www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Why are you Catholic and not Orthodox?

Whatever "officially" means - I suppose only in the eyes of a few in Rome. We commemorate him as Patriarch every Liturgy (lex orandi), other Orthodox hierarchs refer to him as Patriarch, and even other Roman bishops and cardinals have referred to him as Patriarch (I heard Cardinal George call him that at the Patriarchal Divine Liturgy in Chicago).

Jason, where did you get that misinformation? Our Synod declared and reiterated the official "Ruthenian Rescension" books from the 1950s as normative only a few years ago, and only two years ago Patriarch +Lubomyr blessed the Anthology which is based on the 1988 Synodal translation, itself derived from the Rescension books, to be the definitive volume for music and texts for the English celebrations of our Liturgy. We are just now starting to get things somewhat standardized in English and aren't about to go down some other road.

I didn't mean to slight the UGCC on this and it wasn't my main point. As far as I know, the "few in Rome" who do not refer to the UGCC as a Patriarchal Church include the Eastern Congregation and the Pope. Almost everyone else, including myself, does refer it as a Patriarchal Church.

Unless the canons are amended (as per the current Melkite request), even if the UGCC fully becomes a Patriarchal Church election of bishops will come from a list of names pre-approved in Rome (presumably at the Eastern Congregation).

At least in our case the "pre-approval" and the approval comes from the Synod. Rome concurs or can theoretically disapprove and appoint another candidate, but as I mentioned the last time that happened was in Toronto in '92. After that snafu which happened just as our Church was emerging from the catacombs without a strong Patriarch, I don't think anyone in Rome or Kyiv ever foresees that happening again. What is on paper may be one thing, but what is reality is sometimes different.

And that very point is what started these recent discussions following the remarks from the head of the Eastern Congregation last month. His remarks shook many ecumenically minded Orthodox scholars and lay people deeply as they reflect back to the concept of reunion upon terms of submission - not brotherly rapprochement. If, as one poster alluded to earlier, if one Pope is not bound by the word of a predeccesor Pope, what trust may we Orthodox put in any documents or agreements or understanding we may reach - and what real trust can Eastern Catholics expect to receive in recognition to their admirable loyalty to the Holy See - particularly in the face of Communist oppression and American Latin-rite hostility in the 20th century?

Not meaing to go off on a tangent, but what about the Eparchy of Newton? Did Archbishop Cyril receive a pallium from the Pope, or from the Melkite Patriarch, or neither?

I hope that Churches actually acting as patriarchal Churches (sometimes in spite of Roman old-school comments like those above) shows that at least on the level of two particular Churches (Melkite and UGCC) we are starting to get serious about this.

The ACROD situation puzzles me somewhat along the lines of this discussion. If an Administrator from the GOA can be appointed for ACROD, what does that mean in terms of ecclesiastical autonomy or identity? It may be my unfamiliarity with ACROD, but the UOC-USA does not appear to have to operate under this level of administration from Constantinople or the Greek Archdiocese, and Metropolitan +Constantine of blessed memory, not the GOA primate, was the primary consecrator of +Daniel.

Getting back to my previous observation, it seems both the BCCA and ACROD are reliant on "Rome", whether the first or the second. I also suppose parallels can also be drawn to the names of the candidate primate of ACROD having to be sent to the Ecumenical Patriarchate for approval.

I can add some light to Diak's questions, which are fair - and on the minds on many, I might add.

As a self-ruling Diocese in what the EP calls the 'dispora', ACROD is entitled to elect its own Ruling Bishop through a Sobor/Assembly of its priests in good standing. The candidate must be a priest of at least five years' experience, over the age of 30 and in 'full communion' with the Ecumenical Throne.

Upon the selection of such a priest, the nomination goes to the Holy Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarch for approval. Upon that approval, the candidate may be consecrated as Bishop and enthroned. Following his enthronement, he is in no way dependent upon the EP for any internal matters within the Diocese, albeit he lacks the power to consecrate chrism - which is reserved to the head of the ruling autocephalous church. In the cases of ACROD and the UOC-USA, that is the EP.

The appointment of a locum tenens to temporarily administer the ACROD in the case of a vacancy in the position of a Ruling Bishop, in the absence of an existing auxiliary Bishop, is within the power of the Exarch of the EP - the Archbishop of America, i.e. the head of GOARCH.

The UOC-USA accepted the same terms and conditions as are contained in the Tomos accepting ACROD when they sought the omophor of the Ecumenical Throne. In the case of the vacancy of Metropolitan Constantine, of thrice-blessed memory, they had an existing plan of succession with two existing bishops - Bishop Daniel of Chicago and Archbishop Antony of Bound Brook so there was no need for an outside 'locum tenens.'

There is a good reason why the methodologies of administration Eastern Catholic churches and Orthodox churches are superficially similar in that in spite of the legalistic differentiations found within in our respective eccelesiologies, the western and eastern Churches operate in systems which evolved from the same roots. The issues over the universality of the power of the Papacy and infallibility are what divide us. The devil, of course, is in the details.

Within an Orthodox Diocese, there exists the right to select a candidate for episcopal elevation. In some jurisdictions there is a sobor of the clergy, as in ACROD, in others such as the OCA, there is a sobor of the laity and clergy with candidates vetted by the Synod of the OCA Bishops presented for consideration. In all of these cases, the selection of the candidate must be affirmed by the ruling Synod of the mother church. The difference between say the selection of a Patriarch for Serbia is that the Synod of the Serbian Church would have the final say in such an election without the need to go to Constantinople for ratification. This differentiates the election of a Patriarch for the UGCC Church from the election of an Orthodox Patriarch in that the UGCC candidate must be ratified by the Holy Father.

If there are aliens following this on some sort of intergalactic Twitter they must be shaking their heads and wonder about us Earthlings.

One more thing, the candidate for the new Ruling Bishop was not 'pushed' on us by the Greeks. We simply did not have a celibate or widowed priest who was either willing or capable to succeed Metropolitan Nicholas. It is clear from the press release issued by the Chancery in Johnstown that this concern would be on the minds of many. It is important to note the following paragraph:

"Father Grigorios is American-born of parents of Greek origin. He is currently serving as Dean of the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Cathedral in New Orleans, LA. He is a well-educated and well-respected priest who is willing to accept the call to lead the Diocese in the years to come in accordance with all its venerable Carpatho-Russian traditions, which under the omophorion of the Ecumenical Patriarchate have been preserved at the highest level of respect and honor."


It should be noted that his current parish in New Orleans has a significant number of Slavs among its members and that at Pascha, baskets are blessed there in accord with Slavic traditions.

Sorry, I mean Archbishop Nicholas.

Diak,

As I understand the canons from CCEO, it works this way:

In a Major Archbishop Church (such as the UGCC and the Romanian Greek Catholic Church), the appointment of Bishops works differently than in a Patriarchal Church. Rome has review of the suggested appointment after the Synod proposes the name (canon 168). In a Major Archbishop Church, the appointment of the Major Archbishop himself is confirmed by Rome (Canon 153).

In a Patriarchal Church (such as the Melkite Greek Catholic or the Coptic Catholic), the review by Rome is beforehand by developing a list of possible names which has been already received prior approval from Rome who then become candidates for episcopal elections (Canons 181-186). (This is the procedure which the Melkite Church has asked to be changed.) The election of a Patriarch (as long as he was already a bishop) does not require the consent of the Pope (canons 76 and 77). If the Patriarchal Synod elects someone who was not already a bishop (which would be highly unlikely), the person must first be elected a bishop which would then go back to the pre-approved list from Rome (canon 73).

As I understand things, the OCA does not have its candidates affirmed outside of the OCA since it is an autocephalous Church. True, the autocephaly is not universally recognized in Orthodoxy (though it canonical status is not disputed), but the elections of metropolitans and bishops in the OCA are handled internally.

That is correct. The head of an autonomous or authcephelous church does present his name to the other ruling Bishops of the sister churches for inclusion in the dyptychs - a formality and not a 'ratification'. The EP does not include the OCA as such, although other churches in communion with her do, such as the Church of the Czech and Slovak lands. (quite a name...)

As I observed, the aliens following us on their Twitters must shrug in confusion or amusement over such things.....

Peter,

Sayedna Nicholas is a bishop, not archbishop. To the specific question, though, he is not a Metropolitan and the pallium is only ordinarily conferred on metropolitans, primates, and the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem.

Many years,

Neil

Dear friend and brother, thank you for that information. So, to see if I understand you right, did Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros not receive a pallium either (back when he became Eparch of Newton in 2004)?

No! He was never a Metroplitan requiring a Pallium.