Of synods, elevations and patriarchates (especially UGCC)

[LumenGent]

Originally it was part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. However, what does “belonging to an ancient patriarchate” have to do with anything?

It’s affiliation is with Russia.

The UGCC Synod considers its actions canonical. I’m not a canonist, and can’t go beyond that.

The essence of the discussion is that a Synod does not have the power to raise it’s status to that of a Patriachate. Your synod considers it canonical, They don’t have the authority.

Neither is necessary in historical Eastern praxis.

This is an alien concept in the Catholic Church. It is more than necessary. How do you answer the question “why did the UGCC synod ask the Holy See to elevate it’s status to that of a Patriachate”? If it isn’t important why did the synod apply to Rome?

If it takes such an action, and there being no disapproval from the Holy See, I guess it does have that power.

So now you recognise that the Holy See has the authority on such matters. Why do you still insist otherwise? You can’t have it both ways, and your synod can’t say it is canonical with or without Rome.

Wouldn 't be a bad idea in my opinion.

I respect your opinion, but this issue isn’t based upon opinions. What we think and what we would like does not equal what is or what must be.

Not all the heads of synodal Churches are patriarchs. Keep in mind that Rome elevated the UGCC to a major Archbishopric, it didn’t do it on it’s own.

 

[mardukm]

The essence of the discussion is that a Synod does not have the power to raise it’s status to that of a Patriachate. Your synod considers it canonical, They don’t have the authority.

I somewhat agree. On the one hand, the Mother Church should be involved in the matter, on the other, it seems that Catholic canon law would recognize the status quo of a self-proclaimed Patriarchate after 30 years.

This is an alien concept in the Catholic Church. It is more than necessary. How do you answer the question “why did the UGCC synod ask the Holy See to elevate it’s status to that of a Patriachate”? If it isn’t important why did the synod apply to Rome?

I don’t agree with you here. In historical Eastern praxis, the consent of the Mother See is all that is minimally necessary for an Eastern Patriarchate to be established (it is so recent in the Oriental Orthodox praxis that I would be cautious about calling it “historical” as far as OO’xy is concerned). The problem here is, Rome is not the Mother See of the UGCC. Personally, I don’t believe the bishop of Rome has the authority to create a new Patriarchate that is not in his Patriarchal territory. As Pope (not merely as bishop of Rome, or Patriarch of the Latins), he can grant recognition of Patriarchal status (not create) for Eastern/ Oriental Catholics in the Traditional Patriarchal Sees of the ancient Pentarchy.

So now you recognise that the Holy See has the authority on such matters. Why do you still insist otherwise? You can’t have it both ways, and your synod can’t say it is canonical with or without Rome.

I don’t think that is what brother (sister?) Dixibehr is saying. And actually, you CAN have it both ways. That is the ideal Easterns and Orientals hope for from the papacy. It is mutual respect and recognition of the divine and canonical prerogatives in each respective sphere

Not all the heads of synodal Churches are patriarchs. Keep in mind that Rome elevated the UGCC to a major Archbishopric, it didn’t do it on it’s own.

Why must you make it about power and control? The UGCC requested, and the Holy Father acceded. As of now, there is nothing except love for the Catholic Church and the Holy Father that prevents the UGCC from self-proclaiming and possibly causing schism. The situation is delicate, and I don’t think your statements are helping. In fact, perhaps the past two Popes have not given explicit recognition BECAUSE they realize they don’t have the actual authority to do so.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[LumenGent]

don’t agree with you here. In historical Eastern praxis, the consent of the Mother See is all that is minimally necessary for an Eastern Patriarchate to be established (it is so recent in the Oriental Orthodox praxis that I would be cautious about calling it “historical” as far as OO’xy is concerned). The problem here is, Rome is not the Mother See of the UGCC. Personally, I don’t believe the bishop of Rome has the authority to create a new Patriarchate that is not in his Patriarchal territory. As Pope (not merely as bishop of Rome, or Patriarch of the Latins), he can grant recognition of Patriarchal status (not create) for Eastern/ Oriental Catholics in the Traditional Patriarchal Sees of the ancient Pentarchy.

So you are saying the Mother See which is? has the authority to establish a patriachate and Rome is powerless. I couldn’t deny anything as much as this statement. The Pope has universal power and authority in the Catholic Church be it East or West inside or outside patriarchal territories. As a matter of fact in virtue of his office as supreme head of the Catholic Church there are no limitations to his authority.

I don’t think that is what brother (sister?) Dixibehr is saying. And actually, you CAN have it both ways. That is the ideal Easterns and Orientals hope for from the papacy. It is mutual respect and recognition of the divine and canonical prerogatives in each respective sphere .

The Pope is not a dictator and neither is the Church. If Rome does not grant the UGCC patriarchal status then it remains a Major Archbishopric. I’ll repeat the UGCC approached Rome asking for patriarchal elevation, and Rome has not approved of it.

Why must you make it about power and control? The UGCC requested, and the Holy Father acceded. As of now, there is nothing except love for the Catholic Church and the Holy Father that prevents the UGCC from self-proclaiming and possibly causing schism. The situation is delicate, and I don’t think your statements are helping. In fact, perhaps the past two Popes have not given explicit recognition BECAUSE they realize they don’t have the actual authority to do so.

This isn’t about power or control, where do you interpret all these things from?

No, the Pope has not accepted otherwise there would be a Decree from the Congretation for the Oriental Churches stating such, or the Pope himself will issue a signed decleration himself. I think you are reading too much into the situation beyond what is present.

I never thought that my comments will destroy relations amongst Catholics and i will assure you there won’t be a schism because of what i have said. Your last sentence is hard to accept from a Catholic. How could you possibly imply the Vicar of Christ has no authority on such a matter. If the Pope has no authority i don’t know who does. Please answer this question for me, why didn’t the mother Church (whoever that is) elevate the UGCC as a major Archbishopric without Rome and why didn’t the UGCC request patriachal elevation from the mother Church instead of Rome?

For the benefit of all readers, this isn’t an attck on the UGCC. I admire the Church and highly respect it as equal to all Catholic Churches. My main point is that a Synod or a Particular Church does not have the authority to elevate itself to that of a Patriachate. This is reserved to the a) Holy See and or b)Ecumenical Council.

 

[dixibehr]

It’s affiliation is with Russia.

The essence of the discussion is that a Synod does not have the power to raise it’s status to that of a Patriachate. Your synod considers it canonical, They don’t have the authority.

This is an alien concept in the Catholic Church. It is more than necessary. How do you answer the question “why did the UGCC synod ask the Holy See to elevate it’s status to that of a Patriachate”? If it isn’t important why did the synod apply to Rome?

So now you recognise that the Holy See has the authority on such matters. Why do you still insist otherwise? You can’t have it both ways, and your synod can’t say it is canonical with or without Rome.

I respect your opinion, but this issue isn’t based upon opinions. What we think and what we would like does not equal what is or what must be.

Not all the heads of synodal Churches are patriarchs. Keep in mind that Rome elevated the UGCC to a major Archbishopric, it didn’t do it on it’s own.

1. Actually, Ukraine was originally NOT part of the Russian Empire, until it had absorbed Poland–which had by then annexed Ukraine. And at that time, the Moscow Patriarchate had been abolished.

At the time of the Union of Brest, the church in Ukraine was part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

1. What do you mean “my synod”? I go the Melkite Church.
2. It is an alien concept to the LATIN Church–but the Latin Church is not the whole, or even the standard of the Catholic Church. Much less should it be considered the default.
3. I never said it didn’t, but not the sole authority. In any case, silence gives consent. This is in Latin canon law, I’ve been told.

 

[Hesychios]

1. Actually, Ukraine was originally NOT part of the Russian Empire, until it had absorbed Poland–which had by then annexed Ukraine. And at that time, the Moscow Patriarchate had been abolished.

At the time of the Union of Brest, the church in Ukraine was part of the Ecumenical Patriarchate.

This is quite correct.

 

[Hesychios]

…I would like to say that I understand and recognize that there are other Patriarchates within Oriental Orthodoxy beyond the original five. But I believe there is a difference. Earlier, someone noted that among the Easterns, there is the notion of “autonomy functioning as autocephaly.” Among Orientals, it is the opposite - it is “autocephaly functioning as autonomy.” I’ll give an example from my own Coptic Tradition. When the Eritrean OOC first sought independence from the Ethiopian OOC, and rather uncanonically at that, the first thought in many peoples minds was immediately, “who is COC willing to hold communion with?” This is very similar to the way of it when the Church was undivided, except that back then, it was the See of Rome who was the focus of orthodoxy (and those who regard themselves as “Orthodox in communion with Rome” wish for others to come back to that reality in the early Church). So though there are other Patriarchates in Oriental Orthodoxy, the centrality of the original Patriarchates is still very much recognized. Any distinct jurisdictions from the Mother Sees of Alexandria (Coptic Orthodox) or Antioch (Syriac Orthodox) are truly “satellites,” not absolutely independent of their Mother Sees (regardless of whether they are known as Patriarchal Sees, Metropolitan Sees, ArchMetropolitan See, etc,). The Armenians are a different matter. Though it is one of the centers of OO’xy, her head bishop is known as a Catholicos, not a Patriarch, which itself indicates that paradigm under which the OO operate (i.e., the ideal of the original Pentarchy).

Blessings,
Marduk

You make some good points here, Marduk.

Michael

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Major Archbishop is a title that has no meaning within the Eastern tradition or Oriental Tradition. In essence, its Patriarch that is not called a Patriarch. Rome promised to raise our Church to a Patriachate , they didn’t deliver on the promise because of political and “ecumenical” reasons, so our Synod did it themselves. Rome has never spoken out against what we did, even when the Patriarch is commemorated in front of the Pontiff, and the fact that our Patriarch was considered “papable” in the last selection process shows that this is seen as a non-issue among the latin church.

Rome promised ? That is news, definitely. When did it promise that ? I thought it did not approve of, but did not do anything to prevent, Mgr. Slipyi’s use of the title of Patriarch, & calls from many of the faithful, especially outside Ukraine, for the formal granting of the title. (Isn’t there a canonical process for his canonisation ? STM that to have two Ukrainian Saints in succession is worth any number of Patriarchates… )​

“Major Archbishop” looks odd just as you say - would it help if the cleric in that position were called “Catholicos” ? There’s a Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon already, so the title is not unknown in the CC. Or is the difference of Church an obstacle ?

 

[Formosus]

That is what I read on another web forum. I admit I can not back up such a claim with real proof.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gottle of Geer,

I thought it did not approve of,

This is more surprising to me than brother Formosus’ claim. As brother dixibehr pointed out earlier, silence is generally regarded as a sign of approval in Catholic Canon law.

“Major Archbishop” looks odd just as you say - would it help if the cleric in that position were called “Catholicos” ? There’s a Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon already, so the title is not unknown in the CC. Or is the difference of Church an obstacle ?

This topic was discussed rather thoroughly earlier in the thread.

Blessings

 

[LumenGent]

Dixie,

Please, we are not dealing with childish matters. Silent gives conent isn’t applied here and has got nothing to do with an important matter as Patriachal elevation.The Church has always managed these things formally not informally. Technically a decree is needed to procalim the UGCC a patriachate. The Church doesn’t operate on the principle “silent gives consent”.

I’m finished with this discussion.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother LumenGent,

Please, we are not dealing with childish matters. Silent gives conent isn’t applied here and has got nothing to do with an important matter as Patriachal elevation.The Church has always managed these things formally not informally. Technically a decree is needed to procalim the UGCC a patriachate. The Church doesn’t operate on the principle “silent gives consent”.

On the other hand, the Code (both Latin and Eastern) is quite EXPLICIT that custom obtains the force of law within 30 years if the competent authority has not explicitly rejected it. The Code is not silent at all on the matter.

There is, however, another area of canon law that agrees with your statement that “the Church doesn’t operate on the principle of ‘silence gives consent.’” It is in the area of jurisprudence. In the ecclesiastical courts, if an INDIVIDUAL makes a request, and the competent authority has not given a response within a certain period of time, then the silence is construed to be a rejection of the request.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Dear brother LumenGent,

On the other hand, the Code (both Latin and Eastern) is quite EXPLICIT that custom obtains the force of law within 30 years if the competent authority has not explicitly rejected it. The Code is not silent at all on the matter.

There is, however, another area of canon law that agrees with your statement that “the Church doesn’t operate on the principle of ‘silence gives consent.’” It is in the area of jurisprudence. In the ecclesiastical courts, if an INDIVIDUAL makes a request, and the competent authority has not given a response within a certain period of time, then the silence is construed to be a rejection of the request.

Blessings,
Marduk

A Church Sui Iuris is considered a juridic person under the law.

CCEO:
Canon 921

1. Juridic persons are constituted for a purpose in keeping with the Church’s mission either by actual prescription of the law or by a special concession of the competent authority granted by decree.
2. By the law itself Churches sui iuris, provinces, eparchies, exarchies as well as other institutes expressly established as such in common law are juridic persons.
3. The competent ecclesiastical authority is not to confer juridic personality except upon those aggregates of persons or things which pursue a truly useful purpose and, all things considered, have resources which are foreseen to be sufficient to achieve their designated end.
   intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PPL.HTM

Following the logic, then, the title Patriarch is established as tradition, but the actual hierarchical rank is still Major Archbishop…

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

A Church Sui Iuris is considered a juridic person under the law.
CCEO:
Canon 921

1. Juridic persons are constituted for a purpose in keeping with the Church’s mission either by actual prescription of the law or by a special concession of the competent authority granted by decree.
2. By the law itself Churches sui iuris, provinces, eparchies, exarchies as well as other institutes expressly established as such in common law are juridic persons.
3. The competent ecclesiastical authority is not to confer juridic personality except upon those aggregates of persons or things which pursue a truly useful purpose and, all things considered, have resources which are foreseen to be sufficient to achieve their designated end.
   intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_PPL.HTM

These are facts that only come into consideration for contentious TRIALS (i.e., if a person has been wronged and sues a patriarchate as an entity, or vice-versa). Trials before an ecclesiastical court or tribunal are what I was referring to earlier.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dixibehr]

The Church has always managed these things formally not informally. Technically a decree is needed to procalim the UGCC a patriachate.<<

But it DID happen formally.

It was a formal decree of the UGCC synod on its own authority.

 

[Aramis]

The Church has always managed these things formally not informally. Technically a decree is needed to procalim the UGCC a patriachate.<<

An authority clearly outside its competence under the CCEO.

 

[Hesychios]

It seems that in the view of Rome the Kyivan synod has had enough native competence and authority to decide to break with it’s original Patriarch, but not anything further.

 

[mardukm]

It seems that in the view of Rome the Kyivan synod has had enough native competence and authority to decide to break with it’s original Patriarch, but not anything further.

Sans political exigencies, is self-establishment the rule in EO’xy? I know it is not in OO’xy.

Blessings

 

[Hesychios]

Sans political exigencies, is self-establishment the rule in EO’xy? I know it is not in OO’xy.

Blessings

As you put it, sans political exigencies, no.

It is for the mother church to release the outlying or extended church from dependent status.

I don’t know that Constantinople has ever given the Kyivan synod permission to act upon it’s own.

 

[SyroMalankara]

As you put it, sans political exigencies, no.

It is for the mother church to release the outlying or extended church from dependent status.

I don’t know that Constantinople has ever given the Kyivan synod permission to act upon it’s own.

That would be the ideal, but we all know that in practice it is usually less clean.

 

[twf]

There is an important legal distinction between Patriarchs and Major Archbishops. Patriarchs are enthroned immediately upon election by their synods…Major Archbishops are only enthroned AFTER the synod’s election is ratified by the Roman Pontiff. How does this factor in?