The Holy Orthodox Church uses in practice two ways of applying the sacred canons - accuracy (Greek akrivia) and leniency (Greek oikonomia, economy of salvation, literally “wise management of the house”). The Greek terms “akrivia” and “oikonomia” were established in canon law.
Akrivia
Boumis, a professor of canon law at the University of Athens, gives the following definition of akrivia: “Akrivia is the sum of genuine ecclesiastical traditions. This is the official church tradition, approved by the Ecumenical Councils, which forms the basis of Orthodoxy and good deeds, correct and accurate faith and life. This acrivia is the criterion by which one can judge one’s faith, words, actions and one’s personal life or the lives of others, when one wants to be, as far as possible, more Orthodox, better Orthodox, more just, in accordance with what is right.” [1]. Akrivia is not just the soul of genuine ecclesiastical tradition, but this precision relates more to the implementation of tradition, to the exact and faithful observance of its norms, to the defense of the dogmas of faith, rules, order and life. What is the purpose of accuracy? We know that all events in the Church are aimed at achieving eternal life, the salvation of man, therefore the purpose of applying the accuracy of the canons is to achieve eternal life through unity and order within the Church, their formation and guidance to theology.
Law enforcement practice
Oikonomia can be applied when choosing a pastoral sanction (penance) in relation to someone who has fallen into grave sin. In church disciplinary law, the competent authority is faced with the task of examining not only the external circumstances of the fall, but also the intentions of the sinner, and with them the scope of punishment, similar to subjective imputation in criminal proceedings. For example, Basil the Great speaks about this in his letter to Amphilochius of Iconium (pr. 53): “It is not the appearance that is subject to judgment, but the intention.” In the same letter, Saint Basil recommends to his correspondent “to continue the punishment or alleviate it, depending on the particularity of the case” (pr. 54); and in many other places (pr. 2, 3, 74, 75, 84, 85) he repeats that the spiritual father is not bound by a specific time of excommunication when imposing punishment: it can be tightened or softened, and not only at the time of sentencing (imposition penance), but also in the process of inflicting punishment, depending on zeal, the extent of which is assessed by the spiritual judge himself - the bishop. In a whole series of rules (56–58, 60, 62, 65), Saint Basil designates the very act of judging the degree of guilt of the sinner with the verb “to economize” (οἰκονοµεῖσθαι).
Oikonomia
It may happen that the uncompromising application of a certain rule in the practice and life of the Church can create problems in achieving the goal of eternal life. The Church then examines whether a temporary exemption from the application of the canons would serve the good and purpose of an individual or group of people. If it turns out that an exception from the application of the canons serves the purpose of salvation, in this case the Church applies oikonomia. St. Nicodemus of Athos writes: “In the Church of Christ, two types of control and correction are preserved. One method is called precision (akrivia), and the other is called oikonomia (household construction)”[2]. Patriarch Dosithos of Jerusalem also writes: “We look at church issues in two ways: the first is based on accuracy, the second on oikonomia”[3].
We will try to point out the practice of the Church, which in special cases deviates from the accuracy (akrivia) of applying the rules. These are cases of baptism of a child who is in danger of death. In this case, if there is no clergyman, then a layman, man or woman, can baptize him. If there is no water, then we can baptize by sprinkling the child with a dry substance, and we can consider him baptized. This deviation from the rules was made to save the child. We find that precision is necessary for the salvation of man, but oikonomia is also used for salvation. Thus, accuracy and iconography do not contradict each other, since they both have the same goal - the salvation of man.
Let's give another example: in the 1950s. There was a massive return of former Uniates to the original Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church, like a loving mother, lovingly accepted them into her bosom. None of those who converted were baptized with Orthodox baptism, therefore, according to church practice and canons, they had to be received through anointing. Within the framework of the economy of salvation, the Church did not insist on acceptance through anointing. She accepted them through faith, just as Abraham believed God, and that faith made him righteous. “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness” (Rom. 4:3).
What would happen if the Holy Orthodox Church insisted on accepting Orthodoxy through anointing, applying the precision of the canons? There is no doubt that many former Uniates would have hesitated and would not have converted to the Orthodox Church as their original spiritual mother, which would have resulted in the loss of thousands, perhaps millions if Western Ukraine and Transcarpathia are taken into account. Practically, without observing precise rules, oikonomia opened the door to the return to the holy Orthodox Church of the descendants of those who were forcibly brought into union with Rome, which means that it opened the door to eternal life for them.
Or we can point to the obligation of Orthodox Christians to regularly participate in the Holy Liturgy on Sundays and holidays. In the set of rules there is a canon that excludes from the Church those Christians who, without a serious reason, did not participate in the Holy Liturgy three times in a row. “If anyone, a bishop, or a presbyter, or a deacon, or anyone of those numbered among the clergy, or a layman, having no urgent need or obstacle that would remove him from his church for a long time, but staying in the city, on three Sundays days over the course of three weeks, does not come to the church meeting: then the cleric will be expelled from the clergy, and the layman will be excommunicated.”[4]. Of course, the rule does not imply good reasons, “having an urgent need, or difficulty, forcing him to be absent from his Church” [5], for example, an illness that does not allow a person to walk or stand on his feet. Excommunication from the Church is the most severe canonical punishment; in fact, it is a curse (anathema). Only inveterate heretics or serious criminals who did not repent were expelled from the Church. Even so, if acrivia were used, more than half of our Orthodox would be expelled from the Church. The Church, like a good mother, does not separate her spiritual children from love and mercy, although she expects with regret that they will one day understand that they threaten their salvation.
From the above examples of church oikonomia, we are convinced that the Church uses exceptions to rules not because it does not value rules, because it does not care whether its members keep them or ignore them, or because it plans to completely abolish these rules. The Church will never do this, because the Church itself issued these rules, and the rules are holy because they were issued by the Holy Church.
There are two more questions related to our topic. Firstly: to whom is church oikonomia granted; secondly, the principle of the granting of oikonomia.
It should be noted that the granting of ecclesiastical economy is not a matter of will or illegality, because the party requesting an exception to the rules cannot do anything arbitrarily, he cannot grant this exception himself, he must apply to those authorities who are competent to do so , provide an exception.
Oikonomia and akrivia
As Archbishop Peter (L'Huillier) noted, oikonomia as a measure of expediency was not opposed to acrivia during the patristic period, being on a different plane of judgment. By akrivia, in accordance with the Holy Scriptures (Acts 22:3: “ἀκρίβεια νόµου”; cf. also 26:5), was understood to be following the exact meaning of a legal or moral norm, while by oikonomia was meant the possibility of replenishing the positive legal order in those circumstances that were not provided for by the legislator and which could entail, without the application of oikonomia, unfavorable consequences for individuals or the entire Church as a whole. For this reason, Saint Basil the Great, in canons 3 and 89, contrasts acrivium not with oikonomia, but with custom, since the content of custom as a legal norm cannot be as precise and definite as the content of the law.
In addition, subsequent oikonomia is based on akrivia, just as sentencing is based on a preliminary comprehensive investigation of the case. Saint Gregory of Nyssa defined in rule 3: those who resort to sorcerers for help “are asked in detail” (δι’ ἀκριβείας), and on the basis of an accurately conducted investigation they “should be arranged” (“οἰκονοµηθήσονται”). For Saint Basil, who called in canon 1 to follow the “general order” (τῇ καθόλου οἰκονοµίᾳ) and here - “to obey the rules with precision” (δουλεύειν ἀκριβείᾳ κανόνω ν), oikonomia does not abolish akrivia, but rather indicates the correct choice by the law enforcer of a legal law that is fair for a given case norms, contrary to any personal discretion and arbitrariness. The Fathers of the Council of Ephesus begin their letter to the Pamphylian bishops as follows: “It is appropriate for those who have received the lot of sacred service to exercise careful consideration of everything that must be done,” and then use, as Balsamon rightly notes, oikonomia.
Thus, akrivia did not mean the objective strictness of the norm, but the precise establishment of the meaning of the relevant legal norms and the thoroughness of the inquiry, on the basis of which oikonomia itself becomes possible. It would be more correct to talk about complementarity than opposition between akrivia and oikonomia. The absence of the antithesis akrivius - oikonomia is also characteristic of later times. This allowed Nikita Stifat to assert that “we iconize according to the accuracy of the canons.” Akrivia could be opposed not to oikonomia in general, but more specifically to “philanthropy” and “lenience” as such results of interpretation that cause an improvement in the legal status of a person.
Later, these two concepts begin to be used antithetically and even antonymously. Patriarch Dosifei of Jerusalem wrote in one of his letters that “church affairs are considered in two ways: according to akrivia and according to oikonomia; and when they are impossible according to akrivia, then they are accomplished according to oikonomia.” In the concept of oikonomia by St. Nicodemus the Holy Mountain, which he, narrowing it in a meaningful way, identified with “condescension,” oikonomia begins to be clearly opposed to akrivia as “severity.” In particular, he noted: “Two types of government and dispensation are preserved in the Church of Christ. One type is called acrivia, the other is called economy and condescension, with the help of which the stewards of the Spirit arrange the salvation of souls (οἱ τοῦ Πνεύµατος οἰκονόµοι), sometimes in one way, sometimes in another.”
Which competent authority grants the exception?
It should be emphasized here that the rules do not speak about any specific cases of oikonomia, about who can and under what circumstances can give it, but all this has its outlines in the words of Jesus Christ, Who gave his disciples and apostles the power to “knit” and decide” (Matthew 16:19; 18:18). As the Apostle Paul testifies: “Let everyone therefore understand us as ministers of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God” (1 Cor. 4:1). True, this power of “knitting and solving” has nothing to do with the power of those who bear the sword, but it is spiritual power, the power of love and mercy. This power, as is known, passed to the followers of the apostles - the bishops, and from the bishops - to the priests. However, oikonomia itself is given hierarchically - for laity and priests it is given by bishops, for bishops - by the Holy Synod, and the highest authority that regulates and provides oikonomia is the Council of Bishops. This means that oikonomia is given by the highest spiritual organ; laymen cannot grant oikonomia, even if they occupy a high functional position in the state.
How it is now
The life of a modern person, even a sincere believer, is completely different from the life of a member of an ancient community. We do not engage in subsistence farming, and even if we do, it is not the only and often not even the main source of replenishing the family budget. Many believers live in cities, engaged in intellectual work, the results of which cannot be touched with their hands. It is here that in the history of world political economy such a concept as “universal equivalent” appears, i.e. money.
Donations that are collected in the temple are spent on the maintenance of both people and the temple
Our churches have also changed significantly. They are no longer cold, gloomy caves, without light, warmth and beautiful decoration. On the contrary, when entering many modern churches, you are breathtaking from the splendor of the forms and decoration of the church. Everyone likes it when the church is clean, warm, light and spacious. When a professional choir sings beautifully on the choir, and not the cacophony of voices of three old women who cannot sing. When it is possible to attend Sunday schools and parish clubs for children. When on major holidays you can take part in a tasty and satisfying parish lunch. But not everyone likes the fact that in the modern world it costs money.
