There has been a lot of discussion on the Internet as to whether or not the Autonomous Metropolia of Western Europe and the Americas is adherent to the first tome of autonomy given by Archbishop Auxentios of Athens (+1994) of blessed memory in 1984, or the second tome of autonomy given by Patriarch Volodymyr of Kyiv (+1995) of blessed memory in 1994. Depending on one's personal predilections, one can assume that either the first or the second tome holds weight. This essay maintains that there is a third position, that neither tome, in fact, is relevant to the discussion of the Milan Synod's autonomy, and that in fact the Synod, as much so as the True Orthodox Church of Greece, Russia, or Ukraine, is in fact already an autocephalous Church.

The first issue is that the Synod of Western Europe and the Americas is de facto autocephalous, not autonomous. Autonomous Churches are distinguished by two features: their Primate is submitted and confirmed by a Mother Church, and they cannot consecrate their own chrism. Putting aside the fact that the Milan Synod has never consecrated its own chrism (it has it in sufficient quantity) an implicit right to consecrate chrism has never been questioned. The first primate of the Milan Synod was so granted his right to exist by the True Orthodox Church under Archbishop Auxentios. But the confirmation of Metropolitan Eulogius of Milan by Kyiv was not one of obedience, but confirmation after the fact. So Patriarch Volodymyr did not "make" the Milan Synod autonomous (it was ALREADY autonomous); in fact, Metropolitan Eulogius was immediately ranked the second-ranked see by Patriarch Volodymyr (and this was not by accident), and with the rise of "Patriarch" Filaret Denisenko, Metropolitan Eulogius endeavored to depose him-- the same position that is held today within the Milan Synod so remains.

Yet the conclusion that must be drawn is that in fact the Milan Synod chooses Her own first-hierarch-- making it de facto an autocephalous Church, since de jure it claims autonomy. We must be guided by the canons and the tradition of the Church, and in the end this means that the Synod of the West is itself already an autocephalous body-- because that is precisely what it was a thousand years ago. Now, of course we understand the head of the Autocephalous Western Church was not the Metropolitanate of Milan, but the Pope of Rome. However, circumstances being what they are and witnessing in various sects the miserable result of electing a Pope "in Exile", we see that such an election-- though possible-- would be ill-advised. But on what grounds then is the Milan Synod considered-- indeed, how can She be-- autocephalous?

Ecclesiastical Rank

To understand this, we must understand ecclesiastical rank in the West before the schism, something little explored by Eastern historians (with a few exceptions), who generally limited their understanding of the West to the understanding of Orthodox Popes. This can lead to faulty conclusions, not the least of which is that a Pope for a restored and autocephalous Western Church would be required. In actual fact, every national Church consecrated its own chrism, and could elect their own heads, receiving Papal confirmation after the fact. The sole purpose of the Pope of Rome, as Constantinople is considered normatively (not in times of global crisis) today in the East was as a final court of appeal. (It is worthy of note that in the Orthodox world in general, the term "autocephalous" is not widely used until the 19th century, the concepts being understood in a spiritual, but not a legalistic sense.)

The existence of Primates can be found in the Canons of Carthage: That the bishop of the first see shall not be called Prince of the Priests or High Priest (Summus Sacerdos) or any other name of this kind, but only Bishop of the First See. (can xxxix, Carthage-- Latin text).

Further, the canons make clear that fallen dioceses can be rescued from heresy: Item, it seemed good that if anyone after the laws should convert any place to Catholic unity and retain it for three years without opposition, it should not be taken away from him afterwards.  If however there was during those three years a bishop who could claim it and was silent, he shall lose the opportunity.  But if there was no bishop, no prejudice shall happen to the see, but it shall be lawful when the place that had none shall receive a bishop, to make the claim within three years of that day.  Item, if a Donatist bishop shall be converted to the Catholic party, the time that has elapsed shall not count against him, but from the day of his conversion for three years he shall have the right of making a claim on the places which belonged to his See. (Ibid, can. cxix)

In our case, as in others, the sees restored were themselves ancient sees with Primatial rank.

Thus the restoration of national Orthodox Western Churches in the 20th century has in fact led to these very episcopal formations-- and they have everything they need to continue acting as the Church in the West until the judgment. Indeed, two such international Churches of any size can be labelled, and for all intents and purposes, the other international communion of Western Churches has already fully subsumed in the heresy of our days, ecumenism-- as well as the British joining the Copts and Ravenna becoming New Calendarist-- leaving our Synod alone to stand up for Orthodoxy in the West. Let us assume, however, that no one was in heresy or schism. Let us also leave out various ridiculous vagante groups which can be found in both East and West. What would the Orthodox Church of the West look like?

The Bishops (again, this is assuming that the Western Orthodox were actually united in faith) would be as follows, based upon their historical establishment of rank: I will label our own Bishops in bold.

1) Italy: Metropolitan of Milan and Aquilea (currently held by Metropolitan Eulogius)
2) France: Archbishop of Paris (currently divided between two French factions, the larger of which was that of Vigilius of Paris)
3) Brittany:  Archbishop of Glastonbury (currently held by a Copt)
4) Spain: Archbishop of Seville (currently held by Bishop Paul of Seville, with status of ruling Bishop)
5) Belgium: Bishop of the Gauls (itself a provisional rank; currently held by Gregory of the Gauls)
6) Germany: Archbishop of Munich (Freising, currently held by Archbishop Boris of Munich)
7) Switzerland (Currently in dispute between three Bishops)
8) Archbishops and Bishops in Western provinces of the new countries territorialized by the West after the schism (North and South America)

Putting aside the fact that Italy was also regionally divided before the schism, one gets the point. We are no longer dealing some invisible "Western rite Eastern church" or dioceses formed for travellers of Eastern descent of the 1800's, but fully operational hierarchies that have their own traditional Orthodox rituals, divisions and problems, just as in the Orthodox East. If one wanted to be as much a snob about it as many of our Eastern brothers have been, it is perfectly possible for a Western Orthodox Christian to talk solely to other Western Orthodox all over the world and pretend Eastern Orthodox didn't exist, as well as get into just as many fights as he would in our beloved sister Churches of the East. (This would, admittedly, be rather stupid as Orthodox Christians in the West have never done this-- but I am only pointing out it is possible, not a good idea.)  In actual fact, there would not be, as Overbeck originally envisioned ages ago, three Bishops, but almost two dozen, and combined make up a few hundred parishes of both Eastern and Western provenance, or "rite".

Indeed, if any of these other Bishops outside us could cease their use of the Papal calendar or their recognition of the Coptic-monophysite heresies, they could return to the bosom of the Church from the confusion of schism, and further a united Orthodox Western witness.

Conclusion: towards the "False-Council".

It should therefore, therefore, that even without a Pope, Synods with a full canonical rank already independently exist, just as they did before the schism. It also follows that if the canons allow the restoration of long-widowed sees (and they do), then there is no actual requirement for a Tomos after the expiration of a number of years in the dioceses if there are no contentions. That time, according to the canons, has long past-- and the Autonomous Metropolia of Western Europe and the Americas has no need of "approval" to exist from any Synod-- whether of the West or the East.

Whether our brethren in the True Orthodox Churches of the East wish to accept it or not, we are the Orthodox Catholic Church of the West. Our Synod is not a "Greek Synod", nor a "Russian Synod", nor a "Ukrainian Synod", nor a "Cypriot Synod", nor anything else, but a Western Synod-- though many of our Eastern brethren have come to us as they live in our region. We are simply the Church of God where God has placed us, and indeed, this self-consciousness of our mission is taking place throughout the Church, preserving the ancient tradition of the Fathers and Councils where we are-- and as who we are.

Historically, such Churches formed without great councils, and this is equally true with our own Church, which has returned to the West with dozens of parishes around the world, as well as Her own sacred and ancient traditions. Fearfully, however, in a desire to resolve a problem which has its resolution in the sacred canons, "official Orthodoxy" has found a solution to the overlapping of jurisdictions created by greed: rather than submission to the canons and the restoration of canonical sees as the True Orthodox have done, they resort instead to something far more fearful: an "ecumenical council" with no intention of resolving the issues of heresy and schism that have affected it for almost a century.

Indeed, the "official Church" now promotes the idea that an "Ecumenical Council" will create new dioceses, Synods, and national Churches subject to Constantinople, which introduced the Papal Calendar and other innovations into the Church in 1920.  The Russians, usually afraid to lose control in such situations, are today silent. St Justin Popovich spoke out directly to the Serbian council warning them of calling this bizarre council: "Keeping all this in mind and painfully aware of the situation of the contemporary Orthodox Church and of the world in general - which has not substantially changed since my last appeal to the Holy Council of Bishops (May, 1971) my conscience once more obliges me to turn with insistence and beseeching to the Holy Council of Bishops of the martyred Serbian Church: let our Serbian Church abstain from participating in the preparations for the "ecumenical council," indeed from participating in the council itself. For should this council, God forbid, actually come to pass, only one kind of result can be expected from it: schisms, heresies and the loss of many souls. Considering the question from the point of view of the apostolic and patristic and historical experience of the Church, such a council, instead of healing, will but open up new wounds in the body of the Church and inflict upon her new problems and new misfortunes."

In 1930 Archbishop Averky of Jordanville as a young theological student, "heard of the rumors of an approaching "Eighth Ecumenical Council" and asked his Abba, the great theologian of the Russian Diaspora, Archbishop Theophan of Poltava, about it. The latter replied: 'Of an eighth ecumenical council I have as yet heard nothing. I can only say, in the words of St. Theodore the Studite: 'Not every gathering of bishops is a council, but only a gathering of bishops who stand in the Truth.' A truly ecumenical council depends not on the number of bishops gathered at it, but on whether it will deliberate and teach in an Orthodox way. If it will keep away from the truth, it will not be ecumenical, even though it might call itself ecumenical. The famous 'robber council' in its time had more participants than many ecumenical councils, but nevertheless it was not called ecumenical, but received the name of 'robber council'.'" (Letters of Archbishop Theophan, Jordanville, 1976, p. 45.)"

The existence of our Synod in the West is a proof that the canons and history of the Church are sufficient to continue preaching the Gospel throughout the known world; we should become very cautious of the new devices being employed to "resolve issues" in the Church. Wracked by heresy and innovation in the state Churches, the ship of Christ continues sailing with the Rudder of the Canons and Traditions of our Church.


----------------
Reader Joseph Suaiden

Administrator, St Eulalia Orthodox Mission, Bronx, NY
http://misionortodoxa.freehostia.com