www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Greek Catholic Cardinals?

When reading on the UGCC site [ugcc.org.ua] , I saw this under Patriarch Lubomyr:

"fter Lubachivski's death, the Synod of Bishops elected him the next Major Archbishop. He was enthroned on January 28, 2001 and on the same day it was announced that Pope John Paul II had named him cardinal."

I thought Cardinals were only part of the Roman Rite? Can anyone tell me more?

Thanks

I unfortunately can't be more helpful than this, but I seem to remember reading here (just a few days back) that there are a few Eastern cardinals; I can't remember what post it was in. Take that for what it's worth!

Jason

Here is, I believe, the current list of Cardinals that are not Latin Church Catholics:

Cardinal Daoud (Prefect of the Congregation for Eastern Churches)
Cardinal Ghattas (Coptic Patriarch)
Cardinal Husar
Cardinal Sfeir (Patriarch of Antioch for Maronites)
Cardinal Vithayathil (Syro-Malabar Catholic Church)

Cheers,

Cyril

I should also add that Pope Paul VI in his 1965 Motu Propio Ad Purpuratorum Patrum expanded the College of Cardinals to include the "Oriental Patriarchs who have become members of the College of Cardinals have as their title their own patriarchal see."

The inclusion of non-Latins to the College of Cardinals is a relatively new thing to the Church.

Cheers,

Cyril

Let us pray this practice soon disappears.

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

Thanks, everyone. I agree, I hope it goes away too.

Why shhould this practice go away?
Just curious. Is it not to the advantage of the Universal Church to have advisors from all the Churches and from all the world. Remember when it was reserved to being Italian, thank God we are beyond that and are now more truly living as a Universal Church.
Stephanos I

I think a little clarification is in order. I believe the College of Cardinals did not exist at the time of the Great Schism of 1054. I think it was begun about the year 1200.

The first Eastern Cardinal that I am aware of was Isidore of Thessalonica, Archbishop of Kiev of the Ruthenians, created Cardinal-Priest of St. Peter and St. Marcellinus on 18 December 1439, in the third consistory of Pope Eugenius IV.

Cardinal Isidore participated in the Council of Florence in 1439 and was present in Constantinople at the time of the Turkish conquest in 1453. He died on 27 April 1462.

In the 19th Century, two Metropolitans of Lviv were appointed Cardinals: Mihail Cardinal Lewicki (1856) and Sylvester Cardinal Sembratovych (1895). Cardinal Sembratovych is notable as the Metropolitan who sent the first Greek Catholic Priests to the United States in the 1880s.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

I'm not sure who was named first, but Cardinal Bessarion was also a major participant in the Council of Florence and made a Cardinal as a reward, more or less.

Eastern Catholic Cardinals are (or at least have been ) a rarity because the institution of Cardinals is an integral part of the Local Church of Rome. If Rome wants the advice of the Eastern Patriarchs, Rome has only to ask and Rome will receive.

Proposals that there is some advantage to be gained in having a vote in the Conclave are not terribly convincing.

On the other hand, Cardinals have had some privileged standing in international law. I'm not up on the details of this.

Incognitus

Most of the Eastern Cardinals are from the middle east and if they have some added security in interantional law that is a good thing.
Since the advent of Cardinals itself is relatively new even to the western church I think there is an overreation here to an Eastern Catholic Cardinal I think it can only benefit the entire church with their input. I know it was sure nice to see the eastern catholic cardinals taking part during the conclave and the funeral activites of Pope John 2. Their visible role thier was a postive for the Eastern church as people noticed an even more universal aspect of the catholic church and yeah its more than just the Roman (Latin) Rite.

Just a minor correction on the history of the Cardinalate.

Creation of Cardinals in the Roman Church began in the 4th century as close advisers to the Pope, continuing without interruption up to the present.

In 1059, they were made exclusive electors of the Pope and the College itself was given its present form in 1150.

Amado

Dear Friends,

It is interesting that in my meetings with Ukrainian Orthodox from Ukraine (in diplomatic capacities), the one thing they positively LOVE about our Husar is that he is a . . . Cardinal!

Go figure!

Alex

As understand it, Cardinals are those clergy from the diocese of Rome who were designated as electors of the bishop of that diocese. They were the principal clergy of the diocese and perhaps as a result, got a vote. As principal clergy they may have other tasks in helping to run the diocese and later the Patriarhate. Yet, however much the role has expanded from being principal clergy of the Roman Church with the right to elect their ruling hierarch, that is at basis what it is rooted in and is its most fundamental definition.

That is the reason why, I think, people object to Eastern Catholic hierarchs being made Cardinals - including and most prominently perhaps, the great and holy His Beatitude of blessed memory, Maximos IV, Patriarch of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and all the East, Pontiff of Pontiffs and Thirteenth Apostle.

Among other things, it means that there is, from what I gather, a canonical anomaly, where non Latin Catholics are made clerics of the Latin Church (there is no "dual citizenship" in the Catholic Communion; one is cannot be simultaneously a member of more than 1 ecclesia sui iuris).

My "Modest Proposal" would be that the Cardinals continue to function as functionaries and electors of the Roman Diocese and Latin Patriarchate, but that the Pope (of Rome) also and over and above it, convoke a kind of Pan Catholic, inter-ecclesial standing Synod of Patriarchs (consisting of the heads of the Autonomous Catholic Churches).

This body would deal with, e.g.:
- matters that affect the entire Catholic Communion,
- matters that deal with the relations between the various autonomous Catholic Churches,
- and matters that touch on the external relations of the Catholic Communion with the other Churches or the world at large.

just a thought

Herb

Cardinal is an administrative position and personal honor.Usualy When an an archbishop is made a Cardinal he is given some administrative responsibility in the Vatican. The post of patriarch is Apostolic and outranks Cardinal in dignity.It is not well understood as such and is probably one reason he Pope made all the Eastern Patriarchs and Archbishops Major Cardinals.

Dear Friends,

Perhaps the role of Eastern Catholic Cardinals and its persistence has something to do, ultimately, with the relationship of the EC churches with Rome as a whole?

If both Rome and a number of our EC bishops stop seeing that relationship in terms of one administrative body and more in terms of "Eastern Churches in communion with Rome," then there would be less need of having Eastern Cardinals as a way to:

1) show we're "really Catholic too!"

2) keep some political leverage at the Curia as a way to defend EC interests since so many decisions affecting us are made at Rome.

3) reinforcing the real dignity of our Primates since Rome seems to only recognize the Cardinalate as the ultimate rank next to the Pope.

Alex