Holy and Great Council

The Fruit of the Holy and Great Council

  • Alberto Melloni

    Alberto Melloni

    Full Professor at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Secretary and Director of the Foundation for Religious Studies (Fscire), Chair holder of the UNESCO Chair on Religious Pluralism and Peace at the University of Rome "La Sapienza"

Published on: July 1, 2016
789
Readers' rating:
0
(0)
Reading Time: 3 minutes

The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church was concluded on Sunday June 26th at Kolymbari, Crete. Within eight days of work, all the typical practices in the history of Synods were experienced: doubt and fermentation, surprises and compromise, conflicts, such as the crisis and the impasse in the final days that brought the Council one step away from failure.

In reality, it wasn’t the absence or the positions of the four Churches (among them the Church of Moscow) which endangered the Council. It was the persistence of a radical faction of the Church of Greece which requested that the other churches not be called “Churches”, including the Catholic Church. At some point, it seemed that the Council was fated to either succumb to this demand or to admit the failure of the Council. In this case, the Council would have given a great gift to the Russian Church, which always recognized the ecclesiastical nature of Catholicism and would have precedence in talks with Rome.

Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon himself intervened to remind all that from the 11th to the 20th century, even in the most heated disagreements, Orthodoxy never denied Rome the title of “Church”. And on the night between Friday and Saturday came the conciliatory solution in the form of a synodal Circular, which summarizes all the documents. It recognizes the “historical name” of the “Christian Churches and Confessions” which in the official translations into English, French, and Russian are referred to as “non orthodox” and binds all of Orthodoxy to dialogue. Something which was not a given.

A brief version of the Circular was read in its abbreviated form during the closing liturgy of the Council, during which the synodal decisions were published. Furthermore, these documents will be sent to the Churches, both those present and absent, for their approval. Hence, the Council closed on a balance which is based on three foundations: the documents, the hall, and the fact that the Council itself took place.

Although the documents were accurate and the product of discussions, they remained just as they were since the closing of the Synaxis of the Primates: texts of compromise, sometimes disappointing, although they contained patristic theology. A few paragraphs – such as that in the Circular which refers to the refugees as an eschatological point, as a reminder of the final judgment of the Gospel of Matthew, or that which is relative to the conciliar nature of the Church – bear a theological mark which can speak to everyone. However, they do not contain constraints of a conservative nature, as was feared initially. And that’s something.

The experience of the Council hall may be more positively assessed. The orthodox metropolitans, just as each bishop, needed time to learn to listen to one another, to oppose, to exert irony, to understand. Eight days, which began after a two-hour liturgy, proved that the procedure of mutual understanding and true brotherhood is possible and fertile, although there isn’t much that can be done in such a short period of time. However, it was enough to unravel “clichés.” And that’s something.

Lastly, the Council was ultimately a success. A success for Metropolitan John Zizioulas, an elder theologian who began to ask for one when Cardinal Martini requested the convention of a Council for the Catholic Church. In contrast to the then Archbishop of Milan, he (Zizioulas) was heard. It was also a success for Metropolitan Emmanuel Adamakis of France, who handled the discussions for the content of the Circular.

But, above all, it was a success for Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, who proved that the function of the primacy of Constantinople may be exercised by giving voice to all, by the consensus of all the Christian churches – this is what the patriarch claimed persistently in his closing speech.

The Council closed with the opening up of new challenges: the first of these involves the absences. The absence of some Churches did not prevent nor did it cancel the Council: but absence should not allowed to become established. The spirituality, the theology, the prayer of the Russian Church is of vital importance for the whole of Christianity: and just as Orthodoxy can not exist without Russia, there can not exist a Russian which is foreign and indifferent to the fate of Orthodoxy. The same applies for Bulgaria, Georgia and Antioch. It has been demonstrated once again that the conciliar way is the one that can bring society where it seems impossible to achieve.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As you’ve reached the conclusion of the article, we have a humble request. The preparation and publication of this article were made possible, in part, by the support of our readers. Even the smallest monthly donation contributes to empowering our editorial team to produce valuable content. Your support is truly significant to us. If you appreciate our work, consider making a donation – every contribution matters. Thank you for being a vital part of our community.

Public Orthodoxy seeks to promote conversation by providing a forum for diverse perspectives on contemporary issues related to Orthodox Christianity. The positions expressed in this essay are solely the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Orthodox Christian Studies Center.

About author

  • Alberto Melloni

    Alberto Melloni

    Full Professor at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Secretary and Director of the Foundation for Religious Studies (Fscire), Chair holder of the UNESCO Chair on Religious Pluralism and Peace at the University of Rome "La Sapienza"

    Alberto Melloni, a distinguished figure in the field of the History of Christianity, serves as Full Professor at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Secretary and Director of the Foundation for Religious Studies (Fscire), Chair holder of the UNESCO Chair on Religi...

    Read author's full bio and see articles by this author

Have something on your mind?

Thanks for reading this article! If you feel that you ready to join the discussion, we welcome high-caliber unsolicited submissions. Essays may cover any topic relevant to our credo – Bridging the Ecclesial, the Academic, and the Political. Follow the link below to check our guidlines and submit your essay.

Proceed to submission page

Rate this publication

Did you find this essay interesting?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

Be the first to rate this essay.

Share this publication

Disclaimer

Public Orthodoxy seeks to promote conversation by providing a forum for diverse perspectives on contemporary issues related to Orthodox Christianity. The positions expressed in the articles on this website are solely the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Orthodox Christian Studies Center.

Attribution

Public Orthodoxy is a publication of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center of Fordham University