An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law
Order of Creation/Order of Redemption: The Ordination of Women in the Orthodox Church
|
It
is an honour for me to appear before the VIII International Congress of
the Society on Canon Law of the Eastern Churches in order to deliver my
paper on the Primate's place within the Autocephalous Church of Greece,
of which I happen to be a bishop. For this honour which has been extended
me I wish to convey my heartfelt thanks to the Society's presidium.
In beginning, I ask that you lend me your attention for a short
while so that I may briefly analyze my subject, by which I shall attempt
to cast light upon and review the more general canonical question of the
relation of the Protos or First Bishop to the Synod of the Church
of Greece and to each individual bishop.
The canonical relations of the individual bishops of a local Church
to the Bishop of the first (capital) city constituted, from the beginning,
the object of canonical regulation, in order to avoid the creation of
problems which could disrupt the life of the Church and especially her
unity. Canons III and XXXIV of the Apostles, and Canon I× of the Local
Council of Antioch, which refer to the interdependence of the bishops
and to their mutual relations within the ecclesiological framework, are
of basic significance in that they ascribe to the Protos, or primate,
certain privileges of administrative superiority, of course always within
the dimension of the ministry in Christ.
More specifically, Canon XXXIV of the Apostles and Canon IX of
the Council of Antioch regulate the canonical relations of the bishops
of each local Church or each Metropolitan district with the presiding
Bishop of the Metropolis, whom it calls "Protos" and
"Head". According to these regulations, the bishops who belong
to an autocephalous Metropolitan eparchy and /or to an autocephalous local
Church are obliged, for the sake of preserving the unity of the Church
and canonical order, to recognize the presiding bishop of the Metropolis,
i.e. of the city largest in size or of the greatest significance, as the
first among them and as the Head of their body, and must not undertake
administrative or other actions pertaining to the more general and vital
Church matters without his opinion or knowledge.
This of course means that in local affairs or in matters pertaining
to the exercise of his sacred pastoral duties as bishop, teacher and administrator
of his spiritual fold, i.e. his diocese, each bishop of course has the
right to act freely-always within the framework of the sacred canons and
ecclesiastical laws. No bishop may interfere in the administration of
another diocese, save his own,(1) "rendering account only unto the
Lord". This, however does not imply an arbitrariness on the part
of the bishop or a degrading of the Synodical system (sinodikos thesmos),
but rather the autonomous and independent administrative spiritual and
pastoral activities of the bishop, which, however, are supervised by the
Synod to which the bishop belongs.
In other words, the independence of the local Church is recognized
- but only in those matters in which the Synod or the First Bishop "have
no right to interfere".(2) Like the XXXIVth Apostolic Canon, Canon
IX of the Council of Antioch is quite explicit on this matter: "...Each
bishop has authority over his own diocese (parikia), both to manage it
with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision
for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters
and deacons; and to settle everything with judgement. But let him undertake
nothing further without the bishop of the Metropolis; neither the latter
without the consent of the others".(3)
Because the canon in question, as we have noted, aims at preserving
the Church's unity in Christ and not at the adulteration of the ecclesiastical
principle of the equality of the bishops in their priesthood and teaching,
it adds that the "First" bishop must not ignore the existence
of the other bishops and should not abuse his authority by proceeding
to actions which betray arbitrariness, high-handedness, and a despotic
spirit of imposing one's will upon his brothers and concelebrants. Thus
through the interdependence, unity and cooperation between the bishops
and the First Bishop (Protos) their co-responsibility in facing the great
and general problems of the Church is made manifest, and the need for
the correct functioning of the synodical system through the participation
in the synodical organ of all of the bishops without exception emphasized.(4)
Hence, in the Orthodox Church each bishop, by right of his ordination
- and not by missio canonica as in the Roman Catholic Church -
participates in Synods, presided over by the First Bishop, which deal
with matters referring to the overall life of the Church. Whatsoever refers
to the local Church however, e.g. ordinations of priests and deacons,
belongs to the competency, and is the responsibility, of the local bishop.
This competency can neither be limited nor replaced.(5)
As it has been observed, however, the institution of the Autocephalous
Churches formed in more recent times does not constitute a super-local
organizational structure of the Church, i.e. a super-diocese. "Autocephalous
Churches, organized as a pyramid with a synodical institution exercising
absolute authority over the local Churches, or with the primate exercising
such authority over the councils, represent a dangerous distortion of
the ecclesiological spirit of the canons".(6) The authority of the
Council or that of the First Bishop or Protos over the individual bishops
cannot abrogate the primordial and inviolate jurisdiction of the bishop
over the local Church, but ought to extend only to the supervision of
episcopal actions and deeds, always on the basis of the sacred canons
and the church laws. Any overstepping of these canonical bounds constitutes
a dangerous alteration of Orthodox ecclesiology and surreptitiously introduces
into the Church a secular spirit and administrative principles foreign
to canonical order. Indeed, if we keep in mind that on the local level
the synodical system is in general to this very day an institution, while
the Universal Church, or Church at large, is not expressed institutionally,
since an Ecumenical Council is recognized as such only posteriori and then acquires supreme authority for the Church, it becomes evident
how necessary it is to preserve inviolate from every alienating influence
the functional structures of the synodical system in its initial phase,
so to speak, so that it remains a strong instrument ensuring the unity
and concord not only of the bishops but of the laity as well. Indeed,
as Zonoras in his interpretation of the 34th Apostolic Canon observes:
"it desires... that the bishops have concord and that they be united
by the bond of love, and that they should be an example of love and concord
to the clergy and people under them".(7)
Hence all the bishops, as successors of the Lord and
the Apostles, possess the same priesthood in equal measure (tis aftis
aksias). United with one another through the mysteries or sacraments and
especially through the Holy Eucharist, each individual bishop on the one
hand deals self-sufficiently with matters pertaining to his diocese, while
on the other hand with the rest of the bishops in synod, under the presidency
of the First bishop, he deals with issues affecting the more general life
of the Church. The distinction made between the Primate and the rest of
the bishops is not one of higher or lower value or significance, but rather
one of honour, and is of a practical nature. It is a primacy of diakonia
and not of special episcopal privileges over and beyond his fellow bishops
which he derives from his Archpriesthood.(8) The ministry in question
reflects the concern of the canons to establish an organ to regulate authority
and which, by functioning within a specific framework harmoniously combined
with the collegiality of the bishops, directs the functioning of the synod
or council towards the good ordering of ecclesiastical affairs.(9)
The Orthodox Church of Greece was proclaimed autocephalous in the
year 1850 by a Patriarchal and Synodical Tome which also specified the
basic principles of its canonical administration. According to this Tome,
the Church of Greece is autocephalous, "having as its supreme head
a standing synod composed of bishops summoned in rotation according to
the seniority of their ordination, having as their president the incumbent
Metropolitan of Athens, and administering the Church in accordance with
the sacred canons freely and unhindered by any secular intervention".(10)
In analyzing this specification we observe that the Mother Church
of Constantinople granted autocephaly to her daughter, the Church of Greece,
under the following conditions which pertain to the latter's administration:
a) It recognized and stipulated as the Church of Greece's supreme
governing body a Standing Synod of Bishops;
b) Without specifying the number of the Synod's members, it foresaw
that the bishops who are to participate in the Synod are to be summoned
in sequence according to the order of their seniority in ordination.
c) It recognised as Protos or Primate among the bishops of the
Church in question the incumbent Metropolitan of Athens, whom it also
named as President of the Synod.
d) It excluded all secular intervention in the administration of
the Church, thus preserving her internal independence and self-administration.
We here underline the fact that the Tome foresaw that in This Synod,
which thus became the supreme ecclesiastical head of the Church, not all
the bishops were to participate simultaneously, but only certain of them,
summoned each time on the basis of their seniority.(11) Such a periodical
participation of the active bishops in the Synod should not be considered
as seeking to exclude some of them from the conciliar actions of the Church,
for a) all the bishops participate in the synod, although not simultaneously;
b) the criterion by which they are summoned, invited and participate is
an objective one: viz. the chronological order in which they were
ordained to the episcopate. This ensures that each and every bishop without
exception will participate in turn in the work of the Synod. Different
from this, and hence clearly uncanonical is the meritorious (aristidin)
synthesis of the synod: i.e. the choosing of specific bishops from the
catalogue of hierarchs with or without an objective criterion, or the
composition of the synod by permanent members.(12)
These uncanonical ways of composing synods have resulted in gerontism (gerodismos): the creation of bishops superior in their ability to impose
their views and authority upon others. They have also resulted in other
tragic situations which have undermined the unity of the Church. Without
a doubt, the constitutional charters of the Church of Greece from 1923
and on have clarified certain ambiguities in the Tome. For example, they
are more specific in specifying that the "supreme head" of the
Church of Greece is the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy, which is composed
of all her diocesan bishops, and that this Synod's "representative"
is the Standing Synod, smaller in membership than the Holy Synod of the
Hierarchy. All bishops participate in the Standing Synod, being summoned
yearly in rotation on the basis of the seniority of their ordination.
With this clarification the real and practical difficulties of the simultaneous
participation of all the bishops are solved without creating ecclesiological
problems.
The Tome, by declaring that the Synod is the highest
ecclesiastical authority in Greece, implied that it has certain privileges
also. These are:
a) that the Synod, and not the Primate, i.e. the Metropolitan or
Archbishop of Athens, is commemorated when the bishops celebrate the Holy
Liturgy;
b) that it is the Synod which issues the canonical documents necessary
for the ordination of bishops;
c) that the Synod had the right to refer to, and correspond with,
the Ecumenical Patriarch and his Holy Synod, and to receive announcements
and to enter into any type of collaboration with them;
d) that it is the Synod which maintains the bonds of unity with
both the Mother Church of Constantinople and the other Holy Orthodox Churches,
and
e) that the Synod regulates all things "pertaining to the
internal administration of the Church".(13)
Before its autocephaly was proclaimed, the Church of Greece was
administered by a five-member Church Council or Synod of bishops voted
by the legislature and appointed by the government, as specified by the
"Ruling" ("hegemonic") or "Royal" decree
of the Fifth National Assembly held in Navplion (15 March 1832).
After autocephaly, an article to the effect that, among other things,
the Church of Greece is "autocephalous, that she exercises her sovereign
rights independently of all other Churches and that she is administered
by a Holy Synod of bishops"(14) has been included in all Greek Constitutions
where they speak of religion.
More specifically, in Article 3 of the current Constitution, in
force since 1975, the following is stated in regard to the question at
hand: "...The Orthodox Church of Greece... is autocephalous and is
administered by a Holy Synod of the active hierarchs, and by the Standing
Holy Synod derived from it, composed as the Constitutional Charter of
the Church of Greece specifies, observing the provisions of the Patriarchal
Tome of June 29, 1850 and the Patriarchal Act of September 4, 1928".
From this provision it is apparent that in accordance
with canonical order the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy is sanctioned as
the supreme administrative organ of the Church of Greece by the current
Greek Constitution as well. In the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy all diocesan
bishops without exception participate. The principle of the equality of
the bishops as members of the Synod is reconfirmed.(15) Consequently,
the Autocephalous Church of Greece follows the synodical system in its
administration - a system which functions on the principle of majority
rule, as inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The place of the Protos or Primate within the synod is from the
very beginning that of primus inter pares. His rights as president
of both the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy and the Standing Holy Synod are
described in nucleus already by the First Constitutional Law ÓA /1852.
From that time on in the Constitutional Charters that the Church of Greece
has had, and especially in Regulation No. 1 /1977, provisions relating
to and specifically specifying the rights and duties of the Protos
within the synod have been included. From the study of these provisions
we observe that:
a) The Protos or Primate convokes the Standing Holy Synod
and the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy in extraordinary session and communicates
to the Synods' members the session's agenda.
Initially, and up to the year 1969, a decree had to be issued in
order for the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy to be convoked. After 1969 the
convocation of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy in regular annual session
takes place ipso jure, as foreseen by Article 6, paragr. 1 of the
Church's Constitutional Charter; it is summoned extraordinarily by decision
of the Standing Holy Synod, whose president is obligated to convoke it.
The term "ipso jure" ("aftodikeos")
from one point of view means that the convocation of the Holy Synod of
the Hierarchy does not require any additional action on the part of an
ecclesiastical or civil organ, its cancellation or postponement however,
would require the passing of new legislation.(16) Another view-point considers
"ipso jure" or "aftodikeos" as meaning that
no decision on the part of any church or state organ is required for the
summoning of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy. Hence, should no letter
of convocation or agenda of business be sent to its members, the Holy
Synod of the Hierarchy still validly assembles and meets in its regular
annual October session, provided that it have the necessary quorum, given
that its venue is known (Article 1, Regulation 1 /1977). The Holy Synod
of the Hierarchy can also decide to discuss new matters not included in
the business agenda (Article 6, parag. 2, Constitutional Charter, and
Article 3, paragr. 1, Regulation 1 /1977). Thus in the case of the regular
meeting of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy its president's competency
to convoke is purely formal and not necessary. The matters on the agenda
of its business are drawn up by the Standing Holy Synod and the president
simply communicates them to the members at least two months in advance.
Necessary for the convocation of an extraordinary meeting of the
Holy Synod of the Hierarchy are either a) a decision taken by its president
on his own initiative, b) a decision by the Standing Holy Synod; or c)
a petition by at least 1 /3 of the diocesan bishops addressed to the president,
in which the matters for which they wish that the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy
be summoned are stated. In situation b) the president is obliged to summon
the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy through an act issued ten days after the
decision was taken, and on a day no later than twenty days from the said
date. In situation c) the president is obliged to bring the petition immediately
before the Standing Holy Synod, which in turn "immediately"
acts upon it, by either authorizing its president to convoke the Holy
Synod of the Hierarchy within twenty days, or rejects the petition, giving
its reasons for doing so. Should the petitioning bishops re-petition the
president, the convocation of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy becomes
mandatory and must be convoked by the president within twenty days. If
in situations b) and c) the president should neglect to summon the Holy
Synod of the Hierarchy, he is subject to canonical sanctions (article
6, parag. 1, Constitutional Charter).
The matters of business on the agendas of the extraordinary sessions
of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy are drawn up by the president, if it
is he who is summoning the Synod, or by the Standing Holy Synod, if the
Holy Synod of the Hierarchy is being convoked by petition (see article,
6, parag. 2).
The Standing Holy Synod is called to regular or extraordinary session
by its president. It meets in regular session four times a month (article
4, Regulation 2 /1977) and in extraordinary session whenever its president
so decides, or when seven of its members so petition (article 5, Regulation
2 /1977).
One is impressed by the clear foresight of the Greek lawmaker and
the Synodical organ which acts by his authorisation, to describe at this
phase the privileges of the Protos or Primate in order to avoid
any overstepping of authority. Such an action is justified by the bitter
experience of the past in regard to the convocation of the Holy Synod
of the Hierarchy and the Standing Holy Synod. It is clear that here we
have a case of self-committal, for the president of the Preparatory Committee
burdened with the task of drafting the Church's Constitutional Charters
is always the incumbent Archbishop of Athens, while the commission itself
is composed largely of clerics. Hence these regulations, which were approved
and voted into law by the Greek Parliament, must be viewed and understood
as expressing the Church's intention to insure through checks and balances
the smooth functioning of the synodical system, and to limit the Primate's
exercise of authority and competency in such a way as to preserve the
most fundamental principles of the synodical system - though one could
observe that such a detailed limitation in the exercising of presidential
authority pertaining to the convoking of the Synod betrays a type of a
insecurity vis-a-vis the president's authority, which leads to a corresponding
over-emphasis of the competencies of the collective synodical organ.(17)
b) He presides over the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy and the Standing
Holy Synod. In his absence or in case of an impediment, he is replaced
by the vice-president, who in the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy is that
bishop who has the presidence of ordination to the Episcopate. A different
order of things was foreseen by Compulsory Law No. 2170 /40, paragr. 3,
which specified that the President of the Synod himself appointed, at
the beginning of each synodical period, one of the members of the Synod
- whomever he preferred - to be his substitute in the presidency and "in
the exercise of all competencies related to it". If his substitute
were absent or hindered from attending, then he chose another. This strange
ordinance however was abolished by Law 671 /43 and ever since the vice-president
is appointed according to the seniority of episcopal ordination.(18)
According to the canons, the presidency of the Synod belongs to
the Primate. In fact, a synod without a primate is something inconceivable.
The Third Apostolic Canon explicitly foresees that the other bishops gathered
in synod can do nothing without their primate. Hence it is impossible,
canonically speaking, to separate the competency of convoking the Synod
from its presidency. He who convokes and he who presides over the synod
must be one and the same person. The task of the primate is related to
the expression of the Church's unity and hence inseparable from the act
of convoking the Synod.(19) From this aspect, ecclesiastical legislation
in Greece reserves appearances, since the Church's Constitutional Charter
foresees that the president of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy sends out
the invitations to the bishops to participate in the Synod - though in
reality this is merely a formality, since essentially it is the Synod
in its entirety that decides the convocation, and its president is simply
summoned to execute its decision.
According to the sacred canons, the convocation of the Synod by
the Protos or Primate is equally inconceivable without the consent
of the remaining bishops, as is evident from the 34th Apostolic Canon.
All the bishops partake in the convocation of the Synod and the Primate
simply serves as the mouth and expression of the bishops. In the Orthodox
Church the Primate does not possess any monarchial privileges or authority
which he exercises ipso jure. He expresses the communion of the
Churches and not legal authority.(20) Thus, the Greek lawmaker conformed
to this spirit when he decreed, as we have already seen, concerning the
presiding over of the Synod in a way permeated by the principle that the
local Churches must act in Synod as a unity and not disunitedly, and that
the Primate is the basic factor of this unity.(21) Without the Primate,
the Synod cannot function. Nor is a collegiate presidency conceivable.
Communion (kinonia) is expressed through one person and is deeply related
to the concept of the trinitarian life of God, where the communion of
the three persons becomes unity only in one person: the hypostasis of
the Father. This is also why the 34th Apostolic canon concludes with a
reference to the Holy Trinity.(22)
These correct views were overlooked in 1959 when the majority of
the members of the Holy Synod, differing with their president as to the
need for proceeding to the election and ordination of new bishops - despite
the fact that the Primate had adjourned the meeting and departed - remained
and, without their president and in spite of his disapproval, continued
to meet and make decisions. In the tumult that ensued many reliable scholars
were involved and supported two diametrically opposing viewpoints. According
to the one side, the Archbishop of Athens is not "Protos"
or Primate in the sense mentioned in the 34th Apostolic Canon, since the
Greek Constitution and the Church's Constitutional Charter "establish
two collegiate organs, the Standing Holy Synod and the Holy Synod of the
Hierarchy, with no other jurisdiction of the Archbishop save to preside
over these, and indeed with the alternate possibility of having a substitute
preside in cases of absence or impediment. Indeed, according to this view,
should the president be absent or hindered from attending, the session
is not cancelled but the Synod is presided over by him who has the seniority
of ordination to the episcopate from among those present. This view is
substantiated by ecclesiastical practice in that the Archbishop of Athens
is not commemorated by the Metropolitans in the Holy Liturgy - as would
be the case if he were "Protos" or Primate but, on the
contrary, the Metropolitans - equal in every respect to the Archbishop,
who acts as Metropolitan within the precincts of his diocesan area - commemorate,
in accordance with article 30 of the Church's Constitutional Charter "the
Holy Synod". On the other hand, the Metropolitans of the "New
Territories" who are "spiritually" connected with the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, commemorate both the Holy Synod and the Patriarch, because
the latter for them is their spiritual, but not administrative, Primate.(23)
"In the opposite viewpoint, maintained by my friend and old schoolmate,
Mr. N. Bacopoulos, the presidents of collegiate bodies, sensing that the
bodies would vote contrary to their [i.e. the presidents'] desires, could
adjourn the sessions before the voting and thus avoid, either temporarily
or even completely, distasteful decisions, thereby gaining the necessary
time to influence the majority. I do not imagine that my friend would
acquiesce to such an action on the part of the president of Parliament".(24)
Others maintained that it is the inalienable right of the Protos
not only to convene, but also to dissolve the session of the Synod, which
in no way can convene and meet when the Protos does not so desire.
Finally the Legal Council of State, the Nation's supreme legal and administrative
council, decided that the decisions of the Synod taken after the Archbishop's
departure lack legal validity. This view prevailed, and the entire issue
ended with the upholding of the canonical order.(25)
c) He has one vote - as do the other members of the Synod - in
accordance with the fixed principle of equality which characterizes all
the bishops. As in the case of all collective organs, only in the event
of a tie vote does the vote of the president prevail. This is by no means
an indication of superiority but simply a practical solution to a fairly
rare problem.
d) He directs the discussions in Synod. More specifically, he proposes
a three-member Press Committee (article 4, paragr. 3, Regulation 1 /77).
He declares the opening and closing of the sessions, gives or takes away
the floor (i.e. the right to speak), is responsible for the faithful observance
and application of the Rules of Order of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy
and for the propriety of the deliberations, having the right to adjourn
the session in order to preserve such propriety (article 9, paragr. 1,
article. 11, paragr. 1). The President of the Holy Synod can also interrupt
the speaker should the latter deviate from the matter under discussion.
He can order that whatever is said after the "floor" has been
taken away from the speaker be stricken from the record. He calls the
speaker back to order should the latter be out of order, and if necessary,
can censure him or even bar him from one to three of the next sessions.
He is the last to vote, and in the case of their absence has the right
to represent more than one member of the Synod. In deviation from ordinary
procedure, he can introduce to the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy regulations
to be voted upon and can allow entrance to the meeting chamber of persons
other than the Synodical members.
As concerns the Standing Holy Synod, its president, in conformity
with article 10, Regulation 2 /77, convenes the body by invitation, draws
up the working agenda, directs the discussions and makes announcements.
e) He acts, by authorization of the Standing Holy Synod, during
the interim period between sessions. Despite the fact that this ordinance
was nullified by decision 961 /78 of the Council of State, it continues
to be in force, for at the end of each final monthly session, the Standing
Holy Synod grants special authorization to its president to dispatch by
himself routine business in the Synod's name.
This established procedure, in conjunction with the fact that the
Synod is convoked only four times a month, circumvents in practice the
Synodical institution's functioning in Greece, since during the greater
part of the year the Church is governed by the Archbishop alone, acting
"by authorization" of the Synod, which is summoned posterori
to approve business already finished and matters already completed, many
of which cannot really be characterized as routine business but rather
are grave and important issues upon which synodical decisions and actions
ought to have been taken.
The previous system whereby the Standing Holy Synod was summoned
twice weekly was more in harmony with canonical practice, and more in
the interest of the Church and her synodical government. It eliminated
any accusation against the Primate, who no longer had any cause to handle
by himself and in absence of the Synod any crucial ecclesiastical business.
f) In the event of the demise or resignation of a diocesan bishop,
he appoints as Locum Tenens of the vacated diocese a bishop of
one of the bordering dioceses: viz. him who has the seniority of ordination
(article 23, paragr. 1, Constitutional Charter).
g) He presides over the Ecclesiastical Court of the Second Instance,
which deals with charges brought against bishops.
h) In conformity with article 28 of the Church's Constitutional
Charter, he commemorates all "Orthodox bishops" while celebrating
the Divine Liturgy.
i) Through a proposal in which he explicitly states his reasons,
and which he submits to the Standing Holy Synod, he can provoke a decision
whereby an active Metropolitan can be suspended for a period of six months
if there are serious reasons pertaining to his person, or if such a suspension
is in the interest of the Church, public welfare or social tranquility
(Article 15, Law 1351 /83).
This provision, which up to the present has never been applied,
while not unconstitutional, has been judged as being uncanonical and "contrary
to all those holy canons which deal with the bishop's position in the
Church as the president of the Eucharistic Community. It strikes a blow
at the Church's ecclesiological structure, and dynamites its foundations,
and thus violates the Holy Canons, which have constitutional force".(26)
Of course it is a known fact that this provision was enacted for a specific
reason and because of the Church's inability to confront a specific internal
matter. Such ordinances however, betray a dangerous secularization, since
the bishop is not simply an administrative organ but possesses an outstanding
ecclesiological and charismatic position in the Church, something which
Greek Laws have often overlooked.
Because of this deliberate misinterpretation of the bishop's place
within Orthodox theology and his position as president of the Eucharistic
gathering, which "unites the Church of Christ in time and place",
the Greek Lawmaker and the courts were influenced in supporting view or
taking actions in conflict with Orthodox canonical ethos.(27) This is
precisely what happened in the Greek State's recent interference in the
inner affairs of the Church, not only by essentially confiscating monastic
properties but also by attempting to order the internal affairs of the
Church - not only in outright opposition to the Hierarchy's opinion, but
also with the clear intent of limiting its canonical rights. In Greece,
the Lawmaker understands the bishop as being the head of a public service,
and not as a Church functionary, thereby ignoring fundamental Church institutions.
Among other things, proof of this is the fact that all the above-mentioned
competencies of the President of the Synod come under the supervision
of the Council of State, which has the power to nullify any of his actions
which might be called into question. This means that he is viewed as exercising
public administration - the Church being considered to be a legal public
entity, and all laws applying to such entities are applicable to the Church.
If this mentality does not change, and if the Church and her canonical
institutions are not dealt with in the proper canonical way, many are
the evils which will arise. The recent events in Church-State relations
in Greece bring to the fore the question of separation of Church and State
as a solution to the problem of the continuous interference on the part
of the State in ecclesiastical affairs, to the Church's detriment. Unfortunately,
such interventions on the State's part have brought only ills to both
Church and State, despite the good disposition and intentions towards
the Church of various past governments.
From all that we have said above, we are able to list the following
conclusions:
1. The Synodical System is in force in the Orthodox Church of Greece,
as it is in all the other Local Orthodox Churches. It deals with both
general and important issues. The Synodical System is a canonical and
traditional institution dating from Christian antiquity. In it participate
all bishops without exception.
2. The role of the Protos or Primate is limited to ensuring
the smooth and unhindered functioning of the synodical system, thereby
guaranteeing Church unity. In the past, deviations from this principle
have resulted in the creation of interval Church problems which were solved
through State intervention.
3. None the less, the Protos in the Church of Greece up
to now still maintains substantial influence over the bishops and acts
in this direction in an indeterminate but decisive manner.
Metropolitan Christodoulos of Demetrias
(now Archbishop of Athens and all Greece)
(1). Cf. also Cyprian, V 55 (52) 21
(2). John Zizioulas (now Metropolitan of Pergamum), "The Synodical
Institutions: Historical, Ecclesiological and Canonical Problems"
in Volume in Honour of Metropolitan Barnabas of Kitros, on the occasion
of the Completion of 25 years of Episcopacy, Athens 1980, p. 177.
(3). Rhalles and Potles, The Constitution (Syntagma) of the Divine
and Sacred Canons, Vol. III, p. 141.
(4). Anastasios Marinos, Church/State Relations, Athens 1984, p.
43.
(5). The Greek Council of State, aligning itself with this correct canonical
spirit, nullified, by its decision no. 365-367 /1977, an act of the Standing
Holy Synod by which a ten-year exclusion from participating in the work
of the Standing Holy Synod and the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy was placed
on those bishops who had participated in Archbishop Ieronymos' Meritorious
(appointed) Synod. This Synodical measure was judged to be not only unlawful
but also uncanonical. See An. Marinos, Op. Cit., p. 41, note 22.
(6). J. Zizioulas, Op. Cit., pp. 177-178.
(7). Rhalles and Potles, The Constitution..., Vol. II, p. 46.
(8). Metropolitan Panteleimon of Tyrholoe and Serention, An Ecclesiological
Review of the 34th Apostolic Canon, Thessaloniki 1979, p. 9.
(9). Ibid., pp. 10-11.
(10). Metropolitan Barnabas of Kitros, The Constitutional Legislation
of the Church of Greece, Athens 1967, p. 21.
(11). It should be pointed out that the Council of Ministers of Greece
also in their letter to the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarchal Synod
of Constantinople, dated May 30, 1850 and referring to the established,
canonical synodical administration of the Church, of Greece as autocephalous,
observed that His Majesty, the King, before proceeding to the restoration
of canonical order in the Church, "having summoned to the seat of
the Government all the bishops residing permanently or temporarily in
Greece, i.e. the Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops, benignly heard
their unanimous opinion to the effect that the standing administration
of the Orthodox Church through a Synod such as that of our sister Orthodox
Church in Russia is considered to be more competent and advantageous for
the God-established Kingdom of Greece". Metropolitan Barnabas, Op.
Cit., p. 30.
(12). J. Zizioulas, Op. Cit., p. 186.
(13). Metropolitan Barnabas, Op. Cit., p. 22.
(14). Ibid., p. 63.
(15). This was confirmed by the Council of State through its decision
n. 960 /78. At the same time this same council, through its decisions
3178 /76 and 545-546 /78,judged that the mention of the Patriarchal Tome
by which autocephaly was granted to the Church does not add any augmented
force to it as concerns its contents in toto, but only to those
provisions of it that refer to the manner in which the Standing Holy Synod
is constituted. A contrary view has been put forth with forceful argumentation
by reliable scholars.
(16). Sp. Troyannos, "Comparative Observations on the Constitutional
Legislation of the Orthodox Autocephalous Churches", in Theologia,
Vol. 50 (1979) p. 199.
(17). The President's right to convene the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy
was abolished by article 3 of Law 671 /1943 and was given to the Holy
Synod. Article w of the Decree of 1959 stipulates that in case 1/2 of
the membership of the Hierarchy sought the extraordinary convocation of
the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy, the President was obliged within a three-day
period to submit in writing to the Ministry of Education and Religions
a petition for the issuance of a Royal Decree of Convocation. Cf. Metropolitan
Barnabas, Constitutional Legislation..., pp. 269, 317.
(18). Ibid., pp. 77, 269.
(19). J. Zizioulas, Op. Cit., p. 188. Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis,
The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church, Thessaloniki
1972, p. 350. Metropolitan Bartholomaios of Philadelphia, "On the
Future of the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church", in Volume
in honour of the Metropolitan Geron Meliton of Chalcedon, 1977, pp.
147-157.
(20). Metropolitan Maximos, Op. Cit., pp. 351-352.
(21). J. Zizioulas, Op. Cit., p. 178.
(22). "...and there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified
through the Lord in the Holy Spirit, even the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit".
(23). See the opinion of Al. Vamvetsos in the Newspaper Ethnos
(The Nation), 23 April 1959.
(24). Ibid.
(25). The Government then voted Law 3952 /1959 and issued the Decree of
17 Dec. 1959 upstaining the Archbishop of Athens.
(26). An. Marinos, Op. Cit., p. 90.
(27). Ibid., p. 27.
|
