Election of bishops in Major Archepiscopal Churches

[twf]

As I understand it, a Major Archbishop is, for all intents and purposes, a de facto Patriarch except that this election must be ratified by Rome, while a Patriarch immediately assumes his throne upon election. How does this work for the election of other bishops within a Major Archepiscopal Church (assuming we are talking about the “homeland”)? Does Rome have to ratify the Synod’s election of each bishop, or does that only apply to the primate?

 

[Thomas48]

As I understand it, a Major Archbishop is, for all intents and purposes, a de facto Patriarch except that this election must be ratified by Rome, while a Patriarch immediately assumes his throne upon election. How does this work for the election of other bishops within a Major Archepiscopal Church (assuming we are talking about the “homeland”)? Does Rome have to ratify the Synod’s election of each bishop, or does that only apply to the primate?

To my knowledge, within the proper territory the particular church has autonomy to elect its own bishops without approval. However outside of the proper territory the particular church must receive approval from Rome.

 

[twf]

To my knowledge, within the proper territory the particular church has autonomy to elect its own bishops without approval. However outside of the proper territory the particular church must receive approval from Rome.

So the primate’s election must be confirmed by Rome, but beyond that the Synod has autonomy in electing its own members? (Excluding those sees that fall within the “territory” of the Latin Church).

 

[Thomas48]

Yes the major archbishops election must be confirmed by Rome and the elections of bishops outside of the proper territory must be confirmed by Rome. Elections of bishops in the proper territory are autonomous and to the discretion of the synod.

 

[twf]

I find it pretty absurd that the election of the primate of the largest Eastern Catholic Church has to go through Rome… I can’t begin to fathom why this requirement would continue to be in place for the Major Archbishops, who are patriarchs in all but name, when the patriarchs require no such confirmation…

 

[DnJohn]

I am still waiting for Rome to choose a bishop for the eparchy of Chicago for the UGCC. I want to transfer my incardination but can’t until there is a receiving bishop. It’s been over 6 months.

 

[twf]

I am still waiting for Rome to choose a bishop for the eparchy of Chicago for the UGCC. I want to transfer my incardination but can’t until there is a receiving bishop. It’s been over 6 months.

Father Deacon,
How unfortunate. This won’t make me many friends on most boards of this forum, but I don’t even understand why the world’s Latin bishops need to be appointed by Rome. Its a novelty for the West just as much as it is for the East. I could understand Rome confirming the election of national primates or even each metropolitan within the Latin Church…but filling over 2000 sees spread across 6 continents?

 

[jimkhong]

Its a novelty for the West just as much as it is for the East. I could understand Rome confirming the election of national primates or even each metropolitan within the Latin Church…but filling over 2000 sees spread across 6 continents?

Yes, it is quite a novelty. For much of history, the bishops are appointed by the local monarch. That hallowed tradition still continues in the Church of England, which I noticed have kept faith with old practices after the break with Rome, while the Popish Church went on to much new innovations in Church organisations.

 

[twf]

Yes, it is quite a novelty. For much of history, the bishops are appointed by the local monarch. That hallowed tradition still continues in the Church of England, which I noticed have kept faith with old practices after the break with Rome, while the Popish Church went on to much new innovations in Church organisations.

Yes, many Christian monarchs did have the right to appoint bishops, but the ancient norm is local / synodal elections.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Yes, it is quite a novelty. For much of history, the bishops are appointed by the local monarch. That hallowed tradition still continues in the Church of England, which I noticed have kept faith with old practices after the break with Rome, while the Popish Church went on to much new innovations in Church organisations.

With the choices made by the Anglo-Saxons, one can sympathize with the reasoning behind centralization, at least hypothetically.

 

[jimkhong]

With the choices made by the Anglo-Saxons, one can sympathize with the reasoning behind centralization, at least hypothetically.

Haha. Are you thinking of David Jenkins?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Another in a long line of “Who’s Who” in heterodoxy: Cranmer, Cromwell, Parker, Hooker, Andrewes, Abbot, Benjamin Hoadly, Nicholas Chamberlain, etc

 

[dochawk]

I find it pretty absurd that the election of the primate of the largest Eastern Catholic Church has to go through Rome… I can’t begin to fathom why this requirement would continue to be in place for the Major Archbishops, who are patriarchs in all but name, when the patriarchs require no such confirmation…

It is very simple: it is because Moscow would go ballistic.

The RO claim to have moved the see of Kiev to Muscovy when the royal family fled in the face of invasion. They claim the former territory as still theirs, too. As Kiev is the see of the Ukranian Church (known as “Ukranian Catholic Church” for some centuries now), as well as three competing Orthodox juriscitions (MP (moscow Patriarch), AU (autonomous), and one authorized by the EP), calling a Catholic in that see “Patriarch” would launch a serious sntifit.

The Ukranians themselves have tired of waiting and now style their leader “Patriarch”. It’s been a couple of years, and Rome has yet to say a word . . .

AMDG

hawk

 

[twf]

It is very simple: it is because Moscow would go ballistic.

The RO claim to have moved the see of Kiev to Muscovy when the royal family fled in the face of invasion. They claim the former territory as still theirs, too. As Kiev is the see of the Ukranian Church (known as “Ukranian Catholic Church” for some centuries now), as well as three competing Orthodox juriscitions (MP (moscow Patriarch), AU (autonomous), and one authorized by the EP), calling a Catholic in that see “Patriarch” would launch a serious sntifit.

The Ukranians themselves have tired of waiting and now style their leader “Patriarch”. It’s been a couple of years, and Rome has yet to say a word . . .

AMDG

hawk

Right, but even if Rome won’t officially recognize the title of “Patriarch”, why can’t canon law be amended to grant Major Archbishops the same rights and privileges of a Patriarch in practice - such as removing the requirement of Rome ratifying the synod’s election?

 

[dochawk]

Right, but even if Rome won’t officially recognize the title of “Patriarch”, why can’t canon law be amended to grant Major Archbishops the same rights and privileges of a Patriarch in practice - such as removing the requirement of Rome ratifying the synod’s election?

Canon law could certainly do that, but given the political reason for not recognizing him as such in the first place, I wouldn’t hold my breath for Rome to make that kind of end-run around its own policies . . .

There is also a serious question as to the ability of Rome to prescribe canon law, given the terms of union, but that’s an entirely different matter . . .

I’ll be surprised if the Ukranian church gives even lip service to the rules for major archbishop status next time it comes up . . .

AMDG

hawk

 

[twf]

Canon law could certainly do that, but given the political reason for not recognizing him as such in the first place, I wouldn’t hold my breath for Rome to make that kind of end-run around its own policies . . .

There is also a serious question as to the ability of Rome to prescribe canon law, given the terms of union, but that’s an entirely different matter . . .

I’ll be surprised if the Ukranian church gives even lip service to the rules for major archbishop status next time it comes up . . .

AMDG

hawk

There are three other Churches with major archepiscopal status. Each of which should, in my humble opinion, have the right to elect its own primate without any external ratification.