(34 votes: 4.7 out of 5)

• prot. Vasily Zaev
• prot.

Autocephaly– (Greek auto – herself, mullet – head: “self-heading”) – administrative independence of the Local, the right to elect their bishops.

It exists in the form of independent, this independence is exclusively administrative, external, and does not in any way violate the unity of sacred rites. Adherence to the autocephalous principle of church dispensation reflects its deeply vital connection with the cultural and historical existence of various peoples.

The right to autocephaly is recognized by the Ecumenical Church for every Orthodox people capable of church self-government. The autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church began in 1448. election of Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus' (Jonah) by Russian bishops with the blessing of Patriarch Gregory III of Constantinople. The establishment of the patriarchate in Russia (1589) confirmed the independence of the Russian Orthodox Church.

All autocephalous Churches have an independent chain of apostolic succession and their bishops, including the primate, are appointed by the bishops of the same Churches

Currently there are 15 autocephalous Churches:

1. Constantinople,
2. Alexandria (Egypt and some African countries),
3. Antioch (Syria and Lebanon),
4. Jerusalem,
5. Georgian,
6. Serbian,
7. Romanian,
8. Bulgarian,
9. Cyprus,
10. Hellas (Greek),
11. Albanian,
12. Polish,
13. Czechoslovakian,
14. American.

According to the unity of faith and the basic principles of structure and management, they are in mutual communication. The administration of the Autocephalous Church can be headed by a single (patriarch, metropolitan) or collegial (synod) authority.

Autonomous (from Greek - “self-law”)- the status of a local church, which gives the right to independence in matters of intra-church governance from one or another autocephalous church, which the autonomous church was previously part of as an exarchate or diocese. The autocephalous church to which autonomy belongs is in this case called the kyriarchal church. She approves the charter of autonomy and grants it peace (see below). The head of the kyriarchal church appoints the head of the autonomous church. The name of the latter is commemorated in all churches after the name of the primate of the kyriarchal church. The head of an autonomous church is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of the kyriarchal church.

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  The union in Rus', signed on July 6, 1439 in Florence, met with rejection. While the Kiev Metropolitan Uniate and the newly-minted papal legate Isidore reached Moscow, proclaiming the concluded union in the western dioceses along the way, other embassy participants managed to arrive in the capital earlier and report on the “betrayal of Orthodoxy by the Greeks” committed in Florence. However, the union was not recognized in both Poland and Lithuania. This was largely facilitated by the support of the Polish King Casimir of the “Basel” Pope Felix V and his non-recognition of Pope Eugene IV, who concluded the union. On the side of the Basel Council and Pope Felix was the Polish episcopate, which, moreover, was very uncompromising in its attitude towards Orthodox dogmas and rituals. Smolensk and Kyiv reacted more favorably to the cause of union. Isidore lived in Kyiv all winter and left for Moscow in February.

  Isidore arrived in Moscow only for Holy Week of Great Lent on March 19, 1441. The papal legate entered the capital according to the ceremony of the Catholic bishop, with the presentation of the cross. They were preparing for his arrival in Moscow, but they allowed him to serve the Liturgy in the Assumption Cathedral. During the liturgy, contrary to custom, the Metropolitan was the first to remember not the Patriarch of Constantinople, but Pope Eugene. At the end, Isidore proclaimed the union. After this, Grand Duke Vasily, calling the Metropolitan a wolf, expelled him from the temple, and three days later he was arrested and imprisoned in the Chudov Monastery. However, subsequently (and all researchers agree with this) Isidore was given the opportunity to flee to Lithuania, thereby saving himself from the unpleasant duty of judging the apostate metropolitan.

  After the arrest of the Metropolitan, the Grand Duke convened a council from the bishops who were in Moscow at that time. Six of the eight bishops of North-Eastern Rus' controlled by Vasily II were present: Ephraim of Rostov, Jonah of Ryazan, Bishop Abraham of Suzdal, Job of Sarai, Gerasim of Perm, Varlaam of Kolomna. No conciliar documents have survived (if there were any). A document probably related to the council was the message of the Grand Duke to the Patriarch of Constantinople. At least the message was composed and sent. There are two known versions of this document, similar in text. One is addressed to Patriarch Mitrofan, the other to the name of Emperor John VIII. The second message is known as part of the 2nd Sophia Chronicle. Both messages make it possible to determine the year of their composition. But if the first one mentions the year 1441, then the second message points to the year 1443. It is difficult to say whether there was a second attempt two years later to contact Constantinople, or whether the copyist simply made an understandable mistake, but it is the 2nd Sophia Chronicle that reports that, having learned about the acceptance of the union by the emperor and patriarch, the Grand Duke returned the embassy from the road, and The messages did not reach the recipients.

  Nevertheless, this document is of considerable interest. Reporting in detail what happened to Isidore, the message rejects the union as contrary to “our ancient piety and Orthodox faith.” At the same time, the main points of disagreement with the “Latins” are mentioned. This is the doctrine of the “double” procession of the Holy Spirit (filioqve), the celebration of the Eucharist on unleavened bread, the doctrine of purgatory. The right of the Pope to act as a teacher of the Church is also rejected. The message emphasizes fidelity “ your Greek faith" At the same time, the Grand Duke asks permission to appoint a metropolitan as a council of Russian bishops. The reason for this request was “the need for a long and impassable journey” - the difficulty of a long journey. However, the Grand Duke asks for the patriarch’s blessing and expresses the desire “to have our Orthodox Christianity in existence forever from you.”

  The action of the Muscovites was actively supported on Mount Athos. From the Athonite protate and all the Athonite monks a message was sent to Moscow addressed to Prince Vasily in support of actions against the union.

  Election of Metropolitan Jonah

  After the expulsion of Isidore, the Russian metropolitanate remained vacant for several years. The political situation in the country was not conducive to the resolution of church affairs: at this time, a struggle for power broke out again between Vasily II and Dmitry Shemyaka. In 1445, Khan Ulug-Muhammad began an attack on Russian lands. Having lost the battle near Suzdal, Prince Vasily was captured, but he was soon released for a huge ransom. And in February 1446, Dmitry Shemyaka easily captured Moscow. Probably wanting to attract the clergy to his side, Shemyaka invited the Ryazan Bishop Jonah to Moscow and invited him to live in the metropolitan courtyard.

  The choice of Jonah of Ryazan Shemyaka was not related to his personal preferences: Jonah had already twice laid claim to the Kyiv Metropolis. The first time was after the death of Metropolitan Photius in 1431. Then the Smolensk bishop Gerasim, a protege of the Lithuanian prince Svidrigailo, was installed in Constantinople. However, already at this time Jonah is considered to have been named metropolitan. After the death of Gerasim in 1435, Jonah went to Constantinople, but there Isidore had already been appointed to the Kyiv metropolis: on the eve of the conclusion of the union, it was important for its supporters to have a consistent supporter in the largest metropolis.

  Shemyakino's reign did not last long. In December 1446, Vasily's supporters captured Moscow, and the Grand Duke himself settled in the capital in February 1447. In December 1448, a church council approved Jonah as metropolitan. At the cathedral, in addition to the Ryazan bishop, there were bishops of four dioceses: Ephraim of Rostov, Varlaam of Kolomna, Pitirim of Perm, Abraham of Suzdal. Archbishop Euthymius II of Novgorod and Bishop Elijah of Tver sent letters of freedom.

  The complexity of the situation was that Jonah was elected by the council of bishops only of North-Eastern Rus'. In this case, the bishops of Lithuania found themselves out of work, and there was a likely danger of separatist sentiments in the west of the metropolis. However, this did not happen. Even during his flight from Moscow, Isidore tried to gain a foothold in Lithuania and thus separate the western dioceses, persuading them to accept the union. This intention was not crowned with success due to the position of King Casimir IV, who broke off relations with Rome. In 1447, under Pope Nicholas V, who succeeded Pope Eugene, relations between the Polish king and Rome were restored. However, due, obviously, to political reasons, as well as due to the active rejection of the idea of ​​union by the Polish episcopate in Krakow, they decided to support the Moscow protege for the Kyiv Metropolis. In 1451, Casimir recognized Jonah as Metropolitan of Kyiv with a special letter, confirming his rights to all church estates on the territory of his state.

  Earlier, Jonah sent a message to Prince Alexander of Kyiv asking for support. In the message, Jonah refers to well-known precedents for the appointment of metropolitans in Rus' “for the sake of unsmoothness.” The message states that “except for the cathedral church of St. Sophia and the royal vestments throughout Constantinople... my father’s name is not mentioned anywhere.” There is no one to send to, the message concludes, “the king is not like that and neither is the patriarch like that, in other words.” . Similar messages were sent to the Lithuanian nobility and clergy.

  Finally, a message announcing the election of a metropolitan in Rus' was also drawn up for Constantinople. It was addressed to the Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI from Grand Duke Vasily. Dates from 1452. There are two known lists of the message, somewhat different in text. One message is marked: “... but she didn’t go,” that is, the message was not sent. The fate of the other option is unknown. Any reaction from Constantinople is also unknown. Nevertheless, the text of the message is indicative. The message states that the installation took place “not through arrogance or insolence,” but due to the circumstances of the time. The story of Isidore's betrayal is described in detail and the promise to place Jonah after Isidore is recalled. About the reasons for the forced violation of the canonical order, the Grand Duke writes: “In your pious powers, in the Church of God, there was disagreement, and in travel processions there was inconvenience, and in our countries there was all sorts of disorder.” In addition, it is not known whether there is a patriarch in Constantinople at all: “We are not aware that there is already in the powers of the holy kingdom, in the reigning city, a most holy Patriarch.” A desire is declared to restore relations “except for the current newly emerged disagreements.” The message ends with the assurance: “And God willing, the holy one will have the kingdom in the holy cathedral of the Apostolic Church, the Patriarch, according to ancient piety; and we must write about all our situations and send everything to his shrine, and demand blessings.”

  Autocephaly was not formally proclaimed. Moreover, Moscow demonstrates a desire to restore previous relations. Now it is important for Moscow to receive confirmation of the metropolitan dignity of its protege and to achieve recognition of him in the west of the metropolis. Moscow is concerned about the legitimacy of the arbitrarily elected metropolitan, so the messages contain persistent attempts to prove the compulsion and legitimacy of their actions. Moscow’s maximum demand is the independent election of a metropolitan, that is, church autonomy.

  Relations with the Patriarch of Constantinople after the fall of Constantinople

  In January 1454, by the will of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror, the remaining bishops in the city and its environs elected a patriarch - the first Orthodox after the signing of the union. He became the recognized head of the anti-Uniate party Gennady Scholarius. Thus, an Orthodox patriarch appeared in Constantinople, and this was to have consequences in relations with the Russian Metropolis. However, very little is known about this relationship. Only two documents tell us that relations with the Kirichial Church were restored. This is an incompletely preserved letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople and a mention in the “Legend of the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery” by Paisius (Yaroslavov) of the embassy of the abbot of the Kirillo-Belozersky monastery Cassian.

  The message to the patriarch reaffirms the readiness to accept blessings from the Patriarchs of Constantinople. The message points to another document sent from Constantinople to the Grand Duke. At the very least, this document contains a demand for negotiations with the Patriarchate.

  “The Legend of the Spaso-Kamenny Monastery,” written by Paisiy (Yaroslavov), reports that the abbot of the Kirillov Monastery, Cassian, was twice on an embassy with the patriarch. The purpose of the embassy was “church correction,” however, what kind of “correction” we are talking about is unclear.

  Division of the metropolis

  If the recognition of Metropolitan Jonah in the west of the metropolis at first was unconditional and approved by the support of King Casimir, then under Calixtus III (1455-1458), who replaced Pope Nicholas, the situation changed. King Casimir accepted as Metropolitan of Kyiv the Roman protege, associate and student of Isidore Gregory the Bulgarian. Gregory, abbot of the monastery of St. Dmitry in Constantinople, on October 15, 1458, he was dedicated by the Uniate Patriarch Gregory Mammas, Metropolitan of Kyiv, Lithuania and All Rus'. Previously, by the decision of Pope Calixtus on July 21, 1458, the metropolis was divided. It follows from the document that from now on, according to Rome, the local church of Rus' consists of the dioceses of “higher Russia,” ruled by “the schismatic monk Jonah, the son of lawlessness,” and “lower Russia.” Thus, “... the Kiev Metropolis was divided by papal decree, and not by the decision of the patriarch.” Gregory came under the jurisdiction of 9 western dioceses of Western Rus'. True, under the new pontiff Pius II in January 1459, the “Moscow” part of the metropolis was transferred by Isidore to Gregory and the integrity of the metropolis was formally restored. In this regard, Casimir from Rome received a request to promote the recognition of Gregory in Moscow. Jonah, if he appeared in the royal domain, had to be arrested. Casimir conscientiously fulfilled the order, offering to accept Gregory as metropolitan and Vasily II. However, Moscow demanded “not to violate antiquity” and refused to accept the Uniate metropolitan. The “old times” on which the Moscow prince insisted consisted in the dependence of the admission of metropolitans to the Russian see only on Russian princes.

  To counter the union, Metropolitan Jonah sent the abbots of the Trinity Monastery Vassian and Kirillov Cassian to the Lithuanian lands to the Orthodox clergy and nobility with messages in which they demanded that Gregory not be recognized. However, the mindset among the Lithuanian clergy has changed over the years. The bishops of the western regions sent their answers to the metropolitan, but their content is unknown. Many, along with their answer, also sent copies of letters from the pope and the “arzibiskupu” of Constantinople, Gregory. It became known that some of the bishops would concelebrate with the Uniate metropolitan.

  Under these conditions, at the end of 1459, at a council in the Assumption Cathedral of the Kremlin, Russian bishops, who had previously accepted ordination from St. Jonah, decreed: “Seeing in fact that, due to our sins and the heresy of the apostate from the Orthodox faith, Isidor’s disciple Gregory, who calls himself Metropolitan of Kiev, the division of God’s Churches of Moscow and Kiev took place, and from this division a great destruction for Orthodoxy occurred, we, as our appointment was given to our father Jonah, so now we repeat the promise - to be constant with us from the holy Church of Moscow and from him and to obey him in everything, and after our departure to God, we will obey that metropolitan who, according to the rules of the holy apostles and fathers, will be installed in the cathedral Church in Moscow at the tomb of St. Peter the Wonderworker." In relation to Gregory, it was decided “not to accept any letters from him and not to have meetings with him about anything.”

  The Council confirmed that “there was a division between the holy churches of God, the Moscow assembly church and the Kyiv church.”

  Relations with the Patriarch of Jerusalem

  Against the background of uncertain relations with Constantinople, active contacts with the Patriarch of Jerusalem are of interest. The earliest document is a letter of forgiveness from the Patriarch of Jerusalem Joachim to Grand Duke Vasily, which appeared before 1462. . The ruler of Jerusalem allows the Grand Duke from some church prohibition. The reason for the rapprochement, apparently, turned out to be the material needs of the Jerusalem Patriarchate: after the Ottoman conquest, Russia was the only Orthodox state that could provide significant assistance. This is reported in the message of Metropolitan Theodosius to the people of Novgorod and Pskov. The same document reports that Patriarch Joachim himself was planning to arrive on Russian soil in 1464 to collect alms and give blessings, but died in Caffa. Instead, the mission was carried out by his brother and proto-Sinkel Joseph, whom he asked to be appointed metropolitan of Caesarea Philippi. The request was fulfilled, and Joseph was appointed Metropolitan of Caesarea by a council of Russian bishops. A desk letter to Metropolitan Joseph of Caesarea has also been preserved. The document is dated April 1464.

  From these documents it follows that, at least in Jerusalem, the legality of the independent installation of Russian metropolitans was recognized. However, these are the only documents that name the Patriarch of Jerusalem in the early 60s of the 15th century. Patriarch Joachim is known, under whom the Patriarchal Council of Jerusalem was held in 1443, and who is considered the author of the letter of permission to Vasily II. However, it is known that he was at the See of Jerusalem from 1431 to 1450. There is no reliable information about who was the Patriarch of Jerusalem in the early 60s, except for the mentioned messages in Russian.

  Schism

  Restoration of relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate

  At the unofficial level, relations with the “Greeks” never ceased. And the need for funds for the church, which had lost the support of the state, forced them to turn to Muscovy and the Patriarchs of Constantinople for alms. In turn, the Russians went on long pilgrimages to Constantinople, Mount Athos, Palestine and Sinai. This is how the long trip to Constantinople, Sinai and Athos in the 70s of the 15th century by the Trans-Volga monks Nil Sorsky and Innocent Komelsky is known. In general, among the “non-acquisitive” the attitude towards the “Greeks” was not distinguished by the rigorism that we find in official documents.

  A partial restoration of relations occurs under the “non-covetous” Metropolitan Varlaam. In 1518, an official delegation headed by Metropolitan Gregory of Zikhniy arrived in Moscow from Patriarch Theoliptus of Constantinople. The reason for the visit was still the same alms, but Metropolitan Gregory brought with him an official letter from the patriarch. In the message, Metropolitan Varlaam is titled according to the old style, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus'. However, the Russian metropolitan refused to accept the blessing from the patriarch.

  Apparently, visiting Greeks often asked the question on what basis Russian metropolitans do not go to Constantinople to be installed, and this caused irritation in Moscow society. Maxim the Greek, who arrived from Athos at the invitation of the Grand Duke to translate liturgical books, also arrived in Moscow as part of the delegation. Maxim the Greek repeatedly expressed bewilderment at the refusal to receive the metropolitan from Constantinople in Moscow. The Russians tried to convince the Greek scientist, they talked about some patriarchal acts, but no one could provide the documents themselves. Maxim the Greek writes an essay in which he tries to convince his opponents that the purity of Orthodoxy can be preserved even under the rule of a godless tsar. In the end, these doubts became one of the points of accusation against the Monk Maximus at the trials of 1525 and 1531. At the trial, the Monk Maxim confirmed his negative attitude towards Russian autocephaly.

  The unresolved issue of the legal status of the Russian Church, however, did not prevent the continuation of relations with Constantinople. Requests for material assistance came from the East; the Russian side turned to the East for its needs. So in 1557, a delegation of Theodoret Kola was sent to Constantinople and Athos to confirm the royal title of Ivan the Terrible. The embassy was successful, and official confirmation of the royal title was received from the Eastern patriarchs. And in 1586, Patriarch Joachim of Antioch arrived in Moscow. In 1589, Patriarch Jeremiah II of Constantinople also visited Moscow. Russia took advantage of this and were able to negotiate the establishment of the Moscow Patriarchate. With the establishment of the patriarchate in Rus' in 1589, the question of the legality of autocephaly was removed.

  Legal assessment

  A well-known modern specialist in the field of church law, Rev. Vladislav Tsypin asserts the legitimacy of the establishment of autocephaly of the Russian Church in 1448. The basis for the independent canonical introduction of self-leadership, according to Father Vladislav, is the 15th rule of the Double Council of 861: “He who separates himself from communion with the primate for the sake of a certain heresy, condemned by holy councils or fathers, when he preaches the heresy publicly and teaches it openly in the church, such as protect themselves from communication with the said bishop before the conciliar consideration, they are not only not subject to the penance prescribed by the rules, but are also worthy of the honor due to the Orthodox. For they condemned not bishops, but false bishops and false teachers, and did not stop the unity of the Church by schism, but tried to protect the Church from schisms and divisions.” .

  Notes

  1. We are talking about Hieromonk Simeon of Suzdal and Suzdal Bishop Abraham, who signed the conciliar resolution. Simeon, upon the return of the Russian delegation in December 1439, fled from Venice to Novgorod to Archbishop Euthymius II, was summoned to Smolensk by the Smolensk prince and arrested there, but was able to return to Moscow. Subsequently, he wrote a lengthy essay criticizing the union. Bishop Abraham arrived in Moscow on September 19, 1440.
  2. From a letter to Poland: “What could be a greater burden for the church than to agree with the Greeks, approving their faith and ritual, opposite to the Latin ones. We want to find out from the truthful ones whether everyone in Greece lives as a Christian, and especially among you, gentlemen, in Poland and Lvov, where many Greeks live, whether the so-called. the return of the Greeks to the Latins." See B. N. Florya. Florentine Union and Eastern Europe (late 30s - late 60s 15th century).
  3. We are talking about the first white-stone Assumption Cathedral, built in 1326.
  4. This happened on September 15th.
  5. The presence in Moscow of six of the eight bishops of northeastern Rus' at such a time was hardly accidental.
  6. The messages indicate that 453 years have passed since the baptism of Rus' in the first case, and 455 in the second. This corresponds to 1441 and 1443 years.
  7. Message from Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich to Patriarch Mitrofan. Acts Historical. No. 39 p. 71-75.
  8. “Bring to us also the writings from the Pope of Rome, in which you have established two principles in Latin about the Holy Spirit.”
  9. ... "with all seven (patriarchs) make him the father and teacher of all our Orthodox Christianity and all churches... and at all ends of the universe have him first, untruely and unrighteously calling him, in his scripture, the vicar of the blessed and supreme Apostle Peter.
  10. “We ask your most holy sovereignty, that with the holy king and with the entire divine and consecrated council, having looked at your holy and divine Greek rules and in this papa’s message ... you are free to create the installation of a metropolitan in our land.”
  11. In other words, we are talking about church autonomy, not autocephaly.
  12. See E. M. Lomise. Written sources about the Union of Florence in Muscovite Rus' in the middle of the 15th century. With. 75-79.
  13. No later than 1443, since the message mentions Patriarch Mitrofan, who died in 1443.
  14. Vasily fled to the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, but was captured there by the boyar Ivan Mozhaisky and blinded.
  15. At least one document is known, dating back to 1433, where Jonah calls himself “named the most holy Russian metropolis” (RIB. T. 6, article 521).
  16. Letters of consent to the installation of Jonah.
  17. The Moscow Metropolitan himself attributes the initiative to independently elect the Russian First Hierarch to Grand Duke Vasily. He writes about this in a letter to the Kyiv prince

  The declaration of autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1448 raises many questions among contemporaries. In particular, representatives of schismatic structures interpret the events of the mid-15th century as illegal, since the proclamation of autocephaly took place in a non-canonical way. It follows from this that for 141 years the Russian Orthodox Church was not recognized by anyone.

  Focusing on this fact occurs for the sole purpose - if the Orthodox Church was not recognized, and subsequently autocephaly was nevertheless recognized as legal, then non-canonical organizations will eventually be recognized. The only question is time. However, this opinion is erroneous, since the events of the 15th century were completely unique compared to the formation of modern schismatic groups and the question was about the preservation of the Orthodox Church.

  In the mid-20s of the 15th century, the Byzantine Emperor John VII Palaiologos was looking for ways to maintain his empire in the fight against the Turks. This issue grew into church-political relations with Rome, which promised assistance in the fight against Muslims. In turn, these relations were supposed to create a union between Orthodox and Catholics. In such a situation, almost all episcopal sees began to be occupied by supporters of church union. In 1436, the Greek Isidore, who had previously been abbot of the monastery of St. Demetrius in Constantinople, was appointed Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus'.

  This man was familiar to the emperor, since back in 1433 he had been negotiating with Catholics in Basel about church unity and was considered a supporter of such a compromise, and his characterization was consistent with the Roman spirit “... an intellectual of the Renaissance type, alien to Orthodox spirituality...close to the ideals of Western European humanism in the spirit of the Renaissance» … ».

  On July 5, 1439, in Florence, representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople concluded a church union with the papal throne under the conditions of the acceptance by the Greeks of the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The largest supporters of the union among the Greek clergy were Metropolitans Visarion of Nicaea and Isidore of Kiev, whom Pope Eugene IV elevated to the rank of cardinals. Isidore was appointed papal legate in Poland, Livonia, Western and Eastern Rus'.

  On the way to Moscow, Metropolitan Isidore sends a message with the following content: « Rejoice and be glad now, all Christians: the Eastern and Western Churches, divided and hostile among themselves for so long, have now been united by true, ancient, original unity and peace. You, Christ-named Greeks, and all who belong to the holy Church of Constantinople: Rus', Serbs, Wallachians and others, accept this holy union with great joy and honor, and may you have no division with the Latins. Likewise, you, Latin tribes, do not shun those who profess the Greek faith: they are also baptized, and their baptism is as holy and true as the Latin one. And if the Greeks live in Latin land or there are Latin churches in their land, then let them go to these churches for Divine services and honor the Body of Christ in them, as in their own churches, let them repent before the Latin priests and accept from them holy communion. And Latins should also go to Greek churches, listen to Divine services there and worship the Body of Jesus Christ with warm faith, because the sacrament of the body is equally true whether it is performed by a Greek priest on leavened bread or by a Latin priest on unleavened bread. At the same time, let the Latins come to the Greek priests for repentance and receive holy communion from them. This is what the Ecumenical Council in Florence decreed.”

  On March 11, 1441, Isidore solemnly arrived in Moscow. During the service in the Assumption Cathedral, he blessed the commemoration of the Pope, and not the Patriarch of Constantinople. This innovation outraged Prince Vasily II and the Metropolitan was arrested. To resolve this issue, the Council of the Russian Church met in Moscow. It was attended by Bishop of Ryazan Saint Jonah, Bishop of Kolomna Varlaam, Bishop of Sarai Job, Bishop of Perm Saint Gerasim and numerous clergy. The Council recognized the actions of Metropolitan Isidore as uncanonical, but did not condemn him as a heretic and did not make any ruling on his fate.

  The issue of Metropolitan Isidore had to be decided by the Patriarch and the Council of the Church of Constantinople. In the same 1441, Isidore escapes from Moscow and ends up in Rome, where the Pope gives him several churches to manage (for his services to the Roman throne).

  The union itself caused great indignation in the East. Its active opponent was Saint Mark of Ephesus. The Constantinople flock and Holy Mount Athos did not accept the union either. As Simeon Suzdalets, who was part of the retinue of the Metropolitan of Kyiv, notes, many Greek hierarchs were bribed by the Pope. The Kinonot of the Holy Mountain sent a message to Prince Vasily II of Moscow, in which he praised him for standing in the Orthodox faith.

  In 1443, the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem condemned the union at the Council in Jerusalem. In 1448, Emperor John VII dies. His successor is Constantine XI, who after some time liquidates the union. The Uniate Patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory Mamma, left the patriarchal throne in 1450 and fled to Rome. Athanasius II becomes the new Orthodox Patriarch. Thus, we can safely say that the Patriarch of Constantinople for about ten years was outside of communion with the fullness of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church, and was in unity with the Roman Catholic Church.

  At this time, Moscow did not know how to act, because the previous metropolitans were appointed by Constantinople. But when both the patriarch and the emperor accepted the union, the Orthodox clergy faced a dilemma. In December 1448, a Council was held in Moscow, at which Bishop Jonah was elected Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus'. His candidacy was supported by Prince Vasily II of Moscow and Grand Duke Casimir IV of Lithuania.

  Saint Jonah communicated the reasons for his election in a district letter to all Russian Christians. He wrote about this in more detail to Prince Alexander Vladimirovich of Kyiv: « You yourself know what happened in Constantinople among the kings and the patriarchate... In the great cathedral church and in the royal chamber they began to remember the name of the pope, while neither in the monasteries, nor in any of the churches in all of Constantinople and in the entire Holy Mountain is the name commemorated anywhere daddy’s, but by the grace of God everything is kept in good old fashioned ways. Therefore, hitherto there was no metropolitan in the Russian Metropolis - there was no one to send to: the tsar is not like that, and the patriarch is not like that; they are becoming different and approaching the Latins".

  The election of St. Jonah as metropolitan was also accepted in the Western Russian dioceses, as evidenced by the letter of Casimir IV: «… Casimir, by the grace of God, the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania, in consultation with our brother, Grand Duke Vasily Vasilyevich, and with our princes and lords, and with our joy, fell in love with their father, Metropolitan Jonah, formerly the former bishop of Murom and Ryazan, and gave him the throne Metropolis of Kiev and All Rus', as happened before according to the establishment and custom of Russian Christianity. And he has to rule his metropolitan honor and duty in the old way, as former metropolitans previously ruled according to the good customs of our ancestors and their Christianity. Therefore, our princes, and bishops, and boyars, archimandrites and abbots, priests, deacons and monks, and all the clergy of the church, and all the people of Russian Christianity, take him, our father Jonah, for the metropolitan, honor him and be obedient to him in spiritual matters how former metropolitans were previously honored and obeyed» . Thus, the election of Metropolitan Jonah took place with the consent of all parties, of all historical Rus'.

  Also in this context, an important document is the letter of Basil II to the Byzantine Emperor Constantine XI, in which he gives a detailed explanation of the events that occurred in Moscow in connection with the independent election of a new Orthodox metropolitan: « … From that time on, we began to care about our Orthodoxy and wished and sought to send our ambassadors to Constantinople and inform us about the state of our Church and about the appointment of a metropolitan to us. But although we had been looking for and desiring this for many years, we were not successful, not because of our laziness and negligence, but because of a lack of opportunity, for, as we heard, in your powers there was discord in the Church of God, and on the way to you there was all sorts of difficulty for travelers from robbers and robbers, and in our countries there was all sorts of disorder: partly from the invasion of the Tatars, and partly from internecine warfare. As a result of such and such a great need, we, having convened the bishops of our land, according to the rules of the holy apostles and fathers, appointed metropolitan Jonah. We ask your royal majesty not to say about us that we did this impudently, without communicating with you - we did this out of great need, and not out of arrogance and insolence. We remain in ancient piety and will preserve the Orthodoxy devoted to us until the end of time.Our Russian Church demands and seeks blessings from the holy Ecumenical Church of Tsarergrad and in everything, according to ancient piety, obeys it. Likewise, our Metropolitan Jonah asks for her blessing and unity with her, with the exception of newly emerging differences... We wanted to write about our church affairs and about our metropolitan and to the Ecumenical Orthodox Patriarch and ask for his blessing, but we don’t know whether there is already a patriarch in the reigning city or not: we have not heard about him from anyone. And as God willing, you will have a patriarch in the great cathedral church according to ancient piety; it is our duty to write to him about the state of our affairs and ask for his blessing in everything.”

  Whether this letter reached us or not is an open question, but the content is important for us: the election of the new metropolitan took place due to compelling circumstances, and this was not a desire to separate from the Church of Constantinople, but, on the contrary, to remain in unity with Her.

  In 1453, Constantinople was captured by the Turks. Emperor Constantine XI died. The Orthodox Byzantine Empire ceased to exist. In the same year, St. Gennady Scholarius, a disciple of Mark of Ephesus, became Orthodox Patriarch. It was at this time that church relations between Moscow and Constantinople resumed after the Union of Florence. In particular, Metropolitan Jonah wrote to Patriarch Gennady: «… so that the patriarch shows him his perfect spiritual love and sends him, through the ambassador of the Grand Duke, his honest writing about everything, for the spiritual benefit of our Orthodoxy and for the holy honor of him, the metropolitan... and in conclusion, askl“so that the patriarch believes everything that the ambassador of the Grand Duke tells him on behalf of the prince and on behalf of him, the metropolitan...”

  Also in this regard, the figure of Abbot Cassian of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, who visited Constantinople as an ambassador, is mentioned. Based on his activities, the Grand Duke of Moscow awarded him large gifts for the monastery. Most likely, his visits were successful; Metropolitan Macarius (Bulgakov) comments on this situation as follows: “What was this success?eX? The fact is that the Patriarch of Constantinople, and with him the other patriarchs, taking into account the plight of their fatherland under the rule of the Turks and the difficulty or even impossibility for Russians to visit Constantinople on church matters, once and for all granted by their charter to our Russian metropolitans the right not to go to Constantinople for installation, but to be installed at home by their bishops and, in addition, they legitimized that the Russian Metropolitan should be considered in honor above all other metropolitans and occupy a place under the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Thus, it turns out that both the first independent action of the Russian Church in appointing Jonah as metropolitan without communication with the patriarch, and its subsequent independence, recognized by the patriarchs themselves, were caused and conditioned by “need” or, in other words, by the historical course of events and that this independence of our Church was combined with its elevation to the level of the first metropolitanate in the entire Eastern Orthodox Church.".

  So, the independent proclamation of autocephaly by the Russian Orthodox Church cannot be called illegal. The conviction of Metropolitan Isidore posed an extremely difficult problem for the Orthodox Church: how to protect Orthodoxy and at the same time maintain maximum canonicity in its actions.

  There were no direct canonical norms that would provide for the entire algorithm of actions in the conditions that were created by the Union of Florence. The status of an “autocephalous Church” was vital (although we see that Rus' did not strive for this). At the end of the 19th century, the famous church historian V.V. Bolotov said the following: “ Canonically, that which is useful for the Church. The canons are the icon of the Church, its ideal image" However, the Union of Florence threatened the very existence of the Orthodox Church - accordingly, in order to preserve Orthodoxy, the Russian Church had every right not to be guided by canons with apostates. Therefore, the Council of 1448 preserved the Orthodox Church and the Providence of God should be seen in this.

  Mark Avramenko

  In this article we will examine the question: “What is an autocephalous church, what is its difference from an ordinary one?” Let us also consider recognized and unrecognized churches, as well as those that are part of the autocephalous ones and are called autonomous.

  Definition of an autocephalous church

  The autocephalous church is a completely independent organization that does not depend on and can independently make decisions that relate to its routine and work. In the Ecumenical Council, by the way, the leadership consists of representatives of all autocephalous churches.

  If we consider the question of how an autocephalous church differs, we can say that each is headed by a bishop who has the rank of archbishop. His choice is made within the organization itself. Another difference is that the autocephalous church makes peace without the help of others.

  The emergence of Russian autocephaly

  The year when Russian was formed can be considered 1448. The split from the Church of Constantinople occurred for many reasons. One of the main ones was the too far distance between the two states, as well as their complete independence from each other. The Russian Church had a large number of bishops, even exceeding the number required by the canons for secession.

  At the time the Russian Church acquired autocephalous status, two similar ones had already been disconnected. These are Serbian and Bulgarian. In Rus', too, this need was ripe, and the impetus was the following event. The last Greek metropolitan, Isidore, accepted the union together with the Roman Church. In addition, at the meeting to select a new metropolitan, the Russian bishop was once again not elected.

  Of course, Isidore was deposed, but the entire clergy of Constantinople accepted the obligations of the Council of Florence. This led to the fact that in 1448 the Russian successor Jonah of Ryazan was elected metropolitan for the first time. This event is the beginning of the emergence of Russian autocephaly.

  Of course, the Russians have not lost touch with each other. This was manifested in letters and regular visits to Moscow. Such a relationship was to the taste of both parties.

  

  Other Orthodox autocephalous churches

  In addition to the fact that there is a Russian Orthodox Autocephalous Church, there are also others that are considered recognized. There are only fifteen of them:

  • Constantinople;
  • Alexandria;
  • Antioch;
  • Georgian;
  • Jerusalem;
  • Serbian;
  • Romanian;
  • Cyprus;
  • Bulgarian;
  • Hellasic;
  • Polish;
  • Albanian;
  • Church in America;
  • In the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

  Despite the fact that there are many churches, the most numerous is the Russian one. It has about hundreds of millions of parishioners. However, the oldest is considered to be that of Constantinople, since it was from it that all other autocephalies, and later autocephalies, originated (split off). It is also called “ecumenical”, since in ancient times this was the name of the Roman Empire, which at that time included Constantinople.

  

  Unrecognized independent churches

  So, now it is clear that the autocephalous church is an organization independent from everyone. However, this status had yet to be recognized by already existing similar churches. Today, in addition to the recognized ones, there are those whose status is not entirely clear (some are not accepted at all). A few of them will be listed below:

  • Macedonian Church;
  • Montenegrin;
  • Ukrainian Autocephalous Church.

  In addition to the existing Orthodox and unrecognized churches, there are others that do not obey the accepted statutes of Orthodoxy. These are, for example, Old Believer movements, such as Fedoseevtsy, Netovtsy, Spasovtsy, Russian Orthodox and others.

  Mention should also be made of those sects that were formed under the influence of an incorrect understanding of the Holy Scriptures. The incorrect interpretation of the Bible and other treatises led to the formation of certain formations, which were later called sects. The essence of each of them is that, having found in the Holy Scriptures something that seems very important and correct to them, they follow this instruction, forgetting about everything else. Moreover, most often the highlighted instruction is misunderstood.

  In conclusion, it must be said that each direction has its own differences, its own reason for not obeying the charter, the authority of the Orthodox Church, but this does not mean that it is true.

  

  The concept of an autonomous church

  So, above we figured out that the autocephalous church is an organization completely independent from others. However, there are also dependent (local) autonomous churches. They also have independence, but not as much.

  Unlike the autocephalous one, the autonomous one is appointed from the kyriarchal church. Also, the statute of autonomy corresponds to it, and the chrism is also sent from it. The expenses of such churches are structured in such a way that a certain share is allocated to the maintenance of senior management.

  It is believed that autonomy can be:

  • metropolitan district;
  • diocese;
  • monastery;
  • coming.

  For example, on Athos it often happened that some monasteries enjoyed almost complete independence, being part of the central Athos administration.

  Let us list the autonomy that exists in the Orthodox Church:

  • Japanese;
  • Chinese;
  • Latvian;
  • Moldavian;
  • Estonian;
  • Ukrainian;
  • Sinai;
  • Finnish;
  • foreign Russian.

  

  Status of Uniate churches

  It should also be said about the existence of Uniate churches. The Autocephalous Orthodox Church considers their presence a problem, since, according to some theologians, they are dividing the churches of East and West rather than uniting. This happens because in their parishes the services are held in the Orthodox form of worship, but the teaching is Catholic. Just like the subordination of the Uniate churches is also Catholic.

  These include the following churches:

  • Czechoslovakian.
  • Polish.
  • Western Ukrainian.

  

  Conclusion

  So, we figured out what an autocephalous church means, what are its differences from others like it. We also looked at other directions that are present in Orthodoxy, various unrecognized churches, Old Believers and some sects. From all this we can conclude that in fact there are many directions of Orthodox belief that were formed out of unwillingness to obey or as a result of theological differences. Be that as it may, all this has led to the fact that many believers are not in the bosom of the original Orthodox Church.

  Apart from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, in the history of the Orthodox Church, no other Local Church has proclaimed autocephaly. This statement was made by Archbishop Job of Telmi.

  According to him, each granted autocephaly was timed to a certain kind of political factors, in particular due to the acquisition of state independence.

  He also emphasized that “the Orthodox Church in Russia has never been given a tomos of autocephaly.” Bishop Job added that the Russian Orthodox Church does not have the right to grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian, or any other Church, since this is the prerogative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

  Archpriest, professor of the Moscow Theological Academy Vladislav Tsypin, in a commentary to Constantinople, stated that there are a number of inaccuracies in this statement by Archbishop Job of Telmi.

  “Most of the Churches, with the exception of the Eastern Patriarchates, the Church of Cyprus, were truly established on the basis of tomos issued in Constantinople. But simply because the Balkan Churches, which unite the significant majority of Orthodox Christians who do not belong to the Russian Orthodox Church, were once located on the territory of the Byzantine Empire, then the Ottoman Empire. Being Christians within the Ottoman Empire, they were under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and then, after gaining independence, these states received from it, not immediately and not without resistance, a tomos of autocephaly,” he explained.

  Regarding the autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church, the expert noted that its autocephaly arose in connection with the fall of Constantinople to the Florentine Union.

  It was impossible for the Russian Church, which at that time was part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople under the authority of the Patriarch, who had fallen away from Orthodoxy, to remain part of it.

  Therefore, the Russian Church began to be governed independently, that is, it actually acquired autocephaly, said the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy.

  Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin also recalled the historical events that influenced this process. Thus, he points out, the decision on autocephaly was conciliar. As such, the tomos of the Russian Orthodox Church was not given. But, in fact, it was not required, since in the conditions of the apostasy of the Primate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, the Orthodox had to break off communion with the Primate of the Church.

  Then Orthodoxy was restored in the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But this was already a new beginning, and by that time the Russian Orthodox Church already existed autocephalously. The point in this process was the act of 1589, when the Patriarchal Throne was established by the Moscow Patriarchate.

  Based on the enclosed letter signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, the remaining Patriarchs expressed their consent to the autocephaly of the Local Church in Rus'.

  “So there was a conciliar approval, and not just on the part of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The actual beginning of our autocephaly was more than a hundred years earlier, as is known, in 1448,” he pointed out.

  However, in Constantinople, it is the act of 1589 that is usually considered the date that autocephaly was granted to us, but the question was never raised at all that we do not have legal autocephaly, Tsypin explained.

  The professor also refuted the words of Bishop Job that not a single Local Church proclaimed autocephaly. In particular, the archpriest pointed out, the Polish Orthodox Church received canonical autocephaly from the Moscow Patriarchate in 1948.

  The American Orthodox Church and the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia followed the same path. Later, the expert clarifies, representatives of the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia turned to Constantinople for recognition of their autocephaly, but Constantinople formalized this recognition differently - as the granting of autocephaly, but autocephaly in reality already existed.