Conciliarity

Серия интервью, приуроченных к конференции «Современная право-
славная экклезиология: природа Церкви и ее границы», проводимой Свято-Филаретовским православно-христианским институтом, представляет взгляды на актуальные экклезиологические проблемы представителей различных православных церквей и различных течений внутри Русской православной церкви. Богословы, мнения которых собраны в этом разделе, акцентируют внимание на разных аспектах существования Церкви, по-разному представляют возможные модели ее устроения и проницаемость ее границ. Многообразие точек зрения свидетельствует как об отсутствии единой современной православной экклезиологии, так и об актуальности сегодня вопросов, связанных с осознанием Церковью самой себя и своего места в секулярном мире в пост-константиновскую эпоху.

The article studies the understanding of synodality within the Orthodox Church in the light of the existing theological tradition, namely the concept of Eucharistic conciliarity and the role of the Bishop in guarantying the Church's unity, at a local and universal level. It focuses on the magisterial authority of the Orthodox Council of Crete and its reception by the Orthodox pleroma: reception through a general consensual procedure or immediate acceptance of the Council's teachings through communional integration in Church's life.

Although references to the "regional level" of the Church organization are few in the documents of Vatican II Council, they nevertheless exist. For an Orthodox they were as a ray of hope for further development. In this article, fr. Sorin Selaru refers in particular to fr. Andre Scrima, a Romanian Orthodox observer at the Council as personal representative of Patriarch Athenagoras, and to the active role he played in bringing the two Churches closer. Fr. Selaru then examines more closely the post-conciliar ecclesial dynamics, in particular with reference to the apostolic letter Apostolus suos by pope John Paul II (1998), which marked a stop regarding the authority of the Catholic Bishops' Conferences, as well to the RAvenna Document (2007) of the Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, which highlighted the three levels of authority/synodality of ecclesial communion: local, regional and universal. Fr. Selaru finally shows how Church organization at a regional level is conceived in the Orthodox Church, addressing the problem of episcopal collegiality and ecclesial synodality, and the way synodality is practiced today in the inter-orthodox context. (Irenikon 2015)

This paper outlines the way in which synodality is currently organized and lived within the Romanian Orthodox Church. To this end, the theological and spiritual foundations of the principle of synodality are highlighted first, as well as the embodiment of this principle, as an ecclesial reality at once permanent and dynamic, in different synodal structures of the Orthodox Church. The Romanian expressions of the synodality of the Orthodox Church are then presented with a view on the Statutes for the Organization and Functioning of the Romanian Orthodox Church, republished in 2020.


https://poj.peeters-leuven.be/secure/POJ/downloadpdf.php?ticket_id=608c694cc6b27

Since Vatican II, very few particular councils have been celebrated. These deliberative and consultative supra-diocesan institutions have also not been studied much. However, in addition to these councils in the strict sense, there were various national processes in Europe in the 1970s, and  subsequently in Asia and Africa as well. These processes creatively combine conciliarity and collegiality. After a statusquaestionnis (I), the authors present the implementation of this conciliarity in Indonesia since 1986 (II). This little-known experience opens up paths for developing a renewed conciliarity. The authors have thus interviewed several ecclesiological dimensions (III): the sensus fidelium, the articulation on the national and diocesan levels, the episcopal collegiality, and the particular Churches as part of the people of God.
Depuis le concile Vatican II, très peu de conciles particuliers ont été célébrés. Ces institutions délibératives et consultatives supradiocésaines ont été d’ailleurs peu étudiées. À côté de ces conciles stricto sensu ont toutefois eu lieu plusieurs processus nationaux en Europe dans les années 1970, et aussi par la suite en Asie et en Afrique. Ces processus allient de manière très créative conciliarité et collégialité. Après un status quaestionnis (I), les auteurs  présentent la mise en œuvre de cette conciliarité en Indonésie depuis 1986 (II). Cette expérience méconnue ouvre des pistes pour développer une conciliarité renouvelée. Sont ainsi interrogées plusieurs dimensions ecclésiologiques (III) : le sensus fidelium, l’articulation des niveaux nationaux et diocésains, la collégialité épiscopale, les Églises particulières comme portion du peuple de Dieu.

The Russian Orthodox Church has officially refused to participate in the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. The official reason was the refusal of three other local Churches and therefore a violation of the principle of consensus. But the real reason for the withdrawal seems to have been the unexpectedly violent criticism of the drafts of the Council documents from the fundamentalist groups within the Russian Church. The Church hierarchy could not find an adequate response to these criticisms and decided to distance itself from the final documents of the Council. [RGOW 11/2016:  https://www.g2w.eu/zeitschrift/aktuelle-ausgabe/1336-rgow-11-2016-die-orthodoxe-kirche-nach-dem-konzil]

Sorin ȘELARU, „Nouvelle « bibliographie obligatoire » dans le dialogue théologique catholique - orthodoxe ? Le Concile de Crète et les conciles possédant une autorité universelle dans l'Eglise orthodoxe”, in: Le souci de toutes les Églises. Hommage au professeur Joseph Famerée, B. Bourgine (ed.), Peeters, Leuven, 2020, pp. 215-231.


A new „mandatory bibliography” for the Catholic-Orthodox theological dialogue? The Council of Crete and the Councils of universal authority in the Orthodox Church
The present study investigates, from an inter-Orthodox and inter-Christian perspective, two texts belonging to the Encyclical issued by the Orthodox Council of Crete, 2016. The first text in the Encyclical of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church presents the list of „councils of universal authority (καθολικοῦ κύρους)” convened at Constantinople, over almost 1,000 years, between the 9th and the 19th century. The second one addresses the issue of the fundamental identity of the Orthodox Church and Una Sancta. In order to approach the matter of the „universal” pertinence of this enumeration of councils and its relevance for the entire Orthodox fold, the present study begins by highlighting the factors which contributed to the inclusion of this list in the Encyclical. Although concern with declaring the universal value of one or several councils can be traced far back in the history of the Orthodox Church, things are not as simple as they might appear to be with regard to the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. No one of the six documents prepared at pan-Orthodox level, and subsequently adopted in Crete, mentions this list of councils. It cannot be found in the other texts discussed in preparatory conferences either, texts which were left aside because they were not the object of consensus among the various local Churches. Could it be a last-moment addition? Could it be an astute manifestation of the interests of a particular local Church? The present study puts forth an interesting hypothesis, pointing out that one reason for the recent revisiting of this issue lies in the official dialogue between the Orthodox and the Roman-Catholic Churches, also showing how the specific concern with the conciliar tradition of the Orthodox Church after the era of the seven Ecumenical Councils can be traced to the early years of the process leading the Orthodox Church along the path to the Council of Crete.
The study goes on to show that the list of these councils of „universal authority” is directly linked, in the Council of Crete’s encyclical, to the assertion of the identity of the Orthodox Church. The text under discussion is highly interesting, because it can be said to summarize the manner in which the Council intended to define the Orthodox Church. The statement issued by the Council of Crete, according to which "The Orthodox Church… constitutes the authentic continuation of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" appears to be, at a first reading, the Orthodox response to the Dogmatic Constitution of the Second Vatican Council Lumen gentium and its famous "subsists in". The occurrence of the verb "constitutes" (αποτελώ) in defining the identity of the Orthodox Church in the text of Crete, as well as its identifying the Orthodox Church not directly with Una Sancta, but rather with its "continuation" (τήν συνέχειαν) in history, raises serious problems of interpretation. The present study explores some of the possible interpetations, concluding with the author’s personal considerations on the two texts under discussion and their importance to today’s inter-Christian dialogue.

Seit dem 19. Jahrhundert befindet sich die Orthodoxe Kirche in einer scharfen Krise, die im 20. Jh. einige Phasen hatte, mit jeweils besserem oder schlechterem Ergebnis. Unter der Hauptfaktoren, die den Zustand der Orthodoxie verschlimmerten, sind die folgende zu nennen: der lokale balkanische Nationalismus und das niedrige Bildungsniveau der Völker am Balkanhalbeinzel und Russland um die Jahrhundertwende. Die Abwesenheit einer bürgerlichen Gesellschaft und einer stabilen Demokratie ist der Grund für die Entstehung einer Reihe von Konflikten im Rahmen der christlichen Gemeinschaft am Balkan, dem ehemaligen Territorium des Osmanischen Reiches. Was aber selten im Fokus der Analyse steht, ist die Rolle Russlands für das Ruinieren der Autorität des Konstantinopolitanischen Patriarchats und für die gezielte Teilung der Christen im Osmanischen Reiches unter Slavisch-und Griechischsprachigen. Diese Teilung fand nach 1830 statt, als die russische Diplomatie begriff, dass das neu erstandene griechische Königtum den europäischen Weg begeht und vom russischen Einfuß frei ist. Die Expansion der russischen Kirche begann eigentlich noch im 17. Jh. und dauerte bis zum 20. Jh. in einem Gebiet zwischen Baltikum und Balkan. Dabei verlor das Konstantinopolitanische Patriarchat ständig Diözesen, die von der Russischen Kirche usurpiert wurden. Im Laufe dieses Prozesses entwickelten die russischen Theologen (man kann auch Autoren aus anderen Ländern nennen) die Häresie des Autokephalismus, der die Rolle der lokalen Kirche als " absolut selbstständig " hochspielt. So vermindert der Autokephalismus den universalen Charakter der um Konstantinopel zentrierten Orthodoxen Kirche, deren Basisprinzip der Konziliarismus ist. Es ist kein Zufall, dass während eines ganzen Jahrhunderts, in dem diese These dominierte, kein einziges Konzil berufen wurde und die Mission der meisten Kirchen auf Nationalpropaganda beschränkt war. Die Situation änderte sich aber nach den Kriegen, nämlich den Balkankriegen und dem Ersten Weltkrieg, die die Beziehungen unter den Christen am Balkan zerrissen. Nach der Revolution 1917 wurde die Dominanz der Russischen Kirche

Contacts: Revue Française de l’Orthodoxie, 68:255(2016), 348-351.
L’article propose un analyse des points positives et négatives du Saint et Grand Concile orthodoxe a partir du perspective des autres églises chrétiennes.
The article offers an analysis of the positive and the negative points of the Holy and Great Orthodox Council from the perspective of other Christian churches.