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

Of the list of 12 Eastern Catholics Churches present in Australia only 3 have their HQ in Sydney and 1 other is located in Melbourne. All the rest come under the local Latin bishops (very helpful they are too) until such time as they get the numbers to look after themselves. That list of 12 are not all in Sydney either, they are all over the continent. The one Russian Community is in Melbourne and it was not a parish of it's own just a chapel. All events were written up in the local RC Parish registers, I am not sure if that has changed under Fr Lawrence Cross at the new address. The Miltiary diocese overlaps all the bishops of all the juristictions, although that is centred on the federal capital where there is an Archbishop for the local juristiction already.

Dear Michael Thoma,

I appreciate what you say but the ethnic religious communities without their own resident bishops and under the Roman Catholic ordinary are still loci of ethnic division within the diocesan territory.

This seems to be saying that while the multiplicity of Orthodox jurisdictions and bishops in New York is to be lamented in Australia you are anticipating the creation of a similar multiplicity in the future when the ethnic communities warrant them?

Father,

I am not sure that lamentation is what is being stated. I think the question being raised has to do with jurisdictional development - perhaps multiple jurisdictions will be the solution that the Church accepts or has to accept.

Unless all agree to unite under one ordinary (who is extra-Ritual or perhaps based on seniority or some other standard) and the bishops of each community decide to accept auxiliary post, I don't see much else as a solution.

Shlomo Hieromonk Ambrose,

First a small issue. While it is true that the vast majority of congregants within Eastern Catholic Churches (as well as Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy) are from specific areas and countries, it is no longer true that we are "ethnic". If you look at our list of priests, brothers, sisters and laity, you will now see names like Jensen, Brown, Garcia, Morrison, Sanchez, etc. While all of the Eastern, and to an extent the Western Churches have ethnic origins, they are no longer in this day and age ethnic.

I have personal experience with both the Eastern Catholic Churches in Australia, Canada and the United States; and I can tell you that the Eparchs, the priests, and many of us laity make sure people understand that we are not ethnic. My Eparch, Robert (Shaheen), has on numerous occations corrected congregants when they refer to our Church as the Lebanese Church. I myself, am 75% Scottish, 12.5% Lebanese and 12.5% Syrian.

Sorry for being long-winded, but my point is that while your statement was true in the past, it no longer is true in the modern world. Which brings me to the main part of this post. You pointed out:



Your point while true, is also in my opinon totally without foundation on the issue of the Catholic jurisdictions being a hotchpotch. The reason that I say this is that Eastern Orthodoxy, as opposed to Catholicism and Oriental Orthodoxy, lacks diversity within its Liturgical Tradition. That is while there are twelve Eastern Catholic jurisdictional groups, the more proper way to look at them is that there are five Holy Liturgical Traditions that are represented. Therefore, they should not be looked at as Russian, Maronite, Armenian etc. Churches but as Byzantine, Western Antiochene-Edessan, Eastern Antiochene-Edessan, Alexandrian and Armenian. And when you include the Western Church you have six Holy Liturgical Traditions.

Now looking at nations such as Australia, Canada and the U.S. what we should be looking at is how are the Eastern Catholics Organized. Yes, we still have are "ethnic" jurisditions, but we are also moving more towards liturgical unity. And this even has an impact on the issue of the three Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch. To quote (and I will say this is a rumored) his Beatitude Ignatius Gabriel I, the Syriac Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and the East, "[t]he Maronite and Syriac Catholic Churches are one Church separated by a hierarchy." The Syriac Catholic Church back in the sixties sought to merge their Church with the Maronite Church, which my Church at the time rejected. It is my hope that in the near future our Churches will be one in hierarch as well as Holy Tradition.

Now looking at Eastern Orthodoxy outside of its established homlands, there is no reason for their to be multiple jurisdictions, other than hubris. To quote from the Hartford Institute For Religion Research:

A Troubled Identity

The research also found that Orthodox Churches are struggling with the issue of their changing nature and mission in American. Beginning in the 1970’s, fundamental changes took place in the demographics of the Orthodox jurisdictions. These changes included:

[*]the increasing proportion of the American-born members and of converts who came to the Orthodoxy mainly through the inter-Christian marriages,
[*]the new developments in religious education and liturgical life, and
[*]the grassroots movements encouraging greater Orthodox unity for the sake of mission.

These changes have essentially altered the standing of the Orthodox Churches on the contemporary American religious scene. Religious faith and ethnic identity, once seen as inseparable, are increasingly less important for the socially-mobile, geographically-dispersed, English speaking second, third and fourth generations of Orthodox in America. Nor is this an important consideration for the ever-increasing number of Orthodox converts raised in other religious traditions. Nevertheless, at the beginning of a new millennium, the jurisdictional distinctiveness still does remain a basic characteristic of Orthodox Christianity in the USA.

Current Sources of Growth in US Orthodox Churches

There are three possible demographic sources of growth: immigration, the offspring of church members, and Anglo-American converts. In nearly all of the Orthodox jurisdictions, new immigrants are roughly as important for membership growth as are the children of existing members, and in many cases immigration is still the major source of church growth. With the offspring members there is the added factors of the natural desire to assimilate into the dominant American culture and drift away from the language, customs and to a large extent from the Orthodox faith of their parents.

And I would add to the last part of the above with this observation. With 19 Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada and a little less in Australia, New Zealand and Latin America you all are hard pressed to explain why these are necessary. Especially when you have jurdictions such as the Albanian Orthodox Diocese in America with only two parishes in the U.S.; the Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the USA with 9 parishes, or the Albanian diocese of OCA with 12. (souce is the Hartford Institute). Further this is not to say that the Catholic Church does not have the same problem with our eparchal jurisdictions within the same Holy Liturgical Tradition (the Romanian Greek Catholic Church with only 10 parishes or the Syriac Catholics with only 7).

The center point is that it does make sense for any city to have overlapping jurisdictions within the same denomination when you have distinct Holy Liturgical Traditions, but does not when you have a denomination that has multiple jurisdictions that share the very same Holy Liturgical Traditions.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Fr. Ambrose, regardless of the exact number of overlapping Catholic jurisdictions in Sydney, has proved his point. The Catholic Church often has multiple bishops and jurisdictions in one city, which is a practice that the ancient Church would have rejected as improper.

They are necessary because at this time in the continuing development of the "diaspora" the people wish to preserve these Churches as separate entities. That is sufficient justification for leaving the situation as it as. Not that we cannot nudge it whenever possible towards a hope for future administrative unity.

Those of us who take an intelligent view of it are fully aware that the case of multiple Churches establishing dioceses on one and the same territory is anomalous, uncanonical and untraditional, etc. But would forcing an administrative unity on the US decreed from on high by distant primates in Europe and the Near East be beneficial or detrimental to the flock? In other words, should the reality of what now exists be accepted rather than pushing too hard for an unrealistic and possibly damaging ideal.

If the Catholics are content to have this occuring too with their own overlapping Churches, then why not leave it in peace instead of forcing them to all unite uinder one bishop?

I don't buy into the logic that it is fine for Catholics to continue this situation because the Pope provides an arching umbrella to which these Churches are ultimately subject. The Orthodox could similarly point to their oft repeated claim that Jesus Christ is the head of their Church and it is all occuring under His umbrella!

Bottom line - the endeavour to create one Church for America is praiseworthy and will be the ultimate canonically correct reality. In the meantime the Orthodox can happily live with what they have.

Shlomo Apotheoun,

To give you a short reply to my previous answer. What was a legitimate point in the ancient Church, does not necessary work for today's Church. As I pointed out, since in today's modern age we have 6 fully developed Ancient Holy Liturgical Traditions within the Catholic Church, and all are equally valid; as well as the mobility of global populations, it does make since, to me, that you would have eparchs/bishops that represent these traditions if their numbers warren it. What does not make since is when you have eparchs/bishops of the very same tradition having overlapping jurisdictions.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Yuhannon,

At least the Orthodox recognize that multiple bishops in one city is not a good thing.

God bless,
Todd

Nor should anyone "buy" into such an idea, because -- regardless of what some may say -- the theory of universal papal jurisdiction is not ancient, but is instead quite modern.

Did anybody say Ruthenian Catholic and Ukrainian Greek Catholic? And the sorry reason why they co-exist in the US?

Shlomo Hiermonk Ambrose,

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. You wrote:


Your point is a sibboleth within Eastern Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodoxy in America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are nearly or over a hundred years well established as is pointed out in the Hartford article that I quoted. I agree that no one should be forced to unity, but there is a very legitimate way to bring this about. The Holy Orthodox Church should just recognize only one entity as representive of their Church within the any nation.


As I pointed out in my previous post, most of the congregants within Orthodoxy as well as Catholic Holy Traditions that share the same liturgical history, do not really care about the ethnic identity of the jurisdiction they are under, especially since most who are born into the faith are now third and fourth generation, and also about half of the numbers that account for Church growth are not "native" of the Orthodox Church, but are "Anglos".


As I have pointed out, if the eparchs/bishops represent one of the Ancient Holy Liturgical Traditions within Catholicism then I do not see then as overlapping jurisdictions. Therefore, the Roman Bishop of Chicago, the Syro-Malabar Eparch of Chicago, etc. each represent a fully independent Liturgical Tradition that are legitmate ways of expressing Christian Truth.


I understand your point, but if you will look I have never made such a claim. Fr. Serge has, which I do share, but my arguement is from a different stream than his.


To quote from a friend of mine who converted to Catholicism, one of the main reasons that he choose Catholicism as opposed to Orthodoxy, is that "Catholicism respects its ethnic characteristists but does not elevate them to core Church values, whereas Orthodoxy does."

Again, that does not mean that Eastern Catholic Churches do not have problems with ethnic parishes, but our heirarchs do not press the ethnic charachterists of their Churches, but their Liturgical ones.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

The Ruthenian Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the reason the Vatican allows the co-existence of both in the US? I would rather that someone such as Irish Melkite who is closer to the problems explained this since I am bound to get some finer details wrong and people will jump on me for these minor mistakes and the wider picture will be lost.

A continuing issue for Ruthenian Catholics has been their relationship with the much larger Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. For the first time ever, the Mukačevo diocese finds itself functioning freely in the same country with the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Although it is not officially a part of the Ukrainian church and is still immediately subject to the Holy See, its bishops have attended recent Ukrainian Greek Catholic synods. The bishop of Mukačevo has made it clear, however, that he opposes integration into the Ukrainian Catholic Church and favors the promotion of the distinct ethnic and religious identity of his Rusyn people. This identity received a boost in March 2007 when the Transcarpathian Oblast Council voted to recognize the Rusyn people as an indigenous nationality of the region. As a result, the local government will be required to provide funding to promote Rusyn language, culture, and education.

http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg-us.aspx?eccpageID=70

Why is there representation from multiple Catholic churches in the United States?


Your friend is wrong, about Orthodoxy and Catholicism.


I believe that is wrong as well. Do the Ukrainian and Ruthenian churches exist in this country as separate entities because they have a different liturgical heritage?

Never been at a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Liturgy which finishes with a rousing communal singing of "Shche ne umerla Ukrainy"? Maybe it only happens down under?