Canon 3 of II Nicaea (787) and the Moscow Patriarchate

[Albert Valdez]

Canon 3 of the Seventh Ecumenical Councils forbids the appointments, ordination, establishment and promotions of bishops by civil / secular rulers. It also condemns those who are in communion with bishops appointed by civil / secular rulers.

In light of this canon, how does the Moscow Patriarchate, and those with it, justify it's un-canonical existance?

The canons cannot be broken by anyone who is Orthodox.

[Olga]

This is the text, from the Pedalion (The Rudder) of the third canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of 787:


3. Every appointment of a bishop, or of a presbyter, or of a deacon made by (civil) rulers shall remain void in accordance with the Canon which says: "If any bishop comes into possession of a church by employing secular rulers, let him be deposed from office, and let him be excommunicated. And all those who communicate with him too." For it behooves anyone who is going to be promoted to a bishopric to be appointed by bishops, as was decreed by the holy Fathers assembled in Nicaea, in the Canon saying: "It is most fitting that a bishop should be installed by all those in his province. But if such a thing is difficult either because of the urgency of circumstances, or because of the distance to be traveled, at least three should meet together somewhere and by their votes combined with those of the ones absent and joining in the election by letter they should carry out the ordination thereafter. But as for the ratification of the proceedings, let it be entrusted in each province to the Metropolitan."(Ap. cc. I, II, XXX, LXI; c. IV of the 1st; cc. V, XIII of Laodicea; c. LIX of Carthage; c. VII of Timothy.)

This is the accompanying interpretation, according to The Rudder:


The present Canon is composed of Ap. c. XXX and c. IV of the 1st. Since we have already explained these Canons, see the interpretation of them there, in order to spare us from repeating the same things about them here. The only thing in this Canon that is not found there, is that every appointment or election of a bishop, or of a presbyter, or of a deacon that is made by authority and power of civil rulers shall remain void and invalid; and that bishops are to be elected by bishops, in accordance with a process previously described; that is to say, on the other hand, that the fact that both presbyters and deacons are elected is made plain indeed by the present Canon, concerning which see the Footnote to Ap. c. II; as for the fact, moreover, that Christians ought to vote subsequently after the bishops for those about to be admitted to holy orders, this is made plain in the Interpretation of Ap. c. LXI. See also Ap. cc. I and II, and the Footnote to c. V of Laodicea.

Not being fully conversant with the vagaries and subtleties of canon law, I leave it to more learned members of this forum to comment further.

One comment I will make, however, is that, apart from the period in the 1920s and early 1930s, the so-called "renovationist period" of the post-revolution "Living Church", whose influence on established doctrine and church practice was short-lived and abortive, I can vouch for the liturgical integrity of the Soviet-era Russian Church. I have a considerable archive of liturgical materials, including sound recordings, from this period.

Whether MP hierarchs may (or may not) have been appointed by secular authorities, the liturgical texts used by the church during this period were identical (apart from hierarchical commemorations, which always vary between jurisdictions and dioceses) to those used by the Church Abroad. Therefore, what was read, chanted and sung at any Orthodox service during this period was completely in accordance with Orthodox doctrine and practice. To claim that heresies existed in the liturgical content used by the Soviet-era MP church is simply false.


It also condemns those who are in communion with bishops appointed by civil / secular rulers.

By this token, the Church of Greece, among others, should be anathematised, as full communion was maintained by them with the MP throughout the Soviet period. Of course, this has not happened, neither should it happen.


The canons cannot be broken by anyone who is Orthodox.

The Orthodox have a different mindset when it comes to the application of canon law. If I'm not mistaken, the Roman Catholic church has adopted a juridical approach to canon law. Yet, even in this approach, there are many canons from pre-schism ecumenical councils which have been, for various reasons, not applied by the Roman Catholic church, though this church has otherwise accepted the validity of these councils. An example from the Quinisext Council of 691 can be found here:

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=53396#post53396

[Andreas Moran]

I'm not sure what is meant by 'appointment', 'establishment' and 'promotion'. Are these synonyms for ordination? Obviously, secular authorities cannot ordain anyone to any order. Far from new bishops being canonically ordained in those years in the MP, those there were were shot save a couple. Albert's point only bears up if some example is given.

[Nicolaj]

Andreas is right, please give us an example!

And how is it to see, that the pope of rom blessed the Nazis, Hitler, Mussolini and condemned the Jews, the Slavic population and blessed the plans of those to destroy these.

Nicolaj

[Herman Blaydoe]

Canon 3 of the Seventh Ecumenical Councils forbids the appointments, ordination, establishment and promotions of bishops by civil / secular rulers. It also condemns those who are in communion with bishops appointed by civil / secular rulers.

In light of this canon, how does the Moscow Patriarchate, and those with it, justify it's un-canonical existance?

The canons cannot be broken by anyone who is Orthodox.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. This is exactly what happens when people try to practice spiritual medicine without a license. This is why we have bishops.

Would you operate on your friends after reading Grey's Anatomy? Neither should you try and apply the canons without discernment. Canon means "guide". It is a TOOL, not a weapon. In the hands of a skilled craftsman the guide produces beauty and harmony. In the hands of the unskilled it produces ugliness and cacophany.

Unfortunately there are those who are motivated by things other than by love who would use the canons like cannons, to destroy rather than as a tool to build up. It becomes a loose "canon" careening all around the deck, harming those it is meant to protect. Then we have people who go running off, armed with a "little" knowledge, who become "canon fodder". It is very sad.

We do not have to "justify" the existance of the Moscow Patriarchate. The martyrs and saints justify her far better than our words can even attempt to express.

Don't mess with the heavy artillery unless you know what you are doing. Once YOU become perfected as a saint, then worry about "saving" the Church. If you are already perfect then please accept the apology of one who still has far to go.

Herman the Pooh

[Herman Blaydoe]

Let us follow this loose "canon" a bit further as it flies around and collides with history. If we use this line of reasoning, then there is NO Church, anywhere. The Ecumenical Patriarchate was bought and sold under the Ottoman captivity. Even before then, the Byzantine Emperor certainly "influenced" the appointment of more than one Patriarch. If we MUST obey the canons then we must flee to the Roman Pope. But wait a minute, under Charlemagne, even the Pope was "appointed" by secular authority, so there is no refuge there either. Where then, do we run? There is no man living who is justified, no, not even one.

If the canons cannot be "broken" by anyone who is "Orthodox", then the Church itself is broken, there is really no other "reasonable" conclusion to this line of logic. That is unless our assumptions on which that logic is based are faulty? Time to rethink, methinks. Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Matthew Namee]

Canon means "guide".
Yes, I believe another translation for canon is "rule." But not "rule" in the sense of "law" or "regulation" (as understood by many Roman Catholics), but rather "rule" as in "ruler," i.e. "measuring stick." Another way to put it would be "norm" -- a canon expresses what should be the norm in Orthodoxy. It is the standard against which we measure our conduct. But Orthodox canons have always been written in response to actual events; unlike laws (and, from what I can tell, Roman Catholic canons) they are not formulated to deal with theoretical future situations but rather to address actual, often quite specific, problems. Doubtless there are many in Orthodoxy who do hold to a juridical interpretation of canons, but these are applying concepts and methods which are inherently foreign to Orthodoxy.

I don't know the history of the specific canon under discussion, but the council at which it was promulgated -- II Nicaea -- was of course in response to the heresy of iconoclasm, which had been promoted and endorsed by the Byzantine emperors. The spirit of the canon seems to suggest that church authorities should not be under the thumb of the government. Was this the case in Russia, both tsarist and communist? At times, yes. Was this a good thing? No, it was not. This does not mean that we are somehow bound to anathematize all those connected to said Church. We should simply strive to avoid compromising situations in the future, that is, to conform to the spirit of the canon.


The canons cannot be broken by anyone who is Orthodox.Again, the canons are not laws, and (depending on the canon) it is entirely possible that one could be "broken" by an Orthodox Christian. Remember the saying of Christ: "The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27). Likewise, the canons are made for man, not man for the canons.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Canon 3 of the Seventh Ecumenical Councils forbids the appointments, ordination, establishment and promotions of bishops by civil / secular rulers. It also condemns those who are in communion with bishops appointed by civil / secular rulers.

In light of this canon, how does the Moscow Patriarchate, and those with it, justify it's un-canonical existance?

The canons cannot be broken by anyone who is Orthodox.


The canons are meant to provide the Church with a basic pattern for Her piety, discipline and doctrine. These patterns however are not self interpreting but rather can only be interpreted within the larger context by which the Church lives. This is why the canons must be interpreted for each specific circumstance. This is the role of the Church itself.

Thus in themselves the canons are not meant to be black & white definitions of what constitutes Orthodoxy set over above the Church itself. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of the canons, since the canons themselves result from the ongoing determination by the Church of Her life.

The concept of 'un-canonical' itself thus shows a mistake on two levels. First it overlooks the necessary role of the Church in determining her own life and tries to impose an external set of rules to govern this.

Then it claims that those who do not follow these rules are no longer Orthodox; again something which the canons themselves rarely imply.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Yuri Zharikov]

In light of this canon, how does the Moscow Patriarchate, and those with it, justify it's un-canonical existance?


Popes have the "two swords" of the secular and of the spiritual power, a kingdom of this world. The Lord says "My kingdom is not of this world". How does RCC and Uniates justify their own existance?

[Max Percy]

Popes have the "two swords" of the secular and of the spiritual power, a kingdom of this world. The Lord says "My kingdom is not of this world". How does RCC and Uniates justify their own existance?

Really?

3 days after Pascha?

"How does RCC and Uniates justify their own existance?"

I am guessing that it is because they love the Lord and try to follow Him.

Regarding "a kingom of this world" Who owns more property, factories, businesses than Moscow?

This is a fruitless and dangerous path.

[Yuri Zharikov]

Regarding "a kingom of this world" Who owns more property, factories, businesses than Moscow?
Rome, I suppose...
Also you seem to have a very superficial understanding of what the Church in Russia actually owns. 95% of the land and buildings is owned by the State but given to the Church to use free of charge.

[Andreas Moran]

We do not have to "justify" the existance of the Moscow Patriarchate. The martyrs and saints justify her far better than our words can even attempt to express.

Herman is absolutely right here.

[Andrew Don]

Rome, I suppose...
Also you seem to have a very superficial understanding of what the Church in Russia actually owns. 95% of the land and buildings is owned by the State but given to the Church to use free of charge.

How are you calculating what Rome owns?

[Albert Valdez]

One comment I will make, however, is that, apart from the period in the 1920s and early 1930s, the so-called "renovationist period" of the post-revolution "Living Church", whose influence on established doctrine and church practice was short-lived and abortive, I can vouch for the liturgical integrity of the Soviet-era Russian Church. I have a considerable archive of liturgical materials, including sound recordings, from this period.

That statement has no logical relevance to my initial thesis.


Whether MP hierarchs may (or may not) have been appointed by secular authorities, the liturgical texts used by the church during this period were identical (apart from hierarchical commemorations, which always vary between jurisdictions and dioceses) to those used by the Church Abroad. Therefore, what was read, chanted and sung at any Orthodox service during this period was completely in accordance with Orthodox doctrine and practice. To claim that heresies existed in the liturgical content used by the Soviet-era MP church is simply false.

That statement also is irrelevant. The point of the canon I referenced, specifically stated that civil rulers cannot appoint bishops. The bishops of the MP [i.e., the Patriarch, etc] are in direct violation to said canon [3]. Reading and singing Orthodox books and material, does not make one an Orthodox Christian. An Orthodox Christian follows Orthodox canons.




By this token, the Church of Greece, among others, should be anathematised, as full communion was maintained by them with the MP throughout the Soviet period. Of course, this has not happened,

That's right. Much of Eastern Orthodoxy today exists in an un-canonical state.


neither should it happen.

So you reject the stipulations of canon 3 of II Nicea [787]? And at the same time claim to be Orthodox?




The Orthodox have a different mindset when it comes to the application of canon law. If I'm not mistaken, the Roman Catholic church has adopted a juridical approach to canon law.

Don't you think a juridical approach is more necessary and logical? It would keep the Church more cohesive. The Orthdoox approach toward the canons seems lenient. The result today is a smorgasborg of various independent autocephelas groups lacking corporate and organic unity. The canons were given in order to keep the Church UNIFIED. There is no unity in Orthodoxy because they have such a low regard toward the canons.


Yet, even in this approach, there are many canons from pre-schism ecumenical councils which have been, for various reasons, not applied by the Roman Catholic church, though this church has otherwise accepted the validity of these councils. An example from the Quinisext Council of 691 can be found here:

Trullo [Quinisext] was never approved of by the west. The west only accept about 50 of the apostolic canons. The east all 85.

[Albert Valdez]

Let us follow this loose "canon" a bit further as it flies around and collides with history. If we use this line of reasoning, then there is NO Church, anywhere. The Ecumenical Patriarchate was bought and sold under the Ottoman captivity. Even before then, the Byzantine Emperor certainly "influenced" the appointment of more than one Patriarch. If we MUST obey the canons then we must flee to the Roman Pope. But wait a minute, under Charlemagne, even the Pope was "appointed" by secular authority, so there is no refuge there either. Where then, do we run? There is no man living who is justified, no, not even one.

Can you give me a source showing Charlemagne appointed a pope?


If the canons cannot be "broken" by anyone who is "Orthodox", then the Church itself is broken, there is really no other "reasonable" conclusion to this line of logic.

That was my point. Orthodox is broken and un-canonical.

[M.C. Steenberg]

I agree whole-heartedly with Mr Percy: It is Bright Week, the week of un-ceasing embrace of the resurrection. Conversations like this seem inappropriate to that rejoicing, simply building on the passions in somewhat tired circles.

To all, I hope instead: Christ is risen!

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Olga]

That statement has no logical relevance to my initial thesis.

On the contrary. The espousal of heresy by any priest or bishop would render that cleric outside of the Church, unless, of course, he sincerely repents of this practice, observes the appropriate penance appointed to him by his superiors, and ceases to preach in error. Many accusations have been levelled over the years to besmirch the canonicity of clerics of the MP, including the preaching of heresy. I, and many others, can easily show that this is not the case.


That statement also is irrelevant. The point of the canon I referenced, specifically stated that civil rulers cannot appoint bishops. The bishops of the MP [i.e., the Patriarch, etc] are in direct violation to said canon [3]. Reading and singing Orthodox books and material, does not make one an Orthodox Christian. An Orthodox Christian follows Orthodox canons.


An Orthodox Christian is one who has been canonically baptised into the faith, who observes and tries to live by the teachings of the Church, and who faithfully and sincerely partakes of the Church's sacraments. The distillation of the theology and doctrine of the Church can be found in its liturgical texts, particularly those of the Vigil services (a combined Vespers and Matins). Irrespective of cultural differences (Greek, Romanian, Arabic, Slavic, etc), the services for any given saint's day or feast day would be the same. Only the language used would vary, be it English, Slavonic, Greek, Arabic, etc. The same applies in countries or regions where Orthodoxy has taken root in later centuries, such as Japan, Indonesia, western Europe, the Americas, Australia, etc. It is this consistency which best illustrates the theological and doctrinal unity and universality of the Orthodox Church.

Perhaps, Albert, you can provide instances of an MP bishop who was not canonically baptised, and/or not canonically tonsured to monastic rank, and/or who changed the text of any liturgical service to conform to Bolshevik "doctrines", or who preached heresies or Bolshevik "doctrine" ex cathedra. In fact, as Andreas and others have said, many, many clerics (and laymen) paid a high price for not compromising their faith.

A notable example of this was St Luke of Simferopol. A monk, later consecrated Archbishop of Simferopol in the Crimea, he was also a distinguished professor of surgery. His monastic and clerical rank was no secret among the communist authorities. He was imprisoned a number of times, and was frequently punished in other ways, yet, such were his surgical skills that Josef Stalin himself, on more than one occasion, personally ordered him to perform surgery on this or that government official or family member. St Luke also insisted, often against stiff resistance from hospital authorities, on having an icon hung in any operating theatre he worked in, and would pray before performing any surgery.

Using your logic, Albert, this man's canonical status should be suspect, as he may have been appointed to the episcopate by the state, and in his case, "worked" within, and "for" the Soviet system. Should it be? Or is he truly a man of God, by his faith and works? Think about it.


Don't you think a juridical approach is more necessary and logical? It would keep the Church more cohesive. The Orthodox approach toward the canons seems lenient. The result today is a smorgasbord of various independent autocephelas groups lacking corporate and organic unity. The canons were given in order to keep the Church UNIFIED. There is no unity in Orthodoxy because they have such a low regard toward the canons.


By Apostle Peter's logic, Christians would need to be circumcised before they were to be baptised. By Arius' logic, Christians would believe that Christ was secondary in divinity to God the Father. Logic has also characterised the continued splintering of the post-Reformation churches into thousands of sects, as each preacher uses his own individual "logic" to interpret scripture, and thus set up his own "church".

Similarly, the various "Orthodox" groups which are in schism with the canonical Orthodox Church have followed the same "logic", be it in rebelling against the adoption of the Gregorian calendar by their mother Church, in disagreeing with the reconciliation between the MP and the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, the list goes on. Individual priests and bishops have put themselves and their own views and opinions above the established, apostolic Church. They have chosen to separate, as they think they know better than the Church, and the Holy Spirit who guides it. It is these groups, not the canonical Churches, which "lack corporate and organic unity", certainly relative to their mother Churches, but even amongst their fellow splinter groups. The spirit of schism, indeed....

Roman Catholic equivalents to these also exist. These are the various "True Catholic" groups who have never recognised the decisions of the Second Vatican Council, and who regard any popes from Paul VI onwards as heretics, schismatics, even as antichrists. Does this mean the RCC is "lacking corporate and organic unity"?

These "Orthodox" groups which call themselves "autocephalous" must not be confused with the canonical, autocephalous regional Orthodox churches, such as the Church of Greece, the Churches of Cyprus, Romania, Albania, Serbia, Russia, Bulgaria, Georgia, etc. These churches are in full communion with each other, hardly indicative of a "lack of corporate and organic unity". There is complete accord across the canonical churches in matters of theology, doctrine, sacramental validity, etc.

In one breath, you write:


There is no unity in Orthodoxy because they have such a low regard toward the canons.

... and in another, you say:


Trullo [Quinisext] was never approved of by the west. The west only accept about 50 of the apostolic canons. The east all 85.

Need I comment on this?

[Andreas Moran]

Within the spirit urged by Fr Dcn Matthew, I would like Albert to support his initial post with an example of what he means. Such an assertion as he makes which is not supported by any evidence cannot stand. Which bishop or bishops does he say were ordained by the state? (A reading of the canon suggests that 'appointment' means 'ordination'.)

(The implication of Albert's first post is that the Orthodox Church is not a real church but the sort of 'ecclesial community' Protestant churches are considered to be. But on 30 November 2006, the pope joined in the Divine Liturgy with Patriarch Bartholomeos in Constantinople, and called the Roman and Orthodox Churches 'sister churches'. Last July the pope said that the Orthodox Church is a church in all respects save its not accepting papal supremacy. There was no suggestion during the proceedings at Ravenna last November that the Orthodox Church is not a church. One cannot imagine Cardinal Walter Kasper saying what Albert has said.)

[Herman Blaydoe]

Within the spirit urged by Fr Dcn Matthew, I would like Albert to support his initial post with an example of what he means. Such an assertion as he makes which is not supported by any evidence cannot stand. Which bishop or bishops does he say were ordained by the state? (A reading of the canon suggests that 'appointment' means 'ordination'.)

(The implication of Albert's first post is that the Orthodox Church is not a real church but the sort of 'ecclesial community' Protestant churches are considered to be. But on 30 November 2006, the pope joined in the Divine Liturgy with Patriarch Bartholomeos in Constantinople, and called the Roman and Orthodox Churches 'sister churches'. Last July the pope said that the Orthodox Church is a church in all respects save its not accepting papal supremacy. There was no suggestion during the proceedings at Ravenna last November that the Orthodox Church is not a church. One cannot imagine Cardinal Walter Kasper saying what Albert has said.)

Actually, his evidence is obvious, simple, and straightforward. However, it is based on the misapplication of one particular canon which he fails to understand in an Orthodox context even while he attempts to tell us what "Orthodox" is. He is applying Roman Catholic standards and it is obvious we "fail" them since we are not Roman Catholic. Big surprise.

The errors in his reasoning have already been clearly pointed out by several different witnesses. I don't see what further debate and punditry will accomplish at this point.

[Andreas Moran]

Herman wrote:
Actually, his evidence is obvious, simple, and straightforward.

Albert wrote:
The bishops of the MP [i.e., the Patriarch, etc] are in direct violation to said canon

Herman, this is all Albert has said by way of evidence which to my mind is not evidence. It is obviously nonsense to say that Alexey II and the entire hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church were ordained by the state. What Albert needs to do is cite any example of a bishop being ordained by the state: that would be relevant evidence. But this he has not done despite several requests so to do.

[Michael Stickles]

I think that Matthew 12:1-8 provides a relevant example here:


At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry and began to pick some heads of grain and eat them. When the Pharisees saw this, they said to him, "Look! Your disciples are doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath."

He answered, "Haven't you read what David did when he and his companions were hungry? He entered the house of God, and he and his companions ate the consecrated bread — which was not lawful for them to do, but only for the priests. Or haven't you read in the Law that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple desecrate the day and yet are innocent? I tell you that one greater than the temple is here. If you had known what these words mean, 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the innocent. For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath."

If Jesus, always obedient to His Father's will, could say as much regarding one of His Father's commandments, and declare those innocent who "broke" them, surely the Church - His body - can do similarly regarding her canons? Even more so in this case, since, as Andreas pointed out, the "breaking" has not been established.

In Christ,
Mike

[Andreas Moran]

This site is for the study of Orthodoxy. That does not exclude some scrutiny of Orthodoxy; an element of challenge, presented in a spirit of enquiry, can often incite clear thinking. I would suggest, though, that study here generally can only properly take place if issues for study are set out in a way which allows us to our apply our minds to them. Unsupported assertions may appear in threads but as thread topics are not apt to stimulate study because they cannot form a basis for study, and so tend to provoke only irritation.

[Misha]

Herman made a critical notice:Holy Canons are not cannons!They are medications for use INSIDE the Church.
Understanding the meaning of the Holy Canons is difficult for those who are not members of the One,Holy,Catholic,Apostolic Orthodox Church.
I humble think that fr.John Romanides works are an excellent "handbook" for those interested to learn the significance of the Nine Ecumenical Councils and their canons.
Many of his writings can be found here:
http://www.romanity.org/cont.htm

[David Stark]

Martyrs before the Soviet MP, yes. After? I don't think so. And martyrs do not justify the validity of the MP, anymore then suicide bombers justify the validity of Islam.

And Pope (saint) Leo the Great. The "Pillar of Orthodoxy," appointed Charlemagne as emperer. The other poster got it backwards. I just wanted to make that correction.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Martyrs before the Soviet MP, yes. After? I don't think so.

And why don't you think so? Are the martyrs recently canonized by the ROCOR and the MP not maryters because you don't think so?


And martyrs do not justify the validity of the MP, anymore then suicide bombers justify the validity of Islam.

The blood of Your martyrs, O Lord, adorns Your Church as with purple robes of fine linen" is an Orthodox prayer. Are you not familiar with this "Br." David? Are you a monastic? I find it troubling when an Orthodox Christian cannot differentiate between a true martyr and a terrorist.

[Anthony]

Martyrs before the Soviet MP, yes. After? I don't think so. And martyrs do not justify the validity of the MP, anymore then suicide bombers justify the validity of Islam.

I really don't get this comparison.



And Pope (saint) Leo the Great. The "Pillar of Orthodoxy," appointed Charlemagne as emperer.

I thought Pope Leo the Great was Leo I (5th century) rather than Leo III.

[Matthew Namee]

One of the errors which is implicit in one side of this discussion is the equation of the Church with its hierarchs. We've discussed this before, in other threads. The error of one bishop or group of bishops does not mean that all the people "under" them are automatically no longer Orthodox. Even if Patriarch Sergius was as bad as his strongest detractors say that he was, this by no means results in the condemnation and non-Orthodoxy of every Orthodox Christian in Russia. And for those who would damn all Orthodox who cooperated with Patr. Sergius, I would ask you to read the life of St. Luke of Simferopol. He is one of many shining examples of holiness in the Soviet-era Moscow Patriarchate.

[Andreas Moran]

One of the errors which is implicit in one side of this discussion is the equation of the Church with its hierarchs.

Matthew makes an important point here. The authority of bishops has limits - they can't approve whatever they like. I cannot define here exactly what the scope of bishops' authority is, but it cannot extend to approving that which cannot be approved.


And martyrs do not justify the validity of the MP

No one has said this. What has been said elsewhere is that MP always had full canonical status and that the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia were and are of MP.

The points made by Br David are, however, off topic. And I refer to my earlier post: discussion of the initial assertion of this thread is futile without evidence.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Martyrs before the Soviet MP, yes. After? I don't think so. And martyrs do not justify the validity of the MP, anymore then suicide bombers justify the validity of Islam.

Martyrs precisely witness to the fullness of truth of the Church & to its presence (or rather His presence).

These are fundamentals of Orthodox ecclesiology.

In the risen Christ- Fr Raphael

[David Stark]

Actually both the establishment of the Holy Synod under Peter the Great (around 1700) and creation of the new Moscow patriarchate were uncanonical.
These were both acts of the civil power, although I would hardly equate Peter the Great (bad as he was) with Stalin.

And I am by no means Catholic (in the Roman sense). I am Orthodox and try to be accurate.

[Olga]

Br David, I reproduce an earlier post of Herman's on this thread. It is particularly good and pertinent:


Let us follow this loose "canon" a bit further as it flies around and collides with history. If we use this line of reasoning, then there is NO Church, anywhere. The Ecumenical Patriarchate was bought and sold under the Ottoman captivity. Even before then, the Byzantine Emperor certainly "influenced" the appointment of more than one Patriarch. If we MUST obey the canons then we must flee to the Roman Pope. But wait a minute, under Charlemagne, even the Pope was "appointed" by secular authority, so there is no refuge there either. Where then, do we run? There is no man living who is justified, no, not even one.

If the canons cannot be "broken" by anyone who is "Orthodox", then the Church itself is broken, there is really no other "reasonable" conclusion to this line of logic. That is unless our assumptions on which that logic is based are faulty? Time to rethink, methinks. Or so it seems to this bear of little brain.

[Matthew Namee]

Actually both the establishment of the Holy Synod under Peter the Great (around 1700) and creation of the new Moscow patriarchate were uncanonical.
I would suggest that your understanding of the concept "uncanonical" is in error. What does such a word even mean? I can recommend a good article on this subject: "The Orthodox Canonical Tradition" by Dr. (now Fr.) John Erickson, published in his book The Challenge of Our Past (SVS Press, 1991). I will quote from the first two paragraphs, and then from the conclusion, of the article, but I strongly suggest reading it in full:


Few words occur more frequently in inter-Orthodox debate on ecclesiology than "canonical" -- except perhaps "uncanonical." All parties constantly refer to "canons" and to "canon law," though seldom with any sensitivity to or awareness of the nature and history of Orthodox canonical tradition itself. As a result, misconceptions abound. On the one hand, many people profess a great veneration for the sacred canons, as though the Pedalion fell from heaven on Pentecost, along with the Typikon and other such vital compendia of rules and regulations; and they look to the canons for guidance in every detail of church life. On the other hand, there are some who have an absolute aversion to canon law. For them, canon law is something to be gotten around, an arbitrary system of rules and regulations at best irrelevant to the pastoral task and even to Christianity itself, but more often positively detrimental.

The approaches of the legalist and the anarchist -- if they may be so labeled -- at first glance appear to be mutually exclusive. But in fact they share certain features. They have the same understanding, or rather misunderstanding, of what the canons of the Church are, and this misunderstanding in turn is based upon a misunderstanding of the nature and task of the Church itself.

[...]

In this task of rediscovery, the canonist can play an important role, but only if he learns how to "read" the canons correctly. He cannot imitate the legalism of the classic Byzantine canonists, for whom it was enough to cite the text, chapter and verse, and then resolve any apparent contradictions by wooden application of certain arbitrary hermeneutical rules -- the canon of an ecumenical council takes precedence over one of a local council, a later canon takes precedence over an earlier one, etc. Nor can he simply ignore the canons when it seems expedient, justifying his actions by appeals to pastoral discretion or "economy." He must read the canons in the light of history, but at the same time he must avoid the occupational hazards of the historian: relativism and cynicism. Above all, he must go beyond "canons" and "canon law" to the "canon" as that word was understood in the early Church. He must search out those norms for structure and conduct that necessarily arise from and conform to the very nature of the Church as the Spirit-filled body of Christ. Only by applying this hermeneutical principle will he be able to go beyond the misconceptions of legalist and anarchist and discover the hidden riches of the Orthodox canonical tradition.

[David Stark]

Olga, Herman was wrong. Charlamegne did not appoint any pope. Pope Leo made Charlamegne the first emperer of the Holy Roman Empire.

[Olga]

Br David, Herman's error does not mean that his entire post is invalid. The rest of the post is quite in order. Wood for the trees?

Matthew's post is also of much merit.

You also wrote:


And Pope (saint) Leo the Great. The "Pillar of Orthodoxy," appointed Charlemagne as emperer.

The saints known as "the pillars of Orthodoxy" are, in fact, Sts Photius the Great, Gregory Palamas, and Mark of Ephesus.

[Andreas Moran]

Unfortunately, this thread is once again becoming sterile because of unsupported assertions and inaccurate statements.


Actually both the establishment of the Holy Synod under Peter the Great (around 1700) and creation of the new Moscow patriarchate were uncanonical.
These were both acts of the civil power, although I would hardly equate Peter the Great (bad as he was) with Stalin.

And I am by no means Catholic (in the Roman sense). I am Orthodox and try to be accurate.

Peter I's abolition of MP was indeed contrary to canon law but it does not follow that the Russian Orthodox Church ceased to possess canonicity. If it is maintained that it did, supporting evidence must be provided.

The re-instatement of MP was entirely the act of the ROC. It took place in November 1917 and so obviouly Stalin had nothing to do with it. The Pre-Council committee of the ROC met after February 1917 and the order for the conduct of the Council, an agenda and a date for the convening of the Council were determined. The Council convened on 15 August 1917, beginning with the Divine Liturgy in the Cathedral of the Dormition. At subsequent meetings, it was resolved to restore the patriarchate, an idea that had been circulating for some years. The final resolution was made on 28 October 1917. On 5 November, Tikhon was elected by lot, and Patriarch Tikhon was duly installed in a ceremony in the Cathedral of the Dormition on 21 November 1917. The new Holy Synod was set up by a decree of the Council on 7 December 1917.

During these months, the 'civil authority' changed from Tsar (who abdicated on 15 March 1917), to Provisional Government (which was in turmoil), to the Bolsheviks (who had barely seized power by November 1917). It is clearly nonsense to suggest that any of these authorities were involved.

Since it is easy to discover such information, inaccuracies are all the more irksome.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

May I also echo that productive discussion should be driven by substantiated statements, rather than general remarks made without support. In discussions such as this, which can tend to evoke strong reactions, please take special care to contribute constructively, by providing references to support various claims.

XB, Dcn Matthew

[Carlos Antonio Palad]

Can you give me a source showing Charlemagne appointed a pope?



That was my point. Orthodox is broken and un-canonical.

To my dear fellow Catholic, Albert;

I must rebuke you here, for trying to attack Orthodoxy and to(implicitly) uphold Catholicism on the basis of an argument so simplistic and inaccurate as to only draw -- upon yourselves and our Church -- the laughter and scorn of others.

Let us defend the Catholic Church, yes; but let us defend her with truthful assertions that are verifiable and documented, and which do NOT end up becoming arguments against our very own Church. If what you say is true, then the Catholic Church will be the first to "take a hit."

The fact of the matter is that civil rulers for most of Christian -- including Catholic -- history, have had a hand in the appointment of bishops, cardinals and even Popes. The current discipline of the Pope having sole responsibility for the appointment of bishops in the Latin Rite is pretty much a 20th century discipline, and even in a few countries until today (Vietnam, China, for instance), the government continues to have a heavy hand in the appointment of bishops.

I am a Filipino, and from the 1580's until the close of Spanish rule in 1898, all of the bishops and even the parish priests in my country (as in the rest of the Spanish empire, by virtue of the Patronato Real) were appointed by the secular authorities of the Spanish Royal government, the Pope merely giving a formal, almost token approval in the case of bishops. In fact, Canon law in the Spanish realm allowed bishops to exercise authority even without Papal approval, because the mere fact of Royal appointment was already considered as a certain anticipation of papal approval. With a few modifications, this system continued to be in force in Spain itself until 1976.

Your name is Hispanic. Please, do not tell me that you are totally ignorant of the "Patronato Real" which, in varied forms, also operated in Portugal and Southern Italy. France the Austria-Hungary also had its own versions of the Patronato.

[Andreas Moran]

I'm sure we are all grateful for Carlos's measured and balanced contribution.

[David Stark]

There are canons prohibiting the violation of the canons.

[Herman Blaydoe]

There are canons prohibiting the violation of the canons.

And there are canons allowing the relaxing of canons or allowing exceptions. It is possible not to apply a canon in a particular situation without "violating" it. Does using a screwdriver instead of a hammer violate the hammer?

[Matthew Namee]

There are canons prohibiting the violation of the canons.
I wonder if you might be able to provide examples. I would be especially interested in examples which are directly relevant to ecclesiology.

You are still understanding "canons" as "laws," which is not consistent with the Orthodox approach.

[Andreas Moran]

There are canons prohibiting the violation of the canons.
I repeat the plea to be specific.