Father John's comment that the recent decision of the Russian Church not to participate in the Holy Synod?
I respect the decision by the Russian Church does not come.
But I also know that many of the churches involved have expressed the feeling of pain - not only for the absence of the Russian Church, but also for other churches which changed their minds.
I respect the decision by the Russian Church does not come.
But I also know that many of the churches involved have expressed the feeling of pain - not only for the absence of the Russian Church, but also for other churches which changed their minds.
No less painful, that a small church, like Bulgaria or Georgia will not attend the summit, than a larger church, such as Antioch and Russia.
The numerical difference, size and strength, never had significance for the Orthodox Church.
At the same time, the churches that have already sent their representatives in Crete (who work hard for the upcoming meeting), and preparing for tomorrow to send their official delegations feel very sygkechimenes with the whole situation.
I am not able to judge the internal issues and problems of individual churches, nor why some churches chose to change their minds - and they had given their word - that will participate in the summit.
I am sure that the Churches of Russia, Bulgaria and Georgia should easily take this decision. It would certainly be good had to respect the hard work, resources and costs of other churches, who in their majority, they kept their word and are already in Crete.
Nevertheless, we must not lose touch with the ultimate goal of the Summit, namely unity, which is a slow and difficult process.
And we must remember that unity is always the goal, not a starting point. Unity is the end rather than the beginning.
Unity always satisfied and filled by the Holy Spirit, which "complements, that is missing."
None Synod never meet just to celebrate unity. Instead, each session that has met in the past, has just convened to bring greater unity, as there was a problem (whether theological or normal / administrative).
Indeed, most sessions, over time, had actually convened to resolve administrative problems and not dogmatic.
Now that is not involving all the churches will be valid decisions? Since according to the logic of the Rules of the lack of assent even a church is an absolute obstacle to the convening of the Summit.
Nowhere in the Regulation does not say that the absence of a church affects the convening of the Summit.
It is very important to refer precisely to official documents.
The regulations say that the Holy Synod may be called by the Holiness with the consent of all Orthodox Churches, which is exactly what happened in Geneva last January, when all Orthodox Churches present at the Synaxis of the Primates and reiterated , reaffirmed, and jointly decided to convene the Summit at the upcoming Feast of Pentecost.
I am also puzzled about the way people refer to the concept of unanimity.
There is no mention in the regulations concerning the invalidity of a session or of its decisions, if a church can not attend to it.
In fact, when some church tried the same assembly to include this kind of language in regulations, was the overwhelming rejection by all churches, including Russia. The Holy Synod may not even have a quorum, but I find it very hard not to call it "Pan", because in this case preceded Orthodox decision to convene the meeting and consent of Churches for their participation.
Unfortunately, for some reason, some churches have decided at the last minute that they can not attend.
However, this does not change the validity of the meeting and its decisions.
Moreover, the Synod is certainly a "Great Synod," because it is undoubtedly more formal than any separate local Synod.
Honestly, I can not understand how some people panic when they hear about the binding nature of the Synod and its decisions.
Where is the confidence in our Church leaders? At the same time, we had to realize that the church is always a process of acceptance of a Synod decisions, just as there was for each Synod in history - including the Ecumenical Councils.
But the view, that a Synod decisions are invalid because some churches were not present, it lacks ecclesiological, theological and even basic logic.
There were several meetings during the last centuries meetings attended very few churches, and yet no one ever questioned their validity.
For example, the Church of Russia attended the famous Synod of 1872, which condemned the ethnofyletismo, but I would hope that the decisions are considered binding for Moscow today, just as it is binding for those churches attended.
Many say that what is the point to discuss the unity among all Christians (Catholics, etc.) when at the same time the unity of the Orthodox broken?
It is easy to play with the words.
But how could fragment the unity through this effort to further unity between churches?
The module can be broken only by abstaining from this effort.
Sir, Polygeni the synodicity and unanimity is unsettled realities.
The authoritarianism is probably a much simpler process. But it is not the Orthodox way or method.
If the Ecumenical Patriarch had actually - or aspired to acquire, as blame - the power that some churches give to him, probably not find ourselves in this situation.
Not surprisingly, the Catholic Church appears more united us.
Beyond the Western notion of law and order, which is often absent in our circles, there is also a vertical sense of power and decision-making in the Roman Catholic Church.
That never was part of the Orthodox tradition and practice.
Nevertheless, we definitely have a class hierarchy and the Orthodox Church, even if some refuse to accept it for one reason or another.
And that's the beauty of Orthodoxy - that even in our division and weakness moments, we are united.
Maybe we could see it that way.
That is, this is the first step of our churches to synodicity after more than 1000 years!
It is very natural that the whole process seem very clumsy. But for me, this is also the grandeur, the beauty of the event!
It's like watching someone take the first steps: we can smile of embarrassment, but still admire the courage and determination of effort.
Do you think that there was a pattern of Churches that do not achieve the Synod?
It was definitely a big scandal for everyone if this was true. I will not want to believe it.
Perhaps others know better. But I'm really surprised at the way some talk about events on the process to the Holy Synod.
For example, in a recent interview with you in other interviews elsewhere, I wonder if Bishop Hilarion refers to the same Preconciliar meetings I have attended too.
What you describe seems to be very far from reality that I noticed.
For example, he complains that many positions of the Russian Church were not accepted - or even categorically rejected - and not included in the documents or decisions (pre-conciliar meetings).
I would say, frankly, that the positions of any other Church, not accepted so generously from other churches (often under high pressure) as those of the Church of Russia. No other Church positions, including exact words, not reflected as the decisions and documents, in addition to the Church of Russia.
In fact, I remember that every time a Church disagreed, the response of the Russian delegation was threatening not to sign the text. This type of behavior can not be described either as a consensus nor as common sense.
If there is a Church in the world that can claim that echei- often persistent and sometimes tedious -configuration decisions and texts, this is the Church of Russia.
So it really comes as a surprise, even shock to hear these protests.
Probably not there is any other Church in the world should have complained about the documents.
Look, it is true - as claimed by the Metropolitan Hilarion again - that unity can not be imposed.
However, the module is also not the monopoly of those who have changed - suddenly and literally at the last moment; their opinion and now they do not want to participate in the meeting.
The module can certainly never be enforced abstinence or isolation.
Of course, the churches are free and independent in their decisions.
But independence can never be at the expense of unity.
And the crucial difference here is that each Church, without exception, agreed to meet the Holy Synod and participate in it.
It is, therefore, unjust and wrong-even misleading, and almost deceitful s assertions that "a church withdraws after another."
In fact, one church after another has confirmed he will attend, despite the problems and challenges.
And there will be only "the Greek Churches," as is often viewed in some circles, so sexy and scandalous.
Why people do not remember and do not highlight the presence, commitment and dedication of Polish Churches, Serbia, Albania, Romania and the Czech Republic and Slovakia?
I do not think there is "conspiracy", as you say. But my question is: How could you or anyone else to explain the fact that some churches have decided at the last minute not to attend?
In the case of the Church of Russia, it was literally 48 hours before the Synaxis of the Primates?
In simple language that our faithful can understand and expect their leaders to use: How can people not to honor, in just a few months ago, their reason, their promise, and their signature?
If people only knew how many signatures have put all Churches, without exception, in a decision after another, in one document after another, and a translation after the other - talking, literally hundreds of signatures from each Church in texts of the documents and of the Holy and Great Synod decisions - will be scandalized, and I find it very difficult to understand how a church can change its mind at the last minute!
Anyway, the Holy Synod will be the largest and most representative gathering of the Orthodox Church after more than 1,000 years - convened by Orthodox decision and consent.
I am happy to see that the Church of Russia appealed to the generosity and the distinction of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
I have never seen anyone more patient from the Holiness, in this whole process.
With a sense of humiliation So I watch so many of the Orthodox Churches are already in Crete, complying with charity and generosity to the call of the Holy Spirit for unity.
The numerical difference, size and strength, never had significance for the Orthodox Church.
At the same time, the churches that have already sent their representatives in Crete (who work hard for the upcoming meeting), and preparing for tomorrow to send their official delegations feel very sygkechimenes with the whole situation.
I am not able to judge the internal issues and problems of individual churches, nor why some churches chose to change their minds - and they had given their word - that will participate in the summit.
I am sure that the Churches of Russia, Bulgaria and Georgia should easily take this decision. It would certainly be good had to respect the hard work, resources and costs of other churches, who in their majority, they kept their word and are already in Crete.
Nevertheless, we must not lose touch with the ultimate goal of the Summit, namely unity, which is a slow and difficult process.
And we must remember that unity is always the goal, not a starting point. Unity is the end rather than the beginning.
Unity always satisfied and filled by the Holy Spirit, which "complements, that is missing."
None Synod never meet just to celebrate unity. Instead, each session that has met in the past, has just convened to bring greater unity, as there was a problem (whether theological or normal / administrative).
Indeed, most sessions, over time, had actually convened to resolve administrative problems and not dogmatic.
Now that is not involving all the churches will be valid decisions? Since according to the logic of the Rules of the lack of assent even a church is an absolute obstacle to the convening of the Summit.
Nowhere in the Regulation does not say that the absence of a church affects the convening of the Summit.
It is very important to refer precisely to official documents.
The regulations say that the Holy Synod may be called by the Holiness with the consent of all Orthodox Churches, which is exactly what happened in Geneva last January, when all Orthodox Churches present at the Synaxis of the Primates and reiterated , reaffirmed, and jointly decided to convene the Summit at the upcoming Feast of Pentecost.
I am also puzzled about the way people refer to the concept of unanimity.
There is no mention in the regulations concerning the invalidity of a session or of its decisions, if a church can not attend to it.
In fact, when some church tried the same assembly to include this kind of language in regulations, was the overwhelming rejection by all churches, including Russia. The Holy Synod may not even have a quorum, but I find it very hard not to call it "Pan", because in this case preceded Orthodox decision to convene the meeting and consent of Churches for their participation.
Unfortunately, for some reason, some churches have decided at the last minute that they can not attend.
However, this does not change the validity of the meeting and its decisions.
Moreover, the Synod is certainly a "Great Synod," because it is undoubtedly more formal than any separate local Synod.
Honestly, I can not understand how some people panic when they hear about the binding nature of the Synod and its decisions.
Where is the confidence in our Church leaders? At the same time, we had to realize that the church is always a process of acceptance of a Synod decisions, just as there was for each Synod in history - including the Ecumenical Councils.
But the view, that a Synod decisions are invalid because some churches were not present, it lacks ecclesiological, theological and even basic logic.
There were several meetings during the last centuries meetings attended very few churches, and yet no one ever questioned their validity.
For example, the Church of Russia attended the famous Synod of 1872, which condemned the ethnofyletismo, but I would hope that the decisions are considered binding for Moscow today, just as it is binding for those churches attended.
Many say that what is the point to discuss the unity among all Christians (Catholics, etc.) when at the same time the unity of the Orthodox broken?
It is easy to play with the words.
But how could fragment the unity through this effort to further unity between churches?
The module can be broken only by abstaining from this effort.
Sir, Polygeni the synodicity and unanimity is unsettled realities.
The authoritarianism is probably a much simpler process. But it is not the Orthodox way or method.
If the Ecumenical Patriarch had actually - or aspired to acquire, as blame - the power that some churches give to him, probably not find ourselves in this situation.
Not surprisingly, the Catholic Church appears more united us.
Beyond the Western notion of law and order, which is often absent in our circles, there is also a vertical sense of power and decision-making in the Roman Catholic Church.
That never was part of the Orthodox tradition and practice.
Nevertheless, we definitely have a class hierarchy and the Orthodox Church, even if some refuse to accept it for one reason or another.
And that's the beauty of Orthodoxy - that even in our division and weakness moments, we are united.
Maybe we could see it that way.
That is, this is the first step of our churches to synodicity after more than 1000 years!
It is very natural that the whole process seem very clumsy. But for me, this is also the grandeur, the beauty of the event!
It's like watching someone take the first steps: we can smile of embarrassment, but still admire the courage and determination of effort.
Do you think that there was a pattern of Churches that do not achieve the Synod?
It was definitely a big scandal for everyone if this was true. I will not want to believe it.
Perhaps others know better. But I'm really surprised at the way some talk about events on the process to the Holy Synod.
For example, in a recent interview with you in other interviews elsewhere, I wonder if Bishop Hilarion refers to the same Preconciliar meetings I have attended too.
What you describe seems to be very far from reality that I noticed.
For example, he complains that many positions of the Russian Church were not accepted - or even categorically rejected - and not included in the documents or decisions (pre-conciliar meetings).
I would say, frankly, that the positions of any other Church, not accepted so generously from other churches (often under high pressure) as those of the Church of Russia. No other Church positions, including exact words, not reflected as the decisions and documents, in addition to the Church of Russia.
In fact, I remember that every time a Church disagreed, the response of the Russian delegation was threatening not to sign the text. This type of behavior can not be described either as a consensus nor as common sense.
If there is a Church in the world that can claim that echei- often persistent and sometimes tedious -configuration decisions and texts, this is the Church of Russia.
So it really comes as a surprise, even shock to hear these protests.
Probably not there is any other Church in the world should have complained about the documents.
Look, it is true - as claimed by the Metropolitan Hilarion again - that unity can not be imposed.
However, the module is also not the monopoly of those who have changed - suddenly and literally at the last moment; their opinion and now they do not want to participate in the meeting.
The module can certainly never be enforced abstinence or isolation.
Of course, the churches are free and independent in their decisions.
But independence can never be at the expense of unity.
And the crucial difference here is that each Church, without exception, agreed to meet the Holy Synod and participate in it.
It is, therefore, unjust and wrong-even misleading, and almost deceitful s assertions that "a church withdraws after another."
In fact, one church after another has confirmed he will attend, despite the problems and challenges.
And there will be only "the Greek Churches," as is often viewed in some circles, so sexy and scandalous.
Why people do not remember and do not highlight the presence, commitment and dedication of Polish Churches, Serbia, Albania, Romania and the Czech Republic and Slovakia?
I do not think there is "conspiracy", as you say. But my question is: How could you or anyone else to explain the fact that some churches have decided at the last minute not to attend?
In the case of the Church of Russia, it was literally 48 hours before the Synaxis of the Primates?
In simple language that our faithful can understand and expect their leaders to use: How can people not to honor, in just a few months ago, their reason, their promise, and their signature?
If people only knew how many signatures have put all Churches, without exception, in a decision after another, in one document after another, and a translation after the other - talking, literally hundreds of signatures from each Church in texts of the documents and of the Holy and Great Synod decisions - will be scandalized, and I find it very difficult to understand how a church can change its mind at the last minute!
Anyway, the Holy Synod will be the largest and most representative gathering of the Orthodox Church after more than 1,000 years - convened by Orthodox decision and consent.
I am happy to see that the Church of Russia appealed to the generosity and the distinction of the Ecumenical Patriarch.
I have never seen anyone more patient from the Holiness, in this whole process.
With a sense of humiliation So I watch so many of the Orthodox Churches are already in Crete, complying with charity and generosity to the call of the Holy Spirit for unity.