www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West eastern cardinals

So I am curious to see what people think about Eastern Catholic patriarchs and bishops becoming cardinals. I've heard stories that some prelates denied receiving the title because it is not eastern. I am kind of split on it - while I think cardinals should be Western since it is a tradition that emerged in the west, I also think that us Eastern Catholics should have a way to express our opinions in papal conclaves.

Dear Zan,

I am not really an expert on these things, but....

A cardinal is a pastor of a Church in the diocese of Rome (the bishops of Rome are elected by an assembly of the pastors of Churches, and the assistant bishops and deacons).

If an eastern patriarch wants also to hold the title of a pastor of a church in the city of Rome, I suppose he can. I don't really think it is impossible.

At one time, didn't the 4 ancient patriarchates have the title of the 4 basilicas?

I do believe the Melkite patriarchs have always turned down the offer of a cardinal's title, I believe, to emphasize the dignity of the patriarchal title?

Elias

The Patriarch of the Greek-Melkite Church, His Beatitude Gregory III, that was one who rejected the cardinal title, is in favour of the creation of a permanent synod and others temporaries which in some way would represent the whole Catholic Church to substitute the Roman Curia and the Conclave restricted to cardinals.

Patriarch Maximos IV was coerced into accepting the cardinalate; at the time Paul VI promised that from then on special arrangements would be made for Eastern Catholic Cardinals - since Paul VI died that promise has been violated repeatedly.

Patriarch Maximos V never accepted the title of cardinal and made it clear that he never would accept it. Patriarch Gregory III has done the same thing.

Patriarch Joseph of the Ukrainians accepted the cardinalate and so have his two successors to date - I presume the reason is that since the Holy See does not formally recognize that these Chief Hierarchs held/hold the Patriarchal title, the position of cardinal does have some practical importance for them (a cardinal has a particular standing in international law).

The suggestion that with or without the "red hat" our Patriarchs should be invited to vote in the conclave that elects the Pope is foolish - as a practical matter the small number of votes involved would be unlikely to affect the outcome, and, still more to the point, if the patriarchs have a voice in electing the Pope, then the Pope has a voice in electing the patriarchs, which is a highly undesirable outcome.

As a professor of mine used to say, this is all folklore.

Fr. Serge

Did not Major Archbishop Husar participate in the last conclave? I thought His Excellency was there.

Yep, his Beatitude Patriarch Lubomyr was there since he is also a cardinal.

He was also considered Papabile.

Well since the title of cardinal is merely an honor position, I personally dont see why they should not participate in the election of a Pope.
Stephanos I

Hi,

If we really mean what we say that an Autocephalous Church should be allowed to elect her own canonical head, then:

1. The principle should apply to the Latin Church just as much as it applies to the Autocephalous Eastern Churches.

2. Therefore, the election of the head of the Latin Church is a matter of exclusive competence to the Latins.

3. The College of Cardinals is supposed to be the collegial body of the clergy of the Church of Rome. As such, it is the most appropriate body to elect the Bishop of Rome, who by virtue of being the Bishop of that See, becomes the canonical head of the Latin Church and the Supreme Pontiff.

4. Sure, Eastern prelates (and not only patriarchs or major archbishops) may be included, as they are now by becoming members of the College of Cardinals. However, the arrangement in which an Eastern Patriarch does not receive a title in the Church of Rome, but uses his Patriarchal See as his title, seems to me a little bit "irregular".

5. I do not know if Latins are allowed to decline being named Cardinals. I would certainly ensure Eastern prelates are allowed to do so and that the invitation is made privately, and announced only after the Eastern prelate has accepted it.

Shalom,
Memo

Fr. Serge,

Help me understand as I am new here. Is your position anti-Roman or anti-Western? I understand that the Eastern and Western rites are co-eval and that one should not impose on the other. However, is their no value to Eastern Catholics that they are in communion with Rome? And, being part of the communion centered at Rome, should not the Eastern Churches wish to be part of Vatican decision making? Cardinals do more than elect the pope. They, not the curia, are the pope's chief advisers, no?

Please do not interpret my question as an attack in any way. I am just trying to understand and am open to learning points of view other than Western.

Fr. Arthur

Dear Father Arthur,

So far as I know, my position is neither anti-Roman nor anti-Western.

Certainly there is value to the communion of the Eastern Catholic Churches with Rome - we believe this to be the will of God, which is itself of infinite value. And a visit to Rome itself gives the opportunity to see and use some of our most important educational institutions, libraries, historic churches . . . quite a lot. And so forth. In the recent past I would have added Rome's excellent publications of our liturgical books, but Rome seems to have gotten out of that work for the present (probably because Rome now encourages us to buy and use the corresponding Orthodox books since the collapse of Communism has made publishing such materials in Eastern Europe much easier).

Do the Eastern Catholic Churches want to be part of Vatican decision-making? That's a complex question. In general, we prefer to make our own decisions. Consider the matter of (for example) the election of bishops - around 1950 Pius XII instituted a claim that the Pope's consent was required for all elections of Bishops. The Patriarchs protested, and Vatican II states clearly that our Churches may elect their own bisohps without interference. But this was too much for the Vatican monsignori to swallow, so the veto requirement is still in place. Obviously, the pope always has the right - for cause - to refuse communion with any bishop, but that right is not something to be exercised on a daily basis.

The same applies to the burning question of the married clergy - Vatican attempts to inhibit the ordination of married priests have been going for more than a century. These attempts ultimately fail, but they cause much grief, pain, and even schisms.

Then there is the question of the extension of the jurisdiction of our Patriarchs and Synods to the territories of the diaspora. The monsignori hate the very idea; they concede the principle to some extent, but then hedge it around with amazing restrictions.

All of this is blatant interference in our internal affairs. Even as we have no special wish to involve ourselves in the internal matters of the Latin Church, we would vastly prefer to be left in peace to live our Christian, Catholic lives according to our own tradition - as we have been repeatedly guaranteed.

Transforming a Patriarch into a nominal parish priest (or even a deacon!) of the Diocese of Rome is just plain offensive, no matter how it is dressed up. Would the Pope be pleased if he were suddenly named Devteron Deacon of Alexandria? I think not! The Pope would properly assume that this was some sort of joke in remarkably bad taste. [I could be wrong - among other things, the Pope in fact is ex officio Bishop of Kilfenora.]

But your question is certainly not an attack; on the contrary. I appreciate it when someone takes the trouble to seek to understand us (we often have trouble understanding ourselves). Oremus pro invicem!

fraternally yours in Christ

Serge

Amen Fr. Serge!!!

Fr. Serge,

Thank you. I really had no idea that there were such problems. I have met married Eastern Catholic priests, so I did not think that was still a problem.

Pax,

Fr. Arthur

H.B. Gr�goire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria

It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.

In No. 75, a "particular honor" given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.

It is not a question of honor, of privileges, of concessions. The patriarchal institution is a specific entity unique in Eastern ecclesiology.

With all respect due to the Petrine ministry, the Patriarchal ministry is equal to it, "servatis servandis", in Eastern ecclesiology.

Until this is taken into consideration by the Roman ecclesiology, no progress will be made in ecumenical dialogue.

Furthermore, the Patriarchal ministry is not a Roman creation, it is not the fruit of privileges, conceded or granted by Rome.

Such a concept can but ruin any possible understanding with Orthodoxy.

We claim this also for our Patriarchal Melkite Church and for all our Eastern Catholic Churches.

We have waited too long to apply the decrees of Vatican Council II and the Encyclicals and letters by the Popes, and notably by Pope John Paul II.

Because of this the good will of the Church of Rome loses credibility regarding ecumenical dialogue.

We can see the opposite occurring: the CCEO has ratified uses absolutely contrary to Eastern tradition and ecclesiology!

http://www.vatican.va/news_services..._x-ordinaria-2001/02_inglese/b10_02.html