Mission Work

[Emmanuel85]

Glory be to Jesus Christ!

A question for all Eastern Catholic posters:

Do you think the Eastern Catholic Churches could and/or should be doing mission work, much like the Latin Church engages in missionary activity in the various third world countries?

God bless!

 

[Ak_Fossil]

What type of Mission work should Eastern Catholic’s get involved in? I am sure there are many areas to improve in this Mission Evangelization. Something interesting to think about. Any other takers in this question?

 

[Hesychios]

I was hoping some Eastern Catholic would jump in here. Perhaps later…

I am not an Eastern Catholic, but will state briefly what I know.

Outside of each church’s ‘home territory’ the eastern churches are pretty much reliant upon the Local Ordinary, which is *ordinarily *(you may consider that a pun, if you like) a Latin bishop. The Local Ordinary is responsible to see to it that Eastern Christians who migrate into their areas of responsibility are properly served. If these migrants are numerous enough it may justify a mission or parish under the auspices of the LO. He can also cooperate or permit the hierarchy of an Eastern church to establish a parish to take care of these immigrant populations. It is also possible that the Pope will intervene by erecting a diocese for these people. Usually the erection of a diocese will be the last step in the process, after parishes and missions have been already been in place under the supervision of the local Latin bishops.

I don’t know of any place that the local Ordinary is an Eastern Christian bishop. That is not to say that there aren’t any, just that I don’t know of any. I would suppose there may be some in Ukraine, Eritrea or Kerala but I have never been able to find out.

The point I am trying to establish here is that…for purposes of winning new converts…it does not seem that an Eastern Catholic church may unilaterally establish “missions” as such outside of their own territory. It normally requires permission or invitation from the Ordinary (or possibly the direct interest of the Pope).

Nations that need the help of outside priests like the Philippines, Congo or VietNam already have Latin bishops in place. They might not like the idea of Eastern Christian missioners working within their zones of authority but not under their control (on the other hand, some LO’s might be fine with it). Even countries like Morocco and Chad already have Latin bishops responsible for them, albeit thinly spread out. Countries like that might welcome the help of Eastern Catholic priests, but not typically to establish their own traditions. They would be more than welcome to serve the Latin Mass in Latin parishes and missions. It seems that numerous priests from southern India have done just that.

In those places where the Pope has erected dioceses for the Eastern Catholics outside of their home territories (overlapping, as it were, the Latin ecclesiastical structure of Local Ordinaries and one another), they seem pretty much free to work and could plant additional missions on their own to garner converts. This is, I think, the gist of your question…whether the Eastern churches are doing field work to spread the Gospel of Christ. In places where they are already established there does not seem to be any problem except for the mustering of resources.

That’s my brief take on it. I know that there are many here who will jump at the chance to correct me if I have mislead you, so you should eventually get some additional responses.

 

[Hesychios]

I was hoping some Eastern Catholic would jump in here. Perhaps later…

I am not an Eastern Catholic, but will state briefly what I know.

Outside of each church’s ‘home territory’ the eastern churches are pretty much reliant upon the Local Ordinary, which is *ordinarily *(you may consider that a pun, if you like) a Latin bishop. The Local Ordinary is responsible to see to it that Eastern Christians who migrate into their areas of responsibility are properly served. If these migrants are numerous enough it may justify a mission or parish under the auspices of the LO. He can also cooperate or permit the hierarchy of an Eastern church to establish a parish to take care of these immigrant populations. It is also possible that the Pope will intervene by erecting a diocese for these people. Usually the erection of a diocese will be the last step in the process, after parishes and missions have been already been in place under the supervision of the local Latin bishops.

I don’t know of any place that the local Ordinary is an Eastern Christian bishop. That is not to say that there aren’t any, just that I don’t know of any. I would suppose there may be some in Ukraine, Eritrea or Kerala but I have never been able to find out.

The point I am trying to establish here is that…for purposes of winning new converts…it does not seem that an Eastern Catholic church may unilaterally establish “missions” as such outside of their own territory. It normally requires permission or invitation from the Ordinary (or possibly the direct interest of the Pope).

Nations that need the help of outside priests like the Philippines, Congo or VietNam already have Latin bishops in place. They might not like the idea of Eastern Christian missioners working within their zones of authority but not under their control (on the other hand, some LO’s might be fine with it). Even countries like Morocco and Chad already have Latin bishops responsible for them, albeit thinly spread out. Countries like that might welcome the help of Eastern Catholic priests, but not typically to establish their own traditions. They would be more than welcome to serve the Latin Mass in Latin parishes and missions. It seems that numerous priests from southern India have done just that.

In those places where the Pope has erected dioceses for the Eastern Catholics outside of their home territories (overlapping, as it were, the Latin ecclesiastical structure of Local Ordinaries and one another), they seem pretty much free to work and could plant additional missions on their own to garner converts. This is, I think, the gist of your question…whether the Eastern churches are doing field work to spread the Gospel of Christ. In places where they are already established there does not seem to be any problem except for the mustering of resources.

That’s my brief take on it. I know that there are many here who will jump at the chance to correct me if I have mislead you, so you should eventually get some additional responses.

 

[mardukm]

I am wondering, in lieu of brother Hesychios’ comments, whether in places like, say, Africa, where the Catholic population is thinly spread. Eastern Catholic missioners can get approval from the local Latin bishop to spread the Gospel to non-believers. Theoretically, it seems possible. I would certainly support such missions.

I think the Pope’s giving up the title of “Patriach of the West” can have its most fruitful effect in the spread of Eastern Catholic missions.

The question is, are there any places in the world that are not currently under the jurisdiction of any ordinary.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cluny]

**
I don’t know of any place that the local Ordinary is an Eastern Christian bishop.**

Eastern Catholic bishops ARE local ordinaries.

The jurisdiction of the Latin Bishops is PERSONAL, limited only to the Latin Rite and such others as do not have their own hierarchy.

The jurisdiction of Eastern Bishops is TERRITORIAL, and extends to all Catholics, expect for those specifically excluded.

 

[Hesychios]

**
I don’t know of any place that the local Ordinary is an Eastern Christian bishop.**

Eastern Catholic bishops ARE local ordinaries.

The jurisdiction of the Latin Bishops is PERSONAL, limited only to the Latin Rite and such others as do not have their own hierarchy.

Thank you for the correction.

Can you also explain why it ordinarily falls to the Latin Ordinary to care for “such others as do not have their own hierarchy.” I would be happy to know more about the distinctions

Why is it, for instance, that it falls to Archbishop Chaput of Denver to erect a Russian Catholic mission (for a church with no hierarchy) when this could have also been arranged by Bishop Richard Seminack, Bishop William Skurla, Bishop Jacob Angadiath or Bishop John Elya?

Could the Ukrainians establish a Russian Catholic parish (or Syro-Malankara mission, or Ge’ez mission for example) anywhere within the bounds of their own Eparchy of Chicago? If not, I wonder why.

http://www.stnicholaseparchy.org/images/locatormap.gif
Eparchy of Saint Nicholas in Chicago for UGCC

What does one properly call this distinction, and why is it seemingly in the hands of a Latin bishop in most places?

Gratefully,

Michael

 

[Muckdog]

This is an excellent question and requires a response from someone who knows the policies of the Eastern Churches. What is the history of the growth of Eastern Catholism?

 

[Cluny]

What does one properly call this distinction, and why is it seemingly in the hands of a Latin bishop in most places?

Because it seems that the Latin Bishops tend to push the Eastern Bishops to the back of the bus if they don’t willingly go there.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Cluny,

What does one properly call this distinction, and why is it seemingly in the hands of a Latin bishop in most places?

Because it seems that the Latin Bishops tend to push the Eastern Bishops to the back of the bus if they don’t willingly go there.

We might, for arguments sake, assume this to be true historically.

However, theoretically it should not be possible.

So then, something is wrong.

 

[malphono]

In olden times when the Church was truly One, episcopal sees were territorial and all faithful living within a jurisdiction were subject to the local Ordinary, irrespective of the Particular Church to which they properly belonged. Except in Syria (where political realities resulted in some oddities in patriarchal sees) jurisdictions did not cross.

For example, a group of Iberians living in Asyut (Egypt) would have come under the jurisdiction of the local (Coptic) bishop, even though they were Latin Rite. They would have formed a community with the local (Coptic) bishop inviting a Latin Rite priest to minister to them. Perhaps if there were multiple communities of Latins, the local (Coptic) bishop would have had a Latin bishop as vicar, to see to the needs of various Latin Rite churches in the see.

In other words, there was One Church and so there was One (local) Ordinary.

But of course that began to change in the East (by the West) during/after the Crusades. Rome established its own jurisdictions in the East, but was not receptive to the reverse. There’s also the “India situation” where the activities of the native Syro-Malabars were limited to Kerala.

In practice, the situation in which Eastern and Oriental faithful found themselves in diaspora was originally on the “One Church, One Ordinary” model. In North America, I think the Ukrainians were the first to have been granted their own jurisdiction (1914) followed by the Ruthenians (1924). (Just as an observation, it would seem that WWI (and the establishment of Soviet Union) had a bearing in that, but of course I could be mistaken.) If memory serves, the Maronites & Melkites were next (1966). The Syriac Church in the US was a little unusual. Prior to establishment of its eparchy, the Syriacs were technically under the local Latin Ordinary, but in the absence of a Syriac parish, were often ministered to by the Maronites. (As I understand it, this was an ad hoc situation that came about by personal request of the late Maronite Patriarch, Mar Pawlos Petros (Meouchi) with Rome’s blessing.)

[As an aside, the Maronites in Brasil actually had an episcopal vicar under the technical jurisdiction of the Archbishop of Sao Paulo for some years (starting in the early 60s I think) until 1971(?) when a Maronite eparchy was established. I believe the situation in Argentina was similar until 1990.]

The Italo-Greeks (aka Italo-Albanians) and the Russians in the US are still subject to the local (Latin) Ordinary, while the Hungarians are subject to the Byzantine Metropolia. (There could well be others in both, but I’m not particularly expert in “things Byzantine” so I’ll leave the gaps for another to fill.)

Personally, (and this is also the opinion of a very respected canon laywer (JOCD) friend), I don’t see the theory of “One Church, One Ordinary” to be necessarily be a bad thing, provided the needs of the various Particular Churches are met. In some ways, I think we’d be better off with the “old system” (maybe with a tweak or two, as was done in Brasil) than with the multiple jurisdictions that we have.

Just my :twocents: and I hope this makes some sense and that I haven’t bored everyone into a coma.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

You have captured what I’ve always believed on the matter beautifully. Basically, it depends on which jurisdiction was established there first. Thereafter, it would be the local ordinary’s (or Archbishop or Metropolitan, as it were) duty to provide for the needs of the faithful from different particular Churches with different Rites (according to the most ancient canon laws, and reflected in the current Catholic canons).

I think it all goes back to the fact that almost all places that are not in the traditional jurisdiction of the Eastern/Oriental Churches are regarded to be part of the Western Patriarchate. Hence, it is understandable that it is normally the Latin ordinary (or Archbishop) that grants mission terrritories for Easterns/Orientals which eventually or may eventually bloom into full blown parishes and even into established eparchies.

That is the general way of things, though I also do think that, particularly and especially in the early 20th century, the “back of the bus” scenario was prevalent.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Hesychios]

Just one general question.

Is there any place in the world where Latin missioners would have to ask non-Latin hierarchs for permission to serve or open missions?

Is there any place in the world where the care of non-Latin migrants is automatically the responsibility of another non-Latin hierarch?

One possibility I have thought of is Ukraine, where the UGCC outnumbers the Latin church by a factor of ten (probably). If in Ukraine there was an upsurge of Syro-Malabar Christians or Ge’ez Christians to whom would they be referred for assistance and permission to build a parish?
*
Michael*

 

[malphono]

Just one general question.

Is there any place in the world where Latin missioners would have to ask non-Latin hierarchs for permission to serve or open missions?

Is there any place in the world where the care of non-Latin migrants is automatically the responsibility of another non-Latin hierarch?

One possibility I have thought of is Ukraine, where the UGCC outnumbers the Latin church by a factor of ten (probably). If in Ukraine there was an upsurge of Syro-Malabar Christians or Ge’ez Christians to whom would they be referred for assistance and permission to build a parish?
*
Michael*

I don’t believe such a place exists. :sad_yes:

Notice in my (admittedly rather disjointed) earlier post where I said

But of course that began to change in the East (by the West) during/after the Crusades. Rome established its own jurisdictions in the East, but was not receptive to the reverse. There’s also the “India situation” where the activities of the native Syro-Malabars were limited to Kerala.

In other words, the West more-or-less mucked up the “old” system. The question is: why? I suppose there could be a number of answers to that question, one of which is from a (misguided) sense of superiority. Whatever the reason, Rome seems to claim de facto universal jurisdiction. I can, as I implied earlier, deal with that in the canonical West, but to me it’s a bitter pill to swallow in the canonical East.

I mentioned Syria earlier, but I probably should have said the Patriarchate of Antioch. Anyway, the political realities indeed had a great bearing, giving rise to several parallel jurisdictions of and for the canonical East (Syriacs, Maronites, Melkites, Chaldeans, at least), which is a little convoluted, but doesn’t violate the territorial integrity of the canonical East. The West added its own jurisdictions, which of course does violate that territorial integrity.

Using your example, if for some reason there was an influx of, say, Syro-Malabars to Ukraine, I suspect they would have two choices: either practice in the UGCC (with or without formal transfer) or be subject to the local Latin Rite authority. If there was a priest involved, he would, I believe, have to petition Rome for faculties to function in Ukraine, and would then come under the local (Latin Rite) Ordinary. Of course the very existence of a Latin Rite diocese in Ukraine might be part of that “bitter pill” I mentioned above, although with shifting boundaries, I suppose an argument could be made for its legitimacy, since most of the Latin Rite faithful are in territory that was, at one time or another, Polish.

One can look at the relatively recent trend of establishing Eastern/Oriental jurisdictions in the canonical West as the lesser sibling of the Western practice of establishing Latin Rite jurisdictions in the canonical East, but it really doesn’t help much. I’d still prefer the “old way” minus the “back of the bus” attitude that was/is unfortunately all to prevalent.

 

[Hesychios]

I don’t believe such a place exists. :sad_yes:

Notice in my (admittedly rather disjointed) earlier post where I said In other words, the West more-or-less mucked up the “old” system. The question is: why? I suppose there could be a number of answers to that question, one of which is from a (misguided) sense of superiority. Whatever the reason, Rome seems to claim de facto universal jurisdiction. I can, as I implied earlier, deal with that in the canonical West, but to me it’s a bitter pill to swallow in the canonical East.

I mentioned Syria earlier, but I probably should have said the Patriarchate of Antioch. Anyway, the political realities indeed had a great bearing, giving rise to several parallel jurisdictions of and for the canonical East (Syriacs, Maronites, Melkites, Chaldeans, at least), which is a little convoluted, but doesn’t violate the territorial integrity of the canonical East. The West added its own jurisdictions, which of course does violate that territorial integrity.

Using your example, if for some reason there was an influx of, say, Syro-Malabars to Ukraine, I suspect they would have two choices: either practice in the UGCC (with or without formal transfer) or be subject to the local Latin Rite authority. If there was a priest involved, he would, I believe, have to petition Rome for faculties to function in Ukraine, and would then come under the local (Latin Rite) Ordinary. Of course the very existence of a Latin Rite diocese in Ukraine might be part of that “bitter pill” I mentioned above, although with shifting boundaries, I suppose an argument could be made for its legitimacy, since most of the Latin Rite faithful are in territory that was, at one time or another, Polish.

One can look at the relatively recent trend of establishing Eastern/Oriental jurisdictions in the canonical West as the lesser sibling of the Western practice of establishing Latin Rite jurisdictions in the canonical East, but it really doesn’t help much. I’d still prefer the “old way” minus the “back of the bus” attitude that was/is unfortunately all to prevalent.

If I recall, the Archbishop of L’vov for the Latins is Polish.

It seems to me that it would make sense if the Eastern Eparchs are going to be named by the Pope outside of their Canonical territory (such as North America and Western Europe), the Latin bishops in places like Ukraine should be named by the Synod of the UGCC.

Likewise in Egypt, the Coptic Catholic church should be able to handle the business there, and provide for immigrant populations from countries like the Philippines or Kerala.

The old days of Praestantia Ritus Latini are supposed to be over now. Each church to have equal dignity.

 

[malphono]

If I recall, the Archbishop of L’vov for the Latins is Polish.

I believe that is so. Considering all things, it makes sense.

It seems to me that it would make sense if the Eastern Eparchs are going to be named by the Pope outside of their Canonical territory (such as North America and Western Europe), the Latin bishops in places like Ukraine should be named by the Synod of the UGCC.

Likewise in Egypt, the Coptic Catholic church should be able to handle the business there, and provide for immigrant populations from countries like the Philippines or Kerala.

What you suggest is basically the “old way” (arguably the “right way”) and I only wish that it were so, as long as the “back of the bus” attitude is kept in check.

The old days of Praestantia Ritus Latini are supposed to be over now. Each church to have equal dignity.

They key word there is “supposed to be,” but I doubt that it will ever be done, at least not completely. It seems that Rome respects the canonical East within the canonical East but not outside of it. So, if an oddity occurs (e.g. Syro-Malabars in Ukraine), it’s unlikely that Rome would establish a Syro-Malabar jurisdiction there. What is likely is that the m.o. remains: Rome takes precedence, since it reserves unto itself the right to establish Latin Rite jurisdiction anywhere in the world. By extension it reserves unto itself the right to establish Eastern/Oriental jurisdictions in the canonical West, rather than acknowledge reciprocity and allow that facility to the Synods of the Particular Churches. Personally, I find the whole thing rather patronizing at best.

But, in their way, they do try. Hence the multiple Eastern/Oriental jurisdictions in the the canonical West. It seems to me to be a one-way (or a half-way) solution, but I suppose it’s better than shunting us off to the “back of the bus.”

 

[mardukm]

I look at this a different way. I try to distinguish between what the Bishop of Rome does as the Pope, versus what he does as Patriarch of the Latins.

I believe the establishment of a jurisdiction in the canonical territory of another jurisdiction (not ideal, but canonically permissible) is not under the purview of any local Patriarch or Synod (be it Latin, Eastern or Oriental). It is under the purview of the Supreme authority of the Church. When the Pope makes these decisions, it is not as Patriarch of the Latins, but as the Pope. We have two other options - wait for an Ecumenical Council, or self-establish. I wouldn’t go for the latter, as that would most likely cause schism, and not be a good witness to the world at all.

Would you even be taking notice if the office of the papacy was filled by an Eastern or Oriental Bishop? I doubt it. It would be Latins who would probably be complaining that an Eastern or Oriental bishop is making decisions for the Latins - but they would, of course be wrong to even make such complaints. For that Eastern or Oriental bishop would not be making those decisions as an Eastern or Oriental bishop, but rather in his capacity as the Pope.

Brothers Malphono and Hesychios, perhaps it is your experience as long-time Catholics (for brother Hesychios, once-upon-a-time), that has caused a certain immunity to this distinction, while I, being new, can and is readily more willing to make the distinction?

I hope I have not insulted, and if so, please accept my most humble apologies.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I think my comments in the following post in another thread may also have some relevance in this discussion:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4921661&postcount=6

 

[mardukm]

Would you even be taking notice if the office of the papacy was filled by an Eastern or Oriental Bishop? I doubt it. It would be Latins who would probably be complaining that an Eastern or Oriental bishop is making decisions for the Latins - but they would, of course be wrong to even make such complaints. For that Eastern or Oriental bishop would not be making those decisions as an Eastern or Oriental bishop, but rather in his capacity as the Pope.

I understand that there are some who might say, “but that Eastern/Oriental bishop as Pope would no longer be, canonically speaking, an Eastern/Oriental bishop, but the bishop of Rome, a Latin Church.” While that is true, there is no doubt in my mind that there will be those who will use the increased Eastern/Oriental sensibilities of that Pope as a factor in their complaints.

Blessings

 

[Cluny]

Would you even be taking notice if the office of the papacy was filled by an Eastern or Oriental Bishop?

This in fact was the case with a long series of Greek and Syrian popes in the 7th century or so. (I admit I’m not sure when exactly.)