Page 201 - Orthodoxy Zizioulas

AU T O C E P H A LY A N D T H E U N I T Y O F O R T H O D O X Y
taken place), followed by other Slavic Churches.
Setting aside the idea of the “Third Rome,” which emerged
in Moscow when it was perceived that Constantinople was
compromising Orthodoxy in favor of the Catholic Church
(Council of Ferrara-Florence, 1438–1442), the development of
autocephaly based on the cultural factor does not present
theological or canonical problems for Orthodoxy.
A third factor subsequently emerged, which should not be
confused with the first two: 19th-century nationalism. With the
creation of the Balkan states following the gradual decline of
the Ottoman Empire, the Orthodox peoples of the Balkan
Peninsula demanded autocephaly, which they obtained one
after another—not on the basis of culture but rather on the
foundation of an independent national existence. In this con-
text, appeals were made to the term “nation” (ἔθνος) as refer-
enced in the 34th Apostolic Canon.
This development led to the current canonical structure of
Orthodoxy, which includes, in canonical order, the following
autocephalous Churches: the Patriarchate of Constantinople,
the Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Patriarchate of Antioch,
the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, the Patriarchates of Moscow,
Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria, as well as the autocephalous
Churches of Cyprus, Greece, Poland, and Albania. Addition-
ally, there are the autonomous Churches of Georgia, Czecho-
slovakia (recognized as autocephalous by some), and Finland.
In recent years, a group of American Orthodox Christians
of Russian origin (the “Metropolia,” see section V) was added
to the list as the Orthodox Church in America, after obtaining
recognition of its autocephaly from the Church of Russia and
other Slavic Churches. However, this recognition was not
granted by Constantinople or the Greek-speaking Patriarch-
ates and autocephalous Churches. This situation has created a
201