Nicholas Denysenk, Praytellblog.com
Readers of PrayTell have probably noticed some of the media coverage
of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, which just
concluded in Crete this past Sunday. As with all major Church events,
much drama and intrigue surrounded the council.
The primates of the
fourteen autocephalous churches had agreed to consensus when
deliberating the agenda items, and as the council approached, four
Churches opted out of participating, namely the Churches of Antioch,
Georgia, Bulgaria, and Moscow. The Council proceeded as planned, with
ten of the fourteen Churches participating. One of the debates occurring
in Orthodox media concerns the question of the council’s authority:
some claim that the absence of the four Churches diminishes its stature,
whereas others claim that the Council will remain binding for all
Orthodox Churches.
We all know that instant analysis of major events is a given, and I
am hesitant to present any absolute conclusions about the Council and
its results until I have had some time to carefully read the documents
adopted by the bishops. There are two significant positive outcomes from
the Council: first, it happened, despite the possibility that it would
be postponed yet again. The actual occurrence of the Council permitted
the bishops to debate and revise the preconciliar documents and proclaim
them, along with a message and encyclical to the world. These documents
are already generating heated and passionate debate, especially since
the Orthodox Church has now defined itself as the one, holy, Catholic
and apostolic Church – the council has no clause of “subsistit in.”
Orthodoxy has proclaimed herself to be “the authentic continuation of
the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church” (Encyclical, I.2). In the document on relations of Orthodoxy
with the rest of the Christian world, the Council taught that “the
Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of other non-Orthodox
Christian Churches and Confessions that are not in communion with her.”
This ambiguous statement is already generating heated debate, but the
reader might note the absence of traditional polemical nouns used to
depict non-Orthodox which one can find in anti-ecumenical literature,
such as “heretics,” “schismatics,” and “heterodox.”
Of course, the documents cover much more material, and there are some
Orthodox who would have liked to have seen a broader manifestation of aggiornamento
in the Council’s work. One cannot assume that these documents will be
binding: only time will tell if the Orthodox Church will receive these
teachings. Certainly there will be much theological analysis and
proposals for ongoing work. This effort is needed, and I hope the
Orthodox bishops will partner with theologians to continue to address
the most pressing issues of world and Church. I also hope that the
non-Orthodox who want to dialogue with us will push us on these issues:
our job in dialogue is to hear you, just as you hear us with consistent
graciousness.
Finally, the conciliar documents provide a contemporary point of
reference moving forward. Orthodoxy now has an updated literary corpus
coalescing around particular issues. Will these documents inaugurate a
new era of dialogue with the world? Will the documents prove to be
binding for Orthodox, or will they be ignored as a new variant of
Western captivity? I know only that the Council’s occurrence
demonstrated the potential for Orthodoxy to emerge from post-Ottoman and
post-Soviet inertia to engage the contemporary world. So let us hope
that Council was the beginning of ongoing dialogue, and not its end.