www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News O Bishop, Where Art Thou?

I think our situation is pretty much parallel with the Greek Archdiocese and Constantinople. I don't necessarily defend either situation but I think to draw the conclusion we are "un-Orthodox" because we submit names for approval to someone else is the wrong conclusion. The American Greek Archdiocese has not been cut loose of its Mother's robes and the Orthodox Jerusalem Patriarchate still seeks approval from the State for its elections (much like our practice of submitting names to Rome for approval before a Synod votes).

Those who reject the Instruction and the need for us to continue the de-latinization process in the Ruthenian Church are not few. I pray for the day we can elect our own Bishops...but again I wonder if we are really ready for this step. Maybe we are.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Dave,

I am not arguing were aren't really Eastern if we don't elect our own bishops. As you point out, except for the OCA, all the Orthodox in the US have their bishops appointed by their respective mother Church. What I do question is how autonomous we really are. All the nice talk and Apostolic letters aside, in point of fact Eastern Churches sui iuris of eparchial or metropolitan status aren't treated that much different than their Latin equivalents.

Rome appoints our bishops, our metropolitan must receive the pallium from the Holy Father and be installed by his representative, we must seek Rome's dispensation for any married candidate for the presbyterate, etc. While I know we are a true particular Church, for all intents and purposes we are a particular Church that is part of the Patriachate of the West in many senses.

An Eastern Church really does not have a palpable sense of autonomy until it is raised to Major Archeparchial status. I believe this status must be eventually conceded to us as a natural part of our evolution. If we are constantly treated as if we can't get along without Rome's paternal oversight (or can't be trusted to keep appeasing local Latin sensibilities), what message is that sending to the Orthodox?

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

Lance,

"Evolution" is a good word to describe our status. Yes, we now have to seek Rome's approval to ordain married men here but this is a vast improvement from what we had before (just 4 years ago).

A lot of the problems are due to the structure of the _Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches_. The Eastern Code can only be viewed as an interim document. (BTW, when will the Eastern Code be available online? That this important document--whether one likes it or not--is almost hidden from everyone's view is a disgrace.) Will the Code be the same 25 years from now? I am anxious to see some changes. Some others are not. Things sometimes move slowly in the Church.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

[Is the Greek Archdiocese in this country merely a rite and not a Church since it receives its Bishops by appointment from Constantinople? This is not some formality for them...consider the problems they experienced with the appointment and removal of Metropolitan Sypridon. The choice for his replacement came from the Phanar and was a surprise when announced (many had campaigned for an American Metropolitan). I believe (and I'll let others correct me here if I'm wrong) the Bishops for the Johnstown Diocese and the Ukrainian Orthodox Diocese in the USA are also appointed by the Patriarch in Constantinople.]

You are right, you need to be corrected in you analysis. Neither the GOA, Carpatho-Russian, or Ukrainian dioceses claim to be automonous, autocephalous, or sui juris Churches which are just 'In Communion with' rather than 'Under the Authority' of Constantinople. If fact, they are dioceses within the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Constantinople.
As such, Constantinople has the final say.
That's why those of us who are Orthodox Catholics smile and shake our heads everytime we read your claims of being a separate 'independent Church' rather than a Rite within the RCC. The very fact that Rome has the final say proves otherwise.
It's like the fact that you claim that the canonical Orthodox Church in the Ukraine is part of the Russian Church. Yet the both the Ukrainian Catholic Church and your own jurisdiction works the same way with Rome. Where candidates are submitted for final approval by Rome before they can be consecrated. Yet you are negatively admanant when it is pointed out to you that you are in fact, part of the Roman Catholic Church. We see it as a double standard.
Also, since both the church in Constantinople and the GOA use the exact same Rite how can you claim it is a Rite within itself?????

OrthoMan

The term sui juris is not used by any Orthodox jurisdiction that I am aware of. The Ruthenian Church has never claimed it is automonous or autocephalous.

Bob continues with his `you are simply a part of the Roman Catholic Church' slur:


So the fact that the governments of Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority "have the final say" over who will be the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem makes it a servant of the State and proves that Patriarchate is not self-governing, right? (Not to speak of the relationship between the Turks and the Phanar or the Emperor and the Byzantine Patriarch in ages past.) I wouldn't buy that analogy. But, you insist our current relationship with Rome proves we are just a Rite of the RCC. Doesn't follow to me.


I admit our current process (names submitted to Rome for approval) is irregular and needs changing (whether or not we are ready for it I don't know). I resent the slur that "proves" we are just a part of the "Roman Catholic Church."

Bob's contention that "Orthodox Catholics" (I assume he means all Orthodox) all agree that we are just a Rite within the RCC is untrue. I know several Orthodox who have a bit more respect for us than our friend Bob.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

OrthoMan,

Now you need to be corrected in your analysis. You state: "It's like the fact that you claim that the canonical Orthodox Church in the Ukraine is part of the Russian Church. Yet the both the Ukrainian Catholic Church and your own jurisdiction works the same way with Rome. Where candidates are submitted for final approval by Rome before they can be consecrated."

In the Catholic Church, the Synod of Bishops of Churches of patriarchal/major archeparchial rank elect their own bishops. Only outside the patriarchal/major archeparchial territory do the Synods submit candidates for appointment by Rome.

Also, in Ukraine the Ukrainian Catholic Church has more autonomy from Rome than the Ukrainian Orthodox Church does from Moscow. A situation that seems to vex Moscow to no end, as they continually whine to Rome asking that they reign in the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon candidate

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: Lance ]

The odd point here, is that if we, the Ukrainians and the other North American eastern Catholic jurisidictions had elected our own bishops under any of the various formulas mentioned here, it would have resulted in the undoubted dominence of what some here call the 'ethnic social club' model of the church.

If some of you guys think I meander close to that school, I got news for you, I am on your side of the median within our community.

K.

Dear Lance:



My exprerience is that sometimes we do. The Archdiocese of Guadalajara, Mexico (about 6 million Catholics) was without a Local Ordinary for almost a year when Metropolitan Archbishop Juan Jesus Cardinal Posadas (of blessed memory) was murdered in 1993.

The Archdiocese of Mexico City (over 9 million Catholics) was vacant for 9 months after resignation of Metropolitan Archbishop and Primate Ernesto Cardinal Corripio.

Of course both sees always have quite a few auxiliary bishops to fulfill the Episcopal Sacramental duties while the sees are vacant. At least in the case of Guadalajra, Bishop Jose Guadalupe Martin Rabago was Diocesan Administrator until Rome provided.

Still, I'd rather wait for the right pastor, than have the wrong one right away.

Trust God.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dave --

While I understand the bald parallel you are trying to draw between the GOA and the Pittsburgh Metropolia (ie, overseas episcopal selection), beneath the superficial similarity there is a considerable difference that perhaps was unintentionally overlooked -- namely, that the EP *is* the "mother church" of the GOA, the Johnstown Diocese (a diocese of the EP), etc -- these are dioceses/archdioceses of the Ecumeniucal Patriarchate. Is Rome the "mother church" of the Pittsburgh metropolia? Is the Metropolia of Pittsburgh simply a Metropolia of the Church of Rome?

If the answer to these question are "yes" (and I think there's probably not agreement about that among Ruthenian Catholics), that answer has a substantial ecumenical implication, it seems to me. No Orthodox jurisdiction in North America will ever see Rome as its "mother church" in terms of episcopal selection -- regardless of whether we eventually restore communion with each other. Pittsburgh's situation, in reality, seems closer to OCA's -- in other words, a good candidate for a church that selects its own Bishops -- or one that at least nominally can do so through the Eastern Code's pre-approval procedure that applies to the Eastern Catholic patriarchates in the "home territories".

I am with you in agreeing that self-selection or not is not a criterion that is worth looking at as a distinguishing characteristic. However, I do think that the "mother church" idea is not a real parallel between the Pittsburgh Metropolia and the GOA.

Brendan

[So the fact that the governments of Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority "have the final say" over who will be the Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem makes it a servant of the State and proves that Patriarchate is not self-governing, right? (Not to speak of the relationship between the Turks and the Phanar or the Emperor and the Byzantine Patriarch in ages past.) I wouldn't buy that analogy. But, you insist our current relationship with Rome proves we are just a Rite of the RCC. Doesn't follow to me.]

There is a big, big, difference. These stipulations were imposed upon the Orthodox Church by a secular anti Christian government who took control of their lands. They do not have the freedom to oppose them. They were not imposed by the Orthodox Patriarchates of the lands they are in.
But in your case, the stipulations you are subject to were not impossed upon you by a secualr government but by a religious organization your ancestors pledged loyalty and alliegance to and become part of. An organization that you consider an insult or slur everytime you are reminded that you are part of.

[Also, in Ukraine the Ukrainian Catholic Church has more autonomy from Rome than the
Ukrainian Orthodox Church does from Moscow. A situation that seems to vex Moscow to
no end, as they continually whine to Rome asking that they reign in the Ukrainian
Catholic Church.]

That's highly debateable. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church as as much automony as the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Probably more. If you disagree, then give examples and we will discuss them.

OrthoMan

as did yours...

And has this now become like the Indiana Orthodox list, where we're now the Eastern [sic] Rite of the RCRO (Roman Catholic Religious Organization) ?

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: RichC ]

Dear OrthoMan,

Speaking as a Ukrainian Catholic with many, many Ukrainian Orthodox relatives and friends, I know that the Ukrainian Catholic Church does not have the autonomy we would like to believe it has.

Rome has the final say on all things, but the current Pope has loosened the Roman grip considerably.

For example, when he beatified the Ukrainian Catholic martyrs, he approved their cause following the completion of the local investigation into their lives in Ukraine by the local Ukrainian Catholic authorities. He did not require this to be then referred to Rome, which would be the normal course of events for any other Catholic saint or group of saints.

The Synod of my Church has been having regular meetings and has been handling its own internal Church affairs.

As for the bishops, our current Bishop was, in fact, appointed by the Ukrainian Catholic Synod and Rome was simply informed about its decision. That is a fact. I must confess that I didn't want to believe it when I first heard about it. I investigated it and found it to be true. Kudos to His Holiness, Pope John Paul II!

As for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, I asked around among the Ukrainian Orthodox that I know, all of whom are in canonical union with Constantinople.

They tell me that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate is the vassal of Moscow and they would support a reconstituted and canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Patriarchate in Kyiv, independent from Moscow.

No Ukrainian will tell you otherwise . . .

However, to be fair to the Patriarch of Moscow, he has given a lot of local autonomy to Metropolitan Sabodan, especially in the area of canonizations etc.

Ultimately, the best thing for the Ukrainian Church would be a unified Kyivan-based Patriarchate uniting both Catholics and Orthodox and in communion with other patriarchates. (That's as specific as I can get right now).

I don't think it is a matter of, you show me, and I'll show you in terms of who is better off under which jurisdiction.

However, the Pope has demonstrated an openness in terms of respect for autonomy that we haven't had before.

And if Rome is controlling in its attitude toward the Eastern Catholic Churches, I would rather think it is due to a desire by Rome not to offend the Orthodox more than they already are over the whole Uniate matter.

Alex

Alex,

Out of curiousity, how long ago did this fiasco take place? Do you think that Rome made this assignment in order to put an end to the "scandal" of married priests in your eparchy? Do you believe that Rome would make a similar move today?

Anthony

P.S. One of the main reasons that I am not comfortable with Rome selecting Eastern bishops is that rather than choosing the bishops who are BEST for us, they may choose bishops who will introduce or enforce celibacy. I really hope that this isn't the case, but you never know. The point is that we are (in this respect) powerless over our own fate.

Dear Anthony,

Happy New Year!

This fiasco only ended when Bishop Cornelius came in, which was, I believe three years ago ( I could be wrong).

Many, many here did, in fact, believe that the whole thing was over the fact that our Eparchy had a lot of married priests and were getting more (often ordained in Ukraine).

Some married priests in charge of larger parishes were replaced by celibate priests and the married ones received smaller parishes.

The Eastern Eparchy was also the hotbed of support for a Ukrainian CAtholic Patriarchate, another "no-no."

We were always flabbergasted when we heard of reports that "people were scandalized" over the existence of married priests.

We could never determine who those people were . . .

In response to a recent remark that the new Eparch was paying out a lot of money for insurance (I think that was it) for married priests and that it was a hefty sum, one person was known to have said, "You mean it's more than the AA membership fees for the celibates?"

It is certainly no joke when it comes to the issue of having our hands tied in this respect.

I think we will side with our married priests and defend them.

I remember one Easter when the new Apostolic Administrator was invited to hold services in a Church that usually invited the incumbent. When people found out that the incumbent was not even invited, many decided to go to other parishes for Easter and this certainly spoke loudly to the parish priest in question . . .

What is it about us Eastern Catholics, Anthony? Are we feisty or what?

And becoming Orthodox isn't an option, since that would be like admitting defeat, cop-out style.

So if anyone wants to pick on us, they know where they can come and get us . . .

Alex

K.

[ 01-25-2002: Message edited by: Kurt ]