A few questions about EC Patriarchs

[Surnaturel]

Hello brothers and sisters in Christ. I would like to know how much autonomy the patriarchs of Sui iuris churches have. Does the Pope ratify the election of bishops and patriarchs?

How are bishops and patriarchs chosen? Through a synod?

What kind of papal power or jurisdiction is exercised with regard to our churches?

Thanks in advance.

 

[eamonnroma]

Hello brothers and sisters in Christ. I would like to know how much autonomy the patriarchs of Sui iuris churches have. Does the Pope ratify the election of bishops and patriarchs?

How are bishops and patriarchs chosen? Through a synod?

What kind of papal power or jurisdiction is exercised with regard to our churches?

Thanks in advance.

My understanding, and I am willing to be corrected on this, is that the Sui iuris churches have the same relationship with the Latin rite church as do the Easter Orthodox Churches have (or should have) with each other. They accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but have their own liturgical traditions, theological emphases and a great amount of autonomy.

 

[Aramis]

Hello brothers and sisters in Christ. I would like to know how much autonomy the patriarchs of Sui iuris churches have. Does the Pope ratify the election of bishops and patriarchs?

How are bishops and patriarchs chosen? Through a synod?

What kind of papal power or jurisdiction is exercised with regard to our churches?

Thanks in advance.

Rome is notified. Rome could, in extremis, appoint an interim if the synod fails to do so. Within their “traditional lands” Patriarchal churches appoint their own bishops. Only in the diaspora does Rome have approval as a right.

The Major Archiepiscopal Churches, one of which uses the term patriarch, technically have to get approval of their patriarch elect from Rome - but in practice that seems to be a formality. Otherwise, they’re pretty much patriarchal churches in all but title.

The “lesser” churches - Metropolitan, Eparchial, or Exarchate, nominate to rome, and rome approves or rejects.

 

[Vico]

Hello brothers and sisters in Christ. I would like to know how much autonomy the patriarchs of Sui iuris churches have. Does the Pope ratify the election of bishops and patriarchs?

How are bishops and patriarchs chosen? Through a synod?

What kind of papal power or jurisdiction is exercised with regard to our churches?

Thanks in advance.

For a Patriarchal eastern Catholic church within an eparchal see in the patriarchal territory, they elect bishops directly but outside the territory, they elect a terna (three candidates) to be submitted to Rome who chooses. The same happens with Major Archiepiscopal churches.

All other eastern Catholic churches sui iuris have bishops appointed by Rome.

There is a synopsis here:
canonlaw.wikispot.org/CCEO

 

[Surnaturel]

Thanks a lot everyone. All of your responses were incredibly helpful.

 

[malphono]

For a Patriarchal eastern Catholic church within an eparchal see in the patriarchal territory, they elect bishops directly but outside the territory, they elect a terna (three candidates) to be submitted to Rome who chooses. The same happens with Major Archiepiscopal churches.

All other eastern Catholic churches sui iuris have bishops appointed by Rome.

There is a synopsis here:
canonlaw.wikispot.org/CCEO

Well, that “yes” within the Patriariarchal Territories is merely a qualified one. Even the quoted synopsis is clear that, while the Synod indeed “elects” its own bishops, Rome retains unto itself veto power. Ideally what happens is that the Synod submits a list of possible candidates to Rome in advance, and those who are approved may be “freely” elected. Now, if a candidate is not on that list of names pre-vetted by Rome, he may still be elected, but the results of the election are kept secret until such time as Rome approves the candidate, which can take months. And believe me, it does, indeed, happen from time-to-time that Rome rejects candidates elected in this manner (i.e, those not pre-vetted). There have also been cases where a non-pre-vetted candidate was elected by the Synod, rejected by Rome, and then ultimately approved by Rome upon Patriarchal/Synodal appeal.

The assignment of bishops is another matter. Within the Patriarchal Territories, Rome does not normally interfere in that process. OTOH, even a canonically elected sitting bishop must be approved by Rome if the Synod votes to reassign him in the diasporal lands.

 

[ConstantineTG]

My understanding, and I am willing to be corrected on this, is that the Sui iuris churches have the same relationship with the Latin rite church as do the Easter Orthodox Churches have (or should have) with each other. They accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, but have their own liturgical traditions, theological emphases and a great amount of autonomy.

No, sui juris and autocephaly are two different things. For one thing, no Orthodox bishop can summon bishops from another autocephalous Church the way the Pope does to any Catholic bishop.

 

[twf]

Well, that “yes” within the Patriariarchal Territories is merely a qualified one. Even the quoted synopsis is clear that, while the Synod indeed “elects” its own bishops, Rome retains unto itself veto power. Ideally what happens is that the Synod submits a list of possible candidates to Rome in advance, and those who are approved may be “freely” elected. Now, if a candidate is not on that list of names pre-vetted by Rome, he may still be elected, but the results of the election are kept secret until such time as Rome approves the candidate, which can take months. And believe me, it does, indeed, happen from time-to-time that Rome rejects candidates elected in this manner (i.e, those not pre-vetted). There have also been cases where a non-pre-vetted candidate was elected by the Synod, rejected by Rome, and then ultimately approved by Rome upon Patriarchal/Synodal appeal.

The assignment of bishops is another matter. Within the Patriarchal Territories, Rome does not normally interfere in that process. OTOH, even a canonically elected sitting bishop must be approved by Rome if the Synod votes to reassign him in the diasporal lands.

Hi Malphono - just a couple questions for my own curiosity. (As an aside, as a Latin, I strongly oppose Roman involvement in the election/appointment of ANY Eastern hierarchs, with the possible exception of the Italo-Albanian Greek Catholics whose rightful patriarch would be the Bishop of Rome by a long standing tradition…).

1. Why would Rome reject an Eastern candidate who has been elected by his own Church community? Can you suggest any concrete reasons? For one, on a practical level, I just can’t see how they could keep track of so many individuals in such a vast Church…

2)In this context, “who” exactly is Rome? I don’t believe the Congregation for Bishops gets involved with Eastern affairs? Would it not be the Congregation for the Oriental Churches whose membership includes many Eastern hierarchs?

 

[ConstantineTG]

1. Why would Rome reject an Eastern candidate who has been elected by his own Church community? Can you suggest any concrete reasons? For one, on a practical level, I just can’t see how they could keep track of so many individuals in such a vast Church…

What if they reject Papal Supremacy?

2)In this context, “who” exactly is Rome? I don’t believe the Congregation for Bishops gets involved with Eastern affairs? Would it not be the Congregation for the Oriental Churches whose membership includes many Eastern hierarchs?

They are still an office of the Pope and would do something only in accordance with what the Pope wants.

 

[malphono]

(As an aside, as a Latin, I strongly oppose Roman involvement in the election/appointment of ANY Eastern hierarchs, with the possible exception of the Italo-Albanian Greek Catholics whose rightful patriarch would be the Bishop of Rome by a long standing tradition…).

Yes, but IIRC, the “long standing” (and indeed it is of v-e-r-y longstanding) tradition would apply more to the Italo-Greeks of Grottaferrata, than to the Italo-Albanians.

1. Why would Rome reject an Eastern candidate who has been elected by his own Church community? Can you suggest any concrete reasons?

As I understand things, specific reasons are rarely given, but from a practical standpoint some have been rejected based on their political positions or affiliations, others because they may not have one or another degree, (and that last despite the fact that Canon Law is clear that any or all of those “requirements” can be dispensed at will, and we all know that happens regularly in Latin Church, as well as with Easter/Oriental diasporal bishops). IOW, it all means a candidate can be rejected “just because” … Rome doesn’t need any “concrete” reasons, does she?

For one, on a practical level, I just can’t see how they could keep track of so many individuals in such a vast Church…

This is true, and even more so in the Latin Church. Yet Rome insists on retaining the authority to appoint bishops at will.

2)In this context, “who” exactly is Rome? I don’t believe the Congregation for Bishops gets involved with Eastern affairs? Would it not be the Congregation for the Oriental Churches whose membership includes many Eastern hierarchs?

From what I’ve been privy to, it goes through both the so-called Oriental Congregation (and just because some Easter/Oriental Patriarchs and bishops, etc, are on it, doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a Roman dicastery dependent on the Roman Pontiff for its very existence) and the Congregation for Bishops. I’m not sure in which order, though, but I think it starts in the Oriental Congregation and then gets “rubber stamped” by the other. Seems to me, though, that it’s all the same, whether it’s one or both, or in which order. No matter how it’s sliced or diced, it’s still Roman interference.

 

[Vico]

Interfering: to interpose or intervene for a particular purpose.

 

[Sybok]

1. Why would Rome reject an Eastern candidate who has been elected by his own Church community? Can you suggest any concrete reasons? For one, on a practical level, I just can’t see how they could keep track of so many individuals in such a vast Church…

we can look back to the Byzantine Empire where various bishops partriarchs of constantinople were heretics appointed by the government. in more modern times an individual may warrant a veto by the bishop of rome may be compromised by political ideology or criminal activity - imagine for instance a KGB agent being elected patriarch by coerced bishops, it happens now as we type in the Church in China and the soviets tried similar strategies but failed so they did the psuedo-union of lviv and forced the UGCC to join the chekist controlled Russian Orthodox

frankly, despite some of my Eastern brothers bemoaning papal “power”, I’m rather grateful the bishop of rome has such canonical last resorts, it helps preserve orthodoxy and legitimacy. The Russian Orthodox who dared resist their secular despots and their chekist episcopal appointees were declared by most of world Eastern Orthodoxy (who were also compromised by their governments) as “schismatics” (look up history of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia)

2)In this context, “who” exactly is Rome? I don’t believe the Congregation for Bishops gets involved with Eastern affairs? Would it not be the Congregation for the Oriental Churches whose membership includes many Eastern hierarchs?

i think it would be the congregation for oriental churches with a lot of meetings i would be sure with the secretary of state, the bishop of rome himself, and the papal nuncio of said country