| At the same time, the Bishops’ Council expressed ‘the conviction that the free participation of the delegations of all the universally recognized autocephalous Orthodox Churches in the Pan-Orthodox Council is a necessary condition for holding it’, noting that ‘in this connection, the solution of the problem that has arisen in relations between the Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem is of special importance’ (Resolutions, Par 6). In the hope that a pan-Orthodox accord will be achieved since without it the convocation of the Holy and Great Council is impossible, the Russian Orthodox Church immediately appointed her representatives to the bodies responsible for its further preparation and, using all possible opportunities she had for personal contacts and correspondence, took an active part in the pre-Council process. At the same time, the work was carried out to examine critical remarks to the Council’s draft documents coming from the episcopate, clergy and laity and published following the Chambesy Synaxis at the initiative of the Russian Orthodox Church. These comments, often accompanied with criticism with regard to the process of preparations for the Council, were also expressed in many other Local Orthodox Churches. Separating constructive remarks from unfounded criticism with regard to the forthcoming Council and its documents, the Department for External Church Relations came out with explanations and comments responding to the confusions arising in the flock. On June 3, 2016, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church looked closely into the proposals, which had come from the episcopate, clergy, monastics and laity, and approved the Russian Orthodox Church’s amendments to the Pan-Orthodox Council’s draft documents on ‘Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World’ and “Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World’. At the same session, the Holy Synod noted that essential amendments to the Council’s draft documents were to a great extent consonant with those presented by the Georgian, Serbian, Bulgarian and Greek Orthodox Churches, as well as the Holy Kinot of Holy Mount Athos, and these amendments need to be thoroughly examined with the aim to find pan-Orthodox consensus necessary for the Council to take decisions. |
| Under these circumstances, recognizing the fact that Council decisions should be made by consensus of all Local Churches and that the non-participation of at least one of the Orthodox Churches in the Council constitutes “an unsurmountable obstacle” to the holding of the Council, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church proposed to the Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew to hold an extraordinary Pan-Orthodox pre-Council conference no later than on June 10, 2016, to resolve the newly-arisen contradictions. This proposition appeared as a search for compromise, as a desire to salvage the work of the Council – both the Bulgarian and the Arabic (Antiochian) Bishops could have attended this conference. Two days later, on Monday, we learned of the decision of the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to ignore this proposition as well as the amendments of the other Orthodox Churches. According to the announcement of the General Secretariat of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the positions and opinions expressed by the sister Orthodox Churches were received “with surprise and wonder” by the Phanar and that “no institutional framework allowed” for the revision of the planned Council process. The announcement states that amendments are to be made by the Primates in the course of the meetings of the Council itself. “The Ecumenical Patriarchate, which bears the first responsibility for safeguarding the unity of Orthodoxy, calls all to rise to the occasion and participate, on the pre-determined dates, in the sessions of the Holy and Great Council, as was decided and signed on a pan-Orthodox level both by the Primates during the Sacred Synaxes, as well as by those authorized by each Delegation during the entire lengthy preparatory process of the Council,” announced the Synod of Constantinople. Thus, by appealing to the letter of the prior decisions, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, drawing upon its primacy, resolved to push the Council through. Most likely it will not work. The Bulgarian Church already communicated expressly that the delegation would not attend the Council on the proposed dates and confirmed that it had cancelled the reservation of the plane which had been made available to the delegates by the government. |
| Because these basic decisions had been taken by the Hierarchy, the Encyclical sent by the Standing Holy Synod to the Dioceses and read in all the churches (2977/2-6-2016) gave the assurance that the decisions taken were based on the teaching of the Church and that in the “Holy and Great Council” the Bishops would express the experience and faith of the mystery of Pentecost and the confession of our Saints. Specifically, among other things, it writes: “The Hierarchy of the Church of Greece, with absolute faith in the teachings of the Prophets, Apostles and Fathers, and with respect for the Conciliar polity of the Orthodox Church, has studied thoroughly the proposals of the Standing Synod one by one, in a spirit of unity, responsibility and seriousness, and with unanimity on most points and an absolute majority in others, has made corrections to the texts presented, and additions where needed, so that these are the final decisions of our Church with regard to these texts. The corrections and additions, which are substantial and in accord with the timeless experience and tradition of the Church, will be submitted to the Pan-Orthodox Secretariat of the Holy and Great Council in Crete and will supported by Archbishop Hieronymus of Athens and All Greece, in order to improve the texts already elaborated by the Primates of the Orthodox Churches and thus to give a good ecclesiastical testimony of faith and unity to the modern world, in tune with the whole tradition of the Church. It is, of course, understood that the Hierarchy of the Church of Greece discussed these serious issues with responsibility, sobriety and knowledge. The important thing is that it has preserved its unity. The views of many Hierarchs were heard and the decisions were almost unanimous. Because recently there has been concern, largely justified, among many members of the Clergy, monks and laypeople, about the texts to be discussed by the Holy and Great Council, we recommend that everyone should remain calm, because we Hierarchs were the first to make our confession of faith at our ordination, promising to keep safe the Apostolic and Patristic heritage which we received, and we remain vigilant for our flock, to the glory of God and the praise of the Church. |
| All these facts were ignored by the two Commissions of the Greek Orthodox Church that were charged with examining the Ukrainian church issue. According to Metropolitan Seraphim of Kythira and Antikythera, these Commissions in their conclusions “overlook over three hundred years of the living tradition of dependence of the Metropolis of Kiev and All Ukraine on the Moscow Patriarchate. These realities were present in all calendars of the Church of Greece till this year. It is possible that the Commissions also overlook the fact that Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople in his patriarchal letters dated 1992 and 1997 recognized the canonical jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate over the Metropolis of Kiev and respected canonical punishments imposed on the defrocked schismatic clerics, now cleared and restored in their rank.” The assertion of His Beatitude Archbishop Ieronymos that “due to the absence of the Moscow Patriarchate at the Council of Crete in 2016 there was no opportunity to discuss the issue of autocephaly” does not correspond to reality, too. In sober fact, the topic of autocephaly was excluded from the agenda of the Council much earlier at Patriarch Bartholomew’s insistence. The reason has become clear now. Representatives of all Local Orthodox Churches at the meetings of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission in 1993 and 2009 agreed upon the order of granting autocephaly which presupposes: a) consent of the Local Council of the kyriarchal Mother Church for the autocephaly of its part; b) the Ecumenical Patriarch’s ascertainment of consensus among all Local Orthodox Churches expressed by the unanimity of their Councils; c) on the basis of the consent of the Mother Church and pan-Orthodox consensus the official proclamation of the autocephaly by issuing a Tomos which “is signed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and is witnessed by the signatures of their Beatitudes Primates of the Holy Autocephalous Churches invited for this purpose by the Ecumenical Patriarch.” As to the last point, only the order of signing a Tomos was not agreed upon, but it does not annul the achieved agreements on other points. At the Synaxises of the Primates in 2014 and 2016 the delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate and representatives of some other fraternal Churches insisted on putting the topic of autocephaly on the agenda of the Council. The Russian Church finally agreed to take off this topic from the Council’s agenda only after January 2016, when Patriarch Bartholomew in the presence of other Primates gave his assurances that the Holy Church of Constantinople had no intention to undertake any action pertaining to the church life in Ukraine either at the Great and Holy Council or after the Council. |
| The Orthodox Church expresses her unity and catholicity “in Council”. Conciliarity pervades her organization, the way decisions are taken and determines her path. The Orthodox Autocephalous Churches do not constitute a federation of Churches, but the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Each local Church as she offers the holy Eucharist is the local presence and manifestation of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In regard to the Orthodox Diaspora in various countries of the world, it was decided to continue with the institution of Episcopal Assemblies until such time as canonical rigor can be implemented. These assemblies are composed of the canonical bishops appointed by each Autocephalous Church and these bishops continue to remain subject to their respective Churches. The due function of these Episcopal Assemblies guarantees respect for the Orthodox principle of conciliarity. During the deliberations of the Holy and Great Council the importance of the Synaxes of the Primates which had taken place was emphasized and the proposal was made for the Holy and Great Council to become a regular Institution to be convened every seven or ten years. 2) Participating in the Holy Eucharist and praying for the whole world, we must continue the ‘liturgy after the Divine Liturgy’ and give the witness of faith to those near and those far off, in accordance with the Lord’s clear command before His ascension, “And you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth (Ac. 1: 8). The re-evangelization of God’s people in modern, secularized societies and the evangelization of those who have still not come to know Christ remain an unceasing obligation for the Church. 3) In response to her obligation to witness to the truth and her apostolic faith, our Church attaches great importance to dialogue, primarily with non Orthodox Christians. In this way the remainder of the Christian world comes to know more precisely the authenticity of the Orthodox Tradition, the value of patristic teaching and the liturgical life and faith of the Orthodox. The dialogues conducted by the Orthodox Church never imply a compromise in matters of faith. |
| The Orthodox hierarchs and their opponents wrote down their confessions of faith on separate scrolls and sealed them with their seals. They opened the tomb of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia and placed both scrolls upon her relics. Then, in the presence of the emperor Marcian (450-457), the participants of the Council sealed the tomb, putting on it the imperial seal and setting a guard to watch over it for three days. During these days both sides imposed upon themselves strict fast and made intense prayer. After three days the patriarch and the emperor in the presence of the Council opened the tomb with its relics: the scroll with the Orthodox confession was held by St Euphemia in her right hand, and the scroll of the heretics lay at her feet. St Euphemia, as though alive, raised her hand and gave the scroll to the patriarch. After this miracle many of the hesitant accepted the Orthodox confession, while those remaining obstinant in the heresy were consigned to the Council’s condemnation and excommunication. After an invasion by the Persians during the seventh century, the relics of St Euphemia were transferred from Chalcedon to Constantinople, into a newly built church dedicated to her. Many years later, during the period of the Iconoclast heresy, the reliquary with the relics of the saint was cast into the sea by order of the Iconoclast emperor Leo the Isaurian (716-741). The reliquary was rescued from the sea by the ship-owning brothers Sergius and Sergonos, who gave it over to the local bishop. The holy bishop ordered that the relics be preserved in secret, beneath a crypt, since the Iconoclast heresy was continuing to rage. A small church was built over the relics, and over the reliquary was put a board with an inscription stating whose relics rested within. When the Iconoclast heresy was finally condemned at the holy Seventh Ecumenical Council (in the year 787), during the time of St Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople (784-806) and the emperor Constantine VI (780-797) and his mother St Irene (797-802), the relics of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia were once again solemnly transferred to Constantinople. |
| This distorted picture prevailed from the inception of the discussions, both in the four unofficial conferences of Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians that took place—it should be noted—at the initiative of the World Council of Churches, and in the official meetings of the Inter-Orthodox Commission on this dialogue and the conferences after the Joint Commission. In particular, there were persons, members of the dialogue and representatives of Churches, who believed that the “Orthodoxy” of the Non-Chalcedonians is unquestionable and beyond any dispute, and consequently that the theological dialogue is superfluous, for it will make matters more complicated. They maintained these points and proposed that the Churches should proceed to a simple proclamation of union, because the fifteen centuries of separation were unjustifiable. On this ground, consequently, the Church was in error all these centuries, and not only did the hundreds of great, illustrious, wise and enlightened Holy Fathers make a mistake in struggling and writing against the Monophysites, Jacobites, Acephalites, Severians, et al., but also the multitude of simple yet enlightened and holy Elders, who, as very many stories in the Gerontika show, did not consent even to talk with Non-Chalcedonians until the latter renounced their heresy and recognized the decisions of the Fourth Œcumenical Synod in Chalcedon. Assuredly, the Holy Fathers and the venerable Elders did not have less love and understanding than the contemporary champions of union. On the contrary, their attitude was based on a pastoral and pedagogical concern that those who had deviated should become aware of their error and be led to the correct faith, which is the indispensable prerequisite for salvation. He who speaks the truth has love, even if he causes distress at the outset and creates a reaction, not he who misleads and conceals the truth, taking account of temporary human relations and not of eternal realities. These matters have been clarified in the conscience of the Church. There is good and bad concord and peace; bad are the concord and peace that overlook the differences in faith, because only “the unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit,” for which the Church prays daily, can establish and guarantee deep and imperturbable peace, since they are based on spiritual and sacramental unity. When this unity does not exist, then we have bad and false concord and peace, which perpetuate and conceal the wound of separation and division; in these cases “better is a laudable war than a peace which severs a man from God.” |
| Finally, in article 22 the impression is given that the Upcoming Holy and Great Council is prejudging the infallibility of its decisions, since it considers that, “the preservation of the authentic orthodox faith is ensured only through the synodical system, which has always rested in the Church and which constitutes the appropriate and final judge on all matters of faith.” In this article, the historic fact is ignored that in the Orthodox Church the final criteria is always the living dogmatic consciousness of the fullness of the Church, which in the past confirmed even Ecumenical Councils considered robber councils. The synodical system by itself does not mechanically ensure the correctness of orthodox faith. This only happens when the Synod of Bishops has the Holy Spirit and the Hypostatic Way—Christ—working within it, and thus as “syn”—“odikoi” [i.e., “traversing together on the way”] they are, in practice, “following the Holy Fathers.” General Assessment of the Text With all that is written and what is clearly implied in the text above, it is clear that its initiators and authors are attempting the institutional and official ratification of Christian Syncretistism-Ecumenism by means of a Pan-Orthodox Synod. This, however, would be catastrophic for the Orthodox Church. For this reason I humbly propose the text’s total withdrawal. In closing, one theological observation on the text, “The Sacrament of Marriage and its Impediments.” In article 5.i, it notes: “The marriage of an Orthodox person with a heterodox person is not permitted according to canonical akrivia [the ‘rule’] (canon 72 of the Quinisext Council in Trullo). However, it is possible to be blessed through condescension and love for man under the express condition that the children of this marriage will be baptized and raised in the Orthodox Church.” Here, the express condition that, “the children of this marriage will be baptized and raised in the Orthodox Church” clashes with the theological guarantee of marriage as a sacrament of the Orthodox Church. The reason for this: because child-bearing shows itself—in connection with the baptism of children in the Orthodox Church—to legitimize the service of mixed marriage, something clearly forbidden by a Canon of the Ecumenical Councils (canon 72 of the Quinisext). In other words, a synod that is not Ecumenical, such as is the upcoming Holy and Great Council, explicitly turns a decision of an Ecumenical Council into something relative. This is unacceptable. |
| By the decision of the Bishops’ Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which took place on May 27, 1992, in Kharkov, Metropolitan Philaret (Denisenko), for his failure to fulfil the promises he gave on oath at the cross and the Gospel during the previous Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, was removed from the see of Kiev and suspended. The Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, by its Resolution of June 11, 1992, confirmed the decision of the Council of Kharkov and deposed Philaret Denisenko depriving him of all ranks of ministry according to the following accusations: ‘Cruel and arrogant attitude to the clergy under his jurisdiction, diktat and blackmail (Tit. 1: 7-8; Apostolic Canon 27; bringing temptation to the community of the faithful by his behaviour and private life (Mt. 18:7; the First Ecumenical Council Canon 3, the Sixth Ecumenical Council Canon 5); perjury (Apostolic Canon 25); public slander and blasphemy against a Bishops’ Council (Second Ecumenical Council Canon 6); exercising divine offices including ordinations in the state of suspension (Apostolic Canon 28); causing a schism in the Church (Double Council Canon 15). All the ordinations administered by Philaret in the state of suspension since May 27, 1992, and the suspensions imposed by him were recognized as invalid. In spite of repeated calls to repentance, Philaret Denisenko after his deposition continued his schismatic activity, also within other Local Churches. By the decision of the 1997 Bishops’ Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, he was anathematized. These decisions were recognized by all the Local Orthodox Churches including the Church of Constantinople. In particular, on August 26, 1992, His Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople in his reply to a letter from His Holiness Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia wrote about the deposition of Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev, ‘Our Holy Great Church of Christ, recognizing the full and exclusive competence of your Most Holy Russian Church in this matter, synodically accepts the decision on the above’. |
| Our Synaxis has a particularly special significance because it is called to settle matters and aspects that remain from the preparation and relate to the overall operation of the Holy and Great Council. In this regard, we wish to remind Your love of certain basic principles , which we have already accepted and established through formal decisions, and which we are naturally obliged to respect and maintain to the end. 1. On the Agenda As known, the agenda of the Council was determined by Pan-Orthodox decision of the First Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Consultation (1976) and includes the following ten items according to the order in the Acts of the Consultation: a)Orthodox Diaspora b)Autocephaly and its manner of proclamation c)Autonomy and its manner of proclamation d)The Diptychs e)The matter of a common calendar f)Impediments of marriage g)Adaptation of church regulations on fasting h)Relations of the Orthodox Churches with the rest of the Christian world i)Orthodoxy and the Ecumenical Movement j)Contribution of the local Orthodox Churches to the prevalence of the Christian ideals of peace, liberty, brotherhood and love among peoples, and the lifting of racial and other discrimination. According the prevailing By-Laws, each of the above items should pass through the stage of preparation in order to be examined by an Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Committee, which would repeatedly convene until it achieves unanimous formulation of the text in question, which should consequently be approved by a Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Consultation in order finally to be referred without further ado to the Holy and Great Council. Of the above items, eight have already passed through the stage of preparation and approval by Preconciliar Pan-Orthodox Consultations, while two of them – pertaining to Autocephaly and the Diptychs – have not received unanimous acceptance in the recurrent meetings of the Preconciliar Committee in order to receive final approval by a Preconciliar Consultation and comprise items for discussion at the Holy and Great Council. |
|
|
