Eastern Catholic cardinal

  • Thread starter Thread starter drno
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Formosus said:
That is my whole point though. Even if the other two hats are something that an Eastern Catholic Pope could perform (and with flying colors I am sure : P ) it would not really make sense to have an Eastern Catholic being the Patriarch of the Latin Church. I would imagine that the title would have to be delegated off in some fashion if an Eastern Catholic were elected to the Papacy.
Click to expand...
…unless you’re Anthony Quinn.👍

U-C
 
If an Eastern hierarch were elevated to the Papacy, doubtless the secular media would say, “Non-Catholic Elected Pope!”
 
twf said:
That doesn’t matter. The point is that the Orientals REJECTED Chalcedon. The undivided Church thus never had 5 patriarchs. The council fathers did attempt to elevate Constantinople, but Rome refused to recognize its status until much later.
Click to expand...
Thank you, but I know who accepted Chalcedon and who did not. I was simply supporting the point (your point, at that) that no, there were never 5 Patriarchates recognized by the undivided Church.
 
Joe_Kelley said:
Note that Pope Benedict recently abolished the title Patriarch of the West.
Click to expand...
dose not mean much, “patriarch” in its current definition is rather recent, pope (or “papa” in every other lagnuage besides english and french) means patriarch, pope/papa actually started out as a benevolent nickname for the bishop, and it stuck for the bishops of Rome and Alexandria and evolved into its current prestigous meaning.

Originaly the top bishops in the Church were the Petrine ones, Rome being first, then Alexandria followed by Antioch. This continues to this day the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria is second in honor, only behind the bishop of Rome. (if Constantinople was in communion then they would be second followed by Alexandria)

Constantinople got added once St. Constantine moved the Imperial capital from Rome to Byzantium. The bishop of New Rome, or Constantinople, was then declared to be “Archbishop of Constantinople” - the title of patriach, which in ancient times was a name commonly used among bishops of important cities, eventually became (by Imperial decree of the Byzantine Emperor I think) used only for the Petrine Sees,Constantinople because it was the Imperial Capital, and Jerusalem because it is the city of our Lord.
 
Tidus said:
Originaly the top bishops in the Church were the Petrine ones, Rome being first, then Alexandria followed by Antioch. This continues to this day the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria is second in honor, only behind the bishop of Rome. (if Constantinople was in communion then they would be second followed by Alexandria)
Click to expand...
Technically yes. The Melkite Patriarch of Antioch and Alexandria is the second in honor Patriarch behind Pope Benedict XVI. He beats out the coptic Catholic patriarch of Alexandria because he represents two ancient sees 😉
 
Technically yes. The Melkite Patriarch of Antioch and Alexandria is the second in honor Patriarch behind Pope Benedict XVI. He beats out the coptic Catholic patriarch of Alexandria because he represents two ancient sees
Click to expand...
Though absurd, don’t the cardinals still technically precede the patriarchs in the Church’s order of precedence? The patriarchs often are cardinals as well, but that’s besides the point.
 
malphono said:
In practice, the Pope is not actually involved in the day-to-day affairs of the Diocese of Rome, hence he appoints a Vicar for Rome, who functions de facto as Ordinary.
Click to expand...
I thought that the Pope had his special charisms, such as universal jurisidiction and infallibility, exactly in virtue of being the Bishop of Rome. Now you’re saying that “Bishop of Rome” is, in the pope’s case, an empty title.

Seems a little artificial to me.
 
Alethiaphile:
It’s hardly empty. He is the Bishop of Rome. In that capacity, however, he has the care of all the churches (as the fathers testify) and thus it is only practical that he delegate some of his responsibilities. Many day-to-day pastoral affairs of the Diocese of Rome can be aptly handled by the Cardinal Vicar and the other aux. bishops of Rome. Many bishops, both Catholic and Orthodox, appoint vicars to assist them in their ministry.
 
Originaly the top bishops in the Church were the Petrine ones, Rome being first, then Alexandria followed by Antioch. This continues to this day the Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria is second in honor, only behind the bishop of Rome.

Alexandria is the Markan, not a Petrine, see.
 
twf said:
Though absurd, don’t the cardinals still technically precede the patriarchs in the Church’s order of precedence? The patriarchs often are cardinals as well, but that’s besides the point.
Click to expand...
I beleive they do in liturgical celebrations with the Pope because they are the highest officials of the Roman church, but I am not sure if that translates over into non-liturgical issues. It is pretty rediculous either way though : (

Traditionally Mark is considered a disciple of Peter, hence why Alexandria is considered a petrine see. There is a letter from st. Gregory Dialogos to the Pope of Alexandria at the time that identifies him and the Patriarch of Antioch as all being inheritors of Peter.
 
**Though absurd, don’t the cardinals still technically precede the patriarchs in the Church’s order of precedence? **

My understanding is that now Eastern Catholic Patriarchs (as opposed to Western honorary patriarchs) precede Cardinals.
 
twf said:
That doesn’t matter. The point is that the Orientals REJECTED Chalcedon.
Click to expand...
The Oriental Orthodox Churches rejected the Council of Chalcedon, but the Eastern Orthodox Churches did accept this Council.
twf said:
The undivided Church thus never had 5 patriarchs.
Click to expand...
The Council of Chalcedon established Constantinople as a patriarchate in addition to the other four ancient patriarchates (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), elevating the number to five.
twf said:
The council fathers did attempt to elevate Constantinople, but Rome refused to recognize its status until much later.
Click to expand...
Canon 3 of the First Council of Constantinople established that the Bishop of Constantinople was to have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople was the New Rome. Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon granted equal privileges to Constantinople as of Rome because, again, Constantinople was considered the New Rome. The papal legates were not present for the vote on this canon, and protested it afterwards, and it was not ratified by Pope Leo in Rome. The Council of Chalcedon, however, recognized Constantinople as the ecumenical jurisdiction of highest ecclesiastical appeal.
 
twf said:
Though absurd, don’t the cardinals still technically precede the patriarchs in the Church’s order of precedence? The patriarchs often are cardinals as well, but that’s besides the point.
Click to expand...
Actually, not all cardinals precede the Eastern Patriarchs.
40.png
bpbasilphx:
My understanding is that now Eastern Catholic Patriarchs (as opposed to Western honorary patriarchs) precede Cardinals.
Click to expand...
The four Easter Patriarchs that are currently cardinals are of the cardinal bishop order and rank after the six cardinal bishops of the suburbicarian sees. They have precedence over the remainder cardinal priests and cardinal deacons.
 
Ad_Gentes said:
The Oriental Orthodox Churches rejected the Council of Chalcedon, but the Eastern Orthodox Churches did accept this Council.
…
The Council of Chalcedon established Constantinople as a patriarchate in addition to the other four ancient patriarchates (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), elevating the number to five.
Click to expand...
That is the whole point of his statement. That the undivided Church (technically speaking ) never had Five Patriarchs since the Oriental Orthodox broke off before there were five, likewise the Church of the East broke off even earlier then them.
 
Formosus said:
That is the whole point of his statement. That the undivided Church (technically speaking ) never had Five Patriarchs since the Oriental Orthodox broke off before there were five, likewise the Church of the East broke off even earlier then them.
Click to expand...
I think we are confusing the Eastern Orthodox Churches (Church of the East) with the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic, Ethiopian, etc.). The latter “broke off” after the Council of Chalcedon, which they do not accept as valid and/or ecumenical. The “Church of the East” (Eastern Orthodox) did not formally separated from the Church (e.g. Great Schism) until 1054 AD; although the issues that lead to this separation were present much earlier than that.

If you want to get “technical” when you speak of “undivided”, then you would also have to consider the Assyrian Church of the East, who broke away before the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the many sects before that. That would make your statement true.

However, historically speaking, the Pentarchy refers to the Five Great Sees or Patriarchates of Late Antiquity (c. 300-600 AD). It included Jerusalem (founded by Jesus Christ in 33 AD), Constantinople (founded by St. Andrew c. 38 AD), Alexandria (founded by Mark c. 43 AD), Antioch (founded by St. Peter c. 50AD), and Rome (founded by Sts. Peter and Paul c. 67 AD).
 
I think we are confusing the Eastern Orthodox Churches (Church of the East) with the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Coptic, Ethiopian, etc.).
Click to expand...
I doubt it. The term “Church of the East” is never used around here to refer to the Eastern Orthodox (in fact, I’ve never heard it used that way anywhere, except by you just now). I’m certain that Formosus was referring to the Assyrian Churches when he said “Church of the East”, since that’s their appropriate name.

Both the Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox were separated before there was a “Pentarchy”, and the Pentarchy itself was simply an ecclesial development, not an Apostolic Tradition.

Peace and God bless!
 
Ghosty said:
I doubt it. The term “Church of the East” is never used around here to refer to the Eastern Orthodox (in fact, I’ve never heard it used that way anywhere, except by you just now). I’m certain that Formosus was referring to the Assyrian Churches when he said “Church of the East”, since that’s their appropriate name.
Click to expand...
If that is so, then my mistake.
Ghosty said:
Both the Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox were separated before there was a “Pentarchy”, and the Pentarchy itself was simply an ecclesial development, not an Apostolic Tradition.
Click to expand...
I completely agree.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top