Arabic original here.
Antioch's Historical Responsibility
It has recently been noted that Patriarch Bartholomew gave a direct address to the Patriarch of Jerusalem while standing before the royal doors during the sermon that he gave at Jerusalem's metochion in Istanbul on the Feast of the Holy Apostle James. His words contained clear ecclesio-political implications and was viewed by observers as an indirect attempt to pressure the Patriarch of Jerusalem to participate in the celebrations that the Patriarchate of Constantinople is organizing for the 1700th anniversary of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea.
In it, he said:
"We take this opportunity to repeat our fraternal invitation, which we have already sent in writing to His Beatitude the Patriarch of Jerusalem, to celebrate together on the 28th of November in Nicaea the 1700th anniversary of the convocation of the First Ecumenical Council, along with His Holiness Pope Leo XIV of Rome and our most blessed and beloved brother Patriarchs Theodore of Alexandria and John of Antioch. We shall also honor on November 30, at the Phanar, the sacred memory of Saint Andrew the First-Called, the founder of the Church of Constantinople.
This historic event, a tangible manifestation of the unity of Eastern and Western Christianity—of the four Patriarchs of the East and the Patriarch of the West, the Pentarchy of the Patriarchates—cannot be imagined without the presence of the successor of Saint James, the Brother of the Lord. We pray and hope for the positive response of our beloved brother, His Beatitude Patriarch Theophilos, in fulfillment of his sacred responsibility ‘for the unity of all.’"
It seems clear from this address that the Patriarch of Constantinople, who has led Orthodoxy to a profound rupture by granting autocephaly to the schismatics in Ukraine, is now attempting to replace Orthodox unity with a symbolic unity with the Catholic Church by trying to redraw the ecclesiastical map on the model of the ancient "pentarchy", which would give Constantinople a position of leadership at the expense of the autocephalous churches that were not established through decisions of the ecumenical councils.
The Phanar regards these churches, which today include the majority of Orthodox in the world, as implicitly subject to his jurisdiction and he wishes to keep the sword of manipulating their borders dangling, as recently happened in Ukraine, when it unilaterally changed the borders of the Patriarchate of Moscow, which had been settled for centuries.
In light of this reality, an essential question is raised: what is being asked of Antioch to facilitate the realization of Constantinople's goals?
The first step, which anticipates the final one, is participation by the Patriarch of Antioch in the Nicaea gathering so that the meeting will not turn into a limited protocol meeting with the participation of the Patriarch of Alexandria alone, to compensate for the absence of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who seems reluctant to side with the Phanar's approach to events.
The final step is to re-submit Antioch's signature to the "Council of Crete," which it had refrained from participating in, as a prelude to recognizing the so-called "Orthodox Church in Ukraine," as happened with Alexandria and Cyprus: without a formal synodal decision.
Constantinople is counting on the recent political changes in the Middle East to push Antioch to revise its position, insinuating that its previous positions were "subject to Moscow's influence." However, those who are familiar with the firmness of the Holy Synod of Antioch's position rule out any retreat from it, since Antioch's decisions were formulated in a spirit of conciliarity and express a principled theological conviction and not an ephemeral political alignment.
The Patriarch of Antioch, who personally supervised the formulation of these positions and their synodal ratification, will not be willing to put himself on trial or to trade the mind of the Church for political interests. The Holy Synod of Antioch, which has historically been committed to the principle of independence and mutual agreement between the metropolitans, and has striven to preserve consensus as the guarantor of global Orthodox unity, will not squander its heritage for the sake of niceties of protocol or temporary balances of power.
Years ago, Metropolitan Georges Khodr precisely summarized Antioch's rejection of unilateral rule by patriarchs over the Orthodox world, which Constantinople advocates in order to justify the theory of "primacy without equals" for its patriarch, when he wrote:
"If the patriarch acts outside the See of Antioch, he does not speak for himself, but rather expresses the view of the Holy Synod. He does not say, 'This is the position of the Church of Antioch' unless he is armed with a decision of the Holy Synod. He is the synod's spokesman who conveys the mind of his brothers."
Between the invitation to Nicaea and an attempt to restore the ancient "pentarchy," Constantinople is betting on reviving a historical form of leadership at a time when Orthodoxy has in practice lost its unity. Antioch, however, through its theological history and symbolism, is capable of remaining the most balanced voice in the face of this tendency and the guardian of true Orthodox unity based on communion and not dependency.
The danger of the so-called "theology of the first without equals" does not only lie in the impulse for Constantinopolitan supremacy, but also in the transformation of the Patriarchs of the East into symbolic cardinals at the Constantinopolitan court, at a time when Orthodoxy is in need of a bold dialogue to restore her conciliar face and the unity that has been lost due to unilateralism and politicization.
Posts
