Michael Prokurat, Alexander Golitzin, Michael D. Peterson
AUTHORITY
AUTHORITY. The question of authority, and with it “infallibility,” in the Orthodox Church is primarily dependent on the Holy Spirit (q.v.) or pneumatology, and not upon human agency. Thus, the way the question is handled in the East is different from its treatment in the West. When the Holy Spirit is recognized as the ultimate source of authority, claims to inerrant authority for the hierarchy (e.g., “papal infallibility”) or for Scripture (e.g., sola Scriptura) can be relegated to high-level political posturing; for the claims are actually for a particular hierarch’s interpretation of the matter, and not all hierarchs’ (universal) understanding, and a particular group’s interpretation of Scripture (q.v.), and not how Scripture has been understood by the Church throughout the ages. The Orthodox generally consider the question as posed in the West in the last half millennium, with due respect to Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians, to be a wrong question predicated on unfortunate political developments, both before and after the Reformation.
Having said this, it should be pointed out that in the East the same questions of ecclesiastical and civil authority have been as acutely felt as in the West, but with differing appeals:
| I. | The appeal to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) as paradigmatic for church decision-making procedure is frequently made by those emphasizing the importance of the hierarchy in the process of defining the faith: “The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter” (v. 6). This citation has as its strength the witness of Scripture and the successful resolution of a difficult problem in the nascent Gentile mission, seemingly a perfect example. On closer examination, the example is problematical. Did the hierarchy really make the decision? First, Peter makes a speech and in it takes responsibility for the Gentile mission; but then James, the brother of the Lord, speaks and states, “I have reached a decision. . . .” Next, we find that “the apostles and the elders with the consent of the whole church decided . . .” (v.22); and again, when we read Paul’s account of what is ostensibly the same Council (Gal 2:1–10), he states that he is the leader of the Gentile mission and the meeting in Jerusalem added nothing to his message or method. Finally, the Council was not really about orthodoxy at all, but about orthopraxy: The decision did not involve theology (q.v.) or the content of the faith, but only whether circumcision and certain types of abstinence would be practiced. Excepting these controversial items, the Orthodox have preserved the formula, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” (Acts 15:28), in concluding their conciliar deliberations. |
| II. | The appeal to ecumenical conciliarity (sobornost, in Russian) and the emperor are frequently taken as normative for the Eastern Church’s self-expression. Certainly the Seven Ecumenical Councils (q.v.) have unique authority in the East, and the emperor was looked upon as blessed by God to enforce secular, if not religious, justice. The problem with the councils and the emperor, briefly put, is that terrible difficulties in the conciliar period began immediately with Constantine the Great (q.v.). Councils were convened that attributed “ecumenical authority” to themselves, but which were subsequently judiciously overturned. Similarly, the emperor soon showed himself capable of being as much a hindrance to the faith as a help. Heretical laws were passed and enforced. The state interfered in the Church and itself created new martyrs (q.v.)-most recently with Soviet sovereignty. One of the worst conciliar debacles occurred with the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439) wherein all the sitting hierarchs except Mark of Ephesus (q.v.) capitulated to Rome; and on returning to their dioceses they met an angry reception-and most swiftly recanted in order to hold their sees. Nonetheless, the conciliar model retains most of its integrity and remains an ideal in Orthodoxy. Without a Christian emperor and a clear enunciation of which and how clergy and laity interact in council, the inspiration for convening such councils is at times lacking. |
| III. | The appeal to Holy Tradition (q.v.) (including Scripture and/or the Councils [qq.v.]) is recognized as of ultimate authority, since it is tantamount to an appeal to the entire experience of the Church. Holy Tradition is seen as consisting of many elements, including Scripture, liturgy, Canon Law, patristics (qq.v.), etc. The primary hurdle in appealing to Holy Tradition as an authority lies in the selection of appropriate sources, applicable to a given situation. Similarly, precedent is difficult to establish quickly, since the selection of sources itself is a matter of interpretation, and the question raised might not have been asked previously (e.g., in the question of women’s ordination [q.v.] to the priesthood). Everyone agrees that Holy Tradition is authoritative, but which beliefs and practices truly manifest Holy Tradition is open to a variety of interpretation. |
| IV. | Various appeals to the authority of ancient patriarchates, especially Rome and Constantinople (qq.v.), have been made throughout history. Given the relative size and resources available to large episcopal sees, one would expect more cumulative experience and a more precise articulation of the faith from the leading cities of the Mediterranean than from the smaller “suburbs.” These centers had political exposure, and at times access to the emperor, which increased their abilities and standing. During the later Ecumenical Councils (q.v.) the Roman Church had a remarkable record of protecting orthodoxy from heresy (q.v.), less so Constantinople. Unfortunately, dominant heresies occurred in each of these centers; so, one finds Hippolytus’s papal adversaries and Honorius I in Rome, and Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cyril Lukaris (qq.v.) in Constantinople, as notable, fallible examples. In spite of the heresies, it became part of tradition to accord the position of primi inter pares or “first among equals” to the bishops of these sees, and appeals to the patriarchs and popes are considered valid. |
| V. | Following the Enlightenment there has been an increased appeal to the authority of democracy and/or egalitarianism within the Eastern Church, especially in response to centralization or “hierarchicalism” discussed above. The strengths of this appeal lie in a recognition of every Christian’s responsibility for the whole of the faith, whether clergy or laity, and in involving everyone in the ecclesiastical decision-making process. The shortcomings of this appeal are usually in its inability to recognize the value of legitimate ministries (the “hierarchical principle”), and in acknowledging that the will of God is not produced by majority vote. In the Encyclical Letter of the Eastern Patriarchs to the Roman Pope (1848), we have an affirmation of this principle in the statement “neither the hierarchy nor councils could ever introduce novelty, since with us the guardian of piety and faith is the very Body of the Church, i.e., the people themselves.” |