(orthochristian.com) - The Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church will meet in an extraordinary session on November 5 to discuss the question of convening a pan-Orthodox Council in connection with the initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to create an autocephalous Ukrainian Church, Bulgarian Church representative Archpriest Nikolai Georgiev told TASS yesterday.
“At the upcoming meeting, the metropolitans will decide whether or not to support Patriarch Kirill’s proposal to convene a pan-Orthodox Council to resolve the contradictions that have arisen in the Orthodox Church, or, to publish their opinion, having previously considered the Church documents from more than 300 years ago,” Fr. Nikolai explained.
Early this month, Pat. Kirill wrote to all the primates of the world’s 15 Local Orthodox Churches to inform them about the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and to propose opening a pan-Orthodox discussion on the matter.
The Bulgarian Holy Synod then met to discuss the matter on October 5. The Synod voted at that time to create a commission to more closely study Pat. Kirill’s letter and the entire issue, although three metropolitans—Gabriel of Lovech, John of Varna, and Daniil of Vidin—did believe already at that time that it was necessary to call for a pan-Orthodox Council.
The three metropolitans’ statement was then published on the official site of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church.
The Synod’s decision was then widely mis-reported as an outright rejection of Pat. Kirill’s proposal, though as this upcoming session makes clear, the Synod has not yet decided on the matter of calling a pan-Orthodox Council.
The situation has also drastically changed since the Bulgarian Synod last met. At that time, Patriarch Bartholomew had sent two Exarch Bishops to Kiev to coordinate with the two schismatic organizations there, and the Russian Church had ceased commemorating and concelebrating with Constantinople hierarchs. Since then, the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate announced that it was reinstating and entering into communion with the Ukrainian schismatics, and was rescinding the 1686 document whereby the Kiev Metropolia was transferred from the Ecumenical Patriarchate to the Moscow Patriarchate. In response, the Russian Orthodox Church announced that it was breaking communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
Several Orthodox Holy Synods have already officially noted the need for pan-Orthodox cooperation on the matter, including the Romanian Synod which met yesterday, and the Antiochian and Georgian Holy Synods. The same call has also been made by the primates of the Polish, Serbian, Antiochian, and Czech and Slovak Churches, and also by a joint Antiochian-Serbian statement.
Friday, October 26, 2018
Bulgarians to hold "extraordinary session" over Ukraine
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Good. Don’t think for one second that two weeks of relative silence means that the rest of Orthodoxy approves of Istanbul’s actions. Wheels are turning, God is working, even though our poor Ecumenical Patriarch is under the cloud of Satan, blinded by pride and worldly politics.
ReplyDelete"Early this month, Pat. Kirill wrote to all the primates of the world’s 15 Local Orthodox Churches to inform them about the ongoing crisis in Ukraine and to propose opening a pan-Orthodox discussion on the matter...Several Orthodox Holy Synods have already officially noted the need for pan-Orthodox cooperation on the matter, including the Romanian Synod which met yesterday, and the Antiochian and Georgian Holy Synods. The same call has also been made by the primates of the Polish, Serbian, Antiochian, and Czech and Slovak Churches, and also by a joint Antiochian-Serbian statement."
ReplyDeletePan-Orthodox "discussion" and its inherent weakness is what got us to this point. Who has the authority (canonical, but much more importantly charisma) to call a real council? The Empire is long dead, so the Emperor can't do it as was normative in the past...
If there's no emperor, then a real council is held when all the Patriarchs agree to one.
DeleteIt's messy, but it also means we don't get things like Vatican I and Vatican II.
That's my read as well. A council by mutual agreement is entirely appropriate and necessary.
DeleteI'm skeptical that even a pan-Orthodox council can fully resolve this crisis, or the disputes between Constantinople and Moscow. Orthodox conciliatiry/sobornost rhetoric has been developing for a century plus as mainly a foil to Catholic papal theory. Truth is our canonical tradition does not spell out what constitutes a fully valid council. And even if it did, the canonical tradition is perpetually open to revision. Orthodox ecclesiology relies on diachronicity more than anything. The real question: how do we preserve Orthodox unity for the long haul? Maybe a council can help, but I doubt it could do so decisively.
DeleteWell stated Daniel. Still,I think you under-emphasize the *procedural* nature of a (real) council and our canonical order in general. Yes, the MP, EP, and all other bishops present would have to recognize the *priority* of the council over their own interpretations, projects, etc. Yes and just importantly their flocks (the Body) would have to humble themselves as well.
DeleteIf all concerned (in this case the EP, MP and their bishops) went into a council with the idea that any consensus would be *provisional*, well then yes it turns out this Church of the East is a product of Imperial Rome and its unity since the fall of Rome/Byzantium has been a mere fiction propped up by the glacial pace of history, and that the modern world and its fast travel/communication/political change has unmasked this fiction.
I am not trying to sidestep "reception" of a council, but I am pointing out that the bishops involved can not do the devils work by trying to *anticipate* reception and build it in to how they are to approach a council - they have to rather put a kind of (blind) faith into it and Christianity (i.e. humbly) allow the mind of the Church and Spirit its due...
There is no assumption in the church's tradition that a council will make the right decisions. There have been councils that the church has rejected and others whose status has been ambiguous or controversial for a while before being accepted. Humility, brotherhood, self-sacrifice are all key of course if any council is to work, but that doesn't mean everyone going into the council is bound to accept every decision that issues from it, particularly on doctrinal issues. The bishops need to come to the council with the right attitude- as pastors and brothers, not politicians trying to score points. But we also need to accept that a council can be messy. It can't be given arbitrary time limits or reduced to a discussion of pre-approved statements. The old ecumenical councils spanned months and had frequent arguments and bickering.
DeleteJoseph, good points and a good underscore of why Crete 2016 was so problematic.
Delete