ANTIOCH AND THE HOLY AND GREAT COUNCIL

There was an interesting exchange on the Antiochian Patriarchate's absence from the Holy and Great Council. It was posted on the open Fb group “Panorthodox Council & the Future of Conciliarity”. We reproduce it because it sheds light on some hidden aspects of this unfortunate incident. In this exchange there are arguments from both sides.

Eric Lozano: This is concerning Antioch. I know there are wonderful Antiochian priests here and I do not mean to offend anyone. I also think reconciliation is better than polemics, but I just want to know a few things. I have read from pro Council sources that Antioch agreed to the Council before their pullout. I have also read that Antioch did in fact not only not sign, but actual specifically said all along since their break with Jerusalem that they would not attend as long as their right with the JP was healed. They released a picture to go along with their story. Then I read that Bulgaria was the first Church to pull out of the Council (apparently Antioch was not taken into account here). I have also read that Antioch followed Bulgaria. My questions are, what is the truth of all that. Was Antioch in or not, and according to which rules and interpretations? It appears to me that the wording and terminology may have been understood differently all along by more than one side. Also, why did Bulgaria and the rest not cite Antioch's alleged refusal to attend as their reason for pulling out (Russia cited Antioch way too late)?

Michael Seraphim: So did Antioch pull out, or was Antioch simply restating their non-attendance?

John-abouna D'Alton: Antioch said all along they would not attend *unless* the issue with JP was resolved, and evidence is on the patriarch's website. But the non-resolution was not technically final until the day before the council. So when others say Bulgaria was the first to pull out that is also technically true. It somewhat depends on how you define "pull out", which various people have used in various ways.

Eric Lozano: It seems from http://www.antiochpatriarchate.org/.../statement-of.../1323/ that the Organization and Working Procedure document was not signed by Antioch and so did not enjoy unanimity. Therefore, the document doesn't apply to the Council? If that is the case, then on what rules and procedures did the Council function under (it appears to me this is where I believe I have read that "unanimity" and "consensus" meant different things to different people and those terms have been disputed - the Antiochians insisting the terms were always meant "total unanimity" - while others never understood them in such a litteral way?) Judging from the fact that this document is on the official Council website and by how the event happened that the rest of the Council fathers saw it as authoritative, even though Antioch did not sign. Under what basis then did the Council go on under the Organization and Working Procedures document as well as with the Council? Why did it feel free to use the text and to continue with the Council (remember Bulgaria did not cite Antioch's problem as a reason for not going)?

Michael Seraphim: One pertinent fact needs to be mentioned. By Canonical and Ecclesiological principle, decision making is always by majority ruling, never by absolute consensus. (Canon VI Holy and Ecumenical Synod of Nicea).

If, however, two or three Bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the Ecclesiastical Law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

The reason for this is Ecclesiological. All Churches are absolutely equal because one and the same Eucharist is celebrated in each.

Just as each Bishop rules his own Diocese inviolably in matters that pertain to his own Diocese, so in matters that pertain commonly decision can only be taken by majority ruling.

Just as in Diocesan matters the Bishop is free from any tyranny of the majority, so in common matters the Whole is free from any tyranny of the minority. Unilateralism does not exist in the Church. There are no veto, walkout or boycott. The Church lives by the Canonical and Ecclesiological principle of Proportionality (the things belong to whom they belong).

This needs to be set down clearly.

Eric Lozano: Dear Michael Seraphim. I understand that majority vote is the traditional way of Councils, but I want to know what the Councils fathers themselves followed in light of the absence of the Antiochian signature.

It appears to me judging from this wonderful articlehttp://www.firstthings.com/.../the-pan-orthodox-council... difference in interpretation of "consensus" is what both sides acted under.

However, I am not convinced this is heart of the matter. I believe the Council fathers were really acting under the traditional and Christian conciliar spirit, and they rejected the idea that the Council can be sabotaged or black mailed by a few or unilaterally, especially for reasons put forth by the non attendees. From the beginning it was the desire of all to meet in Council and the fathers that were present at the Council simply followed through and fulfilled their promise. They rejected the idea that what was worked for in common can be undone unilaterally.

Andrew Stephen Damick: No real conversation can happen if the assumption is made that the other party is not acting in good faith -- and that's what accusations of "sabotage" or "blackmail" are, an assumption of bad faith. If you say to your brother that he is a liar, what can he say in response that you would believe?

None of the churches who did not attend said that they were trying to sabotage, blackmail or even prevent a truly pan-Orthodox council from occurring. Indeed, in the case of Antioch, the Holy Synod actually had all its plane tickets purchased and hotel reservations made, etc. -- and had to eat the costs when it was told its concerns would not be addressed. Do you have evidence that this was just a facade, that these churches really never intended to participate?

Those who did not attend all gave their objections in terms of trying to make the council a true meeting of brothers, i.e., a pursuit of conciliarity. Is it conciliarity not even to listen to your brother when he says that he needs your help? Is it conciliarity to say, effectively, "No, we will meet only to discuss what we want to discuss, not what you want to discuss"?

When will those who supported the way the meeting in Crete was pushed through begin to take seriously those who gave serious reasons for not being able to come? It is very difficult to talk with someone who regards you with contempt.

Please forgive me, brother, but your words are painful to read, because you are calling my Patriarch and his Holy Synod liars but not providing any evidence that they are -- and you are calling them liars even while they and their people are daily threatened and daily experiencing martyrdom. This is really galling.

Eric Lozano: Dear Andrew Stephen Damick. I too have a lot to say concerning this matter and I am glad to know your point of view. However, ultimately, I agree with you that eventually, in order to have a real conversation between interested parties, we have to put polemics likes those (and there is enough on both sides) aside. This is what I really want to know from you: 1) What is the canonical or theological basis for Antioch's insistence that it is impossible to attend the discussion sessions of the Council because of the JP attendance? Also, what ever happened to economia? Aren't the Antiochians notorious for using economia to get around a bunch of things that are not only not canonical, but arguably unorthodox? For example, many of their clergy have been known to concelebrate with the OO when the canons of the Church call for the deposition of any and all clerics concelebrating with the nonorthodox (I realize it is being done due to their belief that the EO and OO now share the same faith, but they have to acknowledge that this has not been received by the Church and so it should not be done). The Antiochians can concelebrate the liturgy with churches that are clearly not in communion with any one of us and they can even sign joint declarations with such churches, but they cannot sit at the same table and discuss matters that pertain to the whole of Orthodoxy in the presence of an Orthodox patriarchate that is in communion with the rest of us? Didn't they participate in the discussions at the synaxis meetings without the need to concelebrate the liturgy? They said it was through economia! Isn't it the same economia that could have been used at the Council? Indeed, the Synaxis meetings were very much like the Council in many ways, including serving liturgies! That sort of behavior, and indeed, the argument strikes me as more worthy and characteristic of a Church that does not consider itself as Orthodox. The Council seemed to at least succeed in exposing such things. As long as everyone stays inside their homes no one can see it. But when the Church gathers, then we see things far more realistically and everything is brought to light. I'm just trying to seek answers because it strikes me rather odd and, frankly, against the spirit of Orthodoxy. Im just trying to understand the basis for their decision. 2) If Antioch is right and at least one pullout Church (Russia) are using Antioch as part of their justification, why did they all of a sudden take Antioch into consideration only weeks before the Council? Before, during the synaxis gatherings, they were making decisions, signing papers, and planning the Council well after Antioch quit signing. Then all of a sudden just weeks before the Council some said the Council should not meet and pulled out because of a lack of unanimity, citing Antioch as a reference (Russia). My question is then, if the Council should not meet because one autocephalous did not sign, why then did they sign multiple papers and plan the council knowing full well Antioch had long stopped signing the documents? It appears to me that Antioch was at the time considered to be in a sort of limbo (not really in it, though not completely out, and so it is better to move on without her) or that consensus was understood as majority, not unanimity. So, if Antioch was irrelevant then to the convocation of the Council, it follows the rest of the Churches that pulled out did so illegally, since they had all signed to go to the Council at the last synaxis meeting. Since, the decision to convoke the Council on Pentecost 2016 was done through consensus, only through consensus can it be undone. This is what Patriarch Bartholomew said upon his arrival in Crete. He said he is not the pope and so does not have power to undo what the synaxis had already agreed to. Only unanimity can undo it, but such unanimity was not in sight. The rest of the Churches were going honor their signatures from the last synaxis.

Andrew Stephen Damick: All of your questions regarding Antioch have already been answered quite fully elsewhere, but I will reiterate a few issues here.

I can't speculate on why Russia does what it does, but we can all point to what it is saying. If you have evidence that Russia is lying, then of course you should present that. Do you have that evidence?

In any event, the question has never been whether the council should meet. The question is when and under what conditions. Arguments that presume any of the churches are saying that the council should not meet are responding to a position not actually taken by any of the churches.

That said, the agreement was always that all the churches must participate in order for anything to proceed. I suggest re-reading the statement by the Antiochian patriarchate (http://www.antiochian.org/statement-secretariat-holy...), which points out that in 1999 the EP suspended pre-conciliar preparations for a full 10 years because of one church.

That of course made sense because, as Antioch also mentions, the regulations always stipulated that all of the churches had to assent to everything that was being done, even in the pre-conciliar meetings. (These are the first and second points made in the statement.)

What this means is that 2016 saw a major departure from what had been in place for over 50 years, namely, a common agreement by all that neither pre-conciliar meetings nor the council itself could proceed without the assent of all the churches. This was a betrayal of the process that had been long in place.

Also, you wrote "Since, the decision to convoke the Council on Pentecost 2016 was done through consensus, only through consensus can it be undone." This is actually false. Antioch never agreed and indeed wrote quite explicitly in the place set aside for its signature that it was not consenting. The decision did not happen because there was not consensus. The Ecumenical Patriarch did not need to "undo" anything, because it was never actually done to begin with. Instead, what happened was that a consensus was being claimed which explicitly never occurred. The evidence for this incongruity is public. That such consensus keeps getting insisted as having occurred is really astounding.

Further, suggesting that Antioch -- the ancient Church of Ss. Peter and Paul, being martyred even now in the cradle of Christianity -- is somehow "irrelevant" to the convocation of the council is, frankly, offensive, and has no basis in the relevant documents nor, more importantly, in the love that Christ said would characterize His disciples. A church does not become "irrelevant" just because its wounds have, it seems, become inconvenient.

And on that note, even if it were really the case that the convokers of the rump council were technically correct in all that they say (and they are not, as is evident), the fact that building a true accord between the churches was not a priority is perhaps the most problematic thing of all. Saying "This document technically forces us to meet without you" is simply not Christian. Are we bound by such legalism? Of course, if one is going to be legalistic, one should at least do it truly by the book. But it seems that not even that could be accomplished. Instead, what we got is gaslighting -- the insistence that something is true even if it is quite obviously untrue. Neither the spirit nor even the letter of the law is on the side of those who decided not to walk together in a true synod but instead to go it alone.

These things require no speculation nor insinuation to conclude. They are all public.

Eric Lozano: Dear Andrew Stephen Damick. They have not been answered by that statement. For example, it does not give the canons or theology behind their assertion that the council could not be held without restoration of communion with the JP. Neither does it address why economia could not be used in the Council when it had been used at the Synaxis and has always been used for the occasions I stated above. It also does not answer why the Churches went ahead without Antioch signing the last documents, etc. (Actually, my question came about partly from reading that statement over and over, as well as your article from First Things.) Please answer the questions I asked in your own words. If you can't, then just say so.

 If I may add, an additional question came up in my mind from your response. Why do you say Antioch was ready to go (plain tickets and all) if there were so many injustices done against her, the conciliar process, and such? If you say something like "out of good will" or the like then why didn't they just follow through with that "good will" (or whatever reason)?

 Last, Why did you resort to name calling ( "rump council") and revisit suspicions about motives when from the beginning we both agreed not to do that in order to have a fruitful discussion? Do you think I don't have my suspicions as well (in addition to what has been brought up before). For example, I can ask why Antioch decided to break communion with Jerusalem only a month after the announcement of the year the Council would take place (2016), and then insist that it used their with holding of signatures to coerce and black mail the council into having it tackle Jerusalem? I can also state that the the conflict with Jerusalem IS complicated and would take too much time to heal and is beyond the competency of the Council at the moment after centuries of isolation. If we were to wait for the personal demands of each local church (including Antioch), more issues would pop up, changes would be made, and the Council would not meet until "the second coming of Christ," as Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev once so comfortably pointed out. Do you think Antioch was the only Church that had demands and preferences? Almost everyone there had issues (Serbia, Romania, Greece, etc) and will always have them. Today is one, tomorrow another. Yet, they all put their issues aside and met and discussed not personal things, but what is common to all. This, I believe is the right attitude. I can respond to your rant, but we had already decided not to raise such emotional issues. So, no, don't respond to this rant of my own. I only brought it up as an example of the fact that I do have personal things to say too. But my point is that we need to put them aside and focus on factual questions and statements so we can have a fruitful discussion.

Andrew Stephen Damick: All of this has been answered elsewhere, so I'm not going to post it again. (BTW, it doesn't really help matters to accuse folks of ranting.)

I will correct one thing, though: The break in communion between Antioch and Jerusalem happened in April 2024, before the dates were set for the meeting. Please read Mr. Noble's very helpful timeline again here: http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.com/.../a-dossier-on-qatar...

Also, Antioch's willingness to participate was always predicated upon the hope that its difficulties would be addressed (even though it had ample reason to believe they would not be). Since they weren't, Antioch could not attend -- it is a basic element of canonical history and practice that churches out of communion cannot make disciplinary and theological decisions together except the decision to restore communion.

Finally, "rump council" is a technical term. The basis for the council meeting was always unanimous consent. Since that was not given, the council had no authority to meet.

Michael Seraphim: No. You have not answered anything at all.

Far from being Orthodox, you have instead become Antiochian. The same way as they are Muscovites instead of Orthodox.

Nothing infuriates God more than schism, and sectarianism is precursor to schism.

Antioch is no more, nor less, special than the other Churches. We have seen this kind of language before where the sun sets.

Eric Lozano: Dear Andrew Stephen Damick. You don't want to go into the canonical problem between the break in communion with Jerusalem and participation in the Council. Ok, I will drop the issue. But what I cannot understand is why Antioch's long (and may I add, very long) arm of economia I originally mentioned cannot be used in this instance for the good of the entire Church and the faithful. I am not really asking for anything groundbreaking here (though I believe she can deliver it). I merely ask why Antioch could not at the very least use the exact economia they used at the synaxis meetings and apply it the exact same way at the Council. They did not have had to concelebrate the liturgy or sign, but merely give their opinions on the documents at the discussions (just like at the Synaxis meetings) so when communion is finally restored, they can just add their signatures (if they accept whatever document) just like any other Church. (I am not sure exactly what that would have looked or been like at the Council, but I believe the EP and the rest of the Council was welcoming all in whatever condition they would be willing to show up.) Concerning the finer points of the legality of things (which is what the Antiochian statement and you focus on), no doubt their statement is well written, but it feels somewhat one sided and simplistic. I feel it leaves out a lot of information and context.

It seems obvious to me something occurred or went on in the preparatory meetings where all decided to go in spite of the lack of Antiochian signature. Indeed, one of the main people in the meetings, archdeacon Chryssavgis, wrote in an essay about the 2016 Synaxis about a shift in regulations. Before the January 2016 Synaxis, specifically the Dec 2015 meeting in Athens, the understanding was that consensus meant total unanimity: any Church could veto any meeting or document at will (and they did), which would result in suspension. Chryssavgis wrote concerning this, "Such an attitude persisted even during the sessions of the Synaxis of Primates in January, 2016; however, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew exercised his presidential prerogative to facilitate a reasonable resolution in accordance with conventional church practice." It seems to me, that on that basis (whatever "facilitated a reasonable resolution" meant, though I believe it means the shift in meaning of consensus due to the paraylisis the Council preparations experienced under the previous definition) the Council preparations went on, even without the Antiochian signature, and all (except perhaps Antioch, though from what you said, they too were ready to go plain tickets and all) made the final preparations for the Council. It is possible that the Antiochian delegation agreed verbally in hopes of restored communion in the future, but not in paper. Whatever the case no one here thus far knows exactly what was ultimately agreed. Until we get better insider info I will not take this one sided Antiochian statement as final. There is simply too much that to me appears left out.

 It must be asked and adequately explained exactly what "reasonable resolution" Patriarch Bartholomew worked out in Jan and with whom? Did Antioch agree verbally (since signatures had long been withheld, as I have said in hopes of future participation at the Council and go along also with the shift in the meaning of "consensus" from total unanimity to majority vote? I remember this is what the Russians were looking at as Churches started pulling out. I don't remember reading in the news that Russia pulled out after the first Church (violating total unanimity principle). Instead, if I remember correctly, she decided to pull out when Serbia announced its ambivalence after four churches had already pulled out (by this time Russia is no longer acting on the principle of total unanimity, but on the new definition of consensus). So, if the primates understood the shift in the meaning of consensus, then legally speaking, doesn't it mean that Antioch pulling out doesn't violate the agreement of the convocation of the Council, since it is now agreed that a single Church no longer has veto power - hence the deadlock between Antioch and the Council? I don't think at that point the Antiochian delegation can logically revert to the original understanding of consensus on the grounds of lack of signature, since they allowed documents of all sorts (including plans) while withholding their signature.

Michael Seraphim: I agree.