Talk:List of autocephalous and autonomous churches
Church of Sinai
it was my understanding that the Church of Sinai was fairly universally recognised as being an autonomous church. is this the case, and who is it/is it not recognised by? Pistevo 23:46, 14 Jul 2005 (EDT)
- I'm not sure of the details, but in the Fitzgerald book listed in the Sources, Sinai isn't included in his list. (Fr. Thomas is a priest of the GOA and a professor at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. —Dcn. Andrew talk random contribs 08:03, 15 Jul 2005 (EDT)
Archbishopric of Ohrid
There is also autonomous Archibishopric of Ohrid. Church of Serbia garanted Autonomy to them 2004.--Ddpbf 06:29, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
- Archdiocese is the usual English term. I've added this to the "expanded" order. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 14:01, April 19, 2007 (PDT)
Prior to making changes I want to ask: what is the point of the "expanded" order? Why is it stated that the autonomy of the Archbishopric of Ohrid is recognized only by Serbia?!? First of all, Serbia is a country, a political entity, and it is not up to a political entity to recognize or not recognize a church. Second - the Patriarchate of Pec granted autonomy to the Archbishopric of Ohrid and notified all other churches of this. There is no need that the other churches recognize or not recognize this autonomy, as it is an internal matter of the Patriarchate of Pec. The Archbishopric of Ohrid is in communion with all orthodox churches. What other form of recognition by the other churches is needed? K.panteleimon 20:32, June 1, 2009 (UTC)
- To answer your two questions:
- 1. The "expanded order" is explained in the article. It is "is recognized by some churches, most notably the Church of Russia and its dependencies and historical daughter churches." That is, it represents an order which some of the Orthodox world agrees on.
- 2. Autonomy and autocephaly are not simply a matter of who locally gets to do what. Rather, there is (at least theoretically) a seat at the table in inter-Orthodox gatherings for separate representations of autonomous and autocephalous churches. The reason why that universal recognition matters is precisely for the purposes of such inter-Orthodox meetings. (Moscow's representatives, for instance, walked out of a meeting when a delegation showed up from the EP's autonomous Estonian church.)
- Father Andrew, thanks for your answers. From what you say one may conclude that the "seat at the table in an inter-Orthodox gathering" is the measure of autonomy (and autocephaly). That would not be true. But, let's say that is correct. In that case, can you please name the last gathering where, for example, the Church of China was given an autonomous seat? If this criteria, however, proves to be true, we should write that in the "autonomy" page in this Wiki.
- You mention a meeting from which the representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate walked away. If you are referring to the meeting in Ravenna in October 2007, allow me to point out that first of all that was not an Inter-Orthodox meeting. What is more important is the fact that the Estonian delegation was part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate delegation, they were not invited as an autonomous church and reserved an autonomous seat.
- But, since autonomy (unlike autocephaly) is an internal matter of each Church, the Ecumenical Patriarchate chose to include a representative from its Estonian Church in its delegation.
- At last, please have in mind that the problem in Estonia is due to the fact that two canonical orthodox Partriarchates claim juristiction over that territory, i.e. there are two canonical juristictions there. That is not the case with the autonomous Archbishopric of Ohrid which is the only canonical Church on the territory of R. Macedonia.
- K.panteleimon 09:39, June 2, 2009 (UTC)
Please do not keep adding the ROCOR to this list. It is not an autonomous church in the sense that these other churches are autonomous, but is indeed regarded by both itself and the MP as being corporately part of the Church of Russia. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 19:21, May 29, 2007 (PDT)
The Church of Cyprus
Why was my entry here removed? It makes a legitimate note that the Russians place the order of the hierarchy differently, and it just so happens that the Greeks and the Arabs do the same regarding the position of the Church of Cyprus. As I explained, the ancient Patriarchates, the Church of Greece, and the Church of Cyprus, regard Cyprus as featuring immediately before Moscow. The Archbishop has certain three privileges, namely being able to wear red beneath the rason, carrying a stick with a double-headed snake, and signing his name in red. The Church was founded by Paul, Barnabas, and Lazaros, and it is the location of the tomb of Barnabas with his copy of Matthew that led ultimately to irrefutable independence from the Patriarchate of Antioch. Eugene 13:34, January 23, 2009 (UTC)
- The edit was reverted because it's simply not factually true. There is no Orthodox church that ranks Cyprus higher than Moscow. In fact, all of them rank all the patriarchal-rank churches before Cyprus.
- Here's an example from a recent event presided over by the Ecumenical Patriarch: http://www.ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=995&tla=en Look at the list of signatures at the bottom of this official document. Note how all the patriarchal churches are listed before Cyprus.
- As for the list of Cypriot privileges, of course no one denies those. But that kind of detail is appropriate for the Church of Cyprus article. (Indeed, it's already there.) —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 22:49, January 23, 2009 (UTC)
OK point taken. I am mistaken. You're right, in the hierarchy Cyprus is where it is, and above Greece because of her ancient autocephaly, but not above Patriarchates. Eugene 23:52, January 23, 2009 (UTC)
- PS finally found a reference that says she was placed above the other Patriarchates, immediately AFTER Moscow. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Rotunda/2209/Cyprus.html Eugene 00:28, January 26, 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting, but dated. The patriarchal rank of Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria and Georgia were all either established or restored after 1754. In any event, I wouldn't take that (whatever it is) as a reliable source on how the Orthodox churches are actually ranked by the Orthodox churches. —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 00:49, January 26, 2009 (UTC)