* * *
Esteemed Rector of the Angelicum and Dean of Theology,
Venerable Hierarchs and clergy,
Distinguished administration, faculty, and students,
Sisters and Brothers in Christ,
It is truly a privilege and a pleasure to stand among you as the modest recipient of an honorary doctorate in sacred theology in the context of a special conference organized by your Institute for Ecumenical Studies (Oecumenicum) on the 10th anniversary of the Holy and Great Council in order to address the importance and impact of that extraordinary gathering which took place on the island of Crete in June 2016.
This auspicious event provides an opportunity for me—but also for all of us—to reflect on what is arguably the most significant council in the recent history of the Orthodox Church. Although much has been written about the Council’s debates and decisions, its successes and challenges, there can be little doubt that it occupies a unique place in the contemporary life of Orthodoxy, representing not merely a meeting of bishops, but a culmination of over a century of preparation, prayer, and promise. To this end, therefore, I have entitled this presentation as: “Conciliarity and Communion in the Church.”
Preparations for the Holy and Great Council formally commenced in the early 20th century, received renewed momentum under Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras in the 1960s, and advanced through successive Pan-Orthodox Preconciliar Conferences. The very fact that such a council was eventually convened demonstrates the Church’s commitment to the principle of synodality, which is the source and core of our ecclesiology. For the first time in many centuries, the primates, hierarchs, and advisors of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches undertook a concerted and collective effort to assemble together in council, “in one and the same place” (Acts 2.1), in order to address issues affecting their faithful worldwide.
The Council reminds us that the Orthodox Church does not understand itself as a federation of independent churches existing in isolation. Rather, it is one Body of Christ, united in faith, sacramental life, and apostolic tradition. Synods and councils have always served as the means and expression through which the Church manifests its unity. From the Apostolic Council described in the 15th chapter of Acts to the Ecumenical Councils throughout the first millennium, the Church has always gathered to seek and discern the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the sake of addressing its role and responsibility in the world. In similar manner, the Council of Crete sought to continue this living tradition, demonstrating that conciliarity is not simply a historical memory but an enduring reality.
Now, when speaking of the Holy and Great Council, it behooves us to resist the temptation of evaluating it through the lens of its immediate outcomes or else the unfortunate absence of some autocephalous Churches, who withdrew their pledged participation. To do so would reduce the Council to an event. After all, history reminds us that councils are rarely judged solely by attendance or immediate consensus. The Ecumenical Councils themselves were often received very gradually, not immediately or spontaneously, sometimes amid considerable controversy that even led to division.
As far as its tangible results, the Council’s Encyclical and Message, along with its six official documents and decisions, addressed matters of profound importance for contemporary Orthodox life, emphasizing the mission of the Church in today’s world, while affirming that Orthodoxy has a vital contribution to make in addressing issues such as peace, justice, human dignity, freedom, and environmental stewardship. After all, the Church is called not to withdraw from society but to bear witness to the transforming power of the Gospel in the heart of the world. Moreover, while it did not resolve all difficulties facing the Church in the so-called Diaspora, the Council highlighted the need to strengthen episcopal cooperation in regions where multiple Orthodox jurisdictions coexist. At the same time, it acknowledged the need for continued efforts toward greater unity for the sake of more effective pastoral care. It is this same pastoral focus that directed and defined the decisions on the sacredness of marriage and the significance of fasting.
However, for our purposes at this conference organized by the Oecumenicum, perhaps the most widely discussed document emerging from the Great Council concerned the relations of the Orthodox Church with the rest of the Christian world. In an age marked by secularization and division, the Council reaffirmed Orthodox participation in theological dialogue, maintaining that genuine dialogue is not an expression of relativism but an act of fidelity to Lord’s prayer “that His disciples all may be one” (Jn 17.21).
Nevertheless, beyond its specific texts, the Council highlighted an important ecclesiological principle: that unity requires encounter. Churches cannot remain in perpetual isolation from one another while claiming to express the fullness of catholicity. The conciliar tradition calls bishops to meet, deliberate, listen, and discern together. Even when and where complete agreement sometimes proves elusive, the act of assembling itself reflects the Church’s commitment to conciliarity and communion. Therefore, the Council should be perceived as an ecclesiological statement—or, in other words, a manifestation of the very nature of the Church as a conciliar communion (koinonia), whose ultimate significance lies beyond the documents and statements promulgated in Crete, in the theological vision of the Church that it embodied.
Today, ten years after the Council of Crete, many of the challenges it sought to address invariably still remain with us and before us. The Orthodox world in particular, but also the ecumenical and religious worlds in general, continue to confront unprecedented and seemingly insurmountable geopolitical tensions, ecclesiastical divisions, demographic changes, and pastoral challenges in increasingly pluralistic and secularistic societies. These circumstances only underscore the importance of maintaining channels of communication and strengthening the bonds of communion among the Churches.
In this light, the Council of Crete should be viewed not as the final conclusion of a process but as the preliminary commencement of a renewed commitment to conciliarity, communion, and cooperation. In many ways, the work of the Council remains unfinished. This is true not only for the Orthodox Church but also for the Roman Catholic Church, which has in recent years focused on conciliarity as the foundation for ecclesial integrity and unity. Fundamentally, conciliarity is not simply an administrative mechanism but an ontological mode of existence. The Church gathers in council because that is how Christ remains present in the Church and how the Holy Spirit guides its people. Conciliarity is the manifestation of communion in the mystery of the Church. It is neither optional nor simply beneficial; it constitutive and essential.
For centuries, but especially in recent decades, Orthodox theologians have emphasized that primacy and synodality are inseparable realities, that neither can exist properly without the other. For instance, the late Fr. Georges Florovsky (1983–1979) reminded us that synodality is historical or patristic—that the Church discerns the truth within the continuity of Tradition and consensus of the Fathers. The late Nikos Nissiotis (1924–1986) reminded us that conciliarity is also pneumatological or charismatic—that we gather together because the Holy Spirit constitutes the Church as communion and leads her into truth. And Metropolitan John Zizioulas (1931–2023) reminded us that synodality is ultimately eucharistic and ontological—that communion is not something the Church practices, but something that belongs to the very essence and existence of the Church. Together, these three perspectives prevent us from reducing synodality either to institutional procedure or to contemporary ecclesiastical fashion. Synodality is simultaneously charismatic and traditional, eucharistic and episcopal.
As we recognize and fundamentally agree, the Eucharistic assembly is the principal image of the heavenly kingdom. This means that every council is essentially an extension of that communion in the life and mission of the Church. The Great Council reminded us Orthodox that autocephaly does not imply ecclesial isolation and that local Churches cannot fully realize their catholic vocation apart from one another. It reminded Pope Francis that, as he repeatedly observed, “the path of synodality is what God expects of the Church in the third millennium”—a vision extended and expanded by Pope Leo XIV in an effort to underline the importance of listening and discernment as defining characteristics of conciliarity and communion.
From an Orthodox perspective, this renewed Catholic interest in conciliarity is highly and historically significant. This is immediately apparent in the theological conversations of the official international dialogue between our two “sister churches” over the last two decades—which have focused on the relationship of primacy and conciliarity to unity and communion. Primacy without synodality risks becoming centralized authority detached from ecclesial communion; synodality without primacy risks fragmentation and the inability to manifest visible unity. This relationship has been explored extensively in the Ravenna Document (2007) and the Chieti Document (2016), both of which recognize that primacy and synodality belong together at the local, regional, and universal levels of ecclesial life. Primacy is a clear exercise of service, of facilitation and coordination, but always within and never above the synodal structure of the Church.
Distinguished assembly and dear friends,
Everything we see and do in the Church should be in the perspective of the Eucharist. The Eucharist gathers us into one Body. And it is the very principle of conciliarity that gives visible expression to that unity in historical place and time. I would argue that the future of Orthodoxy depends not solely on resolving canonical disputes or administrative challenges, but primarily upon recovering the culture of conciliarity that characterized the early Church. Indeed, the future of Christianity depends on such a recovery of conciliarity. And this requires above all humility before triumphalism, encounter before isolation, dialogue before division, and communion before nationalism.
In the final analysis, the Council of Crete stands as an invitation to that recovery. Perhaps this is its ultimate and enduring legacy. In an age increasingly marked by social polarization and fragmentation, by geopolitical discord and conflict, the Holy and Great Council reminds all of us that the Church is—and has always been—called to walk together. This, after all, is the literal interpretation of the Greek word for “synod” (σύνοδος). And the Church is constantly called to be in humble consultation. This, of course, is the literal meaning of the Latin term for “council” (concilium). Not because “being together” and “being in consensus” are easy matters, but because communion is intrinsic to and imperative for the identity of the Church. It is only in this way that the Church will be able fully to reveal itself as the icon of the Holy Trinity—a communion of love, truth, and unity offered for the life of the world.
As we read and recite in scripture and liturgy, let it also guide and shine in our lives: “May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God the Father, and the communion of the Holy Spirit, be with you—and with us—all.” (2 Cor. 13.14)
Thank you for this honorable award as well as for your kind attention.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου