Magyar Egyház, 1969 (48. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)
1969-06-01 / 6-7. szám
MAGYAR EGYHÁZ 9 Andrew Harsanyl: A Brief Survey of the Office of Bishop in the Reformed Church in Hungary According to Roman Catholic concept, the hishop alone has “potestas iurisdictionis,” which is the power of law-giving, judging, governing and teaching. The pope, being universal bishop, exercises this power all over the world; the bishop only in his diocese. The change in church government, according to Reformed view, was based on the rejection of the Roman Catholic idea that Jesus had entrusted Peter with the government of the church. Luther did not care too much for forms—so he did not change the structure of church government, but gave it a new doctrinal explanation: the offices on the various levels of the hierarchy were appointed for the purpose of good order in the church. Note the following reasoning: oversight—in the sense of “supervision”— is necessary for the sake of good order; since former bishops of the Roman Church cannot exercise it, the princes should take over this duty. The superintendent and consistory govern in the name of the prince and are appointed by the prince. (It may he that the superintendent is elected by the pastors and confirmed by the prince.) Thus the former monarchiái jurisdiction of the bishop is divided between the prince, superintendent and consistory. Zwingli's reasoning was along the same line, with the difference that the political structure of the territory where he worked was that of a republic and the place of the princes was filled by the city or canton councils. Calvin was for a strict separation of secular and ecclesiastical jurisdictions. In ecclesiastical matters, all is subject to the church: no secular power can exercise church discipline—in the church, the prince is just another member of the congregation. Although each congregation is a church by itself, for the sake of purity of doctrine and discipline, congregations should be related to one another—voluntarily. Here is the basis of the bottom-to-top, pyramidal, representative church-government structure. Based on the practice of the early church where congregations of equal standing elected a superior (patriarch) from among their bishops of equal standing, Calvin held it permissible that certain pastors be entrusted with the function of supervision over the rest of the pastors. The development of church government in the Protestant churches varied from land to land, depending on the existing political situation just as changes were dependent on subsequent historical events. Compare the Scandinavian churches with their total hierarchical structure and the government of the Church of Scotland (the best implementation of the synodal-presbyterial principle) as the two extremes; add the church governments in France, Switzerland, the Netherlands, and you have both unity and variety. The structure of church government in the Reformed Church in Hungary has been like a pendulum swinging back and forth, dependent on the turbulent history of that country even more than in other lands. Examining the evolution of Reformed church government in Hungary, we must keep in mind that the main concern of the reformers was not structure, hut the purity of doctrine. The old structure was more or less retained with new names for the various offices and administrative units. Churches in a geographical area were joined into a seniorate or tract (tractus, in Transylvania: capitulum) headed by the senior (decanus, resp.). Tracts of a larger geographical area were joined into a district, headed by a superintendent—often also called bishop. The name bishop was not frowned upon; it was only emphasized that the office of bishop was that of service and not of rank and ordo. The originality of the Hungarian Reformation was also that the higher leadership in the church—seniors, superintendents—were not appointed and controlled by the “princes” (in Hungary, their equivalent were the great landowners, the feudal lordsJ, as in Germany, hut by the highest authorities of church administration: the assemblies of the seniorates and the synods of the districts (boundaries and constituencies of these units were fluctuating in this period). Seniors and superintendents were examined, elected and ordained by these assemblies and synods and were responsible to them. Thus, church leadership was not monarchical, hut one of shared responsibility, or collegiate. It must he said, however, that these leaders were elected—in synod— by the clergy. Laymen had no constitutional place in the synods, although, at some instances, they were invited and given the privilege to vote. The wishes of the territorial loards were, nevertheless, taken into consideration: their influence was greatly dependent on the need for political protection. All in all, the leadership of the clergy was almost exclusive. Among the clergy, however, strict discipline was required—all synodal resolutions (articuli) stressed this point. The bishop must not avoid the judgment of the people. On the other hand, seniors and superintendents should he the “heads” of the pastors and the chairmen of their gatherings, they should guide the pastors in the true and sound doctrine and refute the adversaries. It can be concluded from the proceedings of the many synods of the Reformed Church during the latter part of the sixteenth century that the participants endeavored to accomplish a balance of power: to safeguard the purity of
