Precedence of Patriarchs, Cardinals, and Popes

[Matthew_Holford]

It seems to me the ceremonial “order of precedence” is more academic than anything else. I say that mainly because its application is extremely limited: it certainly would apply at an Oecumenical Council, or at a papal funeral or papal enthronement, but otherwise how often does it come into play? (While they probably exist, I’ve had no luck locating an appropriate video or even a photo from any of the above events.)

Anyway, one person I can think of who might be able to provide the official details is Mgr Guido Marini.

I agree this is academic. I also believe that we’re straying off topic, but that isn’t anything new. My original post was about where Eastern Catholic Church Patriarchs rank in relation to Cardinals.

Despite us straying off topic I think its generated what I’ve found to be an interesting discussion.

It’s also highlighted a number of interesting points: There is clearly a difference between ceremonial precedence and actual jurisdiction. It’s also raised the issue that many hierarchs and people in the Eastern Catholic Churches don’t like their Patriarchs being given a red hat. I suppose they would see this as a “latinisation”.

While my original belief was that cardinals outranked Eastern Catholic Church Patriarchs I am coming around to the conclusion that I agree with most of the posts in this thread - Patriarchs outrank cardinals. After all Patriarchs are the heads of Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris; they have jurisdiction over their church; and, their immediate “boss” is the Pope. While on the other hand cardinal is just a personal honorary title and confers no jurisdiction.

I also think it wouldn’t only apply to ceremonies in the Vatican. There is some debate over who is the most “senior” archbishop here in England and Wales. We do not have a de iure primate but many consider the Archbishop of Westminster is in effect the de facto primate. I did email the secretariat of the conference of bishops to clarify this. All I can say about their response was that it was so vague I was left more confused than before.

Do you have have contact email for Mgr Guido. I think he’d be a bit too busy to deal with my request.

 

[malphono]

Only the Pope can decide who becomes a bishop. In other words only the Pope can elevate a priest to the episcopate.

Well … yes, that is “modern” discipline in the West, (“modern” here meaning since the prerogatives of the Primatial Ses were diluted and ultimately dissolved by Rome), but it’s not exactly true for the East and Orient, at least not within the Patriarchal Territories.

 

[malphono]

It’s also highlighted a number of interesting points: There is clearly a difference between ceremonial precedence and actual jurisdiction.

Indeed, but the matter of jurisdiction is really rather clear. It’s the ceremonial precedence that’s a bit of a grey area.

It’s also raised the issue that many hierarchs and people in the Eastern Catholic Churches don’t like their Patriarchs being given a red hat. I suppose they would see this as a “latinisation”.

I wouldn’t call it a “latinization” as much as I would call it subjugation.

While my original belief was that cardinals outranked Eastern Catholic Church Patriarchs I am coming around to the conclusion that I agree with most of the posts in this thread - Patriarchs outrank cardinals. After all Patriarchs are the heads of Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris; they have jurisdiction over their church; and, their immediate “boss” is the Pope. While on the other hand cardinal is just a personal honorary title and confers no jurisdiction.

There is some debate over who is the most “senior” archbishop here in England and Wales. We do not have a de iure primate but many consider the Archbishop of Westminster is in effect the de facto primate. I did email the secretariat of the conference of bishops to clarify this. All I can say about their response was that it was so vague I was left more confused than before.

England (and I’m not sure if Wales should be included here, but whatever), is an odd case since the ancient Primatial See is Canterbury. That’s probably why the response was vague. But in any case, Western Primatial Sees have de facto if not de jure long been stripped of any authority. These days even the designation “Primatial See” is nothing more than words on a page.

Do you have have contact email for Mgr Guido. I think he’d be a bit too busy to deal with my request.

I haven’t looked around in depth, but perhaps there’s an email link at vatican.va for his office?

 

[Vico]

Matthew Holford,

The CIC (1983) contains Canon 331 and the equivalent in the Eastern Code is CCEO (1990) Canon 43:

“The bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office (munus) given in special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office (munus) he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church which he can always freely exercise.”

There are actually two hierarchies of orders and jurisdiction where that of orders has precedence over that of jurisdiction:

hierarchy of orders (Bishop is highest)
hierarchyof jurisdiction (Pope is highest)

The Bishop of Rome has ministry of:

1. sanctification (as Bishop)
2. teaching (supreme pastor, as Bishop) the Universal Church
3. governing the Universal Church

And bishops have the ministry of:

1. sanctification (as Bishop)
2. teaching (as Bishop) the Church sui iuris
3. governing the Church sui iuris

The bishops power occurs through sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the Pope (Bishop of Rome), and that communion requires acceptance of the jurisdictional authority of the Pope. The rules of authority are established by the Pope.

See CIC (1983) Canon 336 and explanatory note of Lumen Gentium. Bishops are not successors of a definite apostle, but are placed on the level of apostles. (Lumen Gentium 20c.) They govern their particular churches under the authority of the Pope.

This teaching may contribute to feelings of subjugation that some faithful have.

 

[Aramis]

So does it take an Arch Bishop to consecrate a Bishop? Or can any Bishop elevate a Priest to Bishop.

It properly takes either 1 patriarch or 2 bishops, with a preference for 3 bishops. Or a mandate from a patriarch and a single bishop holding that mandate, for specific “extraordinary” circumstances… like those Ordained “in secret” by Cardinal Slippij…

So, yes, a valid ordination to the episcopacy can be done by any enthroned bishop. But licity requires more. And an Illicit bishop is functionally either a schismatic or just a priest with a crown. (There have been a few illicitly ordained bishops who were later recognized and their enthronement approved by Rome.)

 

[Hesychios]

… (There have been a few illicitly ordained bishops who were later recognized and their enthronement approved by Rome.)

Would that include Cardinal Lubomyr Husar?

Just what were the circumstances in that case?

 

[Young_Thinker]

Would that include Cardinal Lubomyr Husar?

Just what were the circumstances in that case?

Hello. I know that this discussion is rather old. However, I read that his elevation to the episcopate was entirely valid because, in Canon Law, the heads of sui iuris churches (the Ukrainian Catholics have a major archbishop) can legally ordain bishops within their respective churches without the Pope’s approval. Needless to say, though, a few feathers were still ruffled in Rome.
I also wanted to point out that if a major archbishop, unlike an Eastern patriarch, is raised to the cardinalate, he would not automatically be a Cardinal-Bishop (the only way would be if his see were elevated to a patriarchate or if he were made the cardinal bishop of a suburbicarian diocese; the latter would probably only happen if he had retired and held a position in the Roman Curia). All Cardinal Major Archbishops whom I know about (Husar, Vithayathil, etc.) were of the presbyterial order.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Ultimately, Eastern Catholic Patriarchs need not be Cardinals as the role of the Cardinalate is to elect a Pope in the first instance. And since the Pope is the head of the Particular Latin Catholic Church - what does that have to do with the EC Churches?

Why should the EC Churches have a hand in electing the head of another Particular Church? We wouldn’t want the Pope to be part of a synod to elect a new patriarch.

The EC Churches recognize the papal primacy as Particular Churches united to him and so to the Latin Church.

EC Patriarchs/Primates should always be treated as heads of Particular Churches and so they rank at the top as such. They should insist on their distinctiveness in this regard and emphasize that Cardinals are a rank within the Latin Church.

That would put an end to the Cardinal/Patriarch precedence issue. As heads of their Particular Churches, EC Patriarchs would be treated as being on a par with the head of the Latin Particular Church, even though he is “first among equals.”

Patriarch Lubomyr, upon his becoming a Cardinal, took off his Cardinal’s ring and placed it in his pocket . . .

Alex

 

[smad0142]

While it is true that Patriarchs are higher than Cardinals, I think the heads of every EC Church, or at the very least the Patriarchs, should de jure be Cardinals. The fact of the matter is that the Pope heads the Universal Church and the Latin Church. Due to the universality of his office, the EC Patriarchs need to be involved, IMHO.

 

[Vico]

Ultimately, Eastern Catholic Patriarchs need not be Cardinals as the role of the Cardinalate is to elect a Pope in the first instance. And since the Pope is the head of the Particular Latin Catholic Church - what does that have to do with the EC Churches?

Why should the EC Churches have a hand in electing the head of another Particular Church? We wouldn’t want the Pope to be part of a synod to elect a new patriarch.

The EC Churches recognize the papal primacy as Particular Churches united to him and so to the Latin Church.

EC Patriarchs/Primates should always be treated as heads of Particular Churches and so they rank at the top as such. They should insist on their distinctiveness in this regard and emphasize that Cardinals are a rank within the Latin Church.

That would put an end to the Cardinal/Patriarch precedence issue. As heads of their Particular Churches, EC Patriarchs would be treated as being on a par with the head of the Latin Particular Church, even though he is “first among equals.”

Patriarch Lubomyr, upon his becoming a Cardinal, took off his Cardinal’s ring and placed it in his pocket . . .

Alex

A diocesan bishop has one jurisdiction, is the rule. The Vicar of Christ has a universal jurisdiction. The Roman Curia is at the universal level, and includes the Congregation for the Eastern Churches.
archeparchy.ca/documents/EcclOrgChart.pdf

The Bishop of Rome has a few roles:

1. The Vicar of Christ, sucessor to Saint Peter, pastor of the Universal Church on Earth
2. Metropolitan Archbishop of the Province of Rome
3. Sovereign of the Vatican state
4. The Primate of Italy (titular)

The college of cardinals elects the Pope and since his role includes the universal, should include representation from the eastern Catholic Churches as well. The Vicar of Christ is also the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Hesychios]

The Bishop of Rome has a few roles:

1. The Vicar of Christ, sucessor to Saint Peter, pastor of the Universal Church on Earth
2. Metropolitan Archbishop of the Province of Rome
3. Sovereign of the Vatican state
4. The Primate of Italy (titular)

This is true, but it is only the bishop of Rome who can be a Pope, so the first role is Metropolitan (#2). It was this way long before there was a college of Cardinals. The local synod of Rome elected it’s own bishop, who would then claimed the prerogatives of that office.

In other words, it is upon the shoulders of the bishop of Rome that all the other titles and roles is placed. The church does not ‘elect’ a Pope and install him in Rome. The church elects a bishop of Rome.

Even when in Avignon, they were the Metropolitans of Rome before all else, it was because of this that they could claim to be Popes.

… The Vicar of Christ is also the Bishop of Rome.

Actually, the bishop of Rome is also the vicar of Christ.

 

[Vico]

This is true, but it is only the bishop of Rome who can be a Pope, so the first role is Metropolitan (#2). It was this way long before there was a college of Cardinals. The local synod of Rome elected it’s own bishop, who would then claimed the prerogatives of that office.

In other words, it is upon the shoulders of the bishop of Rome that all the other titles and roles is placed. The church does not ‘elect’ a Pope and install him in Rome. The church elects a bishop of Rome.

Even when in Avignon, they were the Metropolitans of Rome before all else, it was because of this that they could claim to be Popes.
Actually, the bishop of Rome is also the vicar of Christ.

Since ancient times Rome favors the idea of the three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Also Avignon was a Papal State so it makes sense.

Yes, Bishop of Rome as Vicar of Christ.

CIC Can. 331
The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome. He is the head of the College of Bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the Pastor of the universal Church here on earth. Consequently, by virtue of his office, he has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The Orthodox dispute the title “Vicar of Christ” on the basis that Christ has not left His Church. If it can be shown that He has left it alone, then perhaps the title would have some merit.

When Bl Pope John XXIII met the Mother Superior of the Order of the Holy Spirit, she introduced herself simply as “the Superior of the Holy Spirit.”

The Pope replied, “Well, you are lucky indeed - I’m only the Vicar of Christ!”

Alex

 

[malphono]

When Bl Pope John XXIII met the Mother Superior of the Order of the Holy Spirit, she introduced herself simply as “the Superior of the Holy Spirit.”

The Pope replied, “Well, you are lucky indeed - I’m only the Vicar of Christ!”

I hadn’t heard that one before. Love it! No doubt it’s true: it fits right in with his reputed personality. And I can just imagine how mortified that woman must have been.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I hadn’t heard that one before. Love it! No doubt it’s true: it fits right in with his reputed personality. And I can just imagine how mortified that woman must have been.

On another occasion, when Bl. John XXIII was a Cardinal, he sat next to a woman with a plunging neckline at a banquet.

Cardinal Roncalli offered the woman an apple . . . she smiled, but said she didn’t know what this was all about.

“Oh, take it, ma’am, for it was only after Eve had bitten into the apple that she realized how little she had on . . .”

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

While it is true that Patriarchs are higher than Cardinals, I think the heads of every EC Church, or at the very least the Patriarchs, should de jure be Cardinals. The fact of the matter is that the Pope heads the Universal Church and the Latin Church. Due to the universality of his office, the EC Patriarchs need to be involved, IMHO.

I’m not saying you are wrong, sir, nor am I disputing. What you say makes a great deal of sense.

I’m only presenting another possibility that has yet to be completely fleshed out . . .

Cheers!

Alex

 

[malphono]

Ultimately, Eastern Catholic Patriarchs need not be Cardinals as the role of the Cardinalate is to elect a Pope in the first instance. And since the Pope is the head of the Particular Latin Catholic Church - what does that have to do with the EC Churches?

Why should the EC Churches have a hand in electing the head of another Particular Church? We wouldn’t want the Pope to be part of a synod to elect a new patriarch.

The EC Churches recognize the papal primacy as Particular Churches united to him and so to the Latin Church.

EC Patriarchs/Primates should always be treated as heads of Particular Churches and so they rank at the top as such. They should insist on their distinctiveness in this regard and emphasize that Cardinals are a rank within the Latin Church.

That would put an end to the Cardinal/Patriarch precedence issue. As heads of their Particular Churches, EC Patriarchs would be treated as being on a par with the head of the Latin Particular Church, even though he is “first among equals.”

I don’t disagree in principle. That was pretty much the reality of the 1st millennium (when the “High Petrine view” was also reality). And, FWLIW, (and this is not a secret in this forum) I am 100% opposed to Patriarchs, etc, being given a “red hat” for any reason whatsoever. I find the practice at best unnecessary and at worst insulting.

But since the 1st millennium, of course, Rome has migrated away from (toward the “Absolute Petrine view” with, e.g. its emphasis on "immediate, universal jurisdiction, etc), which greatly changes the situation in practice. Given the reality on the ground, however, it seems to me that Patriarchs, Catholicoi, and Major Archbishops deserve at least an ex-officio vote in Conclave. They are, after all, heads of Churches, and as such hold dignities which are, by their nature, superior to that of any Cardinal.

I recall mentioning in another thread some time back that such a proposal was on the table in the mid-1970s (IMO one of the few positive moves in the reign of Paul VI) but was, apparently, ultimately scrapped by his (2nd) successor, when the practice of granting “red hats” to Patriarchs, etc, was resumed. And unfortunately the practice seems not to be going away any time soon.

 

[twf]

The Orthodox dispute the title “Vicar of Christ” on the basis that Christ has not left His Church. If it can be shown that He has left it alone, then perhaps the title would have some merit.

When Bl Pope John XXIII met the Mother Superior of the Order of the Holy Spirit, she introduced herself simply as “the Superior of the Holy Spirit.”

The Pope replied, “Well, you are lucky indeed - I’m only the Vicar of Christ!”

Alex

Alexander,
You are aware that the Catholic Church teaches that all bishops are vicars of Christ? This does not in any sense suggest that Christ has “left us alone”, but simply, in the words of Christ: “He who receives you receives me…” (Mat. 10:40). The successors of the apostles represent Christ and act in his name as earthly heads of His mystical body. While the theology may be expressed differently, I really don’t think “Vicar of Christ” and “Icon of Christ” (a phrase I’ve seen the East use for bishops/priests) are vastly different in principle. The Pope is given the title “vicar of Christ” in a special sense as the chief pastor of the Church Universal, but no one has ever said that it doesn’t also apply to other bishops:

Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them… (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium, 27)

As St. Ignatius said:
"…your bishop presides in the place of God ( "The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (2, 6:1). To my mind, that is another way of saying “your bishop is a vicar of God”…

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Alexander,
You are aware that the Catholic Church teaches that all bishops are vicars of Christ? This does not in any sense suggest that Christ has “left us alone”, but simply, in the words of Christ: “He who receives you receives me…” (Mat. 10:40). The successors of the apostles represent Christ and act in his name as earthly heads of His mystical body. While the theology may be expressed differently, I really don’t think “Vicar of Christ” and “Icon of Christ” (a phrase I’ve seen the East use for bishops/priests) are vastly different in principle. The Pope is given the title “vicar of Christ” in a special sense as the chief pastor of the Church Universal, but no one has ever said that it doesn’t also apply to other bishops:

As St. Ignatius said:
"…your bishop presides in the place of God ( "The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians (2, 6:1). To my mind, that is another way of saying “your bishop is a vicar of God”…

Dear Friend,

I was only relating my own understanding of the Orthodox Church’s objection to that title - not affirming that I myself accept it.

My bishop would have no problem, fyi, accepting that same title for himself either . . .

Alex

 

[Vico]

The Orthodox dispute the title “Vicar of Christ” on the basis that Christ has not left His Church. If it can be shown that He has left it alone, then perhaps the title would have some merit.

When Bl Pope John XXIII met the Mother Superior of the Order of the Holy Spirit, she introduced herself simply as “the Superior of the Holy Spirit.”

The Pope replied, “Well, you are lucky indeed - I’m only the Vicar of Christ!”

Alex

One could drop that name, but the powers that are part and parcel of the office is also controversial with the Orthodox Church: “The office uniquely committed by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, abides in the Bishop of the Church of Rome.”

CIC Can. 375 §1 By divine institution, Bishops succeed the Apostles through the Holy Spirit who is given to them. They are constituted Pastors in the Church, to be the teachers of doctrine, the priests of sacred worship and the ministers of governance.
§2 By their episcopal consecration, Bishops receive, together with the office of sanctifying, the offices also of teaching and of ruling, which however, by their nature, can be exercised only in hierarchical communion with the head of the College and its members.