www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Apostolic Visitator for Syriac Catholic Patriarchate

Good morning!

After the VIS was published today, the press office of the Holy See added a nomination to today`s announcement:

RINUNCE E NOMINE (CONTINUAZIONE) , 21.07.2004

"RINUNCE E NOMINE (CONTINUAZIONE)


NOMINA DEL VISITATORE APOSTOLICO PRESSO IL PATRIARCATO SIRO-CATTOLICO DI ANTIOCHIA

Il Santo Padre ha nominato S.E. Mons. Edmond Farhat, Arcivescovo tit. di Biblo e Nunzio Apostolico in Turchia, Visitatore Apostolico presso il Patriarcato Siro-Cattolico di Antiochia."

Translation: "The Holy Father has nominated His Excellency Monsignor Edmond Farhat, Titular Archbishop of Byblus and Apostolic Nuncio in Turkey as Apostolic Visitator to the Syro-Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch."

It is interesting to note that Archbishop Farhat is Lebanese and is a Maronite.

Question: Has anyone heard of the problems or issues within the Syriac Catholic Patriarchate which would have necessitated this appointment?

Peace,

Charles

Dear Charles,

How about the overall problem of being under Rome to begin with?

Alex

What is an "apostolic visitator"?

Dear Alex,

That depends upon one`s point of view. I do see a problem of being in communion with another Church and in having that Church manage or be involved in, to one degree or another, the most intimate internal affairs of your Church, e.g., approving or confirming the elections of bishops, etc.

That being said (or written), Rome would not appoint an apostolic visitator to look into such an issue. It is also interesting that the Prefect of the Congregation for Eastern Churches, Cardinal Daoud, is the former patriarch of the Syriac Catholic Church.

Apostolic visitators (I prefer visitor to visitator, but I don`t make the rules)are only appointed when serious problems need to be addressed quickly, e.g., the horrific problem in the seminary in Sankt P�lten.

Peace,

Charles

What does an Apostolic Visitator do anyway?

If he represents the Holy See, does it matter?

I am somewhat pleased that at least this is a person from the West Syrian tradition, I feel it could a better choice than using a Latin for the job.

In Christ,
Michael

Hi Charles,
I didn't see your post when I posted.

Is an Apostolic Visitator a temporary assignment?

In Christ,
Michael

Yes, and even then, the Pope did not act in the case of Sankt P�lten until the Austrian bishops led by Cardinal Schonborn asked Rome to investigate. Something tells me the Holy Father did not act unilaterally on this.

Dear Charles,

Actually, what you've said is disproved completely by Rome's actions in my own Eparchy of Eastern Canada.

Rome appointed an "Apostolic Visitator" for our Eparchy whilst our bishop (Kyr Isidore Borecky) was still alive and managing the Eparchy very well.

This caused tremendous consternation amongst our faithful people and priests for about five years, demonstrations outside churches led by grandmothers etc. The whole thing was quite distasteful and disgusting.

There was no crisis in our Eparchy that would have even remotely necessitated such a completely unwarranted, dictatorial and ultimately subversive to our Eparchy move by Rome.

Rome did want to punish our Eparchy for being in the forefront of defending Patriarch Josef Slipyj and for defending married priests and having so many of them.

That was the only reason we could see why Rome acted in what Ukrainians say was a "Step-motherly" fashion.

So please check your facts before you canonize Roman bureaucracy.

It isn't worth your sincere and honest effort.

Alex

My goodness! what kind of authority are these guys vested with?

Dear Alex,

Actually, I know my facts very well. Please check the title that Bishop Roman had. It was not "apostolic visitator" or "apostolic visitor." His title was "apostolic administrator" which is very, very different from the other two. I don`t see how you can read into anything which I have posted as a canonization of "Roman bureaucracy", nor do I appreciate your remark about it being worth my "sincere and honest effort." Are you questioning my honesty?

Please go back and read my post. Do my remarks about the actions of one Church approving or confirming episcopal elections of another Church sound like the words of someone who is sympathetic to such actions? I think not.

Have a good night and God bless.

Charles

Alex,

Be assured that Charles knows his facts. Having researched Catholic episcopal lineage for almost four decades and as the foremost researcher in the field for the past two decades, he is effectively recognized worldwide as the quasi-official "registrar" (for lack of a better word) of Catholic episcopal genealogy and Apostolic Succession, both Eastern and Western. The monograph which he publishes annually on episcopal ordinations in the prior year is an invaluable research tool.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Alex,

Praised be Jesus Christ!

Good morning.

A follow-up to my previous post. I am painfully aware of the past events in your eparchy occasioned by the appointment of Bishop Roman as apostolic administrator. Your thoughts as to why he was appointed are probably right on the mark. It is an indication of the graciousness of our God that the eparchy survived the great and undeserved turmoil.

A note: an apostolic visitator is appointed for a specific issue, with a specific mandate, and his actions and reports are expected to be done expeditiously. Apostolic visitator are analagous to investigators.

An apostolic administrator (AA) has a broader mandate than an apostolic visitator. Each AA`s mandate is different to some degree, but all have the power of governance. They do, indeed, investigate and report on the state of the jurisdiction to which they are appointed, but they also legislate within the scope of their mandate. Apostolic visitators have round-trip tickets, while apostolic administrators purchase one-way tickets and do not know if they`ll need a return ticket.

You should know from my past posts that I support a UGCC patriarchate and I have for many, many years, indeed, from the time that I began to study the history of the UGCC.

Having the luxury of historical perspective, I believe that the patriarchate should have been declared both by Cardinal Lubachivsky and by Rome as soon as he returned to Ukraine to take possession of his archeparchy. But the past is the past and in all things we must live in the present and look to the future, with due reflection on the past in our present actions.

Take care and have a joyous day.

God bless,

Charles

Dear Charles,

My sincerest apologies for my stridency on a topic that always touches a raw nerve in me - as I know you understand and appreciate far better than myself or most Ukies!

My statement was not, in any way, questioning your honesty, but affirming your well-established credentials!!

And I know of your support for the struggles of the UGCC for which I and many others are in your debt.

Yes, the good Bishop in question was an "Administrator" and I should have given his correct title.

For us Ukies the Roman curial bureaucracy with respect to the Eastern Churches has long lost its meaningfulness or relevance.

The frustration over the patriarchate issue has led our Synod and many of us to just mentally block out the Eastern Congregation and all its works.

The Roman titles, for us, come down to the same thing - the maintenance of the Roman grip on our Church that is made all the more distasteful as it is a function of the wider geopolitical context of Rome-Moscow ecumenism with our Church as a kind of sacrificial lamb on its altar.

If I sound melodramatic, I'm still a pussycat by comparison to others in my church.

The episode with the Apostolic Administrator, of which you are well aware, has left its mark on our Eparchy to this day in various ways.

It paved the way for a bureaucratic tightening over our Eparchy that has been unheard of since the days of Bishop Borecky.

I don't blame Rome completely. Our own people are to be blamed for rolling over and refusing to adequately defend our bishop and our Eparchy when both needed it the most.

I suppose we didn't believe that Rome was capable of doing to them what it actually did do.

And when I see what I perceive to be a similar thing happen to other EC Particular Churches, I get hot under the collar.

But it is an expression of despair out of love for our Eastern Churches.

When I was an altar-server for our local Basilian parish, I was told by the priests of that Order that Patriarch Josef Slipyj, confessor that he was, was not infallible and so was committing serious error by opposing the Pope on the patriarchate issue.

When I went home and told my grandparents, Fr. John and Presbytera Irene, about this (they had just emigrated from Ukraine), they gave me a dressing down and said the Basilian Fathers were wrong and had no right to speak about this to me in that way.

I then said, "But we're Catholics too - shouldn't we listen to the Pope?"

They said, "We are not Catholics - we are Greek-Catholics and we must stand together at all times with our Patriarch-Confessor."

I've been in support of our Patriarchate ever since!

However, just when it seems we are moving ahead with a "de facto" Patriarchate and that Rome is finally respecting our Church - something happens, as with the Apostolic Administrator episode, that seems to be a total reversal of the process.

My heated response was in no way directed toward you, learned Sir, but toward Rome and its works.

Again, the titles and Roman bureaucracy are less than meaningful to many Ukies - they are effrontery against the Eastern Church and I wish they would just disband them.

God bless and "blessed is he who takes no offence at me!"

Alex

Dear Alex,

Thank you very much for your kind and gentle reply. Thanks for the clarification - no offence taken.

I may be touching a raw nerve - and forgive me if I am - but I note that the secretary of the Eastern Congregation at the time of Bishop Roman`s appointment as apostolic administrator was...Archbishop Miroslav Marusyn. I have often wondered how he could have let that happen. Some people will say that the secretaries of the congregations have no power, but they do indeed have power - not publicly, but it is there and it is significant.

I wish you a grace-filled day.

Peace,

Charles

Dear Charles,

Thank you for your generous and gracious acceptance of my apology - please accept my low spiritual bow before you!

Marusyn belongs to that unfortunate camp of UGCC'ers who can only be characterized as "Rome's men."

His old eparchy of which he was a bishop once refused to receive him (!).

As for his appointment of the bishop-administrator in question, it was a matter of 'birds of a feather.'

If a priest or bishop is truly "Eastern" in outlook and is in favour of the patriarchate - he will find no sympathy from Rome whatsoever.

I don't understand Rome's attitude but am open to instruction!

And I thank our friend, Neil the Irish Melkite, for his gentle reminder to me above!

I think I prefer Neil as Administrator here. He has the gift of objectivity and will call the shots exactly as he sees them, nothing more, nothing less.

Alex