There is obvious ignorance, and misunderstanding of the notion "autocephalia", of those advocating autocephalia for so-called "Ukrainian Church".
A) The Church (as a whole) functioned according to Metropolitan model during the first centuries. There was no autocephalia and autocephalous Churches between 1st and 4th century.
B) By the Canons of Ecumenical Councils (2nd, 3rd, 4th and either 5th or 6th) first "the ancient custom" of autocephalia is canonized of the sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, than establishment of the see of Constantinopolis, than grant of autocephalia to Jerusalem from Antioch, than grant of autocephalia to Cyprus from Antioch. All done by Ecumenical Councils.
B.1.) It should be noted that two oldest Christian nations, and theri respective Churches, Armenia and Ethiopia, were neither canonized as autocephalous by an Ecumenical Council.
B.1.1.) It should be noted that Ethiopia was part of the See of Alexandria, until several years ago, when OO Alexandria granted her autocephalia. The fact that they are OO, and not EO, doesn't matter much - they followed the model of autocephalous Churches.
B.2.1.)Although the See of Jerusalem were existing prior to Antioch, it was part of Patriarchate of Antioch until Ecumenical Council. The bishop of Jerusalem is succesor of St. Apostole James, while the bishop of Antioch is succesor of St. Apostole Peter. See of James was part of Patriarchate presided by the See of Peter. It's difficult to Roman Catholics to see the difference between Apostolic Succession of bishops and structure of organization of Church as autocephalous
B.2.2.) Upon breach of communion, caused by theological dispute, between Armenians and the rest of us, Patriarch of Antioch granted autocephalia to the Church of Georgia
upon their return into communion. Autocephalia wasn't granted by an Ecumenical Council, than by tomos
. AFAIK, Christianity of Georgia was established by St. Nino, and they were part of Armenia where Christianity was established by St. Mesrop [sp?]. I wouldn't know about the borders of "jurisdictions" of that time, but, if there was overstepping of them, it was caused by the differences in faith - Armenians
were not in communion and there was the need to organize those who were returning.
C) The rest of autocephalous Churches
were all becoming such by receiving tomos from the Church of whom they were part before that
- in most cases Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinopolis.
C.1.) Revocation of autocephalia for autocephalous Churches - Serbia twice, Bulgaria once, Georgia once - were always done by conquoring army and, at least in case of Serbia, by mere cessation of existence of bishops and lack of election of their successors.
C.2.) Transfer of borders of jurisdictions between two existing autocephalous Churches occurred several times - Orthodox in Austro-Hungarian Empire, but always in consent between the autocephalous Churches. If there was no consent, there was no transfer.
C.2.1.) There may be slightly different interpretation between EP and other Autocephalous Churches about the transfer of certain lands, but, I'm not sure H.H. Bartholomew of Constantinopolis will push to your interpretation - he is well aware about the possible consequences.Russian Church, with her seat in Moscow, got autocephalia from Constantinopolis, from whom she received tomos
. The fact that baptism of Ryss occured in Kiev 5 centuries before that was absolutely not related. That's why Ecumenical Patriarchate is Mother
of Russian Patriarchate.
The issue of borders between them doesn't exist. There is the valid consent of EP to transfer what's Kiev now to Moscow. Subsequent decision about it is ineffective. BTW, simonia means purchase of status of a hierarch - a deacon, a priest, a bishop - and doesn't embrace transfer of territory
. EP justified her recent acceptance of some Ukrainians by other reasons, and not by disputing the decision of her own council.
Re.: St. Gregory Palamas
, he was a Bishop of Thessalonica, elected by EP, when Thessalonica was part of extended Serbian Patriarchate under Tzar Dusan
, whom was under anathema of EP. Following your logic in case of St. Peter Mogila, not making distinction between the apostolic succession of bishops and organization of Church, he couldn't have been real bishop. There was no transfer of See of Kiev to Moscow, just as there was no transfer of See of Thessalonica to Pec. That's why Moscow would necessarily be Mother of supposed Ukrainian Church if she ever decides to grant her autocephalia.
Finally, stop posing as Orthodox - you are obviously an RC
, not having a clue about Orthodox ecclessiology. Your entire eclessiology is papocentric, so go claim autocephalia for yourself from Rome, because no Orthodox in Ukraine is requesting autocephalia, they are happy in UOC - MP
, but "Ukrainian autocephalia" is the issue of high concern for all enemies of Orthodox.
We'll keep placing our hope in the Holy Spirit.Edited to remove offensive epithets -PtA