www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papal Authority & the Cardinalate in regard to Eastern Hierarchs

No Eastern Catholic hierarch should accept an honorific that is specific to the Latin Church.

I believe the probability of an Eastern Catholic Pope will be sky high when His Beatitude Sviatoslav Shevchuk becomes cardinal!

The day His Beatitude was elected Patriarch, something within me kept saying "Pope!" He definitely will be "papabile" to say the least. Just my personal opinion.

Most likely, he won't be made cardinal until His Beatitude Lubomyr Husar turns 80.

I repeat: No Eastern Catholic hierarch should accept an honorific that is specific to the Latin Church.

Besides, why would a Patriarch wish to be a Cardinal? If we truly believe in the priority of Patriarchs over Cardinals, there is nothing a red hat can bestow upon someone who is already the primate of an autonomous Church.

Isn't being made a Cardinal a demotion for a Patriarch?

One can make the arguement that the office of Cardinal is no longer specific to the Latin Church, especially since Patriarchs keep the title of their own patriarchal church and major archbishops have title of a parish of their own church in Rome.

And the one thing the red hat bestows that a primate cannot currently do is the right to vote in papal conclave.

Not a demotion but an additional honor not as great as the one they already have as Patriarchs.

Now hold on here. If I get this straight the College of Cardinals is the Catholic equivalent of the Orthodox Synod of Bishops, of which the Patriarch chairs. Now in the case of Rome, the Pope is the Patriarch of Rome, and the Cardinals are the members of the permanent synod. Now a Catholic Patriarch, as I see it, is the equivalent of the Pope, and thus is higher than a mere Archbishop on the permanent synod. So, as I see it, the Melkite Patriarch, when in Rome, is equal to the Pope in rank, with the Pope just being first in the dipthychs, whilst the College of Cardinals, being just Archbishops with fancy pedrizniks, come behind Patriarch Gregory II. No?

The College of Cardinals is not equivalent to the Orthodox Synod of Bishops. The Catholic Synod of Bishops (we do have one) is the equivalent. Any bishop can be on the Synod. As patriarchs the Pope and other Patriarchs are equal with the Pope holding first place and yes they do come before the Cardinals. This holds true for Major Archbishops and Metropolitan primates as well. However, as the Catholic Church teaches and where we and the Orthodox Church disagree is the Bishop of Rome, besides being head of the Latin Church, as the succesor of the Head of the College of Apostles is head of the College of Bishops, not just an honary primacy but a real functioning primacy of authority to confirm or correct his brother bishops.

Yes, Patriarch Sviatoslav will someday be Pope.

Podaj, Hospody.

Sort of like calling an ox a bull--he's glad of the compliment but would rather have what is rightfully his.

I can only imagine what dear Father Serge would say in regard to Fr. Deacon Lance's dubious assertion. I'm pretty sure what His Beatitude Patriarch Gregorios III would say.

What is dubious about it? It is meant as an honor not an insult and it doesn't affect their status as patriarch/major archbishop. I will agree it is an honor not as great as that inherent in their own office but it does come with the key right to vote for the next Pope. Whether patriarchs should being doing that is a seperate subject.

A history of the office shows it was used as a means of subordinating Eastern Catholic primates to the Latin Church; it is a relict of unionism, and as such, should be abandoned. An Eastern Catholic Patriarch--de jure or de facto--is (as Gregory the Great put it) "equal in grace, superior in holiness" to the Bishop of Rome.

I'm not sure if it matters so much whether we can or can't vote for the next Pope. Is or is not the Church of Rome just one of the many Churches comprising the Catholic communion, or are we still merely a ritual adjunct of the Church of Rome? If the former, then we have no more right to vote for the head of that Church than members of the Church of Rome have to vote for the next Patriarch of Antioch, or of Kyiv. On the other hand, if we are really just "Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite", then everything done since Vatican II is just a cynical ploy to deceive the Orthodox.

Stuart it is not so black and white as that. The Church of Rome is just one of many Churches. Its bishop is also the Supreme Pontiff of the entire Catholic Church. This is what seperates Catholic and Orthodox at the moment. To acknowledge this doesn't make us "Roman Catholics of the Eastern Rite" just Eastern Catholics.

Well, that's an ecclesiological assumption that is up in the air right now. I'm pretty sure that Patriarch Gregorios doesn't quite see it that way.