Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2022 18:15:05 GMT -5
In learning more about the constitution of the Church and the importance of having a mission from a Successor of the Apostles when recognising who is representing the Catholic Church I found myself troubled at the fact that neither the SSPX nor most Sede organisations have any mission from the Church to function and many believe that all of the Episcopal Sees are vacant. I have since stumbled across Fr Louis Campbell of St Jude's Shrine in Stafford Texas. The following is from his biography on their website. Now it seems that Bp Borecky had already retired and was Bishop Emertius by the time that Fr Campbell approached him. He passed away in July 2003. I'm not sure whether such faculties would continue to exist after the Bishops death. I find it fascinating that a priest would approach a Bishop of a different Rite to receive faculties to perform his ministry. I would be very interested in your thoughts on this Pacelli.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Nov 4, 2022 21:48:36 GMT -5
Hello Resolution,
I will leave Pacelli to answer your question. However being from Ontario there are a few errors in the biography from Fr. Campbell’s website.
The Toronto Eparchy extends through Ontario into eastern Canada. It’s boundaries do not extend into the USA. In fact the Toronto eparchy is a suffragan in the ecclesiastical province of the metropolitan Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Winnipeg. Therefore +Borecky’s title was never Archbishop but only bishop.
On an interesting note, I do remember that Bp. Borecky allowed the SSPX to hold Sunday Mass in Ukrainian churches in Toronto. (i.e. I have been attending Holy Mass at Society chapels since the late 70s). I guess it could be argued that Bp. Borecky tacitly gave jurisdiction to the SSPX priests in his eparchy. By 1988, this relationship between him and the SSPX came to quick end after Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecration of the 4 bishops. He also started getting very “ecumenical” after 1988 when he presided over a very scandalous ecumenical service with a slew of heretics (Eastern “Orthodox” and Protestants) commemorating the millennium of Christianity in the Ukraine.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2022 0:35:18 GMT -5
Thanks for your reply wenceslav. That is all very useful information for myself and Pacelli to consider.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 5, 2022 14:30:53 GMT -5
In learning more about the constitution of the Church and the importance of having a mission from a Successor of the Apostles when recognising who is representing the Catholic Church I found myself troubled at the fact that neither the SSPX nor most Sede organisations have any mission from the Church to function and many believe that all of the Episcopal Sees are vacant. I have since stumbled across Fr Louis Campbell of St Jude's Shrine in Stafford Texas. The following is from his biography on their website. Now it seems that Bp Borecky had already retired and was Bishop Emertius by the time that Fr Campbell approached him. He passed away in July 2003. I'm not sure whether such faculties would continue to exist after the Bishops death. I find it fascinating that a priest would approach a Bishop of a different Rite to receive faculties to perform his ministry. I would be very interested in your thoughts on this Pacelli . It seems that Fr. Campbell remembers his training that priests need canonical missions to function in the Catholic Church, therefore he sought it out. With that said, eastern rite bishops have no jurisdiction over Latin rite Catholics. The bishop cannot give him what he lacks the power to give. The matter is also a moot issue due to the the point that Wenceslav brought up. But let’s say that Fr. Campbell moved into Bishop Borecky’s Eparchy (Eastern diocese), unless Fr. Campbell became an eastern rite Catholic, Bishop Borecky could not grant him a canonical mission or faculties. The Church keeps separate governance over the Latin Rite Catholics from eastern rite Catholics and even eastern rite Catholics from other eastern Catholics of different rites.
|
|
|
Post by striderckg on Nov 5, 2022 14:45:42 GMT -5
Hello Resolution, I will leave Pacelli to answer your question. However being from Ontario there are a few errors in the biography from Fr. Campbell’s website. The Toronto Eparchy extends through Ontario into eastern Canada. It’s boundaries do not extend into the USA. In fact the Toronto eparchy is a suffragan in the ecclesiastical province of the metropolitan Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Winnipeg. Therefore +Borecky’s title was never Archbishop but only bishop. On an interesting note, I do remember that Bp. Borecky allowed the SSPX to hold Sunday Mass in Ukrainian churches in Toronto. (i.e. I have been attending Holy Mass at Society chapels since the late 70s). I guess it could be argued that Bp. Borecky tacitly gave jurisdiction to the SSPX priests in his eparchy. By 1988, this relationship between him and the SSPX came to quick end after Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecration of the 4 bishops. He also started getting very “ecumenical” after 1988 when he presided over a very scandalous ecumenical service with a slew of heretics (Eastern “Orthodox” and Protestants) commemorating the millennium of Christianity in the Ukraine. Hi, would you please link a reference to the boundaries of the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Winnipeg? Your assertion sounds correct but positive evidence is better.
|
|
|
Post by striderckg on Nov 5, 2022 14:49:01 GMT -5
In learning more about the constitution of the Church and the importance of having a mission from a Successor of the Apostles when recognising who is representing the Catholic Church I found myself troubled at the fact that neither the SSPX nor most Sede organisations have any mission from the Church to function and many believe that all of the Episcopal Sees are vacant. I have since stumbled across Fr Louis Campbell of St Jude's Shrine in Stafford Texas. The following is from his biography on their website. Now it seems that Bp Borecky had already retired and was Bishop Emertius by the time that Fr Campbell approached him. He passed away in July 2003. I'm not sure whether such faculties would continue to exist after the Bishops death. I find it fascinating that a priest would approach a Bishop of a different Rite to receive faculties to perform his ministry. I would be very interested in your thoughts on this Pacelli. It seems that Fr. Campbell remembers his training that priests need canonical missions to function in the Catholic Church, therefore he sought it out. With that said, eastern rite bishops gave no jurisdiction over Latin rite Catholics. The bishop cannot give him what he lacks the power to give. The matter is also a moot issue due to the the point that Wenceslav brought up. But let’s say that Fr. Campbell moved into Bishop Borecky’s Eparchy (Eastern diocese), unless Fr. Campbell became an eastern rite Catholic, Bishop Borecky could not grant him a canonical mission or faculties. The Church keeps separate governance over the Latin Rite Catholics from eastern rite Catholics and even eastern rite Catholics from other eastern Catholics of different rites. Hi Pacelli, bishops can in principle grant faculties to priests, but can you provide a reference for why Eastern clerics cannot grant privileges to Latin clerics? I’ve discovered references for situations with the inter-ritual granting of confessional jurisdiction from Latin to Eastern (CUA press) but I have not seen resources discussing the reverse situation.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Nov 5, 2022 17:14:29 GMT -5
Hello Resolution, I will leave Pacelli to answer your question. However being from Ontario there are a few errors in the biography from Fr. Campbell’s website. The Toronto Eparchy extends through Ontario into eastern Canada. It’s boundaries do not extend into the USA. In fact the Toronto eparchy is a suffragan in the ecclesiastical province of the metropolitan Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Winnipeg. Therefore +Borecky’s title was never Archbishop but only bishop. On an interesting note, I do remember that Bp. Borecky allowed the SSPX to hold Sunday Mass in Ukrainian churches in Toronto. (i.e. I have been attending Holy Mass at Society chapels since the late 70s). I guess it could be argued that Bp. Borecky tacitly gave jurisdiction to the SSPX priests in his eparchy. By 1988, this relationship between him and the SSPX came to quick end after Archbishop Lefebvre’s consecration of the 4 bishops. He also started getting very “ecumenical” after 1988 when he presided over a very scandalous ecumenical service with a slew of heretics (Eastern “Orthodox” and Protestants) commemorating the millennium of Christianity in the Ukraine. Hi, would you please link a reference to the boundaries of the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Winnipeg? Your assertion sounds correct but positive evidence is better. Hi Striderckg, Just click the link on the top of the following URL for the official website of the Toronto Eparchy : ucet.ca/our-parishes/i.e. click on link “Our parishes - View on Google Maps”. Toronto Eparchy extends only within the boundary of the Canadian provinces”. More info also at the following Wikipedia entry: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Catholic_Eparchy_of_Torontoen.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Catholic_Archeparchy_of_Winnipeg
|
|
|
Post by striderckg on Nov 5, 2022 20:00:37 GMT -5
I’m in contact with someone familiar with the situation who insists the territory of the Toronto Eparchy was broken up during the time of John 23rd and did in fact cover Texas before that time. I’ll report back here if/when I verify this claim.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2022 3:57:37 GMT -5
Thanks for your information @stridrckg. The Catholic Hierarchy webpage has a summary of the history of the Toronto Eparchy which indicates only three major changes to its status, all of these occurring prior to the death of Pius XII. The screenshot below from this page shows the current Ukranian rite Eparchies in North America. Texas is currently serviced by two missions based out of the Illinois Eparchy.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 6, 2022 11:30:55 GMT -5
It seems that Fr. Campbell remembers his training that priests need canonical missions to function in the Catholic Church, therefore he sought it out. With that said, eastern rite bishops gave no jurisdiction over Latin rite Catholics. The bishop cannot give him what he lacks the power to give. The matter is also a moot issue due to the the point that Wenceslav brought up. But let’s say that Fr. Campbell moved into Bishop Borecky’s Eparchy (Eastern diocese), unless Fr. Campbell became an eastern rite Catholic, Bishop Borecky could not grant him a canonical mission or faculties. The Church keeps separate governance over the Latin Rite Catholics from eastern rite Catholics and even eastern rite Catholics from other eastern Catholics of different rites. Hi Pacelli, bishops can in principle grant faculties to priests, but can you provide a reference for why Eastern clerics cannot grant privileges to Latin clerics? I’ve discovered references for situations with the inter-ritual granting of confessional jurisdiction from Latin to Eastern (CUA press) but I have not seen resources discussing the reverse situation. You are right that in principle a bishop could grant a mission and faculties to priests, but there are caveats to this. Even a Roman rite priest who leaves his diocese to work in a different diocese must have authorization from his bishop. If a Roman rite priest wanted to work under an Eastern rite bishop, he would need authorization from his bishop first. Anyway, I remember reading on this before, I’ll dig up a source, but it may be a few days. You may argue that since the bishops of the Latin rite are for the most part gone and since it’s now impossible to obtain approval from one’s bishop that this would have been a case that may different, and that’s possible and certainly worth exploring. Anyway, give me time to get the source, then we can go from there.
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Nov 6, 2022 19:11:05 GMT -5
I’m in contact with someone familiar with the situation who insists the territory of the Toronto Eparchy was broken up during the time of John 23rd and did in fact cover Texas before that time. I’ll report back here if/when I verify this claim. Hi again Striderckg, I don’t understand why such a change to the boundaries of the Toronto Eparchy (even if it’s factual and of which I have many doubts) during the time of John XXIII would be important. Fr. Campbell claims he renewed his priestly faculties i.e. mission in 2001 under the auspices of Bp. Borecky. Any previous changes to the boundaries of a Ukrainian Catholic eparchy would take effect even under an anti-pope since such actions would attract supplied jurisdiction.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2022 22:37:56 GMT -5
I’m in contact with someone familiar with the situation who insists the territory of the Toronto Eparchy was broken up during the time of John 23rd and did in fact cover Texas before that time. I’ll report back here if/when I verify this claim. Hi again Striderckg, I don’t understand why such a change to the boundaries of the Toronto Eparchy (even if it’s factual and of which I have many doubts) during the time of John XXIII would be important. Fr. Campbell claims he renewed his priestly faculties i.e. mission in 2001 under the auspices of Bp. Borecky. Any previous changes to the boundaries of a Ukrainian Catholic eparchy would take effect even under an anti-pope since such actions would attract supplied jurisdiction. Does there need to be an "*if this it is for the common good" attached to this?
|
|
|
Post by wenceslav on Nov 6, 2022 23:48:45 GMT -5
Hi again Striderckg, I don’t understand why such a change to the boundaries of the Toronto Eparchy (even if it’s factual and of which I have many doubts) during the time of John XXIII would be important. Fr. Campbell claims he renewed his priestly faculties i.e. mission in 2001 under the auspices of Bp. Borecky. Any previous changes to the boundaries of a Ukrainian Catholic eparchy would take effect even under an anti-pope since such actions would attract supplied jurisdiction. Does there need to be an "*if this it is for the common good" attached to this? Hi Resolution, The creation or the division or dismemberment of a diocese is for the “common good” and is self evident. See the following entry from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia on “Diocese”. URL: www.newadvent.org/cathen/05001a.htmIn the section “ Division or dismemberment of a diocese”, we read the following: If it is true that John XXIII did indeed dismember the Toronto Eparchy, it was probably(I am speculating here) that the geographic area was too large. If he was Pope or not, the act of making the eparchy smaller for administrative purposes would certainly benefit Bp. Borecky in serving his flock.
|
|
|
Post by Pacelli on Nov 18, 2022 10:58:17 GMT -5
It seems that Fr. Campbell remembers his training that priests need canonical missions to function in the Catholic Church, therefore he sought it out. With that said, eastern rite bishops have no jurisdiction over Latin rite Catholics. The bishop cannot give him what he lacks the power to give. The matter is also a moot issue due to the the point that Wenceslav brought up. But let’s say that Fr. Campbell moved into Bishop Borecky’s Eparchy (Eastern diocese), unless Fr. Campbell became an eastern rite Catholic, Bishop Borecky could not grant him a canonical mission or faculties. The Church keeps separate governance over the Latin Rite Catholics from eastern rite Catholics and even eastern rite Catholics from other eastern Catholics of different rites. Hi Pacelli, bishops can in principle grant faculties to priests, but can you provide a reference for why Eastern clerics cannot grant privileges to Latin clerics? I’ve discovered references for situations with the inter-ritual granting of confessional jurisdiction from Latin to Eastern (CUA press) but I have not seen resources discussing the reverse situation. Your question is a good one, and I did dig into this, to see if there were any exceptions in Church history or law to what I wrote above. I will post the relevant source, but here are my conclusions: 1. What I wrote about above is the the only way to understand this matter. 2. The Church never granted any exceptions of allowing a priest of the Latin rite to be assigned to an eastern rite bishop. 3. The only "exception" I found was a case 1937 when Latin rite priests were released to the Byzantines in Poland to care for Catholics of their rite, but, in order to do this, the Latin priests temporarily changed rites, and this was done with the permission of the Holy See. This is the closest example I can find that would apply to our situation, but even then, it doesn't match what happened in the situation of Fr. Campbell. 4. In the case of #3, since the priests switched rites, at least temporarily, they for that period of time would no longer have been Latin rite priests subject to the Latin rite ordinary. That was the only way to do this, and it seems that in this case a "work-around" was figured out to help the Byzantines in need, without in any way violating the jurisdiction of each rite's hierarchy. It was quite brilliant, in my opinion, but the case doesn't help this situation, as Rome, even the Rome of the anti-pope did not authorize Fr. Campbell to switch rites, be freed from the jurisdiction of the Latin Rite hierarchy, and serve the Byzantines, so there is not a question here of whether the Church supplied for this changing of rites in order for him to be a subject of the Byzantine rite bishop. (The case is found HERE p. 135)
|
|