Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/490

 HOLT

432

HOLT

knowledged the Greek synod, in 1850. Since then the Church of Greece is governed by a Holy Synod exactly as is the Church of Russia. A law in 1852 regulated its rights and duties. It meets at Athens under the presidency of the metropolitan of that city. Four other bishops are appointed by the Government as members for a year liy vote. The members take an oath of fidelity to the king and government. Their deliberations are controlled by a royal commissioner, who is a layman chosen liy government, ju.5t like the Russian oberprocuror. No act is valid w-ithout the commissioner's assent. There are also secretaries, writers, and a servant, all appointed by the State. The Holy Synod is the highest authority in the Greek Church and has the same rights and duties as its Russian model. It is named in the liturgy instead of a patriarch. Professor Diomedes Kyriakos (Ekk\. "l(7Topia, III, 155 s(iq.) has tried to defend his Church from the charge of Erastianism with even less suc- cess (and certainly with less reasonableness and moderation) than Provost Maltzew. (See Greece.)

IV. Other Holy Synods. — All the independent Orthodox Churches formed during the nineteenth century have set up Holy Synods. The Churches in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy (Karlowitz since 1765, Hermannstadt, 1864, Czernowitz, 1S7.3) form synods of their bishops to regulate affairs: but, as in this case th^re is no interference of the Government, the situation is different. These .synods are merely free conferences in which all the bishops of each Church take part. The arrangement of the Bulgarian Church (since 1870) is also different, inasmuch as its exarch has a certain amount of individual authority — approaching the position of a patriarch — and there are two governing assemblies. The Holy Synod, under the presidency of the exarch, has four other members, all bishops elected by their fellows for periods of four years. They meet regularly once a year, and ex- ceptionally on other occasions. This synod has a1)- solute authority over the Bulgarian Church in these matters: election of bishops, questions of faith, morals, and rite, ecclesiastical tliseipline, education of the clergy, censorship of books, marriage questions, and disputes among the clergy. The other body, the Exarch's Council, also under his presidency, has six lay members elected liy the people and clergy, confirmed by the Government for four years. The council determines questions of education, building and maintenance of churches, and church finance. Neither body may publish any order without consent of the Government; but their composition, the ap- pointment of memljers, and authority of the exarch show that the Bulgarian Church is less Erastian than her sisters of Russia and (Iroecc. The Church of Servia (since 1879) has five bishops, of whom the Metropolitan of Belgrade is primate. All meet in the Holy Synod under his presidency once a year. The synod appoints bishops an<l regulates all other ecclesi- astical questions. The Rumanian Church (since 1885) has the same arrangement. The president of the synod is the Metropolitan of Wallachia, the other primate (Metropolitan of Moldavia) and all the six remaining bishops are members. Its decisions must have the consent of the Government. The minister of religion attends the sessions, liut only as a consultor. Lastly, the four bishops of Herzegovina and Bosnia (independent since 1880) meet in a kind of synod, called consistory, under the presidency of the Metro- politan of Sarajevo. In this case the (.Austrian) Government does not interfere at all.

Although the synods of Bulgaria, Servia, and Rumania have a certain dependence on the State (whose sanction is necessary for the promulgation of their edicts), there is not in their case anything like the shameless Era.stianism of Russia and Greece. Between these two the only question is whether it be more advantageous for the Church to be ruled by an

irresponsible tyrant or a Balkan Parliament. Lastly, it may be noticed, the church government by synod is a principle destined to flourish among the Orthodox. The secular governments of Orthodox countries en- courage it and approve of it, for obvious reasons. It makes aU the complicated questions of church estab- lishment and endowment in the new Balkan States comparatively easy to solve ; it has a fine air of democ- racy, constitutionalism, parliamentary government, that appeals enormously to people just escaped from the Turk and full of such notions. It seems then that the old patriarchal idea will linger on at Constantino- plcj Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem (though even here, in its original homes, it is getting modified in a con- stitutional direction), but that all new movement in the Orthodox Church will be more and more towards the principles borrowed by Peter the Great from Lutheranism. The vital argument against Holy Di- recting Synods is their opposition to the old tradi- tion, to the strictly monarchic sj'stem of the Church of the Fathers. Strange that this argument should be ignored by people who boast so confidently of their unswerving fidelity to antiquity. " Our Church knows no developments", they told Mr. Palmer triumphantly in Russia. One could easily make a considerable list of Orthodox developments in answer. And one of the most obvious examples would be the system of Holy Synods. What, one might ask, would their Fathers have said of national Churches governerl by com- mittees of Ijishops chosen by the State and controlled by Government officials?

SiLBERNAGL, Verfassung und gegenwdrtioer Bestand siimtlicher Kirchcn des Orients (2nd ed., Ratisbon. 1904); Kattenbusch, Lehrhuch der vtrglcirhcnden Konfessionskunde, I: Die orthodoxe anatolisehe Kirehe (Freiburg im Br.. 1892): Schmitt. Kritisehe GesehiclUe der neygrieehiftrfien und der rtissischen Kirehe (Mainz, 1854); Neale, Ilistori/ of the Hob/ Eastern Chureh, I (London, 1850), iii; Palmiehi, La Chiesa Rt^ssa (Florence. 1908), chap, ii; fioNDAL, I/Hglise russe (P.aris. 1905): Maltzew, Antwort avf die Srhrift des hoehir. II. Rohm (Berlin, 1896): KyriaKOS, 'EKj(A7]<TioffTiKi7 "lo-Topta, III (2nd ed., Athens, 189S).

Adrian Fortescue.

Holy Thursday. See Holy Week; Maundy Thur.sday.

Holy Water. — The use of holy water in the ear- liest days of the Christian Era is attested by docu- ments of only comparatively late date. The ".\po.s- tolic Constitutions", the redaction of which goes back to about the year 400, attribute to the Apostle St. Matthew the precept of using holy water. The letter written under the name of Pope Alexander I, who lived in the second century, is apocryphal and of more recent times; hence the first historical testimony does not go back bcyon<l the fifth century. How- ever, it is permissiljle to suppose for the sake of argu- ment that, in the earliest Christian times, water was used for expiatory and purificatory purposes, in a way analogous to its employment under the Jewish Law. As, in many cases, the water used for the Sacrament of Baptism w.as flowing water, sea or river water, it could not receive the same lilessing as that contained in the baptisteries. On this particular point the early liturgy is obscure, but two recent discoveries are of very decided interest. The Pontifical of Scrapion of Thmuis, a fourth-century Iiishop, and likewi.se the "Testamentum Domini ", a Syriac composition dating from the fifth to (he sixth centurj-, contain a bless- ing of oil and water during Mass. The formula in Serapion's Pontifical is as follows: "We ble.ss these creatures in the Name of .Testis Christ, Thy only Son; we invoke upon this water and this oil the Name of Him Who suffered, \\'\\o was crucified. Who arose from the dead, and Who sits at the right of the Un- created. Grant unto these creatures the power to heal; may all fevers, every evil spirit, and all mal- adies be put to flight by him who either drinks these beverages or is anointed with them, and may they be a remedy in the Name of Jesus Christ Thy only Son."