www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Eparchial & Parish Events Pope gives American Maronites youthful bishop

Pope gives American Maronites youthful bishop

[img]http://0.static.wix.com/media/bca077dc1ab0bb0d799b28ce6c3f987d.wix_mp_256[/img]

By David Uebbing
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pope-gives-american-maronites-youthful-bishop/

Vatican City, Jul 10, 2013 / (CNA/EWTN News).- Pope Francis has appointed a new bishop for one of only two Maronite Catholic territories in the United States, while also accepting the resignation of the current shepherd.

Father Abdallah Elias Zaidan, 50, was named July 10 by the Pope to replace Bishop Robert J. Shaheen as bishop of Our Lady of Lebanon Eparchy.

Bishop Shaheen turned 76 on June 3, placing him one year beyond the retirement age.

Bishop-designate Zaidan will be moving from his post as rector of the Cathedral of Our Lady of Lebanon to the eparchy’s headquarters in St. Louis, Mo.

While the eparchy was originally established in Los Angeles in 1994, its seat was moved to St. Louis in 2001 with approval from the Vatican.

Bishop-designate Zaidan was born in Kosaybé, Lebanon on March 10, 1963.

He is a member of the Congregation of Lebanese Maronite Missionaries, has worked in school administration, and has served as the pastor of several parishes.

In addition to English, he speaks Arabic, French, Italian, Spanish and Syriac.

The Maronite Catholic Church traces its roots to the early Christians of Antioch, the first believers to be called Christian. In fact, the Church still uses Syriac in its liturgy, a dialect of Aramaic, the same language Jesus spoke.

The Church takes its name from the fourth century hermit St. Maron, whose way of life inspired many monks and laity to follow him, eventually resulting in the distinctive Maronite Rite.

With the influx of immigrants to the United States from Lebanon and the surrounding region in the latter part of the 19th century, the Pope set up ecclesial structures to serve the Maronite faithful.

The Maronite Church in the U.S. falls under the jurisdiction of two eparchies: the Detroit-based Eparchy of St. Maron and the St. Louis-based Our Lady of Lebanon Eparchy.

As shepherd of the Our Lady of Lebanon Eparchy, Bishop-designate Zaidan will lead 24,108 Catholics, 39 priests, 8 permanent deacons and 15 religious.

There is an open seat in Passaic; mayhaps Pope Francis can find some brilliant twenty-something priest to fill it?

Nice, but no kewpie doll! It must be the Maronite Patriarch and his Synod ALONE who choose bishops for the Maronite Church wherever it is found!

It would be nice to have a Bishop in place by the Anniversary!

Beware what you wish for.

"For better or for worse," I can find no mention of the Maronite Patrarchial Synod involved in accepting the resignation of Bishop Shaheen or in selecting Bishop-designate Zaidan as his replacement. The announcement from the "horse's mouth" (or as some Eastern Catholics say, the "colonial office"), i.e., the Vatican, (whther directly from Vatican Radio or indirectly through the United States Catholic Conference and from the Papal Nunciature) mentions only the involvement of Pope Francis.

Please read Canon law. The Pope never merely, unilaterally chooses a bishop for a particular Church. The Synod is always involved. "Appointment" is really a misnomer for what happens.

What actually happens is that a particular Church's Synod either (1) elects a bishop and the Pope gives final approval, or (2) submits 3 candidates and the Pope approves one. Such a process is often referred to as a "papal appointment," but that is not really the case, since it is not a unilateral action by the Pope (I mean, given the standard understanding of "appointment" as a unilateral action).

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

Outside of the "traditional territories" of the Eastern Churches, the Pope appoints all bishops directly, without reference to the Synod or its wishes. He may consult them, or he may not, as he sees fit. What does not happen is what, canonically, should happen: regardless of where in the world a vacancy occurs, the synod votes on a bishop, elects him, ordains or installs him, and that bishop sends a synodikon to all his brother bishops--including the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome has no need nor right to be involved in the appointment of bishops from other particular Churches--and, in fact, really has no need to appoint even the bishops of the Latin Church directly. That malevolent practice is only a bit more than a century old, and if we look at the results, doesn't seem like much of an improvement on the traditional practice.

But, if the Bishop of Rome insists on appointing Eastern Catholic bishops outside of their Churches' "traditional" territory, it seem only fair that the Patriarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches get to appoint Latin bishops whose sees fall within the "traditional" territories of the Eastern Churches. Sauce for the goose, and all that.

I'll never understand how any honest observer can ever consider Manitoba and Saskatchewan as anything other than the "traditional territory of the UGCC.

I couldn't agree more.

For the Curia Romana, history ended in 1596, so the boundaries of all Churches are fixed according to that date, except for the Church of Rome, which--in accordance with its ecclesiology on that date--claims an unfettered, universal, non-territorial jurisdiction.

Dear brother Stuart,

That is incorrect. Please read Canon 149 of the CCEO.

No. It is the job of the Synod to offer the list of candidates to the Pope. They elect these candidates according to Canon law, not because the Pope can dispense or require of that action as he sees fit.

That is what happens, except there is an extra step inauspiciously called "papal appointment." Btw, I hope you understand that "papal appointment" is a purely administrative action. The power to ordain and enthrone rests with the Patriarch/Major Archbishop and the Synod.

If it is in the traditional territory of the Latins, I disagree - yes he does. Of course, as you propose, we should also clamor for a like right by our head bishops in the appointment of Latin bishops in Eastern/Oriental traditional territories.

I don't understand this comment. Appointment of bishops by head bishops, especially by those of patriarchal status, is a patristic practice. What is the objection?

As mentioned, appointment of bishops by head bishops, especially by Patriarchs, is a patristic practice. I don't know why you think it is only about a century old.

Agreed. The current procedure is that their consultation is necessary. Our head bishops should have more of a say in the matter of Latin bishops in our traditional territories than mere consultation.

I recall reading a Wikipedia article on the matter a while back. One thing stuck out in my mind - the procedure for the election and subsequent appointment of a NEW bishop whether WITHIN or OUTSIDE the traditional Eastern and Oriental territories is basically the same (there's one or two differences). When it happens WITHIN the traditional territory, it is published as a decision of the Patriarch and his Synod, without reference to the Pope. If it happens OUTSIDE the traditional territory, it is published as a decision of the Pope without reference to the Patriarch and his Synod. Weird. My memory might be off on the specifics, but that was the most stark impression that the article left in my mind.

Blessings,
Marduk

I can agree with the "universal" and "non-territorial" descriptives. I disagree (actually, object) to the mischaracterization of the papal prerogatives as "unfettered."

I don't see that concept mentioned or even implied in the documents of Vatican 1 (at least with the necessary information obtained from the background debates of that Council). "Unfettered" is a mischaracterization of the papal prerogatives imposed on it by Absolutist Petrine exaggerators and non-Catholic detractors (and I don't see you as either of those two).

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk:

Up until the beginning fo the 20th century, many Latin bishops were appointed by the ruler of the country they lived in. In fact, some of the royal rulers in Europe even had a traditional veto over the outcome of papal elections. That veto was last used by the Hapsburgs when Pope St. Pius X was elected. The first person elected was not acceptable to Franz Joseph and was vetoed by his cardinal representative at the conclave. So Stuart is correct that the Pope has not had a direct appointment in all Latin bishops prior to the beginning of the 20th century.

Stuart's other point is that what is, in fact, specified in canon law is not always the way things shake out in practice. The Pope is the supreme law-giver in the Catholic Church. Who can challenge him if he decides to act unilaterally? Everyone owes him obedience.

Bob

Dear brother Theophan,

Yes, I understand that, but I believe your statements necessitates some important caveats. The Pope of Rome as supreme head bishop certainly has the theoretical prerogative to make such a unilateral decision. But such a prerogative is not contained in the dogma or the canons of the Catholic Church, at least not on the basis of his mere discretion (or "as he sees fit").

In people's fears of the papacy, has anyone ever considered the plain and simple fact that every bishop is supreme in his diocese, and that theoretically, he can take his diocese into schism? This is a theoretical possibility - it is certainly not impossible. Should we leave the Church because of these merely theoretical possibilities? Is fear the basis for decisions about our Faith?

I am absolutely convinced that if the supreme head bishop has such a prerogative to make this unilateral decision (any unilateral decision, for that matter), it can be made in only one circumstance - if the head bishop and Synod of the local particular Church has been impeded so that it cannot make those decisions for itself. It is simply NOT within the power of the Pope, whether by divine or canonical right, to himself impede the authority of local episcopal authorities. Nothing in the dogmas of V1 has granted him that right/prerogative, so I don't know why anyone would think he even has such a prerogative, at least on the basis of his mere discretion. What the dogmas and canons of the Catholic Church assures us is that the Pope as supreme head bishop can only use his prerogatives as such (not as local bishop, metropolitan, or Patriarch, but as supreme head bishop) in response to the needs of the Church. It simply cannot be utilized at his mere discretion (or, "as he sees fit"). It is the needs of the Church that is the paramount factor for a valid decision by any bishop (whether of a Pope, Patriarch, Metropolitan or local bishop), not the mere will or discretion of a bishop.

First, demonstrate that the circumstance merits a unilateral decision by the Pope (i.e., the needs of the Church/local Church demands it). Then and only then would I even entertain the idea that a unilateral decision was made. Otherwise, canon and divine law demands that the Pope works with his brother bishops, not act as if his brother bishops don't even exist.

The Pope of Rome is the supreme lawgiver in the Church, but that does not by any stretch of the imagination mean he is "unfettered" -- in the same way, the Coptic Pope is regarded as the "Supreme Judge" in the Coptic Orthodox Church, but that does not by any stretch of the imagination mean he can do as he pleases according to his mere discretion. Maybe it's because I am a cradle Oriental (Orthodox) that I simply don't see any notion of absolute, irresistable power attached to the term "supreme." Maybe that makes me a naive Catholic, but I have yet to see any proof of this "unfettered" and unilateral papal power in practice or in dogma in the history of the Catholic Church.

To address your post directly --
(1) I believe the role of the secular authority is beside the point. I believe we should limit our consideration to the ecclesiastical sphere. In that light, episcopal "appointment" by the Pope of Rome was normal in the past, until the time of Pio Nono (not that it always happened), as it was for other Patriarchs. There were even instances when the bishop of Rome appointed bishops for non-Latin Churches. An interesting note - in the 19th century, it was not always referred to as a papal appointment, but rather as a papal nomination. As has always been the case, the power to consecrate and enthrone rested with the head bishop and Synod of the local Church. A bishop can be nominated by the Pope, but the local Patriarch might refuse to consecrate and enthrone the bishop. This happened with the Chaldean Church in the 19th century. Patriarch Audu refused to consecrate 2 bishops nominated by Pio Nono. Pius IX insisted upon pain of deposition. Patriarch Audu signed a promise to consecrate the two bishops, but it is on record that he did not feel bound by the signature. After Pio Nono died, the 2 bishops had not yet been consecrated, and Pope Leo XIII never insisted on the matter. Today, Canon Law assures us that a papal nomination for a non-Latin Church can be challenged by a local Synod, and the situation with Patriarch Audu won't happen again. As already stated, "papal appointment" is really a misnomer since it implies a unilateral action by the Pope, which simply does not normally happen.

(2)I agree we would need to obey the Pope when he makes even a unilateral decision. But I would insist that there are definite conditions that must be in place before he could or would even make such a unilateral decision in the first place - namely, the local head bishop and Synod has been impeded from making a decision for their local Church. In such a circumstance, yes we would be bound to obey the Pope since - in the absence of our own local authorities - the Pope would be our authority in the "chain of command."

Forgive me if my post comes across as a tirade, for I don't intend it as such.

Blessings,
Marduk