The decision of the Church of Jerusalem was communicated to Antioch in a special message, which was entrusted to a special embassy.

III

1. The modern canonical concept of the Church has taken such hold of the Church's consciousness that even to the Church of the Apostolic Age we are inclined to apply our canonical concepts. According to the prevailing canonical consciousness, the episcopal community – the diocese – is part of the autocephalous Church. Therefore, it does not enjoy any independence either in the administrative or in the teaching field. This canonical consciousness was most clearly expressed in the decree of the Moscow Council of 1917-1918, according to which "a diocese is a part of the Russian Orthodox Church canonically governed by a diocesan bishop" {14}. This means that the local church is divided into dioceses for reasons of administrative and canonical order, and not that the totality of dioceses, as basic units, constitutes a local church. In turn, dioceses are divided into parishes, which are parts of dioceses. Autonomy and ecclesiastical independence belong only to the local church, and not to the diocese, but even then to a limited extent, i.e., each local church is only a part of the universal church. According to the well-known theory of the five senses, which for a long time prevailed in Byzantium and throughout the Orthodox East, the entire universal church is divided into five parts, each part of which is entrusted to one patriarch. At the present time, in view of the actual situation of the Orthodox Church, this theory has been abandoned in the sense that there may be more than five parts into which the "one, holy, apostolic and catholic Church" is divided, but the idea of dividing the universal Church into more or less independent parts continues to prevail. Hence, the universal (catholic) character can be applied only to the totality of the local churches, and the individual church is catholic only insofar as it is part of the universal church {15}. Therefore, the decision of the local church has only a local character. Within the local church, the episcopal community, i.e., the diocese, devoid of any ecclesiastical independence, can only claim a certain amount of self-government directly related to its local life, and even then, for the most part, under the control of a higher authority. At the basis of the entire church structure of a local church lies the idea of law: the legal subordination of its individual parts to the supreme ecclesiastical authority. The legal structure necessitates, along with diocesan bodies, permanent central bodies. There are legal relations between the central bodies and individual dioceses. These legal relations resulted in the actual termination of relations between the dioceses. In every question they are communicated through the central organs, and not directly.

2. The modern canonical view is the result of a long historical evolution. It should be emphasized that in this historical process the starting point turned out to be exactly the opposite of what this process led to.

The independence of local churches means that they are not legally subordinate to the supreme ecclesiastical authority of the entire Orthodox Church, although in principle such authority exists in the form of an ecumenical council, but in fact does not operate. The legal structure of the Orthodox Church turned out to be incomplete. The development of the legal system stopped at a certain point, very close to the final point, beyond which, for various reasons, it did not go. The ecclesiastical consciousness of the ancient Church did not have the idea of a universal church divided into separate parts, the totality of which constitutes this church. For this consciousness, each church community was the Church in all its fullness and integrity. This idea of the ecclesiastical community stemmed from the dogmatic teaching about the Church as the Body of Christ. In the Eucharistic assembly, which is the earthly image of the heavenly church, the icon of the Church on earth {16}, the whole of Christ dwells unchangeably and indivisibly. "Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a communion of the Blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a communion of the Body of Christ? One bread, and we many are one body; for we all partake of the same bread." —1 Corinthians 10:16-17. Just as there is not and cannot be a Christian community without the Eucharistic assembly, so there can be no Christian community in which Christ would not dwell in the fullness of His divine-human Body. The indwelling of Christ in the fullness of His Body signifies the fullness and integrity of the ecclesial community. Addressing the Corinthians, Ap. Paul wrote: "Paul, the church of God which is (τή ούση) in Corinth." —1 Corinthians 1:1-2. For us now this use of the word is alien, not only because it is not characteristic of the spirit of our language, but also because it expresses a different or somewhat different dogmatic teaching about the Church. In any case, we will not say so now. It means that the Corinthian community is the empirical embodiment of the fullness of the mystical Church: the Church of God is or is in Corinth. The Corinthians, in their assembly, in their assembly with Christ and in the name of Christ, in an assembly in which Christ Himself is present, represent the Body of Christ, and therefore their assembly is the Church of Christ in its fullness. If the Corinthian community were part of the Church in the sense that only the totality of the parts constitutes the fullness of the Church, then this would mean that Christ Himself was divided in His divine-human Body {17}. Christ is not fragmented and is whole in His Body. The Eucharistic Lamb, prepared for the eating of the faithful, is broken into particles, but this fragmentation of the Lamb is not the fragmentation of the Body of Christ and the division of Christ: "The Lamb of God is broken and divided, broken and not divided, always poisonous and never dependent, but sanctifying those who partake of Communion" (Liturgy of John Chrysostom). Just as each Eucharistic particle includes the entire undivided Christ, so each community includes the entire divine-human Body of Christ. This organic wholeness and fullness is catholicity, although this term is not found in St. Paul. "Each church community does not exclude the integrity and fullness of the ecclesiastical nature of the other communities. Just as the innumerable multitude of Eucharistic offerings in space and time does not negate or diminish the unity of the Eucharist, so the multiplicity of Christian communities does not violate the integrity and fullness of the ecclesial nature of the individual community. Catholicity is a qualitative, not quantitative, concept. The catholicity of the Church does not change from the decrease or increase of individual communities, since the catholic nature of the Church is present in each individual church community. The nature of the Eucharist does not change from the number of participants in the Charistic offering. Therefore, not only is the Corinthian community the Church of God in Corinth, but the Thessalonian community is the Church of God in Thessalonica. "Paul, and Silvanus, and Timothy are to the church of Thessalonica in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thessalonians 1:1; cf. 2 Thessalonians 1:1). It follows that there is not only a "church" but also a "church": "Paul, the apostle... to the churches of Galatia." —Galatians 1:1-2; "For what do you lack before the rest of the churches" (2 Corinthians 12:13); "I was not known to the churches of Christ in Judea personally" (Galatians 1:22); "I make you known, brethren, of the grace which has been given to the churches of Macedonia" (2 Corinthians 8:1). The unity of the Church is not violated by the fact that the Church exists in different places. These are not different churches and not parts of one and the same Church, but one and the same Church, given in all its fullness and integrity in each separate Christian community. The Church as the "Body of Christ" is one, but in empirical reality there is a plurality of Her empirical incarnations. The catholic nature of one ecclesiastical community does not cause any damage to the fullness and integrity of the ecclesiastical nature of another community. The Church exists in Corinth, Thessalonica; in Galatia there are several churches, as well as in Macedonia. But no matter how much these separate units are added, the sum of them gives only a single Church, equal in everything to each of its components [18].

The fullness and integrity of a separate church community did not deprive early Christianity of its universality. Ap. Paul strove to proclaim the Gospel to the extreme borders of the Roman Empire, to the Pillars of Hercules, to embrace with his preaching the entire universe of that time, οικουμένη. An Apostle of the Gentiles, he believed that Christ's commandment to teach all nations was entrusted to him. Not only the Roman Empire, but the whole world must become Christian. This spread of Christianity does not mean an increase in the catholic Church, but an increase in the empirical incarnations of the Church. The World Church is not a whole in relation to the individual Christian communities that are part of it. The universal church is the mysterious mystical heavenly Church, which is fully embodied in each individual experiential church. The starting point of the ecclesiastical consciousness of early Christianity lies in a separate ecclesiastical community, with its Eucharistic assembly [19].

3. It is quite in vain to look in the teaching of St. Paul. Paul's contradiction with the words of Christ: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" (Matthew 18:20). As the context of the entire passage shows, these words of Christ do not apply to every congregation, but only to the church, or rather, to the gathering within the Church, and not beyond its borders. First of all, it should be noted that the "brother" mentioned in v. 15 is to be understood as a disciple of Christ, a member of His Church. The admonition of a sinful brother, although it takes place privately, takes place within the community. This is also indicated by v. 17: "If he does not listen to the church, let him be to you as a heathen and a publican." Also, the next verse 18 speaks of the Church: the power to bind and loose is given to the apostles in the Church and for the Church. Verse 19 does not change the subject: "Verily I also say unto you (πάλιν άμήν λέγω ύμΐν)," but explains the nature of the Church. The judgment of the Church is final, but which Church? According to the Old Testament consciousness, the place of God's presence is Jerusalem, and the Church as the gathering of the Old Testament people with God is primarily in Jerusalem. True, the later Jewish consciousness recognized the presence of the glory of God among the two engaged in the study of the Torah [20], but this was the result of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. In contrast to the Old Testament consciousness, the Church is not only in Jerusalem, but in every place, since Christ is present among two or three gathered (συνηγμένοι) in His name. At the same time, these words show that catholicity, the presence of Christ, is not a quantitative, but a qualitative object.

4. The fullness and integrity of the ecclesiastical nature of each community determines its independence. Each community, as the fullness of the Church, has within itself all that is necessary for its life and does not depend in this respect on another community. Theoretically speaking, the existence of other communities is not a prerequisite for the fullness of the existence of any community, no matter how insignificant. By virtue of this, one community is independent of another community, in other words, in apostolic times there is no legal authority over the community. "The church is subject to Christ," whom God "has set above all things, the head of the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all" (Ephesians 5:24; 1:22-23). Therefore, the community, as the fullness of the Body of Christ, obeys Christ alone. If, along with the authority of Christ as the Head of the Church, there were another authority in the person of another community, or other communities, or any of its primates, then this authority would be at the same time an authority over Christ Himself and His Body. This impossibility of admitting the existence of power over Christ excluded for early Christianity the legal subordination of one community to another or to its primate. In spite of all the authority with which the apostles were vested, they had no legal authority. When they acted as the supreme leaders and instructors of church life, they acted not from without, but from within the community, not as persons invested with authority over the churches, but as persons in the Church and appointed by Christ Himself "to perfect the saints, to the work of ministry, for the edification of the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12). The work of service (έργον διακονίας) was not concerned with the exercise of personal authority, but with the exercise of the authority of God Himself. The most influential and significant communities, like Jerusalem, the source of all communities, and Rome, had no legal authority. Up. Paul, addressing the Romans, praises the Roman church in every possible way, but does not say a single word about any authority of the Roman community over the communities closest to it.

5. The autonomy and independence of church communities does not mean that they are isolated and disconnected from each other. The unity of the Body of Christ determines the unity of all communities. Not a single church community can limit itself from communion with other communities, close itself off into itself. The absence of communion with other communities would be at the same time a denial of the fullness of the ecclesiastical nature of these communities and, what is even more inadmissible, an affirmation of one's own community as the only form of empirical embodiment of the "heavenly" Church {21}. Disunity is overcome by the realization that not only in one, but in each community, the fullness of the Body of Christ is present. The voluntary isolation of one community would be a relapse into the Jewish ecclesiastical consciousness. The Old Testament church was only in Jerusalem, where there was a temple and a sacred hierarchy, and where sacrifices were offered. The temple was the dwelling place of the Lord and His presence. The New Testament church consciousness affirmed a different understanding of the Church: the Church is where Christ is, and Christ is where two or three are gathered in His name.

The unity of all ecclesial communities is the union of communities in love in Christ. One community appears to another as an object of its love in the Holy Spirit. "Let all things be done with love" (1 Corinthians 16:14). At the same time, in love for another community, the community itself is the object of its own love. By loving another community, it loves itself, since the ultimate object of love is the Church as the Body of Christ. The absence of love for another community, the exit from the loving unity of all communities, is a rejection of love for oneself and for the Church. Love is the binding principle that creates the loving unity of all communities. Only "in true love do we grow in all things to <Him> Who is the Head<>Christ" (Ephesians 4:15).

The loving union of communities in relation to the individual communities that enter and remain in love and harmony is not an organism of a higher order. In the Church, there can be nothing higher than the Church. If the loving union of communities were an organism of a higher order, then this would mean the incompleteness of the ecclesiastical nature of the communities that make up it. Entering into a love union, each individual community remains itself, does not dissolve in other communities and is not absorbed into the whole. Each individual community preserves in the union of love of the communities all its absolute value and uniqueness. The unity of communities in love does not lead to their identity. Each community preserves in unity with the others its own image, which it alone realizes. The Corinthian community is not identical with the Ephesian community, nor is the latter identical with the Thessalonian community. "The gifts are different, but the Spirit is the same. And the ministries are different, but God is one and the same, working all things in all." —1 Corinthians 12:4-6.

The lack of identity of communities, with the absolute value of each of them, leads, in the union of love of communities, to the existence of a hierarchy of communities. In the loving union of communities, one of them can stand above the other, not because it is more valuable than the other—Christ is the same in both—but because it can enjoy greater authority than the others. Such a hierarchy of communities is already observed in apostolic times. The Jerusalem and Roman communities had the greatest authority. Each church community is an empirical embodiment of the "heavenly" church, but this incarnation always leaves a certain boundary between it and the essence of the Church. In empirical reality (with the exception of the Eucharistic Assembly, which is always an icon of the heavenly Church), there is no complete coincidence of the empirical incarnation of the Church with the Heavenly Church, but only of varying degrees of approximation to this coincidence. In different epochs and in different communities in the same epoch, the degree of approximation is constantly changing. The greater the degree of approach of this or that community to the essence of the Church, the greater the authority of this community, and the greater the circle of its influence, and the higher its place in the hierarchy of communities. Apostolic times brought about a unification based not on a legal principle, but on Love. And this Love, as the basis of unification, turned out to be no less effective than law.

6. The fullness and integrity of the ecclesiastical nature of each community was to affect the nature of the decisions of the church meetings of the community. If the community is the Church, then its decisions are ecclesiastical decisions in all their fullness and significance. As the decisions of the Church based on the revelation of the will of God, they are the truth, but not only for the community that makes these decisions, since the latter is not the only empirical embodiment of the heavenly Church, but alongside it there are other communities – the empirical embodiment of the same Church. The loving unity of communities presupposes their loving harmony. Just as Christ cannot be separated, and just as Christ cannot rise up against Himself, so one church community lovingly accepts what is done in another, because what is done in one is done in all, it is done in the Church. What is true for one community is also true for another, since there can be only one truth in the Church. Thus, in principle, the decision of one community is universally binding, universally significant and has a general ecclesiastical character, i.e. it is catholic in nature. The only condition for the adoption of the decisions of one community by the others, which is tantamount to the recognition of their catholicity, is their ecclesiastical nature. For other communities in apostolic times, there are no external signs (or, in any case, they are insufficient). Within each community, the ecclesiastical character of its acts and decisions is determined by the testimony of the church assembly that the will of God has been revealed in it. The charisma of trial, which belongs to the church meeting of the community, extends not only to what is done in it. Just as a church congregation bears witness to and accepts what is done in it, it bears witness to the decisions of another congregation and accepts them as its own. This acceptance – reception – as well as the adoption of internal acts, has no legal character. No community is bound by the will of other communities, and the will of any community is not binding on others, but only the will of God determines everything. The act of making decisions by one community by another means recognizing the revealed will of God as the truth, and, conversely, rejecting the decisions of another community can mean either that the church that does not accept these decisions sins against the truth and the Spirit, or that these latter are not the truth. The Church of Antioch accepted the decisions of the Church of Jerusalem when it saw that the truth had been revealed in them, and lovingly submitted to this truth. No matter how high the place occupied by the community in the love hierarchy of communities, its decisions require reception to the same extent as the decisions of the most insignificant community.

A church assembly is a concrete expression of the love that exists between communities and, at the same time, an empirical expression of the dogmatic conviction about the fullness and integrity of the ecclesial nature of each community. If the latter is dogmatically or factually defective, then the significance of the Church's reception decreases accordingly. Ecclesiastical reception belongs to the Church as the Church's witness to the truth, i.e., the Church's witness to Herself. It follows from this that the reception of the Church does not belong to a part of the Church. The ecclesial community, as part of the Church, loses the opportunity to witness and freely make decisions of other communities, especially the community that stands higher in the loving hierarchy of communities.