The Orthodox world is great. Its light illuminates many countries and peoples. All of them are a single Ecumenical Church. But, unlike the Catholic world, subordinate to the pope, a single ruler, the Ecumenical Church is divided into independent - local or autocephalous churches, each of which has self-government and independence in solving basic legal and administrative issues.
What does the term "autocephaly" mean?
Before talking about what the autocephalous Orthodox Church means, the term “autocephaly” should be considered. It came from a Greek word consisting of two roots. The first of them is translated as “himself”, and the second - “head”. It is easy to guess that their continuous use may mean “self-headedness,” which implies the most complete control of the entire internal life of the church and its administrative independence. In this, autocephalous churches differ from autonomous ones, on which some legal restrictions are imposed.
The Ecumenical Church is divided into local (autocephalous) not according to the national principle, but according to the territorial. This division is based on the words of the Apostle Paul that in Christ there is no separation of people either by nationality or by their social status. All people make up a single “flock of God” and have a single Shepherd. In addition, the indisputable convenience is the territorial conformity of the autocephalous churches to the political and administrative borders of states.
Rights of Autocephalous Churches
In order to fully characterize the essence of autocephaly, it is necessary to consider in more detail those rights that autocephalous churches have. The most important of these is the right to deliver and elect the head of the church by your own bishops. For this, there is no need to coordinate this or that candidacy with the leaders of other local churches. This is the main thing that distinguishes between autocephalous and autonomous churches. The latter are headed by the primates appointed by the church that granted them autonomy.
In addition, local churches are empowered to issue their own charters. They act, 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 cathedrals.
Autocephalous churches have the right to independently consecrate the holy world, intended for use within the church. Another important right is the possibility of canonizing one's own saints, compiling new liturgical rites and chants. The last paragraph has only one caveat - they should not go beyond the dogmatic teachings adopted by the Ecumenical Church.
In resolving all issues of an administrative nature, local churches are given full independence. The same applies to the church court, the right to convene local councils and the ability to initiate the convocation of the 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 among themselves and are divided only territorially, but not dogmatically and not by differences in matters of dogma. The fundamental principle is the right only of 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 local churches and is administered by Ecumenical Councils. Also, the construction of liturgical life inside autocephaly should be generally accepted and be in accordance with the guidelines adopted by the Ecumenical Councils.
The formation of local churches
The history of the formation of the 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 other churches founded simultaneously with them. The centers of the religious life of such neoplasms became the capitals and large cities of these Roman metropolises.
When Christianity became the state religion, an active streamlining of the life of local churches began. This historical period (IV-VI century) is called the era of Ecumenical Councils. At this time, the basic provisions regulating the rights of autocephalous churches were developed and adopted, and a framework was established to limit them. For example, the documents of the Second Ecumenical Council speak about the inadmissibility of the distribution of power of regional bishops in the territory outside their local churches.
It is the documents developed by these Ecumenical Councils that allow us to give an unambiguous answer to the question of what the autocephalous church means and to avoid double interpretations.
A law was also passed by which a new independent autocephalous church could be created. It is based on the principle: "No one can give more rights than he has." On this basis, either the episcopate of the Ecumenical Church or the episcopate of an existing and legally recognized local can create a new autocephalous church. Thus, the continuity of the episcopal authority from the apostolic was emphasized. From then on, the notion of “mother church”, or the cyriarchal church, came into use. This is the legal designation of the church, the bishop of which established a new local (autocephalous) church.
Unauthorized determination of autocephaly
However, history knows many cases of violations of these established rules. Sometimes state authorities proclaimed the churches of their countries as autocephalous, and sometimes local bishops voluntarily left the subordination of the supreme authority and, having elected the 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 completely legitimate acts, although they were 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 autocephalous on a legal basis. And there are a lot of similar examples.
Exceptions to the General Rules
But the law provides for cases where an autonomous church can independently break the link with its mother church and get autocephalous. This happens when the cyriarchal church falls into heresy or schism. The document adopted at the local Council of Constantinople, held in 861, known as Twofold, provides for such cases and gives autonomous churches the right to self-separation.
It was on the basis of this paragraph that the Russian Orthodox Church gained independence in 1448. According to her episcopate, the Patriarch of Constantinople at the Florence Cathedral fell into heresy, tarnishing the purity of Orthodox teaching. Taking advantage of this, they hastened to elevate Metropolitan Jonah to the Primate Chair and proclaim canonical independence.
The current autocephalous churches of Orthodoxy
There are currently fifteen autocephalous churches. All of them are Orthodox, therefore the frequently asked question about how the Autocephalous Church differs from the Orthodox Church naturally disappears by itself. It is customary to list them in the order of diptych - commemoration at the liturgy.
The first nine are ruled by the patriarchs. Among them are the Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Russian, Georgian, Serbian, Romanian and Bulgarian churches. They are followed by those led by archbishops. These are Cyprus, Hellas and Albanians. Closing the list of churches that are governed by the metropolitans: Polish, Czech lands and Slovakia, the Orthodox Autocephalous Church in America.
The fifth in a list on the list, the Russian Church became autocephalous in 1589. She received her status from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, from which it was dependent until 1548, when the council of Russian bishops elected Metropolitan Jonah the head of the church. The growing economic and military power of Russia further contributed to the strengthening of the political, military and religious authority of our country. As a result of this, the eastern patriarchies recognized Russia fifth in honor.
Equality of all Orthodox autocephalous churches
A very important point is the declared and observed in the practice of inter-church communication equality of all autocephalous churches. The dogma adopted in Catholicism that the pope is the vicar of Christ, and that he, as a result, infallible, is absolutely unacceptable in Orthodoxy. In addition, the claims of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on any exclusive rights in the Ecumenical Church are completely rejected.
In this regard, we should clarify the principle by which the ordinances of various churches in the diptych are distributed. Despite the fact that these places are called “ranks of honor”, they have no dogmatic significance and are established historically. In the order of distribution of places, the antiquity of the church plays a role, the chronological sequence of obtaining its status of autocephaly and the political importance of the cities in which the departments of the dominant bishops are located.
Autonomous churches and their features
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 characterized as follows - 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, whom they are supplied by the mother church. This significantly limits their independence. And another important aspect of the issue - the one who heads the autocephalous independent Orthodox churches, largely depends on the internal, and sometimes foreign policy of their states.
In fairness, it should be noted that even before Metropolitan Jonah received the title of Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia, the dependence of the Russians 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 on the territories of the Greek metropolises.
Significant restrictions on the freedom of autonomous churches
The autonomous churches, in addition to being governed by the primate appointed by the mother church, were obliged to coordinate their charters, statuses with her, and consult on any serious matters. They did not have the right to consecrate the world on their own. Their bishops were under the jurisdiction of the highest court - the court of the Cyriarchal Church, and they had the right to build their relations with others only through the medium of the mother church. All this gave rise to organizational difficulties, hurt national pride.
The intermediate nature of autonomy status
History shows that the status of church autonomy is usually temporary, intermediate. As a rule, over time, they either turn into autocephalous local Orthodox churches, 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 mentioned in liturgical diptychs. The first of them is the ancient Sinai. It is ruled by a bishop appointed from Jerusalem. The following is the Finnish church. For her, the Church of Mother became the Constantinople autocephaly. And finally, the Japanese, for which the Russian Orthodox Church is cyriarchal. The light of Orthodoxy on the islands of Japan was brought at the beginning of the last century by the Russian missionary, Bishop Nikolai (Kasatkin), who later became a saint. For his services to the church, he was honored to be called the Equal-to-the-Apostles. Such a title is given only to those who have brought the teaching of Christ to entire nations.
All these churches are Orthodox. How absurd it is to look for the difference between the autocephalous church and the Orthodox, it is so absurd to talk about the difference between the autonomous and the Orthodox. The need for such an explanation is caused by frequently asked questions about this.