After East and West unite, we still gotta define territory

[DeepeningFaith]

I strongly believe that once the East and West unite, or even during the process, the issue of canonical territory will come up and things will come to a halt. Since we would then all agree to be in union with eachother and that non of us are heretical, I am sure that it will be agreed to return dioceses to having one Bishop. That we can’t have 3 Bishops that hold pastoral and jurisdictional authority over a city. How do we solve this? Do you agree that this will be a stumbling block?

My idea - The Eastern Churches go back to their territorial boundaries of the first millenium. Rome controls Europe, Central and South America. Russia controls Russia. But then we have the issue of America. Every Catholic (Eastern and Western) rite is represented here. What do we do?

God bless!

 

[GEddie]

I strongly believe that once the East and West unite, or even during the process, the issue of canonical territory will come up and things will come to a halt. Since we would then all agree to be in union with eachother and that non of us are heretical, I am sure that it will be agreed to return dioceses to having one Bishop. That we can’t have 3 Bishops that hold pastoral and jurisdictional authority over a city. How do we solve this? Do you agree that this will be a stumbling block?

My idea - The Eastern Churches go back to their territorial boundaries of the first millenium. Rome controls Europe, Central and South America. Russia controls Russia. But then we have the issue of America. Every Catholic (Eastern and Western) rite is represented here. What do we do?

God bless!

Not sure that this is an issue. If re-union ever happens, there would not be a “merging” of Churches; just an agreement that both sides will accept the authority of the Pope and each other’s sacraments. I expect the functioning and rubrics of all the Churches would remain unchanged, as with the Eastern Catholic churches.

It’s like asking after the re-union, which side would need to reverse its Sign of the Cross? Most likely, neither would.

then again, I am not an expert just an average sinner

ICXC NIKA

 

[ciero]

I strongly believe that once the East and West unite, or even during the process, the issue of canonical territory will come up and things will come to a halt. Since we would then all agree to be in union with eachother and that non of us are heretical, I am sure that it will be agreed to return dioceses to having one Bishop. That we can’t have 3 Bishops that hold pastoral and jurisdictional authority over a city. How do we solve this? Do you agree that this will be a stumbling block?

My idea - The Eastern Churches go back to their territorial boundaries of the first millenium. Rome controls Europe, Central and South America. Russia controls Russia. But then we have the issue of America. Every Catholic (Eastern and Western) rite is represented here. What do we do?

God bless!

Why is it so important to adhere to this particular canon but disregard so many others?

 

[ConstantineTG]

I strongly believe that once the East and West unite, or even during the process, the issue of canonical territory will come up and things will come to a halt. Since we would then all agree to be in union with eachother and that non of us are heretical, I am sure that it will be agreed to return dioceses to having one Bishop. That we can’t have 3 Bishops that hold pastoral and jurisdictional authority over a city. How do we solve this? Do you agree that this will be a stumbling block?

My idea - The Eastern Churches go back to their territorial boundaries of the first millenium. Rome controls Europe, Central and South America. Russia controls Russia. But then we have the issue of America. Every Catholic (Eastern and Western) rite is represented here. What do we do?

God bless!

Currently there are already Eastern Bishops who has the same territory as Latin Rite Bishops. Its hard to merge them unless there is a unified Liturgy within the Church, and I don’t think that will happen. No one will give up their Liturgical tradition. The issue is would a Latin Bishop know the ins-and-outs of a Byzantine Rite Parish? In the early Church there were no overlaps in territories because the Rites and sui juris Churches are maintained within their borders. You won’t see a Latin Rite parish in Greece for example, the same way you won’t see a Byzantine Rite parish in Rome. But today thats not the case, people who move kept not only their faith but the tradition that came with that faith. So parishes are established in accordance to their Liturgical tradition. In the event of a merger, it would not change. A Byzantine Bishop suits a Byzantine parish, and a Latin bishop suits a Latin parish.

 

[CWBetts]

I strongly believe that once the East and West unite, or even during the process, the issue of canonical territory will come up and things will come to a halt. Since we would then all agree to be in union with eachother and that non of us are heretical, I am sure that it will be agreed to return dioceses to having one Bishop. That we can’t have 3 Bishops that hold pastoral and jurisdictional authority over a city. How do we solve this? Do you agree that this will be a stumbling block?

My idea - The Eastern Churches go back to their territorial boundaries of the first millenium. Rome controls Europe, Central and South America. Russia controls Russia. But then we have the issue of America. Every Catholic (Eastern and Western) rite is represented here. What do we do?

God bless!

What makes you think rites should be eliminated? Each rite would have its own local ordinary.

 

[The_Scott]

Just a little bit off topic, but when I read the title, a song from The Music Man came in my head: “But he doesn’t know the territory!!!”

 

[Vico]

I strongly believe that once the East and West unite, or even during the process, the issue of canonical territory will come up and things will come to a halt. Since we would then all agree to be in union with eachother and that non of us are heretical, I am sure that it will be agreed to return dioceses to having one Bishop. That we can’t have 3 Bishops that hold pastoral and jurisdictional authority over a city. How do we solve this? Do you agree that this will be a stumbling block?

My idea - The Eastern Churches go back to their territorial boundaries of the first millenium. Rome controls Europe, Central and South America. Russia controls Russia. But then we have the issue of America. Every Catholic (Eastern and Western) rite is represented here. What do we do?

God bless!

North America has a complex missionary history in different regions by different Christian churches. I suspect, if only one bishop had jurisdiction over a territory, then the Church would have to administer the parishes of different ritual churches in the same territory through one bishop as a titular exarch for all the faithful of different ritual churches.

I read that the Russian Orthodox Patriarch expressed the desire to clarify the concept of territory, ecumenial territory, and having more than one bishop in a city. Of course this is because there is a difference of opinion within Orthodoxy between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Some of the ex-Eastern bloc nations turned to the Istanbul Greek Orthodox Patriarchate (IGOP) for recognition of their national Orthodox Churches, while also Russian Orthodox Church has asserted it’s territorial claims to those nations. There is disagreement specifically about Estonia and Ukraine.

Russian ecclesiology is that no “Roman” patriarchate can exist in a territory where an Orthodox patriarchate already exists. This was expressed in December 2007, when Metropolitan Kirill (now Patriarch since 2009) discussed Catholic churches in traditionally Orthodox territory saying “We shall never recognize them and will always dispute the presence of ordinary Catholic dioceses in the territory of Russia and consider it a challenge.”

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900400.htm

Within the Catholic Church missionary activities outside the ancient territories are directed through the Roman Curia. Any exarchy must be established through the Holy See. The Balamand Statement indicated that the Eastern Catholic Churches have a right to exist. This means there are overlapping territories in some locations of one or more of the Latin or Eastern Catholic Churches, and Orthodox Churches.

So minimally there are at least three different views on the topic: Catholic, Russian Orthodox, and Ecumenical Patriarchate.

 

[5Loaves]

Just a little bit off topic, but when I read the title, a song from The Music Man came in my head: “But he doesn’t know the territory!!!”

Brilliant! You just made my day! Nothing like a good Broadway show tune to put things into perspective.

1st Salesman:Ya can talk, ya can talk, ya can bicker ya can talk, ya can bicker, bicker bicker ya can talk all ya want but it’s different than it was.
Charlie: No it ain’t, no it ain’t, but ya gotta know the territory…

Was it Broadway show tunes in 19th Century Russia? Is Outrage!
(Oh no… theOnionDome has not only ceased, which I knew, but the archives gone… :crying: )

 

[DeepeningFaith]

North America has a complex missionary history in different regions by different Christian churches.** I suspect, if only one bishop had jurisdiction over a territory, then the Church would have to administer the parishes of different ritual churches in the same territory through one bishop as a titular exarch for all the faithful of different ritual churches.**

I read that the Russian Orthodox Patriarch expressed the desire to clarify the concept of territory, ecumenial territory, and having more than one bishop in a city. Of course this is because there is a difference of opinion within Orthodoxy between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Some of the ex-Eastern bloc nations turned to the Istanbul Greek Orthodox Patriarchate (IGOP) for recognition of their national Orthodox Churches, while also Russian Orthodox Church has asserted it’s territorial claims to those nations. There is disagreement specifically about Estonia and Ukraine.

Russian ecclesiology is that no “Roman” patriarchate can exist in a territory where an Orthodox patriarchate already exists. This was expressed in December 2007, when Metropolitan Kirill (now Patriarch since 2009) discussed Catholic churches in traditionally Orthodox territory saying “We shall never recognize them and will always dispute the presence of ordinary Catholic dioceses in the territory of Russia and consider it a challenge.”

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0900400.htm

Within the Catholic Church missionary activities outside the ancient territories are directed through the Roman Curia. Any exarchy must be established through the Holy See. The Balamand Statement indicated that the Eastern Catholic Churches have a right to exist. This means there are overlapping territories in some locations of one or more of the Latin or Eastern Catholic Churches, and Orthodox Churches.

So minimally there are at least three different views on the topic: Catholic, Russian Orthodox, and Ecumenical Patriarchate.

Vico: You seem to understand what I am talking about. Especially in bold. I guess that is what I am expecting. 1 Bishop over a territory and this territory would include different rites. From my reading of the canons of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils, it was agreed that only one Bishop would be in charge of a city. I guess maybe there will be a lot more dioceses, especially in the United States, but do you think that in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, we would go back to the Pentarchy? What does everyone else think?

 

[Nine_Two]

One Bishop, one territory has always been the norm, however it is undeniable that in the modern day both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are in violation of this. I don’t think the rite of the bishop matters, as long as they are tolerant of having parishioners of other rites. This was a norm before the schism, with both Rome and Constantinople both having the opposite rite present in their cities.
Additionally within Orthodoxy it is normal for each autocephalus Church to have a single honorary church within the territory of the See of each other Patriarch, showing their common communion.

 

[ciero]

One Bishop, one territory has always been the norm, however it is undeniable that in the modern day both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are in violation of this. I don’t think the rite of the bishop matters, as long as they are tolerant of having parishioners of other rites. This was a norm before the schism, with both Rome and Constantinople both having the opposite rite present in their cities.
Additionally within Orthodoxy it is normal for each autocephalus Church to have a single honorary church within the territory of the See of each other Patriarch, showing their common communion.

I just dont understand why everyone gets so hung up on this particular canon. There are plenty of other canons just as much in force as this one that dont seem to bother anyone. How many of us have a Jewish doctor? This is also forbidden by the canons, but I dont hear anyone getting all worked up about it.

 

[Seamus_L]

Demographics have changed dramatically and have made such a proposal completely unworkable.

 

[Nine_Two]

I just dont understand why everyone gets so hung up on this particular canon. There are plenty of other canons just as much in force as this one that dont seem to bother anyone. How many of us have a Jewish doctor? This is also forbidden by the canons, but I dont hear anyone getting all worked up about it.

I’m not familiar with the canon you are talking about, but this specific one is important. The Bishop is the overseer of the Church in a given territory. If there are multiple Bishops in a single territory you end up with certain divides. If we are to be one Church, then those issues shouldn’t be there.

I say this knowing full well that I live in a place where Eastern Rite Christians are a distinct minority, and that if the Churches united and implemented this, I would probably end up under a Latin rite Bishop, something I find unappealing (not because of disagreements with the Latin rite, but simply because I like the idea of a bishop of the same rite as myself). However I strongly believe one bishop per territory to be what is right and proper.

 

[ciero]

I’m not familiar with the canon you are talking about, but this specific one is important. The Bishop is the overseer of the Church in a given territory. If there are multiple Bishops in a single territory you end up with certain divides. If we are to be one Church, then those issues shouldn’t be there.

I say this knowing full well that I live in a place where Eastern Rite Christians are a distinct minority, and that if the Churches united and implemented this, I would probably end up under a Latin rite Bishop, something I find unappealing (not because of disagreements with the Latin rite, but simply because I like the idea of a bishop of the same rite as myself). However I strongly believe one bishop per territory to be what is right and proper.

My point is canons become obsolete.

This particular canon is obsolete.

Why are so many people hung up on it?

If there was church unity tomorrow we (at least here in the US and most places in Europe) would need to have bishops of different ritual churches looking after their own faithful. Why would you have a Byzantine bishop looking after Latins or vice versa? The canon was written at a time when 1 city had 1 flavor of Christianity. Therefore obsolete in my book, just like the canon forbidding a Christian to use a Jewish doctor.

 

[Nine_Two]

My point is canons become obsolete.

This particular canon is obsolete.

Why are so many people hung up on it?

If there was church unity tomorrow we (at least here in the US and most places in Europe) would need to have bishops of different ritual churches looking after their own faithful. Why would you have a Byzantine bishop looking after Latins or vice versa? The canon was written at a time when 1 city had 1 flavor of Christianity. Therefore obsolete in my book, just like the canon forbidding a Christian to use a Jewish doctor.

Except I don’t think it is obsolete. We have multiple bishops in a single territory and we have discord between churches. Orthodox Churches in North America are a very good argument as to why we need only one bishop. They have no real community among them, it isn’t even ethnicly based. My old half Romanian Church didn’t do anything with the other two Romanian Churches in the city who were under different bishops. My present half-Ukrainian Church only does any activities with one other church, which also happens to be the only one under the same bishop in the city. I drive by an Orthodox Church every Sunday on my way to my own Church, not stopping because it has a different bishop (that and half of its services are in Ukrainian… but you know, I’d still just drive by). Having different Bishops makes being united harder. It’s not even that I’m particularly attached to my Bishop, I’ve communed in Churches under different Bishops, but I would never join those communities.

I’m curious how much the Latin Catholic Churches have to do with the Eastern Catholic communities (and vis versa). Based on my own experience with talking to Catholics, I’m going to say there usually isn’t much. It isn’t a single community.

 

[CWBetts]

Except I don’t think it is obsolete. We have multiple bishops in a single territory and we have discord between churches. Orthodox Churches in North America are a very good argument as to why we need only one bishop. They have no real community among them, it isn’t even ethnicly based. My old half Romanian Church didn’t do anything with the other two Romanian Churches in the city who were under different bishops. My present half-Ukrainian Church only does any activities with one other church, which also happens to be the only one under the same bishop in the city. I drive by an Orthodox Church every Sunday on my way to my own Church, not stopping because it has a different bishop (that and half of its services are in Ukrainian… but you know, I’d still just drive by). Having different Bishops makes being united harder. It’s not even that I’m particularly attached to my Bishop, I’ve communed in Churches under different Bishops, but I would never join those communities.

I’m curious how much the Latin Catholic Churches have to do with the Eastern Catholic communities (and vis versa). Based on my own experience with talking to Catholics, I’m going to say there usually isn’t much. It isn’t a single community.

So whose rite gets obliterated?

 

[Vico]

…

I’m curious how much the Latin Catholic Churches have to do with the Eastern Catholic communities (and vis versa). Based on my own experience with talking to Catholics, I’m going to say there usually isn’t much. It isn’t a single community.

At our Byzantine parish, we have groups of Latin Church people come a few times a year. One group was seminarians with the priest that taught the liturgy course. It is more common, that due to driving distance, Byzantine Catholics go to a closer Latin parish instead, and our parish occasionally. There are also Latin Catholics that live in the neighborhood of the parish that come regularly instead of going to their proper parish.

 

[thegreypiper]

Of course the elephant in the room is the glib Roman presumption that unity will take place under Papal authority, rather than the Roman Church coming back into the Byzantine fold, with the Patriarch of Rome abandoning his claims of universal primacy and personal infallibility.

That, and whenever reunion is talked about by Romans, it is always assumed that there are no serious theological differences remaining, just a few quibbles over terminology.

Nothing could be further from the reality.

The filioque remains a huge issue, cutting to the very heart of Orthodox theology. It is not a question of whether “and the Son” was inserted canonically or not, or even if the Eastern version (that is, the *original *version) can be recited, with the Roman addition unspoken but understood. The idea of the Holy Spirit co-proceeding from the Son not only compromises the Father as the unique “source” of the other Two, but necessarily a mutual begetting of the Son as well, and with the Persons of the Holy Trinity defined thus by their relationship to each other, you approach the old heresy of Modalism. It is not a phrase to drop in or out at will!

The question of original sin is also more than simple semantics, and again, the issue cuts deep into Roman doctrine, most specifically with regard to the so-called Immaculate Conception – I’ll not go deeper into that here. Also the Roman definition of Transubstantiation – Orthodoxy is content to leave the miracle of the Holy Eucharist a mystery, and rejects the blueprinting of God’s work. Additionally, many skeptics make valid objections to transubstantiation – if the “essence” is fully changed, and only the “accidents” remain, why must those with wheat allergies avoid the Host? And why does the Blood still intoxicate if the alcohol is not there? These are great and holy mysteries which the popes claimed to lay out like a math equation.

Only when Rome abandons her unlawful and wild speculations and innovations will the Holy Church again be one, inshallah.

 

[CWBetts]

Of course the elephant in the room is the glib Roman presumption that unity will take place under Papal authority, rather than the Roman Church coming back into the Byzantine fold, with the Patriarch of Rome abandoning his claims of universal primacy and personal infallibility.

That, and whenever reunion is talked about by Romans, it is always assumed that there are no serious theological differences remaining, just a few quibbles over terminology.

Nothing could be further from the reality.

The filioque remains a huge issue, cutting to the very heart of Orthodox theology. It is not a question of whether “and the Son” was inserted canonically or not, or even if the Eastern version (that is, the *original *version) can be recited, with the Roman addition unspoken but understood. The idea of the Holy Spirit co-proceeding from the Son not only compromises the Father as the unique “source” of the other Two, but necessarily a mutual begetting of the Son as well, and with the Persons of the Holy Trinity defined thus by their relationship to each other, you approach the old heresy of Modalism. It is not a phrase to drop in or out at will!

The question of original sin is also more than simple semantics, and again, the issue cuts deep into Roman doctrine, most specifically with regard to the so-called Immaculate Conception – I’ll not go deeper into that here. Also the Roman definition of Transubstantiation – Orthodoxy is content to leave the miracle of the Holy Eucharist a mystery, and rejects the blueprinting of God’s work. Additionally, many skeptics make valid objections to transubstantiation – if the “essence” is fully changed, and only the “accidents” remain, why must those with wheat allergies avoid the Host? And why does the Blood still intoxicate if the alcohol is not there? These are great and holy mysteries which the popes claimed to lay out like a math equation.

Only when Rome abandons her unlawful and wild speculations and innovations will the Holy Church again be one, inshallah.

And then there are the presumptions that it is of course Rome who MUST be wrong, and not the Schismatic East that abandoned the Chair of Peter in 1054. I really don’t think it is that black and white. There are concessions to be made on both sides. Regarding the Pope as anything less than the infallible successor of Peter is not one that will be made. Peter’s Primacy is obvious in the Scriptures. Your objections to transubstantiation are ludicrous, at best.The wheat allergies and alcohol remain because it is the accidents that remain, it is the metaphysical substance that has changed. Do not equate “substance” with “material” as the empiricists do.

 

[Vico]

…

The filioque remains a huge issue, cutting to the very heart of Orthodox theology. It is not a question of whether “and the Son” was inserted canonically or not, or even if the Eastern version (that is, the *original *version) can be recited, with the Roman addition unspoken but understood. The idea of the Holy Spirit co-proceeding from the Son not only compromises the Father as the unique “source” of the other Two, but necessarily a mutual begetting of the Son as well, and with the Persons of the Holy Trinity defined thus by their relationship to each other, you approach the old heresy of Modalism. It is not a phrase to drop in or out at will!

…

Due to misunderstanding filioque has been a huge issue. (But the deeper issue there is actually the essence, energy distinction, which is also resolvable.) In the Latin Church doctrine the Father most certainly the sole Cause.

1. ekporeusis: The Father is the Cause (aita) of the Son and Holy Spirit. Everything the Father has he communicates to the Son, except being Father (paternity, Cause, aita).
2. proinai: It belongs to the Father that the Holy Spirit proceeds (proinai) from him, therfore, he also communicates that to the Son. So it follows that the Holy Spirit also proceeds (proinai) from the Son.

The Father generates the Son by breathing the Holy Spirit through him, and the Son is begotten by the Father to the extent that the spiration passes through him. The Father is the Son’s Father in being the origin of the Holy Spirit for the Son and through the Son.

A dogma of Fourth Lateran Council of 1215: “The substance does not generate, is not begotten, does not proceed; but it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, the Holy Spirit who proceeds: so that there is distinction in persons and unity in nature. Although other (alius) is the Father, other the Son, other the Holy Spirit, they are not another reality (aliud), but what the Father is the Son is and the Holy Spirit equally; so, according to the orthodox and catholic faith, we believe that they are consubstantial. For the Father, generating eternally the Son, has given to him his substance (…) It is clear that, in being born the Son has received the substance of the Father without this substance being in any way diminished, and so the Father and the Son have the same substance. So the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from them both, are one same reality” (DS 804-805).