Catholic FAQ


Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Eastern Catholicism
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #31  
Old May 18, '11, 5:34 pm
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: Title Catholicos

I'd like to get back to this comment of mine:

Quote:
The only thing I am thinking that the bishops of the Middle East Synod could possibly be referring to in their request to extend their authority to the diaspora is with regards to establishing new jurisdictions. Currently, it is the Pope that does this for us, after the request of the local community through our hierarchs.

Can anyone think of anything else the bishops of the Middle East conference might be thinking of with regards to extending their authority into the diaspora?
To repeat, our head bishops ALREADY have PERSONAL jurisdiction outside their Traditional territories. Are we to understand the request of the Middle East Synod of Bishops for greater jurisdiction to refer to greater TERRITORIAL jurisdiction?

It seems feasible, given that the bishop of Rome gave up the title "Patriarch of the West." By giving up that title, I interpret it to mean that the bishop of Rome as Patriarch is giving up TERRITORIAL jurisdiction in the West, though indeed maintaining PERSONAL jurisdiction over the Latin Church. I believe that is what it means when the Vatican sources stated that the removal of the title was meant to foster the ecumenical dialogue.

Comments?

Blessings,
Marduk
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old May 18, '11, 6:06 pm
Vico's Avatar
Vico Vico is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2008
Posts: 7,555
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Title Catholicos

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
Dear brother Vico,


I understand that, but the author only seems to be talking about territorial jurisdiction, not personal jurisdiction.

The author does not take into account Canon 150, Section 3, which states that the laws of the Patriarchal Church in its territory can be effective in an eparchy established outside that territory according to the decision of the local bishop of that same Patriarchal Church.

However, I still think that whether or not a bishop outside the traditional territory of a Patirarchate is under the omophor of his Patriarch is a totally separate issue (and the answer to that is "YES").

Blessings,
Marduk

H. Exc. Mons. Antonios Aziz MINA, Bishop of Guizeh of the Copts (ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT) wrote in October 2010: "My request is that the Patriarch be granted personal jurisdiction over the faithful of his Church wherever they might be."

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/...se/b06_02.html

There are two hierarchies of power, ordinary and jurisdiction, and ordinary power has precedence over jurisdiction. When outside the traditional Church territory the bishops are members of national conventions.

A bishop outside the traditional territory of a patriarchate can adopt the same non-liturgical laws or not based upon his own authority. The power of the heads of the patriarchal, major-archepiscopal, and metropolitan churches is proper, ordinary, and personal; he cannot constitute a vicar for the entire Church sui iuris nor delegate his power to a certain person for all cases. (See CCEO 78 and 157.)

An omophorion, a symbol of the spiritual authority of a bishop:

Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old May 18, '11, 6:44 pm
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: Title Catholicos

Dear brother Vico,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vico View Post
H. Exc. Mons. Antonios Aziz MINA, Bishop of Guizeh of the Copts (ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT) wrote in October 2010: "My request is that the Patriarch be granted personal jurisdiction over the faithful of his Church wherever they might be."

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/...se/b06_02.html
Coming from the Coptic representative, that is wholly understandable, because most Coptic Catholic communities in the diaspora are canonically under the care (or omophor) of local Latin bishops - i.e., there is no established Coptic hierarchy in the Western diaspora (though if you ask any Copt, they will say that their bishop is HB Naguib ). But make no mistake about it - a community in the diaspora with an established episcopal hierarchy are under the personal jurisdiction of the head bishop of their mother Church.

Quote:
There are two hierarchies of power, ordinary and jurisdiction, and ordinary power has precedence over jurisdiction.
To be more concise, it is the power of orders, and the power of jurisdiction. The power of orders is greater than the power of jurisdiction.

Quote:
When outside the traditional Church territory the bishops are members of national conventions.
They are also members of their own sui juris Synods.

Quote:
A bishop outside the traditional territory of a patriarchate can adopt the same non-liturgical laws or not based upon his own authority.
It is not exactly on his own authority. He is morally, though not canonically, bound by the laws established by his Synod (though he is always canonically under the omophor of his head bishop). The reason that there is a difference for a bishop outside the traditional territory is because of the exigency of Canon 84. It is possiblethat the laws established by the home Synod may conflict with the laws of the different territorial jurisdiction. In that case, prudence must be exercised by that bishop whether or not, and to what extent, he will promulgate the laws of his "foreign" Synod on the home territory of another sui juris Church.

Quote:
The power of the heads of the patriarchal, major-archepiscopal, and metropolitan churches is proper, ordinary, and personal; he cannot constitute a vicar for the entire Church sui iuris nor delegate his power to a certain person for all cases. (See CCEO 78 and 157.)
I don't understand the relevance of this. Can you explain?

Blessings,
Marduk
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old May 18, '11, 9:25 pm
Vico's Avatar
Vico Vico is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2008
Posts: 7,555
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Title Catholicos

Marduk,

A patriarch cannot constitute a vicar for the entire Church sui iuris or delegate a vicar general as that would not respect the choice of the synod.

CCEO 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.

CCEO Canon 187.2. Prior to episcopal ordination the candidate is to make a profession of faith and a promise of obedience to the Roman Pontiff and, in patriarchal Churches, also a promise of obedience to the patriarch in those matters in which he is subject to the patriarch according to the norm of law.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old May 19, '11, 2:22 am
malphono malphono is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2008
Posts: 7,410
Religion: Syro-Maronite (trisat shoubho)
Default Re: Title Catholicos

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
Actually, the approval is required only if the candidate is a new bishop (i.e., newly promoted from the presbyterate).
In hindsight, I realize that the wording in my previous post could have been clearer , but that's exactly what I meant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
Actually, the Synod does indeed ordain on its own authority. I understand what you are getting at - you feel that since they cannot select the candidate without the Pope's input, then that must mean they are not ordaining on their own authority. But the authority to ordain is a completely different matter from selecting a candidate. The authority to ordain does not come from the Pope, but is inherent in the Synod.
Again, perhaps my previous post wasn't clear enough, but what I meant there was also in the case of a candidate from the diaspora being ordained bishop for the diaspora.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
I have to seriously question this. Cum data fuerit was a time-dependant directive. That is why it had to be renewed twice. The decree last expired in 1949, and was not renewed. There is currently no absolute canonical impediment for the ordination of married men for the sui juris Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches in the traditionally Latin lands.
I thought the same thing, but JOCDs disagree. The so-called "sunset clause" is essentially meaningless, and Cum data fuerit remains in force. I'd suggest you discuss it with a JOCD.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old May 19, '11, 8:38 pm
Vico's Avatar
Vico Vico is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2008
Posts: 7,555
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Title Catholicos

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
I'd like to get back to this comment of mine:



To repeat, our head bishops ALREADY have PERSONAL jurisdiction outside their Traditional territories. Are we to understand the request of the Middle East Synod of Bishops for greater jurisdiction to refer to greater TERRITORIAL jurisdiction?

It seems feasible, given that the bishop of Rome gave up the title "Patriarch of the West." By giving up that title, I interpret it to mean that the bishop of Rome as Patriarch is giving up TERRITORIAL jurisdiction in the West, though indeed maintaining PERSONAL jurisdiction over the Latin Church. I believe that is what it means when the Vatican sources stated that the removal of the title was meant to foster the ecumenical dialogue.

Comments?

Blessings,
Marduk
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? This extension of jurisdiction arises in the context of an adaptation of pastoral service to the faithful in the eastern Diaspora.
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/...se/b17_02.html
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old May 19, '11, 9:26 pm
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: Title Catholicos

Dear brother Vico,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vico View Post
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? This extension of jurisdiction arises in the context of an adaptation of pastoral service to the faithful in the eastern Diaspora.
http://www.vatican.va/news_services/...se/b17_02.html
Note what the language of the proposition. It says "need and frequency." That indicates that there ALREADY exists personal jurisdiction outside of the territorial boundaries. What this refers to are the MANY missions and parishes that are currently not under the canonical omophor of the Mother sui juris Churches, but are rather under the omophor of local Latin bishops. It probably also refers to the NUMEROUS individual Eastern and Oriental Catholics who are under the omophor of local Latin bishops. I believe an explicit canonical provision to extend personal jurisdiction over these persons will help maintain the unique identities and membership of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. There have been many threads and posts from mostly Eastern Catholics on CAF in the past several years about whether or not they are canonically Latins, or whether or not their children who are baptized in Latin Churches are Latins, and other such issues borne of the fact that many Catholics from Eastern and Oriental Churches, due to the lack of churches of their own Rite where they live, only have the option of becoming members of a Latin Catholic parish. Such an explicit canonical provision will inspire local Latin parishes to keep better records of the canonical membership of their parishioners, and perhaps even inspire local bishops to provide for the ritual needs of these non-Latin parishioners. You often hear or read of the concern from Eastern and Oriental Catholics - "where are our members disappearing to?" We need an answer to that question, and the canonical provision for extending personal jurisdiction to all these Eastern and Oriental Catholics will, I believe, be a great help to answer that question.

Blessings,
Marduk
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old May 19, '11, 10:38 pm
Vico's Avatar
Vico Vico is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2008
Posts: 7,555
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Title Catholicos

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
Dear brother Vico,


Note what the language of the proposition. It says "need and frequency." That indicates that there ALREADY exists personal jurisdiction outside of the territorial boundaries. What this refers to are the MANY missions and parishes that are currently not under the canonical omophor of the Mother sui juris Churches, but are rather under the omophor of local Latin bishops. It probably also refers to the NUMEROUS individual Eastern and Oriental Catholics who are under the omophor of local Latin bishops. I believe an explicit canonical provision to extend personal jurisdiction over these persons will help maintain the unique identities and membership of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches. There have been many threads and posts from mostly Eastern Catholics on CAF in the past several years about whether or not they are canonically Latins, or whether or not their children who are baptized in Latin Churches are Latins, and other such issues borne of the fact that many Catholics from Eastern and Oriental Churches, due to the lack of churches of their own Rite where they live, only have the option of becoming members of a Latin Catholic parish. Such an explicit canonical provision will inspire local Latin parishes to keep better records of the canonical membership of their parishioners, and perhaps even inspire local bishops to provide for the ritual needs of these non-Latin parishioners. You often hear or read of the concern from Eastern and Oriental Catholics - "where are our members disappearing to?" We need an answer to that question, and the canonical provision for extending personal jurisdiction to all these Eastern and Oriental Catholics will, I believe, be a great help to answer that question.

Blessings,
Marduk
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.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old May 20, '11, 3:17 am
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: Title Catholicos

Dear brother Malphono,

Quote:
Originally Posted by malphono View Post
I thought the same thing, but JOCDs disagree. The so-called "sunset clause" is essentially meaningless, and Cum data fuerit remains in force. I'd suggest you discuss it with a JOCD.
Forgive my ignorance, but what does "JOCD" stand for?

Blessings,
Marduk
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old May 20, '11, 3:25 am
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: Title Catholicos

Dear brother Vico,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vico View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old May 20, '11, 7:13 am
malphono malphono is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2008
Posts: 7,410
Religion: Syro-Maronite (trisat shoubho)
Default Re: Title Catholicos

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old May 20, '11, 4:15 pm
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: Title Catholicos

Dear brother Malphono,

Quote:
Originally Posted by malphono View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old May 20, '11, 4:41 pm
Vico's Avatar
Vico Vico is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 27, 2008
Posts: 7,555
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Title Catholicos

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old May 21, '11, 2:49 am
malphono malphono is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 15, 2008
Posts: 7,410
Religion: Syro-Maronite (trisat shoubho)
Default Re: Title Catholicos

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mardukm View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old May 21, '11, 4:13 am
mardukm mardukm is offline
Suspended
 
Join Date: August 16, 2005
Posts: 10,881
Religion: Orthodox in Communion w/ Rome (Copt)
Default Re: Title Catholicos

Quote:
Originally Posted by malphono View Post
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.

Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Eastern Catholicism

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump



Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
8451Meet and talk,talk talk
Last by: suko
5142CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
4424Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4037OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: eschator83
3863SOLITUDE
Last by: beth40n2
3734Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: DesertSister62
3317Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
3282Poems and Reflections
Last by: PathWalker
3223Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Rifester
3109For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: RevDrJBTDDPhD



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:09 pm.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.