Synodality in Contemporary Orthodoxy: The Synodikon of Orthodoxy (842) and the Council of Crete (2016)

Protopresbyter Dimitrios Athanasiou | February 28, 2026

 

 

1. The Synodikon of Orthodoxy – The one and only truth

The Synodikon of Orthodoxy is not a law or a simple declaration. It is a confession of faith. It is based on the theology of the Fathers and on the proclamation that Christ became a real man. Whoever denies this truth also denies salvation.

The theology of the Synodikon is clear:

• It does not accept innovations in the faith.

• It regards the tradition of the Fathers as a living experience, not a simple theory.

• It confesses that Orthodoxy is the only true Church.

This stance is not harshness, but protection of the truth.

2. The Church as one indivisible Body

In the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, it is proclaimed with absolute clarity that the Church is One and unique, not as a numerical quantity, but as an ontological reality. This unity is not the product of historical convention or institutional organization, but proceeds from the very nature of the Church as a mystery. The Church exists as the living Body of Jesus Christ, and this relationship is not metaphorical, but real and soteriological.

Just as Christ is one, indivisible, and imparted without division, so also the Church, as His Body, cannot be divided or multiplied without its very identity being annulled. Any conception of a “divided unity” or of “multiple ecclesiastical bodies” introduces an internal contradiction into ecclesiology, since it presupposes either multiple heads or a Body without unity of life and truth.

The recognition of “other Churches” with the full theological meaning of the term creates a serious dogmatic problem. If multiple Churches are accepted, then truth ceases to be understood as one, catholic, and revealed reality and is transformed into a relative expression of different ecclesiastical experiences. The Church, however, is not the bearer of partial or fragmentary truth, but the “pillar and ground of the truth.”

Consequently, salvation also loses its clear and definite boundaries. It can no longer be understood as the fruit of the incorporation of man into the one Body of Christ through the Mysteries, but becomes disconnected from the historical and apostolic continuity of the Church. Thus, salvation ceases to be connected exclusively with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and is transformed into an abstract spiritual possibility, independent of ecclesiastical life.

The Orthodox Church, therefore, does not deny the existence of Christian communities outside her canonical boundaries; however, she refuses to attribute to them the ecclesiological fullness which belongs only to the One Church of Christ. The insistence upon the “One” does not constitute an expression of exclusivity or historical egocentrism, but a confession of faith in the unity of truth, grace, and salvation, as these are experienced within the Body of Christ.

3. The Council of Crete and the new ecclesiological language

3.1 The theological weight of the terminology “other Churches”

At the Council of Crete, a formulation was adopted according to which other Christian confessions are characterized, even if “according to historical designation,” as “Churches.” The choice of this language does not constitute simple diplomatic courtesy nor a neutral descriptive formulation. It represents a substantial theological shift, because in Orthodox theology the term “Church” is not sociological or historical, but ontological and soteriological.

The Church is not a religious organization among others, but the very Body of Christ, within which the Holy Spirit acts and salvation is offered. Therefore, the use of the term “Church” for communities that are not in communion of faith, Mysteries, and ecclesiastical ethos with Orthodoxy alters the content of ecclesiology.

3.2. Relativization of truth

When multiple “Churches” are recognized, truth ceases to be understood as one, catholic, and revealed reality. Orthodoxy is no longer presented as the full and integral manifestation of the truth, but as one version or one “tradition” among others. Thus, truth is transformed from an absolute ecclesiastical fact into a relative theological construct.

3.3. Shift in soteriology

In the patristic tradition, salvation is not an abstract moral condition nor an individual event, but an ecclesiastical event: it is accomplished within the Body of Christ. When there is discourse concerning salvation outside the Church, without a clear distinction between the Church and error, then salvation becomes disconnected from the Mysteries, the Orthodox faith, and the life of the Church. Thus, the Church ceases to be the unique place of the healing and deification of man.

3.4. Alteration of the concept of heresy

In Orthodox theology, heresy is not merely a “different opinion,” but a deviation from the truth which wounds man’s relationship with Christ. When heretical communities are characterized as “Churches,” then heresy ceases to be understood as error requiring repentance and return and is treated as an equal ecclesiastical reality. This leads to the neutralization of the dogmatic distinction between truth and error.

4. What real Synodality means

In Orthodox theology, Synodality is not an administrative mechanism nor a simple institutional procedure. It is not identified with an assembly of bishops who make decisions by majority vote. The Council is an ecclesiological event, that is, a manifestation of the very life of the Church within the truth of the Holy Spirit.

The Church is the Body of Christ, and the Council expresses this unity not as an external agreement, but as a common mind of faith. For this reason, the authority of a Council does not proceed from the number of participating bishops nor from the prestige of the persons, but from its agreement with the apostolic and patristic Tradition.

4.1. Authority is not numerical

In Orthodoxy, truth is not determined by majorities. The history of the Church shows that even councils with broad participation were rejected when they proved to be inconsistent with the faith of the Church. On the contrary, truth has often been preserved by minorities or even by individual persons who expressed the authentic ecclesiastical mind.

For this reason, Synodality does not function democratically, but theologically.

4.2. Agreement with Tradition

The Council does not have authority to create new dogmas or to modify the faith. Its mission is to bear witness to and to formulate the same truth which the Church has experienced from Pentecost until today. Tradition is not a collection of old texts, but the living experience of the Holy Spirit within the body of the Church.

When a Council departs from this continuity, it loses its ecclesiological authority, even if it is canonically constituted.

4.3. Acceptance by the fullness of the Church

A decisive element of Synodality is acceptance by the fullness of the Church: bishops, clergy, monastics, and laity. This acceptance is not a formal ratification, but a spiritual recognition that the Council expresses the faith of the Church.

The Church as a whole possesses spiritual discernment, and when a Council is not received in the conscience of the fullness, this constitutes a serious indication of an ecclesiological problem.

4.4. The Council as expression and not as source of truth

Truth in Orthodoxy is not born in synodal halls. It pre-exists as the life and experience of the Church. The Council comes to express, formulate, and safeguard this truth against error.

When a Council attempts to adapt the truth to the demands of the age or to blur the boundaries of the faith for reasons of accommodation or diplomacy, then it ceases to function as an organ of the Church and is transformed into an administrative structure without soteriological depth.

5. Lack of catholicity at the Council of Crete

The absence of significant Local Orthodox Churches from the Council of Crete creates a serious ecclesiological issue of catholicity. In the Orthodox tradition, the Church does not make decisions on the basis of majority rule, as occurs in political or administrative institutions. The unity of the Church is not the result of numerical agreement, but the fruit of fullness and concord in the truth.

The catholicity of a Council is not secured simply by its lawful convocation, but by whether it expresses the entirety of the Church. When entire Churches are absent, then the Council, even if institutionally valid, appears as a partial expression and not as the voice of the whole ecclesiastical body. This creates a rupture in ecclesiastical consciousness, because the Church experiences herself as an indivisible unity.

5.1. The problem is not only formal, but spiritual

Beyond the issue of participation, many theologians and monastics emphasized that the deeper problem of the Council of Crete is not procedural, but spiritual and theological. The ethos of its texts is characterized by ambiguity, cautious formulations, and a disposition toward compromise, particularly on matters of ecclesiology.

In contrast, the Synodikon of Orthodoxy employs clear, well-defined, and decisive language. It does not hesitate to distinguish truth from error, nor to establish clear dogmatic boundaries. Its ethos is confessional and militant, not for reasons of confrontation, but for the preservation of soteriological truth.

5.2. The significance of ecclesiastical ethos

In Orthodoxy, the ethos of a Council is of equal importance to the content of its decisions. Ecclesiastical ethos reveals whether a Council moves within the spirit of Tradition or adapts itself to the demands of the age. When language becomes ambiguous and avoids the clear confession of the truth, confusion is created within the fullness of the Church.

The Church is not called to be pleasing to the world, but faithful to the truth that was handed down to her. For this reason, deviation from the clear and confessional ethos of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy is regarded by many not simply as a change of style, but as an indication of ecclesiological instability.

6. Truth and ethos – not only correct words

In the patristic tradition, truth is not identified with the correctness of formulations, but with the mode of existence of the Church within the world. Truth is not a simple intellectual construct nor a set of correct terms; it is life in Christ, the lived experience of faith, and a mindset expressed in word, action, and stance. For this reason, the Fathers evaluate not only what is said, but chiefly how and in what spirit it is said.

It is possible for Orthodox terminology to be used while, at the same time, Orthodox ethos is absent. The history of the Church shows that heresies often adopted ecclesiastical language while altering the content and spirit of the faith. For this reason, the Church has always distinguished between verbal orthodoxy and experiential truth.

The concept of phronema

The phronema of the Church is the inner disposition generated by the living experience of the truth. It is not an ideological position, but the fruit of communion with Christ. It is expressed with clarity, boldness, and discernment, without fear that the truth may provoke reaction. Where authentic ecclesiastical phronema exists, the truth is confessed without ambiguity and without adaptation to the demands of the age.

The case of the Council of Crete

At the Council of Crete, many point out that:

• the language of the texts remains formally Orthodox,

• however, their spirit is characterized by adaptation, reserve, and a disposition toward compromise.

This divergence between language and phronema is considered theologically critical. The avoidance of clear delimitations, the careful ambiguity, and the effort not to disturb the spirit of dialogue create the impression that truth is not confessed as an absolute ecclesiastical reality, but is managed in terms of balance and diplomacy.

Alteration of ecclesiastical consciousness

When truth becomes disconnected from confessional ethos, ecclesiastical consciousness is altered. The Church ceases to be experienced as a place of clear witness and becomes a bearer of adapted discourse. This does not constitute a simple change of style, but a transformation in the manner in which the Church understands her mission.

In Orthodox experience, truth is preserved not only through correct words, but through faithful phronema. When this phronema recedes, even the most carefully formulated Orthodox terminology risks becoming an empty form. For this reason, the distinction between truth as discourse and truth as a mode of existence remains decisive for the life and self-consciousness of the Church.

Conclusion – A crisis of identity

The Council of Crete was presented as an effort at dialogue between Orthodoxy and the contemporary world. This dialogue, as an intention, is not in itself problematic; the Church has always addressed the world, not in order to adapt to it, but to call it to repentance and truth. Strict theological criticism, however, points out that in this particular case the dialogue was attempted at the cost of the clarity of ecclesiological boundaries.

Orthodoxy is not defined simply as one Christian tradition among others, but as the one and only true Church, within which the revealed truth is preserved intact and salvation is offered. Therefore, when language is used that blurs the distinction between the Church and error, this does not constitute a mere difference of style or pastoral approach, but a transformation in the manner of the Church’s self-understanding.

Such linguistic and theological ambiguity leads to an ecclesiological crisis, because it touches the very core of ecclesiastical identity. If the boundaries of the Church are not clear, then the concept of truth also becomes unclear, while salvation becomes disconnected from the concrete ecclesiastical body within which it is experienced.

The issue, therefore, is neither secondary nor academic. It concerns whether the Church continues to confess herself with boldness as the one and indivisible Body of Christ, or whether she adopts language which, in the name of dialogue, weakens her confessional consciousness. Precisely at this point lies the seriousness of the theological criticism directed toward the Council of Crete: not in the intention of communication with the world, but in the danger of altering the very identity of the Church.

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Articles of critical approach

Theodoros Zisis,
“The Holy and Great Council and the problem of ecclesiology,”
Theodromia, 2016.
→ Extensive analysis of the use of the term “Churches” and of the rupture with the Synodikon of Orthodoxy.

Dimitrios Tselengidis,
“The Council of Crete and the alteration of Orthodox self-consciousness,”
Theologia, vol. 87 (2016).
→ Critique of ecumenist ecclesiology and its soteriological consequences.

Text of the Athonite Fathers,
“Observations on the texts of the Holy and Great Council,” 2016.
→ Emphasis on ethos, synodality, and acceptance by the fullness of the Church.

Articles of a supportive approach

Ioannis Zizioulas,
“The ecclesiological significance of the Holy and Great Council,”
Theologia, 2017.
→ Defense of synodality and of the use of historical terminology.

Elpidophoros Lambriniadis,
“The Orthodox Church and the contemporary world,”
theological article following the Council of Crete.
→ Pastoral and dialogical approach.

Articles of Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos concerning the Council of Crete.

Principal articles – interventions

“The Holy and Great Council and its ecclesiological significance”
An article in which it is supported that the texts of the Council must be interpreted within the framework of the patristic tradition and not in isolation.
→ It is emphasized that the term “Churches” is used descriptively and not dogmatically.

“The Church as the Body of Christ and the heterodox”
An analysis of the distinction between the Church and the heterodox, with emphasis on the fact that the Orthodox Church remains the One Church.
→ It is maintained that Orthodox ecclesiology is not altered.

“Synodality in the Orthodox Church”
A text explaining that the Council of Crete constitutes an expression of synodality, even if it did not possess an ecumenical character.
→ A distinction is made between a “Holy and Great” and an “Ecumenical” Council.

“On the acceptance or non-acceptance of the texts of the Council of Crete”
An article in which the role of the interpretation of the synodal texts by the fullness of the Church is underscored.
→ Ambiguities are acknowledged, though without rejection of the Council.

 

Greek source: https://fdathanasiou-parakatathiki.blogspot.com/2026/02/842-2016.html