Why Anglo-Orthodoxy Does Not Require Canonical Submission to the Eastern Patriarchates

By Bp. Joseph (Anglican Vicariate)

If Anglicans only receive that which has been synodally received by all local churches in Ecumenical Council, then there is certainly no reason for canonical submission to Eastern Patriarchates – We see how purely local councils, such as "Trullo" (Quintesext) claim universal authority, or, as the Byzantine Canonist Theodore Balsamon argued, ideosyncratically and unilaterally, that all practices must be brought into conformity with Constantinople, controverting 14 hundred years of Roman Law and the sacred canons of the early councils, creating the current position within Eastern Orthodoxy which is at odds with ancient tradition and the sacred Ecumenical Councils, the very thing to which the Orthodox appeal to as the primary source of their infallible authority and the necessity of canonical submission. Such an argument then, for the general infallibility of the Eastern Orthodox Church, is, in itself, self-contradictory and must be taught as a point of faith in addition to the Gospel, not as self-evident and historical fact or as a bi-product of the Holy Spirit's residency within the Church. This is a theological problem that Anglicans have never seen honestly addressed within the Eastern Church, fearing scandal amongst the faithful and a general reevaluation of the Orthodox Tradition, which would be generally catastrophic for the princely authority of the Byzantine monastic episcopal system.

We believe that communion is first with Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, through repentance, prayer and love towards God and one another, submission to the Gospel, good works and fellowship with other believers. Apostolic succession occurs naturally out of the desire to submit to spiritual authority, love and respect elders, and not break off from the visible, historic Church that Christ started and insured against corruption or destruction. In this spirit of love, respect and collegiality, the local church recognizes other churches, creating local synods and holding bishops accountable through the censure of other bishops. When there are difficulties or misunderstandings between churches, the biblical command to reconcile must be invoked, and Christians must remember that we are called to be of one mind and spirit, just as Christ and His Father were one. Those who fail to reconcile or who use difficulties as an excuse to increase personal power must be faulted. For this reason, operating on the level of person-to-person and local-church with local-church, these prerogatives are fairly simple to maintain, and were historically successful as Christianity grew to challenge the stability of two empires within its first three centuries. However, with the adoption of a state church model and an impetus on centralized control, while theoretically maintaining the rights of all bishops as equal, small or rural areas were deprived of their traditional bishops and the whole of Roman Christianity was administered along the lines of the pre-Christian secular administration. While possible to administer in this way, without falling into heresy, the structure lost its flexibility and ability to harmonize disagreements locally, leading to the fracturing of the Pentarchy along linguistic and cultural lines. This centralized episcopal authority, most notably in the Roman Catholic Church and the National Orthodox Churches, with their universal claims to jurisdiction, the general guardianship of the truth, and stewardship of the Holy Spirit, has led to irreconcilable canonical difficulties that will permanently separate the Body of Christ. Anglican ecclesiology clearly shows how these claims do not complement earlier theories of the Christian polity and rejects the equality of bishops and the necessity of universal reception of councils for ecumenicity; therefore, they can be discarded as later developments, made for practical administrative reasons, and are not the Essence of the Church.

The Orthodox theory of communion is truly beautiful, but as it developed within the Byzantine canonical tradition, it is also extremely self-referential and idealistic, incapable of reflecting the simple realities of its own history. While it draws meaningful analogies between Trinitarian Taxis and ecclesial hierarchy, hypostatic union and the divine-human economy of the church, celestial worship and late Byzantine Liturgy, it unfortunately fails to honestly or self-critically address the realities of historical inconsistency and political necessity; appending the Codex Justinianus to the Canons of the Council of Trullo (and thereby subjecting the Church to the laws of the State), leaving unaddressed the Moechian schism and its ultimate triumph over a non-schismatic Patriarchate, two Unia councils officially unifying with the West (only to be discarded at convenience), the common practice of Byzantine caesaropapism and Turkish simony, the Palamite usurpation of universal teaching authority through civil-war, intrigue and the persecution of theological enemies, and the contemporary issues of phyletism and jurisdictionalism, to name just a few.

Today, St. Cyprian, as interpreted by Theodore Balsamon, is the only canonical authority used to interpret ecclesiology within the Orthodox Tradition. However, there are at least five sources of canonical definition in the Ancient Church that disagree with Balsamon's interpretation of Cyprianic canonicity. St. Augustine's ecclesiology completely contradicts St. Cyprian's understanding in that it asserts that schism occurs, not by the cutting off of grace, but in the denial of love. Schismatic orders and sacraments partake in the same reality of the Church, up to the point that they can be accepted in mutual love and submission, and break where love ceases. The Apostolic Canons (the earliest canonical Tradition from the Ancient Church of Antioch) assert that every area has the right to recognize a senior bishop, a Primus, and that this is the basic unity of the local church, based on conciliatory and mutual recognition. No other "outside" recognition is necessary for the Church to exist in its Catholic, Complete and Universal, state.

The Canons of the First Ecumenical Council also assert that all local traditions hold precedence over imperial declaration, unless they contradict the doctrinal teachings of an Ecumenical Council. This was the point that Balsamon falsely represented and thus changed canonical interpretation - he states, "All things must be as in the God-loved City of Constantinople, unless dictated by an Ecumenical Council." This minor point of misrepresentation was the single most devastating thing that occurred to Orthodoxy, eliminating the Liturgy of St. James, St. Mark, of St. Thaddeus and all of the hymnological and liturgical traditions of all other areas and liturgikons in the Late Medieval Period. If the Church's theological self-understanding is found in its prayers, "Lex Orandi Lex Credendi", then Orthodoxy cut itself off at this point from a major source of doctrinal and cultural inspiration and directly contributed to the narrowing and self-appreciation of the later Orthodox tradition.

The last source of insight was the Council of Seleucia-Ctesiphon in 419, where the preface to its Canons explains that, based on the Apostolic Canons, all local churches have the authority to declare their political independence from the Roman Emperor and Imperial authority, and that the only requirement for mutual recognition between churches is reception of the Apostolic Episcopacy, the Teaching of the Gospel and the Epistles of Paul, the Doctrine of the Incarnation, the Belief in the Trinity and the Practice of the Sacraments (basically, the assertions of the Nicene Creed). This view was later ratified when the Byzantine Patriarchs, St. John of Antioch and Sergius the Great, communed with the Syriac Patriarch, Yeshuayab II, under the reign of Heraclius, while maintaining the Syriac definition of Catholicity. This early definition explains the practical and philosophical problems of the Council of Trullo, where Emperor Justinian appended the Canons with the "Codex Justinianus", the secular law of the Eastern Roman Empire, singlehandedly usurping the ecumenical authority of the Fifth and Sixth Councils, instating episcopal celibacy and arranging for the monastic take-over of the Byzantine and Roman Churches.

Fr. Dr. Cyril Hovorun's new book, "Scaffolds of the Church", is an unbiased Eastern source that helps contextualize the evolution of the Byzantine position over the last one thousand years. Fr. Dr. Patrick Viscuso's critical translation of Balsamon's "The Orthodox Church Under Islam" is also invaluable for understanding how canonical interpretation changed as Constantinople fell under Islamic rule and political influence. Fr. Dr. John Meyendorff's life work is also valuable, focusing on the effects of the Empire on canonical interpretation, particularly in "Imperial Unity and Christian Division" and also seen in his cooperation with Papadakis, "The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy". These are all Eastern resources that discuss the original understanding of catholicity in contrast to what it became in the Late Byzantine Period and under the Turkish rule and Russian Imperial expansions.