What is the "canonical territory" of the ROC? What is this concept based on? Religious division in Ukraine. reference

It took shape on a certain geographically closed territory, which was called canonical.

The canonical territory is divided into regions - dioceses. This is the basic "structural unit" of any Local Orthodox Church. For example, the Serbian Orthodox Church has 36 dioceses, the Polish - 7. The American Church has 16 dioceses.

Each diocese is governed by a bishop. The diocese includes churches (parishes) located on its territory, monasteries and monastic farmsteads, various church institutions - diocesan, educational, etc.

Dioceses and their boundaries on the territory of the Local Church are established by church governing bodies (in the Russian Church, by the Holy Synod, with subsequent approval by the Council of Bishops).

The diocese, as a rule, is divided into several districts - deaneries, headed by deaneries. These are priests appointed by the ruling bishop and assisting him in the administration of the diocese. The boundaries of deaneries and their names are determined by the diocesan council.

A large diocese or an association of several dioceses headed by an archbishop is called an archdiocese. In the Russian Orthodox Church at the present time there is no division into archdioceses, and the title of archbishop is honorary.

The union of several dioceses, headed by a metropolitan, is called a metropolitanate (metropolitan district). In the Romanian Church, for example, there are 29 dioceses united into 5 metropolises. In the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, the question of the formation of metropolises has been raised more than once, but they were not formed. Therefore, the title of Metropolitan in Russia is now honorary.

Exarchate is a union of dioceses under the rule of the bishop of a large city (this bishop usually bears the title of metropolitan and is called an exarch). The Russian Orthodox Church includes, for example, the Belarusian Exarchate. The establishment of an exarchate on any territory is a step towards its autocephaly: for example, the now independent Georgian and Bulgarian Orthodox Churches at a certain period of their history were exarchates.

The principle of "canonical territory" in the Orthodox tradition I.

In this report, I would like to consider the question of how the principle of "canonical territory" developed and operates in the Eastern Christian tradition. The term "canonical territory" is recent, but the ecclesiological model behind it dates back to apostolic times. Understanding the meaning of this term, as well as the principles of its application, is important not only for inter-Orthodox cooperation, but also for the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.

History and development of the canonical territory principle

The model of church organization, which had already developed in the first three centuries of the existence of Christianity, was based on the principle of "one city - one bishop - one", which implies the assignment of a certain church territory to a specific bishop. The bishop writes about the historical prerequisites for the emergence of the principle of monarchical episcopate and the principle of "canonical territory" that follows from it in his commentaries to the Apostolic Canons: and the concept of a permanent priesthood in these areas ... Each of the areas of that time received its origin either directly or through someone else, from one of the apostles ... so that the ecclesiastical areas, constantly emerging, constituted, as it were, separate families in which the bishop was the father , and the rest of the clergy are his assistants ”1.

In accordance with this principle, the "Apostolic Canons" 2 and other canonical decrees of the Ancient Church indicate the inadmissibility of violating the boundaries of church areas by bishops or clergy. The "Rules" insist that a bishop should not leave his diocese and move on his own to another (Ap. 14); a bishop cannot ordain outside the boundaries of his diocese (Apt. 35); a cleric or layman who has been excommunicated from church communion cannot, having moved to another city, be accepted into communion by another bishop (Apt. 12); a clergyman who has transferred to another diocese without the will of his bishop is deprived of the right to ordain (Apt. 15); a prohibition or excommunication imposed on a cleric by one bishop cannot be lifted by another bishop (Aps. 16 and 32) 3. Similar decrees were adopted by the Ecumenical and Local Councils of the 4th-8th centuries and constitute an integral part of the canon law of the modern Orthodox Church.

In defining the boundaries of ecclesiastical areas, the Fathers of the Ancient Undivided Church took into account the civil territorial division established by the secular authorities. In the II-III centuries, the customary order was in which the bishop headed the church area, and he himself served in the city, and the presbyters (chorebishops) appointed by him took care of the church communities in the nearby villages. However, already at the beginning of the 4th century, after the emperor Diocletian (284-305) united the provinces of the Roman Empire into "dioceses", the need arose for the appropriate unification of ecclesiastical regions (dioceses) into larger units: the latter began to be called metropolises. The first bishop of the metropolis (metropolitan) was the bishop of the capital of the diocese, and other bishops were under his administrative authority. However, within the limits of their dioceses, they retained the fullness of ecclesiastical authority, correlating with the metropolitan only in those matters that went beyond their competence. Note that the division of the Christian Church into Eastern and Western began to take shape also in the IV century, and was also associated with the civil division of the empire into the West and the East, when Rome acquired the status of a special administrative district, and Constantinople became the capital of the empire and the “second Rome”.

Although the principle of the correspondence of church areas to civil territorial units was accepted in the ancient Church as a governing one, it was never absolutized and was not perceived as uncontested. Evidence of this is the conflict between the saint and Bishop Anthim of Tyana, well documented thanks, in particular, to a detailed description of it in the writings. The essence of the conflict was as follows. When in the summer of 370 Basil the Great took over the administration of the Cappadocian Church, Cappadocia was a single province with the center in Caesarea. However, in the winter of 371-372, Emperor Valens divided Cappadocia into two regions - Cappadocia I with its capital in Caesarea and Cappadocia II with its capital in Tiana. Bishop Anthim of Tyana, in accordance with the new civil division, began to act as Metropolitan of Cappadocia II, not accepting jurisdiction over it; the latter continued to consider himself the metropolitan of all Cappadocia, in accordance with the previous territorial division. To consolidate his power, in the spring of 372, Basil ordained bishops in the cities that de facto entered the "canonical territory" of Anfim: in Sasim he appointed his friend Gregory (the Theologian), and in Nissa - his brother, also Gregory. In 374, Amphilochius, a cousin and faithful disciple of Basil, was appointed bishop of Iconium. All these acts Anfim of Tyana perceived as non-canonical and in every possible way obstructed the activities of the bishops appointed by Basil. Subsequently, after the death of Basil in 379, the bishops of Cappadocia II actually recognized Anthimus of Tyana as the metropolitan of this ecclesiastical region.

Based on historical data, we can say with sufficient grounds that the principle of "canonical territory" at the level of individual dioceses began to take shape already in the Apostolic times and was consolidated by church practice in the 2nd-3rd centuries. As for the larger ecclesiastical associations (metropolises), they developed mainly in the 4th century. By the end of the 4th century, we have three levels of the canonical territory: the metropolis, uniting the dioceses of several regions; a diocese uniting parishes of one region; and a parish - a church community headed by a presbyter as a representative of the bishop. Further development led to the creation of even larger structures - patriarchates, which included metropolises, which, in turn, included dioceses.

The first great schism in the history of world Christianity, which occurred in the middle of the 5th century, when part of the Christians of the East did not accept the Council of Chalcedon in 451 (IV Ecumenical Council), led to the emergence in a number of areas of the Eastern Roman Empire, as well as beyond its borders, the so-called “ parallel hierarchies ". Some of them still exist today. A parallel hierarchy is understood as the presence in the same city of two bishops claiming the same canonical territory and often bearing the same title. In Egypt and Syria to this day there are two Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch - one for the Christians of the Orthodox tradition who host the Council of Chalcedon, the other for the so-called "pre-Chalcedonian" Churches. In Jerusalem and Constantinople, in addition to the Orthodox patriarch - "Chalcedonian", there are Armenian patriarchs - pre-Chalcedonites. This canonical anomaly is due to the fact that the Chalcedonian and pre-Chalcedonian Churches are not in Eucharistic communion.

The second great schism in the history of world Christianity - in the 11th century - did not immediately lead to the emergence of parallel hierarchies. After the breakdown of communion between Constantinople and Rome in 1054, the order established in the first millennium remained for some time, according to which in the East the canonical territory was divided between four patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), and in the West, the main center of ecclesiastical power remained Rome: All dioceses were united around the Roman bishop as the "metropolitan" or patriarch of the Western Roman Empire. The jurisdiction of the Roman bishop did not extend to the Orthodox East, and the jurisdiction of each of the Eastern patriarchs did not extend beyond their patriarchates. Thus, the principle of canonical territory was still respected.

The situation changed during the era of the Crusades, when hordes of Latins invaded traditionally Orthodox territories and established Latin patriarchates there. So, after the capture of Antioch by the crusaders in 1097, the Orthodox patriarch was expelled from there, in whose place the crusaders appointed a Latin patriarch. The same story was repeated at the end of 1099 in Jerusalem after its capture by the crusaders: the Orthodox patriarch was deposed, and his place was taken by the papal legate, elevated to patriarchal dignity. Finally, after the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204, the Latin Patriarchate was also founded there. The Antiochian and Constantinople Latin Patriarchates ceased to exist after the expulsion of the Crusaders from the East at the end of the 13th century. As for the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, although it ceased to exist in 1291, it was revived by the Catholic Church in 1847 and still exists today. Thus, Jerusalem has three patriarchs - Orthodox, Armenian and Latin.

Speaking about the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders, the Catholic church historian E.-H. Suttner writes: “After the capture of Constantinople, the conquerors placed their people on the royal and patriarchal thrones, and gradually on many episcopal thrones. The Greek king and the Greek patriarch went into exile in Nicaea; many prominent Greeks followed them. Together they languished in anticipation of the day when it would be possible to return to Constantinople. In the center of the Eastern Empire, the triumphant Latins treated the Greeks in the same way as the Normans in southern Italy and the 11th century crusaders in Antioch and Jerusalem. Obviously, the Latins in the thirteenth century had the same idea of ​​the unity of the Church and of schism as the Normans. After all, they acted in the same way, and were, as the documents of the IV Lateran Council (1214) show, firmly convinced that they achieved the unity of the Church by making the Latins king and patriarch. The Greeks, for quite understandable reasons, consider the subordination of one part of the Christian world to another as a phenomenon unworthy of the Church. From their point of view, the behavior of the Latins after the conquest of Constantinople deepened the schism of the Church ... We must thoroughly review all previously undertaken attempts to achieve unity, so as not to repeat the mistakes made in the past ”5.

A serious blow to Orthodox-Catholic relations was inflicted by the numerous unias that the Roman Catholic Church had been creating over the course of several centuries in the primordially Orthodox lands. Being a gross violation of the principle of canonical territory, Uniatism has always been extremely painful and continues to be perceived by the Orthodox. I will give an assessment of this phenomenon by Protopresbyter Vitaly Borov, one of the most active participants in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue in the 20th century: them all kinds of unias, which in their essence and in their final results led to the replacement of the Orthodox faith of the Ancient Eastern Church with the Roman faith of the medieval Catholic Western Church. The so-called Union of Lyons (1274), Florentine (1439) and many other unions appeared: Brest (1596), Uzhgorod (1646), Mukachevo (1733); Unions in the Middle Orthodox East: Armenian, Coptic, Syro-Jacobite, Syro-Chaldean, etc. Uniates arose in all Orthodox Churches and became a constant disaster and threat to all of Orthodoxy. All this had a heavy impact on the attitude and feelings of the Orthodox people towards Rome and the Catholic Church, which is briefly expressed in the famous saying: "Better a Turkish turban than a Roman tiara." The psychological and historical tragedy of this desperate, seemingly impossible in inter-Christian relations, dictum is the most expressive and severe denunciation of the sin of separating and breaking the communion of the Western and Eastern Churches ”6.

Canonical territories of Local Orthodox Churches

If we now return to the history of the Local Orthodox Churches, we can say that among them the principle of the canonical territory was observed almost unswervingly until the beginning of the 20th century. The borders between Churches, as a rule, coincided with the borders of countries or empires. For example, in the 19th century, the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was limited to the borders of the Ottoman Empire, and the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church was limited to the borders of the Russian Empire.

It would be wrong, however, to argue that the Orthodox Churches did not operate outside their canonical territories. Some Orthodox Churches carried out extensive missionary activities outside their canonical limits: in particular, missionaries from the Russian Church in the 18th-19th centuries founded Orthodox canonical structures in America, Japan and China. However, Russian missionaries acted only in those countries where there were no other Local Orthodox Churches. These countries constituted what can be conditionally called the "missionary canonical territory" of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The revolutionary events that took place in the 1910s in a number of European states, as well as World War II and the collapse of the great empires, led to major geopolitical changes, as a result of which the structure of world Orthodoxy underwent significant changes. First, in the first half of the 20th century, several Orthodox Churches proclaimed or restored their previously lost autocephaly. Secondly, as a result of mass migration of the population, a significant part of Orthodox believers who belonged to one Local Church ended up in territories where another Local Church was already operating. Thirdly, starting in the 1920s, the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which lost almost all believers on its canonical territory during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, made claims to the pastoral care of the so-called "diaspora" - the Orthodox diaspora - and began to create new metropolises and archdioceses in Europe and beyond. The result of all these events was the emergence of parallel Orthodox jurisdictions in those countries where the Orthodox were a minority.

As an example, I will cite the situation that developed in the second half of the 19th and throughout the 20th century on the American continent7. Orthodoxy was brought there by Russian missionaries through Alaska. The first episcopal see in America was established by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1840, but the ruling bishop of this diocese - the saint - stayed in Novoarkhangelsk. In 1872, 5 years after the sale of Alaska to America, the See of the Russian Bishop was transferred to San Francisco. From 1898 to 1907, the diocese was ruled by Saint Tikhon, the future Patriarch of All Russia. Under him, the department was moved to New York. He also prepared the All-American Council of 1907, which renamed the diocese into the "Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church in North America." This was the beginning of the future autocephalous American Orthodox Church.

During the years of Saint Tikhon's stay in America, a large number of Antioch Christians arrived in the New World, for whom, at the intercession of Saint Tikhon, in 1903, the vicar Bishop Raphael of Brooklyn, a native of Syria, was ordained. Thus, a new ecclesiological model, unique in its nature, began to take shape, which assumed that within the framework of one Local Church, on the same canonical territory, bishops of different nationalities could operate, and dioceses were created not on territorial but on ethnic grounds. Such a model did not correspond to the ecclesiology of the ancient Church, but it corresponded to the new reality that was emerging as a result of migration processes in Europe and America. If the development of events continued according to the scenario outlined by St. Tikhon, in America already in the 1920s, a Local Orthodox Church could be formed, headed by one metropolitan, in whose subordination there would be bishops of different nationalities, each of whom would nourish the flock of his nationality, be it Russians, Ukrainians, Greeks, Antiochians, Romanians, etc.

However, in the 1920s, as a result of the mass emigration of Greeks from the territory of the former Ottoman Empire to Europe, America and Australia, metropolises of the Patriarchate of Constantinople began to emerge on these continents, proclaiming, as already mentioned, the jurisdiction of the entire church "diaspora", that is, all countries outside the boundaries of the historic Orthodox Churches. Virtually all of Western Europe, North and South America, as well as Australia and Oceania, in accordance with this point of view, fell under the definition of "diaspora". However, in America, for example, there was already an Orthodox Church headed by a Russian bishop. Thus, the creation of the Constantinople jurisdiction there introduced a division in American Orthodoxy, which only intensified after the emergence of the jurisdictions of the Antiochian, Romanian and Serbian Patriarchates there.

In 1970, the Russian Orthodox Church, still inspired by the vision of St. Tikhon, who dreamed of a single Orthodox Church on the American continent, granted autocephaly to that part of American Orthodoxy that was part of its canonical subordination. It was assumed that Orthodox Christians of other jurisdictions would also join this autocephalous Church, which received the name "The Orthodox Church in America". This, however, did not happen, and at present in America, along with the autocephalous Church, there are metropolises, archdioceses and dioceses of Constantinople, Antioch and other Local Churches.

In Western Europe, as a result of the revolutionary upheavals of the 1920s, an equally confusing situation developed. In France, Germany and other Western European countries, as well as outside Europe, there was a large number of Russian Orthodox believers who began to create their own church structures. In parallel, the process of creating metropolises and archdioceses of the Patriarchates of Constantinople and Antioch took place. In the period after World War II, the Serbian, Romanian and Bulgarian diasporas significantly increased in Western Europe, for which their own church structures were also created: these diasporas are currently continuing to grow steadily. Finally, in the most recent years, as a result of the mass exodus of Georgians from their country, parishes of the Georgian Orthodox Church began to appear in Europe. As a result of all these processes, in the same European city there may be several Orthodox bishops, each of whom represents one or another Orthodox Church.

The situation of the Russian diaspora in Western Europe and America is further complicated by the fact that not all believers of the Russian Orthodox tradition belong to a single church jurisdiction. In parallel with the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate in Europe and beyond, since the 1920s, there has been a “Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia”, which broke away from the Mother Church for political reasons and was not recognized by any canonical Local Orthodox Church. Since the 1930s, there has been a church structure in Europe that unites Russian Orthodox parishes that have entered the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Moscow Patriarchate has repeatedly made attempts to unite the Russian church diaspora under one jurisdictional "roof." Negotiations are currently taking place between the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad on the question of restoring full Eucharistic communion.

Practical application of the principle of canonical territory

Despite the fact that in many regions of the world there are parallel Orthodox jurisdictions, it cannot be said that the principle of canonical territory is generally not observed by the Orthodox Churches. This principle still remains the cornerstone of Orthodox ecclesiology and is applied in practice, although not always and far from everywhere. Let us give examples of the practical application of this principle in intra-Orthodox relations, as well as in the relationship between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

1. Each Local Orthodox Church has its own canonical territory, the integrity of which is recognized in principle by other Churches. Other Churches have no right to establish their parishes on this canonical territory.... For example, the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople includes Turkey, Northern Greece and some islands of the Mediterranean; The Alexandrian Church - all of Africa; Antioch - Syria and Lebanon; Jerusalem - the Holy Land. The canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church includes Orthodox believers in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The canonical territory of the Georgian, Serbian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Cypriot, Albanian, Polish and Czechoslovak Churches extends to the Orthodox believers of the respective countries. The canonical territory of the Church of Greece includes Orthodox Christians of Greece, with the exception of Northern Greece and a number of islands that are under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. As for the claims of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to jurisdiction outside its canonical territory, in the so-called “diaspora,” this issue has not been settled at the inter-Orthodox level. The status of the Orthodox Church in America, whose jurisdiction extends to the United States and Canada, has also not been settled.

2. The boundaries of the Churches in many cases coincide with the boundaries of states, however changing state borders does not necessarily lead to the fragmentation of Churches... For example, after the collapse of the USSR, the Moscow Patriarchate retained its territorial integrity, although a number of schismatic structures arose on its canonical territory (in particular, in Ukraine). After the division of Czechoslovakia into two independent states, the Czechoslovak Orthodox Church was renamed the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, however, it did not split into two Local Churches, but retained its unity8. The Serbian Orthodox Church also maintained unity after the collapse of Yugoslavia.

3. In the Orthodox tradition, there is a concept traditionally Orthodox states- these are the states where the Orthodox Church is the Church of the majority. In many of these countries (with the exception of Greece and Cyprus), the Church is separate from the state, but it is respected by the state and is an important social force. The Orthodox Churches of such countries tend to perceive the entire population of these states, with the exception of those belonging to other confessions or religions, as their real or potential flock. Here, the concept of "cultural canonical territory" can be applied, which implies that the entire population of a country, belonging to the Orthodox tradition by its cultural roots, but due to historical circumstances has lost contact with the faith of its ancestors, is a potential flock of the Local Orthodox Church. For example, in Russia the absolute majority of Russian people, by their roots, belong to the Orthodox tradition, and therefore Russia cannot be regarded as a free missionary territory. This principle does not mean that the Russian Church positions itself as an uncontested religious denomination, leaving no choice for each individual person, or that communities of other Churches cannot be created in Russia. Rather, it presupposes respect for the Russian Church as the “Church of the majority” on the part of other (non-Orthodox) Churches that decide to create their own church structures on its canonical territory.

4. Thus, at the inter-Christian level, the principle of the canonical territory presupposes a certain degree of inter-Christian solidarity and cooperation between Christians of different confessions: in this case, we are talking primarily about the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, which have the apostolic succession of the hierarchy. This solidarity presupposes that in those countries where the Orthodox Church is the Church of the majority (for example, in Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Greece, Romania, Cyprus, etc.), the Catholic Church, when creating its canonical structures, should at least consult with the Orthodox Church of the given territory, and in their missionary activities to be limited only to their traditional flock, not engaging in proselytism to the detriment of the Orthodox Church. The same principle should apply in countries with a Catholic majority (for example, in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria, etc.), where the Orthodox need to avoid proselytism and conduct a mission only among their believers, while consulting on all controversial issues with the Catholic Church as The majority church. As for countries where neither Catholics nor Orthodox Christians make up the majority, or where there is no dominant Christian Church at all, Christians of different confessions can develop missionary activities in parallel, without fear of violating the principle of canonical territory. However, in these countries too, Catholics and Orthodox Christians need to coordinate their efforts with each other in order to avoid misunderstandings and conflicts.

NOTES

1. The rules of the Orthodox Church with interpretations of Nicodemus, Bishop of Dalmatian-Istrian. M., 2001.T. 1.S. 74-75.

2. The exact dating of this monument is difficult to determine, but it is obvious that some of the rules included in it could not have appeared earlier than the 4th century. For more details on the dating of the "Apostolic canons" see the article by the archpriest and L. V. Litvinova "Apostolic canons" in the Orthodox Encyclopedia. T. III (Anfimy-Athanasius). S. 119-120.

3. Note that the Greek text of the Apostolic Canons uses the term paroikia, which in modern usage means “parish”, but the context of the rules shows that we are talking about an ecclesiastical area headed by a bishop, i.e. about that church unit, which later received the name eparchia.

4. See first of all his Word 43, dedicated to the memory of Basil the Great, and also the letter. The correspondence of Basil the Great himself also sheds light on this conflict.

5. Ernst Christopher Suttner... Historical stages of mutual relations between the Churches of the East and the West.

6. Protopresbyter Vitaly Borovoy, A.S.Buevsky... The Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Movement (Historical and Theological Review). In the book: Orthodoxy and Ecumenism. M., 1999.S. 11.

7. For more details, see the article by Archpriest Leonid Kishkovsky "Orthodoxy in America: Diaspora or Church", published in the electronic bulletin Europaica No. 49.

8. See about this in the report of the Archbishop of Prague and the Czech Lands Christopher "Orthodoxy in Slovakia and the Czech Republic: origins, current state, prospects", published in the electronic bulletin "Orthodoxy in Europe" No. 17.

I. Report at the international symposium on "Territorial and personal principles in the church structure", held at the Catholic University of Budapest on February 7, 2005. (Published in an abridged form).

The concept of canonical territory in the inter-Orthodox,
inter-Christian and church-social context

Archpriest Vsevolod Chaplin

The concept of "canonical territory" and its various interpretations are used today not only in intra- and interfaith discussions, but also in secular journalism. Sometimes attempts are made to de-legitimize this very concept by comparing it with secular law, which does not know such a concept, and through assertions that under conditions of religious freedom no one supposedly has the right to use this concept and rely on it in their actions. Let's try to clarify the essence of this concept and speculate about how it relates to the reality of inter-Orthodox, inter-Christian and church-public relations.

1. The concept of "canonical territory" is predominantly intra-Christian, intra-church. It goes back to the words of the Apostle Paul: “I tried to preach the gospel not where the name of Christ was already known, so as not to build on someone else's foundation” (). Apostolic Canon 34 says that “the bishops of every nation are<…>create<…>to each only that which concerns to his diocese, and to the places belonging to it ”. And in the next, 35 rule, we read: “Let the bishop not dare to do ordinations outside the boundaries of his diocese in towns and villages, which are not subordinate to him. If it will be exposed, as if you have done this without the consent of those who have subordinated these cities or villages; let him be cast out, and the order from him. " Similar norms are contained in many canonical rules that gave answers to internal church conflicts. I will cite only one of them, very significant in its pastoral and theological spirit. Rule 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council warns that “none of the most God-loving bishops should extend power to another diocese, which before and at first was not under his hand, or his predecessors; but if someone stretched out and forcibly subjugated some diocese, let him give it back; may the father not violate the rules: may the arrogance of the worldly authority not creep in under the guise of sacred rite; and may we not lose, little by little, imperceptibly, the freedom that our Lord Jesus Christ, the liberator of all men, gave us with His blood. And so it pleases the holy and ecumenical council that every diocese should preserve in purity and without hesitation, at first the rights that belong to it, according to the custom that has been established since ancient times. " Note that here the guilty party, whose actions must be 100% compensated ("let him give it back"), is declared to be the one who violates the established order of things, encroaching on the territory that "before and at first was not under his hand").

Thus, the Christian world throws down a kind of challenge to the principles of secular power: if in this world it is common to seize territory, as well as to fight for it, in the Christian community - the Church - such a seizure is declared illegal under any conditions, subject to correction and fraught with loss higher freedom in Christ and enslavement to the sins of acquisitiveness, lust for power and strife. A pastor must respect another pastor, a bishop must respect another bishop, a metropolitan must respect another metropolitan, and in every place, in every "territory" there must be only one bearer of legitimate ecclesiastical authority, only one Church. Such an ideal, rooted in gospel morality, forms the basis for the division of areas of pastoral responsibility.

2. Unfortunately, the Orthodox world has largely lost this ideal. In many places - not only in the diaspora, but already in the canonical territories recognized de jure or de facto - parallel dioceses and bishops appear. The reason for this is the crisis in inter-Orthodox relations, which, I am not afraid to say, suffer from a grave and chronic illness that is fraught with mortal danger. Conflicts around territories in the church environment have existed before, however, as the above canonical rules show, they were resolved on the basis of conciliarity. Today, those who declared their exclusive right to convene pan-Orthodox assemblies actually stopped this process as soon as real attempts to achieve clear equality of rights for Local Churches began within its framework and to resolve all problems on its basis. I would like to hope that the principles of the settlement of territorial disputes within Ecumenical Orthodoxy will nevertheless be updated on the basis of loyalty to the holy canons and understanding of the realities of the modern world.

Of course, we must be aware that the world has changed. Today, a parishioner of a New York church can have a confessor somewhere in the Pskov region and correspond with him on the Internet, and a bishop in Serbia can give spiritual advice to a monk from Australia. No one can prohibit such communication, and probably should not. But it is quite another matter to consider that a confessor or a bishop from across the ocean, and even from another Local Church, can rule in a foreign parish or a foreign diocese. If so, chaos awaits the Church.

And therefore, it is vitally important to once again turn to the apostolic ideal of the bishops respecting each other's pastoral responsibility, the basis of which is territorial division, and sometimes, in a diaspora, division into jurisdictions of Local Churches. It is in the intra-Orthodox context that the principle of canonical territory should be re-realized, which pertains to this context as much as possible, since we are talking about one Church.

3. To what extent is this principle applicable in inter-Christian relations? There is a lot of debate about this today. I am convinced that the concept of a canonical territory can hardly be easily abandoned, at least in Orthodox-Catholic relations, if the Catholic Church recognizes Orthodox Churches precisely as Churches possessing full-fledged Sacraments, and calls these Churches "sisters", at least in relation to the local communities of the Catholic Churches (The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith Notice of the Expression of the “Sister Churches” of June 30, 2000 reads: “In the proper sense of the word, one can speak of Sister Churches in relation to local Catholic and non-Catholic Churches”). Previously, parallel Catholic bishoprics were established in some of the locations of historical Orthodox cathedrals. However, today it is not by chance that the Catholic Church refrains, for example, from appointing bishops of Constantinople or Moscow.

Considering the above position of the Vatican, as well as the fact that Orthodox and Catholics have a common canonical heritage, which Metropolitan Kirill mentioned in his opening remarks, Orthodox Churches have the right to expect the Catholic Church to apply towards them at least the basic canonical principles acceptable for relations between church districts. , recognizing each other's churchliness, and hence the pastoral responsibility for the people entrusted to them by God. And if someone believes that the canonical territory and pastoral responsibility of the Orthodox Churches can be completely ignored by Catholics, then such a person subscribes to a complete rejection of the achievements of the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue that took place after the Second Vatican Council, relegating Orthodox-Catholic relations from the level of inter-Christian communication to the level of competition inherent in secular communities. It is clear that the latter tendency cannot but evoke a response from the Orthodox side and destroys any positive tendencies in Orthodox-Catholic relations.

In my opinion, one can only conditionally speak about the division of canonical territories between Christian communities that have radical theological differences, and therefore cannot talk about each other in terms of ecclesiological closeness. But even in these cases, the path to cooperation historically lay through the recognition of each other's spheres of pastoral responsibility, including in their territorial expression. Thus, the good relations of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Anglican Church and many Lutheran Churches could not have taken place without the latter's clearly expressed rejection of the policy of proselytism among Orthodox peoples.

4. Can the concept of "canonical territory" be an element of church-public discussion, influence secular law and state policy? Some believe that a politician, official or even a clergyman has no right to use this concept in public space, since it is not mentioned in the corpus of modern secular law. Yes, indeed, it is not there. And, in my opinion, it would be wrong to appeal to the state in its current form in order to protect the canonical territory of the Church.

However, on the other hand, the state, by registering religious organizations with a certain structure and a certain name, and sometimes with a certain territory, thereby assumes some responsibility for their internal integrity and their unique identity. That is why attempts to illegitimately divide religious communities or create structures parallel to them under the same name entail legal consequences.

Moreover, the state is called upon to take care of peace and harmony, including interfaith, at the level of individual countries and at the level of the international community. I am convinced that states and international organizations should not encourage conflict, struggle or competition between Christian churches and confessions, but the creation of mutually respectful relations between them, which implies, among other things, the division of spheres of pastoral responsibility. In cases where Christian communities seek to respect each other's canonical territories, this tendency, in my opinion, can and should find support from states and the international community, and be promoted in the course of public discussion.

Today, Christians need dialogue, mutual respect and cooperation, not conflicts, sometimes "ruled" by haters of any religion. The relationship between Christians, especially Orthodox Christians, should be built on the basis of the apostolic spirit of love and brotherhood, and not on the basis of the worldly spirit of market competition, territorial disputes, wars and conquests. Only in this way can we be true witnesses of the truth of God, capable of making Christianity not a museum exhibit, but the basis of the future of Europe and the world.

I cannot understand what the phrase "canonical territory" means.

So, the ROC made claims to the Catholic Church that it had established its structures on its canonical territory, the ROC. And in general, the ROC is unhappy that there are Catholics on its (so-called) canonical territory, and the people go to these same Catholics from the ROC. This is called "proselytism".
I understand the logic of the ROC as follows: in the territory where Orthodoxy was the historically dominant religion, every child born automatically becomes Orthodox (and where is freedom of will and religion?) And the presence of other churches and religions on the "canonical territory" of the ROC is highly undesirable. Because everyone MUST be Orthodox. And if a person came to Catholics and gave his consent to become a Catholic (not under torture they demanded this consent from him ?!), then this is very bad , because he just has to be Orthodox. Accordingly, since the Catholics have violated the "canonical territory" of the Russian Orthodox Church and have pinned themselves to Russia, they are obliged to sit and not blather: not preach, not tell anyone about Christ, right? For on the "canonical territory" of the ROC to tell about Christ an exclusive license was issued only to the ROC, right? A by whom issued, that's interesting to me?

And here is such a reflection: if the so-called canonical territory is an area where Orthodoxy was the historically dominant confession, then what about the Russian lands, where Orthodoxy was not such historically? Some Russian peoples have always been Buddhists, others Muslims. Maybe this is NOT the "canonical territory" of the Russian Orthodox Church? Why then are there Orthodox churches on this territory? And why do the northern peoples, who worship the spirits of nature, preach Orthodoxy? This is the non-canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church?
Why can't Catholics preach Catholicism on their non-canonical territory, while Orthodox Christians calmly did and do it?

And where exactly in the Bible does it say that you need to hide your faith? And those who ask us about our faith dare not answer? Are there such commandments in the Bible? I don’t know something.

So what is "canonical territory"?

And why are there Orthodox churches both in America and in Africa? And in Africa Orthodoxy is preached to people who have always lived in a completely different faith and have never had anything to do with Orthodoxy? This is the violation of the canonical territory of other religions or confessions by the Orthodox themselves, isn't it?

The Orthodox Church recognizes itself as one Holy, Catholic (Catholic) and Apostolic Church, spread throughout the entire universe. At the moment, there are parishes and dioceses of the Orthodox Church all over the world, on all continents. However, until the beginning of the 20th century, the Orthodox Church was geographically limited by the framework of the Christian East, which is why it was often called the “Eastern Church”. The concept of "East", genetically related to Constantinople and the Eastern Roman Empire (as opposed to Rome and the Western Roman Empire), in this context included the Middle East and some countries of Eastern Europe and Asia. The Orthodox Church was also called "Greek-Eastern" or "Greek-Catholic".

The canonical structure of the Orthodox Church took shape over almost two millennia. The originality of the modern structure of the Church is rooted in those historical vicissitudes with which its development was associated in the first centuries, in the Byzantine and post-Byzantine eras.

The mother of all Christian Churches - both eastern and western - was the Church of Jerusalem, that is, the community of the Savior's disciples in Jerusalem. However, already in the 1st century, thanks to the missionary activities of the apostles, Christian communities began to arise outside Jerusalem - in particular, in Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Carthage, and other cities of the Roman Empire. Each congregation was headed by a bishop, or presbyter.

In Acts and the Epistles of Paul, the terms “bishop” and “presbyter” are often used interchangeably (see: Acts 20.17-18 and 20.28; Titus 1.5-7). In the story about the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, the bishops are not mentioned at all: only the expression “apostles and elders” is often used (see: Acts 15: 2,4,6). It was the "apostles and elders" who made up the collegium that, together with the entire Church (see: Acts 15:22), made decisions. On the other hand, the apostle Paul speaks of “bishops and deacons” (see Phil 1: 1) without mentioning elders. From this we can conclude that the ministry of a bishop in the early stages of the development of the Church did not differ from the ministry of a presbyter.

In the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, there is also no clear distinction between the ministries of a bishop and a presbyter: “It will be a great sin if we deprive the bishopric of those who bring gifts without shame. Blessed are the elders who preceded us, who were released from the body after a prolific and perfect life: they have nothing to fear that someone could overthrow them from their place. " Here the terms "bishop" and "presbyter" are used synonymously. In the same Epistle, Clement speaks of the appointment of "bishops and deacons" by the apostles, without mentioning (like the Apostle Paul in Phil 1: 1) the elders, which again testifies to the identity, in his eyes, of both ministries.

At the same time, already in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, the office of the bishop is associated with the appointment of elders. Addressing Titus, the apostle writes: For this I left you in Crete, so that you would complete the unfinished business and put elders in the cities (Titus 1.5). It is the right to supply elders that will become the prerogative by which the episcopal ministry differs from the presbyter's. An elder cannot ordain another elder: only a bishop can do this.

If in the 1st century the division between the functions of the bishop and the presbyter was expressed with insufficient clarity and consistency, then already in the 2nd century a clear difference was revealed between these two ministries: the bishop became the head of the local Christian community, and the elders became its delegates, helping him in the management of the Church. This is evidenced by the Epistles of Ignatius the God-bearer, where the principle of the so-called "monarchical episcopate" is enshrined as the main principle of the Church's governance.

In his Epistles, Ignatius tirelessly emphasizes the primacy of the bishop as the head of the Eucharistic assembly, arguing that “the bishop must be looked upon as the Lord Himself. Everything in the Church should be done with the knowledge of the bishop: “Without a bishop, no one should do anything pertaining to the Church. Only that Eucharist should be revered as true, which is performed by the bishop or to those to whom he himself provides it ... It is impermissible to baptize without a bishop, nor to perform a supper of love; on the contrary, whatever he approves is pleasing to God. " This ecclesiology leads Ignatius to the following classical formula: "Where there is a bishop, there must be a people, just as where Christ is, there is also a Catholic Church."

Thus, already in the second century, the hierarchical structure of the Church was formed, which has been preserved to this day. It is based on the concept of the local Church - the church community of a particular place (city, region), headed by a bishop. Each such community, called "diocese", consists of smaller church divisions - parishes headed by elders. In the main temple of the city, the Eucharist is celebrated by the bishop - this temple is called “cathedral”, since there is the episcopal see there. In every other church or prayer house, the Eucharist is celebrated “by those to whom the bishop entrusts it,” that is, a presbyter ordained to serve in a particular community. The elder is a delegate of the bishop, his authorized person: without the permission of the bishop, the presbyter cannot perform any religious rites.

The leading role of the bishop, according to the teachings of the early fathers, is due to the fact that he takes the place of Christ in the Eucharistic assembly. It is this understanding that explains the fact that the principle of the monarchical episcopate - one bishop in each Eucharistic community or Church - became generally accepted in the ancient Church. As the head of the Church of this place, the bishop, nevertheless, does not govern the Church alone, but in collaboration with elders and deacons. The bishop does not have ecclesiastical power or authority in and of itself, by virtue of the dignity he received: he is a clergyman within the local church community, which entrusted him with this ministry. Outside the church community, the bishop's ministry loses its meaning and effectiveness. In addition, the bishop administers the Church in agreement with other bishops. This ensures the catholicity, or "catholicity" of the Church - the most important concept of Orthodox ecclesiology.

The principle of monarchical episcopate from the very beginning is inextricably linked with the principle of canonical territory, according to which a certain ecclesiastical region is assigned to each bishop. The term "canonical territory" is recent, but the ecclesiological model behind it dates back to apostolic times. This model assumes the assignment of a certain church territory to a specific bishop, in accordance with the formula: "one city - one bishop - one church." Bishop Nicodemus (Milash) writes about the historical preconditions for the emergence of this model in his comments to the Apostolic Canons:

As soon as, as a result of the preaching activity of the apostles, little by little, separate, small ecclesiastical regions were organized, the concept of permanent priesthood in these regions immediately began to take hold ... Each of the regions of that time received its beginning either directly or through someone else. , from one of the apostles ... so that the ecclesiastical regions, constantly emerging, made up, as it were, separate families, in which the bishop was otliom, and the rest of the spiritual linden were his helpers.

Based on this principle, the "Apostolic Canons" and other canonical decrees of the ancient Church speak of the inadmissibility of violating the boundaries of ecclesiastical regions by bishops or clergy. The "Rules" insist that a bishop should not leave his diocese and arbitrarily change into a friend (see: Apt. 14); a bishop cannot ordain outside the boundaries of his diocese (see: Apt. 35); a cleric or layman who has been excommunicated from church communion cannot, having moved to another city, be accepted into communion by another bishop (Apt. 12); a clergyman who has transferred to another diocese without the will of his bishop is deprived of the right to ordain (see: Apt. 15); a prohibition or excommunication imposed on a cleric by one bishop cannot be lifted by another bishop (see: Aps. 16 and 32).

In defining the boundaries of ecclesiastical regions, the fathers of the ancient Church took into account the civil territorial division established by the secular authorities. In the II-III centuries, the customary order was in which the bishop headed the church area, and he himself served in the city, and the elders appointed by him took care of the church communities in the nearby villages. However, already at the beginning of the 4th century, after the emperor Diocletian united the provinces of the Roman Empire into "dioceses," the need arose for the corresponding unification of ecclesiastical regions (dioceses) into larger units: the latter began to be called metropolises. The first bishop of the metropolis (metropolitan) was the bishop of the capital of the diocese, and other bishops were under his administrative authority.

However, within the limits of their dioceses, the bishops retained the fullness of ecclesiastical authority, correlating with the metropolitan only in those matters that went beyond their competence. The 34th Apostolic Canon says about the relationship between the metropolitan and the bishops of the metropolitanate: “The bishops of every nation should know the first among them and recognize him as the head, and do not create anything exceeding their power without his reasoning, but everyone should do only that which concerns him. diocese and places belonging to it. But let the first do not do anything without the reasoning of everyone. " Rule 4 of the I Ecumenical Council (325) prescribes the appointment of a bishop to all or at least three bishops of a given region; the approval of the ordination must be carried out by the metropolitan.

Although the principle of the correspondence of church areas to civil territorial units was accepted in the ancient Church as a governing one, it was never absolutized and was not perceived as uncontested. Evidence of this is the conflict between St. Basil the Great and Bishop Anthim of Tyana, well documented thanks, in particular, to a detailed description of it in the writings of Gregory the Theologian. The essence of the conflict was as follows. When in the summer of 370 Basil the Great took over the administration of the Cappadocian Church, Cappadocia was a single province with the center in Caesarea. However, in the winter of 371-372, Emperor Valens divided Cappadocia into two regions - Cappadocia I with its capital in Caesarea and Cappadocia II with its capital in Tiana. Bishop Anfim of Tyana, in accordance with the new civil division, began to act as Metropolitan of Cappadocia II, not recognizing Basil the Great's jurisdiction over it; the latter continued to consider himself the metropolitan of all Cappadocia, in accordance with the previous territorial division. In order to consolidate his power, Vasily in the spring of 372 ordained bishops in the cities that de facto entered the "canonical territory" of Anfim: in Sasim he appointed his friend Gregory (the Theologian), and in Nis-sy - his brother, also Gregory. In 374, Amphilochius, a cousin of Gregory the Theologian and a faithful disciple of Basil, was appointed bishop of Iconium. All these acts Anfim of Tyana perceived as non-canonical and in every possible way obstructed the activities of the bishops appointed by Basil. Subsequently, after the death of Basil in 379, the bishops of Cappadocia II actually recognized Anthimus of Tyana as the metropolitan of this ecclesiastical region.

During the era of the First Ecumenical Council, there were several ecclesiastical regions that had the rights of metropolitanates. In particular, the 6th canon of this Council mentions the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch as having, along with the bishop of Rome, authority over the bishops of their regions, and the 7th canon gives the same power to the bishop of Jerusalem. (In the same period, there were other metropolises, such as Ephesus, Caesarea in Cappadocia, Heraclius, Milan, Carthage, but later their importance began to weaken.)

After the proclamation of Constantinople as the capital of the Eastern Empire and its assimilation of the status of "new Rome" at the beginning of the 4th century, the bishop of Constantinople received the rights of the metropolitan. By the 8th years of the 4th century, the Bishop of Constantinople becomes second in importance after the Roman one, which is enshrined in the third rule of the Second Ecumenical Council, which reads: "The bishop of Constantinople has the advantage of honor over the Roman bishop, because this city is the new Rome." The IV Ecumenical Council (451) gave the following motivation for this decision: “The fathers gave a decent advantage to the throne of old Rome, since it was a reigning city. Following the same impulse, 150 of the most God-loving bishops gave equal advantages to the most holy throne of New Rome, having reasoned correctly that the city, which received the honor of being the city of the king and the synclite and having equal advantages with the old Rome, would be exalted in ecclesiastical affairs in the same way, and would be the second. after him". Thus, the primacy of the Roman bishop was perceived by the Eastern Fathers not as conditioned by the succession of this bishop from the Apostle Peter, but as based on the political significance of Rome as the capital of the empire. Likewise, the advantages of the Constantinople throne stemmed not from its antiquity (the Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antiochian thrones were older) and not from any other ecclesiastical premises, but solely from the political significance of Constantinople as "the city of the king and the synclite."

In the 6th century, the primates of the most ancient Christian Churches, including Constantinople, began to be called patriarchs. The development in Byzantine theology of the idea of ​​"pentarchy", according to which the Ecumenical Church is headed by five patriarchs - Roman, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, belongs to the same period. In the East, this idea was legislated by the Emperor Justinian, but in the West, its legitimacy was never recognized.

Ecclesiology in the East and West throughout the first millennium developed in different ways. In the East, every bishop since the time of Ignatius the God-bearer and Hippolytus of Rome was perceived as taking the place of Christ in the Eucharistic assembly: according to Ignatius, "the bishop presides in the place of God, the elders take the place of the council of the apostles, and the deacons are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ." In the West, however, Cyprian of Carthage began to develop the idea of ​​the episcopal throne not as a “place of God,” but as the see of the Apostle Peter. In Cyprian, “the eschatological image of the apostles sitting around Christ - the image that Ignatius and Hippolytus applied to the local Church (the bishop surrounded by the presbyterium) - gave way to the apostolic college, gathered around its head, the Apostle Peter ... The significance of this change lies in that it opens up an opportunity to talk about the unus episcopatus (one episcopate) scattered around the world, under the leadership of Peter. " It was this kind of universalist ecclesiology that triumphed in the Roman Church towards the end of the first millennium, which contributed to the deepening of the alienation between her and the Eastern Churches.

In the 7th century, the outlying areas of the Byzantine Empire were subjected to devastating raids by the Arabs. In 638, Jerusalem and Antioch fell under their onslaught, and Alexandria in 642. This led to the weakening of the three ancient Eastern Patriarchates, whose primates often had to seek refuge in Constantinople. From the middle of the 7th to the middle of the 15th century, with the exception of the period when Constantinople was captured by the crusaders (1204-1261), the Patriarchate of Constantinople remained the main center of ecclesiastical power in the entire Christian East. After the break of Eucharistic communion between Rome and Constantinople, the primacy of honor among the primates of the Eastern Churches, as it were, automatically passed to the Patriarch of Constantinople. Now the pentarchy has turned into a tetrarchy, and the diptych of the Orthodox Churches included four Patriarchates - Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

The Orthodox Eastern Patriarchates had autocephalous status, that is, in the church-administrative relation they were independent and independent from one another. In addition to these Patriarchates, in the period between the 4th and 15th centuries in the Orthodox East, in particular in the Balkans, other autocephalous Christian Churches arise, disappear and reappear. From the middle of the 15th century, the Church of Muscovite Rus became virtually independent, having been in canonical dependence on Constantinople for several centuries earlier.

After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, when the Byzantine Empire ceased to exist, the Patriarchs of Constantinople began to be appointed by the Turkish Sultan. The spiritual and political alliance between the sultan and the patriarch was the reason for the abolition of church autocephaly in those lands that, as a result of the conquests, were part of the Ottoman Empire. On the other hand, it is quite natural that the weakening of the Ottoman Empire in the 19th century and the emergence of new states in the territories freed from Turkish rule led to the emergence of new autocephalous Churches, as well as to the restoration of autocephaly of those Churches that, for one reason or another, lost it.

The process of forming autocephalous Orthodox Churches has never been easy and painless. A single, approved by all world Orthodoxy, procedure for granting or receiving autocephaly did not exist either in the Byzantine or in the post-Byzantine era. Church autocephaly was almost always a consequence of the strengthening of the political power of this or that state or the acquisition of independence by this state. The abolition of autocephaly, in turn, was a direct consequence of the loss of independence by the state on whose territory the Local Church was located.

In addition, the acquisition of autocephaly by one Church or another has never occurred on the initiative of the Mother Church. Often, autocephaly was not granted, but was proclaimed without permission, after which the Mother Church for some time did not recognize the independence of the Daughter Church. For example, the Patriarchate of Constantinople did not recognize the autocephaly of the Greek Church for 17 years, the Czechoslovakian - 47, and the Bulgarian and Georgian - for more than 70 years; The Moscow Patriarchate has not recognized the autocephaly of the Georgian and Polish Orthodox Churches for 26 years. The recognition of self-proclaimed autocephaly was in most cases the result of political changes and a complex negotiation process, in which, in addition to the Mother Church and the Daughter Church, intermediary Churches could also participate.

Article from the encyclopedia "Tree": site

Canonical territory(also territory of pastoral responsibility, missionary field) - a limited area of ​​authority of any part of the Church. The missionary field of the entire Catholic Church of Christ is the entire universe (cf. the field is the world, Matt. 13, 38).

Terminology

The term "canonical territory" arose at the end of the century, in the Russian Orthodox Church. The ancient canons themselves establish prohibitions on the outrageous transgression of the borders of certain "limits", or, specifically, "countries," "regions," "metropolises," "dioceses," "cities," "churches," "parishes," etc. At the beginning of the 21st century, the documents of the Russian Church also use the synonymous concepts "territory of pastoral responsibility" and "missionary field" assigned to specific local Churches, deaneries, parishes, etc.

Formation of the canonical order

The accession of an increasing number of people to the Church led to the creation of supra-diocesan administrations. Since the boundaries of ecclesiastical regions were often conformed to civil territorial division, the unification of the provinces of the Roman Empire into dioceses at the beginning of the century entailed the establishment of their respective metropolises. The first bishop of the metropolis - the metropolitan - was the bishop of the capital of the diocese, and other bishops were subordinate to him, although within the limits of their dioceses they retained the fullness of ecclesiastical authority. A little later, in the same era, patriarchates were formed, uniting a number of metropolises under the leadership of one first hierarch - the patriarch.

In the following centuries, several other supra-diocesan and sub-diocesan administrative units came into use by the Orthodox Church. At the same time, the canonical system determined by the Church Councils of the 8th century remains the generally accepted model and measure of the church order for the entire Orthodox Church. The main motivation for fidelity to the legally established church-territorial division is most clearly expressed in the 8th rule of the III Ecumenical Council, which decides:

so that none of the most God-loving bishops extend power to another diocese, which before and at first was not under his hand, or his predecessors: but if someone stretched out and forcibly subjugated which diocese, let him give it back: may the rules of the fathers not be violated, but not the arrogance of worldly power creeps in under the guise of sacred rite; and may we not lose, little by little, imperceptibly, the freedom that our Lord Jesus Christ, the deliverer of all men, gave us through His blood. And so it is pleasing to the holy and ecumenical Council that every diocese should preserve in its purity and without hesitation, at first the rights that belong to it, according to the custom that has been established since ancient times.."

Units of canonical territory

Below are as brief characteristics as possible. For details, see the related articles.

• The diocese (bishopric, see) is the only unit necessary for the existence of the local Church; under the leadership of the bishop; has existed since apostolic times.

Supraarchial

• Patriarchy is a unit of the highest level; rarely - a subordinate; under the leadership of the patriarch; known since the century.
• Catholicosate - an analogue of the Patriarchate in the lands east of the Roman Empire; under the leadership of the Catholicos; known since the century.
• Exarchate (exarchia) - the union of the dioceses of a separate region; rarely - a unit of the highest level; under the command of the exarch; known not later than a century.
• Metropolis - the unification of dioceses; less often - a unit of the highest level or a diocese with an honorary position; under the command of the metropolitan; has been known since century.
• Metropolitan area is usually synonymous with metropolitanate; rarely - differs from the metropolis in the degree of independence.
• Archdiocese - a unit of the highest level or diocese with an honorary position; under the direction of the archbishop; known no later than a century.

Sub-diocesan

Extraterritoriality

Despite the territorial principles of church government, since ancient times there have been examples of the exclusion of individuals, groups or institutions from the subordination of local canonical authority - the so-called. extraterritoriality. The most important first hierarchs, primarily the metropolitan bishops - the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople - eventually got the opportunity to send their plenipotentiaries (legates, exarchs) to other dioceses. No later than a century, stavropegia appeared - monasteries excluded from the jurisdiction of the local bishop and subordinate directly to the first hierarch of the church region.

Subsequently, such a device was extended to a number of special institutions or groups. Local Churches and monasteries began to establish, outside their canonical territory, courtyards, venerated monasteries, embassy churches and spiritual missions, which had a double subordination - both to the local spiritual authority and the one that established them. V

The canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church, being the most extensive among the consolidated canonical territories of local Orthodox churches, it is distinguished by an extreme instability both in its composition and in its structure. Over the thousand-year history of Russian Orthodoxy, this territory has undergone numerous changes, the next stage of which occurred in the last decade. Therefore, issues of territorial integrity were and remain relevant for the ROC, especially since "Expansion trend" the canonical territory of the Russian Church, observed during the 17th-19th centuries, in the 20th century was replaced "Compression trend".

In the history of the formation of the canonical territory of the ROC, three large periods can be distinguished, each of which is characterized by peculiar conditions of the canonical and political existence of the Russian Church. V first period(988-1449) The Russian Church exists as the Russian Metropolis - the northern periphery of the canonical territory of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Department of the Russian Metropolitan, even after the transfer of his residence to Moscow, is officially called Kiev, therefore the period can be called Kievsky... In second period(1449-1917) The Russian Church is an independent and self-governing local Church, closely associated with the Russian state, which provides the Church with assistance and enjoys its support. V third period(from 1917 to the present) The ROC is becoming one of the confessions in a secular state, moreover, for most of this period, it is persecuted or restricted. It is obvious that each of the periods is characterized by its own tendencies and peculiarities, however, there is a deep historical continuity between them.

Kiev period (988-1449)

During this period, the Russian Church is part of the canonical space Patriarchate of Constantinople being one of metropolitan districts- a church area of ​​several dioceses headed by the Metropolitan of Kiev. During the divine service in the Russian Church, the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Byzantine emperor, who was also considered to have a certain power over the Russian Church, were necessarily remembered. In view of its late establishment, the Russian Metropolitanate occupied the low 61st place in the diptychs (lists for liturgical commemoration).

The power of the Byzantine patriarchs manifested itself only in the most important matters, such as the appointment of a metropolitan (at the first stage of this period, which lasted until the middle of the 13th century, the metropolitan was appointed exclusively from the Greeks), the establishment of new departments, the acceptance of complaints against the patriarchs, etc. the inner life of the Russian Church were decided metropolitan with cathedral of bishops... The foreign origin of both the Metropolitan himself and his power gave the primates of the Russian Church some independence from the princely power, therefore the attempts of some princes to elevate the Russians to the metropolitan throne without the consent of Constantinople were not crowned with success, without the support of the Russian clergy itself.

The Russian metropolitans were extremely disapproving of the "increase in the number of episcopates," that is, the establishment of new episcopal sees. This fact, combined with a long existence as a single metropolitanate, left its mark on the entire subsequent structure of the Russian Church - dioceses in Russia will always have huge dimensions comparable to those of the Greek metropolitan districts. The Russian Church as a whole will forever preserve a super-centralized structure; repeated attempts to establish metropolitan districts in it have led nowhere (the last time such an idea was put forward in 2000 as a church response to the establishment of presidential "plenipotentiaries"). To this day, the ROC, headed by the patriarch, is in the canonical respect a single metropolitan district, in which the bishops are directly subordinate to the patriarch (with the exception of semi-autonomous exarchates on the territory of Ukraine and Belarus).

At the first stage of the Kiev period, the spread of Orthodoxy, and, therefore, the canonical territory of the ROC, is carried out mainly within the borders of the Rurikovich state - this is “internal missionary work”. Only in the north of Russia, simultaneously with Russian colonization, does baptism of Finno-Ugric tribes- Izhora, Korela, Chud, Vod, Votyaks, Cheremis, Merya. Similar colonization and missionary movement in the Baltics was interrupted by the appearance on its territory of the German knights-crusaders, who founded the citadel of Riga in 1200 and began to spread Catholicism. Southwestern Russia became another region of the collision of the "canonical spaces" of the Russian Church and Rome. Already in the XII century, the first evidence of the persecution of the Orthodox in Galicia, which was temporarily captured by Hungary, dates back to.

In the XIII century, a new stage of the Kiev period begins. In 1204 during Fourth Crusade falls under the Catholic rule of Constantinople, and the influence of the patriarchy is sharply weakening. In 1237-1240 as a result Tatar-Mongol invasion the former structure of the Russian state collapses, the single political space of Rus collapses. The weakening of the power of Constantinople leads to the fact that the patriarchs, when conducting personnel policy, have to reckon more with the opinions of the Russian princes, whose treasury, moreover, becomes one of the financial sources of the patriarchy. At this time, the practice of alternating the appointment of metropolitans from the Russians and from the Greeks was established. At the same time, the policy of the patriarchs becomes quite contradictory, since they are unable to fulfill the wishes of all political forces in the "post-Kiev" space.

Even more dramatic consequences have destruction of Kiev by the Mongols- Metropolitans have to look for a new cathedral city. Metropolitan Kirill II (1247-1280) spends the time of his reign traveling between the South Russian center of Galich and the North Russian center - Vladimir, not daring to opt for any of them. Metropolitan Maxim(1283-1305) finally transferred his see to Vladimir, which immediately aroused the protest of the Galician princes, who briefly achieved the creation of a separate Galician metropolis. Metropolitan Peter(1308-1326) makes a canonical choice that had long-term geopolitical consequences: in the dispute between the two centers of North-Eastern Russia - Moscow and Tver - for power, he unambiguously sided with Moscow, finally transferring the department to Moscow (although until the middle of the 15th century it continues to be called Kievskaya). Metropolitan Peter's line is followed by his successors - the Greek Theognost caviar Muscovite Alexy(1354-1378).

The closure of the metropolitanate to Moscow provokes indignation in the south and west of Russia - first in Galich, which fell under the rule of Poland, then in Lithuania, which conquered the Western Russian lands, and begins "Rebellion in the hierarchy"... The Moscow metropolitans are accused of not caring at all about their flock outside of Vladimir Rus, the rulers of the southern and western lands are striving to get a special metropolitanate in their states. Constantinople repeatedly agrees to these demands, however, maneuvering, it tries to preserve the unity of the canonical territory of the Russian Church.

At this stage in the history of the Russian Church, its missionary activity is greatly enhanced. In 1261 the Sarai diocese, in the capital of the Golden Horde, and already in 1276 there is information about the Tatars wishing to be baptized. On the northern borders, the Russian Church continues during this period the missionary movement among the Finno-Ugric peoples. In 1329 it was founded Valaam monastery, which became the center of Christianization of the Karelians. In the second half of the XIV century, the activity unfolds St. Stefan Permsky on the lands inhabited by the Komi-Zyryans. This was the first experience in the history of the Russian Church of baptizing pagans while preserving their culture. St. Stephen created an alphabet for the Zyryans and translated the divine services into their language.

A constant confessional conflict with Catholicism is unfolding on the western canonical borders of the Russian Church - in the Baltic States, Galicia, Lithuania. In 1340 Galicia became a Polish province, and state persecution of the Orthodox began. Catholics established their archdiocese there by 1376, and from 1381 in the southwestern Russian lands they began to operate inquisition... In 1386, Prince Jagiello, who married the Polish princess Jadwiga, converted to Catholicism, which led to the weakening of the position of Orthodoxy, while Catholicism became the dominant religion in Lithuania. Vilna and Kiev establish catholic bishops... In 1413, Orthodox Christians are prohibited from holding official positions in Poland.

The period of existence of the Russian Church as a state church (1449-1917)

In 1439, the Russian Church, along with the rest of the Orthodox churches, had to submit to the signed Florentine Cathedral Orthodox Catholic Union, one of the active figures of which was the Russian Metropolitan Isidore(1435-1441). However, Isidore was condemned by a council of Russian bishops and expelled from the see by Grand Duke Vasily II. Since Constantinople accepted the union, the relations of the Russian Church with it ceased, and in 1449 a new Metropolitan Jonah was established by a council of Russian bishops. From that moment on, the Russian Church de facto becomes autocephalous, that is, self-governing, its canonical dependence on Constantinople is abolished, and the metropolis becomes Moscow.

The western and southwestern Russian lands were cut off from the canonical territory of the Russian Church until 1687, so this period can be divided into two stages - the separate existence of the northern and southern parts of the Russian Church and their reunification.

The growth of the canonical territory of the Russian Church at this time occurs along with the growth of the territory of the Russian state. The conquest of the Kazan kingdom in 1552 begins the era of missionary activity on its territory. Kazan diocese opens in 1555, its first chapter St. Guriy and his successor St. Hermann engaged in the active conversion of foreigners to Orthodoxy. In 1567, Orthodox preaching began to spread to the Astrakhan kingdom, and then church ties between the Russian Church and the Caucasus were established.

In 1589, in Moscow by the decision of the Patriarch of Constantinople (subsequently supported by the rest of the Eastern Patriarchs) patriarchate, in this regard, four main Russian cathedrals were transformed into metropolises, five more - into archdioceses, and it was also planned to increase the number of bishops. However, in fact, this did not happen. In 1682 Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich a reform was proposed, according to which 12 metropolises and 72 bishops were established, but church hierarchs, not interested in splitting up their vast dioceses, ignored these proposals. The real structure of the canonical territory has not changed in connection with the establishment of the patriarchate.

Geographically, the canonical territory of the ROC expanded in the 16th-17th centuries, mainly to the east, due to the development of Siberian lands. The first Russian parishes in Siberia appeared in the reign Ivan the Terrible, and in 1620 the first episcopal see was established in Tobolsk, in whose jurisdiction the entire Asian part of the country (thus, the territory Tobolsk diocese exceeded the territory of all other dioceses of the ROC combined). It is noteworthy that this diocese immediately received the honorary status of an archdiocese (and soon a metropolitanate), which testifies to the special attention of the secular and ecclesiastical authorities to the development of the newly annexed eastern lands and their Christian enlightenment.

Changes in the structure of church power and the organization of the ROC associated with the transition from patriarchal administration to synodal (officially the patriarchate was abolished on the initiative of Peter I in 1721), at first did not entail radical changes in the structure of the canonical territory of the ROC. However, the tendency that was latently present during the formation of the canonical territory and earlier was more clearly manifested - the boundaries of church areas tended to match the boundaries of secular administrative units as closely as possible. The highest form of the merging of Church and state, when the sovereign became the official head of the Church and the "extreme judge" of the constantly operating small church council - Synod, inevitably led to the fact that the boundaries of the canonical territory of the ROC became the borders of the empire, and the integrity of this territory was guaranteed by the integrity of the state.

In the 17th-19th centuries, the external expansion of the canonical territory of the ROC was mainly due to the extension of its jurisdiction to the local churches of the lands newly annexed to the empire. So, in 1686 there was the autonomous Kiev Metropolis was abolished, and in 1783 the ancient autocephalous Church of Georgia submitted to the Russian Synod. At first, the status of the Georgian Church was rather paradoxical - its Catholicos became a member of the Synod. Only in 1809, the post of Catholicos, which had become symbolic by that time, was abolished and Georgia formally became an exarchate (governorship) as part of a single ROC. In the territories annexed to Russia Western Ukraine Belarus, and Poland Lithuania periodically there were massive acts of reunification with Uniate Orthodoxy (the most significant case took place in 1839, when, depending on the source, from 1.5 to 3 million people joined). Several tens of thousands of indigenous people adopted Orthodoxy in the 19th century Livonia Estland, thus marking the entry of these lands into the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church.

The first attempts to extend the canonical territory of the ROC beyond the boundaries of the Russian Empire proper were made only at the end of the 19th century. At this time, permanent episcopal chairs were created, and then the dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church in America Japan... For a long time, the only Orthodox bishop in America was the head of the Russian Aleutian diocese, therefore, until 1917, the ROC perceived the New World as its canonical territory. The bishop in Japan until the revolution remained the head of the mission, therefore a full-fledged Orthodox diocese in this country was created only in the 1920s and already outside the direct jurisdiction of the Russian Church.

Soviet and post-Soviet periods (since 1917)

The Soviet and post-Soviet periods of Russian church history are characterized by alternating centrifugal and centripetal processes in the formation of the canonical territory of the ROC. Moreover, centrifugal processes coincide with the periods of liberalization of social and political life (1917, late 1980s - early 1990s), while centripetal processes prevail during periods of state consolidation and a certain stagnation of social and political life.

Local Cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Church 1917-1918 became a turning point in Russian church history: having restored the patriarchate and establishing new bodies of church government on a conciliar-democratic basis, he decided to start a large-scale reform of the canonical structure of the ROC. According to the plan of the Council, the territory of the Church, in accordance with the ancient canonical principles, was to be divided into several large metropolitan districts (ideally, their borders should coincide with the borders of the provinces), and those, in turn, into dioceses that coincide with the counties. The actual beginning of this reform was laid at the beginning of the 19th century, when the number of vicar (auxiliary) bishops began to grow in almost all dioceses of the Russian Orthodox Church, whose departments were located in the largest county towns or monasteries. Gradually, having received a greater degree of independence, vicar bishops were to turn into diocesan ones, and diocesan ones into metropolitans, that is, heads of autonomous churches of the provinces, which together make up the Local Church of "All Russia".

This reform was not destined to be realized: the Russian Church was forced to throw all its strength into preserving the fragments of its former greatness. Even in the first half of 1917, immediately after the February Revolution, its former independent parts began to separate from the ROC "without a notice". At the beginning of March, about the restoration of its autocephaly declared the Georgian Church (in September its first Catholicos was elected), and in the summer in Kiev the Central Church Council was formed, proclaiming the course towards autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church. The actions of the Georgian and Ukrainian autocephalists were condemned by the Local Council. As a result, communication between the Russian and Georgian churches was absent until 1943 (it was restored Metropolitan Sergius elected, with the "blessing" of Stalin, to the patriarch), and the followers of the Ukrainian independent church, who survived only in emigration after the 1930s, still have no communication with the Moscow Patriarchate.

The fragmentation of the Russian Orthodox Church continued after the Council - at the very beginning of the 1920s. independent status received the former dioceses that found themselves on the territory of the newly independent states - Polish, Finnish, Estonian, Latvian. It is noteworthy that they received their autonomies (and in the case of the Polish Orthodox Church even autocephaly) not from the Moscow Patriarchate, but from the Constantinople, under whose jurisdiction they were never. On the part of the new autonomous churches, this was explained by the fact that the church authority in Moscow was enslaved by the Bolsheviks and lost its capacity, and on the part of Constantinople - by the ancient rule that all Orthodox diasporas automatically fall under the jurisdiction of the “first in honor” Church of the Orthodox world. Thus, the Patriarchate of Constantinople demonstrated a Caesaropapist approach, believing that the canonical territory is determined by state borders.

The dialectical connection between the canonical and state structure manifested itself in new conditions for the Russian Church. non-Orthodox statehood... Indeed, throughout the entire history of the Russian Church - from 988 to 1917 - the understanding of the "canonical territory" was practically inseparable from the state administrative structure. The spontaneous disintegration of the canonical territory of the ROC after 1917 was inevitable.

In addition to the centrifugal processes described above, the internal disintegration of the previously unified canonical space also began. With arrest Patriarch Tikhon in 1923 and the first in the history of the ROC, the actual abolition of the church center, most of the dioceses passed to the position of self-governing. In 1927, when he headed the Russian Church in the position of Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) tried to transfer the Renovationist experience of recreating the appearance of a centralized church organization to the "Old Church" soil, the main part of the ROC hierarchs realized the inevitability of the final decentralization of the Russian Church and the collapse of the canonical territory in its usual and traditional forms. The "New Deal" of Metropolitan Sergius was rejected by the majority of Russian hierarchs, who were gradually forced to go into an illegal position. In the "catacombs" the church organization could not be built on a territorial basis - communities located in various regions of the country united around a specific bishop. The bishop and his flock are what became the extra-geographic “substance” of the canonical territory under conditions of persecution. According to this extraterritorial and "episcopal" principle, the "canonical territory" was organized Catacomb church until the early 1990s, when its communities had the opportunity to legally exist.

The canonical territory of the structures of the Russian Orthodox Church, which ended up in exile and formed in 1921, was organized somewhat differently. Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia (ROCOR)... They seemed to combine the traditional territorial principle of organizing dioceses with the extraterritorial principle characteristic of the era of persecution.

Despite the unconditional loyalty of Metropolitan Sergius to the Soviet regime, the legal church organization he created by the end of the 1930s was actually defeated: nominally existing dioceses (the exact number, probably, the Metropolitan Isam could not have named) either did not have a single church, or united only a few parishes; the bishops ruled only the Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev dioceses (there were only four hierarchs left at large) ... It is possible to consider these miserable fragments, deprived of any orderly administration, a "single canonical territory" only with a very large degree of convention. Reconstruction of the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate occurred only in 1943, when, guided by various domestic and foreign policy reasons, the state authorities decided to “restore” to a limited extent the church life completely under its control. Metropolitan Sergius was hastily, in violation of canonical procedures, was elected patriarch, after which an equally hasty replacement of bishop vacancies began - mainly at the expense of the "repentant" renovationists.

In 1944, the canonical territory of the ROC again coincided with the borders of the USSR; the Estonian and Latvian churches were forcibly abolished; the Uniates of Western Ukraine and Transcarpathia, which outwardly (in their ritual) resembled Orthodox Christians, were forcibly annexed to the ROC for Lviv Cathedral in 1946 and Uzhgorod Cathedral in 1949. One of the foreign policy tasks of the newly formed Moscow Patriarchate was to spread the influence of Moscow on Russian emigrants and "fraternal" Orthodox churches, therefore, for the first time in the history of the ROC, many foreign dioceses located outside its traditional canonical territory - in Central and Western Europe, in the USA and Canada, in South America, in Southeast Asia.

In 1949 at Pan-Orthodox meeting in Moscow, which was attended by representatives of the majority of local Orthodox churches (with the exception of representatives of the Constantinople and Alexandrian Patriarchates and the Cypriot Church), an attempt was made to proclaim Moscow a new center of Ecumenical Orthodoxy, but the final documents, which assumed the assignment of the Moscow Patriarchate first place in the diptychs of Orthodox churches, and were not signed by the participants. More than the claims of the Moscow Patriarchate for all Orthodox primacy were not clearly manifested.

In the 1950s-1980s, the canonical borders of the Moscow Patriarchate remained generally unchanged, the internal borders of the dioceses were somewhat moved, which lost a significant part of their parishes and parishioners due to Khrushchev's persecutions. The most significant event was the granting of autocephaly in 1970 American Metropolitanate and autonomy Japanese Orthodox Church... The American Metropolitanate submitted to the authority of the Moscow Patriarchate for just a few days in order to obtain canonical autocephaly.

The entry of the Russian Orthodox Church into World Council of Churches in 1961 and active ecumenical convergence with Western Christian churches (primarily the Roman Catholic) led to a reassessment of the very attitude towards heterodox religions. From now on, Catholics and many Protestants began to be viewed not as schismatics, but as brothers in Christ, dwelling in the bosom of the Church. Severe conflicts in relations with the Vatican faded into the background, and the Orthodox dioceses in Europe began to be considered "bridges" in interfaith dialogue. The consequences of the ambiguous situation in relations with Catholics that developed during the period of active ecumenical contacts began to affect itself in the 1990s, when the Vatican developed its activity in the post-Soviet space.

The canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church began to undergo radical changes since 1989, when a spontaneous restoration of Uniate churches. Three dioceses were actually rejected from the Moscow Patriarchate - Lviv, Ternopil Ivano-Frankivsk, in which there are several parishes.

In 1990, when the collapse of the Soviet Union began to appear to society as a real prospect, a real church "parade of sovereignties" began. The Moscow Patriarchate, trying to comply with the spirit of perestroika, itself willingly issued documents for autonomy, subject to the commemoration of the Patriarch of Moscow, participation in cathedrals of the Russian Orthodox Church and conducting external relations with local churches through the patriarchate. Thus we got autonomy Estonian, Latvian, Belarusian, Ukrainian Moldavian Orthodox churches.

In the same 1990, "a blow to the integrity of the canonical territory" of the ROC was dealt by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, which announced the creation in Russia of "free parishes of the Russian Church" not subordinate to the Moscow Patriarchate. In a short time, about two hundred parishes all over the USSR joined the ROCOR in Russia, but soon the "foreigners" began to have internal disorders, and their numbers were mothballed, and then began to decline. Spun out in recent years from the ROCOR Russian Orthodox Autonomous Church began to increase the number of its parishes not only in Russia, but also abroad - in Latvia, Ukraine and even in Great Britain and the USA, where the ROAC diocese was formed.

Some other local Orthodox churches did not remain aloof from participation in the division of the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church. The Patriarchate of Constantinople, as in the 1920s, began to view Orthodox Christians outside Russia as a subordinate "Orthodox diaspora." In 1990, Constantinople announced its restoration under its jurisdiction Estonian Apostolic Orthodox Church, which received the most favored nation status from the Estonian authorities. In connection with the conflict over the Estonian Church and its property in 1996, communication between the Moscow and Constantinople Patriarchates was interrupted for a short time. A constant threat to the ROC was the activity of Constantinople in Ukraine, where he supported autocephalist structures, although he did not formally recognize them. In 2001 after death Patriarch Demetrius (Yarema) the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church headed by him came under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Ukrainian Metropolitan Constantine (the jurisdiction of Constantinople). Thus, the Patriarchate of Constantinople directly invaded the canonical territory of the ROC. Without breaking off communion with Constantinople on this matter, Moscow de facto recognized the existence of parallel Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine. Another intervention on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church was carried out Romanian patriarchy recreated in 1990 Bessarabian Metropolitanate, formed in the period between the world wars as part of the Romanian Church. The existence of this metropolis is not recognized by the ROC, but relations between the ROC MP and the Romanian Church remain normal.

At present Moscow Patriarchate counts 128 dioceses in Russia, Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan (these countries are considered the "canonical territory" of the ROC), and in the diaspora- in Austria, Argentina, Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Great Britain, Germany, Hungary, USA and Canada. Parishes, representative offices and other canonical divisions There are ROCs in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Greece, Cyprus, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Thailand, Australia, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, South Africa, Brazil and Mexico. The ROC nominally it includes the Japanese Autonomous Orthodox Church, which is governed by an independent Metropolitan of All Japan, elected at the council of this Church, and the Chinese Autonomous Orthodox Church, which currently does not have its own hierarchy.