Byzantine Canon Law and the Gospel

Christ giving St. Peter the Keys to the Kingdom 

By Bp. Joseph Boyd (Ancient Church of the West)  

“Throughout the Church’s canonical life, truth is expressed in the circumstances of history to address specific situations, categories of behavior, persons, and institutional structures.”[1]

The Eastern Orthodox Argument for the Infallibility of Canons 

The Eastern Orthodox Church believes that Christ gave the Apostle Peter and all the Apostles the “Keys to the Kingdom” (Matthew 16:19) and gave them the spiritual authority to bind and loose (Matthew 18:18). This gave administrative and heavenly power to the bishops via the laying on of hands and the continuity of communion and apostolic succession. These successors to the Holy Apostles, the bishops, in turn, created the authoritative body of texts known as “Canons”, or “Rules”, which are patterns arising from the experience of holiness within the Church. The Church does this in faithfulness to the Gospel and in it proves that it is the “Pillar and Ground of Truth” (1 Tim 3:15) and holds the truth that was “Once and For All Delivered to the Saints.” (Jude 1:3) “We consider the Church and not the “Word” (i.e. the written and preached Word) as primary in the work of our salvation. It is by the Church that the Scriptures are given to us.”[2] There is, however, biblical precedent for concilliarity and “seeming good to us and the Holy Spirit” (Acts 15:28) in the first council in Jerusalem during the Apostolic Era. Thus, the Orthodox Church sees itself as completely consistent, absolutely authoritative, and supremely pastoral in its orientation, never falling into legalism or the “dead letter”, but protected by the Holy Spirit, manifest in Holy Tradition, clarifying and expounding upon the Scriptures in a way that no other organization or individual can. 

In Holy Scripture, we see that Christ came to complete the law, not to overthrow it, saying that “Not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the Law, until all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18) Therefore, the Old Testament Law still stands, but in a perfected form, which includes all practices of sacrifice and ritual purity, excluding marriage and circumcision as necessary. "We ourselves, individually and collectively, would be in great error if we believed that man could reach the purely spiritual eschatological experience of the Kingdom of God without the direction of a “pedagogue”. This “pedagogue” - whose function, I repeat, is not to provide salvation, but to delimit the conditions which make it obtainable - is still with us in the form of the canons of the Apostles, the Councils, and the Fathers.”[3] Christ gave us commands such as “Love God”, “Love Your Neighbor”, etc, which are equally commands and must be legislated and enforced. (Matthew 22:37) Balsamon persuasively argued against our modern legal understanding of “nulla poena sine lege", rather arguing “ecclesial penalties are not punishment, but a benison and a form of healing”[4]. 

St. Paul tried to free the Greeks from the burdens of the law that would keep them from becoming Christians, by use of “economia”, and therefore, he was not trying to overthrow the law, but merely make it easier for people to enter the Church.[5] After their entry, they are ruled by a law even more complete then that of the Jewish Torah. The Jews only had 670 laws, could eat anything they desired, could have wives and children, and still think themselves the people of God. Now we know that only those who fast on Wednesday and Fridays, all other fast days, abstain from meats, abstain from all forms of sexual impurity within marriage (including during the roughly 300 days of fasts every year, “as if the rest of the year did not suffice for the fulfillment of their fleshly desires”)[6], and submit themselves to the canonical delimitations of the Church and her ecclesial authority can be truly saved by God’s grace. For while we were delivered from the “Old Law” of “Sin and Death” we have been delivered to the new law of a canonical pathway to salvation![7] Dismissal of the canons would lead to disorder and confusion about authority and structure within the Church. The Apostle Paul said, “Let all things be done decently and in order.” (1 Corinthians 14:40) Therefore, in the interests of pastoral care and “good order”, laws must be made and kept to the regulation.[8] 

The reception of the Creed of Nicaea and of Constantinople proves that all the Ecumenical Councils called under Byzantine authority are God-breathed, holding for all other canonically-called, Greek-language, Byzantine-polity enforced councils, unless they were rejected by the Greek people and were abandoned by the bishops, as in the Council of Florence and the Second Council of Lyon, and were therefore false councils that have no claim to ecumenicity today. 

  

The extensive use of the Corpus Juris Civilis (commonly called the “Codex Justinianus”), the Councils of Carthage and Trullo, and the interpretation of the canons through the civil law of Leo VI and the Basilika was necessary to bring the Church into harmony with the Byzantine State, which was God-ordained, God-loved, and God-appointed to protect God’s saving economy on the earth.[9] The “symphonia” produced by the peaceful and cultured interplay between Emperor and Patriarch, the Church and State, was the most blessed, righteous, and enlightened time in human history, and is still the canonical ideal for human flourishing. It is this vision that fuels the Russian desire to establish the “Русский мир” and allow Orthodox hegemony to be restored as the rightful protector of the Christian world.[10] 

  

Without the positive pressure of the canonical tradition, Christians would be hazardously free from law if the Church had no legislative capacity, inevitably leading to sin and chaos, like we see in the Latin and Anglican communions, whose organization and holiness cannot compare to the order and selflessness of the Orthodox Church. They would also risk being like the Protestants, who spread through the world like a virus, swarming into non-Christian cultures, producing counterfeit versions of the Bible without the commentaries of the Fathers through whom the Bible must be interpreted, and breeding divisive, sectarian churches who do not belong to or respect the “good order” of the Church or the rightful place of its bishops and hierarchs, who carry the direct lineage of the Apostles and are appointed by God to rule, in love, over the flock of God. As Christ told St Peter, the First Bishop, “If you love me, feed my sheep.” (John 21:17) As a reflection of the great and self-sacrificing love of the Orthodox patriarchs, bishops, and all holy orders, the Orthodox Church has established its canonical territories for the pastoral benefit of the unevangelized barbarians, and must uphold and enforce its canonical claims so as to guard the people from their own errors that would exclude them from a heavenly inheritance and a crown of righteousness within God’s only Church.[11] 

  

If the canons of the Church were not authoritative and were fallible, then the Church could not say that those who disagree with it were in sin or cut off from God’s grace, and could not discipline those outside its territories by exclusion.[12] Highly respected Saints Claimed that the Church’s canons were infallible, proving by their holiness, acquired through canonical observance of the Church’s ascetical tradition, that the canons are what they claim. 

  

The proclamation of the Council of Trullo declared the infallibility and the inclusion of many, previously local, canons into the tradition of ecumenically received authority. These were then received by the Orthodox Church as law, witnessed by the Holy Spirit in the Church, they are, by Council, not only the law, but equal in revelation and importance to the Holy Scriptures themselves. The Church is not dependent upon the Scriptures, but the Scriptures are dependent for both their existence and their interpretation upon the Church.[13] 

There would be no cohesive ecclesial and political structure for authority, no mediative court function, and no list of honor or “first among equals” without the canons. These honors are absolutely essential for the proper relationship between local churches. It would deprive Churches and their leaders of their rightful prestige, given by centuries of tradition and upheld by the faith of the masses. This negation is believed to run against the spirit of honor and mutual-respect that is laid into the foundation of the Orthodox consciousness, and is thusly rejected as an intolerable evil.

A Contextual, Textual and Historical Refutation of a Fundamentalist Eastern Orthodox Position 

The “Keys of the Kingdom” were given in the context of St. Peter’s faith (the context of the Scripture, which says that St. Peter, the “pebble”, had a declaration of faith, a “stone”, upon which the Church would be founded) and thus this promise was to all faithful believers who believe that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God”, not just to the Apostle who received this promise. This reality is witnessed by the development of the rite of confession, showing that it was not understood to be the binding and loosing of sin until the Middle Ages (and first in the tariff-penance tradition of the West). The Church is the “pillar” (“witness”) and is founded in the Truth (“Jesus Christ”), not THE Truth itself.[14] The faith that was “once and for all delivered” is not the hidden tradition of later commentators and bishops contending for their own authority, but the Gospels themselves, which preserve the word, teachings and legal context of what Christ delivered to us once and for all.[15] 

The Biblical precedent of the synodal process in the Book of Acts was clearly different than later councils, in that they perceived a lack of discernment, deleted laws and requirements, recognized the validity of those outside their own system, and acknowledged the saving Grace of the Holy Spirit outside of the confines of the Jewish Church. This is opposite of later councils which increased legalism, added purity laws, denied authority and apostolicity of outsiders, deniers the Holy Spirit outside of their own polity and anathematized those outside of their control and their economic borders. 

  

The textual argument from the New Testament is persuasive. Christ brought about the end of the Old Law and established a New Covenant - This is attested to, not only by Christ’s suggestion that the Law would pass away once it was fulfilled, but also by the Apostle Paul’s insistence that the Old Law could not save, was a “school master” that prefigured Christ and allowed us to recognize Him, and that it had been replaced by a “perfect law of liberty” and the “law of life and love in the Spirit of Christ.”

From this perspective, it could be agreed with Patsavos that the schismatic or heretic cuts himself off by a lack of love. Therefore, it is not only useless but unnecessary for the Church to have the power to “prosecute” or “punish” those who go against it. Every time the Church has done so in the past, it has not only lived to regret it, but it has corrupted the testimony of Christ and substituted His power, the power of love and martyrdom, for a political and temporal order that is ruled by sin and death, not by the miraculous and ineffable power of the Holy Spirit. 

St. Paul did not repeal the Jewish Law just as a measure of “economia”, but it was deeply engrained into his entire message. Starting in Galatians 2, but reflected in all of his writings, he completely upends the belief that the Law saves or that it is necessary for salvation. He insists that it is to show man sin (Romans) and the impossibility of doing what they were told, and that THIS was the point of the Law… NOT that they were meant to keep it. The Law was supposed to show us human foolishness and inability, condemning us, so that we could abandon our sin and pride for the power of Christ’s Gospel in which He accomplishes our salvation and buys us from sin, so that we can walk in His Power and the Newness of His Resurrected Life. This relationship would allow us to walk as we should walk, not out of fear or out of a pharisaical concern with the letter of the law, but out of love for others, an obedience to the example and commandments of Christ, and a sensitivity to the leadings of the Holy Spirit. St. Paul also shows us that those teaching not to eat meat are heretics, “trying to complete in the flesh what was begun in the Spirit”, that “the marriage bed is undefiled” (thus completely shutting down the whole theory of sexual impurity within the Marriage covenant), and we “no longer live under the Law but under Grace.” Therefore, for Christians to appeal again to the Law was a historical fact, facilitated by historical necessity, but is both not necessary to salvation but also a hindrance if this substitutes for the Gospel of Christ’s saving work, which must be comprehended in faith and lived out in a life of attentive obedience and love. 

  

The canons have also, demonstrably, lead to confusion and disorder in the Church, because the true authority that established them, the imperial authority of the Byzantine Empire, is now gone, making their interpretation a matter of personal advantage. If the canons are not used to impose order, the faith, function and the relationships of the church to other churches in its locality must be the definition of “good order”, which places the process right back into its proper context and into the flow of early Church history. 

The reception of the Creed proves only that it conformed to the Gospel that most of the Churches at that time were teaching, all undisputed parts were taken from Scripture, and all complicated Greek words used in a philosophical context could be understood in helping the meanings take a formal, locked definition. It was therefore, not the Council that was infallible, but the faith that it expressed. This faith is the simple faith that a commitment to Scripture and the Early Church will still render for all, and is the core of all, functioning, “orthodox” and “apostolic” churches today. This faith is the engine of these variant and contradicting canonical systems and historical narratives. 

The canonical acceptance of civil legal codes shows the priorities and the process of the Byzantine state church, which had to insure compliance with the imperial will, and had to explain, justify and further the imperial, social and economic claims and alliances of the Eastern Roman Empire. “Symphonia” did not truly occur - it was a cultural expression of Christian Hellenism that took two distinct forms, one ecclesial and the other imperial, but they were intimately linked, inextricable and united in a single vision and claim of a Greco-Roman mediate, Divine-Human energized Imperial Economy. This is not bad, and it produced a culture like China’s, which had similar views of itself and sought to harness the powers of Buddhist virtue as a source of limitless energy and a Divine Right to Rule in the same way. Byzantine cultural sophistication, beauty and philosophical subtlety should be loved, appreciated, studied and emulated. Its dependence upon Scripture and the work of Christ cannot be negated. Its claims to absolute monopoly over the Grace of God, however, must be rejected. Not because it did not have Grace, but because it makes the common, all-too-human assumption on the ability of Man to control God for his own purposes. God proved to the world through the prophets of the Old Testament that such was a foolish errand and impossible, and even in the times of King Josiah, God judged the Jews for pride and infidelity to Him in their hearts while they were perfectly keeping the ceremonial and sacrificial rites! Byzantium was no better than ancient Jerusalem, and God allowed its fall to prove that man can only submit to God and be saved. All human economy claiming to contain or encapsulate it is obviously not telling the truth. 

The belief in the hazards of “lawlessness” are founded. However, anyone who receives the Gospel must do so in recognition of sin, repentance, faith towards God, and love towards man. This exceeds a proscriptive law and makes the “law of stone” pass away before a “law written on the tablets of the heart”. Communities that operate on this basis not only exceed the ideals propounded by the Orthodox, but they do so without self-justification, self-righteousness, and the pride that misidentifies sinful obedience to God for personal achievement or the “extra credit” of saintly “merit.” 

  

The Church does not need to say that those who disagree with it are in sin. We know that true righteousness is only possible in Christ, even if one has a “form of righteousness” (such as the fasting, prayer, celibacy and episcopal hierarchy of the Buddhist Sangha), and since the Church is formed by Christ of those who have been baptized by His Holy Spirit into His Death, Burial and Resurrection, and since He is the source of our righteousness, we need not worry ourselves about those who are not walking with us. Making formal, canonical declarations and anathematizing people and things not only is unnecessary, but short of being a state church and having our declarations enforced by secular power, they accomplish nothing but pretension and self-righteous positioning to the world. 

  

There are highly respected saints and fathers outside of the Greek Orthodox Church, who did miracles, loved Christ, and were martyred for Him did not recognize these councils or their infallibility. Such is the witness of St. Isaac the Syrian, a Bishop in the Assyrian Church of the East. Conversely, the councils and commentaries call them “false saints” and punish those who would recognize their lives as saintly.[16] These saints and fathers would be pronounced heretical and false by a fundamentalistic interpretation of the canonical tradition. This tradition is therefore, by its own contradiction, insufficient for recognizing holiness or the reality of God’s Church on earth, which is obviously bigger than what man can fathom or control; it being a work of God that we must obey and work out in our own lives, not something that we can “own” by “right” of a supposed “apostolic succession” (which these other, rejected saints have, too, by different definitions and historical narratives). 

The Holy Scriptures form the formative and fundamental message of all the Churches, and was the authority to which all the ancient Fathers appealed. The Scriptures were written by the Apostles to the Churches, rebuked and reproved the heresy, schism and wrong appropriation of the Jewish legal system by the churches of their day. The Scriptures were, very literally, what were bequeathed to the Church to insure its right administration, doctrine and continuity with “that which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have handled, of the word of Life.” Therefore, if something is foundational and authoritative, and the organization that basis itself upon it claims authority by its association with it, then the authority of the former is absolutely integral to the authority of the latter. Therefore, canons that contradict the received Scriptures of the Church have no authority, because they threaten to undo the very foundation upon which the canon would claim authority. 

  

Negating the canons does not negate the Scripture, which would have common love and respect for all those in the Household of Faith. It would negate the artificial order that was imposed by the Byzantine Empire, would eradicate the fiction of a “first among equals” (based upon Roman senatorial traditions and an irrelevant legal code and not upon current reality or ancient practice within the Church), and would eliminate the artificial distinction that has been created by the monastic clergy and the elevated bishops. It would force bishops to act as simple pastors over local congregations, as they did in the Early Church. 

The objection that it would deprive the ancient patriarchates of their rightful dignity and honor, the only answer can be - “No servant is greater than his Lord”. Episcopal emulation of imperial glory should be counted a shame to servants of Christ, but, instead, it is the source of endless bickering and haggling. This reminds us of what Christ said to His Disciples, who were already disputing over who would be the greatest in His Kingdom. As Christ said, ”Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves."[17]

The Current Eastern Orthodox Approach to Clergy of "Heretical Communions"According to Theodore Balsamon

Canon Question 1: 

“Question 15 - Shall one perform rites or pray together without danger with heretics, namely Jacobites and Nestorians, in their churches or even in our own, or might one share a common table with them, or perform sponsorship at holy baptism, or perform memorial services of the departed, or commune of the Divine Sanctified Elements with them? For the area’s difficulties create many such things, and I seek what one must do. Response - “Do not give holy things to the dogs,” our Lord and God has said, nor “cast pearls before swine.” (Matthew 7:6) Indeed, on this account canon 64 of the holy apostles, the heralds of God, also states, “If any clergyman of laymen might enter an assembly of the Jews or heretics to pray, let him be defrocked and excommunicated.” Canon 33 of the Council of Laodicea, but indeed also 6 and 34, states the following: “Concerning not permitting heretics to enter into a house of God while they remain in heresy,” because one must not pray with a heretic or schismatic, “a Christian must not abandon Christ’s martyrs and depart for false martyrs, namely, heretical one of those that the aforementioned heretics produce. For these are estranged from God. Therefore, let those departing to them be anathematized.” Indeed, on this account we also decided that both clergy and laity are subject not only to excommunication and defrocking when they pray together in a church of Orthodox or heretics or whenever they pray together as clergy, or even share a meal together, but also they shall be punished in a more severe way, according to the provisions of the cited divine canons. For the difficulties of areas, and the increase of heretics, did not change the soundness of the Orthodox faith.[18] 

This answer to the question of the Alexandrian Patriarchate shows a very clearly developed view of the challenges that other Christian communities pose to the self-understanding of the Orthodox, who have built their identity on the historical locus and narrative of the City of Constantinople and its co-identitification with the Roman Empire and the Ecumene of the Christian world. These social bonds were conceived as beginning with prayer, not just in the act of Communion, as was also the case in the Byzantine concept of the marriage contract. Thus, the line was drawn, not at the act of communion at the Lord’s Table, but in the offering of prayers. 

This thought process existed before the legalization of Christianity in the identification of prayers offered for the well-being of the Roman State as the primary cultic bond of the Roman Polity. Building on this, the City of Rome was identified with Empire and the “Pax Romana" with the advantages and powers of the Roman economy, the responsibilities of Roman Citizenship, and the representational importance of the founding families of Rome, the Aristocracy, in the Roman Senate, the first “infallible council.” Ring by ring, the definition of “Romanitas” encompassed the world, brought order, and enabled human flourishing. 

These overlapping definitions created an identity that was both solid and also unable to question its own validity, as we can see by the uncompromising and self-referential tone of all of these answers. The pastoral concern is evident, even though the assumptions may not pass close logical and historical scrutiny. If the Orthodox Church’s borders are concurrent with the Church’s borders, and if Roman Law is the Law of this Church, then loyalty, to this system is necessary for salvation. Therefore, complete exclusion and separation are necessary for the continuity of Orthodoxy, the Church, and the promise of salvation. It is interesting that the answer consists almost exclusively of canons “grandfathered” into a definition of ecumenicity by the Council of Trullo. If this Council’s validity were to be rejected, by Papal rejection (such as was the case under Pope Sergius I) an exclusively Constantinopolitan convocation (as was also the case), or the unique and highly irregular process of calling a Council to create canons for two previous Councils that did not issue canons, then the legality of this answer and its pastoral assumptions could also be called into question. 

Canon Question 2: 

“Question 16 - Latin prisoners and others are presented in our Catholic churches and seek to partake of the Divine Sanctified Elements. We seek to learn whether this must indeed be permitted. Response: The Holy Gospel stated, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.” (Matt 12:30) Therefore, since many years ago the formerly renowned assembly of the Western Church (we speak of Rome) separated from the spiritual communion of the other four holy patriarchs, and things alien to the customs and dogmas of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox were excluded, for this reason, the pope is not deemed worthy of the general commemoration of names in the holy sacred rites. A member of the Latin nation ought not be sanctified by a priestly hand through the holy and undefiled Mysteries, unless he first promises to refrain from Latin dogmas and customs, is instructed in the canons, and is made equal to the Orthodox.”[19] 

This answer is focused in the same was as the previous case, but with a very different understanding of the nature and validity of the Latin system. Rather than insisting on re-baptism, holy myron, or a written statement, a confirmation of faith is sought that makes them “equal to the Orthodox”, as well as rejection of “dogmas and customs” that are offensive to the Orthodox position. Contemporary sources of monastic apologetics against Rome point to several offending characteristics of Roman practice, namely the use of the Filoque, unleavened bread, the shaving of beards, and the jurisdictional claim of the Pope. All of these were contrived to represent major breaks with the Apostolic Faith, and regardless of the Greek inability to articulate these biases in debates at council, and the massive evacuation of later Byzantine scholars to a Latinophrone position, they were imagined by the monastics and laity to represent an affront to God Himself. Thus, this offense had to be dealt with before a Latin could be “sanctified with a priestly hand”. Clearly, the pastoral motivation was to remediate perceived threats, offenses and claims that undermined the Orthodox position, de-equating the Roman Pope with an Orthodox Patriarch, and thus making the Great Schism a permanent feature. 

Canon Question 3: 

“Question 32 - Should those who come through recognition of the truth to the Orthodox faith, namely, Nestorians, Armenians, Jacobites, and other heretics, be made perfect by holy myron alone, or also by divine baptism. Response - Canon 95 of the Council in Trullo, which follows canon 7 of the Second Holy and Ecumenical Council, distinctly states here word for word, “According to the following order and custom, we receive those who bring themselves to Orthodoxy and to the portion of those being saved from heresy. We receive Arians, Macedonians, Novatians (who call themselves Katharoi and Aristeroi), and Tessarakaidekatitai or tetraditai, as well as Apollinarians, when they give written statements, anathematize every heresy that does not think as the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God thinks, and are sealed, that is, are above all anointed with holy myron on the forehead, eyes, nose, mouth, and ears. We say when sealing them, “Seal of the gift of the Holy Spirit.” Concerning Paulianists who afterward take refuge in the Catholic Church, a decision was set forth that they are rebaptized without any doubt. Eunomians, of course, who are baptized in one immersion; Montanists, here called Phyrgians; Sabellians, who hold a belief in a doctrine of the identity of the Son and Father and commit other abominable things; and all the other heresies - because there are many here, especially those that began from the land of the Galatians - all those of thowm wish to come to Orthodoxy, we receive as pagans; on the first day we make them Christians, on the second, catechumens, then on the third we exorcise them by breathing three times in the face and ears. And thus we catechize and make them stay a long time in the Church to listen to the Scriptures, and then we baptize them. We rebaptize the Manicheans, Valentinians, Marcionists, and those coming from similar heresies, who are received as pagans. It is necessary for the Nestorians, Eutychians, and the Seberians to provide written statements and to anathematize their heresy as well as Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioskoros, and Seberos, and the other exarchs of such heresies, those thinking their things and all the aforementioned heresies, and in this way they partake of Holy Communion.” In any event, according to the text of such a canon, some of the heretics are sanctified by baptism, and others perfected only by holy myron.”[20] 

Building upon the previous canons, we can see that the sanctity and separation of the Orthodox Church was assumed and maintained. Based upon these positions, it was necessary to have a process whereby relations with other Christian communities could be regulated. Since the claims of Orthodoxy are absolute, there could be no negotiation or “indigenization”, but a centralized point of reference in the language, culture and liturgical practices of the Great Church of Constantinople. Thus, any relationship with other self-professing Christian required their submission to and adoption of this frame of reference. Since the time of St. Cyprian the Great, the practice of anointing for reception into the Church had been unquestioned, and was even used by the Copts, Syrians, Armenians and the Church of the East for reception of converts as well, thus making it a universally recognized mechanism for “recognition”, the process whereby the integrity of the community was maintained, and extended the grace of the Communion itself. Its connection to baptism and the root of Christ’s name were realized by the Early Church, and thus the Apostolic practice of the “laying on of hands for the reception of the Holy Spirit” was meshed with the anointing of oil, becoming one act of sealing and confirmation that could be used, not only in tandem with baptism, but also as a mechanism of perceiving the initial work of the Holy Spirit outside of the confines of the canonical system. Thus, the regulations for extending chrism to other Christians was perceived as immanently pastoral, for at its heart was the motivation to extend God’s Grace, access to the Holy Sacraments, and ultimately, salvation in God’s Kingdom.

The Orthodox Canonical Interpretation of Marriage and Holy Orders 

Should marriage always precede ordination? The traditional stance for the Orthodox Church is summed up by Theodore Balsamon’s commentary on Basil 44, where he says, “Priests who once for all renounced second marriage on account of being ordained, and who vowed this very thing to God, will not be allowed to repudiate the priestly office on account of sensual desire, renounce their vow to God, and be a servant to sensual desire. Even if they repudiate the priesthood, their bodies which were one for all ordained will be prevented from being profaned by second marriage.”[21] In the “Alphabetical Collection” of Matthew Balastares it also deals with the same issue, saying, “The novel of Emperor Leo the Wise state that even if it was permitted by unwritten custom for those ordained to the priesthood to legally take wives within a ten-year deciding period after ordination, this custom ought not be kept because it has been prohibited by the canons.”[22] 

This reflects a view of ordination that is based on “σκενοσις”, sanctifying the ordinand as a holy vessel of grace. If already married, by virtue of the marital bond, the wife is considered sanctified to the priesthood as well, thus, sanctifying what would be, otherwise, an impairing and marring disqualification from the priestly function of blessing, binding and loosing. Ritual purity was believed to be necessary in the sacramental office to insure that prayers during the oblation would be heard and the sacraments efficacious, “in order that the pure who approach the Pure One would not fail to obtain their petitions.”[23] 

While this traditional interpretation is strongly supported by the developments of canon law and the mysteriological interpretation that came to dominate sacramental theology, it finds support neither in Holy Scripture or in the historical practices of the Church.[24] It is, rather, a later theory that has been anachronistically read back into the tradition to support the cultural developments towards “angelic celibacy”, which centralized episcopal power through a synthesis of imperial, monastic and superstitious practices on the part of the laity.[25] Precluding this understanding, the sacrament of marriage does not predicate the sacrament of ordination, as baptism does, neither is it an “impure act” that detracts from the holiness or responsibility of the ordinands position. Christ Himself said, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6) St. Paul enjoins, “Are you bond to a wife, do not seek to be loosed.” (1 Corinthians 7:27) Scripture clearly teaches that the “Marriage bed is holy and undefiled” (Hebrews 13:4), the apostles whom bishops and archbishops claim as predecessors were clearly married (St. Peter, upon whom the Father’s build the tradition of episcopacy and pastoral ministry, had a mother-in-law, which shows that he was married), and the practice of the Church both states that a “bishop should be the husband of one wife” (I Tim 3:2) and also clearly demonstrates this pattern of godly leadership until the presumptions of the Roman governing class upon the administration of God’s Catholic Church, often mistaken for the boundaries a human “Ecumene” under the administration of the Roman Emperor. Therefore, to insist as Balsamon interprets and Trullo and Carthage clearly state, that there is an impediment to marriage on the part to the ordained, and interpret marital acts a disqualification from partaking in the Lord’s Table, clearly ignoring the Scriptural evidence (not withstanding David partaking of the Shewbread offered to God and the Old Testamental rules of ceremonial cleanliness) in the sinlessness of the marital state properly exercised for cultural predilections of their own age and customs based on ideas of neoplatonic ascent, rather than upon the biblical doctrines of faith, sanctification by God’s grace, is clearly unfounded and indefensible.[26] 

Because their is no “stain”, there is no disqualification of the married from the priesthood. And if there is not disqualification, the marital covenant may be entered into by those already dedicated to be holy, namely deacons, priests and bishops. These findings are generally supported by the acknowledgments of the 1923 Pan-Orthodox Council, which noted that marriage was not considered impure in Scripture, was not denied to those who were otherwise ceremonially and ritually clean, and that the high priests of the Old Testament were required to be married. They also acknowledged that there was no “anteriority” of the sacraments, since one sacrament cannot reduce the “blessing” or the “grace” derived from another.[27]

Should priests and deacons be allowed to remarry after the death of a spouse or after divorce? Yes, priests, deacons and bishops should be allowed to remarry after widowhood, seeing that marriage is not defiling, but must not be permitted to remarry after divorce, unless it is due to infidelity of the wife, seeing that this was dealt with by Christ’s authority, calling such adultery, as is confirmed by the practice of the Early Church.[28] “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.” (Matthew 19:9) 

While marriage is holy and those who marry are not impure or excluded from the blessing of ordination and service of holy things, those who have taken a vow of celibacy must both respect their vows and abstain from marriage after ordination. This, perhaps, was the reasoning behind the canonical procedure of tonsuring those bishops who were separated from their legal wives by the Council of Trullo.[29]

Western Orthodox Lessons from the Eastern Orthodox Canons 

  

As all converts to Orthodoxy know, the conciliar process is often seen as the “Deus Ex Machina” that supposedly allows the earthly Church to have a revelatory and clear exposition of God’s Will to the One, True, Apostolic and Catholic Orthodox Church. This theory is believed to clear up all ambivalence on all sides, and reveal the boundaries of true-believing and right-practicing Christians from the mountains of heretics and the seas of antichrists. It is believed that by these Councils, all truth was established and that living by their proclamations and canons will insure fidelity to the Christian Tradition and the saving economy of the Church, ultimately revealing the Will of God for mankind. As such, the Councils and their decisions are universal, infallible, God-breathed, equal with Scripture, and a sure foundation for faith. There is only one problem with this theory - it is not historically true, but exists as a set of cultural presuppositions that cannot stand under historical scrutiny. Certainly there is great truth and value in the Councils as seals to the universally received witness of the Church in relation to the Divine Revelation of Scripture and the Apostolic Deposit, but they are not Divine Revelation themselves and function to clarify and interpret truth, not to reveal truth itself. 

  

While I understand and appreciate the current Eastern Orthodox canonical view expounded above, sincerely acknowledging its religious, political and cultural uses in creating unchallengeable claims to authority, insuring inter-ecclesiastical solidarity and forging a strong common identity, I personally can no longer believe in “canonical infallibility.” I must see the canonical tradition as a set of pastoral guideline, not equal to Scripture or the Gospel, and only valid in as much as it has been received by all Apostolic and Orthodox Catholic Churches. I painfully realize now the lack of substantiation and objective truth behind many of these legal constructs, and the need to return to more ancient definitions of the canons in order to resolve the problems that we now face in a post-Christian society. These realities have been a part of my own experience with the highest echelons of Orthodox leadership, caught in East Asia between His All-Holiness Patriarch +Bartholomew and Metropolitan +Hilarion Alfeev of the Russian Orthodox Church. It is self evident that much of the canonical tradition taught to the laity are propagandistic retellings of history, used for purpose of furthering political power, and turning an otherwise docile laity into an attack engine against those whom their bishops see as threats to their claims of exclusive access to God’s Grace and hierarchical superiority. Such a culture of canonical fundamentalism undermines personal spiritual growth and the cultivation of virtues on the part of the laity, and misidentifies group pride and the desire to troll other Christians with whom we disagree with holiness and loyalty to the Orthodox Church. 

If the canons were infallible, the Orthodox have been woefully inconsistent in their enforcement, leading me to believe that the Orthodox do not believe in their infallibility themselves, but that they are convenient political documents for establishing their own authority and centrality within God’s saving economy. If the canons were never meant to be seen as infallible, then we have a problem with the canonical wording itself, and in the terminology used for its interpretation by such canonists as Blastares, Zonaras and Balsamon, all of whom clearly assume such authority. Some have considered the “pastoral approach” to allow for a more allegorical interpretation, focusing on interpreting the spirit of the law and not its letter.[30] However, if one can discern the principle behind the canons and their interpretations, only that which is most jaded and realistic prerogatives become apparent - 1) Maintaining absolute authority, 2) Requiring the submission of enemies or those with alternate claims to authority, 3) Refusal to acknowledge lost territory is outside of the domain of ecclesial jurisdiction and the saving economy of the Eastern Roman identity (along with their earlier refusals to acknowledge the claims of independence by Christians under Persian rule), 4) The re-formation and re-establishment of positions required by canon law for Constantinople’s own presidency of a marginalized Pentarchy so as to create a functional, canonically authoritative situation in Constantinople itself, while the Pentarchy as fact had all but disappeared, and, finally, 5) the willful imposition of recent traditions and Byzantine innovations as the standard upon much older Christian communities with an equal or greater claim to apostolicity in liturgy, language, and practice. “All Churches of God ought to follow the custom of New Rome, that is, Constantinople, and to celebrate according to the traditions of the great teachers and luminaries of piety St. Ioannes Chrysostomos and St. Basileios. Regarding other liturgies, namely, those of St. Iakovos and St. Markos, ‘The Catholic Church of the most holy and ecumenical throne of Constantinople does not at all recognize these.”[31] Orthodoxy gradually lost the ability to recognize the Apostolic Inheritance in all but its own forms, cut off from the roots of its own tradition, as it were, by the imperial grandeur, liturgical glory and official protocol of the Byzantine Court. 

The assumption of the “purity of center” and the “rights of the noble born Constantinopolitan” are harder to defend by those faithful to the context of the ancient Christian Tradition than they are by the offended modernist with his post-fact anachronistic discontent over cultural inequality and linguistic bias.[32] These realizations are damning facts that make the Byzantine Church, contrary to the romantic haze so profusely applied by post-Tzarist Slavophiles and the German-trained theological-idealists of the Greek theological elite, equally responsible for the schism with the West and equally set on the eradication of Apostolic Traditions in parts further East. Thus, while the political construct was different, the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Communions pursued similar goals, strove for preeminence amongst Syriac and Coptic communities with the same general approach, and equally denied the claims, authority, historicity or liturgical piety of one another. 

  

More fundamental questions also need to be answered. As Fr. Dr. Paul Tarazi so accurately put it, “God never delivered His Word in a council, and it was a council that decided to put God’s Word to death!”[33] While a council could very understandably function for administrative concerns in a region, as they did at the end of the 3rd century, the origin of the understanding of an authoritative and unchanging “Ecumenical Council” is harder to trace. It is clear that, even in the century after Nicaea, Ecumenical Councils weren’t given much weight outside of the Greek-speaking world. Even today, in the Latin West, it is apparent that the only reason Greek Councils were thought of as authoritative was through the consent of the pope and their reception. Therefore, the authority of the Council never was “over” a local Church. The local church always reserved the right to accept or reject what was declared by the center.[34] When did this mentality change? It changed over time, mostly due to the civil enforcement of councils. Because they functioned as the law of the land, those who did not agree with or abide by them were excluded from the human economy, giving them a life and death authority through the realities of their enforcement. This reality was quickly interpreted as stemming from a metaphysical function, rather than a result of political and economic process of exclusion. There was only one problem with this understanding of “universal councils” - they were not universal. The problems with Rome, the non-Chalcedonian Miaphysites and Church of the East show that far from being an established fact taken for granted by all Christians everywhere, this was a result of Greek political hegemony and ethno/cultural chauvinism against the “βάρβαρος”, so clearly illustrated in the literary and cultural inheritance of classical Greece.[35] 

Orthodoxy is, by its own definition, an imperial religion, delineated through councils called by the imperial will, enforced by imperial edict, and cultivated through strategic cultural and economic alliances that have more in common with the establishment of foreign banks than the missionary work of the Early Church.[36] There are two realities that have broken me from a faith in the narrative of Orthodoxy - 1) The actions of Orthodox hierarchies in foreign lands, where their canonical rulings and financial dealings are conflicting with the interests of their “faithful,” showing an incredibly consistent attitude from the days of Balsamon until today, considering the interests, claims and traditions of their ecclesial centers to be preeminent (and going to war with one another when those interests happen to be in the conflicting orbits of Moscow or Constantinople); and 2) the Canonical Tradition itself, which, while claiming pastoral concern, enforces a colonial and imperialistic agenda, contradicts the sacred revelation of Scripture itself, and considers the opinions of deeply flawed and self-interested individuals to be, somehow, the “Guardians of the Gospel.” Switching the locus from which this train of thought releases its apologetic powers to Rome brings us to exactly the same conclusions that deeply alienate Greeks from Romans![37]

While I deeply regret the division caused by schism and misunderstanding, I also understand now why the Catholic and Protestant positions became inevitable. When men so deeply misunderstand their roles in the administration of the Gospel, changing the truth of God into a self-advantageous claim to authority, and attempt to bring those in their care back under the very school-master that was established to bring us to Christ, the only way that the saving message of the Gospel would reach the world without the impediments of such pernicious motives was the divine destruction of this system. Thus, in God’s infinite love and mercy, the Byzantine Empire fell and was held, like their Jewish counterparts, in four hundred years of slavery. Now, it is my hope and prayer that God may raise up a Moses to lead us out of Egypt and into another Promised Land, where we may receive the Grace of God through Love, not through a feeble Midrash constructed by a New Sanhedrin of imperially chosen lawyers in ecclesial garb, but through ecclesial repentance and a return to the tasks allotted to the Church by divine command, the Great Commission to spread the Gospel of Salvation by Repentance, Faith, Baptism, and Holy Communion!

[1] Fr. Dr. Patrick Viscuso, “A Guide for a Church under Islam”, pg xiii 

[2] “Declaration on Behalf of the Eastern Orthodox Church”, written under the supervision of the Very Rev. Robert G. Stephanopoulos, Ph.D., as part of “Guidelines for Orthodox Christians in Ecumenical Relations”, Published by SCOBA in America, Part Two, Third Header. 

[3] Fr. Dr. John Meyendorff, “The Living Tradition”, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary Press, 1979, pg. 101. 

[4] Rhalles & Potles IV, 490, translated by Michael Angold in “Church and Society in Byzantium Under the Comneni, 1081-1261”, Cambridge University Press, 1995, pg. 150. 

[5] This argument has been offered to counter Fr. Dr. Paul N. Tarazi’s reading of the Apostle Paul’s exposition against the “works of the law”, and can be found in the articles published by Archimandrite Touma Bitar 

[6] Fr. Dr. Patrick Viscuso, “A Guide for the Church Under Islam”, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2014, pg 120 

[7] “The quest for eternal salvation lies at the very heart of the Orthodox canonical tradition.” Lewis J. Patsavos, “Spiritual Dimensions of the Holy Canons”, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2003, pg xiii 

[8] Dr. Penteleimon Rodopolous, "An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law", Orthodox Research Institute, 2007, pgs 16-17. 

[9] “The apparent similarity of the Church’s law to secular law led some to contest the integrity of the former… Its differences lies mainly in the premise that the original source of canon law is found in the will of God to establish His Church on earth. Consequently, the source of its authority stems from the will of God. When Our Lord entrusted the work of salvation to the Church… He obliged her to provide herself with the necessary means of survival… In short, He obliged her to provide herself with a set of rules to live by. In so doing, the Church as a community of faith came to be associated with a juridical organization.” See Lewis Patsavos, Ph.D. “The Canonical Tradition of the Orthodox Church”, Holy Cross Bookstore, pg 1. 

[10] Such a political vision is hotly contested by Dr. Aristotle Papanikolaou in his seminal work, “The Mystical as Political”, 2012, University of Notre Dame Press, where he argues that the imperial/patriarchal synthesis is not necessary for the Orthodox theological commitment to a “Divine-Human Economy”, and that a commitment to hegemony and authoritarianism actually runs counter the Scriptures, early Church Fathers, and the spirit of the Conciliar Church. 

[11] Lewis J. Patsavos, “Spiritual Dimensions of the Holy Canons”, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2003, pg 26 

[12] Patriarch Metaxakes’s declaration on the “Living Church” quoted by Fr. Dr. Patrick Viscuso, in “A Quest for Reform of the Orthodox Church”, InterOrthodox Press, 2006, pg xlvi. 

[13] This logic undergirds most of the current position in the Orthodox Church “Contra Sola Scriptura”, and is now used primarily as an apologia to facilitate Protestant conversions to Orthodoxy. 

[14] There is an ongoing debate on the hypostatic nature of the Church, variously supported and attacked by scholars and theologians. Some of the more famous contemporary exponents for the hypostatic reality are H.G. +Kallistos Ware in his “Orthodox Church” and Fr. Dr. Nicholas Afanasiev in “The Church of the Holy Spirit”, while deniers are Fr. Dr. Alexander Schmemman in his “Liturgy and Tradition” and H.E. Metropolitan +Hilarion Alfeev in his first volume of “The Orthodox Church”. 

[15] The traditional argument against this narrative is, simply, that it was God’s will to preserve the Greek Church in purity, normally due to the association of Greek language with the New Testament and the philosophical prestige of the Greek fathers. As it is declared by his All-Holiness Joachim III’s preface to the “Guidelines for Orthodox Christians in Ecumenical Relations”: “The Holy Church, we say, is truly one in the identical Faith and in the same morals and customs, to which the decisions of the seven Ecumenical Councils conform, and indeed she must be one, not many and contrary churches differing from one another in dogma and the fundamental institutions of ecclesiastical order. If this should be impossible with men, as is the case in everything, it is nevertheless possible with God.” (emphasis mine) 

[16] From the 34th Canon of the Council of Laodicea in Fr. Dr. Patrick Viscuso, “A Guide for a Church under Islam”, pg 84 

[17] Luke 22:24-27 NKJV 

[18] Fr. Dr. Patrick Viscuso, “A Guide for a Church under Islam”, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2014, pgs. 82-84. 

[19] Ibid, pgs. 84-85. 

[20] Ibid, pgs. 102-106. 

[21] Fr. Dr. Patrick Viscuso, “Orthodox Canon Law”, Second Edition, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2007, pg 45. 

[22] Fr. Dr. Patrick Viscuso, “Sexuality, Marriage and Celibacy”, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2008, pg 91. 

[23] Ibid, pg 90. 

[24] Fr. Dr. Alexander Schmemann, “Introduction to Liturgical Theology”, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1978, pg. 126-130. 

[25] Fr. Dr. Patrick Viscuso, “Orthodox Canon Law”, Second Edition, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2007, pg. 49. See St. Nikodemos of the Holy Mountain on the superiority of celibacy, where he ties St. John Chrysostom and St. Gregory the Theologian into an authoritative argument against marriage. “Virginity surpasses marriage just as much as heaven is from the earth, and the angels from men…” 

[26] St. John the Faster (D 595) introduced this idea in his homilies and canons, based upon 1 Samuel 21:4-6, where it says “Truly, women have been kept from us about three days since I came out. And the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in effect common, even though it was consecrated in the vessel this day.” 

[27] “…We already recognize that marriage is honorable and happens to be a mystery of our Church, and in antiquity was never viewed as an impediment even for the archpriesthood.” Fr. Dr. Patrick Viscuso, in “A Quest for Reform of the Orthodox Church”, InterOrthodox Press, 2006, pg 38. A return to this practice may also be argued by the extension of the legal principle, “That which was valid from the beginning, is not invalidated by that which supervenes”, Digests 50.17.85, Basilika 2.3.85. See Fr. Dr. Patrick Viscuso, “Sexuality, Marriage and Celibacy”, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2008, pg 123. 

[28] Ibid, pg 94, Canons of the Holy Apostles 18 

[29] Ibid, pg 131. Quintisext Council in Trullo, canons 12, 48, and 30 

[30] Patsavos tries to cut off this argument with an appeal to higher experience and balance. “…In order of apply…the canons correctly, [one] must experience the spirit of the holy canons and the faith generally in a profound way…[or] a superficial knowledge of the canons is dangerous and can lead either to their rejection or to a legalistic interpretation of spiritual life. Lewis J. Patsavos, “Spiritual Dimensions of the Holy Canons”, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2003, pg 34. 

[31] “The synopsis of Basilika 2.1.41 in the response significantly changes the meaning of the law in question. When there is a lack of applicable written law, the synopsis omits the following of local ancient custom and usage, namely of Alexandria, in favor of the custom of Rome, which is equated with the custom of Constantinople, the New Rome. The [original] synopsis reads, ‘Concerning cases where there is no written law, one ought to observe the custom that Rome has used.'’” Fr. Dr. Patrick Viscuso, “A Guide for a Church under Islam”, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2014, pg 29. 

[32] “Balsamon was probably a native of the Byzantine capital of Constantinople based on a remark made in his commentary on canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451): 'I who am a pure Constantinopolitan, who became a member of the most holy throne of Constantinople, by the grace of God, most of all, wish and pray that Constantinople would have without scandal all the privileges bestowed upon her by the divine canons.’” Ibid, pg 4-5. 

[33] Old Testament lecture at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary, Spring 2007, on Ezekiel and the Prophetic Tradition. MP3 available through OCAB Press. 

[34] Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeev, “The Orthodox Church”, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary Press, 2011, pgs 58-64 

[35] Such a claim cannot be accepted by Orthodox canonists, as evidenced in “Guidelines for Orthodox Christians in Ecumenical Relations”, Published by SCOBA in America, 1:9-12, where it states, “the divisions among Christians, complicated as they might be by ‘non-theological’ (cultural, historical, socio-psychological, etc.) factors, are ultimately rooted in deviations from the one faith.” This position may clearly be countered with another opinion, that “Through control and strengthening of the Church at the same time, the emperor used the Orthodox faith as a unifying ideology for the empire and exercised control over Byzantine society.” Fr. Dr. Patrick Viscuso, “A Guide for a Church under Islam”, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2014, pg 8-9. 

[36] “In a certain sense the General Councils as inaugurated at Nicaea may be described as ‘Imperial Councils,’ die Reichskonzile, and this was probably the first and original meaning of the term ‘Ecumenical’ as applied to the Councils. It would be out of place now to discuss at any length the vexed and controversial problem of the nature or character of that peculiar structure which was the new Christian Commonwealth, the theocratic Res Publica Christiana, in which the Church was strangely wedded with the Empire”, George Florovsky’s “Bible, Church, Tradition – An Eastern Orthodox View”, Harvard University Press, p. 95 

[37] As illustrated by Patriarch Michael Cerularius’ infamous treatment of western clergy before the schism, excluding them from standing at the altar with the exulted Eastern heirarchs.