125
edits
Changes
added map
[[Image:World canonical territories.png|right|thumb|450px|Map of the canonical territories of autocephalous and autonomous Orthodox jurisdictions. Click image to magnify.]]'''Autocephaly''' (literally "self-headed") is the status of a church within the [[Orthodox Church]] whose [[primate|primatial]] bishop does not report to any higher-ranking bishop. When an [[ecumenical council]] or a high-ranking [[bishop]], such as a [[patriarch]] or other [[primate]], releases an [[Ecclesiastical Province|ecclesiastical province ]] from the authority of that bishop while the newly independent church remains in [[full communion]] with the hierarchy to which it then ceases to belong, the council or primate is granting '''autocephaly'''. Historically, however, autocephaly is not always obtained in such a manner.
==Church usage==
* In 466, the [[Church of Antioch]] elevated the bishop of Mtskheta to the rank of Catholicos of Kartli, thus rendering the [[Church of Georgia]] autocephalous.
* The [[Orthodox Church in America]] received autocephaly from the [[Church of Russia]] in 1970 (though that action is still not formally recognized by any many of the older other autocephalous churches).
==New autocephalous churches==
Reguardless of ''how'' a church becomes autocephalous, the normal and historical procedure for a ''new'' autocephalous church, is to be to be formally recognized as autocephalous by the church of which it was originally a part. And then be formally recognized by all of the other Orthodox Churches in the world. This does not require the blessing of any single particular bishop and certainly not an official gathering of an [[Ecumenical Council]].
== Analysis ==
The notion that the [[Church of Constantinople]] has the sole authority to grant autocephaly is largely based on an interpretation of Canon 28 of the [[Fourth Ecumenical Council|Council of Chalcedon]] (451) stating that the Ecumenical Patriarch has authority in "barbarian lands." However, that is argued by many to refer only to certain areas on the borderlands of the ancient [[Roman Empire]] and having nothing whatsoever to do with the modern world some 1500 years later. Historically (see above), many of today's autocephalous churches were originally under the authority of Constantinople by virtue of geographical proximity or a tradition of Constantinopolitan missionary activity. So what may seem like a clear pattern of ecclesiastical order to some is argued by others to be merely coincidental and not [[ecclesiology|ecclesiological]].
There is, however, a good deal more historical evidence to suggest that Constantinople has a sort of missionary authority in the areas outside those territories which have been explicitly defined by pan-Orthodox synods to constitute autocephalous churches.[http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8148.asp] This claim is disputed particularly by the [[Church of Russia]] and its daughter and dependency churches,[http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/PatAlexisCanon28.shtml] especially sometimes as an expression of the idea that Moscow is the [[Third Rome]].
=== Patterns of Autocephaly ===
The stance that : [QUOTE]"Further, even the idea that any mother church can grant a daughter church autocephaly is not supported by history or the canons as they now stand. The modern conception of autocephaly postdates the primary formation of the Orthodox canonical tradition by some centuries, and so the canons don't currently directly address the question of how one obtains autocephaly in the 21st century.
The truth is that, historically and canonically, there is no one way to attain autocephaly. Why? It is because there is no "theology of autocephaly" to be found in the [[Church Fathers|Fathers]] or the [[Holy Scripture]]. Indeed, the very idea of autocephaly probably would have seemed a little odd to the [[apostles]]. That doesn't mean that it is wrong, but autocephalous and [[autonomy|autonomous]] churches are not essential to the nature of the [[Church]]. That is, they are not inherently [[ecclesiology|ecclesiological]] matters. They are a practical, administrative, canonical development, and they continue to develop, though within the context of ecclesiology.[/QUOTE]"
is dated in the last decade of the 20th century, and is contradicted by history, the most notable example being the autocephalia of Georgian Patriarchate.
