www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Pope appointing of Byzantine Catholic bishops

Hey all, haven't posted here in ages, but always happy to see the forum kicking

Wanted to ask people's opinions (or lack thereof!) about the way bishops are appointed in the Ruthenian (Byzantine Catholic) Church in the US. Bishop-Elect Pipta's recent appointment to Parma (AXIOS!!! I'm surprised this wasn't in the News section) has brought this to the top of my mind, although the ongoing saga of Phoenix landing on a bishop has been a constant reminder of this to me as well.

All of the announcements clearly state in the beginning "Pope Francis has appointed...." My question: is it ideal/appropriate/good/correct that the Pope of Rome personally appoints bishops within the Metropolis of Pittsburgh (Byzantine Catholic Church in US)? My understanding was always that the Metropolitan does this, with the approval of the Pope. When I look at the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, this is what I find:

Chapter VI. Metropolitans of the Patriarchal Church
Canon 133 - §1. A metropolitan, who presides over a certain province inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church, in the eparchies of his province, among other things which are granted to him by common law, is:
1° to ordain and enthrone bishops of his province within the time determined by law with due regard forcan. 86, §1, n. 2

I'm hardly a canon lawyer and I grant that my understanding might be completely off, this is what I'm asking for feedback about. (It very well may be my answer is within the text above that I can't decipher). I understand that the Melkite Church elects a bishop and the Pope "assents" or approves this decision made by the Melkites, which seems much more appropriate.

Current practice or canon law aside, it does strike me that if we are to be a model for our Orthodox brothers and sisters as to communion with Rome, having the Pope appoint a bishop directly (and the ensuring wait that this entails! *coughPhoenixcough*) seems to be a problematic model of communion for us to be representing. To that end, why aren't bishops appointed by the Metropolitan, with the blessing of the Pope?

Oh goodness, I wish I was educated enough to say!

Not an expert either but based on my own reading of the Eastern Code, it's the Synod of Bishops which have the power to elect bishops in the Eastern churches. Only the Patriarchal and Major Archiepiscopal churches have that.

Even then, the power of the synod is only within their canonical territory. All eastern bishops in the diaspora are appointed by the Pope. The Ruthenian Metropolis in America and Canada does not have its own synod and is in the diaspora. They are sort of stuck in a double whammy.

Chapter VI. Metropolitans of the Patriarchal Church
Canon 133 - §1. A metropolitan, who presides over a certain province inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church, in the eparchies of his province, among other things which are granted to him by common law, is:
1° to ordain and enthrone bishops of his province within the time determined by law with due regard forcan. 86, §1, n. 2

I may be wrong about this; but, unlike the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in the US, the Ruthinian Church in the US (and in eastern Europe) is not associated with a Major Archbishop or Patriarchal See (Sui Juris), but has a special relationship to or with Rome. Hence, the difference in phraseology with the regard to the appointment of their hierarchs.

Christ is in our midst!!

This seems to come up every time a bishop is appointed in the United States. It seems that between San Nicolas and Utroque the reality of this perpetual query comes to light. The Pope appoints every Eastern bishop who is outside his canonical territory. The United States is outside all Eastern canonical territories, so all appointments come from Rome. The Byzantine Catholic Church with hq in Pittsburgh has no synodical structure and no relation to an established sui juris Church abroad, so all its bishops are appointed by Rome.

Seems to sum it up, as my two previous brothers have pointed out.

On a similar note; it is my understanding that there is tension between Ruthians in eastern Europe, some of whom want to merge with the UGCC and those who do not. One likes to think that this ethnic bickering has faded away, but apparently it lives on. I personally feel that these divides are perilous, have little meanng for a younger generation and ultimately hurt the churches. I would love to see all the Byzantine Catholic Churches, including the Melkites in the US come under one synodal jurisdiction and emerge from this diasporal cloud. I think Irish Melkite has a line at the end of his "post page" that sums it up, but I could never quote this accurately.

Thank you all for the replies, I had a feeling there was some such explanation and I knew this was the place to find it.


This is not so for Melkites, so this alone seems not significant.


Why is this so? It seems silly to call this church sui iuris or self-governing when they don't even choose their own bishops. This is more than an academic musing, I haven't had a bishop for over 2 years and my parish desperately needed one recently.