Patriarchs and Major Archbishops

[JJRfan]

I believe that major archbishops of major archiepiscopal Eastern Catholic Churches are patriarchs in all but name. In other words, even though he is called major archbishop rather than patriarch, he has, over his major archiepiscopal church, exactly the same authority* that a patriarch has over a patriarchal church.

Is this, in fact, true?

Do major archbishops have exactly the same authority* as a patriarch? Are there, actually, any differences in their authority*.

*I hope authority is the correct term or is it power or, even more precisely, power of governance?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I believe that major archbishops of major archiepiscopal Eastern Catholic Churches are patriarchs in all but name.

That certainly seems to be the case. A Major Archbishop is even styled equivalently as “His Beatitude”.

The Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church provides a good example of a Major Archiepiscopal Church (as defined in the CCEO).

 

[CDB1718]

The title was created in the 1960s to give the Ukrainians a patriarch in all but name. The only difference I recall is the need for Rome to approve the synod’s decision on who will lead the church. In patriarchal churches, Rome is notified of the decision but does not approve it.

Canon 152

What is stated in common law concerning patriarchal Churches or patriarchs is understood to be applicable to major archiepiscopal Churches or major archbishops, unless the common law expressly provides otherwise or it is evident from the nature of the matter.

 

[JJRfan]

The title was created in the 1960s to give the Ukrainians a patriarch in all but name.

I think it’s sad that Rome won’t allow the Ukrainians to have a patriarch. It seems likely this is because Rome doesn’t want to upset Russia. I think Russia throws her weight around too much, especially where the Ukraine is concerned. The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them. I recommend prayers for the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

 

[mardukm]

The Catholic Church works under the principle of the ancient Pentarchy and IMO is generally resistant to recognize territorial Patriarchal Churches other than the ones established by the united Church in the first Millenium. I am all for that. On the other hand, there does not seem to be any canonical impediment for the bishop of Rome to personally grant patriarchal status to major archepiscopal Churches. There is record of the Patriarch of Alexandria, St. Cyril, appealing to the bishop of Rome to curtail the patriarchal pretensions of the Church of Jerusalem, indicating that it was recognized that the bishop of Rome had the competence to judge on the matter of patriarchal status in the early Church. Why not today?

The Oriental Orthodox for the most part work under the same principle. For example, when the Malankara Orthodox Church sought independence from the Syriac Orthodox Church, there was initially heated debate and accusations of the heresy of phyletism were being thrown around. The Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Churches are Patriarchal Churches but they still very much look to the Coptic Orthodox Church as the “Mother Church” in the same way local Latin patriarchal entities in the Middle Ages looked to the Church of Rome as the “Mother Church.” Except for the Malankara Orthodox Church, Patriarchal “independence” in the OOC is not really independence as the Eastern Orthodox may define independence.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[John_of_Patmos]

I think it’s sad that Rome won’t allow the Ukrainians to have a patriarch. It seems likely this is because Rome doesn’t want to upset Russia. I think Russia throws her weight around too much, especially where the Ukraine is concerned. The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them. I recommend prayers for the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

I really think that a patriarchate would be good. The eastern Catholic Churches are meant to be a catholic mirror of the orthodox, no?

 

[mardukm]

I think it’s sad that Rome won’t allow the Ukrainians to have a patriarch. It seems likely this is because Rome doesn’t want to upset Russia. I think Russia throws her weight around too much, especially where the Ukraine is concerned. The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them. I recommend prayers for the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

I think it goes beyond Russia. I think it has ramifications for Orthodox-Catholic relations as a whole. Though the early Church apparently recognized that the bishop of Rome had the personal prerogative to judge on the issue of patriarchal status (as reflected by the letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria, implied by the Canons of Sardica, as well as the writings of later Saints such as St. Theodore the Studite and St. Maximos the Confessor), and we as Catholics believe this, how would it look to Orthodox not in communion with Rome?

Though I do believe the bishop of Rome has the personal prerogative to judge on the issue of patriarchal status, it is best for him to do it in Synodal/collegial fashion to ensure that the bugbear of absolutism has no chance to arise. I’ve suggested in past threads that Ukranian Catholics should start a grassroots movement to gain support from other Catholic Patriarchates, and then approach the Pope on the matter. Then he can convene a special Synod to handle the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

I really think that a patriarchate would be good. The eastern Catholic Churches are meant to be a catholic mirror of the orthodox, no?

I personally have problems with some elements of modern EO ecclesiology (or at least some factions that promote those elements), so I hope not, in this regard. Let’s face it, the multiplication of patriarchates is a novelty with respect to the ancient Tradition of the Church. Not all novelty is bad, but it is a novelty nonetheless.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Formosus]

It already has gone through a synodal process. VII called on the Church to create new patriarchates.

1. Seeing that the patriarchal office in the Eastern Church is a traditional form of government, the Sacred Ecumenical Council ardently desires that new patriarchates should be erected where there is need, to be established either by an ecumenical council or by the Roman Pontiff.(13)

Rome would be completely in the right, as per the mandate of the Council, to recognize the UGCC’s primate as a Patriarch. We are the largest Eastern Catholic Church with some 6 to 8 million faithful, we have eparchies all over the world, our faithful watered the Church with the blood of our martyrs, and were the first Orthodox to return to communion with Rome. I think if there was any Sui Iuris Church that fit the bill for this decree, then it is the UGCC.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

I personally have problems with some elements of modern EO ecclesiology (or at least some factions that promote those elements), so I hope not, in this regard. Let’s face it, the multiplication of patriarchates is a novelty with respect to the ancient Tradition of the Church. Not all novelty is bad, but it is a novelty nonetheless.

Blessings,
Marduk

I sorta like lots of patriarchs. As long as they don’t fight. Thats were the Pope comes in. However, we should NOT make patriarchates just for fun. In regards to hurting Catholic Orthodox relations, I can see that making the major archbishop a patriarch would upset the ROC. My question is why does the ROC get so upset about the EC Churches? Don’t get me wrong, I love the ROC…they just act like control freaks.

 

[John_of_Patmos]

It already has gone through a synodal process. VII called on the Church to create new patriarchates.

Rome would be completely in the right, as per the mandate of the Council, to recognize the UGCC’s primate as a Patriarch. We are the largest Eastern Catholic Church with some 6 to 8 million faithful, we have eparchies all over the world, our faithful watered the Church with the blood of our martyrs, and were the first Orthodox to return to communion with Rome. I think if there was any Sui Iuris Church that fit the bill for this decree, then it is the UGCC.

I second that.

 

[Nine_Two]

I personally have problems with some elements of modern EO ecclesiology (or at least some factions that promote those elements), so I hope not, in this regard. Let’s face it, the multiplication of patriarchates is a novelty with respect to the ancient Tradition of the Church. Not all novelty is bad, but it is a novelty nonetheless.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t really have a dog in this fight, so I’m staying out of it, but I will point out that the general historic trend has been for the multiplication of patriarchies.
At the earliest point we can establish that there were three. By Chalcedon, there were at least six. By the end of the millenium, seven. One thousand years later we have ten.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I think it’s sad that Rome won’t allow the Ukrainians to have a patriarch. It seems likely this is because Rome doesn’t want to upset Russia. I think Russia throws her weight around too much, especially where the Ukraine is concerned. The only way to deal with bullies is to stand up to them. I recommend prayers for the Ukrainian Catholic Church.

I love you man.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I really think that a patriarchate would be good. The eastern Catholic Churches are meant to be a catholic mirror of the orthodox, no?

The big issue here really is where is the Slavic Church that was founded in Kyiv 1000 years ago? The story diverges where Russia claims that the royal family moved to Moscow after Kyiv was taken over by barbarians. The Ukrainians say that the rightful heir was at Galicia where it is the current stronghold of the Ukrainian Catholic Church (where most of its members are). A secondary issue here is of course the USSR takeover of Ukraine. Most of who want an independent Ukraine are the Ukrainian Catholics while those who are Orthodox have many Russian sympathizers who want political reunion with Russia. Russia, believing her version of the story to be true sees Ukraine as part of her territory both politically and ecclesiastically.

 

[JJRfan]

The Catholic Church works under the principle of the ancient Pentarchy and IMO is generally resistant to recognize territorial Patriarchal Churches other than the ones established by the united Church in the first Millenium. I am all for that. On the other hand, there does not seem to be any canonical impediment for the bishop of Rome to personally grant patriarchal status to major archepiscopal Churches. There is record of the Patriarch of Alexandria, St. Cyril, appealing to the bishop of Rome to curtail the patriarchal pretensions of the Church of Jerusalem, indicating that it was recognized that the bishop of Rome had the competence to judge on the matter of patriarchal status in the early Church. Why not today?

The Oriental Orthodox for the most part work under the same principle. For example, when the Malankara Orthodox Church sought independence from the Syriac Orthodox Church, there was initially heated debate and accusations of the heresy of phyletism were being thrown around. The Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox Churches are Patriarchal Churches but they still very much look to the Coptic Orthodox Church as the “Mother Church” in the same way local Latin patriarchal entities in the Middle Ages looked to the Church of Rome as the “Mother Church.” Except for the Malankara Orthodox Church, Patriarchal “independence” in the OOC is not really independence as the Eastern Orthodox may define independence.

Blessings,
Marduk

I think it goes beyond Russia. I think it has ramifications for Orthodox-Catholic relations as a whole. Though the early Church apparently recognized that the bishop of Rome had the personal prerogative to judge on the issue of patriarchal status (as reflected by the letters of St. Cyril of Alexandria, implied by the Canons of Sardica, as well as the writings of later Saints such as St. Theodore the Studite and St. Maximos the Confessor), and we as Catholics believe this, how would it look to Orthodox not in communion with Rome?

Though I do believe the bishop of Rome has the personal prerogative to judge on the issue of patriarchal status, it is best for him to do it in Synodal/collegial fashion to ensure that the bugbear of absolutism has no chance to arise. I’ve suggested in past threads that Ukranian Catholics should start a grassroots movement to gain support from other Catholic Patriarchates, and then approach the Pope on the matter. Then he can convene a special Synod to handle the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk

I do not suggest, God forbid, that Rome should pick fights with Holy Orthodoxy. However, it still appears to me that Rome shows undue deference to Moscow. It is more political than ecclesial.

If the original Pentarchy were maintained then Moscow wouldn’t have a patriarchate. Other patriarchates in Holy Orthodoxy wouldn’t exist. As I understand it Moscow sees itself at least next after Constantinople even though not one of the original five. Sometimes I believe Moscow sees herself as the leader of the Orthodox due to her sheer size.

Russia clearly sees the Ukraine as its own. I don’t how long Russia will tolerate the Ukraine’s independence. This applies whether the Russian government see the Ukraine as part of Russia or the Patriarch of Moscow believing the Ukraine is in his patriarchate.

Russia needs to be stood up to. It needs to be made clear that her bullying of the Ukraine and the rest of Europe needs to stop.

It is not my proposal to set up numerous patriarchates. Nevertheless, as the largest Eastern Catholic Church it seems appropriate for her to have one. It would, too, be a reward for her faithfulness.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The Catholic Church works under the principle of the ancient Pentarchy and IMO is generally resistant to recognize territorial Patriarchal Churches other than the ones established by the united Church in the first Millenium.

Yes, and the key word seems to be “territorial”.

And, while I am a strong admirer and supporter of our Ukrainian cousins, the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church is unique in that it encompasses the entire global community of its faithful. It does not fit the territorial model of a Patriarchate as existed in the first millenium.

The ancient Church did not have to consider the impact of geographic dispersion of its faithful, specifically within the context of a ritual church. In the case of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, it is multi-continental in scope.

I am very happy the Ukrainian Greek Catholics enjoy the structure and recognition they have as a community of faithful. I also admire their young, relatively new Major Archbishop (Patriarch). Their faith as a people and their leadership will help them both preserve and further develop a thriving community of faithful. Their leader is recognized and often referred to as Patriarch, and it seems (as supported in posts herein) that the equivalency of a Patriarchate and Major Archiepiscopal Church are well recognized within the Catholic Church.

I hope some day the Ruthenians might enjoy a similar structure. But considering that the Ruthenian Church in Eastern Europe is still recovering from wounds of relatively recent past, we can perhaps be patient yet remain hopeful!