Video: Orthodoxy and Nationalism

For more on this topic by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, see:

On Contemporary Narrow Mindedness in Orthodoxy

On Contemporary Narrow Mindedness in Orthodoxy

By Metropolitan Kallistos Ware of Diokleia

Alas, the element of nationalism, of ethnic narrowness, is a fact that we can see very widely in the contemporary Orthodox Church. And it has of course deep historical roots. It is not only a problem of today.

Phyletism, setting nationalism above Orthodox catholicity, was defined as a heresy by the Church of Constantinople in 1872. We must keep in mind, however, that there is nothing wrong in itself with nationhood and our loyalty to our own particular people. In fact it is good. Patriotism is a noble feeling. But this feeling of national identity that humans have when they lead a balanced, full life, has to undergo metanoia, repentance, a change of mind. It has to be baptized. And very often this repentance, this change of mind, hasn't taken place and we have an untransformed nationalism. So while nationhood is precious and can be a means of grace, we must remember that Christ stands higher than all ethnic differences. "There is no longer Jew or Greek...for you are all one in Christ Jesus," Saint Paul instructs us [Galatians 3:28]. And we have to emphasize that what matters about the Church is its universality, its catholicity. Nationalism can be a servant but it must not be allowed to become master of our heart. And, as we said, there is a negative narrowness in the kind of intense national feelings that one encounters in Greece, and in Russia and also among British people, of course. None of us is without sin.

Actually, I have noticed while visiting Romania that though Romanians are proud of their nation they don't have the hostile, aggressive attitude toward the West and the fear of non-Orthodox churches that I encounter in other Orthodox countries. In Romania I don't hear, or only very occasionally hear, people talking about 'Judeo-Masonic conspiracies' against the Orthodox world. So, in my experience at least, Romanians seem to be more balanced than many other Orthodox in their views about the rest of the world.

But of course we mustn't generalize. In Greece, in Russia, there are also people with a wonderful vision of the universality of Orthodoxy, who value and love their native land, their national tradition, Greek or Russian, but who at the same time are universalists; and this is surely what the Western world needs. Not an Orthodoxy that is ethnic but a Catholic Orthodoxy. Not an Orthodoxy that is always condemning, but an Orthodoxy that is generous, humble, kenotic [self-emptying]. Not compromising, but not attacking the others.

This could be the kairos, the moment of opportunity for Orthodoxy. But we Orthodox are not ready. We are not Orthodox enough.

From Gifts of the Desert: The Forgotten Path of Christian Spirituality, by Kyriacos C. Markides, pp. 165-166.

In Australia, Souls Should ‘Outweigh’ Salads In Cemetery Debate

September 14, 2010
Southern Courier

The Greek Orthodox Church has broken its silence to support a plan to expand the Botany cemetery into the neighbouring Chinese market gardens.

The parish priest at St Spyridon Greek Orthodox Church in Kingsford and spokesman for Archbishop Stylianos, Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in Australia, Father Steven Scoutas has become a voice for the concerns about diminishing burial space.

"It's of great concern to the church that vegetables are regarded to be of greater heritage value than that of human beings,” he said. “Nothing is more sacred than the human person.”

Father Steven, who blamed consecutive governments for failing to secure additional land for the cemetery during the past 30 years, said thousands of his parishioners had signed a petition on the issue.

“The Greek Orthodox Church has voiced serious concerns for many years about this acute shortage of burial spaces. Archbishop Stylianos, Primate of the Church in Australia, again raised the matter in 2006 with the State Government.

“This is vital, not only for Christians, but for our brothers and sisters of other religions as well.

“The deceased should be afforded every dignity. Their personal contribution to the shaping of the nation and the heritage of the world should not be devalued.”

A shortage of space in Sydney’s east has led management of the Eastern Suburbs Memorial Park, which incorporates Botany cemetery, to submit a plan to the State Government to acquire 60 per cent of the adjacent heritage-listed market gardens, a 7ha slice of crown land off Bunnerong Rd in Matraville.

The submission has divided the community between those who would prefer to see the land remain with the living, the three families who cultivate the gardens, and those more concerned about the diminishing space to bury their loved ones.

Chinese community and heritage groups are opposing the planned resumption of the market gardens at La Perouse for use as a cemetery.

The land on which the market gardens sit has been used for food production for more than 150 years, and managed by Chinese gardeners for more than a century.

The management of the cemetery has claimed that without the land transfer it will run out of burial space within 12 years.

The situation has been worsened by cultural sensitivities surrounding burial practices. Cremation is forbidden by some religions.

Orthodox Parishes Abroad Have to Adapt to Local Traditions

September 1, 2010
Interfax

Orthodox priests who work in countries where Orthodoxy is not a traditional religion of the majority, have to adapt to local religious traditions or invent new ones comprehensive to their newly converted parishioners.

Thus, in Antarctica people are baptized in the ocean, and on the feast of the Holy Trinity the procession with cross does not carry the traditional Russian branches of beech, but priests go through the snowstorm of the polar night, the Ukrainian paper Segodnya reported on Wednesday.

One of the Hollywood Orthodox churches occupies a former motion-picture set, Liturgy is celebrated in English once a month, but about ten new believers are baptized a week and Tom Hanks and Jennifer Aniston can be seen among the parishioners.

Metropolitan Iriney of Dnepropetrovsk and Pavlograd, who worked in Tokyo in 1971-1975, searched for the way to a Japanese heart through music: first they learned "Katyusha", then prayers, and after it many of them got interested in Orthodoxy and wanted to be baptized.

In Africa newly converted Ethiopian Christians regularly go to church, but on their feasts leave the city for the countryside, paint their bodies and dance pagan dances. Ethiopian believers do not bake Easter cakes: they are replaced by lentil flats in salty sauce. Local residents, who have not adopted Christianity, believe the local priest is a powerful magician.

Thai are shocked to see people entering the church in shoes: any sole is considered "unclear", thus representative of the Russian Orthodox Church in Thailand Archimandrite Oleg (Cherepanin) serves in socks and cassock.

Iran bans conversion to other religions, thus there are no Orthodox Iranians among the parishioners of the Tegeran church, but Muslim Iranians often come in to pray to Jesus Christ and Virgin Mary also mentioned in the Quran and even light candles to them.

Greek Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the Church in the USA

V. Rev. Archimandrite Elpidophoros Lambriniadis
Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate

Lecture during the Summer Seminar at St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary, New York, June 12, 2010.

Venerable Hierarchs,
Rev. Dr. John Behr, Dean,
Reverend Clergy,
Brothers and Sisters,

It is a particular privilege and pleasure to be among you today, in the academic halls of St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary, this nursery of theological letters and priestly vocation, which has been grounded in the Russian spirituality and intellectual thought of such great theologians and ministers of the church as the fathers George Florovsky, Alexander Schmemann and John Meyendorff.

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the successors of these extraordinary theologians for the invitation extended to me to participate in this distinguished scholarly Symposium in order to enjoy the opportunity to convey to all of you the paternal greetings and Patriarchal blessings of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Primate of the Great Church of Christ, the Mother Church of Constantinople.

[I regret that, owing to the last session of the Holy and Sacred Synod, my arrival was delayed and consequently did not permit me to attend the two extremely interesting presentations by Dr. Timothy Clark and Dr. George Lewis Parsenios.]

The topic that I have been asked to address today: "Greek Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the Church in the USA." Beginning with the content and historical development of the phrase "Greek Orthodoxy," I will endeavor to explore its relationship to the Ecumenical Patriarchate in order, finally, on this basis, to interpret the perception of the Church of Constantinople with regard to the ecclesiastical situation in the United States and present its vision for the future of Orthodoxy in this land.

From its very foundation on this earth by our Lord Jesus Christ, but especially from the outset of its organization by the local Bishops, the Church of Christ was profoundly - and quite naturally - influenced by the political, administrative and cultural context of the Roman Empire, which was in turn characterized as an empire by syncretism, multiethnicism and multiculturism as well as uniformity of law, government, language, currency, and so forth. From the moment that Christianity was first registered as recognized and tolerated after the period of persecution and thereafter as formal religion of the empire, the very identity of the Church was directly affected, while in turn affecting the identity of the Roman citizen. I will discuss neither the degree to which Divine Providence in this way prepared the political and cultural historical context for the extension and establishment of the Church of Christ, nor the scope to which the multiethnic and multicultural identity of the empire facilitated a Christianity that was based on the same external elements.

Nevertheless, I would like to draw your attention to the concept and content of the Roman citizen (or inhabitant of the Roman Empire), especially from the time that he or she began to sense the Christian faith as a characteristic feature of identity.

The Roman Christian could - at least ethnically - belong to any race and have any native language. Yet, in spite of this, the Roman Christian would be a faithful under the one Bishop of a particular city that served as either temporary or permanent residence, just as he or she would be subjected to the Roman administrator or governor of the region. The identity of the Roman Christian as citizen of the Kingdom of God bore - analogically speaking - the same characteristics of identity enjoyed by every citizen of the Roman Empire, irrespective of race, language or origin.

The same applied to one's identity within the Church of the Roman Empire: namely, the basis and criterion of organization was always geographical, with
one bishop elected for every city, to whom all inhabitants of the region weresubmitted without any discrimination (linguistic or other), in accordance with the Apostolic instruction: "There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male nor female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3.28)

On the basis of the same principle, the Orthodox Churches today are called "Church of Alexandria," "Church of Antioch," "Church of Jerusalem," "Church of Russia," and so on - that is to say, they are defined geographically. In this respect, it is both untraditional and uncanonical from an ecclesiastical perspective for the Patriarchates to be named "Russian," "Serbian," "Romanian," "Bulgarian," or "Georgian," or for their Patriarchs to be addressed as "Patriarch of the Russians," "of the Serbs," "of the Romanians," "of the Bulgarians," or "of the Georgians." For these characterizations introduce - not only in the Diaspora, but also in the local Orthodox Churches - a criterion of ethnophyletism, thereby dividing the flock of the local Bishop on the basis of ethnic origin and allowing the possibility of infringement into another eparchy or jurisdiction. This applies to both realities, in local Churches and in Diaspora, since the sacred Canons cannot have selective or circumstantial but universal application.

This experience and teaching of the Church was also confirmed by the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, which codified and recorded in a binding manner for all of Christianity not only the "faith once delivered" together with its doctrine, but also the principles of administration and organization. I would remind you that the Ecumenical Councils did not dogmatize ex nihilo; nor did they impose definitions and conditions of ecclesiastical organization that hitherto did not exist. Both in matters of faith and in matters of administration, they codified the Apostolic teaching, the Church experience and the Patristic tradition. There is no reason here to expand on the well-substantiated refutation of the erroneous distinction of sacred Canons into doctrinal (and therefore not conducive to revision) and administrative (and hence susceptible to modification).

Resuming the analysis of the terminology, I would call to mind the fact that the Church within the Roman Empire - that which Western historians in the 18th century labeled as Byzantine - was in fact originally called Roman, particularly when schismatic and heretical ecclesiastical structures appeared and required some form of distinction from a terminological perspective. This was especially evident and instituted in the Orthodox east after the Schism of 1054 and, in particular, with the prevalence of the Ottoman over the Eastern Roman Empire.

Henceforth, the non-Christian Sultan ratified and formally instituted the phrase "Roman Nation" (Rum Milleti), which included all Christian Orthodox inhabitants of the occupied empire. For the Sultan, just as for his predecessor the Roman Empire, there were no distinctions according to race, but only according to religion and confession. This is precisely why the populations that embraced Islam were not called "Roman Muslims" but Turks. Those who converted to Islam became Turkish - that is to say, they changed identity.

Therefore, the Ottoman Empire adopted and respected the existing ecclesiastical terminology, according to which the conquered Roman Christian was not distinguished on the basis of linguistic or ethnic origin, but on the basis of his or her identity as a member of the Church.

In this respect, in the eastern languages (namely, Greek, Turkish, and Arabic), the Patriarchates (the Ecumenical Patriarchate as well as those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) were characterized as "Rum (or Roman) Orthodox" in contradistinction to "Rum (or Roman) Catholic" or the Armenian and Syrian Churches.

Problems arose when, with the rise of nationalism in the Balkans (19th century), the term "Rum" was translated as "Greek" in order also to determine the principle of reorganization and independence of the various Orthodox peoples from an ecclesiastical viewpoint. Meanwhile, of course, the Greek Nation had been established and every concept of Hellenism was understood in nationalistic terms, thereby attributing an entirely different content to the original term "Rum."

Without further expanding, I would summarize as follows: The source of the phrase "Greek Orthodoxy" has in our day assumed an ethnic sense, which however distorts reality. The phrase "Greek Orthodoxy" or "Rum Orthodox" is more accurately rendered in English as "Roman Orthodox." Just as the phrase "Roman Catholic" cannot be translated as "Italian Catholic," so too the term "Rum" or "Roman" when referring to Orthodox Christians should not be translated as "Greek Orthodox" in a way that conveys an ethnic content to a purely ecclesiastical terminology.

The original sense of the term is even preserved in the Uniate Churches, which unfortunately bear the inappropriate title "Greek Catholic." For their members are certainly not Greeks, but Uniates subjected to the Pope and adhering to the Byzantine (or Eastern Roman) rite.

Another characteristic fact is that all the Slavic peoples - at least in the period preceding the rise of nationalism - had no problem whatsoever in being called "Rum Orthodox" and being under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which - we should not forget - never endeavored to Hellenize them, since this was contrary to its principles and very identity as Ecumenical. Indeed, there was no attempt to Hellenize the Slavs even during the period of their Christianization. On the contrary, their language was enhanced - essentially engendered - with the creation of a specific alphabet and the consolidation of a cultural identity.

It is not by chance that the Church of Russia from the 18th century until the October Revolution had no difficulty being called "Greek-Russian,"2 while even your own Church here in the United States was, until 1971, called "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America."3

Thus, since I believe that we have together established sufficient evidence that the phrase "Greek Orthodox" - at least in reference to the Patriarchates of the East - is not an accurate rendering of their actual reality, we may better interpret contemporary developments in Diaspora as well as within the Patriarchates themselves.

The rest of the speech, including footnotes, is available in .pdf form here:
http://www.myocn.net/files/Orthodoxy_Hellenism_English.pdf

Message of the Episcopal Assembly 26-28 May 2010

Message of the Episcopal Assembly Of the Canonical Orthodox Hierarchs of North and Central America May 26-28, 2010

We glorify the name of the Triune God for gathering us at this first Episcopal Assembly of this region in New York City on May 26-28, 2010 in response to the decisions of the Fourth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference held at the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambésy, Switzerland, from June 6-12, 2009, at the invitation of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.

Gathered together in the joy of the Feast of Pentecost, we humbly recognize our calling, in our unworthiness, to serve as instruments and disciples of the Paraclete, who “holds together the whole institution of the Church” (Hymn of Vespers of Pentecost).

We honor and express gratitude to the Primates and Representatives of the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches who assembled at the Ecumenical Patriarchate from October 10-12, 2008 to affirm their “unswerving position and obligation to safeguard the unity of the Orthodox Church” (Chambésy Rules of Operation, Article 5.1a) and emphasized their will and “desire for the swift healing of every canonical anomaly that has arisen from historical circumstances and pastoral requirements” (Message of the Primates 13.1-2)

We call to mind those who envisioned this unity in this region and strove to transcend the canonical irregularities resulting for many reasons, including geographically overlapping jurisdictions. For, just as the Lord in the Divine Eucharist is “broken and distributed, but not divided” (Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom), so also His Body comprises many members, while constituting His One Church.

We are grateful for the gift of the doctrinal and liturgical unity that we already share, and we are inspired by our leaders, the Heads of all the Orthodox Churches throughout the world, who proposed that which we painfully yearn for in this region, i.e., the “swift healing of every canonical anomaly” (Message of the Primates 13.2). We are also grateful that they established a fundamental process toward a canonical direction and resolution.

We are thankful to almighty God for the growth of Orthodoxy, for the preservation of our traditions, and for the influence of our communities in this region. This is indeed a miracle and a mystery.

During our gathering, and in accordance with the rules of operation of Episcopal Assemblies promulgated by the Fourth Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Conference, we established:

1. A registry of canonical bishops (Article 6.1)

2. A committee to determine the canonical status of local communities in the region that have no reference to the Most Holy Autocephalous Churches (Article 6.2)

3. A registry of canonical clergy (Article 6.3)

4. Committees to undertake the work of the Assembly, among others including liturgical, pastoral, financial, educational, ecumenical, and legal issues (Articles 11 and 12)

5. A committee to plan for the organization of the Orthodox of the region on a canonical basis (Article 5.1).

In addition to the above, we agreed that a directory would be created and maintained by the Assembly of all canonical congregations in our region.

We as Episcopal Assembly understand ourselves as being the successors of the Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA), assuming its agencies, dialogues, and other ministries.

Moreover, at the formal request of the Hierarchs who have jurisdiction in Canada, the Assembly will submit to the Ecumenical Patriarch, in accordance with the rules of operation (Article 13), a request to partition the present region of North and Central America into two distinct regions of the United States and Canada. Additionally, at the request of the Hierarchs who have jurisdiction in Mexico and Central America, the Assembly will likewise request to merge Mexico and Central America with the Assembly of South America.

As Orthodox Hierarchs in this blessed region, we express our resolve to adhere to and adopt the regulations proposed by the Pan-Orthodox Conferences and approved by the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, and to do everything in our power by the grace of God to advance actions that facilitate canonical order in our region.

We confess our fidelity to the Apostolic Orthodox faith and pledge to promote “common action to address the pastoral needs of Orthodox living in our region” (Chambésy, Decision 2c). We call upon our clergy and faithful to join us in these efforts “to safeguard and contribute to the unity of the Orthodox Church of the region in its theological, ecclesiological, canonical, spiritual, philanthropic, educational and missionary obligations” (Article 5.1) as we eagerly anticipate the Holy and Great Council.

The Assembly concluded with the celebration of the Divine Liturgy on Friday, May 28, 2010 at the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Archdiocesan Cathedral in New York City. During the Liturgy prayers were offered for the repose of the eleven victims of the current ecological disaster in the Gulf Coast, for the consolation of their families, for all those adversely affected by this catastrophe, as well as for all people living under conditions of war, persecution, violence, and oppression.

Of the sixty-six Hierarchs in the region, the following 55 were present at this Assembly:

Archbishop Demetrios, Chairman
Metropolitan Philip, Vice Chairman
Archbishop Justinian, Vice Chairman
Bishop Basil, Secretary
Archbishop Antony,Treasurer
Metropolitan Iakovos
Metropolitan Constantine
Metropolitan Athenagoras
Metropolitan Methodios
Metropolitan Isaiah
Metropolitan Nicholas
Metropolitan Alexios
Metropolitan Nikitas
Metropolitan Nicholas
Metropolitan Gerasimos
Metropolitan Evangelos
Metropolitan Paisios
Archbishop Yurij
Bishop Christopher
Bishop Vikentios
Bishop Savas
Bishop Andonios
Bishop Ilia
Bishop Ilarion
Bishop Andriy
Bishop Demetrios
Bishop Daniel
Bishop Antoun
Bishop Joseph
Bishop Thomas
Bishop Mark
Bishop Alexander
Metropolitan Hilarion
Bishop Iov
Bishop Gabriel
Bishop Peter
Bishop Theodosius
Bishop George
Bishop Ieronim
Metropolitan Christopher
Bishop Maxim
Archbishop Nicolae
Bishop Ioan Casian
Metropolitan Joseph
Metropolitan Jonah
Archbishop Nathaniel
Archbishop Seraphim
Bishop Nikon
Bishop Tikhon
Bishop Benjamin
Bishop Melchisedek
Bishop Irineu
Bishop Irinee
Bishop Michael

Source

Consensus on Determining Autocephaly Is Reached

‘We have reached consensus on the autocephaly procedure’ – DECR chairman’s interview with the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate

May 4, 2010
Official Website Russian Orthodox Church

As the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission for the agenda of a Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church continues its work, the issue of granting autocephaly and the diptych order has come up to its attention in the period of 2009-2010. The leader of the Russian Orthodox delegation at the Preparatory Commission meetings, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, head of the Moscow Patriarchate’s department for external church relations, expounds the work of the Commission in an interview to the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, S. V. Chapnin.

- Your Eminence, the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory commission’s decisions on the procedure of granting autocephaly, adopted in December 2009 in Chambesy, make it possible to speak about a serious step made in the development of inter-Orthodox cooperation. How different were the initial positions of the Churches, and can one say that the search for consensus was difficult?

- According to the resolution of the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference, which took place in June 2009, the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission was to consider the way in which an Orthodox Church can declare its autocephaly and autonomy as well as the order of diptychs, which are lists prescribing the order in which the names of the heads of Local Churches are mentioned during the liturgy. During the six days of its work, the Commission managed to consider two of the above-mentioned issues, namely, autocephaly and autonomy, while the discussion on diptychs had to be put off till the next meeting of the Commission.

The issue of church autocephaly was already considered by the Preparatory Commission in 1993. At that time, it was agreed that autocephaly asked by a certain part of a Local Church can be granted on the basis of the consent given by the Mother Church to be followed by a search for pan-Orthodox consensus with the Patriarch of Constantinople as coordinator. It was the procedure for declaring autocephaly that came under discussion at the December meeting, and it was not an easy task to reach an agreement on this matter.

The principled stand of the Russian Orthodox Church, expressed by our delegation, was that this procedure should conform to the principle of sobornost, traditional for the Orthodox Church, in making decisions on important common church matters. In this understanding, a Tomos on Autocephaly should be signed by the heads of all the Local Churches. The same stand was taken by the delegations of the Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Polish Orthodox Churches as well as the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. At the same time, the delegations of some Churches insisted that the signature of the Ecumenical Patriarch alone was sufficient for granting autocephaly.

As a result of a prolonged discussion the Commission adopted a wording that presupposes signatures of the primates of all the autocephalous Churches. It was also agreed that the very contents and procedure for signing a Tomos on Autocephaly would be specified by the next meeting of the Preparatory Commission.

As for church autonomy, the Russian Orthodox Church believes every Local Church has the right to decide on its own whether autonomy should be granted to some part of it, otherwise the canonical principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of an autocephalous Orthodox Church would be challenged. Indeed, while enjoying broad rights to self-governance, every autonomous Church still preserves fundamental relationship with its predominating Church. This relationship is expressed both in the approval of its head by the autocephalous center and in receiving holy myrrh from it and in exalting the name of the primate of the autocephalous Church during liturgy celebrated in the churches of a respective autonomous Church.

This position was unanimously approved by the meeting in Chambesy, which resolved that every autocephalous Church has the right to an independent decision on granting autonomy to any of her part. In doing so, she is obliged to notify other Churches about the granting of autonomy which took place.

On the whole, the working out of agreed decisions was a strained but constructive process.

- There is a notorious problem of precise wordings, especially in translation to other languages. Which language or languages were used in discussing the documents? Are there official Russian versions?

- According to the procedure of the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conferences and Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commissions, adopted in 1986, their official languages are Greek, Russian and French. During the December meeting in Chambesy, just as during similar previous meetings, the speakers used all three languages. The secretariat in Chambesy provides for the simultaneous translation of the reports and discussions into these languages. The final documents are signed in their Greek, Russian and French versions. They all are authentic.

- How representative were the Local Churches’ delegations who participated in the discussion on the document?

- The Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commissions’ terms of reference provides only for a primary elaboration of the agenda for a Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. Documents adopted at the Commission meetings are only drafts. They are to be submitted for approval to Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conferences and then to a Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. The next Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference, the fifth one, will be possible to convene only after the Commission has finalized its work to draft a document on autocephaly and to consider the issue of diptychs.

- When will the next meeting of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission take place?

- The date for the next Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission to draft a procedure for signing a Tomos on Autocephaly and to discuss the diptychs has not been fixed as yet. I hope its participants will manage to build on the progress already achieved, and the common desire to reach agreement in discussing even the most acute issues will remain unchanged.

Its Official! Autonomy and Autocephaly Through Constantinople and Pan-Orthodox Consensus

Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission Completes Its Work

December 17, 2009

The Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission, meeting in Chambesy, Switzerland, closed its work on December 16 with a thanksgiving.

The Commission, whose task is to elaborate the agenda of a Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, continued to consider the problem of autocephaly and ways of declaring it – the discussion which began in 1993, and prepared proposals on autonomy and ways of declaring it.

The documents prepared by the Commission will be submitted to a Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference. They stipulate in particular that the ecclesiological, canonical and pastoral prerequisites for granting autocephaly to a particular church region, if requested, are to be assessed by the Mother Church at her Local Council. If the Council’s decision is favourable, the Mother Church is to notify it to the Ecumenical Patriarchate which is in its turn to inform other Local Autocephalous Churches in order to find out whether there is a pan-Orthodox consensus expressed in the unanimity of Councils or Synods of the autocephalous Churches. Expressing the consent of the Mother Church and the pan-Orthodox consensus, the Ecumenical Patriarch is to declare the autocephaly of a petitioning Church by issuing a Tomos of Autocephaly to be signed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and verified by the signatures of the Primates of Orthodox Churches invited for it by the Ecumenical Patriarch.

The question of the contents of the Tomos and the signing procedure will be considered additionally by the next meeting of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission.

The Commission has also prepared a document expressing a common position of Orthodox Churches on autonomy and the ways of declaring it, describing the notion of autonomy, the procedure to be observed in declaring autonomy and its consequences.

It was agreed that the initiation and completion of the procedure for granting autonomy to a certain part of its canonical jurisdiction is exclusively under the competence of the respective autocephalous Church. It is noted that in church practice there are different degrees in which an autonomous Church depends on the autocephalous Church that has granted autonomy to it. A petition for autonomy is considered by the autocephalous Church which, having assessed the prerequisites and reasons for this petition and taken a favourable decision, issues an appropriate Tomos defining the territorial boundaries of the autonomous Church and its relationships with the autocephalous Church to which it belongs in accordance with the established criteria of church Tradition. Then the primate of the autocephalous Church notifies the Ecumenical Patriarchate and other autocephalous Orthodox Churches on the declaration of an autonomous Church.

The draft document also provides for measures to find a canonical settlement of an issue in case of differences arising from two autocephalous Churches’ granting the autonomous status to church communities in the same geographical church region.

The question of Diptychs of the Primates of the Local Churches will be considered by the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission at its next meeting.

Source

Orthodox Bishops Gather to Discuss the Diaspora

Orthodox bishops gathered in Chambesy, Switzerland to discuss the Orthodox diaspora

[The Fourth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference met June 6-12 in Chambesy, Switzerland to discuss the problem of the Orthodox diaspora. This is the first of two meetings to be held in 2009. The official language of the communiqué is in French and the English translation is below. It should be noted these are preparatory meetings for a future Pan-Orthodox Synod. However there has been a significant change reported that could reflect the future resolution for the unity of the jurisdictions of the Orthodox diaspora.

As we know, currently the bishops of certain areas of the diaspora (America and France) meet to discuss issues within their jurisdiction which are lead by a representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of that region (ex. SCOBA). At this first preparatory meeting it has been decided to extend this practice to all regions of the diaspora. This decision is logical since it would be difficult to resolve the issues of the diaspora if the regions of the diaspora are unaware of their issues. Of course, this means little to America and France who have this practice established already. It does, however, mean much to the Ecumenical Patriarchate to which the power to convene these meetings has been unanimously confirmed, even by the Russian Patriarchate. Could this delegation of a representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as the president of episcopal meetings in the diaspora foreshadow things to come in the diaspora? Only time will tell. - J.S.]

Full text of the Chambesy communiqué follows:

Fourth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference
Orthodox Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
Chambésy, 6th – 12th June 2009

At the invitation of His Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, following the consensus of their Beatitudes the Primates of the most holy local Orthodox Churches, as expressed during their meeting held in the Phanar from 10th to 12th October 2008, the Fourth Pre-conciliar Pan-orthodox Conference met at the Orthodox Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambésy, Geneva, from 6th to 12th June 2009.

The work of the Conference began with the pan-orthodox con-celebration of the Divine Liturgy, on the day of Pentecost. They were held under the chairmanship of His Eminence Metropolitan John of Pergamon, delegate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, with the contribution of the secretary for preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, His Eminence Metropolitan Jeremias of Switzerland. The Conference was attended by delegates of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, at the invitation of His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.

The Primates of Local Orthodox Churches greeted the participants at the Conference by messages sent or forwarded by their delegates. The members of the Conference have sent letters to all the Primates of the local Churches, asking their prayers and their blessings for the accomplishment of their task.

In accordance with the wishes of the Primates and representatives of the local Orthodox Churches expressed in the message published at the end of their meeting at the Phanar (October 2008), the Fourth Pre-conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference was charged to examine the question of the canonical organization of the Diaspora Orthodox. The Conference decided its agenda at the opening meeting of its work.

The Conference reviewed the documents prepared by the preparatory inter-orthodox commission at its two meetings in Chambésy, i.e. that of 10th to 17th November 1990 and 7th to 13th November 1993 and the document prepared by the Canonists’ Congress meeting at Chambésy from 9th to 14th April 1995. These documents, specified, corrected and supplemented, have been approved unanimously.

The Conference expressed the willingness of Orthodox Churches to solve the problem of the canonical organisation of the Orthodox Diaspora, conforming to ecclesiology, tradition and canonical practice of the Orthodox Church. The Conference decided to create new episcopal assemblies in some regions of the world to order the question of the Diaspora, i.e. the Orthodox faithful installed in areas beyond the traditional boundaries of the local Orthodox Churches. The presidents of the Assemblies are bishops of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the given region, and in their absence, the bishops in accordance with the order of the Diptichs of the Churches. All the bishops of the Orthodox Churches who exercise their pastoral ministry in the communities existing in each of these regions are members of these Assemblies. The Episcopal Assemblies are for the mission to manifest and promote the unity of the Orthodox Church, to exercise pastoral diakonia to the faithful of the region and to render to the world their common witness. The decisions of the Episcopal Assemblies are taken in accordance with the principle of unanimity of the Churches represented within these Assemblies by bishops.

After amended and supplemented, the Conference also approved the Proposed Regulations of Episcopal Assemblies by defining the fundamental principles of organization and operation thereof.

The remaining topics of the holy and great Council, i.e. the method of proclaiming of autocephaly and autonomy, and the order of Diptichs, will be discussed in future meetings of the preparatory inter-orthodox commission and will be submitted for approval to the following Pre-conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conferences.

Chambésy on 12th June 2009.

The President of the Conference
†John of Pergamon