Canonical territory of the Russian Church: map

In a recent interview with the Greek Orthodox agency Romfea, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill spoke about the relations of the Russian Church with the authorities of various countries of its canonical territory. What does the term “canonical territory” mean and what countries are included in it?

(Click on the image to enlarge) This year marks a quarter of a century since the celebration of the millennium of the Baptism of Rus', as it became customary to call this date “25 years of freedom of the Church.” Then, in 1988, although there were foreign dioceses - for example, Sourozh, headed by Metropolitan Anthony (Bloom) - and the autonomous Japanese Church, the overwhelming majority of the parishes of the Russian Orthodox Church were located on the territory of the USSR. There was an exarchate in Ukraine, and dioceses in the Baltic states. There was no communication with the ROCOR. But in the USSR there was also a second Local Orthodox Church - the Georgian. Moreover, at that time the term “canonical territory” itself was not in use. Today the situation is fundamentally different. The term “canonical territory” is used quite often, and not only in polemics with Catholics, Ukrainian schismatics or with Constantinople. In the Russian Orthodox Church itself, there have been many more forms of organization - Autonomous Churches, the Ukrainian Church with the rights of broad autonomy, exarchates, metropolitan districts... The 2013 Council of Bishops, having approved changes in the Church Charter, also approved a new definition of canonical territory. For example, China entered it. Archpriest Igor YAKIMCHUK, DECR Secretary for Inter-Orthodox Relations, tells more about the canonical territory “Is it true that in church law there is no such term “canonical territory”, that it arose only in Russia several decades ago? — Indeed, the phrase “canonical territory” is formally absent in traditional canonical texts. However, in essence this concept is of course there. After all, church rules establish the canonical boundaries of local Churches, regulate the powers of bishops, acting only within these boundaries, and prohibit bishops of other dioceses from violating these boundaries. So the absence of a term does not mean the absence of a concept. After all, for example, in the texts of Holy Scripture we will not find the term “consubstantial”, which we use in relation to the second Person of the Holy Trinity, meanwhile, it is key in the confession of our faith. — By what principle are canonical boundaries determined? The boundaries of the Churches are described, firstly, by council decrees. For example, the boundaries of the Patriarchate of Constantinople are outlined in Rule 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, which transferred three Byzantine dioceses to the jurisdiction of Constantinople: Asiatic, Thracian and Pontic. Nowadays, the listed lands constitute the territory of Turkey. The canonical boundaries of the Russian Orthodox Church are stipulated by the decisions of councils with the participation of the Eastern Patriarchs in Constantinople in 1590 and 1593, where the Moscow High Hierarch was named Patriarch of “all Rus' and all northern countries.” — And before the era of the Ecumenical Councils, church boundaries were not defined? — In the ancient Church there were no large formations: Patriarchates, metropolises, dioceses. The bishop's authority did not extend beyond the outskirts of the city where his see was located. Therefore, the issue of canonical boundaries was not relevant. However, when larger structures began to form over time, the need arose to canonically regulate the boundaries between them. The idea that each Local Church covers a certain territory was formed in its final form in the Byzantine era. It was at that time that dioceses, metropolises, patriarchates appeared - church structures, the boundaries of which largely corresponded to the administrative division of the Byzantine Empire. — What other criteria exist, besides the resolutions of councils and administrative boundaries? The ecclesiastical boundaries of a particular Local Church may expand to include territories not belonging to other Churches where missionary work is carried out. For this reason, the canonical territory of the Russian Church includes countries such as China or Japan, where church structures appeared thanks to the works of Russian missionaries. Another example is the Patriarchate of Alexandria: until the 20th century, it did not extend its jurisdiction over the entire African continent, but only over its northern part. As a result of the mission carried out by the Patriarchate, its structures spread throughout Africa, so that now, by common agreement of the Local Churches, the entire African continent is considered the canonical territory of the Alexandrian Church. Another important point is the historical tradition of the territory belonging to a particular Church. States can disappear and appear, their borders can narrow or expand. However, these changes do not mean an automatic transfer of church boundaries. - But what to do in cases where historically a certain territory belonged to one patriarchy, then to another. For example, Bessarabia, which was part of both the Romanian Patriarchate and the Moscow Patriarchate? In such cases, the length of time the territory belonged to one or another Local Church is important. From a canonical point of view, if for thirty or more years the boundaries between two Local Churches have not been mutually disputed, then they cannot be changed unilaterally. — In Western Europe, there are canonical divisions of several jurisdictions at once; in one city there can be a Greek, Russian and, for example, Romanian bishop. Doesn't this contradict canonical principles? — As for Western and Central and partly Southern Europe, these regions do not belong to the canonical region of any one of the Local Churches and are territories of the diaspora. Just a hundred years ago, there were practically no Orthodox churches, much less dioceses, in Western Europe. No one could then imagine that hundreds of Orthodox parishes would appear in France, Great Britain or Germany. Now this is a reality that arose as a result of the dramatic events in Orthodox countries in the twentieth century and the resulting mass emigration of Orthodox Christians to the West. Since there are no canons that would regulate the structure of the Orthodox diaspora, this issue is on the agenda of the upcoming Pan-Orthodox Council and has been quite actively discussed for many years. There are two points of view on how the Orthodox diaspora should be organized. The Russian Orthodox Church and a number of other Orthodox Churches believe that any Autocephalous Church has the right to maintain spiritual and administrative connections with its children who have settled in these territories. There is another point of view, which states that the Orthodox diaspora, in terms of jurisdiction, must submit to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The author of this theory, Patriarch Meletios (Metaxakis) of Constantinople, who lived at the beginning of the 20th century, relied on a peculiar interpretation of the same 28th rule of the Council of Chalcedon, which assigns to the Ecumenical Patriarch the right to care for the barbarians living in the territory of Asia Minor. Patriarch Meletius believed that we were talking about the non-Greek population not only of Asia Minor, but of the whole world. — But now, on the same territory, churches are subordinate to different bishops? As has already been said, this situation was caused by extraordinary circumstances that were not conducive to the literal application of the canons, designed for the natural development of church life. And this problem cannot be solved overnight. The differences between national diasporas are still very large; they all have their own traditions, which are sometimes very difficult to synchronize. In order to get closer to solving the problem of the diaspora, the Orthodox Churches agreed to create Episcopal Assemblies - structures that would unite canonical bishops from different diasporas serving within the same region. The purpose of creating these structures is to demonstrate the unity of Orthodoxy, to coordinate the activities of different Orthodox jurisdictions in the conditions of a prevailing heterodox environment. — Maybe it would be better to unite these dioceses? Why can't a Parisian Patriarchate or a London Patriarchate be created? If services there have long been conducted in the local language, and a significant part of the parishioners are indigenous residents and descendants of assimilated emigrants? This is precisely the vision that the Russian Orthodox Church shares. Evidence of this is her granting of autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in America and autonomy to the Japanese Orthodox Church. However, the formation of new Local Churches should occur naturally. For this, certain conditions must be created when in one region Orthodox communities of different jurisdictions would reach such a degree of maturity that they could exist without any connection with their mother Churches, and would increasingly gravitate towards each other. This process is already underway, but it requires a lot of time and patience. Map of the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church in pdf format
Interviewed by Dmitry REBROV.
Map: Oleg SDVIZHKOV Print version

Tags:

Church Local Churches Church Administration Patriarch

Canonical Commission

The canonical commission under the Diocesan Council of Moscow is formed from experienced and trained Moscow priests to consider petitions received by the ruling bishop of the Moscow city diocese, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill, from citizens living in the canonical territory of the Moscow city diocese - in the city of Moscow. Basically, the commission has to consider petitions for remarriage and funeral services in absentia for the mentally ill.

***

Compound

Bishop Alexy of Solnechnogorsk, abbot of the Danilov Monastery, - chairman
Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, cleric of the Church of the Ascension of the Lord (“Great Ascension”) at the Nikitsky Gate, consultant
Archpriest Sergiy Seleznev, rector of the Church of the Archangel Michael in Ovchinniki - deputy chairman
Archpriest Maxim Baturin, cleric of the Church of the Sign of the Icon of the Mother of God in Pereyaslavskaya Sloboda, - secretary
Archpriest Ilya Provada, cleric of the Church of the Nativity of John the Baptist in Ivanovo
Archpriest Dimitry Ivanov, rector of the Church of St. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov, in Ochakovo
Priest Vladimir Gerasimov, rector of the Church of the Sign of the Icon of the Mother of God in Aksinin
Priest Evgeny Terekhov, cleric of the Church of Sophia the Wisdom of God at the Cannon Yard, on Lubyanka
Priest Alexy Fedulov, cleric of the Church of the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary on Gorodnya
Priest Anthony Ignatiev, cleric of the Church of St. Nicholas of Myra at the Straw Gatehouse
Priest Anthony Smirnov, cleric of the Church of St. John the Warrior on Yakimanka
Priest Dimitry Samsonov, cleric of the Church of St. Stefan of Perm in South Butovo
Priest Mikhail Plotnikov, cleric of the Church of the Sovereign Icon of the Mother of God in Chertanovo

***

Contacts

Address: 115191, Moscow, st. Danilovsky Val, 22 (Danilov Monastery, after the entrance to the left).

Tel..

***

Information for applicants

The commission works in the format of personal reception of applicants from Monday to Friday from 10.00 to 16.00. There are no receptions on public or religious holidays.

For a quick consideration of applications on the merits, the applicant is recommended to have with him:

passport of a citizen of the Russian Federation;
originals of the certificates required in each specific case (birth, baptism, marriage, marriage, divorce, death), as well as other documents that the commission may request during a preliminary consultation of applicants by telephone.

The Commission draws the attention of applicants to the undesirability of sending petitions by mail or electronically, since this can be very difficult to comprehensively understand the complex circumstances of the problem and make a canonically correct and soul-helping decision. As a rule, then you still have to come to the commission for an appointment.

***

Links

On the canonical aspects of church marriage
Instructions for the application of the norms of the document “On the canonical aspects of church marriage”
The rite of prayerful consolation of relatives who died without permission
New rites: consolation for relatives of suicides. Commentary by Archbishop Alexy (Frolov)

Orthodox section. What is happening and who to pray to?

Politics October 18, 20182396 Yanina Melnikova

Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill in the Minsk Church of All Saints. Photo: Sergei Balai, BelaPAN

The Russian Orthodox Church had a fight with Constantinople. The Belarusian Orthodox Church supported the Russian Orthodox Church. What does this mean for Orthodox believers in our country, will the church consider those who disagree with its decision as schismatics, and what to do if you took communion in the wrong church? Let's figure it out.

At a meeting of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in Minsk, it was decided to interrupt Eucharistic communion (the joint celebration of liturgies by two bishops or priests) with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The reason for the break is the allegedly “anti-canonical” actions of Constantinople, “which entered into communication with schismatics in Ukraine and encroached on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church.”

The decision was made after the Patriarchate of Constantinople granted autocephaly (administrative independence) to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew accused Moscow of a series of “uncanonical interventions” in the affairs of the Kyiv Metropolis since the 14th century: “Since Russia, as responsible for the current painful situation in Ukraine, is not able to solve the problem, the Ecumenical Patriarchate has taken the initiative to solve the problem in accordance with the powers granted to him by the sacred canons and jurisdictional responsibility over the diocese of Kyiv, having received a request for this from the venerable Ukrainian government." Patriarch Bartholomew also stated: “The Ecumenical Patriarchate is responsible for establishing ecclesiastical and canonical order, since only it has the canonical privilege to fulfill this highest and exclusive duty.”

“In practical terms, this means that we will not be able to perform joint services with the Patriarchate of Constantinople, our bishops and priests will not be able to participate in joint liturgies with the hierarchs and priests of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the laity will not be able to receive communion in the churches of the Patriarchate of Constantinople,” he explained later At the end of the Synod meeting, Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk.

Orthodoxy: who is in charge?

The Orthodox Church emerged after the schism of Christianity in 1054. There are fifteen Local Orthodox Churches in the world, each of which has its own primate in the rank of patriarch, metropolitan or archbishop. The combined membership of these Churches is approximately 227 million.

All local churches are equal. Each autocephalous church is completely independent and independent in matters of its canonical and administrative governance.

The Primate of the Local Church is “first among equals”: he does not interfere in the internal affairs of dioceses and does not have direct jurisdiction over them. To jointly resolve various issues, a Council is convened, in which priests of various ranks and ordinary believers take part. Between Councils, the Synod helps the Patriarch manage general affairs. For example, the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church met in Minsk to resolve the issue of sanctions against the Constantinople local church, whose patriarch is called the Ecumenical.

There has long been an unspoken struggle between the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' to become “first among equals.” Moscow has long laid claim to the title of the Third Rome - and it was Constantinople that was called the “second Rome”.

As for the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, it has long lived several different “lives.” The country has both the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate, as well as the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church. The last two lead a life independent of the Moscow Patriarch.

If the UOC-KP receives autocephaly (official independence), this will most likely lead to its unification with the UAOC. What the dioceses that are now subordinate to Moscow will do is a big question.

A separate topic is church property. After all, today the UOC MP controls two key monasteries in the country - the Kiev Pechersk and Pochaev Lavra.

Canonical territory

If we translate what happened from church into political language, then in fact the Constantinople and Moscow Patriarchates act like state entities in which the leaders of the church are sovereigns. In the inter-Orthodox relations of local Orthodox churches, a clash between two sovereigns occurred. In this case, regarding Ukraine. This is not about who prays to God more correctly. The claims in the conflict are purely territorial, explains theologian, doctoral student at the Rhine Friedrich Wilhelm University (Bonn, Germany) Natalya Vasilevich:

“The body of canon law of the Orthodox Church is quite chaotic; it accumulated everything that was adopted at the Councils at different times, starting from the very foundation of the church. Therefore, there are a huge number of rules in canon law. And sovereigns resort to one or another norm to justify their actions, to legitimize them.”

Thus, the Ecumenical Patriarchate justifies its actions by its right to grant autocephaly to whomever it deems necessary. Moscow is putting forward its own arguments, calling what is happening an encroachment on the “canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church.”

The term “canonical territory” itself has been used in churches for a long time. This principle appeared during feudalism, when priests served only in their diocese and could not encroach on other territories. In the Orthodox world in the 19th and 20th centuries, this principle began to be violated. The main reason is migration. People began to leave for other countries (for example, America), where they opened parishes that were subordinate to different bishops in their homeland. Thus began the overlapping of different dioceses on top of each other.

“Later, the term began to be used to divide the territory according to the confessional principle “whose power is his faith.” After the collapse of the USSR, the term began to be applied to churches in the former Soviet republics. The concept of “canonical territory” is fixed in the charter of the Russian Orthodox Church, which lists the countries under the rule of the Moscow Patriarchate,” explains Vasilevich.

The situation will have to be accepted

She compares the actions of the Russian Orthodox Church to an attempt to stop a train leaving the station:

“It’s too late to throw yourself under the train, you can only try to hold it by the handrails. But it’s very difficult for even 15 people to do this. And, of course, for a passenger who is late for the train who bought a ticket, this situation is annoying and infuriating. He acts hysterically, not logically: he simply shouts obscenities and asks the conductor to press the brakes.”

The fact that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church wants to become autocephalous has been talked about for several years, but Moscow preferred to turn a blind eye to this, the expert believes:

“There were many entry points that could change the configuration of forces. Starting from the pre-conciliar time and the Holy Great Council itself, at which these issues could be discussed. But Moscow was sure that this train would wait for it. And it was the wrong strategy."

The Moscow Patriarchate, according to Natalya Vasilevich, initially acted without taking into account Ukrainian sentiments:

“They believe that you can still win if you ask nicely or threaten. By analogy with the stages of accepting a negative situation, the Russian Orthodox Church is now in the stage of anger, but, in the end, it will have to accept the inevitable.”

Everyone chooses for themselves

Whatever decisions the political structures make, for the laity this decision is not a disaster, Natalya Vasilevich is sure.

Yes, laity who consider themselves to be members of the churches of the Moscow Patriarchate are now prohibited from: baptizing (and anointing) children, confessing and receiving communion, and receiving the sacrament of unction from the priests and bishops of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. But there is no punishment for this:

“It is simply impossible to control in any way what believers do and how they fulfill the prohibitions. There can be no punishment here. Each person is free to choose his own strategy of action. And even if some kind of punishment is imposed on him, there are no mechanisms for its implementation. The severity of laws in Rus' is compensated by the non-compulsory nature of their implementation.”

According to the expert, believers in the Orthodox Church simply do not exist as subjects of law, so it is almost impossible to apply any norms to them: “There is only the conscience of the person himself as the main regulatory mechanism.”

It’s a different matter when it comes to representatives of the Russian Orthodox Church itself. Its priests and bishops will no longer be able to conduct joint services with representatives of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but with other representatives of local churches - yes. The biggest problem is services in which both take part.

“For example, recently a representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, Bishop Bartholomew, and two bishops of the Moscow Patriarchate were invited to the enthronement of a new Serbian bishop in Germany. This happened after the first decision of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, which already provided for the suspension of the joint ministry of bishops of two local Orthodox churches. Therefore, before the start of the service, Bishop Bartholomew was asked not to concelebrate, since then representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate could not attend the service.”

Split and isolation

The decision of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church, which was supported by the Belarusian Orthodox Church, may affect Belarusian believers, Vasilevich believes. Moreover, in the Russian Orthodox Church itself “there is a growing wing of fundamentalists focused on self-isolation and confrontation.”

In fact, the decision taken by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church logically continues the foreign policy course that Russia has been pursuing in recent years. Only earlier food products were sanctioned, now they are spiritual food.

Whether Orthodox laity belonging to the Moscow Patriarchate will remain isolated largely depends on themselves, the expert believes:

“In essence, the faithful, who have a head on their shoulders and can independently make decisions about their spiritual life, will not be affected in any way by the cessation of Eucharistic communion with Constantinople.”

Read on:

“The need for the church is the desire of adults to return to childhood”

“The church does not always have an adequate response to the needs of modern people”

Does religion divide or unite Belarusians?

On this topic

Is this absolutely disgusting religion in Belarus?
“I don’t believe in God, because so many people have been killed”
“The church does not always have an adequate response to the needs of modern people”
“Belarusians can hardly be called an example of a Christian people”

Severance of relations between the Russian Orthodox Church and Constantinople: everything you need to know

Head of the Russian Orthodox Church Kirill at a mass in his honor in the Church of Dionysius the Areopagite in Athens Photo: Max D. Gyselinck / News Pictures / East News

Why did the split happen?

On October 11, the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople announced that it would grant autocephaly to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC) and open a stauropegia (an organization or monastery directly subordinate) to the Patriarch of Constantinople in Kyiv.
Autocephaly implies that the Ukrainian Church will become administratively independent of the Russian Orthodox Church, and will be assigned a canonical territory where other churches will not be able to be present.

Constantinople restored “the leaders of the Ukrainian schism and their followers” to the church ranks. The conciliar charter of the Patriarchate of Constantinople of 1686, which concerned the transfer of the Kyiv Metropolis to the Moscow Patriarchate, was canceled. The Ecumenical Patriarchate lifted the anathema from two Ukrainian churches.

The Russian Orthodox Church called these decisions “lawless and canonically insignificant.” On October 15, the Russian Church completely stopped Eucharistic communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Belarusian Orthodox Church supported the Russian Orthodox Church.

Eucharistic communion is the possibility of sharing the liturgy between two bishops or priests. For Orthodox churches, the presence of this communion is the only clear sign of unity in the Ecumenical Orthodox Church, since autocephalous churches are administratively, economically, and legally independent.

At the same time, according to the press secretary of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexander Volkov, the conflict between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate cannot be called the Great Schism.

Punishments for prayers

Now the Russian Orthodox Church will not participate in concelebration with clergy of the Church of Constantinople, and parishioners are not allowed to participate in the sacraments in the churches of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

For praying in the “forbidden” churches of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church will face punishment. Believers will be required to repent in confession for disobedience to the church.

Which churches are “banned”

Thus, parishioners of the Russian Orthodox Church will no longer be able to pray and receive communion in churches on Mount Athos. Athos or the Holy Mountain are 20 Orthodox monasteries that are under the control of the Patriarch of Constantinople. This is one of the main holy places for Orthodox Christians.

For parishioners and clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church, all churches of the Church of Constantinople were “banned.” Secretary of the Department for External Church Relations (DECR) of the Moscow Patriarchate, Archpriest Igor Yakimchuk, clarified which popular tourist destinations they are located in. In Turkey, these are all the operating temples in Istanbul and the only operating temple in Antalya. In Greece - on Crete and on the Dodecanese islands, located in the southeastern part of the Aegean Sea, the largest of them is Rhodes.

Appointments of new bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church

On October 16, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church changed the places of some of the bishops who ruled its parishes in Europe and the United States. The administrator of the Patriarchal parishes in the USA, Bishop John (Roshchin), is transferred to Italy. Temporary management of parishes in the USA was entrusted to Bishop Matthew of Sourozh. He leads the diocese of the Russian Church in Britain.

Reaction

Press Secretary of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate Evstratiy (Ivan Zorya) accused the Russian Orthodox Church of self-isolation and repeating the Kremlin’s policies. “Synod of the MP (Moscow Patriarchate - “Snob”)

repeats the Kremlin’s policy of self-isolation in response to legitimate decisions of the international community. Since 1991, Patriarch Kirill has personally become the architect of the division of the Ukrainian Church. Therefore, it is difficult for him to admit guilt for 27 years of false activities that dragged the Orthodox into the conflict,” he wrote on his Facebook page.

Prerequisites

The decision of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church on the termination of Eucharistic communion states that the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church back in 2008 called on the Patriarchate of Constantinople to “refrain from steps that could undermine the unity of the Orthodox Church.”

The Russian Church believes that Constantinople has arrogated to itself the power to cancel judicial and other decisions of other local Orthodox churches. This, the Russian Orthodox Church says, “is only one of the manifestations of the new false teaching now proclaimed by the Church of Constantinople and ascribing to the Patriarch of Constantinople the rights of “first without equal” (primus sine paribus) with universal jurisdiction.”

Achilles

On September 25, the website Pravoslavie.ru published a material entitled “Let the arrogance of worldly power not creep into the Church . The author is professor, doctor of church history, master of theology, teacher at Sretensky Theological Seminary, author of textbooks on church law and church history, Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin. The figure is well-known, respectable, official.

This article is devoted, as indicated in the subtitle, to “a canonical and ecclesiological assessment of the actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.” Since I am not a scientist, not a canonist, and have not even graduated from a seminary, I will not comment on the canonical or ecclesiological side of the issue - who is right and who is wrong in the issue of the legality of granting autocephaly to Ukraine by the Ecumenical Patriarch. But I will express a few of my comments on Father Vladislav’s article from the point of view of the common sense of an outside observer.

The beginning of the article by the doctor of church history speaks for itself - in what manner the conversation will take place: in an alarmist way, the reader is immediately frightened with loud words:

“The sin of schism is not washed away even by the blood of martyrdom.
Saint John Chrysostom
The unity of the Ecumenical Orthodox Church is under threat. The severity of the crisis is comparable to the most tragic events in the history of the Church: the fall from Orthodoxy of the Roman throne, the adoption of the Union of Florence by the Patriarchate of Constantinople in 1439. The bomb that blew up the church world was the intervention of Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople in the internal affairs of the self-governing Ukrainian Church, which is part of the Moscow Patriarchate...”

So, the issue of autocephaly in Ukraine is placed alongside the global events of the Great Schism and the Union of Florence. But below Tsypin writes:

“Patriarch Meletius IV, taking advantage of the bloody persecutions unleashed against the Russian Church, dared to extend his jurisdictional claims to dioceses located on the historically established single canonical territory of the Russian Church, which ended up as a result of the events of 1917 in the newly formed states: Poland, Finland, Latvia and Estonia. Patriarch Meletius IV then went to meet the political interests of the governments of these states, which prompted the local hierarchy to ask the Patriarch of Constantinople to accept them into its jurisdiction. Thus, in 1923, Orthodox dioceses in Poland, Finland and Estonia were accepted into the jurisdiction of Constantinople without coordinating the issue with the hierarchy of the persecuted Russian Church; in 1924, Patriarch Gregory VII canonically illegally granted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in Poland; in 1935, Patriarch Photius accepted to the Constantinople jurisdiction of the Latvian Church."

Thus, it turns out that the Patriarchate of Constantinople has already - and repeatedly - committed anti-canonical and anti-ecclesiological actions, “invading the canonical territory of the Russian Church,” granting autocephaly and accepting national Churches under its jurisdiction. So why don’t you call those events comparable to the Great Schism and Union, and why didn’t you break off communication forever with such a bad and harmful Constantinople? Why did you eat up his atrocities and continue to remember him, and sit at “brotherly” meetings, and serve together? Or were your actions - the actions of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church - determined not by canons, but by political interests?

By the way, about political interests. The whole pathos of Tsypin’s article is expressed in his contempt (reflecting the general position of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church, the same as that of the Kremlin) for Ukraine as a state, or more precisely, for the fact that it is not the “canonical church” that is asking Constantinople for autocephaly, but the government. And here Tsypin does not hesitate to use epithets:

“...autocephaly in Ukraine is sought only by its “venerable government.”
...The political background of the venture is so transparent that it does not require any special comments. The haste of the actions taken was obviously coordinated with the timing of the election campaign in Ukraine; the actions taken are aimed at extending the power of Ukrainian politicians who carried out a coup in Kyiv and plunged the country into civil war; and behind this favor to the puppet Kiev regime there is also a poorly hidden service to incomparably more powerful forces, which, as was once stated by one of the most authoritative American political scientists, discovered the main obstacle in the quest for world domination in the very existence of the Orthodox Church.”

Simply put, the United States is to blame for everything, which puts pressure on the “puppet” Constantinople and on the “puppet” government of Ukraine - in general, the endless, set on edge collective anchichrist “Brzezinski”, who is prevented from establishing world domination only by the Russian Orthodox Church (the last “holding”, or in the more cheerful rhetoric of one of the clowns from Russian state Orthodoxy: “Only the union of Patriarch Kirill and President Putin will save Russia (and the whole world, of course)!”). has been spoken out loud more than once by speakers of the Russian Orthodox Church, word for word. By this we mean that only the strong play political games: the USA and Russia, and every other puppet little thing should keep quiet, tremble and obey the one who must be obeyed. In this case, the UOC must obey and obey only the Moscow Patriarchate, which, in turn, is under the wing of a great power, powerful and invincible, honest and just, bringing light and other Iskanders to the world - Russia. More precisely, the Kremlin.

And after this, do you think that religious citizens of another, independent state will not have a strong desire to move further away from you? From your blessing steel hand? No, it was precisely the rhetoric of the speakers of the Russian Orthodox Church and the UOC-MP that completely clarified the position: if anyone wants to secede, he is a traitor, a puppet, a schismatic, a heretic and a Judas, and whoever is ready to bend his neck to Gundyaev and Putin are those canonical sweethearts and ecclesiological sweethearts.

And the respected doctor of ecclesiastical sciences, author of textbooks and other regalia, Father Vladislav Tsypin, does not hesitate to declare:

“An absolutely necessary condition for the establishment of autocephaly is the desire for it of the church people, the clergy and the episcopate of the corresponding church region, and the majority at all these levels. Meanwhile, the significant majority of the episcopate, clergy and laity of the canonical Ukrainian Church value the ties connecting it with the Russian Church, value their belonging to the Russian world; does not strive for isolation from it, for separation, which means there is no canonically significant reason for the establishment of a new autocephaly.”

Father, raise your eyes and look into the faces of people, some of whom even slightly touched upon the study of church and secular history, at least in the most generalized form - aren’t you ashamed? When was the opinion of the laity and the clergy especially interested in anyone, especially before the twentieth century? In all centuries, all issues of autocephaly, councils, canons, territories and other things were decided only by the episcopate and rulers. And most often it is secular power, especially in Byzantium. And even more so it was in Russia. The entire canonicity of the Russian Church has always been in the hands of one person - the Tsar or Tsarina. Maybe I should remind you of an article from the “Basic Laws of the Russian Empire”?

“The Emperor, as a Christian Sovereign, is the supreme defender and guardian of the dogmas of the ruling faith and the guardian of orthodoxy and all deanery in the Holy Church. (...) In this sense, the Emperor in the act of succession to the throne (1797 April 5) is called the Head of the Church” (Fundamental Laws, Art. 42 in the 1832 edition).

Where are your indignations, anathemas and pretentious speeches about the “arrogance of worldly power”? Wasn’t the Russian Church a weak-willed puppet in the hands of rulers for centuries?

Another quote from Tsypin’s article:

“...the appointment of exarchs sent by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to Kyiv is an act of invasion into canonical territory that does not belong to it. This is an act for which, according to the 2nd canon of the Sardician Council, those guilty of it are subject not only to defrocking, but, as it is said in this canon, “none of these, at the time of their death, will be worthy of communion, even on an equal basis with the laity.” . All the more deserving of condemnation is interference in the affairs of another Local Church. Rule 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council reads:
“Let the same be observed in other areas, and throughout the dioceses; so that none of the most God-loving bishops would extend power to another diocese, which was not before and at first under the hands of him or his predecessors; but if anyone has stretched out and forcibly subjugated any diocese, let him give it back: let the Father’s rules not be broken; let not the arrogance of worldly power creep in under the guise of sacred rites; and may we not lose, little by little, unnoticed, the freedom that our Lord Jesus Christ, the liberator of all men, gave us through His Blood.”

I appeal to all readers (especially believers), whose eyes, ears and minds are not yet completely clouded by church slang: read carefully these words of the rule of the Ecumenical Council: about “the arrogance of worldly power” and about “I would not extend power”, “at hand” him and his predecessors,” “subjugated the diocese.” Read these words and pass them through the thinking of a person of the 21st century, as well as through your experience, if any, of church life: do you understand that you, ordinary laity and clergy, are simply pawns in their “canonical territories”, and this has always been the case ? Do you understand that they are not interested in your life, conscience, freedom, brotherhood, love, unity in spirit, good neighborliness? Do you understand that apart from the “worldly” and “spiritual” power, apart from their ambitions, in the spirit of that imperial Byzantineism (Third Ecumenical Council - the first third of the fifth century), they care about practically nothing?

Therefore, the patriarchs of any patriarchy at all times will always find canons, rules and customs that legitimize their actions. Therefore, there will always be church speakers and professors of theology who will surround these hierarchal ambitions with a large number of references and quotes from dusty manuscripts. Therefore, there will always be those ardent publicists and well-fed journalists who will enthusiastically prove the blackness and dirtiness of “enemies” and the whiteness and holiness of “our own,” turning a blind eye to exactly the same disgustingness, lies and political ambitions on both sides.

But, I repeat, your freedom, your life and even the salvation of your soul are not at all interested in them - although they will trumpet this and, with an air of insulted innocence, prove that it is precisely through their actions - prohibitions, anathemas, threats, lies, hypocrisy, bribery, intrigue and so on. - they “take care” of you, ordinary believers and ordinary clergy. No, they care - and this has been the case in all centuries of “imperial” and post-imperial Orthodoxy - only about themselves: their power and their income, which they want to squeeze out of their “canonical territories.” That is, from you. And for this they always have a canon.

Drawing by Vyacheslav Polukhin