Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,

According to the Daily Star out of Lebanon; the Maronite Patriarch (His Beatitude Boulos Cardinal Sfeir) as well as 6 Eparchs have handed in their resignations. Further, two other eparchs are going to hand in their resignations in March.

According to the Daily Star " Several Maronite bishops have offered to replace him, the sources said. Among them are bishops Bulos Mattar (Archeparch of Beirut),
Bishara al-Rai (Eparch of Jbeil),
Mansour Hobeika (Eparch of Zahleh) and
Nabil Anaderi (Titular Eparch of Tarsus and Auxiliary Eparch of Antioch)...

Of the above candidates, if one of them is selected then his grace Anaderi has history on his side since every eparch of his linage has become the Maronite Patriarch including his Beatitude Sfeir how held this seat prior to election.

My only concern is that with all of these resignations their will be great dis-order amongst the Maronite people when we need to be the most united.

Fush BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

Why are they resigning?

This is very alarming. Just when the government in Lebanon collapses, these eparchs resign?

Lord, have mercy.

According to the article:

According to the article, His Beatitude submitted his resignation in Feb, but Rome has yet to accept/act on it. His Beatitude is reported to have said that he is frustrated with the situation in Lebanon and wants to rest. This, I think, is understandable given that he is 91 years old.

The 6 bishops who submitted resignations are all reported to have done so as a result of reaching 75 years of age (CCEO Canon 210, §1). The article also indicates that 2 other bishops will resign in March, apparently also due to age. The Patriarch apparently did not choose to place these resignations before the recently concluded Synod, which must concur with his acceptance or rejection of them (§3, same Canon).

As a result, the Synod was unable to act on electing successors to any positions which would have been vacated by acceptance of resignations. (The Vatican is, reportedly, withholding its acceptance of the Patriarch's resignation to pressure that action first be taken on the eparchial seats.)

I find 2 things disturbing about this:

1. The Patriarch's apparent intent (referenced in the article) to visit Rome in February to discuss "with the Pope and other Vatican officials issues related to his resignation and the election of the new bishops". (These are Sees within the historical territory of the Patriarchate and acting on them is within the sole discretion of he and the Synod.)

2. The apparently blatant 'politicking' for the anticipated patriarchal vacancy, as evidenced by the 'offers to replace him'. While I'm not so naive as to think that there are not 'willing candidates' for any such vacancy, one would like to believe that any such interest would be expressed quietly and within the confines of the Synod, as we ordinarily look for such elections to reflect the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I understand Rome's point in looking for His Beatitude to take responsibility and act on the episcopal resignations before it will accept his own resignation. His Beatitude, on the other hand, may be thinking that, in fairness, his successor should have the right to express his opinions/exercise guidance in the possible election of so many hierarchs (and that having so many newly named hierarchs participate in a patriarchal election may not be a wise course of action). There is merit to both viewpoints, but one or the other must prevail quickly to avoid crippling the administration of the patriarchate.

Prayers for the brethren of our Sister Church.

Many years,

Neil

I am not a big fan of the CCEO, which is about 90 percent identical to the Latin Church's code of canon law. Just how Eastern is the "Eastern" code?

Todd,

Definitely much less than one would prefer it to be. Certainly, CCEO Canon 210, §1 (the age 75 provision) has no history with us; however, it does not go so far as to mandate acceptance of age-based resignations - rather, it requires that they be proferred. CCEO Canon 210, §3 leaves acceptance/rejection of resignations to the Patriarch, with consent of the Synod, an approach not out-of-line with Eastern praxis. In this instance, I don't think we can nail the CCEO as the culprit (unless you want to consider that the requirement to proffer resignation at age 75 is a definite factor in these situations coalescing as they have); but, I certainly don't see it as the principal causation factor.

Regretably, I think the long-standing 'special' relationship between Rome and Bkerke evidenced in the Maronite tendency to first consider Rome's attitude before undertaking any decision-making of its own has, again, come back to bite it now that its Patriarch wants to take an approach that doesn't quite follow the anticipated path. Which of the two is proposing the better route, in this instance, is not quite as clear as it might be.

Many years,

Neil

I always found it odd that the CCEO was composed in Latin, and that it repeats a massive number of the canons from the Latin Church's own code (1983 version) verbatim. To me the CCEO is the biggest Latinization ever foisted upon the Eastern Catholic Churches by the Latin Church. Just my opinion of course.

I wonder when the Pope will submit his resignation . . .

Personally I think that the Eastern Catholic patriarchs and bishops should retire when they die.

Only two of the six Bishops who wish to retire are eparchial Bishops (the Archbishop of Antélias and the Bishop of Batroun). I think it is important to understand who the remaining four titular Bishops who have handed in their resignations are:

• Bishop Roland Aboujaoudé (80) is the senior Bishop of the patriarchal Curia. He is also the senior Auxiliary and Protosyncellus of the patriarchal Eparchy of Joubbé, Sarba and Jounieh.
• Bishop Samir Mazloum (76) is the junior Bishop of the patriarchal Curia. He is also Apostolic Visitor for Maronites in Northern and Western Europe.
• Bishop Francis Némé Baïssari (77) is the Auxiliary and Syncellus for Joubbé in the patriarchal Eparchy.
• Bishop Guy-Paul Noujaim (75) is the Auxiliary and Syncellus for Sarba in the patriarchal Eparchy.

There resignation of these Bishops would leave Bishop Antoine Nabil Andari (61) as the only Bishop of the patriarchal Curia and the only Auxiliary of the patriarchal Eparchy.

Replacing these Bishops would mean replacing two out of three Bishops of the patriarchal Curia and three out of four Auxiliaries of the patriarchal Eparchy.

I think that replacing so many close collaborators of the Patriarch should probably be left until a new Patriarch is elected.

That would certainly be an interesting step.

Among other things, it would mandate re-educating the Latin Church to the fact that it is actually possible for a Pope to resign.

Neil,

there is an article about this topic at AsiaNews.it: Lebanese Maronite patriarch tenders his resignation to the Pope. It makes interesting, but somewhat depressing reading.

The article says that according to an authorized source, the news about the patriarch's intention to resign is the result of a leak from within the Maronite Synod.

It also refers to private sources who say that the patriarch is disturbed by the "careerism" of some Maronite bishops.

LC,

Thanks for that. Yes, I thought that what was termed careerism there - and which I called politicking - was more than a bit out of place.

Many years,

Neil

If memory serves, it's been done twice--and one of them wasn't even executed for it!

While I'm at it, who is the Pope to "accept" a Patriarch's resignation???

I can neither confirm nor deny; but if that's true, that only 2 out of the hundreds of popes resigned, then wow.

Shlomo Doc,

I am glad to see you back on the board. And I am doing well also. As to your points.



The following Popes have resigned from office:

*Pontian (230-235);
*Marcellinus (296 - 304);
*Silverius (536 - 537);
*John XVIII (1003 - 1009);
*Benedict IX (Pope on three occasions between 1032 and 1048);
*Celestine V in 1294; and
*Gregory XII (1406 - 1417).

As to your second point, the reason that a Catholic Patriarch sends his resignation letter to the Pope is so that the Pope as universal pastor can help determine if such a resignation is for the benefit of the Church at that time.

Even though I am a huge supporter of Eastern Catholic Church rights, in this case this procedure makes sense.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Well resignation of a head of state can lead to some interesting situations. Who would a pope hand his resignation to..the papal secratry of state?? Remember when tricky Dick turned his resignation into Henry Kissinger, who was Secretary of state at the time, in 1972 ?

I think many in the Latin Church know that in the Catholic Church (universal), there are only 2 cases whereby the office of the Supreme Pontiff becomes vacant or sedes vacante: the death of the Pope or his resignation.

The unresolved question is: to whom does the Pope tender his resignation?

Amado

This was a burning issue leading to the last days of Pope John Paul II. Many felt he was too sick to be the Pope and was expecting he would resign (at that point) soon.

I would say the Catholic Church needs to rethink its understanding of the term "Patriarch". I think the first step should be to stop using it as an honorary title for certain Latin bishop (e.g. Jerusalem).

But having said that, I think I would actually be surprised if the pope wasn't involved in Sfeir's decision to resign -- keep in mind that, in addition to being a Patriarch, Sfeir is the pastor of a parish in Rome (as are nearly all of the Eastern Catholic patriarchs).

The Emperor--the same fellow who had to ratify his election. What? You didn't know the Bishop of Rome had to get his election ratified, just like the Archbishop of Constantinople? So many problems could be resolved so easily, if only we could reestablish the Roman empire.

I don't think HB Sfeir is the "pastor" of a parish in Rome because he is the Patriarch of the Maronites. He is assigned a titular suburbicarian Church in Rome because he is a Cardinal. (BTW, even if HB Sfeir resigns as the Patriarch of the Maronites, he remains a Cardinal, unless he also resigns his cardinalate.)

Other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, who are also named Cardinals, each has his own titular suburbicarian Church in Rome.

Amado

I think it's only the East that has not recovered from the loss of her Emperor!

Amado

What are a patriarchal curia, patriarchal eparchy, and titular suburbicarian church?

And does the authority that the pope submits his resignation to have the right to not accept it?

You're quite right, Amadeus. I would have said "titular pastor", except that I figured the titular part was obvious. (One big clue is the fact that he doesn't live in Rome. )

The Code of Canon Laws says that the Pope is not obligated to submit his resignation to anyone, but it has to be public and freely given.

Now who would decide those issues I couldn't say.

I wonder what the life/garb/residence of a pope-emeritus would be like.

In the old days, they put a pillow over his head and pushed down really hard. Or they slipped something in his bed time toddy. But the Church is different now.

Amado, my brother,

So good to see a post from you, my friend . However, as is invariably the case when you and I post of patriarchs who are cardinals, we must again disagree.

Canon 350 §1 of the Latin Code says:



As you will notice, a distinction is made between 'those Cardinals to whom the Roman Pontiff assigns the title of a suburbicarian Church and eastern-Rite Patriarchs who are made members of the College of Cardinals'.

As noted in §3 of the same Canon



Thus, the title of the Maronite Patriarch is that of his Patriarchal See, Antioch; that of the Patriarch of the Chaldeans is Babylon and Ur of the Chaldees; that of the Armenian Patriarch is Cilicia; and, that of the Coptic Patriarch is Alexandria. Were the Melkite Patriarch to accept the red hat, his would be of Antioch, Alexandria, & Jerusalem; were the Syriac Patriarch to be offered and to accept the red hat, his would be of Antioch, as well.

Certain Churches in Rome are designated as Patriarchal Churches. The Patriarchal Basilicas, so-called, and those to whom they are ascribed are:

Saint John in Lateran (the Pope of Rome)
Saint Peter in the Vatican (Patriarch of Constantinople)
Saint Mary Major (Melkite Patriarch of Antioch)
Saint Paul Outside the Walls (Patriarch of Alexandria)

Each of the other Eastern Catholic Patriarchs also holds title to a Patriarchal Church. In the case of the Maronites, it is the Church of St Maroun, if I remember correctly.

Many years,

Neil

Catherine,

A patriarchal curia is defined by Canon 114 of the CCEO (the Eastern Code of Canon Law):



For all intents and purposes, the patriarchal curia is comprised of those charged with the administrative functions of the patriarchate.

As to its components, which I bulleted above:

The permanent synod is the patriarch and the four bishops who function as the synod between (the usually annual) meetings of the full synod (all bishops of the Church).

The bishops of the patriarchal curia are those bishops with particular responsibilities over and above diocesan management that touch directly on the administrative functions of the patriarchate.

The ordnary tribunal is comprised of a president, judges, promoter of justice, defenders of the bond, and other necessary officials (e.g., notaries), and ordinarily hears appeals of matters initially decided by tribunals at lower jurisdictional levels.

The patriarchal finance officer administers the material goods and monies of the patriarchate.

The chancellor (or protosynchellos) presides over the chancery and archives of the patriarchate.

The liturgical commision - pretty self-explanatory.

Such other commissions as may be required for the effective administration of the patriarchate. For example, there might be one for humanitarian works, for the educational endeavors of the patriarchate, etc.

The patriarchal curia is distinct from the curia of the patriarchal eparchy - the latter has much the same responibilities, on a much smaller scale, for the eparchy of which the patriarch himself is the presiding hierarch/bishop.

**********

A patriarchal eparchy is a canonical jurisdiction (metropolitinate, archeparchy, eparchy, however styled) of which the patriarch himself is the incumbent/reigning hierarch, although its day-to-day management might be vested in auxiliary bishops, vicars, etc.

The patriarchal eparchies are:

- the Maronites, the Eparchy of Joubbe, Sarba and Jounieh of the Maronites
- the Armenians, the Archeparchy of Beirut of the Catholic Armenians
- the Copts, the Eparchy of Alexandria of the Catholic Copts
- the Syriacs, the Eparchy of Beirut of the Syriac Catholics
- the Chaldeans, the Metropolitan Archeparchy of Baghdad of the Chaldeans
- the Melkites, the Metropolitan Archeparchy of Damascus of the Melkites

***********

A titular suburbican church (or diocese) is one of 7 dioceses in the vicinity of Rome, By long tradition, these were assigned to those cardinals who held the rank of cardinal bishop. These were individuals who had important, virtually full-time, responsibilities in the administration of the Vatican and really had no time to devote to the administration of their dioceses. As a result, they were provided with auxiliary bishops who would deal with the diocesan responsibilities. During his reign, HH John Paul II made a change and assigned an actual (not auxiliary) bishop to each of the dioceses. The cardinal-bishops no longer have any responsibilities for the dioceses, but continue to hold the titular title as if they did - although it is now merely symbolic. It's a purely Latin function and of neither concern nor particular interest to the East.

Many years,

Neil

Yeah, but if that happened the Eastern Empire would come back too and we would just have some more good old fashioned religious wars.

Interesting distinction. Thanks for filling us in on that Neil.

Thank you very much, Neil and sielos ilgesys!

Not like those wars we have now, right?