www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Apostolic Nuncio's???

I was reading through an article about the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church (UGCC)and the establishment of the exarchate of Kharkiv-Donetsk and Arhbishop Eterovic, the apostolic nuncio of Ukraine, was metnioned. A thought came to me . . .

If the Apostolic Nuncio (AN) is the State representative of the Vatican and the Pope, why is the AN in Ukraine not a member of the dominant Catholic Church in Ukraine? Is there any canon that necessitates that an AN must be a Latin Catholic?

The purpose of the thread is not to bash the Latin Church, or to make any claim that the current AN in Ukraine is not qualified, or not doing a good job. The question has more to do with the concept of "catholicity" within the Catholic Church (Does that make any sense?). In any country, not just Ukraine, where the majority of Catholics are not Latin rite, I think the state ambassador should be of the rite of the Catholic Church that is most prevalent in the country. Was this issued raised, or addressed in Ukraine, or other coutnries? If so, what was the response of the Vatican? What was the position of the Eastern Church involved?

Is it fair to think that such decisions for Catholic offices by the Vatican are acts that favor Latin Catholics? Are Eastern Bishops who are qualified for such a position passed up because they are Eastern? These questions rolled through my mind tonight. If, as Eastern Catholics, we are equal Catholics in the universal church, should not these positions and other relavent offices in the Catholic Church be assigned to Eastern bishops/clerics where it is warranted?

What are your thoughts on this? Does anyone know any canons that apply to these situations? As an Eastern Catholic, coming of age with the new attitude Rome has toward the Eastern Churches, I begin to see offices and positions that if we are truly equal we should be involved in at the universal level of the Church. And as Eatern Catholics, I think we need to raise these questions and "insist" that such positions effecting the Universal Church be open to our participation.

What do you all think?

In Christ,
ALity

I think it is more a "diplomat" thing. He is representing the Pope of Rome, and so should be from the Pope's own particular Church, he is not representing the Church he is sent to...

Curiously, there is a diplomatic representative from the United States to the Pope of Rome, and he is always a Protestant Christian, never a Catholic. The representative owes his identity and purpose from the sender, rather than one he is visiting.

Hiermonk Elias,

The last two US ambassadors to the Vatican have been practicing Catholics.

In Christ,
Lance

Dear Ality,

Yes, the AN is the personal representative of the Pope as head of the Catholic Church. He is like a "Governor General" or a vice-roy in the National Church to which he is sent.

One could argue whether such a post is an unnecessary one in an Eastern Church and whether such a Latin presence bespeaks of Roman domination.

I certainly would.

Alex

Dear Lance,

Thank you! I stand corrected, I was not aware of this at all.

Alex,

I know this is what the office is becoming in practice. However that is not its origin. It was founded as a diplomatic representative of the Holy See (as a state) to another state. In this, it was able to form a liason as the Christian prince exercised his authority in co-operation with Rome, in the appointment of Bishops, and other ecclesiastical matters.

One by one, as Christian princes have fallen, and new secular governments have renounced their duty in this regard, the Pope has assumed (through treaty and concordats), all the responsibility formerly accorded to princes in their realms.

In this way, the duties of the nucio has evolved. But this is an innovation and creation of the last several generations. It has passed largely uncriticized and unpublicized, yet has had a profound effect on the Church.

I would object to the idea that the nuncio is a kind of "governor general". Such a title is about a king who exercises his rule, but is not present. As you know, for example, the Queen of England, as Queen of Australia or Canada, appoints a "Governor" who exercises the royal prerogative in her name, in her absence.

But our Church is governed by bishops in their eparchies, and the royal model of an absent monarch is not the best vision for the Papacy.

Dear Alex, I know that is not what you were saying, but the comments about the nuncio gave me the opportunity to speak about this.

Everyone knows I love the Holy Father, and John Paul especially as a great teacher of the faith. I reverence his office! But the present relationship between Nuncio's and the local conferences of bishops etc., is not church teaching, dogma, or "of the faith". It has changed greatly in this century, and we must ask if it has developed in the best way! For this, I think, I the Catholic Communion the ecclesiology of the Eastern Churches has something very important to say!

Sorry Alex, but you hit on one of my opinions...

Elias

Bless me a sinner, Venerable Father in Carmel!

Well, you and I are of one mind here!

Yes, I work in the same building with our Provincial Governor who acts in the Queen's Name.

The Nuncio is exactly the same kind of role. We may not like the Royal style of the Pope, but it is definitely there.

The Pope is a Monarch, to be sure, with a Crown and other aspects and rituals that are shared with other secular Monarchs around the world. The Pope is also the head of a theocratic State, namely the Vatican, as its monarchical Sovereign, something no other Patriarch can lay claim to. As Catholics, we are also citizens of the Vatican City-State as we are subjects to the Pope. Again, like it or not (I like it, but then I am a monarchist ).

If the role of the Papal Nuncio is to act as ambassador for the Pope in Ukraine, for example, then that is fine.

If it is to be a kind of "Governor General" for the Catholic Churches in Ukraine, then that is perhaps not the best development of Papal jurisdiction with respect to the Eastern Churches.

But of this there can be no mistake - the Pope is a sovereign monarch and is recognized as such by many nations that do not recognize his spiritual authority or are otherwise connected to him religiously or ecclesially.

For example, when the Pope was in Canada, the heads of the various Dominion and provincial governments greeted him AS Head of the Vatican City-State.

The same courtesy was not extended, in one case I am familiar with, to the Ecumenical Patriarch of New Rome when he was here, as he was not the head of a state.

Alex

ALity:

Before going to your specific concern, it should be noted that the Apostolic See/Holy See (Rome) was endowed by international law and comity with a unique kind of sovereignty: that the Vatican City (the Holy See's territorial seat), although it is non-secular, IS a STATE clothed with all the powers attendant to all the states of the world. Thus, the Pope, in addition to his being the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, is also the Head of State of the Vatican.

As a State, therefore, the Vatican (the Pope), through the Vatican Secretary of State (presently His Eminence, Angelo Cardinal Sodano) has the power and the duty to send "ambassadors" to all the nations on earth in the person of the Apostolic (aka Papal) Nuncios, or the lesser Legates, vested with both POLITICAL (diplomatic) and ECCLESIASTICAL powers, unlike the regular ambassadors who are vested only with diplomatic powers.

As a POLITICAL representative of the Vatican (the Pope), the Apostolic Nuncio/Legate has that distinct privilege of being the ex-officio Dean of the entire diplomatic body, within his nunciature, and, therefore, on public occasions takes precedence of all diplomatic representatives.(I think this is due to the fact that Vatican diplomacy dates back to antiquity.)

As the ECCLESIASTICAL representative of the Vatican (the Pope), the Apostolic Nuncio/Legate is the person through which the Pope exercises his ordinary and immediate supreme jurisdiction. It is his special duty to supervise ecclesiastical administration, and on this he reports directly to the Cardinal Secretary of State; he grants dispensations in cases reserved to the Pope, carry on the process of information for the nomination of new bishops, and enjoy the privilege of granting minor indulgences. In special cases,he is delegated for the settlement of important ecclesiastical affairs.

Sometimes, the media report that the territory of a nunciature covers more than one nation. This means that there is a dearth of Bishops and/or Archbishops trained in diplomacy and international law.

Here is the chance of Eastern Catholics to assist the Pope in his governance of the Church worldwide.

But can the Eastern Catholics spare some of their Bishops/Archbishops for Vatican diplomacy?


AmdG

[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: Amado Guerrero ]

Dear Amado,

The problem is that Eastern Catholics are often the OBJECTS of specific Vatican diplomacy initiatives . . .

The Vatican, as you know, has its own diplomatic training school to which the vast majority, if not all, are of the Latin Church.

Again, as you've said, the Nuncio is the Pope's Governor General and acts as such in every which way.

It is therefore "proper" for him to be of the same Church/Rite as the Pope.

Again, there is no problem for Kyiv to have an Apostolic Nuncio as the Pope's ambassador or for him to have spiritual jurisdiction immediately over members of the Latin Patriarchate.

But, unless asked, the Nuncio should have no role with respect to the Eastern Catholic Churches.

That conflicts with the ideal of self-government of the Eastern Churches.

Or so some of us feel . . .

Alex

Alex:

Pardon me, Sir, but I did not say that the Apostolic Nuncio is, or equivalent to,a "Governor General" or to a "Vice Roy" for that matter.

Apostolic Nuncios are of a different breed, thank you.

Nuncios and legates represent the entire Catholic Church, not merely the Latin Church. It just so happens that the seat of government of the Universal Church is in Rome, within the confines of Vatican City.

AmdG

[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: Amado Guerrero ]

Dear Amado,

I NEVER said that you said that Nuncios are like Governors General.

I said that and I compared what I said to what you said.

And I still see the similarity, sorry.

The Nuncio represents the authority of the Pope, to be sure.

The Nuncio is the Pope's representative at a secular capital.

But there is no need for a role for him with respect to a national Eastern Catholic Church that is sui juris with its own Major Archbishop/Patriarch, such as in Ukraine.

Such Nuncios have always been a source of some tension with Particular Churches, as this role has developed over time.

The Patriarch/Primate of an Eastern Catholic Church SHOULD be the Pope's representative in this manner in a given country which is the seat of an Eastern Catholic Church.

Not some Latin cleric that appears over top of him.

And do you deny that the Pope is a Monarch in EVERY sense of the word?

How is he not?

Alex

Dear Amado,

Your point that Nuncios represent the "entire Catholic Church" is also a point for discussion.

This idea of the Patriarch/Primate of a sui generis Eastern Catholic Church vs. the representative of the "Universal Church" is a very Latin idea to begin with.

It is precisely what we are opposing in maintaining our own Particular Catholicity versus some idea that there is a "Universal Church" that is over us.

There is no "Universal Church" only a very large Particular Latin Church.

The Pope is truly the Supreme Pastor, but his role is not the same as that of Western Patriarch.

The Nuncio has historically become more than an ambassador and the papal "Governor General" to the national Latin Churches.

We have our own Particular government and have no need for such as far as we are concerned.

If we need to appeal to the Pope, we know where we can reach him.

Alex

My, this thread could get out of hand, I fear....

It is clear that in fact the Pope is a civil monarch, as well as a bishop. The Pope of Rome has been such for many hundred years.

However, we now approach one of the greatest differences between the Eastern Churches, and the Western Church. Our Ecclesiology is different. The Pope knows this, and encourages us to speak in our own language, and articulate our own venerable theology.

It is different in the way we speak about the Church, and the way in which we understand the communion that exists between Churches.

There is a whole book that needs to be writ!

Western Ecclesiology speaks of juristiction, the exercise of power and authority, etc. etc... And so in this model, a Nuncio who exercise the Pontiff's power in local Churches fits into a tidy feudal model. It is heirarhical, graded, tidy, and clearly seen.

Eastern Ecclesiology approaches the whole question from the standpoint of "Communion". Every Bishop, who shares the common faith, is joined by a common bond of love. Each particular Church, gathered around its bishop celebrating the Eucharist is fully Church, and in communion with every other Church gathered around its Bishop, celebrating in faith and love.

This communion is direct and personal. There is no need for ambassadors or emmisaries between brothers, for they are united intimately.

For easterners, the language of Nuncio's and "juristiction" is uncomfortable and sounds vaguely insulting, not only to us, but to the Holy Father, who is so loved and respected by all of us. How would you like it if someone you loved, and who loved you,sent an emmisary to convey his love and care? You would be disappointed! We would never dream of sending an emmisary to the Bishop of Rome to represent us! Our bishop will speak with him as he would to a brother, and tell him of our deep love and respect.

For westerners, all this feudal imagery appeals to their sense of good order and they are delighted to know exactly who answers to whom, who is accountable to whom, etc. etc. That is how a Latin mind works, and it is a suitable administration. I think these ideas sit too painfully in an eastern mind, like clothing that doesn't fit.

Easterners must wear their own clothes, and articulate their own theology. Our Ecclesiology is venerable and ancient. It is in fact, much older than the current Latin theology which depends so much on late mediaeval and counter-reformation experience. We weren't there, and don't need to go there.

Our articulation of our understanding of the communion between Churches, and the unity between bishops is important, beautiful, and needs to be heard in the whole Church. It would be wrong of us to sacrifice it because it is different. It is Orthodox, Catholic, Patristic, and entirely valid. Many western theologians of note (and I am not speaking of only liberal and trendy ones, also great defenders of Church authority) are studying it, and gleaning what is helpful and complimentary. But whatever about that, this patristic ancient theology is our Eastern heritage. It is our future (or we have none.)

Elias

p.s. But I do not criticise Latins who articulate their theology and understanding, and speak clearly from their own heritage. I respect that, and I listen carefully. I am edified when they own their own patrimony and defend their tradition. I (in a limited way, I suppose) understand as much of this as I can from outside the tradition, insofar as it is possible to completely understand when you aren't there. But my tradition is not theirs, and I do not think that Latins should adopt Eastern ecclesiology. (That would be a betrayal of their tradition, and an impoverishment of the richness in our Church.) I hope Latins wouldn't expect Easterners to do that either!

[ 05-29-2002: Message edited by: Hieromonk Elias ]

Bless me a sinner, Venerable Father in Carmel!

You are right, of course.

The problem I have is when Latins want to impose this idea of a "universal Church" on us, as if our Particular Churches were not already fully Catholic and integral members of the Church Universal.

That is what I feel our friend Amado did in his post.

He may feel strongly about it, but that is where the Latins need to work on their Eastern-understandin' skills, as they say in New Orleans!

Alex

My dear Alex:

I deeply regret if my posts on this thread somehow appeared "imposing."

Far from it. My initial post addressed to ALity was in answer to his concern as I understood it: that Eastern Catholics are shut out of the nunciature.

There is no attempt on my part to impose the "universal" concept of the Church on any one. But it is my personal sense of the expanse of the Catholic Church: her presence in every nook and cranny of the globe which, perhaps, necessitates the erection of nunciatures for the "protection" of her interests.

Fully knowing that I am a guest here in this Forum, I do respect the views and opinions of Eastern Catholics even as we RCs, once in a while, are bashed in every which way. And, I think, I am not dogmatic nor legalistic. Neither am I a "leftist," a "centrist,"nor a "rightist." A "monarchist" like you, perhaps, if we consider His Holiness, the Pope, a "monarch." But surely, I am a papist Roman Catholic.

I have come to love the Eastern facet of our Catholic Church. And I do not denigrate, and, if my memory serves me right, have not denigrated, in any manner the Eastern Catholic Churches.

I value the "communion" that we presently have.
Imperfect? Yes. Needs improvement? Definitely.

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!

Wow!

This has been enlightening. I think that Alex's basic question, as I understand it, is: Are we, as Eastern Catholics fully Catholic within our own traditions in union with the Bishop of Rome, or do we need to adjoined like some appeture to the larger particular Latin Church to be fully Catholic? Is that right, Alex?

I share this same question. The past tells us a story, that although Eastern Catholics would retain certain liturgical customs, our theology underpinning those rituals would be replaces by Latin theology and that we would adopt the Latin ecclesial model for the governance of our church. So in this sense, we were indeed an appendage tacked on to the greater Latin Church and absorbed into their power structures. But times, at least de facto, hae changed and as Eastern Catholics we are anjoying a new flowering of our ways and the freedom to excercise our ways from the greater Latin Church, who has held political power over us for four hundred years. But everything cannot change in an instant. There is a big mess to sort out concerning how the Catholic Church of the thirdd millenia will function.

But this is the aim of my query: If as Amado, defined the role of the nuncio, as an ambassador of Catholicism to a nation, I think that such a position in Ukraine should be filled by an Eastern Catholic. After all we are Catholics, right? Being an Eastern Catholic does not make one any less Catholic. To insist that the Nuncio in Ukraine must be a Latin is an injustice to the idea of Eastern Catholics being fully Catholic. Then the nuncio is a sort of LAtin overlord lurking in Ukraine,watching with Latin eyes, as to the happenings of the Catholic Church in Ukraine.

If the nuncio is supposed to represent the Pope only, therefore Latin Catholicism then he should be a Lain.

But as Hiermonk Elias and Alex point out, the ecclesiology of this in the Eastern Tradition is somewhat offensive as our Patriarch should assume that role.

Anyway, I am confused and may not be making much sense.

Was this issue brought up in Ukraine at all?

ALity