Libmonster ID: EE-1276

The paper explores the relationships between the fourteen independent Eastern Orthodox churches making part of a so called diptychon - a list of churches placed in order of "honor". These fourteen churches take part at the Pan-Orthodox Council in June 2016. The author firstly defines the current meaning of church "autocephalous" status and then creates a typology of the Orthodox ecclesiastical subjects drawing upon history, current situation, and structural features. The paper concludes that any strict typology is impossible to develop, while the differences in particular aspects would not help to represent the configuration of the entire Orthodox commonwealth. Instead, the paper develops grouping by certain paradigms: national/ transnational; anachronic/diachronic, national/imperial. Also, the paper introduces a new paradigm of a "diffused church" that overlaps with the above paradigms. The paper then deals with the distinction between the "symbolic" and the "real" aspects of church constitution and church self-perception.

Keywords: Orthodox Church, autocephaly, typology of Orthodox Churches, church-organizational paradigm, nation, empire, Diaspora, Pan-Orthodox Council.

page 74
When we say "Orthodoxy" in reference to the Christian religious context, we are implicitly referring to two aspects of the phenomenon under consideration: on the one hand, one of the main Christian denominations in the broad sense (along with Catholicism and Protestantism), and on the other, a community or "family" of individual churches sharing a common faith and religion. those who are in sacramental communion (communio in sacris). These two meanings of the term indicate two dimensions of Orthodox identity: so to speak, religious-theoretical and organizational-practical. Orthodoxy is one of the living, reproducible Eastern Christian traditions, 1 and at the same time a confessional community with a certain structure.

The organizational structure of the Eastern Orthodox Church has changed over the course of history. In ancient times, its reference points were the so-called apostolic cathedrals in the major cultural centers of the Mediterranean region. The ecumenical councils convened by the Roman emperors (beginning in 325) marked the unified subjectivity of the ecclesiastical community, primarily within the framework of the empire that became Christian. At the regional level, ecclesiastical districts were formed, uniting several bishoprics headed by the metropolitan bishop of the civil administrative center. At the same time, the importance of the ancient authoritative cathedrals (which became the centers of patriarchates) only increased, which was reflected in the idea of a pentarchy, that is, the primacy of the five main church centers located in the order of honor: Rome, Constantinople ("New Rome"), Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.2 After the Great Schism of 1054, only four positions remained on this list, and over time, new churches began to be added to it, which acquired autocephalous status. This gave rise to the modern diptych-a list of churches that make up the world Orthodox community.

Modern autocephaly

Without going into the details of the history of the term "autocephalous church", we will denote its actual meaning. Autocephalous (literally: ca-

1. Along with, say, the so-called Oriental, or pre-Chalcedonian, churches, which are also called "Orthodox".

2. See Canon 36 of the Council of Trull (691-692).

page 75
self-governing) refers to an administratively independent church structure that independently chooses its own primate (first hierarch) and resolves all issues of its internal life through its own governing bodies. There are currently fourteen such universally recognized autocephalous Orthodox churches.

This definition requires an important historical clarification. The current understanding of ecclesiastical autocephaly assumes that each church is independent not only from other autocephalous churches, but also from external factors, that is, it is an autonomous religious organization. It is obvious that the latter is possible only in the conditions of legislative separation of church / religion from the state. Therefore, it is possible to speak about full-fledged autocephaly (in both senses, the independence of a separate church) only in relation to the relatively recent past (and not always).

Thus, the first patriarch of Constantinople in the Ottoman Empire (before its collapse at the beginning of the last century: 1908-1922) was not the first hierarch of the autocephalous church, but the head of all Orthodox Churches in the empire (Millet bashi), and not only in church terms. Before the fall of the Russian Monarchy in 1917. The Russian Church (as well as the Georgian Church as a part of it) was a state church, had no hierarchical head, and its formal and real head was the emperor. 3 Churches in Orthodox countries until the middle of the 20th century - for example, in the monarchies of Bulgaria, Romania, and Serbia - were also state churches, and the Church of Greece still retains this status.

In other words, the modern concept of autocephaly as a form of church organization is relatively recent, that is, it arose in a certain historical situation, when individual Orthodox churches began to be thought of-both from within and from outside-as certain communities of believers.

3. In the Code of Basic State Laws of the Russian Empire (Chapter 7. 64. The Emperor, as the Christian Sovereign, is the supreme defender and guardian of the dogmas of the prevailing era, and the guardian of the law and every rule of the holy deanery of the Church. 1721 jan. 25 (3718) part I, introduction. - In the family sense of the Emperor, in the Act of succession to the throne 1797 Apr. 5 (17910) is called the Head of the church. 1906 Apr. 23, sobr. uzak., 603, art. 24; 65. In the administration of the Church, the Autocratic Power acts through the Holy Governing Synod, which It has established. 1721 Jan. 25 (3718) introduction and part I, item 3; 1906 pr. 23, sobr. uzak., 603, article 24". See: http://www.virtus-et-gloria.com/Laws.aspx?text=Chapter01 [accessed from 15.02.2016].

page 76
confessional affiliation that has an autonomous organizational structure. In this case, the modern paradigm of religion was decisive, according to which religious organizations are voluntary associations of religious citizens of a particular state and, more broadly, of different states (if adherents of the same confessional structure live in different states).

It is important to emphasize this point. The current concept of ecclesiastical autocephaly has two sources: on the one hand, the historical forms of organization of church life in different regional contexts, and, on the other hand, the modern form of the church as a specific religious organization operating in the religious segment of society. At the national level, this means that the church - if not really, then formally-is separated from the secular state as a purely political institution. Accordingly, at the international level, churches - in this case Orthodox - act as separate religious communities/organizations that build their relations with co-religionists over the political borders of the states where they reside, that is, independently. The end of the era of the "union of the altar and the throne" in the Orthodox world, that is, the loss of direct (including" ideological") ties between the Orthodox churches and their respective states, led to a peculiar result, namely, the emergence of the current understanding of autocephaly as ecclesiastical quasi-states that enter into mutual relations in the image of modern interstate relations. 4.

The relevance of this analogy of ecclesiastical autocephaly with sovereign states is confirmed by the very format of the upcoming Pan-Orthodox Council and helps to explain it.

A council in the classical sense is a meeting of bishops representing local ecclesiastical communities (bishoprics) of a certain region or the entire "inhabited world" (as in the case of the Ecumenical Councils of antiquity, called in Greek "ecumenical"-from the ecumenical community). The "conciliarity" of such a council is that it represents the fullness of the church in the person of its archpastors, behind whom stands the flock. That is why its re-

4. On the modern understanding of ecclesiastical autocephaly, see also: Shishkov A. Ecclesiastical autocephaly through the prism of Karl Schmitt's Theory of Sovereignty. Gosudarstvo, religiya, tserkva v Rossii i za rubezhom [State, Religion, Church in Russia and Abroad]. 2013. N 3. pp. 197-224.

page 77
beliefs are understood as church-wide-on a regional or global scale.
The current Pan-Orthodox Council, although its members are only bishops , is a meeting of delegations of autocephalous churches headed by their primates; moreover, it is not bishops who have the right to vote in their capacity as primates/representatives of local church communities, but rather delegations as a whole (one autocephalous church - one vote). In other words, it is a meeting of consolidated subjects of inter-Orthodox relations, as they have developed in the era of the new autocephalism, when the participants in the decision-making assembly are not the heads of bishops (among whom, of course, there are always particularly authoritative and influential ones, but - as "first among equals"), but sovereign entities called local churches (that is a kind of "church states"). They are listed in the diptych, and thus no other Orthodox church entities (real bishoprics or their unions), that is, not recognized as quasi-state sovereigns, can participate in the council.

Such a political analogy - a council as an "interstate congress" - logically requires an answer to the question: what is behind these ecclesiastical sovereigns? Modern states that collectively represent the so-called world community (say, within the UN) are legally equal participants in this community, but it is obvious that they represent very diverse entities and differ in their real political weight. In fact, international relations in the recent era are characterized by a combination of two factors: the principle of equal participation and the balance of power (which is based not only on the real power of certain states, but also on their claims to a special role in international politics).

Following this logic, let's look at what Orthodox autocephaly is, how different they are, and what resources they rely on when entering into relations with each other. At the same time, we will immediately make a reservation that a strict typology of churches is hardly possible for two reasons. First, the generally recognized diptych includes only 14 autocephalous churches, which makes it difficult to classify them. Second, typology presupposes some common grounds for comparison and distinction, and although such grounds can be found (for example, the number of believers,

page 78
the size of the so-called canonical territory, etc.), the typologization carried out in accordance with them will not reflect the specifics of the configuration that Orthodox churches form.

First typology

Let's first select several groups of churches, each of which is formed according to its own foundation, and at the same time go from the quantitatively larger to the smaller, taking into account the exceptions.

The first group is "national churches" (in the double meaning of a nation - both political and ethnic).: Bulgarian, Georgian, Cypriot, Romanian, Serbian, Greek.

The second group is the "pentarchic churches", that is, the patriarchates, which have the authority of ancient cathedrals and the corresponding tradition: Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem.

The third group is the recent autocephaly formed in countries where Orthodoxy is not the dominant denomination: Albanian, Polish, as well as the church in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Finally, the Russian Church stands apart, which cannot be attributed to the above-mentioned groups and which in this case can be called "transnational".

"National" churches are churches in States where Orthodoxy is the dominant denomination. Some of them were formed after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire-churches in Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania; others became national churches in new states, as in the case of Georgia after the collapse of the USSR, 5 as well as in Cyprus, which gained independence in 1960.6
The "national" church-organizational paradigm is based on the principle of "one state - one church". This paradigm is connected with the New European idea of a nation, the" form " of which is the state, and assumes that the church is both a state and a state.

5. The Georgian Church proclaimed autocephaly during the Russian Revolution of 1917 and defended it during the Soviet period within the Georgian SSR as a "national republic", but it did not receive general recognition. The Russian Church recognized this autocephaly in 1943, while the Church of Constantinople recognized it only in 1990 (it should be noted that the Georgian Church first gained independence in 467).

6. The Church of Cyprus acquired autocephaly in 431. It is noteworthy that in the second half of the 17th century, the Archbishop of Cyprus obtained the title of Millet Bashi from the Ottoman authorities and became the political and spiritual head of the Christians of Cyprus.

page 79
it would be the "religious soul" of a consolidated political community. At the same time, in this case, religious identity is superimposed not only on political identity, but also on ethnic identity, including its linguistic and cultural aspects. Moreover, at present, when these churches are no longer state-owned by their legal status (with the exception of the church in Greece and partly in Georgia), there is a combination of primarily religious and ethno-cultural identities. This, however, does not mean that the political aspect should also be ignored: within the framework of the post-secular (or post-secularist) transformation of a political nation in Orthodox countries, a certain complex ethno-cultural and religious identity becomes its basis. 7
The group of "national" churches is the most numerous, and it is often this church-organizational paradigm that is perceived as a kind of standard and normative for modern Orthodoxy. Accordingly, we are talking about "Orthodox nationalisms", which are criticized both from the outside (from secular positions - as an improper mixing of religion and politics/ethnic group/culture), and from the inside (from theological positions - when the emphasis is placed on the universality of Orthodoxy and the church) .8
"Pentarchic" churches

At the same time, the "national" paradigm is far from the only one and not at all the main one in the Orthodox world, as evidenced by the second, no less important group of autocephaly - the ancient Eastern patriarchates.

The main feature of these churches is that they are "originally from the pentarchy". They are a kind of "elders" and " fathers "(or "mothers") for other churches. In the modern Orthodox world, these autocephalys are primarily "holders" and keepers of long ecclesiastical traditions dating back to the Byzantine Empire.-

7. См., например: Leustean, L.N. (ed) (2014) Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twenty-First Century. London-New York: Routledge.

8. See, for example, the special issue of the Orthodox theological journal St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 2013, 57 (3-4), devoted to the topic "Ecclesiology and Nationalism"; Leustean, L. N. (ed) (2014) Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Southeastern Europe. New York: Fordham University Press.

page 80
and even more ancient times. The configuration of their ecclesiastical "bodies" is fundamentally different from that of national churches, namely: in their historical territories, they retain church structures that do not have a significant congregation and, consequently, a developed diversity of church life - in comparison with national churches. The distinctive feature of these autocephaly is that, firstly, Orthodox Christians in their ancestral territories represent only one of the Christian communities living in a non-religious environment, and secondly, that the number of Orthodox people in these territories is constantly decreasing due to emigration. Of course, one should take a differentiated approach to assessing the current state of the ancient Eastern patriarchates, but the common features are also obvious. Let's start at the end of the pentarchy list.

The Patriarchate of Jerusalem was the last to be included in the list of cathedrals that designated the "pentarchy" - as the "mother of all churches"9. Today it is a church structure on the territory of Israel, Jordan and Palestine, built in a special way: its core is the Greek brotherhood of the Holy Sepulchre, which consists of bishops and clerics-monks, and a small and constantly decreasing flock-Orthodox Arabs (for its spiritual care, an Arab bishop is specially appointed). At the same time, it is the Jerusalem Orthodox Patriarchate that is the "holder" of the world's main Christian shrine - the Holy Sepulchre (Church of the Resurrection), and, accordingly, it cares for a large "transit" Orthodox flock, that is, pilgrims to Jerusalem and to Holy Places from all over the world.

The Patriarchate of Antioch is in its own way a unique Orthodox church that cares for ethnic Arabs. Ancient Antioch itself as an administrative, cultural and religious center - in the distant past (now it is a run-down village in Turkey). However, the Antiochian church tradition is preserved in the modern Orthodox Church centered in Damascus, whose territory extends mainly to Syria and Lebanon, 10 that is, to the most problematic and conflict-ridden region of the Middle East. In the countries of its direct presence, the Antiochian Autocephaly is a local Christian entity.-

9. See Justinian's Novella 109 and the 36th Canon of the Council of Trull (691-692).

10. As well as a number of other countries: Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, Iran, Qatar.

page 81
a Christian community (denomination) that co-exists with other Christian communities 11. Recently, in the context of military confrontation between various forces and groups, as well as direct anti-Christian persecution, this Orthodox Church has been experiencing, if not agony, then a severe crisis caused by the external circumstances of its existence.

The Patriarchate of Alexandria was originally a Greek church in eastern North Africa. Its administrative center is located on the territory of modern Egypt and today it seems to be twofold: ancient Alexandria partially gives way to Cairo as the capital of the state. At the same time, the main Christian population of present-day Muslim Egypt is not Orthodox, but Copts - adherents of the ancient Christian tradition, who have their own church (the so-called pre-Chalcedonian, that is, separated from world Orthodoxy after the Council of Chalcedon in 451). Therefore, the peculiarity of the Alexandrian Orthodox autocephaly is its predominantly missionary character - in the vast expanses of Africa (it has 19 African churches). dioceses outside Egypt).

As for the first Church of Constantinople in the diptych, its internal configuration and external situation, in turn, differ from other ancient patriarchates. The location of the primate's chair has not changed, only the city has two names: in the ecclesiastical space - Constantinople (in Russian Tsargrad), the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire, in the political space-Istanbul, the largest city in Turkey, formerly the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Naming this church "Constantinople" is primarily symbolic, since in Turkey this church, although it has four dioceses (including the patriarchal one), has practically no flock (3-4 thousand).

In connection with this autocephaly, we are faced with a unique case: being Greek in ethnic, linguistic and cultural relations (with some exceptions in the diaspora), the modern Patriarchate of Constantinople was forced in the new (so to speak, post-Ottoman) time to share its Greek identity with the national church of the newly formed Greek state. Not only that the See of Constantinople

11. With Catholics of various rites, communities of ancient Eastern churches, and Protestants. See, for example, articles on Lebanon and Syria in: Barret, D. B., Kurian, G. T., Johnson, N. M. (eds.) World Christian Encyclopedia. A comparative survey of churches and religions in the modern world. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Oxford, 2001.

page 82
It did not immediately recognize the possibility of a separate Greek Church / jurisdiction (only 17 years after its proclamation of autocephaly: 1833/1850), but even now it retains a strange jurisdiction over a part of the ecclesiastical dioceses located on the territory of Greece 12.

The specifics of the autocephaly of Constantinople are in some sense the key to understanding the current configuration of the entire Orthodox world and, accordingly, to understanding its main problems. Unlike national churches and even other pentarchical patriarchates, Constantinople is an Orthodox church that is almost entirely "turned outwards", that is, it has a flock, an extensive organizational structure, and in general its distribution outside its historical territory, including its church center.

And here, before turning to brief descriptions of the remaining Orthodox autocephalous churches, we must say a few words about the most difficult and controversial problem of inter-Orthodox relations: the problem of the church diaspora.13
Orthodox Diaspora

Speaking about the peculiarities of the modern Orthodox flock, we can distinguish three types of it: "Orthodox peoples", which make up the majority of the population of individual countries; a confessional minority in countries where other confessions or religions dominate; and, finally, the Orthodox diaspora, that is, church communities scattered around the world, usually far beyond the historical borders of the Russian Orthodox Church. orthodox territories. Orthodox

12. Ecclesiastical dioceses in the so-called "new territories" that became part of Greece at the beginning of the 20th century. (that is, after the recognition of the autocephaly of the Church of Greece in 1850), they are formally under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople by agreement between it and the Synod of the Church of Greece of September 4, 1928. In addition, Constantinople retains jurisdiction over other Greek territories, including the islands of the Dodecanese Archipelago (which became part of Greece after World War II) and the island of Crete (the status of a semi-autonomous church). The exarchate on the island of Patmos (which includes a number of nearby islands) is directly subordinate to it. Holy Mount Athos is a self-governing "monastic republic", but in ecclesiastical terms it is also under the jurisdiction of Constantinople.

13. See also the article by A. Shishkov in this issue of the journal.

page 83
The diaspora as a significant factor in both quantitative and structural terms is a phenomenon of the 20th century. Today, it counts millions of people in Europe and North America alone.

The diaspora is characterized by two important features. First, its very fact undermines the fundamental principle of church organization - territorial. Diaspora communities gradually emerged (and continue to emerge) in accordance not with ecclesiastical (say, missionary) logic, but with the" logic " of migration processes outside the church, determined by political and economic factors (Orthodox communities that have emerged as a result of purposeful missionary activity make up a small and specific part). Secondly, the diaspora Orthodox congregation is heterogeneous and "fluid", since it consists of at least three groups of believers: descendants of Orthodox emigrants who have already become naturalized in their host countries; new emigrants who have arrived from the "territories of Orthodox churches"; and so-called "envelopes", that is, indigenous residents of various countries who have converted to Orthodoxy. countries where diaspora Orthodox communities were formed.

The first feature indicates that the diaspora violates the ancient church-organizational principle: "one city - one bishop" 14. Communities arise sporadically and only then need to be integrated into some larger church-episcopal structure, that is, to enter the jurisdiction of one of the existing autocephalous churches.

The second feature reveals a diaspora-specific way of church organization: Orthodox emigrants create new communities based on an ethno-cultural or ethno-linguistic principle (which is quite natural), and this usually means that in the diaspora territories they form networks of communities that fall under the jurisdiction of the" mother "autocephalous churches (in the form of their"foreign dioceses").). In turn, for Orthodox "envelopes", this means that they are forced to choose one of the local (ethno-cultural) Orthodox traditions embodied in the "mother" churches.

All this gives rise to the problem of the diaspora: the presence of many parallel ecclesiastical jurisdictions in different countries and regions (so that there may be several Orthodox bishops in the "same city", that is, in the same administrative territory).

14. "Let there be no two bishops in the city" (Canon 8 of the First Ecumenical Council, 325).

page 84
Continuing the analogy between autocephaly and states, we can say that the "foreign" dioceses of different Orthodox Churches are their colonial formations, only in this case the " colonies "are not territories, but networks of communities under the" colonial " management of the corresponding episcopal structures.

What does this mean for the world Orthodox community?

First of all, its organizational division in accordance with the principle of autocephaly extends to the whole world, so that at present almost all churches are ecumenical (universal) in their distribution, but ecumenical in a paradoxical way: parallel to one another.

However, this is only one side of the problem of the diaspora, the other side is related to the fact that we are not talking about all autocephaly. The Churches of Greece, Cyprus, Jerusalem, and Alexandria do not have ecclesiastical "colonies" (in the latter case, if we consider the whole of Africa as a canonical territory, although missionary). The reason is that in this case there is an ethnolinguistic factor: all these autocephaly are Greek, and they agreed that the corresponding diaspora flock and its communities are referred to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. (They agreed, in particular, because the Patriarchate of Constantinople itself," first among equals", according to the diptych, claims that all Orthodox communities in the diaspora should be under its ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 15)

Thus, the Orthodox diaspora creates a whole tangle of problems, which brings us back to the question of typologizing autocephaly, and also draws our attention to the specifics of those churches that have not yet been discussed.

First typology: continued

The churches that we have identified in the third group are united only by the relatively recent acquisition of autocephaly (as well as the situation of the confessional minority). In other respects, they are not very similar to each other. Thus, the Albanian community is an Orthodox community within the framework of ethno-confessional pluralism (along with the Catholic and Muslim communities-

15. For more information, see the article by A. Shishkov in this issue.

page 85
Poland unites Orthodox people of different ethnic origins in an almost totally Catholic country, but at the same time includes the native Orthodox population of the eastern regions; the Church in the Czech Republic and Slovakia itself is in some sense of diaspora origin, since Orthodoxy has never been a traditional Christian confession on its territory.

Finally, the "transnational" Russian Church combines the features of all the autocephaly described above: It is "national" in Orthodox countries and unites a confessional minority in non-Orthodox ones; it is a rather ancient patriarchate, which occupies a place in the diptych directly behind the "pentarchical" autocephaly, but historically it no longer belongs to them; it has an extensive diocesan structure in the diaspora, which also includes believers of different ethnolinguistic affiliation (since their "mother church" is a part of the Russian Orthodox Church)."the church is multiethnic). In other words, in the aspect of its territorial distribution/presence, it is both "national" and "transnational"; both "majority church" and "minority church"; a church that is located both in an Orthodox and in a non-Orthodox or non-religious context.

At the same time, a combination of different factors also occurs in the case of other autocephaly. So, formally, the churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Czecho-Slovak, and also, in a sense, Constantinople (since it retains jurisdiction over some territories of the Greek state) are transnational (trans-state). On the other hand, the actual ethno - linguistic consolidation does not play a decisive role in the case of the Greek-speaking Churches of Greece and Cyprus-their borders are geographical.

Thus, there is no comprehensive typology. One can only characterize different churches by several parameters, for example: national/transnational, ethno-linguistic uniformity/diversity, the position of the confessional majority/minority, the presence/absence of a diaspora.

And here it is necessary to mention exceptions - in this case, the exclusion from the number of autocephaly. So, for example, the Orthodox Church in Finland, in terms of its scale and position in the state, is not much different, say, from the Czecho-Slovaks-

page 86
It is not considered autocephalous and is only autonomous (under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople). Self-governing (essentially autonomous) are the Orthodox churches belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate in certain states - Ukraine and Moldova, which in external parameters are in no way inferior to, say, the Greek or Bulgarian autocephaly. And the church in Macedonia - a small state with an Orthodox majority-claims autocephalous status 16, but still remains in a schism with world Orthodoxy. A special case is the so-called "Orthodox Church in America", recognized as autocephalous only by the Russian" Mother Church " (1970) and some other autocephalys17.

All the listed church structures have at least certain characteristics that are typical of some autocephalous churches, but they are not autocephalous (they are not included in the diptych). This also shows that the typology of autocephaly should be based not on some clearly defined features, but on other grounds. In this case, we propose to follow the path of identifying different paradigms related not to the specifics of the church organization, but to the historical tradition. This approach assumes that the autocephalous status of the church is determined not so much by a set of specific characteristics, but primarily by specific historical circumstances.

Autocephalous paradigms-1

To speak of world Orthodoxy as a confessional community of independent church structures is to denote a real modern mechanism of inter-Orthodox interaction. However, it is important to keep in mind that this mechanism is based on two foundations with different genealogies: (1) the diptych and (2) the autocephalous organizational principle. The diptych goes back to the ancient (truncated) pentarchy ("pentarchy") of church centers (departments); sovereign autocephaly reproduces the modern paradigm of nation states. Antiquity

16. Declared its independence from the Serbian Church in 1967.

17. Its autocephalous status is recognized only by the Russian, Bulgarian, Polish and Czech-Slovak Churches.

page 87
It did not know the formal equality of national states; modernity does not know the authority of church pulpits - that is, it is not inclined to associate the authority of a particular tradition with any authority.

Two sources of current autocephaly point to two paradigms. One can be called "anachronistic" - in the sense that it connects modern realities (autocephalous status) precisely with the long church tradition recorded in the canonical decisions of ancient councils; the other - "diachronic", that is, reflecting primarily the dynamics of church organization throughout history and especially in Modern times.

It is interesting and characteristic that these two paradigms converge in the modern diptych. New autocephaly (starting with the autocephaly of the Russian Church 18) gradually, as they are recognized, "fit" to the truncated pentarchical list of ancient cathedrals, and so, already in the XX century, the modern diptych is formed as an expanded list of autocephalous churches of the sovereign. At the same time, it is important to emphasize that the decisive factor for inclusion in the diptych is not the antiquity as such, 19 but the very recognition of autocephaly, which was usually associated with the emergence of national-state churches in the XIX-XX centuries. In other words, it is precisely thanks to these modern church formations that the diptych is growing, including new legitimate and full-fledged actors of the world Orthodox community. Let us repeat that their independent status is based not so much on their compliance with certain external parameters as on the historical fact of their inclusion in the modern diptych, which in turn is based on the anachronistic idea of pentarchy.

Thus, all independent churches can be divided into two groups based on the origin of their autocephalous status in its modern sense: (1) the four pentarchic patriarchates (the"anachronistic paradigm") and (2) all others (the"diachronic paradigm"). At the same time, the churches of the second group acquired their current autocephalous status as a result of its recognition, first of all, by the Patriarchate of Constantinople as

18. Proclaimed in 1448, recognized in 1589.

19. Thus, the place of the ancient Georgian Church in the diptych is controversial, and the Bulgarian and Serbian churches took their respective positions in it without taking into account their "ancient autocephaly" - even before the fall of Byzantium.

page 88
"first among equals" (and only then did the consent of other autocephalous churches follow). The "dynamics" of such recognition on the part of Constantinople in the case of some significant churches is indicative (years of proclamation/recognition of autocephaly are separated by slashes): Russian 1448/1589, Hellenic 1833/1850, Romanian 1865/1885, Bulgarian 1870/1945, Georgian 1917/1990 20. This historical experience indicates that the process of formation of modern autocephaly was not subject to any rules, that is, it was not canonically formed, and it took place for historical reasons that were not of an ecclesiastical nature. (That is why the issue of a universally recognized mechanism for granting new autocephaly is one of the most pressing - and controversial - issues on the agenda of the Pan-Orthodox Council 21.)

Autocephalous paradigms - 2

The national-state nature of the majority of autocephaly and its contrast with the pentarchic patriarchates that form the basis of the modern diptych encourages us to look for other paradigmatic differences in the current community of Orthodox church sovereigns.

It is important to note that the first four positions in the diptych (the so-called ancient Eastern patriarchates) are occupied by church entities that do not need to recognize their autocephalous status at all, since they, on the contrary, are in some sense the source of its modern understanding, because ultimately those churches that are included in the diptych are autocephalous. Therefore, in order to identify the specifics of these four churches, it is necessary to pay attention to their ecclesiological self-understanding (in addition to the principle of autocephaly itself). This approach allows us to talk about another pair of paradigms-now of an "ideological" and" psychological " nature, namely, the national (again in two meanings of nation)paradigm

20. We leave out other cases. For example, after Serbia declared independence in 1832, an autonomous metropolia was established in it under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which received autocephaly from the latter in 1879 - after the Berlin Congress recognized the state sovereignty of Serbia.

21. For the problem of granting autocephaly, see the article by A. Shishkov in this issue.

page 89
and about the imperial paradigm. (It should be borne in mind that the imperial paradigm is akin to the national-state paradigm only in one sense: it points to the church/politics link - in the old terms of sacerdotium et imperium, priesthood and kingdom; otherwise, they are fundamentally different.)

The pentarchical four belongs to the imperial paradigm primarily because it historically dates back to the main church departments of the Byzantine Empire. At the same time, the primacy of Constantinople in it is due precisely to the fact that it was a department in the imperial capital. Even in Byzantine times, the authority of the other three departments became a kind of anachronism, that is, it was determined only by church tradition, especially after the Islamic conquests, which made these departments more symbolic than real "centers of power". This situation only worsened after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the transformation of all Orthodox Christians in the new Muslim empire into a single religious community (millet) headed by the Patriarch of Constantinople. Therefore, the pentarchical quartet-up to the" Arab Revolution " of 1898-1899 in the Church of Antioch, when an Arab (previously it was Greeks) was elected its primate - can be considered a single Byzantine-Greek church headed by the Patriarch of Constantinople. But even later, Antioch in the aspect of its church-historical consciousness continued (and partly continues) to remain primarily one of the most significant cities in the world.Byzantine cathedrals that recognize the primacy of Constantinople not only "in honor", but also in substance.

Thus, the current Patriarch of Constantinople is not the representative of the new "autocephalous thinking" that was established as a result of the very multiplication of autocephaly and the formation of the modern diptych, 22 but rather the representative of the church-imperial consciousness that he inherited from the recent (Ottoman Empire) and more distant (Byzantine Empire) past, or rather, rooted in the corresponding historical experience. He encountered New European state nationalism (the idea of nation-state) in a very peculiar way: at first as an alien reality-after the formation of the Greek state, the church in which he was eventually forced to recognize as independent-

22. It is important to emphasize that a hundred years ago, the current diptych with 14 positions, which includes the latest autocephaly, simply did not exist!

page 90
mine, and then, after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, as with the reality of home in the form of Kemalist Turkey, that is, a secular nation-state with the religious dominance of Islam. As a result, he lost the most important thing - the real "church body" (that is, the flock) on the historical territory of his patriarchate... But at the same time, he received something equally important in modern conditions - a large Greek diaspora of the XX century...

How did these historical changes affect the new - emerging-ecclesiological identity of the "Archbishop of New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch"?

He had to form a new identity that, on the one hand, would reflect his unique historical experience, and on the other, would rely on the ancient pentarchic tradition - his main "ideological" resource. To do this, he had to mentally reproduce the ancient imperial paradigm of the church structure ("Istanbul is Constantinople") without any effort, despite all the new historical realities, and at the same time, by default, recognize and use the modern fact of the secularization of the state and the autonomization of the church (appeal to the actual church canons concerning the jurisdiction of Constantinople 23). To do this, it was necessary to emphasize the condemnation at the local Council of Constantinople in 1872 of philetism (that is, the identification of the church community with an ethnic-tribal one), while insisting on formal ecclesiastical jurisdiction over a number of territories of the Greek state and maintaining real jurisdiction over Greek-speaking Orthodox communities around the world. And to do this, and most importantly, he had to assert and justify in every possible way his special status and the corresponding authority of the "first among equals" in the community (=diptych) of autocephalous churches, appealing-paradoxically from a historical point of view - to the canons and precedents that took place in the ancient situation when the church it was in symphony with the Christian Empire.

In other words, the First Hierarch of Constantinople, in his current position (in the XX and XXI centuries), is forced to construct an identity that, on the one hand,,

23. For the canonical justification of the Patriarchate of Constantinople's claims to jurisdiction in the Diaspora, see in the article by A. Shishkov in this issue.

page 91
It would transcend national and state borders and symbolize the" imperial "universality of Orthodoxy, its "ecumenicity", and on the other hand, it would include Greek realities: historical (ancient Greek Christian East, late Byzantine Greek church culture, the ideology of Greek megaloideatism fromthe period of the weakening and collapse of the Ottoman Empire) and modern (an impressive Greek diaspora in modern times). time).

This construction of identity has nothing to do with the principle of autocephaly. Ideologically, Constantinople uses as its main resource, first of all, the historically accidental first place in the diptych, which goes back to the real significance of this department in the Byzantine Empire, thus appealing only to a tradition that is not theological, but organizational. It is the status of the church, which dominates the diptych, on the one hand, and the absence of its own ecclesiastical-territorial "body", on the other, that makes Constantinople claim the role of a pan - Orthodox leader today. These claims are reinforced by the fact that no one in the Orthodox world disputes his position as "first among equals", and therefore now the authority of the Constantinople See / Church rests ultimately on the pan-Orthodox consensus - but only on its symbolic primacy.

In this situation, other "Byzantine-imperial" patriarchates appear to be in an intermediate position. On the one hand, due to its antiquity ("pentarchy") they predate the emergence of modern autocephalism and therefore also do not need this principle. On the other hand, in modern post-imperial conditions, they turn into "autocephalous churches", only occupying higher positions in the diptych compared to the new autocephalys. But at the same time, on the third hand, their autocephaly is based on completely different realities. Jerusalem is first of all the "guardian" of the Holy Sepulchre; Antioch, like Constantinople, has largely "gone into the diaspora"; Alexandria, as it were, has dissolved into a large African continent, also transforming itself into a diasporal structure in comparison with the rest of the world.-

24. From the Greek. mkεγαλη iδεα is a "great idea"; it is a project to create a kind of" neo-Byzantine " empire in the Balkans in the post-Ottoman period, with a Greek dominant and the See of Constantinople as the church center.

page 92
nia with its ancient configuration. In other words, all these are strange autocephaly, if we consider national churches with a clearly defined territory and a congregation living on it, consolidated in ethno-linguistic terms, to be standard.

Turning to the phenomenon of the Russian Orthodox Church (also called the Moscow Patriarchate), we recall that we initially singled it out as an exception that does not fit into the designated groups of autocephalous churches. However, if we look at it from the point of view of ecclesiological self - understanding, then the Moscow Patriarchate should be attributed to the "imperial" paradigm (thus combining it into one - a new-group with the Patriarchate of Constantinople).

The historical experience of the current Moscow Patriarchate is inextricably linked to its existence within two "empires": the Russian Empire (literally), which ceased to exist in 1917, and the Soviet" empire", which collapsed in 1991. The Russian Church has never been" Russian " either in the ethnic or national-state sense.25 It became " Moscow "only in 1461, but in its history its preeminent see was "wandering" and was always perceived as a successor to the ancient church center in Kiev, which arose as a result of the Baptism of Russia by St. Prince Vladimir at the end of the X century.26 Accordingly, the current autocephalous Russian Church recognizes itself as the heir and successor of the very long Holy Russian Christian tradition, which was never "national" in the modern sense, but religiously united different tribes, ethnic groups and peoples in the vast expanses of a large and ever-expanding state. The principle of the "national church" is perceived by this consciousness as contradicting its spiritual potential of the unifying church tradition, which retains its effectiveness both within the framework of a single imperial-type state and after its collapse.

This is an important point: the church was a religious and unifying principle during the formation of the Old Russian state

25. The very name "Russian Church" was established as an official name only in 1943.

26. The primate of the Russian Church retained the title of Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia even during the period when his see was no longer located in Kiev, but was moved to Vladimir and then to Moscow (1299-1461).

page 93
with its center in Kiev, and later, during the period of so-called feudal fragmentation, it was the latter that religiously integrated the rival principalities. Of course, this is also typical for other European historical contexts, but in this case it is essential that after the collapse of the last, Soviet, empire, it is the Moscow Patriarchate-as a single church-administrative structure-that represents the only real " imperial "structure in the post-Soviet space, that is, a kind of virtual,"spiritual" one an empire that claims to hold and consolidate the corresponding religious (Orthodox) community. Hence not only the transethnic, but also - in the current conditions-the trans-state mentality of "Russian Orthodoxy".

Rivalry of "autocephalous empires"

Thus, we have two concrete embodiments of the" imperial "church paradigm, each of which essentially ignores the identification of the principle of autocephaly with the" national church", since this principle is equally alien to both Constantinople and Moscow. The appeal to the principle of autocephaly by both the Moscow and Constantinople Patriarchates has a different meaning compared to" national autocephaly": it is determined only by the tasks of inter-church" politics", since the principle of autocephaly is generally recognized and therefore in the organizational sense" working " in the sphere of inter-Orthodox relations.

Thus, Moscow appeals to the principle of autocephaly in order to counter the claims of Constantinople to more than "honorable" primacy in world Orthodoxy - when the latter claims the right of external representation of all Orthodoxy, the right to be the highest pan-Orthodox court, or the right of" universal " jurisdiction over the Orthodox diaspora.

In turn, Constantinople, which is forced to recognize the principle of autocephaly, since modern inter-Orthodox interaction is based on it, looks at this principle from a special angle: it was Constantinople-as the first church and as the "mother church" - that granted organizational independence to others, later in time-

page 94
27. Therefore, for Constantinople, autocephalism is, as it were, derived from its own ancient authority (which it identifies with authority). In other words, the Constantinople "Great Church of Christ", in fact, considers itself as a source of new autocephaly (after all, without recognition from Constantinople, no church became autocephalous for the entire world Orthodoxy).

It is the paradigmatic similarity of Constantinople and Moscow that is the reason for the long rivalry between these two churches in the pan-Orthodox field, which lasted throughout the past century and has now passed into the present. Each of them, relying on a specific ("own") church tradition, claims a special role in world Orthodoxy - a role that is not connected with the established image of the ethno-national church existing within the framework of one state. At the same time, the peculiarity of the rivalry between Moscow and Constantinople for leadership in the Orthodox world lies in the contrasting difference in the realities that stand behind these "autocephalous sovereigns", that is, in the difference in the very "matter" of these church entities.

The Moscow Patriarchate is the largest Orthodox church. It claims to be the consolidating force of the East Slavic "Orthodox heartland", which also includes non-Slavic Orthodox ethnic groups. In addition, it has a historical patronage that extended during the period of Islamic captivity to Orthodox communities in the Balkans, as well as to the "territory" of the pentarchic four. All jurisdictional disputes (and disputes about granting autocephaly/autonomy) between the Moscow and Constantinople Patriarchies in the past and present centuries relate to "limitrophes", that is, border areas of the Moscow Church Empire (Finland, Poland, the Baltic States, Czecho-Slovakia, Georgia). And the "dispute over American autocephaly" revealed the clash of their interests in the "colonial space", since the first Orthodox (more precisely, pan-Orthodox) diocese in the United States

27. It is characteristic that on the official website of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, information about Orthodox churches is given in two sections: "Ancient Patriarchates" and "Other autocephalous churches".

page 95
was Russian 28. At present, the Moscow Patriarchate is the undisputed leader in the Orthodox world in terms of "material terms", that is, in terms of the number of actual dioceses and parishes in the historical "Orthodox territories" and in the Diaspora 29. This is a truly transethnic and transstate church, and given its diaspora structures, it is quite "universal".

However, the Patriarchate of Constantinople is also, at least structurally, a transnational church.30 It's just that its trans-statehood and ecumenicity are almost entirely diasporal, networked, and mostly Greek.31 And the only support of its claims to pan-Orthodox primacy is again the first position in the diptych. For Constantinople has no support either from the large consolidated flock, nor from the state/states, nor from the religious and cultural tradition (which in historically Orthodox territories it shares with the Hellenic, Cypriot and partly with other "Byzantine" autocephaly, completely appropriating it only in the Greek diaspora). Its "material" resources (in this case, it is in the diaspora, primarily in the United States) are not enough even to, say, resume the activity of the Theological academy on Halki Island (near Istanbul), which was closed by the Turkish authorities almost half a century ago...

Thus, when comparing the "matter" of these two autocephaly contenders for leadership, we see a powerful "corporeality" on the one hand, and almost "disembodied" (or very "discharged corporeality") on the other.

28. The Greek Orthodox Diocese in North America was created in 1921 from Greek parishes (unilaterally removed from the Aleutian and North American dioceses of the Russian Church) under the jurisdiction of the Church of Greece, but was almost immediately reassigned to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who in 1922 appointed an archbishop and three bishops for it (B. A. Nelyubov, Buevsky A. S. American Archdiocese // Orthodox Encyclopedia, vol. 2, Moscow, 2001, p. 161).

29. Especially after the annexation of the so-called Russian Church Abroad in 2007.

30. See the diocesan-administrative structure of the Church of Constantinople on its official website: https://www.patriarchate.org/administrative-structure-of-the-ecumenical-patriarchate (accessed from 20.02.2016).

31. The inclusion in its jurisdiction of other ethnically marked communities - for example, American Ukrainians or archdioceses of historically Russian churches in Western Europe-is rather an exception to the rule.

page 96
Symbolic and real

This kind of" disembodied state "is characteristic, as mentioned above, of other pentarchic churches, but also of the" ecclesiastical colonies " of other autocephalys. Therefore, if we look at world Orthodoxy from this perspective, we can talk about another church-organizational paradigm: These are scattered churches of a network type that unite small communities scattered in different spaces - historically Orthodox, diaspora, and missionary. This paradigm corresponds to the realities of the modern world, which is characterized by a decline in the level of religiosity in traditional church territories, as well as migration and naturalization/inculturation of migrants in new contexts. In the twentieth century, Orthodoxy really became not only and not so much a religion of geographically rooted nations, but rather a religious identity of specific people who freely choose and implement this either inherited or acquired identity. And it is important to emphasize that this applies not only to "Orthodox emigrants" and "envelopes" in different parts of the world, but also to those who actualize their Orthodox religious identity in the Orthodox countries/cultures themselves. Free choice and migration-these two factors create a new image of the Orthodox church structure, which also competes with the image of the" people's " (national) church.

That is why it would be an oversimplification to describe the relationship between the "leadership" churches of Moscow and Constantinople exclusively in terms of the real and symbolic (in the sense that one has a dense church "body" and the other does not).

Of course, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is primarily and primarily a symbolic church center. But equally symbolic are the "mother churches"for other diaspora Orthodox communities - Bulgarian, Serbian, Romanian or "Russian" (according to their jurisdiction). In the Diaspora, symbolism has real significance. And in this case, the weakness of Constantinople as a universal leader is rather that it is too Greek, that is, too "phyletic"...

The symbolic aspect of modern Orthodoxy is also connected with the important role that church tradition plays in it. In contrast to the states (with which we previously compared cars-

page 97
churches cannot resolve issues of the pan-Orthodox structure in a rational and pragmatic way. So, Constantinople is the head of a diptych dating back to ancient times. And, for example, the projects of the past century to move the chair of the "first in honor" - as the ecumenical Orthodox first hierarch-from Istanbul to Thessaloniki or Geneva were not crowned with success, primarily because this would mean the collapse of tradition and the triumph of pure pragmatism. The idea of creating an extraterritorial (in relation to the Orthodox canonical territories) general church center contradicted the old territorial principle of church organization (even if we assume that Constantinople has rather a symbolic territory) and also looked like a kind of "Orthodox papism". In addition ,the" relocation " of the Ecumenical Patriarch from Constantinople to another place would lead to the abolition of the very idea of the pentarchy (as the five ancient church centers). This would be a manifestation of extreme symbolism, a complete loss of connection between this church center and historical reality, understood in terms of tradition. The implementation of such a project would mean that in the Orthodox world there are only sovereign autocephaly, ensuring their consolidation in the image of the UN. And then Constantinople would completely lose its religious and symbolic primacy, and the diptych, which ensures church-wide order , would lose all meaning...

Although the tension between the real (political in a broad sense) and the symbolic (religious in a broad sense) remains relevant, it cannot simply be removed by will. If the dominance of tradition in modern conditions can be perceived as violence against political reality, then the victory of political and pragmatic reason would mean the destruction of tradition. In the Orthodox religious context, both aspects must be taken into account: the church-wide tradition and the real balance of church forces. And again: the symbolism in this case has a completely pragmatic meaning.

Returning to the current situation, it should be emphasized that the Russian Church lives in a real post-imperial political context, being a kind of "remnant of the empire". The Moscow Patriarchate accumulates and tries to retain all its "national" parts, as well as the organizational unity of its diaspora, which otherwise would be divided according to " fi-

page 98
lethicheskom " principle. And this is a pragmatism based on the idea of autocephaly.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople lives rather in the space of a virtual empire.32 He tries in every possible way to establish in the general Orthodox consciousness (as a kind of "cornerstone") the principle of pentarchic primacy, that is, his status as" first among equals "(primus inter pares), and even to strengthen this principle, interpreting it through the latest formula: "first without equals" (primus sine paribus)33. This is pure symbolism, that is, an appeal to tradition alone, essentially rejecting the current principle of Orthodox autocephalism.

Conclusions

Thus, the world Orthodox community consists of fourteen autocephalous actors, which are heterogeneous church entities. Therefore, in reality, not only ecclesiastical sovereigns (similar to state sovereigns) meet and sometimes collide on the pan-Orthodox field, but rather different church traditions and organizational paradigms. Accordingly, inter-Orthodox Realpolitik presupposes not only the balance of pragmatic interests of autocephalous sovereigns, but also the coordination of various ecclesiological paradigms.

On the one hand, the contrast lies in the contradiction between the national and transnational paradigms, between the notorious "Orthodox nationalisms" and the above-mentioned "Orthodox church empires". However, this contrast is becoming less clear, since in the current situation many national churches have grown into national diasporas ("colonies") and thus acquired the features of "empires".

32. See Fr. Alexander Schmemann's 1971 "classic" article, written after Constantinople refused to recognize the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America: A. Schmemann, prot. A significant storm / / Shmeman A., prot. Collection of articles. 1947-1983. Moscow: Russian Way, 2009. pp. 550-572.

33. See Metropolitan Elpidophorus (Lambriniadis) 'The First without Equals' article published on January 7, 2014 on the official website of the Patriarchate of Constantinople [http://www.ec-patr.org/arxeio/elp2014-01-en.pdf]. Russian translation. [http://www.religion.in.ua/main/bogoslovya/24468-pe rvyj-be z-ravnyx-otve tkonstantinopolskogo-patriarxata-na-dokument-o-pervenstve-prinyatyj-v-moskovskompatriarxa te.html, доступ от 20.02.2016].

page 99
On the other hand, the contrast also exists within the same imperial paradigm, which should primarily include the Moscow and Constantinople Patriarchates. At the same time, in both cases, there is a combination of "national" and "imperial": the former includes national-state parts, while the latter is a church, although virtually imperial, but essentially predominantly Greek (that is, national-phyletic). In other words, in modern conditions, when both philetism has been condemned and real empires no longer exist, both of these factors continue to operate both in the self-consciousness and in the real life of these Orthodox autocephalys.

In addition, the current " pan-Orthodox process "(including preparations for the upcoming council) is determined by the combination and partly the confrontation of the symbolic and the real, tradition and relevance - and in different manifestations of both. The specifics and "dialectic" of this process lie in the fact that in the Orthodox religious context, neither one nor the other can and should "win". A certain balance is necessary, because both the real cannot be ignored, and the symbolic has a pragmatic dimension.

In this sense, a Pan-Orthodox Council is needed not only to identify pan-Orthodox subjectivity in general and to formulate and present pan-Orthodox (confessional) positions in particular, but also to find the above balance. To achieve the latter, it is necessary, on the one hand, to rely on traditions that are unshakable for the Orthodox consciousness, and on the other, to take into account those church organizational paradigms and their corresponding realities, which cannot be ignored, since they are facts of the ongoing church history.

Bibliography /References

The history of the Orthodox Church in the XIX century. Book I. The Orthodox East. Book II. Slavic Churches, Moscow: 1998 (reprint 1901).

Nelyubov B. A., Buevsky A. S. The American Archdiocese / / Orthodox Encyclopedia, vol. 2. Moscow, 2001, p. 161.

Skurat K. E. History of Local Orthodox Churches: In 2 volumes, Moscow: Russkie ogni Publ., 1994.

Shishkov A. [Church autocephaly through the prism of Karl Schmitt's Theory of Sovereignty]. Gosudarstvo, religiya, tserkva v Rossii i za rubezhom [State, Religion, Church in Russia and Abroad]. 2013. N 3. pp. 197-224.

page 100
Schmeman A., prot. A significant storm / / Shmeman A., prot. Collection of articles. 1947-1983. Moscow: Russian Way, 2009. pp. 550-572.

Elpidophorus (Lambriniadis), mitr. "Первый без равных" (7 января 2014 г.) [http://www.religion.in.ua/main/bogoslovya/24468-pervyj-bez-ravnyx-otvet-konsta ntinopolskogo-patriarxata-na-dokument-o-pervenstve-prinyatyj-vmoskovskom-patriarxate. html; accessed from 20.02.2016].

Barret, D.B., Kurian, G.T., Johnson, N.M. (eds.) World Christian Encyclopedia. A comparative survey of churches and religions in the modern world. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. Oxford, 2001. См.: Lebanon (pp. 444-448), Syria (pp. 719-722).

Lambriniadis, E. (2014) First without Equals. A Response to the Text on Primacy of the Moscow Patriarchate [http://www.ec-patr.org/arxeio/elp2014-01-en.pdf; assessed on 20.02.2016].

Istoriia Pravoslavnoi tserkvi v XIX veke. Kn. I. Pravoslavnyi Vostok. Kn. II. Slavianskie tserkvi [History of the Orthodox Church. Vol. 1. Orthodox East. Vol. 2. Slavonic сhurches]. M., 1998 (reprint 1901).

Leustean, L.N. (ed.) (2014) Eastern Christianity and Politics in the Twenty-First Century. London-New York: Routledge.

Leustean, L.N. (ed.) (2014) Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Southeastern Europe. New York: Fordham University Press.

Neliubov, B.A., Buevskii, A.S. (2001) "Amerikanskaia arkhiepiskopiia" [American Archdiocese], in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia. T. 2. M., p. 161.

Schmemann, A. (1971) "A Meaningful Storm: Some Reflections on Autocephaly, Tradition and Ecclesiology", St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 15: 3-27.

Shishkov, A. (2013) "Cerkovnaja avtokefalija cherez prizmu teorii suvereniteta Karla Shmitta" [Church autocephaly through the lens of Carl Schmitt's theory of sovereignty], Gosudarstvo, religiia, tserkov' v Rossii i za rubezhom 3:197-224.

Skurat, K.E. (1994) Istoriia Pomestnykh Pravoslavnykh Tserkvei [History of the Local Orthodox Churches]. M.: Russkie ogni.

St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 2013, 57 (3-4).

page 101


© library.ee

Permanent link to this publication:

https://library.ee/m/articles/view/World-Orthodoxy-typology-of-autocephalous-churches

Similar publications: LEstonia LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Edvin KoppelContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://library.ee/Koppel

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

Alexander Kyrlezhev, World Orthodoxy: typology of autocephalous churches // Tallinn: Library of Estonia (LIBRARY.EE). Updated: 13.01.2025. URL: https://library.ee/m/articles/view/World-Orthodoxy-typology-of-autocephalous-churches (date of access: 17.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - Alexander Kyrlezhev:

Alexander Kyrlezhev → other publications, search: Libmonster EstoniaLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Edvin Koppel
Таллин, Estonia
77 views rating
13.01.2025 (34 days ago)
0 subscribers
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
ATTITUDE OF THE WORKING PEOPLE OF THE NATIONAL REGIONS OF RUSSIA TO THE QUESTION OF POWER ON THE EVE OF OCTOBER
17 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
V. O. KLYUCHEVSKY. UNPUBLISHED WORKS
17 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
BELARUSIAN-LITHUANIAN CHRONICLE
18 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
NOVGOROD ARCHAEOLOGICAL EXPEDITION: RESULTS OF THE FIRST FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY. ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF NOVGOROD ; NOVGOROD COLLECTION. 50 YEARS OF EXCAVATIONS IN NOVGOROD
18 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
MOROZOV STRIKE
19 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
STARITSKY MUTINY
Catalog: История 
19 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
G. Z. IOFFE. KOLCHAK ADVENTURE AND ITS COLLAPSE
20 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
SHLISSELBURG PRISON IN 1884-1906
Catalog: История 
23 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
BORIS GEORGIEVICH WEBER
23 days ago · From Anna Kostabi
INTERNAL TROOPS AT THE FINAL STAGE OF THE GREAT PATRIOTIC WAR
23 days ago · From Anna Kostabi

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

LIBRARY.EE - Digital Library of Estonia

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

World Orthodoxy: typology of autocephalous churches
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: EE LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

Digital Library of Estonia ® All rights reserved.
2014-2025, LIBRARY.EE is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of Estonia


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android