Gocha Barnovi

This study examines the principal canonical and ecclesiological objections raised by the Russian Orthodox Church in response to the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s decision to grant autocephaly to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine. The first line of opposition concerns the legitimacy of the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s canonical authority to confer autocephaly, particularly regarding its jurisdictional claims over the Ukrainian ecclesiastical territory. By analyzing foundational canonical sources—most notably Canons 9, 17, and 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council—this article demonstrates the historical and canonical basis for Constantinople’s prerogatives within the Orthodox Church, including its recognized role as the arbiter in matters of appeal and ecclesiastical order. Special emphasis is placed on the 1686 patriarchal ‘Act’, which temporarily permitted the Patriarch of Moscow to ordain the Metropolitan of Kiev, a concession granted ad economia and never intended as a transfer of jurisdiction. The second accusation pertains to the recognition of ordinations performed during the schism. Through an analysis of canonical tradition and conciliar precedents, the study illustrates the Church’s consistent application of ecclesiastical economia in similar cases throughout history. The ordinations of clergy during schismatic periods, including those of Filaret and Makarios, are shown to possess canonical validity and apostolic succession. The article concludes that the decision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate aligns with established canonical procedures and historical practice. The Ukrainian Church’s autocephaly thus represents a legitimate and necessary response to contemporary ecclesial and geopolitical realities, aimed at restoring canonical order and preserving the unity of the Orthodox Church.