APPENDIX B: MATTHEW 16:18 – CHURCH AND APOSTLES

Defining the word

What do we mean when we say ‘Church?’ We often hear or use such expressions as: “There is no salvation outside the Church,” “The Church of Russia,” “The Greek Orthodox Church,” “The Roman Catholic Church,” “The Church is the Body of Christ,” or “Christians should go to Church.” All contain the term ‘Church,’ but obviously in a very inconsistent way.

It is agreed that properly speaking, the word ‘Church’ refers to people, not to a building. Secondly, it is reasonable to argue that the meaning of the word ‘Church’ should be defined by the Scriptures and its apostolic interpretation found in the writings of the Early Fathers, not by modern usage.

By searching the New Testament for every occurrence of the word ‘Church’ (or ‘Churches’), one can obtain a clear picture of what it is that God established “by the price of the blood of his own [Son].”²⁵³²

On the one hand, the Church is an eschatological reality that transcends space and time. It could be said that God knows, foreknows and has a relationship with us that is not constrained by the here and now (1Cor. 13:12). He knows his elect from “before the foundation of the world.” The early Christian (and orthodox) doctrine of the so-called ‘pre-existence’ of the Church is well established.²⁵³³ For instance, the Shepherd of Hermas teaches that “She [the Church] was the first of all creation... and the world was made for her”.²⁵³⁴ The early homily known as 2 Clement is even more explicit:

Moreover, the books and the Apostles declare that the Church belongs not to the present, but existed from the origin [beginning, source].²⁵³⁵

In order to understand reality properly, that is according to the mind of the Spirit, we must discern within time and creation a dynamic movement towards its telos or end.²⁵³⁶ On the one hand, our human consciousness experiences the universe as ‘purpose-driven.’ But could it be that our experience of the arrow of time is only an icon or foretaste of the reality that already exists in God? A beautiful exposition of this profound truth is found in the writings of St. Maximus the Confessor who summarized it in these words: “The things of the past are shadow; those of the present icon; the truth is to be found in the things of the future.”²⁵³⁷

In his classic Being as Communion, Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon makes the point that the Eucharistic liturgy is also “a remembrance of the future,” because the Church below²⁵³⁸ is a manifestation of the Church beyond.²⁵³⁹ The great Orthodox theologian compares us with trees “with branches in the present and roots in the future.”²⁵⁴⁰ This is why the great prayer of consecration of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom can say:

Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that has come to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the sitting at the right hand of the Father, and the second and glorious coming…

In the Church, we are already “new creatures in Christ,”²⁵⁴¹ and even in our present chronos (time), we are revealed as foreknown, predestined, called, justified and glorified. The apparent contradiction between ‘pastoral free will’ passages and those stressing eternal divine election²⁵⁴² simply reflect the tension between two perspectives on reality.

Clement of Alexandria aptly summarized the relationship between the Church of the elect above and the Church below in these words:

The earthly Church is the image of the heavenly.²⁵⁴³

Scholarly research in the origins and meaning of early Christian worship, which was itself based on Temple worship, confirms this approach. In a paragraph fittingly entitled Time and Eternity, one such scholar documents how “beyond the veil” of the Holy of Holies, the whole history of the world appeared in one glimpse, as a literally ‘omni-present’²⁵⁴⁴ picture:

In the world view of the temple, there was another, timeless state beyond the veil which was not ‘future’ but always present.²⁵⁴⁵

In the perspective of our experience of time, of our eon or ‘age,’ the Church is “the body of Christ,”²⁵⁴⁶ the means by which temporal creatures can be united to the eternal God-Man and become “partakers of the divine nature”²⁵⁴⁷ now and in “the age to come.” The purpose of the Church is that the many creatures would be one with God the Father in Jesus Christ, so that “God may be all in all.”²⁵⁴⁸ The Church is the means by which human beings can enter in this new mode of existence not “born of the flesh” but “of the Spirit.”²⁵⁴⁹ To describe this reality, the expressions “eschatological,²⁵⁵⁰ pre-eternal, fulfilled or supra-temporal Church” are all fitting.

This definition can sound identical with that of ‘Universal Church.’ For instance, the Catechism of the Orthodox Church contains this question and answer:

Q. Why is the Church called Catholic, or which is the same thing, Universal?

A. Because she is not limited to any place, time, or people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples.

In this sense, both concepts are identical, even though the early Church use of ‘catholic Church’ was usually reserved for the manifestation of the preeternal Church in space and time. The problem is that ‘Universal / Catholic Church’ is mainly used to refer to all believers now alive on earth. This is especially usual in Roman Catholic terminology (and theology), both for ‘Catholic Church’ and ‘Universal Church’.

Hence, the mystery of the Church is the mystery of Christ himself and the Eucharistic gathering is what constitutes and manifests the Church in space and time, ‘this side of the curtain.’ In the Eucharist, we experience an intersection of the eternal “lamb slaughtered from the foundation of the world”²⁵⁵¹ with our ‘here and now.’ The very institution of the Eucharist makes the connection, indeed the identity of Eucharist-Church obvious: “this is my body” refers to both interchangeably. In 1Corinthians 11, a chapter entirely dedicated to the Eucharistic life of “the Church of God that is at Corinth,”²⁵⁵² we find this significant expression: “when you come together as [a] Church.”²⁵⁵³ In other words, it is the gathering of the people of God to celebrate the Lord’s Supper that makes the Church be–in the sense of a manifestation of the eschatological Church and Lamb. It is the same Holy Spirit who is called upon to manifest the Christ, both in the waters of Jordan and in the Eucharistic assembly.

In the liturgy of St. Basil, we pray:

That thy Holy Spirit may come upon us and upon these gifts here set forth, and bless them and hallow them and show this bread to be itself the precious Body of Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ, and this cup to be itself the precious Blood of Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ…

We now understand why St. Paul uses the expression “the whole Church”²⁵⁵⁴ (ὅλης τῆς ἐκκλησίας) to refer to the local Church. The local Church is the whole Church, and Paul always uses the singular (“to the Church of God that is in Corinth”) when he mentions the local Church. By contrast, Churches (plural) refers to regional or organizational groups. In other words, 1 “whole Church” + 1 “whole Church” + 1 “whole Church” = the “whole Church” in 3 places or 3 “Churches.” Paul does not say “the Church in Galatia” or “the Church of Achaia (Greece)” because it is improper terminology!²⁵⁵⁵ There is not a single Eucharist in Galatia or in Achaia and therefore we cannot consider all the Christians in those areas ‘in bulk’ and call them ‘a Church.’ “Exiles” and “saints” in Asia or Galatia²⁵⁵⁶ certainly, but not as Church. The same can be said of our modern use of ‘Church’ (as in ‘Orthodox Church’) to refer to a worldwide communion of local catholic Churches, what we often call ‘the universal Church.’ As in the case of regional Churches, there is no ‘universal (worldwide) Eucharist.’ Because of this, using the word ‘Church’ in the expression ‘universal Church’ (or to say ‘the church needs a new roof’) is certainly convenient and commonplace, but is also improper and potentially misleading.

* * *

To summarize, the Church, strictly speaking, is the Body of Christ, the eschatological unity of all those who have been united to Christ’s life in all times and places. This is the foundational use of ‘Church’ in the New Testament. The other proper use for ‘Church,’ in a way that connects with our realm, is in reference to the gathering of Christians from a specific area to celebrate the Eucharist. If in Matthew 16:18, the meaning of Church is uncertain, Matthew 18 undoubtedly uses the same word to describe the local community. This “whole Church” is the manifestation of the eschatological Church in our world, in our town. Beyond that, we have “Churches.”

There is a great risk of equating (and confusing) the eschatological Church with the sum of all the local Churches in existence on earth at one particular point in time, i.e. the so-called ‘universal Church.’²⁵⁵⁷ The idea that all Christians alive on earth form a universal organism or society called Church is a central element of Roman Catholic ecclesiology. According to this view, the Church–the “whole Church”–is first and foremost “the faithful everywhere.” Hence, the unity of the Church depends on all the local Churches being joined to their ontological head (in this case the Roman Church), to form a single worldwide body called “the Catholic Church.”²⁵⁵⁸

However, before discussing the ecclesiological paradigm more at length, let us first try to understand what the word ‘catholic’ originally meant.

The catholic Church as a hologram

When we confess our faith in the “Church,” or the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church,” we are confessing the existence of the Church, both ‘pre-eternal’ and ‘manifested’ in our world, as something essential for our salvation. But what does “catholic” mean? Does it mean universal or whole or both? And how do we recognize and identify this catholic Church confessed in our creed?

Eucharistic theology is the view that the catholic Church is fundamentally the local Eucharistic assembly, gathered around its bishop. Thus, the ‘Church of God which is at Ephesus or Corinth’ is the “whole Church” and the “catholic Church.”

In terms of etymology, ‘catholic’ comes from kat’holon, a cognate of holis. In other words, catholic means ‘according to wholeness.’ Catholic is also connected with ‘holographic’ inasmuch as the word ‘hologram’ is based on the same root as ‘catholic.’ A hologram can be described as follows:

A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the partial pieces from which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.²⁵⁵⁹

Indeed, the relationship between Church and Eucharist is significant as we recall the words of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom:

Broken and distributed is the Lamb of God; broken, but not divided; forever eaten yet never consumed; sanctifying all who partake.²⁵⁶⁰

The similarity with holographic objects is striking. By contrast, the paradigm of Western science is also that of Western theology, and we can paraphrase Michael Talbot as follows:

Western theology has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom (or the Church), is to dissect it and study its respective parts.

In other words, conventional Western ecclesiology used to tell us that there is one big worldwide universal Catholic Church, of which local Churches are only parts. According to this view, the parts are not “whole” individually, one has to take all the parts to have the whole. Reflecting this approach, the Catechism, of the Catholic Church uses traditional Western terminology:

[The bishops should] rule well their own Churches as portions of the universal Church.²⁵⁶¹

Likewise, in an unpublished article entitled What Does Catholic Mean? A History of the Word “Catholic,"²⁵⁶² Roman Catholic apologist Steve Ray explains:

However, we have yet to define the word catholic. It comes from the Greek katholikos, the combination of two words: kata- concerning, and holos- whole. According to the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, the word catholic comes from a Greek word meaning “regarding the whole,” or more simply, “universal” or “general.” Universal comes from two Greek words: uni – one, and vertere – turning. In other words, a “one turning,” “revolving around one,” or “turned into one.” The word Church comes from the Greek ecclesia which means “those called out,” as in those summoned out of the world at large to form a distinct society.

The Orthodox can only agree with this presentation, although care is required to properly understand what is meant by “those summoned out of the world at large to form a distinct society.” From an Orthodox perspective, the problem arises when Steve Ray concludes:

So the Catholic Church is made up of those called out and gathered into the universal visible society founded by Christ.

But universal is an imprecise word. It can mean “not limited to any place, nor time, nor people, but contains true believers of all places, times, and peoples,” which can be called eschatological or pre-eternal.²⁵⁶³ But this does not seem to be the intended meaning. Instead, “universal visible society founded by Christ” conveys the idea of ‘worldwide visible society founded by Christ.’

Hence, if the Church is disconnected from its Eucharistic nature, the temptation is great to define ‘Catholic Church’ in a space-universal²⁵⁶⁴ sense. However, there is no single universal Eucharist and no single universal bishop, and hence no universal (worldwide) Church. From an Orthodox perspective, a more accurate conclusion to the above quoted article would be:

So the catholic Church is made up of those called out and gathered (to manifest the Church) through a visible, local community that participates in and offers the Eucharist under the presidency of its bishop.

‘Space-universal catholic ecclesiology’ is based on imprecise terminology and can easily be misleading. More importantly, it does not offer a faithful witness to the ecclesiology of the New Testament or of the early Church.

If we used the illustration of holographic objects, the catholic Church (the local Eucharistic assembly) is a complete whole which stands on its own. It contains the basic ‘pattern’ or ‘code’ and it is capable of manifesting the “whole picture.” Moreover, if we look at several Churches, we do not have parts or portions coming together like a jigsaw puzzle or a mosaic. We have whole units revealing the eschatological picture with increased accuracy, and the original that is being revealed is the heavenly Church, not the so-called ‘universal (worldwide) Church.’

As a result, the catholic Church is meant to be “one” by its very own nature.²⁵⁶⁵ If the pattern is there, we have “the whole Church;” if not, there is either nothing or a different picture.

In his important essay on ecclesiology entitled Called to Communion: Understanding the Church today, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) offers a clear exposition of the Roman Catholic understanding of ‘Church’ and ‘catholic Church:’

The Church embraces the many languages, that is, the many cultures, that in faith understand and fecundate one another. In this respect it can be said that we find here a preliminary sketch of a Church that lives in manifold and multiform particular Churches but that precisely in this way is one Church. At the same time, Luke expresses with this image the fact that at the moment of her birth, the Church was already catholic, already a world Church. Luke thus rules out a conception in which a local Church first arose in Jerusalem and then became the base for the gradual establishment of other Churches that eventually grew into a federation. Luke tells us that the reverse is true: what first exists is the one Church, the Church that speaks in all tongues – the ecclesia universalis; she then generates Church in the most diverse locales, which nonetheless are all always embodiments of the one and only Church. The temporal and ontological priority lies with the universal Church; a Church that was not catholic would not even have ecclesial reality.²⁵⁶⁶

This short paragraph presents the emphasis of Roman Catholic ecclesiology. Yet, the problem is the potential lack of clarity of the words we use: ecclesia universalis seems to be both a “world Church” and, perhaps, the eschatological Church, in which case the Orthodox would wholeheartedly agree. However, where the Orthodox would say that every (local) Church has a universal, missionary vocation, Roman Catholics tend to see universality or internationalism as an ontological fact from the start. The result of this second view is that the Church (Catholic or universal) is first and foremost a “world Church,” not the local Church. In other words, the reality of the Church is the big picture, the worldwide organism which is being made manifest as more local Churches are created. Indeed, Called to Communion rejects the Orthodox idea that the universal mission of the local Church generates a federation of Churches that should not be called ‘Church’ in the proper sense.

Who presides over the Eucharist?

The first occurrence of the expression ‘catholic Church’ in the early centuries is worth considering. This significant text is found in the Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrneans:

Let no one do anything regarding the Church, apart from the bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid (assured) which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God.

In this text, the catholic Church is the local Church, the gathering of the people of God around the bishop to offer the sacred Eucharist, not a ‘universal (or worldwide) visible society founded by Christ.’ In Ignatius and for most early Christians, we have the sequence:

CHRIST-CHURCH > INCARNATION > EUCHARIST <> CATHOLIC CHURCH > PRESIDENT-BISHOP

This is a sequence which makes perfect sense, if, like the early Christians, we understand the Eucharist to be both a meal and a sacrifice. If “God’s own people” is “a royal priesthood,”²⁵⁶⁸ and if the Lord’s Supper is an “anamnesis,”²⁵⁶⁹ the logical consequence is the offering of “sacrifices.”²⁵⁷⁰ The resulting question is “who will offer the sacrifices on behalf of the people?” Who will stand up in the middle of the assembly to preside over the Eucharistic liturgy and utter the sacred words of institution? Even in the Jewish mindset, there must be ‘an order’ by which some say the “Amen” and the “Alleluia” while others “serve at the altar.” In the context of the Eucharist, the Church did not choose to have a ‘randomly picked’ president of assembly or even a ‘rotational presidency.’ In keeping with biblical pattern, one was set aside to be the institutional celebrant. Among the presbyters, a presiding-presbyter was elected and consecrated. The term ‘bishop’ soon became normative to refer to that office.²⁵⁷¹ Hence, the bishop, as president of the Eucharistic assembly, is the living symbol of the catholic Church and the guarantee of its unity.²⁵⁷²

Presbyters and bishops

It is likely that Peter’s role among the Apostles (protos) made him the senior-celebrant whenever the Apostles were gathered. Every order has its protos, and Peter was that first-Apostle among the Twelve. Likewise, the bishop (who is essentially a presbyter ‘ordered’ or ‘ordained’ as protos) occupies “the place of Peter” in the Church.²⁵⁷³

In other words, presbyters (including the bishops) are “priests” (ἱερεύς – hiereus) in the sense that only they can offer the bloodless sacrifice on behalf of the people. Yet, a particular presbyter is set aside as the visible and permanent sign of unity, as Peter was set aside among the Twelve.

Regarding the relationship between presbyteros and episcopos, two positions are possible: these two views were masterfully (albeit subjectively) expounded at the turn of the twentieth century by Charles Biggs:

In the fourth century there were in the Church two divergent theories of the origin of the Episcopate. The first is that of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the second is that of St. Jerome.

Theodore starts from the observation that Bishop and Presbyter were originally equivalent terms, and asks how the former had come to designate a special and superior grade... According to Theodore, then, the Episcopacy existed from the beginning, though there has been a shifting of titles; the first bishops were specially consecrated by the Apostles and by the Apostles alone.

This may be called the accepted view… The essential point is whether the Apostles by a distinct act of consecration instituted a distinct class of ecclesiastical officers whom they intended to step into their own places and wield their own authority.²⁵⁷⁴

Briggs then contrasts this view with that of St. Jerome (we have already quoted from his Epistle to Evangelus):

St. Jerome… also starts with the observation that originally bishop and presbyter were convertible titles.

The Presbyter, therefore, is the same as the Bishop, and until parties arose in religion by the prompting of the devil, so that it was said in the communities, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, I of Cephas, the Churches were governed by the common council of the priests. But when each teacher began to think that those whom he had baptized were his own, not Christ’s, it was decreed throughout the world that one of the priests should be elected and set over the others, and that on him should rest the general supervision of the Church, so that the seeds of division might be destroyed…

As therefore the presbyters know that by the custom of the Church they are set under him who is put over them, so let bishops know that rather by custom than by the Lord’s arrangement are they greater than presbyters.’ (Commentary of Titus 1:5)

According to Jerome, therefore, Episcopacy was not directly instituted by our Lord, and it is clearly implied in his words that it was not directly instituted by the Apostles. It rests upon the ‘custom of the Church,’ and was devised by the Church for a particular object–the maintenance of unity.

At this point, let us clearly express our options.

Option 1: the original biblical pattern is that presbyters and bishops are one and the same, both in terminology and in fact. If one presbyter was elevated to a higher office (then called episcopate), this was a practical decision of the Churches for the sake of unity, not an apostolic institution. Depending on how strongly one feels about the authority of the Church, this ‘change’ is more or less binding.

Option 2: the biblical terminology that equates presbyter and bishop does not negate the fact that one presbyter was in fact the institutional Eucharistic president of the community, i.e. the bishop. Regardless of what title was given to this role or office, it was of apostolic and divine origin. In this context, divine means that if Christ chose Peter to be protos (arche is not used) among the Apostles, the identification of the bishop with Peter would be based on a divine order, not on ecclesiastical policy.²⁵⁷⁵

It is true that the terms presbyteros and episkopos were interchangeable, both in the New Testament and in 1 Clement, but we have analyzed this issue in detail in Appendix A. Whether called ‘bishop’ or not, there always was a presbyter designated as ‘head of the table’ for the Eucharistic community. This office of presidency gave him a powerful representative and symbolic role: the bishop stood at the altar on behalf of the clergy and people. Christ and the Church intersected in his personal office because the people are ‘Christ’ and the bishop speaks on behalf of the Great High Priest the words of institution.

What remains somewhat of a mystery is the nature of the relationship between the protos and his fellow-presbyters. As Jerome rightly remarked, a presbyter can do everything a bishop does except ordain. As early as the third century, the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome makes the distinction between the authority of the presbyter to “seal” and that of the bishop to actually “ordain:”

When one ordains a deacon, he is chosen according to what has been said above, with only the bishop laying on his hand in the same manner. In the ordination of a deacon, only the bishop lays on his hand, because the deacon is not ordained to the priesthood, but to the service of the bishop, to do that which he commands... Upon the presbyters, the other presbyters place their hands because of a common spirit and similar duty. Indeed, the presbyter has only the authority to receive this, but he has no authority to give it. Therefore he does not ordain to the clergy. Upon the ordination of the presbyter he seals; the bishop ordains.²⁵⁷⁶

Hence, the bishop is first among equals, but in a way that gives him unique privileges, indeed powers, in the Church and “on behalf of the Church.”²⁵⁷⁷ On the other hand, the bishop depends on other bishops to perform an episcopal consecration, and likewise needs the assent of the presbyterium and the people:

With the assent of all, the bishops will place their hands upon him, with the council of presbyters standing by, quietly.. .²⁵⁷⁸

Summary

The need to have an established presiding presbyter at the head of the Eucharistic assembly is obvious for practical reasons. It seems equally evident that the early Christians, following the apostolic pattern for Jerusalem, did not opt for a ‘rotational’ type of Eucharistic presidency. Just as Peter, an apostle, had status of protos and the privilege to preside whenever the Twelve were gathered,²⁵⁷⁹ likewise a presbyter was designated to have this special role (as “bishop”).

“One bishop in the catholic Church”

Perhaps the most striking confirmation of Orthodox Eucharistic ecclesiology and terminology comes from an early bishop of Rome: Cornelius (†252). Eusebius²⁵⁸⁰ has preserved for us the content of Cornelius’s letter to Fabian of Antioch:

[Referring to Novatian who attempted to seize the bishopric at Rome] This avenger of the Gospel then did not know that there should be one bishop in the catholic Church;²⁵⁸¹ yet he was not ignorant that in it there were forty-six presbyters, seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, forty-two acolytes, fifty-two exorcists, readers, and janitors, and over fifteen hundred widows and persons in distress…

This early bishop of Rome confirms the holographic ecclesiology of Ignatius: because the bishop is the living symbol of the unity of the Church, “there should be one bishop in the catholic Church.” Clearly, Cornelius uses the expression ‘catholic Church’ to refer to the local Church without any doubt of being misunderstood.

Another early instance of the word catholic is associated with St. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who used the word many times. The Martyrdom of Polycarp, written at the time of Polycarp’s death, reads:

The Church of God which sojourns in Smyrna, to the Church of God which sojourns in Philomelium, and to all the dioceses of the holy and Catholic Church in every place… When Polycarp had finished his prayer, in which he remembered everyone with whom he had ever been acquainted . . . and the whole Catholic Church throughout the world...

These quotes, often poorly translated, are clear enough to establish that ‘Catholic’ could not possibly mean ‘universal’ or ‘worldwide.’ If it was the case, ‘Catholic’ would mean “which is in every place” and this leads to the conclusion that the Martyrdom of Polycarp would talk about ‘the [which is in every place] Church in every place,’ a meaningless tautology.²⁵⁸²

The evidence, then, is that there was no universal ecclesiology in the second and third century.²⁵⁸³ When the Western model appeared and developed, the result was to postulate only one ultimate bishop (the pope) in the ‘catholic Church’ (the universal Church).

St. Peter, “head” of the catholic Church

Having a correct understanding of what the catholic Church is enables us to think with the mind of the Fathers on this issue, without being affected by the so-called ‘Peter syndrome.’²⁵⁸⁴

We have already expressed primitive Orthodox ecclesiology with this formula:

INCARNATION > EUCHARIST <> CATHOLIC CHURCH > PETER > PRESIDENT-BISHOP = ESSENTIAL / ONTOLOGICAL / DIVINE ORDER

By comparison, Roman Catholic ecclesiology is explained in Jesus, Peter and the Keys whose introduction by Kenneth Howell offers the universalist equivalent. In this model, the bishop is unavoidably absorbed by the papacy:

INCARNATION > CHURCH > PAPACY²⁵⁸⁵

The major difference resides in what we mean by Church. If the Church is in fact a universal, worldwide organism or society, then the Roman Catholic model makes sense. Orthodox scholar Alexander Schmemann was very lucid on this point:

If the Church is a universal organism, she must have at her head a universal bishop as the focus of her unity and the organ of supreme power. The idea, popular in Orthodox apologetics, that the Church can have no visible head because Christ is her invisible head is theological nonsense. If applied consistently, it should also eliminate the necessity for the visible head of each local Church, i.e. the bishop.²⁵⁸⁶

Of course, saying that the bishop is in some sense the “head” of the (local) catholic Church (now called diocese) or that the Patriarch of Moscow is the “head” of the Russian Orthodox Church (or more accurately the Moscow Patriarchate) requires some clarification. This headship is that of a representative or primate, according to the spirit of the 34th apostolic canon which reads:

It is the duty of the bishops of every ethnic area to know who among them is first, and to recognize him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything unnecessary without his advice and approval. Instead, each [bishop] should do only whatever is necessitated by his own district and by the territories under him. But let not [the primate] do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For only thus there be concord, and will God be glorified…²⁵⁸⁷

However, such ‘headship’ cannot in any way be identified or in competition with Christ’s ontological headship over the pre-eternal Church.

In summary, the New Testament and pre-Nicene use of ‘Church,’ ‘whole Church’ and ‘catholic Church’ assumes Eucharistic ecclesiology. Moreover, the identity of etymology and concept between ‘catholic’ and ‘holographic’ is both illuminating and significant.

The bishop as successor of St. Peter

The role of a presiding-presbyter (later called bishop) as successor of Peter who was protos among the Twelve is significant. This is without doubt the patristic perspective.

St. Ignatius is the first explicit advocate of what has come to be called the ‘doctrine of the monarchical episcopate.’ However, Ignatius does not make any connection between Peter and the bishop in a ‘successive’ or symbolic sense. Origen, on the other hand, makes a clear identification between the Petrine promises of Matthew 16 and the office of bishop. In fact, this identification is not presented as a theological speculation: Origen tells his readers that it was the standard claim of all bishops to have received the power of the keys:

Consider how great power the rock has upon which the Church is built by Christ, and how great power every one has who says, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God”... But when those who maintain the function of the episcopate make use of this word as Peter, and, having received the keys of the kingdom of heaven from the Savior, teach that things bound by them, that is to say, condemned, are also bound in heaven, and that those which have obtained remission by them are also loosed in heaven, we must say that they speak wholesomely if they have the way of life on account of which it was said to that Peter, “Thou art Peter...” But if he is tightly bound with the cords of his sins, to no purpose does he bind and loose.²⁵⁸⁸

It seems that Origen had traveled extensively by the time he wrote his Second Commentary on Matthew. As a result, we must assume that he accurately reported what he heard: bishops were quoting Matthew 16 to establish the prerogatives of their office.

With Cyprian, we have an unambiguous exposition of Eucharistic ecclesiology combined with the identification Peter = Bishop. In the words of the great African bishop:

Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto thee that you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, etc.” And so, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards, so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. The Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the Faith.²⁵⁸⁹

This is not speculative theology – these are basic theological arguments used by Cyprian to dissuade the lapsed from separating from their bishop. The same Petrine arguments are expressed in his Epistle to Florentius:

Peter answered Him: “You are the Son of the living God.” Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear and obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest,²⁵⁹⁰ and the flock which adheres to its pastor. And so, you should know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God’s priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of [bishops] who bond with one another.

This is Eucharistic and episcopal ecclesiology par excellence. Yet, Cyprian is even more explicit in his famous Treatise on the unity of the catholic Church. The source of unity of the catholic Church, he writes, is Peter, that is the episcopate:

There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the Apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Spirit: Whosesoever sins you remit, they shall be remitted; and whosesoever sins you retain, they shall be retained; “yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the Apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity… Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the Faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church?

The episcopate is one, the parts of which are held together by the individual bishops. The Church is one which with increasing fecundity extends far and wide into the multitude, just as the rays of the sun are many but the light is one, and the branches of the tree are many but the strength is one founded in its tenacious root, and, when many streams flow from one source, although a multiplicity of waters seems to have been diffused from the abundance of the overflowing supply nevertheless unity is preserved in their origin.²⁵⁹¹

The episcopate is the locus of unity of the catholic Church and every bishop sits on Peter’s chair. This text is often misunderstood and misquoted by those who mistakenly think that Cyprian equates Peter’s Chair with the See of Rome. Cyprian clearly adopts a holographic model in which every bishop is identical to the other because they are all expressions of the one chair. There is no place for another layer of organization which would create the sequence:

BISHOPS > BISHOP OF BISHOPS > CATHOLIC CHURCH (UNIVERSAL ECCLESIOLOGY)

Cyprian, along with his synod of North African bishops, left no room for doubt:

For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.²⁵⁹²

Cyprian’s view of a Petrine succession in the episcopate is the view of pre- Nicene Christianity and that of Byzantine/Orthodox theology. In The Primacy of Peter, Fr. John Meyendorff writes:

On the other hand, a very clear patristic tradition sees the succession of Peter in the episcopal ministry. The doctrine of St Cyprian of Carthage on the “See of Peter” being present in every local Church, and not only in Rome, is well known. It is also found in the East, among people who certainly never read the De unitate ecclesia of Cyprian, but who share its main idea, thus witnessing to it as part of the catholic tradition of the Church. St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, affirms that Christ “through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of the heavenly honors,” and the author of the Areopagitica, when speaking of the “hierarchs” of the Church, refers immediately to the image of St Peter. A careful analysis of ecclesiastical literature both Eastern and Western, of the first millennium, including such documents as the lives of the saints, would certainly show that this tradition was a persistent one; and indeed it belongs to the essence of Christian ecclesiology to consider any local bishop to be the teacher of his flock and therefore to fulfill sacramentally, through apostolic succession, the office of the first true believer, Peter.²⁵⁹³

As Fr. Meyendorff demonstrates both in The Primacy of Peter and Byzantine Theology,²⁵⁹⁴ this identification of Peter with the bishop continued well after the Great Schism. In 1315, Patriarch John of Constantinople explained to the Emperor that he only accepted the episcopal office of the great capital after experiencing an apparition of Christ who said “If you love me, Peter, feed my sheep.” Meyendorff s conclusion is especially significant:

Its is therefore comprehensible why, even after the schism between East and West, Orthodox ecclesiastical writers were never ashamed of praising the “coryphaeus,” and of recognizing his pre-eminent function in the very foundation of the Church. They simply did not consider this praise and recognition as relevant in any way to the Papal claims, since any bishop, and not only the pope, derives his ministry from the ministry of Peter.²⁵⁹⁵

Perhaps the most striking example of a bishop being called “another Peter” is found in the writings of St. John Chrysostom, and this is significant because the great preacher had perhaps the most exalted view of Peter to be found in patristic literature.²⁵⁹⁶ We read:

In speaking of Peter, the recollection of another Peter (St. Flavian of Antioch) has come to me, our common father and teacher, who has succeeded to the virtue of Peter, and also to his chair. For this is the one great prerogative of our city, that it received the coryphaeus of the Apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians before the whole world, should receive the first of the Apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to Royal Rome. Nay, but we did retain him till the end; for we do not retain the body of Peter but we retain the Faith of Peter as though it were Peter himself; and while we retain the Faith of Peter, we have Peter himself.²⁵⁹⁷

Commenting on F.W. Puller’s Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, Roman Catholic scholar Dom John Chapman writes:

Father Puller’s quotation [from Chrysostom] begins after this point:

“Why did He also pour forth His blood? To purchase those sheep whom he committed to Peter and his successors.”

Here Father Puller stops, remarking correctly that “his successors” does not mean the popes, but all bishops.

This issue of a universal Petrine succession in all bishops is extremely important and stands in sharp contrast with Roman Catholic ecclesiology. For instance, James Likoudis expresses forcefully the common Roman Catholic perspective:

It is simply not true, and has never been, that all Bishops are equal by divine right as to their authority and that our Blessed Lord established a visible Church without a visible head.²⁵⁹⁸

However, the Eastern Orthodox position, on the basis of Eucharistic ecclesiology, is that the visible Church is the catholic Church and that it has a visible “head” (in a relative sense): the bishop.²⁵⁹⁹ Moreover, if Peter’s successors are “all bishops,” to use Dom Chapman’s admission, then all are indeed “equal by divine right as to their authority.” As St. Jerome puts it:

Wherever there is a bishop, whether at Rome or Gubbio, or Constantinople or Rhegium, or Alexandria or Tanis, his worth is the same, and his priesthood is the same. The power of riches or the lowliness of poverty does not make him a higher or a lower bishop. But all are successors of the Apostles.²⁶⁰⁰

Once this fundamental principle of divine and ontological equality of all bishops is established, discussing the need for conciliarity and primacy among the bishops is both possible and necessary. However, this consideration implies another question. If all bishops are Peter‘s successors (Eucharistically speaking) and successors of particular Apostles (historically speaking), are not some bishops more ‘successors of Peter’ than others? To answer this question accurately, a critical distinction must be made between what the Fathers meant when they applied the Petrine texts to the bishop and references to the historical pedigree of a particular Church. In the Eucharistic sense, there can be no difference between two bishops, regardless of their possible connection with the historical whereabouts of the Twelve. Historically speaking, it might be said that a particular bishop is now presiding over a community where Peter was once physically present. This is the case of a number of cities, including Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome, but this had nothing to do with the divine structure of the Church, and indeed with the Petrine office as understood by the Fathers.

The ecclesiological question, then, becomes very specific: Is there a particular “successor of Peter” who inherits Petrine primacy over his fellow-bishops, indeed with ‘ordinary episcopal’ authority over them and bishop of bishops? The Roman Catholic answer, expressed in the framework of universal ecclesiology, is yes: the bishop who presides in the “the See of his martyrdom.” In a document entitled The Primacy of the Successors of Peter in the Mystery of the Church, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (Pope Benedict XI was then Prefect as Cardinal Ratzinger), we have a classic presentation of the Roman Catholic ecclesiological model:

From the beginning and with increasing clarity, the Church has understood that, just as there is a succession of the Apostles in the ministry of Bishops, so too the ministry of unity entrusted to Peter belongs to the permanent structure of Christ’s Church and that this succession is established in the See of his martyrdom.²⁶⁰¹

Hence, where the Orthodox would say “the ministry of unity entrusted to Peter belongs to the permanent structure of Christ’s Church and that this succession is established in every episcopal chair,” Roman Catholics have a very different understanding of what is meant by “this succession.”

This is the ecclesiological root of the current schism between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy: two distinct understandings of the concepts of ‘Church’ and ‘apostolic succession.’

Peter‘s special successors and Presbyteral Apostolic Succession

Within the context of the nature of the Church, the successors of Peter are the bishops. This view rests on solid biblical and patristic foundations. From an historical or geographical perspective, every bishop could be also considered as a successor of a particular apostle, although without ontological meaning.

Moreover, a careful examination of both ecclesiologies (universal and Eucharistic) implies two views of apostolic and Petrine succession. If the successors of Peter are the bishops, does it not follow that that the presbyters are successors of the Apostles? St. Irenaeus comes to mind:

It is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the Church–those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles. For those presbyters, together with the succession of the bishops, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father.²⁶⁰²

The same idea is also dramatically expressed by St. Ignatius:

The bishop presiding after the likeness of God and the presbyters after the likeness of the council of the Apostles, with the deacons also who are most dear to me, having been entrusted with the diaconate of Jesus Christ.²⁶⁰³

In like manner let all men respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, even as they should respect the bishop as being a type of the Father and the presbyters as the council of God and as the college of Apostles. Apart from these there is not even the name of a Church.²⁶⁰⁴

Finally, in the very ancient Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, we read:

Let the presbyters be esteemed by you to represent the apostles, and let them be teachers of divine knowledge.²⁶⁰⁵

It is important to realize that the Roman Catholic view is somewhat different. In Called to Communion, Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) concluded his brief review of Orthodox Eucharistic ecclesiology with these words:

Orthodox theologians have contrasted the Eucharistic ecclesiology of the East, which they hold up as the authentic model of the Church, to the centralistic ecclesiology of Rome. In every local Church, they maintain, the whole mystery of the Church is present when the Eucharist is celebrated... Given this premise, the inference is drawn that the idea of a Petrine office is contradictory...²⁶⁰⁶

And yet, ‘the idea Petrine office’ is very much at the center of Orthodox ecclesiology. A major cause of disagreement and misunderstanding is that Rome’s emphasis on Petrine succession is universal and therefore ‘one level up.’ A few pages later, we read:

The second point follows from what has been said: the bishop is the successor of the Apostles,²⁶⁰⁷ but only the bishop of Rome is the successor of a particular apostle – of Saint Peter – and thus given responsibility for the whole Church.²⁶⁰⁸

On the other hand, the Orthodox service for the reception of converts asks:

Do you renounce the erroneous supposition that the Holy Apostles did not receive from our Lord Jesus Christ equal spiritual powers, but that the holy Apostle Peter was their Prince,²⁶⁰⁹ and that the Bishop of Rome alone is his successor...²⁶¹⁰

Because the ideas connected to apostolic (and Petrine) succession are assumed more than researched, few people are aware that the two models are quite different, although to an extent complementary:

EASTERN ORTHODOX:

Church (catholic) > Peter = Bishop > Apostles = Presbyters

ROMAN CATHOLIC:

Church (universal) > Peter = Pope > Apostles = Bishops

Another issue is the possible application of Petrine succession beyond its expression in the episcopate. The question is rather simple. If we are trying to find a personal successor to the chief-apostle in the sense of a unique dynastic, universal and non-Eucharistic succession, what are the credentials of particular bishops, including that of Rome? After all, Peter as ‘the first apostle’ ordained James as ‘the first bishop of the first see’ (Jerusalem). Evodius, ‘first bishop of the city where the disciples were first called Christians’ (Antioch), ordained by Peter long before Linus in Rome also comes to mind. In that sense, the bishop of Rome would seem to be last rather than first (protos). But of course, taken in account were the importance of the city, the symbolic importance of having Peter’s relics under the bishop’s altar and the fact that Peter (and Paul) would have personally entrusted the Church of Rome to a ‘successor.’ Because proper theology makes a sharp difference between the missionary ministry of the Twelve and the local ministry of bishops, it is not surprising that the Orthodox later complained that “You (Italians) have made him (Peter) who was teacher of the world bishop of one city.”²⁶¹¹

Indeed, if Petrine connections are to be considered as paramount for universal primacy, four Churches can boast some kind of special status: Jerusalem was the first choice in every way, as earthly Zion, altar of Jesus Christ par excellence, and Mother-Church. Jerusalem is also the See of the ‘Brother of the Lord’ who was ordained first bishop by Peter, James and John at the bidding of the Lord himself.²⁶¹² But Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 and ‘deactivated’ until the 200s. Antioch was the second ‘Chair of Peter’ if one is to use this expression for a locale where Peter personally proclaimed the Gospel. We have already encountered Chrysostom’s conviction that Flavian of Antioch was “another Peter... who has succeeded to the virtue of Peter, and also to his chair.” The third choice was Rome, because both Peter and Paul had honored the great city with their preaching and the blood of their martyrdom. Of course, Rome – the capital and center of gravity of the empire – had more than one reason to claim special status. The fourth choice was Alexandria whose Church was known as “the See of St. Mark” and whose bishops were first to be called “pope.”²⁶¹³ Indeed, if anyone has a convincing case for being Peter’s special dynastic successor, it is no other than the Evangelist Mark. Mark was an eyewitness of the Lord, he was the companion and perhaps secretary of the great Apostle, even writing “Peter’s gospel” and significantly in a context of succession, Peter calls him “my son.”²⁶¹⁴

The Orthodox conviction is that the idea of Peter’s personal dynastic succession is at odds with authentic ecclesiology which is rooted in Peter’s succession in the episcopacy. This does not mean that the Pope is not successor of Peter in a certain sense (as indeed the Bishops of Antioch or Alexandria). Likewise, there is meaning and beauty to the image of St. Andrew as founder of the See of Constantinople. But ultimately, the dynastic view cannot replace or even eclipse the traditional and theological understanding that every bishop holds “the Chair of Peter.”

Hence, Rome’s historical primacy, which in some form is not denied by the Orthodox, is a form of primacy that differs in nature from the Eucharistic model.

Certainly, one Church should have a form of primacy (or priority) among all the Churches because in every gathering there is some kind of ‘first.’ When several Orthodox priests or bishops concelebrate Divine Liturgy, there is an established way to determine a ranking, for the sake of good order (typically years of ordination for priests and ecclesiastical titles for bishops). In short, the essential equality of all bishops as successors of Peter does not necessarily preclude an order of primacy and “hierarchical privileges” among them, but in Eucharistic ecclesiology, it does exclude a truly episcopal, non-Eucharistic layer at the universal level.

Demoted bishops and ordaining presbyters

The question of the relationship between bishop and presbyter is quite important if we accept the idea that the episcopate corresponds to the “Place of Peter” in the Church. It is important to reaffirm that the structure of the (local) catholic Church (or diocese) cannot exactly be replicated outside its boundaries, i.e. to a ‘universal Church,’ because the ‘universal Church’ is not a Eucharistic assembly and therefore not ‘a Church.’ Rather, what is needed is a structure of communion and harmony among the Churches. Still, if it can be proven that the bishop is ontologically different than the presbyter and has supremacy over the local Church, it might be tempting to replicate this structure to the so-called ‘universal Church’ and consider both equally divine in origin. This, Orthodoxy contends, is the error of Roman Catholic ecclesiology.

With this in mind, it is significant to note that the early Church did not see the office of bishop as something absolutely permanent. If, for some reason, the proto-presbyter was no longer able to function as Eucharistic head of the community, it was possible to ‘demote’ him to the rank of layman or presbyter. For instance, Bishop Cornelius of Rome informed his colleague Fabian of Antioch that a certain bishop who had agreed to consecrate the schismatic Novatian to the episcopate had been ‘readmitted as a layman.’²⁶¹⁵ A hundred years later, the Council of Nicea regulated the reception of former “Cathars” (Novatians) as follows:

Accordingly, where all the ordained in villages or cities have been found to be men of this kind alone, those who are so found will remain in the clergy in the same rank; but when some come over in places where there is a bishop or presbyter belonging to the catholic Church, it is evident that the bishop of the Church will hold the bishop’s dignity, and that the one given the title and name of bishop among the so-called Cathars will have the rank of presbyter, unless the bishop thinks fit to let him share in the honor of the title. But if this does not meet with his approval, the bishop will provide for him a place as chorepiscopus or presbyter, so as to make his ordinary clerical status evident and to prevent having two bishops in the city.²⁶¹⁶

It seems clear, however, that the roles and privileges of presbyter and bishop are ultimately defined by one’s relationship with the Eucharistic community. The consciousness of the Church could thus affirm the essential importance of the bishop as necessary symbol of unity of the catholic Church while maintaining the understanding that the bishop also remains “a fellow-presbyter.”²⁶¹⁷

From catholic Church to Catholic Church

Most pre-Nicene writers consistently use the expression ‘catholic Church’ to refer to the local episcopal assembly. This was the normative usage, along with the plural ‘Churches.’ There were also instances when ‘catholic Church’ could be used in a ‘generic’ sense, as in the expression “the catholic Church everywhere.” In general, the context indicates that we are not dealing with the local expression but with a class. Although it is undeniable that this usage eventually developed into a ‘space-universal Church’ type of language, this was not the original intent. We could compare this usage to such words as ‘fish’ or ‘deer’ which have an invariable plural form.

In a context where Eucharistic ecclesiology is assumed and understood, the expression ‘Catholic Church’²⁶¹⁸ does not imply the existence of a universal Eucharist with a universal bishop. It refers to a class or type of structure without reference to a particular locale. Nevertheless, the temptation to shift from the class meaning to the identity meaning is great and there is no doubt that the generic and convenient expression ‘Catholic Church’ (or ‘Orthodox Church’) became a cause of ecclesiological confusion, both East and West.

Roman Catholic ecclesiology: who is fully catholic?

At this point, it is possible to fully understand the divergence between the Roman Catholic understanding of ‘catholic’ and its Eastern Orthodox counterpart.

In Roman Catholic ecclesiology, a local Church must be in communion with the Church of Rome, indeed under the jurisdictional authority of the bishop of that Church, to be fully catholic. The 1992 Catechism, of the Catholic Church, while influenced by Vatican II’s emphasis of some aspects of Eucharistic ecclesiology, affirms that:

Particular Churches are fully catholic²⁶¹⁹ through their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity.”²⁶²⁰

In other words, “the Church of God which is at Ephesus” is not fully catholic apart from the Roman Church. Here, the local Church is understood as the radiance and manifestation not of the eschatological Church but of the worldwide organism centered in Rome. Hence, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that:

The phrase “particular Church,” which is the diocese (or eparchy), refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession.²⁶²¹

These particular Churches “are constituted after the model of the universal Church; it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists.”²⁶²²

Orthodox theologians often notice the evolution of terms and concepts associated with this ecclesiology. When the New Testament reads “whole Church” and pre-Nicene Christians say “catholic Church,” the Catechism uses “particular Church(es).” Conversely, when the expression “Catholic Church” is used, it seems to refer to the universal Church, as in “it is in these and formed out of them that the one and unique Catholic Church exists.” In the same way, a motus proprio published by Pope John Paul II declares:

He [the bishop] does not exercise the supreme power which belongs to the Roman Pontiff and to the College of Bishops as elements proper to the universal Church, elements present within each particular Church, in order that it may fully be Church, that is, a particular presence of the universal Church with all the essential elements pertaining thereto.

This terminology can easily be a cause of confusion because “universal Church” seems to be equated with “worldwide Church.” This lack of distinction between the two has significant consequences.

The Roman Catholic model: every “particular Church” must be in communion, indeed subject to the Church of Rome and her bishop to be “fully catholic.” The Catholic Church is understood as the sum total of all Christians in visible unity with the visible head: the Pope.

What is conveyed is that the universal-worldwide Church “precedes”²⁶²³ the local Church and that the local Church is a manifestation not of the eschatological Church but of the so-called “universal Church.” As a result, the local bishop becomes a manifestation of the universal bishop (the Pope) and his authority is derived not from his own Petrine office (that is from Peter directly and eschatologically) but from that of the Roman Pontiff. In the framework of Vatican II, Pope Paul VI issued the decree Dominus Christus which makes this point very clear:

The order of bishops is the successor to the college of the Apostles in teaching and pastoral direction, or rather, in the episcopal order, the apostolic body continues without a break. Together with its head, the Roman pontiff, and never without this head it exists as the subject of supreme, plenary power over the universal Church. But this power cannot be exercised except with the agreement of the Roman pontiff.

Pope Leo XIII had been even more explicit on the issue of the bishop’s derived and conditional authority:

From this it must be clearly understood that bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from that Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone... No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church.²⁶²⁴

Clearly, we are dealing with two paradigms, two terminologies and two ecclesiologies.

For authentic Eastern Orthodoxy theology, the local Church centered on the bishop is ‘the catholic Church’ and indeed the full manifestation of the Body of Christ. That Church is a relational entity within, and there lies its power to manifest the “whole Church.” At the same time, that Church is in relation with other catholic Churches, not only for practical reasons but also because neighboring bishops have to be involved for the consecration of her bishop. This regional relationship gives rise to a form of primacy that is functional, not Eucharistic. The primus or protos can be the oldest, the most respected or typically the one who resides in the regional capital. It will be whatever the Churches decide and accept. These relationships can and should ideally develop into larger ‘structures of communion’ which do not create a higher form of ‘Church’ (the universal Church). According to this view, being in communion, or rather in obedience to any other Church (e.g. the Church of Rome) has nothing to do with being ‘a catholic Church.’

For Roman Catholicism, the local Church is “a particular Church” which seems to exist as a manifestation of the universal (worldwide) Church. As a result, the local Church can only be considered ‘catholic’ if it is indeed a member, part or portion of the universal Church, i.e. in communion with Rome. In this model, the universal Church is not so much a “network” as a “star”–with the Church of Rome at the center and the other particular Churches like ‘spokes of a wheel.’ In the end, the identification of ‘Catholic Church’ with ‘universal Church’ leads to the conclusion that there must indeed be “one bishop in the catholic Church,” as St. Cornelius wrote so forcefully. But this is applied to the idea that there should be one universal bishop in the (universal) catholic Church since it is the pattern and the model that precedes the local Church.

The heavenly liturgy

In Eastern Orthodoxy, the liturgical life of the Church is the expression of its beliefs; indeed, it constitutes its very being. In fact, a closer look at the great Eastern liturgies will help us address the very question of ecclesiology. If we ask the question: “what precedes the Eucharistic worship of the (local) catholic Church? Is it the space-universal Church (on earth) or the space-time eschatological Church? The answer of the liturgy seems quite clear. The Eucharistic event which manifests the Body and Blood of Christ (and thus the Church) is a manifestation of the pre-eternal eschaton. The entrance with the Gospel (and indeed the entire spirit of Eastern worship) is reminiscent of Hebrews 12:18–29:

As it is, you have not come to a mountain that can be touched; not one that burned with fire, gloom, darkness, storm... Instead, you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, to the assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of the righteous made perfect, to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling which pleads better than Abel’s.

Therefore, since we are receiving a Kingdom that cannot be shaken, let us be grateful and so offer divine service to God acceptably, with reverence and awe, for our God is a consuming fire. (EOB)

As the liturgy ascends and transcends time and space, the priest prays:

O Master Lord our God, You have appointed in heaven the orders and hosts of angels and archangels to serve Your glory; grant that the holy angels may enter with us to serve and glorify Your goodness with us. For to You belong all glory, honor, and worship; to the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages. Amen. (The priest blesses the entrance saying in a low voice Blessed is the entrance of Your saints always, now and forever and to the ages of ages! Amen.²⁶²⁵

In the context of Hebrews 12, it might be argued that the catholic Church is an approach to the triumphant Church rather than a manifestation of the eschatological Church. The answer is that it encompasses both. The rest of the Liturgy leaves no doubt what it is that the catholic Church manifests:

Remembering, therefore, this command of the Savior, and all that has come to pass for our sake, the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the ascension into heaven, the enthronement at the right hand of the Father, and the second, glorious coming, We offer to You these gifts from Your own gifts in all and for all.

These texts convey the idea that the Eucharistic liturgy of the Eastern tradition does not aim at manifesting the preceding reality of the worldwide universal Church into a particular city.

Instead, the local Church can be compared to a pinhole that lets the eternal light of God’s fulfilled plan of salvation shine into our world. This is why the ancient Eastern liturgies are not cultural expressions, and there can be no such thing as a ‘Jazz’ or ‘Rock’ Divine Liturgy.

Eastern Christian worship is about a community ascending in the Spirit to face the throne of God as one. The bishop’s altar is a point of contact with “the ideal altar;” it is indeed, the same altar, the same throne, the same eternal sacrifice.

To an extent, contemporary Roman Catholic worship can be understood as the logical consequences of universal ecclesiology. Centered on the local and universal community, it tends to reflect its values, artistic talents and diversity.

What about ‘the parish?’

Before moving ‘one layer up’ to regional and universal structures of communion, it is important to understand how the ‘catholic Church’ (the episcopal assembly or diocese) relates to the modern parish.²⁶²⁶ A non-Orthodox critique of Eucharistic ecclesiology explains what seems to be its “fatal flaw:”

There is another flaw in Eucharistic ecclesiology. Its advocates assure us that the fullness of Christ is to be found in each local Church (diocese), not in some abstraction called “universal Church.” The local Church cannot be simply “part” of the “Church”–it is “the Church” because Christ’s body cannot be divided. Now appears the flaw. What is the relation of each parish to the local Church? If each local Church cannot be part of a universal Church, how can each parish be part of a diocese? After all, the parish itself, not the diocese, is the Eucharistic community… This is a crucial point because, as Schmemann in effect admits, Eucharistic ecclesiology goes down the tube if it cannot satisfactorily relate the parish to the diocese in its scheme of things. [The] inability of Eucharistic ecclesiology to relate the individual parish to its diocese is a fatal flaw.²⁶²⁷

Indeed, the modern parish is how people experience the Eucharistic community. The relationship between the parish (led by the presbyter) and the ‘catholic Church’ (led by the bishop) has been studied in depth by Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon. Suffice it to say that in Orthodox Eucharistic ecclesiology, the parish is not a ‘catholic Church.’ It is, as in the early Church, an extended part of the episcopal Eucharist. The presbyter has been detached in space to extend the one altar as needed, but it is not a separate Eucharist. Zizioulas has shown that the early Churches opted for such a spatial distribution of the synthronon²⁶²⁸ because its ecclesiology was solidly established, and because great care was made to connect the presbyter-led parish with its bishop, by means of the fermentum²⁶²⁹ the antimension,²⁶³⁰ the commemoration of the bishop, etc.

It may seem that “the parish, not the diocese, is the Eucharistic community,” but in fact, the parish is an extension, a part of the full community gathered around the bishop. This is why the presbyter commemorates his bishop²⁶³¹ and offers the Eucharist on the bishop’s antimension.²⁶³² This is how the parish is a part or fraction of the diocese – so that the holographic pattern of the catholic Church can be complete (bishop – presbyters – deacons). It does not follow from this organization that the diocese is properly speaking a part of a ‘universal Church:’ it is the ‘whole Church,’ the ‘catholic Church,’ in keeping the principles discussed previously.²⁶³³

Unity and forms of primacy

The catholic Church is the fullness of the pre-eternal Church of God manifested in space and time, an undivided whole lacking nothing when it comes to the means of salvation. Thus, St. Ignatius could write to one local Church:

To the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being united and elected through the true passion by the will of the Father, and Jesus Christ, our God…²⁶³⁴

This is the theological and ontological identity of the Church. But does it mean that this local Church, this “catholic Church,” has no structure beyond the local assembly, the deacons, the presbyters and the bishop? How do Churches relate with one another? What about need for leadership, even headship at every level: local, regional, national and international?

The first question is foundational: Does the Church have a structure beyond the local assembly presided over by the bishop? Strictly speaking, the answer can only be no. In the mind of the early Fathers, ‘there is one bishop in the catholic Church’. Beyond that, we should speak of Churches in Asia, Churches in Europe, Churches in the Empire, Churches everywhere. By definition, the Eucharistic structure of the local Church cannot extend beyond its boundaries.²⁶³⁵ The local Church is the whole Church. What we see (and need) beyond the local Church are structures of common union, communication and harmony. The main point is that these structures do not belong to the Eucharistic ontology of the catholic Church. Local Churches are in a relationship of individual wholeness and mutual co-dependency. Further, the concept of layers of geographic organization and communication comes from the very pages of the New Testament (“the Churches in Achaia,” etc.) In this context, every Church is the same catholic Church as every other, and their bishops have full ontological equality. And yet, every gathering, even if it is a gathering of equals, should have a leader or first for the sake of good order. In practice, various criteria that can be used to facilitate order, such as age, years of service, political importance of one’s Church or unique historical connection with an apostle.

The 34th apostolic canon (already cited) can be considered the golden rule for such forms of primacies at the service of these geographic structures of communion:

It is the duty of the bishops of every ethnic area to know who among them is the first, and to recognize him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything unnecessary without his advice and approval... But let not [the primate] do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all.

This canon can be understood as a practical application of the words of our Lord to his Apostles:

But Jesus called them together, and said, “You know that the rulers of the nations lord it over them, and great ones make their authority felt. It shall not be so among you! Instead, whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant. Whoever desires to be first (protos) among you shall be your servant, even as the Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.²⁶³⁶

This is a critical point. Primacy is essential in the catholic Church defined as the local Eucharistic assembly. To be specific, the primacy of the protos-presbyteros is connected with the conciliar nature of the presbyterium. In other words, this primacy exists by divine mandate because conciliarity also exists by divine mandate, even if the exact prerogatives and powers of the protos are perhaps unclear.

Thus, as we go beyond the boundaries of the (local) catholic Church, order is also important, because conciliarity implies primacy. Yet, that level of organization is of a different nature and the type of primacy that exists there is both “analogous” and distinct. It is not an ontological primacy, one that defines the very existence of the catholic Church and the office of president of the Eucharist.

In the catholic Church, a presbyter is elected to be the permanent ‘head of the table,’ historically by the other presbyters and with the assent of the people. There is indeed a special ordination or rather consecration for the one who becomes bishop. When we consider a group of Churches in a particular area, we have a loosely analogous situation, but not an identity of structure. The Church (and bishop) that is first among others is not needed for the Eucharist to be offered or for each Church to be fully catholic. There is no consecration or ordination to the role of regional primate; a particular bishop is recognized as the regional or indeed universal protos when he becomes Eucharistic protos of the first Church, accepted as such by the other Churches.

Primacy can exist in different ways at different levels of organization. A husband is the head of his household in a unique sense that reflects the ontology of the family. Every husband is equal in his primacy. A village may have a leader or head who may hold his office by various means (election, royal succession) and with specific powers. A club or association will also have a president who holds ‘primacy’ among the members. What is clear to all is that the primacy of the husband as head of his family has nothing to do with those other forms of primacies. They are ontologically different and pertain to different types of reality. Primacy in the family is a divine reality, whereas primacy in the village or the club is normally created and regulated by the members. Of course, “God is not a God of confusion,” which means that every form of (legitimate) authority is in some sense divine. However, the possibility to speak of a ‘divine primacy’ of the king, or the judge, or indeed of a patriarch or pope can cause grave confusion. What is essential is that the primacy of the husband or bishop exists by the divine ontology of ‘family’ and ‘Church,’ not as options.

It is in therefore in an organizational, not ontological sense that Eastern Orthodoxy is comfortable with the idea of ‘primates’ and ‘heads’ and should indeed recognize the need for such leadership. Fr. Meyendorff confirms:

There exists, however, another succession, equally recognized by Byzantine theologians, but only on the level of the analogy existing between the apostolic college and the episcopal college, this second succession being determined by the need for ecclesiastical order. Its limits are determined by the Councils, and–in the Byzantine practice–by the “very pious emperors.”²⁶³⁷

In the authentically scriptural and patristic model, only the local catholic Church (the diocese) has ontological existence. We do not ‘go down’ (or sideways) from a worldwide organism to the local Church. Instead, we see a network of Churches which has a different ontology than the catholic Church. There is a top-down model, but it is that of the eschatological Church intersecting with space and time, not that of the worldwide ‘Church.’ This is how St. Ignatius²⁶³⁸ can write that the bishop “is the place of God.”

Imperial unity and Orthodox universalism

Christianity in general and Eastern Orthodoxy in particular is undeniably connected with the history of the Roman Empire. After all, our Lord was “crucified under Pontius Pilate” – a Roman imperial official. After centuries of persecutions, a Roman emperor finally embraced the Christian faith and embarked upon the difficult task of ‘harmonizing’ Church and State. Even though Eucharistic ecclesiology was solidly embedded in the liturgy and consciousness of the Church, the paramount concern became that of ecumenical unity. Between Nicea (325) and Chalcedon (451), belief in the individual wholeness of each catholic Church was maintained, but not emphasized. The main concern was the political and ecclesiastical unity of ‘the catholic Churches’ as ‘one Catholic Church.’

Within years, the ‘catholic Church’ became ‘the diocese’ and its boundaries were defined by the existing territorial subdivisions of the imperial administration. This came to be known as ‘the principle of accommodation.’ Within the confines of the Empire, it was essential to have powerful ‘structures of communion’ to ensure the stability of the oecumene. Already, the Council of Nicea had ratified the regional primacies of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome. Within less than two hundred years, the catholic Churches outside the boundary were severed from this worldwide communion by political and theological factors. As a result of this process of separation and restructuration, five patriarchates became responsible for the administration of catholic Churches of the Empire.

Rome, of course, was the center of the universe, at least until Constantinople – New Rome appeared on the scene between 325 and 381. For the Emperor and the bishops of the oecumene, the known and civilized world was the Empire. Universal ecclesiology was a matter of practical administration, and Rome was the accepted center of authority. In the context of the Empire, universal ecclesiology became the operative principle, even if Eucharistic ecclesiology was still ontological and dogmatic. The primate of the oecumene was the primate of his own regional patriarchate and “the head” of all the Churches according to civil law. The realm of the five patriarchates (‘the ecumenical Church’) became fully identified with the holy, catholic and apostolic Church. Thus, Charles Ajalat (Orthodox) notes that:

If the Roman Catholic Church was misled by universal ecclesiology, so in part was the Orthodox Church also misled. To be fair, the Orthodox Church, beginning in the mid-[fourth] century (as a result of the Roman Empire), has not implemented properly the early Church’s understanding of there being one episcopate… Further, [the] Orthodox, whether it is consciously admitted or not, often appear to see the Church as a number of isolated Churches, generally along national borders (contrary to the historic ecclesiology of the Church), one in faith and worship, but only a “part” of the universal Church.²⁶³⁹

A careful reassessment of the testimony of the early Fathers shows us that Eucharistic ecclesiology and universal unity are not meant to be contradictory and mutually exclusive. The great (pre-Nicene) expositors of Eucharistic ecclesiology were also very concerned with the concord and unity of the “common union.” They all recognized that, if possible, this common union should be universal and that there should be a ‘first’ Church who would “preside in love” with a ‘head’ bishop. Obviously, the Churches that were geographically or in some other way out of reach could not participate in this structure. But there was no doubt that worldwide harmony required a center of unity. On this point, Orthodox and Roman Catholics agree. The key difference is the ecclesiological model as well as the origin and type of primacy enjoyed by the ‘head’ bishop of the universal common union.

Universal Primacy according to Rome

The Roman Catholic theology of universal primacy is the consequence and reflection of its universal ecclesiology.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The episcopal college and its head, the pope

880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, “he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them.” Just as “by the Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the Apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops, the successors of the Apostles, are related with and united to one another.”

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the Faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter‘s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church;²⁶⁴⁰ but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”²⁶⁴¹

Primacy according to Eastern Orthodoxy

As we have seen, the ‘universal Church’ is a political or functional arrangement, not an ontological reality. Contrary to the opinion of some, the concept of universal primacy²⁶⁴² does exist in the Orthodox Communion. It is not the historical primacy of Rome that is in question but rather its divine origin, absolute “fullness of power,” ontological reality and unlimited scope. For the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the documents of Vatican I (1870) described a universal supremacy of divine right, not what should be properly called ‘primacy.’

The Encyclical of the Eastern (Orthodox) Patriarchs of 1848 made it clear that:

We (the Orthodox) see that very primacy, for which his Holiness now contends with all his might, as did his predecessors, transformed from a brotherly character and hierarchical privilege into a lordly superiority.

Summarizing the Orthodox position, Timothy Ware²⁶⁴³ explains:

Orthodox believe that among the five patriarchs a special place belongs to the pope. The Orthodox Church does not accept the doctrine of Papal authority set forth in the decrees of the Vatican Council of 1870, and taught today in the Roman Catholic Church; but at the same time orthodoxy does not deny to the holy and apostolic See of Rome a primacy of honor, together with the right (under certain conditions) to hear appeals from all parts of Christendom. Note that we have used the word ‘primacy,’ not ‘supremacy.’ Orthodox regard the pope as the bishop ‘who presides in love,’ to adopt the phrase of St. Ignatius: Rome’s mistake – so Orthodox believe – has been to turn this primacy or ‘presidency of love’ into a supremacy of external power and jurisdiction... Let us ask in positive terms what the nature of Papal primacy is from an Orthodox viewpoint. Surely we Orthodox should be willing to assign to the pope, in a reunited Christendom, not just an honorary seniority but an all-embracing apostolic care. We should be willing to assign to him the right, not only to accept appeals from the whole Christian world, but even to take the initiative in seeking ways of healing when crisis and conflict arise anywhere among Christians. We envisage that on such occasions the pope would act, not in isolation, but always in close cooperation with his brother bishops. We would wish to see his ministry spelt in pastoral rather than juridical terms. He would encourage rather than compel, consult rather than coerce.²⁶⁴⁴

Setting aside the question of the universal primacy of Rome, it is possible to examine the kind of primacy that Orthodox bishops consider acceptable. Taking as an example the Orthodox Church of Russia (or more accurately the Moscow Patriarchate), the official statutes read:

The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia shall have primacy in honor among the episcopate of the Russian Orthodox Church and shall be accountable to the Local and Bishops’ Councils.

The relations between the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia and the Holy Synod shall be determined by Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles and Canon 9 of the Council of Antioch in accordance with accepted Orthodox tradition.

This patriarchal “primacy of honor” is much more than an honorary rank. The reference to “Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles” is extremely important. This ancient canon reads:

It is the duty of every nation to know the one among them who is the first, and to recognize him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything unnecessary without his advice and approval; instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own district and by the territories under him. But [the head] should not do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For only thus there be concord, and will God be glorified through the Lord…²⁶⁴⁵

“Canon 9 of Antioch” is an application of the same principle to the prerogatives of the metropolitan:

The bishops of the province must know that the bishop placed at the head of the metropolis [i.e. the metropolitan], is also entrusted with the care of the province. It is to the metropolis that all those go who have business to do. In consequence it has been ruled that he will occupy the first place in regard to honors and that the other bishops (in conformity with the ancient canon decreed by our fathers and which is still in force) will not be able to do anything without him, except administer their diocese and the territory adjoining. He must take care of the country districts which are dependent on the episcopal city, ordain for them priests and deacons and do all things with discernment. But, outside of these limits, he may do nothing without the assent of the bishop of the metropolis who, in his turn, may decide nothing without the advice of the other bishops.

In the case of the ‘Russian Church,’ we find that the patriarch’s primacy of honor comes with many ‘hierarchical privileges,’ namely:

6. The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, together with the Holy Synod shall convene Bishops’ Councils and in exceptional cases the Local Councils and shall preside at them. The Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia shall also convene the sessions of the Holy Synod.

7. In exercising his canonical authority, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia shall: a) be responsible for the implementation of the decisions of the Councils and the Holy Synod; b) submit to the Councils the reports on the situation in the Russian Orthodox Church for the period between the Councils; c) uphold the unity of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church; d) exercise authoritative supervision over all Synodal departments; e) address the Pleroma of the Russian Orthodox Church with pastoral messages; f) sign the general Church documents after their appropriate approval by the Holy Synod; g) exercise the executive and instructive authority in governing the Moscow Patriarchate; h) communicate with the Primates of the Orthodox Churches in compliance with the decisions of the Councils or the Holy Synod, as well as on his own behalf; i) represent the Russian Orthodox Church in its relations with the highest bodies of the state authority and administration; j) have the duty of petitioning and interceding before the bodies of the state power both on the canonical territory and outside it; k) approve the statutes of the Self-governing Churches, the Exarchates and the Dioceses; l) receive the appeals from the diocesan bishops of the Self-governing Churches; m) issue decrees on the election and appointment of the diocesan bishops, the heads of the Synodal departments, the vicar bishops, the rectors of the Theological schools and other officials appointed by the Holy Synod; n) take care for the timely replacement of the episcopal sees; o) entrust the bishops with temporal administration of the diocese in case the diocesan bishops are ill for a long time, die or stand trial in the ecclesiastical court; p) supervise the exercising by the bishops of their archpastoral duty in taking care for the dioceses; q) have the right to visit in necessary cases all dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church (canon 34 of the Holy Apostles; canon 9 of the Council of Antioch, Council of Carthage 52 (63); r) give fraternal advice to the bishops pertaining both to their personal life and the exercise of their archpastoral duty. In the event they do not heed to his advice, he shall propose the Holy Synod to make an appropriate decision; s) take to consideration the matters pertaining to the disagreements among the bishops, who voluntarily ask for his mediation without formal legal proceedings. The decision of the Patriarch in such cases shall be binding for both parties; t) receive complaints concerning the bishops and set them in appropriate motion; u) allow the bishops leave for more than 14 days; v) award the bishops with the established titles and higher Church distinctions; w) award the clergy and laity with Church awards; x) approve the awarding of scholarly degrees and ranks; y) take care for the timely production and consecration of the holy myrrh for general Church needs.

As we can see, a regional, national or universal primacy can be endowed with practical and well-defined ‘hierarchical privileges.’

As a result, various forms of primacy do exist in the context of Orthodoxy, both divine-ontological (bishop, husband) or functional (metropolitan, patriarchs, pope until 1054). The key here is the word ‘analogous.’ The functional primacies are ‘analogous’ to the ontological primacy, but they are ultimately relative and man-made. This is why John Meyendorff could conclude:

In the Orthodox perspective, Roman ecclesiology appears therefore to have weighed disproportionately the succession of the Coryphaeus [Peter] in the person of the universal primate at the expense of the succession of Peter in the person of the local bishop.²⁶⁴⁶

It is then clear that the common idiom ‘(Eastern) Orthodox Church’ is a functional-practical expression which does not mean that Orthodoxy has adopted universal ecclesiology. Indeed, a more accurate name would be ‘Eastern Orthodox Communion’ or even ‘Orthodox Catholic Communion.’ Its basic and fundamental unit is the diocese or ‘catholic Church.’ In application of Apostolic Canon 34, the modern day organization of the Churches is as follows:

Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople

– Patriarchate of Alexandria

– Patriarchate of Antioch

– Patriarchate of Jerusalem

– Patriarchate of Moscow

– Patriarchate of Serbia

– Patriarchate of Romania

– Patriarchate of Bulgaria

– Patriarchate of Georgia

– Archdiocese or ‘Church’ of Cyprus

– Archdiocese or ‘Church’ of Greece

– Metropolia or ‘Church’ of Poland

– Archdiocese or ‘Church’ of Albania

– Metropolia or ‘Church’ of the Czech Lands and Slovakia

– Metropolia or Orthodox ‘Church’ in America (autocephaly recognized by

– Moscow, Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland, and the Czech Lands and Slovakia)

The unity of the Orthodox Communion is vividly expressed when the head of an ‘autocephalous Church’ celebrates the Divine Liturgy. During the great entrance, the hierarch commemorates by name every other primate’.²⁶⁴⁷

Hence, the unity of the universal communion of Eastern Orthodoxy is brought about by the ministry of the Holy Spirit, as St. John Chrysostom once wrote:

A household cannot be a democracy, ruled by everyone, but the authority must necessarily rest in one person. The same is true for the Church: when men are led by the Spirit of Christ, then there is peace.²⁶⁴⁸