www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Great and Holy Council: Who, When, Why?

The Great and Holy Council: Who, When, Why?

JAN 27, 2016
Posted by Nicholas Denysenko
http://www.praytellblog.com/index.php/2016/01/27/the-great-and-holy-council-who-when-why/

Your newsfeed may be telling you about a meeting in Geneva of most of the Eastern Orthodox primates in the world, a “synaxis of primates,” chaired by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. This meeting is an important penultimate step for the long-awaited “Great and Holy Council,” a meeting of the Orthodox primates to deliberate on pressing issues within Orthodoxy. As of this writing, this council is scheduled for June 16-27, 2016, in Crete. The original plan was to hold the council in Istanbul, but tensions between Turkey and Russia resulted in a change of venue. On Sunday, June 19, the bishops will celebrate the Feast of Pentecost together, with Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew presiding.
Let us establish a few facts about this gathering before a brief editorial remark. First, the Orthodox world views the council as significant, but not ecumenical on account of schisms in the Church, most notably the absence of Eucharistic communion between the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. The vast majority of Orthodox theologians concur that the seventh ecumenical council in Nicaea held in 787 was the final one. Orthodoxy holds that the seven ecumenical councils resolved the Christological and Trinitarian controversies and that there is no need to return to these issues, as the Holy Spirit has already spoken through the fathers. A demonstration of Orthodox fidelity to the ecumenical councils is its insistence that the filioque is a non-negotiable issue in ecumenical dialogue, since the version of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed without the filioque carries conciliar authority.
As we all know, perhaps too well, councils also address matters of discipline, custom, rite, and order. The Orthodox council originally planned to address issues such as autocephaly, especially the question of authority in granting autocephaly, the calendar of the Church year, fasting, marriage, human rights, and the order of the diptychs. The most recent reports indicate that the council will discuss autonomy and its declaration, the relationship of the Orthodox Church to the rest of the world, fasting and its observance today, the Orthodox diaspora, and the mission of Orthodoxy to the contemporary world. Autocephaly, marriage, and the calendar are issues that will not be taken up at this council. We should note that it is conceivable that the council’s agenda could change in the period before its convocation.
Many prominent Orthodox theologians have been following and contributing to the preparation of the council. Readers should note that this council has been planned since the early twentieth century, but has been delayed on account of geopolitical shifts impacting the internal life of the Orthodox Church, especially Soviet persecution of the Church and the precarious position of minority Orthodox Churches in predominantly Islamic regions. The dispersion of Orthodox people into the West and the emergence of independent groups within Orthodoxy has complicated intra-Orthodox relations, especially between the Ecumenical and Moscow Patriarchates. Historically, the Ecumenical Patriarchate enjoys an honorific primacy within Orthodoxy, but today, the Moscow Patriarchate encompasses the largest Orthodox population of the world, by far. The two patriarchates have come into conflict on issues of primacy and ecumenical dialogue in particular. Tensions increased when the two patriarchates disagreed on jurisdiction over Orthodox people in Western Europe, Estonia, and North America. The most explosive dividing issue is the current division among Orthodox in Ukraine, which has witnessed to a movement for absolute ecclesial independence since 1917. Currently, the Kyivan Patriarchate of Ukraine claims to have the majority of Orthodox believers, but is considered to be a schismatic group within global Orthodoxy, whereas the Church under Moscow has limited autonomy and is considered to be the only legitimate Orthodox group. The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has increased tensions among these groups, and the Moscow Patriarchate has sought the support of world Orthodoxy in sustaining the status quo, whereas numerous Orthodox sympathetic with the independence movement have asked for the intervention of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Somehow, the Orthodox primates were able to agree to hold the council in Crete in the midst of divisive politics.
In the Orthodox orbit, there are two prevailing perspectives on the council. The first perspective rejoices that the long-awaited council is finally imminent. The primates have established sufficient consensus to meet and address pressing issues, and most importantly, in so doing, they’re demonstrating the power of synodality. So the more positive outlook views the council as an occurrence and event for which one should be thankful.
The second perspective views the council as dubious. The disagreements among the bishops and the ongoing problems in Orthodoxy demand a more comprehensive agenda and larger conciliar representation. Some Orthodox are worried that the limited agenda will be an embarrassment to Orthodoxy, because Orthodox people live in the world and are confronted with the contemporary juxtapositions between traditional faith and questions about gender identity, same-sex marriage, women’s rights, and human rights, just to name a few. Both the optimists and the pessimists are concerned about the reception of the council within Orthodoxy: will rank and file clergy and faithful hear the bishops? Will the council ignite an awakening within Orthodoxy and reconcile people to the Church? Both the optimists and the pessimists pray for the descent of the Holy Spirit on the council, that the bishops could exemplify the episcopal ministry of “rightly dividing the word of God’s truth” as a global synod.
I find myself vacillating between optimism and pessimism as the anticipation of the council intensifies. I would ask readers of Pray, Tell to do what non-Orthodox seem to admire the most in Orthodoxy: pray for the council. Pray for the Orthodox Church. Orthodoxy needs prayers these days. The West tends to see Orthodoxy through her liturgy, which engages the senses and praises God through rituals shaped by the classical Christological and Trinitarian traditions. Orthodoxy has another story, though, the story of Churches who are trying to find their footing on new soil. For the “mother” Churches abroad, Orthodoxy is still learning how to adjust to its life in the post-Soviet, post-Ottoman era. Orthodoxy still does not quite know how to work with the state. In all likelihood, the footing will remain slippery until a generation of faithful enjoys some measure of political stability. However, Orthodoxy in the West is also on uncertain footing, with its Eastern Orthodox DNA in a pluralistic, Western world. Will this council help to establish more sure footing for the Orthodox Church? Only time will tell.
So, in summary: the great and holy Orthodox council is not an ecumenical council. The council’s agenda is selective and does not cover every issue. The apparent imminence of the council is the realization of a long-anticipated dream. We will not know the council’s impact and reception within the Church for decades. Please pray for the council.

For further reading:

https://www.firstthings.com/web-exc...-pan-orthodox-council-to-be-or-not-to-be Paul Gavrilyuk, The Future Pan-Orthodox Council: To Be or Not to Be?

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/4530/if_i_were_running_the_eastern_orthodox_council.aspx Adam DeVille, If I Were Running the Eastern Orthodox Council

ON THE GREAT COUNCIL OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH

4 February 2016
http://risu.org.ua/en/index/monitoring/society_digest/62399/
John Chryssavgis
3 February 2016 First Things

Already there is much talk about the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. Between now and June 19, 2016, when the council officially opens on the island of Crete, there will be many rumors and much spin. Some will be justified; like other patriarchal institutions, Orthodox Churches are not normally known for their transparency. However, other chatter will be less than helpful. What follow are some brief clarifications on basic questions surrounding the council.

Is the Great Council an Ecumenical Council?

For Orthodox Christians, there hasn’t been an Ecumenical Council since 787, with the Second Council of Nicaea that resolved the problem of iconoclasm, namely the debate about whether icons can or cannot be used for liturgical and devotional purposes. If you’ve been to an Orthodox Church recently, you know who won that argument! However, the Orthodox believe that it is the whole church that must convene—East and West—in order for a council to be considered ecumenical. In a world where Christians are so tragically divided, the Orthodox are reserved about boasting of an ecumenical council. In any case, an ecumenical council is normally recognized retrospectively.

It would perhaps be more appropriate and accurate to consider the Holy and Great Council as a continuation not only of the early ecumenical councils of the first Christian millennium, but also of the later “great” or “greater” councils of the second Christian millennium. Around a dozen or so such councils have convened through the centuries following the “great schism” of 1054 in order to resolve issues of doctrinal, canonical or administrational character.

However, there is indeed something very unique about this council—even beyond ecumenical councils and previous great councils. This is the first time in the history of Christendom that a council of ancient churches that claim apostolic succession has included so many individual and independent (autocephalous, and even national) churches. The early ecumenical councils of the first millennium assembled five churches, while the later great councils often convened with even fewer churches. By contrast, the Great Council that will convene in Crete this June will assemble fourteen recognized (or canonical) Orthodox churches from all over the world. These include the ancient patriarchates of Constantinople (that calls, convenes and chairs the council), Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem; the modern patriarchates of Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria and Georgia; as well as the archdiocesan churches of Cyprus, Greece, Albania, Poland, and the Czech Lands and Slovakia.

Where are the English documents?

Everyone is asking “Where’s Waldo?” about the formal English translations of the official documents. Unfortunately, they don’t exist. It’s hard to believe but amid the noise of endless argumentations and long-standing divisions, the preparatory process of the Holy and Great Council operated since the 1960s in Greek, Russian and French with no provision made for the use of the most global lingua franca. When the Romanian delegation only very recently suggested that English be added to the official languages of the council, the response was that the other languages were a Pan-Orthodox decision at an earlier Preconciliar Consultation; it would take nothing less to amend that. If nothing else, the mentality offers some insight into why more vital, even doctrinal matters would achieve such little headway during deliberations!

There are some English translations out there, but none of them is official. At least not until the Council’s Secretariat from Geneva issues these in due course. Until that time, Greek, Russian, and French documents are available; but remember that the Russian and French versions are translations of the Greek and that, while translations may be sound, to a certain degree they are also interpretations by individual churches. Even with the help of the Holy Spirit, the Orthodox prelates do not speak in multiple tongues simultaneously.

Still, there is some light at the end of the tunnel: The Synaxis of the world’s Orthodox primates, held in Geneva a few days ago (January 21-27, 2016), issued a resolution that English would be officially used during the proceedings of the council and will definitely be one of four official languages for the final message issued at the conclusion of the Great Council on June 26, 2016.

Is Ukraine really a bone of contention?

Thus claimed Erasmus in The Economist. And it certainly is for Moscow; however, not for many others. At the opening of the synaxis Patriarch Kirill in a thunderous tirade brought up the question of the disputed status of the Ukrainian Church to which Bartholomew responded serenely and unapologetically. Thereafter, Ukraine was hardly discussed in further deliberations or formal decisions, and was not mentioned in the final communiqué.

The truth is that, in the wake of the recent synaxis last week, Moscow may just be proclaiming how it would like to think that the primates reacted and what it would like us to think that the primates resolved. For example, Moscow would have us believe that Constantinople cowered to Russian pressure by recognizing that Moscow’s representative in Ukraine, whom Patriarch Kirill chose to include in his entourage of two in Geneva, heads the canonical Church in that country.

However, there was neither any apology from Constantinople for any of its activity in Ukraine, nor any compromise by Constantinople to its honorable desire to end church politics in Ukraine, nor again any promise by Constantinople about diminishing its relationship with the Orthodox faithful of Ukraine. Indeed, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew underscored his historical and canonical right to respond to appeals or concerns from Orthodox faithful in Ukraine as the “daughter church” of Constantinople.

Even before the Synaxis of Primates was over, Moscow prided itself on rejecting Constantinople’s proposal of Istanbul as the venue for the Holy and Great Council at the Church of Haghia Irene, which was the site of the Second Ecumenical Council, served as an imperial church since the fourth century, and (unlike other Christian monuments in Turkey) was never converted into a mosque.

The sole reason that the Orthodox Primates changed the venue of the Holy and Great Council was in order to assist Moscow to attend due to current political tensions between Russia and Turkey as well as security concerns about recent terrorist attacks in Istanbul. The change exemplifies the magnanimous flexibility and benevolent commitment of the Ecumenical Patriarch—sustained by the Holy Spirit—required to ensure that the council will convene in June of this year.

Something is certainly stirring in the Orthodox Church. And the sound will be louder and clearer in the weeks and months ahead. The Holy and Great Council is entirely without precedent in the history of Christianity. Some are afraid of its consequences for the purity of Orthodox doctrine; it may shed light on practices in isolated communities, which have long resisted and reacted against the modern ways of the West. But others see this as a unique moment in the life and witness of an ancient church; it is an opportunity for Orthodox theology to speak a prophetic voice of hope and light in a time of anxiety and uncertainty.

As Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew reminded the Orthodox primates gathered in Geneva last week, “this is the moment of Orthodoxy.” In the words of Archbishop Anastasios of Albania: “The great council is not a facsimile of an ecumenical council.” Whether described as an ecumenical council, or more aptly labeled a great council, the occasion in Crete next June is not just a new or another council; it is an extraordinary and exceptional event. It is meant to happen. The Spirit is moving. The world is waiting. Let’s see what transpires among the attending bishops.



John Chryssavgis is Archdeacon and theological advisor to Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew.