A Defense of the Council of Crete

Historical Names, Semantics, and Open Exclusivism

The Problem

The Council of Crete is often misunderstood by two groups, both of which believe it teaches a form of “Branch Theory” or ecclesiological relativism. Some who are Orthodox would say that the Council leans into the heresy of Ecumenism. Some non-Orthodox readers would view the same wording to come to the conclusion, “If the Orthodox say we are already Christians in a real sense, then why would I be Orthodox?” Both groups make the same mistake: they isolate the word “Churches” from the rest of the document and ignore the specific qualifiers and context that Crete provides.

The Council’s Declaration: Ecclesiology and Mission

In this section, I will quickly explain, through key quotes, the Council’s definitions, purpose, and goal. I will recommend that you read the whole thing on your own time, but what follows will be sufficient to have a thorough grasp of the Council’s declaration.

First, we have to see how the Council defines “The Church” and how to know those who are outside of her:

“...the Orthodox Church... constitutes the authentic continuation of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church...” ¹

“In accordance with the ontological nature of the Church, her unity can never be perturbed.” ²

"The Orthodox Church founds the unity of the Church on the fact of her establishment by our Lord Jesus Christ, and on the communion in the Holy Trinity and in the sacraments. This unity is expressed through the apostolic succession and the patristic tradition and is lived out in the Church up to the present day." ³

Clearly, we can see that the Council defines the Orthodox Church as the one true church, and that it is never in disunion. So anyone who is not a part of the Orthodox Church is outside of the one Church of Christ. If anyone were to leave the Church, it does not then mean the Church is split or disunited.

The Vocation of the Church

The Church, being the very body of Christ, has the duty to witness to those outside of her. But speaking to them on an international stage requires shared language.

“The apostolic work and the proclamation of the Gospel, also known as mission, belong at the core of the Church’s identity... The re-evangelization of God’s people in contemporary secularized societies, as well as the evangelization of those who have not yet come to know Christ, is the unceasing duty of the Church.” ⁴

“Hence, Orthodox participation in the movement to restore unity with other Christians in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church is in no way foreign to the nature and history of the Orthodox Church, but rather represents a consistent expression of the apostolic faith and tradition in a new historical circumstances.” ⁵

“...through dialogue she gives a dynamic witness to the fullness of truth in Christ... to those who are outside her...” ⁶

The Practical Solution

The Church then sought, for the goal of mutual understanding, to call the heterodox bodies by their historical names, i.e., the names that most of the outside world would understand when heard, indicating who they refer to:

“...the Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of other non-Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions that are not in communion with her...” ⁷

But from their use of any “historical name” it does not then follow that they believe in any equality between them and the Orthodox Church. Any union must be done under a single confession:

“...participation in the WCC does not signify that she accepts the notion of the ‘equality of Confessions,’ and in no way is she able to accept the unity of the Church as an inter-confessional compromise. [unity] must also be founded on the unity of faith, preserved in the sacraments and lived out in the Orthodox Church.” ⁸

“...It is therefore very clear that the WCC does not by any means constitute a 'super-Church'... Moreover, from the fact of its inclusion in the Council, it does not ensue that each Church is obliged to regard the other Churches as Churches in the true and full sense of the term.” ⁹

The Hermeneutic Principle and the Philosophical Precedent

A sound reading must follow the hermeneutic principle often called the “principle of charity”¹⁰ or the “Hermeneutic Circle”¹¹. These ‘rules’ express the principle that the totality of a text cannot be fully understood without its separate parts, and one understands those parts only by seeing them in the context of the whole. This is important because these false understandings, these anti-Crete arguments, isolate the single phrase, “Christian Churches and Confessions”, while ignoring the larger context. (Also see works on compositionality).

The Council repeatedly teaches that, (1) The Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, (2) Heterodox communities are not in communion in her, (3) the unity sought is unity in the Orthodox Church, (4) The Orthodox Church rejects the equality of confessions, (5) The word “Churches” is accepted as a historical name and (6) Orthodox participation in the ecumenical dialogue does not require recognizing other bodies as “Churches” in the true and full sense. Therefore, the phrase “Christian Churches and Confessions” cannot be read as if it stands alone; it must be interpreted through the whole ecclesiological framework of the document.

The central phrase: “…the Orthodox Church accepts the historical name of other non-Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions that are not in communion with her…”. The phrase “historical name” is not an accident. Whatever the intentions of the Council Fathers, the wording reflects a distinction in the philosophy of language, famously articulated by Gottlob Frege, the distinction between “Sense” and “Reference”¹², later developed in modern semantics as “Intension” and “Extension”¹³. The Extension (Reference) is the actual object in the real world that the word points to and the Intension (Sense) is the conceptual definition that the word implies, “Morning Star” and “Evening Star” is a classic case where both refer to the planet Venus, but with different senses. "Church" works in reverse. One word with two Senses instead of two words sharing one Reference.

The Council was deploying nominal identity, a philosophical distinction to separate a label from its theological content. Keep in mind that I am not claiming the Fathers deliberately had Frege in mind, but that the wording functions, in a way, analogous to distinctions later articulated in philosophy of language. The word “Church” could refer to non-Orthodox Christian bodies as historical institutions, while at the same time withholding the theological sense associated with the Church as the Body of Christ possessing the fullness of the faith.

The addition of the adjective “historical” served as a semantic guardrail. The Council granted the nominal extension of the term, while denying the theological intension. A famous parallel is found in Voltaire’s quip, “the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire.”¹⁴ For many centuries, historians, politicians, and others used the name “Holy Roman Empire” because it was successful in identifying a specific political entity, while at the same time many recognized that the institution did not fulfill the words that composed its title.

This is analogous to the formula of Crete. The term “Church” functions as a practical reference point within ecumenical dialogue, while the Orthodox Church denies that such communities fully satisfy the doctrinal content implied by the name. On its face, this seems like a simple and closed case; there is historical and arguably universal precedent for this use of language, but how does it hold up to rigorous philosophical objections? In the next section, I will directly engage the most serious objections given by more traditionalist critics.

Engaging Traditionalist Objections

Traditional critics like those on Mount Athos, taking a more realist stance, read “non-Orthodox Christian Churches” as an implicit identity statement. So when, even under the guise of a “historical name,” it creates a structurally false sentence. And with it being in a conciliar document, it effectively codifies an untruth. They would argue that even though those who wrote the text know what they mean, that they are using “church” as an empty nominal extension, the average reader does not. The average reader would see the Council calling a heterodox group a “church”, they will just assume that the Council is validating them.

I respond that this is a double standard, because even the most strict and traditionalist Orthodox monastics and theologians use names like “The Roman Catholic Church” or “The Lutheran Church” everywhere from casual conversations to books and lectures. They don’t switch to super literal names like “The Western Schismatic Gathering” every time they speak, whether formally or informally.

Now, from here I would expect that they would double down and stress the distinction that’s implicit in their initial objection: The difference between informal speech and a formal decree. Contrary to low-stakes conversations, a formal conciliar document operates at a whole different level, which necessitates a whole different level of logic. In a formal decree, words don’t just describe a reality, but they codify, that is, bind individuals to those realities; using a conversational phrase in a decree is a category mistake.

But to respond to this, let’s look at these two phrases from the view of the traditional realist critics:

(1) “non-Orthodox Christian Churches”.

(2) “historical name of non-Orthodox Christian Churches”.

Suppose the council said the former (1), then the critics would understandably call that out as a contradiction, where “non-Orthodox” and “Christian Churches” would be seen as completely opposing words, thereby making the phrase’s truth value “false” and the Council false for codifying it. But with the latter (2), if one were to attempt a sound reading, using the hermeneutical principles mentioned earlier, they would take into account the qualifier “historical name” and understand that the word “Church” in this instance refers to a nominal usage, thereby neutralizing all the attempts of the Critics to falsify the Council simply due to the codification of the phrase. The combination of “non-Orthodox” and “(Nominal) Christian Churches” is no longer contradictory, and therefore retains its true truth value. As for the Council’s text, the second phrase was actually used: “the historical name of non-Orthodox Christian Churches”. Once the qualifier is taken seriously, we see that the word “Church” is no longer making an ontological assertion but is a statement about how they have historically been designated.

Yet, even if this accusation of contradiction fails, another objection becomes obvious. Should the Church codify nominal language? Even if the Council did not formally teach that heterodox bodies are Churches, would the risk of semiotic slippage not be contrary to the Church’s role of drawing a sharp and unambiguous boundary line? If the Church introduces ambiguity into a council, it can leave the declaration open to future generations to abuse or misunderstand.

Though understandable, I see this as a non sequitur (or false dichotomy, depending on how it's presented); strictly speaking, the mere introduction of qualified nominal language does not then follow that it’s ambiguous. Any bad actor can read Church declarations out of context, and I have written many articles proving that. But as Crete is, in what it says and how it does, is clearly, unambiguously, using nominal language.

The Traditionalists will tie into this objection that pragmatically, the use of nominal language is a rhetorical surrender and an outward signal of assimilation to the outside world. I see this as hair-splitting, in reality, the Catholics, Protestants etc. have called themselves "Churches" for centuries. It changed zero facts on the ground.

Currently, the two sides seem to be at a stalemate. We are left with two competing, internally logical positions. It is a deadlock between the logician’s precision and the traditionalist’s pastoral nature. Yet, this sophisticated stalemate vanishes the moment we stop textual hair-splitting and look at the empirical reality of the global landscape. At the macro level, the "pragmatic shift" that the critics fear has already occurred, not because of Crete, but through centuries of history. The non-Orthodox communities have called themselves "Churches" for generations, and the secular world has permanently adopted this vocabulary.

At the macro level of human history, it is an undeniable reality that the world sees all groups historically identified with Christ as Christians, and their places of worship as “Churches”. To suggest that the mere usage of a universal and historical name somehow is a concession and a compromise of our faith is akin to hunting semantical ghosts. The Church in its outward communication must operate in the world as it actually exists, and in the end, the document is neither a compromise of the faith nor an innovation; it is a reminder that they may be called “Churches,” but we hold the faith.

Historical Precedent for Nominal Names and Degrees of Closeness

The reaction to this Council, at least from the Orthodox side, is shocking. Throughout church history, the nominal use of historical names and even the idea of degrees of “closeness” to the Orthodox was common. I will bring two examples:

I. How should the Heterodox be brought in?

The early Church did not have a single rule for the reception of every heterodox group. There was debate over whether reception should be by baptism, chrismation, or even repentance/confession. All depending on how far from the Church the group has gone.

In the 3rd century, some, including St. Cyprian of Carthage, took the strict position, saying that those outside the Church, since they are outside the Body, do not have the Spirit. Thus, there is no true sacramental life, so heretics and schismatics should be received by baptism. While some, like Pope Stephen, took a more economic position that if someone was baptized with the proper Trinitarian formula, then they do not necessarily need to be baptized again, just chrismated.

By the 4th Century, Saint Basil lays out the distinctions among the Heterodox and how their reception should be handled:

“By heresies they meant men who were altogether broken off and alienated in matters relating to the actual faith; by schisms men who had separated for some ecclesiastical reasons and questions capable of mutual solution; by unlawful congregations gatherings held by disorderly presbyters or bishops or by uninstructed laymen…So it seemed good to the ancient authorities to reject the baptism of heretics altogether, but to admit that of schismatics, on the ground that they still belonged to the Church.

As to those who assembled in unlawful congregations, their decision was to join them again to the Church, after they had been brought to a better state by proper repentance and rebuke, and so, in many cases, when men in orders had rebelled with the disorderly, to receive them on their repentance, into the same rank.”

And even allowed for pastoral flexibility, also known as “oikonomia”:

“The Cathari are schismatics; but it seemed good to the ancient authorities, I mean Cyprian and our own Firmilianus, to reject all these, Cathari, Encratites, and Hydroparastatæ, by one common condemnation…Nevertheless, since it has seemed to some of those of Asia that, for the sake of management of the majority, their baptism should be accepted, let it be accepted”

II. Nominal use of Church

In the Acta Graeca¹⁵, the surviving Greek materials of the Council of Florence, we see Saint Mark of Ephesus speak of Rome in “sister Church” terms and even call it the “Roman Church”. And for a more contemporary but pre-2016 example, the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs uses the title “Church” for the Romans:

“But until there be this desired returning of the apostate Churches to the body of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of which Christ is the Head (Eph. iv. 15)…is condemned,as it ought to be, synodically…among the first we place the said Encyclical to the Easterns from Pope Pius IX, Bishop of the elder Rome; and such we proclaim it to be in the Catholic Church.”

and a more recent example from the Russian Orthodox Church’s “Basic Principles of Attitude to the Non-Orthodox.” 2000:

“As a result, the Assyrian Church of the East and the non-Chalcedonian Churches…are separated even today. In the second millennium, the separation of the Roman Church was followed by internal divisions in Western Christianity, brought about by the Reformation, which resulted in the continual formation of different Christian denominations outside of communion with the Roman see.”

As we see, making distinctions of closeness to the Church between the Heterodox and what Crete does in its use of the “Historical Name” of those Heterodox groups is far from a novel practice.

Exclusivism and the Heterodox Misreading and Branch Theory

Many of the Heterodox likely do so due to some vain effort to reduce Christendom to their own Fatal Reductionist framework or to simply undermine the Exclusive claims of Orthodoxy by forcing either “Branch Theory” or “Invisible Church Doctrine” into the reading of the Council. The idea is that if the Church held to any of these, it would contradict its past claims of being the one true, unchanging Church and therefore it would then be falsified.

Besides the fact that these readings would require them to violate the sound reading principles mentioned earlier, the Heterodox claims on the Council show a critical misunderstanding of Exclusivism. There is a distinction between an exclusivist who isolates herself and is resistant to reaching out to bring those outside her in, and one who is dogmatic on their unique position on the fullness of truth and the Body of Christ, but because of that makes an effort to join those who are outside to her.

Though I have my own terms for these, I will use those used by Dr. Douglas Pratt, Professor at the University of Auckland, in his paper, “Exclusivism and Exclusivity: A contemporary theological challenge”¹⁶. Closed Exclusivist for the former and Open Exclusivist for the latter.

This distinction is important because if it is the case that the Church should dogmatically be “Closed Exclusivist”, then any effort, be it political or theological, to reach out for the purpose of evangelism would be contradictory, and a concession to the Protestant ideas of an Invisible and fractured Church. But in reality, throughout her history, the latter “Open Exclusivist” position has always held.

Conclusion: Why Orthodoxy is not Optional

So, what do both groups of Critics have in common? Both sides are ultimately saying that the Council of Crete is making official a declaration that tells those outside that they do not need to be Orthodox to be “Christian” and therefore saved. But in this article I have demonstrated that the critics employ either poor hermeneutics, limited historical recall, or an overabundance of pastoral caution.

This is not to say that there are no understandable critiques, but that none of them follow to the conclusion that the Church relinquished her position as the one and only true Church of Christ. It remains steadfast in the doctrine that there is an Ark; it is not inclusive; it is visible and united. That Church, the Body of Christ, is the Eastern Orthodox Church, and there is no unity that’s not in her.

1. "Encyclical of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church," Crete, sec. I, par. 2.

2. "Relations of the Orthodox Church," Crete, par. 6.

3. “Relations of the Orthodox Church,” Crete, par. 2.

4. “Encyclical of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church,” Crete, sec. II, par. 6.

5. “Relations of the Orthodox Church,” Crete, par. 4.

6. “Relations of the Orthodox Church,” Crete, par. 6.

7. “Relations of the Orthodox Church,” Crete, par. 6.

8. “Relations of the Orthodox Church,” Crete, par. 18.

9. “Relations of the Orthodox Church,” Crete, par. 19.

10. “…In Davidson’s work this principle, which admits of various formulations and cannot be rendered in any completely precise form, often appears in terms of the injunction to optimize agreement between ourselves and those we interpret; that is, it counsels us to interpret speakers as holding true beliefs (true by our lights at least) wherever it is plausible to do. In fact the principle can be seen as combining two notions: a holistic assumption of rationality in belief (‘coherence’) and an assumption of causal relatedness between beliefs, especially perceptual beliefs, and the objects of belief (‘correspondence’)…”

Jeff Malpas, “Donald Davidson,” 3.3 Radical Interpretation, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ⁠https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/davidson/.

11. “…Understanding a sentence requires some sense of the whole paragraph; understanding the whole paragraph depends on the meaning of its individual sentences. This back-and-forth does not lead us in circles in a vicious or futile way. It leads to progressively deeper comprehension…”

“The Hermeneutical Circle: Understanding the Dynamics of Interpretation.” Philosophy Institute, https://philosophy.institute/research-methodology/hermeneutical-circle-dynamics-interpretation/.

12. Gottlob Frege, “Sense and Reference,” trans. Max Black, The Philosophical Review 57, no. 3 (May 1948)

13. Rudolf Carnap, Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947)

For further reading see: Saul A. Kripke, Naming and Necessity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), Lecture I.

14. Voltaire, An Essay on Universal History, the Manners, and Spirit of Nations, trans. Thomas Nugent (London: J. Nourse, 1759), vol. 2, chap. 70.

15. J.-P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Graeca (Paris, 1857–1866), vol. 160, col. 537A (Apologia...).

16. Douglas Pratt, "Exclusivism and Exclusivity: A Contemporary Theological Challenge," Pacifica 20, no. 3 (2007)