Election of Eastern Bishops

[LumenGent]

Hi,

In the West it is a lengthy process invloving the retiring Bishop, the local Bishops Conference, the National Bishops Conference, the Papal Nuncio, the Congregation for Bishops and finally the Pope appoints the candidate.

Can anyone please explain the overall procedure in the election of Eastern Bishops both in the East and West?

I’m thinking the Pope appoints them just as he does in the Latin Rite?

Is it the same for all Eastern Churches?

Thankyou

 

[Ghosty]

Hi,

In the West it is a lengthy process invloving the retiring Bishop, the local Bishops Conference, the National Bishops Conference, the Papal Nuncio, the Congregation for Bishops and finally the Pope appoints the candidate.

Can anyone please explain the overall procedure in the election of Eastern Bishops both in the East and West?

I’m thinking the Pope appoints them just as he does in the Latin Rite?

Is it the same for all Eastern Churches?

Thankyou

It varies from Church to Church. In Patriarchal and “Major Episcopal” Churches, the Synod or Patriarch/Major Archbishop does the selection according to their own canons; the Pope has no (name removed by moderator)ut on the matter since he’s the head of the Latin Church.

For Bishops outside the home territories things get a little more complicated, as the Pope technically must confirm or select them, but in practice it’s generally a rubber-stamp of the selection of the Patriarch of the Church in question.

For more details you can check out the Code of Canons for Eastern Churches, which lays out the general rules on the matter.

Peace and God bless!

 

[LumenGent]

Thanks for the response Ghosty.

I’m a bit confused. If you visit Catholic Hierachy and look at all the Bishops, it seems even Eastern Bishops are Confirmed or appointed by the Pope in their Patriarchal territory. It seems odd that you say that the Pope has no say when it is inside the Patriarchal territory.

 

[Ghosty]

Thanks for the response Ghosty.

I’m a bit confused. If you visit Catholic Hierachy and look at all the Bishops, it seems even Eastern Bishops are Confirmed or appointed by the Pope in their Patriarchal territory. It seems odd that you say that the Pope has no say when it is inside the Patriarchal territory.

I’m looking at some of the Bishops, and I don’t see what you’re seeing. Could you link to an example?

Peace and God bless!

 

[LumenGent]

Here is an example i randomly found. The Bishop is Melkite as well, just for you

Notice it says he was appointed on the 6/22/05
confirmed on the 10/22/05

Wouldn’t he be confirmed by the Pope?

catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bbakouny.html

 

[LumenGent]

Can you also post a link about the Canons you mentioned ?

 

[mardukm]

Here is an example i randomly found. The Bishop is Melkite as well, just for you

Notice it says he was appointed on the 6/22/05
confirmed on the 10/22/05

Wouldn’t he be confirmed by the Pope?

catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bbakouny.html

Within a sui juris Church in its canonical territory, “appointed” normally refers to the concerted action by Synod and Metropolitan or Patriarch; “Confirmed” would refer to the Metropolitan or Patriarch, not the Pope.

Outside the canonical territory, “appointed” refer to the concerted action of Synod, Metropolitan or Patriarch, and Pope; “confirmed” would refer to the Metropolitan or Patriarch, not the Pope.

As a general rule, a bishop is confirmed by his head bishop. The head bishop in a sui juris Eastern or Oriental Church is his Metropolitan or Patriarch, not the Pope. In the Latin Church, it is always the Pope (I think - not sure what role Archbishops play in episcopal confirmations in the Latin Church).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Major Archiepiscopal Churches do NOT have total freedom of election.

CCEO Canon 153

1. A major archbishop is elected according to the norm of cann. 63-74.
2. After acceptance of the election, the synod of bishops of the major archiepiscopal Church must notify the Roman Pontiff through a synodal letter about the canonical conduct of the election; however, the one who is elected, in a letter signed in his own hand, must petition the confirmation of his election from the Roman Pontiff.
3. After having obtained the confirmation, the one who is elected, in the presence of the synod of bishops of the major archiepiscopal Church, must make a profession of faith and promise to carry out faithfully his office; afterwards his proclamation and enthronement are to be performed. If, however, the one who is elected is not yet an ordained bishop, the enthronement cannot validly be done before he receives episcopal ordination.
4. If however the confirmation is denied, a new election is to be conducted within the time established by the Roman Pontiff.
   intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_P49.HTM

The Synod proposes a candidate Major Archbishop to Rome by their own canons, and Rome may approve or reject said candidate.

As for Local Eparchs:
CCEO Canon 181

1. Bishops inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church are nominated to a vacant see or to fulfill another function by canonical election according to the norms of cann. 947-957, unless otherwise provided in common law.
2. Other bishops are appointed by the Roman Pontiff without prejudice to cann. 149 and 168.

CCEO Canon 182

1. Candidates suitable for the episcopate can be proposed only by members of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church who can, according to the norm of particular law, collect information and documents which are necessary to establish the suitability of the candidates, hearing, if they think it appropriate, secretly and individually, certain presbyters or also other Christian faithful outstanding in prudence and Christian life.
2. The bishops are to report their findings to the patriarch at a suitable time prior to the convocation of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church. The patriarch, if the case warrants it, adding his own additional information, transmits the matter to all the members of the synod.
3. Unless particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff states otherwise, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church is to examine the names of the candidates and compile a list of the candidates by secret ballot, which is to be transmitted through the patriarch to the Apostolic See to obtain the assent of the Roman Pontiff.
4. The assent of the Roman Pontiff once given for an individual candidate is valid until it has been explicitly revoked, in which case the name of the candidate is to be removed from the list.
   CCEO: text - IntraText CT
   intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_P52.HTM

Even in Patriarchal Churches, eparchial bishops require Rome’s approval.

 

[LumenGent]

OK, so it seems both Eastern and Western Bishops must be confirmed by the Pope.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

Major Archiepiscopal Churches do NOT have total freedom of election.The Synod proposes a candidate Major Archbishop to Rome by their own canons, and Rome may approve or reject said candidate.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the existence of “Major Archepiscopal Churches” are a unique exigency of Catholicism. In fact, the head bishop of a Major Archepiscopal Church is the Pope. So the confirmation of the Major Archepiscopal ordinary resides legitimately with the Pope. There is no question about “not having total freedom” any more or less than a Metropolitan within a Patriarchal jurisdiction does “not have total freedom” because his Patriarch must necessarily confirm his election.

As for Local Eparchs:

Even in Patriarchal Churches, eparchial bishops require Rome’s approval.

With all due respect, I don’t think you have interpreted this correctly.

As you well know, the Code of Canons for the Eastern(/Oriental) Churches is a very generalized Code of laws. Aside from the Code, each Church has their own Particular Laws regarding election. The portions you quoted in fact apply very generally to eparchies, and assume they do not lie within a traditional Patriarchal jurisdiction. The laws of election for eparchial bishops WITHIN a Patriarchal jurisdiction are contained in the Particular laws of each Patriarchal Church. Canon 182-3 makes explicit reference to this. I am, of course, assuming that the Particular laws of each Patriarchal Church regarding the election of bishops within its territory does not require the intervention of the bishop of Rome (which seems rather sensible since this is an internal matter within a Patriarchate in which Rome would not normatively have a canonical right to intervene).

There are 2 things which cause me to challenge your interpretation:

1. A Patriarch with the consent of his Synod, with only the condition of consultation with the Roman Pontiff (as far as the Pope is concerned) can erect, modify or suppress jurisdictions within the Patriarchal boundary. Why would he then need the intervention of the Pope to supply that jurisdiction with its own bishop?
2. The very fact that the election of a Patriarch requires no papal intervention (aside from the Patriarch’s request for communion, or if the election has not properly occurred within 15 days of vacancy). If the higher office of Patriarch does not require papal intervention, why would a lower office require it?

Of course, as always, I am open to correction. I would appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

OK, so it seems both Eastern and Western Bishops must be confirmed by the Pope.

Confirmation always lies with the head bishop of the new ordinary. As noted, the head bishop of an Eastern or Oriental local ordinary is the Metropolitan or the Patriarch. The head bishop of a Metropolitan within a Patriarchal See is the Patriarch, while the head bishop of a Metropolitan or Major Archbishop of a sui juris Metropolitan or Major Archepiscopal See would be the Pope.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Dear brother Aramis,

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the existence of “Major Archepiscopal Churches” are a unique exigency of Catholicism. In fact, the head bishop of a Major Archepiscopal Church is the Pope. So the confirmation of the Major Archepiscopal ordinary resides legitimately with the Pope. There is no question about “not having total freedom” any more or less than a Metropolitan within a Patriarchal jurisdiction does “not have total freedom” because his Patriarch must necessarily confirm his election.

With all due respect, I don’t think you have interpreted this correctly.

As you well know, the Code of Canons for the Eastern(/Oriental) Churches is a very generalized Code of laws. Aside from the Code, each Church has their own Particular Laws regarding election. The portions you quoted in fact apply very generally to eparchies, and assume they do not lie within a traditional Patriarchal jurisdiction. The laws of election for eparchial bishops WITHIN a Patriarchal jurisdiction are contained in the Particular laws of each Patriarchal Church. Canon 182-3 makes explicit reference to this. I am, of course, assuming that the Particular laws of each Patriarchal Church regarding the election of bishops within its territory does not require the intervention of the bishop of Rome (which seems rather sensible since this is an internal matter within a Patriarchate in which Rome would not normatively have a canonical right to intervene).

There are 2 things which cause me to challenge your interpretation:

1. A Patriarch with the consent of his Synod, with only the condition of consultation with the Roman Pontiff (as far as the Pope is concerned) can erect, modify or suppress jurisdictions within the Patriarchal boundary. Why would he then need the intervention of the Pope to supply that jurisdiction with its own bishop?
2. The very fact that the election of a Patriarch requires no papal intervention (aside from the Patriarch’s request for communion, or if the election has not properly occurred within 15 days of vacancy). If the higher office of Patriarch does not require papal intervention, why would a lower office require it?

Of course, as always, I am open to correction. I would appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

Blessings,
Marduk

Patriarchal churches are the ONLY ones that don’t have to have every bishop vetted by Rome; it’s one of the specific exceptions for Major archiepiscopal churches that their primate must be approved by Rome. Only a patriarch asks for communion AFTER installation; all lesser primates are installed only after rome approves. (Which is one of the rubs for some Ukrainians. They WANT a patriarch, not a Major Archbishop, but they have a Major Archbishop, who is subject to Rome’s disapproval after election and before installation.)

The canons for Major Archiepiscopal churches specify only those things specifically different are different from patriarchal churches.

Since the requirement for Rome to approve all bishops (except possibly a patriarch*) even for patriarchal churches is in CCEO 182§3, it applies equally to Major Archiepiscopal churches.

Essentially, the synod gets to select according to its particular law, but has to get rome to approve the candidates list. Those candidates don’t have to be tied to a specific see, nor even elevated. (182§4) A patriarch can move or transfer bishops, and can ordain any approved candidate to fill a see in his church.

Now, for Metropolitan and Eparchial churches, it’s submit three candidates to Rome, and hope for the Pope to accept one of them…

*Technically, ecclesiastical communion is suspended during the interregnum… Patriarchal synods elect whom they want, and elect, install them, and then ask for continuation of communion.

 

[malphono]

… Since the requirement for Rome to approve all bishops (except possibly a patriarch*) even for patriarchal churches is in CCEO 182§3
…

*Technically, ecclesiastical communion is suspended during the interregnum… Patriarchal
synods elect whom they want, and elect, install them, and then ask for continuation of communion.

True, except in cases where Rome interferes in the election process. Sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly. Neither has happened often, but both have happened.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

Some clarifications:

Patriarchal churches are the ONLY ones that don’t have to have every bishop vetted by Rome…all lesser primates are installed only after rome approves.

I would add the condition “all lesser primates EXCEPT those within a Patriarchal jurisdiction,” though you might conceivably have already taken that into account with the first sentence of that paragraph.

The canons for Major Archiepiscopal churches specify only those things specifically different are different from patriarchal churches.

Since the requirement for Rome to approve all bishops (except possibly a patriarch*) even for patriarchal churches is in CCEO 182§3, it applies equally to Major Archiepiscopal churches.

Not just Major Archepiscopal Churches, but sui juris Churches that are not Patriarchates. The basic and general premise is that the Patriarch is the highest ecclesiastical rank. Those Churches, sui juris or otherwise, that do not have a Patriarchal head, have the Pope as their Patriarchal head by default.

Essentially, the synod gets to select according to its particular law, but has to get rome to approve the candidates list. Those candidates don’t have to be tied to a specific see, nor even elevated. (182§4)

The Papal “assent” is only required if the candidate(s) are NOT YET bishops. Papal “assent” is not required to install a new bishop into a vacant see within a Patriarchal territory if the new bishop already has episcopal orders.

A patriarch can move or transfer bishops, and can ordain any approved candidate to fill a see in his church.

Within the Patriarchal boundary, the “approved” candidate gained its approval from the Synod, not the Pope - just to be clear.

Now, for Metropolitan and Eparchial churches, it’s submit three candidates to Rome, and hope for the Pope to accept one of them…

Only for such Churches that are not within a traditional Patriarchal territory. For those Churches who do not have a Patriarchal head, or for those Eastern/Oriental Sees within traditionally Latin jurisdictional territory, then yes, the Pope gets involved.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

No, Mardukm, the Canon is clear: the synod approves the candidates, then Rome has to as well. Then, unless and until Rome withdraws them from the list, they may be ordained bishops by the process of the patriarchal or major archiepiscopal church’s synod &/or primate.

This is my read of the default by the CCEO:
Step 1: get the candidate approved by the synod as a candidate for the episcopal dignity
Step 2: get the candidates approved by the synod approved by the pope.
Step 3: at some point later, the synod and/or primate elects from the approved candidates a bishop for some particular need.
step 4: the primate assigns them to be ordained and possibly enthroned, as befits their status as auxiliary or territorial bishops.

Step 2 can be waived if the Pope and the Synod approve a process. Not having read the particular law of all 21 eastern churches with hierarchs… I can’t say how many have succeeded in so doing. (I have read the Ruthenian. I can’t find the Ukrainian in English… and my Russian isn’t enough to read technical documents in Ukrainian.)

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

No, Mardukm, the Canon is clear: the synod approves the candidates, then Rome has to as well. Then, unless and until Rome withdraws them from the list, they may be ordained bishops by the process of the patriarchal or major archiepiscopal church’s synod &/or primate.

This is my read of the default by the CCEO:
Step 1: get the candidate approved by the synod as a candidate for the episcopal dignity
Step 2: get the candidates approved by the synod approved by the pope.
Step 3: at some point later, the synod and/or primate elects from the approved candidates a bishop for some particular need.
step 4: the primate assigns them to be ordained and possibly enthroned, as befits their status as auxiliary or territorial bishops.

Step 2 can be waived if the Pope and the Synod approve a process. Not having read the particular law of all 21 eastern churches with hierarchs… I can’t say how many have succeeded in so doing. (I have read the Ruthenian. I can’t find the Ukrainian in English… and my Russian isn’t enough to read technical documents in Ukrainian.)

Please take a look at Canon 181-1. No mention of the Pope. The Pope is mentioned in Canon 181-2, presumably in matters referring to bishops OUTSIDE of canonical territory (since canon 181-1 refers to those WITHIN canonical territory).

Now look at the prefacing line in Canon 182 - “Candidates suitable for the episcopate…” Thus, the contents of Canon 182 refer to those who are YET TO BE ORDAINED to the episcopate, and not generally to those who are already bishops, that are to be elected to a See.

So if there is a vacant See within the Patriarchal territory, the Pope’s assent would only be necessary if the candidate is NOT YET A BISHOP. If the candidate to fill the See is ALREADY a bishop, then Canon 181-1 applies, NOT Canon 182.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

Please take a look at Canon 181-1. No mention of the Pope. The Pope is mentioned in Canon 181-2, presumably in matters referring to bishops OUTSIDE of canonical territory (since canon 181-1 refers to those WITHIN canonical territory).

Now look at the prefacing line in Canon 182 - “Candidates suitable for the episcopate…” Thus, the contents of Canon 182 refer to those who are YET TO BE ORDAINED to the episcopate, and not generally to those who are already bishops, that are to be elected to a See.

So if there is a vacant See within the Patriarchal territory, the Pope’s assent would only be necessary if the candidate is NOT YET A BISHOP. If the candidate to fill the See is ALREADY a bishop, then Canon 181-1 applies, NOT Canon 182.

Blessings

To “seal the deal,” so to speak, also take a look at Canon 86 - The Patriarch is competent (i.e., on his own authority) to provide canonical provision for Metropolitans and bishops. Canon 86-3 provides for the circumstance outside the Patriarchal territory, indicating that the rest of the Canon involves matters WITHIN the Patriarchal territory.

For readers who may not know, “canonical provision” refers to the prerogative to select and establish a person for a benefice - in this case, election to a see/diocese.

Blessings