Autonomous and autocephalous churches. When did the Russian Orthodox Church become autocephalous?

2024 Author: Miguel Ramacey | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 06:11

The Orthodox world is great. His light illuminated many countries and peoples. All of them are one universal church. But, unlike the Catholic world, which is subordinate to the Pope, a single ruler, the Universal Church is divided into independent - local or autocephalous churches, each of which has self-government and independence in resolving basic legal and administrative issues.

What does the term "autocephaly" mean

Before talking about what an autocephalous Orthodox Church means, we should consider the very term "autocephaly". It comes from a Greek word with two roots. The first of them is translated as "himself", and the second - "head". It is easy to guess that their combined use can mean "self-heading", which implies the most complete control of the entire internal life of the church and its administrative independence. This distinguishes autocephalous churches from autonomous ones, which are subject to certain legal restrictions.

The universal church is divided intolocal (autocephalous) not on a national basis, but on a territorial basis. This division is based on the words of the Apostle Paul that in Christ there is no division of people either by nationality or by their social status. All people are one "flock of God" and have one Shepherd. In addition, an indisputable convenience is the territorial correspondence of autocephalous churches to the political and administrative borders of states.

Rights of autocephalous churches

To most fully characterize the essence of autocephaly, one should consider in more detail the rights that autocephalous churches have. The most important of these is the right to nominate and elect the head of the church by one's own bishops. For this, there is no need to coordinate this or that candidate with the leaders of other local churches. This is the main difference between autocephalous and autonomous churches. The latter are led by primates appointed by the church that granted them autonomy.

In addition, local churches have the right to independently issue their own charters. They operate, of course, only in the territory controlled by this church. Issues related to the organization and management of the church are also resolved internally. The most important of them are submitted to local councils.

Autocephalous churches have the right to independently consecrate the holy chrism intended for use within the church. Another important right is the possibility of canonizing one's own saints, compiling new liturgical rites and hymns. The last point has only one caveat - they should not go beyond the dogmatic teachings adopted by the Universal Church.

In dealing with all issues of an administrative nature, local churches are given complete independence. The same applies to the church court, the right to convene local councils and the ability to initiate the convening of an Ecumenical Council.

Restrictions on the rights of autocephalous churches

Restrictions on the rights of local churches are determined by the principle of church unity. Proceeding from it, all autocephalous churches are identical with each other and are divided only territorially, but not dogmatically and not by differences in matters of dogma. The fundamental principle is the right of only the Ecumenical Church to interpret religious dogmas, while leaving the essence of the Orthodox faith unchanged.

In addition, the solution of the most important canonical issues goes beyond the legal framework of the local churches and is under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Councils. Also, the construction of liturgical life within the autocephaly must be generally accepted and be in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the Ecumenical Councils.

Establishment of local churches

The history of the formation of local Churches is rooted in apostolic times, when the disciples of Jesus Christ, according to His word, went to various lands to bring people the good news of the holy Gospel. The churches founded by them, due to their territorial isolation, had independence from others founded simultaneously with them.churches. The capitals and large cities of these Roman metropolises became the centers of religious life of such neoplasms.

When Christianity became the state religion, an active streamlining of the life of local churches began. This historical period (IV-VI centuries) is called the era of the Ecumenical Councils. At that time, the main provisions regulating the rights of autocephalous churches were developed and adopted, and a framework was established that limited them. For example, the documents of the Second Ecumenical Council speak of the inadmissibility of extending the power of regional bishops to territories outside their local churches.

It is the documents developed by these Ecumenical Councils that make it possible to give an unambiguous answer to the question of what an autocephalous church means and to avoid double interpretations.

A law was also adopted that could create a new independent autocephalous church. It is based on the principle: "No one can give more rights than he himself has." Based on this, either the episcopate of the Ecumenical Church, or the episcopate of an already existing and legally recognized local church can create a new autocephalous church. Thus, the continuity of episcopal power from the apostolic was emphasized. Since then, the concept of "mother church", or kyriarchal church, has come into use. This is the legal designation of the church whose episcopate has established a new local (autocephalous) church.

Unauthorized establishment of autocephaly

However, history knows many cases of violations of theseestablished rules. Sometimes state authorities proclaimed the churches of their countries to be autocephalous, and sometimes local episcopates voluntarily withdrew from subordination to the highest authority and, having elected a primate, proclaimed independence. It should be noted that in most cases there were objective reasons for such actions.

Subsequently, their canonical illegality was corrected by quite legitimate acts, although adopted with some delay. As an example, we can recall the unauthorized separation in 1923 of the Polish autocyphalists from the Russian Mother Church. The legitimacy of this act was restored only in 1948, when the church became legally autocephalous. And there are a lot of similar examples.

Exceptions to general rules

But the law provides for cases when an autonomous church can independently break ties with its mother church and receive autocephaly. This happens when the kyriarchal church falls into heresy or schism. The document adopted at the local Council of Constantinople, held in 861, called the Double Council, provides for such cases and gives autonomous churches the right to self-secession.

It was on the basis of this paragraph that the Russian Orthodox Church gained independence in 1448. In the opinion of its episcopate, the Patriarch of Constantinople fell into heresy at the Council of Florence, tarnishing the purity of Orthodox teaching. Taking advantage of this, they hastened to erect Metropolitan Jonah anddeclare canonical independence.

Currently existing autocephalous Orthodox churches

There are currently fifteen autocephalous churches. They are all Orthodox, so the frequently asked question about how the autocephalous Church differs from the Orthodox, naturally, disappears by itself. It is customary to list them in the order of the diptych - commemoration at the liturgy.

The first nine are ruled by the patriarchs. Among them are the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russian, Georgian, Serbian, Romanian and Bulgarian churches. They are followed by those headed by archbishops. These are Cypriot, Helladic and Albanian. The list of churches that are ruled by metropolitans closes: Polish, Czech lands and Slovakia, the Orthodox autocephalous church in America.

The fifth Russian church in the above list became autocephalous in 1589. She received her status from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, from which she depended until 1548, when the council of Russian bishops elected Metropolitan Jonah as the head of the church. The further growing economic and military power of Russia contributed to the strengthening of the political, military and religious authority of our country. As a result, the eastern patriarchates recognized Russia as the fifth “honorable” place.

Equality of all Orthodox Autocephalous Churches

A very important point is the equality of all autocephalous churches declared and observed in the practice of interchurch communion. The dogma accepted in Catholicism that the pope isvicar of Christ, and that he, as a consequence, is infallible, is absolutely unacceptable in Orthodoxy. In addition, the claims of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to any exclusive rights in the Ecumenical Church are completely rejected.

In this regard, it is necessary to explain the principle by which the ordinal places of certain churches in the diptych are distributed. Despite the fact that these places are called "ranks of honor", they have no dogmatic meaning and are established purely historically. In the order of distribution of seats, the antiquity of the church, the chronological sequence of obtaining the status of autocephaly and the political significance of the cities in which the chairs of the dominant bishops are located play a role.

Autonomous churches and their features

Here it is appropriate to dwell on the state of affairs that developed before 1548, that is, until the moment when the Russian Orthodox Church became autocephalous. Its status in those centuries can be described as an autonomous church. It was mentioned above that the main feature of autonomous churches is the lack of the right to independently elect their primate, who is supplied by the mother church. This significantly limits their independence. And another important aspect of the issue is that the internal and sometimes foreign policy of their states largely depends on who heads the autocephalous independent Orthodox churches.

To be fair, it should be noted that even before Metropolitan Jonah received the title of Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia,Russian dependence on Constantinople was not too burdensome. Here the geographical distance from Byzantium, our mother church, played a role. In a much worse situation were the churches formed in the territories of the Greek metropolises.

Significant restrictions on the freedom of autonomous churches

Autonomous churches, in addition to being ruled by a primate appointed by the mother church, were obliged to coordinate their charters, statuses with it, to consult on all any serious issues. They did not have the right to consecrate myrrh on their own. Their bishops were under the jurisdiction of the highest court - the court of the kyriarchal church, and they had the right to build their relations with others only through the mediation of the mother church. All this gave rise to organizational difficulties, hurt national pride.

Intermediate status of autonomy

History shows that the autonomy status of churches is usually temporary, intermediate. As a rule, over time, either autocephalous local Orthodox churches are obtained from them, or, having lost even the appearance of independence, they are transformed into ordinary metropolitan districts or dioceses. There are many examples of this.

Today, three autonomous churches are commemorated in liturgical diptychs. The first of them is the ancient Sinai. It is governed by a bishop appointed from Jerusalem. Next comes the Finnish Church. For her, the autocephaly of Constantinople became the mother church. And finally, Japanese, for which kyriarchal isRussian Orthodox Church. The light of Orthodoxy was brought to the islands of Japan at the beginning of the last century by a Russian missionary, Bishop Nikolai (Kasatkin), who was later canonized. For his services to the church, he was honored to be called Equal-to-the-Apostles. Such a title is given only to those who brought Christ's teaching to entire nations.

All these churches are Orthodox. How absurd it is to look for a difference between an autocephalous church and an Orthodox one, so absurd to talk about a difference between an autonomous and an Orthodox one. The need for such an explanation is caused by frequently asked questions about this.