www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ukraine: Orthodox Territorialism Skews Spiritual Judgment

Ukraine: Orthodox Territorialism Skews Spiritual Judgment

By Dr. Jeff Mirus | Jun 04, 2014
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/otc.cfm?id=1201

I see in the news today ( http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=21596 ) that the chairman of the Russian Orthodox Church�s Department of External Church Relations has complained that the Ukrainian Greek Catholics have been spiritually destructive in their response to the current crisis in Ukraine. In contrast, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church �has been able during these difficult months to unite people of various political persuasions including those who have found themselves on both sides of the barricades.�

I suspect that fault can be found on all sides, but surely these complaints must be taken with a grain of salt. One of the features of Orthodoxy is its pervasive territorialism. Russian Orthodoxy seems to be particularly imbued with this trait, to the point where the special character of Russia plays a major role in the Russian Orthodox vision of life.

This is something that Western Catholics find difficult to understand. As a Catholic and an American citizen, for example, I cannot imagine thinking of the United States as in any way essential to the identity of the Catholic Church. While I may love my homeland, I can see very clearly �thinking and speaking as a Catholic�that I would lose nothing of my Catholic identity if the United States should perish from the earth. As far as I have been able to tell from afar, the Orthodox find it difficult to make any similar distinction.

To put this in very pragmatic terms, it is always easier to play the �why can�t we all just get along� card when you represent the interests of an invader than when you are attempting to defend yourself against invasion. For better or worse�and by a Catholic it must, I think, be deemed for worse�the Russian Orthodox are historically closely tied with the ambitions of Russia herself. They also believe they have spiritual authority over all within the purview of Russia�by Divine right.

This is why the Russian Orthodox Church, like all the regional Orthodox churches, has such a severe antipathy to any reunion with Rome among their members, as evidenced by this particular official�s jaundiced reference to the Union of Brest, and an equal antipathy to the expansion of Catholicism (whether Eastern or Roman) among the Christians of their territories. This is always denounced as proselytism, in the worst possible sense of the word. It violates the essential territorialism of Orthodoxy.

Relationships and their Implications

Our differences on this point will become clear if we examine both Orthodox and Catholic reactions to the winning of converts by the other party. The Catholic is saddened by Orthodoxy, and by conversions to Orthodoxy, because this spiritual trajectory emphasizes partiality and particularity over against the universality of Christ and His Church. But it is not too much to say that the Orthodox believer is outraged by Catholicism, and by defections to Catholicism, because they perceive this trajectory as violating the territorial prerogatives which define Orthodoxy.

It would seem the original apostles, who went just about everywhere, must be left to turn in their graves. But it is not necessary to enter into a fundamental theological discussion to fear�with ample precedent�that the leaders of Russian Orthodoxy are not likely to be reliable when it comes to judging the motives of those who resist the expansion of the Russian State�the very State which has a unique and privileged relationship to Russian Orthodoxy. And it just so happens that, while the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was granted a certain independence in 1990, it is still under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Patriarch in, well, Moscow.

Now it is true that people of all religions tend to confuse their patriotic loyalties with the will of God. There have been plenty of Catholic bishops (not to mention Catholic lay people) who have failed to see moral duty clearly when it involves the policies of their own countries. There have been even more who have acquiesced in immoral policies because of political pressures and the threat of legal punishment. And there have been even more who have simply allowed themselves to be badly formed by the false cultures which dominate the countries they call home.

But in Orthodoxy, this slavish obedience to what we might call the exigencies of territory is fueled not only by the world, which we can understand so easily, but by the precepts of religion itself. By all accounts, moreover, the spiritual dangers of this territorial obeisance are nowhere more pronounced than in Russian Orthodoxy.

The upshot? I can hardly guarantee that every Catholic word and action is good and true, but it may well be that anyone on God�s green earth who is not Russian Orthodox will tend toward moral and spiritual approval of the alleged fractiousness of the Catholics of the Ukraine. It is just such as these whom the Orthodox dismiss as �uniate�, because they were once Eastern Orthodox but were later reunited with Rome. Used by the Orthodox, the term uniate is typically derogatory.

What we must understand is that there is an agenda here. It is not an agenda which, by their own lights, the Russian Orthodox find inimical to true religion. In fact, they regard it as part and parcel of true religion. But it is an agenda which deeply colors their spiritual judgment, and it is substantially territorial in nature.

Well, where to begin? First I would state that I, and many Orthodox - particularly in Ukraine or of Ukrainian descent - find the Metropolitan's comments to as offensive and erroneous as does the author - but for different reasons.

No doubt many voices within Russian Orthodoxy conflate their faith as requiring it to be in some sort of 'mystical symphonia' with the destiny of the Russian nation (known to many of us in a vernacular English translation as 'excuse for cultural imperialism'). +Hilarion seems to have bought into this line of thought in recent years. Earlier in his career, he wrote several articles decrying the very same approach in the 19th century as being the primary force in the underlying spiritual weakness in Russia which allowed for the Church to so effectively dismantled and co-opted during the Communist era. Apparently, under Putinism he has changed his mind. Perhaps he sees being a loyal mouthpiece as a path to a greater earthly throne.

And Catholic Culture as a source is as triumphalist and inherently anti-ecumenical as any corresponding Orthodox blog from the anti-ecumenist factions within Orthodoxy.

Enough said.

This is how it was reported elsewhere.

Russian Orthodox Site [mospat.ru]

I guess +Hilarion was not at the just concluded Spring session of the North American Theological Catholic - Orthodox Dialogue, hosted by His Eminence Metropolitan Methodios of Boston at the Metropolis Retreat Center in Manchester, NH where the Eastern Catholic and Orthodox participants succeeded in putting forth a very different take on relations between the Church of Rome, the Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox.

As always, the Russians live in a parallel universe of their own construction and the sooner American fans of their regime understand that, the safer the world will be.

I was kind of thinking of the other question: whether to begin, or whether to just keep walking and pretend that we didn't see a thing.



But in all seriousness ... Is Metropolitan Hilarion's talk, which Dr. Mirus refers to (and which Our Lady's slave provided a link for -- thanks Our Lady's slave), already the subject of a thread on this forum? (If not, I'm guessing this thread will be the place to discuss it as well.)

This is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black. US rightish Protestants and Fox Newsy Catholics do a similar thing, conflating Faith/civil religion with State. All churches have time servers, wonks and saints...pay no attention to the man behind the curtain:-)

And hence it is no surprise that commentators like Pat Buchanan and others have expressed support for the Russian model lately....

What a ridiculous premise. The Latin Church is so territorial that it basically claims that the entire new world and all of Asia falls under its territory, and its bishops often act in a very territorial way concerning the diaspora of those Eastern churches which entered into union with Rome. Not only that, but the bishop of Rome has immediate ordinary jurisdiction in every diocese, eparchy, ordinariate, etc., in the world.

Except the ROC has denounced Rome for this (except when it wants Rome to suppress the actions of the "Uniates"), meanwhile, it claims for itself the entire population of Russian speakers, as well as the title of "Third Rome", and the authority of something between the pre-"heterodox" Pope and above the EP.

But there is a key difference: the Roman Catholic Church (no longer) has any secular power with which it works to advance its agenda, whereas the Moscow Patriarchate rises and falls according to its alliance with the state. Rome might claim the world but it has no armies to bolster that claim; the MP would like to claim the world, but for now it has to be content with working with the Russian armies and spy services in neighboring countries.

Very true indeed!

Alex

Also very true.

Alex

I don't believe, as a papal Uniate myself, that the Moscow Patriarchate works with spy services etc.

It finds itself now much like it found itself under the Soviet Union with the exception that the current regime it is under is willing to build churches, rather than tear them down.

But nothing from the State, any State, is ever free of charge.

Alex

Dear Cavaradossi,


Tu quoque arguments only mean you admit the premise of the thing you are criticizing.

In any case, in Catholic ecclesiology, EVERY head bishop (Metropolitan, Primate, Patriarch, Pope) has ordinary jurisdiction in each diocese under him. That the Pope has ordinary jurisdiction in each diocese in the Church is no big thing and does not interfere with the proper jurisdiction of each bishop for his local diocese. Pope St. JP2 of thrice-blessed memory stated that primacy does not give the Pope (or ANY head bishop) the responsibility NOR the power to intervene in the daily affairs of a local Church. I'd rather listen to his own job description than that of Absolutist Petrine extremists and non-Catholic fearmongerers about what the papacy is.

That he has immediate jurisdiction? No big thing. That just means we understand that when he is called upon to exercise his primacy of jurisdiction, it is a power borne directly from God, not intermediately from the Church (unlike that of other head bishops whose offices were created by the Church over time). Again, it doesn't mean he has the responsibility nor the power to interfere in the daily affairs of a local Church.

Blessings

That is quite the non sequitur. In fact, the argument from fallacy is itself a logical fallacy.


But you conceal what exactly are the implications of the existence of a universal immediate jurisdiction. The ordinary jurisdiction of metropolitans, archbishops, and patriarchs is mediate ordinary jurisdiction, and as you note, this jurisdiction is given and defined by the laws and the customs of the church. The immediate jurisdiction of the pope on the other hand is by divine right, which you also note, but then you do not admit the logical conclusion which is that there can be no legal constraints to the power of the pope when acting in virtue of his position as head of the church, nor can his powers simply be reserved by any custom or law, in such a fashion that he can be prevented from operating in the daily affairs of a local church (as human constructs and laws cannot place constraints on what is had by divine right).

Indeed, the pope's supreme universal jurisdiction does affect the daily affairs of many local churches. A great example of this is anywhere where the 1962 Latin missal is used.