ECCLESIA

In beginning, I ask that you lend me your attention for a short while so that I may briefly analyze my subject, by which I shall attempt to cast light upīn and review the more general canonical question of the relation of the Protos or First Bishop to the Synod of the Church of Greece and to each individual bishop.

The canonical relations of the individual bishops of a local Church to the Bishop of the first (capital) city constituted, from the beginning,the object of canonical regulation, in order to avoid the creation of problems which could disrupt the life of the Church and especially her unity. Canons III and XXXIV of the Apostles, and Canon I× of the Local Council of Antioch, which refer to the interdependence of the bishops and to their mutual relations within the ecclesiological framework, are of basic significance in that they ascribe to the Protos, or primate, certain privileges of administrative superiority, of course always within the dimension of the ministry in Christ.

More specifically, Canon XXXIV of the Apostles and Canon IX of the Council of Antioch regulate the canonical relations of the bishops of each local Church or each Metropolitan district with the presiding Bishop of the Metropolis, whom it calls "Protīs" and "Head". According to these regulations, the bishops who belong to an autīcephalīus Metropolitan eparchy and /or to an autocephalous local Church are obliged, for the sake of preserving the unity of the Church and canonical order, to recognize the presiding bishop of the Metropolis, i.e. īf the city largest in size or of the greatest significance, as the first among them and as the Head of their body, and must not undertake administrative or other actions pertaining to the more general and vital Church matters without his opinion or knowledge.

This of course means that in local affairs or in matters pertaining to the exercise of his sacred pastoral duties as bishop, teacher and administrator of his spiritual fold, i.e. his diocese, each bishop of course has the right to act freely-always within the framework of the sacred canons and ecclesiastical laws. Íī bishop may interfere in the administration of another diocese, save his own,(1) "rendering account only unto the Lord". This, however does not imply an arbitrariness īn the part of the bishop or a degrading of the Synodical system (sinodikos thesmos), but rather the autonomous and independent administrative spiritual and pastoral activities of the bishop, which, however, are supervised by the Synod to which the bishop belongs.

In other words, the independence of the local Church is recognized - but only in those matters in which the Synod or the First Bishop "have nī right to interfere".(2) Like the ×××IVth Apostolic Canon, Canon I× of the Council of Antioch is quite explicit īn this matter: "...Each bishop has authority over his īwn diocese (parikia), both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent īn every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent īn his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgement. Âut let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the Metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others".(3)

Because the canon in question, as we have noted, aims at preserving the Church's unity in Christ and not at the adulteration of the ecclesiastical principle of the equality of the bishops in their priesthood and teaching, it adds that the "First" bishop must not ignore the existence of the other bishops and should not abuse his authority by proceeding to actions which betray arbitrariness, high-handedness, and a despotic spirit of imposing īne's will upīn his brothers and concelebrants. Thus through the interdependence, unity and cooperation between the bishops and the First Bishop (Protos) their co-responsibility in facing the great and general problems of the Church is made manifest, and the need for the correct functioning of the synodical system through the participation in the synodical organ of all of the bishops without exception emphasized.(4)

Hence, in the Orthodox Church each bishop, by right of his ordination - and not by missio canonica as in the Roman Catholic Church - participates in Synods, presided over by the First Bishop, which deal with matters referring to the overall life of the Church. Whatsoever refers to the local Church however, e.g. ordinations of priests and deacons, belongs to the competency, and is the responsibility, of the local bishop. This competency can neither be limited nor replaced.(5)

As it has been observed, however, the institution of the Autocephalous Churches formed in more recent times does not constitute a super-local organizational structure of the Church, i.e. a super-diocese. "Autocephalous Churches, organized as a pyramid with a synodical institution exercising absolute authority over the local Churches, or with the primate exercising such authority over the councils, represent a dangerous distortion of the ecclesiological spirit of the canons".(6) The authority of the Council or that of the First Bishop or Protos over the individual bishops cannot abrogate the primordial and inviolate jurisdiction of the bishop over the local Church, but ought to extend only to the supervision of episcopal actions and deeds, always īn the basis of the sacred canons and the church laws. Any overstepping of these canonical bounds constitutes a dangerous alteration of Orthodox ecclesiology and surreptitiously introduces into the Church a secular spirit and administrative principles foreign to canonical order. Indeed, if we keep in mind that īn the local level the synodical system is in general to this very day an institution, while the Universal Church, or Church at large, is not expressed institutionally, since an Ecumenical Council is recognized as such īnly posteriori and then acquires supreme authority for the Church, it becomes evident how necessary it is to preserve inviolate from every alienating influence the functional structures of the synodical system in its initial phase, so to speak, so that it remainis a strong instrument ensuring the unity and concord not only of the bishops but of the laity as well. Indeed, as Zonoras in his interpretation of the 34th Apostolic Canon observes: "it desires... that the bishops have concord and that they be united by the bond of love, and that they should be an example of love ađd concord to the clergy and people under them".(7)

Hence all the bishops, as succeasors of the Lord and the Apostles, possess the same priesthood in equal measure (tis aftis aksias). United with one another through the mysteries or sacraments and especially through the Holy Eucharist, each individual bishop īn the one hand deals self-sufficiently with matters pertaining to his diocese, while īn the other hand with the rest of the bishops in synod, under the presidency of the First bishop, he deals with issues affecting the more general life of the Church. The distinction made between the Primate and the rest of the bishops is not one of higher or lower value or significance, but rather one of honour, and is of a practical nature. It is a primacy of diakonia and not of special episcopal privileges over and beyond his fellow bishops which he derives from his Archpriesthood.(8) The ministry in question reflects the concern of the canīns to establish an organ to regulate authority and which, by functioning within a specific framework harmoniously combined with the collegiality of the bishops, directs the functioning of the synod or council towards the good ordering of ecclesiastical affairs.(9)


The Orthodox Church of Greece was proclaimed autocephalous in the year 1850 by a Patriarchal and Synodical Tome which alsī specified the basic principles of its canonical administration. According to this Tīme, the Church of Greece is autocephalous, "having as its supreme head a standing synod composed of bishops summoned in rotation according to the seniority of their ordination, having as their president the incumbent Metropolitan of Athens, and administering the Church in accordance with the sacred canons freely and unhindered by any secular intervention".(10)

In analyzing this specification we observe that the Mother Church of Constantinople granted autocephaly to her daughter, the Church of Greece, under the following conditions which pertain to the latter's administration:
a) It recognized and stipulated as the Church īf Greece's supreme governing body a Standing Synod of Bishops;
b) Without specifying the number of the Synod's members, it foresaw that the bishops who are to participate in the Synod are to be summoned in sequence according to the order of their seniority in ordination.
c) It recognised as Protos or Primate among the bishops of the Church in question the incumbent Metropolitan of Athens, whom it also named as President of the Synod.
d) It excluded all secular intervention in the administration of the Church, thus preserving her internal independence and self-administration.

We here underline the fact that the Tome foresaw that in This Synod, which thus became the supreme ecclesiastical head of the Church, not all the bishops were to participate simultaneously, but only certain of them, summoned each time īn the basis of their seniority.(11) Such a periodical participation of the active bishops in the Synod should not be considered as seeking to exclude some of them from the conciliar actions of the Church, for a) all the bishops participate in the synod, although not simultaneously; b) the criterion by which they are summoned, invited and participate is an objective one: viz. the chronological order in which they were ordained to the episcopate. This ensures that each and every bishop without exception will participate in turn in the work of the Synod. Different from this, and hence clearly uncanonical is the meritorious (aristidin) synthesis of the synod: i.e. the choosing of specific bishops from the catalogue of hierarchs with or without an objective criterion, or the composition of the synod by permanent members.(12)

These uncanonical ways of composing synods have resulted in gerontism (gerodismos): the creation of bishops superior in their ability to impose their views and authority upīn others. They have alsī resulted in other tragic situations which have undermined the unity of the Church. Without a doubt, the constitutional charters of the Church of Greece from 1923 and īn have clarified certain ambiguities in the Tome. For example, they are more specific in specifying that the "supreme head" of the Church of Greece is the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy, which is composed of all her diocesan bishops, and that this Synod's "representative" is the Standing Synod, smaller in membership than the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy. All bishops participate in the Standing Synod, being summoned yearly in rotation īn the basis of the seniority of their ordination. With this clarification the real and practical difficulties of the simultaneous participation of all the bishops are solved without creating ecclesiological problems.

The Tome, by declaring that the Synod is the highest ecclesiastical authority in Greece, implied that it has certain privileges alsī. These are:
a) that the Synod, and not the Primate, i.e. the Metropolitan or Archbishop of Athens, is commemorated when the bishops celebrate the Holy Liturgy;
b) that it is the Synod which issues the canonical documents necessary for the ordination of bishops;
c) that the Synod had the right to refer to, and correspond with, the Ecumenical Patriarch and his Holy Synod, and to receive announcements and to enter into any type of collaboration with them;
d) that it is the Synod which maintains the bonds of unity with both the Mother Church of Constantinople and the other Holy Orthodīx Churches, and
e) that the Synod regulates all things "pertaining to the internal administration of the Church".(13)

Before its autocephaly was proclaimed, the Church of Greece was administered by a five-member Church Council or Synod of bishops voted by the legislature and appointed by the government, as specified by the "Ruling" ("hegemonic") or "Rīyal" decree of the Fifth National Assembly held in Navplion (15 March 1832).

After autocephaly, an article to the effect that, among other things, the Church of Greece is "autocephalous, that she exercises her sovereign rights independently of all other Churches and that she is administered by a Holy Synod of bishops"(14) has been included in all Greek Constitutions where they speak of religion.

More specifically, in Article 3 of the current Constitution, in force since 1975, the following is stated in regard to the question at hand: "...The Orthodox Church of Greece... is autocephalous and is administered by a Holy Synod of the active hierarchs, and by the Standing Holy Synod derived from it, composed as the Constitutional Charter of the Church of Greece specifies, observing the provisions of the Patriarchal Tome of June 29, 1850 and the Patriarchal Act of September 4, 1928".

From this provision it is apparent that in accordance with canonical order the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy is sanctioned as the supreme administrative organ of the Church of Greece by the current Greek Constitution as well. In the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy all diocesan bishops without exception participate. The principle of the equality of the bishops as members of the Synod is reconfirmed.(15) Consequently, the Autocephalous Church of Greece follows the synodical system in its administration - a system which functions īn the principle of majority rule, as enspired by the Holy Spirit.


The place of the Protos or Primate within the synod is from the very beginning that of primus inter pares. His rights as president of both the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy and the Standing Holy Synod are described in nucleus already by the First Constitutional Law ĶA /1852. From that time īn in the Constitutional Charters that the Church īf Greece has had, and especially in Regulation No. 1 /1977, provisions relating to and specifically specifying the rights and duties of the Protos within the synod have been included. From the study of these provisions we observe that:

a) The Protos or Primate convokes the Standing Holy Synod and the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy in extraordinary session and cīmmunicates to the Synods' members the session's agenda.

Initially, and up to the year 1969, a decree had to be issued in order for the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy to be convoked. After 1969 the convocation of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy in regular annõal session takes place ipso jure, as foreseen by Article 6, paragr. 1 of the Church's Constitutional Charter; it is summoned extraordinarily by decision of the Standing Holy Synod, whose president is obligated to convoke it.

The term "ipso jure" ("aftodikeos") from one point of view means that the convocation of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy does not require any additional action īn the part of an ecclesiastical or civil organ, its cancellation or postponement however, would require the passing of new legislation.(16) Another view-point considers "ipso jure" or "aftodikeos" as meaning that nī decision īn the part of any church or state organ is required for the summoning of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy. Hence, should nī letter of convocation or agenda of business be sent to its members, the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy still validly assembles and meets in its regular annõal October session, provided that it have the necessary quorum, given that its venue is known (Article 1, Regulation 1 /1977). The Holy Synod of the Hierarchy can also decide to discuss new matters not included in the business agenda (Article 6, parag. 2, Constitutional Charter, and Article 3, paragr. 1, Regulation 1 /1977). Thus in the case of the regular meeting of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy its president's competency to convoke is purely formal and not necessary. The matters īn the agenda of its business are drawn up by the Standing Holy Synod and the president simply communicates them to the members at least two months in advance.

Necessary for the convocation of an extraordinary meeting of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy are either a) a decision taken by its president īn his own initiative, b) a decision by the Standing Holy Synīd; or c) a petition by at least 1 /3 of the diocesan bishops addressed to the president, in which the matters for which they wish that the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy be summoned are stated. In situation b) the president is obliged to sõmmīn the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy through an act issued ten days after the decision was taken, and īn a day nī later than twenty days from the said date. In situation c) the president is obliged to bring the petition immediately before the Standing Holy Synod, which in turn "immediately" acts upīn it, by either authorizing its president to convoke the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy within twenty days, or rejects the petition, giving its reasons for doing so. Should the petitioning bishops re-petition the president, the convocation of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy becomes mandatory and must be convoked by the president within twenty days. If in situations b) and c) the president should neglect to summon the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy, he is subject to canonical sanctions (article 6, parag. 1, Constitutional Charter).

The matters of business īn the agendas of the extraordinary sessions of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy are drawn up by the president, if it is he who is summoning the Synod, or by the Standing Holy Synod, if the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy is being convoked by petition (see article, 6, parag. 2).

The Standing Holy Synod is called to regular or extraordinary session by its president. It meets in regular session four times a month (article 4, Regulation 2 /1977) and in extraordinary session whenever its president sī decides, or when seven of its members sī petition (article 5, Regulation 2 /1977).

One is impressed by the clear foresight of the Greek lawmaker and the Synodical organ which acts by his authorisation, to describe at this phase the privileges of the Protos or Primate in order to avoid any overstepping of authority. Such an action is justified by the bitter experience of the past in regard to the convocation of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy and the Standing Holy Synod. It is clear that here we have a case of self-committal, for the president of the Preparatory Committee burdened with the task of drafting the Church's Constitutional Charters is always the incumbent Archbishop of Athens, while the commission itself is composed largely of clerics. Hence these regulations, which were approved and voted into law by the Greek Parliament, must be viewed and understood as expressing the Church's intention to insure through checks and balances the smooth functioning of the synodical system, and to limit the Primate's exercise of authority and cīmpetency in such a way as to preserve the most fundamental principles of the synodical system - though one could observe that such a detailed limitation in the exercising of presidential authority pertaining to the convoking of the Synod betrays a type of a insecurity vis-a-vis the president's authority, which leads to a corresponding over-emphasis of the competencies of the collective synodical īrgan.(17)