www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Canonical Versus Non-Canonical Churches

Hello:

I would like to learn some more about Eastern Orthodoxy. Here are my questions:

1. In Eastern Orthodoxy, who determines which Churches are canonical and which ones are not?

2. What method in Eastern Orthodoxy is used to determine that certain Churches are canonical and others are not?

3. Do those Churches in Eastern Orthodoxy considered non-canonical consider themselves canonical?

4. Does Eastern Orthodoxy consider the Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine Rite as non-canonical Churches?

These are my questions for now.

God bless,

Rony

A Canonical Church is a Church established according to the Canons as autocephalous (independent) by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, which is the only one with the right to do so, and recognized by the rest of the Orthodox Churches.

The "method" I am not sure because I'm not expert in Law, but when one Church wants its autocephaly the EP analyses the situation and sees if the Church is well established in a country and has sufficient number of faithful that are united in the desire of autocephaly. Then he negociates with the other Patriarchates to see if they agree and it's finaly recognized.

In many cases Orthodox Churches that are now fully recognized as autocephalous and Canonical were seen as uncanonical and schismatic in the past. This is often due to politics, as when one Church becomes autocephalous it oftens split from another national church.

This was the case of the Bulgarian Church, which belonged to the Constantinople Patriarcate but wanted its independence so in order to get a separated jurisdiction they asked for the help of Rome and the of Moscow, and their Church was proclaimed autocephalous but the EP refused to recognized that until later.

Nowadays there are similar cases of self proclaimed autocephalous Churches with uncanonical status such as the Macedonian Church (it split from the Serbs who refuse to recognize them as independent) and the Ukrainian schisms (Moscow Pat. still sees Ukraine as part of Russia) but sooner or later these Churches will be recognized by the EP and the rest of the Orthodox Churches.

A different case is that of the ROCOR, which did not proclaim in itself autocephalous but works like an independent Church. The EP allowed its existence temporarily while the Church in Russia was being destroyed by Communism, but then the exiled hierarchy did not recognize the new Russian Patriarch and decided to go its own way.

Of course, non canonical Churches make elaborated defenses of their canonicity just as the SSPX tries to prove they're not in schism from Rome.

In general terms, Uniat Churches as seen in a context different from the issue of canonicity. They're seen as ilegitimate splits from Orthodox Patriarchates because of political things, and proselitism. However this has varied throughout the history. In the Kingdom of romania before Communism, the Greek Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church were defined as the "National Church".

Mexican:

Thanks for replying.

God bless,

Rony

Dear Mexicano,

However, there have been historical cases of Orthodox Churches that have declared themselves to be Patriarchates - and then had to wait for long periods of time before world Orthodoxy acknowledged them to be such.

In other words, they didn't wait for acceptance as Patriarchates by world Orthodoxy before establishing themselves as such.

The only case of an Orthodox Church declaring itself a Patriarchate and then being condemned by world Orthodoxy as "schismatical" is the Kyivan Patriarchate.

Also, would it be true to say that to be canonical as an Orthodox Church in North America, one would have to belong to SCOBA?

Alex

A canonical Church is also one that lives according to the sacred canons. This is not true of much of 'canonical' Orthodoxy.

When the 'official' jurisdictions, patriarchates etc. trample on the sacred canons and flout Holy Tradition, they cease to be canonical. However, they still sit as judges over those who struggle in the name of True Orthodoxy, labelling them schismatics lacking canonicity. The whole meaning of canonicity has been perverted, so that in common Orthodox parlance, it means little.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Here we go...again. Another journey into the confusing world of Orthodox canonicity. It is generally held, by those in communion with the EP, that it is this which is the standard for canonicity. If you ask them about churches that are in communion with churches in communion with the EP but are not themselves in communion the confusion starts. Or churches like ROCOR who broke communion because of communist infiltration into the MP: exceptions start being made. In the end, to a Catholic if a bishop has valid orders and professes the Apostolic Faith as defined by the early coucils he possesses a degree of legitimacy. Obviously if he is also in communion with most other Orthodox worldwide he possesses a deeper communion than if it's just him and a handful of other bishops...

Alex, CHRIST IS BAPTIZED! IN THE JORDAN! There are a few canonical jurisdictions that do NOT (for one reason or another) belong to SCOBA: The Moscow Patriarchate, The Byelorussian Eparchy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate (we belong ONLY through the participation of our Exarch, Archbishop Demetrios), and The Serbian Orthodox New Gracanica Metropolitanate: Diocese of America and Canada. All of these Churches are completely canonical, but for one reason or another do not participate in SCOBA.

In His Holy Name,
+Father Archimandrite Gregory

Mexican spoke of the EP as the only one with authority to grant autocephaly, but even that is not accepted by many Orthodox. For example, the MP granted the OCA its autocephaly back in the 70s, which the EP does not recognize to this day, even though they recognize the canonicity of the OCA itself. The OCAs hierarchs ARE recognized by most all Slavic jurisdictions as autocephalous heirarchs without the EPs approval as far as I know. So, the EPs approval appears to be no longer necessary in the eyes of most Orthodox- who, by the way, are not under the EP per se if they have autocephaly. Am I wrong? The answer one way or the other probably comes depending on whether a respondent recognizes the EPs authority or not. (Begins to sound like doubletalk, doesn't it?)

Well that is true. The Moscow Patriarchate, specialy during the Communist occupation, abused its jurisdictional rights and has incurred in "Papal" claims of jurisdictional supremacy.

The MP was never one of the ancient Patriarchates but the National Church of Russia. No one gave them the authority or canonical rights over the American Continent, with the exception of Alaska which was a part of Russia. The Ecumenical Patriarchate had reserved Canonical rights for those "Barbarian" lands or places where there were no Orthodox Christians (and this is the case). I do not mean that the Patriarchate of Moscow as being the first Orthodox Church of the continent did not have any right to exist in the continent, but it clearly does not have right to proclaim autocephaly to its Church.

Alex,

Other way around ? A Church has to be canonical to belong to SCOBA.

Many years,

Neil

Greetings all,

I am sorry this posting is looking like just a lot of question marks.

Regarding the issue of autocephaly or the recognition of a Patriarchate for the moment, if the normative approach is to claim autocephaly and wait umpteen years for the world to accept it, what is going wrong, shouldn't there be a set procedure for this kind of organizational change?

What is the benefit to those claiming autocephaly and why would anyone oppose it? Who has the right to initiate a move toward autocephaly?

What is the alternative, no new Patriarchates? If so, what does that imply?

Was there a time when Patriarchates or autocephalous churches were not declared unilaterally?

Was there ever an occasion when the EP initiated the creation of a new Patriarchate for it's own reasons?

What right does the EP have in refusing to recognise the autocephaly of the OCA, and what do they see as the corrective for it? Would Patriarch Bartholomew rather have the hierarchy of the OCA submit to the supervision of the EP, or possibly return to Moscow? What is being assumed here but not explicitly stated?

Michael

I think Fr. Mark hit on a good point before. We seem to expend a great deal of energy worrying whether or not a church is recognized as "canonical" or "noncanonical" when it really should rely on more than who accepts them. THe measure of a church's authenticity should be how they live out the gospel in line with sacred tradition and the holy canons and impart that to the people. I'll take a church that faithfully lives out the gospel mission any day over one that proclaims it but acts otherwise.

Dear Neil,

Yup, you got it!

My OCA priest friend believes that SCOBA is the touchstone of Orthodoxy - period.

I get him mad at me when I told him I originally thought that SCOBA was an Orthodox sports club for underwater diving . . .

Alex

A little known fact is that the OCA went to Constantinople FIRST to get autocephaly. Pat Athenagoras told them to "go to the Russians; they are your mother church" figuring that the Russians would never give it to them. SURPRISE! They did. Then the EP was like "oh wait, we are the only ones with the right to do that."

Mexican, as you mentioned the Russians were the first Orthodox in America and had an episcopate here. Hence, they would say that have rights over America, and they can give autocephaly to their daugher. Many Orthodox canonists would argue that Canon 28 cannot be used to justify Constantinople's role because it gave Const. such rights ONLY in the three civil dioceses adjacent to the civil diocese in which Constantinople is located.

I myself could care less. The OCA's primate is approved by no other church and consecrates his own chrism. So that makes him de facto autocephalous. If the EP doesn't want to admit that that's fine and understandable as if they did they would have to get out of America (that would be tantamount to recognizing that America is no longer a diaspora situation and that therefore there should be one episcopacy).

Just my 2 cents.

anastasios

anastasios

Anastasios, could you double check on the latter point? I was at a chrismation in an OCA church, and was very surprised by the Priest's comment - a very deliberate one - that the chrism is received from the EP! Now the priest in question is a fine priest (and SVS grad), but is young and may have just made a rookie error. But your comment reminded me of this moment, so I am curious to know for sure.