www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Canon Law question

I understand that the current Code states that Eastern parishes in the "diaspora" without an Eastern bishop are administered by the local Latin prelate - my question is, what precludes one Eastern Church being administered by a bishop of another Eastern Church?

For example: the small Syro-Malankara Mission in Detroit being administered by the St. Thomas Syro-Malabar Eparchy (Chicago), the Maronite Eparchy of Our Lady of Lebanon (Los Angeles), the Chaldean Eparchy of Saint Thomas the Apostle (Detroit), etc.?

What you have envisioned has actually occurred. The Italo-Greek parish of Our Lady of Wisdom, Las Vegas, NV is under the jurisdiction of the Eparch of Van Nuys. As I understand the Russian Catholic parish of St Andrew, El Segundo, CA, although a parish of the Latin Archdiocese of Los Angeles, is entrusted to the care of the Melkite Eparch.

Then what is to keep one church sui iuris (without a patriarch) from being under the guidance of the patriarch of another church sui iuris instead of answering straight to Rome?

I realize it is slightly different, but it is the same concept on a larger scale.

I think what Fr Deacon was describing was his Eparchy helping out a community whith no bishop of their own on this side of the Atlantic. If they had a bishop, that bishop would not be seeking to avoid the Pope. Bishops can interact with other (they do, freqently and Rome is a very nice place for them to do that) bishops from all over the world.

Why should any sui juris Church have to "answer" to Rome? Sadly, this way of looking at things within the Church confirms the fact that the sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches are really in subjection to Rome, rather than being in communion with Rome.

I did not argue that they should, but that some do. Without a patriarch of their own, they tend to be under the wing of another patriarchal church. I was wondering why the framework Fr. Deacon provided for a particular parish without a bishop present could not be extended to a particular church without a patriarch present.

An ecclesiology of communion does not allow one Church to have "power" over another. Thus, a patriarch from a different sui juris Church of the same ritual tradition would be a servant of the particular Church in question, and not some kind of secular prince.

My criticism mainly concerns the way in which Catholics (both Eastern and Western) speak about authority in the Church. We must begin to live and experience the Church as a communion, and not focus so much on the idea of centralizing powers, that is, if we are to move closer to the Orthodox.

I dont think the model extend the same way when taken up to the level of bishops, as there is not need for that to happen. All Catholic bishops are in full fraternal communion with each other and with the Pope. There is no need for bishops to join up with another church just because one of them has a Patriarch/Major Archibishop. It does not add anything to them. They are all bishops anyway. Even Patriarchs make canonical visitations to the Pope, but not as often as all other bishops are required to do. I think it may be set at once every 10 years. Ultimate responsiblity in the churches lies with the Pope hence, why he is personally informed of their situation, that he may better support his brother bishops.

If we are aware of practice in the Catholic as it is today, we will see that much has changed already in that direction. Now there is a real challege for the various Particular churches. What to do on their own from here on it.

Perhaps you could expand upon your definition of "power". Clearly we are urged by the Gospels to avoid the model of the secular princes of this earth when it comes to governance within the Kingdom of God. But are popes, patriarchs and bishops thus to be rendered "powerless" in your view of an ecclesiology of communion?

Gordo

In an ecclesiology of communion, or what Fr. Schmemann calls, a "eucharistic" ecclesiology, it is not possible for one Church (or one bishop) to have power over another Church (or bishop), because each and every particular Church is the full realization of the one Catholic and Apostolic Church. In other words, power in the Church cannot be thought of as "power over others," but must be understood as "service" to others. Thus, it must not be thought of in legal or jurisdictional terms, but in terms of service and love in support of communion. As Fr. Schmemann explains, "The essential corollary of this eucharistic ecclesiology is that it excludes the idea of a supreme power, understood as power over the local Church and her bishop," because as he goes on to say, "A supreme power would mean power over the Church, over the Body of Christ, over Christ Himself," and this is simply contrary to the faith of the Church. ["The Primacy of Peter in the Orthodox Church," pages 38-39]

The "sacred power" (founded upon the unity of the sacrament of orders) of Popes and Patriarchs is one of service, and so it must not be conceived in monarchical, legalistic, or jurisdictional terms. Moreover, this "sacred power" is held equally by all who possess the grace of sacramental ordination to the episcopate. Eucharistic ecclesiology is opposed to the universalist ecclesiology of the Latin Church, which developed during the high middle ages.

Todd-

Thank you for that explanation. Some questions for you based on what you said:

1. in your opnion, is the ecclesiology evident in Vatican II more consistent with the "communion" or "universalist" model?

2. in the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger that you're familiar with, do you think his ecclesiology more like the "communion" or "universalist" model?

3. At a practical level, if we adopt a communion ecclesiology what does this mean for Latin dioceses whose bishops and priests teach, perform or allow sacreliege or heresy? Under the current situation, Rome can do a number of things, including censuring them and defrocking them. How would Rome deal with these people under a communion ecclesiology?

MarkosC
[who BTW agrees with everything you said]

Yes, I think Vatican II, although not using the terminology of eucharistic ecclesiology, was trying to move the Roman Church away from the Scholastic universalist ecclesiology that had been dominant within the Church for hundreds of years.

Yes, I think that Cardinal Ratzinger, at least to a certain extent, holds to an eccelsiology of communion, although I see certain tensions in his thought which indicates that he continues to hold a form of the primacy that is based upon jurisdiction and power. Nevertheless, I think that he is open to the insights of Eastern theologians (e.g., Schmemann, Afanassieff, Meyendorff, Zizioulas, et al.) on the primacy.

Heresy is a crime against the whole Church, and not simply against the Pope; and moreover, communion entails a unity of faith. Thus, if a bishop is not teaching the faith, he has broken communion, and he would be excluded from the synod, by the action of the whole synod and not merely the primate. The Pope as primate cannot act without the concurrence of the synod, and the members of the synod cannot act in separation from their primate. This reciprocity is made clear by Canon 34 of the Apostles, which reads as follows: "The bishops of every country ought to know who is the primate among them, and to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his consent; but every one to manage only the affairs that belong to his own parish, and the places subject to it. But let him [i.e., the primate] not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit."

What this means, however, must be understood properly. When most of the Church was Arian - certainly the Council of Nicea acted without the consent of all and initially without the Pope - though his approval came. The Pope's jurisdictional power has to be universal. How it is exercised of course must be for the common good. These two are not mutally exclusive.

The bishops present within the synod of Nicaea did consent to the Nicene creed, notwithstanding the fact that many bishops from the West, including the Pope, were not present.

Now as far as universal jurisdiction is concerned, the Eastern Orthodox are never going to accept the idea; and so, if the West is going to insist upon it, we should all admit that communion between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches is impossible, and be done with it.

God bless,
Todd

I guess somebody better call Metropolitan John Zizoulas and tell him he's wasting his time then.

Gordo