AUTOCEPHALIA AND CANONICAL LAW of the Lord are theologians, but please tell me, where in canonical law does it indicate that any local church, the so-called “kiriarchal”, can provide autocephaly? In my opinion, this point of view, dominating in our homegrown theology, has no basis in the general Orthodox canonical law..

Here, look.

The Russian Orthodox Church granted the autocephaly of the American Orthodox Church (1970. ), however none of the Local Churches recognized this autocephaly. The attempts of the Russian Orthodox Church to provide the autocephaly of the Japanese Orthodox Church were unsuccessful, and it remained autonomous within the Moscow Patriarchate.. The incident of the Czech PC is interesting: it was granted autocephaly by the Moscow Patriarchate (1948. ), which, as usual, was not recognized by any of the Orthodox Local Churches. Much later, the same autocephaly was granted to the Czech Church by the Patriarchate of Constantinople (1998. ), and this autocephaly was recognized by all the Local Orthodox Churches. Moreover, in 2011. the 60th anniversary of autocephalous celebration was held in the Czech Church, and on this occasion the Patriarch of Constantinople sent a protest to the Primate of the Czech PC, attention to which is the last! - gave his explanations, which "boiled down to the fact that there was no celebration of the 60th anniversary of autocephaly, and only the representative of the Moscow Patriarchate spoke about autocephaly received from the Russian Orthodox Church in 1951 from the pulpit”. In other words, the head of the Czech PC himself stated that the Moscow Patriarchate’s provision of autocephaly to the Czech Church was fiction, and the true autocephaly was granted only by the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

To this it must be added that the overwhelming majority of all autocephalies (except for the four ancient patriarchates, and the exceptions in the form of the Georgian Church and the Cyprus Church) - namely, the Russian, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Hellasan, Albanian, Polish, Czech - were granted by Constantinople patriarchy, and they are all recognized by all the Local Orthodox Churches. The cases of the Cyprus and Georgian Churches have a special meaning because they were given in the era of the Ecumenical Councils: the Georgian and Cyprus Churches, together with the Jerusalem Church, were separated from the Patriarchate of Antioch to which they belonged - while the Antioch Patriarch himself did not decide the question of their autocephaly (as the Moscow Patriarchate wants to decide now in relation to the Ukrainian PC), it was decided in the framework of the Ecumenical Councils.

So what we have. We have four ancient Patriarchates approved at the Ecumenical Councils and three autocephaly approved at the same time.. These are unconditional autocephaly (although Georgian autocephaly suffered for many years and was depending on the Russian Church during the conquest of Georgia by Russia, when the canons were cruelly violated - and by whom? Maybe by the Greeks?). Then, we have eight autocephaly, provided by the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which the whole Orthodox world recognizes.. We also have one autocephaly, which is recognized by the Moscow Patriarchate and does not recognize the rest of the Orthodox world (except for three Churches, which were at one time influenced by the Moscow Patriarchate, the Georgian, Bulgarian and Polish PC).

What is the conclusion of all this? The same one that I identified at the beginning of this post. There are simply no canonical grounds that would be confirmed by historical practice in the granting of autocephaly by any Church other than Constantinople.. Firstly, no, because in the present state of affairs the institution of the Ecumenical Council is impossible (which, more than any other authority in the Church, is authorized to resolve issues that go beyond the canonical responsibility of a particular Local Church). Secondly, no, because none of the Churches, except the Russian, never even thought about giving any part of autocephaly, without being authorized by the general church authorities, such as the Ecumenical Council. Only two Churches decided to do this: the Constantinople and the Russian.

What were their reasons for this? The first reason: the impossibility of convening the Ecumenical Council, and accordingly, in its absence, the need to solve current church issues. The second reason: own ambitions. If everything is clear with the second reason, and this cannot serve as an excuse for any of the Churches to act in one way or another, then the first reason should be dealt with.. Who owns the privilege (or in Greek, prononomy) to solve inter-church issues that go beyond the boundaries of each individual church (and autocephaly is just such an example)? In accordance with the rite of the pentarchy of the patriarchs, established on 1-4 sun, and confirmed by all other sun, including the subsequent councils of the KC, recognized in our canonical law as acting in the Russian Church (for example, the Second Sofia Cathedral, etc.. ), the first five patriarchs were granted special powers in resolving general church issues. The Quarter Sun singled out two bishops - Rome and Constantinople - as those who can solve issues arising between the patriarchs of the pentarchy, giving them the right of the diarchy (the Roman bishop in the West, Constantinople - in the East, see. etc. 28 4 BC). This right did not concern the administration of the Church or the imposition of certain dogmatic provisions (which was decided conciliarly), it only concerned the judicial right of appeal of the lower rank to the highest with various injustices (and now there are few of them going on, by the way?) questions, the main of which later became the issue of autocephaly. And so, in 1054. there was a regrettable division not only between the local churches, but between the two churches of the diarchy — the East and the West. Since that time, the authority of the 28th Rule of the 4th Ecumenical Council was concentrated in the Orthodox Church in the nomination of the Bishop of Constantinople.

You may ask: with what kind of joy did the Russian Church suddenly assume the same powers that remained in the law of the church only behind Constantinople and which none of the other Churches ever tried to try on? This is a rhetorical question.. It is enough to know that when receiving the patriarchate, Russian diplomats sought from the Eastern Patriarchs to incorporate the Moscow Metropolitan into the pentarchy, and in the first place, the only motivation of which was the departure of the Roman bishop. That is, then the pentarchy in the Russian Church was recognized, and even very. Eastern patriarchs, intimidated, taken hostage and bribed, signed a tomos for the provision of the patriarchate to the Russian metropolitan. But put it in the pentarchy in fifth place.

And from that time - or later? - Pentarchy in Russia ceased to be recognized. It interfered with the competition for the first place:

it is clear that to compete for the first place from the fifth is more difficult than to pretend to be an equal "fellow and co-worker". By the way, it’s interesting, what if someone finds out exactly from what time the discourse of the “pentarchy”, which was so relevant in the 16th century, disappears in Russian theology?.

In short, the idea that “the will of the Cyriarchal Church may be a legitimate factor in the establishment of a new autocephaly” is an idea of ??purely Russian homegrown theology, and has nothing to do with Orthodox canonical law.