Patriarchal Jurisdiction

[mardukm]

PLEASE PRAY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UKRANIAN PATRIARCHATE AND THE SYRO-MALABAR PATRIARCHATE.

The Ukranian Patriarchate has had much treatment in the past, and their plight requires much prayer from us.

A less-publicized, yet identical, plight is also occuring with our brethren in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church in India. If my sources are correct, the Syro-Malabar Church requested Patriarchal status from the Holy See in 2006.

It seems, however, that because the majority of dioceses in India are in the Latin jurisdiction - though indeed the majority of their membership is Syro-Malabar - there is a lot of opposition from the Latin hierarchy.

Our Holy Father, whose love for our Eastern and Oriental Churches cannot be doubted, has his hands tied because of opposition from the local Latin hierarchy in India.

If this topic has been sufficiently discussed in the past, forgive my alarmist post. In any case, the needs and RIGHTS of our Eastern and Oriental brethren need to be in our constant prayers.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jonnyws]

I don’t know anything about these matters but I understand the need for the Eastern Christians in Communion with Rome to have their own Patriarchs and will pray for this to happen.

 

[malphono]

PLEASE PRAY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UKRANIAN PATRIARCHATE AND THE SYRO-MALABAR PATRIARCHATE.

The Ukranian Patriarchate has had much treatment in the past, and their plight requires much prayer from us.

A less-publicized, yet identical, plight is also occuring with our brethren in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church in India. If my sources are correct, the Syro-Malabar Church requested Patriarchal status from the Holy See in 2006.

It seems, however, that because the majority of dioceses in India are in the Latin jurisdiction - though indeed the majority of their membership is Syro-Malabar - there is a lot of opposition from the Latin hierarchy.

Our Holy Father, whose love for our Eastern and Oriental Churches cannot be doubted, has his hands tied because of opposition from the local Latin hierarchy in India.

If this topic has been sufficiently discussed in the past, forgive my alarmist post. In any case, the needs and RIGHTS of our Eastern and Oriental brethren need to be in our constant prayers.

Blessings,
Marduk

There was discussion of the Ukrainian issue in a prior thread (Ukrainian Greek Catholic “Patriarch”). I made a few comments there and they still hold. (I won’t clutter this thread with “used” material )

The same remarks basically apply to the Syro-Malabars: it was always a “daughter Church” and never had claim to its own Patriarch.

In any case, in practical terms, (and I am repeating this part of my comment in the prior thread), a Major Archbishop or Catholicos is the de facto equivalent of a Patriarch. The only real difference is in the established order of precedence (Patriarchs before Cardinals, etc) and PP Benedict XVI could amend that with the stroke of a pen (if, that is, it hasn’t been done already).

 

[Harpazo]

PLEASE PRAY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE UKRANIAN PATRIARCHATE AND THE SYRO-MALABAR PATRIARCHATE.

The Ukranian Patriarchate has had much treatment in the past, and their plight requires much prayer from us.

A less-publicized, yet identical, plight is also occuring with our brethren in the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church in India. If my sources are correct, the Syro-Malabar Church requested Patriarchal status from the Holy See in 2006.

It seems, however, that because the majority of dioceses in India are in the Latin jurisdiction - though indeed the majority of their membership is Syro-Malabar - there is a lot of opposition from the Latin hierarchy.

Our Holy Father, whose love for our Eastern and Oriental Churches cannot be doubted, has his hands tied because of opposition from the local Latin hierarchy in India.

If this topic has been sufficiently discussed in the past, forgive my alarmist post. In any case, the needs and RIGHTS of our Eastern and Oriental brethren need to be in our constant prayers.

Blessings,
Marduk

Shlom lokh,

I’m a little surprised why they have to ask permission from Rome to be granted Patriarchal status. In the case of the Ukrainians, they already consider their head to be the Patriarch. Rome never had any qualms about this, or at least not publicly.

I am of the opinion that more power needs to return to the local churches, and I’m sure many of my Eastern brethren (Catholic and Orthodox) will agree. If we ever expect reunion with the other Apostolic Churches, Rome needs to, quite frankly, stay out of the Eastern Churches’ business and let them govern themselves.

Maybe I’m just a little fed up with how we are treated by Rome and the Latins as Eastern and Oriental Catholics. I’ll certainly pray for them though.

Alloho minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Andrew,

I’m a little surprised why they have to ask permission from Rome to be granted Patriarchal status. In the case of the Ukrainians, they already consider their head to be the Patriarch. Rome never had any qualms about this, or at least not publicly.

I am of the opinion that more power needs to return to the local churches, and I’m sure many of my Eastern brethren (Catholic and Orthodox) will agree. If we ever expect reunion with the other Apostolic Churches, Rome needs to, quite frankly, stay out of the Eastern Churches’ business and let them govern themselves.

Maybe I’m just a little fed up with how we are treated by Rome and the Latins as Eastern and Oriental Catholics. I’ll certainly pray for them though.

I am fully sympathetic to the issue of self-governance. Rome should not intervene in the affairs of other Churches (aside from a matter of universally established doctrine/morals/canons, of course). However, there is absolutely no precedence in the history of the Church for a Patriarchate to self-establish itself. The closest I can think of is the Jerusalem Patriarchate. When it attempted to establish its independence back in the 4th century, it took an ecumenical council to bring the Church into proper order amidst cries of “foul.”

I fully understand, however, that a particular Church can recognize ITSELF as a Patriarchate apart from the approbation of any other authority outside itself. But to gain OFFICIAL recognition from the OTHER particular Churches, it requires the approval of an Ecumenical Council.

Now, our Canons admit that only the “Supreme authority in the Church” can establish new jurisdictions. I do notice that our Eastern Canons make a distinction between the term “Roman Pontiff” and the term “Supreme authority in the Church,” much more so than the Latin Canons. Though the “Roman Pontiff” can be regarded as the “Supreme authority” at times in our canons, it is more specific than the Latin Canons between what the “Supreme authority” as the “Roman Pontiff” on the one hand, can do, and what the “Supreme authority” as the “Ecumenical Council,” on the other hand, can do. IIRC, it is only the “Supreme authority” as “Ecumenical Council” that can establish new jurisdictions that the entire Church will recognize.

The Pope has indeed established new jurisdictions for the Eastern and Oriental Churches, but he has done so ONLY in what is traditionally the Latin Patriarchal jurisdiction. I do not believe the Pope has the authority to establish a PATRIARCHAL jurisdiction outside his traditional Patriarchal jurisdiction, according to our Eastern canons. He may have done so in the past since the general paradigm in those days was that the new jurisdictions were Latin missionary fields, but that is no longer the official viewpoint of the Catholic Church as a whole.

So the Syro-Malabar Church is in a bit of a catch-22. They are requesting that the Pope establish their particular Church as a Patriarchate. HOWEVER, the Pope can only do this if they admit that India is traditionally in the Latin jurisdiction. The catch-22 comes from the fact that they are requesting Patriarchal status on the basis of their claim that India is NOT in the Latin jurisdiction (i.e., ancient and direct establishment by St. Thomas).

The issue is no doubt exacerbated by the fact that the majority of dioceses in India are in the Latin jurisdiction. They can certainly self-proclaim patriarchal status if they are willing to accept that no other Catholic Church will recognize their jurisdiction (as such recognition can only come from an ECUMENICAL Council). But that would definitely create terrible conflict with the Latin hierarchs.

It would seem the best course of action would be for them to admit that India is traditionally in the Latin jurisdiction, so the Holy Father can on his own authority as Patriarch of the Latin Church, establish a new jurisdiction for them. But this presents another quandary for the identity of the Syro-Malabar Church as St. Thomas Christians. Admitting that India is traditionally in the Latin jurisdiction might (at least on paper) be viewed as a denial of their even more ancient and God-protected ecclesiastical heritage from St. Thomas.

The only other course of action would be to offer up numerous prayers so the pride of the Latin hierarchs in India will give way to an appreciation of the needs and rights of their Oriental brethren.

Blessings, with a mind to much prayer,
Marduk

 

[gthever]

I don’t have much knowledge about raising churches to the level of Patriarchal level.

However, I do think the Malabar Church needs to be raised to the status of a Patriarchate. With four million people, it one of the most vibrant Eastern Church. Their seminaries are packed and it supplies many priests to the United States as well.

Calling India a Latin jurisdiction I think is misleading. It is true that a majority of Catholics in India are Latins but the Syro-Malabar Church sits on the throne of St. Thomas. Kerala has always been one of the great centers of Eastern Christianity. On a side note, I do not think that their should be any Latin bishops in Kerala but that’s a different argument all together.

I don’t have any answers to any of the problems posed by raising the Malabar Church nor am I aware of the deeper political issues between the Syro-Malabars and the Latins.

On a side note, I think my Church (Malankara Catholic) should be raised to the level of a patriarchal church. However, we’re much smaller at 500k and were recently raised to a Major Archepiscopal Church. On a further side note, if raised our leader should remain the Catholicos since in all respects the Patriarchal and Catholicos titles are the same.

 

[mardukm]

The only other course of action would be to offer up numerous prayers so the pride of the Latin hierarchs in India will give way to an appreciation of the needs and rights of their Oriental brethren.

OOPS! Forgot to mention the other option: WAIT FOR THE CONVENTION OF THE NEXT ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

OOPS! Forgot to mention the other option: WAIT FOR THE CONVENTION OF THE NEXT ECUMENICAL COUNCIL.

Blessings,
Marduk

Here’s the relevant CCEO

Canon 57

1. The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church.
2. Only the supreme authority of the Church can modify the legitimately recognized or conceded title of each patriarchal Church.
3. If it is possible, a patriarchal Church must have a permanent see for the residence of the patriarch in a principal city inside its own territory from which the patriarch takes his title; this see cannot be transferred except for a most grave reason and with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and the assent of the Roman Pontiff.
   intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_P1L.HTM

So which is the supreme authority: Pope or EC?

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

Here’s the relevant CCEO

Canon 57

1. The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church.
2. Only the supreme authority of the Church can modify the legitimately recognized or conceded title of each patriarchal Church.
3. If it is possible, a patriarchal Church must have a permanent see for the residence of the patriarch in a principal city inside its own territory from which the patriarch takes his title; this see cannot be transferred except for a most grave reason and with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and the assent of the Roman Pontiff.
   intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_P1L.HTM

So which is the supreme authority: Pope or EC?

I believe it is relevant that the term “Supreme authority” and the term “Roman Pontiff” are utilized distinctly in THE SAME CANON. Thus, I am of the opinion that the “Supreme authority” refers to the Ecumenical Council.

As I stated before, it seems the only instances when the Pope HAS erected new jurisdictions for the Eastern and Oriental Churches is where 1) the new jurisidiction is WITHIN the traditional Latin Patriarchate; 2) in the past when everything not Latin was considered Latin mission territory, which is no longer the paradigm the Vatican works under (though the situation in India can be argued either way I suppose).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[fwon2638]

Dear brother Aramis,

I believe it is relevant that the term “Supreme authority” and the term “Roman Pontiff” are utilized distinctly in THE SAME CANON. Thus, I am of the opinion that the “Supreme authority” refers to the Ecumenical Council.

…

Blessings,
Marduk

I guess it is most unforunate that the Code does not specifically define the term “Supreme Authority”. However from the Code, I think the Supreme Authority is exercisable either by the Pope personally (Canon 43) or throught an ecumenical council (Canon 50).

IMHO, Canon 75 should be understood in light of the above canons.

Francis

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Francis,

I guess it is most unforunate that the Code does not specifically define the term “Supreme Authority”. However from the Code, I think the Supreme Authority is exercisable either by the Pope personally (Canon 43) or throught an ecumenical council (Canon 50).

IMHO, Canon 75 should be understood in light of the above canons.

The “Supreme Authority” in the Catholic Church IS defined in the canons. The “Supreme Authority” is either the bishop of Rome in his specific role as Pope, OR the Ecumenical Council. This is contained in Canons 42 - 54 of the Eastern Code, and Canons 330 - 341 of the Latin Code.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[fwon2638]

Marduk,

Sorry what i tried to say was that the Code did not **explicitly **states what constitutes the “Supreme Authority”. Instead of having a canon which states “The Supremem Authority of the Church is exercisable by either the Pope or through the Ecumenical Council”, we are required to go through all the canons to come to that conclusion. Sometimes, this can cause confusion (especially if they only have read Canon 43).

Francis

 

[Amadeus]

In theory and in practice, the “Supreme Authority” in the Catholic Church, as defined by the Canons (East and West), is the Pope and no other.

Although the Canons identify also the College of Bishops as exercising “supreme authority,” it cannot function without the Pope as its head bishop.

Even if the College of Bishops may exercise this “supreme authority” solemnly in an Ecumenical Council, its proposed conciliar documents become official and binding only if and when it is decreed and promulgated by the Pope as the Supreme Pontiff. Remember, in the Catholic Church, the Pope, or his authorized legate, presides over an Ecumenical Council. (Also, only the Pope has the authority to convene an Ecumenical Council.)

An Ecumenical Concil is co-terminus with the death of a Pope and it cannot continue to function or to hold sessions until the next Pope is duly elected and he subsequently approves the continuation of an on-going Ecumenical Council.

Yes, any particular Eastern Catholic Church may declare herself as a patriarchate, as the UGCC has done, but in reality only the Pope has the final authority to create patriarchates in the Catholic Church, East and West.

His singular approval, motu proprio or as recommended by an Ecumenical Council, is required for the creation of a patriarchate.

 

[Diak]

The Syro-Malabar Church needs to have a Synodal election of her Patriarch. That is a huge first step. The organization of a Church synodally and the unanimity of its hierarchy is itself the greatest test of the ecclesiogical maturity of an Eastern Catholic Church.

The recognition of the patriarchal office and reality must first be firnly established in the particular Church before anything will happen in a larger way.

Asking Rome to intervene in matters not related to the Latin Church has generally not resulted in a great deal of interest or activity. As Cardinal Silvestrini famously said when a certain Latin hierarch in North America was complaining of the ordination of several married Ukrainian Catholic men to the priesthood now well over a decade ago, “it is not good for a third party (Rome) to intervene” and deferred to the Eastern Catholic hierarch.

 

[malphono]

With all due respect to the Syro-Malabar Church, I remain of the opinion that, as with the Ukranian GCC, the status-quo is fine.

With the UGCC one has both the EO question and the matter of autocephaly (at least the EO would probably consider the erection of a Patriarchate to be the same) to consider, neither of which bear on the Syro-Malabar Church.

Prior to the formal union, the latter was historically tied to the the ACoE. Seleucia-Ctesiphon was never officially raised to the rank of “patriarchate” by an Oecumenical Council, although after the separation from Antioch, the Catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon did assume the title “Patriarch.” It all leaves the Syro-Malabar Church in a rather unique situation, being the “daughter” of a Church which was not itself raised to a Patriarchate, so it (the “daughter”) has no claim whatsoever to the title.

The Major Archbishop enjoys a position equivalent to that Patriarch, the only practical difference being the title itself. I really see no reason for Rome to change this. Were Rome to do so, such action would likely be perceived by the OOC, EOC, and ACoE as being usurpatory of the prerogatives of an Oecumenical Council. From what I can see, the only real purpose served would be that of “politically correctness” which is something that I have never supported.

Rome can always amend its own “order of precedence” to officially equate Major Archbishops and Catholicoi with Patriarchs, but the artificial establishment of a patriarchate for the sole purpose of “political correctness” to me seems ludicrous.

 

[jimmy]

Dear brother Aramis,

I believe it is relevant that the term “Supreme authority” and the term “Roman Pontiff” are utilized distinctly in THE SAME CANON. Thus, I am of the opinion that the “Supreme authority” refers to the Ecumenical Council.

As I stated before, it seems the only instances when the Pope HAS erected new jurisdictions for the Eastern and Oriental Churches is where 1) the new jurisidiction is WITHIN the traditional Latin Patriarchate; 2) in the past when everything not Latin was considered Latin mission territory, which is no longer the paradigm the Vatican works under (though the situation in India can be argued either way I suppose).

Blessings,
Marduk

The term ‘supreme authority’ refers to both the pope and an ecumenical council. Both of them have the same authority which is coterminus. So the pope can do it on his own if he likes or if there happens to be an ecumenical council it can do it as well. But even then the popes approval is necessary. Read Lumen Gentium from Vatican II and focus mainly on Chapter 3.

I have to second Amadeus’ post 13. All decisions are ultimately made by Rome. The authority of a council seems to ultimately boil down to a delegated authority from Rome. So supreme authority basically means Rome.

 

[Diak]

but the artificial establishment of a patriarchate for the sole purpose of “political correctness” to me seems ludicrous.

It has nothing to do with “political correctness”. It has everything to do with the ecclesiastical fullness of a Church *sui iuris *. In the case of the UGCC, no such thing as a “Major Archbishop” existed when the Union was agreed to and ratified by the hierarchies of both Churches.

The Roman side needs to also show more than platitudes to covenants of Union that have been endured with sacrifices of countless martyrs. Rome has her own liturgical, spiritual, and theological house to get in order.

 

[Amadeus]

The term ‘supreme authority’ refers to both the pope and an ecumenical council. Both of them have the same authority which is coterminus. So the pope can do it on his own if he likes or if there happens to be an ecumenical council it can do it as well. But even then the popes approval is necessary. Read Lumen Gentium from Vatican II and focus mainly on Chapter 3.

I have to second Amadeus’ post 13. All decisions are ultimately made by Rome. The authority of a council seems to ultimately boil down to a delegated authority from Rome. So supreme authority basically means Rome.

The “supreme authority” lodged in an Ecumenical Council, which is convoked, presided over, and whose decrees are confirmed and promulgated, by the Pope, is co-terminus with the death of the Pope.

However, the corollary does not obtain. The Pope is not co-terminus with an Ecumenical Council. The Pope remains as Supreme Pontiff (“Supreme Authority”) before, during, and after the closing of an Ecumenical Council.

In fact, under the Canons, the Pope, motu proprio, can suspend or dissolve an Ecumenical Council at any time!

 

[jimmy]

The “supreme authority” lodged in an Ecumenical Council, which is convoked, presided over, and whose decrees are confirmed and promulgated, by the Pope, is co-terminus with the death of the Pope.

However, the corollary does not obtain. The Pope is not co-terminus with an Ecumenical Council. The Pope remains as Supreme Pontiff (“Supreme Authority”) before, during, and after the closing of an Ecumenical Council.

In fact, under the Canons, the Pope, motu proprio, can suspend or dissolve an Ecumenical Council at any time!

I don’t disagree. By co-terminus I was refering to the fact that the authority of both is universal, supreme and full. But as I mentioned in my last post, the authority of the council seems to boil down to the authority of Rome. It seems that a council is ultimately just an expression of Romes authority. Karl Rhaner tried to answer this question in his commentary on chapter 3 of Lumen Gentium but I don’t think he is very successful. Yes you are correct with all your statements about the restrictions on an Ecumenical Council. This is probably the biggest issue I have with communion with Rome. The authority of the bishops has become a delegated authority through the development Romes authority.

 

[malphono]

It has nothing to do with “political correctness”. It has everything to do with the ecclesiastical fullness of a Church *sui iuris *.

I’m not so sure I agree on this one. If it walks like a duck … well, you know. Establishment of an official Patriarchate for The Syro-Malabar Church would, to me, simply be waiving away history. For the Ukrainian GCC it would, IMO, present yet another item of contention with the EOC and we certainly don’t need any more barriers.

In the case of the UGCC, no such thing as a “Major Archbishop” existed when the Union was agreed to and ratified by the hierarchies of both Churches.

I’m not an expert in the history of the UGCC, so I have to ask: what title did the head of UGCC Synod have at that time? Is “Major Archbishop” a demotion?

The Roman side needs to also show more than platitudes to covenants of Union that have been endured with sacrifices of countless martyrs. Rome has her own liturgical, spiritual, and theological house to get in order.

For Rome to artificially and unilaterally establish a “Patriarchate” seems to me to be the biggest platitude of all. Absent full union of the EOC, OOC, and ACoE, it seems much simpler and less problematic for Rome to simply acknowledge the the equality of Catholicoi and Major Arcbishops with Patriarchs in union. If and when full union occurs, the issue can be addressed again, perhaps by an Oecumenical Council.

But anyway, it’s only my opinion, and apparently it’s not widely shared in this forum.