St Vladimirs Theological Quarterly 57:3-4 (2013) 381394

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

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

have the responsibility to minister to their diasporas outside their

canonical boundaries. In this sense, we have moved backward in
the last fifty years. In the 1960s, everyone acknowledged that the
diaspora situation was scandalous. Today, the tendency has been
rather to rationalize and justify the status quo.

Ethnophyletism and Nationalism

The relationship between church and state is hardly a new problem,
though it has been accentuated in recent centuries with the creation
o f national churches. O n the one hand, primitive Christianity
existed within the Roman Empire, and Christians were taught to
render unto Caesar what is Caesars (Mt 22:21) and to pray for the
ruling authorities, even long before these were Christian (I Tim
2:1-2). O n the other hand, these Christians cleari^nderstood that,
while they were in the world, they were not ofthe world (Jn 15:19).
Thus St Paul, in addressing the various churches, uses expressions
such as To the Church of God which is at Corinth (rfi
rfi \ ) (1 Cor 1:2, etc.). He did not use terms
such as the Corinthian Church, or the Church o f Corinth.
^ e s e Christians had a strong sense that their home was not in this
world, because here we have no lasting city (Heb 13:14). Indeed,
theveryword that we use today for the local eucharistie community,
parish (Gk: ), implies precisely this idea o f a temporary
sojourning. And this term was originally used not simply for the
local parish, but for any community of Christians organized as a
geographical unit, including a diocese or an ecclesiastical province.*
In the world, but not of the worldthis is the ambiguity that
has challenged Christians throughout history. And the answers to
this challenge have varied throughout history. Eollowing the Peace
of Constantine and the eventual establishment o f Christianity as
the official religion ofthe Roman Empire, the Church grew closer to
the state. Bishops achieved a high rank in the empire and in society,
and the organization o fth e Church followed imperial structures.

For the various nieanings and uses ofthe term , see G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic
Greek Lexikon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1042 96 (.

Ethnophyletisnij Autocephaljy and National Churches

383

Constantine and his suecessors launched a massive program of

building churches, and imperial court ceremonial influenced the
development o f what we know today as cathedral worship. The
rapid spread of monasticism in the fourth century was at least in
part motivated by a sense that the leadership of foe Church was
compromised by this close connection between Church and State;
and for many centuries since foe monks served as a check against
church authorities that were often controlled or dominated by civil
authorities, o f course, monks were themselves not above involving
themselves in political affairs o f Church and State, for example
during the hesychast period in the 4 - 5 centuries, when
a number of hesychast monks, including Philotheos Kokkinos,
assumed the patriarchal throne in Constantinople and struggled to
enhance foe power and prestige o f the imperial city and church.^
history is well-known and need not be repeated here.
A major characteristic of fois entire period, however, was its
non-nationahstic character,
Roman, as well as the Byzantine,
Empire was multi-ethnic and m foti-national-as, indeed, was the
Russian Empire in later centuries. In these contexts, the Church
was similarly not organized according to nationality. Any idea of
organizing church life according to ethnic criteria was rejected, as
exemplified by foe famous Canon 28 of Chalcedon, whose intent
was precisely to include foe barbarians (i.e., non-Greek speakers)
within foe local structures in the territories of Pontus, Asia, and
Thrace, areas already under foe jurisdiction o f Constantinople.
The principle that there is neither Jew nor Greek (Gal 3:28) was
taken seriously in foe canonical tradition of the Church, as was foe
territorial principle.
2

See, example the recent work Metropolian Cyprian (Tsamblak) o f Kiev, a

isciple ofphilotheos, b y^ b Getcha ,La rforme liturgique du mtropolite Cyprien de
Kiev (Paris: Cerf, 2010). Cyprian was sent to Kiev by Patriarch Philotheos to mediate a difficult political and religious situation involving Moscow, Kiev, and Lithuania. In 1375, Cyprian was consecrated as Metropolitan of Kiev, [kittle] Russia,
and the kithuanians, with the expectation that, following the death of Mexis, the
then Metropolitan of Moscow, Cyprian would become the head o f a single, united
Church of all Russia.

384

S T ^ D I M I R S THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

In recent centuries, the situatinn has changed dramatically. The

old imperial structures have collapsed, including the Byzantine, then
the Ottoman, and finally the Russian (twice, in I9 I7 and 1988). As
a result, new nations arose in the old Orthodox world, in Eastern
Europe and the Middle East. Repeated wars and other cataclysms in
these regions also led to large migrations of people, not just within
these traditionally Orthodox areas, but also beyond, to Western
Europe, the Americas, and Australia. Obviously, each area has its
own history, its own particular characteristics, but there are common
trends that pose serious challenges to Orthodox ecclesiology.
The first consequence o f the collapse of empires was the
redrawing o f the map o f Europe and the creation o f numerous
nation states, frequently on the basis o f ethnicity. Eollowing upon
the creation o f these states came the creation of autocephalous
Orthodox churches in each state. In one sense, this was certainly in
conformity with Orthodox canonical tradition, since from ancient
times autocephalous churches were established in accordance
with existing political structures. The difference here was the
ethnic factor, which risked becoming more significant than the
territorial factor. We can trace the roots of this ethnic factor back
into the period of the O ttom an Empire, when the Patriarchs of
Constantinople functioned as the head o f the Orthodox Christian
population,whichresultedaswell in thesubordinationoftheancient
churches of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem to Constantinople,
with the resulting Greek hegemony in these struggling churches.
Despite the condemnation o f ethnophyletism at the 1872 council
in Constantinople, ethnic identity became an im portant factor,
alongside the territorial principle, in the self-identity of the newlyestablished, autocephalous churches. Thus it has become customary
today to refer to Orthodox churches with an ethnic tag: the Russian
Orthodox Church, or the Greek, Romanian, Bulgarian, Polish,
etc. Eost is the original Pauline understanding o f the Church
which dwells in Greece, or in Russia...
The situationgrewmore complicated, andmore problematic, with
the migration o f many Orthodox Christians from their traditional

Ethnophyletism, Autocephaly, and National Churches

385

homelands into areas without organized Orthodox d io c e s e s . The

size and ethnic composition of these migrations varied from place to
place, and 1 have chosen to focus my attention on N orth ^ n e ric a
because it is the situation with which 1 am most familiar, and because
it raises the significant issues in the most poignant way.
Orthodoxy in N orth America began with the Russian mission
in Alaska that began in 1794 and was in fact part o f the missionary
outreach of the Church o f Russia to Siberia and the Far East that
began in the 17th century and continued through the 19th.3At that
time, Alaska was a Russian territory, and the mission was directed
at the many native tribes in this northern region. In 1840, Alaska
became a missionary diocese, and Fr John Veniaminov (the future
St Innocent) was ordained as its first bishop. Following the sale of
Alaska to the United States (1867), the missionary diocese moved
its headquarters from Sitka first to San Francisco (1870), and then
in 1905 to New York, when St Tikhon, the future Patriarch of
Moscow, was bishop in America (1898-1907). During the 19th
century came the first waves of immigration and the establishment
o f the first Orthodox parishes in the lower 48. Some ofthese new
parishes received support from the missionary diocese, while others
were independent of episcopal authority and were controlled by lay
boards of trustees. During the latter part of the 19th century, with
increasing immigration and the mass conversion of several hundred
thousand former Uniates, the missionary diocese expanded rapidly.
Thus, in 1905, Archbishop Tikhon submitted a proposal to foe
Holy Synod in Moscow to reorganize the mission diocese into
an independent, multi-ethnic, American diocese with auxiliary
dioceses for each ethnic grouphe mentioned specifically foe
Arabs, the Serbs, and the Greeks. He already expressed his hope
that foe mission in America would evolve into a local, territorial,
autocephalous church. Already in 1904, Tikhon consecrated (now
St) Raphael Hawaweeny as auxiliary bishop, with responsibility for
3

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

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

the Arab Christian community. In 1907, Tikhon convened the first

All-American Council in Mayfield, PA, assembling hundreds of
clergy and lay delegates. Throughout this period, it is evident that
the Church of Russia understood itself to be ^the wellestablished Orthodox principle that the creation of new churches
was the responsibility o f the church that initiated missionary
activity in a particular area. We should note as well that no other
church at this time challenged this in anyway. We should be careful,
however, not to paint an idealized picture of the situation, as there
were parishes functioning with no episcopal oversight, and there
was some resistance to what was perceived as Russian control,
^ rticularly among communities of Greek background.
Though the ecclesial situation was not entirely clear in the early
20th century, it was thrown into total chaos following the 1917
Communist revolution in Russia. Support from Russia disappeared,
and soon the church in America was racked by divisions, both
ethnic and political. As a result, during the 1920s the various ethnic
jurisdictions were created by the Old World churches, and several
jurisdictions subsequently split again, typically for political reasons.
In particular, several of the Slavic jurisdictions, as well as the
Antiochian, each underwent further splits as a result o f political
disputes, ecclesiological disagreements, and external pressures. The
result was the scandalous situation o ^ u ltip le jurisdictions, divisions
along ethnic and/or political lines, and multiple bishops in the same
city. And Orthodox Christians in America came to refer to themselves
not simply as Orthodox Christian, but as Greek-Orthodox,
Serbian-Orthodox, nearly always with an ethnic designator.
This has led to a caricature of Orthodoxy in America, exemplified
in the popular film, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, in which the
fianc of a Greek woman, afier being baptized, is told: Now you
are Greek. Unfortunately, this perception appears not simply in
the broader American culture, but comes from within the heart o f
the Orthodox community itself. I vividly remember a priest and
professor from Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology
commenting, after hearing his audience at St Vladimirs Seminary

Ethnophyletism, Autocephaly, and National Churches

387

sing0 Heavenly King: Oh, you Russians sing so well! Ironically,

there was not a single Russian in the room, and most of the audience
consisted of American converts to Orthodoxy, with a few cradle
Orthodox, ofvarious ethnic backgrounds, thrown in.
Onejurisdiction, the direct descendant ofthe old Russian mission
and known before 97 as the Metropolia, refused to submit to
Soviet control and, as a result, was in 1933 excommunicated and
declaredschismaticbytheCommunist-controlled Church ofRussia.
It was this group, later joined by several other ethnic jurisdictions
(Romanian,Albanian, andBulgarian),thatwaseventuallytobecome
the Orthodox Church in America, ^his jurisdiction, alone in this
constellation of ethnic churches, understood itself as multi-ethnic
and, despite its at times desperate material situation, always sought to
maintain Archbishop Tikhons vision of a united territorial church
in N orth America. The Metropolia opened two seminaries in 1938,
translated service books into English, and participated diligently in
inter-Orthodox and ecumenical activities. St Vladimirs Seminary,
its leading theological school, gained a worldwide reputation as a
center o ^ r t h o d o x theological thought, chiefly in foe persons of
three of its deans, Frs Ceorges Elorovsky, Alexander Schmemann,
and John Meyendorff.^ Most significantly, this jurisdiction did not
see itself as being in diaspora, but understood itself as being placed
providentially in America to witness to foe truth of Orthodoxy in a
new, missionary context.
It is this last fact which, 1 believe, highlights precisely foe
theological problem with any sort o ^ ]m o ^ y le tis m , nationalism,
and jurisdictional pluralism, w h ile it is clear that Orthodoxy is
an incarnational religion, and therefore one that is able to insert
itself and transform any culture, it is equally clear that Orthodoxy
cannot be bound by any particular nationality or culture. This issue
is as old as the Church itself and was faced by ?eter and Paul, by
4

It should be noted here that Schmemann and MeyendorfFgrew up in the midst of

the Russian emigration in Paris, studied and then taught at the St Sergius Institute in
Paris, and moved to America in the 1950s to assume academic positions at St Vladimirs Seminary.

388

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

the apologists in the 2 n d -3 rd centuries, and in every period since.

The challenges o f each age have differed, and so too the Churchs
responses. Whatever challenges the Church faces, however, the
principle remains the same: in the Church, there can be no division
between Jew and Creek, no division based on nationality, race, or
gender. The warning that St Paul addressed to the Corinthians who
are split into factions, It is not the Lords Supper that you eat (1
Cor 11:20), remains applicable to us today. Similarly, the paradoxical
tension between being in the world but not o f the world must
never be losta clear danger when the Church becomes too closely
allied with the state, with any single political faction within the
state, or with any particular political ideology. In fact, the Church
is at times most effective when it stands against the civil authorities,
as when the Russian missionaries in Alaska defended the natives
from abuse and exploitation by the very Russian-American Trading
Company that brought the church to Alaska. St Herman ofAlaska,
for example, left Kodiak for spruce Island precisely to avoid
persecution and possible death at the hand not of natives, but of
representatives o f the Russian company!
Ultimately, then, ethnophyletism and the divisions in church life
that it creates hinder the Churchs missionary efforts, both inside
traditionally Orthodox lands and in the West. O ur increasingly
secularized world needs the answers that Orthodoxy can provide;
but our excessive identification of the Church with particular
cultures or ideologies, be they Creek, Russian, or any other, as well as
our many divisions in the West, greatly reduce Orthodox credibility
in a world that has become ever more secular and cynical.

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

Cf. M. Stokoe & L. Kishkovsky, Orthodox Christians in North America, 5-17.

Ethnophyletism, Autocephaly, andNational Churches

389

Chalcedon, as well as elaims by Constantinople that it alone, in

the absenee of an ecumenieal eouneil, can grant autocephaly. The
details o f this debate are well-Jcnown and, in my opinion, avoid, and
indeed mask, some more fundamental issues.
The first concerns the very nature o f autocephaly. For modern
debates on autocephaly, in the words o f John Meyendorff, attribute
an exaggerated importance to the concept o fautocephaly, and, thus,
inadvertently surrender to the modern exaltation o fth a t concept
by ecclesiastical nationalists.^ 1 would like here to summarize
some of his conclusions, which seem worthy o f our consideration
at this symposium. He criticizes the Fcumenical Fatriarchate for
considering autocephaly as a major institution, therefore to be
dealt with by ecumenical councils only (and only temporarily by
the ecumenical ^triarchate).
In fact, local de facto independent primacies (which we
today call autocephalies) represented foe norm of church
organization before the establishment of foe major patriarchates. In later centuries, they were often established, only
to be re-structured or suppressed later. It seems to me quite
inevitable, therefore, that in order to meet the requirements
of our present complicated and rapidly changing world,
there must be much in forms and procedures with the absolute condition that the ecclesiological principles defined above
be respected, and accepted as foe norm towards which all
temporary arrangements must tend.7

ecclesiological principles which he enumerates at the

beginning of his response represent full agreement with the position
of Constantinople: One bishop, presiding over one church in each
6

Quoted from an unpublished response by Fr John Meyendorff to two study papers

prepared by the hcumenical Patriarchate for foe Pre-Conciliar Commission of the
Great and Holy Council: Autocephaly and Autonomy in foe Orthodox Church and
foe Manner of Their Proclamation, and The Orthodox Diaspora. The response
came following a personal invitation to Meyendorff, signed by Metropolitans Chrysostomos of Myra and Bartholomaios of Philadelphia, dated January 28, 1984. The
text of the response was provided to me by Alexis Liberovsky, Archivist of the Orthodox Church in America. Citation on p. 3.
Ibid. Fmphasis in original.

390

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTLRLY

place. But then Meyendorffgoes on to critique the current situation:

The most tragic aspect of contemporary Orthodoxy is that it
has defacto ceased to act as the One Church, and, instead, had
adopted a system where local-and predominantly national
or ethnic-churches live a totally independent life, establishing communities everywhere, and preserving only intercommunion with each other, as if sacramental communion did
not imply unity in ecclesial structures and administration.
$ phyletism defacto is precisely what was so fortunately
condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 1872.
In short, autocephaly has gradually changed from its original
function, in which it was a practical mechanism by which the
church in a particular region could form its own synod, elect its
own primate, and settle its local affairs, while at the same time
assuring foe unity of local churches throughout the world.^
During foe modern era, the model for autocephaly has become foe
nation state, with its focus on promoting self-interest and absolute
independence. And this is a model that leaves little room for any
form of primacy at the universal level...
So it is that today we see national churches not just competing
for power and territory, but establishing ethnic churches across foe
whole world to minister to their diasporas. In some cases, this
is even enshrined in contemporary church statutes: I cite but two
examples:
The membership of the Orthodox Church of Cyprus includes:
1) all Christian Orthodox Cypriots who entered into foe womb
oftheir church through baptism and who reside permanently in
Cyprus, as well as 2) all those who are of Cypriot origin and
who today live abroad.^

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.

Ethnophyletism, Autocephaly, andNational Churches

391

The jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox Church extends to:

1) persons of Orthodox faith residing in the USSR; residing
on the canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church,
as weil as to 2) persons [of Russian origin] residing abroad
and voluntarily accepting its jurisdiction.11
In this way, nationalism and ethnic identity are placed above the
territorial principle, and local unity is destroyed. The result is a kind
of colonialism which in fact creates local divisions and prevents
bishops in America, for example, from effectively resolving local
problems, as all issues need to be referred to synods in the home
churches. It remains to be seen whether the recently-established
episcopal assemblies in America and elsewhere will boldly take
a leadership role in the creation of normal, canonical ecclesial
structures, or whether they will abdicate their responsibilities and
wait for others to decide their fate.
As already noted above, not only has the idea autocephaly been
overemphasized, but so also the process by which it is granted.
Fr Meyendorff repeatedly points to Theodore Balsamon, an
authoritative interpreter ofthe canons, who stares that the privilege
of establishing autocephalies belongs to ecumenical councils, to
the emperor, and to individual patriarchatesand he considers it
quire normal, for example, that it is for the Patriarch of Antioch to
affirm the autocephaly o fth e Church of Georgia (known as Iberia
in the ancient texts), because it was under its jurisdiction.^ In the
case o fR u s s ia ; which w as connected with the diocese ofThrace, it
fell within the jurisdiction of Constantinople, and thus received its
autocephaly from Constantinople.
We should note as well that, in most cases, autocephaly in each place
was a defacto reality before any official proclamation or recognition.
The Church of Russia, for example, became ecclesiastically independ1988
12

and 2000 Statute ofthe Chureh ofRussia, article 1, 3, as quoted in Larchet,

ibid. My nglish translation.
PG 13?, cols. 31?-320, cited in the Meyendorff response, pp. 3-4. For an excellent
overview ofthe process of establishing autocephalous churches, see Alexander Bogolepov. Towards an American Orthodox Church, rev. ed. (Crestwood, NY: SYS Press,
2001).

392

ST VLADIMIRS THEOLOGICAL QUARTLRLY

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

Ethnophyletism, Autocephaly, andNational Churches

393

the existence o f autocephalous churches coterminous with national

boundaries, but in the often overly close relation between church
and state, in the identity o f church with ethnicity, and especially
in a new understanding of autocephaly as absolute independence,
with no accountability to sister churches, and sometimes even
jurisdiction extending beyond canonical boundaries to ones ethic
group.
Howarethesechallenges,bothpractical,butessentiallytheological,
to be addressed? One desirable step, which touches peripherally on
the topic of the present conference, but which also raises profound
theological issues, is a rediscovery of the proper function of primacy
as bearing the responsibility for maintaining unity, not simply at
the local, but also at foe international, level. Permit
to conclude
with an extensive citation from Fr John Meyendorff, again from his
1984 response to the Ecumenical Patriarchates position papers on
questions of autocephaly and the diaspora:
The Orthodox Church always recognized a first bishop,
whose ministry is to lead, to coordinate and to gather
around himself the local churches of the world. Following
foe schism between East and West, that ministry belongs to
foe bishop of Constantinople. It is very unfortunate indeed
that foe various historical developments [over] foe last two
centuries have led national, ethnic Orthodox Churches to
act as if this universal leadership did not exist. Nevertheless, they all recognize Constantinoples privileges formally,
although, very often, they fail to aclmowledge, or understand foe real content of such privilege.
In my opinion, the future witness of Orthodoxy in foe
world depends on a revival of ecclesiological consciousness
which would necessarily involve new awareness of the role
of the first bishop. It is essential, therefore, that this role
be defined in terms which would be ecclesiologically uncontroversial and pastorally realistic.
... It seems to me, however, that to define foe role of the
ecumenical patriarchate as possessing the^^z/excJusive right
to grant autocephaly or autonomy (before a still problematic

394

ST VLADIMIRSTHEOLOGICAL QUARTERLY

ecumenical council meets to confirm them), and izformal

right of jurisdiction everywhere (outside the established
autocephalous churches) is unrealistic and, therefore, harmful to the eventual revival of ecclesiological consciousness.
As formal rights, these privileges are today clearly denied not
only by the Slavic and Romanian Churches, but also practically by the Pa^archate of Alexandria^ and (certainly)
Antioch. Actually, the ecumenical patriarchate itself has
been rather inconsistent in asserting such rights (cf. the
action o ^ tria r c h Joachim 111 entrusting Greek communities in America to the Church of Greece; or the action of
Patriarch Athenagoras dissolving his Russian Exarchate in
Western Europe and calling its members to return to the
Patriarchate of Moscow).
Much more practical and more unquestionably canonical would be for the Patriarchate to initiate a sustained,
consistent and charitable series of initiatives, aiming at
establishing a normal, canonical, territorial order in Western Europe, in Australia and, indeed, in America. Whether
the ultimate result will be new autocephalous churches, or
churches under the jurisdiction of the ecumenical patriarchate, is ecclesiologically indifferent: it is unity, not jurisdiction which isand should be the only real goal. Episcopal
committees for coordination and collaboration (cf Orthodox diaspora, 32) could be a useful tool, but only if their
ultimate goal is clear, and if they are not used in fact (as is
the case ofSCOBA in America) to perpetuate an uncanonical status quo.
... Some issues of our beloved Orthodoxy wait centuries
for a solution. 1 do not think that the issues debated in the
documents can wait as long.14
These words, written over a quarter of a century ago, still ring true
today.

At the time this res^nse was eomposed.

See note 6 ab^e. Citation on pp. 6-7. Emphases in originah


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.