www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Catholic Cardinals

Slava Isusu Chrystu!

what a great moment for our Church to have 31 new cardinals... can anyone comment of the significance with relation to the Eastern Catholic Churches? pardon my ignorance, can you also list Eastern Catholic Cardinals that we have - only Cardinal husar that i know of...

God bless!

eumir

I know of few other Eastern Cardinals-

I.M. Cardinal Daoud- Patriarch of Antioch for the Syrians Emeritus, now the Perfect of the Oriental Churches, Roman Curia age 73

Stephanos II Cardinal Ghattas,CM Patriarch of Alexandria of the Copts age 83

Lubomyr Cardinal Husar, Major Archbishop of Lviv (Ukrainian) Age 70

Varkey Cardinal Vithaythil,CssR, Major Archbishop of Ernakulam-Angamaly (Syro-Malabarese) India Age 76

Nasrallah Pierre Cardinal Sfeir, Patriarch of Antioch (Maronite) age 83

Other recent appointments of Eastern Catholic who have since went into enternal rest include:

Alexandru Cardinal Todea, Archbishop Emeritus of Fagaras e Alba Iulia (Romanian) Romania Elevated to Cardinal in 1991, Died in 2002

Anthony Cardinal Padiyara, Archbishop Emiritus of Ernakulam-Angamaly, India (Syro-Malabarese) elevated to Cardinal in 1988, Died in 2000. Reading his background, He could have been a Latin Rite Bishop appointed to a Eastern see.

Myroslav Ivan Cardinal Lubachivsky, Archbishop of Lviv (Ukrainian). As most know, served as Eparch of Philidelphia

Antoine Pierre Cardinal Khoriache, Patriarch of Antioch (Maronite) Elevated in 1983, Died In 1994

Looking at it the Eastern churches' cardinals- 3 are under 80, and eligible for papal elections.

Looking back about 20 years, it looks like most Eastern churches cardinals were elevated around the age of 70. But isn't that kinda common practice for even Eastern bishops, the older the better?

Hopefully next generation there will be 0 Eastern Cardinals and instead Patriarchs will be admitted to the papal conclave.

anastasios

Dear Byz. Learner:

As long as you're compiling a list, I respectfully submit that you would be remiss not to add His Beatitude the Late Patriarch Joseph Slipyj of the (soon to be renamed) UGCC.

Also, although I guess it is still proper to refer to His Beatitidue Patriarch Lubomyr as the Matropolitan Archbishop of Lviv, I think once he moves to his rightful seat of Kyiv that should change.


Dear Atanasios:

Amen! All sui juris Churches get a Patriarch who would need no Latin title to enter into the conclave to elect the Pope. I like it!


Yours,


hal

Patriarch Maximos V of Antioch refused both the cardinalate and the proposal that patriarchs should participate in the conclave. Incognitus

dear eumir:

you may be wondering why anastasios and halychyna (and the noted theologians of the Eastern Catholics Churches as well for that matter) are a little less than enthusiastic about Eastern Catholic Cardinals.

It is only that the Cardinals were originally the major clergy of the diocese of Rome who had the right to elect the Bishop of Rome (ergo, e.g. the auxiliary bishops, the important priests and the big deacons - hence the old distinction of Cardinal Bishops, Cardinal Priests, and Cardinal Deacons [nowadays, they are all bishops].

But the bottomline is that Cardinals are clergy of the Latin Church, who elect the Patriarch of the Latin Church - who also happens to be the First Bishop of all the Patriarchs of the the Catholic Communion.

So, as big an honour and as well intentioned as I am sure it is intended to be, nevertheless it is more than a little weird that they would make e.g. the Patriarch of the Church of Kyiv a functionary and member of the Latin Church. See what I mean?

Each Eastern Catholic Patriarch has his own electors ("Cardinals" if you will) - usually the entire Holy Synod.

I think that the Eastern Churches should not be involved in the election of the Latin Patriarch. Just as the Latin Church should not be interfering in our election of our own Patriarchs.

Once elected, the Patriarch (even the First amongst the Patriarchs - i.e. the Pope of Older Rome) should send his "Creed" to the other Patriarchs, who, based on the Creed, will establish inter-Communion.

We're not there yet, but we're getting there!

First we have to understand that our "Church" is not canonically (i.e. Technically) just 1 Church, but a Communion of some 22 autonomous Churches. We still think (even many Eastern Catholics) that we are 1 Church, with the Pope as Prime Minister, the Cardinals as the Cabinet Ministers, and we Eastern Catholics are some sort of ethnic franchise or branch office who are somehow 2d class citizens.

So I rejoice with the Latin Church that it has new functionaries to serve the glory of God and the spread of the Holy Gospel.

But it doesn't have (or shouldn't have) that much to do with us.

Herb

Smart man. Even though I hold Pope John Paul II in great esteem (he is a living saint) I see no reason for us Byzantines to get involved in the election of the patriarch of another Particular Church.

I respectfully disagree, because I think everyone who is in communion with this "particular Church" (i.e., the Catholic Church headed by the Pope) should be represented by a Cardinal with the power to cast a vote.

Otherwise, how will anything change? The more Eastern Catholic cardinals there are, the more likely it is that the issues of the Eastern Church will be heard and dealt with.

Theist Gal,
I used to think this way too but.....

What issues of the Eastern Church does the Western Church have to hear and deal with?

We can, and should, deal with our own issues. Rome can not solve our problems for us.


David, the Byzantine Catholic

Dear Herb:

The distinctions among the Cardinals, within the Sacred College, are still extant today.

Within the Order of Cardinal-Bishops are included the Cardinal-Patriarchs (of the Eastern Catholic Churches created as Cardinals), although the latter (still) have no voting power in the election of the internal "officers" of the College, like voting for the Dean and the Vice-Dean.

Presently, Cardinal Ratzinger is the Dean, voted into this Office when Cardinal Gantin retired and became the Dean Emeritus, while Cardinal Sodano, the Secretary of State of the Vatican is the Vice-Dean.

Regularly, there are ONLY 9 members of the Order of Cardinal-Bishops: the 2 above, Cardinals Etchegaray, Trujillo, Re, and the 3 Cardinal-Patriarchs of the East. The Dean Emeritus, Cardinal Gantin of Benin is the 9th.

Majority of the Cardinals are within the Order of Cardinal-Priests and the newer Cardinals (with the possible exception of Curial Cardinals) are usually in the Order of Cardinal-Deacons.

Of course, nowadays every Cardinal MUST be a Bishop, the priests-theologians or other senior priests, usually aged 80 or over, being ordained to the presbytery right before the consistory for their elevation to the cardinalate.

Hope this clarifies.

AmdG

Dear David,

What you say makes good sense to me.

We, in the Western Church, have more than enough to do to walk our way on the pilgrimage without attempting to tell others how to walk.

In fact, each of the Churches has enough to do to walk its way on the pilgrimage without attempting to tell others how to walk.

Your questions and comments are right on the mark, I think.

Steve

Dear Admin:

In an ideal world, I would agree with you.

But, as long as Rome continues to over-step (in my humble opinion)its authority with regard to our Churches under his title of "Universal Pastor," should we not still have the right to be represented?

On the other hand, with the recognition of a Patriarchate, maybe Rome would back off somewhat, but I doubt it. We would still arguably have that thorny little "outside its traditional territory" issue.

Just a few of my humble thoughts.

Yours,

hal

Dear DavidB and All of the Eastern Front:

If we are to consider the Office of the Pope as a visible symbol of unity between the Eastern and Western Churches, isn't it logical, and in good sense, that the chief hierarchs of the East (whether Patriarchs or not) should actively participate in the election of its holder?

The East, almost to a man, I think, agrees that the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is the "first among equals," or that he is endowed, at least, a "universal primacy of honor." It stands to reason that the parcticipation of Eastern hierarchs in the election of the Pope becomes essential.

Lastly, the Catholic Church, being a communion of 22 sui juris Churches, should not every Eastern Catholic Church have a vote in the selection of her Universal Pastor?

Just thinking . . .

AmdG