www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Chaldean Patriarch suspends 12 priests/monks

Just when I thought this issue couldn't get any more hot-button.

OK. I can agree with that. But I should note that there is a fine line between "disregard," on the one hand, and oikonomia/dispensation, on the other.

I think this perception is only apparent, and not real, for several reasons:
(1) It appears that the Latins have the run of the globe because they have Latin parishes and dioceses even in the Traditional non-Latin territories. But don't we non-Latins also have parishes and eparchies in Latin territories? So don't we have the "run of the globe" as well?
(2) It only appears that the Latins have the run of the globe because the Pope of Rome is their patriarch, as well as being the head bishop of the Church universal. The action of establishing eparchies/dioceses of a Church of a particular Tradition within the jurisdictional territories of a Church of another particular Tradition is a genuine inter-patriarchal matter. That being so, it is within the competence of the head bishop of the Church universal to establish such eparchies/dioceses. This is a sure standard according to the ancient AC 34.
(3) The confusion lies in the fact that Patriarchs have the prerogative to establish eparchies/dioceses within their patriarchal jurisdiction for a group of WHATEVER Tradition. This means that the Patriarch of Antioch, for example, can establish a diocese for Latins in his territorial jurisdiction. It also means that the Patriarch of the Latins can establish eparchies for Easterns and Orientals in his territorial jurisdiction. But to be perfectly clear, though a patriach has the authority to establish eparchies/dioceses within his territorial jurisdiction, he does not have the authority to do so in the territorial jurisdiction of another patriarch.

IMO, the confusion would be overcome to a great extent if the Latin dioceses within the territorial jurisdiction of the non-Latin patriarchs/major-archbishops were established with the authority of that non-Latin patriarch/major archbishop. Unfortunately, due to the exigencies of history, given the sad, historic jealousies between the Churches, it was not likely in the past that a Patriarch of an Eastern or Oriental Tradition would establish a Latin eparchy for the Latins. And why should they? Is not the ancient praxis of the Church simply to absorb any immigrant Christians of whatever Traditions into your Church? For the benefit of the Eastern and Oriental Churches, the Pope of Rome did something new (or used oikonomia, or broke with Tradition, depending on your point of view) and was the first Patriarch to establish an eparchy/diocese for Easterns/Orientals in his own territorial jurisdiction. Would our Patriarchs do the same for the Latins? As stated, if they would be willing to do that, it would lessen the confusion. Currently the Pope of Rome, NOT as Patriarch of the Latins, but as head bishop of the Church universal, establishes dioceses for Latins in non-Latin traditional territories. But if our Patriarchs/major-archbishops were more proactive in establishing those dioceses for Latins within their territory by their own authority (which is their right), I really believe it will lessen the confusion.

Humbly,
Marduk

No we do not. Of course our people can move anywhere, but if they move out of the defined territory into a place with no eparchy/exarchate they must rely on the cooperation of the Latins. Again the full power of the Eastern Catholic Synods are curtailed outside their defined territory, not so for the Latins. If you think the Orthodox don't take note of this you are sadly mistaken.

I don't know where you get the idea Patriarchs can erect Latin diocese. Even if they could, there is no need. There are Latin diocese/vicariates apostolic in every country of traditional Eastern Catholic territory.

And you are incorrect, the Pope did nothing new. From ancient times, Byzantine parishes existed in Roman territory and Latin parishes existed in Byzantine territory.

Our Patriarchs ordain our own bishops even outside the traditional territories (the papal assent is just a rubber stamp, only relevant in areas where there is obvious secular government intrusion into the affairs of the Church). And we have our own laws for our people outside of the traditional territories. What else do you propose we need?

Because the canons say the Patriarch can erect an eparchy/diocese in his own territory under his own power. If he chooses to do so for Latin subjects, he can. Nothing says he can't. I suppose no Patriarch has ever tried because Latins normally appeal to the Pope to erect their ecclesiastical structures. Maybe Latins should try appealing to the local Patriarch. The only question would be the Patriarch's decision to do it or not.

Yes, the Pope did something new. Establishing a diocese of a different Rite with its own bishop of a different Rite is something new. Individual parishes have always existed in the past, but they were under the omophor of local hierarchs of a different Rite. Such a situation had a bad side-effect, for instance, the Constantinopolitan Patriarch closed all the Latin parishes wtthin his jurisdiction in the past It was not moral, but he had the canonical right to do so. The present situation in the CC's, of our own bishops having personal jurisdiction in the Traditional territory of the Latins is indeed something new -- and something good.

Humbly,
Marduk

I propose Eastern Catholic Churches have complete jurisdiction to do as they need anywhere in the world without running it by Rome first. thus is the only solution that the Orthodox will respect.

Canon uses specific names for jurisdictions. The CCEO makes no mention of Patriarchs erecti diocese for Latins, only eparchies for their faithful.

And you are incorrect. The Pope did have Byzantine eparchies in his territory, most famously Thessalonika and Southern Italy/Sicily.

Hard to know what to say on this thread, as it's hard to know what to make of this thread thus far. But I think one thing is safe to say: ultramontanism is alive and well among modern Catholics.

So now you're saying that their closing was a "side effect" of having them in the first place? Maybe I shouldn't be surprised ... but wow.

P.S. Anyone want to [try to] get back to the topic of this thread?

Huh? It was a side effect of being under the omophor of an hierarch of a different Rite. It was not a side effect of their existence. You have a -- unique -- way of looking at things, brother.

We are on topic because the issue involves an appeal to the Pope of Rome.

Blessings

So by the same standard, the Coptic Patriarch should, for example, be able to erect a diocese in Russia without the input of the Russian Patriarch at all? Is what you are proposing, that there should no longer be any territorial jurisdictional limits? Or is it only the Latins that don't deserve respect? As unpalatable as it may sound, it is a fact that most of the diaspora was evangelized by the Latins first, and established dioceses there long before the Easterns or Orientals set foot there. And the blood of their missionaries were spilled in those lands as a testament to the Faith they spread. If anyone wants to brand me a latinizer simply because I have respect for the reality that much of the "New World" is Latin jurisdictional territory for the facts above, then so be it. I'm all for the preservation of our Traditions and the rights of our hierarchs, but we also have to respect the rights of their hierarchs.

Well, the CCEO only uses the term "eparchy" and the CIC only uses the term "diocese." It's a distinction without a difference. If a Latin Catholic chooses to live in the Traditional territory of a non-Latin hierarch, the Latin becomes one of the faithful of that non-Latin hierarch for whom he is responsible spiritually.

As I understand it, these areas were always of a non-Latin Tradition due to the demographics. So it's not an analogous situation where a new eparchy is established, of a different Rite than the surrounding ecclesiastical territory.

Humbly,
Marduk

Yes that is exactly what I am proposing. In the day of instantaneous communication and the ability to travel distances in a couple hours that once took a couple days, territory is largely becoming meaningless. An Eastern Catholic Church should be able to erect parishes and eparchies where their faithful are located. Should they inform the local hierarch, yes. Need his permission, no.

And what you suggest is a paper situation that does not exist in reality. There is no country that is traditionally Eastern that does not have at least a Latin vicar apostolic. The only situation that comes close is Ethiopia where the North is considered Ethiopian territory and South considered Latin territory, even though there is mixture of populations. However, this situation has resulted in a terribly Latinized Ethiopian Catholic Church that not only refuses Communion to infants but postpones Chrismation to late adolescence like the Latins.

I know that's what you believe (heck, I was the one who called you on it the last time you said it) but your believing it doesn't change the fact that the idea is absolute garbage, like saying that inter-racial violence is a "side effect" of different races living in the same area.

What a tragedy, Rev. Fr. Deacon Lance!

Better not to have such an EC church if it is going to simply be such a Latinized branch that immeasureably harms, rather than promotes, the ideal of future communion with Rome and all the other Apostolic Churches!

(And Rome also expunged the commemoration of St Pontius Pilate from the Ethiopian calendar. Why doesn't Rome pay attention to its own calendar since her own Bollandists affirm that St Joasaph who is commemorated on the Latin Calendar under November 27th is none other but the Buddha . . .).

When I read something like this, I wonder why bother with EC Churches at all?

Alex

??????

1) The Ethiopian Church considers Pontius Pilate a "Saint"?

2) Regarding St. Joasaph....???????

Right! Yikes!...

Continued prayers for this horrible situation.

Dear Talon,

Yes, indeed - the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church venerates Pontius Pilate together with his wife, St Claudia Procla (which the Byzantine Churches also venerate) and his feastday in Ethiopia is July 2nd.

They also place the "Letter of Pilate to Herod" and some other documents into their New Testament which talk of how Pilate came to repent and become a Christian and then die by beheading in Rome under Tiberius Caesar.

St Joasaph Prince of India is considered by the Bollandists and other contemporary hagiographers to have been the Buddha - the story of the Buddha's conversion was translated into Greek and he was placed into the calendar. He, St Abenner his father and the monk Barlaam who converted him are also on the Eastern Orthodox calendar which rejects the contemporary assessment of his identity.

Alex