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.

The edicts of councils on non-doctrinal issues have historically been called canons and listed as appendices to the doctrinal decisions of the councils. The commentar­ies of a few revered ancient bishops on certain issues have also been accorded the status of canon law (Canonical Epistles). Observance of the canons is mandatory for all Orthodox Christians. The canons do not act by themselves, but they serve the bishops as authoritative guidelines in adjudicating specific cases. The canons are based on precedent and do not envisage hypothetical circumstances. The spectrum of the canons coincides largely with the above-mentioned range of subjects. One may liken the application of the canons to the prescription of medical remedies of differing potency. In some instances a practitioner may decide to follow liter­ally (i.e., according to akriveia, a Greek term meaning “exactness”) the recommen­dations of a canon regarding penance. In other cases, strict interpretation of canon law might pastorally be adjudged counter­productive. Canons must serve oikonomia (a Greek term meaning “judicious economy”), the wise implementation of strategies designed to assure salvation (cf. Eph. 3.2–3; 1Cor. 4.1). The majority of the canons were issued during the time of the Byzantine Empire, and therefore the canons do not provide a guide for the per­plexed in extraordinary circumstances. In all extraordinary cases, the faithful should follow the spirit of the canonical tradition. According to the first canon of the Council of Chalcedon (451), it is imper­ative that the entire Orthodox Church obey all previously formulated canons. Fidelity to the canons was once more confirmed by the first canon of the Second Council of Nicea (787). At the time of his consecra­tion, a bishop solemnly declares his alle­giance to the holy canons (Council of Nicea II, Canon 2). A council that sets out to modify certain canons put forth by another council must be of the same status as the earlier council. A local council, for example, cannot modify the decrees of an ecumenical council.

The canons are not self-explanatory. One cannot interpret canons divorced from their doctrinal context, praxis, and the tradition of piety. In order to examine canons adequately a canonist should apply a historical and dogmatic method. Five key aspects are important in this regard:

1 Establish the purpose of the issuer of the canon.

2 Make sure that all terminology is under­stood adequately.

3 Identify the evolution of the topic of the canon.

4 Establish the quintessence of the canon.

5 Recommend specific application of the canon according to contemporary circumstances.

The acts of the Council of Nicea (325) from Antiquity had universal importance due to their significance and imperial support. They signified the beginning of the epoch of written ecclesiastical law, which has not, however, replaced customary law

(.synetheia): certain traditions, such as the election only of monastic bishops, are widely revered although no council has ever formalized them.

CANONICAL COLLECTIONS

Among the diversity of disciplinary collec­tions of the first centuries of Christianity, the Apostolic Constitutions (AC) enjoyed special veneration. This manual probably appeared in Antioch about 380. Book Eight of AC contains 85 Canons of the Apostles, which have become a key part of the Orthodox canonical tradition. The Collection of Pontus (CP, ca. 343) is the first known collection of church canons. It was included in the Corpus Antiochenum (ca. 380). The Greek originals of both collections have been lost. Nevertheless, since their expanded version was used by the Council of Chalcedon (451), we know that they listed, in chronological order, the canons of the 4th-century councils. These canons are still part of Orthodox canon law, and they were added to the compilation known as the Synagoge in 50 Titles, which is the oldest extant collection of canons possibly composed by Patriarch John III Scholastikos while he was still a presbyter in Antioch (ca. 550). In this collection the canons were organized both chronologi­cally and by subjects.The Epitome Synopsis, begun by Stephen of Ephesus in the 6th or 7th centuries and completed by Symeon Magistros in the 10th, lists the canons in abbreviated form. The earliest recensions of this collection may be among the oldest extant Greek canonical sources. The Byzan­tine collection known as the Nomokanon in 50 Titles signifies a new type of thematic collection – the genre of nomokanon which contained both civil laws (nomoi) and also church laws (kanones). The Nomokanon in 50 Titles utilized an older civil-law appendix, the Collectio 87 Capitulorum, as taken from the Synagoge in 50 Titles. These additional 87 chapters were originally taken from Novel 123 of Emperor Justinian, who completed his codification of church and civil laws in 534. Nomokanons became a characteristic feature of the state church in the Byzantine Empire since they facili­tated the work of bureaucrats. This term was also used to designate collections of penitential remedies (Epitimia).

The Council of Constantinople (Synod in Trullo, 691) represented the entire Orthodox Church of the Eastern Roman Empire in the late 7th century. In its second conciliar canon the council listed the following canons as mandatory for the whole Orthodox Church: the Canons of the Apostles; the Canons of the Ecumenical Councils (Nicea (325), Con­stantinople (381), Ephesus (431), Chalcedon (451)); the Canons of significant local councils (Ancyra (314), Neo-Caesarea (ca. 314), Gangra (ca. 340), Antioch (ca. 330), Laodicea (between 342 and 381), Sardica (343), Carthage (419), Constantinople (394)); MajorCanons of the HolyFathers(St. Cyprian of Carthage (d. 258), St. Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 265), St. Gregory of Neo- Caesarea (d. 270), St. Peter of Alexandria (d. 311), St. Athanasius of Alexandria (d. 373), St. Basil of Caesarea (d. 379), St. Gregory of Nazianzen (d. ca. 390), St. Gregory of Nyssa (d. ca. 394), St. Amphilochios of Ikonion (d. after 394), Timothy of Alexandria (d. 385), Theophilos of Alexandria (d. 412), St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), and Gennadios of Constantinople (d. 471)).

The collection known as the Corpus of Synagoge in 50 Titles was rearranged in Constantinople around 580 and thereafter received the title Syntagma in 14 Titles, since it was structurally composed in 14 chapters. Another important civil collection known today as the Collectio Tripartita was probably appended to it. In the early 7th century canons from the Syntagma in 14 Titles and civil material (mostly the Tripartita materials) were incorporated into the collection known as the Nomokanon in 14 Titles. The content of this edition in turn became the basis of that of Canon 2 of the Synod in Trullo. In 883 under St. Patriarch Photios the canons encompassed by this collection were expanded with material drawn from the Council of Trullo, together with the edicts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787), and also of the 861 and 879 Synods of Constantinople, and along with the Epistle of St. Tarasios (d. 806). This 883 corpus later came to be, by general consensus, accepted as the core canonical corpus of the Orthodox Church.

LATER DEVELOPMENT OF CANONICAL TRADITION:

BYZANTIUM, THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, AND GREECE

During the course of Byzantine history, numerous imperial laws supporting canon­ical regulations were issued. The descrip­tion of the ideal harmonious coexistence of church and state (symphonia) set out in Emperor Justinian’s Sixth Novella (534) had an important influence on Orthodox canon law. In the 11th century, Emperor Constan­tine IX Monomachos founded a law school in Constantinople. One duty of its senior professor, the Nomophylax (literally, “law guardian”), was to act as authoritative inter­preter of law. Alexis Aristenos, who was Nomophylax and deacon of Hagia Sophia cathedral, is venerated as the first of three “Classical Commentators” of the Orthodox tradition of canon law (the others are Zonaras and Balsamon). The commentaries and opinions (scholia) of these three leading lawyers became part of the Orthodox canonical tradition. In 1130, at the request of Emperor John II Komnenos, Aristenos, basing himself on the Synopsis, wrote the first concise scholia, notes on the canons of the local and ecumenical councils. The commentaries on the canons by monk John Zonaras (d. after 1159) are notable for the academic integrity and audacity he brought to the task. Zonaras attempted to explain not just the literal meaning of the canons, but also their very essence. The last of the classical commentators was Theodore Balsamon, Patriarch of Antioch. In the 12th century, Balsamon was commis­sioned by Emperor Manuel Komnenos and Patriarch Michael Angelos to compile a comprehensive exegesis of the entire corpus of Nomokanon in 14 Titles. In his ap­proach Balsamon largely follows Zonaras; however, Balsamon was more interested than Zonaras in harmonizing conflicts of interest between church and state.

The last notable authority in canon law belonging to the Byzantine period was the Priestmonk Matthew Blastares, who based his famous Alphabetical Syntagma (1335) on the Nomokanon in 14 Titles. The canons and civil laws are here organized by topics and arranged in alphabetical order. Blastares contributed very few comments of his own and did not distinguish those he added from the scholia of the classical com­mentators. He has an interesting personal expertise on the status of the ecumenical patriarchate within the Orthodox world.

The Nomokanon of the lawyer Manuel Malaxos became the preeminent canonical collection of the Ottoman period. For the 19th century and beyond, the publication of the Pedalion (Rudder of the Church) in 1800 was an important step in the development of canon law. St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite was the main author of this treatise and compilation. St. Nikodemos wrote his commentary around the Nomokanon in 14 Titles, omitting the imperial ecclesiastic leg­islation. St. Nikodemos published canons with parallel exposition in contemporary Greek. The commentaries of St. Nikodemos consist primarily of theological and philo­logical analysis, with instructions for clergy and monastics. This collection is still very reputable, and its English translation was published in 1957 under the title The Rudder.

For all Greek speaking churches the six- volume Syntagma of the Divine and Sacred Canons (1852–9) became the standard anthology of canons. This comprehensive collection was composed by two prominent Greek scholars: Michael Potlis, professor of law at Athens University, and George Rallis, chief justice of the Supreme Court of Greece. The so-called Athenian Syntagma contains the Nomokanon of Photios, Blastares’ Syntagma, and exegeses of the classical commentators and Byzantine authoritative canonists, the most important decrees of the Endemousae (Patriarchal) Synods of Constantinople (911–1835), as well as the ecclesiastical laws of the emperors. According to the Greek con­stitution, the Orthodox Church is the established religion of the state. It is there­fore not surprising that Greece has had more canonists than all other Orthodox churches combined. There are chairs of canon law at the theological departments of the universities of Athens (est. 1855) and Thessaloniki (est. 1951). There is a distinction between the canon law that is taught at the theological faculties and eccle­siastical law as taught in departments of jurisprudence. The accomplishments of the following canonists should be singled out from the many works on canon law published in Greece: Melitios Sakellaropulos, who authored the first aca­demic textbooks on canon law (1898); Constantine Rallis (d. 1942), who authored textbooks on canon and church criminal law, and also wrote about the right of asy­lum in the Orthodox Church; Manuel Gedeon (d. 1939), a specialist in Byzantine church law; Panagiotis Panagiotakos

(d. 1966), who founded Archives of Canon Law and Church Law in 1947; Hamilcar Alivizatos (d. 1969), the author of an important work on Oikonomia, which was also translated into German; Jerome Kotsonis, archbishop of Athens (d. 1988), author of (among other works) a treatise on the Orthodox laity; Metropolitan Maxim Christopoulos, an expert on the status of the ecumenical patriarchate; Anastasios Christophilopoulos (d.1998), whose textbook on canon law was also published in French; Metropolitan Panteleimon Karanikolas (d. 2006), the author of several concordances on the canons; Constantine Mouratides, an expert on canon law deal­ing with monasticism; Protopresbyter Evangelos Mantzouneas, who codified canons arranged by subjects; Bartholomew Archondonis, patriarch of Constantinople, a specialist in the codification of canons; Spyros Troianos, an expert on the sources of Byzantine church law and on church- state relations; Metropolitan Panteleimon Rhodopoulos, whose textbook has also been recently published in English; Vlasios Phydas, an expert on Pentarchy; John Konidaris, whose textbook on church law (updated in 2008), reflects the problems of the church-state interaction within the con­text of the European Union; Archimandrite Gregory Papathomas, who wrote on issues of “post-ecclesiological” canonical identity and who edited the series Nomokanonike Bibliotheke; Theodore Giangou, a specia­list in liturgical-canonical matters; and finally Constantine Pitsakis, a specialist in Byzantine legal history and gender issues.

RUSSIA

In the Slavic lands the Nomokanon was known as the Kormchaia. In the 9th century St. Methodios of Macedonia translated the Synagoge in 50 Titles by Emperor Leo III and the Ecloga of

Constantine V from Greek into Slavonic. The best sample of this group is Efremovskaia Kormchaia (12th century) Also in the 12th century the Synopsis of Stephan of Ephesus, with commentaries by Aristinos, and the laws of the Byzantine emperors, were translated on Mount Athos, apparently by St. Sava of Serbia. In 1272 the Council of Vladimir approved this Kormchaia for use in the Russian Church. It was copied many times, and the first printed edition appeared in 1649. In 1839 a committee under the supervision of St. Filaret Drozdov published Kniga Pravil, which is the main canonical collec­tion of the Russian Church. Unlike the Kormachaia, the Kniga Pravil contains only canons from the Nomokanon in 14 Titles, though no imperial edicts are included. The Kniga Pravil reflects the influence of the Pedalion. In 1876–80 the Society of Lovers of Religious Instruction in Moscow published the canons with parallel texts in Greek and Slavonic, along with both the classical commentaries and those taken from Kormchaia. Since 1810 church law has been taught at theological schools, and from 1835 until 1917 it was taught at the universities too. In 1851 Bishop John Sokolov published the first Russian textbook of church law.

The major developments in Russian canon law are connected with the works of the following university academics: Alexis Pavlov (d. 1898), an expert on sources of canon law, who authored the best pre­revolutionary textbook; Elijah Berdinkov (d. 1915), Pavlov’s adversary, whose text­book focuses on the theological meaning of the canons; Nicholas Suvorov (d. 1909), whose textbook stresses the importance of imperial authority for the church. The dynamic advance of scholarship in canon law was interrupted by the Bolshevik revo­lution. Vladimir Beneshevich, a victim in 1938 of Stalin’s purges, is known to

Byzantinists and canonists throughout the world, due especially to his work on the Synagoge in 50 Titles and Syntagma in 14 Titles. Serge Troitskii died in exile in Yugoslavia in 1972. The last of the pleiad of canonists trained before the revolution, he wrote on a variety of topics, ranging from the acceptability of remarriage for clergy to the canonical organization of church life in diaspora.

The only new department of canon law in post-Soviet Russia was that established at St. Tikhon’s Orthodox Humanitarian University in Moscow, which is headed by Cyrill Maksimovich, a specialist on the sources of the Slavic canon law, together with his deputy, Fr. Dimitrii Pashkov. Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin is currently the leading Russian church authority on canon law. His textbook, republished most recently in 2002, is the standard manual for the field. Fr. Vladislav took into account the latest church regulations along with the achievements of pre-revolutionary text­books. Canonists Iaroslav Shchapov and Elena Beliakova also work on the sources of Slavic canon law and Albert Bondach works on various topics, from Byzantine canonical sources to canons dealing with suicide. The Russian Orthodox Encyclopedia, which has been issued in regular fascicules since 1997, is growing into a comprehensive reference resource that also covers various particular issues of Orthodox canon law.

SERBIA, ROMANIA, BULGARIA,

AND GEORGIA

After its completion in the 12th century, St. Sava’s Kormchaia became the main canonical collection of the Serbian Church. Centuries later the first academic textbook on canon law was published by Bishop Nikanor Ruzicich (d. 1916). His contemporary, Bishop Nikodim Milas (d. 1915), became one of the most respected canon law authorities in Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, and Russia. He translated the canons from the Syntagma of Rallis and Potlis and placed his commentaries in the context of previous hermeneutic works. Canonists Branko Cisarz (d. 1982) and Fr. Dimsho Peric (d. 2007) published text­books on canon law after World War II. Fr. Dimsho wrote studies on the history of church-state relations in Serbia. In 2002 Bishop Athanasios Evtic published the new translation of canons in Serbian with his commentaries.

In Romania the Syntagma of Matthew Blastares was the official church collection from the 15th century until the publication of the Indreptarea Legii in 1652. In 1844 Metropolitan Veniamin Costachi (d. 1846) translated the Pedalion into Romanian. Metropolitan Andrei Saguna (d. 1873) authored the first textbook and commen­taries on the canons. More recently, Liviu Stan (d. 1973) has contributed significantly to Orthodox canon law. Among other sub­jects, he wrote on the role of laity in the church, on ecclesiastical autocephaly and autonomy, the Orthodox diaspora, cano­nization, and the future Pan-Orthodox Synod. Other modern canonical experts include Ioan Floca, a specialist in Romanian canon law; Constantine Rus, who wrote on early church standards for clergy candi­dates; and Nicholas Dura, a specialist in Ethiopian canon law.

In Bulgaria St. Sava’s Kormchaia has been the main canonical collection since 1221, although the Pedalion, Kniga Pravil, and the Syntagma of Rallis and Potlis have also been circulated. The work of translating the Corpus Canonum into Bulgarian, which began in 1878, remains unfinished. In 1912 and 1913 the most prominent Bulgarian canonist, Protopresbyter Stephan Tsankov (d. 1965), published annotated Bulgarian versions of the canons of all the ecumenical and half of the local councils. His works on the constitutional law of the Bulgarian Church and on church administration are of particular impor­tance. Today, the field of canon law is represented by Protopresbyter Radko Poptodorov, who has published important works on autocephaly and the organization of the early church, among other topics; and Dilian Nikochev, historian of church law, particularly of Byzantine and Bulgarian matrimonial law.

In the Georgian Church, St. Arseni of Ikalto translated the Nomokanon in 14 Titles into Georgian at the end of the 11th century. This collection received the name Didi Sjuliskanoni. Various texts were subse­quently added to this translation, some of them written before the 11th century and some later. This is the only canonical collection formally adopted by the Georgian Church.

CANONISTS IN THE WEST

The edition of the Orthodox Church canons issued by the Anglican scholar and clergyman William Beveridge, known as the Synodicon sive Pandecta (1672), had a strong impact on St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite. The pub­lication of Iuris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et monumenta by Cardinal Jean- Baptiste Francois Pitra (d. 1889) includes apocrypha in addition to the entire Ortho­dox canonical corpus; its critical apparatus is more thorough than that of any previous collection. The Discipline Generale Antique by Pericles-Pierre Joannou (d. 1972) is the latest critical edition of all the canons.

The number of scholars interested in the canon law of the Eastern Church increased notably in the 19th and 20th centuries. The German scholar Zacharia von Lingenthal (d. 1894) contributed to our knowledge of the sources. The Austrian scholar Joseph Ritter von Zhishman (d. 1894) wrote on marriage and patronage law. The Russian emigre Protopresbyter Nicholas Afanasiev (d. 1966) highlighted the importance of distinguishing inner truths of the canons from their mutable historical contexts. Sev­eral Jesuits have also contributed to the scholarship on canon law. Rev. Ivan Zuzek (d. 2004) wrote on the Kormchaia and Rev. Francis Dvornik (d. 1995) has explored the history of the see of Constantinople based on the earliest Latin canonical collections. The transformation of the European poli­tical map in the 20th century raised many questions about canonical order for refugees and immigrants in Orthodox and non-Orthodox countries. Alexander Bogolepov (d. 1980) and Bishop Gregory Grabbe (d. 1995) wrote respectively from the perspectives of the Russian metropolia in America and the Russian Church Abroad on the issues of the canonical organization of the Russian diaspora. The monograph of Archbishop Peter L’Huillier (d. 2007) of the Orthodox Church in America, The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils, contains exhaustive commentaries on the canons of these councils, and deserves to be mentioned alongside the work of such earlier illustrious commentators as St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite and Bishop Nikodim Milas. The study of canon law has also been enhanced by a number of living non-Orthodox scholars: Heinz Ohme, a specialist in the Quinisext Council (Synod of Trullo); Eva Synek, a specialist in early church law and gender issues; Andreas Schminck, a specialist in Byzantine canon law; Richard Potz, an expert on the legisla­tions of the ecumenical patriarchate and co­author with Eva Synek of an introductory manual on Orthodox canon law in German. The Society of Canon Law of the Eastern Churches, which serves as a forum for the interconfessional cooperation of expert canonists, is based in Vienna and publishes the periodical Kanon. Outside traditional Orthodox countries, the field of canon law is quite significantly represented in America by Lewis Patsavos, professor of canon law at the Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, Boston, whose Spiritual Dimen­sion of the Holy Canons is required reading for anyone who wishes to study the Ortho­dox canons; Fr. John Erickson, a student of Fr. John Meyendorff, and a specialist on sacramental Oikonomia, who was succeeded as professor of canon law at St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary by Fr. Alexander Rentel, who currently works there on the theology of canon law; Fr. Patrick Viscuso represents the Orthodox exegetical tradition of canon law and is a specialist in gender issues; Protodeacon Stanimir Spasovic is currently the professor ofcanon law at St. Sava Serbian Orthodox College of Theology.

SEE ALSO: Apostolic Succession; Canoniza­tion; Church (Orthodox Ecclesiology); Com­munion of Saints; Ecumenical Councils; Excommunication; Quinisext Council (Coun­cil in Trullo) (692); Repentance; St. Nikodemos the Hagiorite (1749–1809); St. Photios the Great (ca. 810-ca. 893); Tradition

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Afanasiev, N. (1969) “The Canons of the Church: Changeable or Unchangeable?” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 11: 54.

Burgmann, L. et al. (eds.) (1992) Bibliographie zur Rezeption des byzantinischen Rechts im alten Rufland sowie zur Geschichte des armenischen und georgischen Rechts, in Forschungen zur Byzantinischen Rechtsgeschichte, vol. 18. Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.

Erickson, J. H. (1987) “Nomocanon,” in The Dictionary of the Middle Ages, vol. 9. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.

Erickson, J. H. (1991) The Challenge of Our Past. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press.

Gallagher, C. (2002) Church Law and Church Order in Rome and Byzantium. Aldershot: Ashgate Variorum.

Hartmann, W. and Pennington, K. (eds.) (2010) History of Medieval Canon Law: Eastern Canon Law to 1500 ad. Washington, DC: Catholic University Press.

Kalogeras, D. (2000) “Canon Law,” in Encyclopedia of Greece and Hellenic Tradition. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn, pp. 287–90.

L’Huillier, P. (1983) “L’economie dans la tradition de l’Eglise Orthdoxe,” in Kanon: Yearbook of the Society of the Law of the Oriental Churches. 19.

L’Huillier, P. (1997) “The Making of Written Law in the Church,” Studia Canonica 31: 117.

Macrides, R. (1986) “Nomos and Kanon on Paper and in Court,” in Church and People in Byzantium. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press.

Meyendorff, J. (1983) “Ecclesiology: Canonical Sources,” in Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends and Doctrinal Trends. New York: Fordham University Press.

Pacurariu, M. (1996) Dicfionarul teologilor Romani. Bucharest: Univers Enciclopedic.

Percival, H. R. (ed.) (1956) The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church: A Select Library ofNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, 2nd Series, 14. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Pheidas, V. (1998) “Droit Canon – Une Perspective Orthodoxe,” in Analecta Chambesiana, vol. 1. Geneva: Graduate Institute of Orthodox Theology, Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Chambesy.

Pheidas, V. (1998) “Principles for the Interpretation of the Holy Canons,” Sourozh 74: 16.

Schminck, A. (1991) “Canon Law,” in A. P. Kazhdan (ed.) The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thomson, F. J. (1965) “Economy: An Examination of the Various Theories of Economy Held within the Orthodox Church, with Special Reference to the Economical Recognition of the Validity of Non-Orthodox Sacraments,” Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 16: 401.

Troianos, S. (1999) Hoi peges tu byzantinu dikaiou, 2nd edn. Athens.

Viscuso, P. (2006) Orthodox Canon Law: A Casebook for Study. Berkeley: Inter-Orthodox Press.