Topic: Autonomous Churches

[Michał]

I'm translating a documentary about the Eastern Orthodox Church from English to Polish. I have a problem with section concerning autocephalous and autonomous Churches (3:00-3:39 @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h41JmCCH7AQ). I don't entirely agree with the list presented in the film and I'm going to change it a little bit in the subtitles. The film's authors' (Antiochian Orthodox) list is following:
I. Ancient Patriarchates:
- Antioch
- Constantinopole
- Alexandria
- Jerusalem
II. Modern Patriarchates:
- Russia
- Serbia
- Romania
- Bulgaria
- Georgia
III. Autocephalous Churches:
- Cyprus
- Greece
- Poland
- Albania
IV. Autonomous Churches:
- Sinai
- Czech Republic
- Finland
- Japan
- China
V. Dependant bodies of the Churches listed above.

I'm going to:
- add USA and Canada to autocephalous Churches (with "de facto" in brackets to indicate that the OCA's autocephaly isn't universally recognised but it is de facto an autocephalous Church),
- move Czech Republic (with Slovakia added) to autocephalous Churches,
- remove China from the list, as this Church is virtually defunct today,
- add de facto in brackets to Japan,
- add Ukraine (with de facto in brackets) to autonomous Churches.

So my list would be as follows:
I. Ancient Patriarchates:
- Antioch
- Constantinopole
- Alexandria
- Jerusalem
II. Modern Patriarchates:
- Russia
- Serbia
- Romania
- Bulgaria
- Georgia
III. Autocephalous Churches:
- Cyprus
- Greece
- Poland
- Czech Republic and Slovakia
- Albania
- USA and Canada (de facto)
IV. Autonomous Churches:
- Sinai
- Finland
- Japan (de facto)
- Ukraine (de facto)
V. Dependant bodies of the Churches listed above.

Now, can anyone, please, give me any feedback on point IV of my list? It is correct or should I add or remove any Church? And are the de facto annotations accurate (that is, is it true that Japan's and Ukraine's autonomy is not universally recognised)? And what about the order of the Churches? Is it all right?

[Irish Hermit]

Now, can anyone, please, give me any feedback on point IV of my list? It is correct or should I add or remove any Church? And are the de facto annotations accurate (that is, is it true that Japan's and Ukraine's autonomy is not universally recognised)?

Ukraine does not have the status of an autonomous Church but of a self-governing  Church.   It shares this status of a self-governing Church with the Churches of Estonia, Moldova and Latvia and (since May 2007) the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.  However while the Ukraine is self-governing it has been given large elements of an autonomous Church.

The provisions which govern Self-Governing Churches of the Church of Russia
are given in Chapter VIII of the Ustav. See

http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/133132.html

16. Самоуправляемыми являются:

Латвийская Православная Церковь;
Православная Церковь Молдовы;
Эстонская Православная Церковь.

17. Украинская Православная Церковь является самоуправляемой с правами широкой автономии.

[Michał]

Is this self-governing status the same thing as semi-autonomous or self-ruled?

OK, so ill remove Ukraine. Any other changes needed? Have I missed any autonomous Chuch? And what about the autonomy of the Chruch of Japan? Is it universally recognised or not really?

[ialmisry]

I'm going to:
- add USA and Canada to autocephalous Churches (with "de facto" in brackets to indicate that the OCA's autocephaly isn't universally recognised but it is de facto an autocephalous Church),

de jure is more appropriate, as those who do not recognize its autocephaly recognize it as part of the PoM, which has given it autocephaly, and de facto doesn't distinguish it from say the Macedonian Orthodox Church, the Kiev Patriarchate or the Montenegrin Orthodox Church.

So my list would be as follows:

Now, can anyone, please, give me any feedback on point IV of my list? It is correct or should I add or remove any Church? And are the de facto annotations accurate (that is, is it true that Japan's and Ukraine's autonomy is not universally recognised)? And what about the order of the Churches? Is it all right?

Japan' autonomy is disputed only if you buy the EP's 28 canon nonsense.  The Japanese Orthodox Church is the only show in town, the EP's bishop in Australia added Japan to his title (or was it NZ?). Anyway, nothing much came of that I understand.

As for

- remove China from the list, as this Church is virtually defunct today

is not accurate:
http://www.orthodox.cn/index_en.html
http://www.saintjonah.org/services/chinese.htm
http://www.orthodox.cn/

Toward a rebirth of the Orthodox Church in China - Interview with Mitrophan Chin
Jean-François Mayer



While the presence of Western Christian Churches in China is a well-known fact, many people are not aware that the Orthodox Church has also been present in that country for more than 300 years. In this interview, the webmaster of Orthodox.cn, Mitrophan Chin, tells us more about the history, current situation and prospects for the Orthodox Church in China.

The Orthodox Church in China was given a status of autonomy by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1956 and had two Chinese bishops, several priests and possibly up to 20,000 faithful in the early 1960s.

But it has never fully recovered from the turmoils of the "cultural revolution" of the 1960s and its antireligious policies. In December 2004, the last Chinese Orthodox priest living in China, Father Alexander Du Lifu, passed away in Beijing at the age of 80. He did never manage to get permission from the government to open a church in Beijing: the authorities argued that the community (about 300 faithful) was too tiny.

However, there are efforts from several sides to revive Orthodox life in China, and a few Chinese students are reported to be currently training in Russian theological schools. According to estimates by Father Dionisy Pozdnyaev, who is in charge of Chinese affairs at the Department of External Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, there are some 13,000 Orthodox faithful living in China. There are parishes - without clergy - in Xinjiang, in Inner Mongolia and in Harbin, where the Russian church building is a local landmark. The Moscow Patriarchate would like to see the Orthodox Church recognized officially, but its small size seems to present an obstacle.

Attempts to revive Orthodoxy in China also take place in virtual space. An Orthodox believer of Chinese background living in the United States, Mitrophan Chin, is the webmaster of the website Orthodoxy in China (http://orthodox.cn), which was launched in Spring 2004. In this interview, he tells us more about the history, current situation and prospects for the Orthodox Church in China.

Religioscope - How did Orthodoxy reach China first, more than 300 years ago?

Mitrophan Chin - Orthodoxy reached China with the eastern expansion of the Russian empire across the Siberian Far East in 1651. At around the same time in 1644, the Ming dynasty was overthrown in China by the Manchurians who introduced the Qing dynasty which lasted until the Nationalist revolt of 1911. The Russian Cossack settlements along the Amur River at Albazin eventually was met by fierce attacks by the Chinese army in 1685 which led to the downfall of Albazin, and the captives were taken to the capital city of Beijing.

Religioscope - The first Orthodox in China could thus be described as "immigrants". When did missionary activities directed toward Chinese begin, and how successful were they?

Mitrophan Chin - Missionary activities started when a number of the original captives of the Albazinians were given the honor to serve the Chinese Emperor Kangxi in the Imperial capital of Beijing in one of the most prestigious banners of the honor guards. The first Orthodox priest, Fr Maxim Leontiev, was sent unwillingly to provide spiritual guidance to these new Albazinian immigrants. An old Buddhist temple was provided at the northeastern corner of the capital, and it was converted to an Orthodox chapel bearing the name of St Nicholas the Wonderworker in honor of the miracle-working icon that Fr Maxim brought along with him.

Thus the seed of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission has been planted on Chinese soil. In the 200 years leading up to the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, the Mission took in only a small number of indigenous Chinese converts, mostly through inter-marriage with the Albazinians. This stood in stark contrast with active missionary efforts by rival Catholic and Protestant missionaries.

Religioscope - Orthodoxy in China had its first martyrs at the time of the uprising of the Boxers, which not only targeted Catholics and Protestants, but Orthodox as well. Your Christian name, Mitrophan, is the name of a martyred Chinese priest, isn't it?

St Mitrophan, along with over 200 other Chinese and Albazinians in Beijing gave their lives up for the Christian faith during the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, or the Yihetuan Movement as the Chinese called the uprising. Albazinians at this time have pretty much assimulated with the local population after two centuries of cohabitation. Their outward appearance is not much different from the majority Han Chinese population even though ethnically they consider themselves of Russian descent.

The interview was conducted online in October 2004. Mitrophan Chin was interviewed by Jean-François Mayer. Mitrophan Chin is webmaster of Orthodox.cn (Orthodox China).

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/MayerChina.shtml

Btw, Alaska went without clergy throughout much of its history.  Her Church is now the largest in the State.

I remember something that in Vladivostok that there was a school teaching Chinese, with missionary endevors in mind.

I also met some Chinese Orthodox (living in Australia) when I was in Jerusalem.

Come to think of it, we have a number of posters from China.  Evidently, they're not defunct (though I know one is under the Hong Kong Church).

[Michał]

Ukraine does not have the status of an autonomous Church but of a self-governing  Church.

Then is the following piece of information from the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Orthodox_Church_-_Moscow_Patriarchy#History) false?

Formerly being the Ukrainian exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church it received a full autonomy (a status one step short of full autocephaly) on October 27, 1990.

If Ukraine was not granted autonomy on October 27, 1990 then what was it? This "self-governing with wide autonomy" status?

[Michał]

I'm going to:
- add USA and Canada to autocephalous Churches (with "de facto" in brackets to indicate that the OCA's autocephaly isn't universally recognised but it is de facto an autocephalous Church),

de jure is more appropriate, as those who do not recognize its autocephaly recognize it as part of the PoM, which has given it autocephaly, and de facto doesn't distinguish it from say the Macedonian Orthodox Church, the Kiev Patriarchate or the Montenegrin Orthodox Church.

So my list would be as follows:

Now, can anyone, please, give me any feedback on point IV of my list? It is correct or should I add or remove any Church? And are the de facto annotations accurate (that is, is it true that Japan's and Ukraine's autonomy is not universally recognised)? And what about the order of the Churches? Is it all right?

Japan' autonomy is disputed only if you buy the EP's 28 canon nonsense.  The Japanese Orthodox Church is the only show in town, the EP's bishop in Australia added Japan to his title (or was it NZ?). Anyway, nothing much came of that I understand.

As for

- remove China from the list, as this Church is virtually defunct today

is not accurate:
http://www.orthodox.cn/index_en.html
http://www.saintjonah.org/services/chinese.htm
http://www.orthodox.cn/

Toward a rebirth of the Orthodox Church in China - Interview with Mitrophan Chin
Jean-François Mayer



While the presence of Western Christian Churches in China is a well-known fact, many people are not aware that the Orthodox Church has also been present in that country for more than 300 years. In this interview, the webmaster of Orthodox.cn, Mitrophan Chin, tells us more about the history, current situation and prospects for the Orthodox Church in China.

The Orthodox Church in China was given a status of autonomy by the Moscow Patriarchate in 1956 and had two Chinese bishops, several priests and possibly up to 20,000 faithful in the early 1960s.

But it has never fully recovered from the turmoils of the "cultural revolution" of the 1960s and its antireligious policies. In December 2004, the last Chinese Orthodox priest living in China, Father Alexander Du Lifu, passed away in Beijing at the age of 80. He did never manage to get permission from the government to open a church in Beijing: the authorities argued that the community (about 300 faithful) was too tiny.

However, there are efforts from several sides to revive Orthodox life in China, and a few Chinese students are reported to be currently training in Russian theological schools. According to estimates by Father Dionisy Pozdnyaev, who is in charge of Chinese affairs at the Department of External Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, there are some 13,000 Orthodox faithful living in China. There are parishes - without clergy - in Xinjiang, in Inner Mongolia and in Harbin, where the Russian church building is a local landmark. The Moscow Patriarchate would like to see the Orthodox Church recognized officially, but its small size seems to present an obstacle.

Attempts to revive Orthodoxy in China also take place in virtual space. An Orthodox believer of Chinese background living in the United States, Mitrophan Chin, is the webmaster of the website Orthodoxy in China (http://orthodox.cn), which was launched in Spring 2004. In this interview, he tells us more about the history, current situation and prospects for the Orthodox Church in China.

Religioscope - How did Orthodoxy reach China first, more than 300 years ago?

Mitrophan Chin - Orthodoxy reached China with the eastern expansion of the Russian empire across the Siberian Far East in 1651. At around the same time in 1644, the Ming dynasty was overthrown in China by the Manchurians who introduced the Qing dynasty which lasted until the Nationalist revolt of 1911. The Russian Cossack settlements along the Amur River at Albazin eventually was met by fierce attacks by the Chinese army in 1685 which led to the downfall of Albazin, and the captives were taken to the capital city of Beijing.

Religioscope - The first Orthodox in China could thus be described as "immigrants". When did missionary activities directed toward Chinese begin, and how successful were they?

Mitrophan Chin - Missionary activities started when a number of the original captives of the Albazinians were given the honor to serve the Chinese Emperor Kangxi in the Imperial capital of Beijing in one of the most prestigious banners of the honor guards. The first Orthodox priest, Fr Maxim Leontiev, was sent unwillingly to provide spiritual guidance to these new Albazinian immigrants. An old Buddhist temple was provided at the northeastern corner of the capital, and it was converted to an Orthodox chapel bearing the name of St Nicholas the Wonderworker in honor of the miracle-working icon that Fr Maxim brought along with him.

Thus the seed of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission has been planted on Chinese soil. In the 200 years leading up to the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, the Mission took in only a small number of indigenous Chinese converts, mostly through inter-marriage with the Albazinians. This stood in stark contrast with active missionary efforts by rival Catholic and Protestant missionaries.

Religioscope - Orthodoxy in China had its first martyrs at the time of the uprising of the Boxers, which not only targeted Catholics and Protestants, but Orthodox as well. Your Christian name, Mitrophan, is the name of a martyred Chinese priest, isn't it?

St Mitrophan, along with over 200 other Chinese and Albazinians in Beijing gave their lives up for the Christian faith during the Boxer Rebellion of 1900, or the Yihetuan Movement as the Chinese called the uprising. Albazinians at this time have pretty much assimulated with the local population after two centuries of cohabitation. Their outward appearance is not much different from the majority Han Chinese population even though ethnically they consider themselves of Russian descent.

The interview was conducted online in October 2004. Mitrophan Chin was interviewed by Jean-François Mayer. Mitrophan Chin is webmaster of Orthodox.cn (Orthodox China).

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles5/MayerChina.shtml

Btw, Alaska went without clergy throughout much of its history.  Her Church is now the largest in the State.

I remember something that in Vladivostok that there was a school teaching Chinese, with missionary endevors in mind.

I also met some Chinese Orthodox (living in Australia) when I was in Jerusalem.

Come to think of it, we have a number of posters from China.  Evidently, they're not defunct (though I know one is under the Hong Kong Church).

I see that the things are getting even more complicated here. What I want is a simple solution to a complex issue. I'll have to analyse the whole situation and then I'll ask you, guys, for some more advice.

[ialmisry]

I see that the things are getting even more complicated here. What I want is a simple solution to a complex issue. I'll have to analyse the whole situation and then I'll ask you, guys, for some more advice.

Orthodox Church politics complicated?  Who would have guessed....LOL.

[Michał]

de jure is more appropriate, as those who do not recognize its autocephaly recognize it as part of the PoM, which has given it autocephaly, and de facto doesn't distinguish it from say the Macedonian Orthodox Church, the Kiev Patriarchate or the Montenegrin Orthodox Church.

Hmm, I think that "de jure" would suggest that the OCA was granted autocephaly but it is still controlled by the PoM. While "de facto", as you pointed out, isn't much better, as it would suggest that the OCA is a self-claimed autocephalous Church. How about "lex ferenda"? It would suggest that the OCA is autocephalous according to what the law (of granting autocephaly) ought to be (and, in the PoM's opinion, is, but in EP's opinion is not).

As for

- remove China from the list, as this Church is virtually defunct today

is not accurate:

Eastern Orthodoxy is still present in China, you are right. But the autonomous Chinese Orthodox Church under the Patriarchate of Moscow has had no bishop since 1965. Therefore, having in mind the fact that, according to the Orthodox ecclesiology, a bishop is essential to the existence of a local Church, I see no sense in placing the Church of China among the autonomous Churches.

So, I've decided to translate the discussed fragment the following way:
"...[z] 6 Cerkwiami autokefalicznymi: Cyprem, Grecją, Polską, Albanią, Czechami i Słowacją oraz USA i Kanadą (lex ferenda) i z co najmniej 3 Cerkwiami autonomicznymi: Synajem, Finalandią i Japonią (lex ferenda)..."
("...[with] six autocephalous Churches: Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania, Czech Republic and Slovakia, and USA and Canada (lex ferenda); and with at least 3 autonomous Churches: Sinai, Finland and Japan (lex ferenda)...")

Does it make sense?

[Irish Hermit]

Ukraine does not have the status of an autonomous Church but of a self-governing  Church.

Then is the following piece of information from the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Orthodox_Church_-_Moscow_Patriarchy#History) false?

Formerly being the Ukrainian exarchate of the Russian Orthodox Church it received a full autonomy (a status one step short of full autocephaly) on October 27, 1990.

If Ukraine was not granted autonomy on October 27, 1990 then what was it? This "self-governing with wide autonomy" status?

The Ustav was updated on 27 June 2008.   There is no mention that Ukraine is now an Autonomous Church.
http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/428872.html

[Michał]

The Ustav was updated on 27 June 2008.   There is no mention that Ukraine is now an Autonomous Church.
http://www.patriarchia.ru/db/text/428872.html

Thanks. So, next Wikipedia article to be corrected.

[ialmisry]

de jure is more appropriate, as those who do not recognize its autocephaly recognize it as part of the PoM, which has given it autocephaly, and de facto doesn't distinguish it from say the Macedonian Orthodox Church, the Kiev Patriarchate or the Montenegrin Orthodox Church.

Hmm, I think that "de jure" would suggest that the OCA was granted autocephaly but it is still controlled by the PoM. While "de facto", as you pointed out, isn't much better, as it would suggest that the OCA is a self-claimed autocephalous Church. How about "lex ferenda"? It would suggest that the OCA is autocephalous according to what the law (of granting autocephaly) ought to be (and, in the PoM's opinion, is, but in EP's opinion is not).

Precise, but is the phrase that common in Polish?

As for

- remove China from the list, as this Church is virtually defunct today

is not accurate:

Eastern Orthodoxy is still present in China, you are right. But the autonomous Chinese Orthodox Church under the Patriarchate of Moscow has had no bishop since 1965. Therefore, having in mind the fact that, according to the Orthodox ecclesiology, a bishop is essential to the existence of a local Church, I see no sense in placing the Church of China among the autonomous Churches.

It is technically sedes vacantes.  It would have to be abolished to be defunct, and it seems that it is not going in that direction.  Again, to use the example of Alaska (not unrelated: St. Innocent was ordained to be bishop in China, but was refused entry. He ended up founding the see of Irkutsk), the first bishop of Alaska, Kodiak, Joasaph, was ordained by the successor of St. Innnocent solely: the only instance of the Russian Church, by order of the Holy Governing Synod, to ordain a bishop by one bishop alone.  When he died on route back in 1799, he was not replaced and the see was abolished in 1811.  A local Irkutsk boy was later ordained in 1840 Bishop (later Archbishop) Innocent (later Metropolitian of Moscow) for the see of Kamchatka, the Kuril and the Aleutian Islands, the later part in time becoming the Archbishop of the Aleutians and All North America, in time the Metropolitan of the OCA.  So no need to write China off: Alaska did without a bishop for 41 years (and officially abolished as a see for 29 years), and later did good for itself.

So, I've decided to translate the discussed fragment the following way:
"...[z] 6 Cerkwiami autokefalicznymi: Cyprem, Grecją, Polską, Albanią, Czechami i Słowacją oraz USA i Kanadą (lex ferenda) i z co najmniej 3 Cerkwiami autonomicznymi: Synajem, Finalandią i Japonią (lex ferenda)..."
("...[with] six autocephalous Churches: Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania, Czech Republic and Slovakia, and USA and Canada (lex ferenda); and with at least 3 autonomous Churches: Sinai, Finland and Japan (lex ferenda)...")

Does it make sense?

I don't see any reason for the qualification for Japan.  For one thing, giving the activities of the PoM in Finland, there seems to be some question about its status.

[Michał]

Precise, but is the phrase that common in Polish?

Nope. But it's rather for me to be sure that I'm doing my job right (i.e., that I'm not giving anyone false or not full information).

It is technically sedes vacantes.

So I'll leave but China with "sedes vacantes" (or "sede vacante"?) annotation in brackets.

I don't see any reason for the qualification for Japan.

I based it on an OrthodoxWiki article (http://orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_autocephalous_and_autonomous_Churches), which says: "autonomy recognized by Moscow but not Constantinople." Are there many occasions for the EP and other autocephalous Churches to express their unrecognition of Japan's autonomy?

For one thing, giving the activities of the PoM in Finland, there seems to be some question about its status.

Is autonomy/autocephaly of a Church questionable if in the country where this Church has its territory there is a presence of other Orthodox jurisdiction(s)?

[ialmisry]

Precise, but is the phrase that common in Polish?

Nope. But it's rather for me to be sure that I'm doing my job right (i.e., that I'm not giving anyone false or not full information).

It is technically sedes vacantes.

So I'll leave but China with "sedes vacantes" (or "sede vacante"?) annotation in brackets.

You mean: So I'll leave China but with the "sedes vacantes"...?

Either form is used, sede vacante being the ablative.

I don't see any reason for the qualification for Japan.

I based it on an OrthodoxWiki article (http://orthodoxwiki.org/List_of_autocephalous_and_autonomous_Churches), which says: "autonomy recognized by Moscow but not Constantinople." Are there many occasions for the EP and other autocephalous Churches to express their unrecognition of Japan's autonomy?

No, not outside the Greek ex pat community in Japan.  I don't think the EP even has a bishop who claims Japan anymore, even in name.

Its just the general canon 28 nonsense, no other Church besides Constantinople buys it.  Most Churches recognize OCA, which nips the EP's theory in the bud.  And of those who don't, all, except Cyprus, have jurisdictions in territory that the EP is claiming by canon 28, so they can't take it all that serious.

For one thing, giving the activities of the PoM in Finland, there seems to be some question about its status.

Is autonomy/autocephaly of a Church questionable if in the country where this Church has its territory there is a presence of other Orthodox jurisdiction(s)?

LOL.  That's basically the OCA's only problem.

[Michał]

You mean: So I'll leave China but with the "sedes vacantes"...?

That's right. Word order matters.

LOL.  That's basically the OCA's only problem.

I see.

Thank you, ialmisry, for your help!

[serb1389]

I thought Sinai technically was autocephalous?  I remember we discussed it at some point...

[ialmisry]

I thought Sinai technically was autocephalous?  I remember we discussed it at some point...

Jerusalem has some reserve powers over it.  There was a big test of that a century ago, and resulted in a deposition of an EP (who supported Sinai) IIRC.  The Abbot has to be confirmed and ordained by Jerusalem, and appeal from the monks has to go to him.