www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West In what relationship do we stand with Rome

Eli:

In referring to the "Rusyns" as numbering only about 600,000 worldwide, I was limiting that number to Ruthenian Catholics as currently configured.

We all know that if we culled the others from the UGCC, the Latin Church, ACROD, the OCA, and from Protestantism, we have a Church worthy of her own patriarchate, if I may say so!

Amado

Understood. ACROD is a distinct possibility once communion is restored for reinvigorating the Ruthenian Byzantine Church. Those from the other three would have to filter back bits at a time. I cannot imagine the OCA folks would be easy to uproot, neither the truly latinized. The Protestants are a potential source but much smaller.

Eli

It seems to me that patriarchs ought not to be cardinals, but I don�t see any reason why major archbishops shouldn�t be. (In the case of the larger major archiepiscopal churches, it might make sense for several of their metropolitans to be cardinals as well.)

The question I�d like to ask is, can anyone describe the situation in Orthodoxy -- i.e. do heads of autonomous churches vote for in the election of their referent patriarchs? (I.e. does the head of the Church of Greece vote for the Patriarch of Constantinople, or the head of the UOC vote for the Patriarch of Moscow, etc.?)

The Church of Greece is autocephalous. I do not think they sit on the synod of Constantinople, but I'm willing to be corrected.

Good question about UOC-MP

Correct, the Orthodox Church of Greece is autocephalous and thus is not involved in the election of the Patriarchof Constantinople. Only the Holy Synod of the Patriarchate of Constantinople is involved.
For the UOC-MP: the Ukrainian Orthodox Church: Patriarchate of Moscow, is autonomous, not autocephalous.
There, the Metropolitan of Kyiv, sits on the Holy Synod of the P of M and thus takes part in the elction of the Patriarch of Moscow.
If the Ukrainian Orthodox Church were autochephalous, the Metropolitan of Kyiv would not have a vote or sit on the Holy Synod of the P of M.

I read somewhere that the Metropolitan of the UOC-MP sits at the Holy Synod "next in rank" to the Patriarch of Moscow.

Although the UOC-MP is considered "autonomous" by the ROC and her "allies," that "autonomous status" has not been recognized/accepted by worldwide Orthodoxy, particularly by the EP?

Amado

Amado: "I read somewhere that the Metropolitan of the UOC-MP sits at the Holy Synod "next in rank" to the Patriarch of Moscow."
That is correct. I read this on the P of M website. The statute for the P of M is found at:
http://www.mospat.ru/index.php?mid=88&lng=1

Notice Chapter 4: 4
4. The permanent members of the Holy Synod shall be: Metropolitans of Kiev and All Ukraine; of St.Petersburg and Ladoga; of Krutitsy and Kolomna; of Minsk and Slutsk, Patriarchal Exarch of All Byelorussia; of Kishinev and All Moldova; the Chairman of the Department for External Church Relations and the Chancellor of the Moscow Patriarchate ex officio. The Metropolitan of Kyiv has a primacy of honour after the P of M.

"Although the UOC-MP is considered "autonomous" by the ROC and her "allies," that "autonomous status" has not been recognized/accepted by worldwide Orthodoxy, particularly by the EP?"
That is also correct. Why? Because the Ecumenical Patriarchate does not recognise the "annexation" of Kyiv by Moscow in the 17th century.

My apologies for the mis-information.

Without wanting to ignore or oversimplify the differences between the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Churches, the above would seem to support my idea that Catholic Major Archbishops, but not Patriarchs, should be Cardinals.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to wag a finger at both of you for forgetting the Romanians.

:p

Incidentally, though, I was looking at the new 2006 Eastern Catholic stats (thanks, Pavel, BTW), and I noticed that there's is no indication of either the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church and the Romanian Catholic Church having been recently elevated. (Perhaps the elevations didn't become official until after the 2006 yearbook came out?)

Dear Peter,

I've nothing against Eastern Catholic prelates being Cardinals, but, ultimately, the EC Churches have no need of them as Particular Churches in communion with Rome, as threads have discussed here over the years.

Cardinals are part of the Holy Roman Church alone and they do, most of them, but not all, engage in the process of choosing a new Pope in the conclave.

But having EC Primates involved in electing a new Pope of Rome would be, to be seriously faithful to the ecclesiology of Particular Churches, like having RC's engage in choosing a new EC Patriarch.

No benefit at all is to be had by any EC Church in having a Cardinal at its head. As an honorific, it is certainly ultra vires to EC ecclesiological praxis.

The Pope of Rome is ultimately the head of the universal Latin Catholic Particular Church and EC's are in communion with him as Universal Pastor who does not normally (and ideally) get involved in the running of the internal matters of EC Churches which should be up to the Metropolitans, Major Archbishops and Patriarchs alone.

It would support the Catholic Church's ecumenical vision much better to NOT have EC Cardinals (and also to abolish the Congregation for the Eastern Churches).

Rome's relationship with Orthodoxy, I and many I know believe, would be strengthened thereby.

Alex

Professor,

I do agree once again. We need our own Patriarch and be in communion with Rome but I can't see the value in having Cardinals for either of our Churched.

BTW Welcome back.

CDL

For some, yes. The Pope would then no longer be first among equals, but peer among peers. That would suit some folks just fine.

But to maintain the universal and supreme office of pope as -First- among equals, then some other kind of arrangement will have to be struck to the satisfaction of all.

Eli

Dear Eli,

Well, I've said what gives me satisfaction!

Cheers,

Alex

Dear Professor Dan,

If I'm a 'professor,' then you must be university president!

I remember when Patriarch Husar, when be came a Cardinal, slipped off his Cardinal's ring and put it in his pocket - to the amazement of the Italian press that thronged him for interviews.

Having said that, I've come across Ukrainian government officials at the legislature who, although they are Orthodox in the main, esteem Husar PRECISELY because he is a Cardinal and is acknowledged internationally as such.

So go figure!

Cheers,

Alex