Latin Rite Bishop named Apostolic Administrator of Eparchy of Phoenix

  • Thread starter Thread starter babochka
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi babochka,
I am praying for all involved.
Thank you for sharing the article. May the Holy Spirit’s gift of wisdom help to resolve these issues in accordance with the will of Our Lord.
Amen.
 
Another Bishop has been sent in to sort out some financial and legal issues… not sure what the big deal is.
 
It seems a very delicate issue. I pray for healing for all.
 
How usual is it for a Roman Catholic Latin rite bishop to be an apostolic administrator of an Eastern Catholic eparchy. Would it be preferable to appoint a person from the Eastern Catholic church? In case of a reunion with the Orthodox church, would the Roman Catholic church be appointing Latin Roman church clergy to administer provinces or dioceses of Eastern Orthodox Churches?
 
I’m confused as to why the Eparchy would state in a legal complaint that the Maronites and Melkites have different religious beliefs than the Ruthenians when all are in communion with Rome to my knowledge? That seems like an odd statement for a legal document and going in a bad direction.
 
Bishop Olmstead is very competent and I pray they will be able to get this complicated matter sorted out.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I’m confused as to why the Eparchy would state in a legal complaint that the Maronites and Melkites have different religious beliefs than the Ruthenians when all are in communion with Rome to my knowledge? That seems like an odd statement for a legal document and going in a bad direction.
Click to expand...
Agreed. And I would say a bishop suing his own archbishop is really going in a bad direction! Wow…
 
DignumEtJustum said:
Another Bishop has been sent in to sort out some financial and legal issues… not sure what the big deal is.
Click to expand...
Bishop John named his brother bishop and Metropolitan as a defendant in civil lawsuit. The peace, unity and communion of the church has been affected by these matters. This is my primary concern, and the most troubling.

The Eparchy of Phoenix is small and full of small parishes which are, for the most part, unable to absorb the additional costs that this situation will inevitably bring. We will feel the impact of this quickly and directly. Given some of the changes that have occurred in the last year or so, I suspect that we already have felt the impact and just didn’t know it.

Naming an Apostolic Administrator while the see is occupied and the bishop is not incapacitated is a highly unusual and rather extreme step. This is an indication that the situation has become rather extreme. Bishop William was my bishop for several years and I remember him fondly. I have met Bishop John and think well of him. I am looking forward to knowing him better. Would this not trouble you if it were your own diocese?

I was originally bothered by the fact that a Latin Rite bishop was chosen, but I now realize that there was likely not an Eastern Catholic bishop or priest who does not have a conflict of interest.
 
Last edited:
DignumEtJustum said:
Another Bishop has been sent in to sort out some financial and legal issues… not sure what the big deal is.
Click to expand...
I agree, the issue seems to be with some bad characters in an insurance scam. The Latin bishop is just there to help sort everything out. I pray that the Eparchy is able to be made whole and the scammers put out of business.
 
Troubling in many ways (and none has yet noted that there is not a single case in the article of properly naming Bishop John, rather than using the form for a latin bishop . . .)

However, t appears that there is an actual dispute between a bishop and the head of his church (the metropolitan). Resolving the dispute is actually within the role of the bishop of Rome within the universal first millennium church (assuming is Rome, endnote the administrator, who makes the final decision, or at least gears the appeal from the “losing” party).

The EO should be watching this keenly to see how it is handled . . .

hawk
 
dochawk said:
Resolving the dispute is actually within the role of the bishop of Rome within the universal first millennium church (assuming is Rome, endnote the administrator, who makes the final decision, or at least gears the appeal from the “losing” party).
Click to expand...
I agree that this seems to be prudential.
dochawk said:
properly naming Bishop John
Click to expand...
Not an important issue, IMO, but this is.
dochawk said:
the head of his church (the metropolitan)
Click to expand...
This is very distinct from Orthodox practice in which the Metropolitan has no immediate authority outside of his own (arch) eparchy.
 
My understanding of Orthodox (and early western) practice is that a metropolitan does, indeed have a very limited role outside his eparchy.

Aside from convening the synod (which can depose one another, including the metropolitan), I believe that he has a limited ability to suspend a bishop pending the synod meeting to discuss it.

Here, the church in question is a single metropolis with three suffrage bishops. The eparchy in question is roughly the western half of the US.

This isn’t a disciplinary matter; it is quite literally a dispute between bishops over how to handle a program. Two of the four bishops in this entire church, one who is the head, have a dispute.

hawk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top