When looking through some pictures of the Melkite Archbishop Bustros being enthroned, I saw that there was a Papal Nuncio that was there. I thought the Eastern Churches didn't need Rome's approval to ordain a new bishop? Here is the link where I saw it: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...hl%3Den%26lr%3D

Can anyone explain this to me? Thanks

The Papal Nuncio is present as the Pope's representative as is responsible to enthrone in the name of the pontiff a bishop that is in territory that is outside of his canonical territory. In the case the Melkite Eparchy is out side the Patriarchate territory. The papal nucio als installs all Latin heirarchs in their sees.

I hope this helps.
Father Anthony+

Hmm, let me see if I got this right. The Papal Nuncio has to install the Melkite archbishop in order for him to be a "valid" bishop?

Well, if you're talking Latin terminology, no, not "valid." He is a valid bishop because he was ordained such by other bishops who had Apostolic Succession.

The papal nuncio is probably there to make it "licit," i.e., to give Bishop Cyril jurisdiction over an area outside the normal jurisdiction of the Melkite Church.

Logos Teen

So presumably when a Latin is installed as a bishop in a country that is overwhelmingly Eastern...the relevant hierarch also has a representative to make the Latin bishops enthronement licit?

I do not believe it works that way. I believe the use of the Nuncio is used in cases of all Latin hierarchs and the way I described earlier.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Can I just say that I hate it when web addresses aren't converted to links - end of editorial gripe.

Drew,

Father Anthony is essentially correct.

Under the current provisions of Canon Law, the Holy Synods of sui iuris Churches only have the authority to elect or appoint hierarchs to Sees within the historical territories of the Patriarchate (or Major Archepiscopate in the case of Churches of that status). The authority of the Church's primatial hierarch in the diaspora is limited, technically, to matters liturgical. In the instance of a vacancy in the non-patriarchal territories, the Church's Holy Synod ordinarily chooses three names in order of preference and submits the list, called the terna to Rome, which appoints the new bishop.

The Nuncio is present for the purpose of reading the proclamation of appointment. I can't speak for how this scenario is greeted in other of the sui iuris Churches but, needless to say, Melkites being who we are, it isn't greeted with enthusiasm in ours. Certain subtleties transpire that, while they don't solve the issue, are intended to make a point.

While the Nuncio was certainly accorded all respect due him as a representative of the Pope, it was clear that as "a representative", his position was not equivalent to that of the Patriarch. Thus, in the carefully-crafted order of procession (reverse precedential order), the Nuncio succeeded the Eparchs-Emeritus and -Designate of Newton, but preceded the Patriarch, who processed alone.

After Prayers Before the Holy Doors, the Nuncio was invited by the Rector of the Cathedral, Father Protopresbyter Eugene, to read the Bulla of Designation. Sayedna Cyril was then escorted to the Patriarchal Throne to be presented with the pastoral staff by His Beatitude, thereby installing/investing/enthroning him as Eparch.

One can dismiss these as "mere symbolism" and, to some extent they are, but to us it was and is important symbolism, maintaining our identity as best we can until such time as existing inequities are righted.

As Melkites, we are often characterized as "mavericks" or worse and, in all humility, what we do or don't do is scrutinized, for better or worse. One Byzantine hierarch remarked afterwards that "only the Melkites could do what they did and get away with it - God bless them."

Let me offer a few examples from the installation/enthronement of Sayedna Cyril.

We decided to not separate bishops of the Eastern Catholic Churches (or even the Melkite bishops) from those of the Latin Church in procession. While technically correct (under Latin Church protocol), it isn't often done, as it becomes more difficult to disperse hierarchs to their proper places once they reach the Altar. We, however, deemed it to be of utmost importance to acknowledge the diversity and universality of the Church.

Similarly, we had all Eastern and Oriental Catholic bishops present, not merely those of the Byzantine Churches, concelebrate the Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom. The intent was to acknowledge the particular unity of the Eastern and Oriental Churches with one another.

Eastern and Oriental Orthodox clergy in attendance did not process separately (before Catholic clergy, as called for by Latin protocol), but within the main body of clergy, according to whatever honorific dignity each was invested.

Orthodox hierarchs and those prelates present in representation of them were seated on the Solea, alongside the Nuncio, not in the congregational area. As someone said at the time, "it wouldn't be "Melkite" to do otherwise".

Particular precedence in procession was accorded to Vladyka Basil, versus other Latin and Eastern Metropolitans present, in recognition of his status as the primatial hierarch of a sui iuris Church.

Particular precedence in procession was also accorded to the Latin Archbishop of Boston, not because of who he is (he was at the time himself relatively new to Boston), but because we hold that office in particular affection. Richard Cardinal Cushing, of blessed memory, late Latin Archbishop of Boston, was an incredible friend to Melkites and all Eastern Catholics in an era when many Latin bishops ignored us or worse. As someone put it, Latin Archbishops of Boston will forever be beneficiaries of the Cardinal's legacy of love.

The Greek Orthodox Archbishop of New England was unable to attend at the last minute. Had he been present, he too would have been given particular precedence in procession and would have been enthroned on the Solea next to the Nuncio. This also would have been an acknowledgement to the legacy of a predecessor, His Eminence Iakovos, of blessed memory, who during his years in Boston was a great friend to the Melkite Church and its clergy.

Anton,

Point well-taken. Unfortunately, those old adages, "tit-for-tat", "what's sauce for the goose, ..." , "what goes around, ...", don't apply Mores the pity!

Many years,

Neil

Thank you!

But I wonder, this doesn't seem to be representated in the early Church. I don't remember where the Pope or one of his representatives had to be there when one of the Eastern Patriarchs installed a new bishop. The Eastern Patriarchs just did it, whether or not a papal representative came or not. Also, didn't the Eastern patriarchs in the early Church pick their own bishops, without Rome's approval?

Can anyone help me understand how the acts of the Early Church fits in with how the ECC acts today?

Well how techniqal do you want take this?
Should we still roll dice to select bishops?
Like they did in acts
The truth is both the west and east have had developments in selcting bishops heck is this any worse than the Russian CZARS selecting bishops or the Royal family selecing Anglican Bishops. Havig a papal repsentative is not inherently forcing a latinazation or anything.
Truth is the early eastern tradion is that bishops were selected by parishoners in a democratic process they actually voted their bishops in. Neither the East or West does this today. Using your tactic of emulating the earliest church tradition no church would qualify as matching the early church in the bishop selection process.
Having a legate is just having a representaive from a brother bishop present I wouldn't necessarily read too much into it.

Good point, I didnt think of that .

Hello Tobit,
I disagree, it's a major problem. It seems like you are erecting a straw man, the question is sincere and the Melkite Orthodox synod had certainly maintained it's own procedures for naming and installing bishops prior to the union.

At some point (I am not sure when) the technical control of the Melkite church in the diaspora passed from the Patriarch and Synod to the Pope and Curia.

If the Melkite church is truly Sui Iuris and equal in dignity to it's sister churches it should not need the approval of Rome in it's choice of bishops nor would it need the help of a Nuncio to install them.

Furthermore this scheme is working to the detriment of the entire Melkite church because of the rapid rate of emigration from Syria, Palestine and Lebanon to points West. Eventually the overwhelming majority of the Melkites could be directly under the control of Rome, and the Holy Synod could then be composed of mostly Papal appointees.

The Antiochian (Syrian) Orthodox church does not labor under any such constraints, nor does it submit to the control of another church. How is it that these two could be 'sister' churches when they are ecclesiastically so different?

It bears mentioning that the "home territories" were defined by Rome. I sincerely doubt that any such constraint was expected of them at the time of union in the 1700's. (I heard an interesting story that makes me think that the 'moment' arrived sometime after Vatican II.) I would like to know when and how the concept was originated and foisted upon the Melkites.

+T+
Michael

Actually for much of history the authority to name the Patriarch was entirely usurped by Constantinople.

Antiochian (Syrian) Orthodox

Just one correction, the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church are different Churches.

The Antiochians (Eastern Orthodox Communion) are sisters to the Melkites, while Syriac Orthodox (Oriental Orthodox Communon)are sisters to the Syriac Catholics.

The Melkite have had to choose her poison Constantinople or Rome. Neither is an ideal situation only by having all churchs truly catholic will the Melkites have the upper hand on governing her own affairs. Things are not perfect in her communion with Rome but slowly things have gotten better and hopefully in time she doesn't have to choose either poison and doesn't have to choose sides in a controversy that is as much poltical as it is religious it is one of the few churchs who views things as Christ does as seeking to be both Catholic and Orthodox. This is true unity. And I think your still exagerating role of the papal nuncio here you have not provided documented evidence that his prescene is not anything more than symbolisim. But then again some Orthodox are threatened by symbolism of anything Roman.