The authority of the canons

[Light of the East]

What authority do the canons of the Church have? I asked this question because I read what appears to me to be an incredibly stupid statement today from a Roman apologist claiming that the canons of the Ecumenical Councils establish the papacy as supreme over the Church. Now of course I don't believe this, but in my usual fashion I'm going to investigate this to disprove his claim. As I'm reading the canons, starting with the 85 Apostolic canons and then moving on to the seven ecumenical councils, I find myself wondering if the thing said in these councils are still binding or can they be modified or changed over the years?

For instance, Canon 7 of the Council of Nicea condemns those who baptize with one immersion. I know that Orthodoxy has continued the triple immersion in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It appears to me that this is one piece of Roman disobedience to the ancient councils in that they sprinkle or pour over the head rather than immerse. I am sure that as I continue to look into the councils I will find other pieces of disobedience on their part.

So again my question is whether or not the council's canons can be set aside or modified according to time and location, as well as the economia or expediency of the Church.

 

[HTacianas]

What authority do the canons of the Church have? I asked this question because I read what appears to me to be an incredibly stupid statement today from a Roman apologist claiming that the canons of the Ecumenical Councils establish the papacy as supreme over the Church. Now of course I don't believe this, but in my usual fashion I'm going to investigate this to disprove his claim. As I'm reading the canons, starting with the 85 Apostolic canons and then moving on to the seven ecumenical councils, I find myself wondering if the thing said in these councils are still binding or can they be modified or changed over the years?

For instance, Canon 7 of the Council of Nicea condemns those who baptize with one immersion. I know that Orthodoxy has continued the triple immersion in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It appears to me that this is one piece of Roman disobedience to the ancient councils in that they sprinkle or pour over the head rather than immerse. I am sure that as I continue to look into the councils I will find other pieces of disobedience on their part.

So again my question is whether or not the council's canons can be set aside or modified according to time and location, as well as the economia or expediency of the Church.

The Canons of the Ecumenical Councils are absolute. But only the truly Ecumenical Councils. An Ecumenical Council is composed of Bishops of the entire Church. But we use the terms "council" and "synod" sometimes interchangeably. They both have the same meaning but in practice a Council is the entire Church while a Synod is only one jurisdiction. The first seven Councils were truly Councils in that they were ecumenical - they included the entire Church. The Roman Church has since that time convened what are actually Synods of the Roman Church but identify them as Councils. The Council of Trent is an example. There were Orthodox observers at the Council of Trent but they were not voting members of it. Those Roman Synods have their own Canons that are binding on the Roman Church but not the entire Church. One of their Canons establishes the Roman Bishop as supreme but it is not something voted on by the entire Church, i.e., it is not Ecumenical.

Baptism is another matter. There can be exceptions to triple immersion and even exceptions to full immersion itself. Say a Church in Ethiopia baptizes during a drought when there isn't enough water to fully immerse a person. In that case pouring or sprinkling can be acceptable. But then some want to use the exception in order to ignore the rule. That's not an argument I want to involve myself in. It's something for the Patriarchs.

 

[prodromos]

It's something for the Patriarchs

It's something for the Bishops, preferably in council. Some of our Patriarchs are proving themselves less than reliable sources of orthodoxy at present.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What authority do the canons of the Church have? I asked this question because I read what appears to me to be an incredibly stupid statement today from a Roman apologist claiming that the canons of the Ecumenical Councils establish the papacy as supreme over the Church. Now of course I don't believe this, but in my usual fashion I'm going to investigate this to disprove his claim. As I'm reading the canons, starting with the 85 Apostolic canons and then moving on to the seven ecumenical councils, I find myself wondering if the thing said in these councils are still binding or can they be modified or changed over the years?

For instance, Canon 7 of the Council of Nicea condemns those who baptize with one immersion. I know that Orthodoxy has continued the triple immersion in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It appears to me that this is one piece of Roman disobedience to the ancient councils in that they sprinkle or pour over the head rather than immerse. I am sure that as I continue to look into the councils I will find other pieces of disobedience on their part.

So again my question is whether or not the council's canons can be set aside or modified according to time and location, as well as the economia or expediency of the Church.

the canons are binding for the situations they deal with. however, since they deal with specific issues in specific times, they might not exactly be practiced because the situation has changed.

as one example, technically, subdeacons are forbidden to wear the orarion. yet today, subdeacons wear the orarion crossed over the sticharion. this isn’t a contradiction since at the time, the orarion was a square cloth worn over the shoulder, and this canon was to distinguish between the two orders. since today, subdeacons don’t wear cuffs, have clearly different functions, and wear the orarion in a different way, subdeacons and deacons are clearly different. so this canon isn’t followed, but would be if we went back to the older practice.

 

[Light of the East]

the canons are binding for the situations they deal with. however, since they deal with specific issues in specific times, they might not exactly be practiced because the situation has changed.

as one example, technically, subdeacons are forbidden to wear the orarion. yet today, subdeacons wear the orarion crossed over the sticharion. this isn’t a contradiction since at the time, the orarion was a square cloth worn over the shoulder, and this canon was to distinguish between the two orders. since today, subdeacons don’t wear cuffs, have clearly different functions, and wear the orarion in a different way, subdeacons and deacons are clearly different. so this canon isn’t followed, but would be if we went back to the older practice.

I was thinking about this and I wonder if it could be said that disciplinary canons can be changed according to time and need but canons that specifically outline dogma cannot be changed ever. Would you agree with that, Father?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I was thinking about this and I wonder if it could be said that disciplinary canons can be changed according to time and need but canons that specifically outline dogma cannot be changed ever. Would you agree with that, Father?

yeah, although it’s not that the canons change, it’s that we do and have new situations to deal with.

 

[JSRG]

For instance, Canon 7 of the Council of Nicea condemns those who baptize with one immersion. I know that Orthodoxy has continued the triple immersion in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It appears to me that this is one piece of Roman disobedience to the ancient councils in that they sprinkle or pour over the head rather than immerse. I am sure that as I continue to look into the councils I will find other pieces of disobedience on their part.

A condemnation of baptism with a single immersion does not seem like it would rule out pouring... though it would depend on the wording. However, the actual Canon 7 of the Council of Nicaea (see CHURCH FATHERS: First Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381)) says nothing at all about baptism by immersion, nor do I see any canon in it about it. Canon 7 of Nicaea II (see CHURCH FATHERS: Second Council of Nicaea) doesn't have it either. Could you clarify what you're referring to?