|
0 members (),
1,799
guests, and
106
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,508
Posts417,509
Members6,161
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
Your post demonstrates the necessity of formally elevating the Church of Kyiv to patriarchal status, thereby recognizing de jure what already exists de facto, and providing for more efficacious pastoral oversight of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Stuart, in this case it would make no difference whether or not the UGCC were recognized as a patriarchal church. All the canons governing synods are the same for patriarchal and major archiepiscopal Churches, and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches only recognizes two levels of synods: 1) the Synod of Bishops of the patriarchal or major archiepiscopal Church, and 2) the metropolitan synod. There is no provision for a plenary synod of several metropolitan provinces within the same nation (e.g. Ukraine). Presumably, there has been no need for such a synod. However, should the need arise, I suppose the Synod of Bishops could enact particular legislation to provide for a plenary synod. My intention was only to point out some of the reasons why I don't think there is going to be a second metropolitan province in Ukraine anytime soon, not to say that it couldn't be done. Where there's a will, there's a way. The CCEO recognizes only patriarchal/major archepiscopal synods. A metropolitan church has a council of hierarchs, which does not have the same power as a synod, most notably the right to elect its own bishops.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405 |
Your post demonstrates the necessity of formally elevating the Church of Kyiv to patriarchal status, thereby recognizing de jure what already exists de facto, and providing for more efficacious pastoral oversight of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. Stuart, in this case it would make no difference whether or not the UGCC were recognized as a patriarchal church. All the canons governing synods are the same for patriarchal and major archiepiscopal Churches, and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches only recognizes two levels of synods: 1) the Synod of Bishops of the patriarchal or major archiepiscopal Church, and 2) the metropolitan synod. There is no provision for a plenary synod of several metropolitan provinces within the same nation (e.g. Ukraine). Presumably, there has been no need for such a synod. However, should the need arise, I suppose the Synod of Bishops could enact particular legislation to provide for a plenary synod. My intention was only to point out some of the reasons why I don't think there is going to be a second metropolitan province in Ukraine anytime soon, not to say that it couldn't be done. Where there's a will, there's a way. The CCEO recognizes only patriarchal/major archepiscopal synods. A metropolitan church has a council of hierarchs, which does not have the same power as a synod, most notably the right to elect its own bishops. No, Father Deacon, I am talking about metropolitan synods within patriarchal or major archiepiscopal churches ( CCEO can. 133 § 2; cf. can. 137). I am not talking about the councils of hierarchs of metropolitan churches sui iuris ( CCEO cann. 164‒171). I'm sorry if I haven't made myself clear.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
I see. I agree with you and don't think it would make much practical sense, so Lviv will most likley remain a non-metropolitan archeparchy.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
