Vatican overturns Chaldean Patriarch's suspension of priests who fled Islamic State

[smead2942]

The decision to send priests to their all-but-certain deaths is not the Patriarch’s call to make. Martyrdom cannot be forced-- simple as that.

 

[phil19034]

Actually the right of appeal belonged to the Ecumenical Patriarch, but that’s really beside the point. First the issue was heard by the synod. Did the Chaldean synod hear the case?

The Ecumenical Patriarch doesn’t have (and never did) have jurisdiction over the Chaldeans. He had jurisdiction over areas which were not under the jurisdiction of Bishops and Patriarchs.

The Chaldeans were originally under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of the East, not the Bishop of Constantinople (who wasn’t yet a Patriarch at that time)

 

[SyroMalankara]

Could a Latin priest turn to the Chaldean Patriarch for guidance?

Yes actually. He could, especially if he was residing in Iraq, was under the Patriarch’s jurisdiction, was bi-ritual, or some other scenario. He could simply appeal to the Patriarch for his support.

Let’s be honest here, if this was an Orthodox priest required to come back to his home country and he didn’t want to go, he simply would just refuse to go. He’d either switch jurisdictions, start his own jurisdiction, hope things would blow over and pretend he was never asked, or ask his congregation to start a protest on his behalf. There is probably zero chance he’d go anywhere. In this case, out of the 12 who were involved =- 2 monastics returned and were forgiven, the diocesan priests requested their Western-US bishop to intervene and were allowed to stay despite the abnormal circumstances.

As to the right of appeal, in Syro-Chaldean Tradition (in slight difference to the EO view), the See of Peter is held in very high regard - Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome - especially the latter two. Because the Chaldeans (and their Assyrian Church counterparts) have been separated from Syriac Orthodox Antioch for so long the appeal to Antioch wouldn’t be happening; the Chaldeans however, are in full communion with Catholic Antioch and Rome. Rome has primacy.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

To the previously asked question of “who is superior”, Patriarchs, Major Archbishops, and Metropolitan Heads of Eastern Catholic Churches are seen as brothers and colleges of the Holy Father in same rank and discipline. The Holy Father is the Patriarch and Head of the “Roman Sui Juris Church” as the Chaldean Patriarch is the Head of the “Chaldean Sui Juris Church”. To my understanding, this is the technical definition, if this is what is actually played out in the structure of the entire Catholic Church is another question.

One of the pope’s titles used to be “Patriarch of the West,” but Benedict XVI removed it. So I don’t think he’s actually considered a patriarch in the eastern ecclesial sense. The patriarchate-based model never developed in the Latin Church, not really. That’s why there are Patriarchs of Venice and Lisbon for whom the title is merely symbolic. They don’t have western patriarchates, because there are no western patriarchates.

Regarding the thread, I would like to restate my opinion from a previous thread of the same topic, "It would seem that Mar Sako means business stating that even in the way of danger our clergy should be ready to serve. Perhaps in times of danger, clergy must be the strongest to give communities hope of better days. Like Mar Thoma said many centuries ago, in the fear of harm but in the light of bravery, “Let us also go, that we may die with him”.

Good point. Still, is it just to compel someone to martyrdom?

I can see both sides. It’s a horrible situation; I’m just glad I don’t have to make the decision!

Well the Pope is not only head of the latin church but the head of all churches in union with the catholic church. I’m not even sure whether he technically belongs to the latin church.

Sure he does. He’s the bishop of Rome, and the Church of Rome is most definitely part of the Latin Church; it’s Rome that gave to the Latin Church her name, her liturgy, and her liturgy’s language.

Ok now I’m completely lost. Since they are equals, does this mean that it was the Church herself that reversed the Patriarch’s decision instead of the Holy Father?

I don’t think we can coherently see it that way, except insofar as such an appeal presupposes the pope’s right to exercise the supreme authority of the Church. Even so, it’s still the pope himself who’s making the call.

Also, as I said above, the pope is no longer given the title “Patriarch,” and he hasn’t had that title for most of the Church’s history. It’s an anachronistic imposition; patriarchate-style ecclesiology didn’t develop in the Latin Church, no matter what the concept of the Pentarchy advocates.

This is the stuff schism is made from so pray for softened hearts.

Yep. Ecclesiastical disagreements.

 

[Seraphim73]

The decision to send priests to their all-but-certain deaths is not the Patriarch’s call to make. Martyrdom cannot be forced-- simple as that.

Which canon did the Patriarch violate?

 

[Seraphim73]

The Ecumenical Patriarch doesn’t have (and never did) have jurisdiction over the Chaldeans. He had jurisdiction over areas which were not under the jurisdiction of Bishops and Patriarchs.

The Chaldeans were originally under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of the East, not the Bishop of Constantinople (who wasn’t yet a Patriarch at that time)

Well no one has jurisdiction over a patriarch. But by custom issues could be appealed and one of those customs was enshrined as canon at Chalcedon.

If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop’s consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried. - Canon IX

 

[phil19034]

Which canon did the Patriarch violate?

In the Catholic Church, appeals to Rome don’t have to be just for Canon law issues.

For example: If a Bishop closes a parish, the parish has the right to appeal to the Bishop. If the Bishop says rules against the parish during the appeal, the parish has the right to appeal to Rome.

When a Bishop closes or merges a parish, he’s not violating canon law. But the people still have the right to appeal his decision.

 

[Seraphim73]

In the Catholic Church, appeals to Rome don’t have to be just for Canon law issues.

For example: If a Bishop closes a parish, the parish has the right to appeal to the Bishop. If the Bishop says rules against the parish during the appeal, the parish has the right to appeal to Rome.

When a Bishop closes or merges a parish, he’s not violating canon law. But the people still have the right to appeal his decision.

Then that bishop is not a bishop in any real sense of the term.

 

[phil19034]

Well no one has jurisdiction over a patriarch. But by custom issues could be appealed and one of those customs was enshrined as canon at Chalcedon.

If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop’s consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried. - Canon IX

For the most part… this is what happened. But there are some issues here.

1. The Chaldean Church (which was part of the Church of the East) was already in schism by the time of the Counsel of Chalcedon in 451 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon)

The Church of the East was already in schism because they didn’t like the idea of the Emperors in Constantinople & Rome being involved in Church decisions (but it was mostly the Emperor in Constantinople by that time).

1. The Chaldeans in the United States do not have an Exarch, nor a Metropolitan. The dioceses and Chaldean Bishops in the United States are directly subject to the Patriarch of Babylon. (see gcatholic.org/dioceses/diocese/zpet2.htm and gcatholic.org/dioceses/data/rite-Ch.htm)

Therefore:
And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province: in this case would equal just the Bishop of Saint Peter the Apostle of San Diego of the Chaldeans and the Patriarch.

And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese,: In this case, no Exarch, plus the Patriarch is basically the metropolitan for the USA.

or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried.: For Catholics, this would now be the Pope.

So what you lay out would be covered.

 

[phil19034]

Then that bishop is not a bishop in any real sense of the term.

No. The Church has always had an appeals process.

• You first appeal to your bishop
• Then to your Metropolitan
• Next to your Exarch (which the USA doesn’t have any)
• Then to the Patriarch in reverse order of preference (which is why Constantinople was first)
• If Constantinople didn’t agree, then they would have appealed to Rome.

Rome was always the last appeal.

In the United States (especially in Archdioceses) an appeal would pretty much go straight to Rome because all Archbishops in the USA are Metropolitans and we don’t have a Exarch in the USA based on the decision of the US Bishops back in the 1800s. Finally, because the Bishop of Rome is our Patriarch.

NOTE: The raising of Constantinople’s rank was protested by the Pope and the Patriarch of Alexandria. The Pope disagreed with the idea of placing Constantinople over Alexandria and Antioch due to purely secular reasons. But the Pope didn’t reject the council, only protesting Canon 28.

 

[twf]

Then that bishop is not a bishop in any real sense of the term.

That’s not true. The bishop definitely has the authority and 99.9% of the time a bishop’s autonomy will be respected. In some ways, there is probably more variation between Latin dioceses than there are between Orthodox eparchies - our bishops have a great deal of autonomy. That being said, if there is a case of injustice against a community, an appeal can be made. This would be more an issue of the “spirit” of the canons (parishes should be closed only for a just reason) than the letter. Surely in Orthodoxy groups of lay people have appealed “unjust” decisions of their bishops to the Synod. The fact that the Synod can overrule the local bishop doesn’t make him less of a bishop.

 

[Seraphim73]

That’s not true. The bishop definitely has the authority and 99.9% of the time a bishop’s autonomy will be respected. In some ways, there is probably more variation between Latin dioceses than there are between Orthodox eparchies - our bishops have a great deal of autonomy. That being said, if there is a case of injustice against a community, an appeal can be made. This would be more an issue of the “spirit” of the canons (parishes should be closed only for a just reason) than the letter. Surely in Orthodoxy groups of lay people have appealed “unjust” decisions of their bishops to the Synod. The fact that the Synod can overrule the local bishop doesn’t make him less of a bishop.

Well if any decision can be appealed then there really is no true autonomy. Only what is allowed by the superior authority.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Well if any decision can be appealed then there really is no true autonomy. Only what is allowed by the superior authority.

If you want true autonomy…leave Orthodox Church.

We call the fully autonomous Protestants…namely non denominational.

 

[twf]

Well if any decision can be appealed then there really is no true autonomy. Only what is allowed by the superior authority.

Don’t synods place limitations on local bishops’ authority in Eastern Orthodoxy? The Ecumenical Councils did. That is a limitation on autonomy.
I don’t think any decision can be appealed. I’m not sure if the earlier poster was correct when he said it didn’t have to involve violation of canons. When a bishop moves around priests or closes parishes he should do so for a just reason. That isn’t only the spirit of canon law but divine law. No bishop, including the pope, has the right to act without justice.

 

[malphono]

Don’t synods place limitations on local bishops’ authority in Eastern Orthodoxy? The Ecumenical Councils did. That is a limitation on autonomy.
I don’t think any decision can be appealed. I’m not sure if the earlier poster was correct when he said it didn’t have to involve violation of canons. When a bishop moves around priests or closes parishes he should do so for a just reason. That isn’t only the spirit of canon law but divine law. No bishop, including the pope, has the right to act without justice.

Sort of in line with that, wasn’t there a case about 15 years ago in NYC regarding the then newly appointed GO Abp? IIRC the priests and laity of the Archdiocese appealed to the EP who investigated and ultimately removed the Abp. A new Abp (the current one) was installed shortly thereafter.

 

[twf]

Sort of in line with that, wasn’t there a case about 15 years ago in NYC regarding the then newly appointed GO Abp? IIRC the priests and laity of the Archdiocese appealed to the EP who investigated and ultimately removed the Abp. A new Abp (the current one) was installed shortly thereafter.

I’m not sure, but could very well be. I do know that Orthodox bishops are not always as independent as some like to make out. A degree of autonomy is sacrificed, as in Catholicism, to a “supreme authority”. In Catholicism the “supreme authority” is ordinarily exercised by Rome, for better or for worse, and extraordinarily by ecumenical councils. In Orthodoxy the “supreme authority” is ordinarily exercised by synods of each particular Church.

 

[Seraphim73]

If you want true autonomy…leave Orthodox Church.

We call the fully autonomous Protestants…namely non denominational.

I don’t care what you call them. They are your problem. What we are talking about is how a Church should function. And allowing someone under the authority of a bishop to appeal literally any decision he makes to a different authority means the bishop has no authority except that which is delegated to him.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread closed pending review by Moderator Catherine Grant.