CONTINUED
Patriarchate of Bulgaria
The Orthodox Church of Bulgaria has from the beginning of its existence up until the latter half of the 19th century been under the supervision and direction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Since the establishment of a Bulgarian Exarchate by the Ottoman Government in 1870, however, she has undertaken the task of organizing her own internal affairs independently. This activity brought about a rupture in her relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the other Orthodox Churches. The rupture was eventually healed and the Church of Bulgaria was recognized as an autocephalous Church. She ultimately proclaimed herself a patriarchate in 1953, an act not seen favorably at the time by the other Orthodox Churches. In the early stages of her organizational development, an active role was recognized to the laity, which eventually became less pronounced. The statutory charter by which she has been administered since her elevation to patriarchate reflects the Church-state relations which have evolved as a result of the Communist regime which governed until recently.[49]
The Holy Synod, which exercises the highest spiritual authority in the Orthodox Church of Bulgaria, is made up of the patriarch and all bishops with metropolitanates. It functions in both full and limited capacity, as a synod of the hierarchy in the former case and as a permanent synod in the latter. All bishops with metropolitanates are under the direct jurisdiction and supervision of the Holy Synod, from which they receive their hierarchical office and to which they are accountable directly. Legislative authority is exercised by the clergy-laity assembly, which is composed of the bishops, other clergy and laypersons. The highest judiciary and administrative authority is exercised by the Holy Synod.[50]
The patriarch is elected by the patriarchal clergy-laity assembly composed of all the bishops, as well as clergy and lay representatives from each province and a variety of ecclesiastical and other bodies. All electors must be members of the Orthodox Church of Bulgaria. At least seven days before the designated day for the election of the patriarch, the holy synod of the hierarchy elects three metropolitans by secret ballot and absolute majority as candidates for the patriarchal throne. Following the election of the three candidates, the director of religious affairs is notified in writing in order for him to respond regarding the government's confidence in the candidates. The Holy Synod through its acting president convenes the patriarchal clergy-laity assembly on the assigned Sunday for the election of the patriarch. After it has been determined that at least three-fourths of the assembly's membership is present, the election process begins following prayer. In the event three-fourths of the membership are not present, the election process is interrupted for one hour, following which it resumes again regardless of the number of members present. The candidate who receives two-thirds of the votes cast by secret ballot is declared patriarch.[51]
The president of both the Holy Synod of the hierarchy and the permanent Synod is the patriarch, or in his absence, one of the synodal members appointed by him. The permanent Synod is made up of the patriarch and four metropolitans who have administered their provinces for at least two years. Its members are elected by the hierarchy for four years. No bishop may refuse to participate in the meetings of the Holy Synod, except for reasons of health or inability confirmed by the hierarchy. The penalty for doing so is suspension.[52] Only members of the Holy Synod of the hierarchy and permanent Synod may participate in their meetings.[53]
Among the other competencies, the Holy Synod of the hierarchy draws up a list of candidates for the office of metropolitan when the see of a province is vacant. The "locum tenens" together with the metropolitan council forwards a copy of the list to all the electors of the province (clergy and laity) whom he invites to the capital of the province in order to take part in the election of the metropolitan. A supervising committee oversees the election. Following prayer, the electors proceed with the election by secret ballot. Each ballot cast contains two names from the official list of candidates. Those candidates receiving an absolute majority are declared the officially elected candidates of both the clergy and the laity of the province to fill the vacant see. On the first Sunday following the approval of the provincial election, the Holy Synod proceeds with the final election of one of the two candidates in the church and in the presence of the people. The newly elected metropolitan assumes his ministry, which is for life, from the day on which the Holy Synod officially announces his election. According to the canons, a vacant see may not remain without a canonical bishop for more than three months.[54] A bishop is not ordained without a province and transfer from one province to another is prohibited.[55] Nevertheless, the Holy Synod may by exception ordain a bishop as auxiliary to the patriarch or as auxiliary to an elderly or ailing metropolitan or for exceptional needs of the Church.[56]
Executive authority belongs to the patriarch or his representative. Nevertheless, the patriarch does not have the right to reach decisions affecting the whole Church without consulting with the Holy Synod, nor does the Holy Synod have that right without consulting with the patriarch or his representative.[57] In the event the patriarch or any other hierarch should violate the duties and responsibilities of his office, he is accountable to the holy synod of the hierarchy. The meetings of both the Holy Synod of the hierarchy and the permanent Synod are legitimate only if presided over by the patriarch or his representative and with the presence of at least half of their membership. The Holy Synod of the hierarchy meets regularly each year in June and November, and exceptionally whenever deemed necessary by the patriarch or permanent Synod or when requested by half the metropolitans. The permanent Synod meets continually and determines its own recesses. Decisions are reached by an absolute majority of members present. A tie vote is broken by the vote of the president. Abstention is not permitted. A dissenting opinion is permitted providing it is declared and justified orally during the meeting and submitted in writing within three days subsequently. Each member has the right of initiative during meetings.
A member guilty of violating synodal procedure is admonished as follows: admonition in private by the president; if ignored, admonition is repeated in synod; as a final resort, the president proposes an appropriate penalty to the Holy Synod. In the event the patriarch as president of the Holy Synod is guilty of violating the statutory charter generally, the Holy Synod in the person of its senior member respectfully issues a reminder. If the reminder goes unheeded, it is repeated in synod. If even then there is no correction, the Holy Synod takes the appropriate measures as defined by the canons regarding degradation.[58]
Church of Greece
Owing to the privileged status still accorded to the Orthodox Church of Greece by the Greek Constitution, in contrast to the status of the other autocephalous Orthodox Churches in the lands in which they exist, an investigation of her administrative structure closes this part of the present study. In a sense, it provides a logical balance to the investigation of the administrative structure of the Ecumenical Patriarchate with which this study began. This is so because of the mother-daughter relationship existing between the Churches of Constantinople and Greece, a relationship which dates back to the first half of the 8th century.[59] It is in deference to this relationship and to the respect thereby fostered by the Church of Greece towards her mother Church, that the former retains only the title of an autocephalous Church whose primate is an archbishop. Territorially a part of the Church of Constantinople until 1821 essentially, thereafter only formally until 1850, the Church of Greece understandably modeled her administrative structure after that of her mother Church. There have, of course, been many adjustments and revisions since the original statutory charter by which the Church of Greece administered her ecclesiastical affairs in the spirit of the canons. The charter of 1977 is a recent phase in this development.
The highest ecclesiastical authority of the Church of Greece is the Holy Synod of the hierarchy, composed of the Archbishop of Athens and All Greece as president, and all the bishops who administer metropolitanates. Her permanent administrative body is the permanent Holy Synod. Both bodies are located in Athens. The vice-president of the Holy Synod of the hierarchy is its senior ranking member. In the absence of the president, the vice-president presides; in the absence of the latter, the member hierarch next in rank of seniority. The Holy Synod meets by right in regular session on the 1st of October each year. It may meet exceptionally whenever convened by the president either upon his own initiative, or following a previous decision of the permanent synod, or per request of at least one-third of the active metropolitans.
Further regulations determine procedure regarding convocation of the Holy Synod according to the latter two instances. In any event, the president is canonically accountable if he fails to convene the Holy Synod in conformity with the above. Additional regulations determine the agenda, i.e., who sets it and how it is covered. Bishops present during the meetings may not depart without serious cause before the necessary decisions have been reached. Such departure, as well as an unjustified absence, constitute a canonical offense. A quorum exists if more than half the member metropolitans are present. Decisions are reached by a majority vote of those present. A tie vote in an open ballot is broken by the vote of the president. Decisions on matters considered to be of profound importance by the Holy Synod (inflicting major excommunication, exercising condescension and leniency) require at least a two-thirds majority vote of the entire membership of the hierarchy.[60]
The permanent synod of the Church of Greece is composed of the Archbishop of Athens as president, and 12 member hierarchs, of whom 6 are active metropolitans of the autocephalous Church of Greece chosen alternately by seniority, and 6 are active metropolitans from the "new provinces" chosen in the same way.[61] A quorum exists if half its members plus one are present. Decisions are reached by majority vote. A tie vote is broken by the vote of the president. In the absence of the president, the highest ranking member hierarch present, according to seniority, presides, as mandated by the canons. The synodal period is annual, beginning on the 1st of September of one year and ending on the 31st of August of the next. As the permanent administrative body of the Church, its competencies include overseeing the careful execution of all decisions of the Holy Synod of the hierarchy. In the interim between meetings of the Holy Synod, the permanent synod exercises all ecclesiastical-administrative authority according to the canons, traditions and legal norms.[62]
Upon the vacancy of the archiépiscopal throne of Athens, the responsibilities of "locum tenens" are fulfilled by the highest ranking active metropolitan according to seniority. In the event this is not possible, the next in line of seniority assumes these responsibilities. Within five days of the vacancy, the permanent synod under the presidency of the "locum tenens" meets to announce the vacancy officially to the active metropolitans and to set the date for the Holy Synod to meet for the election of an archbishop. This extraordinary meeting of the Holy Synod takes place in the cathedral church of Athens within twenty days of the vacancy. Eligible for election are all active metropolitans who are Greek by birth, as well as those clergy of the Church of Greece who are registered in the list of eligible candidates for the episcopacy. The election takes place in only one session without recess in the presence of the minister of education and religious affairs. The session is presided over by the highest ranking hierarch present, according to seniority. A quorum exists if at least two-thirds of the active metropolitans are present.
Following are detailed regulations describing the procedure to be kept in the election of the archbishop. Elected is the candidate who receives an absolute majority of the votes cast. If an absolute majority is not reached, the same procedure is repeated without interruption. If an absolute majority is still not reached, the candidate receiving a relative majority of the votes cast is considered elected. In the event of a tie vote during the third ballot, the archbishop is selected by lots. Objections as to voting procedure, qualifications of candidates, validity of ballots, etc., are to be submitted immediately in writing. An irrevocable reply to these objections is provided at once by the minister of education and religious affairs, or, in his absence, by the elections committee.
The candidate elected officially accepts his election, whereas the permanent synod notifies the ministry of education and religious affairs on the same day in writing. Within five days a presidential decree of recognition and appointment is issued. Shortly thereafter, and in the presence of the president of the republic, the minister of education and religious affairs, and the permanent synod, the newly elected archbishop affirms fulfillment of his archiépiscopal responsibilities and obedience to the constitution and laws of the state. Following this affirmation the newly elected archbishop is enthroned.[63]
The election of bishops is carried out only by the Holy Synod of the hierarchy and always from the current list of eligible candidates for the episcopacy. The Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate also has the right to propose the names of candidates who would be eligible for election to one of the metropolitanates of the "new provinces." There follows a detailed list of both general and specific qualifications required of all candidates. The statutory charter devotes several articles to the list of eligible candidates for the episcopacy, allowance also being made for members of the synod to contest the eligibility of candidates registered. Consequently, one of the standard agenda items of the permanent synod is the ongoing evaluation of the list of eligible candidates.
When a metropolitanate becomes vacant, the president of the permanent synod appoints the senior hierarch from among the neighboring metropolitanates as "locum tenens." The "locum tenens" is responsible for administering the daily affairs of the metropolitanate and may not initiate substantive changes in its institutions. In the event of an urgent matter, the "locum tenens" must first receive the approval of the permanent synod before taking any action. The election of a metropolitan by the Holy Synod of the hierarchy must take place within six months of the vacancy at the latest. If during this period the Holy Synod does not convene for its regularly scheduled annual meeting, it meets in extraordinary session to fill the vacancy.
A vacancy is filled canonically by an election. It may, however, with a two-thirds majority vote of members of the Holy Synod who are present, be filled by transfer. Only those metropolitans with at least five years of active ministry can be considered eligible for transfer. Once transferred, they may not be transferred again. Their election is by secret ballot. A two-thirds majority vote assures the election of the candidate considered eligible for transfer. Following official announcement of the synodal decision regarding transfer, the metropolitan to be transferred declares his acceptance. In the event he does not accept, the election process is repeated.[64]
In order to fill a vacancy by election, members of the Holy Synod of the hierarchy elect by secret ballot three candidates from the list of eligible candidates for the episcopacy. Each elector is obliged to list three candidates on his ballot. The Holy Synod then elects one of the three candidates by secret ballot and by a relative majority. Also eligible for election besides those named in the official list are auxiliary bishops and titular metropolitans and bishops. In the event of a tie vote between metropolitans and bishops, the senior hierarch according to ordination is preferred; between presbyters and deacons, the presbyter is preferred; and between presbyters, the senior presbyter according to ordination is preferred. Following the government's notification of the election, acceptance and ordination of the candidate, a presidential decree of recognition and installation is issued. The newly elected metropolitan then officially makes an affirmation to fulfill his hierarchical responsibilities and is enthroned according to ecclesiastical order.[65]
Eastern Churches United with Rome
For purposes of further inquiry and comparison, this investigative study will close with a brief survey of the Eastern Churches united with Rome. The object of this survey is to determine whether these Churches have preserved their synodal character and, if so, under what conditions.[66]
Among the Churches of the Byzantine rite, practice varied depending upon local needs and the degree of intervention on the part of the Church of Rome into the affairs of each Church. The Ruthenians, who entered into union with Rome at the Council of Brest-Litovsk in 1595, were initially instructed by Pope Clement VIII as to the rights of their metropolitans. Several decades later, however, it was decreed that provincial synods be held every four years. In reality, these synods were closely supervised during their stages of preparation by the ecclesiastical authorities in Rome.
The Rumanians who united with Rome held relatively frequent diocesan synods from the very beginning. It was not until 1872 at Blaj, however, that their first truly provincial council was held. Before that time, legislation on matters of importance came from Rome. It was Rome as well which directed the preparations for the Council of Blaj.
Legislation for the Italian Greeks came directly from the See of Rome, as evidenced by the encyclicals of Clement VIII and Benedict XIV issued in their behalf. On the other hand, the Melkites have always claimed autonomy with regard to their patriarchal synods. Nevertheless, Rome has always reserved to itself the right to accept or reject these synods, as evidenced once again by the available papal documents which either contest or direct or flatly reject them.
A similar fate befell the other Eastern Churches as well. Their synods have either been planned and directed in Rome or presided over by a papal representative with extensive authority. Such was the case with several Maronite synods of the 16th century and again with the Synod of Mt Lebanon held in 1736.
During the papacy of Pius IX, the decision was reached to provide the non-Byzantine Eastern Churches with a legislative system similar to that of the Council of Trent. A synod of the Chaldean Christians in 1852 and one of the Syrians held the following year reflect these designs. In the case of the former, they did not openly refuse to accept a legislation imposed on them but rather chose to ignore it frequently in practice. The latter, on the other hand, sought to recover their traditional liturgical customs at a synod convened for this purpose several years later.
An attempt was made at Vatican Council I to unify the discipline of the Eastern Churches by entirely suppressing it in favor of Latin uniformity. Through the efforts of both the Chaldean and Melkite Patriarchs invited to attend, it was brought to the attention of the council that only a patriarchal or national synod could effectively initiate reform. Time, how-over, did not allow the council to deal with the issues raised.
Under the papacy of Leo XIII, collaboration and understanding with regard to the traditions of the Eastern Churches united with Rome increased decidedly. As far as synods were concerned, however, Rome continued to insist that they be presided over by a papal representative and that their decisions needed Roman approval before they could be promulgated.
With the announcement of an Oriental Code of Canon Law in 1929, an end came to the traditional legislative authority exercised by the local synods. Although these synods continued to provide the necessary details of the legislative system thus unified, it became apparent that they no longer functioned as they did originally. The annual provincial synod now functions much the same as the episcopal conferences in the Roman Church: as consultative bodies without proper legislative authority.[67] The institution of the permanent synod, too, although prevalent, has very limited administrative and judiciary competence.
Vatican Council II, through its Decrees on Ecumenism and on the Eastern Churches, has given cause for optimism regarding the recovery of some of the traditional norms and institutions of the Eastern Churches united with Rome. Although some reservations are still expressed,[68] it remains to be seen whether the synod will ultimately be recognized as the essential institution it is in the life of the Eastern Church. Such recognition could in fact bring East and West one step closer in their quest for unity.
[1] See G. Kapsanis, E poimantike diakania kata tous ierous kanonas
(Piraeus, 1976), 112-29.
[2] H. Percival, ed., The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 14 (Grand Rapids, n.d.), 475. Although the Church at her core is always synod, her members sometimes fail to live in accordance with her synodal character. This is due to their spiritual immaturity and sinfulness. G. Kapsanis, E poimantike diakonia, 126-29. Kapsanis cites several specific examples when this happens. One thus becomes painfully aware of the need to harmonize ecclesiastical practice at all times with the Church's theological prototypes.
[3] For a discussion of all these, see Bishop Pierre (L'Huillier), "Synodos," Threskeftike kai Ethike Engyklopaideia, 1st ed., vol 11 (Athens, 1962), 574.
[4] Kapsanis5 116.
[5]A. Schmemann, 'The Idea of Primacy in Orthodox Ecclesiology," The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church (Gr. Britain: Faith Press, 1973), 41-45.
[6] Schmemann, 52
[7] J. Hajjar, "The Synod in the Eastern Church,'* Concilium 8, Pastoral Reform in Church Government (New York: Paulist Press, 1965), 58
[8] Hajjar, 59. In his monograph, Endemousa Synodos (Athens, 1971), V. Pheidas shows the synod specifically convened to elect a bishop for the capital see of Constantinople to be the precedent for the "endemousa" synod. Such synods date back to the period just prior to the Second Ecumenical Council.
[9] See canon 3 of the Second Ecumenical Council and canons 9, 17 and 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. For an historical account of the honorary preeminence of the Church of Constantinople in the East, see Metropolitan Máximos of Sardis, The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church, trans. G. McLellan (Thessaloniki, 1976), 80-252.
[10] The main source of information regarding the administrative structure of the Orthodox Patriarchates today comes from B. Tzortzatos, Oi vasikoi thesmoi dioikeseos ton Orthodoxon Patriarcheion (Athens, 1972).
[11] See Maximos, 80-252.
[12] Tzortzatos, 28-29.
[13] Tzortzatos, 31-32.
[14]In more recent times, variations in practice have occurred with regard to length of term of service on the Holy Synod, to procedure for assuring full membership, and to number of members.
[15] Tzortzatos, 32
[16] Tzortzatos, 42-43.
[17] Tzortzatos, 68.
[18] Tzortzatos, 65.
[19] The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit," The Seven Ecumenical Councils, 596.
[20] Canons 37 of the Holy Apostles and 20 of Antioch.
[21] Tzortzatos, 68.
[22] Tzortzatos, 71.
[23] C. Papadopoulos, Istoria tes Ekklesias Antiocheias (Alexandria, 1951), 1033.
[24] Tzortzatos, 108.
[25] Tzortzatos, 126-27.
[26] Tzortzatos, 127-28.
[27] Tzortzatos, 128.
[28] The general community council, like similar bodies in the other patriarchates and autocephalous Churches, is more the result of political motivation than it is the spontaneous expression of ecclesiological consideration.
[29] Tzortzatos, 129-30.
[30] See the Acts of this council in Mansi, VII, 179.
[31] Cannon 36 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.
[32] Tzortzatos, 141-2.
[33] Tzortzatos, 153-4.
[34] Tzortzatos, 156.
[35] In contemporary Greek practice, the protosyngellos is the chief administrative official of a diocese appointed by the bishop.
[36] Tzortzatos, 158-60.
[37] At the time of the original writing of this study, the political situation in the Soviet Union was very different from what it is today in Russia. One can only hope that current liberalizing trends in that country continue to bring with them harmonious church-state relations.
[38]Tzortzatos, 175.
[39] Tzortzatos, 176-77.
[40] What was asserted with regard to current church-state relations in Russia (see footnote 35), can also be said of Serbia and other formerly Communist states.
[41] Tzortzatos, 206.
[42] Tzortzatos, 210.
[43] Tzortzatos, 211-12.
[44] Tzortzatos, 271-76.
[45] Tzortzatos, 279-80.
[46] Tzortzatos, 281.
[47] Tzortzatos, 281-83.
[48] Tzortzatos, 306-7.
[49] Tzortzatos, 323-28.
[50] Tzortzatos, 330-31.
[51] Tzortzatos, 332-34.
[52] Canon 19 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.
[53] Tzortzatos, 335.
[54] Canon 25 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.
[55] Canons 15 and 16 of the First Ecumenical Council, 21 of Antioch, 1 and 2 of Sardica, and 48 of Carthage (419).
[56] Tzortzatos, 339-40.
[57] Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles.
[58] Tzortzatos, 355-56.
[59] M. Anastos, '"The Transfer of Dlyricum to the Jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople," Sylloge By iantina (Rome, 1957).
[60] B. Tzortzatos, Oi vasikoi thesmoi dioikeseos tes orthodoksou Ekklesias tes Ellados (Athens, 1977), 62-65.
[61] The "new provinces" refer to the metropolitanates of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in northern Greece annexed to the Church of Greece in 1928 following the liberation of that territory from Turkey.
[62] Tzortzatos, Ekklesias tes Ellados, 65-67.
[63] Tzortzatos, Oi vasikoi thesmoi, 70-73.
[64] Tzortzatos, Oi vasikoi thesmoi, 73-78.
[65] TZortzatos, Oi vasikoi thesmoi, 79.
[66] See Hajjar, 'The Synod in the Eastern Church," 55-64, to which I am heavily indebted for the material in this paragraph. In this article, the reader will also find listed all the necessary sources from which the information given comes.
[67] The role of episcopal conferences in the Roman Church was much debated at Vatican Π, and ultimately a compromise was reached. Accordingly, just as the provincial and plenary (national, regional) synods or councils had proper legislative authority but were obliged to have their decrees reviewed by the Roman See, so too the episcopal conferences were acknowledged as having true legislative authority (described as vis juridice obligandi). There were, however, two limitations not imposed on synods or councils: (a) a two-thirds vote is necessary; and (b) only matters or affairs acknowledged as belonging to their competence can be discussed. These areas were directly acknowledged by Vatican II and expanded in postconciliar documents of implementation by Pope Paul VI. Many of them, in fact, are mentioned in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, although in the course of its preparation several areas of competence originally enumerated were eliminated. The synod of bishops is of a very different nature. Although "representative of the Catholic episcopate" (Pope Paul VI) 5 it is consultative and becomes legislative only by papal mandate. For a thorough account of all the above, see the collection of studies in Thomas J. Reeves, Ed., Episcopal Conferences: Historical, Canonical and Theological Studies (Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 1989).
[68] Hajjar, 63-64.
