In today’s tormented and disoriented world, Orthodox Momentum needs three vital requirements: Unity, Unity, Unity ![8 October 2026 Chantilly]

 

CONFÉRENCE SCIENTIFIQUE INTERNATIONALE

 DIX ANS DU SAINT ET GRAND CONCILE DE CRETE (2016-2026) : ÉVALUATION ET PERSPECTIVES (Chantilly, le 8 octobre 2026)

Table Ronde Conclusive de la Conférence

Intervention de Me Carol SABA

Avocat à la Cour au Barreau de Paris

Porte-Parole des Evêques Orthodoxes de France et Responsable de la Communication de l’Assemblée des Evêques Orthodoxes de France

Official Spokesman of the Assembly of the Orthodox Bishops of France

____________

Παναγιότατε, Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, the « Basileuousa », the Queen of the Cities, the « Megalopolis », the Great City.

Μακαριώτατε, Archbishop John of Albania, the worthy successor of Archbishop Anastacios of Albania, of blessed memory, the great vibrant star and promotor of the importance of Orthodox Mission, in our contemporary world.

I would like firstly to warmly thank His Eminence Metropolitan Emmanuel of Chalcedon for the invitation sent to me, in my personal name, with the blessing of His All Holiness, to participate to this important gathering convened by the Oecumenical Patriarchate.

I would like also to send my warm and deep filial salutations and greetings to Patriarch John the Xth, Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, who stands right, with unlimited courage and determination, in facing multidimensional threats and dangers, in the middle of the major turmoils and wars of the Middle East.

As His Eminence Emmanuel of Chalcedon indicated while introducing me, I am effectively a French Lawyer and a Mediator. Mediators know how best to bridge situations and positions, and how best to bring parties together to conceive an amicable settlement of their disputes.

It is important to outline two characteristics that define Antiochian ethos and identity, i.e. the constant concern to keep the purity of the faith and of the orthodox doctrine, and the intelligence of situation enabling Antiochian to absorb difficult situations and to contain various influence of different occupiers that passed by this sensible carrefour geographical region with Antioch a geographical carrefour. 

We have been also educated as Antiochian with the lessons of the Antiochian Patriarch Peter III, who tried to mediate between Rome and Constantinople, so to avoid the Schism of 1054, and who teaches us how best, in the Momentum of the Church, to keep focused on what is most important than the important things, and how best to keep a discernment on them and how best to speak to them to Christian brothers in a fraternal and irenic language. 

.****

Although, as a faithful member of the Patriarchate of Antioch, I am very close, to His Beatitude Patriarch John the Xth, which is an honour to me, I am not representing him nor the Patriarchate of Antioch in our gathering here.

We all know the duly justified, and well outlined, public positions of the Antiochian Patriarchate with respect to the Council of Crete. I am not here to relay them once again.

This does not prevent me to be here in my personal quality, and to speak and dialogue, being invited to, as a respectful and vibrant friend of both patriarchates of Antioch and Constantinople, both two historical and major citadels of orthodoxy.

It is worth, anyway, to recall some relevant facts, for the historical record, and may be, for a possible amicable resolution, hopefully, of the Qatar territorial jurisdiction dispute that still oppose Jerusalem and Antioch, a resolution that we call from the deepest of our heart.

Let us remain factual with intelligence. 

It is a fact that the Council of Crete has been convened.

It is a fact that the Council of Crete has been held and attended by 10 Orthodox autocephalous Churches.

It is a fact that 4 Churches, including Antioch, did not attend the Council, each of them for different reasons from the others.

It is a fact that the Holy Synod of Antioch decided “first” not to attend the Council of Crete, and was not led by this decision, as it is said here and there, by a decision of the Russian Church, as if Antioche followed the Russian decision. It was the contrary, Antioche decided first, and the Russians followed in their decisions not to attend the Council.

It is a fact also that Antioch, which took part to all the pre conciliar preparatory work, had never a backstage opposition, whether of principle or otherwise, against the Council, and/or had never a backstage intention to boycott the Council, or had never a backstage intention to make it fail, or to postpone it.

It is a fact, to the contrary, that Antioch was very transparent on the basis of its decision.

It is a fact that it made all the necessary logistical and other arrangements, to participate to the Council of Crete. It is a fact that it has formed an important Antiochian Delegation to attend the Council. I was, myself, designated by Patriarch John the Xth, to hold the position of Head of the Antiochian Delegation’ Press office and Communication with Medias during the Council.

But let us be clear and transparent and factual. It is a fact also that Antioch has been duly prevented, and I repeat, prevented, at the very last moment, from participating to the Council of Crete, since its territorial ecclesiastical jurisdiction dispute over Qatar with Jerusalem remained unresolved at the eve of the start of the Council of Crete.

This situation remained unresolved despite the terms of the Agreement that has been reached in June 2013 at the Greek Foreign Affairs Ministry in Athens between the three Patriarchal delegations of Constantinople, Jerusalem and Antioch send by their respective Churches to negotiate an amicable resolution of the dispute.

For the historical record, it is a fact also that being myself part of the Antiochian Delegation, delegated by Patriarch John the Xth, to the June 2013 meeting in Athens at the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I have drafted, after seeking the blessing of the head of the Antiochian Delegation, Metropolitan SABA ESPER, (at that time, Metropolitan of HOURAN, and now the Antiochian United States and Canada Archbishop), I drafted the three points forming the amicable Agreement with Jerusalem as concluded in June 2013 in Athens.

For the historical record also, when I have been asked to read in the meeting room at the Ministry, to the three Delegations, and to the Greek Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, the terms of the Agreement proposal, I still hear now, in my ears, the voice of Metropolitan John of Pergame, of blessed memory, who was at that time, the head of the Constantinopolitan Delegation, saying in response to the question of the Greek Deputy Minister asking his position whether he accepts or not the proposal: “I totally endorse what Carol SABA has drafted”.

After the approval voice of Metropolitan of Pergamon, the head of the delegation of Jerusalem voiced also his acceptance. The drafting was then approved by all and handed to the representatives of the Minister without any initialling of the text. The presence of all the official witnesses present was an inner intrinsic guarantee,

Accordingly, the conclusion of such Agreement has been confirmed by the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs while issuing and publishing, the same day, on the WEB SITE of the Ministry, a public press statement announcing the conclusion of the Agreement and the good news of the resolution of the dispute.

It is a fact also that the conclusion of the Agreement is also attested by the inclusion of the three points drafted and forming the amicable Agreement, in the Patriarchal Letter sent by His All Holiness Bartholomew to His Beatitude Patriarch John X to convene him to the Synaxis of 2014.

Unfortunately, despite all these evidencing facts attesting the existence of the amicable Agreement, Jerusalem denied the Agreement.

The matter remained accordingly unresolved at the eve of the launching of the Council of Crete, preventing thus Antioch from participating to the Council and especially to the Divine Liturgies of the Council given its interruption of communion with Jerusalem.

Despite the subsequent decision of the Synod of Antioch, several years after, to restore ecclesiastical eucharistic communion with Jerusalem, during the GAZA war, as a loving gesture and a solidarity expression with Jerusalem, the QATAR dispute is still ongoing and still needs a resolution in accordance with the Athens 2013 Agreement.

***

By stating the above facts, in my personal capacity and in my own name, I speak here as a sincere friend of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. My voice is the one of a friend of the Ecumenical Patriarchate who has not only a deep conscience and discernment of the leading and centric role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as “the” Deacon of Pan Orthodox Unity, the one and only deacon of such Unity, but is also a friend who is convinced that, given this centric role, Constantinople, has not only the capacity to resolve such Dispute, here and now, but also has the ecclesiastical duty to do so, and also, to address any other pan orthodox dispute that could impact adversely the Orthodox Unity in a conciliar and synodal manner.

This is all what Antioch expected and still do.

***

The importance of the Council, as an aggiornamento, and the importance of the Council after the Council, and possibly the need for a Permanent Council in Orthodoxy (the Church is a permanent Council) to face all the treats and dangers and new challenges of today’s changing and threatening world

In the 60th of the 20th Century, Pope John 23 who came to papacy from the East after having served as apostolic nuncio in several orthodox countries, called for an aggiornamento in the roman catholic Church and initiated the dynamic of the Council of Vatican II continued and concluded by Paul VI. 

At the same time, in parallel, ATHENAGORAS who was an Archbishop in the West, the United States, also stressed the need to have an aggiornamento in the Orthodox Church and started the pan orthodox council dynamics. 

At that time the bipolar world, which was not yet facing fast globalisation and fast technological accelerations, and historical and geopolitical quick transformation, that our world is facing now, was still considered as a major Turning Point where Churches had to make their aggiornamento, to face the constant danger of that World which was to a certain extent contained in the COLD WAR.

Today, we passed from COLD WAR to HOT WAR, and we live a big acceleration of political theology factors, that were addressed by the intervention of our friend His Eminence VASSILIS, Metropolitan of Konstantia on political theology. The former French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin speaks about the acceleration of history with the acceleration to show how fast things are moving on.

Today, Pope Leo XIV and His All Holiness Bartholomew, are symmetrically in the same position of John 23 and ATHENAGORAS but 7 decades after. It is obvious that the Pope Leon XIV is accelerating on several major topics, values, peace, technology etc. and has addressed mainly in his first encyclic the impact of Artificial Intelligence on human and the risks of dehumanisation.

At the same time, I am fully impressed by the energy of Patriarch Bartholomew who does not rest, who travels a lot and who criss-cross countries and continent from East to West and vice versa, and who is delivering each time, fundamental speeches covering the major topics and problematics of our today’s world. In less than one he delivered 4 speeches in France in various occasion. At Lourdes on November 2025 we were present with him, and he delivered a speech, a marathon speech, where he did not leave any stone without being turned around.

More than ever before, there is a stressed and urgent need, and may be a vital urgency, for a new aggiornamento in the orthodox world and churches, because the World since the 7 past decades is no more the new World of today, and has fundamentally changed and is turning to be today more dangerous than ever in history before, where humanity is facing one of the Biggest Turning Points and the significant risk of dehumanisation.

What are the major transformations that we are facing?

• The rise in power of the international conflictuality
• The geopolitical revolution, and the emergence of a dangerous multipolar world, marked by the emergence of neo imperialism and expansionist powers based on old traditional empires
• The development of political and religious messianism in the Middle East (but not only in ME) that are mixing Religion and Politics
• The end of multilateralism on the international scene, and the brutalisation of international law, and especially the brutalisation of international humanitarian law
• The new paradigm of “Law of force” which is taking over the paradigm of “force of law”
• The acceleration of the technological revolution, and especially, the acceleration in the acceleration, i.e. the replacement of human intelligence by the Artificial Intelligence, with the major threat of the dehumanisation of the human

We are facing also major setbacks

• The setback of human dignity and of human intelligence versus artificial intelligence
• The setback of democracies with Communautarism taking over citizenship
• The setback of economy which is financialized on the detriment of solidarity and sharing
• The setback of universalism in favour of singularities with the progressive replacement of natural law value by subjective law values (expansion of wokism)
• The inversion of values and the replacement of traditional values by the neo paganism values
• The development of the antireligious acts and the discourses of hatred in social media developing verbal violence which is quickly transformed to physical violence

Back to our conference

The title of the Conference is already a Road Map Invitation to dialogue, not only by calling participants to openly, and without reserves and restrictions, to assess the Council of Crete 10 years after, with apology and critics, and we had both, but also, and above all, by calling them, and beyond them, to draw prospects for the future. 

In my view, and hopefully I will not be wrong, the Architecture of this Conference attests of a will to bridge good intentions, to discuss, to dialogue, to bring facts and figures, etc. which is, in my opinion, a sort of diplomatic invitation to a dialogue enabling all the Orthodox Churches to bridge and to overcome inter orthodox divisions and/or misunderstanding.

I am convinced that we must not fear the dialogue, and that the dialogue does not mean the endorsement of positions but is in essence an acceptance of the difference.

We had 4 days of intense reflections. These 4 days could be characterised by concentration, in depth thinking, intense dialogue and exchanges but also friendship and conviviality

Conclusion

Many things and events happened during the last two decades. Some of them are good and some of them are bad and need to be revisited in depth. Some were good and blessed, and have accelerated certain important movements which where needed to bring new dynamic to Orthodoxy, but other provoked teers and divisions. 

I strongly believe that there is an utmost need today, here and now, especially in our Troubled and Turmoiled World, marked with huge transformations and threats, to overcome inter orthodox divisions and disputes for the sake and interest of Unity but also for the sake of the testimony of orthodoxy in this changing and threatening world.

More than ever in the past, all of the Orthodox Churches must realize that Orthodox Momentum needs, in today’s tormented and disoriented world, three vital and major requirements: Unity, Unity, Unity.

I am also convinced that the Orthodox world needs today more than ever, the implementation of new mediation processes and mechanisms. The essence of mediation is to bridge people, positions and situations, and to build solutions putting an end to existing disputes, in an amicable manner, when the common interest of Orthodoxy and its testimony in the World, dictates the need to overcome divisions and to restore the path of unity.

Let’s also be respectful of accumulated Tradition of the Church (Church is not a political body to accept revolutions mechanics) but we need not to be traditionalist. Tradition is not something which is rigid but something living. We need to capitalize on Tradition but also to address new modern issues of Church governance.

Of course, nothing could be done without the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but nothing material also could be done by the Ecumenical Patriarchate without the synergically partnering of Constantinople with the other Orthodox Autocephalous Churches. 

Let us not imprison the Church with the dialectic of consensus and unanimity. Synodality and Primacy that make it happen is our goal. Both consensus and unanimity mechanism have pros and cons. But both could be built in such a manner to serve unity and void abuses, avoid abuse of majority on one side, and to avoid abuse of minority on the other side.

How best to restore and preserve unity of Orthodoxy here and now, in a changing and threatening world? What are the Threats (nationalism, political orthodoxy, Church isolation and independence, rigid governance etc.) menacing Orthodox Church and its mission in todays’ world? What are the Opportunities (global orthodoxy, richness of the diaspora, which is becoming more influential in the West, etc.) that are in hand? These are major strategic questions and interrogations that should be on the TOP LIST of all the Orthodox Synods.