was committed to uphold them, regardless of the human failings of its individual members and representatives, which had made the inroads ofnationalism and phyletism possible in the first place.
The conflict between Orthodoxy and nationalism was not limited to the dramatic confrontations between aspiring national churches and the ecumenical patriarchate but also disturbed intra-church affairs at a local level. It was here that the conflict between Orthodoxy and nationalism produced crises of conscience of the greatest intensity. To illustrate this aspect of the problem, which was inherent in Orthodoxy's transition to the modern era, we shall take two examples drawn from the borderlands of the Orthodox world. The first is provided by the actions and the writings of Andreiu Saguna, head of the Romanian Orthodox Church in Transylvania (i846-73). Andreiu Saguna rose to the leadership of the Orthodox Church and more generally of the Romanian nation in Transylvania through the struggle for the restoration of a Romanian diocese in the region, thus cutting it off from the jurisdiction of the Serb archbishop of Carlowitz, head of all Orthodox in the Habsburg domains. That movement was a clear instance of the workings of nationalism in the church, and Archbishop Andreiu was fully conscious of the contradictions in which his activities involved him. On the one hand, his pastoral commitments, and his concern for his flock, together with the need to confirm its members in their allegiance to Orthodoxy from the pressures and lures of the Greek Catholic Church in Transylvania, all led in the direction of asserting the identity of the Orthodox community through an ecclesiastical establishment of their own - a project that led to conflict with the Orthodox Serb ecclesiastical authority. On the other hand, he knew that in the Christian tradition no necessary canonical link attached the church to a particular nation.28
However, true to the spirit of his age, Saguna became convinced that the Orthodox Church was by its very nature a national church and therefore its pastoral tasks included concern for the national identity and cultural tradition of its flock. At the same time he did not want the church to exercise a kind of secular political leadership but saw its role as a sanctifying mission in the world, which provided national churches with their justification. To fulfil this mission the church needed to preserve its autonomy, its moral traditions and
28 K. Hitchins, Orthodoxy and nationality: Andreiu Saguna and the Rumanians of Transylvania, 1846-1873 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, i977), V3-98.
Was this article helpful?