www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Traditional Anglicans Seek Union with Rome

David,
No there does not have to be a mandate from the Church for validity. The Orthodox have validly ordained bishops.
In the Latin Church the mandate would pertain to it being lawful. Pardon but my Latin is off tonight the brain is not functioning to well due to extreme exhaustion.
Stephanos I

On the question of Anglican Orders, I remember an Orthodox Metropolitan (well known in ecumenical circles) observe regretfully, that no true episcopate, would accept the prospect of ordaining women as deacons, priests or bishops, nor would they do so. In effect, he said, they rendered the verdict themselves, and placed themselve outside of the "orthodox-catholic" tradition, and firmly within the protestant reformed tradition (eg. without orders or the mysteries).

Again, from this other forum we have talk about this issue too.

Irish Melkite (Neil) was gracious to post the following there and I am sure he would not mine my repeating it here. (this is only a small portion of the whole post)

The Augustinian theory effectively holds that valid episcopal ordination confers an indelible character that is not affected by any schismatic or heretical act or excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order, though he may have been deprived juridically of the office or jurisdiction by which he performed episcopal acts. The latter considerations affect only the licitness of his acts.

The Cyprianic theory effectively holds that a valid episcopal ordination is affected by schismatic or heretical acts and by excommunication taken in response thereto or for any other reason. Accordingly, a validly ordained priest once validly ordained to the episcopate retains his capacity to exercise that order only so long as he continues in communion with the jurisdiction under the authority of which he was ordained to the episcopate (or such other jurisdiction into which he may have subsequently been accepted) and is exercising the office or jurisdiction by which he has the right to perform those acts. There is no distinction made as to licitness.

The Catholic Church adheres to the Augustinian theory; the Orthodox Churches to the Cyprianic theory, (although they have exercised oekonomia in application of it to instances in which schismatic bodies have returned to communion).

For some reason the Cyprianic theory rings true to me.

As the Cyprianic theory states, when one operates within the Jurisdiction that one was ordained in then there is no issue.

I believe the Cyprianic theory would not allow bishops from one jurisdiction to "ordain" those of another Church.

On the question of a sui iuris Church for the Anglican Usage, I have to agree with those who have that it would be possible but unlikely. However, I don't think that the rite they use is the primary issue.

Consider this: if there were to be such a sui iuris Church, what would be its canonical territory? I can see three (main) possibilities:

(1) that the Church of Rome would give up some portion of its canonical territory,

(2) that the new Church would be given some Eastern territory, or

(3) that it would have no canonical territory at all.

Rome certainly could do (1), but its extremely unlikely: I think Rome is just as reluctant to give up any of its canonical territory as are the EO Churches, if not more so. Possibility (2) is sure to cheese off both the EC and EO. So I'd have to say that (3) is the only realistic possibility, but even it seems quite unlikely.

Many years,
Peter.

dear Peter:

you raise an important point.

You probably don't know but Eastern Catholic Churches (certainly the UGCC) find the whole issue of "canonical territory" to be VERY problematic.

I'm not sure that it is a useful concept for the Catholic Communion. It has certainly been used against Eastern Catholic churches in the not too distant past.

But your post raises perhaps an even more important point, aside from specific Anglican liturgical usage (which is (or can be) quite distinct from the Latin, what else would make them a fully distinct "rite", e.g. distinctive Anglican theology? spirituality? church discipline? saints?

I am in favour, but off the top of my head, it isn't immediately apparent...

Herb

Please explain why any of this would be necessary. There is really no such thing as "canonical territory" between sui iuris Churches in the Church as it stands today.

That is, for example. I live in Rochester, NY. This is the Latin Catholic Diocese of Rochester, but I am a Byzantine Catholic. Rochester, NY is in the jurisdiction Byzantine Eparchy of Passiac but I attend a Melkite Catholic Parish that is in the jurisdiction of the Melkite Greek Catholic Eparchy of Newton.

So if the Church did make an Anglican Catholic Church (for lack of a better name) why would it's diocese (or dioceses) over lap as the Eastern Catholic ones do?

This Church would be for Anglican converts and anyone else would have to secure a ritual Church change, which I think would upset many Latin Catholics.

Rochester, New York, is also (at least theoretically - I don't know who has parishes there) in the "territory" of the Maronite Catholic Eparchy, the Syro-Malabarese Catholic Eparchy, the Syrian Catholic Eparchy, the Armenian Catholic Eparchy, the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Stamford AND the US Military Ordinariate. Did I forget anybody? So what's one more jurisdiction?

Incognitus

I know I wasn't that complete, but I thank you for the additions.

But as far a paishes go, beside the Latin Church we have a Melkite parish and two Ukrainian parishes. Once a year the Maronite priest in Utica travels here for a liturgy which is held at the Melkite parish.

Thats why I go the Melkite parish, no Byzantine one nearby.

I think the "canonical territory" that Peter is talking about is somewhat different. Yes, all Syrian Catholics in the US fall under the Syrian Catholic Eparchy, and all Syro-Malabar Catholics in the US fall under the Syro-Malabar Catholic Eparchy, etc. -- and in that sense, the US can be seen as the "territory" of these eparchies.

However, when Peter says "canonical territory", I think he refers to a specific region that is associated with a particular sui juris Church and is seen as that Church's "own area". For example, the "canonical territory" or "proper territory" of the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church is the state of Kerala in India. And the "proper territory" of the UGCC is (I assume) Ukraine.

As Herbigny rightly pointed out, this concept of "canonical territory" causes several unpleasant results: For example, any eparchies that are outside the proper territory of a sui juris Church have their hierarchs appointed by the Holy See, rather than by the Synod of that sui juris Church. And any eparchies outside of the canonical territory are forbidden (or at least, roadblocks are put up) from conducting mission activities. Thus, for example, the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church has had friction with the Latin Catholic Church in India about who is "allowed" to evangelize the people in the rest of India. I am sure there are more examples of unfortunate effects of the idea of the "canonical territory".

This is not just a thing of the past; the concept of the proper territory continues to be used against Eastern Catholic Churches. Again, I agree with Herbigny; I think the Catholic Church would be better off without the whole "canonical territory" idea.


Peace,
Alex NvV

Alas, I did forget someone - Rochester, NY, is also in the canonical territory of the Romanian Greek-Catholic diocese of Canton. My apologies to Bishop John-Michael, his clergy, monastics and faithful.

The whole concept of "canonical territory" requires an overhaul. It can't just be got rid of, because no bishop can be bishop of the entire universe. But things have gone much too far when, say, four distinct Greek-Catholic parishes in walking distance of each other have four distinct bishops because of where the great-grandparents of the current parishioners originated. Is it possible that someone is playing divide et impera?

Incognitus

divide et impera? feeling a bit cryptic and maybe even naughty, but isn't that a LATIN phrasE? JUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUST wondering (and wandering)
Much Love,
Jonn

I think it unfair to blame Rome for our divisions when the Orthodox suffer the same problems and in every case that I am aware of seperate jurisdictions exist because at some point the faithful of the respective Churches requested it. At this point I think it is incumbent upon the hierarchs and faithful of the Greek Catholic jurisdcitions in North America to seriously consider asking their Synods and Rome to help intergrate them into a unified Greek Catholic Major Archepiscopate of North America.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon,

A very interesting idea! Although it is not the first time I have heard it, it may be an idea whose time has come. How do we encourage this?

But I am not sure I like the idea of a "Major Archiepiscopate" because it is new and an innovation, and it seems, not an authentically eastern title. Perhaps there is an eastern and traditional title for the Church that might emerge from such a union?

the unworthy,
Elias


(...but, as the moderator may wish to point out, I am now well "off topic".)

How about Catholicate (for the Syriac-leaning) and Metropolitan Autocephalate/Autonomate (for the Byzantine-leaning)?

Well one can certainly drop the Major, but the Chief Hierarchs of the Cypriot, Greek and Albanian Orthodox Churches are styled Archbishop, those of the Polish, Czech and Slovak, and OCA are styled Metropolitan so either would do.

What really needs dropped is the ridiculous differentiation of autonomy and power between Patriarch, Major Archbishop, and Metropolitan in the CCEO. This is what is not Eastern. The Orthodox, while giving different precedence to the various titles do not distinguish between the authority of a chief hierarchs of autocephalous Churches. A Metropolitan chief hierach has the same authority and power over his Church as a Patriarch does over his.

Perhaps the first step would be for the Metropolia of Pittsburgh to petition Rome for Major Archiepiscopal Status? Is there any reason we shouldn't have this status? Many of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchates are not as big as the Metropolia, which is not big.

Fr. Deacon Lance