Of synods, elevations and patriarchates (especially UGCC)

[LumenGent]

Who is Patriarch Husar? i’m aware of Major Archbishop Husar but not the former

 

[dixibehr]

Wouldn’t the denial of Papal primacy, infallibility etc constitute a different faith? I can add more but let’s leave it at that.

BTW who is Patriarch Husar? i’m aware of Major Archbishop Husar but not the former

Patriarchs are called by their ordination or enthronement names. I assume you are talking about Patriarch Lubomir.

He was elevated to the Patriarchate on the authority of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, and is so commemorated in every Ukrainain Catholic church I’ve been in. He himself has not used the title.

Now you know.

 

[LumenGent]

Interesting. Does the UGCC belong to one of the original ancient patriachates? if so which one?

Is it Canonicaly recognised as a patriachate? if so where?

Did the Holy See or any Council recognise or elevate the Church to the dignity of a patriachate? if so when?

Does a Synod have the power to elevate it’s head to the level of a patriarch? if so then we must accept the the heads of all synodal Churches are Patriarchs.

 

[dixibehr]

Does a Synod have the power to elevate it’s head to the level of a patriarch? if so then we must accept the the heads of all synodal Churches are Patriarchs.

That would be correct. I perfectly agree.

It would also take care of the anomolous patriarch-in-everything-but-name legal fiction of “major archbishop”.

 

[malphono]

This all goes back to so many prior threads about the exact same thing. I had made a few comments in, [thread=284309]e.g., this thread[/thread]. My comment in this thread is the same, so no reason to retype everything.

 

[Formosus]

Who is Patriarch Husar? i’m aware of Major Archbishop Husar but not the former

Major Archbishop is a title that has no meaning within the Eastern tradition or Oriental Tradition. In essence, its Patriarch that is not called a Patriarch. Rome promised to raise our Church to a Patriachate , they didn’t deliver on the promise because of political and “ecumenical” reasons, so our Synod did it themselves. Rome has never spoken out against what we did, even when the Patriarch is commemorated in front of the Pontiff, and the fact that our Patriarch was considered “papable” in the last selection process shows that this is seen as a non-issue among the latin church.

 

[Aramis]

Major Archbishop is a title that has no meaning within the Eastern tradition or Oriental Tradition. In essence, its Patriarch that is not called a Patriarch. Rome promised to raise our Church to a Patriachate , they didn’t deliver on the promise because of political and “ecumenical” reasons, so our Synod did it themselves. Rome has never spoken out against what we did, even when the Patriarch is commemorated in front of the Pontiff, and the fact that our Patriarch was considered “papable” in the last selection process shows that this is seen as a non-issue among the latin church.

More correctly, Rome politely ignores the actions of the synod, which are in violation of the CCEO, which makes the elevation of a Patriarchate a papal matter.

Canon 57

1. The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church.
2. Only the supreme authority of the Church can modify the legitimately recognized or conceded title of each patriarchal Church.
3. If it is possible, a patriarchal Church must have a permanent see for the residence of the patriarch in a principal city inside its own territory from which the patriarch takes his title; this see cannot be transferred except for a most grave reason and with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and the assent of the Roman Pontiff.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Aramis,

More correctly, Rome politely ignores the actions of the synod, which are in violation of the CCEO, which makes the elevation of a Patriarchate a papal matter.

Canon 57

1. The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church.
2. Only the supreme authority of the Church can modify the legitimately recognized or conceded title of each patriarchal Church.
3. If it is possible, a patriarchal Church must have a permanent see for the residence of the patriarch in a principal city inside its own territory from which the patriarch takes his title; this see cannot be transferred except for a most grave reason and with the consent of the synod of bishops of the patriarchal Church and the assent of the Roman Pontiff.

On the other hand, the “Supreme Authority of the Church” is ALSO identified as the Ecumenical Council, so we shouldn’t immediately assume that it refers to the Pope alone. Perhaps HH Pope Benedict, at this point in time, simply wants it to be a collegial, instead of a papal act.

Here is a very interesting statement from HH Pope Benedict before he became Pope, in an essay entitled “Primacy and Episcopacy,”:

**The image of a centralized state which the Catholic church presented right up to the council does not flow only from the Petrine office, but from its strict amalgamation with the patriarchal function which grew ever stronger in the course of history and which fell to the bishop of Rome for the whole of Latin Christendom. The uniform canon law, the uniform liturgy, the uniform appointment of bishops by the Roman centre: all these are things which are not necessarily part of the primacy but result from the close union of the two offices.

For that reason, the task to consider for the future will be to distinguish again and more clearly between the proper function of the successor of Peter and the patriarchal office and, where necessary, to create new patriarchates and to detach them from the Latin church. To embrace unity with the pope would then no longer mean being incorporated into a uniform administration, but only being inserted into a unity of faith and communion, in which the pope is acknowledged to have the power to give binding interpretations of the revelation given in Christ whose authority is accepted whenever it is given in definitive form.**"
After exploring the ecumenical implications of this vision, Ratzinger concluded:
“Finally, in the not too distant future one could consider whether the churches of Asia and Africa, like those of the East, should not present their own forms as autonomous ‘patriarchates’ or ‘great churches’ or whatever such ecclesiae in the Ecclesia might be called in the future.”

Without ever having read this statement from Cardinal Ratzinger before Fr. Ambrose pointed it out several days ago, I indeed always imagined and recognized that there was a clear distinction between the PATRIARCHAL prerogatives of the bishop of Rome, on the one hand, and the PAPAL prerogatives of the bishop of Rome, on the other. Here we see the Pope admitting to this proper distinction between the roles of the Bishop of Rome. I believe HH JP2 of thrice-bless memory had a complementary understanding. I’ve always understood that the bishop of Rome as Pope has universal, immediate jurisdiction ONLY in two areas: 1) on a matter of faith or morals that requires definition; 2) to ensure that a UNIVERSAL canon of the Church is properly obeyed (I’m not sure if the APPELLATE universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome can properly be called “immediate”). And this seems to be what Cardinal Ratzinger was proposing.

However, to recognize this more limited role of the bishop of Rome as Pope in relation to the other Churches, which seems to be the trend (if most of the Popes of 20th century are any indication, including HH Pope Benedict), it would mean the Pope is likewise implicitly admitting that the recognition of Patriarchal status should be left up to an Ecumenical Council (like it was in the early Church).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Diak]

More correctly, Rome politely ignores the actions of the synod, which are in violation of the CCEO, which makes the elevation of a Patriarchate a papal matter.

I don’t think Rome would allow a grave infraction against Canon Law to go unmentioned for so long. The late Holy Father presided at several Liturgies where His Beatitude was commemorated as “Patriarch” and said nothing, not even a polite warning.

As has been pointed out on several occasions, the law should compliment the tradition, and not be in opposition to it. For me the greatest remaining latinization to be overcome by the Eastern Churches is a complete revision of the CCEO. If the Magisterial teachings about particular Churches and the restoration of authentic liturgical and ecclesial identities means anything, then the largest particular non-Latin Catholic Church should be able to elect her own Patriarchal governance, which has been granted to much smaller Eastern Churches.

 

[LumenGent]

Thankyou for the replies.

dixibehr,

I asked 4 questions which you only answered one of, if you could please answer the remaining 3.

As far i see it, the head of the Syro Malankara Church has never been recognised as a Patriarch neither has the head of the Syro Malabar Church. Hence i disagree that every head of a synodal Church is a Patriarch. I also disagree that the Synod has the authority to do such.

Can i please ask that people put aside thier personal preferences and opinions. If some opinions are that the head of the UGCC is a Patriarch and in reality he isn’t it doesn’t make him a Patriarch.

The Church and history indicate there is 1 Byzantine Patriarch, and he is the head of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

 

[LumenGent]

Diak,

That fact that the Holy Father has tolerated what you describe does not indicate anything. All the Pope has to do is to canonically raise the Major archepiscopal Church to that of a Patriachate. Now that would close the case.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Father Deacon Diak,

I don’t think Rome would allow a grave infraction against Canon Law to go unmentioned for so long. The late Holy Father presided at several Liturgies where His Beatitude was commemorated as “Patriarch” and said nothing, not even a polite warning.

As has been pointed out on several occasions, the law should compliment the tradition, and not be in opposition to it. For me the greatest remaining latinization to be overcome by the Eastern Churches is a complete revision of the CCEO. If the Magisterial teachings about particular Churches and the restoration of authentic liturgical and ecclesial identities means anything, then the largest particular non-Latin Catholic Church should be able to elect her own Patriarchal governance, which has been granted to much smaller Eastern Churches.

I think we should distinguish between Patriarchal governance, on the one hand (provisions for which are indeed contained in the CCEO), and Patriarchal status on the other. Are you aware of any canon in the early Church, or even in the Eastern or Oriental Orthodox Churches today, which permits self-proclamation of Patriarchal status?

It seems to me that the Pope has only been willing to recognize Patriarchal status for Catholic Churches where there exists Patriarchal status in the complementary Orthodox Church. Indeed, as someone has pointed out, there is no canonical Ukranian Patriarchate in the EOC. I’ve never taken it to be an affront to the dignity of the UGCC (though, of course, members of the UGCC might take it differently).

Judging from the histories of the creation of Patriarchates in the history of the Church(es), it seems Patriarchal status has only been granted in two ways - (1) through the recognition of an Ecumenical Council; (2) through the recognition of the parent Church. But the UGCC is not a daughter Church of the Latin Patriarchate, so I don’t see how, by custom or by canon, the Patriarch of the Latin Church can conceivably grant Patriarchal status to the UGCC.

The only canon of which I am aware that can even come close to addressing this issue is Canon 1507-3: A custom contrary to or apart from canon law has the force of law if it has been observed for at least 30 continuous years.

I would seem that after 30 years, in the absence of a specfiic abrogation by the competent authority, Catholic canon law would de facto affirm the patriarchal status of the UGCC. The question is, how long has HB Lubomyr been commemorated as Patriarch in the UGCC? And, as you have pointed out, no Pope has ever challenged this claim by the UGCC. Of course, there is another problem - it does not seem that HB has deigned to accept that title. Is the commemoration as Patriarch sufficient to be considered “custom” if the person to whom the title is assigned has himself not explicitly accepted it? And we also have to consider whether that commemoration is plenary within the UGCC.

Brother LumenGent, this response might also address your concerns in your latest post.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[dixibehr]

The Church and history indicate there is 1 Byzantine Patriarch, and he is the head of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.
Reply With Quote<<

Actually, there’s also the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.

As well, there is the Syriac Orthodox, Syrian Catholic, and Maronite Patriarchs of Antioch.

The existence of 5 claimants of the same patriarchal see is strange, I will admit.

As far as the other 3 questions, if you will repeat them for me, I will try to answer them if I can.

 

[LumenGent]

Actually, there’s also the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.

As well, there is the Syriac Orthodox, Syrian Catholic, and Maronite Patriarchs of Antioch.

The existence of 5 claimants of the same patriarchal see is strange, I will admit.

As far as the other 3 questions, if you will repeat them for me, I will try to answer them if I can

I was only talking about the Byzantine Catholic Churches since the UGCC is a Byzantine Church. I wan’t refering to the Syriacs.

The questions wre in my 2nd post. here they are again

Does the UGCC belong to one of the original ancient patriachates? if so which one?

Is it Canonicaly recognised as a patriachate? if so where?

Did the Holy See or any Council recognise or elevate the Church to the dignity of a patriachate? if so when?

Does a Synod have the power to elevate it’s head to the level of a patriarch? if so then we must accept the the heads of all synodal Churches are Patriarchs

Thanks

 

[Ghosty]

Diak,

That fact that the Holy Father has tolerated what you describe does not indicate anything. All the Pope has to do is to canonically raise the Major archepiscopal Church to that of a Patriachate. Now that would close the case.

Remember, however, that any formal “elevation” of Patriarch Lubomyr by Rome would mean a total collapse of dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox, and possibly bring reprisal against Eastern Catholics in Orthodox lands. This is because Moscow claims jurisdiction over Ukraine, and won’t even recognize Eastern Orthodox claims for a Patriarch of Ukraine.

Rome is playing very carefully with this issue, and IMO is winning both sides by allowing the recognition of the Patriarch without formally announcing anything.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Aramis]

Traditionally, and prior to the 19th C, the Ukraine was affiliated with the Patriarch of Constantinople, (aka the Ecumenical Patriarch,) and had become autonomous, and functionally autocephalous, but became part of the Russian Patriarchate, a patriarchate which self-erected from a primatial metropolitan, and then was recognized as a patriarchate by the others at a later point prior to engulfing the Ukrainian church.

Russia before the declaration of the patriarchate is the perfect example of a major archbishopric: the president of the synod was above all other metropolitans, but was not a patriarch, and it was an autocephalous church.

Saying no such thing exists or existed is a mistake; a couple of particular orthodox churches do not have patriarchs but have two or more metropolitans…

 

[malphono]

Traditionally, and prior to the 19th C, the Ukraine was affiliated with the Patriarch of Constantinople, (aka the Ecumenical Patriarch,) and had become autonomous, and functionally autocephalous, but became part of the Russian Patriarchate, a patriarchate which self-erected from a primatial metropolitan, and then was recognized as a patriarchate by the others at a later point prior to engulfing the Ukrainian church.

I’m not an expert on this, but didn’t the shift of Ukraine from Constantinople to Moscow occur in the 17th century?

Aramis:

Russia before the declaration of the patriarchate is the perfect example of a major archbishopric: the president of the synod was above all other metropolitans, but was not a patriarch, and it was an autocephalous church.

Saying no such thing exists or existed is a mistake; a couple of particular orthodox churches do not have patriarchs but have two or more metropolitans…

Yes, and therein lies what seems to me to be the “patriarchal stew” that currently exists. Prior to Russia’s (imperial?) self-establishment as a “patriarchate,” autocephalous churches were traditionally headed by “primatial metropolitans.” If memory serves, Ephesus established Cyrpus as the first autocephalous Church, and it remains today headed by an Archbishop Primate.

OK, the title “Major Archbishop” is admittedly somewhat contrived, but it’s really the same as “Archbishop Primate” or “Primatial Metropolitan.” If one looks at it that way, the current case of the UGCC is far more “orthodox” than that of the ROC or the myriad and sundry Orthodox “national patriarchates” in Eastern Europe.

 

[malphono]

LumenGent:

The Church and history indicate there is 1 Byzantine Patriarch, and he is the head of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church.

Actually, there’s also the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch.

As well, there is the Syriac Orthodox, Syrian Catholic, and Maronite Patriarchs of Antioch.

The existence of 5 claimants of the same patriarchal see is strange, I will admit.

As far as the other 3 questions, if you will repeat them for me, I will try to answer them if I can.

Historically, there are 4 (5 if one counts Jerusalem) patriarchal sees: Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. That’s it.

Antioch was the seat of the Syriac Church, and the situation there became rather complicated after Chalcedon. Anyway, without going into a historical treatise, (for which I have neither the time, resources, or patience) the Byzantine Patriarchate of Antioch really exists because the Byzantine Empire was belatedly (after a period of what I’ll call “benign neglect”) flexing its muscles to ensure an orthodox (i.e. Chalcedonian) patriarchate. In doing so, of course it appointed a (Byzantine) Patriarch and imposed Byzantine usage.

That said, though, each of the Churches does have a valid claim to the title of Patriarch of Antioch.

 

[Aramis]

I’m not an expert on this, but didn’t the shift of Ukraine from Constantinople to Moscow occur in the 17th century?

may have; I was too lazy to look it up…

Yes, and therein lies what seems to me to be the “patriarchal stew” that currently exists. Prior to Russia’s (imperial?) self-establishment as a “patriarchate,” autocephalous churches were traditionally headed by “primatial metropolitans.” If memory serves, Ephesus established Cyrpus as the first autocephalous Church, and it remains today headed by an Archbishop Primate.

Keep in mind: Russia saw itself as the New Constantinople when Constantinople was out of contact. Also, when the Golden Horde pulled out, Russia was a Principality; they declared themselves an Empire, and adopted the Roman term Cesar (Tsar) for their emperor…

OK, the title “Major Archbishop” is admittedly somewhat contrived, but it’s really the same as “Archbishop Primate” or “Primatial Metropolitan.” If one looks at it that way, the current case of the UGCC is far more “orthodox” than that of the ROC or the myriad and sundry Orthodox “national patriarchates” in Eastern Europe.

Agreed; some orthodox churches use the term Katolikos for their primatial metropolitan, as do the Syro-Malankara for their Major Archbishop.

 

[malphono]

malphono:

Yes, and therein lies what seems to me to be the “patriarchal stew” that currently exists. Prior to Russia’s (imperial?) self-establishment as a “patriarchate,” autocephalous churches were traditionally headed by “primatial metropolitans.” If memory serves, Ephesus established Cyrpus as the first autocephalous Church, and it remains today headed by an Archbishop Primate.

Keep in mind: Russia saw itself as the New Constantinople when Constantinople was out of contact. Also, when the Golden Horde pulled out, Russia was a Principality; they declared themselves an Empire, and adopted the Roman term Cesar (Tsar) for their emperor…

Precisely so. That is exactly the “imperial mindset” that has always consumed Russia. In turn, it led to the multiplicity of “national patriarchates” in Eastern Europe. I find it interesting that even the Greek Orthodox maintain the more “orthodox” designation of Archbishop Primate.