www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Iraqi Patriarch Made Cardinal

(1) Interestingly enough, Prof. Miranda provides us with his own studies on the history and development of the Cardinalate, listing cardinals in the year 112 A.D. under the pontificate of Pope St. Alexander I. [http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/consistories-ii-v.htm#IICentury]

(2) This statement appears contrary to what we have witnessed in the 2005 conclave that elected Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI!

All the chief hierarchs of the Eastern Catholic Churches, who are members of the College of Cardinals, were present in the proceedings of the Sacred College up to the conclave proper.

They were: HB Nasrallah Peter Sfeir of the Maronites, HB Stephanos II Gattas of the Copts, HB Ignace Moussa I Daoud of the Syrians, MAbp Lubomyr Husar of the UGCC, and MAbp Mar Varkey Vithayathil of the Syro-Malabars. The last 3 were electors in the 2005 conclave. Under existing Church laws (Universi Dominici Gregis and the Eastern and Latin Codes of Canons), Eastern Catholic Patriarchs or chief hierarchs who are members of the College of Cardinals are under duty to participate in the election of the next Pope.

Conversely, the respective Holy Synods of patriarchal and major-archbishopric Eastern Catholic Churhes sui iuris are the electors of their chief hierarchs. However, the Pope can step in and appoint a chief hierarch of an Eastern Catholic Church if there is an impasse within the Holy Synod and the Holy Synod fails to elect a new chief hierarch. This nearly happened in the last election of the Patriarch of the Chaldeans.

Amado

(2)

Cardinals in the second century? Absurd.

You failed to note those Chief Hierarchs who have refused the cardinalate, in some cases several times. and therefore were not present.

For that matter, you also did not notice the Latin Patriarchs who are also Cardinals and therefore were among those present.

Fr. Serge

(1) Absurd? Please direct that to Prof. Miranda.

(2) We are talking about the degree of presence and participation of the Eastern Catholic chief hierarchs in the last conclave and their continuing membership in the College of Cardinals.

It is overwhelming! Of the 6 patriarchal Eastern Catholic Churches, 4 Eastern Catholic Patriarchs are members of the College of Cardinals and 2 of the 3 MAbps and they seem to be enjoying the benefits, except, maybe, MAbp. Husar?

I have read some anecdotal stories aimed at showing his "reluctance" to accept the red hat by hiding his cardinatial ring in his pocket whenever he is not in Rome. I do not know what MAbp. Husar is trying to prove but it seems that he is, also, enjoying the privileges that attach to the cardinatial office.

Amado

Dear Friends,

Fr. Keleher's earlier point of the Cardinalate as a way to better serve one's Church that could be in crisis is important.

This is why Patriarch Joseph the Hieroconfessor received it. His sucessor in the person of His "Blazhenitude" (a word coined by Fr. Keleher years ago) Lubomyr of the UGCC upon receiving the Cardinal's ring, promptly put it in his pocket, causing much comment from the Italian press etc.

As for what he "enjoys" by the privileges of being a Cardinal . . . ? What are those privileges?

When he tried to excommunicate a disobedient priest who is part of the Transalpine group, his actions were overruled by Rome. Rome refuses to acknowledge the Patriarchate of the UGCC, the largest EC Church - for the best possible reasons, to be sure!

But, Amigo Amado, what are those privileges that my wife's relative, Patriarch Lubomyr, is enjoying. From what I know of the situation, there is very little enjoyment going on.

Also, Professor Miranda tries to make a point about the "ancient" office of the cardinals that is simply in his own mind only.

His arguments are unconvincing and I wish one could "prove" the existence of Cardinals at that time period.

As medieval functionaries more akin to "drones" in a bee-hive, cardinals were often appointed from among worldly people, so much so that there is the story of a pope meeting up with a group of people he had never seen before. "But we are all Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, Your Holiness!" they told him.

When the Pope got back to Rome, he checked the matter out, and to his great surprise, he found out those characters really WERE cardinals!

Anyway, please do explain what you know about Patriarch Lubomyr Cardinal Husar.

And why don't you refer to him as "Patriarch?" Do you agree with the reasons the VAtican won't acknowledge him as such? Do you agree with Vatican Ost-Politik?

Alex

Under existing rules, the final authority to erect (new) patriarchates in the Catholic Church belongs solely to the Pope as Supreme Pontiff, when the opportune time calls for it.

As the status of the UGCC as a patriarchal Church is inchoate, I would not address MAbp. Lubomyr Husar as "His Beatitude" yet and as he, himself, refrains from using the patriarchal title officially.

Amado

My word. If you wish to quote the "existing rules", you might at least do so accurately.

1) according to the "existing rules", the creation of a new Patriarchate is reserved either to an ecumenical council or to the Pope.

2) the ascription of the honorific "Beatitude" to a Major Archbishop can be found in the Church-Slavonic Archieraticon published over thirty years ago by the Oriental Congregation with the authority of Pope Paul VI.

Best to inhale before exhaling!

Fr. Serge

So, Fr. Serge, does +Husar refrain from using the patriarchal titles officially? That was what Amadeus asserted, not about what the Oriental Congregation did thirty years ago with the authority of Paul VI, who seemed to incite novelty almost everywhere he turned.

Not that I'm opposed to Cardinal Husar being the patriarch of the UGCC; I think he should be! But Amadeus' assertion remains unchallenged as of yet.

Alexis

(1) The "existing rules" are the provisions of the CCEO, as amended. Under that Code, the final authority for the erection of a new patriarchate in the Catholic Church solely belongs to the Supreme Authority in the Catholic Church, who is identified as the Pope. The Pope does not share that supreme authority with any other hierarch nor with an Ecumenical Council. In the Catholic Church, the Pope is over and above an Ecumenical Council.

(2) My response to Alex presupposes the current status of the UGCC as a particular Church in the Catholic communion and the appropriate (or canonical) title being ascribed to her chief hierarch.

Since the Pope has not approved the elevation of the UGCC to a patriarchal Church, MAbp. Lubomyr Husar has not officially used the title "Patriarch" in any of his acts or communications, nothwithstanding the decision of the Holy Synod. Only certain, if not all, UGCC bishops and priests and laity have ascribed to him the patriarchal title.

Not one of the other Eastern Catholic Churches has recognized the patriarchal status of the UGCC. The Pope has to approve the elevation first in conformity with "existing rules!"

Amado

Dear Amado,

Well, many UGCCers, including many Basilians, refer to him as "Patriarch" - something they did not do for Pat. Joseph.

Rome does not officially acknowledge our patriarchate - but the question is, does it deny it? When Pope John Paul II was in Ukraine, His Beatitude Lubomyr Cardinal Husar was frequently commemorated in the Liturgy as "Patriarch" - yet the Pope and His Beatitude parted friends at the end. No one said otherwise.

His Beatitude does not ascribe to himself the title of Patriarch because he desires Rome to acknowledge it in the first instance. That does not mean that he does not recognize that his Church is a Patriarchal Church or that it already operates as a Patriarchate or that he is not the Patriarch. I know that for a fact, but I won't tell you how I know it. And the Melkite Patriarch does indeed refer to him as "Patriarch." And the Melkites also affirmed the title of Pat. Joseph Slipyj too (I remember when the Melkite Patriarch met with our Vladyka Isidore Borecky and told him, "Just go ahead and claim your patriarchal rites and never mind about Rome . . ." What a great man that! )

But, fine, you could refer to him as "His Beatitude" which is his right as Major Archbishop (who have the SAME status and privileges as Patriarchs, one might add).

Or you could, Latin that you are, , refer to him as "His Eminence the Cardinal."

Either would be better than your "MAbp" or whatever that is.

It really is very rare to see a patriarchate created by another power. The usual procedure is for a Particular Church to declare itself as such and to continue to so do until everyone agrees.

Alex

Dear Alex:

I agree with your last post except insofar as it denies the existence of a current mechanism for the erection of new patriarchates in the Catholic communion.

The "existing rules" provide that the erection of a new patriarchate needs the approval of the Pope and not merely his acknowledgment (or assent or conformity).

The only thing that has been approved by Rome is the change of Cardinal Husar's canonical title from "Major Archbishop of L'viv" to "Major Archbishop of Kiev (K'yiv) and Halych," reflecting one of the Holy Synod's decisions, i.e., to transfer the seat of the UGCC to the capital city of Ukraine.

I have no problem if the UGCC and her faithful (and other Eastern Catholic hierarchs) ascribed to him the title "Patriarch" and address him accordingly as "His Beatitude." I am just saying that, officially, he is not yet, anyway.

Amado

Tell that to Honorius of Rome! Meanwhile, try learning some basic ecclesiology. The Bishop of Rome is primus inter pares - he is a Bishop among Bishops, indeed the First among them. Or are you an adherent of "Pius XIII"?

#

Really? Do you read French? If so, try reading Le Lien, the official publication of the Greek-Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and All the East. You'll find the title "Patriarch" ascribed to the Patrich of Kyiv-Halych and all Rus', and you'll also find a pointed response from Maximos V to Rome when Rome had the effrontery to complain about it.

For that matter, read the response of the Catholicos of the Syro-Malankarese Catholic Church to similar nonsense, this time from Cardinal Kasper.

Fr. Serge

Fr. Serge:

I stand by the 2 statements you quoted above.

(1) We are talking about the current canons. Please go over the Latin Code and the CCEO again and you will be surprised to read that it is so. That in the Catholic Church, the Pope is over and above an Ecumenical Council.

(2) It should be clear to anyone that I meant "official" recognition by any other Eastern Catholic Church. There is none because the Pope has not yet approved the elevation of the UGCC to a patriarchate.

Amado

What a shame..the west has moved so far away...