Need interpretation of canons : very important

[Jean-Serge]

Hello

I have to write a very serious paper about some canons which aim I cannot display at the moment. I have the canons but I do not find the interpratation by Saint Nicodemus the Hagiorite or other fathers... So I would be happy if someone could give me in extenso the interpretation of such canons...

They can contact me privately...

I have a fisrt question : I am searching for clues indicating that the canons that forbid praying with heretics forbid all sort of prayer and not only communion with heretics... THIS PAPER IS PRACTICAL SO PLEASE HELP ME...

EVEN YOU KOLLYVAS

THANK YOU TO ALL

[spiridon]

"Jean-Serge Posted: Sun 23 October 2005 8:14 pm Post subject: Need interpretation of canons : very important
not only communion with heretics... THIS PAPER IS PRACTICAL SO PLEASE HELP ME...
EVEN YOU KOLLYVAS
THANK YOU TO ALL "

Glory be to Jesus Christ for all things, after answering and helping jean ,can some of you direct me where I can get The Canons of the church in English...remember Im new to Orthodoxy, I wont lie, and I am seeking Truth.......................in CHRIST ,niphon

[Jean-Serge]

I need interpretation of the following canons :

I-Canon of the Apostles

number 10, 11, 45 and 65

II-Canon of Laodicea

number 9 and 33

[Kollyvas]

http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0835.HTM

Introduction.
In the area of church discipline, the work of the first four ecumenical councils has an obvious interest for the knowledge of the law and institutions of early Christianity. During this period, 325 to 451, which corresponds to the flowering of the great patristic literature, we can follow — through the canonical legislation of the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon as well as other decisions made by these assemblies on specific questions — the evolution of the structures of the Church, of her discipline, and of her relations with the surrounding society. If we compare this and the ante-Nicene period, we see that all sorts of new problems come up while others fade in importance. The canons issued by these councils constitute the core of Church Law in the Christian East, even today. They also formed an important part of the Western Church's law during the first millennium and influenced, in no small way, the western medieval synthesis.

Code: Select all

    In considering the canonical legislation elaborated and approved by the first four ecumenical councils, it appears quite clear that this was a period of particularly fruitful creativity in the field of the Eastern Church's written law. Although it was not the intention of the Fathers gathered at Nicea to substitute a written, universal law for the already existing customary law with its local variants, many factors since then have turned the scales in favor of written law. In the first place, the unequaled prestige of this “great and holy council” conferred an unquestioned authority on its legislation. Thus around 330, Eusebius of Caesarea, having been asked to become bishop of Antioch, refused the offer by invoking the regulation established by the Fathers of Nicea.1 St. Basil, writing to a priest to order him to stop living with a woman, expressly made reference to the canon of Nicea relevant to this case.2 In the West, the regulations of the great council were held in equally high esteem. Pope Julius spoke of “divine inspiration” in referring to canon 5.3 As for Pope Leo, he declared the legislation of Nicea to be inviolable.4

    Another factor favored the predominance of written law. During the first centuries of Christianity, the consciousness of a permanent disciplinary tradition was very strong in each local Church. In the fourth century, many new dioceses were created due to missionary expansion on the one hand and to the reinforcement of one or another theological trend during the Arian crisis on the other. For the same reasons, episcopal transfers, completely exceptional in earlier times, became more numerous; this phenomenon contributed to the breakdown of the links between the bishop and his church. Structures of common and coordinated action were set up, and the working of these new organs had to be made clear. Under these conditions, it was no longer possible to appeal solely to ancient customs; it was necessary to issue regulations intended to apply to the whole Church. Finally the tendency which was sketched out after the reign of Con-stantine and which took final form under Theodosius I — namely, giving the force of state law to the decisions of the church hierarchy — implied the existence of a body of canonical law.5 This evolution was later fully established by the legislation of the Emperor Justinian which confirmed the juridical validity of the canons issued by the Councils of Nicea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Chalcedon as well as of those local councils accepted by these ecumenical assemblies.6

   In many cases, the canons merely endorsed customs which were seen to be legitimate. To the extent that written law (canons and imperial laws) gained ground, custom was more or less limited to the domain of precedents. We could, it is true, quote the statement of Metropolitan Zachary of Chalcedon at the time of the Council of St. Sophia (879-880): “custom has a tendency to outweigh canons,”7 but we must not overestimate the significance of a statement formulated during a discussion or take it as a fundamental principle of Byzantine church law. Appealing to custom remains limited, as we can clearly see in reading the Nomocanon in XIV Titles and the commentaries of Balsamon on this work.8

    In the Byzantine East, there was no break in continuity between Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages on the political and socio-cultural level, as there was in the West, but there was constant evolution. The Church had to make concrete adaptations of the old canonical regulations to meet new situations. Canonical creativity was certainly not extinguished after the end of the ninth century, but it was limited to certain areas, principally to marriage and monastic law. No council issued regulations changing church structures already established by the end of the ancient period. Since the canons of Late Antiquity and the early Middle Ages had hardly touched the question of patriarchal privileges,9 it is, therefore, not surprising to find that many Byzantine interpretations of the canons on this question appear to us to be arbitrary and erroneous.10 Many other canons created problems in regard to their meaning and applicability. Given their respect for tradition and their uncontestable legal formalism, the Byzantines avoided as much as possible an appeal to the idea of laws being “out of date.”

    After the eleventh century, Byzantium more and more felt the need to have authorized commentaries on the canons. Probably the renaissance of legal studies stimulated an interest in the serious exegesis of canonical texts.11 But we have to wait until the twelfth century to see the first systematic work on this subject. Between 1118 and 1143, Alexis Aristenos, deacon and nomophylax of the Great Church, at the request of the Emperor John II Comnenus, wrote some concise annotations on the Synopsis which was compiled in the sixth or seventh century by Stephen of Ephesus and completed during the second half of the tenth century by Simeon “magistros and logothete.”12 Not very long after 1159, no doubt, John Zonaras wrote his commentary ( Exegesis) on the canons, a work which has always been well-received and rightly so. Zonaras classified the canonical documents of the Syntagma in XIV Titles according to an order of the weightiness of the sources. He placed the Canons of the Holy Apostles first; then came those of the ecumenical councils and the general councils of 861 and 879-880. Zonaras put the canons of the local councils and of the Holy Fathers last.13 Although this classification had already been used previously, he made it, henceforth, the accepted order. Zonaras was above all concerned to set out the exact meaning of the texts, also giving necessary clarifications. When required, he compared canons on the same subject and proposed a reasoned reconciliation.14

   While he was still deacon and nomophylax in Constantinople, Theodore Balsamon, at the request of the Emperor Manuel Comnenus (1143-1180) and the Ecumenical Patriarch Michael III (1169-1176), elaborated his commentaries on the Nomocanon in XIV Titles. In his interpretation of the canons he showed little originality; he often followed Zonaras to the letter but differed from him in consciously referring to the case law of his time. At the same time, Balsamon was concerned with relating the canons and the civil laws, in conformity with the main goal of his work.15

    In Byzantium, the interpretations of these three canonists had a quasi-official position16 and have continued in subsequent periods to be given great weight. Consequently they have influenced the canonical praxis of the whole Orthodox Church. For the historian of institutions, these commentaries are especially interesting in that they show how their authors understood the ancient canons and also how they applied them. Furthermore, references in Balsamon's commentaries to decisions of the patriarchal synod in Constantinople are very valuable for the study of jurisprudence in Byzantium. These works, however, have only a limited use in trying to determine the real thinking of the Fathers who issued these ancient canons.

   We must not neglect the anonymous scholia (explanatory notes) found in the manuscripts. We can say the same thing for these notes that was said for the interpretations of the great Byzantine commentators. Nevertheless, it is fitting to underline the fact that these notes are strictly the private opinions of their authors.17

    The “Syntagma arranged in alphabetical order according to subject” by hieromonk Matthew Blastares occupies a singular place. This work, written in Thessalonica around 1335, is a collection of canons, civil laws, synodical decrees and commentaries.18 Because of its convenient ordering and the richness of its content, this work was a great success not only among the Greeks but also among the southern Slavs and later among the Russians and Romanians.

   The era of Ottoman domination is far from being devoid of interest for the historian of canon law. Nonetheless, even more than in the Middle Ages, the actions of the hierarchy on this subject were taken in the field of case law.19 We have to wait till the turn of the eighteenth century to see the appearance of a new commentary on the corpus of received canons in the Greek Orthodox Church. In 1800, the first edition of the Pedalion was published.20 The text of each canon is followed by a paraphrase in modern Greek along with a commentary often based on Byzantine canonists. Moreover, we find disgressions on different canonical or liturgical points among these numerous and often wordy notes. According to the title of the work, the editors were hieromonk Agapios and the monk Nicodemus (St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite). In reality the essential parts of the work are the work of the latter.21 After some delays, the book received the official approval of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The reservations set out in the letter of Patriarch Neophyte VII, August, 1902, concerned only changes introduced by hieromonk Theodoret without the knowledge of the authors.22

    The Pedalion has always enjoyed a great reputation in Greek-speaking Churches; this is obvious from its many reprintings, without, of course, the far-fetched additions of Theodoret. We can explain this success in different ways: the translation of the canons was done in paraphrases; the commentaries and the notes make for relatively easy reading, even for churchmen and monks having little education. The liturgical and pastoral directives, as well as other additional material, are of obvious practical interest for the clergy. This recension of the canons is on the whole correct, as we can see by comparing the present text with critical editions which we now have. St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite was no stranger to the concerns of textual criticism; this is obvious from his notes, which give the most characteristic variants of the recension of John the Scholastic. Having said this, we must not, however, overestimate the value of the Pedalion. It constitutes, first and foremost, a valuable witness for the understanding of the milieu in which it was formed.23 As for treating the Pedalion as the perfect and therefore untouchable expression of Orthodox canon law, such an attitude is a manifest exaggeration which we often meet in a strict, integrist environment. St. Nicodemus' position on the invalidity of Roman Catholic baptism is particularily appreciated in that milieu.24

    For a long time, the Orthodox Slavs were content to reproduce translations of the works of Byzantine commentators on the canons. But in the nineteenth century, Slavic canonists took over the first place. Chronologically speaking, it is proper to mention first the work of Archimandrite John Sokolov, published in St. Petersburg in 1851.25 Nicodemus Milash rightly considered this Russian canonist as the father of Orthodox canonical studies in the modern period.26 Fr. G. Florovsky underlined the scientific value of this work; he wrote that “for the first time, the ancient and fundamental canons of the Church were presented in Russian more in historical than in doctrinal fashion.”27

    A work consisting of the canons of the Orthodox Church with commentaries was published in 1895-6 by Nicodemus Milash, who later became Bishop of Dalmatia;28 this work is still of great interest today and shows itself as the fruit of considerable study.29 The interpretations and explanations found in this work, although they must obviously be revised and completed on the basis of more recent studies, are not at all to be minimized. Moreover, it is still used today as a reference work by Orthodox canonists. As for canonical commentaries in Romanian, we can mention the works of Metropolitan Andrew Saguna, N. Popovici, and C. Dron.30

    In the West, starting with the seventeenth century, we find some quite worthy works which interpret the ancient canons. We can mention the names of Christian Wolf31 and John Cabassut;32 William Beveridge particularly stands out because of the value of his study of the canons. When he was vicar of Baling, later Bishop of St. Asaph (1704), this erudite Anglican clergyman published his Egnodikkon.33 It was successful not only in the West but also in the Orthodox East. Patriarch Dositheos of Jerusalem (1669-1707) sent a copy of Beveridge's Synodikon to Patriarch Adrian of Moscow (1690-1700) so that the latter could correct the text of the Kormchaya Kniga.34 Zeger-Bernard Van Espen (1646-1728), the most famous canonist of the old University of Louvain, found himself entangled in the controversies of his time between the advocates and opponents of the absolute authority of the Roman pontiff; he resolutely took the side of the opponents.35 Van Espen's commentary on the canons is found among the posthumous works of this great scholar; in this work, his point was to make known the authentic church discipline which was eclipsed in the medieval West by canons based on the False Decretals.36 It is not at all surprising, then, that from that time on the works of this Belgian canonist were put on the Index by the Roman curia.

   We should also note the work of William Bright, professor at Oxford from 1868-1901.37 His commentaries on the canons of the first four ecumenical councils are still of scholarly interest.38 Henri Leclercq was often inspired by this work. Karl-Joseph Hefele (1809-1898), professor at Tubingen and later bishop of Rottenburg, was the author of a great scholarly work on The History of the Councils, published in seven volumes from 1855 to 1874.39 Even though it has been surpassed on many points by subsequent scientific studies, this work remains a classic reference work. In 1907 the Benedictine monk, Henri Leclercq d'Ornancourt undertook a French translation of the Concilienge-schichte of Hefele,40 which was really to be a complete reworking and enlargement of the German scholar's work.41

   Finally, we can mention the book of Henry R. Percival, which constitutes volume 14 in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series.42 It is true that this volume is not an original work, properly speaking, since the comments are completely drawn from the works of ancient and modern canonists. However, we believe it is necessary to note this book because the excursus often represent the personal synthesis of the author. Moreover, the volume is readily available.

    The disciplinary legislation issued by the first four Ecumenical Councils undoubtedly constitutes the historical core of Orthodox canon law. This appears to be even more obvious if one takes into account the canonical legislation of the local synods contained in the collection used and therefore approved by the Fathers of Chalcedon.43 Subsequent legislation universally accepted in the Orthodox Church did not introduce basic alterations.44 Such alterations would not have been accepted in the East because of a widespread feeling that not only the Church kerygma but also the fundamental norms of Church order were part and parcel of Holy Tradition. The Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, with some exaggeration, applied the words of Deuteronomy in the Torah to canonical rules: “To them nothing is to be added, and from them nothing is to be taken away.”45 Thus, changes are always presented as duly justified adjustments of particular details.46 Nowadays, in the light of historical data, we share a far more nuanced view of the real evolution of ecclesiastical institutions. Be that as it may, in Byzantine times and even later on no doubts affecting the validity of the old legislation were expressed.

    The understanding of the ancient canons does not interest just the historians of institutions but also all Orthodox practitioners of canon law, since the canons' stipulations constitute the core of all legitimate law still in force.47

    The point of all interpretations is obviously to determine the exact meaning of each canon. We must, therefore, investigate the intention of the legislator, mens legislatoris. This is not always an easy task, not just because of the time that separates us from them. Research must be concerned as much with the historical context as with the canonical text itself; we must carefully investigate what the lawgiver wanted to correct, suppress, add, or simply recall to mind. We also properly take into account that the technical terms in canon law had not yet been rigidly fixed.48 Moreover, we must not forget either that the Holy Fathers, the authors of the canons, were not necessarily specialists in legal terminology. Consequently we cannot automatically apply to canon law principles of interpretation established by specialists in civil law. For example, we would really be misled if we strictly applied the rule which says that the lawmaker always “expresses what he wants to say and refrains from saying what he does not want to say.”49 In some cases, uncertainties flow from the wording, which can be understood in several ways due to editorial ambiguities in grammatical construction or punctuation.50 The exact meaning of terms must be determined by taking factors of time and place into account. To neglect these data and arbitrarily put elements together necessarily leads to serious misinterpretations.51 Research into the mens legislatoris interests the historian and the canonists, but the canonist has another preoccupation. It is frequently the case that a canon is presented as an act involving a local and limited situation; can we, then consider it as a law in the proper sense, which has general application? Certainly, there are some cases where the purely limited nature of the canon evidently stands out.52 Sometimes only a knowledge of the historical context permits us to affirm that despite its formulation, a canon has an application strictly limited to a moment in church history.53 One of the essential, and at the same time most delicate, problems in interpreting the canons is the use of analogy. There is no doubt at all that this method is perfectly legitimate in itself since, taken in their individual cases, the canons are only concrete expressions on a given subject of the Church's general order. The ancient legal adage is applicable to canon law: Non ex regula ius sumatur sed ex iure quod est, regula fiat.54 It is even possible that this definition has influenced the usage which eventually restricted the term to disciplinary rulings of church authorities.55 The application of analogy to the canons is nonetheless delicate; it supposes that the canon in question is perfectly clear.56 Moreover, the similarity of each case must be solidly grounded. We must correctly avoid any subjectivism which in a particular case argues on the basis of superficial resemblances.57 Therefore, an analogical interpretation, also called “extensive,” is not arbitrary as long as it conforms to the general intention of the legislator, even if that interpretation materially goes beyond his thought.58

    In what measure can we categorically affirm that an ancient canon ought no longer to be applied? In principle, such is the case when a disciplinary measure has been abrogated or modified by a canon adopted in some later time; this is in line with the adage lex posterior derogat priori, which assumes that the conciliar authority issuing the abrogation or modification possess the necessary authority.59 It is still necessary to take into account the reasons underlying the more recent canon. Thus, canon 8 of the Synod in Trullo begins by recalling the norm which requires semiannual synods in each province. However, in the face of a practical impossibility (adunatos), such as barbarian invasions, the Fathers of the Synod in Trullo decided in favor of a single annual session.60 It is clear that the meeting of semiannual synods is still preferred and must be held unless there are major obstacles.61

    An ancient canon can partially or fully lose its legal force; partially when it is only capable of being applied analogically62 or else when an ecclesiological principle is decreed on the occasion of a strictly limited decision.63

    Let us also note although “economy” excludes by nature an automatic application of analogy, a canon concerning an individual case can serve as an indication to help resolve comparable cases.64 It would appear logical to allow without restriction the principle that abrogates a canon when its ratio legis disappears; that is, the reason which prompted its adoption in the first place. But a long tradition expressing a consensus in the Church can block the application of this principle. Thus the first place of the See of Constantinople is not really in question even though this city has long since ceased to be “honored by the presence of the emperor and the senate.”65 In reality, the primacy of honor of the Archbishop of Constantinople is most probably founded on the extension to his see of the axiom applied by the Fathers of Nicea to the privileges of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch: “Let the ancient customs be maintained.”66 Total nullity is certain when a canon shows itself to apply only to a specific case and not capable of being extended by an analogical interpretation.67 Nullity can result automatically from the disappearance of an institution: thus canon 15 of Chalcedon which fixes the minimum age of forty for deaconesses lost its force after the Church ceased to ordain deaconesses.68

    Investigation into the meaning and extent of a canon requires, as we have said above, research into the social and historical background as well as an analysis of the texts themselves. It is very evident that these exegetical studies suppose previous enquiries into the value of the texts which we have received through time. In this case, when dealing with the canonical stipulations of the first four ecumenical councils the investigator does not run up against insurmountable obstacles. These texts have on the whole been rather faithfully transmitted in the Greek manuscript tradition. This is true first of all due to the nature of the subject. As P.P. Joannou pertinently noted:

The letter of a legal text is of prime importance; it is quite normal, therefore, in the innumerable manuscripts of these canonical collections to find a very careful transcription which has been done by a copyist familiar with the material or else reviewed and corrected by a jurist. From one manuscript to another, we can expect to find very few variants that deeply alter the sense of the text.69

Let us add that the ancient canons and especially those of the ecumenical councils were considered to have been issued under divine inspiration, which explains the great care taken to preserve the exactness of the texts.70

Code: Select all

    From the beginning of this century on, a remarkable job has been carried out in establishing a critical edition of ancient canonical collections. It is, of course, these works that we have primarily used in our research. We must first mention the excellent editions of the Synagoge and of the Syntagma in XIV Titles done by V.N. Benesevic.71 For the disciplinary ruling issued by the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, we also have the monumental work of Edward Schwartz.72 With certain exceptions, the Greek text of the canons of the first four ecumenical councils found in Fonti is that of the Synagoge, sometimes with some interesting variants; it is nonetheless difficult to appreciate their importance because of deficiencies in the way the critical apparatus is set out.73 The old Latin versions of the canons, above all those of Nicea I, are worthy of careful consideration. Certain ones in fact show signs of being based on a Greek text earlier than those which have come down to us. At least in the one case, the old Latin text allows us to reconstruct with near certainty the original form of the canon and to understand the mens legislatoris.14 We can also add that the old Latin versions have an interest all their own. The variety of Latin translations of Greek terms found in these versions calls for theological reflection.75 Moreover, certain interpretive translations, indeed additions, constitute precious testimony to the history of Church institutions in the West.76 The research of Strewe77 and, above all, the work of Turner,78 as complete as it is serious, give the scholar access to correctly edited Latin texts. The Syriac translation of the canons done at Hierapolis of Euphratesia (500-501) is far from being as interesting as the old Latin versions. It is in fact very close to the oldest Greek editions we have. At the most, when a variant is found simultaneously in this Syriac version and in the Latin translations of Dionysius Exiguus, we can infer that it must reflect the text of the Antiochian Graeca auctoritas. The critical edition of the manuscript containing the Syriac translation mentioned above has been published by F. Schulthess.79

   We have already drawn attention to the work of Stephen of Ephesus, the Synopsis, edited by Aristenos and completed by Symeon the Logothete. No critical edition of this Epitome canonum exists; we have, therefore, used the work of Rhalles and Potles. We have done the same for the commentaries of Aristenos, Zonaras, and Bal-samon.80 For the anonymous scholia, we have used the publication of V.N. Benesevic.8'

Archbishop Peter L’Huillier

[Kollyvas]

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/philaret_iakovos.aspx

Open Letter of Metropolitan Philaret to Archbishop Iakovos

Related Articles
Ecumenism Awareness: Ecumenical Documents and Critiques
Ecumenism Awareness: The Epistles of Metropolitan Philaret
Ecumenism Awareness: The Anti-Ecumenical Stance of the ROCA
Ecumenical Doxology Performed by Archbishop Iakovos (GOA)

PRESIDENT
OF THE SYNOD OF BISHOPS
OF THE RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH
OUTSIDE OF RUSSIA

75 EAST 93rd STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10028
Telephone: LEhigh 4-1601

OPEN LETTER TO HIS EMINENCE
ARCHBISHOP IAKOVOS,
GREEK ARCHDIOCESE OF NORTH AND SOUTH AMERICA

YOUR EMINENCE:

Many practices of our Church are based on precedent, and indeed the higher the position of him who sets the precedent, the more important it is. Therefore the ways in which Orthodox bishops act in their contacts with the representatives of heterodox confessions or religions are of special significance, and in those cases in which they deviate from the order accepted over the centuries, they cannot leave us indifferent. Our silence might be construed as consent, bringing consequent confusion to our own flock as well as misunderstanding to the heterodox, who expect our actions, especially in matters of public worship, to be performed by all of us in conformity with our doctrines and canons. Therefore, an incorrect action made by one bishop may be taken for something permitted by the whole Church, and those who are "without" may form a misconception in regard to Orthodox doctrine. At a time such as this, when so much mutual interest is shown by various confessions, we may be found offering them a stone instead of a loaf of bread.

For this reason, the latest actions of Your Eminence, invested as you are with the added authority of His All-Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras, have greatly perplexed not only us and our flock, but also many others.

We have in mind your recent participation at St. Patrick's Cathedral in the "Week of Prayer for Christian Unity," and the "Ecumenical Doxology" in the Greek Cathedral of the Holy Trinity.

The very fact that these services were publicized by the press as novelties without precedent is indicative of their being introduced into the life of the Church as something extraordinary and not properly pertaining to her nature. Which canon, what tradition gave you the right to introduce such novelties?

Orthodoxy by its implicit nature is marked by its fidelity to the tradition and example of the Holy Fathers. It is not without reason that St. Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitorium gave the criteria that what is truly Orthodox is that which is accepted by the Church " ... always, by everyone, and everywhere." A novelty which does not conform with that rule bears an implicit stamp of unorthodoxy.

Your Eminence must be aware of the 45th Apostolic Canon which reads: "Let a bishop, presbyter, or deacon who has only prayed with heretics be excommunicated, but if he has permitted them to perform any clerical office, let him be deposed." The renowned canonist Bishop Nikodim of Dalmatia, in his interpretation of this canon, remarks that participation in such a prayer with heterodox "... means that we not only do nothing for their conversion to Orthodoxy, but are wavering in it ourselves."

In this case Your Eminence has not only violated an ancient tradition of the Orthodox Church founded on canons (Apostolic 10 and 45, Laodicea 6, 32, and 33), but also in your actions and statements conforming to those of Patriarch Athenagoras, you have expressed a teaching foreign to the Fathers of our Church.

In your sermon at St. Patrick's Cathedral, you said that Church Unity should be understood as a call "that through such ecumenical practices and experiences as praying and working together we arrive at the full knowledge of the truth that frees the faithful from the sin of false and ungodly apprehensions." The pathos in your sermon is not in proclaiming the truth of the Church, but in seeking something new, even a new definition "of our relationship with the Triune God."

The Holy Fathers, however, always regarded common public prayer as the culmination of the conversion of erring persons to the true Church—the achievement of it, not the means to it. Common church prayer is a manifestation of an already existing unity of faith and spirit. We cannot have such unity with those who teach otherwise than the Orthodox Church about the Holy Trinity (Filioque), the Mother of God (immaculate conception by Catholics, lack of veneration by Protestants), the hierarchy (Papism by the Roman Catholics; denial of the sacrament of priesthood by Protestants), etc. It is of further importance to note that the Roman Catholics and Protestants differ with us regarding the dogma of the Church.

Orthodox ecclesiology has always been based on the understanding that there is only One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, and that schismatics, heretics, and persons of other religions are outside of Her. We therefore cannot accept the assertion of His Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras which was made in his Christmas Message of 1968 that, owing to a lack of love among brothers, "... the Church which was established by Christ to be glorious, without spot or wrinkle (Eph. v. 27), perfect and holy, was altered." If our Church was altered and is not the same that was established by our Savior, then the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church against which Jesus Christ said "the gates of hell shall not prevail" (Matt. xvi. 18) exists no more, and instead there are several Churches, none of which is fully true and holy.

In a speech during his visit to Rome in 1967, His Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras publicly declared in the Basilica of St. Peter that the Church should "... return to the solid ground on which the undivided Church was founded," as if since 1054 the Church has lost this foundation and as if before that time there existed no schisms. If, as Your Eminence and His Holiness declare, you are proceeding toward the restoration of this "Undivided Church," then this means that for you the Church is at present non-existent. We are also inescapably brought to the conclusion that Your Eminence and the Patriarch accept the "branch" theory. According to that theory, the Orthodox Church is as guilty of divisiveness as the heretics and schismatics who separated themselves from the Church, and all these separated communities remain "branches" of the Church from which they fell away. But if one can belong to the Church without sharing her doctrines, then doctrines are of only secondary importance. This concept is clearly seen in Patriarch Athenagoras' Christmas Message of 1968, when he speaks with praise of the movement of people to the common chalice "... not knowing the differences in their dogmas, nor being concerned about them." Such words could never have been said by the great predecessors of Patriarch Athenagoras: SS. Proclus, Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom, St. Photius and others. Moreover, even if through the sinfulness of human nature heresy has sometimes been preached from the steps of the Ecumenical Throne under the guise of truth, there has never existed the precedent of a Patriarch who would regard dogmas as unimportant!

How sad it is to read of such a rejection of the teachings of our Fathers in a message of the Primate of the Church which was the Mother of our Church of Russia! Honoring that Primate, Your Eminence organized an "Ecumenical Doxology" in your Cathedral, thereby joining him in indifference to the Truth in disregard of the aforementioned canons. Your joining there in prayer with Roman Catholics and Protestants was an actualization of the call of Patriarch Athenagoras to move toward union with no concern for doctrines, heedless of the warning of the Apostle Paul against people who "would pervert the Gospel of Christ." Do you not fear the further warning of the Apostle, "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed!" (Gal. i. 7-8)?

We therefore regard it as our duty to protest strongly against the distortion of the dogma of the Church so insistently made by His Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras and Your Eminence. We protest against the "Ecumenical Doxology" and against the inclusion in the Diptychs by His All Holiness Athenagoras of the name of the Pope of Rome and of "all the confessions of the East and West," which was announced in His Holiness' Christmas Message. This inclusion in the Diptychs has always been testimony that a certain person is recognized as Orthodox. If the Fifth Ecumenical Council ordered the name of Theodore of Mopsuestia stricken from the Diptychs when his teaching was found unorthodox, then how can any Patriarch or Bishop now include in the Diptychs those who do not even nominally belong to the Orthodox Church, and who, on the contrary, continue to proclaim doctrines inconsistent with her dogmas?

You are uniting with the heterodox not in truth but in indifference to it.

We are not writing these lines in order simply to reproach or offend Your Eminence or His Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras: not in the least, especially as we have no reason for personal animosity toward you or His Holiness.

On the contrary, we see our indicating to you and the Patriarch of the perils of Ecumenism, which you have chosen, as the duty of brotherly love.

Oh! If you would hearken to the calls of the Holy Fathers of the Church who did not build on compromises but on firm adherence to the traditions and every iota of the divine dogmas, instead of to the voices of interconfessional conferences and the press, indifferent to religious truth! Their true love toward the heterodox consisted in their zeal to enlighten them with the light of truth and in caring for their genuine reunion with the Holy Church.

We are writing this in an open letter since your statements have been made public, and so that other Bishops and the faithful might know that not all the Church agrees with your pernicious ecumenical ventures. Let it be clear to everyone that your concelebration with the heterodox is a unique episode which may not serve as a precedent or an example for others, but which causes concern and resolute protest on the part of devoted members of the Church as an action which is clearly unorthodox and in violation of the Holy Canons.

I am,

Your obedient servant,

• Metropolitan PHILARET
  Feast of Orthodoxy, 1969

For those who have always wondered what went on at this infamous event, this will be an eye-opener: Ecumenical Doxology with Archbishop Iakovos, Sunday, January 26, 1969.

[Jean-Serge]

Thak you but unfortunately there is no hint at the canons I am looking for since this canons does not come from ecumenical councils...

[Kollyvas]

http://uncutmountain.com/index.php/uncut/contact/

The above link should put you in the loop of those currently engaged in renewal in the State Church of Greece in the Tradition of the Kollyvades Fathers... The owners of that site should be able to put you well on your way.
R