Ways to autocephaly: the global and Ukrainian contexts

Ways to autocephaly: the global and Ukrainian contexts

After the Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church held on 27 May 2022 at Kyiv’s Convent of Feofaniia, intense discussion around the issue of ways how our Church can gain an autocephalous status are going on. Different opinions about both the current canonical status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and her future are expressed among the episcopate, clergy, monastics, and believers of our Church.

It should be said that the issue of autocephaly is not new for us. Its discussion began back in the end of the 1980s. The Kharkiv Council stated that our Church sought full canonical independence. In particular, the participants of the Kharkiv Council wrote in their address to the President of Ukraine Leonid Kravchuk: “We not only unanimously approve and support the aspiration of the Ukrainian Orthodox flock for full independence, i.e. canonical autocephaly, but also take all measures so that this vital issue of our Church may be resolved in a lawful way.”[1]

No wonder that in July 1992, it was specified in the Statute of the then revived Kyiv Theological Academy (KTA) that “the revival of the KTA is a step towards the Ukrainian Orthodox Church’s gaining canonical independence in unity with Universal Orthodoxy” (Section I, p. 6)[2].

Thus, gaining autocephaly has been determined as a strategic goal of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church from the very beginning of her existence as a self-governing Church enjoying broad autonomy rights. It was also said more than once by the late primate of our Church His Beatitude Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan). For example, in February 2009, when asked by a journalist, “So do you need an autocephalous status or no?”, Metropolitan Volodymyr clearly answered: “This status should crown all our effort.”[3]

After Patriarch Bartholomew granted the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU) the Tomos of Autocephaly in January 2019, discussion of mechanisms for Local Orthodox Churches’ gaining full independence has become particularly acute and emotional. This discussion has encompassed the entire World Orthodoxy. How can a Local Church gain autocephaly? What steps should she take on her path to full independence? By whom and how should this independence be recognised? Today, different, sometimes mutually exclusive, answers are given to these important questions.

In this report, we will try to share our thoughts about the concept of church autocephaly and ways of gaining it, as well as about the further path of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

The Church of Christ: unity in diversity

We should begin with a few obvious but very important assertions. In the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, we profess faith in one Church. However, remaining united, the Orthodox Church exists as a community or, rather, a family of Local Orthodox Churches. Each one of these Churches is administratively independent. So, the Orthodox Church exists as unity in diversity.

In the Orthodox Church, unity does not turn into complete unification, and diversity does not destroy unity. This antinomy between unity and diversity in the Church was noted by the Apostle Paul, who called the Church the Body of Christ. The Head of this body is Christ Himself, and all of us are its members or parts (Rom. 12, 4-5; 1 Cor. 12, 27; Eph. 1, 22-23; Col. 1, 18). This vivid image can be spread to the ecclesiastical structure as well: all the Local Churches constitute one Church, that is, one Body of Christ. There is an inextricable organic connection among the Local Churches, like among the body members. None of the body members can exist separately from the whole body when performing its functions. Hence, the multiplicity of the Local Churches does not ruin the fundamental unity among them.

The unity of the Universal Church is manifested in a few important aspects. First of all, all the Local Churches, despite their administrative self-reliance, keep the same faith and abide by the common principles of the canonical constitution and worship. Another key manifestation of church unity is mutual recognition of each other’s actions by the Local Churches. For instance, if a person is baptised in one of the Local Churches, it means that he becomes a member of the entire Universal Church. And vice versa, a person excommunicated by one of the Churches is considered to be excommunicated from the entire Universal Church.

In the modern practice of church life, typical manifestations of ecclesiastical unity are also conferences of the primates and representatives of Local Churches, correspondence and mutual visits of the primates, exchange of delegations, etc. Of course, bishops and presbyters of a Local Church may celebrate divine services together with bishops and presbyters of the other Churches, and laymen of a Church may receive sacraments in the other Churches.

Since the Local Churches are in close unity among one another, they are usually called sister Churches.

Autocephaly: the definition and meaning

In the contemporary Orthodox canon law, the fully independent status of a Local Church is traditionally called autocephaly (from the Greek word αὐτοκεφαλία, which can literally be translated as self-headed). The ecclesiastical independence is manifested in the right of a Local Church to independently elect and enthrone her Primate and independently decide on matters of her internal life (first of all, this pertains to the establishment of dioceses and the election and consecration of bishops).

Although the term autocephaly is core for contemporary church life, it is absent in resolutions of the Ecumenical and Local Councils of the first millenium after the Nativity of Christ. The modern meaning of the term autocephaly was ultimately shaped only in the XIX–XX centuries, when the process of the creation of new independent Churches was actively going on. It was in that period that the contemporary system of the Local Churches was formed.

However, it does not mean that canons of the Councils of the Ancient Church contained no concept of ecclesiastical independence. A number of resolutions of Councils directly indicating the existence of independent (or autocephalous in the present meaning) Local Churches can be noted. In particular, Canon VI of the First Ecumenical Council mentions three sees — the Sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch — having jurisdiction over certain territories. The rule stipulates that Councils chaired by the presiding bishop of the respective province must be convened on a regular basis. It is by these Councils that bishops must be elected. The rule also forbids consecrating bishops without the consent of the presiding hierarch of the respective province. So, Canon VI of the First Ecumenical Council clearly states the independence (autocephaly) of the Churches of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Interestingly, “other provinces” wherein the “privileges of the Churches” must be retained are also mentioned in this rule. But these provinces are not directly named[4].

The case of the Archdiocese of Cyprus should be noted particularly. It traces its history to the Holy Apostles and has always regarded itself as administratively independent from other Churches. However, in the IV–V centuries, the Church of Antioch more than once tried to assume the right to consecrate bishops for Cyprus. This dispute was considered by the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus (431). The Council sided with the Cyprus bishops and ruled that “the Rulers of the holy churches in Cyprus shall enjoy, without dispute or injury … the right of performing for themselves the ordination of their excellent Bishops”. This resolution was laid down in Canon VIII of the Council. So, the Third Ecumenical Council recognised the independence of the Church of Cyprus. At the same time, Canon VIII of the Council clearly states the main sign of this independence: the right of a Local Church to independently elect and enthrone her bishops, including her primate. This status of the Church of Cyprus was later confirmed by Canon XXXIX of the Council of Trullo.

Apparently, it was in relation to the Church of Cyprus that the term autocephalous was used for the first time. In particular, it is contained in Theodorus Lector’s Church History in the early VI century (Book 2, Chapter 2).

It is entirely obvious that the above canonical rules contain the concept of ecclesiastical independence (autocephaly) and its signs. At the same time, the canons quoted do not establish a mechanism for creating new autocephalous Churches. The Councils only state the ancient tradition of the independent existence of some Churches. Thus, canons of the ancient Councils, unfortunately, do not give us an answer to the question of how a part of an already existing Local Church can receive autocephaly.

The way of proclaiming autocephaly

Most of the Local Churches existing today gained their autocephalous status in the XIX–XX centuries. Interestingly, in that period, almost all those Local Churches went through difficult, sometimes long-standing, conflicts on their way to autocephaly. In particular, the Church of Greece waited for the recognition of her autocephalous status for seventeen years (from 1833 to 1850). The Romanian Orthodox Church strove for the recognition of her autocephaly with the right to prepare Holy Chrism for more than twenty years (1864–1885). The Orthodox Church in North Macedonia was outside of eucharistic communion with the other Local Churches for fifty-five years (1967–2022). The breakoff of relations between the Bulgarian Church and the Patriarchate of Constantinople lasted for nearly seventy-three years (1872–1945)[5]. And the autocephaly granted to the Orthodox Church in America in 1970 is not recognised by the Churches of the Greek tradition up to this day.

All these conflicts attest that the Local Churches have yet to reach consensus on the mechanism for proclaiming autocephaly. And today, different opinions about what this mechanism could be co-exist in World Orthodoxy.

The first opinion is traditional for the Patriarchate of Constantinople. From this Church’s point of view, the undisputed right to grant autocephaly belongs to an Ecumenical Council. However, Ecumenical Councils have not been convened in the Orthodox Church since the VIII century. And according to the Church of Constantinople, the Patriarchs of Constantinople enjoy special prerogatives in the period between Ecumenical Councils.

On the basis of this understanding of their role in World Orthodoxy, the Patriarchs of Constantinople reserve for themselves the sole right to issue Tomoses of Autocephaly. Patriarch Bartholomew has more than once spoken of the creation of autocephalous Churches as a voluntary “self-sacrifice” of the Patriarchate of Constantinople[6].

This point of view of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is entirely shared by the Churches of the Greek tradition (the Churches of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus, and Greece)[7].

The Russian Orthodox Church has a fundamentally different opinion. In the period after the Second World War, the ROC has always insisted that each one of the Orthodox Churches has the right to grant autocephaly to any of her parts. The other Churches only accept this decision and include the newly created Church into their diptychs.

It is this mechanism of granting autocephaly that was asserted by Patriarch Alexy (Simansky) of Moscow.

Such an opinion on the mechanism for creating new autocephalous Churches is typical not only for Russian canonists[8]. It has its proponents in other Local Churches as well. In particular, this is attested by the fact that on 5 June 2022, Patriarch Porfirije of Serbia issued a Tomos of Autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in North Macedonia. Although the Patriarchate of Constantinople does not recognise this decision of the Patriarch of Serbia, the autocephaly of the Macedonian Orthodox Church has already been recognised by the Bulgarian, Russian, and Romanian Churches and the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia. On 23 November 2022, the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church also recognised the autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in North Macedonia and included the name of her primate into her diptych[9].

The differences among the Local Churches over the issue of autocephaly prompted a search for such a mechanism of proclaiming ecclesiastical independence that would satisfy all the Churches. However, in spite of these differences, the preparatory commission in Chambésy managed to draw up a draft document “Autocephaly and the Way in Which it is to be Proclaimed”. As some provisions of this document raised dispute, the commission continued its discussion in 2009–2011. Unfortunately, final consensus was ultimately not reached. Hence, the document on autocephaly was not included into the agenda of the Council of Crete[10].

Nevertheless, this document contained a path to a possible compromise. The draft document “Autocephaly and the Way in Which it is to be Proclaimed” provided for the following way of creating new autocephalous Churches. At the first stage, the issue of granting autocephaly is considered by the mother Church of the ecclesiastical region seeking autocephaly. If agreement is reached, the Patriarch of Constantinople brings the matter forward for pan-Orthodox discussion. He also acts as the moderator of this discussion. If all the Orthodox Churches express their consent to the proclamation of the new autocephaly, the Patriarch of Constantinople prepares a Tomos on the granting of autocephaly, and the primates of all the Local Churches co-sign it[11].

So, the document drawn up by the Inter-Orthodox Preparatory Commission established a procedure for granting autocephaly which provided for the participation of not only the mother Church and the Patriarch of Constantinople but also all the other Local Churches in this process. However, the document remained a draft. It was not introduced to the 2016 Council of Crete for consideration.

When granting a Tomos of Autocephaly to the OCU, Patriarch Bartholomew did not abide by the provisions of this document.

Factors affecting the creation of new autocephalous Churches

Throughout history, various factors could affect the process of the creation of new autocephalous Churches. But it is entirely obvious that the decisive factor in the proclamation of autocephaly in the XIX–XX centuries was the state independence of the territory where an autocephalous Church was planned to be created. It was the gaining of state independence by Greece, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Poland, and Albania that became the main reason for the creation of the respective autocephalous Churches. No wonder that active discussion of obtaining autocephaly started in Ukraine after the gaining of state independence in 1991 as well.

The boundaries of newly created autocephalous Churches are usually the same as the boundaries of the respective states. And when the latter are changed, the boundaries of the Local Churches may change too. For example, the Romanian Church was granted autocephaly in 1885 within the boundaries of the then Kingdom of Romania. But after the First World War, the boundaries of the Romanian state were significantly expanded, so in 1925, the Patriarch of Constantinople issued a new Tomos, by which he recognised the new boundaries of the Romanian Church and granted her the status of Patriarchate[12].

Of course, state independence itself does not automatically mean the creation of an independent Church. A Church must conform to certain canonical requirements in order to be autocephalous. First of all, a Church must have a sufficient number of bishops and candidates for episcopacy so as to seek the autocephalous status. Thus, a Church seeking full independence must have a sufficient number of monasteries (since monks are candidates for episcopacy), as well as a developed system of training for priesthood. Without that, a Church will simply be unable to exist as autocephalous because she will have to turn to other Local Churches for help.

Therefore, a Local Church must reach a certain level of development so as to seek autocephaly. Figuratively speaking, a Church must “mature” into autocephaly. In other words, gaining full ecclesiastical independence is a result of an internal development of the Local Church. However, as history shows, the mother Church usually does not want to renounce her jurisdiction over some territories, and it engenders difficult conflicts and church schisms.

The issue of the canonical status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church

After the beginning of the full-scale Russian military invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022, the issue of the canonical status of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church became especially acute.

As a result, on 27 May 2022, the Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church at the Convent of Feofaniia introduced fundamental amendments to the Statute on the Administration of our Church. Inter alia, all the provisions on our Church’s dependence on the Patriarchate of Moscow were removed from the Charter[13]. In addition, the Council at Feofaniia announced the renewal of the tradition of the confection of Chrism in Ukraine[14], and in April 2023, Holy Chrism was again prepared and consecrated after a hundred-year break[15].

But at the same time, the Council at Feofaniia did not proclaim the autocephaly of our Church. And it is completely understandable. We know from history that self-proclaimed autocephalies were never recognised by World Orthodoxy. Those Churches which followed the path of self-proclaiming their independence found themselves in a long canonical isolation (in particular, it is exactly what happened to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church — Kyiv Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church at the time). In spite of all the differences among the Local Churches over the issue of the possible mechanisms for granting autocephaly, all the Churches agree that self-proclamation of autocephaly is unacceptable. That is why our Church has not followed this wrong path, and it has allowed us to keep communion with other Local Churches.

Thinking about the further development of our Church, we should formulate a few important assertions.

First of all, it should be clearly stressed that there are no canonical obstacles for our Church’s gaining autocephaly. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church has long “matured” into being fully independent. Even despite the severe troubles of wartime, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church remains one of the largest Local Orthodox Churches in the world. As of December 2022, our Church included 53 dioceses, 114 hierarchs, 12,148 parishes, 12,551 priests, 262 monasteries, and 4,620 monastics. Eighteen theological educational institutions operate in our Church, and as of December 2022, 1,154 full-time students studied at them[16].

Autocephaly is a natural state for such a large Church. We have already seen that deep conflicts occurred in history more than once because a Church which had “matured” into autocephaly and had all the necessary pre-requisites for it did not receive full autocephaly on time.

Such artificial withholding of autocephaly was usually related to an imperial ideology predominant among the leadership of the mother Church. In particular, in the XIX century, Greek hierarchs in the Ottoman Empire opposed in every possible way the granting of autocephaly to the Churches located on those territories which had seceded from the Ottoman state. It was a sort of “imperial inertia”, which brought about a range of church schisms.

I have more than once heard a strange argument against the autocephaly of our Church that autocephaly is allegedly a violation of ecclesiastical unity. By striving for autocephaly, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church allegedly puts herself in opposition to the other Local Churches, first and foremost to the Patriarchate of Moscow. By this, ecclesiastical unity is allegedly ruined.

It is no coincidence that this report begins with an emphasis on the fact that the Orthodox Church is unity in diversity. It is the institution of autocephaly that guarantees the fulfilment of this principle. Gaining administrative independence, a Local Church does not break off her communion with World Orthodoxy in any way. On the contrary, she gets an opportunity to make this communion richer. So, for our Church too, autocephaly is not opposition to anybody. It is only a desire to reveal to the largest extent possible the unique gifts bestowed upon us by the Lord.

Getting an autocephalous status is a fruit of freedom, love, and responsibility. When gaining full independence, a Local Church takes on special pastoral responsibility for the spiritual improvement of the flock entrusted to her.

Sometimes, I hear that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church cannot be autocephalous because parishioners of our Church oppose it. Firstly, we can hardly refer to the opinion of parishioners, since there have been no systematic surveys on this issue in parishes. And secondly, there is no doubt that during the war waged against us by the Russian Federation, the attitude of the clergy and the laity of our Church towards the Patriarchate of Moscow has drastically changed, and we have no right to ignore this obvious fact.

Possible ways to autocephaly

What path should we follow henceforth? I have heard various opinions about it. Let me name those which I have heard most often.

Since the Ukrainian Orthodox Church recognised herself as a self-governing church enjoying broad autonomy rights within the Patriarchate of Moscow before 27 May 2022, the first scenario which is sometimes suggested is an official request to the Patriarch of Moscow to grant autocephaly to our Church.

I consider this scenario to be unacceptable. It is obvious that everything possible will be done so as to avoid a clear response to this request and put our Church into a difficult situation of uncertain waiting. In addition, there is also a very important moral side of this matter, which makes impossible addressing those who openly support the military aggression against Ukraine.

Another possible scenario is a similar request to the Patriarch of Constantinople. However, there are obvious hardships here as well. Patriarch Bartholomew already issued a Tomos of Autocephaly to the OCU in 2019. Hence, from the point of view of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, an autocephalous Church already exists in Ukraine. That is the OCU. Patriarch Bartholomew has formally invited the episcopate and clergy of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church to join the OCU.

But first of all, we have reasonable doubt in the fact that the episcopate of the OCU has apostolic succession. And even though the Phanar keeps trying to justify the rightfulness of its decisions by referring to historical precedents (which do not hold water [17]), no conceptual explanation has been provided. And secondly, the clergy and believers of the OCU have repeatedly manifested outright aggression towards communities of our Church since 2019. And until these problems are resolved, we cannot enter into eucharistic communion with the OCU.

In addition, as has been said, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church has her own developed internal structure. We do not need to join any other Local Church for our full-fledged existence. So, the scenario of “joining” anybody is unacceptable for us.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church already exists as fully independent after 27 May 2022. And we expect other Local Churches to see our de facto independence and come to the conclusion that we need to be recognised as an autocephalous Church.

So, to my mind, today we should first of all establish regular communication with the Patriarchate of Constantinople and all the other Local Churches. We should actively inform the primates of all the Local Churches of the decisions taken at the Council at Feofaniia and explain the true meaning of these decisions. In this way, we will be able to prepare a solid ground for future decisions at the pan-Orthodox level.

But today, our main pastoral duty is prayer for the victory of Ukraine. We also ought to actively help all the needy and all the victims of this horrible war. We ought to be with the Ukrainian people in the disaster which has come to our land.

Archbishop Sylvester (Stoichev)

Доповідь архієпископа Білогородського Сильвестра: «Шляхи до автокефалії: світовий та український контексти»

1          Ukrainska Pravoslavna Tserkva na mezhi tysyacholit: Dokumenty i materialy (Kyiv: 2012), 57.

2          The Archive of the Kyiv Theological Academy and Seminary, “Statut Kyivskoi Dukhovnoi akademii Ukrainskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvy”, registered on 29 July 1992, list 2.

3          Metropolitan Volodymyr (Sabodan), “Neuzheli Tserkov dolzhna molchat?” Russkiy Newsweek., accessed 25 January 2024, https://radonezh.ru/monitoring/neuzheli-tserkov-dolzhna-molchat-mitropolit-kievsky-vladimir-russky-newsweek-21610.html.

4          See in more detail: Archbishop Sylvester (Stoichev), “Dvadtsiat vosme pravylo Chetvertoho Vselenskoho Soboru: istorychnyi kontekst ta suchasni interpretatsii”, Tserkva v istorii ta suchasnykh dyskusiyakh. Statti riznykh rokiv. (Kyiv: 2024), 66–107.

5          For more details about the Greek-Bulgarian schism, see: Archbishop Sylvester (Stoichev), “Hreko-bolharskyi rozkol 1872 roku: istoriya ta kanonichna otsinka”, Tserkva v istorii ta suchasnykh dyskusiyakh. Statti riznykh rokiv (Kyiv: 2024), 123–164.

6          Pravoslavna Tserkva Ukrainy, “Promova Yoho Bozhestvennoi Vsesvyatosti vladyky Varfolomiya pid chas Sobornoi Sluzhby Predstoyateliv u Kyyevi”, 22 August 2021, accessed 1 October 2021, https://www.pomisna.info/uk/vsi-novyny/promova-jogo-bozhestvennoyi-vsesvyatosti-vladyky-varfolomiya-pid-chas-sobornoyi-sluzhby-predstoyateliv-u-kyyevi/.

7          See: Metropolitan Damaskinos (Papandreou), “Avtokefaliya i sposob ee provozglasheniya”, Pravoslavie i mir (Cyprus: the Kykkos Monastery Research Centre; Publ. Livani — Nea Sigora , 1994), 246–248.

8          See, for example: Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin, “Avtokefaliya”, Pravoslavnaya entsyklopediya, vol. 1 (Moscow: 2000), 200.

9          Synodal Information and Education Department of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, “The RESULTS of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of 23 November 2022”, accessed 1 October 2024, https://uoc-news.church/2022/11/26/the-results-of-the-holy-synod-of-the-ukrainian-orthodox-church-of-23-november-2022-video/?lang=en#2024-10-25.

10          See: Relihiya v Ukraini, “Mezhpravoslavnaya komissiya po podgotovke Vselenskogo Sobora ne prishla k obshchemu soglasiyu po povodu chislennosti avtokefalnykh Tserkvey i voprosu o predostavlenii avtokefalii”, 28 February 2011, accessed 1 October 2024, https://www.religion.in.ua/news/vazhlivo/8568-mezhpravoslavnaya-komissiiya-po-podgotovke-vselenskogo-sobora-ne-prishla-k-obshhemu-soglasiyu-po-povodu-chislennosti-avtokefalnyx-cerkvej-i-voprosu-o-predostavlenii-avtokefalii.html.

11          See the draft document in French in: Vlassios I. Pheidas, “Droit canon: Une perspective orthodoxe” (Chambésy/Genève: Centre Orthodoxe du Patriarchate Oecuménique, 1998), 136–138. An English translation: John H. Erickson, Foreword, 16–19.

12          Pravoslavnaya Tserkov v Vostochnoi Yevrope. XX vek. Pp. 163–164.

14          See the text of the Charter on the Administration of the UOC in the new edition in: Archpriest Yaroslav Shovkenyk, Tserkovnyi protokol ta dilovodstvo: navchalnyi posibnyk dlya dukhovnoi seminarii (Kyiv: 2023), 87–126.

14          Synodal Information and Education Department of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, “Resolutions of the Council of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of May 27, 2022”, accessed 1 October 2024, https://uoc-news.church/2022/05/28/resolutions-council-ukrainian-orthodox-church-may-27-2022/?lang=en#2024-10-25.

15          Synodal Information and Education Department of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, “His Beatitude Metropolitan Onufriy performed the Consecration of Chrism in Feofaniya”, 13 April 2023, accessed 1 October 2024, https://uoc-news.church/2023/04/13/his-beatitude-metropolitan-onufriy-performed-the-consecration-of-chrism-in-feofaniia/?lang=en#2024-10-25.

16          Synodal Information and Education Department of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, “Zvit keruyuchoho spravamy Ukrainskoi Pravoslavnoi Tserkvy za 2022 rik”, 24 December 2022, accessed 1 October 2024, https://news.church.ua/2022/12/24/zvit-keruyuchogo-spravami-ukrajinskoji-pravoslavnoji-cerkvi-za-2022-rik/.

17          Archbishop Sylvester (Stoichev), “Chy buv sviatytel Meletiy Antiokhiyskyi rukopokladenyi arianamy: pro shche odnu pomylkovu analohiyu v pytanni pro khirotonii”, 35–56; “Ruska Pravoslavna Tserkva Zakordonom: rozryv spilkuvannya z Moskovskoyu patriarkhiyeyu ta yoho podolannya”, 181–231; and also: “Pytannya pro vyznannya rukopokladen, zvershenykh u rozkolnytskych spilnotakh: bohoslovski, kanonichni ta istorychni aspekty”, 11–35. Tserkva v istorii ta suchasnykh dyskusiyakh. Statti riznykh rokiv (Kyiv: 2024).