(With the original title, Canonicity and the Hispanic Eastern Church,  we reprint the following article originating from the website of the Diocese of Spain within our jurisdiction.  The above title we have given this article is due to the fact that this divisive and modernistic use of the term “canonicity”  is equally applicable to the True Orthodox (Old Calendar) Church of Greece from whence the Milan Synod was born.)

By  The Very Reverend Peter Miln, B.A, M.Th, Ph.D, D.D.

       ”There is no such thing, of course, as a “canonical” Orthodox jurisdiction, despite the fact that this kind of terminology has crept into our ecclesiological vocabulary from the West.   Nor are there “official” Orthodox Churches, a category produced by the contemporary ecumenical movement.”   Bold words from Archbishop Chrysostomos of Etna!   And he goes on to point out that were this not the case, then the Cappadocian Fathers, the Studite monks, and the Palamite Hesychasts would have to be regarded as “quasi-canonical” and “unofficial”!   Certainly it is true that until the beginning of the 20^th century the Orthodox Church had as a test of canonicity the view presented by St. Irenaeus of Lyons: that a Church should follow the teachings of Jesus Christ; that its bishops should hold the Apostolic Succession; and that it should be in communion only with those Churches which have maintained both the teachings and the succession.   In other words, a combination of Faith and Grace is sufficient for a Church to be a member of the Body of Christ.   Saint Ignatius of Antioch added Love to the equation, expressing the view that the Orthodox Church is the Unity of Faith and Love; whilst Saint Vincent of Lerins emphasised the Tradition of Faith, Order, Worship and Piety as confessed from the beginning “everywhere, always and by all”.

During the 20^th century, however, a poisoned atmosphere becomes apparent, partly emanating from the spread of the diaspora which brought with it political and ethnic problems.   The concern for Faith, Grace, Love and, above all, Truth, became lost in a welter of hatred, insinuations, distortions, dubious “consecrations” and downright lies.   And there grew up the idea that canonicity depended above all upon the idea that a Church must be recognized and in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople.   At very best this makes a fallible human being the arbiter of God’s Grace, and undermines the ancient acceptance of the fact that all bishops are equal.   If we are to believe this, then we had all better accept the doctrines of Rome!   Equally, what are we to say to the idea that it is money which often becomes the final arbiter?   Should we not remember the 24^th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council: Any one therefore, who violates the Church of God, that is, who buys or sells her out of greed and envy, will be selling the resting place of his soul in Heaven…”    The 29^th Apostolic Canon reinforces this.   Can it be right therefore that the Phanar refuses to accept the “canonicity” of the Patriarchate of Kiev until it raises the necessary funds for such recognition?   And, money aside, when for a brief period quite recently the Patriarchate of Moscow broke off relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, did anybody suggest for one minute that the mighty Russian Church had ceased to be canonical?

In true Orthodoxy, canonicity is not determined by individuals and church politics, but by the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.   There is no canon promulgated by any of the Seven Ecumenical Councils which even remotely suggests that every single Orthodox Jurisdiction must be in full communion with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople.   It would be churlish to suggest that given his greatly diminished territorial stature (the Turkish government recently reminded him of the tiny Christian population of his see) he should be stripped of his title of First among Equals.  He should rightly remain as the first spokesman of the Church (although the current Patriarch’s dalliance with ecumenism is causing questions to be raised amongst some Churches in this regard).   But at no time should he be regarded as exercising any form of temporal or ecclesial jurisdiction.   He is simply the 270^th successor of the Apostle Andrew in the See of Constantinople; and that is the greatest of his honours.

Ecclesiastical power, exercised by any bishop, is exercised genuinely only in accordance with the Canons.   A bishop cannot make canonical that which is clearly uncanonical.   The situation of the Orthodox Church in the Americas comes to mind.   The writer may be wrong, but there are something like fourteen different jurisdictions on the American continent.    Canon 3 of the First Ecumenical Council is quite clear on this point; there shall be one bishop in one city.   As Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann has pointed out in his consideration of the problems facing Orthodoxy in America, if there exists one clear and universal canonical principal it is that of jurisdictional unity.   It is, however, a distortion of this consideration to try to extrapolate from it the idea that there is only one ultimate jurisdictional unity throughout the globe.   Each jurisdiction has a canonical right to exercise that jurisdiction only within its territory; and agreement in brotherly Love has to be reached as to what constitutes that territory.   Constantinople, Antioch, and Moscow cannot be seen to be acting canonically when each appoints a bishop to a single city!

This situation in America brings one to a consideration of the question of the Apostolic Succession as the true ground for canonicity.   Both Eusebius and Irenaeus in their writings list bishops’ successions in terms of their cathedra and not their consecrators.   In other words, the Apostolic Succession cannot be reduced to a “shopping list” of successive ordainers.   It does not represent a self-sufficient “order” of bishops.   It is for this reason that vagante “bishops” tracing their “apostolic succession” through men like Mathew or Vilatte are suspect, if not totally heretical.   Equally, in 1896 the See of Rome rejected Anglican Orders as being invalid; a decision with which the Orthodox Church is in full agreement; partly on the grounds that the Church of England did not maintain the historic diocesan episcopate at the time of the Reformation. The Apostolic Succession has to be traced through a definite cathedra, and with a specific purpose.   Where there is a break or a void; as, for example, the  bishop appointed by Moscow for the diaspora in America returning to Russia after the revolution and disappearing, or Kyril and Methodios entering the pagan heartland of the Ukraine; then continuity or mission relies upon organic growth within the remnant of the local Church or at the hands of the missionaries, both of which must remain faithful to the cathedra which empowered them for that specific purpose.   To continue to use America as an example, in 1924 the Church in that country held a Sobor at Detroit in the face of the great spiritual  danger in which it stood.   To assure a continuance of life, faith and order, it proclaimed autonomy.   Moscow thereupon condemned the fledgling Church as schismatic, and proceeded to establish its own Exarchate.   Who was in the right?

In a final analysis we have to take account of the fact that “Tradition” is not simply a conformity with a dead past.   Tradition is a living thing.   It is a source of “Truth”; “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free”.   And only too often, when considering Tradition and Truth, the answer boils down to common sense.   The Church cannot be reduced to mere jurisdictional considerations.   She is a living organism.   The analogy of childbirth is useful here.   A baby lives in its mother’s womb.   Then it is born.   It becomes a separate individual whilst, at the same time, retaining an indissoluble link with its mother.   It is not possible for any human agency to sever that link.   So it was with the Church in America.   From its beginnings in the 18^th century in Alaska at the hands of Russian missionaries, the Church in America gradually grew until, as a result of violence in the land of its fathers, it was ejected onto an independent stage.   It grew and flourished.   By what logic, therefore, did Moscow seek to stunt its growth; to try to stifle it and plant in its place a changeling?   A Church cannot be created simply by a jurisdictional fiat when it is clear that the Church already exists.   I quote Schmemann when he exclaims with incredulity: A Bishop virtually without parishes is recognised as “canonical” because he is “recognised” by his Patriarch, but a Bishop of the same Church with a flourishing Diocese and with organic roots in the real continuity of the Church here is declared “un-canonical” for lack of such recognition.

In connection with the Russian Patriarchate, Metropolitan Evloghios of Milan (under whose Omophorion the Iglesia Oriental Hispánica falls)  has drawn our attention to the current situation which again questions a true understanding of canonicity.   Whilst the Sobor in Detroit was establishing the continuation of Orthodoxy in America, elsewhere the Russian Church in Exile (the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia; the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad) established itself as continuing the true Russian Orthodox tradition, untrammelled by the constraints of “Sergianism”.   The Moscow Patriarchate promptly declared them to be uncanonical.   Now, after seventy years of antagonism, and without any theological moves on either side, the two Churches have again embraced each other.   Suddenly, the Moscow Patriarchate has recognised the succession and sacraments of the Russian Church in Exile!   And an interesting situation now pertains in Greece where in 1960 and 1962 bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in Exile consecrated seven bishops to preserve the continuance of the Greek Church of the Old Calendar.    Will Moscow now recognise as canonical the Greek Old Calendrists and those Churches in communion with them?   Or can only Russians be validly recognised?

Canonicity does not depend upon an abstract principle of validity.   If we accept “validity” as such a touchstone, then we are led to what might be described as a “magical” view of the Church and to a grave distortion of ecclesiology.  It is unfortunate that Canonical Tradition, a vibrant and living reality, has become Canon Law, with all the stultifying and regulatory formalism that that implies.    The Canons were made to bring order amongst Christians, not to force them into a straight-jacket of legalism, as Father Seraphim Rose of Platina has pointed out.   The concept of the Church, as a spiritual and sacramental entity, has become subservient to the concept of the Church as an organisation.   But far from constituting the Church, the purpose the Canons is to defend and clarify it.   Thus, in the case of “recognition” (for want of a better term) the Canons point to “unity” as the essence of the Church.   The unity of men with God in Christ and the unity of men with each other in Christ; such unity expressing itself in the person of the bishop as part of the Apostolic Successsion.

It is apparent in the case of our Church in South America that a number of bishops are failing to appreciate this unifying function, and are vying with each other either to establish or maintain their own “canonicity” as they, often erroneously, understand the term.   This leads to all kinds of “truths” being bandied about.   One of these, of course, is the idea that a bishop upon leaving a local Church ceases to be a bishop.   This is certainly the case if he was doing so in order to establish a personal jurisdiction or as a result of pique, but not so if he does it in faith to serve in another established community.   If a bishop separates from his mother Church over a matter of faith, he may be said to be following the example of such men as Saint John Chrysostom.   Indeed, this has occurred recently in the United Kingdom, where Bishop Basil of Sergievo left the Russian Patriarchate, was deprived by it, but continues to serve as a bishop under the Ecumenical Patriarchate.   Sincere resisters may be said to be the very preservers of valid Orthodoxy.   In a similar way, a priest ordained by a valid bishop cannot be reordained into another jurisdiction simply on the grounds of “canonicity”, or because various ethnic jurisdictions are fighting a turf war and seeking to poach clergy.   By any stretch of the rules this is a totally uncanonical (in the true sense of the word) situation, and the hierarchs involved lay themselves open to deprivation under the 68^th Apostolic Canon.

How to conclude?   It is tempting to say that God knows His saints; that He knows the secrets of our hearts; and that at the Latter Day all will be revealed.   In the meantime, however, we have to live in an imperfect world, and that only too often the enemies of the Church are the very members thereof; Our Lord Himself prophesied as much.   The Iglesia Oriental Hispánica can only go forward secure in the knowledge that it truly enjoys full canonicity, and that it walks hand in hand with the Fathers and the Saints.   Praise be to God!  +