.png "English"){kind=small}
By Hieromonk Nikitas of Pantokratoros Monastery
The meeting of Amman showed that there was a stain on the Holy
Tradition of the Orthodox Church. The aim of the mains actors of this
fraternal gathering in Amman has now become apparent. The purpose will
always be to downgrade the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch in
Orthodoxy. Specifically, they want to abolish prerogatives such as the
right to be the regulator, to grant autocephaly, to hear appeals from
other local Churches and many others. They want to recognize only the
primacy of honor, without the existence of all the prerogatives granted
to the Ecumenical Patriarchate by the Church through the ecumenical
councils.
We hear many opinions that have nothing to do with Church tradition.
Even “if in Amman everyone was equal, seated at a round table, and this
is the right and this is how the Pan-Orthodox congregations should be.
Without a head, for Christ is the head.” No one has denied that Christ
is the head of the Church. However, these things are foreign to the
Orthodox tradition and dangerous. The Church has never acted this way.
There was always someone who was recognized as the first in Jesus’ type
and place. We see, for example, that there is always one that presides
over and performs the Divine Liturgy. They may all be equal in rank, but
one must be first, in the type of Christ. Even at the Council of
Jerusalem, there was one president. It was Saint James, brother of
Jesus. They were all apostles, but somebody presided over and
co-ordinated both the discussion and the synod. So, one synod cannot
have a head.
In the history of the Orthodox Church we see what the role of Pope of
Rome was (before the Schism of 1054). He intervened vigorously in the
affairs of other local Churches, including those of the Church of
Constantinople. One typical example can be found the life of Saint
Ioannis Chrysostomos, when the Pope of Rome, Saint Innocent, forbade the
emperor and any clergyman from administering the Holy Communion to him.
Specifically, he forbade clergymen of Constantinople and clergymen of
all the other Patriarchates from doing so. Studying the lives of many
other saints, we see how much the Pope of Rome intervened in the affairs
of other local Churches when asked for. He was always involved in the
decisions of all important matters and regulated all matters of the
Church because he had the primacy of honor. These are a few examples
drawn from the early Christianity era showing that there was always
somebody acting as the highest authority. There was always someone above
all and regulated church matters. He acted the first among equals.
It is well known that the Ecumenical Patriarch’s primacy of honor has
been established by the ecumenical synods. The Councils of Chalcedon
and of Constantinople decided that the Patriarch of Constantinople and
the Pope of Rome shared the same primacy of honor. So, after the Schism
of 1054, the Ecumenical Patriarch remained the only one with the primacy
of honor. The history and canons of the ecumenical councils show us the
primary role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as well as the content of
this role. The primacy of honor is not only an advantage, but they also
confer canonical responsibilities, including the granting of
autocephaly. The autocephaly and the patriarchal values of the junior
local Churches were given by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The decisions
are not taken alone by the Patriarch, but by the Holy Synod, because the
Orthodox Church is governed by the synod. There is no such thing as
Papal infallibility. Many decisions have been changed or delayed by
further consideration of the issues requested by synodical archpriests.
And the healthy thing is that all the synodical archpriests were
regularly rotated, and that ensured the objectivity and credibility of
the decisions.
According to the tradition and history of the Church, the Ecumenical
Patriarchate has the right to hear appeals in cases of dispute between
bishops. It does not intervene in other local Churches, but has the
right to hear their appeals when it is asked to do so. It acts as a
supreme court. This prerogative has existed from time immemorial, when
the Pope of Rome was trying the cases involving other Patriarchates. It
was so entrenched that, when the Russian clergy asked the Patriarchs in
1663 whether the Ecumenical Patriarchate had the right to try the cases
involving other local Churches, all the Patriarchs unanimously answered
YES and that only the Ecumenical Patriarchate had this right. These are
old-centuries well-established traditions of the Orthodox Church. Going
down the path the Church has given us, we are safe. Everything else is
just dangerous innovations and opinions expressed by those who are
disturbed by the Ecumenical Patriarch’s prerogative granted by the
Church. Most importantly, he did not take them on his own, nor did he
ask for them, but the ecumenical councils decided to grant those
prerogatives to the Ecumenical Patriarch. Unfortunately, anyone who
questions those prerogatives questions the very decisions made by many
divinely inspired fathers. They are all the fruits of the Holy Spirit
who is a perfect God, and everything God created is perfect and cannot
be corrected. It cannot get any better. If we intervene, we can only
make it worse.
It is now clear that some cannot or do not want to follow the
well-trodden and secure path outlined by the Church’s tradition and
history, and are looking for new “platforms” to convoke synods.
The meeting in Amman showed us its true purpose, which is the
degradation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, on the pretext of discussing
the problems plaguing Orthodoxy. If there were indeed concerns about
the problems of Orthodoxy, the issue regarding the jurisdiction over
Qatar would certainly be discussed. For six years now two ancient
Patriarchates have severed the communion ties, something which has led
to a schism within the Church. This problem is similar when the Russian
Orthodox Church decided to sever communion ties.
It is noteworthy that Metropolitan Onufriy of the Ukrainian Orthodox
Church of the Moscow Patriarchate was part of the delegation of the
Russian Orthodox Church, who stated that their Church in Ukraine did not
differ substantially from the status of the autocephalous Church. While
being a member of the entourage of the Patriarch of Moscow and being a
permanent member of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, how
can one claim that this Church is acting as an autocephalous one?
The Ukrainian autocephaly issue has indeed moved into the background
somewhat. During this meeting, nothing concrete about the solution of
the “problem” in Ukraine was decided. Even Metropolitan Onufriy
expressed his dissatisfaction. He wanted more specific things to be
decided. What was decided was that there should be a Pan-Orthodox
dialogue on the subject. This shows the main purpose of this gathering,
namely the downgrading of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. But which
autocephaly was granted with a pan-Orthodox synod? None. This is an
exclusive prerogative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
The church has always had this kind of upheaval, because where there
are people, there are problems. The Church is always moving forward,
based on its traditions, and on those that the Holy Fathers well
established.
