Sunday, November 24, 2019

Albanian Church speaks out against polarization

I'm reminded of Colossians: "Continue earnestly in prayer, being vigilant in it with thanksgiving; meanwhile praying also for us, that God would open to us a door for the word, to speak the mystery of Christ, for which I am also in chains, that I may make it manifest, as I ought to speak. Walk in wisdom toward those who are outside, redeeming the time. Let your speech always be with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer each one." Yet again the Church of Albania speaks in prayerful wisdom on the events of the day. A Church that has risen from the ashes of Communism to become a beacon of faithfulness and Christian love embodied in her primate, Archbishop Anastasios.


(Church of Albania) - This appeal-supplication was sent to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and to all other Orthodox Autocephalos Churches on November 20th, 2019. It was given to the media on the 24th of November, 2019.

† Anastasios
Archbishop of Tirana, Durrës and All Albania

In anticipation of Christmas 2019
Appeal-Supplication
for the overcoming of the ecclesiastical polarisation

1. For months, much has been said and written about the Ukrainian ecclesiastical problem. What is most crucial and most necessary, however, is to emphasise Orthodoxy’s imperative of unity. St. John Chrysostom proclaimed, in an expression of Patristic spiritual experience and ecclesiastical tradition, that: “The name of the Church is not one of separation, but of union and concord. The Church came into being, not that we might be divided, but that we might be joined together”. And elsewhere: “Nothing exasperates God so much as a Church divided”. Any action must therefore take most seriously into account this truth: The unity of the Church is before and above all.

2. The ecclesiastical events of the past year have created a new reality, with the obvious involvement of geopolitical interests and expediencies. This new situation cannot be ignored, directly or indirectly. The granting of Autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine has not brought the desired Orthodox unity and peace, as happened with all previous cases of granting Autocephaly. The central figure in the Ukrainian problem, the self-proclaimed “Patriarch” Filaret, ultimately refused the Tomos, criticising both its content and its purpose. The divisions have spread to other regions and to the Orthodox world in general. At the same time, the supreme sacrament of unity and forgiveness – the Holy Eucharist – has been used by the Patriarchate of Moscow during the confrontation as a means of applying pressure. Many millions of Orthodox around the world have broken eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Patriarchate of Alexandria, and the Church of Greece. Moreover, the question of the validity of the ordinations performed by the self-proclaimed “Patriarch” Filaret when he was excommunicated and anathematized continues to divide. The painful consequences of this surgical intervention are all too well known, not only among the Orthodoxcircles but throughout the Christian world.

3. For the moment, a worrying silence prevails in most of the Orthodox Churches. The apparent political pressures on both sides are wounding the spiritual authority of the Orthodox Church, while the mobilisation of irresponsible persons to deride those who express different opinions, while at the same time flattering those whom they support, debases inter-Orthodox dialogue at a critical moment for Orthodoxy. Some ecclesiastical circles have expressed the expectation that all the Orthodox Churches will gradually recognise the recipient of the Tomos. Moreover, even if some autocephalous Churches do recognise him, several others have declared in their public pronouncements that they will continue to refuse to do so. The resulting ethno-racial fragmentation (into Greeks, Slavs, and those who desire harmonious relations with all) deals a grave blow to the multinational,multi-cultural, and ecumenical character of Orthodoxy. Time does not necessarily correct and heal ecclesiastical schisms; rather, it deepens and perpetuates them.

4. Finding ways to transcend this ecclesiastical polarisation is now a matter of urgency. In order to face various conflicts in today’s world the first step is de-escalation. It is widely accepted and often repeated on the international stage that tensions can be faced only by means of serious dialogue. Every attempt should be made to re-establish communication between the primary parties in the crisis as soon as possible, so that they may exchange creative proposals. Persons who can contribute to the immediate initiation of the deliberations exist in the Orthodox Church.

5. It is time to lay the foundations for new efforts on the truths of Orthodox tradition, which are rooted in Holy Scripture, for example: “But why do you call Me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do the things which I say?” (Luke 6:46, cf. Mt.7:21); "But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you…” (Mt. 5:44); “and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us…” (Mt. 6:12); “…endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3; see also Gal. 5:15). Following the commands of the Lord faithfully we will discern new pathways to overcoming the violence.

6. Solutions exist. God will enlighten us that we may determine them. They will not, of course, be achieved through exchanges of insulting and threatening texts, neither by extra- ecclesiastical interventions nor can they be imposed unilaterally or come automatically with the passing of time. Every delay deteriorates the already painful situation. And even if “ultimately” “in the future” a solution will be found, many sorrowful pages will have already been accumulated in the history of Orthodoxy. The fundamental principle of Conciliarity, which has always underlain the advancement of the Orthodox Church, is the only key to finding a way out of the existing crisis. Gathering together in the Holy Spirit, in mutual respect and with the sole aim of finding a peaceful arrangement, we have the possibility of reaching a solution acceptable to the whole Orthodox Church. The longer the implementation of pan-Orthodox Conciliarity is delayed, the more dangerous the multiple fissures in the Orthodox Oikoumene become. Modern technology intensifies the clamour, the confusion, and the turmoil among the Orthodox and by this the creditability of Orthodoxy in today’s world is decreasing.

7. With the approach of Christmas, the great feast of the coming of the Son and Word of God to humankind, the amazing initiative of the Father for the reconciliation with the human race, we humbly raise our supplication, our appeal, for a hastening of the steps towards reconciliation, so that we may be entitled to join all our voices in singing “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will to men.” (Luke 2:14) “All things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation”(2 Cor. 5:18).

The initiative for the healing treatment of the new reality undoubtedly is accorded to the Ecumenical Patriarchate. But all the Autocephalous Churches, all Orthodox without exception, bear the responsibility to contribute to reconciliation (katallagi).

Reconciliation will bring peace to millions of faithful people. At the same time, Orthodoxy will confirm its spiritual ability to heal wounds, in the light of the Word of God and the power of the Holy Spirit. Confirming the truth that she is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, whose Head is Christ the incarnate Son of God, “for whom and by whom all things exist” (Heb. 2:10), who “…has given us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Cor. 5:18).

28 comments:

  1. Such a graceful, hopeful text. Any hierarch who rejects it, or even fails to respond to it will, I think, be diminished.
    My only concern is its statement that the initiative for any conciliar process to resolve this belongs to Constantinople. This would mean that, if the Patriarch of Constantinople refuses to act, as seems likely, the Church is paralyzed. There must be another way forward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen, Abba Moses. Unfortunately true before, during, and since the Council of Crete.

      Delete
  2. It is also very appropriate, in Christian terms, that the least of all (according to the very worldly order of the diptychs), be the one to speak truth to all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Exchange creative proposals"? What does this mean? Constantinople invaded the territory of another Church and unilaterally created an "autocephalous Church" out of a group of unordained schismatics! I don't see a word about the persecution of the UOC (Church seizures and beatings) or the betrayal of the holy Hierarch Metropolitan Onuphriy.

    Does the Archbishop know that the Patriarch of Jerusslem has called for a Synodal gathering of all the Churches?

    One thing of which I am rather certain...Bartholomew will ignore this as he has ignored every other criticism of his Church dividing actions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. “Time does not necessarily correct and heal ecclesiastical schisms; rather, it deepens and perpetuates them.

    Finding ways to transcend this ecclesiastical polarisation is now a matter of urgency.”

    Thank you! The fantasy that this major crisis will simply fade out if we ignore the elephant in the room and each other for 100 years is nonsense, completely unpastoral and antithetical to Biblical principles, Rome and Constantinople played that game once and look how that ended.

    “The fundamental principle of Conciliarity, which has always underlain the advancement of the Orthodox Church, is the only key to finding a way out of the existing crisis.”

    Again, thank you! I’ve heard many people claiming that conciliarity isn’t actually the Orthodox principle, or that it is no longer valid or needs to be replaced, so grateful to hear it defended and promoted like this. I too disagree with the idea that Constantinople is the only one who can start the process, since that undermines the very idea, but I think that was an attempt to placate EPB and to encourage him to take charge as he is fond of doing, for a positive reason in this case.

    Mikail I think it’s important to recognize statements like this as the olive branches that they are, to lash out at such a pastoral and peaceful message for perceived failings is to reject the possibility of reconciliation. Sure it might not say everything we want it to or that it needs to, but it was said in a spirit of love and is seeking peace, we have to start somewhere, otherwise we end up as militant and hate filled zealots. Tribalism won’t save us.

    Anyways my two cents aren’t worth much, but glory to God that someone is preaching the truth in love like this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sojourner, a Synodal gathering has already been called by the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Why do you think that he did not make reference to this? It is not the first time the Archbishop has made irenic statements. Does he feel that such a meeting can only be called by Bartholomew? If so, he has wasted the ink from his pen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. His letter (sent 11/20, though released publicly 11/24) predates the invitation from Jerusalem (11/21), so it could not have made reference to it.

      Delete
    2. Thank you Father. This eases my mind.

      Delete
  6. It is time for Moscow to hold an ecclesiastical trial and depose Bart. No more waiting or half measures.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As an amateur (canon) lawyer you forgot one basic aspect of the law. I will give you $1,345,234 internet bucks if you can name what it is.

      Delete
    2. I can appreciate the sentiment, but as far as I know there's no way that can happen in the canonical order of the Church.
      What I think COULD happen is for the autocephalous churches that are willing to gather a council (with or without Constantinople) to try to settle the issues. But I'm not at all confindent that the outcome would be helpful in the current polarized atmosphere.
      I can only think of this from 2 Chronicles 20:12: "For we are powerless against this great horde that is coming against us. We do not know what to do, but our eyes are on you."

      Delete
    3. Jake are you a canonical lawyer? The MP has jurisdiction over its territory therefore it is the only synod with the autority to act. I doubt Bart will take part but I believe after he refuses to attend the 3rd time they can depose or anathematize him. Thoughts? Better to be fully broken then half *** it.

      Delete
    4. "jurisdiction" was the correct answer, but the deductions for the misapplication are going to add up:

      - $2,000,000 internet bucks for claiming the MP has jurisdiction and can "depose" the EP. Is the MP an ecumenical (i.e. universal) patriarch? Nope. Is the EP in anyway subject to the jurisdiction of the MP? Nope.

      How many internet bucks do you owe me?

      Delete
    5. There is no such thing as an Universal Patriarch. The Russian Holy Synod can do as it pleases as it is the Highest Authority for that Church outside of a Pan Orthodox Council but even that has to go through reception. So, I can give my Swiss Bank account info so you can make the deposit.

      Delete
    6. "There is no such thing as an Universal Patriarch..."

      *sigh*

      Delete
    7. Can you provide evidence for your claim that there is a Universal Patriarch? Ecumene= Empire Ecumenical= Imperial

      Delete
    8. That would be the Holy Canons...what Church do you believe you are a part of?...don't answer that.

      Delete
    9. Please provide the canons in question. No need to list all the ones Bartholomew has and is currently violating. I am a member of Christ's Church not Bart's para-synagogue.

      Delete
    10. If I wanted to be under a Pope I'd be under the real pope not some cheap knock off devoid of apostolic foundation.

      Delete
  7. I am going to disagree with our host and say that Archbishop Anastasios thinking while irenic, is not sufficient to the situation/task (which is exactly as he says, the problem of Unam Sanctam). Addressing the numbered sections:

    1) Yes, the theological, ontological, ecclisastical instantiation of "unity" (Unam Sanctam) is central, credal, and a fundamanental mark of the Church/Body. Not sure what he means when he says it is "before and above all", unless he means Christ Himself is "before and above all".

    2) He makes a fundamental error by making (in his mind) Urkainian autocephaly about "Filaret", *merely* short term politics (particular "global" east vs west, etc.). This is reductionist and frankly lazy when it comes to the real history and humanistic/ecclesial situation.

    3) Another error/misdiagnoses:

    "...The resulting ethno-racial fragmentation (into Greeks, Slavs, and those who desire harmonious relations with all)..."

    The "resulting ethno-racial fragmentation" is not the *result* of Ukraine. Ukraine is but a symptom of a deeper and very fundamental (weak, problematic - chose your term) ontology of this Imperial Church of the East's de facto Unam Sanctam. This is the whole "let's pretend we are strongly conciliar when in fact we are but a collection of isolated ethno-national 'churches'". He is very right when he says that time does not necessarily heal these sorts of things. However, he apparently wants to dial the clock back just a little bit, from today problematic to yesterday's problematic, from stage 4 cancer to stage 3. Yesterday's disease is no more sustainable, no more a real answers to this Unam Sanctam question, than today's.

    4) Well, more "urgent" as all the other Greek vs. Slav contests of the past? Why? I suspect he wants to get back to yesterday when the cracks of our Unam Sanctam were just papered over a little better...but yes real *conciliarity* and dialogue would be welcome as a *new reality* - it has not existed for a millennium at least.

    5) Yes

    6) Yes...importantly he notes how modern communication blows away the rice paper that covers the cracks.

    7) He notes how ("undoubtedly") by the letter of the (canonical) law the initiative of a REAL ecumenical council lies with the EP. The reality is very very difficult however, in that the EP (as near as I can tell - anyone disagree?) does not have either the material resources, and more importantly the spiritual authority, the practical recognition/charisma amongst the rest of the Church and her hierarchy. I certainly don't trust him, even though I like how his' is a fundamentally humanistic action vis-a-vis the Ukraine.

    In other words, the "urgency" of Unam Sanctam has to be not only present in a mere theoretical sense, but truly present in an existential sense among all these de facto ethno-national 'churches'. However, are any of them truly concerned for their very being and existence as the True Body? I don't see it...they all seem rather comfortable (even smug) that they are the "local" expression of Unity itself. In other words, do they truly believe the diagnosis? Do they truly believe that the disease is "urgent" and life threatening? Or would they rather focus anachronistic "canonical" and cultural (i.e. "Holy" Russia, mother/fatherland this or that, mother church, etc. etc.) privileges and ways of being and thinking of oneself (and thus Unam Sanctam)?

    Even if they are truly convinced of the existential threat, do they have it in them after 1300 years of ethno-national slumber to get up, pick up their pallet, and walk? It will take a miracle...





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will give Russia and Ukraine credit for at least making it to the nation-state model. The Greeks haven't even made it past Empire.

      Orthodox ecclesiology is becoming fantastic. Canons passed at council under the patronage of Emperors imbued with the Mandate of Heaven (and armies of stone-cold killers) no longer have any context for their interpretation, and no connection to present-day realities in any event. The pretense that "Constantinople" still exists in a neighborhood in Istanbul does not address the fundamental problem. There is no longer any practical justification for global Orthodoxy to be governed by a few Greek ethnics in the Mediterranean, surrounded by Muslims.

      Alexandria doesn't even bother with the local vernacular on its website so far as I can tell. The Christians who are actually Egyptian don't care; they have their own Church.

      Antioch exists in a similar surreality with her Patriarch commuting between Beirut and Damascus, at least until the second Lebanese civil war starts. Most of Antioch's children reside in the Americas, never to return.

      At some point I expect the Church in the Americas (where the money and the converts are) will tell the Old World how things are going to be going forward. Or we just drift further into arcaneum, and diminution and schism.

      A primatial council in session until consensus is reached is the only way out.

      Delete
    2. "A primatial council in session until consensus is reached is the only way out."

      The bad news is that the very idea of a 'primatial council' itself rests on the broken ontology of all that you speak to (i.e. anachronistic Empire, ethno status/influence that no longer exists, etc.). The good news is...what, that we expect a miracle?

      Delete
    3. To add to the above:

      I remember when Rodney King teared up and said "can't we all just get along" on live TV. I thought to myself "well, that's a sentiment - but what about human nature, and sin,the fall, these large societal structure that only change very slowly, etc.".

      Do we expect too much from a council? In other words, is it a kind of essentially sentimental hope that allows us to point to some future council and say "this is what will make right 1300 years of ethno-national existence and unanswered questions around Unam Sancam"?

      Delete
    4. Jake,

      Your point is well made. However, the more important point to consider is that when a council is truly an Ecumenical Council it is the Holy Spirit Who guides it into the truth that quenches the flames of the crisis.

      The catch is that one doesn't simply convoke an Ecumenical Council, but rather it is recognized as such in retrospect as the truth that is the medicine for the disease takes effect & is perceived & proclaimed by the fullness of the Church.

      I suspect your point is that a council might be called with the intention of being an "Ecumenical Council", but it won't be, and instead, it will just result in humanistic errors exacerbating the current problems. This is a danger, indeed.

      Nevertheless, Christ is Head of the Church, and He has promised us that the gates of Hades will not prevail against it & that the Holy Spirit will guide it into all truth.

      I don't know what the answer is, but hope springs eternal from the heart that possesses true faith. "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief!"

      Delete
  8. It is my hope that each of you spends an equal amount of time in prayer on these issues as one does in commenting about it. For peace will never come by proving yourself right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen. I always light candles and pray daily for the suffering Church in Ukraine and Her hierarch Metropolitan Onufriy...that the Church seizures and beatings will end...if it is God's will.

      Delete
    2. Absolutely Mikhail and AC. My understanding is that speaking up for them is an important part of showing love and respect. Likely true for many.

      Delete