The principle of ecclesiastical autocephaly...

The principle of ecclesiastical autocephaly and the problems of inter-orthodox jurisdiction.
An actual ecclesiological and canonical contribution

Ph.D. Lecturer Iulian Mihai L. CONSTANTINESCU
University of Craiova
Faculty of Orthodox Theology
Canon Law Department
St. A.I.Cuza nr. 13 200585 Craiova, Dolj, Romania
Phone 0040251413396 Privat: St. Aleea N. Iorga, Bloc A 53, Sc. 2, Ap. 9 200017 Craiova, Dolj, Romania
Mobile Phone 0040722573282
Email: droitcanon@yahoo.fr
Web: http://www.iulianmihaiconstantinescu.blogspot.com


Keywords: Autocephaly, autonomy, ethnic principle, jurisdiction, inter-orthodox relations, Diaspora

In the latest decades, in the bosom of ecumenical Orthodoxy were carried numerous discussions on the institution of autocephaly, as form of organization of the orthodox ecclesiastical territorial units[1], as well as the procedure of their constitution and this despite the canonical regulations and the traditional practice of the Church. Although there were – and still are – numerous dissension regarding the institution of autocephaly and the ecclesiastical jurisdictions, all canonists accept that the interpretation of the canons that concern the principle of autocephaly and the other principles in tight connection it can be realized only in the light of the historical data, data which must also be related to the orthodox canonical doctrine[2].
As the Romanian orthodox canonist Fr. Prof. Liviu Stan[3] noted, the new theses[4] issued at the half of the 20th century, besides their provocative character in Orthodoxy, ignored the dogmatic and canonical principles of the Orthodox Church, through these contesting the very canonicity of the proclamation acts of autocephaly by the ancient patriarchates. These theses, unfortunately embraced nowadays too in the Greek orthodox world, were supporting the exclusive competence of authority of the ecumenical synod to proclaim the autocephaly of the ecclesiastical territorial units, all the post-synodal (i.e. after 787) autocephalies having a simple provisional character, these autocephalies being canonical incomplete, with the exception of the historical Patriarchates. Supporting the idea of canonical incompleteness of the post-synodal autocephalies and the necessity of presenting them for examination to a future Ecumenical Synod, it is questioned not only the concept of canonicity but also the canonicity in the inter-orthodox relations, afer the era of ecumenical synods. These non-canonical theses, out of the orthodox ecclesiology and out of the entire canonical doctrine of our Church, had an echo in Orthodoxy and still have, questioning the ecumenical unity of the Orthodox Church, the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic”. These positions of Prof. Trembelas were launched before the debut of the inter-orthodox Commissions and Pan-orthodox and Pre-Synodal Conferences for the preparation of the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church, exactly to open the way of a heated dialogue on the problem of autocephaly, truly a problem with canonical implications in the inter-orthodox relations, still unsolved despite the fundamental decisions token in the inter-orthodox meetings from the Orthodox Center of the Ecumenical Patriarchate from Chambésy /Genève (Switzerland).
Other theologians, ignoring the orthodox canonical regulations, non-accepting the existence of particular Churches, support the idea of remaking the unity of Orthodoxy through the recognition by the local Churches of the complete jurisdictional rights of a “supreme seat”, i.e. the Ecumenical Patriarchy of Constantinople[5]. All these non-canonical theses legitimately claim the clarification of inter-orthodox jurisdictional relations, the precise distinction between autocephaly and autonomy, as well as the procedure of recognition and proclamation of the autocephaly of local Churches, independently constituted from the administrative-jurisdictional point of view, on a synodal-hierarchical basis.
In this study we will evaluate ecclesiological-canonical and historical the canonical doctrine of the Orthodox Church, regarding the autocephaly, the manner of the constitution, on canonical bases, of the local autocephalous Churches, the problem of proclaiming the autocephaly and of the autocephalous Churches jurisdiction over their own ecclesiastical units in Diaspora, emphasizing the contribution of Romanian theologians and canonists in the inter-orthodox dialogue towards the canonical problems of great actuality.


1. The term “autocephaly” in the canon law of the Orthodox Church

In the last years, the orthodox theological writing tackled the problem of the autocephalies that marked the history of the Orthodox Church in the 19th and 20th century, giving birth to numerous discussions at an inter-orthodox level. The notion of “autocephaly” was understood in different ways[6], either as an independence of the local Churches in the bosom of ecumenical Orthodoxy, independence by which it is given a complete expression of the non-altered unity of the Church[7], or as a quasi-political term by which the emancipated Churches have in their lead an administrative and spiritual authority, and the frontiers of Churches are the same as the ones of states. Thus, canonist T. Pharmakides maintained in 1820 that the Church is not free but in its internal work regarding the dogmas and the cult, while the administration of a “national” Church and its relations with other Churches are of the exclusive competence of the civil power[8].
“Autocephaly” represents a reality in the life and organization of the Church, being present from the very beginning of the ecclesiastical setup, acquiring new shapes in time, together with the settlement of the territorial structure and with the working of the Church on a synodal-hierarchical basis. Although present in the life of the Church – the rights of the autocephalous local Churches being mentioned in the text of numerous canons of the Ecumenical and local Synods – the term of autocephaly does not appear in any canon. Truly, one canon, previous to the era of Ecumenical and local Synods canons, included the two words which the term of autocephaly was born from (autoz and kejalh), that is the 34th Apostolic canon. In consequence, the term autokejaloz (autokejalon - used in biology) acquires a new meaning, unknown by the profane speaking, which the social sciences used the term autonomia for, understood as the personal independence, the social independence or the sovereignty under juridical aspect. Thus, in the most authentic meaning, the autocephaly does not concern “the obedience of one bishop to another, or of a province to a bishop, but it is applied to a group of churches in a province which is capable to guarantee its own integrity and existence”[9], the independence of local churches that lived in unity, without any primacy, being showed by the New Testament.
The term of autocephaly appears for the first time in a list of hierarchical ecclesiastical units that were under the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan seat, list named “Notitia Episcopatum” and attributed, most probably, to Saint Epiphanius of Cyprus (311 – 403), although some scholars maintain its provenance from the 7th century. Thus, the word autocephaly continues to appear in the lists of the seats from the canonical territory of the historical patriarchates, although they were modified in time.
Besides the list of Saint Epiphanius and its subsequent versions, the term of autocephaly is mentioned by numerous writers in documents or official acts. We mention here Theodoros (†530), Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople (†829), Photius, patriarch of Constantinople (†886), Leon the Philosopher (886-912), Constantine Porphyrogennetos (912-959), Nil Doxapatris (12th century), Theodor Balsamon (†1203)[10] etc.
After the 14th century, as Fr. Prof. Liviu Stan mentions, the term of autocephaly is used in nomocanonical collections or in historical acts, patriarchal or synodal[11]. The fact that until the 19th century the word autocephaly was rarely used is due to the use of different expressions that expressed the same content or to the use of the term autonomy and of other terms synonym to the one of autocephaly. The two terms, autocephaly and autonomy, were equally used, as synonyms, because both of them express the rapport of independence of the Churches from de similar ecclesiastical organizations in ecumenical orthodoxy[12], although there are differentiations, as we will see below.
In consequence, we specify here that the right of each Church to independence or autocephaly was consecrated by ecclesiastical practice transformed in time into a juridical regulation, then in a custom with law power that was mentioned in the text of the different canons. This right to autocephaly of the local Churches “consists in the freedom ensured by law, on count of every ecclesiastical unit that can exist through itself, to organize and govern itself into an independent manner to other ecclesiastical units found in the same situation, that is in equal situation in respect of rights even though in respect of territorial extension of the title or of the honorific hierarchy that one would found itself on a superior rank”[13].


2. The evolution of the institution of autocephaly and the notion of “canonical territory”. A historical-canonical view

The specificity of the Orthodox Church, both towards de Roman-Catholic Church and towards the Protestantism is the organization of ecclesiastical-territorial units on the ground of the principles of autocephaly and autonomy, i.e. as Autocephalous or Autonomous Churches, which go beyond the geographic area of a diocese.
Despite these, as far back as from the apostolic age until the 2nd – 3rd centuries, the local Churches were ruled in an autocephalous manner by the bishops[14], subsequently the leadership of ecclesiastical units passing to the local, provincial synods (34th , 37th apost. can.), by introducing the metropolitan system (4th century) the metropolitan synods being constituted by the bishops in the province, headed by the metropolitan (4th, 5th, 6th, 7th cans. I ec.)[15]. Thus, although the term of autocephaly does not appear in canons, not being used in the first centuries, the autocephaly manifested itself through time in different manners[16].
The Holy Apostles, being conscious of their unique and unrepeatable authority received from Savior Jesus Christ, enjoying universal jurisdiction by virtue of the extraordinary grace of apostolacy,
preached the Gospel of our Savior Jesus Christ as far as the ends of the world (Mt 28:19), outreaching the boundaries of a single community, founding numerous local Churches which they endowed with an autocephalous government through the ordination of bishop in their lead. These local communities, headed by bishops, administrated themselves independently one from another, although all the bishops governed the whole Church in communion, without enjoying universal jurisdiction, but only a local one, hence limited to the boundaries of their diocese[17]. The bishop, being ordained for the local community, becomes a testimony of the faith of his local community, being integrated in the Episcopal college and therefore he becomes the testimony of the entire apostolic teaching and tradition[18], as the theologian W. Beinert affirms. The ordination of the bishop does not mean dependency or subordination of the one who ordains, but placing the Episcopal seat at disposal towards the service of the local Church which the bishop was ordained for[19].
In the head of Episcopal synods from the 2nd and the 3rd centuries there was a primate, called “protos”, which expresses in a symbolic manner the autocephaly of the local Church in whose head he was. (34th apost. can.). Thus, these ecclesiastical units leaded by synods in whose head there was a “protos”, recognized as the head, become, as the great Romanian orthodox canonist Prof. Liviu Stan shows, standard autocephalous units[20]. To this autocephalous ecclesiastical setup it is given an expression, it is canonically settled, in the text of the 34th apostolic canon, which includes the principle of autocephaly, too, being, in the 5th century, interpreted through the 8th canon of the 3rd ecumenical Synod (Ephesus, 431) and rediscovered in the canonical resolutions of the 4th ecumenical Synod (Chalcedon, 451).
The next step of the ecclesiastical setup meant the apparition, in the 4th century, of the autocephalous metropolitanates (4th, 5th, 6th, 7th cans. I ec.; II ec.), after that of the exarchates (4th century) and patriarchates (4th – 5th century) as autocephalous units (6th, 7th cans. I ec; 2nd, 3rd cans. II ec.; 9th, 17th, 28th cans. IV ec.), the last ones including several exarchates. This kind of evolution of the setup and administrative working of the ecclesiastical territorial units was marked by changes regarding the canonical statute of these local communities. The bishoprics, which were initially autocephalous, kept only the autonomy of one of another, together forming the autocephalous metropolitanates, which later were going to become autonomous, too, in the bosom of exarchates and the in the patriarchates (9th, 12th, 17th, 28th cans. IV ec.; 8th, 35th cans. VI ec.; 3rd, 6th cans. VII ec.). However, like some exarchates or diocese, some metropolitanates kept their autocephaly, too, either as metropolitanates or as archbishoprics[21]; we could mention here the Metropolitanate of Tomis[22] or the Archbishopric of Cyprus, which has remained autocephalous until nowadays (8th can. III ec.; 39th can. VI ec.). Other ecclesiastical semi-autocephalous units, called autocephalous archbishoprics, became more and more numerous since 4th-5th centuries.
Therefore, the 34th apostolic canon (the beginning of the 4th century) includes the canonical principles of organization and working of the Church, two of them being the ethnic principle and the autocephaly. Through the application of these principles it was possible to keep the orthodox canonical unity, this ecclesiastical unity receiving its expression even since the apostolic era[23]. Thus, the autocephaly of local Churches, formed in the ethnic framework, is mentioned by the 34th apostolic canon, as we affirmed, its dispositions being taken over by other canons too, these ones showing the criteria for the establishment of the identity of a Church: place, nationality, ethnicity and rite[24].
The constitution of local autocephalous Churches in the ethnic framework is based on some grounds that can be natural, historical, doctrinal, dogmatic and canonical, as it is specified in Fr. Ioan N. Floca’s work, Orthodox Canon Law. Ecclesiastical legislation and administration[25] (Drept canonic ortodox. Legislaţie şi administraţie bisericească – in Romanian). The Romanian canonist appreciates that the natural grounds consist in the necessity to model the ecclesiastical units according to the same natural laws that are used by all human communities, for their leading and organization. We find the historical ground for the constitution of the autocephalies in the ecclesiastical history and tradition, the whole ecclesiastical regulation being settled as customary law and then found in the text of the canons, precisely on the long practice basis. The dogmatic grounds have their source in the harmony between the organizational regulations of the ecclesiastical units and the truths of faith, mentioning here the two canonical principles with dogmatic and juridical background, the synodal principle and the hierarchical one. The canonical grounds are included in the canons that mention the constitution of autocephalous Churches in the apostolic era (34th, 35th, 37th apost. can.), in the era of the ecumenical synods (7th can. I ec.; 2nd , 8th can. III ec; 9th, 12th, 17th, 28th can. IV ec; 8th, 36th, 38th can VI ec.) and of the local synods (9th, 14th can. Ant; 3rd, 6th Sard.; 13th, 18th Cart.), all these canons giving expression to the autocephaly principle, developing an settling it in the legality plan. Besides these grounds there can be added some political grounds, i.e. the presence of national of multinational states, constituted by administrative units, to all these adding the political interest of different states to strengthen the organization of their own national Church through autocephaly and the interest to tear it out of the foreign jurisdiction[26].
The canonical regulations concerning the organization of an autocephalous Church were established in time, by ecclesiastical practice, being the true expression of the canonical and dogmatic principle established in canons, firstly in the text of the apostolic canons and subsequently through the authentic interpretation of these by the ecumenical and local synods in their canonical work. These regulations were accepted through consensus Ecclesiae dispersae, showing here, briefly, some of the aspects of the necessary conditions for the canonical constitution of the autocephalous Churches: 1. The autocephaly of the ecclesiastical territorial units must be legitimately requested by its hierarchs, who can form a local synod (at least four bishops who could ordain the bishops of their local Churches), without producing schism or heresy, but in complete obedience to the superior hierarchy. The Church must prove the stability in the right faith and it must keep unaltered the canonical and liturgical regulations of the Orthodox Church; 2. The autocephaly must be canonically conferred, i.e. it must be approved by the synod of the competent autocephalous Church. The mother-Church that confers the autocephaly issues a synodal “Tomos”, through which it is conferred the autocephaly, “Tomos” that must be made known to the other Orthodox sister-Churches; 3. Another regulation is the canonical recognition of the autocephaly[27], being necessary the recognition and acceptance in the orthodox communion of the autocephalous Church by all the autocephalous Churches; it is also necessary the agreement of the state on whose territory the autocephalous Church is constituted. Therefore, the autocephaly is not requested in random conditions, but the constitution of an autocephalous Church must fulfill certain conditions, mentioned above.
To obtain the autocephaly, the autocephalous Churches can interfere, having in the same time the right not to recognize some autocephalies, more than that they can interfere to withdraw the autocephaly, if there are not fulfilled all the conditions. The proclamation of autocephaly by the mother-Church means, in fact, the execution of this act in the name of the Ecumenical Church, by exercising the authority that the whole Church possesses solidarily[28]. The consequence of proclaiming the autocephaly is the obtaining of rights by the Church recognized as autocephalous[29].
Thus, the autocephalous form of organization of the Church is a traditional form in the bosom of ecumenical Orthodoxy, asserting itself as the fundamental canonical-juridical institution. We have to mention that this traditional form of organization and working of the Church is not essential, that is it can be missing from the life of the Church, existing numerous possibilities to create new forms of ecclesiastical organization by adopting the forms corresponding to its mission. In the constitution of autocephalies there will be taken into account, besides the ethnic principle that must not be putted in doubt, other realities, too, as the geographical and political framework of the national or multi national state.
But, concerning the principle of autocephaly it is worth mentioning the importance of correct knowing and understanding of the notion of “canonical territory”, this being in tight relation to the autocephalous Church and to their jurisdiction and of a real importance in the inter-orthodox and inter-Christian relations. This term was not used in history, but is recent, although it refers to ecclesiological realities present even since the apostolic era.
The notion of canonical territory is marked by an evolution in time, even since the first three centuries asserting itself the principle “a city – a bishop – a Church”, which implies the exercise of the ecclesiastical authority by a bishop into a well-settled territory[30]. Thus, the apostolic Canons forbid the trespassing of the ecclesiastical boundaries by bishops and clergy, being combated the practice of bishops and priests who left their dioceses and went to officiate services in other ecclesiastical units (14th apost. can.). The same manner, the bishops are not allowed to ordain outside their diocese (35th apost. can.) and they cannot receive in Eucharistic communion people excommunicated in other dioceses (12th can.) or cancel the ecclesiastical sanctions pronounced by other bishops in their own jurisdiction boundaries (16th, 32nd can.).
We may say that the notion of canonical territory at the level of the Episcopalian Churches appeared in the times of the Holy Apostles and developed in the ecclesiastical practice from the 2nd and the 3rd centuries and later, through the apparition of new forms of ecclesiastical organization.
We will mention below some actual aspects regarding the canonical territories of the autocephalous Churches and the application of this notion to the jurisdictions.


3. The ethnic principle – a divine and canonical fundament of the autocephaly and of the jurisdictional right over the own Diaspora. The Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and the 28th canon of the Synod from Chalcedon

The nation is part of the creation plan, bearing the seal of eternity and perpetuating itself only through faith and belief in God’s help. As the Romanian canonist Prof. Iorgu Ivan affirms, the family constitutes the ground of every nation and the language of every nation is a distinctive sign and a means of externalizing the religiosity, being a divine regulation that every nation to have its own language[31]. Not to respect the specificity of each nation, of its language and traditions is truly a trespassing of the divine regulation. All these are easier to understand by considering the divine Revelation of the Old and the New Testament.
The ethnic link is a canonical principle of organization of the Church, as Lord Jesus Christ founded the Church for all people, endowing it with principles of organization and working. The principles of ecclesiastical organization and leading, together with the spiritual means at the disposal of the Church for the fulfillment of its existential purpose, were going to ensure, in time, the unity of the Church, with all the diversity of nations and languages of those who were becoming subjects of law in the Church, through the administration of the Holy Sacrament of Baptism.
The divine authority of the principles established by the Holy Apostles in organizing and governing the Church cannot be put in doubt. These principles were settled in the text of the canons, relevant in this sense being the 34th apostolic canon, which, besides other organizing and working principles of the Church (e.g. the hierarchical principle, the synodal principle, the principle of autonomy, the principle of autocephaly, the territorial principle), includes the ethnic principle, too, understood as “the organization of a nation’s Church with bishops and priests from that nation, forced to preach the right teaching and to celebrate the entire cult – the Holy Sacraments and hierurgies – in that nation’s language, respecting its traditions and customs that do not come in conflict with the orthodox doctrine and morals”[32].
Considering the development of the ecclesiastical organization and its adaptation to the administrative organization of the state, we note that the Fathers of the Ecumenical synods affirmed the equality and independence of the greater autocephalous ecclesiastical units, without enjoying jurisdictional rights one towards another. In the same time, they strengthened the indispensability of the ethnic element in organizing an autocephalous Church, as a divine regulation. The ethnic principle was invoked by Churches to obtain their independence of foreign jurisdictions – the case of Georgian or Russian Church; the Ecumenical Patriarchy itself quoted the text of the 34th apostolic canon at the recognition of the autocephaly of the Russian Church (1448). In this context, the term “εθνος” was correctly interpreted by the Ecumenical Patriarchy, in sense of “nation”. Later, this term was misinterpreted by the Greek historians and canonists, exactly to justify their illegitimate pretentions of the Ecumenical Patriarchy on the jurisdiction of the entire Diaspora[33]. Thus, the term “etnos” was reduced to the sense of diocese, like the 9th canon from Antioch, continuing this way the misinterpretation of the 28th canon of the IV Ecumenical Synod from Chalcedon.
Despite these, the ethnic link is a ground of the right and obligation of every autocephalous Church to organize and guide the religious life of its own Diasporas, in order to keep the ancient orthodox faith, as well as in order benefit in Diaspora from the spiritual content shared by the Church with its sons in the respective national state.
Even since the beginnings of Christianity the Diaspora kept a tight relation with the bishop in whose community they had received the baptism, this way having the complete sentiment of being in permanent spiritual communion with the members of the community they had left and with the entire Church. This fact is expressed by the 2nd canon from the II Ecumenical Synod, which establish that all the Diasporas outside the Roman Empire to be governed by the bishops who had the respective area under their jurisdiction, before being occupied by the barbarians. A century later, the Fathers of the fourth Ecumenical Synod from Chalcedon (451), through the 28th canon, a controversial one[34], unaccepted by the Roman-Catholic Church and long debated in the ecumenical Orthodoxy, recognized the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan seat over the dioceses of Asia, Pontus and Thrace. This sort of exception, adopted because of political reasons, could be considered, as Prof. Iorgu Ivan affirms, as a confirmation of the old custom at which referred the 6th can. I ec. and the 2nd can. II ec., canons that respected the principle of canonical territoriality, that each bishop of the diocese to exert his jurisdiction only in the boundaries of his own diocese[35].
The heads of the autocephalous Churches enjoyed equal power, non-existing the confusion between the jurisdictional rights and the honorific primacy. This fact is highlighted by the great canonist of the 13th century, Joannes Zonaras who, interpreting the 17th can. IV ec. maintained that the Patriarch of Constantinople is a judge only in the boundaries of his own jurisdiction. In consequence, the metropolitans found under the jurisdiction of the other historical Patriarchies are not under his authority. In fact, even the Constantinopolitan seat recognized in the Tomos of autocephaly, on the ground of the 34th apostolic canon[36], that the Churches organized in an ethnic framework, Churches that had been by then under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, now are independent and with their own administration, due to attainment of the autocephaly. In consequence, the Patriarchy of Constantinople itself, with all its privileges recognized by the ecumenical synods (3rd can. II ec., 28th can IV ec.)[37], maintained that all Churches recognized as autocephalous are equal in the Orthodoxy, without being able to exercise their jurisdiction over another autocephalous Church, irrespective of their seniority or the number of believers[38]. Any pretention of an autocephalous Church to have jurisdiction over other autocephalous Churches or over their Diasporas was against the teaching of the Holy Bible and the canons of the Orthodox Church. The 34th apostolic canon expresses in a positive manner the importance of the ethnic principle as a fundament of the ecclesiastical organization and of the exercise of jurisdiction over the own Diaspora[39]. Every Orthodox Church has its own shape “only because of the national character proper to the orthodox people who that Church belongs to”[40]. Even so, the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, although are organized in a precise manner into a ethnical and geographical framework[41], we may say that “there are neither abdications nor falls from the Christian universality, but the natural and canonical expression of the agreement between these two face of some organic realities: the plurality, after creation, of nations and unity by grace of the Christian Church”[42].
Despite these realities from the life of the Church, in time, the Patriarchy of Constantinople and the theologians who supported the Constantinopolitan seat, putting in doubt the ethnic principle in organizing and working of the autocephalous Churches, accused these autocephalous Churches of ethnofiletism, these aversion culminating with the synod in Constantinople from 1872, where it was combated the filetism as a heresy against the teaching of faith, against the canons of the Holy Fathers, considering those who admitted the ethnical principle as “out of the Church and schismatic”[43]. The filetism is regarded by these theologians, supporters of the Constantinopolitan seat, as a nationalist principle applied in the ecclesiastical area, ignoring in the same time the word of our Saviour, addressed to His disciples before His Ascension: “"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. Therefore go and teach all the nations” (Mt 28:18-19), all the nations being called in the virtue of their particularities to participate at the life in God[44].
The greek canonist, Fr. Prof. Grigorios Papathomas maintain that those who support the ethnic principles make a confusion between Church and Nation[45], assimilating the Church to the Nation, non being accepted the jurisdiction over an ethnic group and in conclusion more jurisdictions, but an universal jurisdiction, the one of the Ecumenical Patriarchy. We respond here to the Greek theologian through the words of an authoritarian voice of the Orthodoxy from the 20th century, the greatest orthodox dogmatist of his time, Fr. Prof. Dumitru Staniloae: “The Orthodoxy is universal in the sense that is sent to preach Christ to “all the nations” (Mt 28:19). But precisely through this sending to nations and not to individuals without any ethnic qualification it is shown that it is not irrespective of the particularity of the nations, but it affirms and support them in this particularity…By this, the orthodoxy inside every people is attaching in a particular way with its love to de nation in the middle of what is working, helping it in its life aspirations and making a synthesis between them and the aspirations to salvation that it keep awake in the soul of those who form it”[46]. Another great theologian of our Church, Fr. Prof. Constantin Galeriu noted that “the affirmation of the national character, of the ethnic soul, is about the Revelation, the truth of the faith, the Incarnation of the Son of God in humanity, in the bosom of a nation (Rm 9:5)[47]. Therefore, this kind of position of the filo-constantinopolitan theologians is damnable[48], as this kind of theologians advance the thesis of the effort of surpassing the national through universal, i.e. through a kenosis of the autocephalous Churches in the benefit of Constantinople, kenosis that they are aware of its difficulty. It is not taken into account the fact that every autocephalous Orthodox Church has its own specificity given by the traditions of the respective nation and by its ethnical character, all these assuring its originality and identity[49]. In this context, the Romanian canonist, Fr. Prof. Nicolae Dură, affirms that the assertions of the Greek theologians are without solid ground, because the ethnic principle, together with the other principle form the 34th apostolic canon and not only, entitle the local orthodox Churches that are constituted in ethnical and territorial framework to exercise canonical jurisdiction over their own Diasporas[50].
We mention here that the importance and the necessity of spiritual dependency of the orthodox communities in Diaspora of the mother-Churches and of their original countries was underlined even by the Ecumenical Patriarchy, in the epistles sent in 1908 to the Holy Synod of the Greek Church, as well as in the synodal Tomos no. 2388 from 1908, through which the Ecumenical Patriarchy was going to cede to the Greek Church all the authority for the protection of the entire Greek Diaspora, with the purpose of befriending and protecting the interests of Hellenism in the world[51]. This synodal tomos is in the spirit of the 34th apostolic canon, being invoked the ethnical principle, all the arguments of the Ecumenical Patriarchy being used by the other autocephalous Churches as a ground for their right of jurisdiction overt their own Diasporas. We could say that with the same purpose – the defending of the interests of Hellenism – a decade later, in 1922, the Patriarchy of Constantinople was retaking into its jurisdiction the whole Greek orthodox Diaspora, working nowadays, too, in tight cooperation with the Greek Church and with the Greek state to promote the values, traditions and interests of Hellenism on all the continents[52].
Even if after the agreement between the two local autocephalous orthodox Churches, the Ecumenical Patriarchy and the Greek Church, the Greek Diaspora is under the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan patriarchal seat, this does not mean that the Patriarchy of Constantinople has a jurisdictional right or a jurisdictional privilege, because of its honorific primacy in Orthodoxy (28th can. IV ec.), over the entire orthodox Diaspora[53]. Thus, nowadays, we can see a painful aspect in the orthodox Diaspora – the disruption[54]. It is damnable that the Ecumenical Patriarchy takes under its jurisdiction Romanian orthodox communities, or of other ethnicity, without the agreement of the mother-Church, communities that lost their canonical link with the mother-Church, this fact being a trespassing of the canons and ecclesiological orthodox principles[55].
The actual situation of the orthodox Diaspora is due to the misinterpretation of the canons that concern the jurisdiction over the Diaspora in the Greek world, especially of the 28th canon from the Fourth Ecumenical Synod from Chalcedon, which is the only canon that refers to the Diaspora of the Constantinopolitan Church, mentioning that the archbishop of Constantinople may ordain the bishops from the barbarian lands, i.e. the Churches from Pont, Asia, Thrace, Churches that included more Metropolitanates[56]. The text of the canon shows expressly the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan seat over the three dioceses, as well as over their barbarian lands, that is over their Diasporas. We cannot see this as an attribution of jurisdictional rights over the entire Diaspora. These jurisdictions attributed to the Constantinopolitan seat is explained by the fact that, being in the capital of the Empire, it had a small diocesan jurisdiction, considering it necessary to increase the jurisdictional territory, corresponding to its dignity of patriarchal seat of the imperial capital. By attributing the right to ordain the bishop from Diaspora, in fact is conferred the entire jurisdictional power, being “the act through which is ensured the apostolic succession in each ecclesiastical unit, succession that conditions the entire delivering work”[57].
We don’t want to extend here the commentaries to the 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod from Chalcedon (451), but we underline the central idea through the words of the great Romanian canonist, Prof. Liviu Stan: “In consequence, there is out of question the idea that the dispositions of the 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod would confer the Constantinopolitan seat a universal jurisdiction over Diaspora, but, contrariwise, they ascertain and consecrate the right of every autocephalous Church to exert its jurisdiction over its own Diaspora[58].


4. In place of a conclusion: Underlining the canonical position of the Romanian Orthodox Church towards the autocephaly and its proclamation

As it can be well seen in the Report presented by the inter-orthodox preparatory Commission from Chambésy in 7-13 November 1993, the Romanian Orthodox Church, invoking the 34th, 35th and 37th apostolic canons, as well as the 2nd canon of the Third Ecumenical Synod and the 12th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, maintained the presence in history of the autocephalous Churches, constituted on the ethnic principle basis, before and after the era of ecumenical synods, other Churches being autocephalous after the decision of the ecumenical synods. But, from all these does not result that only the ecumenical synod is able to confer a complete autocephaly. Complete autocephalies may exist even without the express approval of an ecumenical synod, the ecclesiastical autocephalous units being able to constitute themselves either spontaneously, or through autocephaly proclamation acts issued by certain existent autocephalous Churches. Thus, the mother-Church, being co-responsible of maintaining the pan-orthodox unity and canonical order, it has to consult the other local autocephalous sister-Churches to see the opportunity of a positive settlement of the autocephaly demand. After a consensus is reached, the mother-Church recognizes formally the autocephaly of its daughter-Church, either through a synodal decision, or through a synodal Tomos. In case of disagreement between the autocephalous Church and the one that asks for autocephaly, it can be made an appeal to a pan- orthodox decision[59].
[1] Nowadays, in the Roman-Catholic Church there are no ecclesiastical territorial units organized as autocephalies, the principle of autocephaly being used in the Western Church until the Schism from 1054. We may say that forms of autocephaly exist nowadays too in the Roman-Catholic Church, but without being referred as autocephalies. A restraint autonomy is attributed to the different settlements or associations, irrespective of their rite, Latin or Byzantine. The existent situation in Catholicism does not justify the critic position towards the autocephaly principle in the Orthodox Church. See here Fr. X. WERNZ, Ius Decretalium, 1st vol., 2nd edition, Rome, 1905, pp. 110-112; P. BASTIEN, “Autonomie”, in Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique, 1st vol., Paris, 1935, col. 1482-1490.
[2] J. H. ERICKSON, „The Orthodox Canonical Tradition”, in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, (1983), no. 3, p. 167.
[3] Fr. Prof. Liviu STAN, “The origin of autocephaly and autonomy. New Theses” (Obârşia autocefaliei şi autonomiei. Teze noi – in Romanian), in Mitropolia Olteniei, XIII (1961), no. 1-4, p. 81.
[4] The Greek theologian Prof. Panaghiotis Trembelas presented these theses in an article from the Θεολογια journal (1957).

[5] Archdeacon PhD Prof. Ioan N. Floca, Orthodox Canon Law. Ecclesiastical legislation and administration (Drept canonic ortodox. Legislaţie şi administraţie bisericească – in Romanian) 2nd vol., EIBMBOR, Bucharest, 1990, p. 320.
[6] Fr. Jivko PANEV, „Quelques remarques sur l’autocéphalie”, ”, in Contacts, no. 170/1995, pp. 125-133.
[7] Cf. S. TROÏTSKY, „Autocéphalie ecclésiastique”, in Messager de l'exarchat du patriarcat russe en Europe occidentale, no. 11/1952.
[8] Apud Spyridon GALANIS, „Comment fut déclarée l'autocéphalie de l'Église grecque”, in Contacts, no. 133, pp. 37-47 and no. 134, pp. 128-148.
[9] J. L. BOOJAMARA, „Problems concerning autocephaly: a response”, in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, t. XXIV (1979), no. 2-3, p. 195.
[10] Fr. Prof. Liviu STAN, “The origin of autocephaly and autonomy. New Theses”, pp. 93-94.
[11] Ibidem, pp. 94-97.
[12] A. Gh. BUCĂLAE, “Problems concerning the canonicity in the period of the Romanian Orthodox Church reorganization, beteen 1918 and 1925” (Probleme în legătură cu canonicitatea în perioada reorganizării Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, între anii 1918-1925 – in Romanian), in Biserica Ortodoxă Română, LXXXVII (1969), no. 11-12, p. 1204.
[13] Pr. Prof. L. STAN, “The support of the independency combat of the Romanian people through the combat of the Church for autocephaly” (Sprijinirea luptei de independenţă a poporului român prin lupta Bisericii pentru autocefalie – in Romanian), in Ortodoxia, XX (1968), no 4, p. 611.

[14] See details at L. STAN, “About autocephaly” (Despre autocefalie – in Romanian), in Ortodoxia, (1956), no 3, pp. 374-375; I. MOISESCU, The ecclesiastical hierarchy in the apostolic era (Ierarhia bisericească în epoca apostolică –in Romanian, Bucharest, 1955, pp. 52-56; Fr. Prof. PhD Nicolae V. DURĂ, “Forms and status of manifestation of the autcephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church through the centuries. Historical and canonical testimonies” (Forme şi stări de manifestare a autocefaliei Bisericii Ortodoxe Române de-a lungul secolelor. Mărturii istorice şi canonice”, in Centenarul autocefaliei Bisericii Ortodoxe Române 1885-1985, EIBMBOR, Bucharest, 1987, pp. 280-287; Bishop P. L. L’HUILLIER, „Problems concerning autocephaly”, in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. XXIV (1979), no. 2-3, p. 167; J. GAUDEMET, „L’Eglise dans l’Empire romain au IV-ème siècle”, in Histoire du Droit et des Institutions de l’Eglise en Occident, t. III, Paris, 1958, p. 474.
[15] Cf. Gheorghe I. SOARE, “The Metropolitanate in the Orthodox Canon Law” (Mitropolia în Dreptul Canonic Ortodox – in Romanian), Bucharest, 1939, p. 17.
[16] Fr. Prof. Liviu STAN, “The origin of autocephaly and autonomy. New Theses”, p. 85.
[17] Dumitru I. GĂINĂ, “The Holy Apostles and the Bishops” (Sfinţii Apostoli şi Episcopii – in Romanian), in Studii Teologice, XIV (1962), no. 9-10, pp. 582-597.
[18] W. BEINERT, „The Church of Christ as a local Church in the first five centuries”, in Wort und Wahrheit, (1976), no. 3, Viena, p. 11.
[19] Ibidem.
[20] Fr. Prof. Liviu STAN, “The origin of autocephaly and autonomy. New Theses”, p. 86.
[21] Ibidem, p. 88.
[22] The Tomis seat was also „prima sedis episcopalis” from ourt country, until the 14th century his hierarch being the Head of the Church of all Romanians. It is recalled by Sozomen in the 4th century, showing that the hierarch of Tomis defended its independence of the the other seats, having all the rights of a metropolitan, without having though suffragan bishops. Fr. Prof. Nicolae V. Dură affirms: “The Church from Scythia Minor, organized as a metropolitanate from the First Ecumenical Synod era (cf. 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th canons) it was ab antiquo autocephalous… That is why it is improper and erroneous to affirm that the Church from Scythia Minor would have been under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchy of Constantinople, as some Romanian and foreign historians and theologians still affirm” see Dr. Nicolae V. DURĂ, “Scythia Minor (Dobrudja) and its apostolic Church. The archiepiscopal and metropolitan seat of Tomis (4th-14th century) („Scythia Minor” (Dobrogea) şi Biserica ei apostolică. Scaunul arhiepiscopal şi mitropolitan al Tomisului (sec. IV-XIV) – in Romanian), EDP, Bucharest, 2006, p. 14.
[23] Fr.. Nicolae V. DURĂ, “ The Church of Alexandria and its hierarchs canonical-pastoral activity until the synod from Chalcedon (451) (Biserica Alexandriei şi activitatea canonico-pastorală a ierarhilor ei până la sinodul de la Calcedon (451) – in Romanian), in Studii Teologice, XXXIII (1981), no. 1-2, pp. 5-25.
[24] Idem, “Forms and status of manifestation of the autocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church through the centuries. Historical and canonical testimonies”, p. 284; G. NEDUNGATT, „Autonomy, Autocephaly, and the Problem of Jurisdiction Today”, in Kanon, 5th vol., Wien, 1981, pp. 19-20.
[25] See 2nd vol., EIBMBOR, Bucharest, 1990, p. 321.
[26] Ibidem.
[27] Through time there were more ways to recognize the autocephaly: by the tacit consensus of the Orthodox sister-Churches; by the decision of an Ecumenical synod; by the action of the mother-Church; by imperial approval. There not few Churches whose autocephaly was recognized by emperors (Zeno – autocephaly of the Georgian Church (480); Justinian I – autocephaly of the Archbishopric Justiniana Prima (535); Constans II – Archbishopric of Ravenna (666). Likewise, the Constantinopolitan Church received privileges and prerogatives from the byzantine emperors, being an imperial city. See C. PAPOULIS, „La Place de l’Empereur à Byzance pendant les Conciles Oecuméniques”, in Byzantina, III (1971), pp. 127-131, Fr. Prof. Dr. Nicolae DURĂ, “Forms and status of manifestation of the autocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church through the centuries. Historical and canonical testimonies”, pp. 286-287; ; N. AFANASSIEFF, „Le Concile dans la Théologie Orthodoxe Russe”, in Irenikon, III (1962), p. 333.
[28] Archdeacon PhD Prof. Ioan N. Floca, Orthodox Canon Law. Ecclesiastical legislation and administration, 2nd vol., p. 333.
[29] See details at Fr. Prof. Liviu STAN, „On Autocephaly” (Despre autocefalie – in Romanian), in Ortodoxia, VIII (1956), no. 3, pp. 391-395; Idem, The autocephaly and the autonomy in Orthodoxy” (Autocefalia şi autonomia în Ortodoxie – in Romanian) in Mitropolia Olteniei, XIII (1961), no. 5-6.
[30] Bishop Hilarion ALFEYEV, „La notion du territoire canonique dans la tradition orthodoxe” (Conférence au symposium international de droit canonique à l’Académie théologique catholique de Budapest, 7.II.2005), in http://fr.hilarion.orthodoxia.org/6_12, 07.09.2008.
[31] Prof. Iorgu IVAN, “The Ethnos – nation – divine ground and canonical fundamental principle of the ecclesiastical autocephaly” (Etnosul – neamul -, temei divin şi principiu fundamental canonic al autocefaliei bisericeşti – in Romanian), in The Centenary of the autocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church 1885 – 1985 (Centenarul autocefaliei Bisericii Ortodoxe Române 1885-1985 – in Romanian), EIBMBOR, Bucharest, 1987, p. 186.

[32] Ibidem, p. 193.
[33] See here Archim. Grigorios D. PAPATHOMAS, Essais de Droit canonique orthodoxe, Firenze, Università degli Studi di Firenze/Facoltà di Scienze Politiche “Cesare Alfieri” (coll. Seminario di Storia delle istituzioni religiose e relazioni tra Stato e Chiesa-Reprint Series, no. 38), 2005, IV, pp. 77-114; Prof. Dr. Vlassios PHIDAS, Droit canon. Une perspective orthodoxe, Centre Orthodoxe du Patriarcat Œcuménique, Chambésy-Genève, 1998.
[34] Archd. Prof. PhD Ioan N. FLOCA, Canons of the Orthodox Church. Notes and comments (Canoanele Bisericii Ortodoxe. Note şi comentarii), 3rd edition amended Sibiu, 2005, p. 102.
[35] Prof. Iorgu IVAN, op. cit., p. 197.
[36] Fr. Prof. Dr. Nicolae DURĂ, , “Forms and status of manifestation of the autocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church through the centuries. Historical and canonical testimonies”, p. 287.
[37] J. H. ERICKSON, „Autocephaly in Orthodox Canonical Literature to the Thirteenth Century”, in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, XV (1971), no. 1-2, p. 29; Also see Marcel CIUCUR, “The right to grant autocephaly in the Orthodox Church” (Dreptul de acordare a autocefaliei în Biserica Ortodoxă – in Romanian), in Studii Teologice, XXIX (1977), no. 5-8, pp. 536-541.
[38] Prof. Iorgu IVAN, op. cit., p. 198.
[39] Prof. I. D. IVAN, “The age and forms of the relations of the Romanian Orthodox Church with the other Orthodox sister-Churches” (Vechimea şi formele raporturilor Bisericii Ortodoxe Române cu celelalte Biserici Ortodoxe – in Romanian), in Glasul Bisericii, XL (1980), no. 10-12, p. 794.
[40] Cf. Prof. A. D. KIRIAKOS, “The system of Autocephalous Orthodox Churches” (Sistemul Bisericilor Ortodoxe Autocefale – in Romanian), translated from Greek by D. Demetrescu, in Biserica Ortodoxă Română, XXV (1901-1902), no. 5, p. 382.
[41] Prof. V. ŞESAN, The right of devolution of the patriarch and metropolitan (Dreptul de devoluţiune al patriarhului şi al mitropolitului – in Romanian), Cernăuţi, 1937, p. 13.
[42] I. Gh. SAVIN, “Christianity and nationalism” (Creştinism şi naţionalism – in Romanian), in Fântâna darurilor, X (1938), no. 9, pp. 417-418.
[43] Hiéromoine PIERRE, „Notes d’Ecclésiologie Orthodoxe. Le Patriarche Oecuménique et les Eglises Orthodoxes Autocéphales”, in Irenikon, t. X (1933), no. 6, p. 445.
[44] Fr. Prof. Ilie MOLDOVAN, “Ethnicity and ecclesiastical autonomy. Theological and moral considerations with the occasion of the Romanian Orthodox Church centenary anniversary” (Etnicitate şi autonomie bisericească. Consideraţii de ordin teologic-moral cu ocazia aniversării autocefaliei Bisericii Ortodoxe Române – in Romanian), in The Centenary of the autocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church 1885 – 1985 (Centenarul autocefaliei Bisericii Ortodoxe Române 1885-1985 – in Romanian), EIBMBOR, Bucharest, 1987, p. 241.
[45] Archim. Grigorios D. PAPATHOMAS, „Face au concept d’“Église nationale”, la réponse canonique orthodoxe: l’Église autocéphale”, in http://orthodoxe.free.fr/files/carances_ecclesilioligiques.pdf , p. 3 (05.09.2008).
[46] Dumitru STĂNILOAE, Nation and Christianity (Naţiune şi Creştinism – in Romanian), Ed. Elion, Bucharest, 2004, p. 273.
[47] Fr. Prof. Constantin GALERIU, “Autocephaly and Orthodoxy. Ecclesiological aspects”, in The Centenary of the autocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church 1885 – 1985 (Centenarul autocefaliei Bisericii Ortodoxe Române 1885-1985 – in Romanian), EIBMBOR, Bucharest, 1987, p. 203.
[48] See here † NICOLAE, Mètropolite du Banat, „La Diaspora et les Eglises-Maires”, in Romanian Orthodox Church News, XI (1981), no. 1, p. 57.
[49] Fr. Prof. Dr. Nicolae DURĂ, , “Forms and status of manifestation of the autocephaly of the Romanian Orthodox Church through the centuries. Historical and canonical testimonies”, p. 288; also see Fr. Prof. PhD. Alexandru MORARU, “The autocephalous Church and its Diaspora” (Biserica autocefală şi diaspora ei - in Romanian), in Autocephaly, Patriarchy, Holy Service (Autocefalie, Patriarhie, Slujire sfântă – in Romanian), EIBMBOR, Bucharest, 1995, pp. 141-159.
[50] Ibidem.
[51] See here H.E. PhD. Damaskinos PAPANDREOU, Metropolitan of Switzerland, Church, Society, World (Biserică, Societate, Lume – in Romanian), Trinitas, Iaşi, 1998.
[52] Prof. Iorgu IVAN, op. cit., p. 201.
[53] Details at Fr. Prof. PhD. Nicolae DURĂ, “The Ecumenical Patriarchy and the autocephaly of our Church through centuries” (Patriarhia Ecumenică şi autocefalia Bisericii noastre de-a lungul secolelor – in Romanian), in Studii Teologice, XXXVIII (1986), no. 3, p. 55.
[54] Prof. PhD Dan-Ilie CIOBOTEA, “The problem of canonicity and communion in the orthodox Diaspora” (Problema canonicităţii şi a comuniunii în diaspora ortodoxă), in Mitropolia Banatului, XXXV (1985), no. 1-2, p. 102.
[55] Ibidem, p. 103.
[56] Fr. Prof. Liviu STAN, “The Orthodoxy and the Diaspora. the actual situation and the canonical position of the orthodox Diaspora” (Ortodoxia şi Diaspora. Situaţia actuală şi poziţia canonică a diasporei ortodoxe – in Romanian), in Ortodoxia, XV (1963), no. 1, pp. 26-27; also see † JUSTINIAN, Patriarch of Romania, “The actual validity of the 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod from Chalcedon” (Valabilitatea actuală a canonului 28 al Sinodului IV ecumenic de la Calcedon – in Romanian), in Ortodoxia, III (1951), no. 2-3, pp. 173-187; Archbishop Peter L’HUILLIER, The canon law at I-IV Ecumenical Synods (Dreptul bisericesc la sinoadele ecumenice I-IV – in Romanian), romanian translation by Fr. Prof. PhD Alexandru I. Stan, Gnosis, Bucharest, 2000.
[57] Ibidem, p. 28.
[58] Ibidem; Also see Athénagoras PECKSTADT, „L’autorité dans l’Eglise: une approche orthodoxe”, in Irénikon, t. LXXV (2002), no. 1, pp. 35-52.
[59] PhD Damaskinos PAPANDREOU, The Holy and Great Synod of Orthodox: Thematic and preparatory works (Sfântul şi Marele Sinod al Ortodoxiei: Tematică şi lucrări pregătitoare – in Romanian), Trinitas, Iaşi, 1998, pp. 158-159.