Monday, August 11, 2008

On Orthodoxy in Southeast Asia

In April the Church of Russia declared their unhappiness with Constantinople expanding their metropolia to include mainland China and all of Southeast Asia (see here). The metropolitanate has responded here. This is the principal section:

It is clear that, on 9th January the Ecumenical Patriarchate proceeded to founding a new Orthodox Metropolitanate, and not to the expansion of the jurisdiction of the Orthodox Metropolitanate of Hong Kong.

The actions and decisions of the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate are carried out within the framework of universal mission and service to the nations of the First Throne Great Church of Christ, as defined by the 2nd and 4th Ecumenical Councils with their respective wise and unambiguous decisions, which are binding for all Orthodox.

The accusations launched by the Church of Russia against the Ecumenical Patriarchate, that supposedly it is impinging on the rights of the so-called "Autonomous Church of China" and that allegedly it is breaking the unity of the Orthodox Churches, concern us, for sadly we see that in this connection it is the Church of Russia that is overlooking in an inept manner what the Church in its entirety has decided, and is proceeding to unilateral proclamations of "Autonomous Churches" and speaks of "rights over countries", reminding us of secular states of an old feudalistic kind.

3 comments:

  1. Is it comical or exceedingly sad to see blustery talk over rights to a land where the Orthodox presence is so infintisimal they may as well be arguing over whom will have rights to the moons of Jupiter?

    And so it goes... Same thing being played out between Constantinople and Antioch in the Phillipines, the schismatic-turned-Jerusalem patriarchal parishes in the US between Antioch and Jerusalem (now constantinople) and squabbles over Ukraine...

    At least the Alexandrian Patriarchate point-blank asserted rights to all of Africa... For now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. These questions arise because new lands are being discovered which are not part of the old Patriarchates' canonical territory. The EP claims jurisdiction over all the world which is not already part of some other Patriarchate of Autocephalous Church but the MP contests this. I believe China was evangelized by the MP first.

    Anyway, the Jerusalem parishes in the US has some historical baggage because these parishes seceded from the Antiochian jurisdiction, was absorbed into teh JP and the now by the EP which does not traditionally have Arabic speaking parishes.

    ReplyDelete