www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Patriarch or Cardinal?

Zenit this morning reports that Patriarch Ignace Moussa I Daoud of Antioch
of the
Syrians will most probably be "created a Cardinal at the next consistory". Question: Why would a Patriarch allow himself to descend to a lower rank (Cardinal)? I always thought a Patriarch was of a higher rank than a Cardinal. What's the deal?
Unworthy monk, Silouan

The Latin Church taught in some Papal Bull that probably StuartK knows that Cardinals are "above" patriarchs. We all know however that Patriarchs are really above Cardinals. Of course if everyone is following Christ and being humble, it wouldn't really matter.

Being a Cardinal, despite its lower rank, makes Patriarchs get lots of extra Roman goodies. Maximos V denied the Cardinalate out of principle, however.

The issue is since the Roman Patriarch is also the Pope, shouldn't easterners get to vote for him? A solution I support is to allow eastern patriarchs into the conclave AS PATRIARCHS and let them have voting rights.

anastasios

I have long thought making the eastern patriarchs (or at least the Melkite and Maronite) papal Electors ex-officio regardless of their membership in the College of Cardinals would be a wise move for the Church.

The "ranking" of cardinals is not based fundementally on any papal bull. It is actually rather confused. The Congress of Vienna is the primary authority for the cardinal's rank above a Patriarch. The Congress affirmed that the Pope (in his person, not as head of the papal states) is sovereign- hence, we have ambassadors to and from "The Holy See", not to and from the Vatican City. Cardinals are deputies of that sovereignty as a prince is to a king (hence the invention of the term "Princes of the Church"). Patrirachs are not deputies of the Pope, therefore do not share is his sovereignty. Also, the Patriachs have never claimed nor been accorded sovereignty.

Argueably, the higher ranking of a Cardinal over a Patriarch could be seen as existing in the social, civil and dipolmatic worlds, not the ecclessical.

The Holy See itself has helped muddle this ranking. With Paul VI, the Vatican clearly decided too much rulemaking on the "rankings" is unbefiting of the Church -- a bunch of celibate males fighting over whose is bigger.
Paul VI make it clear that Patriarchs who are cardinals outrank cardinal-deacons and cardinal-priests. It left it very unclear if the whole issue of "ranking" is a ranking of the Roman Court (of which since Cardinal are of the Roman Court and Patriarchs are not this need not be an issue of offense to any Patriarch) or of the Universal church or of the Latin Church.

The modern popes have taken a pastoral approach to most things. it would be hard to argue that the Patriach of the Syrians, with 1/4 million faithful has significantly greater pastoral responsibility than the bishop or archbishop of an average Roman Catholic diocese. On the other hand, he does have responsibility not only for a 1/4 million Catholics but as guardian of a particular patrimony.

In the end, it is no big deal.

K.

In all actuality, Cardinal is not higher or lower than Patriarch in juridical terms. Outside of being an elector for the Papacy, a Cardinal gains the privilege of honor of place at celebrations, earns the title of Eminence, and has red on their ecclesiastical heraldry. However, a Cardinal does not have any more tassels on his shield than a Patriarch does. (Meaning, he does not really "outrank" a Patriarch) They both have 16, except the Cardinal's tassels are red while the Patriarch's tassels are green. The only other difference is that a Cardinal gets to wear a different biretta (without tuft) and wear crimson instead of the violet commen to all Bishops.

God Bless everyone!

Billy (A Catholic of the Latin Rite who venerates the West and East equally!)

Tassels notwithstanding, cardinals are not of equal rank with patriarchs. Patriarchs are heads of local Churches and carry much more authority than do cardinals. Patriarchs are elected and enthroned by local synods while the pope appoints cardinals. Patriarchs are always bishops while historically cardinals have included bishops, priests and deacons.

There is an interesting article in the Catholic Encyclopedia (see http://newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm ). While it doesn't compare the office of patriarch with that of cardinal, it does give a good overview that cardinals more-or-less existed to assist the pope.

There have been patriarchs who have also been cardinals. One can see in the older ecclesiology that the Latin Church did tend to consider cardinals as outranking patriarchs. Since Vatican II a more proper ecclesiology has been restored which places patriarchs in their rightful rank. Interestingly, whenever Metropolitan Judson of Pittsburgh is in Rome and celebrates with the pope he processes after the cardinals and just before the pope, indicating that as head of a Particular Church he outranks the cardinals.

Should Eastern Catholics participate in the election of the pope? If the East really does continue to enjoy the right of electing its own patriarchs then the pope should be elected by the College of Cardinals (equating - sort of - to our synod of bishops). But if the pope is to have a say in the election of patriarchs then they should have an equal say in the election of a pope. Making them members of the College of Cardinals doesn't cut it since numerically they are very few compared to the number of cardinals eligible to vote. My suggestion would be that if the pope has veto over the election of a patriarch then a council of patriarchs should have veto power over an election of a pope.

My dear friend Moose,

I think you are over-relying on a civil model for papal and patriarchial elections. if we did use that model, it might be said that Eastern Catholics have too much influence over papal elections as we have greater representation in the College of Cardinals that we do among the Catholic faithful.

The current method for Patriarchial elections in where they are elected by the respective Holy Synod, though often with an informal fraternal consultantion with the Universal Pastor, other Patriarchs, civil authorities, etc. works fine.

With no expectation that positive pastoral wonders would occur, I would still suggest that the Eastern Patriarchs or at least the Patriarchs of the larger communities be made papal electors ex-officio withoutbeing Cardinals.

K.

>>I think you are over-relying on a civil model for papal and patriarchial elections. if we did use that model, it might be said that Eastern Catholics have too much influence over papal elections as we have greater representation in the College of Cardinals that we do among the Catholic faithful. <<

I disagree. We are not talking about a representational democracy where voting rights are assigned based upon the population of each Particular Church. Since each of the Particular Churches is fully equal in rank and status then similar methods should be used for the election of their patriarchs. If we in the East elect our patriarchs via the local synod of bishops, then the West should elect their patriarch via their local synod of bishops (i.e., the College of Cardinals). If the West has no direct role in electing our patriarchs then we should have no direct role in electing their patriarch, who is also the pope. If the pope has veto power over the election of a patriarch then the other patriarchs should have veto power over the election of the pope. This has nothing to do with the population of each Church.

Why do the Particular Churches all need a single, uniform method of electing Patriarchs anymore than they need a single, uniform liturgy?

Each church's leaders should be allowed to continue such practices they find pastorally beneficial.

K.

[This message has been edited by Kurt (edited 11-30-2000).]

>>Why do the Particular Churches all need a single, uniform method of electing Patriarchs anymore than they need a single, uniform liturgy?<<

They don't and I never suggested they did. My point was that since we in the East elect our own patriarchs without giving the pope a direct vote, we should not expect to have a direct vote in his election. If, however, he is to have veto right over an election by our synods of bishops then we should have veto rights over his selection by his synod of bishops (the College of Cardinals). The issue is one of equality and fairness, not method.

Let's not forget that 'bishop' is the highest rank in the Church. Archbishops are bishops with frosting. A Patriarch is a bishop of bishops (gathered in synod or elsewise).

The Roman Pontiff is Patriarch of the West, and therefore bishop of all the Western bishops. When the custom of letting the Roman clergy and people elect their own bishop disappeared (couldn't trust them silly Italians to elect the head of the whole Church!!) it was left to a select group of nobility bishops (the $$$ crowd) to do so. In order to justify this select crowd as the electors, they were given the title: cardinalis, which in Latin means 'hinges', i.e., they let the door swing open --or closed. Thus, the 'in-crowd' got to elect the Pontiff of the whole church, and the ordinary bishops got left out in the cold, not to mention the ordinary folks.

Somehow, the Patriarchs of the other churches didn't get included in the equation. Sure, as bishops, they could get included in Councils; but who'd want them damn foreigners involved in selecting the Roman Pontiff?!?!?

So, in the past, to be 'inclusive', some patriarchs were given the title of "Cardinal" so they could participate in the electoral consistory. The rank is NOT ecclesiastical nor related to Holy Orders.

A patriarch is a bishop who presides over bishop-synods, as well as over his own diocese. The Roman Pontiff is the patriarch who presides over bishop-synods of the Western Church as well as over his own diocese (Rome). By custom, the Patriarch of Rome served as the elder brother of his fellow patriarchs, who sends the letter calling a family gathering, and he sends the letter when things are not going too smoothly or when there's a family spat.

Many previous Pontiffs have, unfortunately, envisioned themselves as medieval princes or monarchs in the image of divine right kings. While this may have been all the rage in the past, nowadays anyone claiming to be a divine right monarch is asking for some serious disrespect. (This doesn't apply solely to popes, patriarchs, archbishops, etc.)
Fortunately, there have been some totally awesome Popes who disavowed the "God chose me to be better than you" philosophy. They loved the ordinary working folks (John XXIII and Leo XIII) or provided leadership in prayer (Pius X) and devotion to the sacraments.

So, let's focus on what kind of bishop the man is and how well he serves God's people.
Let the Romans elect their own patriarch in whatever wise they desire. And hopefully, we'll soon once again get to electing our own. And then we'll all each live in our own little houses according to our own family customs and traditions.

Blessings.