Is Major Archbishop same rank as Patriarch?

[jimkhong]

Can someone help my understanding? I have two seemingly contradictory facts.

The Syro-Malabarese Church is headed by a Major Archbishop, who is the same rank as patriarch.

The Ukrainian Catholics have been agitating for a patriarchate since the cold war days, and was not satisfied when JP2 elevated Kiev to a Major Archbishop (I think it was Slipyi at that time). They continued to ask for a patriarchate, implying that a Major Archbishop is not same rank as patriarch.

Am I right is assuming that the rights and duties of both are the same? Just that the title is different (with all the political weight that comes with it) and the order of precedence?

 

[phil19034]

Wikipedia has a decent description of the differences here:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_archbishop

God Bless

 

[jimkhong]

Wikipedia has a decent description of the differences here:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_archbishop

God Bless

Thanks, the article seems to indicate that the difference is only one of title and not of substance.

However there seems to be a few errors in the article:

(1) Patriarchs who are cardinals do not have the rank of cardinal-bishops. They have their own rank, which is below cardinal-bishops and above cardinal-priests. I think this change was made under Paul VI. This is because the cardinals are technically the Roman clergy and so have titles as suffragan bishops of the Roman province or as parish priests of Roman churches. Patriarchs being Eastern Rite should not be clergy of Roman diocese.

(2) Granting the Syro-Malabarese a patriarchate shouldn’t have any effect on the Syriac Orthodox Church as the catholic counterpart of the Syriac Orthodox Church in India is the Syro-Malakarese, who (as far as I am aware, so correct me Syro-Malankara) has not asked formerly for a patriarchate. The orthodox counterpart to the Syro-Malabarese is the Church of the Near East, which is tiny in India and would not be in the position to object.

I use Wikipedia a lot but haven’t figured out how to edit.

 

[SyroMalankara]

(1) Patriarchs who are cardinals do not have the rank of cardinal-bishops. They have their own rank, which is below cardinal-bishops and above cardinal-priests. I think this change was made under Paul VI. This is because the cardinals are technically the Roman clergy and so have titles as suffragan bishops of the Roman province or as parish priests of Roman churches. Patriarchs being Eastern Rite should not be clergy of Roman diocese.

This was corrected by Pope Benedict, I believe. Patriarchs are in and of themselves heads of sui juris Churches, therefore ipso facto they are higher in dignity and rank than Cardinals (who are not heads of sui iuris Churches). In the course of practices within the Latin Church, Cardinals indeed rank higher internally, as external Patriarchs are consultative in regard to Latin Church matters. However, in regard to Universal Church matters or matters of the Oriental Congregation, Patriarchs/Catholicoi/Major Archbishops/even Metropolitans of sui juris Churches - whether Cardinal or not - are higher in dignity and rank. If the Patriarch of Catholicos is given the honorary of Cardinal, as a personal title by the Pope - they indeed rank highest among Cardinals, save for internal Latin matters.

 

[Thomas48]

I saw that the article states that the main reason for these hierarchs to be named major archbishop instead of patriarch is because of the age of their ecclesial see. The ecclesial see of the Syro Malabar Church has always been Angamaly. Perhaps according to the Latin Church dating, Angamaly is considered young for the fact that they seem to date this ecclesial see to the arrival of the Portuguese and the “reunion of the Syro Malabar Church”. So that would date Angamaly in predominance to 1599, however this is false. Angamaly has been the Ecclesial See of the East Syrian Church in India since at least the 4th century.

The title, Metropolitan and Gate of All India and Successor of St. Thomas is the historical title bestowed upon the primate of Angamaly. For some time this title was held by the metropolitans sent by the Church of the East. During times of decline, when the Church of the East failed to send bishops, this time was assumed by the Archdeacon of the St. Thomas Christians. When the Syro Malabar were brought into the Catholic fold, this title was held off and on by native Syrian Christians who the Latin Church appointed. At other times the role was assumed by the Latin Bishop appointed to Malabar during the numerous forced hiatus’ in our historical succession, when the Syro Malabar were declined a native hiararch. The title was of course re-assumed by native Syro Malabars when the Church reattained self-governance in 1887.

Because of the historical significance of the See of Angamaly, today there is much contention and petition with the Latin Church towards the elevation in rank of the Major Archbishop to Patriarch. Many people already call Mar George Alencherry “Maran” as well as “Bava” which correlate to the title of Catholicos and Patriarch.

 

[jimkhong]

I saw that the article states that the main reason for these hierarchs to be named major archbishop instead of patriarch is because of the age of their ecclesial see. The ecclesial see of the Syro Malabar Church has always been Angamaly. Perhaps according to the Latin Church dating, Angamaly is considered young for the fact that they seem to date this ecclesial see to the arrival of the Portuguese and the “reunion of the Syro Malabar Church”. So that would date Angamaly in predominance to 1599, however this is false. Angamaly has been the Ecclesial See of the East Syrian Church in India since at least the 4th century.

The title, Metropolitan and Gate of All India and Successor of St. Thomas is the historical title bestowed upon the primate of Angamaly. For some time this title was held by the metropolitans sent by the Church of the East. During times of decline, when the Church of the East failed to send bishops, this time was assumed by the Archdeacon of the St. Thomas Christians. When the Syro Malabar were brought into the Catholic fold, this title was held off and on by native Syrian Christians who the Latin Church appointed. At other times the role was assumed by the Latin Bishop appointed to Malabar during the numerous forced hiatus’ in our historical succession, when the Syro Malabar were declined a native hiararch. The title was of course re-assumed by native Syro Malabars when the Church reattained self-governance in 1887.

Because of the historical significance of the See of Angamaly, today there is much contention and petition with the Latin Church towards the elevation in rank of the Major Archbishop to Patriarch. Many people already call Mar George Alencherry “Maran” as well as “Bava” which correlate to the title of Catholicos and Patriarch.

Thanks Thomas48, comprehensive explanation as always. The Portugese really have quite a lot to answer for. Stories like this should be more widely known. I am sure even the Latin Keralites wouldn’t know. My Malayalee friends don’t.

Anyway, other than the title itself and the order of precedence, does your Major Archbishop have all the substantive powers of a patriarch? I understand he is not under the Chaldean patriarch and never was. He is elected by his own Synod and deals with all his own liturgical and administrative matters subject to the Oriental Churches congregation. Is there any powers that a patriarch has that your Major Archbishop does not?

 

[jimkhong]

This was corrected by Pope Benedict, I believe. Patriarchs are in and of themselves heads of sui juris Churches, therefore ipso facto they are higher in dignity and rank than Cardinals (who are not heads of sui iuris Churches). In the course of practices within the Latin Church, Cardinals indeed rank higher internally, as external Patriarchs are consultative in regard to Latin Church matters.

However, in regard to Universal Church matters or matters of the Oriental Congregation, Patriarchs/Catholicoi/Major Archbishops/even Metropolitans of sui juris Churches - whether Cardinal or not - are higher in dignity and rank. If the Patriarch of Catholicos is given the honorary of Cardinal, as a personal title by the Pope - they indeed rank highest among Cardinals, save for internal Latin matters.

Thanks for the correction.

I am not so sure about the second part although I understand the sentiments. Is there any reference?

 

[SyroMalankara]

I saw that the article states that the main reason for these hierarchs to be named major archbishop instead of patriarch is because of the age of their ecclesial see. The ecclesial see of the Syro Malabar Church has always been Angamaly. Perhaps according to the Latin Church dating, Angamaly is considered young for the fact that they seem to date this ecclesial see to the arrival of the Portuguese and the “reunion of the Syro Malabar Church”. So that would date Angamaly in predominance to 1599, however this is false. Angamaly has been the Ecclesial See of the East Syrian Church in India since at least the 4th century.

The title, Metropolitan and Gate of All India and Successor of St. Thomas is the historical title bestowed upon the primate of Angamaly. For some time this title was held by the metropolitans sent by the Church of the East. During times of decline, when the Church of the East failed to send bishops, this time was assumed by the Archdeacon of the St. Thomas Christians. When the Syro Malabar were brought into the Catholic fold, this title was held off and on by native Syrian Christians who the Latin Church appointed. At other times the role was assumed by the Latin Bishop appointed to Malabar during the numerous forced hiatus’ in our historical succession, when the Syro Malabar were declined a native hiararch. The title was of course re-assumed by native Syro Malabars when the Church reattained self-governance in 1887.

Because of the historical significance of the See of Angamaly, today there is much contention and petition with the Latin Church towards the elevation in rank of the Major Archbishop to Patriarch. Many people already call Mar George Alencherry “Maran” as well as “Bava” which correlate to the title of Catholicos and Patriarch.

Its important to remember though that the Metropolitan of India was never a Patriarch so that title would not apply

 

[jimkhong]

Its important to remember though that the Metropolitan of India was never a Patriarch so that title would not apply

Pre-reunion with Rome, didn’t the Malabarese get their bishops from the Assyrians? Was there a break in the dependence after the collapse of the Assyrian Church in the rest of Asia?

Similarly, pre-reunion the Malakarese went to the Jacobite patriarch for bishops? What is the current relationship between Syro-Malakarese with the Syriac Catholic patriarch?

 

[phil19034]

Thanks, the article seems to indicate that the difference is only one of title and not of substance.

However there seems to be a few errors in the article:

(1) Patriarchs who are cardinals do not have the rank of cardinal-bishops. They have their own rank, which is below cardinal-bishops and above cardinal-priests. I think this change was made under Paul VI. This is because the cardinals are technically the Roman clergy and so have titles as suffragan bishops of the Roman province or as parish priests of Roman churches. Patriarchs being Eastern Rite should not be clergy of Roman diocese.

No, the Eastern Cardinal-Patriarchs are part of the Order of Cardinal-Bishops. While they have their own title, they are part of the Order of Cardinal-Bishops but just simply rank below the Roman-Rite Cardinal-Bishops in presidence

gcatholic.org/hierarchy/cardinals-alive-precedence.htm#B

 

[SyroMalankara]

Pre-reunion with Rome, didn’t the Malabarese get their bishops from the Assyrians? Was there a break in the dependence after the collapse of the Assyrian Church in the rest of Asia?

There was a break and it was not clear whether the bishop sent was united to Rome or not, as the Assyrians kept going in and out of union.

Similarly, pre-reunion the Malakarese went to the Jacobite patriarch for bishops? What is the current relationship between Syro-Malakarese with the Syriac Catholic patriarch?

The Malankara Church was dependant on the Syriac Orthodox patriarch from 1655, the argument between the proSyriac and proIndian faction is the jurisdiction, was it temporal, spiritual, both? The Syriac Catholic patriarch is respected as head and father of our sister Syriac Church, other than that there is no direct relationship. In practice, many have more interaction with the Syriac Orthodox patriarch.

As to precedence, the order depends on function. As it was stated before, the seven Latin cardinalbishops with suburbican sees have precedence in some cases but not all. For example for Latin synods, Eastern heads would be scattered among the Synod, for universal Church functions and Liturgies the Eastern heads would all be seated together, immediately in front of the celebrant, usually the Pope

 

[jimkhong]

No, the Eastern Cardinal-Patriarchs are part of the Order of Cardinal-Bishops. While they have their own title, they are part of the Order of Cardinal-Bishops but just simply rank below the Roman-Rite Cardinal-Bishops in presidence

gcatholic.org/hierarchy/cardinals-alive-precedence.htm#B

Thanks, I stand corrected. My memory failed me. Not taking the title of the Roman clergy but they are still Cardinal Bishops with precendece after those with the Roman titles.

 

[jimkhong]

There was a break and it was not clear whether the bishop sent was united to Rome or not, as the Assyrians kept going in and out of union.

If I understand correctly, the Malabarese reunited just after the Chaldeans but it was rather confusing to me as the episcopal line went through the Portugese for a while.

The Malankara Church was dependant on the Syriac Orthodox patriarch from 1655, the argument between the proSyriac and proIndian faction is the jurisdiction, was it temporal, spiritual, both? The Syriac Catholic patriarch is respected as head and father of our sister Syriac Church, other than that there is no direct relationship. In practice, many have more interaction with the Syriac Orthodox patriarch.

Yes, but wasn’t there a Jacobite bishop sent from Antioch who went around ordaining bishops for a while and setting up the Syrian Orthodox Church in India?

 

[SyroMalankara]

Yes there were a few waves of Syriac Orthodox prelates that came to India ordaining clergy. First sent by the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was the Syriac patriarch of Jerusalem. He creates the first separation with a proper hierarchy. This first group while under the spiritual support of the Syriac Orthodox hierarchy, still used the East Syriac Liturgy for over 100 years and many clergy within claimed some kind of independance from Antioch although while still having allegience.

 

[jimkhong]

Yes there were a few waves of Syriac Orthodox prelates that came to India ordaining clergy. First sent by the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was the Syriac patriarch of Jerusalem. He creates the first separation with a proper hierarchy. This first group while under the spiritual support of the Syriac Orthodox hierarchy, still used the East Syriac Liturgy for over 100 years and many clergy within claimed some kind of independance from Antioch although while still having allegience.

Thanks, that’s the Orthodox version of Rome being so far away.

 

[SyroMalankara]

The Syriac Orthodox hierarchy was not immune from going in and out of communion with Rome either. Whenever internal opposition, rival patriarchs, Ottoman opposition, Western missionary influence or personal choice came to play, many of the Syriac prelates would write or go to Rome and request communion. This would usually last until the crisis ended or the opposing forces within Holy Synod of the Syriac Orthodox hierarchy threatened excommunication.