AUTOCEPHALOUS CHURCHES. — In general, autocephalous (C. a.) Churches are particular Churches that depend on no other Church and govern themselves in a completely independent and autonomous manner. According to Catholic doctrine, only one particular Church is fully autocephalous by right, namely the Church of the diocese of Rome, since its pastor is the bishop of that city, successor of Peter in his supreme jurisdiction over the universal Church. All other particular Churches, being subject to this primacy and manifestly acknowledging it as their head, cannot be called autocephalous in the strict sense of the term. Within the Catholic system, there cannot be plural autocephalous Churches.
I. VARIOUS KINDS OF AUTOCEPHALY
This holds true if the term “autocephalous” is taken in its absolute sense. But in the ancient Church, autocephaly was sometimes understood in a relative sense. Thus, the Church of the island of Cyprus was commonly called autocephalous beginning with the Council of Ephesus, because it was withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Antioch and governed itself without any intervention by a patriarch. Yet this kind of autocephaly did not break the bond of subordination that tied this Church to the Bishop of Rome by virtue of the right of universal primacy. Among the Byzantines, there was sometimes talk of autocephalous bishops or archbishops. These were bishops who withdrew from the jurisdiction of their metropolitan and depended directly on the Patriarch of Constantinople: another example of relative autocephaly. Similarly, the ancient patriarchates of the East and other Eastern Churches that, from a certain point onward, were no longer tied to one of the four patriarchates may be qualified as autocephalous, as was the case, for example, of the Armenian Church beginning in the year 374. These patriarchates indeed governed themselves in an autonomous manner, but it was always a relative autonomy, because the Bishop of Rome retained his right to intervene in their affairs—an intervention that, as history teaches, manifested itself especially in cases of appeal and when faith was at stake.Absolute autocephaly began on the day when schism and heresy separated certain Churches or groups of Churches from the Bishop of Rome, the common center of ecclesiastical unity, which organized themselves outside any intervention by the universal primate and no longer tolerated his interference in their activities. This occurred, in the fifth century, for the Monophysite groups of Egypt, Syria, and Armenia, as well as for the Church of Persia, which as early as 424, at the Synod of Markabta, decided to break all communication with the rest of Christendom before embracing the Nestorian heresy, which confirmed it forever in its separatism. The Byzantine Church, in turn, became completely autocephalous from the moment it definitively withdrew from the authority of the Roman Pontiff.
If one now investigates on what principles absolute autocephalies were organized, no uniformity is found. Among the Monophysite autocephalies, the principle of ethnicity or race proper dominated, dividing Churches according to race and language. Thus there arose the Egyptian or Coptic Church, the Jacobite Syrian Church, and the Armenian Church called Gregorian. The autocephaly of the Nestorian Church was rather dominated by the principle of nationalism proper, which multiplies independent groups not precisely according to race or language but according to the number of independent political States: to each independent nation corresponds an independent religious group, a national Church. The Church of Persia proclaimed its autonomy even before becoming Nestorian, because of the danger of persecution that would have resulted from any relation with the Churches of foreign territories. The nationalist principle also dominated in the organization of the autocephalous groups derived from the ancient Byzantine Church, but it was not the only one. The three patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem survived all political vicissitudes and changes of borders by virtue of the principle of apostolic origin, although for a certain period the Patriarch of Constantinople imposed his supremacy and jurisdiction upon these Churches, claiming to substitute the Roman primacy of the early centuries. Before the World War of 1914–18, there existed several autocephalous Churches of Byzantine rite within the single Austro-Hungarian Empire. Also strictly racial or “phylletic,” as the Greeks say (from φύλα, “race, tribe”), was the Bulgarian Church or Exarchate, which formed autonomous dioceses or groups of faithful wherever Bulgarian people of the race were found, without regard for the borders of independent States or nations. In our own day, the racial or phyletic principle is developing ever more, especially in the two Americas and among the dispersed Russians.
II. THE AUTOCEPHALOUS CHURCHES OF BYZANTINE RITE
When one speaks in the West of autocephalous Churches, one usually means the autocephalous Churches of Byzantine rite, the whole of which constitutes what is commonly called the Orthodox Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church, which some designate by the names Greek-Russian Church, Greek-Slav Church, or the schismatic Church of the East—all more or less improper denominations. Each of these Churches, except for the three Eastern patriarchates and the Church of Cyprus, arose successively from the ancient Patriarchate of Constantinople, chiefly by virtue of national autocephaly, which, as has been said, multiplies autocephalies according to the number of independent States. This principle explains the more or less numerous autocephalies, which in effect depend on political events and State borders. Before the war of 1914, there were counted sixteen autocephalies or autonomies. After it, the number was almost doubled. The racial or phyletic criterion also exerts its influence here.Etymologically, the two terms “autonomy” and “autocephaly” are synonymous; an autocephalous Church is also autonomous. In reality, however, within the Byzantine group under discussion, there is a marked difference between autocephalous Churches proper and autonomous Churches. Autocephaly is constituted by a Church that is fully independent and does not admit the interference of any other sister Church in its affairs, even the gravest ones; theoretically, it recognizes as its superior authority only the possible authority of an ecumenical council.
Autonomy is an autocephaly in the process of formation: it still retains some bonds of subordination to the mother autocephaly from which it has detached itself, namely the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This retains the right to ordain the first prelate of the autonomous Church, to supply it with holy chrism, to send it a *casare* or delegate in cases of exceptionally grave affairs to conduct an inquiry, to receive appeals, etc. Considering it from a political standpoint, autonomy may be compared to a British dominion or to a very broad protectorate.
This system of Byzantine autocephalous Churches suppresses the unity of government or permanent central authority. Each autocephalous Church constitutes a religious society that is uniquely distinct from sister Churches, independent of each one, having its own patriarchal organization and its supreme authority, habitually represented by a council or synod. We have a set of independent republics that cannot be considered a true confederation, since there is lacking a common central authority. In theory, there is the ecumenical council, which every autocephaly recognizes as the supreme authority. But besides being a transitory authority, the ecumenical council is, for this reason, a true myth. After the schism, it has never been convoked again and cannot be convoked either de jure or de facto, because of the divergent opinions among Greek-Russian theologians regarding the conditions for such an assembly.
Lacking a unified government, the pretender system nevertheless safeguards the unity of faith, ecclesiastical communion, discipline, and liturgy. In effect, only liturgical unity has been sufficiently preserved to this day. To find among these Churches a certain unity of faith, it must be reduced to the strict minimum of the definitions expressed by the first seven ecumenical councils. Disciplinary or canonical unity exists only in a small number of rules or canons still observed, an inheritance from the legislation of the ancient Byzantine Church.
The organic statutes of most autocephalous Churches have often changed and are laws imposed by secular authority, which in these Churches represents the part of the Pope in the Catholic Church. And indeed it is the true supreme authority to which they are obliged to submit. As for the unity of ecclesiastical communion (communicatio in sacris), it no longer practically exists after the Bulgarian schism of 1872 and after the recent other divisions produced in recent times among certain autocephalous Churches. The internal divisions of the Russians, dispersed following the Bolshevik revolution, have dealt it a fatal blow.
We now have numerous autocephalies that communicate in sacris with other autocephalies, which mutually anathematize one another. The principle: “the friends of our friends are our friends; the enemies of our enemies are our enemies” is no longer applied. In theory, the autocephalies must mutually communicate important decisions they take that may have general interest. In the decrees or tomes of autocephaly issued by the Patriarch of Constantinople, he recommends that the Churches consult, in such cases, with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. This recommendation often remains a dead letter: one example, among many others, is that of the Romanian Church, which in 1925 became a patriarchate without informing either the Ecumenical Patriarchate or the other Churches.
Such is, outlined in broad strokes, the system of the autocephalous Churches derived from the ancient Byzantine Church. This system has its panegyrists, who like to compare it with the unitary and centralizing constitution of the Roman Church. They extol its advantages, which would be those of suppressing every struggle between priesthood and empire, between civil and ecclesiastical power; of admirably reconciling unity with freedom; of fostering patriotism, multiplying autonomous centers of development and progress; of maintaining an equal distance from Protestant anarchy and papal tyranny. Unfortunately, this idyllic picture does not exist in reality. Indeed, the Church pays for the enumerated advantages with the loss or diminution of its unity, its independence, its universalist and Catholic character, and its true religious influence over souls. Moreover, from the doctrinal point of view, it is not a question of knowing which, in theory, is the best form of ecclesiastical government, but which constitution Jesus Christ chose for His Church in founding II. The New Testament and the tradition of the ancient Church give a very clear answer to this question, which is not in favor of nationalist autocephaly and much less of racial or phyletic autocephaly.