11 reasons not to participate in the Pan-Orthodox Council

The so-called Pan-Orthodox Council is scheduled to start on the 19th of June on Crete. The idea of a new Council that may resolve long-standing problems and contradictions among different Orthodox jurisdictions has been discussed for 100 years. From the very beginning this initiative provoked stormy discussion among Orthodox clerics and laics on the necessity of this event. Today these contradictions threaten to disrupt the holding of the Pan-Orthodox Council. Russian and Georgian Orthodox Churches expressed serious concerns about some of the wording of the Council. Kinot of Holy Mount Athos demanded inclusion in the documents of the Council's position that non-Orthodox denominations should not be referred to the churches, and all forms of joint prayers and liturgical action with them should be discontinued. The Russian Church urges to convene a Pan-Orthodox pre-meeting to resolve questions that confuse the faithful.

The greatest concern is the tendency to establish ecumenist agenda as a long-term priority of the Church. The will of the Constantinople Patriarch is to transform his Superiority of the Honor in something like Orthodox Papism and renovationist trends. However, Constantinople rejected to make any adjustments and pronounced against calls for any Pan-Orthodox meeting.

The Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Bulgarian Orthodox Church have refused to take part in the Council. Thus, it has lost the status of All-Orthodox. Now the arrival of representatives of other Orthodox Churches is questionable. What can cause a refusal to participate in the Council?

1. Unreasonable claims by the Patriarchate of Constantinople for primacy in the Orthodox world. The Patriarch of Constantinople controls only a small quarter of Phanar in Istanbul and a number of parishes abroad. When in the beginning of Ramadan Turkish authorities initiated Muslim religious ceremonies in the Hagia Sophia, the Patriarch of Constantinople was silent. So, if the Patriarchate of Constantinople cannot and even does not dare to defend Christian holy places in the city of his residence, how can he pretend to unite the Orthodox World?

2. The refusal of the Council to resolve the issues actually dividing the Orthodox world. Constantinople’s failure to contribute to the solution of the dispute between the Jerusalem Patriarchate and the Patriarchate of Antioch caused the rejection of the last Pan-Orthodox Council. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem in 2014 established a metropolitan in Qatar, which is considered the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Antioch. In this regard, the Patriarchate of Antioch from April 2014 stopped communicating with Jerusalem and is constantly waiting for assistance in solving the problem on the part of world Orthodoxy.

3. Unresolved issues will be unresolved. The aforementioned problems remained untouched in the agenda of the Council. So the Council will not fulfil one of its previously mentioned aims. Constantinople did not listen to any opinions of the Russian Orthodox Church, neither Georgians nor Kinot Mount Athos. If it has not done so already, you should not expect that it would do it at the Council.

4. Ecumenism. The Ecumenical Patriarch will pray together with the Pope, which the rest of the Orthodox Church considers to be a heretic.

According to canonical norms, the Patriarch of Constantinople should be deposed from his rank. By participating in the Council, which is convened by Constantinople, all other local churches formally recognize his seniority, and therefore favor a policy of rapprochement with the heretics. The documents, which speak of relations with other Christian confessors, are sustained in an ecumenical spirit. In particular, it approved the activities of the World Council of Churches.

The draft document "of the Orthodox Church's relations with the rest of the Christian world" provoked the greatest debate and criticism in the various Local Churches. It is of great concern that Christians, who have fallen away from the Church, are not called by traditional theological terms as heretics and schismatics anywhere in the project, and only the "Christian churches", "confessions" (p. 6), "near and far" (p. 4). Observers from the Protestant religious communities that ordain women and sodomites will attend the Council.

5. The absence of a legitimate authority that can convene the Council.

Previously, Orthodox emperors convened all the Ecumenical Councils. Thus, the importance of the status of the emperor as "the bishop of Foreign Affairs of the Church" and a representative of the laity was demonstrated. In addition, such a scheme is deprived of any possibility of any Patriarch’s claim to rule over others.

6. Provoking further splits in the Church as a result of the Council. In connection with the aforementioned circumstances, a substantial part of conservative Orthodox Christians are against the council. In these circumstances, the conduct of the Council and the adoption of trade-offs will provoke new divisions, as has occurred previously. The Council will cause a schism, not unity.

7. At the Council, representatives of Western intelligence agencies will work actively. Their main task is to enlarge division and discord in the world Orthodoxy and use the Council for the decisions that are not consistent with the Orthodox creed to weaken the unity of the Orthodox world. Representatives of the American special services landed on the Greek island of Crete, where the Pan-Orthodox Council will be held at the end of June this year. This declaration was made by chairman of the Supervisory Board of the analytical center "Katechon" Konstantin Malofeev on the air of Russian TV Channel Tsargrad. According to him, the Americans arrived in Crete on the pretext of ensuring security of the Orthodox hierarchy. In fact, US intelligence agencies tend to secure complete control of everything that happens at the council.

8. The control of Western elites over some Orthodox Churches. Some commentators mentioned earlier:

This is the enslavement of several countries concerned with the atheist European Union. Notably, there is the fact that the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem are basically appointees of the Greek Foreign Ministry and Greece, as well as Cyprus, Bulgaria, and Romania, where the EU is pouring money into for the building of 'ecumenical centres', are indebted feudal fiefs of the EU. Moreover, given the ambitions of Turkey to join the EU, the Turkish-based Patriarchate of Constantinople, with their own imperialistic ambitions in Ukraine, Estonia, and throughout the Diaspora, is also subject to the EU, itself a creation of US foreign policy . 

9. The uncertain status of the Council. Initially, it was positioned as the Eighth Ecumenical, but later it was announced that it would not consider dogmatic issues. Nevertheless, the Council assumes the format of its binding decisions for all participating churches.

10. The 22nd item of the Project document "Relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world" is puzzling. It pre-announces decisions of the Pan-Orthodox Council to be infallible and protects them from possible legitimate criticism. Needlessly classified Council decisions binding before their reception by the Orthodox world seems to be contrary to the spirit of the Orthodoxy for many Christians:

No meeting of representatives of the Local Churches can be called a Council before it has taken place. To call it so is pure politics. What is important is if the Holy Spirit inspires any such meeting. If it is, there the people will receive it. Only on reception by the faithful, can we then give that meeting the title of a 'Council'.

11. The Council - this is not the format to demonstrate "the unity of the Orthodox world" for political purposes. Firstly, as noted above, it does not solve the existing conflicts, but generates new splits. Secondly, to demonstrate such unity formats of "Meeting" or "Conference" are enough, whose decisions are deprived of general validity of the measurement. Thirdly, the Orthodox Church has always had unity. To suggest that the Church is not already One suggests that Christ is not One. The lack of administrative unity, or different views on some issues of social life, rites if the tents of faith are not charged, does not demonstrate disunity, but variety and diversity.