www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Maronite

Dear Memo,

FYI, the Dominion of Canada abolished slavery on August 1, 1825, many years before your Grand Republic did so - after suffering the ravages of the Civil War.

Before then, Lt Gov. John Graves Simcoe, a student of the Anglican scholar William Wilberforce, introduced legislation to curtail slavery in 1793.

As with your interpretation of Catholic history, I don't understand what you are getting at . . .

And please don't call me an "agnostic" here as well.

I have a commitment to clarity as "agnosco, agnoscere" in Latin means "not to commit."

Alex

Neil, that is indeed an excellent presentation. My only comment is that the Macedonian Greek Catholic Church is exarchial as officially established by the Holy Father in 2001, with a standing and official Apostolic Exarch.

Perhaps another category of "exarchial" churches which would include the Macedonian and Russian? Exarchial churches are certainly canonically a notch above a church with just an Apostolic Visitator such as Fr. Serge Gajek of the Belarussian Greek Catholics.

The Greek Catholic Exarch is currently Kyr Joakim Herbut, who is also the Latin bishop of Skopje, but is more commonly known in Rome not as the Latin ordinary as the "Esarca Apostolico per i fedeli di rito bizantino residenti nella ex-Repubblica jugoslava di Macedonia" or the Apostolic Exarch for the faithful of the Byzantine Rite in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).

It is a bit complicated as he has specific exarchial authority over all Macedonian Greek Catholics, but only Latin authority over Skopje as Skopje and Prizren were divided several years ago, and his former auxiliary Marko Sopi elevated as the new Bishop of Prizren.

The auxiliary, Kyr Kiro Stojanov was consecrated by Herbut and the Greek Catholic bishops Miroslav Marusyn and Slavomir Mivklos in the Byzantine rite.

Whether or not Kyr Kiro has right of succession to the Greek Catholic exarchate I do not know, but it is certainly implied because of his age (45) relative to Kyr Joakim (75) as well as his "cradle" Greek Catholic background, as compared to Herbut who came from a Latin background, although he had as a co-consecrators Kyr Gavril Bukatko of blessed memory.

It is interesting that the episcopal lineage for the Greek Catholic Exarchate begins with Metropolitan Andrey who lobbied Rome very hard for recognition of the Macedonian Greek Catholics.

Kyr Kiro has published several articles and is a very articulate spokesman for Christian unity in Macedonia.

Randy,

I agree and used to add a category that might best be described as "Eastern Catholic communities sine ecclesia". The list included Byzantine Macedonians and Byzantine Serbs, as well as Byzantine Czechs and Byzantine Poles, all suggested, at one time or another, as potential groups for which a Church sui iuris should be canonically erected.

I considered the likelihood of Rome designating any additional Churches sui iuris to be unlikely, since they were/are clearly willing to allow the Byzantine Georgian Church to be de facto suppressed by lack of an identifiable body of faithful. (I hold the position that the Georgian Church's lack of clergy could be alleviated, in an instant, were the Congregation to ask the Jesuits to either ordain a priest for it or supply one from those of the Society who are already in the service of Eastern Churches.)

I believed, and still do, that the Macedonians and Serbs/Montenegrons, small though each group is (i.e., 11,000 and 22,000, respectively, per Annuario Pontificio 2004), deserve and need their own ecclesial identity. Historically, until a few years ago, it was common to see both Serb and Macedonian listed as "Eastern Catholic Churches" or "Eastern Rites"; they only began to disappear from the lists when sui iuris began to be used as a descriptor and entries started to reflect those ecclesial entities that met the criteria for the term - amorphous as those are.

Additionally, issues of ethnicity and national identity relative to the geo-political reality of post-Soviet Eastern Europe belie an easy integration of either group into any other national or ethnically based sui iuris Church. That said, I recognize that it flies in the face of the proposition (to which I subscribe and which I have personally advanced) that we (Eastern Catholic Churches) cannot survive if we don't put aside our individual nationalistic outlooks for a forward-thinking "Eastern Catholic outlook" that, while not devoid of ethnic consideration, avoids it as the end-all and be-all around which our temples revolve. I do firmly believe that, if we don't, we will be hobbled by a ghetto mentality or lost through assimilation. However, I also think there is room for the continuation of the concept of ethnically and/or nationally conscious sui iuris Churches, provided each is open to evolvement into an encompassing religious community that maintains its historical identity, while being welcoming to those not of it.

Anyway, getting off my soapbox , I was heartened when Rome created the Apostolic Exarchates of Serbia & Montenegro and that of Macedonia. I thought that I might have been premature in my thinking that it was uninterested in further fractioning the Eastern Catholic communion by creation of additional sui iuris Churches, regardless of justification. But, as I soon realized, the Exarchates were not merely created from the Eparchy of Krizevci, but were considered to constitute, together with it, the poorly-styled sui iuris entity "Greek-Catholics in Former Yugoslavia", what I have labeled as the "Croat Greek-Catholic Church". Annuario Pontificio 2004 reports the exarchates with Krizevci, in the context of "Former Yugoslavia", leading me to surmise that Rome is not yet inclined to perceive either jurisdiction as a "sui iuris" Church, as we currently use the term.

Now, that doesn't preclude reverting to my former break-out of communities sine ecclesia, because I still think they should be separated. But, I tired of the inevitable arguments that the category generated:

"There are no ethnic Byzantine Poles, presently or historically, the Ordinariate is just a collection of the non-Ukrainian Greek Catholics in Poland, all of whom came from somewhere else!"
(Untrue, as Michael/Coalesco nicely refuted in a recent post on the CA forum .)

"There are no Serbian Catholics, they're all Croats!"
(Untrue, though admittedly small in number.)

"How come you didn't include the _____________?"
(fill in the blank; be advised someone has already beaten you to it if you were going to use "Moldavians" or "Slovenians" :p )

In the instance of the Russians versus the Belarusans, bear in mind that I have a particular interest in what I call the "orphan churches", those particularly abused by Rome's neglect, worldwide or here in the US. Both these Churches fall into that group and I'm particularly proud that my Church has a history of supporting and assisting the Russians, so I'm not inclined to short-change them.

I note that the Belarusan jurisdiction, extant but sede vacante, like those of Moscow and Harbin, when civilly suppressed was also of the rank of Apostolic Exarchate. So, while I agree with you that Archimandrite Sergius' position of Apostolic Visitator is merely a "presence", rather than hierarchical, the See itself is of corresponding status to that of the Russians, who have no hierarch and may not even have that "presence". Father Sergei Golovanov, I believe, is titled "Visitator to the Greek Catholics in Asian Russia", but I'm not sure if his mandate is from Rome and, therefore, he is "Apostolic Visitator" or not. (This predates the Synod's effort to appoint him Administrator, on which Rome has yet to act and, if I recollect correctly, doesn't even acknowledge as having happened ).

In the category prior to the one you reference, I used "episcopal/eparchial" as a descriptor because it related to the "order of bishop", and the incumbent presiding prelate of each of the Churches in that category is of that order (or, in the case of the Abbott vere nullius dioecesis is of equivalent authority). Notably, neither the Apostolic Administrators (Albanian and Ruthenian) or the Apostolic Exarch (Greek) are required to be of the order of bishops to hold those offices. So, if a hierarch was named for either Russia or Belarus, I'd happily move whichever up into the episcopal/ eparchial category.

He hasn't been formally designated coadjutor and as recent events here have shown, being auxiliary is no guarantee, even in our Churches with a much smaller episcopal pool than is available to the Latins .

Many years,

Neil

Fair enough answer, Neil. I also am a stauch advocate for the "orphans" as well, (as you know) and know as well without the patriarchal omophorion of Antioch our Russian Catholic faithful and clergy would be in very dire circumstances indeed.

Purely from a structural view of the hierarchal order, there is a place for exarchial churches to be included in an ontological characterization.

Macedonia is not a suffragan of any other church (nor are the Russians), even though the Macedonians are listed as part of the "FYR church", the bishop does not answer to Krizhevci but directly to Rome.

I would not consider the Macedonians structurally that different from the Russians except one has a standing exarch, the other vacante with a historical exarchate.

And for no other reason than politics, as the diasporal growth of the Russian Catholics cries, no, even screams, for the shepherding care of an exarch.

Historically, the Belarussians did have something in the person of Tarasevich, although I can't remember if he was ever "officially" elevated to an exarch (which I doubt, perhaps a similar situation to Gajek).

And why the Macedonians have an Exarch while the Russians, with a growing diasporal presence, can't get one is certainly less than just. Hieromartyr Leonid, pray to God for us and the restoration of our Russian Catholic hierarchy.

And no, Rome has not even yet acknowledged that the Synod presided by Fr. Sergei Golovanov has even yet occurred, although it concluded several months ago. And the apparent allowing of the withering and dying of the Georgians is quite disturbing, as is the lack of a pastor in Istanbul since the death of the former.

But no matter how "tight" any classification is, there will always be exceptions through the odd "visitator" or Rome doing other "exarchial" type appointments.

Yours is still the best by far that I have yet seen.

And as you have very righly maintained, part of the purpose of any such classification should be to strongly underscore the need for official ecclesiastical recognition of the "orphans" such as the Russians, Belarussians, etc.

Randy,

Agreed, as do all Apostolic Exarchates (e.g., the Armenian Exarchate for the US and Canada). In answering to Rome, the relationship of the Exarchates of Macedonia and that for the Serbs & Montenegrons to Krizevci is no different than that of Kosice to Presov or Prague to Mukachevo.

You and I may feel that, it should be but, as we are aware, that call is made by folks whose thinking is a tad narrower. Clearly, at least right now, they see Macedonia as part and parcel of Krizevci, not for administration, but as far as "Church" status. That doesn't mean they are going to give Krizevchi jurisdiction over it. They don't give patriarchs jurisdiction over their eparchies in the diaspora - you know they aren't going to give it to a bishop.

It just occurs to me now, as I write this, that there's a reason why the Italo-Greico-Albanians have three hierarchs, but no one of them is designated as presiding. This way, no one is in charge - except the Congregation. How dumb can I be, that it took this many years for that to hit me in the head .

If I think back, I may have based my structuring on how Father Ron Roberson breaks them out in his presentation on CNEWA's site; those without existing hierarchs are also separated there. He, however, lists Albania among them, since it is an Apostolic Administration rather than an Eparchy or Exarchate. In that instance, I opted for calling them episcopal/eparchial, since an Apostolic Administrator does have some episcopal jurisdiction, albeit limited.

I also remember, though, that I wanted to break those without hierarchies out separately, as a way of dramatizing the fact that their spiritual leadership needs were not being served by Rome's failure to fill the vacancy.

I wonder if this had anything to do with the reputed dialogue with the Macedonian Orthodox Church; although it would run completely counter to the approach taken in Russia - so, I can't quite fathom it.

Many years,

Neil

Sarah,

Something I was going to pass on, but forgot when Randy and I got into our discussion.

The Eastern Catholic Churches that are represented by jurisdictions and/or parishes in North America:

Copts
- parishes only

Ethiopians
- parishes only
- AFAIK no parish specific to serving Eritreans

Syro-Malabarese
- 1 eparchy (US)
- AFAIK no parishes dedicated to Knanaite Usage

Syro-Malankarese
- parishes only

Syriac
- 1 eparchy (US)

Armenian
- 2 exarchates (1 US/Canada; 1 Mexico/Latin America)

Melkite
- 3 eparchies (1 US; 1 Canada; 1 Mexico)

Italo-Greico-Albanian
- a society in NYC area with monthly Liturgy
- parish in LV constituted by Ruthenian Van Nuys Eparchy

Russian
- 3 parishes only, under Latin Ordinaries
- 1 other parish was suppressed 30 years ago
- 1 parish (LA), under omophor of Melkite Eparchy

Romanian
- 1 eparchy (US)

Ruthenian
- 1 metropolitan archeparchy; 3 eparchies (US)
- faithful in Canada served by Slovacks

Slovakian
- 1 eparchy (Canada)
- faithful in US served by Ruthenians

Ukrainian
- 2 metropolitan archeparchies (1 US; 1 Canada)
- 7 eparchies (3 US; 4 Canada)

Chaldean
- 2 eparchies (US)
- AFAIK no parishes utilizing Arabic Usage

Maronite
- 4 eparchies (2 US; 1 Canada; 1 Mexico)

There are parishes within the Ruthenian and Ukrainian jurisdictions that began as parishes to serve faithful of other Byzantine Slav Churches that do not have a formal US presence (i.e., Hungarians, Macedonians, Slovacks, and Bulgarians (?)). However, those are not (and never were) specifically parishes of their respective Churches, with two exceptions. Two Byzantine Croat parishes were eventually taken under the Ruthenian omophor: one still exists; the other was suppressed a few years ago.

The Byzantine Belarusans had a single parish in Chicago, subject to the Latin Ordinary. It was suppressed a few years ago.

AFAIK, the Albanians, Bulgarians, Georgians, Greeks, and Hungarians have never had any formal hierarchical or parish presence in North America.

Many years,

Neil

Many thanks, Neil. I am looking forward to studying the wonderful material you posted, trying to integrate it all....and coming up with more questions....

Right now, though, it might be a week or two before I can do any of that....I've been a little under the weather this week, plus my next chemo treatment is scheduled for Tuesday, and the week after chemo is usually a bit fuzzy (not the time to try to really learn anything new)

Despite all that, I plan to bring my forum printouts down to the hospital with me on Tuesday...something to read during the 6-7 hours of treatment.

So, please don't think I am uninterested...

Sarah (who longs for all Christians to find true Unity in Christ)

(I just couldn't resist trying your expended signature style.)

Sarah,

Thank you for the kind words.

My prayers that your chemo session will be efficacious and that any unpleasant after-effects will be minimal.

Many years,

Neil, who can't claim credit for this "expanded signature style", as he is rarely clever enough to use it :rolleyes: and is also fairly certain that Gaudior owns the copyright on it

Neil,

The Pittsburgh Metropolia has several Hungarian parishes where Hungarian not Slavonic was the Mother liturgical tongue. In fact three Pittsburgh area towns have both a Rusyn and Hungarian Church: Munhall, McKeesport, and Duquesne. The Ukrainian Eparchy of Toronto also containes four Hungarian parishes as well as three Romanian parishes.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Good evening Neil,

The Syro-Malakarese have an apostolic visitator for North America and Europe, Isaac Mar Cleemis, Eparch of Tiruvalla. They have an interesting website: http://malankara.net

I would expect an eparchy to be erected in the not too distant future, probably for the U.S. with an apostolic visitator for Canada, as the Syro-Malabars have, since there is only one Syro-Malankara parish in Canada.

The Eparchy of Kottayam`s website has a section dedicated to the Knanaya diaspora - very interesting and it gives statistics in the various countries.

http://www.kottayamdiocese.com/diaspora.htm

Peace,

Charles

Deacon Lance,

Thank you. Looking back, I should have worded my last few paragraphs better. I knew of the Hungarian parishes within the Ruthenian fold and acknowledged such (you may remember that I did a little survey here about a year back in an effort to identify all of those).

The point I was trying to make was that the Hungarian GCC itself did not ever have a formal presence here, along the idea of the former Belarusian parish in Chicago or the two Croat parishes that were under Latin ordinaries prior to asking that the Ruthenians receive them under their omophor. Are you saying that the Hungarian parishes started out as missions from the Hungarian GCC - and subsequently came under the Ruthenians? I'd really like to know if that is the case.

Thanks for the info about the Romanian parishes in Canada.

Charles,

Thank you for pointing out the oversight. I know their website well and have always found the photo of Mar Isaac to be quite striking in itself (and also in the resemblance between him and Bishop Joseph Younan of the Syriacs), so I feel especially "duh" to have overlooked it.

As to the erection of an eparchy, I agree. (BTW, this reminds me to tell you that the Melkite Synod has asked that an eparch be named for our long-vacant eparchy in Mexico; will e-mail you with more on that subject.)

Thanks for pointing that out. They have a great website (that seems to be characteristic of the eparchies of the Indian Churches), but the stats are new since I visited it last.

If you follow postings on the secular Knaiate websites (as secular as they get, since the Knanaite culture is so all-encompassing that there is little ecclesial-societal separation), there is tremendous frustration that Rome will neither give them their own eparchial jurisdiction in the diaspora nor allow the Eparch of Kottayam to exercise the same personal jurisdiction over his people here as he does in Kerala. They want their own clergy and parishes in the diaspora and are very threatened by the prospect of being fully assimilated into the larger Syro-Malabarese Church sui iuris, of which they are a part. Interestingly, I haven't seen any parrallel expressions of concern from their counterparts, the Orthodox Knanaites of the Jacobite Syrian Church.

Rome is not about to accede to their demands. I think it considers assisting the Knanaites to bring the church-related aspects of their endogamous culture to the diaspora as akin to encouraging the export of a quasi-caste system. When HH Pope Saint Pius X established Kottayam as a personal jurisdiction for the Knanaites by the Decree In Universi Christiani, I'm sure no one considered that this distinct ethnic entity would ever spread far beyond Kerala.

Many years,

Neil

I am going through your post slowly.....stopping when a point strikes me...this one did.....

Now that I know that I should say "Oriental" if the rite used is not Byzantine, I realize how little I know....

I love that you refer to the Orthodox "counterparts" to the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches as Sister Churches.
If only everyone would see (and say) things like that...

Thank you...I would like to see a few examples of this concept....

Thanks so much for the lists!!! Good referecen points. How can anyone ever claim ignorance again without first checking these lists to see if the question is answered there...

This is great...

Sarah-- who hopes that all these posts and discussions will continue to lead us all to a better knowledge of the truth and to an everlasting Unity In Christ...

Sarah,

You'll find that the majority of folks don't make the verbal distinction between "Eastern" and "Oriental" Catholics (a failure that is somewhat steeped in Catholic usage, which sometimes uses "Oriental" to cover all, e.g., in the title of the Congregation and our Code of Canon Law), just as many do not distinguish between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. Then, of course, you'll find some who carry it one additional step and distinguish the Assyrian Church of the East from both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox.

Hopefully that was answered by the schematic in which I broke down the Rites

Many years,

Neil

The Hungarian and Romanian parishes in Canada, while retaining their ethnic particularity, are currently under the omophorion of the UGCC Eparchy of Toronto. I was once at a retreat preached by Fr. Nicholas Deak of the Eparchy of Toronto who was a Hungarian refugee.

The Eparchy of Parma has St. John's Hungarian in Solon. Other parishes, while not specifically designated Hungarian, had a significant Hungarian contingent such as in Toledo.