Churches without hierarchy

[ByzCathCantor]

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.

I agree. I used the Russian Greek Catholics as an intentional example. No hierarchs from their own tradition, and liturgical usage varies among the practicing Russian Greek Catholics. As far as can be told, there are no norms of particular law for Russian Greek Catholics. Short of the Pope himself promulgating them, who would? Who is really in a position to regulate liturgy for Russian Greek Catholics? I guess that’s been my point. I acknowledge Vico’s citation of the definition of sui juris Church in the CCEO, but practically speaking, without at least an Exarchate, its hard to see this as a truly self-governing ecclesiastical entity.

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

Then they technically should have an Exarch, and they do not.

 

[Peter_J]

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.

A good way to put it, it seems to me, is that the Russian Greek Catholic Church and the Belorussian Catholic Church still *have *sui-iuris-status, but are unable to get very much *use *out of it.

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.

That’s what I thought, until I looked into it earlier this year and came to the conclusion that there never was a sui iuris Georgian Catholic Church. (Which leads to the question, What the “22nd” sui iuris EC Church? I’m fairly certain that it’s the Macedonian Catholic Church.)

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

Interesting. Is that a new development? I don’t recall it being mentioned in any of the Pontifical Yearbooks. (Edit: I responded to Aramis without first reading all the posts that came after. I see now that ByzCathCantor has addressed this issue.)

 

[Aramis]

The Russian GCC was established as an exarchate with a protopresbyter as exarch, Archpriest Leonid Fedorov. (Rather than the much more typical Auxiliary Bishop.) It’s been sede vacante since not long thereafter. St Andrew Parish notes the exarchial status in their history page. They also note an exarchate of Harbin.

And it’s worth noting that the Russian GCC, as an Exarchate, did establish, in Russia, the one change they and Rome felt was needed: The addition of the Papal Commemorations.

Outside of Russia, I don’t know who is approving the amended ektenie, but they certainly have been somehow promulgated. I suspect via the Russicum.

I’ve heard from Russian GCC parishioners that they are using the OCA translation with the addition of the papal commemorations.

 

[runningdude]

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. …

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.

Thank-you for re-sharing from your previous posts!

 

[5Loaves]

I’ve heard from Russian GCC parishioners that they are using the OCA translation with the addition of the papal commemorations.

My parish in SF does but I don’t know about any of the other English language parishes.

I mentioned in that other thread about various translations for "you and all o/Orthodox Christians’:

After Fr. Loya visited our parish he did a program which focused on Churches without their own heirarchs, such as my Russian Church. (Light of the East May 24, 2011). At one point in the program he speaks about his visit to our parish and that during the DL we commemorate our own Latin Church bishop, and also the Melkite Patriarch Gregorios, and also the Orthodox patriarch as well. He commented that perhaps there was a benefit in not having our own heirarch as it afforded us this opportunity for such “ecumenical prayer”.

We don’t actually commemorate an Orthodox patriarch. I think Fr Loya meant the Litany of Fervent Supplication where the deacon prays “Again, we pray for the blessed and ever memorable holy Orthodox Patriarchs; and the blessed and ever memorable founders of this holy temple…”

 

[Vico]

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?

1. A group of Christian faithful
2. united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law
3. which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris.

The canons specifically provide for the faithful, enrolled in a Church sui iuris, united by hierarchy of another Catholic church if the need exists. The hierarchy need not be enrolled in the same sui iuris Church.

What is hierarchy?

There are two hierarchies:
1. hierarchy of orders (bishop high),
2. hierarchy of jurisdiction (Pope high).

There may be many sui iuris Churches from a certain tradition, due to historical circumstances. When the liturgical recensions were researched and published by Rome, at the request of the eastern Catholic bishops, is was particularly satisfying to H.E. Metropolitan Archbishop of Lviv Andreas Alexander Sheptytsky.

All these Recensions were published, with different rubrics and languages for the various Oriental Churches:

I.-Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Bizantino
V51 A) In Lingua Greca
B) In Lingua Slava Ecclesiastica
V52 1. Recensio Vulgata (Pro Russis, Bulgaris, Serbis)
V53 2. Recensio Ruthena (Pro Ucrainis Et Ruthenis)
V53 3. Pro Utraque Recensione
V54 C) In Lingua Rumena
V55 Ii. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Alessandrino-Copto
V56 Iii. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Alessandrino-Etiopico
V57 Iv. Edizione Romana Dei Rituali Etiopici
V58 V. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Siro-Orientale O Caldeo
V59 Varia
V60 Vi. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali In Lingua Russa
V61 Vii. Libri Liturgici Per Le Chiese Orientali Di Rito Melkita

See:
vatican.va/roman_curia/institutions_connected/lev/documents/varie.html

H.E. Archbishop (of Lviv) Andreas Alexander Sheptytsky, OSBM (1865-1944 +)
http://www.odb.te.ua/userfiles/s320x240.jpg

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[ByzCathCantor]

There may be many sui iuris Churches from a certain tradition, due to historical circumstances. When the liturgical recensions were researched and published by Rome, at the request of the eastern Catholic bishops, is was particularly satisfying to H.E. Metropolitan Archbishop of Lviv Andreas Alexander Sheptytsky.

I’m struggling to see the logic in this response; that is, the linkage to the specific questions posed.

As regards the preservation of liturgical heritage, the specific observation quoted above (without further commentary) suggests that (i) Rome has codified liturgical traditions of the Eastern Catholic Churches and (ii) the Eastern Catholic hierarchs at the time were quite pleased with that approach.

Pleased with the approach, or the result? Even the Byzantine Orthodox generally regarded the Ruthenian Recension as a triumph, for example, but I doubt they would agree that Ukrainian and Ruthenian bishops lost their right and obligation to regulate the liturgical life of their own people since Rome had spoken on their form of liturgy.

Would this train of thought not then suggest that there is no need whatsoever for an Eastern Catholic bishops to ever promulgate anything with respect to liturgy, other than perhaps a vernacular translation of the related Recension?

Aramis seems to have answered both questions (post #38), notwithstanding the broader definition given in the CCEO of sui juris Church, which one might reasonably postulate is so given for a number of practical reasons for the protection of faithful in communion with Rome of non-Latin tradition.

However, one could see the challenge with that definition as relates to (i) general confusion in the Catholic Communion about “Church” vs. “Rite” and (ii) Orthodox contention that a sui juris Church is neither sui juris nor Church (capital “C”) in its own right.

 

[runningdude]

Vico;9903730:

There may be many sui iuris Churches from a certain tradition, due to historical circumstances. When the liturgical recensions were researched and published by Rome

, at the request of the eastern Catholic bishops, is was particularly satisfying to H.E. Metropolitan Archbishop of Lviv Andreas Alexander Sheptytsky.

All these Recensions were published, with different rubrics and languages for the various Oriental Churches:

I’m struggling to see the logic in this response; that is, the linkage to the specific questions posed.

…

However, one could see the challenge with that definition as relates to (i) general confusion in the Catholic Communion about “Church” vs. “Rite” and (ii) Orthodox contention that a sui juris Church is neither sui juris nor Church (capital “C”) in its own right.

You seem convinced that everybody here is confused as to the difference between “Rite” and “Sui Iuris” status. This is not the case; here Vico is stating that different “Sui Iuris” Church can be of different rites. The difference is well understood.

You asked who preserves liturgical traditions when there is no presiding bishop of the church’s own rite. Vico responded that the presiding bishop need not be of the same rite, and that in such circumstance it becomes the Pope/Curia’s responsibility to preserve the traditions of that sui iuris church. He then gave examples of the Pope fulfilling this responsibility (these “recensions”).

Because we are fully aware of the difference between the church’s rite and sui iuris status, I don’t believe anyone else sees it as an unbearable conflict that an administer for a sui iuris church is of a different rite.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

You seem convinced that everybody here is confused as to the difference between “Rite” and “Sui Iuris” status. This is not the case; here Vico is stating that different “Sui Iuris” Church can be of different rites.

I know Vico is not confused. As for many, many others encountered here and elsewhere …

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Because we are fully aware of the difference between the church’s rite and sui iuris status, I don’t believe anyone else sees it as an unbearable conflict that an administer for a sui iuris church is of a different rite.

With due respect, there were people who had indeed lived under such conditions in less friendly times, and the results were not nearly as pleasant as suggested.

 

[Peter_J]

However, one could see the challenge with that definition as relates to (i) general confusion in the Catholic Communion about “Church” vs. “Rite” and

You seem convinced that everybody here is confused as to the difference between “Rite” and “Sui Iuris” status.

The phrase “general confusion” doesn’t mean that everyone is confused.

 

[Vico]

…
Pleased with the approach, or the result?

Even the Byzantine Orthodox generally regarded the Ruthenian Recension as a triumph, for example, but I doubt they would agree that Ukrainian and Ruthenian bishops lost their right and obligation to regulate the liturgical life of their own people since Rome had spoken on their form of liturgy.

Would this train of thought not then suggest that there is no need whatsoever for an Eastern Catholic bishops to ever promulgate anything with respect to liturgy, other than perhaps a vernacular translation of the related Recension?

Aramis seems to have answered both questions (post #38), …

I am sorry it is not clear; it is difficult to write about succinctly. First, I don’t dwell on the use of the word “rite” because there are many valid meanings to rite and I think one has to find out which one a person means when they use it. To answer one of your questions, The eastern bishops were pleased with the resulting recension works, many happily using the volumes published by Rome in the original languages. So, the sui iuris Church is not autonomous in the sense that the Orthodox have, rather there is relative autonomy in the Catholic communion because all the canon laws are approved by the Holy See, all the liturgical norms are reviewed by the Holy See for the Patriarchial, Major Archepiscopal, and Metropolitan churches, and established by the Holy See for all the others. But your second question was limited in scope to the “other” churches, so it is the Holy See that regulates those liturgical norms.

Canon 2
The canons of the Code, in which for the most part the ancient law of the Eastern Churches is received or adapted, are to be assessed mainly according to that law.

Canon 3
The Code, although it often refers to the prescriptions of liturgical books, does not for the most part legislate on liturgical matters; therefore, these norms are to be diligently observed, unless they are contrary to the canons of the Code.

Canon 150

1. Bishops constituted outside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church have all the synodal rights and obligations of the other bishops of the same Church with due regard for can. 102, 2.
2. Laws enacted by the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and promulgated by the patriarch, if they are liturgical, have the force of law everywhere in the world; if, however, they are disciplinary laws or concern other decisions of the synod, they have the force of law inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church.
3. Eparchial bishops constituted outside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church, who desire to do so, can attribute the force of law to disciplinary laws and other synodal decisions in their own eparchies, provided they do not exceed their competence; if however these laws or decisions are approved by the Apostolic See, they have the force of law everywhere in the world.

Canon 657

1. The approval of liturgical texts, after prior review of the Apostolic See, is reserved in patriarchal Churches to the patriarch with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church, in metropolitan Churches sui iuris to the metropolitan with the consent of the council of hierarchs; in other Churches this right rests exclusively with the Apostolic See, and, within the limits set by it, to bishops and to their legitimately constituted assemblies.
2. The same authorities are also competent to approve the translations of these books meant for liturgical use, after sending a report to the Apostolic See in the case of patriarchal Churches and metropolitan Churches sui iuris.
3. To republish liturgical books or their translations intended even in part for liturgical use, it is required and suffices to establish their correspondence with the approved edition by an attestation of the hierarch referred to in can. 662, 1.
4. In making changes in liturgical texts, attention is to be paid to can. 40, 1.

Canon 40

1. Hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris and all other hierarchs are to see most carefully to the faithful protection and accurate observance of their own rite, and not admit changes in it except by reason of its organic progress, keeping in mind, however, mutual goodwill and the unity of Christians.

Canon 662

1. Ecclesiastical approval or permission to publish books may be granted, unless expressly stated otherwise in the law, either by the author’s own local hierarch or by the hierarch of the place of publication, or finally by a superior authority having executive power over these persons or places.

---

Reference

The two questions: 1. What is the single, unique expression under canon law that identifies a true, functioning sui juris Church?
2. Who competently preserves the liturgical patrimony of a here so-called sui juris Church that is not shephered by a bishop of that tradition?
The answer to the first was:1. A group of Christian faithful
2. united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law
3. which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris.
The answer to the second was:The canons specifically provide for the faithful, enrolled in a Church sui iuris, united by hierarchy of another Catholic church if the need exists. The hierarchy need not be enrolled in the same sui iuris Church.

 

[runningdude]

The phrase “general confusion” doesn’t mean that everyone is confused.

I was responding to multiple statement he’s made in this thread.

 

[runningdude]

With due respect, there were people who had indeed lived under such conditions in less friendly times, and the results were not nearly as pleasant as suggested.

You’re changing the subject. I don’t wish to dismiss the burden such a situation might have created for the faithful, but I’m addressing your contention that the Russian Catholic Church isn’t a proper, capital “C” Church because it lacks a heirarch of its own rite.

The Eastern Canon’s call for the Pope to appoint a hierarch when a sui iuris church lacks a means to select its own. The pope has appointed the local Latin rite bishops to this role in the Russian CC, and I am unsure why you object to the Russian Church’s continued classification as a sui iuris church.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I am sorry it is not clear; it is difficult to write about succinctly.

It is indeed, and I do genuinely appreciate your responses. Thank you!