www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Precedence: Cardinals and Patriarchs

I find it all quite confusing. What is the significance of "outranking" anyway? What is the purpose of the college of Cardinals? Isn't it just to elect the Pope? Isn't it one vote per Cardinal?

I think the solution is to abolish the college of Cardinals and for the local priests of Rome to elect the Bishop of Rome (or however it is done in the Orthodox Church), perhaps with the consent of neighboring Bishops. Or better, perhaps there needs to be a Roman Patriarchal synod which will elect the Pope who will then be the head and spokesman of that synod.

Joe

I honestly don't know what everyone is getting so excited about. Cardinal is a bureaucratic rank within the Latin Church, it is not a clerical order. It is a courtesy when a red hat is given to an Eastern bishop. If they rank behind Latin bishops in that office, is it not natural since they are not of the Latin Church? If a similar office existed in an Eastern Church would not a Latin appointed to such an office rank behind a bishop of that church in the context of bureaucracy?

The precedence of cardinals has absolutely no impact on the precedence of bishops as bishops in the Church as a whole.

I'm surprised at the amount of Easterners who buy into the more excessive cr*p that surrounds the cardinalate. It's a political honour, that's all.

Does a Patriarch of a particular church outrank a Latin cardinal? In terms of the Church as a whole, absolutely. Why? Because the Latin cardinal is not the head of a particular church, he has his own Patriarch above him.

Amado,

Are you trying to make us believe that every cardinal leads a large diocese? I think not, because I can come up with several names that have no real diocese at all outside of their bureaucracies in Rome. I do not see any parity there.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

Perhaps only a Pope dream.

I remember reading that this was more to do with the fact that the Cardinals are technically part of the Papal Court, and since the Holy Father takes precedence so does his court.

That being said, to me it seems a bit MORE insulting after Vatican II now that the Cardinals who hold title to suburbicarian dioceses (i.e. the suburban dioceses outside of Rome) take precedence over Cardinal-Patriarchs. If what I read was correct at least there was some logic to the prior method...

This is a very messy subject and I don't see any easy formula
for resolving these problems.

On the one hand, the cardinals are to be regarded as the clergy
of the Diocese of Rome (they all have titular Roman Diocesan
churches of which they are nominally pastor, that is my under
standing of it, anyhow). AS SUCH, they elect the Bishop of Rome,
i.e., the Pope.

On the other hand, since the Bishop of Rome is the Univeral
Pontiff, it seems unfair to exclude the other Patriarchs from
having a voice in his election.

But under the present system, the only way to do that is to
make them cardinals.

Which leads to the absurd situation of having certain clerical
bureaucrats technically outranking Patriarchs.

Perhaps the solution is for the Holy Father to declare Patriarchs
(and Major Archbishops?) ex officio papal electors. This in itself raises questions because we would then have Patriarchs of
Local Churches participating in the election of the Patriarch
of another Local Church.

If EC Patriarch considers being made a cardinal insulting, he
doesn't have to accept the office. I have not noticed this
happening. Also note that the cardinalate is not merely an
honor, it's a second job, since all the cardinals are assigned
to dicasteries and have to participate in the governance of
Church, which means extra work and travel and thus less time
to spend on their primary duties.

Edmac

Please see my thread: Melkites: An addendum of thoughts

EXCELLENT reply Edmac. After reading this I agree that EC Patriarchs should not be made cardinals. But I have something else I thought about. Is there anything equivalent to a cardinal in the Eastern Catholic Churches? If not then would it make sense to create something similar? It does make sense that a Patriarch should have his 'court'.

The real issue is with the Papacy being projected as an office that's primary purpose is to govern at the universal level with the Curia as the mechanism to do this. Having an Eastern Patriarch be a cardinal is not a matter of someone's honor being slighted, it is from an Orthodox perspective an indication of a fundamental ecclesiological error.