Byzantine Liturgy

[OrbisNonSufficit]

Eastern Catholic voices must be heard too!

The reason is that each church should be running its own affairs, and this is the the Roman church choosing its leader.

Yes. Office of Cardinal-Patriarch was created precisely for this… but way Church works it should be automatic without needing office different than Patriarch. Anyhow, Cardinal-Patriarchs are NOT clergy of Rome and even though for some weird reason they participate in Conclaves, it is mostly meant to be position of guidance (though yes, in reality they get vote too). Office primarily exists so that Patriarchs assist Pope in affairs connected not to Roman Church, neither to Latin Church, but to Universal Church as a whole.

It is true that this office needs reworking but it is far from Patriarch-Cardinalate that Archbishop Zoghby criticized.

 

[Anesti33]

I do not know what you are talking about. “Office of Cardinal-Patriarch”? I know of no such thing. Those Cardinals who are the Patriarch of a sui iuris Church are Cardinal-Bishops, according to the three ranks of Cardinals: Cardinal-Bishop, Cardinal-Priest, and Cardinal-Deacon.

 

[Alexandria2020]

I do not know what you are talking about. “Office of Cardinal-Patriarch”? I know of no such thing. Those Cardinals who are the Patriarch of a sui iuris Church are Cardinal-Bishops, according to the three ranks of Cardinals: Cardinal-Bishop, Cardinal-Priest, and Cardinal-Deacon.

Correct.
Best example is in the East Syriac Rite churches.
The Chaldean Catholic Patriarch is a Cardinal as well. So he’s a Cardinal-Bishop.
The Syro-Malabar head is Major Archbishop and Cardinal. So he’s a Cardinal-Priest.

But the heads of the Ukrainian Church, Armenian Church, Coptic Church, and the Melkite Church- I don’t see them on the living cardinals list on Wikipedia.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

“Office of Cardinal-Patriarch”? I know of no such thing. Those Cardinals who are the Patriarch of a sui iuris Church are Cardinal-Bishops, according to the three ranks of Cardinals: Cardinal-Bishop, Cardinal-Priest, and Cardinal-Deacon.

They are distinct from other Cardinal Bishops though. They have no title of Roman Church (hence are NOT clergy of Rome unlike other Cardinals), they can not be Cardinal Deans, nor do they participate in election of Dean. They are ranked below other Cardinal Bishops- if they were standard Cardinal Bishops they would be ranked according to seniority.

They are for many purposes Cardinal Bishops but reform was meant to separate Latin Cardinals from Eastern Cardinals (who should not be Roman Clergy, neither should they be made to help administrate Latin Church). As one Eastern Patriarch said, Church is governed by Peter and other Apostles, not Peter and his local Clergy. For this reason, Cardinal-Patriarchs are distinct and in theory reforms were meant to bring them to position where they help administrating Universal Church but not Self-Governing Latin Church. Reforms were not finished, though.

 

[dochawk]

The Holy Father confirms patriarchs elected by EC synods

Sort of.

He does that for major archepiscipol churches. For metropolitan churches, he appoints after consultation, while for Patriarchal churches, he is informed.

It will be interesting to see what happens when UGCC selects its next leader. They’ve decided he is a patriarch, and Rome hasn’t said a word. When that time comes, though, they will have to either inform, or request approval–and if they inform, Rome Weill have to either acquiesce, or try to put the foot down.

If it tries to put the foot down, I suspect that it is more likely the UGCC merges with the GOC in communion with the EP than acquiesce, but we shall see . . .

if that happens, the more Orthodox ECs like the Melkite Church would probably join back with their respective counterpart Orthodox church.

In the specific case of the Melkites, it would be a matter of taking back the group that split from it. Unlike most, the Melkites and the UCC are the historical ancient church of the pair.

But, yes, if such inappropriate exercises of papal power were attempted, there would be multiple schisms.

Yes, but the poor treatment of Byzantine Catholics was contra legem , and perpetrated by diocesan bishops and clergy.

Don’t forget synods national councils of bishops . . .

without sparking such a rebellion as you’ve outlined?

I’m not sure that “rebellion” is the right word when told, point blank, that you’re not Catholic anyway . . . that’s more “expulsion’” . . .

So it seems that when the Holy Father does something Eastern Catholics like, it’s fine for him to have “full, supreme, and immediate jurisdiction” but if they don’t like it then they cry “schism!”

What an obnoxious way to put it.

De-latinizaiton was not an exercise of immediate jurisdiction, but rather pulling roman fingers and abuses out of places they never should have been.

So, yes, many EC are about as “grateful” for this “protection” as the prisoner when released after deuces is grateful to the prosecutor who framed him for a crime that never happened . . .

Anyhow, Cardinal-Patriarchs are NOT clergy of Rome and even though for some weird reason they participate in Conclaves, it is mostly meant to be position of guidance (though yes, in reality they get vote too).

My own thinking is that the heads of EC churches should certainly be there to consult with the cardinals, as should heads of major EO and OO churches. But they should do that by right of their own position, not as some kind of cardinal.

 

[babochka]

while for Patriarchal churches, he is informed.

The newly elected Patriarch informs by means of requesting Communion with Rome, Patriarch to Patriarch.

In reality, Rome is really not blindsided by the election. If Rome had significant objections to any of the contenders, those objections would be made known before the election.

 

[dochawk]

The newly elected Patriarch informs by means of requesting Communion with Rome, Patriarch to Patriarch.

Yes. But this is different from confirmation of the election, as stated by the parent post.

In reality, Rome is really not blindsided by the election. If Rome had significant objections to any of the contenders, those objections would be made known before the election.

That would indeed be unlikely. But it wasn’t quite blindsided by the UGCC claiming patriarchal status.

Advance notice or not, Rome would still be dealing with a patriarchal request for communion, and not a request for confirmation of an election.

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

My own thinking is that the heads of EC churches should certainly be there to consult with the cardinals, as should heads of major EO and OO churches. But they should do that by right of their own position, not as some kind of cardinal.

Yes, that is my position too. I don’t quite like that there even needs to be Cardinal-Patriarch position. But way it exists now is not as part of Latin Church (save the fact they get to vote in conclaves).

 

[Margaret_Ann]

WOW. /facepalm

 

[Margaret_Ann]

That’s the only reason why I think the Syro Malabar church and Ukrainian Greek Church should be Patriarchal.

1000 upvotes for you.

 

[Alexandria2020]

The Holy Father confirms patriarchs elected by EC synods. The sui iuris Church members and hierarchy have varied viewpoints on what the Holy Father can and can’t do.

I think it’s even the same case with EC churches without a patriarch. In the SyroMalabar Church - which is headed by a Major Archbishop- the bishops of the church are chosen by the synod. Even tho officially it states Pope appointed bishop X or Y. I think for EC churches with a synod, that synod makes all decisions about everything. I’m only realizing now as to how independent an EC church is. I guess it makes sense to say an EC church is in full communion with Rome, instead of saying it’s under the Pope.

 

[dochawk]

I think it’s even the same case with EC churches without a patriarch.

only in non-patriarchal churches.

Patriarchal churches inform the Holy Father.

(and, again, it’s going to get interesting the next time the UCC does this . . .)

I guess it makes sense to say an EC church is in full communion with Rome, instead of saying it’s under the Pope.

exactly.

The bit that baffles me, though, is why EC churches without bishops are still called sui juris . . .

 

[Alexandria2020]

(and, again, it’s going to get interesting the next time the UCC does this . . .)

what happened when Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk was elected in 2011? (and he’s pretty young).

 

[dochawk]

at that time, the UCC still used that title.

Since then, they use “Patriarch”, and Rome has yet to say a word on that . . .

 

[Elvis_George]

Since then, they use “Patriarch”, and Rome has yet to say a word on that . . .

Just like how the Syro Malankara Church calls there major archbishop Catholicos

 

[dochawk]

I dunno . . . if they still agree he’s a major archbishop, it’s not the same at all.

The UCC is claiming a different status by their action.

Rome ratifies the the election of major archbishops, while she simply is notified of patriarchal elections.

If the Syro Malankaras intent to simply notify after their next election, then, yes, it’s the same.

Given that Rome and the UCC apparently disagree on which the UCC is at the moment, it will be, as I said, interesting . . .

 

[Angel_Gabriel]

Do you really think the UGCC would schism? I think I remember reading a post of yours that mentioned that. From my experience I think it would be messy…the UGCC here can be heavily latinized depending on the particular parish. If that were to happen I’d probably just jump ship to the Antiochian Orthodox.

 

[Elvis_George]

I dunno . . . if they still agree he’s a major archbishop, it’s not the same at all.

The UCC is claiming a different status by their action.

Rome ratifies the the election of major archbishops, while she simply is notified of patriarchal elections.

If the Syro Malankaras intent to simply notify after their next election, then, yes, it’s the same.

Given that Rome and the UCC apparently disagree on which the UCC is at the moment, it will be, as I said, interesting . . .

hmm I like that attitude…We are in communion with Rome, not under Rome. Sure, the Pope is the succsesor to St. Peter but that does not mean he should interfere in Eastern Catholic business. Sure, if he sees something wrong he ought to fix it, but otherwise, let us be. We can’t rely on Rome for everything…and btw, the usage of Catholicos is only a name. They still consider themselves a Archiepiscopal church. The term Catholicos has only been challenged by the India’s Russian Orthodox Church, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church. they’ve been always causing problems in the name of “Mar Thoma Sleeha’s Simhasanam” (Throne of St.Thomas) and always fight with other churches. The only churches they leave alone are the Malabar Independent Syrian Church and the Mar Thoma Syrian Church. The MOSC is currently focusing on trying to get all churches owned by the JSC (Syriac Orthodox in India) in their hands because of a recent court order. Plus, they have been known for being at a standoff with Syro Malankara Church over the Catholicos issue I had just stated. The MOSC believe only they have the right establish a Catholicate. The claim that the Jacobite Syrian Catholicos is invalid because it’s not accepted judically. Ironically, they recieved the Catholicate from an excommnicated Patriarch and when the Jacobite and MOSC factions tried making peace, it was the Catholicos who stated that he was equal to the Patriarch because he was the Succesor to St Thomas. He got excommunicated, plus there is a decree from Jacob III stating the MOSC’s sacrements are not valid and that the SOC and JSC will not accept them as valid. When Cyril Mar Baselios was notified about how the MOSC told him to stop using the term, Cyril Mar Baselios stated that the MOSC do not have the patent for the term Catholicos. The issue with Syro Malabar church is mostly solved, but there are MANY MOSC extremists who have been very anti-syro malabarean recently.

 

[dochawk]

Do you really think the UGCC would schism? I think I remember reading a post of yours that mentioned that.

That was in the context of “if Rome tried to directly change things” in the UCC.

Also, not simple schism, but rather reunifying with some the fragments wrongfully broken off from it by the NVKD and ROC.

I’d put that in terms of Rome scheming, anyway . . .

outside of that context, I can see Rome’s tacit (and possibly explicit) blessing were the UCC to reunite with Ukranian Orthodox churches, even if it left the resulting entity in less than full communion with Rome.

The term Catholicos has only been challenged by the India’s Russian Orthodox Church,

in all seriousness, if the ROC were not on the board, Rome and Constantinople would have worked things out a pope or two ago . . ,.