Ethno-phyletism and the [so-called] Ecclesial “Diaspora”

(A One-Way relationship of the cause and the effect)

By Archimandrite Grigorios D. Papathomas

1. Ethno-phyletism, the lifeblood of the Ecclesial “Diaspora”

2. The ecclesio-canonical limits of Autocephaly
3. A retrospective canonical solution to the problem of the “Diaspora”
4. State-Nation and Nation-State in relation to the “Diaspora”
5. Concluding thoughts and critical observations

The preparatory process for the future Holy and Great Pan-Orthodox Council has
finalized the list of subjects to be discussed and, of the 105 topics initially proposed by
the Pan-Orthodox Conference in Rhodes in 1961, just 10 were selected by the First Pre-
Conciliar Pan-Orthodox Conference in 1976 as the most significant and pressing. And of
those 10, the question of the “Orthodox Diaspora” held and continues to hold pride of
place. The general problem of the “Diaspora”, which we will shall now examine together,
is therefore of paramount importance; it has already been the subject of much study 1, and
will undoubtedly continue to be studied, precisely because it is so complex. Here, we will
examine just one aspect, albeit a crucial one, which has to do, in my opinion, with the …

1
See the extensive, multilingual bibliography of the entire 20 th century, with a variety of ad hoc articles on
the canonical issues under examination, such as Autocephaly, Autonomy, and the “Diaspora” in Archim.
Grigorios D. Papathomas, Essai de bibliographie (ad hoc) pour l’étude des questions de l’autocéphalie, de
l’autonomie et de la diaspora (Contribution bibliographique à l’étude des questions-Essai préliminaire)
[Bibliographical Essay (ad hoc) for the study of the questions of the Autocephaly, Autonomy and Diaspora
(Bibliographical contribution to the study of the questions-Preliminary Essay)], Thessaloniki-Katerini,
Epektasis (series: Nomo-Canonical Library, No. 7), 2000, 105 pages.

1
impetus for and lifeblood of this problem. And the lifeblood of this ecclesial “Diaspora”
was already pinpointed well over a century ago, at the conciliar level, as Ethno-phyletism.
The question, therefore, is not particularly new, but actually precedes the socio-political
phenomenon of the Diaspora itself. For this reason, it is particularly important from a
methodological point of view for us to begin with Ethno-phyletism, which, before it
became responsible for the ecclesial “Diaspora”, also gave birth to National
Autocephaly and the phenomenon of the National autocephalous Churches2.

1. Ethno-phyletism, the lifeblood of the Ecclesial “Diaspora”

Ethno-phyletism, as a term and a neologism, was deliberately coined by the First

(historically speaking) Pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1872 as a redundant
and emphatically all-encompassing technical term (from έθνος/nation and φυλή/race) —
we shall see why — in order to highlight a heretical deviation that was occurring at that
time in the heart of the Church. It is particularly interesting in the context of our
conference here today to note for what reason the Pan-Orthodox Council adopted or,
better yet, created this term, and what kind of aberration they sought to describe with it.
First of all, phyletism (from the word φυλή/race, and associated with the terms racism
and tribalism) is the adoption and implementation of the Principle of Nationalities at the
ecclesial level — i.e., of the precedence and preponderance, within History, of the race
and the nation over the Kingdom. Phyletism represents the deliberate and conscious
pursuit of racial and national discrimination within the Church, giving priority to those
of the same race and nation — and excluding, by definition, those of other races and
other nations — in the composition of the Ecclesial body. Ethno-phyletism constitutes, in
other words, in the attempt to realize the Church within History, a confusion between the
Church and the race/nation, an assimilation — and even, sometimes, identification — of
the Church with the Nation. We are dealing, then, with the rather odd correlation of two
dimensions, in which phyletism “tribalizes” the Church and subordinates it to the endo-
created historic goals of the race and the nation or, even worse, exploits the Church in
order to discriminate against those of other races and nations solely for the benefit of the
2
The English word “nation” is used to translate the Greek word “έθνος”, and the adjectives “national” and
“ethnic” are used interchangeably. –Tr.

2
race and the nation. We could characterize this as an “(Ethno-)phyletic Church”, i.e., a
“Church of the Those of the Same Race” (sic), which is completely unknown as an
ecclesial category or ecclesiastical entity in the two-thousand-year history of the Church.
Nevertheless, today, we have turned this ecclesio-canonical aberration into an established
ecclesial fact (see, for example, the ecclesiologically erroneous “Church of the Greeks”
— in comparison with the perfectly acceptable “Parliament of the Greeks” —, as well as
the Church of the Russians, the Church of the Romanians, and “The Patriarchate of the
Serbs”, as it is officially known).
The term “Ethno-phyletism” therefore, was the name given to the Ecclesiological
Heresy that first appeared in the heart of the Orthodox Church in 1870, with the arbitrary
establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate in Constantinople, according to which the
Church is organized not on a territorial basis, but rather on a racial, national, or — to be
more precise — culturalistic one, such that, in a way of co-territoriality, two or more
Ecclesial entities and Ecclesiastical jurisdictions can co-exist in the same territory, each
one of which concerns itself only with the pastoral care of its members, who belong to a
particular national group (i.e., Mono-phyletism, literally, “one-racism”). (Let me note
here, parenthetically, that, in defining ethno-phyletism, we are simultaneously defining
the ecclesial “Diaspora” and the ethno-phyletic way in which it has been organized —
which clearly demonstrates the direct, reciprocal relationship between the two, as we
shall see below). Ethno-phyletism — a new, unique form of nationalism — thus
knowingly privileges exclusivity and national unity over unity in Christ. For this reason,
the term was adopted by the Great and Holy (Major) Pan-Orthodox Synod of
Constantinople on September 10, 1872, which formally defined and condemned Ethno-
phyletism as a contemporary Ecclesiological Heresy (“the Balkan heresy”). And Ethno-
phyletism, as is obvious from a theological perspective, actually manifests itself as event
of heresy at the ecclesial level, becoming ecclesial Mono-phyletism in the incarnation and
realization of the Church in a particular given place (State- National Territorial Church)
or in the entire world (“Diaspora”: the places outside [hyperorius] the ecclesiastical
borders of jurisdiction, the places of those of the same race even though they live outside
the ethno-ecclesiastical borders of the National Church).

3
 Indeed, the idea of establishing an Autocephalous Church either at the level of the
state or within an ethno-ecclesial community in the so-called “Diaspora” — not on a
local/territorial (Eucharistic/Ecclesial) basis, but on an ethno-phyletic, national, linguistic,
or racial basis — could be termed “racial (religious) nationalism”. Likewise, “the
establishment, in the same place, of particular Churches, accepting members of the same
nationality and refusing members of other nationalities, being administered only by
pastors of the same nationality, as is advocated by supporters of (ethno-)phyletism, is an
unprecedented historical phenomenon” (Metropolitan Maximus of Sardis). The Church,
therefore, in accordance with its eschatological mission within History and the fallen
created-world, must never tie its fate to that of a single nation, a single race. That is why
Ecclesial Orthodoxy is generally hostile to any form of (ethno-)phyletic Messianism.
That being said, in the march within history of a people, we should distinguish
clearly between what I call “Ethnism” (which has a positive sense, inasmuch as it stands
in contrast to disdain for one’s country) and Ethnicism or Nationalism (which has a
pejorative sense, inasmuch as it means exclusive devotion to certain national ideals that
involve territorial expansion to the detriment of other nations, as well as the imposition of
a collective nationalistic ideology [ethno-mythology], which leads ineluctably to racism).
We should see the first as an ally of the nation and the second as its enemy, because the
former is consistent with the gathering together [Ecclesial Egataspora] of a local or
territorial (Autocephalous) Church for the salvation of a people, while the latter is
incompatible with the nature and eschatological character of the Church. The Church,
therefore, is never constituted according to nationality, but rather according to territory!
Autocephaly, by extension, is never given to a national group, wherever they may live,
but to a people with specific, defined geographical borders. This people should constitute
a single, united Autocephalous Church, irrespective of the national origin of the persons,
who comprise it. Thus, ecclesiologically, we have (or should have) “Churches of
independent states” (i.e., Autocephalous Churches), and not “Churches of nations” (i.e.,
National(istic) Churches). The Ecclesio-canonical principle of territorial ecclesio-
boundaries leads us to the heart of the problem we are examining here today.

4
 2. The Ecclesio-canonical Limits of Autocephaly

Indeed, the ecclesio-canonical principle of territorial boundaries poses for us two

questions: first of all, whether an Autocephalous Church has territorial and personal
jurisdiction3 outside its circumscribed (state) territorial boundaries, and secondly — if we
conclude that territorial and personal jurisdiction beyond a Church’s borders
(hyperoria) is improper and uncanonical — whether there is actually such a thing as an
ecclesial “Diaspora”4. In both cases, the answer, from an ecclesio-canonical point of
view, is “no”. However, according to modern Orthodox ecclesiastical practice, the
answer, in both cases, is “yes”. Obviously, therefore, we have a stark dichotomy between
what we say theologically, and what we do ecclesiastically. To put it simply, I would say
that this occurs because in the first case ecclesiology predominates, while in the second
case what prevails is the voluntary and conscious choice of ethno-phyletism, with all its
worldly (endo-created) goals and aims.
In other words, according to the two-thousand-year-old ecclesio-canonical
tradition, the territorial and personal jurisdiction of an Autocephalous Church is strictly
limited to its canonically defined territory, and that Church has absolutely no
jurisdictional rights outside those canonical limits. Once this is applied, ecclesiologically
and canonically, for all the Territorial Orthodox Churches, there will no longer be any
issue regarding the “Diaspora”. As it stands now, the issue exists not because there is
really a question regarding the “Diaspora”, but because some National Orthodox
Churches did not understand the Chalcedonian dialectic inherent in Autocephaly — that
is, that in order to exist properly, they must be simultaneously “unconfused and
indivisible”, both ecclesiologically and canonically. Indeed, when the Fourth Ecumenical
Council of Chalcedon (451) defined the “how to be” of the Churches, the “unconfused
and indivisible being” of the Territorial Churches, which are in the entire world, the
Council confirmed both the unconditional otherness and the inherent communion
between these Churches. This Council demonstrated that the existence of Territorial
Churches lies at the intersection between the affirmation of geo-ecclesial otherness and

3
Cf. Canon 5/Ist.
4
Cf. Canon 28/IVth.

5
the inherent ecclesial communion between them. In other words, the theological demand
and the ontological vision of this Council were for there to be both ecclesial otherness
and communion, as a clearly paradoxical achievement of the Trinitarian manner of
existence of the Territorial Churches. When this is not maintained, then we have two
unavoidably anti-ecclesiological and anti-canonical deviations, which annihilate and
destroy the Church. We can envision a symmetrical Isosceles triangle of deviations: on
the one side, diversity becomes autonomous, resulting in the loss of ecclesial communion
and, on the other side, communion deteriorates into undifferentiated confusion in which
ecclesial otherness is completely swallowed up. To be more precise:
♦ In the first non-canonical deviation, we have the unilateral affirmation of the National
Church as the exclusive property of those of the same race (ecclesiological mono-
phyletism), which is indifferent to communion with the other Territorial Churches,
claiming on its own an ontological, ecclesial auto-fullness. The ethno-ecclesiastical
conviction inspires a need to care for those of the same race, who find themselves outside
that Church’s canonical borders, even if they happen to be within the borders of another
Territorial Church, or in a territory administered canonically by another Territorial
Church. This is precisely what gives rise, in the same time, to the phenomenon of the
“Diaspora”, which is the overemphasis, on a global scale, of the “unconfused” at the
expense of the “indivisible,” of otherness at the expense of communion, and thus the
annihilation of the Chalcedonian dialectic between “unconfused and indivisible”, i.e., of
the very definition of Autocephaly.
♦ In the second non-canonical deviation, we have one Territorial Church
usurping/absorbing another Territorial Church, when they both find themselves in a
single political entity. Thus, exactly what the Fourth Ecumenical Council condemned is
precisely what the Patriarchate of Russia did in Estonia (1945-1996) and Latvia (1945-
present) —, i.e., the dissolution of ecclesial otherness in the name of an imposed
ecclesial communion around a single race. This results in the elimination and
assimilation of the ecclesial otherness of an ecclesiastical body and the anti-canonical
incorporation of one Territorial Church into another (Territorial) Church.
Summarizing these two anti-canonical deviations, I would like to emphasize that,
on the one hand, the overemphasis on “unconfused” (otherness) at the expense of

6
“indivisible” (communion) engenders ethno-phyletic Church and all that entails, chief of
which is its activity beyond its borders (extra-territorial/hyperoria), leading to the
creation of the so-called “Diaspora”. This co-existence and confusion of Churches, these
overlapping territories (co-territoriality), and this deformation of the Church are precisely
what the Fourth Ecumenical Council sought to avoid, building on the work of the Second
Ecumenical Council of Constantinople (381), which sternly forbade anyone to “bring
confusion on the Churches”5. On the other hand, the overemphasis on “indivisible”
(communion) at the expense of “unconfused” (otherness), in the name of an ecclesiastical
body centered on a single race, leads to the ecclesiastical unjust assimilation of one
Territorial Church by another (Territorial) Church, which is precisely what was
forbidden by the two Ecumenical Councils as an ontological concern, i.e., to not “bring
confusion on the Churches”.
Therefore, in granting Autocephaly, 1) the territorial principle takes precedence
hypostatically over the national, and not the other way around. 2) The same applies for
the subsequent operation of the Autocephalous Church, after it has been established. And
3) the same is also true for the scope of its jurisdiction, which is, again, territorial and not
national…
At the future Great and Holy Council, the issue of Autocephaly and its (endo-)
jurisdictional limits will first have to be clarified. Once the already obvious ecclesio-
canonical principle of the boundaries of Autocephaly are established, we can then
examine the question of the ecclesial “Diaspora”. In other words, we must reverse the
temporal hierarchy of examining these two pre-eminent issues, starting first with
Autocephaly and then moving on to the ecclesial “Diaspora”, and not vice versa. Up to
this point, the agenda for the future Council, which includes ten topics, has been headed
by the question of the “Diaspora”, which is, in fact, a secondary effect and not the
primary cause.

5
Canon 2/IInd. English translation from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Volume 14: The Seven
Ecumenical Councils, ed. Philip Schaff, p. 176.

7
 The First Four Issues for the Future Pan-Orthodox Council (1976)

The Current Order → The Proposed Order

1. The Orthodox Diaspora 1. Autocephaly
2. Autocephaly 2. Autonomy
3. Autonomy 3. The Ecclesial Diptychs
4. The Ecclesial Diptychs 4. The Ecclesiastical “Diaspora”

When we follow this methodological order, we will be in for a surprise. Clarifying the
jurisdictional limits of Autocephaly will lead us to discover that the much-ballyhooed
issue of the ecclesial “Diaspora” is actually a non-issue for the Church from an ecclesio-
canonical perspective. Not only is there not, nor has there ever been, any such thing as
the “Diaspora”, but the idea itself is excluded by the very nature and composition of the
Church. So when we solve the first three problems in my proposed order, we will not
have to tackle the fourth problem at all as a primary cause. Many Orthodox today fail to
realize that each National Autocephalous Church’s disruptive retention of its “ethno-
ecclesiastical” jurisdiction in the lands of the “Diaspora” engenders the anti-
ecclesiological and anti-canonical phenomenon of co-territoriality, which has been
unequivocally condemned by Ecumenical and Local Councils6, and which has as a direct
result the deformation of the (thence Orthodox) Church7. It is simply not possible that the
Church, throughout its long History, would have accepted an arrangement as obviously
counterfeit as the ecclesial “Diaspora” and not done anything to correct it. Today, we are
trying to tackle an issue that is clearly secondary and derivative — and, as a result,
superficial — without first examining and correcting the underlying causes that give rise
to it.

3. The retrospective canonical solution to the Question of the “Diaspora”

6
Cf. Canons 8/Ist; 12 and 28/IVth; 36, 39, and 56/Quinisext, 57/Carthage, etc.
7
Cf. Canon 2/IInd.

8
 Now we come to the heart of the matter. Let us attempt, then, to approach the
issue through the lens of the holy canons, since we have credible sources dating from as
early as the first millennium that simply require further analysis and interpretation in light
of today’s context. Indeed, the same Council (the Fourth, in 451) that defined the
Territorial Churches as simultaneously “unconfused” (otherness) and “indivisible”
(communion), with no distance or divergence between them, also laid down the ecclesio-
canonical principle of the boundaries of every Territorial Church, namely, the five
Patriarchates that had then just recently been created (Rome, New Rome/Constantinople,
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), and the pre-existing Autocephalous Church of
Cyprus (5+1). The 5+1 Territorial Churches covered, geographically, the whole of the
Roman Empire. There remained, however, the enormous undefined territory outside the
Empire, all the land outside the borders of the five Territorial Churches/Patriarchates,
which were nevertheless known to the people of that time. The visionary Fourth
Ecumenical Council, therefore, could not leave this area ecclesially undefined and not
foresee how it would operate ecclesiologically. So, while there were no ecclesial bodies
of any kind in this territory, the Council, operating with keen foresight, decided to
proleptically regulate this matter from one ecclesio-canonical point of view.
We will soon see, irrespective of its historical context, that the ecclesio-canonical
principle underlying Canon 28/IVth8 is simply the addition of another unified
ecclesiastical territory to the already existing ecclesial formula of “5+1”, making it
“5+1+1”: viz., the five Patriarchates, the Autocephalous Church of Cyprus, and now the
rest of the known world, the extra-ecclesiastical territories, as a unified ecclesial entity. In
other words, this important Council initiated a global organization of the Church “which
is in the entire world”9, along three holistic and determinative axes:
1) It instituted Patriarchal otherness (Patriarch of a city, Church of a territory);
2) It created global, conciliar communion amongst the Territorial Churches (5+1); and

8
See, primarily, my own ad hoc analysis of this aspect of this canon law problem, under the title “Η
αποδοχή «Εκκλησιακής Διασποράς» συνεπάγεται αναίρεση της Εκκλησίας (κανόνας 28/Δ΄). (Μία άλλη
εκδοχή επιλύσεως αυτού του εκκλησιο-κανονικού ζητήματος)” [“(To) Accept the existence of the
“Ecclesial Diaspora” signifies the abolition of the Church herself (canon 28/IV). (Another solution for this
Ecclesio-canonical Question”], in Theologia [Athens], Volume 80, Issue 2 (April-June 2009), p. 121-142.
9
Canon 57/Carthage (419) and 56/Quinisext.

9
3) It anticipated and established, ecclesiologically, the extra-ecclesial territories (canon
28/IVth).
With this ecclesial composition, the Church wanted, as early as 451, to maintain
everywhere ecclesiological unity and a single [mono-]jurisdiction in each territory, i.e.,
the dual constitutive prerequisites for a Local or for a Territorial Church. Thus, in all
three instances, the Ecumenical Council designated a presiding bishop. In the first two
cases, the function is obvious and well known to us historically. In the third case,
however, which is what interests us here, one bishop was designated for all the extra-
ecclesial territories as a whole, precisely in order to maintain everywhere ecclesiological
unity and a mono-jurisdiction in each territory. Thus, the Divine Liturgy/Eucharist
celebrated in these territories should be in the name of only one bishop 10, in order to
avoid any ecclesiological confusion11. It is thus obvious — and always has been… — that
we cannot have two or more bishops or presiding hierarchs in one place and one ecclesial
territory. The 28th canon’s importance lies precisely in the fact that the Council decided
that the Patriarchate of Rome should preside over the Pentarchy, while the Patriarchate of
Constantinople would have ecclesiological oversight over the extra-ecclesiastical
territories: yes, it is “jurisdiction beyond the borders”, but it is canonical; in fact, it is,
historically, the only exception to the Canonical Tradition of the Church, for the reasons
previously set forth. It was immediately after this decision that the Patriarch of
Constantinople acquired the corresponding canonical title “Ecumenical Patriarch”, which
derives from this added canonical quality. This led then to the Patriarchate being known
as “Ecumenical”, and not vice versa. We should note here that the canons were
promulgated in the first millennium, but have continued to function, ontologically, until
the present. Their operation, however, is not based on their contextual historical
framework, but on the foundational canonical kernel of truth that has been preserved
unchanged and which demands to be adapted to each time and place, consistent with the
socio-political and cultural changes, which are accounted for in these underlying
canonical givens. Thus, the qualities and canonical prerogatives bestowed by the
Councils remain unchanged. It appears, however, that today the body of the Church is

10
Ibid.
11
Cf. Canon 2/IInd.

10
unable to theologize about this, and is unable to understand the new situation that
confronts us here within history. That is why we are now displaying symptoms of
improvising and adopting secular socio-political methods of solving the problem, as well
as symptoms of conforming to the present age: instead of the Church transforming the
world, the Church itself is being transformed — for the worse — by the world!... This is
why the heart of the question of the “Diaspora” and its solution have yet to be
explored!...

4. State-Nation (État-Nation) and Nation-State in relation to the “Diaspora”

The “Diaspora” has its origins in the so-called “National State”, which was
created in modern times, after the French Revolution (1789), under the influence of the
principle of nationalities (since 12th century), and according to the well-known French
model of the State-Nation. We should recall here that, just before this new development,
we have, in the West, the construction of states for one simple reason: to avoid being
subject to papal domination, and not because they represented some distinct nationality.
But this is precisely what happened next — the state became the State-Nation (État-
Nation). In fact, in the French Revolution, the National Assembly proclaimed on August
27, 1789 that “The principle of all sovereignty resides essentially in the Nation. No body
[read: the Church] nor individual may exercise any authority which does not proceed
directly from the Nation”, and “all powers emanate from the Nation”. The state thus
acquired considerable power and was put in a position to arrange the Church’s affairs. A
new national consciousness then emerged with an overemphasis on that nationality’s
unique qualities as compared to other nationalities. The Nation was thus defined as a
political entity: State-Nation, i.e., a state constructed with enlarged state authority, in
order to function as a nation. This means that, after a prolonged period of empire, a new
governmental form took shape — the state — which then, guided by the principle of
nationalities, was proclaimed as a (constructed) Constitutional Nation [with jus soli as
the decisive criterion], the structure and outlook of which was defined by the term itself,
State-Nation. Conversely, in the East, while it is true that this French model served as
the ideal for the various peoples of the Balkans, the situations were strikingly different. In

11
fact, the Balkan revolutions of the 19th century gave birth to the exact opposite of that in
France, which Balkan historians (and others) have systematically tried to forget: the
Nation-State, i.e., a state based on the principle of “Nation of blood” [jus sanguinis],
comprised of the people of a particular race, which existed before the foundation of the
state and which became a State in the modern sense after the decline of the Ottoman
Empire and the success of the liberation movements. These new Nation-States also
demanded ecclesiastical autonomy and independence based on the same national
criterion. If, in the case of the State-Nation (État-Nation), we refer to the exclusive
sovereignty of the State as “Statism”, then, in the case of the Nation-State (Nation-État),
we should clearly distinguish it from the former and call it “Ethno-Statism”.
This different and, in fact, reversed, situation is of immediate interest to us here as
we examine the realization of the Church. And this is because, in the first case, we have
National Churches (State-Nation), while in the second case, we are dealing with the
confusion of national/racial identity and religious identity (whoever is Orthodox is Greek
or Serbian, etc., while whoever is not Orthodox “is a Turk or some other
nationality/faith”). We therefore have a near total identification of Nation and Church
(along the lines of the Nation-State), resulting not in National Churches but in clearly
Ethno-phyletic Churches — e.g., the Patriarchate of the Serbs, the Greek Church, the
Russian Church, the Romanian Church, wherever they may happen to be. (This is why
the Orthodox Church continues to reprise its national role whenever the respective
nation-states experience a political or national crisis). The Orthodox thus established
Ethno-phyletic Churches (Church ≡ Nation-State) both in Eastern Europe and throughout
the world; we had, in other words, a budding or — in many cases — an active
ecclesiological heresy, the ecclesiological Ethno-phyletism, which attempted to find a
canonical basis, but which was unequivocally condemned by the Pan-Orthodox Council
of Constantinople in 1872, because the Bulgarians’ claim to ecclesial self-determination
was not based on the fact that they belonged to another political entity, but rather on their
ethno-phyletic difference. Yet, despite the fact that this Council condemned

12
ecclesiological ethno-phyletism as racist Nationalism and ecclesiological Culturalism,
this exact situation has dominated the Orthodox landscape from then until the present
day, spawning the ecclesial “Diaspora”.
And herein lies the rub. It is to our credit that we Orthodox had the theological
acumen to convene a council to condemn ecclesiological ethno-phyletism as a heresy, in
contrast to the Roman Catholics and Protestants, who not only have yet to fully grasp
their own Ecclesiastical Culturalism throughout the second millennium (Ritualism in the
13th century and Confessionalism in the 16th century)12, but have actually moved farther
away from condemning it at the conciliar level. At the same time, however, it is to our
shame that we Orthodox — while we decisively condemned ecclesiological Culturalism
as a heresy in the 19th century — have, in practice, done nothing but the opposite for the
last 140 years. Ethno-phyletism has been responsible for deforming (largely unnoticed)
the correct principle of ecclesial locality into a façade for national sectarianism. Thus,
although we share basically the same problem, mutatis mutandis, we Orthodox are worse
off than the Roman Catholic and Protestants. It is as if the Church were to say: “If I had
not come and spoken to them [the Orthodox], they would not have sin; but now they have
no excuse for their sin”13. We therefore become more and more “a spectacle to the
world”14 with the ecclesiological mono-phyletism of our novel Orthodox “Diaspora.” If
one lives even a short time in this so-called “Diaspora” — where we have, amid
ethnically disparate populations, the tragic ecclesiological phenomenon of unmixed
mono-phyletic Churches existing in parallel on the same territory — one will quickly
understand the import of this laconic expression “ecclesiological mono-phyletism”,
12
See, especially, my own ad hoc analytical study of this inter-Christian ecclesio-canonical problem,
which lies active until today, under the title “Au temps de la post-ecclésialité. La naissance de la modernité
post-ecclésiologique” [“In the Age of the Post-Ecclesiality. The Emergence of Post-Ecclesiological
Modernity”], in Kanon, vol. 19 (2006), p. 3-21, in Istina, t. 51, n° 1 (2006), p. 64-84, in Irénikon
[Chevetogne-Belgium], t. 79, n° 4 (2006), p. 491-522, and in Archim. Grigorios D. PAPATHOMAS, Essais
d’Économie canonique. Esquisse d’introduction à la Théologie canonique [Essays on Canonical Economy.
Outline of an Introduction of the Canonical Theology] (Manuel for the students), Paris, ed. by the “Saint
Serge” Institute of Orthodox Theology (series: Formation Théologique par Correspondance [FTC 2]),
2005, p. 164-180 (in French). The same, in The Messenger [London], n° 1 (2/2007), p. 26-47, and in Inter
[Cluj-Napoca], t. II, n° 1-2 (2008), p. 40-54 (in English), in Derecho y Religión [Madrid], vol. III (2008), p.
133-150 (in English), and also in Archim. Grigorios D. PAPATHOMAS, Κανονικά άμορφα (Δοκίμια
Κανονικής Οικονομίας) [Ecclesio-Canonical Questions (Essays on the Orthodox Canon Law)],
Thessaloniki-Katerini, “Epektasis” Publications (series: Nomocanonical Library, n° 19), 2006, Ch. IV, p.
145-173 (in Greek).
13
Cf. Jn. 15:22 RSV.
14
Cf. 1Cor. 4:9 RSV.

13
precisely because we Orthodox, from 1870 onwards, have become accustomed,
unfortunately, to seeing the world along ethno-phyletic and culturalistic lines…

State-Nation ↔ Nation-State
(État-Nation) (Nation-État)
↓ ↓
constructed Nation ancestral Nation
Constitutional Nation racial Nation
(jus soli) (jus sanguinis)
↓ ↓
Nationalism ↔ Ethno-phyletism (1872)
↓ ↓
Statism ↔ Ethno-Statism
↓ ↓
Domination Identification
of the State over the Church Nation-Church
↓ ↓
National Church ↔ Ethno-phyletic Church
(Western category, among RC and P) (Unique category among Orthodox)
↓
Ecclesiological Ethno-phyletism

The table above represents a comparison in historical context, as a critical

approach the issue at hand, which facilitates the concluding thoughts that follow.

5. Concluding Thoughts and Critical Observations

• [Nationalism, or better], Ethno-phyletism and Ecclesiology are inversely related in their

manifestations within history. When ethno-phyletism waxes, ecclesiology and the Church

14
wane, with all that entails at the ecclesiological and canonical levels, as becomes
particularly clear in the lands of the misnamed “Diaspora”. Conversely, when priority is
given to ecclesiology, the Church becomes incarnate proleptically within a nation or
people, in a particular place, with clearly soteriological expectations, thereby pushing
aside any ethno-racial interests, which automatically entail the destruction of the Church
itself. This is the fundamental antimony between the Church and Ethno-phyletism.
• Ever since the Pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1872, the Orthodox “Church
throughout the world” has been living blatant ecclesiological Culturalism in all its
fullness, i.e., precisely what was condemned by the Council: Orthodoxy became an
extension of the Nation and, mutatis mutandis, the Church became an analogous
extension of the Nation-State. This is what led to the ecclesial “Diaspora”, instigated by
each national state government, which has closely controlled the Church and organized it
in the image and likeness of the National Diaspora, according to the following
corresponding structure:

State (National Center) and Church (its collective national conglomerate)

• State → National Center of reference →

Responsibility for and legal jurisdiction over citizens of the same race →
Area of Legal jurisdiction extends (correctly) throughout the World
• Church → Ecclesiastical Center of reference the National Center →
Responsibility and ecclesial jurisdiction over Orthodox of the same race →
Area of Ecclesial jurisdiction (non-canonically) throughout the World

The State constitutes “the only authority in every form of supremacy”, while
the Church becomes the agent for realizing the National vision, throughout the earth,
exercising its “ecclesiastical jurisdiction on a global scale” (sic):
the Ecclesial “Diaspora” thus gives rise to a Global National Church,
which represents an entirely new ecclesio-canonical problem: Ecclesial Universalism.

15
 As it should now be clear, when Orthodox believers of each state that has a
National Orthodox Territorial Church pass beyond the borders of the nation-state into the
regions of the national Diaspora, their membership in a Church, from an ecclesio-
canonical point of view, takes on a different basis. This is an underlying practical cause
of the problem. It is, however, simply a practical cause. The chief underlying cause is the
adopted ethno-phyletic ecclesiology, which as we can see in the table above, lies behind
the structure and exercise of ecclesial jurisdiction in the lands of the constructed
ecclesiastical “Diaspora”. This ecclesiology serves not the Church’s journey to the
Eschaton, but rather the various national and political goals of each national state
government. The sooner we recognize this grotesque distortion (the “Diaspora” is,
ultimately, an unacknowledged schism), the sooner we will find a solution to the problem
of the “Diaspora”, which we are examining here.
• Ecclesiological ethno-phyletism and the ecclesiastical “Diaspora” are two sides of the
same coin and their relationship is one of cause and effect, with ethno-phyletism feeding
permanently the “Diaspora”. An apostolic passage captures their correlation perfectly:
ethno-phyletism “sets on fire the cycle of nature [ecclesiological mono-phyletism], and is
itself set on fire by hell [the “Diaspora”]”15.
• Ecclesiological Culturalism — which dominated the whole of the second millennium
among Roman Catholics (Ritualism, 13th c.), Protestants (Confessionalism, 16th c.), and
the Orthodox (Ethno-phyletism, 19th c.) — prepares us with mathematical precision for a
novel ecclesio-canonical problem which had already started to dawn at the end of the
second and the beginning of the third millennium, and will prove to be the dominant
problem (along with anthropological problems, which emerged recently and have proven
a challenge for theology) of this millennium — viz., Ecclesiastical Universalism
(Universalismus), which will lead to the breakdown of the Church. It has already
manifested itself in Roman Catholicism (1870-2006) and Protestantism (second half of
the 20th c.). Universalism, which is a symptom, has begun to be expressed more
conspicuously amongst the Orthodox (starting with formal Statutory events: Cyprus in
1980, Russia in 1988 [and 2000], and Romania in 2010, with a sharp rise immediately
following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1990). And so, once again, we find a common

15
Cf. James 3:6 NRSV.

16
denominator amongst all these confessionally “different” Christians: the Ecclesiastical
Culturalism! And for us Orthodox, ecclesiological universalism, before it reaches its
inevitable conclusion, will have as its vehicle the ethno-phyletic ecclesial “Diaspora”…
• Ultimately, the Orthodox Churches’ procrastination in dealing with the unresolved issue
of the ethno-phyletic “Diaspora” throughout the world has created problems both, on the
level of the Statuaries and officially (1980-2010), and continues, underground and
unseen, to feed this unprecedented idea (from an ecclesio-canonical perspective) of a
(National) Universal Church on a global scale. This deterioration is depicted in the
comparative table below:

Ethno-phyletic perspective
Ethnophyletism → National Church → “Diaspora” → National Universal Church

↕ ↕ ↕ ↕

Canonical Limits → Autocephalous Church → Ø → Communion of Territorial Churches

(the State) (Church throughout the World)
Ecclesio-canonical perspective

Addendum

Considering this deterioration, the “Diaspora”, as well as the discussion about it,
would appear to be devoid of real content, even though it has already been implicitly
established in an official act as the “National Universal Church” (sic). Because the
“Diaspora” presupposes, among other things, the theology of Autocephaly. When the
Autocephalous Church transformed, in the way we saw above, into a Universal Church,
then its supposed “universality” (sic) implies that it does not have a “Diaspora”, but
rather pastoral interest in the members of the same race throughout the world, which is
why few questioned the situation, and why discussion of this controversial issue has been
delayed. Until now, the discussion was based on the antithesis Autocephaly/“Diaspora”
(even if things weren’t actually quite that simple), and there was room for negotiating a
common and pan-Orthodox solution to the issue. However, with this new “National
Universal Church”, the issue became mono-dimensional, with the universal ecclesial
space turning into a national collective — and not joint — affair of each mono-phyletic

17
Church, thus leaving no space for any form of a “Diaspora”. The Orthodox congregations
in the “Diaspora” are, moreover, already predisposed and biased, having already
embraced this mindset. This new reality, therefore, effectively obliterates the first four
issues of the future Pan-Orthodox Council, which — when and if it ever happens — will
choose in what order to examine the issues, with the “Diaspora” possibly remaining
permanently suspended in mid-air, becoming a sort of …utopia, not only because of the
theology of Autocephaly, but primarily because of the new form of the Church, the
“Universal Ethno-phyletic Church”, which was inaugurated and supported, both
practically and structurally, by many Orthodox. By decree of Council, we officially
pushed ethno-phyletism “out the door” of the Church, only to find it had come back in,
even stronger, “through the window”… This demonstrates, moreover, how things can get
away from us. We were still trying to deal with the “Diaspora”, while a newer anti-
ecclesiological and non-canonical ecclesiastical activity snowballed into the even worse
phenomenon of the “Universal Ethno-phyletic Church”!

*******

In conclusion, if we compare that which we are discussing here today with the
witness that the Orthodox Church, Ecclesial Orthodoxy, is called to give, we can easily
see that this latter Orthodoxy — which is connected with that which we call theologically
and ontologically a “witness to life” to the whole of fallen humanity, “that they may have
life, and have it abundantly”16 — bears no resemblance to Ethno-phyletic Orthodoxy,
which not only does not bear witness to life to those in the lands of the so-called
“Diaspora”, but, on the contrary, manifests a deterioration into a more fallen state. This
latter type of Orthodoxy gives the impression that it is unable to find an ontological
solution to this break in our unity in Christ, nor is it able to lead fallen humanity toward
reception into unity and the Kingdom of the Eschata.

* Translated by the Rev. Dr. Gregory Edwards, Th.D.

16
John 10:10 RSV.

18