Additional Churches sui iuris?

[Peter_J]

**I don’t think the RC ever intends to have them as a sui juris, **but rather hoping the Ordinarite would just disappear in a generation or two and have them all as regular Roman Catholics. But anyway, isn’t the problem really about creating a new sui juris? Especially that the RC has laid claim to all territory not already occupied by an Eastern Church.

As I’ve said before (I forget which thread) Rome seems highly reluctant to either create any sui iuris churches, or raise any to the patriarchal level. But that’s not to say that I would *completely *rule out the possibility of new sui iuris church(es).

Having said that, I don’t find it strange that the Anglican Ordinariate isn’t a sui iuris church. Personally, I think the way the Orthodox have been doing it makes sense: Anglican parishes who convert can join any of the existing churches (well, I mean “any” in prinicple; as a practical matter, it would be either Antiochian or ROCOR (in this country)).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Hypothetical scenario. How would Rome deal with the OCA if the OCA wants to come into communion with Rome? Will there by an American Byzantine Rite Catholic Church?

 

[Peter_J]

Hypothetical scenario. How would Rome deal with the OCA if the OCA wants to come into communion with Rome? Will there by an American Byzantine Rite Catholic Church?

I would say (speaking with an iota of reluctance, between people reading this hypothetical might fail to grasp how remote it is) that if one of the Orthodox Churches decided on union-with-Rome … well, hard to say actually, because Rome would be very much aware of relations with the other Orthodox Churches. So, though it may sound strange, I think Rome might possibly respond with a “We’re flattered, of course, but don’t you think you should consult with the other Orthodox Churches before taking this step?”

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would say (speaking with an iota of reluctance, between people reading this hypothetical might fail to grasp how remote it is) that if one of the Orthodox Churches decided on union-with-Rome … well, hard to say actually, because Rome would be very much aware of relations with the other Orthodox Churches. So, though it may sound strange, I think Rome might possibly respond with a “We’re flattered, of course, but don’t you think you should consult with the other Orthodox Churches before taking this step?”

Let’s move beyond that and just say that union is happening. Do you think Rome will let the OCA be a sui juris for North America or say, “North America is RC territory. You guys will just be part of the Russian Catholic diaspora”? Or something like that?

 

[Peter_J]

You ask a good question, but the thing is that I don’t think you can “move beyond that” – it would be integral to the whole dialogue.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

In the case of the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter here in the US at this time their Ordinary is a priest, who is married.

…

The Right Reverend Monsignor Keith Newton P.A., the Ordinary for The Personal Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham in Great Britain is also a married priest.

I love how we can have married priests head up Personal Ordinariates of Western tradition, yet we cannot have married priests in an Eastern Catholic Church where it is tradition.

Sorry, 5Loaves et. al. - I couldn’t resist …

May God bless both of these priests and grant them many happy, healthy years!

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Hypothetical scenario. How would Rome deal with the OCA if the OCA wants to come into communion with Rome? Will there by an American Byzantine Rite Catholic Church?

We already have one of those

 

[twf]

Malphono and Constantine - wanted to clarify that the Anglican Ordinariates, unlike previous anglican use parishes, are not under any local Latin bishop. They are part of the Latin Church, yes, but not part of any individual Latin diocese. The constitution allows for the Ordinary to be either a bishop or a presbyter. If a presbyter, he still enjoys the same power of goverance that a bishop would enjoy save ordaining his own priests. His only superior is the pope himself. In Latin terms, the presbyter/priest Ordinary enjoys “personal, vicarious ordinary” authority from the pope to act in a bishop in nearly every regard. The three current Anglican ordinaries are priests because they happen to be married, but there’s nothing in the constitution that would prohibit them from being elevated to the episcopate if celibate. There is a precedent for a mere priest to be granted episcopal like authority - abbots and vicar generals come to mind. Like abbots, the three Anglican ordinaries wear the mitre. They also sit on the national Latin episcopal conferences as voting members.

No they are not sui iuris churches, but they are essentially distinct dioceses within the Latin Church.

 

[Peter_J]

I love how we can have married priests head up Personal Ordinariates of Western tradition, yet we cannot have married priests in an Eastern Catholic Church where it is tradition.

Hmmm … that isn’t exactly a model I’d like to imitate, since in the Anglican Ordinariates only converts can be married priests.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

No they are not sui iuris churches, but they are essentially distinct dioceses within the Latin Church.

Like the Military Ordinariate jurisdictionally, but with a distinct ritual focus.

 

[twf]

Hmmm … that isn’t exactly a model I’d like to imitate, since in the Anglican Ordinariates only converts can be married priests.

I don’t believe that This is true. My understanding is that the Ordinary can petition Rome for a dispensation from the Latin celibacy norm on a case by case basis - even in the future when a self-sustaining anglican catholic community exists. The dispensation aspect isn’t a good model for the east though

 

[Vico]

1. … Do folks see a Byzantine Serbian/Montenegran Church sui iuris emerging?
2. Macedonians …Will we see it designated as a Byzantine Macedonian Church sui iuris ?
3. Czechs … Some sites on-line have already listed “Czech” as a Byzantine Church sui iuris . What do you think, will we see that happen soon?
4. Poles … In the minds of some, this, and the existence of a counterpart Orthodox Church, argue persuasively for erection of a Byzantine Polish Catholic Church sui iuris. What do you think?
5. Knanya Catholics… to become a separate Church sui iuris within the East Syrian Rite. Anyone have an opinion?

The Byzantine Catholic Church in the USA was once an exarchate. I think these exarchies will become sui iuris in time if the membership does not dwindle. Without their own hierarchy they need to be administerd through an ordinarate for the eastern faithful or an apostolic administrator or visitator or by the Latin Church. This is the situation with the Belorusian and Russian Catholic churches.

It was explained to me that many faithful in the Czech Republic are those from the Carpathians (Ruthenians) that have no work in the original lands and so are living in Praha.

The Byzantine Catholic Church (Križevci) comprising Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia (Vojvodina) and Montenegro - originated in 1611 Holy Roman Empire, in the Marcha Union. *The trend has been to split not consolidate.

Union of Uzhorod, Hungary, 1646, effective 1655:
Ruthenian
Slovak
Hungarian *
Macedonians are sui iuris already. The Macedonian Byzantine Catholic Church originated with creation of Union of Serbs-Croats-Slovenes 1918, but was dissolved in 1924, and revived in 2001.

Poland has both Ukrainian and Ruthenian faithful. Ruthenian were deported to Northern Poland in World War II. I think the numbers are low here so it would not be made sui iuris, similarly to the Georgians who never became sui iuris.

My guess is that Knanya traditions could be preserved with various canons within the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara ritual Churches.

 

[ConstantineTG]

You ask a good question, but the thing is that I don’t think you can “move beyond that” – it would be integral to the whole dialogue.

I know, but I’m just more interested in the thought of how the Catholic Church would handle the situation of the OCA coming into communion, not the other details that may lead to it.

 

[mardukm]

Let’s move beyond that and just say that union is happening. Do you think Rome will let the OCA be a sui juris for North America or say, “North America is RC territory. You guys will just be part of the Russian Catholic diaspora”? Or something like that?

That North America is the jurisdiction of the Laitn Church doesn’t have much to do with the Pope, but with the local Latin hierarchy. The pope has already given up the title “patriarch of the West” which would indicate (to me at least) a greater possibility that the OCA could be a sui juris Church in North America.

The issue is really the dynamic between the Eastern Catholic Churches with rites similar or identical to the OCA. This should be handled locally, but the Pope will get involved, of course, if the matter rises to the level of “conflict.” And I hope everyone would agree with that.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

I know, but I’m just more interested in the thought of how the Catholic Church would handle the situation of the OCA coming into communion, not the other details that may lead to it.

This would be ironic, since the OCA is from the Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church formed of the Greek Catholics (about 20,000) and Russian Orthodox.

 

[Peter_J]

I know, but I’m just more interested in the thought of how the Catholic Church would handle the situation of the OCA coming into communion, not the other details that may lead to it.

You don’t understand: I too am talking about that; it’s just that, even there, relations with other Orthdox Churches would continue to figure in. It’s not like we would just say to the EP, MP, etc “Well, we know that the OCA used to be with you guys, but now that they’ve decided to be with us, this is no longer any of your business. It’s now just between us and the OCA.”

It would be a different matter if we were talking about the possibility (also remote) of the Assyrian Church of East and Ancient Church of the East coming into communion with Rome. Even though that would still be a (relatively) small number of Christians (less than million, I want to say?) the dynamic would be different from the situation you’re considering, b/c there wouldn’t be a leaving involved.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t believe that This is true. My understanding is that the Ordinary can petition Rome for a dispensation from the Latin celibacy norm on a case by case basis - even in the future when a self-sustaining anglican catholic community exists. The dispensation aspect isn’t a good model for the east though

Touche. I should have said “only if one is a convert *or *has a dispensation from the pope”.

 

[fijiq48]

My guess is that Knanya traditions could be preserved with various canons within the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara ritual Churches.

No canons are being made for us, in fact we’re loosing more than gaining. Statistically speaking, looking at what we have accomplished I think Knanayas could and should receive a Metropolitan Sui Juris.

We have 177,874 members, a metropolitan arch diocese in Kottayam , an archbishop in Kottayam , an auxiliary bishop who’s in Kannur Town for the pastoral care of Knanayas in North Kerala, a bishop emeritus in Kottayam, 3 bishops working in Latin Diocese because Knanayas are not allowed to govern Syro Malabar Diocese’, 189 parishes, 239 priests, 41 major seminarians, 122 religious brothers, 1083 religious sisters , 165 educational centers, 39 charities/hospitals, and diaspora of 12,000 . While there are official sui juris out there with less than 5,000 members and no bishop at all… Knanaya Catholics remain a Metropolitan diocese without even a suffragan diocese.

 

[Vico]

No canons are being made for us, in fact we’re loosing more than gaining. Statistically speaking, looking at what we have accomplished I think Knanayas could and should receive a Metropolitan Sui Juris.

We have 177,874 members, a metropolitan arch diocese in Kottayam , an archbishop in Kottayam , an auxiliary bishop who’s in Kannur Town for the pastoral care of Knanayas in North Kerala, a bishop emeritus in Kottayam, 3 bishops working in Latin Diocese because Knanayas are not allowed to govern Syro Malabar Diocese’, 189 parishes, 239 priests, 41 major seminarians, 122 religious brothers, 1083 religious sisters , 165 educational centers, 39 charities/hospitals, and diaspora of 12,000 . While there are official sui juris out there with less than 5,000 members and no bishop at all… Knanaya Catholics remain a Metropolitan diocese without even a suffragan diocese.

Would you pray for two, one the the Syro-Malabar and one for the Syro-Malankara?

 

[fijiq48]

I would pray for one, Knanaya Catholics need to be united not divided. Syro Malankara Knanaya Catholics are under Kottayam Diocese, so if this Sui Juris was created they would be apart of us.