Dear Pavel,

I hope you do not think me rude here but this does not answer my questions. In fact I don't really understand what you are saying here at all.

Not only is your response unclear to me but the behaviors of the hierarchy of my Church do not make the answers very clear to me, at all, so I will ask one last time here in hopes that someone can answer, what I believe to be, legitimate questions. I may have possible answers in principle but I do not know if the Archbishop of the Byzantine Church for example has provenence over suffragen bishops? Some Archbishops do, some do not. What does it mean? How does one know? What are the canons that regulate such things?

Which tradition are you following in your suggestion of criticism here? Greek or Slavic?

The Crown represents the Metropolis. The Crozier represents the Ecclisia.

There is a Slavic and Antiochian tradition with the use of Metropolitan and Archbishop, in rank order.

There is a Greek tradition with the use of Archbishop and Metropolitan, in rank order.

To which tradition is the Byzantine Church going to hew? Greek or Slavic?

Also an Archbishop may have provenence over suffragen bishops in his Archbishopric.

Does the Byzantine Archbishop Basil have provenence over suffragen bishops?

Does he not have it?

Why not?

Does he have it and not use it?

If so, and no, why not?

Eli

Well I think I have answered your question in very clear English (twice). I suggest you do your own research as there is plenty of information on the internet. That you have not done your own research is lazyness. I will not waste anymore of my time.

Humor me. Pretend old Eli is just plain stupid.

How is it that we have a liturgical life that is more Greek than Russian, and the you claim that we have an ecclisiastical structure that is not Greek but Russian?

In the tradition our ethnicity is Slavic.

However our liturgical life and ecclisiastical structure has been, up until the late 19th and 20th centuries, Greek. We came to the country as Greek Catholics.

I'll go so far as to say that we are still Greek Catholics, some of us.

Part of this entire liturgical struggle is a struggle between several groups that I can very very roughly categorize as

1) DO NOT want to be seen as Ukranian, but also DO NOT want to be Russian,

2) DO NOT want to be seen as Greek, but also DO NOT want to be Russian

3)DO want to be seen as Russian, and will press that desire through any means possible.

4)And then perhaps those who do not see any difference between the life the Church and their ethnicity so it is all Slav to them.

So dumb old Eli keeps asking when are we going to arise from our slumber and begin to address who we should be, who we'd like to be and who we are at the moment.

I contend at the moment that we are in a state of confusion to a great extent over who we are which is why we don't like to talk about meeting to discuss who we are through a discussion of our liturgy.

The question I also raised about the canonical power of a Major Archbishop in the eastern code can wait till a later post.

Humor dumb old Eli, and perhaps you'll find that the reality that looks so clear cut on the official web site is not all that clear cut in reality. In fact our history as a Church, wherever I look in the public statements is whitewashed if you know the stories.

Show me Russka Dolina in the public record.

Eli the Mensch

Eli,

I'm going to attempt to answer your question regarding the head of the Byzantine Catholic Church in the USA:

First, before any one jumps all over this post, let's clarify we are speaking of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh, a Metropolitan Church sui juris as defined by Title 6 cc.155-173 in the CCEO. As such the head of a metropolitan church sui juris is a metropolitan, not an archbishop. No doubt the title of "archbishop" came as a result of the metropolitan's being the bishop of the archeparchy of Pittsburgh. In this regard the title "Archbishop" for the Metropolitan of the Metropolitan Church sui juris of Pittsburgh appears to follow the Latin Church usage.

Hope this helps.

Self-governing Eastern Catholic Churches which are headed by an Archbishop (like the Greek tradition) are title in the CCEO as "Major Archiepiscopal Churches."

As far as autonomy, a Major Archiepiscopal Church is allowed more autonomy than a Metropolitan Church, as defined in the CCEO. Eg, bishops for vacant sees within the historical boundaries of the Major Archiepiscopal Church are nominated by a vote of the Synod of Bishops. Bishops for vacant sees of the Metropolitan Church are appointed by the Roman Pontiff from a list of at least 3 candidates compiled by the Council of Hierarchs for each vacancy.

I find this to be exceptionally strange on one hand, yet on the other, depending upon the temperament of the leadership, it could also be seen as an opportunity to become something other in responsible and judicious self-governance.

I am sure it helps a great deal. Others as well as myself.

I thank you.

Eli

In the Slav tradition all Metropolitans are Archishops, although not all Archbishops are Metropolitans. The Slav usage is the older usage than the current Greek usage. The Latin rite also uses the older structure. All Archbishops that have suffrigan sees in their provence are styled Metropolitans and Latin Metropolitans wear The Pallium.

The new title of 'Major Archbishops' is accorded to Catholic Churches that have a a similar level of self government as a Patriarchate. The only difference is that the Pope appoints the Major Archbishop while he receives from Patriarchs after ellection requests to be in communion with him.

The Sui Juris Or self governing churches are usually much smaller Particaular Churches that have some degree of self governement. Some like the Russian Byzantine Catholics dont have a bishop of their own at all at present.

A Major Archbishop is elected by his Synod and confirmed by the Pope. He is not appointed by the Pope.

What is to keep a sui iuris church that does not currently have a patriarch from having one in the future? Why not simply elect/appoint one according to the same process those EC churches with a patriarchate use?

Canon 153

1. A major archbishop is elected according to the norm of cann.

63-74. 2. After acceptance of the election, the synod of

bishops of the major archiepiscopal Church must notify the Roman

Pontiff through a synodal letter about the canonical conduct of

the election; however, the one who is elected, in a letter signed

in his own hand, must petition the confirmation of his election

from the Roman Pontiff. 3. After having obtained the confirmation, the one who is elected, in the presence of the synod of

bishops of the major archiepiscopal Church, must make a profession of faith and promise to carry out faithfully his office;

afterwards his proclamation and enthronement are to be performed.

If, however, the one who is elected is not yet an ordained

bishop, the enthronement cannot validly be done before he receives episcopal ordination. 4. If however the confirmation is

denied, a new election is to be conducted within the time established by the Roman Pontiff

Well this is how it is done.

The is provision for other Patriarchates being created in the documents of Vatican II. The Greek Catholic Church (Metropolia of Kiev and Halicz) in Ukraine would like to be a Patriarchate but as yet is not recognised by the Pope as being one. It is likely the Malabar Church will be one one day. I think the last time they created one they made a bit of a mess over it. They are more careful these days after they left that one vacant for 40 yrs.

Since the Church is a living organism one would think that hierarchs of a particular Church would need to be able to demonstrate that they can be fishers of men. That they could attract, nurture and keep a flock. And then it would be necessary to demonstrate that the faithful will fully support their hierarchs and desire and be deserving of increasingly greater autonomy.

Then once a Church begins to behave as though it is self-governing, the appointments of titles and rank will follow.

Sanctity is a free gift indeed, but remember the man who buried his talent. So too it must be within the Body of Christ.

Eli