Church conciliarism or Phanar’s diktat: Is the Synaxis of Primates to be?

On November 21, 2019, the Primate of the Jerusalem Orthodox Church, Patriarch Theophilos III, announced that he was convening the Primates of the Local Orthodox Churches in Jordan. There is only one question on the agenda: how to maintain the shaken unity of the Orthodox Church?

The Primate of the Greek Church has already announced he will skip the event, since such meetings, in his opinion, can only be convened by the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Who really has the right to convene Ecumenical (Pan-Orthodox) Councils? What were the historical precedents? What did Christ say about primacy and the relationship between the apostles? And what are the chances of success for the initiative of Patriarch Theophilos III?

Why do we need a meeting of Primates

When Phanar created the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), it seemed to many outside observers that it was simply a matter of the conflict between the Constantinople and Moscow Patriarchates over Ukraine. And the problem can be solved by diplomatic means so that the conflict could be contained.

However, after the recognition of the OCU by the Greek and Alexandrian Churches, it became completely clear that the matter was not about Ukraine. The Ukrainian issue revealed a much deeper problem, namely, the problem of primacy in the Church. It is difficult to argue that the head of the Church is Christ. But what does this mean in the earthly, administrative sense? Should our earthly Church have a certain first hierarch endowed with exclusive powers? Constantinople and its supporters say yes: “Although in general we consider Christ to be the Head of our Church, on earth this is the Ecumenical Patriarch” (Metropolitan Eustathios (Spiliotis) of Monemvasia and Sparta of the Greek Orthodox Church).

But the fact is that for 2,000 years people who called themselves Orthodox did not think so. They believed that not only “Christ is the Head of the Church” (Eph. 5, 23), but also, “Behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the age. Amen” (Matt. 28, 20).

After the recognition of the OCU by the Churches of Greece and Alexandria, it became completely clear that the matter was about Ukraine. The Ukrainian issue revealed a much deeper problem, namely, the problem of primacy in the Church.

Not a single canon of the Church gives even a hint that the Church should have any visible head on earth. Obviously, there is an attempt by Phanar and its supporters to change the two-thousand-year-old doctrine of the Church itself. And this is no longer the conflict of Constantinople with Moscow but the matter concerning the entire Church. It is doubtful that, having removed the Lord Jesus Christ from His effective earthly governance, the Church could remain the Church.

Before our very eyes, the issue at hand has reached a level that in the history of the Church was resolved only in a conciliar manner. Thus, Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem made an attempt to convene such ... not even a Council but just a meeting of the Primates. By the way, the choice to meet Jordan and not Jerusalem, where the Church was born, suggests that it is conceived as preparatory to the future Ecumenical (Pan-Orthodox) Council to be held in Jerusalem.

The head of the Greek Church immediately responded to the call of Patriarch Theophilos that such meetings can only be convened by the Patriarch of Constantinople.

The Primate of the Albanian Church, Archbishop Anastasios, said that the Council on the Ukrainian issue should be convened immediately, although he did not specify whether he meant the proposal of Patriarch Theophilos.

Who has the right to convene an Ecumenical Council

If it comes to the Council of the plentitude of the Church (in our terms all Local Churches), then a set of canonical rules doesn’t give not only a direct answer to this above question but also even a clue to how it can be resolved. There is not even an explicit prescription of who is authorized to convene a Council of whatever Local Church.

But there is Apostolic Canon 34: "The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him [who is the first] do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."

It follows from this rule that the first bishop (Primate of the Local Church) has the right to convene a Council. However, it’s only about the Council of the Local Church. But this right of the first bishop is by no means exclusive. There are many examples in history.

By the way, the absence in the corpus of canon law of the definition of who convenes the Ecumenical Councils indicates that the Church as a whole did not have this first bishop, whom Patriarch Bartholomew now wants to set himself up.

Who convened Ecumenical Councils historically

The first historical Ecumenical Council was the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem in 49 or 51 year. The Holy Scripture does not contain direct indications of who convened it. It just says, “The apostles and elders gathered to consider this matter” (Acts 15, 6).

The Holy Fathers, who left interpretations of the 15th chapter of the book of Acts, also ignored this issue, which indicates how little it meant altogether.

Jacob, the first bishop of Jerusalem and brother of the Lord, chaired the Apostolic Council, and this may indirectly indicate that it was he who convened the Council. By the right of the chairman, he spoke the last word at the Council. “Jacob was the bishop of the Church of Jerusalem, which is why he speaks last” (St. John Chrysostom).

The Holy Apostle Peter did not have primacy either at the Apostolic Council, since his speech is heard in the middle of the discussion, or in the Church at all. The texts of the Holy Scriptures do not give us any reason to speak even about the moral primacy of the Apostle Peter.

The Holy Apostle Paul, not even one of the 12, without embarrassment, accused the Apostle Peter and the Apostle Barnabas of hypocrisy: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation" (Gal 2: 11-13).

Moreover, the apostle Peter did not have the powers that Patriarch Bartholomew appropriates today: the right to ultimate judgment of all, the right to convene Ecumenical Councils, to grant autocephaly, to interfere in the affairs of other Local Churches.

The absence in the corpus of canon law of the definition of who convenes Ecumenical Councils indicates that the Church as a whole did not have this first bishop whom Patriarch Bartholomew now wants to set himself up.

All seven Ecumenical Councils from 325 to 787 were convened, organized, and financed by the Byzantine emperors. The fact that the canons do not say that the emperors did not have such a right bothered no one.

Based on the foregoing, we can conclude: the Holy Scriptures, the history of the Church and the corpus of canon law give only an indirect indication that the Ecumenical Council can be convened ... by the Jerusalem bishop, who is now Patriarch Theophilos III. It seems that now no one is applying for the post of Byzantine emperor. But this does not mean that only the Patriarch of Jerusalem can convene Ecumenical Councils.

We dare to assert: the Ecumenical Council can be convened by the one whose call will convene the Ecumenical Council, which will be subsequently recognized as Ecumenical by the plentitude of the Church.

Therefore, the words of Primate of the Greek Church Ieronymos that only the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right to convene the Councils of the entire Church do not have the slightest foundation.

Nor do the claims of Patriarch Bartholomew for primacy in the Orthodox Church. In general, our Lord Jesus Christ decided on the question of primacy once and for all: “Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “Anyone who wants to be first must be the very last, and the servant of all” (Mark 9, 35). Even the primacy of honor is not very consistent with these words, not to mention the primacy of power. And the Lord said these words exactly when the apostles argued which of them was greater: “They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest” (Mk. 9, 33-34).

Who is first in the Orthodox Church

As for Phanar’s attempts to substantiate his claim to primacy by the sacred canons, here he falls into the trap. The main canon referenced by the fanariots is the third rule of the Second Ecumenical Council: "The bishop of Constantinople has the prerogative of honor after the Roman bishop, because the city is the new Rome."

And no matter what the Phanariots might think up, the meaning of this rule is not at all that the bishop of Constantinople allegedly dominates everyone. Everything is much more prosaic. Until 381, when this Council took place, the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not exist at all. Organizationally, the Church in Constantinople was part of the Heraclean Metropolis, which, of course, did not correspond to the position of Constantinople as the capital of the Byzantine Empire.

The Byzantine canonist of the 12th century, Theodore Balsamon, writes about this in the interpretation of the rule: "The city of Byzantium did not have any archbishop's honor, but its bishop was formerly ordained by the Metropolitan of Heraclea." Hence, the Second Ecumenical Council decided that the bishop of Constantinople should be the second in honor after the bishop of Rome.

In turn, the second rule of the Council, which established the so-called Pentarchy, five patriarchates, firstly, does not mention but only implies the Church of Constantinople, and secondly, explicitly prohibits the bishops of some Local Churches from interfering in the affairs of others: “The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs.” 

What can be expected of the Synaxis of Primates

Time will tell if a Pan-Orthodox Synaxis of Primates of Local Churches will gather upon the call of Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem. Probably, the Greek and Alexandrian Churches, which have now recognized the OCU, will not come to such a meeting. As a matter of fact, since they recognized the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Church, they do not need this meeting, nor do they need any Council whatsoever. What is it for, if everything is decided by Patriarch Bartholomew in the last resort?

But those who understand that it is Christ Who rules the Church no matter what, may well come to this synaxis. However, the question is what will be discussed at such a meeting. The solution to the "Ukrainian issue" or the real reason for the current crisis – the claim of Patriarch Bartholomew for primacy?

Probably, the Churches of Greece and Alexandria after recognizing the OCU will not come to the meeting. Why do they need some kind of Council, if everything is decided by Patriarch Bartholomew in the last resort?

And here we need to refer to the statement of the Primate of the Albanian Church, Archbishop Anastasios. In his statement he does not say anything about the new ecclesiology of Phanar. On the contrary, he sometimes emphasizes that it is Constantinople that must play the first fiddle: "the initiative of the doctor's prescription for the current situation should belong undoubtedly to the Ecumenical Patriarchate." The fact that this current situation, which could lead to disastrous implications for the whole of Orthodoxy, happened on the initiative of the “undoubtedly Ecumenical Patriarchate,” is diplomatically silenced by Archbishop Anastasios. There are encouraging words in his letter: "The basic principle of conciliarism, whereby the path of the Orthodox Church was established over time, is, after all, the only one that can open a way out of the existing crisis."

There is a big risk that at the convened meeting (if it does take place) they will not talk about healing the disease but about combating the symptoms. So far, it is impossible to conclude from the rhetoric of the representatives of the Local Churches that most of them are fully aware of the destructiveness of the current Phanar’s ecclesiology. It might take time. Probably, Phanar still has to show everyone with its further actions the true face of Constantinople papism.

Well, in the days before the First Ecumenical Council, too, far from everyone realized the pernicious Arian heresy. But God ruled everything as He pleased. There is no doubt that this will be the case also this time. It's just that from the perspective of 2019 year, the outcome is blurred so far.