On Validity and Canonicity
My
husband was a Deacon for five years in a small Ukrainian Orthodox
group into which we were converted and Baptized. Over the years,
reading "Orthodox Tradition" in particular, we came to
realize that the jurisdiction to which we belonged had problems
and that your Synod and other Orthodox jurisdictions had
questions about its canonical status. In good conscience we had
to rectify our situation. We were Chrismated by a Priest of the
Russian Orthodox Church Abroad, whose parish we attend. However,
we consider ourselves spiritual children of Bishop Chrysostomos
of Oreoi and members of the Synod of Resistance of Metropolitan
Cyprian....In view of all of this, were we Orthodox before? We
were catechized, knew the Faith, fasted, read spiritual books,
and studied. In fact, our study of the Faith brought us to
understand the canonical difficulties in our former jurisdiction.
This question is important for us and for our friends, who are
confused about our status. My husband now functions as a layman.
(J.C., TX)
Your
question is an extremely important one, especially in
America, where there are so many Orthodox groups and
jurisdictions that it is almost impossible to determine who is
who and what is what.
Who determines who is
Orthodox in these circumstances? On the one hand, we can
establish bodies like the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops
in America. Such a body can pronounce on the canonicity of any
group. But in fact, the SCOBA is essentially a political
organization comprised of American jurisdictions which have
largely the same attitudes towards ecumenism and modernism in the
Church—they are more or less sympathetic to both. The Old
Calendarist Greeks and the Synod of Bishops of the Russian
Orthodox Church Abroad, as well as some valid Ukrainian groups,
are excluded from the SCOBA because of their stand of resistance
against these attitudes in their Mother Churches. Though all of
these latter jurisdictions have Apostolic Succession—as
admitted by many of the SCOBA Bishops themselves—, and while
each would argue that it has undertaken a lawful stand of
resistance as allowed by the Canons, they do not enjoy membership
in the SCOBA.
Thus, if the SCOBA
determines who is canonically Orthodox, political, not actual
canonical and ecclesiastical criteria, will prevail. This is
hardly Orthodox. And if such criteria prevail, then lawful
resistance movements within the Church will cease. This, too, is
not Orthodox, since the Church has always triumphed over error
and misjudgment by the kind of "lawful resistance" to
which St. Basil called the Fathers of his day, when many of the
ancient Sees of the Church were under the Arian captivity.
Moreover, a group of Bishops which establishes itself as a
self-validating agency is subject to a few questions in and of
itself. Neither are we subject to a single Pope or papacy in the
form of a collegial system.
On the other hand, some
Churches in resistance have set themselves up as the judges of
all other Orthodox, distorting their resistance to various ills
in the Church and setting up a kind of sectarian mentality.
"We are the only true Orthodox." "Only we
have Grace." "Our Church [or monastery or parish] is
the center of Orthodox spirituality." "True
Orthodox," in the Patristic use of this expression,
distinguishes those Orthodox who are ailing in the Faith, but who
have yet to be judged or cut off from the communion of the
Church, and those true believers who have maintained unchanged
the valid teaching of the Church. Sectarian claims to
ecclesiastical or spiritual primacy violate the catholicity of
Orthodoxy and do little to commend groups that make such claims
to the sober Christian. When these claims become so ridiculous
that the minority of Christians who are today in resistance to
political ecumenism and innovation condemn their ailing brothers
for apostasy and question the validity of their Mysteries, then
resistance has become cultism.
It is neither in so-called
"official" bodies formed by Bishops of the various
national Churches in America, nor in the ranks of those separated
from such bodies in various resistance movements, that we can
find proper criteria for determining Orthodox validity. In either
case, political and personal considerations, not spiritual ones,
are bound to dominate. This is simply a fact which cannot be
questioned in the small, immature Orthodox population of America.
What, then, constitute the
valid criteria by which Orthodox validity is established? There
are two answers to this. First, the Bishops who head any Church
must have Apostolic Succession. They must trace their
Consecrations to valid Orthodox Hierarchs. This is the most basic
definition of validity in Orthodoxy. In America, where deposed
Bishops often retreat from their Mother Churches and establish
their own Orthodox jurisdictions, this criterion presents
tremendous problems. A deposed Bishop cannot be said
unequivocally to be without Grace. Grace is not taken away by
human beings, but by God. Nonetheless, the Church refuses to
recognize anything that such a Bishop may do, assuming that
estrangement from the Church constitutes estrangement from Divine
Grace. The Faithful should cut off all communion with such a
person. Many deposed clergy, however, exploit confusion on this
matter and convince their unwitting followers that deposition is
not tantamount to a loss of Apostolic Succession.
It is also true that when
Bishops separate from the Mother Church over matters of Faith,
they are often subjected to suspension, excommunication, or
deposition by the authorities to whom they stand in resistance.
This was true of some of the greatest Fathers of the Church,
including St. John Chrysostomos, one of the Three Hierarchs. In
this case, one must weigh with great care the reason for
resistance, the sincerity of that resistance, and the purposes
for which the resistance is undertaken. Certainly condemnation by
a Mother Church is valid if directed against those who deny the
unity (catholicity) of the Church, those who are immoderate,
those who deny the validity of the Mysteries of an ailing Church
that stands uncondemned by a Church Synod, or who hide under
something like the Old Calendar or resistance to ecumenism or
resistance to innovation simply for the purpose of maintaining an
independent status, free from the scrutiny of the Church. Sincere
resisters, on the other hand, are the very preservers of
Apostolic Succession.
Now, Apostolic Succession
is not understood in the Orthodox Church in a legalistic way. One
may have Apostolic Succession, violate the Canons, ignore the
conscience of the Church, and preach heresy. This, too, estranges
him from the Grace of the Church, though again we cannot
unequivocally point at what time and hour that Grace was lost.
(It is for this reason that various heretics were received in
various ways in the Early Church: some by confession, some by
Chrismation, others by Baptism.) When the Church openly condemns
such a person (or an entire Synod of Bishops or a national
Church, for that matter), then most certainly the Faithful are to
avoid him, as we have mentioned above. Apostolic Succession
without an adherence to the Canons and beliefs of Orthodoxy has
no meaning. This extends to cover instances in which the Canons
dictate that deposition is automatic (a failure to keep the
fasting rules—except under exceptional cases allowed by
Canons, a violation of moral conduct, etc.).
In essence, then, we judge
the validity of any Orthodox group by its possession of Apostolic
Succession, its adherence to basic Canons, and, in the cases of
Churches in resistance that are separated from their Mother
Churches (and even condemned by their Mother Churches), by the
Patristic foundation, canonical justification, and sincerity of
their resistance. There are no easy answers, there are few
clear-cut cases, and there is no infallible authority to
adjudicate matters ex cathedra. True Christianity demands
that we exercise our consciences, make the best possible
decisions after careful meditation and reflection, and place
ourselves under the guidance of Providence. We are judged more by
our sincere intentions than by our inadvertent and unintentional
errors. This is as it should be in a religion of love and
forgiveness. And Christianity is just that.
With regard to your
particular case, you and your family were most certainly
Orthodoxy in mind, spirit, and intention. Is it possible that
these mean nothing before God? Your knowledge of the Faith, no
doubt prompted by Providential Grace, led you to the fullness of
Orthodoxy. What was imprinted on your heart was made manifest by
your entry into a canonical Orthodox Church. You are not converts
in this action. You are not called to dismiss all that you were
before. Your Chrismation corrected a canonical problem. It did
not bestow upon you Orthodoxy.
As for your husband's
ordination to the Diaconate, this presents a difficult problem.
Ordinations by uncanonical groups in Apostolic Succession and in
the early Church even the ordinations of some heretics (as in the
Iconoclastic period), are not repeated in the Church. Rather,
"chierothesia," or the imposition of hands is utilized,
the acting Bishop or Bishops asking that whatever it might be
that is absent from the ordination be corrected, or that past
misbelief be forgiven. In your husband's specific case, it is
impossible to determine with absolute accuracy the status of the
Bishops who Consecrated the Bishop from whom he received
ordination. No doubt, under such circumstances, a very
conservative approach, foregoing economy, is called for. But this
decision is ultimately one to be made at a synodal level. In the
meantime, you are covered by your intentions and by the quality
of your spiritual lives. You are NOT new Orthodox and your five
years of experience in the Church have no doubt taught you much
from which you can draw.
So much in the Church today
smacks of legalism and of personal opinion. It does not bear the
mark of true Church Tradition. Thus, what we have written, which
is drawn from the historical, canonical, and pastoral experience
of the Church across the centuries, may seem unpleasant to those
who have an inadequate knowledge of Holy Tradition or who bring
with them, into Orthodoxy, baggage from heterodox traditions.
This should not be the case. We must always strive to acquire the
purest Orthodox vision, for it leads us to compassion, a certain
open-mindedness, and a clear vision of the philanthropic nature
of God's interaction with man.
We have answered your very
personal question at length because the matters which you have
raised are important both from a theological standpoint and from
the standpoint of personal Faith in an Orthodox society where
confusion reigns. We have at other times, when circumstances have
demanded it, spoken in a very conservative way. For instance, we
have staunchly stood up against the theologically illiterate and
spiritually dangerous practice of making Chrismation a standard
for receiving converts and Baptism, the actual standard, a
virtual "act of economy." We have pointed out that
Orthodox do not "accept" non-Orthodox Baptisms, and
that Chrismation, which should be used for the infirm or in very
unusual circumstances (and ideally with the permission of the
local Bishop), fills the empty form of a non-Orthodox Baptism. In
this instance, we lean, as the Patristic witness prompts us to
do, towards a more "liberal" view, if only be use
matters of the Christian heart and conscience are not subject to
formal pronouncements or canonical interpretation. They belong
solely to the realm of God, "Who alone knows the hearts of
men."
When anyone begins to
pontificate about who is or who is not Orthodox in the confusing
atmosphere of contemporary American Orthodoxy, be cautious. This
is not within the domain of idle speculation and personal
opinion. We should seek to correct those who may have wrongly
entered the Church. We should chastise those who, because of the
dictates of political ecumenism, try to abuse economy and extend
the Orthodox Church beyond its perimeters, accepting non-Orthodox
under "conditions" and with certain
"qualifications." One should avoid any who teach that
the way is wide and not narrow. Abuses of the Mysteries of the
Church should be flatly condemned, especially, again, when they
serve the ends of political ecumenism. But the inner faith of a
single individual, Orthodox or not—here we must exercise the
greatest possible latitude. Here we must forego all judgment. God
alone knows who is Orthodox in his heart. God alone knows his
saints His Saints. God alone knows who will and who will not be
saved!
From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 11-15.
|