The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
PoboznyNeil, Hammerz75, SSLOBOD, Jayce, Fr. Abraham
6,185 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (Danniel Georgia), 538 guests, and 90 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,533
Posts417,711
Members6,185
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 238
E
Member
Member
E Offline
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 238
Kurt,

You're a good man. smile

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405
Likes: 38
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405
Likes: 38
Dear Kurt and Edwin,

As the Holy Father MIGHT say:

SOLIDARNOSC forever!

(And if our bishops ever became anti-union, does that mean we have to become Orthodox?)

Alex

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,196
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,196
Guys,

Historically, Rome hasn't showed any particular hurry when it comes to giving us new bishops. Between the time that Abp. Dolinai died and Metropolitan Judson was named, 18 months or so passed. (And yes, I DID wait until the previous occupant of the position died before I began praying for a new one.....)

Like everybody said, pray, and pray hard. We need good, holy and competent men in these positions - our continued existence & forward progress depends on it.

In Christ,

Sharon

Sharon Mech, SFO
Cantor & sinner
sharon@cmhc.com

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 743
K
Member
Member
K Offline
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 743
Quote
Kurt,
You're a good man.

I hope so. Given President Sweeney is an official advisor (I forget the lofty title) to the Holy Father on these matters, my president meets with the bishops semi-annually, my boss meets with a committee of bishops or their designees quarterly, and I work with the bishops' staff regularly, I have no morally valid excuse if I violate my pledge.

K.

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 24
Moderator
Member
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 24
Patience is a virtue, but so is justice. Would a bishop let a parish go without a pastor for a year or two? I don't think so. Then neither should Rome let Eastern eparchies go so long without an archpastor. There is no difference. It is a matter of justice. Latin dioceses don't wait any amount of time. From my own observations, the Latin dioceses around here usually have to wait about 6 months. Why such a discrepency? If we rate so low on the priority list perhaps Rome should raise us to Major Archeparchial status so we can elect our own bishops and won't need to wait on Roman bureaucrats.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 743
K
Member
Member
K Offline
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 743
having participated in the past in the consultation process for an epsicopal appointment, I can understand that this of neccesity is a long and complex process. I don't think playing the politics of victimhood add much to the process.

K.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator
Member
Moderator
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
I can appreciate Kurt's comment about the long and complex process, but certainly the powers that be knew of Bishop George's retirement,as well as Bishop Andrew's impending retirement. IMOHO, the unexpected death of Metropolitan Judson may have thrown the timetable off the chart. The longer wait for eparchy of Van Nuys wait may be due to the selection of the metropolitan. Perhaps it is better to have the metropolitan consecrate the suffragan bishops.

In any case only time will tell.

John

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 24
Moderator
Member
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 24
Kurt,

You look past the central issue. I do not doubt the process is complex or that it must take some time. What I question is why does the process take such a significantly shorter time for Latin diocese than it does for Eastern eparchies? This is simply a fact. Go over to EWTN News and look under Pontifical Acts. Look at bishops named and then cross reference that with the retirement or death of the previous bishop (you might have to go the diocesan website to do this part) and look at the time elapsed. It is generally less than a year, about six to eight months. This has been true for the Latin diocese in my area as well. In contrast last time the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh waited eighteen months. The Slovak Eparchy of Toronto waited four years. Van Nuys and Chicago are still without bishops? There must be some reason for the difference. Given the Curia's track record with Eastern Churches, my guess is either low priority given to us, over scrupulosity in choosing our bishops, incompetence, or a combination of all the above.

One question Kurt, why do you seem unable to withstand or tolerate any criticism of the Church? I do not feel I am being disloyal by pointing out obvious problems. Nor do I feel I am playing he politics of victimhood by doing so or pointing the obvious solution: let us elect our own bishops.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 22
N
Junior Member
Junior Member
N Offline
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 22
Are the Eparchies really a ship without a captain? Here is more fuel for speculations! Maybe Cardinal Ignace had a handfull of names for the Pope's Blessing! Our anxieties may be just over, or just begun. There will always be something to talk about.

VATICAN CITY, JAN 3, 2002 (VIS) - The Holy Father today received in separate audiences:

- Cardinal Ignace Moussa I Daoud, prefect of the Congregation for Oriental Churches.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 78
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 78
Can anyone speak to how the process of creating a list of candidates for consideration occurs? For example, are all the arch priests considered as candidates for bishop? Could/would a priest being considered decline for some reason? or the flip side could/would a priest indicate an interest? Are you told that you are under consideration?

Waiting creates anxiety, but also makes you sit for awhile with hope about the possibilities....

Barbara

Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 24
Moderator
Member
Moderator
Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337
Likes: 24
Barbara,

From the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches:

Canon 168 - With regard to the appointment of the metropolitan and bishops, for each case the council of hierarchs is to compose a list of at least three of the more suitable candidates and send the list to the Apostolic See, observing secrecy even towards the candidates; in order to compile the list, the members of the council of hierarchs, if they judge it to be expedient, can seek the opinion of certain presbyters or other Christian faithful outstanding in wisdom concerning the needs of the Church and the special talents of a person required for the episcopate.

From Canon 180 concerning the candidates they are to:

1. demonstrate solid faith, good morals, piety, zeal for souls and prudence;

2. enjoy a good reputation;

3. not be bound by a matrimonial bond;

4. be at least thirty-five years old;

5. ordained a presbyter for at least five years;

6. possess a doctorate or licentiate in some sacred science or at least an expert in it.

A candidate may always decline. Metropolitan Judson did so twice before accepting the third time around. It would be extremely improper for a priest to campaign for consideration.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate


My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 184
D
Member
Member
D Offline
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 184
Quote
Originally posted by Lance:
Barbara,

From the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches:

Canon 168 - With regard to the appointment of the metropolitan and bishops, for each case the council of hierarchs is to compose a list of at least three of the more suitable candidates and send the list to the Apostolic See...
Lance, deacon candidate

Again and again, in peace, let us attend to a prime question. How do we Byzantine Catholics constitute a Church (vs. being just a rite) if we cannot name our own bishop instead of Rome choosing one of the three?
G. Florovsky used the image of a pseudomorph - a crystal given an outward form that contradicts what otherwise would be its natural form determined by that crystal's particular molecular structure - to critique the "western captivity" of his own Orthodox Church in prior centuries.
So, what does it matter if we B.C.s go back to our roots to reconform our "molecular structure" (Liturgiology, spirituality, ecclesiology, etc.,)to that of our Eastern brethren, only to display the inconsistent outward face of having bishops that are chosen for us?
For all the talk about being a Church and not a rite, are we still not a pseudomorphic ecclesial form?

just an ordinary kind of fool.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,968
Quote
Originally posted by durak:


Again and again, in peace, let us attend to a prime question. How do we Byzantine Catholics constitute a Church (vs. being just a rite) if we cannot name our own bishop instead of Rome choosing one of the three?

Is the Greek Archdiocese in this country merely a rite and not a Church since it receives its Bishops by appointment from Constantinople? This is not some formality for them...consider the problems they experienced with the appointment and removal of Metropolitan Sypridon. The choice for his replacement came from the Phanar and was a surprise when announced (many had campaigned for an American Metropolitan). I believe (and I'll let others correct me here if I'm wrong) the Bishops for the Johnstown Diocese and the Ukrainian Orthodox Diocese in the USA are also appointed by the Patriarch in Constantinople.

Lest we forget that in some lands it is customary to give veto power (or obtain pre-authorization for a nominating list) to the State. The Jerusalem Patriarch (Orthodox) must have approval from Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, and Israel before assuming office. Last year, Israel refused to approve the nominating list for the Patriarchal election because of complaints they were biased towards the Palestinian cause. The Synod eventually went ahead with an election but the Patriarch elect must still receive approval from the Israeli government before assuming office. (I don't know the final outcome of this...perhaps others can share if this has been resolved.)

Let me state that I favor, in principal, returning to our Church the right to elect our own Bishops. I'm not sure this is always the best course. John Paul's appointment of Bishops in the Western Church has had a very positive (at least from my view) effect on the Western Church in restoring doctrinal orthodoxy. Many in the Eastern Catholic Churches have resisted de-latinization and the implementation of the Instruction on restoring our traditions. The influence of the Eastern Congregation on this matter (especially with its current Prefect) would be most beneficial. I hope that someday we will be able to choose our own Bishops. Are we ready for it?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 184
D
Member
Member
D Offline
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 184
Quote
Originally posted by DTBrown:


Is the Greek Archdiocese in this country merely a rite and not a Church since it receives its Bishops by appointment from Constantinople? This is not some formality for them...consider the problems they experienced with the appointment and removal of Metropolitan Sypridon. The choice for his replacement came from the Phanar and was a surprise when announced (many had campaigned for an American Metropolitan). I believe (and I'll let others correct me here if I'm wrong) the Bishops for the Johnstown Diocese and the Ukrainian Orthodox Diocese in the USA are also appointed by the Patriarch in Constantinople.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Thank you for your most cogent response. But I am still not quite sure that our B.C. Church(?) situation is the same, mutatis mutandi, as the American-based Orthodox Churches/Constantinople relationship. And absolutely no Christian is happy with the Church/State relationship in the Middle East -- imposed by the Ottomans first in 1875 and again in 1958 by Jordanian authorities who ruled east Jerusalem. (The impass to which you refered is still not resolved to my knowledge.) I don't know why you would even refer to that scene.
Are we Byzantine Catholics not to model, as our ecumenical mission, what it is to be in communion with the Patriarch of the West? (The motivation for the most worthy Instruction to restore our rightful patrimony is nothing other.)
Is not the present situation telling the Orthodox,
"Unite with the Catholic Church! You will be better off having the Pope name your bishops!"

Choicest of blessings for you and yours in the New Year.

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,775
D
Member
Member
D Offline
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,775
My understanding is that the 'consultors' for the diocese meet in secret and discuss various candidates. They ultimately vote and submit the "terna" (three-name memo) to the Vatican. The Vatican can take it under advisement and designate one man, or they can return the terna and tell the consultors to do it again.

While it certainly true that there should be a lot of prayer and consultation involved in this process, I suspect strongly that there is also a whole mess of BS politics involved as well. I guess, kinda-sorta, that that is to be expected since it's bringing a man into an ecclesiastical bureaucracy and the new bishop has got to work with the other bishops.

On the other hand, I also get the feeling that the Eastern dioceses are like the bastard sons of the Church. We're legit heirs, but no one really likes us. And they have no idea where to seat us at the table to avoid embarassment.

I wonder what would happen if our dioceses took a cue from our Orthodox brethren, had a clergy-laity congress, determined suitable candidates, and then let the presbyteral council do an election? And then let the Synod (such as it currently is) make the determination and 'inform' Rome that we have a new bishop whom our current bishops have consecrated. We are not, contrary to popular opinion, children who are in constant need of monitoring. If we keep acting like adolescents, we'll continue to be seen as adolescents. If we stand up like adult MEN and WOMEN, then maybe we'll get some respect.

I'm sure there'd be a lot of messy Depends in Rome, but what the hey! It is easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission. I really trust Bishops Andrew, Basil, Michael and George to do what is best for our peoples. They, after all, have spent many years blessing, consoling, and evangelizing our people. They have served the Lord well through their wearying work. Who better to determine what we need.

Let the missiles be launched and the grenades fly!

Blessings! (Head for the bunkers!!!)

Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0