Page 196 - Orthodoxy Zizioulas

O r t h o d o x y
self-governed. Yet this system has undergone significant
changes in the course of history. What was originally deter-
mined by ecclesiastical and doctrinal criteria gradually came
to be shaped by nationalism, so that autocephaly and autono-
my became matters of national identity. Nationalism thus be-
came an almost integral part of Orthodoxy, and its conse-
quences are still felt, particularly in the problem of the dias-
pora, where multiple jurisdictions coexist in the same place,
in violation of the ancient canonical principle of one bishop
in one city.
Within this situation, the role of the Ecumenical Patriarch-
ate becomes decisive. The Ecumenical Patriarchate acquired
through the decisions of the Second and Fourth Ecumenical
Councils the position of primacy, which had previously been
recognized only to Rome for the reason of its being the “New
Rome.” This primacy, often described as a “primacy of hon-
our,” cannot be understood as merely honorific, since the
Councils attached to it prerogatives and powers of a concrete
nature, such as the right to receive appeals by clergy and to
pass final judgment in their cases. The same Council of Chal-
cedon also granted to Constantinople the right to appoint
bishops in areas outside the established jurisdictions, a matter
closely connected with the problem of the diaspora.
This primacy of the see of Constantinople has thus become
a crucial aspect in the relations between this Church and the
other Orthodox Churches. How it is to be understood and
applied, how it can avoid becoming a kind of “papism,” and
how it is affected by nationalism, remain pressing and unre-
solved issues, and until they are addressed, Orthodox unity
will continue to suffer.
The difficulties here are not only historical but also psycho-
logical and theological. The psychological dimension is close-
196