Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Statutes of e
Statutes of e
— Introduction
A. “Church at a Location” and “Epithetical Church”: How far can this Difference be taken?
• “Location” (locus) and “Epithet” in the Church designation
B. The Autocephalous Church in the bosom of the Conciliar Communion of the Locally
Established Churches
I. The Constituent Elements of the “National Church”
• Theology of National Missionism
• National Ecclesiology: the founding Myth of the Diaspora
II. The Constituent Elements of the “Autocephalous Church”
• Autocephaly as Otherness and as Unity simultaneously
— Conclusion
— Bibliography
1
Text published, in French, in L’Année canonique [Paris], vol. 45 (2003), p. 149-170. The same, in Archim.
Grigorios D. PAPATHOMAS, Essais de Droit canonique orthodoxe (Treatises on Orthodox Canon Law),
Firenze, Università degli Studi di Firenze/Facoltà di Scienze Politiche “Cesare Alfieri” (coll. Seminario di
Storia delle istituzioni religiose e relazioni tra Stato e Chiesa-Reprint Series, n. 38), 2005, ch. III, p. 51-76.
Also, in Greek, in Archim. Grigorios D. PAPATHOMAS, Ecclesio-Canonical Questions [Essays on the
Orthodox Canon Law], Thessaloniki-Katerini, “Epektasis” Publications (series: Nomocanonical Library, n.
19), 2006, p. 67-106, and in Charalambos K. PAPASTATHIS – Archim. Grigorios D. PAPATHOMAS (eds), The
State, the Orthodox Church and Religions in Greece, Thessaloniki-Katerini, “Epektasis” Publications (series:
Nomocanonical Library, n. 16), 2006, text n. 5, p. 89-128 (in Greek), and in Charalambos K. PAPASTATHIS
– Archim. Grigorios D. PAPATHOMAS (eds.), The State, the Orthodox Church and Religions in Greece,
Thessaloniki – Katerini, Epektasis Publications (series: Nomocanonical Library, n. 17), 2008, text n. 5, p.
111-146 (in English).
2
The issue we are approaching through the present text is a very broad and complex
one: the sudden and relatively recent transformation of the Autocephalous Church – which
explicitly reflects the ecclesial and conciliar spirit – into a National Church. The title of
our topic is general and encompasses numerous situations linked to national – and
sometimes ritualistic and confessional – traditions, but the analysis which follows
demonstrates that there is an self-sufficient field to which their common origins can be
traced back.
Getting to the heart of the matter, it would not be out of place to begin by “visiting
the words [terms]”, inspired by the words of Antisthenes the Cynic: “Αρχή παιδεύσεως η
των ονομάτων επίσκεψις” (“The beginning of instruction is the knowledge of the words”)2.
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 location 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
which is at Corinth, the Church which is at Thessalonica and so forth.
2
ANTISTHENES the Cynic, in Επικτήτου, Διατριβαί (EPICTETUS, The Discourses), 1, 17, 22.
3
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
locally established Churches, whether they are Patriarchal, Autocephalous, Autonomous
or semi-Autonomous (henceforth referred to as “Autocephalous Churches”).
Etymologically, the epithetical designation “Autocephalous”, in the broad, not technical,
sense of the word, defines a locally established Church which, 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).
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 Autocephalism3 and Ethno-phyletism4, but
also of Meionism5– all three genuine products of the National Church. We are obliged,
however, to first make some clarifications on the issue.
3
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 autocephalus 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 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.
4
Ethnophyletism (from φυλή = race, tribe [tribalism]) consists of adopting and applying the principle of
nationalities into the ecclesiastical 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 Ethnophyletism is the name given to an
ecclesiological heresy 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 Great and Holy – and “broadened” – Panorthodox Council of Constantinople
of [September 10th] 1872, which officially defined it, and condemned it as contemporary ecclesial heresy
(“Balkan heresy”). 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 locally established
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 ethnism (which has positive
connotations) and [ethnicism] nationalism (which has a 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).
5
The modern National Church functions according to the practice of Meionism. The term meionism (from
μειονισμός/μείον = 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
ministry into a militant nationalist vision.
5
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.
6
Cf. Luke 13, 4. Also, Acts 15, 30.
6
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 location 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 of Corinth”, “Church of Thessalonica”. The common denominator is the Church;
it is the Church which 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…).
All that has been said above concerns only the Orthodox Church. However, similar
versions of all these ways of designating a locally established Church appear frequently
within other Christian Churches.
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.
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…
*****
Through the preceding analysis, we established that there are two “types” of
Church: the “Church of a location” and the “epithetical Church”. The former corresponds
to the Autocephalous Church, i.e. the locally established Church, while the latter is an ad
hoc expression for the National Church – or the Universal Church. This distinction does
not aim to present a “grammatical ecclesiology”. This venture endeavoured to clarify and
to grasp the difference between the two ecclesial notions, i.e. between the Autocephalous
Church and the National Church, or better still, between the Autocephalous Church and
the “non-Autocephalous Church”. It must not be forgotten that words chosen in “spoken
language” or “written language” define, most explicitly, the “intimate language”
(ενδιάθετος λόγος) of existence. We also endeavour to contribute to the better
understanding of the unprecedented situation of the Orthodox Church in the age of
European unification, the age of globalisation and, mainly, the age of division between the
9
nations and the cultural groups, which is the counterpart of “globalisation” (υφηλιακή
ολοκλήρωσις).
The “theology of national missionism”, as revealed by its own name, expresses the
return to the old idea of the National Church, at the service of Autocephalism and occult
Ethno-phyletism – which, however, was condemned as heresy by the whole of the
Orthodox Church (Panorthodox Council of Constantinople-18727) – reappearing today
under a different guise. According to the Metropolitan John (Zizioulas) of Pergamon,
“Ethnophyletism, condemned in 1872 by the Orthodox Patriarchs in Constantinople, today
broadly mirrors the manner in which the orthodox Diaspora is organised. In this way,
eucharistic eschatology is manifestly betrayed by a Church which finds inspiration
elsewhere”8.
7
See the full text of the conciliar decision in J. D. MANSI, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima
Collectio, vol. 45, Synodi Orientales (1860-1884), text number 65, Graz, Akademische Druck-U.
Verlagsanstalt, 1961, columns 417-546.
8
John ZIZIOULAS, Metropolitan of Pergamon, “Eschatology and Society”, in Irénikon, vol. 3-4 (2000), p.
294 (in French).
11
majority orthodox took new directions. First of all, they attempted to regain the primary
control of their respective diaspora, in hope of “reconnecting” them to the “Mother
Church” of the country of origin. The Diaspora, which in preceding years had distanced
itself from the respective Mother Church9, had become used to organising itself into semi-
autonomous groups. However, the existing autonomisation did not prevent the groups of
the diaspora how developing, within this narrow frame, national visions of their country of
origin. The communist regimes having fallen, the Churches of the countries that were
traditionally orthodox were not only freed of communist politics, but also gained a freedom
much greater than even before the socialist regime. The result of this national-nationalising
priority, which reigns supreme, is obvious: it fuels antagonism of sister-Churches within
the diaspora! Under these circumstances, Orthodoxy is developing by tending towards the
nationalisation of the Church, and even towards neo-phyletism or neo-ethnophyletism, this
time on a global scale. Furthermore, we need only consider the new situation within which
we, members of the diverse (fan-éventail) national diasporas, live, confining our horizons
to our narrow entourage while, on the contrary, we should feel that we constitute
fundamental members of the Orthodox world – beyond National Churches (of the
egataspora10) – and of the whole world.
9
The notion of a Mother Church, at this point, refers exclusively to the genesis of a new locally established
Church and in no case does it refer to the ecclesial communities of the diaspora. See below.
10
The Egataspora, as a canonical neologism, defines an antithetical perspective to the Diaspora. We use this
term when people, living in Diaspora where they have already integrated themselves and are ready to develop
in a sustainable way, attempt to settle in this new environment or choro-geographic location which
traditionally exists and belongs to them.
12
location”, but rather the Church of his country of origin, i.e. his National Church. It is easy
to see, therefore, the theological drift caused by national ecclesiology, which leads to the
formation of another parallel ecclesiology, homologous and homonymous: the
“ecclesiology of the diaspora”.
Indeed, national ecclesiology and the ecclesiology of the diaspora are a pair
(Siamese sisters) and go hand in hand, the first being the requisite condition on which the
second is based. The fault, or rather, the disadvantage of the latter is that according to
Church ecclesiology, there is no diaspora, because the Church has always been territorial.
The notion of a diaspora – unavoidable in the context of the Jewish immigration, given that
for Judaism the Temple is unique – cannot exist in ecclesial life where there is(are) no
unique ecclesial centre(s) and where the Church, the body of Christ, joins together all
nations and all people. Consequently, all the Earth is covered by local Churches and locally
established Churches (κατά τόπους Εκκλησίες). In this situation, not only the concept of a
diaspora – a concept which was created and shaped during the time when the National
Church dominated (19th-20th centuries) – but also the ecclesiology of the diaspora –
homologous and analogous to national ecclesiology – are devoid of meaning and have no
reason to exist within the Church. (Only the concept of a National Church and the concept
of the Universal Church unavoidably presuppose a unique ecclesial centre which directs,
explicitly or implicitly, the totality of the faithful in whatever location the national
diaspora or the [quasi-diplomatic] representatives of the [central] universal Church may
be found… In this case, therefore, the concept of a local Church remains, from any
viewpoint, inexistent).
It is thus national ecclesiology – rooted in the concept of the National Church – that
forms the basis on which any notion of diaspora (sic) and its implications originate, and
not ecclesial ecclesiology, whose perspective is exclusively eschato-centric and never
nationo-centric or patrio-centric. It is time, then, to say that the “local Church” and the
“diaspora” are two opposed ontological ecclesial realities which are contradictory and
incompatible. It is true that the praxis of the local Church (diocese) or of the locally
established Church (κατά τόπoν) prohibits every possible notion of diaspora. In other
words there is, from the onset, a Jewish diaspora, an ethnic diaspora – existing due to the
ethnico-political interests it serves – but there cannot, under any circumstances, be a
13
“ecclesial diaspora”. To conclude, the “local Church” and the “ecclesial diaspora” are two
mutually exclusive and completely opposed and contradictory realities. Wherever we find
the latter, it eliminates and invalidates the local or locally established Church. For this
reason, we have to re-examine the issue of the diaspora within the Orthodox Church and
in view of the preparations for the forthcoming Great Panorthodox Council. For this reason
we must, finally, also re-examine the interpretation of the 28th canon of the Fourth
Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) (see below).
The liturgical phrase of the Orthos, “Τριάς η εν μονάδι και μονάς η εν Τριάδι” (the
Triad in a monad and monad in a Triad), “Θεός ένας και τριαδικός”13 (God triune) echoes
the way of God’s Trinitarian existence, which is simultaneously “personal” (relational) and
11
For the approach, which follows, we have used as primary text the article of our professor at the Theological
School of the Aristotle University of Thessalonica, J. D. ZIZIOULAS, “Christology and Existence. The
dialectic created-uncreated and the dogma of Chalcedon”, in Synaxis, n. 2 (1982), § 4, p. 17-20, and in
Contacts, t. 36, vol. 2 (1984), mainly § 4, p. 165-171.
12
As above, p. 166.
13
Cf. “Σε τον εν Τριάδι και Μονάδι […], τον Πατέρα, και Υιόν, και Πνευμα Άγιον […]”; Doxastikon of the
9th Ode of the Orthos of August 5th.
14
“communional” (free). God is not at first “one”, subsequently becoming “three”, nor vice
versa. He is simultaneously “Three” and “One”, in other words God is “Father” because
he is “Father of the Son, within the Holy Spirit”. His uniqueness is expressed within this
free and unbreachable personal communion (προσωπική κοινωνία) that exists between the
three hypostases, and means that their otherness (hypostatic-personal [relational]) does not
threaten the uniqueness (communional-free)14 but, on the contrary, is a condition sine qua
non.
In other words, the Holy Spirit is neither Father nor Son. The name “Holy Spirit”
characterises His uncreated hypostatic particularity, His personal identity and “the third
person of the Holy Trinity”. The person of the Son, in turn, is not confused in His relation
to the Father and to the Holy Spirit, and does not identify with the latter two persons of the
Holy Trinity. The naming of the Father as “Father” (relational term), reveals that the other
two persons are not absorbed within the Father, but are clearly distinct. The otherness of
the Persons is absolute: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are absolutely different
Persons and none is confused with the other two. The hypostatic otherness of the three
uncreated persons is thus assured as an existential characteristic by the coincidence of the
Trinitarian otherness (ασυγχύτως) and the Trinitarian communion-κοινωνία15 (αδιαιρέτων)
in the “person of the Father”.
14
See the pertinent development of this issue in C. AGORAS, Personne et Liberté ou “L’être comme
communion” (Person and Freedom, “The Being as Communion”), Paris, Doctoral thesis in Theological
Science, presented at the Philosophical School of the University of Paris IV and the Theological School of
the Catholic Institute of Paris, 1992, chapter 6, section I, §§ 2, ii and 3.
15
The term “communion” (κοινωνία), firmly rooted in the Bible, summarises the mode of relational existence
of the uncreated Persons. At the same time, it summarises the mystery of God and the mystery of the Church
and, by extension – in this way defining the final destination of human community – the vocational content
of the persons and of Christian Churches, i.e. reinforcing, between them, the communion within alterity and
vice versa. To clarify this even further, we provide the following extract: “The original Greek term
‘communion’ has a different meaning to that which is attributed today to the terms ‘communion’ or
‘community’. Indeed, the term communion in Greek scriptural texts and in the patristic tradition has a special
meaning, which profoundly influences ecclesiology. The basic elements of the term communion exclusively
emerge from Theology […]. Which are the basic elements which found the theology of communion?
Communion is not a product of sociological experience or ethics, but a product of faith. We are called to live
“in communion” not because it is “good” for us and for the Church, but because we believe in a God who is,
at the depths of His existence, communion. If we believe in a God who is first and foremost an individual,
His own existence preceding His relation with others, then we approach the sociological conception of
communion. In that case, the Church’s being is not firstly communion, but is communion only secondarily,
according to the concept of “bene esse”. Therefore, the teaching of the Holy Trinity acquire decisive
importance. The being of God is Trinitarian, i.e. God is Trinitarian, He is relational. A God who is not
15
The Trinitarian mode of existence represents a paradox for human reason. The fact
that every one of the Trinitarian hypostases cannot exist without the other does not mean
that they are unable to live separately, but it is their communion, as a product of their
personal liberty, which makes them live αϊδίως (without beginning and without end).
Therefore, the simultaneous appearance of “unconfused” and “undivided” – which
similarly characterised the Trinitarian existence of the uncreated God as a personal and free
event of ontological communion – constitutes an existential and dynamic dialectic of the
uncreated life.
to the uncreated Persons of the Holy Trinity and to the locally established Churches, do
not exist undivided. This fact marks ecclesial life as a whole, i.e. all the domains which
receive a negative impact. The “epithetical Church”, on one hand, exists “without
confusion” in its relation with the other Churches – from this point of view its existence is
positive – but on the other hand, does not exist “without division”. On the contrary, it lives
“with division”, in the frame of the existential and communional relations with the other
Churches, in contrast to the Trinitarian dimension of both the uncreated Persons and the
“local Churches” (Dioceses) or “locally established Churches” (Autocephalous Churches).
In any case, the first of these adverbs, “ασυγχύτως” (without confusion), means that
the relation between the Churches must always be fully dialectic. From the moment that
this dialectic is suppressed, the indissolubly united Churches become confused. To support
this fact, we need only recall the ecclesial confusion caused by the presence of multiple
Churches at the same location, leading to the existence of multiple Bishops in the same
city. Trinitarian existence does not annul this dialectic. It assures the freedom of the person
and, by extension, the otherness of the locally established Church. The second of the
aforementioned adverbs, “αδιαιρέτων” (without division), declares that there must be no
separation or division between Churches. Space and time act on the nature of creation
(ktisis) in a paradoxical way: they unite and divide simultaneously. However, they ought
to become bearers of unity alone, not of division. The more the Church becomes
autonomous, existing only by herself and for herself, the more she is threatened by
isolation, annihilation and death, since death may follow from the eventuality of division
and separation between beings and Ecclesial bodies. The above conclusion is confirmed
by Church history, which reminds us that throughout the centuries, Churches which were
cut off from the Ecclesial body, which departed from the “Church across the universe”,
deteriorated or disappeared.
In order to preserve our otherness, and to free ourselves from other people, whom
we consider to be the greatest threat to our freedom, we attempt to distinguish ourselves
from them. In the reach for the undivided, the more we unite two beings (the more we put
two Ecclesial entities in comm-union) until arrive to the “without division”, the greater the
danger of their confusion. The “undivided” struggles against our differences with others,
i.e. against the “unconfused”. It follows that we seek otherness in individualism – personal
or ethnic, it is of little matter – which cuts us off from others and manifestly, but illusively,
promises the preservation of our identity (personal or ethnic). But, ultimately, this
separation from others, this absolute “unconfused” and autonomisation, is it not isolation
and communional death?
It is certain that as soon as we approach this issue from its double perspective, i.e.
from the concept of “otherness” and from the concept of “communion” – two notions
which Churches, in line with their vocation, are called to develop – we must immediately
distinguish between these two interdependent parameters. The notion of the “otherness of
Churches” corresponds to a triadological reality, one which is very broad and important to
ecclesial theology. The second notion, the “communion of Churches” – parallel to the
notion of otherness – is as fundamental as the first, and is indivisibly linked to it – just as
18
the first is to the second. Therefore, this reality immediately acquires an importance and a
gravity much greater than we might have believed. Its primary significance is firstly
illustrated by the triadological notion of the “person”, secondly by the notion of
“communion” and finally by the composite and determining notion “communion of
persons”, in the case of Theology is concerned, or by the composite and determining notion
“communion of the Autocephalous Churches” in the case of Economy (Ecclesiology).
Because, “the person is otherness within communion and communion within otherness.
The Person is an identity which emerges through relationship (according to the Greek
Fathers). It is an “I” which exists only in its link to the “You”, which certifies both its
existence and its otherness. If we isolate the “I” from the “You”, we not only lose the
otherness of the “I”, but its own self as well. Quite simply, the “I” cannot exist without the
other. This is what distinguishes the person from the individual. Orthodox understanding
of the Holy Trinity is the only path which leads us to the notion of personeity (the status of
a person). The Father could not for an instant exist without the Son and the Holy Spirit,
and the same applies to the other two Persons, as much in their relation with the Father as
in their mutual relation. However, every Person is so unique that there is absolutely no
communion between their hypostatic or personal characteristics”16.
It follows that the ontological category of personal and free “communion” which
designates the Trinitarian being of God17 can also designate the Trinitarian being of the
“Church of God”18 within the being, also Trinitarian, of Christ (the Church exists in Christ
within the Holy Spirit). The Church must define herself in all her dimensions as
“communion”, herself being relational both in its identity19 and in her structure – and, by
extension, in its archetypal model of unity. Could communion, as an ecclesial event
J. D. Ziz
oulas,“CommunionandOtherness”,inSOP,n.184 1/1994,p.31.
17
St John Chrysostome makes the following remarks: “Όπου γαρ αν μια της Τριάδος Υπόστασις παρη, πασα
πάρεστιν η Τριάς∙ αδιασπάστως γαρ εχει προς εαυτήν, και ηνωται μετ’ακριβείας απάσης.”; [Latin translation]
“Ubi enim una Trinitatis hypostasis adest, tota adest Trinitas, non potest enim omnino separari, et
accuratissime unita subi est”; IDEM, To the Romans, Homilia XIII, 8, in P.G., t. 60, col. 519A.
18
Apostle Paul appears to be the first who used this term in his epistles. Cf. 1 Cor. 1, 2; 10, 32; 11, 16. 22;
15, 9; Gal. 1, 13; 1 Thess. 2, 14; 2 Thess. 1, 4; 1 Tim. 3, 5. 15. Cf. Ath. JEVTIC, The Ecclesiology of Apostle
Paul according to St John Chrysostome, Athens 1984, primarily p. 27-50 (in Greek).
19
Diversity among the faithful is considered necessary in order for a true communion “in Church”. In this
case, life in Church is a sign of the diversity within communion.
19
(existence in Christ within the Holy Spirit), not then become the model for the sought after
unity between Christian Churches?
The Church, at the depth of its being, i.e. her Eucharistic existence, reflects the
mode of existence of God, that of personal communion. The necessity “to imitate God”20
or “to come into communion with divine nature”21 presupposes that the Church can exist
and function “in Christ” only if it adopts the mode of existence of Trinitarian God22. In
order to understand the being of the Church, it is of decisive importance that God reveals
Himself to us as existing in communion between persons. Consequently, when we say that
Church is communion, we are referring to the personal communion, which exists between
the hypostases of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Individualism – and ecclesiastical
individualism expressed through the Epithetical Church – is, by definition, incompatible
with the being of the Church, whose essence is communion and relation between persons23.
In this way we can link Trinitarian communion of personal hypostases of the uncreated
God with inter-ecclesial relations “in Church across the universe”24 (that is, in the personal
communion of Local Churches in Christ).
20
Luke 6, 36 and its parallels.
21
2 Peter 1, 4.
22
Cf. the definition of the Persons of the Holy Trinity as a “mode of existence” given only by the Cappadocian
Fathers.
23
Cf. J. D. ZIZIOULAS, “Communion and Otherness”, as before, p. 36.
24
“Across the universe”, according to the expression of the 57 th canon of the Local Council of Carthage
(419). Cf. Canon 56 of the Quinisext Ecumenical Council in Trullo (691).
20
*****
Besides, one of the characteristic elements of the Eschata is the synaxis of the
dispersed people of God – and by extension the synaxis of all humanity in one (επι το
αυτο)25 and around the Person of Christ. In the Gospel of Matthew the Church and the
Kingdom are paralleled to “a net thrown into the sea which collects fish of every kind”26,
while in the passage referring to the Parousia of Christ we read, “and all the nations will
be assembled before him”27. Furthermore, the soteriological purpose of the incarnation and
of the passion of Christ consists of “gathering into one the dispersed children of God”28.
Conclusion
It is usual and widespread amongst anthropologists, sociologists, historians,
philosophers, and even the Fathers of the Church, to use the terminology of categories of
human thought to refer to more or less fundamental realities or experiences. Given that
these “categories” are considered to be (more or less) organised within a certain system,
we say that we are dealing with viewpoints, perspectives, cosmotheories, or – more
precisely – different worlds. The present text initially aimed to raise certain general
25
1 Cor. 14, 23.
26
Mat. 13, 47. Italics added by us.
27
Mat. 25, 32. Italics added by us.
28
John 11, 52. Italics added by us.
29
1 Cor. 14, 23. Cf. Rom. 16, 23.
21
questions relating to the use of terminology in our research and our legal and historico-
canonical analysis on the concept of the “National Church”.
Patristic and Ecclesial theology has never taken the modern tendency of the
“colourisation of people” or the “colourisation of Geography” lightly or frivolously. If we
wish to characterise a Nation as orthodox, and in doing so support that the Church is
“Ethnic”, we must remember that for the nation to be “orthodox Christian”, it means that
it has been “crucified and risen in Christ”, thereby obtaining a new and eschatological
identity, with which it is incorporated into the Body of Christ, the Church. In that case, we
do not have a patriocentric Church existing through the notion of differentiation in relation
to the other Churches (a notion of the National Church), but instead we have an
Autocephalous Church which voluntarily confirms the transformed national otherness on
one hand, but also her full participation in the common Body of the Lord and, by extension,
her full communion not only with the other Autocephalous Churches, but with the entirety
of Creation.
Christians of the early Church drew their existence from within a Church in statu
viae (eschatological), and not within a Church in statu patriae (at first “imperial” or, from
the 4th century to the present, “national”). This is precisely the essential and decisive
difference between the “Autocephalous Church” and the “patriocentric Church”, i.e. the
“National Church”.
The concept of a nation, e.g. for the French, was formed based on the wish for a
common destiny and a common attempt to achieve it (cf. “Nation-State”). On the contrary,
the historical course of Orthodox peoples, who have been influenced in the recent past by
the principle of nationalities, has been entirely different. In this time, nations gained a self-
awareness and revendicated, as a sacred right, the expression of their difference. The above
conception led to the revendication of their independence. A Nation without its own State
– for itself only – felt wronged and deprived, and this fact resulted in the multiplication of
State-Nations. In Nations where Orthodoxy was intertwined with daily existence, multiple
National Autocephalies were also witnessed. So State-Nation-Churches came into being.
Similarly, in countries of the East, where the orthodox population is numerically greater,
there is often a close link between nationality and religion; here, however, nationality was
22
linked to blood. From this resulted the name “State-Nation”, and a blood connection was
created with religion, e.g. “Church of the Serbs” (sic). In the West, and especially in France
where there is a separation between Church and State, nationality is related to land, not to
blood. Thus the name “Nation-State” came about. Consequently, “Nation-State” and
“State-Nation” describe two different and obviously opposed perspectives and explain, in
the clearest possible way, the developments and the mentalities hiding behind these two
conceptions.
The National Church is a monopolis, a unique universal city, both from a structural
and from a behavioural viewpoint, because it is exclusively aimed to a single nationality.
Its global geographical dimension is exerted on a single nationality and, because of this, it
is indifferent to the communion between Churches and the vision of the Future Age, which
an Ecclesial body at a given location always ought to have. Indeed, every National Church
globally expresses an interest for “her” respective people – ignoring all the others – in order
not to lose its authority.
30
The term Eonism (from the word eon, αιων) designates the mentality of people who, though certainly
believing in God, cannot (Ephes. 2, 2) accept Him as “pantocrator”, i.e. the “centre of their lives” (abbot
Dorotheos). This fact (Math. 13, 22; Mark 4, 19) resulted in the formation of a “heterocentric perspective”
which estranges (2 Cor. 4, 4) man from God “because of his love for the current age” (2 Tim. 4, 10) and
places him (Luke 20, 34) in the dimension “of this world” (John 18, 36-37). This is an intracreational
category – i.e. the restriction to what is created, forgetting the eschatological perspective (Ephes. 1, 21; Hb
6, 5; Tit. 2, 12) – which is based on the model (Rom. 12, 2) [civitas terrena] “of this world” (secular
eschatology – εγκόσμια εσχατολογία) and which gives a greater importance to this century than to the future
century. Finally, ecclesiastical eonism leaves no place for the coming of eschatology. This category is based
exclusively in the present time, age and world.
23
31
Cf. 57th canon of the Local Council of Carthage (419) and the 56 th canon of the Quinisext Ecumenical
Council in Trullo (691).
24
According to the preceding analysis, the National Church 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, locally established
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 National Church, but with the vision of the 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 a decade ago (1993), when there will no longer be Serbs,
32
In this case, the same words/names refer to different realities with very different ontological divergences.
25
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”33 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
locally established [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”34. 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
33
Cf. Math. 28, 19.
34
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.
26
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 an 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.
Bibliography
AGORAS K., Personne et liberté ou “L’être comme communion”, Paris, Doctoral thesis
in Theology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Paris IV and Faculty of Theology of the
Catholic Institute of Paris, 1992, 451 p.
BASDEVANT-GAUDEMET Br. and FORNEROD An., “Existe-t-il une politique
européenne concernant les confessions religieuses?”, in J.-P. FAUGERE and Fr. JULIEN-
LAFERRIERE (dir.), EUROPE, Enjeux juridiques, économiques et de gestion, Paris,
L’Harmattan, 2000, p. 103-117.
BELOPOVSKY Al., “Dix ans de transitions, les Églises en Europe de l’Est : un défi pour
l’avenir”, in SOP, n. 264 (1/2002), p. 26-29.
DVORNIK Fr., “Églises nationales et Église universelle” in Eastern Churches Quarterly,
t. 5 (1943), p. 172-219. Also, in Istina, t. 36, n. 1 (1991), p. 9-52.
27
GOUNELAS S., “Nationalism and Orthodox Faith. The research for ‘universal
conscience’ beyond the dilemmas of the type ‘Christian or Greek?’”, in Kathimerini 16-4-
2000, p. A 2-49.
PALIERNE J.-L., Mais où donc se cache l’Église orthodoxe ? La trop longue errance des
Français [But where does finally the Orthodox Church stay in hiding? The so long errance
of the French], Lausanne, L’Age d’homme (series: Mobiles théopolitiques), 2002, 136 p.
ZIZIOULAS J., “Christology and Existence. The dialectic between created-uncreated and
the dogma of Chalcedon”, in Synaxis, n. 2 (1982), p. 9-20, and in Contacts, t. 36, n. 126
(1984), p. 154-172.
ZIZIOULAS J., Metropolitan of Pergamon, “Eucharist and Kingdom of God (A-B)”, in
Synaxis, n. 47 (1-3/1994), p. 7-18, and n. 51 (7-9/1994), p. 83-101.
ZIZIOULAS J., Metropolitan of Pergamon, “Communion et altérité”, in SOP, n. 184
(1/1994), p. 23-33. Also, in Contacts, t. 46, n. 166 (2/1994), p. 106-123, and in St
Vladimir’s Theological Quaterly, t. 38, n. 4 (1994), p. 347-361.
ZIZIOULAS J., Metropolitan of Pergamon, “Eschatologie et société”, in Irénikon, t. 73, n.
3-4 (2000), p. 278-297.