www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall The Anglican Catholic Church

Shlomo Lkhoolkhoon,

I would love to know how you my Eastern Catholic Brothers and Sisters would feel about having the Anglicans who are joining our Church having sui iuris jurisdiction as we do. Please expound on the poll that follows.

Fush BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

Anglican Catholic Church single choice

I support the Anglicans having the status of a Patriarchal Church (10%, 5 Votes)

I support the Anglicans having the status of a Major Archbishopric (8%, 4 Votes)

I support the Anglicans having the status of a Metropolitan (31%, 15 Votes)

I support the Anglicans having the status they have now (8%, 4 Votes)

I do not support the Anglicans having the status of a sui iuris Church (31%, 15 Votes)

I do not really know what I think on this (12%, 6 Votes)

Total Votes: 49 Voting on this poll ends: 03/01/10 04:59 AM

Maybe you can hear it on EWTN's Journey Home with Marcus Grodi interviewing Fr. Longenecker. We missed since we were at Church, but you can most likely find it on the Journey Home page.

You can catch me on The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi on EWTN tomorrow at 8pm EST. We'll be discussing the new Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus along with former Episcopal priest Fr. Eric Bergman. Journey Home reminder [gkupsidedown.blogspot.com]

Don't know if it is archived yet or not
Anglican's coming to Rome [ewtn.com]

The Anglicans who may come in to the Church certainly don't need my opinion (especially since I'm Greek, not English and have nothing to do with the process).

That being said, I voted for Metropolitanate. "Major Archbishop" seems to be a recently made, Eastern-only title that Rome gives some Churches because it doesn't want to call them Patriarchs. Patriarch is out in my mind because there's no precedent for it in England and because I think too many Churches today count themselves as Patriarchates (to include some that have been already acknowleged - the only thing that formally "makes" a Patriarchate, to my understanding, is the acceptance of other Churches).

Metropolitanate is correct to my mind because, in the late antique period StuartK and I seem to take as normative for a lot of things ecclesial, several western European cities were Metropolitanates, as I recall (and for that matter were de facto sui juris). Were there ever Metropolitanates in England previously? If so, I think the case is very strong.

Finally, I know that there would be lots problems with this.... but I think I could only support a (de facto or de jure) sui juris Anglican Metropolitanate if it were the only Catholic jurisdiction in England. That is, there is only one Catholic jurisdiction in England which would pray the Liturgy of the Hours and Mass using the Sarum books, Anglican usage books, the 1962-era Roman books and the 1970-era Roman books, depending on the local parish (though to be honest if I were part of such an enterprise I'd want to say "out" with the last two). I don't like the idea of separate sui juris churches based on rules of prayer (i.e. Rite)*.

However, because I've heard of of "ideological" differences among the current or potential future hierarchs, and because of the bureaucratic "rice bowl" conflicts that would ensue, I highly doubt this would happen. In the meantime, I'd support some sort of "Pontifical right" or the like, with the clearly stated intention of and commitment to reintegration into a single English Catholic whole.

Markos

* and to keep my money where my mouth is, as I've mentioned before I'd fully support one Antiochian Catholic Church based in Lebanon/Syria which would allow for at least the Byzantine, Maronite, and West Syrian Rites under one Patriarchate (assuming there were reasonable mechanisms to handle the all the administrative problems this single Antiochian patriarchate would create).

If reunion ever happened, would anyone support the right of Eastern Catholic Churches to remain sui juris outside of the Orthodox Churches they were once a part of ? It appears some people support that right for the Anglicans who were once a part of the Latin Church.

Lawrence,

This is a kind of apples-to-oranges comparison, since the Latin Church hadn't become fully "homogenized" at the time of the Anglican split, so we really can't speak of the Anglican Church's tradtion as being "nearly identical" to that of the Latin Church.

BTW, it has been wisely suggested that, should we ever see the day of East-West reunion, Eastern Churches of the same tradition should not try to re-integrate too quickly. People don't like the feeling of having been conquered and losing their identity.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

The Deacon's observation is quite accurate regarding re-integration, as it certainly applies to the jurisdictional situations of the Orthodox Churches themselves in diaspora, particularly within North America.

Not entirely true--or at least, rather misleading. The Western Church had become fairly homogeneous by the time of Innocent III--common doctrine, common ecclesiastical structure. Yes, there were liturgical variations, but these were considered to be regional usage that in no way affected either the organization or communion of the Western Church. The Gallic rite was used in France, but all French bishops received the pallium from the Pope. The Sarum rite was used in parts of England, but again, all English bishops answered to the Pope. Same in Spain, in Germany, in northern Italy, and even in Scandinavia. From an ecclesiological perspective, there was only one Western Church.

Now, had the Church of Africa continued past the Vandal invasion, then maybe a second Western patriarchate would have emerged, but as it turned out, there was only one autonomous Church in the Latin-speaking world, which is the source of our present separation.

With all due respect, the tradition of the CoE is Major Archiepiscopal. The nominal functioning point of unity in the CoE is their head Archbishop, the Archbishop of Canterbury, at present, Dr. Rowan Williams. (The on paper head is the Crown.)

I voted Metropolitan, however. Each nation's ordinariate will either be equivalent to a deanery or to a diocese; electing a head bishop is appropriate as a focal point for their commonality, and a presentation point for dealings outside their system.

If the ordinariate takes off, I would not be surprised to see it eventually turned sui iuris in some later unification.

Why not Major Archiepiscopal? because the system really doesn't apply unless yu have sufficiently large bodies of Anglo-Catholics to support multiple archdioceses.

And the Majorarchbishopric is not uniquely Catholic, either; a few of the Orthodox churches elect a primate who is not a patriarch, but heads a synod including more than one archbishop-metropolitan.

I voted for patriarchal church, even though it would not seem to have historical precedent. It could serve to remedy a two tendencies in the West.

I'm a born Latin who has attended UGCC churches for maybe seven years now. In my experience locally, when traveling, on the internet, and in periodicals, Latins are extremely focused on the papacy and the Vatican ... love them or hate them, liberal or conservative, modernist or traditional. Looking back, I wasted a lot of spiritual energy obsessed with what was going on in Rome, and I don't think I was alone.

In my humble analysis, aside from flashpoint issues like the revised Divine Liturgy, I don't think this reaches the same pitch in the Eastern churches, either with Rome or with individual patriarchates. So putting a patriarch between the pope and some Western laity could have a beneficial effect.

Secondly, because the primary Latin liturgiarch also happens to be the supreme legislator and guarantor of orthodoxy for the universal church, Rome has so much moral authority that the laity accept more liturgical tinkering than they otherwise would. I think a patriarch would have a harder time messing around with the liturgy, and therefore having a patriarch as liturgiarch would bring some much needed conservatism.

For those reasons, in a perfect world, I'd like to see the pope only be the patriarch of, perhaps, western Europe, and the rest of the Latin world spun off into other patriarchates. Giving the Anglicans a patriarch would just be a step in that direction.

(Yes, I know there'd be problems with this scheme, too.)

EDIT: *Also,* I don't think it's accidental that schisms in the East (from my perspective) managed to hold on to apostolic succession and schisms in the West went totally radical and did not.

I could go on. Having the pope as your patriarch would seem to bring some burdens.

Booth,
Infrequent poster

If there is to be a division of the Western Church (and, in principle I favor that, as the Western Church's lack of territoriality is ecclesiologically anomalous (and largely an accident of history), then that division should follow logical geographical rules, not be based on ritual practice.

One hypothetical scheme would create distinct patriarchates for North America and South America, with Rome retaining patriarchal jurisdiction over Western Europe. Eastern Europe would go to the Church of Kyiv (or Moscow, if they ever work that out), while Africa would belong to the Coptic Pope of Alexandria. The Middle East (with the exception of Jerusalem) would belong to Antioch; Mesopotamia and India would belong to the Church of the East; and a new patriarchate would be erected for East Asia and Australia.

Fr. Eric Bergman is a very good friend of mine. He is a very good priest. He has an Anglican-Use group which he brought over from the Episcopal Church. He was ordained a Catholic priest for the Diocese of Scranton in 2007. He and his wife have six children. He was chaplain of the Catholic High School from which my daughter graduated last June. On several occassions, he has concelebrated the Byzantine Liturgy with us in my parish church.

Dn. Robert

#66 11/3/2008 [ewtn.com] Marcus Grodi with Fr. Dwight Longenecker

Also #504 here [homepage.mac.com].

454. Former Episcopal priest.
Host - Marcus Grodi w/ Fr. Eric Bergman [homepage.mac.com].

We already have Latin Patriarchs other than the Pope. Patriarch of Venice and Patriarch of Lisbon are so insignificant that nobody is aware of their existence.


There are some schisms like the Old Catholics that have preserved apostolic succession. Also I'd consider Protestantism and its further pullulation one schism. But it may really be thanks to the authority of the Pope that the bishops were not eager to follow schisms.

These are titular patriarchs, which are to real patriarchs as oxen are to bulls. They do not head any particular Church, nor do they have a synod, but are merely ordinary Latin bishops with an honorific.

The proposed division of the Latin Church would be the erection of additional Ecclesia sui juris of the Latin rite, autonomous and independent of the Church of Rome, with their own distinct hierarchies and, potentially liturgical rites.

Actually a diocese is a particular church, just like a Personal Ordinariate proposed for Anglicans.


You don't have to have a sui iuris church to have your own rite/usage, so I presume that the main difference is the ability to have your own canon law in a sui iuris church. I'm afraid that a wide level of autonomy and independence in the new patriarchates (what's the difference between a sui iuris church headed by a patriarch and headed by a bishop?) could only aggravate the potential for schisms and conflicts, not to mention the potential maze of overlapping jurisdictions.