§ 57. The Subject of Ecclesiastical Authority

Jesus Christ handed over authority in the Church to all the apostles together (§ 55), determining at the same time also the specific manner in which that authority was to be exercised. He determined, namely, that every apostle might exercise church authority in the first instance alone, that in a second instance several of them might exercise that authority together, and in a third and final instance all of them together.[1] The fullness, then, of church authority Christ handed over to the whole apostolic college, excluding any personal authority of one or another apostle over the whole Church, and even condemning the very thought that any one of them should wish to be senior and head over all, requiring instead that they all be equal in rights and authority in the Church. Several times, during the earthly life of Jesus Christ, a dispute arose among the apostles about the seniority of one over the others, and each time Christ most sharply condemned such attempts by individuals. A dispute arose once among the apostles as to who would be greatest among them in the kingdom of heaven, and Christ then called a child and set it among them, and said to them: “Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven: for whosoever shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”[2] The mother of the apostles James and John once asked Jesus Christ that her two sons might sit, one on his right hand and the other on his left, in his kingdom. The other apostles heard of this and were displeased. Jesus Christ, to pacify them all, said to them: “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.”[3] At the Last Supper a dispute again arose among the apostles about seniority, and Christ again gave them the same instruction as before.[4]

Jesus Christ, in all His institutions, always had regard to the weakness of human nature, and issued such commandments concerning the Church as, in view of that weakness, it would nonetheless be possible to fulfill. It is in man’s nature that the joint working of many more easily leads to the desired goal. By joint action the essence of the matter in question is more clearly seen, a more reliable decision is reached, the will of individuals is strengthened, errors are more easily discovered, and the constantly established purpose of the Church is achieved; at the same time, by such action Christian humility is maintained, and the consciousness of one’s own personal imperfection. To this Christ added yet a further, new commandment—the commandment of mutual love, which unites all in one spirit, which enlivens and strengthens all. This can be attained only in brotherly fellowship and by agreement in council; for if each individual, however well disposed he may be, wishes to follow only his own opinion, unity will never in this way be reached, and it is precisely by the unity of the thought of all that the true Church of Christ is known. The example of Christ and of His apostles confirms this for us to the point of evidence.

And the apostles faithfully followed the words of their Teacher. Though they were all richly filled with the Holy Spirit, and hence could themselves have settled the various disputes which arose in the Church, they nevertheless did not do this, but on every important question they assembled together and settled the question raised in council; and by this they wished to show an example to their successors, how these must proceed in such matters. It became a matter of contention among Christians converted from Judaism, that Christians converted from paganism must submit to the Mosaic law; and neither Paul nor any other of the apostles wished to settle this question on his own, but it was laid before the general council of all the apostles and the other elders, and at that council a joint decision was drawn up.[5]

This example of the apostles served as a guide for the successors of the apostles in their work, so that in the exercise of church authority joint action was always observed. They received from the apostles the full power both of teaching, and of performing the sacred rites, and of governance, but they never exercised it in a purely personal manner. As regards teaching, the apostles gave to each bishop, together with the respective church, the power of teaching also; but for the surer success in the exercise of that same power, they always kept beside them several members of their clergy, who composed the presbyteral council, with which they jointly deliberated on the needs of the church entrusted to them, drew up joint decisions, and acted according to those decisions.[6] Should some question of teaching arise that cut more deeply into the life of the Church, then the respective bishop would turn to the neighboring bishops, who would then all gather together at the bishop of the chief church (the metropolis), and there deliberate and settle what was needful, in council.[7] The same held for the exercise of the power of performing the sacred rites. In council the apostles appointed the first deacons;[8] in council Paul and Barnabas were appointed to the apostolic ministry;[9] in council Timothy was appointed bishop in Ephesus.[10] This apostolic example passed over into the post-apostolic age, and received the force of positive law chiefly in the appointment of bishops.[11] But where this joint, conciliar action is most reflected is in the exercise of the power of governance. The whole multitude of canons, by which the Orthodox Church is governed today, were all issued in councils, nor is there a single canon that does not bear upon it the seal of conciliar authority. The canons of the holy fathers, which we today receive and acknowledge, we receive and consider binding only because they were confirmed at councils, and because the councils acknowledged them that binding significance. Questions touching church governance are subject solely and exclusively to the decision of conciliar authority, and it is only in the name of that authority that bishops exercise governing authority in the churches entrusted to them.[12]

All the branches of church authority Christ handed over to His apostles, and from the apostles it passed to the successors of the apostles, namely the bishops. As the apostles were all equal among themselves and all received equal authority from Christ, so too are all bishops equal among themselves in authority,[13] and accordingly over a bishop only an assembly of many bishops, a council of bishops, can have authority.[14] If the head of every church is its bishop, then several particular churches will be able to depend on the assembly of all those bishops, on the regional council;[15] and over the universal Church, which embraces all the regional churches in the world, authority will belong to the assembly of the superiors of all the regional churches, that is, the ecumenical council.[16] The whole fullness, then, of church authority is concentrated in the council of bishops, and that in so absolute a sense, that without this the Church would cease to be what she is, and her constitution would no longer be that which was established by the Founder of the Church. The bishop is the head of the regional church entrusted to him, and he has that fullness of authority which every apostle had, hence he has the whole fullness of church authority; but he has and exercises this authority because it has been entrusted to him by the council of bishops, which, at his ordination, called down upon him the grace of the Holy Spirit and thereby made him a successor of the apostles. This teaching of the Orthodox Church composes the foundation of the whole of her law, and for this same teaching she finds confirmation in Holy Scripture, in the canonical ordinances, and in the practice of the Church of all ages.