Seite - 191 - in Menschenrechte und Gerechtigkeit als bleibende Aufgaben - Beiträge aus Religion, Theologie, Ethik, Recht und Wirtschaft

© 2020, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen ISBN Print: 9783847111658 – ISBN E-Lib: 9783737011655 For theOrthodoxcountries, especially for those fromtheBalkans, thenine- teenthcenturyrepresentsnotonlyatimeofpoliticalemancipationfromexternal political influences but also the beginningof awaveof ecclesial emancipation from the Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the number ofOrthodox local Churches that attained au- tocephaly19 increased from eight to fourteen.20 In this context, the idea that a political independent state must have an independent Orthodox Church emerged.Thisnewwayofthinkingcausedaninfusionofnationalism–together with its “dark side” expressed by revolt and resistance – inside theOrthodox Church,whichonseveraloccasionsputunderdangerthepan-orthodoxunityof theOrthodoxChurchandsometimesevenbroke it as in the caseof theGreco- Bulgarian Schism, which lasted from1872 until 1945. This is why, already in 1872, the concept of “ethno-phyletism” had been condemned as an ecclesio- logicalheresyby theOrthodoxChurchthroughaPan-OrthodoxSynodheld in Constantinople.21The German theologian Anastasios Kallis speaks about na- tionalism as the “Achilles’ heel”22 of contemporary Orthodoxy, seriously en- dangering theunityofOrthodoxy. The samenationalistic narrative, but in amuchmore complicated context, supported furthermoreby thePhanar,was insistently invoked in2018byPetro Poroshenko in the case ofUkrainian autocephaly. This narrative of a national independent Church inUkraine collides with the Russianmultinational con- ceptionofChurch,provokinganecclesialcrisis,whichatthepresenttimeseems 19 Autocephalyasecclesial categorypossesses first anadministrativeandorganizational cha- racter. It originates fromearlyChristianity and since then it has transformed itsmeaning several times throughout the centuries. Inmodern times, it represents an emancipatory ecclesial process towardsanyexternal ecclesial authority. Itwasunderstood“that anauto- cephalouschurchelectsitsownprimatewho,withtheconsentofthelocalsynod,consecrates bishops forhisownchurchwithoutbeingaccountable to anyexternal ecclesial authority”. Quote from:CyrilHovorun, Scaffolds of theChurch.TowardsPoststructural Ecclesiology, Eugene 2017, p. 89; This assumption still holds true for the current interpretation and additionallynowadaysaccountsforamaincharacteristicofthemodernemancipatednation- state.Finally, it representsa factorof recognition for statesandpeople that isused tobuild newsocial, culturalandecclesial identities.About thegenuinemeaningofautocephalyand its transformations throughthehistoryandits importance for themodernnationstate, see thechapterStrongholds:Autocephaly. Ibid., pp.8–127. 20 Thomas Bremer / Sophie Senyk, The Current Ecclesial Situation inUkraine: Critical Re- marks, in: St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 63/1/2019, pp.43–45. For a remarkable overviewonChristianityandnationalisminnineteenth-centuryEurope,see:HughMcLeod, Christianityandnationalisminnineteenth-centuryEurope, in:InternationalJournalforthe Studyof theChristianChurch15/1/2015,pp.7–22. 21 GrigoriosLarentzakis,DieHäresiedesNationalismus.MenschenwürdeundMenschenrechte für alle in der östlich-orthodoxen Perspektive, in: Ingeborg Gabriel (ed.), Politik und Theologie inEuropa.PerspektivenökumenischerSozialethik,Ostfildern2008,pp. 257–279. 22 AnastasiosKallis,Dashätte ichgernegewusst.100FragenaneinenorthodoxenTheologen, Münster2003,p. 40; Ibid.,CeesteOrtodoxia?,Cluj-Napoca2019,pp. 7–8. “Forgivingoneanother” (Col. 3,13) 191 Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY 4.0