According to Andriy Mykhaleyko, the expression "canonical territory" is "rather difficult to define as it can refer to a variety of different aspects, from an ecclesiological, geographical, and cultural entity to the territorial or canonical jurisdiction of a church as an expression of its local community, or the pastoraltheological care of the faithful in a particular territory."[1]
[t]he model of church organization that was formed during the first three centuries of Christianity was based on the principle of "one city-one bishop-one Church", which foresaw the assignment of a certain ecclesiastical territory to one concrete bishop." In accordance with this principle, the "Canons of the Apostles" and other canonical decrees of the ancient Church point to the inadmissibility of violating the boundaries of ecclesiastical territories by bishops or clergy.[2]
Some canons of the Canons of the Apostles state that:[2]
the bishop should not leave his diocese and go over to another without authorization (can. 14);
the bishop may not ordain outside the boundaries of his diocese (can. 35);
when transferring to another city, excommunicated clergymen or laymen cannot be accepted into communion by another bishop (can. 12);
clergymen who go over to another diocese without the consent of their bishop are deprived of the right to serve (can. 15);
prohibition of serving or excommunication of a clergyman imposed by one bishop cannot by removed by another bishop (can. 16, 32).
"In defining the boundaries of ecclesiastical territories, the Fathers of the ancient undivided Church took into account civil territorial divisions established by secular authorities," according to Alfeyev. He adds: "[a]lthough the principle of having ecclesiastical territories correspond to civil ones was accepted as a guiding principle in the ancient Church, it was never absolutized or viewed as having no alternatives." Alfeyev cites the conflict between two bishops, Basil of Caesarea and Anthimus of Tyana, as an example.[2]
Present situation
Eastern Orthodoxy
Canonical territories of autocephalous and autonomous Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions as of 2022.
The meaning of canonical territory in the context of the Russian Orthodox Church "is not self-evident, and no detailed explanation of it is given in any official document."[3]: 21 The Russian Orthodox Church defines the geographic extent of its canonical territory as including all the territory within China, Japan, and the post-Soviet states excluding Armenia and Georgia.[3]: 21 [4][a] It statutes define its sphere of jurisdiction as including "also [Eastern] Orthodox Christians living in other countries" outside of its canonical territory.[4][b] The geographic extent of the canonical territory defined by the Russian Orthodox Church is disputed by other Eastern Orthodox Churches.[6][7]
Phyletism
In diaspora countries such as France and the United States, problems with canonical territory have often given rise to the problem of phyletism, which is defined as the principle of nationalities applied in the ecclesiastical domain and the confusion between Church and nation.
In the Eastern Catholic Churches that have the rank of patriarchate, the patriarchal synod elects bishops for the patriarchate's canonical territory. Bishops who head eparchies situated outside that territory are appointed by the Pope.[8]
^As of 2015[update] the Russian language typical edition includes the phrase voluntarily joining ("на добровольно входящих в") which the English edition phrase, "also Orthodox Christians living in other countries," does not include.[4][5]
^Examples of CCEO canons that speak of the canonical territory of a sui iris church include 57, 78, 86, 102, 132, 133, 138-140, 143, 146-150.
^ abWasmuth, Jennifer (2014). "Russian Orthodoxy between state and nation". In Krawchuk, Andrii; Bremer, Thomas (eds.). Eastern Orthodox encounters of identity and otherness: values, self-reflection, dialogue. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN9781137382849.
Preda, Radu (Spring 2008). "Christianity and the Limits of Europe: A Social-Theological Approach". Eurolimes. 5. Oradea University Press: 120–150. CiteSeerX10.1.1.468.2680. ISSN1841-9259.
.svg)
