Why Major Archbishop?

[twf]

I don’t want to get into the discussion as to whether the UGCC should be officially recognized as a patriarchate (which I believe it should, for what its worth), but am wondering when and how the office of ‘major archbishop’ emerged in the first place. What was the reasoning behind it - why this novel rank between metropolitan and patriarch?

 

[Archangelic]

Someone was probably having an ego trip.

 

[Aramis]

I don’t want to get into the discussion as to whether the UGCC should be officially recognized as a patriarchate (which I believe it should, for what its worth), but am wondering when and how the office of ‘major archbishop’ emerged in the first place. What was the reasoning behind it - why this novel rank between metropolitan and patriarch?

It’s not exactly novel; several autocephalous Orthodox churches have had a primate who was one of several metropolitans but not titled patriarch, at least historically.

To restate:
The title is novel, but not the job. It’s just the head of a Ritual Church comprising 2 or more Metropolia (Archdioceses) who is not a patriarch.

Simply put, any body politic needs a protos, a first voice, a president… simply to conduct business. The office of Major Archbishop is, in most ways, a patriarch in all but name. The differences are primarily method of election and enthronement, and of alteration of dioceses.

 

[malphono]

Good question. My take is that it’s a “Roman thing” meaning that they had to come up with something. That said, I don’t agree that the UGCC should be considered a “Patriarchate” at least not officially. My objection (as I’ve said in previous threads) is on principle, not at all on practical grounds. There are, traditionally, five Patriarchates that have been recognized by Councils. Neither Lviv (nor Kiev nor, for that matter, Moscow) is among them. As I see it, the proliferation of “national Patriarchates” among the (for the most part) Slav Byzantines is a problem.

OTOH, it also kills me is that Rome gives the same title (Major Archbishop) to the head of the Syro-Malankara Church when, in fact, there is a perfectly legitimate title (Catholicos) which is actually traditional in the Syriac Churches. (Of course “Catholicos” is not a Byzantine concept, and while it might work in theory in the case of the UGCC, they (the UGCC) would probably reject it because it’s not a Byzantine concept.)

 

[ciero]

It’s not exactly novel; several autocephalous Orthodox churches have had a primate who was one of several metropolitans but not titled patriarch, at least historically.

To restate:
The title is novel, but not the job. It’s just the head of a Ritual Church comprising 2 or more Metropolia (Archdioceses) who is not a patriarch.

Simply put, any body politic needs a protos, a first voice, a president… simply to conduct business. The office of Major Archbishop is, in most ways, a patriarch in all but name. The differences are primarily method of election and enthronement, and of alteration of dioceses.

Not sure about the clause 2 or more Metropolia, the Romanian Catholic church does NOT have more then 1 Metropolitan.

 

[Aramis]

Not sure about the clause 2 or more Metropolia, the Romanian Catholic church does NOT have more then 1 Metropolitan.

It’s an oddity. They had similar privileges to a patriarchate, and I’ve seen some references to their MAb as Catholicos. If it was a Catholicosate prior to union, it would be either a patriarchate or Major Archbishopric to preserve the level of autonomy. As Major Archbishop, he can, after consult with Rome, appoint a second metropolitan.

 

[Vico]

I don’t want to get into the discussion as to whether the UGCC should be officially recognized as a patriarchate (which I believe it should, for what its worth), but am wondering when and how the office of ‘major archbishop’ emerged in the first place. What was the reasoning behind it - why this novel rank between metropolitan and patriarch?

Dec 23, 1963, Josyf Ivanovycè Slipyj was promoted from Archbishop to Major Archbishop of Lviv by Pope John Paul VI. In 1965, Patriarch Slipyj was made a cardinal by Pope Paul VI. He was the first Major Archbishop.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Good question. My take is that it’s a “Roman thing” meaning that they had to come up with something. That said, I don’t agree that the UGCC should be considered a “Patriarchate” at least not officially. My objection (as I’ve said in previous threads) is on principle, not at all on practical grounds. There are, traditionally, five Patriarchates that have been recognized by Councils. Neither Lviv (nor Kiev nor, for that matter, Moscow) is among them. As I see it, the proliferation of “national Patriarchates” among the (for the most part) Slav Byzantines is a problem.

OTOH, it also kills me is that Rome gives the same title (Major Archbishop) to the head of the Syro-Malankara Church when, in fact, there is a perfectly legitimate title (Catholicos) which is actually traditional in the Syriac Churches. (Of course “Catholicos” is not a Byzantine concept, and while it might work in theory in the case of the UGCC, they (the UGCC) would probably reject it because it’s not a Byzantine concept.)

Well, I tend to agree with you!

However, Kiev was never a “national” anything, other than when it became the capital of Ukraine in modern times.

Kiev was like the other patriarchal sees/cities. It was at Kiev that the Primate of the Rus’ Orthodox Church presided over a jurisdiction that was FIVE times that of the then Byzantine empire.

The Kievan Church had a multi-national flock within its fold and counted among its saints those from all over Eastern Europe and Siberia. Its missionaries travelled far and wide and set up churches everywhere. St Theophilus Leschynsky, the Apostle of Siberia, for instance, established over 2600 churches for the Siberian tribes. The Mongol Khan allowed Kievan missionaries to establish churches and to preach within his capital and surrounding area. St John Maximovych, Metropolitan of Tobolsk translated the Divine Liturgy into Chinese and his descendant, St John Maximovych, Archbishop of Shanghai and San Francisco, served it in Chinese.

So the Church of Kiev was never a national church in its history. Rome itself recognizes the Russian Orthodox Church as a patriarchate, whose patriarchal status is based on the same tradition of the Kievan Church. So Rome has trumped you already!

And there is nothing sacred about the number “five” in terms of patriarchates. There are now four ancient patriarchates since Rome has completely rejected that term to describe its ecclesial identity.

Alex

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Alex,

And there is nothing sacred about the number “five” in terms of patriarchates. There are now four ancient patriarchates since Rome has completely rejected that term to describe its ecclesial identity.

According to the clarification by Cardinal Walter Kaspar, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the dropping of the title was not a rejection of his patriarchal office, but merely because of the historical ambiguity and uselessness of the term “West” to designate a territorial jurisdiction. The old Catholic Encyclopedia explains that the term actually refers to the Pope’s role as Patriarch of the Latin or Roman Church, not Patriarch of “the West” (whatever that means).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear brother Alex,

According to the clarification by Cardinal Walter Kaspar, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, the dropping of the title was not a rejection of his patriarchal office, but merely because of the historical ambiguity and uselessness of the term “West” to designate a territorial jurisdiction. The old Catholic Encyclopedia explains that the term actually refers to the Pope’s role as Patriarch of the Latin or Roman Church, not Patriarch of “the West” (whatever that means).

Blessings,
Marduk

Well, if you understand Cardinal Kaspar, then you deserve many accolades. When the announcement was first made, the Orthodox were thoroughly confused.

Happy Easter!

Alex

 

[twf]

Alexander/Marduk,
From a Latin perspective, the Holy Father hasn’t changed anything. He simply dropped a title that was never consistently used in the Latin Church to begin with. The Pope of Rome remains the head bishop of the Latin Church sui iuris regardless of the title employed. The Latin Church has been truly global for centuries and has grown beyond the “West” culturally and geographically. To avoid confusion, I personally think the Holy Father could have replaced it with Patriarch of the Latins, but then the concept of patriarch was never that important in the Latin Church and it is enough to know that the pope is our primate, regardless of the titles employed.

 

[Vico]

CCEO

TITLE 4 The Patriarchal Churches

Canon 56
A patriarch is a bishop who enjoys power over all bishops including metropolitans and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides according to the norm of law approved by the supreme authority of the Church.

Canon 78

1. The power which, according to the norm of the canons and legitimate customs, the patriarch has over bishops and other Christian faithful of the Church over which he presides is ordinary and proper, but personal. Thus, the patriarch cannot constitute a vicar for the entire patriarchal Church nor can he delegate his power to someone for all cases.

TITLE 5 The Major Archiepiscopal Churches

Canon 151
A major archbishop is the metropolitan of a see determined or recognized by the Supreme Authority of the Church, who presides over an entire Eastern Church sui iuris not endowed with the patriarchal title.

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.

TITLE 6 Metropolitan Churches and Other Churches Sui Iuris

Canon 155

1. A metropolitan Church sui iuris is presided over by a metropolitan of a determined see who is appointed by the Roman Pontiff and assisted by a council of hierarchs according to the norm of law.

Canon 157

1. The power which a metropolitan possesses according to the norm of law over the bishops and other Christian faithful of the metropolitan Church over which he presides, is ordinary and proper, but personal; thus, he cannot constitute a vicar for the entire metropolitan Church sui iuris nor delegate his power to a certain person for all cases.