F
fijiq48
Guest
How are eparchies created? Is it by the number of parishes of that particular church in the area? Or the number of faithful? If its by the number of parishes how many are needed?
- Status
M
mardukm
Guest
I think the main determinant is the needs of the laity (not the number of people, nor the number of parishes). The laity must express their concerns to the hierarchy and the hierarchy responds accordingly.
An ancient canon from an Ecumenical Council (I forget which off hand) indicates only that the determination depends on the needs of the local Church. The canon had to do with the administration of “country parishes.” The parishes would normally be under the jurisdiction of the closest bishop, but if the need arises, a new eparchy can be established just for those outlying parishes. Obviously, the number of parishes is a factor, but there does not seem to be a set pre-determined number, and it is the needs of the local Church which overrides other considerations.
As an aside, the establishment of eparchies is in the competence of the local Patriarch and his Synod. Eparchies, even for non-Latin Churches, in the Western countries/diaspora are done by the Latin Patriarch because the Western countries are traditionally considered to be under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of the Latin Church (who is also the Pope).
Blessings,
Marduk
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
By Papal decree. Our bishop have shown me the papal decree that created our Eparchy.
F
fijiq48
Guest
So would a sui juris, with 20 parishes, 30 priests, a vicar general, and 8200 faithful, be able to have there own eparchy?
M
mardukm
Guest
The judgment rests with your local bishop and the Synod of the particular Church. If you are speaking of your own Church, the competence to erect a new eparchy is with the Major Archbishop and his Synod, through your local bishop.
In other words, if your local bishop determines there is a genuine need, he will bring the matter to the Synod for consideration. On the other hand, this need also depends on the laity and the local pastors themselves - i.e., on how well they can convince their bishop of such an action.
Blessings,
Marduk
H
Hesychios
Guest
The Slovak Catholic church of Canada has, I think, about six parishes.
Of course, when the Pope erected it the organization was much larger.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
A sui juris Church cannot exist without an Eparchial structure. A sui juris Metropolitan Church (the simplest form) would consist of at least two Eparchies, with one being the Archeparchy and seat of the Metropolitan Archbishop.
If there already is a “vicar general”, it is possible that you are organized in an Exarchy and he is serving as an apostolic vicar.
M
malphono
Guest
I don’t think so. If I’m not mistaken, fijiq48 is referring back to some matters discussed in the [thread=685577]The Syro-Malabar Church & Knanaya Catholics[/thread] thread.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Thanks - wasn’t sure. That said, I can’t think of why or how a vicar general would be assigned.
F
fijiq48
Guest
Thank you for the replies guys.
Why I am asking this question is because, like many of you know the Knanaya Catholics are under St.Thomas Syro Malabar Diocese of Chicago. In the diocese there is a total 60 parishes, 20 of them being Knanaya and 40 of them being Syro Malabar. There are 70 priests, 57 being Syro Malabar and 13 being Knanaya. The Curia includes, Mar Jacob Angadiath our bishop, Vicar General Fr Antony Tuhndathil for the Syro Malabars, and Vicar General Fr Abraham Mutholath for the Knanayas.
Mar Jacob Angadiath said that one day if the Knanayas gain enough progress in the U.S that our Vicar General may be consecrated as a bishop and a separate eparchy maybe created just for the Knanaya Catholics. But is it possible to split a diocese into two like that? If a separate diocese was to be erected wouldn’t St.Thomas diocese be loosing 20 parishes, 13 priests, and 8300 faithful?
Why I am asking this question is because, like many of you know the Knanaya Catholics are under St.Thomas Syro Malabar Diocese of Chicago. In the diocese there is a total 60 parishes, 20 of them being Knanaya and 40 of them being Syro Malabar. There are 70 priests, 57 being Syro Malabar and 13 being Knanaya. The Curia includes, Mar Jacob Angadiath our bishop, Vicar General Fr Antony Tuhndathil for the Syro Malabars, and Vicar General Fr Abraham Mutholath for the Knanayas.
Mar Jacob Angadiath said that one day if the Knanayas gain enough progress in the U.S that our Vicar General may be consecrated as a bishop and a separate eparchy maybe created just for the Knanaya Catholics. But is it possible to split a diocese into two like that? If a separate diocese was to be erected wouldn’t St.Thomas diocese be loosing 20 parishes, 13 priests, and 8300 faithful?
H
Hesychios
Guest
Well yes, it is possible.
There is no way to know if a Pope is ever going to be agreeable. That is a political matter, it seems.
P
Peter_J
Guest
The idea, in principle, is to have one bishop in each place; but obviously it doesn’t always work out that way in practice – I’m sure you’re already aware of overlapping jurisdictions. So it is, at least in theory, possible for an eparchy to become 2 overlapping eparchies. (Not saying it *will *happen of course.)
H
Hesychios
Guest
This is exactly what happened in the USA between the Ukrainians and the rest of the Ruthenians.
Rome, it seems, had originally hoped they could be under one hierarchy.
This may also be what was behind the creation of the Slovak diocese of Ss Cyril and Methodius in Canada. I believe they were part of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic church structure in Canada at first, and asked to be separated.
F
fijiq48
Guest
If a separate diocese were to be created it would not be in the same area as the Syro Malabar St.Thomas diocese. I’m sure there would be no worry of over lapping.
H
Hesychios
Guest
You have to understand that the St Thomas Syro-Malabar eparchy of Chicago is already co-terminus with the USA. That would not change.
It does not matter how small the Pope makes a new eparchy (he would probably make it cover the entire USA, but he does not have to), it would overlap with all the other Eastern Catholic churches covering those areas. Presently there is already a lot of overlapping.
M
mardukm
Guest
From my understanding, “overlapping” is not an issue in the Catholic Church due to the concept of “personal jurisdictions” that are distinct from “territorial jurisdictions.”
“Personal jurisdiction” refers to jurisdiction over a certain group attached to a particular Tradition, whereas “territorial jurisdiction” refers to jurisdiction over a geographical area.
So, to repeat, “overlapping” as far as non-Latin Churches are concerned in the traditional Latin jurisdictional territory of the Western countries is not an issue.
Coming from an Oriental Orthodox background, the idea of personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions is no big thing to me because that reality has existed in the Oriental Orthodox communion of Churches for many centuries now. It might be strange to an Eastern Orthodox, however, since it seems territorial jurisdiction is the only form of administration that exists in EO’xy.
Blessings,
Marduk
F
fijiq48
Guest
See the thing is, how others who are not Syro Malabar or Knanaya see the problem of a Knanaya Diocese in the U.S is the basis of endogamy. That is not the problem at all. If Rome had such a problem with endogamy they would not have let The Knanaya Diocese in Kerala continue for 101 years.
The real underlying problem is that St.Thomas Syro Malabar Diocese looses 20 parishes. A loss of 20 parishes drops the diocese income by a whole lot. No way is the St.Thomas diocese gonna let the Knanaya parishes separate. How it works is at the end of every year we get a letter in the mail from the St.Thomas diocese saying “May the good lord bless you, as a memeber of the diocese it is your duty to pay blank amount”. In form of protest many Knanaya faithful no longer pay this annual fees to the diocese.
Like i said earlier the problem is not with Rome, it is with the Syro Malabar Church. Rome has no idea of the Knanaya Catholic longing for a diocese in the U.S. Because who is to tell them of this? Who is the only one who has the authority to tell Rome? Not Kottayam Metran, he has no right over his flock in the U.S. Not Mar Jacob Angadiath. Only Major Archbishop George Allencherry but even though the Knanayas have petitioned many times, Mar George Allencherry does not tell Rome that the faithful of the Knanaya Community want there own diocese in the U.S . Because once again, St.Thomas Syro Malabar diocese would loose 1/3 of its parishes.
How the relationship between the Knanaya Diocese in India and the Syro Malabar Church works is that they keep appeasing us when we ask for something new. For example, Kottayam Diocese(The Knanaya Catholic Diocese) was changed to a Metropolitan Diocese in 2005. Why? because around that time Knanaya Catholics started asking for another diocese. A few years later Knanayas started petitioning for another diocese again, that same year they gave Kottayam an auxiliary bishop. In order to keep us happy they give us these additions to Kottayam Diocese but what more can they give us now but another diocese?
Another thing is Syro Malabar Catholics say we are the same people, we are members of the same sui juris, why do these Knanaya Catholics need there own diocese? If that is so and we are the same equal people, with the same rites in our shared Sui Juris, let the next bishop of St.Thomas Syro Malabar diocese be a Knanaya. That would NEVER happen. There would be an all out riot among Syro Malabars if a Knanaya was ever enthroned as bishop of a Syro Malabar diocese.
The real underlying problem is that St.Thomas Syro Malabar Diocese looses 20 parishes. A loss of 20 parishes drops the diocese income by a whole lot. No way is the St.Thomas diocese gonna let the Knanaya parishes separate. How it works is at the end of every year we get a letter in the mail from the St.Thomas diocese saying “May the good lord bless you, as a memeber of the diocese it is your duty to pay blank amount”. In form of protest many Knanaya faithful no longer pay this annual fees to the diocese.
Like i said earlier the problem is not with Rome, it is with the Syro Malabar Church. Rome has no idea of the Knanaya Catholic longing for a diocese in the U.S. Because who is to tell them of this? Who is the only one who has the authority to tell Rome? Not Kottayam Metran, he has no right over his flock in the U.S. Not Mar Jacob Angadiath. Only Major Archbishop George Allencherry but even though the Knanayas have petitioned many times, Mar George Allencherry does not tell Rome that the faithful of the Knanaya Community want there own diocese in the U.S . Because once again, St.Thomas Syro Malabar diocese would loose 1/3 of its parishes.
How the relationship between the Knanaya Diocese in India and the Syro Malabar Church works is that they keep appeasing us when we ask for something new. For example, Kottayam Diocese(The Knanaya Catholic Diocese) was changed to a Metropolitan Diocese in 2005. Why? because around that time Knanaya Catholics started asking for another diocese. A few years later Knanayas started petitioning for another diocese again, that same year they gave Kottayam an auxiliary bishop. In order to keep us happy they give us these additions to Kottayam Diocese but what more can they give us now but another diocese?
Another thing is Syro Malabar Catholics say we are the same people, we are members of the same sui juris, why do these Knanaya Catholics need there own diocese? If that is so and we are the same equal people, with the same rites in our shared Sui Juris, let the next bishop of St.Thomas Syro Malabar diocese be a Knanaya. That would NEVER happen. There would be an all out riot among Syro Malabars if a Knanaya was ever enthroned as bishop of a Syro Malabar diocese.
M
malphono
Guest
In contrast to some who posted in the other thread, I frankly couldn’t care less about endogamy. Since, as you say, the Church herself established the See of Kottayam specifically for the Knanaya, that should be the end of the discussion.
To be fair, even if Mar George did bring the matter up to Rome, that would not guarantee a positive result. He (Mar George) has no jurisdiction in the diaspora (at least not outside of India). As I (a non Malayali) see it, a separate diocese (or epharcy or whatever one wants to call it) for the Knanaya in the US isn’t the answer. Yet another overlapping jurisdiction isn’t going to do much.
Now, Rome could grant Kottayam jurisdiction over the Knanaya even in diaspora (which isn’t going to happen before such time as Mar Geroge has jurisdiction over the diaspora which, considering how jealously Rome guards her own prerogatives (read: power and authority), means probably never).
But since, if I understand correctly, there is a specific V-G for the Knanaya in the US, one would assume that with a separate V-G, there would be at least a partially separate administration. Yeah, sure, it’s all under the same bishop but unless he wants to suppress the Knanaya (and lose a good portion of the diocesan income in the process), the bishop should not be directly involved in the normal day-to-day operation. But see below.
Perhaps it might help if there were an auxiliary Knanaya bishop? An auxiliary is something that an Ordinary can petition for and that petition would most likely be granted. This might be an interesting twist on the status-quo, and would work in a way similar to what was the case in Brazil: until a unique diocese was established, there was a Maronite bishop who was an auxiliary to the Archbishop of Sao Paolo but who had personal jurisdiction over all Maronites in the country (meaning even beyond the territorial bounds of Sao Paolo). A similar set-up might work for the Knanaya in the US. Yes, I suppose one could call it a compromise approach, but it seems to me that it would address the issue and at the same time have a better chance of actually happening than anything more hard-line. (Plus it wouldn’t interfere with the income stream.)
Just my (probably not-too-well-thought-out) :twocents:
F
fijiq48
Guest
Thank you for the reply Malphono,
I agree with you on the idea of a Knanaya auxiliary bishop but i doubt the Syro Malabar Catholics would allow that. I think a good compromise would be if Kottayam Jurisdiction was extended to the U.S.
Its all just so unfair though, I don’t know if you’ve heard of this but back in the early 1900’s/ late 1800’s Syro Malabar diocese’ were erected and for the first time indigenous bishops were enthroned. One of these diocese’ was the diocese of Changanassery. The bishop appointed to this diocese was Mar Mathai Makil a Knanaya. After the Vatican appointed Mar Mathai there was an all out riot among the Syro Malabar Catholics in Changanassery because he was Knanaya and they could not have a Knanaya as the head of there diocese. The Syro Malabar Catholics pleaded to Rome to remove him and so they did. Later a Syro Malabar priest, Mar Thomas Kurialacherry was appointed as bishop of the diocese. Afterwords Mar Mathai went to Rome and protested for a diocese just for Knanaya Catholics and so Kottayam Diocese was created. Is this not like the situation in U.S? Shouldn’t we be able to have our own diocese here?
I agree with you on the idea of a Knanaya auxiliary bishop but i doubt the Syro Malabar Catholics would allow that. I think a good compromise would be if Kottayam Jurisdiction was extended to the U.S.
Its all just so unfair though, I don’t know if you’ve heard of this but back in the early 1900’s/ late 1800’s Syro Malabar diocese’ were erected and for the first time indigenous bishops were enthroned. One of these diocese’ was the diocese of Changanassery. The bishop appointed to this diocese was Mar Mathai Makil a Knanaya. After the Vatican appointed Mar Mathai there was an all out riot among the Syro Malabar Catholics in Changanassery because he was Knanaya and they could not have a Knanaya as the head of there diocese. The Syro Malabar Catholics pleaded to Rome to remove him and so they did. Later a Syro Malabar priest, Mar Thomas Kurialacherry was appointed as bishop of the diocese. Afterwords Mar Mathai went to Rome and protested for a diocese just for Knanaya Catholics and so Kottayam Diocese was created. Is this not like the situation in U.S? Shouldn’t we be able to have our own diocese here?
P
Peter_J
Guest
I also thought Malphono’s auxilary-bishop idea sounded good.
I don’t really see it that way. To me, that’s much less likely than getting an auxiliary bishop.
- Status