PATRICIU DORIN VLAICU, Associate Professor, Babes‐Bolyai University, Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Cluj‐Napoca
SUBBTO 62, no. 1 (2017): 115‐130
DOI:10.24193/subbto.2017.1.08
ABSTRACT. Since the beginning of the debates on the topics which could be
discussed at the Orthodox Church’s Synod, autocephaly, autonomy, the Orthodox
diaspora and the diptychs were part of the proposed themes. Their analysis during
the preparatory process highlighted the fact that Orthodox Churches cannot reach a
consensus regarding two of them: autocephaly and diptychs. Under these conditions,
the Synaxis of the Orthodox Church’s primates, convened in Constantinople in 2014,
decided to withdraw them from the agenda. Out of the four above‐mentioned
themes only Autonomy and the Means by Which it is Proclaimed and The Orthodox
Diaspora were kept for debate and approval. In this paper I will briefly analyse
these two documents, emphasising the contribution of the Synod to the clarification
of the topics, highlighting some fundamental elements, and aspects that are as yet
unresolved.
Keywords: autonomy, diaspora, Holy and Great Council, Canon Law, canons,
synodality, diptychs.
I. Church autonomy and the clarifications brought by the Holy and
Great Council’s document
Observing the structure and content of this document, at a first glance
we might ask ourselves about the usefulness of adopting it at a pan‐Orthodox
level, considering that it deals with a problem which, in principle, concerns the
internal life of the autocephalous Churches. However, at an in‐depth analysis,
we notice that it contains certain elements which have implications for the life
of the whole Church. For a more thorough understanding of the themes, I will
present in the following paragraphs a few fundamental aspects about the institution of autonomy, after which I will highlight the way in which the Holy and
Great Council puts it in a conceptual framework and which are the implications
of adopting this document for the life of the Church1.
a. Church autonomy and the issue of recognizing the ecclesial maturity
of a regional canonical entity
The institution of autonomy was present in the life of Christian
communities since the apostolic times. The full responsibility of local Churches,
emphasized since the Acts of the Apostles, epistles and apostolic writings, was
always linked with the principle of co‐responsibility of the whole ecclesial
body2. Thus, autonomy was framed in synodality, and synodality consolidated
autonomy3. Each local Church, regardless of its size, is the complete manifestation
of the Church, and a regional Church’s primate has the role of communion vector4.
In the 4th and 5th centuries, capitalizing the political organization of the
Empire, the Church structured a metropolitan system to which it granted all
elements of autonomy5. Following the evolution of stately organization, the
church’s institutional structures moulded on the civil model, so that by the end of
the 4th century it reached a supra‐metropolitan organization. This organization
underlined the distinction between basic, episcopal autonomy, metropolitan
autonomy and supra‐metropolitan autonomy, which was consolidated between
the 4th and 9th centuries in the form which later was named Pentarchy.
It is interesting to note that in this whole system of autonomies, the
canonical tradition invests with extended autonomy only the metropolitan system,
while the episcopal and supra‐metropolitan autonomies are always correlated
with the jurisdictional competencies manifested at the provincial level. An
eloquent example to this end is the 8th Canon of the Third Ecumenical Synod of
Ephesus.
Although it is considered by some canonists as the text which proclaims
the autocephaly of Cyprus6, in fact it only guarantees a metropolitan province the right to self‐govern against innovative claims manifested by the church
authority at a superior civil‐administrative level7.
It is known that with the imperial reorganization, episcopal sees, with
respectable tradition and confirmed moral authority through endurance from
facing up to doctrinal dissident movements and persecutions, end up having
authority over multiple dioceses. Simultaneously, even if some sees were revered
by the Church for their distinguished role in resisting persecutions and keeping
the faith, the metropolitan province’s authority continued to be consolidated.
Canon 7 of the First Ecumenical Synod honours the bishop of Jerusalem, which
would be soon put in the Pentarchy. Nevertheless, from an administrative point
of view, this does not affect the metropolitan canonical order.
Regional authority imposed itself in the Church also because each province
capital offered communication and transport facilities as it was the centre of
social life and, implicitly, of church life.
The Protopresbyter (Protos) exercised in
this context the function of communion vector. The canonical tradition displays
him as also having concrete competencies. The other bishops referred to him for
all aspects which exceeded the internal life of the diocese, and the protopresbyter
did not undertake anything without everyone’s consent, as it is stated in the 34th
apostolic canon in which the term ὁμόνοια designates oneness of mind, unanimity,
concord.
8 The other competencies went to the first bishop of a region. These were:
convening synods (20 Antioch), chairing elections and consecrating the elected
one (4, I; 28, IV; 19 Antioch), the right of direct intervention when a bishop did
not fulfil his duties of administering the patrimony (the right of devolution)(11,
VII; 52, 55 Carthage), and also represented prerogatives of a real autonomy.
As the
metropolitan was not the holder of a direct jurisdiction in the suffragan dioceses
(35 ap.; 2, II; 20, VI) he manifested himself as the example of overcoming local
egoism and fitting the diocese’s church life in the framework of the regional church
life.
The gradual consolidation of supra‐metropolitan prerogatives through
highlighting the thrones of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and then Jerusalem, did not diminish provincial autonomy. The primate of the Church structured at this level did not have direct jurisdictional competencies, but only the right of
consecrating the primate of the metropolitan Church, chosen by the bishops of
that diocese9.
Beginning with the middle of the 5th century, through the 28th canon of
Chalcedon, five supra‐metropolitan centres: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch and Jerusalem, are emphasized so that later the Pentarchy would be
considered a gift of God, associated with the five senses which were applied to the
Ecclesial body of the Empire10.
Some consider that this association targeted
precisely limiting the claims of acquiring patriarchal status. As long as the unitary
political elements encased what today we might call the autocephalous Church, no
major issues arose11. However, when the pressure of imperial politics tried to
dilute through disciplinary means the autonomy of some churches which were
emancipated, it even led to pushing them towards heretical doctrines. Some
see the adoption of even distinct doctrinal stances by the Persian and Armenian
Churches as a form of emancipation and a wish to distance themselves from
worldly power12. In other cases, the return of church entities to Orthodox doctrine
was negotiated in exchange for the recognition of their full church autonomy.
The most representative case is that of the Church of Georgia13.
The canonical tradition also speaks of the so‐called autocephalous
archbishoprics which were merely dioceses taken out from the regional metropolitan
system14, and which directly belonged to the Patriarchy. So, they were entitled
to an extended autonomy, similar to what today we call autonomous churches.
After the fall of the Byzantine Empire full autonomy, later called autocephaly,
was more clearly specified as a form of the wider autonomy circumscribed by geo‐
political influences. In the context in which the stately entities exercised political
pressure over the ecclesial entities, the natural need of recognizing the ecclesial
entity’s autocephaly arose. This manifested in an independent state in order to do
away with the suspicions of another’s state interference in the internal issues through the medium of the Church.
This is how modern autocephalous Churches
were born, on the ruins of great empires.
Thus we can ascertain that in the course of time, extended church
autonomy developed as a form of recognizing the self‐governing capacity of a
regional Church, which was however limited by geo‐political interests which
avoided granting it the status of autocephaly. Generally, these situations created
convulsions which generated schisms and jurisdictional conflicts. For this
reason, addressing the theme of church autonomy exceeds the interests of the
autocephalous Church and the Holy and Great Council’s document on this
issue is completely justified.
b. The main characteristics of church autonomy from the point of
view of the document adopted by the Holy and Great Council
The conciliar document designates autonomy as expressing the statute
of relative independence of a certain Church within the autocephalous Church
(1). Beginning from this formulation, we need to understand that the notions
of relative and absolute independence must not be regarded from a secular
juridical perspective, but in the sense that autonomous Churches have their own
organization within the autocephalous Church, with autocephaly as the highest
form of autonomy15.
The text shows that autonomy is granted after a justified request on behalf
of the local Church (2a).
The autocephalous Church has the aptitude to analyse
this request in a Synod and decide whether or not to grant autonomy. The
Synod of the autocephalous Church has the obligation to specify through the
autonomy Tomos the geographical limits and relations which the autonomous
Church has with the autocephalous Church (2b).
The canonical act of proclaiming
autonomy is communicated to the sister Orthodox Churches by the primate of the
autocephalous Church (2c). The statute of integration of the autonomous Church
in the autocephalous Church is strengthened also by the fact that its inter‐Orthodox,
inter‐Christian and interreligious relations are accomplished through the medium
of the autocephalous Church (2d). Furthermore, the primate of the autonomous
Church commemorates only the name of the primate of the autocephalous Church
to which it belongs (3a), from him also receiving the Holy and Great Myron (3c).
The document does not explicitly condition awarding the statute of
autonomous Church by the possibility of constituting a local synod, but allows
for this to be understood through the recognition of the autonomous Church’s
right of electing, enthroning and judging its bishops. Only in the case in which the autonomous Church would be incapable of assuming this responsibility,
can the autocephalous Church to which it reports assist (3d).
In this document there are certain stipulations which underline the
interest of the text at a pan‐orthodox level. These consolidate the role of mediator
for the Ecumenical Patriarchy, in case of certain jurisdictional conflicts in which the
institution of autonomy is involved or in case of organizing church life in the
Orthodox diaspora.
Paragraph 2f states:
In the event that two autocephalous Churches grant autonomous status
within the same geographical ecclesial region, prompting contestation over
the status of each autonomous Church, the parties involved appeal—together
or separately—to the Ecumenical Patriarch so that he may find a canonical
solution to the matter in accordance with prevailing pan‐Orthodox practice.
This wording draws attention to the apparition of jurisdictional
conflicts and tries to find a canonical solution in order to relieve the relations
between autocephalous Churches and reinstatement of canonical orderliness.
The mediator role is awarded in these situations to the primate. It is evident
that in the synodal system of church organization, the primate function cannot
be devoid of canonical value. The primate, as one amongst equals, has a canonical
function of harmony and consensus vector16. Even if the wording of this paragraph
seems to award the Ecumenical Patriarchy canonical capacity of identifying in
a unilateral way the canonical solution with regard to the said issue, considering
that its ending refers to the prevailing pan‐Orthodox practice, it is evident that the
canonical solution can only be identified consensually.
The resolution of dissensions
between the autocephalous Churches through consensus, being in fact the prevailing
pan‐Orthodox practice by which all bishops have to abide, as the 34th apostolic
canon attests.
The primate function is valued in paragraph 2e,this time in relation to
the management of church organization at the level of the Orthodox diaspora:
Autonomous Churches are not established in the region of the Orthodox
Diaspora, except by pan‐Orthodox consensus, upheld by the Ecumenical Patriarch
in accordance with prevailing pan‐Orthodox practice.
This phrasing is of particular importance because, having in mind the
previous mention according to which the autocephalous Church has the exclusive
competency of according autonomy to an ecclesial region, the sister Orthodox Churches implicitly assume that no autocephalous Church has jurisdiction
over the diaspora. Regardless, for the first throne in the Orthodox Church, that
which also has the responsibility of cultivating communion, is recognized the
competency of reception vector for the consensus of the autocephalous Churches
with regard to the proclamation of autonomy for an ecclesial region of the
Orthodox diaspora.
It is for the first time when a pan‐Orthodox document, approved in the
preparatory phase by all autocephalous Churches, expresses with one voice
the possibility of organizing autonomous churches in the diaspora. It is a first
step towards creating local Churches in the Orthodox diaspora. Simultaneously,
considering that the document implicitly affirms that no autocephalous Church is
entitled to a general jurisdiction in the Orthodox diaspora, we cannot refrain from
asking ourselves how would that Church be articulated in the communion of the
Orthodox Church. To which autocephalous Church would it belong, or how could
an autonomous Church which is not automatically integrated in an autocephalous
Church manifest itself?
As a conclusion to this first section of our analysis, we can underline
the fact that the document of the Holy and Great Council clarifies the way in which
Church autonomy is integrated in the institution of autocephaly and presents it as
a freestanding form of organization in an ecclesial and socio‐cultural context in
which such a structuring supports the mission of the Church.
Church autonomy has to be organized by respecting canonical tradition,
and the disagreements between autocephalous Churches with regard to this
institution’s mode of manifestation in a certain region must be resolved through
consensus. The Ecumenical Patriarchy only has a role of mediation and communion
vector. For the first time the possibility of organizing local autonomous churches
in the Diaspora is evoked, under the conditions of receiving consensus with the
support of the Ecumenical Patriarchy.
II. The issue of the Orthodox diaspora from the point of view of
the Holy and Great Council’s document
With the population movements of the beginning of the 20th century,
the Orthodox Church consolidated its presence outside of traditional canonical
territories. Thus, a new canonical entity emerged, the Orthodox diaspora,
which was perceived from the beginning as an atypical form of ecclesial
manifestation, for which the Church must find appropriate solutions both
from a canonical and pastoral‐missionary point of view. Even since the 1960’s
the presence of Orthodox communities outside of the traditional canonical
territories of the autocephalous Churches attracted the attention of canonists and ecclesiologists, and the subject was considered particularly sensitive, and in
need of anchoring in the canonical tradition and of communal understanding in
the Orthodox Church.
In addressing this issue, after a few terminological clarifications, I will
underline the challenges and opportunities brought by what we define as the
Orthodox diaspora, and I will highlight the application of organizational economy
to the pastoral‐missionary reality of the diaspora. Finally I will underline a few
perspectives opened by the conciliar document.
a. Terminological clarifications
The notion of diaspora originates from the Hebrew term galout, which
is linked in its classical sense to the notion by which the Jewish people outside
of Palestine were designated (Jacob 1,1; 1 Peter 1,1). Besides this etymology,
throughout time, some population movement analysts considered that at the
origin of the term17 employed in modern languages stands the Greek verb speiro
with the prefix dia, which means dispersal. Through this word we understand
a people dispersed beyond its traditional territory, which is characterised by
maintaining an identity separate from the socio‐cultural context to which it
emigrated18.
Sociologists also use the term in its plural form, speaking of diasporas,
incorporating in this notion not only the ethnic diaspora, but also other forms of
manifestation of identity groups beyond their traditional display environment19.
So, we can speak of an ethnic, confessional or ethno‐confessional diaspora20.
Amongst these forms of diaspora one can integrate the Orthodox diaspora,
defined as the “community of Orthodox Christians which live outside of the
originating territorial Churches and in any case, outside all territorial Orthodox
Churches”21.
It is evident that the diaspora was constituted in time, beginning with
ethnic migrations, but an Orthodox diaspora emerged which consists of perso who do not consider themselves as members of the ethnic diaspora22, a scattering
of the Orthodox faith amongst the persons originating from those respective
countries.
If the confessional element is that which grants the Orthodox diaspora’s
identity, the ethno‐cultural element cannot be neglected. It underlines the
language and tradition peculiarities. However, in the Orthodox diaspora, two types
of referring to the confessional and ethnic elements are identified. For the first
generation of emigrants, the ethno‐cultural element is prevalent, the faithful
calling themselves Romanian, Greek, Serbian‐Orthodox. Beginning with the second
generation a large part call themselves Orthodox‐Russians, Serbians, Greeks,
Romanians. This dynamic is common in the context of integrating the immigrants
in the host‐societies, and marks the passing from belonging to an ethno‐confessional
diaspora to a confessional presence marked by ethno‐cultural values.
b. The Orthodox diaspora, challenge and opportunity
Some considered that the Orthodox diaspora reveals the incapacity of
our Church to live a coherent relationship to canonicity23. In support of this
position the anomaly of situating multiple bishops in one city is highlighted. It
is taken as a sign of a chronic canonical disorder.
Others consider that organizing the Church’s mission while considering
cultural particularities is nothing else than endowing the Church with the necessary
means for a complex mission in a complex pastoral environment24.
Even if the opinions contradict with regard to the nature of the diaspora
issue, it is certain that the Orthodox diaspora offered and offers a framework in
which Orthodoxy is lived in a context of pan‐Orthodox interaction.
In the Orthodox diaspora, faithful of various origins can understand the
different traditions of their young coreligionists who are settling down in their
host countries, make friendships and appreciate Orthodox youths of other origins The elderly steadfast in the culture and traditions of their originating countries
end up cherishing different traditions.
Certainly, the diaspora is a complex reality and sometimes difficult to
manage, but it offers an auspicious framework for ample debates. In this diaspora,
personalities of the Orthodox Church confessed the values of Orthodoxy in front of
other Christians. This way, the particularities of Orthodoxy were better understood
by the others, and Orthodoxy itself was confronted with other ways of living the
Gospel.
Considering all of the above, we can say the Orthodox diaspora is not
only a medium which evokes complex issues, but also a providential aspect which,
if assumed coherently, can be capitalized25 upon.
If during the preparatory period of the Holy and Great Council there was
the wish that the provisory organisation would not exceed the moment of its
convening, in the fourth pre‐conciliar conference it was decided that the structures
created for manifesting unity in the Orthodox diaspora must be organized on a
long‐term basis, advancing towards a greater canonical coherency.
c. The Orthodox diaspora’s organization, application of canonical
economy at an organizational level
The document adopted by the Holy and Great Council underlines the
determination of all autocephalous Orthodox Churches of organizing the
diaspora according to the ecclesiology, tradition and practice of the Orthodox
Church26. This wish is displayed as a long‐term project originating from the
discovery formulated in paragraph 1 b which states that in the current phase
organizational economy is applied, creating, in a first stage27, 13 regions of
the Orthodox diaspora, enumerated in paragraph 3: Canada; the United States of
America; Latin America; Australia; New Zealand and Oceania; the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland; France; Belgium, the Netherlands and
Luxembourg; Austria; Italy and Malta; Switzerland and Lichtenstein; Germany; the
Scandinavian Countries (excluding Finland).
Paragraph 1b points out that the Orthodox diaspora is constituted as a
form of organizational economy while according to strict canonical order there
would be “only one bishop in a city”. This specification directly refers canon 8 of the First Ecumenical Synod, which points out that in order not to have two
bishops in a city, the Cathar bishops received to Orthodoxy need to be placed as
chorbishops or priests, if in the said city there was already an Orthodox bishop.
Starting from this affirmation, we ask ourselves if the monobishopric,
through itself, has the capacity of solving in a strict canonical manner the issue
of the Orthodox diaspora. It is obvious that overlapping ethnic jurisdiction in
the diaspora raises serious canonical issues28. But is this issue understood in
all of its complexity? We can speak of canonical normality only evocating the
mono‐episcopate, without speaking of the relationship with the canonical
reality of the local Church? Is it not also an issue of canonical disorder when
we do have a mono‐episcopate but it is not framed in the canonical reality of
the local Church? If in Latin America there would be only one bishop, member
of the Holy Synod of the Serbian Orthodox Church, and Orthodox faithful of
various origins, in order to be integrated into the Orthodox Church they would
need to be integrated into the Church of Serbia. Would this be canonical normality?
Certainly not. Canonical normality is when the people of a region are organized in
a local Church and consider themselves first and foremost as being Orthodox29,
and the local bishop fully embraces canonical responsibility, without being
integrated into a jurisdiction situated thousands of kilometres away, marked
by ethnic and cultural‐linguistic specifics, which is entirely different from that
in which he serves.
We notice that the document regarding the Orthodox diaspora avoids
using the notion of local Church, and leaves the impression that the problem
can be solved through an underlining of the role played by the Ecumenical
Patriarchy in the issue of the diaspora.
In this phase of manifesting synodality at a pan‐Orthodox level, the
issue of the diaspora was not resolved. The Church was satisfied to affirm the
need of common testimony in order that the diaspora is not a place of dissension,
but a medium of complementary manifestation of all charisms which nations can
highlight. Although regarding the organization of the diaspora some consider that
the situation is in fact a major disorder, others underline that current organization
of the diaspora is the only one which can offer reasonable pastoral solutions.
Respect towards the specificity of pastoral care in distinct ethno‐cultural
contexts is not singular in the history of the Church. Ever since the first centuries,
valuing the ethnic component was a means for mission.
The presence of some bishops with a jurisdiction based on the ethnic element is confirmed in the
synodal acts. At the Synod of Nicaea of 325, Teophilus, the bishop of the Goths
participated30. In Spain the synods of the Visigoths are mentioned31. The same
type of organization was found with the Gauls32. The Blessed Augustine speaks
of general, national and provincial synods. This way he affirms that national
synods reunited the bishops of a kingdom or of a people and that they are
presided by primates or patriarchs, the notion of patriarch itself being linked
with that of nation33. The conversion of the Franks and Visigoths to the Christian
faith and the conversion of their leaders gave birth to an organization which
took into consideration the ethno‐cultural element. In this sense, the Spanish
Visigoths’ regime is representative.
They had synods which regulated in an
autonomous manner, without Roman interference, in the life of these communities.
In the Orient we also have atypical situations which structure mission
amongst migratory people, doubling the territorial principle with the pastoral
availability for peoples. In the dioceses of Asia, Pontus and Thracia, in order to
ensure missions among the barbaric peoples, the Church decided to grant them a
distinct pastoral solicitude, as canons 2 from the Second Ecumenical Synod
and 29 from the Fourth Ecumenical Synod testify.
Canon 2 of the Second Ecumenical Council indicates that God’s Churches
which are among the barbaric nations must be led after the “custom established by
our fathers”. Ortiz of Urbina, speaking of this canon and about the barbaric
churches situated outside of the Empire underlines that they were linked to the
mother Churches which evangelized them34.
The Ethiopian Church was linked
to that of Alexandria, the Persian Church to that of Antioch.
Canon 28 Chalcedon underlines the way in which barbaric communities
were retreated from metropolitan territorial jurisdictions, finding themselves
under the direct authority of the patriarch who consecrated their bishops. In
canon 39 Trullo we have another example which speaks of the canonical solution
identified with the occasion of Cypriot’s dislocation to another territory. The
people thus moved gains the character of distinct Church from that of the territory
in which it was moved and does not request for the immigrants to be integrated in
the local Church where they ended up. Rather, it grants to the Church of the
emigrant people, which had a richer tradition, the right to consecrate the
bishop of the territory to which they emigrated.
Through these examples, I do not wish to justify the canonical normality
of extraterritorial jurisdiction. But I only find that the Church has always
found organizational solutions in order to sustain pastoral care in exceptional
circumstances and did not subordinate pastoral care to an absolute territorial
principle35. Thus, the Church knew how to integrate exceptions and qualified
them in relation to canonical normality, so long as the exception did not infringe
upon doctrine and proved itself necessary from a pastoral or missionary point
of view.
In continuity with the previously mentioned canons, in full canonicity, the
Holy and Great Council took the organization of the 13 regions of the Orthodox
diaspora upon itself and decided to constitute the gathering of bishops who carry
out their mission in these distinct pastoral contexts. Hence, the Church takes into
consideration the need for unitary manifestation in the diaspora and assigns to
the gathering of the bishops the mission of manifesting the unity of Orthodoxy
and developing communal actions for all Orthodox living in each region, in order
to answer the pastoral needs and to represent Orthodoxy before other confessions
and to the whole society of the said regions.
The last paragraph of the document regarding the diaspora underlines
the fact that autocephalous Churches commit not to laden the regulatory process in
a canonical manner of the issue of the diaspora and that they will do everything in
their power to facilitate the work of the bishop’s gathering and to establish the
normality of canonical order in the diaspora. The text exemplifies to this end
the commitment which the autocephalous Orthodox Churches make in order not to
give hierarchs already existing canonical titles. This affirmation, canonically
and deontologically correct, has a very complex charge. It is the conclusion of
ample debates on the titles of diaspora bishops, which materialized in meaningful
formal gestures.
If we consult the list of current bishops, we notice that the bishops
of the Ecumenical Patriarchy, who are active in the diaspora, are named after
the country where they reside, and the bishops of other jurisdictions are qualified
as being in the said countries. From reading these lists from the official page of
the Council we could understand that the autocephalous Churches agreed upon
this position expressed by the ecumenical Patriarchy. If we however consult the
signed documents, we notice that some bishops from the Orthodox diaspora
noted the modification of their title when they signed the documents and found the
“material error” correcting the title by hand. Even if this aspect could be considered
by some as a small detail, it is meaningful and would deserve its own analysis in an exclusive study dedicated to bishops’ titles in direct relationship to those
from the Orthodox diaspora. At this level of our analysis we only underline a
few incoherencies which still need to be clarified.
If the Orthodox bishop of the Ecumenical Patriarchy is the Metropolitan
of France, would it not mean that he is the bishop of a local Church, with complete
jurisdiction? If it is so, how does this title reconcile with the affirmations of the
documents regarding autonomy, which indicate that in the diaspora there is no
exclusive and direct jurisdiction of a local Church (2e) and with the document
regarding the Orthodox diaspora which shows that bishops named with the
said title are in the jurisdiction of the Patriarchy of Constantinople (2b)? This
statute of the Orthodox diaspora, as being in the pastoral care of the whole Church,
without a specific jurisdictional competence recognized to any Church is highlighted
also by article 13 of the document regarding the regulation of episcopal gatherings,
which gives to the Synaxis of the Primates the competency of deciding regarding
modifying territorial circumscriptions of the Orthodox diaspora36.
We notice that the document regarding the Orthodox diaspora uses very
often the expressions “canonical normality”, “in a canonical manner”, “established
pan‐Orthodox practice”. Resolving in a canonical manner an issue with which
the Church is confronted does not only mean to refer to certain canons, but to
resolve the problems in accordance with the canonical conscience of the Church,
considering the context and means which the Church has at its disposal.
Who has the competency of synthetizing the canonical conscience of
the Church? If each Church identifies in a unilateral way “canonical” solutions,
there is the risk of those solutions being marked by subjectivism. For this reason, the
canonical tradition highlights the Synod as competent court in order to resolve all
problems with which the Church is confronted, as the 37th apostolic canon
indicates. In synodality all difficulties can be overcome and precisely the degradation
of conciliar conscience leads to loss of sensibility towards canonicity. The 19th
canon of Chalcedon shows that disorders in the Church are not eliminated precisely
because the rhythmicity of conciliar reunions was lost. Therefore, the best method of
rediscovering canonical normality is exactly organizing synodality in the necessary
rhythm in order to solve the problems with which the Church is being confronted.
For local or regional problems, the answer must be given by local or regional synods.
For problems which pertain to the whole Church, answers must be given by the
general synods to which the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church belongs AUTONOMY AND ORTHODOX DIASPORA FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS ADOPTED …
129
* Associate Professor, Babes‐Bolyai University, Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Cluj‐Napoca.
E‐mail: pvlaicu@gmail.com.
1 See Viorel Ioniță, Hotărârile întrunirilor panortodoxe din 1923 până în 2009 (București: Ed.
Basilica, 2013), 166.
2 For more details on the concept of church autonomy, see Liviu Stan, “Despre autonomia bisericească”,
Studii Teologice, no. 10 (1958): 376‐393.
3 A remarkable study on this theme, which also analyses the rapport between autonomy and
jurisdictional authority is: J. H. Erickson, “Common Comprehension of Christians concerning Autonomy
and Central Power in the Church in View of Orthodox Theology”, Kanon, no. 4 (1980): 100‐112.
4 See Kallistos Ware, “L’exercice de l’autorité dans l’église orthodoxe (II)”, Irinikon, no. 55 (1982): 25‐34.
5 C. Vogel, “Communion et Eglise locale aux premiers siècles, Primauté et synodalité durant la période
anténicéenne”, L’Année canonique, no. 25 (1981): 170‐171.
6 See G. Papathomas, L’Eglise autocephale de Cypre dans l’Europe Unie (Katerini: Ed. Pectasis,
Katerini, 1998), 53‐81.
7 Although we notice that in the context of the Third Ecumenical Synod it concerns a deliberation on
this issue after the arguments of the parties, the Synod solely guarantees the prerogatives which
were already in effect. Through this canon, the Church of Cyprus does not acquire a different statute
from the previous one, but the existing one is confirmed and it allows the metropolitans to take a
copy of this decision in order to defend their complete autonomy. See also: J. Erikson, “Autocephaly
in Orthodox Canonical Literature to the Thirteenth Century”, St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly,
no. 1‐2 (1971): 31.
8 George Lampe, A Greek Patristic Lexicon (Oxford, 1961), 958. Cf. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott,
A Greek‐English Lexicon (Cambridge, 1996)
9 For more details see: P. L’Huillier, “Le décret du concile de Chalcédoine sur les prérogatives du
siège de la très sainte église de Constantinople”, Messager de l’Exarchat du Patriarchat russe
en Europe Occidentale, no. 27 (1979): 33–69
10 See V. Lombino, “Pentarchia”, in Nuovo Dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiane, ed. Angelo
Di Berardino (Genova‐Milano: Casa Editrice Marietti, 2008), 4023‐4028.
11 For a broader approach of Constantinople’s influence over church organization and of the
Christian east in general, see Alain Ducellier, ed., Byzance et le monde orthodoxe, 2e édition
(Paris: Armand Colin, 1996).
12 R. Janin, “Les Arméniens. L'église arménienne”, Échos d'Orient 18, no. 110 (1916): 6.
13 For more details see J. Kshutashvili, “Organizarea bisericii georgiene si bazele ei canonice”
(PhD Thesis, Constanţa: “Ovidius” University, 2007).
14 For more details see ibid.
15 Stan, “Despre autocefalie”, 388.
16 For more details on the canonical function of the primate see Patriciu Vlaicu, “Autorité et
coresponsabilité dans la fonction canonique du primat – les enseignements des quatre premiers
siècles et les défis actuels de l’Eglise”, in La primauté et les Primats (Paris: Cerf, 2015), 109‐124
17 Lisa Anteby‐Yemini et William Berthomière, “Les diasporas: retour sur un concept”, Bulletin
du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem, no. 16 (2005): 139.
18 M. Eliade, La nostalgie des origines (Paris: Gallimard, 1971), 85‐89.
19 For more details on the “various diasporas” see Alain Medam, “Diaspora / Diasporas. Archétype et
typologie”, Revue Européenne des MigrationsInternationales 9, no. 1 (1993), 63‐64.
20 The Unitarians emigrated because of religious persecutions. For more details on the Unitarians
see Michel Baron, Les unitariens (Paris: Harmattan, 2004).
21 See: G.D. Papathomas, Le Corpus Canonum de l'Eglise Orthodoxe, (1er‐9e siècles) Le texte des
Saints Canons ecclésiaux (Editions Pektasis, 2015), 1073.
22 In Western Europe there are more than 100 parishes which are primarily constituted of
Orthodox faithful originating from the said countries or from a third‐fourth generation of
immigrants. See Pnevmatikakis, “La territorialité de l’Église orthodoxe en France, entre exclusivisme
juridictionnel et catholicité locale”, Carnets de géographes [En ligne], 6 (2013),
http://cdg.revues.org/918, accessed Mai 18, 2017, doi: 10.4000/cdg.918.
23 G.D. Papathomas, “La relation d’opposition entre Eglise établie localement et Diaspora
ecclésiale – L’unité ecclésiologique face à la co‐territorialité et à la multi‐juridiction”, L’Année
canonique 46 (2004): 85.
24 An analysis of the link between territorial and personal mission is done by: Lewis J. Patsavos,
“Territoriality and Personality in Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Law: Canon Law Faces the
Third Millennium”, in Peter Erdo, Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of the Society
for the Law of the Eastern Churches (Budapest: Pazmany Peter Catholic Univ., 2002)
25 See Chronique, “A propos de la diaspora orthodoxe”, in Contacts 20, no. 61 (1968): 77.
26 N. Lossky, “La présence orthodoxe dans la diaspora et ses implications ecclésiologiques, de
même que celles des Églises orientales catholiques”, Irénikon 65, no. 3 (1992): 358
. 27 We notice that amongst these regions the Far East is not included, and for this reason the text
refers, in a first stage, to the organization of the diaspora
28 P. L’Huillier P., “L’Unité de l’Église au plan local dans la diaspora”, Contacts 30, no. 104 (1978): 403.
29 G.D. Papathomas, (2004) “La relation d’opposition entre Église établie localement et Diaspora
ecclésiale – L’unité ecclésiologique face à la co‐territorialité et à la multi‐juridiction”, L’Année
canonique 46 (2004): 83.
30 See Charles Joseph Hefele, Histoire des Conciles (Paris, 1869), 261.
31 See “Spanish Abbots and the Visigothic Councils of Toledo”, in Spanish and Portuguese Monastic
History 600‐1300, Variorum Reprints, V, (London, 1987), 142.
32 Prof. Brigitte Basdevant‐Gaudemet, “Les Evêques, les papes et les princes dans la vie conciliaire
de France du IVe au XIIe siècle”, R.H.D., 69 (1991).
33 See Abbé D. Bouix, Du Concile Provincial (Paris: Jacques Lecoffre et Cie, Editeurs, 1850), 10. 34 Ortiz de Urbina, Nicée et Constantinople (Paris, 1963), 214‐215.
35 For more details on the link between canonical principles and pastoral realities, see Patriciu Vlaicu,
“Les principes d’organisation ecclésiale face aux réalités contemporaines ‐ Territorialité et responsabilité
pastorale”, Année Canonique 49 (2007): 181‐190
36 Article 13. “The formation of a new Episcopal Assembly, the partition or abolition of an existing
Episcopal Assembly, or the merger of two or more of these Assemblies, occurs following the decision
of the Synaxis of the Primates of the Orthodox Churches, at the request of a particular Church, or the
request of the Chairman of a particular Episcopal Assembly to the Ecumenical Patriarch.”
REFERENCES
“A propos de la diaspora orthodoxe.” Contacts 20, no. 61 (1968).
“Spanish Abbots and the Visigothic Councils of Toledo.” In Spanish and Portuguese
Monastic History 600‐1300, Variorum Reprints, V. London, 1987.
Anteby‐Yemini, Lisa et William Berthomière. “Les diasporas: retour sur un concept.”
Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem, no. 16 (2005).
Baron, Michel, Les unitariens. Paris: Harmattan, 2004.
Basdevant‐Gaudemet, Brigitte. “Les Evêques, les papes et les princes dans la vie
conciliaire de France du IVe au XIIe siècle.” R.H.D., no. 69 (1991).
Bouix, Abbé D. Du Concile Provincial. Paris: Jacques Lecoffre et Cie, Editeurs, 1850.
Ducellier, Alain, ed. Byzance et le monde orthodoxe, 2e edition. Paris: Armand Colin, 1996.
Eliade, M., La nostalgie des origines. Paris: Gallimard, 1971.
Erickson, J.H. “Common Comprehension of Christians concerning Autonomy and Central
Power in the Church in View of Orthodox Theology.” Kanon, no. 4 (1980).
———. “Autocephaly in Orthodox Canonical Literature to the Thirteenth Century.” St.
Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, no. 1‐2 (1971).
Hefele, Charles Joseph. Histoire des Conciles. Paris, 1869.
Ioniță, Viorel. Hotărârile întrunirilor panortodoxe din 1923 până în 2009. București: Ed.
Basilica, 2013.
Kshutashvili, J. “Organizarea bisericii georgiene si bazele ei canonice.” PhD Thesis,
Constanţa: “Ovidius” University, 2007.
L’Huillier, P. “L’Unité de l’Église au plan local dans la diaspora.” Contacts 30, no. 104 (1978).
———. “Le décret du concile de Chalcédoine sur les prérogatives du siège de la très sainte
église de Constantinople.” Messager de l’Exarchat du Patriarchat russe en Europe
Occidentale, no. 27 (1979).
Lampe, George. A Greek Patristic Lexicon. Oxford, 1961.
Liddell, H. G. and R. Scott, A Greek‐English Lexicon. Cambridge, 1996.
Lombino, V., “Pentarchia.” In Nuovo Dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiane. Edited by
Angelo Di Berardino. Genova‐Milano: Casa Editrice Marietti, 2008. 4023‐4028.
Lossky, N. “La présence orthodoxe dans la diaspora et ses implications ecclésiologiques, de
même que celles des Églises orientales catholiques.” Irénikon 65, no. 3 (1992).
Medam, Alain. “Diaspora / Diasporas. Archétype et typologie.” Revue Européenne des
Migrations Internationales 9, no. 1 (1993).
Papathomas, G. L’Eglise autocephale de Cypre dans l’Europe Unie. Katerini: Ed. Pectasis,
Katerini, 1998.
Papathomas, G.D. “La relation d’opposition entre Eglise établie localement et Diaspora
ecclésiale – L’unité ecclésiologique face à la co‐territorialité et à la multi‐
juridiction.” L’Année canonique 46 (2004).
———. “La relation d’opposition entre Église établie localement et Diaspora ecclésiale
– L’unité ecclésiologique face à la co‐territorialité et à la multi‐juridiction”,
L’Année canonique 46 (2004).
———. Le Corpus Canonum de l'Eglise Orthodoxe, (1er‐9e siècles) Le texte des Saints
Canons ecclésiaux. Editions Pektasis, 2015.
Patsavos, Lewis J. “Territoriality and Personality in Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Law:
Canon Law Faces the Third Millennium.” In Peter Erdo, Proceedings of the 11th
International Congress of the Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches.
Budapest: Pazmany Peter Catholic Univ., 2002.
Pnevmatikakis. “La territorialité de l’Église orthodoxe en France, entre exclusivisme
juridictionnel et catholicité locale.” Carnets de géographes, 6 (2013).
http://cdg.revues.org/918, accessed Mai 18, 2017. doi: 10.4000/cdg.918.
R. Janin, “Les Arméniens. L'église arménienne”, Échos d'Orient 18, no. 110 (1916): 6.
Stan, Liviu. “Despre autonomia bisericească.” Studii Teologice, no. 10 (1958): 376‐393.
Urbina, Ortiz de. Nicée et Constantinople. Paris, 1963.
Vlaicu, Patriciu. “Autorité et coresponsabilité dans la fonction canonique du primat –
les enseignements des quatre premiers siècles et les défis actuels de l’Eglise.” In
La primauté et les Primats. Paris: Cerf, 2015, 109‐124.
———. “Les principes d’organisation ecclésiale face aux réalités contemporaines‐
Territorialité et responsabilité pastorale.” Année Canonique 49 (2007): 181‐190.
Vogel, C. “Communion et Eglise locale aux premiers siècles, Primauté et synodalité
durant la période anténicéenne.” L’Année canonique, no. 25 (1981).
Ware, Kallistos. “L’exercice de l’autorité dans l’église orthodoxe (II).” Irinikon, no. 55
(1982): 25‐34.