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

Amado,

Ultimately it depends on one's point of view. Historically, the cardinalate is an honor and rank of the Patriachate of Rome. The division of cardinals into the nominal ranks of bishops, priest and deacons even though all are normally bishops now, reflects the historical fact that the original electors of the Bishop of Rome were the bishops of the Province of Rome and the priests and deacons of the Diocese of Rome. This honor was only gradually extended to bishops outside of the Roman Province.

Before the schism between East and West, when cardinals served as legates of the Pope to other Patriarchs they certainly did not rank ahead of them and defered to them, that is until the unfortunate incident between Cardinal Humbert and Patriarch Michael. After the schism and lack of patriarchs in communion with Rome, the cardinals and popes came to see the cardinalate as the highest honor after the pope. The Roman view came to be that nothing could be higher than a bishop who elects the pope and to a certain extent this mentality still pervades.

I would also correct some of your statements. Outside of honorary rank and scarlet vesture and other trivial matters, the cardinalate bestows nothing besides the right to vote in the papal conclave and that only until the cardinals 80th year. (Also, the cardinals may elect any Catholic man they deem worthy, they are not limited to their own ranks. Although, this is the common practice.) All other rights and jurisdiction, such as heading curial congregations, are conceded to cardinals by the Pope, so any jurisdiction they receive is vicarious and not ordinary. A patriarch's jurisdiction is ordinary and is over a complete Church. A cardinal's jurisdiction is only over his own diocese and those specific areas delegated him by the Pope. However, this is one of the problems. At Vatican II the Eastern hierarchs objected to the cardinals and the curia assuming the incommunicable powers of the Bishop of Rome. The Church should function in true synodality and collegiality, not as a bureaucracy.

Also the Vatican diplomatic corps, the Apostolic nuncios and delegates, are always titular archbishops, although after their service many are made cardinals.

From an Eastern purist point of view nothing is higher than the head of an autonomous Church, excepting the Pope in his role as Supreme Pontiff. In his role as Patriarch of Rome and the West he is first among equals. The Melkite Patriarchs have been emphatic in emphasizing this and this is why they refuse the cardinal's hat. For them to except the cardinalate would be the equivalent of the Pope excepting appointment to the Melkite Patriarchs synod.

Pope Paul VI tried to negotiate around this by wanting to decree that all Patriarchs upon election would automatically become papal electors. But even this was objected to by some so it wasn't decreed. They felt the election of the Bishop of Rome was an internal matter of the Latin Church, while recognizing at the same time that the Bishop of Rome also has the divine mandate of Supreme Pontiff of all Catholic Churches.

It is here I somewhat disagree with their reasoning. While I theoretically agree, I feel we should have some say in the election of the Pope. The offices of Bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff are forever linked. Until the day when we truly function in autocephaly, we should have a role in the election of the Pope.

However, the Easternizers like myself will always see being father and head of a Church as a higher dignity than that of an elector of such. And like the late Patriarch Maximos IV, I will always address their Beatitudes, the patriarchs, archbishops, metropolitans before their Eminences the cardinals.

In Christ,
Lance

Apropos of this discussion, I found the following:

www.ewtn.com/library/CHRIST/CONCLAVE.TXT [ewtn.com]

Following the lead of six of his predecessors in this century,
Pope John Paul II recently decided to leave his own stamp on the
next papal election. On February 22, 1996, he promulgated "On the
Vacancy of the Apostolic See and the Election of the Roman
Pontiff," <Universi Dominici Gregis> (UDG). This apostolic
constitution minutely describes the procedures for electing the
264th Successor of Peter.

Like the steward who brings from his storehouse the old and the
new, the Holy Father both confirms and modifies previous electoral
legislation. Most of UDG restates Paul VI's rules of 1975 set out
in <Romano Pontifici Eligendo> (RPE). John Paul didn't intend, he
says, "to depart in substance from the wise and venerable
tradition already established."

In outward appearance, the next papal election will look very much
like the two of 1978.

The pope himself draws attention to three traditional norms that
he reaffirms with only minor changes: those dealing with the
composition and seclusion of the electors and with the secrecy of
the procedure. The near-millennial custom that the electoral body
"is composed solely of the cardinals of Holy Roman Church" remains
in place. While Paul VI was preparing RPE, he seriously considered
the possibility that bishops from around the world should vote in
papal elections. Ultimately, however, he declined to reverse the
nine hundred-year-old convention. Despite continuing pressure to
change, John Paul has confirmed his predecessor's ruling.

Solid theological and ecumenical reasons argue in favor of this
practice. First, since the pope is not the bishops'
representative, his election should avoid creating any such
impression. Just as the other apostles did not choose Peter as
their head, similarly the college of bishops does not elect the
pope. Second, ecumenical sensitivity supports the tradition.
Insofar as the Orthodox are willing even to discuss the papal
ministry, they need assurance that it is the Bishop of Rome who
carries out this office. How the pope is elected should mirror
this link to the See of Saints Peter and Paul.

It is entirely in keeping with collegiality and ecumenism to have
representatives of the Roman Church-the cardinals- choose their
own bishop. By designating them as the papal electors, John Paul
makes clear that the pastor of the universal Church is not elected
directly by the college of bishops over which he presides.
Instead, the local Church of Rome selects its bishop who is, ipso
facto, head of the episcopal college and visible head of the
Church.

UDG emphasizes that the cardinals are the appropriate group to
elect the Bishop of Rome. Except for patriarchs of Eastern
Catholic churches (there is one at present), the other cardinals
are all specifically bound to the Church at Rome. Six of them are
bishops of the dioceses surrounding the city. The rest are
incorporated into the local clergy by being given a "titular"
church, a parish in Rome where they serve as a kind of honorary
pastor. This Roman connection preserves the tradition of the early
Church that local clergy, with the help of nearby bishops, chose
their pastor.

At the same time, the international character of the college of
cardinals guarantees that representatives from churches around the
world take part in electing the pope. Today the cardinals come
from more than fifty countries, thereby providing the diversity
that gives papal elections a truly catholic dimension.

With regards to the Cardinals and Curia, you have a point. With regards to collegiality involving the bishops though in governance of the dioceses, without Rome's influence, I have no aye to offer.

How the Latins conduct their own Church's affairs is entirely their business, and collegiality is something that has its proper place in the juridictional functions of the Eastern Churches and in the Pope's relations with the Patriarchs. I am not enthusiastic about it as a set construct within the Roman Church. First, to advocate the concept in their case would be tantamount to ignoring their present circumstances (chaotic to say the least) and turning a blind eye to the theological and historical strata. I see collegiality and monarchy practiced in all the wrong places. Rome still exercises powers over us (confirming Patriarchal elections)--even in discipline it seems as the ice over married priests in the US has yet to be broken--that does not reflect a proper model of Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome, when the East could be relied on to use such power wisely, unlike the Western yahoo prelates who have been given a carte blanche to screw up the Roman Church and the faithful's lives, and bring factions of the Roman Church into de facto schism.


Very proper.

In IC XC
Samer

[ 07-22-2002: Message edited by: SamB ]

An important distinction needs to be understood when it comes to titles/honorifics and what they stand for. We are dealing here with three separate church governements and hence diverse titles.
1. Roman Catholic
2. Eastern Catholic (runs the gamut from orthodox to ultra Latin in titles)
3 Eastern Orthodox
the titles used represent both the spiritual rank of the ecclesiarch as well as the canonical status of the same.
The whole debate become very cumbersome especially when dealing with Eastern Catholic Churches whose titles often reflect Orthodox usage however the powers and responsibbilities assigned to the title follow Roman Catholic usage.
Hence, the newly appointed Metropolitan of the Ruthenian Byzantine Catholic Church should be addressed as His Beatitude because he is the head of the 'local' Byzantine Church. Note the heads of the 'local' Orthodox Churches of Greece, Cyprus, Poland and even the OCA are refered to with the title "Beatitude". He is the highest ranking bishop of the Byzantine Church and the Head of our Church. Note that the Ukrainians also have Archeparchies in North America (Philly & Winnipeg) and their Archbishops/Metropolitans are refered to as "His Eminence" because they do not govern and autonomous church but belong to a church whose head is in Ukraine and he is "His Beatitude".
The whole issue of cardinals in the Church is indeed an affair relating to the local church of Rome. The cardinals, yes, they are referred to as "Princes" however, their historical origin is to be found in the "pastorates" of Rome. The original cardinals in the first centuries of the Church were in fact pastors of the city of Rome and they were the ones who following the venerable apostolic tradition, elected the new bishop of Rome....sound familiar? In many Orthodox Churches that is still the procedure followed, using presbyters and representatives of the communities. The whole class of Cardinals is responsible for the election of the next pope, and that is it. One might assume that the cardinals 'rule' the Church with the Pope, however that is not true. The Cardinals are bishops (and indeed can even be lay persons) who are recognized by the Pope (they are chosen by the Pope...no conclave of cardinals, etc....the conclave is when they receive their biretta and their appointment to one of the historical parishes of Rome) as being exemplary leaders and teachers of the Faith, persons worthy of choosing the next Pope.
The next Pope doesn't have to be a cardinal even though that is the usual route. A question to be considered tho...can an Eastern Catholic Bishop/Cardinal become Pope? Looking at the ecclesiology of Rome, especially based on the Liturgical integrity of Rome, the answer would be "in theory yes". Basically an Eastern Pope would have to abandon his tradition to adopt the Roman Rite. The Pope afterall is the garantor and protector of the Latin Rite. Anyone think that there is going to be a floor to ceilng iconostas at St. Peter's anytime soon???
The titles are a source of confusion....what matters is the substance to them...
XPICTOC ANECTH!

Very interesting dicussion. If I can throw out a few commnents:

1. I must disagree with Samer. From an Orthodox standpoint, suggesting collegiality is not a universal virtue but something particular to the Eastern tradition is a difficulty for us.

2. Lance is right that the Cardinal Legates did not have higher rank than the Patriarchs. Le tus note however, that the Catholic Church describes its table of precedence as "of the Roman Court". These Cardinal Legates were of the Court of Constantinople.

3. The Roman Court is free to deterime its own honorifics. (as is the Court of St. James, the Phanar, etc.). Even I am quite aware however that the Roman Cardinal Secretary of State is a much more demanding position than, say, the Patriacrch of the Syrian Catholics with less than 200,000 faithful.

Axios

Axios:

In much clearer terms, you conveyed the message I was trying vainly to deliver: that, presently, the Catholic Church has, in more ways than one, clothed the Cardinalate with an ascendancy of honor and jurisdiction. This development might have a bearing on governing more than a billion faithful.

Also, I wanted a reaction on the apparent decline in the Patriarchal system of Church governance. Is it because by the very nature of the system, i.e., nation-centered, it does not lend itself to "worldwide" or "universal" application?

Elijahu:

You must have been referring to a "consistory" not to a "conclave," the latter a gathering of the Cardinal-electors.

AmdG

Dear Daniil,

"Eminence" is the title for Cardinals.

Yes, the term "Exarch" came into existence at that time, as you say, when Bohdan Khmelnitsky signed the Pereyaslavl Accord and the Ukrainian Orthodox Church was placed under the Moscow Church as a vassal with all of Kyiv's privileges going to Moscow, leaving the Metropolitan of Kyiv as Moscow's vassal or, er, "Exarch."

Alex

Dear Eliyahu,

Yes, excellent, but the tile for the Ukrainian Metropolitans is "His Grace" not "Eminence" which is the title for Cardinals anyway.

There was a Renaissance Pope, I forget his name, who once met a group of Roman nobles going out for a hunt.

The nobles told the Pope they were Cardinals - and the Pope denied this, saying he never met them before.

When he got back to his Palace he checked - sure enough, they were Cardinals!

The problems involving comparing Patriarchal roles to that of the Cardinals shows that the Latin and Byzantine ecclesiologies are very different and that they are best kept separately.

Rather than try to "equalize" a Cardinal and an Eastern Patriarch, it is best, I believe, to treat,in terms of protocol, a Patriarch of a Particular Eastern Catholic Church in the same way as one would treat a Patriarch of an Orthodox Church not in union with Rome.

As for conclaves etc., to include Eastern patriarchs and bishops in that Latin Church function would be to really get us into trouble.

There is no doubt that the Pope of Rome is more than a universal pastor, and he has nine other titles that all relate to his being the head of the Particular Latin Church.

It would be like trying to get an RC bishop appointed Patriarch of Constantinople as he is first among equals in the East.

Instead, let the Latins elect their own. Let the Easterners maintain their jurisdictional autonomy and Particularity vis a vis Rome - Roman authority should not override that of our local Patriarchal authority anyway.

Besides, the wider ecumenical problem is that Rome has had its own Latin Patriarchates for the other four Eastern jurisdictions since the Crusades, based on the Pentarchy model.

There is a Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem etc.

So in accordance with this practice Rome truly does see itself as "universal" as it continues to maintain patriarchates in the other four Eastern Sees but of the Latin Rite.

In other words, it continues to see itself, formally anyway, as a "universal" Church and not as a "Particular" Church as we are fond of saying on this Forum here.

Put that in your klobuk!

Alex