ROCOR and Jurisdictional Disputes

ROCOR’s history is marked by complex and often contentious relationships with other Orthodox jurisdictions. The central dispute – the break with the Moscow Patriarchate over Sergianism – defined ROCOR’s identity, but relations with the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the OCA, and other Orthodox churches were also fraught with disagreement over canonical territory, ecclesiology, and ecumenism.

Tradition: ROCOR-specific

The Break with the Moscow Patriarchate

The Immediate Background

ROCOR’s relationship with the Patriarchal Church in Moscow deteriorated rapidly in the 1920s. While Patriarch Tikhon (d. 1925) was regarded by ROCOR as the legitimate head of the Russian Church, tensions arose even during his lifetime over the Karlovci Sobor’s political declarations.

After Patriarch Tikhon’s death in 1925, the Russian Church entered a period of institutional crisis. Metropolitan Peter (Polyansky), the appointed locum tenens, was arrested by the Soviet authorities in 1925. Deputy locum tenens Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky) assumed leadership and, on July 16/29, 1927, issued his Declaration of Loyalty to the Soviet government.

ROCOR’s Rejection of the 1927 Declaration

ROCOR formally rejected Metropolitan Sergius’s Declaration, declaring that:

The Declaration constituted an unacceptable surrender of the Church’s freedom to the atheist state.
By promising loyalty to the Soviet regime and pledging to refrain from anti-Soviet activity, the Moscow Patriarchate had compromised its ability to speak and act freely.
The Soviet Union’s “joys and successes” (a phrase attributed to Sergius’s Declaration) could not be the joys and successes of the Church, since the regime was founded on the persecution of the faith.
The Moscow Patriarchate under Sergius no longer represented the free voice of the Russian Orthodox Church.

This rejection became the defining act of ROCOR’s self-understanding: it claimed to be the free, uncorrupted continuation of the Russian Church, preserving the traditions and conscience that the Moscow Patriarchate had been forced to compromise. (See The Sergianist Controversy)

The Rupture and Its Duration

The break between ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate persisted for eighty years (1927-2007). During this time:

ROCOR refused to commemorate the Patriarch of Moscow in its services.
ROCOR did not recognize the Moscow Patriarchate’s hierarchs as legitimately free.
The Moscow Patriarchate, for its part, did not recognize ROCOR’s canonical standing and periodically demanded that ROCOR submit to Moscow’s authority.
Faithful of the two jurisdictions generally did not receive communion together.

The “Three Russian Jurisdictions” in the Diaspora

One of the most confusing aspects of Orthodox church life in the twentieth century was the existence of three separate Russian Orthodox jurisdictions outside Russia:

1. ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia)

Claimed to be the free continuation of the Russian Church.
Rejected Sergianism and the Moscow Patriarchate’s authority.
Maintained strict canonical and liturgical conservatism.
Headed by its own Metropolitan and Synod of Bishops.

2. The Moscow Patriarchate’s Parishes Abroad (Exarchate)

Parishes directly under the Moscow Patriarchate’s authority.
In Western Europe, this took the form of a diocesan structure under Moscow-appointed bishops.
In North America, Moscow maintained parishes alongside the other jurisdictions.
ROCOR regarded these parishes as compromised by their connection to the Soviet-controlled Patriarchate.

3. The Metropolia (later the Orthodox Church in America, OCA)

Originally the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America, the oldest Russian Orthodox presence in North America (tracing its origins to the Alaskan mission of 1794).
After the Revolution, the American Russian parishes found themselves cut off from Moscow and developed an increasingly autonomous identity.
The Metropolia had a complex relationship with both ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate. It was under the Synod Abroad until Metropolitan Platon’s break in 1926, then effectively independent until the Temporary Regulations worked out in November 1935 at Sremski Karlovci under the presidency of Patriarch Varnava of Serbia (accepted by the American bishops at the Pittsburgh Sobor of 1936) restored unity. That unity lasted until the Seventh All-American Sobor in Cleveland in November 1946, which voted to end subordination to ROCOR and to seek reconciliation with the Moscow Patriarchate (ROCOR Studies, “Seventh All-American Sobor in Cleveland”; “On Relations Between ROCOR and North American Metropolia in 1946-1965”).
In 1970, the Moscow Patriarchate granted autocephaly (full ecclesiastical independence) to the Metropolia, which then became the Orthodox Church in America (OCA).

Relationships Between the Three

The existence of three competing Russian jurisdictions in the same territories was a source of scandal and confusion:

Parishes of different jurisdictions sometimes existed in the same city, drawing from the same Russian emigre community.
Transfer of clergy and faithful between jurisdictions was contentious.
Each jurisdiction claimed canonical legitimacy and questioned the others’.
The situation contradicted the Orthodox canonical principle that there should be only one bishop in each city or territory.

The OCA Autocephaly Question (1970)

In 1970, the Moscow Patriarchate granted a Tomos of Autocephaly to the Metropolia, which then reconstituted itself as the Orthodox Church in America (OCA). This was a deeply controversial act:

Moscow’s Position

Moscow argued that as the mother church of Orthodoxy in North America (through the Alaskan mission), it had the right to grant autocephaly to its daughter church.
The autocephaly was intended to create a canonical Orthodox church for all of North America, transcending ethnic jurisdictions.

ROCOR’s Position

ROCOR rejected the OCA’s autocephaly as illegitimate, arguing that it was granted by a patriarchate that was itself under Soviet control and therefore not canonically free.
ROCOR viewed the OCA’s acceptance of autocephaly from Moscow as a form of complicity with Sergianism.
ROCOR also objected to certain theological and liturgical tendencies in the OCA that it regarded as modernist.

The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Position

The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople did not recognize the OCA’s autocephaly, arguing that only an Ecumenical Council or the Ecumenical Patriarchate itself has the right to grant autocephaly.
Constantinople’s non-recognition was shared by most (though not all) other autocephalous Orthodox churches. Besides Moscow, which granted the Tomos, the OCA’s autocephaly has been recognized by the Churches of Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland, and the Czech Lands and Slovakia; Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus, and Greece oppose it, while Antioch, Serbia, Romania, and Albania have neither recognized nor formally opposed it (OCA, “Questions and Answers on Autocephaly”).

Lasting Consequences

The OCA autocephaly question remains unresolved in broader Orthodox ecclesiology. The OCA functions as a de facto autocephalous church in North America but is not universally recognized as such. ROCOR and the OCA maintained separate existences, though relations improved somewhat after 2007.

Tensions with the Ecumenical Patriarchate

ROCOR’s relationship with the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople was also fraught:

Jurisdictional Overlap

The Ecumenical Patriarchate claimed jurisdiction over all Orthodox Christians in the “diaspora” (i.e., outside traditionally Orthodox countries) based on its interpretation of Canon 28 of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451).
ROCOR rejected this claim, arguing that its own existence was authorized by the Russian Church (Ukaz 362) and that Constantinople’s expansive reading of Canon 28 was unwarranted.

Ecumenism

ROCOR strongly criticized the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s participation in the World Council of Churches and other ecumenical bodies.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate’s joint declarations with the Roman Catholic Church (particularly under Patriarch Athenagoras: the January 1964 Jerusalem meeting with Pope Paul VI and the mutual lifting of the anathemas of 1054 proclaimed on December 7, 1965) were viewed by ROCOR as a betrayal of Orthodox ecclesiology; Metropolitan Philaret lodged a formal protest with Patriarch Athenagoras on December 2/15, 1965.
ROCOR’s 1983 Anathema Against Ecumenism was, in part, directed at Constantinople’s ecumenical activities. (See Anti-Ecumenism)

The “Russian Exarchate” in Western Europe

A separate Russian Orthodox entity in Western Europe – the Archdiocese of Russian Orthodox Churches in Western Europe (“Rue Daru”) – was under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, with interruptions, from 1931 until the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s Synod revoked its tomos and dissolved the exarchate on November 27, 2018; the majority of its parishes were received into the Moscow Patriarchate in 2019. This body traced its origin to Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky), who broke with the Karlovci Synod in 1926 and in 1931 placed his parishes under Constantinople, which named him Exarch (orthodoxwiki.org as locator; Ecumenical Patriarchate communiqué of November 27, 2018; Archdiocese statements, 2018-2019).
ROCOR viewed this as an illegitimate transfer and maintained its own parallel parishes in Western Europe.

ROCOR’s Position on the Canonical Status of Other Jurisdictions

ROCOR’s ecclesiological self-understanding was rigorous and, at times, exclusivist:

Moscow Patriarchate: Regarded as unfree and canonically compromised due to Sergianism, though ROCOR generally avoided declaring Moscow’s sacraments invalid.
Ecumenical Patriarchate: Criticized for ecumenism but generally recognized as a legitimate (if erring) Orthodox church.
OCA: Autocephaly rejected; canonical status questioned.
Other Orthodox churches participating in the WCC: Criticized but recognized as Orthodox.
Old Calendarists: ROCOR had complex relationships with Old Calendarist groups in Greece and Romania. Documented instances of ROCOR hierarchs consecrating bishops for the Greek Old Calendarists include the 1960 consecration of Archimandrite Akakios (Pappas) by Archbishop Seraphim (Ivanov) of Chicago and Bishop Theophil (Ionescu), performed without the Synod’s sanction; the May 1962 consecrations of further Florinite bishops in Athens by Archbishop Leonty (Filippovich) of Chile; the November 1962 consecration of Petros (Astyfides) of Astoria by Leonty and Bishop Seraphim (Svezhevsky) of Venezuela; the Synod’s recognition of the Florinite hierarchy in 1969; and the 1971 corrective laying-on of hands (cheirothesia) over bishops of the Matthewite synod. These acts created lasting jurisdictional complications (ROCOR Studies, “The Old Calendar Movement in Greece: An Historical Survey”).

ROCOR’s strict positions led to a degree of isolation within the Orthodox world. While ROCOR maintained that it was not schismatic and never claimed to be a separate church (but rather the free part of the Russian Church), many other Orthodox jurisdictions treated it as being in irregular canonical standing.

References

Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky). Declaration of Loyalty to the Soviet Government. July 16/29, 1927.
Patriarch Tikhon. Ukaz No. 362. November 7/20, 1920.
Tomos of Autocephaly Granted to the Orthodox Church in America. Moscow Patriarchate, 1970.
Seide, Georg. Geschichte der Russischen Orthodoxen Kirche im Ausland. Wiesbaden, 1983.
ROCOR Studies. “Seventh All-American Sobor in Cleveland” (2023); “On Relations Between ROCOR and North American Metropolia in 1946-1965” (2020); “The Old Calendar Movement in Greece: An Historical Survey” (2025). rocorstudies.org.
Orthodox Church in America. “Questions and Answers on Autocephaly.” oca.org.
Strickland, John. The Making of Holy Russia. Holy Trinity Publications, 2013.
Afonsky, Gregory. A History of the Orthodox Church in America. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1977.
FitzGerald, Thomas. The Ecumenical Patriarchate and Christian Unity. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1997.
Destivelle, Hyacinthe. The Moscow Council (1917-1918): The Creation of the Conciliar Institutions of the Russian Orthodox Church. Notre Dame Press, 2015.