Jad Ganem: Antioch between Conciliarity and Unilateral Decision-making

 Arabic original here.

 

Antioch between Conciliarity and Unilateral Decision-making

Recent information points to intensive ecclesiastical and diplomatic activity conducted by Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople to prepare for the celebration of the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, as a part of which he is attempting to revive the system of the "Pentarchy" as the framework of reference for administering Orthodoxy worldwide in the future, as he himself openly declared during his recent visit to Romania.

Some sources indicate that Patriarch Bartholomew is greatly counting on the patriarch of Antioch's presence by his side during this event and considers his participation to be symbolic support for a revival of the historical 'Pentarchy', which he sees as necessary for putting the affairs of Orthodoxy in order in the immediate future, especially given that the patriarch of Antioch is the only non-Greek patriarch within this framework.

It has been confirmed that the patriarch of Antioch received two official invitations to participate:

The first on September 5, delivered by the metropolitan of Chalcedon during his visit to Balamand, and the second on the 15th of the same month, delivered personally to His Beatitude by the Turkish ambassador.

According to what is stated in Patriarch Bartholomew's recent speech, it seems that Patriarch John accepted the invitation in principle and confirmed his participation in the celebration.

However, it is noteworthy-- and indeed, raises questions--that one of the metropolitans of the See of Antioch was not aware of this invitation and that the Holy Synod of Antioch, which recently met, did not discuss the issue at all.

Apart from any debate about the usefulness or dangers of participating, which is an issue that is supposed to be discussed in a conciliar manner, there remains the deeper problem of decision-making within the Church of Antioch.

According to Paragraph 14 of the Basic Statute of the Patriarchate of Antioch, the synod is responsible for "deciding the nature and extent of the Church of Antioch's relations with the autocephalous Orthodox churches and other religious bodies."

Likewise, Paragraph 22 of the Internal Statute stipulates that the synod is the one who "appoints the committee on ecumenical affairs, whose task is to study issues raised by the sister churches and various religious bodies." 

As for the patriarch, although according to the statute he is "the symbol of the unity of the Antiochian Church and the instrument of her connection to the universal Church," he cannot act alone in these matters, because "Antiochian delegations are formed with the approval of the relevant synodal committees."

This situation brings to mind what Metropolitan Georges Khodr, the historical leader of the ecumenical relations committee, wrote when he clearly stated:

 "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."

 On the basis of this principle, any decision or commitment taken in Antiochian Church's name outside the framework of the synod is deemed to be lacking ecclesiastical legitimacy because the synod is the living conscience of the church and the guarantor of her independence and credibility within the Orthodox family.

 But questions remain legitimate:

Why did he not submit the invitation to the synod that met shortly after he received it?

Why has the committee for ecumenical relations still not been activated?

Why have external relations been reduced to the will of one individual, when even Constantinople--which promotes the theory of "first without equals"--relies on standing committees to discuss issues and makes decisions during the monthly meetings of its synod?

Even more worrying is the silence of the metropolitans about this, their undeclared resignation from their conciliar role, and their surrender to a logic of unilateral decision-making in matters pertaining to the See of Antioch's role and future.

Have sessions of the Holy Synod of Antioch become mere training courses that are organized from time to time? Are they now being convened as a decoration, for image and media-hype rather than for making decisions?

Has the Patriarchate of Antioch been transformed into a system of unilateral management, after having been the model for conciliarity and dialogue?

Antioch's pioneering role in the Orthodox world is not achieved through courtesies of  protocol, but by giving life to the spirit of true conciliarity based on study, consultation and constructive scrutiny, not on the will of a single individual.

Today the Antiochian bishops are called to bear their responsibilities before God and their people and to reactivate conciliarity as the guarantor of the Church's unity and credibility, because if authority is separated from consultation, it loses its meaning and because every authority needs a counterbalance that keeps it from transgressing its natural boundaries.

The question remains open:

Will Antioch go to Nicaea by a unilateral decision that weakens what remains of her deep tradition of conciliarity?

Or will she make her decision on the basis of ecclesiastical conciliarity, in harmony with her history and her role in establishing the principle of consultation among the churches?

Whatever the case may be, the faithful have the right to know, because the Church is not the patriarch or the synod alone. She is the entire people of God, this people that will not be driven like a silent flock, but rather participates in shaping the future of their Church and her witness in this world.