www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Moscow's rhetoric versus a global christian message

I have heard from several people, and would welcome documentation for or against the claim, that the Vatican and Russia made an agreement where the Pope's "canonical territory" would be designated as Italy, and the MP's "canonical territory" would be Russia. So it does have precedent, or else the Vatican would not honour it.

As for the other countries you mention being "Catholic canonical territory", let's see. If I remember correctly, jurisdiction over Africa from way back when was the prerogative of the Patriarch of Alexandria (Coptic), therefore Africa is technically out of "Catholic territory". The Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem cover a good amount of land, as do the Catholicosates of Etchmiadzin, Cilicia, and the East (India). And, depending on who you ask (I've never heard a solid answer on this one), the Patriarch of Antioch is Patriarch "of Antioch and all the East". So basically Africa and Asia are out. What's left is Europe (which no one disputes) and the Americas. I don't see the Orthodox doing much of anything over here. So where's the problem?

Yeah but the problem is that there are many Antiochian Patriarchs, and three Patriarchs of Alexandria. When the Alexandrian Patriarchate fell into heresy, it was legitimate to designate a Patriarch for the Orthodox faithful.

The main problem between the MP and Rome is not the proselitism in Russia (or this may not be the most important) but the situation of Ukraine and the other former Soviet Republics. Moscow claims that the Patriarchate has jurisdiction over all the Soviet Union (including Moldova whuich had always been Romanian and part of the Romanian Church and Ukriane & Belarus where the Greek Catholic Church was predominant in some regions).

Double post

Yeah but the problem is that there are many Antiochian Patriarchs, and three Patriarchs of Alexandria. When the Alexandrian Patriarchate fell into heresy, it was legitimate to designate a Patriarch for the Orthodox faithful.

Of course, this assumes that the Alexandrian Patriarchate fell into heresy, which it most certainly did not.

As for the many Antiochian Patriarchs, let's look at who they are. Three are Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, they have no real claim that I know of to the actual see. There is the Greek Orthodox Patriarch, but even he has legitimacy only if you presume that the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate fell into heresy, which it did not. Hence, the only "real" Patriarch in Antioch is H.H. Moran Mar Ignatios Zakka I.

Dear ChristTeen287,

Do not forget that "canonical territory" is not a Russian Orthodox concept. You will find this legal term also in the Code of Canon Law of the Eastern Catholic Churches. Those Eastern Catholics who have no bishop for themselves are under the jurisdiction of the local Latin bishop. The bishops of the Patriarchal Catholic Churches outside their "canonical territory" are appointed by the Pope and not by the Patriarchal Synod. When an Eastern Catholic eparchy is created in the "canonical territory" of the Roman patriarchate they receive names like "Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Parma" or "Byzantine-Ukranian Eparchy of Saint Nicholas in Chicago", "Rumanian Catholic Eparchy of Saint George in Canton". The "Byzantine-Ukranian bishop of Saint Nicholas in Chicago" is not the "Bishop of Chicago" (who is a Latin one). When Roman Catholic Dioceses are created in the "canonical territory" of another Eastern Catholic Church then they receive proper episcopal titles (in the Vatican Annuary you will find sees or titular sees with these names "Archbishop of Athens", "Archbishop of Moscow", "Patriarch of Jerusalem", "Patriarch of Constantinople") and the bishop IS NOT APPOINTED by the Local Eastern Catholic Synod but by the Pope of Rome himself. The pope of Rome is the first among the other patriarchs and the primate of the Universal Church but he is not supposed to anulate the jurisdiction of the other patriarchs and bishops. The primacy of the bishop of Rome does not give to the latin church some kind of right of "universal jurisdiction". In the Code of canon Law of the Eastern Catholic Churches "canonical territory" of the Eastern Catholic Churches are only considered Middles East countries (Irak, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, palestine, Egypt) whereas the "canonical territory" of the patriach of Rome is not only the Western Europe (Latin rite European countries), America, Africa (with the exceptions of Egypt, Ethiopia and Erytrea ), Australia, or the Mission countries of Far Asia (canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Rome)...but also Middle East countries and Eastern European countries (countries under the canonical and liturgical influence of Byzantium) like Greece, Rumania, Russia...and the whole world. For example the "canonical territory" of the Catholic Coptic Patriarchate of Alexandria is only Egypt whereas the "canonical territory" of the Patriach of Rome is the whole world (Egyp included). Even more the pope of Rome can appoint any Latin bishop or cardinal for the titular see of Alexandria if he wants. The fact that the Russian Orthodox Christians in communion with Rome (Russian Byzantine Catholics) are under the jurisdiction of the (Latin) Archbishop of Moscow is something completely crazy. The Pope of Rome appoints the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem can you imagine the Melkite Catholic Patriarch appointing a Melkite Patriarch of Rome!!! Can you imagine a Russian Latin rite Orthodox Archdiocese of Rome under the jurisdiction of the Patriach of Moscow (heaven forbit)!!! That would be completely crazy...as you can see the concept of "canonical territory" in the catholic Canon Law is a quite interesting and difficult one.

Yours in Christ,
Francisco

The issue is really about whether Catholicism and Orthodoxy can tolerate the ROC having any ecclesiastical jurisdiction outside the political territory of the Russian federation. There seems to be a good deal of nationalistic sentiment to the effect that every little country should have its own little autocephalous church -- a disastrous misconstruction of Orthodox ecclesiology, which is based on a regional and not a national model. Nevertheless, there are many who wish to enforce the national model that has been followed since the mid 19th century, and restrict the ROC to "Russia", and create other churches in other political jurisdictions. Catholicism, of course, doesn't care as long as the local churches are friendly to Catholicism, and since it doesn't perceive this to be the case with the ROC the RCC is better off having the ROC's effective jurisdiction "shrunk" and replaced with (presumably) more Rome-friendly local Orthodox Churches.

One must not forget that the Metropolia of Moscow had ecclesiastical jurisdiction over a wide area of this geographical territory while the Byzantine Empire still existed, very much with the blessing of the Patriarch of Constantinople, who ultimately had jurisdiction over the entire region. There were, then as now, various political units in play, and no unitary Russian state as there is today. Nevertheless, the little political units did not have their own autocephalous churches (Moscow itself was not autocephalous, of course), but the concept was a *regional* metropolitanate which would have ecclesiastical jurisdiction over areas that were under different political units. Alas, nationalism has all but ruined this, but we mustn't forget that it is the model that underlies true Orthodox ecclesiology, and when we trample it underfoot to replace it with a nation-state based ecclesiology the entire system of Orthodox ecclesiology continues to suffer as a result of that.

Actuallly, this is a relatively recent adopted title.

Etchmiadzin has never claimed to be anything but the Church of the Armenian people, territory meaning nothing.

What happened to the canonical authority of the Ecumenical Patriarch (Constantinople) over all Orthodox of the Diaspora? This seems to have been forgotten in Orthodox eccesiology.

The Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in the USA and Canada approached Constantinople to be accepted as "canonical". Archbishop Vsevelod maintains that was their only logical alternative because of the canonical authority of Constantiople as well as the fact that the original Kyivan hierarchy came from under the jurisdiction of Constantinople.

Although this didn't go over in all of the parishes, some became directly subject to the KP or UAOC in Ukraine.

But back on topic, one just has to look at another of Alexei's temper tantrums, when his former Estonian church petioned to be received canonically under Constantinople. Alexei responded by excommunicating the Ecumenical Patriarch temporarily. Doesn't seem like a very adult thing to do.

Dear Diak,

the Ukraianian UOC in Canada is with the EP. As far as I know the UAOC in the United States is still trying to reach an agreement with the EP and in Canada they recognize the KP.

And in the Ukraine itself the UAC-KP and the UAOC are trying to seek unity and be recognized by the EP. The ROC is still standing by it's statement that it will take twenty to thirty years before the UAC-KP can form it's own Church and be recognized by the EP .

And for my friends who think these Churches are Rome friendly relations between the EP and Rome have cooled considerably. The EP has been trying to get the UAC-KP and ROC to work out an agreement to deal with the here and today. It looks like the UAC-KP in Western Ukraine will be independent and recognized by the EP while the Eastern
UOC-MP part will remain with Moscow for twenty or thirty years.

Mor Ephrem said,"If I remember correctly, jurisdiction over Africa from way back when was the prerogative of the Patriarch of Alexandria (Coptic), therefore Africa is technically out of "Catholic territory"."

I should specify. I meant Africa on the whole, as to whether the Catholic or Orthodox Church claims more African adherents. I'm almost positive (sorry, no statistics) that there are many more African Catholic than African Orthodox, "there African is technically out of" Orthodox territory, with exception to Orthodox strongholds like Egypt and Ethiopia. Additionally, in terms of geogrpahical size, thee would be more "Catholic territory" than Orthodox.

"The Patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem cover a good amount of land, as do the Catholicosates of Etchmiadzin, Cilicia, and the East (India)."

Sure does cover a good bit of land, but that doesn't mean that Catholicism is much more widespread throughout the rest of Asia (minus Russia and ex-members of the USSR). Strictly counting the land coverage and numbers of Christian adherents in Asia, you have the Phillipines, Japan, China, etc. that are in favor of Catholicism. Russia, with its immsense size, would obviously favor Orthodox in terms of land area. I guess what we're findin' out here is that you can't divide this up strictly based on continents, because a portion of Asia is strongly Catholic and another portion is strongly Orthodox.

"And, depending on who you ask (I've never heard a solid answer on this one), the Patriarch of Antioch is Patriarch "of Antioch and all the East"."

When this phrase was instituted, I doubt that the Church knew every nook and cranny of whatever is determined "the East." If you go far enough east, you reach the West. Modern conceptions basically state that "the East" ends where the eastern part of Asia ends. What determines "the East"? Does its definitions change with time? Has its definition changed with time? How do the Oriental Orthodox view the "canonical territory" of the Eastern Orthodox? Do these territories overlap? Are they clearly established? Are there altercations involved when determing the canonical territory of Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy?

Francisco,

Even if the Vatican endorses it, I don't exactly understand the reasoning for canonical territory, other than a way to escape disputes. I didn't question this because I thought it was an Orthodox notion and not a Catholic one, I questioned it because it doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Why not give each communion a chance to spread its gospel, be it Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, or Oriental Orthodox, wherever it dang well pleases?

I'm sure I haven't made too much sense in this post, it's pretty hard to type out what's goin' on in my crazy head. Apologies if I've been misunderstood.

ChristTeen287

Wow lots of typos...

thee=there

there African=therefore African

that Catholicism is more widespread=that Catholicism IS NOT more widespread

does its defintions=does it definition

Ahhh, a little more sense to my insano post.

Dear Steve

I think you're too optimistic

It seems that the MP will never accept a deal with Constantinople and the irregular Churches in Ukraine (as you said, at least for 30 years).

The EP's authority on this issue has been denied by members of the Holy Synod of Moscow and the conduct of the MP has been a clear evidence (giving a Tomos of Autocephaly to the OCA, refusing to accept the autonomy of the Estonian Church under the EP, etc). An intervention by the EP in Ukraine would not be well seen.
Recent disputes between Moscow and Rome, Moscow and the EP, Moscow and the Romanian Church, seem to be part of the same problem.

Steven - My point was not to dwell on the jurisdictional snafus but rather to point out that canonically the EP had traditional jurisdiction over all Orthodox churches in the diaspora. The UOC seems to have recognized this when they requested the EP's omophor as well recognizing the historic place of Constantinople in the formation of the Kyivan Church.

The parishes in the USA and Canada have been formally accepted by the EP. A few have since broken off from the EP and joined either the KP or UAOC. There is also a small handful of parishes in both the USA and Canada that did not accept the EP reunion.

In terms of Rome-friendly, Bishop Vsevelod of the UOC in the USA is definitely one of the most Rome-friendly bishops, perhaps the most, in all of Orthodoxy. And Bishop Kallistos Ware of the EP is in our Kyivan Church Study Group, and also made specific changes in his revision of the 'Orthodox Church' to recognize the sufferings of Greek Catholics under the Soviet regime and their right to exist.

So I think the EP is still the source of some of the best and most hopeful ecumenical dialogue between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches out there even if Patriarch Bartolomeos himself is not always directly involved.

Here's another take on "Canonical Territory": not so much Cath./Orth., but Latin / OrthodoxInCommunionWithRome! It has rather left a bad taste in the mouths of such as the Uk.GCC.

How is it that the Latin Church's "canonical territory" is the entire world, and those of the OrthodoxInCommunionWithRome Churches are restricted to what amounts to a system of "Reservations" (cf. Fr. Andrij Chirovsky, Sheptytsky Institute).

E.g. certain Old Rome dicasteries want to restrict the canonical territory of the Uk.GCC to a few oblasts in Western Ukraine. The Latin Church on the other hand can work wherever.

The canonical implications are Very Significant. E.g. if we were to follow this strictly, our hierarchs in "the diaspora" should not be going to the Holy Synod of our Church, but must and must only attend the Latin national Bishop's Conferences.

What's up with that?

Maybe Patriarch Lubomyr's criticism of the Roman dicasteries is spot on after all...

[maybe this should be a new thread - or has this topic be hashed over time and again already in the Forum?]

another 2 pence.

herb.

Dear Diak,

what I believe we are seeing in the Ukraine are some very old problems.

As you have stated Ukrainian Orthodoxy has alway's had great respect for the EP. The Kyivian/Byzantium tradition has alway's been specific to Ukrainian Orthodoxy. Orthodox in Communion with Rome variety included.

I know Bishop Vseveold is very friendly to Greek Catholics. My commentary reflected what is happening now. I believe the UOC-KP and EP have been trying very hard to work out an agreement with the ROC for naught.