| John Anthony McGuckin Canon Law ANDREI PSAREV Canon law is the sum of ecclesiastical regulations recognized by church authorities; the discipline, study, or practice of church jurisprudence. The term derives from the ancient Greek word kanon, meaning “yardstick” or “standard.” It has been used since the time of the early church for the rule of faith (regula fidei) established by Christ and the apostles ( Gal. 6.16 ; Phil. 3.16 ). THE TASKS OF CANON LAW As a field, canon law deals with the following issues: the sources of canon law, church order, the foundation of new Orthodox churches, the canonization of saints, the ecclesiastical calendar, control for the execution of justice, the ecclesiastical court, marriage regulations, reception of converts from other confessions, the church’s relations with civil authorities, the correlation of church law with civil law, finances, and ownership relations. Canon law includes the subjects and methods of other theological disciplines: critical analysis (church history), doctrinal teaching (dogmatics), canons of the holy fathers (patristics), baptism, and reception into the church (liturgics). The New Testament is the disclosure of the essence of the “Covenant of the Law” contained in the Old Testament Pentateuch: “Not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” ( 2Cor. 3.6 ); thus, for Christian Orthodox: “In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything, but rather faith working through love” ( Gal. 5.6 ). The Decalogue and all the commandments of Christ and his apostles have received in the Christian Church the status of law. Every church regulation is supposed to be based on them as on a source. From the very beginning, Christian society had to deal with a diversity of opinions. In order to establish consensus as to whether or not the proselytes had to observe Mosaic Law, a council of apostles was convened in Jerusalem (Acts 15). This principle of conciliarity, the convention of church representatives for an open competition of views, became one of the main mechanisms that the Orthodox Church applied, and still uses, to establish consensus. |
| Economy in the Tradition of the Orthodox Church There is no doubt that there exists in our days a certain interest concerning the idea of “economy” beyond the circle of specialists of canon law, more so in the Orient than the Occident. This notion is sometimes considered as essential for the comprehension of the praxis of the Orthodox Church. However, it appears that interpretations are imposed concerning the nature of Economy itself, and further, it’s field of application. Translated by monk Savvatii Jordanville 5/13/2007 There is no doubt that there exists in our days a certain interest concerning the idea of “economy” beyond the circle of specialists of canon law, more so in the Orient than the Occident. This notion is sometimes considered as essential for the comprehension of the praxis of the Orthodox Church. However, it appears that interpretations are imposed concerning the nature of Economy itself, and further, it’s field of application. Divergent opinions have been expressed concerning this subject; they are repeated elsewhere. The consensus, in which it concerns the definition of Economy in the domain of canon law, hardly goes beyond the following affirmation: the Greek term “oikonomia” is employed with a certain canonical connotation signifying a derogation of the norm, or more precisely, an ecclesiastical attitude implying the concrete possibility to apply such a measure. It is in the problems related to sacred theology that the differences in assessment appear to be more glaring. Going to the extreme, the alternative presents itself in these terms: does economy posses a real creative potential or is it good that this potential is not “sanatio in randice”? The orthodox doctrine is clearly ready-made according to the fact that the church is the dispenser (“tamioyxoc”) of divine grace. But the church is like the body of which Christ is the head. This wants to say that the members of the body, while assuming responsibility for direction, evidently do not have power to reverse ecclesiastical order. |
| The Wearing of Christian Baptismal Crosses Hegumen Philip Ryabykh is the representative of Russian Orthodox Church in Strasbourg, Igor Ponkin is director of the Institute for State-Confessional Relations and Law The text, accepted by the Director, reproduces the joint Conclusion by the Representation of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Council of Europe (Strasbourg, France) and the Institute for State-Confessional Relations and Law (Moscow, Russia). SUMMARY: 1. On the religious significance of baptismal crosses and grounds for the need for Orthodox Christian believers to wear them – 2. On the illegitimate nature of the ban imposed by the state on the wearing of baptismal symbols of Christian religious affiliation – 3. Absence of any grounds for assessing the religious rite of wearing Christian baptismal crosses as a threat to public safety, public order, health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others – 4. The groundless emasculation, denial and reduction of the religious meaning and importance of Christian baptismal crosses. 1 – On the religious significance of baptismal crosses and grounds for the need for Orthodox Christian believers to wear them In Orthodox Christianity, the need to wear around one’s neck some symbols of religious affiliation such as Christian crosses (small items symbolizing Christian crucifix) is determined by the religious significance they have had in Orthodox Church since ancient times. It is an integral part of the freedom to confess one’s faith in the context of age-old Christian tradition. It is also a rule prescribed to Orthodox Christians by canonical regulation norms (canon law, lex canonical). Through the observance of this rule, the significance of the cross as a symbol of Christian self-sacrifice sustains the religious self-identification of believers. In this act of confessing their faith, Orthodox Christians express their spiritual unity with and belonging to Christianity in pursuance of imperatives based on the canonical understanding of the meaning of the Christian cross |
| John Anthony McGuckin Sexual Ethics MARIA GWYN MCDOWELL Human beings are sexual; human bodies are places where love, affection, and respect are often accompanied by physical desire; places, therefore, of both great joy and struggle. Orthodoxy recognizes the tension which often exists between love, desire, and respect. Questions of sexual ethics are dependent on an understanding of the human person as participating in an ongoing transformation into the likeness of God, one that includes joy and blessing as well as sin and repentance As unique, irreducible, and dynamic spiritual realities, personhood and relationship cannot be reduced to matters of “natural” or civil law. The pertinent questions for ethical decision-making are who am I/we becoming and how does a particular relationship, sexual behavior, or action enable me/us to be more like God; that is, to better love God and neighbor. Modern Orthodox sexual ethics must honestly confront an ambiguous past history. While the written tradition has known outspoken defenders of the body and the value of sexual relations in the context of marriage, it has produced many detractors as well. Nor can we ignore the fact that while both men and women are ostensibly called to the same standards of virtue and sexual integrity, double standards existed and still exist which uncritically accepted preexisting cultural assumptions about women’s weakness and supposedly greater struggle for virtue, which over-sexualized women and meted out harsher penalties for wrongdoing. This imbalance has not gone unnoticed by the tradition, but the misogyny pervasive in Late Antique and Byzantine cultures nonetheless affected the development and application of much Orthodox canon law, theology, and pastoral care. This is especially important to bear in mind as Orthodoxy now makes its home in western cultures and encounters feminist insights regarding the shared dignity of men and women, and new opportunities for articulating gender roles and responsibilities. Reenvisioning such roles must grapple with the difficulty engendered by phrases such as the “Manly-woman of God,” something that was meant as a compliment in Late Antique discourse but which is completely lost on women today. |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy Ecumenical Patriarch. The History of One Title Pavel Kuzenkov, Candidate of History, specialist in Church History and Historical Chronology, Associate Professor of the Faculty of History of Moscow State University and of the Sretensky Theological Seminary, a lecturer at the Moscow Theological Academy. The full title of the Primate of the first – according to the diptych – Local Orthodox Church is well known. It is”Archbishop of Constantinople – the New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch.” It seems to be generally understood that the term “Ecumenical” here is just a lofty Byzantine title, nothing more than a tribute of respect to the ancient tradition. Indeed, according to the Orthodox teaching, no one, except Jesus Christ, is empowered with the “world-wide jurisdiction.” Just as the apostles were carrying out their God-given mission in brotherly unanimity, but independently, so also the Orthodox Churches founded by them are sisters united in the Holy Spirit as individual parts of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. However, people unaware of the subtleties of canon law and unacquainted with church history perceive this formula differently. In their vision, based exclusively on the core meaning of the term “universe,” this title implies the official recognition of the role of the first among the Patriarchs as the leader of world Orthodoxy. Meanwhile his entire flock throughout the world numbers some six million which is about 2% of the entire number of Orthodox Christians What does the title “Ecumenical” mean then? Where does it come from and what is its true purport? Empire as Universe First of all it is necessary to gain insight of the word “universe or inhabited world” (οκουμνη in Greek). It is a passive participle of the verb οκω with several meanings (live, inhabit, populate) that is used without the implicit noun “earth,” or, word-for-word, - “a terrestrial space rendered habitable by man.” That was how the ancient Greeks referred to the land where they lived and which they knew, as different from far-off regions, either uninhabited or inhabited by wild barbarians. |
| Accept The site uses cookies to help show you the most up-to-date information. By continuing to use the site, you consent to the use of your Metadata and cookies. Cookie policy Metropolitan Hilarion: Patriarch of Constantinople claims power over history itself The chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate department for external church relations, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk, has given an interview to the Serbian Politika daily. - How will you comment the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate Synod decision of October 12? Who will now act as the coordinating center for Local Orthodox Churches, considering that, as you have said, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has lost this right due to its recent decisions? Who could, for instance, convene a Pan-Orthodox Council and chair it? - The recent decisions of the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople constitute a gross violation of canon law. Their aim is to legalize the schismatics and invade the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate. The response the Holy Synod of our Church gave on October 15 only reflected the reality that has set in after Constantinople’s actions. Having entered into communion with schismatics, it itself has departed into a schism. We had to resort to a break with the Church of Constantinople with deep sorrow, obeying to holy canons. The Patriarch of Constantinople, who for centuries has occupied the place of the first among the equals, among the Primates of Local Orthodox Churches, now claims to become ‘the first without the equals’ – an arbiter who believes to have a right to interfere in the internal affairs of Local Orthodox Churches by unilaterally regulating the application of any canonical norm in them. He claims the power over history itself by revoking decisions made over three centuries ago. If this new concept of primacy in the Church is to be believed, none of church resolutions is now firm and unchangeable – at any moment it can be unilaterally canceled on the basis of political profit or other interests. |
| In case you haven’t been following the news‚ the Supreme Court has recently ruled in favor of the recognition of same-sex unions throughout United States. Does this come as a surprise? Absolutely not! We knew it was just a matter of time. But how did we get here? How come that we need a court of law to decide what marriage is? Before we start pointing fingers at the state for changing our understanding of marriage‚ we have to admit first that even in Christianity‚ there are different views of what actually marriage is. Most Christians would agree that marriage is a union between a man and a woman that mutually agree to spend their lives together‚ but looking deeper we see a divergence of opinion on several aspects. The one that is most relevant to the current situation is the disagreement on the sacramentality of the marriage union. The Roman Catholic Church and The Eastern Orthodox Church agree that marriage is one of the Sacraments of their respective Churches. The reformed however‚ starting with Luther begin to dispute this idea. “The most remarkable difference between Catholic [and Orthodox for that matter – author’s note] and Lutheran theologies is Luther’s denial of the sacramentality of marriage” In Luther’s own words: “Die Ehe ist ein eusserlich weltlich Ding” – marriage is an outside worldly thing. It is during his times that the state started to be tasked with the recording of marriages‚ which in his view were regarded as binding contracts between two willing parties in the presence of witnesses. Luther’s actions‚ however stream from deeper roots‚ because even in the Roman Catholic Church‚ that he separated himself from‚ marriage was‚ and still is‚ also regarded more as a covenant between husband and wife‚ who effectively become the ministers of the sacrament to each other. Marriage is not something accomplished by God through the power of priesthood‚ but a mutual agreement with the priest as a witness. “…the [Roman] Church teaches that in a Catholic wedding‚ the sacrament of matrimony is not conferred on the spouses by the priest or deacon who officiates. It is conferred by the spouses themselves‚ who administer it to each other when they exchange their consent. As canon 1057.1 observes‚ a marriage is brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of two people who are legally capable of getting married. In other words‚ the Catholic cleric‚ who must be present at a Catholic wedding does not actually marry the two spouses‚ because they marry each other. Instead‚ the relevant canons of the code repeatedly assert that the cleric simply “assists” at the marriage.” |
| John Anthony McGuckin Old Testament EUGEN J. PENTIUC TWO TESTAMENTS, ONE BIBLE The Jewish Bible, also known as Tanakh or Hebrew Scriptures, is for the Orthodox Church the first part of the Christian Bible or Holy Scripture. It is called by Christians the Old Testament in a precise theological balance to the affirmation of the New Testament. These terms were first signaled by Origen of Alexandria in the 3rd century and were developed into a theory of interpretation using Hellenistic hermeneutics where typology was used to read the Old Testament in the light of the New (Kannengiesser 2006). The early church’s struggle with Marcion of Pontus over the Old Testament’s place and role besides the emerging Christian scriptures occupied most of the 2nd century. Marcion (d. 160) rejected the Old Testament as having any authority for Christians. He argued that the God of the Jews was totally different from, and inferior to, the Christian God. His radical view, one that was often echoed by Gnostic teachers, accelerated the broader Christian embrace of the Hebrew Scriptures as a whole, and most scholars agree that the defeat of Marcion greatly helped to fix the church’s canon of received scriptures. Another early danger, supersessionism, discernible in the indictment of the Parable of the Wicked Tenants ( Mt. 21.33–46 ) and supported by Paul’s teaching that the coming of Christ put an end to the custodian role of the Law ( Gal. 3.24–5 ; Rom. 10.4 ; cf. Heb. 8.13), led to a premature devaluation of the Old Testament among some Christian commentators. The idea that the church and its new Scripture (New Testament) superseded the old Israel and its Hebrew Scripture is attested in many early Christian writings. Even so, the church as a whole has been able to keep the two Testaments in a dialectical unity, in the main avoiding factual reductionism and supersessionism as dangers. The centrality of the Christ event in Christian tradition, not least as a key hermeneutical principle, helped in reaching this objective. |
| Thomas E. FitzGerald 10. HERITAGE AND VISION The visit of Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios of Constantinople to the United States in 1990 served as an important affirmation of the significance of Orthodox Christianity in this country. While the Orthodox jurisdictions continued to look toward greater administrative unity, many signs of a mature presence and a fruitful mission were clearly visible. The Orthodox in America numbered over 3 million, gathered into over 1,500 parishes. Through their concern for liturgical and spiritual renewal, theological studies, ecumenical dialogue, and evangelization, the American Orthodox in recent decades had strengthened their own mission and witness in this country. They had also become a major influence upon Christianity throughout the world. 319 THE VISIT OF THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I of Constantinople, together with a delegation that included five Metropolitans made an unprecedented visit to the United States 2–29 July 1990. Among the delegation was the present patriarch, Patriarch Bartholomew, who succeeded Patriarch Dimitrios in 1991. Although other Orthodox Patriarchs had visited this country in the past, this was the first visit of the Ecumenical Patriarch. His visit had a special significance because he is viewed as the first bishop of the Orthodox Church. As such, the Ecumenical Patriarch is frequently looked upon as the spiritual leader of the 300 million Orthodox Christians throughout the world. Moreover, according to Orthodox canon law and ecclesiastical practice dating from at least the fourth century, the Patriarch of Constantinople has special responsibility for overseeing the development of the Orthodox Church in lands beyond the boundaries of other autocephalous churches. 320 When he arrived in Washington, Patriarch Dimitrios spoke of his mission: In particular as Ecumenical Patriarch entering this land, I reflect upon the fact that our Church took root here and flourished for whole generations, thus contributing also to the great and historic advance of the American people, to its attainments, in sharing its problems, its progress and its dreams for a better mankind. Today, Orthodoxy is not a strange and alien factor in America. It is flesh of its flesh and bone of its bones.... I greet warmly and without exception all the faithful children of the Orthodox in this country.... As the Ecumenical Patriarch, I convey to all the Orthodox of this country my love and blessing, and assure them that the full unity of the Church, by canonical order, has never ceased and will never cease to be my principal concern. 321 |
| WASHINGTON (CNS) -- During the week following the pan-Orthodox council, which wrapped June 26 in Crete, Greece, Orthodox clergy in the U.S. reflected on what the council would mean for Orthodox Christians here. Going into the council, the most pressing issue for American Orthodox Christians was the question of the diaspora: how the church’s hierarchy should work in lands that are not traditionally Orthodox, but where different groups of Orthodox Christians now live, like in America and Australia. In these places, various Orthodox churches like the Greek, Russian and Ukrainian coexist, meaning that a city like New York can have 10 bishops from five different Orthodox churches. This current organization conflicts with the Orthodox canon, or law, that there should be only one church authority in each region. The final message and encyclical from the Holy and Great Council made no changes to the current structure but affirmed the importance of the governing episcopal assemblies, which bring together the different bishops in these regions. “The council decided to encourage their (the episcopal assemblies’) continuation until the situation in the various regions matured for future development,” said American Greek Orthodox Father John Chryssavgis, who attended the council. The American assembly, called the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States of America, is the largest in the world, with almost 60 bishops. Greek Orthodox Father Patrick Viscuso, a member of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation, said the affirmation of episcopal assemblies is “actually a wonderful thing.” “Episcopal assemblies are a first step for sorting out the canonical structure of the Church and bringing about canonical normalcy,” Father Viscuso told Catholic News Service in a phone interview from New Jersey. He said the assemblies are helpful in terms of pooling the Orthodox churches’ resources, and that while they won’t eliminate the priority of ethnic identities in the Orthodox Church, they are a step closer to ensuring the church is one, holy, catholic and apostolic. |
|
|
