www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Ruthenian Archeparchy

Has there been any news about a new Metropolitan being appointed? Has the See been vacant for a long time or does it usually take this long?

Usually it takes much longer.

Christ is in our Midst!

I have a question. Upon the retirement of Cardinal Huzar, our Ukrainian brothers convened a Synod and elected a successor, whose name was sent to Rome for 'ratification' (for lack of a better word.)

What is the mechanism for the Archeparchy to obtain a new shepherd? As a sui juris Church do they have the ability to meet in an American Sobor and select a name to present to Rome or is the call solely that of Rome?

Just wondering, as in my mind I am comparing this to our process in ACROD where a priest's Sobor would meet in prayer and select a candidate to present to the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarch for its approval.

Thank you.

DMD-

what you describe as the selection process for ACROD is basically what happens for the selection of bishops in the Metropolia of Pittsburgh. The Council of Hierarchs meet and submit candidates to the Bishop of Rome for approval.

He is and shall be!

In my humble opinion, I see a conflict in Canon Law. Can.155 says, A metropolitan Church sui iuris is presided over by a metropolitan of a determined see who is appointed by the Roman Pontiff and assisted by a council of hierarchs according to the norm of law.
But here is the conflict-- in Title V (The Major Archiepiscopal Churches) Canon 153 says "A major archbishop is elected according to the norm of cann. 63-74.
It was those canons which regulated election of His Beatitude Sviatoslav Shevchuk.

Perhaps someone more knowledgeable about canon law could clarify this.

Fr Deacon Paul

Fr Deacon Paul,

I don't quite understand which conflict you refer to. I am no expert, but it is clear to me that there is one set of rules for the election of a major archbishop and another set of rules for the election of a metropolitan.

Specifically, a major archbishop is elected in exactly the same way as a patriarch (can. 153 § 1, cf. cann. 63-74), but, unlike the election of a patriarch, the election of a major archbishop has to be confirmed by the Pope (can. 153 §§ 2-4).

On the other hand, a metropolitan who is the head of a sui iuris Church is nominated by the Pope (can. 155 § 1) on the basis of a list of three candidates prepared by the Council of Hierarchs (can. 168).

Now, the metropolitan see of Pittsburgh has been vacant since June 10th 2010. This may seem a long time, but Metropolitan Basil was only 70 when he died, which means that the process of finding a successor likely hadn't started yet. This may account for some of the delay.

Also, if I understand correctly, there has been some tension within the Byzantine Catholic Church over the Revised Divine Liturgy among other things. Probably Rome is weighing carefully who might be the best candidate to lead the Church out of such difficulties, and that too might explain some of the delay.

Finally, I understand that the Vatican more or less closes down for the summer after the feast of Saints Peter and Paul (June 29th). Therefore, many important decisions are finalized during June. So, if there is no news about the Pittsburgh metropolitan see by the end of June, I would guess we'll have to wait until the autumn.

^Was not one of the prerogatives of the Union of Uzhorod that the selection of hierarchs would proceed in accordance with the Orthodox practice?

Granted, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source, but its reference to this issue is consistent with my understanding of history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Uzhhorod

"Signed in the Castle of Ungvár on April 24 by the Roman Catholic bishop Jakusits of Eger, the union was initiated on the Ruthenian side by the Basilian monastic order under the leadership of the monk Petro Parfenii (Peter Parthenius). The agreement allowed that the Eastern Byzantine church rite would be preserved and that the new "Uniate" priests would be elevated to the status of Roman Catholic clergy. As Orthodox clergy their status had been that of vassals with the requisite feudal duties.
The Basilian monks, led by Parfenii, agreed to the Union of Ungvár based on the following understandings:
Preservation of eastern rites
The right to choose bishop, subject to the approval of Rome
Being granted the privileges of the Roman Catholic clergy"

I realize that this was one of the sensitive issues of the 1930's, but I don't think that American Ruthenian Greek Catholics ever received a satisfactory answer to this question at that time, nor do they have one today as witnessed by the length of time the see has been vacant.

I won't argue with you about the Union of Uzhhorod. I'm only trying to explain how things actually work under current canon law.

PS! The Wikipedia article [en.wikipedia.org] you refer to seems reliable enough, but unfortunately it lacks the inline citations [en.wikipedia.org] or footnotes which would have made it easier to track down the actual sources. Perhaps someone on this forum who knows more about the subject and the relevant literature than I do could go to work on this?

LC,
In plain terms...according to Canon 153 the Pope appoints the Metropolitan based on the suggestions of the synod.
According to Canon 63 a Major Archbishop or Patriarch is elected by a synod and confirmed by the Pope.
There is a HUGE difference!

I can't quote because I don't have the book, but, as I recall reading, it actually went something like this:

The original agreement called for selection of the Greek Catholic Bishop by a synod of the monks. However, things got crossed up by Rome and in order to save the Union the primate of Hungary actually appointed the bishop. Eventually it got somewhat corrected, as the Primate's power to appoint was transferred to the Pope.
Maybe someone can add more exact history.

The current method of selecting a Metropolitan Archbishop and local bishops for the Ruthenian Church in America is about the same as is currently done in the Roman Catholic Church. The major difference is that the entire Metropolia acts as one unit, and the Council of Hierarchs submits a list of names for Rome to choose from. The Council of Hierarchs has no influence beyond that of what names to put on the list and Rome is not bound in any way to the names on the list. -- This is different from the Orthodox Diocese of Johnstown, where the clergy meet and elect a bishop. Traditionally, the Patriarch of Constantinople has the right of rejection but has not done so to my knowledge.

It should be remembered that the Ruthenian bishops organized themselves as a "Council of Hierarchs" and not as a "Synod of Bishops". The why of such a decision is beyond the topic of the current discussion, but the result is that a Council of Hierarchs has much less authority than does a Synod of Bishops.

It has been my hope the process of filling the current vacancy in Pittsburgh will include a call from Pope Benedict XVI to Patriarch Kyrill asking him if he can spare a spare a bishop for assignment in America to re-teach them all that they have lost in the areas of liturgy and theology.

To a western mind it is a huge difference, but to the Orthodox it is a distinction which is 'puzzling' to put it kindly.

But doesn't that beg the question? If the Unions were 'contracts' under the Romanpbased civil law systems as generally accepted by the states of Western and Central Europe in the middle ages, how is it that subsequent Canon Law modifications by Latin-rite canonists could change the terms of the agreement?

This is an important question because it is a point which sticks in the craw, so to speak, of even the most ardent Orthodox proponents of reconciliation between our Churches.

ROTFL!

One problem would be the old saying of the 'schismatics' like my grandfathers of blessed memory - 'Neither Rome nor Moscow!' St. Alexis Toth sadly found out by the end of his life that making such a 'deal' with the Russians would lead to the erosion of the venerable and valid Orthodox traditions of our beloved 'Eastern Rite' and our peoples such as surely as would creeping Latinizations.

Thankfully the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch has served to protect our people and allow us to find a balance between the need to restore proper praxis without destroying our unique and mutually beloved identity.

The sad reality is that the Rusyns in America, both in the BCC and in ACROD find their principal sees vacant at the same time and an apparent lack of a clear plan of succession has placed both of our homes, so to speak, at risk. Let us join in prayerful supplication to our beloved Blessed Mother, the Theotokas and Birthgiver of God and ask for her protection and intercession in these difficult days. "Pod Tvoj Pokrov, pribihajem. We come to you for protection." "O, Mary, Mother of God pray for us. O Maria, Mati Boze, molisja za nas!

As to a call to Europe, perhaps instead of calling Moscow and being placed on hold, the Holy Father should put a call into Bishop Milan of Muchachevo to see if he has any spare celibate priests educated in Rome with a good command of English. Watching his youtube videos this week reminded me of the beauty and traditions we both hold so dearly!

double post sorry....

Father Deacon,

I am confused. I agree there is a huge difference between the manner of electing a Major Archbishop and the manner of electing a Metropolitan. I never said there wasn't. In fact, I thought I described the difference quite carefully. So why are you "shouting" (using capital letters)?

Also, I think you meant to refer to canon 155, which deals with Metropolitans. Canon 153 deals exclusively with Major Archbishops.

By the way, I agree with the Administrator that the Pope isn't bound in any way by the list of candidates presented by the Council of Hierarchs (metropolitan Churches sui iuris don't have Synods).