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

Shlomo Todd,

Again, I agree that having eparchs/bishops of the same Holy Liturgical Tradition having overlapping is not a good thing, I disagree with those that feel that having eparchs/bishops within the same jurisdiction that do not share the same Holy Liturgical Tradition is not a good thing.

To quote from a Australian website [ceosyd.catholic.edu.au] that I use:


Eastern Church theology differs from Western theology. Even among Eastern Traditions themselves there are differing theological differences. What is important to note here is that the elements of basic Catholic theology cannot contradict each other. Rather, what we are dealing with are particular emphases of theology that each Tradition embraced in its initial evangelizing and subsequent development. Everyone knows, for example, of the debates of the early Councils over questions of Christology. The liturgies, theologies and spiritualities that followed upon these emphases have lasted up to the present moment.

In today's world, having these theological emphases help people find there way to worship God.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Yes Fr Ambrose is right. The UGCC pushed Ukrainian nationalism to the limits. Their churches are full of old people and their younger people have gone. They try everything to get the people they still have interested but the leakage has been huge and they have gone. I was only thinking recently about how many of the small congregation I go to are now evanglical protestants. Those who left were big on the language and the dancing and making sure their future partners were 'nas' and it is they who are not there anymore. Priests and laity still call the Latin Rite the 'Australian Church' and talk of 'Australian Easter and Christmas'. No matter what the church was called you had to have St Vladimir and Olga on the iconostas the former rulers of 'Ukraine' (no mention they ruled a much larger territory that than). Now non Ukrainians are looked after thanks to Bishop Peter but it was not alway that way. If you were not Ukrainian you got told to learn the language or go to the 'Australian Church'. So a good number of the couples in mixed marriages ended up worshiping elsewhere. Yes we had had ultra nationalism up to the hilt. It it the Orthodox churches who were less nationalistic here.

Bless, Father,

You could not get me to touch that with a ten foot pole. I trust that any of my Ruthenian and/or Ukrainian brethren will be more than happy to describe the historical events and the precipitants in full detail. As to my personal feelings on the matter, my signature - quoted from a pastoral message by Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed and beloved memory - says it all, sort of. I think that, if our Churches - EC/EO and OC/OO - are to grow and prosper, they must (as discussed in another thread recently) not merely understand, but commit to being open and welcoming to all - regardless of ethnicity.

But, without claiming that I have any idea how to solve the ancient precept of 'One bishop, One city', I reject the notion that openness and acceptance must be achieved at the loss of the ethno-cultural heritage that is so much a part of our praxis and spiritual expression. Our Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, would be decidedly the poorer in their rendering of worship to God were we to do so in some homogenized form.

The multiplicity of tongues, the variety of vesture, the exquisite iconographic traditions - from mosaic through paint through embroidery and all the media in between, the architectural diversity of our temples, the unique ceremonies - all of these, though in some degree externals, express and testify to the universality of the Apostolic Churches and our Faiths. God is, it seems to me, entitled to enjoy the spectacle of experiencing our worship of Him in as many beautiful and distinctive ways as our ethnic, national, and cultural heritages give expression. I suspect that He rather likes it.

The canon of 'One bishop, One city' arose in an era when such diversity as existed was, almost assuredly, geographically contained. There was no diaspora such as we know it today. One would not have found Ukrainians serving liturgical services according to their praxis in Greece nor Dublin, nor Ethiopians doing so in London.

Today, with the world being a much smaller place, can we trust that our respective rituals, rubrics, etc will be appropriately respected and preserved under the rule of a single hierarch in a place - and a hierarch of which tradition, rite, whatever? Regretably, few of us - Catholic or Orthodox, I suspect - fully trust to that, because history has not yet provided enough examples of hierarchs who can see beyond their own respective traditions. In all likelihood, it will require that humankind - lay and clerical - grow into a more demonstrably tolerant mold before we are all ready to go forth with assurance that respect and support will be, unreservedly, forthcoming.

Many years,

Neil

Shlomo Hieromonk Ambrose,

As I said in previous posts, your points are valid, but I would also point out that even the ethnic nature of these Churches have and are changing. While these Churches retain their "ethnic" names, they have progressed from being ethnic. For example the present Chancellor of the Ukrainian Archeparchy of Winnipeg is ethnic Chinese, the Very Rev. Richard Soo, SJ; the Chancellor of the Syriac Catholic Eparchy for the United States and Canada has an English background, Fr. S.T. Sutton, and the former Chancellor of the Chaldean Catholic Eparchy of Detroit, is Fr. Jon Buffington, who was the first American to be ordained a Chaldean Catholic priest.

This is not to say that our Churches do not have some parishes that have an ethnic problem (mine is a perfect example here in Las Vegas), but our heirarchs are working to remove this issue.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

I unabashedly support the ancient Church's position that there should be only one bishop in a city. But if the Catholic Church is going to go against that ancient tradition, then I look forward to the day when there will be more than one bishop of Rome.

What I have learnt from Catholics here is that this is acceptable provided the other Bishop(s) of Rome are of a different Rite.

Presumably they would all share the petrine prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome.

Shlomo Apotheoun,


Then I would ask you this, when reunion occures between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, would you support the removal of all Byzantine Bishops from the West? Or how about removing the Byzantine Eparchs and Patriarchs when reunion occurs between the Oreintal and Eastern Orthodox Churches? Therefore you would have no problem with the wiping out the Byzantine Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem (if you include it in the greater Middle East) and Alexandria. Further, you have no problem with the removal of the Byzantine eparchs of Africa and most of Asia since under your doctrine, the Byzantine faithful will recieve the same quality of care under Roman, and Oriental Orthodoxy, as they would from a Byzantine Eparch.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Shlomo Hieromonk Ambrose,


What we Catholics agree with is that eparchs/bishops who are from different Traditions could be based in the same city (I see Rome no differently), but that the Petrine prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome are those that are given to the head of the Latin Church.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

I think that the Latin bishops in North America should step down in favor of the Orthodox bishops. The Orthodox have a strong claim to being the proper canonical authority in North America, while the Roman Church's position in Latin America is quite secure.

The petrine prerogatives apply historically to three particular sees, i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch (although all bishops are successors of all the Apostles, including Peter). That said, any bishop in any one of those three cities would acquire the historical prerogatives of the petrine sees (see St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40).

As I see it, Catholics have a vested interest in restoring the one bishop in one city tradition throughout the whole Church.

The various eparchies and diocese do not claim to use the the same titles. Each juristiction has it's own particular title for it's own See. So there is no clash of names or labels. Each 'sui juris' church looks after it own faithful. The system works very well over here. It's an improvement on the original system that expected all New Australians to integrate into the main stream and become 'real' (read that as Anglo-celtic) Australians and forget all that foreign stuff. Multiculturaism came along and other cultures were to be valued as having input into the nation.

We know that the one bishop to the see never worked well in Orthodoxy when one sees what happened to the various churches once the Phanriots got the upper hand and Greeks were appointed to run rough shod over the Slavs and the Arabs and disrespect their cultures and traditions. It became very important from then on to get bishops the people trusted and would work with. When the people migrated to the Americans and other places like Australia and New Zealand the last thing they wanted was bishops from another church they had no faith in.

Are you sure, Apotheoun? Three Bishops of Rome (each would have to be of a different Rite) would provide a unique symbol of the Trinitarian basis of Christianity and a visible examplar of the conciliar nature of the episcopate.

This is in line with what Yuhannon says is permissable (multiple bishops of different rites ruling in one city), and as far as I can assess Fr Serge's thinking of multiple Catholic bishops of various Rites in one city he would not find it objectionable.

Whether I would or would not find a given situation unacceptable depends on the specifics - not that it matters much; nobody is waiting for me to decide such a point, nor have I ever so much as met the present Pope.

Come to think of it, a few centuries ago for a brief period there were three Bishops of Rome - and the Council of Constance was called to get things back to normal. Catholics are well aware of the conciliar nature of the episcopate.

Fr. Serge

Yes, but that was a different situation to what Yuhannon is speaking of, and yourself - multiple canonical Catholic bishops of different Rites with episcopal oversight of the same city, Rome in this case. I am sure they are but imagine the potent symbolism if there are multiple Bishops of Rome just as there are multiple bishops of New York, etc. What a proclamation to the Church and to the world!

And what is there to prevent? It is already an established fact in so many major cities.