By Protopresbyter of the Ecumenical Throne PANAGIOTIS KAPODISTRIAS
Last June, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, held at Kolymbari, Crete, in 2016, I had the opportunity to offer some public reflections on the significance of that historic event. My article, entitled “Ten Years since the Holy and Great Council of Crete,” was also published in the Greek-language ecclesiastical press in Australia.[1] On that occasion, I focused primarily on the bold undertaking of convening the Council, the historic contribution of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and the legacy bequeathed by the Council to the contemporary Orthodox world.
I return to the same subject a few months later, prompted by the international theological conference held in Chantilly, France, from 5 to 8 October 2026. This renewed reflection proceeds from a different starting point. My concern now is primarily with what followed the Council of Crete, the outstanding issues that remain and, above all, the capacity of Orthodoxy to transform a major conciliar event into an enduring pattern of ecclesial life. After all, the significance of a council is also revealed by what it succeeds in bringing forth after its proceedings have concluded.
Crete as Both a Point of Departure and an Unfinished Task
The Holy and Great Council convened after many years of preparation, with the participation of ten autocephalous Orthodox Churches. Their presence, common worship, and conciliar deliberations constituted a significant witness to unity. Four Churches, however, were absent: those of Antioch, Russia, Bulgaria, and Georgia. Each cited different reasons, ranging from unresolved questions of ecclesiastical jurisdiction to theological and procedural reservations.
It would be unjust to overlook the significance of these absences. Yet it would be equally unjust to underestimate what was accomplished. The gathering in Crete was a genuine council, with a substantive body of work, while at the same time revealing the limitations of pan-Orthodox cooperation in its present form. The fact that one Church may decline to attend a common assembly on the grounds that others are absent raises a question that goes beyond procedural arrangements: how is conciliarity to function when the pursuit of unanimity results in paralysis?
In this regard, I continue to regard the initiative of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew as decisive. Taking forward a preparatory process begun under his predecessors, he brought the conciliar undertaking to fruition, assuming the burden of a difficult historic decision. His perseverance was an act of responsibility towards the common life of Orthodoxy.
Today, however, the central question has shifted. The Council of Crete took place. What comes next? Can conciliar gatherings acquire stability and continuity? Can the Churches discuss their differences before those differences develop into ruptures?
Autocephaly and the Temptation of Self-Sufficiency
One of the most profound problems brought to light during the decade following the Council concerns the relationship between autocephaly and the unity of the Church. Autocephaly has both historical and canonical foundations. It is associated with the capacity of a local Church to organise its internal life and respond to the pastoral needs of its faithful. Its value, however, presupposes communion with the other Churches.
The late Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon made a decisive contribution to the contemporary understanding of this relationship. In his theological thought, the Church is a communion of persons centred on the Eucharist. Unity is constitutive of ecclesial existence itself. For this reason, the transformation of autocephaly into a form of ecclesial self-sufficiency—what has been termed “autocephalism”—constitutes a serious distortion of the conciliar ethos.
At the conference in France, Bishop Maximos of the Serbian Patriarchate, in referring to the theological legacy of Metropolitan John of Pergamon, brought this concern once again to the fore. It is indeed remarkable how relevant Zizioulas’s thought remains. Contemporary Orthodoxy comprises numerous autocephalous Churches, yet their unity must also find expression through shared responsibilities, common decisions, and a collective response to crises.
The difficulty becomes greater when ecclesiastical disagreements become entangled with national ambitions or state objectives. The language of faith then risks being employed for purposes alien to the Church’s mission. Instead of healing divisions, conciliarity gives way to the force of competing interests.
The Ukrainian Wound and Moscow’s Responsibility
The ecclesiastical crisis in Ukraine brought these difficulties into particularly sharp relief. The Moscow Patriarchate’s rupture of Eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate in October 2018, and the granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine in 2019, exposed differing understandings of primacy, jurisdiction, and the manner in which decisions are taken within the Orthodox Church.
The war unleashed by the Russian invasion in February 2022 added a human tragedy of immense proportions to this ecclesiastical ordeal. In these circumstances, the public stance adopted by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow gave rise to profound sorrow and serious theological questions. The association of ecclesial witness with the justification of military force creates a painful gulf between the Gospel of peace and the Church’s public image.
A distinction is necessary here. The responsibility of particular ecclesiastical leaders concerns their own decisions and public pronouncements. The Russian Orthodox faithful, with their centuries-old spiritual tradition, their saints and martyrs, and those among them who strive to remain faithful to their conscience, deserve our respect and fraternal love. Criticism of Moscow’s decisions can, and indeed must, coexist with prayer for the restoration of ecclesial communion.
I also find myself wondering how different the situation might be today had more channels of pan-Orthodox dialogue been maintained. History permits few certainties about what might have happened. It does, however, allow us to recognise the cost of prolonged estrangement.
The Conference in France and the Need for Self-Criticism
In my view, the Chantilly conference is of particular value because it approached the Holy and Great Council as an event that continues to call for theological reflection. A council belongs to the living tradition of the Church, within which its texts are studied, interpreted, and tested in practice.
The observations of Metropolitan Job of Pisidia were particularly significant. His reflections on the formulations concerning Orthodoxy’s relations with the rest of the Christian world showed that certain ecclesiological questions still require clearer treatment. Likewise, his remarks on the theology of the human person and the differing pastoral regulations among the autocephalous Churches addressed matters directly related to the daily lives of the faithful.
Here, I believe, lies one of the most fruitful conclusions of the anniversary discussions: honouring the Council of Crete is fully compatible with the critical study of its decisions. Acknowledging its historical importance enables us to discuss frankly its shortcomings, compromises, and unresolved questions.
After all, the six conciliar documents address matters of exceptional importance: fasting, marriage, autonomy, the Orthodox Diaspora, relations with the Christian world, and the mission of the Church in contemporary society. Yet how far have they influenced practice? To what extent have they been subjected to serious study within the local Churches? And how far have they reached the parishes?
From the Council Chambers to the Parish in the Provinces
Here, in Vanato on the island of Zakynthos, in a parish on the southwestern edge of Greece, the distance from the great council chambers may at first appear considerable. And yet the life of the Church is one. The person who comes to our church to light a candle, pray for their family, or seek consolation amid a personal trial belongs to the same ecclesial body whose life is discussed by the Primates and hierarchs.
I often wonder what such a person knows about the Council of Crete. What have we, as clergy, explained to them? How much effort have we made to convey the great theological concepts of unity, conciliarity, and ecclesial communion in the language of everyday pastoral ministry?
Our responsibility is real. Conciliarity must also be cultivated within the parish: in the way a parish priest engages in dialogue with those who assist him, listens to people, respects their differing needs, and works towards their common spiritual growth. Ecclesial unity begins to become tangible wherever people learn to live together in love and mutual respect.
Perhaps, indeed, small provincial parishes have something essential to remind the great ecclesiastical assemblies: unity is a daily spiritual discipline. It is cultivated through patience, personal relationships, forgiveness, and a willingness to listen to others. What is articulated in councils is called to take flesh in these humble human encounters.
The Next Council: A Test of Consistency
At Chantilly, a question was also raised that deserves to remain open in our conscience: when will the next Holy and Great Council take place?
The Message of the Council of Crete expressed the intention to continue the conciliar process through the regular convening of similar assemblies. Ten years later, that prospect faces serious difficulties in inter-Orthodox relations. Nevertheless, the need remains. Outstanding questions concerning autocephaly, the Diaspora, primacy, and relations among the local Churches require patient and systematic attention.
The historical responsibility of the Ecumenical Patriarchate for coordinating pan-Orthodox life assumes particular importance here. In 2016, Patriarch Bartholomew demonstrated that a major ecclesiastical initiative can be undertaken even under adverse circumstances. The period ahead will be judged by the capacity to sustain this effort, seeking the broadest possible participation and remaining steadfastly committed to ecclesial communion.
In my first anniversary article, I wished to honour the event of Crete and its legacy. Now, following the conference in France, and with my thoughts turned towards the wounds of contemporary Orthodoxy, I feel a greater need to speak of the responsibility arising from that event. The Council took place. Its texts exist. Its place in history has already begun to take shape. What concerns us now is what follows.
I recall the apostolic words: “For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28). How much humility is required for an ecclesiastical assembly to be able to utter such words! And how great the responsibility to remain faithful to their meaning!
This, ultimately, is what I hope the decade since Crete will yield as its deepest fruit: the desire to meet again as brothers and sisters, bearing our difficulties, our different historical experiences, and our open wounds. May we rediscover what unites us in the same Eucharistic Chalice and work steadfastly to overcome what continues to divide us.
The next Holy and Great Council will undoubtedly have its own date. Its preparation, however, begins now, within the very heart of the Church.
Bibliographical Reference
[1] Panagiotis Kapodistrias, “Ten Years since the Holy and Great Council of Crete” [in Greek], To Vima tis Ekklisias (The Church’s Tribune), Australia, 29 June 2026, online publication: https://greek.vema.com.au/2026/06/29/deka-chronia-apo-tin-agia-kai-megali-synodo-tis-kritis/.
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου