Question on eastern Catholics and Byzantine rite

  • Thread starter Thread starter Odell
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Odell

Guest
Do they have there own bishops or are they under. The same bishops?

For instance I’m in the diasesse of Raleigh who would be the bishop? Would it be the same as the Roman rite?

Thanks
 
The answer is bigger than you think! Each Church within the Byzantine Rite (with a couple of exceptions) has a hierarchy. This can result in overlapping episcopal jurisdictions. For example, in your diocese Archbishop Cyril Bustros is the bishop responsible for the Melkite Catholics, Bishop John Michael Botean is responsible for the Romanian Catholics, and there are bishops for the Ruthenians and for the other Byzantine Rite Churches. In fact, there are 14 different Churches that follow the Byzantine Rite.

Does that help?

Deacon Ed
 
In a simple word: Separate.
In a phrase: Separate below the pope.

Each Church Sui Iuris is axiomatically supposed to have separate hierarchy.

22 of the 23 Churches Sui Iuris are Eastern.
21 of the 23 Churches Sui Iuris have hierarchs of their own; several have a single hierarch.
1 of the 23 churches is nearly defunct, having no clerics nor hierarchs.
1 is not defunct, but uses the local roman church hierarchs exclusively at the present. (This is the Russian Greek-Catholic Church.)

1 Church Sui Iuris is the Roman Church, and comprises the “western” part of the church, including all of the so-called “western rites” (which are not truly rites in the sense used in canon law at present, but are sub-rites of the Roman Rite). It also comprises about 90% of the Catholics throughout the world.

Note that there are a couple groups seeking union with Rome who are seeking Sui Iuris status, but are of western rite. It will be very interesting to see how it pans out.
 
You see, it’s like this.

The jurisdiction of Latin bishops is PERSONAL, and limited strictly to Latin Rite faithful and such others as specified by law.

The jurisdiction of Eastern bishops is TERRITORIAL and extends to all Catholics except those specifically excluded.

(I thought I was invert the usual Latin triumphalist assumption to show how it sounded.)
 
The Eastern Catholics in North Carolina have their own bishops depending on their ritual church. For instance, the Bishop of the Ukrainian Catholics in North Carolina is his grace Robert Moskal, I don’t remember what the name of the Bishop is for the Byzantine Catholic Church of America (Ruthenian).
 
The Ruthenian Bishop for NC is Eparch William of Passaic.

Neat guy, too. Used to be Eparch of Van Nuys.
 
Cluny,

Incorrect. Latin and Eastern bishops’ jurisdictions are both territorial and personal. Both Latin and Eastern Dioceses/Eparchies have territorial limits. Both extend to members of their respective Sui Iuris Churches within the territorial limits defined unless assigned members of another Sui Iuris Church specifically. For example, Russian, Copt, Ethiopian, and Syro-Malankar parishes have no eparchies in the US and are assigned to the local Latin Diocese. On the otherhand the Byzantine Catholic Metroplia of Pittsburgh has jurisdiction over Carpatho-Rusyn/Slovak Byzantine parishes(the majority), as well as Hungarian Byzantine parishes and one Croatian Byzantine parish.

Fr. Deacon Lance
 
Wow it gets complicated

Are these bishops appointed by the pope as a laten bishop is?

If not explain how this is in line with apostolic succession

Not saying it isn’t im just not undestanding

Thanks
 
Most Eastern bishops are elected by the appropriate synod of bishop from the particular Church. Some are appointed by the pope (it depends on the type of Church). Apostolic succession has nothing to do with Holy Father per se, rather it depends on the origin of the Church – does that Church go back to Apostolic times and has it maintained a succession of bishops.

For example, the Orthodox Church is not in communion with Rome, but Rome recognizes their apostolic succession.

Deacon Ed
 
Odell said:
Wow it gets complicated

Are these bishops appointed by the pope as a laten bishop is?

If not explain how this is in line with apostolic succession

Not saying it isn’t im just not undestanding

Thanks
Click to expand...
Patriarchal and Major Archiepiscopal churches Patriarch or Major Archbishop may appoint and/or ordain bishops within their traditional territory generally without interference from Rome, by their particular law. Outside their traditional territories, they are to run the appointment by Rome before installation; in either case, Rome can veto, but seldom does.

In the case of Metropolitan Churches, the Synod sends forward 3 candidates; the pope (almost always) picks one of these. In the rare instance that Rome rejects all 3, they advance a different set.

In the case of an Eparchial Church, the council of clergy elects three candidates, and sends them to Rome. Rome usually appoints one of those three.

In the case of Exarchial churches Sui Iuris, Rome appoints the Exarch. (Note that some Exarchial Churches are appointed by the Patriarchs of Patriarchal churches.)

In the case of the Russian Church, the Exarchial throne is vacant, and each parish is assigned to a Roman Church hierarch.

Erecting and suppressing of eparchies and metropolitanates follows much the same pattern:

Within a Major Archbishop’s or Patriarch’s traditional territory, he may do so by notifying rome. Outside, he consults with Rome, and usually the overlaping bishops of other churches.

Metropolitan, Eparchial, and Exarchial churches do not get to erect or suppress eparchies/exarchies; they ask Rome to do so on their behalf.

Note also: An Exarch is often not of the church he rules; many have been Roman Church auxiliary bishops. A few have been Ukrainian Auxiliary Bishops. And a couple were not even bishops!

The OCA and the Russian Orthodox, while not Catholic, generally have a council which elects a candidate, and that candidate is forwarded to the synod for approval. Upon approval, they are then ordained and enthroned.
 
Wow it gets complicated

Are these bishops appointed by the pope as a laten bishop is?

If not explain how this is in line with apostolic succession

Not saying it isn’t im just not undestanding
You didn’t think the Latin Church was the sine qua non of the Catholic Church, did you?
 
Apostolic Succession means that one’s consecrators had apostolic succession. Note the plural. The Consecrators are the two (or more) bishops who lay hands upon the bishop during his ordination.

If you follow the chains back, bishop to consecrators, to his consecrators’ consecrators, and their consecrators, etc, you eventually find one or more of the 12 apostles.
 
Aramis said:
The OCA and the Russian Orthodox, while not Catholic, generally have a council which elects a candidate, and that candidate is forwarded to the synod for approval. Upon approval, they are then ordained and enthroned.
Click to expand...
Question about your terminology. Is “ordained” the right term? After all, a patriarch or a metropolitan (and, incidentally, a pope) is still just a bishop in terms of holy orders.
 
Aramis said:
The Ruthenian Bishop for NC is Eparch William of Passaic.

Neat guy, too. Used to be Eparch of Van Nuys.
Click to expand...
They changed our bishop? Then who is the bishop now. I always thought it was funny since you know how, psycologically, when you hear your name, it makes you alert no matter what person they are referring to. So when I go back home and go to DL with my family I will be zoning out (I do that a lot no matter where I am at and it is not due to any lack of reverance to the importance of the DL. For example, I also will zone out when in my classes so I play games on my computer to force myself to stay alert and therefore pay attention.) Anyways, I would become alert at several times during the liturgy since they say the bishop’s name so often in a DL and I always thought it was funny. I guess it will be a lot easier to zone out next time I go back though I try to sing and force myself to pay attention.
 
wjp984 said:
They changed our bishop? Then who is the bishop now.
Click to expand...
Eparch Gerald + Dino of Van Nuys.

Some neat things about him:
  1. He’s short… In miter, his miter hits my eye-line
  2. He LOVES Ice Cream
  3. He’s got a neat sense of humor
Our Metropolitan is still Metropolitan Archeparch Basil + Schott.
 
I went to Bp. Gerald’s consecration–Bp. William’s, for that matter–consecration here in Phoenix.

Both took place at St. Helen’s Roman Catholic Church–I think because of its size.

Odd–that Church has seen more Episcopal Consecrations than Ss Simon and Jude Cathedral.
 
Aramis said:
In a simple word: Separate.
In a phrase: Separate below the pope.

Each Church Sui Iuris is axiomatically supposed to have separate hierarchy.

22 of the 23 Churches Sui Iuris are Eastern.
21 of the 23 Churches Sui Iuris have hierarchs of their own; several have a single hierarch.
1 of the 23 churches is nearly defunct, having no clerics nor hierarchs.
1 is not defunct, but uses the local roman church hierarchs exclusively at the present. (This is the Russian Greek-Catholic Church.)

1 Church Sui Iuris is the Roman Church, and comprises the “western” part of the church, including all of the so-called “western rites” (which are not truly rites in the sense used in canon law at present, but are sub-rites of the Roman Rite).** It also comprises about 90% of the Catholics throughout the world.**

Note that there are a couple groups seeking union with Rome who are seeking Sui Iuris status, but are of western rite. It will be very interesting to see how it pans out.
Click to expand...
Your estimate is way off the mark.

Based on the latest Annuario Pontificio, there are approximately 1.13 billion Catholics worldwide. Eastern Catholics comprised approxiamtely only 16 million worldwide.

Therefore, 1% to 1.5% are Eastern Catholics and 98.5% to 99% are Latin Rite Catholics, not “90%.”
 
Aramis said:
Eparch Gerald + Dino of Van Nuys.

Some neat things about him:
  1. He’s short… In miter, his miter hits my eye-line
  2. He LOVES Ice Cream
  3. He’s got a neat sense of humor
Our Metropolitan is still Metropolitan Archeparch Basil + Schott.
Click to expand...
Yes but though it is the same name in a different language, it does not have the awakening effect that hearing the name William consistently had on me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top