“Amman format” – an Orthodox verdict on the exorbitant ambitions of Bartholomew
On February 26–27, a meeting of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches took place in Amman, the capital of the Kingdom of Jordan.
The initiator of the meeting, called to discuss the most pressing problems of the Orthodox world, was Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem. The meeting was attended by Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill, Patriarch of Serbia Irinej, Metropolitan of the Czech Lands and Slovakia Rostislav. The Romanian Church delegated Metropolitan Nifont, who heads the Archdiocese of Targovisht, to this event, and the Polish Church delegated Archbishop Abel of Lublin and Kholm.
Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, whose residence is in the Phanar quarter of Istanbul, categorically refused to participate in the Amman meeting and, in response to an invitation from Patriarch Theophilus of Jerusalem, burst out with an angry message that the meeting “endangers unity in the Orthodox world.” The head of Phanar did not mention that the unity of the Orthodox world is under threat due to Bartholomew’s unauthorized granting of autocephaly to Ukrainian schismatics.
The main result of the Amman meeting of the Primates is that it took place despite the frantic (both literally and figuratively) pressure from American diplomats and pro-Western governments. And first of all, this concerns the initiator of this event - Patriarch Theophilos III of Jerusalem. The very fact of the above-mentioned letter from Bartholomew to Patriarch Theophilus suggests that the inhabitant of the Istanbul quarter of Phanar hoped until the last that Theophilus would “give back” and the meeting would be cancelled.
Yes, it must be admitted that a number of heads of local churches retreated under this pressure. First of all, these are the Bulgarian, Georgian and Albanian local churches. The situation is different with the Patriarchate of Antioch, located on the territory of Syria, but, in addition to the notorious ethnic solidarity of the Greeks, the unresolved dispute between the Antioch and Jerusalem Patriarchates over the jurisdiction over Qatar, which over time can be resolved through the mediation of the Russian Orthodox Church, played a role.
But, nevertheless, the heads of churches that unite 80% of all Orthodox Christians on the planet arrived in Amman. Including the arrival of the hierarch of the Romanian Church, Metropolitan Nifont (Miheitse), who heads the Archdiocese of Targovishti. The complex relations between the Romanian and Russian Churches, primarily due to the church situation in Moldova, are gradually fading into the background in the face of the expansion of liberal globalism. Today, the Romanian Church has taken a distinctly neutral position in the dispute between Moscow and the Phanar regarding Ukraine. Nevertheless, the official arrival of the Romanian hierarch in Amman is very significant.
The Primate of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church under the omophorion of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Onuphry of Kiev and All Ukraine, took part in the Amman meeting. None of the representatives of the “alternative” schismatic churches supported by official Kiev, Phanar and Washington were in Amman. The Patriarch of the Mother Church of Jerusalem, as well as the primates of the largest Orthodox Churches, consider His Beatitude Onuphry as the only Orthodox Primate on the territory of Ukraine.
Another important event of the Amman meeting was the voicing by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of six problems requiring pan-Orthodox discussion and solution.
The first problem is primacy in the Church, the lack of conciliar control over the primacy of the See of Constantinople, the denial of the need for consensus when making decisions on a pan-Orthodox scale. Phanar theologians have already abandoned the title of the Patriarch of Constantinople as “first among equals.” They call him “first without equal.”
The second problem is the issue of autocephaly, or rather, the lack of a single generally accepted mechanism for providing it, attempts to introduce inequality between the “senior” and “junior” autocephalous churches.
The third problem voiced by Patriarch Kirill concerns the canonical boundaries of autocephalous churches, recorded in historically important documents once adopted, and attempts to revise these boundaries.
The fourth problem is the claims of the Ecumenical Patriarch to the right to accept appeals from any of the Orthodox Churches and the threat of using these appeals as a reason to interfere in the internal affairs of other Local Churches.
As the fifth problem, Patriarch Kirill outlined the desire of the Patriarch of Constantinople to act as an arbitrator in disputes where he is one of the parties.
And finally, the sixth problem is the creation of so-called “stauropegia” on the territory of other Local Churches against their will.
All these problems that concern the activities of the Phanar were publicly voiced for the first time by the Primate of the largest Orthodox Church.
The final resolution of the meeting, “Dialogue and Unity,” was expressed in emphatically moderate tones. Some participants in the Amman meeting, primarily Patriarch Theophilus of Jerusalem, do not give up hope that through joint efforts Bartholomew will be able to return to an adequate position. As a result, Ukraine, which became a bone of contention in the Orthodox world, received very little attention in the final communiqué, which His Beatitude Metropolitan Onuphry regrettably canceled. However, it was clearly noted that the Ukrainian problem can only be resolved through pan-Orthodox dialogue.
More specific in the resolution was support for the Serbian Orthodox Church. It is noted that the issue of North Macedonia is an internal matter of the Serbian Church and can only be resolved within its framework. Today, the Macedonian government recognizes as an official structure only the non-canonical “Macedonian Orthodox Church” and refuses to register the Ohrid Archdiocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church, the only one recognized in the Orthodox world. Archbishop John (Vraniškovski) of Ohrid was repeatedly imprisoned by the Macedonian authorities.
The Amman meeting also responded to the situation in Montenegro, provoked by the pro-Western regime of Milo Djukanovic. Participants called on the country's authorities to respect and observe fundamental property rights, including the rights of the Church. With this, the heads of the Local Churches responded to the crude attempts of the Montenegrin authorities to deprive the Montenegrin-Litoval Diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church, which unites the majority of believers in Montenegro, of its property rights.
And finally, the last most important result of the Amman meeting is an agreement to continue meetings in this format. The need to continue such meetings was supported by absolutely all meeting participants and was included as a separate item in the final resolution.
The Amman meeting and its final resolution became the long-awaited response of all Orthodox churches to the exorbitant ambitions of Istanbul Patriarch Bartholomew, who can no longer position himself as the leader of the Orthodox world.
English version :: Read in English "The Amman Format" - an Orthodox verdict on Bartholomew's exorbitant ambitions