The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Jayce, Fr. Abraham, AnonymousMan115, violet7488, HopefulOlivia
6,182 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (Roman), 585 guests, and 98 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,530
Posts417,670
Members6,182
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 788
Member
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 788
Quote
What does "Patriarch" mean to the Pope that "Cardinal" does not? Eastern Catholic "Patriarchs" cannot even appoint their own bishops so how are they any different than Cardinals?
Without denying our own Orthodox shortcomings, which are many, why does every question for you Catholics come down to power?

Who cares if Pope, Patriarch or people name bishops? Christ gave us no command on this matter. It is a minor consideration.

Axios

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 106
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 106
I'm Orthodox actually. My question was meant to solicit more explanation since I don't think this "Patriarch" will be a Patriarch at all but just a Cardinal with a different name. But I'm far from an expert on Eastern Catholicism and open to info. on the subject.


"Where Peter is, there is the Church." - St. Ambrose
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351
Member
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351
Dear Friends:

A Cardinal has no more sacramental authority than that of a Priest or Bishop; the title is merely an honorific particular (peculiar) to the Church of the City of Rome.

There are no Cardinals in other Churches and their main function is to elect a Pope.

They are given title to Churches in Rome and become as the Priest-Deacons of the Roman Parishes in ancient times.

The main problem with their relationship to the Eastern Patriarchs was that until just recently a Cardinal was given a higher precedence (social or diplomatic but again not sacramental).

This was adjusted only at the last Papal installation when the Pope made a number of Eastern Patriarchs Roman Cardinals.

The Patriarchs banded together, presented their concerns to the various congregations, who finally gave them precedence.

The relationship between Rome and the Eastern Catholic Churches is really only now being properly defined.

We are lucky that at present in the Universal Church there are some very competent men who hold the title of Patriarch (including one may say Lubomyr Husar).

I know that this is all an extreme simplification but then again I am not writing a book on the subject.

defreitas

PS.
I think that diplomatically a Roman Cardinal holds the same precedence as that of a Crown Prince.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 779
F
Member
Member
F Offline
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 779
Was the archbishop of Venice not given the honorofic, 'patriarch'?

S Bogom -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
A
Member
Member
A Offline
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Dear defreitas:


Quote
A Cardinal has no more sacramental authority than that of a Priest or Bishop; the title is merely an honorific particular (peculiar) to the Church of the City of Rome.

There are no Cardinals in other Churches and their main function is to elect a Pope.
Yes, to elect the Pope (how frequent does this happen?) and, on a daily basis, assist the Pope in the governance of the entire Catholic Church through the various curial departments.

Quote
They are given title to Churches in Rome and become as the Priest-Deacons of the Roman Parishes in ancient times.
Yes and No. The Cardinals of the Latin Rite and non-Patriarch Cardinals of Eastern Churches are assigned the various suburbicarian Churches in and around Rome but the Cardinal-Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches retain title to their respective Sees. For instance, if Cardinal Husar were to be recognized now as Patriarch of the Ukrainians, he is "promoted" from being a Cardianal-Priest, with a title to one of the suburbicarian Roman Churches, to a Cardinal-Patriarch with title to his See, Kyiv.

Quote
The main problem with their relationship to the Eastern Patriarchs was that until just recently a Cardinal was given a higher precedence (social or diplomatic but again not sacramental).

This was adjusted only at the last Papal installation when the Pope made a number of Eastern Patriarchs Roman Cardinals.

The Patriarchs banded together, presented their concerns to the various congregations, who finally gave them precedence.
The Sacred College of Cardinals is currently
ordered BY LITURGICAL PRECEDENCE:

--Order of Bishops: 9 Cardinals headed by the recently elected Dean and Vice Dean, Cardinal-Bishop Ratzinger and Cardinal-Bishop Sodano, respectively. The Eastern Patriarchs are in this group and are called Cardinal-Patriarchs, namely: HB Sfeir (created Cardinal on 11/26/94), HB Moussa I Daoud (2/21/01), and HB Ghattas (2/21/01).

--Order of Priests: 144 Cardinals, including Cardinal Husar.

--Order of Deacons: 28 Cardinals, including Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J., the Fordham University theology Professor.

Currently, the Eastern Patriarchs are in the highest order, "outranking" even older Cardinals, but are non-voting in the deliberations of the Order of Bishops which recently elected Cardinal Ratzinger as Dean due to the retirement of Cardinal Gantin of Benin (Africa) upon reaching the age of 80. Cardinal Gantin remains member of the Order of Bishops as "Dean Emeritus."

Quote
PS.
I think that diplomatically a Roman Cardinal holds the same precedence as that of a Crown Prince.
And because of being a Cardinal, international travel is less impeded and foreign governments are "more" welcoming.

AmdG

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
A
Member
Member
A Offline
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Dear Fr. Mark:

The Archbishop of Venice is, also, the Titular Patriarch of Venice which is considered in the Western Church as a "promotion."

The other Titular Patriarchs in the Western Church include the Titular Patriarch of the East Indies (Goa, India), Lisbon (Portugal), and the West Indies (vacant).

The Patriarch of Jerusalem of the Latins, as HB Michael Sabbah is called, is considered as an Eastern Patriarch.

Pope St. Pius X, Pope Bl. John XXIII, and Pope John Paul I were former Titular Patriarchs of Venice.

AmdG

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 788
Member
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 788
A Cardinal ranks the same as a prince. The Cardinal Secretary of State ranks equally to a Crown Prince. The Vatican has, to their credit, been nudging the Eastern Patriarchs up in small, quiet steps.

The reason for all of this, these matters are not the Roman Catholic Church's rules. They are the Congress of Vienna's rules. The Vatican moves quietly on this, because:

1. (The negative) They hate being reminded they are not an absolute power and that participate in things like the Congress of Vienna as one party among many. So let's not draw any attention to the fact this is not the church's rule.

2. (the positive) While things like precedence and ceremony might be seen as silly things, once entities like the Vatican can set aside international law, it justifies other entities from setting aside other aspects of international law.

Axios

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351
Member
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351
Dear Amado and Axios:

Thanks for the fuller definitions of the Cardinalate.

As I said my post was "an extreme simplification" of a complex issue.

What is interesting in all this is that most people still regard a Cardinal as a higher form of Spiritual authoritiy.

defreitas

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405
Likes: 38
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405
Likes: 38
Dear Friends,

What fascinated me during the papal visit here in July was the way the Pope was greeted as head of state and monarch by our government.

And, as the preceding discussion shows (Axios are you sure you don't have Catholic tendencies? smile ), the Pope is a true monarch and secular ruler of the Vatican City-state.

The day of his ascent to the Throne of Peter is celebrated as a holiday at the Vatican, just like in any other monarchy (The Queen has a different birthday celebration in each of the 16 dominions that share her as their head of state).

The papal flag and coat of arms are truly monarchial and I heard the Vatican "national anthem" played for the first time in July.

This "differentiation of church and state" is what allows the Pope to be acknowledged as full head of state of a country and be treated accordingly, whether or not the country he is visiting like Catholicism.

I helped my Greek friends as much as possible when our leaders would not even meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch when he was here . . .

In fact, the imperial church tradition is also maintained by Constantinople and Moscow where the two-headed eagle is prominent etc.

I sometimes wish Constantinople could establish itself much like a city-state as has the Vatican with the Patriarch as head of state. I don't see why it shouldn't, since the Patriarch's connections to Greece have been cut.

I think it would benefit Orthodox witness to and presence in the world.

Alex

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
A
Member
Member
A Offline
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Dear Alex:

Yours is a splendid idea: the EP having his own city-state within Istanbul and denominated simply as the "City of Constantinople." Of course, this "City-State" MUST encompass Hagia Sophia.

However, here are some of the possible road-blocks:

1. The State of Turkey has to agree, under international law, to grant such status to the Ecumenical Patriarchate and cede the corresponding (or desired=Hagia Sophia) territory therefor.

2. The U.N. has to accept another ecclesiastical state as member on observer status (non-voting), which, in the case of Vatican City for Catholicsm, was and is a unique international arrangement. (Some say that the Vatican's case is an anomaly in the community of nations.)

3. World Orthodoxy has to come together quick and unite and "recognize" the primacy of the EP and, in his own behalf, the EP must now exercise such authority and powers attendant to a Head of State.

It's nearly impossible to accomplish all these.

We, Catholics, are luckier: the Vatican has been exercising diplomacy since antiquity AND BEFORE most of the States in the United Nations were born!

AmdG

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 788
Member
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 788
Alex,

I hate to quibble with such a fine person as you, but a minor point: It would be better said that the Pope (under international law) has the personal characteristic of sovreignty rather than is a monarch. While yes, he is ruler of the Vatican City-State, his sovereignty is independent of that and was recongized as personally sovereign from 1871-1923 when no land territory existed.

Except for this very small point, Alex, I deferr to your frequently expressed wisdom.

Axios

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351
Member
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351
Dear Alex:

Good point.

The Papal Sovereignty issue is a very useful thing to the Vatican and secular governments.

Technically under international law, the fact that the Pope is the spiritual and moral head of a billion humans does not really mean anything.

I think that most civil rulers feel a certain sympathy and admiration for the Pope personally.

Because of the separation of Church and state in the constitutions of many countries leaders may feel hindered by direct contact with a religious leader.

If a leader is also the formal civil ruler of another state then any constitutional arguments put forth by civil libertarians would be seen as mute points.

I remember when Ronald Regan exchanged ambassadors with the Vatican he was at pains to make clear that the United State was establishing diplomatic relations with the Vatican State and not with the Catholic Church.

We all know that the relationship developed between the United State and the Vatican was extremely influential in the fall of Communism.

The Pope may be regal but he is not royal [or is it the other way around?].

defreitas

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405
Likes: 38
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,405
Likes: 38
Dear Axios and Defreitas,

Thank you for your accolades for my views on this matter! I agree too! smile

But the Pope is truly a Monarch, although he is not of a Royal House.

And he need not be in order to be a true Monarch.

Monarchs can be, and have been, elected. Not many instances, but some.

This developed, to be sure, during the Middle Ages, when royalty and other nobility did get to sit on Peter's Throne.

But let's remember that to be Emperor of Rome, the model for the Papacy like it or not, also allowed for farmers to become Emperor as it was believed that a man of the country could settle the affairs of the corrupt city . . .

And I understand that there was one instance when a farmer was pulled from his plough in ancient Roman tradition and was made Pope. I forget his name.

In every which way, the Pope is treated as is any other Monarch, and the Tiara with its three-fold Crown symbolizes the executive, legal and legislative powers of the Papacy - something born by all other Monarchs in history and in the world today.

In the U.S., Hawaii was a Kingdom (the movement for its return is gaining some momentum) and its downfall was not only because the U.S. invaded it in 1893, but because it was decided to hold an election for the next Sovereign, an election that pitted King David Kalakaua against Queen Emma and we know the rest of the story. But I digress.

The Patriarch of Constantinople could be a Sovereign like the Pope - Amado, you make excellent points but where there is an Orthodox will they could find a way, I'm sure.

Turkey could be pressured now that it prefers European economic company . . .

Haghia Sophia returned to the EP? Ah, let me enjoy the vision of that for a few more moments . . .

Political resolutions to all this would be best.

The Byzantines could go about earning their name honestly smile .

Kidding, kidding . . .

Axios, coming from you, that really is a compliment!

Alex

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
A
Member
Member
A Offline
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 4,268
Dear Alex:

A short-cut around all these international law impediments is for the Orthodox to unite with Rome and to unleash all the Papal Nuncios for a concerted "attack" on Turkey and on the United Nations, diplomatically that is. biggrin

AmdG

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351
Member
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351
Dear Alex:

I can't believe that you brought up Hawaii.

My Godfather (God rest him) met the last Queen when he was a little boy.

I don't think that there was ever any issue with the succession after King David Kalakaua.

I hope you know that I have personal experience with all of this.

Then again I hope my Byzantine friends will forgive this little imperial digression.

Yes the Major Metropolitan of Lviv is truly Patriarch of Kyiv and all Rus.

That settles that.

defreitas

Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0