Next Major Archbishop of the UGCC?

[april456]

Hello,
Nice article for anyone who need plan for wedding. I like it very much. Thank you for writing such type article. I will arrange a wedding ceremony very soon and this site helped me.
Thanks
destinationweddingplans.com

 

[april456]

Thank you for your nice information. It will help me for my higher education.
Thanks
debtfreecollegedegree.com

 

[dvdjs]

The Union of Brest … L’viv (now the demographic center of the movement) remained Orthodox and didn’t sign on until some time in the 18th century, after some of the other doicese were returning to the Orthodox.

Probably worth noting that the return of other diocese was by liquidation of the Greek Catholis churches after territorial conquest by Russia.

The Union of Uzhorod, 50 years after Brest, was all priests.

Probably worth noting the bishop was pro-union, but was being coerced and was imprisoned to restrain him from union activities; he worked to have a greek catholic appointed as his successor.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Hesychios,

Each one has a different story, so generalizations are hard to make.

The Coptic Catholic church has it’s roots in Roman Catholic mission work in Egypt. One bishop did become a Roman Catholic for a time, and I think he ordained some priests, but then he went back to the Coptic Orthodox church.

This is a good start, but it is an incomplete picture. The establishment of the Coptic Catholic Church is better characterized as a two-way effort by both local Coptic Orthodox and Catholic missionaries.

The historic relationship between the Coptic Orthodox and the Catholics in the High Middle Ages is unique because it was free from any secular-political influences. It started off as an unmistakeable example of one Church relating to another Church. In fact, most of the efforts at reunion after the Council of Florence between the COC and CC were initiated by the Coptic Orthodox.

The first successful missions to the Coptic Orthodox occurred in the early 17th century under the aegis of Catholic Pope Urban VIII. Orthodox Pope Matthew III reciprocated by opening all the Orthodox churches to the Franciscan missionaries and they freely preached in the Orthodox churches. At this time, and for about 100 years afterwards (until 1729 to be exact), there was actually intercommunion between the COC and the CC. The advent of the French imperialists in the 18th century changed this pure relationship between the Churches, and nationalist prejudices from both sides infected the ecclesiastical landscape…

Aside from bishop Athanasius, who joined the Catholic communion in 1739 and then returned to Coptic Orthodoxy, Archbishop Anthony became Catholic in 1758 and remained in the Catholic communion as the first Vicar Apostolic of the Catholic Copts. In the mid-18th century, the Franciscans became notorious Latinizers, and the Coptic Catholic Church suffered, with periods of revival when under the omophor of a local hierarch.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

At some point after which, if the new patriarch is still not found suitable nor steps down one could expect the Roman Pontiff to attempt recovery of the situation by appointing some bishops, no?

It’s just a hypothetical …

The way it has always worked is that the Pope would appoint bishops only if there were enough people to establish an eparchy. I believe this is according to one of the most ancient canons (i.e., a diocese cannot be erected unless there are enough faithful to constitute a diocese). And, normally, the Pope would establish an eparchy only at the request of the local church. So I don’t think the Pope would appoint bishops just for the purpose of “recovery.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Michael,

Of course I disagree completely.

But you already knew that, didn’t you?

There is a formal recognition, but simply not in the form you are used to. The College of Cardinals who elect the Pope acts under the same rules as any Synod/Council. Each member of that College is morally and canonically obliged to accept the decision that comes forth from the College as a body.

The formal recognition comes in that form.

Someone stated earlier that the Melkite Patriarch is not a Cardinal? I guess formal recognition must be different in his case. Does anyone know? Did he separately inform the Pope in a formal letter of his own acceptance of HH Pope Benedict’s election? Melkites?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Josephdaniel,

So the Latin Church is the only truly autocephalous Church in the Catholic communion with the rest granted various levels of autonomy?

I think others have implied the answer to your question already. But to be more clear, in Catholic ecclesiology, the only autocephalous Church is the Catholic Church herself. The Latin Catholic Church is equally autonomous along with the other Patriarchal Churches.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Josephdaniel,

Why would a patriarch be without the authority to convoke a synod or ordain? That doesn’t make any sense to me.

Catholic ecclesiology is a bit more nuanced. Catholic ecclesiology distinguishes between prerogatives, on the one hand, and the exercise of prerogatives, on the other.

So to be perfectly concise, a Patriarch upon election and enthronement does have the prerogative or authority to convoke a synod and ordain. It is simply that he cannot exercise these prerogatives within the Catholic Church until he obtains formal recognition from the Pope.

Be aware of the nuance contained in Canon 77 that brother Vico cited. It states specifically: A canonically elected patriarch validly exercises his office only after enthronement by which he obtains his office with the full effects of law.

Convoking a synod and ordaining is part of his valid ministry. He can exercise these validly after enthronement. However, if he did these without first obtaining papal recognition, those acts would be considered illicit.

I hope that shaves off some of the perplexity you feel from the situation. If not, let’s discuss.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Someone stated earlier that the Melkite Patriarch is not a Cardinal? I guess formal recognition must be different in his case. Does anyone know? Did he separately inform the Pope in a formal letter of his own acceptance of HH Pope Benedict’s election? Melkites?

Yes, the current Melkite Patriarch (Gregory III Laham) refused the “red hat.” I’m not sure if his immediate immediate predecessor (Maximos V Hakim) was offered a “red hat” and refused, but in any case he was not a Cardinal. AFAIK, the first Melkite Patriarch to whom it was offered was Maximos IV (Sayegh), and he was the only one to accept it.

Looking at both the CIC and Universi Dominici Gregis, I see no mention of any procedure for “formal recognition” of a Papal election by any other than the Cardinal-Electors. I didn’t expect that there would be.

 

[ciero]

Yes, the current Melkite Patriarch (Gregory III Laham) refused the “red hat.” I’m not sure if his immediate immediate predecessor (Maximos V Hakim) was offered a “red hat” and refused, but in any case he was not a Cardinal. AFAIK, the first Melkite Patriarch to whom it was offered was Maximos IV (Sayegh), and he was the only one to accept it.

Looking at both the CIC and Universi Dominici Gregis, I see no mention of any procedure for “formal recognition” of a Papal election by any other than the Cardinal-Electors. I didn’t expect that there would be.

This was discussed here at the time of pope Benedict XVI’s election. I believe at the time it was reported that the pope would send letters to the other Catholic Patriarchs. I don’t know if the letters were seeking communion or informing them of his election.

 

[Aramis]

Dear brother Michael,

There is a formal recognition, but simply not in the form you are used to. The College of Cardinals who elect the Pope acts under the same rules as any Synod/Council. Each member of that College is morally and canonically obliged to accept the decision that comes forth from the College as a body.

The formal recognition comes in that form.

Someone stated earlier that the Melkite Patriarch is not a Cardinal? I guess formal recognition must be different in his case. Does anyone know? Did he separately inform the Pope in a formal letter of his own acceptance of HH Pope Benedict’s election? Melkites?

Blessings,
Marduk

He refused the honor (and the duty that accompanies it).

 

[malphono]

This was discussed here at the time of pope Benedict XVI’s election. I believe at the time it was reported that the pope would send letters to the other Catholic Patriarchs. I don’t know if the letters were seeking communion or informing them of his election.

Thanks. I tried a search in the forum, but came up empty. Never fails, does it?

Nonetheless, it’s interesting that there’s nothing in the “official rules” that calls for it (or if there is, I haven’t found it). I’m not saying I think it should not be a requirement (indeed, it should – you know, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and all that), but given Rome’s fixation on law, it’s absence is striking. In any case, if that lack of specification is correct, one has to assume that the practice (and it’s quite possible that this has been a traditional practice) is what I’ll call a “personal tradition” rather than a requirement. IOW, it’s done as a nicety rather than something Rome considers a necessity.

 

[humble_follower]

Here are some logical candidates (all are worthy) for the next head of the UGCC:

Bishop Hlib (Lonchyna),
Curial Bishop, Head of the Department of Church Commissions of the UGCC

Archbishop Ihor (Voznyak),
Archbishop of Lviv Archeparchy

Archbishop Lawrence (Huculak),
Metropolitan Archbishop of Winnipeg Archeparchy

Archbishop Stephen (SOROKA),
Metropolitan Archbishop of Philadelphia Archeparchy

Father Borys Gudziak, Ph. D.,
Rector of the Ukrainian Catholic University, Lviv