Metropolitan Gennadios of Sassima, The Ecumenical ReviewVolume72, Issue3 July 2020 Pages 336-355
Abstract
This article considers how the Holy and Great Council of
the Orthodox Church faced challenges such as how the gospel relates to a
pluralistic society; the Christian message in a society marked by
religious pluralism, ethnic diversity, and cultural relativism; whether
Christians encountering today's pluralist society should concentrate on
evangelism or on dialogue; and on how conciliarity relates to the unity
of the church. The article examines how the council attempted to respond
to, or at least reflect on, these challenges in relation to the
theological dialogue of the Orthodox Church with the other Christian
churches and confessions. The bilateral theological dialogues have also
increasingly led to bearing Christian witness, and an atmosphere of
mutual appreciation, friendship, and fellowship has already become at
least a reality. But has this development also led to a deeper mutual
theological understanding? Have the profound differences between the
Orthodox churches and the other churches in bilateral dialogues been
clarified theologically?
Facing Obstacles to the Unity of the Church
British Bishop Lesslie Newbigin1 was one of the most perceptive analysts of the consequences of pluralism for Christian churches in the contemporary world. He was able to draw on substantial first‐hand experience of Christian life in many places, as he reflected on what pluralism means – or does not mean – for Christians today: How does the holy gospel relate to a pluralistic society? What is the Christian message in a society marked by religious pluralism, ethnic diversity, and cultural relativism? Should Christians encountering today's pluralist society concentrate on evangelism or on dialogue despite their differences and divisions? How does the prevailing climate of opinion affect, or perhaps infect, the Christian faith? What does unity of the church mean? How does conciliarity relate to unity?This article considers how the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, held in 2016, faced these challenges. It examines how the council attempted to respond to, or at least reflect on, these challenges in relation to the theological dialogue of the Orthodox Church with the other Christian churches and confessions. Did it invite them to a dialogue of truth in faith, according the tradition of the ancient church of the seven ecumenical councils?2
It has become commonplace to say that we live in a pluralistic society. This is not merely a society that is in fact plural in terms of the variety of cultures, religions, and lifestyles it embraces. It is also pluralistic in the sense that this plurality, which for others is diversity, is celebrated as something to be approved and cherished.
It is obviously true, as the contemporary Polish sociologist Zygmunt Bauman succinctly stated, that we live in “a liquid society,”3 one that refuses to be tangible and is difficult to contain exhaustively in any conceptual or imaginative definition. The major cultural shift we are currently undergoing carries in itself the promise of greater inclusivity that recognizes the dignity of all in their irreducible difference. This shift also comes with the peril of intense and spasmodic violence by those who refuse to acknowledge otherness or resort to social isolationism, privatism, and indifference.
Today, cultural diversity and religious pluralism are often associated in theological discourse on the contemporary challenges to the church’s unity and mission. Conceptually, however, they refer to different realities. Cultural diversity denotes the co‐existence of many and different cultures in a particular location. However, religious pluralism does not refer only to religious diversity – that is, the simultaneous presence of several, at times mutually exclusive and even mutually hostile, religions in one and the same location. It also, and more importantly, refers to the heightened consciousness, ever more widespread since modernity, of the necessarily relational and historically embedded character of all exclusive and absolute claims, including religious ones. This aspect seems to render such exclusive and absolute claims problematic, if not impossible.
Nevertheless, it certainly is right to state that the various Christian churches and confessions exerted and continue to exert a dominant influence on religious life and affairs in Europe and in many other parts of the world. During the second half of the 20th century, however, with the influx of people from former overseas colonies and of refugees and workers, the landscape has started to become plural in more obvious and visible terms.
Preparations for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church began in the early 20th century and continued since 1961 with Pan‐Orthodox Pre‐Conciliar Conferences. The council was held in Kolymbari, Crete, Greece in June 2016.4 It received much notice in the world at large, but unity and conciliarity among the Orthodox churches is not something new in their history. It was unquestionably the most important gathering of heads and hierarchs of the Orthodox Church for many centuries, but controversies before and after the council, and the absence of four local (or national) Orthodox churches5 from the council, cast a long shadow over its significance.
In the council, the Orthodox emphasized once more conciliarity and unity among the Orthodox churches, and they now call upon the whole church for a renewed prophetic witness. It is now up to the body of the church to fulfil that mission. This council has been one of the greatest events in the history of the Orthodox communion and of modern Christianity.
We recall the courage and the shrewdness of the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew and his steady and crucial decision to convene this council after so many years of preparation. In spite of the various last‐minute obstacles and difficulties, the council finally, by God’s blessing, was held for the benefit of the Orthodox communion, and their relation to the other Christian churches and confessions. Some churches did not want to understand Patriarch Bartholomew’s prophetic voice and accompany the Church of Constantinople, with the other churches, to Crete to celebrate this great event in this century. History will one day comment upon this. The Orthodox Church is the church of the apostles, of the martyrs, of the fathers, the church of the councils; so too every council is the reaffirmation of the unity between each local self‐governing church with the universal Church. In fact, St John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople in the fourth century, affirmed that “council” is another name for “church.”6
However, the council made a great effort to present the Orthodox position and ecclesiological understanding and to offer answers to contemporary challenges based upon the tradition and the faith of the ecumenical councils. It called upon the rest of Christianity to return to the roots of apostolic times of the ancient and undivided church of Christ. Thus, the council strongly affirmed that the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches do not constitute a “federation of churches” but belong to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. In this way the Orthodox Church expresses its unity and catholicity “in council,” and thus “Conciliarity pervades its organization, the way decisions are taken and determines its path.”7
This was precisely the successful aspect of the council: to be as realistic and pragmatic as possible in the spirit of its teaching and doctrine in seeking the church’s unity. The council made clear the existing differences of being, on the one side, the Orthodox Church and, on the other side, the “others,” that is to say, the historical non‐Orthodox Christian churches and confessions.
Addresses by Patriarch Bartholomew at the opening and closing of the council underlined the importance and great significance for the church to reflect together on issues that for decades were discussed at the Pan‐Orthodox preparatory meetings. There was a need for these discussions to come to an end, and the council had to take place. In the history of Christianity, no council or synod has been completely “perfect” or “efficient.” Their decisions have later been approved by ecumenical councils and received in history by the people of God (Laos tou Theou) and in the process of “reception” (receptio).
How has unity in communion been understood by the council? Unity is not revealed per se, but is referred to as the unity of the church, which has been broken for many centuries and remains broken in our times. It is not the Church of Christ, the ecclesia, that is broken, but rather its inner unity as a divine and human entity or institution. It is precisely the human aspect that is broken, and not the divine aspect, of which the head is Jesus Christ himself. The consequence of this brokenness of the ancient church is that the mainstream Christian churches remain divided in our times. They need to engage in theological conversations to overcome the theological misunderstandings and hostilities of the past.
The Bilateral Theological Dialogues from Another Perspective
Many efforts have been made in our times to seek unity through bilateral as well as multilateral dialogues. In these efforts, Orthodox theology’s contribution and role were decisive in identifying an ecclesiological space where the Orthodox Church could also consider thinking about the other historical Christian churches and confessions as a part of its ecclesiology.Orthodoxy has assured its due place in the nascent theological trialogue between the great historic traditions of Christendom. Protestantism and Roman Catholicism – first in confrontation, and during these past decades in conversation – have occupied centre stage. The result of the separation over a millennium between Eastern and Western Christianity has been a spiritual impoverishment whose debilitating effects are only now beginning to be realized. The Western partners have become increasingly aware that they cannot proceed much further without the third partner, namely, the Orthodox Church. It is therefore of momentous significance that the Orthodox churches have in recent years become actively engaged not only in the ecumenical movement at large, but also in expanding bilateral theological conversations with other churches and confessions.
I follow the customary definition of the term “bilateral,” as the Orthodox understand and use it, to denote theological conversations sponsored, directly or indirectly, by two churches, traditions, or confessional families. The purposes range from promoting mutual understanding to achieving full communion in true faith and love and reconciling hostilities and divisions of the past.
It hardly needs to be emphasized that these dialogues, as they are presented in the ecumenical spectrum, reveal a considerable pluralism of discussions, agreements, and disagreements on joint statements on converging issues. This variety is inevitable due to the fact that each dialogue has its own history, character, structure and set of themes, and structure of decision‐making, and they are at different stages in the ongoing process of the goal and vision of unity and union among churches.
The Holy and Great Council dealt also with the issue of how to recognize the existence of other Christian churches or confessional families as “churches.” The council finally accepted to recognize these churches, but only as “historical churches,” and was not able to overcome this ecclesiological imbroglio, in spite of the fact that for centuries the Orthodox called them Christian churches and not “historical churches.” This was one of the very difficult moments for the council’s work and decisions.
On the other hand, the bilateral theological dialogues have also increasingly led to bearing Christian witness, and an atmosphere of mutual appreciation, friendship, and fellowship has already become at least a reality. But has this development also led to a deeper mutual theological understanding? Have the profound differences between the Orthodox churches and the other churches in bilateral dialogues been clarified theologically?
This question is legitimate. At
least at first sight, there is a discrepancy between the degree of
theological agreement and the actual fellowship the different traditions
have found in the ecumenical movement. In this perspective, Fr John
Meyendorff, a principal theologian at the second meeting of the
Orthodox–Roman Catholic Joint Commission in Munich (1982), has written
that
the meeting seems to be an extraordinary event that at a time when the ecumenical movement has become entangled in the ambiguities of secularism and polarization, Orthodox and Roman Catholics had the moral strength to look at the fundamentals of the faith, i.e. the mystery of the Church, the Eucharist and the Holy Trinity, as the only true and real issues of Christian unity.8
Today, at the international
level, the Orthodox churches are engaged in six bilateral dialogues and
participating in ecumenical fora.9
The Third Pre‐Conciliar Pan‐Orthodox Conference in Chambésy (Geneva),
Switzerland, 1986, examined and carefully evaluated these dialogues and
endorsed their importance, significance, and results toward their
pilgrimage on the way to unity in true faith and love:
In addition to these international dialogues, several
Orthodox churches are also conducting theological conversations with
other churches on the local level or in other countries. Historical and
socio‐political relations in the past, as well as theological factors,
were the main reasons that such talks were undertaken. Many such
meetings have already taken place and considerable results have been
achieved. Their aim, in the first place, is to remove misconceptions and
to promote mutual acquaintance and rapprochement. They further serve as
a preparatory stage for later “dialogues in truth” on the world level,
exploring possibilities of fuller communion in faith and sacramental
life. They should also be considered “co‐partners” and “facilitators” to
the international dialogues rather than be seen in isolation and
without any relation to them. But these efforts are somehow dispersed
and lead, therefore, to less visibility and less public recognition than
the official dialogues. However, they reflect a serious involvement on
both sides, and we must be grateful for their contribution. As we have
seen, the dialogues thus represent widely differing stages of
developments.The Orthodox Church . . . is fully conscious of its responsibility with respect to the unity of the Christian world. It recognizes the real existence of all Christian churches and confessions. At the same time, it is convinced that all its relations with these churches and confessions must be based upon the clarification, as quickly as possible, of ecclesiological questions and particularly of the common teaching with respect to the sacraments, grace, priesthood, and apostolic succession. The bilateral theological dialogues currently being conducted by the Orthodox Church are the authoritative expression of this consciousness of Orthodoxy. Of course . . . the Orthodox Church is not unaware of the difficulties attached to such undertakings; it realizes that they are not to be avoided on the road to the common tradition of the early, undivided Church and hopes that the Holy Spirit, who builds the entire body of the Church, will provide for the deficiencies. In this respect . . . the Orthodox Church does not depend only on the human strength of those carrying on the dialogues, but also of the guidance of the Holy Spirit and the grace of the Lord, who prayed “that all may be one.” (John 17:21)10
Being in Dialogue – Sharing Truths: Coherence and Divergence
The question that interests us here is therefore “the understanding of the Church emerging from the bilateral dialogues – coherence and divergence.” It has not yet been discussed explicitly in all the six dialogues in which the Orthodox Church deals with other Christian churches, but is only referred to in some of them (Anglican, Lutheran, Old Catholic, and Roman Catholic).Thus, the present thoughts are somewhat limited. It seems preferable and even desirable that our reflections should be extended to the other international dialogues in order to identify either common perspectives, coherence, or divergence, or at least new ways of reflection and substantial developments, particularly after the Holy and Great Council. This should render a service to the ongoing process of the theological conversations, mainly for those which had not yet reached “the mature steps” to deal directly and explicitly with the doctrine of the church, the nature of the church, and ecclesiology in particular.
God’s creation constitutes a single and whole entity. There is no radical separation between the visible ekklesia, or local community, and the invisible ekklesia, the church triumphant; both constitute the wholeness of God’s creation. God’s creation is all‐encompassing; the physical is sometimes linked with the metaphysical. It is for this reason that in Orthodox theology, the supernatural aspect of the church is not treated in isolation from the physical or visible church. And it is also for this reason that the saints, the fathers, the martyrs, and all those who, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, experienced illumination, deification (theosis), are in fact contemporaries. The present incarnates the past and anticipates the future. Their church is our church of Jesus Christ, and our church is in direct historical continuity with their church. Therefore, “God’s revelation in Jesus Christ is realized and actualized in the Church and through the Church as the body of Christ,” as Lutherans and Orthodox state.11 The past lives in the present and will continue as long as human beings live in this world.
History and revelation are mutually determined and conditioned. It is out of their historical conscience that the Orthodox appeal to the authority of the Tradition, the mind of the fathers, the decisions of the ecumenical councils, the holiness and the experience of the past. Thus, “the Holy Tradition is the authentic expression of divine revelation in the living experience of the Church, the body of the Word incarnate.”12
However, in the dialogues, common agreements can be found in the dogmatic expression that is given on the nature of the church in the Nicene‐Constantinopolitan Creed (381 CE) and confirmed by the fourth ecumenical council in Chalcedon (435 CE). In this creed, the confession of faith in the triune God is followed by the confession of faith that the church is “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.” Looking at this affirmation, it appears also as a reference to the issues related to faith and sacraments.13
Several of the advanced dialogues have a common beginning in the ecclesiological debates by describing the mystery of the church in relation to its essence and nature in Christological and trinitarian perspectives. The mystery of the church “cannot be defined or fully described. But the steadfast joy of people who discover new life and salvation in Christ through the Church remind us that the Church itself is a lived experience. The Church is sent into the world as a sign, instrument, and first‐fruits of the Kingdom of God.”14 Use of the word “mystery” also serves a double purpose: to give the sense of a reality which is greater than anything we might say about it, and to indicate that here is something which is God‐given and not just “man‐made,” something in and through which God is at work and in which human beings are involved.15 This is because by its very nature “the Church is intimately related to the mystery of the triune God who reveals himself in Christ and the Holy Spirit (cf. Eph. 5:32).”16 It is, as St John Chrysostom confirms, “the treasure house of God’s ineffable mysteries.”17
Meanwhile, in the Orthodox–Roman Catholic international dialogue, some – Orthodox and non‐Orthodox – have found it “logically difficult” to follow who claims to be the “Church.” To be more accurate, the Roman Catholics have declared that “the Church of Christ . . . subsists in the Catholic Church,”18 whereas the Orthodox state that they are “the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.”19 In the Dublin Statement with the Anglicans, it was affirmed that the Orthodox Church “is the one true Church of Christ, which as his body is not and cannot be divided.”20
This clearly proves that from the very beginning both sides, Roman Catholics and Orthodox, insisted that their dialogue must take place “on equal terms” – and the consequences of such an insistence for both sides are that for those who are “engaged in the dialogue a change in ecclesiology is required.” Encouraging results can be seen in the Munich Statement, which begins from the “actual” rather than the “ideal.”
In the New Testament, the church describes a “local” reality. “The Church exists in history as local church . . . in a given place.”21 But it is not just man‐made – it is not simply “formed . . . by the persons who come together to establish it. There is ‘Jerusalem, from on high’ which ‘comes down from God,’ a communion [koinonia] which is at the foundation of the community itself,” so that “the church comes into being by a free gift, that of the new creation.”22
Here in the dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, both sides make the reality “of communion between God and human beings in fellowship” the basic, God‐given experience which the language of ecclesiology describes and of which the local Christian community is an “expression.” This is because the church, “‘which is in’ a given place manifests itself when it is assembled.”23 It is “fully such” assembled when it celebrates the eucharist; moreover, in the local church, as it celebrates the eucharist, “a new unity is communicated which overcomes divisions and restores communion in the one body of Christ. Thus unity transcends psychological, racial, socio‐political or cultural unity. It is the ‘communion of the Holy Spirit’.”24
Thus, the church which is the body of Christ is to be one, and therefore to manifest a “new unity” of all people. The role of an ecumenical dialogue is precisely to bring into harmony the uniqueness of the various historical configurations in which the churches have developed. It is not to use this as a means of further division, but for a more real and deep understanding of the personal God who reveals himself in time and space for the salvation of all of humanity.
The Dublin Statement clearly points out that the reality of division between Anglicans and Orthodox does not yet allow them to find themselves to be one: “We are a disrupted Christian people seeking to restore our unity. Our divisions do not destroy but they damage the basic unity we have in Christ, and our disunity impedes our mission to the world as well as our relationships with each other.”25
It is important to note the language used above, especially the words “destroy” and “damage.” The use of these terms becomes central, especially in the light of how Anglicans are accustomed to seeing the divisions existing within the church: “they do not believe that they alone are the one true Church, but they believe that they belong to it.”26 On the other hand, the Orthodox “believe that the Orthodox Church is the one true Church of Christ, which as his body is not and cannot be divided.”27 But at the same time, they see others, like Anglicans, “as brothers and sisters in Christ who are seeking together with them the union of all Christians in the one church.”28 And this difference is reconciled in the dialogue by affirming that “We agree in our fundamental understanding of the Church as one, holy, catholic and apostolic.”29
Another important point can be found in the different accounts given of the sinfulness and division observed in the life of Christian communities. Orthodox say that the human members of the church on earth are sinful and do not believe that sinfulness should be ascribed to the church as the body of Christ, indwelt by the Holy Spirit.30
The ecclesiological concept of the church as the household or family of God presupposes that believers accept love (agape) or philanthropia as a common denominator, freely flowing, expecting nothing in return. It is this type of unmerited philanthropy that made Christianity very attractive among the less fortunate members of the Roman Empire’s society. It transformed an anthropocentric and limited humanism into a theocentric and ecumenical philanthropy.
Recognizing its own reality in the light of divine Revelation, the church very early saw itself above all as that area of Christian humanity within which the Spirit of Christ (see Eph. 2:8) is recreating the communion – koinonia – of humanity with God himself and therefore welding into one communion all peoples, races, cultures, social classes, and differences between the sexes.31 The vision that dominates the Epistle to the Ephesians – undoubtedly the first Christian document to be open to all dimensions of the “catholicity” of salvation – is not merely an afterthought to this awakening of the church to its own true nature (see Eph. 2:15‐22). On the contrary, it expresses what its essence is: that the unity of the church “is inseparable from the divine purpose of reuniting humanity (in the blessings of the messianic age), a reunification which is already taking shape in the Church.”32
It is easy to see why the early church fathers regarded the eucharistic synaxis – in which men and women of every class, culture, and race were henceforth one in the body of Christ – as both the supreme embodiment of the nature of the church and the supreme statement of God’s design for humanity.
This concept of the church as communion – koinonia33 – was taken up from the beginning in the dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church, and it was strongly emphasized and further developed in the Munich Statement (1982) – as well as in the following statement – which refers to St Ignatius of Antioch’s affirmation: “where Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”34 This also implies that “catholicity or wholeness is a property of each local church.”35
Clearly, at this point difficulties and potential disagreement might emerge as the discussion proceeds. What are the forms and conditions of the koinonia? Is it a eucharistic reality and experience? If so, states Fr Meyendorff, it would also need a eucharistic responsible ministry. And would that be a conciliar institution or a ministry realized in the function (or person) of a universal primate?36
The concept of koinonia–communion implies a relationship between local churches that “is constitutive of the Church . . . institutions make it visible and, so to speak, ‘historize’ it.” What is implied here – so it seems – is that the mystery of the church, while always remaining a mystery, manifests itself in history through institutions that, like all realities of history, are changing.37
Toward a Pneumatological Christocentrism
The basic thesis of a pneumatological Christocentrism is the starting point of overcoming the recent theological neo‐scholasticism while looking for exact exclusive statements in the form of definitions. The balance of the incarnate Word of God and the eucharistic mystical experience within the one body, the church (ekklesia) of God, is the focus of the theology of the church in a dynamic perspective, as it is stated at the Munich Statement: “The mystery of the Church and the Eucharist in the light of the mystery of the Holy Trinity.”The Pentecostal event is the fullness of the paschal mystery and inaugurates the eschaton of time and history. Through the Spirit, the work of Christ continues in history and church, but ultimately it points beyond history to the full realization of God’s design for his creation. The church “in which God’s grace is at work, is itself the sacrament par excellence, the anticipated manifestation of the final realities, the foretaste of God’s kingdom, of the glory of the God and Father, of the eschaton in history,” as the Valamo Statement between Orthodox and Roman Catholics affirms.38
This eschatological perspective challenges the Orthodox being in theological dialogue with the other churches – as we already mentioned – in common mind to express the understanding of apostolicity, which refers not only to what has been received from the past; it also points to what is awaited at the last day. The apostles are not only the authoritative witnesses to Christ’s coming in history; they also are companions of the eschatological Christ enthroned for judgment (see Matt. 19:28).39 In this perspective “apostolic succession” means more than a mere historical transmission of power from Christ through the apostles to bishops in the church. Ecclesial ministry is apostolic not only “because it is carried out in continuity and in fidelity to what was given by Christ and handed on history by the apostles,”40 but also “because the eucharistic assembly at which the minister presides is an anticipation of the final community with Christ.”41 It is precisely in the eucharist that history and eschatology meet, that the work of Christ and the Spirit are actualized, that the “church manifests its fullness,”42 that “the role of the bishop and of the priest appears in full light”43 and “finds its accomplishment.”44
So there sometimes exists a kind of coherence and common agreement in issues when the two sides strongly emphasize the centrality and importance of the eucharist for the life of the church in all its aspects. Here especially we see the convergence of modern Orthodox and Roman Catholic thought, whether when the Orthodox speak of “Eucharistic Ecclesiology” or in the Second Vatican Council’s Lumen Gentium, the conclusion is the same: The eucharist makes the church what “it is called to be.”45 It is both source and criterion for all aspects of the church’s life, including its ministry.
However, the most striking issue developed in all dialogues, and their antecedents, concerns “the close link between the work of Christ and that of the Holy Spirit.”46 Again, it is cautioned against “seeing the economy of Christ in isolation from the Spirit.”47 With remarkable consistency, most of the statements have taken a pneumatologically conditioned Christology as their departure.48 The Spirit “which eternally proceeds from the Father and reposes on the Son prepared the Christ event and achieved it,”49 from the incarnation and baptism through the sacrifice of Calvary and glorification.
From this Christology springs a pneumatologically conditioned ecclesiology, for the same Spirit that was anointed into Christ’s body, and the same Spirit that empowered the ministry of Christ, ensures that his unique ministry “remains in action in history” within the church.50 In a characteristic formulation, Orthodox affirm that the newness of the church’s ministry consists in that “Christ, servant of God for humanity, is present through the Spirit in the Church, his body, from which he cannot be separated. For he himself is the first‐born among many brothers.”51 Too often we think of Christ as an isolated individual apart from the humankind he has come to save. We lose sight of the whole Christ, “caput et corpus,” to use the phrase of St Augustine. We make a distinction between Christ and his church, and as a consequence we tend to make the church into an autonomous, self‐sufficient institution.
The church, as a sacramental organism, is a body continually being formed and built up, not simply as an institution “established” or “founded” long ago by Christ and then left to its own devices. So its ministry also is not simply a vocation to holiness, a life lived according to the gospel. It is by necessity charismatic, for without the manifold gifts of the Holy Spirit – and without that personal experience of God that is possible only in the Holy Spirit – the church with its official ministry would not just become “institution”: it would cease to be the church. As the Munich Statement points out, the church – and its ministry – “is continually in a state of epiclesis.”52 Therefore, the eucharist and the church are the body of the crucified and risen Christ and become the locus of the energies of the Holy Spirit.
Through the church, Christ is present in history; through it, he achieves the salvation of the world in order to fulfil the kingdom of God, so “the koinonia is eschatological.”53 Therefore, everything begins in the eucharist through conversion and reconciliation, with an ultimate presupposition that is always “repentance” and “confession.”54 It is also this koinonia, as the central event within the church, which is also and on the same basis “kerygmatic,”55 proclaiming the event of the mystery of God to the assemblies, to the whole world, to the whole community and the whole creation, and “the response of faith is given by all.”56 Thus, the eucharist is “inseparably sacrament and word since in it the incarnate Word sanctifies in the Spirit”;57 and that is why the whole of the liturgy, and not only the reading of the holy scriptures, constitutes the proclamation of the Word under the form of doxology and prayer. The Word proclaimed “is made flesh and becomes sacramental.”58
The Dialogues Continue: Beyond the Great Council
The inheritance from the past expressed in beliefs, practices, values, and even forms is not an ossified and static relic but a vigorous force augmented and strengthened by the contributions of succeeding generations of the people of God through the centuries. Churches and confessions today, in their multilateral and bilateral theological conversations, need to be listening theologically to each other’s doctrines in order to find the common roots of the Christian tradition of the Ancient church.Theology should not be considered as monolithic. There is also a renewed interest in the bilateral dialogues to identify what churches consider authentic theology – a theology that understands the content of divine revelation and through faith leads to a communion with God and fellow human beings. This revelation consists of trinitarian theology, Christology, and eschatology according to God’s plan for the salvation of the world. There is also a movement among churches and confessions today toward a biblical theology in the light of patristic exegesis and the experience of the local church – the Christian community in history.
The emphasis on the centrality of the eucharist in the church is hardly unique to Orthodox. It is a recurrent theme in many of the recent bilateral and multilateral dialogues. Yet on the basis of their shared understanding of the eucharist and its implications for church life, Orthodox are able to make certain affirmations that other Christians might have difficulties accepting and receiving. Nothing reveals the advanced degree of agreement that already exists between the two theologies which brings the two churches closer.
However, without any doubt, the boundaries of bilateral dialogues are today becoming broad enough to allow a certain freedom of movement as well as full expression. Nevertheless, all theological conversations have a common task and goal, namely, to seek unity among churches in the light of true Christian faith and life. Maintaining a balance between historical facts of the early times and of contemporary situations in which churches live and which they experience is absolutely essential. This balance should be kept in mind by theologians who are sometimes sceptical of reductionism and relativism and who insist on loyalty to the experience of the church in history, theology, and tradition.
Loyalty to the tradition of the church is not static but rather dynamic, in the sense that it permits dialogue and renewal. The theology of truth is committed to preserve the theology of undivided Christianity and indeed its identity, but also to share its convictions and perceptions within different traditions and religious beliefs.
Where does this dialogical‐theological exercise on union negotiations lead to from here? How do theologians from different traditions and confessions perceive the future of these bilateral conversations and the goal that should be achieved? Some see them as a vibrant and appealing call to unity. Others have expressed high hopes not only for their future, but also because they interrelate this concern with the future of Christianity. Still others fearfully complain that the bilateral dialogues are today facing a chaotic situation emphasized by an individualism and fragmentation. Finally, others also admire the fact that many hostilities and difficulties of the past have already been overcome, and considerable common agreements have been formulated on convergent issues.
The closer the churches become theologically, being in dialogue and stating agreement in joint statements, the more they sometimes feel the “sacred zeal” to protect their particularities in defense of Christian faith. Do they really want visible and organic church unity? Are they ready to make sacrifices toward that end? The road to unity is costly and painful. If it is grasped and enacted as a process of change and renewal, resulting from their listening in common to the prophetic word of God, and requesting the repentance‐answer, a common confession of the one true church of Christ and a conversion of hearts and minds are needed in the light of the contemporary secularized world.
Finally, the impression, arising from the different dialogues and when viewed emphatically and analyzed together, is that the ecumenical movement, both East and West, is “on the move” and not static. It is much easier to understand the different nature and goal of each dialogue, the continuous repetition that is unavoidable within the statements, the various styles and languages, the emphasis on biblical references or not, their relevance to contemporary theology or not. There can be little doubt about the value and achievements that have been attained. As a consequence, some schemes may have collapsed in their search for the necessary agreement in faith to carry unity; nevertheless, encouraging strides are being made. We have reached an appropriate stage in the goal toward which churches are moving. Doctrinal agreements are not an end in themselves but are sought in order to move the churches into a closer relationship in faith, life, and practice.
The patient and serious approach to theological dialogue exemplified in the work offers much hope for the eventual restoration of such a communion between churches, in spite of the fact that significant differences and obstacles remain to be overcome. While such dialogues will not in themselves bring about the full and perfect unity of the churches, any unity is hard to imagine without God’s will and that of human beings, too.
It is obviously true that the hostilities of the pastremain and that obstacles are still present. But the process of the search for unity is very costly and painful, in both human and spiritual terms. Meanwhile, this phenomenon of division within the church of Christ has sometimes increased due to new sociopolitical, economical, ethical, and moral issues that appear daily. The result is that theological differences are becoming indefinite, making it very difficult to fill the great ecclesiological gap that exists within the Orthodox Church.
However, it is a challenge for the Orthodox to respond adequately in the spirit of its Tradition and teaching and in the light of its inner doctrine and spiritual life. The Orthodox Church, and the Ecumenical Patriarchate in particular, was from the beginning a “Church of and in dialogue,” a church that promoted and continues to promote dialogue. It is fully engaged in theological conversations with love, truth, and respect for the other. The Orthodox have committed themselves in the council “to continue the theological dialogue with the non‐Orthodox Christians, and expressed that this never implies a compromise of faith.”59
Meanwhile, the theological dialogues do not try to achieve merely a level of common understanding, but rather attempt to enter deeply in reflecting on the historical and theological reality of the problem in discussion in order to be understood in a such way that the “other” will believe and accept that the “real” is also the “truthful” and the “pragmatic.” A dialogue also does not formulate new dogmas or create new canons, but rather makes an effort to reaffirm the doctrine in a new language as it was expressed and defined in the writings and in the spirit of the early church.
A dialogue is a process in which efforts are made to determine and reaffirm the theological and the ecclesiological thesis where dogma and doctrine meet each other in a new context of mutual understanding and comprehensiveness. However, in a dialogue of truth and faith, there is no antagonistic sense but rather a common perception that the two who are in dialogue are walking together and not one alone. There exists a fraternal spirit to walk not alone but together. There is still some hope within theological circles that the Orthodox, in the spirit of the results and the decisions of the Council of Crete, will keep the doors open to continue this call of seeking unity.
In the new global world, the Christian churches have an opportunity to be agents of unity, building solidarity and contributing to the advance of justice, peace, and the integrity of creation. But at the same time, they will be agents of division, conflict, and oppression, if they contribute to the forming or strengthening of particular ethnic, religious, or cultural identities that others may consider as a danger to their own identity, perception of truth, political representation, and economic interests. Thus, globalization can become, or rather is, a serious obstacle to the unity of the church.
It can be said that not everything in the council was perfect. Some areas needed more time for reflection and attention. But this is only natural. In this respect, for some, the discussions during the council were sometimes more important than the statements; while for others, the final documents constitute its real success.
Despite what critics say, the council will no doubt be considered in the future as an important, though not an earth‐shattering event. Although there was never any intention to call it an “ecumenical council,” the mere fact that it was held and that it brought together the largest number of Orthodox hierarchs for many centuries assures a certain historical significance. Once the dust settles, the lessons learned from this council will condition preparations for a subsequent council. The ancient ecumenical councils were largely Greek affairs, with Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Syriacs, and so on) present at the first four councils along with small Roman delegations. At this council, for the first time, the Romanian and some Slavic churches participated. For many hierarchs, it was a unique occasion to meet their counterparts from other Orthodox churches. This contributed to a broad sentiment that pan‐Orthodox councils should be held in the future on a regular basis.
These positive aspects of the council need to be highlighted, whatever the weaknesses of the council and however its decisions will be received in the coming years. The lively voice of the Orthodox Church, speaking in love and brotherhood, is manifest in these real, person‐to‐person encounters. These encounters constitute the conciliar identity of the church, for it is only in such an encounter that love can be manifest. Now it is the duty of the whole Orthodox Church to open itself to real, personal interaction with the others and to respond to the present challenges. As a journalist wrote after the council,60 the “council after the council” is much like the “liturgy after the liturgy” that is used in the council documents; it is simply this space for encounter, for dialogue, for compassion, and for a co‐suffering love.
Regarding their relationships and conversations with other Christian churches, Orthodox often affirmed that “it is true that what unites us is much greater than what divides us.” However, this partial but very substantive unity in which Orthodox already participate is sometimes fragile and vulnerable unless they continue their efforts to deepen unity in the triune God, that is, by developing further an ecclesiology of communion that makes our churches relational and faithful to God's will.
This Holy and Great Council is not the end of a conciliar process but just the beginning, where nobody knows whether there will be another soon; the Orthodox leaders have concluded a historic council pledging dialogue with other churches, while also reaffirming “no compromise” when it comes to Orthodox teaching: “The Orthodox church, faithful to the unanimous apostolic tradition and her sacramental experience, is the authentic continuation of the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as confessed in the Creed and confirmed by the teaching of the Church Fathers.”61
The Council's key priority had been “to proclaim the unity of the Orthodox church” with “a prophetic voice that cannot be silenced.” Finally, the Orthodox Church expressed its unity and catholicity in council – conciliarity pervades its organization, the way decisions are taken, and determines its path.
We are waiting for those not present at the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church to respond.
Biography
- Metropolitan Prof. Dr Gennadios of Sassima (Limouris), Ecumenical Patriarchate, is a vice‐moderator of the central committee of the World Council of Churches (WCC), a professor of canon law, and has been a member of the WCC executive and central committees since 2002. He is a former moderator of the WCC's Faith and Order Commission.