The Regime of Synodality in the Eastern Church of the First Millennium and Its Canonical Basis

The synodal form of organisation — sought and established for His Church by Her Founder, that is, by Our Lord Jesus Christ, and affirmed by His Apostles — was also expressly reaffirmed by the canonical legislation of the Eastern Church of the first millennium. By adapting the form of administrative-territorial organisation of the Church to that of the Roman State — sanctioned by the canons of the Ecumenical Synods (cf. can. 4, 6 Sin. I Ec.; 2, 6 Sin. II Ec.; 9, 17, 28 Sin. IV Ec.; 36 Sin. VI Ec.) — in the life of the Eastern Church several types of synods appeared, starting with the eparchial (metropolitan) synod of a local Church and ending with the patriarchal synod, both still present in the autocephalous Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy.


Introduction
First of all, let us mention the fact that the actuality and the importance of the topic of this article, that is, the regime of Synodality in the Eastern Church of the first millennium, were also proved and brought up to date by the Decisions of "the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church" assembled in Crete (Greece) in 2016.
Indeed, at the Crete Assembly on 16-26 May 2016, the Synod drafted and published a document on "The Relations of the Orthodox Church with the contemporary Christian world." Among other things, in the said text the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church -chaired by His Holiness Bartholomew, Ecumenical Patriarch -1. The synodality including the whole body of the Church (clergymen and laity) The Greek word συνοδικότης (synodality) -derived from the word συνοδος (synod) -is expressed in the Latin Church through 'conciliarity' 5 , derived in turn from the Latin word concilium. However, the two terms, synod and concilium, are synonymous, even though the notion of concilium has a "much more institutional connotation" 6 than the Greek term, that is, the synodos, which expressly refers to the "Assemblies of bishops." But, the regime of the synodality is not confined only to the "assembly of the bishops," since it includes the whole body of the Church, namely clerics and laity, as even the Ecumenical Councils attested by their synodal letters sent "to the bishops, presbyters, deacons and all the people in every province and city." 7 As one of the acclaimed theologians of the Orthodox Church remarked, in the ancient Church "believers were not passive objects of the holy work of the hierarchy, but active collaborators of it," 8 hence the finding that, by the participation of the laity at the Synods of the Church of the first centuries, expression was actually given to the participation of the laity in the communion life of the Church.
The same Romanian Orthodox theologian also remarked that in the "Old Church" there was a "complementarity" between the "episcopal synodality" and the "Church communion," that is, the pleroma of the Church, concretely expressed by "the fact that representatives of the clergymen, monks and the faithful also participated in synods and their opinion was asked for before adopting the synodal definitions." 9 Since "any approach to conciliarity is an essential tribute to a particular ecclesiology, whether explicit or not," we must therefore start "from a vision of the Church" 10 in which "Conciliarity" meaning "Synodality" is perceived both as the work of the Holy Spirit (cf. the Acts of the Apos-5 Ş. Lupu: Synodality and / or Conciliarity: an Expression of Church Unity and Catholicity (Sinodalitatea şi / sau conciliaritatea: expresie a unităţii şi catolicităţii Bisericii). "Dialog teologic", IV, 7 (2001), pp. 31-49. 6 M. Stavrou: Linéaments d'une théologie orthodoxe de la conciliarité. "Irenikon", 4 (2003), p. 472. 7 Letter sent by the two hundred "Holy and Blessed Fathers" who met at Ephesus (431). In: Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers…, p. 562. 8 D. Stăniloae: Theological Bases of the Hierarchy and its Synodality (Temeiurile teologice ale ierarhiei și ale sinodalității ei). "Studii Teologice", XXII, 3-4 (1970), p. 172. 9 Ibidem, p. 173. 10 M. Stavrou: Linéaments d'une théologie…,p. 473. tles, XV, 1-29), and as a participation of the whole Church, as was the synodality expressed and lived by the Eastern Church from the apostolic age through the regime of its synodality, 11 which was neither reduced to the realities of the "eucharistic ecclesiology" (according to N. Afanasiev), nor to those of the "Sobornicity" (according to A. Klomiakov), as they refer eminently to spiritual-religious aspects, and not to the ecclesiological-canonic content of regime of the synodality. From the early centuries of Christianity, the Church was aware that each episcopus (bishop) was in Ecclesia (in the Church), and that the respective ecclesia (local Church) was represented by the episcope (bishop) (cf. to St. Cyprian of Carthage † 256), hence the affirmation -by the Eastern canonical legislation from the 3rd and 4th centuries -"of the old canonical principle of the absolute ontological equality between all the bishops, each of them possessing in his local Church, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, the authority and power received from the Apostles." 12 2. About the forms of government of the Church of collegial-synodal type, and their ecclesiological interpretations Ecclesiologists and canonists of the Eastern Orthodox Church emphasised the fact that "the form of government, of collegial-synodal type, was sought and established, for His Church, by our Lord Jesus Christ," 13 and not by any Center or Ecclesial Primate See, and that only the forms of administrative-territorial organisation -which the Church adopted for itself during the first millennium, as a natural consequence of the impact of the geo-political factor of that time -contributed to the hierarchisation of the episcopal Sees following the political criterion, that is, the political importance of the citadel where their hierarchs resided.
The administrative-territorial organisation of eparchial type, and, ipso facto, the metropolitan Synod, appeared at the end of the 3rd century, as a natural consequence of the adaptation process of administrative-territorial 11 See N. V. Dură: Le Concile des Apôtres, prototype de tous les conciles, modèle de la synodalité orthodoxe. "La Lumière du Thabor", 49-50 (2003) Bucharest, 1999, pp. 120-128. church organisation to the administrative-territorial system of the Roman Empire, in spite of the fact that, in illo tempore, the relations between the Roman State, the pagan, and the Church, were still antagonistic. 14 About the process of accommodating or adapting the form of church organisation to the administrative territorial system of the Roman Empire, is expressly referred to -in the text of ecumenical canonical legislationonly from the period of the first ecumenical Synod (Nicaea, 325), in whose canons were expressly stated both the territorial principle and the principle of synodality (cf. can. 4, 6 Sin. I Ec.; 3 Sin. II Ec.; 1 and 8 Sin. III Ec.; 9, 17, 28 Sin. IV Ec.; 9 and 19 Antioch; 52 Carthage).
Some Orthodox ecclesiologists also found that "malgré les avancées récentes du dialogue oecuménique, […], l'Église romaine et les Églises d'Orient se trouvent, en ce début de troisième millénaire, encore séparées par plusieurs différends théologiques, les plus important étant sans nul doute un sérieux clivage ecclésiologique autour de l'interprétation de la primauté de l'évêque de Rome." 15 Unfortunately, this ecclesiological cleavage, concerning the interpretation of the primacy of the apostolic bishop of Rome -between the two Churches, namely the Roman Catholic and the Eastern (Orthodox) -has been perpetuated and deepened, despite the fact that obvious efforts to overcome these divergences.
Certainly, an evident testimony in this regard is represented by the papers presented at the Scientific Symposium organised by the Pontifical Council for the Promotion of "Christian Unity" assembled in Rome in 2004 16 The only Orthodox canonist invited to this scientific Symposium was the signatory of these lines, who presented the paper entitled "Petrine Primacy": The Role of the Bishop In our opinion, the perception and interpretation of pro-domo, which each of the two "Sister" Churches (cf. Pope John Paul II) continues to express, are not intended to lead to a "convergence" of opinions, able to smooth the way to the fulfillment of the pium desiderium (the pious desire) for the restoration of the ecclesial unity lost in 1054, but will continue to have the gift of generating and feeding more and more the alienation of the two Churches and, ipso facto, the deepening of the ecclesiological cleavage between the two.
Undoubtedly, divergent interpretations, of an ecclesiological and canonical nature, can be clarified and homogenised only by returning to ad fontes, that is, to the canonical legislation of the first millennium, in which we find not only the foundations or canonical bases of the synodality regime, but also some of the "canonical fundamental principles" on the organisation and administration of the Church, 17 such as the territorial principle and the principle of synodality, the latter being stated by our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, and implemented by His Apostles, hence the Church's obligation to express it and apply it to the "structure of its synodal regime." 18 Both "principles" were, in fact, expressly stated in the text of the canonical legislation of the

The synodal work of the Church taking the form of mixed Synods and autocephalous Churches
Theologians of the Orthodox Church also speak of the "theological foundations of the hierarchy and synodality" 19 and even of the "synodality of the hierarchy," which -according to their statement, "represents the communion of persons endowed with special service within the Church." 20 The same theologians speak with justification about "the complementarity of the episcopal synodality […] with the communion of the faithful people," stating that the synodality of the hierarchy or "episcopal communion […] is framed in the wide church communion" 21 area, hence the natural conclusion that "only the close connection between the communion or episcopal synodality and the widespread communion of the Church makes it possible for the Church to be reflected in the Synod, and the communion between the local Churches themselves to be reflected in the communion between the local Synods." 22 Certainly, just the lack of this "complementarity of the episcopal synodality," involving the participation of the other two constituent elements of the Church, namely the laity 23 and the monks, 24 to the synodal work of the Church in the form of mixed Synods 25 (clergymen, laity, and monks) might 19 D. Stăniloae entitle some ecclesiologists to say that in the Orthodox Church we have to deal with "un crise de conciliarité," 26 that is, 'a crisis of synodality'.
In some Orthodox ecclesiologists' opinion, this crisis of synodality is due only to the fact that the ecumenical Patriarchate recognised "two centuries ago" the establishment of "autocephalous Churches and the formation of national Churches." 27 Undoubtedly, such statements ignore and hide not only the ecclesiological reality, but also the historical one, 28 as these Churches -established from the beginning in an ethnically 29 and geographically welldefined context (cf. can. 34 apost.; 9 Antioch) -merely reaffirmed their old status of autocephaly, as it was the case of the Church of Bulgaria, of Cyprus, of Iberia (Georgia, n.n.), you need not be astonished." 31 The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381/382) had decided that "the Churches of God in heathen nations (ἐυ τοῖς Βαρβαρικῖς ἔδνεεσι) must be governed according to the custom which prevailed from the times of the Fathers" (can. 2 Sin II Ec.). 32 According to a such custom, which prevailed from the pre-Nicene epoch, as the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council attested (cf. can. 6), it has to be also governed "the Church of Abyssinia," 33 which remained under the canonical jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Alexandria until 1959. 34 All these autocephalous Churches established from the beginning among the "barbarians" or "heathen" nations, have certainly their own national Synod, and, ipso facto, their own synodal regime, affirming thus and their autocephalic status according to the ecumenical canonical legislation. In fact, even the local Churches found under the jurisdiction of the first patriarchal See of the former Byzantine Empire, that is, the Constantinople See, continued to reaffirm, whenever the geo-political conditions were in their favour, both their old autocephalous status 35 and their regime of synodality.
The local autocephalous Churches, established in an ethnically and geographically well-defined framework, had a synodical leadership since the Apostolic Age, as confirmed by the Epistles addressed by the Holy Apostles to the Christian communities that they had set up, namely the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, etc.
As for the "old" autocephaly of the national Churches, constituted in an ethnical and geographical context, and, ipso facto, about their synodal 31  system, the historical (ecclesiastical and secular) sources of the States, in which they exist to this day, give us conclusive testimonies. 36 To prove that this was, indeed, the reality during the ecumenical Synods also, it is enough to return ad fontes, that is, to the canonical legislation of the Eastern Church of the first millennium (cf. can. 34 apost.; 9 Antioch, 8 Sin. III Ec. etc.), as we did in our article, in order to present just the fact that the synodality regime within the Orthodox Churches of the first millennium was an peremptory evidence, and it has a solid canonical basis.

The existence of several types of synods in the Eastern Orthodox Church of the first millennium
The text of the canonical legislation of the Eastern Orthodox Church gives us not only the possibility to underline the fact that its synodal regime has a solid canonical basis, but also to remark the existence of several types or kinds of synods 37 which emerged as a natural consequence of the process of adapting or accommodating the form of administrativeterritorial organisation of the Church to that of the Roman state.
The first type of synod -mentioned explicitly in the text of the canonical legislation of the Eastern Church of the first millenniumis the "national Synod," which gathered the "τούς επισκόπους ἔκάστου ἔϑνους" (the bishops of every nation) (can. 34 apost.). However, later on, some canonists of Eastern Orthodox Church replaced the notion of ἐϑνος (nation) -stipulated in the text of the apostolic can 34 -with that of χώρα" (territory). 38 This notion χώρα ('territory') was expressly mentioned in the text of the can. 9 of the Council of Antioch (341), in which the Fathers of this Synod underlined the fact that "ἔκαστον ἐπίσκοπον ἐζουσίαν ἔχεω τῆς ἑαυτοῦ παροκίας" (any bishop has power over his bishopric), that is, over 36  "πάης τῆς Χώρα τῆς ὑπὸ τὴν ἐαυτοῦ πόλιν […]" 39 (the whole territory found under the jurisdiction of his city…) (can. 9 of the Synod of Antioch). But, the replacement of the word ἐϑνος (nation) with the word χώρα (territory) in some Greek canonical collections of our days 40 was not due to an error or to an ignorance, but with a precise goal, that is, to ignore or to hide an ecclesiological-canonical reality, namely, the state of the autocephaly of the ancient local Churches, which were established based on the ethnical or national criterion just from the apostolic epoch (cf. II Cor. 1, 1; Galat. 1, 1; I Tes. 1, 1; can. 34 apost.).
It is, however, gratifying to note that the Latin Canon Code -in force since 1983 41 -expressly refers to both the coetus episcoporum alicuis nationis (the assembly of all the bishops of a nation) (can. 447), and the praesules omnium Ecclesianum particularium eiusdem nationis (the primates of all the particular Churches of the same nation) (can. 448 § 1), therefore, in the words written in the text of the apostolic can. 34.
It should be also remarked the fact that the reference to the "Assembly of the bishops of the same nation's Churches" -of the two canons of "the Canon Code of the Latin Church" (according to can. 1) -is, in fact, a citation "almost verbatim from Christus Dominus 38, 1, …" 42 The second type of Synod -stipulated by the canonical legislation of the Eastern Church in the first millennium -is "the Synod of the neighbouring bishops" (cf. can. 4 Sin. I Ec.; 12, 14 Antioch; 3, 4, 5, 6 Sardica).
This type of synod is frequently found mainly in the geographical area of the Churches established among others by the "τὰ ἔϑνη βάρβαρα" 43 (barbaric people), where, due to an insufficient number of bishops, the respective Churches continued to be governed "according to the old custom passed on by the Fathers," 44 who often called for the presence of neighbouring bishops to reach a decision synodaliter and collegialiter.
The third type of Synod is the "provincial" (eparchial) one, mentioned for the first time in the canons of the first ecumenical Synod (cf. can. 4 and 5). According to the can. 4 of the First Ecumenical Council, the ratification of the election and of the ordination of a bishop -within a diocese (ἐπαρχίας) -belonged to the "τῷ μητροπολίτη," 45 that is, to the metropolitan of the province, who was head of the eparchial (provincial) Synod.
In their comments, the Byzantine canonists of the 12th century (Zonara, Balsamon, and Aristen) attested explicitly that both the election and the ordination of a bishop were ratified by "the metropolitan of province." 46 Some western canonists remarked, however, the fact that "the Greek Commentators, Balsamon and others, […], followed the example of the Seventh and [so-called] Eighth (Ecumenical Councils) in affirming that this fourth canon of Nicaea takes away from the people the right previously possessed of voting in the choice of bishops and makes the election depend entirely on the decision of the bishops of the province […]; with it also the people have been removed from episcopal elections, but this did not happen till later, about the eleventh century," when in the Latin Church too, "it was not the people only who were removed, but the bishops of the province as well, and the election was conducted entirely by the clergy of the Cathedral Church." 47 We should also notice the fact that, according to the provision of canon 5 of the same Ecumenical Council (Nicaea, 325), the metropolitan Synod has to be meet "twice every year…" 48 This type of synod would, in fact, be confirmed by both canon 2 of the Second Ecumenical Synod, and by canons 9 and 17 of the Fourth Cumenical Synod.
The fourth type of Synod is the "exarchal Synod," which -in the East -was confirmed by the legislation of the Second Ecumenical Synod (Constantinople, 381/382) by canons 2 and 6.
In can. 2, the Fathers of this ecumenical Council speak about τοὺς διοίκησιν ἐπισκόπους, that is, about the bishop who had their Sees in the metropole of a territorial unity called διοίκησις (exarchate), and which included more eparchies (provinces), hence the fact that this kind of Synod -established in a geographical space of the Roman administrative-territorial unit led by an exarchus -was called μείξον σινόδος τῆς διοικὴσεως ἐκείνης ἐπισκόπων (a greater synod of the bishops of that exarchate) (can. 6 Sin. II ec. As the canonist Van Espen pointed out, "it is evident from the context of this canon that 'diocese' here does not signify the district or territory assigned to any one bishop, as we today use the word; but for a countryside which not only contained many episcopal districts, as today do ecclesiastical provinces, but which contained also many provinces, and this was the meaning of the word at the time of this Council's session." 49 This is indeed the authentic interpretation of the can. 6 of the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381) concerning the type of the exarchal Synod. In fact, in the canons of the Second Ecumenical Synod, the new administrative-territorial unit was explicitly called διοίκησις/εως, a term derived from the verb διοίκέω-ῶ ('to administer, to govern'), which "within the nomenclature of the state administrative units" had the meaning "of superior political leadership." 50 The administrative-territorial unit of the Roman Empire, which contained many provinces (provinciae), was called in Greek exarchate, led by a ἔξαρχος/ου ('chief, executive'). The head of the administrative-territorial church unit established in a such geographic area of the state, was also called exarch.
The term exarchus (exarch) -which is of "military origin" and originally designated "holding a supreme authority" 51 -was introduced in ecclesiological language with the formal adaptation of the Church to the administrative-territorial organisation of διοίκησις/εως (exarchate) by the Second Ecumenical Synod (Constantinople, 381/382).
This form of administrative-territorial church organisation, of exarchal type, confirmed by the Second Ecumenical Synod (cf. can. 2 and 6) and the Fourth Ecumenical Synod (cf. can. 9, 17, 28), was, however, preceded by a pre-exarchal type of organisation (cf. can. 6 Sardica; 12 Laodicea etc.). In fact, even in the text of can. 2 of the Second Ecumenical Synod, reference was made to the "τοῦς ὑπερ διοίκησιν ἐπισκοπους" 52 (the bishops in charge of the dioceses). But, neither the Churches nor the place where these exarchs had their Sees were mentioned, only the five diocesan Sees (exarchal), namely: Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea of Cappadocia, Pontus and Heraclea, which had already known a pre-exarchal type of organisation even in the epoch of the In the same can. 2 of the Second Ecumenical Synod, it stipulated "that the issues pertaining to each diocese will be governed by the synod of the respective diocese, according to the judgments of Nicaea," 53 and the exarchs, that is, τοῦς ὑπερ διοίκησιν ἐπισκοπους, "are not to cross beyond the boundaries of their Churches (ταῖς ὑπερορίοις ἐκκλησίαις)" (can. 2 Sin. II Ec.). 54 In other words, the ecclesiastical provinces, that is, the ἐπαρχιαις (eparchies), continued to exercise their autonomy through their representative organ, that is, the eparchial Synod, although the "dioecesis" (the exarchate) had become -from an institutional and organizational point of view -"the superior church leadership," 55 and the exarchal Synod had become an appeal body.
The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Synod, 56 indeed, stipulated that those who intended to pursue any judicial action "against the bishop, […] shall first present their accusations to all the bishops of the diocese (eparchy) and before them to prove the accusations in those matters. And should the bishops of the eparchy not be able to mend the accusations against the bishop, then they should go to the greater Synod of the bishops of that exarchat […]" (can. 6 Sin. II Ec.).
Thus, from the Synod of the diocese (eparchy) -which was the first court of the bishops -one could take the matter to the judgment of the Synod of the exarchate, which was perceived and defined -by the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Synod -as μείξον συνόδος (the greater Synod), consisting of "τῶν τῆς διοικήσεως ἐκείνης ἐπισκόπωυ" 57 (the bishops of the respective exarchate (diocese)) (can. 6 Sin. II Ec.).
By this appeal to the judgment of the "Greater Synod," that is, the exarchal one, the local, eparchial Churches -constituted within the administrative-territorial units of the Roman State according to the provision of principle of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Synod (cf. can. 4, 6, 7) -were losing, however, their old status of autocephaly 58 in favour of 53  the new units, that is, the "dioceses" (exarchates), maintaining only their autonomy. Anyhow, the fact that the Churches organised in eparchies had enjoyed their status of autocephaly ab antiquo was also confirmed by the Byzantine canonists, who noticed that "in ancient times, all metropolitans of the dioceses were autocephalous (αὐτοκέϕαλοι), and they were ordained by their own Synods (ὐπό τῶν οὶκείον συνόδων)." 59 The fifth type of synod is the "Patriarchal Synod," which appeared at the same time with the dignity of Patriarch, namely at the Fourth Ecumenical Synod. Indeed, the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod (Chalcedon, 451) recognised the dignity of Patriarch for the "Old Rome" See 60 (cf. can. 3 Sin. II Ec.; 29 Sin. IV Ec.), and, in the canon 28, "promulgated in the absence of the Roman representatives," attributed "the privilege of ordaining the metropolitans of three civil 'dioceses', namely Thrace, Pontus, and Asia, to the Archbishop of Constantinople." 61 As a result of this decision, "the former system of the exarchates was, thus, suppressed," and "the Patriarchate of Constantinople was endowedan Orthodox ecclesiologist specified -with a judicial power that stretched over Thrace and the entire Asia Minor" 62 ; which led -according to Michel Stavrou -"to the increase of his prestige as an archbishop whose See was in the capital of the ecumenical empire, i.e. (virtual) universal." 63 However, it should be remarked that, in the text of the can. 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, the proedros of the Constantinopolitan Church is not called "patriarch," but "archbishop of Constantinople," whom he in fact until then was. arch" only appear mentioned for the first time in canons 7 and 36 of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, in which it was also provided the hierarchical, enumerative, order of the main patriarchal Sees of the ecumenical Church, that is, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. 69 In all these patriarchal centres, as well as in those outside the boundaries of the Roman Empire, such as the Patriarchate of Georgia, 70 the old regime of synodality continued to function, but this time it was also expressed by Patriarchal Synods. Nevertheless, one must not ignore or obscure the fact that "the canonical status of the patriarchal Synod was to be for the first time well specified in canon 17 of the Fourth Synod of Constantinople (869-870)," 71 in which an explicit reference was made to the Synod convened by the "patriarch," that is, the patriarchal Synod, during which "some metropolitans […] did not obey the summons (to this synod) by the patriarch, proving thus a 'contempt' for the antique consuetude (old custom) and canonica traditione (canonical tradition)." 72 In the same canon of this Constantinopolitan Synod, assembled in the years 869-870, the canonical status of the patriarchal Synod in relation to the metropolitan one was stated in the following terms: "the Synods assembled by the Patriarchal See have a higher motivation for its existence and utility than those of the metropolitans," due to the fact that "via a Synod presided over by a metropolitan only a diocese is administered," while "via a synod presided over by a patriarch an entire dioecesis (patriarchat, n.n.) is administered, thus general utility (communis utilitas) is realised; that is why -stated the Fathers of this Synod, also attended by representatives of the apostolic See of Rome -it is better to place the particular good after the general when the superiors (majoribus) launch a summons to such a Synod," 73 that is patriarchal.
Such a patriarchal Synod -with the same canonical status stipulated in canon 17 of the Constantinople Synod in the years 869-870 74 a "Patriarchy." Indeed, each of these local "autocephalous" 75 Churches, "organized as a Patriarchate," 76 has a "synodal leadership," 77 chaired by the "Patriarch," who is the "Primate" among the "hierarchs" 78 of that Church, chosen "by the Holy Synod," 79 which is its "highest authority." 80 In lieu of conclusions From the hermeneutical analysis of the text of the canonical legislation of the Eastern Church, the informed reader could first find out that in the pars Orientis of the Roman Empire, from illo tempore, the synodality regime was an indisputable reality, which functioned in accordance with the provisions of its canonical legislation of the first millennium.
At the same time, one could notice that all types of Synods -stipulated by its canonical legislation -are, in fact, "the expression of the same synodal principle affirmed at different levels of ecclesiastical organization, and, ipso facto, that of koinonia (ecclesial communion)," 81 and that the various types of synods -provided by this legislation -were primarily due to the accommodation or adaptation of the Eastern Church to the administrative-territorial organisation of the Roman State.
Finally, the reader of our consideration could realise that the regime of synodality -stipulated by the canonical Eastern legislation of the first millennium -was and still is an obvious reality in the life of the local Orthodox Churches, which underlines the fact that the Orthodox Church was organised, functioned and is being led in the spirit of the old canonical custom, of its canonical Tradition and of its canonical ecumenical norms of the first millennium.
In fact, both the historical and the canonical testimonies confirm to us the fact that the Eastern Church "retained its apostolic and traditional authenticity precisely due to the synodality regime," 82 which -over timewas actually reaffirmed in the area of all three administrative-territorial church units, that is, eparchies, exarchates, and patriarchates, and from the 6th century on only through the metropolitan Synod and the patriarchal Synod, which is expressly mentioned not only by the canonical legislation, but also by the state (imperial) legislation, as confirmed by the Novels of Justinian Emperor, whose imperial legislation was also received in the Danubian-Pontic-Carpathian area, 83 namely, in Romania's geographic area of today, which, in illo tempore, was partially reintegrated in the space of the Eastern Roman Empire.