www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology autocephaly

Friends,

I've been trying to persuade some Protestant friends to become either Catholic or Orthodox. They seem hell bent on creating some independent non-denominational Church that would lead all Christians into a Spirit based union. Sound familiar? :rolleyes: :p Almost every Protestant group in existence has this "unique" mission statement.

Anyway, they asked about the principle of autocephaly. I referred them to a number of links but I have a few questions about it myself.

Naturally, there is no such thing in Catholicism, although many groups claim that distinction. But in Orthodoxy it constitutes a well travelled road.

What kinds of standards does an autocephalic Church have to meet in order to gain recognition? Of course these Protestant friends of mine believe that they only need the permission of the Holy Spirit to run off and do whatever they wish, but they did ask the question.

Why is the autocephalic status sought and granted? I thought it hand something to do with geographic, political, or economic considerations until I ran across the many autocephalic Orthodox Churches in America. Now I suspect it has to do with how much money some of these Churches can contribute to those Orthodox Patriarchates that recognize their status. Please, tell me it aint so.

Any and all help will be appreciated.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan,

As long as they don't join the Moscow Patriarchate and then declare their autocephaly, they should be all right from a canonical point of view . . .

Alex

Dan,

Obviously, they aren't interested in the principle of 'sui juris.'

Is 'sui juris' status akin to letting older cheeldren have the privilege of staying up one additional hour before bedtime?

What exactly IS the difference between 'sui juris' and autocephaly besides the first being Latin and the latter being Greek?

Dear Dan,

The thought came to me that you might want to encourage your friends to look into the "Evangelical Orthodox" group that Fr. Peter Gillquist is associated with (I mean those in union with the Antiochians).

They started out as a separate group, baptising people in swimming pools during religious barbecues, holding "soul-savin', devil-hatin'" revavals (sic) and then later came into full communion with Antioch.

You should put them in touch with Fr. Gillquist and his crowd.

Alex

Alex,

They don't like priests, that is to say, they think the priesthood as separate from all the people ended with the Old Covenant. They are typical Protestants. They've spent 500 years trying to figure out how to exercise authority while still denying that there is any authority to exercise.

I'll direct them to Guilquist. Are the Antiochians canonical? I don't know if that will make any difference to them, but it would be nice if I directed them to something more authentic than the latest fad.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan,

Yup, they're canonical!

The thing is that Fr. Gillquist et al were former Protestants and very well acquainted with Scripture - they know the Protestant mind-set and so would be able to address their concerns in a way no one else could.

For example, Fr. Gillquist in his "Becoming Orthodox" points to the word in Greek that describes the Apostles' worship in the Acts -"Leitourgoukon."

And, he said, "You don't even have to know Greek to know what that means!"

You gotta watch out with those guys, you know

Alex

Yes. They are headed by Metropolitan Philip and at least one of their clergy teaches at our seminary in Pittsburgh.

I came within an eyelash of joining the Antiochians. I love the priest I met and they are bursting at the seams at their local Church. When I asked about the pope they spoke rather disparagingly. So I found a BC Church.

I doubtless would be a priest today if we had joined there.

Dan Lauffer

PS I just saw Joe's comment. Makes me wonder if I shouldn't switch.

Dan writes:

[I thought it had something to do with geographic, political, or economic considerations until I ran across the many autocephalic Orthodox Churches in America.]

Dan: There is only one autocephalous church in America. And that is the OCA which was granted its autocephally in 1970 by its mother church - the Russian Orthodox Church. The rest of the other various Orthodox jurisdictions are parts of foreign Orthodox Patriarchates. Kind of like American dioceses of said churches.

From 'Historical Dictionary Of The Orthodox Church' -

AUTOCEPHALOUS - Literally, the term in Greek means, "having one's own head." Churches that are autocephalous are self-governing and not under the jurisdiction of another church. They elect their own presiding bishop, frequently with the rank of Patriarch, without outside permission or sanction. Defining autocephally as 'independence' is misleading, since all canonical churches are in communion with one another and provisionally responsible to one another in matters of faith, though not of administration. As a historical phenomenon, from a theological viewpoint, autocephally is seen as an organic developement of principles of church government laid down in the first Ecumenical Councils. For example, during the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian (527-565) the church was considered a Pentarchy, consisting of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, five autocephallous patriarchates. In more recent times autocephally is drawn along the lines of "national churches". As a political developement autocephally is more tenuous being granted and withdrawn by "mother chuches" for various reasons. It is safe to say that lasting autocephally of a particular established, regional church usually functions de facto for a time and is later recognized de jure.

From - "The Complete Book Of Orthodoxy"

AUTOCEPHALLOUS - a "self governing church" An autocephallous Church has received its right from a Mother Church (usually under the patriachate where it first began) for self-governance by local synods. An autocephallous church is given the right to elect its own leader ("cephale").

OrthoMan

Just for whatever it's worth, I think it's "autocephalous" and "autocephalacy" instead of "autocephalic" and "autocephaly."

Logos Teen

Dan:

Do you really see Catholicism and Orthodoxy as interchangeable? I can assure you that our Orthodox pals don't feel the same way (as you discovered when you asked your Antiochene friends about the pope!).

Is this the common EC view--that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are interchangeable...that it's six of one, half a dozen of the other?

Please tell me this highly problematic view exists mainly on the Internet, not in Real Life!

ZT, busily scratching head

EHHHHH WRONG ;-)

Actually it's autocephalous and autocephaly, but autocephalic is sometimes used as it means the same thing as the first.

anastasios

Zoe,

Orthodoxy is a major giant step up from Protestantism. Believe me. Since the Pope says we essentially share the same faith...well, why not encourage one or the other for our lost...er...separated brethren?

Dan Lauffer

It seems that sui juris corresponds to an autonomous Church not an autocephalous one.

Dear Zoe,

I think what Dan means is that if this group decided to become Orthodox, he would be happier with that than if they decided to remain Protestant.

In terms of grace etc., is there a difference between the Churches? Do they not have the same sacraments, the same Apostolic faith, the valid episcopacy from the Apostles etc.?

The division is really one at the top i.e. Pope and Patriarchs with what are surely by now minor differences in faith (which can be easily overcome with good will).

So if you were a heretic, for example, and came to me on your knees asking for guidance as to which is the fullness of the true Church, I would tell you that it is Ukrainian Catholic . . .

But if you wanted to join the OCA, I would say, "Oh, all right, if you absolutely must . . . Just get up from the floor, Zoe. . ."

Alex