ECCLESIA

According to the canons, the presidency of the Synod belongs to the Primate. In fact, a synod without a primate is something inconceivable. The Third Apostolic Canon explicitly foresees that the other bishops gathered in synod can do nothing without their primate. Hence it is impossible, canonically speaking, to separate the competency of convoking the Synod from its presidency. He who convokes and he who presides over the synod must be one and the same person. The task of the primate is related to the expression of the Church's unity and hence inseparable from the act of convoking the Synod.(19) From this aspect, ecclesiastical legislation in Greece reserves appearences, since the Church's Constitutional Charter foresees that the president of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy sends out the invitations to the bishops to participate in the Synod - though in reality this is merely a formality, since essentially it is the Synod in its entirety that decides the convocation, and its president is simply summoned to execute its decision.

According to the sacred canons, the convocation of the Synod by the Protos or Primate is equally inconceivable without the consent of the remaining bishops, as is evident from the 34th Apostolic Canïn. All the bishops partake in the convocation of the Synod and the Primate simply serves as the mouth and expression of the bishops. In the Orthodox Church the Primate does not possess any monarchial privileges or authority which he exercises ipso jure. He expresses the communiïn of the Churches and not legal authority.(20) Thus, the Greek lawmaker conformed to this spirit when he decreed, as we have already seen, concerning the presiding over of the Synod in a way permeated by the principle that the local Churches must act in Synod as a unity and not disunitedly, and that the Primate is the basic factor of this unity.(21) Without the Primate, the Synod cannot function. Nor is a collegiate presidency conceivable. Communion (kinonia) is expressed through one person and is deeply related to the concept of the trinitarian life of God, where the communion of the three persons becomes unity ïnly in one person: the hypostasis of the Father. This is also why the 34th Apostolic canon concludes with a reference to the Hïly Trinity.(22)

These correct views were overlooked in 1959 when the majority of the members of the Holy Synod, differing with their president as to the need for proceeding to the election and ordination of new bishops - despite the fact that the Primate had adjourned the meeting and departed - remained and, without their president and inspite of his disapproval, continued to meet and make decisions. In the tumult that insued many reliable scholars were involved and supported two diametrically opposing viewpoints. According to the one side, the Archbishop of Athens is not "Protos" or Primate in the sense mentioned in the 34th Apostolic Canïn, since the Greek Constitution and the Church's Constitutional Charter "establish two collegiate organs, the Standing Hïly Synod and the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy, with no other jurisdiction of the Archbishop save to preside over these, and indeed with the alternate possibility of having a substitute preside in cases of absence or impediment. Indeed, according to this view, should the president be absent or hindered from attending, the session is not cancelled but the Synod is presided over by him who has the seniority of ordination to the episcopate from among those present. This view is substantiated by ecclesiastical practice in that the Archbishop of Athens is not commemorated by the Metropolitans in the Holy Liturgy - as would be the case if he were "Protos" or Primate but, ïn the contrary, the Metropolitans - equal in every respect to the Archbishop, who acts as Metropolitan within the precincts of his diocesan area - commemorate, in accordance with article 30 of the Church's Constitutional Charter "the Holy Synod". On the other hand, the Metropolitans of the "Íew Territories" who are "spiritually" connected with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, commemorate both the Holy Synod and the Patriarch, because the latter for them is their spiritual, but not administrative, Primate.(23) "In the opposite viewpoint, maintained by my friend and old schoolmate, Mr. Ì. Bacopoulos, the presidents of collegiate bodies, sensing that the bodies would vote contrary to their [i.e. the presidents'] desires, could adjourn the sessions before the voting and thus avoid, either temporarily or eíen completely, distasteful decisions, thereby gaining the necessary time to influence the majority. I do not imagine that my friend would acquiesce to such an action ïn the part of the president of Parliament".(24)

Others maintained that it is the inalienable right of the Protos not only to convene, but also to dissolve the session of the Synod, which in nï way can convene and meet when the Protos does not so desire. Finally the Legal Council of State, the Nation's supreme legal and administrative council, decided that the decisions of the Synod taken after the Archbishop's departure lack legal validity. This view prevailed, and the entire issue ended with the upholding of the canonical order.(25)

c) He has one vote - as do the other members of the Synod - in accordance with the fixed principle of equality which characterizes all the bishops. As in the case of all collective organs, ïnly in the event of a tie vote does the vote of the president prevail. This is by nï means an indication of superiority but simply a practical solution to a fairly rare problem.

d) He directs the discussions in Synod. More specifically, he proposes a three-member Press Committee (article 4, paragr. 3, Regulation 1 /77). He declares the opening and closing of the sessions, gives or takes away the floor (i.e. the right to speak), is responsible for the faithful observence and application of the Rules of Order of the Holy Synod of the Hierarchy and for the propriety of the deliberations, having the right to adjourn the session in order to preserve such propriety (article 9, paragr. 1, article. 11, paragr. 1). The President of the Holy Synod can also interrupt the speaker should the latter deviate from the matter under discussion. He can order that whatever is said after the "floor" has been taken away from the speaker be stricken from the record. He calls the speaker back to order should the latter be out of order, and if necessary, can censure him or even bar him from one to three of the next sessions. He is the last to vote, and in the case of their absence has the right to regresent more than one member of the Synod. In deviation from ordinary procedure, he can introduce to the Hïly Synod of the Hierarchy regulations to be voted upïn and can allïw entrance to the meeting chamber of persons other than the Synodical members.

As concerns the Standing Holy Synod, its president, in conformity with article 10, Regulation 2 /77, convenes the body by invitation, draws up the working agenda, directs the discussions and makes announcements.

e) He acts, by authorization of the Standing Holy Synod, during the interim period between sessions. Despite the fact that this ordinance was nullified by decision 961 /78 of the Council of State, it continues to be in force, for at the end of each final monthly session, the Standing Holy Synod grants special authorization to its president to dispatch by himself routine business in the Synod's name.

This established procedure, in conjunction with the fact that the Synod is convoked only four times a month, circumvents in practice the Synodical institution's functioning in Greece, since during the greater part of the year the Church is governed by the Archbishop alone, acting "by authorization" of the Synod, which is summoned posterori to approve business already finished and matters already completed, many of which cannot really be characterized as routine business but rather are grave and important issues upon which synodical decisions and actions ought to have been taken.

The previous system whereby the Standing Holy Synod was summoned twice weekly was more in harmony with canonical practice, and more in the interest of the Church and her synodical government. It eliminated any accusation against the Primate, who nï longer had any cause to handle by himself and in absence of the Synod any crucial ecclesiastical business.

f) In the event of the demise or resignation of a diocesan bishop, he appoints as Locum Tenens of the vacated diocese a bishop of one of the bordering dioceses: viz. him who has the seniority of ordination (article 23, paragr. 1, Constitutional Charter).

g) He presides over the Ecclesiastical Court of the Second Instance, which deals with charges brought against bishops.

h) In conformity with article 28 of the Church's Constitutional Charter, he commemorates all "Orthodox bishops" while celebrating the Divine Liturgy.

i) Through a proposal in which he explicitly states his reasons, and which he submits to the Standing Holy Synod, he can provoke a decision whereby an active Metropolitan can be suspended for a period of six months if there are serious reasons pertaining to his person, or if such a suspension is in the interest of the Church, public welfare or social tranquility (Article 15, Law 1351 /83).

This provision, which up to the present has never been applied, while nït unconstitutional, has been judged as being uncanonical and "contrary to all those holy canons which deal with the bishop's position in the Church as the president of the Eucharistic Community. It strikes a blïw at the Church's ecclesiological structure, and dynamites its foundations, and thus violates the Holy Canons, which have constitutional force".(26) Of course it is a known fact that this provision was enacted for a specific reason and because of the Church's inability to confront a specific internal matter. Such ordinances however, betray a dangerous secularization, since the bishop is not simply an administrative organ but possesses an outstanding ecclesiological and charismatic position in the Church, something which Greek Laws have often overlooked.

Because of this deliberate misinterpretation of the bishop's place within Orthodox theology and his position as president of the Eucharistic gathering, which "unites the Church of Christ in time and place", the Greek Lawmaker and the courts were influenced in supporting view or taking actions in conflict with Orthodox canonical ethos.(27) This is precisely what happened in the Greek State's recent interference in the inner affairs of the Church, not only by essentially confiscating mïnastic properties but alsï by attempting to order the internal affairs of the Church - not only in outright opposition to the Hierarchy's opinion, but also with the clear intent of limiting its canonical rights. In Greece, the Lawmaker understands the bishop as being the head of a public service, and not as a Church functionary, thereby ignoring fundamental Church institutions. Among other things, proof of this is the fact that all the above-mentioned competencies of the President of the Synod come under the supervision of the Council of State, which has the power to nullify any of his actions which might be called into question. This means that he is viewed as exercising public administration - the Church being considered to be a legal public entity, and all laws applying to such entities are applicable to the Church.

If this mentality does not change, and if the Church and her canonical institutions are not dealt with in the proper canonical way, many are the evils which will arise. The recent events in Church-State relations in Greece bring to the fore the question of separation of Church and State as a solution to the problem of the continuous interference ïn the part of the State in ecclesiastical affairs, to the Church's detriment. Unfortunately, such interventions ïn the State's part have brought only ills to both Church and State, despite the good disposition and intentions towards the Church of various past governments.

From all that we have said above, we are able to list the following conclusions:

1. The Synodical System is in force in the Orthodox Church of Greece, as it is in all the other Local Orthodox Churches. It deals with both general and important issues. The Synodical System is a canïnical and traditiïnal institution dating from Christian antiquity. In it participate all bishops without exception.

2. The role of the Protos or Primate is limited to ensuring the smooth and unhindered functioning of the synodical system, thereby guaranteeing Church unity. In the past, deviations from this principle have resulted in the creation of interval Church problems which were solved through State intervention.

3. None the less, the Protos in the Church of Greece up to now still maintains substantial influence over the bishops and acts in this direction in an indeterminate but decisive manner.

Metropolitan Christodoulos of Demetrias (now Archbishop of Athens and all Greece)