www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Patriarchs, Archbishops & Metropolitans, Oh My!

Since the topic has been inquired on in other threads, I thought I would offer a brief explanation.

Patriarch-traditionally father and head of a particular Church. The distinguishing factor here is they exercise jurisdiction over metropolitans. However, the Eastern Catholic Patriarchates are not yet divided into provinces so the Patriarch exercises all metropolitan rights. Latin titular patriarchs only have the title, no additional jurisdiction. This is a sore point with some Eastern Catholics because it seems to cheapen the patriarchal title. Coptic, Melchite, Maronite, Syriac, Chaldean, & Armenian Catholic Churches are Patriarchal Churches. The Pope is also Patriarch of Rome and all the West. The Latin Church also has a Patriarch in Jerusalem plus titular patriarchs in Venice, Lisbon, East Indies (Goa). West Indies is vacant.

Major Archbishop-Almost identical to a Patriarch, except for the manner of election and enthronement. They also exercise jurisdiction over metropolitans. Ukrainian and Syro-Malabar Catholic Churches are headed by Major Archbishops. These two Churches are divided into provinces. The Latin Church does not have this designation.

Primate-In the Latin Church, a purely honorary title giving one metropolitan precedence among metropolitans of a given nation. This title does not exist in the East.

Metropolitan-Archbishop who also exercises jurisdiction over surrounding bishops who are called suffragans. In the Eastern Churches the Metropolitan has more actual jurisdiction than does his Latin counterpart, which is very limited. Some Eastern Catholic Churches' highest hierarch is a Metropolitan. The Ruthenians in America, Romanians, Ethiopians, and Syro-Malankars are Metropolitan sui iuris Churches. In some Eastern Churches a Metropolitan may not actually have any suffragans (Melchites, Syrians, Chaldeans). In the Latin Church there is no such thing as a titular Metropolitan, they always have at least one suffragan. All metropolitans are archbishops.

Archbishop-in the Latin Church, one may be an archbishop without being a metropolitan. One may head an archdiocese that is immediately subject to Rome (becoming rarer), be named an archbishop of a titular archdiocese (nuncios and curial offcials), or a bishop of a suffragan diocese may be given the designation of archbishop as a personal title of honor (Archbishop Fulton Sheen). In the Eastern Catholic Churches, the title may also be given as an honor. I have only seen this done in the Patriarchal Churches.

Cardinal-not a title of jurisdiction although it is one of honorary precedence. The Cardinalatial title does not itself grant any authority over other bishops, although a cardianl may be given an office (curial) or mission (Representing the Holy See) that grants him some authority. Some Eastern Catholic Hierarchs have declined the title citing that it is inferior to their own as Patriarchs and heads of a sui iuris Churches. Others have accepted it citing the need for the East to be represented in papal elections.

One note on practice: Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, Major Archbishops, and Metropolitans (who head sui iuris Churches) who are not Cardinals are always given precedence with them as they are Heads of particular Churches. At least since Vatican II, in photos I have seen.

Dear Lance,

Thanks for the lesson. It seems to me, that we (the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome) need more influence, not less, in the Vatican. Therefore, I support the actions of Josyf Slipyj, Myroslav Ivan Lubachivsky, and Lubomyr Husar in taking the Cardinal's hat.

Interestingly, Andrew Sheptytsky did not take the Cardinal's hat and' although he had been given authority over the whole of Rus, he didn't use the title of Patriarch, (not that the Russian Orthodox would have listened to him).

There are of course, Cardinal Deacons, Cardinal Priests, and Cardinal Bishops in the Roman Church. Pope John Paul II could resolve this by declaring all heads of Sui Juris Churches to be de jure (by law) "Cardinal Patriarchs" eligible to help select the Pope, by virtue of their positions as Patriarchs, rather than the usual consistory appointments.

"His Beatitude Metropolitan Basil Cardinal Schott"

-- It does have a nice ring to it.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

[ 05-04-2002: Message edited by: Two Lungs ]

Dear Lance,

Yes, but the title "His Beatitude" should also be something that all Ruthenians use in connection with their Metropolitan and you can well do without what we Ukies had with respect to calling our Primate "Patriarch" or "Major Archbishop."

Also, isn't "Vladyka" the style of address for both Eastern Bishops AND Metropolitans?

Could one call a Metropolitan or Patriarch "Blazhennishey Vladyko?"

If I went into the seminary, I would flunk this subject absolutely!

What is your title these days?

Alex

Reminds me of a few years back when I was at St Tikhons Monastery for the May 30th pilgrimage. All of a sudden mother nature made an emergency call and I was hurrying down the dormitory hall to answer. As I went running around the corner I went smack into another person. First I saw the black robe and then the white head dress and realized it was Metropolitan Theodosius!
I got so flustered that I blurted out -"Oh my God. I'm sorry 'Your Highness'!" With that he roared with laughter! He said, "You know over the years I have been called many things. But never 'Your Highness'!" It was then I knew he had an obvious sense of humor.

OrthoMan

Dear Orthoman,

If you are still talking to me after my last post about Ukrainian Orthodox canonicity - nothing against you personally, Big Guy, - I too had a similar experience.

While attending an Antiochian Orthodox Conference, I met Met. Phillip Sabiba and went down on one knee to kiss his hand while calling him "Your Highness."

A Western Rite Orthodox priest saw and overheard this and came right at me to say, "Well, you are going to be in his good books from now on - are you bucking for bishop or something?"

Alex

After your 'Blood is thicker than theology comment I'm about to give up on you Alex!

OrthoMan

In the Ukrainian community in Toronto, everyone keeps calling Bishop Cornelius "Blajenishi" -- that would mean that he is a Patriarch. What a promotion!

Yes, Alex, you can call any hierarch a "vladyka" as long as you add thier respective honorific title before it. At the All-Night Vigil in Russian usage (when a hierarch is present, or when at a cathedral), the deacon intones: "Vostanite! Sviateyshi vladyko blahoslovi." However, at the liturgy, it is always simply "Blahoslovy, vladyko!"

Daniil

Daniil,
Is it "Blajenishi"? I have heard and used Blazhenishiy but never Blajenishi. It almost sounds Church Slavonic.

For bishop, I was told to use Excellency as opposed to Grace, with the latter being Roman Catholic. Is that right?
-uc

[ 05-06-2002: Message edited by: ukrainiancatholic ]

UC,

"Your Excellency" is Roman Caholic usage for all bishops and archbishops.

"Your Grace" is actually Anglican usage and really should be confined to the Anglican Church because that style refers to the fact that Anglican bishops have seats in the House of Lords. Why Eastern Catholics and Orthodox picked up that style I am unsure. It is specifically forbidden to Roman Catholic bishops.

In Christ,
Lance

Dear Orthoman,

I don't want you to go away mad, so I want to explain what I meant by that comment. I overreacted to your earlier comment about the "uncanonical" Orthodox Churches in Ukraine, but calmed down after you explained what you meant, an exaplanation that was absent in your earlier post on the subject.

And I know you won't agree with me, but again that is a cultural difference between yourself as an Orthodox American, and myself as someone whose ecclesial self-definition includes a relation to an ethnocultural system.

Many in my family and community became Orthodox when they arrived in North America, 90% of the Ukrainian Orthodox in Canada today are their descendants.

They became Orthodox not because of a mental argument over the rightness or wrongness of using the Filioque, the Papacy etc.

Someone started a movement toward Orthodoxy or separation from Rome and soon it enveloped their entire community.

To be "Ukrainian" was to be Orthodox (even though their formation then was uncanonical as well).

The Ukrainian Churches have their own identity, whether they are Catholic or Orthodox, and their own religious culture to which they owe their primary allegiance in their life in Christ.

That is the way it has always been for most Churches, including the Russian Church, the Old Believers etc.

A Russian tends to belong to the Russian Church primarily, I would say, because that Church is "his" in every which way, religiously, culturally, socially - what have you.

To attack the Russian Church is more than to attack a spirituality - it is to attack the very heart and identity of the Russian people or Ukrainian people or what have you.

I'm sorry that fact has upset you.

Culture is something that we are never without, if even to call ourselves "Orthodox Americans."

But this is the way the constituent peoples of the various Orthodox Churches and Eastern Catholic Churches see their relationship to their religious family.

Studies galore have been done on this and it is what truly attracted me, and still attracts me, to Eastern Christianity.

My disagreement is with the notion that to be "Orthodox American" is to be culturally neutral, which many, not necessarily you, often suggest is the case.

That is simply cultural elitism of another kind at worst and cultural "false consciousness" at best.

Sorry to have upset you during Bright Week.

Give up on me if you will because of this point.

But cultural loyalties are always around and religion, apart from the theological arguments, is a variant of a cultural loyalty as well.

Alex

I ran into Bishop Andrew once in a bathroom. I was shocked and said, "Vladyka" and he started speaking to me in Slovak (modern). I actually understood him but was so surprised that I didn't say much and he thought I didn't speak Slovak (which I can actually do conversationally), so he switched to English. It was hilarious!

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Lance:

In its present constitution, I maintain that a Cardinal, in theory and in practice, outranks any Patriarch, more so as regards a Major Archbishop or a Metropolitan, in the Catholic Church (both East and West).

The title Cardinal is not merely honorific; it is, likewise, jurisdictional as it is clothed with the duties and responsibilities of assisting the Pope in the government of the ENTIRE Catholic Church, including the maintenance of diplomatic relations with 176(?) countries. In a sense, a Cardinal is an alter ego of the Head of the universal Church. The Cardinals, in conclave, have the sole power and authority to elect from among themselves the next Pope, which is binding WORLDWIDE on the Catholic Church.

A Patriarch's power and authority is limited to his particular Church. Thus, unless he is elevated in a consistory to the Cardinalate, a Patriarch ranks below a Cardinal in terms of honor and jurisdiction. (As an aside, the Pope should offer each Patriarch/Major Archbishop the Cardinalate so that all of the Eastern Catholic Churches could participate in the next conclave and thereafter.]

Please correct me if I am wrong so that I can dispense with my jaundiced Roman Catholic point of view.

AmdG

[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Amado Guerrero ]

Yeah, it's Blajenishiy, and in plural Blajenishi. Sorry.

Excellency is for cardinals, isn't it? Grace probably came into Orthodoxy through Russian Orthodox in North America or England who had ties with the Anglicans. I guess their closest equivalent to Preosvyashchennishiy is Grace.

Oh, and Alex, the title of Exarch for the See of Kiev only existed in the 1600s. See Bulgakov's "Nastolnaya Kniga, vol. II"

Daniil

I have heard that Met. Judson, as head of a sui-juris church, processed into Papal Masses behind the cardinals, with the Pope immediately behind him.

The Cardinals may elect the Pope, but they are still only officials of the Roman Church. I believe a Patriarch should be admitted to the conclave AS A PATRIARCH. No need to be a cardinal.

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear anastasios:

Rome IS the center of the universal Catholic Church: everything that concerns the worldwide Church, to the East and to the West, emanates from the various dicasteries of the Roman Curia each headed by a Cardinal.

Would you classify Cardinal Daoud (who gave up/resigned his office as Patriarch to become the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches) as merely "an official of the Roman Church"?

If, as Lance said, the Pope is the "sovereign" or "reigning monarch" of the earthly kingdom of Christ, the Cardinals are the "Princes of the Church."

Without a Patriarch being erected into a Cardinal by the Pope, he cannot be admitted into the conclave, which is composed only of members of the College of Cardinals below the age of 80.

Although I am a Roman Catholic, I reiterate my personal view that the heads (whether Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or "just" Metropolitan Archbishop) of all the sui juris Eastern Catholic Churches should be made Cardinals in order to have a "truer" representation in the College of Cardinals.

And, then, an Eastern bishop could really be elected as the next Pope or in the very near future!

AmdG

[ 05-07-2002: Message edited by: Amado Guerrero ]