Bishop Hilarion of Vienna and Austria: "One City, One Bishop, One Church ", The Canonical Territories of the Local Orthodox Churches

Practical Applications

In spite of the fact that there exist parallel Orthodox jurisdictions in many parts of the world, we cannot say that the principle of canonical territory is not maintained by the Orthodox Churches. This principle continues to be a cornerstone of Orthodox ecclesiology and is applied in practice, though not always and not everywhere. I would like to give some examples of its practical application in inter-Orthodox relations as well as in relations between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

1. Each Local Orthodox Church has its canonical territory, the integrity of which is recognized in principle by other Churches. Other Churches do not have the right to create parishes on this canonical territory. Thus, for example, the canonical territory of the Patriarchate of Constantinople includes Turkey, Northern Greece and several islands in the Mediterranean Sea; that of the Alexandrian Church - all Africa; the Antiochian Church - Syria, Lebanon and a number of Middle Eastern and Persian Gulf countries; the Jerusalem Patriarchate - Israel, Palestine and Jordan. The canonical territory of the Russian Orthodox Church includes the Orthodox faithful of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. The canonical territory of the Serbian Church covers Serbia and extends to a number of other countries of the former Yugoslavia. The canonical territories of the Georgian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Cypriot, Albanian and Polish Churches as well as the Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia cover the Orthodox faithful of the respective countries. The canonical territory of the Church of Greece includes the Orthodox faithful of Greece, with the exception of a number of islands which are under the jurisdiction of the Constantinople Patriarchate. A number of Churches (e.g. the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Antioch, Moscow, Georgia, Serbia, Romania and Bulgaria) have their own dioceses and parishes outside their canonical territory in the so-called "diaspora", while other Churches (e.g. those of Cyprus, Greece and Albania) do not. Regarding the claims of the Constantinople Patriarchate to exclusive jurisdictional rights over the entire diaspora (i.e. in all countries which do not fall into the canonical territory of one of the Orthodox Churches), this question has not been solved at the inter-Orthodox level. The status of the Orthodox Church in America, whose jurisdiction extends over the USA and Canada, has also not been resolved.

2. The territorial limits of the Churches coincide in many cases with state boundaries, although changes in national boundaries by no means lead necessarily to the division of Churches. Thus, for example, the Moscow Patriarchate maintained its territorial integrity after the breakup of the USSR in spite of the fact that a number of schismatic structures appeared on its canonical territory (e.g. in Ukraine). After the division of Czechoslovakia into two independent states, the Church of Czechoslovakia was re-named as the Orthodox Church of the Czech Lands and Slovakia, which kept its unity and was not divided into two Local Churches. The Serbian Orthodox Church also maintained its unity after the breakup of Yugoslavia.

3. In the Orthodox tradition there exists the idea of traditionally Orthodox nations - those in which the Orthodox Church is the Church of the majority of the population. In many of these countries (with the exception of Greece and Cyprus) the Church is separated from the state, although it enjoys respect from the state and is an important social force. The Orthodox Churches of such countries have the tendency to view the entire population of these countries - with the exception of those belonging to other confessions or religions - as their real or potential flock. Here the idea of "cultural canonical territory" can be applied, which foresees that the entire population of a country, which by its cultural roots belongs to the Orthodox tradition but lost contact with the faith of their ancestors for historical reasons, is the potential flock of a Local Orthodox Church. Thus, in Russia the overwhelming majority of Russians by their roots belong to the Orthodox tradition, and therefore Russia cannot be viewed as a free missionary territory. This principle does not mean that the Russian Church positions itself as a religious confession without alternative, denying each person the right to choose, or that congregations of other Churches cannot be created in Russia. It rather assumes respect for the Russian Church as the "Church of the majority" by other non-Orthodox Churches which might decide to create their church structures on the former's canonical territory.

4. Thus, at the inter-Christian level the principle of canonical territory assumes a certain degree of solidarity and cooperation between Christians of different confessions. In this case we have in mind first and foremost the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, which have apostolic hierarchical succession. This solidarity foresees that in those countries where the Orthodox Church is the Church of the majority (e.g. Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Greece, Romania, Cyprus, etc.) the Catholic Church, in creating its canonical structures, should at least consult with the Orthodox Church of the given territory, and should limit itself to its traditional flock in its missionary work, not proselytizing to the detriment of the Orthodox Church. The same principle should be observed in countries with a Catholic majority (e.g. Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria, etc.), where the Orthodox should avoid proselytizing and conduct missionary activity only among their own faithful, consulting with the Catholic Church as the Church of the majority on all disputed questions. Regarding countries where neither Catholics nor Orthodox comprise the majority or where there is no dominant Christian Church at all, Christians of different confessions may conduct missionary activities in parallel without fear of violating the principle of canonical territory. However, in these countries the Catholic and Orthodox need to coordinate their efforts with each other in order to avoid misunderstandings and conflict.

The observance of these four points just mentioned is equally important for inter-Orthodox and Orthodox-Catholic relations. Their rejection at the inter-Orthodox level leads to the creation of parallel jurisdictions and the rise of conflict situations. This is exactly what happened in 1996 when the Constantinople Patriarchate entered Estonia - part of the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate - and created a parallel jurisdiction there. Tensions also began to mount in Moldova in 1992 when the Romanian Patriarchate created the so-called Bessarabian metropoly, a parallel jurisdiction on the territory of the Moldovan Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. Both in Estonia and Moldova the overwhelming majority of Orthodox remained under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, and the newly-created parallel structures have ended up as marginal church entities insignificant in number. However, their presence on the canonical territory of the Moscow Patriarchate complicates an already uneasy inter-Orthodox situation.

The refusal to observe the above-mentioned principles at the Orthodox-Catholic level has led to tensions between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. For example, in the 1990s serious difficulties arose in the CIS as a result of the Catholic Church's violation of the directives outlined in the instruction issued by the Pontifical Commision "Pro Russia" on 1 June 1992. This instruction contained the following statements: "apostolic activity on the territory of the CIS and countries of Eastern Europe demands from Catholics both faithfulness to their own mission and true concern for their Orthodox brothers and sisters, showing respect for their faith in order to prepare together for the unity of Churches desired by Christ. Today, apostolic activity of the Catholic Church on the territory of the CIS should more than ever have an ecumenical character. The path to this unity lies not in proselytizing, but in brotherly dialogue between followers of Christ, a dialogue nourished by prayer and developed by Christian love, aimed at restoring the full unity between the Byzantine and Roman Churches that existed in the first millennium. Of course, the activities carried out by the Catholic Church in those regions of the CIS which are marked by the presence and deep influence of the Orthodox and Armenian traditions should be carried out in accordance with methods which substantially differ from those stipulated for the mission ad gentes. The Church of the Latin rite should have great respect for the deeply-rooted Eastern tradition and, in particular, the traditions of the Orthodox Church. After enduring a long period of persecution, difficulties and all manner of deprivation, the Orthodox Church today finds itself facing a serious task - the evangelization of traditionally Orthodox peoples who grew up and were raised in atheism".

The instruction of the Pontifical Commission "Pro Russia" enjoins Catholic bishops and apostolic administrators to "foster by all means good relations with local hierarchs of the Orthodox Church, realizing the difficulties she faces, in order to create an atmosphere of trust and peaceful cooperation". Bishops and apostolic administrators "should inform the ruling bishops of the Orthodox Church of all important pastoral initiatives, especially the creation of new parishes", and "notify representatives of the Orthodox Church of any initiatives of social character (including educational and charity activities)". When priests or bishops from other countries are invited by state institutions to participate in projects or events, the document recommends that they "notify the hierarchy of the Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Churches, in accordance with the duty of politeness".

Many of these instructions, based on respect for the above-mentioned principles of Orthodox ecclesiology, have unfortunately not been followed by Catholic structures in Russia and the CIS, leading to tensions between Orthodox and Catholics in these countries. At present a dialogue of good will is being conducted, whose aim is to resolve these tensions. In the course of this dialogue the Russian Orthodox Church incessantly calls on Catholics in Russia and other countries of the CIS to follow the instructions contained in the "Pro Russia" document.

In concluding I would like to express my hope that the principle of "canonical territory" will be strictly and systematically observed in inter-Orthodox and Catholic-Orthodox relations in the 21st century. Only by following these principles can we hope for progress both in strengthening inter-Orthodox unity as well as in the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue.