How does the Catholic Church hierarchy work, especially with regard to the Eastern Churches?

[Vico]

Split from the Eastern Catholicism thread: The Orthodox and the Hail Mary

I don’t know all the laws, but this is from the Vatican web site:

“THE ROMAN CURIA
In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/index.htm

So you see, it is confusing to me, because I was never trained in the technical details of Church administration, I have had to research it, recently. Our Byzantine Catholic parish catechical program does not focus on Church government or hierarchy.

Vico: It’s not that there are any canons that prevent the Curia from operating in such a way towards the Eastern Churches, it’s that they shouldn’t and that there is absolutely no sound precedent for it. It is unacceptable, by and large, to the Eastern Catholic Churches that they should be put under Latin functionaries. It is also something that absolutely will not fly with the Orthodox; Papal supremacy is one thing, but Curial supremacy is beyond any acceptability.

If the Catholic Church is at all serious about reunion, the role of the Curia must be greatly modified and severely limited when it comes to the Eastern Catholic Churches (why would the Orthodox accept what the Eastern Catholic Churches can barely tolerate). While they may technically hold sway, they are de facto not immediately accepted by many Eastern Catholics, and with good reason.

Peace and God bless!

I believe that I understand what you mean, yet when an Eastern bishop is chosen, it is approved by The Pope. There is law, but the spirit of charity should be maintained.

“All of these churches come under the jurisdiction of the Pope through the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, one of the offices of the Roman Curia.”

cnewa.org/ecc-bodypg-us.aspx?eccpageID=54

First, I understand that each individual parish church is a chuch in its own right. Then there is jurisdiction, depending on the particular Church, with various levels of hierachy until the highest level of the particular Church, and then the Catholic Church headed by the Patriarch of Rome.

July 2009, Eparch Robert Mikhail Moskal of St. Josaphat in Parma, Ohio retired. This was approved by the Pope (in accord with 210 §1 CCEO) and then another Bishop Bura was temporarily assigned. St. Josaphat is in sufferage to Metropolitan of Philadelphia, and then to Major Archeparchy Kyiv-Halyc. (His EminenceCardinal Lubomyr Husar.)

catholicnewsagency.com/news/ukranian_catholic_eparch_of_st._josaphat_retires_pope_names_administrator/

I do not know how the highest level of a sui iuris Church works with the Pope, although I see that exarchates report directly to The Pope, I suppose so do the top hierarchs.

 

[bpbasilphx]

No problem.

The jurisdiction of Latin Bishops is PERSONAL, and limited ONLY to faithful and clergy of the Latin Rite, except for others specifically included.

The jurisdiction of Eastern Catholic bishops is TERRITORIAL, and extends to all Catholics whatsoever, except for those specifically excluded.

(Just thought I’d turn the usual Latin answer on its head to show how it sounds.)

 

[Ghosty]

Before I make a true response to this new thread, I’d like to make a carry-over response from the original thread that spawned this one. It may not be perfectly on topic, but it’s certainly a better fit here than it was in a thread about the Hail Mary prayer:

Mardukm:

Perhaps you have better info than myself. From what I understand, the only section of the Curia that has a direct hand in the affairs of Eastern and Oriental Churches is the Congregation for the Eastern Churches (I think that’s the name). I believe the only Latin in the group is the Secretary (or Prefect?), and the rest of the members are from Eastern or Oriental Churches. From what I understand, the rest of the Curial dicasteries affect only the Latin Church.

As far as I know, and I could very well be wrong in this, many of the sections of the Roman Curia technically have “authority” over the Eastern Churches. That being said, I don’t think they generally utilize this authority given the response of Eastern Catholics, but I don’t know for sure. I do know that when the Melkite Synod proposed reunion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church it was the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that responded, not the Congregation for the Eastern Churches.

Cecilianus: I never said anything against the Pope and his authority, I said the Roman Curia shouldn’t exercise it; I believe that the Pope should appoint Eastern Bishops if and when necessary (it’s been necessary in the past, especially in the first millenium). The Pope is Patriarch of Patriarchs, and rightfully exercises the Petrine Ministry, but the Roman Curia is not the Papacy. The Curia, as we know it today, is a very, very late development (the first Congregation was formed during the Protestant Reformation). It has no place in the relationship between the Latin Church and the other Churches, and was formed during a time when the Latin Church was the only game in town, for all intents and purposes.

It’s important to understand that the relationship between the Eastern Churches and the Latin Church is based on the fact that the Pope is a “Patriarch of Patriarchs”, and is not a pay-grade above other Patriarchs. He is the focal-point of unity, and can intervene in other Churches when necessary, but he is not the CEO of the Catholic Communion. The Catholic Communion, if it is really a Communion, can’t be seen as Pope → Curia → Catholic Churches, but rather the Pope himself must be the center-point, with his assistants assisting him, but never operating as the Petrine Ministry itself.

I do want to specifically address this statement of yours:

It would make much more sense for a Byzantine Catholic to be a staunch ultramontanist than a Latin using the modernist Bugnini Liturgy. I personally love the Pope, love having a Pope, and want more “papal monarchy”, not less. We see what happened to less when the Pope let bishops run amock at Vatican II - not to mention the contemporary American Latin church.

First, you must understand that Vatican II was a watershed moment for the Eastern Catholic Churches. It was the first time that the dignity, sovereignty, and relative independence of the non-Latin Churches was recognized and elevated to such a level as being enshrined in Conciliar documents. You won’t get very far bashing Vatican II here. There may be problems that arose after Vatican II, in the Latin Church, but you won’t find much sympathy for an anti-Vatican II attitude among Eastern Catholics.

Secondly, your comment about the “Bugnini Liturgy” made me chuckle because it’s been on my mind recently. I’ve talked to several visiting Latins, as I’m the only regular non-Arab at our parish, and I like to make newcomer’s feel welcome. Once they see a “non-ethnic” Eastern Catholic (I am actually Middle Eastern by descent, but I don’t look it and I only speak English) they open up about their dislike for the “New Mass” and preference for the Tridentine. I have to admit that I get a bit of pleasure from the expression on their faces when I say that I much prefer the new Latin Liturgy to the Tridentine, and explaining that the Eastern Catholics were very supportive of revising the Tridentine Liturgy at Vatican II (though they recognized that it was a Latin Church matter).

I’ve attended several traditional Masses, both Tridentine and Dominican, and I must say that I feel a reverent “Novus Ordo” is a hundred times better than a Tridentine.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I believe that I understand what you mean, yet when an Eastern bishop is chosen, it is approved by The Pope. There is law, but the spirit of charity should be maintained.

In Patriarchal Churches it isn’t the case that Bishops are approved by the Pope, at least within the traditional Patriachal territory. Outside of the traditional territory the Pope has the “final say” (according to the canons, which I vehemently disagree with on this point) but in all reality the Pope merely rubber-stamps the decision of the Patriarch. The Pope shouldn’t even have to do that much, but the canons make it that way for now. In the Churches that aren’t Patriarchal the rules are different, and I honestly don’t know the specifics. It’s hard enough for me to keep the Melkite Canons straight, and I’ve smashed headlong into my own ignorance on these matters recently as it pertained to the Byzantine Catholic Church and married priests.

When I say that the Pope shouldn’t have to do so much, I mean it sincerely from the perspective of the Pope. It’s an added burden that simply isn’t necessary, and only serves to offend and drive divisions deeper in many cases. The Pope has more important and more universal matters (not to mention the matters that are purely Latin) to worry about than who the Patriarchs appoint as Bishops outside their traditional territories. I’d much rather have the Successor of Peter deal with matters of universal importance in his spare time than have to keep up with Episcopal appointments that are better addressed by the people involved. Subsidiarity isn’t just a claim against the Pope, it’s a claim on BEHALF of the Pope.

Peace and God bless!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ghosty,

Outside of the traditional territory the Pope has the “final say” (according to the canons, which I vehemently disagree with on this point) but in all reality the Pope merely rubber-stamps the decision of the Patriarch.

From my understanding, the election/appointment of a bishop is a truly collegial act. The Pope does not have the “final say.” For instance, the Pope cannot appoint his own candidate. The candidates MUST be obtained from the Eastern/Oriental Synod. If you look at the canons on election (Canons 947 - 957), there are safeguards to ensure that an election/appointment of a bishop outside the canonical territories is a truly collegial act, and not merely a decision by the Pope of Rome. For example, even a single elector can overturn the confirmation of the Pope, if that elector was unlawfully impeded from participating in the election process.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ghosty]

Dear brother Ghosty,

From my understanding, the election/appointment of a bishop is a truly collegial act. The Pope does not have the “final say.” For instance, the Pope cannot appoint his own candidate. The candidates MUST be obtained from the Eastern/Oriental Synod. If you look at the canons on election (Canons 947 - 957), there are safeguards to ensure that an election/appointment of a bishop outside the canonical territories is a truly collegial act, and not merely a decision by the Pope of Rome. For example, even a single elector can overturn the confirmation of the Pope, if that elector was unlawfully impeded from participating in the election process.

Blessings,
Marduk

Yes, of course. I simply mean that the Pope selects the candidate from the list proposed. This is different from how it works within the traditional territories, where the Pope has no say except in extreme circumstances to preserve the unity of the Church.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Diak]

It doesn’t work, that is the problem. Look at the sometimes rebellious remarks and actions of certain Latin bishops that go without discliplinary actions of this huge Vatican bureaucracy, and they are within the same particular Church. Now why do we want any part of that?

I think the general rule is that the role of the Eastern Congregation is highly variable depending on the size and level of development of the particular Church.

In two cases of Patriarchal churches I am familiar with, the respective Synods (I am speaking here about Melkites and UGCC) accepts the resignation and makes the selection of the candidate. In “diasporal” eparchies of these two Churches, the Eastern Congregation reviews the election and sends a recommendation of concurrence of the acta of the Synod to the Holy Father, and this has generally been a mere formality.

No episcopal election of either Synod has been overturned or meddled with since the pontificate of Pope John Paul II following the disastrous attempt by Rome to intervene in the Eparchy of Toronto. In this case Rome eventually recalled her candidate, and His Grace +Isidore, the choice of the Synod collegially elected, remained until his death. They’ve stayed out of it since then, and Vatican News Service can spin it as they like who picks or appoints.

For smaller churches the Eastern Congregation has a more pronounced role in the selection process.

 

[malphono]

In two cases of Patriarchal churches I am familiar with, the respective Synods (I am speaking here about Melkites and UGCC) accepts the resignation and makes the selection of the candidate. In “diasporal” eparchies of these two Churches, the Eastern Congregation reviews the election and sends a recommendation of concurrence of the acta of the Synod to the Holy Father, and this has generally been a mere formality.

As I understand the practical process in the Maronite diaspora, the Synod submits 3 names with a recommendation for the preferred candidate. The so-called Oriental Congregation (which, as I have said in other threads, is essentially useless anyway and should, IMHO, no longer even exist, but that is fodder for another discussion) “reviews” it, but the Holy See (probably through the Congregation for Bishops) makes the final decision. In one case, the 3 names submitted were rejected and sent back to the Synod with a “either you pick someone else or we will” ultimatum attached. The Synod submitted 3 different names, and the preferred candidate was confirmed.

I would probably rant on about this except for the fact that the Maronite Synod, as it stands is, as a whole (and there are exceptions, thank God) less than a stellar assembly. It is, unfortunately, composed of a majority of sycophants who simply rubber-stamp the decisions of the “inner circle” in just about everything. But this is not totlly new: it’s been that way for the past 30-some years, and has only gotten worse with time.

 

[mardukm]

Canon 960:
The competent authority cannot deny confirmation if the person elected is qualified according to the norm of law and the election was conducted in accordance with the law.

This gives credence to brother Ghosty’s statement that papal involvement in Eastern/Oriental episcopal elections is simply a rubber stamp.

Blessings

 

[Diak]

Canon 960:
The competent authority cannot deny confirmation if the person elected is qualified according to the norm of law and the election was conducted in accordance with the law.

This gives credence to brother Ghosty’s statement that papal involvement in Eastern/Oriental episcopal elections is simply a rubber stamp.

Blessings

It hasn’t always been that case since Vatican II (c.f. the UGCC Eparchy of Toronto situation) but that has generally been the case since then. Certainly in a perfect world a loving and benevolent master can “efficiently” provide for the needs of his subjects; the lived experience especially of Greek Catholics since the 18th century and especially in the 19th and early 20th has been something entirely different. Cum Data Fuerit only expired in the 1950s, not such a long time ago.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Father Deacon Diak,

It hasn’t always been that case since Vatican II (c.f. the UGCC Eparchy of Toronto situation) but that has generally been the case since then. Certainly in a perfect world a loving and benevolent master can “efficiently” provide for the needs of his subjects; the lived experience especially of Greek Catholics since the 18th century and especially in the 19th and early 20th has been something entirely different. Cum Data Fuerit only expired in the 1950s, not such a long time ago.

The citation of Cum Data Fuerit does not seem to have relevance for this thread, which is intended to discuss the matter of episcopal elections?

If I have assessed the purpose of this thread wrongly, please forgive my impertinance.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Diak]

It has relevance in that not only the appointment of diasporal bishops but even limitations the appointment of diasporal parochial clergy was completely relegated to the Curia not so long ago. Thankfully we are slowly moving away from that.

 

[Cecilianus]

Cecilianus: I never said anything against the Pope and his authority, I said the Roman Curia shouldn’t exercise it; I believe that the Pope should appoint Eastern Bishops if and when necessary (it’s been necessary in the past, especially in the first millenium). The Pope is Patriarch of Patriarchs, and rightfully exercises the Petrine Ministry, but the Roman Curia is not the Papacy. The Curia, as we know it today, is a very, very late development (the first Congregation was formed during the Protestant Reformation). It has no place in the relationship between the Latin Church and the other Churches, and was formed during a time when the Latin Church was the only game in town, for all intents and purposes.

In that case we’re in agreement, because I generally think the Pope shouldn’t exercise it either, at least in the Eastern Churches who are perfectly capable of governing themselves and maintaining orthodoxy without his help; my point was that he does have the right to should he need to or even just choose to for whatever reason.

It’s important to understand that the relationship between the Eastern Churches and the Latin Church is based on the fact that the Pope is a “Patriarch of Patriarchs”, and is not a pay-grade above other Patriarchs. He is the focal-point of unity, and can intervene in other Churches when necessary, but he is not the CEO of the Catholic Communion. The Catholic Communion, if it is really a Communion, can’t be seen as Pope → Curia → Catholic Churches, but rather the Pope himself must be the center-point, with his assistants assisting him, but never operating as the Petrine Ministry itself.

I do want to specifically address this statement of yours:

First, you must understand that Vatican II was a watershed moment for the Eastern Catholic Churches. It was the first time that the dignity, sovereignty, and relative independence of the non-Latin Churches was recognized and elevated to such a level as being enshrined in Conciliar documents. You won’t get very far bashing Vatican II here. There may be problems that arose after Vatican II, in the Latin Church, but you won’t find much sympathy for an anti-Vatican II attitude among Eastern Catholics.

You don’t have to put with the problems that arose though - we do. You got all the benefits which I’m NOT complaining about. And no, it wasn’t the first time the independence of the non-Latin churches was recognized or elevated; take a look for example at the history of the Byzantine rite in Italy before the Council of Trent, where it was independent of the Latin bishops and protected (by the Pope) against attempts to Latinize them.

Secondly, your comment about the “Bugnini Liturgy” made me chuckle because it’s been on my mind recently. I’ve talked to several visiting Latins, as I’m the only regular non-Arab at our parish, and I like to make newcomer’s feel welcome. Once they see a “non-ethnic” Eastern Catholic (I am actually Middle Eastern by descent, but I don’t look it and I only speak English) they open up about their dislike for the “New Mass” and preference for the Tridentine. I have to admit that I get a bit of pleasure from the expression on their faces when I say that I much prefer the new Latin Liturgy to the Tridentine, and explaining that the Eastern Catholics were very supportive of revising the Tridentine Liturgy at Vatican II (though they recognized that it was a Latin Church matter).

Well, the Eastern Catholics at my parish can’t figure out what in the world was going through the Latins’ minds - I frequently get pamphlets from Most Holy Family Monastery put on my windshield after Liturgy, if that’s any indication to you of what the people at my parish think. Eastern Catholics don’t have to put up with the Bugnini-Liturgy, or with any sort of Protestantization for that matter, and it’s really kind of hypocritical for them to expect us to tolerate something they don’t have to. I really don’t understand your view of the New Mass, unless you just don’t understand the old one; it lacks the sense of the sacred, the external dignity, the sense of Communion of Saints (given by prayers to the Theotokos, etc.), the depth of theological meaning in the prayers, and the richness of litanies and psalms that we see in both the Tridentine and Byzantine forms, and it’s usually said versus populum, which would be unthinkable in the East.

And, in response to Diak in another thread, I am not simply becoming Byzantine in order to run from Bugnini. I had already had a great love for the iconography and sacred music (Rachmaninov’s Divine Liturgy, for example) when I was a Lutheran, so when I realized that 95% of Novus Ordo Masses were Protestantized worse than anything I had ever stooped to as a Lutheran, I went to Divine Liturgy for the first time - and fell in love with what I saw. Is it permissible to you to fall head over heels for something you initially went to out of curiosity and a desire to get away from something else that you know is wrong?

 

[malphono]

Eastern Catholics don’t have to put up with the Bugnini-Liturgy

Well, maybe the Byzantines don’t. Others, unfortunately, do.