V. Rev. Alexander Rentel
Ecumenical Patriarchate Press Office
A key component of the document Organization and Working Procedure is
the requirement for unanimity for the approval of any texts or
amendments. The primates of the Churches can adopt procedures for the
running of the council; nothing in the canonical tradition forbids the
adoption of such rules, and consensus as a rule for decision making has a
long history in the Church.
While it would be anachronistic to claim
that the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts was a council like
subsequent councils, the description there provided a paradigm for later
conciliar activity. The phrasing of the Apostolic decree, “It seemed
good to the Holy Spirit and to us (Acts 15.28),” expresses the two-fold
requirement that anything the conciliar process arrives at must be
consistent with the revelation, manifested in the consensus of those in
the Church. These seemingly practical requirements emerge from the
conviction that the Church is the body of Christ, where humans are
united with Jesus Christ and each other by the grace of the Spirit.
The scepter of consensus used as a veto
looms large. Rumors and veiled threats have appeared that speak of
forcing an adjournment if one of the delegations simply got up and left.
This departure would signal the objections of that delegation, and
force the council to cease operations, because no consensus of the
Orthodox Churches would be possible. Such actions would be tragic given
the promise of this council. Truly, the delegations have the
responsibility to assure that the work of the council is consistent with
the tradition of the Church, but consensus is a process by which decisions are reached, not where the will of the minority is exercised.
Ultimately, no matter what transpires,
the outcome of the council has to be considered by the whole Church, and
its activity in light of the entire canonical tradition, which expects
consensus. The Church, however, is not only a human organization. The
demand for complete consensus, the unanimity of all delegations, is not
required by the canonical tradition. The consensus of those hierarchs
present is a sign alone of the authenticity of its work and by no means
its guarantee. The Church is a mystery, the unity of God and man in the
person of Jesus Christ by the grace of the Spirit. Ultimately something
is true and authentic because it seems good to the Holy Spirit. For
this, one can consider history and reflect on the councils that had a
consensus, but are not Orthodox.
From the canonical tradition, this point
can also be made. Few canons speak directly about the internal
procedures for the running of a synod of any type in the Church. The
canons speak directly about the need for provincial synods to take place
once in Spring and once in Fall,[i] though the exact time is up to the metropolitan,[ii] at a place where the metropolitan bishop decides,[iii] and where he himself must preside in order for the gathering to be accounted as a full synod.[iv]
These canons provide for a wide range of topics that can be discussed
at these meetings and that can be summed up in the words of II Nicaea 6.
Synods, this canon says, meet in order to “discuss canonical and
evangelical matters.” I Nicaea 5 charges synods with making the
necessary inquiries in matters under its consideration so that there
might be “general consent” in their decisions. While the canons
typically speak about the work of a provincial synod, they also refer to
the possibility of greater regional synods,[v] and a diocesan synod.[vi]
It is a reasonable inference that the procedures and activities of
these synods are similar to those described for the provincial.
Furthermore, the content of the canons testify to the broad parameters
of work that can be done by a synod at every level. These parameters do
not limit the work of subsequent synods but testify to the wide expanse
of work that councils of whatever type can undertake.
Canons on episcopal election likewise
speak about synodal procedures and show preference for a consensus of
unanimity, but allow for a “consensus of the majority.” I Nicaea 6 says
“if two or three by reason of personal rivalry dissent from the common
vote of all, provided it is reasonable and in accordance with the
church’s canon, the vote of the majority shall prevail.” Antioch 19,
also regarding the election of bishops, reiterates the synodal processes
and strives for unanimity, maintaining it as the rule, but acknowledges
that it is possible to go forward “in the presence, or with the
consent, of the majority.” While a consensus of unanimity is hoped for,
under certain circumstances a decision of the majority prevails.
The rule and hope for the Church in its
process of deliberation is for a consensus of unanimity. At the same
time, provisions appear in the canons that allow for a consensus of the
majority. Drawing upon notable examples from Church history and
conciliar practice, this allowance consensus of the majority can be
witnessed. Two such notable examples can be drawn from the Council of
Chalcedon. After the Council's deposition of Dioscoros, ten bishops from
Egypt refused to sign the Tome of Leo or the conciliar Acta,
even under great pressure from the members of the Council. At the same
council, the Roman Legates demanded that their objections to the
adoption of what would become Chalcedon 28 be recorded in the official
minutes. Pope Leo, whose Tome was famously affirmed at the
Council, continued to protest the adoption of this canon long after the
Council was over. Likewise at the Penthekte, the Roman legates
surely did not agree to canons that expressly condemned Roman practices:
Trullo 3, 13, 36, and 55. In these examples, the lack of agreement or
dissent is recorded by one Church in communion with other Churches, but
still remaining in communion afterwards.
V. Rev. Alexander Rentel, PhD, is
Assistant Professor of Canon Law and Byzantine Studies and the John and
Paraskeva Skvir Lecturer in Practical Theology.
[i] Apostolic 37, I Nicaea 5, Antioch 20, Chalcedon 19, Trullo 8, II Nicaea 6.
[ii] Antioch 20.
[iii] Chalcedon 19, Trullo 8.
[iv] Antioch 16, 20.
[v] Antioch 12, Constantinople 2.
[vi] I Constantinople 6.