www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Presov and Mukachevo eparchies have new bishops

quote by Alex
*************************************************
(sometimes you can hear others think, you know!).
*************************************************

What I'm hearing others think is that there is not a sense of belonging to the Universal Church.
(Does that make sense?)

Also known as the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church.

I'm Not picking on anybody
just trying to make a point.

Paul

Dear Lemko Rusyn:

Is not Bishop Milan Sasik one of the 2 prelates pictured above (2nd photo) garbed in Eastern vestments?

I think an "Apostolic Administrator" can be Western or Eastern. An Eastern prelate working in the Vatican does not make him Roman Catholic.

Or, am I seeing things differently? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks.

AmdG

Dear Paromer,

And what I hear you thinking is that by belonging to a Particular Catholic Church with her own hierarchy, traditions and liturgy etc., we do not AT THE SAME TIME belong to the Universal Church of Christ.

Moreover, we do NOT belong to the Universal Church in any other way EXCEPT through membership in a Particular Church.

A bishop can be consecrated by any other two or three or more bishops.

The consecration of Bishops is something that normally belongs to the internal business of a Particular Church, its Primate etc. It does not belong to the regular task of the Pope of Rome as Patriarch of the Latin Church. Eastern Churches recognize his authority in matters of faith and morals.

This is where the issue lies.

It has nothing to do with "universality" because there is no such thing.

And such a concept smacks of "Byzantine Rite Roman Catholicism."

I know I make some of our Orthodox posters very happy when I use that term. And for that I truly am sorry!

Alex

Dear Amado,

We have quite a history with Apostolic Administrators in Eastern Canada,let me tell you!

Or, no, I don't want to upset myself . . .

When such an "Administrator" attaches himself to a Church, I believe he takes on the Church's Rite or at least becomes Bi-ecclesial (Biritual).

I think the bishop in question has become Byzantine Catholic, if I am not mistaken.

An Apostolic Administrator works primarily in a mission field that isn't large enough to be an Eparchy or Bishopric.

When it comes to Rome appointing Apostolic Administrators for us, I prefer the latter term . . .

Alex

What you say is correct, except that if you read the biography of Bishop Milan Sasik, it indicates that he is a priest of the Latin Church with bi-ritual faculties serving a parish of the Ruthenian Eparchy of Mukachevo. I haven't read anything that indicates that he canonically became a Byzantine Catholic.

Dear Lemko,

But are you happy with the consecrations, with whatever message is being sent, as you see it?

Does this whole thing bode well for the Byzantine Catholic Church in your view?

I think we're getting bogged down on details and need to go for the real issues.

Alex

Alex, those are excellent points. You always say it better than anyone else. All patriarchates were elected by synodal vote of their churches. Many were not recognized by other churches for many years. Again, if we are to be truly Orthodox in communion with Rome, we have to act as such.

I can appreciate the concern of the Administrator and others to adhere to canon law and I do not wish to discard the law, but there is a larger goal that we must continue to grow and move towards, namely reclaiming our full identity as Orthodox in communion with Rome.

I just want to add an observation to your points in regards to the Patriarchate and particlarity(although you know well where I stand on those issues . I don't think I agree with the Administrator's argument that if one can advocate for patriarchal governance in Ukraine then one can argue for the same here.

I cannot help but return to the Melkite Church when discussing possibilites of the Patriarchate. Wherever the Church is, Australia, North America, South America, nearly all of the Melkite clergy are enthusiastically supportive of their Patriarch. They are often as far removed as Ukrainians and Ruthenians, both in distance and in generations from the "homeland". But they support and rally around their Patriarch. And already in Ukraine there is much growth and better unity of the Church from the patriarchal leadership of Patriarch Lubomyr.

It is truly unifying for the Melkites worldwide. They are steadfast in their fidelity to Eastern tradition and their particularity. We can learn much from their example. But this issue is tangential to the discussion of the consecrations.

I do not disagree that it is an honor to be consecrated by the Holy Father himself. But there are other deeper considerations. I can understand the consecration outside of the home territory in times of persecution. But as you well stated Alex, even under these circumstances Patriarch Josyp consecrated his bishops according to the Greek Catholic Archieratikon in Byzantine chapels. But there was no significant political or logistical obstacles keeping them from being consecrated in Slovakia.

I can't help but think that a critical opportunity was missed for these bishops to receive the "axios" of their people. It was also a critical opportunity for these Greek Catholic Churches to live out their particularity, to be an icon of being Orthodox in communion with Rome. Instead, they were "in the mill" with the other Roman bishops.

If these bishops are to serve as authentic Byzantine bishops, it is important that they receive the chierotonia in their own church in their own rite before their own people who give their "axios". This is the apostolic tradition. This goes beyond simply the liturgical prescriptions and has implications for the ecclesial identity of the community.

I can certainly understand and sympathize with the position of the Orthodox observers in this thread discussion. There is a much larger issue here with respect for the particular traditions of a church sui iuris.

But the fault does not reside entirely with Rome by any means. These bishops are the ecclesial identity and be representatives of their particular churches sui iuris, and safeguards of the tradition as especially manifested in their own particular liturgical tradition.

There should be some initiative on their part to assure that these consecrations were done at least according to those traditions they will have the office of perpetuating and representing, even if they didn't wish to do them before their own people.

And if there really was such a Ukrainiophobe sentiment, certainly the eparchs of Krizhevtci, Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Melkites, etc. could have co-consecrated according to the Byzantine liturgical norms.

I think there is another issue here that some wish to simply dismiss, and that is what happens when the Greek Catholic Churches become separated into so many small sui iuris jurisdictions directly dependent on Rome for ethnic or whatever reasons. Administrators from the Roman Church and Latin consecrations. The full identity, particularity, and dignity of a church can be much better safeguarded with the traditional Eastern form of governance, the patriarchate.

While I express congratulations to the faithful that they have shepherds, and pray for the welfare and well-being of the bishops and people, I do not think the message conveyed by these consecrations bodes well for Greek Catholic particularity, nor the advancement of the mission of the Eastern Catholic Churches to be Orthodox in communion with Rome, nor finally furthering of dialogue and unity with the Orthodox churches.

Paromer, "orthodox" and "catholic" are complementary terms, not opposing terms. Look at the Holy Father JOHN PAUL II's analogy in Orientale Lumen. The Church breathes with both lungs, Eastern and Western. This is truly one of the best and most illustrative analogies ever made of the relation between the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches.

Using the anatomical analogy, one lung does not overtake and monopolize the other, nor subjugate the other to itself. Both work in tandem equally but yet distinct and unique. They are not mirror images of each other but work together. The two lungs exist and operate independent of each other on a cellular and organic level, but with regards to the whole body (the Church) they are united.

Diak,

Thanks for the post!

I agree with you about orthodox and catholic being complimentary.

The way it was explained to me was: we (Catholics) are BOTH orthodox and catholic.

I think it's just diferent use of American English and East-West emphasis.

And the "both lungs" analogy is packed with meaning as you so well explained.

Best regards in our Lord,

Paul

Dear friends,

First of all happy and holy new year to everybody!!!

I was not patient enough to read all the post in this topic but I would like to make some commentaries about these ordinations:

1) An Eastern Catholic priest can be ordained bishop by a Latin bishop. If I am not wrong the first Byzantine bishop for the Slav peple, Saint Methodius, was appointed and ordained bishop by the pope himself (I suppose that he was ordained according to the rite of the Latin Church) and nobody put in doubt the validity of his election and consecration in the Church of Constantinople.

2) The different popes have celebrated in the past episcopal ordinations at Rome according to the Byzantine rite. I have in mind a picture of blessed pope John XXIII ordaining a bishop at Saint Peter together with two Byzantine bishops according to the Byzantine rite (the pope was using Roman Pontifical ornaments). The ordination took place at the holy table and not at the space between the holy table and the Beautiful doors as in a recent episcopal ordinations of a Ruthenian Catholic bishop in USA (Most Rev. John Michael of Parma, see pictures at [URL=https://www.byzcath.org/news/2002/bishop-john/iz/2002-0710-Enthronment-John-Page7.htm)]https://www.byzcath.org/news/2002/bishop-john/iz/2002-0710-Enthronment-John-Page7.htm)[/UR L] and the Gospel book were put over the candidate to the ordinandus.
3) According to the canonical tradition of the Eastern Churches at a ordination only one candidate should be ordained to one of the three degrees of priesthood (deacon, priest, bishop). Some Orthodox Churches does not keep this tradition (I do not know if it is just a canonical tradition or a council or synodical canon), and ordain several candidates at the same ceremony to different degrees (at the OCA the new ordained bishop uses to ordain a priest or/and a deacon at the same ceremony of his episcopal ordination).
4) The Latin rite and the rules of the Latin post II Vatican Council liturgical "renascence" were used, that is because of it that the bishops were using "sakkos" before his ordinations (only at the ancient Spanish rite the candidates are wearing the vestments of the degree they are being ordained at the moment of the ordination).

The ordination of a Eastern Catholic bishop by the bishop of Rome is not a problem for me but the way these ordinations are celebrated shows Rome's little consideration towards the Eastern Catholic Church liturgical and canonical traditions. But probably that is not only the fault of what we call “Rome”, because at the Church of Rome, most people, being of Latin one, ignore Byzantine liturgical and canonical tradition, but also of the Byzantine Catholics. I wonder, did any Byzantine bishop at Rome tell those who prepared the ceremony at Saint Peter how to celebrate a proper Byzantine episcopal ordination and that the ordination of several candidates is contrary to the Byzantine tradition or do they just accept whatever they tell them to do? If at the Byzantine Catholic Churches many people ignore and do not respect their own Byzantine tradition how can we ask our Latin brothers to respect the Byzantine tradition?

Yours in Christ,
F

Dear Alex,
Is true that Pope's mother was Byzantine Catholic? Do you know if Karol Woitila's mother was Ukranian or Ruthenian? Should we consider pope John Paul II the first pope with Ukranian backgrounds in history?

Dear Francisco,

Yes, the Pope's mother was indeed Greek Catholic.

Poles traditionally use "Greek Catholic" without reference to nationality when speaking about those among them who are of Eastern Slavic background.

As for whether she was "Ruthenian" or "Ukrainian," that would make little difference in Poland since both have been called with the same name such as "Rusiny."

There are other names they have been called, but I can't repeat them here!

Alex

Dear Diak,

As usual you make excellent points, and not only because a) I agree with them and b) you praise me in your preamble!

I remember, as I know you do, in the days of Patriarch Slipyj when Rome would ignore him and appoint our own bishops for our Church.

A number of candidates would then go to Rome to meet with their Patriarch and ask for his blessing - the laity would widely report these things and all this truly did constitute the people's "Axios" as you so brilliantly said.

(To all Non-Ukrainians - we Ukies are very, very nice to each other when we agree! )

And that was how they should have acted . . .

I wonder whether if something like this would be an issue in the Ruthenian Church (?).

And, if not, why not? If Rome directly appoints and consecrates the bishops without any accountability to the Particular Church's hierarchy or "Axios" of the people - why have a Particular Church?

But the most important question is how do the Ruthenians THEMSELVES feel about it? Are they: a) really dissed; b) very dissed c) mildly dissed, d) just annoyed a bit e) don't see it as an issue etc. ?

This does involve the rights of a Particular Church in a way that goes much deeper than liturgical rubrics, whether or not a parish says the Rosary before the Liturgy or how many people call themselves "Orthodox in communion with Rome" as an indicator of enhanced Byzantine Consciousness . . .

Alex

This post has deterioated. I will continue to pray that all become more tolerant of each other.

I sometimes get the feeling, that some of the posters would tell our Lord how to do things.

Remember Pride is one of the seven deadly sins--oops Latin custom.

Dear Green Coat,

As you already admit you are green . . .

It may seem that the post has "deteriorated" to you, but there are questions being asked that are pertinent to the lives of Eastern Catholic Churches.

If you don't see it, say you don't see it. To pass judgement without fully understanding, or wanting to understand, what is going on from an Eastern point of view, can also be "pride."

Alex