The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
deaconjoseph2021, Kirah, Faithwisdom, Tredoslop, RPAW68
5,691 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 116 guests, and 106 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
by Santiago Tarsicio, March 17
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
by JLF, November 10
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Upgraded Russian icon corner
by The young fogey, October 20
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
by likethethief, June 12
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,939
Posts413,325
Members5,691
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Amado,

I don't quite understand your point. What specifically in the above list of patriarchs are you objecting to?

I have tried to follow CCEO can. 59, which grants precedence first to 1. Constantinople, 2. Alexandria, 3. Antioch and 4. Jerusalem (§ 2) and then to other patriarchal sees according to their antiquity (§ 3). Furthermore, I have followed can. 59 § 4 which grants precedence to patriarchs of the same title (e.g. Antioch) according to seniority of promotion to the patriarchal dignity. Furthermore I have tried to follow CCEO can. 154 which assigns precedence to major archbishops according to the order in which their churches received major archiepiscopal dignity.

Thus we have the following order of precedence:

1. Patriarchal sees:
1.1. Coptic Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria
1.2. Patriarchs of Antioch according to seniority:
1.2.1. Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch (patriarch elected 2000)
1.2.2. Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch (patriarch elected 2009)
1.2.3. Maronite Patriarch of Antioch (patriarch elected 2011)
1.3. Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon (patriarchs since 3rd century; Catholic patriarchs since 1553)
1.4. Armenian Catholic Patriarch of Cilicia (patriarchs since ca. 294; Catholic patriarchs since 1742)
2. Major archiepiscopal sees:
2.1. Major archbishop of Kyiv‒Halych (Lviv 1963; Kyiv 2004)
2.2. Major archbishop of Ernakulam‒Angamaly (1992)
2.3. Major archbishop of Trivandrum (10 Feb. 2005)
2.4. Major archbishop of Făgăraş şi Alba Iulia (16 Dec. 2005)

So the order of precedence provided for by cann. 59 and 154 is applied. Can. 60 is not applicable to this kind of list of all patriarchs and major archbishops.

Please let me know what your objections are. I would appreciate any legitimate corrections.

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
you may wish to factor in that the Melkite Patriarch is Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.

so perhaps he may take precendence over the Coptic Catholic Pope of Alexandria?

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Herbigny,

That is an interesting point. Though as I understand it the Greek Melkite Patriarch is Patriarch of Antioch first and only by courtesy Patriarch of Alexandria and Jerusalem. After all he resides in Damascus, which is within the Patriarchate of Antioch. He does not normally reside either in Jerusalem or in Alexandria. Also the majority of the Greek Melkite faithful are found in Syria and Lebanon, not in Jerusalem or in Alexandria. Thus my contention would be that Patriarch Antonios takes precedence over Patriarch Gregorios III. I don't think Patriarch Gregorios III would disagree.

This discussion brings to mind the beautiful scene at the funeral of Pope John Paul II when Coptic Patriarch Stephanos II of blessed memory censed the coffin and Melkite Patriarch Gregorios III chanted the prayers for the departed. Trying to oppose one to the other seems rather pointless.

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
The first is last and the last is first. The whole idea of precedence seems utterly pointless to me.

Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
H
Member
Offline
Member
H
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 695
dear LC:

The Melkite Patriarch has episcopal vicars in Both Alexandria and Jerusalem. I'm not sure whether there are a lot of Melkites in Egypt, but the biggest Catholic church (not sure if it is the biggest church) in Israel is Melkite.

Yes, the Panakhyda for JPII was indeed beautiful! by the way, it was natural for the Melkite to sing the service because it was a Byzantine Panakhyda that they did - not a Coptic Service.

(I wonder what the Coptic equivalent of a panakhyda is?)


Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Yet the Church makes a very definite point of regulating precedence, whether it be among patriarchs or among parish priests and their curates. Perhaps it is meant to remind everyone that "the last [shall] be first, and the first last" (Mt. 20:16).

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
It has little to do with that.

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Dear Herbigny,

your point is well taken. If we are to trust the Annuario Pontificio 2010 there are about 6,200 Melkites in Egypt and Sudan, compared to about 163,630 Copts in Egypt alone. While I do not think we can rely completely on these figures, I think they are indicative. Furthermore, for historical reasons I would go a long way to defend the rights of the Copts in the patriarchate of Alexandria against the Melkites. But, as I have tried to point out, unity should be our theme, not division or precedence.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
A
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Originally Posted by Latin Catholic
Amado,

I don't quite understand your point. What specifically in the above list of patriarchs are you objecting to?

I have tried to follow CCEO can. 59, which grants precedence first to 1. Constantinople, 2. Alexandria, 3. Antioch and 4. Jerusalem (§ 2) and then to other patriarchal sees according to their antiquity (§ 3). Furthermore, I have followed can. 59 § 4 which grants precedence to patriarchs of the same title (e.g. Antioch) according to seniority of promotion to the patriarchal dignity. Furthermore I have tried to follow CCEO can. 154 which assigns precedence to major archbishops according to the order in which their churches received major archiepiscopal dignity.

Thus we have the following order of precedence:

1. Patriarchal sees:
1.1. Coptic Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria
1.2. Patriarchs of Antioch according to seniority:
1.2.1. Greek-Melkite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch (patriarch elected 2000)
1.2.2. Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch (patriarch elected 2009)
1.2.3. Maronite Patriarch of Antioch (patriarch elected 2011)
1.3. Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon (patriarchs since 3rd century; Catholic patriarchs since 1553)
1.4. Armenian Catholic Patriarch of Cilicia (patriarchs since ca. 294; Catholic patriarchs since 1742)
2. Major archiepiscopal sees:
2.1. Major archbishop of Kyiv‒Halych (Lviv 1963; Kyiv 2004)
2.2. Major archbishop of Ernakulam‒Angamaly (1992)
2.3. Major archbishop of Trivandrum (10 Feb. 2005)
2.4. Major archbishop of Făgăraş şi Alba Iulia (16 Dec. 2005)

So the order of precedence provided for by cann. 59 and 154 is applied. Can. 60 is not applicable to this kind of list of all patriarchs and major archbishops.

Please let me know what your objections are. I would appreciate any legitimate corrections.


Dear LC:

I was not objecting to your iteration; I was directing my objection to the posts previous to yours.

Amado


Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Dear Amado,

I am sorry, I misunderstood you. Mea culpa.

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 1,405
Originally Posted by AMM
It has little to do with that.

It has a lot to do with that. If you are the pope or the patriarch, and recognized by everyone as the "first," Mt. 20:16 should put the fear of God into you.

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
That does not make sense.

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 58
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 58
Originally Posted by griego catolico
What about His Beatitude Lucian Mureşan, Major Archbishop of the Romanian Greek Catholic Church? Wouldn't he be regarded as a patriarch?

Edit: Oops, I see Latin Catholic just posted before me.


In my opinion, Major Archbishop is not the same thing as Patriarch. Head of the Church would be a better way to call it than Major Archbishop. Actually to call them Archbishop and grant them the title "Beatitude" is the best, I think. The term "major archbishop" is a 20th century invention that has nothing to do with the traditions of the Church. The Orthodox leader of the Church of Greece is the archbishop of Athens, who is not a patriarch and won't be consider as such also because of historical reasons. I gave one example, but the list can go on.

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,972
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,972
It's too late in the night to do more than skim thru the myrid posts made in the past 24h, as I have an early appt in the morning, so I'll limit my comment to one regarding the precedence involved with Alexandria and Antioch. It is my understanding that the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch takes precedence next after the Coptic Patriarch (and before the Maronite and Syriac Patriarchs of Antioch) by virtue of the fact that he bears the additional title of Alexandria, albeit ad personam.

LS is correct as regards Major Archbishops. While they are accorded the styling 'Beatitude', for purpose of precedence, they follow Patriarchs except that, within their own territory, they are commemorated first in the dyptichs.

Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 5,564
Dearly beloved, I knew this was going to happen. The original question was the precedence of Greek-Catholic Patriarchs. The Copts, the Maronites, the Armenians, the Chaldeans and so forth are Eastern Catholics, but they are not Greek-Catholics.

Metropolitan Lucian of Romania does not use the Patriarchal title - probably in order to avoid unpleasantness with the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate.

So that leaves us with exactly two Greek-Catholic Patriarchs: Gregory III and Sviatoslav.

Father Serge

Last edited by Fr Serge Keleher; 03/29/11 07:05 AM.
Page 5 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10

Moderated by  Father Anthony 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5