Do you agree with the fact the Sui Iuris Churches need approval from the Pope of Rome to appoint their own bishops?

[Medical_Student]

I wish the Eastern Catholic churches were more autonomous.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m a little rusty on details, but my recollection is that 90-some-percent (I’d like to say more like 98%, but maybe that’s just me being optimistic) of EC bishop-appointments are done without any “approval from Rome” requirements.

(If that *isn’t *the case, then I will definitely be scandalized. )

With that said, I’m more bothered by the way some (LC) internet bloggers/posters quote John Elya, former bishop for Melkites in the USA, over-and-over and over-and-over and over-and-over as it that somehow proves something. :annoyance:

 

[twf]

Peter,
Pretty sure 98% is too optimistic. Bishops of Major Archepiscopal or Patriarchal rank are appointed by the Synod WITHIN the traditional territory of a given Church. Rome still gets involved in the diaspora. The various Metropolias Sui Iuris (Ruthenians in the US, Slovaks, Ethiopians, Eritreans, and I want to say Hungarians?) still depend on Rome for confirmation of all bishops. Some Latins would go as far as to say that Rome shouldn’t be appointing Latin Bishops outside of central Italy. Certainly its not the historical norm for the Pope to personally ratify the election of bishops for over 2000 sees across the great vast globe. It’s a pretty recent novelty.
That being said East or West there’s still a lot of local (name removed by moderator)ut. In the Latin Church some European sees still retain the right of local election by the cathedral chapter (subject to Roman ratification). Elsewhere, the metropolitan archbisbops, if memory serves maintain a list of eligible candidates for the episcopate. When a vacancy needs to be filled, the local Apostolic Nuncio consults with the locals and comes up with a terna of three names. Rome typically chooses from that list. For the Eastern Metropolia Sui Iuris I believe it’s similar- the local council of hierarchs comes up with a terna and Rome picks one.

 

[Medical_Student]

I’m a little rusty on details, but my recollection is that 90-some-percent (I’d like to say more like 98%, but maybe that’s just me being optimistic) of EC bishop-appointments are done without any “approval from Rome” requirements.

(If that *isn’t *the case, then I will definitely be scandalized. )

With that said, I’m more bothered by the way some (LC) internet bloggers/posters quote John Elya, former bishop for Melkites in the USA, over-and-over and over-and-over and over-and-over as it that somehow proves something. :annoyance:

I would say if anything, 98% are done only with Rome’s permission. It’s not just the Byzantines, also the Syriac churches from what I’ve read.

 

[AXO]

The election of bishops occurs in the Patriarchal Boundaries. Other bishops are appointed by the Pontiff, according to canon 181. The Pope of Rome only has to give his assent to the election, made by the Synod of Bishops. I don’t think it is bad: we ought to think that the Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles. We cannot think of an election of a bishop with the Head of the College of Bishops totally absent. Still I can’t understand why the election of bishops outside these frontiers is totally up to the Roman Pontiff.

 

[TK421]

I thought any bishop needing to be approved through the Pope was standard procedure since forever (even though the Pope obviously has supporting offices to do the human resources work; it’s impossible for him to do all of that personally). That’s how it worked with St Matthias and every new bishop since then.

 

[MorEphrem]

I don’t think it is bad: we ought to think that the Bishops are the Successors of the Apostles. We cannot think of an election of a bishop with the Head of the College of Bishops totally absent. Still I can’t understand why the election of bishops outside these frontiers is totally up to the Roman Pontiff.

The Oriental Orthodox recognize the See of Antioch as Petrine. The Armenians don’t need to run their bishops by Moran Mor Ephrem every time they elect someone - in fact they never do. For one it is rather impractical and secondly, and most importantly, it impinges on one’s legitimacy as a sui iuris Church.

More insulting, frankly, is the fact that Cardinal (currently Cardinal Sandri) effectively has more authority then the 20-some odd patriarchs and major archbishops combined (including, but not limited to the appointment of bishops, propagation of liturgical texts worldwide and sui iuris particular law). The appointment of patriarch in the Maronite Church is also largely based on Papal approval (which undermines the idea of a legitimate ‘communion’ - Maronites ask for appointment rather than communion so we really are “under Rome” as the insisted phrase goes).

If the argument of territoriality is raised, then a further issue are positions such as the Latin “Patriarch of Jerusalem.”

Edit: But I know for a fact the 98% claim, at least amongst Maronites, is simply incorrect. Off the top of my head, 7 bishops between the US, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, France and Australia have all been appointed by Rome as far as these eparchies of the “Expansion” have existed.

 

[Peter_J]

For the record, there’s no 98% claim (or at least, if there is I haven’t heard it and wasn’t referring to it when I said “I’d like …”).

 

[MorEphrem]

For the record, there’s no 98% claim (or at least, if there is I haven’t heard it and wasn’t referring to it when I said “I’d like …”).

Ah, sorry. I must have misunderstood your post.

 

[Peter_J]

Ah, sorry. I must have misunderstood your post.

That’s understandable. At the time I posted, I thought that 90-some-percent of EC bishop-appointments are done without any approval-from-Rome requirement, but that was just off the top of my head without taking much time to thing about it. It’s probably not really as high as 90%, because e.g. in parts of Ukraine there might be, let’s say, one bishop for 200,000+ faithful; whereas in the USA or Canada the UGCC might have one bishop for, say, every 20,000 faithful.

I should have played it safe and just said “more”, not how much more.

 

[Vico]

I wish the Eastern Catholic churches were more autonomous.

The Catholic Church has a missionary function, to guide the preaching of the Gospel to the world. The direction and coordination of missionary work belongs the the supreme authority of the Church: the Roman Pontiff and the college of bishops. So the synod of bishops of patriarchal and major archepiscopal Churches sui iuris, and the council of hierarchs of the metropolitan Churches sui iuris, have the right to establish norms for missionary activity. (The Latin Church has a particular responsibility to care for the faithful that are in areas without their own sui iuris hierarchy, and outside of eastern patriarchal jurisdictions.)

The Congregation for the Eastern Churches exercises in accordance with the norm of law* (ad normam iuris)* for all the Eastern eparchies, hierarchs, clergy, monastics, religious, and lay faithful. It is parallel to the Latin Congregation for Bishops, for the Clergy, for Institutes of Consecrated Life and Societies of Apostolic Life, Divine Worship and the Discipline of the sacraments. It has authority over Eastern and Latin persons residing in eastern regions of Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula, Eritrea, Ethiopia, South Albania, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Jordan, and Turkey.

 

[malphono]

There’s an excellent post in a very old thread which sums up my position (and I think there are a few others around who are of the same mind) very well, and bears quoting here:

I wasn’t aware that before modern times, that any eastern church was ever governed by the Latin Patriarch’s curia officials. The Oriental Congregation has no business existing and is an affront to the dignity of Eastern Churches as self governing bodies. If Rome had attempted such a thing in the first thousand years of the Church, then that alone would have caused the east-west schisms (and to be honest, its not that far from what Rome was attempting when the actual schism between the Byzantines and the Latins did occur). Even if the oriental congregation composed of just oriental clergy, it would still be an affront. The highest authorities in my church are the Patriarch and his synod, not a roman bureaucracy.

and as I said many moons ago in that same thread

Yes, quite so. The “Oriental Congregation” is, IMO, about as patronizing a thing as could be imagined. I agree, it should not exist, and I say that irrespective of whether the Prefect (or pro-prefect) is an Oriental or an Easterner.

 

[Cassianus]

Why is it sensitive for eastern Christians to submit to the successor of Saint Peter & acknowledge his authority to enthrone or depose any bishop (when there’s reason to do so)? It should be a privilege to submit to God & the Church he founded & its theocratic hierarchy.

Or don’t the eastern catholic bishops have the same authority as the Latin catholic bishops?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Why is it sensitive for eastern Christians to submit to the successor of Saint Peter & acknowledge his authority to enthrone or depose any bishop (when there’s reason to do so)? It should be a privilege to submit to God & the Church he founded & its theocratic hierarchy.

 

[Peter_J]

Why is it sensitive for eastern Christians to submit to the successor of Saint Peter & acknowledge his authority to enthrone or depose any bishop (when there’s reason to do so)? It should be a privilege to submit to God & the Church he founded & its theocratic hierarchy.

Or don’t the eastern catholic bishops have the same authority as the Latin catholic bishops?

Study the early Church (prior to “the Orthodox going into schism”, to quote a myriad of Catholic “apologetics” websites).

 

[Vico]

Why is it sensitive for eastern Christians to submit to the successor of Saint Peter & acknowledge his authority to enthrone or depose any bishop (when there’s reason to do so)? It should be a privilege to submit to God & the Church he founded & its theocratic hierarchy.

Or don’t the eastern catholic bishops have the same authority as the Latin catholic bishops?

The eastern bishops have the same authority as the Latin catholic bishops. All bishops are in communion with one another in the Catholic Church. The Eparchial or Diocesan bishop has jurisdiction in his territory.

It is a long tradition of independence, that carries over from the various eastern churches which declared union with Rome. Of all the eastern Catholic Churches only a few claim it to be unbroken, the Maronites and the Byzantines of Italy. Some have also included the Syro-Malabar.

Year of Union with Rome (all after the council of Trent)

1595 Belarusan, Ukrainian
1611 Krizevci (Croatia)
1628 Albanian
1646 Ruthenian, Slovakian, Hungarian
1552 Chaldean (ACE)
1599 Syro-Malabar (ACE)
1697 Romanian
1741 Coptic (OO)
1724 Melkite
1742 Armenian (OO)
1781 Syrian (OO)
1846 Ethiopian (OO)
1829 Greek
1861 Bulgarian
1905 Russian
1918 Macedonian
1930 Syro-Malankara (OO tradition)
2015 Eritrean (2015 independence from Ethiopian) (OO tradition)

ACE = Assyrian Church of the East
OO = Oriental Orthodox

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

If the argument of territoriality is raised, then a further issue are positions such as the Latin “Patriarch of Jerusalem.”

Writing off territoriality because of the Latin “patriarchates” would be the tu quoque fallacy, especially if the person adverting to territory were willing to accede the wrongheadedness of those hierarchical structures. I am unaware of precedent before 1054 - apart from during a schism - for walking into another bishop’s church and setting up a parallel hierarchy. I’m glad to learn about such precedent if it exists. But if it does not it seems rather inconsistent to say complain about Roman confirmation/appointments in the diaspora when one’s supposed basis is the practice’s incongruity with a church’s disciplinary tradition. This problem of competing/overlapping jurisdictions is larger than the intra-Catholic question - the Orthodox in the USA are just as messily intertwined - and it strikes me as neither traditional nor, because of that, healthily sustainable over the long haul.

Resenting the interference within home territory is more understandable.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Unfortunately, in most of the world, the Latin Church and the Curia treat the entire world as Latin territory and the Eastern territories restricted to wherever the Latins say. thankfully, this is changing.

 

[Cassianus]

Study the early Church (prior to “the Orthodox going into schism”, to quote a myriad of Catholic “apologetics” websites).

I’ve read some about it. Obviously, the bishops should govern their diocese, but sometimes it’s good to have a higher court of appeal which has the final say, don’t you think? For example, in the Russian & greek church, the King involved himself in church business & deposed bishops & enthroned others depending on his own political considerations or other, secular ones. In those cases the Pope would look at the case & determine whether or not he was justified in doing this or not, such as when Patriarch Ignatius was deposed & Patriarch Photios was enthroned.

Maybe I’m missing something, but to me, the fact that the Catholic Church is not wedded to 1 particular state, that the Pope has been assaulted by most secular governments of states professing Catholicism at one time or another during history means that he has an independence from the state authorities that isn’t there in the eastern or Protestant churches of Europe. The Protestant reformation was largely about establishing the same system as existed in Russia, where no Pope or Patriarch from without ones national territories could intervene & protect a particular priest or bishop from being dismissed by the King.

When you say the roman Curia governs the eastern territories as if it was a Latin territory; what is it that is objectionable?

In the Greek Orthodox diocese of Jerusalem, the bishop is always Greek speaking, eventhough the faithful are Arabs who don’t speak Greek & who want an Arab ministering them. So I think the Catholic Church is actually the best in organization in the world in terms of each national congregations being able to have their own culture & own people ministering to the faithful, but then again, I that’s just what I could gather from the face of it.

 

[Augustine]

I have the impression that this is one factor, among others of how the Eastern Churches are treated by Rome, that puts off the Orthodox Churches, making the undoing of the Great Schism recess in the future.

Pax Christi