Libmonster ID: RS-580

The article discusses ecclesiological issues that were included in the agenda of Pan-Orthodox Council but found no solution in the pre-conciliar debates: the Orthodox Diaspora; proclamation of autocephaly; the role of the Diptychs. The author then examines the issue of primacy in the Universal Church. All these questions can be combined and connected with the issue of the supreme or sovereign power in the Orthodox Church: its localization and mechanics for the implementation. The author examines content and essence of each issue, main approaches to their solution and attempts to reconcile them within the framework of the pre-conciliar discussions. The analysis reveals two ecclesiological models of the Orthodox Church structure and two approaches to understanding the sovereign power. These two models can be described by formulas: "first without equal" and "equal without the first". The first model confers supreme power on Ecumenical Patriarch who is the "first in honor." The second one insists on the fundamental equality of the autocephalous local churches and regards them as ecclesial sovereigns. The incompatibility of these models is the main cause of failure of all attempts to solve controversial issues within the pre-conciliar process.

Keywords: autocephaly, Ecumenical Patriarchate, inter-Orthodox relations, Moscow Patriarchate, Orthodox Diaspora, Orthodox Church, pan-Orthodox council, Diptychs, primacy in the Church, sovereign.

page 210
Council agenda and controversial issues

In ORTHODOX ecclesiology, the general church council is conceived as the bearer of supreme authority in the Orthodox Church, as the highest authority called to resolve disputes and conflicts that arise between local churches on all possible issues of church life (dogmatic, canonical, liturgical, disciplinary, etc.). The last council, the status of which is recognized by all churches as general church, was held in 787 in Nicaea near Constantinople. For more than a thousand years, the local churches solved their problems without calling a general church council, but already at the end of the 19th century, the first proposals were made to revive this instance of supreme power in the church1. In the 1920s and 1930s. at the initiative of the Patriarch of Constantinople, several attempts were made to convene a representative pan-Orthodox forum, but all of them failed, as their church-wide status was disputed by a number of autocephalous local churches. The same can be said about the attempts made by the Russian Orthodox Church in the late 1940s2. Only in 1961, at the First Pan - Orthodox Conference in Rhodes, Greece, did the representatives of all the autocephalous churches agree to begin joint preparations for the convocation of the Pan-Orthodox Council.

The meeting adopted a catalog consisting of more than a hundred topics, 3 which were to be worked out during the pre-council process and submitted to the council in the form of agreed decisions requiring only approval. In 1976, at the First Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Meeting in Chambesy (Switzerland), this catalog was reduced to ten topics.4 We can assume that the order of these topics in the new catalog corresponded to the degree of their importance at that time. The first four positions were occupied by ecclesiological issues.-

1. See P. Ermilov's article "Discussions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries on the right to convene a Pan-Orthodox Council" in this issue of the journal.

2. See A. Gusev's article "The history of the preparation of the Pan-Orthodox Council" in this issue of the journal.

3. See Skobey G. N. Mezhpravoslavnoe sotrudnichestvo v podgotovke Svyatogo i Velikogo Sobor Vostochnoy Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi [Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church]. 2002. N 2 (19). С. 75. См. также: Ionita, V. (2014) Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church. Fribourg: Institute for Ecumenical Studies University of Fribourg, p. 147.

4. Ibid.

page 211
These are: (1) the Orthodox diaspora; (2) autocephaly and the method of its proclamation; (3) autonomy and the method of its proclamation; (4) diptychs. Indeed, by that time, the administration of the Orthodox diaspora, the proclamation of autocephaly and autonomy were far more divisive among the churches than the discipline of fasting and even the calendar question.5
By the mid-1980s, it was possible to prepare agreed decisions on six topics (N 5-10). Only in 2009 did an agreed solution on the topic of "autonomy" (approved by the Fifth Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council Meeting in 2015) and an interim solution on the topic of "Orthodox diaspora" appear, but this does not exhaust the problem.6
In March 2014, at the synaxis (meeting) of the primates of autocephalous local churches in Istanbul, a fundamental decision was made to convene the "Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church" in 2016. The meeting decided not to put on the agenda of the upcoming council those issues on which no agreed decisions were reached: "autocephaly and ways to proclaim it "and"diptychs". They were not included in the agenda of the special pre-council commission, which was called upon to finalize the drafts of all available documents in 2014-2015. 7
Three controversial ecclesiological topics that will be discussed in this article-the Orthodox diaspora, the proclamation of autocephaly, and the diptychs-can be combined into one problematic block. All of them are related to the question of supreme power in the Orthodox Church: its localization and mechanisms of implementation.

5. The pre-conciliar conference of 1976 itself was held without the participation of representatives of the Orthodox Church in America and the Japanese Orthodox Church, whose autocephaly and autonomy, respectively, granted to them by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1970, were not recognized by the Patriarchate of Constantinople - about which the Russian delegation officially expressed regret (G. N. Skobey, Inter-Orthodox Cooperation... p. 142). The Patriarchate of Constantinople also did not recognize the autocephalous status of the Georgian Church (autocephaly was proclaimed in 1917, recognized by the Russian Orthodox Church in 1943) and the Czech - Slovak Church (autocephaly was granted to the Russian Orthodox Church in 1957), and also claimed to rule the entire Orthodox diaspora.

6. For more information, see the section "The Problem of the Orthodox Diaspora" below.

7. For more information about the revision process, see article A. Gusev in this issue of the magazine.

page 212
The problem of the Orthodox Diaspora

The Orthodox Diaspora refers to "the totality of Orthodox communities located outside the canonical borders of the territories of historical Local Orthodox Churches"8. This understanding of the diaspora differs from the meaning given to this term in the social sciences. The ecclesiastical term refers to the field of ecclesiastical law and denotes one of the territorial forms of organization of the Orthodox Church.

Over the centuries, the structure of the church was formed according to the territorial principle. This meant that the entire Orthodox Church was divided into territorial units with a single control center and borders that were forbidden to be violated. These units were dioceses that were governed by bishops. The main elements of the territorial structure were fixed in canon law. Thus, the First Ecumenical Council defined: "Let there be no two bishops in the city" 9. And, for example, the boundaries of dioceses are mentioned in the 17th rule of the IV Ecumenical Council and in the 25th rule of the Council of Trull. Over time, the formula "one city - one bishop - one church" was applied to the description of the territorial structure of the Orthodox Church, which means that in a certain territory there can be only one diocese (the center of which is the cathedral city), headed by a bishop and belonging to one of the autocephalous local churches.

The growth of territories of local churches was carried out at the expense of missionary activity. So, for example, Ancient Russia became part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople as a missionary territory, and North America was long considered the missionary territory of the Russian Church, since it was Russian missionaries who brought Orthodoxy to this land. It should be noted that after the break of communion with the Roman Catholic Church, the local Orthodox churches did not consider the territory of the former as a missionary 10 and did not establish their dioceses on it.

The situation changed at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, when migrants from the former Soviet Union began to move to the New World and Western Europe.-

8. Diaspora / / Orthodox Encyclopedia, vol. 14. Moscow: TSNTS PE, 2007, p. 625.

9. 8th rule of the First Ecumenical Council.

10. At least within the borders of 1054.

page 213
in the Slavic countries. Many of these migrants did not want to break away from their cultural and religious roots and from the mother Church, which they left behind in their historical homeland. There was a situation when Orthodox Christians, culturally and religiously belonging to the traditions of different local Orthodox Churches, found themselves on the same territory. In the end, this situation was resolved by the establishment of dioceses of local Orthodox churches in these territories, whose jurisdictions were parallel to each other, and thus two or more bishops appeared in the "same city". Thus, the problem of the Orthodox diaspora emerged as a non-canonical, i.e. contrary to the church canons, method of organizing church administration in territories that go beyond the borders of historical autocephalous local churches.12
In the 1920s and 1930s. The patriarchs of Constantinople proposed their own solution to the problem of the Orthodox diaspora, which determined the course of discussion around this issue for many decades to come. The solution proposed by Patriarchs Meletius IV of Constantinople (1921-1923) and Photius II of Constantinople (1929-1935) was to subordinate the entire Orthodox Diaspora, i.e., the territory located outside the borders of the autocephalous local churches, to the First Hierarch of Constantinople. -

11. On the creation of parallel Orthodox jurisdictions in Western Europe, see, for example: Puzovich V. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Orthodox Diaspora in the XX century: polemics around the Creation of the Exarchate of Orthodox Russian Churches in Western Europe. Philosophy. 2014. Issue 5 (55), pp. 26-44.

12. Although the overwhelming majority of Orthodox canonists and theologians consider the existing system of government in the Orthodox diaspora to be contrary to church canons, there are attempts to rethink the formula "one city , one bishop , one church", taking into account the practice that has developed in the diaspora over the past hundred years.: Ukhtomsky A. A. Pravoslavnaya diaspora: problema formirovaniya kanonicheskogo statusa [Orthodox Diaspora: the Problem of forming Canonical status]. 2009. N 3(48). pp. 131-168.

13. One of the main critics of the Constantinople concept, Professor S. V. Troitsky, compiled a list of practical applications by the Patriarchate of Constantinople of his "newly invented theory on the mandatory and exclusive subordination of the entire Orthodox Diaspora to the Church of Constantinople" in the 1920s and 30s. Among the items on this list: in Czechoslovakia (on the canonical territory of the Serbian Church), the Cyril and Methodius Archdiocese was established under the jurisdiction of Constantinople (1923); the Finnish, Estonian and Polish Churches were subordinated to the same jurisdiction (1923); in Budapest (on the canonical territory of the Serbian Church), Metropolitan of Hungary and Exarch of Central Europe was installed (1924); the Russian bishop in America Adam was subordinated to the jurisdiction of Constantinople (1928); the Russian Metropolitan in Western Europe was admitted to the same jurisdiction-

page 214
opponents of this approach insisted that ethnic groups of emigrants should be subject to the jurisdiction of the mother Church14. The existence of two opposing approaches allowed church communities in the Diaspora to choose a suitable jurisdiction and argue for their behavior strategy if necessary. 15
The ecclesiological concept of the Patriarchs of Constantinople was based on a certain interpretation of a fragment from the 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which, in particular, states:"...Therefore, the metropolitans of the regions, Pontic, Asiatic and Thracian, and also the bishops of the foreigners of the above - mentioned regions, are delivered from the above-mentioned Holy See of the Holy Church of Constantinople"16. The expression "among the barbarians" (eν τοι β βαρβαρικοις; in Russian translation - "among foreigners") denoted, in the interpretation of Constantinople theologians, the territory beyond the canonical borders autocephalous local authorities churches, i.e. the Orthodox diaspora. In addition, the First Hierarchs of Constantinople associated their right to rule the entire Orthodox diaspora with the" primacy of honor "of their church in the sacred diptychs. 17 Opponents of the Constantinople approach, primarily representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate (Metropolitan Sergius of Stragorodsky) and the Russian Orthodox Church outside of Russia (Metropolitan Anthony of Khrapovitsky), denied the interpretation of the words "Primacy of honor" proposed by Constantinople.the barbarians", by which, from their point of view, they meant completely specific ones

ropa Evlogy with his subordinate bishops (1931); raised the question of subordination to the Church of Constantinople of all dioceses and parishes of the Serbian Church located outside the borders of Yugoslavia. (Troitsky S. V. O granitsakh rasprostraneniya prava vlasti Constantinopleskoy Patriarchii na "diasporu" [On the boundaries of the spread of the right of power of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the "Diaspora"].

14. Puzovich V. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Orthodox Diaspora in the XX century. pp. 32-33.

15. The case of Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky) is significant, who in 1924 argued with Patriarch Gregory VII of Constantinople about the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople over the entire Orthodox diaspora, and in 1931 moved with the Russian parishes in Western Europe headed by him to the jurisdiction of Constantinople on the basis of a previously criticized concept. On the transformation of Metropolitan Evlogy's views on this issue, see: Puzovich V. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Orthodox Diaspora in the XX century, pp. 35-38.

16. 28th rule of the Fourth Ecumenical Council.

17. For the sacred diptychs, see below.

page 215
Alans and Ross tribes that lived in the Black Sea region, but not Orthodox immigrants to Western Europe 18.

The discussion about the Orthodox diaspora resumed at a new level (in terms of developing arguments) in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The question of whether the Patriarch of Constantinople can govern the entire Orthodox diaspora continued to be at the center. One of the participants in this discussion, a prominent Russian canonist, Professor S. V. Troitsky, who defended the view of the Moscow Patriarchate, described the context in which the issue of diaspora governance was raised again:

But as soon as the Second Great War ended and the situation of the Russian Church improved, the reverse process of separation of dioceses and parishes from the Church of Constantinople and their return to the Mother Church, the Russian Patriarchate, also began.

A number of Russian Orthodox dioceses and parishes have already returned to the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, both within and outside the borders of the USSR.

The issue of returning to the Mother Church of the Finnish and Polish Churches was also raised. But in view of the fact that this issue has not yet been finally resolved and that in Western Europe a part of the Russian diaspora still considers itself subordinate to the jurisdiction of Constantinople, and also in view of the fact that Greek church circles apparently do not abandon their theory about the canonicity of subordination of the entire Orthodox diaspora to Constantinople, it is necessary to in itself, and in its application to the Finnish and Polish Churches 19.

It is worth adding that Metropolitan Evlogy himself returned to the Moscow Patriarchate in 1945, but not the Exarchate of Russian Churches in Western Europe, which remained under the jurisdiction of the Church of Constantinople.

The discussion of the 1940s and 1950s is also important because it was then that the main arguments of the polemicizing parties were polished, which are used in discussing the problem of the Orthodox diaspora to this day. One of the side results is-

18. For more information about the participants in the discussion on Diaspora governance in the 1920s and 1930s and the arguments presented by the parties, see: Puzovich V. The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Orthodox Diaspora in the XX century, pp. 32-41.

19. Troitsky S. V. On the limits of the extension of the right of power of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the "Diaspora". pp. 35-36.

page 216
the result of this discussion was the introduction of two terms used by the disputants to describe each other negatively: "neo-Papism" and "absolute autocephalism". Let us mention only two of the most important authors of this period.

In his article "On the limits of the Extension of the Authority of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the 'Diaspora'", Professor S. V. Troitsky made a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the church's use of the word 'barbarians' in the 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Troitsky, as well as Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) a decade earlier, came to the conclusion that" barbarians " should be understood as specific tribes that lived on the borders of the dioceses of Thrace, Asia and Pontus subordinate to the Church of Constantinople by Rule 28. But, unlike Metropolitan Sergius, Troitsky's conclusions were much more strongly based. In his article, he refers to the interpretation of the meaning of this word; to the explanation of the context in which it is used in the mentioned canon, as well as in other canons; to the opinion of authoritative Orthodox commentators on canon law and to historical data.

Starting the article with the fact that the patriarchs of Constantinople turned their "primacy of honor" into "primacy of power", Troitsky concluded by describing the Constantinople concept of diaspora governance as a "papist and anti-canonical heresy" 20. Troitsky's arguments and, in particular, his analysis of Rule 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council became the basis for his position for decades to come. Moscow Patriarchate in the controversy over the rights of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the Orthodox Diaspora 21.

20. Troitsky S. V. On the limits of the extension of the right of authority of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the "Diaspora". P. 45. S. V. Troitsky was criticized in the Constantinople theological journal " Orthodoksia "(1948, N 7-8-9, pp. 210-240) by Emmanuel Fotiadis, the future rector of the Halki Theological School of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (1950-1951) and a member of the delegations of the Patriarchate of Constantinople at Pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar meetings (1961, 1968, 1976, 1986). In response to Fotiadis, Troitsky wrote an article in which he developed a number of theses from his first work: Troitsky S. V. On the unsuccessful defense of a false theory / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1949. N 12. pp. 29-53. The discussion between Troitsky and Fotiadis was analyzed by the Archpriest. John Meyendorff (I. Meyendorff, prot. Constantinople and Moscow / / Church Bulletin of the Western European Orthodox Russian Exarchate. 1949. N 16. pp. 5-9).

21. For S. V. Troitsky's critique of the Constantinople position, see: Troitsky S. V. Canons and Eastern Papism // Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate. 1955. N 22. pp. 124-135; Troitsky S. V. Ecclesiology of the Paris schism // Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate. 1951. N 7/8. pp. 10-33.

page 217
It is noteworthy that by focusing on criticizing the "uncanonical" claims of the Patriarchs of Constantinople to rule the entire Orthodox diaspora, Troitsky sidestepped the question of the" uncanonicity " of parallel jurisdictions existing in the diaspora. It was this" weak spot " that the cleric of the Exarchate of Russian Churches in Western Europe, Priest Alexander Schmeman, drew attention to. In his article "On Neo-Papism", which defends, in particular, the right of the Patriarchs of Constantinople to govern the entire Orthodox diaspora, Schmemann moved away from the interpretation of the canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and focused on the question of the canonicity of parallel jurisdictions, thereby setting the discussion in a different direction.

Schmemann started from the claim that the Orthodox diaspora violated the principle of "local unity of the church", which required "local unity of command", that is, the presence of only one jurisdiction in any church territory. He suggested that " in places of Orthodox dispersion where there is no local Orthodox Church (i.e., an autocephalous church), the necessary local unity should be realized through the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch, as the first bishop in the Orthodox Church in honor."22. According to him, to prove that his idea is correct and Orthodox, he did not need "any special canonical exegesis or historical casuistry" (this obvious attack on the arguments of S. V. Troitsky is accompanied in the text by a reference to the aforementioned article of the latter). He wrote:

Even if there were no Rule 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (and indeed this canon can be interpreted in different ways, and in this case it can not be used at all) and other precedents, just the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarch is the first bishop gives every reason that it is he, and not anyone else, who should be able to do this, and not he took care of new ecclesiastical entities that had not yet reached the age of "autocephaly"... Which of the autocephalous Churches, if not the first, naturally secures this jurisdiction and thereby protects local unity in the places of dispersion?.. This does not mean the perpetuity of this jurisdiction, since it is quite conceivable that new autocephalous Churches will be created in the future... Any other decision, or

22. Schmeman A., prot. On" neopapism " / / Collection of articles (1947-1983), Moscow, 2009, p. 351.

page 218
it is incompatible with the local principle (pluralism of jurisdictions, if we recognize the" right " of each autocephaly to the diaspora), or it introduces arbitrariness and subjectivism into church life ... 23.

In his proposals, Schmemann sought to consistently defend the territorial (local) principle of church organization. On the one hand, it recognized the right of the Patriarchs of Constantinople to govern the Orthodox diaspora. On the other hand, he did not rule out the formation of new autocephalous churches in the Diaspora, which would remove these territories from the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical See. Later, in 1970, Schmemann noted with regret that his efforts to resolve the canonical problems of the diaspora were met with "complete indifference"on the part of Greek and Phanar circles24. However, it can hardly be said that the theologians of Constantinople were indifferent to Schmemann's argument. One of the main defenders of the primacy and special rights of the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Metropolitan Maximos (Tsausis) of Sardis, in his seminal work "The Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church"25 actively used his arguments concerning the rights of Constantinople to the diaspora.

Given the urgency and urgency of the discussions, the problem of the Orthodox diaspora could not but become one of the main topics of the pan-Orthodox pre-council process. Indirectly, it was already touched upon at the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Conference on Mount Athos (1930) .26 In the list of topics of the upcoming Pre-Council approved by the First Pan-Orthodox Conference in Rhodes (1961), this problem was formulated as "Orthodoxy and the Diaspora. The present status and canonical formalization of the Orthodox Diaspora"27. However, later it was not included in the re-

23. Schmeman A., prot. On "Neopapism", p. 351.

24. Schmeman A., prot. Significant storm // Collection of articles (1947-1983), Moscow, 2009, p. 564.

25. Maximos, Metropolitan of Sardes (1976). The Oecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church. Thessaloniki: Patriarchal institute for patristic studies.

26. Paragraph 4 of the "Athos catalog" of topics for the future Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council stated: "Study of the present situation in the Orthodox Church of America and the means of its healing and improvement "(Scobey G. N. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church, p. 67).

27. Ibid., p. 78.

page 219
The list of topics selected by the Fourth Pan-Orthodox Conference (1968) from the Rhodes catalog 28 and distributed among the churches for their study 29.

At the First Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Meeting in Chambesy (1976), it was decided to revise and reduce the Rhodes catalog to ten items. The topic under consideration, now called "Orthodox Diaspora", has not only been preserved in the new catalog, but has also been placed in the first line of the updated list. 30 However, the discussion of this topic in the pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar process began only in 1986. Participants of the Third Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Conference (1986), discussing the procedure and agenda of the next meeting, which included the topics "Orthodox diaspora", "autocephaly and the procedure for its proclamation", "autonomy and the procedure for its proclamation", "diptychs", noted that all four topics are "closely related", that They are "rooted in the long canonical tradition and ecclesiastical practice of the Orthodox Church and have a direct or indirect bearing on its current canonical problems." The latter, according to the meeting participants, "requires exceptional sensitivity in the approach to each of these topics" .31 And indeed, given the acuteness of the controversy surrounding the status of the Orthodox Diaspora and the rights of the patriarchs of Constantinople

28. Skobey G. N. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church. p. 85

29. The Russian Church has prepared materials for the entire "Rhodes catalog" in advance. It was prepared by a theological commission established in 1963 by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church specifically to develop issues included in the agenda of the pre-conciliar process. The Commission completed its work in 1968, and the result of its activities was a set of documents that set out the position of the Russian Orthodox Church on all the topics of the catalog of the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Council (see: Draft resolutions // Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) and Pan-Orthodox unity. To the 30th anniversary of the death of Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) of Leningrad and Novgorod / Comp. prot. Vladimir Sorokin. SP B.: Knyaz-Vladimirsky Sobor Publishing House, 2008, pp. 80-238). The commission proposed to solve the problem of the Orthodox diaspora in the following way. In the Diaspora, clergy and laity maintain canonical subordination to the Mother Church, meaning that each autocephalous church administers the dioceses and parishes it has established or accepted under its jurisdiction. But at the same time, it is said that all local Orthodox churches should strive to ensure that new autocephaly is organized in the territories of the Diaspora.

30. Skobey G. N. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church. P. 144.

31. Ibid., p. 179

page 220
despite managing it, it was hard to imagine any direct path to reaching agreement.

The views of the local churches were presented in the form of reports sent to the secretariat for the preparation of the council, located in Chambesy. Seven autocephalous local churches-Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Russian, Romanian, Hellenic 32 and Polish-submitted reports on the topic of the Diaspora. The Russian Church sent comments to the report of the Church of Alexandria, while the Romanian Church provided additional text. The comparison of positions revealed the existing crisis in attempts to solve the problem of the Diaspora, as Metropolitan Damascene of Switzerland (Papandreou), Secretary of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission that met to discuss this issue on November 10-17, 1990 in Chambesy, testified in his report containing a comparative analysis of the opinions of autocephalous local churches.33
All the churches that submitted reports stated that the issue of the Diaspora was extremely problematic and serious. 34 Metropolitan Damascene's analysis shows that there were two approaches to solving the problem of the diaspora: the first one assumed the subordination of the diaspora to the Ecumenical First Hierarch, and the second one left the mother Church the right to care for its flock in the Diaspora. He divided the arguments presented in defense of this or that approach into three criteria, or principles.

The first-canonical-criterion suggests that "the only correct and viable solution to the problem of administrative organization of the Orthodox diaspora can and should be based on the relevant sacred canons of Ecumenical Councils, which can be correctly interpreted only on the basis of their centuries-old application in the non-Orthodox world."-

32. The report of the Church of Greece was compiled by Professor Vlasius Fidas, who was a member of the delegation of the Church of Jerusalem at the I-III Pan - Orthodox Pre-Council Meetings, and of the Church of Constantinople at the IV Pan-Orthodox Meeting (2009) (see Ionita, V. Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church, p. 207-210). Currently, he heads the Orthodox Center of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in Chambesy, on the basis of which the secretariat for the preparation of the council operates.

33. Damaskin (Papandreou), mitr. Orthodox Diaspora. Report at the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission (1990) / / Damaskin (Papandreou), mitr. Orthodoxy and the world. Athens: Livani Nea Sinora, pp. 213-238.

34. Ibid., pp. 213-214.

page 221
breakthrough church practice " 35. These included the 2nd and 3rd rules of the Second Ecumenical Council; the 9th, 17th, and 28th rules of the Fourth Ecumenical Council; and the 36th rule of the Council of Trull. According to the position of the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria and Greece, these canons grant the Ecumenical Patriarch the right to exercise his jurisdiction in the Orthodox Diaspora, that is, beyond the clearly defined borders of autocephalous churches. The reports of these churches actually repeated the argument that was proposed by Patriarch Meletios IV in the 1920s and developed in the writings of Greek theologians, such as Metropolitan Maximos (Tsausis). The reports of the Russian Church - the main and supplementary reports-fully cited the counterargument of S. V. Troitsky and other authoritative Russian theologians who held a similar position. The report of the Romanian Church also stated that Rule 28 "is not universal and does not apply to diasporas." 36 Representatives of the Russian Church even raised the question of the validity of these canons in our time, when Constantinople is no longer the capital of the Roman Empire and the center of Eastern Christianity. 37 In contrast to the right to govern the diaspora on the basis of a broad understanding of the words "among barbarians", the report affirmed the right of newly converted peoples to submit to the jurisdiction of the mother Church38. The Russian Church accused Constantinople of anti-canonical actions on the territory of North America, which it considered its canonical territory.39
35. Damascene (Papandreou), mitr. Orthodox Diaspora, p. 218.

36. Ibid., p. 221

37. In the 28th canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, it is stated in part: "Following the same impulse, one hundred and fifty God-loving bishops presented equal advantages to the Holy See of new Rome, having justly judged that a city that has received the honor of being the city of the king and the synclite (emphasis added), and having equal advantages with the Holy See of old royal Rome, and in ecclesiastical affairs will be exalted in the same way, and there will be a second after it." The report of the Russian Church notes that "the reasons that led to the elevation of the metropolitan bishop are already completely absent: there is no Roman empire, no emperor, Constantinople is not the capital, not the center of Eastern Christianity" (Damascene (Papandreou), mitr. Orthodox Diaspora, p. 220).

38. Damaskin (Papandreou), mitr. Orthodox Diaspora, p. 221.

39. In 1922, the Church of Constantinople established an archdiocese in North America, which included Greek parishes. Previously, different ethnic parishes (Russian, Serbian, Arab, Greek, etc.) were under the jurisdiction of the bishop who ruled the American Metropolia of the Russian Church. For more information, see, for example: Tarasar, C. J., Erickson, J. H. (ed.) (1975) Orthodox

page 222
The second-the criterion (or, more precisely, the criteria) of national or missionary motherhood-was defended by the Russian, Romanian and Polish Churches. Papandreou stipulates that this pricnr is also present in the reports of all other churches, but in them it "is not raised to the level of an absolute canonical criterion in the administrative organization of the Orthodox diaspora" 40. According to the missionary criterion, "The Church that undertook missionary activity acquired canonical rights and exercised jurisdiction over the newborn church." 41 The national criterion assumed that the mother church should take care of its flock in the Diaspora because of pastoral responsibility for it. It was the national (ethnic) factor and pastoral responsibility that the Romanian Church attributed to the possibility of violating the "one city, one bishop" principle in the Diaspora.42 The Churches of Constantinople and Greece strongly rejected the national principle, referring to the fact that the introduction of nationalism and racism into Orthodox ecclesiology was condemned by the Council.43
Finally, the third criterion that Papandreou highlighted is the criterion of honor advantage. This criterion was proposed in the report of the Church of Greece as "the only way to overcome the impasse of jurisdiction in the Orthodox Diaspora on a canonical basis" .44 The essence of this proposal was to subordinate the Orthodox Diaspora to the Patriarch of Constantinople, not on the basis of canons (which are subject to endless academic disputes), but on the basis of his primacy the place of honor that he occupies in the sacred diptychs. The report noted that the primacy of honor "is not just an honorary title, but presupposes canonically grounded church service, which has always been present in the life of the Orthodox Church." 45 In contrast to this

America 1794-1976: Development of the Orthodox Church in America. Syosset, NY: Orthodox Church in America Department of History and Archives.

40. Damascene (Papandreou), mitr. Orthodox Diaspora, p. 223.

41. Ibid., p. 223.

42. Ibid., p. 224.

43. This refers to the decisions of the Council of Constantinople of 1872, which condemned as heresy ethnophyletism, which presupposed the primacy of national-political (tribal) interests over those of the general church.

44. Damaskin (Papandreou), mitr. Orthodox Diaspora, p. 226.

45. Ibid., p. 227.

page 223
The Russian and Romanian Churches have stated in their reports that all autocephalous local churches are equally honest and equal.

In the final part of his report, Metropolitan Damaskin stated that drawing up a general draft document on the problem of the Orthodox diaspora is possible under several conditions:

First, not to touch, at least temporarily, on the question of the canonical claims of the Ecumenical Patriarchate to exclusive and immediate jurisdiction over the entire Orthodox diaspora...

Second, to overcome the criterion of national or missionary motherhood as an absolute and independent criterion both for the organization of the Orthodox diaspora and for its relations with the mother Church...

Third, avoid committing to a time when self-government, or autonomy, or even autocephaly will be gradually granted to some of the Orthodox churches of the Diaspora, and most likely start this procedure after an acceptable canonical solution to the whole problem is found...46.

Thus, Metropolitan Damaskin suggested simply removing all problematic issues when discussing the issue of the Diaspora. The commission, which was chaired by Metropolitan Bartholomew of Chalcedon (who became Ecumenical Patriarch a few months later), concluded that " at the present stage, an immediate transition to a strict canonical order of the Church on this issue is impossible for historical and pastoral reasons."47. The Commission decided on a transition period during which "the ground would be set for a strictly canonical solution to the problem". At this transitional stage, it was proposed to create episcopal assemblies in various regions of the diaspora of "all canonically recognized bishops of those regions" under the chairmanship of "the first of the subordinate bishops".

46. Damaskin (Papandreou), mitr. Orthodox Diaspora, p. 235.

47. Skobey G. N. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church. p. 182.

page 224
Bishops of the Church of Constantinople, and in the absence thereof-according to the order of the diptychs " 48.

The decision to organize episcopal conferences was a compromise that the churches made in order to move forward with the issue. It should be noted that the compromise found suited many people also because everyone could interpret this decision in their own way, without changing their position. Constantinople could see the fact that its bishops preside over episcopal assemblies as a step towards their subordination to its jurisdiction.49 Moscow saw episcopal conferences as a basis for organizing autocephalous churches in various regions of the Diaspora. Bucharest was satisfied that the jurisdiction of the Mother Church in the Diaspora was preserved.

The issue of the diaspora was considered again at the 1993 Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission and at the special conference of Orthodox canonists held in Chambesy in 1995 as part of the pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar process. Texts prepared in 1990, 1993, and 1995 were considered at the Fourth Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Meeting in 2009,50 Based on these documents, the meeting drew up and approved two documents: "The Orthodox Diaspora" 51 and "Rules of Procedure for the work of Episcopal Assemblies in the Orthodox Diaspora" 52. These documents were approved without changes by the synaxis of the primates of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches in January 2016 and included in the agenda of the upcoming Pan-Orthodox Council. The first document sets out the compromise solutions that were proposed back in 1990: the transition period, episcopal assemblies, etc.

48. Skobey G. N. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church. p. 182.

49. For example, A. Gusev in his article cites evidence that in 2009 Archimandrite Elpidophorus (Lambriniadis) - now Metropolitan of Prussia, and then General Secretary of the Synod of the Church of Constantinople - "commenting on the role of episcopal conferences, noted that they are a temporary measure on the way to subordination of the Diaspora to the Ecumenical Patriarchate" (see fig. article by A. Gusev in this issue of the journal.

50. Ionita, V. Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church, pp. 93-98.

51. For the Russian version of the document, see: Orthodox Diaspora / / Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate. 30.01.2016 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4362795.html, accessed on 10.02.2016].

52. For the Russian version of the document, see: Regulations for the work of Episcopal assemblies in the Orthodox Diaspora / / Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate. 30.01.2016 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4362819.html, accessed on 10.02.2016].

page 225
The document emphasizes that episcopal assemblies "do not deprive bishops, their members, of administrative and canonical powers and do not restrict their rights in the Diaspora." It is also stated that the purpose of organizing episcopal assemblies is "to form a common position of the Orthodox Church on various issues, which in no case prevents member bishops who remain accountable to their Churches from expressing the views of their Churches to the outside world."53 The last paragraph of the document states:

The Orthodox Churches undertake not to take any actions that may harm the above-described process of canonical settlement of the Diaspora issue, and will do everything possible to facilitate the work of Episcopal assemblies and restore normal canonical order in the Diaspora.54
At the same time, the document under consideration does not say how exactly episcopal assemblies should contribute to the restoration of a normal canonical order (which by default implies the principle of "one city, one bishop, one church"), nor how this order should be understood in the current situation. On the contrary, it emphasizes the interim nature of the decision taken. In particular, the document begins with the words: "It is stated that it is the common will of all the Most Holy Orthodox Churches to resolve the problem of the diaspora and its organization as soon as possible in accordance with Orthodox ecclesiology, canonical tradition and practice of the Orthodox Church."55
It also states that the preparation of a canonical solution to the problem "should not be delayed until the Holy and Great Council, which will be convened in the future, so that the Council can reach a canonical solution to this problem" 56. This statement is internally contradictory, because it is this document that was submitted to the council, which does not offer any "canonical solution".

This circumstance has led to disagreements on the degree of elaboration of the problem of the Orthodox diaspora

53. Orthodox Diaspora, 5.

54. Ibid., 7.

55. Ibid., 1a.

56. Ibid., 1b.

page 226
in the period between two synaxis of the primates of autocephalous local churches - 2014, at which the decision to convene a Pan-Orthodox Council was made, and 2016, at which the document was approved. In the autumn of 2015, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church expressed "deep concern over the lack of a draft conciliar decision on the Orthodox Diaspora. "57 Archpriest Nikolai Balashov, Deputy Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations and a regular participant in the Pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar process, commented on this statement:

The Holy Synod noted that the Orthodox diaspora is one of the most important issues on the Council's agenda, but there is still no elaborated and agreed draft council decision on it... The experience of episcopal assemblies, even the most successful ones, shows that at present the general basis for a new canonical decision has not yet been developed. At the same time, the issue of the diaspora is on the council's agenda. It inevitably follows that for the Council to hold a fruitful meeting, it is necessary to develop a draft of a new definition on this issue, which cannot simply be identical with the already existing decision of the Pan-Orthodox Conference of 200958.

The differences were resolved during the discussion of the draft document at synaxis in January 2016. The Primate of the Russian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Kirill, commented on the results of this discussion in his report to the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on February 2, 2016.:

In 2009, it was assumed that this provision would remain in effect temporarily, until the Pan-Orthodox Council made a different, already permanent decision. However, an objective, sober view of the problem of the diaspora, and most importantly, the already accumulated experience of the work of Episcopal Assemblies, which, on the one hand, clearly testify to the unity of the Orthodox Church, and on the other, confirm the natural right of each of the Local Churches.

57. Journal No. 71 of the meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of 22.10.2015 / / Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate. 22.10.2015 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4250904.html, accessed from 10.02.2016]

58. Balashov N., prot. Pre-conciliar meetings: Local churches are preparing for the Pan-Orthodox Council / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2016. N 1. pp. 28-30.

page 227
We have shown that no new conciliar decisions on this topic are required, and the current practice of Episcopal assemblies should be preserved for the future 59.

The words of Patriarch Kirill can be understood in two ways: as the primates ' desire to either "freeze" the problem, or to legitimize the current situation of the diaspora (a plurality of jurisdictions in one territory), that is, to consider this situation canonical. The latter will still require a new conciliar decision in addition to the one contained in the document "Orthodox Diaspora", since it emphasizes the non-canonical status of the current situation of the diaspora and the temporary nature of this decision.

Proclamation of autocephaly

Autocephalous means "a local church that is completely independent and independent of any other local church... [it] has an independent source of power. Its first bishop, its head, is appointed by his bishops. " 60
The modern understanding of autocephaly differs from the ancient church and medieval ones and was formed in the Modern era under the influence of the processes of formation of national sovereign states. In this sense, the modern autocephalous system, which is characteristic of the structure of the Orthodox Church in our time, is modern in its historical origin. It can be said that " what is called autocephaly in the church corresponds to what is understood as sovereignty in the political interstate sphere."61. The principle of autocephaly presupposes non-interference in the internal affairs of the autocephalous Church by other autocephalous churches; inviolability of the borders of its canonical territory;

59. Report of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on February 2, 2016 / / Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate. 02.02.2016 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4366063.html, accessed on 10.02.2016].

60. Autocephaly // Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya [Orthodox Encyclopedia], vol. 1, Moscow: TSNTS PE, 2000, p. 200.

61. 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. P. 201.

page 228
equality of autocephalous churches as subjects of inter-church relations 62.

The proclamation of autocephaly in Modern times went hand in hand with the creation of sovereign national states, which gave the very process of its acquisition a shade of struggle for independence within the framework of the national liberation movement. The first was the autocephaly of the Church of Greece, proclaimed in 1833 on the territory of Greece, which in 1822 gained independence from the Ottoman Empire. Previously, the dioceses that became part of the Church of Greece belonged to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, whose head resided in Ottoman Istanbul and had the special status granted to him by the sultans as the head of all Orthodox Christians in the empire - Millet Bashi. The proclamation of autocephaly was followed by a break in communion between ecclesiastical Constantinople and Athens. The autocephaly of the Church of Greece was recognized by the Mother Church only in 1850.

The slow disintegration of the Ottoman Empire led to the creation of national states in the Balkans and in the western Black Sea region - in territories where the majority of the Orthodox population lived. Together with the formation of national states, the proclamation of autocephaly of the local churches of these countries followed. In 1865, autocephaly was proclaimed by the Romanian Church (recognized by Constantinople in 1885), in 1872 - by the Bulgarian Church (recognized in 1945), in 1922-by the Albanian Church (recognized in 1937). All these churches left the Patriarchate of Constantinople, so no one challenged the patriarch's priority right to their rights. recognition and granting of the tomos of autocephaly.

The situation became more complicated when the Russian Empire ceased to exist and its gradual disintegration began. The Georgian Church was the first to declare its autocephaly (1917; recognized by Moscow in 1943). In 1923, the Council of Bishops of the Polish Orthodox Church, which was under the jurisdiction of the Russian Church, elected a primate, who was confirmed in office by Patriarch Meletius IV of Constantinople, and not by the Moscow church authorities. 63
62. On the principle of autocephaly, see also my article: Shishkov, A. (2015)" Einige Besonderheiten der Position der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche im panorthodoxen vorkonziliaren Prozess", Una Sancta 2(70): 119-129. Also see article A. Kyrlezheva in this issue of the magazine.

63. Patriarch Meletius IV argued that in 1688 the Kiev Metropolia, which included the dioceses now belonging to the Polish Church, was illegally annexed to the Russian Church.

page 229
In 1924, Patriarch Gregory VII of Constantinople signed a tomos granting autocephaly to the Polish Church, and in 1925, Patriarch Basil III solemnly proclaimed it.64 In addition to granting autocephaly, the Patriarchs of Constantinople unilaterally assumed jurisdiction over the dioceses of the Russian Church in Finland (1923), Estonia (1923), and Latvia (1935), the former two being granted autonomy.

Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, a contemporary Russian canonist, believes that these acts are closely linked to the concept of Patriarch Meletius IV of the special rights of the patriarchs of Constantinople to the Orthodox diaspora. Churches in the countries that gained independence from Russia as a result of the events of 1917 were considered diaspora by the First hierarchs of Constantinople.65
The problem with the proclamation/abolition of ecclesiastical autocephaly is that it is not regulated in any way by the canonical law of the Orthodox Church: there is no single canonically established procedure for the proclamation/abolition of autocephaly, nor clear criteria that a local church must meet in order to claim autocephalous status.66 In fact, every proclamation/abolition of autocephaly was an extraordinary event.67 As a rule, the proclamation of autocephaly by the local church was accompanied by a break in communion with the mother Church, which could last from several years to a century or more. Accordingly, the position of such a church became uncanonical.

64. The Polish Orthodox Church returned to the jurisdiction of the Russian Church in 1948 and received autocephaly from it in the same year.

65. Tsypin V., prot. Course of Church Law, Moscow, 2002, pp. 284-285.

66. Archpriest John Erickson, an American Orthodox canonist and church historian, notes that "the canons themselves, being a product of the empire and conditioned by the very existence of the Christian empire, failed to provide consistent and unambiguous answers to the current problem [of autocephaly]" (Erickson, J. H. (1991) The Challenge of Our Past: Studies in Orthodox Canon Law and Church History, pp. 109-110. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press).

67. As Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), Chairman of the Moscow Patriarchate's Department for External Church Relations, points out, "it has most often happened in history that a particular church unilaterally declared its autocephalous status and only then, years later, was its autocephaly recognized by other churches": Hilarion (Alfeyev), Mitr. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in preparation for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church / / Official website of the DECR MP. 03.11.2011 [https://mospat.ru/ru/2011/11/03/news50_923/, accessed from 04.06.2014].

page 230
Attempts to solve this problem were mainly limited to bridging this gap and eliminating the "legal vacuum" that it created. To fill this "vacuum", it was necessary to develop a mechanism that would provide a legal way to grant and recognize autocephaly. All the proposed solutions were limited to finding a source of supreme power that could implement the proclamation of autocephaly. These sources in different models were: the Ecumenical Patriarch, the General Church Council, the Mother Church 68. It is interesting that the fact of self-declaration of autocephaly was not considered as a manifestation of power, since all decisions were proposed mainly in a strictly legalistic manner.69
The issue of proclaiming and recognizing autocephaly was included in the agenda of the pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar process at the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Meeting on Mount Athos in 1930,70 In the catalog of the First Pan-Orthodox Conference (1961), this topic was formulated as follows:: "Proclamation of autocephaly: a) Who proclaims it; b) Prerequisites and conditions; c) The method of proclaiming autocephaly; d) Which Churches are now recognized as autocephalous " 71. In the abridged catalog adopted by the First Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Conference in Chambesy (1976), this topic was formulated "Autocephaly and the method of its proclamation" .72 As with the issue of the Orthodox Diaspora, its development began in the late 1980s. The views of the autocephalous local churches on this topic were presented in the form of reports that were sent to the secretariat for the preparation of the Council of Chambesy. Submitted their reports: Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Russian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Greek and Polish Churches. The first discussion on autocephaly took place at a meeting of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission, which met in Chambesy on 7-13 November 1993. Secretary of the Commission-

68. For the latest model, see the classic work: Troitsky S. V. On Church autocephaly / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1948. N 7. pp. 33-54.

69. See my criticism of the legalist approach to the proclamation of autocephaly in the article: Shishkov A. Church autocephaly through the prism of Karl Schmitt's Theory of Sovereignty. p. 211.

70. Ionita, V. Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church, p. 113.

71. Skobey G. N. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church. p. 78.

72. Ibid., p. 144.

page 231
sii-Metropolitan of Damascus (Papandreou) presented a report to the participants of the meeting, which contained a comparative analysis of various positions.

The report noted that "the main differences do not relate to the very essence of the institution of autocephaly, but mainly to the method of its proclamation, i.e., to the established procedure and to the competent ecclesiastical authority initiating this procedure" 73. In other words, the main differences concerned who has the power to proclaim autocephaly and how it will be formalized in order to be recognized by all. As in the issue of the diaspora, the parties were divided as follows: on the one hand, the Greek churches - Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Greece - spoke, on the other-Russian, Romanian, Bulgarian and Polish.

The Greek churches considered that the proclamation of autocephaly was a church-wide matter, and argued that the power to proclaim autocephaly belonged to an ecumenical or pan - Orthodox council.74 With regard to the method of proclaiming autocephaly, the Greek Churches emphasized the special role of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in this process.75 Another group of churches insisted that the issue of granting and proclaiming autocephaly was entirely within the competence of the mother Church.76
Metropolitan of Damascus notes that all autocephalous local churches in their reports recognize the need for a pan-Orthodox consensus on the issue of proclaiming autocephaly to any local church. However, according to him, there are two trends in understanding how this consensus should be achieved:

The first one understands pan-Orthodox consensus within the framework of established and established ecumenical [pan-Orthodox] relations. - A. Sh.] structures of the Orthodox Church through the canonical initiative of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the second considers the proclamation of-

73. Damaskin (Papandreou), mitr. Autocephaly and the method of its proclamation // Damaskin (Papandreou), mitr. Orthodoxy and the world. Athens: Livani Nea Sinora, p. 250.

74. Ibid., pp. 247-248.

75. Ibid., p. 251.

76. Ibid., pp. 248-249.

page 232
The decision to grant autocephaly to any local Church is an internal, so to speak, matter of the autocephalous Mother Church, to which the pan-Orthodox consensus must adapt to a greater or lesser extent.77
At the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission, such a procedure for proclaiming autocephaly was proposed: 1) the ecclesiastical council, having received a request for autocephaly from a subordinate ecclesiastical region, considers this issue at its local council; 2) in the event of a positive conciliar decision, the ecclesiastical council submits the issue to the Church of Constantinople for consideration in order to find a pan-Orthodox consensus; 3) the pan-Orthodox consensus is expressed by unanimous support for this decision by the councils of all autocephalous churches; 4) the Patriarch of Constantinople officially submits the issue to the proclaims autocephaly by issuing a corresponding tomos, which is signed by him, the primate of the Mother Church and (preferably) the primates of all other autocephalous churches. However, in a note to the document adopted at the commission meeting, it was stated that the last element of the procedure (the Patriarch of Constantinople issues a tomos) will be considered additionally at the next meetings, since no consensus was reached on it.78
The participants of the Pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar process returned to the question of who should sign the tomos on autocephaly at the meeting of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission on December 9-17, 2009. The Commission decided that the tomos of autocephaly should be signed by the Ecumenical Patriarch and all primates of autocephalous churches.79 Final approval of the issue of autocephaly was postponed until the next meeting of the preparatory commission. However, the commission, which met on February 21-27, 2011, was unable to find an agreed solution on this issue. According to the head of the Russian delegation, Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), "the discussion was not easy, and at this stage it has not yet been possible to reach a final agreement on this issue."-

77. Damaskin (Papandreou), mitr. Autocephaly and the method of its proclamation. p. 250.

78. Skobey G. N. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church. p. 187.

79. Hilarion (Alfeyev), mitr. Inter-Orthodox Cooperation in preparation for the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church; Ionita, V. Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church, pp. 100-101.

page 233
mu question " 80. Since the issue of autocephaly and the methods of its proclamation had not been agreed upon by the time of the historic decision to convene the Pan-Orthodox Council, it was removed from its agenda. Patriarch Kirill, in his report to the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church in February 2016, complained that the development of this topic was suspended. According to him, "only the procedure for signing this tomos remains an unresolved issue on this topic." 81
The rejection of the commission's 2009 decision may be seen as an attempt to return to the wording of 1993, which established the special prerogatives of the Patriarch of Constantinople, such as the publication of the tomos on autocephaly. It is noteworthy that in January 2014, the official website of the Ecumenical Patriarchate published an article by the rector of the Halki Theological School, Metropolitan Elpidophorus (Lambriniadis) of Prussia, which was a response to the document "The Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on Primacy in the Ecumenical Church". The article, in particular, stated that one of the prerogatives of the Patriarch of Constantinople, related to his primacy of honor in the sacred diptychs, is "the right to grant or withdraw autocephaly" 82.

Diptychs

The Holy diptychs are a list of autocephalous local Orthodox churches arranged "in order of honor". Diptychs are used in the practice of liturgical commemoration by the primate of each autocephalous church of the primates of other local churches, as well as in the church's diplomatic protocol. This commemoration symbolizes the communion of autocephalous churches and is an expression of the unity of the Orthodox Church. In the XX-XXI centuries, diptychs became increasingly important in matters of inter-church relations and church administration.

80. Hilarion (Alfeyev), mitr. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in preparation for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church.

81. Report of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on February 2, 2016

82. Lambriniadis, E. (2014) "The First without the equals: A response to the text on primacy of the Moscow Patriarchate." Ecumenical Patriarchate [http://www.ec-patr.org/arxeio/elp2014-01-en.pdf, accessed on 11. 02. 2016].

page 234
For the first time, the arrangement of church departments in a certain order is found in the 6th rule of the First Ecumenical Council (325), which refers to the special position of the three departments of the largest cities of the Roman Empire-Alexandria, Rome and Antioch (in the order of mention in the canon). However, this rule did not specify this order in any way and did not attribute primacy to any of the mentioned departments. But already in the second half of the fourth century, the rule was reinterpreted in the Roman Church; in particular, the phrase "The Roman Church always had primacy"was introduced83. In 382, the Council of Rome, under the presidency of Pope Damasus (366-384), approved the order of the main sees, whose rank was determined by the connection with the Apostle Peter: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch (the chairs mentioned in the 6th rule of the Council of Nicaea 325).

The concept of primacy or privilege of honor first appears in the 3rd Canon of the Second Ecumenical Council (381). It says that the bishop of Constantinople, the new capital of the empire since 330, became the second most honored bishop after the Bishop of Rome, on the grounds that this city became the New Rome. The position of the See of Constantinople in the hierarchy of honor was later confirmed by Rule 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (451).

In 541, Emperor Justinian published a list of the "holiest patriarchs of the entire universe", which included the primates of the five sees: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem (Novella 109). This list became the basis for sacred diptychs. It also later developed the doctrine of "pentarchy", according to which the church is governed by five main - patriarchal-thrones. 84 This order was established by Rule 36 of the Council of Trull (691-692). After the break with the Eastern Orthodox Churches in 1054, the Roman Church was excluded from the holy diptychs of the Orthodox Church, and the primacy of honor passed to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 1590, at the Council of Constantinople,

83. See about it: Peter (L'Huillier), Archbishop Rules of the first four Ecumenical Councils, Moscow, 2005, pp. 110-111.

84. The doctrine of the pentarchy emerged as a reaction to the claim of the Roman Church to sole control of the entire Church. Its peculiarity was that, on the one hand, it emphasized the collective nature of church administration, and on the other, it did not deny the primacy of honor of the Roman See, which is fixed by the canons. Pentarchy has remained a theory that has never been implemented in practice.

page 235
held on the occasion of the establishment of the patriarchate in the Russian Church, it was assigned the 5th place in the sacred diptychs.

Today, the holy diptychs are a list of autocephalous local churches (or their primates, as in the diptychs used in the liturgy), with the churches that have the status of the Patriarchate at the top and all the others at the bottom. The diptychs do not have a single logic for forming the order of churches - different parts of the diptychs obey their own logic. 85 Moreover, the difference in approaches has led to the formation of several versions of sacred diptychs that contradict each other. In the diptychs used by the Constantinople and Russian churches, the first five positions coincide (this is the "truncated pentarchy" and the Russian Church, which received its place in the diptychs by the decision of the Council of Constantinople in 1590), but then there are discrepancies.

In the" Constantinople diptychs", places 6 to 9 belong to autocephalous churches with the status of patriarchates. They are distributed according to the chronological sequence of recognition by the Patriarchate of Constantinople of their last declaration of autocephaly: Serbian (1879), Romanian (1895), Bulgarian (1945), Georgian (1990). In the 10th place is the Church of Cyprus, whose autocephaly was confirmed by the decision of the third Ecumenical Council (431). This church does not have the status of a patriarchate and is headed by an archbishop. Other autocephalous churches are ranked 11-14, also in accordance with the time when the Patriarchate of Constantinople recognized their autocephaly: Hellenic (1850), Polish (1924), Albanian (1937), Czech lands and Slovakia (1998).

In the" Moscow diptychs " on the 6th-9th places there are also autocephalous churches with the status of patriarchates. But the sequence of recognition of their last autocephaly by the Russian Church does not explain their position. On the 6th place is Georgian

85. Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, one of the leading contemporary Russian canonists, writes that "the diptych is based on various principles: the antiquity of Churches, the chronological sequence of the proclamation of autocephaly, and the political significance of cities with the first bishops 'cathedrals" (Tsypin V., prot. Course of Church Law, p. 302). However, he is not able to explain how all these principles are involved in the formation of the list of churches in the diptychs.

86. The ancient autocephaly of some local churches was abolished: Bulgarian - in 1018 and 1396; Serbian - in 1459 and 1766; Georgian-in 1811.

page 236
a church whose autocephaly was recognized by Moscow only in 1943, that is, later than the Serbian (1879) and Romanian (1895), and earlier than the Bulgarian (1945). To explain this order of churches, the chronological sequence of their proclamation of the patriarchate is more appropriate: Georgian (1917), Serbian (1920), Romanian (1925), Bulgarian (1953). But in the case of the Georgian Church, it turns out that its patriarchal status is recognized earlier than its autocephaly. Another explanation: the 6th place of the Georgian Church is an exception and is not related to the chronological sequence of recognition of autocephaly.87 Further, the logic of including autocephalous churches in the diptych coincides with that of Constantinople, but the time for the Russian Church to recognize the autocephaly of some local churches differs. So the 11th-14th places are distributed in the "Moscow diptychs" as follows: Hellenic (1850), Albanian (1937), Polish (1948), Czech lands and Slovakia (1951). On the 15th place in the" Moscow diptychs " is the Orthodox Church in America, which received autocephaly from the Russian Church in 1970. The Patriarchate of Constantinople does not recognize this autocephaly and does not include it in its diptychs.

Accordingly, the differences in the" Moscow "and" Constantinople " diptychs relate to the situation of the Georgian and Polish churches, as well as the absence of the Orthodox Church in America in the latter. These differences point to two different approaches to determining the authority that can grant (or recognize) autocephaly. From the point of view of the" Constantinople diptych", this right belongs to the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and not to the mother Church. Thus, the question of the order in which autocephalous churches are listed in the order of diptychs becomes a question of the authority granting autocephaly.

The theme "Diptychs" appeared on the agenda of the Pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar process in the catalog adopted by the First Pan-Orthodox Council-

87. Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) says that the Georgian Church is placed in the 6th place "based on the recognition of the antiquity of its autocephaly received from the Church of Antioch". Moreover, the higher position of the more "young" Russian Church is explained by the fact that its position is "fixed by the decisions of previous Councils" (Hilarion (Alfeyev), mitr. Inter-Orthodox cooperation...). However, this explanation does not take into account the fact that the Bulgarian and Serbian churches can also appeal to the antiquity of their autocephaly, and the autocephaly of the former is more ancient than the latter, while the place in the diptychs is lower.

page 237
broadcast on the island of Rhodes (1961), as a sub-item to the topic "Relations of local autocephalous churches and their relation to the Ecumenical Patriarchate according to canons and history" 88. In the abridged catalogue adopted by the First Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Meeting in Chambesy (1976), the issue of diptychs was taken up as a separate topic. However, its consideration in the framework of inter-Orthodox preparatory commissions for the first time took place only in 2011.

The communique adopted at the meeting of the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission on February 22-26, 2011, stated that the diptychs should be unified, since they are "a concrete expression of unity" of the Orthodox Church. The meeting considered the requests of the Polish and Albanian churches to assign them a specific position in the diptychs, the request of the Georgian Church to give it the 6th place in the diptychs, as well as the request of the Church of Cyprus to give it a higher place. Having examined all these issues, the commission found that it was not possible to reach a consensus on these issues 89.

The request of the Church of Cyprus for promotion and its participation in the meeting of heads and representatives of the ancient Eastern Patriarchates, held on September 1-3, 2011 in Istanbul under the chairmanship of the Patriarch of Constantinople, led to the emergence of the theme of "neopentarchy" - the revival of the ancient institution of "pentarchy"in a new composition. 90 But the discussion didn't last long. It is worth noting that the only way to increase the place of the Church of Cyprus in the diptych, while maintaining the existing logic of its formation, would be to endow it with patriarchal dignity; at the same time, the Church of Cyprus would claim at least the 5th place currently occupied by the Russian Church.

The issue of diptychs was removed from the agenda of the Pan-Orthodox Council in 2014 as it did not find an agreed solution. At the beginning of 2016, commenting on the preparation of the council and, in particular, the discussion at the synaxis held in January, Patriarch Kirill noted that "on the issue of diptychs, the idea that we have long expressed is recognized as fair, that we should respect the historical heritage of the Russian Orthodox Church."-

88. Skobey G. N. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church. p. 78.

89. Ionita, V. Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church, p. 101.

90. See, for example: Ukhtomsky A. A. New Pentarchy - new conciliarity? // <url> 08.11.2011 [http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/2239930.html, accessed from 15.02.2016].

page 238
historically formed features of Churches and allow each of them to use the diptych adopted in it (which is always the case in practice)"91.

The comment of the Moscow Patriarch shows that the Russian Orthodox Church, unlike that of Constantinople, does not attach much "political" significance to the diptychs. These words are quite consistent with the tradition of seeing the diptychs (as a single whole, without any special specification within) only as a symbol of church unity, but not as a source of authority or a basis for a management mechanism.92 A special case of this vision is the idea that the primacy of honor in sacred diptychs does not confer any authority on its holders on a pan-Orthodox scale. 93 The function of diptychs is to commemorate the primates of autocephalous local churches during divine services, thereby demonstrating communion with them. The sequence of commemorations of primates in this case is not very important.

In contrast to this approach, the Church of Constantinople has taken consistent steps over the decades to establish an understanding of the diptychs as a source of power functions. It should be acknowledged that the efforts of Constantinople were crowned with success, since the diptychs began to determine the order of activity of episcopal assemblies in the Diaspora.94 This fact, as well as the close connection of the diptychs with the theme of the proclamation of autocephaly, allow us to say that the problem is far from solved and we can expect its aggravation at a new stage in the development of inter-Orthodox relations.

Primacy in the Church

The topic of primacy in the Church was not included in the agenda of the pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar process, but, as you can see, it constantly appeared in discussions when trying to solve ecclesiological problems. Primacy of honor in the Holy Land-

91. Report of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia to the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on February 2, 2016.

92. Draft resolution documents, p. 187.

93. Draft resolution documents, p. 187. See also document 2013 "Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the issue of primacy in the Universal Church" // Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate. 26.12.2013 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3481089.html, accessed from 15.02.2016].

94. Rules of procedure for the work of Episcopal assemblies in the Orthodox Diaspora, Articles 4. 2-3.

page 239
The above-mentioned diptychs were used as an argument for granting the Patriarchs of Constantinople the right to govern the Diaspora and proclaim/abolish autocephaly. As a rule, these rights were justified by a special interpretation of canons and historical events. As we saw in the section on the diaspora, this approach eventually led to a crisis, the essence of which was that the parties, relying on the same wording from the canonical rules and the same historical precedents, drew exactly the opposite conclusions.

The "crisis of canonical interpretations" has forced us to take a fresh look at the arguments presented in support of the rights and powers of the patriarchs of Constantinople who are primates in honor. In the early 1990s, Constantinople theology adopted a different approach to defending the authority of Ecumenical Patriarchs on a pan - Orthodox scale-a theological approach rather than a historical - canonical one. This approach is closely associated with the name of the outstanding Greek theologian Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon. It can be argued that a theological school was formed around Zizioulas ' ideas, including Metropolitan Elpidophorus (Lambriniadis) of Prussia, Archimandrite Panteleimon Manoussaxis, and Aristotle Papanikolaou95.

Zizioulas himself worked on his concept in connection with the Orthodox-Catholic theological dialogue, in which the topic of primacy in the Church was discussed in a special Mixed commission and at affiliated academic and ecumenical platforms. 96 Zizioulas 'program articles on primacy in the Church include" Primacy in the Church: an Orthodox Approach " 97 (1997) and "Contemporary Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology"98 (2003). Both works are linked to the primacy debate initiated by Pope John Paul II's encyclical "Ut Unum Sint" (1995). Note also

95. See the article by A. Papanikolaou in this issue of the journal.

96. For more information on the history of the official Orthodox-Catholic theological dialogue, see Garuti. A. (2004) Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Dialogue, pp. 12-86. San Francisco: Ignatius Press.

97. Zizioulas, J. (1999) "Primacy in the Church: An Orthodox Approach", in Puglisi J.F. (ed.) Petrine Ministry and the Unity of the Church."Toward a Patient and Fraternal Dialogue". A Symposium, pp. 115-125. Collegeville MI; Liturgical Press.

98. Zizioulas, J. (2006) "Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology", in Kasper, Walter Cardinal (ed.), The Petrine Ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue, pp. 231-246. Mahwah NJ: The Newman Press.

page 240
the article "Primacy and Nationalism" 99 (2013), where this topic is already considered in the context of inter-Orthodox relations. Today, Metropolitan John Zizioulas holds the posts of co-chairman of the Joint International Commission for Orthodox-Catholic Theological Dialogue and Chairman of Pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar meetings.

Metropolitan John derives his concept of primacy not from the history of the Church or the canons, but from the very logic of ecclesiastical institutions.100 Because of its fundamental a-historicity, his approach, which takes ecclesiology beyond history to the realm of pure schematics, proved to be in demand not only by Orthodox Christians, but also by Catholics and Protestants. Zizioulas ' concept is based on the dialectic between the conciliar body of the church ("many") and the bishop who heads it ("one"). Its essence lies in the fact that "one" and "many" are in a relationship of interdependence, neither of these two elements can exist independently of the other. This relationship between the "one" and the "many" can be traced at three different levels of church organization: the Eucharistic assembly (community) headed by a bishop; the regional council of bishops; and the universal church.

At the level of the Eucharistic community, which, with some reservations, is extended by Zizioulas to the limits of the ecclesiastical diocese, that is, the ecclesiastical region headed by a bishop, the "many" is the community itself (the local church or diocese), and the "one" is the bishop. Without an assembly, the bishop cannot exercise his function as head of the community. At the same time, only through the bishop (or those to whom he blesses this) is acceptance into the community made (for example, through baptism and chrismation), but this acceptance is received in the Eucharistic assembly.

The interdependence of the bishop and the Eucharistic community in Zizioulas 'concept takes the form of the teaching about the bishop as a "corporate person" of his church community. According to

99. Zizioulas, J. (2013) "Primacy and Nationalism", St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 57 (3-4): 451-459.

100. For the concept of the primacy of Metropolitan John Zizioulas, see my articles in more detail: Shishkov A.V. Primacy in the Church in the Theology of Metropolitan John Zizioulas of Pergamon // Vestnik RKHGA, 2014, vol. 15, issue 1, pp. 32-41; Shishkov A.V. Struktura tserkovnogo upravleniya v eucharisticheskoi ekklesiologii [Structure of Church administration in Eucharistic Ecclesiology]. Series 1. Philosophy. Theology. 2015. N 57 (1). pp. 25-38.

page 241
according to this teaching, the bishop has two bodies: physical and ecclesiastical (a kind of corpus ecclesiae): "In the physical body, he is the same as the others, a member of the community, joined to it through baptism and chrismation. The ecclesiastical body coincides with the local church, which is headed by the bishop " 101. Through the idea of the bishop's "corporate identity", Zizioulas, in particular, expresses his representative function. However, the bishop is not just a representative of his local church, in fact-he is the local church.

At the regional level, the primacy is primarily associated with the activities of cathedral institutions. Here Zizioulas refers to the 34th Apostolic Canon, but considers it not as a church-canonical text, but as evidence that the logic proposed by him existed in ancient times. The rule says: "It behooves the bishops of every nation to know the first among them, and to recognize him as the head, and to do nothing that exceeds their authority without his judgment: but to do to each only what concerns his diocese and the places belonging to it. But let not the first do anything without the consideration of all. " 102
The "one", which in this case becomes the "first", turns out to be in relation to the interdependence with the "many". At this level of ecclesiastical organization, we are talking only about bishops, since they participate in the work of the council not in a personal capacity, but as representatives of their local church. You can even say that local churches participate in the council in the person of their bishops (literally).

For Zizioulas, primacy at the universal level is the ultimate case of regional primacy. He's writing: "The logic of synodality leads to primacy, and the logic of the ecumenical council leads to universal primacy." 103 In other words, primacy in the Universal Church is closely linked to the idea of an all-church council. The Council is an event in which the church reveals her unity, and "the universal primus ... is a necessary element of the one Church" and yav-

101. Shishkov A.V. Structure of church governance in Eucharistic ecclesiology. p. 31.

102. The 34th rule of the holy Apostles.

103. Zizioulas, J. "Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology", p. 242.

page 242
It is an expression of "the unity and oneness of the Church throughout the world" 104.

As for the general church council, Zizioulas does not directly mention its composition. Some of his followers are more inclined to consider it a council of regional first hierarchs. Thus, Aristotle Papanikolaou writes:

If the council reveals the communion that exists between churches in a particular geographical region, then by extension, the first-class (protos)are the main ones. These councils may also meet with the protos of other councils at yet another council to express the communion that exists between the churches they represent... This is how we reach the pinnacle in the sense that there should be a council that represents and brings to light on a global scale the communion that exists between the churches. 105
According to the logic that Papanikolaou follows, relying on Zizioulas, synaxis of primates of autocephalous churches are already general church (pan-Orthodox) councils.

The relationship between the first Hierarch and the council implies that the former has certain powers that distinguish his ministry from that of all other bishops. His primacy "is not only the primacy of honor." 106 First of all, he is the president of the council, and therefore is "the voice and voice of the Church".107 It is noteworthy that Zizioulas ' proposed ecclesiology of communion does not imply actual communion at the council. The sole function of such a council is to bear witness to the unity of the Church, expressed by the voice of the primate hierarch and the bodies of bishops united in one conciliar body. The Zizioulas scheme does not involve discussion and development of decision-making mechanisms, because they violate unanimity. This concept is quite consistent (as an ideal) with the principle of consensus, which was defined by-

104. Zizioulas, J. Primacy in the Church, p. 125.

105. See A. Papanikolaou's article "The Eucharist, Cathedrals and Primacy" in this issue of the journal (p. 374).

106. Manoussakis, J.P. (2015) For the Unity of All: Contribution to the Theological Dialogue between East and West, p. 38. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books.

107. Vgenopoulos, M. (2013) Primacy in the Church from Vatican I to Vatican II: An Orthodox Perspective, p. 154. DeKalb, IL: NIU Press.

page 243
len as the main decision-making mechanism at the upcoming Pan-Orthodox Council.

The Zizioulas concept becomes problematic if it is placed in a historical context. It cannot, based on its internal logic, explain why primacy in the Church should belong to a particular historical department. Moreover, the application of this scheme to historical realities raises new questions. For example: what criteria are used to determine the winner? How is he elected?

Zizioulas himself applies his scheme in the case of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome 108 and in the case of the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople in the Orthodox Church 109. His followers, Metropolitan Elpidophorus (Lambriniadis) and Archimandrite Panteleimon (Manoussakis), do the same in their writings.110
An interesting example is provided by Aristotle Papanikolaou, who, on the one hand, states: "who will be this protos on the universal level cannot be determined theologically," and on the other hand, writes:

For historical reasons, the primacy of the Orthodox Church at the world level is the Archbishop of Constantinople and the Ecumenical Patriarch... It is important to emphasize once again that there is no theological justification for the primacy of the Archbishop of Constantinople - there is only a long historical tradition. If communion with Rome were restored, then the ecumenical primacy would pass to the Bishop of Rome. In addition, there is another reason why the primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch is the best choice: at present, he is the only first hierarch of the autocephalous Church who can symbolize world Orthodoxy without being tied to any national identity.111
Papanikolaou's merit lies in the fact that he directly raises in his text the question of whether it is possible to determine the primate in the Universal Church of the first Hierarch with the help of the proposed-

108. Zizioulas, J. Primacy in the Church, pp. 123-125.

109. Ibid., p. 123.

110. Lambriniadis, E. The First without the equals; Manoussakis, J.P. For the Unity of All, pp. 39-43.

111. Article by A. Papanikolaou in this issue.

page 244
my friend. At the same time, he also demonstrates a completely typical reaction for its supporters: "The concept is not able to determine who can be first, but the Patriarch of Constantinople is best suited." At the same time, the criteria for the "best choice" are usually arguments of a historical and canonical nature or ideologemes developed during the period of modern discussions, such as the "supranational character" of the Church of Constantinople.112 The problem with this approach is that it leads to the same "crisis of interpretation" mentioned above, since it borrows the tools for determining the primacy of the historical-canonical approach.

However, Papanikolaou is not entirely correct in saying that the Zizioulas concept does not allow us to determine the first-mover. It does not allow us to explain why it should be a Roman, Constantinople, or any other "historical" first hierarch. The council must determine its own chairman by electing him (for each meeting or for a longer period of time - following the example of councils of autocephalous churches). In Papanikolaou's logic, the Ecumenical Patriarch should be chosen from among the primates of the autocephalous Orthodox Churches (i.e., the heads of regional councils).

The document "Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on Primacy in the Universal Church", adopted by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in December 2013, is devoted to this topic. Formally, it relates to the problems of the Orthodox-Catholic theological dialogue and, in particular, to the discussion around the document "Ecclesiological and canonical consequences of the sacramental nature of the Church", adopted at the meeting of the Joint Commission on Orthodox-Catholic Theological Dialogue in 2007. However, in its theological part, the "Position" polemics with the main provisions of the Zizioulas concept (which, in particular, influenced the Orthodox-Catholic document).

The Moscow document gives a completely different vision of the structure of the Universal Church and its primacy. It emphasizes the historical, not the ontological, as in Zizioulas, ha-

112. Alexander Schmemann, who once defended the rights of the Patriarchs of Constantinople to rule the Diaspora, in 1970 already spoke with regret about the "Greek religious nationalism" of the Church of Constantinople: A. Schmemann, prot. Significant storm // Collection of Articles (1947-1983), Moscow, 2009, pp. 564-567.

page 245
This is a type of primacy of honor, which is associated with the recognition by all Orthodox churches of the significance of the tradition of sacred diptychs. The document recognizes the primacy of honor of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on the scale of the entire Orthodox Church, but at the same time denies the primate of the diptychs any authority on a church-wide scale on the basis of this primacy. The text asserts that the primacy of honor is not the primacy of power.113 However, this does not mean that the Ecumenical Patriarch cannot have authority in principle. According to the logic of the document, he cannot possess them on the basis of his primacy in the diptychs.

The document recognizes the Patriarchal See of Constantinople as having some pan-Orthodox powers: coordinating the efforts of local churches, identifying pan-Orthodox consensus, and convening meetings of heads and representatives of autocephalous churches. 114 However, the basis for such powers is not the primacy of honor, but the consensus of autocephalous local churches regarding the granting of these powers to this church department. The content and scope of these powers are also determined by the consensus of the autocephalous churches. In the absence of consensus, any authority on a church-wide scale is stripped of its legitimacy. It can be assumed that, according to the document's logic, autocephalous churches can grant supreme powers to any primate of the autocephalous church or any supra-autocephalous institution, if there is a pan-Orthodox consensus on this issue.115
Supreme power and two models of Church organization

All the topics discussed above - the administration of the Orthodox diaspora, the proclamation of autocephaly, the role of diptychs, primacy-are special cases of the question of supreme authority in the church. Who owns the supreme power? Where is it localized? Is this power centralized or distributed among the

113. Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on primacy in the Universal Church, 5.

114. Ibid.

115. Shishkov, A. Einige Besonderheiten der Position der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche im panorthodoxen vorkonziliaren Prozess, p. 127.

page 246
separate sovereigns? The solutions proposed by the participants in the discussions discussed above allow us to distinguish two main approaches to the issue of supreme power and, accordingly, two models of the structure of the Orthodox Church.

The first model is offered by the Church of Constantinople and is supported mainly by Greek churches.116 According to this approach, there is a supreme authority in the Orthodox Church, localized in the Patriarch of Constantinople as the primate in the sacred diptychs of the first Hierarch. On the basis of his primacy of honor, he assumes the right to govern the entire Orthodox diaspora and, in particular, to unilaterally take into his jurisdiction dioceses and parishes in the diaspora that are "illegally" and "temporarily" under the jurisdiction of other autocephalous churches; to grant and withdraw autocephaly. In addition, the Patriarch of Constantinople, although he does not extend his administrative authority to other autocephalous churches, nevertheless reserves the right to interfere in their internal affairs as the supreme arbiter. As the primate of the First Hierarch, he convenes pan-Orthodox conferences, meetings of the heads and representatives of autocephalous local churches, and, finally, the Pan-Orthodox Council, and presides over all the meetings he convenes. As chairman, he is the voice of the Pan-Orthodox assemblies he heads and a symbol of the unity of the Church. In other words, the Patriarch of Constantinople occupies a completely unique place in the system of church administration and has additional powers in relation to the primates of other autocephalous churches, which makes him the only sovereign in the Orthodox Church.

We find a completely different model of the structure of the Orthodox Church in the position of the Russian Church, which is usually joined by the so-called "new patriarchates"117. This model is based on the idea of the fundamental equality of all autocephalous local churches. According to this "autocephalous" approach, each autocephalous local church has the right to care for its flock in the diaspora, which means creating its own organizational structures in it-parishes, dioceses, etc.

116.This refers to the Churches of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Greece and Cyprus.

117. Georgian, Serbian, Romanian and Bulgarian Patriarchates.

page 247
In total, every autocephalous church is a mother, and without its consent, legitimate autocephaly is impossible. No one has the right to interfere in the internal affairs of the autocephalous Church. The emphasis on the convocation of a general ecclesiastical council is also different: it is not important who convokes the council, but that all autocephalous churches agree to its convocation and thereby give the appropriate authority to the convocation of the council.

This model implies that the supreme power belongs to the autocephalous churches and is exercised within their borders, that is, in the Orthodox Church, it is the autocephaly that are the true sovereigns. An exception may be certain supra-autocephalous institutions , such as the General Church council, whose power exceeds that of autocephaly. However, the sovereignty of such structures arises "through the joint, 'symphonic' act of will of all ecclesiastical autocephaly represented at the council by the full-fledged and authorized church delegations of the currently existing ecclesiastical sovereigns. "118 In this case, the voice and symbol of the unity of the Orthodox Church is not its chairman, but the council itself, in accordance with the ancient conciliar formula" be pleased with the Holy Spirit and us." The key in this model is the principle of consensus, that is, the unanimous decision of all sovereigns. The lack of consensus allows dissenting sovereigns not to recognize the decisions taken by the council, which deprives it of the authority of the church-wide authority instance.

The ecclesiastical structure of Orthodoxy was not predestined from above, but changed from epoch to epoch. But the problem is that in their vision of the church structure, different local churches continue to "live" in different epochs. As noted above ,the "autocephalous model" is a product of Modern times: it was formed under the influence of the processes of formation of national sovereign states, and in this sense it can be called modern. This model is based on the modern concept of sovereignty, which correlates with the concept of autocephaly. Unlike the "Constantinople model", which has its roots in the imperial pre - modern past (not only Byzantine, but also Ottoman), when autocephaly was not associated with the concept of sovereignty. At the same time, it is worth noting-

118. Shishkov A. Church autocephaly through the prism of Karl Schmitt's theory of sovereignty. p. 221.

page 248
It should be noted that the patriarchs of Constantinople acquired not only the functions assigned to them during the empire, but also the functions performed by the emperor (or sultan).119

Schematically, the two models discussed can be represented as a paraphrase of the principle of relations existing in the church tradition between the primate in honor of the first hierarch and other bishops: "first among equals". In the "Constantinople model", this principle sounds like "first without equal", in the "autocephalous" - as "equal without first". In fact, both models are different ways of removing the antinomy that is inherent in the original principle. And like all attempts to resolve the antinomy, they suffer from reductionism.

An important aspect of the approaches considered is the requirement for unanimous adoption of church-wide conciliar decisions: in the "Constantinople model" - through the voice of the ecumenical first hierarch, in the "autocephalous" model - through the consensus of all participants. At the same time, the mechanism of the Pan-Orthodox Council remains unclear. On the one hand, there were concerns that the president of the council would impose his will on all its participants by manipulating the procedure, on the other hand, that the principle of consensus would be used as a veto. The latter allows some theologians to call the upcoming council "conservative." 120
Using the example of the synaxis of primates of autocephalous churches held in January 2016 in Chambesy, we saw how such conciliar institutions can work. The visible and indisputable primacy of the Ecumenical Patriarch was combined with the activity of other participants, such as the Primate of the Russian Church. By the will of the ecclesiastical sovereigns, questions that previously seemed unsolvable have found their solution. Moreover, individual sovereigns reserved the right to a dissenting opinion 121. And for such a problem as the Orthodox diaspora, a solution was found.-

119. It is worth noting that this would not have happened without secularization processes, during which the secular authorities ceased to interfere in the field of church administration, so in a sense, the "Constantinople model" can also be considered to belong to the Modern era.

120. Frost, C.F. (2015) "Does the Council Matter to My Mother?", First Things [http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/07/does-the-council-matter-to-my-mo ther, accessed on 15.02.2016].

121. Thus, the Churches of Antioch and Georgia did not sign the draft document "The Sacrament of Marriage and its obstacles".

page 249
a compromise solution that doesn't fit completely into either of the two models mentioned above.

It is noteworthy that none of the models considered by us leaves room for legitimate detection and removal of contradictions in the framework of the conciliar deliberative process, that is, joint discussion at the council, taking into account the points of view of opponents. This means that none of them allows us to propose solutions to controversial ecclesiological issues that would satisfy all parties, given the existing opposing views on the structure of the Church and the exercise of supreme power in it. It can be assumed that these models, which were negatively labeled as "neo-Papism" and "absolute autocephalism" in the late 1940s, are simply not designed for a regime of permanent inter-Orthodox cooperation, since they do not presuppose this experience (it is difficult to suspect the" hegemony of the Ecumenical Patriarch "or" autocephalous isolationism " in the tendency to cooperate).. Perhaps it is the inability or unwillingness to deviate from the previously set models that is responsible for the fact that during the pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar process, which lasted for 55 years, it was not possible to resolve controversial ecclesiological issues. We can only hope that the new conciliar experience and practice of decision-making, as well as their theoretical understanding, will lead to alternative approaches that will eventually help solve the church problems for which the Pan-Orthodox Council was largely prepared.

Bibliography/ References

Autocephaly // Pravoslavnaya entsiklopediya [Orthodox Encyclopedia], vol. 1. Moscow: TSNTS PE. 2000. pp. 199-202.

Balashov N., prot. Pre-conciliar meetings: Local churches are preparing for the Pan-Orthodox Council / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2016. N 1. pp. 26-31.

Damaskin (Papandreou), mitr. Autocephaly and the method of its proclamation // Orthodoxy and the world. Athens: Livani Nea Sinora, pp. 245-258.

Damaskin (Papandreou), mitr. Orthodox Diaspora. Report at the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission (1990) / / Orthodoxy and Peace. Athens: Livani Nea Sinora, pp. 213-238.

Diaspora / / Orthodox Encyclopedia, vol. 14. S. M.: TSNTS PE. 2007. pp. 625-628.

Report of His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Russia at the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church on February 2, 2016 / / Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate. 02.02.2016 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4366063.html, accessed on 10.02.2016].

page 250
Journal No. 71 of the meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of 22.10.2015 / / Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate. 22.10.2015 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4250904.html, accessed on 10.02.2016].

Hilarion (Alfeyev), mitr. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in preparation for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church / / Official website of the DECR MP. 03.11.2011 [https://mospat.ru/ru/2011/11/03/news50923/, accessed from 04.06.2014].

Meyendorff I., prot. Constantinople and Moscow // Church Bulletin of the Western European Orthodox Russian Exarchate. 1949. N 16. pp. 5-9.

Peter (L'Huillier), Archbishop Rules of the first four Ecumenical Councils, Moscow, 2005.

The position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the issue of primacy in the Universal Church / / Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate. 26.12.2013 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3481089.html, accessed from 15.02.2016].

Orthodox Diaspora / / Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate. 30.01.2016 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4362795.html, accessed on 10.02.2016].

Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) i vsepravoslavnoe edinstvo [Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) and Pan-Orthodox Unity]. To the 30th anniversary of the death of Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) of Leningrad and Novgorod / Comp. prot. Vladimir Sorokin, St. Petersburg: Knyaz-Vladimirsky Sobor Publishing House, 2008, pp. 80-238.

Puzovich V. [The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Orthodox Diaspora in the XX Century: polemics around the Creation of the Exarchate of Orthodox Russian Churches in Western Europe]. Philosophy. 2014. Issue 5 (55), pp. 26-44.

Regulations for the work of Episcopal assemblies in the Orthodox Diaspora / / Official website of the Moscow Patriarchate. 30.01.2016 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4362819.html, accessed on 10.02.2016].

Scobey G. N. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparation of the Holy and Great Council of the Eastern Orthodox Church // Church and time. 2002. N 2 (19). pp. 54-199.

Troitsky S. V. Canons and Eastern papism // Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate. 1955. N 22. pp. 124-135.

Troitsky S. V. O granitsakh rasprostraneniya prava vlasti Konstantinopolskoi Patriarhii na "diasporu" [On the boundaries of the spread of the right of power of the Constantinople Patriarchate to the "Diaspora"]. Zhurnal Moskovskoi patriarhii, 1947, No. 11, pp. 34-45.

Troitsky S. V. On Church autocephaly / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1948. N 7 July. pp. 33-54.

Troitsky S. V. On the occasion of the unsuccessful defense of a false theory / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1949. N 12. pp. 29-53.

Troitsky, S. V. Ecclesiology Paris split // Vestnik of the Russian West European Patriarchal Exarchate. 1951. N 7/8. pp. 10-33.

Ukhtomsky A. A. New pentarchy - new conciliarity? // <url> 08.11.2011 [http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/2239930.html, accessed from 15.02.2016].

Ukhtomsky A. A. Pravoslavnaya diaspora: problema formirovaniya kanonicheskogo statusa [Orthodox Diaspora: the Problem of forming Canonical status]. 2009. N 3 (48). pp. 131-168.

Tsypin V., prot. Course of Church Law, Moscow, 2002.

Shishkov A.V. Primacy in the Church in the theology of Metropolitan John Ziziulas of Pergamon // Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Arts, 2014, vol. 15, issue 1, pp. 32-41.

page 251
Shishkov A.V. Struktura tserkovnogo upravleniya v eucharisticheskoi ekklesiologii [The structure of Church administration in Eucharistic Ecclesiology]. Series 1. Philosophy. Theology. 2015. N 57 (1). pp. 25-38.

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.

Schmeman A., prot. Significant storm // Collection of Articles (1947-1983), Moscow, 2009, pp. 550-572.

Schmeman A., prot. On" neopapism " / / Collection of Articles (1947-1983), Moscow, 2009, pp. 346-353.

"Diaspora" (2007), in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia. Vol. 14, pp. 625 -628. Moscow: CNC PE.

"Avtokefaliia" ["Autocephaly"] (2000), in Pravoslavnaia entsiklopediia. Vol. 1., pp. 199-202. Moscow: CNC PE.

"Proekty rezoliutivnyh dokumentov" ["Projects of the resolutive documents"] (2008), in Mitropolit Nikodim (Rotov) i vsepravoslavnoe edinstvo. K 30-letiiu so dnia konchiny mitropolita Leningradskogo i Novgorodskogo Nikodima (Rotova), pp. 80-238. Sankt-Peterburg: Izdatel'stvo Kniaz'-Vladimirskogo sobora.

"Doklad Sviateishego Patriarkha Moskovskogo i vseia Rusi Kirilla na Arkhiereiskom Sobore Russkoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi 2 fevralia 2016 goda" [Report of the patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill at the Bishop's Council of the Russian Orthodox Church February 2, 2016], Ofitsial'nyi sait Moskovskoi patriarkhii. 02 February 2016 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4366063.html, accessed on 10.02.2016].

"Pozitsiia Moskovskogo Patriarkhata po voprosu o pervenstve vo Vselenskoi Tserkvi" ["Position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the issue of primacy in the Universal Church"], Oficial'nyj sajt Moskovskoj patriarhii. 26 December 2013 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/3481089.html, accessed on 15.02.2016].

"Pravoslavnaia diaspora" ["The Orthodox Diaspora"], Ofitsial'nyi sait Moskovskoi patriarkhii. 30 January 2016 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4362795.html, accessed on 10.02.2016].

"Reglament raboty Episkopskikh sobranii v pravoslavnoi diaspore" ["Rules of operation of Episcopal assemblies in the orthodox diaspora"], Ofitsial'nyi sait Moskovskoi patriarkhii. 30 January 2016 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4362795.html, accessed on 10.02.2016].

"Zhurnal N 71 zasedaniia Svjashhennogo sinoda RPC ot 22.10.2015" ["Journal No 71 of the ROC Holy Synod session, October 22, 2015"], Oficial'nyj sajt Moskovskoj Patriarhii. 22 October 2015 [http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/4250904.html, accessed on 10.02.2016].

Alfeev, H. (2011) "Mezhpravoslavnoe sotrudnichestvo v ramkakh podgotovki k Sviatomu i Velikomu Soboru Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi" ["Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the preparations for a Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church"], Ofitsial'nyi sait OVCS MP. 03 November [https://mospat.ru/ru/2011/11/03/news50923/, accessed on 04.06.2014].

Balashov, N. (2016) "Predsobornye vstrechi. Pomestnye Tserkvi gotoviatsia k Vsepravoslavnomu soboru" ["Pre-conciliar meetings. The Local Churches are preparing for the Pan-Orthodox council"], Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii 1: 26-31.

Erickson, J. H. (1991) The Challenge of Our Past: Studies in Orthodox Canon Law and Church History. Crestwood, NY: SVS Press.

стр. 252
Frost, C.F. (2015) "Does the Council Matter to My Mother?", First Things [http://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2015/07/does-the-council-matter-to-my-moth er, accessed on 15.02.2016].

Garuti, A. (2004) Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Dialogue. San Francisco: Ignatius Press

Ionita, V. (2014) Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church. Fribourg: Institute for Ecumenical Studies University of Fribourg.

L'Huillier, P. (2005) Pravila pervykh chetyrekh Vselenskikh Soborov [Canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils]. Moscow.

Lambriniadis, E. (2014) "The First without the equals: A response to the text on primacy of the Moscow Patriarchate", Ecumenical Patriarchate [http://www.ec-patr.org/arxeio/elp2014-01-en.pdf, accessed on 11. 02. 2016].

Manoussakis, J.P. (2015) For the Unity of All: Contribution to the Theological Dialogue between East and West. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books

Maximos, Metropolitan of Sardes (1976). The Oecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church. Thessaloniki: Patriarchal institute for patristic studies.

Meyendorff, J. (1949) "Konstantinopol' i Moskva" ["Constantinople and Moscow"], Tserkovnyi vestnik Zapadno-Evropeiskogo Pravoslavnogo Russkogo Ekzarhata. 16:5-9.

Papandreu, D. (1994) "Avtokefaliia i sposob ee provozglasheniia" ["Autocephaly and the manner of its proclamation"], in Pravoslavie i mir, pp. 245-258. Athens: Nea Sinora.

Papandreu, D. (1994) "Pravoslavnaia diaspora. Doklad na mezhpravoslavnoi podgotovitel'noi komissii (1990 g.)" ["The Orthodox diaspora. Report presented at the meeting of the inter-orthodox preparatory commission (1990)"], in Pravoslavie i mir, pp. 213-238. Athens: Nea Sinora.

Puzovich. V. (2014) "Konstantinopol'skii patriarkhat i pravoslavnaia diaspora v HH v.: polemika vokrug sozdaniia Ekzarkhata pravoslavnykh russkikh tserkvei v Zapadnoi Evrope" ["The Patriarchate of Constantinople and the orthodox diaspora in the 20th century: polemics around the creation of an exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe"], Vestnik PSTGU I: Bogoslovie. Filosofija 5(55): 26-44.

Schmemann, A. (2009) "O "neopapizme"" ["On "neopapalism"], in Sobranye statej. 1947-1983, pp. 346-353. Moscow: Russkyj put'.

Schmemann, A. (2009) "Znamenatel'naia buria" ["A Meaningful storm"], in Sobranye statej. 1947-1983, pp. 550-572. Moscow: Russkyj put'.

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

Shishkov, A.V. (2015) "Struktura tserkovnogo upravleniia v evharisticheskoi ekkleziologii" [Ecclesiastical governance in eucharistic ecclesiology], Vestnik PSTGU. Serija 1. Filosofiia. Bogoslovie 57(1):25-38.

Shishkov, A. (2014) "Pervenstvo v Tserkvi v bogoslovii mitropolita Pergamskogo Ioanna (Ziziulasa)" ["Metropolitan John Zizioulas on primacy in the Church"], Vestnik RHGA. Vol. 15(1): 32-41.

Shishkov, A. (2015) "Einige Besonderheiten der Position der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche im panorthodoxen vorkonziliaren Prozess", Una Sancta N 2 (70): 119-129.

Skobei, G. (2002) "Mezhpravoslavnoe sotrudnichestvo v podgotovke sviatogo i velikogo sobora Vostochnoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvi" ["Inter-Orthodox cooperation in the

page 253
preparations for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church"], Tserkov' i vremia 2: 54-199.

Tarasar, C.J., Erickson, J.H. (eds.) (1975) Orthodox America 1794-1976: Development of the Orthodox Church in America. Syosset, NY: Orthodox Church in America Department of History and Archives.

Troitskii, S.V. (1947) "O granitsakh rasprostraneniia prava vlasti Konstantinopol'skoi Patriarkhii na 'diasporu'" ["On the limits the Patriarchate of Constantinople to governance 'diaspora'"], Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii 11: 34-45.

Troitskii, S.V. (1948) "O tserkovnoi avtokefalii" [On the church autocephaly], Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii 7: 33-54.

Troitskii, S.V. (1949) "Po povodu neudachnoi zashchity lozhnoi teorii" [On the failed defense of the false theory], Zhurnal Moskovskoi Patriarkhii 12:29-53.

Troitskii, S.V. (1951) "Ekkleziologiia parizhskogo raskola" [Ecclesiology of the Paris schism], Vestnik Russkogo Zapadno-Evropeiskogo Patriarshego Ekzarhata 7/8:10-33.

Troitskii, S.V. (1955) "Kanony i vostochnyi papizm" ["Church canons and the eastern papacy"], Vestnik Russkogo Zapadno-Evropeiskogo Patriarshego Ekzarhata 22:124-135.

Tsypin, V. (2002) Kurs tserkovnogo prava [Canon law]. Moscow.

Ukhtomskii, A.A. (2009) "Pravoslavnaia diaspora: problema formirovaniia kanonicheskogo statusa" ["The Orthodox diaspora: a problem of canonical status forming"], Tserkov' i vremia 3(48): 131-168.

Ukhtomskii, A.A. (2011) "Novaia pentarkhiia - novaia sobornost'?" [New pentarchy - new conciliarity?], Bogoslov.ru. 08 November [http://www.bogoslov.ru/text/2239930.html, accessed on 15.02.2016].

Vgenopoulos, M. (2013) Primacy in the Church from Vatican I to Vatican II: An Orthodox Perspective. DeKalb, IL: NIU Press

Zizioulas, I. (2006) "Recent Discussions on Primacy in Orthodox Theology", in: Cardinal Walter Kasper (ed.), The Petrine Ministry: Catholics and Orthodox in Dialogue, pp. 231-246. Mahwah NJ: The Newman Press.

Zizioulas, J. (1999) "Primacy in the Church: An Orthodox Approach", in: James F. Puglisi (ed.) Petrine Ministry and the Unity of the Church. "Toward a Patient and Fraternal Dialogue". A Symposium, pp. 115-125. Collegeville MI; Liturgical Press.

Zizioulas, J. (2013) "Primacy and Nationalism", St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 57 (3-4): 451-459.

page 254


© library.rs

Permanent link to this publication:

https://library.rs/m/articles/view/Controversial-ecclesiological-issues-on-the-agenda-of-the-Pan-Orthodox-Council-and-the-problem-of-supreme-power-in-the-Orthodox-Church

Similar publications: LSerbia LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Andrija PutnikContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://library.rs/Putnik

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

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

Andrey Shishkov, Controversial ecclesiological issues on the agenda of the Pan-Orthodox Council and the problem of supreme power in the Orthodox Church // Belgrade: Library of Serbia (LIBRARY.RS). Updated: 13.01.2025. URL: https://library.rs/m/articles/view/Controversial-ecclesiological-issues-on-the-agenda-of-the-Pan-Orthodox-Council-and-the-problem-of-supreme-power-in-the-Orthodox-Church (date of access: 19.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - Andrey Shishkov:

Andrey Shishkov → other publications, search: Libmonster SerbiaLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
Заснув в сафьянах книг Мы пробудились поздно Нам нами не зажгут сиреневые звёзды В лесах росу не раскачает лень полуденных дерев Дрозды уснут в полях всех перепев... И шепот деревень загасит пламя дня Наступит ночь, как видно без меня Осталось мало Нас, сотрудников Земли Уходим, уводя Надежды корабли...
Catalog: Филология 
«Вздор!.. Гений не совершает ошибок. Его блуждания намеренны, они врата – открытия» (Джойс Д. Улисс. стр. 202). Писано в брутальные времена...
Jean Eiffel and Innovations Derivatives
Catalog: Экономика 
The Question of Changing the Global Matrix in Russia and in the World
Catalog: Экономика 
"A WORD ABOUT IGOR'S REGIMENT" IN THE "EXPERIENCE OF NARRATION ABOUT RUSSIA" BY I. P. ELAGIN
17 days ago · From Andrija Putnik
DRUZHINA AND THE GENESIS OF FEUDALISM IN RUSSIA
Catalog: История 
18 days ago · From Andrija Putnik
Many of you and your associates are operating in the hundreds of thousands, possibly millions y.e. This is about your transactions... Direct or Indirect or Potential. Not so long ago, many of you became players in "Cybereconomics". In a fundamentally new transformation of the digital world, about which many of us are still little known.. Purchase and exchange of fiat money, work on the transformation of fiat money into cryptocurrency. Buying a car, apartments, loans from financial institutions... Et cetera. There are lucky people who work in their own business or act as investors.
Catalog: Экономика 
LITTLE-KNOWN HERO OF BORODIN
Catalog: История 
20 days ago · From Andrija Putnik
THE IDEA OF SLAVIC UNITY IN THE SOCIAL THOUGHT OF PRE-REFORM RUSSIA
20 days ago · From Andrija Putnik
A. M. STANISLAVSKAYA. POLITICHESKAYA DEYATEL'NOST ' F. F. USHAKOV V GREKE [POLITICAL ACTIVITY OF F. F. USHAKOV IN GREECE]. 1798-1800
21 days ago · From Andrija Putnik

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

LIBRARY.RS - Serbian Digital Library

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

Controversial ecclesiological issues on the agenda of the Pan-Orthodox Council and the problem of supreme power in the Orthodox Church
 

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

About · News · For Advertisers

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


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