Audrey Shishkov

Church Autocephaly Through the Lens of Carl Schmitt's Theory of Sovereignty

Andrey Shishkov - Research Fellow of the Sst. Cyril and Methodius Post-Graduate Institute of the Russian Orthodox Church; Consultant of the Synodal Biblical and Theological Commission of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow, Russia), andrey.v.shishkov@gmail.com

The article discusses the issue of the church autocephaly through the lens of the Carl Schmitt's theory of sovereignty. It starts from the premise that the concept of autocephaly is synonymous with sovereignty in the area of the inter-Orthodox relations. He uses Carl Schmitt's concept of sovereignty-as-exception as an analytical tool seeing proclamation of autocephaly by a local church as introducing a state of emergency (exception), from which, in turn, sovereignty is born. As an example, the article considers the history of the Russian autocephaly. The article also introduces the distinction between sovereignty and its limited version, which arises in situations when a mother-church grants autocephaly to her part. An alternative model is the Church of Constantinople's sovereignty derived from the "primacy of honour" in the Orthodox diptychs. In this respect, the article considers the prospective Pan-Orthodox Council as claiming the supreme authority in Eastern Orthodoxy.

Keywords: autocephaly, Carl Schmitt, ecclesiology, Ecumenical Patriarchate, exception, inter-Orthodox relations, Pan-Orthodox Council, Russian Orthodox Church, sovereignty, state of emergency.

Autocephaly and sovereignty: problem statement

In March 2014, a meeting of the heads of local Orthodox churches in Istanbul decided to hold a pan-Orthodox council two years later. Isto-

page 197
the history of the council's convocation dates back more than 20 years1. Since 1923, and officially since 1961, the pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar process has been one of the main aspects of inter-church relations.2
The first attempt to organize a pan-Orthodox forum to address the urgent problems facing world Orthodoxy was the Pan-Orthodox congress convened in Istanbul in 1923 on the initiative of the Patriarch of Constantinople. But this attempt was unsuccessful, as some autocephalous churches (including the Russian Orthodox Church) did not recognize the church-wide status of the congress and its decisions. Further initiatives - the inter-Orthodox conference on Mount Athos (1930) and the meeting of heads and representatives of the local Orthodox churches in Moscow (1948), convened by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow, respectively-also did not receive church-wide recognition. Only in 1961, at a pan-Orthodox conference in Rhodes, which was attended by representatives of all autocephalous local churches, was it decided to begin work on the preparation of a pan-Orthodox council. At the same time, a list was compiled of more than a hundred topics that were supposed to be discussed together.3 Later, in 1976, this list was reduced to ten topics: (1) the Orthodox diaspora; (2) autocephaly and the method of its proclamation; (3) autonomy and the method of its proclamation; (4) diptychs; (5) the calendar issue; (6) obstacles to marriage; (7) the alignment of church regulations on fasting; (8) the relationship of Orthodox churches to the rest of Christendom; (9) Orthodoxy and the ecumenical movement; (10) the contribution of local Orthodox churches to the triumph of Christian ideas of peace,

1. For the history of the Pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar process, including the decisions of all official pre-conciliar meetings, see: Ionita, V. (2014) Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church. Fribourg: Institute for Ecumenical Studies, University of Fribourg. For a brief outline of the history of the pre-conciliar process, see the report of the Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate: Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev). Inter-Orthodox cooperation in preparation for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church / / Official website of the DECR MP. 03.11.2011 [https: / / mospat.ru/ru/2011/11/03/news50923/, accessed from 04.06.2014].

2. In the article, the term "inter-church relations" will be understood as the sphere of relations between autocephalous local Orthodox churches.

3. For the entire list, see: Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) and Pan-Orthodox Unity, St. Petersburg: Knyaz-Vladimirsky Sobor Publishing House, 2008; see also: Ionrfa, V. Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church.

page 198
freedom, fraternity and love among peoples and in the elimination of racial discrimination 4.

For each of these topics, it was necessary to prepare decisions that would receive the approval of all autocephalous churches. Then the council had to consider and approve the previously developed and agreed decisions. To achieve this goal, a permanent body was created - the Pan-Orthodox Pre-conciliar Conference, which was (and is) engaged in the development and coordination of decisions.

By the mid-1980s, agreed decisions had been prepared on six topics (N 5 - 10), but three of them (N 1 - 2, 4) related to the sphere of inter-church relations ("Orthodox diaspora"5, "autocephaly and the method of its proclamation", "diptychs"6) had not been agreed upon. no solution found so far 7. These are topics related to issues of church governance and church authority; more precisely, to the question of who belongs to the right-wing church.-

4. For a description of these issues and the degree of their elaboration, see: Hilarion (Alfeyev), Metropolitan. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in preparation for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church. See Ionita, V. Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church for agreed solutions on seven of the ten topics, as well as an interim solution on the issue of the Orthodox Diaspora.

5. The decision on the topic" Orthodox Diaspora " adopted at the Fourth Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Meeting is an interim one. Paragraph 1 of the official document "Orthodox Diaspora" states:: "The problem of the Orthodox diaspora must be dealt with as soon as possible" (Ionita, V. Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church, p. 188).

6. The Holy diptychs are a list of autocephalous local Orthodox churches "in the order of honor". In the upper part of the diptych there are autocephalous churches with the status of the patriarchate, in the lower part-the status of an archdiocese or metropolis. The first four lines in the diptychs are occupied by the so-called ancient Eastern patriarchates, whose place in the diptychs is determined by the canons of ecumenical councils. Other autocephalous churches are located in diptychs according to the time of recognition of their autocephaly (separately for patriarchates and separately for archdioceses and metropolia). The primacy of honor in the Orthodox Church belongs to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Russian Orthodox Church occupies the fifth place and is located in the diptychs immediately after the ancient Eastern patriarchates. Diptychs are used in the practice of liturgical commemoration by the primate of each autocephalous church of the primates of other local churches. The order of diptychs is also used in the church's diplomatic protocol. In the 20th century, through the efforts of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, diptychs became increasingly important in matters of inter-church relations and church administration. According to the Church of Constantinople, the primacy of honor in the diptychs gives it additional privileges and powers at the pan-Orthodox level (in the sphere of the court and in some matters of church administration).

7. On the topic" Autonomy and ways to proclaim it " (No. 3), an agreed solution was found only in 2009

page 199
supreme authority in the Orthodox church. In other words, it is a question of whether there is a center of power in the Orthodox Church, from which the entire Orthodox diaspora is governed, which makes decisions on granting autocephaly and is endowed with additional powers by virtue of its first place in the church diptychs. Or is the power in the church fundamentally decentralized and limited to equal autocephalous local churches?

The whole complex of problems in the field of inter-church relations that are currently on the agenda of the Pan-Orthodox council can be united around the concept of "autocephaly", which expresses the main principle of the church structure in world Orthodoxy today. 8 It consists in the fact that the autocephalous church has a source of power in itself: it independently elects its own head and makes decisions concerning church life, that is, it is not subordinate to any other autocephalous church, and therefore it is independent of other churches in everything except matters of faith.

Today, the topic of autocephaly is not limited to the issue of granting/obtaining it (as well as its abolition), but also includes such issues as: the possibility of interference in the internal affairs of the autocephalous local church; the management of parishes outside the canonical territories of 9 av-

8. The use of the concept of autocephaly can go far beyond the actual mechanisms of church governance and turn into a myth, as Archimedes points out, for example. Cyril (Talker) at work: Cyril (Talker), Archimandrite. Автокефалия: от канона к мифу // Релігія в Україні. 2009. Віп. 1. С. 31 - 36. By "myth" the author means "a complex of ideas that go far beyond the original conceptual meaning." He adds :" Today, the category of autocephaly includes many aspects that have nothing to do with canon law or even ecclesiology. They turn autocephaly into a mythologem" (Ibid., p. 32). But by becoming a myth, autocephaly does not lose its significance for church administration and church power, and perhaps even strengthens it.

9. The territorial dimension of modern autocephalous Orthodox Churches includes two elements: the canonical territory and the diaspora. Canonical territory is an ecclesiastical geographical term that refers to the historically formed territory of an autocephalous church, the borders of which no other autocephalous church has the right to violate. The canonical territory of an autocephalous church consists of ecclesiastical and administrative divisions (dioceses, metropolitanates, exarchates, etc.) subordinate to this church. The establishment of dioceses and parishes of another autocephalous church on this territory (i.e., the creation of a parallel jurisdiction) is a violation of the principle of autocephaly. The ban on the existence of parallel jurisdictions goes back to the ancient principle of the church structure: "one city - one epi-

page 200
autocephalous churches (i.e., in the Orthodox diaspora); the functioning of pan-Orthodox (supra-autocephalous) institutions and their necessity in inter-Orthodox relations. In this article, we will consider the problem of autocephaly in such a broad way.

The question of autocephaly is a question of supreme power, which means sovereignty. If it is declared that an autocephalous church has a source of power in itself and is independent of other churches, then there can be no authority over it, and it is sovereign. Therefore, what is called autocephaly in the church corresponds to what is understood as sovereignty in the political interstate sphere.

Below we will examine the topic of autocephaly through the prism of the theory of sovereignty proposed by the German jurist and legal theorist Karl Schmitt in his work "Political Theology"10 and developed by the American legal theorist Paul Kahn in the book of the same name 11. First of all, we will be interested in the aspect that connects the concept of sovereignty with a state of emergency: sovereignty-as-an-exception.

osprey". The ecclesiastical territory in the diaspora is arranged differently - the principle of unity of jurisdiction is not currently applied to it, so that dioceses and parishes of different autocephalous churches can coexist on the same diaspora territory. This situation is related to the fact that immigrants from different Orthodox countries who have settled in the same territory and belong to different autocephalous churches want to maintain communion with the mother Church. The existence of parallel jurisdictions in the Diaspora is considered "not entirely consistent with the church canons" (see Hilarion (Alfeyev), mitr. Inter-Orthodox cooperation). One of the possible solutions to this "non-canonical" situation in the Diaspora is its subordination to the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, but this initiative of the Church of Constantinople does not find understanding among the majority of autocephalous churches that retain their dioceses and parishes in the Diaspora. The term "canonical territory" entered church usage in the early 1990s, but, as Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) writes, "the ecclesiological model behind it dates back to Apostolic times": Hilarion (Alfeyev), mitr. The principle of "canonical territory" in the Orthodox tradition / / Website of Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev). 25.02.2010. For the history of the formation of the canonical territories of autocephalous churches, see also: Kirill (Govorun), Archimandrite. Canonical territory: vectors of development of the Church-canonical category / / Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy. 2014. N 20. pp. 349-358.

10. Schmitt K. Politicheskaya teologiya [Political theology]. Collection. Moscow: "CANON-press C", 2000.

11. Kahn, P. W. (2011) Political Theology: Four New Chapters in the Concept of Sovereignty. NY: Columbia University Press.

page 201
Karl Schmitt's theory of sovereignty [12] is only one of many others to date. However, in our opinion, its tools can be successfully applied to ecclesiastical autocephaly, since the concept itself is closely linked to the main elements of this concept - a state of emergency and a strong-willed decision to introduce it. Such important issues related to sovereignty, such as the proclamation/abolition of autocephaly, as well as the expansion of the territory (canonical and in the diaspora), are resolved through the introduction of an emergency situation (as we will see below).

It should be noted that in this article the problem of church power will be limited to the plane in which church hierarchical institutions interact with each other - first of all, autocephalous local churches, which together make up the universal Orthodox church. We will not address the issue of sovereignty in church-State relations, as it is beyond the scope of our analysis.13
The Schmittian approach to sovereignty

In the first chapter of Political Theology, Karl Schmitt defines a sovereign as: "The sovereign is the one who decides on a state of emergency."14. This definition includes three concepts: "sovereign", "decision" and " state of emergency "(or" exception"), each of which, as P. Kahn correctly notes," can only be defined through each other", but"together they indicate one political phenomenon" 15.

12. In Russia, there is a steady interest in the works of Karl Schmitt, including his theory of sovereignty. There are many studies devoted to various aspects of his political philosophy, among which the works of HSE Professor A. F. Filippov are particularly noteworthy. The next issue (No. 5) of Logos magazine, published in 2012, was entirely devoted to Schmitt. Some researchers note a growing interest in the Schmittian tradition in the West as well (see, for example: Teschke B. Decisions and indecision: Political and Intellectual readings by Karl Schmitt // Logos. 2012. N 5 (89). P. 3_4).

13. Since the article deals with the basic principles of the structure of the Orthodox Church and inter-church relations, it should be noted at once that inter-Orthodox relations in the XX-early XXI centuries do not involve the participation of secular authorities.

14. Schmitt K. Politicheskaya teologiya [Political theology], p. 15.

15. Kahn, PW. Political Theology, p. 32.

page 202
Schmitt says that the definition he proposed "can only be valid for the concept of sovereignty as a marginal concept." 16 Only a marginal situation becomes an opportunity for a power to manifest itself as the supreme power, the sovereign. This extreme situation is the political phenomenon described by Kahn in terms of "sovereign," "decision," and "exception."

"The sovereign stands outside the normal functioning of law and order and yet belongs to it"17. The state of emergency sets the parameters of the extreme situation, it means going beyond the existing order of things and the rules governing this order. Of course, this does not mean that sovereign power exists only in exceptional circumstances, but it is precisely in an emergency situation that its supremacy becomes "visible".

As P. Kahn writes, "sovereignty is not an alternative to the law, but a point at which law and exception intersect "18," the supreme authority acts outside the law to create and protect the law " 19. Kahn believes that "there can be no exception without reference to the norm" 20, otherwise an emergency situation it will simply become anarchy, lawlessness. In other words, a state of emergency is a point at which the supreme power performs a "reassembly" of the order. The sovereign sets the order himself, and for this purpose he goes beyond the existing order - to the extreme point of an emergency. What is important here is that a certain order appears again from the state of emergency. J. Agamben describes this" paradox " of sovereign power as follows:"The sovereign is at the same time inside and outside the legal system." 21
But a single state of emergency is not enough to determine the supreme authority. Sovereignty is impossible without making a decision. Power, in order to be supreme, cannot but manifest itself, and it can only do this by making decisions. The state of emergency decision is a manifesto-

16. Schmitt K. Politicheskaya teologiya [Political theology], p. 15.

17. Ibid., p. 17.

18. Kahn, P. W Political Theology, p. 34.

19. Ibid., p. 52.

20. Ibid., p. 34.

21. Agamben J. Homo sacer. Sovereign power and naked Life, Moscow: Publishing House "Europe", 2011, p. 22.

page 203
the position of the supreme power in the political space. Moreover, as Kahn points out, " the supreme power is not to identify or detect exceptions; it is the power to decide on exceptions."22. Such power, in his opinion, cannot exist only as a potential one, it must necessarily be expressed in the act of making a decision. Kahn believes that "a decision without any effect is not a decision."23 He attributes this kind of decision to the loss of power.

Kahn sets a fairly rigid framework, linking sovereignty to a decision as a concrete act of will. In his opinion, the sovereign power does not accept any potential solution. However, a declaration of intent to create a state of emergency can have the same "decision" effect as the decision itself. In the question we are considering, the demonstration of the possibility of making an exception decision is no less important than the decision itself. For example, manipulating the possibility of isolating one of the autocephalous churches in inter-Orthodox relations or threatening to take away autocephaly from one or another local church can be considered as a claim to exercise supreme power.

The next question to be considered is: who is the sovereign-a person or a political institution? Kahn writes about it this way: "The location of the supreme authority... it is a question of functioning of an actual political organization " 24. The sovereign is the one who decides on a state of emergency, whether it is one person, a group of people, a political institution, or the people.

Proclamation of Russian autocephaly as a sovereign decision

If the question of ecclesiastical autocephaly is a question of supreme authority (sovereignty) in the church, then in church history we must inevitably encounter examples of sovereign decisions that create states of emergency, from which a new (canonical) order then arises. Among them, for example, the proclamation of autocephaly, the expansion of the canonical territory-

22. Kahn, P.W. Political Theology, p. 40.

23. Ibid., p. 40.

24. Ibid., p. 39.

page 204
by annexing it from another autocephalous church or opening a parallel jurisdiction 25 etc.

Let us consider the situation of the proclamation of autocephaly on the example of the Russian Church. The sovereignty of the Russian Church was born in the conditions of weakness of the ecclesiastical and state power in Constantinople. A prerequisite for secession from the Patriarchate of Constantinople was the conclusion in 1439 by the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Emperor of the union with the Roman see at the Ferarro-Florentine Council.26 One of the participants in the council and an active supporter of the union was Metropolitan Isidore the Greek of Moscow, who was appointed to the Moscow see by Constantinople in 1436 instead of Bishop Jonah of Ryazan, who was elected as a candidate by the Russian bishops.

On his return from Florence to Moscow in 1441, the Uniate Metropolitan Isidore read out the conciliar act of union, for which he was subsequently arrested and convicted by a council of Russian clergy convened by the Moscow prince. The Russian Church found itself in a difficult situation: the Moscow metropolitan was deposed for the union, the patriarch and emperor are also uniates, and the Moscow see remains vacant and requires replacement. Several years passed in search of a canonical way out of this situation (for our analysis, it does not matter much what happened during these years).

Finally, in 1448, a council of Russian bishops convened by Grand Duke Vasily II appointed Bishop Jonah to the Moscow Metropolitan see. This decision was the first sovereign act of the Russian Church, it created an emergency situation, during which the existing canonical order was changed: the Russian Metropolia withdrew from the subordination of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

25. For parallel jurisdiction, see See note 9.

26. Ferraro-Florence Cathedral - a council of Christian churches convened by Pope Eugene IV. In 1438 - 1439 it was held in Ferrara, in 1439 - 1442-in Florence, in 1443_1445 - in Rome. The conditions of the union presupposed the adoption of doctrinal innovations of the Catholic Church (the addition of the filioque to the creed, the primacy of the pope, purgatory). The Orthodox Church was represented at the council by Emperor John VIII, Patriarch Joseph II of Constantinople, as well as several dozen bishops of the Church of Constantinople (including the Moscow Metropolis), some of whom assumed the functions of legates of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The Union was signed by the Byzantine delegation (with the exception of a few bishops who opposed it), but was never accepted by the majority of Orthodox churches.

page 205
It is important to note that the sovereignty of the Russian Church was born not from the situation of ecclesiastical and political turmoil generated by the Union (there is a temptation to consider it a source of emergency), but from the decision of the council to appoint a metropolitan to the Moscow see. This is confirmed by the fact that at the same time the bishops of Western Russia, despite the union, retained communion with the See of Constantinople.27 This is also indicated by the fact that the autocephaly of the Russian Church took place only seven years after the deposition of Metropolitan Isidore, and not immediately after him. In other words, the emergency situation of proclaiming autocephaly arose at the will of the sovereign, which here should be considered the bishops ' council, and not due to external circumstances, although, of course, these circumstances opened up a "corridor of opportunities" for making such a decision. It can be said that the Moscow Council of 1448 transformed the situation that arose in the Patriarchate of Constantinople in connection with the Union of Florence into a state of emergency, under which a new order was established in the Russian Church (which, for example, the bishops of Western Russia headed by the Metropolitan in Kiev did not do).

Of course, after Emperor Constantine II ascended the imperial throne in 1451, the Russians had some hesitation about autocephaly. After all, the new emperor declared himself a supporter of Orthodoxy and expelled the Uniate Patriarch Grigory Mamma. In 1452, Grand Duke Vasily II of Moscow even prepared a letter to the emperor outlining the case of the Metropolitans Isidore and Jonah; however, the letter was never sent to its intended destination.28 In the same year, Emperor Constantine 11 joined the union, and a year later Constantinople was taken by the Ottoman Turks and the Orthodox Byzantine Empire ceased to exist.

Church historian A.V. Kartashev sneers at these vacillations of the Russians, calling the latter "modest revolutionaries" who "did not mature to the determination to take advantage of this occasion [the uniatism of the Patriarch of Constantinople] in order to win for themselves once and for all ecclesiastical autocephaly."-

27. Kartashev A.V. Collected works in 2 vols. Vol. 1: Essays on the history of the Russian Church, Moscow: TERRA, 1992, p. 359.

28. Ibid., p. 362.

page 206
nost"29. But, for the sake of justice, it should be noted that these fluctuations did not result in any decision, and the Russian Church has remained autocephalous since 1448. On the contrary, in our opinion, the very fact of Russian hesitation rather confirms the state of emergency created by the decision of the Moscow Council, and indicates the radical novelty of the existing order.

The birth trauma of the Russian autocephaly associated with the" apostasy of the Greeks " caused the Russian Church's zealous attitude to its own sovereignty, which we can trace throughout the rest of its history. By the beginning of the XVI century. This attitude to one's own sovereignty led to the emergence of the ecclesiastical and political myth of Moscow as the Third Rome. In the XX century, it was fixed in the form of the label "absolute autocephalism of Moscow".

George Florovsky connects events such as the "Greek apostasy", the fall of Constantinople, and the formation of the myth of the Third Rome. 30 The political myth of the Third Rome is based on the idea of the exclusivity of the Russian Church in the Orthodox world as the sole guardian of the intact faith, and the Russian sovereign as the last defender of Orthodoxy. Close attention to one's own sovereignty (not only administrative, but also religious and ceremonial) resulted in closure "within the limits of one's local national memory" and reached the point of "complete exclusion and denial of Greek mediation in the past"31. Distrust of the Greeks was no less the cause of the tragic schism in the Russian Church in the seventeenth century.32
The real test for the sovereignty of the Russian Church was the collapse of the Russian Empire and the abdication of the Orthodox emperor, the defender of the Church and the Orthodox faith. The new era began with the local council of 1917-1918, and continued with the destruction of church infrastructure and repression, which literally immobilized the Moscow church authorities.

29. Ibid., pp. 361-362.

30. Florovsky G., prot. Ways of Russian theology. Minsk: Publishing House of the Belarusian Exarchate, 2006, p. 14.

31. Ibid., p. 15.

32. Ibid., p. 66.

page 207
From the point of view of the considered theory of sovereignty, the decisions of the local council of 1917-1918 and, above all, the restoration of the patriarchate became a powerful evidence of the sovereignty of the Russian Church. But subsequent events so weakened (even, one might say, paralyzed) the ecclesiastical authority that some of the dioceses that are part of the Russian Church were postponed; parallel schismatic jurisdictions appeared on the territory that remained in the administration; a significant part of the Russian diaspora also separated from the mother Church. The Russian Orthodox Church managed to preserve its sovereignty 33, but the situation of paralysis of the authorities opened up an opportunity for the Georgian and Polish churches to establish their sovereignty, which they took advantage of. The weakness of the Russian ecclesiastical authority also caused interference in the internal affairs of the Russian Orthodox Church by other autocephalous Churches, primarily the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which, of course, became one of the main factors for strengthening "Moscow's autocephalism" in the inter-Orthodox arena after the end of the crisis.34
In the characteristic works of Moscow canonists and theologians of the 1940s and 1950s on the question of autocephaly, we invariably find a position that firmly defends the sovereignty of the autocephalous church in inter-church relations. This line continues in the official position of the Russian Orthodox Church on issues related to autocephaly, which were put on the agenda of the Pan-Orthodox council.

33. Support from the Soviet authorities, which replaced direct repression, allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to maintain its sovereignty in inter-church relations. A similar thing happened to the Church of Constantinople during the Ottoman rule. In turn, the subordination of the church to the atheist state in its ideology, of course, made us look with distrust at the Russian Church now, and not at the "apostate Greeks". For many, this subordination, symbolized by the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) on Loyalty to the Soviet regime, published in 1927, was evidence of "Russian apostasy" and "the heresy of Sergianism." Having become an instrument of Stalin's foreign policy in the second half of the 1940s, the Russian Orthodox Church was able to once again assert its sovereignty in inter-Orthodox relations, which was previously difficult.

34. The crisis ended in 1945, when the local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church was held under the patronage of the Soviet government, which elected Patriarch Alexy I (Simansky) to the Moscow see. This council, which was also attended by the primates of the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch and Georgia and representatives of other autocephalous local churches, became evidence that the Russian Orthodox Church is the legal successor of the All-Russian Orthodox Church headed by Patriarch Tikhon. The latter, in turn, contributed to the return to it of parts of the episcopate and flock located outside the USSR.

page 208
S. V. Troitsky as a theorist of "absolute autocephalism"

The leading Russian canonist of the mid - 20th century, Professor S. V. Troitsky (1878-1972), became the main theorist of the "absolute autocephalism of Moscow". His approach had a huge impact on the official position of the Russian Orthodox Church on the entire spectrum of issues related to autocephaly for decades to come. The basic text reflecting Troitsky's views on the subject under study is his article "On Ecclesiastical Autocephaly" 35.

Troitsky defined the term "autocephalous" as applied to secular and ecclesiastical organizations "that are self-dominating, that is, they have their own head, their own supreme or sovereign authority independent of the other" (italics mine - A. Sh.) 36. The meaning of the principle of ecclesiastical autocephaly is that its "first bishop and head of the church are independent of each other". the other bishops... they are elected and appointed by their own bishops, and not by the bishops of any other church. " 37
The autocephalous Church, according to Troitsky, has full independence in the administrative and judicial areas of church activity, so that "local councils of bishops are also authorized to judge their first hierarchs." 38 It "enjoys complete freedom to make holy myrrh for itself, canonize its saints, compose new hymns, determine the time of worship, etc."39 However, in the field of dogmatic teaching, the autocephalous church does not have independence, and in the field of worship it is also limited by "the connection of worship with dogmatic teaching and the desire for uniformity of worship"40.

An important point is the independence of the autocephalous Church in the field of inter-church relations, which Troitsky calls similar to international relations. Correspondingly-

35. Troitsky S. V. On church autocephaly / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1948. N 7 (July), pp. 33-54.

36. Ibid., p. 36.

37. Ibid., p. 45.

38. Ibid., p. 48.

39. Ibid., p. 48.

40. Ibid., p. 48.

41. Ibid., p. 48.

page 209
however, the interference of one of the autocephalous churches in the affairs of the other is a violation of the sovereignty of the latter. In his articles of various years, S. V. Troitsky criticizes the Patriarchate of Constantinople for constantly violating the sovereignty of autocephalous churches.42
Troitsky considered the Ecumenical Episcopate, whose authority is the Ecumenical Council, to be the supreme authority in the Orthodox Church.43 For the duration of the ecumenical council, the principle of autocephaly ceases to play any role in resolving ecclesiastical issues, including the order of honor of autocephalous churches, also known as the"sacred diptychs" .44 The Council is an extraordinary event, and during the inter-council period, supreme power is again returned to the autocephalous churches.

Regarding the proclamation of autocephaly, Troitsky stated:"Since every autocephalous Church has the highest, sovereign authority, it is obvious that only an organization or a person who has the highest authority can establish an autocephalous Church." 45 He identifies three subjects of supreme power that can establish an autocephalous church: the apostles, the ecumenical episcopate (through the ecumenical council), and the episcopate of the autocephalous Church (through the council of the autocephalous church). The first two, according to him, relate to the distant past (or an indefinite future - such as the ecumenical council), so the last subject remains relevant - the episcopate of the autocephalous church. The self-proclaimed proclamation of autocephaly by a part of the autocephalous Church is condemned by him, except in cases when the Kyriarchal church does not fall into heresy. This allows him to justify the self-declaration of Russian autocephaly in 1448, and this is the only case when Troitsky justifies the self-declaration of autocephaly by the local church. In the others

42. See, for example: Troitsky S. V. O granitsakh rasprostraneniya prava vlasti Constantinopleskoy patriarhii na "diasporu" [On the boundaries of the spread of the right of power of the Constantinople Patriarchate to the "Diaspora"]. No. 11. Pp. 34-45.; Troitsky S. V. Canons and Eastern papism / / Bulletin of the Russian West-European Patriarchal Exarchate. 1955. N 22. pp. 124-135.

43. In the terminology of S. V. Troitsky, the terms "ecumenical" and "pan-Orthodox" are synonymous in relation to the future council.

44. Troitsky S. V. On church autocephaly. p. 49.

45. Ibid., p. 37.

46. The Kyriarchal Church is the local church, which in relation to the part separated from it is the mother Church.

page 210
in some cases, self-declaration of autocephaly is impossible. Only the Kyriarchal Church can grant autocephaly to its own part.

In general, the Troitsky method can be called legalistic, since it is based on strict adherence to the canonical law of the Orthodox Church. Troitsky appeals to law and church history (as a description of precedents for the application of law) as the main source of argumentation. But the problem is that the Orthodox Church does not have a single code of canon law for all, and there are no instances that monitor law enforcement throughout the church. Each autocephalous church is free to interpret canonical sources in a way that is favorable to it.

But, most importantly, Troitsky's legalistic approach cannot explain the changes in the canonical order associated with the self-declaration of autocephaly. On the one hand, Troitsky speaks of autocephaly as the highest, sovereign power. On the other hand, the path of legalism chosen by him forces him to assert that autocephaly is possible only as a result of a gift from the mother church (with the exception of the situation of the heresy of the Kyriarchal church). But Troitsky does not take into account that the act of giving is an act of manifestation of the supreme authority of the Kyriarchal church in relation to the part that receives autocephaly. As we will see below, this can lead to a situation where the Kyriarchal Church threatens to abolish its given autocephaly, which, of course, limits the sovereignty of the newly proclaimed autocephalous church. Thus, the Troitsky method does not allow us to explain how sovereign power appears when autocephaly is proclaimed. And the very period from the self-declaration of autocephaly to the recognition of it by others becomes a "blind spot" of his approach.

Alternative: patriarch of Constantinople as sovereign

Along with the model of sovereignty in the Orthodox Church described above, which links this concept with ecclesiastical autocephaly, there is an alternative model in Orthodox theology that gives the prerogatives of a sovereign on a universal scale to the primate in honor of the first hierarch-the Patriarch of Constantinople. Although this model does not imply the creation of a single worldwide jurisdiction like that of the Pope, it gives the Patriarch of Constantinople a number of full powers.-

page 211
which place his authority above that of the primates and councils of other autocephalous local churches. In particular, we are talking about special judicial powers, as well as the right to proclaim autocephaly of a particular church.

This model appeared in the early 20s of the XX century after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, and here it is necessary to say a few words about the position of the patriarchs of Constantinople in this empire. One of the main features of the system of government in the Ottoman state was the division into religious, rather than national communities - millets. The Ottoman political system, based on Islamic legislation, assumed the existence of only one head (millet bashi) of a religious community. The Patriarch of Constantinople became the head of the Orthodox community , the largest non-Muslim community in the empire. The Sultan significantly expanded the powers of the Patriarch of Constantinople, transferring to him the issues of police supervision, tax collection and judicial proceedings among Christians. 47 At the same time, it should be remembered that these powers were given not to the church department, but personally to the patriarch (or more precisely to the patriarch's institute). The Ottoman Empire developed a system of ecclesiastical administration in which the powers of the Patriarch of Constantinople exceeded those of any of the primates of the autocephalous churches in the territory of the empire (that is, in the area of inter-church relations, the Patriarch of Constantinople had supreme power, although formally his ecclesiastical jurisdiction did not extend to the territory of other autocephalous churches in the Ottoman Empire 48).

The collapse of the empire led to the fact that the patriarchs of Constantinople lost the extraordinary powers granted to them by the Ottoman rulers, and their canonical territory quickly disappeared.-

47. Sugar, P. F. (1977) Southeastern Europe under Ottoman rule, 1354 - 1804 (A History of East Central Europe, vol. 5.), p. 46. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

48. Of course, in practice things were not always the same as in theory. For example, special powers did not exclude the weakness of the patriarchal authority of Constantinople, which allowed other primates to conduct a more independent policy. In the second half of the 17th century, the Archbishop of Cyprus obtained from the Sultan the title of Millet bashi, which was similar to that of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and became the political and spiritual head of the Christians of Cyprus. However, the status and authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople as Millet Bashi gave rise to the idea of him as the head of all Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman Empire, which later transformed into claims to primacy on a pan-orthodox scale.

page 212
It was reduced to the borders of modern Turkey, from which most of the Orthodox population was also deported. Under these circumstances, the patriarchs of Constantinople began to assert their claims to universal sovereignty on the basis of their primacy in the holy diptychs of the Orthodox Church49. The activity of the patriarchs of Constantinople during the 20-30s of the XX century was essentially innovative for the Orthodox Church. The Church of Constantinople generated a huge number of sovereign decisions (compared to other churches), creating emergencies that ultimately changed the entire existing order at that time. These decisions mainly concerned the expansion of the power jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople (especially in the diaspora)50.

It cannot be said that all the claims of the patriarchs of Constantinople were fully realized, but the active (if not aggressive) positioning of themselves as a pan-Orthodox sovereign allowed the patriarchs of Constantinople to achieve a significant expansion of their power. It came down to the assimilation of the "ontological" characteristics of the Church of Constantinople. Thus, Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople issued a circular letter (1950) stating, inter alia, that through communion and contact with the See of Constantinople, the separate autocephalous Orthodox Churches are united into one body of the one, holy, catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church51. A break in communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople, according to Athenagoras, should have meant a break with the Orthodox Church itself.

In the 1950s and 70s, Constantinople theologians, historians, and canonists began to develop a doctrine about the special role of the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the life of the world Orthodox Church. The main ideologue of this teaching was the Metropolitan

49. For more information about the situation that prompted the patriarchs of Constantinople to choose such a line of behavior, see: Ermilov P. V. Origin of the theory of the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople // Vestnik PSTGU, 2014, issue 1 (51), pp. 36-53.

50. For specific examples, see, for example, Troitsky S. V. On the limits of the extension of the right of authority of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the "Diaspora". p. 35; Maximos, Metropolitan of Sardes. (1976) The Oecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church, pp. 312 - 313. Thessaloniki: Patriarchal institute for patristic studies.

51. Schmeman A., prot. Ecumenical Patriarch and the Orthodox Church / / Collection of articles. 1947-1983. Moscow: Russian Way, 2009. p. 364.

page 213
Maxim of Sardis, who published the book "The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church" 52.

Unlike the Moscow Patriarchate, the official theology of Constantinople was not limited to the historical-canonical approach. Since the mid-1990s, the primacy and special powers of the Patriarch of Constantinople have been defended theologically by Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon. In January 2014, an article was published on the official website of the Patriarchate of Constantinople by Metropolitan Elpidophorus (Lambriniadis) of Prussia, who, developing the ideas of Zizioulas, proposed to consider the Patriarch of Constantinople "the first hierarch without equals" (in contrast to his traditional designation as primus inter pares, "first among equals"). The article, in particular, states that the primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople is expressed in special privileges, such as "the right to appeal and the right to grant or withdraw autocephaly" 53.

One of the most important claims of the Church of Constantinople to sovereignty on a pan-Orthodox scale is its declaration of its right to convene and preside over a pan-Orthodox council. Now Constantinople is one step away from realizing this claim. The official communique of the meeting of primates of local Orthodox churches held in Istanbul in March 2014 states:"[The Pan-Orthodox Council] will be convened and headed by the Ecumenical Patriarch in 2016. " 54
The Patriarch of Constantinople has come a long way to actually acquire this right. His first unsuccessful attempts to convene a pan-Orthodox conference date back to 1923 and 1930. Starting in 1961, on the initiative of Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople, pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar conferences began to meet, which, according to the rules, were to be chaired by the head of the Constantinople delegation. In 1986, Constantinople achieved the inclusion in the rules of procedure of the meetings of the clause granting the Patriarch of Constantinople the right to create a new church.-

52. Maximos, Metropolitan of Sardes. (1976) The Oecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church.

53. Elpidophorus (Lambriniadis), mitr. Primus sine paribus. Response to the position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the issue of primacy in the Universal Church / / Official website of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. 07.01.2014.

54. "Communique of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches" (2014), Ecumenical Patriarchate. 09.03.2014.

page 214
to hold pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar conferences "with the consent of the heads of local churches" 55. In parallel with the pre-conciliar process, the Patriarch of Constantinople began to convene meetings of the primates of the local Orthodox churches, the last of which culminated in the decision to convene a pan-Orthodox council.

Thus, the Constantinople concept of sovereignty assumes that at the pan-Orthodox level there is a certain supreme authority, localized in the Patriarch of Constantinople, who, as a result, turns out to be the sovereign of the entire Orthodox Church. Under this model, the Patriarch of Constantinople, as a sovereign, although not extending his administrative authority to other autocephalous local churches, can nevertheless intervene in their internal affairs as the supreme arbiter. That is, it has the right to hear appeals on a pan-Orthodox scale and make decisions on them; it has the power to grant or withdraw autocephaly; it assumes the right to govern the entire Orthodox diaspora. Accordingly, the Patriarch of Constantinople can unilaterally take into his jurisdiction dioceses and parishes in the Diaspora that are" illegally "and" temporarily " under the jurisdiction of other autocephalous churches.

Also, according to this approach, the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right to convene pan-Orthodox conferences, meetings of heads and representatives of autocephalous local churches, and, finally, a pan-Orthodox council, and at all meetings he convenes, including the council, he presides. The system of ecclesiastical autocephaly is preserved, but the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right of extraordinary intervention in the affairs of other churches on the above points. Thus, within the framework of this model, the sovereignty of autocephalous churches actually becomes limited.

At the same time, it should be noted that this model of "autocephaly with limited sovereignty" is rather a program of action, that is, a given, rather than a given. Not all the claims of the patriarchs of Constantinople are implemented in practice (for example, church communities in the Orthodox Diaspora are not managed from a single center). However, the Patriarchate of Constantinople continues to provide numerous examples

55. Ionita, V. (2014) Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church, p. 179.

page 215
sovereign decisions that work for the implementation of the program declared by them.

Condition for "sovereign autocephaly"

Despite the claims of Constantinople, the model of "sovereign autocephaly" is a given in the Orthodox Church today, which is defended not only by the Moscow Patriarchate, but also by many other autocephalous local churches. Most modern autocephalous churches have followed a similar path to the Russian Church in obtaining autocephaly. Many of them adhere to the same principle in inter-church relations, that is, the identification of autocephaly and sovereignty on the model of interstate relations.56 This principle implies: non-interference in the internal affairs of the autocephalous Church by other autocephalous churches; inviolability of the borders of the canonical territory; equality of autocephalous churches as subjects of inter-church relations.

The main condition for autocephaly from the point of view of the considered theory of sovereignty is precisely the independent proclamation of autocephaly, and not its receipt from outside.

The sovereignty of a local church is born at the moment of its proclamation of autocephaly. The autocephalous Church gains supreme power only if it creates a state of emergency that gives rise to a new order. First of all, the newly proclaimed autocephalous (local) church has its own canonical territory, which, by definition, cannot be administratively invaded by other autocephalous churches. After recognition by other local churches as autocephalous, this church becomes the subject of inter-church relations, which is symbolically confirmed by the inclusion of this local church in the diptychs.

If the local church does not independently proclaim autocephaly, but receives it from the kyriarchal Church, then the sovereignty of the new autocephalous church is limited. It is the granting of autocephaly that is a manifestation of supreme power and a sovereign decision, and therefore kiri-

56. Archimandrite Kirill (Govorun) He believes that "the current system of inter-church relations also reflects some further forms of development of the Westphalian model of sovereignty" (Kirill (Govorun), Archimandrite of the Russian Orthodox Church). Canonical Territory, p. 355).

page 216
The archal Church acts as a sovereign in relation to the new autocephalous church. And since an autocephalous church with granted autocephaly has an external sovereign, its autocephaly can be abolished by the same Kyriarchal church.

An example of not self-proclaimed, but granted autocephaly is the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, which is recognized by world Orthodoxy. At the same time, it is interesting that the granting of autocephaly to this church occurred twice: in 1951, it received it from the Russian Orthodox Church, which it was part of at that time, and in 1998 - from Constantinople. 57 In 2012, a correspondence between Patriarch Bartholomew of Constantinople and Metropolitan Christopher, the head of the PCCHSIS, was published on the Internet, in which the former explicitly stated on the possibility of abolishing this autocephaly 58. Also quite typical is the situation with the elections in 2013-2014 of the new primate of the PCCHSIS, in which representatives of the two church sovereigns - Constantinople and Moscow-took an active part. The Church of Constantinople still does not recognize the results of these elections, since they were won by a candidate who was supported by the Russian Orthodox Church.

Another example is the Orthodox Church in America( OCA), which received autocephaly from the Russian Orthodox Church in 1970. This act was recognized only by some local Orthodox churches, while for a number of autocephalous churches (primarily the Church of Constantinople) The OCA still remains the Archdiocese of the Russian Orthodox Church. At Pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar meetings, representatives of the OCA were always part of the Russian delegation.

It is quite interesting that among the supporters of autocephaly of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, the topic of "receiving autocephaly" from Moscow or (what has recently happened) is constantly being discussed.

57. The Patriarchate of Constantinople did not recognize the Czechoslovak autocephaly granted by Moscow and, until 1998, considered the OCC to be part of the Russian Orthodox Church.

58. Patriarch Bartholomew, in his letter, expressed his indignation at the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarchate celebrated the 60th anniversary of receiving autocephaly from Moscow: "We strongly inform you that in the event of a repeat of similar events to celebrate the autocephaly of the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, which was not yet considered valid and was declared invalid from the very beginning, the Ecumenical Patriarchate is forced to It will be necessary to abolish the canonical autocephaly granted to your Church fourteen years ago" (Letter of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to Metropolitan Christopher of the Czech Republic / / Romfea portal. 30.03.2012).

page 217
sounds more often) from Constantinople 59. However, it is overlooked that such an appeal to an external sovereign can only lead to the acquisition of "limited sovereignty".

Currently, Pan-Orthodox pre-conciliar meetings are discussing the procedure for proclaiming autocephaly. As can be seen from the report of Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), in this issue the range of possible solutions is distributed from the right of the Kyriarchal Church to grant autocephaly to its part to the proclamation of autocephaly by the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In other words, various conflicting positions agree that the local church, which aspires to autocephaly, plays a passive role in this process: it can only apply for the granting of autocephaly, but the decision is made by some external sovereign authority (the Kyriarchal Church, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the pan-Orthodox conference or meeting of primates, the pan-Orthodox council). At the same time, Metropolitan Hilarion notes that "in history, it has most often happened that one or another church unilaterally declared its autocephalous status, and only then, years later, its autocephaly was recognized by other churches."60 Thus, it turns out that, with the exception of the last option - a pan-Orthodox council, all other decisions lead to the "production" of autocephaly with limited sovereignty.

Pan-Orthodox Council and the sovereign power of autocephalous churches

Finally, a final question concerning the topic of this article: how does the sovereignty of autocephalous churches relate to such a supra-autocephalous institution as the Pan-Orthodox Council?

The authority of the council, as a decision-making body of general ecclesiastical significance and scope, must exceed (and therefore limit) the sovereign authority of autocephalous churches. During the period of the Pan-Orthodox council, it is he who becomes a general member of the Russian Orthodox Church.-

59. See the texts of such theorists of Ukrainian autocephaly as Prof. Yu. P. Chernomorets and prof. Andrey Dudchenko: Chornomorets Yu. Вселенськість помісної церкви як вимога еклезіологїї та перспективи київського християнства // Theology in Ukraine. 10.05.2014; Dudchenko A., prot. Українська Православна Церква в пошуках української ідентичності // Theology in Ukraine. 11.03.2014.

60. Hilarion (Alfeyev), mitr. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in preparation for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church.

page 218
an ecclesiastical sovereign who can establish a new order by making decisions that are generally binding on all autocephalous churches. Below we will look at how the council's sovereign power appears and what happens to the sovereignty of autocephalous churches from the point of view of the theory proposed by Karl Schmitt.

According to the Schmittian approach, sovereignty is described through the interaction of its three main elements: "sovereign", "state of emergency "and" decision " (on its introduction). Let's look at each of these elements in more detail.

In the case of a pan-Orthodox council, the event itself, that is, its holding, is an emergency for the modern Orthodox Church. Accordingly, the decision to impose a "state of emergency" becomes the very proclamation of the council as pan-Orthodox, which is adopted by the new sovereign-the assembly representing all world Orthodoxy.

The holding of a pan-Orthodox council is an extraordinary event, since it goes beyond the existing order of government in the Orthodox Church (more precisely, in Orthodox churches). Under "normal conditions", the supreme power in the Orthodox Church is concentrated at the level of autocephalous churches. In the case of a council, which is conceived as the supreme authority on a church-wide scale, the sovereignty of autocephalous churches is limited. The extraordinary nature of the council allows it, as a sovereign exercising supreme power, to change the existing order throughout the church and introduce a new one - in such a way that after the council ends, no autocephalous church can cancel this order, since the supreme authority of autocephalous churches extends only to the autocephalous churches themselves. That is why the new autocephaly, if it is proclaimed by the council, will have full sovereignty and cannot be abolished by any of the existing autocephalous churches.

It should be emphasized that the state of emergency in the Orthodox Church is introduced precisely through the proclamation of an assembly representing the entire Orthodox Church as a pan-Orthodox council, and not through a decision to convene it in the future (even in the near future, as was the case at the Pan-Orthodox summit in March 2014). Only if a council that has already taken place declares itself to be pan-Orthodox (i.e., church-wide), does it become a pan-Orthodox sovereign. The decision to convene such a council (even if it was taken at a pan-Orthodox assembly)

page 219
indicates only the possibility of the emergence of a church-wide authority instance, since there is always a possibility that for one reason or another the council will not take place.

According to P. Kahn, sovereign power does not imply any "potential solutions". That is why the claim of the Patriarch of Constantinople to the right to convene a pan-Orthodox council is not a manifestation of sovereign power on the scale of the entire Orthodox Church (from the point of view of the Schmittian concept of sovereignty). The authority that convenes the council does not become the sovereign; it can only be the Pan - Orthodox council itself, which has declared itself such.

The decision to declare the council church-wide has another aspect: it is a decision to limit the sovereignty of existing autocephaly. By declaring the council pan-Orthodox, the participants themselves, that is, the autocephalous churches, voluntarily limit their sovereignty.

Here, however, another question arises - about the representation of sovereign autocephalous churches at the Pan-Orthodox council. The emergence of a new "conciliar" sovereign is connected, so to speak, with the collective transfer of sovereignty from the local churches to the General church assembly. How can this transmission occur? What is the format of a pan-Orthodox assembly / council that makes it truly ecclesiastical?

At the March (2014) meeting of primates of local churches in Istanbul, two formats for holding the Pan-Orthodox council planned for 2016 were discussed. The first format assumed that the council would be attended by delegations of autocephalous Orthodox Churches, which would have the right to vote. According to the second format, all Orthodox bishops should participate in the council, each of whom has the right to vote.

The meeting participants noted that the Pan-Orthodox Council will be attended by delegations of fourteen universally recognized local Orthodox churches. Each delegation must include the primate of the autocephalous Church and no more than 24 bishops. At the same time,"those churches that do not have such a large number of bishops will be represented by the full composition of their bishops, headed by the primate." 61 Thus, the pra-

61. " We have been preparing since 1961." Pavel Korobov talks with Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk / / Ogonyok Magazine. 17.03.2014.

page 220
It is the delegations of churches, not individual bishops, who will have the right to vote at the council.

In other words, we are talking about the fact that a new - supreme - sovereignty in the world Orthodox church (i.e., the sovereignty of the pan-Orthodox council) should arise through a joint, "symphonic" volitional act of all ecclesiastical autocephaly represented at the council by full-fledged and authorized ecclesiastical delegations of the currently existing ecclesiastical sovereigns. Therefore, in this case, it is irrelevant whether these delegations are composed of a group of representatives authorized by the autocephalous Church (headed by the primate) or the entire episcopate of each autocephalous church.

Thus, at present, in connection with the decision to convene a pan - Orthodox council, the possibility of the emergence of a different sovereign in world Orthodoxy opens up-a new one in comparison with the sovereignty of ecclesiastical autocephaly. This new ecclesiastical sovereignty, paradoxically, will be both the result of a common decision of the current sovereigns and a (extraordinary) decision that undermines the "private" sovereignties of the participants who jointly make this decision.

In this case, even contrary to K. Schmitt, the sovereign power relies not only on the emergency situation of holding a pan-Orthodox council, but also on the power and authority of the sovereign autocephaly, which is not disputed by anyone. The latter introduces a certain continuity in the question of the emergence of sovereignty, whereas the Schmittian approach actually involves the creation of sovereign power "out of nothing". Therefore, this paradox - if it is realized-already leads us out of the Schmittian scheme into a new conceptual space, which implies an appeal to approaches other than the Schmittian one that exist in the discourse of political sovereignty, as well as taking into account the specifics of ecclesiastical power.

Bibliography/References

"We've been preparing since 1961." Pavel Korobov talks with Metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk / / Ogonyok Magazine. 17.03.2014 [http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2416164, accessed on 03.06.2014].

Agamben J. Homo sacer. Sovereign power and naked life. Moscow: Publishing House "Europe", 2011.

page 221
Dudchenko A., prot. Українська Православна Церква в пошуках української ідентичності // Theology in Ukraine. 11.05.2014 [http://theology.in.ua/ua/bp/theologia/ ukrainian/56377/, accessed from 04.06.2014].

Ermilov P. V. Origin of the theory of primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople//Vestnik PSTGU, 2014, issue 1 (51), pp. 36-53.

Hilarion (Alfeyev), mitr. Inter-Orthodox cooperation in preparation for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church / / Official website of the DECR MP. 03.11.2011 [https://mospat.ru/ru/2011/11/03/news50923/, accessed from 04.06.2014].

Hilarion (Alfeyev), mitr. The principle of "canonical territory" in the Orthodox tradition / / Website of Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev). 25.02.2010 [http://hilarion.ru/2010/02/25/1048, accessed from 26.08.2014].

Kartashev A.V. Collected Works in 2 vols. Vol. 1: Essays on the history of the Russian Church, Moscow: TERRA, 1992.

Cyril (Talker), Archimandrite. Автокефалия: от канона к мифу // Релігія в Украіні. 2009. Bin. 1. pp. 31-36.

Cyril (Talker), Archimandrite. Canonical territory: vectors of development of the Church-canonical category / / Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy. 2014. N 20. P. 349_358.

Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) and Pan-Orthodox Unity, St. Petersburg: Knyaz-Vladimirsky Sobor Publishing House, 2008.

Letter of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to Metropolitan Christopher of Bohemia / / Portal "Romfea". 30.03.2012 [http://www.romfea.gr/romfea-english/12 090 - 2012 - 03 - 30 - 15 - 13 - 01, accessed on 04.06.2014].

Teschke B. Decisions and indecision: Political and Intellectual readings by Karl Schmitt // Logos. 2012. N 5 (89). pp. 3-43.

Troitsky S. V. Canons and Eastern papism // Bulletin of the Russian Western European Patriarchal Exarchate. 1955. N 22. pp. 124-135.

Troitsky S. V. O granitsakh rasprostraneniya prava vlasti Constantinopleskoy Patriarhii na "diasporu" [On the boundaries of the spread of the right of power of the Constantinople Patriarchate to the "Diaspora"].
Troitsky S. V. On Church autocephaly / / Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1948. N 7 (July), pp. 33-54.

Florovsky G., prot. Ways of Russian theology. Minsk: Publishing House of the Belarusian Exarchate, 2006.

Чорноморець Ю. Вселенськість помісної церкви як вимога еклезіології та перспективи київського християнства // Theology in Ukraine. 10.05.2014 [http://theology.in.ua/ua/bp/theologia/ukrainian/56376/, доступ от 04.06.2014].

Schmeman A., prot. The Ecumenical Patriarch and the Orthodox Church //Collection of articles.

1947-1983. Moscow: Russian Way, 2009. Schmitt K. Politicheskaya teologiya [Political Theology], Moscow: KANON-press, 2000.

Elpidophorus (Lambriniadis), mitr. Primus sine paribus. Response to the position of the Moscow Patriarchate on the issue of primacy in the Universal Church / / Official website of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. 07.01.2014

[http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/primus-sine-paribus-russian-elpidopho-ros-lambrinia dis, доступ от 04.06.2014].

"Communique of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches" (2014), Ecumenical Patriarchate. 9 March [http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/synaxis-2014-communique, accessed on 04.06.2014].

page 222
"Gotovilis' s 1961 goda". Pavel Korobov beseduet s mitropolitom Volokolamskim Ilarionom ["We have been preparing since 1961". Interview of metropolitan Hilarion of Volokolamsk to Pavel Korobov] (2014), Ogonjok. 17 March [http://www.kommersant.ru/doc/2416164, accessed on 03.06.2014].

Agamben, G. (2011) Homo sacer. Suverennaja vlast' i golaja zhizn' [Homo Sacer. Sovereign Power and Bare Life]. Moskva: Izdatel'stvo "Evropa".

Alfeev, H. (2010) "Princip "kanonicheskoj territorii" v pravoslavnoj tradicii" [The Principle of "Canonical Territory" in the Orthodox Tradition], Sajt mitropolita Ilariona (Alfeeva). 25 February [http://hilarion.ru/2010/02/25/1048, accessed on 26.08.2014].

Alfeev, H. (2011) "Mezhpravoslavnoe sotrudnichestvo v ramkah podgotovki к Svjatomu i Velikomu Soboru Pravoslavnoj Cerkvi" [Inter-Orthodox Cooperation in the Preparations for a Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church], Oficial'nyj sajt OVCS MP. 03 November [https://mospat.ru/ru/2011/ll/03/news50923/, accessed on 04.06.2014].

Dudchenko, A. (2014) "Ukrai'ns'ka Pravoslavna Cerkva v poshukah ukrai'ns'koi' identychnosti" [Ukrainian Orthodox Church looking for Ukrainian Identity], Theology in Ukraine. 11 May [http://theology.in.ua/ua/bp/theologia/ukrainian/56377/, accessed on 04.06.2014].

Erickson, J. H. (1991) The Challenge of Our Past: Studies in Orthodox Canon Law and Church History. Crestwood, NY: SVS Press.

Ermilov, P. V. (2014) "Proishozhdenie teorii о pervenstve Konstantinopol'skogo patriarha" [The Primacy of the Patriarch of Constantinople: The Origin of the Theory] // VestralPSTGU, 1(51): 36 - 53.

Florovsky, G. (2006) Puti russkogo bogoslovija [Pathways of Russian Theology]. Minsk: Izd-vo Belorusskogo jekzarhata.

Hovorun, C. (2009) "Avtokefalija: ot kanona к mifu" [Autocephaly: from Canon to Myth], Religija v Ukraine 1: 31 - 36.

Hovorun, C. (2014) "Kanonicheskaja territorija: vektory razvitija cerkovno-kanonicheskoj kategorii" [Canonical Territory: The Vectors of Canonical Category], Trudy Kievskoj duhovnoj akademii 20: 349 - 358.

Ionita, V. (2014) Towards the Holy and Great Synod of the Orthodox Church. Fribourg: Institute for Ecumenical Studies University of Fribourg.

Kahn, P. W. (2011) Political Theology: Four New Chapters in the Concept of Sovereignty. NY: Columbia University Press.

Kartashev, A.V. (1992) Sobranie sochinenij v 2 t. T. 1: Ocherki po istorii Russkoj Cerkvi [Collected Works in 2 vol. Vol. 1: Essays on the History of Russian Church]. Moskva: TERRA.

Lambriniadis, E. (2014) "Primus sine paribus", Ecumenical Patriarchate. 07 January [http://www.patriarchate.org/documents/primus-sine-paribus-russian-elpidopho-ros-lambrinia dis, accessed on 04.06.2014].

Maximos, Metropolitan of Sardes. (1976) The Oecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church. Thessaloniki: Patriarchal institute for patristic studies.

Mitropolit Nikodim (Rotov) i vsepravoslavnoe edinstvo [Metropolitan Nikodim (Rotov) and Pan-Orthodox Unity] (2008). Sankt-Peterburg: Izd-vo Knjaz'-Vladimirskogo sobora.

Pis'mo Vselenskogo Patriarha Varfolomeja mitropolitu Cheshskomu Hristoforu [The Letter of Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew to Metropolitan Cristopher of Czech] (2012),

page 223
Portal "Romfea". 30 March [http://www.romfea.gr/romfea-russian/12 090 - 2012 - 03 - 30 - 15 - 13 - 01, accessed on 04.06.2014].

Schmemann, A. (2009) "Vselenskyj Patryarh у Pravoslavnaja Cerkov'" [Ecumenical Patriarch in the Orthodox Church], in Sobranye statej. 1947 - 1983. Moskva:: Russkyj put'.

Schmitt, C. (2000) Polytycheskaja teologyja. Sbornyk [Political Theology]. Moskva: KANON-press C.

Sugar, P. F. (1977) Southeastern Europe under Ottoman rule, 1354 - 1804 (A History of East Central Europe, volume 5.). Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Tchornomorets, Yu. (2014) "Vselens'kist' pomisno'i cerkvi jak vimoga ekleziologi'i ta perspektivi ki'ivs'kogo hristijanstva" [Universality of the Local Church as a Requirement for Ecclesiology and Perspectives of Kyivan Christianity], Theology in Ukraine, 10 May [http://theology.in.ua/ua/bp/theologia/ukrainian/56376/, accessed on 04.06.2014].

Tecshke, B. (2012) "Reshenija i nereshitel'nost': politicheskie i intellektual'nye prochtenija Karla Shmitta" [Decisions and Indecisions. Political and Intellectual Receptions of Carl Schmitt], Logos 5 (89): 3 - 43.

Troitsky, S.V. (1947) "O granicah rasprostranenija prava vlasti Konstantinopol'skoj Patriarhii na "diasporu"" [On the Limits the Patriarchate of Constantinople to Governance "Diaspora"], Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarhii 11: 34 - 45.

Troitsky, S.V. (1948) "O cerkovnoj avtokefalii" [On the Church Autocephaly], Zhurnal Moskovskoj Patriarhii 7 July: 33 - 54.

Troitsky, S.V. (1955) "Kanony i vostochnyj papizm" [Church Canons and the Eastern Papacy], Vestnik Russkogo Zapadno-Evropejskogo Patriarshego Jekzarhata 22: 124 - 135.

page 224

Permanent link to this publication: