§ 103. a. The Election and Installation of a Bishop in Earlier Times

a. The Election and Installation of a Bishop in Earlier Times.

The Founder of the Church left no ordinance as to how bishops should be elected and installed. Christ’s apostles did not all act uniformly in this. In the place of the traitor Judas, the apostles, in an assembly of all the faithful, appointed Matthias by lot.[1] James the Just was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem by the apostles Peter and John.[2] And in general the apostles, in the churches they founded, each on his own appointed bishops, independently of the other apostles and without consulting the community concerned.[3]

After the apostolic age, in keeping with the presiding position of the bishop both over the clergy and over all the faithful of the territory concerned, it was established that in the election and installation of a bishop the neighboring bishops, the clergy, and the people of the church for which a bishop was to be installed should take part. The oldest testimony to this is given us by Clement, Bishop of Rome, of the 1st century.[4] Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, of the 3rd century, speaks thus of the installation of a bishop: ‘The divine tradition and apostolic institution must be diligently observed and kept, which is preserved among us and almost everywhere, whereby, in order that one who is to be their overseer be lawfully installed for a given people, the nearest bishops of that same region must assemble, and the bishop is then to be chosen in the presence of the people, who fully know the life of each candidate and have observed every act of his conduct.’[5] The Apostolic Constitutions speak similarly.[6] The Council of Nicaea, the First Ecumenical Council, speaking of this same subject, says that those are to be installed as bishops ‘who are worthy and whom the people choose.’[7] This same council, by its canon 4, ordains that at the election of a new bishop all the bishops of the region concerned must be present; if it is not possible, on account of some hindrance, for all to gather, then at least three must certainly come, and the rest must declare their opinion in writing—while confirmation of the whole belongs to the regional metropolitan.[8] In case the bishops are not unanimous regarding one person, this same council, by its canon 6, ordains that the vote of the majority shall then decide.[9]

On the basis of what we have now presented, and on the basis of the examples that history offers us on this question, the election of a bishop in the first centuries of the Christian Church consisted in the following: when some vacant episcopal see had to be filled, the people, the clergy, and the regional bishops assembled; inquiry was made as to who was worthy of that see, and once the people had expressed their opinion about the persons concerned, the assembled bishops decided who was most worthy of the episcopacy—or else the bishops themselves proposed the person concerned, and the people then declared either their assent or their dissent. After agreement had been reached among people, clergy, and bishops, the election was submitted for the confirmation of the regional metropolitan, and once confirmation was obtained, the ordination of the one elected proceeded. As can be seen, the right of election in the strict sense belonged to the bishops, while the people had to attest what manner of person he was who was to become their bishop, or to express their assent to the person proposed to them by the bishops; the voice of the people was thus every bit as authoritative as the voice of the bishops, nor could anyone become bishop without the people’s participation. If the bishops could not agree among themselves regarding one person, the vote of the majority decided, as we have seen; and if even after that there was still some opposition, recourse was again had to the people for whom the bishop was to be chosen, and by the people’s voice every further disagreement was resolved.[10] Against one chosen by agreement of bishops and people, and confirmed by the metropolitan, no one was any longer permitted to raise a voice of protest; and should such a voice nevertheless happen to be raised owing to some circumstance, the canons ordain that the clergy concerned, who failed to prevent the disorder but allowed a voice to be raised in that eparchy against a properly elected bishop, must be punished.[11] In the main, this procedure for electing a bishop—and in particular as regards the confirmation of the one elected—is repeated in the canons of many councils of the ancient period.[12]

The participation of the hierarchy in the election and installation of a bishop, to whom it hands on divine authority, has remained and must remain forever unchangeable; the participation of the people in this has undergone various changes in the course of time. At first the entire people of the place concerned took part in the election of a bishop, without distinction as to the social standing of this or that member of the people. This produced disorders and disturbances at elections, so that the Council of Laodicea found itself moved to prevent these disorders, and established that a ‘gathering of the mob’ should not be permitted at all to elect those who are to be appointed to the service of the Church.[13] After the issuing of this canonical ordinance, it became church practice that only more notable persons from among the people took part in elections; and Emperor Justinian gave this practice the force of law, establishing that, when a new bishop is to be installed, the clergy and the more prominent citizens of the eparchy concerned must assemble at an appointed place, and, having sworn to act without partiality, elect three persons of whom they are satisfied that they possess all the qualities prescribed by the canons and the state laws—and that from these three the metropolitan, together with the bishops, shall then choose the most worthy and install him as bishop.[14] This law of Justinian’s entered the canonical collections immediately upon its issue, and thus became general church law.[15] At the close of the 8th century, the Seventh Ecumenical Council found it necessary to occupy itself with the question of the election of a bishop, and, confirming the earlier ordinances in this regard, condemned by its canon 3 a custom that had crept in, whereby some, bypassing the church authority, made use of secular authorities (παρὰ ἀρχόντων) as the means of becoming bishops, and declared such an election null (ἄκυρον).[16]

And we find that this manner of electing and installing a bishop by the competent regional council of bishops, with the participation of the people, or of elected representatives of the people, was preserved in the Church through a long succession of subsequent centuries. At the close of the 12th century, the Patriarch of Alexandria, Mark, turned to Balsamon with the question whether it might, by the rules, be permitted to allow peasants (πλήθη κωμητικά, vicanorum turbae) to take part in the election of a bishop—and, naturally, he received a negative answer from Balsamon, who appealed to canon 13 of Laodicea,[17] which decisively forbids, as we have mentioned, a gathering of the mob (ὄχλοις) to appear at the elections of clergy with a right of vote. But against the participation of the people in the proper sense—that is, against its participation through its own elected representatives—Balsamon says not a word to the Patriarch Mark, even though, as is known, the participation of the people in the election of a bishop was not the most agreeable thing to Balsamon.[18] From the 14th century, testimonies on this are furnished us by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Among others, the decision of the Patriarch Philotheus of November 1370 concerning the ordination of the monk Anthimus as Metropolitan of Ungro-Wallachia, following an election carried out by clergy and people;[19] or the decision of the Patriarch Matthew I of February 1400, by which he ordains that, for the vacant Archbishopric of Anchialos, the clergy and people, by the existing order, proceed to an election and propose to him three persons, whereupon he, having examined the relevant testimonials (τὴν μαρτυρίαν), will recognize the most worthy as bishop.[20]

But these testimonies just cited show at the same time that the right of the people to participate in the election of their bishops had already lost its former general significance, and that the elections of bishops came to be carried out for the most part without the people’s participation, by the councils of bishops alone. This came about especially because the people did not know how to keep within the bounds of the exercise of their electoral right, and because in many places disorders and disturbances occurred, which were only to the detriment of the Church. Already in the 13th century, in many regional churches, the practice prescribed by canon 4 of the I Ecumenical Council began to be introduced, without regard to the remark in the epistle of that same council to the Alexandrian church, that the voice of the people too must be heard at the election of a bishop, and without regard also to Justinian’s Novel, that representatives of the people are to take part in the election of a bishop.[21] The canon mentioned lays down that a bishop is to be installed (καθίστασθαι) by the council of all the bishops of the metropolitan region concerned; if not all can come to the council, let there be at least three, and let the rest give their vote in writing, and when the metropolitan confirms the election, let the ordination of the newly-elected then be carried out. This ordinance, independently of all the others, came to be adopted for the election of a bishop, and the right to elect a bishop was recognized as belonging solely and exclusively to the bishops. According to this norm, bishops began to be elected in the greater part of the regional churches, and in the 15th century we find only as an exception to this norm that in individual churches representatives of the people also took part in the elections of a bishop. Symeon of Thessalonica describes in the following manner the election of a bishop in his own time: ‘The metropolitan summons all his bishops, and if all come, well and good; if not all come, then at least three must certainly assemble. At the metropolitan’s order the bishops gather at an appointed place and undertake the election. At that meeting the metropolitan himself is not present, but rather his chartophylax, who, as the metropolitan’s deputy, occupies a place of honor at the assembly. At the summons of the chartophylax each bishop gives his vote, beginning with the senior, while the chartophylax himself has no right to a vote. When the voting is finished and all the votes fall upon one person, as the most worthy candidate, the chartophylax then records this in a special minute. During the voting, apart from the bishops and the chartophylax with his secretary, no one else may be present, in view of the secret nature of this business (μυστικαὶ ἐξετάσεις). Should all the bishops be unanimous for the candidate in question, this act is then regarded as inspired (πνευματικὸν ἔργον). If they are not all agreed, then, by the canons, the majority of votes decides, and the names of the three candidates who receive the most votes are recorded—in the first place the name of the one who received the greatest number of votes, then the second and the third, without regard to their hierarchical rank. The chartophylax submits the result of the election to the metropolitan. When the metropolitan has examined everything, he sends notice to the one whom he has chosen from among those three. The metropolitan’s decision is regarded as a divine lot, equal to that by which the Apostle Matthias was chosen. If the one elected does not accept the episcopacy, then a second is summoned; if he too does not accept, then a third is summoned; if he too does not, then a new election is undertaken; and whoever declares that he accepts goes to the metropolitan to inform him of this. This declaration is regarded as a spiritual vow, after which the person concerned can no longer withdraw, for he has given his word to God.’[22]

Beside these two methods by which bishops were elected and installed—that is, election carried out by the council of hierarchs with the participation of representatives of the people, and election carried out by the council of hierarchs alone, without those representatives of the people—history tells us that some bishops were also installed without any formal election at all, but solely as a result of the appointment of the person concerned by the state authority; and after that appointment the bishops concerned, together with the metropolitan, subjected that person to a canonical examination, and, finding him worthy, ordained him and issued him a confirmatory charter.

This practice was introduced into the Church already from the time when the Greco-Roman emperors proclaimed themselves protectors of the Church and by law recognized broad privileges for it.[23] And the standpoint of Roman state law also contributed to this, according to which jus sacrum formed a part of public law (jus publicum), so that it came about that rulers, by virtue of this jus sacrum, installed bishops either directly, or else exercised their influence in the election and installation of a bishop;[24] or else, if the clergy and people desired some worthy person as their bishop, they appointed that person bishop.[25] Such appointments of bishops by rulers were often occasioned by the necessity of circumstances.[26] It happened at times that bishops were among themselves at odds regarding the person who was to be installed to some vacant episcopal see, and in such circumstances, in order to head off disturbances in the Church, which at times threatened the peace of the state as well, rulers were compelled either themselves, by their own authority, to appoint a bishop, or to entrust the election to the episcopal council of some other church territory.[27] It is well known that Emperor Zeno, in 482, when the bishop Stephen had been murdered, took from the Antiochenes the right to elect a bishop and handed this right over to the Patriarch Acacius; nor did the council of the Antiochene bishops raise any voice against this act.[28] And in general the Church acknowledged, without objection, on many occasions, the right of rulers themselves to appoint bishops in particular territories. Nor did this right of rulers contradict the ordinance of Apostolic canon 30 (or canon 3 of the VII Ecumenical Council), since that canon is not directed against rulers, but against the violent interference of civil officials in the elections of bishops. In the course of time several legal ordinances were also issued for the purpose of establishing this right of rulers in the installation of bishops, both by the church and by the state authority. Emperor Nikephoros Phokas (963–969), as a result of a dispute between the patriarch and the bishops subject to him over the election of a bishop, issued a special Novel, according to which the emperor would henceforth designate, for particular sees, the persons whom the episcopal council would then have to examine and ordain as bishop.[29] Emperor Isaac Angelos, at the special request of the church authority concerned, issued in the year 1187 a σημείωμα βασιλικόν [imperial rescript] concerning the election of a bishop, reserving to the ruler that right which the Church recognized as belonging to him in this matter.[30] A decision of the Synod of Constantinople under the Patriarch John XII, of July 1317, solemnly recognized the ruler’s right in this.[31] By this the ruler’s right in the installation of new bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs was established once and for all in the Orthodox Church—and rulers exercised this right of theirs either by confirming a candidate for the episcopacy elected by the competent factors, or else they themselves personally designated the candidate—that is, appointed the person concerned bishop—and then the episcopal council examined the abilities of that appointed bishop, assessed how worthy he was to be bishop, and, finding him worthy, ordained him, or else rejected him, in which case the appointment of yet another person had then to follow.

A properly elected bishop, or one appointed by the ruler, was subjected to a canonical examination before the episcopal council under the presidency of the metropolitan. This examination is in the main prescribed also by the Apostolic canons (58 and 80), and is specifically prescribed by canon 2 of the VII Ecumenical Council, which ordains that only one who is well versed in Holy Scripture and the canons may be installed as bishop, and that for this reason he must be subjected to a special examination. This examination is to be presided over by the competent metropolitan, whom the canon mentioned commands, and lays under a particular duty, to do this diligently—that is, to exert all care so as to examine the candidate in every respect, lest the Church and the people be exposed to danger should some ignorant man be installed as bishop. In this the canon instructs the metropolitan that in examining the candidate he must not confine himself simply to the fact that the person in question has a general knowledge of Holy Scripture and the canons, but must take good care to note whether he has ‘a ready and capable mind’ to penetrate into the substance of Holy Scripture and the canons, and thoughtfully to apply from them what he needs according to the needs of the people who will be entrusted to his pastoral care. ‘He must be capable,’ says Zonaras in his commentary on this canon, speaking of the candidate for the episcopacy, ‘of penetrating deeply into the spirit of Holy Scripture and the holy canons, so that he knows the meaning of every word, and is able to teach the people entrusted to him, and is ready with an answer every time someone questions him about it.’[32] And once the metropolitan is satisfied of the sufficient knowledge of the candidate for the episcopacy, the canon further recommends that in the examination he attend also to whether that candidate will, as bishop, act according to God’s commandments and whether he will teach the people; that is, Zonaras further observes, it is not enough for him to show that he knows Holy Scripture and the canons, but one must be assured that he will act and live in accordance with God’s commandments and teach this to the people entrusted to him, for the essence of our hierarchy consists in the God-given words—that is, in the right and exact knowledge of the divine Scripture. When the metropolitan has, upon the examination, become fully satisfied of all this, he may then permit the person concerned to receive episcopal ordination.[33] In the contrary case, if the metropolitan notices—the canon adds—that the person in question wavers, that is, that he is not entirely steady in knowledge, and does not give a reliable assurance that he will act according to the precepts of Holy Scripture and the holy canons, and that he will not be capable of teaching the people, then let him not be ordained (μὴ χειροτονείσθω), for he is not worthy of the episcopacy.

When the candidate in question has shown himself at the canonical examination to be worthy of the episcopacy, there followed ordination (χειροτονία), which had to be performed by three, or at least two, bishops.[34] These three or two bishops, in ordaining the new bishop, are entirely equal among themselves, and jointly, by their episcopal authority, they invoke upon the person concerned the grace of the Holy Spirit. These bishops were regularly drawn from that metropolitan region in which the new bishop was to take up his see. In case the necessary number of bishops was not available in that region, one bishop was summoned from a neighboring region, who, together with that one bishop or those two bishops of the region concerned, took part in the canonical examination of the candidate and in the ordination.[35] After the ordination had been performed, the new bishop received a confirmatory charter concerning this, and concerning his right to the see in question.[36]