By Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos and Agiou Vlasiou,
Source: Translated from the Greek by Fr Patrick B. O'Grady.
With the occasion of the process
for granting ecclesiastical autocephaly in the Ukraine by the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, a vigorous discussion is now taking place and various
points of view are being expressed.
The central issue is this: what
exactly is autocephaly, who grants it and how does the autocephalous
Church function within the system of the one, holy, catholic and
apostolic Church? This has nothing to do with a division from
ecclesiastical unity, but rather with the manner of Her synodical [1]
functioning under the responsibility of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
which is the First-throne Church in the ecclesiastical synodical system
of administration and operation.
Many on each side set forth
various elements on this subject which has arisen, but before we examine
all this, the point must be emphasized that autocephaly is not placed
in a relationship of independence, but rather within an interdependent
relationship. I think autocephaly is the most basic issue which
preoccupies our Church these days. I have also expressed these views in
my previous studies.
1. The term, “Autocephalous Church”
According to Professor Ioannis
Karmiris and other scholars, from Her beginning, the Church was
organized “in an hierarchical and synodical manner”; that is to say,
ecclesiastical life developed with episcopal, metropolitan, patriarchal
and then synodical functions, up to the level of the Ecumenical Synod.
Thus, the Orthodox ecclesiastical form of government is synodical and
hierarchical. The synodical element does not abolish the hierarchical,
nor does the hierarchical abolish the synodical. Thus, the
ecclesiastical form of government is “synodical in an hierarchical way”
or “hierarchical in a synodical way,” according to Alexander Schmemann.
But in contrast, in the West, the
institution of the Papacy assumed the feudal system of administration
and so there was introduced an “absolutist-monarchical-centralized form
of government.” Later on, the Protestants who split off from Roman
Catholicism introduced the system of confederation without there being
any center.
This means that in the Orthodox
Church papal primacy is not valid, nor is Protestant confederation, but
rather the synodical and hierarchical form of government functions with
the presidency of the Ecumenical Throne, which has a coordinating role
and takes up initiatives for the good functioning of the Church.
The ecclesiastical form of
government is an extension of the divine Eucharist, in which there is
the presiding head and those who function according to their rank. Thus,
both Papism as well as Protestantism are avoided.
Within this perspective,
autocephaly (“self-headed”) must be treated as well, not as an
independent “head,” but as a head of a Local Church which fits in with,
and functions, within the synodical and hierarchical government of the
Church. Thus, neither is the synodical element disregarded, nor is the
hierarchical undermined.
After these general comments, it
should be pointed out that we know from various studies that the term
“autocephalous” originally appeared in connection with the title of the
archbishop, who surely as “archbishop” did not at that time have the
meaning of leader of a Local Church but rather he was the bishop who had
a dependent and referential relation (on, and) to the patriarch and not
to the metropolitan of the eparchy. Thus, the “autocephalous
archbishop” was dependent on the patriarch, from whom he received
ordination and of course he commemorated him in the holy services.
From the 9th century onwards, as
Professor Ioannis Tarnanidis points out, the significance of autocephaly
underwent changes when, surely, ecclesiastical independence was placed
in the political and ethnic ambitions of the Slavs.
However, in this case of
upgrading of the definition and the role of the autocephalous
archbishop, the Ecumenical Patriarchate could at any moment intervene in
the church’s internal affairs, extend his jurisdiction into the area of
its ecclesiastical administration and ordain the archbishop. All this
surely is bound together with the obligation on the part of the
archbishop to commemorate the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Subsequently, the term,
“autocephalous church,” was introduced with the passage of time, not in
the sense that it constitutes an independent church, but rather in the
sense that it constitutes a single ecclesiastical administration which
determines the election, ordination and trial of the bishops, and
regulates all ecclesiastical issues of the Local Church, but in any case
it has a fellow-bond with the whole Church, especially with the
First-throne Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
We are not dealing with an
autonomous and independent head, who separates himself from the one and
single head of the Church, but with an administrative freedom within the
single Body of Christ.
Even the words, “autocephalous
church,” must be interpreted in an Orthodox and ecclesiological way,
from the point of view that the term is not strictly accurate; i.e., it
is used only for self-administration and the administrative structure of
churches and does not indicate a sundering of the unity of the Church,
whose Head is Christ.
On the issue of ecclesiastical
unity, what is said at the fraction of the bread in the divine Eucharist
holds force, according to the words of the liturgist: “Apportioned and
distributed is the lamb of God, who is apportioned and not divided, who
is ever eaten and never consumed.” Those who commune do not receive a
part of the Body of Christ, but the entirety of Christ.
The same happens also with the
Orthodox autocephalous churches, provided that there is Orthodox faith,
canonical good order and unity among the churches.
As I have been studying the
canons of the Church, I have not encountered the term, “autocephalous
church.” But I have noticed that, although the term is found in the
interpretations of the exegetes of the canons, it has only gained
official status in later Patriarchal Praxes (Acts).
For example, the 8th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, referring to the Church of Cyprus, runs:
“The superiors of the holy
churches in Cyprus shall be free from influence and uncoerced according
to the canons of the venerable Fathers and ancient custom as they
perform, on their own, ordinations of most pious bishops. The same also
in other administrations and eparchies anywhere shall be observed.” The
terms, “free from influence” and “uncoerced,” are described without
referring to the term, “autocephalous.” Balsamon, interpreting the 39th
Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod in Trullo, which refers to the same
issue, calls the region of Cyprus “autocephalous”: “the Church of Cyprus
is determined to be autocephalous.”
It should still be underscored
that the Ecumenical Synods have given self-government to the Churches
according to terms laid down by the preceding sacred Canons. The 2nd
Canon of the Second Ecumenical Synod is characteristic: “the aforesaid
canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is quite clear that the
synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular
province.” The following Canons are similar: the 8th of the Third
Ecumenical, the 28th of the Fourth Ecumenical and the 39th of the Sixth
Ecumenical. So also in the issue of commemoration of the “Protos,” the
14th and 15th Canons of the First-second Synod are characteristic. These
canons clearly refer back to and presume the 34th Canon of the holy
Apostles and presuppose a metropolitan or patriarchal system of
administration of a church.
Maximus, the Metropolitan of
Sardis, invoking the testimony of Alexander Schmemann, writes that the
concept of “autocephaly” does not belong to the “ontology” of the
Church, but rather to its historical “hypostasis.” This distinction
between the ontological and the hierarchical order of the ecumenical
Church is useful for us to avoid both the danger of Papism and the
temptation of Protestantism. Consequently, we do not deny the
ontological unity of the Church as the Body of Christ, nor do we deny
hierarchical structure among the local Churches.
Further, the same metropolitan
observes: “The history and long-standing tradition of the Church have
created and safeguarded the practice of the “hierarchy of honor.” Denial
of this in the name of a badly conceived “equality of honor” is a
premeditated and counterfeit substitute for genuine catholicity on the
basis of a kind of “democratic” equality.
For this reason, the term,
“autocephalous archbishop” over the duration of all these centuries did
not have the sense of absolute ecclesiastical independence.
2. Autocephaly and the unity of the Church
Professor Panagotis Trembelas, in
his article entitled “The terms and factors of the declaration of
autocephaly” and subtitled “autocephaly and the sacred canons,” analyzes
in detail on the basis of sacred canons and church history how the
autocephalous churches have functioned, and he also examines in detail
the terms and factors which go into forming an autocephalous church.
From this article I take note
that the autocephaly of the churches has a relationship with the
synodical structure of the Church in general and the preservation of the
unity of the churches under the supervision and guardianship of the
"Protos,” who is the Ecumenical Patriarch. In no account can autocephaly
serve schismatic efforts and tendencies and accept “fiefdoms” within
the Church. On this point, Trembelas observes:
“In the end, it must on no
account be forgotten that such a mutual contact of the bishops under the
one Protos aims at the strengthening of unity in Christ. Quite clearly,
therefore, by no account is it allowed to bring into creation a form of
fiefdoms or ecclesiastical states foreign to each other, but rather we
must aim toward a more effective communication between all the bishops
everywhere through their central figures or archbishops. Henceforth as
earlier on, as we have seen, a tendency is manifesting itself to widen
the boundaries of ecclesiastical regions through the submission of
various metropolitans or protoi under the eparchs or patriarchs, whose
number is ultimately limited to just five.”
Analyzing the factors that
contributed to the autocephaly of churches, which autocephaly has
functioned as a self-administration without the relationship of the
Local Church with the Ecumenical Patriarch being at all interrupted,
Professor Trembelas observes that the principle of “self-determination
of the people” played an important role by means of autocephaly, and
“the expressed opinion of the full staff is seriously taken into
consideration”; i.e., the people. The same applies also to the removal
of autocephaly, as took place in the case of the Archbishop of Ochrid.
Certainly, also in this case “the
longings of the full ecclesiastical staff [the people] became
indisputably acceptable only if they did not contravene well-considered
ecclesiastical interests. Hence, the synodical factor appears as
equivalent or even superior to the popular factor. Without the consent
of this synodical factor, the movement of the popular factor, or the
governing factor which expresses it, can only produce violent overthrow,
impinging on or even invading the very boundaries of schism. The
synodical factor, for this reason, has always presented itself as
determining, regulating and approving the movements of the popular
factor.”
It becomes clear that autocephaly
is not given for the independence of a Local Church, but for the
preservation of the unity of all the Local Churches under the presidency
of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Moreover, despite the self-administration
of certain churches, there is no division of this church from the
Ecumenical Patriarch.
In particular, it is related from
the Minutes of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod that the bishops from the
dioceses of Asia and Pontus declared their dependency upon the
Ecumenical Patriarch. For example, Romanos, the Bishop of Myra, said: “I
have not been forced; I am glad to be under the throne of
Constantinople, since he himself has honored me and he ordained me.”
This means that there was an interdependence between the self-governed
dioceses and the Ecumenical Patriarch.
The conclusion of these analyses
is that self-administration or autocephaly is given, chiefly and above
all, for the unity of the churches and not for the function of
“fiefdoms,” because the factors for concession of autocephaly are in the
first place the Synod around the "Protos", chiefly the Ecumenical
Patriarchate and consequently the Ecumenical Synod, given that it judges
in the meantime the maturity of the autocephalous church. There is also
a case for removing autocephaly until its recognition by an Ecumenical
Synod.
Panagiotis Trembelas points this out:
“Through such judgment of the
Ecumenical Synods, autocephaly, about which these synods pronounced, was
securely confirmed as is indicated from the fact that autocephalous
churches not possessing ratification and confirmation were nullified
over time and were abolished (Carthage, Lugdunum (Lyons), Mediolanum
(Milan), Justiniana Prima, Ochrid, Trnovo, Peć, etc.), while conversely,
autocephalies possessing this recognition, although such churches,
having fallen into dire circumstances or passed their prime, continued
to exist and little by little began to revive: the flight abroad of the
Cypriots (to the Hellespont: Nova Justiniana) and, according to the 39th
canon of Penthektē (Quinisext), the submission of Cyzicus and the
eparchy of Hellespont under the president of the island of Cyprus; also
the Patriarchates of Antioch, of Alexandria, and of Jerusalem."
3. The contemporary Autocephalous Churches
The first Ecumenical Synods
established the canonical institution of the Pentarchy of Patriarchs;
namely, Old Rome, New Rome-Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem. We are dealing with a canonical institution, according to
which the five Patriarchs constitute the authority for the
administration of the Church. The Third Ecumenical Synod granted the
self-administration of the Church of Cyprus, but the institution of the
five Elder Patriarchs directed the Church, or rather the Holy Spirit
preserved the unity of the Church through this institution.
St Theodore the Studite believed
that the five Patriarchs comprised “the five-headed dominion of the
Church” or “the five-headed body of the Church” or the “five-headed
ecclesiastical body.” Theodore Balsamon draws a parallel between the
existence of the Pentarchy and the five senses in the body of Christ.
Nevertheless, each ecclesiastical diocese had self-administration and
possessed “the right of ordination” and the “right of judgments,”
according to Professor Vlassios Pheidas.
When Old Rome distanced itself
from the Church, the Patriarchate of New Rome-Constantinople became the
First-throne Church which presides and has a coordinating role. Then in
the 16th century A.D. the Patriarchate of Moscow assumed the fifth
place. All this took place by Ecumenical and Great Synods.
With the passage of time, other
autocephalous Churches were also recognized, without surely an
Ecumenical Synod being called. Counted among these is the Church of
Greece, which was declared autocephalous with the Synodical and
Patriarchal Tomos of 1850. Other Churches also received this patriarchal
dignity and honor.
Professor Spyros Troianos, taking
into consideration the canons through which the autocephalous churches
have been recognized, asserts that the competent authority for
recognizing a church as autocephalous is undoubtedly the Ecumenical
Synod. This Synod determines all the issues relating to the autocephaly
of the churches, such as their proclamation, their rank (taxis), the
boundaries of their jurisdiction, etc. However, when from the 9th
century and thereafter the Ecumenical Synods have not been summoned,
then the Standing Synod (endēmousa synodos) in Constantinople assumed
their position.
Indeed, the professor, referring
to the cases of the Patriarchates of Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria,
writes that the Ecumenical Patriarch did not give his consent, but as it
is said in the texts of the Tomoi, the declaration will be “in an
Ecumenical or other great Synod at the first opportunity.” For this
reason, Troianos concludes: “Consequently, the process of elevating the
Churches of Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria to Patriarchates, from a
strictly legal point of view, has not yet been completed.”
It becomes clear that the
autocephalies which were given in the 19th and 20th centuries by the
Ecumenical Patriarchate also function as patriarchates under review
toward their sanction by the Ecumenical, Pan-Orthodox Synod that is
going to convene. Likewise, the manner of the function of this review
will have to be decided, so as to contribute to the unity of the Church
as the Body of Christ and not to division of the Church, not to autonomy
from the Ecumenical Patriarch, and not to a Protestant mentality of a
democratic assembly of churches.
In any case, the government of
the Church does not work according to the principles of a civic
democracy, but it is hierarchical in the sense of the hierarchy of
ministries for the edification of the Body of Christ and for the glory
of God the Father.
Professor Ioannis Tarnanidis, a
research specialist who studied the autocephaly of the Slavic churches,
after an in-depth analysis of the sources and bibliography relevant to
the subject of autocephaly, reached conclusions which are very
important.
These conclusions are set forth
here, because they make it easier for us to focus in on the subject of
autocephaly in a scientific and sober fashion. He writes:
“With a general and diachronic assessment of this reality, we could summarize the policy of Constantinople as follows:
1. The emperor possessed the
initiative in all cases of a promotion of a given Slavic Church. We also
had cases of promotion only by the emperor and without even the formal
participation of the patriarch (Patriarch Drestras, Archbishopric of
Ochrid).
2. The advice of the patriarch in
these cases possessed a ritualistic character, as he restricted himself
to ecclesiastical confirmation with a synodical document (Tomos), which
documents the “imperial senate” or the “emperor” had previously
proclaimed.
3. The Patriarchate took
initiatives in cases of excommunication, after some high-handedness on
the Slavic side, or in cases of restoration of normal relations after
the resolution of misunderstanding.
4. While there have been cases in
which the Patriarchate was ignored on the part of the emperor and it
did not take part in the promotion of a given church, this was in no
case taken over by another Patriarchate. The promotion of all the Slavic
churches and the whole spectrum of their development has been
exclusively a privilege of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
5. The promotion of the Slavic
churches was not dictated by, nor did it obey, certain canons. It has
always been put in motion by the secular leadership of the Slavs and,
for this reason, it has been viewed on the side of Constantinople as a
product of the “anomaly of the times.”
6. As a product of pressure and
conciliation, autocephaly had also various forms as the intensity of
pressure brought to bear; the strength of resistance against this
pressure and the importance of the goal pursued according to the
conciliation—greater pressure or greater seriousness of the objectives
pursued—these had, as a consequence, the granting of more privileges,
loftier titles and a wider recognition of the specific promotion. The
opposite happened when the pressure was small and the possibility of a
wider exploitation of the event was insignificant.
7. Constantinople always had the
facility, when its power and the times allowed it, to return and
re-examine its relationship with the daughter-churches by circumscribing
their privileges, by censuring their behavior or, even in some cases,
by completely abolishing their autonomy.
8. In general terms, the policy
of the Ecumenical Throne toward the new Slavic churches formed a copy of
the policy of the imperial throne toward the neighboring peoples who
laid claim to exalted titles, privileges and independence. Just as then
the emperor took care to grant the rulers titles and epithets of the
smallest importance, always aiming at retaining the highest title for
himself and behaving as the head of the other leaders, so also the
Patriarch kept for himself not only the title of “Ecumenical,” but also
in practice all the privileges of the ruler of the Eastern Church, which
flowed from the power and authority of the Empire.”
From all of the above, it is
clear that “autocephaly,” self-administration from the beginning of its
appearance, always had a form of dependence on the First-throne Church,
the Ecumenical Patriarchate. But also when a Local Church later on
received self-administration, because of political intervention, the
Ecumenical Patriarchate maintained basic privileges, jurisdictions, and
oftentimes it exercised essential interventions. For this reason, the
autocephalous church cannot exist with a form of independence from the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, but with a form of interdependence with it.
4. Autocephaly and Autocephalarchy
In order to make this point of
view more understandable and that it may be pointed out that autocephaly
does not disrupt ecclesiastical unity, as also that an autocephalous
church must not function in a disruptive way, I would like to point out
the distinction between autocephaly and autocephalarchy.
I encountered this distinction in
Olivier Clément, who links autocephaly very tightly with
interdependence and autocephalarchy with independence. That is, it seems
that in the ancient Church, as it was organized in the Roman Empire,
autocephaly functioned in an interdependence with the First-throne
Church, as we also see the same thing in the so-called Pentarchy, given
that the Five Elder Patriarchates functioned as five senses in one and
the same organism. And as no one sense in the human body may place
itself as independent of the others, so exactly does this occur also
with ecclesiastical administrations. But autocephalarchy functions more
as an independent church, which undermines the synodical system of the
Church.
It appears that in the ancient
tradition the so-called autocephalous church had a relationship of
interdependence with the Mother Church, the Church of New
Rome-Constantinople, as the present-day autonomous churches or the
semi-autonomous Church of Crete. That is, the Church of Crete cannot be
considered an independent church, but it is placed in an interdependence
with the Church of New Rome-Constantinople.
But affairs began to change from
the division of the Roman Empire and the development of national
differences. Each nation wanted to possess its own “national church,” in
which case, problems were created and thus autocephalarchy developed to
the detriment of autocephaly; or rather, autocephaly was viewed more in
the sense of autocephalarchy; i.e., of an independent church and not of
an interdependent church.
Clément notes that in the 19th
century the weakening of the Ottoman Empire and the development of the
nationalities “led to the proliferation of national states in
south-eastern Europe.”
He writes characteristically:
“Every nation claims and
establishes its self-ruled ecclesiastical independence, except for
Serbia which previously obtained the consent of Constantinople. Politics
and nationalism upset the traditional value-system: the nation is no
longer protected and supported by the Church, but the Church is the one
which turns out to be at odds with the nation. The point is that one
belongs to a nation, and so the Church ought consequently to serve the
state.
Thus, traditional autocephaly
tends to be transformed into absolute and completely uniform
autocephalarchy: no longer interdependence, but rather independence. The
function of the ecclesiastical administration copies the corresponding
state authority, and the bishops become as it were public officials.
Autocephalarchy by stages forms
its theory; it says that the foundation of ecclesiology is not the
Eucharistic principle, but the racial and national principle. Hereafter,
the 'local' Church means the 'national' Church, while applying the
Trinitarian analogy, as 'primacy of honor' becomes 'equality of honor.'
This is seen chiefly in the
Balkan region. At first, the Ecumenical Patriarchate “preserved the
supra-national universality of the Church,” according to Clément. After
the passage of time, as the borders of the Byzantine Empire were
contracting and the missionary outreach proceeded to the north, a
particular structure of administration was developed, the so-called
‘structure of the commonwealth’; i.e., new, politically independent
nations developed around “the imposing collapse from within the empire
itself. But when the heads of the flexibly autonomous Churches
sanctioned them, even still they were bound by the Ecumenical Patriarch:
a fact which assured them of a genuine independence from the local
monarchs. It was precisely within this atmosphere in the Balkans that
the first ‘autocephalies’ appeared without hostility or the isolation of
each one into itself, interdependencies rather than independencies.”
However, the declaration of
autocephaly, forcefully as a coup, by the Church of Greece with the
assistance and inspiration of foreign powers, as well as the imitation
of this form of autocephaly by the other Balkan countries according to
the Lutheran pattern, “autocephaly was no longer understood as
interdependence, but as a complete independence. The temptation
proceeded toward an absolute autocephalarchy.”
So then, the political conditions
led the Church from autocephaly as interdependence with the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, ‘to the structure of the commonwealth,’ resulting in the
form of autocephalarchy; that is, complete independence, in the sense
that the nation determines the Church. The Church from Local, on the
basis of the sacred canons, becomes the National Church, the Church of a
particular nation-state.
I must point out that I perceive
the distinction which Clément makes between autocephaly and
autocephalarchy in the sense that autocephaly is understood as
self-administration in a system of interdependence of the churches
through their unity with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and
autocephalarchy is understood as a tendency not only toward
self-administration, but also as the act of establishing independence
from the First-throne Church and indeed their Mother Church. And from
what we know, such a tendency was cultivated by pan-Slavism with a clear
intention of reducing the status of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but
the same also was pursued by various other expressions of nationalism.
It is clear from this that I accept the term, autocephaly, within
ecclesiological practice as an interdependence and not as completely
independence.
In my next article I shall
present the essence and the basis of the problem of the process of
granting autocephaly which has provoked the current events.
Consequently, what has been written in this present article serves as an
introduction to the subject which, at this time, occupies the Orthodox
Church.
NOTE:
[1] συνοδικός / σύνοδος. In
English, we use the words, “conciliar” and “council,” respectively.
However, we tend to restrict the noun, “council,” to the most important
synods, held ecumenically or historically important local synods. In the
translation, I have kept consistency by using only the English
transliteration for both the adjective and the noun, “synodical” and
“synod,” for all cases, in order to preserve consistency.