www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Italo-Albanian Bishop Retires

I would like to point out that the italo-albanian Church is not recognized as a sui iuris Church. So far, the Bishop of Lungro had no supervisor from the Holy Seat. However, in the future it would be necessary or to create an italo-albanian Metropolitan Church (but three Eparchies would be necessary) or to appoint a Apostolic Delegate.

In this scenario, the application of Canon 221 would have been still possible? I mean, once the college of eparchial consultors elects an Eparchial Administrator, it would still require the control of an Apostolic Delegate appointed by the Hole See.

Could you please tell me which was the procedure for resignation of bishops from eparchial sees before the CEEO was approved (1990)?
Thanks to the Irish brother for his clarification.

N.

My brother,

It is not necessary that there be a Metropolitan See for a Church sui iuris to exist - and, in fact, several of the Byzantine Rite Churches sui iuris are of eparchial status. In the instance of the Italo-Greico-Albanians, there are effectively 3 separate Churches sui iuris, since there is no designated primatial hierarch among the 3 jurisdictions; however, for purposes of enumerating such Churches, it is deemed as one. (It's not the only such Church to have this unusual circumstance; for instance, the Ruthenians effectively constitute 2 separate Churches sui iuris, 1 in Europe and 1 in the US).



Both the Eparchies of Lungro and Piana are immediately subject to the Holy See.

In the instance of Lungro, the Vatican has effectively usurped the provisions of Canon 221 by the appointment of an Apostolic Administrator sede vacante et ad nutum Sanctae Sedis (not leaving any time for the kind of situation that resulted when the Russian presbyterate elected an administrator a few years ago and the Vatican found itself playing catch-up by subsequently appointing Bishop Joseph Werth as Ordinary, lest the Russians got too enamored of the idea that they might exercise rights under the CCEO).

Likewise, the appointment of an Apostolic Legate to Piana and a Papal Delegate to the Exarchic Abbey (which was already subject to the Metropolia of Rome) pretty much assures that the former will not be internally administered upon the retirement at 75 of Kyr Sotir. As to the Abbey, the monastic community would ordinarily elect a successor on the retirement of its Abbot - that process can certainly be abrogated as well.

Many years,

Neil

My brother,

As memory serves, prior to the CCEO, the procedure was essentially the same, just not defined on paper as clearly. The consultors would elect an administrator and submit names to Rome (can't remember for certain whether they'd go to the Oriental Congregation or that of the Bishops, but I think the former) and Rome would appoint - in the case of stand-alone jurisdictions such as these or jurisdictions beyond the patriarchal territory in the case of the patriarchal Churches.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Brother,
thank you very much for your clarification. Your comments are extremely interesting.

Canon 174 and 175 affirm that for our Church, which is not Metropolitan, there should be an Apostolic Legate even when there will be a new Bishop. This, de facto, means that we will loose our independence. Furthermore, if the Apostolic Legate will be a Latin Bishop as it should be supposed, this means that we will be subject to Latins once again after 100 years of Eparchy and independence.

It is not a good scenario. Can the Vatican send us a Apostolic Legate of our rite? As far as I know he should be of Italian nationality.

Thank you for your help.

Luigi

Luigi, my brother,

Ah, now I understand from whence you've drawn your conclusions. I should have thought of those Canons previously.

Canons 174-176 of the CCEO relate specifically to the Churches sui iuris of eparchial status (and, by interpretation to the free-standing or exempt eparchies outside the historical territory of a Church sui iuris that is of Metropolitan or higher status).

The Canons establish the dependency of those Churches on the Apostolic See. However, the 'hierarch' referenced therein is the eparch of the jurisdiction (or the exarch, etc, if an eparchy has not been established).

The reference in C. 176 to 'delegate of the Apostolic See' does not refer to an Apostolic Delegate. It means nothing more than the status that any diocesan bishop or archbishop holds in relation to the Apostolic See - he is delegated the episcopal oversight of his canonical jurisdiction by the Apostolic See and acts for it in exercising that.



That said, the Vatican always has the prerogative to appoint an Apostolic Visitator or Delegate in instances where it considers it necessary for some reason (regretably, often for one that is not immediately transparent to those looking in from outside - sometimes for reasons that are all-too-obvious). Such appointments have been made to metropolia, archdioceses, dioceses, archeparchies, eparchies, exarchates, monasteries, and other canonical jurisdictions and institutions - including religious orders and seminaries. (It has happened in recent history in both Latin and Byzantine jurisdictions - a couple of Melkite eparchies come to mind immediately.)

Now, no one can reasonably argue that there are never instances in which the Apostolic See's spiritual and administrative responsibility to exercise general superintendency over its constituent canonical jurisdictions might require doing so. Likewise, it would be unreasonable to presume that the reasons for doing so should always be made publicly known - considerations of trust and confidentiality effectively argue that such is not always in the best interests. However, in cases such as this, where the continued viability of a Church sui iuris is threatened - particularly a small, relatively powerless one with a recent history of having suffered under Latin rule - one might indeed hope for some consideration being given to how the matter is addressed.

Certainly, the appointment of an Apostolic Visitator, Delegate, or Administrator of the same ritual tradition as the Church, albeit not of the Church itself, would be the ideal.

The sole hierarch of the Albanian Greek-Catholic Church is presently an Apostolic Administrator. His Grace Hil (Kilbashi), OFM is Byzantine, but of the Croatian Greek-Catholic Church.

The Bielorusian Greek-Catholic Church presently has an Apostolic Visitator ad nutum Sanctae Sedis for Greek-Catholics in Belarus and another for Belarusan Greek-Catholics Outside Belarus. Those positions are both held by non-hierarchs and are, thus, without ordinary jurisdiction and the Church's parishes and missions are alieni iuris, under the law of another; that is, they are canonically subject to the local Latin Ordinaries within whose geographic jurisdictions each is situated. One of the two Apostolic Visitators, Mitred Archpriest Alexander (Nadson) - in London - is himself a Belarusian Greek-Catholic; the other, Mitred Archimandrite Sergius (Gajek), MIC, is Byzantine, but not of the Belarusian Greek-Catholic Church.

In both recent (last decade and a half or so) instances of an Apostolic Visitator for Melkite eparchies that I can recollect, the appointees have been other Melkite hierarchs. However, there was a very recent, short-lived, and unpublicized instance of a Latin (non-hierarch) appointed to perform an apostolic visitation of a Melkite eparchy, but that appears to have been a matter of fact-finding; it did not involve jurisdictional superintendency.

So, yes, a Visitator or Delegate of your Rite, albeit not of your Church, is certainly possible and would be the ideal. Would it necessarily have to be one of Italian nationality? No, whether of your Rite or the Latin Rite, there is no such requirement (and it would be difficult, although not necessarily impossible) to find someone of your Rite - but not of your Church - who is an Italian by nationality.

Many years,

Neil

(thank you for signing your name, I much prefer being able to address people by name - it helps reduce the depersonalized nature of the computer screen and enhances the sense of community here)

Our Melkite Eparchy of Brazil is currently under an apostolic visit. The responsable is a Latin hierarch, Mgr. Fernando Guimarães, Bishop of Garanhuns. He is only investigating, not managing.

The Bishop of Garanhuns, Dom Fernando Guimarães, is a member of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (the "Supreme Court" of the Catholic Church). So an Apostolic Visit by Dom Fernando is a bit like an investigation by a Supreme Court Justice. That sounds rather serious.

Ciao Neil,
thank you for your reply.
Actually, Canon 175 makes reference to can. 159, nn. 3-8. The rights mentioned in can. 159 are those typical of a metropolia. For this reason, one may say that these rights can not be appointed to a Bishop (who should be controlled by the Metropolitan) but they should be appointed to a Gerarc of higher status nominated by the Holy See.

L.

Luigi,

You give too much credit to the drafters of the CCEO in the care that they would have taken to assuring that the text and its references read precisely as they should.

For all intents and purposes, C. 159, nn 3-8, as those apply to eparchial bishops, would read as follows (with the italicized text in parentheses having no applicability and the remainder applying as equally to an eparch as it would to any diocesan bishop - Eastern or Western). Note that n. 6 has no application whatsoever to eparchs (unless the eparchy had a jurisdiction subordinate to it - an exarchate, for instance).


Remember, also, that the Italo-Albanian Church sui iuris is but one of several Churches sui iuris that are of eparchial status and none of those with sitting eparchs (including your Church until these events) has been superintended by any Delegate or Visitator, such as you envisage, except for periods and in circumstances as have been discussed previously. I can assure you that if any such system were in place as a permanent structure, it would be widely known and would have been the subject of endless and hostile commentary on these and other fora.

Many years,

Neil

Here the text of the fist letter of Mons Munnari, the new (Latin) Apostolic Administrator "sede vacante et ad nutum Sanctae Sedis" of the Eparchy of Lungro : http://www.jemi.it/images/stories/files/nunnari26Agosto.pdf

Here an extract poorly translated in English by myself:
"...I came among you sent by the pastoral concern of the Holy Father with the task of "performing, being above the parties, a deep check of the situation of the Eparchy in order to offer an objective outline of the situation and to start a process of renewing to prepare the way to the new pastor" (from the Letter of the Congregation of the Oriental Churches).

In the decree of appointment to Apostolic Administrator "sede vacante ad nutum Sancte Sedis", I have been en-powered of the mandate to "take the pastoral govern in the name of the Roman Pontiff with the same rights of the Bishop of the Eparchy, and I shall comply with the norms of the Canons 228-230 of the CCEO, and I shall demand the respect of what provided for in canon 232 par 1 of the same CCEO."

I ask to all patience and full collaboration for my -not easy- task.
I appoint Archymandrite Donato Oliverio delegated "ad omnia" and I confirm all the other positions. I also confirm the Presbiterial, Pastoral and Economic Affair Councils.

In particular I ask to the dear brothers in the priesthood to ride over the difficulties and the misunderstandings to built together the ecclesiastic communion which is the foundation of the communion of the presbyters.
It is my will to meet as soon as possible each single priests.
....
Lungro, 21/08/2010"

It is clear - reading from the first letter of the Apostolic Administrator - that the reason is to reorganize the Eparchy or to... desintegrate it (it is also a form of reorganization...).

antv,

Thank you for the link and translation. A paraphrase ...




In fairness to the Administrator, I don't think that is as clear as you suggest. His words suggest a careful review, but don't suggest to me that he intends to necessarily reorganize. I think his words were carefully chosen, a mix of fraternity and reality. For now, we can only wait to see what comes of this.

Many years,

Neil

Because someone will ask, the following are the CCEO Canons referenced in the Letter of the Oriental Congregation:

Canon 228
§1. When the see is vacant there are to be no innovations.

§2. Those who temporarily care for the governance of the eparchy are prohibited from doing anything which could be prejudicial to the eparchy or episcopal rights. They themselves and all other persons are specifically prohibited from removing, destroying or altering any documents of the eparchial curia either personally or through another.

Canon 229
The administrator of the eparchy has the same rights and obligations as the eparchial bishop, unless the law provides otherwise or it is evident from the nature of the matter.

Canon 230
Unless otherwise lawfully provided:

1° the administrator of an eparchy has the right to an appropriate remuneration to be established by particular law or determined by lawful custom and which is to be taken from the goods of the eparchy;

2° the other income accruing to the eparchial bishop during the time when the eparchial see is vacant is reserved to the future eparchial bishop for the needs of the eparchy, observing the prescriptions of the particular law which define the manner in which the income must be spent.

...

Canon 232
§1. When the eparchial see is vacant the eparchial finance officer carries out his office under the authority of the administrator of the eparchy. The administration of the ecclesiastical goods which on account of the vacancy of the eparchial see do not have an administrator reverts to him, unless the patriarch or college of eparchial consultors have provided otherwise.

Many years,

Neil