THEOLOGIA ORTHODOXA - Babeș-Bolyai University · THEOLOGIA ORTHODOXA Vol. 62, No. 1, June 2017 The Holy and Great Council (2016)

THEOLOGIA ORTHODOXAVol. 62, No. 1, June 2017

The Holy and Great Council (2016)

STUDIAUNIVERSITATISBABEŞ‐BOLYAI

THEOLOGIAORTHODOXA

Vol.62,No.1(June2017)

EDITOR‐IN‐CHIEF:VASILESTANCIU,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,Romania

EXECUTIVEEDITORS:

NICOLAETURCAN,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,RomaniaGABRIELGÂRDAN,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,Romania

EDITORIALBOARD:

IOANCHIRILĂ,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,RomaniaȘTEFANILOAIE,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,RomaniaPHILIPLEMASTERS,McMurryUniversity,UnitedStatesTHEODORNIKOLAOU,Ludwig‐Maximilians‐UniversitätMünchen,GermanyKONSTANTINOSNIKOLAKOPOULOS,Ludwig‐Maximilians‐UniversitätGermanyEUGENPENTIUC,HollyCross,Brooklin,UnitedStatesAcad.IOAN‐AURELPOP,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,RomaniaADOLFMARTINRITTER,Ruprecht‐Karls‐UniversitätHeidelberg,GermanyHANSSCHWARZ,UniversitätRegensburg,GermanyMARIANSIMION,HarvardUniversity,UnitedStatesLUCIANTURCESCU,ConcordiaUniversity,Montreal,Canada

EDITORIALASSISTANT:

RĂZVANPERȘA,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,RomaniaADVISORYBOARD:

MetropolitanANDREIANDREICUȚ,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,Cluj‐Napoca,RomaniaVALERBEL,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,RomaniaDANIELBUDA,LucianBlagaUniversity,Sibiu,RomaniaIOAN‐VASILELEB,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,RomaniaALEXANDRUMORARU,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,RomaniaRADUPREDA,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,RomaniaCRISTIANSONEA,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,RomaniaSTELIANTOFANĂ,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,Romania

PROOFREADERS:

MARKMADELEY,BruxellesADRIANPODARU,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,RomaniaRĂZVANPERȘA,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,RomaniaANIELASILADI,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,RomaniaIOANASONEA,Babes‐BolyaiUniversity,Romania

http://studia.orth.rohttp://www.studia.ubbcluj.ro/serii/th_orth/

EDITORIALOFFICE:EpiscopNicolaeIvanStr.,f.n.,Cluj‐Napoca,Romania,

Email:[email protected](PrincipalContact)

©Photoonthefrontcover:FlorinFlorea

YEAR Volume62(LXII)2017MONTHJUNEISSUE1

PUBLISHEDONLINE:2017‐06‐15PUBLISHEDPRINT:2017‐06‐30

ISSUEDOI:10.24193/subbto.2017.1

Thematic issue

The Holy and Great Council (2016) Guest Editor: Patriciu Dorin Vlaicu

CONTENTS

TheHolyandGreatCouncilofCrete(2016)

VIOREL IONIȚĂ,The Participation of the LocalOrthodox Churches in thePreparatoryProcessof theHolyandGreatSynod–Prerequisite for theReceptionofItsDecisions....................................................................................................5

ALEXANDERRENTEL,ExaminingtheRulesofConsensusfromtheCanonicalPerspective.............................................................................................................................17

ANDRZEJ KUŹMA, TheDocuments of theGreat andHoly Council of 2016Concerning the Inner Life of theOrthodoxChurch.Development of theDocuments’Content............................................................................................................29

RĂZVANPERȘA,TheCanonicalTraditionof theOrthodoxChurchand theHolyandGreatCouncil:betweenReceptionandRejection..................................39

IRIMIEMARGA,TheHolyandGreatCounciloftheOrthodoxyAccordingtoRev.Prof.LiviuStan............................................................................................................73

VENIAMINGOREANU,TheSettlementofCanonicTraditionintheDocument“TheImportanceofFastingandItsObservanceToday”.......................................83

RASTKOJOVIC,TheImportanceofFastingandItsObservanceforTomorrow......103PATRICIUDORINVLAICU,AutonomyandOrthodoxDiasporafromthePoint

ofViewoftheDocumentsAdoptedbytheHolyandGreatCouncil.................115RĂZVANPERȘA,ACanonicalAnalysisof theMostControversialPhraseof

theHolyandGreatCouncil:“TheOrthodoxChurchAcceptstheHistoricalName ofOtherNon‐Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions thatAreNotinCommunionwithHer”...............................................................................131

EMILIAN‐IUSTINIANROMAN,DebatingtheDocumentsoftheHolyandGreatSynodofCrete‐aCanonicalandDisciplinaryApproach.CaseStudy:theArchbishopricofIaşi........................................................................................................159

Varia

BENEDICT(VALENTIN)VESA,TheSoul’sPowersandtheProcessofKnowledgeintheWritingsofSimonTaibuteh:betweenAnatomyandSpirituality.......171

NICHIFORTĂNASE,“ShiningFace”asHiddenandRevealedChristology.........187ADRIANEUGENTRUȚĂ,MysticalExperienceinPaulEvdokimov’sPerspective....217BookReviews

IrinaGorainoff,SfântulSerafimdeSarov.ConvorbireacuMotovilov [SaintSerafim fromSarov. TheConversationwithMotovilov],Translated inRomanianbyHisMostHolinessAndreiAndreicuţ,Cluj‐Napoca:RenaştereaPublishingHouse,2016(MAXIMMORARIU).......................................................227

Protos.Dr.BenedictVesa,Personalităţiduhovniceşticontemporane[Contempo‐raryspiritualpersonalities],1stvolume,Cluj‐Napoca:Renaşterea,2016(MAXIMMORARIU).........................................................................................................229

SUBBTO62,no.1(2017):5‐16DOI:10.24193/subbto.2017.1.01

HOLYANDGREATCOUNCILOFCRETE(2016)

THEPARTICIPATIONOFTHELOCALORTHODOXCHURCHESINTHEPREPARATORYPROCESSOFTHEHOLYANDGREATSYNOD–

PREREQUISITEFORTHERECEPTIONOFITSDECISIONS

VIORELIONIȚĂ*

ABSTRACT.Inthispapertheauthoremphasisesthepreparation,theproceedingsandthereceptionprocessoftheHolyandGreatCouncil,thatisoneofthemostcomplexradiographiesoftheOrthodoxChurchevolutionoutofalateMiddleAgesto the present postmodern challenges. All these challenges have shown that theidentityoftheOrthodoxChurchisensuredthroughherfaithtransmittedthroughtheOrthodoxworship,whichisthewrittenexpressionoftheHolyTradition.Keywords:HolyandGreatCouncil,participation,preparation,reception,Pan‐OrthodoxConferences.

I.ThePreparation,theproceedingsandthereceptionprocessoftheHolyand Great Synod is one of the most complex radiographies of the OrthodoxChurchevolutionoutofalateMiddleAgestothepresentpostmodernchallenges.PrecededbychangesinthelifeoftheOrthodoxChurchesduringthesecondhalfof the nineteenth century, the preparation of this Synod began in the thirddecadeofthelastcenturythroughaseriesofconsultationsbetweenthelocalOrthodox Churches, then emerged formally in 1961 through the first Pan‐OrthodoxConferenceatRhodesandenteredthepracticalPreparationin1976atthefirstPan‐OrthodoxPre‐ConciliarConference.Duringthisperiodofoneandahalfcentury,theOrthodoxChurchwentthroughunprecedentedorganizationalchangesintheemergenceofnewAutocephalousChurchesandelevatingsomeofthemtotherankofPatriarchate.Anotherdevelopmentwasthespreadofthe*Rev.Professor,Bucharest/Geneva.E‐mail:[email protected].

VIORELIONIȚĂ

6

Orthodox traditionworldwide, following themigrationofmillionsof Orthodoxbelievers out of their traditional area into countries outside the Orthodoxcanonicalterritory.ThislatterphenomenonhasledtotheconstitutionoftheOrthodoxDiaspora,whichistothisdayagreatchallengebutalsoamissionarychanceforthelocalOrthodoxChurches.Thus,aChurchreducedtoapoliticalandcultural space, traditionally theChurchof theEast, theOrthodoxChurchhasnowbecomeanuniversalChurchinthegeographicalsenseoftheterm.Inaddition to these developments, most of the local Orthodox Churches weresometimesdramaticallyconfrontedwiththeextremistideologiesandpoliticalsystemsofthetwentiethcentury.AnotherdevelopmentduringthisperiodoftimewastheincreaseofcontactsbetweentheOrthodoxChurcheswithotherChristiancommunitiesandotherreligions. All these challenges have shown that the identity of the OrthodoxChurchisensuredthroughherfaithtransmittedthroughtheOrthodoxworship,whichisthewrittenexpressionoftheHolyTradition.AstheOrthodoxworshipremainedthesameinanyculturalcontext,thisdemonstratedthattheOrthodoxfaithwasnotaffectedbytheculturesinwhichitwasadaptedandaffirmedduringthetwentiethcentury.Butthisculturaldiversityhasledtoadiversificationanddevelopment ofOrthodox theological thinking especially in theDiaspora. Thus,overthepastcenturyonehasnoticedanenrichmentoftheOrthodoxTheology,whichwasreceivedbutnotuniformlyinallOrthodoxMotherChurches.Allthechallenges the Orthodox Churches were facing in this period of time havehighlighted the need for the formulation of common answers of all thesechurches, which imposed the idea of the preparation and convocation of aSynodforthewholeOrthodoxChurch. II.DuringthepreparationsforaSynodofthewholeOrthodoxChurchtheattentionoftheologiansandoftheSynodsofthelocalOrthodoxChurcheswasmostly focusedon identifying issuestobediscussedat thisSynod.AfterproposalsofthemesmadefromseveralOrthodoxChurches,astheonesbythePrimate Metropolitan Miron Cristea of the Romanian Orthodox Church in1920,1theEcumenicalPatriarchateheld,from8to23June1930attheVatopediMonastery onMount Athos, an Inter‐Orthodox Preparatory Commissionwhichapprovedalistof17themes,including“mosturgentissues”2tobediscussedataPro‐Synod,whichwasanintermediaryPan‐Orthodox level forthepreparationoftheSynodofthewholeOrthodoxChurch.Thesethemeswererecommended1GheorgheSoare,“DelaVatopedilaRhodos,”BisericaOrtodoxăRomânăLXXIX,no.9‐10(1961):844.2SeethelistatViorelIonita,TowardstheHolyandGreatSynodoftheOrthodoxChurch.TheDecisionsofthePan‐OrthodoxMeetingssince1923until2009,trans.RemusRus,StudiaOecumenicaFriburgensia62(Basel:FriedrichReinhardVerlag,2014),112‐113.

THEPARTICIPATIONOFTHELOCALORTHODOXCHURCHESINTHEPREPARATORYPROCESS…

7

to be studied in each local Orthodox Church. The next step depended on theanswers of the Churches which were too slow in coming, so that thecontinuation of the just initiated Synodical process was blocked by theoutbreak of World War II. The Ecumenical Patriarchate relaunched thepreparatoryprocessofaSynod for thewholeOrthodoxChurchby organizingthefirstPan‐OrthodoxConferenceatRhodes,from24Septemberto1October1961, which adopted a catalog of themes grouped in 8 categories.3 Each ofthesegroupsincludedalongerorshorterlistofsubtopics,whichintotalcovertheentireorthodoxtheology. Realizing that the proposed list at Rhodes was too long, the FourthPan‐OrthodoxConference,heldfrom8to16June1968attheOrthodoxCenteroftheEcumenicalPatriarchateinChambésy‐Geneva,Switzerland,proposedtodrawupashortlistwiththemesrecommendedbyall localOrthodoxChurches.Thisconferencealsoproposedthatthetitleofthecouncilinpreparationshallbe:TheHolyandGreatSynodoftheOrthodoxChurch.4Thesameconferencerecommendedtothe Ecumenical Patriarchate to convene a series of Pan‐Orthodox Pre‐ConciliarConferences,namethatwasmeanttoreplacetheoneofPro‐Synod.Thus,thefinallist of themes for the Holy and Great Synod was adopted by the First Pan‐Orthodox Pre‐Conciliar Conference held from21 to 28November 1976 at theOrthodoxCenterofChambésy.Thatlistincludedthefollowingtenthemes:

1. OrthodoxDiaspora2. Autocephalyanditsmannerofproclamation3. Autonomyanditsmannerofproclamation4. Dyptychs(namelytheorderofpriorityofthechurchesintheirliturgical

commemoration)5. Theissueofthenewcalendar6. Impedimentstomarriage7. Readaptingthechurchdispositionsconcerningfasting8. RelationsoftheOrthodoxChurchwiththerestoftheChristianworld9. OrthodoxyandEcumenicalMovement10. Thecontributionof the localOrthodoxChurches to therealizationof

theidealsofpeace,freedom,brotherhoodandloveamongpeoplesandtheremovalofracialdiscrimination.5

3Asfollows:I.FaithandDogma;II.TheDivineWorship,III.ChurchAdministrationandOrder;IV. The Relations of the Orthodox Churches among themselves; V. The Relations of theOrthodoxChurchwiththeotherChristianWorld;VI.OrthodoxyintheWorld;VII:TheologicalThemesandVIII.SocialProblems(seeIonita,Towards…,125‐130).

4LiviuStan,“ApatraConferințăPanortodoxă,”BisericaOrtodoxăRomânăLXXXVI,no.7‐8 (1968):873‐880.

5SeeIonita,Towards...,147.

VIORELIONIȚĂ

8

III.ThefirstPan‐OrthodoxPre‐ConciliarConferencefoundthatOrthodoxChurches,whichhaveundertakenthetasktopreparedraftsoftextsforoneofthe themes chosen for theSynod, sent to theofficeof theSecretariat for thepreparationoftheHolyandGreatSynodtextsadoptedbytheHolySynodsoftheirChurchesasfinaldecisions.Therefore,theconferencerecommendedthatthechurchesresponsiblefordevelopingdraftsforthethemesshall“submitthefruitsoftheirworkpurelyasascientificresultandnotasanofficialposition,inordertoleavefreespacefordiscussionanddialogueatthepan‐orthodoxlevel.”However,somechurcheshavedisregardedthisrecommendationandcontinued–uptothelaststageofpreparationoftheHolyandGreatSynod‐tobringtheirproposalstothedrafttextsintheformoftextsformallyadoptedbytheHolySynodsoftheirchurches.Ifthedelegationsofthesechurchesdidn’tfindexactlytheirproposalsinthetextssubmittedforadoptiontheyrefusedtosignthosetexts,whichconstitutedamajorobstacletoaconstructivedebateatthepan‐orthodoxlevel. ThesecondPan‐OrthodoxPre‐ConciliarConferenceheldattheOrthodoxCenterofChambésyfrom3to12September1982,adoptedthedrafttextsconcerningtwoofthetenthemesfromthelistadoptedin1976,namely:1.Impedimentstomarriageand2.Theissueofthenewcalendar.ThisconferencesettheagendafortheThirdPan‐OrthodoxPre‐ConciliarConferencethatwouldhavetotreatthelastfourthemesofthe1976list.Duringtheconferencein1982itbecomeevidentthattherewasnoregulationtoconducttheseconferenceswhichwereguidedbythe“Rules of conductandwork of the firstPan‐OrthodoxConference” in 1961,6 butwhichdidnolongercorrespondtothenewformatofthemeetings.Alsoduringtheconferencein1982itwasrecommendedtoestablishtheofficialworkinglanguagesattheseconferences.Therefore,the1982ConferencemandatedtheInter‐Orthodox preparatory Commission to draw up a draft Regulation oftheseconferences. After 1982, the preparation of the Holy and Great Synod continuedsteadily,sothatonlyafterfouryearsitwaspossibletoconvoketheThirdPan‐Orthodox Pre‐Conciliar Conference held at Chambésy from 20 October to6November1986.Accordingtothemandatesetbythepreviousconference,this meeting adopted the draft texts of the four themes appointed to it inthefollowingorder:1.Thecontributionof the localOrthodoxChurches to therealizationoftheidealsofpeace,freedom,brotherhoodandloveamongpeoplesandtheremovalofracialdiscrimination2.OrthodoxyandtheEcumenicalMovement;3.Relations of theOrthodox Churchwith the rest of the Christianworld and4.Readapting theChurchdispositionsconcerning fasting.Regarding the latter6SeethetextoftheseRegulationsatAnastosiosKallis,AufdemWegzueinemHeiligenundGroßenKonzil.EinQuellen‐undArbeitsbuchzurorthodoxenEkklesiologie(Münster:TheophanoVerlag,2013),246.


9

issue,inordertoavoidtheimpressionthattheOrthodoxChurchwouldtrytochangethefastingprinciples, theconferencechangedits titleas follows:Theimportanceoffastinganditsobservancetoday. The1986ConferenceadoptedalsothetextofTheRegulationofthePre‐ConciliarPan‐OrthodoxConferences, consistingof19articles,whichstated, interalia, thattheofficialworking languagesof theseconferencesare:Greek,RussianandFrench.AsforthecharacterofthedecisionsoneachissueontheagendaoftheSynod,theRegulationprovidesthatthey“haveapreparatorycharacterfortheHolyandGreatSynod.Therefore,followingtheauthenticOrthodoxtraditiononthetopics discussed, they do not have theauthority to engage directly the ChurchesbeforetheHolyandGreatSynodhasruled.”ThisRegulationalsostatesthateverydrafttextofthetenthemesistobeadoptedonlybyconsensusorunanimity.Forif unanimity is not reached on one of these topics, the article 17th of theRegulationprovidesthat:“Ifnounanimityofthedelegationisreachedonacertaintheme in the plenary session, a decision in the matter is postponed and theSecretariat for thepreparationof theHolyandGreatSynod sends the theme forcomplementarystudy,elaborationandpreparation,accordingtotheproceduresetupatthePan‐Orthodoxlevel.ThethemethuspostponedisplacedattheheadofthelistofthefuturePre‐ConciliarPan‐OrthodoxConferenceandisexaminedassuchbytheInter‐OrthodoxPreparatoryCommission.Ifthistimenounanimityisreachedonthe themeunderdiscussionor ifalldelegationsreject theproposalsby the Inter‐OrthodoxPreparatoryCommission,after the firstand the second examination inplenary session, the Secretariat for thepreparationof theHolyandGreat Synodcompletes the file constitutedat this stageand sends itoncemore, following theprocedurementionedabove.”7 Thus, theRegulationof thePan‐orthodoxPre‐ConciliarConferencesdidnot foresee thepossibilityofexcludingone theme fromtheagendaof theHolyandGreatSynodevenifitwasnotpossibletoachieveunanimityonthedrafttextonthattheme,butprovidedthattheSecretariatforthepreparationoftheSynodshould insist until the desired unanimity is obtained. The Pan‐Orthodox Pre‐ConciliarConferencestogetherwiththeInter‐OrthodoxPreparatoryCommissionandtheSecretariatbecameanintrovertedmechanismandoperatedbytherulesadoptedbythemselves.Accordingtotheseprinciples,severalchurchdelegationsinsistedtocontinuethepreparatoryprocessuntildrafttextsforalltentopicssetfortheHolyandGreatSynodwillbeadopted. After the3rdPan‐OrthodoxPre‐ConciliarConferencethepreparationof the Holy and Great Synod came to a standstill, first because it was notpossible to reachunanimity on the first four topics from the list adopted in1976. The stagnation of this process was also due to some inter‐Orthodox7SeeIonita,Towards...,182.

VIORELIONIȚĂ

10

tensionsaswellastoquiteimportantchangesinattitudeofmanylocalOrthodoxChurchesafterthefallofcommunism,bothinrespecttoethical‐socialissues,and especially in their relations with the Ecumenical Movement and otherChristiancommunities.

IV.OvercomingthisimpassewaspossiblethroughthedecisionsoftheSynaxisofPrimatesoftheOrthodoxChurchesinFener/Istanbulfrom10to12October 2008, during the commemoration of “St. Apostol Paul, Apostle to theGentiles”.Themessagepublishedattheendofthismeeting,wheretheRomanianOrthodox Churchwas represented byHis EminenceMetropolitan Laurentiu ofTransylvania,statedthat“wewelcometheproposaloftheEcumenicalPatriarchateto continueduring2009 ... thepreparationof theHolyandGreatCouncil.”8Thisdecision led to the organization of the fourth Pan‐Orthodox Pre‐ConciliarConferencefrom6to13June2009,9convenedtodiscussonlyoneissueandnotfourasprovidedforbythepreviousconference.The2009conferencediscussedtheissueoftheOrthodoxDiasporaandadoptedthedrafttextonit.TheSynaxisfromOctober2008alsodecidedthatthePan‐OrthodoxpreparatoryprocessfortheHolyandGreatSynodshallbeattendedexclusivelybyrepresentativesoftheAutocephalousOrthodoxChurchesandnotbythoseoftheAutonomousOrthodoxChurches, as had happened so far. After 2009, the Inter‐Orthodox preparatoryCommission has been convened on still two occasions, namely in December2009andFebruary2011,butitadoptedadrafttextonlyontheissueofAutonomyandnothingmore.Thus, thepreparationof theHolyandGreatSynodhasonceagainstalledandtheInter‐OrthodoxPreparatoryCommissionwasdissolved. TheimpassewasagainovercomebythedecisionsoftheSynaxisofthePrimatesoftheOrthodoxChurches,thistimemeetingfrom6to9March2014,againatFener/Istanbul.AdirectresultofthedecisionsatthismeetingwastheestablishmentofanInter‐OrthodoxSpecialCommissionforthepreparationofthe Holy and Great Synod, which worked between October 2014 and April2015.ThisCommissionhad themandate toreview the following three texts,whichwerealreadyadoptedalmost30yearsbeforeandneededtoberevised:1)OrthodoxChurchand theEcumenicalMovement 2)Relationsof theOrthodoxChurchwith other Christian Communities and 3) The contribution by the localOrthodoxChurchestotherealizationofthe idealsofpeace, freedom,brotherhoodandloveamongpeoplesandtheremovalofracialdiscrimination.Atthesametime,the Special Commission had the mandate to supervise the other three texts8http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/156.aspx#1.9SeeViorelIoniță,“A4‐aConferințăPanortodoxăPresinodală,Chambésy/Geneva,6‐12iunie2009,”StudiiTeologiceV,no.2(2009):235a.f.


11

adoptedbythePan‐OrthodoxPre‐ConciliarConferencesin1982respectivelyin1986,namely:1)Theissueofthecalendar;2)Theimportanceoffastingandits observance today and 3) Impediments tomarriage. The Special CommissionreviewedthethreethemesmentionedandoversawthethemeonFasting.Onthecalendarissueandontheimpedimentstomarriage,theSpecialCommissionstatedin its final communiqué that these “textshavenotbeenamended for the lackofconsensus from themembersof theCommissionon theproposedchanges.2.TheThemes'Autocephalyandthemodusofitsproclamation'andthe'Diptychs'…werenotconsideredduetolackoftime”.10TheworkofthisSpecialCommissionwashampered firstlybydifferentunderstandingof itsmandate in respect to theexpressionsto“review”andto“supervise”thetextsbecause,whilethechairpersonallowednochangeonthetextstobesupervisedseveraldelegatesconsideredthatthesetextsmustbeupdatedastheother,sotobechanged. AccordingtothedecisionsoftheMarch2014Synaxis,assoonastheworkoftheSpecialCommissionwasdone,therefollowedtheFifthPan‐OrthodoxPre‐Conciliar Conference, organized at the Chambésy Orthodox Centre from 10‐17October 2015. This conference adopted the draft texts to the following threethemes:1)Autonomyand theMeansbyWhich it isProclaimed 2)TheOrthodoxChurchandtherestoftheChristianworld,11and3)Theimportanceoffastinganditsobservancetoday.Onlyafterthisapproval,thetextscouldbepublished,tobemadeavailable toallOrthodoxbelieversandthensentdirectlyto theHolyandGreat Synod of the Orthodox Church for approval. In connectionwith the textentitled: “Themissionof theOrthodoxChurch in thecontemporaryworld”whichwasadoptedonlyby12ofthe14delegationspresent,theConferencenotedthatthis textwill bepresented to thenext Synaxisof thePrimatesof theOrthodoxChurches,tothefollow‐up.The5thPan‐OrthodoxPre‐ConciliarConferencemadeanimportantcontributiontothepreparationoftheHolyandGreatSynodoftheOrthodoxChurch,butstressedatthesametime,thattherewerestillmanyissuestobesettledinthepreparatoryprocessfortheHolyandGreatSynodoftheOrthodoxChurch.ThiswashighlightedmainlybythefactthatduringthislastPan‐OrthodoxPre‐Conciliar Conference as well as during the Synaxis of the Primates of theOrthodoxChurchesinJanuary2016severaldelegationsspecificallyrequestedtocontinuethepreparationforthisSynoduntildrafttextswillbeadoptedforalltenthemesontheagendaoftheHolyandGreatSynod.ThisattitudeclearlyexpressedthefactthatnotallOrthodoxChurcheswerepreparedfortheSynod.10ViorelIoniță,SfântulșiMareleSinodalBisericiiOrtodoxe.Documentepregătitoare(București:Basilica,2016),48.

11Inthisformulationwereputtogetherthedrafttextsoftwotopicsnamely:1,RelationsoftheOrthodoxChurchwiththeotherChristianworldand2.OrthodoxyandEcumenicalMovement.

VIORELIONIȚĂ

12

Ontheotherhand,theresumptionofthepreparationfortheHolyandGreatSynodin2009,i.e.after23yearsofbreak,revealedadiscontinuityofitespeciallythroughthefactthatthe14AutocephalousOrthodoxChurcheswererepresented now by new delegations in other ways than before the politicalchangesinEasternEurope.AfirstdifficultywhichconfrontedthepreparationoftheHolyandGreatSynodduringthisperiodwasthatdiscussionsonthedrafttexts often took the form of a confrontation between the delegations of theEcumenical Patriarchate and theRussianOrthodox Church. In such situationsthereemergedtwogroups,thefirstconsistingofChurchesofGreektradition(theEcumenical Patriarchate, thePatriarchate of Alexandria, Patriarchate ofJerusalem, the Church of Cyprus, the Church of Greece, and often also theOrthodoxChurchofAlbania) and the secondof the Slavonic tradition (RussianPatriarchate,BulgarianOrthodoxChurch,OrthodoxChurchofPoland,OrthodoxChurchintheCzechLandsandSlovakRepublic,aswellastheOrthodoxChurchofGeorgia, althoughnot of Slavonic tradition). The SerbianOrthodox Church,representedbybishopswhoknewverywellbothGreekandRussian,wasmostlyseeking tomediatebetween the twopositions.Thedelegationof theAntiochianPatriarchatewasoftendeterminedbyitsmembershiptotheApostolicPatriarchatesandmost often votedwith the first group. In such cases, the delegation of theRomanianOrthodox Church did not automatically join a particular group, butadoptedherattitudedependingonthesubjectmatter. Draft texts thatwere tobediscussedandadoptedby the last twoPan‐Orthodox Pre‐Conciliar Conferenceswere first prepared by the Inter‐OrthodoxPreparatory Commission, respectively between 2014 and 2015 by the SpecialInter‐OrthodoxCommissionforthepreparationoftheHolyandGreatSynod.Atthattime,almostall14AutocephalousOrthodoxChurcheswererepresentedbothin the Preparatory Commission as well as in the Pan‐Orthodox Pre‐ConciliarConferencesbythesameheadsofdelegationsaccompaniedalmostalwaysbythesameconsultants,exceptthatatthetop‐leveldelegationswereofficiallyformedbytwobishops.Thepresenceofthesameheadsofdelegationsensuredcontinuity,butparadoxicallythesamedelegateswhoadoptedthedrafttextsatpreparatorylevel attacked them only few months later at the Pan‐Orthodox level. Thisphenomenonindicatedtheriskthatthosedelegationswhichadoptedandsignedthe decisions taken at the Pan‐Orthodox Pre‐Conciliar Conferenceswould thenattacktherespectivetextsattheHolyandGreatSynod. TheorganizationoftheSynaxisofthePrimatesoftheOrthodoxChurchesfrom21to28January2016attheOrthodoxCenteroftheEcumenicalPatriarchateinChambésy,wasplannedbytheSynaxisofMarch2014.ThemeetingoftheOrthodoxPrimatesinJanuary2016wasthefirstwhichtookoverthetasksofaPan‐OrthodoxPre‐ConciliarConferenceinthesensethatitdiscussedandadopteddrafttexts


13

ofthetwofollowingthemes:1.TheMissionoftheOrthodoxChurchinToday’sWorldand2.TheMysteryofmarriageand its impediments.This last textwasnotsignedbytheGeorgianOrthodoxChurchdelegation ledbyHisBeatitudeCatholicosandPatriarchEliasII,forthisdelegationdidnotaccepttheideaofapplyingtheconceptofChurchoikonomiatoInter‐Christianmarriages.However,thistextwasconsideredasadoptedandrecommendedtobepresentedtotheHolyandGreatSynod.Secondly,theSynaxisofChambésydecidedtoremovethe following three topics from the agenda of the Holy and Great Synod:1.Autocephaly, 2.Calendarand3.Diptychs, because they “werenotapprovedunanimously throughoutmany successivemeetings of the preparatory Inter‐OrthodoxCommissions tobe finallyapprovedbyoneof thePan‐OrthodoxPre‐ConciliarConferences”.AndabouttheissueoftheCalendar,theSynaxisheldthat“it isappropriate that everyChurch feels free to implementwhat it considersproper for the spiritual formationof theirparishioners,butwithout changingthedateofcommoncelebrationofEasterbyalltheOrthodoxChurches.”12 OntheagendafortheHolyandGreatSynodsixtopicswerethuskeptwhich covered actually seven points of the list adopted in 1976, for two ofthemweremergedintoasingletext.SomeofthedrafttextsonthesixtopicslistedontheagendaoftheHolyandGreatSynodwerediscussedduringmorethanthreedecadesintheOrthodoxChurches.UpontheadoptionofdrafttextsonthesesubjectsbyoneofthePan‐OrthodoxPre‐ConciliarConferences,thosetextswere published, studied and endorsed by theHoly Synods of the localOrthodoxChurches.Thus,thedrafttextsfortheHolyandGreatSynodalwaysfullymirroredtheteachingoftheOrthodoxChurchontherespectivethemes. Finally,theJanuary2016SynaxisadoptedthetextoftheOrganizationandWorkingProcedureof theHolyandGreatSynodof theOrthodoxChurch.ThisSynaxisalsodecidedontheprecisedatesandvenueoftheSynod,namelyfrom18to26June2016attheOrthodoxAcademyofCreteandnotintheSaintIrene Church from Istanbul as proposed by the Synaxis ofMarch2014. TheSynaxis meeting of January 2016 concluded in an atmosphere of excitement,mostparticipantsbeingconvincedthatthelongawaitedHolyandGreatSynodoftheOrthodoxChurchwilltakeplaceforsure.

V. However, several issues remained unresolved, including themosturgentonewhichwastheneedfortherestorationofcommunionbetweenthePatriarchatesofAntiochandJerusalem, interruptedin2013onthegroundthatthe latter has established a diocese in Qatar, which belongs to the canonicalterritoryofthePatriarchateofAntioch.HisAllHolinesstheEcumenicalPatriarchtriedunsuccessfully tosolve thisproblemduringtheSynaxisatChambésy.The12Ibid.,79

VIORELIONIȚĂ

14

EcumenicalPatriarchatethenproposedtosetupajointcommitteeofexpertsfrombothChurches,whichwouldhave to find thesolutionof reconciliation,but that unfortunately did not happen.Moreover, the representatives of thePatriarchate of Antioch have firmly stated that unless this issue is resolved,theirChurchwouldnotattendtheSynod.ThiswasofficiallyannouncedbythePatriarchate of Antioch on June 6, 2016, immediately after the EcumenicalPatriarchate announced in a press release that the resolution of the disputebetween the two Apostolic Patriarchates will take place after the Synod ofCrete.

A secondproblemon theway of preparation for theHoly andGreatSynodwas the fact thatuntil January2016 theSynodal themeswerealmostcompletelyunknownamongthefaithfulandevenamongtheclergyinthe localOrthodoxChurches.Thelongwayofthepreparatoryprocesswasleadinguptoageneralperceptionthatthiscouncilwouldnottakeplacesoonandconsequentlytothelackofinterestinitsthemes.Recently,aRomanCatholictheologianfromGermanynotedthat„curiouslythePre‐Conciliar'process'enjoyedamuchgreaterinterest in theWest than in the local Orthodox Churches ... in the 90s, theSynodaldrafttextsadoptedbythenwerediscussedandanalyzedintensivelyinseminars”13atFacultiesofTheologyofthiscountry.Indeed,theissueoftheHolyandGreatSynodwasknownuntilthebeginningof2016almostexclusivelyintheveryrestrictedcirclesofthosedirectlyinvolvedinthepreparatoryprocess.

Shortly after the publication of the January 2016 Synaxis decisions,interestinthetopicsandcompositionoftheHolyandGreatSynodwasexpressedalmostexclusivelyinconservativecirclesopposedtothecouncil.OneofthemaincausesofthiseventhasoriginatedintheconfrontationbetweentwogroupsofGreekscholars,onearoundHisEminenceMetropolitanJoannisofPergamon(Zizioulas)and the other around the followers of late Prof. Ioannis Romanides (1927‐2001).MetropolitanJoanniswaswronglyconsideredtheauthorofproblematicformulations‐suchastheconceptofthehumanpersonfromthetextonMission–andespeciallyofthosefromthetextonrelationswithotherChristianchurches.Argumentsagainst the themes and convocation of theHoly andGreat Synodhavespreadthroughconferencesandespeciallythroughtheinternetbeyondthe Greek context without studying carefully the draft texts adopted at thePan‐orthodoxlevel.

A third problem arising on theway of preparation for the Holy andGreatSynodwasduetothemeetingbetweenPatriarchKirillandPopeFrancisattheairportinHavana,Cuba,onFebruary12,2016,wherethetwopontiffs

13 Johannes Oeldemann, “Die Heilige und Große Synode der Orthodoxen kirche. Eine ersteEinordnungauskatholischerSicht,”ÖkumenischeRudschau,no.1(2017):49.


15

haveadoptedajointstatement,whichwedonotquestion.Butthematteroffactisthatthismeetingcausedthefirstactionsofcanonicaldisobedienceofsomebishopstotheirprimate.Canonicalattitudeofdisobediencewasquicklyintegratedinto an amalgamandwere transferred to the different canonical territories onissues related to the Holy and Great Synod. In this way was relaunched withunprecedentedviolencetheoldissuerelatedtotherelationshipoftheOrthodoxChurchtoChristiancommunitiesintheworldtoday.Thisissuewasneverclarifiedenoughinthesechurches.Thedebatearoundthisissuehasbeenoneofthemainreasons14thatledtheHolySynodoftheBulgarianOrthodoxChurchtoannounce,onJune1,2016,itsdecisionnottoparticipateintheHolyandGreatSynod.ThesamereasonsledtheOrthodoxChurchofGeorgiatoannounceonJune10,2016,andthentheRussianOrthodoxChurchon13JunethesameyearthattheywillnotparticipateintheHolyandGreatSynod,althoughthesechurcheshadpublishedontheinternetthelistsoftheirdelegatesdesignatedtoparticipateinthisSynod.

Finally,afourthprobleminthepreparationofthisSynodwasitconstantlybeingcomparedwiththesevenEcumenicalCouncils.Fromthiscomparisontherewere born expectations called by someOrthodox theologians “maximalist”15 inrelationtotheHolyandGreatSynod,namelytheexpectationthatthiscouncilwillmake decisions as important as those taken by the Ecumenical Councils. ThisvisionwasduetothefactthatuntilJanuary2016theprofileoftheHolyandGreatsynodhadnotbeendefined.DuringChambésySynaxis,severalprimatesstressedthat this councilwill be an Ecumenical Council. Themost important role here,however,wasthatofHisBeatitudePatriarchDaniel,bystatingthatthiscouncilshouldbeconsideredas“animportanthistoriceventtodeveloptheSynodalpracticeatthePan‐Orthodoxlevel.”16InrespecttothedecisionstobetakenbytheHolyandGreatSynod,HisBeatitudePatriarchDanielsaidalreadyinthespringof2016thatit“won’tformulatenewdogmasorcanonsbutitwouldliketoreaffirm,incommunionandco‐responsibility,theholyandlivinglightoftheOrthodoxfaith,inaworldinspiritualcrisisofguidanceandideal.“17

In connectionwith the preparation of theHoly andGreat Synodof theOrthodox Church, as it happened also during the course of this council, therelationship between the delegations of different local Orthodox Churches hasalwaysbeenanimatedbythespiritofbrotherhoodandoftheawarenessthatallofthembelongtotheoneandthesameChurch.AllmeetingsatthePan‐OrthodoxlevelwereopenedandclosedwiththecelebrationoftheDivineLiturgywhichall14SeeMartinIllert,“DieBulgarischeOrthodoxeKircheunddieHeiligeundGroßeSynode,”ÖkumenischeRudschau,no.1(2017):42a.f.

15GeorgiosVlantis,“DieAngstvordemGeist.DasHeiligeundGroßeKonzilunddieorthodoxenAnti‐Ökumeniker,”ÖkumenischeRudschau,no.1(2017):39.

16Ionita,SfântulșiMareleSinod...,75.17Ibid.,7.

VIORELIONIȚĂ

16

sharedtogether,evenifsomeofthemhaddifferentviewsonsomeofthetopicsdiscussed.Lookingmoreclosely,thecontroversialviewsbetweensomedelegatesdidnotrelatetofundamentalaspectsoftheOrthodoxChristianfaithandusuallythe delegates with different opinions behaved toward each other beyond thesessionsasfriends.IalwayshadtheimpressionthatifOrthodoxdelegationshadsufficienttimeavailabletheywouldhavehadreachedagreaterconsensus.Insomespecificcases,therewasalsosomeprideandpersonalambitiontobeovercome.Inotherwords,inthesepreparations,whichwereanintegralpartoftheSynodalpractice,itwasobviousthattherepresentativesoftheOrthodoxChurcheshavesucceeded in developingmore andmore a culture of dialogue. Thus, the drafttextsonthetopicsontheagendaoftheHolyandgreatCouncilwerecompletelyalongthefaithalwaysconfessedbytheoneOrthodoxChurch.

REFERENCES

Illert,Martin.“DieBulgarischeOrthodoxeKircheunddieHeiligeundGroßeSynode.”ÖkumenischeRudschau,no.1(2017).

Ioniță,Viorel.“A4‐aConferințăPanortodoxăPresinodală,Chambésy/Geneva,6‐12 iunie2009.”StudiiTeologiceV,no.2(2009):235a.f.

Ioniță, Viorel. Sfântul șiMarele Sinod al Bisericii Ortodoxe.Documente pregătitoare.București:Basilica,2016.

Ionita,Viorel.TowardstheHolyandGreatSynodoftheOrthodoxChurch.TheDecisionsofthePan‐OrthodoxMeetingssince1923until2009.TranslatedfromRomanianbyRemusRus.StudiaOecumenicaFriburgensia62.Basel:FriedrichReinhardVerlag,2014.

Kallis,Anastosios.AufdemWegzueinemHeiligenundGroßenKonzil.EinQuellen‐undArbeitsbuchzurorthodoxenEkklesiologie.Münster:TheophanoVerlag,2013.

Oeldemann,Johannes.“DieHeiligeundGroßeSynodederOrthodoxenkirche.EineersteEinordnungauskatholischerSicht.”ÖkumenischeRudschau,no.1(2017).

Soare,Gheorghe.“De laVatopedi laRhodos.”BisericaOrtodoxăRomânăLXXIX,no.9‐10(1961).

Stan,Liviu.“ApatraConferintăPanortodoxă.”BisericaOrtodoxăRomânăLXXXVI,no.7‐8(1968).

Vlantis, Georgios. “Die Angst vor dem Geist. Das Heilige und Große Konzil und dieorthodoxenAnti‐Ökumeniker.”ÖkumenischeRudschau,no.1(2017).


EXAMININGTHERULESOFCONSENSUSFROMTHECANONICALPERSPECTIVE

ALEXANDERRENTEL*

ABSTRACT. The rules of consensusposedproblems for theHoly andGreatCouncil both prior to the council and during. This paper explores some ofthesereasonsandexaminesthecanonicalwitnessforaclearerunderstandingofconsensuswithinthecanonicaltradition.Thepaperconcludeswithacallforgreaterconciliaractivity inorder to fosteramorerobustcultureof consensuswithintheOrthodoxChurch.Keywords:canonlaw,consensus,eucharisticecclesiology.

1.OntheRequirementforConsensusAttheirSynaxisinChambesy,Switzerland,January2016,theprimatesof

theautocephalousOrthodoxChurchesadoptedatextentitled,OrganizationandWorkingProcedureoftheHolyandGreatCounciloftheOrthodoxChurch.ThistextwastoguidetheworkfortheHolyandGreatCouncil,whichwaseventuallyheldinCreteinJune2016.1Akeycomponentofthisdocumentistherequirementforunanimity for theapprovalofany textsoramendments.2 In fact, thedocumentspecifies that the approval of any textmust be unanimous for it to have “pan‐Orthodoxauthority.”TheprimatesoftheChurcheswerewellwithinthescopeoftheirministrytoadoptproceduresfortherunningofthecouncil;nothinginthecanonicaltraditionforbidstheadoptionofsuchrules,andconsensusasarulefordecision‐makinghasalonghistoryintheChurch.Whileitwouldbeanachronistic* Assistant Professor in Canon Law and the John and Paraskeva Skvir Lecturer in PracticalTheology,St.Vladimir’sOrthodoxTheologicalSeminary.E‐mail:[email protected].

1 Symeonides, N. Symeonides (ed.), Toward theHoly and Great Council: Decisions and Texts(GreekandEnglish)(NewYork:FaithMattersSeries2a,2016),116‐135.

2SeeArticle11.2,“ModificationsofTexts”:“Attheconclusionofdeliberations,theapprovalofanychangeisexpressed,accordingtopan‐Orthodoxprocedures,bytheconsensusofthedelegationsofeach autocephalous Orthodox Church. This means that an amendment that is not approvedunanimouslyshallnotbepassed”;Symeonides,Decisions,131.Article13,“AdoptionandSigningofTexts”:“ThetextsontheCouncil’sdailyagendathatareapprovedunanimously…shallpossessthefollowingauthority:…2.Possessingpan‐Orthodoxauthority…”;Symeonides,Decisions,133.

ALEXANDERRENTEL

18

toclaimthattheCouncilofJerusalemdescribedintheBookofActswasacouncillikeallsubsequentcouncils,thedescriptionofthiscouncildidprovideaparadigmfortheChurch.TheparticularphrasingoftheApostolicdecree,“Itseemedgoodto theHoly Spirit and to us (Acts 15.28),” expresses the two‐fold requirementfollowedbytheChurchthroughoutthecenturiesthatanythingarrivedatbytheconciliarprocessmustbeconsistentwiththerevelation,manifestedintheconsensusarrivedatamongstthoseintheChurch.TheseseeminglypracticalrequirementsemergefromtheconvictionthattheChurchisthebodyofChrist,wherehumansareunitedwithJesusChristandeachotherbythegraceoftheHolySpirit.Inthisimage,thisearlydefinitionofChurch,onlyunityispossible.

1.1.ConsensusandDisunityThe scepter of consensus being used not as a method of arriving at

decisions and thus a sign of authenticity, but as a veto over the proceedings,however,loomedlargepriortothecouncil.Andastheconveningofthecouncildrewnear, thevery ideaofconsensusposeddifficultiestothoseChurcheswhodidnotcometothecouncil,andalsotothoseChurcheswhodidcomeandfoundtheinsistenceonconsensustobeoverlyburdensome.Sowhathadbeenrumorsandthinlyveiledthreatsinfactcametopass,andfourlocalChurcheschosenottocometothecouncil.CallsfromthedifferentChurchesforapostponementofthecouncil,orevenanadjournment,weremade,becausewithallthelocalChurchesnotpresent,defactomeantthatnoconsensusoftheOrthodoxChurchescouldbereached.Questionsevenarosefromwithinthecouncilitselfabouttherequirementforconsensus,notonlyinreactiontothoseChurchesthatdidnotcome,butalsoinregardtothedifficultiesinherentinarrivingataconsensusofunanimity,whichisahighthreshold.Ofcourse,asweallknow,thecouncildidgoonwithparticipationofthemajorityoftheOrthodoxChurches.

1.2.TwopositionsStrictly leavingaside thequestionsof intents, andassiduouslyavoiding

anyandallpolemicsandrecriminations,IwouldliketoidentifyandthenaddresstwopresuppositionsthatunderliethesetwodifferentapproachestotheCretanCouncil.Twopositionsinotherwordshaveemergedclearlypost‐council:1.thecouncildidhappenevenwithouttheparticipationofalltheChurches,consensuswasreached,thecouncilisbindingevenifnotalltheChurcheswerepresent,and the consensus of those present was not one of unanimity; and, 2. thecouncil did not happen, because not all the Orthodox Churches were present.Hence,accordingtothislineofthought,theCretanCouncilisnottrulyacouncil,butanotherpreparatorymeetingalongthewaytoatruepan‐Orthodoxcouncil.


19

1.2.1.FirstPositionObviously,mostofthosewhoattendedtheCretanCouncilholdtothis

firstposition.Italsofindsitschiefproponentinthebishopwhopresidedatthecouncil,HisAll‐HolinessEcumenicalPatriarchBatholomew.Alreadyon January22, 2016, in his opening address to the Synaxis of Primates of the OrthodoxChurches,HisAll‐Holinessdistinguishedbetweenconsensusandunanimity.Theformer, a canonical requirement, isnot tobe confusedwith the latter. Further,consensusallowsfordisagreementaslongasthedisagreementiscarefullynoted,butitalsodoesnotnegatetheoriginalposition.HisAll‐HolinessalsoaddressthequestionofwhetherChurchescanabsentthemselvesorwithdrawfromthecouncilandthusmaketheconciliarproceedingsnull.Hepointsout,

ThetraditionoftheChurchknowsnumerousexampleswhereconciliarity

isappliedinCouncils,indeedevenEcumenicalCouncils,whencertainChurcheswereabsent–sometimesvoluntarily,atothertimesinvoluntarily–fromthesessionsof theCouncil,without this at all preventing their operation.ManyCouncildecisionswererecognizedretroactivelybythosewhodidnotparticipateinthem.Sofarasweknow,dependenceofconsensusonphysicalattendancehasnohistoricalprecedent.3ForHisAll‐Holiness,drawingonthecanonicaltradition,acouncilcan

meetwithoutfullrepresentationofallthelocalOrthodoxChurches,agreementscanbereachedwithoutfullunanimityoftheparticipants,andthesedecisionscanbeconsideredbindingonalltheChurches.

1.2.2.ConsensusasaMethodHisAll‐Holinessseesconsensusinamannerconsistentwiththecanonical

tradition4 and the governing procedures of contemporary organizations. AsmycolleaguePeterBouteneffhasemphasized,consensusaboveallisa“deep3“KeynoteAddressTotheSynaxisofthePrimatesoftheOrthodoxChurches,”(Geneva,January22,2016),https://www.patriarchate.org/address‐/‐/asset_publisher/MoQ1QIgH18P6/content/keynote‐address‐by‐his‐all‐holiness‐ecumenical‐patriarch‐bartholomew‐to‐the‐synaxis‐of‐the‐primates‐of‐the‐orthodox‐churches‐geneva‐22‐01‐2016‐?_101_INSTANCE_MoQ1QIgH18P6_languageId=en_US,accessedApril23,2017.

4 In this paper, I use the following English translations of the canons: For the Seven EcumenicalCouncils:N.Tanner(ed.),DecreesoftheEcumenicalCouncils,vol.1,NiceaItoLateranV(Georgetown,1990).FortheCouncilinTrullo:G.NedungattandM.Featherstone(eds.),TheCouncilinTrulloRevisited,Kanonika6(Rome,1995).FortheLocalCouncils:P.SchaffandH.Wace,ASelectLibraryofNiceneand Post‐Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils of theUndividedChurch.TheirCanonsandDogmaticDecrees,togetherwiththeCanonsofalltheLocalSynodswhichhaveReceivedEcumenicalAcceptance,ed.H.Percival,(GrandRapids,MI,1988).

ALEXANDERRENTEL

20

andsometimeschallengingprocess”bywhichdecisionsarereachedbya group,notwherewillisexercisedbyaminority.5Similarly,PeterVanNuffelen,analyzingepiscopalelectioninthefourthcentury,makesacarefulargumentthatthevery“roleofcanonlaw,”intheearlyfourthcentury,“wastosafeguardthecreationofaconsensus,nottocreateit.”Hefurtherclarifies,

Canonrulesdidnotprescribeaprocedurethatestablishedtheconsensus;atbest,theysetminimumrequirementsforhowitcouldbeguaranteedthatallpartiescouldbeduly involved in[the]processandthatatrueconsensuscouldbefoundinthecommunity.6Thecanonicaltraditionexpectsandhopesfortheconsensusandunanimity

oftheparticipantsatanycouncil.TheChurchisthebodyofChrist,knittedandformedbymenandwomenofeveryage,who,eveninthisprivilegedposition,aresore temptedtosin.Thecanonical traditionof theChurch,aswewillsee,hasmadeallowancesfortheconsensusofthemajorityandnotonlyunanimity,precisely becauseof humanweakness. Furthermore, theChurch is not only ahumanorganization,andassuchconsensusofparticipantsisasignaloneoftheauthenticityofanypartofacouncil’swork.TheChurchisamystery,theunityofGodandmaninthepersonofJesusChristbythegraceoftheSpirit.UltimatelysomethingistrueandauthenticbecauseitseemsgoodtotheHolySpirit.

1.2.3.TheSecondPosition

Five years earlier, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow took anopposing view to that of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew. In December2011,heexpoundedhisthinking,whichalsofoundfurtherexpressioninthoseChurcheswhodidnotcometothecouncil.PatriarchKirillsaid,

We are told that the principle of consensus [n.b., bywhich hemeansunanimity]wasnotalwaysusedintheepochofEcumenicalCouncils.Atthattime,theimperialpowerwastheinstrumentofkeepingchurchunity,butthereisnosuchamechanismatpresent.TheLocalChurchesliveandworkindifferentcountriesandunderspecificconditions.Ifwedonottakeintoaccounttheiropinion,itwouldbedifficulttotakedecisionsatthefutureCouncilbyall,andthismayprovokedisorders.7

5 P. Bouteneff, “The Great and Holy Council and the Implications of the ConsensusMethod,”TowardtheHolyandGreatCouncil:TheologicalReflections,ed.N.Symeonides,FaithMattersSeries3(NewYork,1016).

6P.VanNuffelen,“TheRhetoricofRulesandtheRuleofConsensus,”EpiscopalElectionsinLateAntiquity,eds.J.Leemans,etal.,ArbeitenzurKirchengeschichte119(Berlin,2011),245,253.

7 “His Holiness Patriarch Kirill: Surrender of the Principle of Consensus in the Pre‐CouncilProcesscanbringaboutDisordersinWorldOrthodoxy,”https://mospat.ru/en/2011/12/23/news55276,accessedApril23,2017.


21

The convictions here certainlywent into the decision of the RussianChurchnottocometotheCretanCouncil.

1.2.4.Sobornost

Itwouldbefartooeasytodismissthislineofthinkingasacynicalattemptto masquerade the “real” intentions of the Russian Orthodox Church. In fact, ifnothingelse,PatriarchKirill’sassertion,whichpointstotheimportanceoftheLocalChurches,all theLocalChurches,andrecognizing theirequality, falls squarely inlinewithgenerationsofRussianOrthodoxthoughtthathasregularlyemphasizedtheconceptofconciliarity,orsobornost,whichitselfformsafundamentalcornerstoneto the expressions of Eucharistic and Baptismal Ecclesiologies. Lying behindPatriarchKirill’sstatement,inotherwords,isapresumptionthat

[T]heOne,Holy,Catholic, andApostolicChurchmanifests itself as a

plurality of churches, each one is both a part and a whole. It is a partbecause only in unitywith all churches and in obedience to the universaltruth can it be theChurch; yet is also awhole because in each church, byvirtueofunitywiththeOne,Holy,Catholic,andApostolicChurch,thewholeChristispresent,thefullnessofgraceisgiven,thecatholicityofnewlifeisrevealed.8ForOrthodoxy that has found itself in theWest, both sobornost and

EucharisticEcclesiologyhavehadgreatresonanceallowingtheChurchtoengagein new ways with the modern world. As is well known, these ideas haveinspiredincreasedlayinvolvementinChurchlifeandliturgicalrenewal,whicharebothsoimportanttoOrthodoxyintheWest.Additionally,theexpositionsbysomanyRussianOrthodoxtheologiansonsobornost,conciliarity,canonlyhavecontributedtotheconciliarmovementthatculminatedinCrete.Theinsistenceonaconsensusofunanimity,whichisthehallmarkofthissecondposition,canbefound throughout this traditions. For example, in thewritings of Fr. SergiusBulgakov,sobornostisdefinedpreciselyas“unanimity,aharmonioussharingofauthority.”9Toremainconsistentwithitsownlineofprofoundandresonatetheologicalreflection,theRussianOrthodoxChurchwouldhavehadgreatdifficultiescomingandparticipatingintheCretanCouncilonceotherlocalOrthodoxChurchespulledout.

8A.Schmemann,“EcclesiologyNotes,”St.Vladimir'sSeminaryQuarterly11,no.1(1967):37‐38.9S.Bulgakov,“TheOrthodoxChurch,”ABulgakovAnthology,eds.J.PainandN.Zernov(Philadelphia,1976):127.

ALEXANDERRENTEL

22

2.ConsensusintheCanonicalTraditionTobesure,theargumentsandthoughtprocessesthatmakeupthese

twopositionsarecloserthanthediametricallyopposedresultswouldsuggest.Bothpositionsplaceahighvalueonconciliarity,synodality,andbothaccordprioritytopan‐Orthodoxsolutionstocommonproblems.BothwouldevengosofarastoinsistthattheplacetodothistypeofworkisinthesynodalstructureoftheChurch.Theydiffer,itwouldseemtome,intheirconceptionofconsensus.Oneseesconsensusclearlyasamethod,theotherseesitastheresult,thesignoftheChurchbeingtheChurch.Bothpositionscanfindsupportinthecanonicaltradition,whichIwouldliketonowreview.Fromthetradition,twotypesofconsensus emerge. The first concerns matters of faith and canon, whereconsensusdoesserveasasignandguarantor,andthesecondwheretheroleofconsensusisdiscussedinregardtosynodalprocedure.

2.1.ConsensusofFaithTrullo 1 speaks of the consensus of unanimity with regard to faith

whenitsays,“Itisthebestrule,whenbeginninganyspeechoraction,tobeginwith God and to endwith God.” This canon goes on to enumerate the faithdefined and proclaimed by previous councils. Similar provision for suchconsensus can found in canons throughout the canonical literaturewhere acouncilexpressesitsconsensuswiththefaithdefinedbypreviouscouncils(IConstantinople1,Ephesus7,Carthage2,Trullo1,IINicea2).Underlyingthesecanons is the fundamental conviction of an order (τάξις) that exists in theChurchthatemanatesfromtheheavenlyrealmsandencompassesallthingsintheChurch.AsTrullo1says,conciliaractivitybestbeginswithGod,becausetheChurchonlyknowsandconsequentlycanonlytalkaboutGod.And,intheend,theChurchconsidersonlythesematters,becausesuchknowledgeofGodconcernsultimatethings.Thecoherencethat latercouncilshavewithearlierones,infacttheirveryauthenticity,comesdirectlyfromtheirconsensuswiththis knowledge and is found in the conciliar creeds, decrees, or definitions.TheorderoftheChurchnecessitatesthatsuchconsensusbethehighestpriorityofancouncil.Furthermore, intheuncertaintyofanypresentdeliberation, inresponsetoquestionsneverfaced,usingwhattheChurchhascanonizedandreceivedallowsforittocraftdecisionsandresponsesthatareconsistentwiththetradition,butmeet theneedsof theday. Inwhathasbeenmentionedsofar,thecanonicaltraditionexpectsaconsensusofunanimity,theendproductofanyconciliardeliberationmustbeinaccordwithpreviouscouncils.Withregardtomattersoffaiththeconsensusofunanimityisparamountasfaithprovides


23

the shape and contour of the order that extends fromheaven throughout theChurch.Thisconsensustooiseasytolocateandhasbeenproclaimed,confessed,defined,bynumerouscouncils.Intheend,nocouncilcouldeveroverturnmattersoffaithorbreakwiththisunanimityoffaith.Todosowouldindicateabreakorruptureofpartorofthewholecouncil.

3. SynodalProceduresintheCanons

Diverse canons have to be examined with regard to consensus as amethod for coming to decisions. Few canons from the tradition speak directlyabout the internal procedures for the running of a synod of any type in theChurch.Thecanonsspeakdirectlyabouttheneedforprovincialsynodstotakeplace once in the Spring and once in Fall (Apostolic 37, I Nicea 5, Antioch 20,Chalcedon19,Trullo8,IINicea6),thoughtheexacttimeisuptothemetropolitan(Antioch20), at aplacewhere themetropolitanbishopdecides (Chalcedon19,Trullo 8), and where he himself must preside in order for the gathering toaccountedasafullsynod(Antioch16,20).ThesecanonsprovideforawiderangeoftopicsthatcanbediscussedatthesemeetingsthatcanbesummedupinthewordsofIINicea6.Synods,thiscanonsays,meetinorderto“discusscanonicaland evangelicalmatters.” I Nicea 5 charges synodswithmaking the necessaryinquiries in matters under its consideration so that there might be “generalconsent”intheirdecisions.Whilethecanonstypicallyspeakabouttheworkofaprovincial synod, they also refer the possibility of greater regional synods(Antioch12,Constantinople2),andadiocesansynod(IConstantinople6).Itisareasonable inference that the procedures and activities of these synods aresimilar to those described for the provincial. Furthermore, the content of thecanonsthemselvestestifytothebroadparametersofworkthatcanbedonebysynods at any level of the Church. These parameters do no limit the work ofsubsequent synods, but testify to the wide expanse of work that councils ofwhattypecanundertake.

3.1.Consensuswiththemetropolitan

Theexpectationofthecanonicaltradition,asenumeratedaboveallinApostolic34andAntioch9,isthattherewillbeconsensusamongstthesynod,butespeciallybetweenthemetropolitan,he“whois firstamongthem,”andthe“bishopsofeverynation.”Apostolic34speaksof thisreciprocal relationshipsquarelyinthecontextoftheheavenlyorder.Bishopscandonothingwithouttheconsentofthemetropolitan,buthecandonothingwithout“theconsentofall; for so there will be unanimity and God will be glorified.” Beyond these

ALEXANDERRENTEL

24

particularcanons,onemustturntothecanonsthatspeakaboutthesynodalprocessesofelectingbishopsordeposingclergyasproviding theparadigmsforsynodalprocedures.Thesecanonsemphasizefurthertheneedforconsensusamongstthemembersofasynod,butespeciallythesynodwiththemetropolitan.INicea4providesbothfortheopportunityofbishopswhoareunabletotraveltosynod to send in theirvote forepiscopalelectionandexpress their consent.Thiscanonconcludesbysayingthattherighttoconfirmtheelectionproceedingsbelongsalonetothemetropolitanbishop.ThelanguageofINicea6onthispointisevenstronger,“ifanyoneismadebishopwithouttheconsentofthemetropolitan,thisgreatsynoddeterminesthatsuchaoneshallnotbeabishop.”Fromthesecanonsitisclear,consensusofasynodrequirestheconfirmationofitspresident.

3.2.TheDecisionoftheMajority

Whilethecanonsonepiscopalelectiondoshowpreferenceforaconsensusofunanimity,theyalsoallowforwhattheycalla“consensusofthemajority.”Asmentioned, the secondpartof INicea6 speaksabout theordinationof abishop,andsays that"ifhowever twoor threebyreasonofpersonalrivalrydissentfromthecommonvoteofall,provideditisreasonableandinaccordancewith the church’s canon, the vote of themajority shall prevail." Antioch 19,alsoregardingtotheelectionofbishops,reiteratesthesynodalprocessesandstrives forunanimitymaintaining it as the rule, but acknowledges that it ispossible“inthepresence,orwiththeconsent,ofthemajority.”Whileaconsensusofunanimityishopedfor,undercertaincircumstancesadecisionofthemajorityprevails.

3.3.DepositionofBishops

Thatspeakaboutthedepositionofbishopslookforconsensusinthisprocess,butmakesimilarprovision foradecisionof themajority.While thecanonicaltraditionlooksforunanimityinthematterofdepositions,asinanysynodalaction,evensayingthatwhenthedecisionfordepositionofabishopis unanimous, the judgment “stands firm” and is not open for an appeal toothers for furtherconsideration(Antioch15).Antioch14,however,allowsametropolitantoaskbishopsofneighboringprovincestojoinhissynodforthe“settlementof alldisputes,” if that synodcannot reachconsensus.Theotherbishops,accordingtothecanon,“shalladdtheirjudgmentandresolvethedispute,and thus, with those of the province, confirmwhat is determined.” Notablyabsenthereisalackofrequirementforaconsensusofunanimityintherenderingofadecision.Rathertheaugmentationofneighbouringbishopscouldprovide


25

foradecisiononewayoranotherbasedonagreatermajority.Again,Antioch15describeswhathappenswhenthereisunanimityamongstthebishops:“Ifanybishop, lyingunderanyaccusation, shallbe judgedbyall thebishops inthe province, and all shall unanimously deliver the same verdict concerninghim,heshallnotbeagainjudgedbyothers,buttheunanimoussentenceofthebishops of the province shall stand firm.” In otherwords, if the sentence isunanimous,thereisnoneedtosolicitotherbishopstoexpandtheprovincialsynod. But by implication, these two canons these two canons signal that adecisioncanbereachedbyasynodthatisunanimous,butalsobyaconsensusofmajority.TheregionalcouncilofConstantinopleinAD394underNektarios,decreedthatthedepositionofabishopmustbeby“voteofa largerCouncil,andifpossibleofalltheprovincials…,inorderthatthecondemnationofonedeservingtobedeposedmaybeshownbyavoteofthemajority,inthepresenceoftheonebeingtried,withgreateraccuracy.”10

4.TheRuleandPracticeAs has been said, the rule and hope for the Church in its process of

deliberationisforaconsensusofunanimityamongbishopsgatheredinsynod.The canons themselves, in fact thewhole canonical tradition itself, exists toprotectandfosterthemethodbywhichconsensusisreached.Andso,withtheexceptionofmattersoffaith,certainprovisionsappearinthecanonsthatallowunder certain circumstances for a consensus of themajority. Drawing uponnotableexamplesfromChurchhistoryandconciliarpractice,thisallowance fortheconsensusofthemajoritycanbewitnessed.TwosuchnotableexamplescanbedrawnfromtheCouncilofChalcedon.AttheFourthSessionoftheCouncil,afterthedepositionbytheCouncilofDioscoros,tenbishopsfromEgyptrefusedtosigntheTomeofLeoortheconciliarActa,evenundergreatpressurefromthemembersoftheCouncil.TheyclaimedthattheycouldnotsignbecausetheirarchbishophadbeendeposedandtheAlexandrianSeewasvacant.Theydidnothavetheauthorityontheirowntoagreetoorsignanything.Atthesamecouncil,attheSixteenthSession,theRomanLegatesdemandedtheirobjectionstotheadoptionofwhatwouldbecomeChalcedon28berecordedintheofficialminutes.PopeLeo,whoseTomewasfamouslyaffirmedattheCouncil,continuedtoprotesttheadoptionofthiscanonlongaftertheCouncilwasover.LikewiseattheCouncilinTrullo,thePenthekte,theRomanlegatessurelydidnotagreetocanonsthatexpresslycondemnedpracticesintheirChurch:Trullo3,13,36(maybe?),andcertainlynot55.Inallthreeexamplescitedhere,eachprominentinitsownright,10AssystematizedbyThePedalion,thisiscanon2ofthiscouncil.

ALEXANDERRENTEL

26

thelackofagreementorthedissentarerecordedbyoneChurchincommunionwith other Churches, Roman and the Eastern Churches, Alexandria and theotherChurches,andremainingincommunionafterwards.

4.1.AWayForward?

AnywayforwardfromthisseemingimpassebetweenthetwopositionsIhaveenumeratedanddiscussedmustacknowledgethatthereisnoconsensusinthediscussionofconsensus.Often,itwouldseem,differentpartiesusethiswordwithvastlydifferentmeanings.Fromthisstartingpoint–acceptingthatthere are different meanings to this word – the different concerns can beaddressed by both sides. So, the process of forming a consensus has to belookedatwithcarefulattentiontodissentanddiscerningwhetherit ismereobstruction,causedbyhumanconcerns,oramisunderstanding,andinrealitya helpful contribution to the deliberation. If it is obstruction, the process ofseeking consensus canmove forwardwithout full unanimity. The canonicaltradition provides clear guidance on this. This progress is necessary for asuccessfuloutcomeofanycouncil.Likewise,thefullresonanceofaconsensusofunanimity,conciliarity,synodality,sobornosthastobetakenintoconsideration.Each Local Orthodox Church is both the One Church, and one of the manyOrthodoxChurches.The implicationsof thisecclesiologicalvisiondonot easilyallowforanythinglessthanaconsensusthatismarkedbytheunanimousassentofalltheOrthodoxChurches.AsMetropolitanKallistos(Ware)hassaid,“Evenifmoralunanimity isan idealofwhich inpracticeweregularly fall short, atleast letusnotseekto justifythisstateofaffairs,but letusremainpainfullyconsciousofourfailure.”11

4.2.Conclusion

Tobesure,thewayforwardismoreconciliaractiononthepartoftheChurch.TheChurchwilldevelopacultureofconsensus,withthefullrangeofmeaning of this word, only through continued and regular interaction,engagement,anddialogue.

11K.Ware,“PatternsofEpiscopacyintheEarlyChurchandToday:AnOrthodoxView,”Bishops,butWhatKind?(P.Moore,ed.)(London1982)18‐19.


27

REFERENCES

“HisHolinessPatriarchKirill:SurrenderofthePrincipleofConsensusinthePre‐CouncilProcesscanbringaboutDisordersinWorldOrthodoxy,”https://mospat.ru/en/2011/12/23/news55276,accessedApril23,2017.

“KeynoteAddresstotheSynaxisofthePrimatesoftheOrthodoxChurches.”Geneva,January22,2016.https://www.patriarchate.org/address‐/‐/asset_publisher/MoQ1QIgH18P6/content/keynote‐address‐by‐his‐all‐holiness‐ecumenical‐patriarch‐bartholomew‐to‐the‐synaxis‐of‐the‐primates‐of‐the‐orthodox‐churches‐geneva‐22‐01‐2016‐?_101_INSTANCE_MoQ1QIgH18P6_languageId=en_US.AccessedApril23,2017.

Bouteneff, P. “The Great and Holy Council and the Implications of the ConsensusMethod.” InTowardtheHolyandGreatCouncil:TheologicalReflections,editedbyN.Symeonides.FaithMattersSeries3.NewYork,1016.

Bulgakov,S.“TheOrthodoxChurch.”InABulgakovAnthology,editedbyJ.PainandN.Zernov.Philadelphia,1976.

Nedungatt, G. andM. Featherstone, eds.TheCouncil inTrulloRevisited, Kanonika 6.Rome,1995.

Schaff, P. and H. Wace. A Select Library of Nicene and Post‐Nicene Fathers of theChristian Church. Vol. XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the UndividedChurch.TheirCanonsandDogmaticDecrees,togetherwiththeCanonsofalltheLocal Synods which have Received Ecumenical Acceptance. Ed. H. Percival.GrandRapids,MI,1988.

Schmemann,A.“EcclesiologyNotes.”St.Vladimir'sSeminaryQuarterly11,no.1(1967).Symeonides,N., ed.Toward theHolyandGreatCouncil:DecisionsandTexts (Greek

andEnglish).NewYork:FaithMattersSeries2a,2016.Tanner, N., ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Vol. 1, Nicea I to Lateran V.

Georgetown,1990.VanNuffelen,P.“TheRhetoricofRulesandtheRuleofConsensus.”InEpiscopalElections

inLateAntiquity,editedbyJ.Leemans,etal.ArbeitenzurKirchengeschichte119.Berlin,2011.

Ware,K.“PatternsofEpiscopacyintheEarlyChurchandToday:AnOrthodoxView.”InBishops,butWhatKind?,editedbyP.Moore.London,1982.


THEDOCUMENTSOFTHEGREATANDHOLYCOUNCILOF2016CONCERNINGTHEINNERLIFEOFTHEORTHODOXCHURCH.

DEVELOPMENTOFTHEDOCUMENTS’CONTENT

ANDRZEJKUŹMA*

ABSTRACT. The present paper examines four Documents of the Great andHolyCouncilof2016concerningtheInnerLifeoftheOrthodoxChurch:1)TheImportanceofFastingand ItsObservanceToday,2)AutonomyandtheMeansbyWhich it isProclaimed,3)TheOrthodoxDiasporaand4)TheSacramentofMarriage and its Impediments. The author note the significant evolution ofcertaintextsandassumptionsthatappearinthedocumentsintheprocessofpreparation.Keywords: The Great and Holy Council, Importance of Fasting, Autonomy,TheOrthodoxDiaspora,TheSacramentofMarriage.

TheGreatandHolyCounciloftheOrthodoxChurch,whichtookplacein2016ontheislandofCrete,acceptedsixdocumentswhichhadbeenpreviouslyelaborated and confirmed by the Pre‐Conciliar Pan‐Orthodox Conferences andlatersubmittedtotheCouncilasofficialdocumenttexts.Inaddition,theCouncilaccepted twootherdocumentswhichwereentitled “TheEncyclicalof theHolyandGreatCounciloftheOrthodoxChurch”and“TheMessageoftheHolyandGreatCounciloftheOrthodoxChurchtotheOrthodoxpeopleandtoAllPeopleofGoodWill”1.Amongthesixofficialdocuments,twoexpressthepositionofOrthodoxyandtheOrthodoxChurchtothecontemporaryworld:1)RelationsoftheOrthodoxChurchwith theRestof theChristianWorld,and2)TheMissionof theOrthodoxChurch in Today’sWorld. The Contribution of the Orthodox Church in realizingpeace,justice,freedom,fraternityandlovebetweennationsandeliminatingracialandother formsofdiscrimination.However, four of the thosedocumentsmakereferencetoissuesthatarerelatedtotheinnerlifeoftheOrthodoxChurch:1)TheImportanceofFastingandItsObservanceToday,2)AutonomyandtheMeansbyWhichitisProclaimed,3)TheOrthodoxDiasporaand4)TheSacramentofMarriageanditsImpediments.

*AssociateProfessoratChristianTheologicalAcademy(Warsaw).E‐mail:[email protected] theCouncil’sdocumentscanbe foundatwww:holycouncil.org/documents.Frenchtranslationsofthedocuments:Contactsno.255(2016).

ANDRZEJKUŹMA

30

The history of the preparations for the Great Council clearly bearwitnesstothefactthatthelistoftopicswhichwereintendedtobepreparedweresignificantlymorerichandextensive2.However, theFirstPre‐ConciliarPan‐OrthodoxConferencewhichgatheredin1976inChambesy,confinedthelisttotentopics.AmongthesetentopicssetbytheFirstConferencein1976were foundquestions thatexpress thestanceof theOrthodoxChurch to theworldandalsothosethatconcerntheinnerlifeoftheChurch.ThetopicsthatarerelatedtotheinnerlifeoftheChurchincludethefollowingseven:1)Theissueofthecalendar;2)Theimpedimentstomarriage;3)Theadaptationoftherules of fasting to contemporary conditions;4) Autonomy and itsManner ofProclamation;5)AutocephalyanditsMannerofProclamation;6)TheDiptychsoftheOrthodoxChurch;and7)TheOrthodoxDiaspora.Theremainingthree issuesconcerned the relation of theOrthodox to theworld:1)The relationsof theOrthodoxChurch in theworld;2)The relationsof theOrthodoxChurch to theecumenicalmovement;3)thecontributionoftheOrthodoxChurchtotherealizationofpeace,justice,liberty,fraternityandloveamongpeoples,andtheeliminationofracialdiscriminationandotherformsofdiscrimination3.

The next Pre‐Conciliar Pan‐Orthodox Conference, which met in 1982elaboratedandacceptedtwoofthesevendocumentsconcerningtheinnerlifeoftheChurch:1)TheImpedimentstomarriageand2)Theissueofthecalendar4.Inaddition,therewasalsoasignificantdiscussionabouttheadaptationoftherulesoffastingtocontemporaryconditions.Aconsensuswasnotreachedinthismatterand,asaresult,thediscussionanddecisionmakingprocesswaspostponedtothenextmeeting.TheThirdPre‐ConciliarPan‐OrthodoxConferencemetin1986andaccepted four important texts for the future Council. Among those four topics,onlyoneconcernedtheinnerlifeoftheOrthodoxChurch,i.e.fasting.Thetitleofthedocumentwaschangedalongwithcertainassumptions.Thedocumentwasnamed:TheImportanceofFastinganditsObservanceToday5.

2ThelistofissuesandtopicswhichwasacceptedbytheFirstPre‐ConciliaryPan‐OrthodoxConferenceinRhodesin1961consistedofeightmainsectionsdividedintoaseriesofpointsandsub‐points.Theelaborationofthesetopicsprovedtobeagreattask.ItturnedoutthatworkonallofthesetopicsexceededthepossibilitiesandpotentialoftheparticularlocalautocephalousChurches.Asaresult,thelistoftopicswassignificantlylimitedinsubsequentyears.ThelistoftopicsacceptedbytheFirstPre‐ConciliaryPan‐OrthodoxConferenceinRhodesin1961canbefoundinV.Ionita,TowardstheHolyandGreatSynodoftheOrthodoxChurch.TheDecisionsofthePan‐OrthodoxeMeetingssins1923until2009(Fribourg,2014),123‐130.

3SeeSynodicaIII,SecretariatpourlapreparationduSaintetGrandeConciledel’EgliseOrthodoxe,Chambésy‐Genève(1979):114.

4SeeSynodicaVIII,SecretariatpourlapreparationduSaintetGrandeConciledel’EgliseOrthodoxe,Chambésy‐Genève(1994):198‐191.

5Textof thedocument:SynodicaX, Secretariatpour lapreparationduSaintetGrandeConciledel’EgliseOrthodoxe,Chambésy‐Genève(2014):293‐296.

THEDOCUMENTSOFTHEGREATANDHOLYCOUNCILOF2016…

31

The remaining topics were the subject of debate at the PreparatoryCommission in1990and1993.Previously, theSecretary’soffice responsibleforthepreparationsfortheGreatandHolyCounciloftheOrthodoxChurchunderthedirectionofMetropolitanDamascenusofSwitzerlandpublishedadocument in1987fortheneedsoftheFourthPre‐ConciliarPan‐OrthodoxConferenceindicatingthecommonanddiscrepantpointsconcerningfourissues:1)TheOrthodoxDiaspora;2) Autocephalyand itsMannerofProclamation;3)Autonomyand itsMannerofProclamationand4)Diptychs.

The pace of the preparatory work in calling the Council after theCommission’smeetingin1993significantlysloweddown.However,themeetingofthePrimateoftheLocalOrthodoxChurchesin2008inConstantinoplegaveanewimpulsetopreparetheCouncil.ThedecisionoftheSynaxisofPrimates in2008resultedincallingtheForthPre‐ConciliarPan‐OrthodoxConferencewhichalsotookplaceinChambesyinJune2009.ThismeetingresultedinelaboratingandacceptingthedocumentontheOrthodoxDiasporaalongwiththedocumentontheRulesofFunctioningofEpiscopalAssembliesintheOrthodoxDiaspora.

Insubsequentyears,thePreparatoryCommissionmetwiththeintentofunravelingtheproblemofGrantingAutocephalyandestablishingonegenerallyacceptedDiptychs. Thesemeetings didnotproduce anyparticulardecisions,however the question of granting autocephaly was significantlyworked on.TheSynaxisofthePrimatesoftheLocalOrthodoxChurches,whichtookplacein 2014, was a key event in the preparations in calling the Council. At thismeeting, thedateof the futureCouncilwasset forPentecost2016.AspecialCommissionforverifyingandupdatingthedocumentsalreadyacceptedattheSecondandThirdPan‐OrthodoxConferencesin1982and1986.TheCommissionmet three times under the direction of the Metropolitan of Pergamon John(Zizioulas)betweenSeptember2014andApril2015.TheworkoftheCommissionresultedincallingtheFifthPre‐ConciliarPan‐OrthodoxConferencebetweenOctober10‐17,2015.TheConferencefirstworkedunderthedirectionofMetropolitanJohnofPergamonandthenunderthedirectionoftheMetropolitanofFranceEmanuel(Adamakis).TheConferencecorrectedandunanimouslyacceptedthreedocumentsthatwere prepared by the Commission. Two documents of interestwere found:1) AutonomyandItsMannerofProclamation,and2)TheImportanceofFastingand Its Observance Today. In this manner, four documents concerning theinner life of the Orthodox Church became draft documents for the GreatCouncil.Whenanalyzingtheparticularstagesofpreparations,wecannotethesignificant evolution of certain texts and assumptions that appear in thedocuments.

ANDRZEJKUŹMA

32

TheSacramentofMarriageandItsImpediments

ThedocumententitledTheSacramentofMarriageandItsImpedimentsisoneofthetextswhichwasfirsttobeworkedon.TheinitialversionofthetopicwassignificantlylimitedandwasentitledTheImpedimentstoMarriage6.TheproblemsresultingfromthediscussionthatoccurredduringtheSecondPre‐ConciliarPan‐OrthodoxConferencein1982concernedseveralpoints,themost importantofwhichare:1)thepossibility fortheclergytogetmarried,2) marriagebetweenOrthodoxChristiansandnon‐OrthodoxChristians,3)thedegreeofkinshipbetweenthoseenteringtheSacramentofMarriage.

IntheopinionofcertainrepresentativesofthelocalOrthodoxChurchesthatparticipatedinthedebatesin1982,thereisapastoralneedthattheChurchincertaincircumstancespermittheclergy,i.e.deaconsandprieststoenterintomarriage.Asfarasdeaconsareconcerned,theproposalthatwasputforwardanddiscussedattheConferenceconcernedthepossibilitytomarryafterordination7.Moreover,aproposalforsecondmarriageforpriestswhohavebecomewidowersas a result of unforeseen circumstances was also dismissed8. Both proposals,whichwouldsignificantlychangecanonicaltradition,wererejected.

Theproblemofmixedmarriageswasandstillremainsagreat challengeforcontemporaryOrthodoxy.ThediscussionwhichwasconductedduringtheSecondPan‐OrthodoxConferenceon thismatter explicitlypointedout that suchmarriageshouldbeallowed.TherepresentativesoftheMoscowPatriarchatearguedthatcivilmarriagesshouldalsobetreatedasfullyrecognizedandthattheEucharistshouldnotbedeniedtothoselivinginsuchrelationships9.MarriagebetweenamemberoftheOrthodoxChurchwithanothernon‐OrthodoxChristianis allowed, howevermarriagebetweenOrthodoxChristians andnon‐Christians(agnostics,membersofotherreligions)cannotbeblessedbytheChurch.However,the Patriarchates of Moscow and Antioch clearly stated that already existingmarriagesbetweenOrthodoxChristiansandnon‐OrthodoxChristiansshouldberegardedwithpastoralresponsibilityandthattheEucharistshouldnotbedeniedtoOrthodoxChristiansmarriedtonon‐Christianswhodesiretoliveaccordingtotheirfaith10.Theversionofthedocumentin1982wasquiteopeninitsdecisionsandallowedforapplyingecclesiasticaleconomy(oikonomia)toagreatextent.6SynodicaVIII,198‐191.7Seealsopg.125.SuchpracticewouldbeinaccordancewiththestatementscontainedinCanon10oftheSynodofAncyra(314).However,therecommendationofCanon6oftheCouncilinTrullo clearly states that such practice is not permitted and the ordination of deacons andprieststakesplaceafterthecandidatehasbeenmarried.

8SynodicaVIII,125.9Ibid.,128.10Seeibid.,127‐128.


33

Thisdocumentproclaimedthat:MarriagebetweenOrthodoxandnon‐Christiansiscategorically forbidden in accordancewith canonicalakribeia.However, suchmarriagesarepossibleforthesakeofpastoralunderstandingandloveprovidedthatthechildrenofsuchcouplesarebaptizedandbroughtup intheOrthodoxChurch.LocalChurchesmaymakedecisionsaboutapplyingeconomyinspecificsituationsaccording topastoral sensitivity (7a)11. It turns out thatmarriagesbetweenOrthodoxChristiansandnon‐Christianscanbepermitted:marriagesbetweenOrthodoxChristiansandnon‐Christiansornon‐believersare categoricallyforbiddenaccordingtocanonicalrules(akribeia).LocalOrthodoxChurchescanhoweverpermitsuchamarriagebyapplyingpastoraleconomy towardsOrthodoxChristianswhiletakingintoconsiderationparticularpastoralsensitivity(7b).

TheissueofthedegreeofkinshipbybloodandkinshipbyaffinitywasmainlydecidedonthebasisofCanon54oftheCouncilinTrullo.However,itseems that the formulation in thedocumentwasmore strict than the canonitself,whichdidnotpermitmarriageinthecontextofkinship“withthedaughterofone’sbrother.”Thiswouldmeanthatarelationshiptothethirddegreeisnotallowed,howeveramarriagetothefourthdegreeofkinshipwouldbepermitted12.In theopinionof certain localChurch representatives, sucha solution should beapplied.TextbooksofCanonLawindicatethatmarriagestothefourthdegreeofkinshiparenotpermitted,howeversuchrelationshipstothefifthdegreeofkinship are permitted with the bishop’s blessing13. In the text accepted in1982, itwasstatedthatmarriageat the fifthdegreeofkinship isnotpermitted.Theproblem seems to not have been fully resolved and for this reason, thedocumentwhichwasacceptedbytheCouncilinCretedoesnotoutlinespecificdegreesofkinship,buttheauthorsofthetextmakereferencetoCanons53and54oftheCouncilinTrullo,callingforitsapplicationandecclesiasticalpracticesascurrentlyappliedinlocalautocephalousOrthodoxChurches(II,1).

ThedocumentonmarriagewascompletedandcorrectedbytheSpecialCommission,whichwascalledintobeingforthispurposeandgatheredforitsthirdmeetingbetweenMarch29–April3,2015inChambesy.However,afundamentalchangeinthedocument’scontentwasacceptedattheSynaxisofPrimatesof thelocalautocephalousOrthodoxChurchesinJanuary2016.TheMoscowPatriarchateproposedthataparagraphbeaddedthatwouldemphasisetheimportanceofthe11SeeIonita,155.12MetropolitanofMountLebanonGeorges(Hodr)drewattentiontothefactthattheAntiochianChurchhasstruggledforyearswiththisproblemanddoesnotpermitmarriagestothefourthdegree of kinship.However, theGreekCatholic Church allows such relationships and someOrthodoxChristiansleaveOrthodoxtojointheGreekCatholicChurch.WithinthePatriarchateofAlexandriaandJerusalem,suchmarriageswerepermitted.SeeSynodicaVIII,126,130.

13SeeA.Znosko,PrawosławnePrawoKościelne(Warszawa,1975),75;V.Cypin,KursCerkownogoPrawa,(Moskwa,2002),551.

ANDRZEJKUŹMA

34

institutionofmarriage incontemporarytimeswhen it isneglected in favourofinformal relationships and for other important reasons. In this manner,thedocumentwhichwasinitiallycalled:ImpedimentstoMarriagebecameTheSacramentofMarriageanditsImpediments.Thechangeswhichoccurredbetweentheinitialandfinalversionsandthediscussions,whichsurroundedtheoriginofthe document are quite interesting and deserve greater analysis. Due to thelackofspace,Iwilllimitmyselftooneaspect,whichsignificantlydiffersintheinitialandfinalversionsofthisdocument.Thedocument,whichwasacceptedby the Council in 2016 referred to the issue of mixedmarriages in a morestrictmanner thanthetextproposedandacceptedin1982.Toagreatextent,theattitudeoftheChurchinGeorgiainfluencedthissituation14.TheFathersoftheCounciltooktheChurchofGeorgia’sattitudeintoconsideration,andaresult,theformulationofthisissuebecameforrestrictiveandatthesametimeambivalent:MarriagebetweenOrthodoxandnon‐OrthodoxChristiansisforbiddenaccordingtocanonicalakribeia(Canon72oftheQuinisextEcumenicalCouncil).However,thepossibilityoftheexerciseofecclesiasticaloikonomiainrelationto impediments tomarriagemustbeconsideredbytheHolySynodofeachautocephalousOrthodoxChurch.

In thismanner, the document onmarriage on the one hand becamesignificantlydeveloped throughout its evolution,while,on theotherhand, itreceivedamoreradicalcharacterinsomerespects.

TheSignificanceofFastingandItsObservanceToday

Thedocumenton fasting in its initial formwasacceptedat theThirdPre‐CouncilPan‐OrthodoxConferencein1986.However,thedebateoverthisdocumentbeganattheSecondConferencein1982.Thetitleofthedocumentwhich was drafted by the First Pre‐Council Pan‐Orthodox Conference was:AdaptationofRulesofFastingtoContemporaryConditions.ThepreparationsofthisdocumentfortheneedsoftheCommissionweredelegatedtotheChurchin Serbia. As such, the title of the document indicated and announced greatchanges in theOrthodox fasting tradition. The suggestions and proposals ofcertain local Churches called for shortening the Nativity Fast, eliminatingtheApostles’FastandalessstrictapproachtoGreatLent15.Itturnedoutthat

14At theFifthPre‐ConciliarPan‐OrthodoxConference,which tookplace10‐17October,2015, theGeorgianChurchexpresseditsobjectiontomixedmarriagesonthebasisofCanon72oftheCouncilinTrullo.TheproblemwasalsoraisedattheSynaxisofLocalPrimatesinJanuary2016whenthemajorityof localChurchesaccepted thedocumentasaproject for theCouncil.ThePatriarchofGeorgiarefrainedfromsigningthetextduetothefactthatsuchmarriageswerepermitted.

15SeeSynodicaVIII,s.164.


35

thedocumentpreparedfortheneedsoftheCommissiondidnotincludesuchadaptationstocontemporaryconditions,butdidmakereferencetothetraditionalperiodsoffastinganddrewattentiontotheimportanceandneedforfastinginthelifeofChristians.Forthisreason,partoftheConference’sparticipantsbelievedthatthe content of the document prepared did not reflect its title or solve theproblem16.ThediscussionrelatedtofastingindicatedtwotendenciesonthepartoftheConference’sparticipants:1)reformatory,whichemphasisedtheneedforchange in the tradition and practice of fasting and 2) traditional, whichdemonstratedtheneedformaintainingthefastsasanimportantelementofthelifeandspiritualityoftheOrthodoxChurch17.Thetraditionalvoicesprevailed,thus theConferencedecided to change the title of thedocument inorder toreflecttheactualcontent:TheImportanceofFastinganditsObservanceToday.

However,thedocumentturnedouttobeawell‐balancedtextandmorepastoralinnaturethandisciplinary.Theauthorsofthetextavoidedexpressionsthatwouldsanctionpeoplewhochosenottofast(Ap.69).ItwasalsonotedthatlocalChurchesshouldtaketheirlocalgeographicalconditionsintoconsiderationwhenindicatingtheproductsthatcanbeconsumedduringthefast.

TheSpecialCommission,whichanalysedandcompletedthedocumentin2015,foundthatdocumentwasgoodenoughandintroducedonlysmallchanges.

OrthodoxDiaspora

The text on the Orthodox diaspora was accepted at the Fourth Pre‐ConciliarPan‐OrthodoxConferenceinChambesyin2009.Workonthisdocumentcommencedconsiderablyearlier.In1987,TheSecretary’sofficeresponsibleforpreparationsfortheGreatandHolyCounciloftheOrthodoxChurchunderthedirectionofMetropolitanDamascenus(Papandreu)ofSwitzerlandpublishedareportpreparedonthebasisofanalysessentfromlocalChurchesoncommongroundandpointsofdivergenceconcerningtheunderstandingof fourtopicswhichremainedtobeelaboratedasprojectsforthefutureCouncil18.Amongthosetopicswasfoundtheissueofthediaspora.SixChurchessendtheircommentsonthe four topics19. In the opinions sent, a common stance was reached withregardstheneedsforaquicksolutiontotheproblemofthediaspora.ThisneedwasaresultofOrthodoxecclesiologyandthecanonicalrequirementsofCanon816Ibid.,156.17Seetheongoingdiscussion,SynodicaVIII,156‐170.18DokładosovpadienijachiraschożdienijachpoczetyremtemampoviestkidniaIVWsepravoslavnogoPredsobornogo Soviesczanija (Chambésy, Genève, 1987) (typescript). The topics which wereoutlinedinthereportwere1)TheOrthodoxDiaspora,2)AutocephalyanditsMeansbyWhichitisProclamation,3)AutonomyandtheMeansbyWhichitisProclamation,4)Diptychs.

19Remarksweresentby:thePatriarchofConstantinople,PatriarchofAlexandria,PatriarchofAntioch,PatriarchofMoscow,PatriarchofRomaniaandtheChurchofGreece.

ANDRZEJKUŹMA

36

oftheFirstEcumenicalCouncil,whichstatesthatonlyonebishopcanresideinagivencity.However,themaindiscrepancywasfoundintheinterpretationoftheroleoftheEcumenicalPatriarchateinrelationtoChurchesthatfunctionoutsidetheareasofautocephalousOrthodoxChurches20.

Thediscussionandworkonthepreparationsof thedocumentswereconductedby thePreparatoryCommission in 1990 and1993. Themeetingsresulted in elaborated documentswhichwere submitted to the Fourth Pre‐Conciliar Pan‐Orthodox Conference in 2009 in Chambesy. The ConferencesupplementedandacceptedthetexttobesubmittedtothefutureCouncil.Theproblem of the diaspora was not definitively resolved and this was clearlystated in the document accepted in Crete in 2016: It is affirmed that is thecommon will of all ofmost holy Orthodox Churches that the problem of theOrthodoxDiasporaberesolvedasquicklyaspossible,andthatitbeorganizedinaccordancewithOrthodoxecclesiology,andthecanonicaltraditionandpracticeoftheOrthodoxChurch(§1a).Italsoturnsoutthatthecurrentproposalspresentedin the document do not solve this issue at all: it isaffirmed thatduring thepresentphaseitisnotpossible,forhistoricalandpastoralreasons,animmediatetransitiontothestrictlycanonicalorderoftheChurchonthisissue,thatis,theexistenceofonlyonebishopinthesameplace.Therefore,ithasbeendecidedtokeep the Episcopal Assemblies instituted by the Fourth Pre‐Conciliar Pan‐OrthodoxConferenceuntiltheappropriatetimearriveswhenalltheconditionsexistinordertoapplythecanonicalexactness(§1b).Thetemporarysolutionisestablishing a so‐called Episcopal Assembly in the areas of diaspora. In theopinionof therepresentativesof the localOrthodoxChurchesassembledat theCommissionsessions in1990and1993, thereare8 regions21 inwhich suchEpiscopal Assemblies should arise. However, the Fourth Conference (2009)spokeof12 suchregions22and theCouncil inCrete (2016)mentioned13.Afundamental addition to the document on the diaspora is the Rules of theEpiscopal Assembly’s Function in the Orthodox diaspora, which determinesthecompetenceandrightsoftheEpiscopalAssembly.

20Greekcanonistsdrawparticularattention to thequestionofdiaspora for theChurchofGreecewheninterpretingCanon28oftheFourthEcumenicalCouncil.See.UczastieVselenskogoPatriarchatawrazrabotkietiemy„Prawosławnojerazsiejanije”,ibid.,8.IntheopinionofthePatriarchsofAntioch,MoscowandRomania,suchaninterpretationleadstousurpingtherightsofjurisdictionstotheso‐calleddiasporabyConstantinople.

21See.MeżprawosławnajaPodgotowitielnajaKomisjaSwiatagoiWielikogoSobora7‐13nojabrja1993;Chabnesy1994,218(typescript).

22SeeSynodicaXII,SecretariatpourlapreparationduSaintetGrandeConciledel’EgliseOrthodoxe,Chambesy2015,258.


37

Autonomy

ThedocumentconcerningAutonomyandtheMeansbyWhichitisProclaimed,asinthecaseofthedocumentonthediaspora,wasnotsubjecttomuchchangethroughoutitspreparationprocess.ThisdocumentwasacceptedattheFifthPre‐Conciliar Pan‐Orthodox Conference in 2015, however work on its preparationcommenced after the Third Pan‐Orthodox Conference (1986). In his report oncommongroundandpointsofdivergencewithreferenceto4topics(thediaspora,autocephaly,autonomyanddiptychs),whenspeakingofautonomy,MetropolitanDamascenus(Papandreu)notedtwomainwaysof itsproclamation:1)the firstmanner significantly underlines the role of the Ecumenical Patriarchate as theChurch,whichenjoysthehighestlevelofauthorityintheOrthodoxChurch,2)Thesecondmanner indicates the fundamental role of theMother‐Church in theterritoryinwhichanautonomousstructureisformedandunderwhosecanonicaljurisdictionthisnewstructurewillremain23.

Itseemsthatthesecondoption,whichemphasisedtheroleoftheMother‐Church,wasadoptedinthetextonautonomyacceptedattheFifthPre‐ConciliarPan‐OrthodoxConference(2015)andinthetextacceptedbytheCouncilinCrete(2016).Suchwordingwasfoundin§1ofthedocument:TheinstitutionofautonomyisacanonicalexpressionoftherelativeorpartialindependenceofaparticularecclesialregionfromthecanonicaljurisdictionoftheautocephalousChurchtowhichitcanonicallybelongs.Grantingautonomy to aparticular ecclesiastical territorydependsontheMother‐Church.ThismeansinpracticethatifaspecificpartoftheautocephalousChurchdesiresmoreindependenceandautonomy,itthensubmitsanapplicationto theCouncilorSynodof thatChurch.The furtherprocedure isdescribedinthefollowingmannerinthedocument:Uponreceivingtheapplication,theautocephalousChurchconsiders, inSynod,alloftheprerequisitesandreasonsforthesubmission,anddecideswhetherornottograntautonomy.Intheeventofafavorable decision, the autocephalous Church issues aTomos,which defines thegeographicalboundariesof theautonomousChurchand its relationshipwith theautocephalousChurchtowhichitrefers,inaccordancewiththeestablishedcriteriaofecclesialTradition(§2b).ThePrimateoftheautocephalousChurchtheninformstheEcumenicalPatriarchandtheotherautocephalousChurchesaboutproclaimingtheautonomyoftheChurch(§2c).ThenewAutonomousChurchwillthenactthroughtheautocephalousChurchinitsPan‐OrthodoxandInter‐religiouscontacts.Grantingautonomycanonlytakeplacewithinthebordersofcanonicalgeographicalregionof a given autocephalousChurchand cannot occur in territorial diasporaswiththeexceptionofspecificsituations(§2e).

23SeeDokładosovpadienijachiraschożdienijach…,ibid.,14.

ANDRZEJKUŹMA

38

AllofthedocumentswhichwerepreparedfortheGreatCouncilaretheresultoflongtediouswork,whichwascarriedoutbyallofthelocalOrthodoxChurchesoverseveralyears.Theyaretheresultofacertaincompromise,whichis necessary for expressing the specific spirit of Orthodoxywhich includes thevastrangeofopinionswithinparticularChurches.Findingacommonstandpointproves to be difficult even within Orthodoxy. Local Churches live in specificgeopolitical,ecclesiasticalandecumenicalconditionsanditappearsthattheseissuestoagreatextentshapeourapproachtomanytopics.ItturnsoutthattheCouncil that tookplace inCrete (2016)wasnot fully successful.The fact thatfourlocalChurcheswerenotpresenthadanimpactontheCouncil’sauthority.AllofthetopicssetoutinthepreparatoryphasefortheCouncilwerenotelaborated.Thismeansthatfutureworkandco‐operationofthelocalOrthodoxChurchesisnecessary just as theneed for expressing a common stanceon the remainingtopics.

REFERENCES

Cypin,V.KursCerkownogoPrawa,Moskwa,2002.Dokład o sovpadienijach i raschożdienijach po czetyrem temam poviestki dnia IV

Wsepravoslavnogo Predsobornogo Soviesczanija, Chambésy. Genève, 1987(typescript).

Ionita,V.Towards theHolyandGreatSynodof theOrthodoxChurch.TheDecisionsofthePan‐OrthodoxeMieetingssins1923until2009.Fribourg,2014.

Kałużny,T.NowySobórOgólnoprawosławny,natura,historiaprzygotowań,tematyka.Kraków,2008.

Meżprawosławnaja Podgotowitielnaja Komisja Swiatago i Wielikogo Sobora 7‐13nojabrja1993.Chabnesy1994(typescript).

Synodica III, Secretariat pour la preparation du Saint et Grande Concile de l’EgliseOrthodoxe,Chambésy‐Genève,1979.

SynodicaVIII, Secretariat pour la preparation du Saint et Grande Concile de l’EgliseOrthodoxe,Chambésy‐Genève,1994.

Synodica X. Secretariat pour la preparation du Saint et Grande Concile de l’EgliseOrthodoxe,Chambésy‐Genève,2014.

Synodica XII. Secretariat pour la preparation du Saint et Grande Concile de l’EgliseOrthodoxe,Chambésy‐Genève,2015.

Znosko,A.PrawosławnePrawoKościelne.Warszawa,1975.


THECANONICALTRADITIONOFTHEORTHODOXCHURCHANDTHEHOLYANDGREATCOUNCILBETWEEN

RECEPTIONANDREJECTION

RĂZVANPERȘA*

ABSTRACT.With thispaper the author tries to answerquestions raisedbysomeofthedetractorsoftheHolyandGreatCouncil.Heisanalysingfromthepoint of view of Orthodox Canon Law if the delegation of bishops and theprincipleofrepresentativenessarecanonicalrealitiesinaccordancewiththeOrthodoxtraditionoftheChurchandvalidmanifestationsofsynodality,ifthenumberofbishopsparticipatinginaCouncilisatruecriterionofecumenicityandifmonasticsandlaymenweretotallybypassedinthepreconciliarpreparatoryprocessandinthesessionsoftheHolyandGreatCouncil.Keywords:HolyandGreatCouncil,numberofbishops,laymenparticipation,CanonLaw,ecumenicalandgeneralcouncil,reception

Motto: “Whenwe had sailed slowlymany days, andarrivedwithdifficultyoffCnidus,thewindnotpermittingustoproceed,wesailedundertheshelterofCrete.Wemovedalong the coastwithdifficultyand came toaplacecalledFairHavens”.

(Acts27:7‐8)“Sincethosewhoforanyreason,whetherofanecclesiasticalorofcorporealnature,areabsent from theholyCouncilandhaveremainedintheirowntowno