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.

Just a couple of notes. The term "Antiochian Orthodox" is a North American term. Patriarch Ignatius is "The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and All the East". God Bless the Melkites for continuing to refer to themselves as "Greek Catholics".

In the Greek Archdiocese, they follow the titles of the Byzantine usage of the Autocephalous Churches of Greece, Cyprus and Albania (and canonically disputed Autonomous or Autocephalous FYR of Macedonia). Thus Metropolitan Methodios is in Boston. The title of Archbishop is reserved for the primate, Archbishop Demetrios.

Regarding the Patriarchal elections in Antioch, the Melkite Schism established a situation that was only corrected by Russian intervention at the end of the 19th Century. Under Jesuit influence, the Holy Synod elected Cyril Tannous as Patriarch over Sylvester the Cypriot. Thus, the Melkites USED TO SAY that the legitimate line of Sts. Peter and Paul went through them and not the Orthodox because their Patriarch received more votes. That changed here under Archbishop Tawil and Fathers King and Karami. The Melkites now admit that they would join the Orthodox Patriarchate and resign their sees if full Communion was reestablished.

In the election that led to the split, the only canonically acceptable candidate to both the Orthodox and Catholic Churches was the Orthodox candidate Sylvester (who was installed by Constantinople for the roughly 2/3 that remained Orthodox). Cyril Tannous was 16 years old and canonically unacceptable by any objective set of canonical standards. Thus, the Melkites now say that the only really legitimate candidate for the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch at the time of the Schism was Sylvester the Cypriot.

Hi Neil!

Christ Is Among Us! Indeed He Is And Ever Shall Be!

Three Cents

This is sad.

The Melkite situation cries out for correction.

But as I have heard, the Melkites at one time came under the Patriarch of Constantinople's jurisdiction. Thus, the Patriarch of Constantinople had the right to appoint Melkite Patriarchs, didn't he? Or is this a true abuse of power that was done by the Patiarch of Constantinople?

An abuse, of the cry out for correction variety.

So it was an abuse by the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time? Also, what is meant by "of the cry out for correction variety"?

Thanks

At that time the Melkites were under the EP, was the time of the Ottoman Empire. The Ecumenical Patriarch was the head of the "Roman" or Orthodox Millet or nationality. Thus, all church offices had to be appointed from his positon on down. The same held true for the Jerusalem Patriarch, etc. This was the way the Ottomans had set up the millet system. This is why the Melkite Patriarch cam under Rome in 1724. That and for the opportunity to have non Greek Leadership over them. I know this is an over-simplification of what happened. It took the Patriarchate of Antioch (Orthodox) about 175 years to realize non-greek leadership, and to have an incumbent elected from within the membership of its own church.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

An abuse of similar significance to the one that Hesychios seems so very concerned about.

An abuse Yes, but unfortunately it was the law of the empire at that time. It was not until the fall of the empire that it fell away in most cases. The Church of Jerusalem is still influence from this, though no reason for it exist at this time.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Does the Pope pick bishops for every jurisdiction in the ECC, or only for Melkites?

Thanks.

True, but we must be fair the situation is far better under Rome where ratification seems to be the norm of a person the Melkites themselves elect rather than a Greek being forced upon the church as their leaders when the church is middle eastern in culture.

I think Neil’s explanation was well done.

All else is conspiracy theory - rumor - and slandar.


If the Melkite church wishes to honor Peter - who is anyone else - to infringe on its independence to do so?

No one infringes on the Orthodox right to withhold some degrees of honor from Peter. Why should anyone - anyone - infringe upon the Melkites for the same independent right to voluntarily honor Peter? and at the same time adhere to the Eastern cannons (called the 'Orthodox cannons')?

Who - is anyone - to suggest that the Melkite hierarch is composed of fools who bow to any number of worldly causes and do not hold to Christ!?

If the Melkite hierarchy has decided to voluntarily honor Peter - isn‘t all else - conspiracy theory - rumor - and a dishonor - even slander - to the legitimate decision of the legitimate hierarchy of an independent church? Of course it is. Laity - pretending to have the same grace granted to hiarchy.

Let us … let … the Melkite hierarch act as it sees fit - without guessing alternative motives to them. Let us do this in the very same way that we let the Orthodox churches do as they please in their own independence.

What troops does the Pope have poised to attack or imprison? None.

And if Pope did have strom troopers... are the Melkites of God to be assumed no grace to withstand intimidation?

What doctrine of theology has the Pope demanded that Orthodox churches must change? None.

What charge of heresy has the Latin church leveled at the Orthodox churches? None.

So I ask you - where is - this Latin tyrant who ‘necessitates‘ his approval?? or what punishment will he meat out??

I am often amazed at what grand authority and power - that some separated churches - assume the Pope to have. Yet they themselves by the very fact of thier voluntary separation prove that the Pope has no such authority and power as they claim he taken to himself.

Some claim the Papacy later grew into a vast authority and power far beyond what it originally had in the early church. And I say - are you blind??

In the early church Peter was honored as Chief apostle - by all - and the successors of that office (the Bishop of Rome) was so honored by all churches. That was thee early church down to the change that took place with the Byzantine Empire when a tug of war for head of the church took place. Who would be head of the church ?? the new Ceasar of new Rome or the old Pope of old Rome??

This the Orthodox readily admit. And - now - the role of Peter has been far lessened by the very fact that many of the independent churches now withhold that honor that had been vouluntarily given to Peter since day one.

There is the change (!) he has far less influence that he had in the early church. What used to be universal is now limited to a portion.

So Peter once had the entire church - and now he only has a portion - how then is that now a greater power and autrhity than before??? when now only a portion of the entire church pays him any attention??

What nonsense in logic.

As regards the Melkites - which Neil is - and represents here to us here - why would anyone - dishonor his explanation of his church?

"We ask - but we do not want to know - we wish rather to prove our point - so Neil is a pawn to that point."

Why would anyone - assume that they know the motives of the Melkite heiarchy better than the Melkites themselves. Who would be such a fool?

We should not claim the honor of independence for ourselves - and then without the honor of independence from others - without becoming - disingenuous.

Dear Neil: A wonderful explanation including the early cannons about how one church should operate within another church’s administrative area. I had just recently been reading these early cannons in the Orthodox cannons themselves… and it appears to me that the Melkites follow these cannons well while other some other Eastern churches completely disregard them.

Bravo - for this accurate description of the Eastern cannons on the matter.

-ray

"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."

Is this an ECC Canon, or an Eastern Canon of the Early Church?

Of course it is not as simple as this :0 but here is a portion of the Orthodox Canon.

Ray,

Thank you for the kind words - but, please don't misunderstand me. Neither I, nor most Melkites of my acquaintance who are conversant with the present situation vis-a-vis appointment of hierarchs in the diaspora, are pleased with the process as it is currently played out.

That point being that we believe His Beatitude, the Patriarch of Antioch & All the East, of Alexandria and of Jerusalem of the Melkites, in concert with the Holy Synod of the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church, should name hierarchs to our vacant Sees, regardless of the geographical siting of those Sees, without any intervention from Rome.

That such is not presently the case is a matter of no small dismay to us, very likely more so than it is to many of the other patriarchal Churches or the major archepiscopal Churches (the Ukrainians aside, as I know it has been an issue of major concern for them, as well).

Many years,

Neil

What I don't get is why Rome doesn't stop what they are doing. I'm sure they know many don't like it, yet they continue to do it.

Why is this the case?

Dear dm2:

These rules (or Canons) are extant in the Eastern Code of Canons promulgated in 2001.

To understand the application of the Code, you may want to read through its Preliminary Canons, Canons 1 thru 6. Refer to:

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM

The Eastern Code applies to all the 22 sui juris Eastern Churches now in communion with Rome, with certain historical agreements, not inconsistent with the provisions of the Eastern Code, allowed to continue.

If there are hardships being experienced by any of the sui juris Churches, I think the best recourse is for a review of the specific Canon or Canons in question and for the amendment or abrogation of such Canon or Canons, if warranted.

In fact, the entire Eastern Code could be reviewed by the Eastern Churches and request for its amendment or abrogation, if necessary.

This process presupposes the submission of such "grievance" to the Congregation for the Oriental Churches headed by His Beatitude, Ignace Moussa I Cardinal Daoud for consideration before it is submitted to the Pope for final approval.

We hear complaints every now and then but the procedural steps should be followed for them to be addressed properly.

Amado

From what I understand, this is also an issue for the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church. For us, only the state of Kerala counts as "proper territory". (In fact, on the Church's website, the web page about its eparchies begins with this very statement! See http://www.thesyromalabarchurch.org/dioceses.htm .) Slightly less than half of our eparchies are outside of Kerala. Not only does this mean that our Synod and Major Archbishop do not have the authority they ought to in determining bishops, but I recall reading somewhere that the Syro-Malabar Church is not allowed to do missionary work outside of its proper territory (though I may be wrong on this second point). Since only the Latin Catholics are permitted to carry out missionary activities, this means that all converts to Catholicism outside of Kerala are, by default, converts to Latin Catholicism (unless they specifically join one of the Eastern sui juris Churches, which I find unlikely).

Peace,
Alex NvV

What I continue to question is: is this a reason to leave Rome? Is this heretical?

Drewmeister,

Of course it is not a reason to leave! However serious this is (and to many, it is), its essence is unchanged: it is an organizational issue. This is not reason to leave the True Faith. And since it's not a matter of faith it cannot be heretical for the Pope to appoint Eastern bishops, however inappropriate it may be compared to a perfect scenario.

Logos Teen

keep in mind, due to size, and situation no eastern catholic church is autocephalous, but autonomous, they depend on rome somewhat

The ecclesial life of the Eastern Catholic churches is governed in accordance with the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, which was promulgated by Pope John Paul II on October 18, 1990, and began to have the force of law on October 1, 1991. According to the new Oriental Code, the Eastern Catholic churches fall into four categories: (1) Patriarchal (the Chaldean, Armenian, Coptic, Syrian, Maronite, and Melkite churches), (2) Major Archepiscopal (Ukrainian, Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Catholic churches), (3) Metropolitan sui iuris (the Ethiopian, Romanian and American Ruthenian churches), and (4) other churches sui iuris (Bulgarian, Greek, Hungarian, Italo-Albanian, and Slovak churches, as well as the jusdictions in former Yugoslavia). The Belarusian, Albanian, Georgian and Russian Eastern Catholic churches have no hierarchy.

Each Eastern Catholic patriarchal church has the right to choose its own Patriarch. He is elected by the Synod of Bishops and is immediately proclaimed and enthroned. He subsequently requests ecclesiastical communion from the Pope. The synods of patriarchal churches also elect bishops for dioceses within the patriarchal territory from a list of candidates that have been approved by the Holy See. If the one elected has not been previously approved, he must obtain the consent of the Pope before ordination as bishop. A Major Archbishop is elected in the same manner as a Patriarch, but his election must be confirmed by the Roman Pontiff before he can be enthroned. Metropolitans are named by the Pope on the basis of a list of at least three candidates submitted by the church’s council of bishops.

http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg.aspx?eccpageID=54&IndexView=toc

The Melkites gave The Roman Curia headaches at the first Vatican Council and agan at the second. Mavericks is a good description of them.
During the Reign of Pope Paul VI .Their pariarch use to write to the Pope.From the succesor of Saint Peter at Antioch to the successor of Saint Peter at Rome.
They are very keen to re-unite with their Orthodox counterpart.They started ordaining married men in North America, without Romes Prmission and inviolation of a missguided decree from the 1920's .
.So Mavericks,I'd say so.

Why call the Melkites mavericks? They are fully loyal to the Catholic Church, and stand side by side with Rome in defending the faith. They are as Catholic as the Pope in all ways. Why cass aspersions in their direction?

Maverick is not an insult, it describes an indepedndent person. That does not go along with the group.It does not question the loyalty of the Melkites ,at all !
A little stirring of the pot at times is a good thing .

If you intend it as a compliment, that's a different matter. Melkites are definately a breed apart, and that's why they're so wonderful. I'm used to maverick being a negative term, though, hence my response. Miscommunication, miscommunication :p

The Nuntio reading a . . . ah . . . document is not a good enough reason to break communion with Rome. However, one might consider the possibility of simply walking out of the religious edifice until the Nuntio has finished, and then returning calmly to one's place. That just might give him the idea.

Incognitus

I like it!

Is there any document available that tells which territories belong to which Church (sui iuris), or at least gives a complete list of the territories which are claimed by the Roman patriachate?

Thanks,
Peter.