Middle East Synod: "Power to the Patriarchs"

[5Loaves]

Is there was way to combine these two threads about the Synod?

 

[5Loaves]

Well, the fact that such points are being raised at all by Eastern Catholic hierarchs and clergy is nothing short of miraculous!

Alex

It seems like we’ve all been surprised. From the origional announcement back in Dec. 2009 it had sounded like the main concerns to be addressed were those of the plight of Christians in the Middle East. That those concerns are very present is clear, see for example Joan Lewis’s blog entry for yesterday, 10/14, and the continuing coverage on NCR yeshua referred to.

I’d like there to have been some more presence among the participants from our European ECCs. Some of the issues are issues in Europe as well for ECCs.

It’s very exciting that they are focusing on these issues, whatever the short term outcome…

Case in point, a report on today’s continued calling for the return of Patriarchal privileges—from a Maronite, no less. It is interesting to note that despite all of the detrimental issues facing Christians in the Middle East (home for some of us posting), our hierarchs felt the topic most in need was their relationship with Rome, or rather, the limitations on our churches, and privileges restored to our leadership. Read the full index of reporting on the Synod here. A sort of “give us the authority so we can properly do our job” attitude.

Summary of potential requests on this issue to be sent for review to His Holiness, as reported by the NCR:

 

[Little_Boy_Lost]

Awesome.

AWESOME!

So if I understand correctly, none of the patriarchates can elect bishops for Europe or the Americas but must inform Rome as to their candidates and Rome picks? Just checking I have the facts right.

 

[Aramis]

AWESOME!

So if I understand correctly, none of the patriarchates can elect bishops for Europe or the Americas but must inform Rome as to their candidates and Rome picks? Just checking I have the facts right.

Not exactly.

If there is a vacant see, and the candidate is already ordained a bishop (whether auxiliary, titular, or territorial), the synod can just move them to it.

If the candidate is not a bishop, then they have to involve Rome, by electing three candidates, ranking them, and submitting the list to Rome; Rome usually takes the top name on that list.

It reduces the number of bishops who are from the diaspora…

 

[ciero]

Not exactly.

If there is a vacant see, and the candidate is already ordained a bishop (whether auxiliary, titular, or territorial), the synod can just move them to it.

If the candidate is not a bishop, then they have to involve Rome, by electing three candidates, ranking them, and submitting the list to Rome; Rome usually takes the top name on that list.

It reduces the number of bishops who are from the diaspora…

Sorry Aramis…not quite right. The Melkites are going thru this right now. They tried to move Archbishop Cyril from the US to Lebanon. Rome told them they CANT more a bishop from the diaspora. Only Rome can…Rome has finally agreed to the move.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Sorry Aramis…not quite right. The Melkites are going thru this right now. They tried to move Archbishop Cyril from the US to Lebanon. Rome told them they CANT more a bishop from the diaspora. Only Rome can…Rome has finally agreed to the move.

Those bishops are not under the Pope’s jurisdiction. Why does he have any say in a matter like this?

 

[Aramis]

Sorry Aramis…not quite right. The Melkites are going thru this right now. They tried to move Archbishop Cyril from the US to Lebanon. Rome told them they CANT more a bishop from the diaspora. Only Rome can…Rome has finally agreed to the move.

Rome ignored the CCEO, then.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Those bishops are not under the Pope’s jurisdiction. Why does he have any say in a matter like this?

That’s exactly the point! I think that’s also one of the reasons why the issue of Patriarchal jurisdiction and powers has been brought up in the Synod. Hopefully Rome listens.

 

[yeshua]

Those bishops are not under the Pope’s jurisdiction. Why does he have any say in a matter like this?

No, they actually are under His Holiness’ jurisdiction. Hence, the request by Patriarchs themselves to investigate extending patriarchal privileges over communities in the diaspora, as opposed to their antiquated “patriarchal territories.”

Note it is a request to simply investigate the matter to be submitted to His Holiness for review, not that they are asking for a little less hand holding.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Acting in defiance of the ecclesiastical standard, conscious or otherwise, does not mean that those rights and privileges existed in the first place.

Aramis:

Rome ignored the CCEO, then.

Or…some on this board have become comfortable with an unfortunate bout of confirmation bias. Pick apart the translations of the CCEO as much as recreation will allow, but at the end of the day, canon lawyers at the Vatican and the pontifical exorcise of that law trumps our wishful thinking.

I am not wholly disagreeing with the concept of the “high petrine” view, the tracts of Archbishop Elias Zoghby of blessed memory, the courageous acts of Patriarch Gregory II Joseph of blessed memory, or the private views of many Maronite clergy who literally keep quite out of fear of reprisal. I simply disagree that they are in any form the reality in which Eastern and Oriental Catholics ecclesiastically live.

 

[5Loaves]

I was out of town and haven’t kept up but in checking with the updates on NCR I see our former Bishop the wonderful now Archbishop Vigneron in full support of the right to ordain in the US married men of the ECCs.

Archbishop Allen Vigneron of Detroit, which has a large community of Christians belonging to various Eastern churches from the Middle East, said he would not be opposed if those Eastern churches decided to ordain more married priests in North America.

Both Vigneron and Archbishop Thomas Collins of Toronto also said, however, that bishops from Eastern churches do not seem to have a consensus on such a move.

The comments came during a press conference today organized by the Catholic Near East Welfare Association and the Canadian Catholic media network “Salt and Light.”

Yesterday, Archbishop Antonios Aziz Mina, a Coptic prelate from Egypt, argued in favor of extending the practice of married priests in the Eastern churches during the Oct. 10-24 Synod of Bishops for the Middle East.
Read NCR’s full coverage of the Synod of Bishops for the Middle East: Index of stories from the Synod.

“Since the 1930s there has been a ban on the ordination of and the practice of the ministry by married priests outside the territories of the Patriarchy and the ‘Historically Eastern regions,’ Mina said.

“I think, in line with whatever the Holy Father decides, that the time has come to take this step in favor of the pastoral care of the Eastern faithful throughout the diaspora,” he said.

Asked what he thinks about that, Vigneron said he would be inclined to defer to what the bishops of the Eastern churches recommend.

“The question is what will help the bishops, priests and the members of the Eastern churches in the expansion,” Vigneron said, adding that some Eastern Catholics prefer the term “expansion” to “diaspora.”

“If it helps them, it would be fine,” Vigneron said, referring to the ordination of married priests for the Eastern churches. “If they feel it’s not helpful, I would pay most attention to that.”

Since the issue arose in the synod, Vigneron said he’s talked to several Eastern bishops about it, and “they don’t all have the same view.”

Asked directly if he would worry that more married priests in the Eastern churches might call into question the obligation of celibacy for Roman Catholic priests, Vigneron said, “I would not.”

Entire piece.

May other Latin Bishops take his lead and speak up in support of "this step in favor of the pastoral care of the Eastern faithful throughout the diaspora,” (Archbishop Antonios Aziz Mina).

 

[Aramis]

Or…some on this board have become comfortable with an unfortunate bout of confirmation bias. Pick apart the translations of the CCEO as much as recreation will allow, but at the end of the day, canon lawyers at the Vatican and the pontifical exorcise of that law trumps our wishful thinking.

I am not wholly disagreeing with the concept of the “high petrine” view, the tracts of Archbishop Elias Zoghby of blessed memory, the courageous acts of Patriarch Gregory II Joseph of blessed memory, or the private views of many Maronite clergy who literally keep quite out of fear of reprisal. I simply disagree that they are in any form the reality in which Eastern and Oriental Catholics ecclesiastically live.

The Maronites did not come to reunion by treaty with guaranteed rights… Most of the Byzantine Rite churches did. So also did the Chaldeans, the Copts, the Syrians, the Ethiopians…

 

[yeshua]

The Maronites did not come to reunion by treaty with guaranteed rights…Most of the Byzantine Rite churches did. So also did the Chaldeans, the Copts, the Syrians, the Ethiopians…

I will admit you are right when it comes to us Maronites; we came back with requisites for reunion with Rome.

But you do prove my point that regardless of the circumstances for reunion, their exist ecclesiastical relationships with Rome unique to particular churches that are completely divorced from any sort of a “high petrine” idealism.

The CCEO is our binding canon, whether we like it or not, whether it satisfies treaties or not. Unless it is revamped, or as our hierarchs are doing presently, requested for amended considerations, then it remains our legal standing through the eyes of Rome.

Now, arguments can be made that it or its provisions do violate the mandate of Vatican II, the Union of Brest, ad infinitum, but that these arguments have no direct action* thus far *from the Vatican, and as such, we have the previous opening days of the Middle East Synod.

 

[Timothy17]

Quite frankly whether or not another local Church wants to ordain married men should be none of the Pope’s business.

In Christ
Joe

Long live King Henry !

 

[Hesychios]

Long live King Henry !

Who is king Henry?

 

[malphono]

I don’t know if EC Patriarchs outrank Cardinals of the Roman Church. Many EC’s would say that it is only appropriate that this should be so, but I doubt if Rome would agree. The fact that this topic is raised at the Middle Eastern Synod suggests that Cardinals officially, from Rome’s POV, do outrank EC Patriarchs (and there are Latin Patriarchs as well).

You may recall earlier in this thread [post=7166177]I mentioned[/post] there had been some “groundwork” in the waning years of Paul VI. Part of that was to abolish what had become practice in the mid-1960s, i.e., giving the “red hat” to Patriarchs. Part of the theory behind this was that since Patriarchs (and, by extension, Catholicoi) “outrank” Cardinals anyway, there is no reason to give an honorific which belongs strictly to the Roman (Western) Church. In fact, for a few years, it was so, but the practice of conferring the “red hat” was reinstated by 1980. Another part of the theory, which was never implemented, was to grant Patriarchs (and, by extension, Catholicoi) an ex-officio right to vote in Conclave. Personally, I find it most interesting that this exact thing is part of the Patriarchal proposal currently on the table.

 

[5Loaves]

Another part of the theory, which was never implemented, was to grant Patriarchs (and, by extension, Catholicoi) an ex-officio right to vote in Conclave. Personally, I find it most interesting that this exact thing is part of the Patriarchal proposal currently on the table.

. The fact that this topic is raised at the Middle Eastern Synod suggests that Cardinals officially, from Rome’s POV, do outrank EC Patriarchs (and there are Latin Patriarchs as well).

…Other than ensuring that the EC churches have a say in the election of a pope, there is no reason why EC Patriarchs should be made Cardinals.

…There is the argument that Eastern Catholics need not worry about participating in the election of a Pope since the Patriarch/other Primate is the immediate jurisdictional head of the EC Particular Churches which are in communion with the Roman Pontiff.

I think it is only proper for an EC Patriarch to be a Cardinal as a way to underscore the right of the EC Particular Churches to govern themselves, as elucidated by Vatican II, even from the vantage point of having a say in the election of a Pope.

I think this is a very interesting part of the discussion at the Synod and it will be interesting to see in what form it shows up in the synod’s final proposals to be forwarded to HH Benedict for his consideration…

October 20, the day after tomorrow , there will be no General Congregation. The General Relator, the Secretary and the Special Relator of the working groups will proceed with the unification of Propositions.
On 21 October, during the XII General Congregation, the single List of Propositions.

 

[5Loaves]

Entire piece.

May other Latin Bishops take his lead and speak up in support of "this step in favor of the pastoral care of the Eastern faithful throughout the diaspora,” (Archbishop Antonios Aziz Mina).

I’m also curious what people thought about the idea of the “Priests without frontiers” floated by Bishop Giorgio Bertin of Djibout.

However bad the priest shortage may seem in Europe and the United States, it’s infinitely worse most other places. In the U.S. and Europe there’s a ratio of 1 priest for every 1,300 baptized Catholics, while in sub-Saharan Africa it’s 1-5,00, in Latin America 1-7,000, and in Southeast Asia 1-5,300.

“I therefore propose the creation of a bank of available priests,” Bertin said. “That is to say, that from all the Churches and religious congregations a number of priests should make themselves available for a set time: 3 months, 6 months, 9 months.”

“This could be a development and an adaptation to modern scenarios of the ‘Fidei donum’ and could also provide a shot in the arm both to the churches of the Middle East and the other churches to live and develop their missionary dimension,” he said.

Obviously a man with one eye on marketing, Bertin even had a catchy name for this new bank of priests: “We could even call [it] ‘Priests without frontiers,’” he said, “because they are ready to be sent and welcomed in a very short period of time.”

 

[johnnykins]

I think it’s safe to say that, left to her own devices, Rome would be the last to recognize the historical prerogatives of Patriarchs and Catholicoi. ( Maybe, but Rome, too has an interest in all this - testing out a structure to pave the way for unity with the Orthodox. Plus, as we all know at VI the Melkite Patriarch, when he signed the acts of the Council, qualified his agreement as to the historic prerogatives of the Patriarchs. His “testa dura” is a good hook to hang structural changes on, if Rome wants to. Honestly, when I heard of this push, I suspected it had some serious backing in Rome, and my guess is at the highest levels. I could well be wrong, but what better way to raise the issue, test the Curial opposition and see the Orthodox reaction. If all goes well, and there is no great wail and cry, I’ll wager in about a year there’ll be a change along these lines. Daring bet don’t you think?

The situation for Major Archbishops is a bit different since that office is strictly a Roman invention, but I digress.) Interestingly enough, there was some movement in that direction by Rome in the waning years of Paul VI. Perhaps “movement” is too strong a word, since it was more like “laying a little groundwork” than anything else, but in any case, in the end, even that was stopped dead in its tracks.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I think the real question would be, did the First Millennium Church have the same notion of “canonical territory” as the Third Millennium Church has? I’m not qualified to answer that question.

A bishop is a bishop whether he is within or outside of his canonical territory, and as such he always has authority among the faithful, although he may have to defer to the authority of the bishop in whose See he is wandering or preaching.

In the Third Millennium, as was pointed out in one of the reports coming from the Synod, the situation is different from the First Millennium in that we must now deal with the issue of the “diaspora”. All Catholics in such areas the North and South America, Australia, etc., whether Roman, Melkite, Maronite, or otherwise, are all considered “diaspora” in the sense that they are outside of any traditional Patriarch territory. The movement is to shift emphasis from canonical territory to canonical sui juris Church. This means that the Pope and Patriarch of the West would have Patriarchal authority over the entire Roman Church, the Melkite Patriarch would have authority over the entire Melkite Church, the Maronite Patriarch would have authority over the entire Maronite Church, etc. no matter where whatever particular Church finds itself. So the highest authority for the Melkites throughout the world would be the Patriarch and his Synod, same for the Maronites, Coptics, Romans, etc.

Does this help at all? I had to leave in the middle of writing this, so I lost my train of thought…

Very excellent sir!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Maybe, but Rome, too has an interest in all this - testing out a structure to pave the way for unity with the Orthodox. Plus, as we all know at VI the Melkite Patriarch, when he signed the acts of the Council, qualified his agreement as to the historic prerogatives of the Patriarchs. His “testa dura” is a good hook to hang structural changes on, if Rome wants to. Honestly, when I heard of this push, I suspected it had some serious backing in Rome, and my guess is at the highest levels. I could well be wrong, but what better way to raise the issue, test the Curial opposition and see the Orthodox reaction. If all goes well, and there is no great wail and cry, I’ll wager in about a year there’ll be a change along these lines. Daring bet don’t you think?Hmmmm More support that it was orchestrated.Ooh Nice turn for the Ultramontanists. Shares and cedes authority while exercising authority. Works well into how subsidiarity might play into the structure that technically comports with VI yet as a practical matter expands autonomy and collegiality/synodality. Very nice.

Me, too. But I’m hopeful we’re seeing the first bricks in a base that lays the path to greater unity.

Very astute observations and analysis!

Alex