The Ecclesiology of Archbishop Stylianos The Truth of Christ S Presence in The World Throughout Time

The Ecclesiology of Archbishop Stylianos
The Truth of Christ’s Presence

in the World Throughout Time
Philip Kariatlis
St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College
Abstract: Twentieth century understandings of the Church from within

Orthodox circles pre-eminently focused much attention on what came
to be known as ‘communion ecclesiology’, and more specifically
examining this important ecclesiological teaching almost exclusively
from within a ‘eucharistic’ dimension. In this way, the claim that the
Church is constituted when the faithful gather together to celebrate
the Eucharist was presupposed and almost universally accepted.
Contemporary Orthodox ecclesiology, however, is beginning to put
forward other understandings which see the Church from a broader
sacramental and ascetical perspective, in this way wanting to move
away from a strict identification of the Church exclusively with
the Eucharist. Whilst not rejecting the paradigm of ‘communion’,
or for that matter ‘eucharistic ecclesiology’, Harkianakis, an
Orthodox hierarch and author of a considerable number of writings
in ecclesiology from the last century, put forward a different, and
rather straightforward—yet at the same time profound—teaching of
the Church’s claim to truth, based on God’s abiding presence within
her, which, unfortunately, is yet to be fully appreciated. This article
will critically examine the ecclesiology of Harkianakis, detailing
his understanding of the Church as the place par excellence where
the truth of Christ’s abiding presence within the world throughout
time is manifested. What will surface is a wonderfully inclusive
understanding of the Church, which reveals the important role of all
within the Church, both clergy and baptised laity, in the task of with
upholding the truth of Christ in the world.
Introductory Remarks
The work of late Archbishop Stylianos (Harkianakis) of Australia,

especially in the area of ecclesiology, stands at the forefront of twentieth
century Orthodox theology. Indeed, it could be said that his numerous
PHRONEMA, VOL. 35(1), 2020, 59-96

59
The Ecclesiology of Archbishop Stylianos ...
works in this area—monographs, articles, presentations etc.—all disclose

an underlying common thread, one which attempts to bring to the fore the
truth of the Church and her inherently communal mode of existence. In
this regard, his ecclesiology is genuinely one which reflects the authentic
roots of the Church as portrayed both in the Scriptural and Patristic
traditions. Together with a concern to highlight the Church as truth and
koinonia, his writings equally sought to address some of the burning
contemporary ecclesiological issues of his time. Accordingly, his works
on the Church, far removed from being rarefied speculative theological
abstractions which largely dominated early twentieth century Orthodox
theology, are, on the contrary, both existentially relevant, and, as will be
argued, have made a significant contribution in strengthening the Church’s
self-understanding. Furthermore, his ecclesiology is essentially one
which attempted to examine critically the extent to which the empirical
ecclesial body practically and concretely reflected the theological vision
of the Church. Theologically speaking, his distinction between what he
coined as ‘dogmatic’ and ‘empirical’ ecclesiology was an original and
important contribution to ecclesiology, since it brought attention to the all-
important task of the historically concrete Church continually striving to
better reflect her theological vision.1 Indeed, his theological works on the
Church are an attempt to engage critically with, and respond to, the needs
of his time. Underpinning these concerns, and what remained constant for
Harkianakis, was his vision of the Church as a mystery beyond the grasp
of human knowledge and imagination, and yet, at the same time really
able to touch and transfigure the world. Consequently, as will be shown,
terms such as ‘traditional’ and ‘dynamic’, if such terms must be used,
aptly describe the ecclesiology of Harkianakis.
1 Writing for the Academic Presentation of the Association of Theologians of

Halki (in Greek) in 1994, Harkianakis distinguished between what he coined
as ‘dogmatic’ and ‘empirical’ ecclesiology. Whilst the task of ‘theological’
ecclesiology is to express the ‘ideal’ Church, ‘empirical’ ecclesiology examines
the extent to which this has been incarnated in the every day life of the historical
Church. This article also appeared in English in the annual review of St
Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College, Sydney Australia entitled ‘The
“Positives” and “Negatives” of Orthodoxy in the New World,’ Phronema 10
(1995): 5-22.
60
Phronema Volume 35(1), 2020
Essentially, an underlying conviction in all his writings is the

simple conviction in the truth of the Church, more specifically in
the truth of Christ’s presence in the gathered people of God. This is
presented at length in his doctoral dissertation, The Infallibility of
the Church in Orthodox Theology.2 Unfortunately, however, this all-
important work has received little attention, even though its contribution
to ecclesiology is undeniably significant. It is for this reason, that this
article will endeavour to present Harkiankis’ understanding of the truth
of the Church principally as presented in the work mentioned above,
together with those structures inherent within her nature which manifest
this aspect of the ekklesia. To appreciate why Harkianakis should have
regarded the Church as infallible, it is necessary to recognise his firm
conviction that the Church was genuinely related to God and as such
could not but rightly proclaim the truth of God for the world’s salvation
and the glorification of God. That is to say, Harkianakis understood the
Church as infallible as a natural consequence of God’s presence within
the life of the ekklesia, and therefore his theology of the Church’s
infallibility was simply a way to point to the real communion between
God and the world. Accordingly, the aim of this article will be to analyse
in detail Harkianakis’ vision of the Church as truth. This will show
how intimately linked the notions of infallibility, truth and communal
presence are. Indeed, following Harkianakis’ methodology, the notion
of infallibility will firstly be defined, and after that, an assessment of
the extent to which there are Scriptural antecedents which point to the
Church’s infallibility. Before endeavouring to present Harkianakis’
theology of the infallibility of the Church in terms of object, bearer
and organ of infallibility, an analysis of certain concrete ecclesiological
realities relating directly to infallibility will be undertaken. These
will include the notion of Church as the ‘centre of salvation’ and
‘communion of faithful’, together with his understanding of ‘apostolic
succession’ and ‘conscience of the Church’. This will provide further
justification and will shed light on the theological claim of the Church’s
2 Stylianos S. Harkianakis, The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology

[in Greek] (Athens, 1965). Later translated by Philip Kariatlis (Adelaide,
Sydney: ATF Press, St Andrew’s Orthodox Press, 2008).
61
infallibility. All this will demonstrate a simple yet profound truth of the
Church’s claim that she rightly proclaims the word of truth and protects
her faithful from all erroneous teachings. In so doing, we will have
shown the that the Church, to the extent that it makes Christ’s presence
a reality throughout time, is indeed the foundation of all theological
discourse.
The Meaning of the Church’s Infallibility
Harkianakis began his analysis of the infallibility of the Church by

highlighting the etymological synonymity between the notions of ‘truth’
(ἀλήθεια)3 and ‘infallibility’ (ἀλάθητον). He noted that in the Greek,
both words were derived from the alpha privative (-ἀ-) and the verb ‘to
lay hidden’ (λανθάνω)4. Therefore, infallibility meant that which cannot
remain hidden, or that which has been revealed. This led Harkianakis to
draw a relationship between infallibility (ἀλάθητον), truth (ἀλήθεια) and
revelation (ἀποκάλυψις). Any pejorative echoes of the term ‘infallibility’5
interpreted in terms of perfectionism, were thus dispelled from the very
outset since infallibility essentially denoted truth. More specifically,
the Church’s claim of infallibility, argued Harkianakis, was ultimately
her claim to divinely revealed truth. From this finding, Harkianakis
proceeded to define infallibility in a most general way as that attribute of
the human spirit towards truth,6 linking it with the very nature of religious
3 In regards to truth Harkianakis wrote: “truth is called in the Greek language

aletheia, an unforgetting, an uncovering and not an invention as happens in
the technical world.” Stylianos Harkianakis, ‘The Ecclesiology of Vatican II,’
Diakonia 2:3 (1967): 233-249, 234.
4 Such an understanding of infallibility can also be derived from the etymological
root of the term ‘infallibility’ itself. In Latin infallibilis is a combination of the
negative ‘in’ (not) and ‘fallibilis’ (from ‘fallere’ meaning to let slip, take a false
step, to lead astray, to deceive or to delude). From such an analysis infallibility
could then be taken to mean something which is free from error, that is to say
true.
5 At this point, Harkianakis noted further that the question of infallibility has
become particularly problematic not only because of the Roman Catholic
teaching on papal infallibility but also, within the Orthodox tradition as a result
of the confusion created by A.S. Khomiakov’s sobornost theory.
6 Harkianakis, Infallibility, 9.
62
truth. In the opening chapter of his dissertation, Harkianakis argued that

infallibility was an integrative factor of all religions in general including
that of the Church in particular. From a psychological or religious
perspective, Harkianakis correctly noted that any belief system held by
human persons, irrespective of what it was, had to be seen as true. By
definition, he asserted that the religious phenomenon did not allow for
compromise in its teachings but necessitated an assurance of truth. In
an insightful passage regarding the human psyche in respect to religion,
Harkianakis noted that human persons,
are always spiritually prepared to confront, in stoic fashion,

everything at every moment of their life, even to make
concessions and numerous compromises. However, one area
where the human conscience cannot endure any relativity or
illusion is that of eternity, that is the sphere of religion.7
Harkianakis’ understanding of the notion of infallibility, as an innate

postulate of all major religions set the widest possible parameters from
where he would commence a comprehensive analysis of the notion of
infallibility. Harkianakis’ conclusion regarding the notion of infallibility
in religion generally was that Christian theology could not ultimately
base its argument on such a subjective perspective to truth, especially
in view of the fall, and therefore the approach was deemed to be of
secondary importance. Besides, in relation to Christian theology, truth
was primarily a divine revelation of the will of God necessitating a
human response and not a subjective search for truth initiated by the
human person.
Having discussed the notion of infallibility as an essential element

of religion in general, Harkianakis turned his attention to infallibility as
an attribute of the Church. Right from the outset, he defined infallibility
in the following way:
Infallibility is an attribute of the Church whereby the Church
7 Ibid., 9.
63
safeguards the teaching entrusted to it from every error, and

rightly defines the word of truth through the power of the Holy
Spirit residing in her.8
Harkianakis’ definition identified two aspects of infallibility within the

life of the Church, both resulting from the Holy Spirit’s action towards
the Church.9 These two aspects included what one could call an active
and passive action of the Holy Spirit: firstly, as a positive quality,
infallibility was described as an act of divine grace which bestowed upon
the Church the irrevocable assurance that it could rightly proclaim the
savings truths of God. The second aspect of infallibility affirmed that the
teaching entrusted to the Church could be safeguarded from all possible
error. Beyond the divine-human dynamic at work in the infallibility of
the Church, since the human responsibility to uphold the truth, given
by the Holy Spirit, was not overlooked, Harkianakis fundamentally
identified the Church’s claim to infallibility in its communion with the
divine. Fundamentally, Harkianakis affirmed that the Church’s claim to
infallibility, in its historical journey, lay in its intimate communion with
Christ and the Holy Spirit leading it back to God, the Father.
In building upon his foundational meaning of infallibility,

Harkianakis went on to observe that the Greek word for infallibility
(ἀλάθητον) could be used both as an abstract noun and as an adjective.10
As an abstract noun, Harkianakis pointed out that the notion of
infallibility, in this case, implied an intrinsic attribute of the Church
which enabled it to be true. In this sense, infallibility denoted the very
essence of the Church’s mode of existence by which it was enabled to
8 Ibid., 14.
9 In explicitly stating that it was the presence of the Holy Spirit which upheld
the Church in truth, Harkianakis clearly connected the notion of infallibility
with the Holy Spirit. Therefore Matsoukas’ assertion that Harkianakis “does not
present anywhere a correlation between infallibility and Pneumatology” does
not stand. N. Matsoukas, Dogmatic and Comparative Theology: An Exposition
of the Orthodox Faith in Juxtaposition to Western Christianity [in Greek], 2nd
impression, (Thessalonika: Pournaras Press, 1996), 436.
64
be true or credible to itself. On this very issue, he stressed the following:

“infallibility means the fidelity of the Church towards itself, the fidelity
of God towards her … and the fidelity of the Church towards God.”11
Far from being understood in terms of ultimate perfection, infallibility,
according to Harkianakis was a moral consequence resting primarily upon
God’s promise to the Church of the Holy Spirit’s permanent presence
and, of course the Church’s response in remaining faithful to this gift.
Derived from this, Harkianakis also pointed out that the Greek word
ἀλάθητον could be used as an adjective denoting the Church’s ad extra
operation.12 Harkianakis saw the two notions of infallibility, both as noun
and adjective in a correlative way, since the Church could only claim to
have infallible manifestations when it was intrinsically infallible herself
and only by infallibly manifesting herself could she be infallible.13 It
would seem inevitable for most people of the modern era, having grown
up in a movement of emancipation and liberation, to associate infallibility
with a whole series of ideas with negative associations. For these people,
infallibility denotes an oppression of conscience, a rejection of freedom,
rigidity and intolerance coupled with binding dogmas and regulations.
Infallible claims, they would argue, reject their rights to see critically,
think and judge for themselves. Against this background, obedience to a
Church with her claims to absolute truth is met with outright rejection or,
at least remains, for them, silently inconceivable. Still others influenced
by a spirit of critical rationalism, which claims that truth can never be
fully asserted with definite finality, reject the notion of infallibility.14
And yet, for Harkianakis, the Church’s claim to truth rested on Christ’s
promise that he would remain within the world through the Spirit, making
11 Ibid., 76.
12 Ibid., 75.
13 Ibid.
14 It could be argued that Hans Küng, in his book Infallible? An Unresolved Enquiry
(London: SCM Press, 1994) is influenced by this spirit of critical rationalism and
therefore he cannot accept infallibility as freedom from error; he therefore opts
for the notion of indefectibility. To be fair, to the extent that Küng wrote that
the Church is preserved in truth, it could be said that he accepts Harkianakis’
definition of infallibility. For an extensive critical review of Küng’s work refer
to Stylianos Harkianakis, ‘On the Problem of the Teaching Authority in the
Church,’ Kleronomia 3:1 (1971): 95-110 [in Greek].
65
infallibility not only an inherent characteristic of the Church, but also, a

possibility in the Church’s action within the world. Having provided a
definition of infallibility, Harkianakis sought to clarify and amplify this
understanding by providing a Scriptural justification of infallibility, and
it is towards this Scriptural assessment that our attention is now turned.
Scriptural Understanding of Infallibility
In order to appreciate the pivotal importance of the notion of infallibility

in the Church, Harkianakis sought to shed light on its meaning from
the Scriptural tradition. His analysis of the biblical data is extremely
important, especially given those theologians in the twentieth century
of both the Eastern and Western traditions, who tried to show that there
are no indications of infallibility in the canonical Scriptures.15 Since the
concepts of infallibility and truth are, for Harkianakis, directly related, this
meant that, just as the fullness of truth was given by God only beginning
with the event of the incarnation of his Son, so too was infallibility. The
reason that the incarnation played such a central role in Harkianakis’
ecclesiology is that it is in this saving event that the Church no longer
had ‘words’ testifying to God but had the Word Himself. Harkianakis
identified a gradual development of the concept of infallibility in the Old
Testament where its fullness would only be made manifest in the New
Testament. Therefore, Harkianakis emphasised that infallibility within
the Church was gradually given: “since in the Old Testament one does
not yet find the revelation of truth as consummated as ‘fullness’, we may
say therefore that theology in the Old Testament entails only a prelude
to the infallibility of the Church.”16 Indeed, Harkianakis identified two
periods in the Old Testament within which the notion of infallibility
gradually developed—a ‘natural’ or ‘supernatural’ period.17 The creation
15 An obvious example is Hans Küng who, in his book Infallibility? An Unresolved

Enquiry argued that that there was no Scriptural basis for the infallibility in the
Church.
17 Even though his doctoral dissertation spoke of ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’
period, he would later opt for ‘ordinary’ and ‘extraordinary’ periods since even
with the supernatural period God made use of natural and created means—such
66
of the human person ‘in the image and according to the likeness’ of God’
(Gen 1:26) constituted the ‘natural’ or ‘seminal’ basis for the notion of
infallibility within the Church. Harkianakis argued that since the human
person has by grace the possibility to become godlike (θεοειδής)—
in the case of infallibility the human person was given the necessary
presuppositions to arrive at the truth of God—this was a presupposition
for infallibility. In this way the ᾽natural᾽ period represented a prelude
to the infallibility of the Church in the New Testament. Within the
‘extraordinary’ period, Harkianakis identified the idea of infallibility
firstly in the covenant made by God to Noah and subsequently in all
those promises made by God to the patriarchs, prophets and righteous
people of the Old Testament.18 The intense interest on the part of God
to continue an unwavering communication with human persons through
covenanting, highlighted, for Harkianakis, God’s gift of truth to his
chosen people—that is, the offer of infallibility to the Church. It is at
this point that Harkianakis beautifully linked the notion of infallibility
with communion: “if the notion of Church signifies God’s communion
with humanity by grace, then for this communion to remain stable in the
face of human nature’s fluidity, it must be safeguarded by the Church
through the grace of infallibility.”19 This gift of infallibility signified
for Harkianakis the means by which God’s gift of communion with the
world in the Church could be safeguarded.
Whereas the Old Testament provided ‘seeds’ or ‘shadows’ of

infallibility, the New Testament, according to Harkianakis, was explicit
on the matter of the fullness of truth disclosed by the person of Christ.20
Harkianakis identified both implicit and explicit representative references
to the notion of infallibility in the New Testament. Accordingly, the most
explicit New Testament references of the infallibility of the Church were
those in which Christ promised that the Church would be maintained in
truth. Having identified himself with truth (cf. John 14:6), Christ promised
a voice, light, tone, vision—in his gradual revelation to the world.

18 Harkianakis, Infallibility, 24-25.
19 Ibid., 25.
20 Ibid., 25-29.
67
that He would send “the Spirit of truth” (Jn 16:13) who would guide the
Church “into all the truth” (Jn 16:13) and remain within it “always, to
the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20). Furthermore, the letter to Timothy
expressed, for Harkianakis, the reality of infallibility in its description of
the Church as “the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). It
was his identification of infallibility with truth that enabled Harkianakis
to argue for the existence of Scriptural evidence for the infallibility of
the Church. He also noted that the inerrant nature of the Church was
also clearly suggested in that passage where Christ assured his disciples
that the gates of Hades would not prevail against the Church (cf. Mt
16:18). The above passages emphasised the deep communion between
the Church and Christ, which for Harkianakis, pointed to the Church’s
infallibility. Elsewhere, he continued:
Inasmuch as this relation constitutes the fruit of a consummated

reconciliation of the human person realised through the
crucifixion of the Lord, it also constitutes the ultimate justification
for the infallibility of the Church because, in the final analysis,
infallibility refers to the immutability of the essence of God
… the mere identification of the Son of God with the Church
is sufficient to indicate its immediate relationship with the
immutable Trinitarian God.21
Harkianakis argued that Christ’s identification with the Church, indeed

his hypostatic union with it, indicated the Church’s intimate communion
with the Trinity as a whole. Indeed this identification of the Church to the
unchangeable essence of God was the final guarantee of the infallibility
of the Church.
In discussing Harkianakis’ explicit Scriptural passages which

indicated the infallibility of the Church, one needs to distinguish two
elements which together formed the internal relationship between Christ
and the Church—the divine and human factors. The ‘theanthropic’
element in this identification involved not only Christ’s communion with
the Church but also the Church’s response to this gift in all fidelity. Thus,
21 Ibid., 26.
68
one of the most essential elements in Harkianakis’ vision of the Church is

its divine-human nature where the divine descends to communicate with
humanity but where the human principle also responds by ascending
to the divine. This synergism is expressed in terms of the Church’s
faithfulness to the truth revealed by God: “For this reason, when speaking
of infallibility, greater attention should be given to the other image of
Paul which depicts the Church as ‘bride of Christ’, because through this
image the personal element of the Church is expressed.”22 The Church’s
faithfulness is made manifest in its constant desire as the ‘bride’ of Christ
to remain in communion with Christ (the bridegroom), petitioning him to
“Come!” (Revelation 22:17). If for Harkianakis the notion of infallibility
stemmed from God, nevertheless, significantly important was the moral
contribution of the creaturely factor in the manifestation and consolidation
of the infallibility of the Church. In being a theanthropic institution, the
human factor does not remain neutral. Rather the faithful response of the
world to God’s gift of communion is a necessary component.23
Having indicated the explicit Scriptural passages, which dealt with

infallibility, Harkianakis’ argument turned to identifying those equally
important implicit passages which served to highlight the infallibility of
the Church. In particular Harkianakis recognised two Pauline categories
of Scriptural passages which indirectly illustrated the infallibility of the
Church—namely the Church as ‘the body of Christ’ and the Church as
‘the bride of Christ’. A third category identified by Harkianakis was
that of the Johannine image of the Church in terms of a ‘family’. In St
Paul’s description of the Church as ‘body’ of Christ, with Christ as “the
head over all things for the Church” (Ephesians 1:22-23; cf. Colossians
1:18; Eph 4:4-16; 5:23; 1 Corinthians 12:12-31), there is an indirect
suggestion, according to Harkianakis of the infallibility of the Church
22 Ibid., 28.
23 For an insightful study of the theanthropic element in the life of the Church
in general, see Stylianos Harkianakis, ‘Dogma and Authority in the Church,’
Phronema 12 (1997): 8-23. This was also affirmed in Harkianakis’ article
entitled ‘Dangers of Idealism in Theology and Spirituality,’ Phronema 3 (1987):
3-10.
69
on account of its intimate communion with Christ. In other places, the

Church is described as the bride of Christ “that has no spot or wrinkle,
or any such thing” (Eph 5:27; cf. Hosea 1-3; Jeremiah 2:2; Isiah 54:6).
Harkianakis argued that whilst the latter was often overlooked in favour
of the ‘body’ image for the Church, it nevertheless signified an equally
important reality as it referred to the personal fidelity of each member of
the Church to Christ. Further arguing in favour of each person’s faithful
response to the gift of infallibility Harkianakis noted the importance of
the Church depicted in “family” imagery.24 Therefore those who received
Jesus Christ and “who believed in his name, he gave power to become
children of God … from his fullness we have all received, grace upon
grace. The law indeed was given through Moses; grace and truth came
through Jesus Christ” (Jn 1:12-17). All the above clearly indicated for
Harkianakis a close relationship and the presence of God in the Church
which could not therefore be anything but true, namely, infallible.
The Church as ‘Centre of Salvation’ and ‘Communion of Faithful’
Having provided a Scriptural justification to the notion infallibility,

Harkianakis went on to examine certain concrete ecclesiological realities25
constitutive for understanding the notion of infallibility. One of the major
strengths was his ability to operate on the theoretical level of the Church,
as he did with his analysis of infallibility from the Scriptures, while at the
same time acknowledging fully the concrete and historical level as well.
In wanting to avoid any one-sidedness in regards to the mystery of the
Church, Harkianakis’ ecclesiology at this point manifested a profound
multi-dimensionality that has been unmatched in the twentieth century.
This was accomplished in his description of the Church both as ‘centre

25 Harkianakis identified five of these realities which manifested clearly the
dynamics of infallibility within the life of the Church. They were the following:
1) The Church as centre of salvation and as communion of faithful; b) an overall
assessment of mystery and word; c) the notions of justice and Church or law
and gospel; d) meaning and significance of apostolic succession and e) the
conscience of the Church. Due to word limitations, the three most significant
ones will be examined, namely, the first, fourth and fifth.
70
of salvation’ and ‘communion of faithful’. Harkianakis identified that

Orthodox theology had not always formulated the nature and function of
the Church with the necessary clarity. This could been seen, for example,
in the different descriptions which ranged from the Church understood
as being ‘democratic’ on the one side, to ‘hierocratic’ on the other. For
Harkianakis the Church was neither, since, in reality, she is a gift of the
communion of the Holy Spirit bestowed upon the world so as to bring
the latter into unity with God. Harkianakis therefore argued that the
church could not be ruled either by the people (democratic) or by the
hierarchy (hierocratic). For this reason in later discussions Harkianakis
would argue that the Church is a “hierarchical pneumatocracy”26—that
is an ordered community governed by the Holy Spirit. Harkianakis noted
that of one of the reasons for the imprecise self-understanding of the
Church could be attributed to the exaggerated use of one image of the
Church as the ‘body of Christ’ at the expense of others. At one point,
he indicated that: “if this [the body of Christ] ecclesological category is
taken in isolation then the danger frequently occurs that, since the head
of the body is the founder of the Church, Jesus Christ Himself, then the
difference between the members will disappear.”27 Harkianakis pointed
out that whilst the ‘body’ imagery of the Church highlighted its intimate
communion with God it ran the risk of depersonalising its individual
members. In order to avoid the dangers of a one sided ecclesiology
which based itself almost entirely on an understanding of the Church as
the body of Christ28 Harkianakis went on to present the importance of a
proper understanding of the Church in her two aspects, namely, as ‘centre
of salvation’ and ‘communion of faithful’.29 Furthermore the distinction
helped in distinguishing the proper roles between clergy and laity in
communion as the ‘people of God’. In what follows is an examination of
these two important aspects, as they are outlined by Harkianakis, in order
26 Lectures delivered in ecclesiology at St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological

College (Sydney), 2003. This is a development of his original designation
provided in his doctoral dissertation where the Church was there described as
“hierarchical democracy.” Harkianakis, Infallibility, 40.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid., 41.
29 Ibid.
71
to see how they shed light on the distinctive roles of all the faithful within
the body of the Church and to see at what point the two aspects coincide
historically and ontologically.
Centre of Salvation
Regarding the truth of the Church as ‘centre of salvation’ Harkianakis

noted the importance placed on the Church as ‘ark of salvation’ in
twentieth century ecclesiological studies. Indeed, many of these
were based on the famous aphorism of St Cyprian of Catharge, ‘extra
ecclesiam nulla salus’ (outside the Church there is no salvation),30 which
subsequently led to theology’s recognition and affirmation of the Church’s
saving capabilities. Yet, Harkianakis warned against any exclusive
interpretation of Cyprian’s statement which led to the conclusion that
some people would indeed be excluded from God’s salvation. Like
Florovsky, Harkianakis claimed that the categorical strength and point
of this statement lay in its tautology—that is that outside the Church
there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church.31 Without wanting
to delve into Origen’s apocatastasis theory which the Church formally
condemned in the sixth century, Harkianakis argued that the true meaning
of this statement could only be understood if it were approached in a
positive way. That is, Harkianakis suggested that Cyprian’s aphorism
meant to emphasise, as strongly as possible, the absolute necessity
and importance of the Church as the means of communion with, and
salvation in, God. Continuing his reflection on this point, Harkianakis
argued that such a positive and inclusive interpretation of Cyprian’s
famous adage was possible if one did not identify the institutional and
charismatic boundaries of the Church. If the Church, argued Harkianakis
30 In fact, throughout the twentieth century Orthodox scholarship has given various
different interpretations of this statement which can not occupy us at this point.
For an insightful overview on the debate refer to Emmanuel Clapsis, ‘The
Boundaries of the Church: An Orthodox Debate,’ Orthodoxy in Conversation
(Geneva: WCC Publications, 2000): 114-126 and Georges Florovsky, ‘The
Boundaries of the Church,’ Ecumenism I: A Doctrinal Approach (Vaduz:
Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1989): 36-45.
31 Georges Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition (Belmont: Büchervertriebsanstalt,
1987), 37-38.
72
is guaranteed by the presence of the Holy Spirit, then one cannot be sure
who is outside the embrace of the Church since the Spirit blows where it
chooses (cf. Jn 3:8). It may be added, noted Harkianakis that there may
well be members of the Church who are not visibly within, but whose
membership is known to God alone. As St Augustine wisely remarked,
“How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!”32 If
anyone is saved, they must, in some sense be a member of the Church; yet
in what sense, it cannot always be said. Therefore the truth of Cyprian’s
difficult statement, argued Harkianakis, made more sense if seen as a
hope and a promise for the community of the Church which diligently
sought to give selfless and unpretentious service for the salvation of the
whole world. For no one could surely claim a monopoly on salvation
as this would undermine the universality of God’s love. Here, we see
a profound broadness in Harkianakis’ ecclesiological vision, one which
did not wish to reduce the Church to her institutional boundaries.
Communion of Faithful
Harkianakis’ analysis of the Church as centre of salvation had important

insights to offer for an understanding of the Church as communion.
According to Harkianakis, Christ did not bring humanity salvation so
that the Church might continue to live in isolation, but that it might strive
towards a greater and even more profound unity which has as its culmination
the eternal kingdom of God. The Church as ‘a graced communion’
of faithful members was not a theoretical plan for Harkianakis, but a
reflection of the communion of divine persons within the inner life of
the Holy Trinity which needed to be translated onto the created worldly
level33 as well. The basis for Harkianakis’ understanding of the Church in
32 Homilies on John, xlv.12, cited in T. Ware, The Orthodox Church (London:
Penguin Books, 1993), 247.
33 It is for this reason that Harkianakis together with all Orthodox delegates insisted
on a Trinitarian constitutional basis for entry into the Ecumenical Movement at
the 4th General Assembly in Uppsala, 1968. In fact, they fought hard to have this
accepted as the former Christological basis of simply accepting Jesus Christ as
God and Saviour seemed very weak. The Orthodox were mindful of the unity
which the Lord had in mind when he prayed that we all may be one was a vision
of unity modelled on the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. This Trinitarian basis for
73
Trinitarian iconic terms can be traced back to his understanding of John

17:21: “That they all may be one: even as you, Father are in me and I in
you that they may also be one in us” (John 17:21). Harkianakis stressed
that only if read as a whole was the deeper meaning of the ‘nature of
communion’ captured as Christ willed it—a communion reflecting the
intimate fellowship of the three divine Persons of the Trinity. Now, the
task of articulating a vision of communion in relation to the Trinity could
not prove to be an easy task because, as Harkianakis noted, there is an
ontological gap between the infinite Creator and finite creatures.34 Yet
Harkianakis argued that God, who is unknown yet becomes well known
has therefore given sufficient access to the Trinitarian reality by virtue
of his creative self-revelation.35 Harkianakis beautifully captured the
essence of this notion of perichoresis when he characterised it as “ἕνα
ἀρρηκτο καὶ ἄλληκτο ἀλληλοεγκαλιασμός ἀπείρου ἀγάπης” (an ineffable
and captivating reciprocal embrace of infinite love).36 In fact, according
to Harkianakis there is a ‘communion’ and ‘otherness’ that exists in the
Triune God and which is constitutive of the communion of the Trinity.
The very being of God, which is a communion of three hypostases
relating to one another in love, and inter-penetrating (περιχώρησις) one
another, is, for Harkianakis, the foundation of the Church’s communal
mode of existence.
Seen as communion between God and the world, the Church, for
Harkianakis is above all an invitation by God to share in the communal life
of the Trinity at which no body is to be excluded. Indeed, the very reason
and purpose of the Church, expressed by the mystery of communion, is to
entry into the Ecumenical Movement is significant because it is as a result of our

faith in a Trinitarian God, whose very nature is communion (koinonia), that we
are called to face contemporary social and justice issues.
34 Stylianos Harkianakis, ‘The Sacredness of Creation,’ Phronema 5 (1990): 5-13.
35 Therefore, God is at the same time totally inaccessible and really communicable
to the created world. God is inaccessible, unknowable and incommunicable but
at the same time we know that He is because He has revealed Himself as Father,
Son and Holy Spirit—a Trinitarian God is Trinity.
36 Stylianos Harkianakis, In the Margins of Dialogue [in Greek] (Athens: Domos,
1991), 116.
74
show God’s eschatological plan for the world: “God founds the Church
out of boundless love for humankind, in order to make them participants
of His own blessedness, which constitutes the ultimate and final fruit of
salvation.”37 For Harkianakis the divine life of communion permeated
the core of his ecclesiology constituting the sine qua non of ecclesial
truth. The notion of communion is the most profound link between the
Church, the salvation of the entire world and eternal life. For Harkianakis
this communal character of the Church also presupposed the restoration
of the catastrophic principle brought about by the fall, the incurvatio
hominis in se [the human persons turning their gaze towards themselves].
Harkianakis argued: “The character of the Church as communion … is
also the proper antidote to the sin of the ancestral sin.”38 Clearly from
what has been said thus far, it can be concluded that, for Harkianakis
communion signified a life bestowed by the Holy Trinity, and so was an
ontological fact for the Church. It also constituted the ethos of life, the
dynamic of life and the impetus and movement towards the realisation
of life.39
The Meaning and Significance of Apostolic Succession
For Harkianakis, the significance of apostolic succession, as an

ecclesiological reality, lay in its capacity to uphold the integrity of the
Church’s truth, and preserve its identity to the apostolic faith. Simply
put, apostolic succession, for Harkianakis, was a ‘sign’ pointing to the
presence and communion of the Holy Spirit within the Church.40 It is
very important to state, right from the very outset, that Harkianakis did
not view apostolic succession as an authoritative power that a certain
class of people possessed and which distanced them from the laity
within the Church. Understood in this way, apostolic succession would
presuppose an external claim to submission, in so far as it was seen as
an objective reality enforcing itself upon its subjects. Furthermore, if

38 Ibid.
39 Christos Yannaras, The Freedom of Morality, (Crestwood, New York: St
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996), 211.
40 Harkianakis, Infallibility, 105-6.
75
apostolic succession was seen in this light, this would create a permanent
distinction and isolate those who ruled within the Church and those
who were ruled. This could not have anything to do with the Church
as communion but would rather lead to an authoritarian understanding
of apostolic succession. Rather, Harkianakis wonderfully described the
communal nature of the Church more generally, and the understanding
of apostolic succession more specifically, as concentric circles which
included the various orders within the people of God.41 With Christ at
the centre of all the circles, Harkianakis saw the twelve apostles as the
‘initial nucleus of the Church’ and the episcopate (and by extension the
remaining two ranks of clergy) as those called to continue the work of the
apostles. Further there was the laity, all united around the central figure
of Christ. Seen in this communal perspective, the notion of apostolic
succession within the Church, argued Harkianakis, was genuine only
within the context of the community and not outside or above the
community.
Reflecting further on the communal character of apostolic

succession, Harkianakis essentially argued that precisely because the
twelve, as a whole, constituted the instrument of Christ’s communion
in the Church after his death and resurrection, then it followed that it
had to be the college of bishops as a whole—namely, together and not
alone—who similarly came to constitute the canonical instrument of the
post-apostolic Church. It was the apostles who received the faith from
Christ and handed it over to the bishops. It was in this way that the truth
or infallibility of the Church could be maintained throughout history.
Harkianakis defined apostolic succession in the following way:
By the term apostolic succession the Church first believed that

those who are called by the apostles and are established through
special prayer and the laying on of hands for the Lord’s redemptive
work in the world, are equipped from the official moment with
the special gift of the Spirit which is handed down in the same
41 Stylianos Harkianakis, ‘Commemoration in Orthodox Worship and Life,’

Phronema 19 (2004): 1-22.
76
way to later generations throughout the centuries guaranteeing

at the same time the historical and ontological continuity of the
Church of Christ on earth.42
Harkianakis claimed that the bishop traced his descent in unbroken

succession through his predecessors in the same see, back to the apostles
and so to Jesus Christ. Secondly, by virtue of this unbroken succession,
Harkianakis rightly noted that the bishops were those people endowed
with a special charisma whereby they were enabled to act as the
authoritative teachers of the apostolic faith in his local Church—as the
guarantors and witnesses to the faith held by all. For Harkianakis, there is
a relationship between the external historical laying on of hands and the
inner succession in the content of faith. Outward continuity in apostolic
succession serves as the sign of inward continuity in apostolic faith.
The relationship between the continuity of apostolic faith and external
continuity by the laying in of hands was summed up, for Harkianakis
by Androutsos: “Both of these are internally related and presuppose one
another, and as the apostolic teaching is the basis of apostolic succession,
so also the apostolic succession constitutes the external sign that a certain
Church is genuine and in agreement with the ancient Church both in
teaching and in administration.”43 In this manner the hierarchy possessed
a link with the apostles which secured not only the unbroken continuation
with the apostolic Church, but also its infallibility.
Now, since it was claimed that the faith is handed down integrally
through the bishop, Harkianakis sought to compare and contrast the
apostolate to the episcopate, something which had occupied the thoughts
of many theologians before him. In fact in their quest to analyse and
codify the relationship between apostles and bishops, Harkianakis noted
that these theologians—both Western and Eastern44—expressed certain
critical distinctions between the latter and the former.45 Firstly, it was

43 C. Androutsos, Dogmatics (Athens: Astir, 1992) [in Greek], 281.
44 Cf. P. Trembelas, Dogmatics, vol. 2, (Athens: O Sotir, 1979) [in Greek], 390.
45 This problem is raised in Harkianakis, Infallibility, 61f.
77
pointed out that the apostles had no geographical limits (ie their ministry
extended to all the known world), whereas the bishops are appointed for
a local Church with binding canons. Secondly, it was posited that the
apostles experienced Christ in an immediate way while the bishops are
only indirectly related to Him. Lastly, these theologians believed that
whereas the apostles were personally infallible, they bishops are not.
However, after careful study Harkianakis rightly remarked that, with the
exception of the second, these distinctions were erroneous. Even though
the bishop are ‘restricted’ in a local Church, Harkianakis brought to mind
the collegial character of the world-wide episcopate, the ‘harmonious
multiplicity’ of bishops meeting in council and reaching together a
‘common mind’ under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, in line
with the entire Patristic tradition, Harkianakis noted that the primary role
of the individual bishop is to act as a link between the local Church and
the Church universal. Collectively the bishops speak with an authority
which they did not possess individually; they become something more
than they are as scattered individuals, and this ‘something more’ is the
presence of Christ and the Holy Spirit is in their midst “for where two
or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them” (Matt 18:20).
St Cyprian epigrammatically wrote: “The episcopate is a single whole,
in which [each bishop] enjoys full possession.”46 This implied that each
individual bishop shares the plenitude of the episcopal grace and not
a part of it; however, not in solitude but in communion with all other
bishops. In other words, each bishop shares in the one episcopate, not
as having only a small fraction of the whole but as having an expression
of the whole. For this reason, Harkianakis argued that: “the leader of a
Church should not only be concerned with the place assigned to him
by the Spirit, but also with the entire Church throughout the world.”47
Such involvement however is, for Harkianakis qualified and restricted
to concerns of a dogmatic nature. This solidarity of the episcopate is
manifested through the holding of a council and reaching a ‘common
46 On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 5. Taken from Kallistos Ware, ‘Patterns of
Episcopacy in the Early Church and Today; an Orthodox view,’ in Bishops but
what Kind?, ed. Peter Moore (London: SPCK, 1982), 17.
78
mind’ whereby the integrity and the infallibility of the Church is

preserved.
At this point, two questions arose for Harkianakis: the first

was whether the concept of apostolic succession was exhausted in the
correct apostolic teaching alone.48 Secondly, whether a deviation from
the apostolic teaching deprived a canonically ordained person of the gift
of the Spirit entirely?49 In answer to the former question Harkianakis
correctly pointed out that apostolic teaching constitutes the basis of
apostolic succession.50 However, the notion of apostolic succession
embraced both the correct confession of faith and the mystical gift of the
Holy Spirit, by the laying on of hands which acts as a seal for that grace.
This was crucial for Harkianakis since it clearly distinguished between
the sacramental and royal priesthood.51 The second problematic posed
pointed to the indelible character (character indelibilis) of the sacrament
of ordination. To quote Harkianakis once again;
...through the falling away from the apostolic teaching the gift of
the priesthood is obscured in the ordained person and becomes
inactive; it is not lost for ever however, because it is indispensable
for the historical continuity of the Church on earth.”52
Consequently, there are two inter-related elements which are implied in

the concept of apostolic succession in Harkianakis’ thought; the apostolic
teaching and phronema, and the gift of the Holy Spirit bestowed by the
laying on of the hands.
Indeed, for Harkianakis the notion of apostolic succession

extends to the remaining clerical orders (the presbyters and deacons)
and all the baptised faithful. For this reason Harkianakis wrote that it is
not the bishop who is understood to be a successor of some individual
48 Ibid., 64.
49 Ibid.
50 Ibid.
51 Ibid.
52 Ibid.
79
apostle, but that the whole episcopate, to which he belongs is found in

succession: “The individual bishop does not happen to be the successor
of some individual apostle, but that the whole episcopate is found in
the succession of the whole society of the apostles.”53 On the day of
Pentecost, the gift of the Holy Spirit poured out on all the believers
present and not just the twelve apostles (cf. Acts 2). All the faithful share
in the three-fold ministry of Christ to a certain degree as king, prophet
and priest. To use a mathematical analogy: apostolic succession is a
vertical line in that the ordained priesthood, especially the bishop is the
link between the apostles and the local Church. Apostolic succession is
also a horizontal line in that all the faithful participate in the three-fold
ministry of Christ according to the variety of gifts of the Holy Spirit.
When not seen in this light, apostolic succession is reduced to a personal
gift that any “two or three” bishops can bestow on another person and not
as a ministry in the Church. From the above we can see that it is through
the notion of apostolic succession that the apostolic faith is transmitted
from generation to generation so that the faithful can feel assured that the
faith received is whole and identical with the faith once handed down by
Christ Himself.
The Conscience of the Church
Growing attention to the study of ecclesiology in the middle part of

the twentieth century invariably led to the use of the term ‘conscience
of the Church’54 within the Orthodox Christian tradition. It was during
this period that many theologians contended that the infallibility or
truth of the Church was safeguarded by the ‘conscience’ of the Church,
which, for them was considered to be a higher authority than even that
of an ecumenical council.55 As a technicus termus the ‘conscience’ of
53 Ibid., 108.
54 The first Orthodox theologian to write an independent essay on the ‘conscience
of the Church’ was Prof. A. Alivisatos in 1955. See, Harkianakis, Infallibility of
the Church, 69.
55 Harkianakis, Infallibility, 69. Harkianakis cites K. Mouratides who, in his book
The Essence and Polity of the Church writes: “Church conscience, namely the
unanimous common opinion of clergy and laity, even it cannot be defined into
80
the Church was used to mean the collective treasure upon which the
truth or infallibility of the Church lay and was thus considered to be
determinative, normative and formative criterion of the Church.56 Other
equivalent expressions which signified the notion ‘conscience of the
Church’ included terms such as the ‘normative and formative teaching
of the Church’, the ‘deposit of the fullness of faith’ or the ‘voice of the
Church’, the ‘mind (φρόνημα)57 of the Church’. What is common to
all these expressions is that the conscience of the Church was thought
to be the determinative criterion of truth within the life of the Church.
However, the use of unprecedented terminology such as ‘conscience’
to describe the most authoritative instrument of the Church’s truth
warranted an assessment of its validity and it is to this that Harkianakis
turned his attention.
The theological accuracy of such a term for ecclesiology was

ultimately found to be problematic by Harkianakis for at least two
reasons. Firstly, it was unfounded both from the Biblical and Patristic
traditions.58 Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, an etymological
some organic manifestation, constitutes the highest power above the Ecumenical
Synods,” 17. Furthermore, Mouratides believed that the final designation of a
council as Ecumenical occurred only if it was subsequently recognised as such
by the ‘conscience’ of the Church. Here, Mouratides unfortunately forgot that
in the history of the Church it was not an impersonal conscience of the Church
which recognised synods to be ecumenical, but later synods.
56 Vladimir Lossky, ‘Catholic Consciousness: The Anthropological Implications
of the Dogma of the Church,’ St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 14 (1970):
187-95 and Lossky, ‘The Temptations of Ecclesial Consciousness,’ St Vladimir’s
Theological Quarterly 32 (1988): 245-54.
57 For Harkianakis conscience and phronema are closely connected where
conscience is merely one aspect of phronema. In this regards Harkianakis wrote
that “phronema … expresses the mentality, the identity, the conscience of a
person or a group.” ‘A Prefatory Note: Phronema,’ Phronema 1 (1986): 5-6, 5.
58 It must be stated that Harkianakis does not reject the term simply because it
is unfounded with the biblical and patristic tradition since he does in fact
state that this fact does not completely prohibit it from being ‘baptised’ as an
ecclesiological term, just as so many other terms, usually from ancient Greek
philosophy, were ‘baptised’ by the Fathers for Christian usage. Like the words,
hypostasis, homoousios, ekklesia and so many others. But Harkianakis, asks if
there is theological justification for such a ‘baptism’? Can one legitimately speak
81
analysis of the Greek term for conscience, συν-είδησις highlighted its

weakness as an ecclesiological term. Harkianakis observed that the term
conscience, deriving from the preposition σύν (together) and the noun
εἴδησις (knowledge) was first and foremost imbued with gnosiological
meaning.59 In this case the meaning of ‘conscience’ denoted all those
faculties employed by a person in order to know. A second and more
familiar meaning of the term conscience signified a moral recognition
of right and wrong.60 The reason Harkianakis found the term inept for
ecclesiology is that conscience could easily be understood when used
in relation to an individual person but was devoid of meaning when
used in relation to a collective, such as the Church. If by conscience was
meant the inner most conviction of every Christian regarding the truth
of faith61 then, according to Harkianakis it was meaningless to speak of
one distinct conscience of the Church as the Church is made up of many
people, ie many consciences, all with their unique conscience.62
Even though Harkianakis found the term ‘Church conscience’

unsuccessful for ecclesiology, he nevertheless distinguished two aspects
of the term, which he believed was necessary so as to shed light on the
use of ‘conscience’ within ecclesiology. Beyond its questionable validity
of the ‘conscience of the Church’? Is the term ‘conscience of the Church’ a

successful term?
59 Therefore, the gnosiological meaning of ‘conscience’ could be best expressed by
the English word ‘consciousness’.
60 In this sense the term refers to that human faculty which helps a person make
judgements in concrete situations acting as a moral guide.
61 A. Alivizatos, ᾽Conscience of the Church,᾽ Ἐπιστημονική Ἐπετηρίς τῆς
Θεολογικῆς Σχολῆς του Πανεπιστημίου Ἀθηνῶν (Athens, 1955): 28.
62 Unpublished lecture notes in a series of lectures delivered by Harkianakis at
St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological College (Sydney) in Ecclesiology,
Semester II, 2003. Lossky took a different view to Harkianakis arguing that it
was perfectly possible to speak of an ecclesial consciousness since Christ, as
the head of the Church meant that the Church could be seen to possess a single
God-human consciousness proper to Christ which was then communicated to all
faithful of the Church. Such an extreme proposition however did not take into
account the concrete human hypostases freely existing and not mere particles of
the unique person of Christ. Cf. Lossky, ‘Catholic Consciousness,’ 187-95 and
‘The Temptations of Ecclesial Consciousness,’ 245-54.
82
for ecclesiology, Harkianakis argued that the ‘conscience of the Church’

denoted the stable and constant treasure of the Church’s faith as it was
expressed through ecumenical synods which were composed of concrete
historical personalities, who, as bishops were responsible for proclaiming
the word of truth and guarding it from erroneous teachings (2 Tim
1:14). On the other hand, ‘ecclesiastical conscience’ was dynamic and
subjective in character and signified the degree to which each baptised
person experienced the spirit and phronema (mind) of the Church. On
this he noted:
...there are two aspects of Church conscience: on the one hand

that of a conscience growing dynamically and on the other hand
that of a conscience demanded in responsible mission. The purity
and authority of the former depends on the latter … The degree
to which a faithful person has experienced the spirit and mind
of the Church is what is meant by “Church conscience.” On the
other hand the term “conscience of the Church” clearly signifies
the initially constituted objective spirit and mind of the Church.63
Therefore this ecclesiastical conscience did not have the primary authority
in the Church, but was only derivative in that it was authoritative only
as long as it agreed with the ‘conscience of the Church’—the consensus
partum—as this was expressed through the canonical instrument of the
episcopate.64 ‘Ecclesiastical conscience’ could therefore not be seen as
normative since it depended on the purity of each person’s faculties of
judgement
Having distinguished between ‘Church conscience’ and

‘ecclesiasitcal conscience’, Harkianakis nevertheless correctly claimed
that throughout history the Church never took recourse to a faceless or
abstract collective, such as its ‘conscience’ when the integrity of its faith
was being infiltrated with an array of erroneous teachings. Rather the
Church expressed herself decisively through the canonical instrument
of the synod. It was the bishops as concrete personalities, acting within

64 Ibid.
83
the parameters of the synod who were responsible for proclaiming the
true faith and guarding it from erroneous propositions.65 For Harkianakis,
therefore, it is the synod of bishops, the entire hierarchy who can genuinely
express the voice and therefore the ‘conscience’ of the Church.66
It becomes obvious that Church conscience in its objective sense

does not constitute an abstract undefined power in the Church.
But from the moment it is regarded as the mind of the Church
which explains and formulates dogma, it may be established
within the totality of the canonical instruments of the Church,
namely within the apostolic hierarchy, whose unanimous voice
must be considered the voice of the Church … from the very
beginning the Church called its faith not the faith of an abstract
measure … but the ‘faith of the apostles’ or the ‘faith of the
fathers’.67
For Harkianakis, it is clear that it has always been the hierarchy in

communion as a whole who have been divinely appointed to express the
Lord’s truth and for this reason together do they constitute the foremost
responsible factor for the formation of genuine ecclesiastical conscience
within the faithful.68
Harkianakis gave emphasis to the moral unanimity of the

episcopate as the authentic voice par excellence of the Church. He went
so far as to state that a hierarch who would insist on appealing to a vague
65 Ibid.
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid., 71-72.
68 Elsewhere Harkianakis stated that it is the bishop today who can exercise such
authority within the Church since it is he alone who is called to empty himself
entirely of his own personal will so that he can be filled with the authority of
Christ entirely. Harkianakis, ‘Dogma and Authority in the Church,’ 20. The
bishop’s total submission to the Church is made very clear in the prayers of
consecration where he makes an oath to accept unreservedly all that the Church
has accepted and likewise to reject those whom the Church has anathematised.
But since he is called to show such obedience to Christ, he is entitled to be
identified with the authority of Christ. Stylianos Harkianakis, ‘Theology and
Life,’ Voice of Orthodoxy, 7 (1986): 70.
84
‘conscience’ of the Church would suggest that he himself was somehow

spiritually detached or indifferent to the faithful in his care and thus
incapable of being the authentic embodiment of them.69 For a bishop
in communion with his people—as a good shepherd—could speak
unhesitatingly and authentically as their hierarch, being truly ‘in the type
and place of Christ’.70 Harkianakis noted that the Orthodox attitude to
the episcopal office is clearly declared in the prayer used at all episcopal
enthronements, which refers to the new bishop as ‘steward’, ‘imitator of
the Good Shepherd’, ‘guide’, ‘light’, and ‘teacher’.71 The entire body of
the faithful therefore could not take recourse to a nebulous and impersonal
‘conscience’ of the Church. However, in all this discussion, it would be
a gross misinterpretation to conclude that Harkianakis did away with the
important contribution of the laity for the truth of the Church. This all
important question regarding the relationship between the bishop and the
laity will now be discussed in our analysis of the object, bearer and organ
of infallibility.
Object, Bearer and Instrument of Infallibility
Having highlighted the fundamental importance of the ecclesiological

realities discussed above for the entire doctrine of the infallibility of the
Church, Harkianakis’ next task was to present, what he called, a ‘synoptic’
and ‘synthetic’72 articulation of a theology of infallibility. Towards this
end, he undertook to analyse the precise meanings of the object, bearer
and instrument of the Church’s infallibility, which, if not distinguished
would inevitably lead to erroneous teachings. In particular what was all
important for Harkianakis was clearly articulating the entire problematic
of infallibility where the bearer and instrument of infallibility were
69 Lectures on Ecclesiology delivered at St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological

College, 2003.
70 Harkianakis offered a brief yet profound reflection of St Ignatius of Antioch’s
adage of the bishop being ‘in the type and place of Christ’ in a newspaper article
entitled ‘The Most Dangerous “Deus Ex Machina,”’ Vema Nov (2003): 26-27,
26.
71 Ware, The Orthodox Church, 250.
85
clearly distinguished. Non-defined propositions, principally in this area,

were often the cause of extreme ecclesiological positions.73
Object of Infallibility
As far as the object or extent of infallibility went, Harkianakis correctly

suggested that infallibility included only those salvific matters of
doctrine and morality proclaimed by the Church74 as documented,
directly or indirectly75 in the sources of divine revelation. In contrast
to the Roman Catholic position, which according to Küng argued that
infallibility extended beyond doctrines of faith and morals to include
other theological conclusions drawn from history, natural reason,
science, politics and culture76, Harkianakis clearly defined the parameters
of infallibility for the Eastern Orthodox tradition. In clearly stating,
however, that infallibility did not simply include any kind of teaching
but only those doctrines on matters of faith or morals specifically, he
did not wish to exclude all those truths lived out by the Church but
never formally proclaimed. In an article ‘Dogma and Authority of the
Church’77 Harkianakis distinguished between two types of theological
truths, namely the ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’ claiming an unquestionable
validity in both. On this issue Harkianakis argued that
unless we accept this relationship between the regular and

constant teaching on the one hand, and the irregular formation
73 According to Harkianakis, “in the Roman understanding the confusion lies at

the expense of the bearer (where the instrument is mutilated, because it is taken
individually and not synodically as it should), while in the theory of Khomiakov
the confusion lies at the expense of the instrument.” Ibid., 74-75. As stated by
Harkianakis the phenomenon of confusion on these two aspects of infallibility
brought about quite distinct understandings of the Church’s nature and function.
74 Ibid., 78.
75 In making the distinction of direct and indirect object of infallibility, Harkianakis
was in fact espousing the Roman Catholic distinction between the object of
infallibility according to form on the one hand and according to content on the
other. In regards to infallibility specifically, it was not the formulation but the
meaning or content of the infallibility of the Church which was all important.
76 Küng, Infallible? 66.
77 Harkianakis, ‘Dogma and Authority of the Church,’ 8-23.
86
of the dogma in the Church on the other, we shall certainly do an

injustice and seriously distort both these expressions of the gifts
and illumination of the Paraclete.78
He rightly expressed as ‘regular’ doctrine all those truths of faith taught

by the Church in “various times and different ways” (Heb 1:1) and not
the systematically articulated articles of faith which Barth has referred
to as regular theology.79 Nevertheless beyond the different nomenclature
used to distinguish these two different theological genres, both Barth and
Harkianakis were correct, concerning the need to account for both forms
of theological truths. In seeking to use their distinction for the purposes
of the object of infallibility, it could be argued that whilst the ‘irregular’
doctrines of faith and morals were all those crystallised formulations
of Church doctrine which arose precisely because some aspect of the
Church may have been misconstrued or questioned, the ‘regular’ were
the generally accepted teachings within the daily life and memory80 of
78 Harkianakis, ‘Dogma and Authority of the Church,’ 14.

79 In his first volume of Church Dogmatics, Barth distinguished between two
types of theology, namely regular and irregular dogmatics. Three features
characterised his regular dogmatics: its systematic exposition, completeness and
association with a particular school of thought. Irregular dogmatics, on the other
hand, was not concerned with any systematisation or specific school of thought.
Rather it was free-ranging since it aimed to address problems arising from the
life of the Church. His brief yet illuminating discussion on these two theological
forms has proven extremely helpful for this study as it not only pointed out the
distinct strengths of each method but, more importantly also afforded a proper
place to both for the integrity of the Christian theological tradition. Of course,
these theological forms were not parallel to each other but arose out of historical
reasons and both developed over time according to the historical occasion. In
fact, Barth argued that, “on the whole, it must be admitted that in spite of its
name, irregular dogmatics has been the rule, and regular dogmatics has always
had its origin in irregular dogmatics and could never have existed without its
stimulus and co-operation.” Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1, trans G.W.
Bromiley (Edinburgh: T&T Clarke, 1936), 278. From the above, it is clear that
even though the two approaches are different, yet an unquestionable validity
must be seen in both.
80 The memory of the Church is nothing other than the stable and constant spiritual
dynamic ceaselessly upheld by the divine Logos who inseparably is united to
the Church and guided by the Holy Spirit leading the Church “unto all truth” (Jn
16:13). It is not a product of time but rather the sum total of all salvific truths
87
the Church. For Harkianakis both forms of theology were to be included

as equally valid into the object of the Church’s infallibility.
Bearer of Infallibility
Harkianakis argued that the entire sacred body of the Church, both clergy
and laity, constituted the bearer of infallibility. Or, to put it another way,
since both clergy and laity comprise the Church, therefore the attribute
of infallibility belongs to both. In an attempt to clarify what was meant
by ‘bearer’ of infallibility, Harkianakis introduced a beautiful analogy:
Just as in the physical body of the human organism the bearer of

this or that vital need is the entire body, while the mouth alone is
the instrument of the expression of such a need of the organism,
so it happens in the Church in respect to the subject of infallibility.
To use an example, just as in the human organism thirst is born
by the entire body, while only the mouth expresses thirst in the
organism, so too in the Church infallibility is born by the entire
body … yet it is expressed by the highest given instrument.81
In describing the meaning of the bearer of infallibility in the life of the

Church by his use of the image of the human body, Harkianakis also
brought out the Church’s communal nature. In being interdependent
and not isolated members of the Church, every baptised person was
responsible for preserving and protecting the teaching of the Church
unadulterated and integral.82 In such an understanding there is no
suggestion of a passive infallibility on the part of the laity.
For this reason, Harkianakis argued that it was the responsibility

of all faithful members of the Church not only to gain knowledge of
the truth but also to share in the event of truth by way of personal
experience.83 And in order to approach the revealed truth, Harkianakis
entrusted to the Church as a firm and invincible treasure.

82 Ibid., 82.
83 Harkianakis is careful to note that since truth is absolute, there will always be a
gap between people’s faith and their assimilation to it.
88
rightly argued that all Christians are called firstly to give an adequate
expression to the Church’s teaching in an active manner, making it
suitable for the needs of the contemporary age.84 But for this to occur, it
is the calling of all baptised members of the Church to become familiar
with the dogmas of the Church. Therefore, Harkianakis strongly urged
that the laity should not perceive the teachings of the Church merely as
theoretical truths which only the hierarchy and specialised ‘theologians’
must investigate. Rather all faithful members, upon becoming familiar
with, and finding adequate expressions for the truth of the Church must
do justice to them. Living the truth of the Church and being changed by
these, the ‘bearers’ of the Church’s truth must be willing to offer them
to all. For Harkianakis every committed member of the Church was
called to be a bearer of the Church’s infallibility. It was this which led
Harkianakis to state quite openly that the present critical situation of the
Church should not be attributed to the episcopate who were the ‘organ’
of the Church’s infallibility. In fact, he strongly believed that the many
theologians who kept silent when they in fact should have spoken out
bore their share of responsibility.
Organ of Infallibility
The institution of the synod is what constitutes, for Harkianakis, the organ
of the Church’s infallibility. Indeed, the ecumenical synod was considered
to be the most authoritative instrument of the Church’s infallibility. And
so he would epigrammatically state that: “The synodical institution
constitutes the instrument by which the voice of the Church is declared
and is accordingly the instrument of the infallibility of the Church.”85 In
his discussion of the ecumenical council as the most authoritative synod,
Harkianakis discussed the criteria at work guaranteeing the ecumenical
character of a council. The first point on this matter is that there are no
historical a priori criteria guaranteeing the ecumenical nature of a synod
84 Stylianos Harkianakis, ‘Dogma and the Theological Conscience of the Faithful,’

Voice of Orthodoxy 14:6 (1993): 73-75. See also Georgios I. Mantzarides,
‘Dogmas of the Church as Pointers to Life,’ Orthodox Spiritual Life (Brookline:
Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1994): 42-56.
85 Ibid., 87.
89
since the Church is “life in the Holy Spirit and as mystery it presents a
multitude of phenomena which cannot always be sufficiently interpreted
by the historical method of research.”86 Nor is a synod ecumenical merely
by the fact that the entire Christian Church is represented. Rather, for
Harkianakis the answer to this important issue was rather simple:
What suffices is that the teaching formulated by the Synod

corresponds to the genuine spirit of the Church. Of course the
genuine mind of the Church is necessarily expressed in the
agreement of its entire body by silent consent or implicit unity of
mind of clergy and laity.87
In contrast to Khomiakov88 who believed that the ecumenical character

of a synod was reflected in the entire Church’s acceptance of its decrees,
Harkianakis’ answer was that its decrees must genuinely express the
spirit (phronema) of the Church, irrespective of the entire Church’s
acknowledgment.89 With this important distinction, Harkianakis wanted
86 Ibid., 90.
87 Ibid. Meyendorff also wrote that “ecclesiologically … the authority of a council
depended upon its being the true voice of the Episcopal and ecclesial consensus.”
John Meyendorff, Living Tradition, (Crestwood: SVS Press, 1978), 55.
88 Harkianakis, Infallibility, 146-49. For Khomiakov, synods needed the acceptance
a posteriori by the whole body of the Church in order to be infallible. Yet, it
must be said that Khomiakov did affirm that the unanimity of all the bishops
was an expression of the true faith of the Church. However, when the hierarchy
was not in agreement, Khomiakov believed that it was the Church as a whole
that decided with ultimate authority. Harkianakis rightly argued that throughout
its history, the Church has proclaimed its truth even when the Holy Spirit was
believed to speak only to a few bishops, instead of Khomiakov’s demand that a
democratic decision be taken by all the faithful. Moreover, Harkianakis pointed
out that it was practically impossible to ensure that every member of the body of
the Church had a voting input in the decision-making processes of the Church.
Lastly, Harkiankis noted that if synods did not believe that they spoke infallibly
then not only would they allow for modifications in their declarations (which
they did not) but they would not anathematise those who did not embrace the
faith of the Church. To do so, argued Harkianakis would amount to the same
thing as a judge condemning a person to death without sufficient and certain
evidence. Ibid., 148.
89 For example, the council of Chalcedon was rejected by Syria and Egypt and yet
is still considered to be Ecumenical.
90
to highlight that no faithful, whether in the ordained ministry or not,

could shape the Church. Rather, in communion, each bishop acting on
behalf of the faithful from his respective local Church could discern the
will of God and allow the Church to be directed by it.90 On this, he noted:
Such voice should not be regarded as decreed in the absence

of the lay element, but on the contrary with its cooperation and
consent, acting in accordance with the gifts of the Holy Spirit and
the appropriate academic theological ability (local Theological
schools). One may speak about a hierarchy that decrees in
isolation only where it is no longer the hierarchy of the Church,
but a foreign and arbitrary body.91
In communion with their flock and never apart from it, could it be said
that the entire hierarchy of the Church proclaimed its truth or infallibility.
But since the entire hierarchy was historically never represented, a period
of time usually needed to pass so that all could receive these ecumenical
declarations.
According to Harkianakis, however great the prerogatives of the

bishop were this by no means implied that he was someone set up over
the Church to proclaim the truth and guard it against error alone. That is
to say that, according to Harkianakis any theology of the bishop can only
be conceived in a relational sense—not outside or above the community
but always in communion with the faithful. This means that those who
would be appointed to exercise authority in the Church could do so in
communion with the rest of the body of the Church. The fact that all
human persons are created in the image and likeness of God (Gen.1:26)
and have received the sacraments of baptism and chrismation affirms
that the responsibility of authority lies also in all baptised constituting
the ‘royal priesthood’. Therefore, the authority of the bishop was not
seen by Harkianakis as one which acted ex sese but always ex consensu
ecclesiae. Bishops and laity are joined together in a harmonious unity
in exercising the authority of the Church and can only be properly

91 Ibid., 91.
91
thought of in communion with one another. Reflecting upon this all

important relationship further it could be said that if the episcopate has
been divinely appointed to exercise the Lord’s authority in the Church,
then the guardian of this authority is not the bishops alone, but the entire
people of God. In their reply to Pope Pius IX in 1848, the Orthodox
Patriarchs strongly verify the authority of the people of God:
with us neither the Patriarchs nor any Church Council was ever
able to introduce anything new (in dogma or teaching), since
the protector of our religion is the very body of the Church, the
people themselves, who desire that their belief, their religion, be
eternal, unchangeable, and in harmony with that of the Fathers.92
Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow provided a fine commentary on the

above Patriarchal declaration:
All together and all in succession are incorporated by God into

one Church, which is the true depository of Sacred Tradition.
The ‘people’ signifies the hierarchy and the faithful together,
constituting inseparable, complementary elements of the Body.93
This in no way impoverished the authority of the episcopate since it,

“does not derive its authority from the multitude of the faithful; [rather] it
is derived from the common head of the whole body and is transmitted by
Apostolic Succession.”94 We could perhaps qualify the specific function
between hierarchy and laity by making a distinction analogous to that
of Harkianakis on the topic of the infallibility of the Church. Just as in
the infallibility of the Church so too in the authority of the Church, it
is the whole body of the Church who is the bearer of authority, while
the episcopate as a whole is the mouth or canonical instrument through
which authority is made manifest.
92 Cited in John Karmiris, A Synopsis of the Dogmatic Theology of the Orthodox

Catholic Church, trans. G. Dimopoulos, (Christian Orthodox Edition, U.S.A.,
1973), 89.
93 Cited in Paul Evdokimov, ‘The Principle Currents of Orthodox Ecclesiology in
the Nineteenth Century,’ Eastern Churches Review 10:1-2 (1978): 26-42, 35.
94 Ibid.
92
Harkianakis argued that the careful balance of the relation

between episcopate and laity in the Church must never be ‘democratised’
in such a way that the synodal activity of the episcopate became an
‘experiment’ which awaited in uncertainty for the reaction of the laity.
Rather the bishops gathered together within a synodical context to speak
in a final way so that contentious issues which had arisen in the Church
could cease. This however presupposed that all members of the body
of the Church were given the opportunity, in freedom to express their
thoughts prior to bishops’ meeting. Regarding the decisions taken by a
council, Bulgakov wrote:
It does not mean that the decisions of the councils should

be confirmed by a general plebiscite and that without such a
plebiscite they have no force. There is no such plebiscite. But
from historical experience it clearly appears that the voice of a
given council has truly been the voice of the Church or that it has
not: that is all.95
Given this, it can be said that any proclamations made by the synodal
activity of the episcopate are not verified by the ‘assent’ of the whole
Christian people, rather they are recognised to be such. Episcopal
declarations are not true because they have been accepted by the Church,
but they are accepted by the Church because they are true. Regarding
the acceptance of the decrees proclaimed by a council by the faithful,
Harkianakis pointed out: “such acceptance however should not be
considered as the external proof of the ecumenicity, rather they express
its result and not its cause.”96 Far from requiring the acceptance a
posteriori by the whole body of the Church in order to be infallible, a
council spoke with certainty on matters of faith and morals since it was
the Holy Spirit speaking to the Church. Nevertheless, Harkianakis did
admit that the acceptance by the whole Church was an ‘external mark’
that the doctrines did indeed correctly interpret the faith of the Church.97
95 Sergius Bulgakov, The Orthodox Church, 89, cited in T. Ware, The Orthodox
Church, 253.
97 Ibid.
93
In order to explain this phenomenon, Ware uses a beautiful analogy of a

living body:
When healthy, a physical organism instinctively rejects from its

system whatever is alien, while absorbing all that is life-giving.
So it with the Body of Christ: in the continuing life of the divine-
human organism of the Church, error is continually rejected and
truth is retained.98
Even though Ware continued to offer certain external criteria99 these do

not, in themselves offer a guarantee of the conciliar decisions of Episcopal
synods. In other words, this assent of the whole body of the Church is
not, as a rule, expressed formally and explicitly in any juridical sense, but
simply lived. Therefore the relationship between the ordained ministry
and the laity must be seen within the communal mode of the Church’s
existence. When seen in the light of communion, Episcopal authority is
not something super-imposed, but rather allows for the human person
and indeed the entire cosmos to grow in the life of God. And this is
possible since God has personally involved Himself in this life first by
giving the world a taste, here and now of the eschaton.
According to Harkianakis any claims to truth within the Church

cannot possibly exist outside or above the community. According to
Harkianakis one cannot speak of God’s truth in abstract terms without
specifying for whom this truth exists. To do so, would simply be making
logical statements about God’s truth but not giving it an existential reality.
Only as a community of God’s people, and not as individuals, does God’s
infallibility become a reality. It is only in creating a personal communion
between God and the world, that God’s truth and lordship in the world
98 Ware, The Orthodox Church, 253.

99 In his article, ‘The Exercise of Authority in the Church,’ Ware lists the following
external criteria as indications of the authority of a synod: (i) the number of
bishops, (ii) the geographical distribution of the bishops and their representative
character, (iii) the conviction of the council itself, (iv) recognition by a
subsequent Ecumenical council, (v) recognition by the Emperor, (vi) recognition
by the Pope. However he argues that these alone do not guarantee the authority
or ecumenicity of a council.
94
is realised. Harkianakis would argue that the truth in the Church is

relational, and that it does not reside in any office per se, but in the event
of communion created by the Spirit. This means that those appointed to
express the truth in the Church must do so in communion with the rest of
the body of the Church. Just like a head is only a head when it remains
connected with the whole body so too those who would be appointed to
proclaim the truth of the Church must do so in communion with the laity.
Harkianakis was clear in stating that in the infallibility of the Church it
is the whole body of the Church who is the bearer of authority, while
the episcopate as a whole is the mouth or canonical instrument through
which authority is made manifest.
Concluding Remarks
In an attempt to explore the teaching of Harkianakis’ vision of the

Church, the task was taken up to examine specifically his understanding
of the truth and communion of the Church, especially as this was
developed in his doctoral dissertation, The Infallibility of the Church in
Orthodox Theology—a pioneering study of the Church for the Eastern
Orthodox tradition, and an original contribution in the Church’s self-
understanding. The significance of such an exploration was shown to
be all the more significant due to the fact that the work, to this day,
has received very little attention by modern scholars on the Church,
invariably opting to focus much of their attention on what has come to
be known as eucharistic ecclesiology. Thankfully today, however, there
are other important dimensions of the Church beginning to be explored
giving rise to concepts, such as ‘baptismal’ or ‘ascetical’ ecclesiology.
Accordingly, the hope of this paper is that it will have made a small yet
substantial introductory study into the thought of this great witness of
the nature, structures and mission of the Church. After providing some
introductory clarificatory observations regarding the meaning of the
Church’s infallibility—specifically, as signifying nothing less than her
claim to proclaim the truth of God, and, at the same time, preserve her
faithful from all error, thus remaining true to her apostolic origins—the
paper particularly analysed the biblical foundations of this teaching and
95
focused much of its attention to exploring the way Harkianakis saw this
truth lived out in the Church’s structures. Indeed, a reoccurring point
was his understanding of the role of the bishop in the life of the Church
as being inextricably connected to the ‘laity’, never above or isolated
from them. Connected to this teaching, was his emphasis on the proper
functioning of the Church’s synodical mode of existence, that instrument
which safeguarded the Church’s truth and maintained the identity and
integrity of Church to its beginnings. Quite clearly, not only were these
shown to be foundational teachings, but also perennially significant
guiding principles of ecclesiology for the twenty-first century. In the
end, the work as a whole put forward a quite straightforward teaching
of the Church’s truth and communal mode of existence. Perhaps, the
little attention that this work has received can be attributed to certain
reservations surrounding the use of the term ‘infallibility’, largely
connected, as is well known, with Roman Catholic papal claims. If
anything, however, it needs to be taken into consideration that Harkianakis’
study on the Church is evidence of a deep concern, on his part, to engage
critically and respond to the contemporary issues of his time. And it
is precisely here, appreciated namely within its concrete context, that
this work is important As indicated, his study on infallibility was an
attempt to provide an Orthodox understanding of the term—namely, that
infallibility lies within the entire body of the Church, and not in one
person, an incontrovertible supposition for Orthodox ecclesiology. In the
end, Harkianakis’ comprehensive vision of the Church is an important
reminder not only of God’s ongoing presence here on earth, but equally
importantly, merits our attention to the extent that it provides important
pointers regarding how the faithful today might remain faithful to this
transformative ‘presence’ of God, already proleptically experienced here
on earth within the ekklesia.
96

The Ecclesiology of Archbishop Stylianos The Truth of Christ S Presence in The World Throughout Time

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Ecclesiology of Archbishop Stylianos The Truth of Christ S Presence in The World Throughout Time

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Ecclesiology of Archbishop Stylianos

The Truth of Christ’s Presence

Abstract: Twentieth century understandings of the Church from within

The work of late Archbishop Stylianos (Harkianakis) of Australia,

PHRONEMA, VOL. 35(1), 2020, 59-96

works in this area—monographs, articles, presentations etc.—all disclose

1 Writing for the Academic Presentation of the Association of Theologians of

Essentially, an underlying conviction in all his writings is the

2 Stylianos S. Harkianakis, The Infallibility of the Church in Orthodox Theology

The Meaning of the Church’s Infallibility

Harkianakis began his analysis of the infallibility of the Church by

3 In regards to truth Harkianakis wrote: “truth is called in the Greek language

truth. In the opening chapter of his dissertation, Harkianakis argued that

are always spiritually prepared to confront, in stoic fashion,

Harkianakis’ understanding of the notion of infallibility, as an innate

Having discussed the notion of infallibility as an essential element

Infallibility is an attribute of the Church whereby the Church

safeguards the teaching entrusted to it from every error, and

Harkianakis’ definition identified two aspects of infallibility within the

In building upon his foundational meaning of infallibility,

be true or credible to itself. On this very issue, he stressed the following:

infallibility not only an inherent characteristic of the Church, but also, a

Scriptural Understanding of Infallibility

In order to appreciate the pivotal importance of the notion of infallibility

15 An obvious example is Hans Küng who, in his book Infallibility? An Unresolved

Whereas the Old Testament provided ‘seeds’ or ‘shadows’ of

a voice, light, tone, vision—in his gradual revelation to the world.

Inasmuch as this relation constitutes the fruit of a consummated

Harkianakis argued that Christ’s identification with the Church, indeed

In discussing Harkianakis’ explicit Scriptural passages which

one of the most essential elements in Harkianakis’ vision of the Church is

Having indicated the explicit Scriptural passages, which dealt with

on account of its intimate communion with Christ. In other places, the

The Church as ‘Centre of Salvation’ and ‘Communion of Faithful’

Having provided a Scriptural justification to the notion infallibility,

24 Harkianakis, Infallibility, 28.

of salvation’ and ‘communion of faithful’. Harkianakis identified that

26 Lectures delivered in ecclesiology at St Andrew’s Greek Orthodox Theological

Regarding the truth of the Church as ‘centre of salvation’ Harkianakis

Harkianakis’ analysis of the Church as centre of salvation had important

Trinitarian iconic terms can be traced back to his understanding of John

entry into the Ecumenical Movement is significant because it is as a result of our

The Meaning and Significance of Apostolic Succession

For Harkianakis, the significance of apostolic succession, as an

37 Harkianakis, Infallibility, 48.

Reflecting further on the communal character of apostolic

By the term apostolic succession the Church first believed that

41 Stylianos Harkianakis, ‘Commemoration in Orthodox Worship and Life,’

way to later generations throughout the centuries guaranteeing

Harkianakis claimed that the bishop traced his descent in unbroken

42 Harkianakis, Infallibility, 60.

mind’ whereby the integrity and the infallibility of the Church is

At this point, two questions arose for Harkianakis: the first

Consequently, there are two inter-related elements which are implied in

Indeed, for Harkianakis the notion of apostolic succession

apostle, but that the whole episcopate, to which he belongs is found in

The Conscience of the Church

Growing attention to the study of ecclesiology in the middle part of

The theological accuracy of such a term for ecclesiology was

analysis of the Greek term for conscience, συν-είδησις highlighted its

Even though Harkianakis found the term ‘Church conscience’

of the ‘conscience of the Church’? Is the term ‘conscience of the Church’ a

for ecclesiology, Harkianakis argued that the ‘conscience of the Church’