Sava MILOVANOVIĆ

Christians as “Tertium Genus” in the Context of Church Jurisdiction

Sava MILOVANOVIĆ
University of Belgrade, Belgrade

Abstract. This paper aims to analyse the question of whether Christians perceived
themselves as a distinct ethnicity in the first centuries and to discuss the relationship between
Christian identity and ethnic/national identity, especially in the context of church organization. In
the first part of this paper, we are going to present the arguments of the two ecclesiological conceptions
as well as the historical circumstances that induced the formulation and systematization of their
argumentation. The jurisdictional disputes of the 20th century were the factors that intensified the
controversy over national identity as a factor in church jurisdiction. In the second part of the paper,
we are going to discuss the concept of Christians as the "third race" in early Christian and pagan
sources, in order to answer the question whether, according to early Christian theology, church identity
was excluding ethnical identity. It is concluded that Christians were a "third race" exclusively in
religious terms, in relation to Greeks and Jews, and that they were not summoned to reject their own
ethnicity and to form a new nation on religious grounds. Organizing dioceses on a national basis,
being in a collision with the canonical territorial principle, was thought to serve the Church's main
purpose - the salvation of people, in the sense that believers had the opportunity to have bishops who
could understand their mentality, language, and customs.
Keywords: Russian orthodox church abroad, nation, diaspora,
ethnophyletism, 34th Apostolic Rule.

Introduction

Identification of the Church and people* intensified during the

Ottoman era. There was no longer a state that supported the Church. The
patriarch was given the title of "millet bashi," meaning that he became both
the spiritual and political leader of Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman
Empire. Thus, instead of the empire, people became the factor which was
giving legitimacy to the episcopal authority and also the primary source of
church finances. In addition, the Reformation in the West initiated the
elimination of barriers between Church and civil authorities. These ideas
found fertile ground in the Orthodox Churches in the light of the historical
conditions in which they (Churches) existed.1
In the eighteenth century the French Revolution took place, and one
of its consequences was the transfer of a source power from God to the
Nation. The change of understanding of the source of power is expressed in

* This work was created within the scientific research work of the Orthodox Theological
Faculty of the University of Belgrade, which is financed by the Ministry of Education, Science
and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.
1 Cyril Hovorun, Meta-Ecclesiology: Chronicles on Church Awareness, New York, Palgrave

Macmillan, 2015, p. 19.

109
 „Christians as “Tertium Genus” in the Context of Church Jurisdiction”,
Astra Salvensis, VIII (2020), no. 15, p. 109-130.
the Declaration of Human and Civil Rights of 26 August 1789, which states in
Article 3 that: “The principle of any Sovereignty lies primarily in the Nation.
No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not
expressly emanate from it.“ This change forced the Church to revise its
relationship with political structures, and since then the people became a
source of ecclesiastical authority also. This influence was reflected in the
Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs 1848, which emphasized that the whole nation
was the guardian of the Christian faith and truth, not any bishop, not even
the whole clergy.2 Identification of the Church with the new repository of
political power - the people - resulted in the identification of the Church with
nationality, which became an integral part of the identity of the Eastern
Orthodox Churches.3
The question of nation and nationality as a factor in Church
organization became the focal point of theological interest due to challenges
to the unity of the Church in the XX-XXI centuries. First of all, we refer to
the jurisdictional disputes among the local Churches within so-called
Orthodox Diaspora, regarding the organization of the Church at traditionally
non-orthodox territories which were not under the direct jurisdiction of any
local Orthodox Church. Due to tragic historical circumstances (WWI,
Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, WWII), many Orthodox Christians of
different nationalities immigrated to the mentioned territories. The identity
crisis of Orthodox immigrants in a new, non-Orthodox environment
contributed to drawing attention of theologians to the question of the role of
nationality in Church life. Exiled from the countries which had enabled them
security as the members of the Orthodox church, into traditionally non-
orthodox territories, Orthodox people had to find the way to preserve their
religious identity. They were forced to define the essence of being an
Orthodox Christian. Some did this by focusing on the Eucharist: sharing the
same Cup signified belonging to the same Orthodox faith. Hence the
insistence of some theologians on the “Eucharistic ecclesiology” which
implied the territorial principle of ecclesiastical order: Orthodox believers of
one territory must have had one and only bishop, and therefore to participate
in the same Eucharist.4 Another way to preserve a religious identity was to
identify it with ethnic or national identity. Many accepted this model, which
resulted in numerous ethnic jurisdictions in the Diaspora.5 Undoubtedly, the
2 Ibidem, p. 85-86.
3 Ibidem, p. 21-22.
4 One of the most prominent Orthodox theologians, John Zizioulas, directly links the

Eucharistic ecclesiology and the territorial principle of church organization: Eucharist, Bishop,
Church: The Unity of the Church in the Divine Eucharist and the Bishop During the First Three Centuries,
Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001, p. 105-106.
5 Cyril Hovorun, Meta-Ecclesiology: Chronicles on Church Awareness, p. 129.

110
 Sava MILOVANOVIĆ

development of historical criticism and the social sciences also contributed to

the rethinking of the Church-nation relationship.6
As has rightly been observed, this issue goes beyond the scope of
purely “jurisdictional debates” and concerns the fundamental questions of
Orthodox ecclesiology: the unity of the Church and its nature. Thus, the two
ecclesiological currents, whose arguments are primarily a concern of this
paper - territorial and national - have fundamentally diverged in their
understanding of the unity of the Church and the way in which this unity
should be manifested.7 A different interpretation of the unity of the Church
resulted in a different interpretation of the canons that establish the basic
principles of Church canonical organization: 34th Apostolic Canon and 9th rule
of the Antioch Local Council. These canons speak of the assembly of bishops
presided over by the primate as a fundamental principle of ecclesiastical
organization, i.e. they establish a congregational organization of the Church.8
With the apparent similarity of the two rules, the 34th Apostolic Rule speaks
of the bishops of “every people” (ἑκάστου ἔθνους) who “should know the
first among them and regard him as the head”, while the 9th Antioch Rule
speaks of “the bishops of every province(ἑκάστην ἑπαρχίαν)” who “must be
aware that the bishop presiding in the metropolis (the civil capital) has charge
of the whole province”.9 From different interpretations of these rules and
their relationship, two ecclesiological conceptions emerged in Russian
theology at the beginning of the 20th century: ethnic or national, and territorial
or local.

1. Two ecclesiological currents in the 20th-century Russian theology

For the first time, these two ecclesiological positions came in conflict
at the 1906 pre-council session regarding the restoration of the autocephaly
of the Church of Georgia. At the session dealing with the organization of
church in the Caucasus on June 2, 1906, the bishop of Imeretin Leonid and
the bishop of Sukhumi Kirion (Sadzaglishvili, the future catholicos) insisted
on the restoration of the autocephaly of the Georgian Church precisely based

6 Cyril Hovorun, Meta-Ecclesiology: Chronicles on Church Awareness, p. 2.

7 Владислав Пузовић, „Историјско-канонски аспекти односа Карловачке управе Руске
заграничне Цркве и Московске патријаршије“, (Ph.D. thesis), Православни
богословски факултет Универзитета у Београду, 2012, p. 132-38.
8 Атанасије Јевтић, Свештени канони Цркве, Београд, Митрополије и Епархије:

Црногорско-Приморска, Дабро-Босанска, Новограчаничка, Захумско-Херцеговачка и

Приморска, Православни богословски факултет Београдског универзитета, Манастир
Тврдош, 2005, p. 45.
9 Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, Volume II, Edinburgh, T&T

Clark, 1876, p. 69.

111
 „Christians as “Tertium Genus” in the Context of Church Jurisdiction”,
Astra Salvensis, VIII (2020), no. 15, p. 109-130.
on the 34th Apostolic Rule, which was, according to their interpretation,
giving every nationality the right to have its own church with a national
hierarchy.10
The attitude of the members of the territorial ecclesiological
conception was that έθνος in the 34th Apostolic Rule signified territorial
locality, not ethnicity, and that in this case it was impossible to restore Church
of Georgia's autocephaly until Georgia regained its statehood. The main
leader of this conception was Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky,11 who also
published a short paper entitled “On explication of the 34th Apostolic Rule”12
on this occasion. Referring to the Scottish archaeologist William M. Ramsay
and the ancient historian Cassius Dion, Glubokovsky stated that the Romans
called the provinces (ἑπαρχία) by the names of the people (ἔθνος) who lived
there, and that in late Greek ἔθνος became the term referring to “the
provinces of the Roman state”. Thus, ἔθνος did not mean anything other than
a territorial locality.13 Therefore, Glubokovsky thought that the 34th Apostolic
Rule could not be used as an argument for establishing an autocephalous
church based on ethnicity.
The leader of the second stream was Nikolai Zaozersky.14 The debate
between these two scholars, Glubokovsky and Zaozersky, was published in

10„Национальный принцип в Церкви“, in Прибавления к Церковным ведомостям, № 47,

1906, p. 55-58.
11Nikolai Nikanorovich Glubokovsky (1863-1937), doctor of theology, member of the

Imperial Academy of Sciences (1909), Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (1929), professor of

the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Honorary Member of the Kiev Theological
Academy, Kazan Theological Academy, Moscow Theological Academy, Moscow and St.
Petersburg Archaeology institutes, church historian, biblist. In 1921 he left Russia, and after
a short stay in Finland, Germany, and Czechoslovakia, arrived in Belgrade, where he had
lived since August 1923, and taught at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology until May 1923.
The difficult living conditions in Serbia forced him to move to Sofia, where he teaches at the
newly formed Faculty of Theology. Being in emigration, he did not belong to any faction of
the Russian Church, speaking at interconfessional meetings as a representative of the
Bulgarian Orthodox Church. He has lectured twice at the Institute of St. Sergius in Paris
(summer 1925 and autumn-winter 1928-9). In 1935 he was elected an honorary member of
the Institute of St. Sergius. Т. А. Богданова, А. К. Клементьев, «Николай Никанорович
Глубоковский», inПравославная Энциклопедия, том 11, Москва, 2006, p. 601-10.
12Прибавления к Церковным ведомостям, № 10, 1907, p. 319-20.
13 Николай Н. Глубоковский, „К толкованию 34-го апостольского правила,“ in

Прибавления к Церковным ведомостям, № 10, 1907, p. 319-20.

14Nikolai Alexandrovich Zaozersky (1851-1919), church historian and canonist, professor of

ecclesiastical law at the Moscow Theological Academy, since 1911 an honorary member of
this institution. He addressed issues of the history of the relationship of church law with state
law, matrimonial law, and issues of church judiciary.Свящ. Александр Берташ, „Николай
Александрович“, in ЗаозерскийПравославная Энциклопедия, том 19, Москва, 2008, p. 600-
06.

112
 Sava MILOVANOVIĆ

the Богословский весник journal. Zaozersky sought to prove that during the first
three centuries, when the collection of Apostolic Rules was created, the
Church was adapting its organization to the ethnicity of the newly baptized.15
Only later, in the period of the Ecumenical Councils when Christianity first
became only legitimate and then state religion, the Church adapted its
organization to the administrative division of the Roman Empire. This
change was reflected in the introduction of a metropolitan church
organization system analogous to the state provincial system,16 and in the 9th
Antioch Rule, which used the term “ἑπαρχία” instead of the term “ἔθνος”
for the metropolitan area.17 Zaozersky aimed to show that this territorial
(local) principle of organization was not dogma, but that it had been accepted
in order to harmonize the Church organization with the state organization,
and that during its history the Church had blessed other models of
organization before, including national ones. According to this, Zaozersky
defined the Church of the first three centuries as “a spiritual covenant or
federation of national, self-governing churches”, thus identifying “ἔθνος” of
the 34th Apostolic Rule with national autocephalous churches.18 Thus, based
on the rule 34 of the Apostles, Zaozersky claimed that the Georgian Church
could renew its autocephaly on an ethnic basis, without strictly determining
the territorial scope of its primate jurisdiction.19
Discussion on the national and territorial principle continued at the
All-Russian Church Council 1917-18. Proponents of the restoration of the
patriarchal structure in the Russian Church, which was abolished in 1721 at
the time of Peter I, referred to the 34th Apostolic Canon, especially the part
saying that “bishops of every nation should know the first among them and

15Николай А. Заозерский, „Точный смысл и значение Апостольского 34-го правила:

(По поводу ст.: Глубоковский Н. Н. «Смысл 34-го Апостольского правила.)“, in
Богословский вестник 3, № 12, 1907, p. 774-775.; Николай А. Заозерский,
„Топографический смысл 34-го Апостольского правила,“ in Богословский вестник 2, №
6, 1907, p. 351-353.
16Николай А. Заозерский, „Точный смысл и значение Апостольского 34-го правила,“

p. 771, 780-781.
17 Николай А. Заозерский, „Топографический смысл 34-го Апостольского правила,“

p. 345.; Николай А. Заозерский, „Точный смысл и значение Апостольского 34-го

правила,“ p. 783.
18НиколайА. Заозерский, „ТочныйсмыслизначениеАпостольского 34-гоправила,“ p.

779.; Obvious anachronism, because nations in the modern sense of the word can did not
exist in antiquity, as sociological research argues:Antoni D. Smit, Nacionalni identitet, Beograd,
Biblioteka XX vek, 2010, p. 22.; Benedict Anderson, Nacija: zamišljena zajdnica, Zagreb,
Školska knjiga, 1990, p. 18.
19Николай А. Заозерский, „Топографический смысл 34-го Апостольского правила,“ p.

353-356.

113
 „Christians as “Tertium Genus” in the Context of Church Jurisdiction”,
Astra Salvensis, VIII (2020), no. 15, p. 109-130.
consider him as the head,” recognising the patriarch of local national Church
in the term “first bishop”.20
The opponents of the restoration of the patriarch's institution warned
that ethnic interpretation of the 34th Apostolic Rule could lead to the
separatist aspirations of orthodox nations living in the territory of the Russian
Empire: e.g. Ukrainians, or the people of Siberia.21 The archpriest Nikolai
Pavlovich Dobronravov stood out among them.22 He cited the example of
the church in Georgia, which had already seceded itself on March 12, 1917 23
and proclaimed the restoration of the Georgian Patriarchate on its own
initiative based on national interpretation of the 34th Apostolic Rule,24 and

20Деяния Священного Собора Православной Российской Церкви 1917-1918 гг, том 2, Москва,
1994, p. 344-45, 371-72, 381-83, 411-12, 424, 431.
21 Вадим Г. Суворов, „Дискуссия о территориальном и национальном принципах

церковного устройства в русском православии XX века», in Историческая и социально-

образовательная мысль. Toм 9, №5/1, 2017, p.112.
22Nikolai Pavlovich Dobronravov (1861-1937). The latter Archbishop is Vladimir and

Suzdal, priest-martyr. „Сященомученик Николай (Добронравов), Архиепископ

владимирский и суздальский“, accessed on January 2nd 2020,
http://days.pravoslavie.ru/Life/life4862.htm
23 Арсений В. Соколов, „Государство и Православная церковь в России, февраль 1917

— январь 1918 гг.“, Ph.D. thesis,Российский государственный педагогический

университет имени А. И. Герцена, Санкт-Петербург, 2014, p. 337.
24On March 27, 1917, the Provisional Government issued an act "On the establishment of

the legal consequences associated with the restoration of the autocephaly of the ancient
Orthodox Georgian Church with the Mchet catholicos as the head"
(ЖурналызаседанийВременногоправительства, том 1., редактор Б. Ф. Додонов, Москва,
РОССПЭН, 2001, p. 178.) stating that: “The Provisional Government recognizes the
autocephalous Georgian Church a national-Georgian character, without restricting it to a
specific territory. All Orthodox Russian parishes and other non-Georgian parishes remain
under the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Russian Church. " There are two important points in
this act that need to be addressed. The first is that autocephaly is recognized not over a
particular territory but over a nationality. It was decided that in Georgia the Russian parishes
would be governed by the Russian Orthodox Church, with each believer being able to decide
which church structure he wanted to belong to. Self-proclaimed catholicos locum tenens
bishop Leonid of Guria-Mingreli, dissatisfied with this decision, protested on March 29 the
Provisional Government and president of Duma, insisting that the national principle of
autocephaly, i.e. the possibility for Russian Church to continue to have its own parishes in
Georgia, was unprecedented in history, and that it contradicted the canons, demanding
recognition of Georgian autocephaly over the entire territory of Georgia, and not just for
those believers who choose to belong to the Georgian Church. There is obviously a selective
reference to canonical rules, which will also be the case in the latter jurisdictional
controversies. Another important point is that by this time the Orthodox Church in the
Russian Empire was called "Rossiskaya", and since March 27, 1917, there were "Russkaya"
and "Georgian", with the official church headed by the Synod continued to name itself "
Rossiskaya". Вадим Г. Суворов, „Дискуссия о территориальном и национальном
принципах церковного устройства в русском православии XX века,» p. 111-112.;

114
 Sava MILOVANOVIĆ

whose delegates did not attend the Council.25 Another prominent participant
in the discussion P. Kudryavtsev spoke on this occasion as follows: “The
canons speak not of the patriarch, but of the bishop of the first throne, or of
the first bishop, whom the bishops of every nation should respect as their
head. If we apply this canon to the Russian Church, based on it every
Orthodox people living within the borders of the Russian state can claim the
right of a separate primate: how many nations–so many primates.”26 It did
not take long to confirm these assumptions.27 Separatist tendencies that
prevailed in the country after February 1917 were reflected in the Church
even before the beginning of the Council (started on August 15th, 1917), in
the form of pretensions to the autonomy or even the autocephaly of
individual dioceses. Apart from Georgia, the strongest were the separatist
movements in Ukraine.28
The next chapter in the controversy surrounding the local and
national model of ecclesiastical jurisdiction was opened, with particular
sharpness, by the jurisdictional litigation of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople and Moscow in the 20th century.
Namely, in the 1920s the Patriarchate of Constantinople began
developing a theory according to which all mission territories, meaning
territories that did not fall under the jurisdiction of the existing autocephalous
Orthodox churches, in accordance with the Rule 28 of the Chalcedon
Council, belonged to the jurisdiction of Constantinople.29 Coryphaeus of this
ideology was the patriarch of Constantinople (1921-1923), latter the patriarch
of Alexandria (1926-1935) Meletius Metaxakis.30 The dispute arose over
dioceses whose mother-Church was the Moscow Patriarchate, which, due to
adverse historical circumstances (Bolshevik Revolution, civil war), had lost its
connection with the dioceses in Eastern Europe and the Baltic (Poland,
Estonia, Finland). In order to regulate their canonical status, these dioceses

Арсений В. Соколов, „Государство и Православная церковь в России, февраль 1917

— январь 1918 гг.,“ p. 342-344.
25Деяния Священного Собора Православной Российской Церкви 1917-1918 гг, том 2, p. 348.
26 Деяния Священного Собора Православной Российской Церкви 1917-1918 гг, том 2, p. 419.
27 Вадим Г. Суворов, „Дискуссия о территориальном и национальном принципах

церковного устройства в русском православии XX века,» p.112.; Арсений В.Соколов,

„Государство и Православная церковь в России, февраль 1917 — январь 1918 гг.“, p.
332-334.
28 Арсений В.Соколов, „Государство и Православная церковь в России, февраль 1917

— январь 1918 гг.“, p. 332-334.

29 Сергей В. Троицкий, «О границах распространения права власти
Константинопольской Патриархии на "диаспору," in Журнал Московской Патриархии,
№11, ноябрь 1947, p. 34-44.
30 Алексей С. Буевский, „Патриарх Мелетий IV и Русская Православная Церковь,“ in

Журнал Московской Патриархии, № 3, 1953, p. 31-32.

115
 „Christians as “Tertium Genus” in the Context of Church Jurisdiction”,
Astra Salvensis, VIII (2020), no. 15, p. 109-130.
addressed the Patriarch of Constantinople, who received them as
autonomous churches under his jurisdiction (the Orthodox Church in
Estonia and the Orthodox Church in Finland in 1923), or recognized their
autocephaly (Orthodox Church in Poland 1924).31 The granting of
autonomies and autocephalies to the dioceses considered by the Moscow
Patriarchate as its integral part was regarded in Moscow as an invasion of the
canonical territory of another diocese, in this case the Moscow Patriarchate.
It was the beginning of a conflict that would continue throughout the
twentieth century. The climax of the conflict occurred in 1931, when the
Patriarch Photios II of Constantinople, on the petition of the Metropolitan
in charge of the administration of Russian churches in Western Europe,
Eulogius Georgiyevsky, received Russian Western European diocese under
his jurisdiction.32 Thus, it could be rightly said that attitudes regarding the
local and national principle in the interwar period were profiled, mainly, by
the jurisdictional affiliation of the authors.33 Accordingly, in this period we
can distinguish two ecclesiological conceptions:
1) of theologians of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad (“karlovčani”34),
who were close to the views of the theologians concentrated around the
Moscow Patriarchate. This concept was characterized by the relativization of
the territorial principle as the canonical norm of Church organization, the
denial of its dogmatic character, and the emphasis on the national model as
the norm of Church organization.35
2) of Constantinople theologians, who were close to the views of theologians
of the Russian Exarchate in Western Europe (because they justified their
transfer under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1931 by
preserving the territorial principle, assuming that the entire Diaspora

31 Епископ Иоанн Максимович, „Состояние Вселенского Патриархата. Доклад свт.

Иоанна Шанхайского на II Всезарубежном Соборе,“ accessed onJanuary 7th 2020
https://pravoslavie.ru/115831.html
32 Д. Н. Никитин, „Западноевропейский экзархат Русской православной церкви,“ in

Православная энциклопедия, том 19, Москва, 2008, p. 610-612.; Протопресвитер Михаил

Польский, Каноническое положение высшей церковной власти в СССР и за границей,
Типография пр. Иова Почаевскаго в св. Троицком монастыре, 1948, p. 112-194.;
Владислав Пузовић, „Историјско-канонски аспекти односа Карловачке управе Руске
заграничне Цркве и Московске патријаршије“, п. 256-271.
33 Вадим Г. Суворов, „Дискуссия о территориальном и национальном принципах

церковного устройства в русском православии XX века,»p. 113.

34 Russian Orthodox Church Abroad headquarters were first in Sremski Karlovci, from

where it moved to Munich, and then in 1948 to New York.

35 Владислав Пузовић, „Историјско-канонски аспекти односа Карловачке управе Руске

заграничне Цркве и Московске патријаршије“, р. 136-138.

116
 Sava MILOVANOVIĆ

belonged to the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Constantinople),36 so-called

"eulogians".37 The characteristic of this conception was the ontologization of
the territorial (local) principle in the ecclesiastical structure, and the view that
because of its dogmatic significance it had to be preserved in all
circumstances.38
Therefore, it can be said that both concepts used theological
argumentation to justify the actions of their church structures: 1) the
formation of the church administration of the Russian Orthodox Church
Abroad in the territory of other local Churches on a purely ethnic basis in
Karlovci, without territorial determinants (in the case of “karlovčani”), or the
view that jurisdiction over a particular ethnic community in the Diaspora
belonged to the mother-Church, the point of view which Russian Orthodox
Church Abroad and Moscow ecclesiastical authorities agreed on; 2) the
transition of the Russian Western European Exarchate under the jurisdiction
of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, to which, according to the
ecclesiological argument of Patriarch Meletius and his successors, belonged
the jurisdiction over bishops in all territories outside the canonical territories
of the Orthodox local Churches. From this point of view, the subordination
of these bishops to another local Church would be treated as an invasion of
the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Different views of the Church organization in Diaspora arose from a
different understanding of the unity of the Church. In Moscow and Karlovci,
they insisted that every national autocephalous church should have had
jurisdiction over its diaspora, while in Paris they insisted on a territorial model,
meaning that not only the unity of the faith was sufficient for the unity of the
Church, but necessary was the unity of Church structure as well.39
Constantinople's provenance theologians were inclined to attach a dogmatic
and ontological meaning to the territorial/local principle, insisting on that

36 Вадим Г. Суворов, „Дискуссия о территориальном и национальном принципах

церковного устройства в русском православии XX века,“ р. 113.
37 Per ExarchateleaderEulogius Georgiyevsky (1868-1946). Т. А. Богданова, А. К.

Клементьев, В. И. Косик, „Евлогий (Георгиевский Василий Семенович),“in

Православная энциклопедия. том 17, Москва, 2008, p. 161-68.
38 It should be noted that the difference in ecclesiological conceptions between Paris and

Karlovci ecclesiastical authorities can only be discussed since the 1930s. "The views of the
Karlovac administration of the Russian Church Abroad and the Church administration in
Paris, led by Metropolitan Eulogius, on the organization of the Orthodox Church in the
diaspora (specifically, in the territories of Western Europe), during the 1920s, did not differ
fundamentally. The views of both sides came from the national concept of church
organization." Владислав Пузовић, „Историјско-канонски аспекти односа Карловачке
управе Руске заграничне Цркве и Московске патријаршије“, р. 256.
39 Владислав Пузовић, „Историјско-канонски аспекти односа Карловачке управе Руске

заграничне Цркве и Московске патријаршије“, р. 133-136

117
 „Christians as “Tertium Genus” in the Context of Church Jurisdiction”,
Astra Salvensis, VIII (2020), no. 15, p. 109-130.
there could be no place for national principle in the Church's organization,
since in Christ “there is no Greek, no barbarian, no Scythian” (Col.3:11).
According to the territorial principle, in one place, in one territory, however
small (parish, diocese, metropolis, patriarchy) there could only exist one
church, in terms of a church organization, expressed through the unity of the
priesthood.40 The followers of the territorial current attached importance of
dogmatic character also to the 8th canon of the First Ecumenical Council,
which forbade “two bishops in one city”. Consequently, the situation in the
Diaspora, where in one place, in one city were multiple bishops of different
national jurisdictions, was unacceptable. In contrast, proponents of the
“ethnic approach” believed that each ethnicity/nation had the right to have
its own first hierarch and its own Church, whose jurisdiction didn’t have to
be defined solely by territorial boundaries, but by the ethnicity of the
believers.41
The greatest contribution to the elaboration and systematization of
the position of eulogians was made by archpriest Alexander Schmemann. 42
Schmemann's thesis stated that the territorial principle stemmed from the
very essence of the Church.43 The purpose of the Church was that the faithful
of one area or city, regardless of all differences and divisions, achieved a new
unity of faith and love in the Church. Replacing that unity with the unity based
on natural characteristics (nationality, language, etc.) was reducing the Church
to phenomena that were “of this world”.44 The principle of territoriality - one
bishop in one city - was the core that had remained unchanged in spite of all
the changes in the forms of Church life, and therefore the betrayal of that
principle was the betrayal of the very nature of the Church. Moreover, the
canons insisted on maintaining this principle “in all conditions” because the
unity of the people of one place, regardless of their natural differences, was a
concrete embodiment of the unity that Christ was achieving through his
Church - unity in the faith and love of people who had one Lord, one faith,

40 Владислав Пузовић, „Историјско-канонски аспекти односа Карловачке управе Руске

заграничне Цркве и Московске патријаршије“, р. 66.
41 Вадим Г. Суворов, „Дискуссия о территориальном и национальном принципах

церковного устройства в русском православии XX века,»р. 110.

42 Владислав Пузовић, „О неким еклисиолошким темама у руској богословској мисли

XX века“,inСрпска теологија у двадесетом веку: истраживачки проблеми и резултати, књ. 19,

2015, p. 53.
43 Александар Шмеман, „О неопапизме,“ in Собрание статей, сост. Е. Ю. Дорман,

Москва, Русский путь, 2009, p. 347. PrintedinЦерковный вестник Западно-Европейского

русского православного экзархата, N05(26), Париж, 1950.
44 Александар Шмеман, „Церков, эмиграция, национальность“, in Собрание статей, сост.

Е. Ю. Дорман, Москва, Русский путь, 2009, p. 309-310. PrintedinЦерковный вестник

Западно-Европейского русского православного экзархата, N010, Париж, 1948.

118
 Sava MILOVANOVIĆ

one baptism (Eph. 4: 5).45 This unity, not the unity based on a national basis,
was the essence of the Church that its canonical structure was to reflect.46
For the occurence of this “canonical anomaly” Fr. Alexander
condemned “church nationalism”. He placed the appearance of this
phenomenon in the ninth century in the context of the baptism of Slavs.
Namely, baptism was not only intended to enlighten with true faith but also
had political purpose of national self-determination and was therefore carried
out with the assistance of state authority. The Byzantines believed that
through baptism the Slavic nations were becoming a part of the Byzantine
Orthodox Empire. Since this empire had no longer been supranational, but
Greek - this theory was perceived as Greek church-political imperialism by
newly baptized nations. This led to a "clash of nationalisms". The
consequence of this conflict was the aspiration of the Slav states for
ecclesiastical independence or autocephaly that was supposed to contribute
to the preservation of political independence.47
Similar views were expressed, somewhat later, by Bishop Cassian
Bezobrazov,48 I. Alexandrov,49 and Sergei Sergeevich Verhovsky.50
Another prominent figure in the eulogian concept was Fr. John
Meyendorff. Meyendorff's thesis was that multiple national bishops existing
in one place was in contrast with the very nature of the Church, because just
as one body had one head, so the church of one place, since it was the Body
of Christ, should have had only one head - one bishop. According to
Meyendorff, the canonical provisions regarding this matter were crystal clear
and prohibited the existence of multiple bishops in one place (canon 8 of the

45 Александар Шмеман, „Церков и церковное устройство: по поводу книги прот.

Польского, ‘Каноническое положение высшей церковной власти в СССР и
заграницей’,” inСобрание статей, сост. Е. Ю. Дорман, Москва, Русский путь, 2009, p. 318-
319.Printed inЦерковный вестник Западно-Европейского русского православного экзархата,
Париж, 1949.
46 Александар Шмеман, „Спор о Церкви,“inСобрание статей, сост. Е. Ю. Дорман,

Москва, Русский путь, 2009, p. 341-342. PrintedinЦерковный вестник Западно-Европейского

русского православного экзархата, N02(23), Париж, 1950.
47 Александар Шмеман, „Спор о Церкви,“ p. 323.
48 Еп. Кассиан (Безобразов), „Что дал русской православной эмиграции Экзархат

Вселенского Престола,“ in Вестник русского студенческого христианского движения 56, 1960, p.

9-10.
49 И. Александров, „О значении Русского Экзархата Вселенского Патриарха в

западной Европе,“
in Вестник русского студенческого христианского движения, 56, 1960, p. 18.
50 С. С. Верховский, „Единая Церковь или раскол,“ in Церковный вестник

западноевропейской епархии,
20, 1949, p. 4-13.

119
 „Christians as “Tertium Genus” in the Context of Church Jurisdiction”,
Astra Salvensis, VIII (2020), no. 15, p. 109-130.
First Ecumenical Council, canon 39 of the Fifth-Sixth Council).51 Therefore,
denying territorial principle through the existence of parallel jurisdictions -
Russian, Serbian, Romanian, Constantinople – Mеyеndorff called “canonical
chaos”, “formally racist”, “heretical”, identifying it with the heresy of
“phyletism” condemned by the Council in Constantinople in 1872. He even
proposed that the future Ecumenical Council should adopt a new canon
defining the following:

"In areas and countries where two or more autocephalous

Orthodox churches send their clergy for permanent service, the
canonical order requires the establishment of a united church.
Procedures that must be followed should be defined by
consultation between all concerned groups at general or local
level. Language pluralism or tradition will be retained and
guaranteed wherever necessary, by the formation of appropriate
structures organized on a temporary basis."52

For “Christ came to establish on earth a new and holy nation, the tertium
genus, a kingdom that is not 'of this world'. A church whose sole function is to
preserve ethnic identification loses the mark of a true 'Church of God'.”53
Leaders of the second, we would say “ethnic ecclesiology”, were the
representatives of the administration of the ROCA and the Moscow
Patriarchate. Essentially, the position of this ecclesiology was based on the
national concept of ecclesiastical jurisdiction which stated that each local
Church was competent to govern its diaspora, and on denial of the dogmatic
character of the territorial principle. The territorial principle had official
character, because it served the internal, spiritual purpose of the Church -
bringing people to Christ.
An illustrative example of their argument are the works of ROCA
Archpriest Michael Polsky, as a part of his discussion with Schmemann. The
discussion began with the publication of Polsky’s book Canonical position of the
supreme church authority in the USSR and abroad published by the Holy Trinity
Monastery in Jordanville in 1948.54 A criticism of the chapter discussing the
canonical status of the Russian Exarchate of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in
Western Europe was given by Schmemann in the article "Church and church
51 John Meyendorff, „One bishop in one city“, in St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 5, no. 1-
2, 1961, p. 55-60.
52 Јован Мајендорф, „Савремени проблеми православног канонског права“, in Зоран

Крстић ed., Живо Предање, Крагујевац, Каленић, 2008, p. 94-96.

53 Јован Мајендорф, „Савремени проблеми православног канонског права“, р. 95.
54Протопресвитер Михаил Польский, Каноническое положение высшей церковной власти в

СССР и за границей, Типография пр. Иова Почаевскаго в св. Троицком монастыре, 1948.

120
 Sava MILOVANOVIĆ

structure: regarding the book of Archp. Polsky ‘Canonical position of the

supreme church authority in the USSR and abroad’,”55published in the
Церковный весник Западно-европейского русского православного экзархата. As a
response to Schmeman’s criticism M. Polsky published a booklet An outline of
the position of the Russian Exarchate of Constantinople jurisdiction, also in Jordanville
in 1952.56 Here, Polsky criticized the "eulogians" for not distinguishing the
missionary territories from the territories of the local Churches, saying that
these two types of territories could not be treated in the same way when
applying canons regerading the organization of the Church. In missionary
areas, the Church had always been administratively adapting to ethnic
principle because it had contributed to the success of Christianisation. Based
on the 34th Аpostolic Rule Polsky concluded that “’God Himself decreed that
there be’ an autocephalous, self-governing Church in every nation.”
Therefore, when speaking about only one bishop in one territory, canons
implied the territory of one people and national hierarchy:

„Unity of command without national unity, and in the territory of

a missionary area which does not have its own local Church, does
not in any way signify unanimity, consent, and ecclesiastical well-
being, because no one will have kin relations with its clergy,
foreign to him, and it will be completely incapable of satisfying
the needs of the churches. Full consent without any conflict of
interest and disagreement is possible only with the unity of
command in every national Church, and only in the absence of
the many-command in it. This is what the canons have in mind
which always imply one nationality in one territory, in any case
the prevailing and dominant from the beginning.“57

55 Александар Шмеман, „Церковь и церковное устройство: по поводу книги прот.

Польского, ‘Каноническое положение высшей церковной власти в СССР и
заграницей’”
56 Протопресвитер Михаил Польский,
ОчеркположенияРусскогоЭкзархатавселенскойюрисдикции Jordanville (New York), Holy Trinity
Monastery, 1952, приступљено 14. јануара 2020.
https://www.rocorstudies.org/2019/02/18/ocherk-polozheniya-russkogo-ekzarhata-
vselenskoj-yurisdiktsii/
57 „Единоначалие без единства народного да еще на территории миссионерской

области, не имеющей своей Поместной Церкви, совершенно не обозначает

единодушия, согласия и церковного благоустройства, потому что ни у кого здесь не
будет родственных связей со своим единоначалием, ему чуждым, и оно совершенно
не способно удовлетворять нужды церквей. Полное согласие и без всякого
столкновения интересов и противоречий возможно здесь с единоначалием в каждой
национальной церкви, и только бы не с многоначалием именно в ней. Это и есть то
главное, что имеют в виду каноны, всегда разумея на единой территории единую

121
 „Christians as “Tertium Genus” in the Context of Church Jurisdiction”,
Astra Salvensis, VIII (2020), no. 15, p. 109-130.

Consequently, said Polsky, Christians should’ve been alien to both

heathen nationalism and to underrating of nationality, because each one of us,
through our own national Church alone, participated in the construction of
the universal Church of Christ. He therefore considered that the criticisms
directed to the national principle of the organization of the Church in
Diaspora, were unfounded.58 The dispute of these two theologians was ended
by Schmemann's article entitled “Epilogue”.59
The national ecclesiological concept was also defended by other
prominent representatives of the Russian emigration: Nathanael Lvov (Bishop
of Brussels of ROCA after World War II),60 Konstantin N. Nikolaev (legal
consultant of the Synod of ROCA in the 1930s),61 and Sergei Viktorovich
Troicki (professor of canon law) who can be considered the founder of the
national ecclesiological conception.62

народность, во всяком случае преобладающую и от начала первенствующую.“

Протопресвитер Михаил Польский, Очерк положения Русского Экзархата вселенской
юрисдикции
58 Протопресвитер Михаил Польский, Очерк положения Русского Экзархата вселенской

юрисдикции
59 Александар Шмеман, „Эпилог,“inСобрание статей, сост. Е. Ю. Дорман, Москва,

Русский путь, 2009, p. 374-378. Printed inЦерковный вестник Западно-Европейского русского

православного экзархата, N05(38), Париж, 1952.
60BishopNathanael became involved in this discussion on Fr. M. Polsky`s side writing a

response to the Fr. Schmemann’s criticism of Polsky`s book entitled "On the fates of the
Russian Church abroad - answer the priest Fr. Alexander Schmemann”. In this paper, bishop
Nathanael does not deny the importance of the territorial principle, but does not agree with
its absolutization. Territorial principle was the norm in the early Church, but throughout
history the Church was aware of deviations from it: the case of the Archdiocese of Cyprus,
referred to in the canons 37th and 39th of the Council of Trullo, as well as residencies of local
churches in the territory of other local churches. Responding to the idea that the co-existence
of two national jurisdictions in one territory is damaging to church life, he cites the example
of the Serbian Church and the ROCA in the territory of Yugoslavia over a 23-year period
that has been without controversy and mutually beneficial. „О судьбах Русской Церкви
заграницей – ответь священнику о. Александру Шмеману“, in Православная Русь, 15–16;
17; 18; 19, 1949, p. 8–10; 7–8; 7–9; 3–6.
61Константин Николаевич Николаев, „Правовое положение православной церкви

народа русского в рассеянии сущего“, Церковная жизнь, 5, 1934, according to Владислав

Пузовић, „Историјско-канонски аспекти односа Карловачке управе Руске заграничне
Цркве и Московске патријаршије“, р. 81.
62 Владислав Пузовић, „Историјско-канонски аспекти односа Карловачке управе Руске

заграничне Цркве и Московске патријаршије“, р. 293.See Troicky's papers discussing the

issue of local and national principle: Сергей В. Троицкий, Размежевание или раскол, Париж,
1932; „Экклесиология парижского раскола,“ inВестник Русского Западно-Европейского
Патриаршего Экзархата, № 7-8, 1951, p. 10-33.; Правовое положение Русской Церкви в
Югославии, Белград, 1940.

122
 Sava MILOVANOVIĆ

2. National and territorial ecclesiological principle in post-World War II jurisdictional

disputes

In the post-World War II period, at least in theory, there was a change

in the attitude of the Moscow Patriarchate regarding the organization of
Church in the Diaspora. In 1970, Patriarch Alexei I of Moscow (1945-970)
published Tomos on the Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in America, pointing
out “church pluralism” as the main reason for giving autocephaly, which
“contradicts the nature of canonical Orthodox church unity.”63 The same
reason was pointed out again by Patriarch Alexei I in his letter to the Patriarch
of Constantinople Athenagoras on March 17, 1970 reporting on the Moscow
Patriarchate's intention to give autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in
America.64 In his reply on June 24, 1970, the patriarch Athenagoras (1948-
1972) said that the final solution to the Orthodox Diaspora issue belonged to
the future Holy and Great Council, condemning the unilateral giving of
autocephaly by the Russian Church. In addition, in this letter the patriarch
Athenagoras summarized the attitude of the Patriarchate of Constantinople
towards the parallel national jurisdictions in the Diaspora: this condition was
“extraordinary and abnormal” and it was braking the “basic dogmatic
principle of Orthodox ecclesiology” - the territorial principle. The Patriarchate
of Constantinople observed the national principle only “economically”, as a
conciliation for the sake of “peace and unity among the fraternal Orthodox
Churches”, until the final decision of the future Holy and Great Council.65
Thus, in this case, Moscow and Constantinople did not disagree in deciding
which principle should be the basis of ecclesiastical organization, but they
disagreed on the matter of mechanism by which a solution to this situation
should be found.
According to Thomos, the Moscow Patriarchate retained jurisdiction
over several parishes and temples in the United States, and over all clergy and
parishes in Canada. This was one of the segments of Thomas which patriarch
Athenagoras opposed to in his letter dated on September 9, 1970. The locum
tenens of the patriarchal throne Metropolitan Pimen (the future Patriarch of
Moscow), in his response to Patriarch Athenagoras, made an argument
contrary to what had been earlier stated as the reason for giving autocephaly
to the Church of America. Justifying the retention of temples and parishes in

63Томос об автокефалии Православной Церкви в Америке от 10 апреля 1970 года, accessed

onFebruary 3rd 2020 https://drevo-info.ru/articles/20749.html
64 "Послание Святейшего Патриарха Московского и всея Руси Алексия от 17 марта

1970 года," in Журнал Московской Патриархии, № 4, 1970, p. 8.

65 "Послание Святейшего Патриарха Афинагора № 583 от 24 июня 1970 г.," in Журнал

Московской Патриархии, № 9, 1970, p. 14-15.

123
 „Christians as “Tertium Genus” in the Context of Church Jurisdiction”,
Astra Salvensis, VIII (2020), no. 15, p. 109-130.
the newly established autocephalous Church in America and Canada under
the jurisdiction of Moscow Patriarchate, he pointed out that the history of the
Church was aware of instances of deviation from the territorial principle,
referring to the existence of different jurisdictions of local Churches in one
territory.66
However, a statement given by the Holy Synod of the Russian
Orthodox Church in 1995 regarding the church crisis in Estonia stated that
the actions of the Patriarchate of Constantinople had led to the emergence of
parallel jurisdictions of the Patriarchate of Moscow and Constantinople in
Estonia, and that those actions completely contradicted the earlier position of
the Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople on parallel jurisdictions,
which was described as “correct” in the letter, while the territorial principle
was called “canonically important”.67 Consequently, an inconsistency existed
in the arguments of the Moscow Church authorities.
The final solution to the situation in the Orthodox Diaspora, where
this canonically irregular situation still exists strictly due to the clash of two
ecclesiological conceptions - territorial and national - was not reached at the
recent Crete Council in 2016. In the official document called The Orthodox
Diaspora, Council stated that “the will of the most holy Orthodox Churches is
that the problem of the Orthodox Diaspora be resolved as quickly as possible,
and that it be organized in accordance with Orthodox ecclesiology, and the
canonical tradition and practice of the Orthodox Church”. However, adding
that “during the present phase it is not possible, for historical and pastoral
reasons, an immediate transition to the strictly canonical order of the Church
on this issue, that is, the existence of only one bishop in the same place.”68
This is a sign that this topic needs additional theological, historical, canonical
and multidisciplinary elucidation in order to achieve the definite solution. We
believe that the analysis of early Christian attitudes on the grounds of ethnicity,
and in particular analysing the concept of Christians being a “new and holy
nation”, can make a significant contribution to giving the answers to this
crucial question of contemporary inter-Orthodox relations.

3. Christians as the "third race" from the perspective of the New Testament, apologists
and apocryphal literature

66 „Пимен, Местоблюститель Московского Патриаршего престола, Митрополит

Крутицкий иКоломенский. Его Святейшеству, Святейшему Афинагору,
Архиепископу Константинополя - Нового Рима и Вселенскому Патриарху,“in Журнал
Московской Патриархии № 2, 1971, p. 2.
67 „Заявление Священного Синода Русской Православной Церкви,“ in Журнал

Московской Патриархии № 9-10, 1995, p. 9.

68The Orthodox Diaspora, accessed on March 19th 2020 https://www.holycouncil.org/-

/diaspora.

124
 Sava MILOVANOVIĆ

In order to properly comprehend the meaning of the term "tertium

genus", and to answer the question of whether the first Christians perceived
themselves as some kind of special ethnicity, it is necessary to analyse the term
genus as well as the entire phrase in the form in which it appears with the New
Testament authors and apologists. It is also necessary to consider the meaning
attached to this term by their heathen contemporaries.
The Latin term genus as well as the Greek γένος could refer to the
origin, race, descendants, family, nationality, order of living creatures
(mankind, womankind), animal or plant species.69 However, the term is used
at only one place in the New Testament referring to Christians, in 1Pet. 2: 9:70

“ὑμεῖς δὲ γένος ἐκλεκτόν, βασίλειον ἱεράτευμα, ἔθνος ἅγιον, λαὸς

εἰς περιποίησιν, ὅπως τὰς ἀρετὰς ἐξαγγείλητε τοῦ ἐκ σκότους ὑμᾶς
καλέσαντος εἰς τὸ θαυμαστὸν αὐτοῦ φῶς”71

Nevertheless, this text has no ethnic implications. Christians are not a

“new race” in the sense that their ecclesiastical identity abolishes the ethnic
one. They are not called out as Jews were to build a state in this world, but to
“proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his
marvellous light.” Their mission, therefore, is of an absolute spiritual nature -
as St. Paul says, to be the “aroma of Christ” in this world (2Cor. 2:15). And
their promised land- the eschatological Kingdom of God, is also spiritual and
metaphysical, likewise their citizenship (Heb. 13: 14).
Let's have a look at the use of the term "genus", "γένος" by early
Christian writers. We are going to single out three sources: 1) The Apologyof
Aristides, 2) Kerygmata Petrou (Sermon of Peter), 3) The Epistle to Diognetus.
Sermon of Peter is the first work in which Christians are explicitly called
the “third race”.72 The work dates dates back to the beginning of the second

69Henry George Liddell, Robert Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford, Clarendon Press,
1996, p. 344.; P.G.W. Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1968, p. 760-
761.
70 Oskar Skarsaune, "Ethnic Discourse in Early Christianity", in James Carleton Paget and

Judith Lieu (ed.), Christianity in the Second Century Themes and Developments, Cambridge University
Press, 2017, p. 253.
71The Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition, Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes

Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger (ed.), Stuttgart, Deutsche

Bibelgesellschaft, 1994.
72Erich S. Gruen, "Christians as a ‘Third Race’ Is Ethnicity at Issue?", in James Carleton

Paget and Judith Lieu (ed.), Christianity in the Second Century Themes and Developments, Cambridge
University Press, 2017, p.261.

125
 „Christians as “Tertium Genus” in the Context of Church Jurisdiction”,
Astra Salvensis, VIII (2020), no. 15, p. 109-130.
century, and is preserved only in fragments in The Stromata of Clement of
Alexandria.73 The section we are interested in is the following:

“Νέαν ἡμῖν διέθετο; τὰ γὰρ Ἑλλήνων καὶ Ἰουδαίων παλαιά, ἡμεῖς

δὲ οἱ καινῶς αὐτὸν τρίτῳ γένει σεβόμενοι Χριστιανοί.“74

The dative is used here: τρίτῳ γένει. Thus, the emphasis is on true
Christian worship of God “in a new way“, different from the Hellenic and
Jewish worship which is wrong. Therefore, this section also has no ethnic or
racial connotation.75 The same meaning exists in both Russian76 and English
translations.77
The Apology of Aristides is thought to have originated around 140 AD,
although there is a difference between the indications in the Syrian and Greek
translations. By the end of the nineteenth century it was thought that the work
had been lost, but in 1878 fragments of the Armenian translation were found,
and in 1889 it was R. Harris who discovered the Syrian translation. J. Robinson
discovered that there was altered version of the Apology in the Christian novel
Varlaam and Joasaf attributed to St. John of Damascus.78 In this version from
the novel Varlaam and Joasaf, brought by Harris in his study, Aristides tells us
that there are three kinds of people:

73 Стилијан Пападопулос, Од Апостолских ученика до Никеје, Београд, Православни

богословски факултет, 2012, p. 174.
74 Clem. Alex. Strom. 6.41.6, according to Patrick Descourtieux, Clément d’Alexandrie, Les

Stromates, Stromate VI, Paris, Éd. Du Cerf, 1999, p. 144.

75Erich S. Gruen, "Christians as a ‘Third Race’ Is Ethnicity at Issue?", p. 241-242.
76„`Итак, с нами заключил он новый (νέαν) завет, и тот, который заключен с эллинами

и иудеями – стар. Вы же, поклоняющиеся отличным от них третьим образом, –

христиане`. Отсюда, я полагаю, ясно, что единый и единственный Бог познается
эллинами на языческий манер, иудеями – на их собственный, а христианами – новым
и духовным образом.” Климент Александрийский, Строматы, том III: книги 6-7,
перевод Е. Афонасина, Санкт-Петербург, Издательство Олега Абышко, 2003,p. 30.
77“He made a new covenant with us; for what belonged to the Greeks and Jews is old. But

we, who worship Him in a new way, in the third form, are Christians. For clearly, as I think,
he showed that the one and only God was known by the Greeks in a Gentile way, by the
Jews Judaically, and in a new and spiritual way by us.” Clement of Alexandria, “The Stromata”
V, in Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson LL. D. (ed.), Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.
II, Edinburgh, T&TClark, 2001, p. 489.
78 Стилијан Пападопулос, Од Апостолских ученика до Никеје, р. 151-153.

126
 Sava MILOVANOVIĆ

“φανερὸν γάρ ἐστιν ἡμῖν, ὦ βασιλεῦ, ὅτι τρία γένη εἰσὶν ἀνθρώπων
ἐν τᾦδε τῷ κόσμῳ. ὧν εἰσὶν οἱ τῶν παρ’ ὑμῖν λεγομένων θεῶν
προσκυνηταὶ, καὶἸουδαῖοι, καὶ Χριστιανοί.“79

However, this section has no ethnic connotation, but rather indicates

a difference in God worshiping, as the text later shows.80 The Syrian version
of Aristides’ Apology divides humanity into four races: barbarians, Hellenes,
Jews, and Christians. The same translation says that the Christian religion
comes from Jesus Christ, parallel with the origin of the Hellenic and barbaric
religions from their gods, and Jewish from Abraham.81 Again, the section deals
with the origin of religion, with no ethnic implications.
The Epistle to Diognetus represents an excellent example of a Christian
attitude towards civil citizenship:

“For the Christians are distinguished from other men neither by

country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe. For
they neither inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar
form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any
singularity… But, inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities,
according as the lot of each of them has determined, and
following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food,
and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their
wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in
their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they
share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if
foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country,
and every land of their birth as a land of strangers.”82

It is said that every fatherland was a foreign land for them, and every
foreign land a homeland, and that they were living among different nations
observing local customs, but maintaining their religion and moral principles.
Therefore, they did not perceive their religious identity as an obstacle for
belonging to any other nation, nor that they themselves represented any

79 J. R. Harris, The Apology of Aristides on behalf of the Christians; with an Appendix Containing the
Main Portion of the Original Greek Text by J. Armitage Robinson, 2nd edn., Cambridge, CUP, 1893,
p. 100.
80 Erich S. Gruen, "Christians as a ‘Third Race’ Is Ethnicity at Issue?", p. 242-243.
81 Apol. Arist. (Syriac) 2.3. у J. R. Harris, The Apology of Aristides on behalf of the Christians, p. 36-

37.
82 „The Epistle to Diognetus“, V, in Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson LL. D.

(ed.), Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. I, Henderson Publishers, 1995, p. 26.

127
 „Christians as “Tertium Genus” in the Context of Church Jurisdiction”,
Astra Salvensis, VIII (2020), no. 15, p. 109-130.
particular ethnicity.83 Christian identity and ethnic identity were not in any
conflict.
The concept of Christians as a "third race" was also accepted by
heathen writers, but in the negative context. The cause for this was the attitude
of Jews, and later of Christians, towards the Roman practice of worshiping
the emperor as a deity, and making sacrifices to the Roman gods. It is well
known that the Romans considered these cults to be of paramount
importance to the well-being of the empire, so a deviation from this practice
was considered as a kind of attack on the welfare of the empire, a criminal act.
One who did not want to practice the cult infuriated the gods and was putting
the subjects of the empire at risk of their repression. Therefore, the one who
was doing so was treated as a criminal.84 The Jews were the only people who
were given an exemption from the sacrificing to the gods from the emperor.
As a result, in a way the empire was divided into two - those who were making
sacrifices to the gods and worshiping the emperor as a deity - and the Jews.
This division made two nations or “two kinds of people”. After that came the
Christians, who weren’t making sacrifices to the gods, nor were they Jews.85
Tertullian testified that this was the cause for the Christians to be called “the
third race”, which had a derogatory character. Namely, according to
Tertullian's testimony, the pagans ridiculed Christians by calling them a “third
race” in the circus, a race below the level of human beings. What is made clear
in Tertullian's testimony is that, even when it was used in pejorative terms, the
term “genus” had primarily religious character: Christians were called “tertium
genus” because they differed in religion (superstitio) from Jews and Romans,
not because of ethnicity (natio):86

“Take care, however, lest those whom you call the third race
should obtain the first rank, since there is no nation indeed which
is not Christian. Whatever nation, therefore, was the first, is
nevertheless Christian now. It is ridiculous folly which makes you
say we are the latest race, and then specifically call us the third.
But it is in respect of our religion, not of our nation, that we are
supposed to be the third.“87

83 Oskar Skarsaune, "Ethnic Discourse in Early Christianity", p. 250.

84 Зоран Крстић, „Политичност паганске религије и хришћанства у Римској
империји“, in Златко Матић (ур.), Црква у друштву: у прошлости и садашњости, Пожаревац,
Епархија браничевска, 2014, p. 21-23.
85 Oscar Skarsaune, "Ethnic Discourse in Early Christianity", p. 262-264.
86 Erich S. Gruen, "Christians as a ‘Third Race’ Is Ethnicity at Issue?", p. 246-248.
87 Tertullian, “Ad Nationes” I.8, in Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson LL. D.

(ed.), Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. III, Henderson Publishers, 1995, p. 117.

128
 Sava MILOVANOVIĆ

The second century is the Sitz im Leben of notion of Christians as the

“third race”. In the second century, Christians were still viewed as a Jewish
sect by the heathen people, there was no differentiation between the two
groups yet, as was the case in the third century. Therefore, it was important
for the second-century Christian writers, who turned to the pagans with the
aim of getting them to know the Christian faith better, to emphasize that
Christians were different from pagans because they worshiped one God, but
also that they were different from Jews who also worshiped one God, but in
a wrong way. In conclusion, Christians were a “third race” in religious terms,
not in ethnic terms: they had a qualitatively better God worship than Greeks
and Jews. In this sense, “tertium genus” could also be translated as “the third
way, the third form (of God worship)”.88

Conclusion

The decisive contribution to the formulation of the argumentation of

national and territorial ecclesiological concept is given by the twentieth
century Russian theologians, who can be divided into two groups: “eulogians”
(supporters of the Western European Exarchate of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate), who followed the concept of the Patriarchate of
Constantinople, and theologians supporters of Russian Orthodox Church
Abroad, who were in close relation to the theological circles of the Moscow
Patriarchate. The emergence of church-separatist movements in the Russian
Church at the beginning of the twentieth century, as well as jurisdictional
disputes between Constantinople and Moscow, had a decisive influence on
the sharpening of debate over which principle should have a normative
character regarding ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and likewise set the focus of
theological interest on the question of the place of nationality in Church life.
There is a significant amount of unknown in the relation of ethnicity
and Church structure, especially considering the historical context of writing
canonical provisions. The canons that formulate fundamental ecclesiological
principles were formulated in the historical context of the Byzantine Empire,
in which nations did not even exist in the modern sense of this term.
Nowadays, there is no such relationship between the Church and a state as it
existed in those days, nor the conditions to which the Church once had to
adjust administratively. Undoubtedly the Christian faith does not call for the
denial of ethnic identity, nor does it teach that Christian, church identity and
ethnic identity are mutually exclusive. Referring to Christians as the “third
race” for the sake of denying the organization of the Church on a national
basis is unfounded. The “new race” of Christians should oppose bestial
88 Oscar Skarsaune, "Ethnic Discourse in Early Christianity", p. 252, 261-62.

129
 „Christians as “Tertium Genus” in the Context of Church Jurisdiction”,
Astra Salvensis, VIII (2020), no. 15, p. 109-130.
nationalism and divisions in the Church based on national grounds, but the
Church consciousness is no stranger to a change of church organization
model. The established linguistic, folklore, and mentality differences give, at
the very least, a reason for rethinking the centuries-old way of organizing,
especially since that centuries-old way was formed in completely different
political and historical circumstances of the Byzantine Empire.

130