Canonical Status of Western Rite Orthodoxy: Independence from Eastern Rites and Communion with Constantinople

  By Mor Abdiel Theophorus Tikhon, Military Vicariate, St. Tikhon Anglican Rite Orthodox Mission in the Americas

This article presents the canonical validity of Western Rite Orthodoxy within the broader Orthodox Christian tradition, arguing that canonical status does not require recognition by the Eastern rites or communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. It will clearly demonstrate that the unity of Orthodoxy is based on shared faith, sacraments, and apostolic succession, rather than liturgical conformity or centralized primacy. Everything will be based on Holy Scripture, canon law from ecumenical councils, and ecclesiastical traditions. The Holy Scriptures, such Eldad and Medad (Numbers 11) and the unidentified exorcist (Mark 9), show that divine blessing and ministry can happen outside of formal structures, which is similar to the accusations against Western Rite activities. The Russian Orthodox Church is a good example. In 2018, it cut ties with Constantinople but kept its canonical status. Other autocephalous churches show this sense of independence in the church even further.

Western Rite Orthodoxy is a liturgical form within the Orthodox Church that uses pre-Schism Western liturgies, such the Liturgy of St. Gregory or St. Tikhon, that have been adapted to become and follow correct and traditional Orthodox teachings. This allows Western Christians to convert and join Orthodoxy while keeping their own rituals, which promotes unity without forcing them to follow the Byzantine (Eastern) Rite. Many people think that canonical Orthodoxy means following Eastern rituals or always being in connection with the Bishop of Constantinople (the Ecumenical Patriarch). This is not true. Holy Scripture stresses spiritual unity in Christ (Ephesians 4:4-6), whereas canon law and traditions support autocephaly and mutual recognition among local churches. This work confirms this position through the use of Holy Scripture, canonical and traditional sources, together with presenting the Russian Orthodox Church as a primary example, and integrates biblical accounts of Eldad and Medad, as well as the unidentified exorcist, to counter grievances similar to those directed at Western Rite Orthodoxy by certain Eastern jurisdictions.

Holy Scripture provides the bedrock for understanding Church unity, portraying it as a mystical bond in the Body of Christ rather than rigid institutional alignment. In Ephesians 4:4-6, St. Paul declares, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all" (New King James Version). The unity spoken by St. Paul goes beyond cultural or ritual differences, focusing on the one faith and sacraments. The Western Rite Orthodox, clearly continues to faithfully maintain the teachings of this "one faith" and "one baptism," committed to remain fully united with the Orthodox Church even with the differences that exist from Eastern rites while keeping its own Traditions.

Similarly, 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 compares the Church to a body with a variety of members, each important under its own right, but yet different: "For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ" (New King James Version). This clearly supports the existence of liturgical diversity, as we see in Western Rite practices, without compromising the unity. The Jesus' prayer that in found in John 17:20-23 for believers to be "one" as He and the Father are one indicates the relational harmony over the external uniformity or dependence on a single see, like the Bishop of Constantinople.

Scripture also addresses scenarios where divine gifts operate beyond official gatherings, paralleling the independence of Western Rite Orthodoxy from Eastern norms or Constantinople's communion. In Numbers 11:24-30 (St. Athanasius Academy Septuagint), Moses gathers seventy elders around the tabernacle as instructed by the Lord. The Lord descends in the cloud, speaks to Moses, takes of the spirit upon him, and places it upon the seventy elders, who prophesy. However, two men, Eldad and Medad, remain in the camp and do not attend the tabernacle; yet the spirit rests upon them, and they prophesy in the camp. A young man reports this to Moses, and Joshua son of Nun urges Moses to forbid them. Moses replies, "Are you zealous on my account? And would that all the people of the Lord were prophets, whenever the Lord puts His Spirit upon them!" (paraphrased from Brenton's Septuagint translation, aligned with SAAS rendering in Orthodox Study Bible contexts).

Here, the elders at the tabernacle (the sixty-eight) went to Moses to complain about the two who were not present with them at the moment of the formal blessing, yet God sovereignly validates their prophecy. This illustrates that the divine authority is not confined to centralized or uniform settings.

Orthodox tradition interprets this as a prophecy of Pentecost, emphasizing the Spirit's freedom to bestow gifts broadly, without jealousy over structures. Similarly to this Holy Scripture in Mark 9:38-40 (New King James Version), John says to Jesus, "Teacher, we saw someone who does not follow us casting out demons in Your name, and we forbade him because he does not follow us." Jesus replies, "Do not forbid him, for no one who works a miracle in My name can soon afterward speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is on our side."

The apostles, clearly upset, objected to this outsider who never accompanied them, yet Christ affirms his ministry. In Orthodox exegesis, this passage definitely warns against exclusivity, teaching that works in Christ's name, even outside the immediate apostolic circle, are valid if aligned with truth. These stories relate directly to what is currently happening to Western Rite Orthodoxy: Just as the sixty-eight and the apostles complained about those not "with them," some Eastern Orthodox object to Western Rites as non-traditional or schismatic for not adhering to their Byzantine forms or maintaining full communion with Constantinople. Yet, if Western Rite communities uphold Orthodox faith, sacraments, and succession under canonical jurisdictions, their legitimacy persists, echoing Moses' and Christ's responses against restrictive jealousy.

The Orthodox canon law, which is derived from the ecumenical councils, clearly upholds ecclesiastical independence through autocephaly, where a local church governs itself while maintaining communion with the others. In the Apostolic Canon 34 it is stipulated that bishops must act in concert but recognizes the "first among equals" without granting universal jurisdiction, a principle applied to the Ecumenical Patriarch. This canon does not state or force the perpetual communion with the Bishop of Constantinople for canonicity; rather, it clearly states that the autocephalous churches elect their own primates and remain canonical through the mutual recognition of each other.

Canon 2 of the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381) and Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451) affirm jurisdictional boundaries but allow for autocephalous development without subordinating all churches to one patriarchate. The Western Rite vicariates, under jurisdictions like the Antiochian Orthodox Church or the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia (ROCOR), operate canonically as important parts of other autocephalous bodies, and do not require the adoption of the Eastern rite or Constantinople's approval. The granting of autocephaly, as in the case of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA) by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1970, is important to illustrate that the recognition stems from the mother church, not universal consensus or Constantinople's primacy.

The Orthodox tradition emphasizes conciliarity (sobornost) and not centralized authority, allowing local churches to grow independently while preserving doctrinal unity. The ancient pentarchy of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem modeled a clearly understood shared primacy, with Constantinople being known as the "first among equals" but without papal infallibility or veto power over the other jurisdictions. Historical precedents, such as the autocephaly of the Church of Cyprus (recognized by the Third Ecumenical Council in 431), definitely demonstrate independence from larger sees without loss of canonicity.

The tradition of Western Rite restoration, initiated in the 19th century by figures like Julius Joseph Overbeck and approved by synods like those of Antioch and Russia, reflects this flexibility. In 1879, the Patriarch Joachim III of Constantinople clearly acknowledged the right of Western Christians to have a Western Orthodox Church, though this did not bind other autocephalous bodies. We also have the traditions of autocephaly reflected in nations like Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria post-Ottoman independence, which further demonstrates that ecclesiastical freedom aligns with cultural contexts, not dependence on the Bishop of Constantinople.

The Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) demonstrates the existence of canonical Orthodoxy without being in communion with the Bishop of Constantinople. In 2018, following Constantinople's unilateral recognition of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine's autocephaly, the ROC's Holy Synod moved forward and severed the full communion, citing canonical violations. Even with this break, the ROC to this day still remains universally recognized as canonical by the other autocephalous churches, including Antioch, Jerusalem, and Serbia, upholding shared sacraments and faith.

Within the ROC and ROCOR, Western Rite communities prosper, authorized by the synodal decrees without the Bishop of Constantinople's involvement. This mirrors other churches, in existence like the OCA, that the autocephaly granted by Moscow is accepted by many despite the Bishop of Constantinople's non-recognition. These examples affirm that canonicity derives from apostolic succession and doctrinal fidelity, not unbroken ties to Constantinople.

The Churches like the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Orthodox Church of Poland, which were granted autocephaly amid historical shifts, maintain independence without Constantinople's direct oversight. Even during schisms, such as the Old-Calendarist groups, canonicity is debated on grounds of faith, not communion with Constantinople. For the Western Rite Orthodox, all this means that the full integration into canonical jurisdictions like Antioch or ROCOR is sufficient, bypassing Eastern rites or Constantinople's communion. As the complaints found in Holy Scripture that were made by the 68 against Eldad, Medad, and the exorcist by the Apostles highlight that such independence should not provoke division but recognition of the Spirit's work.

In Conclusion, the Western Rite Orthodoxy is canonically valid even without adopting Eastern rites or maintaining communion with the Bishop of Constantinople, as supported by Scripture's emphasis on spiritual unity, canon law's provisions for autocephaly, and traditions of conciliar independence. Biblical narratives of Eldad and Medad and the unknown exorcist rebuke complaints similar to those by the Eastern Rites against the Western Rites, affirming that God's blessing go well beyond the formal alignments. The ROC's enduring status post the 2018 schism underscores this reality. As St. Ignatius of Antioch urged, let unity prevail through shared Eucharist and faith, not external impositions.

References

Bible Hub. (n.d.). Numbers 11 Brenton's Septuagint Translation. https://biblehub.com/sep/numbers/11.htm

Bible Gateway. (n.d.). Mark 9:38-40 NKJV. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage?search=Mark+9%3A38-40&version=NKJV

Britannica. (n.d.). Autocephalous church. https://www.britannica.com/topic/autocephalous-church

Meyendorff, J. (2019). Fr John Meyendorff and the Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America. Orthodox Christian Laity. https://ocl.org/fr-john-meyendorff-and-the-autocephaly-of-the-orthodox-church-in-america

Orthodox Church in America. (n.d.). Encyclical on Christian Unity and Ecumenism. https://www.oca.org/holy-synod/encyclicals/on-christian-unity-and-ecumenism

Orthodox History. (2022). The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Loss of Its 'Privileges' in the Late 19th Century. https://www.orthodoxhistory.org/2022/11/11/the-ecumenical-patriarchate-and-the-loss-of-its-privileges-in-the-late-19th-century

OrthodoxWiki. (n.d.). Autocephaly. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Autocephaly

OrthodoxWiki. (n.d.). Western Rite. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Western_Rite

Orthodoxy in Dialogue. (2018). Can You Be Orthodox in Communion with Rome? https://orthodoxyindialogue.com/2018/01/30/can-you-be-orthodox-in-communion-with-rome-by-brian-a-butcher-liam-farrer-and-kevin-basil-fritts

ROCOR Studies. (2023). Autocephaly and Principles of its Application with Reference to the Church of Poland. https://www.rocorstudies.org/2023/05/30/autocephaly-and-principles-of-its-application-with-reference-to-the-church-of-poland

ROCOR Studies. (2025). Why Has the Western Rite Not Been Widely Adopted in the Orthodox West? https://www.rocorstudies.org/2025/02/08/why-has-the-western-rite-not-been-widely-adopted-in-the-orthodox-west

Russian Orthodox Church. (2018). Statement of the Holy Synod Regarding the Encroachment of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. https://orthochristian.com/116519.html

Wikipedia. (n.d.). 2018 Moscow–Constantinople schism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Moscow%E2%80%93Constantinople_schism

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Eastern Orthodox Church. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Church

Wikipedia. (n.d.). Western Rite Orthodoxy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Rite_Orthodoxy