Carrie Frederick Frost
Pope Francis recently made
headlines in the West by meeting with Orthodox Patriarchs Bartholomew
and Kirill, and joining with them to address the refugee crisis.
Far less attention has been paid to a different development that may
have important consequences for the Orthodox Church and its relations
with Rome: a historical, unprecedented “Holy and Great Council” to be
held in June.
The novelty of this council, which will take place
in Chania, on the Greek island of Crete, can hardly be overstated. The
Orthodox world is made up of fourteen autocephalous Orthodox churches,
which are in communion and dialogue with one another but have no
official method of conclave. Orthodoxy has no presiding body or figure,
no equivalent of a pope. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, Archbishop of
Constantinople, is considered a first among equals, and he has
certainly been an advocate for this council, but he has no final
authority in insisting that other Orthodox churches attend, or in
controlling the council’s outcome. Though many councils of local
churches have taken place throughout history, the last time the whole
Orthodox world came together in council was in 787—before the split
between the Orthodox Church and Rome.
The preliminary agenda for such a council, which was drafted in the
1960s, included more than a hundred items. The agenda has since been
condensed and winnowed in an effort to make it more palatable to the
attending churches. Of the items that remain on the agenda, some of the
more complex and potentially controversial have to do with the Orthodox
Church’s relationship with other churches and with the rest of the
world. For those of us in the Orthodox Church who would like to see it
engage in open and loving dialogue with other Christian communities,
including the Catholic Church, the preconciliar documents on this topic
are disappointingly conservative. They reflect the concerns of an
anti-ecumenical movement within Orthodoxy, which quails at any effort to
repair relations with other churches for fear of dilution or
contamination. Earlier versions of the preconciliar documents openly
referenced the serious theological work that has been done by Orthodox
theologians working with their peers in other Christian churches, but
the approved version of the documents was silent on this subject.
The preconciliar documents on marriage and fasting are also
disappointingly cautious. The marriage document shies away from
difficult situations—like that of widowed priests, who are typically
prohibited from remarriage—and presents a theology of marriage that is
uneven at best. Part of the original purpose of the agenda item on
fasting was to consider mission situations in which the available food
and the local dietary habits are quite different from those of the
Levant, where the Orthodox Church’s fasting regulations were first
developed. Does it mean much to abstain from olive oil on certain days
in a place where olive oil isn’t used? Instead of investigating these
complicated situations, the fasting document simply provides an outline
of the fasting restrictions in the Orthodox world—the kind one can find
in the pamphlet corner of any Orthodox parish.
Then there is the matter of the council’s decision-making procedures.
The guidelines indicate that “consensus”—the previously agreed upon
standard for the council—is now to be understood as “unanimity.” This is
worrisome to many, because it suggests that any one of the fourteen
autocephalous churches might have veto power, which would be
unprecedented. But it remains to be seen how this norm of consensus will
be implemented.
The procedures of the council also dictate that the autocephalous
churches each bring a delegation of hierarchs, who will make up the
decision-making body of the council. Each delegation may also bring six
“special consultants,” who can be clergy, monastics, or laypeople.
Finally, observers from other churches will also be invited.
Though the role of the “special consultants” is limited, their
presence at the council is significant because it allows not only
non-hierarchs but women to participate in the council. It was
recently announced that two women will be part of the Ecumenical
Patriarch’s delegation. Exactly what level of participation these two
women will be allowed is not yet known. Will they end up truly contributing
to the work of the Council, or just witnessing it? Will their input be
solicited for the council’s statement on marriage, or will that document
be left entirely to celibate hierarchs? As Catholic Canadian Archbishop
Durocher recently observed, real synodality must involve women. This is just as true for the Orthodox Church as it is for the Catholic Church.
EVEN THOUGH THE abbreviated agenda and modest preconciliar documents
seem to portend a conservative, unambitious, noncontroversial council,
many Orthodox Christians—myself included—will be pleased for the council
to take place at all. If it can succeed on its own modest terms, it may
open the door for future, less cautious councils. The Ecumenical
Patriarch has stated that, if the Orthodox Church does not engage with
the world, “it will be reduced to a ghetto on the margins of history.”
There are many forces working to make the Orthodox Church more insular
and fearful, but I agree with the Ecumenical Patriarch, and I see the
Holy and Great Council of 2016 as a valiant effort to sustain the
Orthodox Church’s mission “for the life of the World.”
Whatever comes out of this council, its lasting significance will be
unknown for some time, because all Orthodox councils must be received by
the faithful in order to be understood as legitimate and lasting. Even
the Ecumenical councils were not called “Ecumenical” or understood to
have universal significance while they were taking place.
As I look forward to next month’s council, I remember the Orthodox
icon of Pentecost, which shows the Mother of God with the disciples.
They are not alone; the Holy Spirit is also present—sometimes pictured
as a dove, sometimes as tongues of fire. Mary and the disciples are
often shown gazing up, open to the work of the Spirit. It is a fitting
image for a church council. One hopes that all those attending the Holy
and Great Council will be animated by a truly Pentecostal openness, and
that they will remain aware that they are not alone in their efforts.