The Moscow Patriarchate again spoke about the possibility of holding a second so-called All-Orthodox Council to resolve internal contradictions in the Orthodox Church. The reason for this was the recent meeting of the Patriarch Theophilos of Jerusalem with Pope Francis, during which the Patriarch declared his readiness to “mediate and do everything possible to start a dialogue that can lead to the end of suffering and to the healing of wounds in the Orthodox family.”
Archpriest Nikolai Balashov, who until recently was the second diplomat of the Russian Church, and now holds the position of adviser to Patriarch Kirill, commented on this statement. He praised such mediating initiatives from Jerusalem and emphasized the importance of resuming the “conciliar discussion of the problems that exist in the world Orthodox family.”
“The key role in ensuring such a discussion historically belonged to Jerusalem. We also remember the Amman meeting of Prelates and representatives of a number of Local Orthodox Churches, which took place at the initiative of Patriarch Theophilos in 2020. It became an important step in the field of inter-Orthodox communication, and this step needs to be continued. The importance of the dialogue between the Churches cannot be overestimated, even if its implementation faces many difficulties, and the Heads of some Churches declare in advance a principled refusal to discuss their decisions,” commented Balashov.
However, in the Patriarch’s address, released by the official website of the Jerusalem Church, there is not a single word about the Amman meeting and its continuation. It is likely that in his comment, Balashov misrepresents what was said by the patriarch, and that is why he fantasized and said too much. However, we will not compare in detail the Patriarch’s speech and Balashov’s comment, but will only reflect on the possibility of the Amman 2.0.
Considering the situation in which the Russian church found itself, it can already be stated that such a pseudo-council will be even more shameful than the first one. We will remind that only representatives of six Local Churches arrived at the first meeting in Amman. From this number, there were four Heads of Churches, namely the Russian, Jerusalem, Serbian, and Czech Churches, while two more Churches, Romanian and Polish, were represented by bishops.
That the majority of the Local Churches ignored the event was due to a cunning Moscow plan, for the sake of which the pseudo-council was being convened, namely the desire of Moscow to condemn Constantinople and seize primacy in the Orthodox world. That’s why the majority of Churches, which had discovered Moscow’s plans in advance, rejected the invitation to the event. By taking part in this “meeting of the wicked” they would only disgrace themselves and go against the foundations and traditions of the Orthodox Church.
Now the Russian church has compromised itself even more because it blesses and justifies Russian aggression, and is actually an accomplice to this aggression. That is why the new Amman meeting is no longer just playing to the tune of Moscow, against the institutions of Orthodoxy, but supporting the aggressor. Will the Heads of the Orthodox Churches now support the aggressor power and its church? The answer is obvious. Of course not! Anyone who dares to take part in such a meeting will automatically stain himself and his religious community with blood, and will in fact become complicit in aggression.
On the other hand, processes are taking place within the Moscow Patriarchate itself, which are splitting it from the inside, and with which it cannot cope. In particular, these are controversial issues in Moldova and Latvia, where Russian church branches found themselves in an extremely difficult situation, as a result of which the Russian church community in Latvia had to start a movement to separate from Moscow, which we reported in our previous publications. At the same time, the annexation by the Russian Orthodox Church of dioceses of its own branch in Ukraine demonstrates the real plans and appetites of the Moscow Church.
In addition, the participation of the so-called UOC (in unity with the MP) in this council will be quite interesting. After all, as you know, the leadership of the UOC declared that at the May Council in Feofania, which took place last year, they completely severed ties with the Russian Orthodox Church. In what status will they now partake in this council? If they become part of the Russian Church again (as it was the first time), they will automatically be disgraced in the eyes of their own flock, for whom they will then become hypocrites and deceivers. If as an independent religious community, then they will drive the entire Amman 2.0 into a dead end because how can you condemn someone for schism, if you yourself are going the same?
The Moscow Patriarchate also suffers from external contradictions. In particular, the recent conflict with Bulgaria and the Bulgarian Church, from where Russian spies in cassocks were expelled, etc. At the same time, the dispute with the Romanian Church on the territory of Moldova is gaining momentum. We will remind that, as a result, Moscow is losing its influence in Moldova, where it is significantly losing to the Romanian Patriarchate. It is unlikely that after this the Romanian Church will agree to take part in another Russian adventure.
In view of all this, a logical question arises: if Moscow is unable to understand internal issues and solve their own problems, how can they settle external and more global issues? The answer to this question is even more obvious – they can’t. Until these issues are resolved internally, any gathering, such as the Amman 2.0, will not bring Moscow the desired result, and will further disgrace the Russian church on the international stage. Thus, the Amman 2.0, sought by Moscow, will be even worse than the first, and its implementation is just a waste of time and money.
