Title Catholicos

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

Need and frequence of extending: one extends what does not yet have the extent desired. Since omophor is not defined anywhere precisely, it will introduce lack of clarity when used.

The fact that the proposition uses the term “frequency” indicates an admission that personal jurisdiction outside the Traditional territory already exists - they just want more of it.

Besides, who do you suppose grants a bishop of a sui juris Church in the diaspora his faculties? The Pope? Some other Latin head bishop? Nope. It is his Patriarch. I ask you - what possible reasoning could you use to justify an assumption that a bishop who receives his faculties - anywhere in the world - from a particular head bishop is not under the omophor of that particular head bishop?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Forgive my ignorance, but what does “JOCD” stand for?

Duh … I made a typo. It should be JCOD (i.e. Doctor in Eastern Canon Law). Sorry for the confusion.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

Duh … I made a typo. It should be JCOD (i.e. Doctor in Eastern Canon Law). Sorry for the confusion.

Thank you for the clarification. Do you have more info on these Doctors? I would certainly like to contact one of them to get a better perspective of why they think the provisions of Cum data fuerit are still active, particularly the section on the prohibition of married priests. I have actually come across people (mostly Latins) who think that the particular condition of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh (case-be-case basis approved by the Pope) applies to ALL non-Latin Churches. I think these particular people are stuck with the dated idea that ALL non-Latin Churches are just lumped together with no distinction. What do you think?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

The fact that the proposition uses the term “frequency” indicates an admission that personal jurisdiction outside the Traditional territory already exists - they just want more of it.

Besides, who do you suppose grants a bishop of a sui juris Church in the diaspora his faculties? The Pope? Some other Latin head bishop? Nope. It is his Patriarch. I ask you - what possible reasoning could you use to justify an assumption that a bishop who receives his faculties - anywhere in the world - from a particular head bishop is not under the omophor of that particular head bishop?

Blessings,
Marduk

Please, I cannot answer that question until you define ompohor in detail.

 

[malphono]

Thank you for the clarification. Do you have more info on these Doctors? I would certainly like to contact one of them to get a better perspective of why they think the provisions of Cum data fuerit are still active, particularly the section on the prohibition of married priests.

You could try contacting the Judicial Vicar at the Chancery. Even in a Latin diocese, he should be able to refer you to a JCOD.

I have actually come across people (mostly Latins) who think that the particular condition of the Metropolia of Pittsburgh (case-be-case basis approved by the Pope) applies to ALL non-Latin Churches. I think these particular people are stuck with the dated idea that ALL non-Latin Churches are just lumped together with no distinction. What do you think?

Unfortunately, the application of Cum data fuerit is not limited to the Ruthenian Metropolia. Some diasporal bishops have violated it and were summarily chastised by Rome. Others have exploited a sort of “loophole” by sending married candidates to a sympathetic bishop in the Patriarchal Territories where they ordained, and then having them transferred back to the diasporal See.

 

[mardukm]

You could try contacting the Judicial Vicar at the Chancery. Even in a Latin diocese, he should be able to refer you to a JCOD.

Thank you. I will certainly do that. I wonder if an Eastern or Oriental Canon lawyer would hold the same position. I guess I will find out.

Unfortunately, the application of Cum data fuerit is not limited to the Ruthenian Metropolia. Some diasporal bishops have violated it and were summarily chastised by Rome..

As a relatively young Catholic I was not aware of this. Can you provide some more info? I would like to investigate the matter myself. Thanks ahead of time.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Please, I cannot answer that question until you define ompohor in detail.

I’ve always understood omophor as the ecclesiastical authorty of a bishop (or head bishop) in his jurisdiction, be it territorial or personal (well - aside from the vestment, obviously).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

I’ve always understood omophor as the ecclesiastical authorty of a bishop (or head bishop) in his jurisdiction, be it territorial or personal (well - aside from the vestment, obviously).

Blessings,
Marduk

So by omophor you mean both the power of orders and of jurisdiciton. Of course limited by the competencies of the office held.

Ordinary power, known as the power of jurisdiction or the power of governance (CIC Can. 129) is a quality of those with holy orders. The power of govenance is legislative, executive, and judicial power (CIC Can. 135), and may be for the external forum, the internal forum, or partial. (Legal and factually known issues are in the external forum.)

Ordinary executive power may be proper or vicarious, and can be delegated (“for all cases”, or not). The term “for all cases” is very significant (CIC Can. 138) because it is broad. Proper power is exercised in one’s own name because of the norm of law for the office held.

The power of orders is called potestas ordinis and has precedence over the power of jurisdiction; the bishop holds the highest office in the hierarchy of orders. The bishop has personal power because of episcopal ordination, but has jurisdiction due to the mission from supreme authority. (CIC Can. 381)

In the power of jurisdiction, the Pope has the highest position. The Pope is the legislator for the Universal Church.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

Thank you, but I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the original point of our discussion - your claim that the Patriarch of a bishop in the diaspora is not “directly under” his Patriarch.

Blessings,
Marduk

So by omophor you mean both the power of orders and of jurisdiciton. Of course limited by the competencies of the office held.

Ordinary power, known as the power of jurisdiction or the power of governance (CIC Can. 129) is a quality of those with holy orders. The power of govenance is legislative, executive, and judicial power (CIC Can. 135), and may be for the external forum, the internal forum, or partial. (Legal and factually known issues are in the external forum.)

Ordinary executive power may be proper or vicarious, and can be delegated (“for all cases”, or not). The term “for all cases” is very significant (CIC Can. 138) because it is broad. Proper power is exercised in one’s own name because of the norm of law for the office held.

The power of orders is called potestas ordinis and has precedence over the power of jurisdiction; the bishop holds the highest office in the hierarchy of orders. The bishop has personal power because of episcopal ordination, but has jurisdiction due to the mission from supreme authority. (CIC Can. 381)

In the power of jurisdiction, the Pope has the highest position. The Pope is the legislator for the Universal Church.

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

Thank you, but I’m not sure what any of this has to do with the original point of our discussion - your claim that the Patriarch of a bishop in the diaspora is not “directly under” his Patriarch.

Blessings,
Marduk

I wrote before: “The intersting thing is that except for liturgical matters, the bishops outside the Patriarchal territory are not “directly under” the Patriarch (if that means jurisdiciton to you).”

Then later gave the canons showing what I meant. The definitions posted later are pertinent to the canons I gave, which are pertinent to my comment.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

I wrote before: “The intersting thing is that except for liturgical matters, the bishops outside the Patriarchal territory are not “directly under” the Patriarch (if that means jurisdiciton to you).”

Then later gave the canons showing what I meant. The definitions posted later are pertinent to the canons I gave, which are pertinent to my comment.

But none of the canons you quoted demonstrates your claim that a bishop outside the Patriarchal territory is not directly under his Patriarch. Your canons were only referring to the ability of such a bishop to promulgate the laws of his synod in a territorial jurisdiction outside of his own territorial Patriarchate.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Thank you. I will certainly do that. I wonder if an Eastern or Oriental Canon lawyer would hold the same position. I guess I will find out.

A JCOD is an Eastern/Oriental Caon Lawyer … Just as the CCEO covers the East and Orient, so too does the degree.

As a relatively young Catholic I was not aware of this. Can you provide some more info? I would like to investigate the matter myself. Thanks ahead of time.

I can’t put my hand references right now, but I recall a least one episode from a couple of years back with the Melkites. Not sure who was Eparch at the time, but he ordained a married candidate to the priesthood in the US. There was quite some flack about it from Rome, and AFAIK, the Melkites reverted to the former practice of exploiting the “loophole” and having such candidates ordained in the Middle East. Maybe Ghosty (if he’s still around) or Philip can supply supplemental information.

There was also, IIRC, a similar episode involving one or another of the UGCC eparchies in Canada. No doubt Alexander can shed more light on that one.

FYI, I’ve spoken to several JCODs about the whole “Cum data fuerit” issue, and I’ve not had a varying opinion. It’ll be interesting to see what you can glean.

 

[mardukm]

A JCOD is an Eastern/Oriental Caon Lawyer … Just as the CCEO covers the East and Orient, so too does the degree.

Oh! For some wierd reason, when you wrote your original post, I had in my mind that you meant a LATIN Catholic who was a Canon lawyer in Eastern/Oriental Canon law – so I asked my question, meaning an EASTERN or ORIENTAL Catholic who was a Canon lawyer. Sorry.

I can’t put my hand references right now, but I recall a least one episode from a couple of years back with the Melkites. Not sure who was Eparch at the time, but he ordained a married candidate to the priesthood in the US. There was quite some flack about it from Rome, and AFAIK, the Melkites reverted to the former practice of exploiting the “loophole” and having such candidates ordained in the Middle East. Maybe Ghosty (if he’s still around) or Philip can supply supplemental information.

There was also, IIRC, a similar episode involving one or another of the UGCC eparchies in Canada. No doubt Alexander can shed more light on that one.

FYI, I’ve spoken to several JCODs about the whole “Cum data fuerit” issue, and I’ve not had a varying opinion. It’ll be interesting to see what you can glean.

Thank you. I hope brothers Ghosty and Alexander will chime in.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

But none of the canons you quoted demonstrates your claim that a bishop outside the Patriarchal territory is not directly under his Patriarch. Your canons were only referring to the ability of such a bishop to promulgate the laws of his synod in a territorial jurisdiction outside of his own territorial Patriarchate.

Blessings,
Marduk

Since my remark is about jurisdiction this canon is particularly significant. It means that it is not in the competence of the Patriarchs to have jurisdiction in all matters throughout the world for their Church sui iuris. Yet, you know that the liturgical matters are from the Synod. The bishops would not be requesting a change if they already jurisdicition everywhere for their Church sui iuris.

Canon 78.2. 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.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

It means that it is not in the competence of the Patriarchs to have jurisdiction in all matters throughout the world for their Church sui iuris.

True. But that’s a different issue from the fact that they still have personal jurisdiction over the bishops of their Church (and the members of that eparchy) in the diaspora.

The bishops would not be requesting a change if they already jurisdicition everywhere for their Church sui iuris.

They were requesting MORE jurisdiction. The very canon you quoted below dictates that they ALREADY have jurisdiction on certain matters other than the liturgy in the diaspora.

Canon 78.2. 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.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Vico]

Dear brother Vico,

True. But that’s a different issue from the fact that they still have personal jurisdiction over the bishops of their Church (and the members of that eparchy) in the diaspora.

They were requesting MORE jurisdiction. The very canon you quoted below dictates that they ALREADY have jurisdiction on certain matters other than the liturgy in the diaspora.

Blessings,
Marduk

We said the same thing about extent, as you can see: “The bishops would not be requesting a change if they already jurisdicition everywhere for their Church sui iuris.” And I have been showing from the beginning remark that it applies to only some matters, so it is because of these laws that the Patriarchs are not “directly under”, per the first remark, in all matters, and it the reason that there has been a complaint of:

(From post #36, citing item 4 from the Synod Oct 2010, showing that the personal concept is not in place today, and that it is desired.)
From item 4 from the Synod Oct 2010, showing that the personal concept is not in place today, and that it is desired.

The synod fathers have emphasized the need and frequency of extending the jurisdiction of the Patriarchs to the faithful of their rite outside the territory of the Patriarchal Church sui iuris. They are eager to move from the territorial concept to the personal concept. Limiting the jurisdiction of the Patriarch to the faithful of his Church sui iuris is logical on the personal level and not a territorial one. How can one be “Father and Head" of a people without a head?
​

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Vico,

As already mentioned in the other thread, the request for MORE jurisdiction is with regard to all those exarchates, parishes, missions, and probably the NUMEROUS individual non-Latin Catholics in the traditional Latin terriotories that are currently under the omophor of local Latin ordinaries.

Non-Latin Patriarchal Churches with established hierarchies outside the traditional territory of the Patriarchate are ALREADY under the omophor of their Patriarch.

You can go to the Gcatholic website to see that dioceses of Patriarchal Churches whereever they are are under the DIRECT jurisdiction of their Patriarch.

Here are some examples:
gcatholic.com/dioceses/diocese/nspa0.htm
gcatholic.com/dioceses/diocese/cair1.htm
gcatholic.com/dioceses/diocese/olde0.htm
gcatholic.com/dioceses/diocese/usaa0.htm

We said the same thing about extent, as you can see: “The bishops would not be requesting a change if they already jurisdicition everywhere for their Church sui iuris.” And I have been showing from the beginning remark that it applies to only some matters, so it is because of these laws that the Patriarchs are not “directly under”, per the first remark, in all matters, and it the reason that there has been a complaint of:

(From post #36, citing item 4 from the Synod Oct 2010, showing that the personal concept is not in place today, and that it is desired.)
From item 4 from the Synod Oct 2010, showing that the personal concept is not in place today, and that it is desired.

The synod fathers have emphasized the need and frequency of extending the jurisdiction of the Patriarchs to the faithful of their rite outside the territory of the Patriarchal Church sui iuris. They are eager to move from the territorial concept to the personal concept. Limiting the jurisdiction of the Patriarch to the faithful of his Church sui iuris is logical on the personal level and not a territorial one. How can one be “Father and Head" of a people without a head?
​

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Then there also is the issue of the Ruthenians, where the Sui Iuris church is headed not in the homeland, but in the US. The Eparchy and exarchate in Europe are nominally part of the same Sui Iuris Church, but answer directly to the pope, not to the council of hierarchs.

 

[mardukm]

QUESTION:

I noticed something strange in the GCatholic website.

It states that the Syro-Malabar diocese in the U.S. is under the direct omophor of its Major Archbishop.

But when I looked at its info for the Ukranian Church in the U.S., it SEEMS to say that the dioceses are under the direct omophor of the METROPOLITAN in Philadelphia, not the Major Archbishop.

The same with the Ruthenian dioceses - they SEEM to be under the direct omophor of the METROPOLITAN in Pittsburgh.

My question is, are the Metropolitan Sees in Philadelphia (for the Ukranians) and in Pittsburgh (for the Ruthenians) regarded as TERRITORIAL jurisdictions?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

It states that the Syro-Malabar diocese in the U.S. is under the direct omophor of its Major Archbishop.

But when I looked at its info for the Ukranian Church in the U.S., it SEEMS to say that the dioceses are under the direct omophor of the METROPOLITAN in Philadelphia, not the Major Archbishop.

The same with the Ruthenian dioceses - they SEEM to be under the direct omophor of the METROPOLITAN in Pittsburgh.

My question is, are the Metropolitan Sees in Philadelphia (for the Ukranians) and in Pittsburgh (for the Ruthenians) regarded as TERRITORIAL jurisdictions?

I suppose one could say that they are “territorial” (or, perhaps “pseudo-territorial”) in that the jurisdictions within the territorial bounds are subject to the Metropolitan See. All the EC/OC jurisdictions are, in fact, likewise “pseudo-territorial” in that they encompass the faithful within a defined geographical area.