After regaining independence, the state authorities of Ukraine undertook actions aimed at obtaining the autocephaly by the local Orthodox Church. This process was difficult due to the existing divisions in Ukrainian Orthodoxy. The most numerous Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate, with autonomous status, did not show any aspirations for independence from the Russian Orthodox Church. The political activities undertaken in 2018, supported by the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kiev Patriarchate, led to the acquisition of the tomos from the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the creation of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine.

Justification of Church Independence in the Theological Doctrine of the Late Byzantine Period

The article considers the main mechanisms and principles of functioning of the church-administrative system of governance of the Ecumenical Church. It is established that church life is a lively and dynamic process. The church is steadily moving forward and is forced to respond to societal demands and problems. It is proved that the formation of two approaches (Greek and Slavic) to the understanding of the structure of the system of Universal Orthodoxy was the cause of the crisis in the church. It is noted that “church misunderstandings” became apparent after the Great Council of Crete and the granting of the Tomos to the Ukrainian Church. The study highlights the transformational processes of the institution of autocephaly in late Byzantium period, as well as its importance for the modern church. It is proved that the ecclesiological conditionality of the autocephalous principle stems from the very nature of the church. The article argues that in the Orthodox tradition there is no generally accepted interpretation of the interdependence of gaining state independence and the autocephalous status of churches. From the point of view of Orthodox ecclesiology, it is obvious that, by its very structure, every church must necessarily be autocephalous. However, in practice, a number of national churches are waiting for PanOrthodox recognition for a long time. During the period of late Byzantium, autocephaly was transformed from a natural state to an ecclesiasticalpolitical phenomenon. And in the modern period – to an exclusively political one. It is established that the key task of modern world theology is to study the problem of autocephaly. Since the beginning of Christianity, autocephaly has become the basic principle of the apostolic foundation of the community-church, taking into account the national and ethnic characteristics of the population of the then Roman Empire. It is emphasized that autocephaly is one of the oldest institutions of the Church, which is the main feature of Orthodoxy. It is proved that the state is always an interested party in the process of church independence. Since each independent country seeks to have its own church, it acts as a protector of the powers and rights of the church located within its territorial authority. This significantly affects the current geopolitical relations between the Local Churches. It has been established that autocephaly was an adaptation of the church to the political geography of the state. The article establishes that the Ecumenical Church, while being united in its essence, is divided into independent Local Churches on an administrative and national basis. The article establishes that the institutional disputes of modern Local Churches in most cases are related to the “canonical territory” and the limits of their influence. This is directly related to the acquisition of autocephalous status. It is concluded that such global problems of All-Church significance can be solved exclusively by a conciliar way and reasonable means. This requires the participation of all Orthodox hierarchs, including unrecognized churches, to take into account their position.

The Law of the 13th of July, 1939 on Abolishing Fees Tail did not abolish itself that institution, represented then by 55 estates subject to different regulations in divers parts of the territory of the Republic of Poland, but it provided for an evolutive process of abolition, to be initiated by the patriarch or ex officio, and accomplished by the decision of the Appellate Court on abolition. Abolition meant that the patriarch, having been a “possessor” of the fee tail belonging to the whole family, was to become a regular owner of its goods. Because of the World War, II no fee tail was abolished within the framework of that Law. All existing fees tail were abolished ex lege, in the new post-war conditions marked, in particular, by realization of the land reform, by the 1946 Law-Decree providing for introductory provisions of the succession law. It repealed the 1939 Law, but maintained in force its substantive provisions defining the essence of fees tail. In the article, an analysis is developed of legal problems related to legislation on abolition of fees tail that arise out in the present Polish legal practice. It relates to the problem of the right of the 1939 fee tail patriarch to receive, on the basis of the 2005 particular law, a compensation for estates left on the pre-war territory of the Republic of Poland taken by the USSR; it could be given only to the then owners being physical persons, and not to simple holders. There have been two cases decided over by administrative courts, and their approach, and to a certain extent decisions, have been quite different. The other problem examined relates to the present right of ownership of library collections having belonged to two fees tail, and the respective rights of the National Library of Poland that keeps those collections.