Can someone please explain to me what exactly a Patriarch is?

[Holly3278]

Hey everyone. I am a convert to Roman Catholicism and as such, I don’t understand much about Eastern Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Therefore, I’d like to request an explanation of what a Patriarch is. Is he simply a Bishop over a diocese sort of like any bishop in a Roman Catholic diocese or is he a Bishop who presides over other Bishops as well or something? Thanks!

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Holly,

Hey everyone. I am a convert to Roman Catholicism and as such, I don’t understand much about Eastern Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Therefore, I’d like to request an explanation of what a Patriarch is. Is he simply a Bishop over a diocese sort of like any bishop in a Roman Catholic diocese or is he a Bishop who presides over other Bishops as well or something? Thanks!

There are currently three distinct conceptions of what a Patriarch is among the Apostolic Churches.

The one proposed by the Absolutist Petrine view conceives of the Patriarch as a bishop who is an arm of papal authority, who helps him manage the Church universal. They don’t have any authority of their own - in canonical terms, they don’t have any inherent power of jurisdiction - except what the Pope gives them. They govern other bishops as “generals” of the Pope who is the supreme commander, and are in every way under his authority.

The High Petrine view conceives of a Patriarch as a bishop who possesses an authority that was established by the ancient Church to oversee a larger territory than the local bishop. Once elected, he has inherent power of jurisdiction over his territory and/or particular Tradition, and governs all bishops (even Metropolitans) within that territory and/or particular Tradition. He has both greater honor and rank than other bishops in the Patriarchate. He is not merely an arm of papal authority, but works WITH, instead of under, the Pope. The Patriarch concedes to the Pope as an elder brother out of love and respect.

The Low Petrine view conceives of a Patriarch as a bishop who has no power of jurisdiction outside his own jurisdiction as a local bishop. Thus, he does not govern other bishops. He possesses administrative prerogatives, and has only greater honor, but not greater rank, than other bishops in his Patriarchate.

In the Catholic Church, next to the Pope, Patriarchs have the highest rank and honor. The Pope himself is the Patriarch of the Latin Catholic Church.

NOTE: Among the Apostolic Churches -
The Absolutist Petrine view exists primarily in the Latin Catholic Church.

The High Petrine view exists in many quarters of the Latin Catholic Church, the Eastern Catholic Churches, the Oriental Catholic Churches, the Chaldean-Syro Malabar Catholic Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, and some quarters of the Eastern Orthodox Church. If you are willing to consider the Anglican Church as an Apostolic Church, the High Church Anglicans would most likely hold this view.

The Low Petrine view exists primarily in the Eastern Orthodox Churches and the Polish National Catholic Church. If you are willing to consider the Anglican Church as an Apostolic Church, the Low-Church Anglicans would most likely hold this view.

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Aramis]

Hey everyone. I am a convert to Roman Catholicism and as such, I don’t understand much about Eastern Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Therefore, I’d like to request an explanation of what a Patriarch is. Is he simply a Bishop over a diocese sort of like any bishop in a Roman Catholic diocese or is he a Bishop who presides over other Bishops as well or something? Thanks!

A patriarch is to a metropolitan/archbishop as the metropolitan is to the diocesan bishop.

Note: A latin rite patriarch is functionally only a metropolitan, not functionally a patriarch. It’s an honorific for them.

The exact role and authority of an Eastern Patriarch varies somewhat by which church. AT A minimum, it is his hand that promulgates acts of the synod, and his authority is to call the synod and act as president of the synod in session.

Most also grant him the authority to suspend and enthrone bishops and metropolitans.
Most of the EC Patriarchs also have the authority to create patriarchal right orders (which, like papal right ones, are exempt from the local bishops, save for permission to establish a presence and celebrate public services).
Most also can confirm metropolitan synodal requests for changes to the dioceses in traditional lands.
Many can act on behalf of the synod for the short term, until the actions can be confirmed by the synod.
His jurisdiction is ordinary throughout the patriarchate; if vacant or otherwise improperly governed, he can step in and act in the place of the local bishop.
He needs no permission to grant faculties to any particular priest of his ritual church.

 

[ciero]

Hey everyone. I am a convert to Roman Catholicism and as such, I don’t understand much about Eastern Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Therefore, I’d like to request an explanation of what a Patriarch is. Is he simply a Bishop over a diocese sort of like any bishop in a Roman Catholic diocese or is he a Bishop who presides over other Bishops as well or something? Thanks!

Lets make this simple…a Patriarch is a bishop who is also the head of a church that has been granted the status of being a Patriarchal Church. The Pope is Patriarch of the Western Church, in the early church there were 5 churches that had the status of being Patriarchal…Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch & Jerusalem…over time other churches (both Catholic & Orthodox) have been raised to Patriarchal status.

Hope this helps! I tried to keep it simple!

 

[ciero]

Only the Russian Patriarch wears that style of hat. I like the Romanian Orthodox Patriarch who wears all white like the pope of Rome.

 

[smad0142]

It is an institution that was made by the Church since very early times. Patriarchs usually head Churches that are either of great prestige, or helped to spread the Faith over a significant part of the world or both.

Patriarchs are a man made institution in the Church. That is a hugely important thing to remember. It is a beautiful office, but it is a small “t” tradition, not apart of Apostolic Tradition.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Smad,

It is an institution that was made by the Church since very early times. Patriarchs usually head Churches that are either of great prestige, or helped to spread the Faith over a significant part of the world or both.

Patriarchs are a man made institution in the Church. That is a hugely important thing to remember. It is a beautiful office, but it is a small “t” tradition, not apart of Apostolic Tradition.

I am not sure one can convincingly say that the office of Patriarch is not part of Apostolic Tradition. The office of head bishop on whatever level (metropolical, patriarchal, universal) are ALL based on the ancient Rule of Faith that is Apostolic Canon 34.

I would also point out that in ecclesiological terminology, the term “man-made” refers to things purely secular. That is certainly not the case with the office of the Patriarch. Would you agree?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[smad0142]

The Apostolic Canons, if we are talking about the same thing, were issued in 692. Those do not belong with the Deposit of Faith or with the Apostolic Tradition necessairly tied up with Divine Revelation. They are man made rules. And I have never seen anything from the Church saying man made is purely secular. For example the title of His Holiness is purely a man made thing, i.e. something of human not divine origin. There is absolutely nothing in Divine Revelation or Apostolic Tradition talking about the Patriarchates established by Christ. Patriarchates were established for Churches of great prestige and missionary work, but they were established by the Church herself not by God.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Smad,

The Apostolic Canons, if we are talking about the same thing, were issued in 692.

I don’t think we’re talking about the same thing. The Apostolic Canons have been around since the second century. Some of these canons were written later than others. Certainly, official collections of these individual canons came at a later time.

Those do not belong with the Deposit of Faith or with the Apostolic Tradition necessairly tied up with Divine Revelation.

Actually, the Official Relatio of Vatican 1 referred to Apostolic Canon 34 as a “Rule of Faith.”

They are man made rules. And I have never seen anything from the Church saying man made is purely secular. For example the title of His Holiness is purely a man made thing, i.e. something of human not divine origin. There is absolutely nothing in Divine Revelation or Apostolic Tradition talking about the Patriarchates established by Christ. Patriarchates were established for Churches of great prestige and missionary work, but they were established by the Church herself not by God.

But the Church is not a man-made institution. That is why I am questioning your applying the term “man-made” to the Patriarchal office. Can something established by the Church really and truly be called “man-made?” We can admit that the patriarchal office was not divinely established (unlike the office of the papacy and the office of bishop), but to deny that they are apostolic institutions or to call them man-made seems to be a stretch.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[smad0142]

The Cardinalate was established by the Church, it is a purely man made office. De facto Cardinals have much more power than Patriarachs, but I see nobody here clamoring for the protection of the rights of Cardinals.

And the text for Apostolic Canon 34 that I have read do not mention the Patriarchs at all. Once again we may be reading different sources here.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

With the difference, of course, that an Orthodox Patriarch functions in every which way as the Pope of Rome does - he has absolute and final authority over his Church, canonizes Saints for the universal, in this case, Russian Orthodox Church (bishops and metropolitans under him may canonize local saints) and is in no way dependent on any other patriarch for the full and free exercise of the plenitude of his ecclesial powers.

An Orthodox patriarch could be censured and even excommunicated by the Ecumenical Patriarch of New Rome for breaking a church canon.

And an Eastern Catholic patriarch would fall short of such a degree of ecclesial autocephaly as that enjoyed by the Orthodox patriarchs.

Also, the pope of Rome has now rejected the title of “patriarch of the West.”

In addition, the Oriental Orthodox Churches call their patriarchs “Catholicos” to indicate that he has supreme authority world-wide over members of his Church. The Moscow Patriarchate has the same powers as the Oriental Catholicos does and the latter term seems to be the exclusive title of the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Alex

 

[steve_b]

Also, the pope of Rome has now rejected the title of “patriarch of the West.”

Alex

Just a brief explanation of why
zenit.org/article-15594?l=english

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alex,

With the difference, of course, that an Orthodox Patriarch functions in every which way as the Pope of Rome does - he has absolute and final authority over his Church, canonizes Saints for the universal, in this case, Russian Orthodox Church (bishops and metropolitans under him may canonize local saints) and is in no way dependent on any other patriarch for the full and free exercise of the plenitude of his ecclesial powers.

Thank you for that information. I have met SOOOO many EO who claim that a Patriarch has no greater jurisdiction than that for his own diocese (the Low Petrine view). I guess the Low Petrine view is pretty novel?

In addition, the Oriental Orthodox Churches call their patriarchs “Catholicos” to indicate that he has supreme authority world-wide over members of his Church. The Moscow Patriarchate has the same powers as the Oriental Catholicos does and the latter term seems to be the exclusive title of the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Actually, the term normally implies a level below the Patriarch. Only the supreme head of the Armenians has that title, since his see is not one of the Patriarchates established by an Ecumenical Council. The Malankara Orthodox also use that title, a hold-over from when they were under the jurisdiction of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch (i.e., they use it now as equivalent to “Patriarch” since they have become autocephalous).

The ACOE also uses that title for its supreme head bishop - again, because it is not one of the Patriarchates established by an Ecumenical Council.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

Actually, the term normally implies a level below the Patriarch. Only the supreme head of the Armenians has that title, since his see is not one of the Patriarchates established by an Ecumenical Council.

I believe the Armenians use it both ways. Remember that there are 2 Catholicosates: Etchemadzin (sp) in present-day Armenia and Cilicia, now resident in Lebanon.

The Malankara Orthodox also use that title, a hold-over from when they were under the jurisdiction of the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch (i.e., they use it now as equivalent to “Patriarch” since they have become autocephalous).

I’m not sure that “autocephalous” is correct here, since it is a Byzantine concept. In any case, though, a Catholicosate has always held a similar connotation, at least insofar as it functions independently of the Patriarchate. That concept is quite ancient.

Now, as for the Malankara Orthodox in particular, I believe they still defer to the SOC Patriarch of Antioch for at least one thing: consecration of Holy Myroun.

It’s interesting, too, that the Ethiopians also use the title “Patriarch” yet have no claim to the Ancient Pentarchy. I seem to think they used the title even before the formal split from the Copts.

 

[steve_b]

inspite of all the efforts by the Catholic hierarchy at ecumenical discussion with the ROC, and also to visit Catholics in Russia, that was met with absolute obstruction by Alexy II. And Alexy was in office from 1990 till his death in 2008. Pimin I, 1971-1990, preceded Alexy II. Alexy I, preceded Pimin. I don’t find stories that report ecumenical dialogue with any of them. Yes It’s a shame, but one that can be corrected

Maybe things will change with Kiril

zenit.org/article-31810?l=english

 

[Alexander_Roman]

It still isn’t . . . Not really, anyway.

However, one cannot but admire the Russian Orthodox Church and how it has come back since the days of the USSR (there are ROC bishops who wish the USSR remained intact, but with no religious persecution e.g. Met. Agathangel of Odessa).

Alex

 

[LumenGent]

smad0142:

De facto Cardinals have much more power than Patriarachs

How is that possible given that the Pope is a Patriarch?

Keep in mind that the Cardinalate confers no additional powers upon a Bishop, other than the ability to vote in a Papal Conclave. Patriarch’s head Patriachates not Archdioceses or Dioceses.

 

[mardukm]

How is that possible given that the Pope is a Patriarch?

Keep in mind that the Cardinalate confers no additional powers upon a Bishop, other than the ability to vote in a Papal Conclave. Patriarch’s head Patriachates not Archdioceses or Dioceses.

Not to mention that not all Cardinals are bishops.

Before V2, Cardinals were regarded as having greater honor than Patriarchs. That’s no longer the case.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dcointin]

Just a brief explanation of why
zenit.org/article-15594?l=english

Is there a practical ramification to the rennunciation of this title?

 

[steve_b]

Is there a practical ramification to the rennunciation of this title?

As the article said, the title never had a clear meaning. So it was dropped