Ordinariate for the Faithful Eastern Catholics in Spain

[Vico]

Francisco crea un Ordinariato para los fieles católicos orientales en España Ha nombrado como Ordinario a monseñor Osoro, arzobispo de Madrid, de ámbito interdiocesano y para todos los fieles de rito oriental que residen en España
es.zenit.org/articles/el-papa-crea-un-ordinariato-para-los-fieles-catolicos-orientales-en-espana/

June 9, 2016 H.H. Pope Francis created the Ordinariate for the faithful of the eastern Catholic churches in Spain. The ordinary is Atchbishop Osoro Sierra of Madrid. It is established at the national level because the faithful are widely distributed throughout Spain.

Other eastern Catholic Ordinariates that exist with 2015 estimates of members are:

• Argentina 2,000
• Austria 10,000
• Brazil 10,000
• France 21,700
• Poland 670

 

[MorEphrem]

So what qualifies ++Osoro to see to the needs of Eastern faithful (I read the article, it is not mentioned)?

 

[7_Sorrows]

why do they need an ordinariate?

 

[phil19034]

why do they need an ordinariate?

Because they don’t have a local hierarchy. So all the Eastern Priests were reporting to their local Roman Rite Bishop.

The Ordinariate allow alll of the Eastern Catholic Priests to report to the same Roman Rite Bishop… Strength in numbers kind of thing.

Pope Francis was the Eastern Catholic Ordinary in Argentina, so he’s aware that their needs are better met when they have their own Bishop or can have their own priests council under just one Bishop.

God Bless

 

[kdbueno]

Eastern catholics is interesting. How come orientalism doesn’t fit in the situation

 

[7_Sorrows]

Because they don’t have a local hierarchy. So all the Eastern Priests were reporting to their local Roman Rite Bishop.

The Ordinariate allow alll of the Eastern Catholic Priests to report to the same Roman Rite Bishop… Strength in numbers kind of thing.

Pope Francis was the Eastern Catholic Ordinary in Argentina, so he’s aware that their needs are better met when they have their own Bishop or can have their own priests council under just one Bishop.

God Bless

how long have Eastern Catholics been in agreement with Rome? Eastern Catholic priests can marry correct?

 

[porthos11]

how long have Eastern Catholics been in agreement with Rome? Eastern Catholic priests can marry correct?

Depends on the church.

Some Eastern Catholics have never been out of communion with Rome (Maronites).

Some, such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and Melkite Catholic Church, returned to communion after separation.

And no Catholic priest can ever marry, East or West. What the East DOES allow, is for married men to be ordained to the priesthood. Big difference.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Depends on the church.

Some Eastern Catholics have never been out of communion with Rome (Maronites).

Some, such as the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and Melkite Catholic Church, returned to communion after separation.

And no Catholic priest can ever marry, East or West. What the East DOES allow, is for married men to be ordained to the priesthood. Big difference.

the Catholic Church in the West also allows married men to be ordained.

 

[porthos11]

the Catholic Church in the West also allows married men to be ordained.

Only as a matter of exception, where the priesthood is concerned, and usually only to those clergy from Anglicanism or similar denominations who have a flock to care for (such as those who enter the Church along with their entire parish/congregation).

For Eastern Catholic churches, the ordination of married men to the priesthood is a normal, regular thing, not an exception.

But priests are not allowed to marry, East and West.

 

[Vico]

So what qualifies ++Osoro to see to the needs of Eastern faithful (I read the article, it is not mentioned)?

He is not a progressive.

CCEO 916.5. In places where no exarchy has been constituted for the Christian faithful of a certain Church sui iuris, the hierarch of another Church sui iuris, even the Latin Church, of the place is to be considered the proper hierarch of these faithful, with due regard for the prescription of can. 101; if, however, there are several hierarchs, that one is to be considered their proper hierarch who has been appointed as such by the Apostolic See or, if it is a question of Christian faithful who belong to a patriarchal Church, by the patriarch with the assent of the Apostolic See.

CCEO 101 In his own eparchy, in stauropegial monasteries and other places where neither an eparchy nor an exarchy is established, the patriarch has the same rights and obligations as an eparchial bishop.

 

[MorEphrem]

He is not a progressive.

CCEO 916.5. In places where no exarchy has been constituted for the Christian faithful of a certain Church sui iuris, the hierarch of another Church sui iuris, even the Latin Church, of the place is to be considered the proper hierarch of these faithful, with due regard for the prescription of can. 101; if, however, there are several hierarchs, that one is to be considered their proper hierarch who has been appointed as such by the Apostolic See or, if it is a question of Christian faithful who belong to a patriarchal Church, by the patriarch with the assent of the Apostolic See.

CCEO 101 In his own eparchy, in stauropegial monasteries and other places where neither an eparchy nor an exarchy is established, the patriarch has the same rights and obligations as an eparchial bishop.

Those canons are irrelevant. I didn’t ask for the justification as to why the appointment was canonically legal, I asked why he himself is qualified to see to the needs of the faithful of Eastern Churches. It goes without saying many, especially an American Byzantine (I presume) such as yourself, understand the capacity of Latin hierarchs to malign the Eastern faithful (e.g. the entire inception of the OCA).

 

[Vico]

Those canons are irrelevant. I didn’t ask for the justification as to why the appointment was canonically legal, I asked why he himself is qualified to see to the needs of the faithful of Eastern Churches. It goes without saying many, especially an American Byzantine (I presume) such as yourself, understand the capacity of Latin hierarchs to malign the Eastern faithful (e.g. the entire inception of the OCA).

Any hierarch has the potential to malign any faithful. Potential does not demonstrate actualization in the person selected. What I posted is that He is not a progressive.

 

[MorEphrem]

Any hierarch has the potential to malign any faithful. Potential does not demonstrate actualization in the person selected. What I posted is that He is not a progressive.

Sigh please stop trying to have the last word if it’s not actually constructive. He is not a “progressive” (whatever such a vague term means) is not an actual qualification. The comment about potentiality is such a vacuous truism. I asked in sincerity what qualifies him. It seems he was selected because he was archbishop of the capital of the country and neither of us knows what particular qualification he has.

 

[Brendan]

There is no need for singular qualification. He has Episcopal Orders and is legitimately appointed as the shepherd of the flock; that alone should be sufficient for any of the faithful in any sui juris Church

 

[RyanBlack]

There is no need for singular qualification. He has Episcopal Orders and is legitimately appointed as the shepherd of the flock; that alone should be sufficient for any of the faithful in any sui juris Church

I think-given the history of how Eastern Catholics have often been poorly treated (sometimes at the hands of Latin bishops)-the mere fact of a legitimate appointment will not suffice for all Eastern Catholic faithful that any given Latin bishop will be adequately knowledgeable or respectful of Eastern Catholics and our traditions.

 

[Vico]

Sigh please stop trying to have the last word if it’s not actually constructive. He is not a “progressive” (whatever such a vague term means) is not an actual qualification. The comment about potentiality is such a vacuous truism. I asked in sincerity what qualifies him. It seems he was selected because he was archbishop of the capital of the country and neither of us knows what particular qualification he has.

Please give examples of actual qualifications, other than being an Archbishop that would be personally acceptable to you.

 

[MorEphrem]

Please give examples of actual qualifications, other than being an Archbishop that would be personally acceptable to you.

But that is exactly it - it is not what is personally accept to me, qualifications should be make him better suited to serve those under him. The following are things I would hope this archbishop has:

• Previous general familarity with Eastern Churches (e.g. if a priest comes to him because he needs an antimension or tablitho, will he know even where to begin?)
• Respect for the integrity of the different rites (e.g. When he pontificates at a Byzantine liturgy will he mix and matching vestments as he pleases?)
• Sufficient time to deal with these additional constituents (obvious)
• Sufficient personnel (e.g. the Russian Catholic Church in the US in one city has the Latin prelate in charge but the Melkites supply the priests because the Latin diocese is apparently entirely unable to supply it with priests) - if the one Romanian priest dies in Spain, will the faithful have to assimilate into another Church?
• Disposable funds in the diocese to assist these additional churches if needs be with minor projects

These are practical considerations - depending on what your political background and age demographic is (among a host of other factors), “not progressive” could mean anything.

The list can go on, but saying his reception of appointment is sufficient qualification in itself is absolutely ludicrous. One would hope and have faith in the Holy See that they saw he was a good fit and as a result of that appointed him - the appointment doesn’t hold magic qualifications to itself. Appointment for a Latin bishop is contingent on competency in his own Church - why should the same not hold for these faithful?

This is not to say he doesn’t have all the qualifications and more that I listed above, I am simply asking what are his qualifications.

 

[AXO]

So what qualifies ++Osoro to see to the needs of Eastern faithful (I read the article, it is not mentioned)?

Believe me, I’m Spanish, and if I were the Pope, I’d have chosen a better person. But well, if the Pope has chosen him, there’s no discussion possible.

 

[malphono]

There is no need for singular qualification.

Whether any “singular qualifications” are necessary depends, I suppose.

In the days when all Eastern/Oriental Churches in union with Rome were under the jurisdiction of the local Latin Ordinary, they were generally left to their own devices, meaning that the Ordinary did not habitually involve himself in their affairs and didn’t much interfere.

For example, where there was a need for a priest to tend to the faithful of a particular Church, the local Latin Ordinary would normally petition the Patriarch (or Rome, depending on the case) to send one and would put the parish under Latin administration in the interim. He would also avoid involvement in any liturgical matters, deferring such to the Patriarch (or Rome, again depending). When it came to visitations, he would generally preside in choir.

Of course there were, unfortunately, notable exceptions to non-interference (see below).

He has Episcopal Orders and is legitimately appointed as the shepherd of the flock; that alone should be sufficient for any of the faithful in any sui juris Church

One look at the infamous Archbishop Ireland tells a completely different story. That one certainly had “Episcopal Orders” but “singular” (or, for that matter, ANY) qualifications were sorely lacking. It seems clear from history that Ireland was, (to put it as nicely as I can) a total disaster.

 

[Vico]

But that is exactly it - it is not what is personally accept to me, qualifications should be make him better suited to serve those under him. The following are things I would hope this archbishop has:

• Previous general familarity with Eastern Churches (e.g. if a priest comes to him because he needs an antimension or tablitho, will he know even where to begin?)
• Respect for the integrity of the different rites (e.g. When he pontificates at a Byzantine liturgy will he mix and matching vestments as he pleases?)
• Sufficient time to deal with these additional constituents (obvious)
• Sufficient personnel (e.g. the Russian Catholic Church in the US in one city has the Latin prelate in charge but the Melkites supply the priests because the Latin diocese is apparently entirely unable to supply it with priests) - if the one Romanian priest dies in Spain, will the faithful have to assimilate into another Church?
• Disposable funds in the diocese to assist these additional churches if needs be with minor projects

These are practical considerations - depending on what your political background and age demographic is (among a host of other factors), “not progressive” could mean anything.

The list can go on, but saying his reception of appointment is sufficient qualification in itself is absolutely ludicrous. One would hope and have faith in the Holy See that they saw he was a good fit and as a result of that appointed him - the appointment doesn’t hold magic qualifications to itself. Appointment for a Latin bishop is contingent on competency in his own Church - why should the same not hold for these faithful?

This is not to say he doesn’t have all the qualifications and more that I listed above, I am simply asking what are his qualifications.

Yes, I am asking what kind of qualifications that I could present that would be personally acceptable to you, because you said what I posted was not.

I can’t make sense of the idea that “his reception of appointment is sufficient qualification”, did you mean something else?

If you were the Pope then you would know the reasons, so unless Pope Francis reveals it, all is conjecture, which is what I presented, but based upon more than one article.