The episcopate of the Orthodox Church

[Andreas Moran]

In a number of threads, posts have mentioned bishops and what they have authority to do. What source(s) can we turn to to find out the duties and powers of bishops? I assume it is accepted that the central function of bishops is to preside over the celebration of the Eucharist and to preach the good news in accordance with Orthodox dogma and doctrine. This latter he must do in unity with other Orthodox bishops. He is also to govern the area for which he is responsible, again in a way which is in unity with other bishops. I assume it is also accepted that, given the foregoing, bishops cannot do what they like.

A further question is, what authority do bishops in council - i.e., a local synod - have more than one bishop, and does a primate - patriarch/archbishop - have any authority further than the synod over which he is chairman?

[Owen Jones]

These are all functional definitions, of course. The true meaning of a bishop is to be a shepherd, which means that he is to be willing to sacrifice his life for the strays or are prey to revening wolves. He is a stand-in for Christ. Not a functionary. His authority comes, not from exercising power, but from exemplifying the virtue of powerlessness.

[Andreas Moran]

Owen's post reminds us of the qualities a bishop should show as described by St Paul in his Letter to Titus and his first Letter to Timothy, and by St Peter in his first Letter. These qualities are: 'holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince gainsayers' (Titus 1:9); 'to be of 'a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil' (1Tim. 3:7); 'being examples to the flock' (1Pet. 5:3).

Thus, bishops are to be shepherds of the flock, and also leaders of their Eucharistic communties, administrators and teachers of the word of God. The Apostolic Father, Ignatius, writes often about bishops and of the honour and respect due to them, for example, 'we ought to regard the bishop as the Lord Himself' (to the Ephesians, 6:1) and, 'be obedient to the bishop' (to the Magnesians, 13:2). The 36th Canon of the Holy Apostles provides for the severe punishment of clergy who fail to teach their people obedience to their bishop.

But happens if we think a bishop is wrong? We note that St Paul says, 'lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil'. So, there is the possibility of a bishop being wrong. St Paul indeed tells us to test all things (cf 1 Thess. 5:21). St John says, 'do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see if they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world (1John 1:4). This can be taken (as it is by the Russian Orthodox Church) to mean the spirits in human beings, especially in teachers in the Church. Thus, if a bishop acts or speaks contrary to Orthodox teaching, he is being guided not by the Holy Spirit but some other spirit. How many Arian bishops were there in the Church in the fourth century, how many Nestorian bishops in the fifth? How many bishops since have been in error? Sometimes, it has happened that a great majority of bishops have been wrong.

Bishops and groups of bishops can be wrong. The question is, what are the critieria for 'testing the spirits'? I have only mentioned a few passages from scripture and the letters of St Ignatius. If we had to assess if a bishop were wrong, what are the other indicators which we would use? I suppose this might depend on whether a bishop is thought to be wrong in some matter of doctrine (the simpler case) or in some matter of Church governance.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Bishops and groups of bishops can be wrong. The question is, what are the critieria for 'testing the spirits'? I have only mentioned a few passages from scripture and the letters of St Ignatius. If we had to assess if a bishop were wrong, what are the other indicators which we would use? I suppose this might depend on whether a bishop is thought to be wrong in some matter of doctrine (the simpler case) or in some matter of Church governance.

Each and every right-believing bishop is the whole Church, but only in so much as what he proclaims is in harmony with what every other bishop in the Church proclaims. When he gets out of step, he starts to step outside the boundaries of the Church. When that happens, what to do?

Being associated with the military most of my life, I tend to think along military lines. One concept that the Navy has is called "defense in depth". This involves having several different lines of defense like concentric circles. The first and largest circle hopefully deals with the threat first (first line of defence), but things that penetrate it will be dealt with by other defenses that form smaller rings with "last ditch" defenses taking care of the "leakers".

If I may be indulged, to apply this to the situation of the Church, we also have "defense in depth". I would see the bishop is the first line of defense, he is expected to lead his flock in proper doctrine and practice, protecting it from false teachings. If he fails to do so, the second line of defense would be his brother bishops. Seeing one bishop fall out of line with the historic teachings of the Church, they would meet in synod to correct the erring brother, and in extreme situations, convene an ecclesiastical court. If a group of bishops fall into error, then the larger Church represented by the Patriarchs may need to act in council to take corrective action. Another line of defense is the laity, the "rational sheep" of the fold, who may complain when they are being misled, appealing to higher authority when matters appear to be aggregious. In extreme situations we even have the flock rising in open revolt, as happened in the days of St. Mark of Ephesus. This is not a desireable situation, but when all else fails, the Holy Spirit will employ the "last ditch" defenses as well.

In Orthodoxy, with the exception of the Ottoman captivity where bishops had civil power, bishops are only leaders of the willing. It is a concensual arrangement, a synergy that also involves the Holy Spirit. There are no simple or even consistent lines of demarcation, the defense shifts as necessary to deal with the circumstances at hand. But as long as no single individual claims "infallible" and singular authority to change the Faith, I find the Orthodox way very comforting and I am confident in the power of the Holy Spirit to direct things in the way they need to go without a supreme "Vicar of Christ". Even the Catholic Church recognizes this in the institution of the Magisterium. But isn't this like saying, "the Pope is infallible, except when he isn't"?

At any rate, if we are concerned with the conduct or teaching of a bishop, and having prayed about it and talked with our priest and/or confessor about it, we bring the matter of concern to our bishop. If no resolution is available there, we may raise the issue with the Metropolitan or appropriate Patriarch. Hopefully somewhere along the way our concerns are addressed or appropriate action is taken. I think there is a tendency to resort to firing the "canons" far too soon, but that might just be me. There are some policies that my own Metropolitan has that I don't fully agree with, but he is the Metropolitan, so I try to accept or at least understand what he is doing before I get too upset by it. Fortunately I have had the opportunity to meet with him and discuss things with him and get to know him as a person as well as a shepherd and this makes it easier to trust him in particular because I know that he loves and serves the Lord sincerely, regardless. I pray for those who are not in a similar situation, that God grant patience and wisdom to those who have been appointed and anointed as well as to the rational sheep entrusted to their care.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think we make a mistake about bishops and others who have responsibility as shepherds within the Church in thinking they have an all encompassing authority. It is for this reason that obedience to the shepherd seems all demanding to us. And it is for this reason that the question of imperfection in the shepherd can never receive a satisfactory answer.

I would suggest that the shepherds of the Church are given not an all encompassing authority but rather an all embracing responsibility. That is, similar to fathers in a household they care for those they are responsible for. But they do not seek to control them.

What this means is that the shepherd actually does not think of himself as directing every aspect of those he has responsibility for. In practice he leaves a fair amount of direction to the local shepherds and ultimately to the freedom of those he is responsible for.

This is not so much a system as it is a way of working with how the Church works. It isn't a pattern of authority (at least not in the worldly sense)- it is a way of being responsible for those who lead their lives in Christ.

The question of the imperfection of the shepherd then is most fully addressed within the larger context of how the Church works. Simply do what is right in the situation in which we find ourselves. This works because in any case the shepherd does not seek to control every action of those he is responsible for. Instead the shepherd learns to trust in how Christ guides the Church through each priest and parish and individual. The shepherd shows his responsibility by working in trust through this way of life which occurs within the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Andreas Moran]

I'm grateful to both Herman and Fr Raphael for the careful attention they have given to this topic. I wonder if I'm correct in summarising what they have said in this way. The bishop is a shepherd who is responsible for his flock but with some element of consent from that flock. He must follow the teachings of the Orthodox Church so as to work in harmony with other bishops. If he is wrong there are incremental measures that can be taken to correct him or, in extremis, depose him. Groups of bishops in local synods should also act in harmony with other synods in matters of faith and worship.

More difficult is when groups of bishops or local synods take one line on something and others do not follow and disagree. Even worse is when patriarchs are at loggerheads (which is not unknown between MP and EP). To take a concrete example, we have been told that the Antiochian Patriarchate has abolished all fasting between Easter and Pentecost. That is out of line with all the other Churches. Did AP have authority to decide that?

[Herman Blaydoe]

To take a concrete example, we have been told that the Antiochian Patriarchate has abolished all fasting between Easter and Pentecost. That is out of line with all the other Churches. Did AP have authority to decide that?

I would think that yes, he has the authority to do this. This is a matter of praxis rather than doctrine. Whether or not it is a good idea is simply another subject altogether. We can probably debate whether or not it is a good or bad praxis, but I think the authority of the bishop to establish it is pretty clear cut. Now if he were to decide that his flock does not have to fast at all, that would be a different matter, and I suspect his fellow patriarchs might have something to say about it. But if they have not decided to censor the AP for his decision, who are we to do so? I suppose you could write to your bishop and let him know why you think it is a bad idea, but it would be up to him to decide whether or not you are correct in your assessment, don't you think? Are we trying to impose Christ's will or our own? Do WE have the authority to do so in any event?

But how about this? What if the people under the AP don't follow his rule? What if they want a stricter rule? Then they follow that stricter rule if they choose to as reason-endowed sheep. Where it becomes an issue is when these people try to impose their own will upon others who want to be obedient to the bishop's more relaxed rule. This would then have to be sorted out by the bishops, that is why they get to wear the fancy hats.


http://www.st-george-church.org/ImageFiles/SGeorgeGraphics/BishopCrown.jpg

Herman

[Matthew Namee]

To take a concrete example, we have been told that the Antiochian Patriarchate has abolished all fasting between Easter and Pentecost.
I'm in the Antiochian Archdiocese in America, and my diocesan bishop, Basil of Wichita, has instructed his people to fast during the period following Pascha, just like all other Orthodox. I took this to be a pastoral decision. But for a bishop to do the opposite, and tell his people that the don't have to fast, is really his prerogative, I think. He is the one who will have to answer for it, and the people should be responsible enough to make appropriate choices for themselves if they know him to be wrong.

[Andreas Moran]

I would not have thought that praxis could be so separated from faith and worship. Are not all that we do as Orthodox integrated? This may be a grey area. But to take faith and worship. These are inextricably linked. It has been said on another thread that iconography and liturgical texts are essential expressions of the theology of the Church. Does a bishop or indeed a local synod have authority to change or add to liturgical texts?

[Herman Blaydoe]

I would not have thought that praxis could be so separated from faith and worship. Are not all that we do as Orthodox integrated? This may be a grey area. But to take faith and worship. These are inextricably linked. It has been said on another thread that iconography and liturgical texts are essential expressions of the theology of the Church. Does a bishop or indeed a local synod have authority to change or add to liturgical texts?

They must because they do so on a relatively regular basis. The Antiochian Liturgy has differences from the Russian Liturgy and our diocese has differences from both. And nobody has been anathematized over it.

[Andreas Moran]

Dear Herman,

It must be a matter of degree, though, since the structure of the liturgy of St John Chrysostom ought to be the same wherever it is celebrated. What are the differences between the liturgy in the Antiochian and Russian Churches and your diocese?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Dear Herman,

It must be a matter of degree, though, since the structure of the liturgy of St John Chrysostom ought to be the same wherever it is celebrated. What are the differences between the liturgy in the Antiochian and Russian Churches and your diocese?

Well, for one, the Antiphons are done very differently. Ours are a little more involved than the simplified version the Antiochians use but much less elaborate than the Russian practice. We also add a prayer just before the sermon that no other Orthodox church uses to my knowledge: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you." The way we do the Prokimen is also different in form than most other Orthodox churches I have experienced. We also add special petitions during some of the litanies. Where the sermon actually occurs varies from my experience as well but I suppose that is not an addition or subtraction per se.

But beyond that, we do what has been done for hundreds of years. We don't "change" things willy nilly. I don't foresee the Metropolitan suddenly telling us to leave out the Cherubic Hymn or the Lord's Prayer, but perhaps he might direct us to change how we do the antiphons, or the tropars and kondaks, and I am not going to go running to the Patriarch screaming "heresy!" if he does, although some others might, I don't know. Again what the rational sheep are willing to put up with factors in as well at some level, just don't ask me to define it because I can't.

[Andreas Moran]

As I said, a matter of degree, and what you describe is within the bounds of acceptable local variations. Elder Sophrony introduced some prayers which are said at Essex but nowhere else.

[Andreas Moran]

I would like to draw over here the points made by Fr David in his post on the thread, 'Services'.

Allow me to say from the outset that I wish to pursue this question in a spirit of enquiry and not in terms of seeking only to justify entrenched positions.

So far here, we have the description of the bishop's role from St Paul and St Peter. Of the Apostolic Fathers, St Ignatius talks about bishops a lot as mentioned above. Particularly relevant I think is this passage from St Paul:


'holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince gainsayers' (Titus 1:9)

Herman, I think, made a very useful point:


Each and every right-believing bishop is the whole Church, but only in so much as what he proclaims is in harmony with what every other bishop in the Church proclaims. (My emphasis.)

We then have this from Fr Raphael:


I think we make a mistake about bishops and others who have responsibility as shepherds within the Church in thinking they have an all encompassing authority.

and this:


I would suggest that the shepherds of the Church are given not an all encompassing authority but rather an all embracing responsibility.

On the 'Services' thread, I sought to show, by reference to writers on this matter, that the Divine liturgy (and let us think of the Divine liturgy of St John Chrysostom since that is the usual liturgy of the universal Church) is the central pillar of the Orthodox Church. The liturgy is the manifestation of God on earth and a treasury of the truth of our faith expressed as dogma. It is commonly said that the celebration of the Divine liturgy is the central purpose of the Church and presiding over it is the central function of the bishop. I trust so far there is agreement.

Fr David said that the 'bishop in his diocese is the ruling authority'. This begs the question, in relation to what? Anything? What is the scope of this authority? It cannot be 'all encompassing'. It is, rather, 'an all embracing responsibility' to use Fr Raphael's expressions. Responsibility for what? For propounding 'sound doctrine' and the celebration of the liturgy 'in harmony with' the universal Church.

Fr David said that a bishop 'can authorise whatever practices he deems necessary for the spiritual welfare of his flock'. The spiritual welfare of the flock is presumably to be taught the truth according to the Holy Tradition of the Orthodox Church. The truth is expressed in the liturgy as commentators tell us. I understand what Fr David said in these terms: that a bishop has responsibility within Holy Tradition because the bishop must 'rightly divide the word of truth' and truth resides in the liturgy. Anything else would indeed be 'foreign to the traditional practice of Orthodoxy'. The bishop is further constrained in relation to services by the Typikon of his Church.

It must be the case that a bishop cannot impose some novel liturgical use such as WR on his flock. Can he sanction such use for some of his flock who ask for it? The Fathers tell us the bishop's central function is to preside over the celebration of the liturgy: could any of the Fathers have envisaged that the question might be asked, 'what liturgy? - that used in the universal Church which has evolved within the Orthodox Church over some 1,000 years - or one that has been devised of late based on the services of heterodox churches and which, in its origins, has not seen use in the Orthodox Church for some 1,000 years?' Can it be the case that the innovation sought to be sanctioned is capable of expressing the truth as does the liturgy of St John Chrysostom? Clearly, there are differences of opinion but I suggest that this is not an area where there is room for such differences in the sense that there ought to be a resolution of the question. For the sake of the unity of the Church, I suggest (for the reasons I gave on the 'Services' thread) that, at the end of the day, those of different opinions cannot simply 'agree to differ' - it is too important for that. Why is it important? I think it is important because anything not from the paradosis of the Church cannot possess the fulness of the truth. As Archim. Vasileios writes, 'in the Orthodox faith, there is no room for one jot of anything alien, belonging to a different understanding or of a different quality. Nothing enters except by the door, which is Christ'.

[Andreas Moran]

I thought it useful to mention something about paradosis, Holy Tradition. Tradition is not just the past and our guide to the present. It is a charismatic reality. Tradition and the Church are one. It is not the past that we have received but Christ and we walk in Him in the faith we have been given (cf Col. 2:6-7). Tradition is Trinitarian in that the Father is the cause, begetting the Son and causing the procession of the Holy Spirit. This paradosis, the transmission of all His essence to the Son and the Holy Spirit is also kenotic love. This paradosis and kenotic love are continued by the Son Who gave Himself up for the life of the world (see, John 6:15). The Son sends the Spirit of truth Who dwells in the Church transmitting and preserving the truth (cf John 14:26). The Apostles were chosen and ordained (see John 15:16) to receive the love that originates from the Father, and to continue its transmission.

Thus Tradition is an eternal Pentecost, the transmission of grace and truth to the Church. Tradition is to the Church what the soul is to the body: it animates and unifies the Church. Tradition is the ceaseless and unchanging life in Trinitarian love. It is the perfect gift from above 'and cometh down from the Father of lights' (James 1:17).

Understood in this way, Tradition derives from the Father and is the source of our faith which is by revelation from Christ, and taught by the Apostles and Fathers as inspired by the Spirit of truth. Bishops are to 'hold fast' to this as guardians of the faith. As successors of the Apostles they are to continue the charismatic work of transmission. We have seen how the liturgy (of St John Chrysostom and St Basil) is the vessel of the fulness of our faith and evolved over centuries until achieving its final form in the fourteenth century (Services thread, post 25). The liturgy realises the whole Church of the past and the present in the local community. It is this which the bishop proclaims by his presiding over the liturgy. How, then, can a bishop authorise something which cannot be transmitted from Tradition because it stands outside it?