www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Pope and Eastern Bishops

Does the pope have to approve eastern bishops? Or can a particular Church elect it's own bishops through a deanery?

MS,

In the case of the Patriarchal Churches, their Synods elect their bishops who will head Sees within the historical territory of the Patriarchate. As regards their Sees which are in the diaspora, they submit a terna, a list of 3 names to Rome and the Vatican, through the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, approves one - hopefully, but not necessarily, the first choice.

In the instance of the Metropolitan Churches, the Council of Hierarchs submits a terna and action is taken on it by the Congregation. As regards those Churches of eparchial status, the decision is reserved to the Congregation - whether a list of nominees is submitted is unclear, but doubtful.

Many years,

Neil

Neil,
Thank you for that great answer. That makes complete sense. So, there really isn't much truth to the claims of a so called, "Papal Monarchy." it doesn't seem like the Pope handles things much differently than the Ecumenical Patriarch. Am I correct?

MS,

Keep in mind that not all hierarchs of the Eastern Orthodox Church are subject to the the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch. That said, I'll leave it to our Orthodox brethren to describe the particulars of how hierarchs are elected/appointed in the various Orthodox patriarchates and other jurisdictions.

As regards the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches, the present methods of appointment and confirmation leave much to be desired for Churches that are described as sui iuris - 'of their own law'. That the Synods of the Patriarchal and Major Arch-episcopal Churches cannot elect eparchial bishops to jurisdictions outside their 'historical territory' is a matter of much concern and was raised by several participants at the recent Middle East Synod. The exercise of Papal approval in these instances, through the Congregation (often referred to, derisively, as the Colonial Office or the Bureau of Indian Affairs), is seen as paternalistic and infringing on the traditional prerogatives of the patriarchal office.

It is equally offensive to the Metropolitan Churches and to those of eparchial status.

While you might not see the term 'papal monarchy' used as much by Eastern and Oriental Catholics as it is by their Orthodox brethren, do not believe that we are not cognizant of the restraints that Rome has placed on the day-to-day governance of our Churches.

Many years,

Neil

Understood. Thank you again. The reason I am asking this is because I personally find papal supremecy (or a papal monarchy) to be missing from tradition and scripture.

Papal primacy is very clear, but I don't see evidence of a papal supremecy in the first millenium. I was beginning to think/hope the papacy in it's current state did not exercise any sort of supremecy outside of it's own Latin "territory." But now I'm confused again.

If the eastern churches feel the way they do, then I'm afraid Rome is wrong and has been for some time.

Christ is Born!

What's to be confused about? Since the second millenium, the Latin Church has seen itself as identical to the Universal Church and, therefore, to have its territory cover the whole earth. Many have thought that since Columbus claimed the Western hemisphere for Spain and its Catholic monarchs that this means that it is Latin patriarchal territory--that might explain why the opposition to Eastern Catholic bishops ordaining married men within this territoy is as it is. It also explains why the Portugese could go to India, use Latin missionaries in a place that had been evangelized a millenium prior by those in the Syriac tradition, and then restrict the native Churches within their own territory.

Bob

Bob,
It makes sense that the Pope would have immediate authority over the diaspora and the "west." The confusing part to me is that I don't see any historical evidence that the pope should have immediate authority over other patriarchates. Primacy? Yes. But not supremecy or universal jurisdiction.

And if the early church, which did things much more collegially, never acknowledged such supremecy, I don't see how the Pope can declare it for himself.

Explain. Or, if it does make sense to you, why then, doesn't Patriarch Gregorios III have the right to appoint Latin bishops inside the "historical territory" of his patriarchate?

I didn't realize Patriarch Gregorios III couldn't appoint his own Bishops. I think he should be. My quote above was made to say that I have read council cannons which indicate Rome had to approve Bishops for the churches in it's territory. But I've never read a council say that Rome had to approve Bishops in other patriarchates' territories.

MS,

The provision is in Canon Law.

Many years,

Neil

Neil,
I'm sorry. I should have specified which councils I was speaking about. I was talking about the first seven.

Patriarch Gregorios, following Eastern Orthodox precedent, does not appoint bishops--they are elected by his synod. The issue is whether, if the Pope can appoint Greek Catholic bishops outside the traditional territory of the Greek Catholics Churches, why can't Greek Catholic patriarchs appoint Latin bishops inside the historic territory of their patriarchates? After all, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, and turnabout is fair play.

I'm not entirely sure what your argument is (due completely to my own ignorance) but I'd like to try to respond any way.

The first millennium Church setup certain churches over other churches. These "ruling" churches were primarily the patriarchates (if I understand correctly). I don't see why those cannons wouldn't still apply today.

One point I missed before is that you were referring to Patriarch Gregorios III appointing Latin bishops. I believe the Latin patriarch (the Pope) should appoint and/or approve of Latin bishops regardless of the territory. Similarly, I think Patriarch Gregorios III should appoint/approve of any Melkite bishops regardless of territory.

But I'm confused to how it really works now. If it works how I think it should, then great. If it does not, then I fear reform needs to occur in the Catholic Church to make the road to reunion easier to travel.

MS,

Stuart was pointing out the irony of the fact that the Pope gets to name the Melkite (and all other EC/OC) bishops who will head Sees outside the historical territories of the respective EC/OC Churches (generally termed the diaspora and chiefly in what we refer to as 'the West'), but that the Melkite Patriarch does not, in turn, get to name those Latin bishops who will head Latin Sees that are within the bounds of his historical territory.

And, in the case of those Churches which are neither patriarchal nor major arch-episcopal, the Pope names (or effectively declines to name*) all their bishops, regardless of the territorial considerations involved. A prime example being the current vacancy in the Byzantine Catholic Metropolia of Pittsburgh as a result of the repose last year of His Eminence Basil, of blessed memory. The Archeparchy of Pittsburgh is sede vacante and will remain such until the Pope, through the Oriental Congregation, names a successor.

*The Russian Greek-Catholics have not had an Ordinary since the martyrdoms in 1935 and 1952, respectively, of Blessed Exarch Leonid Feodorev of the Exarchate of Moscow and the Servant of God Father Exarch Andrzej Cikoto of the Exarchate of Harbin. Likewise, the Belarusians and Albanians are sine episcopi. Both Italo-Greico-Albanian Eparchies are currently under Latin administration and other jurisdictions (e.g., the Melkite Eparchy in Mexico) are vacant and have been for some time.

Many years,

Neil

Neil,
Thank you for the clarification. Why do you think such is the case? It doesn't seem right to me. I mean, I certainly believe you, but I don't understand why the Pope would leave these people without a Shepard for so long. I also don't understand why the Pope should make these appointments. It just doesn't seem right.