www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Patriarchal Unions?

Canons from the Councils of Nicaea I and Chalcedon explicitly prohibit more than one bishop residing in a city or claiming that city's name as his see. So, I am wondering...if both the west and east churches enter into communion once more, what will be the status of the ancient churches? Alexadnria, Jerusalem and Antioch have multiple Patriarchs...so how could all this be resolved? All resign simultaneously and the united Synods can elect a new Patriarch or will it all boil down to who has Apostolic Succession? In the case of Antioch, from what I gather relations are very cordial between all 5 primates and all are friendly. Yet who IS the Patriach of Antioch - the canons say that there is only ONE? From a purely historical viewpoint (and my Orthodoxy does not come into play!)...it appears that the best claimants are the Greek Orthodox and the Syric Orthodox (I think!), though I think most would say that the latter has the best claim...but then I am not sure of the status of the eastern Catholic patriarchs. In Jerusalem, the case appears somewhat clearer - no one questions the Apostolic validity of all three - yet surely the Greek line is the "correct" one (for a lack of a better word?) - Latin one came in with crusades whilst the Armenian was only raised to the rank in the 14th century. In Alexandria, perhaps the Coptic one is the correct one? I am really just speculating; curious as how the problem can be solved as it is contrary to the canons....

Or perhaps we can have a version of "Its a Royal Knockout" called "Its a Patriarchal Knockout"

Anton!

Dear Anton,

Certainly, the early Church Councils could never foresee the coming of cultural nationalism into the Church!

The Greeks established their Patriarchates on the grounds that the Miaphysites were outside the Church and therefore the Sees were vacant- "See their vacant" or "SeeTheirVacantism."

I think the Armenians offer us a good model here, as they have more than one Patriarch in their Church.

As with Alexandria, the Coptic Pope, the ancient and original claimant would never admit to being the "dropped Copt" and so would be on top.

The Greeks could have a Metropolitan for their members, as the Coptic Church is liturgically different from the Greeks, and other Churches could have their Metropolitans and bishops respectively - all of which acknowledge the Pope of Alexandria as the Patriarch there.

The same can be said for Antioch.

But with the spectre of nationalism and national Churches thrown in, this would all be very touchy.

Alex

Don't the Eastern Catholic multiple particular churches in the U.S. have overlapping jurisdiction? And sometimes multiple bishops in the same city?

Dear Eric,

And your point is . . .?

Alex

Hello Anton:

In the event of a reunion, couldn't we just change the canons to reflect the present reality, which was unknown to the ancient Church? This could be done in an ecumenical council, which would have the same authority as Nicea and et the other councils that set those canons.

Regards,

John McAlpine

Anton wrote:
<<Canons from the Councils of Nicaea I and Chalcedon explicitly prohibit more than one bishop residing in a city or claiming that city's name as his see. So, I am wondering...if both the west and east churches enter into communion once more, what will be the status of the ancient churches? >>

Dear John,

I don't know what to say as this is a point that I am in total agreement with you!

Although when it comes to nationalism and cultural identity, "states" are also involved as with Purgatory . . .

There are also Canons that have fallen into disuse. Certainly the Church has the authority to revise, revamp and bring back to life.

Alex

Hello Alex and all:

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I treasure every one I get! And you're right about canons falling into disuse. It's a much different world now than 17 centuries ago.

It funny, the other day I was looking through an old copy of the 1994 Annuario Pontificio, which lists all Catholic dioceses, whether Roman or Eastern, in communion with Rome. One of the listings is that of titular bishops, who were called until almost the twentieth century bishops "in partibus (infidelium)", bishops "in the lands of the infidels" ( I have heard that Leo XIII changed the name because of Turkish protests). I was interested because a man I knew in high school is listed in it as titular Bishop of Esco, an extinct diocese in Romania, I think. His real job was, until recently, Auxiliary Bishop of Detroit, but is now Coadjutor, I think, of Grand Rapids. When he succeeds to Grand Rapids he will take that title and Esco will be open again. Let me ask you about the practice in the East.

Do Eastern Orthodox also have titular bishops? I know that Eastern Catholics do, since the Annuario lists the titular bishop of Pergamum as the auxiliary to the Ruthenian Archeparchy of Pittsburgh. And although I noticed many extinct sees of the East as well as the West, like the metropolitan sees of Achrida (Ochrid, Yugoslavia), Thessalonika, Ephesus, Damascus, Philippi, and the suffragan sees of Pergamum, Jamnia (Palestine), Glastonbury (England), Thois (Egypt), only Pergamum and Glastonbury were held as titles in 1994. I have also noted a lot of hierarchs with titles listed on the home pages of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. These must be the same thing. Do you or others know what they're called?

By the way, although some Eastern dioceses and at least one ancient English diocese are titular sees, it may be that there is no other hierarch at all with residential title to them. Of the four ancient patriarchates there are residential Catholic hierarchs with the titles for all except Constantinople, which also has no titular with the title. It may be that Rome here is trying to observe those ancient canons that forbid more than one holder of a bishopric, even though for some of these there are no longer any Christians there. I also know that all Catholic dioceses were territorial for this reason until the twentieth century, when non-territorial Eastern dioceses with jurisdiction overlapping that of Latin dioceses were established in the US and Canada especially. So Rome was observing these canons. Do you have any light to shed on all this?

Thanks,

John McAlpine

P.S. I don't capitalize the word "purgatory".

Good evening John,

In your last post, you mentioned that Bishop Kevin Britt would vacate the titular see of Esco (Oescus) when he succeeds to Grand Rapids. Actually, he vacated that see when he was named Coadjutor of Grand Rapids on December 10, 2002.

Since mid 1976 coadjutor bishops do not hold titular sees. When a titular bishop is named a coadjutor, he vacates his titular see at that moment. The titular see of Esco was filled again January 24, 2003 when Father Gustavo Garcia-Siller, M.Sp.S., was named to that see and as auxiliary of Chicago.

The list of titular sees includes many from Ireland, England, Scotland, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and the United States. There are also a few from Canada, Chile, Greenland, and Iceland, among others. One of the U.S. sees is Sault Sainte Marie in Michigan, also filled on January 24th by another Chicago auxiliary.

The list of titular sees in the Annuario Pontificio also includes titular sees for the Armenian, Maronite, Melkite, Chaldean, and Syriac Churches, as well as one for the Syro-Malabar Church.

Peace,

Charles

The resolution is simple. The canon will be repealed.

Axios

Hello Charles:

Thanks for the information. I hadn't known that.

Regards,
John

Charles had written:

<<Since mid 1976 coadjutor bishops do not hold titular sees. When a titular bishop is named a coadjutor, he vacates his titular see at that moment. The titular see of Esco was filled again January 24, 2003 when Father Gustavo Garcia-Siller, M.Sp.S., was named to that see and as auxiliary of Chicago.>>

Dear John,

We had a funny situation in the Eastern Canadian Eparchy of the Ukrainian Catholic Church just a few years back.

Rome appointed us an "Apostolic Administrator" who was assigned to the now defunct cathedral seat of . . . Nyssa. That's right, St Gregory's old turf!

Why this was done - no one really knows. It seemed odd and conflicts developed here that were only resolved once the Apostolic Administrator was finally sent to Rome - where he still is today - and a new Bishop of Toronto was appointed, our Bishop Cornelius (or "Cornie" as we fondly refer to him).

Would you have any idea why our Eparchy would get a "Bishop of Nyssa?"

You are a Latin, don't you have a pipeline into the Vatican?

Alex

Hello Alex:

I don't have any better a pipeline than yours, believe me! From what you've said it seems that your apostolic administrator, probably on being named such, was to be consecrated a bishop, but since he was not to have actual title to the eparchy, they had to give a title of some see to him, and they chose Nyssa. Cool, in a way, because it shows a respect, I think, for the ancient canons and traditions: as Antoni said, there can only be one bishop for one see, though the reality is that often a see needs the services of more than one bishop. So this is the solution that suits both the reality of today and still pays homage to the ancient tradition.

I think Rome names apostolic administrators either because they have in mind their own choice, or simply because they don't want an administrator selected by the diocesan/eparchial consultors. For example, at the same time Rome accepted the resignation of Cardinal Law of Boston it announced that one of Law's auxiliaries would be apostolic administrator: this indicates that he was probably Law's choice, and the Holy See concurred in it.

I have heard that this usage of "titular" bishops sort of grew up in the West in the wake of the barbarian invasions. This was real devastation: I have just been reading some verses written on the ruin of Aquileia by the Huns. The Romans who could would have fled, and among them the bishops and priests, if their flock was no more, would often flee to another city, maybe even to Rome, where they would offer their services to the bishop.

There was always work to be done, and they would be "incardinated" into the local clergy and "excardinated" from the clergy of their former see. These words, though in Latin dress, are really supposed to derive from the same Germanic root that gives us "to card" (with reference to wool), "to shear", "shard", "share", etc. Its root signified separation, and later changes in West Germanic made the initial "sk" cluster into the "sh" we have in English, though Latin/proto-Romance kept the "k" formant while dropping the (initial) "s".

The point I am leading up to is that this also gives us the real etymology of the word "cardinal": those first termed "cardinal" bishops or priests or deacons in Rome or elsewhere were called so initially because they had been separated from the sees they originally had served. Of course, a "folk etymology" was operating at the same time, as less sophisticated Latin or proto-Romance speakers sought an etymology more familiar to them because it was based on the coinciding Latin root of "cardo, cardinis", meaning "hinge": they assumed that the title "cardinal" simply referred to their importance, and this view worked, because, being free of more mundane duties the popes could use them for important tasks that would pop up, like legatine work, for example. The conventional explanation for the origin of the term "cardinal" is therefore insufficient, but you hear it all the time, and never the real one, until now, perhaps.

I have no idea why some didn't like your bishop of Nyssa, but I doubt it had anything to do with his title, right? BTW, about a generation ago I recall that the Ruthenians here in Pittsburgh (I'm almost sure it was them) had perhaps similar trouble, and their then-metropolitan, Nicholas Elko, either resigned or was ultimately transfered by the Holy See. BTW, I'm sure you know that these Eastern Catholic sees outside the territory of their patriarchate are immediately subject to the Congregation for the Eastern Churches. I recall that Archbishop Elko turned up later as an auxiliary (with the personal title "archbishop", most unusual for an auxiliary) in the (Roman-rite) archdiocese of Cincinnati. This does not indicate a lot of confidence in him, I think. Do you know what this fuss was all about?

By the way, if I've got any of this incorrect, I hope someone will let me know. Comments?

Regards,

John

Dear John,

I don't know what the Ruthenian situation was all about. I understand there are a few Ruthenians around here and they can explain it.

You are right, of course, many people here didn't like the Apostolic Administrator - period. They wanted to keep their old bishop, didn't understand why so established an Eparchy as ours needed an "Apostolic Administrator" and not a Bishop. In any event, the AA left after several years of struggle between himself and our old bishop.

I think things came to a head not with our Eparchy, but with the Latin Primate in Ottawa when the AA publicly denounced the new sexual ethics school text that the Canadian Catholic bishops were preparing in conjunction with Catholic teachers etc.

I do believe that was the "last straw" so to speak.

As for jurisdiction outside the bounds of the Patriarchate, well, our bishops in North America and elsewere are consecrated by their Patriarch Lubomyr Huzar. It is just something that is done, and Rome knows well enough to leave it at that.

Alex

Alex said
Well, in his post AntonI raised as a concern/question what would happen if the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox (or other churches) united because then there would be in some cases multiple bishops in the same city or claiming jurisdiction over the same area. Since this is an Eastern Catholic board and I'm aware that there are multiple Eastern Catholic bishops in the same city or claiming jurisdiction over the same land then that prompted me to ask how this is different from what's going on in the Catholic church right now.

I am not implying this is wrong or if it is wrong then certainly not more wrong than the current Eastern Orthodox situation in this country.

Blessings.

Eric

Hello Alex:

I wouldn't be surprised if it was indeed the opposition of both some of his flock and of (some of?)the Canadian hierarchy that did him in.

I'll bet he was right in denouncing the sexual ethics board, which doesn't sound too wholesome to me! Caesaropapism is at work, because "Catholic" schools in Canada get tax money, so some won't want to rock the boat. And, unfortunately, Rome usually goes along with the hierarchy. I think that in general the Canadian (Roman) hierarchy is worse than ours in the US, and that in general the Eastern Catholic hierarchs are much more solid than the average Roman bishop. I am opinionated, ain't I? But pro-Ukrainian, at least!

Yes, I have no doubt that Ukrainian bishops in Canada would be ordained by the Ukrainian Patriarch, but I think that they are still not subject to him because they are outside patriarchal territory. This does not preclude his role in questions of rite, of course.
Regards,

John

Alex wrote:
<<I think things came to a head not with our Eparchy, but with the Latin Primate in Ottawa when the AA publicly denounced the new sexual ethics school text that the Canadian Catholic bishops were preparing in conjunction with Catholic teachers etc.

I do believe that was the "last straw" so to speak.

As for jurisdiction outside the bounds of the Patriarchate, well, our bishops in North America and elsewere are consecrated by their Patriarch Lubomyr Huzar. It is just something that is done, and Rome knows well enough to leave it at that.
>>