Churches without hierarchy

[twf]

Precisely. Latins are barely tolerated. A church that looks, acts and feels like the Russian Orthodox Church is another story entirely.

So essentially…the Russian Greek Catholics are denied a hierarch for the same reason that the Ukrainian Greek Catholics are denied a patriarch…
…and it all comes back to the apparent standing policy of keeping the Russian Orthodox Church appeased above all else.

 

[The_Idiot]

So essentially…the Russian Greek Catholics are denied a hierarch for the same reason that the Ukrainian Greek Catholics are denied a patriarch…
…and it all comes back to the apparent standing policy of keeping the Russian Orthodox Church appeased above all else.

Couldn’t possible comment on that :sad_yes:

 

[runningdude]

That’s not a Church (capital “C”) in the ecclesiastical sense. They are faithful of a given rite and tradition, under the care of a local hierarch.

“sui juris Church” does not equal “Rite”

Vico cited the canons that support my statement. By law, these are proper Churches.

 

[Peter_J]

Exactly - in the end it seems to be legal fiction… if the Church is going to recognize the Russians as a Church sui iuris in their own right… just give them a bishop!

I think it’s a tad misleading to say “if the Church is going to recognize the Russians as a Church sui iuris”. My understanding is that once a church has sui iuris status, it continues to have it pretty much automatically barring some really extreme circumstances. (I’m not even sure if there has been a single case of a church’s sui iuris status being taken away.)

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Vico cited the canons that support my statement. By law, these are proper Churches.

as long as you think so

 

[runningdude]

as long as you think so

If the pope says they are a church, they are a church. My opinion doesn’t factor into this.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

If the pope says they are a church, they are a church. My opinion doesn’t factor into this.

Nor does mine.

If the Pope said they are a Church (capital “C”), he would have appointed an Exarch, at a minimum. An Exarchate must be elevated to at least a Metropolitan Church to be a true sui juris Church.

When my own forefathers arrived here in the U.S., they were a people with a common religious tradition and Rite, but not yet a Church, and certainly not yet a sui juris Church. That happened decades later.

 

[runningdude]

Errr because of the attitude of Moscow ?

So essentially…the Russian Greek Catholics are denied a hierarch for the same reason that the Ukrainian Greek Catholics are denied a patriarch…
…and it all comes back to the apparent standing policy of keeping the Russian Orthodox Church appeased above all else.

The Russian Orthodox Church has closer relations with the Catholic Church than any other Eastern Orthodox. This is also a vulnerable time for the Russian Orthodox - they’ve only been free from the Soviet rule for just over 20 years, and are facing a very secularist society. For instance, the abortion rate in Russia is so high, that the population is shrinking .

It is understandable that the Russian Orthodox don’t want a splintering of Christianity in their nation. While they may be willing to allow the Catholic Church to serve foreigners in Russia, nearly the entire native Russian population has ties to Orthodoxy. Catholicism can only expand in Russia at the expense of Orthodoxy, and introducing religious pluralism too easily leads to Protestantism taking hold. Just think how many Protestant groups have bastardized Christianity to the point that they believe abortion is acceptable!

With the stakes being literally life and death in Russia, I think it is prudent of the Catholic Church to not step on the Orthodox Church’s toes. It is a concrete statement of our Church’s belief in the validity of the Orthodox Church, which can only help lead the two into an eventual full communion.

 

[Peter_J]

The Russian Orthodox Church has closer relations with the Catholic Church than any other Eastern Orthodox.

I don’t what you’re basing that on. I wouldn’t call the relation between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church the “worst”, but neither would I call it the “best”.

Catholicism can only expand in Russia at the expense of Orthodoxy,

I think that’s an exaggeration. Certainly I would say that Catholics shouldn’t push Orthodox to convert to Catholicism; but Catholicism can “expand in Russia”, to a limited degree, simply by virtue of the occassional Russian who becomes interested in becoming Catholic of his/her own volition.

 

[Peter_J]

Nor does mine.

Nor mine.

An Exarchate must be elevated to at least a Metropolitan Church to be a true sui juris Church.

I think I understand what you mean here, but at the same time I worry a little how readers might interpret that.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I think I understand what you mean here, but at the same time I worry a little how readers might interpret that.

suffice it to say, sui juris is an eccelesiastical term with a very specific meaning in Catholic Church context

further, there has already been some evidence here that sui juris Church was being equated with religious of a given Rite and tradition

I’m out - this topic is exhausted here for all intents and purposes

 

[runningdude]

Nor does mine.

If the Pope said they are a Church (capital “C”), he would have appointed an Exarch, at a minimum. An Exarchate must be elevated to at least a Metropolitan Church to be a true sui juris Church.

It’s been my understanding that we were discussing in particular the case of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is Byzantine Rite. It does not have it own hierarchy right now; instead the pope has placed in care of numerous local jurisdictions.

According to the CCEO (Eastern/Oriental) Canon 174/175, this “sui iuris” church “immediately depends” on the Pope’s authority, but is run on a day to day basis by a the local authority (a “hierarch”) who is “entrusted” with its care.

When my own forefathers arrived here in the U.S., they were a people with a common religious tradition and Rite, but not yet a Church, and certainly not yet a sui juris Church. That happened decades later.

I understand that this was often the case in the United States. There is a Ukrainian Catholic parish near my house that is now part of the Ukrainian Diocese of Connecticut, but was originally founded as a Byzantine-rite parish within the Latin Archdiocese of Hartford.

However, in the case of the Russian Orthodox Church, it is a church that borrows its bishop from a neighboring jurisdiction (whose ultimate head is the Pope himself). The local Latin bishop is acting in a duel capacity as an administrator for the Russian Catholic Church, and not simply hosting Byzantine-rite parishes within his Latin diocese.

 

[Peter_J]

The local Latin bishop is acting in a duel capacity as an administrator for the Russian Catholic Church

That sounds very exciting.

 

[Vico]

yes, and if not organized under an Exarchate they are a … sui juris Church ?

for example: Russian Greek Catholics

Well, faithful are always enrolled in a **specific **Church sui iuris (one of the 23). If they are in an area that has no local hierarchy of their Church sui iuris, then care may be given to them by a bishop of another Church sui iuris, or by an ordinary of an ordinariate created for them. There is a variety of hierarchical arrangements. The responsibility is upon the Latin Church to provide this care, and it may be through a personal parish. (CIC 383, 518)

Church sui iuris is defined in CCEO 27: “A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.”

Each hierarch for these “other” Churches has the powers, as a delegate of the Holy See, given in CCEO 159:

(3) to erect a metropolitan tribunal;
(4) to oversee that the faith and ecclesiastical discipline are accurately observed;
(5) to conduct canonical visitations in eparchies, if the eparchial bishop neglected to do it;
(6) to appoint an administrator of an eparchy in the case mentioned in can. 221, n. 4;
(7) to appoint or confirm him who was legitimately proposed or elected to office, if the eparchial bishop, not detained by a just impediment, omitted to do so within the time established by law and also to appoint the eparchial finance officer if the eparchial bishop, having been warned, neglected to appoint him;
(8) to communicate the acts of the Roman Pontiff to the eparchial bishops and others to whom they pertain, unless the Apostolic See directly provides for it, and see to the faithful execution of the prescriptions which are contained in these acts.

 

[5Loaves]

It’s been my understanding that we were discussing in particular the case of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is Byzantine Rite.

However, in the case of the Russian Orthodox Church, it is a church that borrows its bishop from a neighboring jurisdiction

I’m sure you intended to say Russian Greek Catholic here for the point you wanted to make.

 

[5Loaves]

I’m just now reading this thread and I see my Church being used as the subject of a number of posts. I can’t speak for the other three Russian Greek Catholic parishes in America, nor really can I speak for my own parish. I will share again that during the recent profound changes my parish has gone through it seems entirely possible we could have been forced to close had we not been given the tremendous support we received from the Latin Archbishop through his Chancery staff and the administrator assigned to us. When we were advised of the very serious issues we faced, the representative from the Chancery who met with us called our Eastern Church “a jewel” (and he was not referring to our building when he referred to our Church), a very valuable part of the Archdiocese sacramentally and spiritually, and emphasized the goal of the Archbishop to assist us in maintaining our parish and helping it to grow.

Perhaps the most important gift we had from the Archdiocese was the highly competent, and deeply pastoral administrator who was assigned to us. Without his skilled managing of administration during the first year of transition I think we would have drowned in the issues facing us. He came and concelebrated with us, ate with us, every opportunity he had, including nearly til dawn at Pascha , while still in charge and very busy of his own parish and school, and serving as chaplain to the City firefighters, and possibly other duties I don’t know about. The profound kindness and love he showed us was a huge emotional help to us in a very difficult transition. His parish gifted us with beautiful much needed signage for our church, and at the time of our first Liturgy in our new location they gifted us with beautiful vestments for our priest which they commissioned from Russia.

Sundays we typically now have about 20-25 total for DL, including choir and clergy, and visitors (this is larger than we had in our old location). I believe we have only six who are canonically Russian Catholic in the parish. The rest are canoncially Latin, Orthodox, or another EC (Byzantine/Ruthenian, UGCC, Melkite). With four very small Russian Catholic parishes in America, two in CA, one in NY, one in CO, who may have as few canonically Russian parishioners as we do, I see no way practically have a bishop serving us as a particular Church, nor do I see how were there one assigned to our global Church-- our four US parishes, and the one parish in Australia, one in Argentina, in Paris, some few in Russia, and the monks of Chevetogne, that hierarch could have provided the resources that were needed for my parish to survive. We’ll never know, but I am far from alone in my opinion that being under a Latin Archbishop has kept us open, and moving forward.

As far as ordinations, Bishop Nicholas Samra celebrated our last ordination, our deacon, photos of that remain on our website, and we were recently told he will be tonsuring a reader for us. Likewise, I see on their Facebook today that a parishioner of St. Michael’s Russian Catholic NYC will be tonsured to the orders of Reader and Subdeacon by Sayedna Nicholas. facebook.com/pages/St-Michaels-Russian-Catholic-Church/110310162336951

So for this Russian Greek Catholic, I have no sense of having been “denied a hierarch”. You’re welcome to discuss various theories but in the real world, my parish has been very blest to be under the resources, in time and talent, of the local Latin Archbishop. With our brand new Archbishop Salvatore who has close personal friendships with a number of Eastern Catholic Clergy, two of whom were able to make it to the Installation Mass, we’re confident the support for our tiny parish will continue to be useful for our future growth.

I’m not saying anything I haven’t said before in this Section in other threads. Because I see such focus on my ritual Church in this thread I’m sharing these various components here again.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Church sui iuris is defined in CCEO 27: “A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.”

So I’ll ask our resident canon law expert two questions:

What is the single, unique expression under canon law that identifies a true, functioning sui juris Church?

Who competently preserves the liturgical patrimony of a here so-called sui juris Church that is not shephered by a bishop of that tradition?

 

[Aramis]

So I’ll ask our resident canon law expert two questions:

What is the single, unique expression under canon law that identifies a true, functioning sui juris Church?

Who competently preserves the liturgical patrimony of a here so-called sui juris Church that is not shephered by a bishop of that tradition?

I’m no expert… but I’ll note that the primary competencies noted within canon law appear to be the Right to regulate their own liturgy as a Church and to publish their own particular law.

It also appears that having one’s own hierarchs is merely a sign of health, not of need.

In the case of those without a Bishop-Ordinary as head of Church - Exarchial and sede vacante eparchial churches, and the Russians - the council of clergy along with the administrator can, when prudent, request specific changes, which must be approved by Rome.

The Georgians were an eparchial church, and don’t apear to have lost that status, but have merely been sede vacante for some time, for lack of clerics to elevate and enthrone.

The Russians are technically exarchial, with an adminstrator as head of church.

By comparison, the western Church “Rites”/Uses…

Dominicans: No separate canon law. No authority to change the liturgy itself, text or rubrics, but full permission to collectively amend their propers and calendar. No bishop, either; head of rite is the superior general, and as such is an ordinary.

Bragan, Mozarabic, and Ambrosian: No separate canon law; all clergy are also Roman. No separate hierarchy, either - all the bishops are Roman Rite bishops with parishes using both.

Forma Extraordinaria (Roman Traditionalists): No modification of the liturgy nor rubrics, no separate canon law, no changes of propers. Explicitly subjected to the local Roman Hierarchs.

Anglican Use & Anglican Ordinariates: Separate hierarchy allowed - tho hierarchs may be priest-ordinaries. No separate canon law, tho’ some exceptions/exemptions granted them. No changes to their liturgy or calendar save those approved by Rome, and those within the competence of a Roman Ordinary (transferral of obligation to sundays, mostly, and adoption of National feasts promulgated by the local Conference of Catholic Bishops). Their liturgy was adapted by a commission.

African Use: Simply a set of rubrical relaxations on the Roman Ordinary Form.
Yupic Use: slightly divergent Roman form, due to limitations of the Yupic/Yupiq language.

Dalmatian Rite aka Slavonic Use: Nothing more than the Roman Forma Extraordinaria in Church Slavonic; generally seems to have been dropped since promulgation of the 1970 missal.

Norbertines, Carthusians, Carmelites: Don’t know enough to make a valid case.

 

[mardukm]

So essentially…the Russian Greek Catholics are denied a hierarch for the same reason that the Ukrainian Greek Catholics are denied a patriarch…
…and it all comes back to the apparent standing policy of keeping the Russian Orthodox Church appeased above all else.

I read an old Catholic Encylcopedia article indicating that the number of Five Patriarchates is set in stone. The Eastern Orthodox practice of calling certain national churches Patriarchates is a post-patristic age development unique to Slavic Christianity. The ancient praxis was to call a grouping of churches above the Metropolitan level, that was not one of the original 5 Patriarchates, an Exarcahate (the head bishop of Cyprus or Bulgaria, for example, during the patristic age).

Today, an exarchate in the Catholic communion of Churches is an ecclesiastical grouping that does not have eparchial status. The exarch may be a proper ordinary (a bishop) or an ordinary with delegated power (such as an apostolic administrator). The competence to establish exarchates belongs to the Pope and Patriarchs/Major Archbishops.

Though it is commonly believed that the Patriarch’s power is limited to his territory, a Patriarch (or Major Archbishop) can actually establish exarchates outside his traditional territory to care for his flock.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

So essentially…the Russian Greek Catholics are denied a hierarch for the same reason that the Ukrainian Greek Catholics are denied a patriarch…

Major Archbishops have the same competencies in ecclesiastical affairs as a Patriarch. I wouldn’t say they are denied a Patriarch - only that their head bishop is denied the formal title of “Patriarch.”

Blessings,
Marduk