An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law
Order of Creation/Order of Redemption: The Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church
|
ONE OF THE CONSEQUENCES
OF SIN IN OUR FALLEN WORLD IS THIS TENSION IN CHURCH ADMINISTRATION BETWEEN
POWER AND HOLINESS; BETWEEN HAVING THE EFFICIENCY OF A SINGLE HUMAN DECISION-MAKER
AND ALTERNATIVELY A SYSTEM WHERE EVERYONE 1S SO CONSTANTLY FILLED WITH
THE GRACE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT . . . .
A number of
years ago, I asked one of the great theologians of the Church, Metropolitan
George Khodre of Lebanon, what was the hardest part of being a bishop,
he paused and smiled, “To exercise authority with love.” In a succinct,
profound statement, he made both a fundamental point about all humanity,
and described a fundamental tension in the government or administration
of the Church.
One of the
consequences of sin in our fallen world is this tension in Church administration
between power and holiness; between having the efficiency of a single
human decision-maker and alternatively a system where everyone is so constantly
filled with the grace of the holy Spirit that love and concord of mind
rules every joint decision, true conciliarity.
AN ONGOING
TENSION
The people
of God from the beginning have been plagued with this tension between
power and holiness, even before the new people of God, the Church, was
born through the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost day. In the Old
Testament we read that “The Lord is King forever and ever.”(1) And
yet the Jewish people were not satisfied with this and said to Him, “Give
us a king…”(2) They wanted one human figure to order them, rather than
to be directly under the kingship of God.
With the death
and resurrection of Christ and the coming of the Holy Spirit, one might
think it would have been different. After all, we now can be “partakers
of the divine nature.”(3) And the Church is indeed “a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people,
that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness
into His marvelous light.”(4)
In fact, our
Lord, Jesus Christ addressed directly the problem of Church “government.”
He said to us, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over
them and those who are great exercise authority over them, yet it shall
not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you, let
him be your servant.”(5) But in much of Church history, it
has been difficult to adhere to principles of spiritual servanthood and
for the entire Church to “stand fast in one spirit with one mind striving
together for the faith of the gospel.”(6)
From the very
beginning there were differences of opinion even among the leaders of
the Church. The Council of Jerusalem came into being to deal with the
first major dispute in the Church, which happened to arise in Antioch:
Must Gentile converts keep the law of Moses, particularly the rite of
circumcision?(7)
The Church
in Jerusalem, while not having a legal jurisdiction over Antioch, has
been referred to in history as the “Mother of Churches”, and in the first
century had a position of primacy or priority or witnessing confirmation
for the Church in other areas.(8) It was natural as a result
of the historical context that it would play the role of “first among
equals” with regard to the dispute over circumcision.
By the end
of the first century this primacy or priority of witness passed to the
Church living in Rome; witness the writings of Sts. Ignatius, Clement,
and Irenaeus.(9) The Orthodox understand this priority to have
been given to the Church itself and not to the head of the Church as a
person. Not one of his successors played the leadership role that St.
Peter did during his lifetime.
Key Orthodox
scholars, however, accept as fact that the Churches beginning in the late
first century looked to the Church living in Rome, in the words of St.
Ignatius of Antioch, to “preside in love.”(10) The respect
that was granted to the Church living in Rome was based on it being the
servant of all, as well as the political influence of the City of Rome,
but not on a legal jurisdiction or an authority of power.
As Church administration
developed in history, there were four great centers of the Church: Rome,
Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem — the first three being major commercial
centers of the Empire, and the fourth, being the Holy City. After Constantine
came to power in the fourth century, there was not only the dramatic change
of the Empire becoming Christian, but he founded a City he named after
himself, Constantinople. Thus, there became five great centers of the
Church, in order of priority: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch
and Jerusalem.
In the Great
Schism, generally pegged to 1054 A.D., Rome was separated from the one
holy, catholic and apostolic Church: that is, the other four Patriarchates.
After the Great Schism the Church of Constantinople, previously second
in honor after Rome, (Second Ecumenical Council, Canon III), assumed the
primacy and therefore the position of “first among equals” of the Orthodox
Churches.
TWO VIEWS
OF LEADERSHIP
Church scholars
in dealing with “ecclesiology” (doctrine of the Church) have described
two major ways of looking at leadership in the Church. The first is called
“universal ecclesiology”; the second, “eucharistic ecclesiology.”
Simply stated,
universal ecclesiology holds that the universal church is the sum of
its parts, the local churches (Thus, 1 + 1 + 1 = 3). This type
of thinking leads logically to an understanding that there must be one
patriarch or Pope (both rooted in the meaning of “father”) heading this
universal church on earth.
Eucharistic
ecclesiology, on the other hand, holds that each local eucharistic assembly
(the local church celebrating the divine liturgy) under its bishop is
the fullness of the Church. This does not mean that each local
Church is isolated from the other churches. Rather, just as there is only
one Eucharist, each local Church in its fullness is simultaneously also
one with each other local Church. (1 + 1 + 1 = 1)
In the understanding
of eucharistic ecclesiology, it is still acknowledged that one Church
may have a position of primacy or priority, as long as these terms are
consonant with the idea of “presiding in love,” For example, were different
Church leaders from different parts of the world and the faithful together,
then, as now, it would be expected in terms of respect and honor out of
love, that a particular bishop from a particular Church would preside
over the eucharistic assembly or divine liturgy.’’(11) Having
such order in the Church continues today through the dyptchs, a listing
of the heads of autocephalous churches in order of honor, not rank.
The Roman Catholic
Church, however, centered on the fact that by the late first century the
Church of Rome was recognized to have a position of primacy, first among
equals. This development was legalistically transferred into a primacy
of power or superior authority of the pope over other bishops. Ultimately
the Roman Catholic Church developed the doctrine into the modern papacy
including the very recent Roman Catholic dogma of papal infallibility
(Vatican 1, 1870). Orthodox understanding is that (1) there is one episcopacy
in which all the bishops share, (2) the position of bishop is given by
God’s grace, and (3) the three ranks of clergy (bishop, presbyter [priest]
and deacon) do not recognize a rank higher than bishop. Nor is there a
rank of bishop to which some other bishops are subordinate in the sense
of power.
If the Roman
Catholic Church was misled by universal ecclesiology, so in part was the
Orthodox Church also misled. To be fair, the Orthodox Church, beginning
in the mid-third century (as a result of the Roman Empire), has not implemented
properly the early Church’s understanding of there being one episcopate.
Sometimes we fail to create places where all bishops share equally, whether
in one geographical area (a synod) or in various geographical areas throughout
the world, even though in each of these instances there is in fact a bishop
who is first among equals. Rather, the more recent view of many Orthodox
Churches has been a partial turning away from eucharistic ecclesiology
and a partial acceptance of universal ecclesiology.
Thus, although
in looking at the Church worldwide, Orthodox do not see it as the sum
of the local churches, with a single head, often when they look at their
own Patriarchate, they do see it as the sum of the churches within the
Patriarchate, having a single head. The Patriarch is seen as having power
or authority over other bishops in his synod, rather than to be the bishop
presiding in love.
Further, these
Orthodox, whether it is consciously admitted or not, often appear to see
the Church as a number of isolated Churches, generally along national
borders (contrary to the historic ecclesiology of the Church), one in
faith and worship, but only a “part” of the universal Church.
The logical
conclusion of this thinking is that just as their “autocephalous” or self-governing
Churches have a primacy of power (rather than a first among equals) in
their Synods, there must be a universal primacy in the same sense for
the one Church — a papal view. But these Orthodox do stop the process
at the “autocephalous” level and say serious decision making beyond that
level must be accomplished not by a Pope or Patriarch for all Orthodox
but by a pan-Orthodox Council.
When there
was one Empire, with the Emperor convening such councils, it was much
easier for the Church to have pan-Orthodox councils. Perhaps, notwithstanding
hopes for a pan-Orthodox Council by the year 2000, it is precisely the
lack of agreement on what primacy means that accounts in some part for
the fact that the Orthodox have not had an ecumenical council since 787
AD.
PRIMACY
AND THE FUTURE
Primacy is
also a key part of future discussions between the Orthodox Church and
the Roman Catholic Church. The current Pope of the Roman Catholic Church
has appealed to the Orthodox Church for reunion between the two Churches.
In his recent encyclical, Ut Unum Sint (“That they all may be one,”)
Pope John Paul II indicates an understanding that the issue of primacy
and its meaning is a key issue to be resolved. While inviting discussion
about its meaning — an important step forward — the Pope emphasizes that
if the Church is to work effectively, primacy must include real authority:
“With the power and the authority without which such an office would be
illusory, the bishop of Rome must ensure the communion of all the churches.”[12]
Before the
Orthodox Church can effectively discuss relations with the Roman Catholic
Church, however, it must have a consensus in its own thinking of what
“primacy” means in terms of the theological underpinnings of the Church.
How are issues decided when there is disagreement? Is there an ecclesiological
inconsistency between the governing (administration?) of an autocephalous
Church and the relationships of the autocephalous Churches to each other.
If so, why? If there is an inconsistency and should not be, then what
should the procedures be? How does one not intervene in the internal affairs
of an autocephalous Church and yet have all of the
Churches bear
witness? How would such authority handle the “leadership” of a Church,
such as the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which is currently an embarrassment
to the entire Orthodox Church? (The 42nd Convention of the Antiochian
Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America recently called upon the
Ecumenical Patriarch to request the autocephalous Churches to convene
to deal with the situation of Jerusalem.) What does “primacy” mean, if
anything, in addition to presiding at the Eucharist and having a right
to call the Churches together and preside at meetings?
Perhaps the
first issue must be: should there be rules? One could argue this is precisely
the introduction of legalism into the affairs of the Church that leads
to something like the modern Papacy. On the other hand, it is clear from
early times that there have been some rules — canons, if you will.
And perhaps
the most important in this area is Apostolic Canon 34:
“The bishops
of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account
him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent but
neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of
all; for so there will be unanimity ...“ This is, however, a general rule
that without the existence of concord and love results in paralysis.
AN ORTHODOX
SHORTFALL
Can there sometimes
be such concord and love in meetings of the bishops? Absolutely and emphatically,
yes! The first episcopal assembly of the North American bishops held November
30-December 2, 1994 at the Antiochian Village, Ligonier, Pennsylvania
showed this decisively. In the words of the host bishop, Metropolitan
PHILIP: “I don’t ever remember such a meeting of minds. . .I don’t ever
remember that we have had so much harmony in our deliberations as we did
at this conference.”
The prayers
of the clergy and faithful were indeed answered. The Episcopal Assembly
was, indeed, presided over in love by the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch,
the first among equals, and was in accord with the stated desires of the
Mother Churches to have the churches in North America — and in other areas
where Orthodox have immigrated — to witness to the gospel of Jesus Christ
together. The Episcopal Assembly also called again for discussions between
the Church here and the Mother Churches abroad.
The relations
between the bishops here and the bishops in the Mother Churches, however,
seemed bereft of the love and concord evidenced in the meetings of the
North American bishops. Misinformation, mistrust, and fear that the North
American Church was plotting autocephaly (an issue not once mentioned
in the meetings) prevailed in some of the Mother Churches, notably the
Church of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Rather than such
“plots”, the bishops of North America focused upon the re-evangelization
of its flock and the evangelization of North America and the need for
unity to achieve these goals.
The fear and
mistrust that prevailed overseas, led the Ecumenical Patriarch, it is
rumored, to forbid the recently announced holding of the Second Episcopal
Assembly this Fall. Reaction in North America to the Patriarch’s reactions
have ranged from despair and embitterment to anger and calls for revolution.
The entire
episode shows the failure of an Orthodox policy that treats each “jurisdiction
or Mother Church” as an isolated entity. Only heads of Churches, primates,
should be discussing matters regarding their subordinates, their “children,”
rather than treating all bishops as equals. Each local church must reflect
the fullness of the church while together also constituting one church.
In my view, there are presently no sufficient vehicles of communication
(how can there be love without communication?) for the Orthodox Church
worldwide to function in an effective and coordinated manner.[13]
Similarly,
the North American Church lacks a structure that allows Metropolitans
and Archbishops here the flexibility to deal together effectively with
a North American culture that is different from the experiences and cultures
of the Mother Churches.
The episode
regarding the first Episcopal Assembly also shows a failure of Orthodoxy
to meet the challenges of the modern era in a timely fashion. For instance,
over the last decades the breakdown of the family, the primary unit of
society, has exploded so that now 60% of American children are growing
up in one-parent homes. But, in this same short period, the Orthodox Church
has been unable to convene even four pre-conciliar meetings for the Great
and Holy Council — which if it is ever held will not even deal with such
issues.
The Orthodox,
after ten years of agreement between the theologians of both Churches
that there is no theological division between the Eastern Orthodox (Greek
Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox and others) and the Oriental
Orthodox (such as the Copts, Ethiopians and Armenians), have still been
unable to declare the common Eucharist (or in the alternative to reject
or deal otherwise with the common declarations that have been made). Meanwhile,
the percentage of Ethiopia’s 53 million people that have turned from Orthodoxy
(once over 50% of the population) to evangelicalism has increased from
1% of the population to 10% of the population. (There are now 5,000,000
evangelicals in Ethiopia.)
Similarly,
while Moslems, Jews and Catholics determine the fate of Jerusalem, the
Orthodox are in paralysis, and worse. While the Catholics have an indigenous
Patriarch with whom the populace can relate, the Orthodox have a synod
which has left the faithful in the Holy Land shepherdless. Whether in
Jerusalem or in New York, if the Orthodox tradition is to be preserved,
the laity, the royal priesthood14 must have a major say in
who their bishops are to be. “The people of the Church have the right
to a voice in the choice of bishops.” 15
The situation
in Eastern Europe again shows Orthodox discord, rather than unity. While
the Roman Church makes a unified attempt at moving forward in Eastern
Europe, in the Orthodox world we have a serious split between the Second
Rome (Constantinople) and the Third Rome (Moscow) over Ukraine. Constantinople
without consultation with others, including its own Exarch here in the
West, received American Ukrainians under its jurisdiction — affecting,
many believe, the situation in Ukraine itself where three Orthodox Churches
claim legitimacy. Further, Constantinople has, contrary to the wishes
of the Church of Russia, encouraged a separate Church of Estonia.
POSSIBLE
SOLUTIONS
How can these
problems of the Orthodox Church be remedied by joint action in love? And
how can the development of backup rules help insure the working of the
Church as one with a legitimate role of primacy and yet without discord
or paralysis, whether on the North American level or on the world level?
Here in North
America a signal from the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Mother Churches
assuring us that they would welcome a second Episcopal Assembly in the
first quarter of 1996, would go a long way toward rebuilding the credibility
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate which it had theretofore begun to have.
Such a signal could foster the concord and love that must exist, both
between the Churches here, and between them and the Mother Churches. Such
blessings by the Mother Churches for a second Episcopal Assembly could
be conditioned upon the fact that the Second Episcopal Assembly should
focus, as it has intended to, solely on the pastoral problems and needs
in North America.
On the worldwide
scale, the servant of all, who presides in love, the Ecumenical Patriarch,
should call together a pan-Orthodox conference of all the Churches including
participants from North and South America, Australia and Europe. It could
be for a week long period to examine not the historical aspects, but the
practical aspects today of primacy, and to do so in the context
of creating an Orthodox World Council of Churches. In this concrete, focused
context, the conference could deal with whether the fear of papalism can
be erased while simultaneously allowing the Orthodox Church to effectively
hear witness together to the gospel of Christ in this ever-smaller planet
we all call home. As part of such work, the question of how the Churches
should build each other up by common ministries in humanitarian aid and
missions and evangelism and other areas could be explored.
If an Orthodox
World Council of Churches, called together by the Ecumenical Patriarch
with the blessings of the other Churches was created and met two or more
times a year in Geneva, it would provide a much needed frequent and regular
vehicle of communication among the Orthodox Churches. With such communication,
hopefully would come more trust and love. Such a forum, thus, could also
be a vehicle for problem-solving and could benefit the entire Church as
well as her participation in ecumenical work.
Numerous issues
would, of course, have to be explored and resolved. Should there be representation
based on the number of autocephalous and other churches but balanced to
take account of the populations of faithful of the Churches? While respecting
and in fact strengthening the primacy of Constantinople, should there
be an Executive Committee of the Council who would also have a vital role
in the conciliar process? Alternatively, should institutions of balancing
power in modern democracies be explored, such as the American separation
of powers between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial, with the power
in the Executive to veto and yet a two-thirds override by the Legislature?
Whatever the questions, and whatever the answers, the need is to develop
a tool of frequent, regular communication. With a set of rules that respects
all and yet defines a primacy in a way that helps the Orthodox Church
work effectively in the modern world, we could certainly move ahead with
more vigor.
OUR ONE
HOPE
We are living
in a post-Christian era. The only hope for transformation of our societies
is Jesus Christ through his Church, the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic
Church — the Orthodox Church. We pray with all our hearts that
each Orthodox bishop here and throughout the world may examine his heart
and truly focus on the words of our Lord, “You know that the rulers of
the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority
over them. Yet it shall not be so among you, but whoever desires to become
great among you, let him be your servant.”[16]
We pray that
in the ministry of servanthood, the first among equals, the Ecumenical
Patriarch, will be led by God to encourage the work of the salvation of
souls in North America by requesting the Standing Conference of Canonical
Orthodox Bishops in the Americas (SCOBA) to carry on with their second
Episcopal Assembly in early 1996. We further pray that in the same ministry
of servanthood the Ecumenical Patriarch, in consultation with, or at the
request of, others of the Mother Churches, will call together a conference
in March or April, 1996, in Geneva to decide upon a “Constitution” for
an Orthodox World Council of Churches that would begin meeting by the
Fall of 1996.
In Christ Jesus,
all things are possible. May our bishops, clergy and faithful not miss
the opportunities our Lord is giving us in these historic times.
Charles
J. Ajalat is Chancellor of The Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese
of North America. He is an attorney-at-law by profession.
FOOTNOTES
1 Ps. 10:16.
2 1 Sam. 8:6.
3 2 Pet. 1:4.
4 1 Pet.
2:9.
5 Matt.
20:25-6.
6 Philip.
1:27.
7 Acts
15: 1-2.
8 Afanassieff.
“Presiding in Love” in The Primacy of Peter, St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1992, pp. 115, 119-23.
9 Id. pp.
124-35.
10 Ignatius,
Letter to the Romans, prol.
11 Id. pp. 109), 111 Also, Schmemann, “The Idea
of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology” in The Primacy of Peter, supra
p. 165.
12 Ut Unum Sint, par. 94.
13 “In modern times, the unity of the Orthodox
Church is becoming a sort of abstract ideal, with no means of manifesting
itself in the real life of the Church. Anyone who regards the pan—Orthodox
or Ecumenical Council as an organ manifesting the Church’s unity is just
putting things in the wrong order, consequences before foundation. In
fact, the pan—Orthodox Council should be the consequence of Orthodox Church
unity; it should be guided by a church or a bishop; and it cannot be a
foundation for this unity.” Afanassieff, supra, at p.143.
14 1 Pet. 2:9
15 Bulgakov,
The Orthodox Church, p. 47; see also Ware, The
Orthodox Church, p. 291
16 Matt.
20:25, 6.
From Word
Magazine
Publication of the Antiochian Orthodox
Christian Archdiocese of North America
January
1996
pp. 7-11
|
