This of course is typical Roman Catolic view of history ignoring great missionaries of Russian church carrying Holy Orthodoxy to Urals, Siberia, Far east, china and Japan. Also fails to recognize the oppression by Arabs and Ottoman empire on non Russian churches in Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Lebanon, Egypt. Holy Orthodoxy has been church suffering for 600 years, while Western Christians ofered no help only sacked Constantinople, taking religious artifacts back to Venice and Rome.
Yes, I think most of us know the arguments, and the counter-arguments concerning the wrongs many Orthodox think were done to Orthodoxy by Catholicism, and vice-versa. But that’s not topical for the most part and has never, to my observation, done anything but encourage rancor.
An Orthodox person may contest what I say next, and if so, that’s fine. My intention is not to debate, but to answer the larger question whether or not Orthodoxy has expanded from its former boundaries.
It is my impression that there are essentially two Orthodoxies; somewhat united but somewhat divided. One is Eastern Orthodox, the other is Oriental Orthodox. Within those two are also divisions; not theological, I believe, but territorial. Orthodoxy, as I understand it, views the various churches within Orthodoxy as “territorial”. So, for example, that part of Eastern Orthodoxy that considers itself under the Russian Patriarch, objects to the presence in Ukraine of that part of Eastern Orthodoxy that considers itself under the Patriarch of Constantinople. That objection, as with many territorial claims within Orthodoxy, is based on history; history about which minds can, and do, differ.
As I understand it, then, Eastern Orthodoxy considers that Catholicism has no business being in the Americas at all. That claim is based partly on the Orthodox position that the Catholic Church is fundamentally illigitimate, but more on the early presence of Russians in the environs of Alaska. In fact, I have had it explained to me by Eastern Orthodox, who seemed to be of considerable learning on the subject, that the Pope’s jurisdiction (if they allow any at all) would be limited to the immediate environs of Rome; that all of Western Europe should be within the jurisdiction of Eastern Orthodoxy alone (the Greeks and the Russians might dispute between themselves which of them is entitled to, say, Scotland) and that Catholicism itself should, at minimum, retreat from the remainder of the world. The Philippines may similarly be a matter of contention among the various Orthodoxies, based on who, exactly, went where and when and what they did. But, to my understanding, none would admit of the right of Catholicism to be there at all. That really isn’t quite theological either, (though Orthodoxy rejects Catholicism totally) but based on history.
Catholicism has no similar claims because it considers itself “universal”; that is, with a right to be anywhere. It does not deny to the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox the “right” to be anywhere they want to be. To my knowledge, the only place where denial of Catholicism’s “right” to be somewhere has become a serious issue is within Russia itself, and that sometimes involves the state as well. Possibly all of that was inevitable because of the different ways the churches see themselves. As I said, Catholicism considers itself “universal”, with a right to be anywhere. Orthodoxy has always had a territorial orientation that, to me, is quite complicated from a Catholic viewpoint, particularly since the various Patriarchs don’t exactly have governance over the bishops within their territories in the same way Catholic bishops are under the governance of the Pope. So, the various Orthodox bishops also have an autonomy within their own individual territories that has no exact parallel in Catholicism.
It is my impression that within Orthodoxy there are certain areas that are not really disputed between or among them. All of Russia, then, is pretty much acknowledged to be under the Patriarch of Moscow, and all of Greece within the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. The disputes are on the peripheries.
In the U.S., as I understand it, there really isn’t anything firm about that, and both the Greeks and the Russians are present here. So, I believe, are some Oriental Orthodox.
I do not believe that has been resolved from a territorial standpoint. It is sometimes the subject of rancorous comment, but I think there is a sort of tacit agreement not to make too much of it, and since most Orthodox in the U.S. brought their particular affiliation with them from wherever they came from, I’m not sure it’s truly capable of resolution.
So, in a way, it is indisputable that the various Orthodox churches have expanded. But from their point of view, I doubt any would say they have. I think they would be more inclined to say that they have increased their presence within territories that were already “theirs”.
. The Chinese Catholic Church really only dates to the late 1800s when Western Imperialism was strong enough to force China into accepting western spheres of influence in their territories.