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

Durak, "sui iuris" is purely a Roman canonical term devised by Roman canonists and has been around awhile. This is actually part of the problem. The use of Roman canonical concepts and models to establish the ecclesiastical structure of Eastern Churches is, if even implicit and not consciously intended that way, a form of "uniatism".

"Autonomous" and "autocephalous" are terms used to describe the independent canonical situation of Orthodox churches or jurisdictions outside of the patriarchates/churches of their origin. I would hope these terms rather than terms borrowed from Roman canon law be considered at the next revision of the Eastern code (which probably won't be in my lifetime).

dear Diak:

I wouldn't be surprise if it DID happen in your lifetime [a revision of the Code]. Certainly I think that the particular laws of the various Sui Iuris Churches will happen in your lifetime.

I recall your mentioning that the US UGCC had promulgated a particular law for local use? I don't think there is one for other parts of the UGCC is there? Any news that this is happening for the entire sui iuris Church?

Any further news re the Promulgation of the Particular Law for the Ruth. BCC?

BTW I don't have any problem with the term "sui iuris" per se, because if translated into Greek, it is "auto nomos", i.e. "Autonomous" in English.

Ergo even the Vatican considers us "autonomous Churches". And I can't believe that the Code's canonists nor his All Holiness the Pope himself would be unaware of the implications of this nomenclature in the context of the Christian East. So voila there it is!!!

The fact that the term is usually used untranslated from the latin...is rather...curious. Perhaps they are afraid of people getting the wrong idea - those unfamiliar with Orthodox ecclesial polity.

I hope it is not because they are afraid of people getting the right idea - if translated.

herb

Those are some good points, Herb - I guess you can look at the glass as "half full" or "half empty".

It was, after all, Rome who promulgated the wonderful "Ordo Celebrationis" at the request of Metropolitan Sheptytsky over the objections of all of those latinized Ruthenian bishops. But I'm not sure I share your optimism that the Roman canonists really understand the full ecclesiastical implications of what they have done. But needless to say it is a great improvement over the existing law, but there is still a lot of room for improvement. I guess we have to walk before we run.

The UGCC eparchy in Australia has its own particular law now as well. And although not particular law, you probably know that the Patriarchal Synod issued the "Catechetical Directory for the Ukrainian Catholic Church" in 2000. It's a real gem. And several other eparchies worldwide are working on their own eparchial statutes modelled on the U.S. Archeparchial Statutes.

Kyr David (Motiuk), the UGCC auxiliary bishop of Winnipeg, is a canon lawyer.

We will need our own canonists if we are to eventually promulgate our own law as Eastern Catholics. Something else to work on, I guess.

Hello:

Upon election, the Pope of Rome does issue a statement of faith.

In fact, this statement is made public and therfore, not only the Patriarchs, but actually every Joe and Jill has the oportunity to see if he or she wants to be in communion with the newly elected Supreme Pontiff.

Of course, nobody receives the statement of faith of the Pope as the Pope receives the statement of faith from the Patriarchs. The office of Supreme Pontiff is substantially different from that of a Patriarch.

A Patriarch is submitting the statement of faith to his ecclesiastic superior. The Pope has none.

As to the Roman Church being absolutely self-governing, well, that depends.

Strictly speaking the authority over the Latin Church is the Patriarch of the West, not the Pope, but of course, the fact that these two offices are held by the same person makes it look like the Pope was actually heading the Latin Church in a way that is different from all other Churches.

I'd also like to add that all other Latin dioceses and provinces are subject to the the Holy See and depend on the Holy See for governance, in pretty much the same way, if not even more, than the Eastern Catholic Eparchies.

Finally, if you are talking about the individual Diocese of Rome, here happens something even funnier: The Pope, even though he is the local ordinary for the Diocese of Rome, usually delegates ALL the administration of the Diocese to a Cardinal Vicar.

So, actually, the Church of Rome, might be one of the LEAST self-governing Dioceses in the entire Catholic Church.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Friends,

Ultimately, though, what the Pope says - goes.

Ultimately, our "own" canon lawyers are more than likely more "papal than the Pope himself."

Ultimately, the best way of addressing canon law for the Eastern Churches is by: a) leaving them alone; b) getting rid of "Eastern canon law" altogether.

But I don't see the Pope of Rome ever informing the Eastern Catholic Churches of anything upon his election.

Rome sees us as under the Vatican umbrella and so, when it rains, we remain drip-free at the same time as the Latin Church does.

We should start the process of redressing this issue from our own backyard first.

By not having our bishops tremble before Rome Almighty with respect to the normal exercise of their Particular rights.

By sometimes simply ignoring Rome's decrees about our Churches like so much dirty-talk written on the sidewalks by hooligans.

By simply going about our own business without a care for what Rome thinks, proudly and with a sense of some superiority given our Eastern background which is where the Catholic Church got started in the first place.

What does the barbarian West know?

Alex

Hallelujah! Let's pray that our all of our bishops will stop cowering and stand up at least to the height of adults.

Dan Lauffer

Well, if this works as a consolation , among Orthodox these terms Autonomous and Autocephalous receive diverse interpretations that often get mixed with other issues, and the same troubles you byzantine Catholics have in terms of jurisdiction outside the traditional Patriarchal terrirories, are also present.

For example, the Albanian Orthodox Church has an Autocephalous status granted by the Ecumenical patriarchate and fully recognized by the Orthodox Churches. But this Church has no jurisdiction over the Albanian Orthodox faithful outside Albania. Albanian Orthodox in USA are now in two different dioceses, one is under the EP (the status is similar to that of the Church of Metropolitan Nicholas of the ACROD), and the other is part of the OCA. Albanian faithful in Europe go to the established Greek parishes, and in Italy they are often received by the Latin Church.

The Church of Greece is also Autocephalous and has its own head, ArchBishop Christodoulos of Athens and All Greece, but he has no jurisdiction over the Greek faithful outside Grec, they are all under the EP dioceses and the Church of Greece is not allowed to establish parishes outside Greece.

There's also one thing, the EP claims it has jurisdiction over all faithful outside Patriarchal Orthodox Churches, but many Mexican parishes which were once part of the EP were transfered to Moscow P. and are now under the Orthodox Church in America, the status of this venerable Church has not yet been defined.

Dear Remie,

I understand the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate, is "autonomous."

What does that mean exactly? It obviously doesn't imply the independence of "autocephalous."

Alex