The Canonical Problem: One Church, One Eucharist, One Bishop

St. Ignatius of Antioch 

The one term that is used-and misused-among the Orthodox people more often than the Arabic word tux (right order or right practice). The term implies that a practice being conducted in the church today has lost its meaning or canonicity because a “newer” practice has taken its place. This type of language is common amongst the people. “This is the tux…this is not tux”, is the language used whenever one observes the movements and actions of the priests and bishops. This is an indication that a canonical problem exists within the church and a solution needs to be proposed by the synod of the church. Unfortunately the existence of such a problem is seldom admitted. The opinions of the laity have been forgotten and the clericalization of the church has taken over the mind of the individual. We have let the clergy and bishops make decisions divorcing the work of the church into two groups-laity and clergy. Everyone simply claims the fullness of canonicity of his own position and, in the name of it, condemns and denounces as uncanonical the ecclesiastical status of others. The concern for both parties is not for truth, but for victories in the form of church building projects, new creation of bishoprics, ordination of a priest “against the will” of the people. The opinions of the people matter in so much when voicing the opinion of the majority. We live in a society that breeds and teaches the majority wins-taking shape in our governments and in the system that governs our economy; capitalism. How can this poisoned atmosphere change the minds of the laity towards the clergy? How can we respect the hierarchy and its decisions? In Toronto we are living at a time when Orthodoxy is coming of age. A 50 year history has been established and growing quickly. Yet the constant cry for a bishop has taken over the minds of the individuals mostly amongst the youth. We teach our children to be “proud” of the Orthodox faith, we constantly congratulate each other on our achievements about different historic events, yet, if we were true to the spirit we ought to repent in sackcloth and we ought to cry day and night for the sad state of the church finds itself in today. The idea of having a bishop or not having a bishop in Toronto we cannot deny or nothing can justify the fact: our church is divided. To be sure, there have always been divisions and conflicts amongst Christians, but for the first time-in a long time-division belongs to the very structure of the entire church, both in Canada and Egypt. We must wake up and be horrified by the situation the people of the church finds itself in. We must own up to our mistakes and find the courage to re-think it in the light of the Orthodox doctrine and tradition, no matter what it will cost to repair the damage that has been created by the canonical problem. The problem of wanting a bishop in Toronto has grown in the past few years and it has come to the fore-front of the dialogues in recent months (July and August 2014) prior to the visit of the Pope of Alexandria (Pope Tawadros the 2^nd). Unless, we admit the existence of the canonical problem, and secondly, put all our thoughts and energies into finding a solution, the façade we have created with million dollar churches and magnificent facilities hinges on the brink of extinction if we cannot find a solution. St. Peter taught us that judgement must first begin with us in order to progress in the knowledge of God: “For the time is come that judgement must begin at the house of God: and if it first begins at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?” (1 Pet 4.17).

In order to demonstrate the need and importance of the bishop we shall look to the writings of Ignatius of Antioch-a second century bishop who was martyred in the city of Rome. On his way to Rome he wrote a series of letters to different churches in different cities. The letters of Ignatius are one of the most important early witnesses, outside the New Testament, to the development of both the church structure and theological reflection. The emphasizes of his letters focuses on the centrality of the bishop, surrounded by his presbyters (priests) and deacons, for the composition of the church; without these three orders the community cannot be called a church as he wrote to the Trallians (3.1). He urges the Smyrneans, for example, to follow the bishop as Christ follows the Father, and do nothing pertaining to the church without the consent and knowledge of the bishop; without him, they are neither to baptize nor hold an agape meal, and only that Eucharist which he, or the priests, celebrates is to be considered certain; in sum, “whenever the bishop appears, let the congregation be present, just as wherever Christ is, there is the catholic Church” (Smyrneans 8). That there is only one Christ means that there can only be one Eucharist, one altar, one bishop (Philadelphians 4). The importance of the bishop and the need of a bishop to this city were understood early on as representing the unity of the church through the priests, deacons and laity. The body of Christ made this union happen as long as “all the pieces” were present in the work of the church. However, this emphasis Ignatius places on the bishop should not be misunderstood as a mono-episcopacy. The obedience that the Smyrneans owe to their bishop, for instance is also due to the presbyters (priests) [Smyrneans 8.1]. This is only made possible first and fore-most with the presence of the bishop. Ignatius likewise, writing to the Magnesians and the Ephesians urges them to do nothing without the bishop and priests as they are to obey and subject to one another (Magnesians 7.1; 13.2; Ephesians 2.2; 20.2). This is again only possible with the presences of the bishop in the city. As such, the unity of Christians with their one bishop, in the one Eucharist celebrated on the one altar, is dependent upon a prior unity in the apostolic faith established by Christ. If the bishop ceases to be present then the church is divided and broken. Based on this understanding of the bishop according to Ignatius it is important for every city in the world to have a bishop present working with his priests and deacons to unite the church in the body of Christ.

This then takes us back to the city of Toronto. Pope Tawadros has announced that he plans on making the city of Toronto the archdiocese. Much confusion has been brought out in the form of many questions by the laity. Is this archdiocese the main hub to all of North America? Is this archdiocese connected with Cairo? If so will Toronto then, being an archdiocese, be getting a metropolitan? Will it be getting a general bishop? These questions and more have been going around about the news of Toronto becoming an archdiocese. The role of the archdiocese is set around as the main city for the metropolitan who has other cities under his jurisdiction. For example the metropolitan of Jerusalem has the UAE as part of his diocese but still remains the metropolitan of Jerusalem. Clarification is needed in order for the people to understand the status of Toronto. However, what is clear is that many believe the Pope to be the bishop of Toronto and this is incorrect. According to the canons of the church the Pope only has jurisdiction in Alexandria (and now Cairo). Canon 2 of Constantinople says, “The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone…” The canonical problem present in Toronto needs to admitted to and corrected by the synod of the church. The church, as Ignatius has pointed out previously, needs a pastor to take care of its people. As long as there is a Coptic presence in any city in the world a bishop must be present. If the bishop is not present how then are the priests given authority to celebrate the Eucharist? Is there a way out of this?

There is no denial that the unity of the church, as expressed in the canons, is expressed, through the unity of the Episcopate (bishopric). St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote in the third century, episcopatus unus est. This means that each local church is united to all other churches, revealing her ontological identity with them, in its bishop. Just as every bishop receives the fullness of his episcopate from the oneness of the episcopate (the entire synod of bishops) which is expressed in the plurality of those who have consecrated him, this fullness includes the unity of the entire church. This unity is given its lived reality in the body of Christ (the Eucharist). The unity of the church is formed in the parish which gives the authority to the bishop. It is the bishop who unites all in the body of Christ. If the bishop is not present then the church ceases to exist. Lastly, the requirements of our Orthodox canonical tradition, the solution of our canonical problem coincides, strange as it may seem, with the most practical solution, with common sense. By looking back to the history and tradition of the church we are to see life and truth as the source that governs our lives today. You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free-free to follow the glorious truth to fulfill in this great country the mission of Orthodoxy.