Evangelization

[mardukm]

I’ve read (not from any formal Church documents, but on the net) and heard that Eastern and Oriental Catholics cannot evangelize if they are in the traditional jurisdictions of the Patriarch of the Latins.

Can someone point to any formal Church documents or instructions that state this? Or is this more of a “status quo” kind of thing?

Is this instruction from Rome (hard for me to believe, but it’s possible, I guess), or is this more of a local issue between neighboring/overlapping Latin and Eastern or Oriental jurisdictions?

How is an Eastern or Oriental Catholic mission started in traditionally Latin lands? Is it the great presence of Eastern or Oriental Catholics from their motherlands? Is there ever any consideration given to Latin Catholics who may want to change sui juris Churches? As there is more exposure and knowledge of the Eastern or Oriental Catholic Churches among the Latin Catholics, this may be something that needs to be addressed by the local Latin hierarchies (at the risk of having Eastern or Oriental-leaning Latin Catholics leave the local Latin Church to be spiritually fed at the local Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Church - not a bad thing in itself, mind you).

Blessings

 

[bpbasilphx]

For decades, if not centuries, there was a policy that the Eastern Catholic Churches were subordinate to the Latin Church, if not somehow inferior, and their only duties were to minister to their own people and poselytize their non-Catholic counterparts.

 

[Hesychios]

Presently, in cities like Chicago or Los Angeles the local ordinary is responsible for the care of any EC who have no other option.

I would expect the same goes for Manila, Sao Paolo or Marseilles.

The other option is a hierarchy established by the Pope for that area.

Thus, the local ordinary decides in most cases whether there will be a mission of a certain tradition, and this decision is usually based upon an established need. The mission can be closed by the local ordinary if the perceived need seems to disappear. (This happened to the local Belarussian parish I once attended in Chicago, the Cardinal shut it down. To be fair, it was an appropriate decision.)

In other words, there normally would have to be a community of that tradition already in place, as can happen through immigration. The local ordinary (ordinarily a Latin rite bishop) usually does not feel compelled to establish a Byzantine rite mission or an Armenian rite mission just because it would be a nice thing, there have to be people of that tradition already in place within the bishop’s diocese petitioning for a priest.

I remember a Latin Catholic parish in Bellwood, Illinois. The neighborhood changed and the “white flight” caused the parish assets to be expendable. At the same time the Kerala Christian community was growing in the metropolitan area (although quite scattered) and they need to be served. The local ordinary, the Cardinal Archbishop of Chicago, offered this surplus property to them as a mission under his supervision, provided that they maintained the place. Later, Pope John Paul II raised a diocese for the Syro-Malabar Catholic church and named a bishop for them. The parish became their cathedral, I suppose the assets were ‘gifted’ to the new eparchy by the Archdiocese of Chicago… or sold for a token sum.

As far as I know, if there had not already been Syro-Malabar Catholics in the area there is no likelihood that the Syro-Malabar Catholic church could have established a mission in Chicagoland to convert the locals to their Faith tradition. In fact, the church does not seem to have a completely free hand to work in northern India.

I do not know of any procedure which allows the EC churches to “push” their tradition into already evangelized Latin territories without the prior consent of the local ordinary, as it may seem like poaching. Perhaps it is permissible, but I have not seen how it can be accomplished. So one doesn’t see (for example) Armenian Catholic priests going solo in Mexico City, for example, trying to raise a mission among the local Mexicans. That is, of course, unless the local Mexicans are already Armenian rite Catholics and the local Latin bishop requested a priest to help serve them.

 

[bpbasilphx]

So one doesn’t see (for example) Armenian Catholic priests going solo in Mexico City, for example, trying to raise a mission among the local Mexicans. That is, of course, unless the local Mexicans are already Armenian rite Catholics and the local Latin bishop requested a priest to help serve them.

---

And, of course, EVERYONE in Mexico City is a baptized, practicing, devout Latin Rite Catholic, right?

 

[Hesychios]

And, of course, EVERYONE in Mexico City is a baptized, practicing, devout Latin Rite Catholic, right?

Actually, I know there are Melkites somewhere around there

But you are right, of course. There is no 100%, not even on Malta.

I don’t know what the level is of the Melkite canonical establishment in Mexico. It depends (if I remember correctly) entirely upon the Pope’s opinion though, not that of the Melkite Synod.

Despite my current affiliation, I believe the Byzantine rite Catholic churches (not to exclude the others, but I don’t know them as well) have a great gift to share with the unchurched, the unbelievers and the confused in the modern culture. I have always said this. They should be able to reach many people that fall through the cracks of the larger institution and other confessions. The system, deliberately or not, seems to discourage that possibility.

 

[mardukm]

Thanks for your responses, brothers.

Brother Bpbasilphx has a good point. I’ve met Latin Catholics who had a “dead” faith until they were exposed to the riches of the Eastern or Oriental Traditions. Aside from that, there are also Protestants and unchurched who need to be evangelized. And anyone who has been even to Tijuana…

The permission of the local Latin ordinary is an interesting observation, but from what I have gathered, especially with the bishop of Rome giving up the title “Patriarch of the West,” the Catholic Church does not operate on the principel of territorial jurisdiction, but rather “ritual” jurisdiction (so there may be jurisdictions of different Catholic Traditions in the same area). In principle, there does not seem to be anything that would definitively restrict an Eastern or Oriental Catholic from starting a mission field within a Latin diocese — unless someone can produce a document prohibiting such a thing.

Perhaps the endeavor just needs some enterprising Eastern or Oriental Catholic, or a Latin Catholic attracted to the Eastern or Oriental Traditions.

Has anyone here tried - or know of anyone who has tried - to start a program in a Latin diocese or parish to introduce people to the Eastern or Oriental Traditions - or spoken to the local bishop about starting a formal progarm for one? Has any Eastern or Oriental Catholic here ever tried - or know of anyone who has tried - door-to-door evangelization?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Diak]

Thus, the local ordinary decides in most cases whether there will be a mission of a certain tradition, and this decision is usually based upon an established need.

Actually not. A request can be made to any particular ritual Church to start a mission anywhere within the territorial boundries of that particular ritual Church that might coincide with another Latin diocese. I’ve started one without any involvement from the Latin Church whatsover other than to give permission to use their facilities for services.

Regarding outreach, I’ve spoken to several RCIA and Knights of Columbus groups about our Churches, and taught a class at the local Latin college about the Eastern Catholic Churches. I’m hoping to eventually work with them to combine some aspects of our “Generations of Faith” into some Latin adult faith enrichment. We’ll see what happens.

 

[mardukm]

Actually not. A request can be made to any particular ritual Church to start a mission anywhere within the territorial boundries of that particular ritual Church that might coincide with another Latin diocese. I’ve started one without any involvement from the Latin Church whatsover other than to give permission to use their facilities for services.

Regarding outreach, I’ve spoken to several RCIA and Knights of Columbus groups about our Churches, and taught a class at the local Latin college about the Eastern Catholic Churches. I’m hoping to eventually work with them to combine some aspects of our “Generations of Faith” into some Latin adult faith enrichment. We’ll see what happens.

:bowdown::bowdown:
I’m going to include your success and perseverence in that endeavor in my daily prayers.

Abundant blessings,
Marduk

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

Actually not. A request can be made to any particular ritual Church to start a mission anywhere within the territorial boundries of that particular ritual Church that might coincide with another Latin diocese. I’ve started one without any involvement from the Latin Church whatsover other than to give permission to use their facilities for services.

Regarding outreach, I’ve spoken to several RCIA and Knights of Columbus groups about our Churches, and taught a class at the local Latin college about the Eastern Catholic Churches. I’m hoping to eventually work with them to combine some aspects of our “Generations of Faith” into some Latin adult faith enrichment. We’ll see what happens.

This is encouraging b/c we will also have to use Latin facilities for a while and I would LOVE to have an article written in our Diocesan paper.

 

[Hesychios]

Actually not. A request can be made to any particular ritual Church to start a mission anywhere within the territorial boundries of that particular ritual Church…

Apparently, I did not make myself clear.

If the Pope has authorized a hierarchy for an area, then that church has a free hand.

What you state works fine in the USA for Ukrainians, Melkites, Ruthenians, etc. but doesn’t really work so in Manilla, Veracruz and Lagos.

In Canada the established Byzantine rite churches are the Ukrainian and Slovak, I do not think the Romanians have an eparchy. If that is correct, if a Romanian was to migrate to Edmonton he might find a Ukrainian or Slovak parish (or perhaps not) that will work for him but the Latin local ordinary bishop is obligated to serve his spiritual needs.

The Romanian Catholic church will not serve Edmonton unless the Pope has established an eparchy, and that is based upon perceived need. The only basis I know of to establish this is to become aware of Romanians already there.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

Apparently, I did not make myself clear.

If the Pope has authorized a hierarchy for an area, then that church has a free hand.

What you state works fine in the USA for Ukrainians, Melkites, Ruthenians, etc. but doesn’t really work so in Manilla, Veracruz and Lagos.

In Canada the established Byzantine rite churches are the Ukrainian and Slovak, I do not think the Romanians have an eparchy. If that is correct, if a Romanian was to migrate to Edmonton he might find a Ukrainian or Slovak parish (or perhaps not) that will work for him but the Latin local ordinary bishop is obligated to serve his spiritual needs.

I see what you mean. But its not about establishing eparchies or jurisdictions. I’m talking about starting Eastern Catholic missions, or at least programs of education, within Latin dioceses or parishes. I’m talking about what needs to be done at the grassroots level. I think father deacon Diak sufficiently addressed my concerns. I’m just talking about spreading the Eastern and/or Oriental riches in traditionally Latin areas.

The Romanian Catholic church will not serve Edmonton unless the Pope has established an eparchy, and that is based upon perceived need. The only basis I know of to establish this is to become aware of Romanians already there.

Has the Pope established any new Eastern or Oriental jurisdictions in traditionally Latin lands ever since he gave up the title “Patriarch of the West?” It seems to me the practical effect of this is that the Pope would not be involved in establishing eparchies for the Eastern or Oriental Churches in traditionally Latin lands anymore. All it would take is to obtain the assent (I’m using canonical language, and “assent” is not the same as “consent”) of the local Latin hierarch, and to inform the Pope of the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[KyivAndrew]

In Canada the established Byzantine rite churches are the Ukrainian and Slovak, I do not think the Romanians have an eparchy. If that is correct, if a Romanian was to migrate to Edmonton he might find a Ukrainian or Slovak parish (or perhaps not) that will work for him but the Latin local ordinary bishop is obligated to serve his spiritual needs.

The Romanian Catholic church will not serve Edmonton unless the Pope has established an eparchy, and that is based upon perceived need. The only basis I know of to establish this is to become aware of Romanians already there.

I seem to recall our eparchy’s Ukrainian Greek Catholic Bishop as being Bishop as well to Slovak Byzantine Catholics on top of us Ukies.

Then something happened which I really have not followed enough to comment upon. Here below:

"The Catholic Register: Giant Slovak cathedral, blessed by pope, stripped of status in dispute
By Michael Swan
10/5/2006

The Catholic Register
TORONTO, Canada (The Catholic Register) – One of Canada’s most architecturally impressive and ambitious cathedrals is no longer a cathedral. Bishop John Pazak, spiritual head of Byzantine rite Slovak Catholics in Canada, has removed the blessed sacrament and the antimension, or altar stone, from the Cathedral of the Transfiguration, a giant gold-domed church on the edge of Unionville, north of Toronto.

The bishop has also suspended permission for any of his priests to celebrate Mass in the former cathedral and asked the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto not to extend permission to Roman rite priests to celebrate Mass there.

Bishop Pazak said he was unable to arrive at a stable, sustainable working relationship with the Slovak Greek Catholic Church Foundation, which owns the property. The foundation is the creation of Stephen Roman, the mining magnate who built the church on his cattle ranch before he died in 1988."

catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=21517

Also, catholicregister.org/content/view/49/849/

I have no idea if there is a question of jurisdiction or finances here, and plead ignorance.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Marduk,

Dear brother Hesychios,

I see what you mean. But its not about establishing eparchies or jurisdictions. I’m talking about starting Eastern Catholic missions, or at least programs of education, within Latin dioceses or parishes. I’m talking about what needs to be done at the grassroots level. I think father deacon Diak sufficiently addressed my concerns. I’m just talking about spreading the Eastern and/or Oriental riches in traditionally Latin areas.

I understand. The thread has gone off.

But the situation is different depending upon what country you are referring to. If you were just interested in what the Ukrainians can do in Kansas you will get a different answer from what the Copts can do in Bavaria. I thought you were more interested in the generalities

As it is, most EC bishops in the USA will not start a mission unless a minimum number of people have expressed an interest in it locally. That is a lot different from Saint Adalbert trekking to Prussia uninvited, or Saint Mark arriving in Alexandria unannounced.

When the first Catholic priests (Franciscans) arrived in Cathay they were on a real mission, they had no laity, they started off fresh. They did not have to wait until there were fifty Roman Catholics to petition for a priest. I do not see that any EC church can send a priest to Manilla or Tokyo on a wish and a prayer. Although I could be wrong, I would expect it to result in a protest by the local Latin bishop to the Holy Father.

Has the Pope established any new Eastern or Oriental jurisdictions in traditionally Latin lands ever since he gave up the title “Patriarch of the West?”

I would not assume anything for the moment, I have not been watching. The title change was not even formally announced, just quitly omitted from a publication. It was the rest of us who noticed and made a big deal out of it. If there was a policy change it would be reflected in the canons, I am sure.

 

[KyivAndrew]

And furthermore, on the question of evangelization. It’s not just a question of jurisdictions here in the new land, the problem is the old country too.

The former persecuted Ukrainian Catholic Church is the largest Eastern Catholic Church without its own de jure Patriarchate. On the other side, Ukraine is probably the biggest Orthodox nation on the world without a United Patriarch.

In 1991, the initial optimism of the Ukr. Catholic Church religious and believers being released from the Catacombs showed some signs of worry when His Holiness JP2 ordained not Ukrainian Catholic but Roman Catholic bishops for central and eastern Ukraine (orthodox country) and confined the Ukrainian Catholic Church to its own ghetto in the west. This is surprising given that HH JP2 had remarked in April, 1993: “I no longer see any obstacle to the proclamation of the Patriarchate,” in the presence of 28 Ukr. Catholic bishops. According to bishop Hrynchyshyn, the then pope JP2 has been inclined to extend the powers of the Lviv metropolitan outside Ukraine so that he could also hope to exercise powers over the UGCC eparchies elsewhere in Europe and in the Americas and Australia. The Pope was a Slav after all. (source:Religion and Nation in Modern Ukraine, by Serhii Plokhy and Frank Sysyn. (pg. 158) utoronto.ca/cius/publications/books/religionnation.htm

However, in a phrase that bears repeating there are other powerful voices in the Curia such as was one Cardinal Casaroli responsible as Secretary of State and who followed his own Ostpolitik with Moscow during HH JP2’s reign. I believe George Weigel has written that in his first months of Papacy, HH JP2 avoided talking with Cardinal Casaroli.

From Sysyn’s book above (pg158): “According to Rev. Dr. Andrij Chirovsky, there have been three main tendencies in the Vatican’s policy toward the UGCC. The first is connected with the desire to support the UGCC, which is highly respected for its struggle for survival under the Communist regime. The two other tendencies are linked to the activity of two groups within the Vatican leadership, the ‘ecumenists’, and the ‘centralists’. The ‘ecumenists’ are mainly preoccupied with a dialogue with Moscow, and the ‘centralists’ oppose any move toward the decentralization of world Catholicism.”

I believe the latter two are wrong. Dialogues with Moscow over ecumenism have not made any great strides after several decades of OSTPOLITIK. The Roman Catholic bishops assigned to Ukraine also do not seem to be making many converts as the Church seems foreign to many.

IMHO, I believe if any dioceses/eparchies are to be created further in Central and Eastern Ukraine, they should be UGCC eparchies. These will have more chance of bearing fruits with the population.

What does one think: Should Moscow have a veto right (which it seems to have) in preventing a Ukrainian Catholic Patriarchate? Should “evangelizing” be really left to Roman Catholicism for all of Ukraine, or to the homegrown Ukrainian Catholic Church. At this stage in any event, it’s not so much evangelizing, as to which Catholic Rite should run the show for all of Ukraine, a Ukrainian Patriarch, or Roman Rite bishops in the Centre and East. IMHO, it should be the former. Moscow cannot object to who the Catholic Church grants the status of Patriarch to or have veto power over it. God Bless.

I hope I haven’t misspoken.