S
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Please do not think my post is hostile, because I would like to address this honestly.
The issue of canonical territory needs to be addressed. It is not a Russian issue per se, it is a worldwide Christian issue, and always a mutual concern between Orthodox churches which regard each other as equals. Asking the Papacy to abide by these same guidelines is a first step to reconciliation.
As an example, one would not expect Romanian Orthodox priests, Bulgarian Orthodox priests or Polish Orthodox priests to be fuctioning within Russia on behalf of their own churches. If they were present, they would be under Russian Orthodox bishops, or functioning in “representation” parishes, set up to care for immigrants with the permission of the Holy Synod.
Between the other Patriarchates, canonical territory is respected. For example, priests from Greece and Cyprus are working in Africa, not for the benefit of their own churches, as such, but to build up the Body of Christ of the Patriarchate of Alexandria.
One of the things that we lost after the great schism was this respect for canonical territory. History shows that once the Patriarchate of Rome (Papacy) was separated from the other four, it came to view the Levant and other areas occupied by Orthodox Christians as mission territory. I know that this is in keeping with it’s own understanding, but it is not in keeping with Orthodox understanding of church ecclesiology.
The Orthodox Patriarchates never did see Latin Christians as mission targets, in all of the centuries there were no attempts to separate parts of western Europe from their native churches. Not even when the west was wracked by schism (in the late fourteenth century) nor when the west was torn by Protestant dissension beginning in the early sixteenth century.
That the Orthodox church of Russia is asking the Papal Catholic communion to dialog about canonical territory is actually a good sign, because this is de facto recognition that Rome is capable of understanding the importance of canonical territory, and capable resolving the matter in a respectful, mutually satisfactory manner as equal parties.
Sooner or later, this very issue will have to be addressed if reconciliation between our churches is seriously contemplated.
I for one, do not think that the news report linked here is entirely accurate or unbiased. For one thing the report stated that the Moscow Patriarchate considers the entire former territiories of the old Soviet Union to be it’s own canonical territory. That is untrue.
I think that for a great part of the non-Russian former territories, this issue can be negotiated (and must eventually be addressed), and the MP is taking a hard line going in as an initial negotiating position. This might be compared to Romes own hard line: the claim of Universal Jurisdiction. Latin Catholics are often quite shocked at the MP’s approach, and do not even consider the impact on the rest of Apostolic Christianity of that claim from Rome. It basically say, in a very formal way, that “no matter what you may think, your territory is all mine”.
I believe that with the ongoing (creeping along ever so slowly) dialog over the Role of the Papacy in a future reconciled church, these corollary issues are naturally opening up for discussion.
The MP is far more realistic and flexible than it initially appears. Before we make any further assumptions, or get caught up in naysaying, let us see what kind of things come out of the talks which the MP is proposing.
Michael
The issue of canonical territory needs to be addressed. It is not a Russian issue per se, it is a worldwide Christian issue, and always a mutual concern between Orthodox churches which regard each other as equals. Asking the Papacy to abide by these same guidelines is a first step to reconciliation.
As an example, one would not expect Romanian Orthodox priests, Bulgarian Orthodox priests or Polish Orthodox priests to be fuctioning within Russia on behalf of their own churches. If they were present, they would be under Russian Orthodox bishops, or functioning in “representation” parishes, set up to care for immigrants with the permission of the Holy Synod.
Between the other Patriarchates, canonical territory is respected. For example, priests from Greece and Cyprus are working in Africa, not for the benefit of their own churches, as such, but to build up the Body of Christ of the Patriarchate of Alexandria.
One of the things that we lost after the great schism was this respect for canonical territory. History shows that once the Patriarchate of Rome (Papacy) was separated from the other four, it came to view the Levant and other areas occupied by Orthodox Christians as mission territory. I know that this is in keeping with it’s own understanding, but it is not in keeping with Orthodox understanding of church ecclesiology.
The Orthodox Patriarchates never did see Latin Christians as mission targets, in all of the centuries there were no attempts to separate parts of western Europe from their native churches. Not even when the west was wracked by schism (in the late fourteenth century) nor when the west was torn by Protestant dissension beginning in the early sixteenth century.
That the Orthodox church of Russia is asking the Papal Catholic communion to dialog about canonical territory is actually a good sign, because this is de facto recognition that Rome is capable of understanding the importance of canonical territory, and capable resolving the matter in a respectful, mutually satisfactory manner as equal parties.
Sooner or later, this very issue will have to be addressed if reconciliation between our churches is seriously contemplated.
I for one, do not think that the news report linked here is entirely accurate or unbiased. For one thing the report stated that the Moscow Patriarchate considers the entire former territiories of the old Soviet Union to be it’s own canonical territory. That is untrue.
I think that for a great part of the non-Russian former territories, this issue can be negotiated (and must eventually be addressed), and the MP is taking a hard line going in as an initial negotiating position. This might be compared to Romes own hard line: the claim of Universal Jurisdiction. Latin Catholics are often quite shocked at the MP’s approach, and do not even consider the impact on the rest of Apostolic Christianity of that claim from Rome. It basically say, in a very formal way, that “no matter what you may think, your territory is all mine”.
I believe that with the ongoing (creeping along ever so slowly) dialog over the Role of the Papacy in a future reconciled church, these corollary issues are naturally opening up for discussion.
The MP is far more realistic and flexible than it initially appears. Before we make any further assumptions, or get caught up in naysaying, let us see what kind of things come out of the talks which the MP is proposing.
Michael
- Status
- Not open for further replies.