On Canonicity as a Continuum

St. Gregory the Great, Refuter of Universal Episcopacy

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

In a system without an ultimate head, such as the Papacy, synodality is an eternally fluctuating continuum of mutual recognition, not a law that cannot be bent or broken. This is why I don’t ascribe to the later ideas that catholicity is determined by inter-diocesan communion, as seen in late Byzantine canon law, or, in Papal recognition (of both Rome and Constantinople). The original word for Catholic is “Kata Holos”, a “part of the whole,” and it is actually referring to the local system of episcopal structure, which is universal to all the Ancient Churches - an Apostolically ordained bishop, his council of presbyters, deacons and the synaxis of the laity gathered in Baptism and expressed in the Eucharist. The Church is not found “between” the bishops, but in the local diocese. It is recognized by the synod and documented for purposes of historical clarity and accuracy, so that we may have a record of unbroken Apostolicity and Orthodoxy. 

This is how we have churches in the ancient days who had no previous knowledge of one another, but met, discussed, and recognized each other as part of the same Church. This is like what happened between various Far Eastern churches when they encountered the West - Ishoyaw II’s communion with Patriarch Sergius, or Rabban Barsauma communing the King of England in Rome. They would formalize this recognition in celebrating the Eucharist together, recognizing the reality that was there because of a common faith and order. This is not to say that there weren’t early pressures to create pyramidal structures. We see this first in the Apostolic Canons, where the eldest bishop of a “diocese” (a Roman provincial area), was to be the Primus and speak for the synod of bishops to the secular authority. 

Patriarch Ishoyaw II, Patriarch of the Church of the East, Who Reestablished Communion with Constantinople around the Year AD 630

This idea, one of administrative hierarchy (while preserving the equality of all bishops), rapidly increased for the health and benefit of the Church. In the East, it developed differently than in Rome, where the administrative and sacramental were bound together in a very palpable and indivisible way. The Eastern practice still focuses more on the mechanism of synodality as the way in which the Holy Spirit expressed His will for the Church. The West focused on hierarchy, authority, obedience and efficiency as the earmarks of the Holy Spirit’s revelation. These two different ways of understanding what the Holy Spirit does within the structure of the Church, and the differences of how this is expressed, ultimately led to the mutual incomprehensibility between the two systems. 

It is easy to see how one thing led to another. If hierarchy is for administrative facility within the Church, then those areas with the best administrative position would naturally become the centers of the Church. The Church, in this way, baptizes the secular realities, and makes them function for the good of all. Rome became the preliminary center of Western Christianity for very practical reasons, and Constantinople recognized and preserved this canonically, applying the Apostolic Canons abstractly to the Bishop of Rome as the “Primus Inter Pares.” But, Constantinople asserted its rights as “Second only to Rome” at the Council of Chalcedon because the Emperor moved there, and thus, made it an important administrative center. 

St. John the Faster, Errant First Claimant of "Universal Bishop"

Constantinople very early wanted to demote Rome, and the Patriarchs of Constantinople wanted to assert their claims to universality. Strangely, it was Roman Popes who countered the argument by saying that there were no universal bishops and that all bishops were equal. This was Pope St. Gregory the Great’s rebuke of Patriarch St. John the Faster of Constantinople’s claims of being a “universal bishop” - 

"I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren.” 

Churches have a funny habit of forgetting inexpedient parts of their own history, which then makes no sense of Christian history in general. Then we had forgeries like the Pseudo-Isadorian Decretals, which was a Roman attempted to subjugate the ancient independence of the Church in Spain, making a wreck of canon law and confusing everyone. These hardened the mistaken self-perceptions, and giving a legal basis for the papal claims that then made the worst tendencies unquestionable. This means that there is provably false basis for Roman arguments for papal supremacy, universal jurisdiction, and infallibility. Rome now recognizes that these documents were forgeries, but they do not walk back the doctrines that were built upon them. This is my primary contention with Roman Catholicism, which I otherwise deeply sympathize with and see as generally compatible with Ancient Christianity. 

Summary 

Considering the above illustrations and perspectives, it is crucial to bear in mind that the so-called "canonicity" of the Church results from doctrinal faithfulness. It stems from the regular, documented, and orderly passing on of Apostolic Succession, proper submission to historical and ecclesiastical authority, maintenance of the tripartite hierarchy of Bishop, Priest, and Deacon, and the absence of schism or heresy. This structure benefits the shared life of the Local Church, which comprises the synaxis of all faithful Christian believers in a geographical region united in the Holy Eucharist. If any part of this Apostolic ecclesial system breaks down, such as a Bishop ceasing to serve his local congregation, he is considered uncanonical. Similarly, a Local Church without a Bishop, Priests, and Deacons is also uncanonical. A man declaring himself a Bishop is not recognized as such, as every aspect of this system is not self-appointed but submitted to those continuing the Gospel’s historic flow through rightly dividing the Word of Truth and submitting to the laying on of hands for the gifts of the Holy Spirit. If a local Church avoids accountability from other Local Churches regarding succession, history, doctrine, worship, or practice, it breaks the circuit, proving itself uncanonical. A Church is only considered canonical if it maintains an unbroken connection with the Apostolic model through appropriate submission to Apostolic ordination and doctrine. Preserving the recognized order of canonicity is challenging and must be continually guarded due to the natural human tendencies towards imbalance, misdirection, and misinterpretation. Failings and struggles necessitate sincere listening to critiques from authorities in other Local Churches and constant repentance, reconciliation, and rectification of our mistakes. Good order and mutual submission demand transparency, fidelity, humility, accountability, and synodality – unity within the Local Church, along with mutual recognition and love between sister Churches. Synodality "between" Bishops of Local Churches becomes essential to safeguard orthodoxy and confirm each local body's claims to its own deposit, thus manifesting the truth of the whole Church in one local diocese. 

For these reasons, canons serve the ancient and God-given order of the Local Church, being created by the Holy Spirit’s inspiration within local councils in different ages to preserve the effective pastoral ministry of the Body of Christ. This gives them great authority, but they are subject to the realities and necessities of the Local Church, its context, and the constant necessity to consider the salvation of others as the first priority. Ecumenical Councils only become such by universal reception of all Local Churches. The Commandment of Christ in Matthew 28, His mandate to evangelize the world, is the ultimate law to which all canons must submit. Any canons that prohibits the spread of the Gospel, or make the continued establishment of the Local Church impossible, must be deemed contradictory to the mandate upon which the canon’s authority is founded. Therefore, canonicity must be interpreted as a continuum, an ever-present struggle for equilibrium, set against our first impulses and fragile egos, contradicting our fallen motivations for power and influence, stymying our desire to control or restrict God’s saving grace to those of whom we feel are unworthy, foreign, or un-complementary, and experienced as a living sacrifice for all those called to the administration of the Local Church, as we undertake the continued incarnation of our Lord’s salvific work in the world, awaiting His ultimate return.