M
malphono
Guest
I believe Patriarchs (Oriental and Eastern, not titular Roman) have that same precedence.
- Status
F
Formosus
Guest
Eastern Patriarchs are automatically made cardinals upon their elevation to their respective patriarchial thrones. There is some controversy among some Eastern Catholics on this but I believe the intent was to show that the Eastern Patriarchs are indeed ranked higher then any other prelate short of the Pope himself.
A
Andreas_Hofer
Guest
Are you sure about that? HB Gregory of the Melkites, for instance, became patriarch in 2000 and is not yet a cardinal, despite a couple of intervening consistories. Neither is Patriarch Antonios of the Copts yet a Cardinal, nor Patriarch Nerses of the Armenians. Cdl. Sfeir of the Maronites was not elevated to the college until he had been patriarch for eight years. From all that it just doesn’t seem to me like a given that these men become cardinals along with the patriarchate.
F
Formosus
Guest
I am incorrect on that point then. Eastern Patriarchs though are already a higher rank then Cardinal.
A
Aramis
Guest
No, they are not. V II discussed such, but it wasn’t adopted.
Of the 6 patriarchs and catholicos-patriarchs, only 2 are cardinals, the other two Cardinal-Patriarchs are retired patriarchs; two of the 4 Major Archbishops as well are cardinals. None of the Metropolitans (Archbishops) of Metropolitan Churches Sui Iuris nor any of the Eparchs of the Eparchial Churches nor Exarchial Churches Sui Iuris hold cardinalate dignity.
Note that should a patriarch be elevated to cardinal, he gets his patriarchal see as his cardinalate see; even if retired as patriarch, he remains Cardinal of that see. If his patriarchal successor is created a cardinal, he takes a roman see until the retired patriarch dies, at which point he becomes the cardinal-patriarch, and that roman see may be reused. The Cardinal-Bishop sees are few; A Patriarch has priority on those sees, until his predecessor passes to his eternal reward, and takes over the patriarchal see.
As I have said before, the surest sign of Rome’s acceptance of Patriarchal status for the UGCC would be the assignment of Kyiv as the Cardinalate See for their Primate, Major Archbishop Lubomr Husar, who is commemorated as Patriarch by the UGCC. (The main functional difference is in the election of new primates.)
My Orthodox friends often joke that a major stumbling block for reunion is that the Eastern Catholic Churches don’t automatically get a cardinalate for each church sui iuris…
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I can’t get it straight:
1.)In the heirarchy of the Church, highest to lowest, does it go Cardinal, Archbishop,then Bishop?
2.)If so, does one have to be a Bishop to then become a Archbishop, and Archbishop to be a Cardinal, etc.
3.) And why so many different levels?
4.) And who appoints them? Is it by vote?
Thank you, thank you, thank you! (I’m ashamed to say I was a Catholic Theology major in college but apparently failed to absorb several basic facts about our faith!)
Let’s see 
**The cardinalate is not a degree of the sacrament of order - so true is this, that it was not unusual to make laymen cardinals (the last example of this was Giacomo Cardinal Antonelli (d. 1876), Pius IX’s Secretary of State). ****The rank of Archbishop is a development of the rank of Bishop - only the latter is properly speaking a degree of the Sacrament of Order; an Archbishop is simply a bigger sort of Bishop. The distinction between them is of ecclesiastical origin. **
Not all Archbishops are of equal rank - some are Metropolitans. In addition, some have either the authority or the title of Primate. The Archbishop of York is the Primate of England; the Archbishop of Canterbury is Primate of All England (although both sees are now Anglican, the distinction pre-dates the break with Rome.** Both are Metropolitan sees - they are both cities the Archbishops of which have **authority over bishops in their respective ecclesiastical provinces.
Above Metropolitan Archbishops are - IIRC - Patriarchs. **Before 1964 there were 14 Patriarchates in the Catholic Church. That of the West Indies is either vacant or abolished; the Latin-Rite Patriarchate of Jerusalem was abolished in 1964; & the Pope has abolished his former title of Patriarch of the West (in 2006 IIRC). ****There are three Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch, distinguished by their respective Rites. It’s all rather tangled
****As for the Catholicos of Seleucia-Babylon, he’s out on a limb slightly, because he’s more or less a Patriarch, but has a different title. The same applies more or less to the Major Archbishop of the Ukrainians - Paul VI invented the title, & didn’t want to annoy the Soviets by using the P-word. **
**Someone else can sort out the eparchs & hegumens & abunas & whatnot in the Eastern Churches - it’s **very varied out there…
**In addition, the Latin Church still - AFAIK - has 20 or so abbeys nullius dioeceseos: that is, abbeys “of no diocese”, in that they are not attached to any diocese, but exercise quasi-episcopal authority. **
**Hope that helps
**
R
rickh925
Guest
In our parish bulletin, we have 4 deacons, 3 of which are listed on the front page as Rev. Mr. Firstname Lastname but the fourth is listed as Deacon Firstname Lastname. I have not met this deacon but think he may be a transitional deacon preparing for ordination this summer. Is there a distinction between permanent and transitional deacons as far as the way they are listed in print?
F
FrDavid96
Guest
No. A deacon is a deacon.
There is no distinction beyond saying that some deacons are preparing for the priesthood.
R
rickh925
Guest
So would you think it is just a mistake or is referring to a deacon as Deacon Firstname Lastname ok in print?
I don’t want to be too picky but just want to know for my own benefit. It’s not like I’m going to the church office and say…“See, you’re wrong.”
Just curious mainly.
F
FrDavid96
Guest
I didn’t think you were being “picky.” I just wanted to make the point to the readers here that it is a common misunderstanding that somehow the so-called “permanent” deacons are different than the so-called “transitional” deacons. They both receive the same ordination, and it’s important for all of us to respect that fact (not that you aren’t). Sometimes one or the other is seen as more important or having more “faculties” (sacramental ability). There realy is no distinction between the two and we shouldn’t try to make one–out of respect for both “kinds.”So would you think it is just a mistake or is referring to a deacon as Deacon Firstname Lastname ok in print?
I don’t want to be too picky but just want to know for my own benefit. It’s not like I’m going to the church office and say…“See, you’re wrong.”
I don’t know why your parish bulletin says what it does. It could range from anything to trying to make some point, to being simply a matter of a situation where the most recent name was added and no one noticed the difference.
In a bulletin, it’s fine to refer to deacons as “Rev. Mr.” or “Deacon” either one works. Rev. Mr. is the more formal way, but since many people don’t quite understand what that means, the word deacon might be used simply for clarity’s sake.
A parish bulletin, however, should be consistent and list all of the deacons the same way, because, as your question implies, some people might misunderstand that and think that there is some difference there which simply does not exist.
R
rickh925
Guest
Thanks for the clarification. So the use of transitional versus permanent is really a shorthand method of saying one is in preparation for ordination to the priesthood and the other is not?
Rick
A
Aramis
Guest
Rome has maintained a distinction between transitional and permanent deacons. THe documents reinstituting the permanent deaconate consistently point out it is a different vocation from the transitional; differences in charism, in training, and in expectations.
According to the 1996 The Church Visible, permanent deacons are “Deacon ___”, while transitional deacons are “Rev. Mr. ___”.
In the US, this distinction of mode of address has not been made consistently; in fact, my dad, a permanent deacon, has received mail with both modes from the USCCB, from his bishops, and from other clerics.
From the USCCB’s Deacon Directory, in the notes:
Clerical Title
88. While various forms of address have emerged with regard to
deacons, the Congregation for the Clergy has determined that in all forms of address for permanent deacons, the appropriate title is “Deacon.”95
page 40
95 “The introduction of the title ‘Reverend Mr.’ for permanent deacons could further complicate the issue of identity for deacons. The term ‘Reverend’ has traditionally been
associated with priests and used only for transitional deacons on their way to priesthood.
As there is great sensitivity surrounding the issue of a deacon being seen as a ‘mini-priest,’ it would seem that the title ‘Reverend Mr.’ would lead to continued identification of the
diaconate with the priesthood, rather than contributing to the independence and integrity of the Order of Deacon in itself. The title ‘Deacon’ would, of course, be appropriate.”
Congregation for Catholic Education and the Congregation for the Clergy, Joint Study of the
US Draft Document—National Directory for the Formation, Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons in the United States, Prot. No. 78/2000 (March 4, 2002).
page 49.
According to the 1996 The Church Visible, permanent deacons are “Deacon ___”, while transitional deacons are “Rev. Mr. ___”.
In the US, this distinction of mode of address has not been made consistently; in fact, my dad, a permanent deacon, has received mail with both modes from the USCCB, from his bishops, and from other clerics.
From the USCCB’s Deacon Directory, in the notes:
Clerical Title
88. While various forms of address have emerged with regard to
deacons, the Congregation for the Clergy has determined that in all forms of address for permanent deacons, the appropriate title is “Deacon.”95
page 40
95 “The introduction of the title ‘Reverend Mr.’ for permanent deacons could further complicate the issue of identity for deacons. The term ‘Reverend’ has traditionally been
associated with priests and used only for transitional deacons on their way to priesthood.
As there is great sensitivity surrounding the issue of a deacon being seen as a ‘mini-priest,’ it would seem that the title ‘Reverend Mr.’ would lead to continued identification of the
diaconate with the priesthood, rather than contributing to the independence and integrity of the Order of Deacon in itself. The title ‘Deacon’ would, of course, be appropriate.”
Congregation for Catholic Education and the Congregation for the Clergy, Joint Study of the
US Draft Document—National Directory for the Formation, Ministry and Life of Permanent Deacons in the United States, Prot. No. 78/2000 (March 4, 2002).
page 49.
- Status