BTW, if you look at Catholic Hierarchy you see something different: there, it shows “immediately subject to the Holy See” which is the same as for the Maronite, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian, Melkite, & Romanian diocese (eparchies). The only ones that differ are the UGCC & Ruthenian Churches, where the eparchies are subject to the Metropolitan Sees and where the entries for the Archeparchies say merely “Metropolitan See” without further clarification.
I am not stating a personal opinion. It is a matter of canon law and you can look it up. You can get a good summary of the competencies of the Holy See, Congretation for Eastern Churches, and the Patriarches, Major Archbishops, and Metropolitans in the book entitled: Inter-Ecclesial Relations Between Eastern and Latin Catholics.
Thank you for pointing that out. I modicum amount of research revealed that the two websites are run by laymen, and are not official organs of the CC.
If there is anything to be learned from the interface between the UGCC and Rome in the last forty years, it is that it is always easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission!
Once again, our bishops answer directly to our Patriarch, period. Rome may not like that, and we’re sorry about that. Rome (and Moscow) may not like us referrring to our “Patriarch,” and we’re equally sorry about that too (with apologies to Elder Rome and the Third Rome).
The Metropolitan of Philadelphia likes the Patriarch!
We’re actually quite unified around our Patriarch and we like it that way!
Here we go again with the canon law . . .
I still like “Catholicos” as a title though . . . Treaties of reunion are made to be broken - just ask Rome.
I see you put a wink there, because you know that they are aware of the canons. It is not on you or me if the presbyterate does not conform to the canons. Since I cannot read minds, and the bishops do not say just what they are doing, I can personally function only by knowing the canon law and also what my pastor tells me. It is proper for us to be aware of what is in the laws. And I an not saying that anyone in particular is not in compliance, since I have no true knowledge of the situation.Here we go again with the canon law . . .
Vico, you should write a letter to our Patriarchal Synod and alert them to this - perhaps they don’t know any of this and should be made aware!
Alex
Again, the issue here is your original claim that bishop A of a sui juris Church are not under the direct omophor of the head bishop of their Mother sui juris Church, no matter where the eparchy of bishop A is constituted.
I congratulate you on your sense of humour, sir!
Well, actually it is territorial (or at least “pseudo-territorial” as I said earlier). Most such jurisdictions are clearly (have a look at the Annuario Pontificio) established as "immediately subject to the Holy See."That said, I don’t have a copy of the AP handy and I don’t recall how the UGCC Metropolitan Sees in the US and Canada are designated therein, but considering that the Major Archipiscopal See itself is “immediately subject to the Holy See” I highly doubt that any subordinate Metropolia is subject to the Major Archepiscopal See itself. If it’s not that way for Patriarchal Churches, it would be more than unlikely for a non-Patriarchal Church (delusions of “autocephaly” and/or claims of “Patriarchal status” notwithstanding). It’s even more so for the Ruthenians, which have no such Major Archepiscopal See.
What may be “common sense” to us is, apparently, not the way it is de jure.
You can take omophor in a partial sense or in a full sense. I am using full sense. Here is how it works for the fathers of the ritual churches, be it Patriachial, Major Archepiscopal, or Metropolitan: the full power over disciplinary as well as liturgical laws is only within the territory.
That’s not what canon law states. Patriarchs and Major Archbishops also have power outside the Traditional territory on matters that involve the exercise of such ordinary, proper, and personal jurisdiction according to “the nature of the matter.”(Canon 78, 2) This is a rather ambiguous statement, but it is for certain that Patriarchs and Major Archbishops have a natural, ordinary, proper, and personal jurisdiction outside of their Traditional territory over members of their Church on matters OTHER THAN the Liturgy. I think I have brought up that clause from Canon 78 twice before (“unless the nature of the matter establishes otherwise”), but you never responded to it directly.
Not exactly. It is in the competence of the eparch himself outside the Traditional territory to establish the synodal laws in his local eparchy. The Pope has no authority to restrict the eparch from establishing those laws in his own eparchy, but the Pope has the authority to establish the patriarchal law as universal, which would then oblige the eparch to establish those patriarchal laws in his local eparchy.
Not for the Holy See ALONE, because the Synod of the sui juris Church, if the Pope rejects its three candidates, also has the prerogative to reject the candidate proposed by the Holy Sse.
Re: CCEO 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.
All you have quoted are “the common or particular law
Whatever the limits of the eparchial bishop’s governance is, this canon does not specify it. This canon merely establishes a very general principle that the exercise of a bishop’s prerogative is regulated by the Supreme authority of the Church. Don’t mistake the phrase “Supreme authority of the Church” with the phrase “Roman Pontiff.” Much of an eparchial bishop’s authority was established by the Supreme authority of the Church - i.e., by the Ecumenical Councils - over a thousand years ago. A bishop’s authority in his local diocese is normatively supreme, and not even the Pope can impede it (as specifically taught by the First Vatican Council in Pastor Aeternus). That is why I stated in my previous post that the Pope has no authority to restrict a local eparch’s own authority to postively establish his sui juris Patriarch’s Laws in his own eparchy.
Yes, Canon 150.3 indicates that it is in the eparchial bishop’ competence, unless the Apostolic See approves it, at which point the eparchial bishop is bound to accept his Patriarchal Synod’s laws. So your original statement was erroneous, because you neglected to include the highlighted portion above.
Can you explain your reason for bringing this up? Every priest is immediately and properly (canonically speaking) under the omophor of his own bishop, whether within or outside the territorial boundaries.