www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What is the rank of Metropolitan?

I read about the elevation of 3 Eastern Catholics to the position of Cardinal

What is the difference between a Metropolitan and Cardinal?

Is Metropolitan Judson of the same rank as Cardinal Egan of NY?

Will Metropolitan Judson vote for the next Pope?

Thanks
Little Green Coat

A Metropolitan is more or less the same as a Ruling Archbishop in the Latin Church. Cardinal is a distinct ministry in the Church.

K.

[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 02-23-2001).]

Little Green Coat:

I believe that the Metropolitan is roughly the same as a Roman Archbishop.

Friends, please correct me if I am wrong. I too am learning.

Peace in Christ...
Greg

Little Green Coat,

The cardinalate is an office in the Roman Church � they are the clergy, usually bishops (Fr Avery Dulles is a cardinal but not a bishop, as was John Henry Newman), who elect the next Pope after a Pope dies. (Those younger than 80 can vote.)

�Metropolitan� is an office of some Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholic bishops. The word means different things to the Greeks and the Russians. Orthodox have archbishops with bishops under them (?) like Roman Catholics do, but in Russian usage a metropolitan (mitropolit) is the head of a regional or national Church, or of a Church not fully independent of the others (the head men of fully independent Orthodox Churches usually are called �patriarchs�) with archbishops under him, while in Greek usage the titles �metropolitan� and �archbishop� are flip-flopped � an archbishop has metropolitans under him.

Since in Catholicism the Pope is Vicar of Christ over the entire Catholic communion comprising all the particular Churches like the Roman and Ukrainian, etc., as well as patriarch of the Roman Church, it would make sense for men such as Metropolitan Judson to be made papal electors (and possible Popes, which in theory they already are) without being named to the cardinalate, which is an in-house office of only one particular Church, the Roman.

Serge

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 02-23-2001).]

Little Green Coat,

I think in practice today cardinals like Edward Egan do outrank metropolitans like Judson (though both ranks have the title �Your/His Eminence�) but that should be changed so they are equal.

Serge (Big Furry Russian Hat)

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</a>

[This message has been edited by Rusnak (edited 02-23-2001).]

>>> think in practice today cardinals like Edward Egan do outrank metropolitans like Judson (though both ranks have the title �Your/His Eminence�)
but that should be changed so they are equal.<<<

Jack Figel, at this week's investiture of Cardinals, reports that the Syrian Catholic Patriarch Ignace Daoud was given precedence among the new Cardinals, being slightly set off to the side and on a larger throne. Moreover, most of the Eastern Catholic bishops being invested wore their own clerical garb, and did not receive the red biretta.

Progress is sometimes measured in inches.

In a similar vein, Patriarch (as we call him in the prayers in the Divine Liturgy) Lubomyr Husar appears to have plans to kick a** as our Ukrainian church head. The story in the link below is quite interesting!

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/23/world/23POPE.html

Uke,

With that in mind and to honor Joseph I (whose picture is on a bulletin board in my kitchen/office) and Andrew I (whose framed picture is on the wall opposite my icon corner), I made sure to call L�ubomyr patriarch on my page with the news of his election, at <A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>. I also changed references in the original copy to �Cardinal Lubachivsky� and �Cardinal Slipyj�. Ding dong, Uniatism is dead.

Serge

Is there going to be a Ukranian Patriarchate, though? Part of the problem, I think, is the fear that creating a Ukranian Catholic Patriarchate would be ecumenically troubling because it could (1) exacerbate Orthodox fears of a resurgent, proselytizing Eastern Catholicism in Eastern Europe (as unfounded as those fears may very well be) and (2) exacerbate the divisions among Orthodox in Ukraine, where the Orthodox "Patriarchate" has yet to be recognized by anyone. Of course, neither of these reasons should ultimately *stop* what could otherwise be a good thing -- but they are potential side-effects, if you will.

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

I think it should be up to the Ukrainian Catholics themselves, rather than asking some ecclesiastic of another Church for every little thing (like a hall pass to go to the bathroom!). I know, I know, I acknowledge your points but unlike, say, setting up a rival Byzantine jurisdiction in Russia proper, which would be out of line (an act of aggression against the Orthodox), the Ukrainian Catholics are a real community that has suffered a lot. (That the noncanonical Orthodox there are in chaos is immaterial.) So �Goodbye, Uniatism, hello, patriarchate!� should be the way to go!

Serge

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>

Hi Uke,

Haven't the Ukrainian Catholic bishops (in the USA, at least) issued a directive that His Beatitude Ljubomyr is NOT to be commemorated during the Liturgy as "Patriarch"? I seem to recall reading something like that recently in the bulletin here at Holy Family Ukrainian Catholic Shrine in Washington DC.

"...the cardinalate, which is an in-house office of only one particular Church, the Roman."

Rusnak,

Is this true about the cardinalate? I know (a little about) the history of cardinals and their origination (I believe) among the bishops of the suburbican dioceses around Rome. But are cardinals today properly thought of primarily as an institution of the Roman Church, or rather of the Universal Church? If the latter is the case, would it then be improper to create as cardinal (for example) the Major Archbischop (or Patriarch) of Kyiv?

I like the "elector" idea, in which the heads of the various particular churches vote for the new Pope as Universal Pastor. I suppose because the Pope is also the Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West, you would have to have additional representation among the electors from those jurisdictions.

Martin

But are cardinals today properly thought of primarily as an institution of the Roman Church, or rather of the Universal Church? If the latter is the case, would it then be improper to create as cardinal (for example) the Major Archbischop (or Patriarch) of Kyiv?

Martin,

We�ve been round and round on this on this forum. Today the cardinalate is used as an office of the Universal Church, which is bad because it really is an office of the Roman Church. Roman does not equal universal (catholic) even though some conservatives understandably think that way because the liberals hate the Pope�s teachings so much. So to answer your question, I think the opinion here, which I share, is no, the cardinalate should not be given to Eastern patriarchs. But we agree that Eastern patriarchs should be papal electors without being cardinals.

Serge

<A HREF="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus�</A>

Sacramentally, i.e., Holy Orders, there are: Minor Orders: Reader, Altar-Server (and in the West 'porter' and 'exorcist')

Major Orders: Sub-Deacon, Deacon and Priest.

Then Bishop. (Supreme Pastor in his diocese and the absolute top of the sacramental ranks.)

Archbishop is an honor given to a bishop of a major (i.e., large) diocese. An Archbishop is generally 'head bishop' of a group of bishops in a geographical area.

Metropolitan is also an honorary title given to Archbishops who have several 'suffragan' dioceses (i.e., small dioceses) and who constitute a "Province" of the Church. [This concept varies from church to church; Romans, Russians, Greeks, Melkites, etc.]

There is also "Major Archbishop". This is a further elevation of the role of Archbishop. It extends not only to a specific geographical region, but rather (in general) to an entire 'ethnos' or 'national' group.

A Cardinal (from the Latin for 'hinge') is a person who has a special status as a 'cabinet officer' of the Bishop of Rome. This constitutes a special group of advisors. One doesn't have to be a bishop or even a priest to be a cardinal. (I'm ecstatic that Fr. Avery Dulles was named a Cardinal for his service to the Church as a theologian! No Jesuit bias here!!!)

So, if an Eastern cleric is named to the "cardinalate", it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the sacrament of Holy Orders. It's purely a 'non-sacramental' (secular?) honor given by the Bishop of Rome to honor those who have served him well as advisors and assistants. It is the same thing as being named an honorary member of the Lions Club or the "Fraternal Order of the Moose". (Uh oh. I'm gonna get it now from the antlered one.)

Unfortunately, it seems that these usually-bishop Cardinals are the ones to elect the new Pope. It seems, canonically, that that privilege should be reserved to either the Synod of Bishops of the Roman Province (i.e., Metro Rome) or, more generously, to the Council of Bishops of the Latin Patriarchate.

I believe that the office of Cardinal has entrenched itself as the Papal Electors to the detriment of the whole Church. However, ALL Eastern Patriarchs, 'Cardinal' or not, should be in on the election. Perhaps Pope John Paul's new Cardinals selected from everywhere is his attempt to make sure that the whole Church is represented in the election of his successor. (Is this 'universal pastor' being solicitous for the whole church or not!?!?!)

I would hope that whoever is elected to be the next Patriarch of Rome and 'elder brother' of the patriarchs, will have even a smidgen of the care that the current Holy Father has for the needs of all God's people, especially us Eastern folks. It may be some years, but the lasting impact of Pope John Paul II on the universal community of Christians (EVERYBODY!) is going to be seen as a shining star guiding the "that they all may be one" mandate of Christ.

To John Paul II: "Many Years!!"

Blessings!

Let me just correct a number of minor errors:


Traditionally and canonically in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, a particular Church does not "self-elevate". While I have avoided ever commenting on the pastoral benefit of the Patriarchate issue, the Ukrainian Church, raised from a metropolia to a Major Archbishopric by Pius XII, would be made a Patriarchate by either the Ecumencial Pontiff or an Ecumencial Council.


The Church can do what she wishes and having long ago used the college as an office of the western church rather tha just the diocese of Rome, is free to make it an ofice of the Universal Church. Nevertheless, I share the private opinion of others of making at least the Heads of the larger Patriarchates papal electors.


Wrong again, Russo. This liberal is a big fan of Pope John Paul II. So is John Sweeney, who was in Rome last week as his guest for the consistory (though he didn't get the red hat, maybe next time).


Yes, but is is not honorary (though it is non-sacramental). Metropolitans are Archbishop and Archbishops with a province are Metropolitns. In the east we use the former title, which refers to their provincial ministry, in the west, they use the later, which refers to thier diocesean. I.e. Rembert Weakland is Archbishop of Milwaukee and Metropolitan of Wisconsin.


What is canonical is whatever the current canons say. As Someone once said "The sabbath is made for man, not man for the sabbath."

[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 02-24-2001).]