Sui Juris Churches and Parallel Episcopal Jurisdictions

[malphono]

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.

Another of my worthless :twocents: posts but if I may …

Whereas it’s true the jurisdiction in question is of a “personal” nature, it’s also true that it encompasses a defined territory. (This is pretty much the same as the OO example cited earlier about the SOC in Egypt). IOW, such a “personal” jurisdiction, the USA, e.g, has no effect on Canada unless it has been defined as such. So one can say that the concept is dual insofar as it is “personal” within a defined territory, as opposed to something of a truly “personal” nature.

 

[mardukm]

Another of my worthless :twocents: posts but if I may …

Whereas it’s true the jurisdiction in question is of a “personal” nature, it’s also true that it encompasses a defined territory. (This is pretty much the same as the OO example cited earlier about the SOC in Egypt). IOW, such a “personal” jurisdiction, the USA, e.g, has no effect on Canada unless it has been defined as such. So one can say that the concept is dual insofar as it is “personal” within a defined territory, as opposed to something of a truly “personal” nature.

That’s a worthy observation, brother. There’s also another case with Churches with parishes in Latin jurisdictions, who don’t have a resident bishop in the territory, like the Coptic Catholics in the U.S. We are under the omophor of our Pope, not the local Latin ordinary (though we are, naturally, listed among the parishes in the Archdiocese, just like the other Oriental and Eastern Catholic Churches in the Archdiocese).

Can someone please remind me the status of Russian Catholic parishes? Do they have a hierarchy? If not, are they under the omophor of the local Latin bishop, or the closest EC bishop?

Blessings

 

[malphono]

That’s a worthy observation, brother. There’s also another case with Churches with parishes in Latin jurisdictions, who don’t have a resident bishop in the territory, like the Coptic Catholics in the U.S. We are under the omophor of our Pope, not the local Latin ordinary (though we are, naturally, listed among the parishes in the Archdiocese, just like the other Oriental and Eastern Catholic Churches in the Archdiocese).

Can someone please remind me the status of Russian Catholic parishes? Do they have a hierarchy? If not, are they under the omophor of the local Latin bishop, or the closest EC bishop?

Blessings

From this, it seems they’re under the Melkites in one way or another. The same seems to be true of the Italo-Greeks in Las Vegas. For the Russians, IIRC, they opted to be under the Melkites rather than the territorial Latin Ordinary. I’m sure 5Loaves will correct me if I’m mistaken in that.

In re the two Coptic CC parishes in the US, I believe they are indeed under the local Latin Ordinary, which essentially means that they’re not.

 

[mardukm]

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).

Either a synod is able freely to elect its own primate or it is not.

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.

It’s not absurd at all. The fact is that “autocephaly” is not restricted to the definition you propose. It also denotes the concept of not being subject in any way to the jurisdiction of another authority. It is more absurd to suggest that the only difference between an autocephalous Church and an autonomous Church is that the former gets to choose its own bishop without (name removed by moderator)ut from an outside agency, whereas the latter does so. There is more to it than that. It’s a fact that Metropolitan Churches are subject to the canon law of the Patriarchate to which they belong. That is a big part of the reason for the difference between autocephaly and autonomy (it’s not just a matter of choosing head bishops).

We know that even Patriarchates are subject to the laws of an Ecum Council, so Patriarchates are not strictly autocephalous in the full sense of the word. In that same full sense, only the Church universal is a truly autocephalous entity, for there really is no other canonical authority above it on earth.

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.

That’s all good on paper, but the MP often tries to challenge the EP in its jurisdictional claims. I believe the MP is in the wrong in such instances. It should never forget that unlike the EP, the Moscow Patriarchate got its status from the EP, not an Ecum Council.

This is a misunderstanding of what ethnophyletism is…

Two points:
(1) I know what ethnophyletism is. I said the problem was in the diaspora, not the Traditional territories. I do believe the initial creation of Patriarchates in the Slavic EOC were acts of ethnophyletism, but mostly depending on whether the act ever caused schism. If it did not, I am not inclined to call it such. If it initially did, the matter was obviously resolved, and the status quo in the Traditional territories does not cause schism. Hence, as stated, ethnophyletism is not an issue in the Traditional territories, but it is a relevant issue in the diaspora.
(2) The tradition of creating ecclesiastical jurisdictions along the lines of civil jurisdictions may justify the creation of eparchies/episcopal sees, and even metropolitan sees, but not patriarchates. I believe it is the excessive creation of patriarchates in the first place that has resulted in the jurisdictional disputes in the diaspora. Would we have these jurisdictional disputes if the ROC was not a Patriarchate, but simply Constantinople? As suggested earlier, perhaps if patriarchates created not by an Ecum Council, but by a Patriarch, recognized that they do not exactly have the same ecclesiastical status as their mother Church (which was established by Ecumenical authority), and simply submitted to the ruling of the mother Church, I think these ecclesiastical disputes would not occur. What do you think?

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.

According to your paradigm, it would not seem to justify it because the parallel jurisdiction would result in two bishops for the same territory (or people within a territory). But the paradigm of personal jurisdiction focuses on the people, not the territory, so there is no parallel jurisdiction to speak of since the same people won’t have two bishops over them.

Blessings

 

[mardukm]

From this, it seems they’re under the Melkites in one way or another. The same seems to be true of the Italo-Greeks in Las Vegas. For the Russians, IIRC, they opted to be under the Melkites rather than the territorial Latin Ordinary. I’m sure 5Loaves will correct me if I’m mistaken in that.

In re the two Coptic CC parishes in the US, I believe they are indeed under the local Latin Ordinary, which essentially means that they’re not.

Thanks for the info. What you say about the Coptic parishes is – interesting. In the short time I spent in the L.A. parish, the many parishioners I asked were of the opinion that their bishop was (then-) Pope Antionios, and that they were answerable to him, not the local Latin bishop. Maybe it would be different from the perspective of a Latin? When I first read your post, I was inclined to think “I’m going to have to verify this at St. Mary’s when I visit the U.S. this April.” But then, I realized, I really don’t think I’m going to get a different answer from the parishioners at St. Mary’s than what I got before.

Who do you think I can contact to verify the matter?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Thanks for the info. What you say about the Coptic parishes is – interesting. In the short time I spent in the L.A. parish, the many parishioners I asked were of the opinion that their bishop was (then-) Pope Antionios, and that they were answerable to him, not the local Latin bishop. Maybe it would be different from the perspective of a Latin? When I first read your post, I was inclined to think “I’m going to have to verify this at St. Mary’s when I visit the U.S. this April.” But then, I realized, I really don’t think I’m going to get a different answer from the parishioners at St. Mary’s than what I got before.

Who do you think I can contact to verify the matter?

It would have to be the local latin chancery (I guess that’s Los Angeles).

Trust me, though, the parish is technically under the latin diocese, but in matter of fact, the latins could care less. The only time they get involved is in the case of a vacancy (i.e, the priest retires or expires or another priest is needed, or there’s a matter for the tribunal, or there need for finanacial help/oversight, etc). Beyond that, the latin Ordinary could care less what they do. This was the reality in the diaspora after the infamous bishop Ireland affair. I’m old enough and well remember how it was for the Maronites (and Melkites too) before their jurisdictions were established (and remember, those jurisdictions are Papal rather than synodal even to this day.)

 

[Vico]

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

Interjecting canon law CCEO:Patriarchial Churches

Canon 78

1. The power which, according to the norm of the canons and legitimate customs, the patriarch has over bishops and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides is ordinary and proper, but personal. Thus, the patriarch cannot constitute a vicar for the entire patriarchal Church nor can he delegate his power to someone for all cases.
2. The power of the patriarch is exercised validly only inside the territorial boundaries of the patriarchal Church unless the nature of the matter or the common or particular law approved by the Roman Pontiff establishes otherwise.

Major Archiepiscopal Churches

Canon 152
What is stated in common law concerning patriarchal Churches or patriarchs is understood to be applicable to major archiepiscopal Churches or major archbishops, unless the common law expressly provides otherwise or it is evident from the nature of the matter.

Metropolitan Churches

Canon 157

1. The power which a metropolitan possesses according to the norm of law over the bishops and other Christian faithful of the metropolitan Church over which he presides, is ordinary and proper, but personal; thus, he cannot constitute a vicar for the entire metropolitan Church sui iuris nor delegate his power to a certain person for all cases.
2. The power of the metropolitan and the council of hierarchs is validly exercised only within the territorial boundaries of the metropolitan Church sui iuris.
3. The metropolitan represents the metropolitan Church sui iuris in all its juridic affairs.

Other Churches

Canon 174
A Church sui iuris, which is neither patriarchal, major archiepiscopal nor metropolitan is entrusted to a hierarch who presides over it according to the norm of common law and particular law established by the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 175
These Churches immediately depend on the Apostolic See; however, the hierarch exercises the rights and obligations mentioned in can. 159, nn. 3-8, as a delegate of the Apostolic See.

Eparchies and Bishops

Canon 178
The eparchial bishop, as a vicar and legate of Christ, governs in his own name the eparchy entrusted to him for shepherding. This power, which he exercises personally in the name of Christ, is proper, ordinary, and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the Supreme Authority of the Church and can be defined with certain limits should the usefulness of the Church or the Christian faithful require it.

 

[Contarini]

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.

Actually monasticism has been criticized plenty for just this, with some reason. I don’t think the answer is to abolish monasticism, and in practice most monastic communities and houses of religious orders today have laypeople who attend their services and function more or less as parishes. I’d like to see that happen more. The relationship between religious orders and bishops has been controversial since the foundation of the religious orders, and Trent took measures to give bishops more authority here.

The big difference, of source, is that people don’t refer to monastic communities or orders as “churches” in the same way. But the issues are indeed very similar.

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

To the differences between denominations that share a lot of the same doctrines and heritage, absolutely. In fact, I think that Latin and Byzantine Catholics have more genuine differences and associate with each other less than do members of many groups of closely related Protestant denominations. Byzantine Catholics see themselves as “different” from Latin Catholics far more than do members of most evangelical denominations with regard to other denominations, I think.

If we’re talking about denominations that have major doctrinal differences, like the Southern Baptists and the Episcopalians, or the LCMS and . . . .well, just about anyone, then of course there’s no comparison.

Edwin

 

[Cavaradossi]

It’s not absurd at all. The fact is that “autocephaly” is not restricted to the definition you propose. It also denotes the concept of not being subject in any way to the jurisdiction of another authority. It is more absurd to suggest that the only difference between an autocephalous Church and an autonomous Church is that the former gets to choose its own bishop without (name removed by moderator)ut from an outside agency, whereas the latter does so. There is more to it than that. It’s a fact that Metropolitan Churches are subject to the canon law of the Patriarchate to which they belong. That is a big part of the reason for the difference between autocephaly and autonomy (it’s not just a matter of choosing head bishops).

We know that even Patriarchates are subject to the laws of an Ecum Council, so Patriarchates are not strictly autocephalous in the full sense of the word. In that same full sense, only the Church universal is a truly autocephalous entity, for there really is no other canonical authority above it on earth.

This runs completely contrary to the received tradition of canon law, which understands autocephaly as a primate’s independence of any other bishops as far as the confirmation of his election is concerned (i.e., he is chosen directly by his synod without his election being subject to the approval of another primate) and also as the capacity for the synod of such a primate to manage its own affairs without needing the approval of an external ecclesiastical body (the model for this arrangement being the canonical recognition of the independence of the Church of Cyprus from Antioch by the Council of Ephesus). The great Eastern Roman canonists like Balsamon and Zonaras likewise understood autocephaly in such a manner.

The tradition of creating ecclesiastical jurisdictions along the lines of civil jurisdictions may justify the creation of eparchies/episcopal sees, and even metropolitan sees, but not patriarchates.

This is nonsensical, because there is functionally no difference between a patriarchate and an autocephalous church with an archbishop as its primate (i.e., there is no functional difference between the Alexandria Patriarchate and the Church of Greece, despite the fact that the former is headed by a patriarch, while the latter is headed by an archbishop). Either one must oppose the creation of new autocephalous churches in total, or accept such a process in total.

I believe it is the excessive creation of patriarchates in the first place that has resulted in the jurisdictional disputes in the diaspora. Would we have these jurisdictional disputes if the ROC was not a Patriarchate, but simply Constantinople?

No, I completely disagree. The problem is that no canon has been laid down to manage new evangelization or the issue of ministering to Orthodox Christians in the diaspora, and there is a lack of answers to be found in traditional canon law for how such activity should be managed (except for the dubious reading of canon 28 of Chalcedon by the Ecumenical Patriarchate that it has been given jurisdiction over all of the diaspora and unevangelized lands).

As suggested earlier, perhaps if patriarchates created not by an Ecum Council, but by a Patriarch, recognized that they do not exactly have the same ecclesiastical status as their mother Church (which was established by Ecumenical authority), and simply submitted to the ruling of the mother Church, I think these ecclesiastical disputes would not occur. What do you think?

I can think of no basis in canon law for thinking that new autocephalous churches have a different autocephaly than the mother church which granted them such autocephaly. Perhaps you could present me with a case from canon law and the commentary of canonists for this idea, but I myself cannot see how such an idea can be

According to your paradigm, it would not seem to justify it because the parallel jurisdiction would result in two bishops for the same territory (or people within a territory). But the paradigm of personal jurisdiction focuses on the people, not the territory, so there is no parallel jurisdiction to speak of since the same people won’t have two bishops over them.

I again can think of no basis for this distinction in the canons. Perhaps you could show me where a distinction between “personal jurisdiction” (in the sense of having jurisdiction over specific people instead of over all of the faithful in any given area) and territorial jurisdiction (having jurisdiction over all of the faithful in a geographical area) is implicit within the canons, or point me to a scholarly work which argues such a case?

 

[Cavaradossi]

It’s not absurd at all. The fact is that “autocephaly” is not restricted to the definition you propose. It also denotes the concept of not being subject in any way to the jurisdiction of another authority. It is more absurd to suggest that the only difference between an autocephalous Church and an autonomous Church is that the former gets to choose its own bishop without (name removed by moderator)ut from an outside agency, whereas the latter does so. There is more to it than that. It’s a fact that Metropolitan Churches are subject to the canon law of the Patriarchate to which they belong. That is a big part of the reason for the difference between autocephaly and autonomy (it’s not just a matter of choosing head bishops).

We know that even Patriarchates are subject to the laws of an Ecum Council, so Patriarchates are not strictly autocephalous in the full sense of the word. In that same full sense, only the Church universal is a truly autocephalous entity, for there really is no other canonical authority above it on earth.

Also, I should add that the capacity for a synod to elect its own primate without needing approval of another primate is, contrary to the above assertion, precisely what distinguishes an autocephalous church from an autonomous church. Autonomous churches, as the very definition and etymology of autonomy (auto-: self, nomos: law) should strongly imply, can in fact possess independence in matters of their governance, except for the matter of the election of their primate, which is subject to the approval of another primate. The former (self-governance) is a property of both autonomous and autocephalous churches, but the latter (the capacity for a church to elect its own primate without the need of another primate’s approval) is a property of autocephalous churches alone.

 

[Aramis]

Another of my worthless :twocents: posts but if I may …

Whereas it’s true the jurisdiction in question is of a “personal” nature, it’s also true that it encompasses a defined territory. (This is pretty much the same as the OO example cited earlier about the SOC in Egypt). IOW, such a “personal” jurisdiction, the USA, e.g, has no effect on Canada unless it has been defined as such. So one can say that the concept is dual insofar as it is “personal” within a defined territory, as opposed to something of a truly “personal” nature.

The Metropolia has a defined territory of “The United States” and a defined constiuency - Ruthenians, Slovaks, and Italo-albanian ascribed Catholics.

This makes, by exclusion, the Roman dioceses of the US no less personal - they exclude the Melkites, Ruthenians, Slovaks, Italo-albanians, Romanians, Chaldeans, Syro-Malanka, Armenians, Maronites… all of whom have similar nation-wide jurisdictional assignment to other than the Roman church bishops.

It’s just that the Romans are “Territorial” because they’re defined by the exclusions.

 

[5Loaves]

From this, it seems they’re under the Melkites in one way or another. The same seems to be true of the Italo-Greeks in Las Vegas. For the Russians, IIRC, they opted to be under the Melkites rather than the territorial Latin Ordinary. I’m sure 5Loaves will correct me if I’m mistaken in that.

As far as I know since the death of our last heirarch all of us are under Latin Ordinaries. How that actually plays out I imagine varies. Bishop NICHOLAS ordained our deacon and is planning to tonsure a reader in our parish. Our deacon went to his installation as Eparch of Newton a couple of years ago. I visited the Melkite parish up in Sacramento on a Saturday when Sayedna was there. When I introduced myself again to him he immediately brought up some issues in our parish and expressed his looking forward to visiting us for the tonsure. This required a dimissorial letter which there was no problem getting from the Archbishop in the past (ordination of deacon) nor the present (tonsure of a reader).

Off topic, our Latin Ordinary, Archbishop Salvatore is close friends with Fr Tom Loya, Eparchy of Parma, since their days together as students in Rome. He’s also close friends with the monks of Holy Resurrection Monastery from his time in San Diego while they were still in the desert in Southern California.

The Latin Archdiocese provided us a generous and highly competent parish administrator when we were in great need of help during a very challenging transition and assisted us in other ways without which I seriously question how we would possibly have managed.

 

[Vico]

And the basic problem I have is the identification of particular church with rite rathr than region.

What defines a church sui iuris is the supreme authority of the church, rather than the rite or region.

The code describes that each tradition has various rites that derive from it and are used by the various churches sui iuris.

So do you have an objection to Canon 27?