THE GREAT LIE

ON HOW THEODORE BALSAMON’S MISREPRESENTATION OF ORTHODOX CANON LAW DESTABILIZED EASTERN ORTHODOXY

By Bp. Joseph (Ancient Church of the West)

INTRODUCTION

Among the most damaging shifts in the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church is the gradual replacement of a conciliar and locally diverse ecclesiology with an increasingly rigid and centralized system modeled not after Apostolic or Patristic consensus, but after imperial convenience and Byzantine courtly ambition. This shift reached a critical point in the commentaries of Theodore Balsamon, a 12th-century Byzantine canonist and “Patriarch of Antioch” (living permanently in Constantinople “in partibus infidellium”), whose misinterpretation of the canons of the First Ecumenical Council still reverberates today. The consequences were far-reaching: the suppression of non-Byzantine liturgies, the fading of the ancient patriarchal balance, and the emergence of an Eastern form of papal authoritarianism, which we may rightly call Byzantine Papalism.

CANON 6 OF NICAEA: A TESTAMENT TO LOCAL AUTONOMY

The First Ecumenical Council, held in Nicaea in AD 325, issued this vital statement in Canon 6:

“Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction in all these, since this is also customary for the Bishop of Rome. Likewise, in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.”

This canon affirms three things:

1. Local ecclesial customs and jurisdictions are authoritative.

2. Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch (along with Jerusalem and Constantinople making up the “Pentarchy” of ancient patriarchates) each have their own inherited authority.

3. No central administrative control is imposed by any other patriarchate. There is no papal authority or ability to unilaterally declare or enforce anything.

In short, Nicaea enshrines decentralized, conciliar authority rooted in ancient tradition, not imperial standardization.

THEODORE BALSAMON’S INNOVATION

Now we fast-forward eight centuries to the canonical writings of Theodore Balsamon, a titular patriarch of Antioch, but who lived his whole life under the authority of Constantinople. In his commentary on Canon 2 of the Council in Trullo (AD 692), Balsamon reinterprets the principle of conciliarity through the lens of Byzantine imperial centralism, claiming: “The Church of Constantinople, being first in honor among all the Churches of the East, and presiding over all, has given to all the others the form of service which they are now required to follow.”

He goes further: “From the time of the holy Council in Trullo and the confirmation of the divine canons, all local customs must be brought into accord with the Church of Constantinople, as she is the model and standard of correct ecclesiastical order.” (Paraphrased from PG 137.633–634)

This interpretation effectively overrides the local liturgical and canonical customs protected by Nicaea, asserting that Byzantine liturgical forms and canon law must now be normative for all Churches in communion with Constantinople. It is a theological sleight of hand that retrojects 12th-century imperial ideology into 4th-century apostolic consensus.

THE RISE OF BYZANTINE PAPALISM

The result of this interpretive shift is what we now call Byzantine Papalism, a form of ecclesiastical centralization that mimics many of the same errors the East historically opposed in the development of doctrine and polity in the Latin West:

• A primacy of jurisdiction, not just of honor, for Constantinople.

• A demand for liturgical and canonical uniformity across all patriarchates.

• The marginalization of ancient rites and local traditions in Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and beyond. This results in the most ancient liturgies of the Church - the St. James, the Sts. Mari and Addai, and the St. Mark Liturgies disappearing from Eastern Orthodox practice.

• A top-down system of control rather than a collegial, conciliar, Spirit-led governance.

This is in direct contrast to the words of St. Cyprian of Carthage, who wrote: “The episcopate is one, each part of which is held wholly by each bishop.” (De Unitate Ecclesiae, 5)

And the teaching of St. Basil the Great: “We must not be contentious about words, nor strive about things that are of slight importance.” (On the Holy Spirit, Ch. 27)

These Fathers articulate a vision in which the local bishop, liturgical tradition, and synodal governance are safeguarded, not crushed under a single patriarchal polity. Diversity of practice is a safeguard against heresy, where the local authority is the conceptual boundary of Orthodoxy through what is agreed between all local, diverse and decentralized liturgical communities.

SCRIPTURAL FOUNDATIONS FOR CONCILIARITY

The New Testament Church was synodal, not autocratic. The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) settled disputes not by decree from a single bishop, but through the collegial discernment of the apostles and elders, guided by the Holy Spirit: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:28)

St. Paul, likewise, recognized regional differences in custom, writing: “Let each be fully convinced in his own mind… For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself.” (Romans 14:5–7)

Unity in faith does not demand uniformity in expression. The body has many members (1 Corinthians 12), and the Church has many legitimate expressions of one Apostolic faith.

THE HIGH COST OF THE LIE: THE ERASURE OF LOCAL RITES

In the wake of Balsamon’s misreading and the dominance of Byzantine typikon theology, the Church saw:

• The suppression of the Alexandrian Rite in its older forms.

• The loss of the Syriac traditions of Antioch in favor of imported Constantinopolitan liturgies.

• The absorption of the Jerusalem Rite, once centered around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

• The displacement of Georgian, Armenian, and even East Syrian practices within Byzantine influence zones.

• In modern times, the marginalization of Western Rite Orthodoxy, often derided as foreign or heterodox, despite being rooted in pre-schism Latin Christianity. This is the direct result of the canonical lie of Theodore Balsamon being taken as infallible truth.

This contradicts the wisdom of St. Vincent of Lérins, who defined Catholicity as, “What has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.” (Commonitorium, II.6)

The principle of perpetuating ancient local traditions was once the very measure of Orthodoxy. Now it is often seen as a threat, simultaneously dismantling the canonical authority of Eastern Orthodoxy’s claims to being the sole representative of the ancient canonical order of the Undivided Church.

A SHADOW OF WHAT IT ONCE WAS

The Eastern Orthodox Church today faces a crisis of authority built upon a canonical misrepresentation: one that results in her self-conception being more imperial than spiritual, more canonical than pastoral, and more prideful of uniformity than rich in its rightful and ancient diversity. The spirit of Byzantine Papalism remains, not as an outwardly stated doctrine, but as a deeply ensconced and unchallengeable institutional behavior, where Constantinople or rival synods treat their own local traditions as universal law.

The Western Orthodox see in this not the majestic harmony of conciliarity, but the fading echo of a once-great communion: fractured by infighting, territorialism, and a liturgical uniformity that was never mandated by the Fathers. Nowhere is this more painfully evident than on the mission field, where canonical principles are routinely set aside in favor of preserving jurisdictional claims. Overlapping dioceses, rival bishops within the same city, and the façade of unity presented by institutions like SCOBA or the Assembly of Bishops, betray the very canons they claim to uphold. These structures often operate less as guardians of Apostolic tradition and more as instruments of ecclesiastical imperialism, seeking to centralize authority under culturally and politically motivated synods. The result is a fractured witness: on one hand, zealous converts shaped into fundamentalist enforcers of external forms; on the other, cradle faithful left in spiritual neglect, as parochial life is minimized in favor of monastic prestige. Rather than honoring the local Church, episcopal oversight is too often wielded as a means of control, favoring ideological conformity and personal security over pastoral care, and revealing a system more concerned with preserving power than proclaiming the Gospel.

A WAY BACK: THE WESTERN ORTHODOX WITNESS

Western Orthodoxy, whether in the form of the English Patrimony, the Celtic, Gallican, Mozarabic, or Roman usages, offers a living witness to the ancient conciliar ideal. It insists that unity in faith can coexist with diversity in expression, and that true Orthodoxy must return to its roots: not in 12th-century Byzantium, but in the undivided Church of the Fathers.

The restoration of local traditions is not found in innovation but in repentance. It is the healing of memory, a return to the Apostolic ways. As the Lord prayed: “That they may all be one, just as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You have sent Me.” (John 17:21)

A CONCLUSION

Theodore Balsamon’s misinterpretation of the Nicene Canons introduced a trajectory of centralization, legalism, and liturgical imperialism that has weakened Eastern Orthodoxy’s internal integrity and its claim to canonically representing the true meaning and intent of the Ecumenical Councils and the Universal Church. It must be re-evaluated, not to divide, but to restore the conciliar beauty of a truly catholic Church, which is one where truth and tradition, Scripture and sacrament, unity and liberty are held in tension by love and submission to the authority of the Ancient Church!

COLLECT

O Lord of all the earth, who didst establish thy Church upon the rock of the Apostolic Faith, insisting that St. Peter was but a “pebble” in comparison, and hast enriched her with the unity of the Holy Spirit: Grant unto thy people grace to walk in the faith once delivered to the saints, to honor diversity of rites yet cling to the apostolic deposit, and to seek not domination but fellowship among all bishops in synod, and all rightly believing and Apostolic Churches in Communion; Preserve us from ethnophyletism and from the tyranny of culture, that we may shine as lights in the world, maintaining the peace of thy Body until the day when all believers gather as one before thy throne; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who livest and reignest with the Father and the Holy Ghost, one God, world without end. Amen.