On Canonicity - whatever that may be

I came to Orthodoxy through the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in 2005. At the time, ROCOR was in communion with the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, and the Orthodox Church of Sinai. To the rest of the Eastern Orthodox churches, ROCOR was considered "uncanonical". At the time there were many articles published on ROCOR clergy blogs and elsewhere expressing the view that this was a bizarre use of the word canonical.

The thrust of their arguments was that referring to ROCOR as uncanonical seemed to have little to do with the degree to which ROCOR adhered to the canonical tradition of the Church and more to do with the fact that it wasn't in communion with the churches using the term in this partisan way.

In 2007 ROCOR entered into full communion with the Patricarchate of Moscow and was subsequently recognised as canonical by the other Eastern Orthodox churches. The language used by ROCOR shifted at this point, and we, too began to refer to certain other churches as uncanonical, despite us having been in communion with many of these very same churches only months earlier.  In fact, in some cases, it was members of our very own Holy Synod that had consecrated the bishops of these churches which were now suddenly deemed uncanonical. This was very difficult to understand for many of us who had been taught that canonicity is not about being in communion with one group or another, but rather about faithful adherence to the canonical tradition of the Church.

How could we look at these churches that adhered faithfully to the canons of the Church and tell them that they were uncanonical, meanwhile entering into communion with churches whose practice on a number of fronts seemed not to be in keeping with canonical tradition?

I am now a member of the Orthodox Church of the Gauls, which is not an Eastern Orthodox church and makes no claim to be such.  We are part of a different communion of Orthodox Churches.  Our faith, our teachings, as well as our spiritual and liturgical life, are Orthodox.  Our bishops have their apostolic heritage in the same succession and lineage as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches, and we are in communion with other churches with similar roots.  Yet, many within the Eastern Orthodox church refer to us as "uncanonical".  Indeed, the OrthodoxWiki article refers to us as "independent".

This latter term is particularly interesting.  In a sense, I can understand one communion referring to another as uncanonical.  When there is any kind of disagreement, human weakness will nurture a desire to demarcate others as somehow "not like us" and perpetuate that demarcation, even if the differences are imagined rather than real.  Such a label is an effective way to do this.  However, it is more difficult to understand the reference to us being independent.

By what defintion is the Orthodox Church of the Gauls independent?  We do not stand alone: we are part of a wider communion of Orthodox churches, sharing the same Orthodox faith and practice.  If we are "indepedent", then so is the Greek Orthodox Church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, or any of the other member churches of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox communions of churches, but this seems a very counter-intuitive use of the word independent, as it would be if a police constable operating under orders, as part of a police force, were said to be functioning as an independent agent.  The word simply cannot be legitimately applied to that situation according to any common understanding of the word in the English language.

Regarding canonicity, I suppose that this just isn't something that we feel we must demonstrate to others.  We merely seek as best we can to order our life on the Apostolic Orthodox-Catholic Faith.  Are there canons of the ancient councils that we do not apply rigorously?  Yes, there undoubtedly are.  Yet has the Phanar not hosted services in which the Pope of Rome has been commemorated in the litanies alongside the ruling bishop?  Does the Greek Orthodox church not permit subdeacons to marry?  Do the Antiochian and Russian Orthodox Churches not permit the offering of the Eucharist on the weekdays of Lent?  Was Metropolitan Nicolae (Corneanu)'s reception of communion in a Catholic church not greeted with nothing more than a "Please don't do that" from the Holy Synod of Romania?  All of these actions contravene at least one canon or another, and I'm sure that a little research could generate a plethora of further examples.  Yet nobody (perhaps apart from our Old Calendarist sisters and brothers) condemns these churches as being "uncanonical" on the basis of these examples of apparent disobedience of the Church's canons.  So I must wonder how my church is any less "canonical" than those listed above?

Some might say that we are uncanonical because our foundation as a distinct church did not arise from a decree of autocephaly from our mother church.  Yet, did what is now the Russian Orthodox Church have such a decree or did it claim autocephanlous status for itself?  Anybody with a passing knowledge of Orthodox history will confirm that the latter is true.  Yet nobody today challenges the canonicity of the ROC on this basis.  And despite the Orthodox Church in America having been founded by precisely such a decree, has its autocephalous status not gone largely unrecognised because the remaining Eastern Orthodox churches cannot seem to agree among themselves who has the canonical authority to issue such a decree?

Neither an Ecumenical Council, nor the Patriarchate of Constantinople or of Moscow, nor any other Mother Church can create a new local Church. The most that they can do is to recognise such a Church. But the act of creation must be carried out in situ, locally, by the living Eucharistic cells which are called to gradually make up the body of a new local Church. 

- Metropolitan Kallistos of Diokleia. 

My purpose here is not to disparage the good and holy people in any of these churches, but rather to highlight that the entire modern discussion of whether a particular church is canonical is filled with so much contradiction and misdirection as to be of very little value, if any at all, and seems to my inexperienced and uneducated mind to serve little purpose other than as a weapon to perpetuate segregation.

It is my opinion that, when assessing the Orthodoxy or otherwise of any ecclesiastical body, the questions asked should simply be these:

• Is this church's faith and practice an expression of Orthodox doctrinal, spiritual, and liturgical Tradtition?
• Is this church's episcopate part of the lineage of the apostles through sustained Orthodox succession?
• Does the ethos of this church reveal the salvific love of Christ towards his creation?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then perhaps we ought to consider whether we can embrace them as sisters and brothers in the life in Christ, and greet them with a kiss.

Render unto Caeser...

No, I don't particularly like the King James Bible either but it's the only translation that has the desired effect in a blog post title, so there it is.

My attention has recently been drawn to this article by a Konstantin Matsan.
 
My initial reaction was that de Nile is not just a river in Egypt, it seems. However, after further consideration, I think that Mr Matsan is right in that too often all manner of assertions are made about the supposedly deepening relationship between church and state in Russia without any effort being made to show the premise to be true, (I believe that "begging the question" is the expression that he is struggling to find), but he falls into the trap of another logical fallacy in that this itself does not render the premise untrue.

Are the Russian state and the Church in Russia getting closer? Finding an answer to this would require a detailed historical comparison, which I am not qualified to make, and indeed we are presented in the article with evidence that seems to suggest that there is no real deepening relationship here. Perhaps a more manageable question, then, would be whether they are already too close. This only requires an examination of present circumstances.

Read more...

Milan Synod - yet again

Is it true?

I have heard on the grapevine that the Holy Synod of Milan, as of yesterday, is part of the Moldovan Orthodox Church under the omophor of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia, its bishops have been received as bishops, and it is now in full communion with the rest of the Orthodox Church.

However, I have so far been unable to find anything in any of the usual places online to confirm this. Does anybody have further news?

Many thanks.

Milan Synod - Part the Second

Last year, I posted this, wondering what had become of the excitement surrounding the supposedly imminent restoration of communion between the Holy Synod of Milan and the Russian Orthodox Church (Milan was once in communion with ROCOR, whence it acquired its hierarchy). I had welcomed the rumours, which I had heard from two independent and reliable sources, so could only conclude that whatever discussions had taken place had come to nothing. There was no public news about this, to my knowledge. I did, however, wonder at how this could ever have gone ahead with such public and vociferous opposition to the Russian Church from certain quarters within the Milan Synod. Other individuals aside, it is no secret that Archbishop John of New York is no fan of the Moscow Patriarchate.

Over the past few days, things have taken an interesting turn. Archbishop John has been elevated to the rank of Metropolitan and appointed leader of a new metropolis of North and South America, and the British Isles, formerly the American dioceses of the Milan Synod, along with its deanery of two priests in the British Isles. Remaining in communion with Milan, this new metropolis has been granted autonomous status.

At the same time, the Milan Synod issued a statement, reproduced on the news blog of Bishop Abbondio of Como, to the effect that it is not engaged in fraternal relations with any Russian breakaway group but only the Moscow Patriarchate. To my knowledge, this is the first public acknowledgement of any movement of Milan in the direction of Moscow, and I wonder whether it may be a sign of things to come.

Could it be that the release of Archbishop, now Metropolitan, John into his own autonomous synod was simply Milan's way of "trimming the fat", unburdening itself and thus allowing itself to move more freely to pursue what it had seemingly tried to pursue a little over a year ago? It seems curious that, a mere few days after all of this transpired, this document of the new metropolis was posted for public consumption.

Let's see where this goes. I, for one, shall continue to pray for communion with Milan under its head, Metropolitan Evloghios. I have long sympathised with this particular Old Calendar synod, if not for its stability then certainly for its resistance to some of the ecclesiological heresies that seem to be plaguing much of the Church today, and hoped for its restoration to the Orthodox Church. I do believe that it will be a healthful presence within the Moscow Patriarchate should this result in communion. It only seems unfortunate that any such good news will not apply to the former Milan clergy here in Britain, at least for now.

May God bless their efforts.

Milan Synod

Last year there was talk of reconciliation discussions between the Church of Russia and the Holy Synod of Milan. I heard about this from two sources, independently of each other. At one time I was told it looked likely that this would all be resolved by the end of last year and that Milan would be similar to ROCOR - an autonomous/semi-autonomous part of the Russian Orthodox Church.

I was very much looking forward to that. I have considerable respect for the Milan Synod and am acquainted with their "local" priest (these terms are relative, after all), with whom I was quietly hoping my parish could establish good relations.

So what happened?