http://www.spc.rs/sr/saopstenje_medjupravoslavne_pripremne_komisije

*****************************************************************************************

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

MEĐUPRAVOSLAVNA PREPARATORY COMMITTEE
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.
mp
Metropolitan John of Pergamon,
Chairman

Translated by G. Gajic, archpriest

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

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

http://www.bg-patriarshia.bg/news.php?id=39815

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.

We’ll see.

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.

Nick,

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: 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.

Just a thought.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Alexander,

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.

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”.