Jad Ganem: The Tragedy of Contemporary Orthodoxy

 Arabic original here.

 

The Tragedy of Contemporary Orthodoxy

In the spring 1992, a few months after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Patriarch Bartholomew invited the patriarchs and heads of autocephalous churches to a historic meeting at the patriarchal headquarters at the Phanar in Istanbul.

At that time, the Orthodox world was facing a major period of transformation: countries were leaving communist captivity for freedom, churches were being revived after decades of repression, and divisions started to come to the surface again after decades of having been frozen by the previous political regime.

At that meeting, which was held on the occasion of the Sunday of Orthodoxy, the participants expressed their shared consciousness of the magnitude of the challenges that the Church was facing in the post-communist era.

In their closing statement, they declared that "The Holy Orthodox Church throughout the world, since she abides in the world and is inevitably affected by the changes that take place there, today finds herself confronted with serious and urgent problems that she wishes to treat as a single body."

That key phrase amounted to a declaration of intent to restore the Orthodox conciliarity that brought the local churches together in unity of faith and canons on the basis of the words of the Apostle Paul: "If one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it" (1 Corinthians 12:26).

At that time, Constantinople was not behaving as a "ruling church" with special privileges, but as a "servant of unity," working to coordinate the Orthodox body in the face of the divisions that had begun to emergy, especially with the appearance of the so-called "Kyiv Patriarchate" established by Filaret Denysenko after he failed to attain the position of patriarch of Moscow.

Those gathered at that meeting called for spiritual and canonical unity, stating that schism is no less dangerous than heresy and that "even the blood of martyrdom does not erase the sin of schism," in the words of Saint John Chrysostom.

At the start of the third millennium, Patriarch Bartholomew renewed his initiative and invited the patriarchs of the churches to another gathering of a comprehensive ecclesiastical and humanitarian character. The heads of the churches met in Bethlehem where they celebrated the Nativity service according to the Julian Calendar at the Church of the Nativity with the participation of the heads of Orthodox countries, and released a joint message entitled "The Incarnation and Nativity of Jesus Christ: A Guarantee of the Sanctification of History and the World."

That meeting was a continuation of the spirit of conciliarity that brought the Orthodox churches together in a single worldview, in which Orthodoxy offered a message of salvation to the modern era instead of being closed in on itself.

On December 26, 2000 this path was completed with a festal liturgy at the ancient cathedral of Haghia Sophia in Nicaea, where a document "to the Church and the world" was signed. It resembled a global Orthodox declaration that affirmed the unity of faith and diversity of churches at a moment when Orthodoxy appeared as a single cohesive body, despite internal disagreements.

Now that a quarter-century has passed since Nicaea 2000, Patriarch Bartholomew is once again making invitations to a new celebration on the occasion of the 1700th anniversary of the First Council of Nicaea (325 AD).

However, what was supposed to have been a general celebration of Orthodox unity has turned into a limited celebration to which only the patriarchs of the Pentarchy (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem) were invited, with the attendance of Pope Leo XIV, representing the See of Rome, indicating the Pentarchy of patriarchs that preceded the Great Schism, based on a new classification by which Constantinople considers the local churches that obtained their autocephaly in recent decades to be canonically subject to its authority.

This change in the nature of the invitation reflects a dramatic retreat from the ecclesiastical vision that governed the previous meetings. After having previously invited all the autocephalous churches to dialogue and participation, today Constantinople limits the meeting to a narrow, symbolic group going back to a time prior to the establishment of the modern autocephalous churches which  constitute the numerical majority of Orthodox in the world.

Limiting the invitation to the patriarchs of the Pentarchy can only be read as a sign of the decline of Orthodox conciliarity, the disappearance of channels of dialogue between the Orthodox churches, and an increase in the nationalistic and political character of the local churches' identities.

In this sense, Nicaea 2025 is not an extension of Nicaea 2000, but rather a break with it, since it expresses contemporary Orthodoxy's inability to come together around a single table, transforming the meeting into a symbol of division, not of unity.

In 1992, the idea of the Orthodox Church as a body capable of suffering and recovering together was born at the Phanar. In 2025, it seems that Orthodoxy's body is divided, with each member suffering alone. 

The Patriarchate of Constantinople has gone from a theology of unity and conciliarity to a politics of axes and historical symbolism. Instead of being the servant of unity, it has become the instrument of division.

And so, the new meeting at Nicaea comes to embody the tragedy of contemporary Orthodoxy: churches rooted in faith but unable to come together in one body like they did a quarter-century ago. 

At Nicaea 325, the Creed was born.

At Nicaea 2000, the unity of the Orthodox churches was celebrated.

As for Nicaea 2025, a new chapter is being written in the story of lost Orthodox unity.

History will inevitably judge everyone who contributed to and participated in writing this story! 

Jad Ganem: Antioch's Historical Responsibility

 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. 

Jad Ganem: Auxiliary Bishops

 Arabic original here.

 

Auxiliary Bishops

 

The consecration of auxiliary bishops is a noteworthy phenomenon that calls for examination and analysis, especially given its increasing frequency in recent decades, despite the general admission that it is contrary to the foundations of traditional Orthodox ecclesiology. A palpable increase of this phenomenon can be observed in the Patriarchate of Constantinople, where consecrations happen almost monthly, responding to repeated requests from the metropolitans of dioceses, particularly in the diaspora.

In the context of Antioch, the Antiochian Orthodox Church has witnessed a radical change in its attitude toward auxiliary bishops, especially since the famous session of the Holy Synod in 2011, when a precedent-setting 12 auxiliary bishops were elected, on the basis of internal agreements tied to ecclesiastical balances within the synod at that time. That meeting of the synod was an inflection point in the church's approach to this issue, since it practically ended the period of historic reservation, clearly expressed by Metropolitan Georges (Khodr) who viewed titular episcopacy as a deviation from the apostolic understanding of episcopacy, characterized as pastoral service tied to a living community.

Since that time, the Church of Antioch has seen a noticeable increase in the number of auxiliary bishops, without this being accompanied by an explanation of the standards governing these consecrations or a precise definition of the roles assigned to these bishops. The door was left open for new norms permitting "auxiliary bishops" to be named outside the framework of elections or traditional conciliarity, where many such bishops are elected by show of hands based simply on nomination by the patriarch.

There are a number of indications that this phenomenon must be approached critically, most prominently:

- The variety of roles and poor job description: auxiliary bishops are assigned various roles, such as assisting metropolitans of dioceses (in Akkar, North America, Mexico, Germany), serving the patriarch in Damascus, representing the church in places such as Rio de Janeiro, as well as serving as abbots of patriarchal monasteries. However, the absence of clear, unified standards for these roles leads to ambiguity in defining the nature and limits of episcopal service.

 - Differences in how vacant sees are treated: experience shows that some bishoprics that have previously been occupied by auxiliary bishops, such as Tartus, Wadi al-Nasara, the Emirates and Brazil, 

 - The symbolic role of the honorary episcopate: in a number of cases, the auxiliary bishops seems to have more of a symbolic or honorary rather than real pastoral role, which weakens the service aspect of the episcopacy and empties it of its apostolic content.

- An administrative an organizational vacuum: the Church of Antioch has still not conducted a transparent, institutional review of the issue of the auxiliary episcopacy that is based on the actual need for it and studies ways to organize it and make its role effective.

It cannot be denied that the Patriarch of Antioch has a real need for episcopal assistance, especially in the Archdiocese of Damascus, given its varying parts and its connection to the patriarchal residence. Nevertheless, this need does not eliminate the need to define it in a clear, thoughtful, scientific and fixed manner, within an ecclesiastical framework that is more cohesive and effective than the formula followed for the titular episcopate up to now. 

 Therefore, there is an urgent need for the Holy Synod of Antioch to call for a bold, comprehensive review of this phenomenon, which requires a modern ecclesiastical approach based on abandoning the institution of auxiliary bishops in its current form, turning them into metropolitans dependent on specific metropolia, created on the basis of a precise study of the real pastoral needs and incorporating them into metropolitan synods, with the aim of having them effectively participate in the church's decision-making.

According to sound Orthodox theology, it is not permissible for a bishop not to be a member of a synod and it is not right for him to be treated as a bishop subject to another bishop, since this is contrary to the deeply-rooted ecclesiastical principle that "the episcopacy is one."

Met Ephrem (Kyriakos): Unity in the Church is Conciliar

 Arabic original here.

Unity in the Church is Conciliar

Conciliarity is a movement, a movement of love and a movement of diversity.

God is one, and for the Church communion must be at the same time perfect unity and perfect diversity.

The head does not impede the freedom of the members. He does not lord over them. He remains in coordination and conciliarity with them.

Unity is a bond of love, a bond of communion. Therefore, God is love.

The Church is a communion of love in the image of the Holy Trinity. What is her conciliar character that leads to unity?

The Church is the body of Christ. She is the community that the Lord redeemed with His blood. She works to bring together all those divided as one.

This unity is embodied in the mystery of the Eucharist.

It is there where the bishop gathers together with the faithful. The bishop is always in the midst of God's people. He cares for his church, that is, for God's people, through the truth of the word, the word of Christ.

He uncovers the members' talents and bears them in his prayer. He is not concerned first of all with material gain or idle glory.

"Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly;  nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock" (1 Peter 5:2-3).

The entire people of God preserves the faith. The bishop's mission is to declare the word and act upon it.

The council of bishops is also a face of unity. Each bishop there bears his church's experience and weaknesses.

On the other hand, the people bear the bishop in their prayers, so that decisions will come that are pleasing to God and salvific for every element of the Church.

+Ephrem

Metropolitan of Tripoli, al-Koura and their Dependencies

Jad Ganem: Our Lost Conciliarity

Arabic original here.

Our Lost Conciliarity

There are words that lose their force and meaning by too much use and repetition, both appropriately and inappropriately. Perhaps the word "conciliarity", which the Orthodox boast of as the foundation of their ecclesiastical order is one of these words. Orthodoxy's lived reality has unambiguously revealed, especially in light of the crisis that the Orthodox world is experiencing today, that everyone calls for conciliarity but everyone practices a deadly individualism at every level. There is no conciliarity at the level of the universal Orthodox Church but the individualism of some churches met with the rigidity of other churches, accusations traded by everyone in a climate free of dialogue or of a dialogue of the deaf. Nor is there conciliarity at the level of the local churches, but rather seasonal meetings of bishops with their primate, usually dominated by convulsive atmospheres and governed by the dialectic of disagreement around individualism and independence in the conspicuous absence of constructive cooperation. Nor is there conciliarity at the level of the dioceses, but bishops who surround themselves in the best case with a group of aides and advisors or with mercenaries and arrivistes whose thefts and crimes occasionally give off an odor, while no one takes into account or asks about the near total retreat of capabilities and the lack of engagement in common work. Nor is there any real collective work at the level of parishes, but rather groups and committees whose members often accuse the priests of being controlling, while the priests accuse the members of being domineering and all the while both sides are totally content with replacing the living parish with its representative bodies. Has the time come for the Orthodox to have some humility, stop extolling their lost conciliarity, and make use of the administrative expertise that is abundant these days? Perhaps it will teach them the principles of actively listening to each other, constructive means for consensus-building and problem-solving, and sound foundations for interactive administration, where everyone participates in making plans, carrying them out, supervising them, evaluating them, and deriving lessons from their implementation transparently and effectively. When will the time of talk end and the time of action begin?

Jad Ganem: The Howling Abyss

Arabic original here.

The Howling Abyss

by Jad Ganem

It's one thing to read about schisms in the Church in history-books. Watching the brisk steps being taken toward it in your own time is something else entirely. For years, stubbornness has been in control of the situation. Voices of caution are raised, but no one wants to listen. Theology is transformed into points of view or, you could say, into arguments justifying the slow crawl towards the abyss of schism. We have witnessed a solid engineering to create an Orthodox papal ideology and sabotage true conciliarity. We have experienced the disavowal and destruction of all the rules that guided common Orthodox relationships. We have seen with our own eyes those who deny what they themselves have said, what they themselves have written, what they themselves have taught. We have dealt with those who assign no value to others' opinions. We have witnessed those who have no concern for building consensus, who have no scruple about fanning the flames of discord, who persist in saying one thing and its opposite according to their whims and interests.

Many gave warnings. Many wrote. Many objected. Many boycotted. But the plan continues. How can you have dialogue with those who only want to hear their own voice? How can you speak according to a churchly logic with those who act like they're an secular NGO? How can you convince those who see the Church as a collection of frozen canons that she is a living body that is not frozen in past times and forms. How can you convince those who have lost their glory that smashing the glories of others will not bring back what they have lost? We fear that those who have engineered the slide toward schism and those who crawl toward the abyss are not concerned about either Christ or His Church so much as they are concerned about their authority and glory. Has the time not yet come to stop rousing small conflicts, enlarging them and deepening the rift between peoples? Who will put out the flames and who will lessen the enmity if the Church has abandoned her role? Are we now in need of someone who will cleanse the temple of money-changers? Come, Lord Jesus!

Majallat el-Nour: Preserving Orthodox Unity

This article appeared in the current issue of Majallat el-Nour, the magazine of the Orthodox Youth Movement.

Preserving Orthodox Unity

by Jad Ganem

1948 was a pivotal year for the Orthodox world. It was the year when the Orthodox church was thrust into the Cold War between America, the Soviet Union and their respective allies. That year witnessed the failure of Stalin's plan to move the leadership of the Orthodox world to the Soviet Union and establish an "Orthodox Vatican" in Moscow, after the decisions of the Orthodox conference held in Moscow in 1948 roused the free world to vigilance in confronting the Soviet Union's plan to use the Russian Orthodox Church to promote Soviet policy and spread Communist thought in the Orthodox world. Political leaders in the West began taking practical steps to contain and confront Soviet expansion in the free Orthodox world. These steps began with pushing the Ecumenical Patriarch Maximos to resign. In his place Metropolitan Athenagoras of America, who was close to the American President Truman, was elected Ecumenical Patriarch. This was possible because the American, Greek and Turkish governments agreed on the election as part of a comprehensive plan to distance the latter two countries from the Soviet sphere, resulting in their joining NATO in 1951. Athenagoras arrived in Turkey in the American presidential plane and immediately upon landing he was granted Turkish citizenship at the airport. Thus, the Orthodox conference in Moscow achieved the opposite result of what its organizers had intended, as it led to the rediscovery of the Ecumenical Patriarch by the Western world. From that time, the West worked to raise his profile and transform him into a weapon for containing and confronting Soviet expansion into Orthodox countries outside the Iron Curtain, especially in Greece and the Ancient Patriarchates.

On both sides of the Iron Curtain, Orthodoxy paradoxically benefited from the circumstances of the Cold War. The Church of Moscow, which in the 20s and 30s had been on the brink of total annihilation under Soviet persecution, was able to reassert its presence within most of its pre-Revolutionary canonical territories and to reconstitute its episcopal body, which had been reduced to only four bishops on the entire territory of the Soviet Union.

During this period this church was likewise able to hold a synod to elect a new patriarch after having been unable for two decades to elect a successor to the martyred Patriarch Tikhon. The church was also permitted to revive a number of monasteries and churches and a some bishops, priests, monastics and believers were released from prisons and gulags as evidence of religious freedom in the Soviet Union.

During this period, the Ecumenical Patriarchate was also able to regain its role in the Orthodox and Christian worlds, which had been sharply diminished following the Greece’s loss in its war with Turkey and the population exchange mandated by the Treaty of Lausanne, which removed almost all Orthodox Christians in Turkey (apart from those living in Istanbul) to Greece. The Ecumenical Patriarchate further lost its freedom of action and ecumenical character when the Greek negotiator accepted that the patriarch’s role be limited to providing pastoral care to the Greek community in Istanbul and its surroundings and that the patriarchs and bishops be required to have been residents of the city before 1920 and of Turkish nationality, in order to prevent moving its headquarters from Turkey to Greece, as desired by the Turkish negotiator. It also was confronted with a schismatic body called the "Turkish Orthodox Church" whose leader occupied its headquarters for a time and called for its transformation into a Turkish national church. This group was even able to threaten the stability of the patriarchate and to take ownership of some of its most important properties in Istanbul for several years. The Ecumenical Patriarchate was, however, able in the mid-40s to regain some of these properties, just as it was able to elicit a degree of recognition of its role outside the borders of the Turkish state.

Changing political circumstances did not allow the period of détente between Constantinople and Moscow to last, as the systematic pogroms against the Greek community in Istanbul on April 6-7, 1955 led to the destruction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's infrastructure and to the emigration of most of its flock. It is said that this led Patriarch Athenagoras to opine that the real fall of Constantinople occurred after these events. Throughout this time, Russian Church continued to suffer the horrors of systematic persecution and discrimination against believers.

Breaks in relations between Constantinople and Moscow and Turkey and the Soviet union, respectively, gave a positive impetus to the Orthodox world and all the churches were able to gather for the first time at a general conference held on the island of Rhodes in 1961. This meeting laid the foundations for arranging relations between the Orthodox churches and defined a shared mechanism for addressing controversial issues. This meeting resulted in an openness on the part of the Orthodox Church to dialogue and joint ecumenical work with the rest of the Christian world. It also inaugurated cooperation between the various local churches to find common solutions to issues that had arisen in the Orthodox world between the wars-- the most important of which were the issues of autocephaly and autonomy and organizing the Orthodox presence in the diaspora.

The Cold War left its mark on relations between the churches during this period, but they cooperated with each other, aware that each needed to adapt to the realities of its context. Political leaders also encouraged these meetings because they were an opportunity for each side to catch a glimpse of what was happening on the other side of the Iron Curtain, not to mention that it provided opportunities for propaganda and influencing the course of events on the other side.

Perhaps one could say that Orthodox activity attained its apex and made its more important achievements during the period of the Cold War. This period saw the Church of Moscow abandon its plan to lead the Orthodox world and accept the leadership role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as first in honor among the patriarchates and churches. It likewise witnessed the start of preparatory work for the Great Orthodox Council, which entailed  a great number of meetings where agreement was reached on the majority of items on its agenda. Three issues remained outstanding: the manner of signing a tomos of autocephaly, the conditions for granting autonomy and the issue of the diptychs. Joint Orthodox work, within the limited margins of freedom available at that time, relied on the fundamental premise of the acceptance by all the local churches of the existing boundaries of the local Orthodox churches, including the Church of Finland, which had separated from the Patriarchate of Moscow in the mid-50s and obtained autonomy from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This work likewise followed the principle of building consensus between the churches and until unanimity could be reached on all the topics.

The end of the Cold War coincided with the election of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who was elected without interference from the Turkish authorities, and the election of Patriarch of Moscow Alexei II by a synod that included all the metropolitans of the Russian Church and representatives from the clergy and laity. The post-Cold War period brought promises of overcoming the difficulties of the past and increased cooperation between the Orthodox churches, especially after the meeting of the first synaxis of the primates of the Orthodox churches at the Fanar, presided by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew in 1992.

These promises were quickly dashed after Ecumenical Patriarchate decided unilaterally to grant autonomy to the Church of Estonia, which had been dependent on the Patriarchate of Moscow before the Bolshevik Revolution. This step worried Moscow, whose patriarch at the time had previously been Metropolitan of Estonia, as it understood this decision and the course of discussions with Constantinople to indicate a desire on the part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to change the existing boundaries of the Orthodox churches and to encourage the establishment of national churches within the canonical boundaries of the Patriarchate of Moscow. This step likewise alerted the patriarchs of the other Orthodox churches to a transformation in the Ecumenical Patriarchate's understanding and practice of primacy.

The issue of Estonia led to a break in communion between the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of Moscow for a number of months in 1996 and to the suspension of joint Orthodox activity for a decade. At the synaxis of the primates of the Orthodox churches in 2008, it was agreed that autonomous churches would be excluded from joint Orthodox activity and that the preparatory work for the Great Orthodox Council would recommence and complete the study of the three outstanding issues on its agenda. In practice, however, agreement was reached on the issue of autonomy and how it is to be granted, while agreement about the issues of the diptychs and the manner of ratifying a tomos of autocephaly was impossible. These two topics were excluded from the agenda of the Great Orthodox Council which, it was decided at the synaxis held in April of 2014, would be held on the Feast of Pentecost, 2016.

There did not appear during this preparatory work, and especially not in the study of the question of autocephaly, any positions implying a refusal to recognize the canonical boundaries of the autocephalous churches or a desire to revise these boundaries. His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch repeatedly affirmed that the Ecumenical Patriarchate recognizes the Ukrainian Church dependent on the Church of Moscow as the legitimate church in Ukraine. Its head took part in the synaxis of the primates of the churches that was held in Chambésy, Switzerland in January, 2016 as part of the delegation of the Church of Moscow, where His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch welcomed his presence.

The request of the churches of Antioch, Russia, Georgia and Bulgaria to postpone the Great Council, followed by their declining to participate in what became the "Council of Crete" in June, 2016, opened a new cold war in the Orthodox world. The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Church of Greece responded by boycotting the celebrations of the centenary of the reestablishment of the Patriarchate of Moscow held in early December, 2017. The issue of Ukraine was re-opened a quarter-century after the schism of Metropolitan Filaret and his declaring the establishment of the so-called Patriarchate of Kiev, which is not recognized by any of the Orthodox churches.

The rhetoric of the Ecumenical Patriarchate changed after the Council of Crete and it started to state in its literature that it is the mother church of the Church of Ukraine and that this church was uncanonically absorbed by the Church of Moscow in the 17th century. On this basis, the Ecumenical Patriarchate declared that it considers itself as having the competency to grant this church autocephaly. Some of its bishops even went so far as to reject the rules that were agreed upon during the joint Orthodox work on the issue of autocephaly and the manner of its declaration and to state that what was agreed upon by all the churches is not valid for dealing with the issues that have been raised to the conscience of the Church in the current century-- especially given the ambiguity that still prevails about their opinion about what is meant by "mother church" with regard to the church in Ukraine, for example. They likewise questioned the principle of requiring the unanimity of the Orthodox churches, regarding it as too difficult to achieve, as demonstrated by experience during discussion of the document on granting autocephaly during the preparatory work for the Great Council. In addition to the issue of Ukraine, the issue of the Macedonian schism has been raised within the Patriarchate of Serbia and it has been suggested that a solution must be found for the issues of the churches in Montenegro and Moldova. A communique issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate has stated that the mother church of the churches in the Balkans remains the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s statements have provoked a wave of anxiety in the Orthodox world and fears of schism. Several churches and bishops have expressed opinions that are not supportive of it. Senior officials in the Patriarchate of Moscow said that the day after the Ecumenical Patriarchate grants autocephaly to the Church of Ukraine could be likened to the day after the Great Schism between East and West. One of the bishops of the Serbian Patriarchate stated that any individual decision on the part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate regarding Serbia and Ukraine would be a grave mistake both canonically and spiritually and would be rejected by the universal Orthodox Church. He also stressed that the Orthodox churches regard the Ecumenical Patriarch as first among equals and not first without equal. On the other hand, a number of autocephalous Orthodox churches have kept silent and not taken any public position with regard to these developments, while other churches have expressed their support for the legitimate church in Ukraine dependent on Moscow. The Ukrainian and Macedonian crises have brought the Orthodox world into struggles that transcend ecclesiastical concerns and belong to the conflict between the West and Russia, just as Orthodoxy has embarked on internal conflicts, which observers fear, if allowed to worsen or if inappropriate steps are taken, will lead to schisms between and within the churches.

The Orthodox churches did not escape being influenced by political developments, since political leaders both inside and outside the Iron Curtain resorted to making use of the ancient rivalry between Second Rome and Third Rome over the course of the Cold War. At this difficult moment, when populism and nationalism are on the rise, borders are being redrawn, and a new order is slowly emerging out of the rubble of post-war arrangements designed to contain Soviet expansion, we must be vigilant against the exploitation of existing ecclesiastical disagreements for the sake of ephemeral political interests and nationalist projects. We must avoid the ethnic and political rivalries that have beset the Orthodox Church and fragmented it into national churches from the time of the Greek Revolution, which led to the Church of Greece declaring its autocephaly, an example that was followed as more countries gained their independence. The Orthodox churches must collectively address the notion that “every independent state has the right to an autocephalous church” and that “the borders of the church must change with changes in the political situation", not only because this idea subordinates the Church to political vicissitudes and fragments her into warring tribes, but also because it has never been the rule in the Orthodox world, since it is contrary to the nature of the Church.

The Ancient Patriarchates of the Orthodox Church have since ancient times transcended nations and ethnicities and they continue to do so. At the present, there are autocephalous churches whose territory only covers part of a state, as is the case for the Church of Greece. Other autocephalous churches extend over more than one state, as in the cases of the Church of Serbia and  the Church of Czechia and Slovakia, which remained one church after being divided into different countries. We must also remember that the system of autonomy as an ecclesiastical arrangement does not mean the subordination of a church to another church or another state. It in no way detracts from the sovereignty of a state in which an autonomous church exists. The autonomy enjoyed by the Churches of Finland and Estonia within the Ecumenical Patriarchate has never been regarded as detracting from the sovereignty of those two states, just as the island of Crete’s autonomy within the Ecumenical Patriarchate has never been considered a violation of the sovereignty of the Greek state, despite the disagreements between Turkey and Greece. The ecclesiastical, canonical and even political situations of these churches differ little in principle from the situations of the autonomous Ukrainian Church dependent on the Patriarchate of Moscow and the Macedonian Church dependent on the Patriarchate of Serbia.

The Orthodox Church must pay heed to the dangers that result from feeding nationalist sentiments and tying the future of the Church to political considerations. The greatest responsibility in this regard lies with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In order to fulfill its canonical role, it must put to use the primacy of service that it enjoys in order to assist the Churches of Russia and Serbia in healing the wounds caused to them by the Ukrainian and Macedonian schisms. This can only happen  by recognizing the boundaries of the Orthodox churches that have been established for decades and following the principle that the Mother Church is the church whose Holy Synod includes the bishops who are requesting autocephaly.

Episcopacy and Conciliarity

This was published unsigned in al-Karma, the weekly bulletin of the Archdiocese of Tripoli. Arabic original here.

Episcopacy and Synodality

On the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul and all the Apostles, the Church celebrates an important stage of her holy life.

In Christianity, an apostle is someone whom God has entrusted with a divine message or a holy task. The Lord chose His apostles, loved them and taught them. He was a model for them in everything, so that they would become other christs, able to make apostles of all the nations, to baptize them, and to bring them to love of His commandments. The Lord entrusted them with the mystery of man's salvation, with the dogma of the kingdom of heaven. He gave them the authority to loosen and to bind, the authority to heal illnesses and expel demons, to perform the divine mysteries, and, also important, the authority to raise up successors to themselves: "Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands" (2 Timothy 1:6).

The gift of apostleship that the Lord Jesus Christ established naturally had to continue after the apostles' death. It was transmitted to their successors whom they themselves chose. This is clear in the epistles of the New Testament, which talk about presbyters, bishops and shepherds, and the early Church was profoundly conscious of this reality.

In his Epistle to the Corinthians, Clement, bishop of Rome at the end of the first century, speaks clearly about how the apostles established successors for themselves to lead the Church. In Orthodoxy, the bishops are direct successors to the apostles. They are the continuation of the apostleship that our Lord chose, through whom He guides the world to the sole truth.

This is what the words of the Lord Jesus mean to them: "Behold I am with you all the days until the end of the age." He is with them through their successors the bishops. These bishops have become not only apostles of Christ, but also prophets of the new covenant. After prophecy stopped as a special gift in the Church in the early second century, the bishops of the new covenant received prophecy along with apostleship.

They are apostles who preach the good news of Jesus Christ. Their role as prophets is to declare His will for the Church and for the people of God. Thus the Church, whose head is the Lord Jesus Christ, is built "on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20). These gifts are transmitted to the priests, the bishops' assistants, through the obedience of these priests to the bishops, when this obedience does not go against the Church's faith, tradition, and canons.

Conciliarity and consultation were an attribute of the early Church of the apostles and the apostles governed the church through councils. The Apostle Paul did not make his own opinion or decision. Rather, he said that he went up to Jerusalem to present his gospel to those held in regard, lest his striving be in vain. The first apostolic Council of Jerusalem realized the perfection of the image of conciliarity for the Church. It revealed that conciliarity is part of the Church's nature. Thus over the centuries, following the model of this council, the Church had held her councils and strives to preserve the spirit of conciliarity.

Councils continued after the age of the apostles, constituting the apostolic form that expresses the gathering of the entire Church. Local and ecumenical councils were held and the bishops who gathered in them represented the people of God with whom they were entrusted. This conciliar spirit is reflected in the whole life of the Church and indeed, in the Church's very faith.

The conciliar spirit is that which allows the Church to grow freely and charismatically, without being ruled by fear of a single head that monopolizes power, who is usually himself dominated by many passions and who is unable to accept those who oppose his style and manner.

It was in this charismatic spirit of conciliarity that the holy dogmas were defined and the Church's theology developed in an upright, Orthodox manner, just as the Church's liturgical life developed in a spiritual and ascetical manner.

It was in this spirit that the canons were formulated, not to frighten the faithful but to protect their path from the weakness of nature and to ease passage to the kingdom. There is no freedom outside of conciliarity, nor is there charismatic theology outside of conciliarity, because the movement of grace is then transformed into the spirit of institutionalized worldliness in the service of the orientation of the domineering head, either fearing him or flattering him.

In true conciliarity, the one Spirit works through the gifts of the many to build up the one body of Christ. It is not possible for this Spirit to be active outside the conciliar life. For this reason, Christ said, "For where two or three are gathered together in My name, I am there in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20).

All manifestations of the life of the Orthodox Church are conciliar, from the parish to the ecumenical council. Everything that contributes to nourishing domineering individualism among the priests or bishops (or patriarchs at the level of the local church) constitutes a real danger for the entire movement of the Spirit in the holy Church. It disables the gifts of the Holy Spirit among the faithful.

When a bishop is domineering in the Church, it is evidence of the domination of the spirit of pride, of abominable egoism, and of the passion of vainglory in his soul.

Christ first taught His apostles the virtue of self-denial when they were competing for the first places and He said to them, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you" (Matthew 20:25-26).

These are the factors that led to the fall of the Church in the West and turned it from truth into a papist church, where they reduced the entire church to the person of the pope and placed him above the councils, denying the ecclesiological understanding that the Church had followed for a thousand years.

The pope became the church and when he fell with regard to the faith, the entire church over which he was head fell with him and came to be outside the body of Christ. Therefore, where there is no conciliarity, there is no Church.

In Orthodoxy, the local councils have the primary practical role in facing the contemporary challenges that never cease.

The local council of bishops works in the spirit of the holy ecumenical councils, preserving Orthodoxy in its dogmas and canons from twisted teachings and falsely-named theology.

The ecumenical councils are the highest authority in the Orthodox Church and a local council cannot contradict any of their teachings or canons.  It can only apply economy where necessary.

The other role of the local council is to teach this faith to the people of God, how to live it in the spirit of repentance, confession, living participation in the holy mysteries, and to resist the worldly spirit that is spreading in the life of the Church, destroying the spirit of piety within her.

The Church lives this conciliarity in every Eucharistic gathering and from this gathering, the Church extends the foundation of building up her conciliarity.

There, where there is confession of the one Orthodox faith, the Lord is present and the people around Him with the bishop constitute, by the power of the Holy Spirit, a Eucharistic council, in which all the ecumenical dimensions of the conciliarity of the one Church are made manifest.