What Does it Mean to Uphold the Holy Canons?

The “Holy Canons” are a defining element of Orthodox confessional identity. All tomoi of autocephaly issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the 19th century insist on that the newly established autocephalous national church should be governed in accordance with the Holy Canons, and similar provisions are found in the relevant laws of the countries where the Orthodox Church is established as a corporation of public law (e.g., Greece and Finland).

Already canon 2 of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787) required that candidates for the episcopacy should not only know the Psalter by heart, live according to the commandments of God, and teach them to the people, but that they should frequently read the Holy Canons and the Bible. Canon 2 of the Council in Trullo (691), which is seen as a quasi-ecumenical council, ratified all the canons received by the most popular collection of canon law at the time: the Nomokanon in 14 Titles. This canon ends with the statement:

“No one shall falsify the preceding canons, nor reject them, nor receive any others than these here set forth, those composed spuriously by certain men who have attempted to traffic in the truth. If anyone is found innovating or trying to subvert any of the aforementioned canons, he shall be liable under the same canon, receiving the penalty which it prescribes and being corrected by the very thing against which he has transgressed.” (Nedungatt and Featherstone 1995: 68-69)

However, the council did not merely ratify a collection of canons but also issued 102 canons, which codified the law in force and overturned several canons ratified by the same council; for example, canon 12 overturned apostolic canon 5 by introducing mandatory celibacy for candidates for the episcopacy in accordance with Byzantine imperial legislation, and canon 8 overturned Canon 5 of the First Ecumenical Council and canon 19 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council requiring that provincial synods should only convene once a year.  

Canon 2 itself of the Council in Trullo noted that the canon of the synod under St. Cyprian of Carthage had only been valid in the Roman Province of Africa in accordance with local custom, and the council itself issued other regulations for the reception of converts, which were in line with the more universal custom attested already by canon 8 of the general synod of Arles (314) and implicit in canon 19 the First Ecumenical Council (325). It is obvious from these examples that already the Byzantine Church recognized that faithfulness to the Holy Canons does not preclude the cessation of law.

Consequently, there are two fundamental issues of Orthodox canon law at hand: (a) the practical meaning of faithfulness to the Holy Canons and (b) cessation of law in the Holy Canons.

The first issue is not only a theological issue, but also a legal issue in countries where the Orthodox Church is established as a corporation of public law. In Greek jurisprudence there are four main positions concerning the reference to the Holy Canons in the constitution (Papageorgiou 2012: 74-75).

The first opinion is only held by some theologians who argue that the constitution grants the force of law to all the Holy Canons and any law that abrogates or is contrary to the provisions of the Holy Canons is unconstitutional. This position is purely utopian.

The second position limits the validity of the Holy Canons to purely dogmatic and creedal issues, while the state is free to enact legislation that modifies or even abrogates administrative provisions found in the Holy Canons. The third positions claims that the reference to the Holy Canons in the Greek constitution should only be understood as meaning that the Orthodox Church of Greece has doctrinal unity with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

The fourth position, which has become the dominant in recent legislation and case law, holds that the constitution not only upholds the doctrine of the Orthodox Church but also the fundamental institutions of the Orthodox Church found in the Holy Canons. Thus, it is important to distinguish between canons that define doctrine and fundamental institutions of the church and other canons which may be changed and fall into disuse.

Concerning the second issue of the cessation of law, all canonists note that the regional synods and Ecumenical Councils routinely abrogated the disciplinary decrees of earlier synods and councils. The famous Serbian canonist Nikodim Milaš (1905: 69) held that only a synod of equal or higher authority can modify canons enacted by the Ecumenical Councils (including the Council in Trullo) although he also noted that several canons, for a variety of reasons, have legitimately fallen into disuse (Milaš 1905: 71-72). Disuse is often custom abrogating canons.

Milaš’ position that only an equal or higher synodal authority can abrogate a canon is contradicted by reason and experience. From the perspective of reason, it is absurd that custom has the authority to do what a synod, or a bishop, does not have the authority to do. From the perspective of experience, we can find many examples of the synods of autocephalous churches, or even local bishops, abrogating canons of ecumenical councils.

The most obvious example is canon 69 of the Council in Trullo, which forbids all laypersons except the emperor entry to the sanctuary, but this canon has been abrogated by the universal acceptance of lay altar servers (even Old Calendarists allow laymen to be altar servers despite their alleged fidelity to the Holy Canons!). No one would today argue that a bishop, or synod, does not have the authority to issue regulations concerning altar servers, even though they are actually abrogating a canon of a quasi-ecumenical council when doing so.

The correct position, which is not contradicted by reason and experience, has been stated by Rodopoulos (2007: 100), who argued that the synod of an autocephalous church has the authority when needed to abrogate the canons of even ecumenical councils if this does not negate Orthodox dogma or the fundamental institutions of the Orthodox Church, although he viewed this authority as provisional until a synod of equal or higher authority could be convened to finally settle the issue on the universal level.

Faithfulness to the Holy Canons means to uphold the doctrine of the Orthodox Church and to maintain the fundamental institutions of the Orthodox Church, which are found in the Holy Canons, while recognizing that the local bishop, or synod, is competent to enact new regulations in times of need for the common good and salvation of souls.

Cited Works

Milaš, Nikodim (1905). Das Kirchenrecht der morgenländischen Kirche. 2nd ed. Mostar: Pacher & Kisić.

Nedungatt, George, and Michael Featherstone (1995). “The Canons of the Council in Trullo in Greek, Latin and English,” 41-188: The Council in Trullo Revisited, edited by George Nedungatt and Michael Featherstone, Rome: Pontifical Oriental Institute.

Papageorgiou, Constantinos G. (2012). Introduction to the Hellenic Ecclesiastical Law. Thessaloniki: DeGiorgio.

Rodopoulos, Panteleimon (2007). An Overview of Orthodox Canon Law. Rollinsford, New Hampshire: Orthodox Research Institute.