Questions relating to the Organizations of the Eastern Churches

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Eastern Catholicism Forums,

Again I thank you so much for your patience.

The questions have to do with this chart that I was provided for by another member, who made my life so much easier

stsophiaukrainian.cc/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/TheCatholicCommunionofChurchesChart.png

OKay I notice that the patriarch and the Major Archeparch are on the same level with the Pontiff? Are they equal to the Pope, or do the submit to him in obedience?

Why are Synods doubled in the last two categories of the chart? What are synods, are they like the Latin Rite’s Conference of Bishops?

Are Metropolitans like Archbishops?

Thank you so much.

God Bless,
Anathama Sit

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings Eastern Catholicism Forum,

Oh one more thing.

When Hierarchs are made, does the Holy Father have to approve of them as he does for the Bishops in the Latin Rite? If not, who does?

Is there something akin to Cardinals in the Eastern Chuch? Is it possible that a Eastern Church “Cardinal” could become Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church?

Again thanks,
God Bless,
Anathama Sit

 

[ConstantineTG]

Okay I notice that the patriarch and the Major Archeparch are on the same level with the Pontiff?

Well, they are all Bishops. The same way that Peter was an Apostle as much as the other 11.

Are they equal to the Pope, or do the submit to him in obedience?

The Pope has primacy. They don’t “submit” in a way that as if the Pope is their boss.

Why are Synods doubled in the last two categories of the chart? What are synods, are they like the Latin Rite’s Conference of Bishops?

No. An Episcopal Conference is a gathering of Catholic Bishops in a territory regardless of Rite and sui juris. So the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops for example would have in their roster the Ukrainian Catholic bishops of Canada as well as other Eastern Catholic bishops. Same with the USCCB.

A synod is the gathering of the bishops of a particular sui juris. So there are no RC bishops in a Ukrainian or Melkite synod.

Also a synod will be more binding to a sui juris Church than an Episcopal Conference would. For example with the issue on Communion in the Hand, the Vatican said the Episcopal Conference of a country can ask for CITH for the Latin Rite in that country. Even if the Episcopal Conference would agree to ask for the indult, each individual bishop can still opt out of it and not implement CITH in his diocese. Whereas in a synod, once a decision has been come up, its binding to all bishops in that synod.

Are Metropolitans like Archbishops?.quote]

They are the same thing.
Anathama Sit;8949184:

When Hierarchs are made, does the Holy Father have to approve of them as he does for the Bishops in the Latin Rite? If not, who does?

Well, they’re not made, they are elected. For Patriarchs the Church just informs the Pope who is elected, and then both sides affirm communion of their Churches.

For Major Archbishops, the Pope has to confirm the election. This means the Pope theoretically has veto power on the Major Archbishop-designate and can refuse the election. Which means the synod has to elect a new one that may be acceptable to the Pope (he will have to confirm again), or keep the one they elected and break communion.

Is there something akin to Cardinals in the Eastern Chuch?

Cardinals are electors of the Pope. In the Eastern Churches, election of the Patriarch is done by synod. In the case of the UGCC just exactly one year ago, all the bishops from all around the world (of the UGCC) went to Ukraine because Patriarch Lubomyr has resigned and so a new Patriarch needs to be elected.

In the case of the Pope, its only those who are designated as Cardinals would go to Rome for the election.

Is it possible that a Eastern Church “Cardinal” could become Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church?

Yes. I think the current rules of election limit the “Popeables” to the Cardinals. Since there are Eastern Cardinals, they are very much eligible to be elected. It is very unlikely, however. Remember that the Pope is also Patriarch (in function even though he dropped the title) of the Roman Catholic Church. So the Latin Church should be led by someone who is a Latin Rite bishop, one who knows intimately the ways of the Church and its traditions. I mean, even though most of the functions of a Patriarch would have been taken by the Roman Curia, who will the Eastern Pope appoint into the curia? Most bishops he knows very well are Eastern Bishops. You don’t want an Eastern Bishop to head, say, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments because that office deals in matters of the Latin Rite Liturgy for the obvious reason.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings ConstantineTG,

Thank you so much for taking time out to answer those questions. I am having to draw charts with arrows to keep all of this straight.

A couple of questions:

1. You said the Pope has primacy, is this the same thing as supremacy?
2. Do the Patriarchs and Major Archeparch obey the Pope as their superior? What I am trying to say is this, Roman Catholics highest superior is the Holy Father and are expected to be obedient to him. Does this carry over in the Eastern Church? I hope I am making sense here.
3. The Holy Father can at any time change canon law or something of that nature, does he have those rights as well in the Eastern Churches?
4. Can the Patriarch ever be named Cardinal as well?

Thank you so much,
God Bless,
Anathama Sit

 

[twf]

=ConstantineTG;8949234…
No. An Episcopal Conference is a gathering of Catholic Bishops in a territory regardless of Rite and sui juris. So the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops for example would have in their roster the Ukrainian Catholic bishops of Canada as well as other Eastern Catholic bishops. Same with the USCCB.

A synod is the gathering of the bishops of a particular sui juris. So there are no RC bishops in a Ukrainian or Melkite synod.

Also a synod will be more binding to a sui juris Church than an Episcopal Conference would. For example with the issue on Communion in the Hand, the Vatican said the Episcopal Conference of a country can ask for CITH for the Latin Rite in that country. Even if the Episcopal Conference would agree to ask for the indult, each individual bishop can still opt out of it and not implement CITH in his diocese. Whereas in a synod, once a decision has been come up, its binding to all bishops in that synod…

While I agree with this in principle, I would like to make a couple observations:

Episcopal conferences do include Eastern/Oriental bishops, if any are residence in the particular country, but they can act as national synods of a sort for the national Latin Church as some of their decisions, with ratification from Rome, are binding on all Latin bishops of the country, but not Eastern bishops - for example, the translation of the mass used in that particular country, or the proper posture of prayer during different parts of the mass, the holy days of obligation to be observed, or which local devotions/saints will be commemorated as local national feasts, the days of fasting/penance to be observed, etc

There is also a universal Synod of the Catholic Church which was established (some would say, reinstituted) by Vatican II, and whose membership is drawn from all Churches sui iuris - a recent session of the Synod of the Catholic Church was convened to discuss the Eastern Churches in the Middle East - so it is not correct to say that a synod, by definition, is limited to a particular Church sui iuris

 

[ConstantineTG]

1. You said the Pope has primacy, is this the same thing as supremacy?

No. Someone who has supremacy has primacy, but one who has primacy does not always have supremacy.

1. Do the Patriarchs and Major Archeparch obey the Pope as their superior? What I am trying to say is this, Roman Catholics highest superior is the Holy Father and are expected to be obedient to him. Does this carry over in the Eastern Church? I hope I am making sense here.

The Pope is not their superior. I think the difficulty here is we can only compare them to secular organizations where a boss is a boss. It doesn’t work that way with bishops. The Pope is not a boss in a way that he tells other bishops what to do. They go to him for guidance and direction if they need it. The Pope should also offer correction if its warranted, but not get his nose into another bishop’s business just because he feels like it.

1. The Holy Father can at any time change canon law or something of that nature, does he have those rights as well in the Eastern Churches?

There is the CCEO which is written by the Vatican for the Eastern Churches. The Pope can make changes there. But if you go through it you will find that there are many provisions where specifics are left to each synod of each sui juris to decide what to do.

1. Can the Patriarch ever be named Cardinal as well?

By recent custom, Patriarchs are customarily made Cardinals. The Patriarch-emeritus of the UGCC, His Beatitude Lubomyr, is a Cardinal. So is the Patriarch of the Melkites (forgot his name, sorry) as well as the Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabars. There are a few more I think.

 

[malphono]

There is also a universal Synod of the Catholic Church which was established (some would say, reinstituted) by Vatican II, and whose membership is drawn from all Churches sui iuris - a recent session of the Synod of the Catholic Church was convened to discuss the Eastern Churches in the Middle East - so it is not correct to say that a synod, by definition, is limited to a particular Church sui iuris

That is merely a consultative body, and has no authority of itself. It is far different from a true Synod, which is legislative by nature. The Synods of the various Oriental and Eastern Patriarchal Churches, at least, are true Synods.

 

[malphono]

By recent custom, Patriarchs are customarily made Cardinals. The Patriarch-emeritus of the UGCC, His Beatitude Lubomyr, is a Cardinal. So is the Patriarch of the Melkites (forgot his name, sorry) as well as the Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabars. There are a few more I think.

The Melkite Patriarch, HB Gregorious III, is not a Cardinal, nor was his predecessor. OTOH, while the current Maronite Patriarch is not (yet) a Cardinal, the Patriarch-emeritus is. So, too, is the Chaldean Catholicos-Patriarch. The Coptic Patriarch was recently named a Cardinal as well.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The Melkite Patriarch, HB Gregorious III, is not a Cardinal, nor was his predecessor. OTOH, while the current Maronite Patriarch is not (yet) a Cardinal, the Patriarch-emeritus is. So, too, is the Chaldean Catholicos-Patriarch. The Coptic Patriarch was recently named a Cardinal as well.

Really? I recalled he was. I’m too young to have my memory fail me

 

[malphono]

Really? I recalled he was. I’m too young to have my memory fail me

Really. The only Melkite Patriarch who accepted the “red hat” was Maximos IV (Sayegh). Neither Maximos V (Hakim) nor Gregory III (Laham) has done so.

 

[Anathama_Sit]

Greetings ConstantineTG,

Thank you for all of the answers.

Now the next question I am asking out of sincerity.

I was taught that the Pope had supremacy and primacy, the Orthodox [Not Eastern CHurches] think otherwise, why is this? Please help me understand where they are coming from.

NOTE: To those reading this question, this is not inteded for debating purposes, I am trying to understand the thinking behind the Orthodox Church.

Thank you.
God Bless,
Anathama Sit

 

[ConstantineTG]

Greetings ConstantineTG,

Thank you for all of the answers.

Now the next question I am asking out of sincerity.

I was taught that the Pope had supremacy and primacy, the Orthodox [Not Eastern CHurches] think otherwise, why is this? Please help me understand where they are coming from.

NOTE: To those reading this question, this is not inteded for debating purposes, I am trying to understand the thinking behind the Orthodox Church.

Thank you.
God Bless,
Anathama Sit

The Orthodox say the Pope never had that authority over them in the First Millennium

 

[Anathama_Sit]

The Orthodox say the Pope never had that authority over them in the First Millennium

Greetings ConstantineTG,

CAn you explain a bit more why the Orthodox say that? Did they acknowledge Peter as the first pope? Help me understand why they believe this.

Thanks.

God Bless,
Anathama Sit

[Again to the lurkers - no debating here please.]

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

Really? I recalled he was. I’m too young to have my memory fail me

Malphono is correct. The last two Melkite Patriarchs, including the current Patriarch Gregorios III (Laham), have rejected the red hat. Why? Because in reality it is a degradation not an elevation for a Patriarch to be made a Cardinal, as Kyr Elias Zoghby pointed out. A problem emerges, however. It has been recognized that in order to accomplish anything in Rome one must be a Cardinal. Two responses have developed to this problem:

1. The response on the part of the Ukrainian Patriarchs to accept the red hat for the practical purpose of actually getting something done in Rome.
2. The response of the Melkite Patriarchs to reject the red hat and just behave as a Patriarchal Church ought to behave (at least in the “traditional” jurisdictional territories). As I’ve heard it said, it’s easier to apologize than to ask permission.

Both responses are actually less than ideal, when you think about it. The first makes a concession to a current abuse of power, if only for the sake of survival. The second risks causing friction within the Catholic Communion. Hence the Melkites are so often referred to as “dissidents” or “problematic” or “borderline schismatic” or even “heretical.” In both responses, however, we see how the Eastern Catholics are really that itch that just won’t go away until the problem of the East-West Schism is resolved.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

That is merely a consultative body, and has no authority of itself. It is far different from a true Synod, which is legislative by nature. The Synods of the various Oriental and Eastern Patriarchal Churches, at least, are true Synods.

Actually, the universal Synod is intended to have some legislative role in the Church, not merely consultative.

Here are some statements from that period:
“In clear terms the Council proclaims that the government of the universal Church is by right exercised by the college of bishops with the Pope as its head. From here it follows that, in one sense, the care of the universal Church is the responsibility of every bishop taking singularly, and also, in another sense, that all bishops participate in the governing of the Church world-wide. This can be done not only in calling an ecumenical council, but also in the creation of new institutions. Perhaps some permanent council of specialised bishops, chosen from the Church, could be given the charge of a legislative function in union with the Supreme Pontiff and the Cardinals of the Roman Curia. The Roman Congregations would then maintain only a consultative and executive power.”
22 December 1959, His Eminence, Cardinal Alfrink, Archbishop of Utrecht

“[An] ongoing collaboration of the episcopate that is not yet in effect, which would remain personal and unitive, but given the responsibility of governing the whole Church.”
Pope Paul VI when still Archbishop of Milan.

“The advanced information that We Ourselves are happy to share with you is that We intend to give you some institution, called for by this Council, a “Synod of Bishops”, which will be made up of bishops nominated for the most part by the episcopal conferences with Our approval and called by the Pope according to the needs of the Church, for his consultation and collaboration, when for the well-being of the Church it might seem to him opportune. It goes without saying that this collaboration of the episcopate ought to bring the greatest joy to the Holy See and to the whole Church…to which We owe so much recognition for its most valuable help, and for which, as bishops in their diocese, We also have permanent need in Our apostolic concerns.”
14 September 1965, Pope Paul VI

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[ConstantineTG]

Dear brother Malphono,

Actually, the universal Synod is intended to have some legislative role in the Church, not merely consultative.

I think he was referring to the Episcopal Conferences of today as being “consultative” only. And I agree with him.

 

[malphono]

Actually, the universal Synod is intended to have some legislative role in the Church, not merely consultative.

Well, in practical terms, it has about as much authority as does the “presbyteral council” of a diocese. Or the Kuwaiti parliament. It can deliberate and recommend, but it cannot enforce, nor can it override a veto.

If it had real authority, it would be an Ecumenical (or even a Local) Council, which it obviously is not.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Malphono is correct. The last two Melkite Patriarchs, including the current Patriarch Gregorios III (Laham), have rejected the red hat. Why? Because in reality it is a degradation not an elevation for a Patriarch to be made a Cardinal, as Kyr Elias Zoghby pointed out. A problem emerges, however. It has been recognized that in order to accomplish anything in Rome one must be a Cardinal. Two responses have developed to this problem:

1. The response on the part of the Ukrainian Patriarchs to accept the red hat for the practical purpose of actually getting something done in Rome.
2. The response of the Melkite Patriarchs to reject the red hat and just behave as a Patriarchal Church ought to behave (at least in the “traditional” jurisdictional territories). As I’ve heard it said, it’s easier to apologize than to ask permission.

Both responses are actually less than ideal, when you think about it. The first makes a concession to a current abuse of power, if only for the sake of survival. The second risks causing friction within the Catholic Communion. Hence the Melkites are so often referred to as “dissidents” or “problematic” or “borderline schismatic” or even “heretical.” In both responses, however, we see how the Eastern Catholics are really that itch that just won’t go away until the problem of the East-West Schism is resolved.

There is merit to both approaches IMO at this time, yet the problem is not that various EC Churches in communion with Rome have taken different approaches to their relationship with Rome. Rather, is that any of the EC Churches feel the need to take an approach at all.

In reality, the Catholic Church is still wrestling with the concept of a communion of broader traditions and disciplines, whereas it has a decidedly centralized model of governance. For a long time, the unfortunate trend was to “Latinize” the EC Churches. Now Rome has actually gone to the opposite extreme, sometimes castigating some of the EC Churches for not restoring traditions quickly enough. Yet, traditions are one thing, and discipline and governance are others. When it came time for the Ruthenians to promulgate revised norms for their sui juris church, for example, the right to ordain married clergy was reasserted in the submitted draft. Yet, a compromise position was forced in the end, requiring approval of Rome (although it was more or less that such approval would be granted). The result - the hierarchs of the Ruthenian Church in the U.S. are extremely reluctant to support candidates in the U.S. who wish to marry. So, have the traditions been restored? Is this truly a sui juris Church?

This has clear implications for restoration of unity with the Orthodox Churches and will have to be resolved.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

ByzCathCantor,

Unfortunately you are so very correct. After centuries of schism and separation from the East, Rome is still struggling to deal with the relatively recent reality of Easterners now in her midst. Apart from the Maronites there was no Eastern presence in the Catholic Communion until the Union of Brest, as I’m sure you well know. During the time of estrangement many things went on within the Western Patriarchate to which the Pope had to respond. Being cut off from our Eastern brethren, I believe the response was obviously one-sided and unbalance. Rome is still struggling to correct the resultant disciplinary errors that led to an over-centralized Western Church. But historically, given the circumstances, I can understand why Rome responded the way it did. It must’ve been hard to deal with the fall of the Roman Empire, the rise of ceasero-papism, lay investiture, the Great Western Schism, the Protestant Reformation, etc. alone. Without the (name removed by moderator)ut of the East I can certainly understand why Rome responded to those situations the way it did.

Happily we now live in a century where not only has communication be restored, but communion has been partly re-established through the various “unia” (no negativity intended by the use of that word). Given the new situation, Rome has started to reform. But a 2000 year old bride changes only very slowly.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Rome is still struggling to correct the resultant disciplinary errors that led to an over-centralized Western Church. But historically, given the circumstances, I can understand why Rome responded the way it did.

Thanks as always Phillip for your additional comments. And yes, one could argue the other way as well. When one considers the geographic reach of the Roman Church and the political turmoil it has survived in various areas throughout the world, one could argue that its reach and centrality in several aspects helped the Church survive and thrive even when parts of the Church faced the darkest of times. We can look to our own Eastern Catholic cousins in Eastern Europe as a perfect example. Despite suppression and martyrdom of many in defense of their Church under communist regimes, their faith in God and the knowledge that their Church would stand irrespective had to be a source of comfort and strength throughout those difficult times.

In addition, considering the broad and global scope of the Roman Church, one could also argue that this centrality ensured a consistency of thought and message that were essential to keeping the traditions and discipline of the Church intact as the Roman Church grew and spread. We see other instances around us where more liberal lines of thinking have influenced and infiltrated hierarchies of other smaller churches (e.g. the Anglican communion). And this has happened over the course of a few generations. In retrospect, it is amazing that the Catholic Church has managed to maintain itself and its teachings on a global scale for so very long.

And yet, that doesn’t mean that things can’t work differently in a reunified Church, and our most recent Pontiffs have definitely expressed a willingness to consider other options, including a redefined Papacy. If our Pontiffs can be open-minded in this regard, I hope we can as well!