"Church hierarchy as a source of authority in the Church". Paper by Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, MP DECR Chairman. WCC COMMISSION ON FAITH AND ORDER Consultation on Sources of Authority in the Church June 27 – July 4, 2011, Moscow

1.

Before dealing with the hierarchy as a source of authority in the Church it is proper to dwell a little on definitions:

The notion of authority comes from Latin auctoritas meaning authority or influence. However, this word has also such connotations as counsel, opinion and even example.[1] The word auctoritas differs from another word meaning ‘power’, potestas. Originally, in the Old Roman political practice, potestas meant power ex officio exercised in accordance with powers given and enforced by law, whereas the word auctoritas implied authority tracing back to the sacral law.[2]

At present, authority in a broad sense is understood as one’s commonly accepted and informal influence based on one’s knowledge, moral merit, experience and other characteristics.[3] This influence extends to diverse spheres of public and private life. It consists of the two parts: the merits and knowledge of a bearer of authority himself and the common recognition by those who resort to his authoritative opinion.

In a more narrow sense, authority is a means of exercising power. It is special in that it is voluntary and non-violent. Authority is based on confidence; its power does not imply coercion and it is not subject to the logic of power-holding violence. Authority is always vulnerable since it cannot exercise its power without the voluntary and free acceptance by those who are the target of this power. In this lies its difference from domination.

We find in the Gospel a description of authority similar to the notion of authority described above. Christ teaches as one who had authority (Mt. 7:29), and His word resounds with authority (Lk. 4:32), and it is not the formal power of scribes and Pharisees but an authority which compels one to marvel at the gracious words that were coming from his mouth (cf. Lk. 4:22). However, Christ’s words even said with authority are not accepted by all. But for those who believe in Him, He becomes the highest authority in their life.

Our Saviour sets his ministry against the power of the princes of this world. He says to his disciples,

You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mt. 20:25-28). The authority of rulers and the domination of princes is power that involves coercion and violence. It is set against an altogether different power, that of love and service. It does not claim the right to coercion but requires free acceptance. In the same Gospel’s passage, our Saviour shows what the true hierarchy of service must be. He who wants to be a higher authority should serve most of all.

The service of Christ himself is centered on his witness to himself. He is the Bread of Life (Jn. 6:35), the Door (Jn. 10:9), the Good Shepherd (Jn. 10:11), the Resurrection (Jn. 11:25). Bearing witness to himself, our Saviour bears witness to the Truth capable of delivering those who believe in him from the slavery of sin and bringing them to the Heavenly Father. I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me (Jn. 14:6), He says, If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free (Jn. 8:31-32).

The faith in Christ as the Truth and Life becomes a living response to his preaching. For those who come to believe in him, our Saviour becomes the highest authority. He makes an enormous influence on them, compelling them to change by seeking light and rejecting darkness. Hierarchy becomes at that the most important principle of organizing witness to the Truth.

2.

The service of Christ has found its continuation in the Church founded by him. Its principal task is to bear witness to the Incarnate Truth. The Church has not simply proclaimed it but itself, as the Body of Christ, has become a pillar and buttress of the truth (cf. 1 Tim. 3:15). Each member of the Church is called to bear witness to Christ.

The first members of the Church, the apostles, bore before the world witness to what John describes as that which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life—the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us (1 Jn. 1:1-2). Through the power of the Holy Spirit their preaching spread to the oikoumene as it was known at that time. Other believers bore witness to Christ as prophets, teachers, wonder-workers who received for their ministry various charismatic gifts from the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:28-30).

Apostles not only taught the Truth but also made believers participate in it through the Sacrament of the Eucharist, offering them the Holy Body and Blood of Christ. Partaking of the Body of Christ, believers became one Body thus revealing the Church of God in every particular place and bearing witness to the Truth. From the first days of the Church, church institutions developed around the Eucharistic communion. The Church from its very beginning was an assembly of those who believed in Christ – an assembly organized by the people of God who knew their pastors and wardens.

Archpriest Nikolay Afanasyev wrote this about it: The very designation of the Church, which we find from the early times of its existence, carries the idea of an organized people rather than a mob [or] crowd which excludes order and structure… The Church is ‘ekklhsia’ because it is an assembly of God’s people in Christ, not a casual gathering or an accidental meeting of Christians.[4]

In places to where their preaching spread, apostles founded church communities and installed celebrants of the Eucharist. Those who presided over the Eucharistic assemblies were essential for the existence of an assembly. As Afanasyev writes, No church could exist a single day without the one who presided over it’.[5]

In the very first days of the Church, apostles began to ordain presbyters and bishops for governing local churches which had emerged as a result of their preaching.

Following Christ in everything and guided by the Holy Spirit, the apostles developed the foundations of church order and founded the church hierarchy.

3.

The church hierarchy has a very special significance for the Church. Through centuries, the hierarchal ministry has ensured the identity of church order, continuity in the grace-giving life and intact faith. The hierarchy safeguards and faithfully hands down and authoritatively interprets the Divine Revelation preserved in the Church.

The source of the universal authority of the hierarchal ministry is its apostolic foundation and succession.

In the Orthodox understanding, only that Church is a true Church of Christ which enjoys the uninterrupted succession of the hierarchy tracing back to the apostles. If this succession is absent or was once interrupted, a Church cannot be considered a true Church, its hierarchy legitimate or its sacraments valid.

Clement of Rome, one of the earliest authors of the post-apostolic period, says this about the apostolic succession of the hierarchy: Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. They appointed the first-fruits to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.[6]

The episcopal ministry in the Church is linked with the concept of apostolic succession. In the 2^nd century this concept was set forth by Irenaeus of Lyons with the utmost clarity: It is within the power of all in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and the succession of these men to our own time… For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon, but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.[7]

Irenaeus sees in the church Tradition the guarantee of succession not only for church governance but also for the purity of doctrine: In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.[8]

Among the principal arguments put forward by Irenaeus against the Gnostics was their lack of apostolic succession. This succession, according to Irenaeus, was preserved both in the Church of Rome and other Local Churches, such as those of Smyrna and Ephesus: But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church… Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.[9]

Tertullian reproduced Irenaeus’s teaching on the apostolic succession almost word for word:: Let them [heretics]produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,— a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.[10]

It is the apostolic succession of the hierarchy, according to Irenaeus, that ensures the authoritative and intact preservation of the truth in the Church: Since we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?[11]

In the apostolic succession of the hierarchy there is nothing automatic or magical: the succession of ordinations is not an autonomous line independent of the Church. Bishops and presbyters were installed by apostles ‘with the consent of the whole church’[12] and this consent was no less significant than lawful ordination. The line of apostolic succession is valid only within the Church: outside the Church it loses its validity and significance. Precisely for this reason the Church does not recognize the presence of apostolic succession in heretical communities, even if the direct succession of ordinations has never been interrupted.

The apostolic succession goes down from one bishop to another, and only bishops are successors of the apostles, while presbyters and deacons are not. A bishop is consecrated in succession from the apostles, while presbyters and deacons are installed by bishops. The line of episcopal succession is one and uninterrupted, while the ordination of a presbyter or a deacon is a one-time event as the ordination of one presbyter or a deacon in no way linked with the ordinations of other presbyters and deacons since it is linked only with a bishop, a successor of the apostles through whom the grace of apostolic ministry is handed down to lower clergy.

This ecclesiological understanding was established as far back as the 2nd century and has been preserved intact to this day. Already Ignatius the God-bearer presented church governance as a three-degree hierarchy of bishops, presbyters and deacons. He stated that a bishop presides in the place of God and elders in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons who are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ.[13] Ignatius stresses the need for the unity of presbyters with their bishop: Presbytery should be fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp.[14] The people of God, according to the Ignatian teaching, should reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles.[15]

It is in presbyters, not bishops, that Ignatius sees ‘the sanhedrim’ or ‘assembly of the apostles’. He speaks about the bishop in singular while presbyters in plural. It reflects the practice that had already been established by that time, whereby a bishop governed a local Church with the help of the presbyterium, delegating presbyters a considerable part of his powers. In fact, the ministry of a presbyter included all the aspects of the ministry of a bishop except for the right of ordination. Thus, priesthood is an apostolic ministry to the extent to which the functions of a priest coincide with those of a bishop.

In the early Church when there was only one Eucharistic community in every city, the bishop was its spiritual center as the one who presided over the Eucharistic assembly, ‘the one who presided in the place of God’. However, as the Eucharistic communities grew in number, leadership over them was handed over to presbyters, while a bishop reserved for himself leadership over the main church community in a city or a region. He would supervise the rest of the communities, using his right of ἐπισκοπή.

In this system, the central place in the life of a parish as a Eucharistic community led by a presbyter shifted de facto to the presbyter.

The key role of the priest as actual head of each parish conditioned the significance which Church Fathers gave to priesthood. In the Eastern Christian patristic literature, there are almost no treatises on the episcopal ministry, while there are several classical treatises on priesthood.

The first Eastern Christian author to write a special treatise on priesthood was Gregory the Theologian. Before him this theme was dealt with by church writers only occasionally. Gregory’s treatise made a direct influence on many later works on the same theme, such as Six Books on the Priesthood by John Chrysostom (4^th cent.), The Book of Pastoral Rule by Gregory the Diologues (6^th cent.) and To the Pastor by John the Climacus (7^th cent.).

According Gregory’s teaching, the need for priesthood grows from the hierarchical structure of the Church which is the Body united under the Head Christ. This idea tracing back to St. Paul inspired Gregory for a reflection on order (τάξις) as the foundation of the entire life of the Church in which, like in an army, there is the chief and his subordinates or, like in a flock, there is the shepherd and his sheep or, like on a ship, there is the captain and his sailors. The hierarchical order of the Church saves it from anarchy, while the presence of priests and bishops ensures the unity of the Church as an organism in which each member fulfils its own functions.[16]

Priesthood is first of all pastorship, care of the sheep and guidance of the flock: Gregory uses an image traditional for the biblical theology. In the Old Testament, God is represented as Chief Shepherd, while his people as flock (see, Ps. 23:1; 80-1; Is. 40:11; Jer. 31:10). In the New Testament, Christ speaks of himself as Good Shepherd (cf Jn. 10:11-16) who holds dear every sheep: He sets off in search of a lost sheep and, having found it, carries it on His shoulders (cf. Lk. 15:4-7). Leaving the earth, he entrusts his sheep to Peters (cf. Jn. 21:15-17), and in his person to other apostles and all the future generations of Christian pastors.

The goal of the priestly ministry, according to Gregory the Theologian, is the deification of church members entrusted to a priest’s care: a priest is called to deify, and bestow heavenly bliss upon, one who belongs to the heavenly host.[17] A priest, according to Gregory, is a mediator between God and people.[18] The principal task of a priest is ‘the distribution of the word, that is, preaching, teaching and doing theology.[19] Another, no less important task of a priest along with preaching and teaching is the service of the altar, prayer for the people and celebration of the Eucharist. It is in this service that the role of a priest as a mediator between God and people is manifested in the highest degree.[20]

While rather much was written about the episcopate and priesthood at the times of the early Church and in the era of Ecumenical Councils, the third degree of priesthood, the rank of deacon, was mentioned only in passing. There is not a single patristic treatise that would reflect on the diaconal ministry. Meanwhile the rank of deacon may have been the second oldest in the Christian Church after the apostolic one. The Book of Acts tells us about the election and ordination of seven men who were charged with the daily ministration and service of tables (cf. Acts 6:1-2). The ministry of the seven was intended as concern for the domestic needs of the community and everyday aspects of church life. This ministry also included an element of charity, particularly, the care of widows.

Whatever relation may have been between the ministry of ‘the seven’ and the later ministry of deacons, it is clear that already in the time of Ignatius the God-bearer and Justin the Philosopher the diaconate did exist as a particular ministry which had certain liturgical functions. In particular, deacons offered the communion to the faithful during the Eucharistic service and distributed it to those who could not attend it.[21] All the surviving old liturgical offices include a deacon’s exclamations. During the Eucharistic service, deacons served as a link between the one who presided and the faithful: they called people to prayer, voiced petitions for the ecclesiastical and secular authorities, the country and the city, for deliverance from natural disasters, for the sick, the travellers, etc.

4.

The teaching on the three-degree church hierarchy, which we find already in Ignatius the God-bearer, is an integral part of the church Tradition.

In the 5^th century, this teaching was substantiated theologically in the works bearing the signature of Dionysius the Areopagite.

Thus, in the treatise ‘On the Heavenly Hierarchy’, we find this definition: Hierarchy is... a sacred order and science and operation, assimilated, as far as attainable, to the likeness of God, and conducted to the illuminations granted to it from God, according to capacity, with a view to the Divine imitation... The purpose, then, of Hierarchy is the assimilation and union, as far as attainable, with God.[22]

According to the Areopagite, the action of the hierarchy basically lies in ensuring that the higher orders, devoutly filled with the entrusted radiance, spread this radiance ungrudgingly to those after it, in accordance with the supremely Divine regulations’ (‘On the Heavenly Hierarchy’, III, 1-2). We see therefore that the true hierarchy represents a hierarchy of service whose principal purpose is for all its members to attain the likeness of God and union with Him. It is not without reason that angels as the heavenly hierarchy are traditionally described in Christian theology as ministering spirits.

Dionysius sees in the church hierarchy a continuation of the nine-degree hierarchy of the angels and divides it into nine orders as well. The first three of them comprise the Sacraments of illumination (baptism), assembly (the Eucharist) and holy oil (anointing). The second triad are the three holy orders – bishop, priest and deacon. The third triad makes up an order of those who ‘are raised to perfection’ which includes therapeutae (monastics), the devout people (laity) and catechumens.

Dionysius’s three-degree hierarchy is structured very arbitrarily indeed. But this structure is necessary for him to illustrate his basic idea, which is the hierarchical nature of church order correspondent to the hierarchical structure of the spiritual world.

Dionysius is interested above all in the inner content of the hierarchical structure of the Church. He attaches a sublime, symbolical and conceptual significance to the entire church order. He sees in the church authority a divine regulation which is to bring the faithful to deification: ...ours is a Hierarchy of the inspired and Divine and Deifying science, and of operation... Jesus Himself... illuminates the blessed Beings who are superior to us, in a manner more clear, and at the same time more intellectual, and assimilates them to His own Light, as far as possible; and by our love of things beautiful elevated to Him, and which elevates us, folds together our many diversities, and after perfecting into a uniform and Divine life and habit and operation, holily bequeaths the power of the Divine Priesthood; from which by approaching to the holy exercise of the priestly office, we ourselves become nearer to the Beings above us...; and thus by looking upwards to the blessed and supremely Divine self of Jesus, and reverently gazing upon whatever. we are permitted to see, and illuminated with the knowledge of the visions, we shall be able to become, as regards the science of Divine mysteries, purified and purifiers; images of Light, and workers, with God, perfected and perfecting... But the Beings and ranks above us..., and their Hierarchy is both intelligible and supermundane; but let us view our Hierarchy, comformably to ourselves, abounding in the variety of the sensible symbols, by which, in proportion to our capacity, we are conducted, hierarchically according to our measure, to the uniform deification -- God and Divine virtue.[23]

Dionysius sees in the rank of bishop, whom he calls ‘a hierarch’, the focus of all the degrees of priesthood. The rank of the hierarchs, according to the Areopagite, ‘is the first of the God-contemplative Ranks; and it is, at the same time, highest and lowest; inasmuch as every Order of our Hierarchy is summed up and fulfilled in it’. Just as every hierarchy in general is terminated in Jesus, the church hierarchy ‘is terminated in its own inspired Hierarch’. Though hierarchs, too, perform some mysteries, ‘yet never will the Priest effect the holy Birth in God without the most Divine Muron; nor will he consecrate the mysteries of the Divine Communion, unless the communicating symbols have been placed upon the most Divine Altar; and neither will he be Priest himself, unless he has been elected to this by the Hierarchical consecrations. Hence only the rank of hierarch, ‘full of the perfecting power, pre-eminently completes the perfecting functions of the Hierarchy, and reveals lucidly the sciences of the holy mysteries, and teaches their proportionate and sacred conditions and powers.[24]

As for ‘the illuminating rank of priest’, Dionysius maintains that he ‘conducts those, who are being initiated under the Rank of, the inspired Hierarchs, to the Divine visions of the Mystic Rites, and in co-operation with it, ministers its proper ministrations, whatever then this Rank may do, by shewing the works of God, through the most holy symbols, and perfecting those who draw nigh in the Divine contemplations, and communion of the holy rites.[25]

Concerning the rank of deacon, which the Areopagite calls ‘the rank of church servant (leitourgoi), it is stated that it is purifying and separates the unfit, previous to the approach to the ministrations of the Priests, thoroughly purifies those who are drawing nigh, by making them entirely pure from opposing passions, and suitable for the sanctifying vision and communion. Deacons strip the baptized ones of their clothes before the sacrament of Baptism, stand at the holy gates during the celebration of the Eucharist and fulfil other service functions.[26]

Dionysius believes the Holy Trinity, Who give life and every blessing of life, to be the beginning and source of any hierarchy: exalted beyond all, the threefold Monad, the really Being,----the Will, inscrutable to us, but known to Itself, is the rational preservation of beings amongst us and above us; but that (preservation) cannot otherwise take place, except those who are, being saved are being deified. Now the assimilation to, and union with, God, as far as attainable, is deification. And this is the common goal of every Hierarchy,----the clinging love towards God and Divine things divinely and uniformly ministered; and previous to this, the complete and unswerving removal of things contrary, the knowledge of things as they are in themselves; the vision and science of sacred truth; the inspired communication of the uniform perfection of the One Itself, as far as attainable; the banquet of contemplation, nourishing intelligibly, and deifying every man elevated towards it.[27]

Dionysius certainly deserves credit for having put the traditional idea of the three-degree hierarchy in the context of the patristic teaching on deification. All his ecclesiology is imbued with the idea of deification. The liturgy, sacraments, hierarchy, the entire church order in Dionysius’s vision – all serve the single goal of leading up to sanctification and deification. The life of the Church is seen as mystagogy – the introduction of the faithful to the mysteries of spiritual experience and their ascent to ‘the beneficial and divine light of Jesus’, to the highest degrees of the knowledge and contemplation of God.

5.

Therefore, the most important purpose of the church hierarchy is the Christ-like service of God and the people of God. This makes it different from any other temporal hierarchy pursuing as it is the purposes and tasks of this world. And precisely for this reason it constitutes the highest authority.

Confusion is often said to be the main characteristic of the present time. They also say that people are reluctant to follow any authority. I find these two phenomena stand in a direct relation to each other. Having rejected the church hierarchy in a pursuit of false authorities, many people have been disillusioned with them. It is because false authorities have led people away from the Source of Life which is God, rather than brought then nearer to Him.

The loss of authority has led to deplorable consequences, for lost together with it is respect for seniority and confidence in experience, and wisdom is ridiculed.

One of the tasks of Orthodox Christian witness is to restore in people the faith in authority. Of course, this return is possible only through people’s turning to the Highest Authority, the Highest Truth, which is Christ, through an appeal to the true guardian of the Truth – the Church. And we all should contribute to this return by our selfless ministry of witness.

[2] Авторитет // Православная Энциклопедия / http://www.pravenc.ru/text/81016.html

[3] Авторитет // БСЭ / http://soviet-encycl.ru/?article=0000066400

[4] Афанасьев Николай, прот. Церковь Духа Святого. V.2.1

[5] Ibid. V.1.1

[6] Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 42.

[7] Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3, 3, 1.

[8] Ibid. 3, 3, 3.

[9] Ibid. 3, 3, 4.

[10] Tertullian, Prescriptions against Heresies, 32.

[11] Irinaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3, 4, 1.

[12] Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 44.

[13] Ignatius the God-bearer, The Epistle to the Magnesians, 6.

[14] Idem. The Epistle to the Ephesians, 4.

[15] Idem. The Epistle to the Trallians, 3.

[16] Gregory the Theologian, Homily 2, 3, 3-5, 8. SC 247, 88-92.

[17] Ibid. 2, 21, 1-22, 15. SC 247, 116-120.

[18] Ibid. 2, 91, 17-19. SC 247, 208.

[19] Ibid. 2, 35, 1. SC 247, 132.

[20] Ibid. 2, 92, 3-19. SC 247, 208-214.

[21] See, Justin the Philosopher, First Apology, 65.

[22] Dionysius the Areopagite, On the Heavenly Hierarchy, III, 1-2.

[23] Idem. On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, 1, 1-2.

[24] Ibid. 5, 5.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid.

[27] Ibid. I, III.