ORTHODOXY AND ECUMENISM
BY NIKOLAI A. BERDYAEV,
1927
The Church knows that it is by nature both orthodox and ecumenical. It
confesses to be guardian of the right orthodox belief and to encompass all
peoples and countries, the whole universe, the ecumene. The ideal consciousness
of the Church cannot tolerate any impairment or deformation of the faith nor
any particularistic limitation by space or time. The Eastern, the Orthodox
Church esteems more its right-belief, the Catholic Church of the West estimates
more its universality. This is to be seen in the very terms. But, of course,
the Orthodox Church considers itself also as ecumenical, and the Catholic as
the right-believing, too. Yet in spite of this there is not always a
correlation between the ideal consciousness of the Church and its empirical
existence. Orthodoxy and ecumenism can become impaired in their historical
actualisation and appearance, they can see as fullness that, which is only a
part, and even the pureness of the faith can become obscured. In the historical
development an empirical fact may be given an absolute meaning which is not
proper to it. First of all we have to point out the different meanings of
"ecumenism" in Catholic and Orthodox consciousness. Catholicism
understands ecumenism horizontally, external-spatially. The ecumenical Church
is for the Catholic consciousness a homogeneous world organization, described
in juristic concepts, international and encompassing the whole earth. Orthodoxy
understands ecumenism is vertically, a going into the depths. Ecumenism herein
is an attribute which may thus belong to every eparchy [= the Western word for
diocese], to every parish. Ecumenism is not a spatial category and does not
need a juristic world organization to express itself. That means: Orthodoxy
understands ecumenism more in a spiritual sense. But we Orthodox must admit
that the spirit of ecumenism has not been visible enough in the Orthodox Church
and has not been actualized enough, the ecumenism has been so to say there only
potentially. Ecumenical Christiandom assumes in history an individualised
aspect, and that is in general a blessing. Yet neither individual persons nor
individual peoples nor times can contain the fullness of the ecumenical Truth.
Each earthly existence in fleshly form contains particularism. The existence of
an Eastern and a Western Christian type, the existence of different rites is a
beneficial individualisation which realizes pluriformity and fullness. Even
without the disastrous separation of Churches there would exist still the
individualised forms of an Eastern and Western Christianity, different agendas,
different spiritual styles. The ecumenical Church would contain the whole
pluriformity of individualised types. And in spite of this, there would still
exist a Latinism which might appear strange to the Eastern, Greek Christianity.
Man is a limited being, not able to comprehend much, and caught up in his own. The individualisation may transform itself
into the pluriformity of ecumenism, but may also see itself as the
pluriformity, i.e. may pass the particularism off for ecumenism. The
individualistic spiritual styles may yield different meanings, according to the
point of view. In the Western Christian world, Catholicism and Protestantism
are opposite types. But from the point of view of Eastern Orthodoxy they appear
to belong to the same Western spiritual style. Both have at their center the
idea of the justification, but not of transfiguration; to both the cosmic
conception of Christianity is strange; both have forgotten the Eastern teachers
of the Church; and the traditions of Platonism are far remote for them. Equally
foreign for official Catholicism and for official Protestantism are Origin, St
Gregory of Nyssa, St Maxim the Confessor. Blessed Augustine however stands
equally high for both Catholicism and Protestantism. Dogmatically, Orthodoxy
and Catholicism are nearer, than Orthodoxy and Protestantism, or Protestantism
and Catholicism, but their relations are different from the point of view of
spiritual styles. Luther worked and thundered against Catholicism, but he
remained part of the Western-Catholic spiritual type, determined by the spirit
of blessed Augustine, he sought more for justification than for
transfiguration, and his conception of Christianity was more anthropological
than cosmic. Dogmatically and ecclesiastically, the Catholics are nearer to the
Orthodox than to the Protestants, but the Orthodox can work easier with
Protestants than with Catholics. The reason for this is first of all that
Protestants confess the freedom of conscience. That is the great and
characteristic privilege of the Protestantism. Orthodoxy too has as principle
the freedom of conscience, freedom of spirit, and this freedom belongs
organically to our conception of Universality [Sobornost']. Protestantism
however understands the freedom of conscience too individually. Orthodoxy sees
itself organically linked with Universality, with the principle of Love.
Catholicism officially condemns(2) freedom of conscience under the name of
"liberalism", in spite of the fact that just this freedom produced in
the Catholic world all that, which was the best in it. The individual forms of
Christianity opened themselves these or those aspects of Truth in different
form.
But the individualisation
of Christianity may produce the forms of a harsh ecclesiastical nationalism and
the fusion of Church, state and nationality, a fusion which becomes an
enslavement of the Church. An identification of the religious and national
element is a sort of Judaism within Christianity. It cannot be denied that there has been an
inclination of this kind in the Russian Church. The consciousness of ecumenism
of the Ortho-doxy was adversely affected and weakened. After the fall of
Byzantium, the Russian people felt itself the only representative of the
right-belief . On this basis developed the idea of Moscow as the Third Rome.
They began to call the Orthodox faith the "Russian", to identify the
ecumenical Church with the Russian. The Church became nationalized through and
through, and they began to ascribe an almost dogmatic significance to national
peculiarities. They contrasted Russian faith and Russian Rites against not
only Latinism, but also against the
Greek faith. They saw patriarch Nikon not as the representative of the Russian,
but of the Greek faith. The true Orthodoxy however was the Russian, not the
Greek faith. The extreme Russian traditionalism broke de facto with the older
Greek Church. On this basis developed the schisms of the Old-Ritualists and the
Old-Believers. The Old Ritualists defended the Russian faith against
innovations, in spite of the fact, that these innovations were a return to
older traditions. The errors in the liturgical books were seen as genuine
tradition, associated with the essence of the Russian Orthodox faith. The
consciousness of ecumenism was in a certain part of the Russian people weakened
or identified with Russian messianism. The orientation of Russia to the West
and Europeanizing began with Peter the Great, but the Church became even more
national-particularistic than in the former Russian or with the Old-Ritualists.
With Peter the Great came also Protestant influences. The Church was
subordinated to the state, and the principle "cuius regio, eius
religio" which was in this time triumphing in the West, began to penetrate.
This was a process of secularisation.
The ecumenical
consciousness was very weak in the period of Peter the Great. Orthodoxy was
ecumenical in its depths, but the consciousness of this ecumenicism was
weakened. The religious concept
reawakened with us only in the 19th century, and Russian religious thinkers
gave an extraordinary keenness of expression to the consciousness of the
ecumenicism of Christianity. The Russian Orthodox idea had in the time of its
maturity an ecumenical character, and Dostoevsky saw already in the
ecumenicism, in the "All-humanity" a characteristic Russian trait.
Chomiakov and the Slavianophiles recognized the ecumenical character of the
right-belief, but they treated Catholicism unjustly and one-sidedly. Vladimir
Soloviev has ecumenism as a central idea. He was its martyr and prophet. The
weak point was his inclination to an external Unia. But his effort for the
unity of the Christian world, for ecumenism, for fullness, was just and yet
premature in comparison with his time. The defective relationship between
Church and state in Russia before the revolution, the external oppression of
the Church by the state, was disturbing to the consciousness of the ecumenicism
of the Right-belief. The state did not want it and was afraid of it, and it upheld
the particularism of the ecclesiastical consciousness. The break of the old
relations between Church and state must prove to be advantageous for the
ecumenical ecclesiastical consciousness, and lead at last to fulfillment of the
great religious hopes of the Russian world of thought in the 19th century
within the life of the Church.
The ecumenicism, the universal unity possesses for the Catholic Church
the pathos for Right-belief. It is an actualizing of the ecumenicism, and
demonstrates it in a fleshly form wherein we can perceive it. It possesses a
visible and universal center and a visible, uniform and universal outlook which
contains all peoples and countries. But in spite of this it is clear for us
that the ecumenicism of the Catholic Church is not genuinely complete, that in
it a part is passed off for the whole and that not all the whole potential has
been actualized. In these times they tend to stress that Catholicism cannot be
identified only with Latinism, that the Latin rite is only one of the Catholic
rites, that the Eastern rite is equally and organically its own. But in fact
the Catholic Church in history has been the Latin Church, the Latin rite, the
Latin spirit. The whole classic style of Catholicism was created by a Latin
spirit. Only the Latin mass and the Latin rite are organic in Catholicism and
can be considered as a whole, in the sense of a work of art. St Thomas Aquinas,
so central and influential for Catholicism, is a Latin spirit, a Latin genius.
The Catholic Church is an artistically perfect masterpiece, one of the most
perfect creations in world history, but it is a creation of the Latin genius.
Latinism not only bears the seal of the Latin mass and the juristic edifice of
the Catholic Church, but also of scholasticism, of Catholic theology and
Catholic mysticism. German Catholicism was always specific and less Latin, and
so it was less classic and not rarely came under suspicion. The German mystic
was regarded as not really Catholic, in spite of the fact that he remained
within the limits of the Catholic Church (Eckhardt, rehabilitated by Denifle
(3), Tauler, Suso, Angelus Silesius), and he was not so highly esteemed as was
the Spanish mystic (St John of the Cross, St Theresa). The best German Catholic
theologians of the 19th century (not only Moehler, but also Scheeben) were in
their outlook very different from the Latin: they are less rationalistic.
Moehler, e.g. in his book "The Unity of the Church" is very near to
Orthodoxy. (4) Without doubt, Latinism also lays claim to world supremacy, as
did the Roman Empire. The idea of a forced universalism is a Roman idea. And
Latinism passes itself off without scruples for ecumenism. Its potentiality is
actualized by Latinism in abstractness. The center of the Catholic Church
remained Latin, and that not by chance. But a contradiction for the Catholic
consciousness is that for the ecumenical consciousness the Church of Christ
should be only actualized in some of its elements, remaining therefore in a
high degree potential and hidden. A total actualization of the ecumenicism
would demand not only the abolition of the confessional schisms inside of the
Christianity, but also the spreading of the Christianity to the non-Christian
world, its being pervaded by the spirit of Christ: The Orthodox consciousness
can entirely recognize that the ecumenical Church has been actualized only
partially, being partly in a potential and hidden state. This does not mean
that the ecumenical Church is not real and should be invisible. But this
visibility and incarnation is not complete not yet perfectly accomplished. For
the Catholic consciousness it is difficult to think in this way, in consequence
of the Aristotelian-Thomistic view of the relationship between potentiality and
act [potentia et actus]. From this point of view potentiality bears always a
minus in comparison with act, potentiality is to a high degree not-being. In
God there is no potentiality, God is pure act [actus purus]. This point of view
is very sceptical about potentiality, because out of its depths could come a
new, not yet existing, creative development, destroying the system, which has
become normative, and indeed the whole edifice. The Catholic consciousness
thinks that ecumenicism has become a total reality, in the organisation of its
Church. There is nothing new to await containing a greater fullness out of the
hidden, not yet manifest, potentiality. But outside of the Thomistic system of
thought it can be said that the potential ecumenism is deeper and broader,
richer in possibilities than the actualised ecumenism. The Church of Christ is
not a finished and completed edifice, there are always creative tasks in it,
and enrichment of the life of the Church is possible. The ecumenicism of the
Church is given in the depth of being and has in historic incarnations its
task. But the ecumenicism of the Church can only become reality by its
carried-out partial actualisation and bodily creation.
Protestantism in comparison with Catholicism represents the opposite
type in its view on ecumenism. Visibly it exists in the Protestant Churches not
at all. Ecumenism remains invisible and not revealed. The Protestant
consciousness is comfortable with the existence of many Churches, i.e. –
essentially – many Christian communities, and doesn't suffer for one visible
ecumenic Church. Ecumenism is realised by a multiplicity of Churches, no one of
which makes claims to ecumenicism. Protestantism is willing to acknowledge also
the Orthodox Church with its peculiarities as but one of many Churches. But
this consciousness comes at the price of a complete reduction of the value of
the dogmas and sacraments in the Church, by a displacement of the center of
gravity exclusively to the subjective world of the faith and the spiritual
disposition. Protestants are aiming at unity, union of the Christian world, but
not at unity of the Church, not at one ecumenical Church. This direction has in
our days also a positive aspect, because it helps uniting Christians of all
Confessions, helps their vital inter-mutual relations which is for Catholics
always difficult. We see this in the many conferences and congresses which are
organized by Protestants, and in the help for Christian movements of all
countries by the Christian Young Men Association (YMCA) and the Universal
Christian Federation.
There are two polar opposite views of ecumenism. One view wants to come
to universal unity with a maximum of the claimed Truth, holding on to a
greatest quantity of definitions of their faith as much as possible. So thus is
how Catholicism understands ecumenism. On another plane and in an opposite
direction communism understands ecumenism in this way. This view of our concept
finds its driving force in the pathos for the right-belief. The task is to
claim all over the world the type of the right-belief, to unite the truly
devoted and to set them apart against the rest of humankind. This is unity
connected with separation. The other view wants to come to universal unity with
a mimimum of the claimed Truth, adapting oneself to a lowest number of its articles
of faith. Many Protestant tendencies understand ecumenism in this way;
theosophy has the same principle also, seeing in all religions and doctrines
one and the same Truth. This view of ecumenism lacks the pathos of strong
belief and it distinguishes itself by tolerance, wants no separation for
achieving unity. This kind of ecumenism does not push to be a
"force", wanting to create an army for battle with the whole rest of
the world.
Both views of ecumenism have advantages and disadvantages. – As regards
the second type of Christian ecumenism, its wish for the unity of all
Christians and its tolerance are very attractive. But it is totally clear that
on this basis only the aim of unifying as an abstract Christianity is possible,
i.e. an Inter-Confessionalism, which is content with a treaty about a minimum
of Truths of the faith, e.g. considering the divinity of Jesus Christ. But in
Inter-Confessionalism is the selfsame lie as internationalism.
"Inter" does not mean anything; "inter" has no real being
behind it. Inter-Confessionalism is an abstraction and cannot make
enthusiastic. In religious life, however,
must be the striving to have concrete fullness. Every decimation of the
truths of faith means their weakening and reduction. Possible and right is the
striving towards a Supra-Confessionalism, like towards Supra-Nationalism.
Supra-Confessionalism in contrast with Inter-Confessionalism is not an abstract
minimum, but on the contrary a moving in the direction towards a greater
fullness and a fuller concrete state. Inter-Confessionalism is moving
sidewards, in the direction to a so to say empty room between the realities of
the Confessions. But Supra-Confessionalism is a movement on high and in depth.
In height and depth there is a more important and concrete fullness than in the
narrow minded middle, in which the so self-satisfied single Confessions stay.
Confessionalism in itself and for itself is not yet an ecumenical faith, but
rather always an individualisation which sets off apart. The ecumenical Truth
of right-belief is higher and deeper than a strictly believing confessionalism.
That fullness of Truth which can be won with the acquisition of
Supra-Confessionalism is no abstract minimum of Christianity, but is in effect
and on the contrary, a more concrete degree of definitions, a greater harmonic
whole than in the historic Confessions. The concrete fullness of
Supra-Confessionalism cannot be reached through Inter-Confessionalism, not by
an unmooring from one's own Church, but instead by a turning to the innerness
of the Church. I can strive at the supra-confessional unity of the Church of
Christ, while remaining Orthodox and not separating from the basis of the
right-believing Church. I can grow into ecumenism, deepening and raising
myself.
Ecumenism cannot be realized by Unias and treaties, by negotiation
between governances of Churches. That is a wrong and obsolete way. Vladimir
Soloviev had in his idea of ecumenism a great inner truth, but his inclination
to an external Unia, to "treaties" was wrong. In religious life there
are phenomena analogous to the political, politic blocs, quite out of place.
Agreements should only be carried out on the basis of Truth, and nothing of it
can be denied or taken away. Ecumenism calls for a striving towards the
maximum, not the minimum, because the goal is the fullness and the concrete. In
religious life it is not proper to want a minimum of Truth. I want more and
more to grow into the endless Truth, and I do not want be hindered by reaching
for a meaningless minimum. I cannot dissemble in the name of a unification with
other Confessions as if I would only believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ,
and would think all the rest to be irrelevant. I can only want that all should
come to fullness and harmonic unity. I must desire that all Protestants come to
feel at home venerating the Mother of God, or that the Mystery of the Trinity
becomes the basis of the religious life of the whole Christian world. But
Catholic maximalism is on the wrong path, if it leads to intolerance and
exclusiveness, because of a compulsory (5) external organized unity, the Roman
universalism. One must understand ecumenism in the maximum inwardly,
spiritually, bound up with freedom. Growing into the ecumenical fullness of the
Truth of Christ is an inner, hidden, organic process. And this inner spiritual growing into the ecumenical
fullness of Truth cannot be conceived without the freedom of the Spirit. Here
compulsion is out of place. Peoples must enter freely into the elevated
spiritual life, the life in the Truth, in the Holy Spirit. The working of the
Holy Spirit is always a working from out of freedom, never compulsion and
violence. Complicated and manifold are human paths to the fullness of Truth, to
a higher life of the spirit. And the reason for our tolerance toward other
Confessions cannot be that we are indifferent to the fullness of Truth and its
exclusivity (Truth excludes lie), but that we conduct ourselves diligently and
compassionately to the inner life of the human soul, to its way, difficulties,
to its special fate, and that we have also the consciousness of our own limits.
The idea of ecumenism must have connection to the idea of freedom. Only in this
case will it be true and open the way to unification of the Christian world.
Freedom of spirit, freedom of conscience is a great treasure and a sanctuary on
the pathway of man to God and to the spiritual life. This cannot exist without
freedom, without it God cannot reveal Himself to man and be accepted by him.
Therefore a compulsory universalism is impossible.
The striving for unity and ecumenicity, which has to begin and is
already taking root in all parts of the Christian world, must necessarily not
have the forms of an aiming at unity of Churches, based on ecclesiastical treaties
and Unias. This is most fruitless a method of unification, which in practice
normally leads to becoming yet more deeply splintered. Here the intent for
unification is not sincere. Secretly each faction understands union as entry to
its own Church. There is only one Church, not several Churches. And de
facto the schism was not in the Church
of Christ, but in sinful humankind, in the kingdom of this world, in the
kingdom of Caesar. And the restoration of Christian unity does not consist in
unifying the Churches, but rather in reunion of the splintered parts of
Christian humankind. All parties are guilty of the schism between Christians.
Even when I am convinced that the dogmatic Truth is with Orthodoxy, I must
still however feel the guilt which is on us, Christians of the Orthodox East.
Also with us there was a lack of love, self-assertion, aloofness, an aversion
to engage a spiritual world which seems to be something strange, also with us
there was the ecclesiastical nationalism and particularism, there was the
recoursing to the typical confessionalism. Reunion and union of the Christian
world must begin with community and unification of Christians of all
Confessions, with mutual respect and love, with an inner universal spiritual
attitude. All must begin with spiritual life, with spiritual unity, and it must
work from inside outwards. Unification of the Churches can only be a work of
the Holy Spirit. But we can prepare this work spiritually in our human part, we
can create a favorable spiritual soil. Christian unity must not begin with
negotiation of Church governances, but with a spiritual unification of
Christians, with forming a Christian friendly association, which is possible
while also remaining true to one's own creed. And such an association is even
therein that case the more interesting and fruitful, when Christians remain
true to their personal confessional spiritual type, without becoming abstract
inter-confessionalists. Only on this way is a growing into an ecumenical
Supra-Confessionality possible.
I believe that Orthodoxy is the best spiritual field for an ecumenical
Christian unity. It may be that the historical differences between Catholicism
and Protestantism have become weaker in our day, but in spite of this both
represent opposite principles, and both are divided by important historical
memories. But Orthodoxy has, in having overcome the slippery slide into
particularism and old-believing [old-ritualism], the potential for ecumenism
and fullness, which can serve to the reunion of the Christian world. In
Orthodoxy there is a degree of spiritual freedom, lacking in Catholicism, in it
there is the unity of Church, ecumenicism in its qualitative meaning. The
Christian world has facing it truly the very task to reunite freedom and
ecumenism. Protestantism is in a crisis, and inwardly in its community there is
to be seen a striving for the fullness of the Church, for the sacraments. Papal
authority hinders Protestantism from returning to Catholicism, because the
Protestant world does not want to give up that religious freedom in whose name
it protested formerly. But the Orthodox Church acknowledges in principle
religious freedom, and this religious freedom in Orthodoxy does not lead to the
corrosion of ecclesiastical dogmas and sacraments. Tyrrell (6), the most
distinct "modernist", in his book "Am I Catholic?", which
is in reply to Cardinal Mercier, considers the Church from a point of view,
which is in no way Catholic, but is also not Protestant, in contrast with the
declarations of the official Catholicism. The approach of Tyrrell is Orthodox
in spite of the fact that he himself does not know this (though at times he
refers to the Orthodox Church). He does not set Protestant individualism
against the Catholic authoritative doctrine of the Church, but sets forth
rather a peculiar spiritual collectivism, what we Orthodox call
"Catholicity", "Sobornost'" (7). Also the position of Doellinger was Orthodox.
There is a dilemma for the official and genuine Catholic consciousness: a
matter either of the authority of the pope or the authority of each single
Christian, i.e. papism or individualism. But there is also a third point of
view: the authority (the inner, but not the external) of the whole Church as an
organic whole, a spiritually collective concept, i.e. a Catholicity which has
not at all an adequate juristic expression. Catholicity is chiefly even the
ecclesiastical consciousness. From the Orthodox point of view, papism also is a
form of individualism, and it detracts from the organic ecclesiastical
consciousness. Orthodoxy presents most clearly the spiritual-organic view of
the Church as the Body of Christ, Who is the source of Truth.
Orthodoxy, first of all the Russian, has also another chacteristic which
is favorable for Christian unification. Orthodoxy is that form of Christianity
which most has an eschatological, apocalyptic character, which is most ardently
oriented to the Second Coming of Christ and the Kingdom of God. The
manifestation of the ecumenical unity of the Christian Churches and of the
Christian world is in the end only possible in an eschatological atmosphere,
only in concentrated meditation about the Second Coming, about the Coming
Christ. Only in a metahistoric apocalypsis will the historic discords be
removed. The unification of Churches is a supra-historical fact, a fact of an eschatological
order. Eschatologism, of course, has a place also in other Christian
Confessions (I refer to Leon Bloy in Catholicism and Karl Barth in
Protestantism), but in Orthodoxy it is firmer and more intense. The
consciousness that Orthodoxy has the advantage to Christian unification, to
actualisation of ecumenism, should not hide for ourselves our sins, our
negative aspects. The Truth of the Orthodoxy was hidden under a basket [cf Mt
5:15], not developed and realized in life, it was closed off and we remained
complacent. The Western Christians were more active, and their Christianity was
more productive. But in spite of this, we are entering an epoch of a new
actualization of Christianity, an epoch of transformation of Christian Truth in
life. And Christian unification in itself, the embodiment of ecumenism per se,
is a transferring of Christian Truth into life. The Russian Orthodox Church has
at this time the advantage, to be a Church of martyrs and sufferers. The veils
of mundane and human lies are dropping from it. The spiritual forces to
unification of the Christian world are engaged in a fight against the formation
and amassing of anti-Christian powers. It is the rationalistic and juristic
aspect of the Church that divides us. Genuine spiritual life unites us.
Notes
(1) The Eastern Church ("Die Ostkirche"), Una Sancta,
Stuttgart, 1927, Frommanns, 3-16. The Russian original (Klepinine #328) was not
published. Translated from Russian into German by W.A.Unkrig.
(2) This cannot be said about Roman Catholicism in general. That was
proved impressively in "Una Sancta" II (1926), p. 317-318 note. (The
editors [Nicolas von Arseniev and Alfred von Martin]).
(3) And in our times by Otto Karrer. (The editors)
(4) Cf in this booklet p. 89 ff. (The editors)
(5) Also here (cf. note 2) it cannot be generalized in an inadmissible
way. This is shown by the "Patres Unionis" of the Belgian abbey Amay
sur Meuse (and their journal "Irenikon"). (The editors)
(6) George Tyrrell (1861-1909), originally Anglican, after his
conversion a Jesuit, finally excommunicated. He was fighting against an
externalism of religion and against intellectualism. According to him, the
mystery is revealed to persons which meet Christ personally. Only the authority
of the whole spirit of a Church, which as it appears in its belief, not in its
dogmas, can be guiding principle of the faith. – Cardinal D.Mercier sees in
Tyrrell one of the leading exponents of "modernism". (Fr. Michael
Knechten)
(7) In Russian useage is the distinction: "kafolicheskaia (=
vselenskaia, sobornaia) cerkov'", the Church as "catholic", in
contrast to "katolicheskaia (= rimskaia, papskaia) cerkov'", the
"Roman Catholic" Church. The difference consists in the letter
"f" (the extinct "th" from Church Slavonic), instead of
"t". (Fr. Michael Knechten)
URL=http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/Philosophy/Sui-Generis/Berdyaev/essays/orth328.htm
