Pan-Orthodox Problems
Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou
Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou
The articles that are written about the unity of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which in recent years has been undermined by various actions, show that a problem exists in pan-Orthodox relations at the level of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches. Meetings and dialogues are held between the Orthodox Church and other confessions and religions, but dialogues among the Orthodox Churches themselves are not taking place. One must be affected by shortsightedness not to understand this and that this is serious.
Of course, this did not arise simply from the autocephaly in Ukraine, which was granted by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, just as it has granted it in the past to nine other Orthodox Churches, but from internal undermining of centuries directed against the First-Throne Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate. When one reads the proceedings of the pan-Orthodox meetings, committees, and so forth — at least of the last 150 years — they will understand this very well. There the internal competition becomes clearly visible through the mentality of various social and political associations. Partisan mentalities are created, groupings, hidden internal rivalries, with the ultimate aim of showing who has the power to influence pan-Orthodox affairs, through the undermining of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
This is clearly seen from the fact that voting on important pan-Orthodox and inter-ecclesiastical matters was always avoided, because the result of such voting would have led to the undermining of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, which, according to the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods, holds the presidency in such Synods. Thus, in critical theological, ecclesiastical, and pan-Orthodox matters, until now the Ecumenical Patriarchate has always stepped back in order to preserve the unity of the Churches. This conciliatory attitude of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and especially of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople, was unfortunately interpreted as weakness and as domination by the majority that was influenced by the Russian Orthodox Church.
The weakness of the internal unity of the Orthodox Churches was revealed by the Holy and Great Synod of Crete (2016), which took place at Kolymbari, Crete, because that was the seat where it was convened. The common decisions regarding the realization of this Synod, the exclusion of the place where it was originally to be convened, the limitation of the serious issues that were to be discussed — such as how autocephaly is granted, the question of the Diptychs, the celebration of Pascha, and so forth — the vacillations regarding its convocation, and finally the absence of four Orthodox Churches, demonstrated the existing internal weakness of the local Patriarchates and Autocephalous Churches, which function as confederations of Churches. And if this Synod had not taken place, these problems would still have continued to exist within the so-called perspective of the “Third Rome,” simply being swept “under the rug.”
Patriarch Bartholomew I of Constantinople all these years dealt with the mentality of the local Churches with courtesy, love, and concessions. But unfortunately the “worm” of Ethnophyletism, which has deeply penetrated the Orthodox Churches — which otherwise ought to preserve their catholicity — played its role. This conciliatory attitude was unfortunately interpreted by some as weakness. Thus we have now reached the point where the Russian Orthodox Church has broken communion — commemoration with the Primates of four Orthodox Churches, and the fear is that this situation may become fixed over time and result in another “Orthodox schism,” not for dogmatic reasons but for ethnophyletistic ones.
As for what should be done, I have no inclination to set it down, because I do not see any disposition for finding a solution. In the past I have expressed some proposals, but unfortunately the geopolitical developments of our day, which are mixed with diplomacy, national interests, and secret services, do not favor promising solutions. In any case, we find ourselves in a great perplexity: all of us speak about the worldwide work of Christ, about peace in the world, about the cessation of wars, about the victory of Christ over the devil, sin, and death, about unity — yet the Orthodox Churches themselves do not have peace and unity.
However, there is hope. And this hope, apart from Christ — the Prince of Peace and the Head of the Church — also rests on the tradition of the Church. It is due to the holy bishops who follow the theology of the Church and sacred Hesychasm. This is the work of the saints, which differs from the geopolitical mentalities and the ethnophyletism of administrations. This means that, in order for solutions to be found, the Primates must be freed from the heresy of ethnophyletism and from the lowly interests that have no relation to the Church as the blessed Body of Christ.
Source: Translated by John Sanidopoulos.