www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Structure of the Orthodox paralled to EC's

The Oriental Orthodox certainly have a Pope - Pope Shenouda is the incumbent. The Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria and All Africa also uses the title "Pope" and wears a mitre which somewhat resenbles the (Roman) papal tiara.

As to Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs and other Chief Hierarchs of Local Churches exercising quasi-papal authority, it varies. The Patriarch of Moscow is probably the closest - and it's no secret that the Moscow Patriarchate regards itself as the Eastern Orthodox "heir" to the absent Pope of Rome and has had that aspiration ever since the Patriarchate of Moscow was created. Whether by accident or by design the Soviet regime encouraged this - probably because the Soviets preferred to deal with a person in Moscow who could be held to account for events as far away as, say, Irkutsk.

On the other hand, at least one Eastern Orthodox Patriarch does not even hold the seal used for Patriarchal documents - each member of the Synod has a portion of the seal and the Patriarch has the outer circle, so that anything bearing the seal has certainly been approved by the Synod.

Those are the two extremes; most Orthodox Local Churches fall somewhere in the middle.

There is no Orthodox rank corresponding to "Cardinal" - that position really came into being in the second millennium and does not in itself carry any particular authority or responsibility other than serving as Papal electors and keeping the wheels turning during the time between the death of one Pope of Rome and the election of his successor - one couod see much of this on EWTN between the death of John Paul II and the election of Benedict XVI. In that situation, however, the College of Cardinals has no right to innovate or to take major decisions (which made the loud demands that John Paul II should be instantly canonized at his funeral particularly absurd - when there is no Pope of Rome, there is no Catholic authority competent to canonize a Saint).

Honorific titles are of no particular importance except that since they mostly originate far back in the history of the Church, they did at one time indicate that the holder had a serious function. To give only one example - the Archpriest of a diocese had charge of the spiritual well-being of that diocese; the archdeacon of a diocese had charge of the financial well-being of the diocese. This might explain why the Archdeacon of Rome was often elected Pope, but the Archpriest of Rome was seldom elected Pope!

This could continue at considerable length, but I'll stop here, at least for now.

Fr. Serge

I think there is some confusion between the Catholic Church's hierarchy of order and her hierarchy of jurisdiction.

We know that the hierarchy of order encompasses the episcopate, the presbytery, and the diaconate.

To the episcopate the Pope and the Cardinals belong, i.e., they are "Bishops," except those Cardinals, like Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., and a few others, who sought dispensation from the Pope not to be ordained a bishop as a prerequisite to becoming a full-fledged Cardinal.

In the hierarchy of jursidiction, however, the titles and offices of those within the episcopate are further differentiated in descending order:

Pope
Cardinal
Patriarch
Metropolitan Archbishop (with suffragans)
Archbishop (without suffragans and titulars))
Bishop

It is under this categorization that the title of "Cardinal" is not merely "honorary" or "honorific."

Amado

Just an aside here about the 'Italo-Greek" Church in Calabria which I see here discussed along with the Italo-Albanian Church.
The Italo-Greek Church is an Eastern Rite church of ancient origin which has never been out of communion with Rome. For a period following the fall of Rome in 476 jurisdiction for the Italo-Greeks transfered to Constantinople. During this period the Italo-Greeks of Calabria rediscovered their original liturgies and languages and took on their still preserved Byzantine character. After Justinian restored the position of the Bishop of Rome (while restoring order in the Pope's North African see of Hippo)jursidiction transfered back to Rome whre it remains.
From my Orthodox perspective they are among my favorite ECs.
They are not to be confused with the Italo-Greek Orthodox Church homed in NY under 'Bishop Stephen'.

Amado,

I have to strongly disagree with your assessment that the Cardinalate is higher in dignity than a Patriarch. A Patriarch is the Father of a autonomous/autocephalous/sui iurus Church, a Cardinal is the Pope's Curial assistant. The Patriarchs are essentially higher in honor, jurisdiction, and dignity.

The structure also varies depending on the specific Church and her Traditions.

Pope - Patriarch
Cardinal - Catholicoi - Maphryono
Metropolitan Archbishop (with suffragans)
Archbishop (without suffragans and titulars))
Bishop
Monsignore - Mitred Archpriest - Protopresbyer - CorEpiscopa

Amado

I am a Latin and I vehemently and fundamentally disagree that a Cardinal outranks a Patriarch. Cardinal is merely a bureaucratic rank not an ecclesiastical one. Leaving aside titular patriarchates, a Patriarch (whether EC, EO, OO or Assyrian) is head of a particular church and has equal standing to the Pope of Rome. Indeed it did not sit well with me that at JPII's funeral mass and BXVI's enthronement that the EC patriarchs were not seated separately from and in primacy to the College of Cardinals.

Regardless of title, a bishop is a bishop. Surely titles indicate a level of recognition, achievement and may carry higher administrative capacities.. however a bishop is a bishop. This thead had an original question that has not yet been appropriately answered. I may direct the op to a book, perhaps The Orthodox Church by Bishop Kallistos (Timothy Ware). It is published by penquin and even the big box bookstores usually have it in stock, it runs around 16 dollars plus tax, if applicable in your territory, state or commonwealth.