I assume where the current metropolitan cathedral is - in Pittsburg? Though I suppose the question of the Eparchy in the Ukraine and the Exarchate in Czech would have to be resolved - since they are currently immediately under Rome rather than under the Metropolitan in the States.
There is no way the American RC Bishops will ever allow an Eastern Catholic archepiscopate cathedral exist in America. I don’t know if they can even exist in Ukraine. The tension between the 3 Ukrainian Orthodox Churches and the UGCC is high enough.
The Catholic Church, like all other apostolic Churches, still works on the principle of territorial jurisdiction. North America is traditionally regarded as the territorial jurisdiction of the Latin Catholic Church (the first bishops on the soil were Latins, and the first synodal presence was Latin). Correct me if I’m wrong, but:
Are they willing to hand over Alaska and the Pacific Coast to the Russian Church as their traditional territory? Remember that when the Roman Catholics came to the US and established in the US, the US back then isn’t the US today. They can’t just claim territory by political extension. The Russians were in Alaska and California before they were part of America, And they have established Russian Churches there.
I think the example of the Malankara Church would be a great counter-example. They are following a rite that never existed in India until the 16th century, but it didn’t prevent them from being raised to the level of a Major-Archiepiscopal Church. I am glad they exist, but is this not infringing upon the territory of the Malabar Church? I think it is, since the Antiochian Rite is absolutely foreign to India prior to the 16th century. In that case, the only principle is that the original territory of the Latins can never be infringed upon. So much for equality
And yet the Latins claimed India as their territory via Portugal’s conquest of GoaI think the example of the Malankara Church would be a great counter-example. They are following a rite that never existed in India until the 16th century, but it didn’t prevent them from being raised to the level of a Major-Archiepiscopal Church. I am glad they exist, but is this not infringing upon the territory of the Malabar Church? I think it is, since the Antiochian Rite is absolutely foreign to India prior to the 16th century. In that case, the only principle is that the original territory of the Latins can never be infringed upon. So much for equality
I am particularly fond of this, we should give North America to the Russians, Africa to the Copts and Ge’ez, India to the St Thomas Christians, and everything from Iraq to Hong Kong to the Chaldeans. I think it is only fair if Rome wants to get all huffy about Territory.
Good point, but let’s assume that there were never Christians in Goa prior to the Portuguese. So it’s fine to let the Latins have Goa. But the Malankara and Malabar Church co-exist in the exact same territory. So, I think the example still holds.And yet the Latins claimed India as their territory via Portugal’s conquest of Goa
If this is the case, perhaps the canons could be modified to allow Metropolia sui iuris a degree of autonomy similar to that of a Major Archepiscopal Church. (For example, form a proper synod, as opposed to a council of hierarchs, and elect their own metropolitan).
The Russians didn’t hit the continent until AFTER the Romans did.
When was the first Russian bishop appointed in North America? The Latin Church sent Blessed Francois de Laval in the mid-17th century as the first bishop of Quebec. He had jurisdiction all the way down to New Orleans (and was at that point the only Catholic bishop north of Mexico).
Actually the Portuguese were surprised to find Christians in India when they got there. Though their ways were different, thus they needed to be “corrected” by becoming Roman Catholics.
3 Ukrainian Orthodox Churches? I thought there was 2. o:
Are we just talking about the continent as an entirety? Because certain parts of the continent didn’t belong to the United States, therefore the US bishops cannot claim it as their traditional land.
Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Moscow Patriarchate
Which of these is headed by Patriarch Filaret?
Not enough (own) bishops I think (especially in the traditional territory).