www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Russian Catholic Church sui iuris - Werth as a head

Andreios,

Actually, Rome can and does do whatever she wishes. It is she who creates the canonical structure and can, if she chooses, allow the existing jurisdiction to remain extant but sede vacante. An apostolic exarchate is, by its nature, a direct jurisdictional extension of Rome, lacking the independence (albeit limited) of an eparchy.

CCEO, Canon 311, S. 2
I think you're missing Deacon Peter's distinction between an "Ordinary" and an "Ordinariate".

I don't see that establishment of an "Ordinariate", although theoretically multi-ecclesial in jurisdiction, is significantly more offensive to (or less acknowledging of) the Russian GC Church than would be the appointment of a Latin prelate as Apostolic Visitator ad nutum Sanctae Sedis, as Administrator, or as Exarch (as is the case in several jurisdictions, where a Latin hierarch is simultaneously serving as Ordinary of a Latin jurisdiction and as Exarch locum tenens of an extant Byzantine jurisdiction . In all these instances, the faithful of a Church are being �entrusted to hierarchs (not of the Rite) who preside over (the Church) as per the norms of common and particular laws� (hierarchs locum tenens).

Many years,

Neil

Andreios,

As a bishop to whom the faithful of another Church sui iuris are entrusted, Bishop Werth is responsible for assuring their care, that includes appointing pastors:

Canon 383, Latin Code

Canon 193, CCEO:

Many years,

Neil, who hates being in the position of defending ecclesial acts that he finds repugnant, but sees no basis on which to challenge them as illicit or invalid - only as contrary to the best interests of his brothers and sisters of the Russian Church - which I won't describe as sui iuris, because there is obviously no self-governance at work here

Spasi Khristos!

Dear Andreios, as much as we do not like it, the Roman Bishop (Ordinary) has the authority to erect a mission or parish for a church sui iuris that does not have an exarch or eparch with territorial jurisdiction coinciding with the Latin bishop's geographical territory.

My primary issue of grief is not the Roman canon itself, but that a synodal meeting and election was completely ignored, not only by the Ordinary but by Rome.

All of the Russian Catholic parishes operating in the USA (4, with one more potentially in the works) are technically subject to the Latin ordinary in this way.

The Latin bishop can, as in the case of St. Andrew's in El Segundo, place the parish under the "spiritual omophorion" of another Byzantine church (in that case the Melkites) but in doing so he does not ever actually relinquish his canonical authority for Catholic churches sui iuris without hierarchies.

Diak,
enjoyed the visit to the site, nice to run into another Russian Catholic, infact, it's nice to see so many Eastern Catholics here, plus our Orthodox kinfolk and even the Latin folks as well. they weren't kidding, your church has a wide variety of ethnic groups, from the Italian priest to the Hispanic parish president.
Much love,
Jonn
Irish-German-Native American-Dutch-Spanish-French.yeah, I know a lot about ethnic variety

Jonn,

You may also want to visit the website of Saint Andrew\'s Russian Greek Catholic Church [saintandrew.info] in El Segundo, which Randy mentioned above. There's a nice history of the parish there, with explanations of its historical ties to the Exarchate of Harbin. St. Andrew's is in the unique role of serving simultaneously as St. Paul's Melkite Catholic Mission and, as a consequence, is under the omophor of the Eparchy of Newton for the Melkites in the US.

Many years,

Neil

Neil,
enjoyed visiting that site as well. there are times I wonder why all of the Russian Catholic parishes could not be under the ecclesiatical protection of say the Metropolitan of Pittsburgh or of any of the Eastern Catholic prelacy until such time as we have our own eparchy here in the USofA. but that is probably another story. but I'm living here in splendid isolation (like a desert father)in Chattanooga, so I'm pretty much out of touch with the ecclesiatical goings on. I just do my Russian Orthodox prayers every day, have my Icon corner (such as it is), and continue living my faith as an Eastern Catholic as I have been doing for more than thirty years. thanx again.
Much Love,
Jonn

Good day Andreios,

Bishop Werth is a Jesuit, Cardinal Kasper is not.

Peace,

Charles

There is also a nice write-up on the Harbin Lyceum which can be found on the Rum Katkilise site: http://rumkatkilise.org/lyceum.htm

The Lyceum is greatly responsible for the survival of the Russian Greek Catholic Church. Many martyrs, Orthodox and Catholic, hailed from the Harbin refugee community. May they intercede for us.

'sui juris' is just another stupid title thrown out at Eastern Catholics to make them feel independently operated. Impressions, not realities, are everything, right? Just so we feel like a real church. What's gonna be the next doggy bone? Somethin' that isn't REALLY a doggy bone, but somethin' that just simulates it. And you only get it if the master is nice. Aarf!

ByzanTN
that was rugged,dude.
much love,
Jonn

I think Rome long ago realized that we will do nothing about decisions that are not in our best interests, so we are taken for granted. It's not like we would ever leave if we were unhappy.

It has happened before, it can happen again . . .

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

It can happen, but it probably won't. I can't think of a single issue that would get most Eastern Catholics that upset. If one existed, you might have to wake many ECs up so they wouldn't miss the exodus. I am not sure whether there was less apathy in the days when folks actually did walk out, or if it is just the lack of issues today that get people upset. Of course, there are the effects of years of Latinizations, and that could be a factor, but how great a factor I don't know.

Not quite - as the Polish example evidently proves. Two juridical persons of the UGCC existed
canonically in communist Poland (I mean Eparchy
of Peremyshl and Apostolic Administration of Lemkovyna/Lemkivshchyna), the Eparchy even had
an administrator "sede vacante" (Fr. S. Dziubyna
of blessed memory), but we were under Latin
Ordinary until 1991, when Kyr JOHN (Martyniak) was
appointed Eparch of Peremyshl.

So it's canonically possible to have in Russia
a vacant exarchate with an administrator (without
power) and Latin Ordinary with real power.

I wholeheartedly agree that such a situation cannot be described as good.

I simply want to make a statement that a glass half empty is also half filled. Well, let it be
far less than 50 %, but there is definitely some
water in it.

Sincerely,
deacon Peter

Dear Friends,

This is all fascinating.

But when are we going to face the reality of all this?

Rome is simply trying to discourage Eastern Catholicism as a roadblock to ecumenical relations with Orthodoxy.

We seem to be the ones most intent on communion with Rome, ready to defend it at every turn etc.

Rome is simply content to say that: a) "Uniatism" is no longer a model of church unity - something Cardinal Kasper repeated in a Russian-language interview; b) the EC Churches that were formed and continue to exist have a right to continue to exist.

That is hardly an enthusiastic endorsement of ECism, is it?

Both RC and Orthodox Churches seem to favour the "ideal" situation where one is either Latin Catholic or Orthodox (or anthing else other than EC).

And this anomalous situation where EC's in various areas are placed under Latin hierarchs and kept from having communion with one another (as well as with Rome) is simply an effront to the EC Churches.

Perhaps we need to wake up to the reality here?

Perhaps we could contemplate re-union with our Mother Orthodox Churches (while reassuring Rome that we continue to hold it in the highest possible esteem and affection in our hearts!).

Alex