Eastern Churches and the title of Cardinal?

[jeannetherese]

I find this whole situation odd, so I was reading the Wikipedia article on cardinals last night and it said that the only Eastern Catholics who are also cardinals are the Maronite and Coptic Catholic patriarchs emeriti, and the current Maronite patriarch, whereas many clergy of lesser rank in the Roman Church are cardinals.
Hmmm.

Hi Dzheremi,
Would you mind sharing a comparison of titles between E.C.s and L.C.s? I apologize for my lack of knowledge-I’m not sure how to ascertain the differences in the communities in regard to the clergy of lesser rank note in your post.
May God bless you and may He bring us all closer in faith and love and hope.
Amen.

 

[dzheremi]

That is better asked of someone who is Eastern Catholic, as I am not and I am clearly not understanding this topic very well. I’m sorry.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi Dzheremi,
Would you mind sharing a comparison of titles between E.C.s and L.C.s? I apologize for my lack of knowledge-I’m not sure how to ascertain the differences in the communities in regard to the clergy of lesser rank note in your post.
May God bless you and may He bring us all closer in faith and love and hope.
Amen.

See cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat13.pdf

For purposes of this conversation, note that 6 of those churches are designated Patriarchate and 4 are designated Major Archepiscopte. (Then there 3 that are Metropolitanate. The other 9 are just Eparichal – though they’re still sui iuris.)

P.S. Maybe someone can post a more helpful link, w.r.t. your question. That one focuses on statistics.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Cardinals are ranked into 3 distinctions: Cardinal Bishop, Cardinal Priest, and Cardinal Deacon.

Originally, the Cardinals were clergy from the suburbican dioceses of Rome, who elected a local or non-local clergyman as Bishop of Rome.

As the Latin Church became more universal and other dioceses wanted to be involved in the election of the Papacy, the Cardinal roles expanded to include clergy from ‘outside’. These, at first, were limited to Latin clergy who filled the roles by taking on a titular see within one of the (I think originally just 12) suburbican dioceses, while not actually exercising the role of local bishop of the suburbican see.

Eventually the role expanded to include bishops from all over the Latin Church world, but not all were given equal rank as Cardinal. Instead of actually filling the ranks of Cardinal priest with priests, these are today actually bishops; the same for Cardinal deacon, instead of actually being deacons, these are actually bishops as well. With very few exceptions given by the Pope himself, all Cardinals are today bishops.

As Eastern Catholic Churches started getting being acknowledged their rights to be recognized as self-governing and equally valid Churches, the Popes started appointing Eastern bishops/Patriarchs to fill the roles of Cardinals. This was primarily for electing the next Pope and for running various Curial offices tied to the Papacy. For other purposes, Eastern Bishops were ranked as they normally would be. At first, they were ranked in the Cardinal position below the Cardinal Bishops, as Cardinal Priests. Because of the distinction of the Eastern Bishops as heads of self-governing Churches in their own right, many Eastern Bishops as well as a few Popes were unhappy with this ranking given to them. It was then decided that even for the election of the Roman Pope and for Curial offices, the Eastern Bishops if Patriarch would always be ranked Cardinal Bishops, with their See being the Patriarchal See; if Catholicos/MajorArchbishop, would always be Cardinal priest, and would be assigned a titular suburbican See, if the MjrArchbp is given Cardinal Bishop, his See would be his Traditional See.

 

[Peter_J]

^^ I think this strengthens/confirms my earlier suspicion, that Wiki is just missing the word “usually”. I.e. ‘the term “cardinal bishop” **usually **only refers to the cardinals who are titular bishops of one of the “suburbicarian” sees.’

 

[jeannetherese]

Thank you Dzheremi,and Peter J and SyroMalankara (and all others who have posted). I have a lot to learn in all areas-especially when it comes to Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I very much appreciate your patience.
May God bless us all.
Amen.

 

[Ignatius]

This is a good question that comes now and again. However, it usually carries with it a hidden assumption: namely, that we want to get one of our EC (I mean GC or OC) bishops into the papacy.

No such assumption was implied. My only point is that it would be better to have more EC Cardinals, not less.

 

[Peter_J]

No such assumption was implied.

Fair enough. Like I said, that assumption usually accompanies statements like “Perhaps if we had more Eastern Catholic Cardinals, we could get a Pope from an Eastern Sui Juris Church” but this appears to be one of the exceptions.

 

[wynd]

The Pope, in addition to being the universal head of the Catholic Church, is also the bishop of the Latin diocese of Rome. If a non-Latin bishop were elected pope, would he have to become Latin or practice the Latin liturgical customs? Or is it possible that the office of Pope could move locations?

 

[SyroMalankara]

For day to day affairs, the Pope would have to adopt the Latin Rite practices of Rome. For personal Liturgies or hours prayed alone, he could adopt any from any Church.

 

[Aramis]

I am a bit confused myself. I just checked it again and it appears that the three I listed are the so-called “Cardinal Bishops”, so it would appear that the other two who make up the five total are something other than Cardinal Bishops, but Wiki appears to contradict itself in this portion, so I am not quite sure what to think. From the article, we get the following definition of what a Cardinal Bishop is: ‘Though in modern times most cardinals are also bishops, the term “cardinal bishop” only refers to the cardinals who are titular bishops of one of the “suburbicarian” sees.’ But then, later in the same section, it says:

So on the one hand, a cardinal bishop must hold a suburbicarian see. On the other hand, the above three don’t, yet they are still counted as ‘Cardinal bishops’.

Huh?

I don’t understand what’s going on here. Not that it matters…it’s just weird is all.

A cardinal must hold either a suburbican see or a patriarchal see as his cardinalate see.

 

[Ignatius]

Fair enough. Like I said, that assumption usually accompanies statements like “Perhaps if we had more Eastern Catholic Cardinals, we could get a Pope from an Eastern Sui Juris Church” but this appears to be one of the exceptions.

My only point is that it would be better to have more EC Cardinals, not less.

 

[Seraphim73]

I agree that the idea of granting the title of cardinal to the heads of other Churches is a bit patronizing. Also from an ecclesiastical standpoint it makes no sense to have bishops from one Church electing the head of another Church.

 

[Peter_J]

My only point is that it would be better to have more EC Cardinals, not less.

Fair enough. The aforementioned assumption usually accompanies statements like “Perhaps if we had more Eastern Catholic Cardinals, we could get a Pope from an Eastern Sui Juris Church” but there can be exceptions.

 

[jimkhong]

I agree that the idea of granting the title of cardinal to the heads of other Churches is a bit patronizing. Also from an ecclesiastical standpoint it makes no sense to have bishops from one Church electing the head of another Church.

Technically, the cardinals are the parish priests of the Roman diocese and bishops of six dioceses suffragan to Rome. That is why when a cardinal is named, he is given the title of one of the parishes of Rome, at which he is expected to preach when he is in Rome. Cardinal-bishops are normally curial bishops (not residential bishops who run their own dioceses all over the world) and given the very low number of parishes that these diocese have (if I am not mistaken some are extinct dicoese with only the titles but have no Catholics), some of the cardinal-bishops engage with their dioceses as their weekend jobs.

This then becomes problematic when appointing an EC patriarch to the cardinalate, as they then become parish priests of a Latin diocese (hence, the earlier comments by one poster about resistance from some EC churches to their patriarchs being cardinals; some such resistance still continue to this day, reflected in the relatively low number of EC cardinals). Paul VI then allowed the EC patriarchs to named cardinals using their sees instead of a Roman parish/dicoese. They therefore, are outside the heirarchy of cardinal-bishops,cardinal-priests and cardinal-deacons, with their precedence in processions to come in between the cardinal-bishops and cardinal-priests.

What this means is that for the frist time in centuries, the bishop of Rome was elected by men who were not technically the clergy of Rome. I think this is significant but not sure in what way.

 

[Peter_J]

What this means is that for the frist time in centuries, the bishop of Rome was elected by men who were not technically the clergy of Rome. I think this is significant …

Just so.

 

[jimkhong]

Just so.

You don’t sound convinced, Peter? I am not sure of the significance but I know that any break from tradition in the Roman church is significance (the fiction that the electors of Rome are the clergy of Rome has been preserved through the centuries), but I still haven’t thought through what it will mean.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
Just so.

 

[Vico]

Technically, the cardinals are the parish priests of the Roman diocese and bishops of six dioceses suffragan to Rome. That is why when a cardinal is named, he is given the title of one of the parishes of Rome, at which he is expected to preach when he is in Rome. Cardinal-bishops are normally curial bishops (not residential bishops who run their own dioceses all over the world) and given the very low number of parishes that these diocese have (if I am not mistaken some are extinct dicoese with only the titles but have no Catholics), some of the cardinal-bishops engage with their dioceses as their weekend jobs.

This then becomes problematic when appointing an EC patriarch to the cardinalate, as they then become parish priests of a Latin diocese (hence, the earlier comments by one poster about resistance from some EC churches to their patriarchs being cardinals; some such resistance still continue to this day, reflected in the relatively low number of EC cardinals). Paul VI then allowed the EC patriarchs to named cardinals using their sees instead of a Roman parish/dicoese. They therefore, are outside the heirarchy of cardinal-bishops,cardinal-priests and cardinal-deacons, with their precedence in processions to come in between the cardinal-bishops and cardinal-priests.

What this means is that for the frist time in centuries, the bishop of Rome was elected by men who were not technically the clergy of Rome. I think this is significant but not sure in what way.

Interestingly, Cardinal Patriarchs do not have a Roman titular church and they are:

• Maronite Cardinal Nasrallah Pierre Sfeir
• Coptic Cardinal Antonios Naguib
• Maronite Cardinal Béchara Pierre Raï

Major Archbishops do have a Roman titular church and they are:

• Ukrainian Cardinal Lubomyr Husar is Cardinal-Priest of S. Sofia a Via Boccea (a Ukrianian Greek Catholic national church)
• Syro-Malabar Cardinal George Alencherry is Cardinal-Priest of S. Bernardo alle Terme (abbital church)
• Romanian Cardinal Lucian Mureşan is Cardinal-Priest of S. Atanasio (Graeco-Byzantine rite national church)
• Syro-Malankara Cardinal Baselios Cleemis Thottunkal is Cardinal-Priest of S. Gregorio VII (parish church)

Each of those churches has an interesting history.

 

[Peter_J]

jimkhong;12187513:

You don’t sound convinced, Peter?

I posted ^^ this right before turning my computer off for the night … then it occured to me that the issue might be the fact that I said “Just so.” and not “Just so!”