The Problem of St. John Chrysostom: The Case Against Orthodox Fundamentalism and the Current Hyper-Cyprianism of Institutional Synodality
By Bp. Joseph and SbDcn. Mercurius (Ancient Church of the West)
Introduction
The ordination, episcopal career, and unjust deposition of St. John Chrysostom offer a dramatic case study exposing the perils of contemporary canonical fundamentalism and hyper-Cyprianist ecclesiology in Orthodox Christianity. If modern canon law were rigidly applied retrospectively, St. John Chrysostom, who was ordained amid the fractious Meletian Schism, would be deemed a schismatic cleric requiring re-ordination, while his exile following the Synod of the Oak would have stripped him of all sacramental authority and placed him outside of the “canonical Church.” Yet the Church’s historical response, marked by pragmatic reconciliation and posthumous veneration, reveals a far more flexible and truthful praxis. This article delves into the Meletian Schism, St. John Chrysostom’s irregular ordinations, his politically charged deposition, and evolving canonical traditions to argue for a historically conscious, pastorally driven approach over the ahistorical legalism dominating institutional Orthodoxy today. By drawing on conciliar texts, patristic insights, and ecclesiastical history, it critiques the overemphasis on synodal structures and calls for reclaiming oikonomia (pastoral flexibility) to preserve ecclesial unity amid schisms and crises.
The Rise of Canonical Fundamentalism
In the turbulent landscape of contemporary Orthodox ecclesiology, a twentieth-century resurgence of hyper-Cyprianism has fueled canonical fundamentalism. This rigid, legalistic mindset is alien to the Church Fathers. It insists that sacraments performed by “schismatic” or uncanonical bishops are invalid, with the only solution being re-ordination for regularization. Canonical fundamentalism overstates synodal authority, treating canons as static codes rather than adaptable tools for pastoral needs, often ignoring historical contexts of political intrigue and theological division.
Such fundamentalism leads to absurd outcomes when applied to history, nowhere more strikingly than in the life of St. John Chrysostom, the golden-tongued preacher whose eloquence and reforms shook the Byzantine elite. St. John was ordained during the Meletian Schism, which was a bitter ecclesial rift unrecognized by Rome and Alexandria. Later, he was rebuked by Constantinople and entwined with the later fragmentation of the Church of the East from the Patriarchate of Antioch. In other words, St. John Chrysostom’s clerical status would be completely illicit by modern standards that would make St. Cyprian blush. His later deposition at the Synod of the Oak (AD 403), later cast as orchestrated by envious rivals and imperial meddling, further tests hyper-Cyprianist claims that synodal rulings instantly nullify episcopal grace. By conciliar definition, St. John was cast out of the Church. Yet, later, the Church never questioned his validity, rehabilitating him posthumously without re-ordination or regularization, casting dispersions upon his persecutors. Those who chant his liturgy have no issue commemorating him alongside the Holy Hierarchs, but he died a layman, according to canon law applied with modern understandings.
This paper explores these episodes to advocate a return to the Fathers’ flexible, discerning spirit, resisting bureaucratic distortions that weaponize canons in modern polemics.
The Meletian Schism and the Irregularity of Chrysostom’s Ordination
The Divided See of Antioch
The Meletian Schism (AD 361–415), one of early Christianity’s most protracted and politically entangled divisions, emerged from the post-Nicene struggles over theology and power in Antioch, a pivotal apostolic see. Appointed bishop in AD 361 by the pro-Arian Emperor Constantius II, Meletius shocked his patrons by proclaiming Nicene orthodoxy, prompting his swift exile. In the vacuum, a Nicene faction aligned with Alexandria and Rome consecrated Paulinus as a rival bishop, splintering the Church into parallel lines:
1. Meletius and successors (Flavian I, Porphyrius, Alexander): endorsed by some Eastern bishops and imperial authorities but branded schismatic by Western and Alexandrian sees.
2. Paulinus and successors (Evagrius, Domnus): backed by Rome and Alexandria but marginalized locally as a minority faction.
This schism, fueled by overlapping consecrations and doctrinal suspicions, persisted beyond Meletius’ death in AD 381, with Rome withholding recognition from Flavian until Alexander’s reconciliation in AD 415. The drama underscores how imperial politics and theological factions could fracture ecclesial unity, creating “irregular” hierarchies that challenge contemporary notions of canonical legitimacy.
Chrysostom’s Ordination Under Meletian Bishops
St. John Chrysostom, a native Antiochene immersed in the Meletian camp, began his clerical journey amid this chaos. Ordained deacon by Meletius around AD 370 and presbyter by Flavian I around AD 386, he received orders from bishops outside of communion with Rome and Alexandria, in active schism, from figures deemed uncanonical by key Church centers such as Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria. Under today’s hyper-Cyprianist lens, this would render his sacraments illicit, his ordination invalid, and necessitate a re-ordination or rehabilitation before priestly duties.
Yet, when elevated to Archbishop of Constantinople in AD 397 by Emperor Arcadius’ court, no such demands arose. Ironically, his Archiepiscopal consecrator was Theophilus of Alexandria, from the rival Paulinian camp, who overlooked the “schismatic” origins despite ongoing tensions within these rival groups. This pragmatic oversight highlights the early Church’s prioritization of doctrinal orthodoxy and pastoral necessity over formalism, a stark rebuke to modern claims that visible institutional communion alone confers grace and sacramental validity.
Later Canonical Developments and the Church’s Pragmatic Approach
Rome’s Recognition of Flavian and the Retrospective Validation of Orders
Rome’s initial rejection of Flavian gave way to posthumous acceptance after Alexander’s reconciliation, with no calls for re-ordaining Meletian clergy. This retrospective validation illustrates the Church’s readiness to affirm irregular sacraments once political unity was restored, avoiding disruptive nullifications and canonical oversimplification. The rite of reception via vesting and confession of faith would be an outpouring of the same spirit, but many Orthodox jurisdictions today have nearly forgotten this used to be the preferred method.
The Council of 381 and the Ecumenical Status of Meletius
Meletius presided over the First Council of Constantinople’s opening sessions, fully recognized by Eastern bishops despite Rome and Alexandria’s dissent. After his death, the council proceeded under St. Gregory Nazianzus, and the Meletian line retained Antioch without mass re-ordinations or questions of invalidity, evidence that legitimacy debates were fluid, not absolute or based on the contemporary view of canonicity.
St. Meletius, venerated by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox communions, died within the embrace of the united Church. Emperor Theodosius was present at his first funeral, and he received another one after his body was transferred to Antioch from Constantiniple.
The Church’s Recognition of Chrysostom Despite His “Schismatic” Ordination
Chrysostom’s unchallenged rise to Constantinople’s throne, without regularization, defies hyper-Cyprianist absolutism. The Church’s actions affirm that sacraments in schismatic contexts, if orthodox, retained integrity, contrasting sharply with contemporary polemics equating schism with sacramental void.
In a similar situation, St. Jerome, the man behind the Latin Vulgate Bible, was made a priest by Paulinus, rival of Meletius. However, neither Jerome nor John Chrysostom’s holy orders were seen as invalid.
The Canonical Irregularities of St. John’s Deposition and the Limits of Synodal Authority
The Synod of the Oak and Its Procedural Violations
St. John Chrysostom’s fall adds layers of intrigue: At the Synod of the Oak (AD 403), convened by foes like Theophilus of Alexandria amid imperial interference, he faced condemnation without proper summons, due process, or defense. Notably, Theophilus arrived to the synod bearing money and gifts as bribes. Hostile orchestration and Emperor Arcadius’ enforcement rendered the synod a farce, violating legal norms and exposing how power plays could masquerade as ecclesial justice.
St. John’s Continued Recognition by the Faithful
Defying the synod, Constantinople’s flock rejected his deposition, while Pope Innocent I and Western bishops upheld his legitimacy. Pope Innocent I even attempted to bring St. John back to his see after his second exile by calling a new synod. However, his legates were imprisoned and sent home, bringing these plans to nought. He then severed communion with the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople, with the schism not healed until St. John’s death. So, Rome went into schism over the treatment of a bishop whom they reckoned to be irregular, consecrated by a bishop who was in schism with Rome?
Appeals to papal and Eastern authorities revealed canonical fluidity. Exiled twice amid riots and earthquakes, which was later seen as divine protests, St. John died in AD 407, but his posthumous rehabilitation restored his name without questioning his episcopacy. This resilience shows synodal rulings were corrigible, not infallible, challenging hyper-Cyprianist views that deposition instantly erases grace.
A modern day parallel can be seen in St. Nektarios of Aegina’s own deposition. His episcopacy was reinstated after his death, with no question of his holiness and sanctity.
Canon Law as a Developing Tradition: Patristic Insights and Modern Distortions
The Patristic Understanding of Canon Law
Early Fathers like St. Basil emphasized oikonomia in crises, receiving schismatic clergy without re-ordination if orthodox in doctrine and descending from a recognizable lineage. Absent a fixed moral imperative set by the Ten Commandments and the teachings of our Lord Jesus, canons served as guides, not shackles, allowing adaptation in schisms like the Novatianists’.
St. Augustine, in his work Against the Donatists, wrote that schismatics retained their baptisms even if they left, and that sacraments administered in schism were still of God, provided these were administered with proper form by bishops with somewhat recognizable orders. These sacraments, imperfect as they were, could still remain.
The Rise of Canonical Fundamentalism in Modern Orthodoxy
Nineteenth- and twentieth-century influences, scholasticism, bureaucracy, shifted canonical interpretation toward rigid understandings, treating synods as infallible despite historical counterexamples (e.g., the Robber Council of Ephesus, St. Maximos Confessor’s condemnation in valid council). This legalism ignores unjust councils’ fallibility and the fact that the authority of a council relies upon reception, not upon proclamation!
All who confess the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed believe in it, but many do not sit down and consider that it was called ecumenical not only because of the truth it declared, but that the entire Church around the world accepted it. Conversely, as the Orthodox Church does not accept the Council of Trent, it has no power over us, since it has not been received. It is also worth recalling that the Orthodox Faith was described as received more often than declared, as the Scriptures themselves say.
The Problem of Hyper-Cyprianism
Misappropriating St. Cyprian’s ecclesiology (written first when the Saint was very young, and moderated by his later understanding), hyper-Cyprianism posits grace vanishes upon irregularity, completely overlooking the pastoral reality of the Early Church, which was immediately in schism between Jewish and Gentile converts, circumcised and uncircumcised, and Aramaic and Greek-speaking communities. St. John’s enduring validity, despite schismatic ordination and deposition, refutes this legalistic and anachronistic approach, as his episcopacy persisted through faithful recognition and historical correction.
St. Jerome himself wrote about St. Cyprian’s rigorist position, noting that Cyprian’s bishops later stopped rebaptizing heretics who recanted and desired admission to the Church. He further mentioned how Canon 8 of the Council of Nicaea allowed Novatian bishops to be accepted as priests or even bishops if the situation called for it.
The Council of Arles (314) also referred to Cyprianism as the Africans’ “own special law.” Canon 9 (or 8 depending on the manuscript) explicitly forbids rebaptism if the penitent recants his heresy and confesses the Creed. Non-Trinitarians were baptized.
The Case Against Canonical Fundamentalism
The Practicality of Ecclesiastical Economy
St. John Chrysostom’s saga proves the early Church favored oikonomia to heal schisms without nullifications. Rigid enforcement would have invalidated him, fracturing the hierarchy unnecessarily and making the definition of ecclesiastical reality a political issue, rather than an issue of faith. The Ancient Church was far clearer on the faith-based reality underpinning the canons, rather than looking to the validity of the Church as being based on the canons.
When discussing St. Cyprian’s unusual preference for rebaptism, a consistent theme of various saints, ancient and modern, was appealing to the oldest ways. The Second Ecumenical Council and Council of Trullo both avoided rebaptism except for the Paulianists and other non-Trinitarian heretics.
The Dangers of Hyper-Cyprianism
Hyper-Cyprianic readings of ordinal grace and absolute canonical exclusivism crumbles historically: Recognizing schismatic sacraments if orthodox doctrine preserved unity. If this recent fundamentalism was applied retroactively, it would delegitimize vast clerical lineages, sowing chaos throughout the whole Orthodox world.
Moreover, Hyper-Cyprianists were silent when the Macedonian Orthodox Church was reunited with the greater Orthodox world in 2022. There were no questions about its clergy’s holy orders, and no rebaptisms occurred. What happened was a concelebration, acknowledging each others’ mysteries and affirming that all sides upheld the faith once delivered to the saints. Even today, various jurisdictions are officially concelebrating with the Macedonians.
The Need for a More Historically Conscious Canonical Approach
Orthodoxy must reclaim flexibility, distinguishing political penalties from ontological validity. Synods are practical, not absolute, a matter of standards and good order, not a definition of the essence of the Church; pastoral discernment, guided by the Church’s mind, trumps bureaucratic legalism in every situation.
Even with the Macedonian Orthodox Church being accepted as canonical once again, there was a slight but notable political game going on. The Serbian Orthodox Church officially granted the Macedonian Church complete autocephaly, but Archbishop Stefan also wanted similar recognition from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Sadly, the Ecumenical Patriarchate listed the removal of the word “Macedonian” from the MOC’s name before it would issue its own tomos.
These events highlight the novel reading of Chalcedon 28 espoused by the EP and the Greeks, which pushes the idea that only Constantinople can grant tomoi of autocephaly. However, Archbishop Stefan has yet to capitulate to this demand, and some other jurisdictions have yet to acknowledge the MOC’s autocephaly.
Conclusion
By the rigid, ahistorical, and self-referential standards of contemporary canonical fundamentalism, St. John Chrysostom must be reckoned not as the ‘Pillar of Orthodoxy’ but as an "episcopus vagans" - a wandering bishop consecrated out of communion, ordained by schismatics, deposed by synods, stripped of jurisdiction, and therefore outside of the so-called ‘canonical Church.’ By such a logic, the golden mouth of Orthodoxy would be nothing more than an unlicensed preacher whose sacraments and episcopacy were null and void. St. John Chrysostom's life demands a pivot from hyper-Cyprianist rigor to the patristic wisdom of the Apostolic Faith. Embracing oikonomia, historical context, and sacramental realism will safeguard unity, resisting ahistorical distortions and reviving the dramatic, resilient spirit of the early Church in the modern day, as Eastern Orthodoxy spins dangerously into the territory of violent extremism, cultural imperialism, authoritarian totalitarianism, and pharisaical rejection of grace and the embrace of a death-bringing law.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
St. Basil the Great. Letters and Select Works. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 8. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Relevant for St. Basil’s canons and discussions on oikonomia in handling schismatic clergy, particularly in his letters addressing schisms and heresies.
St. Cyprian of Carthage. The Epistles of Cyprian. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 275–420. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994. Key for understanding St. Cyprian’s ecclesiology and its interpretation in relation to sacramental validity outside the Church.
St. John Chrysostom. Homilies and Letters. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vols. 9–14, edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Includes Chrysostom’s writings and correspondence, providing insight into his ecclesiastical activities and response to his deposition.
The Acts of the Council of Constantinople (381). In The Seven Ecumenical Councils, edited by Henry R. Percival. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Primary source for the proceedings of the First Council of Constantinople and Meletius’ role, relevant to the Meletian Schism.
The Canons of the Early Church. In The Seven Ecumenical Councils, edited by Henry R. Percival. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996. Contains canons relevant to episcopal legitimacy, schisms, and ecclesiastical economy, including those referenced in the Meletian context.
Secondary Sources
Chadwick, Henry. The Church in Ancient Society: From Galilee to Gregory the Great. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Provides a detailed historical overview of early Church conflicts, including the Meletian Schism and Chrysostom’s career.
Daley, Brian E. “The Ministry and Martyrdom of St. John Chrysostom.” In The Cambridge Companion to John Chrysostom, edited by Wendy Mayer and Pauline Allen, 1–20. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Examines Chrysostom’s life, ordination, and deposition, with attention to the canonical and political controversies surrounding him.
Fitzgerald, Thomas E. The Orthodox Church. Westport, CT: Praeger, 1995. Discusses the development of Orthodox ecclesiology and canon law, with insights into modern canonical interpretations.
Kelly, J. N. D. Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom—Ascetic, Preacher, Bishop. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995. A definitive biography detailing Chrysostom’s ordination, episcopal career, and the Synod of the Oak, with analysis of the Meletian Schism’s impact.
L’Huillier, Peter. The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1996. Analyzes the canons of the First Council of Constantinople and their application to schisms and episcopal legitimacy, relevant to Meletius and Flavian.
Meyendorff, John. Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450–680 A.D. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1989. Explores the Meletian Schism, Chrysostom’s deposition, and the broader context of early Church divisions and reconciliations.
Patsavos, Lewis J. Spiritual Dimensions of the Holy Canons. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2000. Discusses the pastoral and flexible application of canons in Orthodoxy, with reference to oikonomia and its historical use.
Siecienski, A. Edward. The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Includes discussion of early Church schisms, such as the Meletian Schism, in the context of Nicene orthodoxy and ecclesiastical politics.
Ware, Timothy (Kallistos). The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity. 3rd ed. London: Penguin Books, 2015. Provides an overview of Orthodox canon law and ecclesiology, critiquing modern legalistic tendencies and advocating for historical flexibility.
Wilken, Robert Louis. John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late 4th Century. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2004. Contextualizes Chrysostom’s ministry in Antioch and Constantinople, including the political and ecclesiastical challenges he faced.
Additional Scholarly Articles
Allen, Pauline. “John Chrysostom’s Last Days and Legacy.” Byzantion 80 (2010): 5–25. Examines the circumstances of Chrysostom’s exile and posthumous rehabilitation, highlighting the Church’s response to his deposition.
Elm, Susanna. “The Dog That Did Not Bark: Doctrine and Patriarchal Authority in the Conflict between Theophilus of Alexandria and John Chrysostom.” In Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire, edited by Averil Cameron, 68–93. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Analyzes the Synod of the Oak and Theophilus’ role, emphasizing political motivations over canonical legitimacy.
McGuckin, John A. “The Meletian Schism and the Development of the Eastern Church.” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 45, no. 3 (2001): 233–256. A detailed study of the Meletian Schism, its impact on episcopal legitimacy, and its resolution, with reference to Chrysostom’s ordination.
Comments
Post a Comment