Next Major Archbishop of the UGCC?

[malphono]

All Catholic bishops are in communion with the bishop of Rome.

CCEO Canon 42
Just as, by the Lord’s decision, Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, and the bishops, successors of the Apostles, are joined together.

That is true, but it refers to the bishops as bishops. The assumption, of course, is that the Church to which the bishops belong is, itself, in communion.

As [post=7566637]Amadeus[/post] stated earlier, a Patriarchal vacancy does not mean that a *sui juris *Church is out of communion. IOW, a sede vacante does not, in and of itself, mean that communion is broken. It’s really the same in the Roman Church: during a sede vacante, the Church goes on, albeit that it is “marking time” until the seat is no longer vacant.

Now (and this is strictly hypothetical since I don’t believe it has ever happened), if a Patriarch were legitimately and canonically elected but the recognition of the Roman Pontiff were withheld, the Patriarchal Church would be out of communion as a Church. In such a case, the Patriarchal seat would not be vacant.

 

[Vico]

That is true, but it refers to the bishops as bishops. The assumption, of course, is that the Church to which the bishops belong is, itself, in communion.

As [post=7566637]Amadeus[/post] stated earlier, a Patriarchal vacancy does not mean that a *sui juris *Church is out of communion. IOW, a sede vacante does not, in and of itself, mean that communion is broken. It’s really the same in the Roman Church: during a sede vacante, the Church goes on, albeit that it is “marking time” until the seat is no longer vacant.

Now (and this is strictly hypothetical since I don’t believe it has ever happened), if a Patriarch were legitimately and canonically elected but the recognition of the Roman Pontiff were withheld, the Patriarchal Church would be out of communion as a Church. In such a case, the Patriarchal seat would not be vacant.

The Patriarchal see would not be vacant and he would have power to exercise his office except no power to convoke a synod or ordain. Imagine if the Pope died during the Patriarchal election process.

Yet, the faithful are are always members of the universal Church by virtue of being enrolled in a ritual Church through baptism or transfer.

 

[malphono]

The Patriarchal see would not be vacant and he would have power to exercise his office except no power to convoke a synod or ordain. Imagine if the Pope died during the Patriarchal election process.

Without the power to convoke a synod or to legitmately exercise his power of to validly ordain, the seat would indeed be vacant, in principle if not in fact. The lack of recognition by the Roman Pontiff would, in any case, mean that communion was broken.

Were it to happen that the See of Rome was sede vacante simultaneously, the “clock would stop” so-to-speak, until the See of Rome were occupied.

 

[Vico]

Without the power to convoke a synod or to legitmately exercise his power of to validly ordain, the seat would indeed be vacant, in principle if not in fact. The lack of recognition by the Roman Pontiff would, in any case, mean that communion was broken.

Were it to happen that the See of Rome was sede vacante simultaneously, the “clock would stop” so-to-speak, until the See of Rome were occupied.

The patriarch can legitimately exercise his power even without the ecclesial recognition. Details below:

CCEO Canon 75
If the one who is elected accepted and is an ordained bishop, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church proceeds with his proclamation and enthronement as patriarch according to the prescriptions of the liturgical books; if the one who is elected is not yet an ordained bishop, the enthronement cannot be performed validly before the one who is elected receives episcopal ordination.

CCEO Canon 76

1. By means of a synodal letter, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church notifies the Roman Pontiff as soon as possible about the canonical conduct of the election and enthronement and that the new patriarch made a profession of faith and the promise to exercise his office with fidelity in the presence of the synod according to the approved formulas. Synodal letters that an election took place are also to be sent to the patriarchs of the other Eastern Churches.
2. The new patriarch must as soon as possible request ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff by means of a letter signed in his own hand.

CCEO Canon 77

1. A canonically elected patriarch validly exercises his office only after enthronement by which he obtains his office with the full effects of law.
2. The patriarch is not to convoke a synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church nor ordain bishops before he receives ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff.

 

[malphono]

The patriarch can legitimately exercise his power even without the ecclesial recognition. Details below:

CCEO Canon 75
If the one who is elected accepted and is an ordained bishop, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church proceeds with his proclamation and enthronement as patriarch according to the prescriptions of the liturgical books; if the one who is elected is not yet an ordained bishop, the enthronement cannot be performed validly before the one who is elected receives episcopal ordination.

CCEO Canon 76

1. By means of a synodal letter, the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church notifies the Roman Pontiff as soon as possible about the canonical conduct of the election and enthronement and that the new patriarch made a profession of faith and the promise to exercise his office with fidelity in the presence of the synod according to the approved formulas. Synodal letters that an election took place are also to be sent to the patriarchs of the other Eastern Churches.
2. The new patriarch must as soon as possible request ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff by means of a letter signed in his own hand.

CCEO Canon 77

1. A canonically elected patriarch validly exercises his office only after enthronement by which he obtains his office with the full effects of law.
2. The patriarch is not to convoke a synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church nor ordain bishops before he receives ecclesiastical communion from the Roman Pontiff.

Yes, I know those canons. It is very clear by the provision of canon 77 #2 that a such a Patriarch, while legitimatly elected in his own right, is not recognized by the Roman Pontiff, else there be no restriction by Rome on the exercise of his office. IOW, the cited canons not negate the fact that, if recognition by the Roman Pontiff is denied, the Church is out of communion with the Roman Pontiff until such time that communion is restored.

 

[Hesychios]

Yes, I know those canons. It is very clear by the provision of canon 77 #2 that a such a Patriarch, while legitimatly elected in his own right, is not recognized by the Roman Pontiff, else there be no restriction by Rome on the exercise of his office. IOW, the cited canons not negate the fact that, if recognition by the Roman Pontiff is denied, the Church is out of communion with the Roman Pontiff until such time that communion is restored.

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 …

 

[malphono]

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 …

Hypothetically, yes, I think that’s what would transpire. Which, of course, might well result in a schism.

 

[Vico]

Yes, I know those canons. It is very clear by the provision of canon 77 #2 that a such a Patriarch, while legitimatly elected in his own right, is not recognized by the Roman Pontiff, else there be no restriction by Rome on the exercise of his office. IOW, the cited canons not negate the fact that, if recognition by the Roman Pontiff is denied, the Church is out of communion with the Roman Pontiff until such time that communion is restored.

The Church is a parish, and a eparchy or exarchy, etc., and a ritual Church, and a universal Church. So you are saying that the ritual Church is out of communion with Rome. However the other bishops of the ritual Church are not out of communion with all the other bishops of the universal Church nor are the other faithful out of communion.

But, I was responding to your statement: “Without the power to convoke a synod or to legitmately exercise his power of to validly ordain, the seat would indeed be vacant, in principle if not in fact.”

I took that phrase “exercise his power of to validly ordain” as ‘exercise his power or to validly ordain’.

I would not say it is vacant even in principle because the patriarch still has a lot of power without calling a synod or ordaining.

 

[ConstantineTG]

All Catholic bishops are in communion with the bishop of Rome.

CCEO Canon 42
Just as, by the Lord’s decision, Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, and the bishops, successors of the Apostles, are joined together.

The way our Bishop explained it to us it was more like they’re in communion with the Patriarch who’s in communion with Rome. I mean if the Patriarch breaks communion, can individual EC Bishops still say they are in communion with Rome?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The way our Bishop explained it to us it was more like they’re in communion with the Patriarch who’s in communion with Rome. I mean if the Patriarch breaks communion, can individual EC Bishops still say they are in communion with Rome?

That would be a schism and each individual bishop would have to make his own decision which one he wished to be in communion with. Stay with Rome and be in “schism” from his patriarchate or stay with his patriarch and be in schism from Rome.

Because as noted above, each bishop is in communion with Rome.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That would be a schism and each individual bishop would have to make his own decision which one he wished to be in communion with. Stay with Rome and be in “schism” from his patriarchate or stay with his patriarch and be in schism from Rome.

Because as noted above, each bishop is in communion with Rome.

Is that how it happened with the Great Schism? And how about those who returned to comunion? How did they break off from their patriarch? They declared themselves a synod and applied to Rome for communion?

 

[Hesychios]

Is that how it happened with the Great Schism? And how about those who returned to comunion? How did they break off from their patriarch? They declared themselves a synod and applied to Rome for communion?

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

A brief synopsis of each one is possible, but would take more time than I have.

I can mention a few right now…

The Union of Brest in the late 16th century was a synod of Orthodox bishops in the kingdom of Poland, their Metropolitan was at K’yiv. I think that probably the bishops were hoping to maintain communion with Constantinople (their own patriarch at the time) and also with Rome, but it didn’t work out that way. Interestingly, 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.

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

The Russian Catholic church started out as a lay movement, then attracted some priests. The first priest was accepted not by the Pope but by the Melkite patriarchal church. Eventually the Jesuits became involved. They are not numerous.

The Melkites came as a Patriarchal Synod, the bishops of the synod who objected refused to follow the patriarch and there was a schism.

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.

The Ethiopean Catholic church had a similar origin, as the fruit of western missionary work among the Orthodox.

 

[malphono]

The Church is a parish, and a eparchy or exarchy, etc., and a ritual Church, and a universal Church. So you are saying that the ritual Church is out of communion with Rome. However the other bishops of the ritual Church are not out of communion with all the other bishops of the universal Church nor are the other faithful out of communion.

Whether the other bishops or the faithful would be out of communion would really depend on the events. But of course it’s all hypothetical anyway, so there’s no point in belaboring the issue.

But, I was responding to your statement: “Without the power to convoke a synod or to legitmately exercise his power of to validly ordain, the seat would indeed be vacant, in principle if not in fact.”

I took that phrase “exercise his power of to validly ordain” as ‘exercise his power or to validly ordain’.

I would not say it is vacant even in principle because the patriarch still has a lot of power without calling a synod or ordaining.

Yes, that was a typo. It was supposed to be “power to convoke a synod or to legitimately exercise his power to validly ordain” … thanks for catching it.

In any case, notice I said “in principle if not in fact” and I stand by that. Keep in mind that we are speaking of Synodal Churches, and without the power to convene the Synod or to ordain, the Patriarch would essentially be hamstrung.

 

[josephdaniel29]

In any case, notice I said “in principle if not in fact” and I stand by that. Keep in mind that we are speaking of Synodal Churches, and without the power to convene the Synod or to ordain, the Patriarch would essentially be hamstrung.

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

 

[malphono]

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

It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me either, but that’s the way it is according to the CCEO.

Look back at [post=7568662]Vico’s post[/post] and read forward from there. That should give an idea.

 

[Vico]

Whether the other bishops or the faithful would be out of communion would really depend on the events. But of course it’s all hypothetical anyway, so there’s no point in belaboring the issue.

Yes, that was a typo. It was supposed to be “power to convoke a synod or to legitimately exercise his power to validly ordain” … thanks for catching it.

In any case, notice I said “in principle if not in fact” and I stand by that. Keep in mind that we are speaking of Synodal Churches, and without the power to convene the Synod or to ordain, the Patriarch would essentially be hamstrung.

Hamstrung yes; it seems that it would be illicit to continue in this state for long since it is required to have the synod meet every year (or other period per the particular laws).

In the case of a Major Archbishop this could not happen, because the Major Archbishop is not entroned after election, until after confirmation from Rome.

 

[Aramis]

On what grounds could a pope reject the election of a patriarch? Can a patriarch reject the election of a pope? Do the patriarchs have any say in papal elections?

The Pope can reject only a patriarch who fails to request continued union, or who is invalid matter for ordination or election (IE, has been excommunicated). And this can only be done AFTER his enthronement.

A Major Archiepiscopal candidate is elected, and must be approved before being enthroned; Rome can refuse to approve a Major Archiepiscopal candidate for a much wider range of reasons.

Neither has any say in the election of a pope unless also made a cardinal. In which case they have the same voice and vote as any other cardinal their own age.

 

[josephdaniel29]

The Pope can reject only a patriarch who fails to request continued union, or who is invalid matter for ordination or election (IE, has been excommunicated). And this can only be done AFTER his enthronement.

A Major Archiepiscopal candidate is elected, and must be approved before being enthroned; Rome can refuse to approve a Major Archiepiscopal candidate for a much wider range of reasons.

Neither has any say in the election of a pope unless also made a cardinal. In which case they have the same voice and vote as any other cardinal their own age.

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

 

[Hesychios]

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

Essentially there is only one autocephalous church, most of the others are autonomous and a few are more like missions, with no hierarchy or leadership of their own.

 

[Aramis]

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

No Catholic church is Autocephalous. Not even the Roman. At least not in the way that an Orthodox Church is autocephalous. The powers that an Autocephalous Church’s synod has reside in the General Councils, not in the Church Sui Iuris’ synods.