Metropolitans in
the Oriental and Latin Codes:
A Comparative Study with Special Reference to the Syro-Malabar Church
(Published in
Abstract
This
study offers a comparative analysis of the office of the metropolitan in the
Oriental (CCEO) and Latin (CIC) Codes of Canon Law, with special reference to
the Syro-Malabar Church sui iuris. It traces the historical origins of
the metropolitan office and examines its contemporary canonical structure. The
article identifies and explains the various categories of metropolitans in the
Eastern Catholic Churches The study also analyzes the symbolism and canonical
requirements surrounding the pallium in both codes, noting significant
differences in its conferment and use.
A
detailed comparison of the rights and obligations of metropolitans in the two
codes is presented, including their roles in ordination, liturgical functions,
canonical visitations, judicial authority, vigilance over suffragan
eparchies/dioceses, appointment of officials, and representation of the
province. Unique prerogatives - such as the Eastern metropolitan’s role in
ordaining bishops and the Latin metropolitan’s right to celebrate in any church
of the province - are highlighted.
Key Words:
Metropolitan;
Metropolitan province, Metropolitan See, Suffragan eparchy/diocese, Pallium,
Synod of Bishops, Apostolic See.
1. Introduction
From the earliest period of the Church, a distinctive
relationship developed between the principal cities where the Christian faith
first flourished and the smaller towns surrounding them. The older and more
prominent Churches, particularly those distinguished by their missionary
activity, were recognized as metropolitan sees. The bishops of the lesser
towns, known as suffragans[1]. Over time, the metropolitan acquired
authority over these neighboring bishops. He convoked them for meetings
(synods), presided over the election and ordination of new bishops, and
assisted in judging matters that concerned them[2].
Today,
a metropolitan is the bishop who presides over an ecclesiastical province and
has other bishops and eparchies/dioceses under his authority. A metropolitan
has the same rights and obligations as an eparchial/diocesan bishop in his
eparchy/diocese (CCEO can.134 §2; CIC 435). All metropolitans have the title of
Archbishop[3],
though not all archbishops are necessarily metropolitans.
2. Different
Types of Metropolitans
Metropolitans
are called archbishops in the Latin tradition (CIC c. 435). The
term ‘archbishop’ is not used in the CCEO; however, ‘metropolitan archbishop[4]’ is commonly used to refer
to the metropolitan of an ecclesiastical province in the Oriental Churches. The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (CCEO) presents
different types of metropolitans. They are: a) Metropolitans inside the Proper
Territory, b) Metropolitans outside the Proper Territory, c) Metropolitans designated,
d) Titular Metropolitans, e) Metropolitans who are Heads of Churches sui iuris. Let us look at each one in
detail:
2.1. Metropolitans inside the Proper
Territory
These
metropolitans have their Sees within the proper territory of the patriarchal
Church[5].
There are suffragan eparchies under each metropolitan province. The
Metropolitans of Changanassery, Ernakulam, Thrissur, Thalassery, Ujjain,
Kalyan, Shamshabad, and Faridabad are metropolitans with suffragan eparchies
within the proper territory of the Syro-Malabar ajor Archiepiscopal Church.
2. 2. Metropolitan without a Saffragan Eparchy
The
Synod of Bishops with the consent of the Apostolic See can elevate an eparchy,
inside the proper territory, to the status of a metropolitan province without a
suffragan eparchy, when its unique character warrants such a step. The Metropolitan
See of Kottayam is the only metropolitan province in the Syro-Malabar Church
that has no suffragan eparchy.
The eparchy of Kottayam was erected exclusively for the
Southist (Knanaya) Catholics in 1911. Whenever the territory of the Syro-Malabar Church expanded,
the jurisdiction of the eparchy of Kottayam was likewise extended. Since its
territory came to span several provinces of the Syro-Malabar Church, the Synod
of Bishops of the Syro-Malabar Church granted its consent to elevate Kottayam
to the rank of a metropolitan See without a suffragan eparchy. With the
approval of the Apostolic See, it was raised to the status of a metropolitan
province without a suffragan eparchy in 2005[6].
2. 3. Metropolitans outside the Proper Territory
These
are metropolitans of a patriarchal Church who have their Sees outside the
proper territory (CCEO cc. 146–150). They enjoy all powers of a metropolitan inside
proper territory except the power to ordain bishops of the province. Examples
include the Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia
in the USA and the Metropolitan of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Archeparchy of
Winnipeg in Canada. There are no such metropolitans in the Syro-Malabar Church.
2. 4. Metropolitans Designated
An
eparchial bishop may be designated as a metropolitan by the eparchial bishops
outside the proper territory of the patriarchal Church, after consulting the
patriarch and receiving the approval of the Apostolic See (cf. CCEO can. 139).
The intention of the legislator is that every eparchial bishop should be
subject to the authority of a metropolitan. Outside the proper territory, if no
metropolitan structure exists, the eparchial bishops may designate a
metropolitan[7].
This
metropolitan does not enjoy all the powers of metropolitans inside the proper
territory of the patriarchal Church, such as ordaining bishops of his province,
convoking the metropolitan synod, or being commemorated during the liturgy by
other bishops and clerics (CCEO cc. 139, 135, 136).
There
is, however, a possibility of having such a metropolitan in the Syro-Malabar
Church. The Eparchial Bishops of Chicago (USA), Great Britain (UK), Melbourne
(Australia), and Mississauga (Canada) can designate one among them as
Metropolitan after consulting the Major Archbishop and receiving prior approval
of the Apostolic See. The law does not prohibit having eparchies under a
metropolitan in different countries[8].
This provision is found only in CCEO.
2. 5. Titular Metropolitans
The
CCEO provides for the conferral of the title of Metropolitan (CCEO can. 136) in
virtue of one’s See or personal distinction[9].
A titular metropolitan has an arch/eparchy to govern, but without suffragan
eparchies. He is not a head of a metropolitan province[10].
The Apostolic See can confer this name to with honorific, also up on other
Bishops, both ‘ad persona’ and ‘ad sedem’[11].
2. 6. Metropolitans who are Heads of Churches sui iuris
These
metropolitans are heads of a Metropolitan Church sui iuris. Appointed by the Roman Pontiff, they preside over a
metropolitan See and govern their Church sui
iuris with the help of the council of hierarchs. Examples include the
Hungarian Church, Ethiopian Church, etc.
In
this article, we focus on metropolitans of the proper territory of the Eastern
Churches and metropolitans of the Latin Church.
3. Pallium
of Metropolitans
The
pallium is a liturgical vestment. It is a white woolen band, about two and a
half inches wide, with pendants hanging in the front and back. Adorned with six
black silk crosses, it is fastened with gold pins on top of the chasuble. It is
made from the wool of two lambs blessed at Saint John Lateran on the feast of
Saint Agnes. On the eve of the feast of Saints Peter and Paul, the newly woven
pallia are taken to the crypt of Saint Peter, where they are blessed by the Roman
Pontiff during Vespers. They remain there overnight and are then presented to
the new archbishops in a special ceremony on the feast day[12].
3. 1. Pallium
of Latin Metropolitans
The
pallium is a symbol of the full communion of the metropolitans with the Roman
Pontiff and of the supra-episcopal authority exercised by the metropolitan[13].
It is conferred on Latin metropolitans and the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem[14].
It
is an obligation of Latin metropolitans to obtain the pallium from the Roman
Pontiff. Within three months of receiving episcopal consecration, or if already
consecrated, within three months of appointment, he must request the pallium
from the Pontiff, either personally or through a proxy (CIC can. 437 §1). If a
metropolitan is transferred to another metropolitan See, he must request a new
pallium within three months (CIC can. 437 §3).
The
Latin metropolitan is free to wear the pallium in any church of the ecclesiastical
province over which he presides, but he is prohibited from using it outside the
province—not even with the consent of the diocesan bishop (CIC can. 437 §2).
3. 2. Pallium
for Eastern Metropolitans
In
Eastern Catholic Churches, all metropolitans do not need to request the pallium
from the Roman Pontiff. Metropolitans of patriarchal and Major Archiepiscopal
Churches, whether inside or outside the proper territory, do not request the
pallium. These metropolitans are in full communion with the Roman Pontiff
through the head of the Church, the Patriarch.
Only
the metropolitans of Metropolitan Churches sui
iuris are required to request the pallium.
“Within three months of his episcopal ordination or, if already ordained a
bishop, from his enthronement, the metropolitan is bound by the obligation to
request from the Roman Pontiff the pallium, a symbol of metropolitan power and
of the full communion of the Metropolitan Church sui iuris with the Roman Pontiff” (CCEO can. 156 §1).
Just
as the Patriarch (not Major Archbishop) cannot convoke a Synod of Bishops or
ordain a bishop before receiving ecclesiastical communion from the Roman
Pontiff (CCEO can. 77 §2), the metropolitan cannot convoke the council of
hierarchs or ordain bishops until he receives the pallium (CCEO can. 156 §2).
It
is obligatory for a metropolitan of a Metropolitan Church sui iuris to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff before
convoking the council of hierarchs or ordaining bishops.
The pallium of Latin metropolitans is a personal
sign of communion with the Roman Pontiff, whereas the pallium of the
metropolitan (head) of a Metropolitan Church sui iuris is not a personal
sign, but a sign of communion of his Church sui iuris with the Roman Pontiff[15].
Unlike
the CIC (CIC can. 437 §2), the CCEO is silent on the use of the pallium outside
the proper territory. The previous law, Cleri sanctitati can. 321 §3,
prohibited metropolitans from using the pallium outside the proper territory[16].
4. Office Attached to a Determined
See
The
office of a metropolitan is always attached to a determined (Arch)eparchial/diocesan
See (CCEO can. 134 §1; CIC can. 435). A metropolitan has all the rights and
duties of a diocesan / eparchial bishop in his eparchy (CCEO can. 134 §2; CIC can.
435). He receives the letter of canonical provision from the patriarch. If he
is not already a bishop, he is to be ordained and enthroned as metropolitan by
the patriarch (CCEO can. 86 §1).
5. Rights and obligations of
Metropolitans:
Metropolitans possess
certain rights and obligations within their proper province. However, although
they hold specific rights and duties, they exercise power of governance over
the province in a limited manner. The following are their rights and
obligations.
5. 1. Ordination and Enthronement of
Bishops in the Province
It
is the right of the Eastern metropolitans to ordain and enthrone all bishops of
his province (CCEO can. 133, 1°).
This provision is absent in the CIC. Latin law does not grant metropolitans the
authority to ordain bishops in their province ipso iure. While the
patriarch ordains and enthrones metropolitans, the metropolitans ordain and
enthrone all bishops of their provinces. Former legislation (Cleri
sanctitati c. 319 §5) permitted metropolitans to use the Pontifical in all the
eparchies of their province. The CCEO is silent on this matter.
5. 2. Convoking
and Presiding over the Metropolitan Synod
In
addition to the Synod of Bishops of the patriarchal Church, the metropolitan
has the right to convoke the metropolitan synod at times determined by the
Synod of Bishops (CCEO can. 133, 2°). This metropolitan synod is solely for the
bishops in the metropolitan province (CCEO can. 102 §1).
He
not only convokes the synod but also presides over it. He may transfer,
postpone, suspend, or dissolve it. It is also his responsibility to prepare the
agenda. All and only ordained bishops of the province may participate. Although
the CCEO does not specify the competence of the synod, one may legitimately
presume that it has legislative power. Laws enacted by this synod are binding
only on the faithful of that province. The synod may not promulgate laws
contrary to the CCEO or to the particular laws enacted by the Synod of Bishops
of the Church sui iuris. Particular
law may specify the competence of the metropolitan synod as well as the rights
and obligations of metropolitans (CCEO can. 137).
5. 3. To
Erect Metropolitan Tribunals
The
metropolitan is competent to erect a metropolitan tribunal (CCEO can. 133, 3°).
He exercises judicial authority on behalf of the province, as he may constitute
his own tribunal to serve as the appellate tribunal for decisions of eparchial
tribunals (CCEC can. 1068 §1)[17].
5. 4. Vigilance
over the Eparchies/Dioceses
It
is the right and obligation of the metropolitan to exercise vigilance in
matters of faith and ecclesiastical discipline over the eparchies/ dioceses of
his province (CCEO
can. 133, 4°; CIC can. 436, 1°). “However, with due regard for those
exceptions explicitly mentioned in common law and which could be enacted by
particular law, the metropolitan does not have the right to intervene, but only
to report it to the competent authority”[18].
The
function of vigilance does not grant the metropolitan the right to conduct a
canonical visitation of a suffragan diocese / eparchy on his own initiative[19]. If serious indiscipline or abuse is
found, the metropolitan must report the matter to the Patriarch in the Eastern
Churches or to the Roman Pontiff in the Latin Church (CIC can. 436 §1, 1°).
5. 5. Conducting
Canonical Visitation
A
pastoral visitation must be conducted in all parishes and non-exempt
institutions of an eparchy/ diocese at least once every five years (CCEO can.
205 §1; CIC can. 396 §1). This is normally the responsibility of the
eparchial/diocesan bishop and must be carried out personally unless
legitimately impeded. If he is unable, he may send a coadjutor bishop,
auxiliary bishop, protosyncellus/vicar general, syncellus/episcopal vicar, or
another priest.
If
the eparchial bishop fails to conduct the visitation, the metropolitan must do
so (CCEO can.
133, 5°; CIC can. 436 §1, 2°). Under the former legislation, the
metropolitan needed the patriarch’s permission before conducting the
visitation. In the Latin Church, if a diocesan bishop neglects the canonical
visitation, the metropolitan may conduct it after receiving approval from the
Roman Pontiff (CIC can. 436 §1, 2°). The CCEO no longer requires such
permission from the patriarch.
5. 6. Appointing
a Finance Officer
The
office of the finance officer is mandatory in every eparchy/diocese. The
eparchial/diocesan bishop has the serious obligation to appoint one. If he
fails to do so, after a warning from the metropolitan, the metropolitan must
appoint the finance officer (CCEO can. 133, 6°; CIC can. 436 §1, 3°).
5. 7. Appointing a Diocesan
Administrator
In
the Latin Church, the college of consultors must elect a diocesan administrator
within eight days of notification of a vacancy (CIC can. 421 §1). If the
college of consultors could not elect a diocesan administrator, the
metropolitan has a right and duty to appoint a diocesan administrator (CIC can.
421 §2).
When
an eparchy becomes vacant, the power of the eparchial bishop transfers to the
patriarch until an administrator is appointed (CCEO can. 220). Administrator is
appointed by the patriarch in the proper territory (CCEO can 220, 3⁰). Therefore,
the Eastern metropolitan has no role when an eparchy becomes vacant.
5. 8. Appointing/Confirming
Persons in Offices
If
an eparchial bishop fails to appoint or confirm someone who is elected or
proposed to an office, the metropolitan has the right and obligation to appoint
or confirm after giving due warning.
For example, if an eparchial bishop does not erect a finance council or
presbyteral council, the metropolitan may intervene after warning him (CCEO can. 133, 6°).
Even
when appointed by the metropolitan, the person does not fall under the
metropolitan’s authority (CCEO can. 945). His juridical condition is the same
as if he had been appointed by the eparchial bishop (CCEO can. 945)[20].
5. 9. Representation
of the Province
The
metropolitan province enjoys public juridic personality and is represented by
the metropolitan in all ecclesiastical and civil matters (CCEO can. 133 §2)
5. 10. Liturgical
Commemoration
In
the Eastern Churches, commemoration of the hierarch is a public and solemn
affirmation of communion. As a sign of submission to the authority of the
metropolitan, the bishops and clergy of his province are to take out his name
according to the liturgical prescriptions[21].
Therefore, in the Eastern Churches, metropolitans are to be commemorated by all
bishops and clerics in the divine liturgy and the divine praises according to
the prescriptions of the liturgical books (CCEO can. 135). There is no parallel
canon in the CIC.
Deliberate
refusal to commemorate the metropolitan is a clear sign of a lack of communion
with him. After due warning, offenders may incur penalties including major
excommunication (CCEO can. 1438).
5. 11. Liturgical
Prerogatives of Metropolitans in the Latin Church
The
metropolitan of the Latin Church may celebrate sacred functions in all churches
of the province as if he were a bishop in his own diocese. If he wishes to
celebrate in the cathedral of a suffragan diocese, he has to notify the
diocesan bishop beforehand. This is only information, not a permission (CIC can.
436 §3). The suffragan bishop has no legal right to prevent the metropolitan
from celebrating liturgical functions in his cathedral[22].
This privilege given to Latin metropolitans is not granted to metropolitans of
the Eastern Churches in the CCEO.
5. 12. Precedence over a Titular Metropolitans
All
metropolitans have precedence over all eparchial bishops. However, a
metropolitan who presides over an ecclesiastical province enjoys precedence
over one who holds only a titular dignity of metropolitan by virtue of his See
or personal distinction (CCEO can. 136).
5.
13. Duties in Sexual and other Related Abuse Cases:
In his Apostolic letter
issued motu proprio, Vos Estis Lux Mundi, dated 25 March
2023, Pope Francis entrusted certain responsibilities to metropolitans of both
the Eastern and Latin Churches for investigating cases of sexual and related
abuse, as well as for addressing instances of cover-up or negligence by bishops
and religious superiors. Upon receiving a credible report against a suffragan
bishop, auxiliary bishop, or another equivalent cleric accused of such
offenses, the metropolitan must immediately inform the competent Dicastery of
the Roman Curia. Unless otherwise directed by the Dicastery, the metropolitan
then proceeds with the investigation. The Apostolic letter further assigns
metropolitans a few more duties related to this matter[23].
5. 14. Other
Minor Roles of Metropolitans
If
the presbyteral council of an eparchy is no longer functioning properly, the
eparchial bishop may dissolve it. Before doing so, he must consult the
metropolitan (CCEO can. 270 §3). If he fails to consult the metropolitan, the
act is invalid (CCEO can. 934 §2, 2°).
Diocesan
/ eparchial bishops are bound by the law of residence (CCEO c. 204 §1; CIC can.
395 §1). They may not be absent from the diocese for more than one month
without cause (CIC can. 395 §2). If a bishop is absent for more than six
months, the metropolitan must notify the Apostolic See (CIC can. 395 §4). This
responsibility is not given to metropolitans of Eastern Churches inside the
proper territory; rather, the patriarch must communicate the matter to the
Apostolic See. Metropolitans outside the proper territory must notify the
Apostolic See as in the Latin Church (CCEO can. 204 §4).
In
the Latin Church, the papal legate has a significant role in the appointment of
diocesan bishops, coadjutor bishops, and auxiliary bishops. He must send the
list of possible candidates (terna) to the Apostolic See after
personally consulting the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province
(CIC can. 377 §3). Therefore, metropolitan is to be consulted by the papal
legate in this regard.
In
the Latin Church, once a diocesan bishop takes canonical possession of the
diocese, he must designate a few priests who would govern the diocese if the See
is impeded, provided there is no coadjutor bishop. If there is an auxiliary
bishop, he may include him in the list. The bishop is free to choose these
priests. The list must be communicated to the metropolitan and kept in the
secret archive (CIC can. 413 §1). There is no parallel canon in the eastern code.
It
is the responsibility of the diocesan bishop of the Latin Church to communicate
the text of the declarations and decrees of the diocesan synod to the
metropolitan and to the Episcopal Conference (CIC can. 467). The CCEO has no
such requirement for eparchial bishops.
6. Transfer
of a Metropolitan
The
patriarch, with the consent of the Synod of Bishops, may transfer a
metropolitan within the proper territory for a grave reason (CCEO can. 85 §2). Transfer may not be made for a
mere just reason but only for a grave reason. The patriarch must consult the
bishop concerned. The bishop must consent. If he refuses, the Synod of Bishops
must resolve the matter or refer it to the Roman Pontiff (CCEO can. 85 §2, 2°).
If coercive measures are used, the bishop may appeal to the Roman Pontiff[24].
A metropolitan may be transferred to another metropolitan See, but not to an
eparchial See. Such a transfer would diminish his status and would be
considered a penalty (CCEO can. 1433 §1).
7. Possibility of Enacting
Particular Laws on Metropolitans
We
have seen the rights and obligations of the metropolitan in CCEO can. 133. The
Synod of Bishops may more precisely define the roles and functions of
metropolitans in the proper territory. When enacting particular laws, the synod
may not legislate contrary to common law (CCEO can. 985 §2). The synod must
also consider the customs of the Church sui
iuris and the circumstances of time and place (CCEO c. 137).
The
Latin Code states: “Where circumstances require it, the Apostolic See can give
the metropolitan special functions and powers, to be determined in particular
law” (CIC can. 436 §2).
8. Conclusion:
When
we make a comparative study of metropolitans in the Latin Church and those of
the Eastern Patriarchal Churches, we can observe both similarities and certain
differences. While metropolitans of the Latin Church enjoy certain privileges,
metropolitans of the Patriarchal Churches enjoy some other privileges. It
should be understood that all metropolitans are archbishops, but not all
archbishops are metropolitans. The Eastern Code enumerates five types of
metropolitans. The use of the pallium is primarily for Latin metropolitans, and
among the metropolitans of the Eastern Church, only those who head a
Metropolitan Church sui iuris use it as a symbol of communion with the
Roman Pontiff. It is the prerogative right of the metropolitans of the
Patriarchal Church to ordain bishops within their metropolitan province. It is
the exclusive right of Latin metropolitans to preside over liturgical functions
in any of the churches within their metropolitan province, including
cathedrals. At the same time, it is a unique privilege of metropolitans of the
Patriarchal Church that they are commemorated during the liturgy and in canonical
prayers throughout the entire province, after the Roman Pontiff and the
Patriarch, by bishops and priests. Both exercise authority over their
respective metropolitan provinces.
About the Author:
Mathew John Puthenparambil
Mathew
John Puthenparambil was born in Rajapuram, Kerala. He was ordained a priest for
the Diocese of Bijnor in 1998. He holds a Master’s degree in Sociology from
H.N. Bahuguna Garhwal University, Uttarakhand, and secured a doctorate in Canon
Law from the Urban University, Rome, in 2013.
He
has served the Diocese of Bijnor in various capacities, including Youth
Director, Parish Priest, Chancellor and Director of the Pastoral Centre. He
also served the Archdiocese of Faridabad as Chancellor, Judicial Vicar, and
Parish Priest. He teaches both Eastern and Latin Canon Law in seminaries and
has contributed scholarly articles to various publications.
He
is currently the resident staff at St. Ephrem Theological College, Satna.
[1] Thomas Pazhayampillil and Anton
Padinjarathala, Pastoral Guide, Vol
3, Kristu Jyoti Publications, Bangalore, 2013, p. 606.
[2] Victor J. Pospishil, Eastern Catholic
Church Law,
New York, Saint Maron Publications, 1996, p. 177.
[3] Peter Erdő, “Metropolitans” in
Angel Marzoa, Jorge Miras and Rafael Rodriguez-ocana (Eds), Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon
Law, Vol II/1, Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2004, p. 946.
[4] Vatican Council II uses the phrase
“Metropolitan Archbishop” in Decree on the Pastoral Office of Bishops in the
Church, Christus Dominus, No. 40
[5] Wherever patriarch/patriarchal Church is mentioned in this
article, it is applicable to Major Archbishop/Major Archiepiscopal Church
unless it is mentioned otherwise.
[6] Synodal
News, Bulletin of
the Syro Malabar Major Archiepiscopal Church, Vol 1 & 2, December 2005, pp.
60-61.
[7] John D.
Faris, Designated Metropolitans, in
John D. Faris and Jobe Abbass (Eds), A
Practical Commentary to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Vol 1,
Chambly, Wilson & Lafleur inc, 2019, p. 358.
[8] John
D. Faris, “Metropolitans of the Patriarchal Church”
in John D. Faris and Jobe Abbass (Eds), A Practical Commentary to the Code of Canons
of the Eastern Churches, Vol 1, Chambly, Wilson & Lafleur inc, 2019,
p. 359;
[9] John D.
Faris, Eastern
Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, New York, Saint Maron
Publication, 1992, p. 337; Victor J. Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law, p. 178.
[10] Victor J.
Pospishil, Eastern Catholic Church Law,
p. 178.
[11] Peter Erdő, “Metropolitans” in
Angel Marzoa, Jorge Miras and Rafael Rodriguez-ocana (Eds), Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon
Law, Vol II/1, Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2004, p. 946.
[12] John G. Johnson, “Grouping of
Particular Churches” in John P. Beal, James A. Coriden and Thomas J. Green (Eds),
New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law,
Bangalore, Theological Publications in India, 2004, p. 575.
[13] John D. Faris,
Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution
and Governance, p. 378.
[14] Paul VI,
Motu proprio Inter eximia, 11 May 1978, AAS 70 (1978), p. 442. John G.
Johnson, “Grouping of Particular Churches”, p. 576.
[15] John Paul Kimes,
in John D. Faris and Jobe Abbass (Eds), A Practical Commentary to the Code of Canons
of the Eastern Churches, Vol 1, Chambly, Wilson & Lafleur inc, 2019,
p. 401.
[16] John D. Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches: Constitution and
Governance, p. 378.
[17] John D.
Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches:
Constitution and Governance, p. 335.
[18] John D.
Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches:
Constitution and Governance p. 335.
[19] Peter Erdő, “Metropolitans” in
Angel Marzoa, Jorge Miras and Rafael Rodriguez-ocana (Eds), Exegetical Commentary on the Code of Canon
Law, Vol II/1, Montreal, Wilson & Lafleur, 2004, p. 952.
[20] John D.
Faris, Eastern
Catholic Churches: Constitution and Governance, p. 335.
[21] Frederick C.
Easton, “Penalties for Individual Delicts”, in John D. Faris and Jobe Abbass
(Eds), A Practical Commentary to the Code
of Canons of the Eastern Churches, Chambly, vol. 2, Wilson & Lafleur
inc, 2019, p. 2573.
[22] John G.
Johnson, “Grouping of Particular Churches” in John P. Beal, James A. Coriden
and Thomas J. Green (Eds), New Commentary
on the Code of Canon Law, Bangalore, Theological Publications in India,
2004, p. 575.
[23] Pope
Francis, Apostolic Letter Issued Motu Proprio, Vos Estis Lux Mundi, 25 March 2023.
[24] John D.
Faris, Eastern Catholic Churches:
Constitution and Governance, p. 251.
