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

The who? Your compass appears to be skewed - the Latin patriarchs? the Eastern primates?

Hello,


Not so. Nobody "is supposed to become a cardinal", Cardinals are freely appointed by the Pope.

What the law says is that, should an Eastern Patriarch become a Cardinal, he automatically becomes a Cardinal Bishop, not of one of the seven suburbicarian sees of the Roman Province, but with their own Patriarchal see as their Cardinal title.



Again, not entirely precise.

The college of cardinals, based on the original concept of "clerics of the Roman Provice" is hierarchically divided into three "orders":

Cardinal Bishops are the senior members of the college. They are assigned, as their cardinatial title, one of the suburbicarian churches of the Roman Province, execept for the Diocese of Ostia, which is assigned to the Dean of the college, in addition to his original title. They key point is that these assignments are titular, not jurisdictional. Cardinal Bishops are titular bishops of these places but they do not have any jurisdiction over them, whatsoever. They are not the "Local Ordinary" of those places.

Cardinal Presbyters (or Priests) follow the Cardinal Bishops in the honorific hierarchy and are assigned as their title one of the main (cardinal) parishes in Rome, of which they belong titular pastors. Again, titular, not jurisdictional. Most of the cardinals who are also Ordinaries elsewhere in the world are assigned a parish title and therefore belong to Presbyterial order of the college. Only the Pope can "promote" a Cardinal Presbyter to Cardinal Bishop.

Cardinal Deacons are last in the honorifc hierarchy and are assigned to a diaconia of the Church of Rome as their title. Usually Cardinal Deacons are members of the Roman Curia, who are not Local Ordinaries anywhere else. After serving 10 years as Cardinal Deacons, they can choose to be promoted to the Presbyterial order at which point their titles are also reassigned.

Again, Eastern Patriarchs who are made Cardinals enter directly to the Episcopal order of the college and "use" their Patriarchal see as their title (the logic of which escapes me). I think they are NOT allowed to be voted Dean of the college, but I am not sure about that.

So, the only person who is "bishop" of two sees is the Dean of the College, but in both cases, he is "titular" bishop, which, I think, does not violate Eastern canons about one being bishop of two places.

Shalom,
Memo

There are currently several Latin rite Patriarchs (essentially certain important Metropolitan Sees); the term primate, in an ecclesiastical sense is routinely used to inclusively speak of Eastern Patriarchs, Major Archbishops of Major Archiepiscopal churches, Metropolitans of Metropolitan churches, and Eparchs of Eparchial churches...

I'd rather see the pope selected by the collected churches in the union rather than by the mish-mash of cardinals currently in force.

Well, we almost had an Armenian Catholic pope instead of Blessed Pope John XXIII.

The Latin Rite Patriarchs are:

1. the Patriarch of Jerusalem (an Archdiocese, not a Metropolitan See). Jerusalem is of import only in the sense of its historic legacy and, fact be, that there is a Latin Patriarch resident there is nothing more than to afford Rome a titular presence in a place that harkens back to the origins of Christianity. The rightful hierarchical presence there is that of the Eastern Churches.

2. the Patriarch of the East Indies (a title joined to that of the Archdiocese of the East Indies - a titular see - which is united to the Archdiocese of Goa & Dameo). Goa e Dameo was only again elevated to the status of a Metropolia in 2006 - after being reduced from such 30 years prior. It is one of some 25-odd Metropolia in India, hardly ranking it as of particular import.

3. the Patriarch of Venice, an actual Metropolitan See, with 9 suffragn jurisdictions. However, there is nothing, short of the title, to suggest that the Cardinal Patriarch of the See of St Mark has any particular import to the Church in Italy (where he is one of about 40 Metropolitans)

4. the Patriarch of Lisbon, another Metropolitan See, with 7 suffragn sees. It is one of 3 Metropolia in Portugal and cannot be said to have any particular status within the Church in Europe - certainly, with all due respect to my Portuguese friends here, there are Sees of greater prestige on the continent.

Canon 438 of the Latin Code says it all



There are any number of Cardinals scattered throughout the world who are more influential, both religiously and secularly, than these four - and any number of Metropolitan Sees that are of greater influence and import.


Notably, the term 'primate' does not appear in the CCEO and I'd have to say that I don't recollect it being routine in speaking of our hierarchs other than as an adjectival usage - e.g., primatial hierarch. As a formal title, its use is invariably in the West.


The College of Cardinals is among the last vestige of collegiality in the Latin Church. As such, let its members have the role of papal electors. It is their place and one in which our hierarchs have no particular role, historically or logically.

Many years,

Neil

Don't forget also the position of Cardinal Layman.
Stephanos I
I believe that position existed in the Church but don't know of any current ones.

We are going in circles again. We did this topic of Cardinals from every angle only a few months ago.

Was this not recently abolished?

Bob

So true, Paul, and probably a year before that - and another before that - ad infinitum, ad nauseam

Not sure where my brother, Amado, is, however. By this point in the past, he has usually weighed in to argue with me about the prestige of the cardinalate versus that of the patriarchate.


Bless, Father,

It existed in the person of laypersons as Cardinals, although I don't believe that a formal title of Cardinal Layman was ever employed.


You're absolutely correct, Bob, as to it being abolished - but the abolition wasn't all that recent.

Salvatore Miranda, the principal cataloguer of all to do with the College, reports that Teodolfo Mertel [fiu.edu], a lawyer in the Vatican's Curia was the last cardinal who was not ordained to the presbyterate (he was ordained to the diaconate 2 months after the conclave of 1858 in which he received the red hat). Mertel reposed in 1899. (Previously, lay cardinals had been named and tonsured to only to minor orders.)

The Code of Canon Law decreed, in the 1917 edition, that only priests or bishops could be chosen as cardinals and the 1983 edition says:


The requirement of episcopal ordination can be dispensed and has been on several occasions.


Yes, His Beatitude Krikor Bedros (Gregory Peter) XV Cardinal Aghagianian [fiu.edu], of blessed memory, Patriarch & Catholicos Emeritus of Cilicia of the Catholic Armenians and Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. He was likely the first Patriarch (certainly the first Catholic one) of whom most Americans ever heard (the first of whom I knew). His full-length photo, garbed in red, in either Look or Life (I forget which) was most impressive. It appeared as part of a piece on papabile, those considered strong candidates to be elected to succeed Pope Pius XII.

Many years,

Neil

no. just not recently used.

aramis,

See above. It was abolished 90+ years ago.

Many years,

Neil

BTW: why should an eastern catholic patriarch be a cardinal of the roman catholic church?!?

"BTW: why should an eastern catholic patriarch be a cardinal of the roman catholic church?!?"

He shouldn't, but many feel that it is the only way they can get the attention and respect of the Curia Romana.

Maybe because he is not a cardinal of the Latin Church but of the Catholic Church?
Stephanos I

No, the "honorific" of Cardinal (it is not a rank or order) is specific to the Latin Church, and allowing members of other Churches to hold it is a carryover from the bad old days when there were no "Eastern Catholic Churches" but merely "Eastern rites" of the Roman Catholic Church.