The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
That latin friend, Deacon Eric, Pastor Freed, Sebastian, Deepu
5,836 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 73 guests, and 33 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,153
Posts414,831
Members5,836
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 20
S
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 20
My main question is, are the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches in Autonomous or Autocephalous communion with the Latin Catholic Church?

I am not just looking for an answer, but a source. And not the documents from Vatican I, because it is to my understanding that they were signed by the Melkite Patriarch with the exception of the Eastern Churches being made clear.

Anyways I am looking for a clear source that says, the Eastern Catholic Churches are in (insert) communion with the Latin Catholic Church and Pope of Rome. Preferably a respected Eastern Catholic Source.


Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,249
Likes: 16
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,249
Likes: 16
I don't understand precisely where you're coming from.

What is this about the Melkite Patriarch and why don't you consider the Vatican I documents a source?

You say you would like a "respected EC Source." Respected by whom?

Does not the Decree of Vatican II on the Eastern Catholic Churches satisfy you in respect to the fact that we EC's are in communion with Rome?

Is it the "in communion with" that you are trying to establish as opposed to "being under the boot of?"

Alex

Joined: May 2013
Posts: 20
S
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
S
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 20
Sorry allow me to clarify, I know the East Catholic Churches are in Communion with Rome. In what way though? In an autonomous or autocephalous way?

I want to avoid Vatican I because the story goes:

Quote
The Melkite Church, a sui iuris patriarchal Church, is not merely a subset of the Roman Church. Indeed, it is a Church with its own history, theology, spirituality, and liturgy. The Melkite Church, being of Eastern origin, thus zealously guards her Byzantine approach to the Faith, seeing herself as a sister of the Roman Church. In times past, this defense of her heritage put some strain on the Church’s relationship with Rome. For example, at the First Vatican Council, Melkite Patriarch Gregory II Youssef refused to sign the decree of Pastor Aeternus concerning the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff. When questioned by Rome on the matter, the Patriarch determined that he would only sign the decree with this caveat added: “except the rights and privileges of Eastern patriarchs,” as he knew he must protect the prerogatives of the Eastern hierarchy. Though this action won him the enmity of Pope Pius IX, the Patriarch was vindicated by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Orientalium Dignitas, as well as in his expansion of the Melkite patriarchate’s jurisdiction in the Middle East. In the century that followed, relations with Rome improved considerably. Those Melkite parishes that previously had been forcefully Latinized saw the beginning of a return to their authentic traditions, and the Church expanded into North and South America. At the Second Vatican Council, Melkite Patriarch Maximos IV spoke on behalf of the “absent members” of the Council: the Orthodox Churches. He did this with the complete approbation of Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople. Maximos argued against the Latinization of the Eastern Churches, and in favour of the use of vernacular languages in all the liturgies of the Catholic Church. For his outstanding work at the Council, he was awarded with the Cardinalate. Following the Council, the Roman Church returned to the more ancient ecclesiological perspective of viewing its relationship with the Eastern Churches as one of sisters, rather than of mother and daughters.

I want the source to respected by the Holy See and the 23 Catholic Churches.


Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,249
Likes: 16
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,249
Likes: 16
In that case, I don't believe there is an EC Church that is either autonomous or autocephalous.

It all has to do with the definition of "Particularity" while being in communion with Rome.

I will have to find some sources for you on this.

Alex

Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 294
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 294
Would not the sources by the various unia signed by the respective parties to them?

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,249
Likes: 16
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,249
Likes: 16
You mean those documents were worth the paper they were written on? grin

Alex

Last edited by Orthodox Catholic; 12/09/14 04:41 PM.
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
I would think that the sui juirs Eastern Catholic Churches are much closer to Autonomous Churches than to Autocephalous based on the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. I believe I have read, and I can't remember where, the term "autonomous ritual Church."


Last edited by Nelson Chase; 12/09/14 05:57 PM.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
If autocephalous merely means being able to elect your own head bishop (i.e. patriarch), then the patriarchal churches in the Catholic communion are autocephalous. Major archepiscopal churches in the Catholic communion would not be autocephalous since its head bishop needs to be confirmed by another authority (i.e. the Pope of Rome).

ALL sui juris Churches in the Catholic communion are autonomous, but not all are autocephalous.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk


Last edited by mardukm; 12/11/14 07:36 AM.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,249
Likes: 16
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,249
Likes: 16
One Metropolitan of the UOC-MP recently had an interview and this was one of the topics that he commented on.

He said that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate was autonomous but not autocephalous because when the UOC-MP Synod chooses a new Primate for itself, this must be approved/blessed by the Patriarch of Moscow.

Otherwise, all else is under the direct control of the UOC-MP including the canonization of its own saints (it has glorified quite a few new saints and martyrs since 1991).

The "autonomy" of the UGCC simply does not compare to that at all. Even now, UGCC bishops are chosen and ratified for various eparchies around the world directly by the Vatican - very often without any communication before with the UGCC Synod which is taken by surprise by such announcements. The UGCC Synod appears to only have jurisdiction within Ukraine itself with the Vatican looking after its world-wide eparchies and missions.

There is no question tha the UGCC cannot glorify its own saints for even local veneration etc.

If that is "autonomy" then . . . have a nice day everyone! smile

Alex

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
Originally Posted by mardukm
If autocephalous merely means being able to elect your own head bishop (i.e. patriarch), then the patriarchal churches in the Catholic communion are autocephalous. Major archepiscopal churches in the Catholic communion would not be autocephalous since its head bishop needs to be confirmed by another authority (i.e. the Pope of Rome).

ALL sui juris Churches in the Catholic communion are autonomous, but not all are autocephalous.

Hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk
Not just the metropolitan, but all bishops, or at least in the Ruthenian Church.

Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Offline
AthanasiusTheLesser
Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,285
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
One Metropolitan of the UOC-MP recently had an interview and this was one of the topics that he commented on.

He said that the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate was autonomous but not autocephalous because when the UOC-MP Synod chooses a new Primate for itself, this must be approved/blessed by the Patriarch of Moscow.

Otherwise, all else is under the direct control of the UOC-MP including the canonization of its own saints (it has glorified quite a few new saints and martyrs since 1991).

The "autonomy" of the UGCC simply does not compare to that at all. Even now, UGCC bishops are chosen and ratified for various eparchies around the world directly by the Vatican - very often without any communication before with the UGCC Synod which is taken by surprise by such announcements. The UGCC Synod appears to only have jurisdiction within Ukraine itself with the Vatican looking after its world-wide eparchies and missions.

There is no question tha the UGCC cannot glorify its own saints for even local veneration etc.

If that is "autonomy" then . . . have a nice day everyone! smile

Alex
With all the interference from the Colonial Office, the abolition of which is an urgent need, it seems that calling our churches autonomous is quite a joke.

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Dear brother Alex,

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The "autonomy" of the UGCC simply does not compare to that at all. Even now, UGCC bishops are chosen and ratified for various eparchies around the world directly by the Vatican - very often without any communication before with the UGCC Synod which is taken by surprise by such announcements. The UGCC Synod appears to only have jurisdiction within Ukraine itself with the Vatican looking after its world-wide eparchies and missions.
One of the differences between the CIC and CCEO is that Eastern and Oriental synods can challenge a Vatican "appointment." Not so in the Latin Church. Maybe your synod simply did not disagree with the "appointment." It's a bit hard to believe that Vatican appointments occur in Eastern or Oriental eparchies without any say from the Synod. AFAIK, any appointments must be chosen from a list submitted by the Eastern or Oriental Synod in the first place.

Quote
There is no question tha the UGCC cannot glorify its own saints for even local veneration etc.
You know infinitely more than me on the workings of your own Church. AFAIK, the rules on canonization/beatification recognizes that local Churches glorify their own saints. With respect to that, the rules only say that if local glorification has occurred, then it will not go through the canonization/beatification process. There is nothing of which I am aware that forbids local glorification. Are you sure this not simply a matter of your hierarchy WANTING to go through the canonization/beatification process, instead of a restriction being imposed from an authority outside your Church?

Blessings

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Dear brother Athanasius L,

Originally Posted by Athanasius The L
Not just the metropolitan, but all bishops, or at least in the Ruthenian Church.
Except for Cyprus(?), I'm not aware of any metropolitan Church that is autocephalous anyway.

The jurisdiction of the Ruthenian Church in North America (U.S. only?) is in a unique situation since it was created by the Latin Patriarch in his territory for the Ruthenians. So the Ruthenian Metropolitan is under the direct omophor of the Latin Patriarch, instead of an Eastern Patriarch.

As I've maintained in the past, I sincerely believe Eastern and Oriental Patriarchs have the same authority in their own territory - i.e., create at least an eparchial jurisdiction for Latins. The reason it has never been done, I believe, is simply because any Latins in the Eastern and Oriental territories appeal directly to the Pope of Rome to set up their ecclesiastical structures. There's no reason, canonically speaking, that they cannot appeal to the local Patriarch in whose territory they reside to set up their ecclesial structures.

Blessings

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by SocietyOfStsP&A
My main question is, are the 22 Eastern Catholic Churches in Autonomous or Autocephalous communion with the Latin Catholic Church?
No on autocephalous, but Yes on autonomous.

But I need to add this addendum: if you asked "According to the Orthodox definition of a church being autonomous, are the EC churches autonomous?" then I think the answer would be No.


Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5