www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Did HB Gregorios III rejected the cardinalate?

Just for hypothetical sake regarding the above statement.. can the Pope of Rome renounce the title "Bishop of Rome"?

or conversely, can the Pope renounce the title "Pope/Patriarch" and only accept the position (and all it entails) of local bishop of the Diocese of Roma?

As to the first, I suppose it possible he could simply opt to be known as "the successor of Saint Peter" leader of the apostles.. or some such...

As to the second, it seems very nearly the same question as the first. How the office is titled can or could change. Certainly it stands to reason that Saint Peter and his very first successors did not refer to themselves or get referred to as "Bishop of the Diocese of Rome" or "Pope of Rome" anymore than Saint Mark set up shop in Alexandria, or St. Andrew in Constantinople with a little sign above either's office reading "Patriarch of Constantinople"/"Patriarch of Alexandria"

It comes down to this: When they were all just apostles sent out, bishops, well before anyone was called

• His Holiness,
• His All-Holiness,
• His Beatitude
• Pope
• Patriarch
• Catholicos, or the like...

would it have been understood that Peter had a special or differentiated role as a leader among those bishops?

That, I suppose is the $64M question that we could debate till 3054... but it does appear to be a legitimate enough debate, insasmuch as there are some stubborn parties on both sides that just can't seem to see what is so "obvious" to the other!

What I essentially would be satisfied to achieve in this discourse is for both (or all) sides to accept the other as essentially working in good faith, not ignoring something that is blaringly obvious they MUST know how wrong they are. (And that is precisely what making certain definative statements without qualification almost necessarily has imply!)

Further if we could do this without then seeking to impugne the other parties or dismiss them as being just "Latinzed" "Schismatic" etc... (Here or in other fora as some have been wont to do - we all participate and read in the same or similar places!) Well that would be a good start.

I am making an attempt to diplomatically qualify my opinions and assertions knowing that I don't know it all, and that if this school of thought is correct, explaining it and winning people with apology for it will take considerably more time and effort than just asserting "here's how it is!"

If "here's how it is!" were so obvious, so many people of good faith earnestly wanting to do the right thing would not be adhearing to so many different schools of thought. Heck, if it were even as simple as just TWO interpretations of the truth of this matter, we would all at least be either Orthodox or Catholic.

Just remember that priests can also be cardinals, though most opt to be elevated to the episcopate.

Agreed. The Holy Father is still the Patriarch of the West in practice. But he is also more than that! Among other things: Vicar of Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Servant of the Servants of God...


If this is the case then why do ECs pray "for our most holy universal Pontiff, Benedict, Pope of Rome" before their own Patriarch during the Divine Liturgy?

That rather bizarre form of the commemoration of the Pope is only found in the Church-Slavonic books, and we owe it there to Father Cyril Korolevsky, whose peculiar vocation it was to be more Catholic than the Pope and more Russian than the Tsar simultaneously. In Greek, the commemoration is simply "our Holy Benedict, Pope of Rome" - and at that only the Hierarchs (the Patriarch in the Melkite Church, and the Bishops in Athens, Lungro, and Piana) are bound to use it.

Fr. Serge

Heehee. I know the type. So around what year was this added? And, if you will indulge my insatiable quest for knowledge can, can you tell me more about Hierarchs being bound to use it?

Dear Friends,

Our Patriarch Lubomyr became a Cardinal but then took off his Cardinal's ring and put it in his pocket - something that caused much comment among the press at the time.

This whole thing about electing one's Patriarch/Major Archbishop is interesting. Can the Melkites let the UGCC how it is done so we can get on with life?

Seriously, having a Cardinal at Rome became a coveted and almost needed position for the UGCC. All of our Latinizations and suppression of tradition came to us not from Rome, but through the local RC authorities.

Having a Cardinal was one way of keeping in touch with Rome and the world outside of these local constraints (in the case of Met. Andrew Sheptytsky, he was already so well known throughout Europe that he really didn't need to be a Cardinal and refused the honour more than once - when he told Pope St Pius X about the UGCC's "rights and privileges" the Holy Father replied "Make use of them!")

Patriarch Joseph the Hieroconfessor was a Cardinal and he had no problem with the title nor did UGCCers', even those who wanted him recognized officially as Patriarch.

I've spoken to Orthodox Ukrainians from the Ukrainian government who are quite enamored with the Patriarch Lubomyr's title of "Cardinal" - which is for them especially an international recognition of a Ukrainian personage and therefore a good thing for Ukraine.

With respect to the argument that Eastern Catholic Churches shouldn't be involved in electing a Pope - just don't agree with that.

Yes, EC's aren't under the Pope as Bishop of Rome etc. They are, ideally, only in Eucharistic Communion with him (that doesn't quite work out that way in practice, at least not with the UGCC).

So why shouldn't EC Patriarchs/Major Archbishops have the title of Cardinal and participate in electing the Petrine Minister?

To be against this is yet another case of EC's trying to be "more Orthodox than the Orthodox."

And remember, we're not at all Orthodox by Orthodox standards . . .

Alex

Just to clarify, priests who are elevated to the cardinalate do not opt to be ordained as bishops. It is a canonical requirement that these chosen priests (very few) be consecrated as bishops before they can exercise their office as cardinals.

The option (or only exception to the rule) is that priests, who are elevated to the cardinalate, may request the Pope for dispensation from being ordained as bishops as a condition precedent in the exercise of their office as cardinals.

The Popes (recently the late Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI) have granted such dispensation to the priests they respectively elevated to the cardinalate, because of advanced age at the time of the elevation.

Amado

Dear Alex,

I think I must have missed something in your post. Have you any evidence that Metropolitan Andrew was ever offered the red hat? I don't think he was - and I have some idea of who may have blocked it.

How to elect a Patriarch? Simple: the Locum-Tenens of the widowed Patriarchal throne together with the rest of the Permanent Synod determine the date for the convocation of an electoral synod, and the Locum-Tenens sends invitations (in this day and age, by telefax or telegram) to each of the Hierarchs of the synod (or simply hands the invitations to those of the Hierarchs who are there for the obsequies of the newly-reposed Patriarch). As soon as the synod is assembled and convoked, it has exactly one function: the election of the new Patriarch, which requires a two-thirds plus one majority.

On the acceptance of the election by the candidate, the new Patriarch is enthroned (usually later the same day); Rome and the other Patriarchates are immediately notified of the election and the new Patriarch requests "ecclesiastical communion" with them.

There is the possibility of an exception circumstance or two: if it proves impossible to convoke at least two-thirds of the Hierarchy to attend the Synod, the Pope must act. He may do this either by appointing the new Patriarch, or by adding his own authority to that of the Locum-Tenens in summoning the recalcitrant Hierarchs. Similarly, if after fifty ballots no one has been elected, the Pope must act - he may either appoint the new Patriarch or he may re-convoke the Synod to Rome, so that they will elect a new Patriarch under the Pope's eye.

But such emergencies are abnormal.

Fr. Serge

Bless, Father Archimandrite!

Actually, it was our Professor Rev. Fr. Bilaniuk (+ memory eternal!)during a lecture I attended at St Michael's.

I didn't give it a second thought as it seemed natural for Met. Andrew to have been at least offered a Cardinal's hat given his great persona. But I don't know.

I took Fr. Bilaniuk at his word.

As I believe you did too!

Toward the end of his life he truly became wonderfully transformed as a priest and one felt as if one was in the presence of a saintly man.

I guess he picked that up from you . . .

As for the process of electing a Patriarch, and our UGCC Synod won't do that because . . . ?

Alex

Unless an Eastern Catholic patriarchal Church has an obtaining particular law governing the election of her Patriarch, the Eastern Code governs and it provides the following required votes:

(1) At least a 2/3 majority of all the members of the Synod is needed to convene and to proceed with the election of a Patriarch(quorum requirement);

(2) At least 2/3 of that quorum is required to elect a Patriarch;

(3) If after 3 ballots no one garnered the required vote (2/3 of quorum), the assembled Synod may elect a Patriarch with an absolute majority of the quorum, i.e., 50% + 1 of the quorum;

(4) If after 15 days from the convening of the Synod no Patriarch is elected, then the duty to appoint a Patriarch devolves upon the Pope.

This impasse happened recently during the election of the current Chaldean Patriarch. The Chaldean Holy Synod failed to elect their Patriarch even after the 3 ballots, which required a "mere" absolute majority as defined above.

After 15 days, the Chaldean Holy Synod was summoned to Rome with the Pope intending to exercise his prerogative of apppointing the Chaldean Patriarch as proovided in the CCEO. However, when the Chaldean Synod was in Rome, the Pope urged them to meet once again by themselves to resolve the matter. The Synod, in one meeting, elected HB Emmanuel Delly III as their new Patriarch.

Amado

Dear Amado,

May His Holiness give a similar "finger" to the UGCC Synod to elect their Patriarch!

Alex

I must offer a rare correction of Fr.Serge. The CCEO requires all Eastern Catholic bishops and priests to commemorate the Pope:

Canon 209

1. The eparchial bishop must commemorate the Roman Pontiff
before all as a sign of full communion with him in the Divine
Liturgy and the Divine Praises according to the prescriptions of
the liturgical books and to see to it that it be faithfully done
by the other clergy of the eparchy.

2. The eparchial bishop must be commemorated by all the clergy in the Divine Liturgy and the Divine Praises according to the prescriptions of the liturgical books.


Traditionally, in Eastern Churches the priest commemorates his bishop, the bishop commemorates his patriarch, the patriarch commemorates the other patriarchs.

I think maybe what Fr. Serge is refering to is how often and when the Pope must be commemorated during the Liturgy. In the Byzantine Litrugy, judging from the books approved by Rome, at a minimum the Pope must be commemorated in the dyptychs after the Anaphora. He may be commemorated in the Great Litany, the Great Entrance, the Insistent Litany, and the Polychronion. The Ruthenians do this, the Melkites do not. Additionally, it was Rome who required " Holy Ecumenical Pontiff" be dropped from the RDL and replaced with "Holy Father" citing that "Ecumenical" is a title belonging to the Ecumenical Patriarch and Archbishop of New Rome (Constantinople).

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon Lance,

As it often happens in the UGCC, if someone started a movement to commemorate the Pope once only, the Basilian and other parishes would start a counter-movement to commemorate him even more than the four times we do now (not counting the "Many Years" commemoration).

I'm not familiar with your RDL, but if it removed the "ecumenical" from the title of the Pope then that is certainly something to commend it highly (in my liturgical books anyway)!

Sounds like an excellent revision, don't you think?

Alex

Alex,

Yes. The commemoration is now: "For our Holy Father, N., Pope of Rome..."

Fr. Deacon Lance