Status of Ruthenian Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crescentinus said:
3 Ukrainian Orthodox Churches? I thought there was 2. o:
Click to expand...
UOC-KP - Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus’ - Ukraine Filaret (from Russian Orthodox Church schism)

UOC-MP - Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine Volodymyr (UAOC-KP → Russian Orthodox Church)

UAOC - Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine Mefodiy (from Ecumenical Patriarch, 1924, restored 1990)

UAOC Canonical - Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus-Ukraine Moses (from the Polish Orthodox Church)

(Also Old Believers)
 
Vico said:
UOC-KP - Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus’ - Ukraine Filaret (from Russian Orthodox Church schism)

UOC-MP - Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine Volodymyr (UAOC-KP → Russian Orthodox Church)

UAOC - Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Ukraine Mefodiy (from Ecumenical Patriarch, 1924, restored 1990)

UAOC Canonical - Patriarch of Kyiv and All Rus-Ukraine Moses (from the Polish Orthodox Church)

(Also Old Believers)
Click to expand...
The UAOC-Canonical is the smallest of those 4 (and I’m pretty sure the least well known), but at least it can say it has the best name.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Are they willing to hand over Alaska and the Pacific Coast to the Russian Church as their traditional territory? Remember that when the Roman Catholics came to the US and established in the US, the US back then isn’t the US today. They can’t just claim territory by political extension. The Russians were in Alaska and California before they were part of America, And they have established Russian Churches there.
Click to expand...
Not a very cogent argument. St. Bruno (Latin-Rite) evangelized the area of northern Ukraine before the Byzantines, and “changed hands” because of political considerations. There were also other territories originally in the Latin jurisdiction that eventually came under the jurisdiction of Byzantines also because of political considerations. It’s not consistent to make your claim at this late stage of Church history, when it has already been a centuries-old tradition in all the Churches that the boundaries of ecclesiastical territories are determined by secular/political divisions.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Yawsep,

I think you make a good point. I would, however, like to investigate frist if the territorial jurisdiction of the Malabar Church was actually all of India, or only one of the states of India (namely, the Kerala or even Goa regions).

Blessings,
Marduk
yawsep1569 said:
I think the example of the Malankara Church would be a great counter-example. They are following a rite that never existed in India until the 16th century, but it didn’t prevent them from being raised to the level of a Major-Archiepiscopal Church. I am glad they exist, but is this not infringing upon the territory of the Malabar Church? I think it is, since the Antiochian Rite is absolutely foreign to India prior to the 16th century. In that case, the only principle is that the original territory of the Latins can never be infringed upon. So much for equality 😦
Click to expand...
 
mardukm said:
Not a very cogent argument. St. Bruno (Latin-Rite) evangelized the area of northern Ukraine before the Byzantines, and “changed hands” because of political considerations. There were also other territories originally in the Latin jurisdiction that eventually came under the jurisdiction of Byzantines also because of political considerations. It’s not consistent to make your claim at this late stage of Church history, when it has already been a centuries-old tradition in all the Churches that the boundaries of ecclesiastical territories are determined by secular/political divisions.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I think I would say “can be influenced by secular/political divisions”.
 
ConstantineTG said:
And yet the Latins claimed India as their territory via Portugal’s conquest of Goa 😉
Click to expand...
Do you have any documentation that the Latins actually claimed ALL of India as their territory? I think brother Yawsep’s understanding that they would have claimed the region of Goa is more realistic. Were there already political divisions in India when the Portuguese arrived? If there were, it is less likely that they could claim ALL of India as their territory.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
Do you have any documentation that the Latins actually claimed ALL of India as their territory? I think brother Yawsep’s understanding that they would have claimed the region of Goa is more realistic. Were there already political divisions in India when the Portuguese arrived? If there were, it is less likely that they could claim ALL of India as their territory.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Anything outside of the territory of the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara is claimed by the RC. Granted there aren’t a lot of Christians outside of their territory and Goa, but still. Western missionaries went everywhere thanks to the age of exploration.
 
His excellency, the [Ruthenian] Archbishop of Pittsburgh is independent and reports directly to His Holiness, Pope Benedict.

David
 
ConstantineTG said:
Anything outside of the territory of the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara is claimed by the RC. Granted there aren’t a lot of Christians outside of their territory and Goa, but still. Western missionaries went everywhere thanks to the age of exploration.
Click to expand...
It really doesn’t matter whatever the case may be about India. The point holds when only considering Kerala- which is currently the territory of both the Malabar and Malankara. (Of course there is also a sizable Latin population there as well). What possible justification can be provided for allowing the Malankara Church to claim Kerala as their territory that couldn’t be used to support establishing an Eastern Church’s territory in the U.S. other than that the latter is infringing upon Latin rights?
 
Dear brother Yawsep,

I haven’t looked into this with any sort of rigor, but even though they are in the same general geographic region, do you know off-hand if the territorial dioceses that are under the Syro-Malankara Major Archbishop overlap with the territorial dioceses that are under the Syro-Malabar Major Archbishop (and those that are under Latin bishoprics in India, for that matter)?

Blessings,
Marduk
yawsep1569 said:
Good point, but let’s assume that there were never Christians in Goa prior to the Portuguese. So it’s fine to let the Latins have Goa. But the Malankara and Malabar Church co-exist in the exact same territory. So, I think the example still holds.
Click to expand...
 
mardukm said:
Dear brother Yawsep,

I think you make a good point. I would, however, like to investigate frist if the territorial jurisdiction of the Malabar Church was actually all of India, or only one of the states of India (namely, the Kerala or even Goa regions).

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
It is important to realize that there really is no such thing as the Malabar Church until the Portuguese arrived- there was only the Metropolitan of India under the Patriarch of the Church of the East. There may have been additional suffragans throughout India (which appears to be quite likely) but the Metropolitan was situated in Kerala (Angamaly). However, it really doesn’t matter with respect to the point I was making. Malabar and Malankara are both based in Kerala.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Anything outside of the territory of the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara is claimed by the RC. Granted there aren’t a lot of Christians outside of their territory and Goa, but still. Western missionaries went everywhere thanks to the age of exploration.
Click to expand...
Your claim is rather amorphous. Do the territorial dioceses overlap? How do you know all the rest of India is claimed by the Latin Church? What is the name of the territorial diocese that comprises all the rest of India?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
twf said:
Looking at membership stats, the Ruthenian Metropolitan Church in the US is relatively large - certainly much, much larger than its Orthodox counterpart the OCA. Why hasn’t it be accorded Major Archepiscopal status, giving it a greater degree of autonomy? If I’m not mistaken, it is larger than the Syro-Malankara Church… so it can’t be a question of numbers.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t it be more appropriate for the entire Ruthenian Church to have its own head rather than elevate the Ruthenian Church in the US to a status similar to that of a sui iuris Church?
 
twf said:
When was the first Russian bishop appointed in North America? The Latin Church sent Blessed Francois de Laval in the mid-17th century as the first bishop of Quebec. He had jurisdiction all the way down to New Orleans (and was at that point the only Catholic bishop north of Mexico).
Click to expand...
1794 for the first missionaries.
Father John Veniaminov arrived in the 1820’s. He became Bishop Innocent in the 1840’s

Almost 100 years later…
 
Aramis said:
1794 for the first missionaries.
Father John Veniaminov arrived in the 1820’s. He became Bishop Innocent in the 1840’s

Almost 100 years later…
Click to expand...
But again, do you just lump North America as a whole? Would a bishop just automatically have all the unclaimed territory until the border of the next one?
 
ConstantineTG said:
But again, do you just lump North America as a whole? Would a bishop just automatically have all the unclaimed territory until the border of the next one?
Click to expand...
I think we can safely claim Eastern Canada/US for the Latin Church. Alaska and other parts of the Western half could be up for debate.
 
twf said:
I think we can safely claim Eastern Canada/US for the Latin Church. Alaska and other parts of the Western half could be up for debate.
Click to expand...
California as well. The Spaniards were already there when the Russians made it to the northernmost edges of the California colonial presence. Missionary work outside Alaska would be mid 19th C, mostly. St. Peter the Aleut is claimed to have been Martyered by Jesuits in 1815…

… which is, itself, an interesting claim, for if in fact they were Jesuits, they were suspended, part of a suppressed order, and acting as such would make them disobedient, if not schismatic. And, unfortunately, not beyond the realm of possibility…

More likely, it was diocesans acting inappropriately, perhaps even laymen.

And also, properly, being from Kodiak, he’s almost assuredly Alutiq, not Aleut…

Missionary presence, however, wasn’t present in modern Oregon or Washington (then the nascent Oregon Territory) until the 1830’s or later… and the Latins got there about the same time. As did the protestants (sigh).
 
Aramis said:
Missionary presence, however, wasn’t present in modern Oregon or Washington (then the nascent Oregon Territory) until the 1830’s or later… and the Latins got there about the same time. As did the protestants (sigh).
Click to expand...
I think a good portion of Oregon also belongs to the Latin jurisdiction because it used to be part of Mexico.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top