Non-patriarchal / major archep Churches sui iuris

[twf]

Within their "traditional territories", the patriarchal and major archepiscopal churches are autonomous for all intents and purposes. They elect their own primates/bishops, they determine their own liturgical, fasting, and other disciplinary norms. They set their own particular laws. To my mind, these churches are truly sui iuris. This accounts for 10 of the 21/22 Eastern Churches in communion with Rome.

(As an aside, I strongly believe that the four major archbishops, even if they can't be given the title "Patriarch" for political reasons, should have the same legal standing as patriarchs...meaning, no ratification required from Rome prior to enthronement...I also strongly feel that the 10 patriarchs/major archbishops should be de jure papal electors, without the need of a Latin red hat, in a communion where the Roman primacy plays an instrumental role throughout the Church Universal...but I digress).

What of the remaining Eastern Catholic Churches? The the primates and bishops of those of metropolitan or lower status are, as I understand it, appointed by Rome. Are these churches able to promulgate their own norms in other matters (liturgy, fasting, etc) independently, or does that also require Roman ratification? Are the non-patriarchal/major archepiscopal Catholic Churches really sui iuris, and if not, should they be given the same degree of autonomy? What of "Churches sui iuris" that are comprised of a single eparchy or exarchate...if Rome was no longer responsible for appointing the hierarchs of these Churches, how would they be selected in the absence of any traditional synod?

[Zekariya]

My opinion...
The sui iuris Church appoints the patriarch. Technically, Rome only needs to permit bishops within it's sui iuris Church to appoint it's patriarch, the pope. Rome has graciously allowed people outside of it's sui iuris Church to elect the bishop of Rome.

[malphono]

Originally Posted by twf

Within their "traditional territories", the patriarchal and major archepiscopal churches are autonomous for all intents and purposes. They elect their own primates/bishops, they determine their own liturgical, fasting, and other disciplinary norms. They set their own particular laws. To my mind, these churches are truly sui iuris.

Well ... yeah, they sort of do all those things, but there is one proviso: Rome's approval. For example, yes, the Synod elects its own bishops, but they must be approved by Rome before a formal public announcement of the election is made.

Originally Posted by twf

(As an aside, I strongly believe that the four major archbishops, even if they can't be given the title "Patriarch" for political reasons, should have the same legal standing as patriarchs...meaning, no ratification required from Rome prior to enthronement...I also strongly feel that the 10 patriarchs/major archbishops should be de jure papal electors, without the need of a Latin red hat, in a communion where the Roman primacy plays an instrumental role throughout the Church Universal...but I digress).

I don't think there are any true "political" reasons why the Major-Archbishops of the Syro-Malankara and Syro-Malabar Churches. Of course, neither is historically a Patriarchal Church, but are, rather, "daughter" Churches, the first of the SCC and the second of the Chaldean/Assyrian Church. What would work, (and IMO, should happen), is that they be officially declared Catholicosates (the Syro-Malankara have unofficially already done this, and Moran Bor Basiloious Clemis uses the designation "Catholicos" ... I'm not sure, but it might even appear that way in the Annuario Pontificio) under the appropriate Patriarchate. The prerogatives of the Patriarch in such a circumstance are mainly one single thing: to consecrate Holy Myroun. Beyond that, the Catholicos is equivalent. (An odd thing here is that the Syro-Malankara Church was a de-facto Catholicosate until the late Roman Pontiff formally separated it from the SCC.) The two Holy Synods (of the Patriarchate and of the Catholicosate) are separate and one does not depend on the other.

A similar solution might work for the two Byzantine Major-Archepiscopal Churches, but the concept of a Catholicosate is alien to the Byzantine tradition. At the same time, the MP-inspired concept of "National Patriarchates" is alien to all except those under the sway of MP.

[Zekariya]

I think that the Patriarch of the Coptic Catholic Alexandria should have Papa (Pope) restored to his title. When commemorating the hierarchs at the Coptic Orthodox parish that I used to be a member of the priest always said, Papa Abba Shenouda III, in the commemorations. Papa was used by Alexandria before Rome used it.

Note (for the unknowledgable lurkers): The word Pope is an odd English translation of the word of endearment, Papa. The historical Patriarch of Alexandria held this title before the bishop of Rome used it. Alexandria was not ever considered to be the successor of St Peter. The successor of St Peter never uniquely held the title Papa. St Athanasius the Great was called Papa by the Church of Alexandria (as was St Cyril).

[malphono]

Originally Posted by Zekariya

I think that the Patriarch of the Coptic Catholic Alexandria should have Papa (Pope) restored to his title. When commemorating the hierarchs at the Coptic Orthodox parish that I used to be a member of the priest always said, Papa Abba Shenouda III, in the commemorations. Papa was used by Alexandria before Rome used it.

Of course I do not disagree at all, but from a practical standpoint I'd say that Rome would officially and formally allow that at about the same time that chickens grow lips.

[Zekariya]

Originally Posted by malphono

Of course I do not disagree at all, but from a practical standpoint I'd say that Rome would officially and formally allow that at about the same time that chickens grow lips.

I know. It would probably scandalize to many people who don't know the history of the word. They would have to introduce tons of catechists on the word, Pope, in Latin parishes, before this could ever happen.

[twf]

Originally Posted by malphono

Well ... yeah, they sort of do all those things, but there is one proviso: Rome's approval. For example, yes, the Synod elects its own bishops, but they must be approved by Rome before a formal public announcement of the election is made.



I don't think there are any true "political" reasons why the Major-Archbishops of the Syro-Malankara and Syro-Malabar Churches. Of course, neither is historically a Patriarchal Church, but are, rather, "daughter" Churches, the first of the SCC and the second of the Chaldean/Assyrian Church. What would work, (and IMO, should happen), is that they be officially declared Catholicosates (the Syro-Malankara have unofficially already done this, and Moran Bor Basiloious Clemis uses the designation "Catholicos" ... I'm not sure, but it might even appear that way in the Annuario Pontificio) under the appropriate Patriarchate. The prerogatives of the Patriarch in such a circumstance are mainly one single thing: to consecrate Holy Myroun. Beyond that, the Catholicos is equivalent. (An odd thing here is that the Syro-Malankara Church was a de-facto Catholicosate until the late Roman Pontiff formally separated it from the SCC.) The two Holy Synods (of the Patriarchate and of the Catholicosate) are separate and one does not depend on the other.

A similar solution might work for the two Byzantine Major-Archepiscopal Churches, but the concept of a Catholicosate is alien to the Byzantine tradition. At the same time, the MP-inspired concept of "National Patriarchates" is alien to all except those under the sway of MP.

Interesting.
I understood that within the patriarchal territories, the patriarchal churches did not require Roman approval... and that one of the key distinctions between a Major Archbishop and a Patriarch was that the former's election requires papal ratification before he can be enthroned, while the latter is immediately enthroned upon election.

[malphono]

Originally Posted by twf

Interesting.
I understood that within the patriarchal territories, the patriarchal churches did not require Roman approval... and that one of the key distinctions between a Major Archbishop and a Patriarch was that the former's election requires papal ratification before he can be enthroned, while the latter is immediately enthroned upon election.

Yes, that's right: a Patriarchal election requires only recognition (i.e. communion) by Rome, whereas a Major-Archepiscopal election requires approval by Rome.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by malphono

I don't think there are any true "political" reasons why the Major-Archbishops of the Syro-Malankara and Syro-Malabar Churches.

Making them patriarchates could, perhaps, be seen as a slight to the UGCC.

[Peter J]

Originally Posted by twf

Are the non-patriarchal/major archepiscopal Catholic Churches really sui iuris, and if not, should they be given the same degree of autonomy?

Elevations do happen from time to time*, but I think it's quite unlikely that "they be given the same degree of autonomy" in one fell swoop.

* For example, one of the churches was raised to metropolital status a few years ago. (I would have to look up the specifics.)

[malphono]

Originally Posted by Peter J

Making them patriarchates could, perhaps, be seen as a slight to the UGCC.

Who said anything about making them Patriarchates? Whoever it was, it wasn't me. My suggestion was to make them formally Catholicosates.

[Vico]

Originally Posted by twf

Within their "traditional territories", the patriarchal and major archepiscopal churches are autonomous for all intents and purposes. They elect their own primates/bishops, they determine their own liturgical, fasting, and other disciplinary norms. They set their own particular laws. To my mind, these churches are truly sui iuris. This accounts for 10 of the 21/22 Eastern Churches in communion with Rome.

(As an aside, I strongly believe that the four major archbishops, even if they can't be given the title "Patriarch" for political reasons, should have the same legal standing as patriarchs...meaning, no ratification required from Rome prior to enthronement...I also strongly feel that the 10 patriarchs/major archbishops should be de jure papal electors, without the need of a Latin red hat, in a communion where the Roman primacy plays an instrumental role throughout the Church Universal...but I digress).

What of the remaining Eastern Catholic Churches? The the primates and bishops of those of metropolitan or lower status are, as I understand it, appointed by Rome. Are these churches able to promulgate their own norms in other matters (liturgy, fasting, etc) independently, or does that also require Roman ratification? Are the non-patriarchal/major archepiscopal Catholic Churches really sui iuris, and if not, should they be given the same degree of autonomy? What of "Churches sui iuris" that are comprised of a single eparchy or exarchate...if Rome was no longer responsible for appointing the hierarchs of these Churches, how would they be selected in the absence of any traditional synod?

There are overlapping eastern Patriarchal and Major Archepiscopal jurisdictions in areas of Christian persecution today which requires coordination. The Congregation for Eastern Churches includes all the Patriarchs and Major Archbishops and has exclusive authority over the following regions: Egypt and the Sinai peninsula, Eritrea and Northern Ethiopia, Southern Albania and Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, Jordan and Turkey.

[BVT]

Originally Posted by malphono

I don't think there are any true "political" reasons why the Major-Archbishops of the Syro-Malankara and Syro-Malabar Churches. Of course, neither is historically a Patriarchal Church, but are, rather, "daughter" Churches, the first of the SCC and the second of the Chaldean/Assyrian Church.

''How can a Church formed by apostle St Thomas in 52 AD become the daughter of the Chaldean church, established in the fifth century?

The Syro-Malabar Church:Its Identity and Challenges Today


“Even the name Syro-Malabar or Indo-Chaldean, all admit, does not suit our Church. Ours is the Church of St. Thomas tracing its origin to the apostle and the early disciples. It is for the lack of a suitable name that we stick to the present ones”[

http://smcim.smonline.org/bkp/globalmeet6.htm

[BVT]

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=j...nising&f=false