The place of church canons in the life of a Christian
If we observe all the canons but remain ruthless, unmerciful and lack love for our neighbor, will the canons help us get closer to Christ?
Recently, discussions about the status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church have intensified. Religious scholars talk about it on television and theologians debate it online. Our Church is bombarded with questions like: "Who is your Mother Church?", "What is your status?", "Where do you stand in the diptychs?" and so on.
In one of our previous articles, we briefly addressed the arguments of one such questioner.
Once more about the status of the UOC
His position is that the UOC must clearly define its status, as canonical law recognizes only autocephaly, autonomy and exarchate. Indeed, from the standpoint of canonical clarity, it is hard to fault Archimandrite Kirill. The only question is, what significance does this "canonical clarity" hold in the spiritual life of the Church in general and for the salvation of each of us individually? Can such questions be raised apart from the broader context of the Church's life?
Those concerned about the "canonical status" of the UOC can be roughly divided into two camps – supporters and opponents of autocephaly – since both emphasize the canonical aspect of this issue.
Supporters claim that autocephaly would give a clearer understanding of the "zone" in which our Church exists, and in the long run, they hope that the UOC will take its rightful place among the Local Orthodox Churches. These proponents base their argument on the canons, which state that "the boundaries of the Church follow the boundaries of the state", and the status of the UOC cannot remain ambiguous (as it is now).
Opponents of autocephaly are convinced that a unilateral declaration of autocephaly would place the UOC outside of global Orthodoxy, turning it into a schism, and that the Local Churches would never recognize such autocephaly. This is because the canons clearly state that independence is granted by the kyriarchal Church, and its acquisition must strictly be in line with the canons.
Once again, it is important to emphasize that both sides insist on the importance of adhering to the canons. The former argue that canon law can recognise only autocephaly or autonomy for the UOC, while the latter believe that the need for strict observance of the canons does not give room for ‘manoeuvre’. Both groups are convinced that disregarding the canons creates serious problems for an individual's salvation. Indeed, arguing about the importance of canons in the life of the Church is futile, ungrateful and entirely pointless. Without canons, the external life of the Church and its internal order would turn into a chaotic flow – without purpose or meaning. However, the view that strict adherence to the canons is the only way for a person to remain within the Church and that their salvation depends solely on following them is also mistaken. History provides many examples of how, on the one hand, violating the canons was a blessing, while on the other hand, their strict observance caused harm to the Church.
Two examples of the Church Fathers' attitude to canons
During the Council of Ephesus in 431, St. Cyril of Alexandria took several steps that violated the established procedures for councils and were interpreted as breaking the canons. For example, when not all participants had yet arrived in Ephesus (the papal legates and a large group of bishops from Antioch led by John of Antioch were still on their way), Cyril and his ally Bishop Memnon decided to begin the Council anyway. They invited Nestorius, but he and his supporters refused to attend, suggesting they wait for all the bishops to gather. However, St. Cyril chose not to wait and convened the Council with only his supporters, where they condemned Nestorius, even in his absence. Ultimately, none of this prevented the Council of Ephesus from becoming an Ecumenical Council, and St. Cyril went down in Church history as one of its greatest figures.
The second example is St. John Chrysostom. As Patriarch of Constantinople, he often overstepped the boundaries of his diocese, disciplining bishops not under his direct authority, including those in Thrace, the East, and Pontus. In September 399 (long before the Council of Chalcedon granted such canonical rights to the Patriarch of Constantinople), he organized a council in Constantinople to address the case of the Bishop Antoninus of Ephesus. It’s important to remember that at that time, Ephesus held a higher status than Constantinople, as its See had the apostolic origin. On January 9, 401, St. John travelled to Ephesus and deposed 15 bishops, accusing them of simony (the buying or selling of church offices). Nothing like this had ever occurred before, and from the standpoint of the canons, Chrysostom had no right to act in such a manner. Therefore, when the "Synod of the Oak" unanimously deposed him, all the bishops believed they were acting in accordance with the canons. Later, when the emperor reinstated St. John, a second synod, convened by Theophilus of Alexandria, deposed him again for violating the 4th and 12th canons of the Antioch Council of 341, which stated that he had no right to hold the office of Patriarch of Constantinople since he had been condemned by the "Synod of the Oak". In both cases, Chrysostom's opponents were confident they were acting strictly according to the Church's canons. However, history remembers John Chrysostom as a Church teacher whose sanctity is beyond doubt.
What is the inner life of the Church built on?
Why did this happen? And why did the Church canonize those who violated the canons, while consigning the strict guardians of those canons to oblivion? Because the inner life of the Church is not built on legal rules but on the grace of the Holy Spirit, on a living relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ.
Imagine a Christian born into a faithful family in Ukraine, baptized in childhood, who went to church throughout his life, confessed, received communion, struggled with his sins and worked on spiritual growth, purifying his soul. Ultimately, his main goal became Christ. How important should the current status of the UOC be to him, given that, as a parishioner, he knows that its sacraments are recognized by all Local Churches? Does he wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, asking himself in which "zone" the church where he confesses and receives communion is now located? In what canonical status is his soul, which strives for union with God? Are these questions really more important than those concerning the actual transformation of his soul, his personal salvation? After all, everything he needs for salvation, he already has – he has access to the effective sacraments of the Church. Believe me, for a person truly engaged in their spiritual development (SPIRITUAL, not canonical, not ecclesiastical-public), questions like "place in the diptychs", "autocephaly-autonomy-exarchate" or "the process of granting a tomos-letter-chrysobull" are no more concerning than they were to St. Mary of Egypt.
When she met St. Zosima, she asked, "Tell me, Abba, how do Christians live now? How do the holy Churches of God flourish?" To which he gave a short answer: "By your holy prayers, God has granted the Church and all of us perfect peace. But heed also the prayer of an unworthy elder, my mother, and pray for the whole world and for me, a sinner, that this wandering in the desert not be fruitless for me." That's it! The topic of the Church was closed at that point, even though at that time, a heated dispute was ongoing between the Patriarchates of Alexandria and Constantinople over the 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. St. Mary of Egypt's native Patriarchate (Alexandria) refused to recognize the primacy of Constantinople, which it had gained as a result of the Council's ruling. Yet, in the dialogue between these holy people, all attention was focused on personal spiritual life.
Do the canons save us?
One might say that questions of canonical law are very important because if we transgress the canons, we thereby step outside the boundaries of the Church. But the point is that the canons are merely external laws, which do not save a person.
Let's recall the words of the Apostle Paul, who clearly told the Jews that no flesh would be saved by the law, and that if you violate one law, you violate all laws. If a person claims that their salvation directly depends on following the canons but at the same time violates at least one canon, then logically, they cannot be saved. Moreover, let me reveal a secret: there is no one who is perfectly clean from a canonical point of view.
Similarly, in the history of the Orthodox Church, there are moments better left forgotten because they clearly do not fit into the speeches of the "zealots of the canons". These moments cannot be explained in terms of Church law, yet we believe that they did not push the Universal Church outside the boundaries of saving grace. Otherwise, we would have to admit that no church, no patriarchate today remains within the boundaries of Christ’s Church, as none possesses the status of a flawless guardian of the canons.
This tells us that it is impossible for a weak, frail human being to fully and precisely observe all the canons. The Lord Jesus Christ, addressing His followers, did not call them to follow all the canons, many of which did not even exist at that time. He said: "By this, everyone will know that you are My disciples if you have love for one another."
What is a Christian?
A Christian is someone who seeks to cultivate love for others through love for Christ. For a Christian, Orthodoxy is neither a collection of canons, nor beautiful iconostases or Byzantine chanting but the unity with Christ. In some sense, following the canons or refraining from publicly violating them helps a person establish boundaries they should not cross to remain within the Church. However, to believe that the guarantee of our salvation lies in the strict observance of rules concerning the Church’s administrative order is a mistake.
Our salvation is in Christ. If we follow all the canons but remain ruthless, unmerciful and lack love for our neighbour, will the canons help us become closer to Christ? After all, the canons are needed by the Church to manage its external life, to establish rules of conduct for the clergy and laity. But in each of us, in every Christian, there must first and foremost be a living love for God and for our neighbour. Christ did not place rule-following above love. In the Gospel, we see how He healed people even on the Sabbath, when Jewish law forbade any work. This shows us that the person and their salvation are more important than formal adherence to the law.
Who is not satisfied with the status of the UOC?
Now, let's look at those who press us against the wall, forcing us to urgently decide on the "kyriarchal Church", to break canonical ties with the "occupying Church", to write letters to the Phanar begging for autocephaly, etc. What drives these people – care, mercy, love, or envy, hatred and malice? All these questioners claim to be hierarchs, theologians, religious scholars, and church historians. Doesn't it seem that in their "righteous" push to resolve these issues, they are missing something important?
Let’s look at the representatives of the OCU, who beat believers, seize churches, break locks, using crowbars, sledgehammers and grinders. Their actions clearly show that they are not acting as Christians. Yet from Phanar’s point of view, the OCU has a very clear canonical status: an autocephalous church, a place in the diptychs, and so on. Even if someone recognizes their "canonical" ordination, though they beat other people, seize churches, deprive families of electricity and water or silently condone such actions by their flock, their ordinations recognized by Phanar do not bring them any closer to salvation.
The Gospel clearly outlines the criteria by which we must assess ourselves to understand how close we are to God, the criteria that also apply to the Church. So, when we hear questions from OCU representatives such as "Who is your Mother Church?" we want to answer that our Mother Church is the Church of St. John Chrysostom, the Church of St. Cyril of Alexandria, the Church of St. Mark of Ephesus, the Church of St. Sergius of Radonezh and St. Job of Pochaiv, of St. Sabbas the Sanctified and St. Porphyrios of Kavsokalyvia, St. Nicholas of Serbia and St. John of Shanghai.
This is the Church that unites the heavenly and earthly followers of the Gospel. The Church for which the Eucharist is the Sacrament of Life, and Christ is its center. And this Church lives by striving to strictly and clearly follow one main canon, which says: "Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself."
