|
Forums26
Topics35,535
Posts417,725
Members6,187
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,398 |
(4) Eastern Patriarchs who are created Cardinals belong to Order of Bishops in the College of Cardinals (Section 1, Canon 350, Latin Code of Canons) but are ranked lower than the Latin Cardinals who hold suburbicarian titles. Further, the Dean and Vice Dean of the College are Latin Rite Cardinals, who are elected by and among the 6 Latin Rite Cardinals within the Order of Bishops. (Recently, the membership in the Order of Bishops has been "divided" into Cardinal Bishops [Latin Rite] and Cardinal Partriarchs [Eastern Patriarchs]. Let me get this straight now, no matter if the Patriarch is the head of one of the sui juris churches, he will always rank lower than a cardinal with a titular see and no real diocese. Isn't that like saying "no matter what, you are only second class"? Not much there for any of the Orthodox to look forward to in the manner of reunion. In IC XC, Father Anthony+ Rome has a very grand view of its own importance. In the first instance, parity seems to be the norm. Major Archbishop Husar of the UGCC leads a particular Church of about 5 million worldwide. The Archbishops of Rio de Janeiro, of Mexico City, of Manila, and of many Archdioceses in the world lead substantially more fatihful than him. But all of them are Cardinals equally belonging to the Order of Cardinal Priests in the College of Cardinals, only their date of elevation determining their seniority over each other. In the reverse, the Patriarchs (or retired Patriarchs) of the Maronites, the Syrians, the Copts, and the Chaldeans have smaller faithful than many Latin Archdioceses worldwide but the Eastern Patriarchs are honored to be included in the Order of Bishops in the College of Cardinals, outranking ALL the world's Latin Cardinals shepherding large Archdioceses. What else should be done? Do you have any alternatives? 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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 105
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 105 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437 Likes: 1
Administrator Member
|
|
Administrator Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,437 Likes: 1 |
(4) Eastern Patriarchs who are created Cardinals belong to Order of Bishops in the College of Cardinals (Section 1, Canon 350, Latin Code of Canons) but are ranked lower than the Latin Cardinals who hold suburbicarian titles. Further, the Dean and Vice Dean of the College are Latin Rite Cardinals, who are elected by and among the 6 Latin Rite Cardinals within the Order of Bishops. (Recently, the membership in the Order of Bishops has been "divided" into Cardinal Bishops [Latin Rite] and Cardinal Partriarchs [Eastern Patriarchs]. Let me get this straight now, no matter if the Patriarch is the head of one of the sui juris churches, he will always rank lower than a cardinal with a titular see and no real diocese. Isn't that like saying "no matter what, you are only second class"? Not much there for any of the Orthodox to look forward to in the manner of reunion. In IC XC, Father Anthony+ Rome has a very grand view of its own importance. In the first instance, parity seems to be the norm. Major Archbishop Husar of the UGCC leads a particular Church of about 5 million worldwide. The Archbishops of Rio de Janeiro, of Mexico City, of Manila, and of many Archdioceses in the world lead substantially more fatihful than him. But all of them are Cardinals equally belonging to the Order of Cardinal Priests in the College of Cardinals, only their date of elevation determining their seniority over each other. In the reverse, the Patriarchs (or retired Patriarchs) of the Maronites, the Syrians, the Copts, and the Chaldeans have smaller faithful than many Latin Archdioceses worldwide but the Eastern Patriarchs are honored to be included in the Order of Bishops in the College of Cardinals, outranking ALL the world's Latin Cardinals shepherding large Archdioceses. What else should be done? Do you have any alternatives? 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+
Everyone baptized into Christ should pass progressively through all the stages of Christ's own life, for in baptism he receives the power so to progress, and through the commandments he can discover and learn how to accomplish such progression. - Saint Gregory of Sinai
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 646 Likes: 1
Cantor Member
|
|
Cantor Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 646 Likes: 1 |
But until Rome gets at least this right, unity with the Orthodox will only be a pipe dream.
...
Gordo Perhaps only a Pope dream. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 476
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 476 |
The argument for the precedence is that the Cardinals directly represent the Pope. 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...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 384
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 384 |
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 477 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 476
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 476 |
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'.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
