is it not unusual for a retired bishop to be elected to be Ruling Eparch?

(in the case of Bishop Nicholas S.)

It is somewhat unusual, but not unprecedented. There are examples from the Latin, Chaldean and Coptic Catholic Churches:

Bishop Joannes Baptist Matthijs Gijsen resigned as Bishop of Roermond in 1993, but was appointed Bishop of Reykjavík in 1996.

Archbishop Emmanuel-Karim (Delly) retired as Auxiliary of Baghdad in 2002, but was elected Chaldean Catholic Patriarch (as Emmanuel III) of Babylon in 2003 and created Cardinal in 2007.

Bishop Antonios (Naguib) resigned as Bishop of Minya in 2002, but was elected Coptic Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria in 2006 and created Cardinal in 2010.

Bishops are people. Sometimes they need an extended sabbatical.

AXIOS! AXIOS! AXIOS!

Great news!
I just met Bishop Nicholas for the first time June 5 at St. Elias in San Jose. Our Deacon asked me to go. Bishop Nicholas ordained him some years ago. I was deeply impressed by his interactions with everyone.

I am very happy for my Melkite brethren. I wish Bishop Nicholas were my bishop. He's celebrated Divine Liturgy twice at my parish. One of those times, I had the opportunity to serve at the altar.

My dear friend and brother, Dave Brown, asked



To which I replied:



Dave accepted my explanation and, I'm sure, understood my point (we've been long enough together in this place to figure out each other's cryptic mutterings without a lot of explanation). However, because the issue will likely be raised again by someone less familiar with the nitty-gritty details of such things, I might as well explain in more detail.

Canon 181 of the CCEO distinguishes between bishops named to posts in the diaspora (Rome appoints) and those named to posts in the historic territories (Synod elects). That point is pretty well understood and we rarely discuss anything beyond that. Why?

Probably because we don't pay a lot of attention to elections and appointments of hierarchs in the historical territories. Our focus is usually on the happenings in the diaspora, where we are inevitably angered by the fact of Rome's 'appointment' authority. So, we mentally 'stop' at Canon 181 and rarely talk about the text of 182 and following:

The CCEO gives the Pope the authority to 'assent' to candidates nominated by the Synod (and, therefore, ultimately - if somewhat indirectly, to their election). Most of us who know that tend to forget about or ignore it, because the happenings in those Sees haven't as much effect on the majority of us.



Canons 183 and subsequent go into further detail. See here.

Obviously, we also prefer to ignore this further intrusion upon the independence of our patriarchs and synods, since we like to explain that patriarchal authority in the historical territories is unfettered, unlike the situation in the diaspora. In fact, it's probably more honest to say that it is less fettered.

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

I agree that the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs and Synods are not completely free to elect bishops within the patriarchal territory. The Pope, effectively, holds a veto.

From what you write, though, it is perhaps not quite clear that there are two ways of electing bishops within the patriarchal territory:

1. The Synod elects a bishop and afterwards requests papal assent. The election only takes effect after papal assent has been obtained. This sometimes takes time.

2. The Synod makes a list of candidates which are "preapproved" by the Pope. The Synod is then free to elect anyone from the list as bishop and the election takes effect immediately.

The second option, I think, is meant to help avoid delay, but I'm not sure whether it is used very much.

The above refers only to the election of new bishops within the patriarchal territory (and is therefore strictly speaking off topic in this thread). There are different rules for transferring a bishop, and for appointing bishops outside the patriarchal territory.

Wasn't Archbishop Raya brought out of retirement at some point?

The new Eparch for Australia will have his work cut out for him. Today I went the one and only Melkite Church in my state on the western side of the continent and was scandalised at what was being passed off as the Byzantine Liturgy. God help the Melkites if this is what they have sunk to. It was totally opposite of all papal instructions to observe the rite correctly. The priest was not even wearing all the vestments.

It could not be descripted as Latinised, as Latins at their worst, dont do things so badly. I do note the tendency of some Eastern Church clergy to select the abuses of the Latin Rite to copy into their own Rites. Clearly they dont know what good liturgy is for their own church and certainly have no idea of the same for the Latin Rite.

A church kept open for 40 people needs to either get it right, or close their doors. The national census (5 yrs ago) for this state records only has just under 40 people describing themselves as Melkite and today someone told me many of those actually go to Latin churches.

Many years to the new Eparch but he has his work cut out for him in his Eparch, never mind any dreams of expanding the Eparchy into other countries.

Pavel,

Sounds like a serious lack of leadership there. UGH.

Hope your new Sayedna takes the bull by the horns.

Tom

I understand that the Melkite church in London (UK) suffers from a similar form of liturgical transvestitism. The silence from our hierarchy is deafening!

Pavel, any details, which I could forward to Sayidna? He travels and sends the vicar-general regularly to keep an eye on things there.

I share your concerns about the liturgies. I was shocked when I attended the Sunday evening liturgy in the Melkite Cathedral in Sydney earlier this year. It was recited, no incense. It lasted a little less than 30 minutes. And when I asked about it, I was first told that the people cannot stand long liturgies. When I brought that to the bishop, he recommended me to go to St. John's in Greenacre to "see" a better liturgy.
W.r.t to expansion of the Australian Eparchy to other countries, as someone intimately involved in such an undertaking, they only do it after some pushing, and I hope the new bishop continues to cooperate with my friends and myself to bring the Melkites to my country. And we hope that the eparchy can move a little bit more swiftly. That's my personal opinion, but as they say, a thousand years is equal to one day in God's eyes.

Davin, with regards to the expansion of any eparchy, there are procedures and permissions that need to be looked into. It is not that they don't want to, but there are many things involved.

As for what you saw at the cathedral in Sydney, the same priest celebrates the weekday liturgies at Greenacre in that fashion, akin to a low Mass in the Extraordinary Form. But having said that, there are still Latinisations that we all need to work on weeding out.

Does anyone know when all the newly appointed bishops will be taking us residence in their new posts and when and where Archimandrite Robert will be ordained as a bishop?

Shlomo Pavel,

Many of our Eastern Chruches are not just Latinized but Protestantized also. My Church's English Liturgy is so bastardized it would make you screem.



The 9:30 Liturgy which is suppose to be all in English except for the mandated Syriac is done in English and the Syriac ignored. The pastor has a guitar mass at this time, and the ligurgy is so poor as to make those of us who are Maronites stay away. The Eparch knows about the abuses but just throws up his hands since this parish just wants the "native" Lebanese Maronites to be taken care of, and the heck with the rest of us.

The only good thing that is happening is that a number of Latin Catholics are coming over to our Church because of the narrow-mindedness of the Latin Diocese. The Diocese asks for a great deal of money and make the process for baptism as complicated as possible. My pastor has told people just to come over and he will do the baptism. Not only that but their is a Lutheran Church across the street from the Church where the Latin Chancellor is pastor. Members of his Church have gotten so upset with him they have crossed the street to have their kids baptised, and they do not have to pay through the noses.

Fush BaShlomo,
Yuhannon