schismatic " Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC) (“Valentinovtsy”) in Tula

On the territory of the Tula region there are communities of the so-called. "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" (ROAC). Representatives of this schismatic organization are usually called "Valentinovites", after the organizer of the ROAC, "Metropolitan" of Suzdal and Vladimir Valentin.

The Tula "Valentinovites" have their own "bishop" - Tula and Bryansk Irinarkh (Nonchin).

"Bishop" Irinarkh (Aleksey Nonchin)

According to the pro-schismatic electronic journal"VERTOGRAD", the Tula region in the post-revolutionary period was the center of the "catacomb" movement. At that time, believers moved to an illegal position, due to the fact that the main positions in the Tula diocese were occupied by the Renovationists. The author of the article in this publication, who did not wish to be identified, reports on the persecution that the “catacombniks” were subjected to by the authorities. He claims that in the archives of the KGB in the Tula region there are many materials about the destruction of the "catacomb" monasteries in the 30s. And in 1943, on Stalin's personal order, several hundred "catacomb" Orthodox Christians were taken from the Tula and Ryazan regions to Siberia. Many of them died. For the most part, the remnants of the "hereditary catacombs", and those who rejoined them, are fed today by the ROAC. (1)

Brief historical background (2)

Among the numerous modern schismatic groups, the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church is one of the most scandalous and odious.

The prerequisite for the emergence of the schismatic "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" can be considered the adoption on May 2/15, 1990 by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) of the so-called "Regulations on Free Parishes". This Regulation allowed the establishment of parallel ROC MP church structures (dioceses, deaneries and parishes) within the USSR.

In the spring of 1990, immediately after the publication of the Regulations, Archimandrite Valentin (Rusantsov), rector of the Tsarekonstantinovsky Cathedral in Suzdal, came under the jurisdiction of the ROCOR together with his parish. The motivating reason for his act was self-will, which led to a conflict with the ruling bishop, who at that time was the Archbishop of Vladimir and Suzdal (now Metropolitan of Orenburg and Buzuluk) Valentin (Mishchuk).

Several dozen parish communities in various regions of the country followed his example (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Siberia, Kaliningrad, Bryansk, Penza regions, Stavropol and Primorsky regions, etc.). By the decision of the hierarchy of the Russian Church Abroad, the “Russian Orthodox Free Church” (ROCOR) was proclaimed on the basis of Russian parishes, and Archimandrite Valentine was appointed “exarch” of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops in Russia. In February 1991, Archimandrite Valentin (Rusantsov) was consecrated as Bishop of Suzdal and Vladimir. In the same 1991, the ROCOR Diocese of Suzdal was registered with the Ministry of Justice. Russian Federation as a diocese of the "Russian Orthodox Free Church".

Subsequently, Bishop Valentine (Rusantsov), for a variety of reasons, came into open conflict with ROCOR. In response, the ROCOR Synod of Bishops removes Bishop Valentine from the state without the right to manage the diocese. He, at the Suzdal diocesan congress, held in 1993, announced his withdrawal from the jurisdictional subordination of the Russian Church Abroad, while maintaining Eucharistic communion with her.

A new step towards distancing the “Russian Orthodox Free Church” from ROCOR was the decision of the IV Congress of the Clergy and Laity of the Russian Orthodox Church, which took place in March 1994 and proclaimed the formation of the “Supreme Provisional Church Administration of the Russian Orthodox Free Church” (VVCU ROOC). The VVTsU was viewed as an organ of supreme church authority, an alternative to the ROCOR Synod of Bishops.

The ROCOR Synod of Bishops, for its part, forbids Bishop Valentine from serving. Also, the consecrations of new "hierarchs" performed after the schism were not recognized as valid. In the context of the developing conflict, the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad decided to ordain a new bishop to manage the Russian parishes. The choice fell on Archimandrite Evtikhiy (Kurochkin), who was consecrated Bishop of Ishim and Siberia.

In 1994, after some thaw in relations between ROCOR and the ROCA ROCA, again a series of internal scandals led to their complete split. Instead of the VVTsU ROCC, the "Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Free Church" was created. The further evolution of the schismatic grouping of Bishop Valentine took place under the conditions of a complete severance of church ties with the Russian Church Abroad. With this in mind, the Council of Bishops of ROCOR, held in September 1996, decided to depose Bishop Valentine from the priesthood. A similar decision was made at the Bishops' Council of the ROC MP, which took place in February 1997 and deprived Valentin (Rusantsov) of all degrees of the priesthood. In 1998, the "Russian Orthodox Free Church" was registered with the new name "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" (ROAC).

As of 2008, about 100 parishes on the territory of the Russian Federation were under the jurisdiction of the ROAC, some of which do not have state registration. In addition, there are parishes in Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, USA, Switzerland, Israel, Argentina and Bulgaria.

IN Tula region, the ROAC has its own "catacomb" monastery (3) . It is known that it is located in the city of Bogoroditsk. Due to the closeness of the religious communities of the Valentinians, it is rather difficult to establish the exact location of the monastery and the "liturgical" premises belonging to them. According to some information, the ROAC monastic community in Bogoroditsk is currently not large. There are no more than 10 people in total.

Interesting for us is the message of the above-mentioned "Valentino" electronic magazine "VERTOGRAD", where one of the issues reported on trips in 1999 of the Suzdal "bishops" to the "monasteries" and "parishes" of the ROAC in the Tula region:

"On the eve of the Feast of the Intercession Holy Mother of God On October 13, 1999, Bishop Theodore of Borisov and Saninsky, accompanied by priest Konstantin Koretsky, arrived at the St. Elisabeth Convent in the city of Bogoroditsk, Tula Region, where he was met by Abbess Sophia and her sisters. The sisters of the monastery keep the cenobitic monastic charter; the focus of their spiritual life is the daily round of statutory Divine Services performed exactly on time, the indefatigable Psalter, the reading of akathists and patristic literature. The monastery is also visited by lay people who have departed from communion with the Moscow Patriarchate”…

... “The next day, October 15, Bishop Theodore visited the city of Efremov (Tula region), where the faithful, who had gathered in the apartment of the nun Pelagia, were waiting for him. In the conversation that took place, Mother Pelagia told the story of her long life and the reasons why she became convinced of the absence of Orthodoxy in the MP. Vladyka Theodore visited the city cemetery, where, at the request of the faithful, he served a funeral litia”…

... “Another Suzdal vicar, Bishop Seraphim of Sukhumi and Abkhazia, who ministers to the catacomb communities of the Suzdal Synod, made a pastoral trip to the catacomb parishes of Voronezh and Tula from December 24 to December 30, 1999, accompanied by Priest Konstantin and Shegehumenia Euphemia ... In Tula, Bishop Seraphim visited the catacomb monastery in the name of St. New Martyr Grand Duchess Elizabeth, led by Abbess Sophia, as well as about five catacomb communities in the Tula region, having served two Divine Liturgies in house churches and performed several rites "... (4)

There is another trip of the Valentinian hierarchs around the Tula region, made by them in 2006:

«… On the morning of December 5, Vladyka Metropolitan and His Grace Irinarch departed for the city of Bogoroditsk, Tula Region.

Along the way, the Right Reverends arrived in the city of Lokot, where they visited the stone church built by Deacon Victor in honor of the Kaluga Icon Mother of God.

In Bogoroditsk, distinguished guests were greeted with bread and salt in the catacomb convent of Abbess Sophia and her sisters. In the evening, the Right Reverends prayed at Vespers and Compline, in the morning after Matins and the Hours of Met. Valentin and Ep. Irinarch committed divine liturgy. A choir of sisters sang in the kliros, Igor Borisenko read. On December 8, Metropolitan Valentine and Bishop Irinarch arrived in Suzdal" (5)

On November 23, 2007, "bishop" Irinarkh again visited Bogoroditsk. The reason for this was the death of the "nun" Sophia, the aforementioned "abbess" of the female "cloister" of the ROAC in Bogoroditsk, "consecrated" in honor of the new martyr Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna.

Here is what was reported about the "Valentino" abbess Sophia on the official website of the ROAC:

“Abbess Sophia, in the world Alexandra Timofeevna Kozlova, was born in 1927 and, despite godless times, was brought up by pious parents in the Orthodox faith.

In 1941-45, on the “labor front”, she fell ill with tuberculosis of the bones of her legs, but miraculously received healing through prayers to the Mother of God. In gratitude, she vowed to Her not to marry.

Alexandra often found herself in the midst of monastics and received spiritual guidance from them. Often attending divine services in the church, she soon mastered the liturgical charter and became a psalm-reader-regent on the left kliros of the church in Bogoroditsk. Having the ability for icon painting, she worked a lot in the painting of nearby churches, not yet closed by the authorities. In 1982, after the death of her mother, Alexandra was tonsured into a mantle with the name Sophia. Delving into the reading of St. The Fathers, the canons of the Orthodox Church, the letters of the New Martyrs of Russia, she saw that the leadership of the Moscow Patriarchate had chosen and was following a different path, the path of violating and apostasy from the Orthodox faith. Mother Sophia established a written relationship with the First Hierarch of ROCOR, Metropolitan Vitaly, and soon broke off her prayerful communion with the Moscow Patriarchate (1988) and her former confessor, to whom she wrote: “You reproach me for the Church Abroad, allegedly I am listening to Her “from behind a hillock.” I answer that the Church Abroad did not look for me and did not impose her obediences on me, but I myself have been looking for the truth for many years: where is it, this Truth? And the Lord did not leave me. He pointed to me with the finger of those experiences and cases the non-Orthodoxy of the church where I served - the Soviet-Sergian, not knowing who she, this church, and what it is. The first God's Finger of God's instructions was to me in Zagorsk, when I was horrified, in the Trinity Cathedral, I saw how the royal gates opened and from them the monks of Zagorsk let out a Catholic cardinal, who, coming out of the altar, went up to the cancer St. Sergius, laying his hands back, looked at the cancer and the relics, and walked away ... ". (6)

For some time Sophia lived and prayed at home alone, fulfilling her monastic rule and continuing her correspondence with Metropolitan Vitaly. Soon she learns about the opening of parishes of the Church Abroad in Russia under the direction of Bishop Lazar and Bishop Valentin. Together with the worshipers gathered around her, Sophia visited "Vladyka" Valentine in Suzdal and was received into the "Russian Orthodox Free Church". She was accepted into the newly built monastery of St. John of Shanghai in Suzdal. In 1996, Sophia organizes a convent in Bogoroditsk, and the following year, the "Metropolitan" of Suzdal and Vladimir Valentin delivers her there as abbess.

“In the Elisabeth Convent, the sisters invariably complete a full liturgical cycle every day, as well as the “unsleeping psalter” is read and prayers are raised for the persecuted Russian Church and all Orthodox Christians. Liturgy in the house church at one time was performed by the priests of the ROAC, last years the sacraments were performed by Bishop Irinarkh of Tula and Bryansk" (7)

On November 25, "Bishop" Irinarkh performed a liturgy in the temple of the "cloister", then the rite of monastic burial. The deceased "abbess" was buried at the city cemetery in Bogoroditsk, next to her parents. At present, there are about ten elderly sisters in the “convent”. Blessing of the "bishop" Irinarch older sister appointed "novice" Tamara.

The attitude of the “Valentinovites” towards the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate is negative. Thus, in his interview with the well-known pro-sectarian portal "Credo.ru", the "bishop" of Tula and Bryansk Irinarkh spoke about the ROC MP as follows:

“As Bishop of Tula and Bryansk Irinarkh (Nonchin), the new ROAC bishop for clerics from Trubchevsk and Surazhsky district, noted in an interview with the author, “ordinary clergy seek, first of all, light and purity, but they see the opposite - the world is pulling the Moscow Patriarchate towards itself. Business and the politics that are being pursued not only in the Bryansk diocese, but also in the leadership of the ROC-MP, repel priests and laity." According to Vladyka Irinarkh, the priests(ROAC - ed.) is driven by the desire to "preserve Orthodoxy in purity, and not in a whirlpool" (8)

These words of the "bishop" Irinarkh about "purity" and so on. sound very strange in light of some of his deeds. So, in 2014, one of the firms engaged in the production of equipment for church candles received an order for the manufacture of an expensive mold for candles. The order was discussed over the phone. The caller introduced himself as "bishop" Irinarch. The customer did not make an advance payment, he said that he would pay on the spot. After completing the order, the "bishop" Irinarkh came to this company with some Pavel Petrovich and began to offer for the work performed an amount half that agreed. Naturally, the representatives of the manufacturer did not agree, because they made these molds in 3 shifts. All families, children. As a result, the dialogue did not work. Thus, Irinarkh uses the following technique: he calls on the phone, introduces himself as a “bishop”, places an order, lowers the price by half upon the fact of making an order (9).

In 2016, in Suzdal, employees of the Federal Security Service detained the “primate” of the Russian Orthodox Church “Metropolitan” Feodor (Gineevsky), as well as the “bishop” of Tula and Bryansk Irinapx (Honchin). They were detained in the course of a search that began in the "Synodal House" of the Russian Orthodox Church. Law enforcers suspected the ROAC of the involvement of its adherents in committing acts of an extremist nature. As reported, the law enforcers were interested in the facts of earlier extremist statements by individual representatives of the ROAC, aimed at inciting enmity, hatred and humiliation of dignity on the grounds of attitude towards social group. These actions were committed publicly in the process of religious meetings. It was also reported that the followers of the ROAC had previously been repeatedly seen in carrying out extremist actions. (10).

It is difficult to judge the number of home churches and communities of "Valentinovites" in the Tula region because of their closeness and the small number of parishioners. It follows from the above that there are definitely groups of "Valentinovites" in Efremov and Bogoroditsk at the present time. In the nineties of the last century, they distributed propaganda leaflets in the city of Suvorov. They repeatedly visited other cities of the Tula region in order to attract believers. But no significant results were achieved.

Sectainfo, 2017.

(1) Interview with Bishop Irinarch of Tula and Bryansk (ROAC) //. http://vertograd.narod.ru/440.htm - Access date: 09/14/2009.

(2) According to materials: Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church // Anti-schism. Electronic resource.- 2009.- Access mode: http://www.anti-raskol.ru/grup/55т - Date of access: 10/19/2009.

(3) Interview with Bishop Irinarch of Tula and Bryansk (ROAC) //. VERTOGRAD. Orthodox magazine. Electronic resource.- 2004.- Access mode: http://vertograd.narod.ru/440.htm - Access date: 09/14/2009.

(4) Pastoral trips of Suzdal bishops //. VERTOGRAD. Orthodox magazine. Electronic resource.- 1999.- Access mode: http://vertograd.narod.ru/0200/orthodox04.htm - Date of access: 14.09.2009.

(5) The First Hierarch of the Russian Church and His Grace Bishop Irinarch of Tula and Bryansk visited the parishes of the Tula-Bryansk diocese//. RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH. SUZDAL DIOCESE. Electronic resource. - 2006. - Access mode: http://www.rpac.ru/article/46/ - Access date: 14.09.2009.

(6) The abbess of the Elisabeth Convent of the ROAC died. RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH. SUZDAL DIOCESE. Electronic resource.- 2007.- Access mode: http://www.rpac.ru/article/89/ - Date of access: 15.09.2009.

(7) Ibid.

(8) Dictate of Theophylact. The policy of the new bishop of the ROC MP split the Orthodox in the Bryansk region and turned the authorities against society //. Portal-Credo.ru. Electronic resource.- 2005.- Access mode: http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&type=forum&id=34047 - Access date: 09/15/2009.

(9) Based on materials: Irinarkh (Nonchin) "Bishop of Tula and Bryansk" / / Anti-schism. Electronic resource.- 2010.- Access mode: http://www.anti-raskol.ru/pages/369 - Access date: 10/19/2014.

(10) Suzdal: The First Hierarch of the ROAC and Bishop Irinarkh were Delivered for a Conversation at the FSB // Portal Kredo.ru. Electronic resource.- 2016.- Access mode: http://www.portal-credo.ru/site/?act=news&id=121984 - Date of access: 10.10.2016.

On May 6, 2012, the First Hierarch of the "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" (ROAC) "Archbishop of Vladimir and Suzdal" Theodore (Gineevsky) was endowed with the title of "Metropolitan" and the right to wear two bishops' panagias.

At a meeting of the Council of Bishops of the "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" (ROAC), held on January 23, 2012 in Suzdal, "Archbishop of Otradnensky and the North Caucasus" Theodore (Gineevsky) was elected First Hierarch of the said non-canonical religious community with the title of "Archbishop of Vladimir and Suzdal ". The elevation of "archbishop" Theodore to the rank of "metropolitan" will take place on bright week this year.

On January 16, 2012, at the age of 73, the First Hierarch of the "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" (ROAC) "Metropolitan of Suzdal and Vladimir" Valentin (Rusantsov) died. The cause of his death is called progressive heart failure, postinfarction cardiosclerosis and severe diabetes mellitus.

On February 10, 2011, on the execution of the decision of the ROAC Council of Bishops, the "episcopal" consecration of "archimandrite" Mark (Rassokhi) took place, in which eight "bishops" took part, headed by the First Hierarch of the ROAC "Metropolitan of Suzdal and Vladimir" Valentin (Rusantsov). It is noteworthy that the newly ordained "hierarch" was endowed with the title of "bishop of Armavir", vicar of the North Caucasian diocese.

On February 4, 2011, the Council of Bishops of the non-canonical religious organization "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" (ROAC) took place in Suzdal, at which a decision was made to ordain two new "bishops". The cleric of the Iberian Synodal Church of the ROAC "archimandrite" Trofim (Tarasov) was elected "bishop of Simbirsk", vicar of the Suzdal diocese...

Cleric of the Suzdal diocese of the "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" "hieromonk" Seraphim (Sibinin), detained for possession of drugs.

"Archbishop" Theodore copied some fragments of his message from the Paschal message of the Archbishop of Saransk and Mordovia Barsanuphius for 2001, published on the official website of the Saransk-Mordovian diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate Paschal; sermon by Archpriest Vyacheslav Reznikov, published on the official website of the Moscow Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. However, it is most noteworthy that the First Hierarch of the ROAC included in his Paschal Epistle borrowings from heterodox authors: the sermon "Easter of Victory", authored by the Baptist preacher Viktor Semyonovich Ryaguzov, "A sermon on the feast of Easter" delivered by a preacher of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, brother Ramil, a note by a dark-skinned neo-charismatic Sunday Adelaja, as well as fragments of a sermon by a Catholic monk from the Redemptorist order, Fr. Stanislav Podgursky CSsR.

The need to form an independent pseudo-church structure, claiming succession from the pre-revolutionary Orthodox Russian Church, prompted the leadership of the ROAC to conduct a number of episcopal consecrations. In 2001, the Synod of the "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" decided to raise Archbishop Valentin (Rusantsov) to the rank of metropolitan with the right to wear two panagias, which, according to the schismatics, raised the status of the most schismatic organization to the metropolitan district. However, the bearer of the white klobuk not only did not increase the authority of the religious organization he created, but a year later drew public attention to the ROAC with a grandiose scandal...

Among the numerous modern pseudo-church groups, the "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" is one of the most scandalous and odious. She attracted the close attention of the Russian public with a noisy deviation into a split in the early 1990s, a sexual scandal in the early 2000s. and no less loud scandal the end of the 2000s, associated with an attempt to keep temples that were torn away into schism in their jurisdiction. The prerequisite for the emergence of the schismatic "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" can be considered the adoption on May 2/15, 1990 by the ROCOR Council of Bishops of the so-called "Regulations on Free Parishes"...

As of September 2009, the "episcopate" of the "Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church" consisted of the following "hierarchs":

* Valentin (Rusantsov), "Metropolitan of Suzdal and Vladimir"

* Theodore (Gineevsky), "Archbishop of Borisov and Otradnensky"

* Seraphim (Zinchenko), "Archbishop of Sukhumi and Abkhazia"...

(from the Greek autonomia - independent), a church that has gained independence in matters of internal administration from one or another autocephalous church, in which this A. c. previously included as an exarchate or diocese. Head A. c. elected at the local council with subsequent approval by the patriarch of the autocephalous church. Currently, there are 4 A. c. The Japanese Orthodox Church has been under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate since 1970.

The term "autonomy" came into church use from civil law. In secular law, this term usually denoted a local organization that had the right to self-government within the boundaries of the basic position of the state. A similar meaning is invested in church autonomy.

If the autocephalous Churches have an independent chain of apostolic succession and their bishops, including the primate, are appointed bishops of these same Churches, then the autonomous Churches are deprived of such independence, their first bishops, upon election, are confirmed (and often appointed) by the primate of the kyriarchal Church. Other signs of the dependence of the autonomous Church usually follow from this: its charter is approved by the kyriarchal Church; in it the name of the primate of the kyriarchal Church is exalted; she receives holy chrism from the kyriarchal Church; she participates in the costs of maintaining the highest authority of the kyriarchal Church; the primate of the autonomous Church is under the jurisdiction of the supreme judicial power of the kyriarchal Church.

Since an autonomous Church does not need to have a certain number of bishops in order to independently appoint its primate, an autonomous Church can be a metropolitan district, a separate diocese, a parish, and a monastery. The latter was especially practiced on Mount Athos: for example, the Hilendar Monastery, according to the type of St. Sava of Serbia, enjoyed almost complete independence from the central Athos administration. On beginning of XXI centuries, examples of extremely small autonomies were the Churches of Sinai (a monastery with a single bishop) and Chinese (several parishes without their own bishop, under the direct care of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus').

The basis for the proclamation of a part of the Church as autonomous is most often the fact that the latter is outside the state in which the chiriarchal Church is located, geographical remoteness and ethnic identity. Historically, the declaration of the autonomy of the Church often followed the acquisition of political independence by the state in which the Church is located. The loss of state independence usually leads to the abolition of autonomy. For example, when in 1878 Bosnia and Herzegovina was liberated from Turkish rule and was occupied by Austria-Hungary, two years later the local Church received autonomy from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but with the entry of Bosnia into Yugoslavia, its autonomy was abolished.

The very phenomenon of autonomous Churches has been known since antiquity. For example, prior to its separation into the Russian Orthodox Church proper, the Kievan (Russian) Metropolitanate within the Patriarchate of Constantinople was in many respects autonomous.

Such cataclysms of the 20th century as October Revolution in Russia in 1917 and the collapse of the USSR in 1991, as well as the phenomenon of the Orthodox diaspora, led to the emergence in this century of many new autonomies. Many of them have their own characteristics - for example, most of the autonomies of the Russian Orthodox Church are now called "self-governing" and not "autonomous" Churches, although the difference between these concepts is insignificant (see the Charter of the Russian Orthodox Church 2013, ch. X and XI). The Orthodox Church of Constantinople organized a number of autonomous formations on an ethno-cultural basis, superimposed on the dioceses of the Patriarchate of Constantinople that already existed in the diaspora. The issue of the canonical order of granting autonomy is linked to the issue of the Diaspora and the powers of the Ecumenical Throne, which is why discussions about it are ongoing to this day.


On this moment There are the following autonomous entities:

  • As part of the Orthodox Church of Constantinople:
    • Finnish Orthodox Church
    • Estonian Orthodox Apostolic Church
    • Cretan Orthodox Church (semi-autonomous)
    • Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA and Diaspora
    • Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Canada
    • American Carpathorussian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church
    • Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe, Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
  • As part of the Antiochian Orthodox Church:
    • American archdiocese
  • As part of the Jerusalem Orthodox Church:
    • Sinai Orthodox Church
  • As part of the Russian Orthodox Church:
    • The Japanese Orthodox Church is an autonomous Church
    • Chinese Orthodox Church (not actually active) - Autonomous Church
    • The Orthodox Church of Moldova is a self-governing Church
    • The Latvian Orthodox Church is a self-governing Church
    • The Estonian Orthodox Church is a self-governing Church
    • The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is a self-governing Church
    • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church is a self-governing Church with the rights of broad autonomy
  • As part of the Serbian Orthodox Church:
    • Ohrid Archdiocese

Headed by Valentin (Rusantsov).
In the world, Anatoly Petrovich Rusantsov was born on March 3, 1939 in Belorechensk, Krasnodar Territory.
At the request of Anatoly, Metropolitan Nestor in 1957 sent him to the Holy Spirit Monastery in Vilnius, having ordained him to the rank of subdeacon. In this monastery Anatoly was tonsured into a cassock.
In 1973 he graduated in absentia from the Moscow Theological Seminary, and in 1979 from the Moscow Theological Academy, having defended his candidate's work.
In 1973 he arrived in Suzdal, to the post of rector of the Kazan Church.
In 1988, he was transferred by decree of Archbishop Valentin (Mishchuk) to Pokrov, and then was dismissed from the state for refusing to obey.
On April 7, 1990, Archimandrite Valentin and members of the Suzdal community officially announced their withdrawal from the Moscow Patriarchate; On April 11, they were accepted into the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. On October 4, Archimandrite Valentine was appointed Exarch of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops in the USSR.

The adoption on May 2/15, 1990 by the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR) of the so-called "Regulations on Free Parishes" can be considered a prerequisite for the emergence of a schismatic Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church. This Regulation was the official proclamation of a new course foreign policy Russian Church Abroad, aimed at establishing parallel church structures (dioceses, deaneries and parishes) within the USSR.
In the spring of 1990, immediately after the publication of the Regulations, Archimandrite Valentin (Rusantsov), rector of the Tsarekonstantinovsky Cathedral in Suzdal, came under the jurisdiction of the ROCOR together with his parish. The reason for his transition was self-will, which led to a conflict with the ruling bishop, who at that time was the Archbishop of Vladimir and Suzdal (now Metropolitan of Orenburg and Buzuluk) Valentin (Mishchuk).
The acceptance of Archimandrite Valentine into the jurisdiction of the Russian Church Abroad received a wide public response and served as an example for several dozen parish communities in various regions of the country (Moscow, St. Petersburg, Siberia, Kaliningrad, Bryansk, Penza regions, Stavropol and Primorsky Krai, etc.). By decision of the hierarchy of the Russian Church Abroad, the Russian Orthodox Free Church (ROCOR) was proclaimed on the basis of Russian parishes, and Archimandrite Valentine was appointed Exarch of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops in Russia. In February 1991, Archimandrite Valentin (Rusantsov) was consecrated as Bishop of Suzdal and Vladimir. In the same 1991, the ROCOR Diocese of Suzdal was registered with the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation as a diocese of the Russian Orthodox Free Church.
The consistent increase in the activity of ROCOR in the process of expanding the Russian Orthodox Free Church led to the fact that in 1992 Bishop Barnabas (Prokofiev) of Cannes was sent to Russia to organize the Synodal Metochion of the Russian Church Abroad in Moscow. However, the activities of Bishop Barnabas turned out to be very scandalous, this is due to the willingness to recognize the canonicity of the schismatic Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate and the desire for the complete subordination of the ROCA to its own power. The above abuses, as well as ambitious claims to leadership, prompted Bishop Valentin (Rusantsov) to enter into open conflict with the head of the Synodal Metochion.
In response to sharp criticism, Bishop Barnabas persuaded the ROCOR Synod of Bishops to withdraw Bishop Valentine from the state without the right to govern the diocese. Ep. Valentin did not want to recognize the victory of Bishop Barnabas, and at the Suzdal diocesan congress, held in 1993, he announced his withdrawal from the jurisdictional subordination of the Russian Church Abroad. A new step towards the separation of the Russian Orthodox Free Church from ROCOR was the decision of the Fourth Congress of the Clergy and Laity of the ROCA, held in March 1994. The Congress proclaimed the formation of the Supreme Provisional Church Administration of the Russian Orthodox Free Church (VVCU ROCA). The VVTsU was viewed as an organ of supreme church authority, an alternative to the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. Archbishop Lazar (Zhurbenko) of Tambov and Morshansk, who came from the environment of the Russian Catacomb Church, and in 1982 entered the jurisdiction of the ROCOR and was secretly ordained bishop by Bishop Barnabas (Prokofiev) of Cannes who came to the USSR as a tourist, was elected Chairman of the All-Russian Orthodox Church Church Church. Bishop Valentin (Rusantsov), who was elevated to the rank of archbishop, became the Vice-Chairman of the VVCU ROCC. The most scandalous act of the VVTsU was the ordination of new bishops. In response to these actions, the ROCOR Synod of Bishops banned Archbishop Lazar and Bishop Valentine from the priesthood, and the consecrations of the new hierarchs were declared invalid. In the context of the conflict, the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad decided to ordain a new bishop to manage the Russian parishes. The choice fell on Archimandrite Evtikhiy (Kurochkin), who was consecrated Bishop of Ishim and Siberia.
After the recall of Bishop Barnabas (Prokofiev) from Russia at the end of 1994, there was some warming of relations between the ROCC and ROCOR. At the ROCOR Council of Bishops, held in December 1994 in the Lesna Monastery (France), the signing of the Act of Reconciliation took place between the ROCOR Synod of Bishops and the ROCA ROCA. According to the terms of the reconciliation, the ROCC was abolished, and many of its earlier decisions became invalid.
In particular, Valentin (Rusantsov) lost the title of "archbishop" and was again called a bishop. With regard to the hierarchs who were arbitrarily ordained in the All-Russian Orthodox Church Church, a decision was made to recognize their episcopal dignity on the indispensable condition that they take the hierarchal oath to the Synod of the Russian Church Abroad. An important decision of the Lesna Cathedral was the reorganization of the spiritual administration in Russia, on the territory of which the dioceses of Moscow, St. Petersburg and North Russian, Suzdal, Siberian, Odessa and South Russian, Black Sea and Kuban were established. For consistency in the management of the Russian dioceses, instead of the abolished VVTsU of the ROCA, a Council of Bishops was created, in its activities completely subordinate to the ROCOR Synod of Bishops.
Despite the apparent resolution of the existing contradictions and what seemed to be a fait accompli, the system of administrative management of Russian parishes was well established, already in January 1995 the Bishops' Conference was shaken by an unexpected scandal. This time the reason for the discord was the confrontation between Bishop Valentin (Rusantsov) of Suzdal and Bishop Evtikhiy (Kurochkin) of Ishim. The latter made a number of accusations against the Bishop of Suzdal concerning his way of life and style of church administration. Moreover, Bishop Evtikhiy expressed his dissatisfaction in writing in a report addressed to the First Hierarch of ROCOR, Metropolitan Vitaly (Ustinov), accusing Archbishop Lazar, Bishop Valentine and the hierarchs ordained by them of lack of loyalty to the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. The result of the confrontation that arose within the Council of Bishops was the banning of Archbishop Lazar (Zhurbenko) and Bishop Valentin (Rusantsov) from the priesthood. The spiritual leadership of the Russian flock of the Russian Church Abroad was entrusted to Bishop Eutychius of Ishim.
Reacting to the ongoing events, Bishop Valentin (Rusantsov) of Suzdal attempted to convene a Russian Bishops' Conference, the purpose of which was to condemn the decisions of the ROCOR Synod of Bishops. By decision of the Conference of Bishops, the work of the All-Russian Orthodox Church of Ukraine was resumed, which was soon renamed the Synod of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Free Church (ROOC). The further evolution of the schismatic grouping of Bishop Valentine took place under the conditions of a complete severance of church ties with the Russian Church Abroad. With this in mind, the Council of Bishops of ROCOR, held in September 1996, decided to depose Bishop Valentine from the priesthood. A similar decision was made at the Bishops' Council of the ROC MP, which took place in February 1997 and deprived Valentin (Rusantsov) of all degrees of the priesthood. The position of Rusantsov himself regarding the one-time conciliar decisions of both branches of the Russian Orthodox Church, expressed by him in an interview with the Svoboda Slova newspaper, seems curious: you holy order? Archbishop Valentine: I took this decision as taken by the sectarians, with whom I had once been in communion.
In 1998, the Russian Orthodox Free Church was registered with the new name of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church (ROAC). This schismatic jurisdiction justifies the legitimacy of its existence by referring to the well-known Decree His Holiness Patriarch Moscow and All-Russian Tikhon (Belavin) No. 362 of November 7/20, 192011 According to this Decree, issued in the conditions of the still unfinished Civil War and unprecedented in Russian history genocide in relation to the Orthodox Church, in the absence of the opportunity for the ruling bishop to communicate with the organs of supreme church authority, he can, together with the bishops of neighboring dioceses, organize the Provisional Higher Church Administration (VVTSU). The same actions were supposed in the event of the complete liquidation of the organs of supreme church authority. With the absolute impossibility of contacting even the hierarchs of neighboring dioceses, a hierarch could assume full ecclesiastical authority within his diocese. It is noteworthy that practically all the schisms that arose in the Russian Orthodox Church throughout the 20th century invariably appealed to the Decree of St. Tikhon No. 362.
In 2001, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church decided to build an archbishop
pa Valentine (Rusantsov) to the rank of metropolitan with the right to wear two panagias, which, according to the schismatics, raised the status of the organization itself to the metropolitan district.
However, the bearer of the white klobuk not only did not increase the authority of the jurisdiction he created, but a year later drew public attention to the ROAC with a grandiose scandal. In February 2002, the Suzdal City Court began hearing on the case of Metropolitan Valentin (Rusantsov), who was accused of sexual crimes involving minors. In particular, he was charged with Art. 132 part 2; Art. 133 and Art. 151 part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, which provided for liability for “violent acts of a sexual nature repeatedly committed against minors”, “compulsion to act of a sexual nature” and involving “minors in the systematic use of alcoholic beverages”.
It was from among the people once seduced by Valentin (Rusantsov) that the most influential and close to the head of the ROAC group of clergy was formed. As a result of a court hearing held in 2002, Metropolitan Valentin was sentenced to four years of probation and was granted an amnesty on the day of sentencing, as a result of which the conditional sentence was reduced to two years. Larisa Kislinskaya, a columnist for the Sovershenno Sekretno newspaper, claims that the victims and witnesses were repeatedly subjected to physical and psychological pressure, prompting them to retract their own testimony. It is noteworthy that in March 2004, by decision of the Suzdal District Court, the judgment 2002, and Metropolitan Valentine's conviction was expunged.
Currently, about 100 parishes on the territory of the Russian Federation are under the jurisdiction of the ROAC, some of which do not have state registration. In addition, there are parishes in Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, USA, Switzerland, Israel, Argentina and Bulgaria.

The Universal Church consists of separate local Churches. Local Churches, in turn, include bishoprics (dioceses), and dioceses - parishes. There are other units of the administrative-territorial division of the Church: autonomous churches, exarchates, metropolitan districts. This structure of the Church took shape during the first centuries of its history, and since then it has remained fundamentally unchanged.

The administrative division of the Church is based on a territorial, not a national principle. Under normal conditions, Orthodox Christians of any nationality living in the same territory make up one parish and are cared for by one diocesan bishop, for, according to the words of the Apostle Paul, in Christ “There is no Greek, no Jew, no circumcision, no uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free”(Colossians 3:11). As it is said, however, in the 34th Apostolic Canon, “the bishops of every nation should be the nobility of the first in them ...” - however, the historical context clearly indicates that the “people” in the canon means the territory occupied by one or another people. The provinces of the Roman Empire were lands inhabited by tribes that later underwent Hellenization or Latinization; the names of the provinces retained the memory of the peoples who once inhabited them: Dacia, Galatia, Thrace, Numidia.

In their territorial division, the local Churches conform to the political-administrative division, to the state and administrative boundaries. In addition to obvious conveniences, this principle finds indirect justification in the canons themselves. Thus, the 38th canon of the Trullo Council reads: “If a city is again or will be built by the royal authority, then let the distribution of church affairs follow the civil and zemstvo distributions.”

The territorial principle in the delimitation of ecclesiastical jurisdiction also allows for exceptions, which, in essence, in a certain sense are similar to the concept of extraterritoriality in international law. Thus, in ancient times, the heads of some local Churches, in order to maintain constant communion with other Churches, sent their representatives, apocrysiaries, to their metropolitans, exarchs or patriarchs. The monasteries in which the apocrysiari resided were under the canonical authority of the Church that sent them. These monasteries were called metochs, or farmsteads. In the era of the Turkish yoke, the Eastern Patriarchates established their farmsteads at other Churches, especially in Russia, to collect alms.

Another deviation from the territorial principle in the delimitation of jurisdiction is the right of the Patriarchal Stauropegia. The word "stauropegia" comes from the Greek words "σταυρος" (cross) and "πηγο" (to set up). The erection of a cross by a bishop at the foundation of a church or monastery is a symbol of their canonical dependence on him. The rights of the patriarchal stavropegy lie in the fact that the Patriarch can also erect a cross when building a monastery or church outside the boundaries of his diocese, thereby including them in his direct jurisdiction. In Russia, during the synodal era, the Holy Synod used the right of stavropegy.

In the Byzantine era, the Patriarchs of Constantinople subordinated to their jurisdiction entire bishoprics located within the metropolitan regions. Such bishops were called autocephalous archdioceses; autocephaly meant their independence from the local metropolitan.

A unique event in the history of the Church was the migration in the 7th century, during the invasion of the Arabs, of the Cypriot Church to the territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Hellespont. The Cypriot Church also retained its autocephaly in the Hellespont. On this occasion, the Trullian Council issued a special canon 39: “Because our brother and co-servant John, primate of the island of Cyprus, together with his people, due to barbarian invasions, and in order to free himself from pagan slavery, and faithfully submit to the scepter of the most Christian power, moved from the said island to the Hellespontian region, by the providence of the philanthropic God, and by the diligence of our Christ-loving and pious king; then we decree that the privileges given to the throne of the above-named man from the God-bearing fathers who once gathered in Ephesus be preserved unchanged, that the new Justinianopolis have the rights of Constantinople, and that the most God-loving bishop established in it should rule over all the bishops of the Hellespont region, and that it will be decreed from their bishops, according to ancient custom.

Diaspora

The most serious deviation from the territorial principle in the delimitation of church jurisdiction is the diaspora. In countries where Orthodox Christians do not live in a compact mass, but are scattered among heterodox or non-Orthodox, parishes and even dioceses of different Churches can exist on the same territory. As you know, in the 20th century, when the Orthodox diaspora in America and Western Europe increased many times over both as a result of the resettlement of Orthodox Christians and as a result of the accession of non-Orthodox Christians to Orthodoxy, a number of historically determined problems arose in these countries in delimiting church jurisdiction. The Patriarch of Constantinople put forward the doctrine of the special rights of the Ecumenical Throne and, in connection with this, the subordination of the entire diaspora of Western Europe and America to it. Such claims as completely new, hitherto unknown Churches are rejected by the majority of local Churches. Since ancient times, the following norm has been observed in the life of the Church: a Church that has converted a heretical or schismatic community to Orthodoxy on a territory that is not part of any local Church becomes the Mother Church, the kyriarchal Church, for the newly founded Church. It is precisely for this reason, and not at all by virtue of Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, that the Russian Church was in canonical dependence on the See of Constantinople for centuries.

Canon 131 (117) of the Carthaginian Council says: “A few years before this, in this Church, a full council determined that the Churches, consisting in any limit, before the issuance of laws on the Donatists, made catholic, belonged to those thrones, of which the bishops were persuaded to join the catholic unity.

The territory of the Orthodox diaspora can therefore be under the jurisdiction of different local Churches, as is the case today in Western Europe and America. This situation is temporary. The establishment and development of a normal church life in these countries should eventually lead to the formation of new autonomous or autocephalous Churches, but until this is done, the issue of demarcation of jurisdiction remains complex, causing disagreements and disputes. When resolving such disputes between autocephalous, independent Churches, a number of circumstances should be taken into account: in Canon 132 (118) of the Council of Carthage, two of them are named - territorial proximity and the will of the church people themselves: countries of Donatova, will divide the dioceses among themselves. ... If it happens to be a single place; then let it be given to the one to whom it will be in greater proximity. And if it will be equally close to both thrones; then let him go to the one whom the people choose.”

With regard to territorial proximity, then, as follows from Canon 24 (17) of the Council of Carthage, the Numidian primate lost jurisdiction over the Church of Mauritania of Sitifen "because of its remoteness." In Pidalion, in the interpretation of this rule, it is said about its universal significance. In the territorial division of the diaspora, the ethnic principle also has a certain significance, but its significance is limited by the framework of the diaspora itself. Therefore, the Council of Constantinople in 1872 rightly condemned ethnophyletism as an encroachment on the canonical church system.

Autocephalous Churches

The Universal Church consists of autocephalous local Churches. The meaning of the term "autocephaly" has changed. As we already know, “autocephalous” in the Byzantine era were called archdioceses that were independent of the local metropolitan and directly subordinate to the Patriarchal jurisdiction. In the Greek canonical and church-historical literature, the status of the four ancient Patriarchates, on the one hand, and the new autocephalous Churches, on the other, are still distinguished, which, although they are recognized as completely independent, are nevertheless not put on a par with the ancient Eastern Patriarchates. The question of the right to autocephaly continues to be acute and complex in our time. Disputes arose around him in the past and still take place, which often become painful, lead to discords and even divisions, up to a break in canonical communion.

To clarify the canonically indisputable criteria of autocephaly, it is first of all necessary to shed light on the question of the right to establish an independent Church or to grant autocephaly. There is a legal principle: no one can give another more rights than he himself has. This is a canonical axiom. Therefore, either the episcopate of the Ecumenical Church or the episcopate of the autocephalous Church can found a new autocephalous Church. The power of the episcopate is successive from that of the apostles.

In the past, erroneous opinions were sometimes expressed that only Churches founded by the apostles themselves could be autocephalous. Pope Leo the Great challenged the autocephaly of the Church of Constantinople on this basis. Even the Patriarchate of Antioch denied autocephaly to the Georgian Church, relying on the historically dubious fact that none of the apostles were in Georgia. Meanwhile, on the one hand, many of the Churches of undoubtedly apostolic origin never had autocephaly (for example, Corinthian, Thessalonian), and on the other hand, there are Churches whose independence is generally recognized, although they cannot boast of apostolic origin. The autocephaly of the Church has been acquired and lost in the course of history. And having succeeded the apostolic host, namely the host, and not individual apostles, the ecumenical episcopate has the indisputable right to sovereignly decide on the establishment and abolition of autocephaly, on the boundaries between local Churches. At the Ecumenical Councils - extraordinary bodies of episcopal power - the questions of the establishment of local Churches, their ranks, the boundaries between them, the abolition of the autocephaly of some of the Churches, were indeed resolved: thus, the Council of Chalcedon confirmed the autocephaly of the Church of Constantinople and subordinated to it the dioceses of Asia, Pontus and Thracia.

Since the Ecumenical Councils were exceptional events in ancient times, and now for more than 1000 years they have not been convened, usually the issue of a new autocephaly or the abolition of the old one is decided by the episcopate of the local Churches, whose competence, unlike the ecumenical episcopate, extends only to the boundaries of its own Church. At the same time, the will of the local episcopate can be expressed both by a full council and a small council of bishops - the Synod.

The Patriarchate of Constantinople granted autocephaly to the Bulgarian Church (in 932, 1234 and 1946), the Serbian Church (in 1218 and 1879), the Russian Church (in 1589), the Greek Church (in 1850), the Romanian Church (in 1895) and the Albanian Church (in 1938). The Russian Church granted autocephaly to the Polish, Czechoslovak and American Churches in post-war years. It is also known about the merger of several autocephalous Churches into one. Thus, in 1920, three autocephalous Churches: Serbian, Karlovac and Montenegrin, as well as the autonomous Bosno-Herzegovina Church with part of the Constantinople and Bukovina-Dalmatian Churches united into one Serbian Church.

Only the will of the kyriarchal Church can be a legitimate factor in the establishment of a new autocephaly, but history knows other examples. It happened that autocephaly was proclaimed by a body state power or by a local episcopate that has arbitrarily withdrawn from subordination to the conciliar episcopate of the autocephalous Church and its first bishop. The illegality of such actions from a canonical point of view is obvious; although in those cases when this was caused by really urgent needs of church life, the divisions that arose after an unauthorized act of division could be healed by the later legal granting of autocephaly by the Mother Church. Thus, the Greek episcopate proclaimed autocephaly already in 1833, and it was granted to the Greek Church only in 1850; the independence of the Romanian Church was arbitrarily proclaimed in 1865, i.e. 20 years before she was granted autocephaly by the Patriarchate of Constantinople; In 1923, the Polish autocephalists decided to illegally separate from the Russian Mother Church, and only in 1948 was the issue of Polish autocephaly resolved legally. A similar reason caused a break in communion between the Russian and Georgian Churches, which lasted from 1917 to 1943.

Autocephaly can also be established in addition to the established order, however, on a legal basis: in the event that the power of the kyriarchal Church deviates into heresy or schism. Then the 15th rule of the Double Council comes into force: “... Those who separate themselves from communion with the primate, for the sake of some heresy, condemned by the Holy Councils or the Fathers, when, that is, he preaches heresy publicly, and teaches it openly in the church, such as even protect themselves from communion with the said bishop, prior to conciliar consideration, are not only not subject to the prescribed rules of penance, but are also worthy of the honor befitting the Orthodox. For they did not condemn the bishops, but false bishops and false teachers, and did not cut short the unity of the Church by schism, but strove to protect the Church from schisms and divisions. This rule also applies to the faithful Orthodox episcopate of one of the parts of the Church, whose supreme authority has departed from the truth. The Russian Church found itself in such circumstances after the Council of Florence; therefore, in 1448, it affirmed its independence from Constantinople, without asking for the consent of the Patriarch and the Synod, which had betrayed Orthodoxy.

The power of the local episcopate extends only to the boundaries of the local Church. Therefore, the actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which in the 20th century granted autocephaly to certain parts of other Churches, were canonically untenable: imaginary illegal autocephaly was granted to the Polish Church and autonomy to the Churches of Estonia and Finland (the latter, however, in 1957 received the recognition of the Russian Church - the Mother Church of Finland). To justify such actions, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, firstly, put forward claims to exclusive jurisdiction over the entire diaspora, and, secondly, the very concept of the diaspora began to be interpreted broadly - by the diaspora in Constantinople they mean all parishes and even entire dioceses located outside the borders of the state, in which the autocephalous Church is located.

On May 30, 1931, Patriarch Photius II of Constantinople, proving the right to subjugate the Serbian dioceses outside Yugoslavia, wrote to Patriarch Varnava of Serbia: “All Orthodox Church communities and colonies located in the diaspora and outside the borders of Orthodox autocephalous Churches of any nationality , must be ecclesially subordinate to the Holy Patriarchal Throne. In support of this strange doctrine, the Patriarch of Constantinople refers to the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, which fixes the limits of the jurisdiction of the throne of New Rome: “... only the metropolitans of the regions of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, and also the bishops of the foreigners of the above regions, may they be delivered from the above-mentioned most holy throne of the Most Holy Constantinople Churches". It is more than difficult to explain what relation the Orthodox communities of Western Europe have to the foreigners of the above-mentioned regions. Behind all this lies a canonical and geographical inconsistency.

Since, in order to substantiate newly invented claims, the reference to the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon is an obvious stretch, in recent decades in Constantinople, the main arguments in favor of these claims are found in the content of canons 9 and 17 of the same Council of Chalcedon, which speaks of the rights of clergy to appeal to the court metropolitan: "... to the exarch of the great region, or to the throne of the reigning Constantinople" (prav. 9). Rule 9 is referred to as a confirmation of the exclusive rights of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the Ecumenical Church, from which private advantages and rights of the latter are already deduced, including jurisdiction over the diaspora. This is the essence of the argument of Metropolitan Maximos of Sardis, the author of a work in which the universal power of the Patriarchs of Constantinople is defended.

Meanwhile, a careful analysis of the historical context, as well as the content of these rules, allows us to draw one single conclusion: we are talking about the clergy of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which only at the Council of Chalcedon received the right of jurisdiction over the “great exarchates” mentioned in the 28th canon: Pontic, Asiatic and Thracian. Metropolitan Maxim himself does not find it possible to extend this rule to the Western Patriarchate. This would be too absurd in view of the actual ratio of the ranks of honor of the first five bishops of the era of the Council of Chalcedon. What, then, in Canons 9 and 17 gives grounds for drawing such a boundary: it does not apply to the clergy of the Roman Church, but only to the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Cyprus? For such a peculiarly profiled drawing of the border, these rules do not contain any grounds.

The essence of autocephaly is that the autocephalous church has an independent source of power. Its first bishop, its head is supplied by its bishops. The Second Ecumenical Council, affirming the ancient autocephaly of the Cypriot Church, granted “to those who rule in it” freedom, “without claiming against them and without embarrassing them ... to make the appointments of the most reverent bishops by themselves.” The Council of Chalcedon, depriving the independence of the dioceses of Pontus, Heraclia and Asia, grants the throne of Constantinople the appointment of metropolitans in these areas (rights 28). Since the participation of three bishops is normally required for archpastoral consecration, and the appointment is made to a dowager see, it inevitably follows that for autocephalous existence the Churches must have at least four episcopal sees.

The independence of autocephalous Churches is, of course, limited in nature, manifesting itself only in relation to other local Churches, but by no means to the Ecumenical Church, of which they are a part. Therefore, there can be no question of the independence of a separate local Church in the field of dogma, which is one and the same kept by the Ecumenical Church from the very beginning. Any discrepancy with the truth, preserved by the whole Church, entails falling out of the bosom of the Church. All local Churches observe the holy canons, applying them to local conditions. In the field of worship, the independence of autocephalous Churches is limited by the obligatory conformity of worship to a single dogmatic teaching and the desire for uniformity. But the autocephalous Church herself prepares for herself the holy chrism, she herself canonizes her saints, she herself composes new rites and hymns. Autocephalous Churches enjoy full independence in the field of administrative and judicial activities.

All autocephalous Churches are equal. Orthodoxy rejects not only the Roman doctrine of the vicarage of Christ and the infallibility of the Roman bishop, but also the claims of the Patriarchs of Constantinople to special rights in the Universal Church. At the same time, in the lists of Churches - diptychs - and, therefore, in the distribution of seats at councils, within the framework of inter-church etiquette, each Church is assigned its own place in the general row, and this place is firmly fixed; for centuries it may remain unchanged, although this place in the diptych, called the rank of honor, is devoid of dogmatic meaning, but is historically conditioned. The diptych is based on different principles: the antiquity of the Churches, the chronological sequence of the proclamation of autocephaly, political significance cities with the chairs of the first bishops.

Autonomous Churches

In addition to autocephalous, independent from each other Churches, there are also autonomous Churches. The term “autonomous Church” is new, but this phenomenon, when one or another local Church had a very wide, but not complete independence, was known both in antiquity and in the Middle Ages. In essence, the Russian Church until 1448, territorially, ethnically and politically isolated from the Mother Church, had only a limited dependence on the throne of Constantinople, which was decisively different from the Greek metropolitanates. In this sense, it can serve as an example of ecclesiastical autonomy. The main difference between the autocephalous and autonomous Churches is that the former have an independent chain of apostolic succession, and their bishops, including the first among them, are ordained by the bishops of these Churches, while the autonomous Churches are deprived of such independence, their first bishops are ordained by the archpastors of the kyriarchal Church. Other restrictions on the autonomy of the autonomous Church follow from this. Its status, charter, is approved by the kyriarchal Church, which also serves as an expression of canonical dependence. The Autonomous Churches receive holy chrism from the kyriarchal Church, they also share in the costs of maintaining the supreme authority of the kyriarchal Church. The first bishops of the Autonomous Churches are under the jurisdiction of the supreme judicial power of the kyriarchal Church. The autonomous Church carries out its relations with other Churches through the kyriarchal Church.

The autonomous Church usually has a small number of bishops. The basis for the proclamation of autonomy can be various factors, most often, its location within the boundaries of a state other than the kyriarchal Church, as well as geographical remoteness and ethnic identity. Historically, the declaration of autonomy often followed the acquisition of political independence by the state where this Church is located. Thus, in 1815, the Serbian Principality was formed, which was in vassal dependence on the Porte, and in 1832 the Serbian Church received autonomy. The loss of state independence usually leads to the abolition of autonomy. In 1878, Bosnia and Herzegovina was liberated from Turkish rule and was occupied by Austria-Hungary, two years later the Bosno-Herzegovina Church received autonomy from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but with the entry of Bosnia into Yugoslavia, autonomy was abolished.

The status of autonomous Churches is intermediate, transitional, and therefore two trends are observed in history in the fate of autonomous Churches: some Churches eventually grow to autocephaly and eventually receive it, while others lose autonomy, turning into ordinary metropolitan districts or dioceses.

At present, our diptychs know three autonomous Churches: the ancient Sinai Church, the first and only bishop of which, with the title of Archbishop of Sinai, Faran and Raifa, receives consecration from the Patriarch of Jerusalem; Church in Japan: Her mother is the Russian Orthodox Church. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which gained independence in 1990, but retained its jurisdictional connection with the Russian Church, is close to autonomy in its status, although the term “autonomy” was not used in the tomos of Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Rus' on granting her independence.