It’s Everyone Or No One. The Synodality That Is Sinking the Council

Chiesa ^ | 06-09-2016 | Sandro Magister

[NRx]

It’s Everyone Or No One. The Synodality That Is Sinking the Council

A few days before it opens, the pan-Orthodox Council is in danger of failing. The patriarchates of Bulgaria, Georgia, and Antioch have announced their withdrawal, and Moscow is supporting them. The discord has been sown by the embrace between Kirill and Pope Francis

by Sandro Magister

ROME, June 9, 2016 – There hasn’t been one for more than a thousand years, it’s been in the works for sixty years, and it has finally been convened for this Pentecost, which for the Eastern Churches falls on June 19 this year.

But just as the launch draws near, the much-implored pan-Orthodox Council is at risk of falling through.

And yet everything seemed to be moving in the right direction. At the end of January the heads of the fourteen Orthodox Churches of the Byzantine tradition, meeting in Chambésy, Switzerland, had come to a final agreement on the venue of the Council (the island of Crete), its starting date (June 19), its duration (until June 26), the procedural rules, and the documents to be brought up for discussion, five of them, on the following topics:

- the autonomy of the Churches and the manner of proclaiming it;
- the importance of fasting and its observance today;
- the sacrament of marriage and its impediments;
- the relationships of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world;
- the mission of the Orthodox Church in the contemporary world in regard to peace, freedom, and brotherhood among peoples.

On each point the voting was unanimous on the part of all fourteen delegations, except for the rules and the document concerning marriage, not approved by the patriarchate of Antioch. So all of the signs were good, in spite of knowing that at a pan-Orthodox Council only that which is unanimously approved is valid, and that every modification of a rule or document must also have the agreement of all:

> News From the Eastern Front. Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete (30.1.2016)

But then, as the starting date of the Council drew near, from one Church or another the divergences began to grow larger again.

One “peripheral” problem, although not so much, is the contrast between the patriarchate of Antioch and the patriarchate of Jerusalem over the recent appointment by the latter of a metropolitan in Qatar, an appointment seen as illegitimate by Antioch, which claims Qatar as its own canonical territory.

The conflict is still unresolved. And it threatens heavy repercussions for the Council. The patriarchate of Antioch has in fact threatened repeatedly to withdraw from the assembly if the question is not resolved first. And in any case, having broken communion with the patriarchate of Jerusalem and no longer referring to it in the Eucharistic liturgy, it risks wounding the divine liturgy of Pentecost with which the Council will open.

The most serious divergences, however, especially concern one of the five documents that will be discussed at the Council, the one on relations between the Orthodox Church and the rest of the Christian world, also available in English and French:

> Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World

> Les relations de l'Église orthodoxe avec l'ensemble du monde chrétien

On April 22, the patriarchate of Bulgaria declared unacceptable some passages of points 4, 5, 6, 12, and 16 of the document that it had however approved three months before.

The document, in the judgment of the Bulgarian patriarchate, errs theologically, dogmatically, and canonically in failing to recognize that outside of the Orthodox Church there is no other “church” but only heresies and schisms; that Christian unity has never been lost, because the Orthodox Church has always been united and will always be so; that those who have fallen into heresy and schism must first return to the Orthodox faith and give obedience to it before being accepted in that which is the only true Church.

As a result, the patriarchate of Bulgaria has warned that it will approve the document only if it is rewritten at the Council as it requests. If not, it will not sign it and therefore it will lack the unanimity necessary for approval.

In reality, by taking this position the patriarchate of Bulgaria has given voice to tendencies that are very widespread in the Orthodox world, which on the whole is not at all ecumenically favorable toward the Catholic Church in the same way that this is toward it.

And the meeting on February 12 between Pope Francis and Moscow patriarch Kirill in Havana did not soothe but instead reignited this aversion in large segments of Orthodoxy:

> The Few Big Things That Francis and Kirill Didn’t Say To Each Other In Havana (16.3.2016)

In addition to the patriarchate of Bulgaria, in fact, analogous objections to the document cited have been expressed by other parts of the Orthodox world.

On May 25, the patriarchate of Georgia charged that it contains “ecclesiological and terminological errors” that demand a thorough rewrite, in the absence of which it will refuse to sign it:

> Minute of the Session of the Holy Synod…

And on the same day, the Orthodox Church of Greece also rejected as unacceptable the name of “church” as applied to Christian confessions other than the Orthodox. So did the patriarchate of Serbia.

At the end of May, a sizable delegation from the patriarchate of Moscow visited Mount Athos. And right on cue, immediately after the visit, the monasteries of the Holy Mountain spoke out as a whole against calling “churches” those that are only “Christian denominations and confessions.”

The monasteries of Athos formulated their point of view in an open letter to the ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople. They will not take part in the pan-Orthodox Council, but they are influential. In fact, they have supported the veto power of Council members that are threatening not to sign the document on relations between Orthodoxy and the rest of the Christian world:

> Open Letter of the Holy Mount Athos…

Not only that. During those same days the patriarchate of Bulgaria announced that it will not take part in the Council if its requests for corrections are not met first. The flight for its delegates to Crete has been cancelled, as have their hotel reservations. In their absence, the Council would lose its qualification as pan-Orthodox, invalidating the immense efforts made so far to convene it.

In reality, the announcement of the Bulgarian patriarchate seemed to be an extreme act of pressure on the whole Orthodox Church, the primates of which have planned a meeting the day before the opening of the Council, for a final adjustment of the documents to be discussed and voted on.

And in fact the patriarchate of Moscow, which represents two thirds of the world’s Orthodox, appeared to accept this very challenge on June 3. In a statement released at the end of a session of its holy synod, it proposed an extraordinary conference to be held urgently before the Council and even before the meeting of the primates, to amend the document on relations between Orthodoxy and the rest of the Christian world according to the objections made by the Orthodox Churches of Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, and Serbia, as well as Russia and Mount Athos:

> Session of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church

News of this step by the patriarchate of Moscow was also covered in "L'Osservatore Romano" of June 5:

> Una conferenza straordinaria prima del Concilio panortodosso

On June 6, however, a statement by the ecumenical patriarchate of Constantinople, which has the primacy of honor in the Orthodox camp, rejected the proposal of the patriarchate of Moscow, referring directly to the Council every project for the modification and correction of the contested texts:

> Communiqué

To little effect, judging by the announcement on the following day by the patriarchate of Antioch, which asked that the convocation of the Council be postponed and announced that in any case it will not go as long as the absence of a solution to its conflict with the patriarchate of Jerusalem continues to prevent it from celebrating the divine liturgy with it on the day of Pentecost:

> Statement of the Antiochian Holy Synod

While for its part the powerful patriarchate of Moscow has again proposed the very urgent convocation, by June 10, of a preconciliar conference to resolve the dangling questions.

“If these questions are resolved, the Council will take place. If not, it will be preferable to postpone it,” Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the department of external church relations of the patriarchate of Moscow, said in an interview:

> If problems on way to Pan-Orthodox Council are not resolved, it is better postponed

Pentecost is getting closer every day. But the thriller of the pan-Orthodox Council is still in suspense. Until the very last.

__________


English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.

[vladimir998]

“The patriarchates of Bulgaria, Georgia, and Antioch have announced their withdrawal...”

Serbs withdrew this morning.

[RitaOK]

I say the Orthodox should stay as far away from Rome as possible, for the time being.

These current Vatican powers need not get their tentacles into the Orthodox Church, if the Orthodox can at all read the tea leaves for destruction.

[vladimir998]

“These current Vatican powers need not get their tentacles into the Orthodox Church, if the Orthodox can at all read the tea leaves for destruction.”

There wouldn’t be any “tentacles”. Even the Orthodox hierarchs know that. The Orthodox Churches would be as they are - just in communion with the Catholic Church. They would essentially be sui juris Churches with perfect autonomy in their internal affairs and governance.

[RitaOK]

Since words are now fashionably high jacked, abused and other wise rendered meaningless, in Rome, maybe you can tell me, who is advantaged by the Orthodox electing to be “in communion” with the Roman Catholic Church, at this time?

If nothing between the two is changed relationally or in any other real manner, why the Council now, when the Vatican is presently advancing one bizarre contradiction after another?

[vladimir998]

“who is advantaged by the Orthodox electing to be “in communion” with the Roman Catholic Church, at this time?”

Everyone.

“If nothing between the two is changed relationally or in any other real manner,”

Relationally they would be in communion. That itself would be a change. In other ways essentially nothing would change. Liturgy? No change. Governance? No change. Sacraments? No change.

“why the Council now, when the Vatican is presently advancing one bizarre contradiction after another?”

First, the idea that the “Vatican is presently advancing one bizarre contradiction after another” is your own (even if some others agree with it). Second, since this “Pan-Orthodox Council” has been in the works since 1961 it is not a wonder why it is happening now. It’s just a wonder that it is happening at all.

[RitaOK]

Thank you for the response.

I just can’t shake the feeling that it matters with whom you are “communing”, and what exactly it is with which you are communing, and that the timing is a disaster, somehow.

Probably I believe appearances matter and the Vatican will count this affair as a reward for their own “advancements”, otherwise known as bad behaviors.

[vladimir998]

“I just can’t shake the feeling that it matters with whom you are “communing”, and what exactly it is with which you are communing, and that the timing is a disaster, somehow.”

Everyone knows exactly whom they are communing with in this case: the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church. There are no strangers there. Even Pope Francis is well known to the Orthodox because of his work with Eastern Catholics in Argentina. And the timing is not a disaster. The timing is NEVER perfect because we make the mistake of thinking it’s our time when it is always God’s. You seem to be forgetting the whole realm and role of grace.

“Probably I believe appearances matter and the Vatican will count this affair as a reward for their own “advancements”, otherwise known as bad behaviors.”

The Holy Spirit is not forgetting His job.

[RitaOK]

It’s best I not respond, for lack of understanding that “Everyone knows”, but for me to count the difference between empty activities and silly actions, from actual fruits that can not be hidden, and which identify us all, one by one, including the ones with titles and powers, in the Church and without.

We have enemies parading as “light” and wolves among Shepherds. God intervenes and withdraws at will. Let us not be too hasty to define one from the other.

[Kolokotronis]

” Second, since this “Pan-Orthodox Council” has been in the works since 1961 it is not a wonder why it is happening now. It’s just a wonder that it is happening at all.”

Yup!

[NRx]

Relationally they would be in communion. That itself would be a change. In other ways essentially nothing would change. Liturgy? No change. Governance? No change. Sacraments? No change.

I note that you omitted the word "doctrine" from your list. That would require a HUGE change. The only way communion will be restored between Rome and Orthodoxy is if one or the other agrees to cease to exist. Either Rome would have to become Orthodox or we would have to become Catholics.

[vladimir998]

“I note that you omitted the word “doctrine” from your list.”

I presented a list of only three things.

“That would require a HUGE change. The only way communion will be restored between Rome and Orthodoxy is if one or the other agrees to cease to exist. Either Rome would have to become Orthodox or we would have to become Catholics.”

No. If that were the case, then the Russian Orthodox Church in Communion with Rome would not exist (small as it is) but it does. It could easily be argued that it will take more “change” to get Chalcedonian Orthodox and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox into full communion then it will to get Orthodox and Catholic into full communion.

[NRx]

There is no such thing as The Russian Orthodox Church in Communion With Rome. There is a Russian Catholic Church that is microscopic in its numbers and has no bishops of its own. Is that what you were referring to?

There is no Orthodox Church in communion with Rome. Those ecclesial entities in communion with the Roman See are Catholics. They subscribe to each and every dogma proclaimed by the papacy and its councils.

We don’t even recite the same Creed. Communion will be restored when one or the other ceases to exist.

[RitaOK]

Thank you for pointing that out, NRx. I believe you got to the point I was stumped on, but could not seem to get to my frontal lobe.

I greatly appreciate your keen observation. What you said is the only way to understand a true “communion” and nothing about this Council activity addresses what the heck this meet and greet accomplishes.

Words and labels are getting high jacked in every institution. Meaningful words are turned into Scrabble, and actions into much adieu about nothing, under the cover of some mantle of virtue.

Thanks. A bunch.

[vladimir998]

“There is no such thing as The Russian Orthodox Church in Communion With Rome.”

That name is rarely used now.

“There is a Russian Catholic Church that is microscopic in its numbers and has no bishops of its own. Is that what you were referring to?”

I am referring to Russian Orthodox who are in communion with Rome. They are not “Russian Catholics” of a Latin Rite. They were Russians, Orthodox, who are now in communion with the Catholic Church. I think you know what I am talking about.

“There is no Orthodox Church in communion with Rome.”

Well, the Macedonian Orthodox Church - which was not considered canonical if I remember correctly - wanted communion with Rome. Someone can make a case that particular Orthodox Churches - i.e. local dioceses - are in union with Rome. That’s not what you’re going to say you’re talking about of course.

“Those ecclesial entities in communion with the Roman See are Catholics.”

They are Catholics. And they are Orthodox. Just as would be the case if the MP came into communion with Rome tomorrow.

“They subscribe to each and every dogma proclaimed by the papacy and its councils.”

The funny thing about that statement is when you meet Eastern Orthodox who (quietly) believe in “Catholic” things like the Immaculate Conception. It’s much like what Bishop Timothy Ware documents in his famous book, The Orthodox Church (page 260), how some EOs said they would now deny the Assumption of Mary because Pope Pius XII had defined it ex cathedra. Bizarre. And it could only happen in the Orthodox Churches.

“We don’t even recite the same Creed.”

We don’t have to recite the same Creed - since it is a liturgical creed. The Creed that DEFINES the faith is the same between East and West.

“Communion will be restored when one or the other ceases to exist.”

Nope. If that were true, then there would be no Eastern Catholics - all of whom are Orthodox. You don’t have to like it. It’s just going to be, with you or without you. That’s how God works. He’s not worried about your invested feelings, precious little snowflake.

[NRx]

“That name is rarely used now.”

I have not been able to find any record of it’s ever being used in any official capacity.

“I am referring to Russian Orthodox who are in communion with Rome.”

There is no such animal. The Russian Orthodox Church is not in communion with the See of Rome. You are who you are in communion with. If you are taking communion with/from Catholics then you are Catholic... not Orthodox. If they believe they are both Catholic and Orthodox then I would suggest they are also deeply confused. Taking Communion from someone not in communion with your bishop/church is and has always been treated as a form of self excommunication.

“Well, the Macedonian Orthodox Church - which was not considered canonical if I remember correctly - wanted communion with Rome.”

The self proclaimed Macedonian Orthodox Church is at the least schismatic. If they want Communion with Rome then they are also heretical.

“They are Catholics. And they are Orthodox. Just as would be the case if the MP came into communion with Rome tomorrow.”

The MP could not enter into communion with Rome without adhering to all of Rome’s doctrinal innovations including the Filioque and the universal primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. In doing so he would become an apostate and heretic.

“We don’t have to recite the same Creed - since it is a liturgical creed. The Creed that DEFINES the faith is the same between East and West.”

That is hands down the most bizarre thing I have ever seen you write. I don’t even know how to respond except to say your position is seriously at odds not only with Holy Orthodoxy but your own church’s consistent teaching. The creed is no mere liturgical formality. It is an infallible declaration of the truths of the Holy Orthodox Faith confirmed by all nine of the OEcumenical Councils. Those who do not subscribe are outside the Church and barred from the Holy Mysteries by the Ecumenical Canons.

Communion is a declaration of complete agreement in all matters of faith and doctrine. There can never be true communion under any other circumstances. That you don’t grasp that is frankly shocking. And if you really believe that then you know nothing of Orthodoxy.

[vladimir998]

“I have not been able to find any record of it’s ever being used in any official capacity.”

I never said it was used in an “official capacity”. Why didn’t you simply ask if it was? Wouldn’t that have been the more intelligent use of your time?

“There is no such animal.”

There are.

“The Russian Orthodox Church is not in communion with the See of Rome.”

I didn’t say it was.

“You are who you are in communion with.”

What?

“If you are taking communion with/from Catholics then you are Catholic... not Orthodox.”

Unless you’re Orthodox - which in this case they are. You don’t have to believe reality. It’s still reality.

“If they believe they are both Catholic and Orthodox then I would suggest they are also deeply confused.”

What they believe, especially the older members, is that they are Orthodox - who are in communion with Rome. Younger members might see themselves as Catholics who are Eastern Orthodox in practice and heritage. When Eastern Orthodox (not from their parishes) receive communion among them - and it happens - they don’t believe they are leaving Orthodoxy to become Catholics. Nor do they believe they are entering some sort of permanent communion with the Catholic Church. Those Eastern Orthodox do it as a matter of convenience (right or wrong) and I know there are Catholic who do the same thing. Only a Catholic of the Latin Rite would not do such a thing as a matter of convenience. Looks like it is the Easterners on both sides who are the most confused.

“Taking Communion from someone not in communion with your bishop/church is and has always been treated as a form of self excommunication.”

Actually, no. This happens every Christmas, every summer vacation, etc. I’ve seen it myself. Then there’s also : https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/intercommunion.htm

“The self proclaimed Macedonian Orthodox Church is at the least schismatic.”

That just means it’s in good stead with some other “Orthodox” in history. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/estcerkpolit.htm

“If they want Communion with Rome then they are also heretical.”

The irony of your statement is great: “Make no mistake: Orthodox Christians genuinely desire union with Roman Catholics, but it is the same union that they desire with all Christians and, indeed, with all human beings—union in the Orthodox Christian faith given by Christ once for all to the Apostles.” I understand what you were saying, but all Christians should want communion with all Christians. http://saintpaulemmaus.org/for-visitors/for-roman-catholics/

“The MP could not enter into communion with Rome without adhering to all of Rome’s doctrinal innovations including the Filioque and the universal primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. In doing so he would become an apostate and heretic.”

I don’t think you’re as aware as you think you are. See the below:

“I believe that it is important to reaffirm respect for this principle as an essential condition, accepted by both, for the restoration of full communion, which does not signify the submission of one to the other, or assimilation. Rather, it means welcoming all the gifts that God has given to each, thus demonstrating to the entire world the great mystery of salvation accomplished by Christ the Lord through the Holy Spirit. I want to assure each one of you here that, to reach the desired goal of full unity, the Catholic Church does not intend to impose any conditions except that of the shared profession of faith.”

http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/11/30/pope_francis_i_seek_communion_with_orthodox_churches/1113017

“That is hands down the most bizarre thing I have ever seen you write. I don’t even know how to respond except to say your position is seriously at odds not only with Holy Orthodoxy but your own church’s consistent teaching.”

Not one bit - and this has been recognized by the Eastern Orthodox themselves. They acknowledge that we have the SAME defining Creed: The Filioque: A Church Dividing Issue?: An Agreed Statement http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/ecumenical-and-interreligious/ecumenical/orthodox/filioque-church-dividing-issue-english.cfm Again, we see you don’t know as much as you might believe. Also, did you know that there Greeks who used the filique version of the Creed centuries before it became the norm in the West? I bet you didn’t. Filioque was introduced into England BY A GREEK (named Theodore of Tarsus who lived from 602-690 and was the Archbishop of Canterbury) He presided over the the Council of Hatfield in 680 where he introduced the filioque as a response to Monothelitism. Did you know any of that? It pays to read books. If you don’t believe what I just said about the filioque being introduced into England in 680 BY A GREEK, then you might want to read The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, by A. Edward Siecienski, page 88.

“The creed is no mere liturgical formality.”

Never said it was. That is the second straw man you’ve attempted.

“It is an infallible declaration of the truths of the Holy Orthodox Faith confirmed by all nine of the OEcumenical Councils. Those who do not subscribe are outside the Church and barred from the Holy Mysteries by the Ecumenical Canons.”

Again, read what I posted from the agreed statement on the USCCB website.

“Communion is a declaration of complete agreement in all matters of faith and doctrine. There can never be true communion under any other circumstances. That you don’t grasp that is frankly shocking. And if you really believe that then you know nothing of Orthodoxy.”

I clearly know a lot more than you apparently know. That won’t change.