Mission Work

[Cluny]

**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.) **

Originally Ruthenians and Ukrainians were considered one “rite,” becuse the Union of Uzhorod (though no such document has actually been found) was considered an extension of the Union of Brest. While under the local Latin bishop, they was also early in the 1900’s an priest, Alexander Hodobay, who was apostolic visitator. Then came bishop Soter Ortinsky, who was little more than a suffragan; he required the permission of the local Latin ordinary to make pastoral visits. World War I impeded finding a replacement after he died. Rome then divided the “Ruthenians” into two groups: Ukrainians (from north of the Carpathians) and the Pod-Carpathanian Ruthenian (south slope) Ordinariate with two different bishops: Constantine Bohachevsky (Ukr) and Basil Takach.

The rest is history.

**The Italo-Greeks (aka Italo-Albanians) and the Russians in the US are still subject to the local (Latin) Ordinary, **

There is an Italo-Greek parish in Las Vegas that is within the Eparchy of Van Nuys.

 

[malphono]

… 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. …

Yes, though it’s “canonically permissible” (although that’s not really the point), naturally I’m still good for another comment.

The “old way” respected the territorial integrity of the canonical East and West. Rome broke that tradition when it began to unilaterally establish Latin Rite jurisdictions in the East. And of course Rome invoked “the Supreme authority of the Church” which it usually does in cases like this. In effect, they’re saying “we can do whatever, but the East and Orient cannot.”

The other side of the “territorial integrity coin” is the establishment of Eastern/Oriental jurisdictions in the canonical West. It’s fait accompli, and all the discussion in the world isn’t going to change things. But even if one allows for that, there’s really no reason that Rome, invoking it’s “Supreme authority,” could not delegate the matter of these extra-territorial jurisdictions to the Patriarchs/Synods of the various Particular Churches. It would, among other things, help reduce that feeling of being patronized.

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. …

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.

There was a [thread=277554]thread[/thread] that discussed this issue a while back, but I see the topic as kind of tangential to the discussion at hand. In any case, I still hold to my comment from the time: Yes, it’s technically possible for an Easterner/Oriental to be elected, but I doubt I doubt it will happen. Even if it did, theoretically there should be no reason that he could not appoint a “Vicar for the West” to tend to those matters that concern only the Western Church.

 

[mardukm]

The “old way” respected the territorial integrity of the canonical East and West. Rome broke that tradition when it began to unilaterally establish Latin Rite jurisdictions in the East. And of course Rome invoked “the Supreme authority of the Church” which it usually does in cases like this. In effect, they’re saying “we can do whatever, but the East and Orient cannot.”

The other side of the “territorial integrity coin” is the establishment of Eastern/Oriental jurisdictions in the canonical West. It’s fait accompli, and all the discussion in the world isn’t going to change things. But even if one allows for that, there’s really no reason that Rome, invoking it’s “Supreme authority,” could not delegate the matter of these extra-territorial jurisdictions to the Patriarchs/Synods of the various Particular Churches. It would, among other things, help reduce that feeling of being patronized.

I understand the feeling of being “patronized.” And I acknowledge that might be a legitimate grievance. I guess I haven’t been Catholic long enough to feel the weight of the Latin Church, nor ever experienced the feeling of being a “second-class” Catholic. In that light, I would have to say that I do not see the Pope’s actions as “we can do whatever, but the East and Orient cannot.”

My current understanding is that the Pope cannot simply create a Latin jurisdiction within an existing Eastern/Oriental Catholic jurisdiction without the (name removed by moderator)ut of the Eastern/Oriental Synod. Very recently, a Latin jurisdiction was able to stave off a papally-appointed auxiliary bishop. I find it next to impossible to believe that the Pope would have more success creating an entire jurisdictional entity in a traditionally Eastern/Oriental jurisdiction if the Eastern/Oriental jurisdiction objects.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

I understand the feeling of being “patronized.” And I acknowledge that might be a legitimate grievance. I guess I haven’t been Catholic long enough to feel the weight of the Latin Church, nor ever experienced the feeling of being a “second-class” Catholic. In that light, I would have to say that I do not see the Pope’s actions as "

My current understanding is that the Pope cannot simply create a Latin jurisdiction within an existing Eastern/Oriental Catholic jurisdiction without the (name removed by moderator)ut of the Eastern/Oriental Synod.

The establishment of Latin Rite jurisdictions in the canonical East was prevalent years ago, but it’s not much of a problem these days, mainly because the damage was already done. (Interesting that we don’t see many (if any) of those jurisdictions being suppressed, though.) Plus, we have the current state of word affairs: how many Westerners are moving to the canonical East?

The fact remains that Eastern/Oriental jurisdictions are created in the canonical West. Ergo, “we can do whatever, but the East and Orient cannot” seems to be alive and well.

Very recently, a Latin jurisdiction was able to stave off a papally-appointed auxiliary bishop.

The only thing that comes to mind in that regard is Vienna. If you’re referring to something Eastern/Oriental, please tell me where.

 

[Aramis]

At present, the only place with catholic hierarchs and latin rite parishes but without latin church hierarchs is Ethiopia. Everywhere else, there are latin hierarchs for the latin parishes.

The reasons for limited establishments of eastern missions is multifold. Amongst the issues are that establishing new parishes and missions in areas with overlapping jurisdiction requires consulting with the overlapping hierarchs; while their consent isn’t an absolute requirement, it is extremely helpful in reaching members of the particular church sui iuris who may be “hidden within” the other jurisdiction.

Distance is a factor, too. It needs to be close enough to be served, and far enough to draw a different demographic from the parent parish.

Also to be considered is if the mission will be reaching out to an under-served population. For example, in Detroit, there are a variety of churches sui iuris represented already; missions from those churches would be generally of limited utility.

For example, in south-central Alaska, a Ukrainian or Melkite mission would require consult with the Archbishop of Anchorage for the Latins, and the Eparch of Van Nuys for the Ruthenians. There are some Ukrainian Catholics in both the Ruthenian parish/mission and in a number of Latin parishes, and some melkites in both Latin parishes and the Antiochian Orthodox parish. Not a major issue.

A new mission in Greater Detroit, however… half a dozen bishops to consult, and the question becomes one of “is it useful to the faithful?”

As an example: St. Nicholas of Myra Parish (Byz. Ruthenian) in Anchorage, AK, has had two “missions”… one of which was formal, the other not. The Formal mission is in Wasilla, which is some 70 miles from the parish. 70 miles of open highway, and often dangerous drives. It has a regular draw of between 15 and 30, many canonically latin, but a few cradle Ruthenians. (For comparison, the draw for St Nick’s is between 50 and 80 for sunday, and 15 to 30 for vigil DL.) The core of the mission had previously been driving in. Now, Fr Michael Hornick drives out and back sunday afternoons.

The “informal mission” was the celebration of the RDL by Mitered Archpriest Monsignor Michael Artim, of eternal memory, at the state mental hospital chapel in Hawaii… Monsignor had “retired”, and wintered in Hawaii, summering in Alaska at St. Nick’s. The local Hawaiian residents attending were a mix, but it served a small community at “no cost.” Monsignor had done it out of love for the liturgy, and said that his draw was an array of eastern catholics, and a bunch of latin church folk who came to see the “other lung” in action. He used the chapel with permission of the local hierarch and the eparch of Van Nuys. I’ve heard nothing about it since the passing of Monsignor.

 

[Cluny]

For example, in south-central Alaska, a Ukrainian or Melkite mission would require consult with the Archbishop of Anchorage for the Latins, and the Eparch of Van Nuys for the Ruthenians.

Don’t forget the Eparchy of St. Nicholas of Chicago for the Ukrainians.

 

[SyroMalankara]

This is not a strictly hypothetical conversation. The Syro-Malabars did in fact establish a monastery in Ukraine, without Papal intervention. The Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabars contacted the Major Archbishop/Patriarch of the Ukrainians, both Holy Synods came to an agreement and there is now seminarians and brothers of the Syro-Malabar Church living, working, learning, and active in Ukraine under the omniphor of the Ukrainian ordinary and the supervision of the Syro-Malabar Synod.

Here’s the story:
risu.org.ua/eng/kaleidoscope/article;10828/

 

[malphono]

This is not a strictly hypothetical conversation. The Syro-Malabars did in fact establish a monastery in Ukraine, without Papal intervention. The Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabars contacted the Major Archbishop/Patriarch of the Ukrainians, both Holy Synods came to an agreement and there is now seminarians and brothers of the Syro-Malabar Church living, working, learning, and active in Ukraine under the omniphor of the Ukrainian ordinary and the supervision of the Syro-Malabar Synod.

Here’s the story:
risu.org.ua/eng/kaleidoscope/article;10828/

I had a look at the link, and while it’s interesting, it’s still unclear. The header says:

“Two Carmelite priests of the Syro-Malabar rite in India are studying the Ukrainian language and Liturgy”

which leads to the question: are they intending to maintain the Syro-Malabar tradition, or is this simply a group of Carmelites who happen to be Syro-Malabar and who are intending to morph into the Ukrainian usage?

From the article in the link, it does not appear that this group is in Ukraine for the purpose of serving a Syro-Malabar community.

 

[Hesychios]

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.)

This was when the city of Rome was controlled by the Byzantine empire, post-Justinian. The appointments to the Holy See came from the emperor.

I am not sure of the dates either.