www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Co-adjutor Metropolitan?

Can anyone answer a question about a co-adjutor Metropolitan? If I remember correctly previously had a co-adjutor bishop (with automatic succession).

It would seem justified, because, as a sui juris Church whenever we have vacancy it takes a minimum of six months to get a new shepherd for the Ruthenian Byzantine Church. During the vacancy no official action is permitted (ordinations, re-assignment of pastors, promulgations, etc.)
Patriarchial churches can call a synod to elect a replacement; autocephelus Orthodox churches elect their own bishops, but we are at the mercy of the Oriental Congregation.
Roman Catholic bishops and archbishops are named relatively promptly.

It's unfair that our Church should be put at a disadvantage; a co-adjutor would allow succession of our shepherd without upsetting Rome.

Does anyone have an answer?

Change canon law so that we can elect our own metropolitan and get us away from the Oriental Congregation, or better yet, disband it all together.

In Orthodoxy the selection of a new Shepherd is not always rapid and the methodologies differ. For example, in the OCA the Diocese of Chicago has been without a Bishop for nearly a year and the newly-elected Bishop-elect will not be enthroned until after Pascha.

Is there not a 'locum tenens' in Pittsburgh? I know that we Orthodox use that term and practice.

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches permits the election of a coadjutor (CCEO cann. 212-218), who always has the right of succesion when the eparchial bishop dies or retires. I think it would also be possible to elect a coadjutor metropolitan or even a coadjutor patriarch. For instance, His Beatitude Joseph (Slipyj) was Coadjutor Metropolitan of Lviv from 1939 to 1944. His Beatitude Myroslav-Ivan (Lubachivsky) was Coadjutor from 1980 to 1984.

Normally it is the bishop or metropolitan who needs a coadjutor who has to ask for one. Again, a bishop or metropolitan probably won't ask for a coadjutor until he is nearing retirement or unless he knows he is in poor health. So, if a bishop or metropolitan dies or becomes ill suddenly, there is no time to ask for a coadjutor.

With the metropolitan see of Pittsburgh now vacant, as far as I understand the duties of the Metropolitan are divided between two people:

• Bishop William (Skurla) of Passaic, N.J., as the most senior bishop by ordination, is the administrator of the Pittsburgh Metropolia.
• Father Eugene P. Yackanich, pastor of St. Elias Church in Munhall, Pa., is the administrator of the Pittsburgh Archeparchy.

This means that Father Eugene takes care of the day-to-day business of running the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, while Bishop William presides over the Byzantine Catholic Metropolitan Church of Pittsburgh as what the Orthodox would call a locum tenens. If there is a need to perform ordinations in Pittsburgh, Bishop William can, presumably, perform them.

(Source [pittsburghlive.com])

During the vacancy created by Metropolitan Archbishop Judsen's death all ordinations were held up in the archeparchy. I know because our deacon candidate ordinations to minor orders were postponed. There was an attempt buy the Administrator but it got shot down.

It's a good thing Saint Paul didn't have to go through the Oriental Congregation.

I hope in the future that the Council of Hierarchs takes up the coadjutor subject.

Fr Deacon Paul

Fr Deacon,

I find the decision not to hold ordinations a bit surprising. I don't see why Bishop William or one of the other bishops of the metropolia couldn't perform this function.

Was any official reason given for this that you know of?

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Latin,
I don't know what the official reason was (there probably wasn't one; it probably just died). My understanding was that, since the Archeparchial Bishop's office was vacant, there could be no ordinations. The other Bishops have no jurisdiction outside their eparchy. I suppose the Papal Nuncio could have performed the ordinations, but that would be extremely extraordinary and probably counterproductive.

Actually the present class of deacon candidates from the Archeparchy are in the same predicament that we were; they finish their studies next June and they are still Candidates, not even Lectors. The Parma and Phoenix candidates are not affected by the vacancy.

Fr Deacon Paul

Fr Deacon,

This is interesting. You are right that normally candidates for major orders (priest and deacon) are ordained by their own eparchial Bishop. However, an eparchial Bishop can grant dimissorial letters for the candidate to be ordained by another Bishop (CCEO can. 747). Similarly, an eparchial administrator can grant such dimissorial letters, but only with the consent of the college of consultors (can. 750 § 2).

I am unsure about the rules for the conferral of minor orders. I don't think this is regulated by the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. But, since it is clear that any candidates for major orders that you may have can be ordained by another Bishop (with legitimate dimissorial letters), it does seem strange that the same should not apply to candidates for minor orders. Perhaps the answer may be found somewhere in your particular law?

I agree with LC, regarding the authority of an eparchial administrator under Canon 750 §2, to grant dismissorial letters that would allow an eparch of the same Church sui iuris to ordain based on same.

There is no Canon in the Particular Law of the Metropolia corresponding to Canon 750 (unless there have been changes promulgated to the Particular Law as it is currently posted on-line) and, thus, there is no barrier to the eparchial administrator acting on the basis of Canon 750 §2 other than the necessity for him to obtain the consent of the eparchial consultors to the granting of such letters. However, given the historical reticence of the Metropolia to act without seeking approval from the Colonial Office in the past, there may be a reluctance on the part of the administrator to do so in this instance. Precedents, especially bad ones, are too readily observed and even extended to issues in which they have no applicability.

Many years,

Neil

Just an example from the Orthodox side of things. ACROD and the UOC(Bound Brook) are self-governing and related to each other only by being under the omophor of the Ecumenical Patriarch. Recently, our Metropolitan Nicholas has been ill and unable to discharge his episcopal duties. Several ordinations to the priesthood and diaconate had been scheduled prior to his illness. Arrangements were made between the Metropolitan and the Bishops of the UOC and Archbishop Antony ordained one priest in Pittsburgh last month and Bishop Daniel ordained two priests, one in New Jersey and the other in Pennsylvania in September. While we Orthodox are, to say the least, less codified than our Roman brothers, I would think that similar rules and accommodations could be made by sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches in accordance with traditional Orthodox practice?

Indeed one would think so, particularly as there wouldn't - in this case - even be a need to look further than other hierarchs of the same Church.

Many years,

Neil

Thank you, LC, DMD and Neil for your encouraging comments. I think we and especially ecclesiastical offices have difficulty "breaking out of the box" for things out of the ordinary. This may have been the situation 8 years ago.
Referencing the Popishil commentary of the CCEC it reads "for the granting of dismissorial letters to a candidate for ordination by another bishop, the consent of the consultors is required". If I'm not misinterpreting anything this confirms what the posters above have stated.

Hopefully the consultors will move ahead with minor orders; I believe the delay of conferral of minor orders hinders the deacon candidates vocational development. At the parish level these men are still just altar servers, not even acolytes. Conferral of orders builds their spirit and they can more assuredly take a greater part in the ritual and practical events of the parish. Otherwise it all happens in a rush and the cognizance of these extraordinary experiences can't be properly absorbed, built upon and progressed.

Praying for our future deacons,
Fr Deacon Paul

The Congregation for the Oriental Churches, as I understand it, was originally established for the purpose of protecting the rights of the ECCs. Given the animosity of the RC bishops toward the ECCs at the time, this was a perfectly reasonable move.

However, the downside of this protection was a loss of autonomy, since in order to prove to the RC bishops that the ECCs were *really* Catholic, it was deemed appropriate to increase the level of their oversight by Rome. This *may* have been appropriate at one time, but in this period of history that hardly seems to be the case anymore.

Indeed, if Rome is really serious about reunion with the East, a natural step would be to take a new look at how she relates to the ECCs on a practical level. Abolishing the CEO would certainly be one option, but I think that if its function were redefined, having an office for the EOCs in the Roman Curia could be quite advantageous.

For example, instead of functioning as an "oversight" body, it could operate more like an embassy. Instead of having a prefect appointed by the Pope, it could have a representative from each particular Eastern Church, who in turn could elect a president from amongst themselves.

It could even have representatives from the EOCs ...


Peace,
Deacon Richard

The solution is simple. Raise the Metropolia to Major Archepiscopal status and allow the Synod to elect its own bishops. There is absolutely no reason this should not be. We are in a far better siutation than the Romanian Greek Catholic Church and it has this status.

Fr. Deacon Lance