Validity and Authenticity: The Difference Between Western and Orthodox Views on Orders

[An early Anglican attempt to explain the differences between the Orthodox and Western understanding of "recognizing" clergy outside the Church proper.]

[Rev.] Charles-James N. Bailey

Source: St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, 8 (1964), pp. 86-92.

 

Western theological writings betray a good deal of bewilderment toward the Orthodox teachings on sacramental validity, a subject which Orthodox writers themselves have had little enough success in elucidating to the Western theologian. To him we seem to be lost in hopeless confusion, apparently equating validity and efficacy with canonically right administration, as though legality ensured efficacy in our view, and illegality nullity. Of course, the non-Orthodox theologian cannot avoid doubting the correctness of such an interpretation, in view of the Orthodox insistence on embracing the whole Christian faith in all ecclesiastical acts. But this insistence appears attenuated, for example, by the incongruous endorsement in some Orthodox bodies (however circumscribed or provisional this endorsement may be, and however little put into effect) of the orders of Anglican clergy converting to Orthodoxy. For some Anglican ordinations are performed by bishops on record with public repudiations of the dogma of the Holy Trinity, not to speak of repudiations of the traditional teachings on the sacrament of order and the necessity of a sacramental and sacrificial episcopate in Christ’s Church.

The purpose of this article is to show that much of the misconception concerning sacramental validity in Orthodox theology is due to the fact that “validity” denotes a very different concept in the West from the Orthodox teaching that the same word is often referred to. In order to distinguish the two concepts, the Orthodox theory (denoted in Greek by kyros) will here be acclimated to normal English usage as “authenticity,” and the term “validity” will be reserved for the Western theory. The aptness of “authenticity” for the Orthodox concept will become more apparent as we proceed. After the distinction has been clarified, an attempt will be made to make the Orthodox view intelligible in Western terms.

Before jumping in medias res, it will serve our future purpose first of all to distinguish between sacramental and magical instruments. A sacrament presupposes a divine utilization of visible reality for spiritual goals, while magic presupposes the reverse, namely, the manipulation of spiritual powers by material activity. Western theology expresses this opposition by calling the magical instrument a purely physical instrument automatically linked with spiritual powers, and by calling the sacramental instrument a moral instrument whose physical link with grace depends primarily on the creative Will of God, and secondarily on the compliant will and intention of its human users. The weakest theories in Western theology demand at least two kinds of intention in the Church: (1) an objective, official intention on the part of the Church concerning the sacramental operation or end; and (2) at least the absence of a verifiable repudiation of this intention — unless subsequently retracted, but retracted before the administration of the sacrament — on the part of the minister of the sacrament (for objective validity) and on the part of the subject or recipient of the sacrament (for subjective efficacy). To demand less is clearly magic. Orthodoxy demands a good deal more.

In his magisterial article, “The Validity of Anglican Orders According to the Canon Law of the Orthodox Church,” [1] the Very Rev. Jerome Cotsonis has set forth the Orthodox distinction between an authenticatable potential (validity kat’ oikonomian) and strict authenticity (validity kat’ akribeian). It is the former, rather than the latter, that bears a likeness to the Western concept of validity! But this authenticatable “validity” is not recognized and accepted by the Orthodox as already genuine. Father Cotsonis is at pains to stress the view that potential authenticity becomes actual only within the Orthodox fold, the home of authentic grace. Grace outside the Church among non-Orthodox Christians is not thereby ruled out, although such grace could not be regarded as authentic. The term “potentially authentic” must in no way be understood as implying a firm decision for or against the existence of grace in a non-Orthodox body. Further, “inauthentic” does not mean “invalid” in the Western sense, namely, necessarily unproductive of grace.

As we narrow our focus on the Orthodox concept of authenticity, it is becoming clear that it stands between Western “validity” and Western “licitness” or “regularity.” It denotes something lying within given boundaries, those of the Orthodox Communion, and is more concerned with whether a sacramental act takes place within those boundaries than with how it may exist outside of them. Here we encounter the Orthodox insistence that the home of authentic grace is that body which alone has (by Christ’s grace and not her own merits) obediently and faithfully adhered to Christ’s original and unadulterated institutions of faith and practice in the undivided Church, without unilateral deviations on common essentials. We encounter here also the Orthodox insistence on the necessity of intending the whole of the faith and practice that lie within those boundaries that define authentic Christianity. The Orthodox see no justifiable grounds for the fragmentation that insists only on the intention of a given sacramental act, apart from the intention to maintain the entirety of authentic Christian faith and practice.

If the authentic is that which is acceptable within the sphere of Christ’s original institutions, it is not orders that make a Christian body authentic, but the Church that makes orders authentic. Divided ministries cannot produce authenticity or unity; only the one authentic Church can authenticate the divided ministries, and then only within her own unity and under certain conditions. The Orthodox see no contradiction between their unwillingness to acknowledge sacramental performances outside of Orthodoxy as authentic — that is, as the Church’s own — and their equal unwillingness to deny the possibility of “validity” in the Western sense for some such inauthentic acts.

That the Orthodox doctrine is not reducible to canonical legality alone is obvious from the fact that an authentic bishop who ignores a canon law (for example, that forbidding prayer for the heterodox) that has fallen into desuetude, is not regarded as performing subsequent sacramental acts of doubtful authenticity. Within Orthodoxy there may exist lawfully performed sacramental acts that are invalid in the Western sense, exactly as in other ecclesiastical bodies. When Chr. Androutsos says [2] that the canons are ignorant of the Western distinction between “invalid” and “illicit,” he does not mean either that a lawfully administered sacrament received without a right intention would be efficacious or that a sacrament administered under unlawful circumstances would necessarily be unproductive of grace. The point is that the latter would not be authentic, guaranteed.

Several questions will inevitably present themselves to the Western theologian at this point, among them the following: (1) Is potential authenticity a meaningful concept? (2) Can one admit the possibility of “validity,” when one refuses to concede authenticity, without contradiction? (3) Is not the Orthodox insistence on adherence to the entire faith and practice of the Church a sort of Donatism of correct belief, comparable to the demand for moral rectitude in the older Donatism? (4) How is the participation of Orthodox bishops in Anglican ordinations (especially when ordinands to the episcopate are married, contrary to the canons) or the bestowal of the antidoron on baptized Protestants to be justified, especially in view of the practice of requiring Roman Catholic converts to undergo chrismation anew in some Orthodox bodies, now or formerly?

Let us consider these questions in turn, beginning with the meaningfulness of potential authenticity. This theory is not strange to the West. Saint Augustine’s theory with respect to Donatist converts, ratified by Western synods, was that such schismatics lived in a state of suspended grace — as though they retained only the form or potential of grace, like the withered branches of John 15:1-8 — and that this potential became actual only within the Catholic Church. Today no important Christian body requires rebaptism of those who have formerly lost the grace of a valid baptism when they subsequently repent.

Concerning the question as to whether the possibility of a “valid” inauthenticity can be entertained without contradiction, we may note the early Church’s attitude toward charismatic ministers and toward the clerical status (that of priests, not that of bishops, who were still the ordinary celebrants of the Eucharist) accorded to confessors. If the validity of their special sacramental acts outside the covenants of grace was not questioned, the risks were limited to themselves. The vital needs of the faithful could not be hazarded on objectively unverifiable claims. So the Protestant ecumenist who has been at such pains to warn Catholics against expecting too much certainty from the sacraments ought rather to warn Protestants and others against presuming on any certainty elsewhere. At all events, the Orthodox view represents no innovation in Christianity.

As for Donatism, Orthodoxy repudiates both the necessity for correctness of doctrine and purity of morals as requirements for sacramental authenticity. The ministers and recipients of sacraments must only intend the correct faith and practice of the Church. Where the Orthodox differs from the Western Christian is in insisting on the need for intending the whole of Christian faith and practice, and not merely that fragment which pertains to a given sacramental administration. Such a theory is not foreign to Protestantism, for Presbyterian bodies have officially ruled that ordinations by non-Trinitarians are invalid, [3] and old-fashioned Lutherans could regard Roman Catholic orders as invalid because of what was held to be the wrongness of their faith and intention concerning essential tenets of Christianity.

The fourth question concerned the justifiability of Orthodox participation in Anglican ordinations, which has now been discontinued. Obviously such a practice was predicated on the Orthodox belief and hope that the other party shared the chief items of Christianity with Orthodoxy, at least in intention, and that this participation would lay a basis or potential for the realization of the hope of unity in the future. The participation did not actualize authenticity or entail intercommunion, as Father Cotsonis stresses, for these exist only within Orthodoxy for the Orthodox. But it is difficult, if not impossible, to square the non-ordination of what are regarded as potentially authentic ministries with the reconfirmation of lay converts from the same bodies.

The Orthodox position would be intelligible if a terminology had been worked out to meet the exigencies of the contemporary situation. Our relationship with other Christian bodies are threefold:

(1) Sacramental acts by those denying the Trinity and other essential dogmas are totally invalid in the Western sense.

(2) Claims having no actualizable counterparts as such in Orthodoxy are unrefuted. Here belong the non-sacrificial and non-sacerdotal claims made by Protestants for their breaking of bread and ministry. As Protestants do not claim a sacerdotal ministry or a sacrificial Eucharist, there could be no question of equating these institutions with the Orthodox Eucharist or priesthood. But their economical adequation with the Orthodox antidoron and diaconate, their linguistic and functional counterparts, would have at least as much in its favor as the adequation of the quasi-catholic priests mentioned below with the Orthodox priesthood.

(3) Roman Catholic clergy and Old Catholic clergy (other than married bishops) are authenticatable (valid kat’ oikonomian).

(4) The contemporary juncture requires a further category in which the authenticatability of orders is unresolvable. They could be received into Orthodoxy by conditional ordination. In this case, the Orthodox would not deny the validity claimed, but simply assert, “We cannot tell.” Here belong the quasi-catholic ministries, episcopi vagantes, and married bishops of otherwise authenticatable lineage.

The term “quasi-catholic” refers to Western claimants of a place in the “historic” succession of bishops whose own ordinations are claimed to derive only from predecessors committed to the faith and practice of the undivided Church in intention at least, but whose position is maintained in ecclesiastical bodies—which are neither Catholic nor Protestant—in which the sacramental and sacrificial view of the episcopate is not required at the official level and in which bishops are tolerated despite their repudiation not only of this intention, but also of such dogmas as that of the Trinity. How the recognition of the sacramental acts of the latter group by the former differs from magic is opaque to the Orthodox theologian as any Orthodox theory on orders can be to a Westerner. The quasi-catholic ministries are those of the Churches of Sweden and of England, together with the rapidly proliferating derivatives of the latter in the English-speaking countries, the Orient, the Philippines, “Lusitania,” and South India.

No protestations of Catholicity on the part of such quasi-catholics can conceal the fact that they have not taken the canonical (and other) means at their disposal for repudiating and dissociating themselves from bishops in communion with them who have publicly discarded the faith and practice of the undivided Church. (Publications of Anglo-Catholic societies can still act as though Swedish bishops are valid, and no distinction is made between those who ordain priestesses and those who do not.) No protestations of Catholicity can conceal the general voting in many quasi-catholic bodies to recognize the validity of episcopal ordinations in bodies (for example, the Church of South India) whose very constitutions rule out the first type of necessary intention mentioned above, bodies that refuse to commit themselves to the belief that bishops are a separate order of the ministry, let alone a sacramental, sacrificial, and necessary one.

The Orthodox theologian is nonplussed to understand how the South Indian position can be squared with the Protestant doctrine of faith, not to speak of the ancient doctrine of intention. As for Anglicans, the Orthodox would prefer to see less time spent on defending the validity of their Ordinal to the Papalists and more time concentrated on the second type of intention. It is the latter, the intention of the ordainer and the ordained, that becomes questionable, when either has publicly repudiated the faith of the undivided Church, or when sermons or other official statements at ordinations have the same effect for the service as a whole.

The time is at hand for Orthodoxy to disabuse quasi-catholics of the notion that their position is compatible with Orthodoxy. The ecumenical hope is imperiled less by the clear positions of Protestants or Roman Catholics who differ from us, than by the rapidly proliferating twilight world of questionable episcopates. Further, the Orthodox can scarcely make a distinction between authenticatable bishops and inauthenticatable ones which is not recognized by the quasi-catholics themselves. Past experience makes it extremely doubtful that the latter will disavow the sacramental acts of any of the thirty-two prominent signatories of the famous Open Letter [4] to the archbishops of the Church of England, in the not unlikely event that any of the latter should be elevated to the episcopate. And yet this letter energetically maintains that non-episcopally ordained ministers exercise quite as priestly a ministry as the signers themselves (even though no Protestant minister claims the sacrificial functions of traditional Catholic theology) and that the “historic episcopate” is no more than an important expression of, and the best means to effect, ecclesiastical unity.

Our loyalty to the ancient faith and practice of Christianity demand that we take a stand. The impression of latitudinarianism on essentials should be avoided and our witness not compromised. But it is not just in matters of sacramental authenticity, that we can set an example to others. Indeed, Orthodoxy turns men’s attention away from technicalities to their higher meaning—and this is one advantage of “authenticity” over “validity”—to the unity and continuity of the earthly Church with the heavenly, and beyond that to the wholeness of sanctity flowing out of Our Lord’s Resurrection and the power of the Divine Spirit. If the Church’s sacramental nature as the continuation of the Incarnation is acknowledged, the comparatively lesser beliefs will follow. For how could such a continuity be real except as existing in both of the orders of reality wedded in the Incarnation? In the spiritual order the Church’s continuity is realized in the holy tradition, headed by, and flowing out of, the Scriptures. In the temporal realm her continuity is realized in the sacramental succession of the episcopal priesthood.

To those who would confuse the juridical or hierarchical function of bishops with their sacramental and sacerdotal essence (and perhaps most Protestant writers commend or reject episcopacy purely as a good or bad form of polity), Orthodoxy displays a system in which each order has its proper function. The laity take charge of the temporalities of parishes, and even the decisions of ecumenical councils are held by the Orthodox to require their acceptance by the whole body of the faithful, including the laity, in order to be infallible. A lay theologian is as acceptable to an Orthodox seminary as a clerical one. And indeed the priestly function toward God is not confused with the teaching function towards men. But the confusion of preacher or teacher with “priest” in Protestant theology is only slightly less bewildering than the confusion between word and sacraments exemplified in the custom of placing Bibles on “altars.”

We may now summarize the Orthodox position on orders. To advocate or acknowledge authenticity apart from unity would make no sense. If the reality or validity of grace among those who are apart from us need not be denied, it is also not to be authenticated. (This statement also displays the utility of the concept of “authenticity,” in contrast with that of validity.”) The Orthodox demand for sacramental acts to take place within the bounds of the original Church and with full, rather than partial, fidelity to her faith and practice represents the ideal of unity and excludes Donatism and magic alike.

 

NOTES

1. The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, III (1957), 182-96 and IV (1958), 44-65.

2. Chrestos Androutsos, Dogmatikè tês orthodoxou anatolikês ekklesias (2d ed.; Athens: Aster, 1956), p. 305.

3. Cf. A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (rev. ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), p. 598.

4. Reprinted in The Modern Churchman, V, N.S. (1962), 126-28. The signers maintain that “many” Anglicans agree with them and that such views are consonant with the official formularies of their Church. Some of these signers are also contributors to A. R. Vidler (ed.), Soundings: Essays Concerning Christian Understanding (Cambridge: The University Press, 1962), a book of no small importance for understanding the position of these scholars.

 

Conditions of Autocephaly

Professor Alexander A. Bogolepov

 

 

1. The Establishment of a New Local Church as a Problem of Orthodox Canon Law.

The way in which new Orthodox Local Churches are established is of special significance for Orthodox Canon Law. As a legal problem, the establishment of a new Church is significant, for opposite reasons, neither to Catholicism nor Protestantism.

According to Roman Catholic teaching, the Church is One, not only because all her members profess the same faith and join in a common worship, but also because they are united by the guidance of the infallible successor of St. Peter, the Roman Pontiff. The unity of the Roman Catholic Church eliminates the possibility of any lawful separation from her. No new Church can be organized from the parts of the Roman Church and legitimately become independent. From the Roman point of view, the true Christian Church can exist only under the authority of the Pope of Rome, the Visible Head of the Church and Christ's Vicar on Earth; those Christians who are outside of the Roman Church are heretics or schismatics. Ecclesiastical bodies existing separately from the Roman Catholic Church can be united with her only on the condition of their complete subordination to the Pope.

Unlike Catholics, Protestants recognize the possibility of organizing new religious communities. Since preaching the Word of God is considered the basic task of the Church, each group of believers may, in their struggle for the right understanding of the Gospel, organize their own community with their own clergy. In Protestant practice, the establishment of a new body of clergy presents no specific difficulties. It can even be established by the community itself. Since Protestantism recognizes the absolute supremacy of the Word, the Church is considered as founded on the teaching of Christ, that is "on Christ" but not "by Christ" and His Apostles. In their fight against the Roman Catholic Church the Protestants rejected the idea of the uninterrupted succession of the spiritual authority from the Apostles. Only churches of the Anglican communion recognize the Apostolic succession in principle. Since the appointment of pastors and ministers in the Protestant Church is not connected with the reception of hierarchal authority from the successors of the Apostles, it does not, therefore, depend on an existing hierarchy but rather depends solely on the community of believers. From the point of view of the Protestant ecclesiology, nothing stands in the way of the separation of one or several communities from established Protestant Churches and for the organization of new Protestant Churches. Complications may arise from civil authorities concerning the activities of ecclesiastical associations of citizens, but not from the Protestant concept of the Church. In spite of the desire for unity, Protestantism is, in reality, not one Church but an aggregation of many Protestant churches and communities which differ from one another both in their teachings and their structures.

The Orthodox Church retained the concept of Church unity which existed during the time of the seven Ecumenical Councils. She is a unity in plurality of Sister-Churches, some of whom can have only the privileges of honor. Her unity does not consist in the subordination to one single head. She recognizes no one to have been empowered by Christ to be His Vicar on earth and to have an indisputable authority above the whole of His Church. The deep spiritual unity of the Sister- Churches consists in the unity of faith, church tradition, basic features of canonical structure and divine services, as well as in the recognition only of that hierarchy which inherited its authority from the Apostles — from all the Apostles, and not just from Peter. The Orthodox Church greatly values the connection of her hierarchy with the Apostles and through them with Christ Himself and she firmly retains the principle of Apostolic succession of hierarchal authority. With regard to the administration of internal affairs, the Sister-Churches enjoy the right of self-government and have independent ruling bodies. Administrative independence is provided for by differences in local usages but it is connected with a strong adherence to the basic principles of faith and church order. The highest expressions of this unity were the Ecumenical Councils.

Since the time of the Ecumenical Councils, the unity of the Church has been expressed in meetings of the Heads of the various Churches as well as in their correspondence with one another and in letters notifying others as to their accession to their sees, in reciprocal visits, and in the exchanges of delegations. Besides all this, the previous intercommunion in sacraments and worship has always been retained in full. Bishops and priests of one Local Church worship together with the bishops and priests of another Sister-Church; members of one Church partake in the sacraments and worship of other Churches. In this way the community of spiritual life and the unity of the whole Body of the Orthodox Church are secured, and an unrestricted subdivision of church structure as is found in the Protestant Church is thereby eliminated.

The first four Ecumenical Councils not only recognized the principle that the Church consists of several administratively independent Local Churches but they also established new Local Churches. In this way the possibility was given for establishing new Local Churches, whose number has never been limited.

The possibility that the number of Local Churches may expand creates the problem of establishing the canonical requirements for setting up such a new Local Church. This problem is more complicated in Orthodox Canon Law than it is for Protestants because under Orthodox Canon Law, the establishment of new independent self-governing Local Orthodox Churches is bound up with the observance of certain requirements, such as securing the Apostolic succession of hierarchal authority and maintaining unity among the Sister-Churches.

 

2. Canonical Requirements for Establishing a New Local Church.

The requirements for establishing new local churches are closely connected with peculiar features of their canonical position. The Orthodox Sister-Churches are autocephalous churches. We would search in vain for the word "autocephalous" in the canons adopted by the Ecumenical Councils. It was introduced by practice, and its meaning changed with the course of history. Later, the term "autocephalous" (in Greek—"Himself the head") was used to denote a self-governing independent church, a concept that had already been elaborated by the Ecumenical Councils.

Having recognized each of the five civil dioceses of the prefecture of the East as independent churches, the Second Ecumenical Council determined that "The bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, Asia (Minor), Pontus, and Thrace," may "alone administer the affairs of their dioceses," without any interference from other ecclesiastical authorities, (Canon 2). Defending the independence of the Church of Carthage, the African Council of 424 also insisted in its letter to Pope Celestine, "That all matters should be determined in the places where they arise." In addition, at the time that it recognized the independence of the Churches of Cyprus from the Church of Antioch, the Third Ecumenical Council declared that, "The rulers of the Holy Churches of Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or diminution,... the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops" (Canon 8). Among the three bishops of Cyprus, who presented their petition to the Third Ecumenical Council, the newly elected head of the Church of Cyprus, Bishop Reginus, was also present at Ephesus. His election by the bishops of Cyprus was recognized as canonically valid: an autocephalous Church can appoint her head herself. Therefore, there are two distinguishing marks of an autocephalous Church:

(1) The right to resolve all internal problems on her own authority, independently of all other churches, and

(2) The right to appoint her own bishops, among them the head of the Church.

Accordingly, a part of the Orthodox Church claiming to be autocephalous must be sufficiently mature to organize its own ecclesiastical life; it must have a sufficient number of parishes and parishioners, the possibility of training new clergymen, and a hierarchy canonically capable of making subsequent appointments of new bishops. As to the latter, canonically very important, requirement, the canons distinguish between (a) the appointment of a bishop; i.e., the designation of a person to hold the office of bishop, and (b) the ordination or consecration of the bishop. According to the Fourth Canon of the First Ecumenical Council, the appointment of a bishop can be made by "at  least" three bishops of the Provincial Council of Bishops, and "then the ordination should take place." As to the ordination, it can be performed by as few as two bishops (Apost. Can. 1); but it can take place only after the candidate had been appointed by the assembly of at least three ruling bishops, since the Provincial Council of Bishops consists only of bishops who administer dioceses belonging to the metropolitan district. If the number of ruling bishops of one Orthodox region is less than three, then this region cannot be proclaimed "autocephalous," since it is canonically unable to provide new bishops for itself.

Authority to appoint and ordain a new bishop exists only when the three ruling bishops of an ecclesiastical region are themselves duly appointed and ordained, which means that they also had to be appointed and ordained by ruling bishops of one of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches having the "right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent bishops" (Ephes. Can. 8). Since no autocephalous Church has the right to appoint bishops for any but her own dioceses, a bishop of a new Church originally had to be appointed by ruling bishops of one of the established Autocephalous Churches to a diocese of that particular Church. As a result, the whole church region claiming autocephalous status must be a part of an Autocephalous Church, her diocese, or her mission.

This rule had been deeply rooted in the practice of the Orthodox Church. Before proclaiming her independence in 1448, the Russian Church had been a metropolitan district of the Church of Constantinople. In the XIX and XX centuries, the newly established churches of Greece, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania, were also dioceses of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Polish Orthodox Church was formed from dioceses of the Russian Church. The Church of Czechoslovakia included diocesan districts which were under the jurisdiction of the Churches of Russia and Serbia, as well as some former Uniate dioceses which came under the jurisdiction of Moscow. The autonomous Churches of Finland and China originated from parts of the Russian Church.

New churches always originate from existing autocephalous Churches, and the whole Orthodox Church is like a tree which sends its branches in different directions; nevertheless, all the branches are fed by one sap and live one life. In this way the uninterrupted succession from the Apostles has really been preserved. Any ecclesiastical region which was not a part of an Autocephalous Local Church and whose administration was not organized by that Church, may not claim to be autocephalous.

The presence of three canonically approved bishops as well as the canonical origin from one of the Autocephalous Churches, however, gives the right to claim an independent ecclesiastical administration only if that region is located in a state independent of that of its Mother Church. This requirement developed in the course of long church practice, beginning with the IXth century. It derived from a system of establishing new churches during the time of the Ecumenical Councils. For practical considerations, ecclesiastical districts were established from the very beginning of the Christian era in conformity with the political division of the Roman Empire. Later on, this practice was confirmed by the 17th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon, which stated: "Let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes follow the political and municipal pattern." The same regulation was renewed by the 38th Canon of the Trullan Council, which reads: "Let the order of things ecclesiastical follow the civil and public models." Since the political division of the Roman Empire was based on the territorial principle, the same territorial principle was also applied to the determination of the borders of ecclesiastical districts.

In the course of its historical development, the Roman Empire included in its boundaries some formerly independent states with a population consisting of different nationalities. Consequently, its political and administrative division reflected, to a certain extent, the national character of the countries absorbed. National peculiarities of the different regions were much more preserved in the lower administrative districts than in the higher ones, but the territorial principle was paramount whereas the national principle was always subordinate. Following the civil and public models, the administrative division of the Church also reflected, to some extent, the national composition of the Roman Empire.

The 34th Apostolic Canon mentions the national principle in the lower church districts; according to this canon, "The bishop of every nation (ethnos), must acknowledge him who is first among them." The language of this canon has been cited to support the contention that the nation should be the basis of Church organization; however, the Council of Antioch of 341 gave the most authoritative interpretation to the word "Nation" (ethnos). Its canon 9 explains "nation" (ethnos), not as meaning a people bound together by ties of blood, language, and customs, but as meaning a "province," as the administrative subdivision of the civil diocese of the Roman Empire. The 9th Canon of Antioch, which in effect reproduces the 34th Apostolic Canon, reads: "It behooves the bishops in every province (in Greek — eparchia) to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis." Thus, in the middle of the IVth century the territorial principle was recognized as paramount for the establishment and government of ecclesiastical districts, regardless of whether or not it conformed to the national principle. The national principle was significant only so far as it coincided with the territorial principle, but it could never override it.

Later in the history of the Orthodox Canon Law, this correlation of the territorial and the national principles was interpreted to mean that a new autocephalous church could only be established for a nation lying within the borders of a state independent of that of the Mother Church. From the IXth century, this point of view was accepted by the new Balkan nations: Bulgaria, Serbia, and Romania. These had all received Christianity from Constantinople; the Church in these states had the same quality as that of Byzantium, i.e., was a state-church. After these nations had acquired their independence, efforts were made to withdraw their churches from subordination to Constantinople and to establish them as independent church administrations. After all the others, the Russian Church went the same way.

In the Kormchaya Kniga (The Rudder) published by Patriarch Nikon in 1653, the establishment of these new churches, as well as the secession of the Russian Church from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, was justified. In the introductory chapters of the Kormchaya Kniga it was explained that the reception of Christianity from Constantinople does not mean that the Church must be subordinated to the Patriarch of Constantinople forever. If a nation has established an independent state, not subordinate to the Greek Empire, and if the Local Church gradually becomes stronger, it may in time become self-governing and independent. The initiative can be taken, as was the case with the Bulgarian Church, by the Tsar, who very "justly" decided to nominate a Patriarch by the Bulgarian Bishops Sobor in Trnovo. It is also possible to obtain the necessary consent of the Greek Emperor and the Patriarch, as occurred in Serbia, where the Patriarch was appointed by the local bishops. As for Russia, the Kormchaya Kniga stressed the extreme significance of the Russian Principality since ancient times and the subsequent high authority of the Russian Tsar, describing the sublimity of the state of Moscow and the growth of its piety. As a strange inconsistency, it was pointed out that the Russian metropolitans were still ordained by the Patriarch of Constantinople and, despite the long distance, they had to go to Constantinople for their ordinations. The submission of all the Eastern Churches to the Moslem Turkish rule was mentioned as a further obstacle to the Russian metropolitans' going to Constantinople (pp. 5-10); by all this the idea was emphasized that an independent Orthodox Church can be established in an independent state. [1]

Although it was not so pleasant for the Patriarchal See of Constantinople, the above principle was generally recognized even by the latter at the Synod of 1593, in Constantinople. The question was raised at that Synod whether canonical rules allow the establishment of a Patriarchal See in Moscow, and whether the Russian Church could be recognized as autocephalous. An affirmative answer to this question was obtained through the interpretation of Can. 28 of Chalcedon, according to which the Patriarchal See of Constantinople received its privileges because Constantinople was a Royal City, honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate. The same argument was applied to the See of Moscow, which could also be recognized as worthy of the Patriarchal dignity, since Moscow was a royal city of the Russian Kingdom. [2]

The principle, "An autocephalous Church in an independent state," was later approved and developed in detail by the Patriarch of Constantinople, Joachim III, in his Letter concerning the recognition of the Serbian Church in 1879. The Letter of Patriarch Joachim III is an answer to the letters of the Serbian Prince Milan Obrenovich and Michael, the Metropolitan of Belgrade, requesting that the Serbian Church be granted independence. After having given careful consideration to this problem, Patriarch Joachim III, together with his Holy Synod, recognized that self-governing Local Churches may be established, "not only in conformity with the historical importance of the cities and countries in Christianity, but also according to political conditions of the life of their people and nations." Referring then to the 28th Canon of Chalcedon and to other canons, as well as to the opinion of Patriarch Photius, Patriarch Joachim III reaffirmed: "The ecclesiastical rights, especially those of parishes, usually follow the political subdivision of the country and the government concerned."

(a). Whereas — the Letter goes on — the pious and God-protected principality of Serbia has, through God's Providence, gained strength, has increased, and has attained complete political independence; and

(b). Whereas, the most pious Prince Milan M. Obrenovich IV and His Eminence, Michael, Archbishop of Belgrade and Metropolitan of Serbia, on behalf of the honorable clergy and pious people, requested us by letter to grant autocephalous and independent ecclesiastical status, conforming with the political independence of the state, the Patriarch and the Holy Synod found that the request was well grounded and conformed to the spirit of Sacred canons and to the church practice," and therefore decided—"To proclaim the Holy Serbian Church autocephalous, independent and self-governing." [3]

The above decision is of extreme importance because the granting of autocephalous status is conditioned directly upon the location of the church in a politically independent state, so that the foundation of a new church under such circumstances is recognized as being "in conformity to the spirit of the sacred canons and to Church practice." The same idea was used by the Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory VII as a basis of his Patriarchal and Synodal Canonical Tomos of Nov. 13, 1924. When referring to Can. 17 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and Can. 36 of the Trullan Council, Patriarch Gregory VII states that the structure of ecclesiastical affairs has to follow the political and public forms. These were the reasons to grant the autocephalous status to the Orthodox Church in the reestablished Polish state. Therefore, a church district of canonical origin having no less than three duly appointed ruling bishops may receive autocephalous status, if it be situated in a politically independent state.

It is true that the Letter of Patriarch Joachim III concerned the Serbian Church as a national one, but even in this case the national principle was again subordinated to the territorial; the Serbian Church was recognized as independent, as long as her members were within the borders of the state of Serbia, however, the Orthodox Serbs living outside the Serbian state, for example in Austria, were not regarded as belonging to the Serbian Autocephalous Church, and they were not granted her privileges. On the other hand, the political-territorial principle cannot prevent members of one nationality group, within the borders of an independent Church, from living side by side with members of another ethnic group as citizens of the same state. In multi-national states, the political-territorial principle comes to the concept of a "nation-State," and may include all citizens of that state.

Later, the independence of a state as a prerequisite for obtaining autocephalous status was also stressed by Patriarch Alexis at the Moscow Conference of 1948. Actually, Patriarch Alexis only repeated the reasons mentioned in the Kormchaya Kniga by Patriarch Nikon, but at the same time he defined them more exactly and gave some additional reasons. His most important points were:

(1) The number of bishops in the Russian Church far exceeded the minimum canonically required for the establishment of an independent church;

(2) The Russian Church found herself within another state which possessed an enormous territory and was quite independent of the state in which her Mother-Church of Constantinople was located;

(3) Her faithful belonged to another nation, which had a different language, different habits, and different customs;

(4) It became more and more obvious that not only was there a need for having a Russian Metropolitan as Head of the Russian Church but also, for having the right of appointing him independently of the Patriarch of Constantinople, by a Council of Russian Bishops.

Further on, just as in the Kormchaya Kniga, Patriarch Alexis mentioned the great distance between Constantinople and Moscow, the instability of the Greek Church in Orthodoxy, the fall of Constantinople into the hands of the Turks, which threatened the Church with the loss of the purity of her faith, and the fact that the Bulgarian and Serbian Churches had long since received autocephalous status, although they were smaller than the Russian Church and were situated nearer to Constantinople.

The complete list of the prerequisites for establishing a new Local Church given by Patriarch Alexis is important because the Patriarch indicated some additional conditions which might justify separation from a Mother Church.

Among several reasons for secession from the Greek Church, Patriarch Alexis mentioned the instability of the Greek Church in Orthodoxy. He asserted that the Russian Church could preserve the Orthodox faith pure and intact only by becoming completely independent of the Church of Constantinople. [4] This statement by Patriarch Alexis evidently rested upon Canons 13-15 of the First-and-Second Council of 861 in Constantinople. The canons permit and even approve withdrawing from communion with higher ecclesiastical authorities when they publicly preach a heresy already condemned by the Holy Councils or by the Holy Fathers.

Now, that the hierarchy of the Russian Church has been compelled to support the Communist government in both internal and external difficulties in return for its permission to reestablish the shattered hierarchal structure of the Church and for some freedom of performing divine services, the Russian hierarchy usually asserts that secession from the Russian Church can be lawful only if hierarchs would openly preach heresy. (Letter of Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergius, December 31, 1927.) [5]

The attempt to limit the reasons for separation to dogmatic problems or to treat canonical reasons as dogmatic is absolutely unjustified. The provisions concerning reasons for secession are not limited to Canons 13-15 of the First-and-Second Council in 861. They are also found in the Apostolic Canon 31, which gave the reasons for secession. It forbade the secession of a presbyter from his bishop, if he did it without first condemning his bishop (before the Bishops' Council) for doing something wrong not only with regard to "piety" but also with regard to "righteousness." The public preaching of heresy can be understood as an infringement of piety while the violation of righteousness includes violations of ecclesiastical order and the rules of organization and administration of the Church. The validity of the Apostolic Canons, recognized by the Trullan and the Seventh Ecumenical Councils, is higher than that of the canons of the Local First-and-Second Council of 861, which do not belong to the general Canonical Code of the Orthodox Church established by the Ecumenical Councils. Therefore, Canons 13-15 of the Council of 861 are no restriction on the broader meaning of the 31st Apostolic Canon and, hence, the reasons for secession can be dogmatic as well as canonical.

Patriarch Alexis also regarded the subordination of Constantinople to the Moslem yoke as a danger to the purity of the Orthodox Faith. This subordination could not have been the immediate reason for the separation of the Russian Church from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Greek Metropolitan Isidore was deposed in Moscow in 1441, and in 1448 a new Russian Metropolitan Jonah was elected in his place by the Russian Sobor, whereas the city of Constantinople was captured by the Turks in 1453; the Russian Church became independent of the Church of Constantinople before that city's seizure by the Turks. But the Moslem yoke could still have been the reason for Moscow's maintaining its independence which had been proclaimed earlier. The Russian apprehensiveness about injury to Orthodoxy in Constantinople under the Turks was, of course, exaggerated. However, the Russian Church faced the real danger that her head might become dependent on the Moslem Sultan if Russian Metropolitans were appointed in Constantinople. Like all appointments of bishops made by the Ecumenical Patriarch, the appointment of the Metropolitan for Moscow would have had to be approved by the Sultan. The Russian candidates would have been obliged to make a long trip to Constantinople, visit the Sultan, and make to him the necessary payments in order to receive confirmation of their right to the Moscow See. [6] The dependence of the Ecumenical Patriarch upon the Sultan could have impaired the free development of ecclesiastical life in the Moscow State. Patriarch Alexis rightly emphasized the dependence of the Mother-Church on a non-Christian power as one of the reasons for the establishment of an independent ecclesiastical administration.

If an ecclesiastical region not only fulfills the three principal requirements necessary for receiving autocephalous status (canonical origin, presence of at least three duly appointed bishops, and location in a State other than that of the Mother-Church), but also has other reasons forcing it to separate from its Mother-Church, then these additional reasons take on special importance; they reinforce its right of self-government. Such reasons may be: the Mother-Church's support of heresy, violation of the basic principles of the canonical structure of the Church as well as the subordination of the Mother-Church to a civil government which deprives her of freedom. But all these circumstances are only additional reasons forcing a certain ecclesiastical region to use its canonical rights to complete independence and speeding up the process of separation from the Mother-Church.

It must also be noted that Patriarch Alexis took a strong legal stand on the question. He gave a full account of the reasons for ecclesiastical independence in order to prove that the "Russian Church even in the first years of her existence had a right to more than she had received in the field of her Church administration," which means that she should have had a more independent administration than that which she had. In his conclusion Patriarch Alexis emphasized that the Russian Church "possessed all the canonical prerequisites not only for autonomous, but also for autocephalous status. But if a church meets all the canonical requirements for autocephalous status if she meets all the canonical requirements necessary for obtaining this status. But if a church meets all the canonical requirements for autocephalous status, then justice requires that her claim be recognized and that she be included in the number of Autocephalous Churches. [7] "Rights," always correspond with "duties" of others to act according to these rights.

 

3. The Recognition of a New Local Church at the Time of the Ecumenical Councils.

The recognition of autocephalous status is the final act in the establishment of a new and independent Church. From that moment on, she becomes a full and equal member of the community of autocephalous Churches of the Orthodox Church. The introduction of a new member into this community is of common concern to all its members, as well as to the entire Orthodox Church. Therefore, such an innovation can only occur with the consent of all the other autocephalous churches.

During the time of the Ecumenical Councils all new independent Churches were recognized, or established, by Ecumenical Councils themselves. The independence of the Churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch was recognized by the First Ecumenical Council. The churches of Thrace, Asia Minor, and Pontus were proclaimed independent by the Second Ecumenical Council. The independence of the Church of Cyprus was established by the Third Ecumenical Council. The Fourth Ecumenical Council subordinated the Churches of Thrace, Asia Minor, and Pontus to the authority of the Archbishop of Constantinople and at the same time founded the Church of Constantinople. The same Council also proclaimed the Church of Jerusalem to be independent.

Then the Ecumenical Councils ceased to convene, church practice from the IXth to the XXth centuries established two methods by which the existence of new churches was officially recognized: (1) By the Mother Church, and (2) By the Ecumenical Patriarch. Under either method, the other autocephalous churches joined in the recognition.

 

4. Recognition of a New Church by the Mother-Church.

The prerogative of the Mother-Church to recognize a new church was strongly defended in a letter by Alexis, Patriarch of Moscow, to the Ecumenical Patriarch, Athenagoras (March 7, 1953). "Until rules have been established by which one part of a Local Church may be proclaimed autocephalous," this letter states, "legal force shall be attributed to the practice of establishing an autocephalous church by the decision of the Council of Bishops of her Mother-Church, which alone has the right to decide on matters such as the granting of autocephalous, as well as autonomous, status to one of her parts. Of this fact numerous examples can be provided." [8]

As appears from this letter, "rules" for proclaiming one part of a local church autocephalous or autonomous have not yet been established and hence, the rights of the Mother-Church are based upon the existing order, relying on "numerous examples," taken from Church practice or church customs. But church practices can have special legal force only if based on canons. In order to prove the privilege of the Mother-Church to establish new local churches reference is usually made to the Apostolic Canon 31 as well as Canons 13, 14 and 15 of the First-and-Second Council of 861 in Constantinople (see The Letter of the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Sergius of January 5, 1935 to Archbishop Benjamin, Patriarchal Exarch in America).

Apostolic Canon 31 prescribes that a presbyter be deposed who despises his own bishop, collects a separate congregation, and erects another altar without having any grounds for condemning his bishop with regard to piety or righteousness. Canon 13 of the First-and-Second Council also provides that any presbyter or deacon shall be subject to deposition if he, on the ground that his own bishop has been condemned for certain crimes, but before the Council of Bishops has examined the charges, should dare to secede from his communion. The same sanction was laid down in Canon 14 for a bishop who withdraws from communion with his metropolitan, and in Canon 15, for any presbyter, bishop or metropolitan who breaks away from his Patriarch. All these canons of the Council of 861 forbid the arbitrary withdrawal of clergymen from communion with their higher ecclesiastical authorities, except in the case when the bishop publicly preaches a heresy which has already been condemned by the Holy Councils. But none of these canons are concerned with establishing a new Local Church.

(1.) They only mention personal acts of individual clergymen—the withdrawal by a deacon or presbyter from canonical communion with his bishop, by the bishop from communion with his metropolitan, as well as by a metropolitan, bishops, or presbyters with their patriarch, regardless of whether the flock joins them. Even if a part of the flock follows them, the withdrawn part is canonically unable to continue an independent church life. By contrast, whenever a new church is established, it is not one presbyter, or one bishop, or metropolitan who withdraws from church communion, but rather an entire region, with its population and clergy, with no less than three bishops who withdraw not from communion but only from administrative dependence.

(2.) The Council of 861 considered the withdrawal of a bishop or metropolitan from communion with his Patriarch on a level with that of a presbyter from his bishop or Patriarch. It is very clear that the Council of 861 was only concerned with internal strife (the secession of the adherents of Ignatius from Patriarch Photius) and did not provide regulations for the separation of a part of the Church situated in a country completely independent from Byzantium. Whereas the founding of a new autocephalous church depends upon the location of a church in a region within the boundaries of a state other than that of its Mother-Church.

(3.) Apostolic Canon 31 and Canons 13-15 of the First and Second Council only deal with splits which occur as a result of charges brought forward against certain hierarchs. Where the withdrawal occurs before these charges are heard by the Council of Bishops, it is looked upon as a schism, an illicit, arbitrary split, and those found guilty are subject to ecclesiastical sanctions: deposition or excommunication. But the establishing of a new church from parts of the old Church may occur without any charges against the hierarchy of the Mother Church, simply on the grounds that this region has reached maturity for self-government and has fulfilled all canonical requirements necessary for the foundation of a new church.

All of the foregoing only proves that Apostolic Canon 31 and Canons 13-15 of the First and Second Council have no importance in the problem of establishing a new Church, especially since that problem first arose only later. Hence, the privilege of the Mother-Church to grant autocephalous status to one of her parts cannot be based on these canons. The canons and practices of the Orthodox Church clearly distinguish between the withdrawal of a presbyter, bishop, or metropolitan from the jurisdiction of higher Church authorities and the establishment of a new Local Church. The first is an action of individual presbyters or bishops under the pretext that their superiors were guilty of misconduct, but before the case had been heard and determined by the Council of Bishops. The second — that is the establishing of a new Local Church — is the separation of one part of the Church (clergy and laity together) when it has no less than three duly appointed bishops and is located in an independent state other than that of its Mother-Church. Although single presbyters and deacons cannot withdraw without the consent of their higher ecclesiastical authorities, that is no ground for concluding that the establishing of a new Local Church is likewise possible only with the consent of the head of the Mother-Church and her Council of Bishops. There is a special procedure for the recognition of a new Church.

The distinction between the separation of clergymen from communion with their superiors and the establishing of a new Church is of great importance for the understanding of the canonical meaning of different types of separation in the Orthodox Church. While the withdrawal of clergymen from communion with their hierarchal superiors is generally an illicit and arbitrary action, the establishing of a new Local Church is not necessarily a schism but may be canonically lawful. Consequently, persons taking part in the canonical organization of a new Church are not liable to punishment, as required by the First and Second Council of 861.

The opinion that the Mother-Church alone is entitled to grant autocephalous status not only has no basis in the canons reviewed, but is also inconsistent with the principles of Orthodox canon law. If the Council of Bishops of the Mother-Church "alone" has the right to grant autocephalous status to a part of herself, then necessarily, no other autocephalous church has any voice in this matter. If the Council of Bishops of the Mother-Church does not recognize the autocephalous status of the new Church, the other  churches have no authority to do so; however, after autocephalous status has been granted by the Mother-Church, all the Sister-Churches, according to the letter of Patriarch Alexis of Moscow, must enter into canonical communion with that church, thus acknowledging the legality of the founding of the new Church by the will of the Mother-Church.

In the same Letter, the Patriarch of Moscow expressed his bewilderment as to why, "Contrary to the canons and tradition of the Church," the Ecumenical Patriarch did not enter into canonical communion with the Polish and Czechoslovakian Churches, "despite the fact that their autocephalous status has been recognized by the Moscow Patriarchate as their Mother-Church." Evidently, according to the letter of Patriarch Alexis, the Sister-Churches must recognize the autocephalous status granted by the Mother-Church. Thus, a change which ought to be decided by the whole community of Autocephalous Local Churches becomes an internal problem of one of the autocephalous churches, and the latter confers upon herself a right which belongs to the entire community of Local Churches. Such an interpretation of the right of the Mother-Church does not conform to the canonical principles of the Ecumenical Councils. The recognition of the autocephalous status of one of her parts by the Mother-Church cannot deprive the Sister-Churches of their independent right to pass on the legality of such a move. One member of the community of Orthodox Churches cannot, on its own motion, introduce a new church into the community without the consent of all the other members, all of whom are equal. The Patriarchal See in Constantinople, just as every other autocephalous church, has the right to withhold recognition of the autocephalous status of a new church, as granted by her Mother-Church. Therefore, the refusal of the Ecumenical Patriarch to enter into canonical communion with the Heads of the Polish and Czechoslovakian Churches cannot be considered as an act "contrary to the canons and traditions of the Church," as claimed in the letter of the Patriarch of Moscow of March 7, 1953. By declining to recognize the autocephalous status of these churches, the Ecumenical Patriarch was exercising the basic rights of every autocephalous church, and especially of the First among them.

The separation of a new church from an existing autocephalous church is usually a rather painful procedure; even for a church covering a large region, it is hard to lose one of her parts. In this connection, it is especially useful for the Mother-Church to seek the opinion of her Sister-Churches; they may have an opinion different from hers.

The Third Ecumenical Council in 341 recognized the Church of Cyprus as independent of the Church of Antioch, despite the claim of the Bishop of Antioch to ordain bishops for Cyprus as officers of the Antiochian Church. The life of the entire Orthodox Church is based on the intercommunion of all Local Churches, and each one of them has the right to decide independently on the eligibility of one of the parts of an autocephalous church to be self-governing.

 

5. The Recognition of a New Church by the Ecumenical Patriarch.

The system of recognition of a new Church by the Ecumenical Patriarch did not precede the system of recognition by the Mother-Church. From the IXth to the XXth century both procedures were used together. The Patriarchate of Constantinople was also a Mother-Church from which new Churches separated. Their recognition by the head of their Mother-Church at the same time was a recognition by the Ecumenical Patriarch. Autocephalous status was granted by the act of the one Church only, that is, by the decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople and his Synod of Bishops. Contrary to the practice at the time of the Ecumenical Councils, the ancient Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem thereafter did not enjoy the same rights as the Church of Constantinople. Especially during the Turkish domination from the XVth to the XlXth centuries, the representatives of those Patriarchates were unable to resist the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

A striking example of this inequality was the procedure by which the Patriarchate of Moscow was recognized. The Ecumenical Patriarch Jeremías II made that decision alone. When visiting Moscow in 1589 he recognized the Patriarchal dignity of the See of Moscow and attended the enthronement of the newly appointed Russian Patriarch. Only later, in 1590 and then in 1593, were Synods convoked in Constantinople to discuss the Russian question, partly upon the insistence of the Russian Government. The sessions of the Synod in 1590 were attended by Joachim, the Patriarch of Antioch, and by Sophronios, the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Meletios, the Patriarch of Alexandria, was present only at the sessions in 1593. The Synod of 1590 confirmed the personal decision of Patriarch Jeremías II. At the same time the Patriarchs of Antioch and Jerusalem publicly acknowledged their subordination to the Patriarch of Constantinople. By a Synodal decision the duty was imposed upon the new Patriarch of Moscow "to respect the Apostolic See of Constantinople as Head and Authority… just as the other Patriarchs respect him." Patriarch Meletios was displeased by this decision and sent Patriarch Jeremías a letter in which he wrote: "I know for certain that you were wrong to elevate the Moscow Metropolitanate to a Patriarchate because… the right to decide on this matter belongs not to the Patriarch alone but to the Synod and even to the Ecumenical Synod (Council). "Therefore, Your Holiness," Patriarch Meletios continued, "should obtain the consent of the other brethren… Since our words do not lead You to any thing good, but only bring You confusion, anger, and their consequences, I relieve Your Holiness from my reproaches and myself from trouble." In spite of his opinion, the Patriarch of Alexandria did not openly reject the Patriarch's decision. Finally, at the Synod sessions in 1593, Patriarch Meletios publicly supported the previous decision of 1590 on the establishment of the Patriarchate of Moscow. [9]

Later on, in the XlXth century, autocephalous status was granted to the Churches of Greece (1850), Serbia (1879), and Romania (1885), by means of Synodal Tomos (decrees) of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

What was the Ecumenical Patriarch's basis for exercising such extensive powers? No such basis could be expected in the canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils; even the title "Ecumenical" is not to be found in them. This title, first used in letters of Byzantine Emperors, was canonically conferred upon the Patriarch of Constantinople in 586 by the Synod of the See of Constantinople, i.e., by the local law of the Church of Constantinople herself. Nevertheless, the title, "Ecumenical," was eventually accepted by all other Orthodox Churches. Its significance had to be established by church practices and customs.

Although the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was full of tragical events, the powers of the Patriarch himself were broadened by both the Byzantine Emperors and the Turkish Sultans. His authority with regard to other Churches increased. The Byzantine Emperors made the Patriarch of Constantinople an intermediary between themselves and other Patriarchs and Bishops. The Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem might be granted an audience with the Emperor only upon the recommendation of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and as a result, they became dependent upon him. The Turkish Sultan proclaimed the Patriarch of Constantinople the Head and Ruler of all Christians in the Ottoman Empire. The ancient Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were usually appointed by the Sultan upon the recommendation of the Patriarch of Constantinople and became dependent upon him even more than they were at the time of the Byzantine Empire.

The Eastern Patriarchates: Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, fell under the control of Constantinople far easier, since they had become extremely weak following the loss of some of their dioceses as a result of dogmatic controversies; they were destroyed by the invasion of the Arabs and by the Crusaders. The Patriarch of Constantinople helped them to restore the life of their churches. Sometimes the ancient patriarchal sees could not be filled and a titular Patriarch, appointed by the Ecumenical Patriarch, resided in Constantinople. Together with the ancient Patriarchates, the formerly independent Churches of Bulgaria and Serbia also came under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch, in consequence of the subordination of their countries to the Turks. Thus, within the boundaries of the Turkish Empire a large multi-national Orthodox Church was formed, headed by the Ecumenical Patriarch, who not only used the honorific prerogatives established by the Ecumenical Councils (2nd Ecum. Council, Can. 3; 4th Ecum. Council, Can. 28) but also jurisdictional powers whose basis lay outside the canons.

When in the XlXth century the national Churches of Greece, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania began to secede from the Church of Constantinople one after another, the Ecumenical Patriarch alone had to decide on their canonical status. The establishing of a new Church meant withdrawal from the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Under such conditions it became accepted that a new Church could be established with the consent of the Ecumenical Patriarch and his Synod only, and that her independence might be recognized by him alone. Only the Russian Church was completely independent from Constantinople, but she too had seceded from her and regarded all new secessions as internal affairs of the Church of Constantinople.

Evidently it was the above practice of the Church of Constantinople to which Patriarch Alexis of Moscow referred in his letter of March 7, 1953. The canonical validity of that reference can be evaluated only after a judgment is reached on the problem of whether this church practice, which arose under peculiar political conditions, can serve as a general rule for all future periods.

A Church practice cannot take on binding force simply because it has been followed for a long time. To become a Church custom, a practice must be (a) in conformity to the basic principles of faith and church order, and (b) repeated freely. The binding force of a custom derives from church consciousness which accepts a certain line of action as correct. Church consciousness can, of course, be evidenced in any action performed freely, without the use of force. The practice of establishing new churches solely with the consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople was created on the basis of his powers obtained from the Byzantine Emperors and the Turkish Sultans. But all acts of state power are measures of compulsion, and a church practice based upon acts of state fails to attain the standing of a church custom for lack of one of the most important conditions — the freedom of formation. Sometimes the Church has no choice but to follow some laws and orders of the state, but civil laws can never be considered sources of canon law, which is created by the Church herself.

Likewise the recognition of the prerogatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch by other Local Churches of the Ottoman Empire cannot support the canonical validity of such prerogatives, since those prerogatives were derived from the decrees of the Ottoman Empire, and the other Churches were compelled to comply with those decrees. No recognition in any sense imposed by the state can be canonically valid, any more than acquiescence by the Church of Constantinople in arbitrary appointments and depositions of patriarchs and bishops by Byzantine Emperors and Turkish Sultans could bring about any alteration by prescription of the canonical procedure for their appointments and deposition.

Afterwards, when they had an opportunity to use the same Sultan's authority to loosen their dependence upon the Patriarch of Constantinople, the other ancient patriarchates succeeded in re-establishing the right of their bishops to elect their own Patriarch: Jerusalem in 1844, Antioch in 1898 and Alexandria in 1899. The other Churches separated themselves from the Church of Constantinople at the time of disintegration of the Ottoman Empire and gradually became independent of the Ecumenical Patriarch.

The concept that recognition of a new church is the exclusive privilege of the Ecumenical Patriarch, or that his approval must precede any subsequent recognition by other Local Churches, is as inconsistent with the principles of the Orthodox canon law as the equally misunderstood right of the Mother-Church discussed above. In both cases, the error would allow one local church to decide an inter-Orthodox question, and the rights of that church are put above the rights of all the Sister-Churches.

It must be admitted that the recognition of new Local Churches by the Ecumenical Patriarch was, canonically, the only possible way, after he became Head and Ruler of all Christians in the Turkish Empire, and when the establishment of a new church necessarily meant withdrawal from his jurisdiction. But under new conditions, when the number of autocephalous churches had increased considerably, that system cannot stand, since it is inconsistent with the canonical principles and practices of the times of the Ecumenical Councils. The Moscow Patriarch's attempt to base the right of the Mother-Church to establish an autocephalous church upon the practice of the Church of Constantinople, which arose under particular historic conditions, seems to lack sufficient foundation.

 

6. The Recognition of New Churches Since the Beginning of the Twentieth Century.

The theory of the exclusive right of a Mother-Church to grant autocephalous status, so insistently defended by Patriarch Alexis, can be regarded as nothing but the transfer of the prerogatives of the Church of Constantinople to the new Russian Mother-Church. It is easy to understand that these two principles had to collide, as they actually did after the First World War. At this time the insufficiencies of both principles were revealed and at the same time, fresh approaches to the problem of recognizing new autocephalous churches came to light.

From the middle of the XVth century to the beginning of the XlXth century the life of the Orthodox Church proceeded in such a manner that not only did the Ecumenical Council cease to convene but even contact, based upon mutual equality, was lost among the Autocephalous Churches. During this period the concept disappeared of the Orthodox Church as a unity in plurality, as a community of equal Autocephalous Churches with only prerogatives of honour among them. This community could not exist so long as there were only two truly independent Local Churches: the Church of Constantinople and the Russian Church, the latter being degraded by her synodal structure compared with the old Patriarchal dignity of the Church of Constantinople.

The re-establishment of the community of Orthodox Local Churches became possible only after the re-establishment of the independence of the ancient Eastern Patriarchate and other Churches which, during the period of Turkish rule, had become dependent upon Constantinople. As a result of several wars of liberation of the XlXth century in which Russia took an active part, Greece, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria were freed from Turkish rule and started to organize their own independent Churches. In spite of the protests of the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Russian Imperial Government supported before the Sublime Porte the requests of the ancient Patriarchates to elect their own candidates for the Patriarchal Sees in Jerusalem (1844), Damascus (1898), and Alexandria (1899). The re-establishment of the independence of these Churches was possible owing to the influence of the Russian Church whose voice as a state Church could more readily be heard since it coincided with the political interests of the Russian Government. As a result of the disintegration of the Turkish Empire the community of free Orthodox Churches was organized anew. At the beginning of the XXth century there were already ten local churches: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Cyprus, Russia, Greece, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria. These local churches also undertook to display their own will, and the importance of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the matter of the recognition of new Churches gradually ebbed.

The first time a dispute with the Patriarch of Constantinople was apparent was when the latter refused to recognize the Bulgarian Exarchate established by the Imperial Decree (Firman) of the Turkish Government in 1870. In 1872 the Patriarch of Constantinople invited representatives of the Churches of Russia and Serbia together with the Patriarchs of the ancient Eastern Churches to a council in Constantinople to censure the Bulgarian Church for this action. However, the Russian Holy Synod refused to participate in this council, claiming that the dispute was purely an internal affair of the Church of Constantinople. The Serbian Church also refused to participate. Later, the Russian Church did not associate itself with the decision of this Council of Constantinople of 1872. She avoided common celebration of the Divine Liturgy with Bulgarian clergymen for a long time, but members of the Bulgarian Church were always admitted to Communion and other sacraments in Russian churches and vice versa. In this case the rights of the Mother-Church of Constantinople to grant autocephalous status were not questioned but censure of the Bulgarian Church was withheld.

A very clear case of non-recognition of the acts of the Ecumenical Patriarchal See in Constantinople occurred soon after the First World War, when the Ecumenical Patriarch recognized the establishment of new Churches in the republics of Estonia, Latvia, Finland, and Poland, which had separated from the Russian Church. In this case a separation of the functions of the Patriarch of Constantinople as the Head of the Mother-Church and as the Ecumenical Patriarch occurred. Now, he acted only as the Ecumenical Patriarch. "Since the Most Holy Apostolic Patriarchal See in Constantinople" considered it to be its duty "to care for the welfare of all the Orthodox Churches which have been deprived of pastoral care," [10] the Ecumenical Patriarch recognized the Churches of Finland, Estonia, and Latvia as "autonomous" (in 1923) and the Church of Poland as "autocephalous" (in 1924).

The Russian Church considered all these acts as violations of her rights as a Mother-Church which — according to the views of the Moscow Patriarchate — alone could grant autonomy or autocephalous status to a Church separating from her. With the changed political situation, the Patriarch of Moscow succeeded in depriving these acts of the Ecumenical Patriarch of their effectiveness. After the Second World War, the democratic republics of Estonia and Latvia became Union Republics of the USSR, their Churches were reunited with the Russian Church as her dioceses and they lost their autonomy. The effectiveness of Constantinople's grant of autocephalous status to the Church of Poland was nullified in another way. The Polish democratic government, which favored autocephalous status, was replaced (after the Second World War) by a government friendly to the Communist government of the USSR. The Moscow Patriarch thereupon proclaimed Metropolitan Dionysius, the acting head of the Polish Autocephalous Church, to be suspended from his office and deprived of liturgical and canonical communion with the Russian Church to which he had formerly belonged. The administration of the Orthodox Church in Poland was assumed by a "Governing Board" of a few bishops. According to a petition of this Board, the Moscow Patriarch, in agreement with the Council of Russian Bishops, granted, "by the authority of the Mother-Church," complete autocephalous status, instead of the "non-canonical and invalid autocephalous status" proclaimed by the Tomos of the Patriarch of Constantinople. Athenagoras, the Patriarch of Constantinople, sought to regard the grant of autocephalous status by the Moscow Patriarch as a recognition of the 1924 act of the Church of Constantinople and therefore proposed to re-establish Metropolitan Dionysius in his rights. But the Patriarch of Moscow did not accept this proposal. Referring to the right of the Mother-Church, the Patriarch of Moscow denied the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch to grant autocephalous status to a church which previously was not under the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople. The rejection went so far that the autocephalous status granted to the Polish Church "by a foreign Patriarch" was declared completely invalid.

Continuing to develop the same idea of the prerogatives of the Mother-Church, the Moscow Patriarchate recognized the autocephalous status of the Church of Czechoslovakia in 1951. Her autocephalous status had also been proclaimed by the Moscow Patriarchate without any previous consultation with the Ecumenical Patriarch. Nevertheless, the Czechoslovakian Church was later recognized not only by the Churches behind the Iron Curtain, but also by the Patriarchal Sees of Alexandria and Antioch.

More serious disagreements arose between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and other Autocephalous Churches about the re-establishment of the Bulgarian Patriarchate. In this case, many Local Churches opposed the will of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Bulgarian Church, after having been granted autocephalous status by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1945, decided to proclaim the restoration of the Patriarchate on her own initiative. To receive recognition of her new status by all the other Orthodox local churches, by special letters the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Church invited their representatives to take part in the enthronement of the new Patriarch of the Bulgarian Church. The Ecumenical Patriarch received such an invitation as well. At the appointed time representatives of the Local Churches arrived in Sofia, but there was no representative from Constantinople. Soon a letter arrived from Athenagoras, the Ecumenical Patriarch, in which "the attributing to herself of patriarchal dignity and honor by the Bulgarian Church on her own accord" was considered "a deviation from the existing canonical and ecclesiastical order." According to this letter, the Bulgarian Church had to "seek her elevation to the Patriarchal dignity through us"— i.e., the Ecumenical Patriarchal See — from the Heads of the Holy Orthodox Churches. Besides, the letter made it clear that in passing on this application, the Ecumenical Patriarch would consider whether the Bulgarian Church had reached maturity and had manifested her constancy and loyalty to canonical principles. [11] In spite of the refusal of the Ecumenical Patriarch to recognize the Patriarchate of Bulgaria, it was recognized by the Patriarchs of the ancient Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem as well as by the Churches of communist countries: Russia, Romania, Georgia, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, i.e., by the majority of the existing Local Churches. [12]

But the prerogatives of the Mother-Church to grant autocephalous status did not receive universal recognition. The autocephalous status of the Polish and Czechoslovak Churches granted to them by their Russian Mother-Church was not recognized by the Churches of Constantinople, Greece, or Cyprus. Despite its insistence upon the prerogatives of the Mother-Church, the Moscow Patriarchate itself sometimes acted against the interests of other Mother-Churches and thereby weakened this principle. In 1937 the Albanian Church received autocephalous status from her Mother-Church, Constantinople. However, the Moscow Patriarchate maintained relations not with the Holy Synod established according to the Statute of 1937, but with the bishops friendly to the communist government of Albania. Later, with the consent of the government, a new Synod, consisting of these bishops, replaced the Holy Synod which had originated on the basis of the Statute approved by the Church of Constantinople. The Moscow Patriarchate recognized the new Head of the Albanian Church, but the Patriarch of Constantinople refused to recognize him and did not enter into canonical communion with him. The interests of the Serbian Patriarchate were also impaired by the Moscow Patriarchate on the establishment of the Church of Czechoslovakia. Some of the former parts of the Serbian Church within the boundaries of Czechoslovakia were included in the new Church. And consequently the Serbian Patriarch did not recognize the autocephalous status of the Church of Czechoslovakia.

Although the collision of two systems of recognition weakened both of them, the growing number of local churches and the strengthening of their mutual relations stressed the specific need to have a "first" among other members to whom they could apply for advice in their difficulties, and who could assist local churches to find a solution for their problems in the general interests of whole Orthodox Churches. The appeals of the Churches of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Poland, and of the Russian Metropolitan Districts of Western Europe to the Ecumenical Patriarch after World War I indicate in any case the high prestige of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Orthodox Church. As to the Church of Finland, the Moscow Patriarchate could not but recognize her autonomy in 1958, granted by the Ecumenical Patriarch, although this was made in complete disagreement with the claims of the Moscow Patriarchate concerning the prerogatives of the Mother-Church.

As practice has evolved, the recognition of a new Church and her introduction into the community of Orthodox Local Churches is now decided not by one Mother-Church or by the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople alone, but by all the Autocephalous Local Churches together. The latter reserve the right to accept or disapprove the decision of the Mother-Church or the Ecumenical Patriarch. The Patriarchal dignity, as well as autonomous or autocephalous status sometimes were recognized by Local Churches without previous approval of either the Ecumenical Patriarch (Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Albania) or the Mother-Church (Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia). From the jurisdiction of a single local church this problem is coming to be decided by all the local churches, and thus the ancient principle of deciding this matter by the whole community of autocephalous Churches is being revived. The recognition by the Mother-Church can, of course, facilitate the later recognition by other local churches, but under present circumstances, the problem of which Church has the right to decide in the first instance, loses its sharpness. Sometimes the local churches recognized a new Church after her Mother-Church granted her autocephalous status, sometimes the Ecumenical Patriarch was first to act. The Bulgarian Church was elevated to the Patriarchal dignity by many Churches without previous recognition by the Ecumenical Patriarch or by the Mother-Church, both being represented by the same Church of Constantinople. The appeal of the Bulgarian Church was forwarded not to the Mother-Church or to the Ecumenical Patriarch but to all autocephalous Churches simultaneously. In this manner a new way of initiating a request for recognition was shown.

The system of recognizing new Churches by each particular local church is much slower than the system of recognition by an Ecumenical Council. As a result, individual local churches may for some time be not recognized by all the autocephalous churches but only by some of them. However, in time the Orthodox Sister-Churches may drop their objections, as was done in connection with the Church of Finland in 1958. In 1961 the Ecumenical Patriarch also recognized the Autocephalous Churches of Poland and Czechoslovakia as well as the Patriarchate of Bulgaria.

7. The Proclamation of Her Own Independence by a New Church.

Obstacles to the recognition of a new Church and unsuccessful attempts to obtain it from the Mother-Church have usually resulted in a Church herself proclaiming her own independence. If the proclamation is given practical effect she becomes a de facto independent self-governing Church, practically enjoying the rights of an autocephalous church.

There are but few examples wherein a short time a Mother-Church granted autonomous or autocephalous status to a subsisting part of herself. This occurred, e.g., when the Ecumenical Patriarch granted autonomy and later autocephaly to the Serbian Church in 1832 and in 1879 respectively. But in the past, the founding of a new Church occurred mostly without the consent of the Mother-Church. After that, canonical relations were usually broken off and sometimes the new Church was even excommunicated. But later, there was no alternative for the Mother-Church but to recognize the independence of the separated Church. The Patriarch of Constantinople, for example, had to recognize the self-proclaimed independence of the following Churches in the XlXth and XXth centuries: the Church of Greece — 17 years after she had proclaimed herself autocephalous (1833-1850), the Romanian Church — 21 years after (1864-1885), the Albanian Church—15 years after (1922-1937), and the Bulgarian Church— 72 years after (1872-1945). In the XIIth century the Patriarch of Constantinople recognized the Bulgarian Church 50 years after she had proclaimed herself independent (1185-1235); in the XIVth century the Serbian Church was recognized 30 years after (1346-1375) and in the XVIth century the Russian Church — almost 140 years after (1448-1589). In the XXth century the Patriarch of Moscow recognized the Finnish Church 35 years after she had been granted autonomy by the Ecumenical Patriarch (1923-1958).

The Mother-Church usually regarded separation from her as arbitrary and uncanonical. It must, nevertheless, be noted that even the largest local churches when separating from the Church of Constantinople had to use the same arbitrary methods. This fact deprives them in turn of any right to condemn similar "arbitrary" separations of their own parts. We might expect that these Churches might have later regretted their previous action and might even condemn them now. But they did not. On the contrary, the declaration of independence by a new Church herself was authorized by the Conference of the Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Moscow in 1948. This Conference was convened on the invitation of Alexis, the Patriarch of Moscow, "on the occasion of the celebration of the 500th anniversary of the autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church." In 1448 the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church, which until that time had been one of the metropolitan districts of the church of Constantinople, elected the Russian Bishop Jonah as the Metropolitan of Moscow, without seeking the approval of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and thereby laid the basis for the self-government of the Russian Church and her independence. Although the Russian Church was canonically recognized by the Church of Constantinople only in 1589, Alexis, the Patriarch of Moscow, dates the beginning of the autocephaly not from the time of this canonical recognition, but from the year when the Russian Church proclaimed her independence on her own motion, and against the will of the Church of Constantinople.

It is also important to emphasize that Metropolitan Germanos, the Exarch of the Ecumenical Patriarch in Western Europe, taking part in this Conference, stressed in his speech that the Ecumenical Patriarch and his Holy Synod "received with utmost joy the decision of the great Russian Church to celebrate the 500th anniversary of her autocephaly." From the viewpoint of the representative of the Ecumenical Patriarch, the autocephaly of the Russian Church also dates from the time she proclaimed herself independent, in 1448. The Patriarchs of the Serbian and Romanian Churches, and the Exarch of the Bulgarian Church participated in the celebration. They all congratulated the Russian Church on the 500th anniversary of her autocephaly and independence. Greetings were also conveyed from the Patriarch of Antioch, the Catholicos-Patriarch of the Church of Georgia, as well as from representatives of the Churches of Poland and Albania. [13] In this manner, a proclamation of her own canonical independence by a new Church herself, without the consent of her Mother-Church, was accepted as lawful by the Russian Church as well as by representatives of the Ecumenical Patriarch and all the other autocephalous churches attending the Moscow Conference of 1948. The real meaning of this authorization can be properly understood if we remember the words of Patriarch Alexis during the general session of the Conference, where he declared that before the election of Metropolitan Jonah in 1448, the Russian Church "possessed all the canonical prerequisites... for autocephalous status." Therefore, the proclamation of independence may be made by a newly organized Church only if she meets all the usual requirements necessary for obtaining autocephalous status by other means.

The lack of formal recognition of a new Church did not prevent some Sister-Churches from maintaining liturgical and canonical relations with her. After the Russian Church had proclaimed her independence from the Church of Constantinople, her relations with the Eastern Patriarchates were broken, but not for long. Soon they were reestablished. The connection of Moscow with Eastern Patriarchs was evidenced in her correspondence with them, in their letters and information about the personnel changes in the Patriarchates, in their repeated visits to Moscow, and in financial assistance by Moscow to the needy Churches of the East. The establishment of the Russian Patriarchate and the enthronement of the Russian Patriarch in 1589 took place during one such visit of the Eastern Patriarchs to Moscow. Although not recognized de jure, a new Church may enjoy de facto recognition by other Autocephalous Local Churches.

 

Notes

1. A. Bogolepov, "On the 300th Anniversary of the Kormchaya Kniga," The Russian American Orthodox Messenger, New York, 1953, No. 4, pp. 58, 59 (in Russian).

2. A. Kartashev, The History of the Russian Church, Paris, 1959, Vol. II, p. 44 (in Russian).

3. The contents of the Letter of Patriarch Joachim III is given by Prof. I. Palmoν in his report to the Pre-Sobor Committee of 1906. Journals and Protocols of the Sessions of the Pre-Sobor Committee, Petersburg, 1907, Vol. Ill, pp. 236-237 (in Russian). See also Duchich, N. History of the Serbian Church, Belgrad, 1894, pp. 232-236 (in Serbian).

4. Acts of the Conference of the Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church in Moscow, 1948. Vol. I, p. 11-13. Moscow, 1949 (in Russian).

5. See also Archbishop Makarios, To the Communion of the North American Metropolia and Moscow Patriarchate, "One Church" 1947, N.Y., pp. 9-40 (in Russian).

6. A. Kartashev, History of the Russian Church, Vol. 1, p. 376, Paris, 1959 (in Russian).

7. Acts of the Conference of the Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches in Moscow, 1948, Vol. I, pp. 11, Moscow, 1949 (in Russian).

8. Zhurnal Moskovskoy Patriarchit (Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate), No. 5, 1953, pp. 4-8.

9. A Kartashev, History of the Russian Church. Paris, 1959. Vol. 2, pp. 41-45 (in Russian).

10. Tomos of the Ecumenical Patriarch Meletios concerning the autonomy of the Church of Estonia, July 1923.

11. Letter of His Holiness Athenagoras, Archbishop of Constantinople and Ecumenical Patriarch, to Cyril, the Metropolitan of Plovdiv, President of the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Church, of April 25th, 1953, and the answer of the Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Patriarchate of Dec. 31, 1953, in Tserkoven Vesnik, Sofia, January 22, 1954. The English translation was distributed at the Second Assembly of the World Council of Churches at Evanston, Illinois, U.S.A.

12. Yedinaya Tserkov (One Church), New York, 1953. No. 10-12, p. 17.

13. Acts of the Conference of the Heads and Representatives of the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, 1948, Vol. 1, pp. 18, 20, 23, 24, 29, 35. Moscow 1949 (in Russian).

 

Source: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, Fall 1961, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 11-37.

About the author, see https://orthodoxcanada.ca/Alexander_Alexandrovich_Bogolepov