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

Dear Axios:

Former postings on this topic to the contrary notwithstanding, a Major Archbishop is not the same as, or equal in rank to, a Patriarch in the Eastern Catholic Churches, which mirrors that of Orthodox ecclesiology.

"Orientalium Ecclesarium" or the "Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite" (the 4th of 16 V2 documents) merely extends the rights and privileges exercised by a Patriarch to a Major Archbishop "who rule the whole of some individual church or rite."

The Decree goes on to state: "[s]eeing that the patriarchal office in the Eastern Church is a traditional form of government, the Sacred Ecumenical Council (Vatican II) ardently desires that new patriarchates should be erected where there is need, to be established either by an ecumenical council or by the Roman Pontiff." (Emphasis mine.)

With the above as a backdrop, we may be able to comprehend the current situation in Ukraine and in other jurisdictions ruled by "Major Archbishops."

[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: Amado Guerrero ]

Dear Amado,

Magandang Gabi!

Yes, I never said that a Major Archbishop held the same rank as Patriarch, for that would be intolerable heresy .

I only reiterated what the document you quoted said in terms of their authority and power.

This situation actually did obtain in Orthodoxy for the Metropolitan of Kyiv and all Rus' who, although he wasn't a Patriarch, did possess patriarchal powers in union with Constantinople of course.

When Met. Andrew Sheptytsky approached His Holiness Pope St Pius X and told him about these patriarchal rights, the holy Pope simply said, "Then make use of your rights!"

Your use of "merely extends" is really your reading of the document which I give here in full:

"The patriarchs with their synods are the highest authority for all business of the patriarchate, including the right of establishing new eparchies and of NOMINATING BISHOPS of their rite within the territorial bounds of the patriarchate, without prejudice to the inalienable right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene in individual cases.

"What has been said of patriarchs is valid also, in harmony with the canon law, in respect to major archbishops who rule the whole of some individual church or rite." Decree on the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite Orientalium Ecclesiarum.

So, what patriarchs do, major archbishops can do as well, and in this respect, there is no difference between them according to this Decree, even though there is a hierarchical difference.

Now we come to the question of nominating bishops. According to the decree, even Eastern Catholic Patriarchs can only do so within the territorial bounds of the Patriarchate.

"Territorial" refers to geography does it not? And if the Melkites and others are nominating and consecrating their own bishops for their eparchies outside the "territorial bounds" of their patriarchate, what gives them the right to do so? Certainly, not Vatican II!

But if the Eastern Patriarchs are doing this, then Eastern Catholic Major Archbishops can do this as well, following the Decree. In other words, if Major Archbishops can't nominate and ordain bishops for outside its territorial jurisdiction, neither can Eastern Catholic Patriarchs.

As to the "how" of becoming a Patriarchal Church in Catholicism, the Decree merely states that new patriarchates can be erected "either by an ecumencial council or by the Roman Pontiff."

There is no mention here of the ancient Eastern practice of an eastern church declaring its own patriarch, as happened in the case of Patriarch Josef the Hieroconfessor, and then working toward its official recognition by other Patriarchates including the Roman Patriarchate.

But apart from this question, what a fully recognized Eastern Catholic Patriarch does is something that a Major Archbishop can do, with reference to their authority or status, again according to the Decree.

The Roman Pontiff may, according to the same Decree, "intervene in individual cases," but this refers to exceptions in specific cases and not to intervention in the daily business proper to a Particular Catholic Church with either a Major Archbishop or a Patriarch.

As Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic theologians have commented, the Decree goes too far in acknowledging the Patriarchal office in the Eastern Church. There are many autocephalous Orthodox Churches that have Archbishops or Metropolitans only (and not Patriarchs) and yet are in full possession of autocephaly.

This led to some Eastern theologians, such as Alexander Schmemann to call this Decree a "Latin document about the Eastern Churches." But this is an aside to show that Major Archbishops do not have powers that are "merely extended" but, can and do have powers analogous to other Orthodox autocephalous Churches.

This is why we are trying to defend our inalienable rights as a Particular Church in this respect.

Ukrainian Catholic feelings of injustice in this respect stem from the fact that there are Catholic Patriarchates over faithful that number in the thousands, when the Ukrainian Church, numbering in the millions has no patriarchate. This, coupled with the politics of "rapprochement" with the Russians etc. has not led to a good situation.

Alex

[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

[ 04-11-2002: Message edited by: Orthodox Catholic ]

Dear Your Highness, Alex I, King of the Ukrainians in Canada:

My use of the phrase "merely extends" stems from the fact that a "Major Archbishop" does not have the rights and privileges of a "Patriarch" in his own right.

His exercise of the rights and privileges of a Patriarch obtains where there is no Patriarch elected or appointed to head a whole particular church and the Major Archbishop is the de facto head of that particular church.

Under the provisions of the Decree, theoretically he may exercise such power and authority appropriately pertaining to a Patriarch with the tacit approval, or acquiescence, of the Vatican (the Pope, through the Congregation for the Oriental Churches).

In current practice, however, the Melkites, as you said, have been given a free rein in this regard. I think it is understandable because the Melkites have a reigning Patriarch.

I completely agree with you that this "freedom" should apply to all Eastern Catholic Churches, most especially to the Ukrainians!

But let me pose this query: If the Pope decided today to erect a Patriarchate for the Ukrainians, would the relatively peaceful co-existence among the 3 Orthodox factions and the Ukrainian Greek Catholics survive? Do you think Cardinal Husar, the Major Archbbishop of the Ukrainians, is acceptable to all as the inaugural Patriarch of Kyiv?

Maraming salamat po, Haring Alex I! At magandang gabi rin sa inyo.

Dear Amado,

Well, why didn't you say so in the first place?

Your question is very good.

Clearly, Patriarch Husar, if acknowledged by Rome, would be considered Patriarch of the Ukrainian Catholic Church only, without any relation to the Orthodox.

And the Ukrainian Catholic Church could be patriarchal and so recognized insofar as it was the original Orthodox Metropolitan of Kyiv who signed the instrument of Union in 1596.

In terms of the "three Orthodox Churches in Ukraine," too much is made of this, in my view.

There is really the Russian Church that calls itself "Ukrainian Orthodox (Moscow Patriarchate)" and has as little to do with Ukrainian identity and nationality as possible.

Estonia, for example, (much smarter people than the Ukrainians ) has forbidden the Russian Church there to call itself "Estonian Orthodox (Moscow Patriarchate)" but only "Russian Orthodox Church in Estonia" that Moscow rejects.

And this Church appears to be losing ground, even though it still has the support of the government and especially its pro-communist members noted for subservience to Russia.

The "Kyivan Churches" so decried by the Russian press include that uncanonical "so and so," Patriarch Filaret and the autocephalous Church, both of which are ideologically in union with one another, but full union has not been realized owing to politics and to the inevitable impact of there being Ukrainians involved .

Patriarch Husar is on good terms with these uncanonical churches, nevertheless, and tries to broker peace among them, including the Moscow satellite Orthodox church.

Moscow calls all these churches together, including the Catholic one, as "Kyivan Churches" who share a similar pro-uniate mentality.

Let's remember that that uncanonical so and so Filaret actually gave permission to his uncanonical members to attend the papal liturgies during the pope's visit to Ukraine.

Personally, I think Rome will recognize a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate when hell freezes over, or the Latin Church accepts married priests, whichever comes first.

In other words, it won't happen for a while yet . . .

But Rome and its "yes men" among our bishops have traditionally justified to Ukrainian Catholics the absence of a recognized Patriarch on grounds such as "we couldn't handle it" (just try us), "it would divide our Church" (Roman intervention in our church life do enough of that already) or "it would cause rifts among the Orthodox" (yes, the Orthodox don't like too many jurisdictions . . .).

Enough said. . .

Alex

Dear Gentlemen:

It seems that Rome is playing a game of paper titles and therefore holds a Major Metropolitan in slightly lower regard than a Patriarch.

This is a prime example of why a Ukrainian, Greek Catholic Patriarchate must be formally proclaimed and defined.

These loopholes should really not exist.


defreitas

Friends,

Axios inquired where it is stated that a patriarchate and major archepiscopate are the same thing.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which overrules all previous documents, states:

Canon 151 - A major archbishop is the metropolitan of a see determined or recognized by the Supreme Authority of the Church, who presides over an entire Eastern Church sui iuris not endowed with the patriarchal title.

Canon 152 - What is stated in common law concerning patriarchl Churches or patriarchs is understood to be applicable to major archiepiscopal Churches or major archbishops, unless the common law expressly provides otherwise or is evident from the nature of the matter.

The only thing in the CCEO that is different for patriarchal and major archiepiscopal Churches is the way the hierarch takes office after election.

Upon election by the synod, the patriarch is proclaimed and enthroned by the synod. He obtains his office upon enthronement and exercises it validly. He must then request ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff. The only strictures placed on him are that he not convoke the synod or ordain bishops until he has received ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff.

On the otherhand, the major archiepiscopal synod, upon election of a major archbishop, must notify the Roman Pontiff of the election and await his confirmation of the election, which he may deny. After confirmation the major archbishop may be enthroned.

A subtle but signifigant difference. Eastern Catholic Patriarchal Churches operate in a nearly autocephalous manner much like Orthodox Patriarchates. However, in Orthodoxy full autocephaly doesn't depend on if you have a patriarch. A Church may be autocephalous and have a major archbishop (Cyprus, Greece) or a metropolitan (Poland, Czech/Slovak). On the otherhand, a Eastern Catholic Major Archepiscopate is more analogous to an Orthodox Autonomous Church (Japan, China, Sinai). Eastern Catholic Metropolitan and Eparchial Churches sui iuris are indistinguishable in their autonomy from their Latin counterparts.

It is my contention that all Eastern Catholic Churches should be given the same autonomy as patriarchal churches regardless of their rank. I also believe this restriction to "traditional territory" garbage needs to be done away with. A chief hierarch and his synod's authority needs to be immediate and universal in regards to that Church's faithful where ever they are found.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

I thought that in Orthodoxy the Major Archbishop of an Autocephalous Church (like the Church of Greece) has all the "patriarchal" rights but only in his jurisdiction, so he cannot: apoint or name new bishops outside his territory and assume any authority over the historical members of his church who emigrated (so His Beatitude Christodoulos is the Metropolitan and Major Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, but not the M & MA of "All Greeks".

I don't know if this will work too in a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate, but it would be better if Patriarch Lubomyr becomes the "Patriarch of All Ukrainian Catholics" (like the Chaldean Patriarch) and not only the Patriarch of the UGCC.

This seems to mirror the language of VCI as to the pope's "immediate and universal" authority, does it not?

Axios

The Major Archbishop is a Catholic concept (defined in the Documents of Vatican II). In the Orthodox Church, the Primates of Cyprus, Greece, Poland, Albania and the Czech and Slovak Republics do not have the title of Patriarch. But regardless, it the Holy Synod of the Autocephalous Churches that name new bishops, not any Primate (regardless of title). If you can find an old Catholic shop, you may be able a copy of teh Vatican II Documents with the Offical Reponses (Red Cover). In the Orthodox response, Fr. Alexander Schmemann explains that no Orthodox bishop is a mini-Pope (my words). The Patriarchal and Major Archbishop definitions contained in Vatican II are Western definitions about Eastern Churches. While it certainly is an improvement over the previous situation, in Orthodoxy, the Local Church is the Catholic Church in its totality. No other bishop (including Primate) may do anything in an other diocese without the explicit approval of that Local Bishop (and the Holy Synod must discipline a wrong doing bishop). When the Orthodox Primates met recently, some complaints voiced against the EP was that he was acting Papal in getting involved in jurisdictional disputes within territories historically in other Churches. He is broadly using the "Terre Barbarum" EP clause of the Ecumenical Councils to get involved everywhere. He has also recently stated that the American Church is not yet mature enough for self-governance (is there a fiduciary reason here?) A recent opinion pole in OrthodoxNews was unfavorable to the EP's involvement in the Ukrainian Orthodox mess. Thank God that when the Albanian Autocephalous Church was miraculously reconstituted (and grows literally every day), they were able to withstand the ethnic-jurisdictionalists who wanted to go in and establish themselves. As the North American disintegration (after the Bolshevik Revolution) shows clearly, once it starts, there is no turning back.

In Christ,

Three Cents

Dear Lance,

That is all well and good!

However, and as you know, canon law can be manipulated by Rome especially with respect to the Eastern Churches and their rights.

So what documents tend to proclaim is the "ideal" which is hardly ever put into practice.

The so-called "Particularity" of the Eastern Churches is really a farce, nothing more.

One of the greatest examples of this is the requirement of Patriarch Josef the Hieroconfessor to reside in his "territory" as a precondition to any thought to be given to a Patriarchate.

As he could not go to Ukraine under communism, especially since his church was abolished there, how could the principle of "territoriality" have been applied in his case?

It seemed as if Rome, in the hey-day of "ostpolitik," acquiesced to more than one communist sensitivity.

Alex

There's an interesting thing here:

I read that two uncanonical groups of Portugal and Brazil (the Portuguese Autonomous Orthodox Church, and the Orthodox Catholic Church of Brazil) entered in Communion with the Polish Orthodox Church and with its Archbishop.
I'll try to find something about these churches outside Poland.

While it is unfortunate that many feel that Rome has violated the rights of the Eastern Churches, let us remeber that it is the Vaticans duty to insure that good order be followed in the governing of the various rites.

If Rome allowed a free hand for the Eastern rites in all territories, then this could lead to a lot of confusion as well as open hostility. This in turn would create more friction between the East and West causing much harm and schsim perhaps. Believe me, as an Orthodox Christian I can tell you that the disorder and chaos that we experience because of every juridiction wanting a "free hand" in everybody elses territory has really become a problem over the past century and will probably continue to worsen with all the mass migrations of population that are occuring around the world.
You Eastern Catholics are really lucky to have at least some source of actual authority that can straigten these things out for you. Sure sometimes the rulings are unfair, but as in realistic situation dealing with law, you have to except what gets decided in the end even if you feel it is unfair or just plain wrong. Look at we Orthodox, who leads us, not just in theory but in actuality? Does our sytem of completely self governing patriarchates all doing their own thing really seem like the ideal form of government for the Church universal? What fruit has it born anyway? The Pope can go to just about anywhere and speak with practically anyone being according absolute respect and honor. Even the most hardened secularist recognize him as the world spoksman for Christianity. Yet when the EP arrives in America or Australia, wo greats him anyway besides a buanch of Greeks? Who listens and, it seems, who cares.

On a final note I believe that poor Patriarch Joseph was denied his title by Rome mostly for "ecumenical reasons" (God forbide the Moscow Patriarchate be offended that Ukrainian Catholics have a patriarch, it might prove that one can be a full fledged Orthodox Church yet in communion with the See of Rome)!

Robert K.

It's stuff like this that gies me hope for Catholic-Orthodox reunion.

Whether you agree with Robert K., I appreciate his charitable view of the relationship of the Eastern Catholic Churches with the Vatican.

For the record, I think that the Eastern Catholic Churches should be given a freer hand in their affairs, including and especially episcopal appointments. This "Patriarchal Territory" stuff is nonsensical. The only argument I can think of is the Patriarchates/Major Archiepiscopal Churches in poorer areas (e.g. India) may not have the resources to run what would essentially be an international organization. However, the Congregation for Eastern Churches should be assisting their efforts in that, not shutting them out and dominating them.

Going out on a limb, I believe the the Byzantine jurisdictions in the US and Canada should be merged into a single Patriarchate/Major Archiepiscopate, with the Archeparchial see in Fargo, ND.

Just kidding about the Fargo part...

-NDHoosier
Still on the march to Constantinople

But "Patriarch of Pittsburgh" has a nice ring to it!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

What resources might they not have that they would need to run their Church rather independently? Admittedly, I don't know all that much about administration, so this is a question seeking information as well as expressing doubt, since the Orthodox Church in India runs an international organisation completely independently and rather well, all things considered (since you brought up India as an example). What would the Eastern Catholics in India need as far as resources go that the Orthodox in India either don't need or have already to care for their people? How are or should both groups be different in this way?