§ 87. The Autocephalous Churches of Today

Which autocephalous or self-governing (αὐτοκέφαλοι) churches exist today in the Orthodox ecumenical Church we have already mentioned,[1] and we have seen in what their autonomy consists and their relation to the ecumenical Church.[2] As the exposition in the preceding paragraph shows us, competence to recognize the autonomy of one or another local church belongs to conciliar authority, and specifically to the council of that church of which a regional church, which is to be proclaimed autonomous or self-governing, formed a constituent part. Besides this, the canonical sources of the Orthodox Church also recognize a lawful right of the state authority in this matter.[3] With regard to this, and insofar as extraordinary circumstances have not otherwise prevented the formal fulfilment of all the relevant legal requirements, all the present-day autonomous local churches came into being.

Of the earlier ones there exist today: the churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem,[4] and Cyprus,[5] whose origin is known to us, namely, we know that their autonomy was recognized at ecumenical councils. Let us mention here the origin of the others, in chronological order.

1) The church in the Russian empire.[6] Russians received Christianity from preachers of the church of Constantinople, and from that church they received their hierarchs in the earliest times. After the fall of Constantinople (1453), when it became difficult for the Russians to go to Constantinople on church business, the autonomy of the Russian church was established by mutual agreement between the then Grand Prince of Russia and the Patriarch of Constantinople: namely, the Patriarch of Constantinople, together with the other Eastern patriarchs, recognized by a special charter the right of the Russian metropolitan to be elected and installed by the Russian hierarchs independently of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and besides this they enacted that the Russian metropolitan must be regarded in honor as senior to all other metropolitans and that in the ecumenical hierarchy he was to occupy the place after the Patriarch of Jerusalem.[7] At the end of the 16th century, when the Patriarchate of Moscow was to be established, a special charter was issued by the Synod of Constantinople, with the signatures also of the other Eastern patriarchs, by which the earlier rights of autonomy of the Russian church were confirmed, the patriarchal title was recognized for the high priest of Moscow, and it was recognized that he should occupy the fifth place in the ecumenical hierarchy.[8] The Eastern patriarchs issued a similar charter in 1723, when the Russian Holy Synod was established, recognizing it as equal in every respect to the Eastern patriarchal thrones.[9]

2) The Karlovci metropolitanate.[10] When in 1690 the Serbs (around 40,000 families) crossed from Turkey into Austria with their patriarch Arsenije III, a new patriarch, Kalinik, was elected at Peć, the Serbian patriarchate, still during Arsenije’s lifetime. For the first while, that is, as long as Patriarch Arsenije was still living, an undetermined church status prevailed for these Serbs in their new homeland. After Arsenije’s death (1706), this status had to be clarified and firmly settled. The competent authority in this matter, canonically, was the Patriarchate of Peć, of which these resettled Serbs formed a part. In consequence of a petition on the matter from the hierarchy and the people, the Patriarch of Peć, Kalinik—after the freedom of religion and privileges in their church administration had already been guaranteed to the resettled Serbs by the Austrian Emperor Leopold I in an imperial letter of 4 March 1695—this Patriarch Kalinik of Peć issued in 1710 a patriarchal charter recognizing the establishment of a Serbian metropolitanate in the Austrian lands, granting to the metropolitan in question the right “to appoint bishops and to order other church statutes,” in accordance with the general canonical regulations of the Orthodox Church.[11] From that time, in the canonical sense, this metropolitanate dates, which nevertheless remained further in spiritual dependence on the Patriarch of Peć, since the metropolitan in question considered himself, and signed himself, “exarch of the throne of Peć.”[12] When that patriarchal throne of Peć was subsequently abolished, this metropolitan naturally ceased to be exarch of that throne, and the metropolitanate itself became autonomous. This autonomy was recognized also by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.[13] — In the first years of the 18th century the metropolitan’s see was at Krušedol, and shortly thereafter it was transferred to Karlovci. In the last years of the same century, the Sibiu eparchy and the other Romanian eparchies that were under Austrian rule fell under the Karlovci metropolitan, and in the first half of the 19th century the Dalmatian eparchy was also made subject to it for dogmatic and spiritual matters; so that from that time the Karlovci metropolitan was the supreme church head of the whole Orthodox people in the Austro-Hungarian lands.[14]

3) The Cetinje metropolitanate.[15] The Orthodox Church in the greater part of the lands that today make up the Principality of Montenegro, together with its metropolitan, was dependent on the Serbian Patriarchate of Peć; and from a charter of the Patriarch of Peć of the year 1700 it can be seen that this metropolitan, whose see was at Cetinje, also had rights over other lands that did not fall under Montenegrin political authority.[16] This metropolitan too was exarch “of the most holy throne of Peć.”[17] This dependence of the Cetinje metropolitanate continued until the abolition of the Patriarchate of Peć. From that time, with the political autonomy of Montenegro, the church there, whose head was at the same time also the ruler of the land, was regarded as autonomous in its constitution and internal administration, as it is autonomous today. The autonomy of the Cetinje metropolitanate was recognized also by the Patriarchate of Constantinople.[18]

4) The Archbishopric of Sinai.[19] The archbishop, who is at the same time the abbot of the Sinai monastery, was dependent now on the Patriarch of Jerusalem, now on the Patriarch of Alexandria. As a result of continual disputes between these two patriarchs over jurisdiction over Sinai, a synodal charter was issued at Constantinople in the year 1575 recognizing the autonomy of the Archbishop of Sinai, who was to be consecrated only by the Patriarch of Jerusalem. This was subsequently confirmed in 1782 by a new charter of the Synod of Constantinople, and the corresponding autonomy was solemnly proclaimed.[20]

5) The church in the Kingdom of Greece.[21] The church in the present Kingdom of Greece, before Greece’s liberation from Turkish rule, was under the supreme jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. After the liberation, negotiations with the Patriarchate of Constantinople over the autonomy of the church began at once. These negotiations continued for several years, and were interrupted as a result of political circumstances and various disagreements that arose. Finally, in consequence of a corresponding petition from the royal government,[22] a synodal letter was issued at Constantinople on 29 July 1850, by which the autonomy of the church in the Kingdom of Greece was proclaimed, and the Holy Synod of Athens was recognized as the supreme church authority in the kingdom.[23]

6) The Sibiu metropolitanate.[24] As we have already mentioned, in the last years of the 18th century, among the Romanian eparchies that fell under the authority of the Karlovci metropolitan, was also that of Sibiu. When a desire arose among the Romanians who were under the Hungarian crown to separate in church administration from the Serbs, who were under the same crown, and to enjoy equal rights in church constitution and administration as the Serbs, this question was submitted for deliberation to the Karlovci synod in 1864, and once the synod, as the competent authority, had deliberated the question and agreed to the separation of the Orthodox Romanians from the Serbs, an autonomous Romanian metropolitanate was established, with the metropolitan’s seat at Sibiu and with two subordinate eparchies: Arad and Caransebeș.[25]

7) The Bulgarian exarchate.[26] The Orthodox Bulgarians, after the abolition of the Bulgarian patriarchate (1393), and then after the abolition of the autonomous Archbishopric of Ohrid (1767), fell under the authority of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and remained under that authority until a few years ago. As a result of an awakened national consciousness, which fostered in them an aspiration toward political autonomy, there also awakened in them an aspiration to order their church in such a way as to have only native bishops, who would further the general national aspirations. Since they found no support for this with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which on the contrary decisively condemned their national aspirations, the Bulgarians obtained from the state authority the freedom to order their own church and establish a Bulgarian exarchate, independent of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This was granted to them by a special sultanic firman of 8 Dhu al-Hijjah 1286 (27 February 1870), and from that time dates the autonomy of the Bulgarian church.[27] The Patriarchate of Constantinople did not recognize this exarchate, and at a council held at Constantinople in 1872 the Bulgarians were condemned as schismatics. All the other autonomous churches, however, did not agree to that condemnation, and among the others neither did the Patriarchate of Jerusalem agree to it.[28] But this is merely a question of time, until the political autonomy of the Bulgarian people is established.

8) The Bukovina-Dalmatia metropolitanate.[29] At the end of the 18th century the Bukovina eparchy fell under the jurisdiction of the Karlovci metropolitanate, but only with regard to dogmatic and spiritual matters. The question of separating the Bukovina eparchy from the Karlovci metropolitanate was before the Karlovci synod in 1864. Afterward, when the Austro-Hungarian monarchy was divided into two halves, Cisleithania and Transleithania, an autonomous metropolitanate, coordinate with those of Karlovci and Sibiu, was established in 1873 for the Orthodox of all nationalities of the Cisleithanian half, with the metropolitan’s seat at Chernivtsi (in Bukovina), and under its jurisdiction fell the Zadar eparchy and the Kotor eparchy.

9) The church in the Kingdom of Serbia.[30] After the abolition of the Patriarchate of Peć, the greater part of the lands that today make up the Orthodox church of the Kingdom of Serbia fell under the authority of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. When the Serbian principality was founded, relations between the church in that principality and the Patriarchate of Constantinople had to be regulated. These relations were regulated in 1832, in that the patriarchate recognized a separate internal administration for the church in the principality, though in a defined dependence on the patriarchate. When later the borders of the principality were extended and it was recognized as free and fully independent, the competent authorities in Serbia sought from the patriarchate that such autonomy be recognized also for the Serbian church as the other autonomous local churches enjoy, while preserving the canonically prescribed unity with the ecumenical Church. This was done by the patriarchate, which by a synodal decision of October 1879 proclaimed the Serbian church in the principality (today kingdom) of Serbia autonomous, equal in rights with the other autonomous local churches.[31]

10) The church in the Kingdom of Romania.[32] Until the proclamation of the Kingdom of Romania in 1882, the church in Moldavia and Wallachia fell under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Three years after that proclamation, that is, in 1885, by a decision of the Synod of Constantinople the autonomy of the church in the Kingdom of Romania was proclaimed, with the same rights as all the other autonomous local churches enjoy.[33]

Given so great a number of autocephalous or self-governing regional churches, in order that it may be seen fully and clearly in what their autonomy consists, and how, notwithstanding this, the unity of the ecumenical Church is nevertheless strictly preserved, we here reproduce an extract from the synodal charter by which the autonomy of the church in the Kingdom of Serbia was recognized. After the relevant preamble, in which the unity of the Church and the canonical regulations concerning autonomous regional churches are spoken of, the charter continues: “We have determined that the Orthodox church of the Serbian principality, which until now… stood in canonical dependence and relation to our holy, apostolic, and patriarchal throne of Constantinople…, shall from now on be canonically autonomous, independent, and self-governing (κανονικῶς αὐτοκέφαλος, ἀνεξάρτητος καὶ αὐτοδιοίκητος), whose head shall be—as of every Orthodox catholic and apostolic Church—God-Man Himself, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and which shall have and recognize in church matters as its president (πρόεδρον) the most holy archbishop of Belgrade and metropolitan of Serbia; and he, together with the synod, formed in accordance with the holy canons from the hierarchs of that church district, shall administer the church affairs of the principality freely and independently of every other interference, in the Holy Spirit, as the divine and holy canons command. And thus, therefore, this holy church of the principality of Serbia, established by this synodal letter, we recognize and declare to be our spiritual sister (πνευματικὴν ἡμῶν ἀδελφὴν), and we commend to all the Orthodox churches of the world that they recognize and acknowledge it as such, and that they name it by the name of the holy autonomous church of the Serbian principality (ἡ ἁγία αὐτοκέφαλος ἐκκλησία τῆς σερβικῆς ἡγεμονίας); and we likewise grant to it all the privileges and all the rights of headship that belong to an autonomous church authority, so that from now on the archbishop of Belgrade and metropolitan of Serbia shall commemorate at the divine service ‘every Orthodox episcopate,’ and the most reverend hierarchs there shall commemorate his name. And as concerns internal church administration, he, together with his holy synod, shall judge, decide, and determine independently, following the evangelical teaching and the sacred traditions and ordinances of our holy Orthodox Church. And in order that spiritual unity (πνευματικὴ ἑνότης) may be preserved living and flourishing and in every way unaltered, both toward the great Church of Christ of Constantinople and toward the other autonomous churches of Christ, the archbishop of Belgrade and metropolitan of Serbia shall be obliged: according to the long-standing and inherited canonical custom of mutual brotherly relation and bond that prevails among the self-governing churches, to commemorate the holy patriarchs in the sacred diptychs; to take the holy chrism from the mother, the great Church of Christ, of Constantinople; when he is canonically proclaimed head of his local synod, to send the prescribed enthronement charters to all the patriarchs and the other autonomous churches; to address these same churches, through synodal letters, on all possible questions of general church import that require the general voice and approval, just as each of the said patriarchal and autonomous churches shall in turn do the same toward the Serbian church, in accordance with the canonical order and custom which, as we have said, has existed in the Orthodox Church since the earliest times.”[34]

Besides the aforementioned autocephalous regional churches, there exist two further regional churches which are autonomous in church administration, while depending on the Patriarchate of Constantinople only in spiritual-disciplinary and dogmatic matters. These are:

The church in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is made up of four eparchies: 1. Dabar-Bosnia, 2. Herzegovina, 3. Zvornik, and 4. Banja Luka-Bihać. The position of this regional church is chiefly regulated by the convention concluded on 31 March 1880 between the Austro-Hungarian government and the Patriarch of Constantinople, which convention we have already mentioned (p. 144). By that convention the supreme spiritual head of the Bosnian-Herzegovinian church is the Patriarch of Constantinople, while the appointment of bishops for the said eparchies belongs to the Austrian Emperor, “after he has communicated the name of his candidate to the ecumenical patriarch for the fulfilment of the canonical formalities. In the event that this candidate is not known to the patriarchate, the said communication shall be accompanied by a certificate of that Orthodox bishop to whom the candidate has been subject, by which certificate it is shown that the candidate is canonically fit to be consecrated bishop.”[35]

The church on the island of Crete. The new organization of this church district is founded on a law (καταστατικὸς νόμος) issued on 20 December 1900. By that law the church district of Crete comprises eight eparchies: 1. Crete, headed by the metropolitan and spiritual head of the whole district; 2. Arcadia; 3. Rethymno; 4. Kydonia and Apokoronas; 5. Lampi and Sfakia; 6. Hierapetra and Sitia; 7. Petra; and 8. Kissamos and Selinos. The regional metropolitan of Crete is appointed by the Patriarch of Constantinople from among three candidates proposed to him by the supreme administrator of the land. The supreme church administration is made up of a holy synod, whose president is the metropolitan and whose members are all the eparchial bishops. At the sessions of the synod, held in October each year at Heraklion, a state commissioner takes part with a consultative vote. The synod elects the eparchial bishops, and from among three candidates proposed by the synod for the eparchy in question, the administrator of the land appoints one. All matters concerning the church are decided by the synod independently, and only those matters concerning educational and charitable institutions are decided by the synod in agreement with the civil authority. By this same law all the remaining church administration on the island of Crete is likewise regulated in a strictly canonical sense.