Jad Ganem: The Most Honest Stance to Take

 Arabic original here.

The Most Honest Stance to Take

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has been suffering for years due to its maintaining canonical ties with the Patriarchate of Moscow, which, for more than thirty years, has refused to acknowledge the right of the Orthodox people in Ukraine to obtain autocephaly. The Moscow Patriarchate neither attempted nor succeeded in addressing the Ukrainian schism that has persisted for decades.

Recently, after Constantinople, along with the Churches of Alexandria, Cyprus, and Greece, recognized the Ukrainian schismatics and the autocephaly of what is called the “Orthodox Church of Ukraine,” this church found itself at the heart of persecution within Ukrainian society. The Russian war on Ukraine, along with Patriarch Kirill’s positions in support of it, including the distribution certificates of sanctity to soldiers who died during the conflict, only further fueled the resentment of a significant portion of the Ukrainian people towards Russia and its people. This anger has been directed towards the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which is perceived as an extension of the Moscow Patriarchate in their country.

The position of Metropolitan Onufriy, who opposed the war, along with the church’s involvement in aiding soldiers and doing humanitarian work-- even the church’s declaration of independence from the Moscow Patriarchate-- have not succeeded in changing the stereotypical image promoted by the media. This image appears to be accepted within society and among politicians, who overwhelmingly voted for Law 8371, which aims to ban the activities of this church.

Upon the adoption of this law, Patriarch Kirill hastened to call a session of the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate, which issued a statement holding Patriarch Bartholomew responsible for what is happening, affirming that the church in Ukraine will steadfastly endure persecution and that the “gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Patriarch Kirill also sent a letter to the heads of the Orthodox churches, religious leaders and international organizations, informing them of the adoption of Law 8371 and calling on them to pray for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which, “after the authorities failed to weaken it and failed to shake its unity, decided to ban it completely,” through a law that violates international agreements and the Ukrainian constitution.

Perhaps Patriarch Kirill does not realize that he is responsible for the crimes being committed against the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and that all the documents he and his church issue regarding it and religious freedom in Ukraine do not receive any positive response from anyone and are not even worth the ink they are written with. Instead, they harm this church and are used against it by its enemies, who find in them additional evidence for its lack of independence from Moscow.

Therefore, the only service Patriarch Kirill can provide to this church, after maintaining silence and refraining from interfering in its affairs, is to convene a synod in which he openly declares his recognition of its independence from the Moscow Church, as declared on May 27, 2022, and grants it autocephaly. This would be better than all the letters and statements he issues in its supposed defense, as it would neutralize Law 8371 and the justification for its existence.

Patriarch Kirill failed to be a father to the Ukrainian people at the start of the Russian war on Ukraine, and he has encouraged the killing of those he once considered his children! He should learn from the rejection of his name in prayers by the Ukrainian Orthodox people and from the Ukrainian Orthodox Church’s declaration of independence from his patriarchate. He should agree to this independence and spare it from persecution. This, indeed, is the only position that history might remember him for!

If Patriarch Kirill is truly concerned about the fate of this church, then declaring the independence of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from the Moscow Patriarchate is the most honest stance he can take. Perhaps it is now incumbent upon the leaders of the Orthodox world to demand this of him or to take it upon themselves to embrace the Ukrainian Orthodox Church as a church independent from Moscow!

Orthodox History: The End of the “Greek Captivity” of Antioch

 Matthew Namee, at the excellent blog Orthodox History, has posted an excellent summary of the process by which the Patriarchate of Antioch rid itself of the Greek xenocracy that had controlled it, much to its detriment, during most of the 18th and 19th centuries. 

 

For most of the 18th and 19th century, the Patriarchate of Antioch was controlled by ethnic Greeks rather than the local Arabic-speaking people. The Patriarch was always a Greek, a member of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre, which controlled not only Antioch but also Alexandria and Jerusalem. (Today, Jerusalem remains under the control of the Brotherhood.) As the 19th century wore on, the native Antiochians chafed under the rule of what they viewed as Greek interlopers.

In 1885, the Greek Patriarch Hierotheos of Antioch died at the age of 85. He had served as Patriarch for 34 years, and the historian Derek Hopwood wrote that Hierotheos “continued to reign until he was overtaken by senility, which in Arab opinion saved the Church from ‘utter destruction’.” The local Orthodox population of the Patriarchate clamored for a Patriarch of their own people to succeed Hierotheos, but, according to Hopwood, the ruling Greek minority “argued (and bolstered their argument with considerable sums of money), that there was no Arab fit to assume the office of patriarch and that the Arabs as a whole were under Russian influence.” The Ottoman government duly approved Gerasimos, a Greek member of the Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre, as the next Patriarch of Antioch.

In 1890, the Brotherhood elected Gerasimos to be the next Patriarch of Jerusalem. although technically lower in the diptychs, Jerusalem was a far wealthier see than Antioch, and Gerasimos agreed to the switch. With the throne of Antioch vacant, the local Orthodox hoped that one of their own might finally become Patriarch. But the Syrians were not themselves unified: a faction of Orthodox elites in Damascus was actually opposed to a native Patriarch, fearing that the election of a Syrian would reduce their own influence. The Brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre proposed a Greek candidate, Spyridon, who is said to have offered a large bribe to the elites of Damascus to support his election. Thus Spyridon was elected, and from the beginning, there was discontent. Patriarch Spyridon proved to be a capricious leader, moving clergy around and dispensing discipline arbitrarily, closing schools, and hiding the Patriarchate’s finances from the rest of the Holy Synod. He was so hated that, according to Hopwood, “the Arabs refused to have anything to do with him, holding their services in graveyards and burying their dead unblessed.”

 [...]

 Read the rest here.

 

Lora Gerd: Russia and the Melkites of Syria: Attempts at Reconverting into Orthodoxy in the 1850s and 1860s

The most interesting takeaway from this article is the degree to which the ethnically-Greek clergy in the Middle East were opposed to receiving Melkite Catholics who wanted to return to Orthodoxy as it would've endangered their xenocratic control.

 

Abstract:

Having entered into union with Rome in the 18th century, the Melkite Arab community of Syria preserved their Eastern rites and traditions. The attempts at Latinization in the mid-19th century brought a split in the community and provoked a diplomatic effort by Russia to bring the Melkites back to Eastern Orthodoxy. The raise of Arab nationalism in the 1850-s and traditions of church independence created a fertile soil for separatism. The relative weakness and inconsistency of Russian support, and especially a lack of material resources and strong diplomatic pressure from France, resulted in most of the newly converted Melkites returning to Rome by the early 1860-s. The article argues that Russian church policy in 19th century Middle East, strongly bounded by the limits of Orthodox canon law was largely ineffective. The Melkite affair was the last attempt to integrate the Arab Christians in the traditional system of the “Greek” Patriarchates. Thereafter Russian diplomacy took the course of Arabizing the Patriarchate of Antioch. The episode did, however, contribute to the elaboration of a new Vatican policy towards the Eastern Catholics: respect for their rites and traditions.

 

Read and download the entire open-access article here.

Jad Ganem: Antioch's Position on the Amman Meeting

Arabic original here.

Antioch's Position on the Amman Meeting

 
On December 28, 2019 the Antiochian Orthodox Media Center issued a communique from the Antiochian Church following the visit of His Eminence Metropolitan Christophoros of Amman, who was sent by Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem to visit Patriarch John X in Damascus and deliver a letter to him about holding a meeting of the primates of the Orthodox Churches in Amman with the goal of "preserving Orthodox unity," which has been damaged by the Ukrainian crisis.
This communique states that the Patriarch of Antioch "welcomed this initiative and reaffirmed the firm position of the Antiochian Church announced by the Holy Antiochian Synod, which calls for the necessity of a meeting (synaxis) of the heads of the local Orthodox Churches, so that all Orthodox Churches collaborate in solving Orthodox issues."

It is noteworthy that when the Church of Antioch received this invitation:

-- It accepted it and welcomed it, contrary to the positions claiming that the right to convoke such meetings belongs exclusively to the Patriarch of Constantinople.

-- It stressed the position it defended during the preparations for the Council of Crete, which holds that pan-Orthodox action requires inviting all the local Orthodox churches to take part in it, acceptance by these churches to participate, and adopting all decisions by complete consensus among those presence so as not to lead to fragmentation.

-- It implied that it respects the Patriarch of Constantinople's primacy and his role in presiding over pan-Orthodox meetings.

Consequently, one may deduce from this very carefully-formulated communique that the Antiochian Church did not agree to attend the Amman meeting in the absence of any of the local churches.
When combined with what was said in the press release from the Patriarchate of Jerusalem regarding constructive dialogue between the two patriarchates about the Qatar issue, leading to "concrete understandings" for resolving the disagreement, this communique perhaps indicates that the Patriarchate of Antioch made an effort to find a solution to its disagreement with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem during the period following this invitation in order to provide the "fraternal meeting" with every opportunity for success, with the aim of "inaugurating dialogue, achieving reconciliation and preserving the unity of Orthodoxy. And perhaps by this it intended not to be the reason for a loss of the necessary Orthodox unanimity as a foundation for solving the dangerous crisis that is being experienced by the family of Orthodox churches.

Based on the above, after several local Orthodox churches have made the decision not to participate in the fraternal meeting called by the Patriarch of Jerusalem, it can be deduced that the Church of Antioch's declining to participate in the Amman meeting because of the lack a unanimous Orthodox consensus about it is something natural, even as it continues to work in the future with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem to complete the "negotiations to arrive at a final agreement about the Qatar issue," with the goal of creating the appropriate conditions for preserving Orthodox unity.

It is therefore unambiguously clear that Antioch's firm position on the one hand strives to resolve the disagreement with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem through the existing bilateral dialogue and on the other hand avoids entering into the politics of competing poles and insists on the agreed foundation for pan-Orthodox action, which remains the sole guarantor of Orthodox unity. 

Carol Saba on the Ukrainian Crisis and Orthodoxy's Impasse (V)

Arabic original here. Read part IV here.

An Orthodox Church or Churches?
Elements for Escaping the Crisis of Universal Orthodoxy

The crisis is unprecedented. Moscow boycotts the "council" of Crete in 2016 and Constantinople responds in its own backyard by granting autocephaly to the schismatics in Ukraine at the expense of legitimate Orthodoxy there, which has been tied to Moscow for three hundred years. Moscow rejected the decision and broke communion with Constantinople. The Orthodox churches were flabbergasted and their activity was paralyzed. Appeals to the Ecumenical Patriarch to hold an emergency synaxis received no response. This state of schism spoils communion between the Orthodox Churches and hurts their credibility as one, indivisible body.

In the twentieth century, Orthodoxy became globalized and went from being "Eastern" Orthodoxy to being "global" Orthodoxy  on all continents, without revsing its tradtional governance in order to catch up with this new geopolitical situation. The crisis today is two crises: a crisis of governance that is producing intractable crises (Estonia, Qatar, Czechia, Crete, Ukraine, etc.) and the crisis of an absence of mechanisms for conflict resolution.

The most difficult thing right now is that Constantinople is both plaintiff and judge. Exiting the impasse requires diagnosing the roots of the illness. Is Orthodoxy one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church or competing ethnic churches with no complementarity among them, despite Paul's request to the Corinthians, "...  there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other"? Yes, Constantinople fell before falling due to nationalist self-interest. And with time, the Orthodoxy of faith transformed into a nationalist Orthodoxy that searches for God's history in books of geography, geopolitics, and affiliations.

Metropolitan Georges Khodr foretold in August, 1991, as he was analyzing Orthodoxy's maladies, what is happening today in Ukraine: "Can the official Church which is subject to Moscow religiously preserve this allegiance if the Ukrainian Republic splits?" He continued, "No one can see the future because the historical custom, since the last century, is for those who obtain independence nationally to become independent ecclesiastically." "The historical custom" for Sayyidna Georges is only a painful indicator of the influence of nationalisms on Orthodoxy, which was condemned at the council in Constantinople in 1872.

Nationalism is not the criterion, but rather communion of faith. Until now, this "historical custom" has never been applied in Antiochian experience. The Orthodox in Lebanon did not seek to establish their own national church at Lebanon's independence and it is my hope that they will not seek it today. And they won't, despite all the talk about imminent dangers to Antiochian unity and that Antioch, like Serbia, is the target after Ukraine. Of course, there are problems of governance, sensitivities and estrangement, but they must all be dealt with under the roof of Antiochian unity, so dear to Christ.

Here lies the seriousness of the Ukrainian crisis: as an attempt to subject the governance and geography of the Church-- today more than ever-- to variable nationalist and geopolitical considerations. Did not the new president of Ukraine, Zelensky, withdraw from the invervensions of his predecessor, President Poroshenko, in the Church?

Historically, the Ancient Patriarchates were centers of communion of faith for circles of communion for flocks that transcend national, geographic and political considerations. Apostolic Canon 34 expresses this in the most marvelous way. However, with the rise of ideologies of national liberation in the 19th century under Western influence, there came the theory of the inevitability of ecclesiastical schism upon national indepdence, against the backdrop of the Greek national revolution.

The ideologue of this equation, which states that the boundaries of the Church, like the boundaries of the nation, should follow political boundaries and not the opposite, was the Archimandrite Theoklitos Farmakidis, the theorist of Greek autocephaly, which was declared in 1830 and recognized by Constantinople in 1850. Greek independence from the empire was also independence from Constantinople, which the leaders of the Greek Revolution accused of being dependent on the Sublime Port. But Farmakidis' analogy reversed the ancient ecclesiastical rule and subjected the church to variable geopolitical considerations, opening the way for nationalist Orthodoxies and the intertwining of the ecclesiastical and the political in Orthodoxy, especially for Constantinople and Moscow in the context of their struggle over leadership.

For example, the correspondence of Harry Truman's advisor Myron Taylor with Truman and the American ambassador in Turkey, as well as other documents of correspondence with the Vatican, show that during, before and after the election of Patriarch Athenagoras, there was an ongoing relationship between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the American administration in order to oppose Russia, Communism and, at the time, the Soviet Union. This relationship continues until today and one might point out statements from the US State Department in support of Constantinople's decision in Ukraine.

On the other hand, many documents also demonstrate the exploitation of the Church in Russia by the Soviet state and today the Church in Russia is accused of identifying with the politics of the Russian state.

Escaping the crisis requires both sides and all the Orthodox Churches to look critically at the intertwining of the ecclesiastical and the political in Orthodoxy, to make nationalist Orthodoxy submit to the Orthodoxy of faith rather than the opposite, and to put into place modern practices and rules for participatory clergy-lay governance that constructively and productively connects the dialectic of primacy and conciliarity.

As for escaping the Ukrainian crisis, this requires historical boldness and sacrifices on both sides for the sake of the higher Orthodox good. It requires:

1) A decision by Constantinople to "freeze" the tomos of autocephaly.

2) A decision by Moscow to suspend the decision to break communion in order to open the way for a meeting, discussions and negotiations between the two sides.

3) A decision by both sides for the necessity of cooperating with the request for Ukrainian autocephaly in an open, churchly manner through joint agreement on the terms and conditions of this autocephaly: including the special relationship with Russia and the historical relationship with Constantinople, bearing in mind both sides' historical rights and preventing any political exploitation of the issue.

It remains to wonder: the people of God or peoples of God? Church or churches? The future is close at hand. Kyrie eleison.

Carol Saba on the Ukrainian Crisis and Orthodoxy's Impasse (II)

 Arabic original, from today's an-Nahar here. Read part one here and part three here.

"O God, the nations have invaded your inheritance."

Orthodoxy from the Fall of Constantinople to the Rise of Moscow

"O God, the nations have invaded your inheritance." This lament for Constantinople upon its fall is like weeping by the rivers of Babylon, words that mourn with nostalgia, sorrow, pain, tears and grief over the holy Queen City. Byzantium rose with Constantine the Great, it flourished and its wealth amassed for more than a millennium. It established a civilization that Europe has inherited. With its defeat on the walls of Constantinople on May 29, 1453, the earth shook and a deep wound was opened in Orthodoxy that still bleeds today.

Orthodoxy entered into the Ottoman era and experienced a state of historical stasis, during which its powers declined, its immune system weakened, and factors of worldly anxiety grew within it. The Ottoman sultanate encompassed it and enfeebled the Eastern Patriarchates and the churches of the Balkans over the course of four hundred years.

Nor was the West absent from efforts to weaken Orthodoxy, absorb it, and drain it of its blood through missions, biting off chunks, poaching, efforts to dominate the East and effectuating schisms within it. The Orthodox became strangers in their homelands and their theological and leadership capabilities for recovery and renewal declined. Their worldly anxiety pushed them to develop ethno-phyletist politics based on wedding Orthodoxy to nationalist chauvinism as a means of liberation from the Ottoman cage. The Orthodox were transformed from being masters of the house to being a closed-off protectorate. After having been the "people of God" in harmony with its patriarchal and imperial leadership, according to the idea  of "Byzantine symphonia" upon which Justinian's empire was based, the Orthodox turned into the Rum ethnic millet, which was seen as a minority that was closed in on itself and subject to certain privileges granted to it by the Muslim Ottoman Empire.

The Ecumenical Patriarch inherited the position of the Byzantine Emperor. A crown of imperial majesty, studded with precious stones, was placed on his head. There began a transformation of the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch along with an effort to further develop canonically his inherited authority by way of the Patriarch Gennadios' agreement with Sultan Mehmet II Fetih immediately after the fall of Constantinople. The latter recognized the former as patriarch and "ethnarch". That is, as the temporal and religious leader of the Rum Millet.

After the fall of the empire, the Ecumenical Patriarch comprised in his person two authorities: ecclesiastical and temporal. He became the symbol of the double-headed eagle, responsible for defending religious and historical Orthodoxy. Over time, his synod was transformed into a "permanent synod" that incorporated the Orthodox patriarchs of the East, who were forced to reside in Istanbul for long periods of time because the Ecumenical Patriarch was their gateway, passage and intermediary before the Sublime Porte, because he was the only one recognized by law for Orthodox affairs in the sultanate.

The Greek element overwhelmed the leadership of the Eastern Patriarchates and the Ecumenical Patriarch became a "super-patriarch" who decided as he saw fit. In practice, this established a quasi-papal canonical hierarchy of ecclesiastical authority far removed from the universal Orthodox conciliarity that had constituted its governance since the time of the Apostles. The governance of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was ottomanized and it became a "court" where Byzantine and Ottoman courtly practices and traditions were mixed. The patriarch became a sultan and he was characterized by sultanic manners of acting, which became for them an involiable Orthodox tradition.

In contrast, the rise of tsarist Russia began as the largest Orthodox nation numerically. The baptism of Prince Vladimir and his people, which took place in Kiev in 988, came as the result of Greek missions that had been evangelizing the Slavic peoples since the time of Saints Cyril and Methodius. The growth of the influence of Muscovy and its prince, however, came after Tatar invasions in the thirteenth century and the transfer of the princes of Rus from Kiev to Moscow.

Constantinople hesitated very much to grant independence to the very influential metropolis of Moscow that was dependent on it and which had for some time begun to elect its own bishop locally. Constantinople's recognition of Moscow as a patriarchate took place in 1589 after the mediation of Patriarch Joachim V of Antioch, "who visited Moscow in 1586," as Patriarch Ignatius IV Hazim of thrice-blessed memory informs us, "and supported Tsar Boris Godunov's request to turn the Church of Russia into a patriarchate. He raised the issue with Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople, who after that visited Russia in 1589 and took part in the election of Job, the first patriarch of the Russian Church." Appended to the historical document of the tomos of autocephaly is his signature, in addition to that of Jeremiah of Constantinople and Sophronius of Jerusalem.

Thus, as Moscow rose, its military, diplomatic and political influence was magnified and its role as protector of the Eastern Orthodox grew, talk began of Moscow as "Third Rome", which laid the basis for the competition and tug-of-war between Moscow and Constantinople in the Orthodox world. This, alongside the transformations of the nineteenth century and the rise of ethnic chauvinism, continues to menace Orthodoxy's purity, its evangelistic momentum and the edifice of its catholic unity.

2nd Meeting of the Dialogue beteween the Russian Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox Churches

Russian original here.

Dialogue with the Syriac Orthodox Church

The second meeting of the commission for dialogue between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church was held on February 8-22, 2019 at the administrative residence of the patriarchs of the Syriac Orthodox Church in Atchaneh, Lebanon.

On the part of the Moscow Patriarchate, the commission includes: Bishop Flavian of Chevepovets and Belozersky, co-chairman; Hegumen Arseny (Sokulov), representative of the Patriarch of Moscow All Rus to the Patriarch of Antioch and All the East; Hegumen Stefan (Igumnov), secretary of the Department of External Church Relations for Inter-Christian relations; and DECR staff members S.G. Alferov and E.A. Bakhtin. On the part of the Syriac Orthodox Church, the meeting was attended by: the patriarchal vicar in charge of the complex of the administrative residence in Atchaneh, Archbishop Chrysostomos Michael Chemoun, acting co-chairman of the commission; Archimandrite Jack Yacoub, head of the Patriarchal Department of Youth Affairs; Archimandrite Roger Yousef Akhrass, head of the Department of Syriac Studies; Deacon Imad Suryani, a staff member of the Patriarchal Secretariat; and Shadi Sarwe, executive director of the St Ephrem charitable foundation.

At the beginning of the meeting, Archbishop Chrysostomos asked Bishop Flavian to convey His Holiness Patriarch Ignatius Ephrem II's congratulations  to His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus on the occasion of his recently-celebrated tenth anniversary as primate.

Then the parties summarized the implementation of the agreements concluded at the commission's first meeting and identified a program of further cooperation to be submitted for the hierarchy's approval.

The commission's priority remains coordinating the cooperation on the implementation of projects to support the suffering Christians of Syria, among whom many thousands make up the flock of the Syriac Orthodox Church. The commission noted with satisfaction the successful implementation of a number of projects in this domain in 2018. Among them are the organization of a visit by a delegation from the Working Group on Assistance to the Syrian Population of the Council for Cooperation with Religious Associations under the President of the Russian Federation to Syria and Lebanon, the distribution of the largest consignment by volume of food aid in February of last year, the Russian Orthodox Church's initiation of a medical rehabilitation program for disabled children who suffered during the hostilities in Syria, and the holding of a meeting of the heads and high representatives of the religious communities of Syria and Russia during the visit of the chairman of the DECR of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Hilarion to Damascus; His Holiness Ignatius Ephrem II participated in this meeting. The parties discussed plans to continue cooperation in this domain, including with the participation of the St Ephrem Charitable Foundation, which oversees the humanitarian projects of the Syriac Orthodox Church.

Another relevant area of collaboration is continuing the development of ties in the academic domain. The importance of the participation of the representative of the Russian Orthodox Church, Hegumen Arseny (Sokolov) in the symposium organized by the Department of Syriac Studies on the person of Severus of Antioch (Atchaneh, May 25, 2018) was noted. This year, the participation of delegates from Syria in academic and theological conferences organized by higher educational institutions of the Moscow Patriarchate is also expected. Concrete agreements have been reached about starting a student exchange program. In the future, there are plans to develop direct cooperation at the level of theological schools, in particular between the educational institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church and and the St Ephrem Patriarchal Seminary in Saydnaya as well as Antioch Syrian University, which was opened in Damascus in November, 2018 and trains not only future clergy, but also laypeople specializing in the humanities, natural sciences and technical disciplines.

The commission considered it relevant to facilitate contacts between the relevant structures responsible for the development of youth ministry, including exchanges of delegations and joint participation in thematic events, including in the territory of dioceses in the diaspora.

The sides discussed prospects for interaction between representatives of monasticism as well as of continuing to develop pilgrimage projects, noting the positive experience of organizing visits to Russia of pilgrims from the Syriac Orthodox Church in January and July, 2018, organized by the DECR of the Moscow Patriarchate.

The commission recognized the need to maintain the existing level of interaction in the domain of media, including the the provision of mutual informational support in the context of the challenges that the Moscow Patriarchate and the Syriac Orthodox Church are facing today. The Syrian party highly appreciated the initiative of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus to hold consultations with the primates of the churches of the East and West and to adopt a joint statement during the worsening of the situation in Syria in April, 2018. Another significant manifestation of this interaction was the circulation by the DECR during those very days of the text of the joint statement by His Beatitude Patriarch John X of Antioch and All the East, His Holiness Patriarch Ignatius Ephrem II, and His Beatitude Melkite Patriarch Yusuf I Absi.

The meeting's participants noted the importance of the intensifying of contacts in 2018 between the Russian Orthodox Church and the community of the Syriac Orthodox Church in Iraq, whose representative, Archbishop Nicodemus Daoud Sharaf of Mosul, Kirkuk and the Kurdish Autonomous Region, visited Moscow last November as part of the delegation of the Council of Christian Leaders of Iraq. Before that, in March, Hieromonk Stefan (Igumnov) visited Iraq on the instructions of Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk and also met with the leadership and representatives of the local Syriac Orthodox communities.

At the end of the meeting, a joint memorandum was adopted.

During their stay in Lebanon, the delegation of the Moscow Patriarchate visited the Monastery of the Dormition at Balamand, belonging to the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the theological institute there where, with the blessing of His Beatitude Patriarch John X, it was received by Metropolitan Ephrem of Tripoli. Bishop Flavian asked him to convey the cordial greetings of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus to His Beatitude Patriarch John X of Great Antioch and All the East and told about the dialogue with the Syriac Orthodox Church. For his part, Metropolitan Ephrem noted that at Balamand Monastery they still cherish the memory of the visit there by the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church during his visit to the Patriarchate of Antioch in November, 2011. The two parties also exchanged views about a number of current issues of bilateral and inter-Orthodox collaboration.

The program of the commission's meeting included visits to holy places and historical and cultural sights of Lebanon, including the Cathedral of the Great-Martyr and Victory-Bearer George of the Beirut Archdiocese of the Antiochian Orthodox Church, the Orthodox monasteries of Sayyidat al-Nouriyeh and the Prophet Elijah, and the city of Byblos.

The next meeting of the commission will be held in Russia in the summer of 2020.

***

Agreement on the formation of the commission was reached by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus and His Holiness Patriarch Ignatius Ephrem II during the primate of the Syriac Orthodox Church's visit to Russia on November 9-13, 2015. In pursuance of this decision, a meeting of the joint working group for the preparation of the dialogue was held on May 11, 2017 in Washington.

On July 29, 2017, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church approved the composition of the commission on the part of the Moscow Patriarchate; in October of that year, the Synod of the Syriac Orthodox Church adopted a similar decision. The commission's first meeting took place on December 7-10, 2017 in the city of Cerepovets (Volga oblast).

Patriarch John X's Reply to the Letter from Patriarch Bartholomew

Translated from the Russian version here. I have been able to confirm its authenticity and accurate portrayal of His Beatitude's letter. For the letter this is in response to, see here.

[UPDATE: An official English translation of the full letter is now available here.]







His Beatitude Patriarch of Antioch John X:
It is Unreasonable to End a Schism at the Price of the Unity of the Orthodox World

Responding to Patriarch of Constantinople Bartholomew's letter regarding his intention to grant autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, His Beatitude Patriarch of Antioch and All the East John X stressed that these events are worrisome not only because of the disunity that they provoke in the Orthodox world, but also because the opinion of the local Orthodox churches was not taken into account in this situation.

"We wish to see the unity of the Orthodox world strengthened and consolidated," said the head of the Antiochian Orthodox Church to Patriarch Bartholomew. "From your letter it appears that you have decided to continue the process of granting autocephaly... Therefore we urge you not to make any decisions about which there is no consensus of the autocephalous Orthodox churches. For it is unreasonable to end a schism at the price of the unity of the Orthodox world."

His Beatitude Patriarch John expressed confidence that "the most beneficial thing for the peace of the Church, for her unity and for the common Orthodox witness in our world today is to suspend and postpone this process until the Ukrainian problem is examined and a pan-Orthodox solution found."

"Therefore, we implore Your All-Holiness to call upon Your brothers, the primates of the Orthodox churches, to study these questions in order to protect our Church from dangers that will not lead to peace and harmony, neither in Ukraine nor in the Orthodox world."

"Our love for your Orthodox Church and for Your Beloved Holiness prompts us to write these words in the hope of seeing the Orthodox world united, especially in your remarkable era, bearing witness to the truth of our Lord Jesus, who is incarnate for the salvation of the world," stressed Patriarch of Antioch and All the East John X.

Where are the Grown-Ups?

This was posted in Arabic on Facebook and I think it's the most cogent reaction to the whole Moscow-Istanbul mess that I've seen. Translated and posted here with permission of the author.

Where are the Grown-Ups?

by Jad Ganem

Anyone who observes what has been said and written in the Orthodox world in recent days related to the controversy surrounding the Ukrainian crisis is shocked at the low level of theological discourse among leaders and those considered scholars. One can’t but lament their slipping into a language of mobilization and sterile debate to justify one position or another, adopting the manner of court poets.

The average believer can only wonder why those who have been assigned responsibility for preserving unity do not seek to repair the cracks rather than resorting to history-books to justify schism? Why do they ignore the purpose of the official positions and studies that their local churches have prepared about the issue of autocephaly and how it is proclaimed ? Why aren't they publishing these studies for the public instead of competing to publish centuries-old documents? How can a church say something and its opposite? How can a church deny its official interpretation and consistent analysis of the issue of autocephaly for the sake of a momentary project? How can leaders in all the local churches not lift a finger when certain individuals throw down the memory-hole the results of efforts made over generations to find a common approach to the issue of autocephaly?

By your Lord, stop fanning the flames of discord! Stop dancing at the edge of the abyss! Stop being a stumbling-block for the faithful and a laughingstock before the whole world! Stop using God, the Fathers and the canons for your demonic projects! In the eyes of God and of history those who are pressing for schism and those who fall into it will only be servants of the prince of this world. Who will stop our descent into hell? Where are the followers of the One who prayed that they all might be one?

Carol Saba: Who will Prevent the Coming Schism in Orthodoxy?

Arabic original here.

The Ukrainian Crucible between Moscow and Constantinople:
Who will Prevent the Coming Schism in Orthodoxy?

The situation in global Orthodoxy is worrisome. Its catholic unity is threatened while it still has not yet healed from the repercussions of the 2016 "Council of Crete". The manner of preparing it and holding it with the presence of some rather than all of the Orthodox churches and its decisions has resulted in complications and a rift between the fourteen Orthodox patriarchates. It appears that in the Ukrainian crisis raging between the two poles of Orthodoxy, the Greek and the Russian, we are headed for the first application of "majority rule" in universal Orthodox ecclesiastical decisions, at the expense of a logic of unanimity, the standard that must prevail in order to prevent schism, especially with regard to decisions to grant autocephaly to a region within the universal Church.

On the surface, the crisis centers on the intention of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, at the request of Ukrainian political officials, to grant the church in Ukraine ecclesiastical independence and so make it an independent church like the fourteen autocephalous Orthodox patriarchates. Constantinople is acting individualistically in this dangerous endeavor, considering it her right as the "Mother church" of the Church of Kiev, as the process of evangelizing the Slavic countries was launched at her hands from Thessaloniki, from the womb of Byzantine Christianity, by the Byzantine monks Cyril and Methodius. Constantinople adds that it was she who baptized Vladimir the Great on July 28, 988 and through him all the Kievan Rus, an event that changed the entire geopolitical map of Christianity. She continues her case by saying that the metropolitan and metropolis of Kiev were dependent on her for a long period of time.

As for the Russians, they say that the metropolitan of Kiev's glow diminished with the rise of Muscovy, where he sought refuge after the Tatar invasions of the 13th century, placing himself under the protection of the rulers of Russia, first in Vladimir and then in Moscow. The Ukrainian church became increasingly dependent on Moscow when the latter received autocephaly from Constantinople in 1589 as a new patriarchate, and even more so with the rise of the power of the Cossacks in Ukraine, as they defended it from Tatar and Polish attacks. There followed a great deal of give-and-take between Constantinople and Moscow, until the Russians held a local council in 1685 to confirm Moscow's ecclesiastical authority in choosing and electing the new metropolitan of Kiev. Moscow says that Constantinople acquiesced in the end and granted a patriarchal tomos in May of 1686, confirming Moscow's ecclesiastical authority over Kiev and agreeing to the appointment of a metropolitan for it who had been elected in Moscow. Moscow also says that Constantinople's agreement is still in force after more than 330 years by the recognition of the Ecumenical Patriarchate which, despite all the schisms in Ukraine, still recognizes the autonomous Ukrainian Orthodox Church under Moscow.

Vacillation began with the fall of the Soviet Union and Ukraine's independence in 1991, when discussions of autocephaly began between Constantinople and some of the schismatic Orthodox in Ukraine. While Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew recognizes the exclusive representation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Patriarchate of Moscow, he has on more than one occasion indicated, criticizing the agreement of 1686, that political interventions made with the Sublime Porte and that the events of 1686 amount to an annexation of Ukraine.

It is evident to everyone today that the driving forces of this crisis are not only ecclesiastical, but also overlap with global political rivalries between Russia and the West. President Poroshenko of Ukraine is acting openly and encouraging the Ukrainian parliament and its Western allies to obtain ecclesiastical independence from Russia. The NATO-aligned West once more wants to encircle Russia and to prevent it from expanding to the west, while Russia wants to foil these schemes in preparation to dominate Eastern Europe and encircle Western Europe using influence and gas. Over the course of history, the geography of Ukraine has been a territory disputed between the East and the West and has been at the heart of Russia's geopolitics of defending the country's interior since the rise of tsarism. The Russians do not forget the words of Bismark, "If you want to defeat Russia, strike her in Ukraine." The fall of tsarist Russia in 1917 awakened a desire for ecclesiastical independence in order to get out from under the mantle of the Russian church that was inseparable from the defeated tsarist state. This desire reappeared after the fall of the Soviet Union and Ukraine's independence in 1991.

Today both Moscow and Constantinople fiercely defend their historical rights in Ukraine, displaying their historical ties and documents. Successive shuttle visits by the foreign ministers of the two patriarchates, the Russian Metropolitan Hilarion and the Constantinopolitan Metropolitan Emmanuel of France to the Orthodox churches in order to mobilize them are merely an indication of the severity of the situation and a prelude to the big confrontation. Deep down, however, Ukraine is only an expression of the general crisis of Orthodoxy. It is not a crisis of unity of faith or ecclesiological unity, but rather a crisis of ecclesiastical governance centered on the sin of love of primacy that strikes at integration between the churches in the interest of competition and opens the way for global geopolitical interventions in the Orthodox Church. It is also a crisis of modernity. The Orthodox Church, which was Eastern in character and geography, in the twentieth century became globalized in form without being globalized in substance and institutionalization. Her governance has remained traditional, without any arrangement for regular meetings between the patriarchs for consultation, integration and prevention of the competition that is pushing the Orthodox Church further and further toward fragmentation and schism instead of integration, collaboration and unity. The responsibility of the ecclesiastical leadership is great because it still acts in a traditional manner and does not rise to the level and dimensions of these dangers.

The question remains today, who will prevent the schism in Ukraine, of which the foreign minister of the Patriarchate of Moscow, Metropolitan Hilarion, spoke, comparing it, if it occurs, to the Great Schism of 1054?

Carol Saba: The Orthodox Patriarchs and the Church's Political Positioning

Arabic original here. Originally published in an-Nahar on December 29, 2017.


The Orthodox Patriarchs and the Church's Political Positioning:
Where are Jerusalem and Metropolitan Paul?

"This night will be dark and long, very long, as long as the night of Good Friday." These words were pronounced by Patriarch Tikhon on his deathbed, on the night of his repose on April 7, 1925 at the historic Donskoy Monastery where he was being held by the Soviets, prophesying Russia's long descent into hell during the Bolshevik era. At the beginning of this month, the Russian Church celebrated the centenary of the election of this patriarch, a holy martyr and confessor of the faith, and his ascending the throne of the Patriarchate of Moscow in 1917, after a local Russian synod, meeting amidst the outbreak of the Russian Revolution, restored the patriarchal system. Tsar Peter the Great had abolished, out of a caesaro-papist tendency, the patriarchal system in 1720, placing the Church under the domination of the state by appointing a lay Ober-Procurator over the Church, replacing the deceased Patriarch Adrian.

Attempts by the Church to dominate the state-- and the reverse-- are many in the history of the Church, east and west. They have been fought against in ancient times by holy fathers who defended the truth, since the time of the patriarch of Constantinople and native of Antioch John Chrysostom, who did not fear being beheaded when he confronted the Empress Eudoxia, wife of the Emperor Arcadius. The scene that is driving the Orthodox churches today remains the competition over primacy between the Russian and Greek poles and the geopolitics linked to each. Analysts connect the politics of the Russian Church with the geopolitics of Russia's return, just as they point to the connection between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the geopolitics of the United States since the time of President Truman. The rest is "photo diplomacy".

The scene of the Orthodox patriarchs in Moscow around Patriarch Kirill and the show of their being warmly and magnanimously met by President Putin is, in the opinion of the correspondent for Vatican Insider, Gianni Valente, an ecclesiopolitical scene intended to demonstrate the greatness, power and influence of the Russian Church and her harmonious relationship with the master of the Kremlin and the extent of his power into Europe, through Ukraine, and the Middle East, through Syria.

All the Orthodox patriarchs, including the patriarch of Antioch John X, flocked to Moscow this month, with the exception of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew who did not accept the invitation and did not send a representative and Archbishop Ieronymos of Greece, who did likewise. It is as though the scene of Moscow 2017 is a response to the "Council of Crete" of 2016, where Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew mobilized the Orthodox patriarchs in a photo to demonstrate a scene of universal Orthodox unity around himself in support of his system of primacy. At that time, the Churches of Russia, Antioch, Bulgaria and Georgia were absent.

There are many examples of the Orthodox churches' political positioning around the powers of today's world, something that is causing them to lose their pure, prophetic vision and is impeding their movement. Thus the report during the Russian centenary celebration that Patriarch Vladimir of Kiev, who in schism from the Russian Church, requested forgiveness from Russia and to once more join the Patriarchate of Moscow appeared as a response from Russian diplomacy, both ecclesial and political, to the attempts of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to unify the Orthodox schismatics in Ukraine into an independent church separate from Moscow.

While the Orthodox patriarchs were gathering Moscow around President Putin and praising his role in combating "terrorism" and the vocal cry of the Arabs was being raised over the violation of Jerusalem, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew was on a visit to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, where he was received by President Rivlin of Israel and within that patriarchate about suspicions that the rights of the mother church and her children are being violated.

The question remains: for how long will the Orthodox Churches forget the principle place of their prophetic mission in the world and continue to keep pace with politics and powers on the basis of realpolitik?

Dostoevsky and many Russian writers since the end of the 19th century have warned the Russian Church about the dangers of the state's domination over it and the lack of internal reform over the phariseeism that dominated the Church and kept it far away from what the Holy Spirit demands of it. That is, to bear witness to the truth, to tend to man's freedom and dignity, and to support the poor, so that there will not be an internal explosion that causes the entire edifice to collapse. In 1871 Dostoevsky wrote in his famous book Demons, warning about the coming revolution, "Fog will cover Russia, the sea will dissolve and the stage will collapse...." And today, fog will cover all the various Orthodox churches, which confuse what is important and what is more important and inter into the game of realpolitik.


The patriarchs in Moscow passed over two fundamental, critical issues without approaching them from the principle of judiciousness, kept apart from politics: the issue of Jerusalem and the issue of the kidnapping of Metropolitan Paul Yazigi. Where were the patriarchs when it came to Jerusalem and the kidnapping of Metropolitan Paul Yazigi and the demand that his fate be revealed, since a mere reminder about this issue is not enough? Where is their sit-in at the United Nations, a call for a global conference regarding Jerusalem, and a demand that the fate of Metropolitan Paul Yazigi be revealed, not only on account of our love and his brother's love for him, but because it is the single most important issue for Antioch today?

As regards Jerusalem, she is ours and the gates of hell will not prevail over her. She is not holy because of her stones and many successive walls, but for a symbolism that transcends these walls, emulating the Lord who rose from her and from the dead, because, in the words of Metropolitan Khodr, we are people of the resurrection. We do not make pilgrimage to stone but to the Lord: "he who is in the Gospel and in the Eucharist is with Christ, in pilgrimage or without pilgrimage."

Jordanville Visits Balamand

 Pictures after the jump.

Holy Trinity Seminary Press Presents a new book in Lebanon

With the blessing and under the patronage of His Beatitude, Patriarch John X of Antioch and All the East, staff of Holy Trinity Publications (Jordanville, NY) participated in a week of festivities culminating in the patronal feast of the St John of Damascus Institute of Theology at the University of Balamand (Tripoli, Lebanon). The focus of the week was the recently released scholarly work, Arab Orthodox Christian Under the Ottomans, 1516-1831 by Dr Constantin A. Panchenko of the Lomonosov Moscow State University. On Wednesday, November 30th, Nicholas Chapman, director of Holy Trinity Publications, gave a lecture entitled “From Antioch to America: Levantine Christianity and the New World 1500-1800” in which he surveyed the surprisingly vast network of connections between the Orthodox Church in its ancient homeland and the West. The next day, Dr Panchenko drew from the research in his book with a presentation titled, “A Melkite Proto-renaissance: A Forgotten Cultural Revival of the Melkites in the Late 16th Century”. Finally, the two previous speakers joined Dr Souad Slim of the University of Balamand for a seminar on Saturday morning to discuss important facets and themes of the recently-published book. The lectures and panel discussions will be broadcast on Ancient Faith Radio in the near future.

Throughout the week, the visitors toured ancient villages and cities on the Mediterranean coast and Mt Lebanon, visited early Christian monasteries, recently revived with active monastic communities, and explored archeological sites where centuries-old frescoes have recently been restored.

On Saturday evening, following patriarchal vespers at the monastery church, the staff presented two of Holy Trinity Publications’ newest releases to His Beatitude, Patriarch John X. They also discussed Dr Panchenko’s book, for which His Beatitude provided a Foreword. On Sunday, Dcn Peter Markevich joined His Beatitude and local clergy in serving the Divine Liturgy.

Holy Trinity Publications is deeply indebted to the Institute of Theology, its dean Fr Porphyrios Georgi, the staff and seminarians, for their selfless hospitality and to Dr Panchenko for joining us for the festivities. His book, Arab Orthodox Christians Under the Ottomans, 1516-1831, is available directly from the publisher or from any good bookseller.

With the blessing and under the patronage of His Beatitude, Patriarch John X of Antioch and All the East, staff of Holy Trinity Publications (Jordanville, NY) participated in a week of festivities culminating in the patronal feast of the St John of Damascus Institute of Theology at the University of Balamand (Tripoli, Lebanon). The focus of the week was the recently released scholarly work, Arab Orthodox Christian Under the Ottomans, 1516-1831 by Dr Constantin A. Panchenko of the Lomonosov Moscow State University. On Wednesday, November 30th, Nicholas Chapman, director of Holy Trinity Publications, gave a lecture entitled “From Antioch to America: Levantine Christianity and the New World 1500-1800” in which he surveyed the surprisingly vast network of connections between the Orthodox Church in its ancient homeland and the West. The next day, Dr Panchenko drew from the research in his book with a presentation titled, “A Melkite Proto-renaissance: A Forgotten Cultural Revival of the Melkites in the Late 16th Century”. Finally, the two previous speakers joined Dr Souad Slim of the University of Balamand for a seminar on Saturday morning to discuss important facets and themes of the recently-published book. The lectures and panel discussions will be broadcast on Ancient Faith Radio in the near future.

Throughout the week, the visitors toured ancient villages and cities on the Mediterranean coast and Mt Lebanon, visited early Christian monasteries, recently revived with active monastic communities, and explored archeological sites where centuries-old frescoes have recently been restored.

On Saturday evening, following patriarchal vespers at the monastery church, the staff presented two of Holy Trinity Publications’ newest releases to His Beatitude, Patriarch John X. They also discussed Dr Panchenko’s book, for which His Beatitude provided a Foreword. On Sunday, Dcn Peter Markevich joined His Beatitude and local clergy in serving the Divine Liturgy.

Holy Trinity Publications is deeply indebted to the Institute of Theology, its dean Fr Porphyrios Georgi, the staff and seminarians, for their selfless hospitality and to Dr Panchenko for joining us for the festivities. His book, Arab Orthodox Christians Under the Ottomans, 1516-1831, is available directly from the publisher or from any good bookseller.