Institution or Truth? Authority, Continuity, and the Post-Enlightenment Confusion
Radislav Pp. I
The Church on earth necessarily exists in institutional form. She possesses hierarchy, order, offices, and structures established by Christ and the Apostles. These are not incidental, nor are they optional. Yet, in the Apostolic, Orthodox, and Catholic understanding, institutional form exists to serve the timeless and unchanging faith, not to redefine or supersede it. Authority is given not as an end in itself, but as a stewardship entrusted for the preservation of what has been received.
When an institution ceases to guard that which it is bound by sacred duty to guard, when it seeks innovation rather than preservation, and when it modifies doctrine or praxis to conform to cultural, political, or ideological pressures, it does not thereby gain authority by virtue of its institutional continuity. Rather, it places itself in tension with the very purpose for which authority was given.
In many contemporary contexts, however, communities are deemed “authentic” not on the basis of doctrinal fidelity or Apostolic continuity, but because they are considered official, mainstream, or administratively recognized by currently-influential institutions. Conversely, those who raise concerns about doctrinal deviation are often regarded as suspect, marginal, or rebellious. Worldly power and public legitimacy have become the measuring sticks of validity rather than faithfulness to the Gospel.
This mindset is now so widespread that it often goes unnoticed. Yet it represents a significant departure from how the Church has understood authority for nearly two millennia.
The modern world, shaped by post-Enlightenment assumptions, tends to equate legitimacy with institutional recognition. Authority is assumed to flow from structures and systems, and truth is frequently treated as something that evolves alongside cultural consensus or administrative necessity. This logic, deeply embedded in political and corporate life, has quietly migrated into religious thought.
Under this paradigm, the institution becomes primary, while doctrine becomes secondary. Continuity is reduced to organizational persistence rather than understood as succession coupled with fidelity to what was handed down. Orthodoxy, however, has never accepted this inversion.
In the Apostolic understanding, the Church is not defined by buildings, legal charters, or public recognition. Neither is she defined merely by office-holders as such. Rather, the Church is defined by succession from the Apostles and continuity in the truth, i.e., the faithful transmission of the faith once delivered to the saints.
The Church Fathers were unambiguous on this point. When those in authority deviated from the received faith, the response was not blind obedience to office or structure, but a call to repentance and restoration. Bishops were deposed for heresy. Emperors were rebuked by confessors. At times, majorities erred, sometimes for generations. The solution was never to abandon the Church, but neither was it to sanctify error through institutional loyalty.
St. John Chrysostom and many others made clear that the Church is preserved not by power or popularity, but by adherence to the Apostolic, Orthodox, and Catholic faith. An office divorced from truth does not sanctify error; rather, error empties the office of its meaning.
It must be clarified and emphasized, however, that Orthodoxy does not collapse authority into individual discernment. Resistance to error is not anarchic, nor is it congregational. A layperson does not possess the authority to create a so-called “true Church” apart from the episcopacy. Rather, the lay faithful preserve continuity by remaining within the sacramental life of the Church and, when necessary, by cleaving to bishops who remain faithful to the Apostolic confession.
Likewise, when a bishop finds himself under a superior who has openly abandoned the Orthodox and Catholic faith, his obligation is not to ideological conformity or institutional harmony, but to Christ and the faith he swore to guard. Such resistance, when exercised according to canonical order and ecclesial responsibility, is not rebellion but fidelity. It is not the rejection of the Church, but obedience to her true life. In this way, continuity is preserved not by hierarchy alone, but by hierarchy rightly ordered under truth.
However, it must also be clarified that not ever single error or disagreement with hierarchy justifies drastic action. Orthodoxy has never taught that every perceived error is actually an error, that every actual misstep constitutes apostasy, or that disagreement automatically warrants resistance or separation. The Church has always distinguished between personal sin, pastoral imprudence, theological imprecision, and the formal abandonment of the faith.
Patience, forbearance, and endurance have consistently been regarded as virtues, not weaknesses. Much that is troubling in ecclesial life is borne, corrected over time, or addressed through proper canonical and conciliar means. Resistance becomes necessary only when the integrity of the faith itself is at stake, when core dogma is denied, when heresy is formally embraced or imposed, or when silence would constitute complicity in the distortion of the Gospel. To act otherwise is not zeal but presumption. Authentic fidelity is marked by discernment, humility, and a sober recognition of one’s own place within the Church. The true Orthodox and Catholic path is therefore neither reactionary nor impulsive, but measured and sober.
However, the modern institutionalist heresy and distortion reverses this logic. Instead of asking, “Is this faithful to what has been received?”, the decisive question becomes, “Is this officially recognized by a particular institution?” — often without regard to whether that institution itself remains faithful to the doctrine of the Church. The result is a subtle but dangerous transformation: doctrine becomes flexible, adjusted to cultural fashion or administrative expediency, while authority becomes detached from accountability to truth.
In such a framework, Orthodox Catholicism ceases to mean universal and right belief and instead comes to mean compliance with whatever the institution currently permits. Continuity becomes revision masquerading as succession.
This confusion has led many to follow institutions rather than the faith itself. Communities that preserve historic doctrine may find themselves in tension with contemporary structures that have altered belief or praxis. Ironically, those who remain faithful may be labeled “rogue,” “breakaway,” or “non-denominational”—labels that presuppose a denominational framework foreign to Apostolic Christianity.
Orthodox and Catholic Christianity do not understand themselves as denominations among many, but as the continuation of a single faith and life. To judge them by denominational standards is to apply the wrong measure entirely. Faithfulness and institutional harmony are not identical; history shows they often diverge.
When institutions are treated as ultimate arbiters of truth, several consequences follow. Tradition becomes branding. Doctrine yields to policy. Conscience is subordinated to administrative compliance. Faithful dissent is pathologized rather than discerned. Most troubling of all, reform becomes impossible without rupture, because correction itself is interpreted as rebellion.
Yet the Christian tradition insists that reform is not betrayal when it restores what has been lost. Continuity sometimes requires resistance — not to the Holy Church, but to forces that seek to subordinate her to the spirit of the age.
Apostolic Christianity offers a different measure, one that modern sensibilities often find uncomfortable. Truth is not created by institutions. Authority exists to serve doctrine and is accountable to it. Continuity is measured in fidelity, not popularity. Legitimacy flows from faithfulness, not fashion. This does not reject hierarchy or order, but preserves them in their proper role as servants of truth rather than its masters.
The question facing the modern world is not whether institutions matter. The Church herself was founded by Christ and structured by the Apostles. The question is whether institutions exist to preserve the faith, or whether the faith exists to justify institutions. If the latter prevails, religion becomes indistinguishable from ideology, and doctrine becomes whatever survives administrative consensus. If the former is upheld, the Church remains what she has always claimed to be: not a corporation, not a platform, not a denomination, but a living continuity of truth, entrusted to human hands, yet not created by them.
