Major archbishops and patriarchs

[Crescentinus]

Why is it that the major archbishops are not patriarchs? O:

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Well, the harshest answer you will get is that the Popes are afraid to create new Patriarchates. If for example you consider the UGCC’s situation and that of the Orthodox Churches in the Ukraine, some of the reasons become apparent.

 

[Crescentinus]

Well, the harshest answer you will get is that the Popes are afraid to create new Patriarchates. If for example you consider the UGCC’s situation and that of the Orthodox Churches in the Ukraine, some of the reasons become apparent.

The situation in Ukraine, I can understand.
But, how about the Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara and the Romanian ones? O:

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The situation in Ukraine, I can understand.
But, how about the Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara and the Romanian ones? O:

The Romanian Orthodox Church is one of the national, autocephalous Orthodox Churches, and is the dominant Church of the country (over 85% of the population), with the Russian Orthodox Church being second. The global population of Romanian Greek Catholics is likewise small - under 200,000 in Romania, less than the number of Roman Catholics in the country. Setting up a Patriarchal See in this situation would be challenging. Their current Major Archbishop was nonetheless elevated to Cardinal at the last consistory.

I am much less familiar with the Syro-Malabar and Syro-Malankara Churches, and would hate to speculate.

 

[Vico]

Why is it that the major archbishops are not patriarchs? O:

There are two reasons given (at Giga-Catholic). “The Holy See has deemed the Churches not ancient enough or inopportune to acquire such a status.”

In 1963 Pope Paul VI designated the first Major Archbishop in Joseph Cardinal Slipy of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church.

 

[Peter_J]

The situation in Ukraine, I can understand.
But, how about the Syro-Malabar, Syro-Malankara and the Romanian ones? O:

Well, I think any objection to the UGCC becoming a patriarchate could be applied to the Romanians as well.

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.

 

[Peter_J]

Well, the harshest answer you will get is that the Popes are afraid to create new Patriarchates. If for example you consider the UGCC’s situation and that of the Orthodox Churches in the Ukraine, some of the reasons become apparent.

I must say, I do find it striking that on the one hand we’ve seen, for example, the Slovak Greek Catholic Church raise to the Metropolitan level a few years ago, and two churches raised to the Major-Archepiscopal level a few years before that; yet on the other hand the number of Patriarchal churches seems fixed at 6, and the total number of sui iuris churches seems fixed at 22.

 

[Vico]

I must say, I do find it striking that on the one hand we’ve seen, for example, the Slovak Greek Catholic Church raise to the Metropolitan level a few years ago, and two churches raised to the Major-Archepiscopal level a few years before that; yet on the other hand the number of Patriarchal churches seems fixed at 6, and the total number of sui iuris churches seems fixed at 22.

Also the Macedonian Greek Catholic Exarchate was separated from Byzantine Catholic Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro which brought the total to 23 including the Latin Church. Maybe you included that already?

It is interesting that the only Patriarch of the tradition of Constantinople is Melkite, but the proper Patriarchal eparchy is Damas, Syria, and the Patriarchal See is Antioch.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I must say, I do find it striking that on the one hand we’ve seen, for example, the Slovak Greek Catholic Church raise to the Metropolitan level a few years ago, and two churches raised to the Major-Archepiscopal level a few years before that; yet on the other hand the number of Patriarchal churches seems fixed at 6, and the total number of sui iuris churches seems fixed at 22.

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. Absent the good relations between the hierarchs themselves, this could weaken the tradition over time. We also have the odd situation where the Mother Church is not a Metropolitan Church, as it exists as a minority within the political borders of the Ukraine. It’s very odd.

 

[Peter_J]

Also the Macedonian Greek Catholic Exarchate was separated from Byzantine Catholic Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro which brought the total to 23 including the Latin Church. Maybe you included that already?

I’ve heard differing takes on that. Some see that as a new sui iuris church, bringing the total to 23. Others say that Macedonia was already counted among the 22 sui iuris churches. Still others say it isn’t completely clear yet that Macedonia has a sui iuris church.

 

[Vico]

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. Absent the good relations between the hierarchs themselves, this could weaken the tradition over time. We also have the odd situation where the Mother Church is not a Metropolitan Church, as it exists as a minority within the political borders of the Ukraine. It’s very odd.

I’ve heard differing takes on that. Some see that as a new sui iuris church, bringing the total to 23. Others say that Macedonia was already counted among the 22 sui iuris churches. Still others say it isn’t completely clear yet that Macedonia has a sui iuris church.

Yet they have different history being in different countries. I believe that is why they have their own laws. And Macedonian is listed apart in the Annuario Pontifico. My list, excluding Poland:

Marca Union (Holy Roman Empire) 1611 and Union of Uzhorod (Hungary) 1646 led to five Byzantine Tradition ritual Churches:

1. Križevci Greek Catholic Church (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and Montenegro)
   – Marca renamed Gornji Tkalec (1777), renamed Eparchy of Križevci (1801)
   – Exarchy of Serbia and Montenegro (2003) from Križevci
2. Macedonian Greek Catholic Church
   – Exarchy (1918, 2001)
3. Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church
   – Mukacheve (1777)
   – Byzantine Metropolitan See of Pittsburgh (1969, renamed from Munhall est 1963), with the suffragan Eparchies of Passaic (1963), Parma (1969) and Van Nuys, renamed Holy Protection of Mary (Phoenix) (1981).
   – Exarchy of Czech Republic (1996) from Prešov
4. Slovak Greek Catholic Church
   – Prešov (1818) from Mukacheve
   – Czech Republic (1996) from Prešov
   – Košice (1997) from Prešov
5. Hungarian Greek Catholic Church
   – Hajdudorog (1912)
   – Exarchy of Miskolc (1924)

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Yet they have different history being in different countries.

As you are well aware, the political borders in this region shifted so many times over the course of the history and evolution of these Churches as to be almost meaningless in current context. Mukachevo and Presov (with the Hungarian presence not too far behind) were always the centers of life for the Ruthenian tradition (our chant and hymnody tell us as much), and we pray that never changes. The Apostolic lineage of these Churches, allowing for the interruption of the Communist era (where a young Bishop Wojtyła assumed the role of Apostolic Administrator), clearly shows the common heritage.

 

[Peter_J]

P.S. I think a good case can be made for the idea that the Macedonian Greek Catholic Church is already counted in “22 sui iuris churches”. See the list given here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches#List_of_Eastern_Catholic_Churches
I’m not saying, of course, that the list is correct because it’s on wikipedia (in fact, I’ve looked at the history of that page, and the list was changed around a *lot *a few years ago) but I can’t find anything missing from that list.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, the harshest answer you will get is that the Popes are afraid to create new Patriarchates. If for example you consider the UGCC’s situation and that of the Orthodox Churches in the Ukraine, some of the reasons become apparent.

While I agree that is the answer, even from an Orthodox (perhaps even especially from an Orthodox) perspective, it seems quite an absurd reason. Reunion isn’t very close, and the merging of sees where the EC bishop holds a higher title than the EO bishop will be a pretty simple question to solve compared to some of the logistical issues that would arise (such as what to do with the four Patriarchs of Antioch).

 

[ByzCathCantor]

While I agree that is the answer, even from an Orthodox (perhaps even especially from an Orthodox) perspective, it seems quite an absurd reason. Reunion isn’t very close, and the merging of sees where the EC bishop holds a higher title than the EO bishop will be a pretty simple question to solve compared to some of the logistical issues that would arise (such as what to do with the four Patriarchs of Antioch).

Points well taken. FWIW I cited the UGCC / Ukrainian Orthodox situation with sensitivity to the particular challenge. Kiev is the center of origin for all these Churches, including the Russian Orthodox Church. With that in mind, and knowing that the Russian Orthodox Church (the largest) has seemingly single-handledly stalled ecumenical dialogue over the post-communist era challenges over properties, etc., it seemed like a perfect example of a more modern problem (than Antioch, which you well referenced). Absent any of that thought, from the Catholic perspective, we have the largest single sui juris Eastern Catholic Church in a structure that affords it less autonomy (to the extent it exists in the Catholic Communion) than some of the more ancient Sees, with much smaller numbers of faithful, that exist as Patriarchates.

 

[Vico]

As you are well aware, the political borders in this region shifted so many times over the course of the history and evolution of these Churches as to be almost meaningless in current context. Mukachevo and Presov (with the Hungarian presence not too far behind) were always the centers of life for the Ruthenian tradition (our chant and hymnody tell us as much), and we pray that never changes. The Apostolic lineage of these Churches, allowing for the interruption of the Communist era (where a young Bishop Wojtyła assumed the role of Apostolic Administrator), clearly shows the common heritage.

Political borders are very significant for the rulers allow or disallow a particular Church. The languages are also different over time along with the Christian membership in a particular region (eparchy) is not from one Haplogroup alone. Sts. Cyril and Methodius came to Greater Monrovia (Czech, Slovak, W. Ukraine, Hungary, S. Poland, N. Serbia) in the 9th century:

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/98/Great_moravia_svatopluk.png

 

[Vico]

P.S. I think a good case can be made for the idea that the Macedonian Greek Catholic Church is already counted in “22 sui iuris churches”. See the list given here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches#List_of_Eastern_Catholic_Churches
I’m not saying, of course, that the list is correct because it’s on wikipedia (in fact, I’ve looked at the history of that page, and the list was changed around a *lot *a few years ago) but I can’t find anything missing from that list.

You can see what the Vatican has published here, in a summary from CNEWA:
PDF: cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat12.pdf

The document contains the ritual Churches sui iuris recognized by the Holy See. A note within is:

• The 2012 Annuario Pontificio lists the Apostolic Exarchate in Macedonia separately from the other two jurisdictions, which are listed as “The Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro.”

 

[Peter_J]

You can see what the Vatican has published here, in a summary from CNEWA:
PDF: cnewa.org/source-images/Roberson-eastcath-statistics/eastcatholic-stat12.pdf

The document contains the ritual Churches sui iuris recognized by the Holy See. A note within is:

• The 2012 Annuario Pontificio lists the Apostolic Exarchate in Macedonia separately from the other two jurisdictions, which are listed as “The Byzantine Church of Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro.”

Yes. But, counting that, do you see the total being 22 Eastern Catholic Churches (sui iuris), or 23?

 

[Peter_J]

While I agree that is the answer, even from an Orthodox (perhaps even especially from an Orthodox) perspective, it seems quite an absurd reason. Reunion isn’t very close, and the merging of sees where the EC bishop holds a higher title than the EO bishop will be a pretty simple question to solve compared to some of the logistical issues that would arise (such as what to do with the four Patriarchs of Antioch).

You make a good point, but I’d like to add the caveat that we should take care not to reduce the Catholic-Orthodox relation to a “How long until we’re in full communion?” question.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Yes. But, counting that, do you see the total being 22 Eastern Catholic Churches (sui iuris), or 23?

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.