| The discussions and debates surrounding the draft documents express concerns and objections that emerge in the Orthodox Churches. It is argued that the intensity of the objections demonstrates that the Holy and Great Council should be postponed so as to avoid possible schism. Such a conclusion appears to reject the conciliar vision and practice of the Orthodox Church. The challenges of our time require more theological reflection and debate, not less. The urgency of such theological reflection and debate calls for more conciliarity, not less. At the heart of concerns and objections to the Council and its draft documents is the fear of eroding the Orthodox identity and self-understanding, diluting Orthodox theology (the truth about God) and ecclesiology (the truth about the Church). Today’s challenge to the Orthodox Church is the same it has always been: to bring to all people the Christ who is the way and the truth and the life, to bring the Gospel of Christ to all people with love and compassion, to worship God eucharistically in Spirit and in Truth. In faithfulness to this Orthodox way lies deliverance from fear and growth in life and faith and spiritual understanding (Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom). The commitment of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to the building of consensus, as shown by periodically convening the Synaxis of Patriarchs and Primates, has opened the path to the Holy and Great Council. Even at these last moments of preparation the obstacles on this path are emerging with even greater strength than before. The most recent sign of the crisis came at the meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church on June 3, 2016. The minutes of this meeting enumerate the procedural and substantive challenges faced by the Orthodox Churches on the eve of the Council – including the unresolved dispute between the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem, the demands for changes in some of the draft documents coming from the Churches of Georgia, Serbia, and Greece, and also from the Monasteries of Mount Athos, and finally the decision of the Church of Bulgaria insisting on the postponement of the Council and declaring categorically that she will not participate in the Council set for the end of June 2016. The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church concludes that this extraordinary situation may be resolved by the convening of an extraordinary Pan-Orthodox Preconciliar Consultation not later than June 10. This Consultation would have as its purpose a review of the existing situation and a study of the proposed changes to the Council documents. On the basis of the conclusion of the Consultation the Churches could determine whether the convening of the Council on the announced dates is possible. |
| The same Synaxis approved by a majority vote the decision to convene the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church from June 18 to 27, 2016, in Crete. However, this decision, just as the Working Procedure of the Council and the Council’s draft document on “The Sacrament of Marriage and Impediments to It” was not signed by the Orthodox Church of Antioch. The latter was not signed by the delegation of the Georgian Orthodox Church either. The both Churches pointed out to serious reasons for their decision. Nevertheless, the Russian Orthodox Church, for the sake of success in the progress towards the convocation of the Council, deemed it possible to sign the above-mentioned documents, expressing, at the same time both at the Synaxis itself and in the correspondence with His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople, her conviction of the need to make intensive efforts in the time remaining till the Council (including by the Pan-Orthodox Secretariat established by the Synaxis) for seeking a general Orthodox accord with regard to the documents not signed by the two or one of the Local Churches, which would make the convocation of the Council possible. For reasons beyond the control of the Russian Orthodox Church, no further pan-Orthodox discussion on the existing situation was undertaken. The Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, which took place on February 2-3, 2016, approved the position taken by the Russian Orthodox Church delegation at the Chambesy Synaxis and in other pan-Orthodox bodies, expressed its satisfaction with the introduction of the necessary amendments and additions to the Holy and Great Council’s draft documents and having them preliminarily approved on the whole, charged the Holy Synod with forming a delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Pan-Orthodox Council, which was done by the Holy Synod in April 2014. The Bishops’ Council called upon the plenitude of the Russian Orthodox Church ‘to lift up an ardent prayer that the Lord may reveal His will to the members of the forthcoming Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church and that it may fortify the unity of Orthodoxy and serve to the good of the Church of Christ and the glory of God and preserve the Orthodox faith intact’. |
| 4. That the Church of Russia has taken, on June 3rd 2016, a synodical decision suggesting to convene a conference preceding the date of the Holy Council in order to study the unsolved problems and reach a consensus about the remarks of the churches on the synodical documents. This decision also emphasized the respect of the consensus principle through the participation of all autocephalous churches in this Council; The fathers of the Holy Antiochian Synod also noticed: 1. That the remarks and reservations of the Antiochian Church related to the internal regulations of the Great Council and the decisions taken by the Synaxis of Primates of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches between 21 and 28 January 2016, which are both documents not signed by the Antiochian Orthodox Church, have not been taken into consideration until now, contrary to the observed rules within the common Orthodox work established by His Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I when he launched the preparation for the Great Council, and which focuses on the need for unanimous agreement of the Autocephalous churches on all the decisions; 2. That the document related to the sacrament of marriage and its impediments is still listed on the agenda of the Great Council although it has not been signed by the Church of Antioch and the Church of Georgia; 3. That the issue of Diaspora has been included in the agenda of the Great Council without any evaluation of the work of the Episcopal Assemblies, regardless of the repeated Antiochian call for a special meeting to evaluate the activity of these assemblies and suggest the convenient ecclesial solutions before the convention of the Great Council. These assemblies had been created “as a transitory step preparing the ground for a sound canonical solution to the Diaspora issue, on condition to be limited to the period of preparation for the Great Council which will find a canonical solution to this matter” (paragraph 1.b. of the text of the decision related to the Orthodox Diaspora taken by the fourth Orthodox Pre-conciliar Conference, Chambésy, 6-12 June 2009). Therefore it is necessary to evaluate the work of these assemblies before the convening of the Great Council, so that the Council won’t have to directly address the issue of Diaspora and Episcopal Assemblies without pre-conciliar preparation; |
| Still unresolved are the differences between the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem concerning the church jurisdiction over Qatar and the ensuing absence of the Eucharistic communion between them – which is an essential obstacle for participation of the Church of Antioch in the Council. During the past week, the Holy Synod of the Georgian Orthodox Church resolved that the Council’s documents on ‘The Sacrament of Marriage and Impediments to It’ and ‘The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World’ should be considerably amended, while the document on ‘The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World’ ‘should be essentially rewritten’. It is noted that if the proposed changes ‘are not taken into account and put into the text of the document the Church of Georgia will find it impossible to sign it’. The Holy Bishop’s Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church adopted a document on the preparation of the Pan-Orthodox Council. It ‘reflects the position taken by the bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church on all the main problems to be discussed at the Great Council and to be decided’. This document, sent for information to the Primates and Holy Synods of Local Orthodox Churches, asked a question ‘whether the forthcoming Council meets the criterion and measure of authentic Council known from the history of the Orthodox Church…, whether the Council will express the unity of the Church of Christ in the Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father’. The bishops of the Serbian Orthodox Church point to the shortcomings of the Council’s Working Procedure; ask questions about the role and status of the bishops at the Council and about the unjustified reduction of the number of participants in the Council; they also believe it necessary for the Council to consider the theme of autocephaly and the way of its declaration (the matter on which the Russian Church along with other Churches has continually insisted; they express the opinion that the Council’s draft documents ‘need to be changed and clarified in order to be consistent with the challenges of the Church’s life and mission’, making a special reference to meet this need in the documents on ‘The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World’ and ‘The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World’, and also make other remarks. |
| In addition to convening the regular meetings of the primates, the Ecumenical Patriarch has encouraged the thorough discussions of these topics over the past twenty years in pre-conciliar consultations and conferences. During this period, faculty members from Holy Cross have been involved in these discussions. Most recently, hierarchs, clerics, theologians, and laity alike have been involved in multifaceted discussions regarding the Holy and Great Council and the six topics to be addressed at the Council. These discussions have been conducted within the context of not only the holy synods of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, but also in theological forums, on internet blogs, in scholarly articles, and at numerous public lectures and discussions throughout the world. Here at Holy Cross, the faculty sponsored three public gatherings with professors and students to discuss the long and fascinating history of pre-conciliar activities, the pre-conciliar documents themselves, as well as the impact and importance of the Council for the Church today. Moreover, His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios, Geron of America addressed our entire community on the importance of the Holy and Great Council. Also, more than twenty students from Holy Cross and Hellenic College are volunteering at the Council. Orthodoxy is a conciliar Church. Together with the great Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium, there have been numerous regional councils which addressed significant challenges facing the Church. The coming Holy and Great Council will be consistent with this tradition of conciliarity. As a truly global council, it provides a blessed opportunity for the bishops to pray together, to meet together, and to address together critical issues facing the Church. We recognize that a number of Autocephalous Churches and individual bishops have raised questions about the content and the procedure of the Council. We are convinced that these questions are best addressed within the context of the Council and in subsequent gatherings, provided there is openness to the guidance of the Spirit. |
| 6) coordinate the work of the pan-Orthodox Secretariat of the Council. Article 6 Secretariat of the Council The Secretariat of the Council is a pan-Orthodox body, i.e.: 1) it shall consist of one hierarch from each delegation as well as a secretary for the preparation of a Holy and Great Council, who supervises the work of the pan-Orthodox Secretariat: 2) members of the Secretariat shall be assisted in their work by ad hoc advisers: clergy, monastics or laity who are chosen from among the consultants of the delegations of the Local Orthodox Churches and shall support the manifold work of the pan-Orthodox Secretariat. The number of such advisers cannot exceed two persons from each delegation. Article 7 Terms of Reference of the Secretariat of the Council The terms of reference of the Secretariat of the Council shall be as follows: 1) to compile files with materials for the pre-Council progress for drafting texts on items on the Council’s agenda in the official working languages; 2) to take the minutes of the Council’s sessions; 3) to assist in the work of plenary sessions and the Council’s Commissions; 4) to ensure the proper organization of simultaneous translation of the Council’s discussion into the official languages; 5) to set up Special Committees for both drafting reports for immediate information to the public on the progress of the Council and for preparing its message; 6) to properly inform the present observers from other Christian churches or confessions by providing them with appropriate files with items on the Council’s agenda; and 7) to solve immediately all other unforeseen practical or procedural problems. Article 8 The Work of the Council The work of the Council shall begin and end with the celebration of the pan-Orthodox Divine Liturgy presided over by the Ecumenical Patriarchate with the participation of all the primates of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches or their representatives in accordance with the diptychs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate; 1) It shall be carried out in the form of plenary sessions and/or Council’s Commissions in accordance with the elaborated program of studies on the agenda items, the texts of which were unanimously approved by the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conferences and Meetings of the Primates of autocephalous Orthodox Churches; |
| In light of the situation that has developed in this way, we were faced with the dilemma of either postponing the realization of the Holy and Great Council until agreement is also reached on these two items or else proceeding with its convocation contented with the eight items. On this question, there was a Pan-Orthodox decision to proceed with the convocation of the Council contented with the eight items, which received unanimous approval by Preconciliar Consultations. Subsequently, our Synaxis in March 2014 unanimously decided to convene the Holy and Great Council in 2016 after a Special Inter-Orthodox Committee has previously undertaken the following actions by Pascha 2015: a) the revision of the texts agreed by the Third Preconciliar Consultation on the items: Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement ; Relations of the Orthodox Churches with the rest of the Christian world ; and, Contribution of the Orthodox Churches to the prevalence of peace, etc . b) the editing of texts from the Second Preconciliar Consultation regarding: Adaptation of church regulations on fasting ; Impediments of marriage ; and, A common calendar . c) If possible (“ it is desirable ”), the discussion of the items of Autocephaly and the Diptychs by the Preparatory Committee in order to achieve unanimity. This Special Committee completed its task within the prescribed timeframe with regard to points (a) and (b), working until the eve of Holy and Great Week 2015, but was unable due to lack of time to fulfill the expressed wish of the Synaxis on point (c). Accordingly, the items that remained for the Holy and Great Council were the eight originally agreed, which received the approval of a Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Consultation as foreseen by the By-Laws. In the meantime and despite what was unanimously agreed, certain Churches expressed their desire and even demand that the Holy and Great Council be postponed until there is discussion and unanimous acceptance both on the items of Autocephaly and the Diptychs as well as on the texts of the Second Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Consultation (1982) on Impediments of marriage and A common calendar , which were not unanimously edited by the above-mentioned Special Committee. As far as the last two items, we cannot but express our surprise from such a demand, given that the decision of our Synaxis in 2014 did not at all foresee any radical revision of these texts, but simply their editing by the Special Committee; which is why the presiding chairman correctly forbade any radical revision since this would constitute transgression or transcendence of the mandate given to the Committee by our Synaxis. The demand on the part of certain Churches to revise these texts would clearly require a new unanimous decision of the Synaxis of Primates, different to the one taken in 2014 about a simple editing of the texts, which editing by its very nature could not affect the core contents of the same texts. |
| 4. That the issue of “Church Calendar and unifying the date of celebrating Easter” has been removed from the agenda despite its importance to the Orthodox flock of the Antiochian See, awaiting from the universal Orthodox Church a pastoral position in this respect; 5. That the section related to the evaluation of the dialogue with other Christians, and that was supposed to be drafted sometime soon, before the convening of the Great Council, in order to be included in the document about “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian world”, has neither been drafted nor approved until now; 6. That the content of the document “Autonomy and the Means by which it is Proclaimed” needs to approved before listing it on the agenda of the Great Council; 7. That the latest pre-conciliar phase was characterized by the absence of real and effective contribution of the Orthodox churches to the preparatory work, by the secretariat’s slow pace and by the lack of clarity regarding the schedule and proceedings of the sessions; posing a possible risk of failure to the synodical sessions; 8. That the latest decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate dated 31 May 2016, suggesting to postpone the solution of the dispute with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem until after the Great Council, neglects the initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarch (5 April 2016) and the Antiochian response to it, and disregards the depth of the matter and its effects on the Holy and Great Orthodox Council. The Holy and Great Orthodox Council cannot take place while the communion between two Apostolic churches is broken, given the Eucharistic character of this Council. Issuing this decision before the convening of the Council leaves the Antiochian Church the one and only unacceptable choice of participating in the Great Council without concelebrating Eucharist because of not finding a solution to the ongoing violation committed by the Patriarchate of Jerusalem for more than three years (see the statement of the Antiochian Synod of 1st June 2016 regarding this dispute). |
| As you know, at the Synaxis of the Primates in 2016 in Chambesy, Patriarch Bartholomew, for all delegations of the Local Churches to hear, said, ‘We recognize Metropolitan Onufry and greet him and as the only canonical hierarch of our Orthodox Church in Ukraine together with the holy hierarchs subordinate to him’. Patriarch Bartholomew promised not to interfere in the church affairs in Ukraine either before the Council or after it. We believed these words. We thought if the Ecumenical Patriarch says so, let us indeed hold a Council as he promises us and after it we will continue discussing the autocephaly topic. We should not have believed him; he deceived us. Precisely this was our great mistake. As for the absence of the Russian Orthodox Church from the Council of Crete, you are well aware of the developments. The document ‘Organization and Working Procedure of the Holy and Great Council’ approved by the Local Orthodox Churches presupposed the convocation of a Council with the consent of the Primates of all the autocephalous Churches . That is to say the Council was to be held with the participation of all the commonly recognized Local Orthodox Churches. When three Local Churches, namely those of Bulgaria, Georgia and Antioch, refused to attend the Council, Patriarch Kirill wrote a letter to Patriarch Bartholomew proposing to hold an urgent Pre-Council Conference, to make decisions on the existing issues and still to invite these Churches to the Council. However, he received the following reply from Patriarch Bartholomew: ‘A new extraordinary Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference proposed by your Holy Church is deemed to be impossible since a normative basis for its convocation is absent’. Who exactly deemed it impossible? There were still two weeks remaining before the Council. Why measures could not still be taken for all to participate in the Council? The legitimacy and obligatory nature of the decisions made by the Pan-Orthodox Council depended on the participation in it of the whole Orthodoxy. Therefore, if the delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church had taken part in the Council of Crete, it would have to state that the Council was not legitimate because three Churches were absent from it. It means that the Council would be frustrated. |
| On March 13, 2013, the Patriarch of Antioch urgently summoned the Holy Council, at which it was decided to consider the actions of Jerusalem as an encroachment on integrity of the Church of Antioch; the Council called upon the See of Jerusalem to settle the conflict (which might lead to break-off of the Eucharistic communion between the sister Churches) as soon as possible and to reconsider the Geneva agreements, worked out by the preparatory commissions to the Great, Holy, pan-Orthodox Council. At the earliest possible date delegations of the Patriarchate of Antioch held negotiations with other Local Orthodox Churches, which included the issue of above-mentioned actions of the Church of Jerusalem, which posed a threat to integrity of One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Universal Church. The meeting of the Holy Council of Antioch in June 2013 again discussed the problem of the so-called " Archdiocese of Qatar " . The fathers made the decision to respond to the initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarch and to be present at the negotiations with the delegation of the Church of Jerusalem at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Greece on June 21, 2013. The negotiations, held at the time appointed, led to signing of the agreement, which ordered abolition of the " Qatar Archdiocese " of Jerusalem as well as settlement of the presence of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem on the territory of Qatar according to the established Church tradition. Nevertheless, the See of Jerusalem, in spite of all efforts of the Greek government and the Patriarchate of Constantinople, refused to implement the requirements of the signed agreement. Therefore, in accordance with the canon law of the Church, the Holy Council, assembled in October 2013, directed to make up a special commission, authorized to solve the emerged problem within two months; otherwise, the Church of Antioch, in its turn, promised to break off the Eucharistic communion with Jerusalem. Receiving the invitation to the Phanar assembly of heads of the Local Orthodox Churches (March 6-9 this year), the Patriarch of Antioch postponed the implementation of the decision of the Council of October last year. However, the above-mentioned problem was not discussed at the Phanar and was not included in its agenda, in spite of requests of the Antiochian delegation. The latter was given by the Ecumenical Patriarch the message of the Patriarch of Jerusalem of February 29 (sic.), in which he announced inclusion of " Syria and Arabia " into the jurisdiction of Jerusalem. Later, the Antiochian side refused to sign the resulting document of the assembly and to take part in the joint solemn service on the feast of Triumph of Orthodoxy. |
|
|
