§ 53. The Relation Between the Clergy and the Laity

According to the fundamental constitution of the Church, as we have seen, all her members are divided into two main orders: the clerical and the lay, or, the clergy and the laity. Both from a theoretical and from a practical point of view it is a very important question what the relation in the Church between the clergy and the faithful laity must be.[1]

In order to attain her purpose, the Church has received authority from the Founder of the Church Himself, to enlighten her members with Christian doctrine, to sanctify them with grace-bearing gifts, and to conduct spiritual governance over them. This authority she exercises through particular persons, who received it by way of the apostles from the Founder of the Church, and these same persons are the representatives of this authority, and in this sense are called shepherds of the Church and her ministers, as the apostles themselves were once called by this same name.[2] But the Church is, according to the teaching of Holy Scripture, one body, which has many members, and all her members, though many, together compose one body;[3] and just as it is with the human body, that it is healthy and thriving when all its members are healthy, when they are in a right mutual relation, and when each does that for which it is appointed, so too in the Church, which is the body of Christ and of which He is the head,[4] the whole body will be healthy and thriving only when all its members possess full vital strength and when there is a right common bond and unity among them. Without this unity among all the members of the Church, without their common action, according to their appointment, toward the common good, some one member will inevitably suffer, and finally the very purpose of the Church will be missed.[5] In view of this, the need is inescapably shown that every member of the Church, without distinction of his position in the Church, participate according to his powers and abilities in the common work for which the Church herself exists;[6] this participation, then, belongs to the duty of the hierarchy just as much as it belongs to the duty of the faithful laity.

The authority of the hierarchy in the Church rests on divine right, and to the apostles alone and to their successors belongs the right, first, to teach, to perform the sacred rites, and to conduct church governance. But divine means do not thereby exclude human means, and divine action in the Church not only is not averse to human participation, but indeed requires it, that God’s work on earth may succeed. Even though the faithful laity have no right to be organs of the divine action in the Church, yet as human beings and as Christians they dispose of those same means and powers for good which the shepherds of the Church also dispose of; and as such they may, and indeed are bound, to employ their powers in everything that touches the good of the Church. The exercise of the power of teaching in the Church belongs to the hierarchy, and a layman who, bypassing the hierarchy, arrogates that power to himself, falls under condemnation;[7] but under the same, and even a graver, condemnation falls also a member of the clergy who, independently of his own bishop, begins to teach in the Church.[8] Yet in connection with the general teaching, every layman may assist the hierarchy in this, namely by devoting himself to the elaboration of church learning in its various branches, if he, as a teacher in school, as a father in a family, as a manager or something else in some association, works so that those concerned adopt Christian teaching and conduct themselves according to that teaching; and the Church will always receive this with gratitude, nor will the hierarchy ever be entitled to see in this a violation of her rights.[9] The power of performing the sacred rites belongs solely and exclusively to the hierarchy. But in the Church all her faithful members are holy and living members of the body of Christ, and as such all the faithful laity, together with the hierarchy, compose one priesthood;[10] they, by their prayers at divine service, enter into the mysterious side of the priestly ministry, by their own exclamation, together with the priest, invoke at the liturgy that the Holy Spirit descend on the gifts offered, by their own exclamation, together with the bishop, pray that heavenly grace descend upon him who is being ordained—in a word, the faithful laity participate in every common sacred-ministerial act in the Church, and thereby actively take part also in this branch of ecclesiastical authority, to which the members of the hierarchy are specially called.[11] But the greatest participation of the faithful laity the Church has always acknowledged in matters touching the third branch of ecclesiastical authority entrusted to the hierarchy, namely the power of governing the outward life of the Church. This participation showed itself especially in the administration of church property.[12]

The position of the hierarchy and of the faithful laity in the Church is determined by the very foundation of the ecclesiastical constitution, and by this same foundation the relation between the one and the other is determined. The hierarchy, as such, received its authority in the Church by divine right, so that without that authority the Church herself could not exist;[13] but since that authority was not given to the hierarchy for the sake of the hierarchy itself, but for the sake of the Church, which the faithful laity compose together with the hierarchy, and since these faithful laity must be living and active members of the Church, contributing by their powers and abilities to the common good and progress of the Church, therefore their significance too must be acknowledged by the hierarchy in everything that concerns the Church. And in view of the character of necessity of hierarchical authority in the Church, the rights of the laity in the Church must be regulated according to the rights of the hierarchy, and the former is called to lead, and the latter are called to participate in everything that touches the good of the Church. Only the joint action—according to canonically established limits—of both the hierarchy and the faithful laity in the Church corresponds to the spirit of the Orthodox Church. When the Eastern Patriarchs, in their encyclical to all Orthodox Christians of the world of 6 May 1848, said that “the guardian of piety is the body of the Church itself, that is, the people themselves,” they thereby expressed a fundamental truth of the Orthodox Church and determined the whole significance of the people in the Church of Christ.

But by this acknowledgment of the significance of the people in the Church, the authority of the hierarchy is in no way whatsoever affected, nor may it be inferred from this that the exercise of that authority by the hierarchy is conditioned by the position which the faithful laity occupy in the Church. The subject of ecclesiastical authority is the council of bishops, the hierarchical synod, which exercises that authority—as a universal (ecumenical) council over the whole world, and as a regional council over the respective regional church, and which transmits that same authority to every bishop in his own diocese (§ 57). The bishops are therefore the sole bearers of ecclesiastical authority, and they alone have the right, as lawful successors of the apostles, and by divine commandment, to teach the people, to perform the holy mysteries for the people, and to govern the people spiritually; and by their authorization the presbyters do the same within determined limits. The people, in turn, by that same divine commandment, are to hear the teaching of their pastors, to make use of their priestly ministrations, and to submit to their spiritual governance. This is the dogmatic teaching of the Orthodox Church, which has found expression in all the canons which the Church has issued for her own constitution and governance. Accordingly the rights of the hierarchy in the Church have the character of necessity, and are in the strict sense rights; while the rights of the laity in the Church have a character conditioned by the general purpose of the Church, for which purpose they are called to labor with all their spiritual powers, and are thereby also empowered to make use of all those actions through which the grace of God is obtained. And since this grace can be obtained only and exclusively through the shepherds of the Church, that is, the bishops, therefore not only canon law but divine law itself enjoins upon the faithful laity that, for the preservation of their own rights in the Church, they are bound to obey their spiritual pastors and to submit, in spiritually pastoral matters, to all those ordinances of the hierarchy which it issues within the bounds set for it by the Founder of the Church. “He who will not hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican,”[14] says Jesus Christ; and the Apostle Paul writes: “Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls.”[15] The same is repeated by the fathers and teachers of the Church: Clement of Rome,[16] Irenaeus of Lyons,[17] Cyprian of Carthage,[18] and all the rest. And Ignatius the God-bearer writes to the faithful Trallians: “Be subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, and it is altogether necessary—as indeed you already do—that you begin and do nothing without the bishop.”[19] The same is written also in the symbolic books of the Orthodox Church.[20]

This teaching of Holy Scripture and of the fathers and teachers of the Church, the councils have formulated in full detail in their canons. And all these canons acknowledge to the bishop the supreme authority in everything and in all that concerns the Church and her life, so that without the bishop, in the absolute sense, nothing can be begun or done in any branch of church governance; and accordingly all the various rights that belong to the people in the Church are strictly conditioned on episcopal authority. And as much as the canons confirm this with regard to teaching and the performance of the sacred rites, which is spoken of in the corresponding rubrics of this book (§§ 132, 135), so much do they likewise confirm it with regard to the power of governance.

It was permitted to the people, already from apostolic times, to be present at church councils. At the First Ecumenical Council, according to the testimony of history, many laymen took part.[21] In the Western Church, especially, the participation of the people at the councils of the older period is mentioned.[22] But the deciding voice at all these councils belonged to the bishops alone. The canons mention only the bishops, whom they command to convene the councils and there to act and deliberate about the needs of the Church,[23] while of the laity it is said only that they were permitted to be present at those episcopal councils and to hear what was there spoken and done, and, upon the invitation of the council, that some individual learned and pious layman might offer some explanation of his own or express his own opinion. Accordingly the decisions of the councils were signed by the bishops themselves, or their proxies, the presbyters and deacons, and the councils themselves are mentioned in history exclusively as councils of bishops, and are cited by the number of bishops that took part in them.[24] And that at these episcopal councils all church questions were debated, whether of a religious or of an administrative character, is shown by the acts of all the councils, both the ecumenical and the regional alike. And what we say of the councils that hold force for the governance of the universal Church and of the regional church, the same holds also for the councils that exist for the church governance of a single diocese, that is, for the diocesan consistories. Just as at those councils, ecumenical and regional, only sacred persons could take part fully and decide, so too in the diocesan consistories only sacred persons can fully take part and decide; and, consequently, just as at those councils the laity had no lawful part, nor, by the fundamental constitution of the Orthodox Church, could they have had, so too the laity can have no part of that kind in the diocesan consistories either—not only in religious, but also in ecclesiastical-administrative matters. Just as at the ecumenical councils the bishops alone had the deciding voice (jus decisivum), and as such a voice they likewise have at the regional councils, so too, by the mandate of the hierarchical synod, every bishop has that same voice in all church matters of his own diocese, and in the first place in the diocesan consistories (§ 114).

It was permitted to the people to take part in the election of their spiritual pastors. What significance the voice of the people (suffragium populi) had in the election of a bishop we discuss in § 103. There it is shown how the last word in this belonged by right to the hierarchical synod, and that the people could only, by their voice, testify to the qualities of the candidate for the episcopate, and thus did not have the deciding voice in it. The people had the same kind of voice also in the appointment of the presbyter who was to perform pastoral service for them. Just as the hierarchical synod installed the bishop for the respective diocese, so, by the mandate of that synod, the bishop installed and appointed presbyters for the respective places in his diocese to perform pastoral service. The significance of the participation of the people in this matter is shown by the 7th canon of Theophilus of Alexandria. There it is stated that the whole clergy (πᾶν τὸ ἱερατεῖον), which composes the bishop’s council, must agree and choose (συμφωνεῖν καὶ αἱρεῖσθαι) the respective candidate for the pastoral office, and then the bishop himself will examine (δοκιμάζειν) whether the chosen candidate is worthy of that office; and when the bishop agrees with the opinion of his clergy in this, then he shall publicly ordain the candidate in church, in the presence of the people (παρόντος τοῦ λαοῦ), so that the people too may bear witness for him (καὶ ὁ λαὸς δύναται αὐτῷ μαρτυρεῖν).[25] The clergy, then, who stood beside the bishop, or the modern episcopal consistory, was to choose and propose to the bishop the respective candidate to be appointed to pastoral service in some place, and it was then for the bishop to decide whether he would adopt the proposal of his clergy; and having adopted that proposal, he then publicly ordained the candidate in the presence of the people, who were to testify by their voice that the one whom the bishop publicly declares worthy (ἄξιος, dostoinŭ) is indeed worthy of the office intended for him. This was so done, and must be so, according to the words of this same canon, lest there occur in the Church some irregularity (ἵνα μὴ περιδρομή τις γένηται). The right of the people to choose for themselves a priest and to propose him to the diocesan bishop exists, and can exist, only where a formally and lawfully confirmed founder’s right (κτητορικὸν δίκαιον) exists.[26]

The people are acknowledged to have the right of participation in matters that touch church property. This right must be well understood, so as not to fall into those extremes of which we speak in § 158 of this book, and must be strictly distinguished from the administration of church property from the mere handling of that property. According to the subject of church property, the administration of it is regulated in the canons; and as the subject of church property is the respective church, so too the administration of its property can and must belong only to church authority, that is, to the bishop, each in his own diocese. “Let the bishop have charge of and administer all church affairs (πάντων τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πραγμάτων ἐχέτω τὴν φροντίδα καὶ διοικείτω αὐτά),” commands the 38th apostolic canon; and the 41st apostolic canon still more clearly commands that “the bishop have authority (ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν) over church affairs, for if the precious souls of men are entrusted to him, how much more ought the care of money be entrusted to him (πολλῷ ἂν δέοι περὶ τῶν χρημάτων ἐντέλλεσθαι), so that he has authority, with the fear of God and all piety, to administer everything (κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐξουσίαν πάντα διοικεῖσθαι).” The administration of church property, as is seen, the canons acknowledge to the bishop without any restriction. But since the bishop himself personally could not conduct that administration and apply the church revenues according to their purpose, the canons mention the presbyters and deacons, as assistants of the bishop, who were bound to carry out what the bishop directed them in this regard;[27] and later it was established that every bishop should have his own particular church steward (economos), whom he would choose from his own clergy (ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου κλήρου), and who would administer the church property according to the instructions of his bishop (κατὰ γνώμην τοῦ οἰκείου ἐπισκόπου).[28] By the canons, then, the right to administer church property in the respective diocese belongs exclusively to the bishop, who exercises that administration through his clergy. This concerns the administration of the general church property of the whole diocese; while, regarding the administration of the church property of a single parish, the bishop authorizes for that the respective parish priest, who is answerable to the bishop for it. Of the participation of the people in that administration the canons say not a word, just as the canons likewise do not mention with a single word that the mere handling of that property belongs to the people either. But this latter did exist in church practice, and that practice was always acknowledged, when it was to the Church’s benefit. This began already in apostolic times, when individual Christian communities designated more esteemed and pious men from among themselves to assist the apostles in their labors. These men were called elders (γέροντες), and to them the apostles and presbyters entrusted the carrying out, toward the poorer members of the community, of what the administrators of the church and of church property had decided. These elders reported to the apostles and presbyters on the needs of their poorer brethren, on the needs at the liturgical gatherings and in the performance of the respective Christian rites in the communities, and afterward they themselves also carried out, in these matters, what the apostles and presbyters had determined. The activity of these lay elders in matters of church revenues and the application of those revenues to the needs of divine service and of the poor brethren developed especially during the time of persecution, and was fruitful. When the Church began to be free in the Greco-Roman state, she did not reject the help of pious laymen in matters of church property and the handling of that property, but approved the participation of laymen in these matters, and to them alone, in the respective church communities, she entrusted the carrying out of all that the bishops determined needed to be done—as much in matters concerning the building of churches, their adornment, and the material needs of divine service in general, as likewise in matters of Christian charity to the poor and popular education. These same elders did this wholeheartedly, and under the guidance of their spiritual pastors, and the Church was grateful to them for it. From these there later formed the parish committees [epitropije], or our present-day church wardenships. After the fall of the Byzantine empire, and when the hierarchy in the East remained without the protection of state power, these elders were called upon to assist the hierarchy in the handling of church property also in wider church districts.

We have paused especially at length on this question of the participation of the people in matters touching the hierarchical power of governance (ἐξουσία διοικητική), for the reason which we mentioned at the beginning of this section, and so that one might rightly judge the significance of the lay element in church governance.

CHAPTER THREE. Ecclesiastical Authority.