Amount of Rome's Control on Eastern Catholics

[Cecilianus]

I can understand why someone could get this impression; my fellow Byzantine Catholics do often emphasize the autonomy and independence of the Eastern Churches from Rome, and often criticize “ultramontanism”. This seems to me counterproductive. We’re frankly the most orthodox, the most traditional, and the most authentic Christians left in the Church - the Western Church has been completely ravaged by heresy and sin. (90% of Roman Catholics use contraception, 70-some percent don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and just take a look at their new Liturgy sometime.) I’m not meaning to imply that this same kind of unbelief isn’t present in our Churches as well, but it’s certainly not as visible. A priest has to say the Liturgy the same way no matter what heresies he happens to hold. We are the face of (O)rthodoxy. We ought to be the staunchest and closest children of the Pope, rather than cowering at anything that smells of “ultramontanism” for fear of compromising our Orthodoxy.

If we truly believe that the Pope of Rome is the greatest defender of Orthodoxy that the world has ever known - as history overwhelmingly confirms - then these fears look silly. The fact that we have not needed to have been constantly disciplined by him as the West has means that we are good and obedient children, not that we are aloof from him.

This shouldn’t be changed by the fact that the Roman Church tends to use different theological language (based on the Latin language, rather than the Greek) to express the same Faith. Becoming louder vocal advocates of the Papacy can only lead to Rome regarding us as vanguards of orthodoxy and accepting our tradition even more strongly as the Catholic Faith, whereas complaining about the Papacy will only rekindle old Roman suspicions still widely prevalent in the Latin Church about the “heresies of the Greeks”.

 

[Cecilianus]

Now I just have to wait for Marduk to come along and shoot down everything I just said with his historical erudition. Fire away!

 

[kitkatty]

I can understand why someone could get this impression; my fellow Byzantine Catholics do often emphasize the autonomy and independence of the Eastern Churches from Rome, and often criticize “ultramontanism”. This seems to me counterproductive. We’re frankly the most orthodox, the most traditional, and the most authentic Christians left in the Church - the Western Church has been completely ravaged by heresy and sin. (90% of Roman Catholics use contraception, 70-some percent don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and just take a look at their new Liturgy sometime.) I’m not meaning to imply that this same kind of unbelief isn’t present in our Churches as well, but it’s certainly not as visible. A priest has to say the Liturgy the same way no matter what heresies he happens to hold. We are the face of (O)rthodoxy. We ought to be the staunchest and closest children of the Pope, rather than cowering at anything that smells of “ultramontanism” for fear of compromising our Orthodoxy.

If we truly believe that the Pope of Rome is the greatest defender of Orthodoxy that the world has ever known - as history overwhelmingly confirms - then these fears look silly. The fact that we have not needed to have been constantly disciplined by him as the West has means that we are good and obedient children, not that we are aloof from him.

This shouldn’t be changed by the fact that the Roman Church tends to use different theological language (based on the Latin language, rather than the Greek) to express the same Faith. Becoming louder vocal advocates of the Papacy can only lead to Rome regarding us as vanguards of orthodoxy and accepting our tradition even more strongly as the Catholic Faith, whereas complaining about the Papacy will only rekindle old Roman suspicions still widely prevalent in the Latin Church about the “heresies of the Greeks”.

We are the face of (O)rthodoxy. We ought to be the staunchest and closest children of the Pope, rather than cowering at anything that smells of “ultramontanism” for fear of compromising our Orthodoxy

Great statement!

 

[dvdjs]

…the Western Church has been completely ravaged by heresy and sin. (90% of Roman Catholics use contraception, 70-some percent don’t believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and just take a look at their new Liturgy sometime.) I’m not meaning to imply that this same kind of unbelief isn’t present in our Churches as well, but it’s certainly not as visible.

It’s off topic, but … where do these numbers come from? I am very, very skeptical of them.

The first one is totally implausible; Considering the number that are not involved in a sexual relationship, or are not in child-bearing years, or are pregnant or trying to become pregnant, it is difficult to imagine that more than a third would be even considering any kind of family planning - natural or artificial; so why would they be using contraception?

I have seen polling on the second, but in the poll that I saw the question and multiple choice answers were not given in clear Catholic language. Has there been a poll asking that documents a dissent from the actual Catholic teaching?

 

[Cecilianus]

It’s off topic, but … where do these numbers come from? I am very, very skeptical of them.

The first one is totally implausible; Considering the number that are not involved in a sexual relationship, or are not in child-bearing years, or are pregnant or trying to become pregnant, it is difficult to imagine that more than a third would be even considering any kind of family planning - natural or artificial; so why would they be using contraception?

I have seen polling on the second, but in the poll that I saw the question and multiple choice answers were not given in clear Catholic language. Has there been a poll asking that documents a dissent from the actual Catholic teaching?

I don’t remember - might have been Crisis Magazine, or something published by Catholic Answers.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It’s off topic, but … where do these numbers come from? I am very, very skeptical of them.

The first one is totally implausible; Considering the number that are not involved in a sexual relationship, or are not in child-bearing years, or are pregnant or trying to become pregnant, it is difficult to imagine that more than a third would be even considering any kind of family planning - natural or artificial; so why would they be using contraception?

I have seen polling on the second, but in the poll that I saw the question and multiple choice answers were not given in clear Catholic language. Has there been a poll asking that documents a dissent from the actual Catholic teaching?

Also the viewpoint you quoted from Cecilianus might be reflective of the US and other “Western” nations. Many in other nations are still very conservative and follow Church teaching very well.

 

[Cecilianus]

Also the viewpoint you quoted from Cecilianus might be reflective of the US and other “Western” nations. Many in other nations are still very conservative and follow Church teaching very well.

The statistics were strictly of the United States.

Though most of what I have heard of Western Europe is that it is even worse and that America is regarded as the standard of religiosity; the rest of the world (Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia) is much more orthodox.

I don’t know much about Canada, though someone from Nova Scotia told me that the only people who go to Mass there are the non-French Canadians (in other words, immigrants and people who are ethnically Protestant).

 

[ConstantineTG]

The statistics were strictly of the United States.

Though most of what I have heard of Western Europe is that it is even worse and that America is regarded as the standard of religiosity; the rest of the world (Eastern Europe, Latin America, Africa and Asia) is much more orthodox.

I don’t know much about Canada, though someone from Nova Scotia told me that the only people who go to Mass there are the non-French Canadians (in other words, immigrants and people who are ethnically Protestant).

I can’t say much. Sometimes I am pleasantly surprised that despite a very liberal government policy, people themselves are quite conservative generally. I believe more people here than in the US are against gay marriage, even though it’s been legal Canada-wide for a while. Same for abortion. I guess when you legalize those things, they don’t become the hot-button issue that is always on the media. With the media being silent about it, people can now have their own personal opinions on it rather than have positions that are pushed on them by the media.

 

[Cecilianus]

I can’t say much. Sometimes I am pleasantly surprised that despite a very liberal government policy, people themselves are quite conservative generally. I believe more people here than in the US are against gay marriage, even though it’s been legal Canada-wide for a while. Same for abortion. I guess when you legalize those things, they don’t become the hot-button issue that is always on the media. With the media being silent about it, people can now have their own personal opinions on it rather than have positions that are pushed on them by the media.

Well, abortion’s quite legal and readily available here (if you stand outside an abortion mill, you’ll see that they get plenty of business), yet you still have Protestant ministers writing editorials in the newspaper and giving sermons encouraging people to have them - and there is a very vocal pro-abortion movement among secularists and atheists. People are extremely polarized over issues that are already legal as well as the ones that are still illegal.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t remember - might have been Crisis Magazine, or something published by Catholic Answers.

What you wrote is explosive. Do you care if what you wrote is true? The first item I have already shown to be completely implausible. And here is a comment by Fr Neuhaus at First Things on a study “American Catholics and Catholic Americans” that is pertinent to your remark on the Reals Presence"

Jan 11, 2008 Richard John Neuhaus
… 81 percent say that “belief that Jesus is really present in the Eucharist” is essential in their understanding of the Catholic faith. Keep in mind that the survey is of a cross section of the 65 million Catholics in the U.S. (although Latinos are greatly underrepresented). Among the more highly committed Catholics, it is reasonable to assume that belief in the Real Presence is considerably higher than 81 percent. This is worth keeping in mind because some years ago a clumsily worded question in a survey came up with the conclusion that only one third of Catholics believed in the Real Presence, and that “finding” still crops up in discussions on the state of Catholicism. Among active Catholics, belief in the Real Presence, as also in the Incarnation, the Virgin Birth, and the Resurrection of Jesus, edges up toward unanimity.

It is worth taking the time to source ostensible “facts” so that their reliability can be assessed. And let’s try to prevent the cropping up.of dubious “findings”.

 

[Cecilianus]

What you wrote is explosive. Do you care if what you wrote is true? The first item I have already shown to be completely implausible. And here is a comment by Fr Neuhaus at First Things on a study “American Catholics and Catholic Americans” that is pertinent to your remark on the Reals Presence"

I’ve seen it enough times in enough different places that I wouldn’t have even thought it controversial. Crisis Magazine is my best guess as to where I might have seen it; I also have probably seen it in some trad publications. Fr. Neuhaus mentions the survey himself; he says it was poorly worded.

 

[dvdjs]

I’ve seen it enough times in enough different places that I wouldn’t have even thought it controversial. Crisis Magazine is my best guess as to where I might have seen it; I also have probably seen it in some trad publications. Fr. Neuhaus mentions the survey himself; he says it was poorly worded.

Seeing it enough times (from whom?) in enough different places (where?) does not make either of the “facts” presented credible.

The first is so plainly wrong that it’s hard to imagine why it gets repeated. And, if you have not gotten the full message from Fr. Neuhaus, the second is garbage from a poorly executed poll. In another study we see 81% of the rank and file and essentially 100% of committed Catholics professing belief in the Real Presence. Quite a difference.

And more here:
socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/04/do-70-of-catholics-deny-real-presence.html

a Roper poll from 1997 indicated that 82% among American Catholics believed that “the bread and wine used in Mass are actually transformed into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.” A CARA poll in 2001 found that 70% accepted that “Jesus Christ is really present”

The wording of the CARA poll leaves a lot to be desired. But even taking these results at face value, there is a reasonably consistent record of ~three-quarters, not ~1/3 of all Catholics professing belief in the Real Presence

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

I saw those figures presented by Michael Voris in one of his Youtube presentations of Catholic TV.

 

[Vico]

According to canon law, the Pope has jurisdiction over all churches, how this jurisdiction is carried out is different for each Eastern Church. The Pope is the visible head while Christ is the real Head of the Church. The Pope works though the curia, in this case it would be the Congregation for Oriental Churches.

The Eastern Catholic Churches are in communion with the Pope, that means that the Pope recognizes the sacraments of the Eastern Rites, and that we share the same faith. However, according to Church theology, each bishop is a successor to the Apostles, and the head of their own diocese, or “eparchies” in the east. Therefore the Pope, being first and foremost the Bishop of Rome is not the formal head of various Eastern Rite Churches, for example, Patriarch Gregory III is the head of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, and Stephanos II is the head of the Coptic Catholic Church.

On top of that, there are different Church hierarchies for each Eastern Rite Church. There are 4 hierarchies, patriarchal, major archepiscopal, metropolitan, and “other”. A Patriarchal Church is one headed by a patriarch. For example the Chaldean, Armenian, Coptic, Syriac, Maronite, and Melkite Catholic Churches. A Patriarch is elected by a synod of his own churches bishops without approval from the Pope, but the Pope is informed of the decision. Major Archepiscopal are churches headed by an Archbishop, for example, the Romanian, Ukrainian, Syro-Malabar, and Syro-Malankara Catholic Churches. The Archbishop is elected by his own bishops but the decision must be confirmed by the Pope.

The Metropolitan Churches are headed by a Metropolitan Bishop who is appointed by Rome. These churches have their territorial boundaries defined by the Pope through the Congregation for Oriental Churches. These Churches include the Ruthenian and Ethiopian Catholic Churches. Lastly, there are churches with none of their own hierarchy, these include the Greek, Bulgarian, Hungarian, Slovak, Belarusian, Albanian, Georgian, and Russian Catholic Churches. Since they have no hierarchy of their own, they are oversaw by the local Latin Rite Bishop.

So, in the Eastern Catholic circle, there are various views of the Pope as he relates to our own hierarchy. And the Pope takes various roles, ranging from very active, to virtually non existent roles in governing the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Nice summary. Some of the smaller churches have bishops of their own church. Georgian is not* sui iuris*. Also, recently, the Slovak Church became Metropolitan (Presov), and there are also Italo-Albanian and the two sui iuris Churches of former Yugoslavia: Krizevci (Croatia) and Macedonian. Here is a summary of the smaller churches:

Eparchy:

1 Italo-Albanian

a) 13 February 1919 Eparchy of Lungro degli Italo-Albanesi
Ordinary: vacant, Archbishop Salvatore Nunnari, Metropolitan Archbishop of Cosenza-Bisignano, Apostolic Administrator sede vacante et ad nutum Sanctae Sedis

b) 25 October 1941 Eparchy of Piana degli Albanesi
Ordinary: Sotir Ferrara

c) 26 September 1937 Territorial Abbacy of Santa Maria di Grottaferrata
Ordinary: Abbot Emiliano Fabbricatore, O.S.B.I.

2 Krizevci, Croatia
Ordinary: Bishop Nikola Kekić, Bishop of Križevci of the Croatians
17 June 1777 Diocese of Križevci

3 Hungarian
8 June 1912 Eparchy of Hajdúdorog
Ordinary: Bishop Peter Fülöp Kocsis (2008.05.02 – )

Apostolic Exarchate (limited oversight), Apostolic Administration, or Visitor:

1 Ruthenian (Praha, Czech) – apostolic exarchate
Bishop Ladislav Hučko, Apostolic Exarch of Czech Republic of the Ruthenians

2 Hungarian (Miskolc) – apostolic exarchate
Vacant, Bishop Peter Fülöp Kocsis, Apostolic Administrator of Miskolc of the Hungarians

3 Bulgarian (Sofia) – apostolic exarchate
Bishop Christo Proykov Apostolic Exarch of Sofia of the Bulgarians

4 Greek (Athens and Istanbul) – apostolic exarchate
Bishop Dimitrios Salachas, Apostolic Exarch for Catholics of the Byzantine Rite in Greece

5 Macedonian (Skopje) – apostolic exarchate (2001)
Latin Bishop of Skopje, Kiro Stojanov, Apostolic Exarch of Macedonia of the Macedonians

6 Serbia and Montenegro – apostolic exarchate (2003)
Bishop Djura Džudžar, Apostolic Exarch of Serbia and Montenegro of the Croatians

7 Albanian – apostolic administration
11 November 1939 Apostolic Administration of Southern Albania
Ordinary: vacant, Hil Kabashi, O.F.M., Apostolic Administrator

8 Russian – apostolic administration
Ordinary: vacant, Joseph Werth, Latin-rite Apostolic Administrator of Siberia.

All Eastern Catholics in the Russian Federation remain under the jurisdiction of Bishop Joseph Werth. Parishes and communities exist in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. There are also Russian Catholic parishes and faithful in San Francisco, New York, El Segundo, Denver, Melbourne, Buenos Aires, Dublin, Meudon, Paris, Chevetogne, Lyon, Berlin, Munich, Rome, Milan, and Singapore.

9 Belarusian – apostolic visitor
Ordinary: vacant, Alexander Nadson, Apostolic Visitator
Apostolic Visitator for all Belarusian Greek-Catholic faithful abroad
Belarusian Catholic mission in Great Britain, London and Antwerp are main parishes.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Within the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Rome certainly does exert a lot of control - often in competing terms with our Patriarchal Synod (whose patriarchal status Rome refuses to recognize).

But why? To what purpose? To try and placate the Russian Orthodox? Let’s have some true “realpolitik” here - the Moscow Patriarchate won’t be happy until the UGCC is gone completely. They regard the “return” of the UGCC in western Ukraine as some sort of plot - they don’t accept that the Church hung on that long under their yoke and Soviet persecution.

There are also RC theologians who seem to always want to “apologise” for the presence of Eastern Catholic Churches today. Again - WHY?

I wouldn’t mind Rome’s “meddling” so much if it weren’t directed in such a political way.

Alex

 

[Cecilianus]

I wouldn’t mind Rome’s “meddling” so much if it weren’t directed in such a political way.

Right - that’s the problem.

 

[5Loaves]

8 Russian – apostolic administration
Ordinary: vacant, Joseph Werth, Latin-rite Apostolic Administrator of Siberia.

All Eastern Catholics in the Russian Federation remain under the jurisdiction of Bishop Joseph Werth. Parishes and communities exist in Moscow and Saint Petersburg. There are also Russian Catholic parishes and faithful in San Francisco, New York, El Segundo, Denver, Melbourne, Buenos Aires, Dublin, Meudon, Paris, Chevetogne, Lyon, Berlin, Munich, Rome, Milan, and Singapore.

Just a bit of other information on us:

Byzantine-Russian:
There is no ecclesiastical structure for Russian Greek (Byzantine) Catholics in North America. Russian Catholics currently fall under the canonical jurisdiction of the local Roman Catholic ordinary.

However, the Russian Greek-Catholic parish in El Segundo, CA, is formally committed to the spiritual omophorion of the Melkite Eparchy of Newton by mutual agreement of the hierarchs involved. Also by mutual agreement of the hierarchs involved, the Russian parish in San Francisco is informally committed to the spiritual omophorion of the Melkite Eparchy and that in Denver, also informally, to the spiritual omophorion of the Romanian Eparchy of St George in Canton. The Russian parish in NYC is currently served by Melkite clergy, but has no formal or informal relationship with the Melkite Eparchy.

For our SF parish, a Melkite bishop has ordained our EC clergy. (Others of our clergy are bi-ritual, ordained in the Latin Church with faculties to serve us.)

 

[Vico]

Within the Ukrainian Catholic Church, Rome certainly does exert a lot of control - often in competing terms with our Patriarchal Synod (whose patriarchal status Rome refuses to recognize)…

It was in 1963 that Pope Paul VI created that Major Archbishopl title. Since then three other Churches have become major archepiscopal: Syro-Malabar (1992), Syro-Malankara (2005), and Romanian (2005). But all the Patriarch and Major Archbishops are members of the CEC.

Rome meaning the Roman Curia, composed of the CEC with:

HE Cardinal Leonardo Sandri, Prefect of the Congregation
Archbishop Cyril Vasil’, (Slovak) Secretary of the Congregation
Mgr. Maurizio Malvestiti, Undersecretary of the Congregation

HB Patriarch Antonios Naguib (Coptic)
HBE Major Archbishop Cardinal Lubomyr Husar, M.S.U. (Ukrainian)
HB Major Archbishop Lucian Mureşan (Romanian)
HB Patriarch Gregorios III Laham (Melkite)
HBE Patriarch Cardinal Nasrallah Pierre Sfeir (Maronite)
HB Patriarch Ignace Youssif III Younan (Syrian)
HB Major Archbishop Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal (Syro-Malankar)
HBE Patriarch Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly (Chaldean)
HBE Major Archbishop Cardinal Mar Varkey Vithayathil, C.SS.R. (Syro-Malabar)
HB Patriarch Nersès Bédros XIX Tarmouni (Armenian)
HE Cardinal Kurt Koch, president of the Council for Promoting Christian Unity

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Vico,

Yes, when our Patriarch Joseph Cardinal Slipyj emerged from his 18 years in Siberia for his loyalty to Rome, we Ukies acclaimed him as “Patriarch” much to Moscow’s and Rome’s chagrin.

Our Patriarchal Synod (sic) has also declared Cardinal Husar as our Patriarch and very many of our parishes commemorate him as such.

I’ve met RC’s who likewise refer to our primate as “Patriarch” - even though Rome has not yet recognized this title.

As with everything else, it is always easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission . . .

Alex

 

[C_Alexander]

Dear Vico,

Yes, when our Patriarch Joseph Cardinal Slipyj emerged from his 18 years in Siberia for his loyalty to Rome, we Ukies acclaimed him as “Patriarch” much to Moscow’s and Rome’s chagrin.

Our Patriarchal Synod (sic) has also declared Cardinal Husar as our Patriarch and very many of our parishes commemorate him as such.

I’ve met RC’s who likewise refer to our primate as “Patriarch” - even though Rome has not yet recognized this title.

As with everything else, it is always easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission . . .

Alex

I remember reading or hearing somewhere that Rome said it was not their business to declare him a patriarch; that responsibility laid with his own church. I don’t remember where I heard or saw it or how reliable the source was. Does anyone know anything about this?