.png "English"){kind=small}
Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith,
Αs this magazine reports, the Patriarch of Constantinople has called for unity ahead of the Pan-Orthodox Council
which is to be held later this month in Crete.
This call by Patriarch
Bartholomew is more than just a form of words. Unity among the Orthodox
is currently in rather short supply.
First of all, the Bulgarian Orthodox Church is threatening to walk
out of the council even before it has begun, thus wrecking its claims to
be a council of all the Orthodox Churches (of which there are 14).
Despite the fact that this Council has been more than half a century in
preparation, the Bulgarians are not happy
with some of the arrangements made. It is a pity that the objections
have surfaced so late in the day; the suspicion must remain that this is
a deliberate attempt to torpedo the council at the last minute.
Secondly, it seems that the Antiochene Orthodox Church will not be represented at all. This is because the Church of Antioch has severed relations
with the Church of Jerusalem over a jurisdictional dispute about the
Orthodox parish in Qatar. So it seems certain at this point that the
Pan-Orthodox Great and Holy Council will be lacking the participation of
one of the historical patriarchal sees, which will surely make it less
than pan-Orthodox.
Why does this matter? The clue lies in the words of the spokesman of
Patriarch Bartholomew, who identified the sole purpose of the Council as
“the affirmation of unity.” He added: “Unity is a slow and painful
process. We don’t have to be united on every point to convene the
council; but we do have to convene the council if we aspire to unity.”
The unity that is dear to the Patriarch of Constantinople’s heart is
of course the unity of the various Orthodox churches with each other,
but this unity is an aspiration at present as the current difficulties
with Bulgaria and Antioch show. The unity that is dear to the heart of
Pope Francis and all his predecessors is of course the unity between
East and West, but this can only come about if the Orthodox first of all
find unity among themselves.
At the heart of all this, so people who understand the Orthodox world
tell me, is a disputed understanding of the role of the Patriarch of
Constantinople within Orthodoxy. The Patriarch is primus inter pares,
first among equals, but is this simply a primacy of honour, or does it
mean something more? Does the Patriarch have a position analogous to
that of the Archbi
shop of Canterbury in world Anglicanism, or is he in
fact more like an Orthodox Pope?
To complicate matters, the position of Constantinople Patriarchate is
at best extremely precarious. The Patriarch’s flock is tiny, and the
Phanar, the district he has lived in since 1599, is a tiny enclave in
the Muslim and overwhelmingly fundamentalist district of Fatih. The
Phanar looks today very much like an historical relic; at least that is
the view from Russia, home of the Moscow Patriarchate, which is the head
of the largest of the Orthodox autocephalous churches.
Despite the Bulgarian threats to withdraw, the council is certain to
go ahead, as it is surely too late to arrange a postponement.
Its deliberations will be interesting. Most of the subjects under
discussion are really only of interest to the Orthodox, such as the
questions to do with jurisdictional matters. (There is a good overview
by Dr Adam Deville here.)
However, unless these intra-Orthodox questions are sorted out, there
will be no real progress towards dialogue (let alone reunion) with Rome.
At present there is dialogue between Rome and Constantinople, but many
of the other Orthodox Churches are not on board. For that to happen, we
have to hope and pray that the Council in Crete is a success.
