[Moderator Note: This thread has been split from the Church News Forum discussion of the jurisdictional tensions between the Latin and Syro-Malabar Churches in India]

It is worth noticing that there is only *one* Catholic Church which is autocephalous and that is the Roman Catholic Church.

All the other Catholic Churches, the Eastern and Oriental Churches, are merely sui juris and autonomous.

This is a major contradistinction from the ecclesiology of the Orthodox where the great majority of Churches are autocephalous. They each have as much independence as the Roman Catholic Church. Although it is a bit of a shibboleth to say that Eastern Catholic Churches are the equivalent of the Eastern Orthodox Churches this is not the case; in terms of authority and administration they are not fully independent but subject to the Roman Curia and, ultimately, governed through the Congregation for the Oriental Churches.

In other words, until the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches are upgraded from autonomous to autocephalous status, Rome is able to treat them as inferior.

I welcome any factual corrections to what my ignorance has written.

As an aside.... my own Church, the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad is, one could say, in a state roughly equivalent to the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. One could see it as a sui juris Church as are they. It is officially merely self-governing and its supreme authority is the Church of Russia.

This in turn raises the question of whether the system of autocephalies as it developed (or they developed) in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries is an authentic development, firmly rooted in the Church's tradition, or is it perhaps something else.

Fr. Serge

I do not understand. What do you describe as nineteenth and twentieth century development of the system of autocephalies? And what do you see as inauthentic?

Since you ask, perhaps you will remind me - how many Orthodox Bishops of New York are there?

Shall I continue, or do you perhaps understand my point?

Fr. Serge

I don't see the relevance of the question. The American Orthodox constitute 1% of the Orthodox world - just a tiny 1%. Their anomalies are small bickies and of recent origin, and acknowledged to be in need of resolution.

A better question would be - how many Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch are there? I think it was three at last count. And these are not new anomalies as are the ones in NY; these anomalies go back centuries!

There are also several Catholic bishops in New York as well with overlapping jurisdictions (Stamford and Passaic are metro NYC). I don't think that really proves or disproves anything about Catholic ecclesiology.

And if one asks Catholic theologians how it is possible to have several Bishops-Ordinary in the same city, they will not hesitate to tell you that this is possible only on the basis of Papal authority.

Now what is the basis of all those parallel Orthodox bishops in the same place? And don't bother to claim "economia"; it won't wash.

Fr. Serge

Father, I am sure that you are well informed how the unity of the Church in America was destroyed as a consequence of the Russian Revolution. Prior to that the Russian Church in North America had seniority and had various "ethnic departments" under it. For example the Syian Orthodox (now known as Antiochians) were ruled by Bishop Saint Raphael Hawaweeny of Brooklyn who was subordinate to the Russian archbishop.

This was all shattered by the Russian Revolution. I am quite sure you know all this and I am insulting you by rehearsing it..

The situation of multiple Churches in New York is not desirable, it is not in line with the canons, but it is tolerated. We all know that one day it needs resolving. But I imagine that there will be some sort of "organic" unity developed over time; it probably cannot be imposed by any fiat from above.

But what's the big deal about the American situation. As I've pointed out they comprise a tiny 1% of the Orthodox world.


Now about all the multiple Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch....? You've had hundreds of years to fix that, yet......? And don't say that it's OK because the Pope is the Supreme Bishop of them all; it won't wash.

As a concrete example of jurisdictional overlapping let's look at the Catholic Church in Sydney, Australia (very close to me) and see how many ethnic Catholic Churches exist in that city. It's a complete hotchpotch of overlapping Catholic bishops and jurisdictions and, to a lesser extent, of Orthodox ones.

1. Maronite Catholic
2. Melkite Catholic
3. Greek Catholic
4. Ukranian Catholic
5. Armenian Catholic
6. Chaldean Catholic
7. Coptic Catholic
8. Ethiopian Catholic
9. Malabarese Catholic
10. Malankarese Catholic
11. Russian Catholic
12. Syrian Catholic


TWELVE overlapping ethnic Catholic communities in Sydney, some with resident bishops and some without. Add in the regular Latin Catholic bishop and that makes THIRTEEN - all within ONE city!!!

The Orthodox have five bishops with authority over Sydney:

1. Greek bishop
2. Russian
3. Serbian
4. Romanian
5. Antiochian

I do not expect most Eastern Orthodox Christians at the present moment to accept the Catholic understanding of the position and responsibility of the Bishop of Rome.

But I do expect Eastern Orthodox Christians to acknowledge that this understanding is not a nineteenth-century innovation.

I also expect Eastern Orthodox Christians to grasp the obvious distinction between a parish (or quasi-parish) and a diocese.

Sydney, with which I am also familiar to some degree, has no significant Hellenic Greek-Catholic presence; I would be startled if there is a parish and I am certain that there is no Hellenic Greek-Catholic jurisdiction in Sydney.

There is certainly no Russian Greek-Catholic episcopal jurisdiction in Australia at present, nor has there ever been.

And so on.

I'm interested to note that you credit the Catholics (correctly to a significant degree) in Sydney with what might be called the "Oriental Catholic" Churches (Maronites, Armenians, Copts, Ethiopians, Malankarese, and Syrians, to which we could add, as you also list, Chaldeans and Malabarese).

But you are rather reticent about some Orthodox, it seems. This would include:

The Russian Orthodox Old-Ritualist Church (Bielaia Krinitsa Concord), which has at least two churches in Sydney - the larger of the two is indeed large and serves as the Cathedral for Archbishop Sophrony, whom may God bless with many years.

The Ukrainian Orthodox Church (presumably under the Omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople).

The Armenian Orthodox Church (non-Chalcedonian; I don't know offhand whether their presence in Sydney depends upon Etchmiadzin or Cilicia, or whether both jurisdictions are represented).

The Coptic Orthodox Church (non-Chalcedonian)

The Ethiopian Orthodox Church (non-Chalcedonian) - there may also be a presence of the Eritrean Orthodox Church (non-Chalcedonian).

The Indian Orthodox Church (Malankarese, non-Chalcedonian)

The Syrian Orthodox Church (non-Chalcedonian).

to which one might add:

The Apostolic Catholic Church of the East (which has not received the Council of Ephesus).


Add that list to the Orthodox jurisdictions which you do mention, and we come up with 14.

We have been told repeatedly to expect a complete reconciliation between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, almost any minute now. It has yet to happen; one wonders what the hold-up is.

If you wish to attempt to explain to me why the Patriarchal Russian Orthodox Church finds it so hard to advance and acheive reconciliation with the Russian Orthodox Old-Ritualist Church I shall read the explanation attentively - I also read Russian and am reasonably familiar with the Old-Ritualist position, and sympathize with it for several reasons.

The failure to acknowledge the diaspora Ukrainian Orthodox Church (under the Omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate) is, I fear, nothing but sheer ethnic bigotry.

That leaves the Churches which do not receive the Council of Ephesus. This is curious; in the early twentieth century the Russian Orthodox Church had a bishop to encourage the acceptance of Eastern Orthodoxy on the part of these communities. The Bishop (of Urmia) ended his earthly life at a Monastery of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. But the efforts toward reconciliation have ceased.

Catholic ecclesiology and canon law recognize that the Catholic communion is a fellowship of several distinct (or "particular") Churches, and leave it up to the Pope to regulate and arbitrate when and if this becomes necessary, as sometimes happens, since we all share the same planet and we are not an exclusive company of sinless people.

We certainly do not claim that overlapping or multiple parishes and dioceses are the result of something comparable to the Russian Revolution. I am not insulted that you have reminded me of that sad event, I do, however, fail to accept the argument that the entire set of jurisdictional confusion is the exclusively result of the Russian Revolution.

The Russian Revolution did not cause the Bulgarian/Constantinople schism; the Russian Revolution did not cause the difficulty between the Phanar and the Church of Greece; the Russian Revolution did not cause the present disagreement between the Phanar and the Moscow Patriarchate over Estonia (which actually became a one-sided schism for several months, including Holy Pascha); the Russian Revolution did not cause the Nikonian damage to the worship, spirituality, and discipline of the Russian Orthodox Church; the Russian Revolution did not cause the transformation of the Moscow Patriarchate into a government department which for two centuries did not permit a Council of the episcopate . . .

I am truly sorry to be forced to write like this. I am no enemy of Eastern Orthodoxy. But we are commanded by the Apostle to "give answer to all them that ask about the hope that is within us".

Fr. Serge

Which is what I did. I gave an answer to your question. You asked about overlapping Orthodox dioceses in New York. It struck me as a question which wittingly or unwittingly would set off a few flames. So I responded a little reluctantly because of that risk but if I had not done so it may have been seen as having no answer at all and as you have pointed out, the Apostle advises us to offer answers to all.

Nobody should lump the Oriental family of Churches in one group with the Eastern Orthodox Churches. The fact that we both share the word "Orthodox" in our self-descriptive titles may confuse tyros but not the Church-conscious people who are members of the Forum.

Father Ambrose,

You are probably unaware of the Eastern Catholic parishes you listed (i.e. Malankara Catholic, Russian Catholic, Ethiopian Catholic, etc), these do not have their own Bishop in Sydney, they probably have an Apostolic Visitor who they commemorate (along with the hierarch whom they are under) but their ordinary is the Latin or larger Eastern Catholic prelate.

Yes, I am aware and that is why I wrote:

"TWELVE overlapping ethnic Catholic communities in Sydney, some with resident bishops and some without.

Father,

If you are aware that some do not have different bishops than the ordinary, I don't see your purpose for mentioning them at all, since their is no overlapping jurisdiction when the ordinary of all varying Ritual parishes are one.

Of the list of 12 Eastern Catholics Churches present in Australia only 3 have their HQ in Sydney and 1 other is located in Melbourne. All the rest come under the local Latin bishops (very helpful they are too) until such time as they get the numbers to look after themselves. That list of 12 are not all in Sydney either, they are all over the continent. The one Russian Community is in Melbourne and it was not a parish of it's own just a chapel. All events were written up in the local RC Parish registers, I am not sure if that has changed under Fr Lawrence Cross at the new address. The Miltiary diocese overlaps all the bishops of all the juristictions, although that is centred on the federal capital where there is an Archbishop for the local juristiction already.

Dear Michael Thoma,

I appreciate what you say but the ethnic religious communities without their own resident bishops and under the Roman Catholic ordinary are still loci of ethnic division within the diocesan territory.

This seems to be saying that while the multiplicity of Orthodox jurisdictions and bishops in New York is to be lamented in Australia you are anticipating the creation of a similar multiplicity in the future when the ethnic communities warrant them?

Father,

I am not sure that lamentation is what is being stated. I think the question being raised has to do with jurisdictional development - perhaps multiple jurisdictions will be the solution that the Church accepts or has to accept.

Unless all agree to unite under one ordinary (who is extra-Ritual or perhaps based on seniority or some other standard) and the bishops of each community decide to accept auxiliary post, I don't see much else as a solution.

Shlomo Hieromonk Ambrose,

First a small issue. While it is true that the vast majority of congregants within Eastern Catholic Churches (as well as Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy) are from specific areas and countries, it is no longer true that we are "ethnic". If you look at our list of priests, brothers, sisters and laity, you will now see names like Jensen, Brown, Garcia, Morrison, Sanchez, etc. While all of the Eastern, and to an extent the Western Churches have ethnic origins, they are no longer in this day and age ethnic.

I have personal experience with both the Eastern Catholic Churches in Australia, Canada and the United States; and I can tell you that the Eparchs, the priests, and many of us laity make sure people understand that we are not ethnic. My Eparch, Robert (Shaheen), has on numerous occations corrected congregants when they refer to our Church as the Lebanese Church. I myself, am 75% Scottish, 12.5% Lebanese and 12.5% Syrian.

Sorry for being long-winded, but my point is that while your statement was true in the past, it no longer is true in the modern world. Which brings me to the main part of this post. You pointed out:




Your point while true, is also in my opinon totally without foundation on the issue of the Catholic jurisdictions being a hotchpotch. The reason that I say this is that Eastern Orthodoxy, as opposed to Catholicism and Oriental Orthodoxy, lacks diversity within its Liturgical Tradition. That is while there are twelve Eastern Catholic jurisdictional groups, the more proper way to look at them is that there are five Holy Liturgical Traditions that are represented. Therefore, they should not be looked at as Russian, Maronite, Armenian etc. Churches but as Byzantine, Western Antiochene-Edessan, Eastern Antiochene-Edessan, Alexandrian and Armenian. And when you include the Western Church you have six Holy Liturgical Traditions.

Now looking at nations such as Australia, Canada and the U.S. what we should be looking at is how are the Eastern Catholics Organized. Yes, we still have are "ethnic" jurisditions, but we are also moving more towards liturgical unity. And this even has an impact on the issue of the three Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch. To quote (and I will say this is a rumored) his Beatitude Ignatius Gabriel I, the Syriac Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and the East, "[t]he Maronite and Syriac Catholic Churches are one Church separated by a hierarchy." The Syriac Catholic Church back in the sixties sought to merge their Church with the Maronite Church, which my Church at the time rejected. It is my hope that in the near future our Churches will be one in hierarch as well as Holy Tradition.

Now looking at Eastern Orthodoxy outside of its established homlands, there is no reason for their to be multiple jurisdictions, other than hubris. To quote from the Hartford Institute For Religion Research:

A Troubled Identity

The research also found that Orthodox Churches are struggling with the issue of their changing nature and mission in American. Beginning in the 1970’s, fundamental changes took place in the demographics of the Orthodox jurisdictions. These changes included:

[*]the increasing proportion of the American-born members and of converts who came to the Orthodoxy mainly through the inter-Christian marriages,
[*]the new developments in religious education and liturgical life, and
[*]the grassroots movements encouraging greater Orthodox unity for the sake of mission.

These changes have essentially altered the standing of the Orthodox Churches on the contemporary American religious scene. Religious faith and ethnic identity, once seen as inseparable, are increasingly less important for the socially-mobile, geographically-dispersed, English speaking second, third and fourth generations of Orthodox in America. Nor is this an important consideration for the ever-increasing number of Orthodox converts raised in other religious traditions. Nevertheless, at the beginning of a new millennium, the jurisdictional distinctiveness still does remain a basic characteristic of Orthodox Christianity in the USA.

Current Sources of Growth in US Orthodox Churches

There are three possible demographic sources of growth: immigration, the offspring of church members, and Anglo-American converts. In nearly all of the Orthodox jurisdictions, new immigrants are roughly as important for membership growth as are the children of existing members, and in many cases immigration is still the major source of church growth. With the offspring members there is the added factors of the natural desire to assimilate into the dominant American culture and drift away from the language, customs and to a large extent from the Orthodox faith of their parents.

And I would add to the last part of the above with this observation. With 19 Eastern Orthodox jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada and a little less in Australia, New Zealand and Latin America you all are hard pressed to explain why these are necessary. Especially when you have jurdictions such as the Albanian Orthodox Diocese in America with only two parishes in the U.S.; the Bulgarian Eastern Orthodox Diocese of the USA with 9 parishes, or the Albanian diocese of OCA with 12. (souce is the Hartford Institute). Further this is not to say that the Catholic Church does not have the same problem with our eparchal jurisdictions within the same Holy Liturgical Tradition (the Romanian Greek Catholic Church with only 10 parishes or the Syriac Catholics with only 7).

The center point is that it does make sense for any city to have overlapping jurisdictions within the same denomination when you have distinct Holy Liturgical Traditions, but does not when you have a denomination that has multiple jurisdictions that share the very same Holy Liturgical Traditions.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Fr. Ambrose, regardless of the exact number of overlapping Catholic jurisdictions in Sydney, has proved his point. The Catholic Church often has multiple bishops and jurisdictions in one city, which is a practice that the ancient Church would have rejected as improper.

They are necessary because at this time in the continuing development of the "diaspora" the people wish to preserve these Churches as separate entities. That is sufficient justification for leaving the situation as it as. Not that we cannot nudge it whenever possible towards a hope for future administrative unity.

Those of us who take an intelligent view of it are fully aware that the case of multiple Churches establishing dioceses on one and the same territory is anomalous, uncanonical and untraditional, etc. But would forcing an administrative unity on the US decreed from on high by distant primates in Europe and the Near East be beneficial or detrimental to the flock? In other words, should the reality of what now exists be accepted rather than pushing too hard for an unrealistic and possibly damaging ideal.

If the Catholics are content to have this occuring too with their own overlapping Churches, then why not leave it in peace instead of forcing them to all unite uinder one bishop?

I don't buy into the logic that it is fine for Catholics to continue this situation because the Pope provides an arching umbrella to which these Churches are ultimately subject. The Orthodox could similarly point to their oft repeated claim that Jesus Christ is the head of their Church and it is all occuring under His umbrella!

Bottom line - the endeavour to create one Church for America is praiseworthy and will be the ultimate canonically correct reality. In the meantime the Orthodox can happily live with what they have.

Shlomo Apotheoun,

To give you a short reply to my previous answer. What was a legitimate point in the ancient Church, does not necessary work for today's Church. As I pointed out, since in today's modern age we have 6 fully developed Ancient Holy Liturgical Traditions within the Catholic Church, and all are equally valid; as well as the mobility of global populations, it does make since, to me, that you would have eparchs/bishops that represent these traditions if their numbers warren it. What does not make since is when you have eparchs/bishops of the very same tradition having overlapping jurisdictions.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Yuhannon,

At least the Orthodox recognize that multiple bishops in one city is not a good thing.

God bless,
Todd

Nor should anyone "buy" into such an idea, because -- regardless of what some may say -- the theory of universal papal jurisdiction is not ancient, but is instead quite modern.

Did anybody say Ruthenian Catholic and Ukrainian Greek Catholic? And the sorry reason why they co-exist in the US?

Shlomo Hiermonk Ambrose,

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. You wrote:



Your point is a sibboleth within Eastern Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodoxy in America, Canada, New Zealand and Australia are nearly or over a hundred years well established as is pointed out in the Hartford article that I quoted. I agree that no one should be forced to unity, but there is a very legitimate way to bring this about. The Holy Orthodox Church should just recognize only one entity as representive of their Church within the any nation.



As I pointed out in my previous post, most of the congregants within Orthodoxy as well as Catholic Holy Traditions that share the same liturgical history, do not really care about the ethnic identity of the jurisdiction they are under, especially since most who are born into the faith are now third and fourth generation, and also about half of the numbers that account for Church growth are not "native" of the Orthodox Church, but are "Anglos".



As I have pointed out, if the eparchs/bishops represent one of the Ancient Holy Liturgical Traditions within Catholicism then I do not see then as overlapping jurisdictions. Therefore, the Roman Bishop of Chicago, the Syro-Malabar Eparch of Chicago, etc. each represent a fully independent Liturgical Tradition that are legitmate ways of expressing Christian Truth.



I understand your point, but if you will look I have never made such a claim. Fr. Serge has, which I do share, but my arguement is from a different stream than his.



To quote from a friend of mine who converted to Catholicism, one of the main reasons that he choose Catholicism as opposed to Orthodoxy, is that "Catholicism respects its ethnic characteristists but does not elevate them to core Church values, whereas Orthodoxy does."

Again, that does not mean that Eastern Catholic Churches do not have problems with ethnic parishes, but our heirarchs do not press the ethnic charachterists of their Churches, but their Liturgical ones.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

The Ruthenian Catholic Church and the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and the reason the Vatican allows the co-existence of both in the US? I would rather that someone such as Irish Melkite who is closer to the problems explained this since I am bound to get some finer details wrong and people will jump on me for these minor mistakes and the wider picture will be lost.

A continuing issue for Ruthenian Catholics has been their relationship with the much larger Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church. For the first time ever, the Mukačevo diocese finds itself functioning freely in the same country with the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Although it is not officially a part of the Ukrainian church and is still immediately subject to the Holy See, its bishops have attended recent Ukrainian Greek Catholic synods. The bishop of Mukačevo has made it clear, however, that he opposes integration into the Ukrainian Catholic Church and favors the promotion of the distinct ethnic and religious identity of his Rusyn people. This identity received a boost in March 2007 when the Transcarpathian Oblast Council voted to recognize the Rusyn people as an indigenous nationality of the region. As a result, the local government will be required to provide funding to promote Rusyn language, culture, and education.

http://www.cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg-us.aspx?eccpageID=70

Why is there representation from multiple Catholic churches in the United States?



Your friend is wrong, about Orthodoxy and Catholicism.



I believe that is wrong as well. Do the Ukrainian and Ruthenian churches exist in this country as separate entities because they have a different liturgical heritage?

Never been at a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Liturgy which finishes with a rousing communal singing of "Shche ne umerla Ukrainy"? Maybe it only happens down under?

Shlomo Todd,

Again, I agree that having eparchs/bishops of the same Holy Liturgical Tradition having overlapping is not a good thing, I disagree with those that feel that having eparchs/bishops within the same jurisdiction that do not share the same Holy Liturgical Tradition is not a good thing.

To quote from a Australian website that I use:


Eastern Church theology differs from Western theology. Even among Eastern Traditions themselves there are differing theological differences. What is important to note here is that the elements of basic Catholic theology cannot contradict each other. Rather, what we are dealing with are particular emphases of theology that each Tradition embraced in its initial evangelizing and subsequent development. Everyone knows, for example, of the debates of the early Councils over questions of Christology. The liturgies, theologies and spiritualities that followed upon these emphases have lasted up to the present moment.

In today's world, having these theological emphases help people find there way to worship God.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Yes Fr Ambrose is right. The UGCC pushed Ukrainian nationalism to the limits. Their churches are full of old people and their younger people have gone. They try everything to get the people they still have interested but the leakage has been huge and they have gone. I was only thinking recently about how many of the small congregation I go to are now evanglical protestants. Those who left were big on the language and the dancing and making sure their future partners were 'nas' and it is they who are not there anymore. Priests and laity still call the Latin Rite the 'Australian Church' and talk of 'Australian Easter and Christmas'. No matter what the church was called you had to have St Vladimir and Olga on the iconostas the former rulers of 'Ukraine' (no mention they ruled a much larger territory that than). Now non Ukrainians are looked after thanks to Bishop Peter but it was not alway that way. If you were not Ukrainian you got told to learn the language or go to the 'Australian Church'. So a good number of the couples in mixed marriages ended up worshiping elsewhere. Yes we had had ultra nationalism up to the hilt. It it the Orthodox churches who were less nationalistic here.

Bless, Father,

You could not get me to touch that with a ten foot pole. I trust that any of my Ruthenian and/or Ukrainian brethren will be more than happy to describe the historical events and the precipitants in full detail. As to my personal feelings on the matter, my signature - quoted from a pastoral message by Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed and beloved memory - says it all, sort of. I think that, if our Churches - EC/EO and OC/OO - are to grow and prosper, they must (as discussed in another thread recently) not merely understand, but commit to being open and welcoming to all - regardless of ethnicity.

But, without claiming that I have any idea how to solve the ancient precept of 'One bishop, One city', I reject the notion that openness and acceptance must be achieved at the loss of the ethno-cultural heritage that is so much a part of our praxis and spiritual expression. Our Churches, Catholic and Orthodox, would be decidedly the poorer in their rendering of worship to God were we to do so in some homogenized form.

The multiplicity of tongues, the variety of vesture, the exquisite iconographic traditions - from mosaic through paint through embroidery and all the media in between, the architectural diversity of our temples, the unique ceremonies - all of these, though in some degree externals, express and testify to the universality of the Apostolic Churches and our Faiths. God is, it seems to me, entitled to enjoy the spectacle of experiencing our worship of Him in as many beautiful and distinctive ways as our ethnic, national, and cultural heritages give expression. I suspect that He rather likes it.

The canon of 'One bishop, One city' arose in an era when such diversity as existed was, almost assuredly, geographically contained. There was no diaspora such as we know it today. One would not have found Ukrainians serving liturgical services according to their praxis in Greece nor Dublin, nor Ethiopians doing so in London.

Today, with the world being a much smaller place, can we trust that our respective rituals, rubrics, etc will be appropriately respected and preserved under the rule of a single hierarch in a place - and a hierarch of which tradition, rite, whatever? Regretably, few of us - Catholic or Orthodox, I suspect - fully trust to that, because history has not yet provided enough examples of hierarchs who can see beyond their own respective traditions. In all likelihood, it will require that humankind - lay and clerical - grow into a more demonstrably tolerant mold before we are all ready to go forth with assurance that respect and support will be, unreservedly, forthcoming.

Many years,

Neil

Shlomo Hieromonk Ambrose,

As I said in previous posts, your points are valid, but I would also point out that even the ethnic nature of these Churches have and are changing. While these Churches retain their "ethnic" names, they have progressed from being ethnic. For example the present Chancellor of the Ukrainian Archeparchy of Winnipeg is ethnic Chinese, the Very Rev. Richard Soo, SJ; the Chancellor of the Syriac Catholic Eparchy for the United States and Canada has an English background, Fr. S.T. Sutton, and the former Chancellor of the Chaldean Catholic Eparchy of Detroit, is Fr. Jon Buffington, who was the first American to be ordained a Chaldean Catholic priest.

This is not to say that our Churches do not have some parishes that have an ethnic problem (mine is a perfect example here in Las Vegas), but our heirarchs are working to remove this issue.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

I unabashedly support the ancient Church's position that there should be only one bishop in a city. But if the Catholic Church is going to go against that ancient tradition, then I look forward to the day when there will be more than one bishop of Rome.

What I have learnt from Catholics here is that this is acceptable provided the other Bishop(s) of Rome are of a different Rite.

Presumably they would all share the petrine prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome.

Shlomo Apotheoun,



Then I would ask you this, when reunion occures between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, would you support the removal of all Byzantine Bishops from the West? Or how about removing the Byzantine Eparchs and Patriarchs when reunion occurs between the Oreintal and Eastern Orthodox Churches? Therefore you would have no problem with the wiping out the Byzantine Patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem (if you include it in the greater Middle East) and Alexandria. Further, you have no problem with the removal of the Byzantine eparchs of Africa and most of Asia since under your doctrine, the Byzantine faithful will recieve the same quality of care under Roman, and Oriental Orthodoxy, as they would from a Byzantine Eparch.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Shlomo Hieromonk Ambrose,



What we Catholics agree with is that eparchs/bishops who are from different Traditions could be based in the same city (I see Rome no differently), but that the Petrine prerogatives of the Bishop of Rome are those that are given to the head of the Latin Church.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

I think that the Latin bishops in North America should step down in favor of the Orthodox bishops. The Orthodox have a strong claim to being the proper canonical authority in North America, while the Roman Church's position in Latin America is quite secure.

The petrine prerogatives apply historically to three particular sees, i.e., Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch (although all bishops are successors of all the Apostles, including Peter). That said, any bishop in any one of those three cities would acquire the historical prerogatives of the petrine sees (see St. Gregory the Great, Registrum Epistolarum, Book VII, 40).

As I see it, Catholics have a vested interest in restoring the one bishop in one city tradition throughout the whole Church.

The various eparchies and diocese do not claim to use the the same titles. Each juristiction has it's own particular title for it's own See. So there is no clash of names or labels. Each 'sui juris' church looks after it own faithful. The system works very well over here. It's an improvement on the original system that expected all New Australians to integrate into the main stream and become 'real' (read that as Anglo-celtic) Australians and forget all that foreign stuff. Multiculturaism came along and other cultures were to be valued as having input into the nation.

We know that the one bishop to the see never worked well in Orthodoxy when one sees what happened to the various churches once the Phanriots got the upper hand and Greeks were appointed to run rough shod over the Slavs and the Arabs and disrespect their cultures and traditions. It became very important from then on to get bishops the people trusted and would work with. When the people migrated to the Americans and other places like Australia and New Zealand the last thing they wanted was bishops from another church they had no faith in.

Are you sure, Apotheoun? Three Bishops of Rome (each would have to be of a different Rite) would provide a unique symbol of the Trinitarian basis of Christianity and a visible examplar of the conciliar nature of the episcopate.

This is in line with what Yuhannon says is permissable (multiple bishops of different rites ruling in one city), and as far as I can assess Fr Serge's thinking of multiple Catholic bishops of various Rites in one city he would not find it objectionable.

Whether I would or would not find a given situation unacceptable depends on the specifics - not that it matters much; nobody is waiting for me to decide such a point, nor have I ever so much as met the present Pope.

Come to think of it, a few centuries ago for a brief period there were three Bishops of Rome - and the Council of Constance was called to get things back to normal. Catholics are well aware of the conciliar nature of the episcopate.

Fr. Serge

Yes, but that was a different situation to what Yuhannon is speaking of, and yourself - multiple canonical Catholic bishops of different Rites with episcopal oversight of the same city, Rome in this case.
I am sure they are but imagine the potent symbolism if there are multiple Bishops of Rome just as there are multiple bishops of New York, etc. What a proclamation to the Church and to the world!

And what is there to prevent? It is already an established fact in so many major cities.

An Ecclesiology closer to the East's for the Church of Rome?

While we are considering these possibilites here is another..... what chance is there that the Roman Catholic Church may move closer to an Orthodox ecclesiology?

When the Pope was yet Joseph Ratzinger he pointed out the need to disentangle the confusion between the patriarchal and primatial roles of the bishop of Rome and to break up the Latin patriarchate, replacing it with a number of "patriarchal areas," that is, regions with an autonomy similar to that of the ancient patriarchates, but under the direction of the episcopal conferences.

In an essay entitled "Primacy and Episcopacy," Ratzinger developed the theme at greater length:

"The image of a centralized state which the Catholic church presented right up to the council does not flow only from the Petrine office, but from its strict amalgamation with the patriarchal function which grew ever stronger in the course of history and which fell to the bishop of Rome for the whole of Latin Christendom.

"The uniform canon law, the uniform liturgy, the uniform appointment of bishops by the Roman centre: all these are things which are not necessarily part of the primacy but result from the close union of the two offices.

"For that reason, the task to consider for the future will be to distinguish again and more clearly between the proper function of the successor of Peter and the patriarchal office and, where necessary, to create new patriarchates and to detach them from the Latin church.

"To embrace unity with the pope would then no longer mean being incorporated into a uniform administration, but only being inserted into a unity of faith and communion, in which the pope is acknowledged to have the power to give binding interpretations of the revelation given in Christ whose authority is accepted whenever it is given in definitive form."

After exploring the ecumenical implications of this vision, Ratzinger concluded: "Finally, in the not too distant future one could consider whether the churches of Asia and Africa, like those of the East, should not present their own forms as autonomous 'patriarchates' or 'great churches' or whatever such ecclesiae in the Ecclesia might be called in the future."

-oOo-

Playing the optimist, I hope that this is the beginning of a long-term vision, a node point for the future, to bring these ideas quietly into reality, but quietly without causing alarm to the "hawks" and ultramontanists in the Roman Catholic Church.

Who knows, but now the Pope is no longer Patriarch of the West we may one day see a Patriarch of Dublin leading a Patriarchate of Ireland. The West will begin to assume the patriarchal form of Church governance which has always been that of the East but in the West its development was interrupted by the necessary role of supremacy which Rome had to adopt in the first millennium in order to hold the Western Church safe from the political forces and the barbarian invaders which threatened its stability and good order.

For Ireland, please make that a Patriarchate of Armagh! Otherwise the proposals appeal to me.

Fr. Serge

Ok, Father, pledge to bring back the Lorrha Missal and we'll nominate your good self!

I was reading Fr Hunwicke's Blog Liturgical Notes
http://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com:80/2008/11/celtic.html
and he has a small article on things Celtic.

A commentator on the Blog confirms the gulf between the modern and the ancient when he described reactions to a service celebrated according to the Stowe Missal 'One friend of mine was simply appalled and walked out. One other just sat frozen and unable to receive. It wasn't the eco-friendly/feminist/theology light service they were expecting.' Rather says it all.

Indeed yes, Pope Saint Gregory is writing to Pope Euloghius of Alexandria and he is strong in his assertion that all three Bishops of Rome and Antioch and Alexandria are equally Petrine and of one authority with the same Petrine prerogatives... It's an astounding reversal for the unique claims of modern Rome!

If I may bring Pope Gregory's text onto the Forum...

Gregory of Rome to Eulogius of Alexandria:

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair.

"And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me.

"For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matthew 16:19. And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep John 21:17.

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one . For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside,

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

Speaking of breaking up the Western Church into separate Patriarchates, I think that a good step towards this would be to restore the authority and prestige of the great Primatial sees.

Spain and the Hispanic churches have Toledo, the Germanic churches have Salzburg, France has Lyons, Portugal has Braga, Poland has Gniezno, Hungary has Esztergom, etc. etc.

The primatial sees were often characterized by having unique liturgical uses, and had strong quasi-Patriarchal trappings (if not authority). These primatial sees, whilst maintaining communion with Rome and jealously safeguarding this union, also guarded the distinctive character, traditions and dignity of the "national Churches."

In addition to the primatial sees, some archdioceses practically functioned as parallel primatial sees (Paris for France, Lisbon for Portugal, for example).

Unfortunately, at present, this decentralization would not be feasible. Heterodoxy and laxity have become so entrenched in the West that, at present, granting greater decentralization and liberty to the local churches will only lead to the perpetuation of current abuses. The restoration of greater autonomy to the local churches of the Latin Church will only be possible when Rome has managed to reestablish liturgical peace and disciplinary reform -- and for that to happen, Rome will have to flex its muscles.

Unfortunately, the local churches of the Latin West seem unable to maintain doctrinal orthodoxy within their own borders. How the local churches lost this capacity greatly puzzles me. In contrast, even the smaller Orthodox patriarchates have maintained mechanisms to condemn heresies and generally maintain a strong level of orthodoxy amongst their clergy.

Something I noticed on page 1.



and later.



Apotheoun's post I think just adds another dimension



I've also always found Constance an interesting case.

On another topic.



I think you're ignoring the contradictory evidence in your own church as outlined here.

How then does the Patriarchate of Constantinople explain its "primus inter pares" status in Orthodoxy?

Yes, I was going to note also that Constantinople is, of course, not mentioned. I was considering, however, that the post is so interesting that a thread doing a close reading of the contents, to determine exactly what it is saying, would be justified.

The result of the councils. I consider political jostling myself.

A great post, asianpilgrim!

Some will see your proposal as a victory for "nationalism." I see it as a defeat for the MacChristianity which is the face of the Western Church.

It actually has no such status by any grant of an ecumenical council or any pan-Orthodox council. It is simply a convention and outside of Orthodox ecclesiology.

The status of "primus inter pares" is meaningless. If someone is first, then the rest are not equal. If all are equal then no one is first.

Shlomo Apotheoun,



I would say brother that you do not know the correct history of North America. The very first organized Orthodox Community in North America was started in 1784. The very first Catholic Diocese in Puerto Rico for example was established in 1511 (almost three hundred years prior to any Eastern Orthodox presence). And the very first Eastern Orthodox parish in the United States (excluding Alaska) was not until the late 1800's. I can not see how you could claim that any Byzantine Bishop would have standing under your supposition of one city - one bishop in any part of the New world excepting Alaska. And I would argue that since Alaska is part of the United States, and all bishops within a country should be from the same Liturgical Tradition that no Byzantine Eparch should serve anywhere in either North and South America and most of Oceania. I would further argue that Eastern Orthodox eparchs should be removed from Japan, China, and most other Asian nations in a unified Church, using your supposition.

Personally, I feel that the Church would loose a lot by not having eparchs of the different Liturgical Traditions serve the faithful of that Tradition.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

I know my history.

The British Colonies, which became the United States, were Protestant settlements, and the Catholic Church has no right to claim jurisdiction there, and the Russians entered North America (by this I mean what we would call continental Anglo-America) in the mid-eighteenth century. The California missions and Fort Ross are contemporaneous, and in fact it is important to remember that the Spanish crown and later the Mexican government were always concerned about the Russian activity just north of their territory. So I look forward to the day that Latin bishops throughout the United States step down from their sees and recognize the authority of their Orthodox brothers.

YES, finally a patriarchate for all the British Isles! You can't argue with that since Armagh does lie in Northern Ireland. God bless you Fr Serge for that wonderful suggestion.

Some more information that may be pertinent:

Archdiocese of Baltimore

Bishop Carroll's cousin, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, was a signer (and the only one a Catholic) of the Declaration of Independence.

Even earlier:

link

Concerning the arrival of the two ships, the Ark and the Dove:

link

link


Cross on St. Clement Island

Everybody in Pennsylvania might get Metropolitan Nicholas...

I don't foresee either Latin, Eastern Catholic, or Orthodox bishops resigning their see in a unified Church - what may happen very slowly is that once the presiding hierarch passes to the next life, the empty parallel see may remain vacant until all are empty and a unified vote takes place. But despite all claims to early settlements or otherwise, this hypothetical "solution" (if it should occur in the next 200-400 years, barring some major unforeseen circumstance) would lead to Latin bishops remaining in the majority for much of North, Central and South America eparchies/dioceses. Of course there will be exceptions to this, but very few.

Shlomo Aportheoun,

Well since North America includes all the lands from Panama north, your point is not valid. But if you wish to use only the British Colonial rule as the base you would still be incorrect. Further, I will separate British Colonial rule in Canada from that of the area that became the United States.

The one concesssion that I will ask of you is that we look at only native (ie eparchies/dioceses) that are based in North America. This is from the Orthodox Church in America's website: in 1794, a small group of missionaries landed on Kodiak Island, Alaska, bringing to the New World the Orthodox Faith of the Apostles. Therefore this is baseline for you as stated at the Orthodoxy in America website.

On the Canadaian front, the establishment of the Archdiocese of Montréal, Québec is the oldest in 1658 and became a diocese in 1674. Over a hundred years prior to any Eastern Orthodox presence.

Now on the U.S. front just using the establishment of the nation as our baseline. The very first diocese was the Archdiocese of Baltimore, MD in 1784; a full 10 years before any Eastern Orthodox presence.

Now please explain to me, how you feel that the Eastern Orthodox Bishops have any claim to headup any diocese/eparchies in North America?

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Benedicite!

This discussion strikes me as legalistic and pointless. While I am well aware of the dictum "One City -- One Bishop," how is this to work in practice in the modern world? My contention is that it never has and never will.

Should the Bishop always belong to the liturgical tradition of the majority of faithful in each place? In that case, for instance, there will be hardly any Bishop of the Syriac tradition left, since as far as I can tell, Syriac Christians are nowhere in a majority, except perhaps in certain remote areas of Turkey. Without Bishops, how will the ancient and venerable Syriac tradition survive in Europe, the Americas, and elsewhere? And this is only one example!

Similarly, there will not be many places in the Americas or Oceania where there can legitimately be a Bishop of the Byzantine tradition. What is to happen to these minority liturgical traditions without Bishops of their own to minister to them? Will they disappear completely, or will they be confined to minority enclaves? The town of Sitka, perhaps?

On the other hand, if priority is to be given to the oldest community, this will easily lead to absurd situations or insoluble conundrums. What liturgical tradition, for instance, is to take precedence in the Holy City of Jerusalem? Will all of China and India have to have Assyrian/Chaldean Bishops? Will the Orthodox Church of Finland (58,000 members) become subordinate to the Roman Catholic Diocese of Helsinki (9,000 members), given that the Patron of Finland, St. Henry of Uppsala, was a Latin Catholic?

Quite apart from all this, what about titular Bishops (coadjutor, auxiliary, emeriti etc.)? Will there only ever be one Bishop in each See, even if the diocese may have hundreds of thousands of faithful, hundreds of parishes and an infirm or senile Bishop?

Clearly, in order to preserve the liturgical traditions of the Catholic Church, and for the provision of adequate pastoral care of large dioceses, the arbitrary and rigid rule of "One City -- One Bishop" cannot always be adhered to, nor does it have to be since the Petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome helps to guarantee Catholic unity.

Mission San Gabriel was founded in 1598 in New Mexico and let's not forget that St. Augustine, FL was founded in 1565 and is the oldest continuous city in America.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most of these bishops whose jurisdictions overlap actually reside in different cities?

There is the Latin bishop of Cleveland, but the Ruthenian bishop of Parma.

Even if they claim the same city, the Cathedrals are often in different cities. The Ruthenian Cathedral is in Munhall, not Pittsburgh.

In fact, the diocese of Baltimore was founded in 1789.

The first diocese in what is now Canada was not Montreal, but Quebec City, founded in 1674,

(Source: Annuario Pontificio 2006)

In practical terms, the suggestion is impossible. Currently there are 177 Latin archdioceses and dioceses in the United States and a further 62 in Canada -- not to mention the 87 in Mexico. I don't know how many Eastern Orthodox bishops there are in North America, but there are surely not enough to fill all these sees?

The rule of "One City -- One Bishop" should be applied to avoid having two or more diocesan bishops in one and the same diocese, i.e. it would be obviously uncanonical to have two Latin archbishops of New York at the same time.

Similarly, no diocese should be established on purely ethnic grounds, i.e. it would be uncanonical to have separate Irish, Italian and Puerto Rican archdioceses of New York all belonging to the Latin tradition.

Where the rule should be modified (by the authority of the Holy See) is where there are two or more distinct liturgical traditions coexisting in the same place. Thus it would be legitimate (again by the authority of the Holy See) to have a Latin archdiocese of New York coexisting with a Byzantine archdiocese of New York, providing neither was based purely on ethnicity, but on legitimate differences in liturgical tradition. The reason why this is acceptable is the need to preserve and promote all the legitimate liturgical traditions of the Catholic Church.

Dr. Eric,

you are not wrong. In fact, there has obviously been a deliberate attempt to avoid the multiplication of episcopal titles, i.e. to avoid having two bishops of Brooklyn or New York or Vancouver. That is why there is a Latin archbishop of New York and an Armenian Catholic bishop of Our Lady of Nareg of New York, a Latin bishop of Brooklyn and a Maronite bishop of St. Maron of Brooklyn, and a Latin archbishop of Vancouver and a Ukrainian Catholic bishop of New Westminster.

Dr. Eric,

À propos of nothing: "The Most Corrupt State" -- that's Rhode Island, surely?

Let's see if anyone can guess.

I know that the 6 Cardinal Bishops have Suburbicarian Sees so as not to overlap the Bishopric of Rome.

There is an interesting case of two Latin jurisdictions overlapping each other in Manitoba:

The original diocese (now, I think, an archdiocese) is that of St. Boniface - which is also the original name of Winnipeg.

Next came the Irish (!), who were not happy with the (Arch)diocese of St. Boniface, primarily for ethno-linguistic reasons. There was serious talk of some sort of "Irish National Catholic" schism, which seems to have gotten as far as an Irish delegation from Manitoba visiting Bishop Francis Hodur (head of the Polish National Catholic Church). Not without reason, Rome did not feel the need to replicate the Polish National Catholic Church for the Irish, and therefore created the Archdiocese of Winnipeg - last time I looked, the Annuario Pontificio still carried a footnote to the effect that the Archdiocese of Winnipeg is "immediately subject to the Holy See.

So yes, it can happen.

Fr. Serge

Fr Serge,

this is very interesting. I knew that the archdiocese of Winnipeg is immediately subject to the Holy See, and also that the metropolitan see of Saint-Boniface has no suffragans, but I did not know the historical background for this.

However, where you seem to be mistaken is in thinking that the dioceses of Winnipeg and Saint-Boniface overlap. As you can see from the map below (from the website of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops), they do not.

The map is interesting - thanks for posting it. But you should look at a much more detailed map; the contortions that the diocesan boundaries go through in order attempt to maintain the principle of "one bishop in one city" make the boundary of "Northern Ireland" (which actually goes through people's houses and shops) look simple. The problem in Manitoba can be defined easily enough: it's a matter of making sure that francophone parishes are not run by the Archdiocese of Winnipeg, and anglophone parishes are not run by the Archdiocese of St. Boniface.

To add to the confusion, there are also parishes on the "Native Canadian" reserves, and some of them retain their own languages.

There is also yet another matter to confuse the issue, although this one has relatively little to do with ethnic conflicts: the suppression of the Jesuits. At the time of the suppression, the Jesuits ran the missions in Canada up to a certain line east of Winnipeg - St. Boniface. I'm not sure of the details of the line, although the information is available and can be found without major difficulty.

Anyway, something had to be done, and quickly, to provide for those missions when the Jesuits were suppressed. The Oblates of Mary Immaculate were recruited into service and took over the (formerly) Jesuit missions, and continued to evangelize in a westerly direction.

Then, some forty years later, the Jesuits were restored. They managed to regain their original missions, but the Oblates of Mary Immaculate retained the missions which they themselves had started in the interim, and both communities tried to continue in the drive to the Pacific.

Then, of course, there are the Ukrainians - but that's still another story! The immediate result, though, is that Winnipeg - St. Boniface is the only place in the Western Hemisphere with THREE residential Catholic Archbishops (even Philadelphia only has two).

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge

Fr Serge,

I have been looking more closely at Google Maps and see now that Saint-Boniface is in fact part of the City of Winnipeg, though according to Wikipedia historically the two were separate municipalities until the City of Winnipeg Act came into force on Jan. 1, 1972.

While I realize the historical background is different, the situation in Winnipeg, with the archidiocese of Winnipeg on the west side of the Red River and the archdiocese of Saint-Boniface on the east side, reminds me a bit of London, with the archdiocese of Westminster on the north side of the River Thames and the archdiocese of Southwark on the south side.

There is another problem with using London as an example - it is 2 cities - the City of Westminster and the City of London.

Only 2 municipalities? I had thought there were mare than that. They must have united them while I was not looking. Dobnw here almost all of out metropolitan areas are divided up into a number of municipalities. We have the strange situation of having some cities so big that the are more desert than city and the size of some small countries. We tend to use political boundaries to use for diocesan boundaries. Each metroplitan province usually runs on state borders (former colonial ones formed before federation in 1901).

AHA - but there are still London Boroughs in the City of Westminster- it does get complicated here And to add to it there is a Lord Mayor and an elected Mayor

think it's safer to drop it before it gets too complicated

Actually, it is rather more complicated than that. The Greater London Authority (headed by the Mayor of London, Mr. Boris Johnson, and the London Assembly) consists of the Cities of London and Westminster (each with a Lord Mayor), the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames, the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and 29 other London boroughs.

Anyway, there is no Catholic bishop of London, but there are Catholic archbishops of Westminster (a city) and Southwark (a borough).

(Source: Wikipedia)

Also, I think it is important to realize that the Catholic Church can do whatever it likes and does not need to refer to civil jurisdictions (though from time to time this may be the simplest and most practical course). In fact, you can have a bishop and a diocese without a city, properly speaking.

Just to name one example from Manitoba, the diocese of Churchill–Hudson Bay has its see in the small town of Churchill, Manitoba (pop. 923), but it mostly covers the territory of Nunavut. The work performed by the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (O.M.I.) in this vast Arctic region boggles the mind! See this link for more details: http://www.arcticomi.ca/

Here is a picture of the Catholic cathedral of the Holy Canadian Martyrs, Churchill, Manitoba

Reminds me of Professor Bogolepov, who taught canon law at St. Vladimir's. One day, he was lecturing on an episcopal See. In his usual dry-as-dust monotone Professor Bogolepov taught us that:

"An episcopal See must be a center of culture, economics, politics, education . . . a place like Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Wilkes-Barre . . ."

Fr. Serge

I'm having a vision of a monastery for retired bishops, composed of hundreds of dioceses, none reaching past the door of the bishop's cell . . .



hawk

Shlomo Pavel,

You are correct about Greater London. Here are the component parts:

1. City of London;
2. City of Westminster;
3. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea;
4. London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham;
5. London Borough of Wandsworth;
6. London Borough of Lambeth;
7. London Borough of Southwark;
8. London Borough of Tower Hamlets;
9. London Borough of Hackney;
10. London Borough of Islington;
11. London Borough of Camden;
12. London Borough of Brent;
13. London Borough of Ealing;
14. London Borough of Hounslow;
15. London Borough of Richmond upon Thames;
16. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames;
17. London Borough of Merton;
18. London Borough of Sutton;
19. London Borough of Croydon;
20. London Borough of Bromley;
21. London Borough of Lewisham;
22. London Borough of Greenwich;
23. London Borough of Bexley;
24. London Borough of Havering;
25. London Borough of Barking and Dagenham;
26. London Borough of Redbridge;
27. London Borough of Newham;
28. London Borough of Waltham Forest;
29. London Borough of Haringey;
30. London Borough of Enfield;
31. London Borough of Barnet;
32. London Borough of Harrow; and
33. London Borough of Hillingdon.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

This partly explains the use of the title "Richmond" by the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia - in that way, she avoids violating English law (by making use of a title already used by the Established Church) and avoids gratuitously offending the Anglicans. The other Orthodox and Greek-Catholics in England simply use titles outside the country (such as Thyateira).

The vision of all those bishops in one monastery reminds me of a gem of a dream.

A few years ago an Abbot was visiting a Benedictine monastery which does not encourage the ordination of the monks to the diaconate or presbyterate unless there is a specific need for the service of the monastic community. The visiting Abbot criticized this, saying that the ordination of as many priests as possible "augments the priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ". The resident Abbot over breakfast the following morning commented to the guest that he had had an interesting dream: all the monks were ordained to the episcopate and entered the chapel in procession, each one wearing the mitre and bearing the crozier - and was this not a lovely augmentation of the priesthood of Our Lord Jesus Christ?

Fr. Serge

I was just asked this question by a member of a 'list' i particpate on, and do not know the answer. Since you are speaking of Bishops and jurisdictions, can you answer this for him and myself I am sure it is not difficult, I just don't know.

He asked...

Some years ago in my studying about the Eastern Catholic Churches I ran across the Italo-Albanian/Italo-Greek Catholic Church that exists only in Southern Italia arround the area where my maternal grandparents came from. I later found out that there is an Italo-Greek Mission in NY City(Our Lady of Grace). I eventually got on their mailing list for their newsletter. I just got their latest issue. & I don't know why this didn't register before but there was this bit on the back page: "Since the Bishops of Our Lady of Grace Greek Catholic Mission are in Italy & Greece, we are under the omophor of the Roman Archbishop of New York, Edward Cardinal Egan."

Besides being surprized that it was Cardinal Egan & not 1 of the Eastern Catholic Bishops here in the USA that they were under, I was totally unfamiliar with the term "omophor". I can hazzard a guess, but I figured that it would be easier to ask you about the word. Also, any guesses why the set up with Egan & not a Byzantine Catholic Bishop besides the historical fact that in Italy they were always directly under the Latin Patriarcite?

The omophorion (or omofor) is the vestments (usually in brocade; sometimes in white wool) which a bishop wears around his shoulders - one who belongs to bishop's "jurisdiction" is often said to be "under his omophorion".

For reasons best known to itself, Rome decided that Byzantine jurisdictions in the US and Canada (and elsewhere in the diaspora later) should be divided by ethnic origin. Hence we are "blessed" with a plethora of jurisdictions in the Western Hemisphere. Lucky us.

Fr. Serge

Sadly the various ethnic groups have got themsleves involved in politics. Here in Australia the UGCC heavily pushed Ukrainian nationalism. Other Greek Catholics could drop of a cliff and get lost, as the UGCC had no interest in anyone who was not Ukrainian (Westies were the most pure). Instructions to go to the "Australian Church" (term still in use) were common. The Russian Catholic Centre was treated as a joke. The various ethnic groups (Russians, Ossetians, Georgians etc etc) who later formed the Russian Centre had been basically pushed out after originally worshipping at the UGCC cathedral. When Bulgarian Greek Catholics arrived after the fall of the Communists, none of the established Byzantine Churches gave them a thought and they have disapeared of the map. There are Hungarian and Ruthenian Greek Catholics here but again you would not know it. So in short no one trusts the Eastern Churches to look after anyone who is not of their particular national group. Things are changing here with the UGCC but it has happened a bit too late for many people. So I think we will continue to have new Eparchies covering the same geography created.

Sounds like Orthodoxy.

Shlomo Pani Rose,



My guest about why Our Lady of Grace being under the Roman Bishop of New York, is that he can afford to take care of the mission. Especially since it only meets once a month.

The only active Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church that is fully active outside of Italy; Our Lady Of Wisdom Byzantine Catholic Church right here in Las Vegas is under the authority of the Byzantine Catholic Eparchy of Van Nuys so maybe if Our Lady of Grace became more active then they would be transfered to a Byzantine authority.

Of course I would hope that the Italo-Albanian Greek Catholic Church would appoint an exarch to help develop their Church here, as well as maybe help some Italian-Americans/Canadians find their historic roots.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Rose,

Our Lady of Grace is under the omophor of the Latin Archbishop of NY because, when it still had a temple of its own, it was situated in Manhattan (Broome St originally, then Stanton St, and - after the repose of Papa Ciro, of blessed memory - when it was reduced to the status of a Shrine, Mott St), all geographically situated in the Archdiocese. It currently has no temple and its location (mailing address, really) is Archdeacon John's home in Staten Island - which is in the Latin Diocese of Brooklyn.

As the hierarchs of the Brooklyn Diocese have a long history of benevolence toward Eastern and Oriental Catholics (witness Brooklyn's provision of a home for the Armenian Eparchy after NY evicted it from its Cathedral - St Anne's), it seems most unfortunate that the Italo-Greek-Albanians have apparently made no effort to translate to the omophor of Brooklyn. I suspect, though, that they may be precluded from doing so, by reason of some obscure reasoning that NY was where they last existed as an true ecclesial entity.

Shawn,



The Cardinal can hardly be said to be taking care of the mission. It meets where it can, most recently a UGCC parish - through the kindness of the Eparchy of Stamford; prior to that, and still occasionally, at the Byzantine chapel of the (Graymoor) Friars of the Antonement. To the best of my knowledge, the Society (its current status) of OLG receives neither any funds nor support of any kind from the Archdiocese of NY. Each successive Bishop of the Brooklyn Diocese, otoh, has ordinarily attended the Society's annual banquet/awards ceremony.

Regarding the prospect for them to be transferred to the omophor of a Byzantine Eparchy - unlikely. Our Lady of Wisdom, albeit serving an Italo-Greek community, was erected by the Van Nuys Eparchy through the kindness of Vladyka George, of blessed memory, not transferred to his care.

Other instances in which parishes of the "orphaned" Churches have come under the spiritual omophor of non-Latin hierarchs all have some unique aspects.

Father Archimandrite Alexei (Smith), pastor of St Andrew's Russian GC Church in El Segundo, happens to have been educated by the Melkites, serves also as Administrator of St Paul's Melkite Mission - with which the Russian parish shares its temple, and was ordained by the Melkite Eparch to the service of the Russians. Although the Russian parish remains under the canonical jurisdiction of the Latins, Cardinal Mahony asked that the Melkite Eparchy accept the Russian parish under its spiritual omophor - a very practical consideration, given the dual status.

The Melkites informally (LA is a formal situation) afford episcopal care (ordinations, etc) to OL of Fatima Russian GC Church in San Francisco - but, again, one of the priests serving there is incardinated to the Melkites.

As regards St Michael's Russian GC Church in NYC, Father Economos Romanos (Russo) of the Melkite Eparchy is presently serving it, but it is not clear to me that our Eparchy has any standing - even informally - with regard to the parish.

The Romanian Eparchy of St George in Canton informally affords episcopal care to Ss Cyril & Methodius Russian GC Mission in Denver by invitation of the local Latin hierarch, who retains canonical responsibility for it.

In Australia, the Russian Centre is, likewise, informally entrusted to the Melkite Eparch, essentially because Father Archimandrite Lawrence (Cross) is incardinated to the Eparchy. A (bi-ritual, I believe) priest of the Melkite Eparchy there is also occasionally serving the Australian Italo-Greek-Albanian community, but the community is not canonically organized.

There's little precedent for any of these cross-jurisdictional mixes among the Eastern Churches, except that of Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory, who was invited to provide episcopal care to OL of Kazan Russian GC Chapel by Cardinal Cushing, also of blessed memory. The fleeting nature of such, however, is readily observable by the fact that when the Cardinal's successor elected to suppress the Chapel, I have no recollection that Archbishop Joseph was offered any input into the decision.

As to the likelihood of an Exarch being named for the Italo-Greek-Albanians in the US, neither the Eparchs of Lungro degli Italo-Albanese nor Piana degli Albanese have the authority to do so. Any such action would, of necessity, have to originate from the "Colonial Office" and would almost assuredly require: an indication that OLG had a viable community; that other such existed elsewhere in the US; and a recommendation for such from some hierarch on this side of the Atlantic.

An effort, a couple of years ago, to establish a presence for the Italo-Greeks in New Orleans was rejected by the Latin hierarch there, despite a potentially sizeable community (reportedly larger and more viable than that in the NYC area). Those not absorbed into Latin parishes there worship with the Ruthenians or the Melkites (or did, until the Melkite mission went dormant post-Katrina).

Unfortunately, the Italo-Greek-Albanians - despite the work of OLGS - are little organized on this side of the world. Enough such that a priest of one of the Italian eparchies, allowed by his hierarch to travel to the US because of critical medical needs on the part of the part of his conjoined twin daughters and now here permanently because of their ongoing medical issues, is serving (last I knew) in a Ruthenian Eparchy - why? Likely because there is nowhere that a community exists which could support him and his family in an established parish environment.

Many years,

Neil

I learned recently (was it here or at church?) that it was split from our parish so that it could specifically minister to the Italo-Greeks.

Having grownup in a huge Roman Catholic parish, I found the very idea of splitting such a small parish odd . . . (then again, apparently a former pastor started a schism of his own, taking part of the parish with him, some years ago, but that's for another thread someday).

hawk

A good article on this here:

http://www.aoiusa.org/main/page.php?page_id=117

Is the ancient canon regarding one bishop for one city really relevant today? The reality is that in today's cosmopolitan society, it can be legitimately said that there are "cities within cities." I haven't read through this long thread, but if anyone else has brought up that point, just forget about it.

Blessings

I do not know if these relates to the original topic but, I do not understand why similar Churches of the same rite do not consolidate such as Syriac and Maronite.

Well the Syriacs and Maronites do not use the same rite although they are related.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

With the complexity of the communion of Churches united to the See of Peter, : "one see per city" doesn't seem to work, as is noted above. I think the Rudder did not anticipate the development of communio ecclesiology that the Catholic Church has today.

The only way I could see the "one eparch per city" model working is if the current notion of sui iuris or autonomous Churches is substantially altered, and the Pope revises canon law and canonical structure so that all Catholics, clergy of all orders and offices and the Pope, are not ascribed to one ritual Church, but all of them--removing the canonical walls between the ritual Churches and Rites--making again a fuller sign or more primative usage as evidenced in the Rudder of the Universal Church by constituting "Universal" Catholic persons, as it were, Catholics who belong to all ritual Churches and Rites. This would make for an interesting canonical thesis. But, as it stands now, "one eparch per city" cannot work in our contemporary context as a communion of 22 sui iuris Churches. Ordinarily, autonomous Jurisdictions are not subject to the eparchs of another autonmous Jurisdiction unless as noted by law in extraordinary circumstances or the sui iuris ritual Church is so small as to require the support of a larger sui iuris ritual Church.

In Christ,


Robert