The Pan-Orthodox Council of 2016 – A New Era for the Orthodox Church?: Interdisciplinary Perspectives [1 ed.] 3631715269, 9783631715260

Citation preview

19

Vasilios N. Makrides is a Professor of Religious Studies (specialising in Orthodox Christianity) at the Department of Religious Studies, University of Erfurt, Germany. Sebastian Rimestad is a Senior Researcher with a focus on Christianity at the Department of Religious Studies, University of Leipzig, Germany.

19 Vasilios N. Makrides / Sebastian Rimestad (eds) · The Pan-Orthodox Council of 2016

The present volume, based on a related conference in Erfurt, offers interdisciplinary insights on the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church or the Pan-Orthodox Council, convened on the island of Crete in June 2016. Although some Orthodox Churches finally declined to participate – the most prominent being the Russian one –, the Council was a most significant development. It brought a considerable number of Orthodox Churches together and discussed crucial issues pertaining to today’s Orthodox world. However, it also vividly revealed existing serious problems of inter-Orthodox communication and collaboration. The contributions in this volume shed light on main issues related to this Council and their multiple repercussions for Pan-Orthodox unity and the future of the Orthodox world.

ERFURTER STUDIEN ZUR KULTURGESCHICHTE DES ORTHODOXEN CHRISTENTUMS

Vasilios N. Makrides & Sebastian Rimestad (eds)

The Pan-Orthodox Council of 2016 – A New Era for the Orthodox Church? Interdisciplinary Perspectives

ISBN 978-3-631-71526-0

www.peterlang.com

ESKO 19_271526_Makrides_Rimestad_SE_HCA5 152x214 globaL.indd Alle Seiten

28.10.21 13:33

The Pan-Orthodox Council of 2016 – A New Era for the Orthodox Church?

ERFURTER STUDIEN ZUR KULTURGESCHICHTE DES ORTHODOXEN CHRISTENTUMS Herausgegeben von / Edited by Vasilios N. Makrides

BAND 19

Zu Qualitätssicherung und Peer Review der vorliegenden Publikation Die Qualität der in dieser Reihe erscheinenden Arbeiten wird vor der Publikation durch den Herausgeber der Reihe in Zusammenarbeit mit externen Gutachtern geprüft.

Note on the quality assurance and peer review of this publication Prior to publication, the quality of the works published in this series is reviewed by the editor in collaboration with external referees.

Vasilios N. Makrides / Sebastian Rimestad (eds)

The Pan-Orthodox Council of 2016 – A New Era for the Orthodox Church? Interdisciplinary Perspectives

Bibliographic Information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available online at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A CIP catalog record for this book has been applied for at the Library of Congress.

Cover image: The Primates of the ten autocephalous Orthodox Churches participating in the Pan-Orthodox Council of Crete. From the induction ceremony in the Orthodox Academy of Crete, 24 June 2016. Photo: © John Mindala (Source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/holycouncil/27861399436/)

ISSN 1612-152X ISBN 978-3-631-71526-0 (Print) E-ISBN 978-3-631-83014-7 (E-PDF) E-ISBN 978-3-631-83015-4 (EPUB) DOI 10.3726/b17326 © Peter Lang GmbH Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften Berlin 2021 Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Peter Lang – Berlin · Bern · Bruxelles · New York · Oxford · Warszawa · Wien All parts of this publication are protected by copyright. Any utilization outside the strict limits of the copyright law, without the permission of the publisher, is forbidden and liable to prosecution. This applies in particular to reproductions, translations, microfilming, and storage and processing in electronic retrieval systems. This publication has been peer reviewed. www.peterlang.com

Table of Contents Vasilios N. Makrides / Sebastian Rimestad Reflecting on the Pan-Orthodox Council of 2016 – An Introduction................... 7 THE COUNCIL AND ITS PARTICIPANTS Paul Valliere The Idea of a CounFLOȈȪȞȠįȠȢɋɨɛɨɪ LQ2UWKRGR[7UDGLWLRQ and Ecclesiology.................................................................................................. 39 Eva M. Synek Local Orthodoxies and Universal Orthodoxy: Perspectives from Canon Law............................................................................. 57 Daniela Kalkandjieva Ecclesiastical Geopolitics of Modern Orthodoxy: An Overview with a Special Focus on the Activities of the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries ............. 79 Alexander Kyrlezhev / Andrey Shishkov The Eastern Orthodox Church before and after the Council RI&UHWH$FWRUV3URFHGXUHVDQG3URVSHFWVRI&RQVROLGDWLRQ ................ 107 Sebastian Rimestad The Council and “Alternative Orthodoxy”: Who Was not Invited to the Pan-Orthodox Council? ....................................... 125 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE MODERN WORLD Alexander Agadjanian The Orthodox Vision of the Modern World: &RQWH[W+LVWRU\ and Meaning of the Synodal Document on Church Mission ............................ 145 Aristotle Papanikolaou An Orthodox Christian Secularism ................................................................... 163

6

Table of Contents

Lucian N. Leustean Eastern Orthodoxy and Diasporic Communities: The Challenges of Nationalism ......................................................................... 175 Vassilis Pnevmatikakis 2UWKRGR['LDVSRUDV EHWZHHQ7KHRORJ\DQG*HRSROLWLFV: Is Jurisdictional Pluralism Really a Problem? .................................................. 185 THE COUNCIL AND WORLD CHRISTIANITY Peter De Mey Parallel Agendas of Vatican II and Crete I? A Close Look at “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” ............................................................... 201 Ivana Noble Ecumenical Reflections on the Pan-Orthodox Council .................................... 219 Pantelis Kalaitzidis 2UWKRGR[\(FXPHQLVPDQG,QWHU-Christian Dialogue .................................... 239 Notes on Contributors ....................................................................................... 269

Reflecting on the Pan-Orthodox Council of 2016 – An Introduction Vasilios N. Makrides / Sebastian Rimestad Contextualising and Assessing the Pan-Orthodox Council OQ  -XQH  WKH 6XQGD\ RI 3HQWHFRVW DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH Eastern Orthodox Church3DWULDUFK%DUWKRORPHZRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOHSUHVLGHGDVROHPQ/LWXrgy in +HUDNOLRQon the island of Crete in GreeceLQZKLFK he was joined by nine further PULPDWHV RI RWKHU DXWRFHSKDORXV 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFKHV +LJK-ranking delegations from ten out of the fourteen universally recognised autocephalous churches had gathered at the Orthodox Academy of Crete for the long-DZDLWHG+RO\DQG*UHDW &RXQFLO RI WKH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK FRPPRQO\ UHIHUUHG WR DV WKH 3DQ-Orthodox Council. 1 This Council had been awaited since more than a century and the concrete preparations had lasted more than five decades. Ever since the first Pan2UWKRGR[&RQIHUHQFHRQWKHLVODQGRI5KRGRVLQWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKKDG longed for VXFKDJDWKHULQJZKLFKZRXOGLGHDOO\UHVROYHPDQ\ORQJ-standing problematic issues within the Eastern Orthodox Church family. The Council lasted for a little more than a week (17-26 -XQH and had EHHQFDUHIXOO\VWDJHGZLWKGDLO\SUHVVEULHILQJVRIILFLDOVRFLDO PHGLDFKDQQHOV and concomitant UKHWRULF,QWKHHQGit adopted six conciliar dRFXPHQWVplus a “Message” and an “Encyclical”. The documents were mostly based on previous drafts and versions that had already been discussed for several decadesZKLOH the consultations at the Council itself could only make very minor adjustments to them. ,Q JHQHUDO WHUPV WKHVH consultations took place in a very collegial and uncompetitive DWPRVSKHUHZKHUHWKHZRUGof every delegation seemed to count equally. The ten delegations left Crete at the end of June with the feeling of having accomplished a great feat for the future of the Orthodox Church. $WWKHVDPHWLPHWKHUHKDGEHHQIULFWLRQV and problems)RURQHWKHfour FKXUFKHVWKDWGLGQRWVHQGGHOHJDWLRQVWR&UHWHWKH3DWULDUFKDWHRI$QWLRFK as well as WKH&KXUFKHVRI5XVVLD%XOJDULDDQG*HRUJLD KDGDQQRXQFHGWKLVdecision a few weeks before the CRXQFLOFLWLQJGLIIHUHQWRpen and contentious issues that rendered WKHLUSDUWLFLSDWLRQLPSRVVLEOH,QWHUHVWLQJO\HQRXJKWKLVKDSSHQHG although they had all agreed to participate in the planned Council during the last official pre-conciliar Synaxis of the Primates of the autocephalous Orthodox &KXUFKHVLQ&KDPEpV\6ZLW]HUODQG-28 January 2016 . The churches present in Crete tried to downplay the importance of perfect attendance and unanimity 1

$OOLQIRUPDWLRQDERXWWKH&RXQFLOLVDYDLODEOHLQIRXUODQJXDJHV(QJOLVK*UHHN5XVVLDQ DQG)UHQFK RQLWVRIILFLDOZHEVLWH85/KWWSVZZZKRO\FRXQFLORUJ>@

8

Vasilios N. Makrides  Sebastian Rimestad

and to promote the many positive sides of the gatheringZKLOHWKRVHVWD\LQJDW home portrayed the Council as incompleteODFNLQJ a Pan-Orthodox character. The direct or indirect role of the Moscow Patriarchate as forming the leading pole of opposition to the Council and trying to stop or delay the entire conciliar process should be emphasised here. The future of a united global Orthodox Church seemed even bleaker than before. Is it then legitimate to call this Council a Pan-Orthodox one? 1RGRXEWWKH absence of four churches denied its status as Pan-Orthodox in the strict sense of WKHZRUG+RZHYHUWKe Council was conceived and scheduled to be a Pan-Orthodox one from the very beginning. It is thus no wonder that it was constantly termed “Pan-Orthodox” on various occasions in numerous GRFXPHQWVRIILFLDODQnouncePHQWVDQG discussions preceding the Council of 2016. Also the fact that the above four churches participated regularly in all SUHSDUDWRU\VWDJHVDWWHQGHGDOOWKHSUHconciliar meetings and worked together on the preliminary documents attests to the basic Pan-Orthodox character of the Council. The same holds true for the afterPDWK RI WKH &RXQFLO as these four Churches have received the documents finally approved in Crete so that they may respond to them. It is thus possible that the eventual broader reception of the Council may render it truly Pan-Orthodox at DODWHUVWDJH)RUDOOWKHVHUHDVRQVHYHQLIde jure and de facto we cannot speak of a Pan-Orthodox Council in the strict meaning of the termLWLVKDUGWRDYRLG acknowledging its Pan-OUWKRGR[GLPHQVLRQDQGVLJQLILFDQFHHVSHFLDOO\FRQsidering the decades-long pre-conciliar process. (YHQVRWKHdevelopments in the aftermath of the Council have confirmed the fragile condition of Pan-Orthodox unity. Emboldened by the success of the Pan2UWKRGR[&RXQFLOwhich strengthened its related OHJLWLPDF\the Patriarchate of Constantinople two years later replied favourably to a request by the Ukrainian Parliament and President Petro Poroshenko to investigate the possibility of reorganising the Ukrainian Orthodox Church structure – much to the chagrin of the 5XVVLDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZKLFKFODLPHGWREHWKHRQO\FDQRQLFDOO\OHJLWLPDWH actor in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. Constantinople’s investigation led to a re-appraisal of a histoULFDOGRFXPHQWIURPwith which Constantinople had transferred the right to designate bishops in the Kievan Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate. In fact &RQVWDQWLQRSOH had de jure kept the canonical jurisdiction over .LHYdesignating the decision of 1686 as a temporary one,QRWKHUZRUGV this decision had been underlined by the historical conditions of that time and could be revoked under new circumstances.2 2

On this document VHH &\ULO +RYRUXQ ³Ʉɨɦɦɟɧɬɚɪɢɢ ɤ Ʉɨɧɫɬɚɧɬɢɧɨɩɨɥɶɫɤɢɦ ɫɢɧɨɞɚɥɶɧɵɦ ɝɪɚɦɨɬɚɦ 1686 ɝɨɞɚ´ >&RPPHQWV on the Constantinopolitan Synodal 7RPRV RI @  85/ KWWSVZZZOLQNHGLQFRPSXOVHɤɨɦɦɟɧɬɚɪɢɢ-ɤɤɨɧɫɬɚɧɬɢɧɨɩɨɥɶɫɤɢɦ-ɫɢɧɨɞɚɥɶɧɵɦ-ɝɪɚɦɨɬɚɦ-cyril-KRYRUXQ >@ 9HUD * TchentsRYD ³ɋɢɧɨɞɚɥɶɧɨɟ ɪɟɲɟɧɢɟ  ɝ ɨ Ʉɢɟɜɫɤɨɣ ɦɢɬɪɨɩɨɥɢɢ´ >7KH 6\QRGDO Decision of 168DERXWWKH.LHYDQ0HWURSROLV@ȾɪɟɜɧɹɹɊɭɫɶȼɨɩɪɨɫɵɦɟɞɢɟɜɢɫɬɢɤɢ

Reflecting on the Pan-Orthodox Council – An Introduction

9

$VDUHVXOWthe Patriarchal Synod of Constantinople lifted the sanctions on the heads of the two uncanonical and unrecognised Ukrainian Orthodox &KXUFKHV 0HOHWLL 0DOHWLFK from the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church and Filaret (DenyVHQNR  RI WKH .LHY 3DWULDUFKDWH. 0RUHRYHU D “Unification Council” under Constantinople patronage was summoned to Kiev in December 2018 DW ZKLFK DOO 2UWKRGR[ ELVKRSV LQ 8NUDLQH UHJDUGOHVV RI WKHLU FDQRQLFDOVWDQGLQJLQZRUOG2UWKRGR[\ZHUHLQYLWHG8QGHUVWDQGDEO\WKH vast majority of the bishops belonging the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the Moscow Patriarchate refused WKH LQYLWDWLRQ VLQFH WKH HQWLUH SURFHVV KDG EHHQ followed through without concerting with the Moscow side. The resulting “united” Orthodox Church of UkraLQH2&8 ZDV de facto a reunion of two previously unrecognised churches. Intending to overcome the long-standing ecclesiastical problems in Ukraine3DWULDUFK%DUWKRORPHZRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOHSURFHHded with solemnly granting the OCU autocephaly on 5 January 2019. Its desigQDWHGKHDG Metropolitan (SLIDQL\'XPHQNR ZDVHQWKURQHGRQ)HEUXDU\ and thus Ukrainian Orthodoxy entered a new phase in its history. +RZHYHULQVWHDGRIFDOPLQJWKHZDYHVWKHHSLVRGHEURXJKWZRUOG2UWKRGR[\ into serious turmoil. In response to these DFWLRQVWKH5XVVLDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFK decided to break off communion with Constantinople and called on all other Orthodox Churches to do the same. This new chasm between the two main Patriarchates in the Orthodox world has at the time of writing not yet healed and is not likely to heal soon. 8SWRQRZRQO\WKUHHRWKHU2UWKRGR[&KXUFKHVKDYH SURFHHGHG DOWKRXJK ZLWK LQWHUQDO GLVVHQVLRQV WR WKH UHFognition of the new Ukrainian Church autocephaly: the Patriarchate of Alexandria as well as the Churches of Greece and Cyprus. The other Orthodox Churches have preferred to NHHSDGLSORPDWLFVWDQFHRQWKHPDWWHUZLWKRXWofficially condemning Constantinople’VDFWLRQV\HWEHLQJat the same time considerate of the sensitivities of the Russian side. Attempts at a mediation HJE\WKH*UHHN-controlled Patriarchate RI-HUXVDOHP have also failed. It is hard to predict what will be the outcome of this conflict DQGVFKLVP,QDOOSUREDELOLW\ it is likely to persist at least until a generational change has happened in both Patriarchates. :LWKRXWGRXEWWhe crisis over Ukraine is a consequence of the Pan-Orthodox Council of 2016. The Council validated Constantinople’s claim to leadership in WKH2UWKRGR[ZRUOGDWWKHH[SHQVHRIWKH5XVVLDQ&KXUFKHPboldening it to act in Ukraine. It claims to possess the exclusive right to grant autocephaly status to DQ 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK ZKLFK LV DIWHU DOO WKH FDVH ZLWK DOO PRGHUQ 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFKDXWRFHSKDOLHVVWDUWLQJZLWKWKDWRI0RVFRZLQ1593. This claim is

>@ –2OHV.XOFK\QVN\\DQGgPHU.XO³.\LY0HWURSROLDDQG0RVFRZ 'LSORPDF\$Q2WWRPDQ9LHZSRLQW´Scrinium  –276.

10

Vasilios N. Makrides  Sebastian Rimestad

TXHVWLRQHG KRZHYHU E\ WKH 5XVVLDQ &KXUFK ZKLFK KDV JUDQWHG LWV RZQ DXWRcephalies in the course of the 20th FHQWXU\,QLWVYLHZConstantinople’s rushing ahead in Ukraine was a direct threat to the traditional Orthodox approach to problem-VROYLQJQDPHO\ conciliarity. The question on autocephaly thus remains DFRQWHQWLRXVRQHDQGLWLVKDUGO\DFFLGHQWDOWKDWLWZDVOHIWRXWRIWKHDJHQGDLQ the Council of Crete. 7KHUHVXOWLQJVSOLWZKLOHQRWIXOO\XQH[SHFWHGVKRZs that Orthodox unity is still a dream and far from reality. Instead of overcoming the centuries-long “Cold :DU´ EHWZHHQ 0RVFRZ DQG &RQVWDQWLQRSOH 3 the current Orthodox world seems to be drifting even further apart. One thing remains certain KRZHYHU+DGWKH5XVVLDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFKSDUWLFLSDWHGLQWKH&RXQFLO RI&UHWH Constantinople would have been much more sensitive and cautious with regard to actions of Pan-Orthodox significance. This also means that the Ukrainian Church autocephaly would not have been granted and under such circumstances so quickly following the Council. +RZshould this Council be evaluatedWKHQ? The following section mentions a few important points and considers them through an interdisciplinary lens. In KLQGVLJKWit is clear that the Council was a successIXOHYHQWGHVSLWHvarious constraints and limitations. Most Orthodox Churches came together und managed to VSHDNZLWKRQHYRLFHRQDYDULHW\RIFUXFLDOWRSLFV+RZHYHUWKH&RXQFLO also revealed a number of weaknesses within global Orthodoxy as well as future challenges that the Orthodox world unavoidably has to deal withhoping to find viable solutions or at least temporary compromises. )LUVW WKLV concerns the different approaches to the question of primacy in the Orthodox worldZKLFKKDVDQLPPHGLDWHLPSDFWRQGHFLVLRQ-making within this pretty much differentiated and decentralised structure of independent churches. Inter-Orthodox relations are characterised by numerous ambiguities and fluctuations. :LWKRXW GRXEW WKLV LV KDUGO\ D UHFHQW SKHQRPHQRQ DV LW KDV H[LVWHG through most of the history of Eastern Christianity due to the polycentric system of church administration. This plurality was KRZHYHU enhanced from the 19th century onwards due to the development of eccOHVLDVWLFDOQDWLRQDOLVPV leading to the rapid multiplication of Orthodox Churches and consequently to serious problems of cooperation and mutual understanding. The situation was further exacerbated by various socio-political developmentssuch as the long communist rule in Eastern and South-(DVWHUQ(XURSHZKLch was applied to several countries with a predominant Orthodox Church and created barriers to inter-Orthodox communiFDWLRQ,QDGGLWLRQWKHH[LVWHQFHRIYDULRXVDXWRQRPRXV2UWKRGR[&KXUFKHV 3

6HH 6HUJH .HOHKHU ³2UWKRGR[ 5LYDOU\ LQ the Twentieth Century: Moscow versus &RQVWDQWLQRSOH´ Religion, State & Society    – àXNDV] )DMIHU DQG 6HEDVWLDQ5LPHVWDG³7KH3DWULDUFKDWHVRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOHDQG0RVFRZLQD*OREDO$JH $&RPSDULVRQ´International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church   211–227.

Reflecting on the Pan-Orthodox Council – An Introduction

11

as well as of those with a non-FDQRQLFDOVWDWXVZKLFKKRZHYHr de facto operate as independent structureshas rendered the entire situation even more complex. $OWKRXJKWKH2UWKRGR[ZRUOGGRHVQRWODFNPRPHQWVRIXQLW\DWWKHRIILFLDODQG non-official leYHODOLNHWKHUXOHVIRUDsmoother inter-Orthodox cooperation have not been set yet. The aforementioned problems regarding the participation in the Pan-Orthodox Council attest to this. It is quite easy to comprehend the existing problems in inter-Orthodox relations with reference to the fact that strongly contested issues were not discussed at all at the Council. This relates especially to the issue of autocephaly DQGWKHFRQGLWLRQVRILWVSURFODPDWLRQ7KLVLVDQLVVXHRIKHLJKWHQHGGHEDWHJLYHQ the fact that opinions diverge especially between the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow. The problem is not a QHZRQHDQGWKHUHLVDORQJcontroversy about it in the past as well. 4 %XWWKHSUROLIHUDWLRQRI2UWKRGR[&KXUFKHVLQ recent times and the need to create new autocephalous ones have aggravated the whole situation FRQVLGHU IRU H[DPSOH WKe self-proclaimed autocephaly of the Macedonian Orthodox Church in 1967 and the autocephaly of the “Orthodox Church in America”GHFODUHG unilaterally by the Patriarchate of Moscow in 1970. These complications are in most cases locally based and involve geographically FORVHFKXUFKHV\HWWKH\DUHstill of great importance for the unity of the broad 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK ERG\ HVSHFLDOO\ LQ D SHULRG RI HQhanced tensions between globalising trends and national aspirations. $WWLPHVWKHUHLVPXFKPRUHDWVWDNH as the aforedmentioned Ukranian Church autocephaly of 2019 and the resulting schism between Constantinople and Moscow clearly demonstrate. What the Council achieved to formulate was a document on the conditions and the ways to proclaim the autonomy of an Orthodox Church entitled “Autonomy and the Means by Which it is Proclaimed”. This is again a contentious LVVXHEXWRIOHVVHULQWHQVLW\WKDQWKHRQH of autocephaly. It goes without saying that in both the above cases the main difficulty lies on how to balance the synodal tradition of Orthodoxy with a specifically Orthodox (and not Roman Catholic  idea of primacy. There is a danger lurking behind the tradition of granting autoFHSKDO\ ZKLFK PD\ WUDQVIRUP WKH 2UWKRGR[ ZRUOG LQWR D ³&RQ )HGHUDWLRQ RI &KXUFKHV´DV3DWULDUFK%DUWKRORPHZ PDGHFOHDUDWKLVRSHQLQJDGGUHVVWRWKH &RXQFLO-XQH +HUHDJDLQWKH2UWKRGR[ZRUOGIDFHVDVLJQLILFDQWSUREOHPDVWKHH[DFWUROHDQGWKHUHVSRQVLbilities of the primusZKLFKZHUHKLVWRULcally undertaken by the Patriarch of &RQVWDQWLQRSOHUHPDLQXSWRa certain degree FRQWHVWHGHVSHFLDOO\IURPWKH0RVFRZVLGH 5 It is about a recurrent issue that is 4 5

See Marie-+pOqQH%ODQFKHW)UpGpULF*DEULHOand /DXUHQW7DWDUHQNRHGV Autocéphalies. L’exercice de l’indépendance dans les Églises slaves orientales (IXe-XXIe siècle)5RPH 2021. 6HH$QDUJ\URV$QDSOLRWLV“Primus und Synode in den Statuten der Orthodoxen Kirche am %HLVSLHOGHVgNXPHQLVFKHQXQGGHV0RVNDXHU3DWULDUFKDWV´LQ&KULVWRSK%|WWLJKHLPHU and Johannes +RIPDQQHGV Autorität und Synodalität)UDQNIXUWDP0DLQ–

12

Vasilios N. Makrides  Sebastian Rimestad

closely related to the administrative pluralism of the Orthodox Church structures. These used to function better and more effectively until the appearance of Orthodox nationalism(s \HWWKHSUHVHQWVLWXDWLRQUHQGHUVWKHse difficulties clearer than ever. The rich and intense Orthodox discourse and rhetoric on conciOLDULW\ FROOHJLDOLW\FDWKROLFLW\ DQGFRPPXQLW\ZKLFh were highlighted quite strongly GXULQJWKH&RXQFLOVHHP to have little impact upoQUHDOFKXUFKSROLWLFVZKLFKDUH often divided between competing ethno-religious camps and aspirations. As a UHVXOWWKHUHLVDKLVWRULFDOly documented cleavage between on the one hand the %\]DQWLQH*UHHN-oriented tradition and on the other hand thH6ODYLFHVSHFLDOO\ Russian-oriented tradition of Orthodox Christianity in different constellations. The recent Ukrainian Church crisis once more revealed the existence of these two fronts and the vicissitudes associated with them. The Serbian case illustrates this GLOHPPDTXLWHZHOO:LWKUHJDUGWRWKH&RXQFLORI&UHWHWKH6HUELDQ2UWKRGR[ Church did not succumb to internal and external pressure to decline participation. Yet in the Ukrainian Church FULVLVLW seems to be more supportive of the Russian side. At the same timeRWKHUWUDGLWLRQV RI2UWKRGR[\HJWKH$UDE-VSHDNLQJ  also try to promote their interests and profit from the above tensions and conflicts whenever possible. All this takes place against the background of the decline of Orthodox universality due to the rise and pervasive influence of Orthodox nationalismV ZKLFKVHHPVWRVHWWKHUXOes in the present situation. Another related challenge for the Orthodox world is to find the necessary and fruitful balance between the global and the local in the respective Orthodox cultures of today. It is not about the establishment of the former over the latter or vice-YHUVDEXt about finding and applying a strategy to accommodate both trends at a trans-2UWKRGR[ OHYHO ,Q IDFW ZKDW ZH REVHUYH LQ WKH KLVWRU\ RI 2UWKRGR[ Christianity DQGEH\RQGWKDWRIFRXUVH DUHcontinuous and repeated “glocalisaWLRQ SURFHVVHV´ QDPHO\ WKH PL[LQJ DQd fusion of local elements with global trends.6 +LVWRULFDOO\VSHDNLQJWKLs was not problematic as suchDQGWKH2UWKRGR[ VKRZHGDQDPD]LQJIOH[ibility and capacity to find this balance IRUH[DPSOHLQ their historical missions. 7 7KHDGYHQWRIWKHPRGHUQDJHKRZHYHUKDVFKDQJHG

6 7

+LODULRQ$OIH\HY“Primat XQG.DWKROL]LWlWLQGHURUWKRGR[HQ7UDGLWLRQ´Una Sancta  –$WKDQDVLRV9OHWVLV³:HULVWGHU(UVWHLQGHU2UWKRGR[LH"'DV5LQJHQ GHU 2UWKRGR[HQ .LUFKHQ XP GLH *HVWDOWXQJ HLQHU SDQRUWKRGR[HQ 5DQJRUGQXQJ´ Una Sancta  –4. See 9LFWRU5RXGRPHWRI³7KH*ORFDOLVDWLRQVRI(DVWHUQ2UWKRGR[&KULVWLDQLW\´European Journal of Social Theory   226–LGHPGlobalization and Orthodox Christianity: The Transformations of a Religious Tradition1HZ@ For a review of the Council’s agenda by a group of reform-minded Orthodox scholars ZULWLQJRQWKHHYHRIWKHDVVHPEO\VHH1DWKDQDHO6\PHRQLGHVHG Toward the Holy and Great Council: Theological Reflections1HZ.KRPLDNRYDQGWKH3ULQFLSOHRI6RERUQRVW¶$IWHUWKH%UHDNWKH5RDGVRI 5XVVLDQ3KLORVRSK\@6W3HWHUVEXUJ –31. 29 6HH6FKPHPDQQ³7RZDUGVD7KHRORJ\RI&RXQFLOV´DVQ –ZKHUHKHDUJXHV that when chuUFKKLHUDUFK\LVSURSHUO\XQGHUVWRRGDVFRQFLOLDUZKHQFRXQFLOVDUHSURSHUO\ understood as hierarchical and when vocation is properly understood as a divine gift FKDULVPD WKH³SUREOHP´RIFOHULFDO-lay relations in the Church is solved. Afanasiev wrote a monograph on the subject: Nikolai Afanasiev ɋɥɭɠɟɧɢɟ ɦɢɪɹɧ ɜ ɰɟɪɤɜɢ >7KH6HUYLFH RI /D\ 3HRSOH LQ WKH &KXUFK@ 3DULV  0H\HQGRUII ZKLOH VKDULQJ WKH 1HR-Patristic RXWORRNRI6FKPHPDQQDQG$IDQDVLHYWRRNDPRUHQXDQFHGDSSURDFKWRWKHPDWWHU³%XW the theory of sobornost’ as expressed by Khomiakov and his disciples has also raised new SUREOHPV ,Q UHIHUHQFH WR WKH FRQFLOLDU LQVWLWXWLRQ LWVHOI LW OHG D PDMRULW\ RI 5XVVLDQ WKHRORJLDQVWRDIILUPWKDWFRXQFLOVUHTXLUHWKHDFWLYHGLUHFWDQGUHVSRQVLEOH participation of the laity. The question then arises of the particular functions of the episcopate. Since LQWKH5XVVLDQ&KXUFKOD\PHQKDYHEHHQDGPLWWHGDVIXOOYRWLQJPHPEHUVRIWKH SURYLQFLDOFRXQFLOVZKLOHWKHELVKRSVNHHSDFROOHFWLYHYHWR-power. There is no doubt that the Council of Moscow (1917– KHOGXQGHUWKRVHFRQGLWLRQVZDVDVLJQLILFDQWDQG

52

Paul Valliere

ùDJXQD WKH .DUORZLW] 6HUEV DQG WKH 5XVVLDQ &RQFLOLDU 0RYHPHQW DOO PDGH JHQHURXVLIVRPHZKDWGLIIHUHQWSURYLVLRQIRUOD\SDUWLFLSDWLRQLQFRXQFLOVZKLFK is to say in the decision-making process of the church. The critics have problems with this. They believe that lay involvement in councils springs from confusion about divinely established vocational distinctions in the life of the church. More JHQHUDOO\ WKH FULWLFV IDXOW WKH QHZ FRQFLOLDULVP IRU LPSRUWLQJ ZKDW WKH\ FDOO “democracy” into the government of the cKXUFKOHDGLQJWRWKHFRUUXSWLRQRIWKH church’s mission by secular political agenda and to the corruption of conciliar practice itself by parliamentarianism. It is certainly true that the new conciliarism was forged in contexts that were not purely ecclesial. In all three laboratories cited above – the Transylvanian and .DUORZLW]Metropolises and the Russian Conciliar Movement – secular political factors were at work. %XWRIFRXUVH secular political factors were at work in the DQFLHQWFRXQFLOVWRR\HW2UWKRGR[WKHRORJLDQVGRQRWGLVPLVVWKHDQFLHQWFRXQcils for that reason. The problem for the interpreter of conciliar history in any period is to assess the relative weight of the operative values. +HQFH the question with respect to the modern laboratories becomes: Was the new Orthodox conciliarism primarily DSROLWLFDOSKHQRPHQRQRUGLGLWDOVRH[SUHVVJHQXLQHHFFOHVLDO values? Obviously this is a large and complicated issue. 30 1HYHUWKHOHVVWKHFULWLFV who fault the new conciliarism for democratism must be regarded as off the mark. DXWKHQWLFH[SUHVVLRQRIFRQFLOLDULW\LQWKHPLGVWRIUHYROXWLRQDU\FKDQJHVDQGWKDWLWFRQtributed much to the survival of the Church in the foOORZLQJWUDJLFGHFDGHV%XWDUHWKH SULQFLSOHV RI GHPRFUDWLF µUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ¶ RI WKH HSLVFRSDWH WKH FOHUJ\ DQG WKH ODLW\ DV GLVWLQFWµFODVVHV¶RI&KULVWLDQVWUXO\DGHTXDWHIURPWKHHFFOHVLRORJLFDOSRLQWRIYLHZ"'LG not the early Christian church strucWXUHRIVPDOOGLRFHVHVlocal eucharistic conciliarity of WKH ELVKRS DQG WKH SUHVE\WHULXP DQG IXOO OD\ UHVSRQVLELOLW\ LQ WKH OLIH RI WKH ORFDO eucharistic community—lead to provincial and ‘ecumenical’ councils of bishops alone? +RZHYHUVLQFHµORFDOFRQFLOLDULW\¶GRHVQRWH[LVW>LQFRQWHPSRUDU\2UWKRGR[\– 39@LV not sobornost’ DWWKHKLJKHUOHYHOSURYLQFLDORUHFXPHQLFDODYDOLGSRVVLEO\WHPSRUDU\  VXEVWLWXWH"´-RKQ0H\HQGRUII³:KDW,VDQ(FXPHQLFDO&RXQFLO"´>@LQLGHPLiving Tradition: Orthodox Witness in the Contemporary World &UHVWZRRG1ɫɨɛɨɪ@E\Whis very fact the Church sets before us not just the personal YLUWXHRIHDFKRI>WKH)athers – PV@ but the whole principle of sobornost’ by which the ecclesial body with Christ as its head should live >...@ Through this feast day the Church wants us to see that truly ecclesial life can develop RQO\ZKHUHWKHXQLWLYHSULQFLSOHRIORYHLVSUHVHQWZKHUHFKXUFKOLIHLVJXLGHGE\D FRQFLOLDU PLQG D FRQFLOLDU ZLOO QRW E\ LQGLYLGXDO SRZHU RU LQGLYLGXDO GHFLVLRQmaking. 35

7KH+RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLORIKDG charisma because it embodied the beauty of fellowship. It will endure in the Orthodox Church’s historical memory because of its realisation in practice of the conciliar idea to which Orthodoxy has always been committed in principle. ,QWKHQHDUIXWXUHKRZHYHUWKH&RXQFLO¶VOHJDF\ will depend on whether another Pan-Orthodox Council or series of councils will convene in our time. ,IVRWKHFKDULVPDRIWKH&RXQFLORIZLOOEHHQKDQFHG ,IQRWWKHRUSKDQHG&RXQFLOZLOOKDYHWRDZDLWLWVYLQGLFDWLRQLQ a more hospitable age. 36

35 3$&KDDGDHYVNLL³ɋɨɛɨɪɧɨɫɬɶ´ >6RERUQRVW¶@ ȼɨɫɤɪɟɫɧɵɣɛɥɚɝɨɜɟɫɬ Ɉɬɞɵɯɏɪɢɫɬɢɚɧɢɧɚ 20 (14.05. –2. 36 )RUIXUWKHUGLVFXVVLRQRIWKH&RXQFLORIE\3DXO9DOOLHUHVHH³7KH(WKLFDO5HDOLW\RI &RXQFLOV´LQ-RKQ&KU\VVDYJLVHG Primacy in the Church: The Office of Primate and the Authority of CouncilsYRO@ –50.

Local Orthodoxies and Universal Orthodoxy: Perspectives from Canon Law* Eva M. Synek

Preliminary Remarks Confessional plurality and structural differentiation within Eastern &KULVWLDQLW\ 1 which means a plurality of churches considering themselves as OUWKRGR[DQGDOVR churches of various traditions belonging to a variety of church-families that realise various degrees of communion is a matter of fact. Even within one church IDPLO\ various developments with regDUGWRFDQRQODZVDQGFXVWRPV liturgical as well DV WKHRORJLFDO SOXUDOLW\ KDYH WR EH WDNHQ LQWR DFFRXQW QRW WR VSHDN DERXW mentalities. Older literature on the Oriens Christianus LQ SDUWLFXODU *HUPDQ scholarVKLSQonetheless often spoke about “die Ostkirche” 2 “Eastern or Oriental Church” in the singular. While stressing the historical dichotomy of East and West this tends to hide differentiation within the two spheres as well as cross-border interaction and common features between “the” so-called “Christian East” and “the” so-called “Christian West”. Recent scholarship on Eastern Christianity tends instead to single out particular churches and to reflect various identities.3 It seems more aware that the Eastern Christian world is a rather fragmented one and all its plurality in the contemporary “global village” has become much like a phenomenon of the historical “West”. 7KXVLWPLJKWEHKHOSIXOWRFODULI\VRPHSRLQWVIURPthe very beginning: First, I am aware that my own preference for terminologies stressing plurality is not undisputed in the Orthodox world. The shift towards “local Orthodoxies” in recent scholarly discourses is definitely not welcomed by everybody. There are Orthodox voices that deplore particular conflicts between local churches which

* 1 2 3

7KHDXWKRUZRXOGOLNHWRWKDQN-XGLWK+HUULQIRUSURRIUHDGLQJWKH(QJOLVKWH[W 6HH IRU H[DPSOH .HQ 3DUU\ HG  The Blackwell Companion to Eastern Christianity 0DOGHQ0$  LGHP et al. HGV  The Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity 0DOGHQ0$ 6HHIRULQVWDQFH)ULHGULFK+HLOHUUrkirche und Ostkirche0XQLFK937. See IRU H[DPSOH 7KRPDV %UHPHU +DFLN 5 *D]HU DQG &KULVWLDQ /DQJH HGV  Die orthodoxen Kirchen der byzantinischen Tradition 'DUPVWDGW0DULD+lPPHUOLDQG Jean-)UDQoRLV0D\HUHGV Orthodox Identities in Western Europe: Migration, Settlement and Innovation)DUQKDP

58

Eva M. Synek

obscure the dominical precept of unity. They also deplore the fact that the universal perspective has lost weight in favour of “local Orthodoxies” and thus still would prefer to speak of “the Orthodox Church” in the singular. Nonetheless I suppose that at least the Solomonian judgement of Metropolitan Damaskinos Papandreou from the 1990s can still be considered an expression of the ecclesiological consensus which hardly anybody will question in principle: Within a textbook chapter on the preparation of the Pan-2UWKRGR[&RXQFLOWKH late head of the Orthodox Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate LQ&KDPEpV\ 6ZLW]HUODQGGHFODUHG One can speak about Orthodoxy or the OrWKRGR[&KXUFKLQWKHVLQJXODUEXWRQHFDQ DOVRVSHDNDERXWWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKHVLQWKHSOXUDO%RWKWHUPVLQGLFDWHWKHRULJLQDO and specific structure of Orthodoxy: It is neither a self-sufficient isolated local church nor the mere sum of coexistent local churches. It is neither a universalistic structured FKXUFKZKLFKSHUFHLYHVWKHORFDOFKXUFKHVDVWKHde jure and de facto subordinated SDUWVRIWKHRQHFKXUFKQRUDIHGHUDWLRQRIORFDOFKXUFKHV,QIDFW it is a communion RI>«@DXWRFHSKDORXVRUDXWRQRPRXVORFDOFKXUFKHVZKLFKDOOFDQFODLPWREHWKH RQHKRO\FDWKROLFDQGDSRVWROLFFKXUFKRQWKHFRQGLWLRQWKDWFRPPXQLRQZLWKWKH other local churches is preserved. 4

Second, when in the following I restrict myself to canonical Eastern Orthodoxy in the sHQVHRI0HWURSROLWDQ'DPDVNLQRVthis certainly does not mean that I would not be aware that there is also a multifarious uncanonical Eastern Orthodoxy and that the canonical borders between a particular local Eastern Orthodox Church and an Oriental Orthodox Church or even an Oriental Catholic Church sui iuris can be much more permeable than on the level of “Universal Orthodoxy”. The canonical reality is still very complex despite all my omissions and VLPSOLILFDWLRQ PDLQO\ LQ WKH VR-called diaspora. Canonical Eastern Orthodoxy even includes communities of converts celebrating Western-Rite services and in WKH5XVVLDQ&KXUFK2XWVLGH5XVVLDQRZLQIXOOFRPPXQLRQZLth the Patriarchate RI0RVFRZ:estern-Rite ordinations WDNHSODFHLQGHHGEHKLQGFORVHGGRRUVLQ order to avoid a scandal. In this chapterKRZHYHU,FRQILQHP\VHOIWRPRUHEDVLF problems of Orthodox canon law instead of overemphasising such marginal phenomena.

Orthodox Canon Law The term “local church” can refer to diverse entities. The basic meaning is eparchy or GLRFHVH%XWDVLQWKHWH[WTXRWHGDERYHE\0HWURSROLWDQ'DPDVNLQRV³ORFDO church” is also used on the level of autocephalous or autonomous church. One 4

'DPDVNLQRV3DSDQGUHRX³'DV3DQRUWKRGR[H.RQ]LO´LQ:LOKHOP1\VVHQ HG  Handbuch der Ostkirchenkunde, YRO'VVHOGRUI–KHUH

Local Orthodoxies and Universal Orthodoxy

59

might add further juridical entities such as so-called half-autonomous and selfJRYHUQLQJFKXUFKHVH[DUFKDWHVDQGPHWURSROLWDQFKXUFKHV which enjoy a certain degree of autonomy within an autocephalous church. In a less technical way the term “local church” might be also used with regard to the local Orthodoxy of a SDUWLFXODUUHJLRQRXWVLGHDWUDGLWLRQDOFDQRQLFDOWHUULWRU\ZKLFKLVVWLOORQLWVZD\ to an administratively united church. 5 The structure of local churches with local representatives sharing responsibility for the whole church is a very old heritage. Canon law in the strict sense of the received corpus canonum LQFOXGHV GHFLVLRQV RQ DGPLQLVWUDWLYH XQLWV LQFOXGLQJ such entities that today are covered by the term “autocephalous church” on synRGVRQWKHUDQNLQJRIORFDOFKXUFKHV and on primacy. %XW WKH church of the seven Ecumenical Councils did not provide its heirs ZLWKDV\VWHPDWLFFDQRQODZLQWKHPRGHUQVHQVH'XULQJWKHILUVWPLOOHQQLXP which Orthodoxy still considers as constiWXWLYHIRULWVFDQRQLFDOEDVHQRJHQHUDO SURYLVLRQVRQDXWRFHSKDO\ZHUHIRUPXODWHGQHLWKHULQWKHVHQVHRIWKHSURFHVVRI REWDLQLQJRUHYHQWXDOO\ORVLQJWKLVVWDWXVQRULQWKHVHQVHRIDQH[KDXVWLYHHQXmeration of its features. The Orthodox corpus canonum 6 is closer to the Anglo-American “case law” system than to the codifications of modern Europe which inspired the contemporary Catholic canon law. Certainly there are modern codifications also in the OUWKRGR[ ZRUOG %XW VXFK VWDWXWHV RU FKDUWHUV DUH mandatory only on the local level and at least theoretically must rest within the parameters of the received FDQRQVZKLFKDUHFRQVLGHUHGWKHRQO\FRPPRQFDQRQLFDOEDVHE\DOOFDQRQLFDO churches. :KHQGHFLVLRQVDUHWDNHQRUGLVSXWHG2UWKRGR[KLHUDUFKVand scholars within their canonical system nonetheless often feel obliged to draw arguments from the holy canons from the first millennium. For inVWDQFH WKH GUDIW GRFXPHQW RQ “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” which was adopted in October 2015 by the Fifth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference linked the “theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church and other Christian Churches and confessions” with Canon 7 of Constantinople I and Canon 5 6

SeeIRUH[DPSOH/HZLV-3DWVDYRV³'LDVSRUDYV/RFDO&KXUFK&KXUFKHV7KH6SHFLILF 3UREOHPVRI$PHULFD´LQ&DUO*)UVWDQG5LFKDUG3RW]HGV KANON XXII – Diaspora +HQQHI–79. )RULWVGHYHORSPHQWVHH:LOIULHG+DUWPDQQDQG.HQQHWK3HQQLQJWRQHGV The History RI%\]DQWLQHDQG(DVWHUQ&DQRQ/DZWR:DVKLQJWRQ'&6HHDOVRWKHELEOLRJUDSK\FRQWDLQHGWKHUHLQDQGLQSDUWLFXODUWKHFRQWULEXWLRQVRI+HLQ]2KPH³6RXUFHVRI WKH*UHHN&DQRQ/DZWRWKH4XLQLVH[W&RXQFLO &RXQFLOVDQG&KXUFK)DWKHUV´LQ ibid.–DQGRI6S\URV7URLDQRV³%\]DQWLQH&DQRQ/DZWR´LQLELG 115–214. 6HHDOVRLGHP Die Quellen des byzantinischen Rechts (transl. by Dieter Simon and Silvia 1H\H  %HUOLQ  3DYORV 0HQHYLVRJOX ‫ݰ‬ıIJȠȡȚț‫ ޣ‬İ‫ݧ‬ıĮȖȦȖ‫ ޣ‬İ‫ݧ‬Ȣ IJȠީȢ țĮȞȩȞĮȢ IJ߱Ȣ ‫ݽ‬ȡșȠįȩȟȠȣ ‫ݑ‬țțȜȘıȓĮȢ >$+LVWRULFDO,QWURGXFWLRQWRWKH&DQRQVRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFK@ Stockholm 1990.

60

Eva M. Synek

95 of the Quinisextum. 7 In their proposal of an alternative formulation the KLHUDUFKV RI WKH &KXUFK RI *UHHFH DGGHG FDQRQV   DQG  RI WKH +RO\ $SRVWOHVFDQRQVDQGRIWKH)LUVW(FXPHQLFDO&RXQFLODQG canons 7 and 8 of Laodicea. 8 +RZHYHU all these canons do not deal with dialogue but with the reception of adherents to ancient heresies into the Orthodox Church. They do not focus on modern Christian denominations which only came into existence in the DIWHUPDWKRI5HIRUPDWLRQ+HQFHVLQFHGLUHFWDQVZHUVIRUPDQ\ODWWHU-day quesWLRQVFDQKDUGO\EHGUDZQIURPWKHFDQRQLFDOKHULWDJHRIWKHILUVWPLOOHQQLXPLW is no wonder that ecumenical and structural questions that cannot be solved on the local level alone but need a Pan-Orthodox consensus have caused so many problems in recent times.

Historical Changes and Political Impacts Despite its obvious lacunaeone of the major problems of the Orthodox canonical heritage is that it reflects a far-distant historical context including political realities that are completely different from those in modern times. 9 While Western Christianity moved towards a Rome-centred ecclesiology and canonical practice during WKH 0LGGOH $JHV 2UWKRGR[ &KULVWLDQLW\ ZDV ORVW IRU SDSDO MXULVGLFWLRQ LQ Whe aftermath of the so-called “Great Schism”. That is well known. Much more disputed is the legal position acquired by the throne of Constantinople and what happened to the ancient system of “Pentarchy” insofar as it indicates an ecclesiastical commonwealth with shared responsibilities of church leaders. 10 Did this 7

Cf. Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World†85/ KWWSVZZZKRO\FRXQFLORUJ-SUHFRQFiliar-UHODWLRQV >@ 7KH +RO\ DQG *UHDW Council of 2016 removed this reference. 8 &I0HWURSROLW+LHURWKHRV9ODFKRV RI1DISDNWRVDQG6W9ODVVLRV³7KH'HFLVLRQVRIWKH +LHUDUFK\RIWKH&KXUFKRI*UHHFHRQWKHµ+RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLO¶DQGWKH)Lnal OutFRPH´Orthodox Ethos 85/KWWSVRUWKRGR[HWKRVFRPSRVWWKH-decisionsof-the-hierarchy-of-the-church-of-greece-on-the-holy-and-great-council-and-the-final-out FRPH>@ 9 &I 5LFKDUG 3RW] DQG (YD 6\QHN LQ FRRSHUDWLRQ ZLWK 6S\URV 7URLDQRV DQG $OH[HM .OXWVFKHZVN\ Orthodoxes Kirchenrecht. Eine Einführung)UHLVWDGWpassim. 10 6HH IRU H[DPSOH -RKDQQHV 0RGHVWR ³,GHH XQG *HVWDOW GHU 3HQWDUFKLH LQ GHU IUKHQ .LUFKH´ Orthodoxes Forum    – )HUGLQDQG 5 *DKEDXHU Die Pentarchietheorie. Ein Modell der Kirchenleitung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart)UDQNIXUW DP0DLQ9LWWRULR3HUL³/DSHQWDUFKLDLVWLWX]LRQHHFFOHVLDOH,9–9,,VHF HWHRULD canonico-WHRORJLFD´LQLGHPDa Oriente e da Occidente. Le chiese cristiane dell’Impero Romano all’Europa moderna II 5RPH  – -XGLWK +HUULQ ³7KH 3HQWDUFK\ 7KHRU\ DQG 5HDOLW\´ LQ LI Settimana di Studio. Cristianità d’Occidente e Cristianità d’Oriente (secoli VI-XI)6SROHWR–*UHJRULRV/DUHQW]DNLV³=XP3UREOHP GHU5DQJRUGQXQJLQQHUKDOEGHV(SLVNRSDWVLQGHQRUWKRGR[HQ.LUFKHQXQG]XU(QWVWHKXQJ GHU3HQWDUFKLH´zur Debatte. Themen der Katholischen Akademie in Bayern  

Local Orthodoxies and Universal Orthodoxy

61

system at least to some extent continue to work within the traditional territories of the Eastern PDWULDUFKDWHV",QWKDWFDVHVKRXOGLWEHFRQVLGHUHGQRUPDWLYHIRU WRGD\"$FFRUGLQJWR*ULJRULRV3DSDWKRPDVD*UHHNSURIHssor of canon ODZWKH ancient councils already divided the world into seven ecclesiastical entities (five Patriarchates plus the Church of Cyprus plus “the ‘remaining territory’ (outside the borders of the Patriarchates – CDQRQ>&KDOFHGRQ@ ´ . 11 %XWZKDWVKRXOGEH considered normative for contemporary Orthodoxy according to Papathomas obviously is much disputed and does not work in practice. The American case exemplifies this: “The territorial and political principles which were the basis of WKH&KXUFK¶VRUJDQL]DWLRQ LQ%\]DQWLXPGRQRWIRUPWKHEDVLVIRULWVRUJDQL]DWLRQ in the New Worlds.” 12 $FFRUGLQJWR3DWULFN9LVFXVRDFDQRQODZVFKRODUZKR serves as the pastor of a parish under the jurisdiction of Constantinople in AmerLFD ³LW LV OLWWOH ZRQGHU WKDW >«@ WKHUH is conflict and disagreement among the major sees today and a lack of resolution of ecclesiological questions for faithful OLYLQJLQ1RUWKDQG6RXWK$PHULFD$XVWUDOLDDQGRWKHUSDUWVRIWKHZRUOGQRW IRUPHUO\XQGHU%\]DQWLXPRU2UWKRGR[FLYLOUXOHUV´. 13 When Islamic rule in the WHUULWRULHV RI WKH (DVW 5RPDQ%\]DQWLQH (PSLUH expanded and the Ottoman Empire finally absorbed it and with it the Orthodox &KULVWLDQ(PSHURUGLVDSSHDUHGDYDFXXPRFFXUUHGZKLFKFRXOGonly be partly filled by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Especially since his position was weak EH\RQG WKH 2WWRPDQ ERUGHUV de facto KH FRXOG UDUHO\ H[HUFLVH MXULVGLFWLRQ RQ 2UWKRGR[EHOLHYHUVXQGHU5XVVLDQRU+DEVEXUJUXOHGHVSLWHVWURQJFODLPVRISULPDF\DVLVFOHDUIURPWKHtomos of 1590 on the erection of the Patriarchate of Moscow. 14

11

12 13 14

22–(GZDUG)DUUXJLD³7KH3ULPDF\DQGWKH3DWULDUFKVRIWKH)LUVW0LOOHQLXP6RPH 5HFHQW,QWHUSUHWDWLRQV´Ostkirchliche Studien  –.\ULOORV.DWHUHORVȉާ țİަȝİȞȠ IJ߱Ȣ ȇĮß‫ޢ‬ȞȞĮȢ țĮ‫ ݘ ޥ‬ș‫ޢ‬ıȘ IJȠࠎ ȆĮIJȡȚĮȡȤİަȠȣ ȂިıȤĮȢ ȖȚ‫ ޟ‬IJާ ȆȡȦIJİ߿Ƞ >7KH7H[WRI Ravenna and the Position of the Patriarchate of Moscow on the Issue of Primacy@7KHVVDloniki 2015. *ULJRULRV 3DSDWKRPDV ³/D 4XHVWLRQ FDQRQLTXH GHV GLSW\FKHV HFFOpVLDX[ Enjeux ecclésiastico-politiques et taxis ecclésio-FDQRQLTXH´ Contacts    – KHUH(QJOLVKWUDQVODWLRQ³&DQRQLFDO,VVXHRI(FFOHVLDO'LSW\FKV(QWDQJOLQJ6WDNH Church-politics and Ecclesio-FDQRQLFDO7D[LV ´85/KWWSVZZZDFDGHPLDHGX B&DQRQLFDOB,VVXHBRIB(FFOHVLDOB'LSW\FKVB(QWDQJOLQJB6WDNHB&KXUFKBSolitics_and_ (FFOHVLRBFDQRQLFDOB7D[LVBLQB(QJOLVKB>@ 3DWULFN9LVFXVROrthodox Canon Law. A Casebook for Study %HUNHOH\&$ Ibid. &I3HWHU+DXSWPDQQ¶V*HUPDQWUDQVODWLRQRIWKHtomos in 3HWHU+DXSWPDQQDQG*HUKDUG Stricker (HGV  Die Orthodoxe Kirche in Rußland. 'RNXPHQWH LKUHU *HVFKLFKWH –  *|WWLQJHQ–KHUH³ZREHLHUVFKXOGLJLVWXQVHUHVXQGGHV1DPHQV GHUEULJHQ]XJHGHQNHQXQGGHQDSRVWROLVFKHQ6WXKOYRQ.RQVWDQWLQRSHOIUVHLQ+DXSW XQGGHQHUVWHQ]XKDOWHQXQGDQ]XHUNHQQHQZLHHVDXFKGLHEULJHQ3DWULDUFKHQKDOWHQ´ The translator – a Protestant scholar – FRPPHQWHGLQDQRWH³'LHVH6HOEVWHLQVFKlW]XQJ GHVgNXP3DWULDUFKHQZLGHUVSULFKWGHPRUWK$XWRNHSKDOLHSULQ]LSXQGLVWDOOHLQDXVGHU

62

Eva M. Synek

On one hand the synods following the politically enforced elevation of Job as Patriarch of Moscow (1589– show that in the 16th century the Ecumenical 3DWULDUFK -HUHPLDV ,, VWLOO IHOW LW QHFHVVDU\ WR DVN WKH V\PEROLF FRQVHQW RI WKH other Patriarchs to the fait accompli. 15 2QWKHRWKHUKDQGFRPSDUHGZLWKWKHGHFLVLRQV RI WKH HPSHURU V\QRGLFal decrees had a comparatively weak impact on ecclesiastical developments already during the second half of the first millennium. In particular the Second Council of Nicaea  mainly canonised imperial church legislation in order to grant it a legal base in dioceses beyond the imperial borders. The emancipation of the Russian Church from Constantinople’s hegemony had been a matter of fact for a long period already when Ecumenical Patriarch -HUHPLDV,,ZKRKDGFRPHWR0RVFRZLQDVDEHJJDUZDVIRUFHGE\WKH Tsar to enthrone Job as a Patriarch. Instead of accepting Constantinopolitan FODLPV WR SULPDF\ WKDQNV WR WKH SROLWLFDO UHDOLWLHV WKH 5XVVLDQ ³QHZFRPHU´ among the Patriarchates was able to attain a leading role in the Orthodox world itself. With the national awakening of the 19th century the ecclesiastical landscape again changed together with the political one. Following the new national states LQWKH%DONDQV new national churches came into existence and the particular status of the Ecumenical Patriarchate within the Ottoman context weakened together with the Ottoman Empire. +RZHYHU LQ WKH th century the Patriarch tried to compensate for the reduction of its territory as well as for the loss of believers in the aftermath of the resettlement of the Greek population of Asia Minor. While in 1908 the Ecumenical Patriarchate had formally entrusted the Church of Greece with the spiritual jurisdiction over the groZLQJ GLDVSRUD H[FHSW 9HQLFH  0HOHWLRV ,9 IRUPHU $UFKELVKRS RI $WKHQV qua Patriarch of Constantinople reversed the decision. 16 )LUVWKHSXWWKH*UHHN(SDUFK\LQ$PHULFD with which he had a rather personal relationship due to his intermediate exile in the USA under the throne RI&RQVWDQWLQRSOH)URPRQZDUGVWKH(FXPHQLFDOWKURQHFODLPHGIXOODGministrative jurisdiction outside the frontiers of traditional canonical territories. LKPYRQGHQ7UNHQ]XJHZLHVHQHQ5ROOHDOV]XJOHLFKDXFKZHOWOLFKHV2EHUKDXSWDOOHU orth. &KULVWHQLP2VPDQLVFKHQ5HLFKPLOOHWEDúL µHWKQDUFKƝV¶ ]XHUNOlUHQ´+RZHYHU&RQstantinopolitan claims did not disappear with the fall of the Ottoman Empire and today belong to the most controversial issues of Orthodox canon law. 15 Cf. Martin %DWLVZHLOHU.DUO&KU)HOP\DQG1RUPDQ.RWRZVNLHGV Der ökumenische Patriarch Jeremias II. von Konstantinopel und die Anfänge des Moskauer Patriarchates. Referate und Beiträge auf dem internationalen Wissenschaftlichen Symposion in Bad Alexanderbad, --XQL (UODQJHQ+HLQ]2KPH³'LHµ+HLOLJHXQG*UR‰H Synode’ der Orthodoxen Kirche vom Jahre 1593 und die Erhebung des Moskauer 3DWULDUFKDWHV´Kirche im Osten  –90. 16 Cf. Peter Plank, ³'HUgNXPHQLVFKH3DWULDUFK0HOHWLRV,9921– XQGGLHRUWKRGR[H 'LDVSRUD´Orthodoxes Forum  –269.

Local Orthodoxies and Universal Orthodoxy

63

$JDLQ WKH SROLWLFDO GHYHORSPHQWV VHUYHG DV D NLQG RI ³SDFH-maker” in the ecclesiastical field. The communist regimes of East European countries tended to back up efforts of the local Orthodox hierarchy to extend administrative authority WRFRXQWULHVZLWKPLJUDQWFRPSDWULRWV7KHHPLJUDQWVKRZHYHUWHQGHGWRGLVWDQFH themselves from bishops and pastors whom they considered politically suspect and partly moved towards Constantinople. 7KXVthe Exarchate of Russian parishes in Western Europe under thHMXULVGLFWLRQRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOHwhose members were not integrated in the QRUPDOORFDO&RQVWDQWLQRSROLWDQVWUXFWXUHVFDPHLQWR existence. 17 With regard to ecclesiologiFDOWKHRU\WKH(xarchate was certainly to be considered as a canonical abnormalLW\EXWDVRQHFRXOGH[SHFW its abolition in November 2018 did not lead to the desired goal. The autocratic decision of the Synod of the Patriarchate caused great irritation among clergy as well as laypersons. The majority of the parishes of the former Exarchate did not accept the order “to unite with the metropolis of the countries in which they are located”. 18 Only when the enthroned Archbishop of the Orthodox Churches of Russian Tradition in Western Europe followed by a considerable part of its hitherto flock had moved WR 5XVVLDQ MXULVGLFWLRQ WKH 0HWURSROLWDQ RI *DXO Emmanuel “announced the creation of a Vicariate of Russian parishes in France and has promised them autonomy”. 19 Another field where Constantinople was even more successful in finding itself a new role was the convocation of Pan-Orthodox gatherings. Encyclical letters from 1902 and 1904 20 addressed “to all Orthodox local churches” preceded the Pan-2UWKRGR[FRQJUHVVHVRIDW&RQVWDQWLQRSOH DQG30 (at the Vatopedi Monastery on 0RXQW $WKRV  21 It was here that the idea of a Pan-Orthodox Council was formulated long before the Second Vatican Council (although later developments in the Catholic Church certainly intensified the Pan-Orthodox proFHVV ,Q0D\0HOHWLRV¶VXFFHVVRURQWKHWKURQHRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOH3DWULDUFK 17 Cf. 6HEDVWLDQ 5LPHVWDG ³7KH 5XVVLDQ 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK LQ :HVWHUQ (XURSH 2QH RU 0DQ\"´Religion, State & Society  –243. 18 ³&RQVWDQWLQRSOH%LVKRSRI)UDQFH&UHDWHV5XVVLDQ9LFDULDWHLQ3ODFHRI5XVVLDQ([DUFKDWH WKDW 6\QRG 'LVVROYHG´ Orthodox Christianity  85/ KWWSVRUWKRFKULVWLDQ FRPKWPO>@ 19 Ibid. 20 The encyclical letters and the responses in German translation can be found in Anastasios Kallis, Auf dem Weg zu einem Heiligen und Großen Konzil 0QVWHU–89. 21 For the beginning of the Pan-2UWKRGR[ SURFHVV VHH $QGUHDV 0LFKDHO :LWWLJ ³'LH SDQRUWKRGR[HQ%HUDWXQJHQYRQ.RQVWDQWLQRSHO XQG9DWRSHGL ´Der christliche Osten  –.\ULOORV.DWHUHORV³'HUSDQRUWKRGR[H.RQJUHVVYRQ.RQVWDQWLQRSHOLP-DKUH´LQ+DUWPXW=DSS$QGUHDV:HL‰DQG6WHIDQ.RUWDHGV Ius canonicum in Oriente et Occidente. Festschrift Carl Gerold Fürst )UDQNIXUW DP 0DLQ –3DWULFN9LVFXVR$4XHVWIRU5HIRUPRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFK7KH Pan-Orthodox Congress. An Analysis and Translation of its Acts and Decisions %HUNHOH\&$

64

Eva M. Synek

GregoULRV9,,WRRNWKHLQLWLDWLYHIRUVXFKDn event. 22 The 1600-jubilee of the First (FXPHQLFDO&RXQFLOZRXOGKDYHEHHQWKHSHUIHFW RFFDVLRQ %XWLQWKHGLIILFXOW SROLWLFDO FRQWH[W RI WKH WLPH WKHVH DPELWLRXV SODQV ZHUH QRW YHU\ UHDOLVWLF LQ addition to the conflicts that quickly flared up between the churches and the H[WUHPHO\VKRUWWLPHVFKHGXOHGIRUSUHSDUDWLRQ,QDUDWKHUWXUEXOHQW\HDU IRUWKH(FXPHQLFDO3DWULDUFKDWH 23 one still hoped to celebrate the Council with a GHOD\RID\HDU 24 before it was postponed “sine die”. 25 Even a new advance at the congress of Vatopedi for the less ambitious project of a “Pro-Synod” led to QRWKLQJ %XW WKH LGHD VXUYLYHG DV YLYLGO\ GHPRQVWUDWHG E\ WKH 3DQ-Orthodox convention of Orthodox theologians in Athens in 1936 26 and after World War II E\WKHSURJUDPPDWLFVWDWHPHQWVRI0D[LPRV9WKH(FXPHQLFDO3DWULDUFKHOHFWHG in 1946. 27

On the Way to an Agenda for a Pan-Orthodox Council A 1961 conference on the island of Rhodes finally set up a catalogue of topics for a Pan-Orthodox Council. 28 The RomDQLDQ %LVKRS RI 3ORLHVWL $QWRQLH 3OăPăGHDOăin 1977 said that this catalogue would have been sufficient for talks lasting a century. 29 In the followingPDQ\LVVXHVZHUHGURSSHGZKLOH new issues were proposed. Already in the preliminary agenda of 1968 questions with an ecclesiological and canonical impact were predominant: Apart from the first topic – the 22 See the letter of Patriarch Gregorios VII addressing the Primates of the autocephalous FKXUFKHV LQ*HUPDQWUDQVODWLRQLQ.DOOLVAuf dem Weg DVQ –112. )RUDILUVWSURSRVDOIRUDQDJHQGDIURPWKHRIILFHRIWKH3DWULDUFKDO6\QRGVHHLELG3– 114. 23 *UHJRULRV 9,, KDG VXGGHQO\ SDVVHG DZD\ LQ  DQG WKH QHZO\ HOHFWHG 3DWULDUFK Konstantinos VI could only remain in office less than two months because of severe presVXUHIURPWKH7XUNLVKJRYHUQPHQW7KXVLQ-XO\KHUHVLJQHGDQGZDVVXFFeeded by %DVLOHLRV,,, 24 See the lHWWHU RI 3DWULDUFK %DVLOHLRV ,,, DGGUHVVLQJ WKH 3ULPDWHV RI WKH DXWRFHSKDORXV FKXUFKHV LQ*HUPDQWUDQVODWLRQLQ.DOOLVAuf dem Weg DVQ –119. 25 $QQH -HQVHQ Die Zukunft der Orthodoxie. Konzilspläne und Kirchenstrukturen =ULFK  26 Cf. +DPLONDU 6 $OLYLVDWRV HG  Procès-Verbaux du premier Congrès de Théologie RUWKRGR[Hj$WKqQHVQRYHPEUH– GpFHPEUH $WKHQV 27 &I.DOOLVAuf dem Weg DVQ  28 For the Pan-2UWKRGR[3URFHVVLQJHQHUDOVHHIRUH[DPSOH.DOOLVAuf dem Weg DVQ  passim9LRUHO,RQL‫܊‬ăTowards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church: The 'HFLVLRQVRIWKH3DQRUWKRGR[0HHWLQJVVLQFHXQWLO%DVHOLGHP³2QWKH :D\ WR WKH +RO\ DQG *UHDW 6\QRG RI WKH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK´ LQ 5HLQKDUG )ORJDXV DQG -HQQLIHU :DVPXWK HGV  Orthodoxie im Dialog: Historische und aktuelle Perspektiven %HUOLQ–433. 29 $QWRQLH3OăPăGHDOă, Die Vorbereitung der Panorthodoxen Synode, 9LHQQD

Local Orthodoxies and Universal Orthodoxy

65

sources of revelation – the following five topics were forwarded to the local DXWRFHSKDORXV  FKXUFKHV IRU IXUWKHU VWXGLHV OD\ SDUWLFLSDWLRQ IDVWLQJ UXOHV PDUULDJHLPSHGLPHQWVWKHFDOHQGDUTXHVWLRQDQGoikonomia+RZHYHULQ the Orthodox youth organisation “Syndesmos” proposed a new alternative list focusing on OUWKRGR[HFFOHVLRORJ\WKHH[SUHVVLRQRIunity on the universal level the Council itself DQGWKHGLDVSRUDDWRSLFWKDWKDGDOUHDG\EHHQSURSRVHGEHIRUH but was SRVWSRQHGLQ  While the proposal that the Council should deal with its own nature and QHFHVVLW\ ZDV QRW IROORZHG XS WKH GLDVSRUD LVVXH LQ SDUWLFXODU UHPDLQHG LQ DOO following efforts to come to a final agenda. In 1976 it became the top issue of a condensed ten-SRLQWSURJUDPIROORZHGE\ DXWRFHSKDO\DQGLWVSURFODPDWLRQ  DXWRQRP\ the GLSW\FKV WKHFDOHQGDUTXHVWLRQ which had been on the Pan-Orthodox agenGDVLQFHWKHV PDUULDJHLPSHGLPHQWV IDVWLQJUXOHV   WKH UHODWLRQVKLS EHWZHHQ WKH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK DQG WKH RWKHU &KULVWLDQ &KXUFKHVdenomLQDWLRQV 2UWKRGR[\DQGWKH(FXPHQLFDO0ovement DQG  the contribution of the local Orthodox Churches to peace and fraternity among the peoples and the end of racial discrimination. While the last topic clearly reflects WKHSROLWLFDODJHQGDRIWKHWLPHDOORWKHUWRSLFVZHUHFHQWUHGRQPHUHFDQRQLFDO questions. The topics 1-4 focused on internal structureVDQGWKHWRSLFVDQGRQ the reality of a pluralistic Christian world. For the final agendaKRZHYHUVROHO\  WRSLFVVXUYLYHG. According to the official bulletin at the last Synaxis of Orthodox Primates in January 2016 the following items were “oIILFLDOO\DSSURYHGIRUUHIHUUDOWRDQGDGRSWLRQE\WKH+RO\ and Great Council”: “The Mission of the Orthodox Church in the Contemporary :RUOG 7KH2UWKRGR['LDVSRUD$XWRQRP\DQGLWV0DQQHURI3URFODPDWLRQ7KH 6DFUDPHQWRI0DUULDJHDQGLWV,PSHGLPHQWV7Ke Significance of Fasting and its $SSOLFDWLRQ7RGD\DQG5HODWLRQVRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZLWKWKH5HVWRIWKH Christian World”. During the final preparation of the Council the draft documents for the original topics 8 and 9 had been reworked and put together in one document. The draft document “The Sacrament of Marriage and its Impediments” was not approved by the Church of Antioch and the Church of Georgia but was nonetheless NHSWRQWKHDJHQGD7KHUHZDVQRFRQVHQWRQDGUDIWRQDXWRFHSKDO\ the calendar issue DQGWKHGLSW\FKVVRWKHVHLVVXHVZHUHOHIWRXWIRUWKHPRPHQW +RZHYHU WKH 3ULPDWHV RI DOO UHSUHVHQWHG FKXUFKHV (with the exception of the Patriarchate of Antioch agreed tRUXOHVRISURFHGXUHZKLFKKDG the diptychs of &RQVWDQWLQRSOH DV LWV EDVH WKXV DFFHSWLQJ WKDW LQ &UHWH WKH SODFHPHQW RI WKH Primates and the delegations of the local churches would follow the diptychs of Constantinople. The predominant significance of structural questions in general and the diaspora in particular can easily be exemplified when looking at my home country

66

Eva M. Synek

$XVWULD 30 which is counted as diaspora by the Orthodox mainsWUHDP@

Local Orthodoxies and Universal Orthodoxy

69

visible to everybody. In the words of Sergei Chapnin: “What could have been dismissed earlier is now obvious for all to see. And not only for the Orthodox.” 46

Railroaded Texts or Open Discussions on Basic Issues of Canon Law? 7KH GUDIW GRFXPHQWV ZHUH FRQVHQW SDSHUV ZKLFK WULHG WR EULGJH FRPSHWLQJ theological views on ecclesiology or Orthodox approaches to human rights. At the end supporters of divergent positions agreed at least on the point that the drafts were imperfect. There was much criticism from traditionalist camps 47 but DOVRIURPWKHRORJLDQVwho would have welcomed more courageous answers to the challenges of the 21st century. %HIRUHWKH&RXQFLO3DWULDUFK%DUWKRORPHZRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOHDVVXUHGWKDWWKH intention was not just to push through texts. 48 Reports from the Council confirmed that there were open discussions and in some points the final texts show significant changes compared with the draft documents. 49 1RQHWKHOHVVLWZDVREYLRXV WKDWZKHQSODQQLQJWKH&RXQFLOWKHUHZDVDQHIIRUWWRDYRLGWRRKHDWHGGHEDWHV 50 and specific tools were considered to secure consent on crucial issues. Every invited church was allowed a delegation of maximum 24 bishops (plus the first KLHUDUFK SOXVDWHDPRIVSHFLDOFRQVXOWDQWVDQGVWHZDUGVZLWKRXWWKHULJKWWR VSHDN $SDUWLFXODUO\LPSRUWDQWEXWPXFKGLVSXWHGSURYLVLRQRIWKH³2UJDQL]DWLRQ DQG :RUNLQJ 3URFHGXUH RI WKH +RO\ DQG *UHat Council of the Orthodox &KXUFK´ 51 which was adopted by the January 2016 Synaxis (with the exception RI WKH &KXUFK RI $QWLRFK  LV $UWLFOH  ³9RWLQJ DQG $SSURYDO RI 7H[WV´  $FFRUGLQJWRWKHILUVWSRLQW³YRWHVVKDOOEHFDVWE\HDFKDXWRFHSKDORXV2UWKRdox Church and not by individual members of their delegations”. In other words: Each FKXUFK KDG D YRWH QRW WKH LQGLYLGXDO PHPEHUV RI LWV GHOHJDWLRQ $OWKRXJK WKH rules of procedure accepted dissenting opinions to “be registered in the Council’s 0LQXWHV´ WKH\DOVRPDGHFOHDUWKDWGLVVHQWVKRXOG³EHFRQVLGHUHG>RQO\@DQ internal matter of the autocephalous Church to which the hierarchs in question 46 Ibid. 47 &I6\QHNDas „Heilige und Große Konzil“ DVQ –35. 48 &I1LNRODM7KRQ³9ROOGDPSIYRUDXV]XU6\QRGH6\QD[LVJLEWJUQHV/LFKW´Orthodoxie aktuell  –KHUH 49 6HHIRUH[DPSOH1LNRODM7KRQ³$XI]XPµ.RQ]LOQDFKGHP.RQ]LO¶Kreta weist in die =XNXQIW´Orthodoxie aktuell  –8. 50 6HHIRUH[DPSOH+LODULRQ$OIH\HY³,QWHU-Orthodox Cooperation in the Preparations for a +RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLORIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFK´85/KWWSVPRVSDWUXHQ news>@ 51 6HHWKH(QJOLVKYHUVLRQDW85/KWWSVZZZKRO\FRXQFLORUJ-SURFHGXUHV>@ ZKLFKKRZHYHULVVWLOOPDUNHGDV³ZRUNLQJtranslation”.

70

Eva M. Synek

EHORQJ,QVXFKLQVWDQFHVWKH&KXUFKPD\FDVWDQDIILUPDWLYHYRWHEDVHGRQWKH SULQFLSOHRILQWHUQDOPDMRULW\ZKLFKLVH[SUHVVHGE\LWV3ULPDWH´ 7KXVWKH position RIWKHILUVWKLHUDUFKZDVYHU\VWURQJZKLOHELVKRSVIURPYDULRXVORFDO churches had no possibility of forming alliances for cross-over majorities. Despite the non-participation of several churches and the modifications making concessions to the adherents RIDPRUHH[FOXVLYLVWWKHRORJ\WKHGRFXPHQW on “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” could still only be muddled through and its reception does not seem granted in all churches which formally consented to the Council’s decisions. 52 7RGD\2UWKRdox inconsistency in dealing ZLWKKHWHURGR[VDFUDPHQWVLQSDUWLFXODUEDSWLVPLV certainly one of the most dissatisfying issues from a theological point of view. 53 The received canonical heritage of the first millennium reflects competing theological opinions of the past and in any case cannot be expected to offer precise answers to problems which turned up only in later days. 1RQHWKHOHVVDFODULI\LQJ Pan-2UWKRGR[ UXOLQJ LV YHU\ XQOLNHO\ WR EH DFKLHYHG ZLWKLQ WKH QH[W \HDUV DOthough the decisions of the Crete Council implicitly suggest the recognition of Latin baptism. 54 The elimination of three topics from the final agenda (the question of GLSW\FKVDXWRFHSKDO\ DVZHOODVWKHFDOHQGDULVVXH ZDVVWURQgly criticised by the Synod of the Patriarchate of Antioch ,Q P\ YLHZ the missing consent on the calendar issue should not be a reason for lamentation. Of course in practical terms it would have been helpful and a charming signal to the world when all Christians or at least all Orthodox consented to celebrate the major religious feasts RQRQHDQGWKHVDPHGD\@WKDWFRQFHUQLQJWKHPDQQHURIHVWDEOLVKLQJWKHDXWRFHSKDO\ of aQ\ SDUW RI WKH &KXUFK QRQH RI WKH VDFUHG FDQRQV SURYLGHV GLUHFWLRQ RU inkling.’” 56 Starting from crucial points coQQHFWHGZLWKDXWRFHSKDO\P\LQWHQWLRQ finally is to draw attention to selected issues of church structure where the so-called “holy canons” might at best RIIHU VRPH EDVLF JXLGHOLQHV DOWKRXJK WKH\ are certainly overstrained to offer full solutions to FRQWHPSRUDU\GLVSXWHV,QWKH InterOrthodox Preparatory Commission for the Pan-Orthodox Council approved a text that took for granted that the institution of autocephaly expresses “the Orthodox ecclesiastical tradition in the question of the relations of the local Church with the universal Church of God”. 57 %XWZKDWGRHVWKHVWDWXVRIDQDXWRFHSKDORXs church imply? And does it in principle mean the same in every case or are there churches that are “more DXWRFHSKDORXV´ WKDQ RWKHUV LI QRW LQ WHUPV RI HFFOHVLRORJLFDO WKHRU\DWOHDVWLQFDQRQLFDOSUDFWLFHGXHWRKLVWRULFDOGHSWKQXPEHUVRIEHOLHYHUV historical circumstances or whatever other factors? Is it possible that a church’s place in the diptychs has nothing more than protocolar significance? When discussing episcopal assemblies in the so-FDOOHGGLDVSRUD&RQVWDQWLQRSOH¶VFODLPIRU ex officio presidency of its local representative was as significant as Moscow’s

55 6HH IRU LQVWDQFH 9DVVD /DULQ ³:KDW LV 5LWXDO ,P3XULW\ DQG :K\"´ St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly  –HDGHP³7KH&DQRQLFDO5XOHVRIWKH2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK7KHRU\DQG3UDFWLFH´Logos  –330. 56 -RKQ (ULFNVRQ ³$XWRFHSKDO\ DQG $XWRQRP\´ St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 60  –KHUH 57 $QGU]HM%RUNRZVNL³$XWRFHSKDO\LQWKH/LJKWRIWKH3UHSDUDWLRQVWRWKH3DQ-Orthodox &RXQFLO´Elpis  –KHUH

72

Eva M. Synek

insistence on an alternative model. 58 $W WKH HQG QHLWKHU D URWDWLRQ V\VWHP QRU elections were accepted by Constantinople but the match ended nonetheless with a compromise: The agreement of 2009 which in principle was confirmed by the Council of Crete prescribes ex officio presidency according to the – disputed – GLSW\FKV%XWLQ$XVWULD according to the website of the Austrian Assembly of 2UWKRGR[%LVKRSVWKHUHSUHVHQWDWLYHRIWKH0RVFRZ3DWULDUFKDWHLVFRQVLGHUHG vice-SUHVLGHQW QRW WKH $QWLRFKLDQ UHSUHVHQWDWLYH ZKR ZRXOG KDYH EHHQ WKH competent vice-president in conformity with the statute of the assembly. 59 In UHDOLW\ELVKRSVRIWKe Moscow Patriarchate do not participate in the work of the assemblies and all other structures headed by a representative of Constantinople (including dialogue-commissions co-chaired by a bishop of the Ecumenical 7KURQH DWDOOsince Constantinople proceeded to grant autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Ukraine in 2019. 60 There are other recent events making rather clear that I am not asking rhetorical questions but indicating unsolved canonical problems. There are further examplHV HYHQ EH\RQG WKH GRFXPent on primacy launched by the Russian Church 61 and its harsh rejection from the Constantinopolitan side. 62 During the ODVW\HDUVWKH(FXPHQLFDO3DWULDUFKKDVLQLWLDWHGSHULRGLFDOPHHWLQJVRIWKHILUVW hierarchs of autocephalous churches that were positively evaluated in Crete. 63 58 &I(YD6\QHN³$NWXHOOH%HPKXQJHQXPHLQHµNDQRQLVFKH¶/|VXQJIUGLH2UWKRGR[H 'LDVSRUDMXULVGLNWLRQ´ Österreichisches Archiv für Recht und Religion    – 480. 59 Orthodoxe Kirche in Österreich 85/ KWWSZZZ.orthodoxe-NLUFKHDWVLWHRUWKRGR[H ELVFKRIVNRQIUHQ]PLWJOLHGHU>VLF@ 60 This chapter was finished before Constantinople reclaimed jurisdiction over the Ukrainian territories in 2018 and then proceeded to grant autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in 8NUDLQH 2&8  LQ  6HH DOVR (YD 6\QHN ³'DV (QJDJHPHQW GHV gNXPHQLVFKHQ Patriarchats für eine autokephale Kirche in der Ukraine – HLQH=HUUHL‰SUREHIUGLH2UWKRGR[LH´Religionen unterwegs  –16. +RZHYHUXSWRQRZVROHO\WKUHHRWKHr DXWRFHSKDORXV&KXUFKHVWKH&KXUFKRI*UHHFHWKH3DWULDUFKDWHRI$OH[DQGULDDQGWKH &KXUFKRI&\SUXV KDYHUHFRJQLVHGWKH2&8\HWQRWZLWKRXWLQWHUQDOGLVVHQVLRQV 61 “Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the problem of primacy in the Universal ChuUFK´ 85/KWWSVPRVSDWUXHQQHZV>@ 62 &I(OSLGRSKRURV/DPEULQLDGLV³)LUVWZLWKRXWHTXDOV$UHVSRQVHWRWKHWH[WRQSULPDF\ RIWKH0RVFRZ3DWULDUFKDWH´85/KWWSVZZZSDWULDUFKDWHRUJWKHRORJLFDO-andother-VWXGLHV-DVVHWBSXEOLVKHU*RY21LN,LXWFRQWHQWSULPXV-sine-paribus-hapantesis-eis -to-peri-proteiou-keimenon-tou-patriarcheiou-moschas-tou-sebasmiotatou-metropolitouprouses-k-HOSLGRSKRURX >@ %LVKRS .\ULOORV .DWHUHORV >ȉާ țİަȝİȞȠ IJ߱Ȣ ȇĮß‫ޢ‬ȞȞĮȢ DV Q  @ also strongly criticised the position of the Russian Church but maintained the traditional position that the Ecumenical Patriarch is “primus inter pares”. 63 &I ³0HVVDJH RI WKH +RO\ DQG *UHDW &RXQFLO RI WKH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK´ †  URL: KWWSVZZZKRO\FRXQFLORUJ-PHVVDJH >@ ³'XULQJ WKH GHOLEHUDWLRQV RI WKH +RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLOWKHLPSRUWDQFHRIWKH6\QD[HVRIWKH3ULPDWHVZKLFKKDGWDNHQ SODFHZDVHPSKDVL]HG´

Local Orthodoxies and Universal Orthodoxy

73

Although it might be too early to call these meetings an established canonical institution acceptance seems to exist in SULQFLSOH+RZHYHU attempts for more H[FOXVLYHVXPPLWVRIWKH3DWULDUFKVRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOH$OH[DQGULD$QWLRFK and Jerusalem plus the Archbishop of Cyprus were strongly criticised in particular by UHSUHVHQWDWLYHVRIWKH3DWULDUFKDWHRI0RVFRZZKLFKWRGD\LVWKHODUJHVW2UWKRdox Church in terms of numbers of believers but still a “newcomer” compared with the ancient autocephalies of the Middle East. $VIDUDVWKH&KXUFKRIWKH&]HFK/DQGVDQG6ORYDNLDLVFRQFHUQHGUHFHQW LQWHUYHQWLRQVIURP3DWULDUFK%DUWKRORPHZFRXOGHYHQQXUWXUHGRXEWVRQWKHIXOO autocephaly of this small local church. 64 +RZVLJQLILFDQWLVWKe formal declaration of an autocephalous canonical status from a general Orthodox perspective? What GRHVLWPHDQLQDQH[WUDRUGLQDU\FDVHVXFKDVIRULQVWDQFHWKHVLWXDWLRQRIWKH Albanian Church during the time of the severe suppression of all religious communities in Albania and during the restoration period after the collapse of the communist regime? Is it possible to imagine circumstances under which autoFHSKDO\FDQEHVXVSHQGHGRUHYHQUHYRNHG"$QGLIVRZKRLVWRLQLWLDWHVXFKD decision? Can the “mother church”ZKLFKRQFHDJUHHGWRDXWRFHSKDO\VWHSEDFN" Would it be necessary to obtain a Pan-Orthodox FRQVHQVXV or would it be sufficient that Constantinople agrees? And what about the particular case where there are competing claims about the status of “PRWKHUFKXUFK´RQHSDUW\EHLQJWKHVHH of Constantinople? As the traditional canonical base seems insufficient to solve these issues it also does not help much with the problem of the so-called diaspora. In the 20th and 21st century an increasinJQXPEHURIDXWRFHSKDORXVFKXUFKHVLQFOXGLQJWKH 3DWULDUFKDWH RI $OH[DQGULD WKH &KXUFK RI *UHHFH WKH $OEDQLDQ &KXUFK and finally also the Church of Cyprus could be won to the position that Orthodox communities outside traditional territories of canonical Orthodox Churches in principle should be organised under the jurisdiction of Constantinople. 65 %XW on WKHRWKHUVLGHWKH3DWULDUFKDWHRI0RVFRZDQGLQSDUWLFXODUWKH5RPDQLDQ&KXUFK tried to bring the Orthodox of Russian or Romanian origin respectively under their own obedience during the last years. 66 While current Romanian policy is hardly EDFNHGE\DQ\DQFLHQWFDQRQWKH&RQVWDQWLQRSOH-RULHQWHGSRVLWLRQZKLFKFDQonists and theologians belonging to the Patriarchate of Constantinople tend to argue 64 Cf. Alexej KlutschHZVN\ ³'LH 2UWKRGR[H .LUFKH LQ GHQ%|KPLVFKHQ /lQGHUQ XQG GHU 6ORZDNHLVHLWGHP=ZHLWHQ:HOWNULHJ´LQ%ULJLWWH6FKLQNHOHet al. HGV Recht – Religion – .XOWXU)HVWVFKULIWIU5LFKDUG3RW]]XP*HEXUWVWDJ9LHQQD–305. 65 6HHIRUH[DPSOH,RDQQLV=L]LRXODV³2UWKRGR['LDVSRUD)DFLQJD&DQRQLFDO$QRPDOLW\´ LQ)UVWDQG3RW]HGV KANON XXII DVQ –11. 66 &I *HUG 6WULFNHU ³5XVVLVFK-RUWKRGR[H $X‰HQSROLWLN (LQ RIIHQHU %ULHI DXV 0RVNDX EHXQUXKLJWGLH'LDVSRUD´Herder Korrespondenz  –5DGX3UHGD³/D diaspore orthodoxe. 8QHSHUVSHFWLYHURXPDLQH´ LQ)UVWDQG3RW]HGV KANON XXII (as Q –5LPHVWDG³7KH5XVVLDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFK´DVQ 

74

Eva M. Synek

as the sole FDQRQLFDORQHFDQDWOHDVWEHSDUWLDOOy tied down to Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon. +RZHYHU the ancient ruling regarding Constantinople’s rights to ordain bishops for the “barbarians” stems from a completely different context than the modern problem of diaspora. Its political reference-V\VWHPLVWKH5RPDQ(PSLUH not the world of the 21st century. The Crete document on diaspora is based on the preliminary decision of 2009. The temporary agreement on episcopal assemblies shows some will to take creative steps. Although certainly not a full solution in LWVHOIWKHV\VWHPRIHSLVFRSDODVVHPEOies at least tries to build bridges between anFLHQWSULQFLSOHVRIFKXUFKRUJDQLVDWLRQDQGPRGHUQUHDOLWLHVZKLFKDUHIDUIURP the traditional ideal of one city – one bishop – one church.

Contemporary Solutions: Pan-Orthodox or Local Level? Some nurture hopes that with the enforcement of the Constantinopolitan perception of primacy on the Pan-Orthodox levelQRWRQO\WKHGLDVSRUDLVVXHbut also other questions that cannot be solved by ancient canon law alone would be easier WRPDVWHU+RZHYHU besides the question if it is in any way realistic that Constantinople could win the match with the Russian Church in the context of contHPSRUDU\FKXUFKSROLWLFVZLWK5RPDQ&atholic experiences in mind I would warn against being overoptimistic. The challenges of GLDVSRUDIRUH[DPSOHDUHYHU\VLPLODUIRUWKH2UWKRGR[ DQGWKH&DWKROLF&KXUFKHV SDUWLFXODUSDVWRUDOQHHGVRILPPLJUDQWVIURPYDULRXV MXULVGLFWLRQVV\QRGVWKDWEDUJDLQIRULQIOXHQFHRXWVLGHWKHLUWUDGLWLRQDOWHUULWRULHV competing national interests and so on. The Catholic Church does not seem to be PXFKPRUHVXFFHVVIXOLQEULGJLQJWKHPWKDQWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKHV  despite its strongly developed system of primacy on the universal church level. To give another example from the Austrian context: Pontifical legislation provides a genuine structure for all Eastern-Rite Catholics in Austria. 67 For believers RIWKH%\]DQWLQHULWH there is one central parish covering the whole territory of the Republic of Austria and the Archbishop of Vienna is appointed as ordinary WRDOO&DWKROLFEHOLHYHUVRIWKH%\]DQWLQH5LWHQRPDWWHUZKDWFKXUFKsui iuris they belong to. 68 If one knows no more than canonical theory one might be impressed 67 &I³'HNUHWGHU.RQJUHJDWLRQIUGLH2VWNLUFKHQ3URW1´Amtsblatt   85/ KWWSZZZNDWKROLVFKHRVWNLUFKHQDWGOO0Q2-.-1.NNP-T[P-.$PWVEODWWB1UB B-XOLBSGI>@ 68 &I+HOPXW3UHH, “Zur Rechtsstellung der Ukrainischen Griechisch-Katholischen Kirche LQgVWHUUHLFK´LQ6FKLQNHOHet al. HGV , Recht DVQ –³0DWULNHQIKUXQJIU GLHE\]DQWLQLVFKHQ.DWKROLNHQLQgVWHUUHLFK³Amtsblatt  85/KWWSZZZ NDWKROLVFKHRVWNLUFKHQDWGORSP1-.-1.NNP-T[N-.$PWVEODWWB1UBB0BU]BB*9 .SGI>@

Local Orthodoxies and Universal Orthodoxy

75

by this FRQVWUXFW @

Ecclesiastical Geopolitics of Modern Orthodoxy: An Overview with a Special Focus on the Activities of the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Moscow throughout the 19th and 20th Centuries Daniela Kalkandjieva The modern concept of separation of religion and state has had a long term effect not only on the domestic church-VWDWHUHODWLRQVLQWKH&KULVWLDQZRUOGEXWDOVRRQ the roles ascribed to secular and religious bodies in international affairs. 1 Led by WKHSULQFLSOHWKDW³LQLQWHUQDWLRQDOSROLWLFVWKHZRrld is secular” 2 scholars used to focus their research on the service which churches have rendered to the foreign policy of their states. In the case of Eastern Orthodox Christianity (henceforth OrthoGR[\ WKLVDSSURDFKLVDGGLWLRQDOO\MXVWLILHGE\WKHZidespread perception of Orthodox CKXUFKHVDVQDWLRQDOLQVWLWXWLRQVZKRVHIXQFWLRQLQJKDVEHHQWLJKWO\ LQWHUWZLQHGZLWKWKDWRIWKHVWDWH&RUUHVSRQGLQJO\WKHUHVHDUFKHUVSUHVXPHGWKDW these religious bodies play mostly adjunct roles in the domestic and foreign affairs RIWKHLUVWDWHV$VDUHVXOWWKHVFRSHRIUHVHDUFKRIWKHLQWHUQDWLRQDODFWLYLWLHVRI the Orthodox Churches has tended to exclude those of them that present religious PLQRULWLHVIRUH[DPSOH WKH2UWKRGR[3DWULDUFKDWHVRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOH$OexanGULD $QWLRFK and Jerusalem and to give priority to churches associated with UHOLJLRXV PDMRULWLHV QDPHO\ WKRVH LQ 5XVVLD6RYLHW 8QLRQ 6HUELD 7KH 5XVVLDQ 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK LQ 6RYLHW 6WDWH 3ROLF\ LQ –@ 0RVFRZ6WHYHQ00LQHUStalin’s Holy War: Religion, Nationalism and Alliance 3ROLWLFV – &KDSHO +LOO1&  7DWLDQD 9RORNLWLQD * 0XUDVKNR DQG $ 1RVNRYD Ɇɨɫɤɜɚ ɢ ȼɨɫɬɨɱɧɚɹ ȿɜɪɨɩɚ: ȼɥɚɫɬɶ ɢ ɰɟɪɤɨɜɶ ɜ ɩɟɪɢɨɞ ɨɛɳɟɫɬɜɟɧɧɵɯ ɬɪɚɧɫɮɨɪɦɚɰɢɢ–ɝɨɞɨɜ XX ɜɟɤɚ >0RVFRZDQG(DVWHUQ(XURSH3RZHUDQG&KXUFK LQ D 3HULRG RI 6RFLDO 7UDQVIRUPDWLRQV the 1940s–V@ 0RVFRZ  'DQLHOD .DONDQGMLHYD7KH5XVVLDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFK–)URP'HFOLQHWR5HVXUUHFWLRQ London 2014. 5REHUW & %OLWW ³5XVVLD¶V µ2UWKRGR[’ Foreign Policy: The Growing Influence of the Russian Orthodox Church in ShapinJ5XVVLD¶V3ROLFLHV$EURDG´ University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law    – $OLFLMD &XUDQRYLü The Religious Factor in Russia’s Foreign PolicyLondon -HUU\*3DQNKXUVWDQG$ODU .LOS³5HOLJLRQWKH5XVVLDQ1DWLRQDQGWKH6WDWH'RPHVWLFDQG,QWHUQDWLRQDO5HODWLRQV $Q,QWURGXFWLRQ´Religion, State & Society  –243.

Ecclesiastical Geopolitics of Modern Orthodoxy

81

time span DQG UHVHDUFK PHWKRGRORJ\ )LUVW WKH Fases of many Orthodox CKXUFKHV LQFOXGLQJ WKDW RI WKH (FXPHQLFDO 3DWULDUFKDWH RI &RQVWDQWLQRSOH 8 UHPDLQ XQGHUH[SORUHG 6HFRQG WKH H[LVWLQJ DQDO\VHV FRYHU PRVWO\ WKH V while other important periods of the international affairs of modern Orthodoxy FRQWLQXHWREHXQGHUVWXGLHG7KLUGWKLVLVVXHLVDSSURDFKHGPRVWO\IURPDVHFXODU perspective that does not take into account the specific interests of Orthodox Churches in undertaking and carrying out such activities as a group or individuDOO\(YHQLQWKHFDVHRIWKH52&WKHPRVWVWXGLHGRQHLQYHVWLJDWLRQUDUHO\JRHV beyond the issues of its instrumentalisation “for the propagandistic goals of Soviet IRUHLJQSROLWLFV´ 9 its role in mobilising international public opinion and providing OHJLWLPDF\WRWKHIRUHLJQSROLF\RIWKH6RYLHW8QLRQ Russian Federation 10 or its use as a “soft power” of Putin’s foreign policy. 11 $WWKHVDPHWLPHRQWKHJURXQGV of previous research on the ROC’s international activities in the first half of the 20th FHQWXU\,KDYHFRPHDFURVVHYLGHQFHWKDWWKHVHDFWLYLWLHVVHUYHGQRWRQO\WKH LQWHUHVWV RI WKH 6RYLHW UHJLPH EXW ZHUe also accomplished in the pursuit of specific ecclesiastical goals. 12 I have also traced similar developments in the case of other contemporary Orthodox Churches 13 – D SKHQRPHQRQ ZKLFK FRXOG EH defined as “ecclesiastical geopolitics”.

From Religion in International Affairs to Ecclesiastical Geopolitics Until recently the international activities of the Orthodox Churches have been analysed mainly from the perspective of secular geopolitics. During the last three GHFDGHVKRZHYHUDVHULHVRIGHYHORSPHQWV(e.g. WKHIDOORIWKH%HUOLQ:DOOWKH dissolution of the Soviet 8QLRQWKHoverall return of religion in the public space  8

9 10 11 12 13

The international affairs of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople have not been WKHVXEMHFWRIV\VWHPDWLFUHVHDUFK@ KalkandjLHYDThe Russian Orthodox Church (as n. 6 . KalkandjievaȻɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɚɬɚɩɪɚɜɨɫɥɚɜɧɚɰɴɪɤɜɚ (as n. 5 

82

Daniela Kalkandjieva

shook the Cold War status quo in European Orthodoxy and opened a new perspective for its analysis: that of ecclesiastical geopolitics. On the eve of the +RO\DQG*UHDW2Uthodox Council in Crete (17-26 June  1LFRODV.D]DULDQ advanced the idea that the Orthodox Churches “deal with their own geopolitical DJHQGDLQDGGLWLRQWREHLQJHQFRPSDVVHGE\VWDWHGLSORPDFLHV´. 14 +HKRZHYHU does not outline the specificity of ecclesiastical geopolitics. To clarify its differHQFHIURPVHFXODUJHRSROLWLFVWKLVDUWLFOHVXJJHVWVDZRUNLQJGHILQLWLRQWKDWUHgards ecclesiastical geopolitics as a specific set of international activities of Orthodox ChurchesZKLFKDUH 1. undertDNHQLQGLYLGXDOO\RULQDJURXS 2. theologically motivated (e.g. WKH FKRLFH RI FKXUFK FDOHQGDU  DQGRU FDQRQLcally justified (e.g. WKHUHFRJQLWLRQRIDXWRFHSKDO\  3. realised by religious tools (e.g. joint performanFHRIOLWXUJLHVDQGVDFUDPHQWV  4. and which endeavour a. to HQKDQFHWKHXQLW\RI(DVWHUQ2UWKRGR[&KULVWLDQLW\ b. to introduce structural changes in the Orthodox worldinter alia by - JUDQWLQJDXWRFHSKDO\RUDXWRQRP\ - GHFODULQJRUDEROLVKLQJVFKLVPV - introducing changes in the territorial jurisdiction of one or another autocephalous Orthodox CKXUFK - spreading the jurisdiction of an Orthodox Church over the entire 2UWKRGR[GLDVSRUDRURQLWVVSHFLILFSDUWV - contesting the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople c. to regulate the relations between individual Orthodox Churches or group of churches as well as the communication of world Orthodoxy with the KHWHURGR[&KULVWLDQVDQGRWKHUUHOLJLRQV d. WR GHIHQG DQGRU UHGHILQH WKH UROH RI WKH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK LQ WKH contemporary secular and pluralistic world. )XUWKHUPRUHWKLVGHILQLWLRQSRLQWVWKDWecclesiastical geopolitics is closely linked ZLWKWKHVWDWXVRIFKXUFKHVLQWKH2UWKRGR[ZRUOG,QWKLVUHJDUGLWLVLPSRUWDQW to mention that only the canonically recognised autocephalous churches are able effectively to carry out their initiatives on thHLQWHUQDWLRQDOUHOLJLRXVVFHQHZKLOH the autonomous churches need to coordinate such acts with the corresponding central church administration. $W WKH VDPH WLPH WKH QRQ-canonical Orthodox Churches (e.g. the self-declared autocephalous church in North Macedonia have DOPRVW QR FKDQFH WR H[HUW LQIOXHQFH RQ ZRUOG 2UWKRGR[\ $V D UHVXOW VXFK churches rely on their state authorities to search for solutions of their ecclesiastical problem by means of secular diplomacy. 14 1LFRODV .D]DULDQ ³1HZ 2UWKRGR[ *HRSROLWLFV´ Public Orthodoxy  85/ KWWSVSXEOLFRUWKRGR[\RUJQHZ-orthodox-JHRSROLWLFV>@

Ecclesiastical Geopolitics of Modern Orthodoxy

83

The Impact of Past Empires on Ecclesiastical Geopolitics In his essay on new ecclesiastical geopolitics 1LFRODV.D]DULDQDOVRSRLQWVWRWKH fact that the strategies implemented by contemporary Orthodox Churches are XQLTXHWRHDFKRIWKHP,QKLVYLHZWKHVHVSHFLILFLties stem from the different hisWRULFDOFXOWXUDODQGSROLWLFDOH[SHULHQFHVRIWKHVHFKXUFKHV 15 ,QGHHGDPRUH detailed analysis of the present geopolitical agendas of Orthodox Churches reveals their links with concepts and practices invented during the times of existence RIWKH%\]DQWLQHWKH2WWRPDQDQGWKHRussian Empires as well as during the more recent Soviet one. From a long-WHUPKLVWRULFDOSHUVSHFWLYHWKHOHJDF\RI%\]DQWLXPLVRIPDMRU significance for contemporary Orthodox ecclesiastical geopolitics because it coincides with the formative period of Eastern Orthodoxy. This was the time when the Patriarch of Constantinople adopted his ecumenical title and the concept of his SULPDF\ZDVHODERUDWHG,QDGGLWLRQWKHDGYHQWRI,VODPLQWKH0LGGOH(DVWJDYH him a reaO SULRULW\ RYHU WKH DQFLHQW FKXUFKHV RI $OH[DQGULD $QWLRFK and -HUXVDOHP,QSDUDOOHOLQWKHSURFHVVRI&KULVWLDQLVDWLRQRIWKHPHGLHYDOSULQFLpaliWLHVRI%XOJDULD6HUELD and Kievan Rus’ the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople became the “mother church” of the Orthodox Churches set up in those ODQGV&RUUHVSRQGLQJO\ZLWKRXWLWVEOHVVLQJWKHVH“daughter churches” were not DEOH WR REWDLQ DQ DXWRFHSKDORXV VWDWXV ODWHU RQ ,Q DGGLWLRQ WKH 3DWULDUchate of Constantinople was able to undertake UHYHUVH VWHSV DQG XQGHU VRPH FLUcumVWDQFHVWRDEROLVKSUHYLRXVO\JUDQWHGDXWRFHSKDOLHVIRUH[DPSOH it abolished of the autocephaly of the medieval PatriarchateVRI7DUQRYRDQG,SHN3Hü DIWHU the %XOJDULDQ and Serbian lands had been conquered by the Ottomans. 7KHUHIRUH although the status of primus inter pares of the Ecumenical Patriarch is regarded DVRQHRIKRQRXULWDOVRLQFOXGHVH[FOXVLYHSULYLOHJHVXQDWWDLQDEOHE\WKHVXSUHPH KLHUDUFKVRIWKHRWKHUDXWRFHSKDORXVFKXUFKHV,QFDQRQLFDOWHUPVQRDXWRFHSKDO\ “can come into being without the consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople”. 16 This was equally true in the Middle Ages as well as in the last WZRFHQWXULHVfor 15 Ibid. 16 6HUJH .HOHKHU ³2UWKRGR[ 5LYDOU\ LQ WKH 7ZHQWLHWK &HQWXU\ 0RVFRZ YHUVXV &RQVWDQWLQRSOH´Religion, State & Society  –KHUH$FFRUGLQJWR.HOHKHU the Ecumenical Patriarch has also exclusive rights “to establish a court of final appeal for any case from anywhere in the Orthodox world” and over the Orthodox diaspora. From a KLVWRULFDOSHUVSHFWLYHKRZHYHUWKHVHULJKWVKDYHEHHQFRQWHVWHGDQGRUQHJlected by many 2UWKRGR[&KXUFKHV)RULQVWDQFHRQHRIWKHfirst objections against the right of the Ecumenical Patriarch over the Orthodox diaspora was raised by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia. See Konstantin N. 1LNRODHY ³ɉɨɥɨɠɟɧɢɟ ɉɪɚɜɨɫɥɚɜɧɨɣ ɐɟɪɤɜɢ ɩɨɫɥɟ ɜɨɣɧɵ´>7KH6WDWHRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKDIWHU:RUOG:DU,@ in Ⱦɟɹɧɢɹ ȼɬɨɪɨɝɨ ȼɫɟɡɚɪɭɛɟɠɧɚɝɨ ɋɨɛɨɪɚ Ɋɭɫɫɤɨɣ ɉɪɚɜɨɫɥɚɜɧɨɣ ɐɟɪɤɜɢ ɡɚɝɪɚɧɢɰɟɣ >$FWV RI WKH 6HFRQG $OO-$EURDG &RXQFLO RI WKH 5XVVLDQ 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK $EURDG@ %HOJUDGH–KHUH

84

Daniela Kalkandjieva

LQVWDQFHthe Romanian Orthodox Church gained a canonical recognition of its autocephaly not when the Romanian State declared its independence  EXW when it was blessed by the PDWULDUFKRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOH 17 ,QDVLPLODUZD\ WKHDXWRFHSKDOLHVZKLFKWKH0RVFRZ3DWULDUFKDWHKDGgranted to the Georgian DQG&]HFKRVORYDNLDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFKHVin 1943 and 1951 respectivelyZHUH recognised as canonical by the entire Orthodox world only upon their approval by the Ecumenical Patriarch in the 1990s. )XUWKHUPRUHQRDXWRFHSKDORXV2UWKRGR[&KXUFKFDQEHFRPHDPatriarchate ZLWKRXWWKHFRQVHQWRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOH7KLVUXOHZDVREVHUYHGE\WKH%XOJarian Orthodox Church in 1235 when it became a Patriarchate as well as by the Russian RQHLQ0HDQZKLOHWKHGHFLVLRQRIWKH6HUELDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFKWRDVVXPH the rank of a Patriarchate in 1346 without the blessing of Patriarch Callistus I of Constantinople entailed a serious punishment. The Ecumenical Patriarchate not only condemned this act but also excommunicated the Serbian Patriarch and King IRU EUHDNLQJ FDQRQ ODZ 7KH FRQIOLFW ZDV UHVROYHG LQ  ZKHQ WKH 6HUELDQ Kingdom reached an agreement with Constantinople for the canonical recognition of the Patriarchal dignity of the Serbian Church. 18 We observe similar developments in modern times. In 1920 the Patriarchate of Constantinople granted Patriarchal dignity to the Serbian Orthodox Church and in 1925 to the Romanian one EXWUHIXVHGWRUHFRJQLVHWKHXQLODWHUDOLQLWLDWLYHRIWKH%XOJDULDQ([DUFKDWH to restore its medieval Patriarchal status in 1953. This act was recognised by 3DWULDUFK $WKHQDJRUDV LQ  DIWHU KH KDG WDONV ZLWK 3DWULDUFK $OH[ii I of Moscow. 19 %HVLGHV WKH DERYH-GHVFULEHG SULYLOHJHV WKH (FXPHQLFDO 3DWULDUFK RI Constantinople has the unique right to summon Pan-Orthodox councils. 20 It was conditioned by the Great Schism that enhanced his primacy in the Orthodox part RIWKH&KULVWLDQZRUOG1ROHVVLPSRUWDQWZDVWKHIDOORI&RQVWDQWLQRSOH  ZKHQDVRum millet-baúiLH chief administrator of the Orthodox subjects of the OttoPDQ6XOWDQWKH3DWULDUFKRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOHLQKHULWHGVRPHRIWKHIXQFWLRQV

17 7KHRGRU'DPLDQ³7KH$XWocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church: 125 Years since LWV$FNQRZOHGJHPHQW´Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe   36– KHUH 18 -RKQ9$)LQH-U The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest$QQ$UERU0, 6LPD0ûLUNRYLüThe Serbs +RERNHQ1- 19 Daniela .DONDQGMLHYDȻɴɥɝɚɪɫɤɚɬɚɩɪɚɜɨɫɥɚɜɧɚɰɴɪɤɜɚɢÄɧɚɪɨɞɧɚɬɚɞɟɦɨɤɪɚɰɢɹ³ – >7KH %XOJDULDQ 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK DQG ³3RSXODU 'HPRFUDF\´ –1953@ 6LOLVWUD–6HHDOVR'DQLHOD.DONDQGMLHYD³7KH%XOJDULDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFK´ LQ/XFLDQ1/HXVWHDQHG Eastern Christianity and the Cold War$ELQJGRQDQG1HZ 3ULPDF\LQWKH&KXUFKLQWKH7KHRORJ\RI0HWURSROLWDQRI3HUJDPRQ-RKQ =L]LRXODV @ȼɟɫɬɧɢɤ Ɋɭɫɫɤɨɣ ɏɪɢɫɬɢɚɧɫɤɨɣ Ƚɭɦɚɧɢɬɚɪɧɨɣ Ⱥɤɚɞɟɦɢɢ   32– 3DYHO 9 (UPLORY ³ɉɪɨɢɫɯɨɠɞɟɧɢɟ ɬɟɨɪɢɢ ɨ ɩɟɪɜɟɧɫɬɜɟ Ʉɨɧɫɬɚɧɬɢɧɨɩɨɥɶɫɤɨɝɨ ɩɚɬɪɢɚɪɯɚ´>7KH2ULJLQVRIWKH7KHRU\DERXWWKH3ULPDF\RIWKH3DWULDUFKRI &RQVWDQWLQRSOH@ȼɟɫɬɧɢɤ ɋɌɉȽɍ  –53. 24 7RP+HQHJKDQ³5XVVLDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFK&DOOV%R\FRWWHG&UHWH&RXQFLOµDQ,PSRUWDQW (YHQW¶´Religious News Service85/KWWSVUHOLJLRQQHZVFRP russian-orthodox-church-calls-boycotted-crete-council-an-important-HYHQW>@.

86

Daniela Kalkandjieva

1RWRQO\WKH%\]DQWLQHOHJDF\EXWDOVRWKH2WWRPDQRQHKDVOHIWLWVLPSULQW RQ FRQWHPSRUDU\ HFFOHVLDVWLFDO JHRSROLWLFV ,Q SDUWLFXODU WKH FRQTXHVW RI YDVW traditionally Orthodox areas caused radical changes in the ecclesiastical structure of Eastern EuroSH2QWKHRQHKDQGVRPHFKXUFKHVGLVDSSHDUHGIRUVKRUWHURU ORQJHUSHULRGVDVWKHPHGLHYDO%XOJDULDQDQG6HUELDQPatriarchates. On the other KDQGWKRVHSDUWVRI(DVWHUQ(XURSH which remained outside the control of the Ottoman sultans received a chance to grow. The new situation turned to be espeFLDOO\EHQHILFLDOIRUWKHHDVWHUQSDUWRIWKH.LHYDQ0HWURSROLVZKRVHKHDGTXDUWHUV were moved to Moscow by Metropolitan Alexii (1356–  25 In the next cenWXULHV WKH JURZWK RI 0XVFRYLWH 5XVVLD HQVXUHG WKH advancement of the local 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK ZKLFK REWDLQHG PDWULDUFKDO GLJQLW\ LQ  ,Q VKRUW WKH Ottoman and the Russian Empires had a crucial role in strengthening the positions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the ROC as main Orthodox powers for WKHQH[WFHQWXULHV$WWKHVDPHWLPHWKHGRZQIDOORIERWKSROLWLHVFDXVHGUDGLFDO FKDQJHVQRWRQO\RQWKHSROLWLFDOPDSRI(DVWHUQ(XURSHEXWDOVRon the ecclesiastical one. More VSHFLILFDOO\WKHHVWDEOLVKPHQWRIQHZLQGHSHQGHQWVWDWHVRQWKH former imperial territories shook the authority of the Great Church of Constantinople as well as that of the ROC over the Orthodox communities in the former SROLWLHV%HWZHHQDQGWKH3DWULDUFKDWHRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOHJUDGXDOO\ORVW its administrative control over the Orthodox structures in the young states of *UHHFH6HUELD5RPDQLD$OEDQLD DQG%XOJDULD$IWHUVKRUWHURUORQJHUSHULRGV RIVWUXJJOHIRUSUHVHUYLQJLWVFDQRQLFDOMXULVGLFWLRQRYHUWKHPLWDFFHSWHGWKHQHZ status quo and granted autocephaly to all of them between 1850 and 1945. ,Q D VLPLODU ZD\ EHWZHHQ WKH WZR ZRUOG ZDUV WKH 52& ZDV QRW DEOH WR effectively exercise its jurisdiction not only outside the interwar Soviet borders (i.e. RYHU WKH 2UWKRGR[ FLWL]HQV IURP WKRVH 5XVVLDQ LPSHULDl territories which ZHUHLQFOXGHGLQ5RPDQLD)LQODQG(VWRQLD3RODQGDQG/DWYLD EXWDOVRZLWKLQ them (i.e. over Orthodox Georgians who restored their autocephalous PatriarFKDWHLQ  26 )XUWKHUPRUHWKH%ROshevik antireligious policy rendered normal communication of the ROC with its structures abroad impossible. In a search of a VROXWLRQ WKH 2UWKRGR[ FRPPXQLWLHV LQ )LQODQG (VWRQLD 3RODQG and Latvia moved under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople as 25 After the Mongol invasion in the 13th FHQWXU\WKH.LHYDQ0HWURSROLVVSOLWLQWZRSDUWV which developed differently in the next centuries. While the western part of the Metropolis was incorporated in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and continued to function under WKHMXULVGLFWLRQRIWKH3DWULDUFKRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOHWKHHDVWHUQRQHOLQNHGLWVGHVWLQ\ZLWK WKDW RI 0XVFRYLWH 5XVVLD $QWRQ 9 .DUWDVKHY Ɉɱɟɪɤɢ ɩɨ ɢɫɬɨɪɢɢ Ɋɭɫɫɤɨɣ ɰɟɪɤɜɢ >(VVD\VRQ5XVVLDQ&KXUFK+LVWRU\@YRO 0RVFRZ––366. 26 Although the Orthodox Georgians left the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church in LWWRRNWKHPPDQ\GHFDGHVEHIRUHKDYLQJWKHLUDXWRFHSKDO\FDQRQLFDOO\UHFRJQLVHG ,QLWZDVDSSURYHGE\WKH3DWULDUFKDWHRI0RVFRZDQGLQE\WKH(FXPHQLFDO Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Ecclesiastical Geopolitics of Modern Orthodoxy

87

a guarantee for their internal autonomy and normal religious life. The Orthodox Church in interwar Poland made a step further by obtaining an autocephalous status from the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1924. Some Russian émigré FRPPXQLWLHV such as those under the jurisdicWLRQ RI 0HWURSROLWDQ (YORJLL *HRUJLHYVNLL  LQ 3DULVDOVRFKRVHWKHSURWHFWLRQRIWKH(FXPHQLFDO3DWULDUFKDWHLQ,QWKLV ZD\WKH3DWULDUFKDWHRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOHUHDIILUPHGLWVFDSDFLW\WRDFWDVWKHRQO\ agency able to effectively reshape the ecclesiastical map of post-imperial Orthodoxy. All its acts of granting autonomy and autocephaly as well as Patriarchal GLJQLW\WRWKH6HUELDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFKLQRUWRWKH5RPDQLDQRQHLQ  were immediately recognised as canonical by almost all other Orthodox Churches. The main resistance came from the persecuted Patriarchal Church in the Soviet 8QLRQ ZKLFK KRZHYHU UHPDLQHG ZLWK RQO\ IRXU DFWLQJ ELVKRSV RQ WKH HYH RI World War II and seemed to be “on the brink of complete dissolution”.27 ThereIRUH it was not able to play any significant ecclesiastical or secular geopolitical role at that moment. 7KHRXWEUHDNRI:RUOG:DU,,DQGWKHYLFWRU\RYHU1D]L*HUPDQ\EURXJKW about a new geopolitical situation in the world. It allowed Stalin to expand the Soviet territories westward as well as to establish control over most Eastern and &HQWUDO(XURSHDQFRXQWULHVthus transforming the Soviet Union into a key factor on the international scene. The political changesKHQFH turned to be beneficial for the MoscoZ3DWULDUFKDWH)LUVWLWUHVWRUHGLWVMXULVGLFWLRQRYHr the Orthodox population in the so-called weVWHUQ ERUGHUODQGV LH WKH %DOWLF 6WDWHV Zestern %HODUXV and Ukraine DVZHOODV%HVVDUDELDDQG1RUWK %XNRYLQD,QWKLVZD\LW almost restored the territorial jurisdiction of the imperial Russian Church. There ZHUHWZRH[FHSWLRQVKRZHYHU7KHILUVWRIWKHPFRQFHUQHGWKH2UWKRGR[FRPmuQLWLHVLQ*HRUJLDDQG$UPHQLDZKLFKWKH0RVFRZ3DWULDUFKDWHDJUHHGto place under the jurisdiction of the Georgian Orthodox Church in 1943. The other was the autonomous Finnish Orthodox Church which refused to return to Moscow jurisdiction and remained under WKDWRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOH,QDIWHUDSROLWLFDO agreement concluded between the Soviet and the Finnish governments in the beginning of Khrushchev’s détente3DWULDUFK$OH[LL,UHFRJQLVHGWKHVWDWXVRIWKH )LQQLVK2UWKRGR[&KXUFK,QDGGLWLRQLQWKHILUVWSRVW-ZDU\HDUVWKHDGPLQLVtration of Patriarch Alexii I reunited a good number of Russian Orthodox émigré FRPPXQLWLHVPRVWRIZKLFKZHUHVLWXDWHGLQ(DVWHUQDQG&HQWUDO(XURSH)XUWKHUPRUH ZLWK WKH .UHPOLQ¶V DVVLVWDQFH WKH 0RVFRZ 3DWULDUFKDWH ZHQW RXW RI LWV previous isolation from the Christian world. One thH RQH KDQG LW UHQHZHG WKH communication with the Orthodox Patriarchates in the Middle East and the European Orthodox ChurchesZKLOHRQWKHRWKHULWDOVRHVWDEOLVKHGFRQWDFWVZLWK the Church of England as well as with other churches in the Western hemisphere.

27 )OHWFKHUReligion DVQ  5.

88

Daniela Kalkandjieva

)URPWKHSRLQWRIYLHZRIFRQWHPSRUDU\HFFOHVLDVWLFDOJHRSROLWLFVHVSHFLDOO\ important is the new role adopted by the Moscow Patriarchate in the Orthodox ZRUOG'XULQJWKHODVWZDUPRQWKVWKHQHZO\HOHFWHGPatriarch Alexii I persuaded the Primates of the PDWULDUFKDWHVRI$OH[DQGULD$QWLRFK and Jerusalem to support an abolishment of the schism which the Patriarchate of Constantinople had imSRVHGRQWKH%XOJDULDQ([DUFKDWHLQ7KLVHFFOHVLDVWLFDOGLSORPDF\WXUQHG out to be successful and on )HEUXDU\WKH(FXPHQLFDO3DWULDUFKGHFODUHG WKHHQGRIWKHVFKLVPRIWKH%XOJDULDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFKDQGDOVRJUDQWHGLWIXOO autocephaly. 28 :KHQ WKH &ROG :DU VWDUWHG WKH 52&¶V OHDGHUVKLS XQGHUWRRN D series of steps aimed to challenge the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in shapLQJWKHFRQWHPSRUDU\2UWKRGR[ZRUOG,QWKH52&OHDGHUVKLSJUDnted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in post-war Poland anew WKXV LJQRULQJ WKH previous one of 1924 granted by Constantinople,QLW proclaimed the autoceSKDO\RIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKLQVRFLDOLVW&]HFKRVORYDNLDZKLOHLQLWGLG WKHVDPHZLWKWKH5XVVLDQ0HWURSROLDLQ1RUWK$PHULFD which was transformed LQWRWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKLQ$PHULFD,QWKLVZD\WKH0RVFRZ3DWULDUFKDWHLQWURduced serious changes in the structure of post-ZDU2UWKRGR[\7KH +RO\ DQG *UHDW&RXQFLO9LFWRU\RU'HIHDW"@Ɋɨɫɫɢɹ ɜ ɝɥɨɛɚɥɶɧɨɣ ɩɨɥɢɬɢɤɟ  URL: https globalaffairs.ruarticlessvyatoj-i-velikij-sobor-pobeda-ili-SRUD]KHQLH >@

120

$OH[DQGHU.\UOH]KHY$QGUH\6KLVKNRY

cRQFLOLDU SURFHVV WKH RIILFLDO SDUW RI ZKLFK VWDUWHG LQ  ZLWK ILUVWDWWHPSWV back in 1923. The crisis or the decline implies that this conciliarity had a normal and stable appearance at the previous sWDJHV +RZHYHU WKLV FDQQRW EH FODLPHG about the Pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar process. The entire process can be divided into periods of about 15-20 years with ecclesiological crises of varying degrees of complexity in-between. At WKHVDPHWLPHLWcannot be argued that the quality of inter-church communication was at its best even in the periods between the crises. One of the reasons for this lies in ecclesiology – in the difference of understanding the structure of the Orthodox Church as described above. Another reason for the refusal of some churches to participate in the Council is the heterogeneity of autocephalous churches (as PHQWLRQHGDERYH :RUOG2Uthodoxy is often called a “family” of local churches. The events around the Council of Crete only confirmed the relevance of this metaphor. The Orthodox HFFOHVLDVWLFDO FRPPXQLW\ DV D ZKROH LQGHHG UHVHPEOHV D ODUJH KHWHURJHQHRXV family ZKRVHPHPEHUVDUHERXQGE\LQVHSDUDEOHEORRGWLHVEXWDUHLQGLIILFXOW often tense personal relationships. There is the rivalry of the older and the younger RQHV MHDORXV\ FODLPV WR OHDGHUVKLS TXDUUHOV DQG RWKHU ³SV\FKRORJLFDO´ SURElems. The Council of Crete demonstrated the existing divisions within the current Orthodox family. Some of its members ignored the family gathering. We now need to try to understand where the boundary of separation between participants and non-participants passes. 7KHXVXDOVFKHPHVLQWKLVFDVHGRQRWZRUN)RUH[DPSOHWKHPRVWREYLRXV typology of autocephalies does not help: - Old Pentarchy Patriarchates - Mature nation-state churches - Young churches of an Orthodox minority - The Russian Church as a special case. On both sides of the border were churches belonging to two of these categories. The old boundary of the division of the Cold War era between the churches of the countries of the Soviet bloc and all the others is also irrelevant. Neither Georgia QRU %XOJDULD WRGD\ DUH PHPEHUV RI WKH RQH EORF ZLWK 5XVVLD UDWKHU RQ WKH FRQWUDU\ DQGWKHUHIRUHWKHYHUVLRQDFFRUGLQJWRZKLFKWKH³KDQGRI0RVFRZ´LV visible in the refusal of the corresponding churches to participate in the Council of Crete is unsound. 20 +RZHYHULIWKH³EORFDSSURDFK´GRHVQRWKHOSWRXQGHUVWDQGWKHVLWXDWLRQLW is only in the sense that it is a simplification to explain SDUWLFLSDWLRQQRQparticipation of particular churches with reference to the bipartisan configuration 20 $ERXW WKH UHDVRQV IRU UHIXVLQJ WR SDUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH &RXQFLO RI &UHWH VHH DOVR $QGUH\ 6KLVKNRY³'LH5H]HSWLRQGHV3DQRUWKRGR[HQ.RQ]LOVDXI.UHWDGXUFKautokephale KirFKHQGLHQLFKWGDUDQWHLOQDKPHQ´Una Sancta  –111.

The Orthodox Church before and after the Council of Crete

121

of world Orthodoxy. The very fact of holding the Council in a truncated form demonstrated that there is only one party in world Orthodoxy in the strict sense of WKHZRUG7KHFRUHRIWKLVSDUW\LV³*UHHN2UWKRGR[\´FRQVLVWLQJRIDJURXSRI FKXUFKHV &RQVWDQWLQRSOH $OH[DQGULD -HUXVDOHP &\SUXV *UHHFH DQG $OEDQLD KHDGHGE\DSURPLQHQW*UHHNELVKRS ,WLVWKLVPRUHRUOHVVXQLWHGJURXS led by WKH3DWULDUFKRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOHWKHILUVWLQWKHGLSW\FKV WKDWFUHDWHVVXFKDFHQWUH RI SRZHU LQ WKH RUELW RI ZKLFK RWKHU FKXUFKHV FDQ HQWHU DV ZDV GHPRQVWUDWHG during the Council of Crete. ,QRWKHUZRUGVZHFDQDUJXH that the Council of Crete found a situation of XQLSRODULW\LQZRUOG2UWKRGR[\DVDFRPPXQLW\RIDXWRFHSKDORXVDFWRUVDQG WKLV SROH LV ³*UHHN &RQVWDQWLQRSOH´ 7KH 5XVVLDQ &KXUFK ZKLFK LV VRPHWLPHV FRQVLGHUHGWKHPDLQULYDORI&RQVWDQWLQRSOHLQZRUOG2UWKRGR[\GLGQRWEHFRme a pole of opposition to the Council XQWLOWKHYHU\ODVWPRPHQWZKHQLWrefused to participate. Its old satellites – the Churches of Poland and of &]HFK Lands and Slovakia – found themselves on the same side of the table as Constantinople. The motives of the churches that did not participate in the Council were diverse. This LVVKRZQE\WKHKLVWRU\RIWKHVHUHIXVDOVLQFOXGLQJWKHFKDQJHLQWKHSRVLWLRQRI the Serbian Church at the last moment. The absent churches did not form any party with clearly expressed characteristics and there are indications that it was not only stubbornness that informed their refusal to participate. To be IDLULWVKRXOd also be mentioned that the boundary of intra-Orthodox separation takes place not only between institutional ecFOHVLDVWLFDOERGLHVEXWDOVR between fundamentalists and anti-fundamentalists in each of the local churches. 21 This second boundary was also manifested in the course of the Council of Crete itself. Disputes about some formulations of conciliar documents – both at the Council and in the public discussions after the publication of draft documents in January 2016 – indicate a break between church authority and theological reason. ,Q WKLV VHQVH WKH &RXQFLO RI &UHWH DOVR UHYHDOHG QRW XQLW\ EXW UDWKHU QRW IXOO\ FODULILHGGLIIHUHQFHV,WVGHFLVLRQVQRPDWter how they are judged from a canoniFDOSRLQWRIYLHZDUHQRWVRPXFKDYLFWRU\RIFRQFLOLDUWKHRORJLFDOUHDVRQEXWD IUXLWRIVLWXDWLRQDO³WH[WXDO´FRPSURPLVHV $OOLQDOOWKH&RXQFLORI&UHWH can be characterised as a strange one)LUVWLW was strange because it was originally planned not as a Council of bishops of the ZKROH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKEXWDVDQ³DVVHPEO\RIDXWRFHSKDOLHV´LQWKHLPDJHRI interVWDWHFRQIHUHQFHV6HFRQGWKH&ouncil did not embrDFHDOOZRUOG2UWKRGR[\ HYHQLQWKLVVHQVHDQGLWVGHFLVLRQV– both in the form of thematic documents and conciliar messages – are not essentially Pan-2UWKRGR[VROXWLRQVDVZDV initially conceived in the process of pre-conciliar preparation. After the CRXQFLORI&UHWH the question is not so much about the reception of its decisions by the local OrthoGR[&KXUFKHVEXWUDWKer about the perception of the Council itself. 21 See also the contribution by Sebastian Rimestad in this volume.

122

$OH[DQGHU.\UOH]KHY$QGUH\6KLVKNRY

$WWKHVDPHWLPHGHVSLWHinstitutional and other weaknessesWKH&RXQFLORI Crete became a catalyst for the conciliarity that occurred spontaneously outside the official pre-cRQFLOLDUSUHSDUDWLRQV,QWKHILUVWKDOIRIWKHHFFOHVLDVWLFDO consciousness of many believers shifted from isolationism to responsibility for the entire Orthodox Church. Various ideological wings in the autocephalous FKXUFKHV FRQVHUYDWLYHV IXQGDPHQWDOLVWV OLEHUDOV HFXPHQLVWV HWF  IRUPHG transnational (and cross-DXWRFHSKDORXV  DOOLDQFHV 22 Everywhere the pathos of responsibility for the church prevailed in various forms. 3UHYLRXVO\ RQO\ WKH theme of Ecumenism had caused the emergence of such DOOLDQFHV,QWKH entire conciliar agenda became a trigger for their rise. +RZHYHUWhis “turn” has a potentially dangerous side. The “drive” towards the universal OHYHO HFFOHVLDVWLFDO FRQVFLRXVQHVV FRPELQHG ZLWK LQVWLWXWLRQDO LVRODWLRQLVPFDQHDVLO\OHDGWRDVSOLWDQGIXUWKHU³FRQIHVVLRQDOLVDWLRQ´RI2UWKRGR[\DV³XQLYHUVDOFRQVFLRXVQHVV´IHHOVFRPIRUWDEOHLQVLGH³LWVRZQFRQIHVVLRQ´ The tension that the “Pan-Orthodox turn” brought to the church’s life requires inter-Orthodox cRQFLOLDUFRRSHUDWLRQDWWKHSURSHUOHYHORILQWHQVLW\RWKHUZLVHLW ZLOOEHDEOHWRVSOLWZRUOG2UWKRGR[\LQWRSDUWV7RDYRLGWKLVVSOLWLWLVQHFHVVDU\ to understand today why the Council of Crete did not become Pan-Orthodox. ,QRXURSLQLRQWKHPDLQUHDVRQIRUWKHIDLOXUHRIWKH3DQ-Orthodox Council and its transformation into a “Council of ten autocephalous churches” was the ineffectiveness of the Pan-Orthodox structures established for the preparation of the “+RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLO´%DFNLQ'HFHPEHURQHFRXOGVHHWKHGHHSHVW crisis of the Pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar conferences – the main body of the preparation of the Council at that time. This crisis was overcome only by the extraordinary intervention of all the leaders of the autocephalous churches who gathered in January 2016 for a Synaxis in Chambésy. The Synaxis approved the documents of the conciliar agenda and the regulations of the Council. It also established a special Pan-Orthodox body for the organisation of the Council – the Pan-Orthodox secretariat. The incapacity of the latter was indicated in the statePHQWRIWKH+RO\6\QRGRIWKH5XVVLDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFK as one of the reasons why the Council had to be postponed. 23 The fact that world Orthodoxy is heterogeneous LQ LWV GLIIHUHQW KLVWRULFDO FXOWXUDORUJDQLVDWLRQDO and other dimensions is not new DQGQRWDVLQEXWUDWKHU WKHUHDOLW\ZKLFKLVLQIXOODFFRUGZLWKWKHLQFDUQDWLRQDOFKDUDFWHURI&KULVWLDQLW\ itself. The idea of a contemporary Pan-Orthodox Council was precisely to demonstrate that this heterogeneity does not contradict the spiritual unity of Orthodoxy 22 9DVLOLRV 1 0DNULGHV ³2UWKRGR[ &KULVWLDQ 5LJRULVP $WWHPSWLQJ WR 'HOLQHDWH D 0XOWLIDFHWHG3KHQRPHQRQ´ Interdisciplinary Journal for Religion and Transformation in Contemporary Society  –252. 23 +RO\6\QRGRIWKH5XVVLDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFK³2QWKH6LWXDWLRQ&DXVHGE\WKH5HIXVDORI 6HYHUDO /RFDO 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFKHV WR 3DUWLFLSDWH LQ WKH +RO\ DQG Great Council of the 2UWKRGR[&KXUFK´85/KWWSVPRVSDWUXHQQHZV>@

The Orthodox Church before and after the Council of Crete

123

EXWVKRZVLWVVWUHQJWKDQGYLWDOLW\2EYLRXVO\WKHFRQFLOLDUSURFHVVshould be built anew on the ground of stable Pan-Orthodox institutions. Neither the pre-conciliar Pan-Orthodox conferences nor the Pan-Orthodox secretariat could demonstrate the ability to resolve issues at the Pan-Orthodox level. Today the only workable Pan-Orthodox institution is the Synaxis of the Orthodox Primates. The Council of Crete did not make any decisions about the future of the PanOrthodox conciliar proceVVH[FHSt for the proposal to make the council a regular meeting with a periodicity of 7-10 years. This means that the question of how the cRQFLOLDUSURFHVVZLOOFRQWLQXHUHPDLQVRSHQ,WLVLPSRUWDQWKRZHYHUWKDWRXWdated isolationist schemes do not pUHYDLOLQ2UWKRGR[HFFOHVLRORJ\)RUWKLVWKH Council of Crete should not become an excuse for both the four churches that UHIXVHGWRSDUWLFLSDWHDQGIRUWKHWHQFKXUFKHVWKDWWRRNSDUWWRLVRODWHWKHPVHOYHV The main lesson of the Council of Crete is that the attempt of the Orthodox Churches of the whole world to manifest their fidelity to the vertical dimension RIHFFOHVLDOEHLQJKDVVRIDUIDLOHGDQGLWVKRUL]RQWDOGLPHQVLRQKDVWriumphed. +RZHYHUWKH&RXQFLORI&UHWHLVRQO\WKHILUVWVWHSLQWKHQHwest Pan-Orthodox conciliar practice. In any eventWKLVVWHSVKRXOGEHZHOFRPHGas more successful ones can be expected in the futureERWKRUJDQLVDWLRQDOO\DQGWKHRORJLFDOO\

The Council and “Alternative Orthodoxy”: Who Was not Invited to the Pan-Orthodox Council? Sebastian Rimestad The Orthodox Church can be likened to a “confederation” of autocephalous churches that mutually recognise each other of being full manifestations of Christ’s Church on Earth. The Pan-Orthodox Council in Crete in 2016 showed this quite succinctly by allowing each of the 14 universally recognised autoFHSKDORXV FKXUFKHV UHJDUGOHVV RI WKHLU DFWXDO VL]H WR VHQG D GHOHJDWLRQ RI  bishops and additionally five consultantsHYHQLILQWKHHQGVROHO\FKXUFKHV participated. +RZHYHU WKH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK LV PXFK more complex than this short introGXFWLRQPLJKWVXJJHVWDQGWKHTXHVWLRQRIZKRZDVQRWLQYLWHGWRWKH Council can be answered at several levels. On the moVWEDVLFOHYHORQHLPSRUWDQW category is lay people. Since the delegations consisted solely of bishopsZLWKOD\ specialists only functioning as advisors to the delegations without the right to VSHDNOD\SHRSOHZHUHQRWGLUHFWO\UHSUHVHQWHGLQWKHZRUNLQJVRIWKHFRXQFLO $QRWKHUPDLQFDWHJRU\LVZRPHQZKRZHUHQRWDEOHWRSDUWLFLSDWHIRUWKHVDPH reasons as the lay people. These two categories were excluded from the Council proceedings primarily with reference to Orthodox tUDGLWLRQZKHUHWKHFRXQFLOV have been customarily the affair of bishops. The Moscow Sobor of 1917–1918 was an exception in this UHJDUGVLQFHLWDOORZHGDFWLYHOD\SDUWLFLSDWLRQ 1 Some RWKHU ORFDO FRXQFLOV VLQFH WKHQ KDYH LQFOXGHG DFWLYH OD\SHUVRQV HVSHFLDOOy in GLDVSRUDVLWXDWLRQVEXWWKLV is the exception rather than the norm. At the Crete &RXQFLOWKHUHZHUHDWRWDORIOD\ SHRSOHDQGILYHZRPHQDPRQJWKHGHOHJDWHV whereby several of them were acting as translators.2 Out of a total of 237 GHOHJDWHVWKLVLVcertainly not a high number. Another large group of Orthodox believers ZKR ZHUH QRW GLUHFWO\ LQYLWHG were the diaspRUD VWUXFWXUHV RI WKH GLIIHUHQW FKXUFKHV +RZHYHU HVSHFLDOO\ WKH delegation from &RQVWDQWLQRSOH ZKRVH MXULVGLFWLRQ H[WHQGV SULPDULO\ WR *UHHN Orthodox IDLWKIXO OLYLQJ LQ WKH :HVWHUQ ZRUOG LQFOXGHG ELVKRSV DFWLYH LQ WKH diaspora. 14 out of the 25 bishops in this delegation did not arrive from the territories unequivocally reporting to the Patriarchate in Constantinople. This includes six bishops of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. The delegations from 1 2

6HH&KULVWRSKHG¶$ORLVLR³(FFOHVLRORJLFDO,QVLJKWVRQWKH0RVFRZ&RXQFLORI–´ The Wheel  –38. 7KHOLVWRIGHOHJDWHVLVUHSURGXFHGLQ%DUEDUD+DOOHQVOHEHQHG Einheit in Synodalität. 'LH RIIL]LHOOHQ 'RNXPHQWH GHU 2UWKRGR[HQ 6\QRGH DXI .UHWD  ELV  -XQL  0QVWHU–111.

126

Sebastian Rimestad

Serbia and Romania also included diaspora bishops. The other churches present in Crete do not entertain any ecclesiastical structures outside their core territory. 7KHGHOHJDWLRQVRI$QWLRFK5XVVLDDQG%XOJDULDZRXOGOLNHO\KDYHLQFOXGHGWKHLU respective diaspora structures too. As a further compOLFDWLRQPDQ\RIWKHGLDVSRUDFRPPXQLWLHVH[LVWLQSDUDOOHO VWUXFWXUHV)RUH[DPSOHWKH0RVFRZ3DWULDUFKDWHLQWKHGLDVSRUDFRQVLVWVRIWKH PDWULDUFKDOVWUXFWXUHVEXWSDUDOOHOWRWKDWWKHUHDUHWKHVWUXFWXUHVRIWKH5XVVLDQ Orthodox Church Outside RussLD52&25 :KLOHWKH\DUHIXOO\LQWHJUDWHGLQWR WKH 0RVFRZ 3DWULDUFKDWH RQ D WKHRORJLFDO OHYHO WKH SDUDOOHO VWUXFWXUHV ZKLFK sometimes still have a hard time cooperating FRQWLQXH WR H[LVW RQ WKH OHYHO RI administration and hierarchy. Other parallel strXFWXUHV VXFK DV WKH YDULRXV national churches under Constantinople’s MXULVGLFWLRQLQ1RUWK$PHULFDGLGQRW have any representatives in Crete. This includes the Albanian Orthodox Diocese RI$PHULFDWKH$PHULFDQ&DUSDWKR-Russian Orthodox Diocese and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA. The Archdiocese of Orthodox Parishes of 5XVVLDQ7UDGLWLRQLQ:HVWHUQ(XURSHWKH3DULV([DUFKDWH 3 is another one of these VWUXFWXUHV DV DUH WKH GRXEOH MXULVGLFWLRQV LQ WKH 5HSXEOLF RI 0ROGRYD DQG Estonia. 4 The delegation from Constantinople included Metropolitan Stephanos &KDUDODPELGHV  RI (VWRQLD 7KH GHOHJDWLRQ IURP 0RVFRZ ZRXOG SUREDEO\ QRW include MetropoOLWDQ.RUQLOLL-DNREV RI(VWRQLDEHFDXVHRIWKHODWWHU¶VKHDOWK but maybe another representative of the Moscow Estonian Orthodox Church. 5 1H[W WKH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK LQ $PHULFD DQ DXWRFHSKDORXV FKXUFK VWUXFWXUH that is recognised de facto but not de jure by the Patriarchate of Constantinople is a more serious case of non-representation. 6 Until JanuaU\  WKH DXWRFHSKDORXV&KXUFKRIWKH&]HFK/DQGVDQG6ORYDNLDZDVLQDVLPLODUSRVLWLRQLQ WKDW 3DWULDUFK %DUWKRORPHZ GLG QRW UHFRJQLVH LWV HOHFWHG KHDG 5RVWLVODY DV legitimate. 7 +RZHYHUWKLVSUREOHPZDVVROYHGZKHQ5RVWLVODYVHQW%DUWKRORPHZ a lettHURIDSRORJ\KRZHYHUstrategic this apology might have been. 8 3

4

5 6 7 8

The Exarchate was dissolved in November 2018 and the last $UFKELVKRS-HDQ5HQQHWHDX  was accepted into the folds of the Moscow Patriarchate as Metropolitan of Dubna a year ODWHU+RZHYHUVHYHUDOSDULVKHVUHIXVHGWRIROORZKLPDQGLQVWHDGFKRVHWKHORFDO*UHHN Metropolis or another jurisdiction. See Sebastian 5LPHVWDG ³8VLQJ +LVWRU\ DV D :HDSRQ -XULVGLFWLRQDO &RQIOLFWV RQ WKH 3HULSKHU\RIWKH2UWKRGR[:RUOG´LQ6HEDVWLDQ5LPHVWDGDQG9DVLOLRV10DNULGHVHGV , Coping with Change: Orthodox Christian Dynamics between Tradition, Innovation, and Realpolitik%HUOLQ–KHUH–198. Metropolitan Kornilii passed away in April 2018. 6HH/HZLV-3DWVDYRV³'LDVSRUDYV/RFDO&KXUFK&KXUFKHV7KH6SHFLILF3UREOHPVRI $PHULFD´ LQ&DUO*)UVWDQG5LFKDUG3RW]HGV KANON XXII – Diaspora+HQQHI 69–79. 6HH5LPHVWDG³8VLQJ+LVWRU\´DVQ –206. -LYNR 3DQHY ³/H 3DWULDUFDW °FXPpQLTXH D UHFRQQX OH PpWURSROLWH 5RVWLVODY SULPDW GH O¶eJOLVH RUWKRGR[H GHV 7HUUHV WFKqTXHV HW GH 6ORYDTXLH´ Orthodoxie.com 

The Council and “Alternative Orthodoxy”

127

The non-invited I have mentioned so far are generally recognised as true Orthodox believers and their non-inclusion in the direct participation in the Council does not mainly stem from theological or other disagreementsEXWIURP practical considerations. $OO RI WKHVH JURXSV ZHUH UHSUHVHQWHG WKRXJK LQ PRVW FDVHVRQO\LQGLUHFWO\through members of the respective delegations who would keep their interests in mind. A prominent example is the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (Moscow Patriarchate ZKLFKZDVQRWDOORZHGWRVHQGLWV own delegation to the Council but would have been represented through the Moscow Patriarchate. This was vividly demonstrated during the last pre-conciliar Synaxis at the end of January 2016ZKHUHWKH5XVVLDQGHOHJDWLRQFRQVLVWHGRIWKHWZRPRVWSURPLQHQW Russian hierarchs – 3DWULDUFK.LULOODQG0HWURSROLWDQ+LODULRQ$OIH\HY – and Metropolitan 2QXIULLWKHKHDGRIWKLV Ukrainian Orthodox Church. 9 What is important to keep in PLQG DV DOVR 3aul Valliere points out in his contribution in WKLVYROXPHLVWKDW – ecclesiologically speaking – a council is not VXSSRVHG WR EH DERXW ZHLJKLQJ LQWHUHVWV XS DJDLQVW HDFK RWKHU EXW DERXW GLVFHUQLQJWKHZLOORIWKH+RO\6SLULW7KHLGHDOLVWKXVDKDUPRQLRXVPHHWLQJ during which everybody present works towards the same goal and leaves his ZRUOGO\LQWHUHVWVEHKLQG+RZHYHUWKH2UWKRGR[KLHUDUFKVLQWKLVZRUOGDUHIDr IURP SHUIHFW DQG VRPHERG\ ZDV ERXQG WR IHHO PLVUHSUHVHQWHG 7KH )LQQLVK 2UWKRGR[&KXUFKIRURQHLVDYHU\PRGHUQDQGRSHQPLQRULW\VWDWHFKXUFKZKLFK has little in common with the more nationally minded majority churches in the %DONDQV'HYHORSPHQWVLQWKLVFKXUFKEHDUOLWWOHUHVHPEODQFHWRGHYHORSPHQWVLQ other parts of thH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKand it not having direct representatives at the Pan-Orthodox Council might have a negative impact among the Orthodox in Finland. The Finnish case will feature again at a later stage. There are other categories in the group of the non-invLWHGWRRWKRXJK0RVW LPSRUWDQWO\ WKH QRQ-2UWKRGR[ ERWK HDUO\ “detractors” from Orthodoxy – the Oriental Orthodox Churches – and later “schismatics” – the Catholics and Protestants – had no representation. Their absence does not interest much in this cKDSWHU as they are treated more succinctly in other contributions in this volume. This chapter focuses on those detractors ZKR VWLOO FRQVLGHU WKHPVHOYHV 2UWKRGR[ although they are not recognised as such by the mainstream church. This is a group one might call “alternative Orthodoxy”. It is a very multifarious and diverse JURXS UDQJLQJ IURP WKH 5XVVLDQ 2OG %HOLHYHUV YLD WKH Orthodox Church of Montenegro to reformed Orthodox embracing innovation and modernity.

9

URL: KWWSRUWKRGR[LHFRPOH-patriarcat-oecumenique-a-reconnu-le-metropolite-rostisla v-primat-de-leglise-orthodoxe-des-terres-tcheques-et-de-VORYDTXLH>@ ³6\QD[LV RI 3ULPDWHV RI /RFDO 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK &RPSOHWHV LWV :RUN LQ *HQHYD´ 85/KWWSVPRVSDWUXHQQHZV>@

128

Sebastian Rimestad

The Russian scholar of religion Anatolii Leshchinskii distinguishes six categories of “alternative” Orthodox groups: 10 D 8QGHUJURXQGFRPPXQLWLHV E “Emigration” communities F $QWL-reformists G “Genuine” Orthodox Churches H $XWRFHSKDOLVWV I 5HIRUPHGOLEHUDOFRPPXQLWLHV ,QZKDWIROORZVHDFKRIWKHVHJURXSVDUHDQDO\VHGLQUHODWLRQWRWKH3DQ-Orthodox Council at Crete.

D Underground Communities The category of underground – or catacomb – communities is a relic of the FRPPXQLVWSHULRGZKHQUHOLJLRQZDVVXSSUHVVHG and the opportunities of religious choice were severely limited. 7KHUHIRUH UHOLJLRXV FRPPXQLWLHV ZKRVH existence was threatened by the anti-religious sentiment among political authorLWLHVVRPHWLPHVRSWHGIRUJRLQJXQGHUJURXQGDQGFRQWLQXHWKHLUDFWLYLWLHVLQVHcret. This happened also to numerous Orthodox clergy and believers in the Soviet Union who broke contacts with the official representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate whenever these compromised too much with the Soviet authorities in their eyes. 11 7KHPRVWQRWDEOHFDVHRIVXFKGLVREHGLHQFHKDSSHQHGLQZKHQ the Patriarchal deputy locum tenens Sergii Stragorodskii demanded of all his bishops to sign a declaration of loyalty to the Soviet Regime. Numerous bishops and other clergy refused to follow suit and went into hiding or continued to exist outside the sphere of the institutional church. The groups that followed such FOHUJ\EDODQFHGRQWKHOLPLWVRIFDQRQLFDODQGVHFXODUOHJDOLW\E\EHLQJHLWKHULQ opposition to the official church or simply acting independently of it. Similar protests appeared from 1943 onwards ZKHQ WKH Patriarchate was restored by Stalin and closely controlled and exploited. The religious underground RIWKH6RYLHW8QLRQKDVEHHQWKHVXEMHFWRIVHYHUDODFDGHPLFVWXGLHVHYHQWKRXJK LWLVGLIILFXOWWRFRPSOHWHO\JUDVSLWDFDGHPLFDOO\VLQFHLWDFWHGLQVHFUHWDQGWKHUH were often little contacts between various heterogeneous groups. After the collapse of the communist system and the liberalisation of religious OLIHWKHUHDUHQRORQJHU2UWKRGR[XQGHUJURXQGVWUXFWXUHVLQ5XVVLD6RPHRIWKH 10 $QDWROLL /HVKFKLQVNLL ɐɟɪɤɨɜɧɵɟ ɪɚɡɞɟɥɟɧɢɹ ɜ ɩɪɚɜɨɫɥɚɜɢɢ: ɫɨɰɢɹɥɶɧɚɹ ɨɛɭɫɥɨɜɥɟɧɧɨɫɬɶ ɢ ɬɢɩɨɥɨɝɢɹ >&KXUFK'LYLVLRQVLQ2UWKRGR[\6RFLDO*HQHVLVDQG7\SRORJ\@ 6DDUEUFNHQ–129. The groups are slightly re-ordered to suit my argument. 11 ,ELG 242–245.

The Council and “Alternative Orthodoxy”

129

structures that existed during the Soviet era have survived and relabelled themselves. @

132

Sebastian Rimestad

ROCOR” or at least “the inauguration of a cautious period in which the boundaries for the Western-Rite will be determined”. 26 This is another test for the boundaries of mainstream Orthodoxy tooHYHQ if it had little significance for the Pan-Orthodox Council and is absolutely secondary in relation to the question of primacy and synodality that haunts the Orthodox Church at the moment.

F $QWL-Reformists ,Q WKLV FDWHJRU\ /HVKFKLQVNLL SODFHV WKRVH 2UWKRGR[ FRPPXQLWLHV who resist reform attempts carried through by a canonical church. 27 The most well-known RI WKHVH DUH WKH 2OG %HOLHYHUV ZLWKLQ WKH 5XVVLDQ 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK ZKR VSOLW from the Moscow Patriarchate in the 17th FHQWXU\DQGWKH2OG&DOHQGDULVWVZKR split from the different Orthodox Churches LQWKH%DONDQVVWDUWLQJZLWK*UHHFH  after the latter introduced the revised Julian calendar from the 1920s onwards. 28 These communities claim to harbour the true and undistorted Orthodox faith. In IDFW LW LV QRW FOHDU IURP /HVKFKLQVNLL¶V FDWHJRULVDWLRQ ZKDW GLVWLQJXLVKHV WKHP from the nexW FDWHJRU\ WKH “genuine” Orthodox CKXUFKHV ZKRVH PDLQ characteristics is this insistence on having avoided the distortion of true 2UWKRGR[\ZKLFKKDVEHIDOOHQPDLQVWUHDP2UWKRGR[\EHLWLQUHJDUGWR“Papist thought´ the “heresy of Ecumenism”RUVLPSOy the Western calendar. 29 The two categories are therefore treated together.

G “Genuine” Orthodox Churches An important feature of these “genuine” Orthodox Churches is that they historically often also fell under the category of persecuted or “underground” FRPPXQLWLHV7KLVZDVWKHFDVHZLWKWKH5XVVLDQ2OG%HOLHYHUVEXWDOVRZLWKWKH “Josephites” (IosifliDQ\  ZKR UHIXVHG WR FRPSO\ ZLWK 0HWURSROLWDQ 6HUJLL¶V GHFODUDWLRQRIOR\DOW\ZLWKLQWKH6RYLHW8QLRQDQGZHUHWKHUHIRUHSHUVHFXWHG 30 MoreovHU WKH2OG&DOHQGDULVWVKDGDGLIILFXOWWLPHLQVRPHSHULRGVEXWGXHWR WKHVHSDUDWLRQRIVWDWHDQGFKXUFKLQPRVWFRXQWULHVQRZDGD\VWKH\GRQRWVXIIHU 26 )DWKHU$LGDQ³&KDQJH&RPHVWRWKH52&25:HVWHUQ5LWH´URL: KWWS VDULVEXULXPEORJVSRWGHFKDQJH-comes-to-rocor-western-ULWHKWPO>@ 27 Leshchinskiiɐɟɪɤɨɜɧɵɟɪɚɡɞɟɥɟɧɢɹ DVQ  225. 28 -RKQ:0RUULVOrthodox Fundamentalists: A Critical View0LQQHDSROLV01$ 9 6OHVDUHY ɋɬɚɪɨɫɬɢɥɶɧɢɣ ɪɚɫɤɨɥ ɜ ɢɫɬɨɪɢɢ ɉɪɚɜɨɫɥɚɜɧɨɣ ɐɟɪɤɜɢ –  >7KH 2OG &DOHQGDULVW 6FKLVP LQ WKH +LVWRU\ RI WKH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK – @ Moscow 2009. 29 Leshchinskiiɐɟɪɤɨɜɧɵɟɪɚɡɞɟɥɟɧɢɹ DVQ  30 ,ELG

The Council and “Alternative Orthodoxy”

133

persecution to the same extent anymore. Some of the Orthodox underground communities that survived the fall of the Soviet Union sometimes were revived as “genuine” Orthodox Churches – claiming that the entire history of the Moscow Patriarchate since the death of Patriarch Tikhon in 1925 has been a distortion of the true church. 31 ,QIDFWWhey can count on sympathetic sentiments from sections RIWKH5XVVLDQHOLWHZKRUHPDLQOR\DOWRWKH0RVFRZ3DWULDUFKDWH but agree to some of the historical arguments of these “alternative” Orthodox communities.32 ,QWKHFDVHRIWKH2OG%HOLHYHUVVRPHRIWKHPKDYHLQWKHFRXUVHRIKLVWRU\ been re-LQWHJUDWHGLQWKH5XVVLDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZKHUHWKH\HQMR\DVituation similar to the Western-Rite commuQLWLHV GHVFULEHG DERYH DV VWHSchildren of mainVWUHDP 2UWKRGR[\ ,Q WKH FDVH RI WKH 2OG &DOHQGDULVWV WKHUH DUH HQRXJK mainstream churches that have not carried out the calendar reform (most notably 6HUELD DQG 5XVVLD  VR WKH\ FDQ FODLP WR UHPDLQ FRQQHFWHG WKHRORJLFDOO\ ZLWK PDLQVWUHDP2UWKRGR[\HYHQLIWKH\DUHQRWRIILFLDOO\LQFRPPXQLRQZLWKLW7KHUH is considerable sympathy within some canonical churches towards the Old CalenGDULVWVWRRHVSHFLDOO\IURPZLWKLQWKH&KXUFKRI*HRUJLDDQGWKH52&25VWUXFtures. This is thus another case where the boundaries between canonical and mainstream Orthodoxy and “alternative” Orthodoxy become blurred. These churches’ relations to the Pan-Orthodox Council can be exemplified by a document on the ecclesiological position of the Old Calendar Orthodox Church RI%XOJDULD7KHUHit is stated that official Orthodoxy “represents an increasingly GLOXWHG SOXUDOLVWLF 2UWKRGR[\ ZKLFK LV JUDGXDOO\ WHDULQJ LWVHOI DZD\ IURP LWV VSLULWXDOLGHQWLW\DQGLQFUHDVLQJO\EHFRPLQJDVXUURJDWHIRUDXWKHQWLF2UWKRGR[\ without reforming it abruptly or defiantly”. 33 )RU WKHP WKH Council cannot be Pan-OrthodR[EHFDXVHRIWKHKHUHVLHVRI(cumenismOLEHUDOLVPUHODWLYLVP and Sergianism: The “(self- GHOXVLRQWKDWGHFHSWLRQFRXOGEHXVHGDVDPHDQVWRKHOS WKH7UXWKµVXUYLYH¶DQGWKDWFROODERUDWLRQZLWKWKHHQHPLHVRIWKH&KXUFKZDVWKH ZD\WRµSURWHFW¶+HU´. 34 It does not need to interHVWWKHPWKHQZKDWKDSSHQVDW what they view as a Pseudo-Pan-Orthodox Council. Another issue when dealing with this kind of Orthodox communities is their insistence on being the “genuine” Orthodox Church. The entry for March 2014 in the timeline published on the website of the “Genuine Orthodox Church of America – Under the Leadership of Archbishop Gregory of Denver & Colorado” very well exemplifies the problem this self-perception causes: 31 ,ELG253–254. 32 6HH 1LNRODL 0LWURNKLQ Ɋɭɫɫɤɚɹ ɉɪɚɜɨɫɥɚɜɧɚɹ ɐɟɪɤɨɜɶ ɫɨɜɪɟɦɟɧɧɨɟ ɫɨɫɬɨɹɧɢɟ ɢ ɚɤɬɭɚɥɶɧɵɟ ɩɪɨɛɥɟɦɵ >7KH 5XVVLDQ 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK &RQWHPSRUDU\ 6LWXDWLRQ DQG &XUUHQW3UREOHPV@6HFRQGHGLWLRQ0RVFRZ–190. 33 3KRWLLRI7ULDGLW]D“The Ecclesiological Position of the Old Calendar Orthodox Church of %XOJDULD´F85/KWWSVZZZKVLURUJSGIV(D(NNOHV7KH VHLV%XOJDULDSGI >@ 34 ,ELG6HHDOVR/HVKFKLQVNLLɐɟɪɤɨɜɧɵɟɪɚɡɞɟɥɟɧɢɹ DVQ 

134

Sebastian Rimestad March 2014 - The schismatic synod of the G.O.C. of Greece under Archbishop .DOOLQLNRV DQG WKH KHUHWLFDO V\QRG RI WKH &\SULDQLWHV WKH 6\QRG RI 5HVLVWRUVHQWHULQWRXQLRQZLWKHDFKRWKHU7KLVLVDFFRPSOLVKHGZLWK no repentance from either side. Two illegitimate and schismatic groups unite to IRUPRQH6\QRGOHGE\.DOOLQLNRVFRPSRVHGRIWZHQW\-two bishops. 35

Not only do they accuse the “official church” of being non-FDQRQLFDOEXWWKH\ also repeatedly accuse each other of not following the true faith. Without a grounding in a heterogeneous community of believers and a clear idea of primacy DQG KLHUDUFK\ WKHVH GLVWLQFW LQFRPSDWLEOH JURXSLQJV DUH ERXQG WR SUROLIHUDWH IXUWKHUDQGWKHUHZLOOSUREDEO\QHYHUEHDXQLILHG“genuine” Orthodoxy. NeverWKHOHVVWKH\DOOFODLPWKDWWKHSUREOHPVRIWKHPodern world emanate from the “worldly” 2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZKLFKKDVORVWWRXFKZLWKWKHVDFUHGUHDOLWLHVDQG fails to reject its heresies. According to WKHRORJLDQ -RKQ 0RUULV many of the PHPEHUVRIWKHVHJURXSVVXIIHUIURPVSLULWXDOGHOXVLRQ³WKHFRQGLWLRQ by which a person who strives to grow spiritually begins to believe they have achieved a degree of holiness higher than what they have actually attained. As a UHVXOW they begin to judge others instead of concentrating on their own sins”. 36 Some of the criticism of the “official” churches does have resonances also within these church communitiesKRZHYHUZKHUHWKHUHDUHFonservative voices despising Ecumenism and “modern” innovations. Some of the most controversial discussions at the Council of Crete centred on the issue of EFXPHQLVP ZKLFK shows how it is contested even within mainstream Orthodoxy. The compromise reached in the document “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the &KULVWLDQ:RUOG´DVDQDO\VHGLQ3HWHU'H0Hy’s chapter in WKLVYROXPHZDV a direct result of the unwillingness of some delegations to openly embrace the Ecumenical Movement. The liberal innovations are treated at a later stage in this chapter.

H $XWRFHSKDOLVWCommunities 7KHJURXSVPHQWLRQHGXQGHUD DQGE WULHGWRHYDGHWKHLU“mother church” for political reasonsZKHUHDV the grRXSVXQGHUF DQGG RSSRVHGLW on theological grounds7KHJURXSVLQFDWHJRU\H DWWHPSWWREHFRPHWKHLURZQ“mother church” – DQGLIQHHGEHE\IRUFH7KHWKHRORJLFDOGLIIHUHQFHVZLWKPDLQVWUHDP2UWKRGR[\DUHLQVLJQLILFDQWVLQFHWKHVHJURXSVSULPDULO\RSSRVHWKHLU“mother church” RQDGPLQLVWUDWLYHJURXQGVVRPHWLPHVZLWKSROLWLFDOPRWLYHVLQWKHbackground. 35 “Timeline of the Church of the Genuine Orthodox Christians of Russia and Greece and the *UHDW $SRVWDV\ RI 2UWKRGR[\ LQ WKH WK &HQWXU\´  85/ KWWSZZZ JRFDPHULFDRUJKLVWRU\BFDQRQLFLW\BWH[WBWLPHOLQHVKWPO>@ 36 0RUULVOrthodox Fundamentalists DVQ 

The Council and “Alternative Orthodoxy”

135

The most well-knRZQ RI WKHVH FRPPXQLWLHV H[LVW LQ 8NUDLQH (VWRQLD North 0DFHGRQLDDQG0RQWHQHJUR,Q8NUDLQHLWLVWKHUHFRJQLWLRQRIWKHDXWRFHSKDOLVW GULYHE\WKH3DWULDUFKDWHRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOHGLVUHJDUGLQJWKHDUJXPHQWDWLRQRIWKH 0RVFRZ3DWULDUFKDWHWKDWKDVFDXsed a rift between these two important Patriarchates in 2019$VLPLODUULIWDSSHDUHGLQRYHUWKH(VWRQLDQFDVHDOWKRXJKLW healed again after three months. 37 The current schism between Constantinople and Moscow LV QRW OLNHO\ WR KHDO VRRQ VLQFH 8NUDine is much more significant geostrategically than Estonia. 7KHDXWRFHSKDOLVWVZKR DOVRH[LVWLQ/DWYLDDQG%HODUus as well as in several West (XURSHDQ FRXQWULHV DUJXH WKDW WKH SULQFLSOH RI “one bishop – one local church” should correspond to “one nation-state – one autocephalous church”. Especially in the case of North 0DFHGRQLDWKLVDUJXPHQWLVVWURQJO\XQGHUSLQQHG E\VWDWHDXWKRULWLHVZKRDFWLYHO\WU\WRVXSSUHVVDOWHUQDWLYHXQGHUVWDQGLQJV 38 In WKHRWKHUFDVHVWKHDXWRFHSKDOLVWVGRQRWKDYHWKHVXSSRUWRIWKHVHFXODUSRZHUV which treat them like any other religious community. 8QWLOIRUH[DPSOHWKH8NUDLQLDQVWDWHKDGGHFODUHGLWVHOILPSDUWLDOLQ religious matters. The state tried not to privilege any of the three Orthodox Church structures that existed in Ukraine: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (Moscow 3DWULDUFKDWH  WKH 8NUDLQLDQ 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK .\LY 3DWULDUFKDWH  DQG WKH Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. The latter two were autocephalist JURXSVZKLFKKDGDVWURQJIROORZLQJEXWZHUHQRWFRXQWHGDVOHJLWLPDWHFKXUFK FRPPXQLWLHV E\ WKH ZRUOGZLGH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK which officially only recogQLVHGWKH8NUDLQLDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFK0RVFRZ3DWULDUFKDWH  The two autocephalist Ukrainian Churches tried to convince the Ukrainian VWDWHRQWKHRQHKDQGDQGZRUOG2UWKRGR[\RQWKHRWKHURIWKHOHJLWLPDF\RIWKHLU FODLPV +RZHYHU 7KH 0RVFRZ 3DWULDUFKDWH UHIXVHG WR EXGJH UHJDUGLQJ WKH Ukrainian Church and threatened to destabilise the entire Orthodox world if 3DWULDUFK%DUWKRORPHZZRXOGDFWXQLODWHUDOO\LQ8NUDLQH7KHLPPHQVHLPSRUtance accorded to the various Patriarchal visits to Ukraine over the last decade as well as the decision to leave the Ukrainian question completely out of the Council proceedings testified to the importance of this issue. 39 37 6HEDVWLDQ5LPHVWDG³2UWKRGR[&KXUFKHVLQ(VWRQLD´LQ/XFLDQ1/HXVWHDQHG Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twenty-First Century$ELQJGRQDQG1HZ@ /HVKFKLQVNLLɐɟɪɤɨɜɧɵɟɪɚɡɞɟɥɟɧɢɹ DVQ  ,ELG–267. $OH[DQGHU $JDGMDQLDQ “Reform and Revival in Moscow Orthodox Communities: Two 7\SHVRI5HOLJLRXV0RGHUQLW\´LQLGHPTurns of Faith, Search for Meaning – Orthodox Christianity and Post-Soviet Experience)UDQNIXUWDP0DLQ–KHUH

138

Sebastian Rimestad

national-WHUULWRULDOERXQGDULHVDVWKLVLVDWUDQVIRUPDWLRQRIPHGLHYDOVWDWHVWUXFWXUHVWRFRQWHPSRUDU\FKXUFKDGPLQLVWUDWLRQZKLFKLQWXUQEHFRPHVLQIXVHGZLWK political dependence and spiritual stagnation”. 45 :LWKVXFKDQHFFOHVLRORJLFDOVWDUWLQJSRLQWWKHRUJDQLVDWLRQDQGH[HFXWLRQRI the Pan-Orthodox Council cannot be conceived as something desirable. The ecclesiology of these groups is more akin to that of the Protestants – the church is regarded as a community of EHOLHYHUV its organisational structures are considered secondary. ConsequentlyGHYHORSPHQWVZLWKLQWKHPDLQVWUHDPRussian Orthodox Church do not impact on these communities at all. The same Apostolic Orthodox Church commented on the meeting between Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of Moscow in April 2016 stating that “it is not possible to infer any ‘change in the 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK¶ IURP WKLV PHHWLQJ HYHQ XQGHU D PLFURVFRSH 'LSORPDWLF meetings of a similar character have taken place always and everywhere”. 46 Father *HRUJLL.RFKHWNRYa spokesperson for religious liberalism within the Russian 2UWKRGR[&KXUFKJDYHDQLQWerview after the decision of the Moscow Patriarchate to withdraw from the Pan-Orthodox Council+HDUJXHGWKDW³WKHHUD of the Ecumenical Councils is definitely past. The task is now to find a new way of how to express the church’s synodality (sobornost’ RIKRZWRHPERG\LW >«@ :H QHHG WR EHJLQ ILUVW ZLWK ORFDO V\QRGDOLW\ IURP WKH ERWWRP XS Rne that develops from a living experience of unity and love among Christian believers”. 47 Kochetkov’s stance was welcomed by the MosFRZ 3DWULDUFKDWH although it is increasingly critical of his reformist endeavours. The existence of Western-Rite communities in the Orthodox World has already been alluded to. While these communities in some respects count as representatives of the liberal group of “alternative Orthodoxy” WKH\ DOVR RIWHQ embody some very conservative views. Many of their proponents argue that they have joined the Orthodox Church precisely in opposition to what they perceive as exaggerated liberalism in their previous churches. 48 They are only “liberal” when it comes to OLWXUJLFDOODQJXDJHDQGVW\OHZKLOHWKH\WU\WRHPXODWHFRQVervative 45 ³Ⱦɟɤɥɚɪɚɰɢɹ ɨ ɫɨɡɞɚɧɢɢ Ⱥɩɨɫɬɨɥɶɫɤɨɣ ɉɪɚɜɨɫɥɚɜɧɨɣ ɐɟɪɤɜɢ´ >'HFODUDWLRQ RQ WKH &UHDWLRQRIWKH$SRVWROLF2UWKRGR[&KXUFK@85/KWWSUDSFUXLQGH[SKS dokumHQW\LWHPGHNODUDWVL\D-o-VR]GDQLL-apostolskoj-pravoslavnoj-WVHUNYL>@ 46 ³Ɂɚɹɜɥɟɧɢɟ ɡɚɦɟɫɬɢɬɟɥɹ ɩɪɟɞɫɬɨɹɬɟɥɹ Ⱥɉɐ´ >6WDWHPHQW RI WKH 'HSXW\ +HDG RI WKH $2&@85/KWWSVDSF-VLQRGOLYHMRXUQDOFRP>@ 47 ³ɋɜɹɳɟɧɧɢɤ Ƚɟɨɪɝɢɣ Ʉɨɱɟɬɤɨɜ ɷɩɨɯɚ ɜɫɟɥɟɧɫɤɢɯ ɫɨɛɨɪɨɜ ɡɚɤɨɧɱɢɥɚɫɶ ɧɭɠɧɨ ɢɫɤɚɬɶɧɨɜɵɟɩɭɬɢɫɨɛɨɪɧɨɫɬɢ´>3ULHVW*HRUJLL.RFKHWNRY7KH(UDRIWKH(FXPHQLFDO &RXQFLOVLV2YHU:H1HHGWR)LQG1HZ:D\VRI6\QRGDOLW\6RERUQRVW¶@LQVestnik SFI  85/ KWWSVVILUXVIL-WRGD\QHZVVYLDVKFKLHQQLN-gieorghii-kochietkov-epo kha-vsielienskikh-soborov-]DNRQFKLODV-QX]KQR-iskat-novyie-puti-VRERUQRVWLKWPO > @ 48 6HH6HEDVWLDQ5LPHVWDG“Orthodoxes Christentum XQG.RQYHUVLRQVIRUVFKXQJ´LQ9DVLlios N. MakrLGHVHG  Orthodoxes Christentum – Interdisziplinäre Zugänge (Die ReliJLRQHQGHU0HQVFKKHLW 6WXWWJDUWLQSUHSDUDWLRQ 

The Council and “Alternative Orthodoxy”

139

Orthodox circles in relation to modern secular society. This is not to say that there are no Western-Rite communities that are far too liberal in many aspects to be DFFHSWHGE\PDLQVWUHDP2UWKRGR[\+RZHYHUGHYHORSPHQWVRQWKHJOREDOOHYHO of the Orthodox Church hardly interest the Western-5LWHJURXSVZKLFKDUHIHZ and far between and often exist outside canonical recognition. That “Protestantisation” has also had an impact on a canonically legitimate church is exemplified by the cases of Finland and Estonia. The autonomous 2UWKRGR[&KXUFKRI)LQODQGH[LVWLQJDVPLQRULW\VWDWHFKXUFKQH[WWRDQDEVROXWH majority LutherDQ &KXUFK KDV DGRSWHG VHYHUDO ³3URWHVWDQW´ WUDLWV VXFK DV WKH semi-open iconostasis or the Gregorian calendar completely (including the calculation of the date RI (DVWHU . Similar developments have also happened in the Estonian Church under Constantinople. 49 The well-founded concerns that the PanOrthodox Council would wish to abolish some of these practices in the name of conservatism did not materialise. This was mostly due to the strict adherence to WKH SUHYLRXVO\ DJUHHG XSRQ DJHQGD EXW DOVR WKH DEVHQFH RI WKH Churches of %XOJDULD5XVVLDDQG*HRUJLDwhich are the staunchest opponents of “Protestant” LQQRYDWLRQVhelped avoid such discussions. %XW QRW RQO\ LQ (VWRQLD DQG )LQODQG GRHV WKH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK GLVSOD\ “liberalising” tendencies. There are influential voices from within various local FKXUFKHVLQFOXGLQJWKH&KXUFKRI*UHHFHaccusing the Patriarchate of Constantinople of propagating some of these “Protestant” and “Catholic heresies”. The “heresy of Ecumenism”DVKDVDOUHDG\EHHQPHQWLRQHGLVYLJRrously opposed by conservative circles in almost all autocephalous Orthodox &KXUFKHV,QDGGLWLRQ the dispute about the notion of primacy in the Orthodox Church between the Constantinople and Moscow Patriarchates in 2014 illustrates these concerns. Around the eQGRIWKH0RVFRZ3DWULDUFKDWH published a text on the ecclesiological notion of primacy 7KLV WH[W ZKLFK ZDV SULQFLSDOO\ conceived for Ecumenical GLDORJXHZLWKWKH5RPDQ&DWKROLF&KXUFKGLVWLQJXLVKHVWKUHHOHYHOVRISULPDF\ $WWKHGLRFHVDQOHYHOWKHELVKRSLVWKHSULPDWHRIKLVGLRFHVH³2QWKHOHYHORIWKH autoceSKDORXV/RFDO&KXUFKSULPDF\EHORQJVWRWKHELVKRSHOHFWHGDV3ULPDWHRI the Local Church by a Council of her bishops.” 50 $WWKHXQLYHUVDOOHYHOKRZHYHU there is only a primacy of honour RIWKH3DWULDUFKDWHRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOHZKich is determined according to tradition and universal recognition. This document was challenged a few weeks later by a response from Constantinople. In hiVUHVSRQVH0HWURSROLWDQ(OSLGRSKoros (currently Greek Orthodox $UFKELVKRS RI $PHULFD  maintained that contrary to the MoscoZ RSLQLRQ SULPDF\LVQRWVRPHWKLQJEHVWRZHGXSRQVRPHRQHEXWLVLQKHUHQWLQWKHSHUVRQ 49 2QWKHDGDSWDWLRQRIWKH PXVLFDOSUDFWLFHLQWKH(VWRQLDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFKVHH-HIIHUV (QJHOKDUGW Singing the Right Way – Orthodox Christians and Secular Enchantment in Estonia2[IRUG 50 ³3RVLWLRQRIWKH0RVFRZ3DWULDUFKDWHRQWKH3UREOHPRI3ULPDF\LQWKH8QLYHUVDO&KXUFK´ 85/KWWSVPRVSDWUXHQQHZV>@

140

Sebastian Rimestad

RIWKHSULPDWH³:HFDQQHYHUHQFRXQWHUDQLPSHUVRQDOLQVWLWXWLRQDVLWZRXOGEH if primacy were to be conceived independently of a primate.” 51 7KHUHIRUH WKH PatriarcKRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOHLVWKHSULPDWHRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKQRWEHFDXVe he is recognised as such and tradition VD\VVREXWEHFDXVHKHLVWKH%LVKRSRI &RQVWDQWLQRSOH 7KH UHVSRQVH WKXV UHYHDOHG WKDW WKH WZR 3DWULDUFKDWHV DFFXVH each other of not understanding the fundamental tenets of Orthodox ecclesiology. )RU0RVFRZWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKLVIXOO\SUHVHQWLQHDFKORFDOGLRFHVHDQGWKH highest echelon of administrative unity is the autocephalous church. For ConstanWLQRSOHWKHYLVLEOHXQLW\RIDOOXQGHUWKHDGPLQLVWUDWLYHSULPDF\RI&RQVWDQWLQRSOH defines the cKXUFK$FFRUGLQJWR0RVFRZWKLVXQGHUVWDQGLQJLVWoo close to the universal primacy of the Roman Pope in the &DWKROLF&KXUFKZKHUHDV&RQVWDQtinople claims that Moscow attempts to replace the traditional “canonical primacy” with a “primacy of numbers” conflated with ethnicity.

Conclusion For most of tKH 2UWKRGR[ ZRUOG WKH TXHVWLRQ DERXW ZKHWKHU D FRPPXQLW\ LV canonical or “alternative” is not a question of right faith in theological termsEXW rather of administrative and jurisdictional subordination as well as of legitimate VXFFHVVLRQ&HUWDLQO\WKHre are limits to the freedom of theological thought within WKHPDLQVWUHDP2UWKRGR[&KXUFKEXWIRUPRVW“alternative” Orthodox commuQLWLHV RQH FDQ ILQG YHU\ VLPLODU WKHRORJLFDO VWDQGSRLQWV VRPHZKHUH LQ WKH canonical Orthodox world. One can therefore consider the Orthodox faith – both canonical and “alternative” – as a theological continuum ranging from very conVHUYDWLYHRUUHDFWLRQDU\WROLEHUDODQGPRGHUQ,QWKHFRQVHUYDWLYHHQGRQHZRXOG find the Church of Georgia and important parts of the Church of 5XVVLDDVZHOO as all the “genuine” 2UWKRGR[&KXUFKHV7KH&KXUFKHVRI)LQODQGDQG(VWRQLD VRPHRWKHUFXUUHQWVUHSRUWLQJWRWKH3DWULDUFKDWHRI&RQVWDQWLQRSOHDVZHOODVWKH reformist and liberal “alternative” Orthodox groupings may be situated at the RWKHUHQG0RVW2UWKRGR[&KULVWLDQVFDQRQLFDORU“alternative”ILQG themselves VRPHZKHUHLQWKHPLGGOHDQGWKHERXQGDU\EHWZHHQDFFHSWable and non-acceptable trends is somewhat blurred. 0RUHRYHUDQGYHU\LPSRUWDQWO\WKLVERXQGDU\FDQHDVLO\EHVKLIWHGLQRQH direction or the other if it suits the worldly interests of the canonical bishops concerned and their churches. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside RussiaIRU H[DPSOH ZKLFK LV DW WKH FRQVHUYDWLYH HQG RI WKH VFDOH XVHG WR EH RXWVLGH WKH FDQRQLFDO2UWKRGR[&KXUFKIRU\HDUV+RZHYHUZKHQWKHUHXQLILFDWLRQZLWK 51 Elpidophoros LambrLQLDGLV³)LUVWZLWKRXW(TXDOV$5HVSRQVHWRWKH7H[WRQ3ULPDF\RI WKH0RVFRZ3DWULDUFKDWH´85/KWWSZZZSDWULDUFKDWHRUJ-SULPXV-sine-paribushapantesis-eis-to-peri-proteiou-keimenon-tou-patriarcheiou-moschas-tou-sebasmiotatoumetropolitou-prouses-k-HOSLGRSKRURX>@

The Council and “Alternative Orthodoxy”

141

WKH 5XVVLDQ 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK 0RVFRZ 3DWULDUFKDWH  ZDV FRPSOHWHG LQ  there were few theological demands to be met by the former “schismatics”. It was PRVWO\DQDGPLQLVWUDWLYHSURFHGXUH2EYLRXVO\WKHUHDUHQXPHURXVFDVHVZKHUH LQGLYLGXDOVwho had been previously ODEHOOHGDVVFKLVPDWLFVare re-joining the church and have to repent and demonstrate a UHWXUQWRFDQRQLFDO2UWKRGR[\%ut when entLUHJURXSVUHWXUQWKLVLVRIWHQDPHUHDdministrative act – the WesternRite communities being a case in point. The Pan-Orthodox Council of Crete did not really change anything in regard to “alternative Orthodoxy”. Such communities were simply not invited and in most cases were not even interested in the Council0RUHRYHULQOLJKt of the insistence of the pre-conciliar meetings that the Council would not change either canon law or tKHRORJ\ LW GLG ILUVW DQG IRUHPRVW KDYH DQ LPSDFW RQ WKH FDQRQLFDO Orthodox ChuUFKHV &ODULI\LQJWKHERXQGDULHV between canonical and “alternative Orthodoxy” remains an ad-KRFH[HUFLVHZKLFKLVQRWOLNHO\WREHIRUPDOLVHG soon. ,URQLFDOO\Whe current rift in the Orthodox world between Cosntantinople and Moscow demonstrates that the boundary can even be construed as going right through the middle of mainstream Orthodoxy.

THE ORTHODOX CHURCH AND THE MODERN WORLD

The Orthodox Vision of the Modern World: &RQWH[W+LVWRU\and Meaning of the Synodal Document on Church Mission Alexander Agadjanian

The Origins and Context of the Orthodox Understanding of Today’s World In this chapter,ZRXOGOLNHWRHODERUDWHRQRQHWH[WWKDWZDVSUHVHQWHGDQGDGRSWed by the Pan-2UWKRGR[&RXQFLO&UHWH – a document named “The Mission of the Orthodox Church in Today’s World”. 1 %HIRUH,VWDUWDGLUHFWGLVFXVVLRQRI WKLVWH[WKRZHYHU,shall try to understand the origins and history of its formation in the course of the pre-cRQFLOLDUSURFHVVZKLFK sought to reach a Pan-Orthodox consensus on the matters raised in the document. /LNHDQ\KXPDQFRPPXQLW\WKHFKXUFKFDn think of itself in two ways: It can be an “inward” or an “outward” perspective. In the first caVH LW LV DERXW VHOIawareness and self-organisation. The second is about its self-determination within the world. My task is to concentrate upon this second perspective of Orthodox self-LGHQWLW\ IRU WKH GRFXPHQW , GLVFXVV LV GHYRWHG SUHFLVHO\ WR WKLV ³RXtward view” – DYLHZRIDFKDQJLQJZRUOGLQZKLFKWKHFKXUFKH[LVWVDQGDFWV ,Q WKLV UHJDUG LW PXVW EH VDLG WKDW WKH HQWLUH FRUSXV RI GRFXPHQWV DQG discussions of the pre-conciliar process – DVLQGHHGLQDZKROHDUUD\RILQWHUQDO texts of all Orthodox Churches – there has been a huge predominance of “the inward” perspective and only a relatively small number of texts reflecting on “the RXWZDUG´RQH+DUPRQLVDWLRQRIFDQRQLFDOTXHVWLRQVVPDOOGHWDLOVRIFKXUFKRUJDQLVDWLRQZRUVKLSFDOHQGDUDQGHVSHFLDOO\SULQFLSOHVRILQWHU-Orthodox relations have always evoked much more interest and have become the subject of much more intense disputes. “The outward” issues – how the church exists within the world at large – were usually outside official ecclesiastical rulingsEHLQJPRUH

1

³7KH0LVVLRQRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKLQ7RGD\¶V:RUOG´7KHRIILFLDOZHEVLWHRIWKH+RO\ DQG*UHDW&RXQFLO85/KWWSVZZZKRO\FRXQFLORUJ-PLVVLRQ-orthodox-churchtodays-ZRUOG>@. Four Churches refused to attend the Council and did not sign WKH GRFXPHQWV 7KH 5XVVLDQ 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK ZKR KDG EHHQ GHHSO\ LQYROYHG LQ WKH SUHYLRXVGLVFXVVLRQVDURXQGWKHGRFXPHQWWREHDQDO\VHGKHUHZDVDPRQJWKHVHIRXU7KH reasons and effects of boycotting the Council goes beyond the scope of the present chapter.

146

Alexander Agadjanian

DVXEMHFWRISULYDWHWKHRORJLFDOZRUNV,QDQ\FDVHWKH³H[WHUQDOFRQWH[W´– the world – has never been a central topic. 2 Such a clear predominance of the “inward view” is quite predictable and typical not only to Eastern Orthodoxy. The whole history of ecclesiastical selfconsciousness was built – at least in the post-Constantinian HUDDIWHU Christianity gained a central place in the ancient and then medieval culture and politics – upon two dimensions: firstLQWKHFRXUVHRIGLVSXWHVDURXQGLWVLQQHUDXWKHQWLFLW\RU RUWKRGR[\DQG secondE\FRQWUDVWLQJWKH³ULJKWHRXV RHFXPHQH´GHVWLQHGWREH VDYHG to the “chaos” of the non-Christian cultural space. The interest in the world DVDQH[WHUQDOHQYLURQPHQWPay appear only when the world in which the church OLYHV EHFRPHV LWVHOI DQ Other, when it is clearly distanced and alienated. The ³RXWZDUG´SHUVSHFWLYHLVGLUHFWHGDWFXOWXUHDQGVRFLHW\ZKLFKDUHSHUFHLYHGDs H[WHUQDOH[LVWLQJRXWVLGHWKH church. Although alienation had always been a part of the Christian ethos – even after the Constantinian “establishment” – the situation has changed with secularisation: The world has gradually become “non&KULVWLDQ´RUDWOHDVWLQDVRPHZKDWGLIIHUHQWVHQVHD“post-Christian” world. It LVWKURXJKWKLVDZDUHQHVVDQGDVDUHDFWLRQWRWKLVDZDUHQHVVRIWKHJURZLQJGLVWDQFHWKDWWKHLQWHUHVWGHYHORSVWRFXOWXUHDQGVRFLHW\DVVXFK7KLVLQWHUHVWZDV IUDPHGHLWKHUDVDQDWWHPSWRIDQHPRWLRQDOGHIHQVLYHUHDFWLRQ like the Roman Catholic Syllabus Errorum RI  RU DV DQ LQYROYHPHQW LQWR VHFXODU SXEOLF GLVFRXUVHVOLNHWKHRerum Novarum RIRUOLNHWKHSocial Gospel movement in American Protestantism of the late 19th and early 20th century. To EHVXUHWKH roRWVRIXQGHUVWDQGLQJWKHZRUOGDVDJLYHQUHDOLW\DQGLQSDUWLFXODUVRFLHW\DVD SDUWRILWJRPXFKGHHSHULQWRWKHSDVWLQWRWKHPLOOHQQLDOGHSWKRIWKHRORJLFDO thought and pastorDOSUDFWLFHEXWLQWKLVFKDSWHU there is no place for even a brief overview of these roots. 3 $V WKLV VHQVH RI GLVWDQFH JUHZ VWURQJHUZLWK SURJUHVVLQJ VHFXODULVDWLRQ DQ interest in social issues increased and became more and more direct. In the 20th FHQWXU\WKHHQRUPRXVHIIRUWVRI:HVWHUQ&KULVWLDQWKHRORJ\DLPHGQRWRQO\Dt rethinking the world as a whole but also understanding society and politics as VHSDUDWHREMHFWVLQWHUPVRIWKHFKXUFK¶VSODFHLQWKHP,WLVZRUWKPHQWLRQLQJ IRU LQVWDQFH WKH DWWHPSW RI D &KULVWLDQ VRFLRORJ\ DQG VRFLDO HWKLFV E\ (PLO 2

3

In inter-2UWKRGR[ GLVFXVVLRQV UHODWLRQV ZLWK RWKHU &KULVWLDQ GHQRPLQDWLRQV DQG WR D OHVVHUH[WHQWUHODWLRQVZLWKRWKHUUHOLJLRQVKDYHDOZD\VDFTXLUHGJUHDWDWWHQWLRQEHLQJWKH most important sourcHRIWKHFROOHFWLYHLGHQWLW\RIWKHFKXUFK+RZHYHUWKHVHLVVXHVDUH ORJLFDOO\EH\RQGWKHVFRSHRIWKHWRSLF,KDYHLGHQWLILHGWKHUHIRUHWKH\DUHQRWFRQVLGHUHG here. )RUDQDXWKRULWDWLYHWUHDWPHQWRIWKHPRGHUQKLVWRU\RI&KULVWLDQLW\VHH-DURVODY3HOLNDQ The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine. Vol. 5: Christian 'RFWULQHDQG0RGHUQ&XOWXUHVLQFH&KLFDJR2QWKH6RFLDO*RVSHOPRYHPHQW VHH&KULVWRSKHU(YDQVThe Social Gospel in American Religion: A History, 1HZ7KHRORJ\ RI &RPPXQLRQ DQG (XFKDULVWLF $QWKURSRORJ\@ Ʉɨɣɧɨɧɢɹ    – KHUH. 6HHDOVRWKHGHWDLOHGDQDO\VLVLQ3DXO9DOOLHUHௗModern Russian Theology: Bukharev, Soloviev, Bulgakov: Orthodox Theology in a New Key/RQGRQௗ1DWDO¶LD $ 9DJDQRYD ɋɨɮɢɨɥɨɝɢɹ ɩɪɨɬɨɢɟɪɟɹ ɋɟɪɝɢɹ Ȼɭɥɝɚɤɨɜɚௗ>7KH 6RSKLRORJ\ RI $UFKSULHVW6HUJLL%XOJDNRY@0RVFRZ 10 See EOL]DYHWD * 3DVKNLQD ɀɭɪɧɚɥ «ɇɨɜɵɣ Ƚɪɚɞ» ɜ ɢɞɟɣɧɨ-ɩɨɥɢɬɢɱɟɫɤɨɣ ɠɢɡɧɢ ɪɭɫɫɤɨɣ ɷɦɢɝɪɚɰɢɢ >The -RXUQDO³1RY\Lௗ*Uad” in the Ideological and Political Life of the 5XVVLDQ(PLJUDWLRQ@0RVFRZ

150

Alexander Agadjanian

DSULRULW\HPSKDVLVRQDVFHWLFLVPLWZDVRULHQWHGWRZDUGVmystical and ascetic practices of theosis paying much less attention to the perspective of an active world involvement. 11 Neo-Patristics became a symbol of Orthodox theological thought OHDGLQJWRWKHHPHUJHQFHLQWKHEHJLQQLQJIURPWKHVRIDZKROH FRQVWHOODWLRQRI*UHHNWKHRORJLDQVPDQ\RIZKRPUHOLHGRQWKH&KXUFK)DWKHUV WRVHHNDVSHFLDO2UWKRGR[LGHQWLW\LQFRUUHODWLRQZLWKWKHQHZ:HVWHUQWKHRORJ\ particularly in opposition to its deep world-involvement. This search for a special LGHQWLW\ EDVHG RQ FULWLFLVP RI ³PRGHUQLW\´ RIWHQ ERLOHG GRZQ WR FOHDU DQWLWesternism. 12 1HYHUWKHOHVV 1eo-Patristics also acquired a strong personalistic GLPHQVLRQLWUHYHDOHGDQGGHSOR\HGWKH³cipherHG´³KLGGHQ´3atristic anthropology. In line with Neo-3DWULVWLFVWKLVDQWKURSRORJ\LQHYLWDEO\EHFDPHDFFRUGLQJ to both Vladimir Lossky and Sergei .KRUX]KLLWKHP\VWLFDO-ascetic alternative to the “crisis of modern man”. 13 )LQDOO\LQSDUDOOHOWRDOOOLVWHGWUHQGVDQGLQLQWHUDFWLRQZLWKWKHPWKHUHZDV RQH VWURQJHU DQG PRUH RULJLQDO WUHQG ZLWKLQ 2UWKRGR[ WKRXJKW WKH VR-called (XFKDULVWLFWKHRORJ\LQWKHFHQWUHRIZKLFKZDVQRWDVFHWLFLVP but liturgy. The central figures of this stream were Father Nikolai Afanasiev and Father Alexander Schmemann. 14 7KH PRVW SURPLQHQW *UHHN WKHRORJLDQV &KULVWRV @  ,Q WKH QHZ YHUVLRQ WKH XQFRQGLWLRQDO HPSKDVLV RQ racial discrimination disappeared: TKHFRQFHSWZDVUHWDLQHGE\LQHUWLDRQO\LQWKHWLWOH and the final version emphasised the opposition to all forms of discrimination. The new intrigue around the “mission document” appeared at the very last VWDJH RI DSSURYDOV $V PHQWLRQHG DERYH ZKHQ WKH WH[W RI WKLV GRFXPHQW ZDV ILQDOO\DSSURYHGLQ-DQXDU\WKLVZDVDSSDUHQWO\SUHFHGHGE\UDWKHUVKDUS disputes in 2014–2015. 25 ,QDQ\FDVHDWDPHHWLQJLQ$SULOWKHGRFXPHQW 7RGD\´ ³$XWRQRP\ DQG WKH 0HDQV E\ :KLFK LW LV 3URFODLPHG´ DQG ³7KH 2UWKRGR[ 'LDVSRUD´6HHDOOWH[WVDWWKHRIILFLDOVLWHRIWKH&RXQFLO85/KWWSVZZZKRO\FRXQFLO RUJRIILFLDO-documents. The section names LQWKHௗIROORZLQJUHIHUWRWKHGRFXPHQWWKDWLV DYDLODEOH DW 85/ KWWSVZZZKRO\FRXQFLORUJ-PLVVLRQ-orthodox-church-todays-world >@ 25 Patriarch Kirill directly mentioned the “difficult discussions” that preceded the agreement over the GRFXPHQW6HH3DWULDUFK.LULOO³Ⱦɨɤɥɚɞ ɋɜɹɬɟɣɲɟɝɨ ɉɚɬɪɢɚɪɯɚ Ʉɢɪɢɥɥɚ ɧɚ Ⱥɪɯɢɟɪɟɣɫɤɨɦ ɋɨɛɨɪɟ Ɋɭɫɫɤɨɣ ɉɪɚɜɨɫɥɚɜɧɨɣ ɐɟɪɤɜɢ (2 ɮɟɜɪɚɥɹ 2016 ɝɨɞɚ ´ௗ>5HSRUW

156

Alexander Agadjanian

ZKLFK ZDV HGLWHG E\ 0HWURSROLWDQ -RKQ =L]LRXODV 3DWULDUFKDWH RI &RQVWDQWLQRSOH ZDVUHMHFWHGE\UHSUHVHQWDWLYHVRIVHYHUDOFKXUFKHVZKLFKIRXQGLWXQSUHSDUHG6L[PRQWKVODWHUDWDPHHWLQJLQ2FWREHUWKHGRFXPHQWagain did not satisfy the Russian and the Georgian Churches. The Synod of the Russian &KXUFKLQSDUWLFXODUUHMHFWHGWKHGRFXPHQWDVQRWFRPSOHWHO\ILQDOLVHG 26 ObviRXVO\LWZDVWKH5XVVLDQ&KXUFKWKDWKDGWKHPRVWFRPSODLQWVDERXWWKHGRFXPHQW submitted for discussion in 2014. What were the most fundamental differences at this last stage of approval in 2014–2016? We can assess this issue by looking at changes that were made at the very last moment – LQ-DQXDU\LQFRPSDULVRQZLWKWKHWZRSUHYLRXV\ears. One of the most significant changes was the final redaction of the second section of the document: It acquired another title – “Freedom and Responsibility” (instead RI³7KH9DOXHRI+XPDQ/LEHUW\´ >6HFWLRQ%@ 2EYLRXVO\WKLVDFFHQWZDVDQ important FDXVHRIGLVDJUHHPHQWDQGZDVLQVLVWHGRQE\WKH5XVVLDQSDUWLFLSDQWV thereby seeking to move liberal rhetoric in the direction of “conservatism of reVSRQVLELOLW\´DQGWKXVEULQJWKHWH[WPRUHLQOLQHZLWKWKH5XVVLDQGRFXPHQWRI DERXW³GLJQLW\freedom and human rights”. A certain downplaying of the liberal person-centric rhetoric is also noticeable in other editorial details. The final document stipulates “dignity” and “freedom” through a criterion of ethics and morality (ɧɪɚɜɫɬɜɟɧɧɨɫɬɶ in the Russian verVLRQ – these words appearing in the final version many times (instead of one in WKHYHUVLRQRI  The very “divine gift of freedom” from the “core” of the human personality becomes only “one of the highest gifts” – not the highest as it had been in earlier versions %  7KH SDUDJUDSK ZULWWHQ LQ WKH VSLULW RI -RKQ =L]LRXODV¶ ³WKHRORJ\ RI FRPPXQLRQ´ GLVDSSHDUHG LQ WKH ODVW HGLWLRQ ,Q SDUWLFXODU WKH IROORZLQJ ZRUGV KDYHGLVDSSHDUHG³$VDQRQWRORJLFDOHOHPHQWRIWKHLQGLYLGXDOIreedom includes respect and acceptance of the other. This is the way of expression of the individual SHUVRQDOLGHQWLW\IURPZKLFKDFHUWDLQOLIHSRVLWLRQUHVXOWVDQGGXHWRZKLFKD UHVSRQVLELOLW\RIHDFKSHUVRQLVGHWHUPLQHGPDQLIHVWHGLQWKHPRYHPHQWRf one E\ WKH 3DWULDUFK RI 0RVFRZ DQG $OO 5XVVLD .LULOO DW WKH %LVKRSV¶ &RXQFLO RI WKH 5XVVLDQௗ2UWKRGR[ௗ&KXUFK@ௗ0RVFRZ3DWULDUFKDWH85/KWWSVRERUSDW ULDUFKLDUXGEWH[WKWPO>@ 26 See ɀɭɪɧɚɥɵɡɚɫɟɞɚɧɢɹɋɜɹɳɟɧɧɨɝɨɋɢɧɨɞɚɨɬɞɟɤɚɛɪɹɝɨɞɚ ɀɭɪɧɚɥʋ. >3URFHHGLQJVRIWKH+RO\6\QRGRI52&0HHWLQJRQ'HFHPEHU,VVXH1R@ 85/ KWWSZZZSDWULDUFKLDUXGEWH[WKWPO >@ $FFRUGLQJ WR $UFKSULHVW1LNRODL%DODVKRY'HSXW\&KDLUPDQRIWKH'HSDUWPHQWIRU([WHUQDO&KXUFK5HODWLRQVRIWKH0RVFRZ3DWULDUFKDWHZKRRYHUVDZLQWHU-Orthodox pre-conciliar GLVFXVVLRQV the Synod of the Russian Church considered that the document “still needs serious and fundamental improvement”. See ³ɉɪɟɞɫɨɛɨɪɧɵɟ ɜɫɬɪɟɱɢ ɉɨɦɟɫɬɧɵɟ ɰɟɪɤɜɢ ɝɨɬɨɜɹɬɫɹ ɤ ɜɫɟɩɪɚɜɨɫɥɚɜɧɨɦɭɫɨɛɨɪɭ ɂɧɬɟɪɜɶɸ ɫ ɩɪɨɬ ɇ. Ȼɚɥɚɲɨɜɵɦ´ >3UH-conciliar MeHWLQJ /RFDO &KXUFKHV DUH 3UHSDULQJௗIRU WKH 3DQ-2UWKRGR[ௗ&RXQFLOௗ ,QWHUYLHZ ZLWK $UFKSULHVW1LNRODLௗ%DODVKRY@ ɀɭɪɧɚɥ Ɇɨɫɤɨɜɫɤɨɣ ɉɚɬɪɢɚɪɯɢɢ  

The Orthodox Vision of Modern World

157

person towards another.” 27 $SSDUHQWO\WKLVLGHDVRREYLRXVO\FRQQHFWHGZLWKD SDUWLFXODU WKHRORJLFDO FRQFHSW DOVR PHW LQ WKH VSLULW RI D PRUH FRQVHUYDWLYH UHDGLQJDQREMHFWLRQLQWHUPVRIWKHEOXUULQJRIWKHFULWHULDDQGOLPLWVRI³respecting and accepting the other”. A similar emphasis on stricter criteria for tolerance is also evident in the final version of the section – on discrimination: The phrase that “there is no place either for national hatred or enmity and intolerance of any other kind” in the church was now rendered as follows: “TKHUHLVQRSODFHIRUKDWUHGHQPLW\RULQWROHUDQFH´ (  WKH ZRUGV ³RI DQ\ RWKHU NLQG´ GLVDSSHDUHG 7KH SDUWLFXODU W\SHV RI GLVFULPLQDWLRQDUHQRZFOHDUO\OLVWHGE\VNLQFRORXUUHOLJLRQUDFHVH[nationalLW\and language. MoreoverLWLVLPPHGLDWHO\VWUHVVHGWKDWWKHFKXUFK³UHMHFWV GLVFULPLQDWLRQRQDOOWKHDIRUHPHQWLRQHGUHDVRQV´,ELG 7KHVHDGGHGZRUGV– “the aforementioned reasons” make certain that the possibility of interpreting the words “of any other kind” as a possible tolerance to sexual minorities has vanished. An overly broad interpretation of equality and tolerance was thus ruled RXW +RZHYHU LW VKRXOG EH QRWHG WKDW WKH SHQXOWLPDWH SDUDJUDSK LQ ERWK WKH original and the final versions of the document quite definitely claim that the church recognises the “divinely-JUDQWHG LQVWLWXWLRQ RI WKH IDPLO\ which has always been and must always be founded on the sacred mystery of Christian PDUULDJHDVDXQLRQEHWZHHQPDQDQGZRPDQDVUHIOHFWHGLQ the union of Christ DQG+LV&KXUFK(SK  ´7KHWH[WDOVRGHQLHVOHJDOLVDWLRQWR³IRUPVRIKXPDQ FRKDELWDWLRQWKDWDUHFRQWUDU\WR&KULVWLDQWUDGLWLRQDQGWHDFKLQJ´)  28 FinalO\WRWKHQXPEHURIFRQVHTXHQFHVRIVHFXODULVDWLRQDQG³WKHPLVXQGHUstanding of freedom as permissiveness” was added “the destruction and defacement of those WKLQJV KHOG LQ KLJK UHJDUG´ )  ZKLFK LV DQ LPSRUWDQW SDUW RI WKH LQWHUQDO Russian rhetoric.

Contours of the Orthodox Mission in the World: ȉhe Ideal of Holiness against “Secular Globalisation” The document on the mission of the church in the world was the subject of disputes and acquired much more importance in 2016 than when the movement 27 &RPSDUHWKHWKHRORJLFDOLGHDVLQ=L]LRXODVCommunion and Otherness (as n. 15  28 1HYHUWKHOHVV DIWHU WKH SXEOLFDWLRQ RI WKH GRFXPHQW LQ $SULO  WKH KHDG RI WKH &RPPLVVLRQIRU&RRUGLQDWLRQ0HWURSROLWDQ-RKQ=L]LRXODVKDGWRUHVROXWHO\UHIXWHWKH allegation of the Greek news agency Romfea.gr that the Commission called for the “support” of sexual minorities. See the communiqué from the official page of the Patriarchate of Constantinople: &RPPXQLTXp  85/ KWWSVZZZSDWULDUFKDWHRUJ-FRP PXQLTXH>@ௗ,WLVSRVVLEOHWKDWWKHH[SUHVVLRQ³RWKHUIRUPV´RU³DQ\NLQG´RI discriPLQDWLRQ PLJKWDSSHDUVXVSLFLRXVWRVRPH2UWKRGR[– remember that this expression had appeared in the title of the document already in 1986.

158

Alexander Agadjanian

towards the Pan-Orthodox Council started almost a century ago. 29 PerKDSVWKLV problem is still not as relevant for current church policy as discussions about DXWRFHSKDO\DXWRQRP\RUGLSW\FKVWKHKLHUDUFK\RIFKXUFKHV 7KHGRFXPHQWRQ SHDFHDQGPLVVLRQLVKRZHYHUIXQGDPHQWDODVLWH[SUHVVHVLQPRGHUQODQJXDJH the essential self-determination of the Eastern Christian tradition. In fact LW LV expressing exactly what this tradition stands for. This self-GHWHUPLQDWLRQ HYHQ DEULGJHG DV LW LV UHSUHVHQWV D FRPSURPLVH EHWZHHQYDULRXVYLHZV,WLVQHYHUWKHOHVVDPHDQLQgful testimony. The content RIWKHGRFXPHQWGLVFXVVHGLQRQHIRUPRUDQRWKHUIRUDWOHDVWKDOIDFHQWXU\FDQ EHXQGHUVWRRGE\DQDO\VLQJHPSKDVHVDQGRPLVVLRQVDOZD\VNHHSLQJLQPLQGWKH JHQHUDOFRQWH[WRI&KULVWLDQXQGHUVWDQGLQJRIKXPDQVRFLHW\EHJLQQing with the rich legacy of Western and Eastern theology and ending with the texts of the type of the “Social Doctrine” of the Roman Catholic Church or the comparable documents of the Russian Church. 30 The final conciliar document qualifies the present era as a secular age. This understanding seems certain and causing no doubts among all the authors. InterHVWLQJO\ WKH GHEDWHV DERXW WKH FULVLV RI VHFXODULVP ³GHVHFXODULVDWLRQ´ RU WKH “post-VHFXODUHUD´VRRYHUZKHOPLQJO\IDVKLRQDEOHVLQFHWKHHDUO\V in both DFDGHPLFOLWHUDWXUHDQGSXEOLFGHEDWHVDUHQRWUHIOHFWHGLQWKHGRFXPHQW7KHWH[W LQVLVWHQWO\VSHDNVRI³VHFXODUJOREDOLVDWLRQ´WKHKRVWLOLW\RIWKH³VHFXODULGHRORJ\´DQGVHFXODULVDWLRQDVWKHFDXVHVRID³VSLULWXDOFULVLV´7KHHPSKDVLVRIthe text is that the mission of the church is the confrontation with this state of secularism and decay. ,Q WKLV VHQVH WKH WH[W RI WKH GRFXPHQW LV FRQVRQDQW ZLWK WKH WKRXJKWV RI $OH[DQGHU6FKPHPDQQZKRDIHZGHFDGHVEHIRUHZURWHPRUHWKDQRWKHU2UWKRGR[ZULWHUVDERXWVHFXODULVPDQGWKHVHFXODUZRUOGDOEHLWZLWKPXFKPRUHIUDQNQHVVDQGELWWHUQHVV³7KHZRUOGOHIW&KULVWLDQLW\WKLVLVWKHEDVLFIDFWRIWKHµQHZ history’. The era of Christianity’s power over the world ended with ‘liberation’ of the wRUOGIURPWKLVSRZHU7KHPHGLHYDOV\QWKHVLVLQZKLFKDQDWWHPSWZDVPDGH WRUHVROYHWKHRULJLQDODQWDJRQLVPRIWKH&KXUFKDQGµWKLVZRUOG¶EURNHXS>«@ 2QHKDVWREHEOLQGQRWWRVHHWKDWZKDWWUXO\LQVSLUHVWUXO\µPRYHVKLVWRU\RQ¶ 29 ,QKLVUHSRUWIURP)HEUXDU\WKH5XVVLDQ3DWULDUFKFDOOHGWKHGRFXPHQWRQWKHPLVVLRQ as potentially the PRVWLPSRUWDQWDFKLHYHPHQWRIWKHIXWXUH&RXQFLOௗ.LULOO³Ⱦɨɤɥɚɞ” (as n. 25  30 See the attempts to compare Catholic and Orthodox social doctrines: Alexander $JDGMDQLDQ ³%UHDNWKURXJK WR 0RGHUQLW\ $SRORJLD IRU 7UDGLWLRQDOLVP 7KH 5XVVLDQ Orthodox View RQ6RFLHW\DQG&XOWXUHLQ&RPSDUDWLYH3HUVSHFWLYH´LQLGHPTurns of Faith, Search for Meaning: Orthodox Christianity and PostSoviet Experienceௗ)UDQNIXUW DP0DLQ–ௗ2OJD+RSSH-.RQGULNRYD-RVHSKLHQYDQ.HVVHODQG(YHUWYDQ GHU =ZHHUGH ³&KULVWLDQ 6RFLDO 'RFWULQH (DVW DQG :HVW 7KH 5XVVLDQ 2UWKRGR[ 6RFLDO &RQFHSWDQGWKH5RPDQ&DWKROLF&RPSHQGLXP&RPSDUHG´Religion, State & Society 41  –224.

The Orthodox Vision of Modern World

159

are new and alreaG\FRPSOHWHO\QRW&KULVWLDQµUHYHODWLRQV¶WKH\DUHLQYHVWHGE\ KXPDQ KHUGV ZLWK XQG\LQJ IDLWK LQ HDUWKO\ SURJUHVV LQ HDUWKO\ KDSSLQHVV >«@ $ODVWKHJUHDWURDGRIKLVWRU\IRUORQJQRZKDVSDVVHG&KULVWLDQLW\E\´ 31 Schmemann is looking for a solution to this problematic state of the world. +HGHQLHVUHVROXWHO\ERWKD³VDFUHGOLIH´WUDGLWLRQDOLVWLVRODWLRQDHVWKHWLFLVDWLRQ RI³VSLULWXDOLW\´ DQG³SDQLF´DSRFDO\SWLFLVPDVZHOODVZRUOGUHQRXQFHPHQW 32 +HRSSRVHVWKRVH2UWKRGR[ZKRXQHTXLYRFDOO\GHQ\³Sluralism” – coexistence ZLWKRWKHUVHFXODUIRUPVRIWKHPRGHUQZRUOG+HMXVWLILHVSOXUDOLVPDV³WKHRQO\ GHIHQFH DJDLQVW FKDRV DQG IDQDWLFLVP´ ZKLOH EHOLHYLQJ WKDW SOXUDOLVP GRHV QRW necessarily mean relativism. 33 MorHRYHU 6FKPHPDQQ JRHV IXUWKHU +e also GHQLHVLQDEVROXWHWHUPVWKH³FRPSURPLVHUV´WKDWLV³DOOWKRVHZKRWKLQNWKDW &KULVWLDQLW\ LV µXVHIXO¶ DQG FDQ EH µPRUH XVHIXO¶ SURYLGHG WKDW LW VXFFHHGV WR adapt itself to the ‘current moment’”. 34 +H UHMHFWV WKH VFKHPH RI ³DGDSWDWLRQ´ ZKHQ³ZH>WKHOrthodox – AA@SHUIRUPRQ6XQGD\VRXUFRORXUIXODQFLHQWULWHV DQGWKHQIURP0RQGD\WR6DWXUGD\FDOPO\OLYHDVHFXODULVHGOLIHZKLFKKDVQRWKLQJWRGRZLWKWKHVHULWHV´+HDOVRUHMHFWV³WKHRORJ\RIOLEHUDWLRQ´ZLWKDKLQWDW the Catholic “liberation thHRORJ\´  DQG ³WKHUDSHXWLF´ WKHRORJ\ XVLQJ PRGHUQ “discourses” to adapt to the world. 35 What is Schmemann’s answer to the mission of the church in the postChristian era? In a brilliantly written work – “Divine Services in the Secular Age” – Schmemann offers KLVDQVZHUODWHUKHFDOOVLW³WKHWKLUGZD\´+HFRQVLGHUV secuODULVPILUVWRIDOODVDUHIXVDORIZRUVKLSPDQ¶VGHQLDOWREHDZRUVKLSHURI *RGhomo adorans,WLVZRUVKLSOLWXUJ\DVWKHIXQGDPHQWDODQVZHURI&KULVWLDQLty to the secular state of WKHZRUOG+HQFH– his “liturgical theology” as “the third way” resists both apocalyptic denial of the world and submissive “adaptation” to it. 36 The Orthodox text on peace and mission reflects the strains revealed by 6FKPHPDQQDQGWKHFKXUFK¶VIXQGDPHQWDOGXDODWWLWXGHWRWKHZRUOG³OLYHEHLQ WKHZRUOGEXWQRWEHDWWDFKHGWR the world´ UHPDLQVFHQWUDO LQWKHSUHDPEOH  just as it was before – in the “Social Concept” of the Russian Church of the year +RZHYHUWKHWRQHRIERWKWKHGRFXPHQWRQWKH mission and the Russian 31 $OH[DQGHU6FKPHPDQQ³ɐɟɪɤɨɜɶ ɢ ɢɫɬɨɪɢɹ´LQLGHP ɋɨɛɪɚɧɢɟ ɫɬɚɬɟɣ –ௗ >&ROOHFWLRQRI$UWLFOHV–@HGby (,X'RUPDQ0RVFRZௗ–KHUH 32 “ȿɫɥɢ ɩɨ-ɧɨɜɨɦɭ ɜɫɥɭɲɚɬɶɫɹ´>,I\RXKHDUDQHZ@LQLELGௗ– KHUHDWDQRWKHU SODFH ³D VSLULWXDOLW\ RI ZLWKGUDZDO H[WUHPHO\ LQGLYLGXDOLVWLF ZLWK QR UHODWLRQ WR WKH world”: “Ȼɨɝɨɫɥɭɠɟɧɢɟ ɢ ɷɫɯɚɬɨɥɨɝɢɹ´>:RUVKLSDQG(VFKDWRORJ\@LQLELG– KHUHௗ 33 “ɉɥɸɪɚɥɢɡɦ ɢ ɉɪɚɜɨɫɥɚɜɢɟ´>3OXUDOLVPDQG2UWKRGR[\@LQLELG–KHUH 34 ³ȿɫɥɢɩɨ-ɧɨɜɨɦɭɜɫɥɭɲɚɬɶɫɹ´as n. 32  16 35 ³Ȼɨɝɨɫɥɭɠɟɧɢɟ ɜ ɫɟɤɭɥɹɪɧɵɣ ɜɟɤ´ >Worship in a Secular Age@ in Schmemann ɋɨɛɪɚɧɢɟɫɬɚɬɟɣ(as n. 31 –here see also ³Ȼɨɝɨɫɥɭɠɟɧɢɟɢɷɫɯɚɬɨɥɨɝɢɹ´ (as n. 32 –301. 36 ³Ȼɨɝɨɫɥɭɠɟɧɢɟɜɫɟɤɭɥɹɪɧɵɣɜɟɤ´as n. 35 

160

Alexander Agadjanian

document is significantly different from the “liturgical solution” that was suggested by Schmemann. The document states: “Finding constant inspiration in this H[SHFWDWLRQDQGIRUHWDVWHRIWKH.LQJGRPRI*RGWKH&KXUFKFDQQRWUHPDin indifIHUHQWWRWKHSUREOHPVRIKXPDQLW\LQHDFKSHULRG2QWKHFRQWUDU\VKHVKDUHVLQ RXUDQJXLVKDQGH[LVWHQWLDOSUREOHPVWDNLQJXSRQKHUVHOI—as the Lord did—our VXIIHULQJDQGZRXQGVZKLFKDUHFDXVHGE\HYLOLQWKHZRUOG>«@´,WFRQWLQXHV “The Orthodox Church shares the concern and anxiety of contemporary humanity with regard to fundamental existential questions that preoccupy the world today.” 3UHDPEOH  3UDJPDWLF SRVLWLYH ZRUOG-involvement for confrontation with secXODULVPW\SLFDOWRWKLVWH[WFRQWUDVWVZLWKWKHOLWXUJLFDOHVFKDWRORJ\RI6FKPHPDQQ DV LQGHHG ZLWK WKH P\VWLFR-ascetic motives of the “Neo-Patristic” SDUDGLJP,QJHQHUDOWKLVRULHQWDWLRQ– DFWLYHRSSRVLWLRQWR³VHFXODUYDOXHV´WKH GRPLQDQFHRIZKLFKLVKRZHYHUUHFRgnised – LVLQWXQHZLWKIRULQVWDQFHWKH “Social Concept” of the Russian Church and the speeches of Patriarch Kirill. @

170

Aristotle Papanikolaou

the Orthodox morality of the Orthodox tradition. This question really is the heart of the matter DQGLQWHUVHFWVZLWKTXHVWLRQVRIWKHUHODWLRQRI2UWKRGR[\WRQDWLRQDO cultural and ethnic identity. It can only be addressed on the basis of ecclesiology and theological anthropology. I have argued that Eucharistic ecclesiology leads to DTXDOLILHG2UWKRGR[HQGRUVHPHQWRIGHPRFUDWLFOLEHUDOLVPZKLFKZRXOGPHDQ that the Orthodox Church’s role in a particular nation’s history does not mean de facto that the church’s morality should constitute cultural and legal norms. The fundamental logic of the Eucharistic ecclesiology was to identify the nature and ORFDWLRQRIWKHFKXUFKDVVDFUDPHQWDO,QRWKHUZRUGVLQUHVSRQVHWRWhe question ³ZKHUHLVWKHFKXUFK"´(XFKDULVWLFHFFOHVLRORJ\SRLQWVWRWKHVDFUDPHQWRIWKH Eucharist and not to any institutional structures. In much the same way that when asked “where is God” ZH ZRXOG SRLQW WR WKH SHUVRQ RI -HVXV &KULVW LI DVNHG where WR SRLQW ZKHQ DVNHG ³ZKHUH LV WKH FKXUFK"´ LW LV GLIILFXOW WRWKLQN KRZ anyone could point to anything but the Eucharist. One of the weaknesses of Eucharistic ecclesiology concerns not discerning H[DFWO\ZKDWKDSSHQVDIWHUWKH(XFKDULVWKRZWKH&KULVWLan is to walk and live in WKHZRUOGLQD(XFKDULVWLFPRGHRIEHLQJZKLFKLVRQHRIOHDUQLQJKRZWRORYH such that what is fostered are relations among other humans that realise personal uniqueness that is simultaneously an ekstasisRUDIUHHGRPIURPWKHdeterminism of the given. 7RDGGUHVVWKLV,KDYHDUJXHGIRUWKHLQWHJUDWLRQRIWKHDVFHWLFDOLQWR the understanding of ecclesiology. 13 It may be true that the theologians responsible for Eucharistic ecclesiology have overemphasised the Eucharistic communal assemEO\DWWKHH[SHQVHRIWKHDVFHWLFDOEXWLWLVVLPSO\ZURQJWRDUJXH that Eucharistic ecclesiology does not allow for such integration. Ascetical struggle does not cause communion but opens one up to the communion that is already given in the DVVHPEO\DVJLIW,QWKDWVHQVHDVFHWLFLVP ZKLFKLVQRWOLPLWHGWRPRQDVWLFLVP LVLQKHUHQWO\UHODWLRQDODQGIRUPVWKHLQGLYLGXDOWRUHODWHWRRQHVHOIRWKHUVWKHZRUOGDQG*RGLQD(XFKDULVWLFPRGHRI being. The person’s ascetical struggle extends the Eucharist into the world. To argue that Eucharistic ecclesiology does not allow for such an integration of the ascetical is to create a false opposition between the Eucharist and the ascetical and fails to see that the ascetical aims toward a Eucharistic PRGHRIEHLQJDQGWKDW the Eucharist as an event of communion depends on the ascetical. 14 After the (XFKDULVW WKH &KULVWLDQ PXVW HQWHU WKH ZRUOG LQ VXFK D ZD\ DV WR DVFHWLFDOO\ struggle to learn how to love in the face of an other that does not share her 2UWKRGR[SUHVXSSRVLWLRQV,QRWKHUZRUGVWKHSUHVXSSRVLWLRQIRUVXFKDVFHWLFLVP LVDQHQFRXQWHUZLWKDNLQGRIVHFXODULW\XQGHUVWRRGQRWDVHOLPLQDWLQJUHOLJLRQ 13 $ULVWRWOH 3DSDQLNRODRX ³,QWHJUDWLQJ WKH $VFHWLFDO DQG WKH (XFKDULVWLF´ International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church  –182. 14 Such a mutual interdependence is actually evident in the daily structure of services and SUD\HUVLQWKH(DVWHUQ2UWKRGR[WUDGLWLRQDOORIZKLFKFXOPLQDWHLQWKHPRUQLQJDQGGDLO\ celebration of the Eucharist.

An Orthodox Christian Secularism

171

RUPDUJLQDOLVLQJUHOLJLRQIURPWKHSXEOLFSROLWLFDOVSDFHEXWDVDUDGLFDOSOXUDOism. ThLVDVFHWLFLVPPHDQVWKDWWKHIDLWKLVVKDUHGE\SHUVXDVLRQDQGQRWE\IRUFH which means that the Orthodox Christian must inhabit a space with others who do not share her beliefs or presuppositions – a shared public political space. 15 The political space is LQGHHG GLVWLQFW IURP WKH HFFOHVLDO HVSHFLDOO\ DV LW LV RQH WKDW would allow as one option among many the turn to belief in the non-existence of *RG +RZHYHU DV VHHQ WKURXJK WKH SHUVSHFWLYH RI SUDFWLFHV RI GLYLQH-human FRPPXQLRQRUOHDUQLQJKRZWRORYH liberal-democratic structures do not appear DVIRUHLJQWRDQ2UWKRGR[XQGHUVWDQGLQJRIWKHKXPDQSHUVRQ,QGHHGHQJDJHGLQ practices of divine-KXPDQ FRPPXQLRQ &KULVWLDQV ZRXOG EH DFWLYHO\ VKDSLQJ D political space structured around a minimal set of under-determined normative SULQFLSOHV WKDW LQFOXGH IUHHGRP DQG HTXDOLW\ JXDUDQWHHG WKURXJK KXPDQ ULJKWV ODQJXDJH WKDW LV QRW OLQNHG WR D VSHFLILF UHOLJLRXV PRUDOLW\ DOO WKH ZKLOH EHLQJ DZDUHWKDWWKHHFFOHVLDOLVQRWWKHSROLWLFDOHYHQLIDV,ZRXOGDUJXH the mystical is the political.

2UWKRGR[\'HPRFUDF\ and Gay Marriage In order to create structures that would guarantee that all humans are treated as XQLTXHDQGLUUHGXFLEOHWKH&KULVWLDQZRXOGZRUNWRZDUGDVHFXODULVDWLRQ understood as the maximising of pluralism such that the public political space could not EHVXFKWKDWLWHQGRUVHVWKHPRUDOLW\RIDVLQJOHUHOLJLRXVWUDGLWLRQno matter the cultural history of that shared public political space. In working toward securing structures that guarantee that all humans are treated as unique and irredXFLEOHWKH ascetical Christian – who is not simply the monk – is not accepting a public political space without morality but is working toward a public political space that is shaped by a morality that exists as an overlapping consensus. Given this theoORJLFDOSRLQWWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKHVLQWKH“mother countries” should not use the privilege of history or culture as a means to enforce legally particular moral posiWLRQV RI WKH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK HVSHFLDOO\ LI they publicly proclaim support for democratic structures. The churches should use the power of their public presence E\SURPRWLQJIXUWKHULQJ and deepening the kinds of political structures that are most consistent with their own ecclesiological principlHVRUZKDWVKRXOGUHVXOW when the “church is a social ethic”. 16 2QHPD\FDOOVXFKVWUXFWXUHVGHPRFUDWLF but that is irrelevant to the point. The church simply cannot use the privilege of its cultural and historical position to impose its morality on a shaUHGSOXUDOLVWLF SXEOLF SROLWLFDO VSDFH ,I LW ZLVKHV WR GR VR WKen it must do so consistently: It 15 )RUPRUHRQWKLVSRLQWVHH3DSDQLNRODRXThe Mystical as Political DVQ . 16 6WDQOH\+DXHUZDVThe Peaceable KingdomNotUH'DPH,1

172

Aristotle Papanikolaou

should ask for laws against pre-PDULWDOVH[DJDLQVWO\LQJDJDLQVWGLYRUFHDQGVR on. To stop at one particular set of moral issues only manifests the church’s hypocrisy. In light of the church’s focus on sexual moraOLW\RQHLVFRPSHOOHGWR ask: Why does the church not support laws against all forms of violence? Where LVWKHFKXUFK¶VRSSRVLWLRQWRWKHYLROHQFHDJDLQVWWKHJD\SRSXODWLRQYLROHQFHWKDW even its own clergy incites at gay people? Why does the church care so much about gay sex and not about massive income inequality? Why are the Orthodox Churches globally so silent about the rampant corruption in their countries? Why does the Church of Greece care so much about banning Yoga and yet finds it so GLIILFXOWWRILJKWSROLWLFDOFRUUXSWLRQRUWRVSHDNDJDLQVWODZVJUDQWLQJLPPXQLW\ to elected officials? Given these arguments that I have proposeGOHWPHEHFOHDU and direct: The church should not oppose the legalisation of gay “marriage” or JD\FLYLOXQLRQVLQWKHSXEOLFSROLWLFDOVSKHUHQRUDQ\WKLQJUHPRWHO\VLPLODUWR laws against “gay propaganda” ZKHWKHULWEHLQWKH86*UHHFHRU5XVVLD,KDYH ZULWWHQ³PDUULDJH´LQVFDUHTXRWHVDVWKH2UWKRGR[Churches need not recognise such politically contracted unions as “marriage” thus arguing that committed heterosexual unions are in some way distinct from committed union of the same sex. 17 3ROLWLFDOO\FRQWUDFWHGJD\XQLRQVGRQRWWKUHDWHQEXWLQIDFWFontribute to WKHPRUDOLW\RIWKHGHPRFUDWLFSXEOLFSROLWLFDOVSDFHWRZKLFKWKHFKXUFKVKRXOG XVHZKDWHYHUSRZHUDQGLQIOXHQFHLWKDVWRLPSURYLQJH[WHQGLQJDQGGHHSHQLQJ This is the church’s ecclesiological imperative – its public ecclesiology.

Conclusion I have described a situation where public ecclesiology depends on the particular public of which one speaks. It is clear that the churches in Russia and Greece have a public presence that is simply not available to the Orthodox Church in the US. And \HW WKH SRZHU RI WKLV SXEOLF SUHVHQFH VKRXOG QRW EH XVHG WR DGYDQFH WKH SDUWLFXODUPRUDOLW\RIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKRUSDUWLFXODUPRUDOSRLQWVLWVKRXOG be used to shape a public political space informed by its own ecclesiology and its own understanding of the ascetical call to live a Eucharistic mode of being in the world. Such structures involve the maximisation of plural voices and a commitment to a public morality forged through an overlapping consensus. It is not necessary to call such structures GHPRFUDWLFRUOLEHUDOLQIDFWVLQFHWKH\DUHEDVHG RQVRXQGWKHRORJLFDODUJXPHQWVDQG2UWKRGR[HFFOHVLRORJLFDOSULQFLSOHV,ZRXOG call such political structural principles Orthodox. I would also call it a form of Christian secularism. I would further recommend that the churches change their 17 (YHQKHUHWKH2UWKRGR[PXVWDVNWKHNLQGRITXHVWLRQSRVHGE\DGUDIWRIWKHUHFHQW6\QRG on the Family in the Roman Catholic Church – is there really nothing of value that the FKXUFK FDQQRW UHFRJQLVH E\ FRPPLWWHG OLIH-long unions ZKDWHYHU WKH VH[ RI WKRVH LQvolved in such unions?

An Orthodox Christian Secularism

173

strategy from targeting certain moral issues as a basis for ideological warfare with an imagined secular-as-anti-religious West and start condemning hyper-individualism. SuFKDVKLIW,EHOLHYHZRXOGWURXEOHWKH(DVW-West ideological divide. I want to end by saying that if the best response to my argument is simply to VD\WKDWZKDW,DPSURSRVLQJZRUNVLQWKH86EXWQRWLQ5XVVLDRU*UHHFHWKHQ such a statement is not a theological argument. It is an empirical claim without DQ\VXSSRUW,QVD\LQJWKDW,RQO\DUJXHWKLVZD\EHFDXVH,OLYHLQWKH:HVWWKHQ I could easily say that one only argues against me because they live in an Orthodox country like Greece or Russia. We need to stop identity politics and start focusing on theological arguments. If one were to argue that theological thinking in the West was not as credible as what emerges from the pure space of the so-called “mother countries” one could counter argue that the Orthodox theologians in the diaspora are forced to discuss Orthodox theology in such a way that mirrors the HDUO\&KULVWLDQVLWXDWLRQHYHQXSWRWKHVHYHQWKFHQWXU\ZKHQ&KULVWLDQLW\ZDV QRWQHFHVVDULO\WDNHQIRUJUDQWHGSKLORVRSKLFDOO\FXOWXUDOO\Rr politically. It is during this time period that we see the development of theology that has become foundational for the Orthodox tradition. It may very well be that we see in the GLDVSRUD LURQLFDOO\ WKH GHYHORSPHQW RI DQ 2UWKRGR[ SROLWLFDO WKHRORJ\ WKDt is more authentically Orthodox than what we see in the so-called “mother countries”.

Eastern Orthodoxy and Diasporic Communities: The Challenges of Nationalism Lucian N. Leustean “Nationalism is a doctrine invented in Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century.” (OLH.HGRXULH¶VVHQWHQFHDWWKHVWDUWRIKLVZLGHO\DFFODLPHGERRNRQ NationaOLVP   DSWO\ VXPPDULVHV PRGHUQ QDWLRQDOLVP WKH SUHGRPLQDQW theoretical approach in the study of nationalism. Modern nationalism argues that in the post-Westphalian world system the French Revolution had a leading ideological role ZKLFK FRQVHTXHQWO\ endorsed the rise of modern states. These projected state power and created (“invented” QDWLRQDOLQVWLWXWLRQV%XUHDXcratic VWDWHDXWKRULWLHVHWKQLFDQGFLYLFQDWLRQDOLVm and the search for national sovereignty concurred with the construction of the nation. 1 The Eastern Orthodox world challenges this interpretation by adding religion WRWKHIXQGDPHQWDOFRQFHSWRIWKHQDWLRQDWthe very core of the nation-building procHVV7KURXJKRXW(DVWHUQ 2UWKRGR[\FKXUFKHVDUH PRXOGHGRQWKHQDWLRQDO FKDUDFWHULVWLFVRIORFDOSRSXODWLRQVWKH“national” can be found in the names of FKXUFKHV LQFOXGLQJ IRU H[DPSOH WKH 5XVVLDQ 5RPDQLDQ %XOJDULDQ *UHHN 6HUELDQDQG)LQQLVK2UWKRGox Church. Religious nationalism is evident across all nation-EXLOGLQJSURFHVVHVZLWKWKHH[FHSWLRQRIWZRFKXUFKHV which purport a supra-national view: The Russian Orthodox Church is not only “Russian” but DOVR HQFRPSDVVHV DOO HWKQLF PLQRULWLHV XQGHU LWV MXULVGLFWLRQ 6LPLODUO\ WKH Istanbul-based Ecumenical Patriarchate is neither Greek nor Turkish but brings together a diverse community situated in the West. To complicate the Eastern Orthodox map eveQIXUWKHUDODUJHQXPEHURIILUVWDQGVHFRQGJHQHUDWLRQIDLWKIXO GHVFULEHGDVGLDVSRULFFRPPXQLWLHVEDVHGLQ:HVWHUQ(XURSH1RUWKDQG6RXWK $PHULFDDQG$XVWUDODVLDDQGRXWVLGHWUDGLWLRQDOFHQWUHVRIHFFOHVLDVWLFDOSRZHU do not fully fit the close link between Orthodoxy and nationalism. This chapter focuses on the challenges posed by nationalism to diasporic communities by examining a theoretical overview of the concepts of nation and diaspora. It addresses the role and impact of diasporic communities in the context of the 2016 +RO\DQG*UHDW6\QRGRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFK 1

(OLH .HGRXULH Nationalism /RQGRQ  )RU WKHRUHWLFDO DSSURDFKHV WR WKH VWXG\ RI QDWLRQDOLVPVHH-RKQ$$UPVWURQJNations before Nationalism&KDSHO+LOO1& %HQHGLFW $QGHUVRQ Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of Nationalism/RQGRQ(UQHVW*HOOQHUNations and Nationalism2[IRUG(ULF +REVEDZP DQG 7HUHQFH 5DQJHU HGV  The Invention of Tradition &DPEULGJH  $QWKRQ\ ' 6PLWK The Ethnic Origins of Nations 2[IRUG  -RKQ %UHXLOO\ Nationalism and the State0DQFKHVWHU

176

Lucian N. Leustean

Nation and Diaspora in Eastern Orthodoxy Three examples from the Eastern Orthodox world add further insights into Kedourie’s modernist definition of nationalism. The first took place iQ%\]DQWLXP in the tenth century and is depicted in two manuscripts. Leo the Deacon (DiaNRQRV  LQ KLV ERRN History SUHVHQWHG DQ XQXVXDO HYHQW WDNLQJ SODFH LQ &RQVWDQWLQRSOH,QKLVRZQZRUGV aWWKLVWLPHPDOHWZLQVZKRFDPHIURPWKHUHJLRQRI&DSSDGRFLDZHUHZDQGHULQJ WKURXJKPDQ\SDUWVRIWKH5RPDQ(PSLUH,P\VHOIZKRDPZULWLQJWKHVHOLQHVKDYH RIWHQVHHQWKHPLQ$VLDDPRQVWURXVDQGQRYHOZRQGHUFor the various parts of their ERGLHVZHUHZKROHDQGFRPSOHWHEXWWKHLUVLGHVZHUHDWWDFKHGIURP the armpit to the KLSXQLWLQJWKHLUERGLHVDQGFRPELQLQJWKHPLQWRRQH$QGZLWKWKHadjacent arms WKH\ HPEUDFHG HDFK RWKHU¶V QHFNV DQG LQ WKH RWKHUV FDUULHG VWDIIV RQ ZKLFK WKH\ supported themselves as they walked. They were thirty years old and well developed SK\VLFDOO\DSSHDULQJ\RXWKIXODQGYLJRURXV2QORQJMRXUQH\VWKH\XVHGWRULGHRQD PXOHVLWWLQJVLGHZD\VRQWKHVDGGOHLQWKHIHPDOHIDVKLRQDQGWKH\KDGLQGHVFULEDEO\ sweet and good dispositions. %XWHQRXJKDERXWWKLV 2

That the arrival of conjoined twins had an impact on the population was also reflected in an illustrated manuscript written by -RKQ 6N\OLW]HV D %\]DQWLQH historian in the eleventh FHQWXU\+LVERRNWLWOHGSynopsis of HistoriesUHPDLQV WKHRQO\LOOXVWUDWHGPDQXVFULSWRQ%\]antium detailing the social and political life of the empire from the death of Emperor Nikephoros I in 811 to the deposition of 0LFKDHO9,LQ$OWKRXJK6N\OLW]HVGRHVQRWHODERUDWHH[WHQVLYHO\RQWKHLU DUULYDO KLV LOOXVWUDWLRQ RI WKH HYHQWV WDNLQJ SOace at that time remains most LQWULJXLQJ+HDVVRFLDWHVWKHWZLQV¶DUULYDOZLWK“the solemn entry of mandylion”. 7KHPDQG\OLRQVHHQE\VRPHVFKRODUVDVRQHRIWKHHDUOLHVWUHOLFVGHSLFWLQJWKH IDFH RI &KULVW ZKLOH RWKHUV DVVRFLDWH LW ZLWK WKH 7XULQ VKURXG ZDV QRW RQO\ D combination of religious and imperial political expansion but was also directly linked to the ways in which Constantinople perceived these particular events. 6N\OLW]HV¶ZRUGVLQWKHPDQXVFULSWDUHDVIROORZV The city of Edessa was besiHJHGE\5RPDQIRUFHVDQGZKHQWKHSHRSOHRI(GHVVD were oppressed by the privations of the siege they sent a delegation to the emperor asking for the siege to be lifted and promising to hand over the sacred mandylion of Christ as a ransom. The siege was lLIWHGDQGWKHOLNHQHVVRIRXU*RGZDVEURXJKWWR the capital where the emperor had it ceremonially received by the parakoimomenos Theophanes with impressive and fitting pomp. In those days a monstrous thing came to the imperial city from Armenia: a pair of 6LDPHVHWZLQVPDOHVVKDULQJDVLQJOHEHOO\EXWWKH\ZHUHGULYHQRXWRIWKHFLW\DVDQ evil portent. Then they came EDFNLQWKH>VROH@UHLJQRI&RQVWDQWLQH>9,,@ When one 2

The History of Leo the Deacon. Byzantine Military Expansion in the Tenth Century. ,QWURGXFWLRQWUDQVODWLRQDQGDQQRWDWLRQVE\$OLFH-Mary Talbot and Denis F. Sullivan with the assistance of George T. Dennis and Stamatina McGrath:DVKLQJWRQ'&

Eastern Orthodoxy and Diasporic Communities

177

RIWKHWZLQVGLHGVRPHH[SHULHQFHGGRFWRUVWULHGWRH[FLVHWKHGHDGSRUWLRQ– and they ZHUHVXFFHVVIXOEXWWKHOLYLQJWZLQVXUYLYHGRQO\DVKRUWZKLOHDQGWKHQGLHG 3

What emerges from the text of Leo the Deacon and the illustration and text of -RKQ6N\OLW]HVLVWKDWWKHWZLQVDUULYHGPRVWOLNHO\IRUWKHVHFRQGWLPHLQ&RQstantinRSOHZKLFKFRLQFLGHGZLWKWKDWRIEULQJLQJWKHmandylion to the city. The twins’ presence was perceived as a bad RPHQ and they were driven out of the city. The link between the twins and the mandylion is extremely potent in terms RI LGHQWLW\ HWKQLFLW\ and the concept of the “other” in Constantinople. People ZKREURXJKWEDGRPHQVZHUHH[FOXGHGIURPWKHFLW\KRZHYHUWKLVGLGQRWVWRS the imperial authorities from summoning the most skilled physicians to attempt WR VHSDUDWH WKH WZLQV ZKHQ RQH RI WKHP Gied. The operation seemed to be VXFFHVVIXODWOHDVWIRUDVKRUWSHULRGDWWHVWLQJWRWKHSK\VLFLDQV¶PHGLFDOVNLOOV A successful separation of conjoined twins was not recorded until seven centuries later. The second eventwhich brings us closer to understanding ethnic affiliation in Orthodoxy took place after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The first EcumeniFDO 3DWULDUFK LQ WKH 2WWRPDQ (PSLUH Gennadius ScholariXV ZURWH on his identity the following: “7KRXJK,DPD+HOOHQHE\ELUWK\HW,ZRXOG never say WKDW,ZDVD+HOHQH)RU,GRQRWEHOLHYHDVWKH+HOOHQHVEHOLHYHG,VKRXOGOLNHWR WDNH P\ QDPH IURP P\ IDLWK DQG LI DQ\RQH DVNHG PH ZKDW , DP WR UHSO\ µD &KULVWLDQ¶7KRXJKP\IDWKHUGZHOWLQ7KHVVDO\>«@,GRQRWFDOOP\VHOID7KHVVDOLDQ EXWD%\]DQWLQH)RU,DPRI%\]DQWLXP´ 4 Gennadius’ words resonated among the faithful under Ottoman rule which faced the challenge to their ethnic and spiritual allegiance. $WKLUGHYHQWSURYLGHVIXUWKHULQVLJKWLQWRHWKQLFLW\DQGQDWLRQDOLVPQDPHO\ WKH SXEOLFDWLRQ RI D &DWHFKLVP LQ 9HQLFH LQ  MXVW D IHZ \HDUV EHIRUH WKH “official” ULVHRIPRGHUQQDWLRQDOLVPZLWKWKH)UHQFK5HYROXWLRQ7KH&DWHFKLVP under the title Nauk hristijanskaZDVZULWWHQE\D6HUELDQSULHVW6WRMDQ6REDW who resided in the southern part of PRGHUQ6HUELD%HIRUHXQLILFDWLRQKLVWRULDQV LGHQWLILHG PDQ\ GLIIHUHQW 6HUELDV DV WKH WHUULWRU\ SURYHG WR EH DQ DPDOJDP RI HWKQLFLW\ DQG UHOLJLRQV EHWZHHQ WKH &DWKROLF DQG 0XVOLP :HVW DQG 2UWKRGR[ (DVW ,Q WKH &DWHFKLVP 6REDW ZURWH the following: “Question: Who are you? $QVZHU,DPDKXPDQEHLQJD6HUED&KULVWLDQ >«@ Question: Why do you call yourself a Serb? Answer: I call myself a Serb because of my birth and of my ODQJXDJH ZKLFK LV WKDW RI WKH SHRSOH IURP ZKRP , RULJLQDWH DQG ZKR FDOO themselves Serbs.” 5 3 4 5

-RKQ6N\OLW]HV$6\QRSVLVRI%\]DQWLQH+LVWRU\–. Translation and Notes by John Wortley&DPEULGJH–224. The text is also available in Vasiliki TsamaNGDThe Illustrated Chronicle of Ioannes Skylitzes in Madrid/HLGHQ 4XRWHGLQ6WHYHQ5XQFLPDQThe Last Byzantine Renaissance&DPEULGJH 6WHYDQ.3DYORZLWFKSerbia. The History behind the Name/RQGRQ–23.

178

Lucian N. Leustean

What do these three examples have in common? What do they tell us about HWKQLFLW\ QDWLRQDOLVP and Orthodox Churches" )LUVW DQG IRUHPRVW DOO WKUHH examples have in common “religion” as the major factor in defining identity. The expulsion of the twins was coupled with the arrival of the mandylion Scholarius stated that he was a Christian before any other affiliatLRQ while the Serbian clergyman also depicted himself a Christian. A second element also defines these LGHQWLWLHVQDPHO\WKHRULJLQRIELUWK7KHWZLQVZHUHH[SHOOHGQRWEHFDXVHWKH\ ZHUHERUQLQ$UPHQLDWKXVDGLIIHUHQWHWKQLFFRPPXQLW\LQDODQGIDUaway from Constantinople. They were rejected because their birth was perceived as something monstrous. The arrival of mandylion was a veritable religious re-birth of Constantinople while the physical deformities of the Siamese twins desacralised the identity of the city. Scholarius gave prominence to his native land by stating WKDWDOWKRXJKELUWKSOD\HGDPDMRUUROHLQGHILQLQJZKDWKHZDVKHQRZSODFHG emphasis on a supra-SROLWLFDOOHYHOWKDWRIEHLQJ“RI%\]DQWLXP”. Sobat followed a similar view by indicating not only birth as his prime identity mark but also ODQJXDJH+HVWDWHGWKDWKLVRULJLQVGHULYHGIURPRWKHUSHRSOHZKRXVHGWKHVDPH territory and language. Political nationalism is widely recognised as a modern phenomenon with a specific historicaOVWDUWGDWHWKHWLPHRIWKH)UHQFK5HYROXWLRQZKLFKUHTXLUHG both an institutional “invention” and the appropriation of the past. None of the examples provided above made reference to a fully-fledged identity based on political nationalism. Identity derived not in relation to the concept of an Orthodox nation but to Orthodoxy as a religion. The territories which once were under %\]DQWLQH UXOH DQG ZHUH ODWHU SDUW RI WKH 2WWRPDQ (PSLUH HPEUDFHG SROLWLFDO nationalism at the core of their identity. Many Serbs supported the predominant Serbian identity ZKLFK ORRNHG QRW RQO\ WR %\]DQWLQH WLPHV but also to the Nemanja G\QDVW\ DQG WKH /D]DU FXOW DIWHU WKH  .RVRYR EDWWOH 6LPLODUO\ Wallachians and Moldavians defined themselves under a common Romanian identity embracing both regions and other territories which spoke the same language in Southeastern Europe. The rise of national Orthodox Churches in 19th century Southeastern Europe was the product of close relations between religious and state structures in their search for independence and sovereignty.6 6

Steven RunciPDQ The Great Church in Captivity. A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence &DPEULGJH  'LPLWUL 2EROHQVN\ The Byzantine Commonwealth: Eastern Europe, – /RQGRQ  3DVFKDOLV 0 .LWURPLOLGHV ³ǥ,PDJLQHG &RPPXQLWLHVཚ DQG WKH 2ULJLQVRIWKH1DWLRQDO4XHVWLRQLQWKH%DONDQV´European History Quarterly   149–3DVFKDOLV0.LWURPLOLGHVEnlightenment, Nationalism, Orthodoxy: Studies in the Culture and Political Thought of South-East Europe $OGHUVKRW  9DVLOLRV 1 0DNULGHV³2UWKRGR[&KULVWLDQLW\0RGHUQLW\DQG3RVWPRGHUQLW\2YHUYLHZ$QDO\VLVDQG $VVHVVPHQW´Religion, State & Society  –9DVLOLRV10DNULGHV³:K\ are OrthRGR[&KXUFKHV3DUWLFXODUO\3URQHWR1DWLRQDOL]DWLRQDQGHYHQWR1DWLRQDOLVP"´

Eastern Orthodoxy and Diasporic Communities

179

+RZ GRHV QDWLRQDOLVP UHODWH WR GLDVSRUD" 'LDVSRULF FRPPXQLWLHV DUH E\ definition entities which exist as part of other states. An edited volume by Maria +lPPHUOL DQG -HDQ-)UDQoRLV 0D\HU Orthodox Identities in Western Europe: Migration, Settlement, and Innovation, SXEOLVKHGLQLQGLFDWHVWKHGLIILFXOW\ of articulating a common definition of “diaspora”$VWKHHGLWRUVSRLQWHGRXW ‘Orthodox diaspora’ is problematic also at the theological level. The concept of GLDVSRUDDVLQKHULWHGIURP-XGDLVPSUHVXSSRVHVDXQLTXHDQGH[FOXVLYHFHQWUHWKH 7HPSOH  7KLV FRQFHSW FDQQRW EH DSSOLHG WR 2UWKRGR[ HFFOHVLRORJ\ EDVHG RQ WKH FRQFHSWRIµORFDO&KXUFK¶ZKLFKDOORZVIRUDSOXUDOLW\RIORFDWLRQVHDFKHTXDOO\and fully epitomising the Una SanctaWKH8QLYHUVDO&KXUFK)RU&KULVWLDQVWKH7HPSOH LV WKH %RG\ RI &KULVW FI -RKQ   DQG WKH &KXUFK H[LVWV HYHU\ZKHUH ZKHUH WKH (XFKDULVWLVFHOHEUDWHG>«@7KHXVHRI‘Orthodox diaspora’ is not consistent in this YROXPH6RPHFRQWULEXWRUVFRQVLGHULWDVLQDSSURSULDWHDQGDYRLGLWZKLOHRWKHUVXVH LWLQGLVWLQFWLYHO\ZLWKRXWUHDOO\TXHVWLRQLQJWKHFRQFHSWPHDQLQJVLPSO\2UWKRGR[ people who migrated and settled in territories other than those historically Orthodox. 7

Finding the right terminology remains a contested issue. Victor Roudometof VXJJHVWVDZLGHUDQJHRIWHUPVZKLFKGUDZRQWKHVRFLRORJ\RIUHOLJLRQVXFKDV JORFDOLVDWLRQ DV WKH LQWHUSOD\ EHWZHHQ ORFDO FXOWXUHV DQG ZRUOG UHOLJLRQV  vernacularisation (OrWKRGR[\H[SUHVVHGLQDSDUWLFXODUODQJXDJH LQGLJHQLVDWLRQ 2UWKRGR[\UHODWHGWRDSDUWLFXODUHWKQLFLGHQWLW\ QDWLRQDOLVDWLRQ2UWKRGR[\DV D VRXUFH IRU QDWLRQ IRUPDWLRQ  and transnationalisation (the extension of the jurisdiction of “mother churches” to other territories than the traditional national RQHV $GGLWLRQDOWHUPVWDNHLQWRDFFRXQWQRWRQO\WKHVL]HDQGVWUXFWXUHRIORFDO communities but also the ways in which churches engage with human security both nationally and internationally. 8 These theoretical interpretations denote the complexity of the relationship EHWZHHQ QDWLRQDOLVP GLDVSRUD and Orthodox Churches. 9 The long-standing

7 8

9

St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly    – /XFLDQ 1 /HXVWHDQ HG  Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Southeastern Europe1HZ @

Parallel Agendas of Vatican II and Crete I?

203

a great difference between the preparation of the Council and the fascinating conspiratio of bishops and periti during the Council. The first impression of Yves Congar after his unexpected nomination as consultor of the Theological Commission was not particularly positive. Congar wrote in his diary: “We are a hapax in a text whose context seems to me to be so oriented in a conservative sense! Our being named consultors is also a way of keeping us from the effective work which will be done by the members of the Commission.” 7 7KHLQIOXHQFHRIWKHVPDOOJURXSRI%HOJLDQELVKRSVGXULQJWKH&RXQFLOZDV the result of the fact that they had a tradition of cooperation in their episcopal conference and that there was an atmosphere of trust in their relations with the professors of the University of Louvain who were invited as periti. 8 We should however also keep in mind that the collaboration of bishops and theologians remains a continuous challenge in the Catholic Church after the Council as well. 9 The Role of Canon Law (YHQ LI VRPH GRFXPHQWV RI 9DWLFDQ ,, DUH PRUH SUDFWLFDO LQ QDWXUH WKH\ VWLOO deserve to be characterised as theological documents. The task to translate the theology of Vatican II into a revised Code of Canon Law was after the Council entrusted to canon lawyers. If the result was an imperfect “translation”WKHQWKH theological experts were also to blame for this because they thought their job was finished once the Council had come to an end and they left the canonical translation work to others. 10 What are the sources the Orthodox Council used in its conciliar work? Whereas this was not the case LQWKHGRFXPHQWVRI9DWLFDQ,,VRPHGRFXPHQWVRI the Orthodox Council seem partially or entirely canonical by nature. The document on The Orthodox Diaspora indicates that this problem needs to be VROYHG ³LQ DFFRUGDQFH ZLWK 2UWKRGR[ HFFOHVLRORJ\ DQG WKH canonical tradition 7 8

«@ We shouldn’t have been so closed.” When being asked ZKHWKHUKHKDGIHOWWKHSUHVHQFHRIWKH6SLULWWKH0HWURSROLWDQFRQILUPHGWKDW³WKH+RO\ Spirit did gather us together”. Referring to nationalist and ethnic tendencies present in 2UWKRGR[\IRUPDQ\FHQWXULHVKHDOVRrecognisedKRZHYHUWKDW³WKHUHZHUHsome other QRWVRKRO\VSLULWVDWZRUNLQWKHFRXQFLODVZHOO´6HH0LFKDHO+HLQOHLQ³0HWURSROLWDQ .DOOLVWRV5HIOHFWVRQ2UWKRGR[&RXQFLO´Our Sunday Visitor85/ KWWSV RFORUJPHWURSROLWDQ-kallistos-reflects-orthodox-FRXQFLO>@ 18 6HH3HWHU'H0H\³7KH5ROHRIWKH2EVHUYHUVGXULQJWKH6HFRQG9DWLFDQ&RXQFLO´St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly  –51. 19 5HIHUHQFHVWRFRQFLOLDUGRFXPHQWVDUHWDNHQIURP1RUPDQ37DQQHU6-HG Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils/RQGRQDQG:DVKLQJWRQ'& 20 &I(GZDUG,GULV&DVVLG\Ecumenism and Interreligious Dialogue: Unitatis Redintegratio – Nostra Aetate1HZ@ 22 ,HODERUDWHRQWKLVLQJUHDWHUOHQJWKLQ3HWHU'H0H\³$V6HSDUDWHGEXW&ORVHO\5HODWHG %UHWKUHQ)UDWUHVVHLXQFWL 7KH+DUPRQLRXV&ROODERUDWLRQRI&RXQFLODQG2EVHUYHUVRQ WKH'HFUHHRQ(FXPHQLVPVLF@RILQWHU-confessional competition”. 58 %RWKGRFXPHQWVILQDOO\DOVRsee a link between efforts for Ecumenism and the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ. The strongest statement of the two in this regard remains the opening paragraph of Unitatis RedintegratioVWDWLQJWKDWWKHGLYLVLRQVZLWKLQWKH one Church of Christ are “contrary to Christ’s will. It is a scandal to the world and damages the sacred cause of preaching the gospel to every creature.” (Unitatis Redintegratio  .

56 ,ELG†7KHGRFXPHQWLQVLVWVKRZHYHUWKDWWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKVKRXOG³DWWHPSWto RIIHU ZLWK HDJHUQHVV DQG VROLGDULW\ D UHVSRQVH >WKH ³XQDQLPRXV UHVSRQVH´ RI WKH GUDIW version has been mitigated – 3'0@WRWKHWKRUQ\SUREOHPVRIWKHFRQWHPSRUDU\ZRUOG based on the prototype of the new man in Christ”. The tone of this line is quite similar to WKDWIRXQGLQ³7KH5XVVLDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFK¶V%DVLF7HDFKLQJRQ+XPDQ'LJQLW\)UHHGRPDQG5LJKWV´DGRFXPHQWDGRSWHGE\WKH%LVKRSV¶&RXQFLORIWKH5XVVLDQ2UWKRGR[ &KXUFKLQ85/KWWSVROGPRVSDWUXHQGRFXPHQWVGLJQLW\-freedom-ULJKWV> @ &I WKH FRQFOXVLRQ RI VHFWLRQ , RQ ³+XPDQ 'LJQLW\ DV D 5HOLJLRXV DQG (WKLFDO &DWHJRU\´³$FFRUGLQJWRWKH2UWKRGR[WUDGLWLRQDKXPDQEHLQJSUHVHUYHVKLV*RG-given dignity and grows in it only if he lives in accordance with moral norms because these norms express the primordial and therefore authentic nature not darkened by sin.” 57 Cf. Dignitatis Humanae³7KLV9DWLFDQV\QRGGHFODUHVWKDWWKHKXPDQSHUVRQKDVDULJKW WRUHOLJLRXVIUHHGRP6XFKIUHHGRPFRQVLVWVLQWKLVWKDWDOOVKRXOGKDve such immunity IURPFRHUFLRQE\LQGLYLGXDOVRUE\JURXSVRUE\DQ\KXPDQSRZHUWKDWQRRQHVKRXOGEH IRUFHG WR DFW DJDLQVW KLV FRQVFLHQFH LQ UHOLJLRXV PDWWHUV QRU SUHYHQWHG IURP DFWLQJ DFFRUGLQJWRKLVFRQVFLHQFHZKHWKHULQSULYDWHRULQSXEOLFZKHther alone or in association ZLWKRWKHUVZLWKLQGXHOLPLWV´ 58 “5HODWLRQVRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZLWKWKH5HVWRIWKH&KULVWLDQ:RUOG´†7KHGUDIW version did not ask yet for an explicit condemnation of Uniatism but asked to exclude “any practice of proselytism or any outrageous manifestations of inter-confessional antagonism”. In the so-FDOOHG%DODPDQGVWDWHPHQWRIWKH-RLQW,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RPPLVVLRQIRUWKH 7KHRORJLFDO 'LDORJXH EHWZHHQ WKH 5RPDQ &DWKROLF &KXUFK DQG WKH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK ³8QLDWLVP 0HWKRG RI 8QLW\ RI WKH 3DVW DQG WKH 3UHVHQW 6HDUFK IRU )XOO &RPPXQLRQ´  8QLDWLVPDVDPHWKRGIRUWKHVHDUFKIRUXQLW\DVZHOODVWKHSUDFWLFHRISURVHO\WLVP DUH UHMHFWHG EXW WKH GRFXPHQW DOVR DVNV WR UHVSHFW WKH UHOLJLRXV IUHHGRP RI (DVWHUQ Catholic Christians.

216

Peter De Mey

The Time of Ecumenism $V PHQWLRQHG LQ WKH LQWURGXFWLRQ WKH GRFXPHQW RQ Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World invites not only for a comparison with the position on Ecumenism developed by the Second Vatican Council but can also be read as a commentary on the ongoing ecumenical dialogues in what was for the Catholic Church already a post-conciliar period. )LUVWthe Orthodox Church expects all theological dialogues to focus on “the ZKROHHFFOHVLRORJLFDOTXHVWLRQDQGPRVWHVSHFLDOO\RIWKHLUPRUHJHQHUDOWHDFKLQJVRQVDFUDPHQWVJUDFHSULHVWKRRGDQGDSRVWROLFVXFFHVVLRQ´. 59 7KHUHDIWHUWKHRUJDQLVDWLRQRIWKHELODWHUDOWKHRORJLFDOGLDORJXHVLVGHVFULEHG from its inception to its conclusion. The agreement of all local Orthodox Churches is required before a dialogue can start. 60 The 1986 draft version had to formulate an answer in response to a critical situation which had occurred during the meeting of the Orthodox-RomDQ&DWKROLFLQWHUQDWLRQDOGLDORJXHLQ%DULRQH\HDU HDUOLHU%HFDXVHDQH[SRVLWLRQRILFRQVIURPYugoslav Macedonia took place at WKH9DWLFDQHYHQLIWKLVGLGQRWLPSO\WKHUHFRJQLWLRQE\WKH9DWLFDQRIWKHORFDO cKXUFKDXWKRULWLHVVHYHUDOGHOHJDWLRQVOHft the dialogue team in the course of the meeting. 61 One year later the Pre-Conciliar Commission determined that “the dialogue continues as long as the decision is not a Pan-Orthodox one”. 62 As a post factum MXVWLILFDWLRQRI ZKDW KDSSHQHG LQ  LQ5DYHQQD 63 the 2015 revision GHWHUPLQHGWKHFDQRQLFDOSURFHGXUH³VKRXOGRQHRUPRUHORFDO2UWKRGR[&KXUFKes refuse to take part in the sessions of the Joint Theological Commission of a SDUWLFXODUGLDORJXHFLWLQJVHULRXVHFFOHVLRORJLFDOFDQRQLFDOSDVWRUDORUHthical reasons”. 64 A more constructive new point about ecumenical hermeneutics was DOVR DGGHG WKDW ³WKH GLVWLQFWLYH SUREOHPV RI HDFK ELODWHUDO GLDORJXH UHTXLUH D GLIIHUHQWLDWLRQLQWKHPHWKRGRORJ\IROORZHGLQLWEXWQRWDGLIIHUHQWLDWLRQLQWKH DLP VLQFH the aim is one in all the dialogues”. 65 $OVR LQ  WKH UHPDUNDEOH statement about the “the successful conclusion of the work of any theological GLDORJXH´ ZDV UHSHDWHG ,Q WKDW FDVH D Pan-Orthodox decision would be taken 59 “5HODWLRQVRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZLWKWKH5HVWRIWKH&KULVWLDQ:RUOG´† 60 ,ELG† 61 &I 3DWULFH 0DKLHX Se préparer au don de l’unité: La commission internationale catholique-RUWKRGR[H–3DULV–210. 62 ,ELG 220. Compare “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Christian World”   †DQG³5HODWLRQVRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZLWKWKH5HVWRIWKH&KULVWLDQ:RUOG´† 63 ,Q5DYHQQDWKHGHOHJDWLRQRIWKH0RVFRZ3DWULDUFKDWHZLWKGUHZIURPWKHELODWHUDOGLscussions with the Roman Catholic Church because of the presence of delegates from the OrWKRGR[ &KXUFK LQ (VWRQLD XQGHU WKH MXULVGLFWLRQ RI WKH (FXPHQLFDO 3DWULDUFKDWH ZKLFK 0RVFRZGHHPVXQFDQRQLFDO&I+XXE9RJHODDU“Ecumenical Relationships in EstonLD´ Exchange  –219. 64 “5HODWLRQVRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZLWKWKH5HVWRIWKH&KULVWLDQ:RUOG´† 65 ,ELG†

Parallel Agendas of Vatican II and Crete I?

217

“about the restoration of ecclesiastical communion”. 66 The longer assessment of all the existing bilateral dialogues in the order of their official starting date was omitted as of the 2015 draft. The section on the relationship with the WCC underwent quite some changes in the different drafts. Whereas the 1986 text reflects the growing dissatisfaction of the Orthodox Churches DERXWFHUWDLQDVSHFWVRIWKH:&&SROLF\WKHGUDIW and the approved conciliar statement express satisfaction about the work achieved by the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC in 1998. 67 There is a remarkable change in the description of the reasons why a number of local Orthodox Churches prefer to remain members of the WCC. The 2015 draft PHQWLRQHGWKDWLQVRGRLQJWKH\³FRQWULEXWHWRWKHZLtness of truth and promotion of unity of Christians”. The final version mentions as goal “the advancement of peaceful co-existence and co-operation in the major socio-political challenges”. 68 Johannes Oeldemann draws attention to the fact that the long quote from the 1950 Toronto Declaration of the World Council of Churches is limited to the restrictive SDVVDJHVLQWKLVGRFXPHQWLQVLVWLQJWKDWWKH:&&LVQR³VXSHU-cKXUFK´LVQRW entitled to prepare cKXUFK XQLRQV FDQQRW LPSRVH D SDUWLFXODU HFFOHVLRORJ\ RQ member churches or even oblige them to recognise each other “as churches in the true and full sense of the term”. 69 I appreciate the addition of a word of praise – besides indicating the need of a critical reception of the dialogue results – for the theological work done in the Commission for Faith and Church Order. 70 The most UHPDUNDEOH UHVXOW RI WKH ODWHVW UHGDFWLRQ LV KRZHYHU WKH FOHDU UHMHFWLRQ RI WKH 66 “5HODWLRQVRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZLWKWKH&KULVWLDQ:RUOG´ †&I³5HODWLRQV of the Orthodox Church with the 5HVWRIWKH&KULVWLDQ:RUOG´† 67 “7KH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKDQGWKH(FXPHQLFDO0RYHPHQW´ †&RPSDUH³5HODWLRQV RIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZLWKWKH5HVWRIWKH&KULVWLDQ:RUOG´†&I(OLQD+HOOTYLVW The Church and Its Boundaries: A Study of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the World Council of Churches+HOVLQNL 68 “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”† 69 ,ELG †  2HOGHPDQQ FRQFOXGHV ³2E GHQ RUWKRGR[HQ %LVFK|IHQ GLH GDV gNXPene'RNXPHQWYHUDEVFKLHGHWKDEHQEHZXVVWZDUGDVVGLH7RURQWR-(UNOlUXQJDXFKSRVLWLYH $XVVDJHQEHUGLHDQGHUHQ.LUFKHQHQWKlOW":HQQ$XVVDJHQZLHµ'LH0LWJOLHGVNLUFKHQ HUNHQQHQ DQ GDVV GLH 0LWJOLHGVFKDIW LQ GHU .LUFKH &KULVWL XPIDVVHQGHU LVW DOV GLH MiWJOLHGVFKDIW LQ LKUHU HLJHQHQ .LUFKH¶ RGHU µ'LH 0LWJOLHGVNLUFKHQ GHV gNXPHQLVFKHQ 5DWHV HUNHQQHQ LQ DQGHUHQ .LUFKHQ (OHPHQWH GHU ZDKUHQ .LUFKH DQ¶ HEHQIDOOV ]X GHQ µHNNOHVLRORJLVFKHQ9RUDXVVHW]XQJHQ¶]lKOWHQGLHµYRQHQWVFKHLGHQGHU%HGHXWXQJIUGLH orthoGR[H 0LWDUEHLW LP 5DW¶ VLQG †   VWQGH GDV |NXPHQLVFKH (QJDJHPHQW GHU 2UWKRGR[HQ.LUFKHDXIHLQHPlKQOLFKHQ)XQGDPHQWZLHGDVGHU.DWKROLVFKHQ.LUFKH´Cf. 2HOGHPDQQ³'LH+HLOLJHXQG*UR‰H6\QRGH´DVQ –54. 70 “Relations of the Orthodox Church ZLWKWKH5HVWRIWKH&KULVWLDQ:RUOG´†7KHILQDO line of this paragraph adds the theological reason for the Orthodox Church’s “reservations FRQFHUQLQJ SDUDPRXQW LVVXHV RI IDLWK DQG RUGHU´ ³>«@ EHFDXVH WKH QRQ-Orthodox Churches and Confessions have GLYHUJHGIURPWKHWUXHIDLWKRIWKH2QH+RO\&DWKROLF and Apostolic Church.”

218

Peter De Mey

position of those so-called “traditionalists” who consider ecumenical engagement to be heretical: The 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK FRQVLGHUV DOO HIIRUWV WR EUHDN WKH XQLW\ RI WKH &KXUFK undertaken by individuals or groups under the pretext of maintaining or allegedly GHIHQGLQJWUXH2UWKRGR[\DVEHLQJZRUWK\RIFRQGHPQDWLRQ 71

Conclusion A first sign that the Orthodox Church remains willing to be a constructive dialogue partner of the Catholic Church was given three months after the Council of Crete. Nine years after the Ravenna document had been approved in the absence of the delegation of the Moscow PatriarcKDWHWKH-RLQW,QWHUQDWLRQDO&RPmission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church was able to publish an agreed statement during its meeting in Chieti on Synodality and Primacy during the First Millennium. The subtitle of this quite short document presents it as a long-term goal to work “towards a common understanding in service to the unity of the Church”. 72 It is also to be hoped that the Council of Crete will lead “to a reinforcement of Pan-Orthodox synodal structures” 73 so that the remaining themes on the original agenda of the Pan-Orthodox Council can be discussed and solved in the near future as well.

71 ,ELG† 72 Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic &KXUFKDQGWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFK³6\QRGDOLW\DQG3ULPDF\GXULQJWKH)LUVWMillennium: 7RZDUGVD&RPPRQ8QGHUVWDQGLQJLQ6HUYLFHWRWKH8QLW\RIWKH&KXUFK´&KLHWL 85/KWWSZZZYDWLFDQYDURPDQBFXULDSRQWLILFDOBFRXQFLOVFKUVWXQLFKBRUWKRGR[BGRFV UFBSFBFKUVWXQLBGRFBBVLQRGDOLW\-SULPDF\BHQKWPO>@. Also the informal Saint Irenaeus Joint Orthodox-Catholic Working Group was able in 2018 to publish the study “Serving Communion: Re-thinking the Relationship between Primacy and SynoGDOLW\´ 85/ KWWSVZZZPRHKOHULQVWLWXWGHWH[WH-sp-WH[WH-irenaeus-arbeitskreis >@ &I 2HOGHPDQQ ³'LH +HLOLJH XQG *UR‰H 6\QRGH´ DV Q    “Meine DEVFKOLH‰HQGH7KHVHODXWHWGDVVGLHLQ&KLHWLHUIROJWHRUWKRGR[-NDWKROLVFKH9HUVWlQGLJXQJ JHUDGHGXUFKGLH$XVHLQDQGHUVHW]XQJHQXPGLH6\QRGHYRQ.UHWDEHI|UGHUWZurde. Denn VLHKDWGHQ2UWKRGR[HQYRU$XJHQJHIKUWGDVVGLHDXIRUWKRGR[HU6HLWHLPPHUZLHGHU EHWRQWH6\QRGDOLWlWNHLQ6HOEVWOlXIHULVWVRQGHUQNRQNUHWHU9HUIDKUHQXQG8PVHW]XQJVIRUPHQEHGDUIGDPLWV\QRGDOH%HUDWXQJHQHUIROJUHLFKJHIKUWZHUGHQN|QQHQ.” 73 9ODQWLV³'DV+HLOLJHXQG*UR‰H.RQ]LO´DVQ 

Ecumenical Reflections on the Pan-Orthodox Council Ivana Noble ,QWKLVFKDSWHU I explore how the actual Pan-Orthodox Council of 2016 reflected the long and multifaceted process of its preparation and the different hopes associated with the event0RUHRYHU, consider what impact it has had on ecumenical relations. The “ecumenical reflections” mentioned in the title mean two things: )LUVWVRPHRQHZKRLVV\PSDWKHWLFWR2UWKRGR[\ but lives in a different Christian Church is reflecting on the Council. This reflection is obviously influenced by the standpoint of the one who offers it. There are two factors influencing the position from which I respond. 7KH&]HFKRVORYDN+XVVLWH&KXUFKWRZKLFK,EHORQJKDVERWKDQHSLVFRSDO DQGFRQFLOLDUVWUXFWXUHDQGDQH[SHULHQFHERWKRIKRZWKHFRPELQDWLRQFDQZRUN DQGEHG\VIXQFWLRQDO$WLWVEHVWLWKDVXQLWHGWKH&DWholic and Protestant principles – WRXVH-RKQ+HQU\1HZPDQ¶VYRFDEXODU\ 1 $WLWVZRUVWLWKDs been dividHGE\DFRQIOLFWRYHUGLIIHUHQWLGHDVRIWKHFKXUFK¶VLGHQWLW\,QDGGLWLRQOLNHDOO FKXUFKHVLWKDVH[SHULHQFHGSHDNVDQGUHODWLYHO\ORQJDE\VVHV7KHVHUHIOHFWHG either the presence or the absence of genuine struggles to grasp anew the apostolic WUDGLWLRQ ZKLOH EHLQJ DWWHQWLYH WR WKH SUDFWLFDO VRFLDO SROLWLFDO  VWUXJJOHV RI people in each period. -XVW WR DYRLG FRQIXVLRQ Whis is not a church of the preReformation SHULRGEXWDFKXUFKWKDWEURNHDZD\IURP5RPHLQ,WZDVDOVR WKH FKXUFK WR ZKLFK %LVKRS *RUD]G 3DYOtN EHORQJHG EHIRUH D IXUWKHU VSOLW happened and he left to become the founder of the Orthodox Church in &]HFKRVORYDNLDXQGHUWKH6HUELDQ3DWULDUFKDWH in 1924. 2 The second meaning associated with “ecumenical reflections” is perhaps more direct. The chapter pays attention to the influence the relations with “the Rest of the Christian World” 3 have had on the very idea of the Pan-Orthodox Council in the mRGHUQWLPHVthen to how the Christian others have been addressed by the different cRQFLOLDUGRFXPHQWV and ILQDOO\ZKDWLPSDFWLQP\YLHZWKH Council has had and can have on the relations with other Christians and churches. 1

2 3

1HZPDQUHODWHVWKH&DWKROLFSULQFLSOHWRDXWKRULW\RIWUDGLWLRQDQGWKH3URWHVWDQWSULQFLSOH WR SULYDWH MXGJPHQW WR IUHHGRP RI FRQVFLHQFH DQG IUHHGRP RI SKLORVRSKLFDO DQGWKHRORJLFDOHQTXLU\6HH-RKQ+HQU\1HZPDQApologia pro Vita Sua /RQGRQ–227. )RUKLVDFFRXQWRIWKH³PLGGOHZD\´GUDZLQJRQERWKSULQFLSOHVVHH-RKQ+HQU\1HZPDQ Via Media Oxford 1990. )RUPRUHGHWDLOVHH,YDQD1REOH“9DULRXV&KULVWLDQ7UDGLWLRQVLQ2QH(FFOHVLDO%RG\´ Baptistic Theologies  –83. See the conciliar document “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the ChrisWLDQ:RUOG´85/KWWSVZZZKRO\FRXQFLORUJ-UHVW-of-christian-ZRUOG>@

220

Ivana Noble

The Modern Idea of a Pan-Orthodox Council and the Rising Ecumenical Movement It would be beyond the scope of this chapter to investigate the “gap” between the time of the Ecumenical CRXQFLOVDQGWKHPRGHUQUHYLYDORIWKHLGHDRIcouncilLDULVP+RZWKLV³JDS´ZDVILOOHGE\GLIIHUHQWQRWLRQVLQFOXGLQJWKRVHZKLFKWRRN SODFH ZLWKLQ 2UWKRGR[\ DQG KRZ WKHVH FRQWULEXWHG WR WKH PRGHUQ UHYLYDO RI FRQFLOLDULVPLQ2UWKRGR[WUDGLWLRQKDVEHHQVWXGLHGE\RWKHUV 4 +HUHZHEULHIO\ follow the process of renewal in the Orthodox Churches at the beginning of the 20th FHQWXU\DIWHUthe end RIWKH2WWRPDQ(PSLUH and the renewal or new establishment of Orthodox PDWULDUFKDWHVLQWKH%DONDQV6SHFLDODWWHQWLRQLVSDLGWRKRZ the idea of Pan-Orthodoxy in this period was intertwined with the idea of Christian XQLW\IXOODQGYLVLEOHWDNHQRQE\WKHULVLQJ(FXPHQLFDO0ovement. It will be DUJXHGWKDWERWKQRWLRQVWKDWRIPan-2UWKRGR[\DQGWKDWRI&KULVWLDQXQLW\ZHUH nourished by the intellectual and spiritual encounter between Eastern and Western &KULVWLDQVDQGE\WKHHQJDJHPHQWZLWKPRGHUQ:HVWHUQSKLORVRSK\ which was to replace the Aristotelianism of the Middle Ages. Looking back at the early days of the Orthodox engagement in Ecumenism on the one hand presents us with memories of the pre-FULWLFDOHQJDJHPHQWVZLWKWKHLPDJHVRIRWKHUVDQGRQWKH other handZLWKLQVLJKWVDQGSRVVLELOLWLHV which have not materialised yet. *DWKHULQJVRI0LVVLRQDU\6RFLHWLHVLQDQGOHDGLQJWRWKH(GLQburgh 1910 World Missionary Conference gave birth to the modern Ecumenical Movement – no Orthodox or Roman Catholics were present. The Anglo-CathoOLFVKRZHYHULQVLVWHGWKDWWKH\ZRXOGWDNHSDUWRQO\LIWKH5RPDQ&DWKROLFVDQG the Orthodox were taken as Christians and not as people to be evangelised. 5 On WKH2UWKRGR[VLGHWKHGHVLUHIRUWKHZDOOVEHWZHHQ(DVWHUQDQG:HVWHUQ&KULVtianity to become transparent emerged among some of the prominent hierarchs and theologians already in the 19th FHQWXU\7KH 0HDQLQJ RI /RYH@ 0RVFRZ  – 0LNKDLO 6HUJHHY Sophiology in Russian Orthodoxy: Solov’ev, Bulgakov, Loskii and Berdiaev/HZLVWRQ–86. Solov’ev’s notion of pan-unity was expressed within a VRSKLRORJLFDOIUDPHZRUN+HFRQVLGHUHG6RSKLDDVWKHRWKHURIWKH$EVROXWHZLWKLQWKH Absolute itself. Pan-XQLW\ZKLFKLQFOXGHGWKHRWKHUEXWSUHFLVHO\DVRWKHUZDVWKHQH[pressed in his works in VHYHUDO ZD\V ,W LQFOXGHG DOO OHYHOV RI EHLQJ KXPDQ SHUVRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSVDQGWKHEURDGHUUHODWLRQVZLWKLQWKHVRFLHW\WKXVLWKDGDQHFFOHVLDODVZHOO as a cosmic expression. What is important for Pan-2UWKRGR[DQGHFXPHQLFDOGHEDWHVLW

Ecumenical Reflections on the Pan-Orthodox Council

223

“multi-XQLW\´ RI WKH FKXUFK 19 and this well expresses both the “trans-local dimension” of collaboration 20 as well as the trans-confessional collaboration. This two-dimensional collaboration – and with it a two-dimensional quest for unity – comes to the fore as a priority to be addressed at the beginning of the 20th century. The Orthodox first took an active part in the Ecumenical Movement due to WKH:RUOG6WXGHQW&KULVWLDQ)HGHUDWLRQ:6&)  21 After the Edinburgh MissioQDU\ &RQIHUHQFH LQ  WKH )ederation worked towards an integration of the Orthodox youth so that they would became promoters of Ecumenism. 22 ,Q -RKQ0RWWDQ$PHULFDQ0HWKRGLVWDQGWKHJHQHUDOVHFUHWDU\RI:6&)DQGWKH WUDYHOOLQJVHFUHWDU\RI6@KH>WKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFK – IN@KDVSOD\HGDOHDGLQJ role in the contemporary VHDUFKIRUZD\VDQGPHDQVWRUHVWRUHWKHXQLW\RIWKRVHZKREHOLHYHLQ&KULVWDQG she has participated in the Ecumenical Movement from its RXWVHWDQGKDVcontributed to its formation and further development.” 60 The Ecumenical MRYHPHQWZKLFKWRRNDVLWVJRDO³the aim of seeking the unity of all Christians on the basis of the truth of the faith and tradition of the ancient Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils” 61 is now LQFULVLVVD\VWKH GRFXPHQW 62 DQG\HW2UWKRGR[&KULVWLDQVDUHVWLOOFDOOHGWRSDUWLFLSDWHLQLWDVZHOO as to participate in dialogues with other Christian CKXUFKHVDQGFRQIHVVLRQVLQ order to share their treasures with them. While the witness to the truth of Christ is LQWKLVFRQWH[WYLHZHGDVG\QDPLFWKHG\QDPLFVVHHPWRJRRQO\RQHZD\DQG the mutuality of exchanging the gifts 63 is not presupposed. The exclusivist understanding of the Orthodox continuity with the apostolic faith and sacramental practice goes hand in hand with a preferential option for Pan-Orthodox unity over unity with other churches and confessions. While it is emphasised that Orthodox Christians and Churches need to guard the main aim of the dialogues with others – namely “the complete restoration of unity in true faith 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63

,ELG† ,ELG† ,ELG† 6HHLELG† ,ELG† IELG† IELG† 6WăQLORDHVD\VWKDWWKH+RO\6SLULWEHVWRZVFRPPXQLRQDPRQJWKHGLIIHUHQWPHPEHUVRI WKH &KXUFK EXW EORZV DOVR DFURVV WKH FKXUFKHV DQG EH\RQG WKH FKXUFKHV +LV HVFKDWRORJLFDOO\RULHQWHGRSHQVRERUQLFLW\FDQEHH[SHULHQFHGDOUHDG\KHUHDWOHDVWLQSDUW when we witness and live the fact that “the gift of each exists for the sake of others”. See 'XPLWUX 6WăQLORDH ³7KH +RO\ 6SLULW´ as n. 53   VHH DOVR 'XPLWUX 6WăQLORDH “6RERUQLFLWDWHGHVFKLVD´Ortodoxia  –180.

232

Ivana Noble

and love” 64 (something which echoes the Khomiakovian ideal of sobornicity – the historical experience of the absence of such unity in true faith and love within Orthodoxy leads to an asymmetry in responsibilities towards the Orthodox others and towards other Christian others. The document states that if local Orthodox Churches do not wish to parWLFLSDWHLQHFXPHQLFDODFWLYLWLHVRUELODWHUDOGLDORJXHV they do not have to. 65 7KDWLVRIFRXUVHSHUIHFWO\DFFHSWDEOHEXWWKHQWKHUHDUH further questions. One concerns whether their dissent could undermine what the Orthodox can say in the bilateral and multilateral dialogues or in the ecumenical JDWKHULQJVLQVLJQLQJHFXPHQLFDOGRFXPHQWVDVRQHERG\WKHRWKHUZKHWKHUWKLV could be applied also retrospectively. 66 The “reassessment of the progress of the theological dialogue in question” 67 is a particulaUO\ZRUU\LQJIRUPXODWLRQZKLOH WKHGHVLUHDQGWKHLQWHQWLRQWRVHHNFRQVHQVXVKDUPRQ\DQGXQLW\ZLWKLQ2UWKRGR[\LVXQGHUVWDQGDEOHDQGLWLVWKHYHry reason why the Pan-Orthodox Council was convoked. 0RUHRYHULWKDVWREHERUQHLQPLQGWKDWWKHDXGLHQce to which the document speaks is divided with regard to Ecumenism. The deep crisis it speaks about is at WKHVDPHWLPHYHU\PXFKWKHGHHSFULVLVFXWWLQJWKURXJKWKH2UWKRGR[ZRUOG%RWK EHIRUHGXUing and after the Pan-Orthodox CRXQFLOJURXSVRIPRQNVSULHVWVDQG with them also lay people have led a campaign against Orthodox ecumenical engagement. $UFKELVKRS-RE*HWFKD RI7HOPHVVRV summarises the arguments of the “fighters against the heresy of Ecumenism” as follows: All the reactions could be easil\VXPPDULVHGLQWKUHHSRLQWV WKHUHLVQRQHHGWR UHVWRUHWKHXQLW\RIWKH&KXUFKDVH[SUHVVHGLQWKHGRFXPHQWLQDUWLFOHV DQG VLQFHWKHRQO\SRVVLEOHZD\LVWKDWKHUHWLFVDQGVFKLVPDWLFVUHWXUQ 64 “Relations RIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZLWKWKH5HVWRIWKH&KULVWLDQ:RUOG´† 65 6HH,ELG† 66 7KHUH DUH WZR VWDWHPHQWV ZKLFK JLYH SULRULW\ WR WKH LQWUD-Orthodox relations over agreements with others: “In the event that a certain local Church chooses not to assign a UHSUHVHQWDWLYHWRDSDUWLFXODUGLDORJXHRURQHRILWVVHVVLRQVLIWKLVGHFLVLRQLVQRWSDQ2UWKRGR[WKHGLDORJXHVWLOOFRQWLQXHV3ULRUWRWKHVWDUWRIWKHGLDORJXHRURIWKHVHVVLRQ the absence of any local Church ought to be discussed at all events by the Orthodox Committee of the dialogue to express the solidarity and unity of the Orthodox Church. The bi-lateral and multi-lateral theological dialogues need to be subject to periodical evaluations on a pan-2UWKRGR[OHYHO´,ELG† ³6KRXOGRne or more local Orthodox Churches refuse to take part in the sessions of the Joint Theological Commission of a SDUWLFXODUGLDORJXHFLWLQJVHULRXVHFFOHVLRORJLFDOFDQRQLFDOSDVWRUDORUHWKLFDOUHDVRQV WKLVWKHVH&KXUFKHV VKDOOQRWLI\WKH(FXPHQLFDOPatriarch and all the Orthodox Churches LQZULWLQJLQDFFRUGDQFHZLWKSDQ-Orthodox practice. During a pan-Orthodox meeting the Ecumenical Patriarch shall seek unanimous consensus among the Orthodox Churches DERXW SRVVLEOH FRXUVHV RI DFWLRQ ZKLFK may also include—should this be unanimously deemed necessary—a reassessment of the progress of the theological dialogue in TXHVWLRQ´,ELG†  67 ³5HODWLRQVRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZLWKWKH5HVWRIWKH&KULVWLDQ:RUOG´†

Ecumenical Reflections on the Pan-Orthodox Council

233

WRWKHRQO\&KXUFKZKLFKLVWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKWKURXJKUHSHQWDQFHDQGWKHUHIRUH the prayer of the Orthodox for the ‘union of all’ LVLQWHUSUHWHGDVDSUD\HUIRUWKRVH WKDWWKH\PD\UHWXUQWRWKHWUXH&KXUFK WKHUHDUHQR&KXUFKHVDQGQR&KULVWLDQ Confessions (as stated in the dRFXPHQWLQDUWLFOHVDQG RXWVLGHWKH 2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZKLFKLVWKHRQO\WUXH&KXUFK WKHUHIRUHWKHUHLVQR‘Christian world’ DVVWDWHGLQWKHWLWOHRIWKHGRFXPHQWDQGDUWLFOHVDQG RXWVLGHWKH Orthodox Church. 68

Such statements are well spread throughout the Orthodox world. The antiecumenists use social media to spread their views and employ pasWRUDO FDUH VSLULWXDOGLUHFWLRQas well as the sacramental life of the church to exercise their influence. To this part of the Orthodox world the document very clearly says that the Pan-Orthodox Council rejects “all forms of proselytism and every act of interconfessional competition”. 69 +HUH,DSSUHFLDWHWKDWQRH[FHSWLRQVDUHJLYen. It is seen as not belonging to the “common fundamental SULQFLSOHVRIWKH*RVSHO´DQG moreover as an obstacle to engagement in the world and the ability to respond in solidarity to its “thorny problems” in a manner that would be “based on the prototype of the new man in Christ”. 70

Conclusion To conclude my ecumenical reflections on the Pan-Orthodox Council of 2016OHW me return to the beginning. My experience in a church that has seen struggles with the various images of its own identity and mission on a much smaller scale has taught me not to look at others undergoing such struggles from a position of superiorLW\ ,Q IDFW VXFK D SRVLWLRQ ZRXOG EH PRVW XQKHOSIXO LQ DQ\ FDVH $QG what I have criticised in the conciliar statements is most often related precisely to the problem of superiority. My excursus on the beginnings of the modern idea of a Pan-Orthodox Council and its interrelation with the understanding of the importance of working together with others towards Christian unity aimed to show not only the historical roots of the CRXQFLOEXWDOVRIXUWKHUSRVVLELOLWLHVRI grasping the quest for the two “multi-XQLWLHV´WRJHWKHUZLWKRXWGLYLGLQJWKH3DQOrthodox and the ecumenical into a higher and a lower form of unity. It enabled me to sketch how the “trans-local dimension” of collaboration71 and the transFRQIHVVLRQDO GLPHQVLRQ RI FROODERUDWLRQ FRXOG EH PXWXDOO\ HQULFKLQJ 7KLV , EHOLHYHLVZRUWKUHPHPEHULQJHYHQLIWKHSUREOHPVZHIDFHWRGD\IRXUJHQHUDWLRQVODWHUPD\EHGLIIHUHQWDQGLQRXUUHflection other dimensions need to be

68 69 70 71

-RE*HWFKD ³7KH(FXPHQLFDOSignificance” (as n. 15  “5HODWLRQVRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZLWKWKH5HVWRIWKH&KULVWLDQ:RUOG´† Ibid. 6HH9DOOLHUHConciliarism (as n. 4  8.

234

Ivana Noble

WDNHQRQERDUGLQSDUWLFXODUWKRVHZHPD\LQDVLPLODUORJLFFDOOWUDQV-FXOWXUDO trans-social and trans-religious. While analysing the conciliar statements regarding relations with other Christians and churches and participation in the Ecumenical MRYHPHQW,KDYHSRLQWHG out somHPHWKRGRORJLFDOSUREOHPVdifficult assumptions and loose ends. I have appreciated the Council’s clear no to proselytism and confessional competition. %XWLWLVLPSRUWDQWWRUHDOLVHWKDWIRUVRPH2UWKRGR[WKLVPHDQVWKDWWKH\UHIXVH ULJKWO\ WKHDWWHPSWVRIRWKHUVWRSURVHO\WLVHWKHPRULQWKHZRUVWFDVHVLWLVDQ argument for forbidding other confessions from operating at all in so-called 2UWKRGR[ WHUULWRULHV )RU RWKHUV KRZHYHU LW ZRXOG IRUELG WKH 2UWKRGR[ IURP seeking for converts from other Christian Churches. Thus this statement against proselytism needs to be guarded against a reductionist one-sided interpretation. The proselytism and the competition that are strongly discouraged have WZRVLGHV and the context in which the document discusses the entire issue has nothing to GRZLWKWHUULWRULDOFODLPV7KHQWKHUHKDVEHHQWKHHQFRuragement for Orthodox Christians to continue working towards Christian unity through participating in various dialogues and other ecumenical activities with Christian others. On the oWKHU KDQG WKH DFWXDO GRFXPHQWV as well as the process of writing them and FKDQJLQJ WKHP PD\ KDYH PDQ\ VKRUWFRPLQJV ZKLFK QHHG WR EH KHDOHG DQG RYHUFRPHE\WKHJXLGDQFHRIWKH+RO\6SLULWDQGWKHJUDFHRI*RGWKDWDUHWREH LQYRNHGDVLQWKH2UGLQDWLRQSUD\HUZLWKDEHOLHIWKDWWKH\will “make up that which is lacking”. 72 If we take on board the notion of the divine-KXPDQ V\QHUJ\ VR GHDU WR 2UWKRGR[WKHRORJ\WKHQWKHGLYLQHDVVLVWDQFHFDQQRWEHWUHDWHGDVDQH[FXVHIRU human half-KHDUWHGQHVV7KH+RO\6SLULWLVQRWWKHRQHZKRFRPHVWRIL[WKHJDSV which we have left behind. The Spirit is the Comforter ZKR PDNHV XV DOLYH FRPSOHWHZKRWHDFKHVXVKRZWRDFWERWKDVSHUVRQVDQGDVFKXUFKHVLQDKROLVWLF PDQQHU +HQFH WKH +RO\ 6SLULW DQG WKH JUDFH RI *RG LQYRNHG GXULQJ WKH preparatory period and then in Crete between 17 and 26 June FDQZLWKVRPH justification be seen also as a further invitation to those involved to continue to cooperate with the very same Spirit that is called upon. And this next stage of HIIRUWV,KRSHZLOOLQYROYHDVWLOOGHHSHUFRPLQJWRWHUPV with the ecumenical jourQH\ PDQ\ 2UWKRGR[ KLHUDUFKV WKHRORJLDQV and lay people have already WDNHQ 73 and with the new life possibilities emerging both as gifts and as challenges. 2UWKRGR[\ OLNH DQ\ RWKHU worldZLGH FRPPXQLRQ KDV DOZD\V KDG ZLWKLQ itsHOI D JUHDW YDULHW\ RI DWWLWXGHV Zhich have not only been based on different 72 ³5HODWLRQVRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZLWKWKH5HVWRIWKH&KULVWLDQ:RUOG´† 73 An excellent account of this journey has been offered by the nearly one thousand pages long volume by 3DQWHOLV .DODLW]LGLV 7KRPDV )LW]JHUDOG &\ULO +RYRUXQ et al. HGV  Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism: Resources for Theological Education9RORVet al. 2014.

Ecumenical Reflections on the Pan-Orthodox Council

235

VSLULWXDOH[SHULHQFHVDQGWUDGLWLRQVRIWKHRORJLFDOLQWHUSUHWDWLRQEXWDOVRGHWHUPLQHGE\VRFLDOFXOWXUDODQGSROLWLFDOIDFWRUV7RGD\(cumenism and relations to “the rest of the Christian wRUOG´DUHDPRQJWKHGLYLGLQJWKHPHVSHUKDSVPRUH so because of the second set of reasons than the first. The Pan-Orthodox Council WRRNDVWDQFHDJDLQVWSURVHO\WLVPDQGDJDLQVWFRPSHWLWLRQZLWKRWKHUVDQGWRD degree encouraged cooperation with them. While there LVQRDPELJXLW\WKHUHDV ,KDYHVKRZQLQWKHWH[WWKHDFWXDOIRUPXODWLRQVLQWKHGRFXPHQWVDOORZHGIRU DPELJXLW\LQKRZWKHRWKHUVDUHWREHFRQVLGHUHGDQGHYen in whether the opponents of Ecumenism within Orthodoxy could cause the long-term involvement of others to be “reconsidered” at the Pan-Orthodox level. This has caused much disDSSRLQWPHQW DPRQJ PDQ\ 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK OHDGHUV WKHRORJLDQV DQG DOVR OD\ people ZKR KDYH EHHQ LQYROYHG ZLWK RWKHU &KULVWLDQV FKXUFKHV DQG LQ the Ecumenical MRYHPHQWDVZHOODVDPRQJ their other Christian partners. The question is whether the Pan-Orthodox Council of 2016 could have done PRUH 7KH DQVZHU , WKLQN LV \HV $W WKH VDPH WLPH ZH QHHG WR SHUFHLYH WKH Council as a beginning rather than an end of trying to address and resolve problems which accumulated in the Orthodox Churches over centuries. It is the first attempt at putting conciOLDULVPFODLPHGWREHDGHILQLQJIHDWXUHRI 2UWKRGR[\ 74 into practice at a Pan-2UWKRGR[ OHYHO DV ZKDt Paul Valliere calls “a poetry of conciliarism” 75 did not include the cumulative procedural experience. ,QWKLVOLJKWWKH3DQ-Orthodox Council of 2016 was an invaluable experience for the Orthodox Church to come to terms with its historical reality and could be viewed rather as the first step towards Pan-Orthodox conciliarity in the third

74 In the conciliar document “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian :RUOG´†ZHUHDG³$VHYLGHQFHGWKURXJKRXWWKHOLIHRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKRQO\ conciliarity—always the suitable final judge in matters of faith in the Church—can SUHVHUYHWKHDXWKHQWLF2UWKRGR[IDLWK´7KH³(QF\FOLFDORIWKH+RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLORI the Orthodox Church” traces a continuity: “7KH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK LQ KHU XQLW\ DQG FDWKROLFLW\LVthe Church of CouncilsIURPWKH$SRVWROLF&RXQFLOLQ-HUXVDlem (Acts 15:5 WRWKH present day >«@The Conciliar work continues uninterrupted in history through WKHODWHUFRXQFLOVRIXQLYHUVDODXWKRULW\VXFKDVIRUH[DPSOHWKH*UHDW&RXQFLO–  FRQYHQHGDWWKHWLPHRI6W3KRWLRVWKH*UHDW3DWULDUFKRI &RQVWDQWLQRSOHDQGDOVRWKH *UHDW&RXQFLOVFRQYHQHGDWWKHWLPHRI6W*UHJRU\3DODPDV WKURXJK ZKLFKWKHVDPHWUXWKRIIDLWKZDVFRQILUPHGPRVWHVSHFLDOO\DVFRQFHUQVWKHSURFHVVLRQ RIWKH+RO\6SLULWDQGDVFRQFHUQVWKHSDUWLFLSDWLRn of human beings in the uncreated divine HQHUJLHV DQG IXUWKHUPRUH WKURXJK WKH +RO\ DQG *UHDW &RXQFLOV FRQYHQHG LQ &RQVWDQWLQRSOHLQWRUHIXWHWKHXQLRQLVW&RXQFLORI)ORUHQFH– LQ DQGWRUHIXWH3URWHVWDQWEHOLHIVand in 1872 to condemn ethno-phyletism as an HFFOHVLRORJLFDOKHUHV\´† ,  7KHVHOHFWLRQLVLQWHUHVWLQJDVLWH[FOXGHVWKH$OO-Russian Church Council in Moscow (1917– RUWKHFRXQFLOVDQGV\QRGVWKDWKDYHWDNHQSODFH in the diaspora. 75 I borrow this term from Paul Valliere. See his contribution in this volume.

236

Ivana Noble

millennium. Even if events that took place a few years later have broken communion within Orthodox world HYHQIXUWKHUWKH&ouncil was an important step towards stating the importance of Pan-Orthodox conciliarity. I appreciate the very fact that the hierarchs of the fourteen autocephalous churches had initially come together to agree upon documents for the CRXQFLOKRZHYHUJHQHral and minimal WKH\ZHUHKRZHYHULmperfect the procedure for the Council. And in the end ten out of these fourteen churches were represented by their PDWULDUFKVMetropoliWDQV$UFKELVKRSVDQG%ishops at the Council itself. The expectations were enorPRXVDQGRQHHYHQWOLNHWKLVFRXOGQRWIXOILOWKHGUHDPRIDXQLWHG2UWKRGR[\ HFXPHQLFDOO\RSHQPLVVLRQ-RULHQWHGIDFLQJWKHFKDOOHQJHVRIWKHFXUUHQWZRUOG with deep understanding. The documents of the Council could indeed be better consulted with the OHDGLQJWKHRORJLFDOYRLFHVLQ2UWKRGR[\DQGWKH\FRXOGKDYHWDNHQRQERDUGWKH rich theological development that has taken place in the last century. It is not there. %XWWKHQLWLVonly in exceptional circumstances that documents made by commitWHHVUHSUHVHQWLQJUHVXOWVRIYDULRXVFRPSURPLVHVDUHGHHSO\LQVSLUDWLRQDOIRUWKH next generations RI WKH IDLWKIXO ,Q WKLV VHQVH they are not comparable to the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Church documents of our times are read DJDLQVWDORQJHUKLVWRULFDOH[SHULHQFHa longer tradition of ecclesial practice and VSLULWXDOZLVGRP as well as a longer theological tradition. This can mean both WKDWWKH\GUDZRQWKLVWUDGLWLRQDQGWKDWWKHWUDGLWLRQVWDQGVDJDLQVWWKHPDVWKHLU FRPSOHPHQWDQGFULWLTXH7KXVZKDWZHPD\FRQVLGHUDVWKHIUXLWVRIWKH3DQOrthodox Council of 2016 does not include only the event and the documents it KDVSURGXFHGEXWDOOWKHWKHRORJLFDODQGVSLULWXDOHIIRUWV which accompanied the HYHQWWKHFUHDWLRQ DQGWKHUHFHSWLRQRIWKHGRFXPHQWVLQFOXGLQJWKHLUFULWLTXH and complements to what they lack. Many theological conferences dedicated to the themes that were expected to be addressed by the CRXQFLORUODWHUZKLFKZHUH known as being avoided by the CRXQFLODOOFRXQWDVSDUWRIWKHILUVWVWHSWRZDUGV Orthodox conciliarity in the third millennium. $VFRQFLOLDULW\LVDIHDWXUHUHIOHFWLQJDSURFHVVUDWKHUWKDQDVLQJOHHYHQW, wish my sister church the spirit of courage and humility to go on addressing issues which prevent the unity of true faith and love both within Orthodoxy and ZLWKWKHUHVWRIWKH&KULVWLDQZRUOG,ZLVKKHUWRKDYHWKHFRXUDJHZLsdom and humility to use all available resources to do so. With further steps taken in this GLUHFWLRQWKH³SRHWU\RIFRQFLOLDULVP´ZLOOJUDGXDOO\PRYHLQWRWKHH[SHULHQFHRI conciliarism. The Ecumenical Patriarch said in his opening address to the PanOrthodox CRXQFLOLQWKDWZLWKRXWFRQFLOLDULW\³WKHXQLW\RIWKH&KXUFKLV VHYHUHGWKHVDQFWLW\RILWVPHPEHUVLVUHGXFHGWRPHUHLQGLYLGXDOPRUDOLW\DQG DUWLFXODWLRQDERXWYLUWXHFDWKROLFLW\LVVDFULILFHGLQIDYRXURISDUWLFXODULQGLYLGXDO collectivH QDWLRQDO DQG RWKHU VHFXODU LQWHUHVWV RU LQWHQWLRQV DQG WKH DSRVWROLF

Ecumenical Reflections on the Pan-Orthodox Council

237

message falls prey to various heresies and ruses of human reason”. 76 The quest IRUWKHXQLW\RIWKHFKXUFKLQWKHWLPHVRI3DWULDUFK-RDFKLP,,,ZKRKDVEHHQ taken as such an important inspiration for the Pan-2UWKRGR[ &RXQFLO RI  included in one breath both the Pan-Orthodox and the ecumenical agenda. Those who further developed this vision over the next four generations experienced and reflected upon the fact that in dealing with RWKHUVRQHQHHGVWROHDUQWRH[SHFW UHFHLYLQJJLIWVVWHPPLQJIURPDOLYHGFRQWLQXLW\ZLWKWKHDSRVWROLFWUDGLWLRQJLIWV RQHGRHVQRWKDYHDVZHOODVWRJLYHRQH¶VRZQJLIWV0\ZLVKIRUWKH2UWKRGR[ Church is that this part of her tradition would be still more fully recognised as its PDLQVWUHDPDQGWKDWLWZRXOGDLGLQKHDOLQJWKHGLYLVLRQVZLWKLQLWDVZHOODVLQ WKHUHVWRIWKH&KULVWLDQZRUOG0D\WKH+RO\6SLULWDQGWKHJUDFHRI*RGLQVSLUH this process and support the good in human effort while making up that which is lacking. 77

76 ³2SHQLQJ $GGUHVV E\ +LV $OO-+ROLQHVV (FXPHQLFDO 3DWULDUFK %DUWKRORPHZ DW WKH ,QDXJXUDO6HVVLRQRIWKH+RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLO´85/KWWSVZZZKRO\FRXQFLORUJRSHQLQJ-ecumenical-patrLDUFK>@ 77 6HH³5HODWLRQVRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZLWKWKH5HVWRIWKH&KULVWLDQ:RUOG´†

2UWKRGR[\(FXPHQLVP and Inter-Christian Dialogue 1 Pantelis Kalaitzidis

The Holy and Great Council and its Convocation “In spite of all these problems and the divergence of SRLQWVRIYLHZLWPXVWEH emphasised that this council was an important event in the history of modern Orthodoxy and that it will certainly leave its mark in the years to come.”2 This DVVHVVPHQW RQ WKH +RO\ DQG *UHDW &RXQFLO RI &UHWH coming from a Religious Studies scholaU VSHFLDOLVLQJ LQ 2UWKRGR[ &KULVWLDQLW\ is not an exception. It is DOVRWKHRSLQLRQRIRWKHUVFKRODUVWKHRORJLDQVDQGclerics who have expressed VLPLODUYLHZVWRWKHSRLQWRIXQGHUVWDQGLQJWKH&RXQFLORI&UHWHDVDQepochal historic moment after which the Orthodox Church “will never be the same”. 3 1

2 3

,Q WKH SUHVHQW FKDSWHU , EHQHILW IURP PDWHULDO DQG DQDO\VHV RIIHUHG LQ YDULRXV HDUOLHU SXEOLFDWLRQV3DQWHOLV.DODLW]LGLV³7KHRORJLFDO+LVWRULFDODQG&XOWXUDO5HDVRQVIRU$QWLHFXPHQLFDO 0RYHPHQWV LQ (DVWHUQ 2UWKRGR[\´ LQ 3DQWHOLV .DODLW]LGLV 7KRPDV )LW]*HUDOG&\ULO+RYRUXQet al. HGV  Orthodox Handbook on Ecumenism 9RORV*HQHYD 2[IRUG  – LGHP ³7KH +RO\ DQG *UHDW &RXQFLO RI WKe Orthodox Church EHWZHHQ6\QRGDO,QHUWLDDQG*UHDW([SHFWDWLRQV$FKLHYHPHQWVDQG3HQGLQJ,VVXHV´LQ +HUPDQ7HXOHDQG-RVHSK9HUKH\GHQHGV Eastern and Oriental Christianity in the Diaspora/HXYHQ–153. I would like to express my deep gratitude and appreciation to 3URI 'U +DQV-3HWHU *URVVKDQV 'LUHFWRU RI WKH ,QVWLWXWH IRU (FXPHQLFDO 7KHRORJ\ DQG 'HDQ RI WKH )DFXOW\ RI 3URWHVWDQW 7KHRORJ\ 8QLYHUVLW\ RI 0QVWHU *HUPDQ\ IRU WKH KRVSLWDOLW\ RIIHUHG WR PH DW WKH ,QVWLWXWH DQG LWV OLEUDU\ WKanks to which I was able to ILQDOLVHWKLVSDSHU6LQFHUHWKDQNVDUHDOVRGXHWRP\FROOHDJXH'U1LNRODRV$VSURXOLV DeSXW\'LUHFWRURIWKH9RORV$FDGHP\IRU7KHRORJLFDO6WXGLHVIRUHGLWLQJWKHFKDSWHU, am also happy to extend my thanks to Ms. Valila GLDQQRXWDNL07K6WDIIPHPEHURIWKH 9RORV$FDGHP\IRUIDFLOLWDWLQJP\DFFHVVWROLEUDU\PDWHULDODQGIRUKHUSUHFLRXVKHOS during the preparation of the present chapter. 9DVLOLRV10DNULGHV³/HFRQFLOHSDQRUWKRGR[HGH4XHOTXHVUpIOH[LRQVVXUOHVGpILV DX[TXHOVOHPRQGHRUWKRGR[HGRLWIDLUHIDFH´Istina  –KHUH ³7KH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKZLOOQHYHUEHWKHVDPHDIWHU-XQHWK2QWKDWGD\Zhen WKH+RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLORIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKKHOGDW&UHWH*UHHFH ILQLVKHGRQH ELJFKDSWHURILWVKLVWRU\ZDVFRQFOXGHGRUSHUKDSVDQHQWLUHO\QHZRQHKDVEHHQRSHQHG´ Andrei Jeftiü ³)RUHZRUG´ LQ 0D[LP 9DVLOMHYLü DQG Andrei Jeftiü HGV  Synodality: A Forgotten and Misapprehended Vision. Reflections on the Holy and Great Council of $OKDPEUD&$–KHUH³7KH+RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLORI&UHWHLVWKHPRVW important step of the last centuries in the history of the Orthodox Church. I consider my parWLFLSDWLRQDVDWUXH*RG¶VEOHVVLQJDQXQSUHFHGHQWHGH[SHULHQFH>«@7KHFRXQFLOJDYH a valuable opportunity to all local churches to revive their ecclesiological self-consciousness that seemed to be lost.” “13 ȈȘȝİ૙Į ıȣȞȐȞIJȘıȘȢ ȝ੻ IJઁȞ ȈİȕĮıȝȚȫIJĮIJȠ ȂȘIJȡȠʌȠȜȓIJȘ

240

3DQWHOLV.DODLW]LGLV

2WKHUVKLJKOLJKWLWVV\PEROLFVLJQLILFDQFHDQGFRQVLGHUWKHFRQYHQWLRQRIWKH+RO\ DQG *UHDW &RXQFLO DV D ³PLUDFOH´ IRU ZKLFK JUHDW FUHGLW PXVW EH JLYHQ WR (FXPHQLFDO 3DWULDUFK %DUWKRORPHZ WDNLQJ LQWR DFFRXQW WKH EURDGHU SROLWLFDO JHRSROLWLFDODQd ecclesiastical context that defined the Council and the fact that the Orthodox Church is not characterised by a centralised ecclesiological structure or a unique centre of decision-making. 4 It is well NQRZQ WKDW WKH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK FRQYHQHG LWV +Rly and Great Council in Crete from 17 to 26 June 2016. This was a long-awaited historic event – to the extent that the initial idea was already discussed in the early decades of the 20th FHQWXU\ZKHUHDVWKHDFWual preparation started in 1961 – the Council was destined to become an important step towards the re-discovery of genuine FRQFLOLDULW\ DQG V\QRGDOLW\ WDNLQJ LPSRUWDQW GHFLVLRQV IRU WKH SUHVHQW DQG WKH IXWXUHRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFK$WWKHVDPHWLPHKRZHYHULWZDVXQIRUWXQDWHO\ convened without or in the DEVHQFHRIODLW\ZRPHQDQG\RXWKZLWKDQRYHUDOO GDWHG DJHQGD FRUUHVSRQGLQJ SHUKDSV WR WKH H[SHFWDWLRQV DQG FRQFHUQV RI WKH V DQG V EXW ZKLFK E\ QR PHDQV ILW Wo the concerns of our era. The Council was attended by the PULPDWHVDQGUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVPDLQO\ELVKRSV RIWHQ

4

ȃȚȖȘȡȓĮȢ ț. ਝȜȑȟĮȞįȡȠ. ȈȣȞȑȞIJİȣȟȘ ıIJઁȞ ਺ȡĮțȜો ĭȓȜȚȠ´>7KLUWHHQ0HHWLQJ3RLQWVZLWK 0HWURSROLWDQ$OH[DQGHURI1LJHULD$Q,QWHUYLHZRI+LV(PLQHQFHWR,UDNOLV)LOLRV@ĭࠛȢ ĭĮȞĮȡȓȠȣ 85/KWWSIDQDULRQEORJVSRWJUEORJ-SRVWBKWPO> @ -RKQ%HKU³7KH+RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLO´LQ9DVLOMHYLü and JeftiüHGV Synodality DVQ –KHUH–&\ULOOH+RYRUXQ³,QWHUYLHZVXUOH&RQFLOH´Le Messager orthodoxe  –KHUH–0DQ\VFKRODUVDQGKLHUDUFKVERWK2UWKRGR[ and non-2UWKRGR[SUDLVHG(FXPHQLFDO3DWULDUFK%DUWKRORPHZIRUKLVGHFLVLYHUROHLQWKH SUHSDUDWLRQ WKH DFFHOHUDWLRQ RI WKH SURFHVV DQG WKH FRQYHQWLRQ RI WKH +RO\ DQG *UHDW &RXQFLODVZHOODVIRUVHUYLQJSULPDF\DQGWKHH[HPSlary way he exercised his prerogatives as primus inter pares in his capacity as chairman of the Council. 6HHIRUH[DPSOH $OEHUWR0HOORQL³/H6DLQWHW*UDQG&RQFLOHGH&UqWH+pUDNOLRQ-Kolymbari-ChanLD MXLQ ´ Contacts    – KHUH  DQG – 'LPLWULRV %DWKUHOORV ³/H 6DLQW HW *UDQG &RQFLOH SUpVHQWDWLRQ HW DSSUpFLDWLRQ´ Contacts   –KHUH5HLQKDUG7K|OH³/HVDLQWHWJUDQG&RQFLOHGHO¶eJOLVHRUWKRGR[H&UqWH HQWUHpSUHXYHHWSURPHVVH8QHFKROXWKpULHQ´Istina  – KHUH%UDQGRQ*DOODKHU³7KH2UWKRGR[0RPHQW7KH+RO\DQG*UHDW&ouncil in &UHWH DQG 2UWKRGR[\¶V (QFRXQWHU ZLWK WKH :HVW 2Q /HDUQLQJ WR /RYH WKH &KXUFK´ Sobornost  –KHUH–3DXO/*DYULO\XN³2UWKRGR[&RXQFLO%ULGJHV 7HQVLRQV0RYHV7RZDUG,QWHUIDLWK'LDORJXH´America 85/KWWSZww. DPHULFDPDJD]LQHRUJLVVXHRUWKRGR[-council-bridges-tensions-moves-toward-interfaith-d LDORJXH>@6HHDOVR³µ5HIOHFWLRQVRQWKH+RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLO¶$Q,QWHUYLHZ ZLWK 0HWURSROLWDQ .DOOLVWRV >:DUH@ ZLWK 0LFKDHO 5 +HLQOHLQ´ LQ 9DVLOMHYLü DQG Jeftiü HGV  Synodality DV Q   – KHUH – DQG  %LVKRS 0D[LP RI :HVWHUQ$PHULFDDiary of the Council: Reflections from the Holy and Great Council at WKH 2UWKRGR[ $FDGHP\ LQ &UHWH -XQH -  $OKDPEUD&$  passim “13 ȈȘȝİ૙Į´DVQ 

2UWKRGR[\(FXPHQLVP and Inter-Christian Dialogue

241

out of fourteen autocephalous Orthodox &KXUFKHV DQG WKLV LV VR EHFDXVH IRXU CKXUFKHVFDQFHOOHGDWWKHODVWPLQXWHWKHLUSDUWLFLSDWLRQLHWKH*UHHN2UWKRGR[ 3DWULDUFKDWHRI$QWLRFKWKH5XVVLDQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFKWKH%XOJDULDQ2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK DQG WKH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK RI *HRUJLD  5 The ten Orthodox Churches which finally participated DQGPDGHWKHFRQYRFDWLRQRIWKH+RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLO D WDQJLEOH UHDOLW\ and QRW VLPSO\ D GUHDP RU D PHUH H[SHFWDWLRQ were the &KXUFKHV RI &RQVWDQWLQRSOH $OH[DQGULD -HUXVDOHP 6HUELD 5RPDQLD &\SUXV *UHHFH3RODQG$OEDQLDDQG&]HFh Lands and Slovakia. (FXPHQLFDO 3DWULDUFK %DUWKRORPHZ LQ KLV FDSDFLW\ DV primus inter pares whose main aim is to serve the unity of the 2UWKRGR[&KXUFKWRFRRUGLQDWHDQG to convene Pan-2UWKRGR[PHHWLQJVFRQIHUHQFHVDQGV\QRGVDQGWRSUHVLGHRYHU WKHPLQYLWHGWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKHVZRUOGZLGHWRKROGD+RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLO RQ WKH LVODQG RI &UHWH *UHHFH LQ -XQH  7KLV ZDV XSRQ WKH unanimous decision of all the fourteen Orthodox Churches expressed in the Synaxis JDWKHULQJ RIWKH2UWKRGR[3ULPDWHVLQ-DQXDU\LQ&KDPEpV\*HQHYDDQG after a long preparatory process that lasted 55 years (1961– . Even though this gathering RIWKH2UWKRGR[KLHUDUFKVPLJKWDSSHDUH[WUDRUGLQDU\LQRXUWLPH it was also absolutely consistent with the living tradition of the cKXUFK RI WKH )DWKHUVDQGRIWKHJUHDW(FXPHQLFDORUORFDOCouncils (the last great local Council being that of ConstantiQRSOHLQZKLFKSURFHHGed to the condemnation of extreme expressions of nationalism and ethno-phyletism and for which the &KXUFKHVRI-HUXVDOHPDQG5XVVLDGHFOLQHGWKHLQYLWDWLRQ  $IWHUDORQJSUHSDUDWRU\SHULRGZKLFKODVWHGIRUGHFDGHVDQGZHQWWKUough Inter-2UWKRGR[ &RPPLVVLRQV 3DQ-Orthodox and Pre-&RQFLOLDU &RQIHUHQFHV including numerous falterings DQG GHOD\V (FXPHQLFDO 3DWULDUFK %DUWKRORPHZ convened the Fifth Synaxis of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches 3KDQDU ,VWDQEXO0DUFK that decided to create a Special Inter-Orthodox Committee LQRUGHUWRDGYDQFHWKHSUHSDUDWRU\SURFHVVRIWKH+RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLO7KH Special Inter-Orthodox Committee met on three occasions to finalise the agenda and the corresponding documents for the +RO\ DQG *UHDW &RXQFLO 7KHVH documents were ultimately referred for approval to the Fifth Pre-Conciliar PanOrthodox Conference &KDPEpV\ -17 October   ZKLFK LQ WXUQ had received the mandate from the Fifth Synaxis mentioned above to conclude the preparatory process even with only eight of the initial ten topics for the agenda RIWKH+RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLODJUHHGXSRQ One of the final draft pre-conciliar documents approved by the October 2015 Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference and made public for discussion and deliberation was the one on Ecumenical 5

3DXO/*DYULO\XN³+LVWRULF2UWKRGR[&RXQFLO0HHWVGHVSLWH$EVHQFHRI)RXU&KXUFKHV´ 85/ KWWSVZZZDPHULFDPDJD]LQHRUJLVVXHKLVWRULF-orthodox-council-meets-despiteabsence-four-FKXUFKHV>@ describes both the attempts towards subverting the Council and how these attempts failed.

242

3DQWHOLV.DODLW]LGLV

dialogue which henceforth bore the title “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World”. )LQDOO\ DW WKH 6L[WK Synaxis of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches (&KDPEpV\ *HQHYD -28 January  , the agenda was unanimously fixed. The purpose of this Synaxis was to confirm the achieved preparatory work and DOVR WR GHFLGH DERXW WKH FRQYRFDWLRQ VWUXFWXUH DQG UXOHV RI RUJDQLVDWLRQ DQG RSHUDWLRQRIWKH+RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLODVZHOODVLWVDJHQGD7KHSynaxis of the Primates unanimously decided that the convocation of the Council should take SODFHLQ.RO\PEDUL.LVVDPRVDWWKH2UWKRGR[$FDGHP\RI&UHWH6 from 17 to 26 June 2016. It also unanimously accepted the documents of the Fifth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference &KDPEpV\ 10-17 October   ZLWK FHUWDLQ DGGLWLRQVDQGGHOHWLRQVZKLOHLWDSSURYHGWKH³5XOHVRI2UJDQL]DWLRQDQG2SHUDWLRQ IRU WKH +RO\ DQG *UHDW &RXQFLO´ DQG ILQDOO\ GHWHUPLQHG WKH DJHQGD Rf its GHOLEHUDWLRQV 7KH WRSLFV ZHUH ILQDOO\ UHGXFHG WR VL[   7KH 0LVVLRQ RI WKH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK LQ WKH FRQWHPSRUDU\ ZRUOG   7KH 2UWKRGR[ 'LDVSRUD   $XWRQRP\DQGLWVPDQQHURISURFODPDWLRQ 7KHVDFUDPHQWRIPDUULDJHDQGLWV LPSHGLPHQWV   7KH LPSRUWDQFH RI IDVWLQJ DQG LWV DSSOLFDWLRQ WRGD\ DQG   Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world. 7 Consequently the Council of Crete deliberated and issued decisions only on these six 6

7

7KH&RXQFLOZDVRULJLQDOO\SODQQHGLQWKHFKXUFKRI$JLD(LULQLLQ,VWDQEXOEXWWKHYHQXH was changed due to the problematic political and military relations between Russia and Turkey at thaWWLPH7KHVHUHODWLRQVZHUHXQVWDEOHLQLQFRPSOHWHFRQWUDVWWRWRGD\  ZKHQWKHUHLVFORVHFRRSHUDWLRQDQGHYHQDOOLDQFHLQVRPHGRPDLQVEHWZHHQ5XVVLDDQG7XUNH\$+RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLORIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKXQGHUWKHSUHVLGHQF\ of the (FXPHQLFDO 3DWULDUFK %DUWKRORPHZ KHOG DW WKH FKXUFK RI $JLD (LULQL LQ ,VWDQEXO ZRXOG KDYH KDG DQ LPPHQVH V\PEROLF LPSDFW DV LW LV WKH RQO\ KLVWRULFDO FKXUFK RI &RQVWDQWLQRSOH ZKLFK ZDV QHYHU FRQYHUWHG LQWR D PRVTXH DQG LQ ZKLFK WKH 6HFRQG Ecumenical Council took place in 381. It is not difficult to imagine the reasons why the Russian Orthodox Church insisted – successfully – RQ PRYLQJ WKH &RXQFLO WR &UHWH D Council in which it finally did not even take part! For a detailed informative description of the long preparatory history and the successive VWHSVWRZDUGVWKH+RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLO,QWHU-2UWKRGR[&RPPLVVLRQV3DQ-Orthodox and Pre-&RQFLOLDU &RQIHUHQFHV WKH Synaxes of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches etc. VHHDPRQJRWKHUVViorel ,RQL‫܊‬ăToward the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church: The Decisions of the Pan-2UWKRGR[0HHWLQJVVLQFHXQWLOWUDQVOE\ 5HPXV5XV%DVOHLGHP³2QWKH:D\WRWKH+RO\DQG*UHDW6\QRGRIWKH2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK´ LQ Reinhard Flogaus and JennifHU :DVPXWK HGV  Orthodoxie im Dialog: Historische und aktuelle Perspektiven. Festschrift für Heinz Ohme %HUOLQ DQG %RVWRQ –-RKQ(ULFNVRQ³2YHUYLHZRI+LVWRU\DQG'LIILFXOWLHVLQ3UHSDULQJIRUWKH &RXQFLO´LQ*HRUJH(0DWVRXNDVHG Orthodox Christianity at the Crossroad: A Great Council of the Church – When and Why1HZ«@ Moreover, from the fact of its inclusion in the Council, it does not ensue that each Church is obliged to regard the other Churches as Churches in the true and full sense of the term (Toronto SWDWHPHQW† .” (Emphasis in RULJLQDO  As for the Orthodox mHPEHUVKLS LQ WKH :&& the Synodal document underscores the fact that some of the Orthodox Churches were among the Council¶V IRXQGLQJ PHPEHUV ZKLOH LW FOHDUO\ DFNQRZOHGJHV WKDW ³WKH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFKHVRI*HRUJLDDQG%XOJDULDZLWKGUHZIURPWKH:&&WKHIRUPHULQ and the latter in 1998. They have their own particular opinion on the work of the WCC and hence do not participate in its activities and those of other inter&KULVWLDQRUJDQL]DWLRQV´† In the remaining part of the Synodal document we reaG WKDW ³>W@he local Orthodox Churches that are members of the WCC SDUWLFLSDWH IXOO\ DQG HTXDOO\ LQ WKH :&& FRQWULEXWLQJ ZLWK DOO PHDQV DW WKHLU disposal to the advancement of peaceful co-existence and co-operation in the major socio-political challenges” (†   The difference of this last wording in comparison to the corresponding one of the final draft pre-conciliar document is TXLWH LPSRUWDQW VLQFH LW VKRZV D QRQ-negligible and even surprising shift. The wording of the draft document of 2015 was the following: “The local Orthodox Church-PHPEHUVSDUWLFLSDWHIXOO\DQGHTXDOO\LQWKH:&&contributing to the witness of truth and promotion of unity among Christians by all means available.” 21 It is hard to say whether this shift from the goal of Christian unity – traditionally assigned by the Orthodox to WCC – to rather politicised goals marks a turn in the self-understanding of the Orthodox participation in WCC towards a socially and politically sensitive vision. It could also be a way to overcome the reactions and the opposition of conservative bishops and churches for the participation of the Orthodox in the WCC by shifting from ecumenical dialogue and the search of the visible unity of the church to mere inter-Christian cooperation. This shift from the search of Christian unity to a more or less political agenda appears to be even more difficult to explain sincHLWJRHVWRJHWKHULQWKH same paragraph with the praiseful reference to the establishment of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC at the request of the Orthodox representatives mandated on this by the Inter-Orthodox Conference held in Thessaloniki in 1998. This also led to the formation of the Permanent Committee 20 The quotation from the Toronto Statement in the final draft pre-conciliar document ended here. The approved Synodal document added some more lines of particular interest. 21 Paragraph 17 of the final draft pre-FRQFLOLDUGRFXPHQWP\HPSKDVLV 

2UWKRGR[\(FXPHQLVP and Inter-Christian Dialogue

253

on Consensus and Collaboration. One of the main reasons for the Orthodox to request the establishment of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the WCC was exactly the complains expressed by many Orthodox about the overall political and social-RULHQWHG WXUQ RI :&& DQG WKH REOLYLRQ RU WKH abandonment of its foundational DQGSULPDU\WDVNQDPHO\WKHVHDUFKIRUWKHUHestablishment of Christian unity. The SynRGDO GRFXPHQW DOVR KROGV WKDW WKH 2UWKRGR[ &KXUFK ³UHPDLQLQJ IDLWKIXO WR KHU HFFOHVLRORJ\ WR WKH LGHQWLW\ RI KHU LQWHUQDO VWUXFWXUH DQG WR WKH teaching of the ancient Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils” does not understand its participation in the WCC as the acceptance of “the notion of the µHTXDOLW\ RI &RQIHVVLRQV¶ DQG LQ QR ZD\ LV VKH DEOH WR DFFHSWWKH XQLW\ RI WKH Church as an inter-FRQIHVVLRQDOFRPSURPLVH,QWKLVVSLULWWKHXQLW\WKDWLVVRXJKW within the WCC cannot simply be the product of WKHRORJLFDODJUHHPHQWVEXWPXVW DOVREHIRXQGHGRQWKHXQLW\RIIDLWKSUHVHUYHGLQWKHVDFUDPHQWVDQGOLYHGRXWLQ the Orthodox Church” (†  22 The document under discussion – and this is new in a positive sense in comparison to the initial 1986 document of the Third Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference in Chambésy – clearly condemns any attempt of fundamentalist circles undertaken by individuals or groups to shatter church unity under the pretense of SUHVHUYLQJRUGHIHQGLQJWUXH2UWKRGR[\LQspite of the conciliar sysWHPZKLFK DFFRUGLQJ WR WKH &DQRQ  RI WKH 6HFRQG (FXPHQLFDO &RXQFLO KDV DOZD\V UHSresented the highest authority in the church on matters of faith and canonical GHFUHHV†  23 At the same timeWKHILQDO6ynodal document does not hesitate to underline the incompatibility and contradiction of conducting inter-Christian WKHRORJLFDO GLDORJXH RQ WKH RQH KDQG DQG SUDFWLFLQJ ³SURVHO\WLVP XQLDWLVP RU other provocative act of inter-FRQIHVVLRQDOFRPSHWLWLRQ´RQWKHRWKHUSUDLVLQJa FRPPRQ ZLWQHVV LQ WKH FRQWHPSRUDU\ ZRUOG LQVSLUHG E\ WKH FRPPRQ IXQGDmental principles of the Gospel and faithful to the ideal model “of the new man LQ&KULVW´†  Last but not least – and this is also a very positive and hopeful sign – the Synodal document under discussion declares that the Orthodox Church “is aware 22 &IWKH³0HVVDJH´†† DQGDQGWKH³(QF\FOLFDO´9,,† 23 &I WKH ³0HVVDJH´ †  2Q WKH SUREOHP RI 2UWKRGR[ IXQGDPHQWDOLVP VHH $ULVWRWle 3DSDQLNRODRX DQG *HRUJH ( 'HPDFRSRXORV HGV  Orthodoxy or Fundamentalism: Christianity after Secularism 1HZ 9LVLRQV DQG 5HDOLWLHV@ $WKHQV   Agourides was the former delegate of the Orthodox Church of Greece to the WCC. 31 7KLVVLWXDWLRQKDVVWDUWHGWRFKDQJHGXULQJWKHODVW\HDUVDV\RXQJHU2UWKRGR[GHOHJDWHV IRUH[DPSOHWKRVHRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKRI*UHHFHKDYHDGRSWHGDPRUHFRQVWUXFWLYH attitude in ecumenical meetings and plenaries.

258

3DQWHOLV.DODLW]LGLV

$VVHPEO\RIWKH:&&LQ1HZ'HOKLLQ³)RUWKH2UWKRGR[WKH2UWKRGR[ Church is precisely the Church.” This was in keeping with the Toronto Statement RIDFFHSWHGE\WKH&HQWUDO&RPPLWWHHRI:&& ³0HPEHUVKLSLQWKH:&& does not imply the acceptance of a specific doctrine concerning the nature of FKXUFKXQLW\>«@0HPEHUVKLSGRHVQRWLPSO\WKDWHDFK&KXUFKPXVWUHJDUGWKH other member Churches as Churches in the true and full sense of the word.” $FFRUGLQJWR.DOOLVWRV7LPRWK\ Ware (following the Toronto Statement in his classic work The Orthodox Church, the 2UWKRGR[WKHQ³E\SDUWLFLSDWLQJ>LQ the WCC – PK@GRQRWWKHUHE\LPSO\What they regard all Christian confessions as HTXDOQRUGRWKH\FRPSURPLVHWKH2UWKRdox claim to be the true Church >«@,Q view RI WKLV H[SOLFLW VWDWHPHQW >«@ Orthodox can take part in the Ecumenical Movement without endangering their Orthodoxy. And if Orthodox can WDNHSDUW then they must GRVRIRUVLQFHWKH\EHOLHYHWKH2UWKRGR[IDLWKWREHWUXHLWLVWKHLU duty to bear witness to that faith as widely as possible.” 32 It is clear then that the Orthodox participation in the Ecumenical Movement cannot only be understood as a witness to the undivided CKXUFKRUDVDQLQYLWDWLRQWRWKHRWKHU&KULVWLDQ Churches and denominations to return to the common tradition of the ancient Church but very often relates to the expectation that this return to the common %LElical and Patristic sources and roots would eventually lead to the conversion of Western Christians to Orthodoxy. In this more or less exclusivist ecclesioORJLFDOSHUVSHFWLYH ecumenical dialogue was justified by the very fact that at the end of the day it should lead to the adoption by all Christians of the one truth and genuine faith exclusively preserved in the Orthodox Church. It is true that the Orthodox constantly appealed to the need for all Christians WKH 2UWKRGR[ LQFOXGHG  WR UHWXUQ WR the tradition of the undivided cKXUFK %\ LGHQWLI\LQJKRZHYHUWKLVWUDGLWLRQH[FOXVLYHO\ZLWKWKH(DVWHUQOrthodox Church and by assigning to the other Christian Churches and confessions only a status of GHILFLHQWRUSDUWLDOHFFOHVLDOLW\they implied in the end that all need to return to Orthodoxy.  7KHGRFXPHQWXQGHUGLVFXVVLRQZKLFKLQthe ODVWUHVRUWLVDWH[WRQXQLW\GRHV QRWPDNHDQ\UHIHUHQFHWRXQLW\LQGLYHUVLW\QRUGRHVLWPDNHDQ\clear distinction EHWZHHQWKHRORJLFDODQGFXOWXUDOKLVWRULFDOUHDVRQVIRU&KULVWLDQGLVXQLW\,WIDLOV to make a fair account regarding the legitimate diversity (constituted by different locDO FXVWRPV DQG WUDGLWLRQV FXOWXUDO DQG KLVWRULFDO IDFWRUV  DQG GLYLVLRQV VFKLVPVDQGKHUHVLHV,Walso fails to consider to which extent the current multiple fragmentation of Christianity is connected to cultural and historical factors or to proper tKHRORJLFDOGRFWULQDORUUHOLJLRXVUHDVRQV,QRWKHUZRUGVWKHGRFXPHQW fails to draw DOLQHEHWZHHQOHJLWLPDWHGLYHUVLW\DQGLOOHJLWLPDWHIUDJPHQWDWLRQV

32 7LPRWK\:DUHThe Orthodox Church/RQGRQHPSKDVLVLQRULJLQDO 

2UWKRGR[\(FXPHQLVP and Inter-Christian Dialogue

259

GLYLVLRQV VFKLVPV DQG KHUHVLHV 33 One could therefore ask whether the new document should not attempt to offer a serious discussion regarding the nature and the origins of the differences separating the Orthodox from Christians of other traditions. The effort to distinguish and discern which of the differences with the Western &DWKROLFV$QJOLFDQV3URWHVWDQWV DQGWKH2ULHQWDO2UWKRGR[Christians ZLWKZKRPKRZHYHUWKH(DVWHUQ2UWKRGR[&KXUFKHVVLJQHGLQDQG a doctrinal agreement on the up to then dividing issue of Christolog\ concern the very core of the ecclesial faith and which are just a reflection or an expression of tKHFXOWXUDOKLVWRULFDOVRFLDO or political diversity of each place and time. The example of the recent canonical practice of women’s ordination adopted by the mainstream Protestant Churches as well as by the Anglican and the Old Catholic Church but strongly rejected by the Orthodox Church is an indicative one and highly revelatory of the prevailing mentality. $VDUHVXOWXQLW\LVFRQIXVHGZLWK uniformiW\ZKLOHWKHLVVXHRIWKHHFFOHsiality of the other Christian Churches is not being assessed.  One could then expect that this new document would address theologically the LVVXH RI ZRPHQ¶V RUGLQDWLRQ VLQFH YHU\ VLJQLILFDQW GHYHORSPHQWV KDYH WDNHQ place even among the Orthodox after the approval of the draft pre-conciliar documents of 1986. 5HFHQWO\WKH2UWKRGR[DWWHPSWHGWRDGGUHVVWKHFKDOOHQJHVSRVHG E\ WKH IHPLQLVW PRYHPHQW DQG IHPLQLVW WKHRORJLHV RQ YDULRXV RFFDVLRQV DQG particularly at the 5KRGHV &RQVXOWDWLRQ LQ  ZKLFK PDLQO\ IRFXVHG RQ WKH argumentation against women’s ordination. 34 Despite the overall negative OrthoGR[ DWWLWXGH LQ PRUH UHFHQW \HDUV D PRUH SRVLWLYH RU UDWKHU EDODQFHG YLHZ KDV gained ground (even among esteemed Orthodo[KLHUDUFKVDQGWKHRORJLDQV DFcorGLQJWRZKLFKDSDUWIURPWKHDSSHDOWR³WUDGLWLRQ´WKHUHVHHPVWREHQRVHULRXV 33 On the crucial issue of the non-WKHRORJLFDO IDFWRUV IRU &KULVWLDQ GLVXQLW\ VHH World &RQIHUHQFH RQ )DLWK DQG 2UGHU The Non-Theological Factors in the Making and Unmaking of Church Union 5HSRUW 1R  3UHSDUHG E\ WKH &RPPLVVLRQ RQ WKH &KXUFK¶V Unity in /LIHDQG:RUVKLS(GLQEXUJK(OPHU7&ODUN³1RQ-Theological Factors in 5HOLJLRXV'LYHUVLW\´The Ecumenical Review  –'DQLHO-HQNLQV³7KH Ecumenical Movement and its ‘Non-7KHRORJLFDO )DFWRUV¶´ The Ecumenical Review 3  –34«@,WKRXJKWWKDWZDVDSLW\$W9DWLFDQ,,WKHQRQ-Catholic obVHUYHUVDWWHQGHGDOOPHHWLQJV>«@2IFRXUVHWKH\FRXOGQ¶WVSHDNRUYRWHEXWWKH\ZHUH there. We should’ve incorporated the observers. Instead they were simply taken off on FXOWXUDOWRXUVWRYLVLWPRQXPHQWVLQ&UHWH:HOOWKH\KDGQ¶WFRPHIRUWKDWSXUSRVHDQG, think they were obviously somewhat disappointed. I think we shouldn’t have been so closed.”

2UWKRGR[\(FXPHQLVP and Inter-Christian Dialogue

265

strength from day to day and tries to exercise a sort of spiritual and ecclesial paWURQDJHRYHUWKH2UWKRGR[ZRUOGZLGHDVRUWRIXQLYHUVDODXWKRULW\RYHUDQGDERYH local churches and jurisdictions. It is now time – kairos – for those responsible for our churches and for us all to end once and for all this caricature of faithfulness to tradition of these Orthodox hardliners who believe themselves to be responsible for global or universal Orthodoxy. They denounce the pope of Rome for his pretensions to universal jurisdiction yet practice exactly what they criticise in KLPnot as individuals but posing as a college of elders and as a magisterium of illuminated and deified spiritual fathers. 7KLVLVQRWKRZHYHUDGHYHORSPHQWZKLFKFame out of the blue. While precRQFLOLDUPHHWLQJVDERXQGHGIURP\HDUWR\HDUWKHIXQGDPHQWDOLVWDQGDQWL-ecumenical camp in Orthodoxy intensified its combat to – as it is inclined to note – “put an end to the betrayal of Orthodoxy and its ecumenical downward slide”. The rapidly growing fundamentalist groups all over the Orthodox world are calling us not only to show hostility to every notion of rapprochement with other Christians but in fact to show ecclesiastical disobedience and break the canonical links with local bishops that are decried as “heretics or apostates”. As I maintained during the 2012 St Sergius conference in Paris on the forthcoming Council of the Orthodox Church: In these circumstancHVLWLVTXLWHFOHDUWRPHWKDWQRV\QRGLFDOGHFLVLRQQRWHYHQD pan-2UWKRGR[RQHZKHWKHULWFRQFHUQVWKHFRPPRQFDOHQGDUIDVWLQJWKHUHFRJQLWLRQ RIEDSWLVPLQRWKHU&KULVWLDQ&KXUFKHVWKHVR-FDOOHG³GLDVSRUD´DQGVRRQFDQEH accepted at the practical level if it has not previously obtained the support of these ultra-2UWKRGR[PRYHPHQWVDQGRIWKHLUPRQDVWLFDOOLHVIRUDVORQJDVWKHVHPRYHments continue to exercise a sort of spiritual and ecclesial patronage over the OrthoGR[ ZRUOGZLGH D VRUW of universal authority over and above local Churches and jurisdictions. 46

7KLVLVH[DFWO\ZKDWKDSSHQHGEHIRUHDQGDIWHUWKHFRQYHQWLRQRIWKH+RO\DQG Great Council as a result of the activity of fundamentalist and monastic groups all around the Orthodox ZRUOGHVSHFLDOO\ZLWKLQ*UHHFHDVZHOODVLQWKRVHOrthodox Churches that did not attend the Crete Council. In factWKHVHDFWLYLWLHVOD\DW WKHEDFNJURXQGRIWKHGHFLVLRQRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKHVRI%XOJDULDDQG*HRUJLD WRZLWKGUDZIURPWKH+RO\DQG*reat Council of Crete. 47 46 3DQWHOLV .DODLW]LGLV ³&RQFOXGLQJ 5HIOHFWLRQV´ St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 60  –KHUH 47 )RU WKH DFWLYLWLHV RI WKHVH IXQGDPHQWDOLVW JURXSV LQ %XOJDULD DQG Wheir influence on the UHOHYDQWGHFLVLRQRIWKH2UWKRGR[&KXUFKRI%XOJDULDVHH'LPLWDU$UQDXGRY³$SSRUWHW UpFHSWLRQGX6DLQWHW*UDQG&RQFLOHRUWKRGR[HGH&UqWH´Contacts  – KHUH)RUWKHLVVXHVGHEDWHGLQWKLVVHFWLRQFI6WDYURV(XFKDULVWLF(FFOHVLRORJ\DQG0RQDVWLF6SLULWXDOLW\7KH,VVXHRI(OGHULVP@LQ3DQWHOLV .DODLW]LGLV $WKDQDVLRV 1 3DSDWKDQDVLRX DQG 7KHRSKLORV $EDW]LGLV HGV  ݃ȞĮIJĮȡȐȟİȚȢ

266

3DQWHOLV.DODLW]LGLV

+RZHYHULWLVSRVLWLYHDQGHQFRXUDJLQJWKDWLQVSLWHRIDOOWKHVHPDQLIHVWDtions of the ultra-FRQVHUYDWLYH ]HDORW DQG IXQGDPHQWDOLVW VSLULW WKH +RO\ DQG Great Council adopted a firm and clear position of disapproval and condemnation of this spirit through the document on “Relations of the Orthodox Church with WKH5HVWRIWKH&KULVWLDQ:RUOG´DQGWKH³(QF\FOLFDO´%\WKHVHWZRGRFXPHQWV the Council endorsed and supported interfaith dialogue and peaceful coexistence. Fundamentalism and religiously based violence and fanaticism were clearly GLVWLQJXLVKHGIURPWKHFRUHRI³WKHSKHQRPHQRQRIUHOLJLRQ´WKH*RVSHO¶VVSLULW and from the authentic ecclesial tradition. As stated in the “Encyclical”: We are experiencing today an increase of violence in the name of God. The explosions of fundamentalism within religious communities threaten to create the view that fundaPHQWDOLVP EHORQJV WR WKH HVVHQFH RI WKH SKHQRPHQRQ RI UHOLJLRQ 7KH WUXWK KRZHYHU LV WKDW fundamentalism DV ³]HDO QRW EDVHG RQ NQRZOHGJH´ 5RP   constitutes an expression of morbid religiosity$WUXH&KULVWLDQIROORZLQJWKHH[DPSOHRIWKHFUXFLILHG/RUGVDFULILFHVKLPVHOIDQGGRHVQRWVDFULILFHRWKHUVDQGIRUWKLV reason is the most stringent critic of fuQGDPHQWDOLVPRIZKDWHYHUSURYHQDQFH+RQHVW interfaith dialogue contributes to the development of mutual trust and to the promotion of peace and reconciliation. The Church strives to make “the peace from on high” more tangibly felt on earth. True peace is QRW DFKLHYHG E\ IRUFH RI DUPV EXW RQO\ through love that “does not seek its own” (1 Cor 13: 7KHRLORIIDLWKPXVWEHXVHG WRVRRWKHDQGKHDOWKHZRXQGVRIRWKHUVQRWWRUHNLQGOHQHZILUHVRIKDWUHG 48

Instead of a Conclusion Notwithstanding these GHIHQVLYHDWWLWXGHV2UWKRGR[\FDQQRWGHQ\LWVGLDORJLFDO DQGFKDULWDEOHHWKRVLWVORQJWUDGLWLRQRIFDWKROLFLW\DQGHFXPHQLFLW\UHSUHVHQWHG in modern times by the two well-known EQF\FOLFDOVRIDQGDVZHOODV the decisions of the Great Council of Moscow of the Russian Orthodox Church (1917– 2UWKRGR[\KDVDOZD\VEHHQLQIDYRXUDQGVXSSRUWRIGLDORJXHIRU YDULRXVUHDVRQVZKHWKHUWKHRORJLFDORUSDVWRUDO7KLVYLHZKDVEHHQFOHDUO\VWDWHG ıIJ‫ ޣ‬ȝİIJĮʌȠȜİȝȚț‫ ޣ‬șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ. ‫« ݠ‬șİȠȜȠȖȓĮ IJȠࠎ ¶ª >Turmoil in Post-War Theology: The “Theology of the 19V´@ $WKHQV–&\ULO+RYRUXQ³2UWKRGR[)XQGDPHQWDOLVP´ DV Q   3DQWHOLV .DODLW]LGLV “New Trends in Greek-Orthodox Theology: &KDOOHQJHVLQWKH0RYHPHQW7RZDUGD*HQXLQH5HQHZDODQG&KULVWLDQ8QLW\´Scottish Journal of Theology  –KHUH–LGHP³7KHRORJLFDO+LVWRULFDO DQG &XOWXUDO 5HDVRQV´ DV Q   0DNULGHV ³2UWKRGR[ &KULVWLDQ 5LJRULVP´ DV Q   )UDQFHV .RVWDUHORV ³(OGHU (SKUDLP DQG &RQWHVWHG ,GHQWLWLHV LQ WKH *UHHN 2UWKRGR[ $UFKGLRFHVHRI$PHULFD´LQ6HEDVWLDQ5LPHVWDGDQG9DVLOLRV10DNULGHVHGV Coping with Change: Orthodox Christian Dynamics between Tradition, Innovation, and Realpolitik%HUOLQ–45. &IDOVR$VVDDG(OLDV.DWWDQ³µÇWUHSOHLQHPHQWGDQVOH PRQGH PDLV SDV GH FH PRQGH¶ 3RXU XQH WKpRORJLH RUWKRGR[H FRQWUH OD GpPLVVLRQ´ Contacts  –257. 48 ³(QF\FOLFDO´9,†HPSKDVLVLQRULJLQDO FI³0HVVDJH´†4.

2UWKRGR[\(FXPHQLVP and Inter-Christian Dialogue

267

at the very beginning of the official document issued at the end of the Third PreConciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference in Chambésy in 1986. A church which refuses to dialogue with the world and its problems and which does not acknowledge what the other has to offer in such a dialogue cannot function as a church (ekNOHVLD  VLQFH LW GHQLHV WKH PRVW LPSRUWDQW consequence of Incarnation: “the JDWKHULQJWRJHWKHURIRQHLQDOOWKLQJVLQ&KULVW´LQWKHVHQVHRIUHFDSLWXODWLRQ (Eph 1:1FI(SK*DO &RO ,QRWKHUZRUGVWKLVPHDQV WKHUHFHSWLRQDVZHOODVWKHWUDQVILJXUDWLRQRIWKHFUHDWHGE\WKHXQFUHDWHGWKH assumption in the face of the Incarnate Son and Word of the whole human nature DQGKLVWRU\RIWKHWUDJHG\DQGWKHSXUVXLWRIWKH IDOOHQKXPDQNLQG+RZHYHUWKLV need for and the intensifying duty to dialogXHWKLVGLDORJLFDOHWKRVFRPH from the theological self-consciousness and mode of existence of the TULQLWDULDQ*RG which should be clearly understood as nothing else but a community of divine persons in dialogue in the frame of love. It is exactly this GLYLQHEHLQJWKLV7riniWDULDQPRGHRIH[LVWHQFHZKLFKLVFOHDUO\XQGHUVWRRGE\3DWULVWLFWKHRORJ\DQG interpreted by the mainstream contemporary Orthodox theology in terms of “%HLQJDV&RPPXQLRQ´DQG³%HLQJDV'LDORJXH´ 49 In the midst of current challenges and in our rapidly changing world the 2UWKRGR[VWUHQJWKHQHGE\WKHVSLULWXDOULFKQHVVRIRXUDEXQGDQWWKHROogical and ecumenical tradition and the genuine and remarkable theological syntheses we have achieved on behalf of the tradition of the undivided church should give a new sense and a renewed impetus to the Orthodox participation in the Ecumenical Movement. To this endWKH6ynodal document “Relations of the Orthodox Church with the Rest of the Christian World” and the other relevant documents of the +RO\DQG*UHDW&RXQFLORIUHSUHVHQWERWKWKHHnd of a whole era for Orthodox Ecumenism and the beginning of a new step in the ecumenical journey of contemporary Orthodoxy.

49 &I-RKQ'=L]LRXODVBeing as Communion: Studies in the Personhood and the Church, &UHVWZRRG1