Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
E th n o p h y le tis m , A u to c e p h a ly , a n d
N a t i o n a l Ch u r h e s- A T h e o l o g i c a l
A p p r o a c h a n d E c c l e s i o l o g i c a l I m p lic a tio n s
Paul Meyendorff
Iw ouldliketobeginbythankingthe organizers ofthis conference for
the timeliness ofthe topic. Ecclsial developments over the last two
centuries have led to a complex and problematic situation for world
Orthodoxy. First came the collapse ofthe O ttom an Empire and the
subsequent development of independent nation-states in Eastern
Europefollowed soon after by the creation of autocephalous,
national Orthodox Churches in those states during the 19th century.
The 20th century brought two World Wars, one crisis after another
in the Middle East, foe spread and then the collapse of Communism,
with foe resulting church persecutions, as well as foe migration of
many Orthodox to the Westto Western Europe, N orth and South
America, and Australiaupheavals that led to anomalous church
structures in these areas, with parallel jurisfoctions and competing
ecclesiological visions. Now we in the 21st century are left to
untangle this mess and to restore proper canonical order, consistent
with foe Orthodox ecclesiological tradition.
As recent decades have shown, this is no easy task. Nationalism has
only grown in both foe political and religious spheres. We are today
witnessing the difficulties in ^ in ta in in g unity within foe European
Union, as well as conflicts and power struggles among the various
national churches. And in foe West, whether in Western Europe,
Australia, or foe Americas, canonical order has totally broken down
with the existence o f multiple jurisdictions and multiple bishops in
foe same place. Worse yet are the attempts to justify this situation
with claims that this situation poses no problem, because we are
all in communion, or, more recently, that the national churches
382
For the various nieanings and uses ofthe term , see G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic
Greek Lexikon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1042 96 (.
383
384
S T ^ D I M I R S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
385
For a good introduction to this history, see Mark Stokoe and Leonid Kishkovsky,
Orthodox Christians in NorthAmerica, 1794-1994 (New York: Orthodox Christian
Fublications Center, 9 5.
386
387
388
Autocephaly
No topic has been more controversial within world Orthodoxy
in recent years than autocephaly, and ^reicularly how it is
attained. It is precisely this issue that has slowed the convening
of a pan-Orthodox Council and may derail it altogether. The
controversy includes different inrerpretations of Canon 28 of
5
389
390
8
9
10
Ibid., p. 2.
Ibid.
1980 Statute of the Church of Cyprus, artiele 2, as quoted in Jean-Claude Larchet,
L glise, corps du Christ, 0111, Les relutior^s eutre les glises (Paris: Cerf, 2012), .
My English translation. The Church of Cyprus has recently revised its statute and
removed the reference to Cypriots living abroad.
391
392
ent (i.e., began selecting its own primate) some 150 years before
this was formally recognized by the Patriarch of Constantinople in
1589 a recognition in fact granted only under duressand then
later affirmed by councils in Constantinople in 1590 and 1593. In the
last two centuries, as new national churches were created in Central
and Eastern Europe as the Ottoman Empire retreated, recognition
typically came decades after the fact: O n the basis of these facts, one
could conclude that autocephaly typically begins as a reality on the
ground and as a result of local initiative, with recognition granted
often only grudgingly, and typically after the fact.
The process then, is rather messy, and the canons provide no clear
guidelines. The situation of the so-called diaspora, the Orthodox
churches in Western Europe, America, and Australia, is ^rticularly
complex. Is autocephaly the answer? Is some form of autonomy?
Certainly, the present situation, with multiple ethnic jurisdictions,
with multiple bishops in the same city, is intolerable and violates
proper church order. The key issue, however, is not autocephaly,
but unity. No canons absolutely require autocephaly, but Orthodox
tradition and the canons do require unity in each place. And this
unity can be achieved only when the bishops in these areas themselves
bring it about through local, conciliar action, unrestrained by
external control. Do they have the desire for this unity? And, equally
important, are the mother churches ready and willing to allow this
territorial unity to happen? That remains to be seen.
Conclusion
Absolutely central is the need to restore a proper ecclesiological
vision, a vision that has been severely hampered by historical
developments in recent centuries. Yes, historical circumstances have
created what can only be considered as an anomalous situation.
It was pastoral need that led to the creation o f parallel, ethnic
jurisdictions in the West. The tragedy lies not so much in these
historical realities, but in their acceptance as normal! How often we
hear the refrain that, though divided, we share the same faith and
are all in communion. Similarly, the problem lies not so much in
393
394
ST VLADIMIRSTHEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may priut, dow nload, or send artieles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international eopyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your resp ective ATT,AS subscriber agreem ent.
No eontent may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s) express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS eollection with permission
from the eopyright holder(s). The eopyright holder for an entire issue ajourna!
typieally is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, tbe author o fth e article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use covered by the fair use provisions o f tbe copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright hoider(s), please refer to the copyright iaformatioa in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initia funding from Liiiy Endowment !).
The design and final form ofthis electronic document is the property o fthe American
Theological Library Association.