The Russian Orthodox Church. Department for External Church Relations
As a continuation on the topic raised in the presentation of His
Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia at the session of the
Episcopal Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, the chairman of the
Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate and
chairman of the Biblical-Theological Commission Metropolitan Hilarion of
Volokolamsk spoke on the topic of the results of studying the documents
of the Council of Crete (18th – 27th June 2016).
The Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church at its session on the 15th
of July 2016 entrusted the Synodal Biblical-Theological Commission with
the task of, “upon receipt of officially verified copies of the
documents approved by the Council of Crete, publishing these documents
and studing them, taking into account the possible responses and
comments of their Graces the bishops, the religious educational
institutes and schools, theologians, clerics, monks and nuns, and to
present the conclusions of this thorough study to the Holy Synod”
(Journal no.48).
In touching upon the status of the Council of Crete in his speech,
Metropolitan Hilarion reminded listeners that from the very outset of
the pre-Conciliar process the principle of consensus among all the
commonly recognized Local Autocephalous Churches was to be the basis for
the taking of decisions at all events in preparation for the
Pan-Orthodox Council. However, by June of 2016 this consensus in
relation to the convocation of the Holy and Great Council was absent for
a number of reasons. In particular, the delegation of the Patriarchate
of Antioch did not sign the resolutions of the gathering if the First
Hierarchs of the Orthodox Churches in Constantinople of 2014, among
which was the resolution on the convocation of the Council in 2016, as
well as the resolutions and a number of other documents (including the
Council’s agenda) of the gathering of the First Hierarchs of the
Orthodox Churches in Chambésy in 2016.
The draft of the Council document on the topic of marriage was not
signed at the gathering of the First Hierarchs in 2016, nor by the
delegation of the Church of Georgia.
The First Hierarchs of the Russian and Georgian Churches in their
speeches at the gathering of the First Hierarchs in 2016 and in the
subsequent correspondence indicated that the condition for their
agreement for holding the Council in June of 2016 would be the reaching
of consensus on all controversial issues in the time left before the
Council. This consensus was not reached.
Less than a month before the proposed date of the opening of the
Council, the Holy Synods of five autocephalous Churches – of Bulgaria,
Antioch, Serbia, Georgia and, finally, Russia – called for its
postponement in order to overcome those obstacles that hindered their
participation in the Council (later the Church of Serbia took the
decision to participate in the Council). These calls were ignored. As a
result, ten of the fourteen commonly recognized autocephalous Local
Churches took part in the work of the Council of Crete. The fullness of
the One Catholic Orthodox Church was not represented at it, and
therefore the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church at its session of the
15th of July 2016 admitted that “the Council of Crete cannot
be viewed as an Ecumenical Council, while the documents adopted at it
as expressing the common Orthodox consensus” (Journal no.48).
The Council of Crete adopted eight documents: “Autonomy and the Means
of Its Proclamation”; “The Orthodox Diaspora”; “The Mission of the
Orthodox Church in the Modern-day World”; “The Importance of Fasting and
Its Observance Today”; “The Sacrament of Marriage and Obstacles to It”;
“The Relationship of the Orthodox Church Towards the Rest of the
Christian World”, the “Epistle of the Council” and the “Circular Epistle
of the Council” (Encyclical).
The majority of these documents (with the exception of the two
epistles composed directly at the Council of Crete) were prepared within
the framework of the pre-Conciliar process which had been going on for
decades with the active participation of the Russian Orthodox Church.
After the publication of the draft documents of the Holy and Great
Council, they were discussed at the level of the Local Orthodox
Churches. The Russian Orthodox Church prepared and sent to all the Local
Churches its proposals for amendments to the draft documents on “The
Relationship of the Orthodox Church Towards the Rest of the Christian
World” and “The Mission of the Orthodox Church in the Modern-day World.”
These amendments were in many ways consonant with those critical
comments which were expressed on the two aforementioned documents on the
part of the other Local Churches and the Holy Koinotita of the Mount
Athos.
As the chairman of the Synodal Biblical-Theological Commission noted,
the documents adopted at Crete may be divided into three categories
depending on their relationship towards drafts earlier examined by the
Episcopal Council of 2016. The first of these are documents which were
accepted by the Council of Crete without adding any substantial
amendments. Among these are the documents “The Importance of Fasting and
Its Observance Today” and “Autonomy and the Means of Its Proclamation.”
To the second category belong the documents adopted by the Council with
important amendments to their contents. These documents are “The
Orthodox Diaspora”, “The Mission of the Orthodox Church in the
Modern-day World”; “The Relationship of the Orthodox Church Towards the
Rest of the Christian World” and “The Sacrament of Marriage and
Obstacles to It.”
In particular an amendment was added to the document “The Orthodox
Diaspora” which limits the Local Churches in obtaining “already existing
titles for bishops” in the diaspora. This addition requires further
discussion at a Pan-Orthodox level.
The document “The Relationship of the Orthodox Church Towards the
Rest of the Christian World” incurred the most critical comments within
the Orthodox milieu after its publication. There was no consensus of
opinion even at the Council of Crete itself: it was not signed by twenty
one bishops of the one hundred and sixty participants of the Council,
including seventeen of twenty five bishops of the delegation of the
Serbian Orthodox Church. Special criticism was evoked by the following
formulations: the labeling in the document of non-Orthodox communities
as “churches,” and the expressions “the search” and “the restoration” of
the unity of Christians. The amendments proposed by the Russian Church
reflected this concern but were not taken fully into account by the
Council of Crete.
The document “The Sacrament of Marriage and Obstacles to It” contains
a number of controversial formulations. In particular, the phrase from
an earlier published draft – “The Church considers it impossible that
her members can conclude a same-sex union” – was modified at the Council
in the following manner: “The Church does not recognize as possible for
its members to conclude civil unions, whether same –sex or whether with
the opposite sex.” This formulation introduces an ambiguity into the
text. The original formulation expresses the Church’s teaching on
marriage more accurately. The document “The Mission of the Orthodox
Church in the Modern-day World” in the form in which it was adopted at
the Council of Crete contains formulations which create the impression
that as a result of the incarnation of the Word of God all of the human
race is already gathered in Christ, and is saved and deified, which
evoked serious criticism within the Orthodox milieu. These expressions
require an obligatory clarification, said Metropolitan Hilarion. –
Moreover, there is an inappropriate reference to Eusebius of Caesarea,
who is not only not an authoritative Father of the Church, but has been
accused, and not without justification, of semi-Arianism.”
To the third category belong documents which were prepared and
adopted directly at the Council. These are the “Epistle of the Council”
and the “Circular Epistle of the Council” (Encyclical), which reflect
the decisions taken by those autocephalous Churches which participated
in the Council on a number of relevant issues. As was noted at the
presentation read at the Episcopal Council of the chairman of the
Synodal Biblical-Theological Commission Metropolitan Hilarion of
Volokolamsk, the basic ideas of these documents on the whole do not
contradict the social doctrine of the Russian Orthodox Church. “At the
same time, the documents contain a number of not quite successful and
unclear formulations, as well as assertions which were not earlier
discussed at the Pan-Orthodox level,” said the metropolitan. “These
formulations and assertions require further discussion.”
“In order that the draft documents prepared during the pre-Conciliar
process and examined at the Council of Crete become decisions recognized
by all the Orthodox, they must be further developed and agreed upon at a
Pan-Orthodox level, and then adopted by a consensus of all the Local
Autocephalous Orthodox Churches,” he emphasized in his presentation.