Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Southeastern Europe

Lucian N. Leustean, Lucian N. Leustean

• Publisher: Fordham University Press
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9780823256082
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Denominations

Nation-building processes in the Orthodox commonwealth brought together political institutions and religious communities in their shared aims of achieving national sovereignty. Chronicling how the churches of Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, and Serbia acquired independence from the Patriarchate of Constantinople in the wake of the Ottoman Empire's decline, Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Southeastern Europe examines the role of Orthodox churches in the construction of national identities.Drawing on archival material available after the fall of communism in southeastern Europe and Russia, as well as material published in Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, Romanian, and Russian, Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism in Nineteenth-Century Southeastern Europe analyzes the challenges posed by nationalism to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the ways in which Orthodox churches engaged in the nationalist ideology.

CHAPTER

1

ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY AND NATIONALISM: AN INTRODUCTION

Lucian N. Leustean

On the morning of January 5, 1859, at the end of the liturgy in the Orthodox cathedral in Iaşi, the capital of the principality of Moldavia, Father Neofit Scriban addressed the congregation. He had given many sermons in the cathedral; however, on this particular date Father Neofit faced an unusual audience. Among the faithful who regularly worshipped at the relics of Saint Parascheva, the protector of Moldavia, were the members of the assembly who would decide the future of the principality. They had a specific mission: to elect a new prince, a key figure in their plan to unite Moldavia with the neighboring principality of Wallachia. Father Neofit, a supporter of the unionist cause and fully aware of the significance of the moment, stated:

Brethren, Jesus Christ has said that “For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.” You, Brethren, are not two, or three, but a real gathering in the name of God. God is in your midst. You are here in the name of the Romanian nation [and] the Romanian nation is in your midst. On the flag under which you have assembled, the flag of the Romanian nation, great events, the Romanian faith, unity, are written in large letters. The church, which is founded on faith, blesses the flag of this faith.… You, Brethren, through the faith of the Romanian nation, by remaining faithful to this flag, will find the same strength as the church [finds] in its own saints. The faith of the Romanian nation was not, is not, and will not be anything else, but the unity of all Romanians in a single state, the only anchor of salvation, the only port in which the national boat could be saved from surrounding waves.

You, Brethren, have gathered here in the church of Stephen the Great; looking at the altar that he raised to the God of your parents, I think that, through this [altar], you will be able to enter into the wishes of this hero of our nation. You, [remember that] by leaving this place, you are leaving [in order to fulfill] a great gesture that for many centuries has been lost for us; you are about to elect a successor to this great hero; therefore, as his true sons, you could not be anything other than the true expression of his wishes.

Myself, [as] last year, from this altar, I said and I will continue to say that this great hero has told us that “the God of our parents will send us a Redeemer who will heal our wounds and accomplish our wishes.” May your chosen leader today be the redeemer expected by the Romanian nation. May he heal its wounds and achieve its wishes. Therefore, Brethren, may your election today be that of a real Messiah of Romania. God and the world are looking at you, the church is blessing you and the whole Romanian nation is waiting for you!1

A few hours after Father Neofit’s sermon, the assembly elected Alexandru Ioan Cuza to be the prince of the principality of Moldavia; a few days later, on January 24, 1859, the assembly of the neighboring principality of Wallachia decided that Cuza should also be their prince, thus confirming the unification of the two states. A new country was inscribed on the map of Southeastern Europe, titled “The United Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia,” also known as “The United Romanian Principalities.”

Orthodox Christianity in Nineteenth-Century Southeastern Europe

The intrinsic link between Orthodox Christianity and the idea of the nation, as presented in Father Neofit’s sermon was one of the most significant concepts that ran through Southeastern Europe during the nineteenth century. Close relations between the religious and political elites, as in Moldavia, were paralleled throughout the region. Orthodox churches, from hierarchs to ordinary clergy and the faithful, engaged in the spread of the nationalist ideology and, in most cases, worked together with political elites in supporting the emergence of national states. Political state independence was followed by churches claiming their own victories against the centralized religious authority of Constantinople to the extent that, by the end of the nineteenth century, independent (autocephalous) churches were internationally recognized as national seats of religious power.

The establishment of independent Orthodox churches was a gradual process. After the French Revolution, the spread of modern nationalism throughout Europe raised significant challenges for the Orthodox commonwealth. The Greeks, Serbs, and Romanians began revolutionary campaigns asserting independence from the Ottoman Porte, with political revolutions followed closely by religious actions. Within the Ottoman Empire and its Rum Millet system, the Ecumenical Patriarch represented the “ethnarch,” holding both religious and political office to represent the Orthodox faithful in its relation with the Sublime Porte.

Conflict between the Porte and the Ecumenical Patriarchate reached a dramatic level in 1821 when Greece declared its independence. Accused of treason and of supporting the insurgents, Ecumenical Patriarch Gregory V (1797–99; 1806–8; 1818–21) was hanged outside the central gates of the patriarchal palace on Easter Sunday, April 10, 1821, the most important religious festival of the church. The execution of the patriarch had a direct impact on Orthodox mobilization. The faithful perceived the patriarch as a martyr and a model for their nation-states. From mere priests to top clergy, the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was considered to have been marred by Ottoman rule and only the building of national churches was regarded as the means to achieve statehood.

The first Orthodox church in Southeastern Europe to challenge the religious authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate was that of Greece. In 1833, Greek hierarchs declared autocephaly, a position that was recognized by Constantinople only in 1850. Seeking the political support of other European powers, Greece instituted the monarchy. The new head of state, King Othon (1833–62), was a Roman Catholic whose wife was German Evangelical. He was not forced to convert to Orthodoxy but the 1843 constitution stated that his successors should be brought up in the Orthodox faith. The monarchy left its legacy on church-state relations by transforming the church into a state institution.2 Politically, Greece promoted the “Great Idea” (Megali Idea), which advocated the expansion of frontiers and the incorporation of Greek-inhabited territories that were under Ottoman rule. This policy began in 1864 when Greece included the Ionian islands and continued in 1881 with the expansion to Thessaly and parts of Epirus, in 1912 to Macedonia and Crete and in 1945 to the Dodecanese. Greece’s political ambitions led to military conflict with Turkey and the 1923 Treaty of Lausanne stipulated massive population exchanges between the two countries. Belonging to and practicing the Orthodox faith was associated with being part of the Greek nation and was the condition of deportation from Asia Minor to Greece.

In Serbia, diplomatic discussions after Karađorđe’s First Uprising (1804–13) and Miloš Obrenović’s Second Uprising (1815) resulted in 1830 in the proclamation of Serbian autonomy under Ottoman rule. Church developments paralleled those in the political sphere and in 1831, the church was granted autonomy from the Ecumenical Patriarchate, while in the 1838 and 1869 constitutions, Orthodoxy was declared as the state religion. In 1878 Serbia was recognized by the Congress of Berlin as an independent kingdom and in 1879 King Milan Obrenović (prince 1868–82; king 1882–89) and Metropolitan Mihailo Jovanović of Belgrade (1859–81; 1889–98) obtained autocephaly from Constantinople.3 The establishment of the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes after the First World War led to a new status for the Serbian Orthodox Church. In 1919 the church was raised to the rank of patriarchate and Metropolitan Dimitrije Pavlović (1920–30) became its first patriarch. The patriarch occupied a position in the Royal Council and members of the Orthodox clergy held seats in the National Assembly. The political unification of the South Slavs was perceived by the church hierarchy as the religious unification of the Serbian Orthodox Church; consequently, the church extended its influence to political affairs.

In Romania, the 1859 union between the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia under the rule of Prince Alexandru Ioan Cuza (1859–66) was closely connected to the rise of the Romanian Orthodox Church outside the jurisdictional authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Imposing his control of the church, Cuza introduced the secularization of monastery estates, declared Romanian as the only language spoken in religious rituals, and established a synod that followed his rule. Comparable to Greece’s political trajectory, Romanian political leaders sought support from European powers and elected the Roman Catholic Prince Carol I from the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen family (prince 1866–81; king 1881–1914) as head of state. In 1865 the Romanian Orthodox Church declared autocephaly, which in 1885 was recognized by Constantinople. The proclamation of the Romanian independent kingdom in 1881 was accompanied by increasing state control of the church, which led to ecclesiastical instability. The establishment of Greater Romania in 1918 with the incorporation of the territories of Transylvania, Banat, Bukovina, and Bessarabia was followed by the reorganization of the church. In 1925, the parliament raised the church to the rank of patriarchate and Metropolitan Miron Cristea was elected its first patriarch (1925–39).4

The case of Bulgaria offered a unique example of church-state relations in Southeastern Europe, as the struggle for ecclesiastical independence from the Ecumenical Patriarchate took place before the emergence of the Bulgarian state.5 The first claims of autonomy came after the Crimean War (1854–56) and resulted in 1870 in the establishment of a Bulgarian Exarchate. The exarchate was set up by the Ottoman government and comprised thirteen dioceses under Constantinople’s jurisdiction. Bulgarian hierarchs demanded a national church; however, in 1872 a synod under the leadership of the Ecumenical Patriarch Anthimos VI (1845–48; 1853–55; 1871–73) rejected their request, condemning the doctrine of ethno-phyletism that asserted the emergence of ecclesiastical organization on ethnic lines. The synod refused to recognize the Bulgarian Exarchate, declaring it a schismatic church. This position continued after Bulgaria became an autonomous principality in 1878 and an independent kingdom in 1908. Bulgaria’s first constitution of 1879 stated that the church remained united with the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Orthodox Christianity and the Idea of the Nation

This volume focuses on the relationship between Orthodox churches, nationalism, and the nation-state-building process in Southeastern Europe in the nineteenth century. By providing a historical approach to church-state relations in the predominantly Orthodox states of this region—namely, Greece, Serbia, Romania, and Bulgaria, it offers an insight into the ways in which Orthodox churches engaged with the nationalist ideology. In addition to an analysis of these churches, the volume includes a chapter on the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s position toward the spread of nationalism, highlighting the challenges posed by the declarations of autocephaly in the region.

Despite nationalism being the prime ideological motor of the nineteenth century, in most cases Orthodox churches achieved their national fulfillment only after the First World War. As a general rule, the volume follows a steady chronological analysis from the first to the last decades of the nineteenth century and, where significant, also predates this period (in the case of the Bulgarian church) or follows on from it (in the case of the Greek, Serbian, and Romanian churches). For example, the memories of the Bulgarian medieval state and its relation with Byzantium remained potent for the political imaginary of the church and the ways in which hierarchs engaged with Constantinople. The issue of ethno-phyletism that claimed a connection between ethnicity and the church had its roots not only in the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate but also in the medieval position of the church in Bulgaria.

Although the title of each chapter uses the contemporary name of each church, the reader is urged to take into account their ethnic diversity during this period. From this perspective, the volume investigates “national” historiographies and the ways in which Orthodox churches perceived the concept of the nation by addressing the following questions: To what extent did Orthodox churches support the nation-building processes in Southeastern Europe? The emergence of new nation-states was a complex phenomenon and some church factions remained loyal to the Ottoman Porte, claiming indissoluble ties with the Ecumenical Patriarchate. What role did the religious and political leadership in Southeastern Europe have in the establishment of national Orthodox churches? In Greece and Romania hierarchs were appointed by the regime and religious leaders were actively engaged in political issues. Did nationalism in Southeastern Europe take a religious form during the nineteenth century? Orthodox churches in Bessarabia under Russian rule and in the Austro-Hungarian territories of Transylvania and Bukovina retained not only contact with Romanians in Wallachia and Moldavia but also were prime actors in promoting the national identity of their faithful.

Despite a significant volume of literature on nation-state building in Southeastern Europe, there remains little analysis on the ways in which churches participated in this process. Orthodox churches retained not only transnational ties throughout the region but were also significant social, economic, and political actors capable of mobilizing the masses in support of the national ideology. This study demonstrates how, from a theoretical perspective, the actions of Orthodox churches in the nineteenth century oscillated between the four main paradigms of nationalism—namely, modernism, ethno-symbolism, perennialism, and primordialism.

Modernism, the predominant theoretical paradigm in the literature, argues that nationalism was both a novel phenomenon with a clearly identifiable historical origin—that is, the time of the French Revolution—and a process of “invention.”6 This view has been supported by Elie Kedourie in a rather bold statement that started the very first chapter of his influential book Nationalism, in which he pointed out that “Nationalism is a doctrine invented in Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century.”7 The nationalist ideology had not only a political dimension but also a strong religious influence. It affected all social and political strata by transforming, in Émile Durkheim’s words, “things purely secular … into sacred things: these...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Announcement Page
• Frontispiece
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• 1. Orthodox Christianity and Nationalism: An Introduction
• 2. The Ecumenical Patriarchate
• 3. The Orthodox Church of Greece
• 4. The Serbian Orthodox Church
• 5. The Romanian Orthodox Church
• 6. The Bulgarian Orthodox Church
• Postscript
• Notes
• List of Contributors
• Index
• Series Page