by Archpriest Dr. Georgios Lekkas of the Holy Orthodox Metropolis of Belgium
The ethno-phyletic ideology of the 19th and early 20th centuries led within the Orthodox East to the formation of independent nation-states in the political sphere and the establishment of corresponding autocephalous national churches in the ecclesiastical realm. While nation-states, under international law, retain the right to support and protect their citizens globally, autocephalous national churches have, over time—particularly following the fall of Communism—, similarly asserted global ecclesiastical jurisdiction over their ethnically defined flocks, irrespective of geographical location. This stance directly contravenes the canonical framework for Church organization and administration established by the Ecumenical Councils of the first millennium (cf. Zizioulas, The Orthodox Church, II, b 4).
This uncanonical practice is particularly evident in the Orthodox Diaspora, where parallel ecclesiastical communities, organized along ethnic lines, have been established in the same geographic regions, each led by its own ethnically affiliated bishop. This arrangement contravenes the fundamental Orthodox ecclesiological principle that mandates a single Eucharistic assembly per locale under the authority of one bishop (as outlined in the 8th Canon of the First Council, the 8th Canon of the Third Council, and the 12th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council). Such practices, characterized by Meyendorff as an ‘ecclesiological heresy’ (p. 24), have exacerbated tensions among competing Orthodox national churches, each striving to expand its global influence under the guise of serving the liturgical needs of its diaspora communities. This approach, which constitutes a surrender to the third temptation of Christ, undermines ecclesiastical unity and poses a serious risk of deepening divisions, potentially leading to a major schism that threatens the very essence of the Church of Christ (cf. Papathomas, La Res. oppositionnelle, sec. C). It is even possible that this disregard for ‘spiritual laws’ could escalate into global conflicts, including nuclear confrontations.
It is particularly disheartening to observe that while the flock of the Roman Catholic Church increasingly trends toward Protestantization, the national Orthodox churches, through their global jurisdictional claims over ethnic diasporas, are inadvertently introducing papal-like structures into Orthodoxy. This is evident in the acceptance of parallel ecclesiastical jurisdictions within the same locality, which necessitate bishops whose primary allegiance lies with their mother churches rather than with the catholicity of the local Church under a single bishop.
Episcopal Assemblies, modelled after Roman Catholic Conferences and Protestant European Federations, are currently designed to address the immediate need for cooperation among the overlapping Orthodox jurisdictions in the Diaspora. However, lacking both conciliarity and canonical legitimacy, they constitute, as Metropolitan Gregory of Peristeri aptly notes, a deviation from the conciliar structure of the Orthodox Church (Papathomas, Diaspora, p. 18). Rather than exporting Orthodoxy’s canonical structure to the West, these assemblies instead adopt the West’s uncanonical ecclesiological practices.
The ethno-phyletic Orthodox communities of the Diaspora, which thrived in the 20th century under particular historical and cultural conditions, have undeniably enabled members of autocephalous national Orthodox churches to preserve their faith abroad, often rooted in nostalgia for their homeland’s traditions. However, this preservation has come at the expense of ecclesiological unity, which fundamentally requires one local Church under a single bishop (Schmemann, p. 46). As Meyendorff aptly observes, Orthodox Christians in the Diaspora are deprived of the ‘visible unity’ necessary for effectively fulfilling their missionary calling in increasingly de-Christianized Western societies. Without this unity, Orthodoxy cannot adequately manifest the new life in the Holy Spirit bestowed by Christ (Meyendorff, pp. 28–29). For this reason, in order to embrace its historic missionary role, Orthodoxy must urgently move from fragmented ethnic enclaves to unified, multi-ethnic local Orthodox churches within the Diaspora.
To restore canonical normalcy, it is imperative, as Metropolitan Gregory of Peristeri highlights, to differentiate between the ‘ethnic diaspora’, which remains insular and inward-focused, and the ‘ecclesiastical diaspora’, which must be outward-facing and inclusive, embracing the stranger (Papathomas, Diaspora, pp. 16, 19–20). Achieving a return to canonical order necessitates a liturgical life conducted exclusively in the local language, within a unified local church in each geographic region, governed by a single bishop and a synod chaired by the Ecumenical Patriarch. This arrangement would act as an interim structure under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate within the territory of the Patriarchate of Rome, until the restoration of full communion between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches (cf. Papathomas, Diaspora, pp. 18–19; Pnevmatikakis, p. 9).
What kind of penetration into local communities can parishes, or even more challenging, metropolitan churches in the Diaspora, achieve, especially when they almost exclusively use the national language of the mother church rather than the local language? How can this approach align with the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church’s Encyclical regarding the ‘strengthening of local identity’? (§15, cf. Keramidas, p. 38). However, it must be immediately recognized that effective Orthodox witness in the Diaspora requires the exclusive use of the local language in liturgical settings. If one must use the local language for work, daily life, and even leisure abroad, why should this not apply equally to collective public worship?
The competition among national Orthodox Churches for global jurisdiction in the Diaspora is largely driven by the understandable desire of the faithful to worship God in their own language. In my view, any efforts to restore the visible unity of the Orthodox Church in the Diaspora—and beyond—must begin by addressing the linguistic issue.
Christianity spread across the world during a time when Greek served as the global lingua franca. The contemporary need for re-evangelization of a formerly Christian world that is now either completely de-Christianized or, at best, rapidly Protestantizing, coupled with the task of evangelizing populations who have yet to encounter Christ (cf. Message of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church, §§ 2 and 7), calls for the adoption of enlightened initiatives and a pan-Orthodox consensus. This should include the learning and use of a common lingua franca for all Orthodox populations worldwide, taught alongside their national language from the earliest years of life.
This initiative could begin as a common Orthodox language of worship and communication, initially among the Balkan Orthodox peoples and Churches, since the solution to this issue must originate from where it first arose. Collaboration between each national autocephalous Orthodox Church and sympathetic local political and party formations could help promote this idea on a national level. Organizations such as the Interparliamentary Assembly on Orthodoxy could further support this initiative internationally, and, in time, the World Council of Churches could embrace it as the global lingua franca for all Christians.
Personally, I would very much like to see Greek—the language of the Gospels—become the Orthodox lingua franca, as its widespread learning would provide large sections of the global population with direct access to texts of unparalleled spiritual value. However, I would also be willing to accept any language adopted as the Orthodox lingua franca, seeing it as a divine gift, since I believe that having a shared language is infinitely preferable to its complete absence.
The only acceptable exception to using the local language for liturgical purposes should be the adoption of a common Orthodox lingua franca, if and when such a language is agreed upon by pan-Orthodox consensus. A shared Orthodox language, serving as the sole alternative to the local language, would strengthen bonds among Orthodox Christians both locally and globally. It would act as a visible symbol of unity in faith and gradually facilitate the systematic translation of the rich literary treasures of various national ecclesiastical traditions into this language, making them accessible to all.
The Diaspora must and can serve as a pilot model for autocephalous national Orthodox Churches. These churches might one day provide not only parishes using the local language but also parishes employing a universally accepted Orthodox lingua franca, should such a language be established. The Diaspora, as a multi-ethnic space, presents ideal conditions for the restoration of Orthodox ecclesiology in alignment with Christ’s vision for the Church as expressed in His High Priestly Prayer. It could thereby become a prototype for autocephalous national Orthodox Churches seeking to take meaningful steps toward reestablishing Christ’s pre-ethno-national vision for His Church (cf. Maximos, Metropolitan of Sardis, p. 332).
If the establishment of local daughter Churches in the Diaspora can significantly reduce the competition among autocephalous national Orthodox Churches, the adoption of an Orthodox lingua franca would serve as a decisive step toward fostering the visible unity of all Orthodox Christians.
Allow me to conclude these reflections with a recent personal testimony. A few days ago, I was approached by a Muslim woman, previously unknown to me, who had experienced a profound dream and sought to share it with an Orthodox priest. She appeared unexpectedly at the parish table we host after the Sunday Divine Liturgy, her head modestly covered with a traditional light blue scarf, her round and serene face evoking an image of the Virgin Mary. She recounted her dream: the heavens opened, and everything was suffused with radiant white light. Within this divine light, a magnificent Orthodox church with many domes appeared, and she distinctly heard the words: ‘Follow this’.
In what language, if not the local one, can we welcome these people, whom Christ calls in every way and from all places?
Bibliography:
- KERAMIDAS Dimitrios, Ἡ Ἁγία καὶ Μεγάλη Σύνοδος καὶ ἡ ὀρθόδοξη διασπορά. Ἐθνικοὶ πειρασμοὶ καὶ ἱεραποστολικὲς προκλήσεις [The Holy and Great Council and the Orthodox Diaspora: National Temptations and Missionary Challenges], Theologia, Vol. 91, Issue 4, 2020, pp. 35–61.
- MAXIMOS, METROPOLITAN OF SARDIS, Τὸ Οίκουμενικὸν Πατριαρχεῖον ἐν τῇ Ὀρθοδόξῳ Ἐκκλησίᾳ [The Ecumenical Patriarchate in the Orthodox Church], Thessaloniki, Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1972.
- MEYENDORFF Jean, Un seul évêque dans la même ville, Contacts, 37, 1962, pp. 23–33.
- PAPATHOMAS Grigorios (Metropolitan of Peristeri), “Diaspora” ecclésiale – Diaspora nationale et les « Assemblées des Évêques Orthodoxes » en Europe (Academia.edu).
- PAPATHOMAS Grigorios, La relation oppositionnelle entre église établie localement et «Diaspora» ecclésiale (eoc.ee/fr/droit-canon-2).
- PNEVMATIKAKIS Vassilis, La territorialité de l’Église orthodoxe en France entre exclusivisme juridictionnel et catholicité locale, Carnets de géographes, nº 6, septembre 2013, Rubrique Carnets de recherches (Academia.edu).
- SCHMEMANN Alexandre, Église et organisation ecclésiale, Le Messager orthodoxe, n° 146 2008/I, pp. 39-69.
- ZIZIOULAS John (Metropolitan of Pergamos), The Orthodox Church and the Third Millennium (http://theology.balamand.edu.lb/index.php/local-events/738-zizioulaslecture).
SOURCE: ΤΟ ΚΟΙΝΟΝ ΤΩΝ ΩΡΑΙΩΝ ΤΕΧΝΩΝ, DECEMBER 2024, VOL. 22 (IN GREEK).
