Restrictions on non-Latin Churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter mardukm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mardukm

Guest
I’ve often read that there is a restriction on the Oriental and Eastern Churches that prevents them from “going outside the territorial boundaries.”

Is this about expanding patriarchal territory? Is it about not being able to send missions? What exactly is the nature of this/these restriction(s)?

Further, can someone please cite the decree(s) that imposed these restrictions?

Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Sorry that I can’t cite the decrees, etc., but it’s essentially true, and I believe it has to do with the fear of the physical expansion of Patriarchal Territories. I’m not in the mood right now to do a search for them, but you may recall from some past threads that I’ve touched on this matter before.

The idea is basically that if an Eastern/Oriental jurisdiction is established in the Canonical West, it must be done under the auspices of the West on behalf of the Particular Eastern/Oriental Church.

For example, when an Eastern or Oriental diocese (eparchy is one insists) is erected in the US, it is done by Rome and not directly by the particular Patriarchate. Yes, the Ordinary is considered to be a member of the Synod but that’s due to the fact that he’s a bishop, not due to jurisdiction.

Rome, OTOH, reserves unto herself the right to establish episcopal jurisdictions for the Latin Church anywhere on the globe, irrespective of violating the Patriarchal Territory of any other Particular Church.

What it boils down to is two sets of rules: one for Rome and one for everybody else.

As far as “missionary activity” (which I’m not big on anyway), I think the only restriction there was imposed in 1599 on the Syro-Malabars. If memory serves, along with the heavy-duty latinizations that were imposed, they were also restricted from missionary activity in other parts of India, which Rome claimed (and I believe still does) as her own.
 
mardukm said:
I’ve often read that there is a restriction on the Oriental and Eastern Churches that prevents them from “going outside the territorial boundaries.”

Is this about expanding patriarchal territory? Is it about not being able to send missions? What exactly is the nature of this/these restriction(s)?

Further, can someone please cite the decree(s) that imposed these restrictions?

Thanks.

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
Regarding the restriction on the Oriental and Eastern Churches that prevents them from “going outside the territorial boundaries”: there are two sets of codes CIC and CCEO, yet some canons apply to the Universal Church rather than the (23) sui iuris Churches.

Q1. What exactly is the nature of this/these restriction(s)?
A1. See CCEO 78 #2 which states that the power of the patriarch or major archeparch is territorial, but there are some exceptions. The patriarch has territorial boundaries, those of the Church sui iuris, so the process for a new eparchy is for the synod to propose three candidates for eparch to the Roman Pontiff who makes the appointment. Refer to CCEO 78 #2, 146-150, O.E. 4, 7, and AAS 62 (1970) 179. For Metropolitan (See CCEO 157 #2) and other, the Roman Pontiff establishes.

Q2. Is this about expanding patriarchal territory?
A2. Yes, but for any type Church sui iuris, not just patriarchal. (Same references as above.)

Q3. Is it about not being able to send missions?
A3. All missionary activity is under direction of the Roman Pontiff as stated in Orientalium Ecclesiarum 3. CCEO 585 states that the Churches sui iuris should continually see that the Gospel is preached in the whole world through the guidance of the Roman Pontiff, and that the synods or councils should cooperate with each other, and the faithful should love, promote, pray for, and support the missions. Pastor Bonus 85 states it is the role of the Congregation for the Evangalization of Peoples (CEP or Congregatio pro Gentium Evangelisatione) to direct and coordinate evangalization and missionary activities throughout the world without prejudice to the Congregation for the Eastern Churches (CEC or Congregatio pro Ecclesiis Orientalibus), and Pastor Bonus 60 states that in regions preponderant from ancient times of the Eastern rite, this apostolic and missionary activity depends solely on the CEC. Both the CEP and CEC are part of the Roman Curia of the Universal Church (not the Churches sui iuris).

Pastor Bonus:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19880628_pastor-bonus-index_en.html

CCEO:
intratext.com/X/ENG1199.HTM

O.E.:
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_orientalium-ecclesiarum_en.html

AAS = Acta Apostolicae Sedis (Latin gazette of the Holy See)
 
What it boils down to is two sets of rules: one for Rome and one for everybody else.
Click to expand...
If *Lumen Gentium * is to be believed (and it is a Dogmatic Constitution) every particular Church has an equal share in evangelizing the entire world. The UGCC to which I belong has bishops on five continents, and therefore “territorial boundaries” with regard to the entire Patriarchate is nonsensical since this particular Church is essentially worldwide.

If we are fully Catholic, we have the full evangelical mandate of our Lord according to our own particular received spiritual and liturgical tradition. Anything less means we are not fully equal which is contrary to Magisterial teaching. Again, canons are mutable and subject to interpretation by COMPETENT AUTHORITY.
 
It sounds to me like you guys are being reckoned second-rate Catholics.
 
It sounds to me like you guys are being reckoned second-rate Catholics.
Click to expand...
Not me (or my hierarchy), brother. The last time Rome directly interfered with a previous decision of our Synod was in the early 1990s in Toronto and the results were disastrous (Rome eventually withdrew the “appointed” bishop and gave him a desk job in Rome). If there is no grave issue of faith or morals, there is no reason for Rome to intervene in the hierarchal management of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
 
Diak said:
Not me (or my hierarchy), brother. The last time Rome directly interfered with a previous decision of our Synod was in the early 1990s in Toronto and the results were disastrous (Rome eventually withdrew the “appointed” bishop and gave him a desk job in Rome). If there is no grave issue of faith or morals, there is no reason for Rome to intervene in the hierarchal management of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
Click to expand...
This reticence to intervene is much to the irritation of some Ruthenians, who wish Rome would interfere with the Synod’s implementation of the revised DL…

It truly cuts both ways.
 
I have noticed that on more than one Eastern forum that one time it’s “Rome has ordered us” “Rome has commanded”, the next time it’s “We’re not under Rome”.
 
Diak said:
If *Lumen Gentium *is to be believed (and it is a Dogmatic Constitution) every particular Church has an equal share in evangelizing the entire world. The UGCC to which I belong has bishops on five continents, and therefore “territorial boundaries” with regard to the entire Patriarchate is nonsensical since this particular Church is essentially worldwide.

If we are fully Catholic, we have the full evangelical mandate of our Lord according to our own particular received spiritual and liturgical tradition. Anything less means we are not fully equal which is contrary to Magisterial teaching. Again, canons are mutable and subject to interpretation by COMPETENT AUTHORITY.
Click to expand...
I think Diak is correct in stating that we have an equal share in evangelizing the entire world. The method currently used for that evangelilzing is through approval of the Patriarch of Rome (and Roman Curia which includes the CEC and CEP) representing the Universal Church not the Latin Church, and as can easily be seen, expansion has taken place such that there are many Churches sui iuris with overlapping dioceses/eparchies in many countries. For the UGCC alone there are eparchy or exarchy in: Ukraine, Poland, Germany, France, Finland, Norway, Sweden, UK, Brazil, Argentina, Canada, USA, and Austrailia, and also members in other areas in the care of eparchs of a different Church sui iurus. And unbaptised adults coming into the Catholic Church may choose any of the 23 Churches sui iuris as their own, anywhere they live.
 
Latin Rite has double standards regarding this.

In Kerala the Syrian Catholic Rites (Syro Malabar & Syro Malankara) were not allowed freedom in Malabar area till late sixties.Now the same issue has arised when it comes to forming a new parish or diocese for Syrian Catholics outside their territory.There is a strong demand for new Syro Malabar Dioceses at the cities of Chennai,Bangalore and Delhi,which have not been sanctioned due to resistance from local latin Bishops.

The Syro Malankara Bishop stationed at Delhi is only a visitator and is the Auxiliary Bishop of Trivandrum.

In these areas the local Syro Malabar and Syro Malankara churches are given the status of ‘PERSONAL PARISHES’ under the Latin Bishop.

The formation of Kalyan Syro Malabar Diocese in Bombay in the ninetees had faced stiff resistance from local latin Arch diocese.

A Latin Diocese can be established at own will but Syrian Catholic dioceses have ‘stumbling blocks’.Fear of losing their laity is the reason for the defensive attitude of Latins.

Syro Malankara Catholic Church is badly affected as other churches with the same West Syrian liturgy (Jacobite and Orthodox) can start a parish at their free will and pull the Syro Malankara laity attending Latin Church.

Denying permission to evangelise or form dioceses in one’s own rite is not fair.Most of the priests and nuns in Latin Dioceses in North India are from Syrian Dioceses in Kerala.

The paradox is that St.Thomas Christians who are followers of St.Thomas the Apostle,have to take orders from the followers of St.Francis Xavier who came centuries later.

THIS IS A HEAVY PRICE THAT THE SYRIAN CATHOLICS HAVE TO PAY FOR BEING CATHOLIC.
 
The method currently used for that evangelilzing is through approval of the Patriarch of Rome (and Roman Curia which includes the CEC and CEP) representing the Universal Church not the Latin Church, and as can easily be seen,
Click to expand...
This is not actually true. First of all +Benedict relinquished the title of “Patriarch of the West”. Secondly none of our UGCC missionaries are working under any authority other than that of the Synod and their Eparchial bishop or Exarch. This is a misleading statement from what is actually happening within the UGCC. It may look good in theory on paper, but hasn’t been the case for several decades.
 
have noticed that on more than one Eastern forum that one time it’s “Rome has ordered us” “Rome has commanded”, the next time it’s “We’re not under Rome”.
Click to expand...
What in the world are you talking about specifically? Nowhere in the Union of Brest is “under Rome” mentioned. Your usual drive-by shooting, Seamus.
 
This reticence to intervene is much to the irritation of some Ruthenians, who wish Rome would interfere with the Synod’s implementation of the revised DL…
Click to expand...
It truly cuts both ways.
Click to expand...
There is no Synod of the “Byzantine Catholic Church of America”. There is a “Council of Hierarchs of the Pittsburgh Metropolia”. All criticisms of the RDL aside, the basic premise of particularity is that the “Council of Hierarchs” can promulgate anything that does not present a grave danger of faith or morals to their particular Church.

I greatly doubt with all of the very serious matters Rome is dealing with internally (a day hardly goes by that something new is not in the news) that the RDL issue will be seen as anything other than a very minor local affair to be handled by the “Council of Hierarchs”.
 
Diak said:
Vico said:
"The method currently used for that evangelilzing is through approval of the Patriarch of Rome (and Roman Curia which includes the CEC and CEP) representing the Universal Church not the Latin Church, and as can easily be seen,
Click to expand...
"This is not actually true. First of all +Benedict relinquished the title of “Patriarch of the West”. Secondly none of our UGCC missionaries are working under any authority other than that of the Synod and their Eparchial bishop or Exarch. This is a misleading statement from what is actually happening within the UGCC. It may look good in theory on paper, but hasn’t been the case for several decades.
Click to expand...

So those are very good comments.

I should have used the term “The bishop of the Church of Rome” as used in CCEO instead of Patriarch of Rome to avoid arguments (certainly not Patriarch of the West, obsoleted in 2006 because west now includes North America, Australia and New Zealand ). The pope is now described as:
bishop of Rome
vicar of Jesus Christ
successor of the prince of the apostles
supreme pontiff of the universal church,
primate of Italy,
archbishop and metropolitan of the province of Rome
sovereign of Vatican City State and
servant of the servants of God.

I will clarify what I mean about evangalization. Any evangelizing that is done in the eparchy or exarchy is through the approval of the Patriarch of Rome (and Roman Curia which includes the CEC and CEP), because
  1. for an existing territory of a Church sui iuris, the evangalization is already its right and obligation, and
  2. outside an established province, the approval is obtained to extablish a new eparchy or exarchy for any Church sui iuris from the Holy See. (This is significant even if this should appear to be only a formality.)
For example, an apostolic exarchate is under the direct authority of the Holy See, and there are many of these today for the various Churches sui iuris.

(Patriarchial) Examples for Melkite CC: 1) Argentine, 2) Venezuela.

(Major Archepiscopal) Examples for the UGCC: 1) Great Britain, 2) France, Benelux, and Switzerland, and 3) Germany and Scandanavia.

(Metropolitan) Example for Ruthenian CC: Apostolic Exarchate in the Czech Republic.
 
Vico said:
I should have used the term “The bishop of the Church of Rome” as used in CCEO instead of Patriarch of Rome to avoid arguments (certainly not Patriarch of the West, obsoleted in 2006 because west now includes North America, Australia and New Zealand ).
Click to expand...
The title “Patriarch of Rome” never existed. The only reference to “patriarch” was “Patriarch of the West” which is currently in abeyance. PP Benedict XVI did not assume it, but that does not mean it is “obsolete” or abrogated, as it could be assume by a successor or even by PP Benedict XVI if he changes his mind.

And BTW, the definition given of the “West” is nothing new. It’s been that way since at least the 15th century, and includes South America. By Rome’s reckoning, it also includes all of Asia (which is debatable, particularly the inclusion of India).
 
malphono said:
The title “Patriarch of Rome” never existed. The only reference to “patriarch” was “Patriarch of the West” which is currently in abeyance. PP Benedict XVI did not assume it, but that does not mean it is “obsolete” or abrogated, as it could be assume by a successor or even by PP Benedict XVI if he changes his mind.

And BTW, the definition given of the “West” is nothing new. It’s been that way since at least the 15th century, and includes South America. By Rome’s reckoning, it also includes all of Asia (which is debatable, particularly the inclusion of India).
Click to expand...
Well, obsolete is not my word, it is what was used by the Vatican. Also they explain that the concept favored by Rome historically is three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch.

PRESS ABOUT THE ABOLITION OF TITLE “PATRIARCA D’OCCIDENTE” “Patriarch of the West” NE L’ANNUARIO PONTIFICIO ON The YEARBOOK PONTIFICAL (2006)

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20060322_patriarca-occidente_it.html

“Consequently, the title “Patriarch of the West” from the outset is unclear, in the evolution of history has become obsolete and practically unusable.”

There is an article on it here:
catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=19144
 
There “is” something of a restriction (I actually don’t know if it is a restriction from any hierarch, as I can’t find any documentation on it, but it is a rule of thumb that is generally followed) on the expansion of the Eastern Churches in Eastern Europe. Generally, they are forbidden from erecting parishes in traditionally Orthodox areas that do not have an existing EC presence. This is to prevent prothelyzation (sp?) of the Orthodox.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top