www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West sui iuris = autonomous?

In what way is "sui iuris" status the same or different from being "autonomous"?
Thank you for your input.

Hi:

Both terms have the same meaning (the former is Latin, the later comes from the Greek language).

And therefore, they both should mean the same.

In reality, "Sui Iuris" is a term used mostly in the Catholic Church to designate the Churches with have the right to create their own canon law.

"Autonomous" is a term used mostly in the Orthodox Churches to designate those Churches which are self-governing to a certain degree in internal matters, but their primates are appointed or confirmed by the autocephalous Church which nurtures them.

An "Autocephalous" Church, within Orthodoxy is completely self-governing. It elects its own primate.

We would have to be cautious in making correlations. Metropolitan and Eparchial Sui Iuris Churches in the Catholic Church are much like the Autonomous Orthodox Churches.

Major Archiepiscopal Sui Iuris Catholic Churches elect their own primate, but the election has to be confirmed by Rome, so they are somewhere in-between, but still considered more like Autonomous than Autocephalous.

Patriarchal Sui Iuris Catholic Churches elect their own primate, and could be considered Autocephalous. But, their primates (the Patriarchs), sitll have to request communion with Rome to remain within the Catholic communion, and they still answer to the Pope as Supreme Pontiff (although not as Patriarch of the West, as they are his peers in that office).

In addtion to all of that, the Pope as Supreme Pontiff has immediate, ordinary episcopal powers over all the Catholic faithful, including those belonging to Sui Iuris Churchs other than the Latin, regardless of ecclesiastical "rank".

Therefore, and by the grace of God, the idea of an absolutely self-governing Church is not really an option in the Catholic Church.

Shalom,
Memo.

Unless you belong to the Church of Rome.

The reason I think this way is because, in all this talk about Eastern Catholic Patriarchs requesting upon their election communion with the Pope of Rome, there is never any mention of a new Pope of Rome having to request communion with the Eastern Patriarchs.

If a Pope dies, the Eastern Patriarchs are still alive (generally). When a new Pope is elected, does he have to request communion with these? I have never heard of it, and would be glad to know if this actually happens, but I don't think it does.

So yes, there is no self-governing Catholic Church in that respect, with one exception: Rome. The Eastern Catholic Churches, in one way or another, answer to Rome (their Patriarchs requesting communion with Rome, for example), but Rome doesn't have to answer to the Eastern Patriarchates (a new Pope doesn't have to request communion with them).

Why is this the case?

Mor Ephrem:

The Pope, as the Supreme Pontiff and as the Universal Pastor of the Church, is considered by us Romans at a level above any Patriarch.

As successor to Peter, the chief of the Apostles, the Pope occupies the headship over all bishops worldwide.

AmdG

Because, apparently, "Supreme Pontiff" trumps "Patriarch." And to affirm this is what makes Catholics Catholic.

Then what happened to "Patriarch of the West"??

Apparently, this is a title less than Supreme Pontiff and above Bishop of Rome. A never-never land for Catholics.

Mor,

You ask "Why is this the case?".

I believe it is because Catholics consider the Pope the center of unity of their church. Might not be what we Orthodox believe, but hardly sounds like a difficult concept to understand.

Axios

dear Mor Eph.

By "mention", if you mean "does this happen", I must reluctantly agree with you. I does not happen. Which doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. Of course it should! Perhaps let us say: "it hasn't happen as of yet...."

If you mean "has anyone every mentioned it", of couse it has been mentioned. Off the top of my head, by no less personages than such as His Eminence Archbishop Elias (Zogby) erstwhile of Baalbek and such theologians as Johannes Madey!

They propose that when His all holiness the Latin Patriarch and Pope of older Rome is elected by his Cardinals (members of the Latin Church), that he send his profession of faith to the other Patriarchs who will receive it and vice versa, naturally. As you see it is not a universally understood concept in the Catholic Communion, indeed not even within some of our Autonomous Churches.

So we amongst the Orthodox in Communion with Rome recognize that there is a problem here. But rest assured, we are working on it!

Things are changing more quickly than we think [though perhaps less quickly than we want].

herb

From what I've understood, the main problem is not that the hierarchs are appointed or need to be confirmed by the Pope.
The main problem you have is your relationship with the Latin Bishops outside the Patriarchal lands. The Suprime jurisdiction of the Papacy over all Catholics is often seen as the pre-eminence of the Latin Bishops and the Latin Church over the other Churches. This is why you've had troubles with married clergy and other traditions that the Latin Bishops rejected.
The complex legal system of the Latin Church and the status given to your Churches may have generated these abuses by the Latin Bishops.

This doesn't happen with the Autocephalous Orthodox Churches because they are truly autonomous. However the lack of order has caused the problem of jurisdictionalism, disputes for territories and lack of unity.

We need to find a third way

God bless you Remie; and your open mind. If no one else tells you they appreciate it, I will tell you that I do. God Bless you. Egzabiher ke-ante gar yihun!

Herb,

You wrote:

"If you mean "has anyone every mentioned it", of couse it has been mentioned. Off the top of my head, by no less personages than such as His Eminence Archbishop Elias (Zogby) erstwhile of Baalbek and such theologians as Johannes Madey!

They propose that when His all holiness the Latin Patriarch and Pope of older Rome is elected by his Cardinals (members of the Latin Church), that he send his profession of faith to the other Patriarchs who will receive it and vice versa, naturally. As you see it is not a universally understood concept in the Catholic Communion, indeed not even within some of our Autonomous Churches."

Do you have a link or a reference for these statements? Mutual submission to a common faith would certainly be a major step in moving the Church away from the scholastic nominalism that dominates much of Roman Catholic thinking to a much more solid foundation of a commonly held faith. I suspect that Mor Ephrem's comments along with Axios' and others point out the essential weakness in the phrase "in communion with" when there is no sign of humility given by the Patriarch of the West toward the Patriarchs of the East. Just because "the Pope says so" is not an adequate basis for mutual communion, is it? This is just nominalism in action and will never be accepted by the Orthodox nor should it.

Dan Lauffer

Madey, John. "Orientalium Ecclesiarum more than Twenty Years After" (Vadavathoor, Kottayam: Pontifical Oriental Institute of Religious Studies, 1987)

Zogby, (Abp.) Elias, "A Voice from the Byzantine East" (West Newton: Educational Services Diocese of Newton, 1992).

Enjoy!

herb

Aklie: God bless you too!

According to that option, would the Pope send his profession of Faith to the Bishops of each diocese of the world too?

I think the idea is this:

Each bishop is in communion with the universal Church via his Metropolitan and the Metropolitan via his Patriarch [or equivalent].

The Patriarchs are in communion with the universal Church via their interCommunion one with another, beginning with their sending/receiving from one another their respective professions of faiths.

The fact that the Pope of Older Rome should participate in this is, I believe, the ancient practice and does not necessarily diminish his "Primus", all the while affirming his {and the other Patriarch's} "inter pares".

This is corroborated by Greek usage [as I am told; it is at least the ancient usage] is that the local presbyter commemorates only his Bishop in the Div. Liturgy. The Eparch commemorates his Metropolitan. The Metropolitan commemorates the Primate. And the Patriarch commemorates the other Patriarchs. {Which was why it was such a big deal for the Patriarch of Moscow, at one point during the controversy over the Estonian Orthodox Church, to not commemorate the Ecumenical Patriarch.}

The Eastern Canon law however prescribes the Russian usage wherein ALL the hierarchs are commemorate at EVERY occasion [not even just during the Diptychs], plus of course the Pope of older Rome.

herb