OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 10:13:30 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: New Ukrainian Catholic leader to ask Pope for patriarchal status  (Read 7062 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,105


Scheherazade


« on: March 29, 2011, 02:00:44 PM »

Quote
Two days after his March 27 enthronement as head of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Major Archbishop Sviatoslav Shevchuk said he would ask Pope Benedict to raise the Eastern Catholic church to the dignity of a patriarchate.


Link
Logged

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frédéric Bastiat
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2011, 02:04:08 PM »

Good luck with that.
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Monk Vasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC of USA
Posts: 623


Monk Vasyl
WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2011, 02:17:14 PM »

Here we go, again.   Roll Eyes  Bless them, they are a persistent lot.
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2011, 03:39:29 PM »

I don't really see what it matters if it happens.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,034


"My god is greater."


« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2011, 03:48:56 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2011, 03:53:20 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

AFAIK Patriarch is just a honorific title with no practical features. On the other hand Cardinal title gives the possibility to vote for the Pope (and be voted too).
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Monk Vasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC of USA
Posts: 623


Monk Vasyl
WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2011, 04:31:15 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

Generally, certain positions will lead to the bishop becoming a cardinal.  Archbishops for the See of Boston, within a couple of years of their appointment are elevated to cardinal. Previous Major Archbishops (sounds so military...lol) have all been made cardinals.  It will only be a matter of time before the new Major Archbishop will be enrolled into the College of Cardinals. Tho, due to his age, they may wait a bit longer than usual. 
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,034


"My god is greater."


« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2011, 04:32:18 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

Generally, certain positions will lead to the bishop becoming a cardinal.  Archbishops for the See of Boston, within a couple of years of their appointment are elevated to cardinal. Previous Major Archbishops (sounds so military...lol) have all been made cardinals.  It will only be a matter of time before the new Major Archbishop will be enrolled into the College of Cardinals. Tho, due to his age, they may wait a bit longer than usual.  

But if a Patriarch be not a cardinal, he will be outranked by a cardinal, yes?
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 04:32:36 PM by Iconodule » Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2011, 04:51:40 PM »

He's going to be a Cardinal as his predecessor was, and is addressed as Patriarch unofficially.  The question is do they make it official, meaning changing the title on paper.

I don't see why anyone cares.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #9 on: March 29, 2011, 05:05:49 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

AFAIK Patriarch is just a honorific title with no practical features. On the other hand Cardinal title gives the possibility to vote for the Pope (and be voted too).
Actually, anyone (male and in communion that is) can be elected.  You don't even have to be a deacon.  I thought all of their patrirarchs were cardinals ex officio.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 29, 2011, 05:06:05 PM »

Good luck with that.

 laugh laugh laugh

Cynic!!
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #11 on: March 29, 2011, 05:07:17 PM »

Good luck with that.
Yeah, given the recent play up in the Vatican News services about Pat. Kirill and Met. Hilarion and improving relations, it would be interesting.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #12 on: March 29, 2011, 05:23:37 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

No. Patriarchs of the Eastern Rite may be cardinals, however, in which case they always belong to the order of cardinal bishops. But a number of Latin Rite archbishops have the title patriarch, such as the patriarch of Venice, the patriarch of Lisbon, and the patriarch of the Gauls. They are normally cardinals, but the red hat is never automatic. And the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem isn't a cardinal, either in fact or by custom.
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 7,034


"My god is greater."


« Reply #13 on: March 29, 2011, 05:31:22 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

No. Patriarchs of the Eastern Rite may be cardinals, however, in which case they always belong to the order of cardinal bishops. But a number of Latin Rite archbishops have the title patriarch, such as the patriarch of Venice, the patriarch of Lisbon, and the patriarch of the Gauls. They are normally cardinals, but the red hat is never automatic. And the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem isn't a cardinal, either in fact or by custom.

Okay, but hypothetically speaking, if a bishop is a patriarch, but not a cardinal, would a non-patriarch cardinal outrank him?
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 29, 2011, 05:37:07 PM »

Outrank where? In what area? You are now trying to compare color and size.

Cardinal is a function and Patriarch is a rank. Cardinal is the second highest function in the Catholic Church. Patriarch is the second highest title of the Catholic Church.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2011, 05:37:54 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #15 on: March 29, 2011, 05:38:22 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

No. Patriarchs of the Eastern Rite may be cardinals, however, in which case they always belong to the order of cardinal bishops. But a number of Latin Rite archbishops have the title patriarch, such as the patriarch of Venice, the patriarch of Lisbon, and the patriarch of the Gauls. They are normally cardinals, but the red hat is never automatic. And the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem isn't a cardinal, either in fact or by custom.
He isn't sui juris either. Just another Latin bishop.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #16 on: March 29, 2011, 05:46:56 PM »

If it wasn't given previously I would not hold my breath, heck the ink of his signature hasn't dryed yet...

Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 29, 2011, 06:24:36 PM »

I think that he must make the request and he needs to make it immediately and anyone who thinks that Pope Benedict doesn't or didn't know it was coming must live under a mushroom cap.

It is the best thing for Ukriane and most likely will be good for the entire region, including Russia, though I expect the MP would not necessarily share those sediments....pun.

Logged

kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 840

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #18 on: March 29, 2011, 09:42:24 PM »

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 30, 2011, 09:42:39 AM »

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?

Indeed, those are the types of questions that I often pose to my Eastern Catholic friends in the context of what being a 'sui juris' Church means.

BTW, the new Major-Archbishop has to make this request as it is expected by his flock. I would anticipate that the answer from Rome will be as it has been for some years.  The Greek Catholics will honor him as Patriarch anyway, and the rest of us will use the Major-Archbishop title.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 09:44:43 AM by podkarpatska » Logged
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 840

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #20 on: March 30, 2011, 11:19:31 AM »

No doubt, tho' perhaps Metropolitan Hilarion's response to Metropolitan Svyatoslav's enthronement will embolden Rome to approve a change?

http://www.ugcc.org.ua/news_single.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=4832&cHash=e1343ac7308e74dfdb5ece2d1251b62a
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 30, 2011, 11:23:01 AM »


Just a realist. Smiley
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 30, 2011, 11:26:26 AM »

No doubt, tho' perhaps Metropolitan Hilarion's response to Metropolitan Svyatoslav's enthronement will embolden Rome to approve a change?

http://www.ugcc.org.ua/news_single.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=4832&cHash=e1343ac7308e74dfdb5ece2d1251b62a

There was nothing on that link?
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #23 on: March 30, 2011, 11:28:13 AM »

You have to paste it into your browser. As you can see not the whole one is the active link.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 30, 2011, 11:29:36 AM »

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?

If you actually read what the Archbishop has said, it becomes more clear, at least clear to me that the latest Ukrainian Patriarch is going to Rome to "explain" why the UGCC is a patriarchate in the traditional meaning and emergence of the term.  He will ask for the Pope's blessing.  He may receive it.  He may not.  He may yield to what the Pope tells him about public display of the title, he may not.

We are living in a brave new ecclesial world folks.  I am enjoying watching it unfold and am very happy to be alive in these invigorating times full of new saints and martyrs and renewed understandings of Church, Mystery, Mystical Body, Communion and Caritas.

Glory be to God!
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2011, 11:31:36 AM »


Here I thought I was a realist too...perhaps I am also an optimist!... Tongue
Logged

mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2011, 11:36:19 AM »

If you actually read what the Archbishop has said, it becomes more clear, at least clear to me that the latest Ukrainian Patriarch is going to Rome to "explain" why the UGCC is a patriarchate in the traditional meaning and emergence of the term.  He will ask for the Pope's blessing.  He may receive it.  He may not.  He may yield to what the Pope tells him about public display of the title, he may not.

According to his own Church he is a Major Archbishop. His flock may call him an Ayatollah but they won't change the reality.

I really doubt he can disobey the Pope and start using the Patriarch title  without his approval. Can you prove it?

It clearly shows how in reality Pope treats with his Eastern flock.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 11:36:47 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2011, 11:37:56 AM »

No doubt, tho' perhaps Metropolitan Hilarion's response to Metropolitan Svyatoslav's enthronement will embolden Rome to approve a change?

http://www.ugcc.org.ua/news_single.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=4832&cHash=e1343ac7308e74dfdb5ece2d1251b62a

As I said the other day I don't believe this trip and its purposes will come as much of a shock to Pope Benedict since every audience has its advance agenda established in writing...and the Archbishop's own plans are not secret.
Logged

Monk Vasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC of USA
Posts: 623


Monk Vasyl
WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 30, 2011, 11:38:34 AM »

No doubt, tho' perhaps Metropolitan Hilarion's response to Metropolitan Svyatoslav's enthronement will embolden Rome to approve a change?

http://www.ugcc.org.ua/news_single.0.html?&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=4832&cHash=e1343ac7308e74dfdb5ece2d1251b62a

What did Metropolitan Hilarion say?
Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 30, 2011, 11:39:59 AM »

You have to paste it into your browser. As you can see not the whole one is the active link.

Thank you, the Google translation was awful, but I got the gist.

I wouldn't expect much of a change as Metropolitan Hilarion is not know for any history of kind words towards the Greek Catholics.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 30, 2011, 11:41:04 AM »

If you actually read what the Archbishop has said, it becomes more clear, at least clear to me that the latest Ukrainian Patriarch is going to Rome to "explain" why the UGCC is a patriarchate in the traditional meaning and emergence of the term.  He will ask for the Pope's blessing.  He may receive it.  He may not.  He may yield to what the Pope tells him about public display of the title, he may not.

According to his own Church he is a Major Archbishop. His flock may call him an Ayatollah but they won't change the reality.

I really doubt he can disobey the Pope and start using the Patriarch title  without his approval. Can you prove it?

It clearly shows how in reality Pope treats with his Eastern flock.

If he does not use the title in that case, it will be because he chooses not to for the good of the whole Church.

You all act as if eastern bishops are impotent pee-stained old men who can't do anything without aid and assistance.

No.  IF the Unia has been treated badly, our bishops have as much to bear with that as anyone in the Vatican.  That is but one of the widely ignored elephants in the living room.

Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 30, 2011, 11:42:38 AM »

If you actually read what the Archbishop has said, it becomes more clear, at least clear to me that the latest Ukrainian Patriarch is going to Rome to "explain" why the UGCC is a patriarchate in the traditional meaning and emergence of the term.  He will ask for the Pope's blessing.  He may receive it.  He may not.  He may yield to what the Pope tells him about public display of the title, he may not.

According to his own Church he is a Major Archbishop. His flock may call him an Ayatollah but they won't change the reality.

I really doubt he can disobey the Pope and start using the Patriarch title  without his approval. Can you prove it?

It clearly shows how in reality Pope treats with his Eastern flock.

It is the whole 'sui juris' issue again. With our without the Vatican's approval or disapproval, the UGCC faithful and clergy will call him Patriarch as they did to his predecessors. This would happen even if the official publications of the UGCC used the Major Archbishop title.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 30, 2011, 12:11:43 PM »

You all act as if eastern bishops are impotent pee-stained old men who can't do anything without aid and assistance.

Election of each and every UC Bishop has to be approved by Vatican.

http://www.ugcc.org.ua./news_single.0.html?&L=4&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3462&cHash=aabd94cf21407d36e72fb4d21aca9134&type=98
« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 12:11:57 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 30, 2011, 12:36:50 PM »

You all act as if eastern bishops are impotent pee-stained old men who can't do anything without aid and assistance.

Election of each and every UC Bishop has to be approved by Vatican.

http://www.ugcc.org.ua./news_single.0.html?&L=4&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3462&cHash=aabd94cf21407d36e72fb4d21aca9134&type=98

Unless there is some circumstance that is compelling concerning any one of the men put forward for election, the "approval" is a blessing on the chosen candidate.

There is a list of three names listed in rank order approved by the synod and sent to Rome.  How many times have we seen it that the first name on the list has not become bishop.  Only in Churches who have had very venal and sinful leadership, and are about to clone another one,  has Rome intervened to help them find a candidate more morally, spiritually and ecclesiastically suited to lead a diocese or a particular Church.

It's not at all a high handed conspiracy against anyone or any Church.





Logged

kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 840

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #34 on: March 30, 2011, 12:48:19 PM »

So there are no truly autocephalous or autonomous churches in modern Roman Catholicism then, just self-governing churches organized by rite?
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #35 on: March 30, 2011, 12:54:06 PM »

So there are no truly autocephalous or autonomous churches in modern Roman Catholicism then, just self-governing churches organized by rite?

Compared to what? Orthodoxy's "truly' autocephalous Churches?...the ones who don't need ANYONE's signature on the election of a new bishop or Metropolitan?
Logged

kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 840

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #36 on: March 30, 2011, 01:27:18 PM »

No offense, but the canons of the early ecumenical councils established that each regional church (what eventually coalesced into the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) was responsible through its synod for the election of new bishops. There was no talk of forwarding nominations onto another synod, much less a single bishop. No offense intended! God knows the Local Orthodox Churches could stand to coordinate a little more closely than they tend to do at the present.
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 30, 2011, 02:14:54 PM »

No offense, but the canons of the early ecumenical councils established that each regional church (what eventually coalesced into the Churches of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) was responsible through its synod for the election of new bishops. There was no talk of forwarding nominations onto another synod, much less a single bishop. No offense intended! God knows the Local Orthodox Churches could stand to coordinate a little more closely than they tend to do at the present.

No offense taken.

If all bishops are equal and local synodal election of bishops is canonical, why do we have this, for example:

http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/7408.htm
Logged

AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #38 on: March 30, 2011, 02:51:04 PM »

Because that church is semi autonomous.  A truly self ruling church cannot have its primate confirmed by another.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2011, 02:51:44 PM by AMM » Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #39 on: March 30, 2011, 02:54:50 PM »

Because that church is semi autonomous.  A truly self ruling church cannot have its primate confirmed by another.

My question is more broad reaching than that.  Why does ANY local synod need to have that kind of primatial endorsement or blessing IF as all Orthodoxy seems to say "all bishops are equal"....Why does it not STOP with the local Synod. 

Where the bishop is; there is the Church...no?   

Well I am thinking with the evidence before me...perhaps not.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 30, 2011, 03:02:18 PM »

Because that church is semi autonomous.  A truly self ruling church cannot have its primate confirmed by another.

My question is more broad reaching than that.  Why does ANY local synod need to have that kind of primatial endorsement or blessing IF as all Orthodoxy seems to say "all bishops are equal"....Why does it not STOP with the local Synod. 

Where the bishop is; there is the Church...no?   

Well I am thinking with the evidence before me...perhaps not.

I think because the term 'conciliarity'/sobornost  has different meanings to different national Orthodox churches. After all, some are somewhat modeled administratively upon the Roman model while others are, for lack of a better term, more 'free-form' and less structured.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #41 on: March 30, 2011, 03:07:57 PM »

Because that church is semi autonomous.  A truly self ruling church cannot have its primate confirmed by another.

My question is more broad reaching than that.  Why does ANY local synod need to have that kind of primatial endorsement or blessing IF as all Orthodoxy seems to say "all bishops are equal"....Why does it not STOP with the local Synod. 

Where the bishop is; there is the Church...no?   

Well I am thinking with the evidence before me...perhaps not.

I think because the term 'conciliarity'/sobornost  has different meanings to different national Orthodox churches. After all, some are somewhat modeled administratively upon the Roman model while others are, for lack of a better term, more 'free-form' and less structured.

Understood and agreed!  Not troubled by it but grow weary of being singled out as being part of a Church that is sooooo very different administratively from Orthodoxy.  There are more than a few, generally ignored, similarities.  I am not saying that it is the same, but it is similar enough so that we should be able to dispense with this idea that the office of the Holy Father is one of brutal repression.

M.
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #42 on: March 30, 2011, 03:12:27 PM »

You all act as if eastern bishops are impotent pee-stained old men who can't do anything without aid and assistance.

Election of each and every UC Bishop has to be approved by Vatican.

http://www.ugcc.org.ua./news_single.0.html?&L=4&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=3462&cHash=aabd94cf21407d36e72fb4d21aca9134&type=98

Unless there is some circumstance that is compelling concerning any one of the men put forward for election, the "approval" is a blessing on the chosen candidate.

There is a list of three names listed in rank order approved by the synod and sent to Rome.  How many times have we seen it that the first name on the list has not become bishop.  Only in Churches who have had very venal and sinful leadership, and are about to clone another one,  has Rome intervened to help them find a candidate more morally, spiritually and ecclesiastically suited to lead a diocese or a particular Church.

It's not at all a high handed conspiracy against anyone or any Church.







Why then has the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, Byzantine Rite, had its see vacant for over a year since Metropolitan Basil of blessed memory reposed?
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 30, 2011, 03:14:26 PM »

Because that church is semi autonomous.  A truly self ruling church cannot have its primate confirmed by another.

My question is more broad reaching than that.  Why does ANY local synod need to have that kind of primatial endorsement or blessing IF as all Orthodoxy seems to say "all bishops are equal"....Why does it not STOP with the local Synod. 

Where the bishop is; there is the Church...no?   

Well I am thinking with the evidence before me...perhaps not.

I think because the term 'conciliarity'/sobornost  has different meanings to different national Orthodox churches. After all, some are somewhat modeled administratively upon the Roman model while others are, for lack of a better term, more 'free-form' and less structured.

Understood and agreed!  Not troubled by it but grow weary of being singled out as being part of a Church that is sooooo very different administratively from Orthodoxy.  There are more than a few, generally ignored, similarities.  I am not saying that it is the same, but it is similar enough so that we should be able to dispense with this idea that the office of the Holy Father is one of brutal repression.

M.

It has been observed that the Roman Church has much to learn from the East's view of sobornost/conciliarity and the Orthodox have much to learn from the organizational skills of the Romans!  One doesn't need to agree on any dogmatic issues to understand that point!  Wink
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2011, 03:17:08 PM »


Why then has the Archeparchy of Pittsburgh, Byzantine Rite, had its see vacant for over a year since Metropolitan Basil of blessed memory reposed?

I cannot tell you the answer to that.  Well...I could conjecture but I won't do it publicly.  It is a very unhealthy Metropolitan See.  That is all I can say.  And it is my home for the time being so to say the least the past decade has been deeply distressing to me and to others.  The fault does NOT lie in Rome however.  It begins right here at home.
Logged

AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #45 on: March 30, 2011, 03:20:00 PM »

My question is more broad reaching than that.  Why does ANY local synod need to have that kind of primatial endorsement or blessing IF as all Orthodoxy seems to say "all bishops are equal"....Why does it not STOP with the local Synod.

Because first off, saying "they're all equal" is a vast oversimplification.  Clearly they are all equal in charismatic authority, and even a Patriarch is subject to his own synod and cannot overrule their authority (in Orthodoxy that is).  A Metropolitan Bishop is not a regular bishop though, and a Patriarch is not a Metropolitan Bishop, etc.

I'm not a canonist, so I don't know all the ins and outs of the status of the ROCA or how they arrived at semi autonomous status.  Clearly they are a historical outgrowth of the MP, so it doesn't seem like a major leap to me to have their ruling hierarch confirmed by their mother church.

It seems (to me) having the Ukrainian Major Archbishop confirmed by the Pope in order to assume his responsibilities, as opposed to his being confirmed by his synod, displays this same parental relationship.  That to me would be problematic.

The question of patriarchate creation was raised, and canon 57 of the CCEO says

Quote
The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church.

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/__P1L.HTM

This (to me) again seems to structure things more as a parent/child relationship than one of fraternally joined churches.
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #46 on: March 30, 2011, 03:31:14 PM »

Conjecture, but...could Rome really have rejected a qualified choice made by a duly constituted Synod of the UGCC? Perhaps so in the 18th century, but today? I don't know......
Logged
AMM
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 2,076


« Reply #47 on: March 30, 2011, 03:37:53 PM »

If you read the CCEO, I'm sure it could happen.  I'm also sure the synod would never elect somebody who they felt might be problematic. 

I think it's a moot point.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #48 on: March 30, 2011, 03:40:49 PM »

Conjecture, but...could Rome really have rejected a qualified choice made by a duly constituted Synod of the UGCC? Perhaps so in the 18th century, but today? I don't know......

I doubt that it would have happened in the 18th century either.  In Poland?...heh...shur...but in Ukraine?...no.

In the Catholic Church the individual bishop is above the law, and the individual synod or council of bishops is damn near impenetrable:  more now than ever before...and I would dare to say that the Roman rite bishops have that canonical power and privilege so finely tuned, and protected in the Curia,  that others will have difficulty catching and keeping up for a long while.  The Orthodox would be advised to pay close attention to that as we move forward.
Logged

griego catolico
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 241

...for the union of all, let us pray to the Lord.


« Reply #49 on: March 30, 2011, 08:31:52 PM »

According to his own Church he is a Major Archbishop. His flock may call him an Ayatollah but they won't change the reality.

I really doubt he can disobey the Pope and start using the Patriarch title  without his approval. Can you prove it?

It clearly shows how in reality Pope treats with his Eastern flock.

His Beatitude Lubomyr Husar was referred to as Patriarch in the presence of His Holiness John Paul II of blessed memory during the two Divine Liturgies that were celebrated during the papal visit to Ukraine in June 2001. Rome never made any statement forbidding its use. While the head of the UGCC may not have the title of Patriarch officially, it doesn't appear to be any problem with the Holy See for the title to be used.
Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,955


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #50 on: March 30, 2011, 09:22:49 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

AFAIK Patriarch is just a honorific title with no practical features. On the other hand Cardinal title gives the possibility to vote for the Pope (and be voted too).

In the Latin Church yes.  In the Eastern Catholic Churches, Patriarchs have clearly defined rights, privleges, and responsibilites.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #51 on: March 30, 2011, 09:24:45 PM »

So how would rights of the UCC Primate change if he was granted the title of Patriarch?
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,955


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #52 on: March 30, 2011, 09:30:25 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

Not sure what you mean by outrank, but if you mean who gets to sit where I can tell you when the American bishops made their ad limina visit my Metropolitan was seated before everyone including the cardinals in view of the fact he is the only American bishop who is the head of a sui iuris Church.   The patriarchs always precede the cardinals in any Liturgy I have seen.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,955


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #53 on: March 30, 2011, 09:36:59 PM »

So how would rights of the UCC Primate change if he was granted the title of Patriarch?

The only difference between a patriarch and a major archbishop is a patriarch is enthroned by his synod immediately after election and he requests communion with the Pope a major archbishop requests confirmation of his election and is not enthroned until it is given.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,955


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #54 on: March 30, 2011, 10:19:35 PM »

I really doubt he can disobey the Pope and start using the Patriarch title  without his approval. Can you prove it?
Go to a Ukrainian Catholic Liturgy, they will commemorate their chief hierarch as Patriarch.  The Liturgicons in the US use patriarch.

It clearly shows how in reality Pope treats with his Eastern flock.

That is a bit disingenuous considering the reason the Ukrainians don't have a patriarch and the Russians and Belarusans don't have bishops is because the Russian Patriarch threatened a hissy fit if the Pope grants any of the three. (at least Patriarch Alexy II did, don't know about Patriarch Kyril)
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #55 on: March 30, 2011, 10:23:18 PM »

It clearly shows how in reality Pope treats with his Eastern flock.

That is a bit disingenuous considering the reason the Ukrainians don't have a patriarch and the Russians and Belarusans don't have bishops is because the Russian Patriarch threatened a hissy fit if the Pope grants any of the three. (at least Patriarch Alexy II did, don't know about Patriarch Kyril)

Yes, it's disingenuous that Vatican prefers to please some schismatics than its own flock.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,955


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #56 on: March 30, 2011, 10:41:55 PM »

Yes, it's disingenuous that Vatican prefers to please some schismatics than its own flock.

Indeed.  The Pope is in a damned if he does, damned if he don't scenario.  If he pleases his flock dialogue and coopeartion with the Orthodox ends.  If he doesn't you get to complain he doesn't treat us well even though it is to your advantage.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #57 on: March 30, 2011, 10:44:16 PM »

It's not 'to my advantage'. The UCC Primate's title doesn't affect me in any way.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,955


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #58 on: March 30, 2011, 10:53:57 PM »

It's not 'to my advantage'. The UCC Primate's title doesn't affect me in any way.
I meant Orthodox in general.  The Russian Church certainky thinks the UGCC Primate's title affects it.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #59 on: March 30, 2011, 11:15:19 PM »

It's not 'to my advantage'. The UCC Primate's title doesn't affect me in any way.
I meant Orthodox in general.  The Russian Church certainky thinks the UGCC Primate's title affects it.
Just the trouble making potential: for one thing, in the age of kissy face, the PoM would be considered impolite if it didn't address the UGCC primate as the Patriarch of Kiev and All Ukraine, which wouldn't be such a problem if there existed such an office (there should be, but that's another issue). Or can they still call him the bishop of Lviv?

The Patriarch of Msocow and the Metropolitan of Kiev aren't alone in this: the archbishops of Alexandria in submission to the Vatican (both of them, and the third which never set foot there and was finally abolished after Vatican II's opening) cannot take the status of Pope, Alexandria being the original papacy.

I'm sure for similar reasons many are skitish about Bp. Siluan Italy taking the title of where his see is located: Rome.  Sort of a titular bishop in reverse.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #60 on: March 30, 2011, 11:28:35 PM »

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?

Indeed, those are the types of questions that I often pose to my Eastern Catholic friends in the context of what being a 'sui juris' Church means.

BTW, the new Major-Archbishop has to make this request as it is expected by his flock. I would anticipate that the answer from Rome will be as it has been for some years.  The Greek Catholics will honor him as Patriarch anyway, and the rest of us will use the Major-Archbishop title.
To be fair, in Bulgaria the Phanar thought it, and it alone, had the right to elevate Bulgaria (for the third time) to Patriarchal Status.  The Bulgarian Church ignored the Phanar's protest, the other Churches came for the elevation, and that was that.  The Phanar, again, had to play catchup. Serbia and Romania, which had been patriarchates like Bularia (actually, as part of the first and second Bulgarian patriarchates), humored the Phanar by requesting the title once they were fully reunited after WWI.

Russia was elevated, and its elevation confirmed by a Holy Synod of the four patriarchs and the other Churches.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #61 on: March 31, 2011, 12:02:52 AM »

Because that church is semi autonomous.  A truly self ruling church cannot have its primate confirmed by another.

My question is more broad reaching than that.  Why does ANY local synod need to have that kind of primatial endorsement or blessing IF as all Orthodoxy seems to say "all bishops are equal"....Why does it not STOP with the local Synod. 

Where the bishop is; there is the Church...no?   

Well I am thinking with the evidence before me...perhaps not.
The principle of conciliarity is throwing you. Other than a rubber stamp, the Vatican doesn't practice it.

Moscow is ROCOR's local synod.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #62 on: March 31, 2011, 06:48:44 PM »

RISU reported he did not ask.

http://risu.org.ua/ua/index/all_news/catholics/ugcc/41563/
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Orest
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 989


« Reply #63 on: April 01, 2011, 01:40:12 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

Generally, certain positions will lead to the bishop becoming a cardinal.  Archbishops for the See of Boston, within a couple of years of their appointment are elevated to cardinal. Previous Major Archbishops (sounds so military...lol) have all been made cardinals.  It will only be a matter of time before the new Major Archbishop will be enrolled into the College of Cardinals. Tho, due to his age, they may wait a bit longer than usual. 
Become a cardinal?  Are you sure about that?  Historically that has not been the case but Slipyj etc. was the exception.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #64 on: April 01, 2011, 02:11:37 PM »

Lots of talk about talks with the Orthodox. Rome has chosen Moscow over Lviv again.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Monk Vasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC of USA
Posts: 623


Monk Vasyl
WWW
« Reply #65 on: April 01, 2011, 02:20:32 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

Generally, certain positions will lead to the bishop becoming a cardinal.  Archbishops for the See of Boston, within a couple of years of their appointment are elevated to cardinal. Previous Major Archbishops (sounds so military...lol) have all been made cardinals.  It will only be a matter of time before the new Major Archbishop will be enrolled into the College of Cardinals. Tho, due to his age, they may wait a bit longer than usual.  
Become a cardinal?  Are you sure about that?  Historically that has not been the case but Slipyj etc. was the exception.

Yes, all Major Archbishops, from Slipyj to Husar have been made cardinals.  Deacon Lance, correct me if I'm wrong.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2011, 02:22:19 PM by Monk Vasyl » Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #66 on: April 03, 2011, 01:48:55 AM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

Not sure what you mean by outrank, but if you mean who gets to sit where I can tell you when the American bishops made their ad limina visit my Metropolitan was seated before everyone including the cardinals in view of the fact he is the only American bishop who is the head of a sui iuris Church.   The patriarchs always precede the cardinals in any Liturgy I have seen.

Would it be possible for your Metropolitan to take the title of Patriarch since he heads a Sui Juris Church?  Could we actually have a Patriarch in America one day?
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #67 on: April 03, 2011, 11:04:49 AM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

Not sure what you mean by outrank, but if you mean who gets to sit where I can tell you when the American bishops made their ad limina visit my Metropolitan was seated before everyone including the cardinals in view of the fact he is the only American bishop who is the head of a sui iuris Church.   The patriarchs always precede the cardinals in any Liturgy I have seen.

Would it be possible for your Metropolitan to take the title of Patriarch since he heads a Sui Juris Church?  Could we actually have a Patriarch in America one day?

With the pope dropping the title Patriarch of the West, it leaves the door open for many interesting things to happen in the west...
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #68 on: April 03, 2011, 03:41:16 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

AFAIK Patriarch is just a honorific title with no practical features. On the other hand Cardinal title gives the possibility to vote for the Pope (and be voted too).

In the Latin Church yes.  In the Eastern Catholic Churches, Patriarchs have clearly defined rights, privleges, and responsibilites.
Yes, they are defined, but - as the Melkite Catholic Patriarch has said on several occasions - patriarchal authority is not correctly understood by Rome.



H.B. Grégoire III LAHAM, B.S., Patriarch of Antioch for the Greek-Melchites, Syria

It is incorrect to include the Patriarchal Synod under the title of Episcopal Conferences. It is a completely distinct organism. The Patriarchal Synod is the supreme instance of the Eastern Church. It can legislate, elect bishops and Patriarchs, cut off those who differ.

In No. 75, a "particular honor" given to Patriarchs is mentioned. I would like to mention that this diminishes the traditional role of the Patriarch, as well as speaking about the honor and privileges of the Patriarchs in ecclesiastical documents.

Modified post to comply with posting rules:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13455.msg456852.html#msg456852  

- Serb1389. General Fora Moderator 


Source:  Vatican
« Last Edit: April 04, 2011, 01:00:00 AM by serb1389 » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #69 on: April 03, 2011, 03:51:54 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

Not sure what you mean by outrank, but if you mean who gets to sit where I can tell you when the American bishops made their ad limina visit my Metropolitan was seated before everyone including the cardinals in view of the fact he is the only American bishop who is the head of a sui iuris Church.   The patriarchs always precede the cardinals in any Liturgy I have seen.

Would it be possible for your Metropolitan to take the title of Patriarch since he heads a Sui Juris Church?

No.

Could we actually have a Patriarch in America one day?

Yes.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2011, 03:52:18 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #70 on: April 03, 2011, 03:54:55 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

Not sure what you mean by outrank, but if you mean who gets to sit where I can tell you when the American bishops made their ad limina visit my Metropolitan was seated before everyone including the cardinals in view of the fact he is the only American bishop who is the head of a sui iuris Church.   The patriarchs always precede the cardinals in any Liturgy I have seen.

Would it be possible for your Metropolitan to take the title of Patriarch since he heads a Sui Juris Church?  Could we actually have a Patriarch in America one day?

With the pope dropping the title Patriarch of the West, it leaves the door open for many interesting things to happen in the west...
Not really.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #71 on: April 06, 2011, 09:46:02 AM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

No. Patriarchs of the Eastern Rite may be cardinals, however, in which case they always belong to the order of cardinal bishops. But a number of Latin Rite archbishops have the title patriarch, such as the patriarch of Venice, the patriarch of Lisbon, and the patriarch of the Gauls. They are normally cardinals, but the red hat is never automatic. And the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem isn't a cardinal, either in fact or by custom.

Okay, but hypothetically speaking, if a bishop is a patriarch, but not a cardinal, would a non-patriarch cardinal outrank him?

If they were walking in a procession in order of seniority, a cardinal would outrank a patriarch who wasn't a cardinal. Does that answer the question?

Here are my questions: What does it matter? Why do you care?
Logged
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #72 on: April 06, 2011, 11:46:03 AM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

No. Patriarchs of the Eastern Rite may be cardinals, however, in which case they always belong to the order of cardinal bishops. But a number of Latin Rite archbishops have the title patriarch, such as the patriarch of Venice, the patriarch of Lisbon, and the patriarch of the Gauls. They are normally cardinals, but the red hat is never automatic. And the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem isn't a cardinal, either in fact or by custom.

Okay, but hypothetically speaking, if a bishop is a patriarch, but not a cardinal, would a non-patriarch cardinal outrank him?

If they were walking in a procession in order of seniority, a cardinal would outrank a patriarch who wasn't a cardinal. Does that answer the question?

Here are my questions: What does it matter? Why do you care?

Perhaps its like when you go to a sporting event and a vendor cries out as you enter, "Programs here. Get your programs here. You can't tell the players without a program!" You can still enjoy the game without one, but you may understand more of what's going on with one!  Wink
Logged
Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #73 on: April 06, 2011, 03:29:37 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

AFAIK Patriarch is just a honorific title with no practical features. On the other hand Cardinal title gives the possibility to vote for the Pope (and be voted too).

Actually, ANY Catholic male can be elected Pope.  The Cardinals who vote are those under age 80 (limited to 120 cardinals under canon law) but whoever is elected is not limited to the Cardinals themselves.
Logged
Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #74 on: April 06, 2011, 03:31:21 PM »

At the enthronement of the new Metropolitan Stanislav, Patriarch Gregory III (Laham) of the Melkites did say he was also going to ask Rome to elevate the head of the UGCC to a patriarchate. 
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,152



« Reply #75 on: April 06, 2011, 06:29:54 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

No. Patriarchs of the Eastern Rite may be cardinals, however, in which case they always belong to the order of cardinal bishops. But a number of Latin Rite archbishops have the title patriarch, such as the patriarch of Venice, the patriarch of Lisbon, and the patriarch of the Gauls. They are normally cardinals, but the red hat is never automatic. And the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem isn't a cardinal, either in fact or by custom.
He isn't sui juris either. Just another Latin bishop.

ialmisry is quite correct. The Latin patriarch of Venice, the Latin patriarch of Lisbon, the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem, etc., are all just honorary titles, and not at all like the Melkite patriarch, Maronite patriarch, etc.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 06:42:47 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,152



« Reply #76 on: April 06, 2011, 07:18:42 PM »

I though I had a pretty good grasp of Orthodox ecclesiology, but some of the things posted by Orthodox on this thread are shaking my confidence.

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?

Indeed, those are the types of questions that I often pose to my Eastern Catholic friends in the context of what being a 'sui juris' Church means.

I guess my question would be, out of the Orthodox Churches that have been elevated to patriarchal status, how many of those were self-elevations?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
kijabeboy03
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 840

"The glory of God is in man fully alive."


« Reply #77 on: April 06, 2011, 08:17:23 PM »

"I guess my question would be, out of the Orthodox Churches that have been elevated to patriarchal status, how many of those were self-elevations?"

The Churches of Bulgaria (a couple of times), Serbia (a couple of times as well), and Russia all come to mind :-). I think Georgia and Romania self-elevated under their monarchs as well, but I could be mistaken...
Logged

"This is the Apostolic Faith, the Orthodox Faith, and the Faith of the Fathers. Having this wonderful treasure, let us preserve it, let us keep it, and let us also use it in such a way that this treasure becomes the victory of Christ in us and in His Church." ~ St. Severus of Antioch ~
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,152



« Reply #78 on: April 06, 2011, 08:45:23 PM »

"I guess my question would be, out of the Orthodox Churches that have been elevated to patriarchal status, how many of those were self-elevations?"

The Churches of Bulgaria (a couple of times), Serbia (a couple of times as well), and Russia all come to mind :-). I think Georgia and Romania self-elevated under their monarchs as well, but I could be mistaken...

So is it just up to each Church to decide if it should be a Patriarchate or not (as some Orthodox posters want to see in the Catholic Church)?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,096


Goodbye for now, my friend


« Reply #79 on: April 06, 2011, 09:09:25 PM »

So is it just up to each Church to decide if it should be a Patriarchate or not (as some Orthodox posters want to see in the Catholic Church)?

The process isn't quite that simple, as decisions about such things can be either accepted or rejected by the Orthodox world at large. Also, there are other issues involved. For example, Bulgaria was mentioned... they flip flopped numerous times in the 10th century, going back and forth between Rome and Constantinople regarding who they considered the rightful authority to grant them a certain status.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 09:11:07 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

Paradosis ≠ Asteriktos ≠ Justin
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,955


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #80 on: April 06, 2011, 09:09:48 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

Generally, certain positions will lead to the bishop becoming a cardinal.  Archbishops for the See of Boston, within a couple of years of their appointment are elevated to cardinal. Previous Major Archbishops (sounds so military...lol) have all been made cardinals.  It will only be a matter of time before the new Major Archbishop will be enrolled into the College of Cardinals. Tho, due to his age, they may wait a bit longer than usual.  
Become a cardinal?  Are you sure about that?  Historically that has not been the case but Slipyj etc. was the exception.

Yes, all Major Archbishops, from Slipyj to Husar have been made cardinals.  Deacon Lance, correct me if I'm wrong.

You are correct.  Metropolitans Mykhajlo Levitsky and Sylvester Sembratovich were also cardinals.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,955


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #81 on: April 06, 2011, 09:14:19 PM »

If they were walking in a procession in order of seniority, a cardinal would outrank a patriarch who wasn't a cardinal.

Incorrect.  As stated earlier I have seen Eastern Catholic Patrirachs, Major Archbishops, and Metropolitan heads of sui iuris Churches process in last and be seated first ahead of Cardinals.
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 09:25:02 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,955


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #82 on: April 06, 2011, 09:22:32 PM »

Would it be possible for your Metropolitan to take the title of Patriarch since he heads a Sui Juris Church?  Could we actually have a Patriarch in America one day?

Possible? Yes.  Likely? No.  Could we see a Patriarch in America?  I would like to see the CCEO reformed so that all Eastern Catholic primates, whether Patriarch, Archbishop, or Metropolitan, are elected and enthroned by their Synods and then request communion with the Pope.  It isn't the title that matters but the amount of autonomy.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,955


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #83 on: April 06, 2011, 09:24:20 PM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

Not sure what you mean by outrank, but if you mean who gets to sit where I can tell you when the American bishops made their ad limina visit my Metropolitan was seated before everyone including the cardinals in view of the fact he is the only American bishop who is the head of a sui iuris Church.   The patriarchs always precede the cardinals in any Liturgy I have seen.

Would it be possible for your Metropolitan to take the title of Patriarch since he heads a Sui Juris Church?

No.

Please refrain from speaking for me or my Church.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #84 on: April 07, 2011, 02:25:18 AM »

"I guess my question would be, out of the Orthodox Churches that have been elevated to patriarchal status, how many of those were self-elevations?"

The Churches of Bulgaria (a couple of times), Serbia (a couple of times as well), and Russia all come to mind :-). I think Georgia and Romania self-elevated under their monarchs as well, but I could be mistaken...

So is it just up to each Church to decide if it should be a Patriarchate or not (as some Orthodox posters want to see in the Catholic Church)?

Some Eastern Catholics actually see it in their Churches.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #85 on: April 07, 2011, 02:57:58 AM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

Not sure what you mean by outrank, but if you mean who gets to sit where I can tell you when the American bishops made their ad limina visit my Metropolitan was seated before everyone including the cardinals in view of the fact he is the only American bishop who is the head of a sui iuris Church.   The patriarchs always precede the cardinals in any Liturgy I have seen.

Would it be possible for your Metropolitan to take the title of Patriarch since he heads a Sui Juris Church?

No.

Please refrain from speaking for me or my Church.
Just telling it like it is.

Quote
Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium
TITLE 3

The Supreme Authority of the Church

Canon 42
Just as, by the Lord's decision, Saint Peter and the other Apostles constitute one college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, successor of Peter, and the bishops, successors of the Apostles, are joined together.

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.

Canon 45
1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.
2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.
3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

Canon 46
1. In exercising his office (munus) the Roman Pontiff is assisted by the bishops who aid him in various ways and among these is the synod of bishops; moreover the cardinals, the Roman curia, pontifical legates and other persons and various institutes assist him according to the needs of the times; all these persons and institutes carry out the task committed to them in his name and by his authority for the good of all the Churches, according
to the norm of law established by the Roman Pontiff himself.

2. The participation of patriarchs and other hierarchs who preside over Churches sui iuris in the synod of bishops is regulated by special norms  established by the Roman Pontiff.
 
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 57
1. The erection, restoration, modification and suppression of patriarchal Churches is reserved to the supreme authority of the Church.
2. Only the supreme authority of the Church can modify the legitimately recognized or conceded title of each patriarchal Church.
3. If it is possible, a patriarchal Church must have a permanent see for the residence of the patriarch in a principal city inside its own territory from which the patriarch takes his title; this see cannot be transferred except for a most grave reason and with the consent of the synod of bishops of the
patriarchal Church and the assent of the Roman Pontiff.
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.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #86 on: April 07, 2011, 03:10:51 AM »

"I guess my question would be, out of the Orthodox Churches that have been elevated to patriarchal status, how many of those were self-elevations?"

The Churches of Bulgaria (a couple of times), Serbia (a couple of times as well), and Russia all come to mind :-). I think Georgia and Romania self-elevated under their monarchs as well, but I could be mistaken...
No, only Bulgaria, and then only in its third restoration.  The rest were all elevated by its former Mother Church, except for Russia, whose elevation was confirmed also by a Synod of Constantinople,Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,152



« Reply #87 on: April 07, 2011, 07:42:44 AM »

So is it just up to each Church to decide if it should be a Patriarchate or not (as some Orthodox posters want to see in the Catholic Church)?

The process isn't quite that simple, as decisions about such things can be either accepted or rejected by the Orthodox world at large. Also, there are other issues involved. For example, Bulgaria was mentioned... they flip flopped numerous times in the 10th century, going back and forth between Rome and Constantinople regarding who they considered the rightful authority to grant them a certain status.

You say that in Orthodoxy the process "isn't quite that simple", yet it seems to me that my church is being criticized precisely because it "isn't quite that simple" in Catholicism. For example,

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,105


Scheherazade


« Reply #88 on: April 07, 2011, 12:59:37 PM »

I would like to see the CCEO reformed so that all Eastern Catholic primates, whether Patriarch, Archbishop, or Metropolitan, are elected and enthroned by their Synods and then request communion with the Pope.  


When a new pope is elected does he request communion with the other Catholic primates?


And on another note. Does the pope commemorate the other Catholic patriarchs during liturgy?
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 01:00:53 PM by Paisius » Logged

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frédéric Bastiat
Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #89 on: April 07, 2011, 01:11:26 PM »

I would like to see the CCEO reformed so that all Eastern Catholic primates, whether Patriarch, Archbishop, or Metropolitan, are elected and enthroned by their Synods and then request communion with the Pope.  


When a new pope is elected does he request communion with the other Catholic primates?


And on another note. Does the pope commemorate the other Catholic patriarchs during liturgy?
No, the Pope does not commemorate the other patriarchs.  At least with Melkites of Antioch, the Synod elects a new patriarch when vacant, a confession of Faith is sent by the new patriarch to Rome and Rome confirms the election.  No, the Pope does not request communion with the other Catholic primates.  Just by the fact they are in commuinon already makes this unnecessary.
Logged
Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,105


Scheherazade


« Reply #90 on: April 07, 2011, 02:08:55 PM »

No, the Pope does not request communion with the other Catholic primates.  Just by the fact they are in commuinon already makes this unnecessary.


I don't understand that statement?  Huh
Logged

"Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Frédéric Bastiat
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,152



« Reply #91 on: April 07, 2011, 02:17:23 PM »

When a new pope is elected does he request communion with the other Catholic primates?


And on another note. Does the pope commemorate the other Catholic patriarchs during liturgy?

Those are good questions. I hadn't really thought about it that way before, or at least not recently. I won't give you an answer because I see Neil (Irish Melkite) is already on it, and I know he's a much better one to address such questions than I am.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
username!
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,068



« Reply #92 on: April 07, 2011, 03:44:52 PM »

In a semi-recent 60 minute segment they interviewed Patriarch of Constantinople.  They said all of his titles and asked him what they should call him, he replied "Bartholomew."  Now 60 minutes said they couldn't and would call him His Holiness because he deserves it because he's a great man.  None of us would ever call Patriarch Bartholomew just "Bartholomew."  However, it shows exactly the humility that needs to be remebered.  Titles are titles.  Patriarch is a great title that shows respect but also man glorifying man.  A bishop is a bishop no matter what his title is, he is the leader of his flock.  No title can make him more of a bishop, more of a leader.  The grace of God touched upon him as he was tonsured a reader, ordained a subdeacon, ordained a deacon, ordained a priest and then ordained a bishop.  But it is through God that everything comes to us.  You aren't ordained an archbishop, a protopresbyter, a mitred archpriest, or even a patriarch.  So while it may be cool in a way for the Greek Catholics to have that title on their bishop in Kyiv, he is still their bishop at the end of the day.
Logged

Irish_Melkite
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton MA
Posts: 98


« Reply #93 on: April 07, 2011, 03:52:09 PM »

When a new pope is elected does he request communion with the other Catholic primates?


And on another note. Does the pope commemorate the other Catholic patriarchs during liturgy?

Those are good questions. I hadn't really thought about it that way before, or at least not recently. I won't give you an answer because I see Neil (Irish Melkite) is already on it, and I know he's a much better one to address such questions than I am.

I need to change my nick.  There's Irish Melkite (Neil) and then there's Irish_Melkite (me, Tom).  Sorry for the confusion. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #94 on: April 07, 2011, 04:08:03 PM »

No, the Pope does not request communion with the other Catholic primates.  Just by the fact they are in commuinon already makes this unnecessary.


I don't understand that statement?  Huh

The Vatican has redefined "Catholic" as meaning in communion with their supreme pontiff.  Since according to them, as soon as he is selected, he becomes supreme pontiff, as long as he is already a bishop, then by their definition the primates have to be in communion with him.

We have  a few threads on the problem of how papal charisma is passed on without a consecration.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32995.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32759.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32995.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,33134.0.html
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32532.0.html
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,152



« Reply #95 on: April 07, 2011, 08:54:51 PM »

I need to change my nick.  There's Irish Melkite (Neil) and then there's Irish_Melkite (me, Tom).  Sorry for the confusion.  

Sorry, I jumped to conclusions.

Pleased to meet you, Tom.  Smiley
« Last Edit: April 07, 2011, 08:56:47 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #96 on: April 08, 2011, 10:46:49 AM »

When a new pope is elected does he request communion with the other Catholic primates?


And on another note. Does the pope commemorate the other Catholic patriarchs during liturgy?

Those are good questions. I hadn't really thought about it that way before, or at least not recently. I won't give you an answer because I see Neil (Irish Melkite) is already on it, and I know he's a much better one to address such questions than I am.

I need to change my nick.  There's Irish Melkite (Neil) and then there's Irish_Melkite (me, Tom).  Sorry for the confusion. 

That's funny as I just asked Neil if you were one and the same!
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #97 on: April 09, 2011, 07:27:08 AM »

Is it true that cardinals outrank Patriarchs in the Catholic Church?

No. Patriarchs of the Eastern Rite may be cardinals, however, in which case they always belong to the order of cardinal bishops. But a number of Latin Rite archbishops have the title patriarch, such as the patriarch of Venice, the patriarch of Lisbon, and the patriarch of the Gauls. They are normally cardinals, but the red hat is never automatic. And the Latin patriarch of Jerusalem isn't a cardinal, either in fact or by custom.

Okay, but hypothetically speaking, if a bishop is a patriarch, but not a cardinal, would a non-patriarch cardinal outrank him?
If you lined up bishops in order of precedence, the answer would be yes: A cardinal would come before non-cardinal patriarchs.

Why?
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,152



« Reply #98 on: April 09, 2011, 07:43:39 AM »

If you lined up bishops in order of precedence, the answer would be yes: A cardinal would come before non-cardinal patriarchs.

Source?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #99 on: April 11, 2011, 06:46:04 AM »

The order of precedence depends, to a minor degree, on the nature of the procession and the venue in which it occurs. However, as a general rule, it should not vary.

For instance, at the enthronement, a few years ago, of Archbishop Cyril (Bustros) as Eparch of Newton for the Melkites, the order of procession (forgive the inclusion of non-hierarchs - I cut and pasted this part from elsewhere and it's too late and I'm too tired to cull it down to the hierarchs, which are the focus of discussion) was:

Servers
Members of religious congregations not in holy orders
- Novices
- Nuns
- Religious Brothers
- Brother Monks
Seminarians
Non-celebrating minor clergy
- Readers
- Cantors
- Sub-deacons
- Deacons
Serving minor clergy
- Deacons
- Proto-deacons
- Arch-deacons
Orthodox Presbyters (other than those formally representing hierarchs)
Latin Presbyters
Eastern Hieromonks and Presbyters with no title of minor prelature
Orthodox Minor Prelates formally representing their hierarchs
Eastern, Oriental & Latin Minor Prelates
- Monsignori
- Archimandrites
- Archpriests
- Periodeuts
- Chorepiscopi
- Proto-Presbyters (non-Melkite)
Non-hierarchical Concelebrants
- Cathedral Rector
- Melkite Proto-Presbyters
- Maronite Chorbishop/Dean of New England
- Melkite Patriarchal Exarch
Hegumens
Abbots
Eastern, Oriental, and Latin Catholic bishops (intermingled, by date of episcopal ordination - note that this is how it should be done; there are those who would separate the Eastern and Oriental from the Latins, for the sake of uniformity of vesture, etc - to do so is blatantly incorrect and defies the concept of the unity of the Church)
Metropolitan Archbishop of Hartford (Latin)
Metropolitan Arch-Eparch of Philadelphia of the Ukrainians
Metropolitan Cardinal-Archbishop of Boston (Latin)
Metropolitan Arch-Eparch of Pittsburgh of the Ruthenians
Emeritus Eparch of Newton of the Melkites
Eparch-Designate of Newton of the Melkites
Apostolic Nuncio to the United States
Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and All the East of the Melkites  

Hartford and Philadelphia were sequenced for precedence by date of episcopal ordination
Boston had precedence over the other 2 Metropolitans (Hartford and Philadelphia) by virtue of being also a Cardinal
Pittsburgh had precedence over Boston by virtue of heading a sui iuris Church
Newton had its precedence by virtue of the ceremony being in and of their jurisdiction
Apostolic Nuncio had his precedence by virtue of representing the Pope
His Beatitude had precedence by virtue of his Patriarchy and by reason of being in a cathedral of his Church sui iuris

--------------------

In contrast, when Newton was still an exarchate, at the time (1969) of the enthronement of Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory, the differences in precedence were:

Pittsburgh - the Ruthenian Metropolia was not yet termed sui iuris
Philadelphia - by prior date of elevation to Archbishop
Hartford - again, by prior date of elevation
Newton - by virtue of being exarch-designate
Apostolic Delegate - by virtue of representation

and (being three hierarchs who genuinely liked and enjoyed one another's company) the then-Archbishop of Boston, Richard Cardinal Cushing, Patriarch Maximos V Hakim, and GO Archbishop Iakovos, all of blessed memory, processed side-by-side (truth be told, it was, most likely, the better to chit-chat among themselves while awaiting the start of the procession).

Had that not been the case, it would have been Archbishop Iakovos, followed by the Cardinal, followed by the Patriarch.

The Cardinal would have immediately preceded the Patriarch (rather than been factored into the other Metropolitans by date of episcopal ordination) because the cathedral of an apostolic exarchate in the diaspora (an apostolic exarchate being a papal jurisdiction) would have been technically within the geographic bounds of the Latin metropolitan, rather than being a distinct canonical jurisdiction. Thus, the Latin Cardinal Archbishop of Boston would not have been 'outside' his own canonical jurisdiction once he stepped onto its grounds (as is now the case when the Latin Archbishop of Boston enters upon the grounds of the cathedral or the other Melkite temples and institutions that are within the broader geographic bounds of the Boston Latin Archdiocese).    

-------------------

In general, Eastern and Oriental Catholic hierarchs attending and participating in a procession in a Latin venue should be ordered (by date of episcopal ordination) for precdeence with their Latin peers. That would include those who are the primatial hierarchs of sui iuris Churches in which an Exarchate or Eparchy is the highest status of canonical jurisdiction (e.g., the Byzantine Greek, Italo-Greico-Albanian, and Slovak Churches sui iuris). So, bishops, archbishops, and Latin metropolitan archbishops.

Next should be those Metropolitan Archbishops who are the ranking primates of Metropolitan Churches sui iuris, again by date; then Major-Archbishops of Churches sui iuris, again by date; and, finally, Patriarchs - Coptic, followed by  Melkite, and the others by date of election.

But, in a temple of his own Church sui iuris, a Patriarch has precedence over all other Patriarchs, and Patriarchs Emeritus of that same Church enjoy precedence over all Patriarchs other than the then-reigning Patriarch.
------------------

The one notable exception to the above is that, in a procession of the College of Cardinals, any Eastern or Oriental Catholic hierarch who is also a Cardinal (other than those who are Patriarchs) would be ordered with his fellow Cardinals by the date so named.

Patriarchs who are also Cardinals are automatically ascribed to the ranks of the Cardinal Bishops and would be ordered with their fellow-Cardinal Bishops, by date named as Cardinal; however, they (and all the Cardinal Bishops) would have precedence only after the Dean of the College of Cardinals.

-----------------------

Precedence, even as head of a Church sui iuris, would almost always give way to a Latin hierarch in whose canonical jurisdiction one is a guest and in which one is processing - although a Major-Archbishop or Patriarch is most likely to be afforded honorific precedence there (processing with or alongside the resident hierarch).

Such might also be accorded to a Metropolitan of a Church sui iuris if the resident hierarch is particularly sensitive to the distinction - although it's not a scenario one would expect to encounter very frequently. (A similar honorific precedence might well be accorded any visiting hierarch of higher status than the resident hierarch. The ordinary of a place is not likely to stand on strict protocol in the presence of a hierarch who is of higher ecclesiastical rank/stature than himself.)

-----------------------

In answer to Peter's query:  Cardinal is a dignity, not a separate episcopal rank or status. There is no 'authority' that attends to the cardinalate, other than that of serving as an elector - and that is not an authority, it is a prerogative. 

Not so, a Patriarch. A Patriarch enjoys authority as a function of being a Patriarch.

Canon 58 (CCEO)

Quote
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 56 (CCEO)

Quote
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.


A Cardinal is, at base, a bishop (other than in those rare instances of priests who have been named cardinal and whose request not to be ordained to the episcopate has been granted by the Pope). Any ecclesiastical authority that a Cardinal exercises is a function of his episcopal role as a bishop or archbishop or his office as the head of a curial function, not that he is a Cardinal. A Patriarch derives his authority from the fact of being Patriarch.

Canon 349 (Latin Code)

Quote
The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute a special College, whose prerogative it is to elect the Roman Pontiff in accordance with the norms of a special law. The Cardinals are also available to the Roman Pontiff, either acting collegially, when they are summoned together to deal with questions of major importance, or acting individually, that is, in the offices which they hold in assisting the Roman Pontiff[/b] especially in the daily care of the universal Church.


Canon 351 (Latin Code)

Quote
§1 Those to be promoted Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff, who are at least in the order of priesthood ...; those who are not already Bishops must receive episcopal consecration.


Many years,

Neil    
« Last Edit: April 11, 2011, 07:14:18 AM by Irish Melkite » Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #100 on: April 11, 2011, 03:25:20 PM »

You have to paste it into your browser. As you can see not the whole one is the active link.

Thank you, the Google translation was awful, but I got the gist.

I wouldn't expect much of a change as Metropolitan Hilarion is not know for any history of kind words towards the Greek Catholics.
Or any other non-Orthodox. He had some especially choice remarks about the German Evangelicals after they elected a woman as their presiding bishop.
Logged
Hermogenes
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 493



« Reply #101 on: April 11, 2011, 03:27:51 PM »

If you lined up bishops in order of precedence, the answer would be yes: A cardinal would come before non-cardinal patriarchs.

Source?

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, suffragan bishops.
Logged
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #102 on: April 12, 2011, 05:41:23 AM »

If you lined up bishops in order of precedence, the answer would be yes: A cardinal would come before non-cardinal patriarchs.

Source?

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, suffragan bishops.

In 1913, not any longer.

Many years,

Neil
Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #103 on: April 12, 2011, 10:53:34 AM »

If you lined up bishops in order of precedence, the answer would be yes: A cardinal would come before non-cardinal patriarchs.

Source?

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, suffragan bishops.

In 1913, not any longer.

Many years,

Neil

New Advent is an important resource, but as Neil points out, it dates to 1913 and in many ways it is obsolete and misleading, especially to Orthodox. For example, the articles on Greek Catholics and Ruthenians are interesting as they point out the intellectual framework of the Vatican in dealing with the emigration of those populations to America and how they were regarded, or disregarded, as the case may be.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,152



« Reply #104 on: April 12, 2011, 11:09:41 AM »

If you lined up bishops in order of precedence, the answer would be yes: A cardinal would come before non-cardinal patriarchs.

Source?

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, suffragan bishops.

In 1913, not any longer.

Many years,

Neil

New Advent is an important resource, but as Neil points out, it dates to 1913 and in many ways it is obsolete and misleading, especially to Orthodox.

I don't usually "plug" websites, but catholic.com put The Catholic Encyclopedia online too (they call it The Original Catholic Encyclopedia). So did catholic.org. I guess newadvent.org gets more traffic because they did it first.

But anyhow, I quite agree with you. The Catholic Encyclopedia is good if you're doing a historical study of Catholics a hundred or so years ago, but that's about it. (Ialmisry has attempted to establish the Catholic Encyclopedia as an authority on Catholicism, based on the fact that it received an impramatur from Bishop So-and-so in such-and-such year. Personally I just think that's an absurd argument.)

For example, the articles on Greek Catholics and Ruthenians are interesting as they point out the intellectual framework of the Vatican in dealing with the emigration of those populations to America and how they were regarded, or disregarded, as the case may be.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #105 on: April 12, 2011, 12:26:36 PM »

If you lined up bishops in order of precedence, the answer would be yes: A cardinal would come before non-cardinal patriarchs.

Source?

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, suffragan bishops.

In 1913, not any longer.

Many years,

Neil

New Advent is an important resource, but as Neil points out, it dates to 1913 and in many ways it is obsolete and misleading, especially to Orthodox.

I don't usually "plug" websites, but catholic.com put The Catholic Encyclopedia online too (they call it The Original Catholic Encyclopedia). So did catholic.org. I guess newadvent.org gets more traffic because they did it first.

But anyhow, I quite agree with you. The Catholic Encyclopedia is good if you're doing a historical study of Catholics a hundred or so years ago, but that's about it. (Ialmisry has attempted to establish the Catholic Encyclopedia as an authority on Catholicism, based on the fact that it received an impramatur from Bishop So-and-so in such-and-such year. Personally I just think that's an absurd argument.)
The problem we often run into is that when we substantiate our points, we are told "that's not authoritative." So I like to uses sources vetted by your Magisterium (which the "Catholic Encyclopedia" is.  IIRC, the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" is not), and leave the apologists of the Vatican to fight its authority.  Now, to argue about things that have changed in the past century, I'm fine with citing something with equal authority (they still issue imprimatur and nihil obstat), but that often runs into the problems that the Vatican didn't start in 1961, the development of doctrine nonsense, the inconsistencies of the Vatican's magisterium, and the fact that although worded differently in tone much hasn't changed. What the old EC says is pertinent according to the St. Vincent of Lerins canon of Orthodoxy and Catholicity.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 988


WWW
« Reply #106 on: April 12, 2011, 02:32:36 PM »

Quote
I'm fine with citing something with equal authority (they still issue imprimatur and nihil obstat),

Isa, my friend,


Keep in mind that the nihil obstat (tr: nothing obstructs or nothing stands in the way) is merely the declaration of a diocesan censor that a work contains nothing damaging to faith or morals - it does not make the work doctrinal or dogmatic. An imprimatur (tr: let it be published) is nothing more than an authorization by a bishop for a work to be printed. Carried to an extreme, one could probably apply these to the typical Father Brown mystery by Chesterton - carried to the ridiculous, to much secular literature.

Many years,

Neil

addendum, well much secular literature is probably a bit the exaggeration  Grin
Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,152



« Reply #107 on: April 12, 2011, 03:01:50 PM »

If you lined up bishops in order of precedence, the answer would be yes: A cardinal would come before non-cardinal patriarchs.

Source?

The Catholic Encyclopedia. Cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, suffragan bishops.

In 1913, not any longer.

Many years,

Neil

New Advent is an important resource, but as Neil points out, it dates to 1913 and in many ways it is obsolete and misleading, especially to Orthodox.

I don't usually "plug" websites, but catholic.com put The Catholic Encyclopedia online too (they call it The Original Catholic Encyclopedia). So did catholic.org. I guess newadvent.org gets more traffic because they did it first.

But anyhow, I quite agree with you. The Catholic Encyclopedia is good if you're doing a historical study of Catholics a hundred or so years ago, but that's about it. (Ialmisry has attempted to establish the Catholic Encyclopedia as an authority on Catholicism, based on the fact that it received an impramatur from Bishop So-and-so in such-and-such year. Personally I just think that's an absurd argument.)
The problem we often run into is that when we substantiate our points, we are told "that's not authoritative."

But you don't seem to listen, so we have to keep repeating "that's not authoritative" until we get tired of the sound of our own voices.

Although I guess I do have to give you credit for "going the extra mile". What I mean is, most Orthodox and Protestants who cite the Catholic Encyclopedia seem to just assume it's authoritative because it's called "the Catholic Encyclopedia". You have, at least, based your argument on imprimaturs.

So I like to uses sources vetted by your Magisterium (which the "Catholic Encyclopedia" is. 

So I guess they just haven't gotten around to putting it up on vatican.va yet, eh? Wink

j/k

IIRC, the "New Catholic Encyclopedia" is not)

Are you saying the New Catholic Encyclopedia doesn't have an imprimatur and/or nihil obstat? If so, that's surprising.

, and leave the apologists of the Vatican to fight its authority.  Now, to argue about things that have changed in the past century, I'm fine with citing something with equal authority (they still issue imprimatur and nihil obstat), but that often runs into the problems that the Vatican didn't start in 1961, the development of doctrine nonsense, the inconsistencies of the Vatican's magisterium, and the fact that although worded differently in tone much hasn't changed. What the old EC says is pertinent according to the St. Vincent of Lerins canon of Orthodoxy and Catholicity.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Robb
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: RC
Jurisdiction: Italian Catholic
Posts: 1,537



« Reply #108 on: April 12, 2011, 04:28:21 PM »

Why have they never put the "New " Catholic Encyclopedia online?  It was published back in the late 60's and contains updates on RC teachings after the Vatican Council II.  It seems that whoever at the New Advent website decided to put up the old Catholic Encyclopedia as opposed to the new one may have done so deliberately (Perhaps due to Traditionalist RC sympathies).  Maybe the New Advent people would like us all to believe that nothing has changed with the Vatican/Catholic Church and her teachings?
Logged

Men may dislike truth, men may find truth offensive and inconvenient, men may persecute the truth, subvert it, try by law to suppress it. But to maintain that men have the final power over truth is blasphemy, and the last delusion. Truth lives forever, men do not.
-- Gustave Flaubert
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #109 on: April 12, 2011, 04:37:52 PM »

Why have they never put the "New " Catholic Encyclopedia online?  It was published back in the late 60's and contains updates on RC teachings after the Vatican Council II.  It seems that whoever at the New Advent website decided to put up the old Catholic Encyclopedia as opposed to the new one may have done so deliberately (Perhaps due to Traditionalist RC sympathies).  Maybe the New Advent people would like us all to believe that nothing has changed with the Vatican/Catholic Church and her teachings?

Intellectual Property reasons.  The Old Catholic Encyclopedia is out of copyright and therefore in the public domain.  The New Catholic Encyclopedia is still being published and supplemented by the CUA and therefore they still have a reason to keep it out of the public domain. 

Almost every public library system in the United States has a copy of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, too.  It's not like it's hard to get a hold of.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #110 on: April 12, 2011, 04:39:47 PM »

Why have they never put the "New " Catholic Encyclopedia online?  It was published back in the late 60's and contains updates on RC teachings after the Vatican Council II.  It seems that whoever at the New Advent website decided to put up the old Catholic Encyclopedia as opposed to the new one may have done so deliberately (Perhaps due to Traditionalist RC sympathies).  Maybe the New Advent people would like us all to believe that nothing has changed with the Vatican/Catholic Church and her teachings?

Intellectual Property reasons.  The Old Catholic Encyclopedia is out of copyright and therefore in the public domain.  The New Catholic Encyclopedia is still being published and supplemented by the CUA and therefore they still have a reason to keep it out of the public domain. 

Almost every public library system in the United States has a copy of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, too.  It's not like it's hard to get a hold of.

Pragmatist
Logged

podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,601


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #111 on: April 12, 2011, 04:53:26 PM »

Why have they never put the "New " Catholic Encyclopedia online?  It was published back in the late 60's and contains updates on RC teachings after the Vatican Council II.  It seems that whoever at the New Advent website decided to put up the old Catholic Encyclopedia as opposed to the new one may have done so deliberately (Perhaps due to Traditionalist RC sympathies).  Maybe the New Advent people would like us all to believe that nothing has changed with the Vatican/Catholic Church and her teachings?

Intellectual Property reasons.  The Old Catholic Encyclopedia is out of copyright and therefore in the public domain.  The New Catholic Encyclopedia is still being published and supplemented by the CUA and therefore they still have a reason to keep it out of the public domain. 

Almost every public library system in the United States has a copy of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, too.  It's not like it's hard to get a hold of.

Pragmatist

I just hate it when there's not a good conspiracy lurking behind everything!   Smiley
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #112 on: April 12, 2011, 05:18:55 PM »

Why have they never put the "New " Catholic Encyclopedia online?  It was published back in the late 60's and contains updates on RC teachings after the Vatican Council II.  It seems that whoever at the New Advent website decided to put up the old Catholic Encyclopedia as opposed to the new one may have done so deliberately (Perhaps due to Traditionalist RC sympathies).  Maybe the New Advent people would like us all to believe that nothing has changed with the Vatican/Catholic Church and her teachings?

Intellectual Property reasons.  The Old Catholic Encyclopedia is out of copyright and therefore in the public domain.  The New Catholic Encyclopedia is still being published and supplemented by the CUA and therefore they still have a reason to keep it out of the public domain. 

Almost every public library system in the United States has a copy of the New Catholic Encyclopedia, too.  It's not like it's hard to get a hold of.

Pragmatist

I just hate it when there's not a good conspiracy lurking behind everything!   Smiley

 laugh laugh laugh
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,152



« Reply #113 on: April 12, 2011, 08:30:59 PM »

Why have they never put the "New " Catholic Encyclopedia online?  It was published back in the late 60's and contains updates on RC teachings after the Vatican Council II.  It seems that whoever at the New Advent website decided to put up the old Catholic Encyclopedia as opposed to the new one may have done so deliberately (Perhaps due to Traditionalist RC sympathies).  Maybe the New Advent people would like us all to believe that nothing has changed with the Vatican/Catholic Church and her teachings?

Intellectual Property reasons.  The Old Catholic Encyclopedia is out of copyright and therefore in the public domain.  The New Catholic Encyclopedia is still being published and supplemented by the CUA and therefore they still have a reason to keep it out of the public domain. 

Quite right.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,152



« Reply #114 on: April 12, 2011, 08:38:22 PM »

It seems that whoever at the New Advent website decided to put up the old Catholic Encyclopedia as opposed to the new one may have done so deliberately (Perhaps due to Traditionalist RC sympathies).

If they were traditionalists, then I could understand them putting the Catholic Encyclopedia online.

What I find troubling is that they really don't appear to be traditionalist. Ditto for catholic.com and catholic.org. What's even stranger is that the catholicity.com website, which is [from what I know about it] not even close to be traditionalist, also has it online.
« Last Edit: April 12, 2011, 08:46:08 PM by Peter J » Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
filipinopilgrim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 130


« Reply #115 on: April 13, 2011, 04:59:44 AM »

It seems that whoever at the New Advent website decided to put up the old Catholic Encyclopedia as opposed to the new one may have done so deliberately (Perhaps due to Traditionalist RC sympathies).

If they were traditionalists, then I could understand them putting the Catholic Encyclopedia online.

What I find troubling is that they really don't appear to be traditionalist. Ditto for catholic.com and catholic.org. What's even stranger is that the catholicity.com website, which is [from what I know about it] not even close to be traditionalist, also has it online.

Another reason is because of the sheer mass of historical data that can be found in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It contains a lot of historical information and bibliographical entries that can't be found in newer Catholic reference works. Furthermore, given the extent to which Catholic liturgy and canon law has changed in the last 100 years, the CE is a valuable resource that gives Catholics like me information about long-forgotten facts about Catholic liturgy and canon law c. 1910. 
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,152



« Reply #116 on: April 13, 2011, 10:12:38 AM »

Another reason is because of the sheer mass of historical data that can be found in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It contains a lot of historical information and bibliographical entries that can't be found in newer Catholic reference works. Furthermore, given the extent to which Catholic liturgy and canon law has changed in the last 100 years, the CE is a valuable resource that gives Catholics like me information about long-forgotten facts about Catholic liturgy and canon law c. 1910. 

Which I think is fine, so long as you understand that it isn't 1910 anymore. Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
filipinopilgrim
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 130


« Reply #117 on: April 13, 2011, 08:52:48 PM »

Another reason is because of the sheer mass of historical data that can be found in the old Catholic Encyclopedia. It contains a lot of historical information and bibliographical entries that can't be found in newer Catholic reference works. Furthermore, given the extent to which Catholic liturgy and canon law has changed in the last 100 years, the CE is a valuable resource that gives Catholics like me information about long-forgotten facts about Catholic liturgy and canon law c. 1910. 

Which I think is fine, so long as you understand that it isn't 1910 anymore. Wink

Of course it isn't 1910 anymore, and any Catholic who really knows anything about his faith would know that. Much more dangerous are those Catholics who want to obliterate any memory of what the Church was like a century ago.
Logged
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #118 on: April 14, 2011, 09:36:23 PM »


You say that in Orthodoxy the process "isn't quite that simple", yet it seems to me that my church is being criticized precisely because it "isn't quite that simple" in Catholicism. For example,

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?

It's not a question of simplicity, it's a question of authority.

Whether it's the commemoration of a saint or the recognition of a patriarch, the Orthodox Church is not centralized.  Say Orthodoxy takes off in Mexico and they name a Patriarch.  Say the Russians recognize the patriarch of Mexico.  So I go to Mexico for vacation and I ask my priest (Serbian), "Hey, is it okay if I go to the Mexican Orthodox Church?"  Priest says, "Yeah, their good."  So they start getting recognized by guys at the top and guys at the bottom and there you go.  New patriarch.  Even if the Greeks say, "No good," if everyone else is on board, I guess it would suck to be Greek and go to Mexico.  In Orthodoxy the whole Church together has authority. 
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,152



« Reply #119 on: April 14, 2011, 09:52:03 PM »


You say that in Orthodoxy the process "isn't quite that simple", yet it seems to me that my church is being criticized precisely because it "isn't quite that simple" in Catholicism. For example,

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?

It's not a question of simplicity, it's a question of authority.

Whether it's the commemoration of a saint or the recognition of a patriarch, the Orthodox Church is not centralized.  Say Orthodoxy takes off in Mexico and they name a Patriarch.  Say the Russians recognize the patriarch of Mexico.  So I go to Mexico for vacation and I ask my priest (Serbian), "Hey, is it okay if I go to the Mexican Orthodox Church?"  Priest says, "Yeah, their good."  So they start getting recognized by guys at the top and guys at the bottom and there you go.  New patriarch.  Even if the Greeks say, "No good," if everyone else is on board, I guess it would suck to be Greek and go to Mexico.  In Orthodoxy the whole Church together has authority. 

Hi cizinec. I guess your argument makes sense, in-and-of-itself. However, I don't think you read the quote from kijabeboy03 very carefully. Here it is again (emphasis added):

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?

In other words, the UGCC decides that it should be a patriarchate, and presto it is a patriarchate.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #120 on: April 19, 2011, 01:28:16 PM »


Hi cizinec. I guess your argument makes sense, in-and-of-itself. However, I don't think you read the quote from kijabeboy03 very carefully. Here it is again (emphasis added):

If the Eastern Catholic Churches are Rome's sisters, then why do they need the Vatican's permission to change the title of one of their heads? Shouldn't the decision of the Holy Synod of the Ukrainian Catholic Church be official enough?

In other words, the UGCC decides that it should be a patriarchate, and presto it is a patriarchate.

Obviously it wouldn't be "Presto," but OTOH, it wouldn't require buy off from a single guy.  In our model, if the Melkites, Ruthenians, Malabar, etc., say he's a patriarch and the Pope says he isn't, he's a patriarch.  I think that's one reason why Rome is so hesitant to start allowing the EC Bishops from gaining traditional titles.  The other being that Ukraine has enough patriarchs the way it is.  The last thing Ukraine needs is another one.  Of course, Ukraine is a great example of the messiness of our system.  I'm Serbian, so I have faith that the Ukrainians will eventually figure it out. 
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.361 seconds with 147 queries.