11.

 What is meant by calling the Church conciliar?

            The word conciliar means “of, relating to, or generated by a council” (American Heritage Dictionary). Calling the Church conciliar underscores the great importance of the Church's Councils. Bishop Alexander of Buenos Aires and South America of the Russian Church in Exile goes on to explain conciliarism as that special state in which bishops decide Church matters, first having prayed and implored the grace of the Holy Spirit. The same bishop adds that through the enlightenment and grace that overshadow bishops gathered in Councils, the most complicated questions are resolved and decisions are made which benefit the Church.

            In the time of the Apostles, misunderstandings arose in Antioch regarding the applicability of the ritual law of Moses. Since there was a need to appeal to a higher authoritative voice or judgment, the Apostles gathered in a Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15), and the decrees of this Council were acknowledged as obligatory for the whole Church (Acts 16:4). By means of the Council of Jerusalem, the Apostles gave an example of the conciliar resolution of the most important questions in the Church for all times.

            It is important to note here that the Apostolic Council speaks especially clearly against the supremacy of the Apostle Peter. If one were to believe the Catholic dogma of the supremacy of the Roman pope, then the Christians of Antioch should have appealed to the Apostle Peter for the resolution of their perplexity. However, they appealed not to Peter, but to all the Apostles and presbyters. At this first Council, the question is subject to a general discussion, and the completion of the matter belongs to the Apostle James. From James’ words (not Peter's), the decision of the Council is written. Also important to note is that Sacred Scripture reveals a number of weighty things that take place: Peter is sent by the Apostles (Acts 8:19), he gives an account of his actions to the Apostles and faithful (Acts 11:4-18), and he also listens to their objections and even denunciations (Gal 2:11-19). These facts demonstrate that Peter was not the prince of the Apostles and the head of the Church, as the Roman Catholic Church falsely teaches.

            Orthodox theology strictly differentiates between the ministry of the Apostles and that of the bishops. As Bishop Alexander Semonov-Tian-Shansky writes in this regard:

The significance of the Apostles was exceptional and in many ways exceeded the significance of bishops. Bishops head local Churches, while the Apostles were wandering preachers of the Gospel. An Apostle, having founded a new Church in some locale, would ordain a bishop for it and would himself go to another place to preach. In consequence of this, the Orthodox Church does not honor the Apostle Peter as the first bishop of Rome. Nonetheless, the Holy Church always allowed that among the bishops one is recognized as first in honor, but concerning his infallibility there is no discussion.

In the first centuries, the primacy of honor belonged to the Roman bishop, but after his falling away into schism, it passed to the patriarch of Constantinople [As quoted from Protopriest Victor Potapov, Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy].

From Apostolic times and throughout the subsequent history of the Church, even prior to Rome's departure from the Church in 1054, no bishop had absolute authority over any other. The Church is not and never was monarchical in structure, centered around a single bishop. Instead, all bishops work together in equality, and all consult with one another to achieve a common mind under the influence of the Holy Spirit. St. Cyprian of Carthage writes that this collegial structure (that is, where all bishops share authority) is based on divine law. If the bishop of Rome was everywhere regarded as the supreme head of the Church, as the Latin Church teaches, why were there no cries of heresy to such statements as that of St. Cyprian?

            From the witness of Church history, many Roman Catholics readily understand these facts and convert to Orthodoxy. One who did, Michael Whelton, wrote an entire book that deals with the Orthodox Church's conciliar tradition (an understanding that Rome itself adhered to prior to the ninth century), vis-à-vis Rome's divisive doctrine of papal monarchy. This author's well researched findings merit special attention. He correctly observes that the early Church was conciliar in its government, that the Ecumenical Councils represented the highest judicial body of the Church, that these Ecumenical Councils were not called to advise the bishop of Rome, and that the bishop of Rome did not enjoy veto power. Mr. Whelton goes on to explain that:

Nowhere in the canons or creeds of these [Ecumenical] Councils do we find any recognition of Rome's claim to supreme universal jurisdiction. None of the Church Fathers or general councils settled doctrinal disputes by appealing to an infallible pope. Claims of infallibility by a single bishop would have been incomprehensible. Furthermore, the idea that the bishop of Rome was superior to a council of the Church and that a council was ecumenical only because the bishop of Rome alone confirmed its decrees was unknown. In fact, all five patriarchs — [those of] Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem — had to confirm the decrees [Two Paths: Papal Monarchy — Collegial Tradition, pp. 52-53].

In another book, the same writer notes that:

For at least the first thousand years, Christendom was an undivided Church governed by councils that offered a common forum for both Churches East and West to settle differences and thus provide a common bond. It is probable beyond doubt that the early Church does not point to the office of a single bishop as the living tradition of the Church, but to an ecumenical consensus or collective conscience, which is best exemplified by the early general councils. It is this model of government that is intrinsic to the nature of the Church and it is this that supplies her with enduring strength and stability [The Pearl, p. 43].

Mr. Whelton adds that:

Today the Orthodox Church is the only Church in Christendom that preserves and guards this collegial tradition; thus she rightly calls herself the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.... Today with her self-governing Churches bound together in a fraternal unity, she presents herself to the world just as the early Church did [Ibid., pp. 43-44].

(In the Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, the Roman Curia was created by Pope Sixtus V [the “iron pope”] in the sixteenth century in order to crush the influence of cardinals and bishops. It is of interest to observe that in April of 2002, when the American cardinals were summoned to the Vatican in response to a scandal in the Latin Church, the cardinals complained that they were treated not like bishops, but like altar boys, by the pope. At that time, the cardinals were clamoring for less dictatorship, and a more conciliar approach to resolving matters).

            The Orthodox Church believes that the council is the chief means by which God has chosen to guide His flock. Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky explains that the highest organ of authority in the Church, and the highest authority in general, is a council of bishops. For a local Church, it is a council of its local bishops, and for the Ecumenical Church, a council of bishops made up of representatives of independent local Churches, in conformity with the Thirty-Fourth Canon of the Holy Apostles.