Ecclesiology

The Marks of Autocephaly

Published on: September 21, 2015
373 views
Readers' rating:
4.3
(6)
Reading Time: 3 minutes

This essay was originally delivered as a public talk at the June 2015 Fordham/OTSA conference on the upcoming Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church. It was part of a panel on Autocephaly and Diaspora.

The canonical situation in the United States is recognized by nearly all Orthodox theologians and ecclesiastical leaders as anomalous and contrary to the organizational principle of the early church of one bishop presiding over one eucharistic community.  The canons of Nicaea I (325) and especially Canon 2 of the Council of Constantinople I (381) enshrine and expand this principle by further delineating the fundamental unit of ecclesiastical organization to be one presiding bishop within a defined geographical area.  In the context of late Roman civil administration these organizational units were either the smaller provinces or larger dioceses.  In the US and elsewhere, the existence of multiple jurisdictions with presiding bishops in the same geographical area contradicts this fundamental principle.

To complicate matters further, the historical trajectories of Orthodox Christianity in 18th and 19th century North America reflect a diverse expression of organizational realities, missionary activities, and immigration within a nexus of Mother Church relationships that were and still are connected to the politics of individual nation states.  The autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America granted by the Patriarchate of Moscow in 1970 further confuses the situation.  Thus, any solution to the question of autocephaly in the diaspora must not only consider the ecclesiastical and canonical tradition but the entrenched historical realities that are connected with corresponding jurisdictional agendas.

Rather than focus solely on the diverse canonical and historical record, it would be beneficial to remind ourselves of the four attributes of the church defined in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed which when applied to the organizational principle already noted redirect our focus away from issues of power, authority and primacy as the Church attempts to resolve the jurisdictional anomalies found in the United States.  As the only dogmatic definition concerning ecclesiology coming out of an ecumenical council, the adjectives “one”, “holy”, “catholic” and “apostolic” deserve as much attention as the canonical legislation or historical vicissitudes.

To focus on these four markers of ecclesiological authenticity should not be seen as a cover for the argument of maturity: that is, autocephaly is granted only when a local community reaches a particular level of maturity and is thus capable of self-governance.  Such an understanding of autocephaly has an inherent connection with longevity; that is, a certain amount of time must “pass” before a local church is able to govern itself.  The church is not a bottle of wine, it is a human-divine organization which expresses itself in terms of fullness and authenticity.  A church is autocephalous when it can express the oneness of the church universal through its internal unity as well as its unity with all other autocephalous churches.  A church is autocephalous, not by its ability to canonize or have one of its members be canonized, but by providing the soil from which holiness can sprout.  A church is autocephalous when it speaks “the truth in love” not just for its own local members but as a witness to the world.  A church is autocephalous when its bishops are canonical and it preaches the apostolic kerygma of Christ incarnate, crucified, resurrected and ascended.

Autocephaly is organic and local, yet not disconnected from the universal church.  For a church to be a church it must be one, holy, catholic and apostolic.  Autocephaly does not validate these four ecclesiological markers but rather is an expression of their existence and vitality.  The question of autocephaly is not limited to self-governance, although, unfortunately this is how the discussion is usually framed.  Rather, it is an expression of the authenticity of a regional church that is able to express the oneness, sanctity, catholicity and apostolicity of the Church.  Autocephaly is not earned; it is experienced; it is an expression of the legitimacy of a community that is capable of guaranteeing that the members of its body, though disparate, are as a whole an expression of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic kerygma of Jesus Christ.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

As you’ve reached the conclusion of the article, we have a humble request. The preparation and publication of this article were made possible, in part, by the support of our readers. Even the smallest monthly donation contributes to empowering our editorial team to produce valuable content. Your support is truly significant to us. If you appreciate our work, consider making a donation – every contribution matters. Thank you for being a vital part of our community.

Public Orthodoxy seeks to promote conversation by providing a forum for diverse perspectives on contemporary issues related to Orthodox Christianity. The positions expressed in this essay are solely the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Orthodox Christian Studies Center.

About author

  • James Skedros

    James Skedros

    Dean and Michael G. and Anastasia Cantonis Professor of Byzantine Studies and Professor of Early Christianity at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology.

    James Skedros is Dean and Michael G. and Anastasia Cantonis Professor of Byzantine Studies and Professor of Early Christianity at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology.

    Read author's full bio and see articles by this author

Have something on your mind?

Thanks for reading this article! If you feel that you ready to join the discussion, we welcome high-caliber unsolicited submissions. Essays may cover any topic relevant to our credo – Bridging the Ecclesial, the Academic, and the Political. Follow the link below to check our guidlines and submit your essay.

Proceed to submission page

Rate this publication

Did you find this essay interesting?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 4.3 / 5. Vote count: 6

Be the first to rate this essay.

Share this publication

Disclaimer

Public Orthodoxy seeks to promote conversation by providing a forum for diverse perspectives on contemporary issues related to Orthodox Christianity. The positions expressed in the articles on this website are solely the author’s and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or the Orthodox Christian Studies Center.

Attribution

Public Orthodoxy is a publication of the Orthodox Christian Studies Center of Fordham University