The troubled Pan-Orthodox Council is set to begin on Saturday in
Crete, but without some key players. First envisaged 55 years ago, it
was designed to bring together all of the 14 autocephalous or
self-governing Orthodox Churches in the first such gathering since the 8th century.
During the last fortnight it has been hit by last-minute withdrawals
by Churches taking exception to the council's discussion documents,
agenda and procedures. Most recently the powerful Russian Orthodox
Church withdrew, calling for the council's postponement.
So can it still happen at all? And if it does, is it still a Pan-Orthodox Council, even if not all the Churches are there?
Yes and yes, according to Orthodox theologian Fr John Chryssavgis of
the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America. Speaking to Christian Today,
he said: "We are moving forward very smoothly with 10 Churches and we
hope more will come by Friday. But the work is continuing with the clear
mandate of all 14 Orthodox Churches."
Chryssavgis, one of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew's advisers,
admits it would be "tempting to say it is not Pan-Orthodox, if you look
at the table and see there are three or four missing. But that was not
how it was convened or conceived." Chryssavgis says that the process by
which it was set up, with the agreement of the primates of the Churches
and after a long process of discernment, means that its status as a
Pan-Orthodox Council cannot be affected if some Churches withdraw. It's
those Churches that are reneging on protocols that were previously
agreed; it doesn't affect the essence of what will happen in Crete.
Advertisement
He confesses himself baffled by the
last-minute criticisms and withdrawals, calling them "bizarre". All of
the documents and procedures were agreed in advance, with every one of
hundreds of pages initialed in every language of the council by every
primate. "It is really surprising and perplexing," he says.
The dominoes began falling with the withdrawal of the Bulgarian
Church, but the succession of criticisms and pull-outs reflect wider
tensions in Orthodoxy between modernisers and ultra-conservatives. For
some, Pope Francis' meeting in Havana with Patriarch Kirill, so much
heralded in the West, was an unacceptable compromise with a communion
they regard as heretical. Others protested the document on Orthodox
relations with the rest of the Christian world, arguing that its
emphasis on "restoring Christian unity" gave too much away. According
to Bloomberg,
rumours circulated among Russian Orthodox that the council was planning
to allow bishops to marry and priests to remarry, to abolish monkhood
and move to a common calendar.
And behind all this is the rivalry between Patriarch Kirill of the
rich and powerful Russian Orthodox Church and Patriarch Bartholomew,
hugely respected personally and first in prestige ecclesiastically, but
with a fraction of Moscow's resources.
When Moscow pulled out it was ostensibly because it believed the
council had ceased to be a valid one. "One Church after another declares
that it is not participating, which means there will be no consensus,
which means it is no longer a Pan-Orthodox Council," said the Russian
Orthodox spokesman Metropolitan Hilarion.
Chryssavgis disagrees. In the past, he says, councils have been
recognised as binding even when not all Churches have been able to be
present. Nevertheless, it is "frustrating and scandalising" that some
have chosen to withdraw.
He acknowledges that there are problems in the Orthodox world.
However, he says, "if unity is the goal, you put everything aside for
that. You come to a council because there are problems – but the way to
meet those problems is at a council."
Furthermore, he says there was never any danger of smaller Churches
being railroaded into decisions they didn't agree with. He points to the
Orthodox principle of consensus, developed as a way of ensuring that
the views of the smallest Churches were given exactly the same weight as
those of the largest. In practice this means that for a decision to be
adopted, everyone has to agree. Even the smallest Churches, he says,
"have a vote that can overturn the majority. But you can't have a say in
the consensus if you're away from the table. If Georgia [one of the
Churches not attending] says no, consensus means you can't proceed. But
you have to be at the table to do that."
Chryssavgis acknowledges the pain felt on both sides of the divide,
including among those Churches that have said they will not attend.
However, he says: "I would hope this council, with or without them, will
take a first fragile step. We will be able to admire something
beautiful. It will take time to see it, but it will be beautiful."
He maintains a certain optimism. However, for many observers the
uncertainty and angst surrounding the council – and the absence of some
Churches – marks a missed opportunity for reform and progress. Whatever
the technical status of the council, the Churches that did not attend
have given themselves an excuse of ignoring it. Years of careful
preparations have been compromised at the eleventh hour by a bewildering
outbreak of hostility and suspicion. Whether another such opportunity
will present itself remains to be seen.