Seite - 195 - in Menschenrechte und Gerechtigkeit als bleibende Aufgaben - Beiträge aus Religion, Theologie, Ethik, Recht und Wirtschaft

© 2020, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783847111658 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737011655 drawal is the relativizationof values such asdialogue and trust, leading to the current lackofsynodality.32ThiscrisisreacheditsclimaxinUkraine2018/2019, whentheEcumenicalThroneattemptedonitsowntosolvetheexistingecclesial situation.EvenifaCommuniqu8oftheEcumenicalPatriarchatefrom22ndApril 2018 expressed a completely different approach, deciding “to closely commu- nicate and coordinatewith its sisterOrthodoxChurches concerning thismat- ter”33, this coordinationnever tookplace. ThefactthatOrthodoxyisstillunabletoreachabindingconsensusonapan- orthodoxlevel,at leastonthoseproblemsthataffect thewholeOrthodoxworld, aswell as to start a reconciliationprocesswithin theOrthodoxChurch, reveals that the Orthodox Church is fragile from an institutional point of view. The adjective“fragile”means inthis context that thepan-orthodoxstructureof the OrthodoxChurchisunabletoreachcorporatedecisionsandtoinitiateprocesses in a way that is efficacious for the entire Orthodoxy. The reason is that the decisionsofsuchastructurearedependentontheunanimousvotesof the local Orthodox Churches, which furthermore have to be approved on the local (synodal) levelofeachlocalChurch.Becauseofthenationalist tendenciesof the Orthodox local Churches, an obvious asymmetry between “synodality” and “autocephaly” emerges, inwhichnational interests seem todevaluate the syn- odal systemof theChurchandtodictate theagendaofeach localChurch.34 Therefore, the emergence of a pan-orthodox structure capable to generate morestabilityandtostimulatea learningprocessofsynodality isanabsolutely necessary step: In order to create it, Anastasios Kallis proposes the following pan-synodal model which, even if inspired – as he writes – by the Catholic Apostolic Nunciature, is completely different from it. 1) Each local Orthodox Churchsendsonedelegate toacentre, as forexampleChamb8sy inGeneva; 2) Thedelegatesarenotepiscopaldiplomats,butdiocesanbishops,appointedona regular basis. The “privilege of honour” of theEcumenical Patriarchate is un- derstood in this context as a category of dignity, not of power. The authority should be understood in terms ofworship (seeMk 10,43–45), so that the ec- clesiasticalmandateof theunityof theChurchcanbeaccomplished:“Thatthey 32 For a detailed andvery pertinent analysis regarding the lackof synodalitywithin theOr- thodoxChurchesafter theCouncil ofCrete see:AthanasiosVletsis,Orthodoxie “reloaded” oder das Ende derOrthodoxie? DerUkraine-Konflikt als Chance einer neuen “Formatie- rung”inderOrthodoxenKirche,in:UnaSancta.Zeitschrift fürökumenischeBegegnung74/ 2/2019,pp. 154–161. 33 EcumenicalPatriarchate,Communiqu8of theHolyandSacredSynod. 34 Another explanation for the actual lack of pan-orthodox consensus is the centrifugal orientation of the local Orthodox Churches as result of nationalistic tendencies. Razvan Porumb,Orthodoxy inEngagementwith the ‘Outer’World. TheDynamic of the ‘Inward- Outward’Cycle, in:Religions8/13/201,pp.1–14. “Forgivingoneanother” (Col. 3,13) 195 Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY 4.0