Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Autocephaly in Ukraine: The Canonical Dimension

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Churches in the Ukrainian Crisis

Abstract

Paul Brusanowski studies this complex question from the perspective of canon law, from its first emergence in the early Christian centuries to its practical consolidation in nineteenth-century southeastern Europe. He then surveys the modern implementation of the principle up to the present day. He argues that, while the procedures for granting autocephaly have always been subject to change, a significant obstacle to its most recent resolution in Ukraine was that it was not placed on the agenda for the Pan-Orthodox Council of 2016.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Message of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches (Phanar, March 6–9, 2014) on https://mospat.ru/en/2014/03/09/news99338/ (Accessed: 20 December 2014).

  2. 2.

    Alexander A. Bogolepov, “Conditions of Autocephaly,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 5:3 (1961), p. 13.

  3. 3.

    Pierre L’Huillier, “Problems concerning Autocephaly,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 24:2–3 (1979), p. 166.

  4. 4.

    Liviu Stan, Biserica și dreptul. Studii de drept canonic orthodox. Principiile Dreptului canonic orthodox (Sibiu: Editura Andreiana, 2012), p. 155.

  5. 5.

    Alexander A. Bogolepov, “Conditions of Autocephaly,” pp. 13–14. The consecration of bishops requires at least three bishops.

  6. 6.

    Pierre L’Huillier, “Problems concerning Autocephaly,” pp. 168–169.

  7. 7.

    Richard Potz, Eva Synek, Orthodoxes Kirchenrecht. Eine Einführung (Freistadt: Verlag Plöchl, 2014), pp. 165–174, 259–261, 267–268.

  8. 8.

    Richard Potz, Eva Synek, Orthodoxes Kirchenrecht…, pp. 415–416.

  9. 9.

    https://mospat.ru/en/2014/11/09/news111091/ (Accessed: 20 December 2014).

  10. 10.

    http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=1843&tla=en (Accessed: 20 December 2014).

  11. 11.

    The Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Church, https://mospat.ru/en/2013/12/26/news96344 (Accessed: 20 December 2014).

  12. 12.

    http://wwrn.org/articles/26546/?&place=europe&section=christianity (Accessed: 20 December 2014).

  13. 13.

    The Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Church, https://mospat.ru/en/2013/12/26/news96344 (Accessed: 20 December 2014).

  14. 14.

    The Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the Problem of Primacy in the Universal Church, https://mospat.ru/en/2013/12/26/news96344 (Accessed: 20 December 2014).

  15. 15.

    Elpidophoros Lambriniadis, First without equals. A response to the Text of Primacy of the Moscow Patriarchate, on http://www.ec-patr.org/arxeio/elp2014-01-en.pdf (Accessed: 20 December 2014).

  16. 16.

    Hilarion of Volokolamsk, Primacy and Synodality from an Orthodox Perspective, on https://mospat.ru/en/2014/11/09/news111091/ (Accessed: 20 December 2014).

  17. 17.

    Theodor Nikolaou, “Der Begriff ἔθνος (‘Nation’) in seiner Bedeutung für das Autokephalon der Kirche,” Orthodoxes Forum 14:1 (2000), pp. 13–16.

  18. 18.

    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3820.htm (Accessed: 20 December 2014).

  19. 19.

    A. Bogolepov, “Conditions of Autocephaly,” p. 16.

  20. 20.

    Theodor Nikolaou, “Der Begriff ἔθνος…,” p. 23.

  21. 21.

    Pierre L’Huillier, “Problems concerning Autocephaly,” p. 171.

  22. 22.

    Canon 4: “It is most proper for a bishop to be appointed by all the bishops in his particular province. If this proves impossible, either because there is not enough time, or there is too much distance to be traveled, at least three bishops should meet together, and the approval of the absent bishops should be given and communicated in writing. Only then should the ordination take place. But in every province the ratification of the ordination should be left to the metropolitan bishop.” (http://www.fourthcentury.com/nicaea-325-canons/).

  23. 23.

    Pierre L’Huillier, “Problems concerning Autocephaly,” p. 173.

  24. 24.

    Pierre L’Huillier, “Problems concerning Autocephaly,” p. 173.

  25. 25.

    Pierre L’Huillier, “Accession to Autocephaly,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 37:4 (1993), p. 271.

  26. 26.

    Wilhelm de Vries, “Die Patriarchen der nichtkatholischen syrischen Kirchen,” Ostkirchliche Studien 33 (1984), p. 29; Idem, “Antiochien und Seleucia-Ctesiphon, Patriarch und Katholikos?” in Mélanges Eugène Tisserant. Vol. III, Orient Chrétien. 2. partie, (Citta del Vaticano, 1964), p. 450.

  27. 27.

    “Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.” http://biblehub.com/library/schaff/the_seven_ecumenical_councils/canon_xxviii_following_in_all.htm (Accessed: 20 December 2014).

  28. 28.

    Liviu Stan, Biserica si Dreptul…, pp. 181–182.

  29. 29.

    Pierre L’Huillier, “Accession to Autocephaly,” p. 280.

  30. 30.

    For the text of Justinian’s Novel 11, see: http://www.uwyo.edu/lawlib/blume-justinian/ajc-edition-2/novels/1-40/novel%2011_replacement.pdf (Accessed: 20 March 2015).

  31. 31.

    Liviu Stan, Biserica si Dreptul…, p. 62, 182. Here the text of the Chapters 2–4 of the 131th Novel of Justinian: “(2) We further ordain that in accordance with their determinations, the holy pope of ancient Rome is the first of all the priests, the archbishop of Constantinople, the new Rome, occupies the place next after the holy apostolic seat of ancient Rome and has precedence over the others. (3)The holy officiating archbishop of the First Justinian, our native city, shall always have under his jurisdiction the bishops of the inland Dacia, and Dacia on the river, and of Praevalitana and of Dardania and superior Moesia and Pannonia, who shall be appointed by him. He himself should be appointed by his own synod and shall occupy the same position in the provinces subject to him, as the apostolic seat of Rome, according to the provisions made by the holy pope Vigilius. (4) And we direct that in like manner the right which we gave to the pontificate of Carthaginian Justinian, of the African diocese, since the time that God restored it to us, shall be preserved. The other cities, too, and their bishops, to whom at various places metropolitan rights had been granted, shall enjoy such privilege for all time to come. All privileges, moreover, and benefactions which have been granted to the holy churches and other venerable places by the emperor or in any other manner, shall in every respect be firmly maintained” (http://www.uwyo.edu/lawlib/blume-justinian/ajc-edition-2/novels/121-140/novel%20131_replacement.pdf (Accessed: 20 March 2015).

  32. 32.

    Pierre L’Huillier, “Accession to Autocephaly,” p. 285.

  33. 33.

    Pierre L’Huillier, “Problems concerning Autocephaly,” p. 180.

  34. 34.

    Pierre L’Huillier, “Accession to Autocephaly,” p. 289; Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages. 500–1250 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 166–179.

  35. 35.

    Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe…, pp. 357–365.

  36. 36.

    Pierre L’Huillier, “Accession to Autocephaly,” p. 290.

  37. 37.

    Florin Curta, Southeastern Europe…, pp. 328–338.

  38. 38.

    Pierre L’Huillier, “Problems concerning Autocephaly,” pp. 182–183.

  39. 39.

    Pierre L’Huillier, “Accession to Autocephaly,” p. 291.

  40. 40.

    Thomas Bremer, Cross and Kremlin. A Brief History of the Orthodox Church in Russia (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2013), pp. 52–65; Albert M. Ammann S. J., Abriss der Ostslawischen Kirchengeschichte (Wien: Thomas Morus Presse im Verlag Herder, 1950), pp. 157–165, 230–242; Hans Dieter Döpmann, Die Russische Orthodoxe Kirche in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Berlin: Union Verlag, 1977), pp. 57–60; 83–85.

  41. 41.

    R. N. Frye, “The Political History of Iran under the Sasanians,” in The Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 3(1). The Seleucid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, ed. Ehsan Yarshbater (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Reprint, 1993), p. 132.

  42. 42.

    Also recognized was the Jewish millet (Yahudi Millet), headed by a great rabbi (Haham Başi—rabbi Moses Kapsali), and in 1461 the Armenian millet, headed by a patriarch (Bishop Horaghim, headquartered in the Kumkapi neighbourhood). The three leaders were named by the sultan, being his subjects, and held the office of a pasha with three “tuğ—horse tails”, responsible to him for maintaining the order in their religious community and collecting taxes, managing scholarly and religious affairs (P. Sugar, op.cit., pp. 45–49).

  43. 43.

    As Pantazopoulos points out, “Mohammed is fully aware of his historical mission. He is appearing as the Ottoman successor of Roman Emperors and keeps up the language, as the official language of the Empire. The protection and strengthening of the authority of the Patriarch constitutes an exceptional means of propaganda, as Mohammed is planning to conquer the remaining Christian countries of the Balkan peninsula also. On the other hand, by ordaining as Oecumenical Patriarch the leader of the non-unionists Ghennadius Scholarius, Mohammed appears to be the defender of the Eastern Orthodox Religion against the expansive policy of the West, which was coordinated and exercised by the Pope.” N.J. Pantazopoulos, Church and Law in the Balkan Peninsula during the Ottoman Rule (Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1967), p. 20.

  44. 44.

    Theodor H. Papadopoullos, Studies and Documents…, pp. 9–10.

  45. 45.

    N. J. Pantazopoulos, Church and Law…, p. 23.

  46. 46.

    Richard Potz, Eva Synek, Orthodoxes Kirchenrecht…, pp. 124–127.

  47. 47.

    Bernhard Stasiewski, “Die selbstständigen und die mit Rom unierten Ostkirchen,” pp. 239–241; Richard Potz, Eva Synek, Orthodoxes Kirchenrecht, p. 123.

  48. 48.

    Paul Brusanowski, “Considerations regarding the impact of the Ottoman Governing attitudes on Balkan Christians,” in Tasin Gemil, Gabriel Custurea, Delia Roxana Cornea (ed), Moştenirea cultural turcă în Dobrogea (București: Form, 2013), pp. 115–141.

  49. 49.

    Johann Schwicker, Politische Geschichte der Serben in Ungarn (Budapest: Ludwig Aigner, 1880), pp. 7–73.

  50. 50.

    Paul Brusanowski, “Die hierarchische Trennung der rumänischen orthodoxen Gläubigen des Banates von der serbischen orthodoxen Kirche (1864–1918),” in Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift 102:3 (2012), pp. 204–208.

  51. 51.

    A. Baron de Şaguna, Memorialu, prin care se lămureşte cererea Româniloru de religiunea resăriteană în Austria pentru restaurarea Mitropoliei loru din punctu de vedere a Ss. Canoane. Aşternutu c. r. Ministeriu pentru Cultu şi Instrucţiune 1851 (Sibiiu, 1860), pp. 5–7, quoted from: Maria Stan, Andrei Saguna and the Organic Statute (University of Vienna, doctoral dissertation, Rechtswissenschaften, 2009), pp. 310–311. http://othes.univie.ac.at/7267/.

  52. 52.

    Richard Potz, Eva Synek, Orthodoxes Kirchenrecht. Eine Einführung, “Kirche und Recht 28” (Freistadt: Verlag Plöchl, 2014), pp. 139–142.

  53. 53.

    The mother-church is the church from which others have sprung and which assumes responsibility for their oversight. A tomos is a small book containing a major announcement promulgated by the Holy Synod of a church.

  54. 54.

    Andreas Michael Wittig, Die orthodoxe Kirche in Griechenland. Ihre Beziehung zum Staat gemäß der Theorie und der Entwicklung von 1821–1977 (Würzburg: Augustinus-Verlag, 1987), pp. 86–89.

  55. 55.

    Alois Hudal, Die serbisch-orthodoxe Nationalkirche (Graz und Leipzig: Verlag von Ulr. Mosers Buchhandlung, 1922), pp. 29–38.

  56. 56.

    Celebrating 125 years of autocephaly, the Romanian Patriarchate published the volume Autocefalia. Libertate și deminitate (Bucharest: Editura Basilica a Patriarhiei Române, 2010).

  57. 57.

    Dilyan Nikolthev, Hristo P. Berov, “Formal, Informal and Fictional Autocephaly of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church,” in: Autonomy in the Eastern Churches, Kanon XXI (Egling,: Edition Roman Kovar, 2010), pp. 128–131; Stefan Zankow, Die Verfassung der bulgarischen Kirche (Zürich: Gabr. Leemann & Co, 1918), pp. 47–49, 99–100.

  58. 58.

    Alois Hudal, Die serbisch-orthodoxe Nationalkirche…, pp. 82–98.

  59. 59.

    Paul Brusanowski, Rumänisch-orthodoxe Kirchenordnungen. 1786–2008: Siebenbürgen—Bukowina—Rumänien (Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 2011), pp. 282–287.

  60. 60.

    George E. Matsoukas (2009-04-07). Orthodox Christianity at the Crossroads: A Great Council of the Church—When and Why (p. 23). iUniverse. Kindle Edition.

  61. 61.

    Liviu Stan, Biserica si dreptul…, pp. 41, 186; Fairy von Lilienfeld, “Das Problem der Autokephalie in der Russisch-Orthodoxen Kirche in den letzten 30 Jahren,” in Ostkirchliche Studien 30: 3–4 (1981), p. 232.

  62. 62.

    Alexander A. Bogolepov, “Conditions of Autocephaly,” p. 22.

  63. 63.

    Pierre L’Huillier, “Accession to Autocephaly,” p. 296.

  64. 64.

    George E. Matsoukas (2009-04-07). Orthodox Christianity at the Crossroads: A Great Council of the Church—When and Why (pp. 25–31). iUniverse. Kindle Edition.

  65. 65.

    https://mospat.ru/en/2010/05/04/news17608/.

  66. 66.

    http://www.archons.org/news/detail.asp?id=365.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Theology, University Lucian Blaga, Sibiu, Romania

    Paul Brusanowski

Authors
  1. Paul Brusanowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Brusanowski .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sudbury, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada

    Andrii Krawchuk

  2. University of Münster, Münster, Germany

    Thomas Bremer

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Brusanowski, P. (2016). Autocephaly in Ukraine: The Canonical Dimension. In: Krawchuk, A., Bremer, T. (eds) Churches in the Ukrainian Crisis. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-34144-6_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation