I had thought that Hungary was free of the jurisdictional squabbles, and was confirmed in that mistake when Hungary wasn't listed here:
3. The regions in which Episcopal Assemblies will be created in a first stage are defined as follows: http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/documents/chambesy/decision
i. North America and Central America.
ii. South America.
iii. Australia, New Zealand and Oceania.
iv. Great Britain and Ireland.
vi. Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg.
viii. Italy and Malta.
ix. Switzerland and Lichtenstein.
xi. Scandinavian countries (except Finland).
xii. Spain and Portugal.
The Bishops of the Diaspora, living in the Diaspora and possessing parishes in multiple regions, will be members of the Episcopal Assemblies of those regions.
In the back of my mind, I had recalled something about Met. Hilarion being called the administrator of Hungary, but his Cathedral being in Austria. In Hungary
This Cathedral was built at the end of the 18th century by peoples of various ethnic groups, including Greeks, Wallachians, Albanians and Hungarians. It was consecrated by a Serbian bishop, under whose jurisdiction it remained from the time of its foundation. Services were originally held in Greek, a language which the parishioners from the 19th century understood less and less. In the first half of the 20th century the number of parishioners decreased, and it seemed as if the parish was doomed to die out if it had not entered a new phase of its life in 1949, when it entered the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate.http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/88.aspx#1
(Btw, Cisleithania, i.e. the "The Kingdoms and States represented in the Imperial Council" of the Empire of Austria, had an autocephalous Metropolitan Synod in Vienna, a default position as the Metropolitan's see was in Czernowitz in Bucovina amongst the Romanians and Ruthenians, and the other, Serbian, Bishops were on the Dalmatian coast. The jurisdiction collapsed when the Metropolitan of Czernowitz united into the Patriarchate of Romania, and the Serbian Bishops of Dalmatia united into the Serbian Patriarchate). As the Serbian Patriarch of Karlovci, which continues in "Archbishop of Peć, Metropolitan of Belgrade and Karlovci, and Serbian Patriarch," presided over the Orthodox Episcopal Synod of Austria Hungary, and continued to exercize jurisdiction, in contrast to the Metropolitan of Czernowitz, in Transleithania, i.e. the Kingdom of Hungary, and the lands of Tranleithania, once the post WWII map abolished the distinction, he has the best claim to Austria. I do not know if he has so claimed. In the map, the autocephalous Metropolitan of Czernowitz had jurisdiction in the red, the autocephalous Metropolitan of Karlovci had jurisdiction in the light grey, except the far southeastern corner, i.e. Transylvania, where the autocephalous Metropolitan of Sibiu/Nagyszeben/Hermannstadt held jurisdiction.
The dark grey was autonomous, still attatched to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The Patriarchate of Serbia bought it after WWI from the Phanar.
cf. after WWI)
The Dormition cathedral was built in the 18th century by the joint efforts of Hungarians, Greeks and Moldo-Wallachians. It was under the jurisdiction of the Serbian Orthodox Church until 1949, when it was accepted into the Russian Church. This change of jurisdiction helped it not only to survive in a difficult and tragic period of official atheism, but also to rise to a new level thanks to His Holiness Patriarch Alexis I and the Holy Synod, who gave their blessing to use the Hungarian language during services. This historical decision predestined the fate of the cathedral and other churches of the Hungarian diocese which, at present, have essentially become the national Orthodox Church of Hungary. Thus, when the Orthodox community had to choose an ecclesiastical jurisdiction in 1991 after the fall of the communist regime, it unanimously decided to remain within the Moscow Patriarchate.http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/2/8.aspxhttp://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/88.aspx#1
The blessing to celebrate services in Hungarian, which was granted to the Cathedral by the Moscow Patriarchate, opened a new page of its history. All liturgical texts have been translated into Hungarian, and a unique Hungarian Orthodox tradition was formed. Over the last fifty years the parish has grown considerably. It now includes native Hungarians, including the descendants of its original builders, as well as Russians, Ukrainians, and representatives of other nationalities.
The life of the cathedral community is characterized by its vivacity and fullness. All of its clergy are native Hungarians, and every Sunday the church is filled with hundreds of believers.
So far, so good.
Unfortunately, during the last few years the cathedral of the Dormition has become the target of unsubstantiated claims from the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Justifying their position by an arbitrary interpretation of the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon, which gives the bishop of “New Rome” the right to ordain bishops for the “barbarous lands”, the Patriarchate of Constantinople has filed a lawsuit with the intention of taking away this church, which it never owned, from our Hungarian Orthodox diocese. In doing so they did not take into account the fact that Hungary is by no means a “barbarous land”, but a country with an extremely rich history, where Christianity has been preached over the course of many centuries.http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/2/8.aspxhttp://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/88.aspx#1
We have no doubt that the Hungarian court will make an objective and just decision based exclusively on facts and documents, and not on unfounded and empty pretensions. We have no doubt that a country readying itself for joining the European Union will not allow Orthodox Hungarians to end up on the street in their own country.
During the last few years the Cathedral of the Dormition became the target of unsubstantiated claims from the Patriarchate of Constantinople, which filed a lawsuit with the intention of taking away this church from the Hungarian diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate. However, the Municipal Court of Budapest, then the Arbitration Court of Budapest, and finally the Supreme Court of the Hungarian Republic made decisions that rejected the lawsuit of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. We are satisfied by these decisions of the Hungarian courts, but at the same we regret that the claims of the Patriarchate of Constantinople undermined the unity of the Orthodox Churches in Hungary.
I would like, however, to stress the fact that this matter does not just concern church property and the fate of a single parish which some people are trying to divide. The question is about the future of Orthodoxy here in Hungary.http://orthodoxeurope.org/page/2/8.aspx
Today we are faced with two radically different approaches to church life. For the Patriarchate of Constantinople the entire world, with the exception of traditionally Orthodox countries such as Greece and Russia, is seen as a diaspora, the “barbarous lands” for which Orthodoxy is something foreign. Many parishes of this Patriarchate in Europe have an overwhelmingly ethnic character, and services in them are held only in Greek. The Russian Church, on the contrary, believes that each country and people have the right to have their own Orthodox Church in which the faithful can hear the services in their native tongue.
Moreover, we believe that local Churches have the right to become independent and to administer themselves. This is why the Russian metropolia in North America was reorganized as the autocephalous Orthodox Church in America, and the Russian metropolia in Japan – as the autonomous Japanese Orthodox Church. For the same reasons His Holiness the Patriarch Alexis II of Moscow and all Russia proposed three months ago the creation of an autonomous metropolia in Europe, which would lay the foundation for a future Orthodox Church of Western Europe.
Hungarian Court for the Second Time Finds the Claims of the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the Dormition Cathedral in Budapest Unfoundedhttp://orthodoxeurope.org/page/14/51.aspx#6
On 13 October took place a hearing of the Arbitration Court of Budapest concerning the case of the ownership of the Dormition Cathedral in Budapest. The plaintiff was the Hungarian Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, represented by Metropolitan Michael (Staikos) of Austria, while the defendant was the Hungarian diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate, represented by Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Vienna and Austria, temporary administrator of the diocese of Budapest and Hungary. Lawyers Jozsef Paraizs and Eleonora Kiss also took part on the side of the defendant. Also present in the courtroom were Archbishop Pavel of Ryazan and Kasimov, clergy of the Hungarian diocese of the Moscow Patriarchate and parishioners of the Dormition Cathedral.
The Arbitration Court, which is a court of second instance, examined the appeal submitted by the Hungarian Exarchate of the Constantinople Patriarchate after the Capital Court of Budapest, at its hearing on 17 May 2004, rejected its right to file a lawsuit, thus recognizing the claims to the Dormition Cathedral as unfounded. Having examined the documents submitted by both the plaintiff and defendant and heard the arguments from the lawyers on both sides, the Arbitration Court gave its verdict, according to which the decision of the Capital Court was left without changes.
As is well known, the Cathedral of the Dormition, built at the end of the 18th century by Greeks, Macedonian-Wallachians, Hungarians and people of other nationalities, was under the jurisdiction of the Serbian bishop of Buda from the moment of its founding until the middle of the 20th century. From 1945 members of the parish asked His Holiness the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy I several times to accept the parish into the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. In 1949 the Hungarian deanery of the Moscow Patriarchate was formed, and in 1950 the Dormition Cathedral, along with several other Hungarian parishes, was finally taken into the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. In 2000 the Hungarian deanery was made a diocese, with the Dormition Cathedral as the bishop’s see.
During the court procedures of the first instance the Hungarian Exarchate of the Constantinople Patriarchate, registered in Hungary only since 1995, attempted to prove that it was identical with the parish that owned the Dormition Cathedral until 1950. However, the plaintiff was unable to furnish any documents that could confirm these unfounded claims. On the contrary, both the documents and the testimony of witnesses undoubtedly proved that the lawful legal successor of the Dormition Cathedral parish is the parish of the Moscow Patriarchate occupying it now, and that the Constantinople Patriarchate never owned this building at all. After examining all submitted documents and testimony of witnesses, the Capital Court, and now the Arbitration Court, handed down a verdict that rejected the lawsuit of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. The verdict of the Arbitration Court is binding from the moment of its signing.
The clergy and faithful of the Hungarian diocese viewed this judicial decision with satisfaction and thankfulness to God. It is significant that the verdict of the Arbitration Court was handed down just several days after the Bishop’s Council of the Russian Orthodox Church addressed the Patriarchate of Constantinople with a call to forego its groundless claims to the property of the Moscow Patriarchate in Hungary, including the Dormition Cathedral in Budapest.
Some might dispute that since Hungary does not have an Orthodox majority, it has no part in a Mother Church but falls within the so-called "Diaspora," the lands "outside of the specified boundaries of the individual local autocephalous churches’ regions/territories," as the canon 28 mythology defines it. Well, then you also have to dismiss Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Albania, Poland, the Czech Lands and Slovakia-I'd add the OCA, but most who would be foolish enough to dismiss Hungary's status as part of a Mother Church probably do not recognize the OCA.
Once can also argue that Hungary qualifies, if, as is often argued, Constantinople counts as a Mother Church because it has jurisdiction over the New Lands (Northern Greece, Crete, etc.) in Greece. At least the Patriarchate of Serbia-to which Hungary belongs-sits in the majority area, and its suffragan the bishop of Buda (the Orthodox Diocese of Hungary) sits in the minority area, at his cathedral of Szentendre, a suburb of Budapest north of the capital. At least its diocese/see also has Faithful, not like the many dead and empty sees that the Phanar seems to favor to distribute to bishops in the non-Greek (and for Greeks, auxilary bishops) "Diaspora." Except for the Greeks it puts in empty sees to be put on its "Holy and Sacred Synod."
However, the history of the diocese of Buda also resembles that of Constantinople-it is the basis of the present Serbian Patriarchate. And Hungary resembles Serbia in that it was in the jurisdiction of Old Rome, but it was evangelized by New Rome.
So, what is the justification from the Phanar on its expansionist policies in Hungary? Has this really been "settled?" And why is there no EA in Hungary if it is "diaspora?"