www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Movement among the Melkite eparchs

Archbishop Cyril Salim Bustros was Archbishop of Baalbek in Lebanon before he became Bishop of Newton in the United States. As usual in such cases, he was allowed to keep the personal title of Archbishop (source [press.catholica.va]).

The confusion in regards to the use of "archbishop" or "bishop" for an eparch lies in the fact that, unlike the Latin Church and most other Catholic Churches, in the Melkite Church archbishops are heads of eparchies while bishops are auxiliaries or have patriarchal curial positions. It is an imposed latinization, then, that runs contrary to our own Melkite canons, to deprive our Melkite eparchs of their proper title of archbishop. The phrase "ad personam" is obviously a Latin phrase and concept which is alien to our Melkite tradition. After all, if the Catholic Churches are equal "in stature and dignity" it makes no sense that one of those traditions, the Roman tradition, should be imposed upon us. The universality of our Catholic Church is best exemplified when we respect our differences.

This may be true in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, but not in the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church, which we are discussing here.

In the Melkite Greek-Catholic Church, even auxiliary Bishops and Bishops of the Curia are usually titular Archbishops:

• Archbishop Michel Abrass, B.A., titular Archbishop of Myra (Bishop of the Curia)
• Archbishop Joseph Absi, titular Archbishop of Tarsus (auxiliary Bishop and Protosyncellus for Damascus)
• Archbishop Georges Bakar, titular Archbishop of Pelusium (auxiliary Bishop and Protosyncellus for Egypt and Sudan)
• Archbishop Joseph Jules Zerey, titular Archbishop of Damiata (auxiliary Bishop and Protosyncellus for Jerusalem)

You misread me. I don't disagree with you. The synod usually does make curial bishops archbishops - although this has not always been so in our canons and particular law - that's up to our synod (not Rome). The problem lies in eparchs outside of the Middle East not being accorded their proper title as Melkite eparchs, i.e. archbishop. We saw that in regards to two our former Melkite eparchs in the United States. Archbishop IGNATIUS [Ghattas] of blessed memory, consistently used the title although the USCCB wouldn't,(I have letters and a statikon signed by him as such) and our late patriarch, MAXIMOS V, used the title in publicly referring to him.
I once asked another of our former eparchs if he was to be referred to as "bishop" or "archbishop." His response to me was: "Our Church calls me Archbishop, my friends call me Archbishop." With all due respect and simply put, we are a patriarchal Church of equal stature to the Latin. To quote the late Archbishop JOSEPH [Tawil] of blessed memory, "we are not so poor that we await crumbs from the table of others."
Our Catholicity is not dependent upon submission to the traditions of other Catholic Churches with whom we are in communion.

Protopappas76,

I notice that you are new to the forum, so let me be the first to say hello and welcome you.

The underlying problem here, I think, is that Melkite bishops outside the Middle East are subject to the Holy See and not to the Melkite Synod, and they therefore have to follow Western custom with regard to the title of archbishop. However, I cannot help feeling that there is a certain inflation of titles in the Melkite Church, and that in this case the Western custom is the more original.

In particular, I don't like the idea (current in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch) that archbishops are heads of eparchies and bishops are auxiliaries or curial bishops. This is a misunderstanding. I believe the ancient and original practice is that every bishop is the bishop of a particular church (eparchy/diocese), and the title of archbishop is reserved for the bishop of the metropolitan church, i.e. the provincial or regional capital (cf. Apostolic Canon 34, qtd. in the Ravenna Document [vatican.va], 24).

In fact, several Melkite eparchies in Lebanon only became archeparchies in 1964: Baalbek, Baniyas, Saïda, Tripoli, Zahleh and Furzol (cf. the relevant entries in Annuario Pontificio 2010). Just because all Melkite eparchial bishops in the Middle East are currently archbishops, it doesn't follow that all Melkite eparchial bishops everywhere in the world have to be archbishops. Properly, the title of archbishop is traditionally reserved for the bishop of a metropolitan church or another ancient and venerable church. It is not automatically granted to every eparchial or diocesan bishop, even in the Eastern Catholic Churches.

So, respectfully, I don't agree that all Melkite eparchial bishops should automatically be archbishops. I don't think this is part of the tradition of either the Melkite Church or the Eastern Catholic Churches, but rather a fairly modern innovation.

Where to begin? With all due respect, your statement: "The underlying problem here, I think, is that Melkite bishops outside the Middle East are subject to the Holy See and not to the Melkite Synod, and they therefore have to follow Western custom with regard to the title of archbishop" is the real underlying problem.
The Roman patriarchate (and yes, I know that Rome has recently eschewed the title, but it's a Great Council of the Church that accorded her the title) only has the jurisdictional authority that the other Churches are willing to accord her. The proper phrase for the Roman See is "primus inter pares" not "Roma uber alles." Our Holy Synod is on record that the Melkite Church, in accord with the Church Fathers, accepts the Roman primacy as understood by the universal Church of the Seven Ecumenical Council and prior to our historic separation.

I make note that the documentation for the 1724 reconciliation between the Roman patriarchate and our own patriarchates clearly states that nothing previously kept and observed was to be abrogated. Check the history, the Fathers of our Holy Synod walked out of the Catholic Council of Vatican I and refused to sign its decrees over this very issue.

The Roman dicastries have often taken advantage of the weakened state of the Middle Eastern patriarchates suffering under Islam to further their own tendency to aggrandizing hegemony. To quote a leading Eastern Catholic and twentieth century Confessor of the Faith, the late Ukranian Patriarch JOSEPH I [Slipy]: "We suffer more in Rome than we ever did in the Soviet prison camps." Or, as our late patriarch MAXIMOS V pointed out: "We are not lapdogs."

I would have more understanding and sympathy for the Roman position when I see the "Latin patriarchate of Jerusalem" disappear and Rome submitting a terna to our patriachates for Latin bishops within our patriarchal territories.

As for the title "archbishop" for all eparchs, I agree that it is a relatively recent innovation. Nonetheless, it is an innovation that is now the accepted practice of our Church, and it is the greatest of hubris for those outside of our Church to insist that we follow the practice of their Church. There are many practices of the Roman Church that I could seriously question (imposed presbyteral celibacy, non-elected bishops, permanent? deacons, the use of azymes in the Eucharist, non-ordained ministers of Holy Communion, female servers, extra-conciliar additions to the Symbol of Faith (the Creed) etc., etc., etc., however it is a sister Church with whom we are in communion and her internal affairs are her affair.
The bottom line? Respect is a two way street.

Father bless!

Well said.

Respect is a two way street.

A hard principle to reconcile with the saying, "All roads lead to Rome".

"All roads lead to Rome"- "Omnes viae Romam ducunt" If by this you mean the standard medieval western idiomatic definition of this saying, i.e."that there can be many different ways of doing something", then I most heartily agree. However, if by this you mean that ultimately it is simply a case of "Roma locuta est -causa finita est." (a statement that, although attributed to him, Blessed Augustine never made) then I utterly reject this. Rome is not the final answer, the Holy Spirit is. And the Holy Spirit speaks most succinctly in the universal Church gathered together in Council: "It pleases the Holy Spirit and us..." is the traditional form of introduction for canons and decrees of the seven Great Ecumenical Councils of the Church.
Believe me when I say that I have the greatest respect for the Latin Church and her ancient tradition of faith, but love and respect does not make me blind to the fact that Rome can, at times, be her own worst enemy.
There isn't a day that goes by that I don't join my poor prayer to the overwhelming priestly prayer of Christ: "Father that they may be one,,," But that unity is based on Christ, as head of the Church and in the unity of the Holy Spirit who speaks to us through and in the oecumene of His Holy Church.

Bless Father,

Wonderful post!

All roads lead to Rome can mean there are many ways to skin the cat. But it can also (and frequently does) mean in the minds of the Curia Romana that there is a praestantia ritus Latini, and that the Eastern Churches may follow their own Tradition except where it diverges from that of Rome. The problem is a kind of schizophrenia between conciliar documents and papal statements on the one hand, and the manner in which policy is enacted on the other, which sends mixed signals not only to us, but to our Orthodox brethren, too. How, one wonders, can they take Rome's ecumenical blandishments seriously while observing how Rome treats the Eastern Churches with which it is already in communion?

Indeed, that is the problem in a nutshell.

To be honest, after knowing the Eastern Churches (Eastern Catholic and Orthodox), one of my conclusions even though i am a Latin Catholic :
The separation of Eastern Catholic Churches from their Orthodox Mother Church, and their communion with the Latin Church is a mistake; considering that the communion is useless and unmeaningful. The Latin Church thinks only themself. The Latin Church accomodate only their own business. And in many ways, they "act" like a colonial to the Eastern Churches which are in full communion with them. And the worst thing is, they never promote the EC to their own people. I even don't think that they consider the ECs as Catholics.
In this case, being fully communion with Latin Church has no significance.

Sorry to say....

Was it Fr. Serge who proposed a Congregation for the Occidental Church be formed by the Eastern Churches?

Try telling that to the thousands of martyrs and their families who suffered and ultimately gave their lives for the cause of communion with Rome.
Stephanos I
Beautiful Icon by the way. What is its title?