|
1 members (San Nicolas),
418
guests, and
108
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,529
Posts417,662
Members6,181
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960 |
Originally posted by Deacon John Montalvo:
... in accordance with canon 210 � 1 of the CCEO- when a bishop completes his seventy-fifth year of age, he is requested to submit his resignation. Deacon John, When will Bishop Andrew Pataki resign? Wasn't he born in 1927? I think it is long overdue. Maybe we will get another bishop from some defunct religious order in his place? Joe Thur
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 16
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 16 |
Originally posted by Deacon John Montalvo:
in accordance with canon 210 � 1 of the CCEO- when a bishop completes his seventy-fifth year of age, he is requested to submit his resignation. I just looked at the corresponding clauses of the Latin Code: Can. 401 �1 A diocesan Bishop who has completed his seventy-fifth year of age is requested to offer his resignation from office to the Supreme Pontiff, who, taking all the circumstances into account, will make provision accordingly. Can. 411 The provisions of cann. 401 and 402 �2, concerning resignation from office, apply also to a coadjutor and an auxiliary Bishop. From the Eastern Code: Canon 210
1. An eparchial bishop who has completed his seventy-fifth year of age or who, due to ill health or to another serious reason, has become less able to fulfill his office, is requested to present his resignation from office.
2. This resignation from office by the eparchial bishop is to be submitted to the patriarch if it is the case of an eparchial bishop exercising authority inside the territorial boundaries of a patriarchal Church; in other cases, it is submitted to the Roman Pontiff; further, if the bishop belongs to a patriarchal Church, the patriarch is to be notified as soon as possible. 3. To accept this resignation the patriarch needs the consent of the permanent synod, unless a request for resignation was made previously by the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church. Note that the words "is requested" are used in both. I think we can disabuse ourselves of the idea, posted here from time to time, that our bishops are only requested to resign at 75, whereas Latin bishops are required to do so. I suspect that the term "is requested" should be read as a thinly veiled imperative in both instances. Many years, Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960 |
And aren't our bishops allowed to extend their reign two or three years beyond the 'requested' retirement date if they petition? Otherwise, Pataki would already off the radar screen, no?
Joe Thur
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 50
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 50 |
From today's Vatican's press releases: In data 26 giugno 2004 Giovanni Paolo II ha concesso il Suo assenso all'elezione canonicamente fatto dal Sinodo della Chiesa Greco-Melkita cattolica, riunitosi a Ain Traz (Libano) dal 22 al 26 giugno 2004, del Rev. P. Elias Rahal della Societ� dei Missionari di San Paolo, SMSP, ad Arcivescovo di Baalbeck (Libano) dei greco-melkiti cattolici.
Rev. P. Elias Rahal, SMSP
Il Rev. P. Elias Rahal della Societ� dei Missionari di San Paolo, SMSP � nato nel 1942 a Ras Baalbeck (Bekaa B Libano). Ha uno zio sacerdote e una sorella religiosa. Ha conseguito gli studi secondari nel Seminario minore dei Padri Paulisti a Harissa e ha studiato Filosofia e Teologia nel Seminario maggiore di "Sainte Anne" a Gerusalemme.
� stato ordinato sacerdote nella Societ� dei Padri Paolisti nel 1970; � stato prima missionario in Palestina e in vari posti in Siria, poi ha lavorato nel Seminario minore di Harissa. E' diventato Superiore del Convento St. Pierre dei Paolisti a Safit (Siria) e Protosincello dell'Eparchia di Lattaquieh (Siria). (Baalbeck was Archbishop Bustros's previous see.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960 |
The most interesting story behind ANY episcopal selection/election is how they get the job. How did a foreigner and not a local get the bishop job? Is it about the people's needs? Peter Principle? Money? Power politics? I personally don't believe in the election or nomination process in our churches. Look at what we have now. Is our current church leadership our own doing or a result of absentee string-pulling? You tell me. Nothing is grass-roots anymore. Grass doesn't pay ... unless it is pot.
Joe Thur
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 16
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 16 |
To follow up on David Cheney's post:
" -approved the election canonically carried out by the Synod of the Greek-Melkite Catholic Church, gathered at Ain Traz, Lebanon on June 22-26, of Fr. Elias Rahal of the Missionary Society of St. Paul, SMSP, as archbishop of Baalbeck of the Greek-Melkite Catholics (Catholics 15,100,
priests 11, permanent deacons 1, religious 50), Lebanon. The archbishop-elect was born in Ras Baalbeck, Lebanon in 1942 and was ordained
a priest in 1970."
May God grant many years to Archbishop-Elect Elias.
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 16
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 16 |
Originally posted by J Thur:
The most interesting story behind ANY episcopal selection/election is how they get the job. How did a foreigner and not a local get the bishop job? Is it about the people's needs? Peter Principle? Money? Power politics? I personally don't believe in the election or nomination process in our churches. Look at what we have now. Is our current church leadership our own doing or a result of absentee string-pulling? You tell me. Nothing is grass-roots anymore. Grass doesn't pay ... unless it is pot. Joe, One hopes and prays that it was done through some prayer and thought and Divine inspiration. Your bitterness toward the Church hierarchy, for whatever personal reasons it exists, is showing. That's your business, but I resent the insinuations that your comments direct toward my Church and the decisions of its Holy Synod. Many years, Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,042
novice O.Carm. Member
|
|
novice O.Carm. Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,042 |
Originally posted by J Thur:
The religious orders seem to be getting all the episcopal jobs. Whether they knew/know the flock doesn't mean squat. Top-down decisions don't consider those closest to the people. They are just ... top-down.
I highly recommend that a ten-year ban be placed on any new bishop for our churches. Whether they come from defunct religious communities or very rich orders, they should just stay in the monastery where their original vocation led them.
Isn't it tradition for the bishops to be raised from the monastic priesthood? If we were following our traditions totally, most if not all eparchial priests would be married so the only ones avalible to be bishops would be widowers. A ten year ban? What do new bishops for ten years? So what happens when a bishop dies? I would also have to agree with Neil on this... Your bias is showing. David, the Byzantine Catholic "Every evil screams only one message: 'I am good.'" Fr Alexander Schmemann
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,960 |
Originally posted by DavidB, the Byzantine Catholic:
Isn't it tradition for the bishops to be raised from the monastic priesthood?
If we were following our traditions totally, most if not all eparchial priests would be married so the only ones avalible to be bishops would be widowers.
David, Then you have decided that there are no good candidates from the clerical ranks who have experience in the field? This is not 18th century Rus'. We don't have married priests as a living tradition in this country. Do you suggest that we drain all our monastic vocations (the few we do have) to fill the vacant episcopal sees? And you agree that there exists no bias against elevating qualified pastors from the field to be our future church leaders? Joe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,042
novice O.Carm. Member
|
|
novice O.Carm. Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,042 |
Originally posted by J Thur:
David,
Then you have decided that there are no good candidates from the clerical ranks who have experience in the field?
Joe, No I haven't decided that as it is not my job, nor yours.... It is the job of the Holy Synod of Bishops of the Melkite Church to decide this, which they did. David, the Byzantine Catholic "Every evil screams only one message: 'I am good.'" Fr Alexander Schmemann
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 61
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 61 |
Age 75 or there abouts is when the Bishop is requested to submit his resignation. This doesn't mean that Rome has to accept it.
Anthony Cardinal Bevilaacqua of Philadelphia (Latin) submitted his at 75, and the Pope didn't accept it until he was age 80. I think that is also the case for Edmond Cardinal Szoka, Governor of Vatican City; Cardinal Sodano, Secretary of State; and Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of Faith. These men are all over 75.
Good point about Kyr Pataki, I was wondering the same thing. August 30th, he turns 77. Maybe Rome is postponing accepting his resignation for a few more years. But that just my opinion!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,461 Likes: 1 |
Neil, regarding the election of your Synod, that Synod sent three names to Rome and Rome chose.
We can say that the Patriarch through the Synod strongly recommended one over the other, but the fact remains, even though the Melkites are a Patriarchal church, they are not unilaterally free to chose hierarchs beyond the "territorial jurisdiction" of the Patriarchate. The exact phrase from the CCEO is "appointed by Rome".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 16
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 16 |
Originally posted by Diak:
Neil, regarding the election of your Synod, that Synod sent three names to Rome and Rome chose.
We can say that the Patriarch through the Synod strongly recommended one over the other, but the fact remains, even though the Melkites are a Patriarchal church, they are not unilaterally free to chose hierarchs beyond the "territorial jurisdiction" of the Patriarchate. The exact phrase from the CCEO is "appointed by Rome". Randy, As I'm sure you are aware from my postings on this and prior occasions, I am fully aware and disagree thoroughly with the process insofar as Rome's "approval" authority over the selection of my Church's eparchs in the diaspora. Like many others, yourself included, I was also disappointed that Bishop Nicholas was not appointed eparch; he is, as someone described him, a visionary and a respected leader. That said, all indications are that Archbishop Cyrille was the first choice of the Holy Synod and Rome concurred. (Had Bishop Nicholas not been the first choice of the Synod, but Rome appointed him, what would we have done? Damned Rome with faint praise for its insightfulness regarding the needs of American Melkites, while cursing their arrogance in ignoring the Synod's recommendation?)  My issue with Joe's post related specifically to the fact that Archbishop Cyrille was, at the very least, one of the nominees selected by our Holy Synod. Joe's post broad-brushed the hierarchical nomination and selection processes and, to my mind, cast aspersions on the process in my Church, insofar as we had control of it. Originally posted by j thur:
The most interesting story behind ANY episcopal selection/election is how they get the job. How did a foreigner and not a local get the bishop job? Is it about the people's needs? Peter Principle? Money? Power politics? What I didn't comment on were his other remarks about hierarchs from religious orders versus the secular clergy. I am aware that, at least in the UGCC, there are apparently strong negative opinions about one of their monastic orders. We don't have that issue; the three Melkite Basilian orders were instrumental in laying the foundation for our Church in this country, together with many patriarchal (secular) clergy. Our most dearly beloved Archbishop Joseph, of blessed memory, was of patriarchal clergy; while Bishop John was of the religious monastic clergy. Our new eparch will be of the religious (but not monastic) clergy. IMO, to us, that issue is a non-issue. Our patriarchs and our bishops have come from both traditions and our Church has been the richer for it. If Joe wants to vent bile with regard to the hierarchical goings-on of his Church, I have no objection. But, he elected to use the appointment of our eparch as his springboard, thereby suggesting that what he sees as wrong in his or other Churches applies to mine as well. My advice - don't go there; once you pass the mutually agreed dissatisfaction with Rome's involvement, you're treading in water that is not yours. Except in the most extraordinary circumstance, I would not presume to comment on the electoral choices of the UGCC's Holy Synod or the Ruthenian Council of Hierarchs. This thread began with the announcement of the appointment, albeit by Rome, of a new Eparch for Newton of the Melkites. Commentary on Rome's unwanted role in the process was a to-be-expected by-product. Once made, the appropriate tenor of the thread ought to have been to extol "Axios" and wish the Eparch-elect many years. Many years, Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 421
Moderator
|
|
Moderator
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 421 |
To those whom it may concern,
As a moderator of the forum, I must remind our posters to maintain a decorum of respect and Christian charity when speaking of hierarchs by name. While it is perfectly fine to disagree with the policies and actions of certain bishops, it should always be done with the respect and love that characterizes true Christians. In fact we should give such treatment to all persons, no matter whom they are.
Thanks,
Anthony
Moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 712
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 712 |
Originally posted by J Thur:
The most interesting story behind ANY episcopal selection/election is how they get the job. How did a foreigner and not a local get the bishop job? Is it about the people's needs? Peter Principle? Money? Power politics? I personally don't believe in the election or nomination process in our churches. Look at what we have now. Is our current church leadership our own doing or a result of absentee string-pulling? You tell me. Nothing is grass-roots anymore. Grass doesn't pay ... unless it is pot.
Joe Thur Dear Joe, Your view was exactly the sentiment expressed by a large portion of the UGCC's 'Eparchy of Toronto and Eastern Canada' laity when the Vatican replaced former bishop Boretsky with Danylak. It's not that people did not like Kyr Danylak, it's just that the respect, admiration, and love for Kyr Boretsky was profound, and we could not imagine our church without him. It is difficult to understand why the Vatican curia makes these types of decisions against the the wishes of the vast majority of it's members. Hritzko
|
|
|
|
|
