Page 169 - Orthodoxy Zizioulas

T H E P R E S B Y T E R S : F R O M C O L L E G I U M T O D E L E G AT E D M I N I S T RY
sion followed that the Church could exist without bishops—
once episcopacy had been detached from its original eucha-
ristic basis.
The consequences extended further. The ancient view of
the πρεσβύτεροι as a collegium, like the Twelve, whose unity
is indivisible, was lost. The presbyteral aspect of ἐπισκοπὴ
became individualized: one presbyter was considered suffi-
cient to perform the Eucharist. But—unus presbyterus nullus
presbyterus—by assigning to the presbyter what belonged
originally to the bishop, the Church turned him into a bishop
and thus lost the presbyter.
As a result, the entire structure of the local Church suffered
disintegration. A eucharistic community could be conceived
simply by the presence of one presbyter, and the link between
bishop, presbyters, and community was loosened. The “priest-
hood” came to form a distinct group with direct access to
apostolic origins through ordination, no longer necessarily
rooted in the local Church. The catholicity of the Church was
then sought outside the eucharistic gathering, and the Eucha-
rist itself was reduced to a “means of grace,” one sacrament
among many, losing its eschatological and ecclesiological
character.
At the same time, the Church never really allowed the idea
to disappear that it is the bishop who presides over the Eucha-
rist of his Church. In the East, other liturgical customs, surviv-
ing until now and having the force of strict canon law, point
in the same direction. Even today, no presbyter can celebrate
the Eucharist except on the antimension, which bears the sig-
nature of the bishop of the place. Equally, in all eucharistic
celebrations the bishop’s name must be mentioned aloud at
the crucial point of the Anaphora.
These provisions indicate that, at least liturgically, the bish-
169