Leadership for the Russian Greek Catholics

  • Thread starter Thread starter twf
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

twf

Guest
Quite some time a go I started a thread asking why Rome won’t (or at least hasn’t) appointed a hierarch for the Russian Greek Catholics. Various reasons were given. It continues to strike me as exceedingly odd that a community can be considered a Church (which by definition is a group of the faithful in eucharistic communion with a bishop in apostolic succession…) without a bishop - but that is the current reality. If a bishop can’t or won’t be appointed for whatever reasons, wouldn’t it at least make sense to delegate quasi-episcopal administrative authority to one of the Russian Greek Catholic priests to give the community some sort of coherent unity or at least a spokesperson? The three recently established Anglican Catholic Ordinariates, for example, don’t have their own bishops, and have a very small number of faithful spread over great areas, but are still by led priests to whom Rome has granted such quasi-episcopal authority.
 
I think it goes back to the idea of how the West perceives the East; as Catholics who do things “funny.” While legitimate East-West communion would proceed from Eastern hierarchs in communion with Rome, that is not what how Rome sees it; Russian Catholics are just another group who do things “funny” and are “under the Pope.”

While I understand the Russian Catholic community might not pose such a great need that they be granted a bishop why, then, even have the Church if there’s no one to represent that unity? I think the Russian Catholic Church is a perfect illustration of what Orthodox fear: the inconsequentiality of Eastern Catholic episcopacy. The reason why they haven’t been granted a bishop yet - the blunt truth is the sentiment is they don’t really matter.
 
Does it have to do with the assumption that granting a bishop to the Russian Catholics would offend and impede a future full communion with the Russian Orthodox Church?

I do think that if the Russian Catholics want a bishop of their own, then they should be granted one. I’m just thinking that perhaps there is an ecumenical issue involved here that would complicate matters.

I know, for example, that with regards the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, their desire for a Patriarchal status has been hampered due to the complications this would bring to the dialogue between Rome and the Russian Orthodox Church.

God bless,

Rony
 
twf said:
Quite some time a go I started a thread asking why Rome won’t (or at least hasn’t) appointed a hierarch for the Russian Greek Catholics. Various reasons were given. It continues to strike me as exceedingly odd that a community can be considered a Church (which by definition is a group of the faithful in eucharistic communion with a bishop in apostolic succession…) without a bishop - but that is the current reality. If a bishop can’t or won’t be appointed for whatever reasons, wouldn’t it at least make sense to delegate quasi-episcopal administrative authority to one of the Russian Greek Catholic priests to give the community some sort of coherent unity or at least a spokesperson? The three recently established Anglican Catholic Ordinariates, for example, don’t have their own bishops, and have a very small number of faithful spread over great areas, but are still by led priests to whom Rome has granted such quasi-episcopal authority.
Click to expand...
Don’t eastern catholic groups that do not have a bishop fall under the jurisdiction of the local Latin rite bishop?
 
MorEphrem said:
I think it goes back to the idea of how the West perceives the East; as Catholics who do things “funny.” While legitimate East-West communion would proceed from Eastern hierarchs in communion with Rome, that is not what how Rome sees it; Russian Catholics are just another group who do things “funny” and are “under the Pope.”

While I understand the Russian Catholic community might not pose such a great need that they be granted a bishop why, then, even have the Church if there’s no one to represent that unity? I think the Russian Catholic Church is a perfect illustration of what Orthodox fear: the inconsequentiality of Eastern Catholic episcopacy. The reason why they haven’t been granted a bishop yet - the blunt truth is the sentiment is they don’t really matter.
Click to expand...
i don’t think that is fair. Many eastern rite Catholics not only have their own Bishops but also Metropolitans, and even some have Patriarchs.

If anything I believe it might be because the Russian Orthodox church is one of the biggest Orthodox groups and that if reunification were to happen in the future Rome doesn’t want any competion as to who legitamate Bishops are. They would simply go under then reigning Russian Orthodox Bishop.
Which is a wholy different situation then the melkite Catholic church who split in two over differences with Orthodoxy as to who the real Patriarch of Antioch was. Rome recognized one and Constantinople the other. Hence there is a Melkite Catholic church and a Melkite Orthodox church. If reunification were to happen I believe Rome would insist that the Catholic Melkite Patriarch be recognized and the other disposed
 
I suppose I was a bit uncharitable in my initial evaluation; still, I find it a bit silly that there can be Russian Catholics yet no episcopate who can express their union with Rome.
 
capablanca911 said:
Well, there’s the pesky fact that the 597 Churches stolen from the Orthodox in the early 90’s is linked to the idea of a ‘uniate.’

orthodoxeurope.org/page/7/1/2.aspx
Click to expand...
Metropolitan Hilarion, while highly respectable in theology and philosophy, is not particularly neutral when it comes to history. He tows the Russian Orthodox line, with little regard for the reality on the ground. These supposed 597 churches that were “stolen”, are not Russian but Ukrainian, and stolen - no, many were under the same bishop who became Ukrainian Catholic. He failed to mention how the Russians claimed possession of these churches in the first place - through Soviet collaboration.
 
MorEphrem said:
I suppose I was a bit uncharitable in my initial evaluation; still, I find it a bit silly that there can be Russian Catholics yet no episcopate who can express their union with Rome.
Click to expand...
There’s also the very strong possibility that the Russian Catholics do have a bishop secretly, and its much easier to keep it under wraps than tick off the Russian Orthodox.
 
SyroMalankara said:
There’s also the very strong possibility that the Russian Catholics do have a bishop secretly, and its much easier to keep it under wraps than tick off the Russian Orthodox.
Click to expand...
I kind of doubt that. Did the Russian Orthodox have anything to say about the last Russian Catholic bishop?
 
Steveabrous said:
Don’t eastern catholic groups that do not have a bishop fall under the jurisdiction of the local Latin rite bishop?
Click to expand...
Usually, except in Africa and the Middle East, and certain exceptions. For example, Ruthenians in Canada fall under the Ukrainian church, and Slovaks and Hungarians in the US are under the Ruthenian bishops.

In Ethiopia and Eritrea, everyone is under the Ethiopian bishops. Some places in the mid east, everyone falls under one of the Eastern Bishops.
 
Aramis said:
There are some areas where there is no Latin bishop. ISTR parts of Turkey, Iran and Iraq.
Click to expand...
Though I really don’t know about post-Shah Iran, perhaps Rony will chime in with some further information about the other two.
 
There are some areas where there is no Latin bishop. ISTR parts of Turkey, Iran and Iraq.
Click to expand...
Though I really don’t know about post-Shah Iran, perhaps Rony will chime in with some further information about the other two.
Click to expand...
As far as Iraq…

For Latin Catholics, there is in Baghdad a Roman Catholic Archdiocese, led by current Latin Archbishop Sleiman. According to this wiki, it has jurisdiction over three parishes of 2,500 Latin Catholics living throughout Iraq.

God bless,

Rony
 
ronyodish said:
As far as Iraq…

For Latin Catholics, there is in Baghdad a Roman Catholic Archdiocese, led by current Latin Archbishop Sleiman. According to this wiki, it has jurisdiction over three parishes of 2,500 Latin Catholics living throughout Iraq.

God bless,

Rony
Click to expand...
Thanks Rony, that’s what I thought. 😉

I did a little further nosing around, and it seems there are three Latin jurisdictions in Turkey and even one in Iran as well.
 
I wonder why. Why not just incorporate these three Latin parishes under the Chaldeans or Syriacs and let them functions as Easterners do under the Latin ordinary.
 
SyroMalankara said:
I wonder why. Why not just incorporate these three Latin parishes under the Chaldeans or Syriacs and let them functions as Easterners do under the Latin ordinary.
Click to expand...
Because that would be a travesty. I know I sound harsh, but as I said previously a sort of higher priority is committed to Latin hierarchy because the Church as a whole has room to grow in actually committing to the idea that each sui iuris Church is equal in dignity.
 
Earlier someone mentioned that Latin Catholics in Ethiopia fall under the Ethiopian hierarchy…this is not true (yet again) - there appears to be several Latin vicariates in Ethiopia - here is one example: catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/dawas.html

Eritrea, however, appears to only have Oriental jurisdictions. I believe Eritrea may be the only case in the whole wide world of a country that has only Eastern/Oriental jurisdictions…
 
MorEphrem said:
SyroMalankara;11080665:
I wonder why. Why not just incorporate these three Latin parishes under the Chaldeans or Syriacs and let them functions as Easterners do under the Latin ordinary.
Click to expand...
Because that would be a travesty. I know I sound harsh, but as I said previously a sort of higher priority is committed to Latin hierarchy because the Church as a whole has room to grow in actually committing to the idea that each sui iuris Church is equal in dignity.
Click to expand...
If I may add here, such an act would also undermine the self-proclaimed pre-eminence of the Latin Church insofar as it claims universal jurisdiction. IOW, the old territorial bounds still bind the East and Orient, but not the West. Isn’t that the underlying reason behind the (now suppressed, after how many centuries?) so-called “Latin Patriatchates” of Antioch and Alexandria? And isn’t it also the reason behind the almost total subjugation of the Syro-Malabar Church for some 400 years after the infamous Synod of Diamper, and its limitation even within the Indian subcontinent? Rome claimed India as its own territory, and relegated the Syro-Malabars to their traditional homeland (essentially what is now Kerala). It’s only relatively recently that that’s begun to break down a bit, and then only because of a certain amount of Malayali migration to other areas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top