Thoughts on the Holy and Great Council of the Occasion of the Tenth Anniversary of its Convocation
Fr. Augustinos
Bairachtaris | September 24, 2026
Professor at the
Patriarchal Higher Ecclesiastical Academy of Crete, in Orthodox Theology and
Ecumenical Dialogue
As the Orthodox Church, we are
living in a post-conciliar reality, since ten years have passed since the Holy
and Great Council was convened at the facilities of the Orthodox Academy of
Crete in Kolymbari in 2016. One fundamental question that arises as a result of
the self-criticism which we, as Orthodox Christians, ought to exercise is
whether the Orthodox Churches emerged more vibrant, more renewed, more
regenerated, and more sincere in their ecclesiastical relations with one
another, as well as in their engagement with society itself and with
contemporary man. In other words, in light of the decisions of the Holy and
Great Council, how can the Orthodox Church characterize the present
ecclesiastical situation prevailing both within herself and in her relations
with the heterodox Christian Churches? Ultimately, did the Holy and Great
Council take into account the expectations of the faithful, or did it address
these issues exclusively on a theoretical level?
The present ecclesiastical
situation, as it has thus taken shape following the proceedings of the Holy and
Great Council, should at the very least give us cause for serious reflection,
provided, of course, that our aim is to emerge from this state of ecclesiastical
inertia and stagnation. Unfortunately, history, which always operates
retrospectively as a just judge of events, has shown that the majority of the
Orthodox autocephalous Churches proved unprepared, despite their decades of
pre-conciliar preparation beginning in 1961, with regard to the question of
whether or not ecclesial status should be recognized in Christian bodies lying
outside the boundaries of Orthodox ecclesiology and canonical order. Unfortunately,
the decision to remove the previous passage of the Third Pre-Conciliar
Conference and to add to the final text that “the Orthodox Church accepts
the historical designation of other heterodox Christian Churches and
Confessions that are not in communion with her”—a formulation that arose
either from apprehensiveness because of events of the past, or from a refusal
to accept what is different, or from a different interpretation of the concept
of the unity of the Churches, or from a different understanding of Christian
history, as well as for many other reasons—meant that the Pan-Orthodox Council
did not lead Orthodoxy to a resolution of the matter in question, but rather to
an inert state of non-resolution, leaving issues pending for the ecclesiastical
leaders of the future to resolve.
Thus, on the difficult and
thorny question of recognizing the existence of some form of ecclesiality in
the other Christian Churches and Confessions, to the eyes of an outside
observer it appears that the Orthodox Churches which participated in the Pan-Orthodox
Council preferred an ecclesiastical compromise, disregarding the transcendent
pneumatological nature of the Council. The comfort of “traditional security”
was preferred, while at the same time the mighty breath of the Spirit was
disregarded, as was His continual presence, not only throughout past centuries,
but also in the ever-present sanctifying work of the present. To what extent,
however, ought the Church to regard tradition as a restraining factor,
or even as an obstacle, in the contemporary study of theological issues
connected primarily with pastoral care and with the application of the sacred
canons under present-day conditions?
Therefore, since at that time
there was no clear and balanced statement concerning the ecclesiality of the
other Christian Churches and Confessions, it is only logical that the course of
the theological dialogues should continue, as in the past, carrying with it the
problems it already had and being unable to offer hope or a breath of fresh air
for something new and different. It is self-evident that all the recent
initiatives being undertaken—and rightly so—by the Ecumenical Patriarchate to
bring the two historic and venerable Churches, namely the Orthodox and the
Roman Catholic, even closer together should fail to gain broader acceptance
among the Orthodox, or should be received with skepticism, because the
faithful, and even the leaderships of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches
themselves, are not of one mind and do not fully agree on this matter, owing to
the lack of a sincere dialogue within Orthodoxy concerning the nature of the
heterodox Churches.
The opportunity, then, was
lost ten years ago, since the Holy and Great Council was not regarded by some
as it ought to have been, despite the exhortations of the First-Throned Church.
That is, rather than interpreting the Holy and Great Council as the culmination
of the conciliar work and course of Orthodoxy as a whole, a segment of the
Orthodox regarded it simply as an inevitable development of the preceding
Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conferences. Thus the opportunity was lost, because
during the proceedings at Kolymbari two different Orthodox ecclesiologies
emerged: one remained strictly committed to the patterns and images of
pre-modernity, while the other sought a transition to the period of
post-modernity, endeavoring to proceed harmoniously alongside the other
interlocutor in life, namely society. Dialogue always necessarily requires
two parties, without, however, this dialogical coexistence leading to any form
of assimilation or fusion of the one with the other. After all, through her
Eucharistic bread the Church has always nourished, and continues to nourish,
society, while at the same time remaining incompatible with the spirit of this
world.
Consequently, by recognizing
merely the name of the other Churches, and not the Churches themselves as such,
we lost the opportunity, as Orthodox Christians, to engage in dialogue with
their present, because we preferred their past. We lost the opportunity to
journey together, despite the existence of our differences, toward the mystery
of the death and life of Christ, because we chose the references and
definitions of the past. Where is that Orthodoxy which burns with the desire to
encounter and exchange views with contemporary man, without seeking either to
proselytize him or to condemn him? Where is that Orthodoxy which is not
founded upon uniformity of forms, nor seeks the humiliation of the other, but
safeguards justice and love? Why did we deny the other Christian the status of
an interlocutor on equal terms before the eschatological, revelatory truth,
where the Judge of all is the Lord Himself? The refusal to recognize an
ontological existence in the other Christian Churches, as had been proposed and
decided by the conciliar fathers of the Third Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox
Conference, unconsciously restricted Orthodoxy’s position in ecumenical dialogue.
On the contrary, the Orthodox Church ought to have moved forward without fear,
providing her changing space and mode while laboring for the renewal of the
world, where God will become all in all.
As for those Orthodox Churches
which did not attend, as they ought to have done in view of the conciliar
tradition and history of the Orthodox Church, by their stance they showed
disregard both for the other Christians and, above all, for the Orthodox Churches
that did attend. They failed entirely to weigh the significance of their
collective co-responsibility in the conciliar work that had already begun in
1961! The refusal of the four amounted to calling into question the fact that
the One who guides the Church at every stage of her historical journey is the
Paraclete Himself, who supplies what is lacking and mystically constitutes the
Church as the Body of the Lord. These four Orthodox Churches failed to
understand that the Holy and Great Council does not depend upon them, since it
does not belong to the local Churches, which respond to human needs, but
belongs to the Church herself. Never and nowhere has disagreement among the
parties over an issue constituted a reason for failing to participate in
conciliar proceedings or for withdrawing representatives from the proceedings
of a dialogue! And whenever this has occurred, the Church has subsequently been
led into new internal schisms. Therefore, either we ought to have had a council
that was free and open, or, alternatively, a gathering of Orthodox
ecclesiastical leaders with ready-made texts cut and tailored to suit their
wishes. Preference for the second option has always been rejected by the
people, as the ecclesiastical history of Orthodoxy demonstrates. Thus, through
their stance, the four Orthodox Churches devalued the ancient institution of
conciliarity, displaying an attitude that was arrogant and ran counter to the
contemporary ecclesiastical course of Orthodoxy—a course which Ecumenical
Patriarch Bartholomew seeks on each occasion to direct, as a “typikaris,”
with prudence, respecting tradition while also fully appreciating the
contemporary challenges, in which no Christian and no Church can exist in a
state of isolation.
Because of the matters mentioned
above, however, all those elements which the Holy and Great Council sought to
achieve, and ultimately did achieve, were pushed to the margins and were not
presented with due emphasis so that they might be studied by the Orthodox
faithful during the decade that has elapsed. Such points, which are scattered
throughout its texts, concern ecclesiology, Trinitarian theology, Eucharistic
theology, theology of the environment, the ecumenical movement, interreligious
dialogue, the question of the diaspora, and so forth.
In conclusion, we may say that
two things emerged from the Holy and Great Council: first, that unity
remains the perennial goal and aspiration; and second, that division
is an existing condition which today, more than ever before, threatens the
internal life of Orthodoxy, while at the same time widening the gulf with the
other Christian Churches. Indeed, the enduring character of this division makes
it all the more grievous, painful, harmful, and increasingly perceptible in
ever more areas of life. Ecclesiastical unity does not concern the manner in
which certain truths, things, and traditions are preserved, as some believe,
but is connected above all with the way in which life itself is lived and
ordered. That is, it concerns the life of the ecclesiastical body and the
manner in which it distinguishes the essential elements that safeguard unity
from the secondary elements that are capable of causing schisms and divisions.
Therefore, unity means a common
life, not the common possession of something. What brings about unity is who
you are, not what you have. For this reason, if the Church is to be “living,”
she is called to sacrifice her comforts and the absolutism of her preaching. The
Church is called first to “die,” crucifying her own will and following the
example of her Founder, and then to rise again as she journeys toward Emmaus.
And she dies each time she sacrifices herself so that the other may exist. If,
as a Christian, you do not die for the other, then you are already spiritually
dead.
The Holy and Great Council
followed this path, upholding the unity of dialogue, the unity of life, and the
unity of ascetic practice by avoiding the accentuation of ecclesiastical
extremes. The conciliar texts adopted unanimously in Crete, so as to possess
universal authority, must become bearers of spirit and life for all, whether
they fasted or did not fast! Life with Christ and life in Christ is the supreme
reality that gives meaning to the words of the dogmas. This is what the
Ecumenical Patriarchate offers: an open catholicity, through ecumenical
dialogue with the other Christian Churches; that is, it offers a distinctive
form of spiritual asceticism, placing all the Churches in a state of continual
self-criticism and inward examination of their very being, and offering
opportunities for repentance that can lead even to communion itself, so that
the Lord’s final commandment may be fulfilled: that they all may be one.
Greek
source:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.