L
Little_Boy_Lost
Guest
What are the implications for the Coptic Patriarch becoming a cardinal? Technically isn’t he (or rather shouldn’t he be = D) the second highest ranking bishop in the church? Will he receive the red hat?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
G
German_Melkite
Guest
The Synod has issued their “Message to the People of God.”
It is what one might have expected. Available on Vatican Radio and WWW.Melkite. Org
melkite.org
It is what one might have expected. Available on Vatican Radio and WWW.Melkite. Org
melkite.org
H
Hesychios
Guest
Symbolic.What are the implications for the Coptic Patriarch becoming a cardinal?
If the position (I don’t think we can say ‘office’) of Cardinal is a function of the Latin church, a Cardinal is by extension a functionary of the Latin church.
I suppose that depends if he is really a successor of Saint Mark in the sense the Vatican officials would understand it. He is not allowed to be identified with the term ‘Pope’, and his office as patriarch of the Coptic Catholics dates back to a decision made by a Pope of Rome in the late 19th century. The Coptic Catholic church itself, perhaps about 200,000 people, owes much to the work of Latin religious orders working in that region under the Turkish regime.Technically isn’t he (or rather shouldn’t he be = D) the second highest ranking bishop in the church?
Perhaps, or at least a ring, I thought they dispensed with the hats.Will he receive the red hat?
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Ciero,
When the news normally speaks of “Rome” doing something, it takes a fine eye to see that it normally does not refer to the Holy Father, but rather to the Curia. The Curia, in relation to the ECC and OCC’s, has historically been at odds with the Pope.
That is why I am asking for more information. Just within the past 2 years, IIRC, the Curia has made bad decisions on issues involving ECC’s in Canada and in Europe. The issue in Europe ended with the Pope siding with the ECC’s, and the Curia relented in Canada (who knows what role the Holy Father had in support of the ECC’s - the Ukranians in particular - in that instance as well). I suspect something similar might have occurred with the Melkites - the Latin Curia tried to oppose a canonically correct action by the Melkite Synod. What really made them agree to the move? Did the Pope correct the Curia? Did the Curia consult their lawyers and see that the Melkite Synod was correct? In either case, there would be no issue of a particular permission from Rome (read - “Curia”) for the translation to have occurred. There would simply have been a tacit recognition that the Melkite Synod had an inherent right sans permission to do what they did.
When it comes down to it, I think the canons were preserved, and brother Aramis’ observation is correct.
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. I would stil appreciate more information on the matter, as requested. Thanks, brother.
Can I please have more information on this? Brother Aramis explained the proper canonical procedure, and I doubt that the Pope would purposefully oppose it.Sorry Aramis…not quite right. The Melkites are going thru this right now. They tried to move Archbishop Cyril from the US to Lebanon. Rome told them they CANT more a bishop from the diaspora. Only Rome can…Rome has finally agreed to the move.
When the news normally speaks of “Rome” doing something, it takes a fine eye to see that it normally does not refer to the Holy Father, but rather to the Curia. The Curia, in relation to the ECC and OCC’s, has historically been at odds with the Pope.
That is why I am asking for more information. Just within the past 2 years, IIRC, the Curia has made bad decisions on issues involving ECC’s in Canada and in Europe. The issue in Europe ended with the Pope siding with the ECC’s, and the Curia relented in Canada (who knows what role the Holy Father had in support of the ECC’s - the Ukranians in particular - in that instance as well). I suspect something similar might have occurred with the Melkites - the Latin Curia tried to oppose a canonically correct action by the Melkite Synod. What really made them agree to the move? Did the Pope correct the Curia? Did the Curia consult their lawyers and see that the Melkite Synod was correct? In either case, there would be no issue of a particular permission from Rome (read - “Curia”) for the translation to have occurred. There would simply have been a tacit recognition that the Melkite Synod had an inherent right sans permission to do what they did.
When it comes down to it, I think the canons were preserved, and brother Aramis’ observation is correct.
Blessings,
Marduk
P.S. I would stil appreciate more information on the matter, as requested. Thanks, brother.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Joe,
Blessings,
Marduk
We don’t know the whole story here, yet, I think. The role of the Pope according to Vatican 1 is to preseve and protect the rights of his brother bishops, not take them away. If the Pope was involved at all (as distinct from the Curia), I have no reason to doubt that it was to support the inherent right of the Melkite Synod to make its canonical decision.Those bishops are not under the Pope’s jurisdiction. Why does he have any say in a matter like this?
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother dvdjs,
In the first millenium, especially in the early Church, “diaspora” Christians were “handled” either by absorption into the local community/Tradition, or, when there were enough numbers from a particular Tradition, the local bishop would provide for the needs of that group by setting up churches in their immigrant Tradition. That local Church would be under the omophor of the local Patriarch. For example, some EO apologists point out that when Patriarch Cerularius closed the Latin Churches and expelled the Latin clergy from Constantinople prior to 1054, he was well within his canonical rights, notwithstanding the morality of the action.
The tensions between Patriarchal authorities over “diaspora” members is nothing new. Among the OO, the Coptic and Syriac Churches went through the same tension in the 13th century over diaspora in Egypt and Palestine. The EO have had their continuing share of tensions over the same matter.
The fact is, the reality of the diaspora has not been addressed fully within the Catholic Church. It is altogether correct for the Oriental Catholic (and by extension the Eastern Catholic) Patriarchs to pose the question of their rights before the Holy Father. If we are to take the example of the early Church, then the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Christians within the Traditionally Latin Catholic lands (U.S., Canada, Australia, Philippines, etc.) are canonically under the omophor of the Patriarch of the Latins (who also happens to be the Pope). It is his primary canonical duty to provide for these Eastern and Oriental Catholics. Earlier, brother Josephdaniel commented that the Pope has no business in a local Church’s decision to ordain married men. Canonically speaking, that is not true.
If we are to remain true to the example of the first millenium, the rights that the Oriental Patriarchs are asking for should only refer to their right of stewardship over Latin Catholics in their lands - i.e., Latin Catholics, including their bishops and priests, in the Oriental patriarchal countries should be under the omophor of the Oriental Patriarchs (which is already the case in Ethiopia, IIRC). Anything beyond that would entail a new universal canonical order. Such a new order would require the approbation of the Supreme authority of the Church. So the Middle East Synod can either advance the idea of a new Ecumenical Council (rather impractical and unrealistic since no theological issue is at stake), or appeal to the Pope.
In short, I don’t see anything canonically improper with the Oriental Catholic Patriarchs (and by extension the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs) placing their rights on the agenda. Some say they should just “take” them. But, as brother dvdjs has astutely pointed out, exactly what ancient, canonical justification would they have for such an action? God is a God of order, and the Church should reflect that heavenly order, IMO.
Blessings,
Marduk
These are very insightful comments. Several have asked, “why do the Patriarchs need to ask for their rights?”No not at all. You wrote:
Now you are talking about the distinctive situation of the third millenium. So were you talking about a tradition of ten years?
We have had diaspora before – even in the first millenium. How was it handled traditionally?
My thought: There are lots of ideas about the authority that one might like one’s patriarch to have. But let’s be honest about what is innovation and what is tradition, and avoid special pleading.
And let’s think hard about how we would like to handle issues that arise between sui juris churches on common territory. The Orthodox in America are not especially fond of the “power to the homeland patriarch” approach that they are largely saddled with.
In the first millenium, especially in the early Church, “diaspora” Christians were “handled” either by absorption into the local community/Tradition, or, when there were enough numbers from a particular Tradition, the local bishop would provide for the needs of that group by setting up churches in their immigrant Tradition. That local Church would be under the omophor of the local Patriarch. For example, some EO apologists point out that when Patriarch Cerularius closed the Latin Churches and expelled the Latin clergy from Constantinople prior to 1054, he was well within his canonical rights, notwithstanding the morality of the action.
The tensions between Patriarchal authorities over “diaspora” members is nothing new. Among the OO, the Coptic and Syriac Churches went through the same tension in the 13th century over diaspora in Egypt and Palestine. The EO have had their continuing share of tensions over the same matter.
The fact is, the reality of the diaspora has not been addressed fully within the Catholic Church. It is altogether correct for the Oriental Catholic (and by extension the Eastern Catholic) Patriarchs to pose the question of their rights before the Holy Father. If we are to take the example of the early Church, then the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Christians within the Traditionally Latin Catholic lands (U.S., Canada, Australia, Philippines, etc.) are canonically under the omophor of the Patriarch of the Latins (who also happens to be the Pope). It is his primary canonical duty to provide for these Eastern and Oriental Catholics. Earlier, brother Josephdaniel commented that the Pope has no business in a local Church’s decision to ordain married men. Canonically speaking, that is not true.
If we are to remain true to the example of the first millenium, the rights that the Oriental Patriarchs are asking for should only refer to their right of stewardship over Latin Catholics in their lands - i.e., Latin Catholics, including their bishops and priests, in the Oriental patriarchal countries should be under the omophor of the Oriental Patriarchs (which is already the case in Ethiopia, IIRC). Anything beyond that would entail a new universal canonical order. Such a new order would require the approbation of the Supreme authority of the Church. So the Middle East Synod can either advance the idea of a new Ecumenical Council (rather impractical and unrealistic since no theological issue is at stake), or appeal to the Pope.
In short, I don’t see anything canonically improper with the Oriental Catholic Patriarchs (and by extension the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs) placing their rights on the agenda. Some say they should just “take” them. But, as brother dvdjs has astutely pointed out, exactly what ancient, canonical justification would they have for such an action? God is a God of order, and the Church should reflect that heavenly order, IMO.
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status
- Not open for further replies.