www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why are you Catholic and not Orthodox?

Since he was chosen by his Synod, and not Rome, no.

Interesting, but without the consent of Rome his election would not have mattered, would it? The whole distinction between the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and the Ruthenians escapes me. The Ruthenians cross geographic borders as do the others - why do they not constitute a fully self governing Sui Juris church, including its diaspora - as the UGCC seemingly does?

I recognize that ACROD for example is under the omophor of the EP and the nomination of a ruling hierarch by and of its Assembly of Priests must be ratified by the Synod of the Ecumenical Throne. But once enthroned, its Bishop will be the ruling bishop of his diocese and will not be beholden to the Ecumenical Throne for any additional local powers.

Perhaps I do not fully understand the significance of this, but why would one Eastern Catholic Metropolitan-Bishop of a Sui Juris Church require a pallium while another does not?

Not really. It's pro forma, like the exchange of synodika among Othodox patriarchs. In theory, each Orthodox patriarch is free to reject the synodikon of a newly elected patriarch, but this almost never happens (and would cause a crisis if it did). To a large extent, the Pope's ratification of an Eastern Catholic Patriarch's election parallels the role once played by the Roman Emperor: all patriarchs and metropolitans had to have their elections ratified by the Emperor (including, interestingly, the Pope); without that ratification, the hierarch's election was technically illegal. In contrast to the Popes, the Emperors were far more assertive in their right to reject synodal nominees, and not infrequently simply installed their own choice in the vacant office. For some reason, unless the Emperor's nominee was either morally dissolute or theologically heterodox, the Synod seldom objected.

One the Patriarch of Kyiv is installed in his throne, he, like the Metropolitan of Johnstown, is not dependent on the Bishop of Rome for anything. Greek Catholic Patriarchs do not even receive the Pallium, let alone have it placed over their heads.

I am still confused as Rome has not, to my knowledge, ever acknowledged the head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church as Patriarch of Kyiv. I know that he, and Cardinal Huzar, are commonly referred to as such by the faithful, but doesn't Rome call him Major-Archbishop?

Once enthroned, theRuling Bishop of ACROD (not by right a Metropolitan - we shall see how the new Bishop shall be titled later this year) is dependent upon the Ecumenical Patriarch for the reception of chrism as is the Greek Archdiocese in the United States. The OCA, holding herself out as autocephalous, consecrates its own chrism.

My apologies if some of my statements offended anyone (which it seems they have), may God have mercy on this sinner!
There IS renewal in the Ukrainian Catholic Church-the result of the blood of the thousands & thousands (millions) of new-martyrs. This new leader, Major-Archbishop Sviatoslav, has been doing some great work-it is undeniable.
Nevertheless, I still agree that the Ukrainians and all other eastern catholics HAVE lost a great part of their identity:

"Whether one wants it or not, they {eastern catholics} have been attached to the Patriarchate of the West, since the Bishop of Rome governs them through the Roman Congregations, just as he governs his own Latin Patriarchate. This led Cardinal Joseph Slipyj, the Major Archbishop of the Ukrainian Catholics to state in a letter dated July 11, 1977, and addressed to Cardinal Joseph Parecattil, president of the Commission for the Unification of Oriental Canon Law, 'This code indicates clearly that union with Rome signifies to all the Eastern Churches the loss of their autonomy, their total submission and their degradation to an inferior position within the Church,'...In his turn, Mar Joseph Mounayer, a Syrian Catholic bishop, wrote on October 3, 1977 about the role of papal authority included in the same project on the revision of the Oriental Canon Law:
'What can we conclude from such odious and harsh words except that:
a) The total dependence and allegiance of the Eastern patriarchs in their relation to the Patriarch of Rome, is a very striking one. They are subjected to him as simple soldiers. They are not treated as brothers, but as docile subjects to both his orders and to the directives of the Roman Congregations.
b) The administrative and disciplinary centralization of Rome has been applied to the Easterners. This juridical centralization is an excessive and heavy burden to carry.
c) A durable and perpetual mandate, instead of a provisional and temporary one, has been imposed by the Patriarch of Rome upon his brothers the Eastern patriarchs, as well as the Church of Rome has been imposed on the Eastern Churches. Nothing can escape Rome, everything must pass by Rome. Everything must be carried out according to the whims of the Roman Congregations...The era of mandates and colonization has not yet ceased.'
Those who think we are exaggerating and that the Uniate Eastern Churches are not dependent upon the Roman Congregations, and are not subject to them, we present the following two declarations:
1) The bulletin of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches (SICO) states on page 9 of its May-June {issue}, 1981, in mentioning the death of Msgr. Emile Gilardone, assessor of the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches, 'His work led him more than once to the Holy Land and to other countries subjected to the jurisdiction of the Sacred Congregation'
2) Another example is the annual statistical questionnaire sent by the Secretary of State to the Eastern Catholic patriarchs and bishops, which is needed for the preparation of the official pontifical yearbook. On the first page we read that this questionnaire is addressed to patriarchates, metropolitan archdioceses, archdioceses or eparchies subject to the patriarch, suffragan prelatures, abbeys, apostolic vicariates, vicariate to the armies, etc. After having underlined the category to which the respondent belongs, we must answer the following question, by underlining one of the following. 'Which pontifical congregation do you depend upon? The Council for the Public Affairs of the Church? The Sacred Congregation for the Bishops? The Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches? The Sacred Congregation for the Evangelization of the People? By underlining the third item, one sees the following, 'Patriarchate, archdiocese, eparchy...dependent upon the Sacred Congregation for the Oriental Churches!' I wanted to hide this humiliating reality. However nothing worked. Rome is consistent within itself. The Melkite patriarchate, archdioceses, and eparchies are all dependent upon the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, and submitted to their jurisdiction. In other words, the Eastern Catholic patriarchs and synods only enjoy a delegated jurisdiction, delegated by the Super-Patriarch of Rome, namely the aforementioned Oriental Congregation... Acclimatized Uniates."-Archbishop Elias Zoghby.

"The CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradtion and ecclesiology!"-Patriarch Gregorios III Laham.

Until the following problems change, I will still consider that the eastern catholics have definitely lost some of their identity!

No link, but I can confirm it. The Metropolitan stated this at Liturgy this past Sunday which I served with him. Metropolitans Stephen, Thomas, and Judson did. Metropolitan Basil I don't know but I am guessing yes.


Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches
TITLE 6

Metropolitan Churches and Other Churches Sui Iuris

Canon 155

1. 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.

2. It is solely the right of the supreme authority of the Church to erect, modify, suppress and define the territorial boundaries of metropolitan Churches sui iuris.

Canon 156

1. Within three months after episcopal ordination or, if already ordained a bishop, after the enthronement, the metropolitan is bound by the obligation to petition the pallium from the Roman Pontiff, which is a sign of his metropolitan power and full communion of the metropolitan Church sui iuris with the Roman Pontiff.

2. Prior to the imposition of the pallium, the metropolitan cannot convoke the council of hierarchs or ordain bishops.

There are certain consequences of being a "metropolitan Church sui iuris". In the ecclesiastical dimension it means Rome appoints the Metropolitan (and by extension all of the hierarchs). In addition to the citarions of canon law, receiving the Pallium is in a sense an affirmation of the ecclesiastical reality of that particular Church. It doesn't surprise, shock, or dismay me.

Amen to that. I wish that the Metropolitan receiving the pallium was our greatest concern. It probably ranks down below the top 25.

Perhaps someone could help me understand why it is such a shock to have our Patriarch call our bishops to a meeting? Don't Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church have such authority? Don't they ever meet with their bishops?

Here we go again...the Pope is not the Patriarch of the Byzantine Catholic Church. Just because we don't have an Eastern Patriarch over us it doesn't mean the Pope fills that void.

A Church can be sui juirs or autonomous or autocephalous without a Patriarch. The Ancient Church of Cyprus is lead by an Archbishop. Does that mean one of the other Orthodox Patriarchs is the Patriarch of the Archbishop of Cyprus?

The head of our Church is Metropolitan William who is in Communion with the Bishop of Rome. Unfortunately, with the huge Latinization that is the Code of Canons of the Eastern Church, the Pope appoints our Bishops.

If we could function truly as an Eastern Church should (appoint our own bishops and metropolitan) this would solve the ecclesiological nightmare that is the Code of Canons of the Eastern Church.

If the Pope is our Patriarch then we should stop complaining about celibacy as our Patriarch has decided that we shouldn't have married priests.

It also seems that we have lost track of the original question of this thread.

Which is the problem of the CCEO. It diverges from Eastern practice which recognizes only autocephalous and autonomous and substitutes the patriarchate/major archepiscopate/metropolitanate/episcopate/exarchate system which in effect makes the Pope the Patriarch (in law, if not name) of metropolitanate and lower Churches. The functioning of these Churches in respect to Rome is no different than Latin dioceses.

Frankly, I don't wish our church to be autocephalous. That is one of the reasons I remain BC instead of Orthodox.

Autonomous under the Patriarchate of Kyiv would be fine with me.

No patriarch can unilaterally contravene an element of the Tradition. Let us remember that this same "patriarch" at one time also prohibited infant communion and required us to alter the order of the sacraments of initiation.

I agree with both of your comments. I don't think we should be slaves to our Patriarch. None of them are infallible outside of ex cathedra comments in order to satisfy conflicts that cannot be resolved elsewhere. Nevertheless, a Patriarch is an important part of the Church. Until we get another I would guess Rome will do.