www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Benefits of union with Rome

There are times I wonder if there is any benefit of union with Rome. She doesn't seem to go out of her way to show us she wants us.

Considering the administrative chaos in the Roman Church with disciplining bishops (Law is only one case in point and the tip of the iceberg, see Don's post of articles the other day) I find it almost Pharisaical and surreal that as Greek Catholics Rome would need to "approve" our elections.

Considering the fallout of some of these "elections" in the recent past, it is a tough pill to swallow. Nowhere in any of the documents of union did a Greek Catholic Church agree to submit three names to Rome and have Rome choose. Perhaps as Greek Catholic we need to (1) redouble our prayers and [2] have our hierarchs remind Old Rome of the original mutually agreed upon conditions for our Union.

On the issue of "approval."

From my very meagre understanding, "approval" is just a bad word meaning, basically, "we are in communion." But doesn't every patriarchal hierarch do the same with regards to all other patriarchal hierarchs? Isn't there a formal exchange of letters between all hierarchs (in communion) RECOGNIZING the newest occupant of a patriarchal See?

Based on this, can I please ask what is so wrong about this "approval" from Rome? Doesn't every "sui juris" Church seek "approval" from other "sui juris" Churches?" Perhaps the wording needs to be changed, because "approval" does seem condescending.

Another question(s): Are ALL Catholic churches required to submit three candidates to the Pope for "approval?" I thought PATRIARCHAL Sees don't have to do this, but only those Churches that are not yet Patriarchates. What did it mean when the Pope granted the Indian Malabar Catholics the right to elect their own bishops?

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, if the bishop is outside of the "territorial boundries" of the Patriarchate, the Patriarch is not at all free to appoint the Bishop. He sends three names to Rome and Rome "appoints". Note the recent appointment of the Melkite Archbishop for the USA.

So there is really not an election in the normal sense i.e. the candidate with the most votes wins and is confirmed by the Patriarch. Instead, the Patriarch and Synod "nominate" and the Pope "appoints". Rome, of course, is free to appoint someone not even on the list from the Patriarch.

If Rome really respected our sui iuris status, and the various articles of Union, and her own teachings on the Eastern Churches, this is how it should ideally happen: the Synod elects, the Patriarch confirms, and the Bishop sends a letter stating his communion with Rome accompanied by an official sealed letter from the Patriarch confirming the election.

Marduk,

Yes, every Patriarch upon his election seeks communion with Rome and with his brothers of the other patriarchal Churches sui iuris.

The "approval" or, more correctly, "appointment" by Rome of a bishop to hold an eparchial see in the diaspora is not a grant of communion, it is an appointment, pure and simple; perhaps - but not necessarily - in concert with the expressed desires of the Holy Synod as reflected in their list of nominees.

The Patriarchal and Major-Archepiscopal Churches sui iuris submit to Rome the names of three candidates to fill any episcopal vacancy in a canonical jurisdiction in the diaspora (outside the historical territorial bounds). A Metropolitan Church sui iuris submits names of three candidates to fill any episcopal vacancy. The Eparchial Churches sui iuris are entirely dependent on the Apostolic See as to nominees to fill their hierarch's vacant office.

The Syro-Malabars, when conferred Major Archepiscopal status, had certain authorities withheld from them, for a variety of reasons. One of these was the right of their Synod to elect bishops within their territorial bounds. Thus, until the fullness of that authority was subsequently granted, the Churh was in the position of a Metropolitan Church sui iuris, i.e., having to submit nominees to Rome for all episcopal appointments, within or without the historical territories.

Many years,

Neil

Thank you for the explanations!

I have another question: What is the rationale behind having/letting the Pope appoint bishops in the diaspora? I mean, from the POPE'S perspective. Is it merely a power trip? Are there any valid canonical considerations?

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Marduk:

As a Latin, I have been trying to decipher, and to understand, the rationale for such Papal prerogative.

First, I think Rome is employing the "traditional" definition of a Patriarchal boundary to be limited to a "single" nation; at the most, to a "regional" extension of Patriarchal authority and power. Beyond these "geographic" limitations, the Pope should exercise his "universal" authority and power over the diaspora.

Second, a presentation of a common Catholic witness globally as gleaned from the "re-organization" of the national episcopal conferences immediately after Vatican II and then grouping them into Regional Episcopal Conferences.

Thus, the Catholic Communion has a Regional Episcopal Conference for each of the 5 continents: Africa, Asia, the Americas, Europe, and Oceania. Under each of these Regionals come the various national epsicopal conferences which include BOTH Eastern hierarchs and Western (Latin) bishops.

In the U.S., eparchs of Eastern Catholic Churches are members of the USCCB.

I think this jurisdicional "synthesis" is enshrined in both the Latin Code of Canons and in the Eastern Code of Canons. Pending the amendment or abrogation of the latter, this prevailing "convenient" arrangement remain.

Amado

This is something that I've always found rather bizarre--and unfortunate.

Jason

Dear Brothers,

The Jesuit, Klaus Schatz, in his "Papal Primacy" explains the mindset behind the developed practice of Papal appointments throughout those under the Papacy. It primarily was for a good reason: to combat monarchs who wanted sympathetic clergy and primates to their own causes. AS Schatz tells it, historically there was a battle in the West between the Papacy and the States over who were going to have more influence over the Epicopacy, and the Papacy eventually won.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Ghazar

Brothers Amado and Ghazar,

Thank you for your informative posts.

From what I understand, the situation was generally what Orthodox might call "economy." If that is the case, there shouldn't be any reason why the present situation cannot be reversed.

On the other hand, I am wondering if the following are a valid considerations:

First, The Pope sees the Americas as "Western" territory since it was evangelized FIRST by Western Catholics, and by Christians in the Western tradition (i.e., Protestants).

Second, let us take ourselves back to the days of undivided Christendom. If a group of Christians moved to a another geographic location in another "jurisdiction," would there have been a problem of jurisdiction, of choosing exarchs based on national or ethnic origins? I do not know if there were any canons governing such a matter in the undivided Church. I think there would NOT be since the Church was united, and the persons moving to another location would simply have accomodated themselves to the customs of their new Church.

Third, for national Churches currently IN COMMUNION, what is the situation? If a sufficiently large number of a certain nationality and/or rite moves to another country with another rite, would there be two Orthodox jurisdictions in the target country? Is there an example today where such a situation occurs? If the answer is "yes" then there is a valid basis for the current Eastern Catholic concerns over selection of hierarchs. If the answer is "no," BUT Eastern Catholics do NOT recognize that the Americas are in the Western jurisdiction (the first consideration above), then there is also a valid basis for your concerns. HOWEVER, if the answer is "no" AND Eastern Catholics DO recognize that the Americas are in the Western jurisdication, then may I ask what is the basis for the current Eastern Catholic concern?

Please do not interprets my question as a matter of preserving Eastern identity. I believe the question is simply a canonical one.

Thank you for your answers ahead of time.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk, I think you answered the question well yourself. Based on the model of mutual communion of the first thousand years, there is absolutely no good reason why the Pope should be personally involved in the selection of any Eastern Catholic bishops.

The very term sui iuris itself in Latin basically translates to "his own master" meaning these churches are theoretically self-governing. I agree with William's assessment. The current situation results from the post Medieval and especially post Counter-Reformational power centering of Rome.

This nonsense of Rome picking the candidates never existed in the first millenium. If a Church had recourse to Rome to settle an issue that is one thing, and what Rome should do. Every baseball game needs an umpire. But a good umpire doesn't pick the players, he just makes sure the players are playing by the rules and throws them out if need be.

Rome does not even seem to recognize the historical reality that the classical Patriarchates always transcended national boundries. My own Constantinopolitan tradition is a case in point.

The profession of faith and declaration of communion from a bishop synodally elected by another Catholic Church sufficed for Rome in the first thousand years.

If you read the memoirs of Pope Paul VI you will see his great desire and vision to reform this aspect of the office of the Pontiff. He also related these sentiments to his friend, the sainted Patriarch MAXIMOS IV Saigh before their mutual deaths.

But I have to disagree with Jason. I think it is actually very beneficial for the UCCB to see the Eastern hierarchs, learn about their churches, flocks, and ministries, and manifest "both lungs" [East and West] at the various meetings.

Marduk,

Among all in the community here and the many I consider good friends, there are few, if any, to whom I feel a closer bond (and with whom I almost never disagree) than my beloved brothers in Christ, Amado and Bill (Ghazar). But, in this instance, I think the rationale each offers is deficient, because I can't see a direct tie between them and the Eastern Churches in the modern context. And, I think it is in that context that one must examine it; continuation of history doesn't suffice, except as an excuse ('we always did it that way').

Frankly, though, I think you have hit the nail virtually squarely on the head:

Consider that the documented history of Eastern Catholic migration to "Western" countries (and, here, I'm not speaking of crossing the border into a contiguous nation) is really a phenomenon that began in the late 19th century. The earliest group to do so in numbers that would merit giving consideration to establishing a hierarchical structure were what would come to be the Ruthenians and Ukrainians, not members of a patriarchal jurisdiction (and major archbishoprics hadn't yet been conceived).

At that point, Rome was already habituated to appointing hierarchs for them in their lands of origin and, if ever an excuse was needed to continue doing so, the hostility of the Latin hierarchy and the internal divisions that ensued over culture and ethnicity certainly lent themselves to buttress Rome's perceived need to assert its primacy. Remember, too, that we of the East were then only members of "Rites", not Churches.

Prior to that, Rome had already de facto taken the Italo-Grieco-Albanians under its Western Patriarchal wing, clearly perceiving the Mediterranean waters around the boot as a boundary that effectively demarcated those faithful from their Eastern brothers in Greece and Albania, despite the fact that they maintained joint East-West communion for some not inconsiderable period (as Andrew Rubis has pointed out here before). While Rome didn't presume to subsume those of the Slavic "rites" so wholly into its patriarchate, it didn't see a jurisdictional umbilicus back to their homeland.

The only two patriarchal jurisdictions with noticeable numbers of adherents in the West were the Melkites and Maronites. In their ancestral territories, the Melkites at least (and I believe the Maronites as well) were synodically electing their own hierarchs and the early histories of our parishes suggest that they often corresponded directly with the hierarchy "back home" in seeking to have their clerical needs met. A number of the Melkite clergy dispatched to America were styled "Patriarchal Exarch", an honorific rather than jurisdictional title (Antoine Aneed's interpretation to the contrary), but I suspect still intended to be a subtle display of patriarchal interest, concern, and authority.

By the time (in the '60s) that consideration was given to erecting Melkite and Maronite exarchates, I believe Rome was firmly entrenched in the idea that, as these establishments were to be within the geographic territory of its patriarchate, it had the right to limit another patriarch's exercise of canonical authority over them (analagous to the situation where a bishop's exercise of his pontifical rights does not accrue to him when in another's jurisdiction, except by leave of the host bishop). It seems unlikely that Rome could conceive the possibility that any Eastern Patriarchate would ever physically relocate itslf to the West (yet, it was only a decade later that His All-Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, Patriarch-Catholicos of the Assyrian Church of the East did exactly that).

I am aware of only a single instance in which Rome has seen fit to extend a patriarch's historic territorial boundaries. In (IIRC) 1838, Pope Gregory XVI, memory eternal, extended the historic territory of the Melkite Patriarch to include Alexandria and Jerusalem and granted to His Beatitude Maximos III Mazloom, of blessed memory, that he so style himself. Yet, even that grant of title was ad personam and continues so to this day, with it being accorded to each Melkite Patriarch on his being granted communion.

Many years,

Neil

I do think that speaking of "national boundaries" with regard to the Patriarchal Churches sui iuris is a bit of a red herring, as no present patriarch's jurisdiction ("territorial boundaries of a patriarchal Church", as most commonly used in the Code) is delimited by national boundaries.

Admittedly, of the two Major Archbishoprics, the Syro-Malabarese would be so construed, as would be the sui iuris Metropolitan Churches, other than the Ethiopians.

I agree with Randy that the participation of the Eparchs in the USCCB is an important and worthwhile venture that in no way detracts from their Eastern orientation and can hardly be considered a factor in Rome's continued patronization of the Eastern Churches. Of note, in countries where Eastern Churches predominate, whatever Latin hierarchs there may be are also members of the local episcopal conference. Such interaction is a factor of our oneness - to have it otherwise would deny that.

Many years,

Neil

Marduk,

Can you explain this query? Are you asking if there are presently countries with parallel canonical jurisdictions representing two or more Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris? I sense it's more than that, but you lost me somewhere.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Neil,

Thank you for your very informative posts. To be more concise about my question, I am not speaking merely of countries wherein there exists parallel Orthodox or Eastern Catholic jurisdictions, but of countries that are HISTORICALLY Orthodox/ Eastern.

For instance, in Russia, would a large influx of Greek-speaking Orthodox (different from the Rite of the Russian Orthodox) canonically allow the EP or other Patriarch to set up a jurisdiction within Russia (normally recognized to be in the jurisdiction of the Russian Orthodox with which they are in communion) that would meet the spiritual needs of the Greek-speaking Orthodox, or would the Greek Orthodox simply accomodate themselves to the Russian Orthodox way (since they are in full communion)?

Another instance, in Lebanon, would a large influx of Greek-speaking Catholics (different from the Rite of the Maronites) canonically allow a Greek Catholic Patriarch to set up a jurisdiction in Lebanon (normally recognized to be in the jurisdiction of the Maronite Church with which they are in communion) to meet the spiritual needs of the Greek community, or would they simply accomodate themselves to the Maronite way (since they are in full communion)?

If there is NO canonical norm that would allow one Catholic Church to set up a jurisdiction in an area normally in the canonical jurisdiction of another Catholic Church; OR if there is NO canonical norm that would allow one Orthodox Church to set up a jurisdiction in an area normally in the canonical jurisdiction of another Orthodox Church, then it seems the Pope of Rome is actually giving A LOT more respect to the Eastern Catholic Churches in its (Western) jurisdiction than is normally being portrayed.

Of course, this completely depends on whether or not one views the Americas as being in the canonical jurisdiction of the Western Church.

I hope that explains it more thoroughly.

Blessings,
Marduk