Sui Juris Churches and Parallel Episcopal Jurisdictions

[Contarini]

So because I, an Eastern Catholic, regularly attend an Eastern Catholic Church, rather than the Latin parish in which I live, I’m making a mockery of St. Paul’s teaching? I think you’re being rather judgmental and presumptuous.

Isn’t is more important whether or not I am right?

Calling someone “judgmental” is a way of avoiding the question of whether or not that person is right.

You still haven’t explained where in Scripture or Tradition you get the idea that the job of the local Church is to be “conducive to your spirituality.”

Surely there would be ways to participate in the local parish without depriving yourself of the Byzantine liturgy. I’m really not as rigid as I’m sounding–I’m making the case strongly because no one here seems to acknowledge that there’s a genuine ecclesiological principle at stake. I don’t think I could survive on a steady diet of garden-variety Latin Catholicism either. In fact, I dropped out of RCIA in 1999 largely for that reason. But I genuinely thought it less schismatic to go back to my Episcopal parish than to spurn all the churches in Durham and drive 45 minutes to the Byzantine parish in Carey, where the priest and many of the people were actually refugees from the Latin Rite (one of the things that has perhaps overly influenced my view that the distinction of sui juris churches is quasi-schismatic).

Insofar as I’m presumptuous, it is in presuming that my affection for the Byzantine liturgical tradition (as a former low-church Protestant who first encountered sacramental Christianity in any serious way when I visited Romania) makes me able to understand how someone who has grown up in that tradition (or even a convert who has practiced it for years) feels about it. Insofar as I’ve been guilty of that, I apologize.

BTW, your suggestion that Eastern Catholics should attend the parish closest to them, regardless of rite, would have the effect of closing a number of Eastern Catholic churches outside of traditional Eastern territories. For example, at my own Eastern Catholic church, the overwhelming majority—perhaps even 100%–of the members live closer to a Latin church. Furthermore, we are scattered all around the Houston area. What you are suggesting would be the end of our church, and probably nearly all Eastern Catholic churches in the United States.

Well, not if the Latins who lived near the Eastern churches followed the same principle, though it would result in a lot of awkwardness I’d be happy if the whole American Catholic Church went Byzantine (or Maronite, or whatever), but I recognize that that happy event is unlikely

But yes, I get that there are huge practical difficulties with what I’m suggesting. If Eastern Catholics at least came to see the local Latin parish as having something to do with them, and perhaps participated in it to some extent without abandoning the Eastern parish, I’d be very happy. I stand by the “one bishop” rule, but obviously parishes are more complicated, since granting the one bishop rule all parishes are really just extensions of the diocese. (Another of my utopian ideas is that there really should be one bishop in every town, or at least every county seat, speaking in American terms, so that in my area there would be a bishop of Huntington, in which there are currently two Catholic churches.)

The problem I have with how Eastern Catholics talk is that they talk as if what “those Latins” do really has nothing to do with them. I’ve been hearing that talk for years on this forum. It’s one of the things that makes the claim of the Catholic Church seem really dubious–how is it genuinely universal if the Eastern churches have to be segregated like that in order to protect themselves from the Latins?

I know this comes across as me telling Eastern Christians what to do, and I admit that I think ethnic division is a serious problem in Eastern Christianity. But I’m approaching this from the perspective of my own ecclesiological journey and the convictions that have led me to the brink of becoming Catholic. I’m concerned with whether Catholicism is a genuine alternative to American denominationalism.

Edwin

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I’m concerned with whether Catholicism is a genuine alternative to American denominationalism.

Edwin

Edwin,

There is freedom within Catholicism. That’s something that is missed even by Catholics. We have boundaries and as long as we stay within those boundaries we are ok.

For example, why is the Sui Juris issue bigger than monasticism? In principle it would be the same issue you are bringing - it appears to segregate but, in fact, it is not.

I think the focus would be on the motive of a different rite. Can we not confess the same Faith under different methods of spiritual direction? After all, we come from different cultures. But, regardless, we confess the one faith, one church and one communion.

Do you perceive that this diversity and difference in rites really compares to Protestant denominationalism?

I don’t think so. We seek to express freedom to our spirituality within the Church, not outside of it.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
And yet, Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Anglicanism all disagree with you.

I guess I misunderstood you as well. Now that I see you were referring specifically to overlapping jurisdictions, I withdraw ^^ that comment.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m really not as rigid as I’m sounding-

I agree. I think there have been a lot of misunderstanding of what you’re saying, apparently though a combination of imperfect wording and imperfect readings. (Although that’s not to say that we would completely agree with you anyhow; I just don’t want to needlessly exaggerate the disagreement.)

-I’m making the case strongly because no one here seems to acknowledge that there’s a genuine ecclesiological principle at stake. I don’t think I could survive on a steady diet of garden-variety Latin Catholicism either. In fact, I dropped out of RCIA in 1999 largely for that reason. **But I genuinely thought it less schismatic to go back to my Episcopal parish **
…

I would take issue with the fact that you said “less schismatic” rather than “not schismatic”. This is in fact one of the primary problems that I run into (except in the different direction) when speaking with Eastern Orthodox. What I mean is, I recognize that in a certain sense it would make more sense for me to belong to the Antiochian Orthodox Church than the Melkite Catholic Church; but it isn’t as though I (or present-day Melkites in general) left Orthodoxy for Catholicism. That was almost 300 years ago, back in 1726. Deciding to stay Catholic rather than become Orthodox is not the same as leaving Orthodoxy for Catholicism.

Edit: Not that I’m trying to make this about me.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Contarini,

You still haven’t explained where in Scripture or Tradition you get the idea that the job of the local Church is to be “conducive to your spirituality.”

St. Paul stated that if something you do will cause scandal to one of weaker conscience, then you should not do it. There are Latin Catholics (way too many) scandalized by Oriental and Eastern Traditions. So it would imply that Oriental and Eastern Traditions should disappear in the Latin territories. That simply won’t work, so your position is not acceptable to us, and it is wrong from our perspective…

Surely there would be ways to participate in the local parish without depriving yourself of the Byzantine liturgy.

And what kind of resources do you propose will be able to accommodate that when a certain group with a unique patrimony that is different from the Latins will grow large enough in the area (moreso in a single parish) to compete with the Latins. What kind of jealousies and rivalries can result?

I’m really not as rigid as I’m sounding–I’m making the case strongly because no one here seems to acknowledge that there’s a genuine ecclesiological principle at stake.

The ecclesiological principle at stake is the rule of “one city-one bishop.” The original INTENT or SPIRIT of this rule is that a group of people should have only one bishop to in order to counteract the situation wherein heretical or schismatic groups were setting up different bishops in the same place. We should never lose sight of this primordial intent of that law. Unless you are accusing Oriental and Eastern Catholics of being heretical or schismatic, then I pray you recognize that the Catholic Church is fully adhering to and satisfying the SPIRIT of the law, though not necessarily the letter of the law. I find that highly worthy and commendable.

I don’t think I could survive on a steady diet of garden-variety Latin Catholicism either.

We are living by the spirit of the law. Oriental and Eastern Traditions are not “garden-variety.” If it was not my natural demeanor to give the benefit of the doubt, I would be highly insulted by that statement.

In fact, I dropped out of RCIA in 1999 largely for that reason. But I genuinely thought it less schismatic to go back to my Episcopal parish than to spurn all the churches in Durham and drive 45 minutes to the Byzantine parish in Carey, where the priest and many of the people were actually refugees from the Latin Rite (one of the things that has perhaps overly influenced my view that the distinction of sui juris churches is quasi-schismatic).

As suggested in a past post, feel free to contact the chancery of any local Latin bishop to see if Oriental and Eastern Catholics are being schismatic in ANY way by being under the omophor of a different bishop (even one who does not live in the local area).

Well, not if the Latins who lived near the Eastern churches followed the same principle, though it would result in a lot of awkwardness I’d be happy if the whole American Catholic Church went Byzantine (or Maronite, or whatever), but I recognize that that happy event is unlikely

Not only unlikely, but I would say wrong. Latins were in certain areas first. If the notion of territorial jurisdiction means anything, then the Latins have a right to preserve their valued Traditions in their territory. But we also have a right to preserve ours. That we have our own bishops in Latin territories gives us an ecclesiastical RIGHT to our Traditions that we would NOT have if we were under the omophor of Latin bishops. Please understand that.

]I stand by the “one bishop” rule, but obviously parishes are more complicated, since granting the one bishop rule all parishes are really just extensions of the diocese.
***And that’s part of the problem and the whole point. If we were just “extensions” of the Latin bishop’s jurisdiction, then Oriental and Eastern Catholics do not have ANY ecclesiastical rights to maintain our Traditions. ***

The problem I have with how Eastern Catholics talk is that they talk as if what “those Latins” do really has nothing to do with them.

I agree with you here. However, the issue is not subjective perception, but the juridical RIGHT to exist as Oriental and Eastern Catholics, not simply due to the largesse of a local Latin bishop.

I know this comes across as me telling Eastern Christians what to do, and I admit that I think ethnic division is a serious problem in Eastern Christianity.

It is possible for you to hold that opinion with respect to the EOC, but not the CC (or the OOC). The rationale behind sui juris Churches is the preservation of distinct Traditions, not distinct ethnicities. It might take a while for that to sink in, though.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Brendan]

I think you have made my point for me quite nicely. This is exactly why most Protestants choose one denomination over another. It isn’t because they think the other denomination is teaching false doctrine (most of the time). It’s because they want to go to a church that is “conducive to their own spirituality.”

But what on earth makes you think that the Church, universal or local, is there in order to accommodate “your spirituality”?

We think that because that is what God has called the Church to. Even within my own Sui Juris Church ( the Roman), God has sent forth Saints to cultivate unique spiritualities within the Church.

The Spirituality of the Dominicans differs from the Francisicans, who differ from the Jesuits, who differ from the Benedictines who differ from the Augustinians.

Each has their different charisams, the spiritualties that are unique to them, yet together they enrich the Church.

A man who is called to be a Dominican is, by definition, not being called to share in a Jesuit spirituality. But it remains a call from God. Likewise, a man who is called to Holy Orders in the Roman Church will be called to a different spirituality than one who is called to Ordination in the Chaldean Church. Yet, by definition, it is a call from the All Knowing God. If it were not the case, there would only be callings given to one Sui Juris Church, and not all of them.

And so that continues to this day, distinct Churches, distinct Orders, distinct theologies, distinct spiritualties. Yet one Holy Table shared by all.

 

[RyanBlack]

Isn’t is more important whether or not I am right?

Calling someone “judgmental” is a way of avoiding the question of whether or not that person is right.

Yes, it is more important whether you are right, and I don’t think you are.

I think it is both judgmental and presumptuous on your part to accuse Eastern Catholic Christians who don’t worship in a neighborhood Latin church as dividing the body of Christ, when you can’t possibly know each of our motivations for doing so. It’s not as if we (at least most of use) would refuse ever to worship in a Latin parish, receive communion there, or welcome Latin Catholics to worship with us and commune with us. At our Byzantine Catholic parish, we regularly have Latin Catholics and Chaldean Catholics worship with us.

You still haven’t explained where in Scripture or Tradition you get the idea that the job of the local Church is to be “conducive to your spirituality.”

My spirituality has been formed by participation in the Church. It is not some personal spirituality I have sought to impose upon the Church.

Surely there would be ways to participate in the local parish without depriving yourself of the Byzantine liturgy. I’m really not as rigid as I’m sounding–I’m making the case strongly because no one here seems to acknowledge that there’s a genuine ecclesiological principle at stake.

Yes, I could participate in the local parish, but realistically, with the demands that are already placed on my time, it would most likely be at the expense of either what is already too little time spent with my family, or with my participation at the Ruthenian parish.

Insofar as I’m presumptuous, it is in presuming that my affection for the Byzantine liturgical tradition (as a former low-church Protestant who first encountered sacramental Christianity in any serious way when I visited Romania) makes me able to understand how someone who has grown up in that tradition (or even a convert who has practiced it for years) feels about it. Insofar as I’ve been guilty of that, I apologize.

In all charity, Edwin, I’m extremely doubtful about how well you understand how we Eastern Catholics feel about preserving our traditions, otherwise you wouldn’t be asking us to do something that would effectively bring about the end of that tradition outside of its traditional territories.

Well, not if the Latins who lived near the Eastern churches followed the same principle, though it would result in a lot of awkwardness I’d be happy if the whole American Catholic Church went Byzantine (or Maronite, or whatever), but I recognize that that happy event is unlikely

The Latins who live near the Eastern churches won’t follow the same principle. They would continue going to the Latin parishes they already attend–the parishes that are often just down the road from our churches. Furthermore, even if the Latins were to follow the same principle, it would likely still bring about the end of our traditions. For example, at my own Ruthenian parish, there would be know Eastern Catholics left, as we are not a neighborhood parish. Why would all the Latins who do live in close by maintain a liturgical tradition that is foreign to them, when there would be no Eastern Catholics left?

But yes, I get that there are huge practical difficulties with what I’m suggesting. If Eastern Catholics at least came to see the local Latin parish as having something to do with them, and perhaps participated in it to some extent without abandoning the Eastern parish, I’d be very happy. I stand by the “one bishop” rule, but obviously parishes are more complicated, since granting the one bishop rule all parishes are really just extensions of the diocese.

I could accept the “one bishop” principle, if it weren’t for the lessons of history.

The problem I have with how Eastern Catholics talk is that they talk as if what “those Latins” do really has nothing to do with them. I’ve been hearing that talk for years on this forum.

Latins are just as guilty, if not more so, of having the attitude that we Eastern Catholics have nothing to do with them, that is, if they even know we exist.

I know this comes across as me telling Eastern Christians what to do, and I admit that I think ethnic division is a serious problem in Eastern Christianity. But I’m approaching this from the perspective of my own ecclesiological journey and the convictions that have led me to the brink of becoming Catholic. I’m concerned with whether Catholicism is a genuine alternative to American denominationalism.

Edwin

Of course Catholicism–even with its 23 separate sui iuris churches–is a genuine alternative to American denominationalism. We are united doctrinally, and we share the same Eucharist.

 

[RyanBlack]

It is possible for you to hold that opinion with respect to the EOC, but not the CC (or the OOC). The rationale behind sui juris Churches is the preservation of distinct Traditions, not distinct ethnicities. It might take a while for that to sink in, though.

Blessings,
Marduk

Since the various sui iuris churches are in fact organized along distinct ethnicities, and not just distinct traditions, this statement is entirely unconvincing. Furthermore, the Oriental Orthodox are divided along ethnicities as well.

 

[Peter_J]

It is possible for you to hold that opinion with respect to the EOC, but not the CC (or the OOC). The rationale behind sui juris Churches is the preservation of distinct Traditions, not distinct ethnicities. It might take a while for that to sink in, though.

Blessings,
Marduk

Like Ryan said, I can’t tell if this is anti-Orthodox or what, but I certainly find it very contrived.

 

[dzheremi]

RyanBlack: While I do not intend to speak for Mardukm, it should be noted that what you have written about the Oriental Orthodox is not true. While nobody would deny that Coptic, Armenian, and Syriac are distinct ethnicities, it would be wrong say therefore that they are ‘divided’ along these ethnic lines, since (for instance) large numbers of Syriac people in India were never ethnically anything other than Indians, so it really does have to do more with their liturgy and spiritual tradition than with ethnicity. Also, as neither ‘Tewahedo’ nor ‘Ethiopian’ or ‘Eritrean’ are ethnic groups, you certainly couldn’t say that about the East African churches that were long administered by the Copts, despite never being ethnically Coptic themselves (and containing believers from all major ethnolinguistic groups in the country – the politically dominant Habeshi/highland Semitic groups, but also various Cushites and Omotic peoples). Again, not to put too fine a point on it, but the liturgy is just as “Coptic” by virtue of its spirituality and form when prayed in the Coptic Orthodox Church in Bolivia. Fiji. or South Africa where basically nobody’s Coptic except for maybe the priest. Ethnicity doesn’t really mean anything but that some people seem to connect it to their faith, often due to historical events beyond their control (e.g., the Arab Muslim invasion of Egypt, which eventually led to “Copt” being narrowed to mean “Egyptian Christian” rather than just “Egyptian” as it had meant before, and continues to mean for many; I have even met Muslim Egyptians who say they are Copts, because they’ve studied their history and prefer their own Egyptian identity to the Arab).

EDIT (afterthought): What we are really talking about, whether we are Orthodox or Catholic of any particular church, is the history behind these terms, and looking at that it is easy to see that there are just some ethnicities that never developed their own distinct form of liturgy for whatever reason, or at best developed some variation on a preexisting form of liturgy (think of the Indian Syriac example, above). In fact, if I remember correctly, Trimingham cites this as one reason for success of Islam among previously Christian Arabs in Arabia, as they likely hadn’t developed their own indigenous mode of worship, and instead were heavily indebted to preexisting Syriac and (to a lesser extent) Ethiopian Christianity. Anyway, so on that count it is also wrong to say that we are ethnically divided. Is it fair to say that because there are only so many established traditions (and even then, they were not always there; the Armenians originally worshiped in Syriac), therefore these particular churches or this communion is “divided along ethnic lines”, or is it just the case that, once again, largely Copts and Syriacs are the ones doing the legwork in bringing Christianity to the world, and they do not start from scratch every time they meet a new people, but bring their way of worship with them since it’s what they know? The Christians of the imperial church did nothing else, for whatever it’s worth. No church is “divided according to ethnicity”, from this perspective. There is only so much that can be done in our time. Probably in the future, we will see things like the British and French Orthodox churches grow and maybe even attain autocephaly. The BOC is an interesting case, by the way – they are within the Coptic Orthodox patriarchate, but use a version of the liturgy of St. James as the Syriacs do. So we’ve got a church established by and for native Britons that worships in English, using a form of liturgy in common with the Syriacs, practicing according to Coptic norms (in terms of their iconography, calendar, etc). That’s so ethnic! That’s like three ethnicities right there!

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ryan,

Since the various sui iuris churches are in fact organized along distinct ethnicities, and not just distinct traditions, this statement is entirely unconvincing. Furthermore, the Oriental Orthodox are divided along ethnicities as well.

I am not sure about how distinct the Traditions of the various Eastern (Byzantine) Churches are. But I know the Traditions within the Oriental Tradition are distinct enough compared with each other, as well as compared with the Easterns and Latins, that they merit preservation according to that Tradition. As brother Dzheremi has pointed out, in the beginning, it was more uniform (not completely - for example, from the earliest days, the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch had distinct theological perspectives on certain matters), but distinct Traditions developed. That these developed Traditions originally coincided with basically ethnic distinctions should not cause one to lose sight of the fact that it is the preservation of the Tradition that is paramount, not ethnicity (in both the CC and OOC).

On the other hand, the EO have created patriarchates along national-ethnic lines, even while those jurisdictions share a common Tradition. So it is more difficult for them to justify continued jurisdictional distinctions in the diaspora. The heresy of ethnophyletism is a more relevant issue in that communion of Churches than in the CC or OOC.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

On the other hand, the EO have created patriarchates along national-ethnic lines, even while those jurisdictions share a common Tradition. So it is more difficult for them to justify continued jurisdictional distinctions in the diaspora. The heresy of ethnophyletism is a more relevant issue in that communion of Churches than in the CC or OOC.

I do not think this is fair, Mardukm. Among the OO, as you should well know, distinct patriarchates exist for the Eritreans and the Ethiopians, despite the fact that the two are closer in everything (you could say especially in liturgy, since there they both use Ge’ez and the hymns of St. Yared, and worship according to the same calendar and have the same saints, etc.) than are, say, a Romanian and a Georgian. The relatively high degree of liturgical uniformity among EO (which was not always as it is today, either) somewhat masks the diversity that is there, which may account for the fact that they have developed their own Patriarchates largely for cultural (ethnolinguistic, etc.) and political reasons – in other words, for exactly the same reasons as some OO.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

The matter has several particular related points to consider:

(1) I believe there are levels of autocephaly. The only true autocephalous Church is the Church universal. Patriarchates are not strictly autocephalous, but are subject to the decisions of an Ecum Council. Patriarchates created by existing Patriarchs are on a level below the Traditional Patriarchates in terms of autocephaly. This is evident, for example, by the fact that appeals are sometimes made to the Coptic Patriarch by the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox. I believe that as long as there is a common recognition that newly created Patriarchates do not have the exact same Patriarchal status as the primordial and Traditional Pentarchy established by the Ecum Councils, then the matter should not be a divisive issue (the matter is rather sensitive as far as the ROC is concerned, since there seems to be a long-standing competition between the MP and the EP for primacy in the EOC - for what its worth, I side with the EP )…

(2) In past posts, I have stated that I do not believe ethnophyletism can be applied to ALL EO Churches. So I don’t want to be misunderstood as making a generalization. Though I do not know much about the Eastern Traditions, I do understand that Slavic EO’xy is rather distinct from Greek EO’xy. It is in the realm of Slavic EO’xy that the issue of ethnophyletism seems to have the most relevance.

(3) The real problem is not in the Traditional territories, but in the diaspora. Is there a justification for different bishops in the same locale simply because of nationality? I believe there is a justification for the sake of preserving Tradition, but is there a like justification simply on the basis of nationality, especially when those nationalities have the same Tradition (that’s the issue with ethnophyletism)?

Blessings,
Marduk

I do not think this is fair, Mardukm. Among the OO, as you should well know, distinct patriarchates exist for the Eritreans and the Ethiopians, despite the fact that the two are closer in everything (you could say especially in liturgy, since there they both use Ge’ez and the hymns of St. Yared, and worship according to the same calendar and have the same saints, etc.) than are, say, a Romanian and a Georgian. The relatively high degree of liturgical uniformity among EO (which was not always as it is today, either) somewhat masks the diversity that is there, which may account for the fact that they have developed their own Patriarchates largely for cultural (ethnolinguistic, etc.) and political reasons – in other words, for exactly the same reasons as some OO.

 

[RyanBlack]

(3) The real problem is not in the Traditional territories, but in the diaspora. Is there a justification for different bishops in the same locale simply because of nationality? I believe there is a justification for the sake of preserving Tradition, but is there a like justification simply on the basis of nationality, especially when those nationalities have the same Tradition (that’s the issue with ethnophyletism)?

Blessings,
Marduk

And the very same question can be asked with respect to some of the Eastern Catholic Churches in the diaspora. If there’s a justification for having both a Ruthenian Catholic Church and a Ukrainian Catholic Church, then there’s justification for the different national churches among the Eastern Orthodox.

 

[RyanBlack]

Dear brother Ryan,

I am not sure about how distinct the Traditions of the various Eastern (Byzantine) Churches are. But I know the Traditions within the Oriental Tradition are distinct enough compared with each other, as well as compared with the Easterns and Latins, that they merit preservation according to that Tradition. As brother Dzheremi has pointed out, in the beginning, it was more uniform (not completely - for example, from the earliest days, the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch had distinct theological perspectives on certain matters), but distinct Traditions developed. That these developed Traditions originally coincided with basically ethnic distinctions should not cause one to lose sight of the fact that it is the preservation of the Tradition that is paramount, not ethnicity (in both the CC and OOC).

On the other hand, the EO have created patriarchates along national-ethnic lines, even while those jurisdictions share a common Tradition. So it is more difficult for them to justify continued jurisdictional distinctions in the diaspora. The heresy of ethnophyletism is a more relevant issue in that communion of Churches than in the CC or OOC.

Blessings,
Marduk

The Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine tradition have the same sort of ethnic divisions outside of the traditional territories that the Eastern Orthodox have. I suggest you re-think this one.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ryan,

The Eastern Catholic Churches of the Byzantine tradition have the same sort of ethnic divisions outside of the traditional territories that the Eastern Orthodox have. I suggest you re-think this one.

The issue is not different Eastern (Byzantine) bishops in a city or area in an Eastern territorial jurisdiction, but of Eastern or Oriental bishops in a city or area in the Latin territorial jurisdiction (i.e., the diaspora).

In other words, the issue is not that there are people of an Eastern or Oriental Tradition under the omophor of a bishop in the territorial jurisdiction of the SAME Tradition that already has a territorial bishop.

Rather the issue is that there are people of an Eastern or Oriental Tradition under the omophor of a bishop in the territorial jurisdiction of ANOTHER Tradition that already has a territorial bishop.

For example, the Ruthenian jurisdiction (with its own bishop) was created within the territorial jurisdiction of the Latins where a Latin bishop already existed. It was done so they could preserve their Traditions (not because of their nationality or ethnicity).

I think we are looking at this from two completely different angles. I’m not sure your approach is actually applicable to the issue at hand.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[RyanBlack]

Dear brother Ryan,

The issue is not different Eastern (Byzantine) bishops in a city or area in an Eastern territorial jurisdiction, but of Eastern or Oriental bishops in a city or area in the Latin territorial jurisdiction (i.e., the diaspora).

In other words, the issue is not that there are people of an Eastern or Oriental Tradition under the omophor of a bishop in the territorial jurisdiction of the SAME Tradition that already has a territorial bishop.

Rather the issue is that there are people of an Eastern or Oriental Tradition under the omophor of a bishop in the territorial jurisdiction of ANOTHER Tradition that already has a territorial bishop.

For example, the Ruthenian jurisdiction (with its own bishop) was created within the territorial jurisdiction of the Latins where a Latin bishop already existed. It was done so they could preserve their Traditions (not because of their nationality or ethnicity).

I think we are looking at this from two completely different angles. I’m not sure your approach is actually applicable to the issue at hand.

Blessings,
Marduk

How is the Ruthenian Catholics and the Ukrainian Catholics each having a bishop in Parma any different from two Eastern Orthodox Churches each having a bishop in the same city? How are separate Ruthenian and Ukrainian Churches any different from, say, different Russian Orthodox and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches?

 

[mardukm]

How is the Ruthenian Catholics and the Ukrainian Catholics each having a bishop in Parma any different from two Eastern Orthodox Churches each having a bishop in the same city? How are separate Ruthenian and Ukrainian Churches any different from, say, different Russian Orthodox and Ukrainian Orthodox Churches?

We probably agree on the point that two local bishops cannot have coinciding TERRITORIAL jurisdictions, even if they are of different Traditions.

But Eastern Catholic bishops only have personal jurisdictions in the U.S. Their jurisdiction is over their own people, not the land. The only ones who have territorial jurisdiction in the U.S. are the Latins (I think, though, that the Byzantine Metropolia might have some territorial jurisdiction - not at all sure).

However, since EO do not have the concept of (merely) personal jurisdictions, and only go by the concept of territorial jurisdiction, then it would be problematic of them to have two bishops in the same city - hence the jurisdictional disputes.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

(1) I believe there are levels of autocephaly. The only true autocephalous Church is the Church universal. Patriarchates are not strictly autocephalous, but are subject to the decisions of an Ecum Council.

That is rather absurd. The very definition of autocephaly is that a synod does not require any outside approval when electing its own primate, and by virtue of this, self-governing (this is in contrast to a merely autonomous church which is able to conduct most of its affairs without external approval, but which cannot elect its own primate without the approval of some other ecclesiastical body).

Patriarchates created by existing Patriarchs are on a level below the Traditional Patriarchates in terms of autocephaly.

See above. The very definition of autocephaly makes this proposition absurd. Either a synod is able freely to elect its own primate or it is not.

This is evident, for example, by the fact that appeals are sometimes made to the Coptic Patriarch by the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox.

But are these two bodies capable of electing their own primate? If so, then they are autocephalous, and if not, then they are autonomous. That a higher ranking bishop in the diptychs might be allowed to mediate internal disputes or disputes between different autocephalous churches is irrelevant, for this is one of the prerogatives which comes with a primacy of honor.

I believe that as long as there is a common recognition that newly created Patriarchates do not have the exact same Patriarchal status as the primordial and Traditional Pentarchy established by the Ecum Councils, then the matter should not be a divisive issue (the matter is rather sensitive as far as the ROC is concerned, since there seems to be a long-standing competition between the MP and the EP for primacy in the EOC - for what its worth, I side with the EP )…

The Russian Orthodox Church clearly recognizes the Ecumenical Patriarch as being the highest ranking see and the holder of the primacy of honor in its recent response to the Ravenna statement. The position of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the canonical taxis of sees and its resultant presidency in love has never been in question.

(2) In past posts, I have stated that I do not believe ethnophyletism can be applied to ALL EO Churches. So I don’t want to be misunderstood as making a generalization. Though I do not know much about the Eastern Traditions, I do understand that Slavic EO’xy is rather distinct from Greek EO’xy. It is in the realm of Slavic EO’xy that the issue of ethnophyletism seems to have the most relevance.

On the other hand, the EO have created patriarchates along national-ethnic lines, even while those jurisdictions share a common Tradition. So it is more difficult for them to justify continued jurisdictional distinctions in the diaspora. The heresy of ethnophyletism is a more relevant issue in that communion of Churches than in the CC or OOC.

This is a misunderstanding of what ethnophyletism is. Ethnophyletism was condemned in response to the attempt of the Bulgarians to create a separate Bulgarian jurisdiction within the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in order to minister specifically to Bulgarians within the Ecumenical Patriarchate’s jurisdiction.

On the other hand, the creation of autocephalous synods along the lines of civil divisions (provinces and nations) cannot be regarded as ethnophyletism, for as Theodore Balsamon remarks in his commentary on canon 2 of First Constantinople, all provinces in the Roman Empire were in fact at one point autocephalous, and outside of the Roman Empire ancient customs were followed (which usually involved a functional sort of autocephaly in “barbarian” nations, like Armenia). This system was only abrogated within the empire by canon 28 of Chalcedon, which gave the patriarch of Constantinople (formerly a see under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Herakleia) the right to confirm the elections of the metropolitans of several provinces (essentially removing the autocephaly of these provinces). The creation of several different churches along national lines is simply a canonically valid change to the organization of the Church (just as the removal of autocephaly from many provinces was eventually regarded as a legal change to the organization of the Church) effected by dividing formerly consolidated jurisdictions up along new civil divisions (in this case, along national lines instead of the ancient organizational principle which ran along provincial lines).

(3) The real problem is not in the Traditional territories, but in the diaspora. Is there a justification for different bishops in the same locale simply because of nationality? I believe there is a justification for the sake of preserving Tradition, but is there a like justification simply on the basis of nationality, especially when those nationalities have the same Tradition (that’s the issue with ethnophyletism)?

The problem with this way of thinking is that one would be hard pressed to define just how divergent practices should have to be in order to justify the creation of parallel jurisdictions. Does the fact that the Russians follow the St. Sabbas typikon and that the Greeks follow the Violakis typikon constitute, for example, a great enough difference that parallel jurisdictions should be allowed? (After all, the Violakis typikon differs from St. Sabbas quite noticeably in how Sunday Orthros and Liturgy are composed.) I think we are simply better off admitting that parallel hierarchies fall short of the Christian ideal.

 

[Peter_J]

Contarini, I apologize in advance if I’m just repeating what I and/or others have already said, but at the moment it seems like the most important thing for this thread is to stress that some – indeed many, I would say – of us Eastern Catholics are keenly aware of the dangers of conflating “churches” with “rites” (or traditions for that matter, or practices … ).