arbitrary or uncontrolled.

The Orthodox Church is, by definition, synodal. Synodality is not limited to bishops and clergy, but

extends to the entire fullness of the Church. The people of God, as a “royal priesthood, a holy

nation” (1 Peter 2:9), are called to participate actively in the life of the Church. This participation is

not passive, but dynamic, since the people are called to “test the spirits” (1 John 4:1) and discern

truth from falsehood.

The historical witness of the Church is clear: at the Ecumenical Councils, the acceptance of

decisions by the people was a necessary prerequisite for their canonical force. Saint John

Chrysostom, despite his deposition by the Synod of the Oak, found refuge in the love and recognition of the people of Constantinople. The people, through their “exact consent” (ἀκριβὴς

συναίνεσις), constituted the final judge of the correctness of the Church’s decisions.

Georges Florovsky emphasized the importance of the “conscience of the Church” as a rule of

truth. This conscience is not an individual matter, but a collective reality expressed through the

whole people of God. Over the centuries, the people have preserved the faith through prayer,

worship, art, and daily life.

The people of the Church are the primary guardians of Tradition. Tradition is not merely a series of

dogmas, but the living experience of the Church transmitted from generation to generation. Through

participation in the mysteries, observance of customs, and prayer, the people keep this Tradition

alive.

Popular piety, the so-called “piety of the people,” has often anticipated the official decisions of the

Church. Liturgical life, hymnography, iconography, and popular theology all constitute expressions

of this custodial function of the people. Most of the saints of the Church came from the people and

were recognized by the people before their official canonization.

Historically, the people have played a decisive role in confronting heresies. The Monophysites,

iconoclasts, and Uniates were opposed not only by bishops but also by the popular refusal to accept

the falsification of the faith. The popular resistance to iconoclasm — with women hiding icons and

monks proclaiming Orthodoxy — is an emblematic example of the role of the people as guardians.

However, the role of the people as guardians is not arbitrary. The people are obliged to submit to the

holy Tradition of the Church, as expressed through Sacred Scripture, the sacred canons, and the

decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The “conscience of the Church” is not identified with

individual opinion or popular preference, but with the confession of faith transmitted by the

Apostles.

Saint Ignatius the God-bearer already warned in the second century: “Wherever the bishop appears,

there let the multitude also be.” The unity of the Church is secured through communion with the

bishop, who is the guarantor of the correctness of the faith in the local Church. The people cannot

confess independently of the bishop, nor may they reject ecclesiastical order.

Sacred Scripture provides the first and authentic criterion: “We must obey God rather than men.”

(Acts 5:29). The Apostles, when ordered to remain silent, answered: “We cannot but speak of what

we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:20).

This principle also applies to the relationship between the people and the bishop. Obedience to the

bishop is obligatory when he speaks in conformity with the tradition of the Church. But when he

departs from it, the people are bound to prefer the truth of the faith.

Chrysostom himself, although deposed by the Synod of the Oak (403 AD), did not accept the

decision as just. The people of Constantinople supported him, recognizing that the Synod had been

convened artificially and uncanonically. The resistance of the people was not rebellion, but a

witness in favor of truth.

In his letter to Pope Innocent, Chrysostom wrote that the Synod was a “council of robbers,” and the

people understood this. This demonstrates that the people are capable of discernment and judgment

when they possess spiritual perception. The most emblematic example is that of Saint Maximus the Confessor (7th century). When Pyrrhus, Patriarch of Constantinople, and the bishops of the East accepted the Monothelite compromise with the Monophysites, Maximus did not follow them. He refused communion with bishops who had abandoned Orthodoxy, even at the cost of persecution, exile, and torture.

The people are called to confess the truth, even at the risk of their own safety. The history of the

Church is rich with lay confessors who opposed heretical bishops.

The limits of the people’s confession are also determined by their relationship with the clergy. The

clergy, and especially the bishop, are the teachers of the faith and the guarantors of Orthodoxy. The

people are obliged to listen to the clergy when they speak “in the name of the Lord” and in

accordance with the tradition of the Church. Conversely, the clergy is obliged to listen to the

people, to respect the “conscience of the Church,” and not to impose arbitrary decisions.

The healthy relationship between clergy and faithful is complementary. Clergy without the faithful

become an empty ritual institution; the faithful without clergy are a body without a head. The

confession of faith requires the unity of both.

The exercise of the role of guardian presupposes formation in the faith. The people need catechesis,

theological formation, and spiritual guidance in order to discern truth. Catechesis is not an exclusive

privilege of children, but a lifelong necessity for every believer. Ignorance of the faith leads to easy

manipulation and distortion of Tradition.

The Orthodox people are, in every sense, guardians of the faith, but this role has very precise limits

and prerequisites. The people guard the faith when they are united with the clergy, subject to Holy

Tradition, and alive in Eucharistic communion. The confession of the people is valid when it

expresses the “conscience of the Church” and not individual opinions or social trends.

The challenge for the contemporary Orthodox Church is to preserve the balance between the active

participation of the people and the safeguarding of ecclesiastical order. The people are not

sovereigns, but fellow travelers on the Church’s journey toward the Kingdom of God. Their

confession is both a gift and a responsibility, a charisma and a ministry, which they are called to

exercise “in love” and “in truth.”

It now becomes clear how syncretism and false religion are great dangers for the spirit of an

authentic Christian. Unfortunately, many bishops, clerics, and lay faithful fall into the trap of

ecumenist sentimentalism, losing the clarity of the unaltered Faith of Orthodoxy.

As we have said, the ecumenist mentality greatly aids in the creation of a kind of “Europeanist

Christianity,” as can be seen, for example, in the Ecumenical Charter of April 22, 2001, where the

term “European Christianity” is explicitly used. And we know from the clearly anti-biblical

European values (which hardly need to be listed) that the EU certainly does not aim at a true

Christian identity, but only at preserving art — undoubtedly beautiful to behold — and perhaps a

certain superficial culture born from medieval Christian experience. This sick Western Christianity

is certainly not the pure Christianity of the Latin martyrs of the first centuries, nor the spirituality of

the original Benedictine monks, nor the dogmatic depth of Fathers such as Irenaeus of Lyons, Ambrose of

Milan, Bede the Venerable, and all the others well known to us. A false Christianity can only corrupt

and deform those who belong to it.

If we wish to recover the true Christian values of Europe, we must return to that Europe. No

external movement will save the peoples of Europe from degradation and the loss of identity. If we wish to save Europe, we must be, in one word, Orthodox. Why? Because the Orthodox Church

preserves the Truth. The Orthodox Church offers its members the intellectual, spiritual, and psycho-

physical means to resist the temptations of modernity. Orthodoxy is the only theanthropic force

capable of halting technocracy, plutocracy, materialism, and distorted scientism.

The Orthodox Church has the duty to fulfill its mission, which is not museum-like, but profoundly

alive.

“Go therefore and baptize all nations in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy

Spirit.” (Matthew 28:19)

The Church must work through the charisma it already possesses, and save Europe from decadence

and forgetfulness of its true root, which is faith in the sacrifice of Christ and in the restoration of the

entire cosmos within the salvific plan of the Heavenly Father, living in the Holy Spirit.

Here is the message for Europe. Here is the message for all the peoples of the Earth. The only way

we can all contribute, and without effort, is to bear witness every day: our works and words will

then become a silent yet active theology at the same time, showing our neighbor the redemptive and

transformative power of our daily encounter with the Lord.

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught.” (2 Thessalonians

2:15)