THEOLOGIA ORTHODOXA

Vol. 62, No. 1, June 2017

The Holy and Great Council (2016)



STUDIA
UNIVERSITATIS BABEŞ‐BOLYAI
THEOLOGIA ORTHODOXA






















Vol. 62, No. 1
(June 2017)


EDITOR‐IN‐CHIEF:
VASILE STANCIU, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania

EXECUTIVE EDITORS:
NICOLAE TURCAN, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania
GABRIEL GÂRDAN, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania

EDITORIAL BOARD:
IOAN CHIRILĂ, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania
ȘTEFAN ILOAIE, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania
PHILIP LEMASTERS, McMurry University, United States
THEODOR NIKOLAOU, Ludwig‐Maximilians‐Universität München, Germany
KONSTANTINOS NIKOLAKOPOULOS, Ludwig‐Maximilians‐Universität Germany
EUGEN PENTIUC, Holly Cross, Brooklin, United States
Acad. IOAN‐AUREL POP, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania
ADOLF MARTIN RITTER, Ruprecht‐Karls‐Universität Heidelberg, Germany
HANS SCHWARZ, Universität Regensburg, Germany
MARIAN SIMION, Harvard University, United States
LUCIAN TURCESCU, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada

EDITORIAL ASSISTANT:
RĂZVAN PERȘA, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania

ADVISORY BOARD:
Metropolitan ANDREI ANDREICUȚ, Babes‐Bolyai University, Cluj‐Napoca, Romania
VALER BEL, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania
DANIEL BUDA, Lucian Blaga University, Sibiu, Romania
IOAN‐VASILE LEB, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania
ALEXANDRU MORARU, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania
RADU PREDA, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania
CRISTIAN SONEA, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania
STELIAN TOFANĂ, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania

PROOFREADERS:
MARK MADELEY, Bruxelles
ADRIAN PODARU, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania
RĂZVAN PERȘA, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania
ANIELA SILADI, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania
IOANA SONEA, Babes‐Bolyai University, Romania


http://studia.orth.ro
http://www.studia.ubbcluj.ro/serii/th_orth/

EDITORIAL OFFICE: Episcop Nicolae Ivan Str., f.n., Cluj‐Napoca, Romania,
Email: subbto@gmail.com (Principal Contact)

© Photo on the front cover: Florin Florea
YEAR Volume 62 (LXII) 2017
MONTH JUNE
ISSUE 1


PUBLISHED ONLINE ‐ ‐
PUBLISHED PRINT ‐ ‐
ISSUE DOI . subbto. .



 
 
Thematic issue 
 

The Holy and Great Council (2016) 
Guest Editor: Patriciu Dorin Vlaicu 



CONTENTS


The Holy and Great Council of Crete (2016)

VIOREL IONIȚĂ, The Participation of the Local Orthodox Churches in the

Preparatory Process of the Holy and Great Synod – Prerequisite for the
Reception of Its Decisions ....................................................................................................

ALEXANDER RENTEL, Examining the Rules of Consensus from the Canonical

Perspective .............................................................................................................................
ANDRZE KU MA, The Documents of the Great and Holy Council of 2016
Concerning the Inner Life of the Orthodox Church. Development of the
Documents’ Content ............................................................................................................
RĂZVAN PERȘA, The Canonical Tradition of the Orthodox Church and the
Holy and Great Council: between Reception and Rejection ..................................
IRIMIE MARGA, The Holy and Great Council of the Orthodoxy According to
Rev. Prof. Liviu Stan ............................................................................................................
VENIAMIN GOREANU, The Settlement of Canonic Tradition in the Document
“The Importance of Fasting and Its Observance Today” .......................................
RASTKO OVIC, The Importance of Fasting and Its Observance for Tomorrow ......
PATRICIU DORIN VLAICU, Autonomy and Orthodox Diaspora from the Point
of View of the Documents Adopted by the Holy and Great Council.................
RĂZVAN PERȘA, A Canonical Analysis of the Most Controversial Phrase of
the Holy and Great Council: “The Orthodox Church Accepts the Historical
Name of Other Non‐Orthodox Christian Churches and Confessions that
Are Not in Communion with Her” ...............................................................................
EMILIAN‐IUSTINIAN ROMAN, Debating the Documents of the Holy and Great
Synod of Crete ‐ a Canonical and Disciplinary Approach. Case Study: the
Archbishopric of Iaşi ........................................................................................................


Varia

BENEDICT VALENTIN VESA, The Soul’s Powers and the Process of Knowledge
in the Writings of Simon Taibuteh: between Anatomy and Spirituality .......
NICHIFOR TĂNASE, Shining Face as Hidden and Revealed Christology .........
ADRIAN EUGEN TRUȚĂ, Mystical Experience in Paul Evdokimov’s Perspective ....


Book Reviews

Irina Goraino , Sfântul Serafim de Sarov. Convorbirea cu Motovilov Saint

Sera im rom Sarov. The Conversation with Motovilov , Translated in
Romanian by His Most Holiness Andrei Andreicu , Cluj‐Napoca Rena terea
Publishing House, MAXIM MORARIU .......................................................

Protos. Dr. Benedict Vesa, Personalităţi duhovniceşti contemporane Contempo‐

rary spiritual personalities , st volume, Cluj‐Napoca Rena terea,
MAXIM MORARIU .........................................................................................................
SUBBTO , no. ‐
DOI . subbto. . .





AUTONOMY AND ORTHODOX DIASPORA FROM THE POINT OF
VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS ADOPTED BY THE HOLY AND
GREAT COUNCIL


PATRICIU DORIN VLAICU*


ABSTRACT. Since the beginning o the debates on the topics which could be
discussed at the Orthodox Church s Synod, autocephaly, autonomy, the Orthodox
diaspora and the diptychs were part o the proposed themes. Their analysis during
the preparatory process highlighted the act that Orthodox Churches cannot reach a
consensus regarding two o them autocephaly and diptychs. Under these conditions,
the Synaxis o the Orthodox Church s primates, convened in Constantinople in ,
decided to withdraw them rom the agenda. Out o the our above‐mentioned
themes only Autonomy and the Means by Which it is Proclaimed and The Orthodox
Diaspora were kept or debate and approval. In this paper I will brie ly analyse
these two documents, emphasising the contribution o the Synod to the clari ication
o the topics, highlighting some undamental elements, and aspects that are as yet
unresolved.

Keywords: autonomy, diaspora, Holy and Great Council, Canon Law, canons,
synodality, diptychs.



I. Church autonomy and the clarifications brought by the Holy and
Great Council’s document

Observing the structure and content o this document, at a irst glance
we might ask ourselves about the use ulness o adopting it at a pan‐Orthodox
level, considering that it deals with a problem which, in principle, concerns the
internal li e o the autocephalous Churches. However, at an in‐depth analysis,
we notice that it contains certain elements which have implications or the li e
o the whole Church. For a more thorough understanding o the themes, I will
present in the ollowing paragraphs a ew undamental aspects about the

Associate Pro essor, Babes‐Bolyai University, Faculty o Orthodox Theology, Cluj‐Napoca.
E‐mail pvlaicu gmail.com.
 PATRICIU DORIN VLAICU


institution o autonomy, a ter which I will highlight the way in which the Holy and
Great Council puts it in a conceptual ramework and which are the implications
o adopting this document or the li e o the Church .

a. Church autonomy and the issue of recognizing the ecclesial maturity
of a regional canonical entity

The institution o autonomy was present in the li e o Christian
communities since the apostolic times. The ull responsibility o local Churches,
emphasi ed since the Acts o the Apostles, epistles and apostolic writings, was
always linked with the principle o co‐responsibility o the whole ecclesial
body . Thus, autonomy was ramed in synodality, and synodality consolidated
autonomy . Each local Church, regardless o its si e, is the complete mani estation
o the Church, and a regional Church s primate has the role o communion vector .
In the th and th centuries, capitali ing the political organi ation o the
Empire, the Church structured a metropolitan system to which it granted all
elements o autonomy . Following the evolution o stately organi ation, the
church s institutional structures moulded on the civil model, so that by the end o
the th century it reached a supra‐metropolitan organi ation. This organi ation
underlined the distinction between basic, episcopal autonomy, metropolitan
autonomy and supra‐metropolitan autonomy, which was consolidated between
the th and th centuries in the orm which later was named Pentarchy.
It is interesting to note that in this whole system o autonomies, the
canonical tradition invests with extended autonomy only the metropolitan system,
while the episcopal and supra‐metropolitan autonomies are always correlated
with the jurisdictional competencies mani ested at the provincial level. An
elo uent example to this end is the th Canon o the Third Ecumenical Synod o
Ephesus. Although it is considered by some canonists as the text which proclaims
the autocephaly o Cyprus , in act it only guarantees a metropolitan province

See Viorel Ioni , Hotărârile întrunirilor panortodoxe din 1923 până în 2009 Bucure ti Ed.
Basilica, , .
For more details on the concept o church autonomy, see Liviu Stan, Despre autonomia bisericeasc ,
Studii Teologice, no. ‐ .
A remarkable study on this theme, which also analyses the rapport between autonomy and
jurisdictional authority is . H. Erickson, Common Comprehension o Christians concerning Autonomy
and Central Power in the Church in View o Orthodox Theology , Kanon, no. ‐ .
See Kallistos Ware, L exercice de l autorit dans l glise orthodoxe II , Irinikon, no. ‐ .
C. Vogel, Communion et Eglise locale aux premiers si cles, Primaut et synodalit durant la p riode
ant nic enne , L’Année canonique, no. ‐ .
See G. Papathomas, L’Eglise autocephale de Cypre dans l’Europe Unie Katerini Ed. Pectasis,
Katerini, , ‐ .

 AUTONOMY AND ORTHODOX DIASPORA FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS ADOPTED


the right to sel ‐govern against innovative claims mani ested by the church
authority at a superior civil‐administrative level .
It is known that with the imperial reorgani ation, episcopal sees, with
respectable tradition and con irmed moral authority through endurance rom
acing up to doctrinal dissident movements and persecutions, end up having
authority over multiple dioceses. Simultaneously, even i some sees were revered
by the Church or their distinguished role in resisting persecutions and keeping
the aith, the metropolitan province s authority continued to be consolidated.
Canon o the First Ecumenical Synod honours the bishop o erusalem, which
would be soon put in the Pentarchy. Nevertheless, rom an administrative point
o view, this does not a ect the metropolitan canonical order.
Regional authority imposed itsel in the Church also because each province
capital o ered communication and transport acilities as it was the centre o
social li e and, implicitly, o church li e. The Protopresbyter Protos exercised in
this context the unction o communion vector. The canonical tradition displays
him as also having concrete competencies. The other bishops re erred to him or
all aspects which exceeded the internal li e o the diocese, and the protopresbyter
did not undertake anything without everyone s consent, as it is stated in the th
apostolic canon in which the term designates oneness of mind, unanimity,
concord. The other competencies went to the irst bishop o a region. These were
convening synods Antioch , chairing elections and consecrating the elected
one , I , IV Antioch , the right o direct intervention when a bishop did
not ul il his duties o administering the patrimony the right o devolution ,
VII , Carthage , and also represented prerogatives o a real autonomy. As the
metropolitan was not the holder o a direct jurisdiction in the su ragan dioceses
ap. , II , VI he mani ested himsel as the example o overcoming local
egoism and itting the diocese s church li e in the ramework o the regional church
li e.
The gradual consolidation o supra‐metropolitan prerogatives through
highlighting the thrones o Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and then erusalem, did not
diminish provincial autonomy. The primate o the Church structured at this

Although we notice that in the context o the Third Ecumenical Synod it concerns a deliberation on
this issue a ter the arguments o the parties, the Synod solely guarantees the prerogatives which
were already in e ect. Through this canon, the Church o Cyprus does not ac uire a di erent statute
rom the previous one, but the existing one is con irmed and it allows the metropolitans to take a
copy o this decision in order to de end their complete autonomy. See also . Erikson, Autocephaly
in Orthodox Canonical Literature to the Thirteenth Century , St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly,
no. ‐ .
George Lampe, A Greek Patristic Lexicon Ox ord, , . Cf. H. G. Liddell and R. Scott,
A Greek‐English Lexicon Cambridge, .

 PATRICIU DORIN VLAICU


level did not have direct jurisdictional competencies, but only the right o
consecrating the primate o the metropolitan Church, chosen by the bishops o
that diocese .
Beginning with the middle o the th century, through the th canon o
Chalcedon, ive supra‐metropolitan centres Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch and erusalem, are emphasi ed so that later the Pentarchy would be
considered a gi t o God, associated with the ive senses which were applied to the
Ecclesial body o the Empire . Some consider that this association targeted
precisely limiting the claims o ac uiring patriarchal status. As long as the unitary
political elements encased what today we might call the autocephalous Church, no
major issues arose . However, when the pressure o imperial politics tried to
dilute through disciplinary means the autonomy o some churches which were
emancipated, it even led to pushing them towards heretical doctrines. Some
see the adoption o even distinct doctrinal stances by the Persian and Armenian
Churches as a orm o emancipation and a wish to distance themselves rom
worldly power . In other cases, the return o church entities to Orthodox doctrine
was negotiated in exchange or the recognition o their ull church autonomy.
The most representative case is that o the Church o Georgia .
The canonical tradition also speaks o the so‐called autocephalous
archbishoprics which were merely dioceses taken out rom the regional metropolitan
system , and which directly belonged to the Patriarchy. So, they were entitled
to an extended autonomy, similar to what today we call autonomous churches.
A ter the all o the By antine Empire ull autonomy, later called autocephaly,
was more clearly speci ied as a orm o the wider autonomy circumscribed by geo‐
political influences. In the context in which the stately entities exercised political
pressure over the ecclesial entities, the natural need o recogni ing the ecclesial
entity s autocephaly arose. This mani ested in an independent state in order to do
away with the suspicions o another s state inter erence in the internal issues

For more details see P. L Huillier, Le d cret du concile de Chalc doine sur les pr rogatives du
si ge de la tr s sainte glise de Constantinople , Messager de l’Exarchat du Patriarchat russe
en Europe Occidentale, no.
See V. Lombino, Pentarchia , in Nuovo Dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiane, ed. Angelo
Di Berardino Genova‐Milano Casa Editrice Marietti, , ‐ .
For a broader approach o Constantinople s in luence over church organi ation and o the
Christian east in general, see Alain Ducellier, ed., Byzance et le monde orthodoxe, e dition
Paris Armand Colin, .
R. anin, Les Arm niens. L glise arm nienne , Échos d'Orient , no. .
For more details see . Kshutashvili, Organi area bisericii georgiene si ba ele ei canonice
PhD Thesis, Constan a Ovidius University, .
For more details see ibid.

 AUTONOMY AND ORTHODOX DIASPORA FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS ADOPTED


through the medium o the Church. This is how modern autocephalous Churches
were born, on the ruins o great empires.
Thus we can ascertain that in the course o time, extended church
autonomy developed as a orm o recogni ing the sel ‐governing capacity o a
regional Church, which was however limited by geo‐political interests which
avoided granting it the status o autocephaly. Generally, these situations created
convulsions which generated schisms and jurisdictional con licts. For this
reason, addressing the theme o church autonomy exceeds the interests o the
autocephalous Church and the Holy and Great Council s document on this
issue is completely justi ied.

b. The main characteristics of church autonomy from the point of
view of the document adopted by the Holy and Great Council

The conciliar document designates autonomy as expressing the statute
o relative independence o a certain Church within the autocephalous Church
. Beginning rom this ormulation, we need to understand that the notions
o relative and absolute independence must not be regarded rom a secular
juridical perspective, but in the sense that autonomous Churches have their own
organi ation within the autocephalous Church, with autocephaly as the highest
orm o autonomy .
The text shows that autonomy is granted a ter a justi ied re uest on behal
o the local Church a . The autocephalous Church has the aptitude to analyse
this re uest in a Synod and decide whether or not to grant autonomy. The
Synod o the autocephalous Church has the obligation to speci y through the
autonomy Tomos the geographical limits and relations which the autonomous
Church has with the autocephalous Church b . The canonical act o proclaiming
autonomy is communicated to the sister Orthodox Churches by the primate o the
autocephalous Church c . The statute o integration o the autonomous Church
in the autocephalous Church is strengthened also by the act that its inter‐Orthodox,
inter‐Christian and interreligious relations are accomplished through the medium
o the autocephalous Church d . Furthermore, the primate o the autonomous
Church commemorates only the name o the primate o the autocephalous Church
to which it belongs a , rom him also receiving the Holy and Great Myron c .
The document does not explicitly condition awarding the statute o
autonomous Church by the possibility o constituting a local synod, but allows
or this to be understood through the recognition o the autonomous Church s
right o electing, enthroning and judging its bishops. Only in the case in which

Stan, Despre autoce alie , .

 PATRICIU DORIN VLAICU

the autonomous Church would be incapable o assuming this responsibility,

can the autocephalous Church to which it reports assist d .
In this document there are certain stipulations which underline the
interest o the text at a pan‐orthodox level. These consolidate the role o mediator
or the Ecumenical Patriarchy, in case o certain jurisdictional con licts in which the
institution o autonomy is involved or in case o organi ing church li e in the
Orthodox diaspora.
Paragraph states
In the event that two autocephalous Churches grant autonomous status
within the same geographical ecclesial region, prompting contestation over
the status o each autonomous Church, the parties involved appeal together
or separately to the Ecumenical Patriarch so that he may find a canonical
solution to the matter in accordance with prevailing pan‐Orthodox practice.
This wording draws attention to the apparition o jurisdictional
con licts and tries to ind a canonical solution in order to relieve the relations
between autocephalous Churches and reinstatement o canonical orderliness.
The mediator role is awarded in these situations to the primate. It is evident
that in the synodal system o church organi ation, the primate unction cannot
be devoid o canonical value. The primate, as one amongst e uals, has a canonical
unction o harmony and consensus vector . Even i the wording o this paragraph
seems to award the Ecumenical Patriarchy canonical capacity o identi ying in
a unilateral way the canonical solution with regard to the said issue, considering
that its ending re ers to the prevailing pan‐Orthodox practice, it is evident that the
canonical solution can only be identi ied consensually. The resolution o dissensions
between the autocephalous Churches through consensus, being in act the prevailing
pan‐Orthodox practice by which all bishops have to abide, as the th apostolic
canon attests.
The primate unction is valued in paragraph e, this time in relation to
the management o church organi ation at the level o the Orthodox diaspora
Autonomous Churches are not established in the region o the Orthodox
Diaspora, except by pan‐Orthodox consensus, upheld by the Ecumenical Patriarch
in accordance with prevailing pan‐Orthodox practice.
This phrasing is o particular importance because, having in mind the
previous mention according to which the autocephalous Church has the exclusive
competency o according autonomy to an ecclesial region, the sister Orthodox

For more details on the canonical unction o the primate see Patriciu Vlaicu, Autorit et
coresponsabilit dans la onction canoni ue du primat les enseignements des uatre premiers
si cles et les d is actuels de l Eglise , in La primauté et les Primats Paris Cer , , ‐ .

 AUTONOMY AND ORTHODOX DIASPORA FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS ADOPTED


Churches implicitly assume that no autocephalous Church has jurisdiction
over the diaspora. Regardless, or the irst throne in the Orthodox Church, that
which also has the responsibility o cultivating communion, is recogni ed the
competency o reception vector or the consensus o the autocephalous Churches
with regard to the proclamation o autonomy or an ecclesial region o the
Orthodox diaspora.
It is or the irst time when a pan‐Orthodox document, approved in the
preparatory phase by all autocephalous Churches, expresses with one voice
the possibility o organi ing autonomous churches in the diaspora. It is a irst
step towards creating local Churches in the Orthodox diaspora. Simultaneously,
considering that the document implicitly a irms that no autocephalous Church is
entitled to a general jurisdiction in the Orthodox diaspora, we cannot re rain rom
asking ourselves how would that Church be articulated in the communion o the
Orthodox Church. To which autocephalous Church would it belong, or how could
an autonomous Church which is not automatically integrated in an autocephalous
Church mani est itsel
As a conclusion to this irst section o our analysis, we can underline
the act that the document o the Holy and Great Council clari ies the way in which
Church autonomy is integrated in the institution o autocephaly and presents it as
a reestanding orm o organi ation in an ecclesial and socio‐cultural context in
which such a structuring supports the mission o the Church.
Church autonomy has to be organi ed by respecting canonical tradition,
and the disagreements between autocephalous Churches with regard to this
institution s mode o mani estation in a certain region must be resolved through
consensus. The Ecumenical Patriarchy only has a role o mediation and communion
vector. For the irst time the possibility o organi ing local autonomous churches
in the Diaspora is evoked, under the conditions o receiving consensus with the
support o the Ecumenical Patriarchy.

II. The issue of the Orthodox diaspora from the point of view of
the Holy and Great Council’s document

With the population movements o the beginning o the th century,
the Orthodox Church consolidated its presence outside o traditional canonical
territories. Thus, a new canonical entity emerged, the Orthodox diaspora,
which was perceived rom the beginning as an atypical orm o ecclesial
mani estation, or which the Church must ind appropriate solutions both
rom a canonical and pastoral‐missionary point o view. Even since the s
the presence o Orthodox communities outside o the traditional canonical
territories o the autocephalous Churches attracted the attention o canonists


 PATRICIU DORIN VLAICU


and ecclesiologists, and the subject was considered particularly sensitive, and in
need o anchoring in the canonical tradition and o communal understanding in
the Orthodox Church.
In addressing this issue, a ter a ew terminological clari ications, I will
underline the challenges and opportunities brought by what we de ine as the
Orthodox diaspora, and I will highlight the application o organi ational economy
to the pastoral‐missionary reality o the diaspora. Finally I will underline a ew
perspectives opened by the conciliar document.

a. Terminological clarifications

The notion o diaspora originates rom the Hebrew term galout, which
is linked in its classical sense to the notion by which the ewish people outside
o Palestine were designated acob , Peter , . Besides this etymology,
throughout time, some population movement analysts considered that at the
origin o the term employed in modern languages stands the Greek verb speiro
with the pre ix dia, which means dispersal. Through this word we understand
a people dispersed beyond its traditional territory, which is characterised by
maintaining an identity separate rom the socio‐cultural context to which it
emigrated .
Sociologists also use the term in its plural orm, speaking o diasporas,
incorporating in this notion not only the ethnic diaspora, but also other orms o
mani estation o identity groups beyond their traditional display environment .
So, we can speak o an ethnic, con essional or ethno‐con essional diaspora .
Amongst these orms o diaspora one can integrate the Orthodox diaspora,
de ined as the community o Orthodox Christians which live outside o the
originating territorial Churches and in any case, outside all territorial Orthodox
Churches .
It is evident that the diaspora was constituted in time, beginning with
ethnic migrations, but an Orthodox diaspora emerged which consists o persons

Lisa Anteby‐Yemini et William Berthomi re, Les diasporas retour sur un concept , Bulletin
du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem, no. .
M. Eliade, La nostalgie des origines Paris Gallimard, , ‐ .
For more details on the various diasporas see Alain Medam, Diaspora Diasporas. Arch type et
typologie , Revue Européenne des Migrations Internationales , no. , ‐ .
The Unitarians emigrated because o religious persecutions. For more details on the Unitarians
see Michel Baron, Les unitariens Paris Harmattan, .
See G.D. Papathomas, Le Corpus Canonum de l'Eglise Orthodoxe, (1er‐9e siècles) Le texte des
Saints Canons ecclésiaux Editions Pektasis, , .

 AUTONOMY AND ORTHODOX DIASPORA FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS ADOPTED


who do not consider themselves as members o the ethnic diaspora , a scattering
o the Orthodox aith amongst the persons originating rom those respective
countries.
I the con essional element is that which grants the Orthodox diaspora s
identity, the ethno‐cultural element cannot be neglected. It underlines the
language and tradition peculiarities. However, in the Orthodox diaspora, two types
o re erring to the con essional and ethnic elements are identi ied. For the irst
generation o emigrants, the ethno‐cultural element is prevalent, the aith ul
calling themselves Romanian, Greek, Serbian‐Orthodox. Beginning with the second
generation a large part call themselves Orthodox‐Russians, Serbians, Greeks,
Romanians. This dynamic is common in the context o integrating the immigrants
in the host‐societies, and marks the passing rom belonging to an ethno‐con essional
diaspora to a con essional presence marked by ethno‐cultural values.

b. The Orthodox diaspora, challenge and opportunity

Some considered that the Orthodox diaspora reveals the incapacity o
our Church to live a coherent relationship to canonicity . In support o this
position the anomaly o situating multiple bishops in one city is highlighted. It
is taken as a sign o a chronic canonical disorder.
Others consider that organi ing the Church s mission while considering
cultural particularities is nothing else than endowing the Church with the necessary
means or a complex mission in a complex pastoral environment .
Even i the opinions contradict with regard to the nature o the diaspora
issue, it is certain that the Orthodox diaspora o ered and o ers a ramework in
which Orthodoxy is lived in a context o pan‐Orthodox interaction.
In the Orthodox diaspora, aith ul o various origins can understand the
di erent traditions o their young coreligionists who are settling down in their
host countries, make riendships and appreciate Orthodox youths o other origins.

In Western Europe there are more than parishes which are primarily constituted o
Orthodox aith ul originating rom the said countries or rom a third‐ ourth generation o
immigrants. See Pnevmatikakis, La territorialit de l glise orthodoxe en France, entre exclusivisme
juridictionnel et catholicit locale , Carnets de géographes En ligne , ,
http cdg.revues.org , accessed Mai , , doi . cdg. .
G.D. Papathomas, La relation d opposition entre Eglise tablie localement et Diaspora
eccl siale L unit eccl siologi ue ace la co‐territorialit et la multi‐juridiction , L’Année
canonique .
An analysis o the link between territorial and personal mission is done by Lewis . Patsavos,
Territoriality and Personality in Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Law Canon Law Faces the
Third Millennium , in Peter Erdo, Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of the Society
for the Law of the Eastern Churches Budapest Pa many Peter Catholic Univ., .

 PATRICIU DORIN VLAICU


The elderly stead ast in the culture and traditions o their originating countries
end up cherishing di erent traditions.
Certainly, the diaspora is a complex reality and sometimes di icult to
manage, but it o ers an auspicious ramework or ample debates. In this diaspora,
personalities o the Orthodox Church con essed the values o Orthodoxy in ront o
other Christians. This way, the particularities o Orthodoxy were better understood
by the others, and Orthodoxy itsel was con ronted with other ways o living the
Gospel.
Considering all o the above, we can say the Orthodox diaspora is not
only a medium which evokes complex issues, but also a providential aspect which,
i assumed coherently, can be capitali ed upon.
I during the preparatory period o the Holy and Great Council there was
the wish that the provisory organisation would not exceed the moment o its
convening, in the ourth pre‐conciliar con erence it was decided that the structures
created or mani esting unity in the Orthodox diaspora must be organi ed on a
long‐term basis, advancing towards a greater canonical coherency.

c. The Orthodox diaspora’s organization, application of canonical
economy at an organizational level

The document adopted by the Holy and Great Council underlines the
determination o all autocephalous Orthodox Churches o organi ing the
diaspora according to the ecclesiology, tradition and practice o the Orthodox
Church . This wish is displayed as a long‐term project originating rom the
discovery ormulated in paragraph b which states that in the current phase
organi ational economy is applied, creating, in a irst stage , regions o
the Orthodox diaspora, enumerated in paragraph Canada the United States o
America Latin America Australia New Zealand and Oceania the United Kingdom
o Great Britain and Northern Ireland France Belgium, the Netherlands and
Luxembourg Austria Italy and Malta Swit erland and Lichtenstein Germany the
Scandinavian Countries excluding Finland .
Paragraph b points out that the Orthodox diaspora is constituted as a
orm o organi ational economy while according to strict canonical order there
would be only one bishop in a city . This speci ication directly re ers canon

See Chroni ue, A propos de la diaspora orthodoxe , in Contacts , no. .
N. Lossky, La pr sence orthodoxe dans la diaspora et ses implications eccl siologi ues, de
m me ue celles des glises orientales catholi ues , Irénikon , no. .
We notice that amongst these regions the Far East is not included, and or this reason the text
re ers, in a irst stage, to the organi ation o the diaspora.

 AUTONOMY AND ORTHODOX DIASPORA FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS ADOPTED


o the First Ecumenical Synod, which points out that in order not to have two
bishops in a city, the Cathar bishops received to Orthodoxy need to be placed as
chorbishops or priests, i in the said city there was already an Orthodox bishop.
Starting rom this a irmation, we ask ourselves i the monobishopric,
through itsel , has the capacity o solving in a strict canonical manner the issue
o the Orthodox diaspora. It is obvious that overlapping ethnic jurisdiction in
the diaspora raises serious canonical issues . But is this issue understood in
all o its complexity We can speak o canonical normality only evocating the
mono‐episcopate, without speaking o the relationship with the canonical
reality o the local Church Is it not also an issue o canonical disorder when
we do have a mono‐episcopate but it is not ramed in the canonical reality o
the local Church I in Latin America there would be only one bishop, member
o the Holy Synod o the Serbian Orthodox Church, and Orthodox aith ul o
various origins, in order to be integrated into the Orthodox Church they would
need to be integrated into the Church o Serbia. Would this be canonical normality
Certainly not. Canonical normality is when the people o a region are organi ed in
a local Church and consider themselves irst and oremost as being Orthodox ,
and the local bishop ully embraces canonical responsibility, without being
integrated into a jurisdiction situated thousands o kilometres away, marked
by ethnic and cultural‐linguistic speci ics, which is entirely di erent rom that
in which he serves.
We notice that the document regarding the Orthodox diaspora avoids
using the notion o local Church, and leaves the impression that the problem
can be solved through an underlining o the role played by the Ecumenical
Patriarchy in the issue o the diaspora.
In this phase o mani esting synodality at a pan‐Orthodox level, the
issue o the diaspora was not resolved. The Church was satis ied to a irm the
need o common testimony in order that the diaspora is not a place o dissension,
but a medium o complementary mani estation o all charisms which nations can
highlight. Although regarding the organi ation o the diaspora some consider that
the situation is in act a major disorder, others underline that current organi ation
o the diaspora is the only one which can o er reasonable pastoral solutions.
Respect towards the speci icity o pastoral care in distinct ethno‐cultural
contexts is not singular in the history o the Church. Ever since the irst centuries,
valuing the ethnic component was a means or mission. The presence o some

P. L Huillier P., L Unit de l glise au plan local dans la diaspora , Contacts , no. .
G.D. Papathomas, La relation d opposition entre glise tablie localement et Diaspora
eccl siale L unit eccl siologi ue ace la co‐territorialit et la multi‐juridiction , L’Année
canonique .

 PATRICIU DORIN VLAICU


bishops with a jurisdiction based on the ethnic element is con irmed in the
synodal acts. At the Synod o Nicaea o , Teophilus, the bishop o the Goths
participated . In Spain the synods o the Visigoths are mentioned . The same
type o organi ation was ound with the Gauls . The Blessed Augustine speaks
o general, national and provincial synods. This way he a irms that national
synods reunited the bishops o a kingdom or o a people and that they are
presided by primates or patriarchs, the notion o patriarch itsel being linked
with that o nation . The conversion o the Franks and Visigoths to the Christian
aith and the conversion o their leaders gave birth to an organi ation which
took into consideration the ethno‐cultural element. In this sense, the Spanish
Visigoths regime is representative. They had synods which regulated in an
autonomous manner, without Roman inter erence, in the li e o these communities.
In the Orient we also have atypical situations which structure mission
amongst migratory people, doubling the territorial principle with the pastoral
availability or peoples. In the dioceses o Asia, Pontus and Thracia, in order to
ensure missions among the barbaric peoples, the Church decided to grant them a
distinct pastoral solicitude, as canons rom the Second Ecumenical Synod
and rom the Fourth Ecumenical Synod testi y.
Canon o the Second Ecumenical Council indicates that God s Churches
which are among the barbaric nations must be led a ter the custom established by
our athers . Orti o Urbina, speaking o this canon and about the barbaric
churches situated outside o the Empire underlines that they were linked to the
mother Churches which evangeli ed them .The Ethiopian Church was linked
to that o Alexandria, the Persian Church to that o Antioch.
Canon Chalcedon underlines the way in which barbaric communities
were retreated rom metropolitan territorial jurisdictions, inding themselves
under the direct authority o the patriarch who consecrated their bishops. In
canon Trullo we have another example which speaks o the canonical solution
identi ied with the occasion o Cypriot s dislocation to another territory. The
people thus moved gains the character o distinct Church rom that o the territory
in which it was moved and does not re uest or the immigrants to be integrated in
the local Church where they ended up. Rather, it grants to the Church o the
emigrant people, which had a richer tradition, the right to consecrate the
bishop o the territory to which they emigrated.

See Charles oseph He ele, Histoire des Conciles Paris, , .
See Spanish Abbots and the Visigothic Councils o Toledo , in Spanish and Portuguese Monastic
History 600‐1300, Variorum Reprints, V, London, , .
Pro . Brigitte Basdevant‐Gaudemet, Les Ev ues, les papes et les princes dans la vie conciliaire
de France du IVe au XIIe si cle , R.H.D., .
See Abb D. Bouix, Du Concile Provincial Paris ac ues Leco re et Cie, Editeurs, , .
Orti de Urbina, Nicée et Constantinople Paris, , ‐ .

 AUTONOMY AND ORTHODOX DIASPORA FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS ADOPTED


Through these examples, I do not wish to justi y the canonical normality
o extraterritorial jurisdiction. But I only ind that the Church has always
ound organi ational solutions in order to sustain pastoral care in exceptional
circumstances and did not subordinate pastoral care to an absolute territorial
principle . Thus, the Church knew how to integrate exceptions and uali ied
them in relation to canonical normality, so long as the exception did not in ringe
upon doctrine and proved itsel necessary rom a pastoral or missionary point
o view.
In continuity with the previously mentioned canons, in ull canonicity, the
Holy and Great Council took the organi ation o the regions o the Orthodox
diaspora upon itsel and decided to constitute the gathering o bishops who carry
out their mission in these distinct pastoral contexts. Hence, the Church takes into
consideration the need or unitary mani estation in the diaspora and assigns to
the gathering o the bishops the mission o mani esting the unity o Orthodoxy
and developing communal actions or all Orthodox living in each region, in order
to answer the pastoral needs and to represent Orthodoxy be ore other con essions
and to the whole society o the said regions.
The last paragraph o the document regarding the diaspora underlines
the act that autocephalous Churches commit not to laden the regulatory process in
a canonical manner o the issue o the diaspora and that they will do everything in
their power to acilitate the work o the bishop s gathering and to establish the
normality o canonical order in the diaspora. The text exempli ies to this end
the commitment which the autocephalous Orthodox Churches make in order not to
give hierarchs already existing canonical titles. This a irmation, canonically
and deontologically correct, has a very complex charge. It is the conclusion o
ample debates on the titles o diaspora bishops, which materiali ed in meaning ul
ormal gestures. I we consult the list o current bishops, we notice that the bishops
o the Ecumenical Patriarchy, who are active in the diaspora, are named a ter
the country where they reside, and the bishops o other jurisdictions are uali ied
as being in the said countries. From reading these lists rom the o icial page o
the Council we could understand that the autocephalous Churches agreed upon
this position expressed by the ecumenical Patriarchy. I we however consult the
signed documents, we notice that some bishops rom the Orthodox diaspora
noted the modi ication o their title when they signed the documents and ound the
material error correcting the title by hand. Even i this aspect could be considered
by some as a small detail, it is meaning ul and would deserve its own analysis

For more details on the link between canonical principles and pastoral realities, see Patriciu Vlaicu,
Les principes d organisation eccl siale ace aux r alit s contemporaines ‐ Territorialit et responsabilit
pastorale , Année Canonique ‐ .

 PATRICIU DORIN VLAICU


in an exclusive study dedicated to bishops titles in direct relationship to those
rom the Orthodox diaspora. At this level o our analysis we only underline a
ew incoherencies which still need to be clari ied.
I the Orthodox bishop o the Ecumenical Patriarchy is the Metropolitan
o France, would it not mean that he is the bishop o a local Church, with complete
jurisdiction I it is so, how does this title reconcile with the a irmations o the
documents regarding autonomy, which indicate that in the diaspora there is no
exclusive and direct jurisdiction o a local Church e and with the document
regarding the Orthodox diaspora which shows that bishops named with the
said title are in the jurisdiction o the Patriarchy o Constantinople b This
statute o the Orthodox diaspora, as being in the pastoral care o the whole Church,
without a speci ic jurisdictional competence recogni ed to any Church is highlighted
also by article o the document regarding the regulation o episcopal gatherings,
which gives to the Synaxis of the Primates the competency o deciding regarding
modi ying territorial circumscriptions o the Orthodox diaspora .
We notice that the document regarding the Orthodox diaspora uses very
o ten the expressions canonical normality , in a canonical manner , established
pan‐Orthodox practice . Resolving in a canonical manner an issue with which
the Church is con ronted does not only mean to re er to certain canons, but to
resolve the problems in accordance with the canonical conscience o the Church,
considering the context and means which the Church has at its disposal.
Who has the competency o syntheti ing the canonical conscience o
the Church I each Church identi ies in a unilateral way canonical solutions,
there is the risk o those solutions being marked by subjectivism. For this reason, the
canonical tradition highlights the Synod as competent court in order to resolve all
problems with which the Church is con ronted, as the th apostolic canon
indicates. In synodality all di iculties can be overcome and precisely the degradation
o conciliar conscience leads to loss o sensibility towards canonicity. The th
canon o Chalcedon shows that disorders in the Church are not eliminated precisely
because the rhythmicity o conciliar reunions was lost. There ore, the best method o
rediscovering canonical normality is exactly organi ing synodality in the necessary
rhythm in order to solve the problems with which the Church is being con ronted.
For local or regional problems, the answer must be given by local or regional synods.
For problems which pertain to the whole Church, answers must be given by the
general synods to which the Holy and Great Council o the Orthodox Church belongs.


Article . The ormation o a new Episcopal Assembly, the partition or abolition o an existing
Episcopal Assembly, or the merger o two or more o these Assemblies, occurs ollowing the decision
o the Synaxis o the Primates o the Orthodox Churches, at the re uest o a particular Church, or the
re uest o the Chairman o a particular Episcopal Assembly to the Ecumenical Patriarch.

 AUTONOMY AND ORTHODOX DIASPORA FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTS ADOPTED



REFERENCES


A propos de la diaspora orthodoxe. Contacts , no. .
Spanish Abbots and the Visigothic Councils o Toledo. In Spanish and Portuguese
Monastic History 600‐1300, Variorum Reprints, V. London, .
Anteby‐Yemini, Lisa et William Berthomi re. Les diasporas retour sur un concept.
Bulletin du Centre de recherche français à Jérusalem, no. .
Baron, Michel, Les unitariens. Paris Harmattan, .
Basdevant‐Gaudemet, Brigitte. Les Ev ues, les papes et les princes dans la vie
conciliaire de France du IVe au XIIe si cle. R.H.D., no. .
Bouix, Abb D. Du Concile Provincial. Paris ac ues Leco re et Cie, Editeurs, .
Ducellier, Alain, ed. Byzance et le monde orthodoxe, e edition. Paris Armand Colin, .
Eliade, M., La nostalgie des origines. Paris Gallimard, .
Erickson, .H. Common Comprehension o Christians concerning Autonomy and Central
Power in the Church in View o Orthodox Theology. Kanon, no. .
———. Autocephaly in Orthodox Canonical Literature to the Thirteenth Century. St.
Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly, no. ‐ .
He ele, Charles oseph. Histoire des Conciles. Paris, .
Ioni , Viorel. Hotărârile întrunirilor panortodoxe din 1923 până în 2009. Bucure ti Ed.
Basilica, .
Kshutashvili, . Organi area bisericii georgiene si ba ele ei canonice. PhD Thesis,
Constan a Ovidius University, .
L Huillier, P. L Unit de l glise au plan local dans la diaspora. Contacts , no. .
———. Le d cret du concile de Chalc doine sur les pr rogatives du si ge de la tr s sainte
glise de Constantinople. Messager de l’Exarchat du Patriarchat russe en Europe
Occidentale, no. .
Lampe, George. A Greek Patristic Lexicon. Ox ord, .
Liddell, H. G. and R. Scott, A Greek‐English Lexicon. Cambridge, .
Lombino, V., Pentarchia. In Nuovo Dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiane. Edited by
Angelo Di Berardino. Genova‐Milano Casa Editrice Marietti, . ‐ .
Lossky, N. La pr sence orthodoxe dans la diaspora et ses implications eccl siologi ues, de
m me ue celles des glises orientales catholi ues. Irénikon , no. .
Medam, Alain. Diaspora Diasporas. Arch type et typologie. Revue Européenne des
Migrations Internationales , no. .
Papathomas, G. L’Eglise autocephale de Cypre dans l’Europe Unie. Katerini Ed. Pectasis,
Katerini, .
Papathomas, G.D. La relation d opposition entre Eglise tablie localement et Diaspora
eccl siale L unit eccl siologi ue ace la co‐territorialit et la multi‐
juridiction. L’Année canonique .
———. La relation d opposition entre glise tablie localement et Diaspora eccl siale
L unit eccl siologi ue ace la co‐territorialit et la multi‐juridiction ,
L’Année canonique .


 PATRICIU DORIN VLAICU


———. Le Corpus Canonum de l'Eglise Orthodoxe, (1er‐9e siècles) Le texte des Saints
Canons ecclésiaux. Editions Pektasis, .
Patsavos, Lewis . Territoriality and Personality in Canon Law and Ecclesiastical Law
Canon Law Faces the Third Millennium. In Peter Erdo, Proceedings of the 11th
International Congress of the Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches.
Budapest Pa many Peter Catholic Univ., .
Pnevmatikakis. La territorialit de l glise orthodoxe en France, entre exclusivisme
juridictionnel et catholicit locale. Carnets de géographes, .
http cdg.revues.org , accessed Mai , . doi . cdg. .
R. anin, Les Arm niens. L glise arm nienne , Échos d'Orient , no. .
Stan, Liviu. Despre autonomia bisericeasc . Studii Teologice, no. ‐ .
Urbina, Orti de. Nicée et Constantinople. Paris, .
Vlaicu, Patriciu. Autorit et coresponsabilit dans la onction canoni ue du primat
les enseignements des uatre premiers si cles et les d is actuels de l Eglise. In
La primauté et les Primats. Paris Cer , , ‐ .
———. Les principes d organisation eccl siale ace aux r alit s contemporaines‐
Territorialit et responsabilit pastorale. Année Canonique ‐ .
Vogel, C. Communion et Eglise locale aux premiers si cles, Primaut et synodalit
durant la p riode ant nic enne. L’Année canonique, no. .
Ware, Kallistos. L exercice de l autorit dans l glise orthodoxe II . Irinikon, no.
‐ .