Journal of Eastern Christian Studies 69(1-4), 307-321. doi: 10.2143/JECS.69.1.3214961 © 2017 by Journal of Eastern Christian Studies. All rights reserved.

Contextuality and Holy Canons within the

Grigorios D. Papathomas *

Preliminary Remarks

The question “Can Orthodox Theology be Contextual?” is directly linked to the incarnation of Christ. In order to describe more clearly some param- eters and aspects of the question regarding the relevance of the holy canons today, we distinguish two features: the truth and contextuality, or, to put it better, the revealed and eschatological truth on one hand, and historical contextuality on the other. The dialectical relationship between them is manifested through three aspects: a) the texts (liturgical, biblical, patristic, synodical, and canonical), b) the event- (, and the Church itself as icon), and c) the particular ecclesial realities. In the following lines, I shall comment on the issue of contextuality from an ‘iconic’ perspective. Then, I will examine the case of 39 of the Quinisext as an example of historical contextuality. In a final stage, a number of conclu- sions are drawn.

Status Quaestionis: A Key Example from the Event-Icon

The icon of the resurrection carries within itself its main feature – namely, its eschatological dimension. It also involves historical elements, the so-called contextual elements, which are directly related to the epoch during which this icon was originally created. In this sense, this icon could be the arche- type of a dialectical relationship between historical contextuality and the eschatological truth. Here, Christ stands on two ruptured and detached doors, which have hermetically separated the created from the uncreated for

* State University of Athens. 308 Grigorios D. Papathomas many centuries in history – from the time of man’s fall (Gen 3) to the resur- rection of Christ (Matt 28; Mark 16; Luke 24; John 20-21; Acts 1) – and have precluded any possibility of communication between them. Therefore, the icon of the resurrection involves two components: a) the event-resurrection, which is the essence of what we look at within the icon, and b) the doors, which are elements of the falling historical world and represent in a relative, contextual and broadly elliptical manner the ontological truth associated with the event-resurrection.

Are the Church Canons Contextual?

By mentioning the example of the icon of the resurrection, we can observe that, within the Church’s becoming, there are many cases characterized by this duality: a) the truth or core of truth, and b) the historical contextuality reflected in the vector of the core of truth, while the vector also remains contextual. These two coexist ipso jure, and any attempt to strip the one from the other would call into question the event-incarnation of Christ and gener- ate various forms of Manichaeism and Monophysitism. What holds true for a number of other cases in the Church’s becoming throughout the centuries is also true mutatis mutandis of the canonical tradition of the Church, and of the holy canons in particular, since what has been briefly described thus far with respect to the event of the resurrection represents the conditions for the correct reading of the ecclesial canons too. If there is a branch of theology most directly affected by the question of contextuality, it will certainly be the branch that includes the ecclesial canons and the canonical tradition of the Church. This is why the question of the diachronicity of the holy canons is essential. Do the canons ultimately have the power of diachronicity? If the answer is, as expected, in the affirmative, a second major question arises: is the diachronicity of the holy canons not affected by the context inherent to them? It is crucial for our subject to look thoroughly into these twin questions. 1) If it is commonly accepted and sufficiently visible that the content of the holy canons is eschatological and soteriological, and therefore ontologi- cal, it is time to note that the holy canons have told everything, everything Contextuality and Holy Canons within the Church 309 within the perspective of diachronicity and about their future diachronicity. However, this is not to say that we cannot promulgate new canons if this proves to be necessary in the future. Additionally, this does not imply that the canons do not contain historical contextual elements, which are clearly relativized by the passing of time, occupying certainly a secondary position, which, however, does not affect the ultimate content of their truth. 2) When it comes to the question of whether or not the diachronicity of the holy canons is refuted by changing historical contextuality, one may say that this issue is related to the question of the priority of truth. Here, we have at least two visible difficulties: a) we sometimes fail to see diachronicity in our modern age because things have radically changed since the promulga- tion of the canons, so that they seem outdated both in wording and in how they approach issues, and b) we focus on the contextual aspect of the canons, actually a surface phenomenon, and miss the deeper meaning of their diachronicity. Let me try to illustrate this by using an example. It is known in the life of the countryside that there is a major difference between how a dog looks and how a cat looks when they look at the same reality. When we try to show a given direction to a dog by extending our index finger, the dog immediately moves and runs in the direction indicated even if it does not at first see anything at the indicated point. Thus, the indication and the orien- tation prevail and are prioritized over any other subjective perception. Yet if we attempt to make the same suggestion to a cat using the same sign, it shows no interest in the point indicated, peers instead at the index finger, and exhausts its attention only on that. Hence, the dog’s behavior symbolizes an ability to see beyond the sensible things while the cat’s look focuses on visible things without being able to see beyond them. The first way of seeing things displays the dialectical relationship between the signifier (sensible) and the signified (noetic), while the second cannot contemplate the signified (noetic) reality and looks only at the signifying (sensible) reality, losing essen- tially the core of truth. In this simple example, both animals have in front of them the same reality, but they choose to confront it differently. Conse- quently, it is extremely difficult to penetrate behind the historical context and see the overall dimension of the truth. 310 Grigorios D. Papathomas

A Contextual Canonical Example: The Autocephalous Church of (Canon 39/Quinisext-691)1

In 688, the Εastern part of the was again at war with the Arabs. At the outbreak of hostilities, the emperor Justinian II Rhinotmetes (685-694, 705-711) realized that he could not protect Cyprus and its Greek Christian population from Arab vengeance and, in 690/691, decided to transfer – manu militari – the Cypriot inhabitants temporarily to the prov- ince of the Hellespont.2 At his command, John of Cyprus, along with a number of bishops and the majority of the population, left the island en masse to settle on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont (at the little maritime town of Artaki), founding by this act a new city called Nea Justinianopolis (Nova Justiniana). But this forced emigration proved merely temporary; as a debellatio, it was to last only about a decade.3 Nevertheless, it fell to the Quinisext Ecumenical Council, which was held in Constantinople in autumn 691,4 to examine the new arrangements for ecclesiastical affairs in this province. The event created an incentive for determining the autocephalous status of the and constituted a supplementary stage in its formation. This stage conferred a canonical right in a confirmative sense. It confirmed

1 Grigorios D. Papathomas, L’Église autocéphale de Chypre dans l’Europe unie: Approche nomocanonique, Bibliothèque nomocanonique, 2 (Thessalonique-Katérini, 1998), pp. 81-94. 2 See Theophanis, Chronographia, in PG 108:741-742AB; G. Cedrenus, Compendium Historiarum, in PG 121:843-844C. See also Phoibos Georgiou, Informations historiques concernant l’Église de Chypre (Athens, 1975), pp. 29-37 (et Paulus Diaconus, lib. XIX); Benedict Egglezakis, Cyprus: New Justinianopolis (, 1990), pp. 7-11; Andreas Ioannou Dikigoropoulos, ‘The Church of Cyprus during the period of the Arab Wars, A. D 649-965’, Greek Orthodox Theological Review, 11 (1965-1966), pp. 237-279. 3 See Jules Pargoire, L’Église byzantine de 527 à 847, 2nd ed. (Paris, 1905), pp. 156-157; John Hackett, Charilaos I. Papaïoannou, History of the of Cyprus (Athens, 1923), pp. 56ff. The Church of Cyprus, Statuary Charter of the Very Holy Church of Cyprus of 1980 (Nicosia, 1980), article 32. 4 See Pavlos Menevisoglou, Ἱστορικὴ εἰσαγωγὴ εἰς τοὺς κανόνας τῆς Ὀρθοδόξου Ἐκκλησίας (Stockholm, 1991), pp. 289-290; Vitalien Laurent, ‘L’œuvre canonique du concile in Trullo (691/692): source primaire du droit de l’Église orientale’, Revue des Études Byzantines, 23 (1965), pp. 7-41, here 9-13, 20-21; Charilaos Jean Papaioannou, ‘The of the Church of Cyprus’, Orthodoxia, 23 (1948), pp. 69-73 and 134- 142, here 139-141. Contextuality and Holy Canons within the Church 311 both the formation of the apostolic Church of Cyprus (first century) and the constitution of its conciliar autocephaly (431), for it sanctioned and safe- guarded in concreto and in alio loco the autocephaly previously stipulated by a synodal act. More specifically, the confirmed the proc- lamation of the conciliar autocephaly and the rights accorded to the island Church in the past by the terms of canon 39, using the following words:

Whereas our brother and fellow-minister, John, bishop of the island of Cyprus, is a refugee together with the people of his island in the province of the Hel- lespont on account of barbarian incursions, and in order that he might be freed from servitude to the heathen and might put himself openly under the authority of the most Christian Empire, has emigrated from the said island, and this has taken place by the providence of God, and by the efforts of our pious and Christ- loving emperor, we decree that the privileges accorded to his throne by the God- inspired fathers who gathered formerly at Ephesus should remain unchanged in such a way that New Justinianopolis should have the rights of the city of Con- stantia and that the very God-beloved bishop who will be established there in the future shall take precedence over all the bishops of the province of the Hel- lespont, and shall be elected by his own bishops, in accordance to ancient cus- tom, for our God-inspired fathers have determined that the customs of each Church should be maintained. With regard to the bishop of the city of , he shall be subordinate to the proestos of the aforesaid Justinianopolis, after the fashion of all the other bishops of the province who are under the authority of John, the proestos very beloved of God, who, if necessary, shall ordain even the bishop of the city of Cyzicus.5

We can summarize the content of this canon in its relationship to canon 8/ III well by repeating the expression of the Seventh Ecumenical Council held at Nicaea (787): “We also renew this canon” (Canon 6/VII). Indeed, this canon is closely tied to Canon 8/III. For the core of the expressed by canon 39 lies in its canonical decision which, in the following phrase, faithfully reproduces that of Canon 8/III: “we determine that the privileges accorded to his throne by the God-inspired fathers who met

5 Périclès-Pierre Joannou, Discipline générale antique 1,2: Les Canons des synodes particuliers (Roma, 1962), pp. 173-174; see also Jean-Dominique Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, vol. 11 (Graz, 1961), col. 961-962 AC; Georgios A. Rhallis, Michael Potlis, eds., Syntagma 4 (Athens, 1854), pp. 395-396. 312 Grigorios D. Papathomas formerly at Ephesus should remain unchanged”. This synodal decision had as a canonical consequence the requirement that the archbishop – the proestos – of the Church of Cyprus “shall take precedence over all the bishops of the province of the Hellespont and shall be elected by his own bishops, accord- ing to the ancient custom”. The council accordingly decided to give the archbishop of the Church of Cyprus the title bishop of New Justinianopolis. He was to have the rights of the city of Constantia, with the full canonical right to exercise his ecclesial jurisdiction over the whole of the province of the Hellespont (and therefore including the people of the ecclesial jurisdic- tion of Constantinople), and with all the canonical consequences of this jurisdiction granted in full and incontestably: “With regard to the bishop of the city of Cyzicus, he shall be subject to the proestos of the aforesaid New Justinianopolis after the fashion of all the other bishops of the province, who are under the authority of John, the proestos very beloved of God, who, if it is necessary, shall promote even the bishop [metropolitan] of the city of Cyzicus”.6 And this is because “our God-inspired fathers decided that the customs of each Church should be maintained”. In consequence, the canonical jurisdic- tional right, which the patriarch of Constantinople had hitherto exercised over the province of the Hellespont, was henceforth acquired by the bishop of Nea Justinianopolis and archbishop of the Church of Cyprus.

The 39th canon of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council renewed and confirmed the stipulation of the Third Ecumenical Council relating to the Autocephaly; since that time, this has remained in force without suppression or suspension, even at very difficult times that dictated a more intimate contact with the Church of Constantinople.7

The autocephaly of the Church of Cyprus was therefore absolutely respected by the Quinisext Council, preserved and synodically confirmed for a third time.8

6 All italics are by G.P. 7 Tzortzatos, The Fundamental Administrative Institutions of the Autocephalous Church of Cyprus (Athens, 1974), p. 14. 8 See Andreas Mitsidis, ‘The Autocephaly of the Very Holy Church of Cyprus’, in XVth International Congress of the Byzantine Studies, 2 (Athens, 1976), pp. 3-18, here 5-6; P. I. Panagiotacos, ‘L’autocéphalie de la très Sainte Église apostolique de Chypre: B – La Contextuality and Holy Canons within the Church 313

What does this mean in terms of canonical discipline? An (autocephalous) Church established locally is displaced in its entirety with all its ecclesiastical administrative status and moves into the territorial jurisdiction of another territorial (patriarchal) Church. The council decreed that “the proestos John of the island of Cyprus”, whose “privileges accorded to his throne by the God-inspired fathers who met formerly at Ephesus should remain unchanged”, “shall take precedence over all the bishops of the province of the Hellespont” (including those of the of Constantinople) in so far as he is an archbishop, and shall promote even the bishop [metropolitan] of the city of Cyzicus (hierarchia of a potestas jurisdictionis). He shall, however, “be elected by his own bishops” (hierarchia of a potestas ordinis), with the council declaring that this was “according to ancient custom”. The archbishop of the Church of Cyprus as such – the of an (autocephalous) territorial Church – cannot be subject to the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople nor to that of any other primate of a locally established (patriarchal) Church. Thus the ecclesiastical status of Cyprus was fully respected by the council. In consequence, a Church’s right of autocephaly is not extinguished as long as an ecclesial body continues to exist; the geographical place that it occupies does not alter the content of the rights it has acquired as long as the condi- tions remain clearly fulfilled. The question which then arises is this: How can there be ecclesial jurisdic- tion of full right over bishops who do not form part of the synod over which a primate presides (primus sedis episcopus), especially concerning the latter’s election? How is the émigré archbishop John still able to ordain a bishop who is not part of his own synod? The council indicates nevertheless that the archbishop would be elected solely by the synod of Cypriot bishops without the participation of other bishops belonging to another territorial Church, at a time when – for exceptional reasons – these other bishops were under his full ecclesial jurisdiction. In other words, the Cypriot archiepisco- pal synod would promote bishops of the patriarchal Church that had wel- comed it but without reciprocation. That is to say, we end up with a synod that elects and ordains bishops who are not part of it. But the council

taxis canonique’, Archeion ekklēsiastikou kai kanonikou dikaiou, 14/1 (1959), pp. 13-21, here 13-16. 314 Grigorios D. Papathomas accepted this fact and stipulated this practice canonically suggesting that it poses no canonical problems. It is noteworthy that this canon – according to the placing of the text – deals with two matters distinct in jurisdictional terms but not opposed to each other, and presents two jurisdictional aspects that must be examined together. First, the council appears anxious about the ecclesial rights already granted to the Cypriot archbishop by the (431) – and wants to safeguard them. This intention, which is in flagrando conciliar, manifests itself in the following phrases:

we determine that the privileges accorded to his throne by the God-inspired fathers who met formerly at Ephesus should remain unchanged in such a way that New Justinianopolis should have the rights of the city of Constantia and that the very God-beloved bishop who will be instituted there in the future shall take prece- dence over all the bishops of the province of the Hellespont and shall be elected by his own bishops to ancient custom, for our God-inspired fathers have decided that the customs of each Church should be maintained.

This part of the canon indicating that the autocephaly remains intact is found – if not literally, at least in words conveying the same sense – in canon 8/III. The Quinisext Council thus confirmed the self-perfection (αὐτοτέλεια) of the ecclesiastical organization of the autocephalous Church. The Cypriot autocephaly thus remains intact. The persistence and the application of the administrative system of this autocephaly are thus infrangible and as such irrefutable. As a second jurisdictional aspect of this canon, the council also stipulates that,

with regard to the bishop of the city of Cyzicus, he shall be subject to the proes- tos of the Justinianopolis, after the fashion of all the other bishops of the province who are under the authority of John, the proestos very beloved of God, who, if necessary, shall promote even the bishop of the city of Cyzicus.

The canon places the metropolitan eparchy of the Hellespont under the archbishop and provincial synod of Constantia. This is a delicate and nuanced piece of phrasing by the council affirming an outright concession of ecclesial rights – the jurisdictional rights of the Church of Constantinople Contextuality and Holy Canons within the Church 315

– to the proestos of the Church of Cyprus and of New Justinianopolis, who shall exercise full rights over all the Hellespont without distinction or admin- istrative discrimination. On the basis of this conciliar definition, the bishops of the Hellespont as well as the indigenous population together with the émigré Cypriot bishops and people constituted a single autocephalous eccle- sial body that recognized the archbishop of the Church of Cyprus and New Justinianopolis as its single ecclesial – and administrative – head. Hence, we can understand the concession of the rights of the Church of Constantinople to the Church of Cyprus as an act that further sanctions the rights of the autocephaly of the archbishop of Cyprus. While incontestably conserving his jus proprium, the archbishop of Cyprus also acquired a potestas delegata and exercised ipso jure a jus delegatum over the people of another ecclesial jurisdiction. Otherwise, we would have been faced with two auto- cephalous jurisdictions over the same ecclesiastical province being exercised anticanonically,9 and thus venire contra factum proprium, or, in the case of the patriarchal jurisdiction prevailing, we would have had to assume that the archbishop no longer had his own territory. He would therefore have pos- sessed in extremis a titular archiepiscopal see, since he would have been in a terra nullius – which would have signified the total suppression in facto of the autocephalous Church of Cyprus itself. Moreover, this act manifests the canonical sensitivity of the Constantinopolitan patriarchal Synod, which accepted this contextual conciliar solution – a solution that required it to consent to the ceding of its canonical rights over the Hellespont. Finally, this conciliar decree relating to a hyperorius jurisdiction – but canonical, because conciliar – within particular and extraordinary contextual conditions proves that the autocephaly was granted in order to be exercised within the limits of an ecclesiastical administrative province. If need be, a conciliar decree of ecumenical status must be issued, especially when it concerns the hyperorius exercise of an autocephalous jurisdiction, but always without coexisting with another of the same name.10

9 See Vlassios Phidas, ‘The “Autocephaly” and the “Autonomy” within the Orthodox Church’, New Sion, 71 (1979), pp. 9-32, here 27. See also Hackett/Papaïoannou, History, pp. 60-69. 10 Being a clausula generalis, the same principle concerns in extenso the ethnic ecclesial jurisdictions of modern autocephalies, where priority must always be given to the ecclesial jurisdiction and not to the ethnic membership. 316 Grigorios D. Papathomas

To be sure, the synodical decision could not have been different, for oth- erwise it would have been anti-conciliar and thus anti-canonical. This allows us to put forward a hypothesis relevant to another aspect of our subject. The autocephalous Church of Cyprus was given hospitality by another territorial Church, the patriarchal Church of Constantinople, an act that historically constitutes another aspect of ecclesial communion. Therefore, from a canon- ical point of view, it is the behaviour of the latter Church that interests us here. The Church of Constantinople could have insisted, for reasons, say, of internal taxis and canonical order within the Church of Cyprus, that the latter should suspend its autocephaly – and should do that no doubt in a provisional fashion. In that case, the autocephalous Church of Cyprus would have become a metropolis – whether an autocephalous one or not is of little importance – ipso facto fully subject to the Patriarchate of Constantinople with all the ensuing canonical consequences (patriarchal decisions for the Cypriot people, participation of the Cypriot bishops in the patriarchal synod, the right of the latter to choose, ordain and judge Cypriot bishops, etc.), an act that would have generated the abolition of the Cypriot autocephaly. However, the Church of Cyprus remained both de facto and de jure auto- cephalous by conciliar decree. And the ecumenical patriarchate had to respect fully this synodal particularity of the autocephalous Church of Cyprus by accommodating it within its own territorial canonical jurisdiction, so that “the privileges accorded to his [i.e. John, bishop of Cyprus] throne by the God-inspired fathers who met formerly at Ephesus should remain unchanged”. Furthermore, the bishops of the Hellespont (regio metropoli- tana) were subordinated to the personal jurisdiction of the archbishop of the Church of Cyprus, who “shall take precedence over all the bishops of the province of the Hellespont, and shall be elected by his own bishops, accord- ing to ancient custom, for our God-inspired fathers have decided that the customs of each Church should be maintained”. Finally, the canonical prin- ciple of autocephaly attested here was crowned historically at the Seventh Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II (787), where the autocephalous Church of Cyprus – as was also the case at the Quinisext Council11 – occupies a rank, according to the canonical taxis of the autocephalous Churches, immediately after that of the five patriarchal thrones.

11 See Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, vol. 11, col. 989-990A, and vol. 13, col. 1A-490D. Contextuality and Holy Canons within the Church 317

One question still remains unanswered: Can this Cypriot case constitute an example for another contextual ecclesial event, the ecclesiastical diaspora? Does the synodal position described thus far give ecclesial communities dis- persed in different continents the right to possess a similar full autonomy that excludes any jurisdictional intervention on the part of those who exer- cise local ecclesial jurisdiction? The study and analysis of this event, closely related to the canonical applied by the Church in the past, might provide a solution from every point of view, or at least a response to the contemporary canonical question of the Orthodox diaspora throughout the world. It is a communis opinio within the domain of Orthodox canon law that the diaspora by definition always has a national place of origin. Consequently, this place always remains the centre and its diaspora constitutes a sort of ‘periphery’ that looks towards this centre. But this case defines an ethnic diaspora – in a specifically political sense – that is very often confused with ecclesiastical diaspora, which – speaking ecclesially – does not necessarily follow the rules of the former even if it may do so in an anti-canonical man- ner today. The ecclesiastical diaspora must integrate itself, from the ecclesial point of view, into the jurisdiction of the territorial Church (patriarchal or autocephalous) without losing its ethnic identity or that of its origin. From this point of view, another contextual question arises, one that sheds light on the problem: Where should the autocephalous Church of Cyprus be located, on the island of Cyprus or in the Hellespont? The reply is obvi- ous. It is where the protos – the archbishop – and the Church’s holy synod are found, a fact that is manifestly reflected in canon 39. Some inhabitants and bishops remained of course on the island. But, in Cyprus, there would have been an ‘acephalous’ Church. The single autocephalous Church of Cyprus was located, territorially, in the Hellespont. It had as its members the inhabitants of the whole region of the Hellespont, in accordance with the canonical stipulations discussed previously, but also included all who had remained on the island. The latter were a diaspora living in its place of mem- bership, given that the Church of Cyprus was outside Cyprus! Surely, the provisional sojourn of the autocephalous Church of Cyprus in the Helles- pont cannot be classified as a case of diaspora, because it concerns the pro- visional, contextual, temporary relocation of an entire Church (translatio ecclesiae) – the right of the integrity of the autocephalous Church being 318 Grigorios D. Papathomas reserved by the jus translationis – and not merely of one part of these com- munities or some parts of them, a fact which certainly defines the content of a diaspora. Actually, the relocation of the archbishop – of the primate himself – with all the bishops of this Church’s synod no longer constitutes a case of diaspora. In other words,

the guarantee of the rights of the archbishop of Cyprus’s Autocephaly would be impossible from the canonical point of view if, for example, these rights had eventually to be exercised over groups of Cypriots scattered throughout the Empire, because in that event, in defiance of the canons, two Autocephalous jurisdictions would have been exercised over the same territory.12

Moreover, a diaspora – beginning with the communities that it creates – very often, whether voluntarily or not, becomes an enkataspora, an implantation, even though the temporary sojourn of the Church of Cyprus in the Hel- lespont was manifestly provisional and did not leave behind any Cypriot ecclesiastical communities. However, this historical event was by definition contextual, and its histori- cal time was endured for only about ten years. Certainly, we may say that this canon 39 is dead and that we do not need it. Indeed, we do not need its contextual historical dimension. But can we say the same for its theologi- cal and ecclesio-canonical dimension, which has been alive from that time until today? Canon 39 opposes communion and ‘co-territoriality’ and invites us to avoid this ecclesio-canonical deviation. ‘Co-territoriality’ means over- lapping Churches and, because of that, the suppression of ecclesial territorial otherness, which is an a priori constitutive of ecclesial communion. Thanks to this approach, we are entitled to distinguish an ecclesio-canonical context beside a historical context.13

12 Vlassios Phidas, ‘L’Église locale – autocéphale ou autonome – en communion avec les autres Églises: Autocéphalie et communion’, in Église locale et Église universelle, éd. Métro- polite Damsakinos de Tranoupolis, Études Théologiques, 1 (Chambésy-Genève, 1981), pp. 141-150, here 147. 13 See the canons 8/I, 12/VI, 39/Quinisext [the example above], 56/Carthage and 57/ Quinisext. Contextuality and Holy Canons within the Church 319

Conclusions

Let me use another example from the contemporary patristic tradition. Eve- rybody knows the hypothetic assumption of Silouane the Athonite: if all the copies of the around the world were lost, the Chris- tians of our epoch would be able to write a ‘new’ New Testament, of course not with the same words and historical elements, but with the same Christ and the same revealed truth. In this case, the ‘new’ New Testament will certainly be totally different from the ‘old’ New Testament. Yet the ontologi- cal truth of both would be identical. In other words, we can have two dif- ferent contextual New Testaments with the same truth even if this truth is always linked to given historical circumstances. To contextualize the truth is not a problem. Rather, the theological problem is whether or not this truth is properly received. For Christ is always the same in both his steps (démarches): from history to the eschata as well as, after his resurrection, from the eschata to history: “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb 13:8). By the same token, the canons were promulgated in the first millennium, but have continued to function, ontologically, until the present time. Their operation, however, is not based on their contextual historical framework, but on the foundational canonical kernel of truth that has been kept unchanged, and which demands to be adapted in new cultural and socio-political circum- stances. Thus, the qualities and canonical prerogatives bestowed by the coun- cils remain unalterable. It seems, however, that today the body of the Church is unable to theologize about this and to understand the new situation con- fronting us in history. This is the reason why we are now adopting secular socio-political methods to solve our problems and displaying symptoms of improvisation and conformity to the present age: instead of transforming the world, the Church itself is being transformed – to the worse – by the world! In other terms, if dogma, , and canons are merely contextual, we will permanently need an ecclesial aggiornamento and always have to ‘recon- struct the Church’. In this case, how can we conserve the unique eschatological line which unifies the fallen world in a soteriological perspective? If we associ- ate a canon with the seemingly dominant historical contextuality and do not notice the element of truth signified by it, we will end up rejecting truth itself as being of secondary importance in the name of the – alleged – outdated 320 Grigorios D. Papathomas historical context. In that case, we can aptly say: “The baby is thrown out with the bath water”. That is why the attempt of some canonists – and non-canon- ists – throughout the twentieth century to make a distinction between “dog- matic” and “administrative” or “contextual” canons was totally arbitrary and unjustified historically and theologically. When examining the causes and consequences of Church divisions, we must certainly take account not only of the theological, but also of the non- theological and cultural factors. For the questions of faith are linked to human sensitivities, philosophical backgrounds, and misunderstandings, which all constitute, by definition, contextual parameters. Yet the ‘confes- sionalization’ of the Church, which took place in the last five centuries (1517-2015), was not a mere contextualization. In final analysis, as Roman Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox we feel obliged to justify our divisions, which are not only theological, but primarily contextual. Therefore, within the Orthodox Church, for contextual reasons as well, we have problems in the space of the ‘diaspora’, problems with the autocephaly, problems with the liturgical languages and problems with the ecclesial communion among Christians. But in this way, for contextual reasons as well, we finally destroyed the Church! That is why a question arises here: is it possible, for contextual reasons also, to have the Church of Christ today? To conclude, it is important to emphasize once more that the distinction between truth and historical contextuality is a condition sine qua non for studying the question of context in the diachronic Church’s becoming. In this regard, three principles are to be taken full account of: 1) Contextuality does not precede truth, but rather follows it hypostati- cally and structurally (the principle of the priority accorded to the canons). 2) Truth is of primary importance for interpreting a canon, while contex- tuality is of secondary importance. Any notion of substantive equality between them should be precluded (the principle of diachronicity within the canons. 3) Contextuality is relative, and its ontological power is limited by the fact that the canons ‘consider’ by definition eschatological realities (the principle of iconism of the canons). These concluding remarks suggest that the canons of the Church have an ontological content. Their historical contextuality is certainly an unavoidable aspect of their consideration. However, it does not belittle their ontology. Contextuality and Holy Canons within the Church 321

Abstract

The present paper distinguishes two features: truth and contextuality, manifested through three aspects within the Church: the texts (liturgical, biblical, patristic, synodical and canonical), the event-icon (icons, and the ‘Church herself as icon’), and particular ecclesial realities. The icon of the resurrection could be the example-model of a dialectical relationship between historical contextuality and the eschatological truth. Ecclesial canons and the canonical tradition of the Church are affected directly by the question of contextuality. In order to show the canons’ power of diachronicity, the present paper offers an examination of the case of canon 39 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council (691).