St Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 57:3-4 (2013) 431–450 Ethno-Phyletism and the [So-called] Ecclesial “Diaspora” Grigorios D. Papathomas The preparatory process for the future Holy and Great Pan-Orthodox Council has finalized the list of subjects to be discussed and, of the 105 topics initially proposed by the Pan-Orthodox Conference in Rhodes in 1961, just ten were selected by the First Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference in 1976 as the most significant and pressing. And of those ten, the question of the “Orthodox Diaspora” held and continues to hold pride of place. The general problem of the “Diaspora,” which we will shall now examine, is therefore of paramount importance; it has already been the subject of much study1 and will undoubtedly continue to be studied, precisely because it is so complex. Here, we will examine just one aspect, albeit a crucial one, which has to do, in my opinion, with the … impetus for and lifeblood of this problem. And the lifeblood of this ecclesial “Diaspora” was already pinpointed well over a century ago, at the conciliar level, as Ethno-Phyletism. The question, therefore, is not particularly new, but actually precedes the socio-political phenomenon of the Diaspora itself. For this reason, it is particularly important from a methodological point of view for us to begin with Ethno-Phyletism, which, before it became responsible for the ecclesial “Diaspora,” also gave birth to national Autocephaly and the phenomenon of the national autocephalous Churches.2 1 2 See the extensive, multilingual bibliography of the entire 20th century, with a variety of ad hoc articles on the canonical issues under examination, such as Autocephaly, Autonomy, and the “Diaspora” in Archim. Grigorios D. Papathomas, Essai de bibliographie (ad hoc) pour l’étude des questions de l’autocéphalie, de l’autonomie et de la diaspora (Contribution bibliographique à l’étude des questions—Essai préliminaire) [Bibliographical Essay (ad hoc) for the study of the questions of the Autocephaly, Autonomy and Diaspora (Bibliographical contribution to the study of the questions—Preliminary Essay)], Nomo-Canonical Library, No. 7 (Thessaloniki-Katerini: Epektasis, 2000). The English word “nation” is used to translate the Greek word “έθνος,” and the 431 SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 431 1/9/2014 9:26:20 PM 432 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Ethno-Phyletism, the Lifeblood of the Ecclesial “Diaspora” Ethno-phyletism, as a term and a neologism, was deliberately coined by the First (historically speaking) Pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1872 as a redundant and emphatically all-encompassing technical term (from έθνος/nation and φυλή/ race)—we shall see why—in order to highlight a heretical deviation that was occurring at that time in the heart of the Church. It is particularly interesting in the context of our conference here today to note why the Pan-Orthodox Council adopted or, better yet, created, this term, and what kind of aberration they sought to describe with it. First of all, phyletism (from the word φυλή/race, and associated with the terms racism and tribalism) is the adoption and implementation of the Principle of Nationalities at the ecclesial level—i.e., of the precedence and preponderance, within history, of the race and the nation over the kingdom. Phyletism represents the deliberate and conscious pursuit of racial and national discrimination within the Church, giving priority to those of the same race and nation—and excluding, by definition, those of other races and other nations— in the composition of the ecclesial body. In the attempt to realize the Church within History, in other words, Ethno-phyletism constitutes a confusion between the Church and the race/nation, an assimilation—and even, sometimes, identification—of the Church with the nation. We are dealing, then, with the rather odd correlation of two dimensions, in which phyletism “tribalizes” the Church and subordinates it to the endo-created historic goals of the race and the nation or, even worse, exploits the Church in order to discriminate against those of other races and nations solely for the benefit of the race and the nation. We could characterize this as an “(Ethno-)phyletic Church,” i.e., a “Church of Those of the Same Race” (sic), which is completely unknown as an ecclesial category or ecclesiastical entity in the two-thousand-year history of the Church. Nevertheless, today, we have turned this ecclesio-canonical aberration into an established ecclesial fact (see, for example, the ecclesiologically erroneous “Church of the Greeks”—in comparison with the perfectly acceptable adjectives “national” and “ethnic” are used interchangeably.–Tr. SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 432 1/9/2014 9:26:21 PM Ethno-Phyletism and the [So-called] Ecclesial “Diaspora” 433 “Parliament of the Greeks”—, as well as the Church of the Russians, the Church of the Romanians, and “The Patriarchate of the Serbs,” as it is officially known). The term “Ethno-phyletism,” therefore, was the name given to the Ecclesiological Heresy that first appeared in the heart of the Orthodox Church in 1870, with the arbitrary establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate in Constantinople, according to which the Church is organized not on a territorial basis, but rather on a racial, national, or—to be more precise—cultural one, such that, by means of co-territoriality, two or more ecclesial entities and ecclesiastical jurisdictions can co-exist in the same territory, each concerning itself only with the pastoral care of its members, who belong to a particular national group (i.e., Mono-phyletism, literally, “one-racism”). (Let me note here, parenthetically, that, in defining ethno-phyletism, we are simultaneously defining the ecclesial “Diaspora” and the ethno-phyletic way in which it has been organized—which clearly demonstrates the direct, reciprocal relationship between the two, as we shall see below). Ethno-phyletism—a new, unique form of nationalism—thus knowingly privileges exclusivity and national unity over unity in Christ. For this reason, the term was adopted by the Great and Holy (Major) Pan-Orthodox Synod of Constantinople on September 10, 1872, which formally defined and condemned Ethno-phyletism as a contemporary Ecclesiological Heresy (“the Balkan heresy”). And Ethno-phyletism, as is obvious from a theological perspective, actually manifests itself as an event of heresy at the ecclesial level, becoming ecclesial Mono-phyletism in the incarnation and realization of the Church in a particular given place (state-national territorial church) or in the entire world (“Diaspora”: the places outside [hyperorius] the ecclesiastical borders of jurisdiction, the places of those of the same race even though they live outside the ethno-ecclesiastical borders of the national church). Indeed, the idea of establishing an autocephalous church either at the level of the state or within an ethno-ecclesial community in the so-called “Diaspora”—not on a local/territorial (eucharistic/ ecclesial) basis, but on an ethno-phyletic, national, linguistic, or racial SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 433 1/9/2014 9:26:21 PM 434 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY basis—could be termed “racial (religious) nationalism.” Likewise, the establishment, in the same place, of particular Churches, accepting members of the same nationality and refusing members of other nationalities, being administered only by pastors of the same nationality, as is advocated by supporters of (ethno-)phyletism, is an unprecedented historical phenomenon. (Metropolitan Maximus of Sardis) The Church, therefore, in accordance with its eschatological mission within history and the created, fallen world, must never tie its fate to that of a single nation, a single race. That is why ecclesial Orthodoxy is generally hostile to any form of (ethno-)phyletic messianism. That being said, in the march within history of a people, we should distinguish clearly between what I call “ethnism” (which has a positive sense, inasmuch as it stands in contrast to disdain for one’s country) and ethnicism or nationalism (which has a pejorative sense, inasmuch as it means exclusive devotion to certain national ideals that involve territorial expansion to the detriment of other nations, as well as the imposition of a collective nationalistic ideology [ethno-mythology], which leads ineluctably to racism). We should see the first as an ally of the nation and the second as its enemy, because the former is consistent with the gathering together [ecclesial egataspora] of a local or territorial (autocephalous) church for the salvation of a people, while the latter is incompatible with the nature and eschatological character of the Church. The Church, therefore, is never constituted according to nationality, but rather according to territory! Autocephaly, by extension, is never given to a national group, wherever they may live, but to a people with specific, defined geographical borders. This people should constitute a single, united autocephalous church, irrespective of the national origin of the persons who comprise it. Thus, ecclesiologically, we have (or should have) “churches of independent states” (i.e., autocephalous churches), and not “churches of nations” (i.e., national(istic) churches). The ecclesio-canonical principle of territorial ecclesio-boundaries leads us to the heart of the problem we are examining here today. SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 434 1/9/2014 9:26:21 PM Ethno-Phyletism and the [So-called] Ecclesial “Diaspora” 435 The Ecclesio-canonical Limits of Autocephaly Indeed, the ecclesio-canonical principle of territorial boundaries poses for us two questions: first of all, whether an autocephalous church has territorial and personal jurisdiction3 outside its circumscribed (state) territorial boundaries, and secondly—if we conclude that territorial and personal jurisdiction beyond a church’s borders (hyperoria) is improper and uncanonical—whether there is actually such a thing as an ecclesial “Diaspora.”4 In both cases, the answer, from an ecclesio-canonical point of view, is “no.” However, according to modern Orthodox ecclesiastical practice, the answer, in both cases, is “yes.” Obviously, therefore, we have a stark dichotomy between what we say theologically, and what we do ecclesiastically. To put it simply, I would say that this occurs because in the first case ecclesiology predominates, while in the second case what prevails is the voluntary and conscious choice of ethno-phyletism, with all its worldly (endo-created) goals and aims. In other words, according to the two-thousand-year-old ecclesiocanonical tradition, the territorial and personal jurisdiction of an autocephalous church is strictly limited to its canonically defined territory, and that church has absolutely no jurisdictional rights outside those canonical limits. Once this is applied, ecclesiologically and canonically, for all the territorial Orthodox Churches, there will no longer be any issue regarding the “Diaspora.” As it stands now, the issue exists not because there is really a question regarding the “Diaspora,” but because some national Orthodox Churches did not understand the Chalcedonian dialectic inherent in autocephaly— that is, that in order to exist properly, they must be simultaneously “unconfused and indivisible,” both ecclesiologically and canonically. Indeed, when the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the “how to be” of the Churches, the “unconfused and indivisible being” of the territorial churches, which are in the entire world, the council confirmed both the unconditional otherness and the inherent communion between these churches. This council 3 4 Cf. Canon 5 (1st Ecumenical Council). Cf. Canon 28 (4th Ecumenical Council). SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 435 1/9/2014 9:26:22 PM 436 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY demonstrated that the existence of territorial churches lies at the intersection between the affirmation of geo-ecclesial otherness and the inherent ecclesial communion between them. In other words, the theological demand and the ontological vision of this council were that there be both ecclesial otherness and communion, as a clearly paradoxical achievement of the Trinitarian manner of existence of the territorial churches. When this is not maintained, then we have two unavoidably anti-ecclesiological and anticanonical deviations, which annihilate and destroy the Church. We can envision a symmetrical Isosceles triangle of deviations: on the one side, diversity becomes autonomous, resulting in the loss of ecclesial communion; and, on the other side, communion deteriorates into undifferentiated confusion in which ecclesial otherness is completely swallowed up. To be more precise: 1. In the first non-canonical deviation, we have the unilateral affirmation of the National Church as the exclusive property of those of the same race (ecclesiological mono-phyletism), which is indifferent to communion with the other territorial churches, claiming on its own an ontological, ecclesial fullness. The ethnoecclesiastical conviction inspires a need to care for those of the same race, who find themselves outside that church’s canonical borders, even if they happen to be within the borders of another territorial church, or in a territory administered canonically by another territorial church. This is precisely what gives rise, at the same time, to the phenomenon of the “Diaspora,” which is the overemphasis, on a global scale, of the “unconfused” at the expense of the “indivisible,” of otherness at the expense of communion, and thus the annihilation of the Chalcedonian dialectic between “unconfused and indivisible,” i.e., of the very definition of autocephaly. 2. In the second non-canonical deviation, we have one territorial church usurping/absorbing another territorial church, when they both find themselves in a single political entity. Thus, exactly what the Fourth Ecumenical Council condemned is precisely what the Patriarchate of Russia did in Estonia (1945–1996) and SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 436 1/9/2014 9:26:22 PM Ethno-Phyletism and the [So-called] Ecclesial “Diaspora” 437 Latvia (1945–present)—i.e., the dissolution of ecclesial otherness in the name of an imposed ecclesial communion around a single race. This results in the elimination and assimilation of the ecclesial otherness of an ecclesiastical body and the anti-canonical incorporation of one territorial church into another (territorial) church. Summarizing these two anti-canonical deviations, I would like to emphasize that, on the one hand, the overemphasis on “unconfused” (otherness) at the expense of “indivisible” (communion) engenders an ethno-phyletic church and all that that entails, chief of which is its activity beyond its borders (extra-territorial/hyperoria), leading to the creation of the so-called “Diaspora.” This co-existence and confusion of churches, these overlapping territories (co-territoriality), and this deformation of the Church are precisely what the Fourth Ecumenical Council sought to avoid, building on the work of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381), which sternly forbade anyone to “bring confusion on the churches.”5 On the other hand, the overemphasis on “indivisible” (communion) at the expense of “unconfused” (otherness), in the name of an ecclesiastical body centered on a single race, leads to the ecclesiastical unjust assimilation of one territorial church by another (territorial) church, which is precisely what was forbidden by the two Ecumenical Councils as an ontological concern, i.e., so as not to “bring confusion on the churches.” Therefore, in granting autocephaly: 1) the territorial principle takes precedence hypostatically over the national, and not the other way around; 2) the same applies for the subsequent operation of the autocephalous church, after it has been established; and 3) the same is also true for the scope of its jurisdiction, which is, again, is territorial and not national … At the future Great and Holy Council, the issue of autocephaly and its (endo-) jurisdictional limits will first have to be clarified. Once the already obvious ecclesio-canonical principle of the boundaries 5 Canon 2 (2nd Ecumenical Council). English translation from Nicene and PostNicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 14: The Seven Ecumenical Councils, 176. SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 437 1/9/2014 9:26:22 PM 438 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY of autocephaly are established, we can then examine the question of the ecclesial “Diaspora.” In other words, we must reverse the temporal hierarchy of examining these two pre-eminent issues, starting first with autocephaly and then moving on to the ecclesial “Diaspora,” and not vice versa. Up to this point, the agenda for the future council, which includes ten topics, has been headed by the question of the “Diaspora,” which is, in fact, a secondary effect and not the primary cause. The First Four Issues for the Future Pan-Orthodox Council (1976) The Current Order —> The Proposed Order 1. The Orthodox Diaspora 1. Autocephaly 2. Autocephaly 2. Autonomy 3. Autonomy 3. The ecclesial diptychs 4. The ecclesial diptychs 4. The ecclesiastical “Diaspora” When we follow this methodological order, we will be in for a surprise. Clarifying the jurisdictional limits of autocephaly will lead us to discover that the much-ballyhooed issue of the ecclesial “Diaspora” is actually a non-issue for the Church from an ecclesiocanonical perspective. Not only is there not, nor has there ever been, any such thing as the “Diaspora,” but the idea itself is excluded by the very nature and composition of the Church. So when we solve the first three problems in my proposed order, we will not have to tackle the fourth problem at all as a primary cause. Many Orthodox today fail to realize that each national autocephalous church’s disruptive retention of its “ethno-ecclesiastical” jurisdiction in the lands of the “Diaspora” engenders the anti-ecclesiological and anti-canonical phenomenon of co-territoriality, which has been unequivocally condemned by both ecumenical and local councils,6 and which has as a direct result the deformation of the (thence Orthodox) Church.7 It is simply not possible that the Church, throughout its long history, would have accepted an arrangement as obviously counterfeit as the 6 7 Cf. Canons 8 (1st Ecumenical Council); 12 and 28 (4th Ecumenical Council); 36, 39, and 56 (Quinisext); 57 (Carthage); etc. Cf. Canon 2 (2nd Ecumenical Council). SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 438 1/9/2014 9:26:23 PM Ethno-Phyletism and the [So-called] Ecclesial “Diaspora” 439 ecclesial “Diaspora” and not done anything to correct it. Today, we are trying to tackle an issue that is clearly secondary and derivative— and, as a result, superficial—without first examining and correcting the underlying causes that give rise to it. The Retrospective Canonical Solution to the Question of the “Diaspora” Now we come to the heart of the matter. Let us attempt, then, to approach the issue through the lens of the holy canons, since we have credible sources dating from as early as the first millennium that simply require further analysis and interpretation in light of today’s context. Indeed, the same council (Chalcedon, in 451) that defined the territorial churches as simultaneously “unconfused” (otherness) and “indivisible” (communion), with no distance or divergence between them, also laid down the ecclesio-canonical principle of the boundaries of every territorial church, namely, the five patriarchates that had then just recently been created (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), and the pre-existing autocephalous Church of Cyprus (5+1). The 5+1 territorial churches covered, geographically, the whole of the Roman Empire. There remained, however, the enormous undefined territory outside the Empire, all the land outside the borders of the five territorial churches/patriarchates, which were nevertheless known to the people of that time. The visionary Fourth Ecumenical Council, therefore, could not leave this area ecclesially undefined and not foresee how it would operate ecclesiologically. So, while there were no ecclesial bodies of any kind in this territory, the council, operating with keen foresight, decided to proleptically regulate this matter from one ecclesio-canonical point of view. We will soon see, irrespective of its historical context, that the ecclesio-canonical principle underlying Canon 28 of Chalcedon8 is 8 See, primarily, my own ad hoc analysis of this aspect of this canon law problem, under the title “Η αποδοχή «Εκκλησιακής Διασποράς» συνεπάγεται αναίρεση της Εκκλησίας (κανόνας 28/Δ΄). (Μία άλλη εκδοχή επιλύσεως αυτού του εκκλησιο-κανονικού ζητήματος)” [“(To) accept the existence of the “Ecclesial Diaspora” signifies the abolition of the Church herself (canon 28/IV). (Another solution for this Ecclesio-canon- SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 439 1/9/2014 9:26:23 PM 440 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY simply the addition of another unified ecclesiastical territory to the already existing ecclesial formula of “5+1,” making it “5+1+1”: viz., the five patriarchates, the autocephalous Church of Cyprus, and now the rest of the known world, the extra-ecclesiastical territories, as a unified ecclesial entity. In other words, this important Council initiated a global organization of the Church “which is in the entire world,”9 along three holistic and determinative axes: 1) It instituted patriarchal otherness (patriarch of a city, church of a territory); 2) It created global, conciliar communion amongst the territorial churches (5+1); and 3) It anticipated and established, ecclesiologically, the extraecclesial territories (Canon 28 [4th Ecumenical Council]). With this ecclesial composition, the Church wanted, as early as 451, to maintain everywhere ecclesiological unity and a single [mono-] jurisdiction in each territory, i.e., the dual constitutive prerequisites for a local or for a territorial church. Thus, in all three instances, the ecumenical council designated a presiding bishop. In the first two cases, the function is obvious and well known to us historically. In the third case, however, which is what interests us here, one bishop was designated for all the extra-ecclesial territories as a whole, precisely in order to maintain everywhere ecclesiological unity and a mono-jurisdiction in each territory. Thus, the Divine Liturgy/ Eucharist celebrated in these territories should be in the name of only one bishop,10 in order to avoid any ecclesiological confusion.11 It is thus obvious—and always has been—that we cannot have two or more bishops or presiding hierarchs in one place and one ecclesial territory. The importance of Canon 28 lies precisely in the fact that the council decided that the Patriarchate of Rome should preside over the Pentarchy, while the Patriarchate of Constantinople would have ecclesiological oversight over the extra-ecclesiastical territories: 9 10 11 ical Question”], Theologia [Athens] 80: 2 (April–June 2009): 121–42. Canon 57 (Carthage [419]) and 56 (Quinisext). Ibid. Cf. Canon 2 (2nd Ecumenical Council). SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 440 1/9/2014 9:26:23 PM Ethno-Phyletism and the [So-called] Ecclesial “Diaspora” 441 yes, it is “jurisdiction beyond the borders,” but it is canonical; in fact, it is, historically, the only exception to the canonical tradition of the Church, for the reasons previously set forth. It was immediately after this decision that the Patriarch of Constantinople acquired the corresponding canonical title, “Ecumenical Patriarch,” which derives from this added canonical quality. This led then to the patriarchate being known as “ecumenical,” and not vice versa. We should note here that the canons were promulgated in the first millennium, but have continued to function, ontologically, until the present. Their operation, however, is not based on their contextual historical framework, but on the foundational canonical kernel of truth that has been preserved unchanged and which demands to be adapted to each time and place, consistent with the socio-political and cultural changes, which are accounted for in these underlying canonical givens. Thus, the qualities and canonical prerogatives bestowed by the councils remain unchanged. It appears, however, that today the body of the Church is unable to theologize about this, and is unable to understand the new situation that confronts us here within history. That is why we are now displaying symptoms of improvising and adopting secular socio-political methods to solve the problem, as well as symptoms of conforming to the present age: instead of the Church transforming the world, the Church itself is being transformed—for the worse—by the world! … This is why the heart of the question of the “Diaspora” and its solution have yet to be explored! … State-Nation (État-Nation) and Nation-State in Relation to the “Diaspora” The “Diaspora” has its origins in the so-called “National State,” which was created in modern times, after the French Revolution (1789), under the influence of the principle of nationalities (since the 12th century), and according to the well-known French model of the State-Nation. We should recall here that, just before this new development, we have, in the West, the construction of states for one simple reason: to avoid being subject to papal domination, and SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 441 1/9/2014 9:26:23 PM 442 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY not because they represented some distinct nationality. But this is precisely what happened next—the state became the State-Nation (État-Nation). In fact, in the French Revolution, the National Assembly proclaimed on August 27, 1789, that “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation. No body [read: the Church] nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed directly from the Nation,” and “all powers emanate from the Nation.” The state thus acquired considerable power and was put in a position to arrange the Church’s affairs. A new national consciousness then emerged with an overemphasis on that nationality’s unique qualities as compared to other nationalities. The Nation was thus defined as a political entity: State-Nation, i.e., a state constructed with enlarged state authority, in order to function as a nation. This means that, after a prolonged period of empire, a new governmental form took shape—the state—which then, guided by the principle of nationalities, was proclaimed as a (constructed) Constitutional Nation [with jus soli as the decisive criterion], the structure and outlook of which was defined by the term itself, State-Nation. Conversely, in the East, while it is true that this French model served as the ideal for the various peoples of the Balkans, the situations were strikingly different. In fact, the Balkan revolutions of the 19th century gave birth to the exact opposite of that in France, something that Balkan historians (and others) have systematically tried to forget: the Nation-State, i.e., a state based on the principle of “Nation of blood” [jus sanguinis], comprised of the people of a particular race, which existed before the foundation of the state, and which became a State in the modern sense after the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the success of the liberation movements. These new Nation-States also demanded ecclesiastical autonomy and independence based on the same national criterion. If, in the case of the State-Nation (État-Nation), we refer to the exclusive sovereignty of the State as “Statism,” then, in the case of the Nation-State (Nation-État), we should clearly distinguish it from the former and call it “Ethno-Statism.” This different and, in fact, reversed, situation is of immediate SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 442 1/9/2014 9:26:24 PM Ethno-Phyletism and the [So-called] Ecclesial “Diaspora” 443 interest to us here as we examine the realization of the Church. And this is because, in the first case, we have National Churches (State-Nation), while in the second case, we are dealing with the confusion of national/racial identity and religious identity (whoever is Orthodox is Greek or Serbian, etc., while whoever is not Orthodox “is a Turk or some other nationality/faith”). We therefore have a near total identification of Nation and Church (along the lines of the Nation-State), resulting not in National Churches but in clearly Ethno-phyletic Churches—e.g., the Patriarchate of the Serbs, the Greek Church, the Russian Church, the Romanian Church, wherever they may happen to be. (This is why the Orthodox Church continues to reprise its national role whenever the respective nation-states experience a political or national crisis.) The Orthodox thus established ethno-phyletic churches (Church Nation-State) both in Eastern Europe and throughout the world; we had, in other words, a budding or—in many cases—an active ecclesiological heresy, ecclesiological ethno-phyletism, which attempted to find a canonical basis, but which was unequivocally condemned by the Pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1872, because the Bulgarians’ claim to ecclesial self-determination was not based on the fact that they belonged to another political entity, but rather on their ethno-phyletic difference. Yet, despite the fact that this council condemned ecclesiological ethno-phyletism as racist nationalism and ecclesiological culturalism, this exact situation has dominated the Orthodox landscape from then until the present day, spawning the ecclesial “Diaspora.” And herein lies the rub. It is to our credit that we Orthodox had the theological acumen to convene a council to condemn ecclesiological ethno-phyletism as a heresy, in contrast to the Roman Catholics and Protestants, who not only have yet to fully grasp their own ecclesiastical culturalism throughout the second millennium (ritualism in the 13th century and confessionalism in the 16th century),12 but have actually moved farther away from condemning 12 See, especially, my own ad hoc analytical study of this inter-Christian ecclesiocanonical problem, which lies active until today, under the title “Au temps de la post- SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 443 1/9/2014 9:26:24 PM 444 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY it at the conciliar level. At the same time, however, it is to our shame that we Orthodox—while we decisively condemned ecclesiological culturalism as a heresy in the 19th century—have, in practice, done nothing but the opposite for the last 140 years. Ethno-phyletism has been responsible for deforming (largely unnoticed) the correct principle of ecclesial locality into a façade for national sectarianism. Thus, although we share basically the same problem, mutatis mutandis, we Orthodox are worse off than the Roman Catholic and Protestants. It is as if the Church were to say: “If I had not come and spoken to them [the Orthodox], they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.”13 We therefore become more and more “a spectacle to the world”14 with the ecclesiological mono-phyletism of our novel Orthodox “Diaspora.” If one lives even a short time in this so-called “Diaspora”—where we have, amid ethnically disparate populations, the tragic ecclesiological phenomenon of unmixed mono-phyletic churches existing in parallel on the same territory—one will quickly understand the import of this laconic expression, “ecclesiological mono-phyletism,” precisely because we Orthodox, from 1870 onwards, have become accustomed, unfortunately, to seeing the world along ethno-phyletic and culturalistic lines … 13 14 ecclésialité. La naissance de la modernité post-ecclésiologique” [“In the Age of the Post-Ecclesiality. The Emergence of Post-Ecclesiological Modernity”], Kanon 19 (2006): 3–21; in Istina 51: 1 (2006): 64–84; in Irénikon [Chevetogne-Belgium] 79: 4 (2006): 491–522; and in Grigorios D. Papathomas, Essais d’Économie canonique. Esquisse d’introduction à la théologie canonique [Essays on Canonical Economy. Outline of an Introduction of the Canonical Theology] (Manual for the students) (Paris: “Saint Serge” Institute of Orthodox Theology [series: Formation Théologique par Correspondance 2], 2005), 164–80 (in French). The same, in The Messenger [London], n° 1 (2/2007): 26–47, and in Inter [Cluj-Napoca] II: 1–2 (2008): 40–54 (in English); in Derecho y Religión [Madrid] III (2008): 133–50 (in English); and also in Grigorios D. Papathomas, Κανονικά άμορφα (Δοκίμια Κανονικής Οικονομίας) [Ecclesio-Canonical Questions (Essays on the Orthodox Canon Law)] (ThessalonikiKaterini, “Epektasis” Publications [series: Nomocanonical Library, n° 19], 2006), ch IV, pp 145–73 (in Greek). Cf. Jn 15:22 (RSV). Cf. 1 Cor 4:9 (RSV). SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 444 1/9/2014 9:26:24 PM Ethno-Phyletism and the [So-called] Ecclesial “Diaspora” Nation-State (État-Nation) 445 Nation-State (Nation-État) constructed Nation Constitutional Nation (jus soli) ancestral Nation racial Nation (jus sanguinis) Nationalism Ethno-phyletism (1872) Statism Ethno-Statism Domination of the State over the Church Identification Nation-Church National Church (Western category, among RC and P) Ethno-phyletic Church (Unique category among Orthodox) Ecclesiological Ethno-phyletism The table above represents a comparison in historical context, as a critical approach to the issue at hand, which facilitates the concluding thoughts that follow. Concluding Thoughts and Critical Observations 1. [Nationalism, or better], ethno-phyletism and ecclesiology are inversely related in their manifestations within history. When ethno-phyletism waxes, ecclesiology and the Church wane, with all that entails at the ecclesiological and canonical levels, as becomes particularly clear in the lands of the misnamed “Diaspora.” Conversely, when priority is given to ecclesiology, the Church becomes incarnate proleptically within a nation or people, in a particular place, with clearly soteriological SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 445 1/9/2014 9:26:25 PM 446 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY expectations, thereby pushing aside any ethno-racial interests, which automatically entail the destruction of the Church itself. This is the fundamental antinomy between the Church and ethno-phyletism. 2. Ever since the Pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1872, the Orthodox “Church throughout the world” has been living blatant ecclesiological culturalism in all its fullness, i.e., precisely what was condemned by the council: Orthodoxy became an extension of the Nation and, mutatis mutandis, the Church became an analogous extension of the Nation-State. This is what led to the ecclesial “Diaspora,” instigated by each national state government, which has closely controlled the church and organized it in the image and likeness of the National Diaspora, according to the following corresponding structure: State (National Center) and Church (its collective national conglomerate) • State → National Center of reference → Responsibility for and legal jurisdiction over citizens of the same race → Area of Legal jurisdiction extends (correctly) throughout the World • Church → Ecclesiastical Center of reference the National Center → Responsibility and ecclesial jurisdiction over Orthodox of the same race → Area of ecclesial jurisdiction (non-canonically) throughout the world The State constitutes “the only authority in every form of supremacy,” while the Church becomes the agent for realizing the National vision, throughout the earth, exercising its “ecclesiastical jurisdiction on a global scale” (sic): the ecclesial “Diaspora” thus gives rise to a Global National Church, which represents an entirely new ecclesio-canonical problem: Ecclesial Universalism. SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 446 1/9/2014 9:26:25 PM Ethno-Phyletism and the [So-called] Ecclesial “Diaspora” 447 As it should now be clear, when Orthodox believers of each state that has a national Orthodox territorial church pass beyond the borders of the nation-state into the regions of the national Diaspora, their membership in a church, from an ecclesio-canonical point of view, takes on a different basis. This is an underlying practical cause of the problem. It is, however, simply a practical cause. The chief underlying cause is the adopted ethno-phyletic ecclesiology, which, as we can see in the table above, lies behind the structure and exercise of ecclesial jurisdiction in the lands of the constructed ecclesiastical “Diaspora.” This ecclesiology serves not the Church’s journey to the eschaton, but rather the various national and political goals of each national state government. The sooner we recognize this grotesque distortion (the “Diaspora” is, ultimately, an unacknowledged schism), the sooner we will find a solution to the problem of the “Diaspora,” which we are examining here. 3. Ecclesiological ethno-phyletism and the ecclesiastical “Diaspora” are two sides of the same coin and their relationship is one of cause and effect, with ethno-phyletism feeding permanently the “Diaspora.” An apostolic passage captures their correlation perfectly: ethno-phyletism “sets on fire the cycle of nature [ecclesiological mono-phyletism], and is itself set on fire by hell [the ‘Diaspora’].”15 4. Ecclesiological Culturalism—which dominated the whole of the second millennium among Roman Catholics (ritualism, 13th c.), Protestants (confessionalism, 16th c.), and the Orthodox (ethno-phyletism, 19th c.)—prepares us with mathematical precision for a novel ecclesio-canonical problem which had already started to dawn at the end of the second and the beginning of the third millennium, and will prove to be the dominant problem (along with anthropological problems, which emerged recently and have proven a challenge for theology) of this millennium—viz., ecclesiastical universalism 15 Cf. Jas 3:6 (NRSV). SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 447 1/9/2014 9:26:25 PM 448 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY (universalismus), which will lead to the breakdown of the Church. It has already manifested itself in Roman Catholicism (1870–2006) and Protestantism (second half of the 20th c.). Universalism, which is a symptom, has begun to be expressed more conspicuously amongst the Orthodox (starting with formal statutory events: Cyprus in 1980, Russia in 1988 [and 2000], and Romania in 2010, with a sharp rise immediately following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1990). And so, once again, we find a common denominator amongst all these confessionally “different” Christians: ecclesiastical culturalism! And for us Orthodox, ecclesiological universalism, before it reaches its inevitable conclusion, will have as its vehicle the ethno-phyletic ecclesial “Diaspora” … 5. Ultimately, the Orthodox Churches’ procrastination in dealing with the unresolved issue of the ethno-phyletic “Diaspora” throughout the world has created problems, both on the level of the statuaries and officially (1980–2010), and continues, underground and unseen, to feed this unprecedented idea (from an ecclesio-canonical perspective) of a (national) universal church on a global scale. This deterioration is depicted in the comparative table below: Ethno-phyletic perspective EthnoNational Phyletism → Church → “Diaspora” → National Universal Church Canonical Limits → (the State) Autocephalous Church → Ø→ Communion of Territorial Churches (Church throughout the World) Ethno-canonical perspective SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 448 1/9/2014 9:26:26 PM Ethno-Phyletism and the [So-called] Ecclesial “Diaspora” 449 Addendum Considering this deterioration, the “Diaspora,” as well as the discussion about it, would appear to be devoid of real content, even though it has already been implicitly established in an official act as the “National Universal Church” (sic)—because the “Diaspora” presupposes, among other things, the theology of autocephaly. When the autocephalous church transformed, in the way we saw above, into a universal church, then its supposed “universality” (sic) implies that it does not have a “Diaspora,” but rather pastoral interest in the members of the same race throughout the world, which is why few questioned the situation, and why discussion of this controversial issue has been delayed. Until now, the discussion was based on the antithesis autocephaly/“Diaspora” (even if things weren’t actually quite that simple), and there was room for negotiating a common and pan-Orthodox solution to the issue. However, with this new “national universal church,” the issue became mono-dimensional, with the universal ecclesial space turning into a national collective— and not joint—affair of each mono-phyletic church, thus leaving no space for any form of a “Diaspora.” The Orthodox congregations in the “Diaspora” are, moreover, already predisposed and biased, having already embraced this mindset. This new reality, therefore, effectively obliterates the first four issues of the future Pan-Orthodox Council, which—when and if it ever happens—will choose in what order to examine the issues, with the “Diaspora” possibly remaining permanently suspended in mid-air, becoming a sort of … utopia, not only because of the theology of autocephaly, but primarily because of the new form of the Church, the “universal, ethno-phyletic church,” which was inaugurated and supported, both practically and structurally, by many Orthodox. By conciliar decree, we officially pushed ethnophyletism “out the door” of the Church, only to find that it has come back, even stronger, “through the window” . . . This demonstrates, moreover, how things can get away from us. We were still trying to deal with the “Diaspora,” while a newer anti-ecclesiological and non-canonical ecclesiastical activity snowballed into the even worse phenomenon of the “universal ethno-phyletic church”! SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 449 1/9/2014 9:26:26 PM 450 ST VLADIMIR’S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY • • • In conclusion, if we compare that which we are discussing here today with the witness that the Orthodox Church, ecclesial Orthodoxy, is called to give, we can easily see that this latter Orthodoxy—which is connected with that which we call theologically and ontologically a “witness to life” to the whole of fallen humanity, “that they may have life, and have it abundantly”16—bears no resemblance to ethno-phyletic Orthodoxy, which not only does not bear witness to life to those in the lands of the so-called “Diaspora,” but, on the contrary, manifests a deterioration into a more fallen state. This latter type of Orthodoxy gives the impression that it is unable to find an ontological solution to this break in our unity in Christ, nor is it able to lead fallen humanity toward reception into unity and the Kingdom of the Eschata. — Translated by the Rev Dr Gregory Edwards, ThD 16 Jn 10:10 (RSV). SVTQ 57,3-4.indb 450 1/9/2014 9:26:26 PM
