www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News BYZCATH ITALY CRITICAL SITUATION

do the romanians in italy have there own bishop?

Jesse,

The Romanian Byzantines in Italy have no bishop of their own. As a matter of fact, the only Romanian Byzantine hierarchical jurisdiction outside of Romania is the Eparchy of St George in Canton of the Romanians, here in the US.

Regretably, despite VII and the CCEO, the priests and faithful of Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches are at the mercy of the local Latin ordinary in instances where they are residing outside the historical territory of their Particular Church.

In the case of the Byzantine Romanians, this translates to anyplace outside the geographical bounds of the Metropolitan Major Archeparchy of Fagaras & Alba Iulia and its four suffragn eparchies.

Many years,

Neil

Thank you neil, then why are some married ukrainian and rutheinan catholic priests ordained here in the U.S. and Canada if they are only allowed under VII and CCEO to be ordained in their historical teritory?

Because the Ukrainian, Melkite and Romanian bishops have told Rome to take a hike, and the U.S. bishops aren't cohesive or morally credible enough to impose their will on us.

Inter alia, as far as I know, there are no married Ruthenian priests in the U.S.--unless one slipped in from the Old Country in a CONEX through Elizabeth, NJ.

We do have one in the Eparchy of Phoenix- Fr. Francis Murrin and he is from the "old country."

http://www.eparchyofphoenix.org/docs/2009-09-Van-Nuys-Newsletter.pdf

He serves, according to the Eparchy's website, at Saint Philips Byzantine Catholic Church in Sacramento, Ca.

There are two married priests (one is retired) in the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh and three or four in the Eparchy of Parma. Of those in Parma, I believe two were ordained by Bishop John.

Jesse,

Actually, prohibitions against ordination of married men to the priesthood in the diaspora don't come from VII or the CCEO. If you reread what I said, it was more along the line of 'Despite VII and the CCEO' and my point was not specific to the issue of married men being ordained.

Rather, I was pointing out that, in the diaspora (which, for these purposes is anywhere outside of a Particular Church's historical lands), if there is no bishop for the faithful of a Church sui iuris, those faithful are almost always subject to the local Latin ordinary.

Additionally, again in the diaspora, the canonical jurisdictions (eparchies, etc) of a Church sui iuris are subject to the Congregation for the Eastern Churches, rather than to the Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan of their own Church - except in matters liturgical/spiritual.

As regards married clergy in the US, see the comments by Nelson and Deacon Lance. Stuart is correct as regards the fact that a number of the Eastern Catholic hierarchs no longer look to Rome for approval of their right to ordain a married man to the priesthood. But, in fairness to the US Latin hierarchs, I doubt that there are many among them these days who would take issue with the matter if asked.

The situation in Italy, however, is definitely more complicated and it isn't the first time the issue has arisen in Europe. It happened a few years ago, with respect to Ukrainian Greek-Catholics. Someone will remember which country or countries were involved in demands made that the UGCC not assign married priests there - I can't at the moment.

Many years,

Neil

Whatever else may be said on the matter, a reasonable man considering the situation of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta must rightly and exclusively consider these the historical territory of the Ukrainians.

There is also a married priest serving the Eparchy of Phoenix, at our parish in Sacramento, CA. Ordained in Eastern Europe, he was granted permission to serve by Bishop Gerald. It just so happens his wife is originally from the Bay Area or Sacramento.

(apologies to Nelson, I did not read the whole thread...)

We don't know all the reasons. Some, as in the Ruthenian Church, were likely ordained with dispensations from the Pope obtained through the Eastern Congregation in Rome. Dispensations may be involved in some other cases (though I don't think that is the case with the Melkite Eparchy), but it's not been expressly stated. Rome's position, as noted in this thread, is that the Ban is still in effect and dispensations are needed. There is no public record made of these dispensations (we know of the Ruthenian situation because it's enshrined in their Particular Law), nor do we know which ordinations are done without dispensation. The reason I said I doubt the Melkite Church here in the US has sought dispensations is because I remember a statement by Bishop John when he ordained a married priest back in the 90s indicating he'd made the decision by himself without consulting Rome.

As to Bishops telling Rome to take a hike as mentioned by Stuart...I don't think that happens very often as the various Eastern Catholic Bishops I've read about and the few I've had the privilege of interacting with are very respectful and loyal to the Pope. One has to realize, after all, that every Eastern Catholic Bishop (even those in Patriarchal and Major Archbishop Churches) has been appointed with papal approval. Outside traditional territories, Eastern Catholic Bishops are appointed directly by the Pope. For Patriarchal and Major Archbishop Churches, the nominating list of candidates for episcopal elections is sent to Rome for papal approval beforehand. If, by some chance, someone is elected as a Bishop in one of those elections and the name was not on the approved nominating list, papal approval is sought before the person elected is informed of the election. (See canons 181-184 of the CCEO [jgray.org] .)

Fr. Mykhaylo Prodanets, a married priest from Zakarpatia, was accepted into the Eparchy of Passaic by Bp. William. He serves both the Ruthenian parish in Kingston, Pa., and the one in Wilkes-Barre Township, Pa.

Dn. Robert

Bishop Siluan Marsilianul for the Orthodox.

HG's last name is Şpan. "Marsilinaul" means "the Marsaillais," as he was consecrated titular bishop of Marseilles when he was made a auxilliary bishop. Now enthroned as the bishop of Italy, the Statute of his Church places his see at Rome. Thus Rome has an Orthodox bishop, who sits on the Holy Synod of Romania, and the Epicopal Assembly of Italy and Malta.

Btw, do the Latin clergy in Romania have to get the permission of the Romanian sui juris church to enforce mandated celibacy?

these are the kind of things I find discouraging and frustrating. How can the Roman Church push their traditions down the throats of the Eastern Church? That's not authority, that's authoritarianism. That's exactly what Jesus didn't want from his church. I feel like it has stopped being about HIM and now it's about US. I feel the roman church puts these lame excuses in order to spit on the patrimony of eastern churches. This might sound bad, but I don't blame some of them for converting to the Orthodox Church. It's not that some of them hate the Church. They just hate authoritarianism and legalism. I mean, if you and your church are treated as second-class citizens, how long can you put up with it?

just 1 suggestion for my eastern catholic brethren… why not “rebel” a little bit and disobey the “law” by keeping their tradition of ordaining married men to the priesthood while taking the case to the Pope??? I mean, what else can they do besides blabbing?