The following paper contains what appears to me to be a stunning shift in the thinking of the Ecumenical Patriarchate which, however, relies on historical precedent and tradition to explain why the shift (my word) is really, "the same song, second verse" and not the breakthrough, which to this observer, it clearly seems to be. Peter Petkas
Greek Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
and the Church in the USA
V. Rev. Archimandrite Elpidophoros Lambriniadis
Chief Secretary of the Holy and Sacred Synod
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate June 2010
at St. Vladimir's Seminary in Crestwood New York.
[For a PDF version of this document, go to http://www.myocn.net/files/Orthodoxy_Hellenism_English.pdf]
[In the version that follows, footnotes appear in brackets "[...]" within the text to which they refer]
The topic that I have been asked to address today: “Greek
Orthodoxy, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and the Church in the USA.”
Beginning with the content and historical development of the phrase
“Greek Orthodoxy,” I will endeavor to explore its relationship to the
Ecumenical Patriarchate in order, finally, on this basis, to interpret the
perception of the Church of Constantinople with regard to the
ecclesiastical situation in the United States and present its vision for the
From its very foundation on this earth by our Lord Jesus Christ, but
especially from the outset of its organization by the local Bishops, the
Church of Christ was profoundly – and quite naturally – influenced by
the political, administrative and cultural context of the Roman Empire,
which was in turn characterized as an empire by syncretism,
multiethnicism and multiculturism as well as uniformity of law,
government, language, currency, and so forth. From the moment that
Christianity was first registered as recognized and tolerated after the
period of persecution and thereafter as formal religion of the empire, the
very identity of the Church was directly affected, while in turn affecting
the identity of the Roman citizen. I will discuss neither the degree to
which Divine Providence in this way prepared the political and cultural
historical context for the extension and establishment of the Church of
Christ, nor the scope to which the multiethnic and multicultural identity
of the empire facilitated a Christianity that was based on the same
external elements.
Nevertheless, I would like to draw your attention to the concept
and content of the Roman citizen (or inhabitant of the Roman Empire),
especially from the time that he or she began to sense the Christian faith
as a characteristic feature of identity.
The Roman Christian could – at least ethnically – belong to any
race and have any native language. Yet, in spite of this, the Roman
Christian would be a faithful under the one Bishop of a particular city that
served as either temporary or permanent residence, just as he or she
would be subjected to the Roman administrator or governor of the region.
The identity of the Roman Christian as citizen of the Kingdom of God
bore – analogically speaking – the same characteristics of identity
enjoyed by every citizen of the Roman Empire, irrespective of race,
language or origin.
The same applied to one’s identity within the Church of the Roman
Empire: namely, the basis and criterion of organization was always
geographical, with one bishop elected for every city, to whom all
inhabitants of the region were submitted without any discrimination
(linguistic or other), in accordance with the Apostolic instruction: “There
is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no
longer male nor female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3.28)
On the basis of the same principle, the Orthodox Churches today
are called “Church of Alexandria,” “Church of Antioch,” “Church of
Jerusalem,” “Church of Russia,” and so on – that is to say, they are
defined geographically. In this respect, it is both untraditional and
uncanonical from an ecclesiastical perspective for the Patriarchates to be
named “Russian,” “Serbian,” “Romanian,” “Bulgarian,” or “Georgian,”
or for their Patriarchs to be addressed as “Patriarch of the Russians,” “of
the Serbs,” “of the Romanians,” “of the Bulgarians,” or “of the
Georgians.” For these characterizations introduce – not only in the
Diaspora, but also in the local Orthodox Churches – a criterion of
ethnophyletism, thereby dividing the flock of the local Bishop on the
basis of ethnic origin and allowing the possibility of infringement into
another eparchy or jurisdiction. This applies to both realities, in local
Churches and in Diaspora, since the sacred Canons cannot have selective
or circumstantial but universal application.
This experience and teaching of the Church was also confirmed by
the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils, which codified and recorded in
a binding manner for all of Christianity not only the “faith once
delivered” together with its doctrine, but also the principles of
administration and organization. I would remind you that the Ecumenical
Councils did not dogmatize ex nihilo; nor did they impose definitions and
conditions of ecclesiastical organization that hitherto did not exist. Both
in matters of faith and in matters of administration, they codified the
Apostolic teaching, the Church experience and the Patristic tradition.
There is no reason here to expand on the well-substantiated refutation of
the erroneous distinction of sacred Canons into doctrinal (and therefore
not conducive to revision) and administrative (and hence susceptible to
modification).
Resuming the analysis of the terminology, I would call to mind the
fact that the Church within the Roman Empire – that which Western
historians in the 18th century labeled as Byzantine – was in fact originally
called Roman, particularly when schismatic and heretical ecclesiastical
structures appeared and required some form of distinction from a
terminological perspective. This was especially evident and instituted in
the Orthodox east after the Schism of 1054 and, in particular, with the
prevalence of the Ottoman over the Eastern Roman Empire.
Henceforth, the non-Christian Sultan ratified and formally
instituted the phrase “Roman Nation” (Rum Milleti), which included all
Christian Orthodox inhabitants of the occupied empire. For the Sultan,
just as for his predecessor the Roman Empire, there were no distinctions
according to race, but only according to religion and confession. This is
precisely why the populations that embraced Islam were not called
“Roman Muslims” but Turks. Those who converted to Islam became
Turkish – that is to say, they changed identity.
Therefore, the Ottoman Empire adopted and respected the existing
ecclesiastical terminology, according to which the conquered Roman
Christian was not distinguished on the basis of linguistic or ethnic origin,
but on the basis of his or her identity as a member of the Church.
In this respect, in the eastern languages (namely, Greek, Turkish,
and Arabic), the Patriarchates (the Ecumenical Patriarchate as well as
those of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) were characterized as “Rum
(or Roman) Orthodox” in contradistinction to “Rum (or Roman)
Catholic” or the Armenian and Syrian Churches.
Problems arose when, with the rise of nationalism in the Balkans
(19th century), the term “Rum” was translated as “Greek” in order also to
determine the principle of reorganization and independence of the various
Orthodox peoples from an ecclesiastical viewpoint. Meanwhile, of
course, the Greek Nation had been established and every concept of
Hellenism was understood in nationalistic terms, thereby attributing an
entirely different content to the original term “Rum.”
Without further expanding, I would summarize as follows: The
source of the phrase “Greek Orthodoxy” has in our day assumed an
ethnic sense, which however distorts reality. The phrase “Greek
Orthodoxy” or “Rum Orthodox” is more accurately rendered in English
as “Roman Orthodox.” Just as the phrase “Roman Catholic” cannot be
translated as “Italian Catholic,” so too the term “Rum” or “Roman” when
referring to Orthodox Christians should not be translated as “Greek
Orthodox” in a way that conveys an ethnic content to a purely
ecclesiastical terminology.
The original sense of the term is even preserved in the Uniate
Churches, which unfortunately bear the inappropriate title “Greek
Catholic.” For their members are certainly not Greeks, but Uniates
subjected to the Pope and adhering to the Byzantine (or Eastern Roman)
rite.
Another characteristic fact is that all the Slavic peoples – at least in
the period preceding the rise of nationalism – had no problem whatsoever
in being called “Rum Orthodox” and being under the jurisdiction of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, which – we should not forget – never
endeavored to Hellenize them, since this was contrary to its principles
and very identity as Ecumenical. Indeed, there was no attempt to
Hellenize the Slavs even during the period of their Christianization. On
the contrary, their language was enhanced – essentially engendered – with
the creation of a specific alphabet and the consolidation of a cultural
identity.
It is not by chance that the Church of Russia from the 18th century
until the October Revolution had no difficulty being called “Greek-
Russian,” while even your own Church here in the United States was,
until 1971, called “Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of
America.”
Thus, since I believe that we have together established sufficient
evidence that the phrase “Greek Orthodox” – at least in reference to the
Patriarchates of the East – is not an accurate rendering of their actual
reality, we may better interpret contemporary developments in Diaspora
as well as within the Patriarchates themselves.
Ever since the creation of the independent Greek State, which
terminologically was also identified with the Patriarchates of the East, all
of these Churches underwent a period of crisis of identity.
[see Metropolitan Evgeny Bolchovitinov, Словарь исторический о бывших в России
писателях духовного чина Греко-российской Церкви), St, Petersburg 1818.]
[see Orthodox America, 1794-1976, Development of the Orthodox Church in America,
New York 1976, p. 259.]
The Ecumenical Patriarchate granted Autocephaly to the Churches
of Greece, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland, Albania, as well
as the Czech Lands and Slovakia (19th-20th centuries); moreover,
following the destruction of Asia Minor, with the signing of the Treaty of
Lausanne and the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey, it
lost almost all of its flock remaining within Turkey.
The Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem also underwent a
period of crisis of identity inasmuch as their Greekness risked being
identified with the fate of the Greek Nation and the politics of the
Republic of Greece. Moreover, having been reduced to a state organ
following the dissolution of the Patriarchate by Peter the Great, the
Church of Russia was compromised with the Pan-Slavist direction of the
Russian State’s foreign policy after the 19th century because the latter
provided the possibility of promoting its own interests with the full
support of the State. Thus, with the formation of the Palestinian Society
on May 28, 1882, which intended to offer assistance for Russian pilgrims,
it also became an instrument of Czarist interests in the Middle East, while
at the same time advocating its interests in this sensitive region.
The Patriarchate of Alexandria directed its attention to missionary
activity among the peoples of Africa. After evolving and establishing an
organized mission, in 2001, it officially sought from the Ecumenical
Patriarchate the concession of jurisdiction over the entire continent. From
that time, the phrase “And of All Africa” was added to the title of the
Patriarch of Alexandria, whereas hitherto he was only known as “And of
All Egypt.”
Nationalism encroached upon the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, whose
Palestinian faithful could not readily understand why their Church bore
the title “Rum (improperly rendered as ‘Greek’) Orthodox”, while they
communicated in Arabic and enjoyed an Arabic conscience. Nevertheless,
through prudent and pastoral sensitivity to the needs of its Palestinian
flock, it managed to confront the various nationalistic predicaments that
appeared from time to time.
I feel that this outline was necessary in order to appreciate the
contemporary situation of the Orthodox Church in the United States as
well as the approach of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.
For the Ecumenical Patriarchate is not ethnic in the modern sense
of the term. It is the continuation of the traditional and patristic
expression of Christianity, as this was organically shaped in the historical
context of a non-ethnic, ecumenical Empire and as this was recorded and
codified in the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils.
The Ecumenical Councils recorded the original Christian and
Apostolic understanding regarding the organization of Church life purely
on the basis of geographical criteria and not any linguistic or ethnic
origin. The jurisdiction of each Church was accurately described and
defined in their decisions, while the holy and inspired Fathers knew very
well that certain regions existed outside the boundaries of the Roman
world and outside the then-known “oecumene,” which they labeled with
the term “barbarian.” The pastoral responsibility for these regions was
assigned to the Ecumenical Patriarch.
The geographical jurisdictions of the Churches and Patriarchates
that were created later – that is to say, after the Ecumenical Councils –
were also accurately described and defined by the Patriarchal and
Synodal Tomos’ issued by the Ecumenical Patriarchate, assuring and
expressing the Pan-Orthodox conscience and consent.
It has been sufficiently proven by scholarship that the Church of
Russia developed missionary activity in Alaska from the 18th century,
when this region comprised a Russian territory, just as other imperial
Churches of the time pursued in their colonies.
The canonical question that arises is the following: Does the
territorial expansion of a state comprise a self-evident extension of the
jurisdiction of that Church in that particular region? And by analogy:
Does the development of missionary activity in a geographical region
outside a particular jurisdiction at the same time imply a claim by that
jurisdiction?
The preaching of God’s word and the spread of Christ’s Gospel are
clearly praiseworthy, while the saintly and sacrificial ministry of the early
missionaries is universally admired and respected, however, the
geographical jurisdiction of the Church of Russia is plainly defined in its
Tomos of Autocephaly received from the Ecumenical Patriarchate. The
argument that it was first to evangelize a portion of the American
continent is neither ecclesiological nor canonical, expressing instead a
mentality of colonialism. At this point, we could also cite the examples of
Russian missionary activity in China and Japan, lands where the Church
of Russia claims as its canonical territory. The proper response to similar
circumstances, as we have already observed, is that of the Patriarchate of
Alexandria, which requested and officially received jurisdiction over the
entire African continent.
The later development of Orthodox Christianity in the United
States around the end of the 19th and during the 20th centuries bears all the
characteristics of the Orthodox Diaspora throughout the world:
Accordingly, Orthodox Christians organized themselves ecclesiastically
on the basis primarily of ethnicity and their Churches of origin.
Consequently, it is not fair to claim that “this unity was broken and
then arbitrarily replaced with the unheard-of principle of ‘jurisdictional
multiplicity.’”
[see Alexander Schmemann, “To love is to remember,” in: Orthodox America,
1794-1976, Development of the Orthodox Church in America, New York 1976,
p. 12. See also p. 188.]
The ancient Patriarchates respected the 28th Canon of the Fourth
Ecumenical Council and the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
over regions outside the geographical boundaries of the Orthodox
Churches. The only exception, unfortunately, was the Patriarchate of
Antioch, which, in the confusion created toward the end of the 19th century
with the otherwise correct rendering and accurate content of the phrase “Rum
Orthodox Patriarchate,” was misled by the rise of Arab
nationalism, making unconventional ecclesiological choices in order to
survive at the time in an environment recognized for its dangerously
intensifying anti-Western mentality, at least from a geo-political
perspective.
The ongoing presence of the Church of Russia in the United States
was deeply influenced by the ramifications of the October Revolution of
1917 and the establishment in Russia of an atheist state. Communication
with the troubled Patriarchate of Moscow became ever difficult, while
dependence on it was regarded with suspicion and increasing reservation,
criticized for cooperation with the atheistic state. The Cold War between
the two superpowers later contributed to this attitude, rendering any
ecclesiastical subjection to Moscow inconceivable for American citizens.
Already in 1924, as you well know, the decision was made for the
“temporarily self-governing” of the presence of the Church of Russia in
the United States, during the 4th All American Church Sobor held in Detroit
(March 20-April 2, 1924).
[See the Christmas Encyclical of Metropolitan Irinei to the Orthodox Patriarchs
(1966): “Even when the political relations between the two states are normal
and friendly, the Church which is under the authority of a foreign leadership is
suspected of being ‘alien’. What can be said then about our situation, when the
relations between the two political giants of our era, the Soviet Union and the
United States of America, continue to be grounded in mutual distrust and
competition?” in: Orthodox America, 1794-1976, Development of the
Orthodox Church in America, New York 1976, p. 269.]
Moscow questioned its canonicity, while here the
Patriarch of Moscow was commemorated as its ecclesiastical head by
way of formality.
We cannot overlook the fact that, in 1946, there was an
attempt – albeit in vain – to subject the Church here to the then Patriarch
of Moscow Alexei I.
A similar effort again occurred in 1966, when
Metropolitan Irinei communicated with all the Orthodox Primates.
The events that led to granting of “autocephaly” to the Metropolia,
which the Patriarchate of Moscow had renamed only in 1970 from
“Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of America” to “Orthodox
Church of America,” are well known.
Beyond the issue concerning the canonicity of this
“autocephaly” (which it is not by chance that only the Churches of Soviet
influence recognized), the following questions arise:
• Was the pursuit of regional independence by the Metropolia
from the Church of Moscow exclusively and solely dictated
by ideological reasons as well as by ecclesiological
principles regarding the local nature of the Church? Or was
it an inevitable choice and need to divest itself of any
suspicion that it is spiritually subjected to and directed by a
State Church, which was considered the primary threat
against the United States?
[See Orthodox America, 1794-1976, Development of the Orthodox Church in
America, New York 1976, p. 184 and
“… the Metropolia not only had no support from its Mother Church but was
denounced by the latter as “schismatic” and deprived of canonical basis,” in:
Orthodox America, 1794-1976, Development of the Orthodox Church in
America, New York 1976, p. 184. and
Op. cit., p. 185 and
Orthodox America, 1794-1976, Development of the Orthodox Church in America,
New York 1976, p. 201 and
Orthodox America, 1794-1976, Development of the Orthodox Church in America,
New York 1976, pp. 267-69.]
This is mentioned in the same telegram dated April 13, 1970, from Patriarch Alexei
to Metropolitan Irinei, where the granting of “autocephaly” is announced.
[See Orthodox America, 1794-1976, Development of the Orthodox Church in
America, New York 1976, p. 264 and
Orthodox America, 1794-1976, Development of the Orthodox Church in America,
New York 1976, p. 201.]
• Are the words of Fr. John Meyendorff verified today, forty
years later, that: “the criticisms which [autocephaly]
encountered were provoked not by any canonical or
ecclesiological considerations, but by the fear that the
‘phyletistic’ (or ethnocentric) structure of the existing
‘jurisdictions’ would henceforth be decisively challenged by
a canonical and healthy American Church, which, at the
same time, would be fully open to the preservation of all
valid national customs and traditions of the various
Orthodox immigrant groups”?
The efforts by the OCA to establish in the United States a concept
and reality of the local Church are welcome and admirable. As we noted
earlier, this is also the vision of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Yet, I
wonder whether a jurisdiction can claim locality, when in fact it
comprises a minority, when it overlooks all the other Churches.
[See the opinion: “The Metropolia always experienced its separation from the
Mother Church as forced upon it by events beyond its control, always looked
forward with hope to the day of reunion and restoration of normal relations,”
in: Orthodox America, 1794-1976, Development of the Orthodox Church in
America, New York 1976, p. 261 and
The Standing Conference of Canonical Orthodox Bishops in America, in: America,
1794-1976, Development of the Orthodox Church in America, New York 1976,
p. 244.]
In reading the Encyclical of the OCA Hierarchy, whereby in 1970
the granting of “autocephaly” was officially proclaimed, I discerned a
threefold goal at the time:
• “The task of uniting all the Orthodox Christians of America
into one Church.”
• “The task of witnessing freely to the true Christian faith in
the whole world.”
• “The task of growing spiritually from strength to strength,
through the prayers of the holy Father Herman of Alaska.”
Once again, I wonder whether, today, after forty years, we could
readily admit success in any of these three goals. The first goal has
clearly not been achieved. With regard to the other two goals, I would
simply pose the following two questions:
• Was the granting of an autocephaly necessary to meet these
two goals? Did not precisely the same possibilities exist
prior to the granting of this “autocephaly”? And, related to
this:
• Were the other Orthodox Churches in the United States in
any way deprived in these areas of “witnessing freely” and
“growing spiritually from strength to strength” by not having
the status of autocephaly?
Summarizing my humble reflections on the granting of
“autocephaly,” permit me to say that it appears that, no matter how good
intentions may be in the Church, the violation of the sacred Canons never
produce positive results. The consequences of uncanonical actions must
be addressed sooner or later, as we recently (2009) witnessed in the
decisions of the Fourth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference held in
Chambésy (Geneva). That is to say, while the OCA commenced with all
the praiseworthy optimism of uniting all the Orthodox in the USA and
establishing a conscience regarding the geographical nature of the
Church, today it comprises a hindrance and problem to be resolved
inasmuch as it is not a Church recognized by all Orthodox. This is
because, in accordance with Article 1 of the “Rules of Operation for
Episcopal Assemblies in the Orthodox Diaspora,” approved by the Pan-
Orthodox Conference, states: “All Orthodox Bishops of each region, from
those regions defined by the Fourth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox
Conference, who are in canonical communion with all the local
Autocephalous Orthodox Churches, form each Episcopal Assembly.”
Moreover, in its Decision 2c) regarding “The Orthodox Diaspora,” the
same Conference declared that “Decisions on these subjects will be taken
by consensus of the Churches who are represented in the particular
Assembly.”
The Ecumenical Patriarchate organized its own jurisdictional
presence in the United States following the migration there of faithful
from the regions of Thrace, Pontus and Asia Minor after the great
destruction. This was a natural historical development with a specific
historical significance. Therefore, it founded the “Greek Orthodox
Archdiocese of North and South America”, without implying that this
was created solely for Greeks. Proof of this lies in the fact that the
jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate includes Albanians,
Ukrainians, Carpatho-Russians and Palestinians, without any of these
ever feeling that they have as a result been either Hellenized or in any
way slighted. The very founder of the Holy Archdiocese, Ecumenical
Patriarch Meletios (Metaxakis) spoke in his enthronement address about
the pastoral concern for all Orthodox Christians in the Diaspora, making
particular reference to the faithful in the United States.
The same Patriarch not only resists any distinction between faithful according to
ethnic origin, but also refers to the decisions of the Great Council of
Constantinople in 1872, which condemned ethnophyletism. It is
important to recall that this Council proclaimed as heretics all those who
established “separate altar” and created “their own ethnic faction” –
namely, on the basis of exclusively ethnic criteria, which were deemed
“contrary to the teaching of the Gospel and the sacred Canons of our
blessed Fathers.”
This jurisdictional dependence of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
thus constituted no impediment for its spiritual and administrative
progress. Or, at the very least, one cannot claim that the Archdiocese is in
any way lacking in anything or in any field by comparison with the
“autocephalous” OCA. On the contrary, without ceasing to be direct
jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, its experience and
development have materialized the vision of the late Prof. Anton
Vladimirovich Kartashoff concerning the restoration “of sobornost (i.e.,
“We should also make explicit reference to the administration of the Orthodox
Churches in the Diaspora … where the Great Church of Christ is canonically
obliged to take swift precautions for the appearance of the Orthodox Church
even in the Diaspora, maintaining inviolable the canonical order, which the
great Council that convened in Constantinople 50 years ago proclaimed to be
essential for the preservation of spiritual unity in the bond of peace. I have, in
any case, personally witnessed the far greater majority of the Orthodox Church
in the Diaspora, and I have personally experienced the degree to which the
name of Orthodoxy will be elevated, especially the great United States of
America, if the over two million Orthodox faithful are organized into one,
united Church administration as an American Orthodox Church, the responsible
participation of the entire people of God, clergy as well as
laity, in the life of the Church) from the top to the bottom…” [In:
Ekklisiastiki Alitheia Konstantinoupoleos, XL, 4, January 29, 1922, p. 30.]
[See A. Nanakis (Metropolitan of Arkalochorion), “The Ecumenical Patriarchate:
From the Condemnation of Ethnophyletism (1872) to the Macedonian
Struggle,” [In Greek] in Apostolos Titos, III, 3, December 2005, pp. 91-2.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate has always responded with prudence
and understanding to the various historical challenges presented by the
OCA. When the latter was confronted with controversy regarding its
canonicity in relation to the Church of Russia during the Soviet era, the
Ecumenical Patriarchate maintained constructive cooperation and
communion. Even when, despite every concept of canonical order, it was
granted “autocephaly,” the Ecumenical Patriarchate regarded this more as
a settlement of a pendency with the Patriarchate of Moscow and
manifested sensitivity by practicing canonical economia and not
rupturing communion with it, continuing to concelebrate with its
Hierarchs. I do not wish here to expound upon the arguments of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate on the subject; after all, these are well known
and documented. However, I consider it my obligation to underline our
common visions and common principles, which are often undermined
and overlooked in jurisdictional juxtaposition, which usually
monopolizes our relations. In this respect, I would like to remind you of
the words of the late Metropolitan Irinei, who in his Christmas Encyclical
to the Orthodox Patriarchs in 1966, stated that: “… unity can be reached
only through an agreement between all the national churches,” and
consequently not by means of unilateral actions of dubious canonicity.
The Ecumenical Patriarchate did not come to this land as an ethnic
Church in order to establish an ethnic jurisdiction. This would have been
incompatible with both its ecclesiological principles and its very identity,
but also with its long history.
[see Orthodox America, 1794-1976, Development of the Orthodox Church in America,
New York 1976, p. 261 and
Orthodox America, 1794-1976, Development of the Orthodox Church in America,
New York 1976, p. 268.]
The Archdiocese is “Greek” in the sense analyzed at the outset of my address,
without this signifying the abolition or oppression of the ethnic origin, language and
culture of the faithful that comprise its jurisdiction, whether these are Greeks or not.
And I believe that we are all in agreement on this.
When speaking about the Greek Archdiocese in America, it should
be underlined that one encounters parishes where Greek is the liturgical
language primarily used and others where there is an equal emphasis on
Greek and English, while still others that adopt either mostly or only
English. In other words, therefore, while one may have an initial
impression of the heavy Greek influence in the Church, the truth is that
this is simply not the case.
Nevertheless, I would dare to advance the following argument as
well: The Greek language itself became a “victim” of the prevailing
nationalism, serving even in the United States as an instrument of the
notion of independence from the “Mother Churches.” This, too, is surely
regretful inasmuch as Greek is not merely an ethnic language, but the
language of the Gospel, of the definitions and decisions of the
Ecumenical Councils, of exceptional and influential representatives of the
Patristic tradition, as well as of the original texts of liturgical sources in
the Orthodox Church.
Finally, I wonder why it is that the Archdiocese of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate cannot constitute the expression of the entire, united
Orthodox presence in the USA simply because it bears the title “Greek”,
while the same claim is made by the OCA despite officially bearing until
1970 the title “Russian” (and “Greek”) and being administered until
recently by Hierarchs of Russian descent.
[See Message to All Orthodox Christians in America, 1970: “We firmly believe that
this variety constitutes the richness of American Orthodoxy and that whatever
is true, noble, inspiring and Christian in our various customs and practices
ought to be fully preserved and, if possible, shared. Therefore, although we
insist that the One Orthodox Church here must be the home of all, we equally
stress that there must be no loss of our respective national and cultural
heritages and certainly no domination of any group by any other but full
equality, total trust and truly Christian brotherhood.” From Orthodox America,
1794-1976, Development of the Orthodox Church in America, New York 1976,
p. 277.]
In this regard, then, “Greekness” did not constitute any impediment
for our faithful becoming genuine Americans, devoted citizens of the
United States and willing supporters of its interests.
Moreover, the hesitation of some to accept the term “Diaspora,”
which by definition includes an element of temporariness, is
comprehensible and perhaps justifiable. Of course, for the greater
majority of Orthodox faithful in the United States – and beyond – the
element of temporariness with regard to their existence in these regions
constitutes an anachronism. Nevertheless, we are obliged to realize that,
in speaking of “Diaspora,” we are not referring simply to people that have
been “dispersed” but, above all today, to the geographical region where
the “Diaspora” has occurred. In this sense, then, it is neither a pejorative
nor anachronistic to make reference to the particularity of a geographical
region with a specific terminology from an ecclesiastical perspective.
[See expressions such as “... Russian leadership of the North American Church…”
In: Orthodox America, 1794-1976, Development of the Orthodox Church in
America, New York 1976, p. 191. Archbishop Eftym expressed the same in
1927: See The Orthodox Catholic Review, I, 4-5, April-May, 1927: “For a
hundred years the Russian leadership and control over Orthodoxy in America
was unquestioned….” Such expressions are in agreement with the viewpoint
of Patriarch Tikhon of Moscow (1905): “In North America a whole Exarchate
can easily be established, uniting all Orthodox national churches, which would
have their own bishops under one Exarch, the Russian Archbishop». In:
Orthodox America, p. 268. Of course, in an Encyclical dated September 1969
on the occasion of the 175th anniversary of Orthodox presence in America,
Metropolitan Irinei states that the Metropolia “was never Russian in the
narrow meaning of the word: everyone who confessed Holy Orthodoxy …
was received with love in its boundaries.” In: Orthodox America, p. 297.
These words reflect the genuine Orthodox conscience of an Orthodox
Hierarch, who maintains a geographical principle and not an ethnic criterion.
The question that arises, however, is: Why is this possibility not recognized for
the Hierarch representing the Ecumenical Patriarchate, who is in any case
granted this right by the Ecumenical Councils?]
I do not believe that anyone would refuse to accept that the pastoral concern
of regions outside the geographical boundaries of the local Churches is a
matter that today preoccupies the entire Orthodox Church and must at the
very least be claimed and named in order to be evaluated and resolved.
Those formerly dispersed are today native, established Christians, who
have spread roots and borne fruits in this land.
In and of itself, the American dream which you rightly invoke does
not presuppose the erasure of historical memory and culture of the people
that comprise it, but promotes their creative synthesis in the remarkable
mosaic called the United States of America. “We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” says the American Declaration of
Independence. And former US President Jimmy Carter adds: “We become
not a melting pot, but a beautiful mosaic. Different people, different
beliefs, different yearnings, different hopes, different dreams.”
President Carter’s words echo Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey: “Fortunately,
the time has long passed when people liked to regard the United States as
some kind of melting pot, taking men and women from every part of the
world and converting them into standardized, homogenized Americans.
We are, I think, much more mature and wise today. Just as we welcome a
world of diversity, so we glory in an America of diversity – an America
all the richer for the many different and distinctive strands of which it is
woven.”
In concluding my presentation to you, I would like to state that
uncanonical actions and developments – even when dictated by historical
necessity – do not constitute correct choices because they will always
return to haunt and hinder our journey for Pan-Orthodox unity and
witness. Thus, the decisions of the Fourth Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox
Conference provide an historical opportunity for Orthodoxy and for
America to transcend the competitive mentality of the past and see that
the Ecumenical Patriarchate is governed by the same trans-ethnic
principles as the OCA and the USA. Respect for the decisions of the
Ecumenical Councils, as well as for the nurturing Orthodox tradition and
faith, and relating this faith to our contemporary life constitutes the only
sure way toward unity and progress in Christ.
In his address to the Primates of the Orthodox Churches, who
convened at the Phanar in October 2008, Ecumenical Patriarch
Bartholomew boldly declared:
«We have been deigned by our Lord to belong to the One,
Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, whose faithful
continuation and expression in History is our Holy Orthodox
Church. We have received and preserved the true faith, as
the holy Fathers have transmitted it to us through the
Ecumenical Councils of the one undivided Church. We
commune of the same Body and Blood of our Lord in the
Divine Eucharist, and we participate in the same Sacred
Mysteries. We basically keep the same liturgical typikon and
are governed by the same Sacred Canons. All these
safeguard our unity, granting us fundamental presuppositions
for witness in the modern world.
Despite this, we must admit in all honesty that sometimes we
present an image of incomplete unity, as if we were not one
Church, but rather a confederation or a federation of
churches. … Of course, the response commonly proffered to
this question is that, despite administrational division,
Orthodoxy remains united in faith, the Sacraments, etc. But
is this sufficient? When before non-Orthodox we sometimes
appear divided in theological dialogues and elsewhere; when
we are unable to proceed to the realization of the long-
heralded Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church;
when we lack a unified voice on contemporary issues and,
instead, convoke bilateral dialogues with non-Orthodox on
these issues; when we fail to constitute a single Orthodox
Church in the so-called Diaspora in accordance with the
ecclesiological and canonical principles of our Church; how
can we avoid the image of division in Orthodoxy, especially
on the basis of non-theological, secular criteria?
We need, then, greater unity in order to appear to
those outside not as a federation of Churches but as one
unified Church. Through the centuries, and especially after
the Schism, when the Church of Rome ceased to be in
communion with the Orthodox, this Throne was called –
according to canonical order – to serve the unity of the
Orthodox Church as its first Throne. And it fulfilled this
responsibility through the ages by convoking an entire series
of Panorthodox Councils on crucial ecclesiastical matters,
always prepared, whenever duly approached, to render its
assistance and support to troubled Orthodox Churches. In
this way, a canonical order was created and, accordingly, the
coordinating role of this Patriarchate guaranteed the unity of
the Orthodox Church, without in the least damaging or
diminishing the independence of the local autocephalous
Churches by any interference in their internal affairs. This, in
any case, is the healthy significance of the institution of
autocephaly: while it assures the self-governance of each
Church with regard to its internal life and organization, on
matters affecting the entire Orthodox Church and its
relations with those outside, each autocephalous Church
does not act alone but in coordination with the rest of the
Orthodox Churches. If this coordination either disappears or
diminishes, then autocephaly becomes “autocephalism” (or
radical independence), namely a factor of division rather
than unity for the Orthodox Church.
Therefore, dearly beloved brothers in the Lord, we are
called to contribute in every possible way to the unity of the
Orthodox Church, transcending every temptation of
regionalism or nationalism so that we may act as a unified
Church, as one canonically structured body. We do not, as
during Byzantine times, have at our disposal a state factor
that guaranteed – and sometimes even imposed – our unity.
Nor does our ecclesiology permit any centralized authority
that is able to impose unity from above. Our unity depends
on our conscience. The sense of need and duty that we
constitute a single canonical structure and body, one Church,
is sufficient to guarantee our unity, without any external
intervention».
Thank you for your attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment