Candidates for a Sui Juris Church?

[Catechesis]

I’m new to the forums and I’ve been reading a lot about Eastern Catholics and the whole subject intrigues me, I’ve never met an Eastern Catholic in my life and I’ve always thought there was only one tradition within the church. I researched a whole lot about each different Sui Juris and there customs but I’m curious to know if there are any groups out there that are eligible for Sui Juris status? Which groups are these and will the Church allow the creation of more particular churches?

 

[SyroMalankara]

There are no “candidates” for such a thing. The Church recognizes organic development when it occurs in the course of time, it doesn’t (anymore) force the development prior to its occurrence.

 

[5Loaves]

I’m new to the forums and I’ve been reading a lot about Eastern Catholics and the whole subject intrigues me, I’ve never met an Eastern Catholic in my life and I’ve always thought there was only one tradition within the church. I researched a whole lot about each different Sui Juris and there customs but I’m curious to know if there are any groups out there that are eligible for Sui Juris status? Which groups are these and will the Church allow the creation of more particular churches?

Welcome to the Eastern Catholicism Section.
Reading about our history should clarify why there would be no new Churches created.

 

[Aramis]

There are three possible ways for a new Sui Iuris church to come into being…

1. An Orthodox Church of a non-western Rite comes into corporate union as a synodal action.
2. an extant Sui Iuris Church has become functionally two autonomous churches, and Rome simply acknowledges the factual separation.
3. Rome decides to create a Sui Iuris church to accommodate some particular new tradition that has been evolving already within the church.

1 is unlikely to happen due to the Balamand agreement.

2 is possible; some expect this to happen with the Ruthenian church, while others expect instead a second metropolitan and one of the two becoming the major archbishop.

3 is unlikely, since Rome has not granted sui iuris status to any western rite, ever, save the Roman Church as a whole.

The only reasonable candidates at present would be among the Byzantines… there are several that are nominally part of a different church sui iuris, but are functionally separate, but not at present self-governing… they are Exarchates under Rome’s omophor. Rome could make them sui iuris eparchial churches, or combine several into a metropolitan church, or leave them as is.

There is an outside chance of some western Sui Iuris churches, should a Pontiff decide it solves some issue in the church; many were hoping for this with the Anglicans, others for those strongly attracted to the Extraordinary Form (especially since it’s theology is starting to diverge from the mainstream Roman).

Theoretically, a corporate reunion of some body of Lutherans might be able to come into union as a sui iuris body, but it’s more likely to get a system of Ordinariates, just like the Anglicans, and for the same reasons.

But all of this is really unlikely.

If anything, Rome’s likely to combine a few extant ones.

 

[Peter_J]

I was going to mentioned the Ruthenian Catholic Church, which is technically one sui iuris church but is actually more like two sui iuris churches in terms of it day-to-day functioning, but I see Aramis has covered that pretty well.

On a side note, many years ago a Catholic newspaper/magazine, I forget which one (Catholic Almanac?), published a list of sui iuris churches which included, incorrectly, the “Georgian Catholic Church”.

 

[IsidoreOfKiev]

I pray that the Russian Greek Catholics get their own sui juris church. Their situation is really a shame indeed.

 

[Aramis]

I was going to mentioned the Ruthenian Catholic Church, which is technically one sui iuris church but is actually more like two sui iuris churches in terms of it day-to-day functioning, but I see Aramis has covered that pretty well.

On a side note, many years ago a Catholic newspaper/magazine, I forget which one (Catholic Almanac?), published a list of sui iuris churches which included, incorrectly, the “Georgian Catholic Church”.

The Georgian church at one time was a functioning eparchial church sui iuris… but the Soviet pogromi killed the clergy.

 

[Catechesis]

There are three possible ways for a new Sui Iuris church to come into being…

1. An Orthodox Church of a non-western Rite comes into corporate union as a synodal action.
2. an extant Sui Iuris Church has become functionally two autonomous churches, and Rome simply acknowledges the factual separation.
3. Rome decides to create a Sui Iuris church to accommodate some particular new tradition that has been evolving already within the church.

1 is unlikely to happen due to the Balamand agreement.

2 is possible; some expect this to happen with the Ruthenian church, while others expect instead a second metropolitan and one of the two becoming the major archbishop.

3 is unlikely, since Rome has not granted sui iuris status to any western rite, ever, save the Roman Church as a whole.

The only reasonable candidates at present would be among the Byzantines… there are several that are nominally part of a different church sui iuris, but are functionally separate, but not at present self-governing… they are Exarchates under Rome’s omophor. Rome could make them sui iuris eparchial churches, or combine several into a metropolitan church, or leave them as is.

There is an outside chance of some western Sui Iuris churches, should a Pontiff decide it solves some issue in the church; many were hoping for this with the Anglicans, others for those strongly attracted to the Extraordinary Form (especially since it’s theology is starting to diverge from the mainstream Roman).

Theoretically, a corporate reunion of some body of Lutherans might be able to come into union as a sui iuris body, but it’s more likely to get a system of Ordinariates, just like the Anglicans, and for the same reasons.

But all of this is really unlikely.

If anything, Rome’s likely to combine a few extant ones.

Thank you Aramis, I was actually just about to ask about some of these exact situations, especially about the Ruthenians and about existing Orthodox Churches. There is one more of interest though, what of the Knanaya Catholics, I mean the sub group within the Syro Malabar Church. I’ve read that they already have their own metropolitan,priests, and parishes but not a particular church of their own? It also came to my attention that like a Sui Juris Church they were allowed to set up Knanaya Parishes outside the proper territory of the metropolitan? It seems to me that they already function as a Sui Juris Church in every way except for that fact that they’re missing the official status as one?

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Knanaya can never be a sui iurus church, according to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches:

hapter I. Ascription to a Church Sui Iuris

Canon 29 - §1. By virtue of baptism, a child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year of age is enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the Catholic father; or the Church sui iuris of the mother if only the mother is Catholic or if both parents by agreement freely request it, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.
§2. If the child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year is:
1° born of an unwed mother, he is enrolled in the Church sui iuris to which the mother belongs;
2° born of unknown parents, he is to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of those in whose care he has been legitimately committed are enrolled; if it is a case of an adoptive father and mother, 1 should be applied;
3° born of non-baptized parents, the child is to be a member of the Church sui iuris of the one who is responsible for his education in the Catholic faith.

Canon 30 - Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely select any Church sui iuris in which he or she then is enrolled by virtue of baptism received in that same Church, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.

Canon 31 - No one can presume in any way to induce the Christian faithful to transfer to another Church sui iuris.

Canon 32 - §1. No one can validly transfer to another Church sui iuris without the consent of the Apostolic See.
§2. In the case of Christian faithful of an eparchy of a certain Church sui iuris who petition to transfer to another Church sui iuris which has its own eparchy in the same territory, this consent of the Apostolic See is presumed, provided that the eparchial bishops of both eparchies consent to the transfer in writing.

Canon 33 - A wife is at liberty to transfer to the Church of the husband at the celebration of or during the marriage; when the marriage has ended, she can freely return to the original Church sui iuris.

Canon 34 - If the parents, or the Catholic spouse in the case of a mixed marriage, transfer to another Church sui iuris, children under fourteen years old by the law itself are enrolled in the same Church; if in a marriage of Catholics only one parent transfers to another Church sui iuris, the children transfer only if both parents consent. Upon completion of the fourteenth year of age, the children can return to the original Church sui iuris.

Canon 35 - Baptized non-Catholics coming into full communion with the Catholic Church should retain and practice their own rite everywhere in the world and should observe it as much as humanly possible. Thus, they are to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the same rite with due regard for the right of approaching the Apostolic See in special cases of persons, communities or regions.

Canon 36 - The transfer to another Church sui iuris takes effect at the moment a declaration is made before the local hierarch or the proper pastor of the same Church or a priest delegated by either of them and two witnesses, unless the rescript of the Apostolic See provides otherwise.

Canon 37 - Every enrollment in a certain Church sui iuris or transfer to another Church sui iuris should be recorded in the baptismal register of the parish where the baptism was celebrated, even, as the case may be, in a Latin parish; if this cannot be done, it is to be kept by the proper pastor in another document in the archive of the parish of the Church sui iuris of enrollment.

Canon 38 - Christian faithful of Eastern Churches even if committed to the care of a hierarch or pastor of another Church sui iuris, nevertheless remain enrolled in their own Church.

Canon 897 - A member of the Christian faithful of an Eastern non-Catholic Church is to be received into the Catholic Church with only the profession of the Catholic faith, after doctrinal and spiritual preparation according to each one’s condition.

Canon 898 - §1. Besides the Roman Pontiff, the patriarch with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, or the metropolitan of a metropolitan Church sui iuris with the consent of the council of hierarchs, can receive a bishop of an Eastern non-Catholic Church into the Catholic Church.
§2. The right of receiving anyone else into the Catholic Church pertains to the hierarch of the place, or if the particular law provides for it, also to the patriarch.
§3. The right of receiving individual lay persons into the Catholic Church belongs also to the parish priest, unless this is forbidden by particular law.

Canon 899 - The cleric of an Eastern non-Catholic Church entering into full communion with the Catholic Church can exercise his own sacred order according to the norms established by the competent authority; a bishop cannot validly exercise the power of governance except with the consent of the Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops.

Canon 900 - §1. One who has not yet completed his fourteenth year shall not be received if the parents are opposed to it.
§2. If from the same reception, grave inconveniences are foreseen either to the Church or to the person, the reception may be put off unless there is imminent danger of death.

Canon 901 - If non-Catholics, who do not belong to an Eastern Church, are received into the Catholic Church, the norms given above are to be observed with the necessary adaptations, provided they have been validly baptized.

Canon 1465 - One who, belonging to any Church sui iuris, including the Latin Church, and exercising an office, a ministry or another function in the Church, has presumed to induce any member of the Christian faithful whatever to transfer to another Church sui iuris, contrary to can. 31 is to be punished with an appropriate penalty.

 

[Thomas48]

The Knanaya can never be a sui iurus church, according to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches:

Endogamous nature seems to be a problem for them, in achieving a Sui Juris goal. But what I don’t understand is are these canons void for the Knanaya Catholic Church? There diocese seem to openly break Canon, 30,31,32,33,34,36, and others, does the Vatican Acknowledge this?

 

[Catechesis]

The Knanaya can never be a sui iurus church, according to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches:

Endogamous nature seems to be a problem for them in achieving a Sui Juris goal. But what I don’t understand is are these canons void for the Knanaya Catholic Church? There diocese seem to openly break Canon, 30,31,32,33,34,36, and others, does the Vatican Acknowledge this?

 

[Thomas48]

Endogamous nature seems to be a problem for them in achieving a Sui Juris goal. But what I don’t understand is are these canons void for the Knanaya Catholic Church? There diocese seem to openly break Canon, 30,31,32,33,34,36, and others, does the Vatican Acknowledge this?

Im no buff on the Canons of the Church so I could be completely wrong but I believe the Decree of St. Pius X in creating Kottayam allows us to surpass these canons. The Decree is the only document that protects Knanayas the right to practice endogamy.

 

[Peter_J]

Endogamous nature seems to be a problem for them in achieving a Sui Juris goal.

Yes.

Or, looking at it from another angle, I think we could say that they aren’t seeking sui iuris status.

 

[Domnall]

Can someone explain to me this split within the Ruthenians? I have no idea what you all are talking about.

 

[CDB1718]

I was going to mentioned the Ruthenian Catholic Church, which is technically one sui iuris church but is actually more like two sui iuris churches in terms of it day-to-day functioning, but I see Aramis has covered that pretty well.

The Ruthenians are divided between two sui iuris Churches and one eparchial (mother) Church that doesn’t really have a formal designation at this time. The Slovak Church, which is Ruthenian in origin, was raised from an exarchate to a sui iuris Church in 2008 by Pope Benedict.

 

[Catechesis]

Im no buff on the Canons of the Church so I could be completely wrong but I believe the Decree of St. Pius X in creating Kottayam allows us to surpass these canons. The Decree is the only document that protects Knanayas the right to practice endogamy.

Yes.

Or, looking at it from another angle, I think we could say that they aren’t seeking sui iuris status.

Perhaps Thomas, I couldn’t answer that one for you because I’m not buff either haha but since you are a Knanaya yourself could you give us some insight on Peters second theory? Do the Knanaya Catholics want a Sui Juris for themselves separate from the Syro Malabar Church?

 

[Peter_J]

Can someone explain to me this split within the Ruthenians? I have no idea what you all are talking about.

Split?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Endogamous nature seems to be a problem for them in achieving a Sui Juris goal. But what I don’t understand is are these canons void for the Knanaya Catholic Church? There diocese seem to openly break Canon, 30,31,32,33,34,36, and others, does the Vatican Acknowledge this?

Strictly speaking, they are not a separate Church but a sub-group in the Syro-Malabar Church, and therefore the rule doesn’t apply, just as it wouldn’t for any other pious organization or association of faithful. An example of this is, for example, the rules on receiving Communion in the Hand - it is allowed in the Latin Church, but the rule would be exempted in the communities when celebrating the 1962 Rite of the Latin Church and even perhaps the Anglican Use Liturgy, since neither of these have the common custom of Communion in the Hand. There are many examples.

 

[Aramis]

Endogamous nature seems to be a problem for them in achieving a Sui Juris goal. But what I don’t understand is are these canons void for the Knanaya Catholic Church? There diocese seem to openly break Canon, 30,31,32,33,34,36, and others, does the Vatican Acknowledge this?

The Knanaya are not a Church. They are both a claimed ethnicity and an Indian subculture, and span several churches, tho mostly the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church, the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church, and the Malankara Orthodox Church.

The Syro-Malabar Metropolia for the Knanaya is a particular church, but is essentially a personal prelature for Malabar Knanaya in India. It does not represent all Knanaya, and doesn’t even have all the Syro-Malabar Knanaya.

 

[Nestor_kea]

Can someone explain to me this split within the Ruthenians? I have no idea what you all are talking about.

Someone mentioned that Slovak GCC “divergated” from Ruthenian ground (Hungarians too) but I think we should mention another fact:

Ruthenian “mother” GCC is Eparchy of Mukachevo (see in Uzhorod) but many Rusins = Ruthenians from Slovakia, Carpatian Rus (~ nowadays eparchy of Mukachevo), Halich… + Greek catholics somehow proxim to them migrated to USA and this led to establishing Ruthenian eparchies and later metropolia in USA. And after split of Czecho-Slovakia GCCin the Czech Republic were not left under Prešov (Slovakia) but a few years later exarchate for them was called to be part of Ruthenian GCC. It is direct subject to the Holy See.

So

1. 
   *]Eparchy of Mukachevo,
   *]Metropolia in USA,
   *]Exarchate in the Czech Republic.
   
   All of them independent subjects under Holy See without common “supreme body”.
   
   Maybe Eparchy of Mukachevo will ones become archeparchy (probably without sufragans). Some would like it to become a part of Ukrainian GCC but some would really strongly dislike this idea.