www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Multiple Jurisdictions - 'One Bishop, One City'

[Moderator Note: This thread has been split from the Church News Forum discussion of the jurisdictional tensions between the Latin and Syro-Malabar Churches in India]

It is worth noticing that there is only *one* Catholic Church which is autocephalous and that is the Roman Catholic Church.

All the other Catholic Churches, the Eastern and Oriental Churches, are merely sui juris and autonomous.

This is a major contradistinction from the ecclesiology of the Orthodox where the great majority of Churches are autocephalous. They each have as much independence as the Roman Catholic Church. Although it is a bit of a shibboleth to say that Eastern Catholic Churches are the equivalent of the Eastern Orthodox Churches this is not the case; in terms of authority and administration they are not fully independent but subject to the Roman Curia and, ultimately, governed through the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

In other words, until the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches are upgraded from autonomous to autocephalous status, Rome is able to treat them as inferior.

I welcome any factual corrections to what my ignorance has written.

As an aside.... my own Church, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is, one could say, in a state roughly equivalent to the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. One could see it as a sui juris Church as are they. It is officially merely self-governing and its supreme authority is the Church of Russia.

This in turn raises the question of whether the system of autocephalies as it developed (or they developed) in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is an authentic development, firmly rooted in the Church's tradition, or is it perhaps something else.

Fr. Serge

I do not understand. What do you describe as nineteenth and twentieth century development of the system of autocephalies? And what do you see as inauthentic?

Since you ask, perhaps you will remind me - how many Orthodox Bishops of New York are there?

Shall I continue, or do you perhaps understand my point?

Fr. Serge

I don't see the relevance of the question. The American Orthodox constitute 1% of the Orthodox world - just a tiny 1%. Their anomalies are small bickies and of recent origin, and acknowledged to be in need of resolution.

A better question would be - how many Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch are there? I think it was three at last count. And these are not new anomalies as are the ones in NY; these anomalies go back centuries!

There are also several Catholic bishops in New York as well with overlapping jurisdictions (Stamford and Passaic are metro NYC). I don't think that really proves or disproves anything about Catholic ecclesiology.

And if one asks Catholic theologians how it is possible to have several Bishops-Ordinary in the same city, they will not hesitate to tell you that this is possible only on the basis of Papal authority.

Now what is the basis of all those parallel Orthodox bishops in the same place? And don't bother to claim "economia"; it won't wash.

Fr. Serge

Father, I am sure that you are well informed how the unity of the Church in America was destroyed as a consequence of the Russian Revolution. Prior to that the Russian Church in North America had seniority and had various "ethnic departments" under it. For example the Syian Orthodox (now known as Antiochians) were ruled by Bishop Saint Raphael Hawaweeny of Brooklyn who was subordinate to the Russian archbishop.

This was all shattered by the Russian Revolution. I am quite sure you know all this and I am insulting you by rehearsing it..

The situation of multiple Churches in New York is not desirable, it is not in line with the canons, but it is tolerated. We all know that one day it needs resolving. But I imagine that there will be some sort of "organic" unity developed over time; it probably cannot be imposed by any fiat from above.

But what's the big deal about the American situation. As I've pointed out they comprise a tiny 1% of the Orthodox world.


Now about all the multiple Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch....? You've had hundreds of years to fix that, yet......? And don't say that it's OK because the Pope is the Supreme Bishop of them all; it won't wash.

As a concrete example of jurisdictional overlapping let's look at the Catholic Church in Sydney, Australia (very close to me) and see how many ethnic Catholic Churches exist in that city. It's a complete hotchpotch of overlapping Catholic bishops and jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, of Orthodox ones.

1. Maronite Catholic
2. Melkite Catholic
3. Greek Catholic
4. Ukranian Catholic
5. Armenian Catholic
6. Chaldean Catholic
7. Coptic Catholic
8. Ethiopian Catholic
9. Malabarese Catholic
10. Malankarese Catholic
11. Russian Catholic
12. Syrian Catholic


TWELVE overlapping ethnic Catholic communities in Sydney, some with resident bishops and some without. Add in the regular Latin Catholic bishop and that makes THIRTEEN - all within ONE city!!!

The Orthodox have five bishops with authority over Sydney:

1. Greek bishop
2. Russian
3. Serbian
4. Romanian
5. Antiochian

I do not expect most Eastern Orthodox Christians at the present moment to accept the Catholic understanding of the position and responsibility of the Bishop of Rome.

But I do expect Eastern Orthodox Christians to acknowledge that this understanding is not a nineteenth-century innovation.

I also expect Eastern Orthodox Christians to grasp the obvious distinction between a parish (or quasi-parish) and a diocese.

Sydney, with which I am also familiar to some degree, has no significant Hellenic Greek-Catholic presence; I would be startled if there is a parish and I am certain that there is no Hellenic Greek-Catholic jurisdiction in Sydney.

There is certainly no Russian Greek-Catholic episcopal jurisdiction in Australia at present, nor has there ever been.

And so on.

I'm interested to note that you credit the Catholics (correctly to a significant degree) in Sydney with what might be called the "Oriental Catholic" Churches (Maronites, Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians, Malankarese, and Syrians, to which we could add, as you also list, Chaldeans and Malabarese).

But you are rather reticent about some Orthodox, it seems. This would include:

The Russian Orthodox Old-Ritualist Church (Bielaia Krinitsa Concord), which has at least two churches in Sydney - the larger of the two is indeed large and serves as the Cathedral for Archbishop Sophrony, whom may God bless with many years.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (presumably under the Omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople).

The Armenian Orthodox Church (non-Chalcedonian; I don't know offhand whether their presence in Sydney depends upon Etchmiadzin or Cilicia, or whether both jurisdictions are represented).

The Coptic Orthodox Church (non-Chalcedonian)

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church (non-Chalcedonian) - there may also be a presence of the Eritrean Orthodox Church (non-Chalcedonian).

The Indian Orthodox Church (Malankarese, non-Chalcedonian)

The Syrian Orthodox Church (non-Chalcedonian).

to which one might add:

The Apostolic Catholic Church of the East (which has not received the Council of Ephesus).


Add that list to the Orthodox jurisdictions which you do mention, and we come up with 14.

We have been told repeatedly to expect a complete reconciliation between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, almost any minute now. It has yet to happen; one wonders what the hold-up is.

If you wish to attempt to explain to me why the Patriarchal Russian Orthodox Church finds it so hard to advance and acheive reconciliation with the Russian Orthodox Old-Ritualist Church I shall read the explanation attentively - I also read Russian and am reasonably familiar with the Old-Ritualist position, and sympathize with it for several reasons.

The failure to acknowledge the diaspora Ukrainian Orthodox Church (under the Omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) is, I fear, nothing but sheer ethnic bigotry.

That leaves the Churches which do not receive the Council of Ephesus. This is curious; in the early twentieth century the Russian Orthodox Church had a bishop to encourage the acceptance of Eastern Orthodoxy on the part of these communities. The Bishop (of Urmia) ended his earthly life at a Monastery of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. But the efforts toward reconciliation have ceased.

Catholic ecclesiology and canon law recognize that the Catholic communion is a fellowship of several distinct (or "particular") Churches, and leave it up to the Pope to regulate and arbitrate when and if this becomes necessary, as sometimes happens, since we all share the same planet and we are not an exclusive company of sinless people.

We certainly do not claim that overlapping or multiple parishes and dioceses are the result of something comparable to the Russian Revolution. I am not insulted that you have reminded me of that sad event, I do, however, fail to accept the argument that the entire set of jurisdictional confusion is the exclusively result of the Russian Revolution.

The Russian Revolution did not cause the Bulgarian/Constantinople schism; the Russian Revolution did not cause the difficulty between the Phanar and the Church of Greece; the Russian Revolution did not cause the present disagreement between the Phanar and the Moscow Patriarchate over Estonia (which actually became a one-sided schism for several months, including Holy Pascha); the Russian Revolution did not cause the Nikonian damage to the worship, spirituality, and discipline of the Russian Orthodox Church; the Russian Revolution did not cause the transformation of the Moscow Patriarchate into a government department which for two centuries did not permit a Council of the episcopate . . .

I am truly sorry to be forced to write like this. I am no enemy of Eastern Orthodoxy. But we are commanded by the Apostle to "give answer to all them that ask about the hope that is within us".

Fr. Serge

Which is what I did. I gave an answer to your question. You asked about overlapping Orthodox dioceses in New York. It struck me as a question which wittingly or unwittingly would set off a few flames. So I responded a little reluctantly because of that risk but if I had not done so it may have been seen as having no answer at all and as you have pointed out, the Apostle advises us to offer answers to all.

Nobody should lump the Oriental family of Churches in one group with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The fact that we both share the word "Orthodox" in our self-descriptive titles may confuse tyros but not the Church-conscious people who are members of the Forum.

Father Ambrose,

You are probably unaware of the Eastern Catholic parishes you listed (i.e. Malankara Catholic, Russian Catholic, Ethiopian Catholic, etc), these do not have their own Bishop in Sydney, they probably have an Apostolic Visitor who they commemorate (along with the hierarch whom they are under) but their ordinary is the Latin or larger Eastern Catholic prelate.

Yes, I am aware and that is why I wrote:

"TWELVE overlapping ethnic Catholic communities in Sydney, some with resident bishops and some without.

Father,

If you are aware that some do not have different bishops than the ordinary, I don't see your purpose for mentioning them at all, since their is no overlapping jurisdiction when the ordinary of all varying Ritual parishes are one.