"The Orthodox Church is in a state of canonical disarray."

Are we in ? I do not think so.

To begin, I think is unforgiving word chosen here; perhaps and /or canonical anomalies” (which resulted from historical circumstances and pastoral necessity) would be less belligerent, but anyhow, the question is do I agree or not. At this time I can only say that I agree that there is some misunderstanding of ecclesiastical principles (“canonical anomalies”) and I am hoping, God willing, that this would be resolved on future upcoming ecumenical council, which is long overdue.

One might wonder and/or ask what are those ecclesiastical principles (canonical anomalies”)?

Due to limitation of this paper, I will only mention and briefly discuss one: The Orthodox Diaspora; I will discuss Canon XIV of the Holy Apostles, about the Bishop, about the jurisdiction and etc.

A new definition has sneaked into World Orthodoxy in recent years: World Orthodoxy has begun to recognize Orthodox Churches on the basis of their being “canonical”. By this newly accepted definition, to be “canonical” a church must be in full communion with Constantinople.

Constantinople has become World Orthodoxy's touchstone. In fact, occasionally there are press releases that describe the Patriarchate of Constantinople as an Eastern Papacy or "the leader of World Orthodoxy.” The late Patriarch Demetrius described the Ecumenical Patriarch as the foremost bishop of Orthodoxy. If a church falls away from communion with him, it is no longer “canonical” (we will talk about this later).

Let's ask a simple question: How did the understanding of the term “canonical” change?

According to the Holy Fathers, the venerable term, “Canonical” always referred to the pious observance of the Holy Canons of the Church, and, most certainly, to those Canons relating to the beliefs and pious practices of the holy Orthodox Church.

Again, someone might ask: “What makes a church truly canonical”?

Is it not the adherence to what has been taught everywhere, at all times, and by all the Orthodox Fathers of the Church (St. Vincent of Lerins 445)? If we cannot confess our faith and identify it with the faith of the Church's confessors and saints, then indeed we are not confessing the Orthodox Christian faith, but we are in reality mocking our ancient Orthodox Faith; but first of all, pray that we may not be lead astray by the "sirens of ecumenism.” We need to be bonded to the spiritual ark of the church and not give in to the compromised faith of those who have rejected the Orthodox Faith and accepted a new adulterated faith, which no longer represents the faith confessed by the Holy Fathers, that is, "the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3).

Nevertheless, because of wars and political turmoil in the 20th century, the administrative structure of the Church became confused, most especially in the Diaspora.

“Mother”, in other words, ethnic, Churches sought to preserve Orthodoxy by preserving its canonical organization, i.e., the organization described by the holy canons for dioceses and synods. Sadly, in the course of this organizational struggle for external order, any canons relating to the Apostolic Faith and the doctrines of the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils, that is, to her inner, mystical life, were deliberately overlooked by the hierarchs who considered themselves to be the architects of this quest for order. These men were prompted by the syncretistic and anti-dogmatic spirit then prevalent, a spirit which continues today, a spirit which controls all current thought and practice in World Orthodoxy.

Satisfied that they had discarded the mystical life of the Church of Christ, these modernizing hierarchs in the Diaspora, and elsewhere, quickly sacrificed the Church's unity in apostolic truth for the modern idea, foreign to guidance of the Holy Fathers, of the unity of mankind. This reforming group imposed an external administrative union in order to preserve the unity of an outward ecclesiastical apparatus, now stripped of the inner life of the "faith once for all delivered to the Saints" (Jude 3) with all parishes welded together under one headquarters.

As an example of this, as you guessed it, is the new restructuring of Orthodoxy, in the Orthodox Diaspora.

Orthodox Diaspora

The term diaspora derives from the Greek verb “diaspeiro”, which means to scatter, to disperse. Historically the term has been applied on several different occasions. It was first used to describe the dispersion of the Jews. Following the Assyrian and Babylonian deportation of the Jews in 722 and 597, respectively, Jews were dispersed throughout Persia, Armenia, and elsewhere. A few centuries later, during the Hellenistic and Roman periods, Jews were dispersed throughout many cities and provinces of the Greco-Roman world.

Secondly, the term was used by the Jews for other nations as a reproach. When, Jesus said:

"I shall be with you a little longer, and then I go to him who sent me ... the Jews said to one another, where does this man intend to go that we shall not find him? Will he go to the Dispersion (diaspora) of the Greeks, and teach the Greeks?" (Jn. 7.33-35.)

In his commentary on the above passage, our father, John Chrysostom writes that the Jews "Gave this name (diaspora) to other nations, because they were everywhere scattered and mingled fearlessly with one another.... they called the Gentiles a 'diaspora' reproaching them .... "(John Chrysostom, Homily 30 of the Homilies on the Gospel of St. John).

Byzantine commentators followed Chrysostom's interpretation, while some modern exegetes have expressed skepticism about this aspect of diaspora.

Today, the term has been used not only by the Orthodox but by other nations as well.

For example, Protestants living in Roman Catholic countries or Roman Catholics living in predominantly Protestant nations are “diasporas” (pl.).

Does the usage of diaspora by the Orthodox fit in any one of the above categories?

In speaking of “diaspora” it is understood the Orthodox Christians belonging to Churches which do not fit in with the traditional structure of Eastern Europe and the Near East, or administrative ecclesiastical jurisdictions in areas not historically Orthodox, and even isolated parishes of Orthodox Christians (living in countries and continents not historically Orthodox, such as the United States, and Latin America for example).

Several waves of migration in the last quarter of the nineteenth century and in the first half of the twentieth from many countries including mine, Serbia, to Western Europe, the Western Hemisphere, and Australia have brought into being several canonical and uncanonical churches organized along ethnic or national lines.

I read that in the United States and Canada alone, there are thirty-six jurisdictions claiming to be Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, or Orthodox Catholic. Of the thirty-six, currently only nine are members of the Standing Conference of Orthodox Bishops in America, that is, members of the voluntary association of major jurisdictions established to promote cooperation and indeed the unification of the Orthodox in the New World.

Serbian Patriarch Irinej said in 2010: (*)

“The Assembly of Bishops heard and approved the following reports regarding the life of the Church over the past year period since last year’s meeting: … on the decisions of the Fourth pan- Orthodox Pre-conciliar conference in Chambesy near Geneva in June 2009 on the theme of a more efficient and organized mission, witness and cooperation of the local Orthodox Churches in the Diaspora and on the stand of the pan-Orthodox preparatory commission for the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, held in December of last year also in Chambesy, on the manner of proclaiming church autocephaly and autonomy. In this context, the Assembly especially analyzed the status and problems of the life of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the Diaspora and made appropriate decisions.”

“Moreover, on the eve of the convening of this First Episcopal Conference of Orthodox Churches in North America, in the spirit of Pentecost, His Holiness Serbian Patriarch Irinej sent the Serbian hierarchs in North America his Patriarchal greeting for its successful work and for rich spiritual fruits of the descent of the Holy Spirit the Comforter to come upon all Orthodox in North America, calling them to take a part in this new Pentecostal work of historical significance. In the humble opinion of the author of this article, this conference is an excellent opportunity to clearly define a vision and establish a platform for the future of the Diaspora on a healthy theological and ecclesiastical foundation.(*)

Here it is worthwhile to remember the visionary Saint Nicholai of Zicha and Ochrid, one of the first Serbian Orthodox laborers on the American continent. The most eloquent example of Nicholai’s openness and pan-Orthodoxy is his readiness to view the Serbian Orthodox Church in America in the context of the ancient orthodox canonical tradition and the wider, contemporary Orthodox context, as most eloquently witnessed by his words:”

______________________________________________________________________________

(*) http://www.antiochian.org/node/23359 - On the Work of the First Episcopal Assembly of Orthodox Bishops of North America - by His Grace Bishop Maxim of the Serbian Orthodox Church

(Bishop Nicholai, Collected Works XIII, page 565-572, Serbian text page 573-579).

“When, by God’s providence, the time comes for the realization of unity, it will be a joy for many. Undoubtedly, the primates and hierarchs of all of our Orthodox Churches, in Europe, Asia, Africa, guided by the wisdom of the Holy Spirit, will show love and understanding, and give their consent and blessing for the establishment of one new sister church in America”

Someone could say: perhaps we need to persuade the rest of 27 jurisdictions to join in; someone could raise the question: Is this a problem, phenomenon; and finally someone could say: well they are all in full violation of fundamental principles of the Church!

So, theologically speaking, the existence of ethnic churches, outside of homogeneous national states, works against the principle of the unity and the catholicity of the Church, right? If this is so, then we can say that our Orthodox Church is not one, because of diversity of all Orthodox Christians, but on the other hand we (Orthodox Christians) are united in common Christian Orthodox faith, apostolic unity and etc.

Speaking about my Church (Serbian Orthodox), which depends on the Patriarchate of Serbia, someone said to me, that we are contrary to the ecclesiological and canonical principle of one church and one bishop in the same district and city; and in addition, Churches (like mine) whose bond of unity is the ethnic character of their people (their common language, psychology, and culture), violate the theological principle of the catholicity of the Church, because the ethnic character gives the impression, if it does not encourage it, that a particular ethnic church is not open to all but only to people of the same national background.

To some extent, perhaps, I do agree on this statement, especially “church is not open to all”, which really does not mean that, but rather: “it would be difficult for non-Serbian individual to join our Church, since the language and customs would be great barrier”.

If you ask my Bishop here in Midwest Diocese about the territory of the Serbian Church in United States, again predominantly here in Midwest part of America, he will tell you that there is no distinction between territories plainly of the “Diaspora” and canonical territories of our locally established Church in Serbia, because the principle of our Autocephalous, which determines our ecclesiological and institutional existence. Besides, wherever there are our Serbian Orthodox Christians, that’s where the Serbian Church is situated and we are in total catholic ecclesiology agreement with mother Church (in Serbia).

In March of the year 2000, the Church of Serbia sent Rev. Metropolitan Constantine to Paris, to enthrone Bishop Luka, at the Serbian Church, as we like to call it nowadays, at 23 Rue Simplon. He read out a text relating to the enthronement, laconic enough to present it here just as it was spoken:

“The Serbian Orthodox Church, as a canonical Church with patriarchal dignity, does not cease caring for its members, wherever these may be. Beyond the dioceses established on traditional canonical ground, where its ecclesiastical organization has been present for centuries, the Serbian Orthodox Church has been led, following the emigration of the populace due to financial or political reasons, to organize its presence in the New World as well as in European countries, in order to preserve the faith of its members, to carry the message of Orthodoxy to non-Orthodox countries, and thus to make Orthodoxy known to the world. The presence of more orthodox bishops in this city [Paris] does not corrupt the order of the Orthodox Church, or the idea that a city should have one and only bishop, since each one of the canonical bishops deals only with the members of his local Church. The adherence to a local Church within the body of the Orthodox Church has never been perceived as the adherence to different or opposed Churches, but clearly only as the adherence to one and only Church, whose supreme pastor is Our Lord Jesus Christ. And this, at a time when we are all in His service, each one of us having specific obligations, foremost of these being to preach in a language which is comprehensible and to watch over the ecclesial tradition of the local Church, a tradition with so rich an ecclesial patrimony. Your Reverence, by delivering this scepter unto you, symbol of Episcopal authority, in the name of His Beatitude the Serbian Patriarch Paul and of the Holy Synod of Bishops, I invoke the prayers of Saint Sava and of all the saints of Serbian land, of the country, and of the whole cosmos, so that your service as bishop as well as the service of God on the part of the clergy and of the pious orthodox people, contribute to the glory of God, to the joy of the Orthodox Holy Church, and to the salvation of the faithful who are entrusted to you”(*)

Assumption in above mentioned article would suggest that Serbian Bishop will interfere in the life of another diocese, according to Canon XIV of the Holy Apostles’ and taken up by canons of subsequent Councils. Fact or fantasies you might ask.

According to this canon, any bishop must refrain from interfering in the life of another diocese. To this extent the present situation of the Diaspora is canonical, for each bishop does only care for the diocese entrusted to him. Therefore, in this case, Serbian bishop in Paris does not interfere in the diocese of let’s say Russian bishop in Paris and vice versa; but on the other hand we have here fundamental problem, and that is that their diocese is on the same territory. Again, according to canon that I mentioned, no bishop has the right to interfere in another’s diocese and until this basic principle is understood and practiced, there can be no resolution to the problem of “diaspora”.

Continuing with my Serbian Church here is diaspora, we chose to be extension to our homeland, from where we came from, either as political or economic refugees, and this does

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(*) Translation of Metropolitan Constantine’s speech;

not mean that we divided among ourselves; and that Mother Church in Serbia divided her flock. However after studying, about all this, maybe we are all, not only Serbians’, are further and further away from unity of Orthodox Diaspora, if such a term exist.

So what shall we do? Is there an answer?

How about if we organize one Pan-Orthodox autocephalous Church, in every country, where all Orthodox independent of nationality, race, and culture were members, and where we all will have fundamental unity(*)

Easy said than done, right; because, like in my example, we (the Serbians) have strong ties between motherland, and cultural preferences, which beyond any doubt, would give up and become a member of this Pan-Orthodox Autocephalous Church.

Any major effort or attempts to push all the Orthodox under one autocephalous church in the near future will create more schisms and additional scandals. We are not ready for such an ideal solution.

Great Synod (Ecumenical Patriarchate) probably by now had realized the need for our Orthodox Churches in diaspora, so the question is what can “Great Mother” of all do? Shall all Churches in diaspora be ruled and guided by authority of Constantinople?

Fr. John Meyendorff writes': (**) What Fr. Meyendorff writes concerning the role of the Patriarchate in Ecumenical Orthodoxy aptly applies to the Orthodox diaspora. And in addition he says: "In the present chaotic years, the Orthodox Church could indeed use the wise, objective, and authoritative leadership of the ecumenical patriarchate. Would it not be its obligation, for example, to come up with a positive, constructive, and practical solution to the jurisdictional pluralism in America?"

Definitely, the Patriarchate should take initiatives, as we will see in canons.

(*) Demetrious J. Constantelos, The Orthodox Diaspora Canonical and ecclesiological perspective, Greek Orthodox Theological Review1979

(**) John Meyendorff, "Needed: The Ecumenical Patriarchate" in the Orthodox Church No.4 (April, 1978)

My emphasis here is not to interpret the canons my way and go beyond the some of the greatest canonists like Balsamon, Zonaras, Blastares and Nikodim Milas, but to correctly citied theirs.

For example, Canon 34 of the Apostolic Canons is specific about leadership as well as about the close interdependence of all leaders and a Church. It reads:

“The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.”

This Canon is foundational for the regional organization of Churches and the governing of them by the first among the bishops, i.e., the metropolitan, without whose consent the bishops of each diocese should not commit any action outside their normal see. On the other hand, the first among them is also not self-governing and should consult the of all bishops within his region for a decision on all the most important matters.(*)

Just as, when the head is unwell and fails to function properly, the other members of the body also are ill disposed or even utterly useless, so and in like manner it may be said that the one acting as head in the Church does not honor her fitly, all the rest of the body of the Church will be out of order and unable to function. It is for this reason that the present Canon ordains that all bishops of every province ought to know who is the chief among them, i.e., the metropolitan; and ought to regard him as their head, and not to do anything unnecessary without consulting him, as respecting, that is to say, anything that does not pertain to the parishes of their bishoprics, but, extending beyond these limits, have to do with the common condition of the whole province, as, for instance, do questions concerning the dogmas, matters involving adjustments and corrections of common mistakes, the installation and ordination of prelates, and other similar things.

(*) Canons 4, 5, and 6 of the 1st Council; Canon 2 of the 2nd Council; Canon 8 of the 3rd Council; Canon 28 of the 4th Council; Canon 9 of the Council of Antioch.

Instead, they are to meet with the metropolitan and confer with him in regard to such common matters, and decide in common on what appears to them the best thing to be done. Each of the bishops should do by himself, without consulting his metropolitan, only those things that are confined to the limits and boundaries of his bishopric and to the territories that are subject thereto. But just as bishops should do nothing of common interest without consulting the metropolitan, so and in like manner a metropolitan ought not to do anything of such common interest alone and by himself without consulting all his bishops. For in this way there will be concord and love, both between bishops and metropolitans and between clergymen and laymen. The outcome of this concord and love will be that God the Father will be glorified through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who acquainted men with the name of His Father and laid down the law requiring love, when He said: (John 13:35). And He will be glorified in His Holy Spirit, which through its grace has united us in one spiritual association. That is the same as saying that as a result of this concord the Holy Trinity — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — will be glorified, in accordance with the voice of the Gospel which says: (Matt. 5:16).

Almost identically the same things are seen to be ordained also in c. 9 of Antioch. That is why c. 6 of the First Ecumenical Council commands that the ancient customs are to hold, those, that is to say, which had been prevalent in accordance with this Ap. c.; so that the patriarch of Alexandria had control of affairs in Egypt and Libya, since such was also the custom in connection with the patriarch of Rome too. Likewise the patriarch of Antioch had control of his own provinces; and, in general, the same privileges were preserved to every Church and Metropolis, so that every metropolitan should have control over the provinces subject to him. Canon 7 of the same Council ordains that the patriarch of Aelia, i.e., of Jerusalem, is to have the observance of the ancient honor and the dignity of his own Metropolis, Canon 3 of the 2nd commands that the patriarch of Constantinople is to have the highest honor. Canon 8 of the 3rd, too, demands that the rights belonging to each province be free from constraint and impurity again even as in the beginning, according to the old custom, and especially as respects those of Cyprus. In addition, c. 39 of the 6th confirms the same c. 8 of the 3rd.

At the end, it is quite clear and medieval canonists, Balsamon and Zonaras in particular, correctly emphasize that

Therefore, unilateral actions on major issues of worldwide Orthodoxy violate both the letter and the spirit of the canons and of the Church. They should be avoided by all means.

Zonaras, Balsarnon, Aristenos, and Blastares are unanimous concerning the preeminence and the privileges of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. In their commentaries on the aforementioned canon, they relate that, as the Pope of Rome had authority over the bishops of districts in the Illiricum, Macedonia, Thessaly, Central Greece, Peloponnesos, and Epiros before the eighth century, the Patriarch of Constantinople was given authority over provinces in the East and such new nations as the Alans and Russians.

Here, it was more than a primacy of honor, it was also jurisdiction authority over several large provinces, authority to consecrate the metropolitans, the ecclesiastical heads, of Pontos and Asia, as well as the bishops of new developing nations which were either subject to the Empire or which lived in adjacent territories, and look after their well-being.

In closing comments:

“One of the first actions that the Great Synod can initiate is to agree to such a plan, recognizing first the need to unite all Orthodox diaspora into a loose ecclesiastical confederation of a semiautonomous status, less than one spiritual authority. One should not expect an immediate end to the canonical irregularities, if not chaos, which prevail in the Orthodox diaspora, nor should one expect the uncanonical situation to become subject to canonical provisions overnight. Economy, flexibility, love and compassion, vision and missionary zeal, imagination and cautious steps should direct the efforts of those in charge of the transitional period.”(*)

The problems of the diaspora, involves tremendous energy, patience, and constant vigilance. Nevertheless ever effort and every sacrifice are worth the price.