Russian Orthodox Church delegation led by Metropolitan Hilarion takes part in the session of Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission

One thing that caught my eye was the last sentence which reads, “The Commission…is to consider the contents of the Tomos on Autocephaly and the manner of its signing…” Which Tomos? The OCA? If so, what does this mean?

Source: Department for External Church Relations of the Russian Orthodox Church

On 22 February 2011, the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission, convened to consider the agenda of the Pan-Orthodox Council, began its work at the Orthodox Centre of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Chambesy, Switzerland.

The last session took place in December 2009. The results of the Commission’s work should be submitted to the 5th Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conference. The time of its convening will be fixed after the preparatory work is completed. The Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Conferences were held in 1976, 1982, 1986 and 2009.

The session is chaired by Metropolitan John of Pergamon, Patriarchate of Constantinople. The delegation of the Russian Orthodox Church. Led by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate’s Department for External Church Relations (DECR), includes Archbishop Mark of Berlin, Germany and Great Britain, Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia; archpriest Nikolai Balashov, DECR deputy chairman; and the interpreter Anatoly Churiakov.

Delegations of the fourteen Autocephalous Orthodox Churches take part in the session.

The Commission began its work with a prayer; Metropolitan John presented an introductory report; and a cable requesting blessing and prayers was sent to the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches. Heads of the delegations greeted the participants.

Metropolitan Hilarion conveyed wishes of successful work in the spirit of love and mutual understanding from His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia.

Metropolitan Jeremiah of Switzerland presented a report on the questions on the agenda.

The Commission, which is to consider the contents of the Tomos on Autocephaly and the manner of its signing, as well as the topic of diptychs, will work till February 26.

Click to enlarge:


  1. I’ll leave it to those fluent in Russian, but I believe that this may be a translation issue and the use of the article “the” in refering to “the” Tomos. I am under the impression that in

    Труды комиссии, предметом которых является изучение вопросов о содержании томоса об автокефалии и способе его подписания, а также о диптихах, продолжатся до 26 февраля.

    reference is to generic, indefinite or plural “tomoses.”

    I’ll happily stand corrected.

    • Scott Pennington :


      “томоса” is genitive singular. But Russian has no articles (definite or indefinite) so it could stand for “of a Tomos”. The nominative plural would be “Томосы” – “tomoses” and the genitive plural that would fit here (I think) “Томосов” – “of tomoses”. I also think that “o содержании” means “about (i.e., concerning) the content”

      So . . . “вопросов о содержании томоса об автокефалии и способе его подписания” would be “of questions about the content of a tomos concerning autocephaly and the method of its signing.”


      • Scott Pennington :


        Reading back through this, I am 99 percent sure that the wording refers to “a tomos”, i.e., any particular tomos. There’s nothing here to indicate otherwise. Bear this in mind when looking at translations on Interfax or even from the ROC’s website – – very accurate translators are apparently scarce. Imagine if your language contained no words for “a”, “an” or “the”. It would take long exposure to English in America or Britain to get a firm grip on the usage.

  2. Alexander: your are right: “томоса” is in the plural. What is interesting is that it is preceded by the word “содержании” which has many meanings translatable into English but they all, to my knowledge of Russian, all go back roughly to “maintaining” or “maintennace” and the subsequent “подписания” which, I think, in context, means confirm or sign off on. I need to think about this a little more.

  3. George Michalopulos :

    we shall see. Despite the present dust-up in the OCA, the nature of the Russians is that they don’t view grants of autocephaly which they’ve given as “provisional” or up for discussion. If they were to open this up for discussion, then it would hurt their negotiating position vis-a-vis the other things they want. Which is leapfrogging over the ancient patriarchates in the order of the dyptichs.

    • Yes, the Russians are too savy to know what the Phanar is up to, to give up an inch. Given up the OCA now, and Estonia and perhaps Ukraine will be taken next.

      I’ve always said that Russia and the rest are giving the Phanar the rope to hang itself by signing Chambesy. Our job is to coopt the EA to use them to do sometihing useful.

  4. Hot off the press, from the Moscow Patriarchal website, concerning the conclusion of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission’s meeting:

    Комиссия, задачей которой является предварительная проработка вопросов повестки дня Всеправославного Собора, продолжила начатое в 2009 году рассмотрение темы подписания Томоса об автокефалии. В ходе состоявшейся продолжительной дискуссии единогласное решение по данному вопросу не было принято. Таким образом, признано, что тема автокефалии и способа ее провозглашения требует дальнейшего изучения.

    My rough translation:

    The Commission, whose primary task is to work on the agenda of the All-Orthodox Council, began in 2009 to consider the topic of the method of the signing of Tomoses of autocephaly. During the course of lengthy discussions, no unanimous decision was achieved. Therefore, as a result, it was acknowledged that the topic of autocephaly and how it is proclaimed requires further examination [or study].

    Looks like the prior Chambesy decision regarding how autonomy and autocephaly are to be handled is a “no go” and is back up in the air. I think this is good.

    • A plain Enlgish translation: the Greek Church led by the Phanar tried to get the rest of the Churches to adopt the Phanar’s canon 28 mythology, and they told the Greek Church that it could hold its collective breath and turn blue, they were never going to go along with it.

      Btw, this has been tried before:
      Échos d’Orient, Volume 11


      With the Jews and the modern Italians, no people has ever migrated as far as the Greek people. From time immemorial, the allure of the sea, the taste for commerce and love of adventure had pushed the Greeks to emigrate, to scatter throughout the shores of the Mediterranean lake prosperous colonies, which gradually supplanted the Phoenician and Carthaginian competitors and created for long one of the most brilliant civilizations. The cities in the interior, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, to Persia and Arabia, they were also inhabited by Greeks and Hellenized very quickly.

      The same phenomenon of immigration is reproduced before our eyes. Each year, especially before the age of military service, young Greeks by the thousands abandon the heaven so laughing and the soil so thin of the fatherland, to go seek his fortune elsewhere. The human tide is going today in preference to the United States. The year 1902 saw from 11, 490 Greeks to the port of New York. The years 1903, slightly more than 13,700. For the general census of Hellenic subjects worldwide, which the government of Athens is in the process of conducting at this moment, if I am well informed, sends in America a 130,000 registration sheet. No doubt this figure is well below the number of people to register.

      The United States is not the only ones containing Greek colonies. Not mentioning the Greeks living on Ottoman territory, one meets everywhere, mainly in large industrial and commercial centers, even some of their colonies, such as Venice, which already has several centuries of existence. However, if, from the civil point of view, the emigrants very easily adopt their new country-without abandoning the rest, not any more than the Jews, of their own race-under the religious-relationship it is not the same. Orthodox in religion, they do not want at any price, with very few exceptions, to go to the Catholic and Protestant churches of the countries that deign to receive them. They therefore have churches and chapels for them for the celebration of their offices and their liturgy, they possess the Greek priests for them as if they were still living in the Hellenic Kindgom or the Ottoman Empire.

      Who governs these priests, these churches and the faithful, from the canonical point of view? A serious issue, which has been studied for a long time, no one has come to be any solution. There is, in effect, outside the Hellenic kingdom of the church, the four old patriarchs and the church of Cyprus, no constituted Greek Orthodox hierarchy.

      The Russians definitely have in North America the Diocese of the Aleutian Islands, whose primate lives in San Francisco and is also assisted by two Auxiliary Bishops: they possess even a bishop in Japan and are going to establish another in Rome for the West[ern Europe], but while being brothers in religion, while having the same liturgical rite, the Greeks never opt to attend the Russian offices and especially to be dependent on a Muscovite bishop.

      With the Russians, we must further except the Church of Cyprus, which does not count any more, those of Jerusalem and Alexandria, which hardly count, at least for the topic at hand, that of Antioch, who already has an Arab bishop, Raphael, Auxiliary of the Russian bishop of San Francisco. All these churches once set aside, there remains at presence the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Holy Synod of Athens.

      Between these two churches that struggle is incurred, on the subject of jurisdiction exercised over the Greeks of the diaspora or dispersion. Athens wants everything, Constantinople, although very disposed to concessions, desiring, however, to keep something. Who will win?).

      On October 30/November 12, 1907, was read before the Holy Synod of Constantinople a report presented on this matter by the Metropolitan of Nicomedia, Pelagonia and Grevena. He concludes, based on the holy canons-which one does not quote-that all churches and Greek communities abroad, not included in the constituency of an Orthodox autocephalous Church are dependent on the Ecumenical Patriarchate. For the success of this project, the Comission has been of the opinion that one should write to the sister autocephalous Churches to ask the Ecumenical Patriarchate for formal consent for the appointment of the ecclesiastical [authorites], charged with their annexes abroad. In this case, the Ecumenical patriacat would have no right to refuse, it would, in short, be a mere formality, but that still imposes the recognition of the patriarchal jurisdiction over all Greek communities of the dispersion [i.e. Diaspora].

      His All-Holiness Patriarch Joachim III has not been of this opinion. He proposes that, in Europe at least, things remain in the [present] state, communities continue to depend throughout on their own churches. Regarding the Greek communities in America, they would come directly under the Holy Synod of Athens. After a discussion engaged on this idea, it was decided that the Commission report and the opinion of the patriarch would be reproduced and distributed to members of the Holy Synod, which should study the question in their particular.

      The next day after the reading of the minutes, the patriarch clarified his ideas and requested that the Venetian colony come under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, as it still intends to establish there a high school of theology for young people who have completed their studies at the seminary of Halki. [That is how] things are for the moment.'orient+commautes+grecques+de+la+dispersion&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false

      Interesting how the commission invoked the canons, but did not quote them. The Tomos of 1908 does the same.

      On the Church of Cyprus not “count[ing] any more,” the same issue of Echos d’orient (p. 172) deals with why: it had been without a primate for sometime, in a dispute which drew in Constantinople, Alexandria and Jerusalem in the solution. And who was, according to the account, in the midst of that at the highest levels? Meletios Metaxakis (in the French “Métaxakès”).

  5. Also, on the question of diptychs, the following was reported on the Moscow Patriarchal website:

    По этим вопросам достижение общего согласия в настоящее время не оказалось возможным, как и по вопросу о различиях в священных диптихах отдельных Церквей, связанных с отсутствием всеправославного согласия относительно численности Церквей, признанных в качестве автокефальных.

    Again, a rough transliteral translation:

    In that regard, at the present time it is not possible to achieve a general agreement, as well as in the differences in the sacred diptychs of individual Churches due to a lack of an inter-Orthodox agreement on the number of churches recognized as autocephalous.

    Again, that is good.

    I am anxious to see the offical English translation as I do not profess expertise in the various nuances of Russian.

    • Yes, I saw this. Rather odd. Supposedly we have all been in agreement ever since the Phanar caught up with reality and recognized the autocephaly of the Czech Lands and Slovakia (almost half a century after the fact), we have all been in agreement on the top 14, and the 15th, the OCA, is always at the bottom. How does this foul up the order of the sacred diptychs?

      I just found out that Serbia’s Diocese of Buda claims jurisidction of the Czech Republic and Slovakia (did Serbia never cede Czechoslovakia to the Patriarchate of Moscow?). But since this is 14, that wouldn’t effect the order either.

      The more they bicker over this, the better: it lets the OCA and EA create a fait accompoli-the OCA is on record now as being a canonical jurisdiction according to all 15 autocephalous Churches-the 14 who signed the Chambesy documents and whose representatives who enacted them in NYC and the 15th agreeing to participate in the Chambessy process and sign on at NYC-without a reference to a “Mother Church.” One can be a little pregnant only so long.

      • Isa: In the list of autocephalous Churches on the Serbian Patriarchal web site, the “The Church of the Czech and Slovak lands” is listed as # 14. It is my understanding that the diocese still exists but only for the Serbian parishes. Sort of like the US mutli-jurisdictional “diapora”.

      • Isa: Let me clarify something. My Serbian, being my first language is fluent. My Russian is academic, therefore, semi-fluent in reading. Having said that, there was discussion at the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission of a request from the Church of Georgia to clarify that it was still #6, behind Russia and before Serbia. There was also discussion of the Church of Poland’s and the Church of Albania’s request as to where they stood in rank in the diptychs. Poland appears to have asserted a higher rank than Albania and vice versa. It seems that it varies amongst the other Churches. There was discussion as to the Church of Cyprus’ request to be moved up in the diptychs.

        After all that discussion, which it was decided to further study, both the Russian press release and the Serbian translation of the official press release (the official one I have not seen yet except in Serbian translation by the Serbian delegation), both are consistent on one point. Namely, that a problem existed in proceeding further on the diptych issue because there was no consensus as to the number of autocephalous Chruches to begin with. There has never been a lack of consensus on the 14; only their relative rank. Also, there is no other Church that I am aware of, other than the OCA, where some recognize as autocephalous and others do not. Therefore, this cryptic statement as to a lack of consensus on the number can only refer to the OCA, unless I am unaware of another similiar situation.

        Therefore, one can reasonably conclude that the Moscow Patriarchate and some others within the former Soviet ambit have not given up on the assertion of the OCA autocephaly. (This should make George and others somewhat happy). In other words, the relative rank of Poland, Albania, Georgia and Cyprus was not a stumbling block since their situation is a matter of relative rank. Who the autocephalous Churches actually are appears to have been a stumbling block. In my view, that means the OCA unless someone is aware of another similar situation, of which I am not aware.

        However, I want to go back to something Met. Amphilohious (the Serbian delegate) said in his opening remarks, which is more telling than this deadlock on the issues of autocephaly and diptychs. And, that is, that the authority to call a Council and the “pre-conditions” for calling one have not been settled. That is huge. It would appear to me that there is an implication that it is not necessarily the call of the EP to make the call alone. There is a further implication, in my view, that these may be “mundane” issues not worthy of calling a Council in the first instsance. I would remind that the Metropolitan was an extemely close disciple of St. Justin.

        • I agree with your analysis, of course. There was never any question in my mind of what is going on.
          As I posted, the antics of 1907 is what was being revived in 2009.

          Btw, no, the OCA is the only question mark. Everyone else recognizes everyone else, and refuse to recognize those everyone else refuses to recognize. And now, with the OCA being on the EA set up by the signaures of the other 14, everyone recognizes the OCA as canonical, without reference to a “Mother Church.” Hence the OCA is not with the unrecognized factions in Ukraine, Macedonia and Bulgaria, etc.

          And Met. Amphilohious is of course correct: the Pope of Rome-who at the time was this “protos” character that the Phanar keeps pratttling on about-never called an Ecumenical Council, as all the Orthodox-Vatican polemics point out. Pat. Dositheos of Jerusalem called and held the Synod of Jerusalem. What is without precedent is spending decades to plan a council. Once the need for a Council was determined, the Fathers were strictly “Let’s get this over with” types.

      • we have all been in agreement on the top 14, and the 15th, the OCA, is always at the bottom. How does this foul up the order of the sacred diptychs?

        There is agreement on the identity of the top 14, but not their order. I know for sure only about the differences between Moscow and Constantinople versions, and these are as follows:

        Agreement: 1. Constantinople; 2. Alexandria; 3. Antioch; 4. Jerusalem; 5. Moscow; 10. Cyprus; 11. Greece; 14. Czechoslovakia
        Russian version: 6. Georgia; 7. Serbia; 8. Romania; 9. Bulgaria; 12. Albania; 13. Poland
        Constantinopolitan version: 6. Serbia; 7. Romania; 8. Bulgaria; 9. Georgia; 12. Poland; 13. Albania

        Perhaps other autocephalous Churches have other differences, but I don’t know what their diptychs look like.

        • That’s exactly my point: since it is the same 14, how is it that “the differences in the sacred diptychs of individual Churches due to a lack of an inter-Orthodox agreement on the number of churches recognized as autocephalous.” Like Nick anaylzed, the order is intimately connected with who is on the diptychs, and no one is willing to strike the OCA off. As long as they can’t iron out their differnces on the order (I wouldn’t hold my breath), they will never get around to the autocephaly issue.

          Which is fine. It gives us time to coopt the EA and do something useful with it.

  6. I just read a Serbian translation of the official communique of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission and it is consistent with my translation of the Russian posted above. In other words, the participants were unable to agree on the procedure for granting autocephaly, unable to agree on the method of its promulgation, unable to agree on who is or is not autocephalos, and unable to agree on the question of the diptychs. It would appear that the Great Council is a long way off from happening. Also, based on the opening comments by Met. Amphilocius of the Serbian Church, it appears that the issue is still open as to the mechanism and pre-conditions for even calling a Council in the first instance.

    I think St. Justin is in smiling repose.

  7. The Russian translation of the previous Russian report on the completion of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission meeting just came out.

    On the issue of the diptychs, it reads:

    The requests of the Georgian Orthodox Church concerning its sixth place in diptychs and of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus concerning a higher place of its Primate in holy diptychs were presented at the meeting. Consent has not been reached either on this issue, or on the differences in holy diptychs of some Churches due to the lack of Pan-Orthodox agreement on the number of the recognized autocephalous Churches.

    [emphasis mine]

    On the issue of autocephaly itself, it reads:

    The Commission, which task was to elaborate questions for the agenda of the Pan-Orthodox Council, continued to consider the issue of signing the Tomos of autocephaly. As a long discussion has not led to the unanimous decision, the necessity of further studying of the issue of autocephaly was recognized.

  8. Scott Pennington :

    One question that comes to mind is this, “Why is there a disagreement regarding the ‘content(s)’ of a tomos?” There are many ways to skin a cat. Constantinople may also be attacking the tomos of the OCA indirectly by disputing what needs to be included in a valid tomos.

    Just a thought.

    • Scott: Content and dispute over content can mean a whole lot of different things. By way of example, we could consider the Tomos of 1924 whereby the Phanar granted autocephaly to the Church of Poland.

      No distinct territory was defined. There is a reference to the “The Holy Orthodox Church in the God-Protected Polish State”. Did that mean that as the Polish state grew or shrank, the territory of the Polish Church grew or shrank. One can certainly argue so because there follows a reference to St. Photius the Great who is claimed to have said “It is acceptable that laws which relate to church affairs, and especially parish matters, should correspond with political and administrative changes”. Should a tomos actually define a territory in more concrete terms. The Tomos to Moscow said “Moscow and the Far Northern Lands”. What did that, and still does, mean.

      Can a Tomos be revoked. The Polish Tomos required the following: “In addition to this we decree, that the Autocephalous Orthodox Sister-Church in Poland must obtain its Holy Myrh (oil) from Our Great Christian Church [meaning Constantinople]. We advise at this time, that in matters concerning church order and in matters of a more general nature, which are beyond the jurisdictional limits of every Autocephalous Church acting individually, that the Blessed Metropolitan of Warsaw and of all Poland to apply to Our Holy Ecumenical Patriarchal See, through whose mediation union with every Orthodox Church, “… rightly teaching the word of truth” and request authoritive opinions”. What does this mean. If it gets it Holy Myrh from Constantinople, is it still somewhat subsurvient and if it refused and the Metropolitan of Warsaw starts to consecrate its own Holy Myrh, what are the ramifications? And, further, what does requesting authoritative opinions from Constantinople mean. Are they bound to those theological opinions like Western Christendom’s are to the Pope’s.

      These are a few examples of possible disputes over content that might exist.

      • Scott Pennington :


        Yes, but none of that precludes my point which was that disputing the necessary content of a tomos could be an angle that Constantinople might be using to try to call into question the validity of the OCA’s tomos. Admittedly, though, it’s just speculation.

        • Scott: The issue of content was raised by Serbia, Russia and possibly Romania. No one, except the Phanar, wants to give the Phanar wiggle room to exercise later control or possibly nullifying a tomos. That is why Russia, for example, would never unilaterally revoke the OCA tomos. If it did, the Phanar could use the precedent of a revocable tomos to revoke all previous tomoses of everyone and become primus qua pontifex primus. It is not a Phanar issue. They would rather leave things loosey goosey.

      • On Tomoi, in 2004 the Phanar struck the Arch. of Athens from the diptychs on the ground that he violated the Tomos of Autcocephaly of the Church of Greece, in that he was being commemorated in the diptychs as primate (the Tomos requires commemoration of the Holy and Sacred Synod of the CoG). There was other issues, but this issue of what goes on in Greece, how is it his business? The Phanar wan’t to see autocephaly like sui juris status under the Vatican, i.e. autonomy at best.

  9. From the Bulgarian Website…translated by Google.

    Looks like the meeting was consumed by nonsense to me….


    Meetings in Shambezi is placed on the agenda the question of diptisite

    February 25, 2011 13:25 , Bulgarian Patriarchate

    Continue the meetings of the Preparatory Commission in Mezhdupravoslavnata Shambezi. Having not reached final agreement on all matters concerning the granting of autocephaly began discussing another problem and difficult to reach unanimous consent question – diptisite, ie the order in which are arranged Place autocephalous Orthodox churches. In yesterday, 24 February, during the three meetings discussed the need for a diptych, the number of diptisite, the criteria for the compilation and arrangement in diptisite and claims of some churches to more prominence.

    Early in zasedanieto was placed on examining the issue – one or more diptisi should have in the Orthodox Church. Identified are two extreme views. Patriarchate of Constantinople, which is behind the view that all local Churches should have a single diptych, and the Moscow Patriarchate, which protects the position for more diptisi, ie that different Local Orthodox Churches can have their diptisi, arrangement in which reflect the local tradition of each of Churches. Expressed the common opinion that the current situation of raznomislie and different traditions and criteria for ranking in seniority would be a true utopia agreeing on a single diptych satisfaction of all Local Orthodox Churches.

    What the Commission could propose in the name of peace and unity, however, is not to encourage churches in their claims regarding diptisite and in creating new diptisi.

    As regards the criteria for the elaboration of diptych and ordering it, the views of delegates in the committee vary. According to some criterion must be apostolic foundation, ie whether any of Christ’s apostles laid the foundations of the particular local Churches, according to others it must be recognition of the former church of Ecumenical Council, antiquity, importance, sanctity, canonization, number of Bishops, pastoral criteria, etc.

    Particularly emphasized was that often given Local Orthodox Churches have received one or another place in diptisite for purely political reasons and that the arrangement they have changed according to historical circumstances.

    The main claim for prominence in diptisite are Georgian and the Church of Cyprus. Both want to take sixth place in diptisite. Georgian Orthodox Church enjoys the support of the Russian Orthodox Church, which also gives this place in his diptych. Church of Cyprus, which has the support of ancient Patriarchates, based its claims of apostolic his home and that the third ecumenical council gives autocephaly.

    The claims of Georgian Orthodox Church have a purely historical basis, because without the specific documents confirming what has traditionally been assumed that it is one of the oldest churches, founded by St. April Andrei in the first century and that became autocephalous in 466 years. Claims of the Cyprus Orthodox Church itself, although they are historically justified, in violation of the traditional primacy in diptisite of churches that have patriarchal dignity.

    In tomorrow by the Presidency will be proposed text in relation to the discussed topic diptisite. If you find support from all members, it could be used as a proposal to the Local Churches towards the preparation of Pan-Orthodox Council.

    Text: Alexandra Karamihaleva

  10. From the Serbian website – translation by google


    Paper Međupravoslavne Preparatory Commission
    27. February 2011 – 13:31

    Chambesy, 21 to 26 February 2011.

    S A P O W T E HE E

    In the center of the Orthodox Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambesy, in Geneva, met on 22 to 26 February 2011. The Preparatory Commission Međupravoslavna Holy and Great Councils of the Orthodox Church.
    The Commission was chaired by HE Metropolitan of Pergamon g. John, a representative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and its secretary was the Metropolitan Swiss g. Jeremiah, Secretary for the preparation of the Holy and Great Council.
    Međupravoslavna Commission had for the course of completing the study questions autokefalije and ways of its declaration, and the question of Orthodox diptychs.

    1. The Commission, after introductory words Eminence Chair and introductory remarks, the Secretary of the continued examination of issues signing Tomosa autokefalije, which remained unfinished since its last meeting.
    After a long discussion on this issue was not a unanimous decision. Since, according to the current regulations, decisions must be made unanimously, the agreement on the issue and how it autokefalije declaration has not been achieved and what still remains unfinished.

    2. The Commission is jointly discussed and the topic of Orthodox diptychs and examined its various canonical and ecclesiastical aspects, from time described the practice of the Orthodox Church on this matter and unanimously expressed the opinion that the obligations imposed in the future be made diptisi unique in the Orthodox Church, as a tangible expression its unity.
    The Commission has described the criteria as they apply to the present, to enter and sort some of the Church in the sacred diptychs.
    The Commission has examined the application of the Churches of Poland and Albania on their uniform ranking of the holy diptisima all autocephalous Orthodox Church, the Church of Poland which precedes the (Albanian), and has proposed certain adjustments to the diptychs of the Orthodox Church.
    The Commission has examined the application:
    a) Most Holy Church of Georgia, on her elevation to sixth place in the holy diptisima all Orthodox Churches;
    b) most holy Church of Cyprus, on her elevation to the more sacred place in diptisima;
    v) as notable distinction between the sacred diptisima some churches, which refers to the inclusion of pan-Orthodox Churches which are not recognized as autocephalous.

    The Commission has established the impossibility of finding unanimously acceptable solution with respect to these issues.
    Metropolitan John of Pergamon,

    Translated by G. Gajic, archpriest

    Delivered: Metropolitan
    Montenegro and the Littoral
    Littoral, a member of the Commission

Care to Comment?