The Church and the Holy and Great Council

I recently read a lecture on the Holy and Great Council delivered at the March 2017 Clergy Retreat of the Eastern American Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia.

As someone who travelled to Crete for the Council, who attended both Synodal Divine Liturgies (for Pentecost and the Sunday of All Saints) and who spoke with and heard from dozens of bishops, I am disturbed by the “malicious words” (cf. 3 John) that some are spewing against it. Having had the remarkable opportunity to see the deep faithfulness and reverence bishops have for holy Orthodoxy, I was motivated to reply.

There are a number of erroneous declarations, misleading statements, false equivalents, and omissions in Fr. Peter Heers’ almost 9,000-word long presentation. What follows below are but a few observations, responses, and questions, calling into serious question the credibility of his underlying argument.

• Fr. Peter begins his unremitting critique by condemning the number of participants, citing the First, Fourth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, which each had significantly more bishops. He (purposefully?) omits the other four Ecumenical Councils, whose average participation only slightly exceeds the number of bishops in Crete last year. Are those four Councils lesser ones? Quoting Georges Florovsky, whom Fr. Peter also references: “The sacred dignity of the Council lies not in the number of members representing their Churches.”
• The notion that the Council was one of “primates with their entourages” is not only erroneous, it demeans all bishops. As I have written elsewhere, a key takeaway from my conversations in Crete was that all bishops reviewed and revised the texts for the advancement of Orthodoxy and edification of the faithful. The documents reflected the consensus (properly understood) of the room, similar to the practice of the Ecumenical Councils. While the primates, as head of their respective synods/ delegations enjoyed certain privileges consistent with Orthodox practice, there was equality among all bishops.
• There are a number of misleading statements and distortions on the issue of voting. Florovsky writes that historically “The collegiality of the bishops was assumed...” Councils were deliberative assemblies with a final formal vote unnecessary; this tradition of the Fathers is exactly what happened in Crete. The idea that “the votes of the 10 Primates was all that was registered” is falsifiable – one only needs to examine the bottom of the published official documents to see the signature of bishops.
• In trying hard to show that the Holy and Great Council led to the “abolition of conciliarity” Fr. Peter argues “There was no conciliar authorization for any modification of the decision of the Hierarchy [of the Church of Greece].” He should know that outcomes of a Council take precedent over the decisions of a local synod. The Church of Greece arrived in Crete with specific demands to change the Pre-conciliar documents; this positioning, especially in advance of a Council, is questionable at best. Why? Well, for one, a rigid, pre-determined approach removes the Holy Spirit from working amongst the bishops when they assemble in Council. Second, what happens if two (or more) local churches attend a Council with pre-determined unanimously supported positions which diverge from one another? Is agreement even possible?
• Representatives from other Christian confessions did not “attend as observers” during the deliberations as Fr. Peter insinuates. Instead, they were invited into the main meeting room for the Council’s Opening and Closing Sessions, and for the induction ceremony of primates into the Orthodox Academy of Crete. More, it is not “unprecedented” for non-Orthodox to watch – and even speak at – pan-Orthodox gatherings. This was the case, for example, in Constantinople in 1923 when the Ecumenical Patriarch invited an Old Catholic priest and an Anglican bishop, who actually spoke during the plenary session. Moreover, at the 1961 Pan-Orthodox Conference, a number of non-Orthodox churches sent observers to Rhodes.
• In the context of dialogue and engagement with non-Orthodox Christians, I heard the following discerning and deeply insightful observation in Crete. Someone pointed out that Christ Himself chose people who were considered “heretical” in those days – like the Samaritan Woman, Zacchaios, and the Canaanite Woman – to show His abundant mercy and limitless love. Did Christ not dine with “tax collectors and sinners” (cf. Mt 9:9-12) for which the Pharisees criticized Him? Are we not called to imitate Christ?
• The reasons given regarding the non-participation of the four local churches are wholly inadequate. First, geo-political considerations are completely ignored – pretending they do not exist is naïve. Even more telling, the heresy and disease of enthnophyletism is completely absent from the analysis. At one point, it is suggested that the absent churches did not attend because “they understood that essential changes to the texts would be impossible.” How does Fr. Peter know this? Was there no faith in the Holy Spirit, Who “fill all things”? “But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No’” records Matthew the Apostle and Evangelist (5:37). Let us not forget that all local churches took a final unanimous decision during the first week of Great Lent at the March 2014 Synaxis of Primates at the Phanar to hold the Council – and reaffirmed by all local churches January 2016. More, Fr. Peter omits to include that bishops who are invited and able to attend a Council must do so:

Canon XIX (Council of Chalcedon, 451) addresses Synods of Bishops, and is reaffirmed by Canon VIII of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. Both canons build of off Canon XXXVII of the Holy Apostles. Quoting The Rudder by St. Nicodemus, Canon XIX in part reads as follows: “As for those Bishops, on the other hand, who fail to attend the meeting, but who, instead of doing so, remain at home in their respective cities, and lead their lives therein in good health and free from every indispensable and necessary occupation, they are to be reprimanded in a brotherly way.”

Finally, on this point, a simple question: why did the absent churches at least not attend the closing Synodal Divine Liturgy? They were repeatedly invited – urged, even – to concelebrate the Liturgy for the Sunday of All Saints so “that you may with one mind and one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 15:6). Is this not “anti-Orthodox” behaviour to quote a favourite phrase from the lecture?

I will limit my comments on the second part of the lecture because of space considerations but wish to highlight a few sentences.

• The notion “that the Council was dominated by the branch theory...” is false.
• The notion that “it wasn’t until the 20th century that Western Christianity was characterized as a church...” is also false and falsifiable. Examples include key Orthodox statements since the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787: the Encyclical Letter of St. Mark of Ephesus (1440); the Replies of Patriarch Jeremiah II to the Lutherans (16th-century); and, the Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX (1848), among others.
• Fr. Peter argues “the overwhelming response among the people of God has been negative [towards the Council]” although offers no evidence to support this claim (an online echo chamber does not make reality).
• On engagement with non-Orthodox, it is important to point out – contrary to the seemingly authoritative statements in the lecture – that this engagement, including theological dialogues, was an outcome of previous pan-Orthodox consensus and not the “basis of the Council.”

Finally, let us consider this statement: “Firstly, as Metropolitan Hierotheos remarks, it may be that, in accepting the term “church” for the heterodox confessions, an important distinction was lost on the participating hierarchs.” What Fr. Peter is seemingly arguing is that (all?) bishops were unaware and ill-informed about the proceedings and their consequences … but thankfully Metropolitan Hierotheos is now educating everyone about the truth. Is this not a reverse form of “papalism” Fr. Peter so vociferously rejects?

Fr. Peter concludes his lecture by citing so-called “eminent” opponents of the Council, including monastics on Mount Athos. Let us remember that individuals do not speak for the Holy Mountain – only the Holy Community does. Speaking of Mouth Athos, let us close with the sweet-scented words of St. Porphyrios Kafsokalyvitis (my emphasis in bold):

In order for us to preserve our unity we must be obedient to the Church, to her bishops. When we are obedient to the Church we are obedient to Christ Himself. Christ wishes for us to become one flock with one shepherd. Let us feel for the Church. Let us love her fervently. We should not accept to hear her representatives being criticised and accused. On the Holy Mountain the spirit in which I was nurtured was orthodox, profound, holy and silent – without conflicts, without disputes and without censurings. We should not give credence to those who make accusations against the clergy. Even if with our own eyes we see a priest doing something we judge negatively, we should not believe it, nor think about it, nor talk about it to others. The same is true for the lay members of the Church and for every person. We are all the Church. Those who censure the Church for the errors of her representatives with the alleged aim of helping to correct her make a great mistake. They do not love the Church. Neither, needless to say, do they love Christ. (From Wounded By Love: The Life and the Wisdom of Elder Porphyrios)