Ukrainian Greek Catholic "Patriarch"

[collin_nunis]

If there were one reform I could impose, it would be the election of the Pope… I’d restrict the electors to the Patriarchs (of all rites).

Could happen, but according to Canon Law, heads of Eastern churches who are cardinals are “papabile”, which means that they are also eligible for election to the papacy.

 

[twf]

collin_nunis:
Cardinals are hardly simply “officers of the Latin Rite”. They are Princes of the Church and often lead flocks larger than most Eastern Churches. (Not that numbers mean much…but I’m just saying). Technically, since one of the Lateran Councils (can’t remember which one), cardinals rank before patriarchs in the Catholic Church’s order of precedence; thus it is not true that patriarchs hold a higher office. (I think that this is absurd, and that patriarchs by ancient right should be granted primacy, but unfortunately that’s not the case at the moment…)

 

[collin_nunis]

collin_nunis:
Cardinals are hardly simply “officers of the Latin Rite”. They are Princes of the Church and often lead flocks larger than most Eastern Churches. (Not that numbers mean much…but I’m just saying). Technically, since one of the Lateran Councils (can’t remember which one), cardinals rank before patriarchs in the Catholic Church’s order of precedence; thus it is not true that patriarchs hold a higher office. (I think that this is absurd, and that patriarchs by ancient right should be granted primacy, but unfortunately that’s not the case at the moment…)

I do know what you’re saying… However, in spirit, I’ll say that you agree with my assertion.

 

[malphono]

"collin_nunis:

Could happen, but according to Canon Law, heads of Eastern churches who are cardinals are “papabile”, which means that they are also eligible for election to the papacy.

True, but it means absolutely nothing: any bishop, Western or Eastern, is technically papabile.

If there were one reform I could impose, it would be the election of the Pope… I’d restrict the electors to the Patriarchs (of all rites).

There’s some merit to that, but I see an inherent problem: it would mean that the Bishop of Rome (still de facto "Patriarch of the West) would be elected by non-westerners. I highly doubt that we in any ECC would be very happy if our Patriarch (or Major Archbishop or Catholicos, as the case may be) was elected by a group of Latin Rite bishops. (Yes, I know that there have been cases where Rome has “intervened” in ECC synodal elections, but that’s a different story and I am not going there in this thread.)

Rather than limit the electors to the Patriarchs only, I would prefer to see all Patriarchs (and Major Archbishops or Catholicoi, as the case may be) seated as electors ex officio.

 

[KingAlfred]

I don’t mean any offense to my Ukrainian Greek Catholic brothers and sisters, but is it proper for this church sui iuris to appropriate for itself the title and status of “patriarch”? Historically, aren’t churches raised to the patriarchal dignity by the Church Universal? Could someone please explain this to me. Thanks.

If you’re talking about the Catholic religion in the Ukraine, then I say ‘no’. But, if you’re talking about the Russian Orthodox Church, then I think the answer is ‘yes’.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Technically, since one of the Lateran Councils (can’t remember which one), cardinals rank before patriarchs in the Catholic Church’s order of precedence; thus it is not true that patriarchs hold a higher office.

This was changed. Eastern Patriarchs outrank Cardinals–but Cardinals outrank the titular Western Patriarchs, as at the time of the Lateran councils, there were NO Eastern Patriarchs, except possibly the Maronite one.

 

[malphono]

Technically, since one of the Lateran Councils (can’t remember which one), cardinals rank before patriarchs in the Catholic Church’s order of precedence; thus it is not true that patriarchs hold a higher office.

This was changed. Eastern Patriarchs outrank Cardinals–but Cardinals outrank the titular Western Patriarchs, as at the time of the Lateran councils, there were NO Eastern Patriarchs, except possibly the Maronite one.

Mar Eermia Petrus II (Al-Amshitti) attended Lateran IV. As far as I know, he was the only Maronite Patriarch to attend a Lateran Council.

And thanks: I thought there was a change in precedence: seems to me it happened sometime in the 70’s under Paul VI.

 

[Formosus]

I see no problem with His Beatitude reffering to himself(or the rest of the Ukrainian church calling him) Patriarch. He does not try to impose claims to the extra legal stuff that the title comes with and it is quite obvious that Rome is holding off on official elevation due to political reasons rather then spiritual. Benedict XVI continues to hold +Husar in the highest regards as far as I can tell and his silence on the matter , seems in my opinion, to be an implicit “unofficial” approval.

 

[malphono]

I see no problem with His Beatitude reffering to himself(or the rest of the Ukrainian church calling him) Patriarch. He does not try to impose claims to the extra legal stuff that the title comes with and it is quite obvious that Rome is holding off on official elevation due to political reasons rather then spiritual. Benedict XVI continues to hold +Husar in the highest regards as far as I can tell and his silence on the matter , seems in my opinion, to be an implicit “unofficial” approval.

I doubt the reasons are entirely political.

In any case, a Major Archbishop or Catholicos is the de facto equivalent of a Patriarch. The only real difference is in the established order of precedence (Patriarchs before Cardinals, etc) and PP Benedict XVI could amend that with the stroke of a pen (if, that is, it hasn’t been done already).

 

[twf]

bpbasilphx:

This was changed. Eastern Patriarchs outrank Cardinals–but Cardinals outrank the titular Western Patriarchs, as at the time of the Lateran councils, there were NO Eastern Patriarchs, except possibly the Maronite one.

I hope you’re correct. Could you please cite your source? If you are correct, in the order of precedence, among Catholic bishops, the Coptic Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria would rank second after the Pope of Rome? If I’m correct, the Dean of the Sacred College would…
Thanks.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Actually, I think Antioch would outrank Alexandria, as it’s a Petrine see, too.

The question is WHICH Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria: the Maronite, the Melkite, or the Syriac?

 

[twf]

bpbasilphx:
In antiquity Alexandria always outranked Antioch.

 

[Formosus]

Under the current rules, the Melkite patriarch outranks the coptic one because the Melkite patriarch holds the titles of both Alexandria and Antioch. I beleive the current order is

Melkite Patriarch
Coptic Patriarch
Maronite Patriarch
Syriac Patriarch

The last two switch back and forth based on who is the senior Patriarch sense they both represent the same city.

Alexandria is a petrine see because Mark was a disciple of Peter and he founded Alexandria’s church.

 

[Diak]

It’s interesting that Patriarch Josyp was also referred to as such by several Latin hierarchs throughout the later part of his life.

It seems almost ludicrous to think that while Rome herself has been in the throes of liturgical chaos for forty years she should presume to tell another Church who has given countless martyrs for that communion and been absolutely steadfast to the spiritual and liturgical tradition what to do when she herself doesn’t seem to really even understand the traditions, needs, spirituality and history of the other.

The Union is a covenant of communion, not a capitulation to submission. And as we know from the cult of saints the local reality has to be recognized and established first. Those who have fought for the Extraordinary Rite know this as well; within the Latin Church it was largely individual priests at the local level who wanted to continue to celebrate the traditional Mass that kept it alive when even Rome was attempting to suppress it.
FDRLB

 

[twf]

It seems almost ludicrous to think that while Rome herself has been in the throes of liturgical chaos for forty years she should presume to tell another Church who has given countless martyrs for that communion and been absolutely steadfast to the spiritual and liturgical tradition what to do when she herself doesn’t seem to really even understand the traditions, needs, spirituality and history of the other.

Diak - This is very condescending. From a Catholic perspective, the See of Peter (Rome) should not be equated with the Latin Church as Christ entrusted Peter with the mandate of confirming all the brethren:

31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you[a] as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers." (Lk 22)

This is exactly what the Holy Father seeks to do… The Holy Father celebrates the mass beautifully and has made the liturgical guidelines for the Latin Church clear as day…the issue is individual bishops, priests and faithful who dissent. Dissent is nothing new. During the Arian heresy the majority of bishops were heretics for a time…

 

[Ungcsertez]

It’s interesting that Patriarch Josyp was also referred to as such by several Latin hierarchs throughout the later part of his life.

It seems almost ludicrous to think that while Rome herself has been in the throes of liturgical chaos for forty years she should presume to tell another Church who has given countless martyrs for that communion and been absolutely steadfast to the spiritual and liturgical tradition what to do when she herself doesn’t seem to really even understand the traditions, needs, spirituality and history of the other.

The Union is a covenant of communion, not a capitulation to submission. And as we know from the cult of saints the local reality has to be recognized and established first. Those who have fought for the Extraordinary Rite know this as well; within the Latin Church it was largely individual priests at the local level who wanted to continue to celebrate the traditional Mass that kept it alive when even Rome was attempting to suppress it.
FDRLB

Diak,

I agree.

U-C

 

[Diak]

Diak - This is very condescending. From a Catholic perspective, the See of Peter (Rome) should not be equated with the Latin Church as Christ entrusted Peter with the mandate of confirming all the brethren:

This is exactly what the Holy Father seeks to do… The Holy Father celebrates the mass beautifully and has made the liturgical guidelines for the Latin Church clear as day…the issue is individual bishops, priests and faithful who dissent. Dissent is nothing new. During the Arian heresy the majority of bishops were heretics for a time…

So we should separate the senior Hierarch of the Latin Church from his Church? He is the guarantor of the orthodoxy (liturgical and theological) of his hierarchy and particular Latin Church. This is how we look at it from our own patriarchal/synodal perspective.
I most certainly did not intend any condensension - please forgive me if it came across this way. But these sentiments I have noted I find very commonly amongst Ukrainian Greek Catholics. We only want to be a fully particular Church equally fully in communion with (and not in submission to) Rome.
FDRLB

 

[collin_nunis]

From the CCEO:

Canon 58

Patriarchs of Eastern Churches precede all bishops of any degree everywhere in the world, with due regard for special norms of precedence established by the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 59

1. Patriarchs of Eastern Churches, even if some are of later times, are all equal by reason of patriarchal dignity with due regard for the precedence of honor among them.

1. The order of precedence among the ancient patriarchal sees of the Eastern Churches is that in the first place comes the see of Constantinople, after that Alexandria, then Antioch and Jerusalem.

1. Among the other patriarchs of the Eastern Churches, precedence is ordered according to the antiquity of the patriarchal see.

1. Among the patriarchs of the Eastern Churches who each are of the same title but who preside over different patriarchal Churches, he has precedence who was first promoted to the patriarchal dignity.

Canon 60

1. In churches which are designated for the Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides and in liturgical celebrations of the same Church, a patriarch precedes other patriarchs, even if they are greater in virtue of title of the see or senior according to promotion.

1. A patriarch who currently holds patriarchal power precedes those who retain the title of a patriarchal see which they once held.

“all bishops” in Canon 58 includes all cardinals. Remember that cardinal is an office (not an ecclesiastical rank) without inherent jurisdiction - any jurisdiction which a cardinal has, he obtains by virtue of being the bishop of wherever. Patriarchs, on the other hand, are conferred jurisdiction by virtue of the their office - it is their office that accords them jurisdiction over a Church sui iuris.

As the Catholic Patriarchate of Constantinople has been suppressed (and was a Latin - not Eastern - patriarchate to boot), the Coptic Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria presently ranks next in precedence after the Pope.

The Melkite Catholic Patriarch also holds the additional title “of Alexandria” (granted to each incumbent ad personam, as it has been to each of his predecessors since Patriarch Maximos III Mazloom, of blessed memory, in 1838). However, as it is a personal grant, he has precedence over the other Patriarchs of Antioch, but not over the Patriarch of Alexandria (which is why the Coptic Patriarch acted first, incensing Pope John Paul’s casket, followed by the Melkite Patriarch leading the prayers of the Eastern Churches).

 

[Ungcsertez]

So we should separate the senior Hierarch of the Latin Church from his Church? He is the guarantor of the orthodoxy (liturgical and theological) of his hierarchy and particular Latin Church. This is how we look at it from our own patriarchal/synodal perspective.
I most certainly did not intend any condensension - please forgive me if it came across this way. But these sentiments I have noted I find very commonly amongst Ukrainian Greek Catholics. We only want to be a fully particular Church equally fully in communion with (and not in submission to) Rome.
FDRLB

Diak,

Amin, Amin, Amin!

U-C

 

[Ivan_Putovati]

The Union is a covenant of communion, not a capitulation to submission. FDRLB

---

Interesting. Were all the unions “covenants of communion”?

I know that the Union of Brest (1596) was a “covenant of communion”. I wonder about the Union of Uzhhorod (1646)…was that a “covenant of communion too”?