Additional Churches sui iuris?

[Sh12]

Hey Guys I originally saw this thread on the ByzCath Forums and I was wondering what your opinion on this was.

(Originally Posted by: Irish Melkite on the ByzCath Forums)

Your thoughts please folks

1. Serbians & Montenegrans

First erected in 1777 for the Byzantine Serbian Catholics, the Krizevcian jurisdiction was extended after WWI to all inhabitants of the newly-established Yugoslavia. Given the ethno-cultural diversity of the faithful thus served, it more resembled an ‘Ordinariate’ than a "Church sui iuris "; however, that was a natural product of the Yugoslavian geo-political environment, the epitome of ethnic heterogeny (where Tito was the first, only, and last true Yugoslav).

After his demise, Yugoslavia could not sustain a unified future and was wracked by bloody conflicts that divided along religious and ethnic lines. A natural consequence of those hostilities was that separate canonical jurisdictions would be erected along some of the more volatile ethnic lines. Seemingly, that process has now begun.

When Krizevci was designated “for All Byzantine Catholics in the former Republics of Yugoslavia”, it included responsibility for Byzantine Macedonian, Montenegran, Romanian, Ruthenian, Serbian, Slovak, and Ukrainian Catholics in those territories. As of August 2003, territory was ceded from Krizevci to establish an Apostolic Exarchate for Serbia & Montenegro. Do folks see a Byzantine Serbian/Montenegran Church sui iuris emerging?

1. Macedonians

The Apostolic Exarchate of Macedonia for the Faithful of the Oriental Rites is presently without hierarchy. It is presently categorized in the Annuario Pontificio as being canonically subject to Krizevci (Croatian Catholic), although the Latin Bishop of the Diocese of Skopje is secondarily designated as Apostolic Visitator for it. Will we see it designated as a Byzantine Macedonian Church sui iuris ?

1. Czechs

The Apostolic Exarchate of Czech Republic, Faithful of Eastern Rite (Byzantine) was erected in 1996, in the aftermath of the bloodless partition of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The Czech Exarchate was categorized as Byzantine Ruthenian and Annuario Pontificio reports its census data, together with that of the Ruthenian Eparchy of Mukacheve and other Ruthenian jurisdictions, when calculating statistics for that Church sui iuris .

However, the Czech Exarchate has a decidedly non-Ruthenian flavor to it: the first (now emeritus) Exarch and the second (incumbent) Exarch were both priests of the Presov Eparchy (Byzantine Slovak) prior to their elevation (altho both are, I understand from a reliable source, ethnic Rusyns, rather than Slovaks). The territory ceded to its formation was also lost from the Presov Eparchy (Yes, I know that Presov was originally formed from the Ruthenian Eparchy of Muckacheve, but that was in 1818 and its been designated Slovakian for a long time now).

These considerations suggest to me that the Czech jurisdiction might be less Ruthenian than Slovakian or Czech, altho I don’t have any numbers on the ethno-religious break-out of the Czech Republic’s population. Some sites on-line have already listed “Czech” as a Byzantine Church sui iuris . What do you think, will we see that happen soon?

1. Poles

The Cardinal Archbishop of Warsaw is secondarily designated as Bishop of the Ordinariate of Poland for Faithful of the Eastern Rites.

The Byzantine Catholic faithful in Poland are a diverse community which includes ethnic Poles and others, including Ruthenian, Slovak, and Ukrainian Byzantines. Only the Ukrainians have their own hierarchy.

Ordinariates are generally erected for just such communities of mixed heritage (e.g., France and Austria), since they lack the cohesiveness of tradition and practice that would persuasively argue for establishment of a Church sui iuris ; however, the situation in Poland differs from that in France and Austria in that Poland has historical roots in Byzantine Catholicity. 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?

1. Knanya Catholics

Knanaites are descendents of 72 Jewish Christian families who emigrated to Kerala (India) in A.D. 345, under the leadership of Knai Thomman (Thomas the Canaanite). They form an endogamous community within the Syro-Malabarese Church and retain certain liturgical practices unique to their ritual “sub-Church”.

His Grace, the Bishop of The Eparchy of Kottayam (India) for the Knanaya Catholics of the Syro- Malabar Catholic Church is their presiding hierarch.

The Eparchy of Kottayam is unique among Eastern Catholic Churches inasmuch as it is a non-exempt diocese of personal/particular jurisdiction, canonically erected solely on the basis of the ethno-cultural identity of its faithful.

Although the Knanaites aren’t really lobbying for a separate Church sui iuris (their current battle is to get the jurisdiction of their Eparch extended to the US or to get their own hierarch here), some aspects of their uniqueness (and that they were able to convince Rome, 80 years ago, to recognize their unique status) argue for them to become a separate Church sui iuris within the East Syrian Rite.

Anyone have an opinion?

 

[mardukm]

The question is, have any bishops petitioned for these groups to have sui juris status? That’s the only way I know by which they will become sui juris.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Wasn’t there a canon in Trent that disallowed the creation of new particular Churches? That is why we have all these “it is a particular Church but we’re call it something else” things like Ordinariates and such.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Wasn’t there a canon in Trent that disallowed the creation of new particular Churches? That is why we have all these “it is a particular Church but we’re call it something else” things like Ordinariates and such.

Notwithstanding the commitments implicit in the Balamand and Ravenna Statements.

 

[mardukm]

Wasn’t there a canon in Trent that disallowed the creation of new particular Churches? That is why we have all these “it is a particular Church but we’re call it something else” things like Ordinariates and such.

I’m not sure to what you are referring, but it can’t possibly have anything to do with “particular Church” as understood in the Latin/Eastern/Oriental Church context. I suspect it was referring to state-run, national Churches that the Protestants were attempting to set up within Latin Christianity.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Wasn’t there a canon in Trent that disallowed the creation of new particular Churches?

Not that I’ve ever heard of. (Granted, Trent is hardly my area of expertise.)

 

[malphono]

Wasn’t there a canon in Trent that disallowed the creation of new particular Churches? That is why we have all these “it is a particular Church but we’re call it something else” things like Ordinariates and such.

Trent was called in response to the Protestant so-called “Reformation” and so it’s focus was strictly on the West. Hence we have the suppression of those Western Rites that had not been in continuous use for at least 200 hears. I’ve never seen anything from Trent that tried to limit the authority of a true Oecumenical Council. As I recall, that is really what would be needed to recognize (and this is **strictly hypothetical **) a “new Church” (in the full sense).

In any case, the concept of “Ordinariate” is a legal, rather than ecclesiological, one. (So, too, is the more recent invention of “Personal Prelature”.) It’s a matter of jurisdiction and it is well within the purview of the Latin Church to establish whatever type of jurisdiction she deems necessary.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Not sure if it was really Trent but the CC has issued something that prevents them from establishing new particular Churches. I guess receiving one from the Orthodox would circumvent that rule. But basically the gist of it is that they cannot create new sui juris from thin air. Everyone has to fall under something that is already existing.

The Ordinariate is just that. I mean, let us not kid ourselves here. What else is it giving them self governance whilst being within the RC? What else is it if they have their own Liturgy and their own traditions that are distinct? I frankly don’t see what the big deal is not letting them have their own Church and their own bishops.

 

[malphono]

Not sure if it was really Trent but the CC has issued something that prevents them from establishing new particular Churches. I guess receiving one from the Orthodox would circumvent that rule. But basically the gist of it is that they cannot create new sui juris from thin air. Everyone has to fall under something that is already existing.

The Ordinariate is just that. I mean, let us not kid ourselves here. What else is it giving them self governance whilst being within the RC? What else is it if they have their own Liturgy and their own traditions that are distinct? I frankly don’t see what the big deal is not letting them have their own Church and their own bishops.

Am I correct that the point here is Anglicanorum Coetibus and the Anglican-Use Ordinatiates? If that’s it, give it a few years. They’re just about “getting their feet wet” now, and don’t even have a standard liturgy yet. One never knows, but it is possible that they might decide they want to revert to the now-suppressed Sarum Rite, particularly for use in Latin (and – believe it or not – there ARE members who DO want a Latin text available for use).

Plus, most (if not all) of the priests involved are married, so it’d be essentially impossible to have a bishop from among them, and I doubt they’d be too thrilled having a bishop imposed on them from outside. I mean, if they (clergy and laity alike) wanted the Novus Ordo, they could have just converted without waiting for Anglicanorum Coetibus, right?

 

[ConstantineTG]

Am I correct that the point here is Anglicanorum Coetibus and the Anglican-Use Ordinatiates? If that’s it, give it a few years. They’re just about “getting their feet wet” now, and don’t even have a standard liturgy yet. One never knows, but it is possible that they might decide they want to revert to the now-suppressed Sarum Rite, particularly for use in Latin (and – believe it or not – there ARE members who DO want a Latin text available for use).

Plus, most (if not all) of the priests involved are married, so it’d be essentially impossible to have a bishop from among them, and I doubt they’d be too thrilled having a bishop imposed on them from outside. I mean, if they (clergy and laity alike) wanted the Novus Ordo, they could have just converted without waiting for Anglicanorum Coetibus, right?

There are canons for handling the bishop’s wife (mostly dismissing her), if they were a sui juris they can apply those. Or ordain a widower to the Episcopate.

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.

 

[malphono]

There are canons for handling the bishop’s wife (mostly dismissing her), if they were a sui juris they can apply those.

Do the Orthodox apply them? :dts:

Or ordain a widower to the Episcopate.

Possible, but what happens when he is forced to retire and there’s no celibate or widower to succeed? Are they then supposed to “smile and shut up” when a bishop is imposed from without?

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.

For nearly the past 1000 or so years, (at least since Rome began to chip away the prerogatives of the Primatial Sees) there really hasn’t been a tradition of “sui juris” Churhes in the West, and that’s not likely to change. So, no, I don’t see that as the problem.

As for the immanent disappearance of the Ordinariates, I doubt it. The people involved are committed. They respect their spiritual patrimony (perhaps more so than do some Easterners/Orientals) and I expect that this will filter down through the generations.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Do the Orthodox apply them? :dts:

Not sure if any bishop today is the product of ecclesiastical divorce. But the Orthodox do still elevate widowers to the Episcopate, don’t they?

Possible, but what happens when he is forced to retire and there’s no celibate or widower to succeed? Are they then supposed to “smile and shut up” when a bishop is imposed from without?

Well, among the Orthodox the do sometimes get bishops from other jurisdictions. If this is the case, they either have the seat vacated or just get one from the RC.

For nearly the past 1000 or so years, (at least since Rome began to chip away the prerogatives of the Primatial Sees) there really hasn’t been a tradition of “sui juris” Churhes in the West, and that’s not likely to change. So, no, I don’t see that as the problem.

As for the immanent disappearance of the Ordinariates, I doubt it. The people involved are committed. They respect their spiritual patrimony (perhaps more so than do some Easterners/Orientals) and I expect that this will filter down through the generations.

If that is the case, they deserve to be a sui juris.

 

[malphono]

Not sure if any bishop today is the product of ecclesiastical divorce. But the Orthodox do still elevate widowers to the Episcopate, don’t they?

Whether a widower or (more unlikely but still possible, I suppose) a priest who was granted an ecclesiastical divorce, there’s no “bishops’s wife” in the picture. Is there? :dts:

Well, among the Orthodox the do sometimes get bishops from other jurisdictions.

Now really, how many Greek Orthodox are serving as bishops is Russian churches?

If this is the case, they either have the seat vacated or just get one from the RC.

Oh, so it’s like I said, “smile and shut up”? Somehow I don’t think that the Anglican Use people are going to swallow that.

If that is the case, they deserve to be a sui juris.

If the prerogatives of the Primatial Sees were to be restored, I might agree. But I think it’s reasonably clear (and has been for nearly a 1000 years) that ain’t ahappenin’ ergo I’m not agreeing.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Whether a widower or (more unlikely but still possible, I suppose) a priest who was granted an ecclesiastical divorce, there’s no “bishops’s wife” in the picture. Is there? :dts:

That is what I meant. They are divorced prior to ordination to the Episcopate. And as I understand it the wife must live as a monastic as well. So I guess there would be some kid or young man out there whose dad is a bishop and mom is a nun

Now really, how many Greek Orthodox are serving as bishops is Russian churches?

I think the OCA has bishops from other jurisdictions.

Oh, so it’s like I said, “smile and shut up”? Somehow I don’t think that the Anglican Use people are going to swallow that.

Aren’t they under a Latin bishop anyway?

If the prerogatives of the Primatial Sees were to be restored, I might agree. But I think it’s reasonably clear (and has been for nearly a 1000 years) that ain’t ahappenin’ ergo I’m not agreeing.

True, I’m just saying they deserve to be one. Whether they actually become one is another discussion. Or a pipe dream.

 

[malphono]

That is what I meant. They are divorced prior to ordination to the Episcopate. And as I understand it the wife must live as a monastic as well. So I guess there would be some kid or young man out there whose dad is a bishop and mom is a nun

A forced divorce. First time I’ve ever heard of it. How charming.

Aren’t they under a Latin bishop anyway?

At present, yes. But your suggestion was that they should be “sui juris” and have their own. If they had one of their own and there was no successor from within the community, they’d be stuck, wouldn’t they? The real point is that the Anglican Use is anything but Novus Ordo centered. The concept of the Ordinariate, while not perfect, at least leaves them (mostly) free of that.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Now really, how many Greek Orthodox are serving as bishops is Russian churches?

The American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese (ACROD) just nominated and elected a Greek Orthodox archimandrite as their new Metropolitan Bishop

 

[ConstantineTG]

A forced divorce. First time I’ve ever heard of it. How charming.

I don’t believe it is forced. As with ordaining a deacon or priest, the wife has to give assent. Which means they are also willing to embrace the monastic life.

 

[malphono]

The American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese (ACROD) just nominated and elected a Greek Orthodox archimandrite as their new Metropolitan Bishop

Sounds strange to me but OK, I believe you …

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Sounds strange to me but OK, I believe you …

From what I have heard, there was only one eligible candidate from the priestly ranks, who refused nomination. A majority of the ACROD priests and married.

 

[5Loaves]

Am I correct that the point here is Anglicanorum Coetibus and the Anglican-Use Ordinatiates? If that’s it, give it a few years. They’re just about “getting their feet wet” now, and don’t even have a standard liturgy yet. One never knows, but it is possible that they might decide they want to revert to the now-suppressed Sarum Rite, particularly for use in Latin (and – believe it or not – there ARE members who DO want a Latin text available for use).

Plus, most (if not all) of the priests involved are married, so it’d be essentially impossible to have a bishop from among them, and I doubt they’d be too thrilled having a bishop imposed on them from outside. I mean, if they (clergy and laity alike) wanted the Novus Ordo, they could have just converted without waiting for Anglicanorum Coetibus, right?

My Ordinary is an Archbishop, but an Ordinary need not be a bishop. 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. An Ordinary who is a bishop may not be a married man but an Ordinary who is a priest may be a married man.

I will just suggest that if you’re interested in knowing something more about the Rev. Jeffrey N. Steenson, the Ordinary for the Personal Ordinariate of the Chair of St. Peter there is quite a bit written by him and he’s on Youtube as well. He seems to have a delightful sense of humor and the skills needed in one leading a Diocese, or in this case the Ordinariate. They are blest to have him. 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’ve very much enjoyed watching the progress as parishes have come into the Church here in the US.

Since January, nearly 20 former Anglican parishes or communities have joined the ordinariate, and 22 former Anglican or Episcopal priests across the United States and Canada been ordained Catholic priests. Six of these priests were ordained by Fort Worth Bishop Kevin Vann in June.

In the discussion here about Orthodox, when bishops, metropolitans etc come only from the black clergy, having a small pool to choose from of monastics having the needed qualities for the role can present problems. Prayers for more vocations there.