.png "English"){kind=small}
Prof. Hdr. Archim. Grigorios
D. Papathomas
Oslo 14.12.2012
Athens-Paris-Tallinn
First of all, in our epoch and in our world, we
observe more and more clearly that the mentality of our Churches became profoundly
aeonistic. But what is Aeonism? Where and how can it be found within the
Ecclesial body? What does it consist of?
Aeonism or Eonism
Aeonism[1], as a neologism, derives from the Hellenic
word aijwvn, aeon (Eng. Aeon, Eon — century). First
of all, the word “aeon” describes a
space or a period of time. In this perspective, there may be some derivative
notions in Greek such as “aeono-haris”,
one that eternally graces, but also one
that graces (cf. the interpretation of the compound words “hydro-haris”, “aimo-haris”) with the century, with its integration and its exhaustion
in the dimensions of the (current and historical) century, something that is
directly related to the term aeonism
in question.
The term aeonism
was coined for the theological literature and theology, when the notion “aeon”
(= the given historical period of mankind, the historical period as part of the
created) coincides with the History itself, the created itself and its
historical period in its present (fallen) form. This is evident in the
patristic threefold distinction in
“Pre-eternal [Pre-aeonic] — History — Eschata [Last Days]”
|
Indeed, the patristic concept of “pre-aeonic”, “pre-eternal”, “that which
occurs before the century”, identifies automatically the “century” with the
“History” (the period of Divine Providence, the Divine Economy), while
the Last Days, the Eschata, are defined as “beyond the (historical) time”, as
“beyond the (current) century”, so it is used in the plural in the Greek
translation of the Bible [“eis tous aeonas ton aeonon” – “forever and ever”] (Romans 1:25
and Philippians 4:20).
Therefore, the term derives from the secondary
meaning of the word “aeon” and expresses an existential approach and an outlook
on life associated with the “current century”, the History, the historical time
and, theologically, with the fallen world, the fall, the fallen human condition
and the fallen created. And yet, aeonism is directly related to a peculiar
attachment to the “fallen created” (extrinsically
luminous), which becomes independent of the communion with the “creative Uncreated (self-luminous), God the
Creator, and exhibits a dynamic ontological
self-fullness before Him.
In its new sense, this theological neologism
denotes the mentality of people who certainly believe in God, but are unable
(Ephesians 2:2) to make God Almighty,
that is, the “centre of their lives” (Abbot Dorotheos). This fact (Matthew
13:22; Mark 4:19) leads to the consequence of an “heterocentric perspective” (rejection of God in the transcendence
and in “what is to come” [Acts 26:22]), which takes (2 Cor 4:4) man away from
God “for having loved this present world” (2 Tim. 4:9) and traps him by placing
him (Luke 20:34) in the dimension of “this world” (John 18:36-37). This is a
category and a “intra-creational”
perspective, i.e. of containment and introversion to what is (now fallen)
created, forgetting its eschatological
orientation (Ephesians 1:21, Hebrew 6:5 and 11:20; 1 Tim. 4:8; Tit. 2:12),
which is based on the standard (Romans 12:2) [civitas terrena] “this present world” (worldly eschatology), or giving a dominant lead in this century (“this Century”, “this
present world”) against the future
century (the “future century” [Ephesians 1:21]). A typical example of mentality
of personal aeonism are the
words of Apostle Paul to his disciple Demas: “For Demas has forsaken me, having
loved this present century [world], and has departed for Thessalonica” (2 Tim.
4:9-10), who totally believed in God and was clearly equal to the Apostles, but
finally abandons the ministry [diakonia] of Christ and the purpose of
Church in History, precisely because he loved by priority, if not exclusively,
“this present world” (2 Tim. 4:9). In
other words, aeonism is above all an ontological
entrapment and restriction of man in the world, history and nature, placing
him on an aeonistic course without
any eschatological substance. It is an aeonistic way of existence, as a way of
life at the expense of the eschatological perspective of man.
Finally, in the context of the truly indistinct
aeonism, especially within the Church and much more in the dimension of the
world, we can discern a scaled mentality of collective aeonism that
gets stronger and prevails in the Church, if it does not get a theological and
pastoral attention, which tends to become a Church aeonism when the
mentality is embodied. And
it’s a proven fact that Church aeonism does not let ontologically or institutionally space for the advent of
eschatology. It wishes to be vindicated solely in this present time and this
present century and world with its own resources, aiming at aeonistic supports
and thus directly resulting in an ontological and ecclesiological heterocentrism. And Church aeonism gets
stronger and instils the Ecclesial body, then the Church, despite being Church,
will remain as such only superficially, but it will actually become an aeonistic
Church, i.e. it slips in the aeonistic
form “of this present world” (conformism;
cf. Rom. 12:2 and 2 Tim. 4:9), and is altered switching from an ontological
category to an aeonistic category fostering dubious aeonistic visions, whatever
this may entail about to what is to be done for its life, its existence in History
and its Ecclesiology.
In short, from the theological approach to this
concept, aeonism refers to man’s
vision and consideration of the “current century”, as if this century had an ontological self-fullness. Its visible
symptoms are apparent in events such as when the priorities of the present
world overshadow the sole priority of the Kingdom. In other words, aeonism is an emphasis on the
sufficiency of the “current century”, which exists as a “shadow of what is to
come” (Colossians 2:17) and “a type of him that was to come” (Romans 5:15), and
its conversion to an “ontological centre” of History and human life, changing
God from an “ontological center” and primary and archetypal member of a mutual
interpersonal communion into an epithematic area and a religious worldly idol.
A. “Church at a Location/Territory” or “Epithetical Church”? Their
relation with the Canonical Territory
Some of the words used by man to designate
dissimilar things have a certain meaning, in some sense more general than the
other meanings. In the current research, this is the case for the word Church. Through this word, we emphasise
a common nature and we do not
describe an established or specific Ecclesial body, found at a given territory and recognised and
distinguished by the name of the location. It is true, for example, that the Church of Corinth is just as much
“Church” as the Church of
Thessalonica, or the Church of Rome,
or the Church of Antioch. Therefore,
the “community of the signified”, which encompasses all of these Churches,
thereby granting them a common name, also needs a “distinctive feature” which
not only makes a Church known in
general (abstractly), but makes the specific Church known, i.e. the Church at a
specific location (locus), the Church
who is at Corinth, the Church who is
at Thessalonica and so forth.
Names have a particular demonstrative capacity,
on account of which the signified “Church” is not taken as “community of
nature”, but rather as a “distinctive characteristic” which, in itself, has nothing in common with
what is of the same nature, for example the Church of Corinth or the Church of
Thessalonica. This nominal group (the Church
at a Location) does not refer to
the “community of nature” but, from the collective meaning, singles out a
particular ecclesial reality, which is designated through the use of names.
Thus, taking two or more local Churches together, like the Church of Corinth
and the Church of Thessalonica and the Church of Antioch, we seek a definition
of nature of the Church. In this case,
we do not give a definition of the ecclesial
nature of the Church of Corinth, another definition for the Church of
Thessalonica and yet a third for the Church of Antioch. Rather, the terms used
to define the ecclesial nature of the
Church of Corinth will apply equally to the others. The aforementioned points
show the common character of “local”
or “territorial (locally established)”
Churches.
When, having clarified the matter of the common character, we attempt to examine
the individual characteristics by
which a Church differs from another, the definition used to designate a Local
Church, which ever it be, will no longer be confused with the definition of
others, even though they may have points in common. Therefore, the preceding
analysis which directly concerns Local
Churches (dioceses) also concerns mutatis
mutandis the territorial Churches,
whether they are Patriarchal, Autocephalous, Autonomous or semi-Autonomous
(henceforth referred to as “Territorial
or Autocephalous Churches”).
Etymologically, the epithetical designation “Autocephalous”, in the broad, not
technical, sense of the word, defines a territorial
Church who, according to ancient
ecclesial conciliar Tradition [1st, 3rd and 4th
Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea (325), Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451)
respectively, which record the earlier ecclesiastical praxis (2nd-3rd
centuries)], has its own head, i.e. its own primus-protos [leading head] (caput).
Consequently, it would appear appropriate to
follow this line of thought in our common research. Indeed, this assessment
allows us to distinguish between ecclesial
nature, common to all territorial Churches, and chorogeographic hypostasis, which is specific to each Church. This
double reality is evident for the Autocephalous
Church. But it is far from clear for the National Church which identifies, consciously or not, its common ecclesial nature with its specific chorogeographic hypostasis, at
the expense, of course, of the former and to the exclusive gain of the latter.
In other words, this identification automatically brings about the total
suppression of the balanced dialectic, which we have just observed for the
Autocephalous Church, because it brutally equates the Church with the Nation,
which exist at a specific location. It is now obvious that these conditions
have not only led to the genesis of Autocephalism[2]
and Ethno-phyletism[3],
but also of Meionism[4]–
all three genuine products of the National Church. We are obliged, however, to
first make some clarifications on the issue.
At this point we must emphasise that the choice
of grammatical construction used when referring, for example, to “the Church of
Greece” or to “the Greek [Helladic]
Church”, is not merely a syntactical one, but, on the contrary, is of decisive
importance in approaching our issue. In recent years, we have adopted the
latter expression without giving it the necessary thought, and this choice has
insidiously diffused into our ecclesial life, both theological and
institutional. Indeed, we have adopted two different designations to name a
Church of one location or one country. The designations are the following: “Church at a location” and “Epithetical Church”, e.g. “Church of
Greece” and “Greek [Helladic]
Church”, “Church of Romania” and “Romanian Church”. In other words, we use, interchangeably
and without any distinction, a local
designation next to the word Church,
which remains the common ecclesial reality, and, in the second case,
increasingly often, an epithetical
(adjectival) designation which defines a completely distinct and specific
ecclesial reality – astonishingly with the same meaning and in the same
perspective.
Let us firstly examine the relationship, which
exists between the “epithet” and the “territory”, and then the relationship
between the “ethno-phyletic complement” and the “location”. By the nominal
group “Church of Thessalonica” we mean a city, a location, a specific
territory. Location is a notion for capacity, which defines a whole and
contains all the “inhabitants of the
location”[5].
Therefore, if we assumed the use of epithetical
designations, we would be using words designating the “content” of the
“inhabitants of the location”: rich, poor, white, black, young, old, beautiful,
ugly, men, women, and thus also Russian, Serbian, Romanian, Greek, and so
forth. All these words can be used to designate situations which reflect human
reality. However, as it so “happens”, all these last words are adjectives or
“epithets designating origin or nationality”. It is evident that we cannot have
a “Church of the rich” and a “Church of the poor”, a “Church of the whites” and
a “Church of the blacks”, a “Church of the young” and a “Church of the old”, a
“Church of men” and a “Church of women”. Analogously, we cannot have a “Church
of the Russians”, a “Church of the Serbs” (cf. however, “Patriarchate of the
Serbs” [sic]), a “Church of the
Romanians”, a “Church of the Greeks” etc., much less have a “Russian Church”,
“Serbian Church”, “Romanian Church”, “Greek Church” etc. From the above, then,
it emerges that the adjective has exclusive implications and implications of
exclusivity, has distinctive implications and implications of distinction, but
mainly has comparative, antagonistic and oppositional implications.
The territory unites while the adjective distinguishes
and opposes. In order to make this
reality more accessible, we will describe an observation, or rather, a
comparison, capable of pointing out this particular difference. We say “Church
at a location”, e.g. “Church at
Corinth”, “Church of Thessalonica”. The common
denominator is the Church; it is the Church who is one and common, and can
be found in Corinth or in Thessalonica, or elsewhere throughout the Earth.
Therefore the “location” simultaneously affirms the otherness (alterity) and
the communion of all the members of
this location, while the “adjective” affirms only the otherness – and mainly the possessive
otherness – and exclusivity, with
no particular interest for communion: we assume the use of epithets concerning
only certain members independent of location. In addition, the epithetical
designation distinguishes itself for its unchanging, permanent (μονιμότης) and firm (σταθερότης) character. Consequently, it gives
the noun in question an unchanging
and firm quality. (For example, the
“Church of the Serbs” forever and for nobody else… thus “ostracising”
non-Serbs…).
We also ought to emphasise that etymologically
“epi-thet” means we “add onto” the
substantive, onto the substance (the word comes from the feminine genitive “οὖσα” of the verb “εἰμί” [to be] = “ὑπάρχω” [to exist]). In other words, it specifies the way according to which
we exist. Therefore, “Romanian Church” means that we exist ecclesiastically
according to “Romanian exclusivity”, “Greek Church” means that we exist
ecclesiastically according to “Greek exclusivity”, while “Church of Romania”
refers to the Church who can be found in Romania and who is the same as the Church found any other location and consists
of all “Christian inhabitants of the location”, regardless of whether they are
Romanian or not, in other words, regardless of their origin. By the same
reasoning, “Church of Greece” is the Church who is present in Greece, but who
is the same Church as that in other locations, and comprises of all “Christian
inhabitants of the location”, regardless of whether they are Greek or not,
regardless therefore of their origin. For this reason, Ecclesiology neither
assumes epithetical designations nor temporal designations (as, for example,
“Byzantine Church”, which ecclesiologically is senseless, etc.) to designate an
Ecclesial body or a Territorial Church, but exclusively uses [geographic] designations of territory.
To give a representative example of the
consequences of the aforementioned use of epithets, we will look at the case of
Paris of the Orthodox Church. On the façade of the churches we can easily
see the title or, better, the solecism “Russian Orthodox Church of Paris”,
“Romanian Orthodox Church of Paris”, “Greek Orthodox Church of Paris” etc., and
all this on the territory of another Territorial
Church. Furthermore, the possibility of using the name “Church of Russia of
Paris”, “Church of Romania of Paris” etc., is unacceptable ecclesiologically
and impossible canonically, and it does not justify an ecclesiastical
representation outside the canonical territory of these Churches. It becomes
clear, therefore, why the use of an epithet
in modern orthodox Ecclesiology is particularly helpful to national or
Universalist intentions. This fact, from the point of view of the
“Autocephalous Church”, causes flagrant anti-canonicity, while for the
“National Church” it gives the “canonical right” (sic) to develop all kinds of ecclesiastical activities without
causing any ecclesiological or canonical problems, since the national ecclesiastic vision comes first
and overwhelms.
By the way, in the case of the Roman-Catholic
Church, we cannot say “Church of
Rome” and through this name designates an ecclesial community, e.g. the Church
of Johannesburg. But if, instead, we said “Roman-Catholic Church”, we could
very well mean the Church of Johannesburg as well as many others throughout the
world. This second designation favours the perspective of the adjective “Universal [Church]”. Therefore, the
tendency to reject the designation of
location is recurring and it favours the exclusive domination of the epithet and of the Epithetical Church. We must not forget that the Second Vatican
Council, besides the ecclesiology of the Universal
Church, constantly tried, in vain, to develop the ecclesiology of a Local Church in order to surmount the
monism of ecclesiological universality.
The same non ecclesiological and non canonical
phenomenon can also be observed for Protestant Churches. As an offshoot
of the Roman Catholic Church, and without their own territories for the
development of the communities having emerged from the Reformation, they have
become “spiritual” and “confessional”. In this case, the designation of location has totally disappeared, therefore, only an
epithetical designation can be used
to distinguish these communities, not only from the Roman Catholic Church but also from themselves. Why? For the simple
reason that they do not wish to be mixed or confused. It is not fortuitous that
it is the epithet that helped them differentiate and distinguish themselves and
not the designation of location,
which for Protestant Churches does not even exist. Even the Anglican
Church, which was established on a given state territory, achieved its
self-definition and self-designation through an epithet – having experienced
the same influence – and not through a designation of location.
We have established, then, that the choice of
one or the other verbal construction is not arbitrary and without cause, and
that the meaning is not the same in each case and, mainly, that because of this
fact, every notion, our every position and our every orientation shifts
according to the expression used. Therefore, all these insights oblige us to
think about the necessities brought about by using an epithet to define or designate a Church. They also point out the
depth of the division within Christian communities – whether inter-Orthodox or
inter-Christian – and, mainly, the need for distinction between them…
The Church, whether Local [Diocese] or Territorial [Autocephalous] (but not “specific [Church]”, which bears no
relation[6]
to the “territorial Church”),
advocates otherness within communion
and communion within otherness.
Similarly, the Territorial Church is a geo-ecclesiastical reality, an entity
and an identity which emerges “in the relation towards” (εἰς σχέσιν
πρὸς) and through communion, but never in isolation
and separation. A Local or a Territorial Church simply cannot exist without the
other Local or Territorial Churches. This is precisely what distinguishes the territorial Church from the epithetical Church. It is also what
distinguishes the Autocephalous Church
from the National Church (national
ecclesiastical individualism or, in general way, collective individualism). The
National Church holds the unwavering belief that it can exist without the
others (existential self-fullness). Consequently, the Church ought to appear,
in all its dimensions, as “communional”, itself being relational both towards its identity and towards its structure, and
in this way to be the archetypal model of
unity. Finally, the Church can exist and function “in Christ within the
Holy Spirit” only in her relation to the Trinitarian mode of existence of God.
* * * * *
I suggest, for a start of the practical view of
this qustion, that we examine just one article from the Statutory Charters of a
hellenophone and a slavophone Church, specifically, the Statutory Charter of the Church of Cyprus (1980) and the Statutory Charter of the Church of
Russia (1988 and 2000), as well as the Synodic
Appeal of the Church of Romania (2010).
A.
Church of Cyprus: “Members
of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus
are:
• all Cypriot Orthodox
Christians, who have become members of the Church through baptism, and who are permanent residents of Cyprus[7]
as well as
• all those of Cypriot origin[8],
who have become members of the Church through baptism, and are currently residing
abroad” (Article 2, statutory charter of the Church of Cyprus-1980)[9].
B.
Church of Russia: “The
jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox
Church extends to
• people of Orthodox
Confession residing in the USSR [1988]; residing on the canonical territory of the Russian
Orthodox Church [2000], as well as
• people[10] who reside
abroad and who voluntarily accept its jurisdiction” (Article I, § 3, Statutory Charter of the Church of
Russia-1988 and 2000)[11].
C.
Church of Romania:
“At the beginning of the year 2010,
proclaimed by the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church as Anniversary
Year of the Orthodox Creed and of Romanian Autocephaly , in the context of
the 125th anniversary of the moment when the Romanian Orthodox Church became
autocephalous and of the 85th anniversary of the elevation to the rank of
Patriarchate, the hierarchs of the Holy Synod are reaching out and addressing a
Heartfelt appeal to all Romanian Orthodox clerics and faithful abroad, who
are, without blessing, in other sister Orthodox Churches or in non-canonical
church structures, to restore their direct communion with their Mother Church,
under the canonical jurisdiction of the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox
Church.
The realization of this desideratum is
the fulfillment of the provisions of the Bylaw for the Organization and
Functioning of the Romanian Orthodox Church, which mentions that the
Romanian Orthodox Church is the Church of the Romanian people and encompasses
all Orthodox Christians in Romania and the Romanian Orthodox Christians abroad
(article 5), and the canonical and pastoral organization of the Romanian
Orthodox faithful outside Romania is ensured by the Holy Synod of the Romanian
Orthodox Church (article 8). This principle is in full accordance with the
decision of the Pan-Orthodox Pre-Conciliar Conference of Chambésy-Switzerland
(June 6-13, 2009), which specifies that each autocephalous Church has the right
to shepherd its own diaspora.
The above-mentioned principles are
expressing the duty of the Romanian Orthodox Church and are based upon the 16th Canon of the 1st
Ecumenical Council (325),
which contains the principle that no diocese is allowed to receive under its
jurisdiction Orthodox clerics and faithful, without the blessing of the Church
(diocese) to which they belong.
To this end, we are mentioning that the
process of returning of the clergy and faithful of different nationalities to
their Mother Churches (such as in the Moscow Patriarchate and the Serbian Patriarchate)
has already started for a long time and has shown that, through shared
responsibility and ethnic Orthodox solidarity, the conjunctural historical
feuds, based on past political motives, can be overcome.
Now, when 20 years have passed since the
fall of the Communist regime in Eastern Europe, when Romania is a member of the
European Union and of NATO and in the context of an unprecedented activity of
the Romanian Orthodox Church abroad, through the reorganization and foundation
of numerous dioceses across the world, we think that there are no more
real reasons to reject the call of the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox
Church to unity and Romanian Orthodox communion.
We are confident that this attitude
of Romanian Orthodox resurrection and reconciliation will consolidate
and intensify the pastoral-missionary, social-philanthropic and
cultural-educational ministry of the Romanian Orthodox Church everywhere,
strengthening at the same time the Romanian Orthodox dignity,
through the liberation of some Romanian Orthodox from considering themselves
'searchers of canonical shadows' among strangers.
We are regretting that, for several
reasons, some of our Romanian Orthodox brothers have sought other Orthodox
jurisdictions, during Communism, but what was understandable in the
past has become unreasonable and regrettable in present times,
amounting to estrangement of Romanians from one another, up to their Church
division.
Being confident that our appeal to
unity and Romanian Orthodox dignity will be received with joy and
responsibility, as a desire for communion and brotherly cooperation, we are
sharing with everyone our utmost respect and fatherly blessing” (Appeal to Unity and Romanian Dignity of the Holy Synod of the Romanian
Orthodox Church, Bucharest, February 11, 2010).
First of all, these articles are representative
of Statutory Charters with three main and common non-ecclesiological and
non-canonical properties:
a) The
jurisdiction of these Territorial Churches extends itself, deliberately and
principally, to people – just as in
the ecclesiology of the Reformation… – and not exclusively to territories. In
other words and without further analysis, the exertion of ecclesiological
jurisdiction on people simply means that this single statutory fact gives these
Territorial Churches the right to penetrate, by definition, into the canonical territories
of other Territorial Churches… On “people” therefore, and not on “canonical
territory”, as we shall see further on, which is only invoked in self-defence,
in order to prevent external ecclesiastical interventions on their own
ecclesial territory on the part of some other jurisdiction acting according to
the same principles, since they themselves statutorily practice such
ecclesiastic interventionism on the canonical territory of other Churches.
b) The
Churches statutorily declare that they are unwilling, for any reason, to limit
the exertion of their jurisdiction to territories situated within their
canonical boundaries, as they should ecclesiologically since, not only are they
both Territorial Churches, but also because the principle of Autocephalism, which determines their
ecclesiological and institutional existence, demands it.
c) Most
importantly, these Churches, when referring to territories outside their frontiers, knowingly and purposely make no
distinction between territories plainly of the “Diaspora” and principal
canonical territories of other Territorial Churches. By extension, this
particular statutory reference to people
obliterates the elementary canonical distinction of “canonical territories” and
“territories of the Diaspora”, creating another anti-ecclesiological phenomenon
and characteristic: a global
ethno-ecclesial jurisdiction of every National Church.
Indeed, on the basis of what we
have just examined, it is easy to realise that the ecclesiological innovations
of non-canonical content, introduced in these two Statutory Charters no less
than into the “General Dispositions” of the statutory text, as well as in the
Synodal Declaration of “Romanian Dignity” (sic),
not only create, by definition, within the territories of the “Diaspora” – and
not only – a situation of co-territoriality,
but also its inevitable direct product,
multi-jurisdiction. Furthermore, another element common to both these
Statutory Charters and to Romanian Synodal Declaration, when they speak of the
members of their respective Church, is the total absence of the most elementary
ecclesiological distinction between the “faithful of the ethno-ecclesial
Diaspora” and the “faithful of other territorial Churches”. In practice, this
means that they consider their members to be, not only the faithful of first
category, but also all faithful without exception, i.e. the faithful who are outside their canonical territories, whether
they are in the territories of the “Diaspora”, whether they are on the
canonical territory of another territorial Church or, worst of all, whether
they are fully and territorially members of another Church (cf. Statutory
Charter of the Church of Russia)… Finally, the statutory possibility of choosing, of their own accord, the
ecclesiastical jurisdiction of their preference (sic) is given to all these
faithful, wherever they might find themselves, but also wherever their
preferred Church might be (Statutory Charter of the Church of Russia)…
Consequently, these two Statutory
Charters and the Romanian Synodal Declaration, although they are not the only
ones in the orthodox world, cause, from an ecclesiological point of view, such “a
confusion of Churches” – to use the
fitting expression from canon 2/II –, which has no institutional parallel or
precedent in the Church’s two-thousand year existence. One example suffices. If
what the Statutory Charters enounce is really true, then a Cypriot, who resides
in Cyprus and who, according to the Statutory Charter of the Church of Russia,
“places himself of his own accord under the jurisdiction of the Russian
Church”, has the possibility of not being a member of the Church of Cyprus, as
the Statutory Charter of the Church of Cyprus would assert since the faithful
resides there, but instead would be a member of the Russian Church. It follows
that, if such people are more numerous – and we could suppose that they are or
might become… – the Statutory Charter of the Church of Russia directly and
immediately gives the canonical right to the Church of Russia of forming a
Russian ecclesial community within the territories of the Church of Cyprus (or
the Church of Romania) and, also, to place a bishop at the head of this
community, as it seems fashionable these days given the “hypermobility”
observed in many Orthodox Churches, in order to elevate, through the
enthronement of the bishop, the community to the status of “Local Church”…,
obviously not dependant on the Territorial Church, but rather on its
“Mother-Church”, to which it belongs “ecclesially”, according to the latter, or
under the jurisdiction of the Church it has chosen of its own accord…
So let us not deceive ourselves. If
these statutory phenomena just described can happen legitimately since they are statutory, and they do happen in the
territories of territorial Churches, how can we dream to resolve the “problem
of the Diaspora”, when on these territories [of the Diaspora], there is no canonical ecclesial regime for every
National Orthodox Church, and, consequently, we can develop any form of ecclesial activity, since “our Statutory
Charter” not only allows it, but also encourages it? This is why, by
definition, given that an “intra-confessional co-territoriality” exists, not
only can there be no communion
between the “national orthodox jurisdictions” (sic), but there is not even basic cooperation, humanly speaking, on a practical corporate level (not
to bring up the painful reality that there is only antagonism…). Such has already happened once, with the Christian
confessions in the West… Perhaps this is why in the future there will be a need
to develop an… Orthodox Ecumenical
Movement specifically for the “territories of the Orthodox Diaspora”!...
Furthermore, in these statutory
dispositions we have a fourth important element, as a consequence of the
combination of the previous three: the creation of a “global ethno-ecclesial jurisdiction” which, naturally, goes against the ecclesiology
of the territorial and Autocephalous Church, for the simple reason that it
undermines and abolishes the other territorial Patriarchal and Autocephalous
Churches, or tacitly implies, a priori,
that in practice, these Churches do not exist and so neither do their
communion. In this way, each National Orthodox Church has global jurisdiction with two territorial categories in which it
exerts its jurisdiction: a) its canonical
territory and b) all the remaining
territory of the World, regardless of whether this territory is that of the
supposed “Diaspora” or whether it is the canonical territory of another territorial
Orthodox Church. It is clear by now that these Statutory Charters, as Synodal Decisions, are totally devoid of
ecclesiological criteria and priorities, but are written, rather, according to
ideological, political and national, not to say nationalist, criteria, and as
such have absolutely no resemblance and connection – none whatsoever – to the
Canonical Tradition of the Church. And most disappointing of all is the fact
that these two Statutory Charters of territorial Churches are among the most
recent, written by the last generation of orthodox theologians.
Returning to our example, if we
tried to apply the statutory disposition of the Church of Cyprus outside its
canonical boundaries, the Patriarchate of Moscow would answer that Russia
constitutes its canonical territory
and that no external ecclesial intervention of any form is permitted there… The
same response would be given by the Church of Cyprus in the opposite case of
applying the Statutory Charter of the Church of Russia, i.e. the Church of
Cyprus would respond that the island of Cyprus is its canonical territory… The painful conclusion of this statutory
activity and practice is that we have, in practice, two ecclesiologies which are tragically in conflict with each
other: on one hand, a) an ecclesiology of
“canonical territory” of each territorial Church and, on the other hand, b)
an ecclesiology of the “national
worldwide Church”. So we have two contradictory ecclesiologies, though both
are applied in overlap, by the near totality of the National Orthodox Churches simultaneously. This is where the
ecclesiological problem lies today: in these two dual and overlapping
ecclesiologies, which in turn create multiple parallel and overlapping “ecclesial
jurisdictions” (sic) at one and only
location, essentially bringing about a jurisdictional
fragmentation of the ecclesial body and giving rise to a “confusion of Churches” (c. 2/II) without
historical precedent. This by itself is enough to demonstrate the downward
plunge which characterises the Orthodox Church in the world today. Finally, the
Church of Russia’s proposition for the constitution of a “Russian Autonomous Metropolis in Western Europe” (April 2003),
consisting of all the kinds of Russian
communities existing there, is completely in line with the statutory
ecclesiology of this territorial Church.
Here, I would like to tell of a recent
occurrence to illustrate what has just been said. One day, a professor of
catholic theology in Paris, while speaking about the Orthodox Church of
Russia’s refusal to allow Catholic clerics in Russia, gave me the following
account: “During a recent congress, I asked a Russian Archimandrite theologian
(today a bishop): Where is the Russian
Church situated? He answered: Wherever
there are Russian Orthodox Christians!... [cf. the juridical principle of jus sanguinis]. We are in total agreement, I said. According to catholic ecclesiology as well, the Catholic Church
exists wherever there are people of catholic faith. The same which applies to
you applies to us. So why do not you allow our clerics to enter Russia for the
catholic communities existing there, since they “accept of their own accord the
jurisdiction of the Catholic Church”[12]
(January 2002) especially considering that we do allow Russian orthodox clerics
into the canonical territories of the Western Church? No! he replied, Russia is the
canonical territory of the Church of Russia [cf. the juridical principle of
jus soli] and no other has the right
to enter!...”.
Herein lies the supplementary
problem of dual ecclesiology. The example is striking. On one hand we have canonical territory, the incontestable
argument of “self-protection” and self-defence, and on the other hand we have ethno-ecclesial global jurisdiction, the
expansionist (not to say imperialist) ecclesiastical practice. This amounts to
a different ecclesiology for the interior of the country and the interior of
the territories of the territorial Church, and a different ecclesiology for the
exterior of the country and the territories outside the canonical boundaries of
the Church, regardless of whether these are territories of the “Orthodox
Diaspora” or the canonical territories of other territorial Churches, or even
territories of the Patriarchate of Rome… Ecclesiological principles of this
kind, as inaugurated by the Statutory Charters, leave no margin for ecclesiological communion between
Churches and, worst of all, they completely disregard other territorial
Churches, thus clearly confirming the rupture of ecclesiological unity and the
weakening of the communion of Churches. A priori, such charters directly give, to every territorial
Church in this mindset, the feeling of being a totally autonomous and unique “ecclesial being” on a global level,
thus creating Autocephalism and Hydrocephalism, but never communion of Churches…
Lastly, these two Statutory Charters and the
Romanian Synodal Declaration, that we have examined, are imbued with the spirit
of the time of their writing. They do not shape the statutory canonical ethos
of a Church, but rather reflect and diffuse the dominant ethno-phyletic
ecclesiology of the 20th century, experienced through the climate of
the Ecumenical Movement and the latent practice of ethno-phyletism. This, as we
have seen, is the ecclesiology of global
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, of co-territoriality and of multi-jurisdiction,
which is so clearly present in this last generation of Statutory Charters
(1980-2010), while, at the same time, remaining completely unacceptable for the
theology of the Church.
However, it is not only the Statutory Charters
which are imbued with this ecclesiological spirit. We also encounter people who
deal with sensitive aspects of ecclesial life with precisely these
ecclesiological conceptions. It suffices to mention one fact from the life of
the “Orthodox Diaspora” in Western Europe
(sic), which has to do with the
Territorial Church of Romania.
Three points of this monumental text call for
some final remarks, or rather questions, concerning the two previous statutory
cases:
a) By which
criterion are we considered to be a member of a territorial Church: the
criterion of baptism or that of “ethnicity”? Furthermore, according to which
canonical principle is “ethnicity” considered a valid criterion of adherence to
a local Church? Finally, based on what canonical right are we introducing a
distinction between “ethnicities” amongst the members of Christ and in the
ecclesiological constitution of His Body, thus forming a particular ecclesiastical entity, distinguishing it from any other,
on one and only territory?
b) If it is
really possible to have more than one bishop in the same city, using the
argument that everyone belongs to the same Church of Christ, then why does
canon 8/I expressly forbid it? Was it perhaps unaware of this …“ecclesiological
truth” which we so sincerely invoke today? And yet, these overlapping Episcopal
“jurisdictions”, even in a situation of “Diaspora”, constitute an enormous
ecclesiological problem which brings about the canonical penalty of the “rupture of communion”. Some would
remark: But this is an ecclesiological problem which will in time be resolved!... In this case, one might
wonder why we are not in full communion with the Roman Catholics, even though
the ecclesiological problem of the “rupture
of communion” (1054) is still pending between us, since one day it will be
resolved…
c) The
salvation of the faithful has always been related to ecclesial unity and to the communion
of the faithful. Can this really be achieved regardless of the existence of
an ecclesiological problem which alters consciences, ecclesial unity and the communion
of the faithful, i.e. the constitutive elements of this salvation?
According to the preceding analysis, the Universal National Church, created by these
two Statutory Charters and the Romanian Synodal Declaration, cannot live and
flourish under the conciliar light of the “definition of faith” of Chalcedon,
while the Autocephalous Church seeks
and finds her roots in this conciliar light. In our day, territorial Orthodox Churches – like all Christians in fact – are
confronted with a challenge: the evangelical witness of ecclesial unity and
ecclesial communion across the world, in our time of globalisation, following
the example of the Apostles who, coming from Palestine, gave the evangelical
witness to the entire Roman world. It is certain that nothing of the sort will
happen through the “National Church”.
For if it did, this evangelical witness would be devoid of meaning.
Consequently, the ecclesial vision of Ecclesial Orthodoxy does not coincide
with the vision of the Universal National
Church, but with the vision of the Territorial
Autocephalous Church. This constitutes not only an ecclesial asset, but
also an ultimate purpose.
Herein lies a question: what will become of the
“National Church” during the European Age,
already begun two decades ago (1993), when there will no longer be Serbs,
Romanians, Greeks, but only simply “Europeans”? What epithet will the “National
Church” adopt to define itself? The issue under discussion therefore has an
expiry date… and we are merely troubling ourselves about its future
perspective. Perhaps here is where the gravity of the problem lies: Orthodox
Christians will want to keep their “national messianism” – under “threat” by
European unification – alive past the expiry date, just as the Jews of the
Christian age tried to keep their “old testamentary messianism” alive after its
expiry date. The endeavour is rooted in the same logic: believing that they are
the Chosen People, they must preserve
this “national-messianic choice” at any cost, to keep from being mixed or
confused with other people. However, under the light of the resurrection and
the expectation of the Future Age, there will be only one chosen people in
Christ: the whole of humanity, humankind, “all nations”[13]
which have been chosen and invited to co-participate in the Kingdom of the
Future Age.
Finally, “the question of the National Church”
is not merely a formality but a restoration of ecclesial conscience, which has
been shaken on one hand by the idol of ethnocentrism
and of patriocentrism – which has
brought the scattering and the atomisation of the Church into national units,
thus ruining the ecclesial communion
promised by the Autocephalous Church – and on the other hand by the idol of policy which transformed the territorial
[Autocephalous] Church into an
“annex” of the local political parties. The Church has always been territorial and spatial but never epithetical
and national. The latter, fully
and clearly corresponding to a “politico-national” Church, is a particular
trait of the West where “the condition of the States have been influenced by
Reformation. This situation is due to historical developments and to the
possibility the Churches had of organising themselves without being dependent
on an outside power, the Holy See”[14].
Here we can see the influence of the Reformation on the Orthodox Church,
generally, and specifically during the 19th century on the Orthodox
populations of the Balkans vis-à-vis the Ecumenical Patriarchate of
Constantinople (always preserving proportions). Orthodox National Churches of the present day were born out of this
historical-political environment, and remain steadily and unwaveringly attached
to it.
At the time, they had a specific request:
originating from the Ottomanocracy (the Ottoman Empire), these ethnic groups
wanted an independent and National Church
at any cost, their own National
Church, seeking to align themselves with the principle of nationalities, which
was clear: “cujus regio ejus religio”.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate responded justly to this request by granting them
not a National Church but an Autocephalous Church. These people were
enchanted by Autocephaly, but this fact clearly went on to show what was “received”
and “understood” by a Territorial Autocephalous Church… Historical developments
once again raise a question: historically, did these people grasp the
difference between these two perspectives, so different from one another and
ultimately diametrically opposed? The answer is probably negative, given that
the National Church steadily though erroneously prevails, as frequently in States with
an Orthodox majority (egataspora) as
in the orthodox national diaspora…
Finally, Orthodox people are blamed for having lost the notion of the Autocephalous Church and, dominated or
dependent on religious and ethno-messianic nationalism, they put forward as
their exclusive Orthodox Ecclesiology, the National
Church.
* * * * *
In Orthodox Ecclesiology of the recent decades,
the geographical or spatial universality of the pleroma/faithful took second place to national universality. The Territorial
Church was restricted to the conciliar
condition of otherness, forgetting the iconic
dimension of communion. When the strategic
priority of a National Church is no
longer the glory of God and the
anticipation of the Future Age, but
the glory of the Nation, it loses its primary interest, as it focuses solely on
this perspective of Eonistic[15]
monism, totally alien to the
eschatological identity of the Church. Similarly, in the case of the territorial Church, if ecclesial theology does not lead ecclesiastical policy and the visions of
the Ecclesial body, or at least inspires them, then canonical deficiency will
constantly characterise ecclesial life, as much in the Egataspora as in the “Diaspora”.
From
the beginning, the Church has always existed as Eucharistic concerning her manner of existence and
as Territorial concerning her reason of existence, to
remind saint Maximus the Confessor. Finally, to say through a simple way, within the Ecclesial Theology,
there is a sympathy vis-à-vis the religious
co-existence, but there is not at all a sympathy vis-à-vis the multi-ecclesial co-existence on the same
locus, or, as we can say by using a canonical terminology, a total antipathy to
the Ecclesial co-territoriality!...
[1] See an analytic development of this
theological question in Épiskepsis,
t. 41, n° 712 (30-04-2010), p. 29-32 and 26-28 (bilingual : in Greek and
in French respectivelly), and in Big
Orthodox Christian Encyclopaedia (MOXE), t. 2, Athens, ed. Strategical
Publisher House, 2011, p. 22 [col. a, b, g, d]-23 [col. a] (in Greek).
[2] Here, this neologism, which
designates a relatively recent and manifestly anticanonical tendency, has two
facets. On one hand, it expresses the ardent desire of obtaining, at any cost
and even when geopolitical and geo-ecclesiastical
conditions do not permit it, the status
autocephalous of a territorial unit. On the other hand, there is a specific
tendency of exerting ecclesial hyperoria
jurisdiction on the territory of another Autocephalous Church – or within the
so-called “Diaspora” – under the pretext of exercising some indefinite
ecclesial rights. In reality, it undeniably consists of an “ecclesiastical
nationalism” which cultivates a “global
national Autocephaly” and a “monocameral
ecclesiology” (of national ecclesiastical exclusivity). Here, with great
caution, we must guard against the enemies of ecclesial unity hiding behind the
idea of autocephaly. Every time that Nationalism and Phyletism, or cultural identity,
demand priority over the unity of the Church, they must be clearly denied and
rejected. Orthodox ecclesiology cannot ascribe any value of ultimate reality to
any historical reality but to Christ and to the Eschatological recapitulation
of everything in His Person, whose reception paradoxically is realised in the
Mystery of the Holy Eucharist. This
is what is proclaimed during each Divine Liturgy. Finally, Autocephalism really does consist of a modern distortion and a
“protestant” interpretation of autocephaly, which incorporates a national “confessionality” into
ecclesiastical Community and ecclesial communion and unity.
[3] Ethno-phyletism (from φυλή = race, tribe [tribalism]) consists of adopting and applying the principle of nationalities into the
ecclesi(astic)al domain. It advocates the voluntary application of phyletic (racial) and national distinction
within the Church, in other words, leads to confusion between the Church and the Nation, and to the assimilation of the Church with the
Nation. The term Ethno-phyletism is the name given to an ecclesiological heresy [of Church balkanisation] according to which the Church organises
itself by racial, national or political/cultural basis, in such a way as to
accept the existence, in a specific geographical area, of multiple
ecclesiastical jurisdictions, each one directing its own pastoral solicitude
exclusively towards the members of a specific ethnic group. It was used by the
Holy and Great – and “broadened” –
Panorthodox Council of Constantinople of [September 10th] 1872,
which officially defined it, and condemned it as contemporary ecclesial heresy (“Balkan Ηeresy”). Indeed, phyletic (religious) nationalism supports the idea of
establishing an Autocephalous Church
based, not on the territorial [ecclesial] criterion, but on a national or
linguistic ethnophyletic criterion.
Consequently, “the formation, at the same location, of many Territorial Churches, founded solely on
ethnicity, receiving the faithful of only one ethnicity and excluding the
faithful of other ethnicities, and led only by pastors of the same race, as
advocated by the supporters of phyletism, is an event without precedent”
(Metropolitan Maximus of Sardes). The Church must therefore not be linked to
the fortune of only one ethnos/nation.
Orthodoxy is undoubtedly hostile towards any form of phyletic Messianism. We ought here to emphasise the difference in
meaning between Εthnism (which has positive connotations)
and [Εthnicism] Νationalism (which has negative connotations,
and in Greek is called εθνικισμός). Ethnism serves the nation, whilst
nationalism is the enemy of the Nation (and, by extension, of the Church).
[4] The modern National Church
functions according to the practice of Meionism. The term meionism (from the
Greek word μειονισμός/μεῖον = less,
minus), which could be translated as “reductionism”, was coined by the Russian
philosopher V. F. Ern to define the act of causing “reduction”, “shrinkage”,
“devaluation” or “debasement”. In his opinion, these words describe
ecclesiastical mentality most adequately. Through Meionism, all the canonical distortions bring about the absorption
of ecclesial life by national – or even cultural – life, and the degradation of
Trinitarian Revelation into
sentimental sensitivity as well as the devaluation of pastoral ministre into a militant nationalist vision.
[5] Cf. Luke 13, 4. See also, Acts 15,
30.
[6] In this case, the same words/names
refer to different realities with very different ontological divergences.
[7] Cf. jus soli.
[8] Cf. jus sanguinis.
[9] Article 2 of the Statutory Charter
of the Church of Cyprus. See first edition text in the Apostolos Barnabas Review, 3rd period, t. 40, n° 11
(11/1979), p. 407-512 (in Greek). Also, in French, in Archim. Grigorios D. Papathomas, The Autocephalous Church of Cyprus in the European Union (Nomocanonical
approach), [L’Église autocéphale de Chypre dans l’Europe unie (Approche
nomocanonique)], Thessaloniki-Katerini, Ed. Epektasis (coll. Nomocanonical
Library, n° 2), 1998, p. 229 ; italicised by us.
[10] Probably refers to people of Orthodox
faith.
[11] Italicised by us.
[12] Cf. Statutory Charter of the Church
of Russia, see above.
[13] Cf. Math. 28, 19.
[14] Br. Basdevant-Gaudemet
and An. Fornerod, “Existe-t-il une politique européenne concernant les confessions
religieuses?” (“Is
there a European policy concerning religious confessions?”), in J.-P. Faugere and Fr. Julien-Laferriere (under the direction of), Europe,
Enjeux juridiques,
économiques et de gestion, (Europe,
juridical, economic and managerial stakes), Paris, ed. L’Harmattan, 2000,
p. 107.
