This was on the Catheast Yahoo list. I think it is interesting(I know my favorite word I just don't comprhend everything they are saying). Anyway, seems he canned what the Marionites did, yet, I think they are saying that basically the Pope just gave the clearence to Husar to make his own decisions about his selections....


From the Eastern Churches: A Change of Words, A Change of Policy

This morning's Bollettino has just been placed in the hopper -- didn't I say it'd be a busy week over there? As is usually the case, there is
something of particular note.

(As a preface, this is an extremely policy-heavy and inside baseball analysis. If you're looking to start your day with a fashion show, you'll have to go somewhere else. And don't say I didn't forewarn you as you yawn.)

In recent days, as the civil year winds down, the Pope has been giving his assents to the various elections of bishops in the Eastern Rites as decided upon by the synods of the respective churches in communion with the Holy See. As opposed to the Latin Synod of Bishops, the Eastern Synods sit at least once a year and enjoy deliberative governing authority in the
administration of their respective churches, an autonomy respected to varying degrees by Rome.

In terms of filling appointments in the Eastern rites, the customary practice of the last decades has been that the particular Synod meets, casts its votes, sends the names to the Congregation for the Oriental Churches in Rome which, in turn, forwards them to the Pope for his assent or confirmation, at which point the appointment is effective and ordination or installation may proceed in accord with the Canons of the Eastern
Churches, which were promulgated by John Paul II in 1991.

Just yesterday, Benedict XVI green-lighted a slate of appointments recommended by the Maronite Synod, which met in late September. But today, a new formula has appeared in announcing something which the Ukrainian Greco-Catholic church already did months ago. And it signals a desired (and, some would say, seismic) devolution of even the vestiges of governance away from Rome and back to the churches on their home turf with a mutually beneficial end, unspoken for now but loudly present in this morning's subtext.

In October, the Synod of the UGCC -- led by Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, who recently transferred his major-archeparchy from Lviv to the birthplace of Russian Christianity in Kiev -- elected
auxiliary bishop Ihor Vozniak of Lviv to fill the archeparchial seat there left vacant by Husar's eastward move. Vozniak was installed in Lviv in November without the traditional papal assent.

This morning, the other shoe dropped. In its announcement, the Holy See indicated that no papal assent was given -- implying, in a gesture
unprecedented in recent times, that no papal assent needed to be given.

The announcement reads that (emphases and translation are, as always, my own) Husar, "with the consent of the Synod of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and after having informed the Apostolic See, has transferred" Vozniak to the archiepiscopate of Lviv.

To contrast, even Husar's own election as major archbishop in succession to (the legendary) Myroslav Ivan Lubachivsky was confirmed by John Paul one day after it took place. (Husar was then named a cardinal two days following, the "key" among seven more names added to the mega-list of 37 announced by the late Pope a week before.) Going further, when the major seat of the Ukrainian diaspora, the US archeparchy based here in Philadelphia, was to be filled in late 2000, the Synod voted but it was announced that John Paul himself had chosen Stefan Soroka as the
metropolitan, as if it were just any other Latin-rite appointment -- probably no mention was made of election and assent so as not to get the
Latin-rite Americans all hopped up about democratic selection of bishops, thinking it was right around the corner.

"[A]fter having informed the Apostolic See, [Husar] has transferred..." -- an amazing, never-before-seen formulation. It puts a boatload of clout in the hands of the Synod which, according to this statement, now enjoys the
canonical power of the consent (previously the Pope's) and the major-archbishop, who is presented as the licit authority of selection (previously the prerogative of the Synod), all without any objections from Rome.

As the Apostolic See has not of yet made any explicit statement on Husar's August assumption of the major-archeparchial seat of Kiev, in light of this morning's distanced statement (which ipso facto implied its blessing of the Kiev move), it doesn't seem like that'll be coming now.

But the bigger factor is this: Rome's sent the message that their consent doesn't need to come to the Ukies anymore, a recusal which clears the
pathway toward the UGCC's long-desired dream scenario: The declaration of the Patriarchate in Kiev. And when that comes and the fireworks begin, the Vatican's now got its leeway to say, "They're independent, they're doing what they want, we haven't tried to stop them before...."

posted by Rocco Palmo at 06:59

Husar was acting in his own Major Archbishopric so my reading is that this was OK. He can't do that outside the boundaries of the territory that is Major Archbishopric ie Canada, USA etc. The Patriarchs can also apoint bishops in their Patriarchates as well. Remember these juristictions all have boundaries where you can stand with one foot in and one foot out (providing of course the boundary is not in a river).

What is the rationale for Patriarchs not being able to appoint bishops within their jurisdiction, but outside of their territory? Does it have its roots in the early Christian concept of "one bishop, one territory"?

Wouldn't it be nice if Rome eased back on "universal jurisdiction" in areas where there is a native, non-Roman Church? I'd call it common courtesy for Rome to clear RC appointments in Ukraine with the local reigning hierarch, the Patriarch of Kyiv-Halych.

Yeah, I know, I really should stop taking the hallucinogenics...

Oυτις ημιν φιλει ου φροντιδα | Nemo Nos Diliget Non Curamus

Patriarchs can appoint bishops within their Patriarchates and do so. Just a lot of the faithful choose not to live within the Patriarchate and their Bishops who maintain close links with the Patriarchate are directly under the Pope as the Ecummenical Hierarch. The Pope consults with the particular church when appointing bishops for the faithful outside the Patriarchate. Nothing new here and all is well.

Could anybody help me understand something here? As far as I understand, a Patriarch may appoint any Bishop as he deems convenient within the territory of the Patriarchate; however, to appoint any Bishop for his flock in the diaspora, it is needed the approval of Rome. Am I correct here?

This question is because here in Mexico, we Melkites have an "Apostolic Administrator" (Abbouna Antoine Mouhanna) who has been Administrator for a long long time, but has been appointed Bishop by the Patriarch, however he is not considered as Bishop of the Eparchy by the Mexican Episcopal Conference (any way Abbouna attends the meetings of the Conference and certainly makes a lot of noise ) Lots of us would like him to be acknowledged officialy as our Bishop, but apparently either Rome or Msgr. Norberto Cardinal Carrera, the Primate of Mexico, do not want that appointment to be ratified. Any suggestion here?

God bless

Dear Friends,

Actually, I share a different view of the article above.

One question: Why cannot the Patriarch/Major Archbishop (in the Roman view, both have equal powers) not be able to appoint their own bishops for their parishes outside their "territory?"

Why is Rome such a freaking control nut?

And does this set a good example to Orthodox and others?

Alex

"Why is Rome such a freaking control nut?" Why do dogs like bones?

Incognitus

Because certain Eastern Catholic Churches are, to the bones, freakingly and doggedly nutty?

Amado

Dear Incognitus,

You are gnaw bad!

Isn't it time we EC's started to bite back a bit?

Alex

Dear Alex:

Just don't bite more than you could chew!

Amado

Anyone who might doubt (and I can�t imagine why they would) that Rome has to give its approval to the raising of a Patriarchate simply has to reference the CCEO. There is no �leeway� here.

Andrew

It is my understanding that this was not the case until after vatican II, at least as far as the Melkites are concerned.

The church deprived the Patriarchal synods of the right to name their own bishops in the diaspora. As we know, the Levant is losing it's Christian population to mostly western countries. This has the effect of being a huge "donation" to the Pope. In effect, the western communities are held hostage and this could easily dampen any future self determination by the Patriarchal synods.

The sad thing is when the local Latin hierarchy requires satisfaction and the 'compromise' dictated from Rome is "for the good of the whole church". This was the source of the abuses in North America against the Ruthenians and Ukrainians in the past, and incidences still pop up in Europe where one eastern church or another is supposed to accept some restriction and be stand-up guys for the greater good of the whole Catholic church. Witness the expulsion of married priests from Poland in 1998 (unsuccessful I think) and an attempt to keep them out of Italy in these past few years. Nothing much has changed.

We hear of resistance to ordaining married men to the Italo-Albanian priesthood (unconfirmed yet) and now an "Apostolic Administrator" in Mexico who for all practical purposes is a real bishop and enjoys 'apostolic' succession, yet gets no recognition as such and no acknowledgement in the Episcopal conference. Again, nothing much has changed.

Orthodox are interested in the goings-on within the Catholic church. One can learn a lot by observing the relationship between the church of Rome and it's siblings.

+T+
Michael

The CCEO, although promulgated by Rome, is not dogma. It is Western law edited to fit 20+ other Churches, all with varying histories. If the Eastern Churches are fully "Church", then why must they be bound by laws 'given' to them by Mama Roma?

In spite of all of the nice comments from numerous Popes, the Roman Catholic Church, as an institution, cannot handle the concept of other Churches being Catholic, equal, and not under Rome. Here's my favourite example: When the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope are together they sit on equal thrones. Has anyone ever seen an Eastern Catholic patriarch put on the same level as the Pope?

The Ukrainian Greco-Catholic Church is fully "Church", and it should act as such: return all post addressed to Major-Archbishop (a Roman invention) not Patriarch; consecrate and appoint bishops as needed, with courtesy notifications sent to Rome; canonise its own saints... I think that's enough for now to drive most of the Curia into padded cells...

Who knows? If the Eastern Catholic Churches find the courage to act in the fashion Rome says it would treat the Orthodox Churches after reunion, perhaps the Orthodox might have a better opinion of Rome.

Oυτις ημιν φιλει ου φροντιδα | Nemo Nos Diliget Non Curamus

I dont know where that information about the Melchites in Mexico comes from, as all the information I found on the Internet mentioned that the Melchites have an Eparchy and 2 other Eastern rites have their own juristictions in the country, listed with all the other diocese in the country.

As for where Orthodox Patriarchs sit in the relation to the Pope. I say look at the thousands of photos and kms of footage some time. The Pope usually sits on the same level as the Patriarch and in the same style of chair and usually both are positioned so both are the same distance from the middle. To say otherwise is rubbish the facts are out there for anyone who cares to look first then comment.