Sergei Chapnin, wheel
The Pan-Orthodox Council, which is officially called “Great and
Holy,” will not take place as planned. It has disintegrated before our
eyes just two weeks before it opens. Of the 14 local Orthodox Churches,
four have refused to attend.
And even those which have not refused to
attend are fiercely critical of the prepared documents. What has
happened? Can it be that the problems and internal conflicts in the
Orthodox world are so serious that it is no longer possible to hold a
Council? Theological and historical problems are here closely
intertwined with church politics.
On 13 June, an extraordinary
session of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church was held. One single
item was on the agenda: to go or not to go to the Pan-Orthodox Council.
The prognosis was negative but some hope still remained. In the end
there was nothing sensational. The Synod reached a decision not to take
part in the Council and gave a far-reaching explanation of its position.
But
whatever the arguments, the main result is clear: the Patriarch of
Moscow has torpedoed the running of the Council. This Council will no
longer be authoritative, even though Bartholomew, Patriarch of
Constantinople, the first among equals in the Orthodox world, is
determined to see it through, no matter what.
Earlier, the
Bulgarian, Antiochian, and Georgian Churches had refused to participate
in the Council. The formal reason given was a serious critique of the
documents. It appears that there were many theological objections, even
though preparation for the Council had been going on for the past fifty
years, and several generations of bishops and theologians had been
preparing these documents.
The Documents
The
final versions of the Council documents were published at the end of
last winter, and elicited a serious critique not only from Orthodox
fundamentalists, but also from moderate hierarchs and academic
theologians. Questions of dogma associated with the fundamentals of
Orthodox doctrine are not examined in these documents. The central part
is taken up with questions of ecclesiology—how the Orthodox Church sees
itself in the contemporary world. These presented a number of problems.
The
document which has been criticized most of all is the document called
“Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World.”
Traditional Orthodox ecclesiology clearly regards all other Christian
groups and communities as being heretical. This applies to Catholics,
Anglicans, and Protestants. At the same time, in the 20th Century, as a
result of the development of the ecumenical movement, contact with them
has been actively improving, and the expression "Christian churches and
confessions" has become normal.
Critics of of the document, have
proposed to refuse the use of all innovations and to return to the
traditional attitude to those Christians who do not belong to the
Orthodox Church, in particular the Bishops Council of the the Russian
Church Abroad: "Nowhere in the text is the separation between Christians
defined, in terms of the rules of the Holy Fathers and the canons of
the councils, as a consequence of schisms and heresies (what is even
more surprising is that these terms are completely absent from the
text).... Instead of this, the document adopts the quasi- ecclesiastical
approach, according to which the divisions are regarded as a form of
broadly understood ‘Christian unity’....which is applied far beyond the
boundaries of ‘the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church’ and
includes many other confessions” (1).
What do these apparently
abstract arguments have to do with real life? Everything. In February of
this year, Patriarch Kirill of Moscow met with the Francis the Pope of
Rome. Many called this meeting historical, and there were hopes of a new
stage in cooperation within the Christian world. However, if the
document on “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the
Christian World” does not preserve its fundamental principles, then the
meeting with the Pope will be classified as a meeting with a heretic and
should be condemned. Active cooperation with Catholics and Protestants
in the sphere of education and charitable work will be put in doubt. Of
course, to some extent it will be retained, but it will be in clear
contradiction with the the official position of of the Orthodox Church.
Another
example of contention concerns the document "The Sacrament of Marriage
and its Impediments," specifically paragraph II.5.i. The Church of
Georgia is critical of most of the documents and proposes to exclude
from the document on the sacrament of marriage the concluding part of
the paragraph on marriage with non-Orthodox: “[T]he first part which
states that, ‘Marriage between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christians is
forbidden and is not blessed in the Church, according to canonical
akribeia (Canon 72 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council),’ is correct,
but the second part which states that ‘such a marriage can be blessed by
dispensation and out of love, on the condition that the children born
of this marriage will be baptized and raised within the Orthodox
Church,’ should be excluded, as it contradicts Canon 72 of the Council
of Trullo"(2). It is well known that no council can challenge, annul, or
change a single canon of the recognized Ecumenical Councils.
This
is clearly at variance with the practice followed by many churches. One
simple example: imagine that some ruler of Russia has a daughter, who
lives in Holland, and intends to marry a Calvinist Dutchman. The pious
ruler asks the Patriarch of Moscow to conduct the marriage service. But
the Patriarch refuses, saying that in 2016 a decision was taken not to
bless marriages with non-Orthodox in an Orthodox Church. The ruler is
aggrieved, and the Patriarch, on seeing this grief, begins to think how
to circumvent this ban. Does the Patriarch need such problems? I think
not. In other words, the Council will be discussing questions which will
seriously influence the situation of the Orthodox Church in the
contemporary world.