Major archbishops and patriarchs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crescentinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ByzCathCantor said:
And, does separating the statistics by Metropolitan Sees make the Slovaks, Hungarians, Croatians, etc. any less Ruthenian in heritage? Again, the hierarchs of these Churches are keenly aware of their common heritage, and indeed jointly honor it whenever possible, quite visibly at major events (e.g. the recent enthronement of Metropolitan William of Pittsburgh).

Interestingly enough, both the Bishop of Mukachevo and the Metropolitan of Presov enjoy very good relationships with His Beatitude Sviatoslav of the UGCC, who has repeatedly and publicly acknowledged the common heritage of the Ukrainian and Ruthenian Churches, as well as the unique traditions and character of Ruthenian Churches.
Click to expand...
Indeed, iirc, those Churches, even the UGCC, all use the Ruthenian Recension of the Byzantine Rite.
 
Peter_J said:
Indeed, iirc, those Churches, even the UGCC, all use the Ruthenian Recension of the Byzantine Rite.
Click to expand...
Correct, and in reality, they are separated only by some history (starting with the agreements that brought them into Communion with Rome) and unique but related (and, on occasion, overlapping) chant traditions, as well as some ther aspects of praxis.
 
ByzCathCantor said:
Setting up a Patriarchal See in this situation would be challenging.
Click to expand...
Forgive my ignorance, but why would it be challenging to elevate the head of their church’s synod from “major archbishop” to “patriarch”?

Wouldn’t their church function almost the same way, anyway? Wouldn’t the only difference be that, when their synod elects a new head bishop, he would request communion with the Supreme Pontiff rather than be confirmed by him?

I always thought that was the only difference between a “major archeparchial” church and a “patriarchal” one: in the former, the election of the major archbishop is confirmed by Rome, whereas in the latter, the synod doesn’t need confirmation, but canon law obliges the new patriarch and the pope of Rome to symbolically reaffirm communion with each other…
Nine_Two said:
The merging of sees where the EC bishop holds a higher title than the EO bishop will be a pretty simple question to solve
Click to expand...
I agree. I don’t see why there’d have to be a fuss.
Nine_Two said:
compared to some of the logistical issues that would arise (such as what to do with the four Patriarchs of Antioch).
Click to expand...
In the purely hypothetical event of reunion between the Catholic Church and you Chalcedonian Orthodox - but not with the Oriental Orthodox - I imagine it would play out like this:

The Melkite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch would willingly cede the title and position to the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch when their synods joined, while the Syriac Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and Maronite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch would retain their titles.

If reunion were ever achieved with the Oriental Orthodox, I expect that the Syriac Catholic Patriarch of Antioch would cede his position to the Syriac Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.

That, however, brings up an interesting parallel question: what if the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox re-established full communion with each other? Then which Patriarch of Antioch would retain the title - the Greek/Chalcedonian one, or the Syriac/Non-Chalcedonian one?

What a labor of love it would be to work all this out if all three churches achieved full communion with each other!

My only mildly educated guess is that, at least in the eventual future, it would be the Syriac Orthodox Church that would most rightfully retain the Patriarchate of Antioch. But I don’t know the history that well, so I could easily be very, very wrong.
 
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
Forgive my ignorance, but why would it be challenging to elevate the head of their church’s synod from “major archbishop” to “patriarch”?
Click to expand...
No ignorance on your part whatsoever, as canonically, the Pope may certainly elevate a Major Archiepiscopal Church to a Patriarchal Church. That said, ecumenical consideration is apparent in the reluctance to do so, notably in the case of the UGCC.

Canonically, they are virtually the same, with the only difference being that a Patriarch can be elected without the approval of the Pontiff. In practice, while a Major Archbishop cannot be formally styled Patriarch, he can be styled His Beatitude in proper address. Most of the faithful and friends of the Church simply call the UGCC Major Archbishop “Patriarch” irrespective.
 
Fone_Bone_2001 said:
Forgive my ignorance, but why would it be challenging to elevate the head of their church’s synod from “major archbishop” to “patriarch”?

Wouldn’t their church function almost the same way, anyway? Wouldn’t the only difference be that, when their synod elects a new head bishop, he would request communion with the Supreme Pontiff rather than be confirmed by him?

I always thought that was the only difference between a “major archeparchial” church and a “patriarchal” one: in the former, the election of the major archbishop is confirmed by Rome, whereas in the latter, the synod doesn’t need confirmation, but canon law obliges the new patriarch and the pope of Rome to symbolically reaffirm communion with each other…
Click to expand...
Good point. That makes me think of a side question (which may have been discussed on the forum, but I don’t think so). Does anyone know, when was the last time the Pope declined to confirm the election of a major archbishop?
 
Peter_J said:
Good point. That makes me think of a side question (which may have been discussed on the forum, but I don’t think so). Does anyone know, when was the last time the Pope declined to confirm the election of a major archbishop?
Click to expand...
Not sure if this is exactly you are asking, but I don’t think a Pope has ever refused to accept a synodally elected Major Archbishop.

Is this what you meant? or if a Pope has ever refused to raise, say, a Metropolitan Church to that level?
 
ByzCathCantor said:
The Romanian Orthodox Church is one of the national, autocephalous Orthodox Churches…
Click to expand...
ByzCathCantor said:
IMHO, the Ruthenian Churches (including the Slovak Greek Catholic Church, split from the Eparchy of Mukachevo) have been questionably broken up along national lines, which seems awfully “Orthodox” in terms of trend.
Click to expand...
Although I’ve commented on autocephaly in the past, perhaps it’s worth another go here.

I’m not so sure that the Romanian situation (or, actually, any of the Eastern European Churches) is really an “Orthodox” trend. It seems to me to be more like a “Russian” trend. I really don’t have a problem with autocephaly per-se, but I do have a major problem with the Russian interpretation of same. The first autocephalous Church was that of Cyprus, which has never claimed a “patriarchal” title. Neither does the GOC nor, IIRC, does the Albanian OC.

The concept of autocephaly itself is rather like that of the Catholicosate, where the “daughter Church” is independent, but acknowledges at least the titular primacy of the Patriarch. Basically, that amounts to an acceptance that the Patriarch has the right to consecrate Holy Myroun.

The whole thing changes, however, where the self-proclaimed MP holds sway. There, we see the proliferation of the so-called “national patriarchates” (I suppose in imitation of MP), and frankly I find the whole idea to be rather silly.
ByzCathCantor said:
I am much less familiar with the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Churches, and would hate to speculate.
Click to expand...
Peter_J said:
The Syro-Malabar situation is rather different, since it isn’t a uniatism-related church. My impression (which could be wrong, of course) is that there has never been a Syro-Malabar, not because Rome sees some particular reason not to do it, but simply because Rome doesn’t see a need to do it.
Click to expand...
In their pre-unification days, both were de facto (if not de jure) Catholicosates, so there is no tradition of a local “patriarchate” to muddy the waters. The Syro-Malankara have even revived the title Catholicos, despite the fact that (I think it was in the 1990s) Rome severed the ties between it and the SCC. What would make most sense to me is for the ties to be reestablished (or created, in the case of the Syro-Malabars) to the “Mother Church” thus eliminating the absurdity of the the Latin invention of “Major Archepisopates” and granting both Churches formal Catholicostate status.

OK guys, that’s enough of my unsolicited :twocents: for now. 😉
 
malphono said:
I’m not so sure that the Romanian situation (or, actually, any of the Eastern European Churches) is really an “Orthodox” trend. It seems to me to be more like a “Russian” trend.
Click to expand...
Fair points, all - thanks!
 
Dear brother Malphono,
malphono said:
Although I’ve commented on autocephaly in the past, perhaps it’s worth another go here.

I’m not so sure that the Romanian situation (or, actually, any of the Eastern European Churches) is really an “Orthodox” trend. It seems to me to be more like a “Russian” trend. I really don’t have a problem with autocephaly per-se, but I do have a major problem with the Russian interpretation of same. The first autocephalous Church was that of Cyprus, which has never claimed a “patriarchal” title. Neither does the GOC nor, IIRC, does the Albanian OC.

The concept of autocephaly itself is rather like that of the Catholicosate, where the “daughter Church” is independent, but acknowledges at least the titular primacy of the Patriarch. Basically, that amounts to an acceptance that the Patriarch has the right to consecrate Holy Myroun.

The whole thing changes, however, where the self-proclaimed MP holds sway. There, we see the proliferation of the so-called “national patriarchates” (I suppose in imitation of MP), and frankly I find the whole idea to be rather silly.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, though I wouldn’t call the proliferation of national patriarchates “silly.” I would say it was more of a practical consideration than a theological one. Traditionally for the Syriac Traditions (including the Syriac Orthodox and Assyrians), the office of head bishop has a theological foundation, not merely canonical./practical.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Crescentinus said:
Why is it that the major archbishops are not patriarchs? O:
Click to expand...
My opinion as an Oriental is that Tradition has deemed that this authority belongs to an Ecumenical Council. Sure, we believe that the Pope has the authority to do personally, what the Ecumenical Council can do collegially, but even that personal authority is not unilateral, but must exist in a collegial context. And sure, our canons state that the Pope has the prerogative to act personally or collegially to address the needs of the Church. But if he decides not to act personally in this instance, for some future circumstance wherein the decision can be made collegially, in submission to the Tradition of the Church, well kudos to him.

In light of Tradition, I am not so quick to give the Pope any blame for not granting patriarchal status to the Major Archbishoprics. Now, if there was some sort of collegial foment from at least most of the bishops in the Eastern European jurisdictions, and the Pope does not act, then and only then will I say, “what’s up?!!” It’s just that I don’t think the creation of a patriarchate is an insular issue for the patriarchate, but is a matter that affects a much wider portion of the Church, which is why it was normally authorized only by an Ecumenical Council.

Just my opinion as an Oriental.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Dear brother Nine_Two,
Nine_Two said:
compared to some of the logistical issues that would arise (such as what to do with the four Patriarchs of Antioch).
Click to expand...
Coming from an Oriental Orthodox background, where the reality of personal jurisdictions within territorial jurisdictions has existed for many centuries more than in the Catholic Church, I wouldn’t see this as a problem. The jurisdiction of the Maronite Patriarch, for example, would only be over Maronites; the jurisdiction of the Syriac Catholic Patriarch would only be over Syriac Catholics; etc.

But I fully understand that the EO know territorial jurisdiction as the only form of ecclesiastical administration, which is why it seems a quandary to you.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
I agree with you, though I wouldn’t call the proliferation of national patriarchates “silly.” I would say it was more of a practical consideration than a theological one.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I have to add something: whatever consideration there might have been was, when one comes right down to it, strictly political. Hence, it seems to me that the only “practicality” involved was that of following the MP lead.
 
mardukm said:
My opinion as an Oriental is that Tradition has deemed that this authority belongs to an Ecumenical Council. Sure, we believe that the Pope has the authority to do personally, what the Ecumenical Council can do collegially, but even that personal authority is not unilateral, but must exist in a collegial context. And sure, our canons state that the Pope has the prerogative to act personally or collegially to address the needs of the Church. But if he decides not to act personally in this instance, for some future circumstance wherein the decision can be made collegially, in submission to the Tradition of the Church, well kudos to him.

In light of Tradition, I am not so quick to give the Pope any blame for not granting patriarchal status to the Major Archbishoprics. Now, if there was some sort of collegial foment from at least most of the bishops in the Eastern European jurisdictions, and the Pope does not act, then and only then will I say, “what’s up?!!” It’s just that I don’t think the creation of a patriarchate is an insular issue for the patriarchate, but is a matter that affects a much wider portion of the Church, which is why it was normally authorized only by an Ecumenical Council.

Just my opinion as an Oriental.
Click to expand...
**My **opinion as an Oriental is somewhat similar, save for the enshrinement of Vatican I. But of course you already know that since we’ve sparred on that issue several times before. Rather than derail this thread and bore everyone, I will spare you (and the world) from having to wade through a rehash. 🙂
 
malphono said:
**My **opinion as an Oriental is somewhat similar, save for the enshrinement of Vatican I. But of course you already know that since we’ve sparred on that issue several times before. Rather than derail this thread and bore everyone, I will spare you (and the world) from having to wade through a rehash. 🙂
Click to expand...
🙂 🙂
 
In my opinion the Syro Malabar hierarchy should revive the title “The Gate of India”. Historically it i said before latinization and some what during latinization , the bishop head of the Syro Malabar Church earned the title “The Gate of India”.
 
fijiq48 said:
In my opinion the Syro Malabar hierarchy should revive the title “The Gate of India”.
Click to expand...
What did that particular title signify (begging forgiveness for my ignorance on this point)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top