Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Moscow sends letter to Constantinople on upcoming Council

Machine translated. If you find a professional translation, please put it in the comments or email in. If you can believe it, at this late date people (Russians, Bulgarians, and others) are complaining about the seating arrangements. If you don't think there are Catholics saying, "See. This is why you need a Pope," you're not reading what they've been saying leading up to the scheduling of this Great and Holy Council.

(Orthodoxia) - After the protocol problems that recently occurred on Mount Athos, an issue arises between Moscow and Constantinople for the Holy and Great Council "protocol". Fifteen days before the start of the Pan-Orthodox Synod , The first after the Schism of the Churches to be held at the Orthodox Academy of Crete, the Moscow Patriarch Kyrill with a letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew Protocol raises two issues, which, if not addressed, such as notes, hinder and obstruct his participation. And because, as Orthodox priests, through the letter reveals the agony of Moscow, lest the impression that the current Patriarch is first among equals, but First 13 other Orthodox Primates, who are and are accountable to him.

Specifically Patriarch Kyrill emphasizes that the large conference hall of the Academy during the planning designed by the preparatory committee:

- "The Primates parakathintai imikyklikos not, but in two parallel lines, the parakathimenoi in relation to each other and everyone with their flank to the President (...). In addition to the layout parousiasthen the Primates of Churches nor in parakathintai own bankers, but each in a separate position and distance to the one of his sisters, are separate modem or verbatim antallaxai capable to close them. The a classification of these tables is such that even offers the opportunity to the international media, as put forward in the international audience all who synelthontas Primates of the Churches of God Saints simultaneously. So dissolved an overall image of the Congregation. " "That which we see," says Moscow Patriarch "in the layout of this differs radically by us in Tash-discussed Assemblies of primates and what we see in the figures of the Ecumenical Councils." And sending a message to Mr. Bartholomew notes the "proposed a classification as non-responders in the en us Orthodox ecclesiology, dangerously approaching the Roman Catholic standards." If I am reading this correctly there are two complaints. The first is that seating is being set up to be more expedient to journalists than the traditional setup of Orthodox councils. The second is that (as has been claimed numerous times) there seems to be an effort to model some aspects of the council after Vatican II - something that makes some groups irate.

Indeed, the Primate of the Moscow Church asks all the patriarchs and archbishops to take a stand on the issue and, after proposing to sit all in the same semicircular table below highlights that the central position, "as President, naturally, be occupied by yours Holiness" . The aim of says. Cyril is to show "in whole world the true image of unity and conciliarity." Any other proposition says, can not be accepted under the Casual Church, will not be understood by the people of God and that is an insurmountable obstacle for us symmetochin Synodic In such meetings. "

- The second issue raised by the Moscow Patriarch to the Ecumenical Patriarch is the point I understand the heterodox as characterizes them. "In heterodox observers provided official positions behind the Primates. In this very way, he adds, will be perceived by the Holy Synod in that the lot of the faithful crony who now protest against it as "ecumenist" and not Orthodox. I share that is observed from the heterodox churches (sic) appropriate to parakathintai spaced from the members of the Synod, as not periliftoun in the lens and not be part of the common image of the Congregation. "

Even asking to inform his colleagues about the economic issues of the Summit, as there is a common fund, which will have to contribute all the Orthodox Churches.

What does the lantern and other Churches:

The letter caused a sensation at the Ecumenical Patriarchate. As noted Metropolitans, members of the organizing committee, "there is no reason to create tension. These issues will be solved. They caused, as noted, from misunderstanding and because of the limited capacity of the Theological College hall where the meeting will take place.

Hierarchs other churches emphasize the "Step", the Moscow Patriarchate invokes what had been decided in 2014 at the Phanar, when there was discussion about Agia Irini as a venue with a clear time reference to the throne of the temple as a place of all the Primates and then in January in Geneva. For this reason they should be resolved directly to provlefthoun unpleasant situations.


  1. This is not why we need a pope. This is why we need the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

  2. Although there are times when bishops are fighting over "the first places", this is not one of them. This points to a deeper problem, deeper issues, concerning the Orthodox understanding of conciliarity and our ecclesiology generally. This doesn't point any need for a pope - just the opposite. It points to an urgent need for the uprooting of papalism within Orthodoxy. Nor is this disease only apparent in "new Rome" (although it is clearly the norm there). The third Rome has also been infected, as well (as most clergy in Russia will tell you confidentially). In particular, both the one and the other know very well that the "message" that will be sent from Crete will be one of images and impressions more than substance. Hence, in this shallow, media-mania, short-attention-span age, the details of seating arrangement are not "details" at all. When all is said and done, those images will help form the impressions of billions of people concerning the Orthodox Church.

  3. I fully support Father Peter's comment. I am merely a concerned Orthodox Christian, by no means an expert, but it often seems that the international news media's repetitions of "the leader of the Orthodox Church" and "first among equals" without really understanding (and certainly not explaining) the organization of the Orthodox Church, have gone a bit to Patriarch Bathlomew's head.

    In addition, as an American who resettled in Russia, baptized here in the Moscow Patriarchate, I don't appreciate the frequency with which our Patriarch Kirill is dismissed as some kind of illegitimate Kremlin pun, with the Ecumenical Patriarch held up as the best example.

    The fact that the world seems to be so fond of the Ecumenical Patriarch is troubling. Seems like a bad sign.