The article analyzes the process of system formation of the structure of Ecumenical Orthodoxy at the current stage. Church life is a dynamic process. The Church is constantly moving forward and has to respond to social demands and problems. It is determined that the institution of autocephaly went through a difficult path of formation, however, even today there is no clear regulated mechanism for the acquisition of autocephalous status by the new Local Church.
It has been proven that a number of national churches, such as Montenegro, Macedonia and Belarus, have been defending their own church independence for a long time. However, due to external political-ecclesiastical pressure and the lack of an algorithm for the autocephalization process, they cannot acquire an independent status. In addition, it has been established that such "daughter" churches as Macedonian and Ukrainian are much older than their own kyriarchal patriarchates (Serbian and Moscow).
The study found that an obvious violation of canonical rules is the presence of two jurisdictions (two canonical bishops) in the same territory. It has been proven that such a situation exists in a number of countries, such as the United States, where a number of churches in the diaspora of different jurisdictions operate in parallel. A similar situation has already formed in Ukraine. Two significant church organizations operate simultaneously. It has been proven that due to the pressure and reluctance of the mother churches to release the subsidiary churches from the field of influence and their own canonical territory, a similar situation could potentially occur in Montenegro, Macedonia and Belarus. As in Ukraine, some of the parishes will move to the newly created autocephalous church, for example, the Belarusian one, and some will remain loyal to the Russian Orthodox Church. However, it has been established that the coexistence of different mutually recognized Local Churches on the same territory contradicts a number of canons and traditions of the Orthodox Church. The article proves that the Conciliar fullness of the church does not justify such a status of churches, however, in general, the phenomenon of parallel jurisdictions is justified by the time and public demand of the population of different countries, as well as by the political situation. The Grand Council of Crete has not found a compromise solution for an authorized resolving of the problem of the diaspora and "parallel jurisdictions".
The article establishes that institutional disputes between Local Churches related to borders and "canonical territory" and the proclamation of new Local Churches in autocephaly status can be resolved only by a conciliar way and with the participation of all Orthodox hierarchs. Existing approaches to solving the "temporary" problem of "parallel jurisdictions" have led to the incorporation of existing non-canonical entities into recognized churches.
It has been proved that only the autocephalous system is a unanimously accepted version of the existence of Ecumenical Orthodoxy. Thuse, the striving of a number of national churches for their recognition and independence is just. Therefore, further scientific explorations of autocephalous topics and the canonical work of the holy fathers will complement the study.
Intra-Church processes during the implementation of parish reform in the 1st half of the 1960s
