Territorial Jurisdiction According to Orthodox Canon Law
In the
ancient Church, each city had its own bishop, who was the president of the
eucharistic assembly and its shepherd, responsible for pastoral service in all
its guises and the person who "rightly divided the word of truth".
Even small towns or places were the seats of bishops, each of whom exercised a
certain episcopal jurisdiction independently of the bishop of the city. Because
of the persecutions, the problematical conditions and the awkwardness of the
situation for the Church, it was difficult to deftne the boundaries of each of
the episcopal regions over which the bishops were to exercise thetr
jurisdiction. As a result of this, confusion and conflict often arose within
the administration of the Church, over the ordination of clerics or the
dependence of presbyters on two bishops, given that there were often two
bishops in one and the same place. When the persecution of the Christian Church
by the Roman state ceased, the legislative authority of the Church was able to
define the boundaries within which the bishop could exercise his episcopal
authority. In this way, the canonical provincial administration was formed.
In the
fourth and fifth centuries, the metropolitans/bishops of the Roman Empire, of
the capitals of the Dioceses, acquired even greater power, and important
ecclesiastical matters were handled in these major cities. The metropolitans of
the five most important cities of the Christian world were called Patriarchs,
while the metropolitans of the smaller cities, over time, lost their complete
independence, though they retained their former title,
"metropolitan", and also their sees. The most important matters of
the geographical eccle-siastical region were now handled by the Patriarchal
Synod, by which metropolitans were now elected and consecrated, and then
installed by the Patriarch. The Patriarchal Synods, under the chairmanship of
the Patriarch, were at first made up of the metropolitans, then later also of
the bishops of the patriarchal geographical region. The provincial
metropolitan/episcopal synods under the chairmanship of the metropolitan were
retained, and dealt with local provincial matters. They remained, however,
under canonical dependence upon the patriarchs and their synods, in which they
also participated.
The
boundaries of the patriarchates are geographical and nothing more. They are not
ethnophyletic, cultural, liturgical or anything else of the sort, and were
defined by Ecumenical Synods through sacred canons and ecclesiastical
regulations in accordance with Christian teaching against racial
discrimination, with Orthodox ecclesiology and with canon law and pastoral
requirements.
Canon 6
of the 1st Ecumenical Synod says "Let the old customs prevail as well as
the later canons", and goes on to confirm the geographical boundaries of
the jurisdiction of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. "Let the ancient custom
prevail which obtained in Egypt, Lybia and Pentapolis, to allow the bishop of
Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also usually
accorded to the bishop in Rome. Likewise with reference to Antioch and the
other provinces, let seniority be preserved in the churches". Thus
"the bishop of Alexandria precedes those in Egypt, Lybia and the.province
of Pentapolis, Africa; Antioch similarly heads Syria, Coele or Hollow Syria,
Mesopotamia and both Cilicias..." i. e. the diocese of the East; "and
the bishop of Rome is senior in the western provinces".
The
bishop of Jerusalem, because of the sacred nature of the city "through the
redemptive passion of Christ", was declared patriarch by the 4th
Ecumenical Synod, with his jurisdiction extended to include the three provinces
of Palestine, known as the "Three Palestines". So Jerusalem was
senior to "the provinces in Palestine, in Arabia and in Phoenicia..."
As
Patriarchate, Jerusalem occupied the fifth place, after Antioch, while since
the schism between East and West it has taken the fourth place in the Orthodox
Church. In the case of Jerusalem, too, the criteria applied by the 4th
Ecumenical Synod for canonical jurisdiction - "ground" — were geographical
and no more.
The
Ecumenical Patriarch, the Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome, occupies the
first place, the primacy of honour in
the canonical structure of the Orthodox Church. This position, as well as his
canonical jurisdiction — the "ground" — have been defined by the
sacred canons of the Ecumenical Synods, in other words by irreversible
ecumenical decisions, and their application is binding for all Orthodox.
As
regards the primacy of honour of Constantinople, this has been legislated for
by the 2nd Ecumenical Synod (Canon 3), the 4th (Canon 28) and the Quinisext
(Canon 36). Thus: "the Throne of Constantinople shall enjoy equal
seniority with the throne of Older Rome, and in matters of the Church shall be
magnified as the latter, coming second after it...". Since the schism
Constantinople has held the primacy of honour and of διακονια in the Orthodox
Church.
By a
decision (Canon 28) which is of universal status and validity, the 4th Ecumenical
Synod confirmed a long tradition and action of the Church as regards the
canonical jurisdiction and the territory of the Ecumenical Throne. The
geographical extent of its own ground was extended to the then administrations
of the Roman Empire in Pontus, Asia and Thrace, as well as to the
"barbarian" lands, i. e. those which were outside the boundaries of
the then Roman Empire: "... only the metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian
and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the aforesaid Most Holy Throne of the
Most Holy Church of Constantinople and likewise the bishops of the aforesaid
dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands...".
The
adjective "barbarian" defines the noun "nations", which is
omitted from the text of the canon, but which is to be inferred, as Zonaras
interprets it. Barbarian nations or countries are, as has been said, those
provinces which lay beyond the Roman Empire at the time of the 4th Ecumenical
Synod: "While it called bishoprics of the barbarians those of Alania, Russia
and others". The other barbarian lands, apart from Alania and Russia, are,
in general, "the Barbarians", according to the interpretation of
Aristenos of Canon 28: "... the (bishops ) of Pontus and Thrace and Asia,
as well as the Barbarians, are consecrated by the Patriarch of
Constantinople...".
According
to the "Notitiae episcopatuum" (Συνταγμάτιον) bearing the name of
Emperor Leo the Wise (886-912), but actually dating more or less to the llth
century, the eparchies of South Italy, i. e. Calabria and Sicily, are also
under' the Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople. Besides, according to the
"Exposition" of Emperor Andronikos II Palaeologos (1282-1328), which
was generally valid until the 19th century, these eparchies were subject to the
Ecumenical Patriarchate. With the passage of time, however, this dependence in
fact weakened away because of the propinquity of these provinces to Rome and
because of the impossibility of Constantinople maintaining communications with
them, situated as it was within the Ottoman Empire.
In the
Order "of the Thrones of the Orthodox Eastern Church", i.e. the
(Συνταγμάτιον)of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of the year 1855, there is no reference
to these eparchies.
Moreover,
from the 8th century, all the provinces of Eastern Illyricum, i. e. the Balkan
region from the borderş of Thrace to the Adriatic, were removed from the
jurisdiction of Rome and placed under the canonical jurisdiction of
Constantinople.
The newer
lands of North and South America, of Australia, the Far East and so on, and
also those in general that are outside the boundaries of the local Churches as
defined by the sacred canons and the decisions of the Ecumenical Synods, as
well as by the Patriairchal and Synodical Tomes, are included in theory, and
hence in practice, in the "other" barbarian lands, according to the
general terminology of the 4th Ecumenical Synod and of the other synods. This
has nothing to do with an ethnological or any other modern cultural definition,
but is geographical, since they were not included, at the time of this synod,
within the bounds of the then Roman Empire and were not named in the canonical
sources, as were Alania or Russia.
The
Ecumenical Throne of Constantinople thus has canonical jurisdiction over the
Orthodox in all the "barbarian" countries which constitute its
geographical area and "ground", while the exercise of its canonical
rights over all the Orthodox in these countries should not in any way be
considered as being"beyond the boundaries" (of its "ground"),
i. e. "υπερόριος".Through Patriarchal Synodical Tomes or Acts,
specific metropoles, archbishoprics and bishoprics which were part of the
geographical area of the canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate
of Constantinople have been ceded to the newer autocephalous local Churches, in
Russia, in the Balkans and beyond. After autocephaly, these autocephalous
Churches acquired canonical, administrative and pastoral jurisdiction over
them. Any exercise of administration or pastoral tasks by these autocephalous
Churches over Orthodox outside and beyond their own defined geographical
boundaries, on the basis of national, racial, linguistic or
"cultural" criteria, constitutes, according to canonical exactitude,
an action "beyond the boundaries" (υπερόριον) and an intrusion
(εισπήδησιν) into another province, thus violating the fundamental principles
of canonical jurisdiction and the tradition of the Church.
The
history of the transmission of Christianity from Constantmople to Russia, Great
and Little, (10th century), is well known, as is the entry of this eparchy into
the canonical jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople.
According
to the "Notitiae episcopatuum", i. e. the constitutional record of
metropoles, archbishoprics and bishoprics subject "to the Patriarch of
Constantinople", referred to commonly by the name of Emperor Leo the Wise
(886-912), though in fact dating from the llth century, the Metropolis of
Russia (Kiev) occupied the 61st position.
Twelve
bishops are subject to this Metropolis in Great Russia (Novgorod, Chernigov,
Suzdal, Rostov, Vladimir, Chmelniskii, Byelgorod the Great, close to Kiev,
Yurief, Polotsk, Riazan, Tver, and Sarai).
Likewise,
under the Metropolitan of Kiev there are seven bishops in Little Russia
(Western Region) (Galicia, Volynia, Peremysl, Putsk, Turof, Cholm and
Smolensk).
The
Metropolis of Kiev (Russia), under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, had
geographical boundaries which cover Great and Little Russia, in accordance with
the canonical order, so that, without distinction, the people living in this
area could be served evangelically, administratively and pastorally.
Historical
developments and events brought changes as regards the seat of this metropolis
and its geographical boundaries until the political and ecclesiastical centre
was stabilized at Moscow. When Moscow became the dominant power in the region,
its bishop was recognized as the Metropolitan of Russia. In the year 1459,
because of the difficultieş in communication between Moscow and Constantinople
following the capture of the latter by the Ottomans (1453), the Metropolitan of
Russia was made independent of the Ecumenical Patriarch as regards his
election, while the see was divided into two: the Metropolis of Moscow and that
of Kiev.
In the
year 1588, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Jeremiah II, went to Moscow, where
he agreed to elevate the Metropolis of Moscow to the rank of Patriarchate and,
under pressure, ordained (sic) Job, the Metropolitan of Moscow, as Patriarch on
26 January, 1589.
An
Endemousa Synod was called in Constantinople by Jeremiah to ratify what had
taken place in Moscow. This was called again, in 1593, at the wish of the Tzar,
so that one of its participants could be Meletios Pegas, the Patriarch of
Alexandria, who had reacted against these developments. The synod ratified the
elevation of the Metropolis of Moscow to the status of Patriarchate, which was
to occupy the fifth position in the Diptychs, i. e. after the Patriarchate of
Jerusalem.
The
Patriarch of Moscow was to be elected by the hierarchs of the Patriarchate of
Moscow.
According
to the Patriarchal and Synodical Act of this Endemousa Synod: "the throne
of the most venerable and Orthodox city of Moscow is and shall be called
Patriarchate' ... and all Russia and the Far-NorthernTerritories shall be
subject to the Patriarchal Throne of Moscow and all Russia... It has its place
after His Beatitude of Jerusalem in the sacred diptychs and in ecclesiastical
gatherings, and so we have firmly retained the canons previously formulated by
the holy Fathers.. .it is the head of this region of Moscow and all Russia and
the Far-Northern territories and shall be recognized as such in accordance with
canon 34 of the holy and all-praised Apostles...".
Thus,
according to the Patriarchal and Synodical Act founding the Patriarchate of
Moscow, ratifying what had taken place in Moscow (1589) under Patriarch
Jeremiah II, the Patriarch of Moscow, fifth in rank in the Diptychs after
Jerusalem, has canonical jurisdiction over Moscow, as its bishop, and as the
first in all Russia and the Far-Northern Territories of Moscow within the
Russian realm. Ţhe Patriarchate of Moscow, as a local Church, and according to
the official ecclesiastical Acts regarding its foundation, also has canonical
jurisdiction, with geographical boundaries and geographical limits, and thus
conforms to the canonical teaching and ecclesiology of the Orthodox Church. Its
canonical jurisdiction- its "ground"- extends to "the whole of
Russia", i. e. as was mentioned earlier, within the boundaries of the
Russian realm, not beyond it. It follows that its "missionary ground"
also extends to the boundaries of its officially-defined expanse and lies
within the boundaries of the Russian realm, not outside it.
"Let
no bishop dare to go from one province to another and ordain anyone in church...
unless invited to come by letter from the metropolitan and other bishops of the
territory into which he is going. Should anyone so go without invitation and
irregularly ordain someone in violation of the order of the things in the
church... anything performed by him is invalid. He himself shall incur a
suitable punishment for his irregular behaviour and his unreasonable
enterprise, having already been deposed from office by the holy Synod"
(Canon 13 of the Synod in Antioch).
Thus,
according to Orthodox canonical teaching and ecclesiology, "each of the
patriarchs should be content with his own privileges and not seize any of those
of another eparchy, since from the beginning it is not under his hand. For this
is conceit in secular power...".
This
canonical order of the Church, based on ecclesiological dogmatic conditions,
i.e. on ţhe teaching concerning the Church, its structures, its bishops, its
work, its jurisdiction and so on is its official and unshakable position. It is
based on Holy Scripture, the sacred canons and the decisions of Ecumenical
Synods, which, as expressions of the infallibility of the Church, are
obligatory for all the local Orthodox Churches. Besides, the Orthodox Catholic
Church, despite its administrative decentralization is still, one, with common
faith and dogma. The same sacraments sanctify within it, the same synodical
canons regulate matters of its life and order within it.
The
Church was revealed by God to the world through Jesus Christ for the salvation
of all people and of the world itself, regardless of race,and not to serve
political or personal ambitions or other secular pursuits and opportunistic
goals. The Church is not Russian or Greek, Serbian or Rumanian and so on, but
the Orthodox Catholic Church in Greece, in Russia, in Serbia, in Rumania and so
on. The boundaries of the local Churches are geographical and were defined not
with national and racial criteria, but with administrative ones, following, in
general, the civil administrative divisions of the Roman Empire (Saint
Photios), in order to provide the best pastoral care for the people of God,
irrespective of race, to bring them to salvation in Christ.
Ethnophyletism
is a phenomenon which arose at the end of the 18th and the 19th centuries, a
product of the Enlightenment and the French revolution. It was the new
political theory, on the basis of which were created the nation states of Europe,
and, in particular, those of the Balkan peninsula. This theory is, alas, still
being applied in the Balkans today, with its familiar disastrous consequences
on the lives of the people of the region and on peace.
The idea
of "the nation" in the historical sources, in the lives of ordinary
people and in the formation of states before the 18th century, i.e. before the
French revolution, did not have the ethnophyletic meaning which is attributed
to it today. In antiquity and until the 18th/19th centuries, "the
nation" was defined by religion and culture, not by race. This was the
politico-religious theory of the Persians, of the Ancient Greeks, of the pagan
Romans and also of the Christian Romans (Byzantines), as well as of the Jews
(as it still is to this day), and of the Muslims. When the latter, Arabs first
and then later the Ottomans, conquered Roman ("Byzantine") countries
and territories, they applied an administration "by nations"
(millet), i. e. by religious communities, not by race. The religious leaders of
the communities within the Muslim states were also ethnarchs of these
communities. So the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople was also the
ethnarch of the Orthodox Christian "nation" within the Ottoman
Empire, irrespective of race or language, as were the other patriarchs,
metro-politans and other bishops locally. The Sultan/Caliph was the ethnarch of
the Muslims, irrespective of the particular race, and so on. The ideas of the French revolution (1789)
and of the Enlightenment created, as has been said, a new political theory,
which ignored religion or culture as elements shaping communities and
administrative units. States were now formed according to this dominant theory,
on the basis of ethnophyletic criteria — either those already in existence or,
mainly, those invented by means of politics or propaganda — with all the
melancholy consequences we know today (ethnic cleansing and so on). Of course,
for Christ and His Church, "there is neither Jew nor Greek... for all of
you are one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3, 28).
To a
great extent, then, the politics of nationality which was dominant in the 19th
century created the nation states of Europe, and particularly those of the
Balkan Peninsula. An immediate consequence of this was the dissection in
South-Eastern Europe of the Orthodox Catholic Church, the unified task of which
underwent considerable external transformation. The most significant points of
evolution were:
1. the
creation of national Churches which, for a certain time were alienated from
each other, and
2. the
gradual entry into the East of a secular (profane) spirit and, particularly, of
individual Liberalism, based on intellectual currents imported from the West.
Those who
were informed with this spirit of ethnophyletism collaborated with foreign
political powers and were moved to declare the arbitrary autocephaly of
churches in Greece (1833), Rumania (1865), Bulgaria (1870) and Albania
(1922-1928-1937). The Church of Serbia displayed a different and more peaceful
spirit.
It is a
fact that the then Great Powers had planned the dissolution of the ailing
Ottoman Empire and its restriction to Asia, though not the restoration of the
Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium) which could have proved a competitor to their
economic and political interests in the Balkans and in the Eastern
Mediterranean. On the basis of the prevailing political theory of
ethnophyletism, they preferred the creation of small, weak states which would
be dependent upon them. In order for these ambitions to succeed, the spiritual,
cultural and ecclesiastical unity of the region also had to be shattered, and
local autocephalous Churches established, subservient to the states created,
which were, in their turn and depending on circumstances, subservient to one or
the other Great Power.
Cognizant
of its responsibilities towards Orthodoxy, as the First Throne of the Church,
the Ecumenical Patriarchate, independently of the conditions prevailing at the
time, adopted a position against this most significant phenomenon. Initially,
it censured the Greeks (1833-1850) and then, at the Great (Μείζων) Local Synod
in Constantinople (1872), went on to condemn ethnophyletism, which was not
merely a deviation from the healthy love of one's nation and state, but
constitutes a real impediment to cooperation between local Orthodox Churches in
the world and is the greatest enemy to the unity of the Church.
This
Great Synod published a "Resolution" condemning ethnophyletism in the
Church, a resolution which was based on general principles formulated by a special
committee of the Synod.
In brief,
these general principles are as follows:
"...
in the Christian Church, a society which is spiritual and charged by its Head
and Founder to include all nations in one Christian brotherhood, phyletism is
foreign and completely unthinkable. And, indeed, phyletism, i. e. the formation
of special national Churches in the same place, which accept all those of the same
race, but exclude all those of other races and which are administered solely by
those of the same race, are unheard of and unprecedented , though they are what
the adherents of phyletism aspire to."
All the
Christian Churches, founded in all places, were, from the beginning, local,
containing the faithful of a particular city, or a particular local region,
without racial discrimination. And thus, they were usually named after the city
or territory, but not the racial provenance, of the members.
In the
first place, the Church of Jerusalem consisted, as is well known, of Jews and
proselytes of various nations. In the same way, the Churches of Antioch,
Alexandria, Ephesus, Rome and all the others were made up of Jews and Gentiles.
Each of these Churches constituted in itself something compact and indivisible;
each recognized as its apostles the apostles of Christ, all of whom were Jews
by race; each had a bishop ordained by these apostles, without any regard to
race, as the history of the first Churches of Christ testifies...
This way
of establishing Churches in various localities also obtained after the
apostolic age, i. e. in the regional or Diocese Churches, which were defined in
accordance with the prevailing civil divisions or other historical reasons. The
congregation of the faithful in each of these churches consisted of Christians
of every race and language.
Thus, the
Churches of the Patriarchal Thrones of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch,
Jerusalem and the Archbishopric of Cyprus, which have, by God's grace, been
preserved to this day, are local Churches, in the sense that they are contained
within geographical boundaries. They are not national. This is why they are
named after the capital city rather than after the various nations of which
they consisted: Greeks, for example, Egyptians, Syrians, Arabs, Wallachians,
Moldavians, Serbs, Bulgarians and others among those who usually live in
concourse in the regions of these Churches.
Such,
also, were the boundaries of the archbishoprics of Ochrid, Pec and Turnavo: i.
e. Churches within drawn boundaries. They were neither constituted by reason of
phyletism nor were their members of the same race and language. The later
expressions "Latin, Greek, Armenian Church" and so on, do not, in
general, express discrimination by nation, but differences in dogma. In the
same way, the Church of Greece, of Russia, of Serbia, of Wallachia, of Moldova,
or, more improperly, the Russian, Greek, Serbian etc. Church, mean
autocephalous or semi-independent Churches in autonomous or semi-independent
realms and with definite boundaries: those of the political realm, beyond which
they have no ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It follows that they exist not
because of nationality, but because of the political situation, and that their
members are not all of one race and language...
The
Fathers of the Holy Synods - partial or general, local or ecumenical- did not
present themselves in an ethnic capacity, either their own or that of their
flocks, but as representing the Church of which they were the head. And if, in
the acts of the first synods and in Church history we do find bishops
designated not by city or territory, but by nation, such as bishop of the
Saracens, of the Goths or of the Scythians, this was so because of the
ill-defined and badly constituted political and social conditions within some
nations. Such titles can therefore easily be understood, since only a few
people within these nations had accepted the Christian faith and had not yet gathered
together in towns.
And if we
have recourse to these very sacred canons, on which the structure of the Church
is founded, we shall find not a trace of phyletism. The canons dealing with the
election and consecration of bishops, metropolitans and patriarchs, as well as
of the other functionaries of the Church nowhere define the racial
characteristic as a qualification of eligibility. They mention only the moral
and religious qualities which were laid down by the Apostle of the Gentiles in
his epistles to Timothy and Titus. In the same way, the sacred canons of local
Churches, which were aimed at the constitution, unification, or division of
eparchies and parishes, projected ecclesiastical or political necessity, never
ethnophyletic aspirations...
But the
principle of phyletism also overturns the sacred structure of the Orthodox
Church. The structure of the Orthodox Church, i.e. its administrative
organization as a visible communion, is apparent in the sum total of its legislation,
which is made up of the divine and sacred canons of the holy Apostles and of
the Holy Synods, both ecumenical and local. Any action referring to the Church
and tending towards the infringement of these canons in whole or in part,
essentially violates the very structure of the Church... Canon 8, for instance,
of the 1st Ecumenical Synod legislates that: "there be not two bishops in
the city". But, according to the principle of phyletism, two, three, or
more bishops of the same faith can have their seats in the same city; in other
words, as many as there are races living there. Canon 12 of the 4th Ecumenical
Synod states: "Let there not be two metrqpolitans in the same
eparchy". But, according to phyletism, two or more metropolitans can have
one and the same province as their see, depending on the number of races there.
Stricture
against abrogation of the Church politeuma (by phyletism) is even clearer in
the Churches of the Dioceses (Patriarchates and autocephalous Churches). Canon
2 of the 2nd Ecumenical Synod says:
"Let
bishops not go to churches beyond the boundaries of their own dioceses..."
The
Synods of these Dioceses together with their primate, president, archbishop,
exarch or patriarch, constitute the highest ecclesiastical authority in the
whole region of the Diocese. And according to this institution, there remain to
this day Orthodox Patriarchates in the lands of the East, and, in the other
realms, the administrative synods with their presidents. But according to the
aspirations of the phyletists, there are no specific loci for the
administration of the local Church. The racial, highest ecclesiastical
jurisdictions also expand and contract in accordance with the eternal ebb and
flow of nations, in groups or as individuals, wandering and migrating hither
and thither...Thus, in one and the same ecclesiastical diocese, there will be,
on the one hand, many exarchs or patriarchs of the same faith, and, on the
other, many administrative synods of the same faith, in despite of so many
sacred canons. In sum, according to the principles of phyletism, it is not
possible for Diocesan Churches, Patriarchal, provincial or metropolitan
Churches to exist, nor for there to be a bishopric or even a simple parish or
church in some small village or settlement, if they are to have their own area
and are to include all those of the same faith living therein".
This
Report, which also contains other historical and canonical arguments,
concludes: "If things are thus, as, indeed, they are, phyletism is clearly
in opposition to and conflict with the spirit and the teaching of
Christ..."
These
general theological, historical and canonical principles expressed in this
Report were taken into consideration by the Holy and Great Local Synod which
met at Constantinople in August, 1872. It condemned phyletism and published a
"Resolution" (Όρος) concerning it, in which, among other things, the
following is stated: "censuring and condemning it, we reject phyletism,
that is racial discrimination and nationalistic contention, enmities and
discord in the Church of Christ as being contrary to the teaching of the Gospel
and the sacred canons of our holy Fathers, who support the holy Church and
adorn the whole of the Christian life, leading to divine Godliness".
Despite
this, and after the decision of the Synod in Constantinople, phyletism, in the
sense of unrestrained nationalism, unfortunately continued to influence the
thoughts and actions of some local Orthodox Churches in this direction, at
least as regards certain questions, to the detriment of Church unity. This is
clear in the so-called Orthodox Diaspora, where canonical disorder prevails and
where the nationalist element is powerful.
Orthodox
faithful, members at first of different local Ghurches and states, have
emigrated to new countries, settled and live there. They no longer belong, in
Church terms, to the ecclesiastical provinces from which they came, because, as
residents now of these new countries, they belong to the new ecclesiastical
province in which they have settled and in which they experience their
eucharistic and sacramental and spiritual life. They are thus members of the
local Church under its bishop. This was always the canonical way of ordering
things, it was the practice and tradition of the Church and has continued to
this day in regions other than the new countries mentioned earlier. In Egypt,
for example, in Libya, Pentapolis and the other territories of Africa, which
are subject to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria,.new churches
are being established by missionaries or emigrants. These new communities are
independent of the national provenance of the missionaries or of the emigrants
or of the original autocephalous Church from which they came. The missionaries
and emigrants, living and working in the region proper to the Patriarch of
Alexandria, and with his canonical permission, are automatically placed under
his jurisdiction. The same is true in Antioch, in Jerusalem and so on. This
ought also to be the case in the new ecclesiastical provinces of America,
Australia and so on, though it is not so because here the criteria of ethnophylestism
prevail to this day.
The
Orthodox Church is, in general, conscious of the ecclesiological and canonical
irregularity which was created by the appearance of ethnophyletism in the 19th
century and which is apparent in the formation and establishment of new provinces
in America and elsewhere.
He did
not destroy things that were well-loved, but rather used these features in
order to communicate with people and save them. People must certainly retain
their faith above all, but without feeling contempt for their culture and
without being cut off from their roots.
This
variety, which enriches the life of the Church in the new provinces and is
demonstrably necessary, pastorally, for the survival and development of the
local communities, must find expression within the ecclesiological and
canonical framework defined by the sacred canons and decisions of the
Patriarchal and Synodical Tomes of the Ecumenical Throne concerning the
autocephalous status of the recent autocephalous Churches, and thus provide
diversity in canonical unity, within the defined territorial limits of the
local Churches.
Source: https://www.patriarchate.org/-/territorial-jurisdiction-according-to-orthodox-canon-law-the-phenomenon-of-ethnophyletism-in-recent-yea-1
