Metropolitan Hilarion begins by describing how the apostles set up bishops and elders who oversaw cities and its regions: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, Carthage. It’s noteworthy that the missionary activity and the first examples of churches and territories that bishops oversaw were not primarily “home churches” nor was the papal supremacy principle operating in Rome yet. Many other cities of the Roman empire too were incorporated into ecclesial order of the Church by hierarchy: bishops and deacons. It’s an obvious New Testament fact that priests and ecclesial rules are set out for future Christian generations. The earliest witnesses of Orthodoxy viewed the bishop and presbyter as almost the same in function. There was not much of a difference between them. St. Ignatius taught the guiding idea of the “monarchic episcopate.” The Church would be governed by one bishop as head of a local area or church with priests or presbyters standing in as representatives of the bishop who couldn’t attend all local churches at once.
It was never allowed that a church could celebrate the eucharist without the knowledge of the bishop. This close relationship of holy orders is important because it ensures that the people will be served and the eucharist as well as other mysteries will be offered. The locality was eventually labeled a diocese after the Latin term used for organizing imperial regions. By this historical fact we discern that there is no other higher authority other than one locality’s bishop who oversees his local, ecclesial community, who is also in communion with other bishops. The apostles worked in different cities, regions, among different cultures. But they worked with one mind and with knowledge of one another. There was a council held in Jerusalem, again without all the elements required for a modern understanding of the papacy: no Rome, no throne, the leader of the apostles, Peter, working with all the apostles and elders – an amazing example of church governance laid out in the New Testament. The “collegium” of bishops and deacons made decisions, which the apostles were keen to show by example, since they understood that their own end would be soon. So, the church is run by apostolic bishops who are “monarchic” in their own locality but also take council among his delegates. It’s also important to remember that the mysteries are given specially by the permission of the bishop. The universal relationship between churches are maintained by the bishops.
Canonical territory comes from the idea that a bishop orders the affairs, concerns, problems, growth of his own church’s locality, region or community. A common assumption among western Christians is that churches just sprang up like from the principles of evolutionary biology. But the church is made up of human beings, and that entails an order of interrelationships, which explains much more than scientific stories. At the heart of dioceses and churches are personal relationships, not simply the continuation of a brand of culture or institutional name. Orthodoxy balances the distance of bishops and people with priests and deacons, the distance of regions with other local bishops, and all distances return to a focal point in the catholicity of Orthodoxy: the otherworldly Eucharist. So, the canons or rules of remaining in one’s own territory are meant to keep the balance of communion as every interpersonal relationship tries to capture. The Apostolic Canons ca. 4th c. , an ancient writing and witness of Orthodox ecclesiology, gives us these rules for liturgical life. The local church represents one body among many other bodies which all are in Christ’s Holy Body because of the eucharist and the incarnation.
Autocephaly seems to be a very fluid concept and process. The modern canons of territory have been greatly affected by losing communion with Rome among the order of local churches, the Muslim conquests of the Middle East, and the atheistic regimes of our own times that have caused mass migrations.