Sandro Magister
A few days before it opens, the pan-Orthodox Council is in danger of
failing. The patriarchates of Bulgaria, Georgia, and Antioch have
announced their withdrawal, and Moscow is supporting them. The discord
has been sown by the embrace between Kirill and Pope Francis
ROME, June 9, 2016 – There hasn’t been one for more than a
thousand years, it’s been in the works for sixty years, and it has
finally been convened for this Pentecost, which for the Eastern Churches
falls on June 19 this year.
But just as the launch draws near, the much-implored pan-Orthodox Council is at risk of falling through.
And yet everything seemed to be moving in the right direction. At the end of January the heads of the fourteen Orthodox Churches of the Byzantine tradition, meeting in Chambésy, Switzerland, had come to a final agreement on the venue of the Council (the island of Crete), its starting date (June 19), its duration (until June 26), the procedural rules, and the documents to be brought up for discussion, five of them, on the following topics:
- the autonomy of the Churches and the manner of proclaiming it;
- the importance of fasting and its observance today;
- the sacrament of marriage and its impediments;
- the relationships of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world;
- the mission of the Orthodox Church in the contemporary world in regard to peace, freedom, and brotherhood among peoples.
On each point the voting was unanimous on the part of all fourteen delegations, except for the rules and the document concerning marriage, not approved by the patriarchate of Antioch. So all of the signs were good, in spite of knowing that at a pan-Orthodox Council only that which is unanimously approved is valid, and that every modification of a rule or document must also have the agreement of all:
> News From the Eastern Front. Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete (30.1.2016)
But then, as the starting date of the Council drew near, from one Church or another the divergences began to grow larger again.
One “peripheral” problem, although not so much, is the contrast between the patriarchate of Antioch and the patriarchate of Jerusalem over the recent appointment by the latter of a metropolitan in Qatar, an appointment seen as illegitimate by Antioch, which claims Qatar as its own canonical territory.
The conflict is still unresolved. And it threatens heavy repercussions for the Council. The patriarchate of Antioch has in fact threatened repeatedly to withdraw from the assembly if the question is not resolved first. And in any case, having broken communion with the patriarchate of Jerusalem and no longer referring to it in the Eucharistic liturgy, it risks wounding the divine liturgy of Pentecost with which the Council will open.
The most serious divergences, however, especially concern one of the five documents that will be discussed at the Council, the one on relations between the Orthodox Church and the rest of the Christian world, also available in English and French:
> Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World
> Les relations de l'Église orthodoxe avec l'ensemble du monde chrétien
On April 22, the patriarchate of Bulgaria declared unacceptable some passages of points 4, 5, 6, 12, and 16 of the document that it had however approved three months before.
The document, in the judgment of the Bulgarian patriarchate, errs theologically, dogmatically, and canonically in failing to recognize that outside of the Orthodox Church there is no other “church” but only heresies and schisms; that Christian unity has never been lost, because the Orthodox Church has always been united and will always be so; that those who have fallen into heresy and schism must first return to the Orthodox faith and give obedience to it before being accepted in that which is the only true Church.
As a result, the patriarchate of Bulgaria has warned that it will approve the document only if it is rewritten at the Council as it requests. If not, it will not sign it and therefore it will lack the unanimity necessary for approval.
In reality, by taking this position the patriarchate of Bulgaria has given voice to tendencies that are very widespread in the Orthodox world, which on the whole is not at all ecumenically favorable toward the Catholic Church in the same way that this is toward it.
And the meeting on February 12 between Pope Francis and Moscow patriarch Kirill in Havana did not soothe but instead reignited this aversion in large segments of Orthodoxy:
> The Few Big Things That Francis and Kirill Didn’t Say To Each Other In Havana (16.3.2016)
In addition to the patriarchate of Bulgaria, in fact, analogous objections to the document cited have been expressed by other parts of the Orthodox world.
On May 25, the patriarchate of Georgia charged that it contains “ecclesiological and terminological errors” that demand a thorough rewrite, in the absence of which it will refuse to sign it:
> Minute of the Session of the Holy Synod…
And on the same day, the Orthodox Church of Greece also rejected as unacceptable the name of “church” as applied to Christian confessions other than the Orthodox. So did the patriarchate of Serbia.
At the end of May, a sizable delegation from the patriarchate of Moscow visited Mount Athos. And right on cue, immediately after the visit, the monasteries of the Holy Mountain spoke out as a whole against calling “churches” those that are only “Christian denominations and confessions.”
The monasteries of Athos formulated their point of view in an open letter to the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople. They will not take part in the pan-Orthodox Council, but they are influential. In fact, they have supported the veto power of Council members that are threatening not to sign the document on relations between Orthodoxy and the rest of the Christian world:
> Open Letter of the Holy Mount Athos…
Not only that. During those same days the patriarchate of Bulgaria announced that it will not take part in the Council if its requests for corrections are not met first. The flight for its delegates to Crete has been cancelled, as have their hotel reservations. In their absence, the Council would lose its qualification as pan-Orthodox, invalidating the immense efforts made so far to convene it.
In reality, the announcement of the Bulgarian patriarchate seemed to be an extreme act of pressure on the whole Orthodox Church, the primates of which have planned a meeting the day before the opening of the Council, for a final adjustment of the documents to be discussed and voted on.
And in fact the patriarchate of Moscow, which represents two thirds of the world’s Orthodox, appeared to accept this very challenge on June 3. In a statement released at the end of a session of its holy synod, it proposed an extraordinary conference to be held urgently before the Council and even before the meeting of the primates, to amend the document on relations between Orthodoxy and the rest of the Christian world according to the objections made by the Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, and Serbia, as well as Russia and Mount Athos:
> Session of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church
News of this step by the patriarchate of Moscow was also covered in "L'Osservatore Romano" of June 5:
> Una conferenza straordinaria prima del Concilio panortodosso
On June 6, however, a statement by the ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople, which has the primacy of honor in the Orthodox camp, rejected the proposal of the patriarchate of Moscow, referring directly to the Council every project for the modification and correction of the contested texts:
> Communiqué
To little effect, judging by the announcement on the following day by the patriarchate of Antioch, which asked that the convocation of the Council be postponed and announced that in any case it will not go as long as the absence of a solution to its conflict with the patriarchate of Jerusalem continues to prevent it from celebrating the divine liturgy with it on the day of Pentecost:
> Statement of the Antiochian Holy Synod
While for its part the powerful patriarchate of Moscow has again proposed the very urgent convocation, by June 10, of a preconciliar conference to resolve the dangling questions.
“If these questions are resolved, the Council will take place. If not, it will be preferable to postpone it,” Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the department of external church relations of the patriarchate of Moscow, said in an interview:
> If problems on way to Pan-Orthodox Council are not resolved, it is better postponed
Pentecost is getting closer every day. But the thriller of the pan-Orthodox Council is still in suspense. Until the very last.
But just as the launch draws near, the much-implored pan-Orthodox Council is at risk of falling through.
And yet everything seemed to be moving in the right direction. At the end of January the heads of the fourteen Orthodox Churches of the Byzantine tradition, meeting in Chambésy, Switzerland, had come to a final agreement on the venue of the Council (the island of Crete), its starting date (June 19), its duration (until June 26), the procedural rules, and the documents to be brought up for discussion, five of them, on the following topics:
- the autonomy of the Churches and the manner of proclaiming it;
- the importance of fasting and its observance today;
- the sacrament of marriage and its impediments;
- the relationships of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world;
- the mission of the Orthodox Church in the contemporary world in regard to peace, freedom, and brotherhood among peoples.
On each point the voting was unanimous on the part of all fourteen delegations, except for the rules and the document concerning marriage, not approved by the patriarchate of Antioch. So all of the signs were good, in spite of knowing that at a pan-Orthodox Council only that which is unanimously approved is valid, and that every modification of a rule or document must also have the agreement of all:
> News From the Eastern Front. Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete (30.1.2016)
But then, as the starting date of the Council drew near, from one Church or another the divergences began to grow larger again.
One “peripheral” problem, although not so much, is the contrast between the patriarchate of Antioch and the patriarchate of Jerusalem over the recent appointment by the latter of a metropolitan in Qatar, an appointment seen as illegitimate by Antioch, which claims Qatar as its own canonical territory.
The conflict is still unresolved. And it threatens heavy repercussions for the Council. The patriarchate of Antioch has in fact threatened repeatedly to withdraw from the assembly if the question is not resolved first. And in any case, having broken communion with the patriarchate of Jerusalem and no longer referring to it in the Eucharistic liturgy, it risks wounding the divine liturgy of Pentecost with which the Council will open.
The most serious divergences, however, especially concern one of the five documents that will be discussed at the Council, the one on relations between the Orthodox Church and the rest of the Christian world, also available in English and French:
> Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World
> Les relations de l'Église orthodoxe avec l'ensemble du monde chrétien
On April 22, the patriarchate of Bulgaria declared unacceptable some passages of points 4, 5, 6, 12, and 16 of the document that it had however approved three months before.
The document, in the judgment of the Bulgarian patriarchate, errs theologically, dogmatically, and canonically in failing to recognize that outside of the Orthodox Church there is no other “church” but only heresies and schisms; that Christian unity has never been lost, because the Orthodox Church has always been united and will always be so; that those who have fallen into heresy and schism must first return to the Orthodox faith and give obedience to it before being accepted in that which is the only true Church.
As a result, the patriarchate of Bulgaria has warned that it will approve the document only if it is rewritten at the Council as it requests. If not, it will not sign it and therefore it will lack the unanimity necessary for approval.
In reality, by taking this position the patriarchate of Bulgaria has given voice to tendencies that are very widespread in the Orthodox world, which on the whole is not at all ecumenically favorable toward the Catholic Church in the same way that this is toward it.
And the meeting on February 12 between Pope Francis and Moscow patriarch Kirill in Havana did not soothe but instead reignited this aversion in large segments of Orthodoxy:
> The Few Big Things That Francis and Kirill Didn’t Say To Each Other In Havana (16.3.2016)
In addition to the patriarchate of Bulgaria, in fact, analogous objections to the document cited have been expressed by other parts of the Orthodox world.
On May 25, the patriarchate of Georgia charged that it contains “ecclesiological and terminological errors” that demand a thorough rewrite, in the absence of which it will refuse to sign it:
> Minute of the Session of the Holy Synod…
And on the same day, the Orthodox Church of Greece also rejected as unacceptable the name of “church” as applied to Christian confessions other than the Orthodox. So did the patriarchate of Serbia.
At the end of May, a sizable delegation from the patriarchate of Moscow visited Mount Athos. And right on cue, immediately after the visit, the monasteries of the Holy Mountain spoke out as a whole against calling “churches” those that are only “Christian denominations and confessions.”
The monasteries of Athos formulated their point of view in an open letter to the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople. They will not take part in the pan-Orthodox Council, but they are influential. In fact, they have supported the veto power of Council members that are threatening not to sign the document on relations between Orthodoxy and the rest of the Christian world:
> Open Letter of the Holy Mount Athos…
Not only that. During those same days the patriarchate of Bulgaria announced that it will not take part in the Council if its requests for corrections are not met first. The flight for its delegates to Crete has been cancelled, as have their hotel reservations. In their absence, the Council would lose its qualification as pan-Orthodox, invalidating the immense efforts made so far to convene it.
In reality, the announcement of the Bulgarian patriarchate seemed to be an extreme act of pressure on the whole Orthodox Church, the primates of which have planned a meeting the day before the opening of the Council, for a final adjustment of the documents to be discussed and voted on.
And in fact the patriarchate of Moscow, which represents two thirds of the world’s Orthodox, appeared to accept this very challenge on June 3. In a statement released at the end of a session of its holy synod, it proposed an extraordinary conference to be held urgently before the Council and even before the meeting of the primates, to amend the document on relations between Orthodoxy and the rest of the Christian world according to the objections made by the Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, and Serbia, as well as Russia and Mount Athos:
> Session of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church
News of this step by the patriarchate of Moscow was also covered in "L'Osservatore Romano" of June 5:
> Una conferenza straordinaria prima del Concilio panortodosso
On June 6, however, a statement by the ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople, which has the primacy of honor in the Orthodox camp, rejected the proposal of the patriarchate of Moscow, referring directly to the Council every project for the modification and correction of the contested texts:
> Communiqué
To little effect, judging by the announcement on the following day by the patriarchate of Antioch, which asked that the convocation of the Council be postponed and announced that in any case it will not go as long as the absence of a solution to its conflict with the patriarchate of Jerusalem continues to prevent it from celebrating the divine liturgy with it on the day of Pentecost:
> Statement of the Antiochian Holy Synod
While for its part the powerful patriarchate of Moscow has again proposed the very urgent convocation, by June 10, of a preconciliar conference to resolve the dangling questions.
“If these questions are resolved, the Council will take place. If not, it will be preferable to postpone it,” Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the department of external church relations of the patriarchate of Moscow, said in an interview:
> If problems on way to Pan-Orthodox Council are not resolved, it is better postponed
Pentecost is getting closer every day. But the thriller of the pan-Orthodox Council is still in suspense. Until the very last.