A Real look at
Canonicity Yesterday and Today
AUTHOR:
BISHOP BRIAN KENNEDY, O.S.B.
How
"Canonical" is the See at Constantinople today whose Bishop must be
approved, sanctioned and titled by the Turkish Government? The present Bishop
of Constantinople sits secure only because the first choice of the Bishops was
denied the office by the State. The State "promoted and encouraged"
the election of the present Patriarch at Constantinople and the Bishops fell
into line and voted the expressed choice of the State. Is his authority from
the Holy Spirit who led the Bishops to vote for another? Or is his authority
from the State who declared his "worthiness" and
"acceptability"?
Is his power from God or from the State that has determined
only a Turkish Citizen may be Patriarch and that only a man who has been
"approved" by the State may serve? Is he "Canonical"
because the leaders of Turkey approve him? Is the "Patriarch" of
Athens any better?
Is the one sitting in the Chair of the Apostle Peter at
Antioch any less political?
Is a Patriarch (a supposed spiritual father) who sits as
Vice President of a Commission of the World Council of Churches a true
reflection of the Spiritual heritage from the Apostles?
Is the Patriarchate at Moscow now Divinely anointed because
Constantinople was forced by political realities to recognize them after
denying them recognition for 145 years? When Moscow broke from Constantinople,
they did so without the blessing of Constantinople and against the orders of
Constantinople. Moscow was an "Independent" Jurisdiction. Moscow was
said to be "Non Canonical" by all of the Ethnic, Old World
Patriarchs. Having achieved a broad political base of their own and the
wealth and power of this world, Moscow suddenly became "Canonical"
because they were recognized by the government appointee who sits on the Throne
of Constantinople.
St.
Paulinus never recognized the election of St. Meletius as Patriarch of Antioch.
St. Paulinus preferred to be in communion with another group in Antioch under
their own Antiochian Patriarch. St. Paulinus was not in communion with St.
Basil either. While St. Paulinus was in communion with St. Meletius, the rest
of "Official" Orthodoxy did not recognize either St. Basil or St.
Meletius.
The
followers of St. John Chrysostom were labeled "Joannite" and many,
including St. Epiphanius and St. Philo did not recognize the Joannite. Both
were part of the One Church established by Christ upon the Apostles, but were
not in communion with each other.
Every
Jurisdiction is man made. Christ and the Apostles did not establish any Jurisdiction.
The office of Patriarch was created not by Angels or by Divine Mandate but by
men, and sanctioned, titled and empowered by the Secular State. While the
Office of Patriarch has the potential for being a great witness to the
Confessional Unity of the Church Catholic, those who occupy these ancients
Apostolic Sees have redefined the Church in Political terms. They seek
not to establish, preserve and defend the truths of Holy Orthodoxy but rather
to establish, preserve and
defend their political power.
Quote
below from "Problems of Orthodoxy in America" Implied here is the
idea that a "high ecclesiastical power" Patriarch, Synod, etc.) is in
itself and by itself the source of canonicity: whatever it decides is ipso
facto canonical and the criterion of canonicity. But in the genuine Orthodox
tradition the ecclesiastical power is itself under the canons.
When
told that all Patriarchs have agreed with the Patriarch of Constantinople that
Monotheletism is an Orthodox doctrine, St. Maximus the Confessor refused to
accept this argument as a decisive criterion of truth. The Church
ultimately canonized St. Maximus and condemned the Patriarchs.
In
the original tradition, a Bishop through his consecration by other bishops,
becomes the "successor" not to his consecrators but, first of all, to
the unbroken continuity of the Church. In the system of canonical
subordination, however, the Bishop becomes a simple representative of a higher
jurisdiction, important not in himself, not as the charismatic bearer and
guardian of his Church's continuity and catholicity, but as means of this
Church's subordination to a "jurisdiction." It is difficult to
imagine a more serious distortion and, indeed, destruction of the Orthodox
conception of continuity and apostolic succession. For the Church cannot be
reduced to "jurisdiction" (End of Quote)
Both
East and West are rushing to redefine and revise history in order to perpetuate
their own inflated self image and exaggerated sense of self importance.
True
Canonicity is the challenge of a return to the fullness of faith and order in
obedience to the will of God. Canonicity requires a submission in faith
to the fullness of truth found in the message of Scripture and Sacred
Tradition. We believe the unity of the Church has never been lost because
all faithful and committed Orthodox and Catholic believers form the Body of
Christ and as such is indivisible.
It is the headship of Christ and the continuous indwelling
of the Holy Spirit that guarantees the unity of the Church unto ages and ages.
The sins, errors and inflated egos of papist and neo-papist churchmen cannot
obliterate the unity of the Church Catholic, which Church has the divine
guarantee of indefectibility, No power can defeat the divine plan of Christ who
established ONE Church commissioned to bring
mankind into unity with God. Oneness is an essential mark of the Church. Unity
is not a promise, a potentiality or a goal to be sought.
Unity belongs to the very nature of the Church Catholic. It
is not something that has been lost, rather it is an essential, intrinsic and
permanent mark of the Church. Orthodoxy rest on the identity of faith,
order and worship. All three aspects are assured and safeguarded by the reality
of our unbroken succession of Bishops from the Apostles and our succession of
Apostolic truth. This guarantees our Episcopal structure and Sacramental
life.
No unity is possible where the Episcopacy and Sacraments are
absent. For this reason, the horde of Protestant Sects and their continuously
mutating heresies are excluded from any hope of unity. We must pray for those
unscrupulous churchmen who view canonicity as a matter of law to be used to
expand their power base in the name of officialdom. We pray, Father forgive
them, for they know not what they do.
How
does the Church participate in God’s mystery and grace? How is metousia Theou
("participation in the essence of God") achieved? How does the Church
become an eikon of the Holy Trinity? The answer, in its simplest form, is contained
in the phrase "in and through Christ." Christ has established the
bond between the image of the Triune God, and that which is made after the
image, namely, the Church, which has always been a confederation of
autonomous and autocephalous jurisdictions under a local Bishop. The fullness
of the Church resides within each Bishop individually and all Bishops
collectively. In Christ we have both the eikon and the at ion ("that which is according to the
image"). Hence, we must say that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ
and is defined by faith and praxis, not subordination to a given Bishop or
Patriarch.
St. Mark
Ingenious was canonized by the Church not withstanding the fact he did not want
communion with the Latinizing Patriarch of Constantinople even at his funeral,
"either during (his) lifetime or after his death." St.
Gregory Palamas, also Canonized by the Church not withstanding the fact he
broke communion with the similarly Latinizing Patriarch of Constantinople,
John Calecas (1334-1347), and who, because of this, was imprisoned, insulted,
and anathematized.
Subordination to a Bishop or Patriarch is NOT the
criteria of Orthodoxy.
The Patriarchs and Bishops of the Eastern Church fell into great heresy on at least six occasions
before 1054:
The
Arian schisms (343-98);
The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415);
The Acacian schism (484-519);
Concerning Monothelitism (640-681);
Concerning Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43).
This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism. (46% of the
time) In a Council at Antioch in 341, the majority of 97 Eastern bishops
subscribed to a form of semi-Arianism. The western-dominated Council of
Sardica (Sofia) in 343 again upheld Athanasius' orthodoxy, whereas the eastern
Council of Sirmium in 351 espoused Arianism, which in turn was rejected by the
western Councils of Arles (353) and Milan (355).
The
Patriarchs often fell into heresy, taught heresy and punished those who did not
accept their doctrine of subordinationism. A short Litany of Patriarchal errors
and heresies are as follows: ( LIST FROM INTERNET SOURCES)
|
Antioch, Paul of Samosata 260-269
Modalist |
These
historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows:
All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical
patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian),
475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total
of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642. At least two out of three of
the sees suffered under a heterodox "shepherd" simultaneously for 112
years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for
one-third of the time), Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest
bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time
over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for
example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople,
Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%,
and 58% of the time
respectively.
Furthermore,
these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken
terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years
(542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the
Byzantine Empire and the "New Rome," was embroiled in the Monothelite
heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least (the list is not
exhaustive) 41 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 260 and 711.
Furthermore,
essentially the entire Eastern Church seriously missed the mark doctrinally on
at least two occasions: the "Robber Synod" at Ephesus in 449, and in
the signing of the Monophysite Henoticon of the Emperor in 482. The record of
heresy in the East, then, could scarcely be more sobering for those Orthodox
who define the Church in terms of subordination or Communion with a Patriarch.
Eutyches
[a Monophysite] was supported by the Imperial Court, and by Dioscorus the
Patriarch of Alexandria . . . A general Council was summoned for the ensuing summer at Ephesus [in 449] . . . It
was attended by sixty metropolitans, ten from each of the great divisions of
the East; the whole number of bishops assembled amounted to one hundred
and thirty-five.
The
proceedings that followed were of so violent a character, that the Council has
gone down in history under the name of the Latrocinium or "Gang of
Robbers." Eutyches was honorably acquitted, and his doctrine
received . . . which seems to have been the spontaneous act of the assembled
Fathers. The proceedings ended by Dioscorus excommunicating the Pope, and
the Emperor issuing an edict in approval of the decision
of the Council . . . The Council seems to have been unanimous, in the
restoration of Eutyches; a more complete decision can hardly be imagined. It is
true the whole number of signatures now extant, one hundred and eight,
may seem small out of a thousand, the number of Sees in the
East; but the attendance of Councils always bore a representative
character.
The whole number of East and West was about eighteen hundred, yet the
second Ecumenical Council was attended by only one
hundred and fifty, which is but a twelfth part of the whole number; the
Third Council by about two hundred, or a ninth; the Council of Nicaea itself
numbered only three hundred and eighteen Bishops.
Moreover, when we look through the names subscribed to the Synodal
decision, we find that the misbelief, or misapprehension, or weakness, to
which this great offence must be attributed, was no local phenomenon, but
the unanimous sin of Bishops in every Patriarchate and of every school of the
East.
Three out of the four patriarchs were in favor of the
heresiarch, the fourth being on his trial. Of these Domnus of Antioch and
Juvenal of Jerusalem acquitted him, on the grounds of his confessing the
faith of Nicaea and Ephesus . . . Dioscorus . . . was on this occasion
supported by those Churches which had so nobly stood by their patriarch
Athanasius in the great Arian conflict. These three Patriarchs were
supported by the Exarchs of Ephesus and Caesarea in Cappadocia; and both of
these as well as Domnus and Juvenal, were supported in turn by their
subordinate Metropolitans. Even the Sees under the influence of Constantinople,
which was the remaining sixth division of the East, took part with
Eutyches . . . Such was the state of Eastern Christendom in the year 449; a
heresy, appealing to the Fathers, to the Creed, and, above all, to Scripture,
was by a general Council, professing to be Ecumenical, received as true in
the person of its promulgator. Certainly the Monophysite heresy was presented
as Apostolic truth in all its provinces from Macedonia to Egypt . . . If
we seem separated from the Patriarchs it is because we did not accept the
heresy of Phyletism, Jurisdictionalism and Subordinationism. If we seem
to be apart, it is because we continue to define the Church in terms of
faith and praxis and define Canonical as being faithful to the Canons and not
to given political Patriarchate.
THE
RUSSIAN ORTHODOX PATRIARCHATE
http://www.celticorthodoxchurch.com/patriarch.html
IN REVIEW -
QUOTE FROM INTERNET SOURCES
Clergymen who leave their "canonical" jurisdiction for reasons of
conscience resulting from their jurisdiction's unrepentant violation of Holy
Tradition, or because of heretical views held, and publicly espoused, by their
hierarchs "have abandoned their bishop in rebellion and
disobedience." The response of these conscientious clergymen—men who
often pay a very high price for their move—is entirely justifiable from
Holy Tradition (See, for example, some Canons Related to Ecumenism)
The
use of the term "canonical" to describe various Orthodox
jurisdictions.
Archbishop Chrysostomos has noted:
"There is no such thing, of course, as a 'canonical' Orthodox
jurisdiction, despite the fact that this kind of terminology has crept into our
ecclesiological vocabulary from the West.
Nor are there 'official' Orthodox Churches, a category
produced by the contemporary ecumenical movement. Were this so, and were such
terms amenable to the nuanced ecclesiological notions of the
Greek Fathers, we would have to concede that the Cappadocian Fathers, the
Studite monks, and the Palamite Hesychasts were, in some way, 'quasi-canonical'
and 'unofficial' This, if nothing else, warns us against apologetic
presentations which unwisely pass over the intricacies of Church history."
(Archbishop Chrysostomos, in a review of Fr. Alexander Webster's "The
Price of Prophecy" (Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIV, No. 2&3, p. 71.
That "canonicity" is defined as
"being in communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch, or other
Patriarchates." As Father Alexander Schmemann once wrote in an excellent
article on this subject: (ii) False ideas of Canonicity: We must begin
with a clarification of the seemingly simple notion of canonicity. I say
'seemingly simple' because it is indeed simple enough to give a formal
definition: 'canonical is that which complies with the canons of the
Church.' There are those, for example, who solve the complex and tragical
canonical problem of Orthodoxy in America by one simple rule, which to
them seems a self-evident one: to be 'canonical' one has to be under some
Patriarch, or, in general, under some established autocephalous church in
the old world. Canonicity is thus reduced to subordination which is declared to
constitute the fundamental principle of church organization. Implied here is
the idea that a 'high ecclesiastical power' (Patriarch, Synod, etc.) is in
itself and by itself the source of canonicity: whatever it decides is ipso
facto canonical and the criterion of canonicity. And just as no power, no
authority can transform heresy into orthodoxy and to make white what is black,
no power can make canonical a situation which is not canonical. When told
that all Patriarchs have agreed with the Patriarch of Constantinople that
Monotheletism is an Orthodox doctrine, St. Maximus the Confessor refused to
accept this argument as a decisive criterion of truth. The Church ultimately
canonized St. Maximus and condemned the Patriarchs."
(The Problems of Orthodoxy in America, The Canonical
Problem) The issue of
canonicity, is essentially a Latin idea imported into Orthodoxy and
incompatible with its ecclesiological principles, We read more lies, and un-Orthodox concepts
(e.g., full communion with the SCOBA
jurisdictions implies "canonicity").
Simply repeating a lie is a common tactic of the OCA and the others over the past few decades: repeat a
lie often enough and eventually the ignorant masses will believe it, is
their hope and motto.
That
those who enter into resistance, eucharistically "walling
themselves off," are schismatics. In fact, it is clear from
Holy Tradition that quite
the opposite is true. Those who introduce innovations and heresy into
the Church are the true schismatics. They are the ones who cause the division,
not the faithful who oppose their innovations. St. Theodore of Studios
writes: "We are not schismatics from the Church of God; God forbid
that we should ever come to that! But although our sins are many,
nevertheless we are of one body with the Church; we are its children and
the children of its divine dogmas; and we strive to keep its canons and
constitutions...This is not a schism of the Church. It is defense of the truth,
and vindication of the sacred laws (kai ton theon nomon echorechesin" (PG
997CD, 1001D; cited in Theodore of Studios: Byzantine Churchman, by Patrick
Henry III [unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale, 1968], pp. 123, 109)
Many go
so far as to say that the faithful Orthodox Christians in
traditionalist churches not in communion with the "official SCOBA
jurisdictions" are "outside the Orthodox Church". One
clergyman remarked, "There are arrogant converts who have stolen their
Christianity from people who gave their blood for their faith, and now
have the gall to dismiss them as 'uncanonical.' These people are outside the
realm of Christian and basic human decency. They should hang their heads in
absolute shame." END OF QUOTE
The
skeleton of the body of the Church is the episcopacy and the mutual
accountability of all Orthodox Bishops to apostolic faith and order. The sinew
which unites the body in an identifiable organism is the relationship of each
bishop with his priests, his deacons and the faithful. In his letter to the
Trallians, St. Ignatius of Antioch writes, "And do ye also reverence your
bishop as Christ Himself, according as the blessed apostles have enjoined you
... For
what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and
authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to
his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ of God?"
A
careful reading of the writings of St. Ignatius will show that the episcopacy
(properly understood and when it functions correctly) is charismatic, not
political; that the fullness of the Church is found locally amidst an Orthodox
(in the full sense of that term—including what is called
"Orthopraxis") Hierarch and his worshipping and struggling Orthodox
flock; and that efforts to consolidate ecclesiastical authority by the
subjugation of lesser dioceses to greater ones was a violation of the apostolic
and patristic mentality, and that these violations were never so aberrant in
the East as in the West.
It is contrary to Orthodox truth to affirm a general
mentality of "officialdom" and "neo-papal Patriarchalism"
that has infected the Orthodox Church in this century. (See
"The Ecclesiology of St. Ignatius of Antioch," by Fr. John
Romanides, "Orthodox Ecclesiology," by Dr. Alexander
Kalomiros).
The
"obedience mantra" begins. One who has a proper understanding of
Orthodox ecclesiology would say as follows: "The
greatest contribution which all orders of the clergy can make toward the
gradual erosion of Holy Tradition and the loss of anything authentically
Orthodox in this land, is to be obedient and loyal to those in Episcopal
authority who are compromising the Faith, introducing and supporting heretical
innovations, modernizing the Church, etc."
Fr.
Alexander Schmemann, in his 1964 article, had the following words to say:
"For the purpose and function of the Hierarchy is precisely to keep
pure and undistorted the Tradition in its fullness, and if and when it
sanctions or even tolerates anything contrary to the truth of the church, it
puts itself under the condemnation of canons." In a footnote to this
excerpt, he quotes Fr. George Florovksy: "The duty of obedience ceases
when the Bishop deviates from the catholic norm, and the people have the right
to accuse and even depose him." (From "Sobornost—The Catholicity of
the Church" in The Church of God, London, 1934, pg. 72).
The
view, that of the True-Orthodox or Catacomb Church or Resistance Church,
sees the first responsibility of the Orthodox Church to be faithfulness to
Christ and to the true Spirit of Orthodoxy, at whatever external cost.
This mentality does not at all disdain external forms; we know that the
Catacomb Church has preserved the Divine services and the church hierarchy down
to our own day.
The
external cost of the Catacomb Church's faithfulness to true Orthodoxy has been
the loss of immediate influence over the people, many of whom do not even
know of its existence and the majority of whom would not know where or how
to enter into contact with its members.
In
the Life of Our Holy Father St. Maximus the Confessor ([Boston: Holy
Transfiguration, 1982], p. 62) we read that the Saint is quoted as saying,
"Even if the whole universe holds communion with the Patriarch, I will not
communicate with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul:
the Holy Spirit declares that even the angels would be anathema if they
should begin to preach another Gospel, introducing some new teaching."
[cf. LXIII, col. 231 [Homilies on the Epistle to the Hebrews XXXIV, §
1]).
He was
canonized in spite of his failure to accept communion with the Patriarch.
The Neo-Papist groups today believe the various Patriarchs are the sole
depository of Divine grace and the sole conduit of Sacramental grace,
which elevates the Patriarch to the position of God. Any who accept this have made an Anti Christ
out of the Bishop.
Another lie
used to strengthen their unholy cause in North America is to term the Church in
America as the Diaspora. The Church in North America is NOT the
Diaspora. Orthodox in the Americas do not attribute religious
significance to the land of their forefathers and have no intention of
returning to these ancestral homes.
The
principle held to within Orthodoxy is found in Canon 6 of the Council of
Nicaea. Canon 6 is extremely important because it goes to certify that
there exists in the organization of the Church a sort of hierarchy of unity of
Churches which find themselves gathered together.
With
Canon 6 of Nicaea there is a beginning of the notion of Patriarchate. The first
three Patriarchate appear: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch which have been the
three great ones from the start. Only at the time of the 2nd Ecumenical
Council, which took place in 381 at Constantinople, did Constantinople as the
new capital of the empire become recognized as having rights second only to
Rome. Rome remains the first Church through precedence of Faith. In the early
years, Rome was far more faithful to Orthodoxy than the East. The
Patriarchates, beginning at the Council of Nicaea, were definitively formulated
at the Council of Chalcedon: the Patriarchate of Rome, the Patriarchate of
Alexandria, the Patriarchate of Antioch, and that of Jerusalem. With the
council of 381, came the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Celebrated Orthodox canonists of the
12th century such as Balsamon and Zinaras, in studying the canons, deduced from
them that Rome was the Patriarchate of all the provinces of the West (Occident)
in the empire. It is this that is precisely demonstrated in Canon 6 of the
Council of Nicaea.
Vladimir Lossky in 1937 wrote to the
members of the Commission for Occidental (Western) Orthodox
Affairs: "The ecclesiastical territory of the Occident (West),
as such, belongs to the Patriarchate of Rome. Therefore none
of the local Churches of the Orient (East), or Constantinople, or Russia can
appropriate for itself this territory by establishing there new dioceses (for
example, a diocese in the United States, Canada etc.) Only a local
Western Church can be born from the same Western soil, as the result of a
mission of a restored Occidental (Western) Orthodoxy with it's traditions, its
rite, its spirituality, the cult of its local saints.
Once
again this formula is found in a line of thinking of Metropolitan Sergius of
Moscow who, in completely refuting the pretensions of Metropolitan Evlogios,
based it on the same principle: the impossibility for a local Church of
the East to found a normal diocese on the ancient territory of the Patriarchate
of Rome" (Presence Orthodoxe 1995, n° 1, p. 10).
The opinion of Vladimir Lossky in
considering that the provinces of the West are dependent on the Patriarchate of
Rome is not his personal judgment. It is also that of the great Greek canonists
Balsamon and Zinaras, who have interpreted the 6th Canon of Nicaea in this sense.
Canonically, according to Canon 6 of Nicaea the native Church in the West
cannot be a diocese of an Eastern Church, all the more so since Orthodoxy is
not limited to only the territories of Eastern Europe.
Monseigneur John of Saint Denis said in Présence Orthodoxe de 1983 n° 3, p. 18
: "It is necessary to be careful not to identify the Orthodox Church, the
Mother-Church, with the Eastern Churches. The one is universal, the others are
limited geographically, culturally, ritually: they are local". And
Monseigneur John adds: The West must never forget to discern within the
Orthodox Church that which is universal from that which is local. If one
desires that ones joining be organic, stripped of that which is exotic and
artificial, it is necessary that one ‘make oneself Orthodox' and not to the
point of ‘making oneself Eastern'".
See: http://www.celticorthodoxchurch.com/ecumenism.html
See: http://www.celticorthodoxchurch.com/canon28.html
Home page: http://www.celticorthodoxchurch.com