A History of the Orthodox Church
The Orthodox Churches In the 19th Century
Introduction |
History | Doctrine
Autocephalies in the Balkans |
In Greece | In Serbia |
In Romania
In Bulgaria |
The church in imperial Russia
Autocephalies in the Balkans
The ideas of the French Revolution, the nationalistic movements, and
the everliving memory of past Christian empires led to the gradual
disintegration of Turkish domination in the Balkans. According to a
pattern existing since the late Middle Ages, the birth of national states
was followed by the establishment of independent, autocephalous Orthodox
churches. Thus the collapse of the Ottoman rule was accompanied by the
rapid shrinking of the actual power exercised by the patriarch of
Constantinople. Paradoxically, the Greeks, for whom—more than anyone—the
patriarchate represented a hope for the future, were the first to organize
an independent church in their new state.
In Greece
In 1821 the Greek revolution against the Turks was officially
proclaimed by the metropolitan of Old Patras, Germanos. The patriarchate,
being the official Turkish-sponsored organ for the administration of the
Christians, issued statements condemning and even anathematizing the
revolutionaries. These statements, however, failed to convince anyone,
least of all the Turkish government, which on Easter Day in 1821 had the
ecumenical (Constantinopolitan) patriarch Gregory V hanged from the main
gate of the patriarchal residence as a public example. Numerous other
Greek clergy were executed in the provinces. After this tragedy, the
official loyalty of the patriarchate was, of course, doubly secured.
Unable either to communicate with the patriarchate or to recognize its
excommunications, the bishops of liberated Greece gathered in Nvplion and
established themselves as the synod of an autocephalous church (1833). The
eclesiastical regime adopted in Greece was modelled after that of Russia:
a collective state body, the Holy Synod, was to govern the church under
strict government control. In 1850 the patriarchate was forced to
recognize what was by then a fait accompli, and granted a charter of
autocephaly (tmos) to the new Church of Greece.
In Serbia
The independence of Serbia led, in 1832, to the recognition of Serbian
ecclesiastical autonomy. In 1879 the Serbian Church was recognized by
Constantinople as autocephalous under the primacy of the metropolitan of
Belgrade. This church, however, covered only the territory of what was
called "old Serbia." The small state of Montenegro, always independent
from the Turks, had its own metropolitan in Cetinje. This prelate, who was
also the civil and military leader of the nation, was consecrated either
in Austria, or, as in the case of the famous bishop-poet Pyotr II Negosh,
in St. Petersburg (1833).
In the Austro-Hungarian empire, two autocephalous churches, with
jurisdiction over Serbs, Romanians, and other Slavs, were in existence
during the second half of the century. These were the patriarchate of
Sremski-Karlovci (Karlowitz), established in 1848, which governed all the
Orthodox in the Kingdom of Hungary; and the metropolitanate of Czernowitz
(now Chernovtsy) in Bukovina, which, after 1873, also exercised
jurisdiction over two Serbian dioceses (Zara and Kotor) in Dalmatia. The
Serbian dioceses of Bosnia and Herzegovina, acquired by Austria in 1878,
remained autonomous but were never completely independent from
Constantinople.
In Romania
The creation of an independent Romania, after centuries of foreign
control by Bulgarians, Turks, Greek-Phanariots, and, more recently,
Russians, led in 1865 to the self-proclamation of the Romanian Church as
autocephalous, even against the violent protests of the Phanar. As in
Greece, the new church was under the strict control of the pro-Western
government of Prince Alexandru Cuza. Finally, as in the Greek case,
Constantinople recognized the Romanian autocephaly under the metropolitan
of Bucharest (1885). The Romanians of Transylvania, still in
Austria-Hungary, remained under the autocephalous metropolitan of Sibiu
and others under the church of Czernowitz
In Bulgaria
The reestablishment of the Church of Bulgaria eventually was secured,
but not without tragedy and even a schism; this happened mainly because
the issue of reestablishing the autocephalous church arose at a time when
both Greek and Bulgarian populations lived side by side in Macedonia,
Thrace, and Constantinople itself, though still within the framework of
the Ottoman imperial system. After the Turkish conquest, and especially in
the 17th and 18th centuries, the Bulgarians were governed by Greek bishops
and were often prevented from worshipping in Slavonic. This enforced
policy of Hellenization was rejected in the 19th century when Bulgarians
began to claim not only a native clergy but also equal representation on
the higher echelons of the Christian millet—i.e., the offices of the
patriarchate. These claims were met with firm resistance by the Greeks.
The alternative was a national Bulgarian Church, which was created by a
sultan's firman (decree) in 1870. The new church was to be governed by its
own Bulgarian exarch, who resided in Constantinople itself and governed
all the Bulgarians who recognized him. The new situation was uncanonical,
because it sanctioned the existence of two separate ecclesiastical
structures on the same territory. Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimus VI
convened a synod in Constantinople, which also included the Greek
patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem (1872). The council condemned
"phyletism"—the national or ethnic principle in church organization—and
excommunicated the Bulgarians, who were certainly not alone guilty of
"phyletism." This schism lasted until 1945, when a reconciliation took
place with full recognition of Bulgarian autocephaly within the limits of
the Bulgarian state.
After their liberation from the Turkish yoke, the Balkan churches
freely developed both their national identities and their religious life.
Theological faculties, generally following German models, were created in
Athens, Belgrade (in Yugoslavia), Sofia (in Bulgaria), and Bucharest (in
Romania). The Romanian Church introduced the full cycle of the liturgical
offices in vernacular Romanian. But these positive developments were often
marred by nationalistic rivalries. In condemning "phyletism," the synod of
Constantinople (1872) had, in fact, defined a basic problem of modern
Orthodoxy.
The church in imperial Russia
The Spiritual Regulation of Peter the Great remained in force until the
very end of the Russian Empire (1917). Many Russian churchmen consistently
complained against the submission of the church to the state, but there
was little they could do except to lay plans for future reforms. This they
did not fail to do, and in the 20th century the necessary changes were
rapidly enacted. Though Peter himself and his first successors tended to
deal personally and directly with church affairs, the tsars of the 19th
century delegated much authority to the Oberprokurors, who received a
cabinet rank in the government and were the real heads of the entire
administration of the church. One of the most debilitating aspects of the
regime was the legal division of Russian society by a rigid caste system.
The clergy was one of the castes with its own school system, and there was
little possibility for its children to choose another career.
In spite of these obvious defects, the church kept its self-awareness,
and among the episcopate such eminent figures as Philaret of Moscow
(1782-1867) promoted education, theological research, biblical
translations, and missionary work. In each of its 67 dioceses, the Russian
Church created a seminary for the training of priests and teachers. In
addition, four theological academies, or graduate schools, were
established in major cities (Moscow, 1769; St. Petersburg, 1809; Kiev,
1819; Kazan, 1842). They provided a generally excellent theological
training for both Russians and foreigners. The rigid caste system and the
strictly professional character of these schools, however, were obstacles
to their seriously influencing society at large. It was, rather, through
the monasteries and their spirituality that the church began to reach the
intellectual class. More influential than the rigid discipline of the
large monastic communities, the prophetic ministry of the "elders"
(startsy), who acted as living examples of the standards of the spiritual
life or as advisers and confessors, attracted large masses of the common
people, and also intellectuals. St. Seraphim of Sarov (1759-1833), for
example, lived according to the standards of the ancient Hesychast
tradition that had been revived in the Russian forests. The startsy of
Optino—Leonid (1768-1841), Makarius (1788-1860), and Ambrose
(1812-91)—were visited not only by thousands of ordinary Christians but
also by the writers Nikolay Gogol, Leo Tolstoy, and Fyodor Dostoyevsky.
The latter was inspired by the startsy when he described in his novels
monastic figures such as Zosima in The Brothers Karamazov. From the ranks
of an emerging group of Orthodox lay intellectuals, the production of a
living theology—if less scholarly than in the academies—was taking
shape. The great influence of a lay theologian like Aleksey Khomyakov
(1804-60), who belonged to the Slavophile (pro-Slavic) circle before it
acquired a political flavour, eventually helped in the conversion to
Orthodoxy at the end of the century of such leading Marxists as Sergey
Bulgakov (1871-1944) and Nikolay Berdyayev (1874-1948). Missionary
expansion also continued, particularly in western Asia, Japan, and Alaska
(see below, Missions: Ancient and modern).
Disproportionately larger and richer than its sister churches of the
Balkans and the Middle East, the Church of Russia included, in 1914, more
than 50,000 priests, 21,000 monks, and 73,000 nuns. It supported thousands
of schools and missions. It cooperated with the Russian government in
exercising great influence in Mid-Eastern affairs. Thus, with Russian
help, an Arab (Meletios Doumani) rather than a Greek was elected for the
first time as patriarch of Antioch (1899). With the successive partitions
of Poland and the reunions with Russia of Belorussian and Ukrainian
territories, many Eastern Catholic descendants of those who had joined the
Roman communion in Brest-Litovsk (1596) returned to Orthodoxy.
After 1905, Tsar Nicholas II gave his approval for the establishment of
a preconciliar commission charged with the preparation of an all-Russian
Church Council. The avowed goal of the planned assembly was to reestablish
the church's independence, lost since Peter the Great, and eventually to
restore the patriarchate. This assembly, however, was fated to meet only
after the fall of the empire.
Webmaster Note: This page was retrieved from www.archive.org after
decani.yunet.com went defunct following the Kosovo conflict. This page was
originally created by monks at Decani Monastery in Kosovo. It has been
slightly edited for inclusion on this site. Abridged, from Callistos Ware,
The Orthodox Church, p. 12-16.
|