www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News What good is a Major Archbishop?

Dear Ukrainian Catholic!

Christ is Risen!

I am always delighted when there are lively debates, and a challenging exchange of ideas and opinions. All opinions are most welcome, and I do enjoy when people present different points of view and defend their position with enthusiasm.

I am less happy with the "naming of names", or when issues become personal. Perhaps the question you raise, borders on this?

All our bishops need our support and respect, especially in trying times (I can remember none more trying than right now!). They are endowed with a great episcopal dignity, and also have an awesome responsibility. Let us remember them in our prayers, at this time, that God will help and strengthen them for the duties that they must undertake.

I hope I can thank you for considering your question again?

Elias

Dear Monk Elias,
You are right. I should have worded it as " How do the pro-Roman Bishops feel on this issue and how do the ones that are not stand?"
-uc

Ukr Catholic -

I think this is a rhetorical quetion . . .
Fill in the blanks

Ality

Going back to the original question, in Orthodoxy, a Major Archbishop does not have the authority to appoint bishops outside his home territory as well.

Axios

But does a Patriarch?

If yes, it is not right for us to say that a Major Archbishop is the same as a Patriarch except in order of honor. There would be real differences in how authority is exercised, especially with the UGCC abroad.

Ality

Dear Friends,

The things you miss when you are away for a day . . . .

First of all, thanks to Piotr for his comments on my thinking out loud.

Again, I don't know these things, I'm not an insider and only know what I, like other laity, am told.

Other lay friends of mine were also quite surprised about the two papal appointments. They too were under the impression, as we have been told, that the Synod "does bishops."

Our dear friend, Robert K., I am afraid, is confusing nationalism with Particular Church government, and the two are entirely different.

I won't deny that Ukrainians and others, such as the Russians, the Poles etc. etc. are VERY nationalistic. But this is no different than American Catholics thinking that the world is as cosmopolitan as they are and so are also ethnocentric.

RC commentators on the East have noted that the Eastern Churches have become expressions of the peoples' entire national culture, especially in the wake of their years of colonial oppression and repression under various regimes, e.g. Turks, Arabs and others.

That the "Unia" has sorely divided Ukraine throughout its history is a well attested fact, recognized by RC theologians as well, and by the New Catholic Encyclopedia under the discussion on the Union of Brest-Litovsk.

And I thought that we are "in union with" Rome not "under" Rome.

We have the Rite to govern ourselves as Vatican II acknowledged.

That Rome continues to, jurisdictionally, exercise control over our Church in this way for various and ill-advised reasons speaks ill for the ecumenical way with respect to other Churches.

The point that was raised regarding the union of ALL the Kyivan Churches into ONE Kyivan Patriarchate (of necessity Orthodox) would be a positive thing, period.

Forgive me, but well-meaning outsiders (outside the Ukrainian community that is) have no idea what such religious division continues to mean for us.

Families are divided, such as mine is. If one wants to marry someone who is Orthodox, there is a kerfuffle. Ukrainian Catholics often have better relationships with Protestants and agnostics than they do with Ukrainian Orthodox etc.

The Union has meant pain and division for us that continues.

A resolution in the form of a reunification, whether Catholic or Orthodox, would be great.

Again, we should not think in North American terms where there is a separation between church and state.

In Europe, especially Eastern Europe, there generally wasn't and isn't.

Alex

Yes. The Albanian Major Archbishop Anastas is the head of an autocephalous church, but all the Albanian paruishes outside Albania are under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, because he cannot create dioceses outside his territory and this right is reserved to Patriarchal Churches.
The Catholic Patriarchal Churches (chaldean, maronite) don't seem to have trouble with this, when they want to establish an eparchy for their faithful in the Diaspora, they just apoint a bishop and Rome approves him.

Dear Remie,

Yes, and you bring up an interesting point of comparison between Major Archbishops and Patriarchs in the Catholic Church.

Vatican II emphatically stated that the two positions, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, are equal in terms of their powers.

So even if Rome doesn't with to acknowledge the Patriarchal status of the Ukrainian Catholic Church, it has acknowledged its status as a Major Archiepiscopate. And that means that the powers are the same.

Alex

In theory, yes.

Whether this is how things actually get done in practice or not is another story.

Dear Catholicos,

You and I obviously talk to the same people, and read the same press releases . . .

How are you doing, Friend?

Alex

The Malabarese Church is also a Mayor Church and its situation is even worse (about lack of autonomy) than the byzantine catholic churches.

Lance,

Sorry, i miswrote there. Yes, they have regular eparchies, but are subject to Latin Metropolitans, which is what makes me mad. They cannot erect their own new eparchies in the North because it is "Latin canonical territory"--which is a bunch of garbage since the Syro-Malabars and Malankara have been there for 1000 years more than the Latins (but didn't get a chance/missed the chance to spread in significant numbers in the north).

In my opinion, we should sack canonical territories and let each Ritual Church set up its own eparchies wherever its faithful reside. The communication age and mass migrations of people has rendered canonical territory an archaic idea (along with "one bishop per city").

In Christ,

anastasios

I know there are some byzantine Catholics in Makedonija (former FYRM)and I'm almost sure that the Byzantine Exarch of Bulgaria, Hristo Proykov is also the Vicar of that community (outside the territory of the Bulgarian Exarchate)... so they're not part of the Diocese of Krisevci????

Could anyone help me with this?

[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: Remie ]

I'm no expert on the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, as my main area of expertise is with the Syrian Orthodox/Catholics, but from what I do know of the Malabar Church from *back home*, I would guess -- guess -- that a lot of their problems regarding lack of autonomy are their own doing. It seems to me that in many respects, they'd rather have the Pope run their affairs...I guess to them, it's more "Catholic" that way.

The only thing I know of where they desperately seek autonomy is in liturgical matters, because while their Synod and the Vatican's Oriental Congregation are in favour of renewing the Malabar rite to weed out latinisations and restore it to its Chaldean roots, a sizeable number of their priests and people resist this. They seem to think that this is the Vatican's way of slowly placing them under the jurisdiction of the Chaldean Catholic Church, and they don't want that; they want autonomy from that sort of situation. They want their liturgy to be reformed to be more "Indian" (based on a liturgical tradition going back before the advent of the Persian Church in India, a tradition of which we have no records), but in the process, it slowly weeds out Chaldean influences, and keeps the latinisations. Go figure. In the end, if they get their way, the Malabar Liturgy will become a type of Novus Ordo Eastern style.

In many respects, our worst enemy is ourselves.

[ 04-10-2002: Message edited by: Mor Ephrem ]

I am not familiar with the VCII document that says a Patriarchate and a Major Archbishopric are the same thing (certainly not the case with the Orthodox). Can someone provide a citation?

Axios