Source: http://www.mariamihaelastan.ro/2017/01/16/andrei-saguna-and-the-organic-statute-v-4-the-orthodox-ecclesiology-reflected-in-andrei-sagunas-canonical-and-church-organization-works/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 16:34:09+00:00

Document:
Unlike the Orthodox ecclesiology of the Slavic catechisms of his time, rather pneumatological than christological and focusing especially on the hierocratic aspect of the Church, Andrei Şaguna laid emphasis on the christocentrical dimension of the Church, as mystical body whose head is Jesus Christ Himself.
Concerning this second aspect of organism or social institution, the Church has a strictly human, visible configuration, namely: personal elements and social elements.
“The personal elements of the Church organism refer to all the members of the Church body irrespective of the nationality or position which they occupy in the Church …” Therefore, all the faithful irrespective of nationality or social position are, in Andrei Şaguna’s understanding, elements of the social organism of the Church.
Two verbal constructions are to be noticed when it comes to defining the personal and social elements: “all the members of the Church body irrespective of the nationality or position which they occupy in the Church” and “the universal Church”.
It is also very important to underline the fact that Andrei Şaguna understood and organized the social body of the Church in a tight connection with its mystical, sacramental substratum. The Holy Sacraments, especially the Eucharist give cohesion and life to the social body of the Church; without them, this social body loses its quality, it does not belong to the Church, but to society like any other social or political structure. The Eucharist, the communion with Christ – the Head of the Church – and the get-together within Eucharistic Christ are the things which define and outline the social body of the Church: “Therefore, my beloved ones! This synod will be held at our bishopric, in Sibiu. A holy and great thing is going to happen, and, in order to begin and end this holy and great thing successfully, before the opening of the assembly we should not fail to kneel for mercy in front of God Almighty, so that He would enlighten our mind and spirit and give us a pure heart and brotherly love in our sessions, which is to send us His Holy Spirit, because this synod shall gather in His name and to the glory of His name; likewise we should thank God at the end of the synod, because he entrusted us to accomplish such a holy and great thing for the well-being of our Church and people. For this, all our clergy shall pray for eight days and call the Holy Spirit, according to the liturgical rule written here […]. On the opening day of the synod the Holy Liturgy will be celebrate at our bishopric by several priests and deacons together with me, and all the members of the church [assembly] will receive the Eucharist, for the communion of their faith and the share of the Holy Spirit and for the dwelling of our God, Jesus Christ, in the hearts of the members of that synod.” In the provisions of both the “Project of Regulation” and “The Organic Statute” the mixed church assemblies were preceded by the participation of all the members in the Holy Liturgy, the source of the good decisions in the Church being the communion within the Eucharistic Christ, not the simple democratic meeting of the representatives of the clergy and laymen. Moreover, in some cases, especially when a new bishop or metropolitan was elected, the assemblies had to be preceded, apart from the Holy Liturgy in the morning of the election, by the vigil of the Pentecost. Although, by comparison, in the “Project of Regulation” the mystical presence of the Holy Trinity in the acts of decision of the mixed synods is more relevant, Andrei Şaguna’s mystical spirit could not be effaced from “The Organic Statute” either.
It is useless to mention that the same process was even more delayed in the Roman Church, and it took place about hundred years after Andrei Şaguna.
 After the fall of Constantinople (1453) Russia – and thereby the Slavic Orthodoxy – took the role of gravity factor in the Orthodox world, implicitly in the area of theological sciences. The Russian Orthodox Church took a special role and influenced a lot beginning with the seventeenth century the life of the Slavic Orthodox Churches of the Balkan Peninsula. Cf. A. HUDAL, Die serbisch-orthodoxe Nationalkirche, 15-16, 43; George A. MALONEY, A History of the Orthodox Theology since 1453, Massachusetts 1976, 11-87; T. WARE, The Orthodox Church, 13.
 Cf. J. SCHNEIDER, Der Hermannstädter Metropolit, 220-221.
 A. Baronu de SIAGUN`A, Compendiu, 19-21.
 A. Baronu de SIAGUN`A, Compendiu, 88.
 About “organism” in the philosophical-political discourse of the nineteenth century see J. SCHNEIDER, Der Hermannstädter Metropolit, 176-181.
 A. Baronu de SIAGUN`A, Compendiu, 90.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Protopope Meletie Drăghici from Timişoara, dated Sibiu, January 9, 1858, in: T. BODOGAE, Dintr-o corespondenţă timişoreană, 34-35 here 34; Cf. also A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 200-201.
 Andrei Şaguna’s letter to Protopope Meletie Drăghici from Timişoara, dated Sibiu, February 26, 1858, in: T. BODOGAE, Dintr-o corespondenţă timişoreană, 35-36 here 36; Cf. also A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 201-202.
 A. Baronu de SIAGUN`A, Compendiu, 5.
The term phyletism (from Greek noun φυλή = race, tribe) describes a phenomenon which deepened in the nineteenth century, especially in the Patriarchate of Constantinople’s area, meaning the organisation of the Church along ethnic (racial) lines. The Holy and Great pan-Orthodox Synod which met in Istanbul (formerly Constantinople) in 1872 condemned phyletism – the national or ethnic principle in church organization. Phyletism, however, should not be confused with patriotism (which was known at that time as φιλοπατρία) as the latter simply means devotion and loyalty to one’s nation and/or culture.
Cf. Nikolaus THON, Neuzeitliche Kirchengeschichte, 3. Ostkirchen, in: EKL, Bd. 3, 729 et seqq. here 730; T. WARE, The Orthodox Church, 98.
 “Andrei Şaguna către Eugen Hacman” (“Andrei Şaguna to Eugen Hacman”), dated Olmütz, April 18, 1849, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 292-294 here 293-294.
 “Propunerile episcopului Şaguna presentate ministrului pentru conferinţele episcopesci dela Viena” (“Bishop Şaguna’s suggestions presented to the minister for the bishops’ conferences of Vienna”), November 16, 1850, in: Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, colecţia de acte, 73-87 here 76.
 “Das Konzil von Chalkedon von 8.10.451 war die Geburtsstunde der klassischen Pentarchie, welche bald der juristischen Fixierung bedurfte, die sie durch die Novellen des Kaisers Justinian (527-565) tatsächlich erhalten hatte. In diesen Gesetzestexten kam die Pentarchieidee – noch nicht die Pentarchietheorie – zum Ausdruck, welche bereits mit der Entstehung der Pentarchie einhergegangen war und bei den Kirchenhistorikern Sokrates und Sozomenos ihren ersten literarischen Niederschlag gefunden hatte. Seit 380 konnten wir daher eine unklassische seit 451 dagegen die klassiche Pentarchietheorie feststellen. […] Die Pentarchieidee beinhaltet gegen Ende des 7. Jahrhunderts das Bekenntnis, dass die Kirchenleitung in den Händen der fünf Patriarchate liegt. […] Gerade im späten 11. und 12. Jh. stand die Pentarchie bei den Byzantinern in hohem Ansehen. […] Mit der Erhebung Moskaus zum Patriarchat im Jahre 1593 entstand eine neue Variante der Pentarchietheorie. […] Die Pentarchietheorie verlor seit dem 17. Jh. immer mehr auf Bedeutung. […] Durch die Entstehung der Patriachate auf dem Balkan und die Gründung der autokephalen Kirche Griechenlands war die Pentarchietheorie bedeutungslos geworden. […] Nicht nur der Osten, auch der Westen hatte im Laufe der Geschichte eine eigene Auffassung über die Pentarchie entwickelt. Ihre Ausformung hängt von der Einstellung zum päpstlichen Primat ab.” F. R. GAHBAUER, Die Pentarchietheorie, 417-424.
See also J. BINNS, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches, 10 et seqq.
 “[…] so wäre es doch nicht gut einen einzigen Patriarchen ohne seines Gleichen im Staate zu haben, denn sonst artet er aus, und wird zu einem absoluten Kirchenfürsten, wo dann die Kirchenverfassung bloß ein todter Buchstabe bleibt und auch der Staat einem so mächtigen Kirchenfürsten gegenüber seine Verlegenheit hat.” A. Baron de SCHAGUNA, Anthorismos oder berichtigende Erörterung, 60-61.
 A. Baron de SCHAGUNA, Anthorismos oder berichtigende Erörterung, 67.
 Cf. Il. PUŞCARIU, Metropolia, 40, 54.
 A. Baron de SCHAGUNA, Anthorismos oder berichtigende Erörterung, 100.
 “Andrei Şaguna către Calinic de Râmnic” (“Andrei Şaguna to Calinic of Râmnic”), dated Sibiu, March 13, 1858, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 271-272 here 271.
 The Catholicism defines the ecclesiality of a bishop and his community through the communion with the first bishop – that of Rome. Cf. Lumen Gentium 22, 23; Thomas STUBENRAUCH, Der Papst als Primus inter pares und höchste Autorität in der katholischen Kirche, in: S. DEMEL, L. MÜLLER (Hrsg.), Krönung oder Entwertung des Konzils?, 74-103 here 76 et seqq.
The Orthodoxy subordinates the first bishop’s ecclesiality, even in his leading position, to his communion with all of the bishops, in the unity of God’s people, the only sign of the presence of the infallible Truth. By sharing the eucharistical community, which takes place during every liturgical assembly, every local Church is in mutual communion with the other Churches and they all form together the One, Universal Church. Every bishop, in communion with the others, is responsible for the entire Christ’s Church. Cf. N. V. DURĂ, Intercomuniune sau comuniune sacramentală?, 23; T. WARE, The Orthodox Church, 21-22; J. ZIZIOULAS, Being as Communion, 247 et seqq.
 See the chapter III.2.8 herein.
 “Andrei Şaguna către Calinic Mitropolitul Moldovei şi Sucevei” (“Andrei Şaguna to Metropolitan Calinic of Moldavia and Suceava”), dated Sibiu, December 27, 1870, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 253-254 here 254.
The millet system applied after 1453 to all Christians within the Ottoman Empire, according to which the patriarch of Constantinople was not only the spiritual head of the Greek Orthodox Church, but the civil head of the Greek nation – the ethnarch (ετνάρχης) or millet-bashi – made possible the survival of the Greek nation as a distinctive unit through four centuries of alien rule. But it led to a sad confusion between Orthodoxy and nationalism. With their civil and political life organized completely around the Church, it became all but impossible for the Greeks to distinguish between Church and nation; to the Greeks of the Turkish Empire “Hellenism” and Orthodoxy became inextricably intertwined, far more so than they had ever been in the Byzantine Empire. The Greek nationalism or pan-Hellenism used Orthodoxy to serve its aspirations, especially beginning with the sixteenth century, after the patriarch of Constantinople took on the position and rights of an etnarch (national leader) over all Eastern Christian peoples. Especially in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the non-Greeks Orthodox Christians of Balkan Peninsula (Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians) were governed by Greek bishops and were often prevented from worshipping in Slavonic, respectively in Romanian. This enforced policy of Hellenization was rejected in the nineteenth century by Bulgarians, who 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 and governed all the Bulgarians who recognized him. The new situation was un-canonical, because it sanctioned the existence of two separate ecclesiastical structures on the same territory. In the Holy and Great pan-Orthodox Synod convened in 1872 by Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimus VI in Constantinople, which included the Greek patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem, too, was condemned “phyletism”- the national or ethnic principle in church organization – and the Bulgarians were excommunicated. This schism lasted until 1945, when reconciliation took place with full recognition of Bulgarian autocephaly within the limits of the Bulgarian state. Cf. T. WARE, The Orthodox Church, 98; J. BINNS, An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches, 12-13.
 “Andrei Şaguna către Mitropolitul Nifon din Ţara Românească” (“Andrei Şaguna to Metropolitan Nifon of Wallachia”), dated Sibiu, February 23, 1856, in: A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 284-286 here 284-285.
 Introductory study at A. ŞAGUNA, Corespondenţa I/1, 50.
 Andrei Şaguna’s circular letter No. 110/1850, in: Gh. TULBURE, Mitropolitul Şaguna, 402-404 here 403-404.
 See A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu: §27, §76, §103, §131, §139; Statutul organic: §8, §52, §93, §100, §157.
 See A. Baronu de SIAGUNA, Proiectu de unu Regulamentu: §103, §131, §139; Statutul organic: §100, §157.
Vespers continuing with the following day’s matins is called vigil and is a religious service of special mystical intensity which is officiated at night or in the evening, on the eve of a holy day in the Orthodox Church.
 A. Baronu de SIAGUN`A, Compendiu, 91.
 J. SCHNEIDER, Der Hermannstädter Metropolit, 199.

References: V. 
 §27
 §76
 §103
 §131
 §139
 §8
 §52
 §93
 §100
 §157
 §103
 §131
 §139
 §100
 §157