On Ecclesiastical Authority

St. Nikodim Milaš of Dalmatia (+1915), theologian, canonist, and historian

 

The task of the Church consists in directing the will of man in accordance with the will of God, and in uniting all with God. For the attainment of this goal, a special authority has been established in the Church, combining within itself all the powers given by Christ to the Church. Since the task of the Church is of a spiritual nature and consists in directing the human spirit onto the good path and preparing man for the future eternal life, the authority of the Church also can be none other than spiritual. Likewise, the means at the disposal of Church authority must be of the same nature as this authority itself, that is, purely spiritual; and the Church, in the exercise of its authority, regardless of whatever external conditions may be, cannot use material force to defend its rights when someone does not acknowledge them.

In accordance with the nature of the Church, its authority chiefly concerns the spiritual side of man and extends to matters beyond the earthly sphere of activity. But the Church exists in the world and has its own definite structure, which must be unchangeably preserved for the correct attainment of its goal; therefore, Church authority, in addition to the spiritual aspect of man, must extend its activity also to his earthly relations, as a member of the visible and properly organized organism of the Church.

The Church is one, and therefore its authority in its fullness is one; but in its manifestations it reveals three distinct types, according to the various matters of its activity. Such a division is based on Holy Scripture and, from this point of view, in church authority are distinguished:

1. the authority of teaching (ἐξουσία διδακτική, potestas magisterii), which is expressed in the preservation and dissemination of Christian doctrine, in the protection of the faithful from false teachings, in preaching and care for the education of the clergy;

2. the authority of sacred ministry (ἐξουσία ἱερατική, potestas ordinis) concerning the correct performance of the holy sacraments and other sacred rites;

3. the authority of pastoral care or governance (ἐξουσία ποιμαντική ἢ διοικητική, potestas jurisdictionis), which is expressed in legislation, in the judgment of crimes against church laws by members of the Church, and in the oversight of the administration of church affairs.

These three types of church authority must not be conflated, especially with regard to the authority of sacred ministry and the authority of governance. The former belongs to each person who has rightly received ordination, while the latter belongs only to those who have received it separately. One or another degree of the first authority (sacred ministry) does not necessarily mean that the one possessing it must also have the second. The first authority, in its degrees, can proceed only from the lower to the higher, and if it is lost, it is lost definitively without any gradual process, whereas the second is subject to change in its particular forms. This distinction arises from the difference in the very nature of these branches of church authority. The authority of sacred ministry has a mystical meaning and serves as the foundation of spiritual, supernatural rights, whereas the authority of governance extends to the external side of the Church and does not depend unconditionally on the greater or lesser fullness of the first authority. The same, though in a different respect, must be said of the authority of teaching in relation to the other two types of church authority.

For the exercise of church authority, a lawful mission (κανονικὴ ἀποστολή, missio canonica) is necessary, which is granted by the competent authority on the basis of specific lawful regulations. This mission has a mystical significance in relation to the first type of church authority and is received with the very rite of ordination; in the case of the other types, it has an external character and can be limited or expanded according to the object of the mission itself.

All three types of church authority Christ transmitted to His apostles, and from the apostles it passed to their successors. Just as the apostles were equal among themselves and all received the same authority from Christ, so also all bishops are equal among themselves in authority, and therefore only a gathering of many bishops, a council of bishops, can have authority over a bishop. If the head of each church is its bishop, then several individual churches can be subject to the assembly of all these bishops, that is, to a local council; over the Universal Church, encompassing all the local churches of the world, authority is held by the assembly of the heads of all the local churches, or the Ecumenical Council. Thus, the fullness of church authority is concentrated in the council of bishops, and in such an absolute sense that without this, the Church would cease to be what it is, and its structure would no longer be as it was established by its Founder. A bishop is the head of his church and possesses the fullness of power, such as each apostle had, and therefore he has the fullness of church authority; but he has and exercises this authority because it has been entrusted to him by the council of bishops, who, at his ordination, called upon him the grace of the Holy Spirit and thereby made him the successor of the apostles. This teaching is not only contemplative, but is based on law, on the canons, on canonical decrees, and on the ecclesiastical practice of all ages.

The Founder of the Church in all His ordinances always had in view the weakness of human nature and gave the Church such commandments as could be fulfilled even in this weakness. This lies in the nature of man, that the joint action of many more easily leads to the desired goal. In joint actions, the essence of the given matter is more clearly seen, a more accurate decision is made, the will of individuals is strengthened, errors are more easily exposed, and the firmly established goal of the Church is attained; at the same time, such action sustains Christian humility and the awareness of personal imperfection. To this, Christ added a new commandment, the commandment of mutual love, uniting all in one spirit, animating and strengthening all. This can be attained only in brotherly unity and agreement in council; for if each individual person, no matter how well-disposed, were to follow only his own opinion, then unity would never be achieved, and meanwhile it is precisely by universal unity of thought that the true Church of Christ is recognized. The example of Christ and His apostles clearly confirms this for us. Christ did not give individual apostles authority in the Church, but gave it to all of them together⁷, and He promised that where two or three are gathered in His name, there He would be in the midst of them. The apostles exactly followed the words of their Teacher. Therefore, although they were all richly filled with the Holy Spirit, and thus each could have independently resolved various disputes that arose in the Church, they did not do this, but in every more important matter they gathered and resolved it conciliarity; by this, they wished to give an example to their successors of how they ought to act. Among Christians converted from Judaism, there arose a demand that Christians converting from paganism should be subject to the Law of Moses, and neither the Apostle Paul nor any of the other apostles wished to resolve this question by himself, but they brought it to the council of all the apostles and the other elders, and at this council a common decision was established.

Such an example from the apostles set the direction for the actions of their successors, which is why in the exercise of church authority a unified action was always observed. The successors of the apostles received from them full authority in teaching, in sacred ministry, and in governance, but they never applied it individually. With regard to teaching, the apostles gave to each bishop, along with a known church, also the authority of teaching; but for the assured success in the fulfillment of this authority, bishops always had with them several members from their clergy, forming a “presbyterial council,” with whom they consulted, with known participation from the faithful, concerning the needs of the church entrusted to them, and they formulated collective decisions, according to which things were always to be conducted. If a question arose concerning doctrine, which had a deeper relation to the life of the Church, then the given bishop had to appeal to neighboring bishops, who all gathered at the bishop of the principal church (in the metropolis), and there a conciliar deliberation and decision took place regarding all that was necessary. The same was true in relation to the authority of sacred ministry. The apostles collectively ordained the first deacons, Paul and Barnabas were appointed to apostolic service collectively, Timothy was collectively appointed to the episcopate in Ephesus. This example of the apostles passed into post-apostolic times and acquired the force of positive law, primarily in the ordination of bishops. But where this conciliar action is seen most clearly is in the exercise of the authority of governance. The entire multitude of canons by which the Orthodox Church is now governed was issued at councils, and there is not a single canon that does not bear the seal of conciliar authority. The canons of the holy fathers, now received and acknowledged by us, are accepted and considered obligatory by us solely because they were affirmed by councils and because the councils acknowledged their binding authority. Questions concerning church governance are subject solely and exclusively to the decision of conciliar authority, and only in the name of this authority do bishops have the power of governance in the churches entrusted to them.

The concept of church authority as one, in which the entire fullness of it is contained and from which the authority operating in the Church proceeds according to an established order—this concept permeates the entire structure of the Orthodox Church, from the very highest to the very lowest organ of this authority. It is now expressed in the councils, which function (either permanently or periodically) under the primates of all autocephalous churches, and thus in the highest church centers; it is also manifested in the relationship of an individual bishop to the presbyterial council that exists with him.

 

Source: Православное церковное право [Orthodox Ecclesiastical Law], Saint Petersburg: Press of V. V. Komarov, 1897.