Page Updated 09/19/2006
|
||
|
The Melkite Church at the Council Discourses and Memoranda of Patriarch Maximos IV and of the Hierarchs of His Church at the Second Vatican Council - - - Introduction by Archimandrite Robert F. Taft |
Chapter
6 - The Patriarchs in the Church
Most
Holy Father:
The
announcement of the approaching council has filled the entire Christian world
with joy. The bishops of our Melkite Greek Catholic Church, the superiors
general of our religious orders, and we ourselves, desirous of making our modest
contributions to the success of the Council, after careful study by our Synod,
have with solicitude proposed to the ante-preparatory pontifical commission the
wishes, recommendations, and suggestions that it asked of us in the name of Your
Holiness. It is a pleasure for us to remain entirely at your service with
respect to any additional studies or information you might judge suitable to ask
of us, especially on matters in which we believe that we can be most useful,
namely, everything that concerns rapprochement with our separated brethren of
the East.
The
holding of this council is such an important event in the life of the Church
that all our bishops and superiors general will make a point of attending this
one personally and participating in a holy and active way in its labors. The
ends for which such a council is convoked are always of the greatest importance
for the faith, ethics, discipline, and life of the Church. In particular, the
council that Your Holiness is planning to convoke is all the more important in
our eyes inasmuch as through Your Holiness’ declarations, as well as through
the efforts made to resume contacts with the separated confessions, we have the
firm hope that the means of facilitating the reunion of divided Christendom will
be treated cordially there.
Now,
this goal is precisely one of the reasons for the existence of our Eastern
Catholic Church. We represent in Catholicism the hope and already the seed of a
corporate reunion of the Christian East with the Holy See of Rome, maintaining
all due respect for everything that constitutes the riches of the East’s
specific spiritual patrimony. Likewise, in spite of our advanced age we cherish
the hope of being able to participate in person in the labors of this council,
in which the Christian world hopes to find a truly open door leading to the
Christian unity for which it so deeply yearns.
However,
there is a preliminary difficulty to a personal and fruitful participation on
our part in the labors of the Council. We owe it to ourselves to set it forth to
Your Holiness with simplicity and trust. It concerns the rank of patriarchs in
the Catholic hierarchy in general, and consequently the rank that they must hold
in these very solemn sessions of Christianity which the ecumenical councils
constitute. This question was given prolonged consideration by the bishops and
superiors general of our Church gathered in their annual Synod held under our
presidency at Ain Traz (Lebanon) during the last two weeks of August, 1959. They
asked themselves the following question: In a council in which the Roman Church
wishes to deal especially with the means of rapprochement with the separated
East, how can one explain the presence of the patriarch and the bishops of an
Eastern Catholic Church that is suffering because it is browbeaten and scoffed
at with reference to its rights, which are the most obvious, the most palpable
rights of the Eastern Church? Does not the presence of this patriarch, belittled
and reduced to an inferior rank, constitute in these instances an inconsistency
both on the part of the pope who invites and on the part of the patriarch who
accepts his invitation? The considerations that I shall have honor of submitting
to Your Holiness’s benevolence are echoes of the deliberations of the Fathers
of our above-mentioned Synod concerning this question.
According
to the Motu Proprio “Cleri Sanctitati” of your predecessor of blessed
memory, the late Pope Pius XII, promulgated on June 2, 1957, the patriarch is
relegated to a rank after the cardinals (Canon 185, par. 1, no. 21), indeed
after the representatives of the Holy See: nuncios, internuncios, and apostolic
delegates, even if they are simple priests (Canon 215, par. 3, complemented by
an authentic interpretation of August 25, 1958, which, far from changing the
mind-set of the canon, essentially affirms it more definitively).
Most
Holy Father, is it conceivable that at a council where they formerly
traditionally occupied the first rank after the pope, the patriarchs of the East
appear at the 150th rank after all the cardinals, all the nuncios, internuncios,
and apostolic delegates, even those who are simple priests?[1]
The
very statement of this historical “enormous mistake” suffices, we are sure,
for Your Holiness to order immediately a total review of this question and
restore the patriarchs of the East to the rank that has always been given to
them by ecclesiastical tradition, the decisions of the ecumenical councils, and
the so-often-repeated declarations of the supreme pontiffs, and to do this not
in order to satisfy a petty vanity, but out of respect for authentic ecclesial
values and in the interest of Christian unity for which the ecumenical council
is proposing above all to prepare the way.
In
fact, ecclesiastical tradition since the first centuries has been unanimous in
determining the rank of the sees in the universal Church according to the
following order: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
Ecclesiastical tradition is equally unanimous in recognizing that the incumbents
of these five patriarchal sees precede, according to the rank of their
respective sees, all other ecclesiastical dignitaries. In conformity, therefore,
to this ancient and unanimous tradition, the supreme pontiff of Rome is followed
immediately, in the Church’s hierarchy, by the incumbents of the four other
apostolic patriarchal sees. The cardinals are auxiliaries of the pope, first of
all as the Bishop of Rome, then successively as Metropolitan of the Roman
Province, as Patriarch of the West, and finally as the ecumenical pastor. Their
dignity is a participation in the first see, of which they are auxiliaries, but
this dignity cannot logically exceed that of the other sees, by infringing upon
their traditional and legitimate rights. Just as an aide or a patriarchal
vicar—that is to say, a prelate whose dignity is a participation in the
dignity of the patriarchal see—cannot precede the suffragan bishop of the
patriarch, so too the pope’s aides cannot, under the pretext that their
dignity is a participation in that of the pope, precede the patriarchs. As for
the representatives of the Holy See as such, unless they are legates a latere,
they cannot precede the bishops, much less the patriarchs. That is the simple
and sound norm of authentic apostolic Tradition. All the councils that have had
to deal with this question have been unanimous in recognizing the hierarchic
order as set forth above. As for the precedent set by Vatican Council I, where
patriarchs were seated after cardinals, we should now take time to examine it
for the following reasons:
1)
This derogation, the first in history, was the result of a regrettable
anti-Eastern mentality that then dominated certain groups of the Roman Curia, a
mentality that was understandable at a time when the West did not know the
Eastern Church the way it does in our day, and when Eastern Catholics themselves
did not know one another and—as a result of persecutions and other
vicissitudes—had a certain inferiority complex vis-a-vis Europe, which
was then at the height of its colonial vigor. But Your Holiness surely would not
approve of such a mentality.
2)
The apostolic letter “Multiplices inter” of November 11, 1869, which
Pope Pius IX promulgated, “de ordine sedendi et non inferendo alicui
praeiudicio” (concerning the order of seating and not introducing any
precedent), made the decision about infractions against the order of precedence
to the effect that no prejudice can result from it and no new right can be
acquired by it (Cf. E. Ceconi, Storia del Concilio Ecumenico Vaticano,
Vol. I. P.424).
3)
In any case, our Patriarch Gregory II, who was present at the aforesaid council,
formulated, before he signed its acts, the limitations he could set in order to
safeguard the rights recognized by the Council of Florence, including, of
course, the order of precedence of the patriarchs.
Finally,
all the supreme pontiffs without exception have declared on many occasions that
the return of the Eastern Churches to Catholic unity was being accomplished with
total respect for all their rights, traditions, privileges, and rites. How can
we reconcile these explicit and solemn promises with an approach that reduces
Eastern patriarchs to the rank of simple bishops within the framework of the
centralized system that has come to prevail in the West since the Middle Ages?
It
is not out of a desire for vainglory that on this specific point we now claim
respect for ecclesiastical tradition, for the decisions of the ecumenical
councils, and for the promises of the supreme pontiffs. Of this Your Holiness
can be sure. In this matter, as in all others that we discuss with the Holy See
of Rome, our humble person counts for nothing. Besides, we are on the threshold
of eternity, and, at our age and after long years of Apostleship and struggles
for the Church, self-love seems a very paltry thing to us. If all precedence is
renounced in the Church, we shall be the first to accept the lowest place.
However, since the importance of Churches is signified by their rank and since
rank is only a symbol of greater service and the expression of the homage
rendered to the Apostles, we owe it to our mission in the Church and to the
memory of the holy Apostles to defend as much as is in our power the rank that
rightfully belongs to our patriarchs.
We
simply add that it is useless for the Catholic Church to seek paths leading to
reunion with our separated brothers if the patriarchs of the East do not obtain
the rank that is due them within the universal hierarchy. Our Orthodox brothers
want to see, on the basis of our example, what place the Roman Church would give
their patriarchs in the event of union, what respect it holds for ecclesiastical
tradition and for the decisions of the ecumenical councils, and how well it
honors its own promises.
This
question of the rank of the Eastern patriarchs in the Catholic hierarchy has
been the subject, in part, of a long synodal letter, sent by special messenger,
that we had the honor of addressing to His Holiness Pope Pius XII on February
10, 1958. May Your Holiness deign to refer to it.
Since
we know with certainty Your Holiness’ greatness of heart, as well as your
experience in the East and your sense of justice, we have no doubt that the
questions we have allowed ourselves to raise in this letter will receive your
careful attention and a just and worthy solution. Otherwise, God forbid, our
personal participation in the council would tend to be an insult to the
Christian East and would contribute on the contrary to widening the gulf that
divides Christians.
Confident
that Your Holiness will receive our proposition benevolently and will deign to
give it the only just solution that it deserves, we humbly bow to kiss your
august hands and to implore your apostolic benediction...
On
January 17, 1962, having at last decided to take part personally in the labors
of the Central Commission, Patriarch Maximos reminded Archbishop Pericle Felici
of his earlier comments and expressly claimed all the rights and privileges of
the patriarchs of the East: for the greatest good of the Church, the patriarch
agreed to be seated at the inferior rank assigned to him, but retained the
rights of the patriarchal institution as such. It was a historical declaration
that the patriarch asked to be inserted in the official acts of the council:
On
October 8, 1959, I had the honor of asking His Holiness, in the name of all the
Fathers of the Synod of our Melkite Greek Catholic Church, to be so good as to
settle, even before the holding of the council, the question of the rank of
Eastern patriarchs in relation to the Catholic hierarchy as a whole.
On
September 22, 1961, Reg. 14, No. 404, I took the liberty of writing to Your
Excellency about this same subject.
As
Your Excellency and all the Fathers of the Council can easily realize, this
question of the rank of the Eastern patriarchs, as it has been established by
the ecumenical councils, and recognized by the supreme pontiffs up until the
union of Florence, is in no sense a personal question of vanity or of human
prestige. If it depended only on our humble person, nobody would snatch the
lowest place from us.
However,
in this council above all, where, through the express wish of the supreme
pontiff, concern for the union of Churches holds a place of choice, it is
harmful to the best interests of union and of Catholicism to humiliate in our
person the Eastern Church which we unworthily represent. Orthodoxy is listening
intently. If the Eastern patriarchs who, according to the decisions of the
ecumenical councils, occupy the first places after the Roman pontiff, are
relegated to places after all the cardinals and even theoretically after all the
representatives of the Holy See, even if the latter are simple priests, how can
the Orthodox East believe that the popes, in inviting it to unity, wish to
respect it and are determined, while they await the hour of union, to maintain
its place of honor within the bosom of the Catholic hierarchy? Indeed, on the
basis of the way we are treated today, Orthodoxy draws conclusions as to the way
it will be treated if some day union is achieved.
Because
of my burning concern to spare the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy a scandal that
is all the more serious in that it is occurring in these general sessions of
Christendom that this council represents, my conscience would have made it a
duty for me to be seen as little as possible.
Yet,
in order to clearly demonstrate that my defense of the legitimate rank of the
Eastern patriarchs is not, in my eyes, a personal matter; in order to give a new
proof of my desire to cooperate to the extreme limit possible with my brothers
in the episcopate in the preparation of appropriate reforms of the existing
discipline, especially on points relating to the reaching out in fellowship of
the Western Church to the Christian East; and in the hope that the Central
Commission, and later on the Council itself, will approve the plan presented by
the commission of the Eastern Churches for once again recognizing the rank of
Eastern patriarchs in the Church immediately after the Roman pontiff:
I
thought it my duty to participate in the sessions of the Central Commission,
expressly retaining all the rights and privileges of the patriarchs of the
Eastern Churches, as previously decided by the ecumenical councils, as
recognized by the Roman pontiffs, and as confirmed by time-honored usage, in the
face of the diminution’s to which they have been subjected in recent years by
a frame of mind with little concern for Christian unity.
I
would be grateful to you, Your Excellency, if you would be so kind as to submit
to our holy and beloved Father the pope the contents of this letter, which I beg
you to consider as an official declaration of principle that to my mind is of
greatest importance...
On
the eve of the opening of the Council, the patriarch was requested by the Holy
Synod of August 1962 to attempt a final effort to persuade the general
secretariat of the council. He wrote to Archbishop Felici on September 20, 1962:
The
Fathers of the annual Synod of our Melkite Greek Catholic Church, held at our
residence at Ain Traz from August 27 to August 31 last, have requested that I
make a last effort through your good offices to reach our Holy Father the pope,
as well as the presidential commission of the council, so that the Eastern
patriarchs be given the rank assigned to them by the canons of the first
ecumenical councils, namely, the first rank immediately after the supreme
pontiff.
The
decisions of the ecumenical councils on this matter were respected at the
sessions of the Council of Florence in 1439, where, by order of Pope Eugene IV,
the Patriarch of Constantinople Joseph II held the first rank after the pope and
preceded the cardinals. The union between the Greeks and the Latins was
proclaimed in Florence only on the basis of respect for all the rights and
privileges of the patriarchs of the East. Now, among these rights and privileges
of the patriarchs of the East, the first to consider is the privileged rank
these patriarchs hold in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
Since
that time, these decisions of the ecumenical councils have never been expressly
revoked. However, as was the case during the First Vatican Council, today the
Eastern patriarchs again face a fait accompli on the part of those in
charge of protocol who invariably grant precedence to cardinals over patriarchs.
In
order to demonstrate the cogency of our claims, we thought we should make an
objective study of the entire question in a memorandum on “The rank of the
Eastern patriarchs in the Catholic Church,” which we consider it our duty to
transmit to Your Excellency within a few days.[2]
The
question is serious and can constitute an almost insurmountable obstacle for the
future of the union of the Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Church.
Our
humble person plays no part at all in this matter of Church discipline. If it
depended only on ourselves, no one would snatch the lowest place from us.
However, we owe it to the Church to reclaim the observance of the decisions of
the ecumenical councils and Tradition, respect for the conditions of union set
in Florence, and fidelity to the solemn promises made so many times by the popes
to our predecessors.
Above
all, we owe it to Christ to avert everything that could constitute an obstacle
to the reunion of the Churches. We are more convinced than ever that Orthodoxy
cannot envision a rapprochement with the Roman Church if its leaders, the
patriarchs of the apostolic sees, to whom the ecumenical councils gave
precedence, immediately after the supreme pontiff, over the entire hierarchy,
find that they have been relegated to the hundredth rank.
Because
of these considerations which affect the supreme good of the Church, we would
have wished not to appear at the approaching council, in order to prevent the
depreciating, in our person, of the honor due to the patriarchal sees of the
East.
But
in order to prove that this is not a personal matter of conceit or vainglory on
our part; in order to enter into the views of our Holy Father the pope, who has
opened the way to a better understanding with respect to the Christian East and
given proof of profound benevolence; in order that through our presence the
voice of the East may be heard; and to collaborate with our brothers in the
episcopate for the progress of the pastoral work in the Church, we have decided
to take part personally in the sessions of this Council, in spite of our
advanced age and the state of our health, but explicitly declaring that our
presence must not prejudice in any way the respect of rank due to our see and
reserving in the most explicit way the rights and privileges of the Eastern
Church, as the ecumenical councils and Tradition have defined them and as the
popes have promised many times to have them respected.
I
beg Your Excellency to be so good as to submit the present letters to our Holy
Father the pope with the homage of my deepest respect as well as to the
presidential commission of the council.
I
likewise beg Your Excellency to consider this letter an official declaration
that is an integral part of the acts of the council.
Now
that I have thus unburdened my conscience before Christ, before the Church,
before my community, and before my Orthodox brethren, there remains only for me
to pray the Father of Lights to deign to inspire those in whose hands rests the
responsibility for souls to take the measures that He deems appropriate.
In
unshakable faith that Christ will sustain His Church and that the best solutions
will always ultimately triumph for the greatest good of souls, I beg Your
Excellency to accept...
Archbishop
P. Felici, in a letter dated October 4, 1962, acknowledged receipt of the
patriarch’s letter and of the memorandum that accompanied it. He added that
the question would be submitted to the Holy Father.
On
the Rank of the Eastern Patriarchs in the Catholic Church
Part
One – The Authentic Tradition of the Church
1.
The Decisions of the Ecumenical Councils
2.
The Rise of the Cardinalate
However,
in the meantime a new institution was being born in the Church of Rome: the
“College of Cardinals.” In the beginning this college included only the
principal pastors of the city of Rome, who formed a sort of diocesan council
around their bishop, such as there were in other Western dioceses, especially in
Paris. Then little by little this college came to embrace also the principal
deacons of the city and even the suburban bishops, thus forming a sort of
council for the entire Roman province. In this capacity it replaced with
increasing frequency the ancient Roman “synods” which the popes had been
using to administer not only the affairs of their Roman province but also those
of their Papal State, of all Italy, of the West, and even of the entire Church.
There were also some laymen among them. The importance of the College of
Cardinals has not ceased to grow at the expense of the hierarchy of the bishops,
the successors of the Apostles. This importance was manifested especially in
1059, when Pope Nicholas II reserved to the cardinals the exclusive right to
elect the pope.
This
decisive development in the importance of cardinals occurred, we might point
out, when the East and the West were already separated. It was a phenomenon
intrinsic to the Western Church. In the West, cardinals, even those who were
laymen, assumed priority over priests and even over the bishops, who are
divinely instituted, something that is absolutely unthinkable in the East. Until
the twelfth century history indicates no marked opposition to this prodigious
ascent of the cardinals, who ultimately were given precedence over the entire
hierarchy of the Western Church.
3.
The Cardinals and the Latin Patriarchs
The
cardinals faced an initial opposition by the Latin patriarchs, who, beginning in
1099, occupied the patriarchal sees of the East. The problem then arose: which
of the cardinals or Latin patriarchs should have precedence?
Until
1439 a compromise solution seems to have prevailed. The Latin patriarchs were
seated among the cardinal-bishops, and, as a rule, immediately after the first
cardinal-bishop and before the other cardinals. This is recorded in the “Liber
caeremoniarum pontificalium” compiled in 1488 by Agostino Patrizi, Bishop
of Pienza in Tuscany, and published for the first time in Venice in 1516 by
Cristoforo Marcello, the archbishop-elect of Corfu. Thus, speaking of the “Ordo
Sedendi in Cappella Papae” (Lib.III, Sectio II, Cap. I, fol. 195 verso),
Patrizi says: “Indeed the four principal patriarchs, namely those of
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, were accustomed to sit among
the cardinal bishops, as we said above concerning kings, and consequently to
wear a cope, and they had train-bearers, like the cardinals.”
And
the author adds, speaking of the period after 1439: “However, in our days and
in the days of Eugene IV, neither do they sit among the cardinals, nor do they
have train-bearers.”
Actually,
we know that at the sessions of the Council of Ferrara in 1438, the Latin
patriarch of Jerusalem was seated after the first cardinal-bishop and before all
the other cardinals.
However,
under Pope Eugene IV, and more precisely in 1439, a change occurred in the order
of precedence which placed the Latin patriarchs after the cardinals. A conflict
arose that year between John Kemp, Archbishop of York, who had been created a
cardinal by Pope Eugene IV in 1439, and Henry Chicheley, Archbishop of
Canterbury, who refused to cede the first place to him (this was an ancient
quarrel over precedence between the two great archepiscopal sees of England).
Pope Eugene IV intervened to definitively approve the precedence of the
cardinals over every other hierarch in the Latin Church, be he archbishop or
even patriarch. In his letter “Non mediocri,” written in Florence and
dated as of the eighth year of his pontificate (March 4, 1439 March 4, 1440),
the pope traced the origin of the cardinalate to Saint Peter himself, attributed
some of the Cardinals’ privileges to the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea,
which he dated as “about the year 330,” declared that the cardinals
constituted “part of his body,” referred to the donation of Constantine,
whose authenticity he, like all his contemporaries, naturally admitted, and
referred as well to the honorific privileges with which this emperor was said to
have endowed the cardinals, and concluded that it was a common canonical and
traditional doctrine that the cardinals were superior to the (Latin) patriarchs.
As
matter of fact, after this letter of Pope Eugene IV, the Latin patriarch of
Jerusalem, who, as we have seen, was seated at the sessions of Ferrara after the
first cardinal-bishop and before all the other cardinals, gave precedence from
then on to the cardinals, and we see him at the last session of the Council of
Florence, on July 6, 1439, sign the Bull of Union “Laetentur coeli”
after the eight cardinals present.
So
we see that in the discipline of the Latin Church, it is since 1439 that the
cardinals, continuing their ascent, have taken precedence over the Latin
patriarchs.
4.
The Cardinals and Patriarchs at the Council of Florence
This
applied only to the relations between the Latin cardinals and the Latin
patriarchs. But when it came to the respective rank of the cardinals and the
Eastern patriarchs, precedence was always granted before, during, and
immediately after the Council of Florence to the Eastern patriarchs over the
cardinals, and not only with the knowledge of the pope but at his express
command. Our proofs naturally come from the history of the Council of Florence,
because before that council, cardinals and Eastern patriarchs had never met and
consequently the problems could not have arisen.
On
January 8, 1438, the Patriarch of Constantinople, Joseph II, having arrived in
Venice, received the homage in that city of a deputation composed of bishops and
notables sent from Ferrara by Pope Eugene IV and led by Cardinal Nicola
Albergati (also called Cardinal of Santa Croce), who had been named president of
the council by the pope. On March 9, 1438, Patriarch Joseph II arrived in
Ferrara. By order of the pope, the two youngest cardinal-deacons, Prospero
Colonna and Domenico Capranica, went to welcome him.
On
April 8 the first session of the council in which the Greeks participated was
held in Ferrara. The Latins were to the right of the altar and the Greeks to the
left. This was an ingenious compromise, for the left side of the altar, where
the icon of Our Lord and the throne of the hierarch are located, was considered
to be the first place by the Greeks, whereas the right side of the altar was
considered by the Latins to be the first place. Thus the Patriarch of
Constantinople faced the first cardinal-bishop.
When
the council was transferred to Florence, the patriarch entered that city on
January 23, 1439, with one cardinal on his right and another on his left (the
same ones who had welcomed him in Ferrara).
So
there can be no doubt that Pope Eugene IV considered the Patriarch of
Constantinople to be superior in rank to his cardinals.
This
view must have been shared by his immediate successors. Indeed, after the
failure of the Council of Florence we see two cardinals raised to the
patriarchal See of Constantinople: Bessarion, former Metropolitan of Nicea, and
Isidore, former Metropolitan of Kiev. Both had been made cardinals by Pope
Eugene IV on December 18, 1439. Now, Isidore of Kiev was promoted by Pope Pius
II in 1458 to the patriarchal See of Constantinople, and when he died on April
27, 1463, Cardinal Bessarion was chosen to succeed him, and he remained the
incumbent of the patriarchal See of Constantinople until his own death on
November 14, 1472.
So
here are two cardinals raised to the patriarchal dignity: a sign that the
supreme pontiff of that time considered the patriarchal dignity in the East as
being superior to the dignity of the cardinalate.
5.
The Cardinals and the Eastern Patriarchs in Modern Time
What
happened after that? From the middle of the 15th century to the beginning of the
18th century there was in the Byzantine East no patriarchal succession
officially united with Rome.
This
long absence of Eastern Byzantine patriarchs in the Catholic hierarchy sufficed
to make the contrary point of view prevail among the canonists. The Latin West
withdrew within itself. Its Latin institutions seemed to it the only valid ones
in the entire Catholic Church. Inasmuch as in the West, since the time of Eugene
IV, cardinals have held precedence even over the Latin patriarchs, it was
thought that they must precede all patriarchs, even the patriarchs of the East.
This
is a false analogy, because the Latin patriarchs are simply ordinary archbishops
endowed with the purely honorific title of patriarch, whereas the Eastern
patriarchs are true heads of particular Churches with a hierarchy of bishops
under their jurisdiction, by the same right as the Bishop of Rome is the
patriarch of the West.
On
the other hand, however, there were not at that time any Eastern Byzantine
patriarchs to defend their rights, and on the other hand the Romanists were not
displeased to see the Eastern patriarchs identified with the honorific Latin
patriarchs. Finally, the cardinals were continuing their unobstructed ascent in
the hierarchy and assuming ever greater importance in the general administration
of the Church, whereas the importance of the Eastern patriarchs, on the level of
influence, wealth, and membership was continually decreasing.
That
is why at the First Vatican Council the Roman Curia does not seem to have
distinguished between the Eastern and the Latin patriarchs. They were all
considered inferior to the cardinals. It was even thought that the patriarchs of
the East were being honored by being likened to the Latin patriarchs, because by
virtue of the discriminatory theory of “precedence of the Latin rite” that
was in favor in Rome during the 18th century the Latin patriarchs were supposed
to take precedence over the Eastern patriarchs. However, Pope Pius IX intervened
and declared that in the Catholic Church all rites were equal.
Thus,
during the 19th century as well as at the beginning of this century, everybody,
or almost everybody, was henceforth convinced that cardinals are the highest
dignitaries in the Catholic Church after the Roman pontiff and must take
precedence over patriarchs, whether they be from the East or from the West. Only
the Melkite patriarchs have continued to claim for their patriarchal sees the
rank that was assigned to them by the ecumenical councils, explicitly recognized
by the popes up to the 15th century, and since then never explicitly revoked.
Part
Two – Reasons for Respecting This Authentic Tradition in the Church
Must
this tradition be respected? We believe that the answer should be an
unhesitating “yes,” for the many reasons given below:
1.
The reason of ecclesial tradition itself
In
the first place, the Catholic Church owes it to itself to respect the decisions
of the ecumenical councils, even in the matter of discipline. If, in the course
of time a modification appears to be necessary, it is fitting to have it adopted
by another ecumenical council or to have the authority of the supreme pontiff
intervene in an explicit way to revoke it. Now, in the case of this serious
question of the rank of the Eastern patriarchs, neither the popes nor subsequent
ecumenical councils have revoked the decisions made by the first ecumenical
councils. After the 15th century, certain Latin canonists have allowed
themselves to make erroneous analogical deductions to support the rise of the
institution of the cardinalate at the expense of the honor of the apostolic sees
of the East.
2.
The reason of apostolicity
The
patriarchal institution in the East, contrary to what is happening in the West,
is not simply an honorific title. It is founded first of all on the apostolicity
of the see. When Canon 28 of Chalcedon sought to base on human considerations
the first rank that it wished to grant, after Rome, to the See of Constantinople
because that city had become the capital city of the Empire, it was Pope Saint
Leo who took care to rectify the thinking of the Fathers of the council. He told
them: “The structure of human things is not the same as the divine. The
apostolic origin of a Church, its foundation by the Apostles, this is what
assures it a higher rank in the hierarchy.” (Epist CIV, 3 = PL, Vol. LIV.
Col.995)
In
the Catholic Church the highest honor must be granted to the apostolic
foundation. The reason that Rome is the mother of all the Churches is because it
was founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul and because it was the definitive see
of Peter.
This
honor due to the preeminent “apostolic see” that is Rome applies by analogy
to the other apostolic sees of Christianity, which are the patriarchates.
We
know the famous texts of certain popes which seek to ground the origin of
patriarchal dignity as though on some sort of diffuse primacy of Peter, thus
making them participate in a certain sense in the supreme solicitude for all the
Churches that Peter bequeathed to his successors on the See of Rome: Peter to
Jerusalem, Peter to Antioch, Peter to Alexandria (through his disciple Mark),
Peter to Rome. Thus Pope Innocent (402-417) writing to the Bishop of Antioch,
said: “Wherefore we observe that this has been attributed not so much because
of the magnificence of the city as that it is shown to be the leading seat of
the leading Apostle.” (PL, Vol. XX, col. 548)
Still
more clearly, Pope Saint Gregory the Great (580-604) wrote the following in a
letter to the Emperor Marcion: “He (the prince of the Apostles) exalted the
see in which he deigned to settle and to finish his life on earth (Rome). He
adorned the see to which he sent his disciple the evangelist (Alexandria). He
confirmed the see in which he sat for seven years before leaving (Antioch). (PL,
T. LXXVII, col. 299)
Jerusalem
certainly cannot be excluded from the circle of these “Petrine” cities, for
it was there that Peter first and so manifestly exercised his primacy.
While
Constantinople cannot historically claim to have been founded by Peter or by
another Apostle, it has other grounds, as we shall see, for its claim to
patriarchal honor.
And
so we see from the testimony of the popes themselves that the eminent rank of
the patriarchates of the East in the Catholic Church is an honor due to their
apostolicity. Cardinals do not occupy apostolic sees, and are not, as cardinals,
successors of the Apostles. Now, what more important criterion is there than the
apostolicity of a see, in a Church one of whose essential marks is that it is
apostolic and at whose head is the “apostolic see”? Must not the
apostolicity that made Rome the first see and the head of Christendom logically
give the other sees that claim apostolic origin the first ranks after the Roman
pontiffs? Is not apostolicity as a criterion of precedence, recognized by the
pope and by the ecumenical councils, superior to every other criterion of
precedence that could be claimed by the cardinals, some of whom in earlier times
were not even priests?
Beyond
this, the patriarchal sees, as the popes testify, participate in a certain way
in the primacy of Peter. It is Peter who founded them, even if he did not remain
in them permanently. From this Petrine origin the patriarchal sees have
inherited not only a primacy of honor over all the other sees, but also a
certain participation in the universal solicitude for the Churches, bequeathed
by Peter in an eminent and absolutely unique right to his successors in the See
of Rome.
From
this it follows that the first auxiliaries of the pope in the overall
administration of the Church are, according to the authentic tradition of the
first centuries, not the cardinals but the patriarchs. It was to the patriarchs
that the pope first announced his election. The patriarchs, in turn, wrote their
letter of communion to him immediately after their election. In moments of
danger and during the dogmatic or disciplinary crises that convulsed the
Christian world, it was to the patriarchs that the pope turned to devise a plan
of action. When they could, the patriarchs maintained a permanent representative
at the pope’s side, and the pope maintained a legate called an apocrisiary by
the side of his patriarch in Constantinople. In their letters to the patriarchs,
the popes expressed themselves in very fraternal terms. It was evident that for
the popes the Eastern patriarchs, the incumbents of the apostolic sees, were
their brothers and their principal collaborators.
This
apostolicity is the basis in the Catholic Church for the eminent rank given to
the Eastern patriarchs.
3.
The reason of gratitude
The
Eastern patriarchs, however, have other grounds for occupying the first ranks
after the pope. Christianity owes them this honor out of gratitude. Whatever the
past and present merits of the cardinals, they are far from equaling those of
the patriarchal sees of the East.
It
was in Jerusalem that our salvation was accomplished. It was from Jerusalem that
the faith spread first “in Judea, Samaria, Galilee, and in the entire
world.” According to our liturgical books and the constant tradition of the
first Fathers of the Church, Jerusalem is the “Mother of all the Churches,”
for it was the first Church and it was from Jerusalem that all the other
Churches were founded throughout the world.
Alexandria
made the Christian faith reach out over Egypt, Pentapolis, Libya, Cyrenaica,
Nubia, and Ethiopia. It brought monasticism to Europe. For a long time, it was
the mouthpiece of Rome in the East.
It
was in Antioch that the faithful were first called Christians. Antioch preached
the Gospel throughout the then-known portions of Asia. It implanted the
Christian faith in the Persian Empire, in India, and even as far as Mongolia and
China.
Constantinople
converted the Slavic world, which, by itself, once represented one third of
Christendom.
Can
the Catholic Church forget these first centers of Christianity? Is it not
somewhat unfitting to give precedence over them to young Churches in America,
Australia, or Africa which have just recently been founded, simply because their
incumbents have been made cardinals?
4.
The reason of fidelity to the promises given by the popes
In
addition, the popes solemnly and repeatedly promised the Eastern patriarchs who
reunited with the Holy See of Rome that none of their legitimate rights and
privileges would be diminished, that they would find again in the Catholic
Church the same rank, rights, and prerogatives which they had enjoyed up to that
time.
The
promises are so numerous that it is hard to find one pope who did not feel
obliged to repeat them, and in ever more solemn terms. In order not to lengthen
this memorandum, we shall be content to cite only a few of these declarations,
among those that are most significant:
a.
At Florence the union was proclaimed only on condition that all the rights and
privileges of the Eastern patriarchs be safeguarded: “with all their
privileges and rights preserved.” This solemn promise, originally made to the
four Byzantine patriarchs, was repeated in the Bull of Union with the Armenians.
(Cf. texts in J. Gill, The Council of Florence, Cambridge 1959, p.415).
b.
After Florence, more than once the Holy See of Rome proposed union to the
Eastern patriarchs, always with the same conditions, that is to say “with all
their privileges and rights preserved” (Cf. G. Hoffman, Patriarch Kyrillos
Lukaris, in Orientalia Christ., XV, 1, Rome 1929, p.53).
c.
On the occasion of proceedings for union, the Holy See of Rome solemnly promised
the Eastern patriarchs that their dignity would not be diminished in any manner
because of their union with Rome, but that on the contrary their rights and
privileges would be fully maintained. Thus Pope Clement XI, writing on April 11,
1703, to the Coptic Patriarch John XVI: “By which salutary measure (namely
union)... you would again set that distinguished patriarchal see in that place
of dignity in which because of its extraordinary prerogatives.. almost all the
records of the Catholic faith demonstrate that it was formerly placed.” And
the pope continues: “When with the help of divine grace you will have
fulfilled the laudable plan (of union), most certainly you will be able to
convince yourself that We, having retained the practices of this Holy See, which
strives not only not to diminish but indeed to protect and enlarge the rights
and privileges of the Eastern Churches, will embrace you in the Lord with all
the good will and testimonials that are harmonious with your office and dignity,
and that nothing will ever be omitted by us that is deemed to be fitting for
your future convenience, distinction, and splendor.” (Cf. J.P.Trossen, Les
relations du Patriarche Copte Jean XVI avec Rome (1676-1718), Luxembourg,
1948, pp. 171-172)
On
July 8, 1815, Pius VII wrote to the Coptic Patriarch Peter VII: “We shall take
care that the prerogatives and privileges of your see are most diligently
restored and protected.” (De Martinis, Pars I, Vol. IV, p. 530)
Likewise,
in 1824, Pope Leo XII promised the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria that he would
preserve all his ancient rights and privileges: “We grant to this Catholic
Patriarchate of Alexandria, and to the one who will hold it, all the honors,
privileges, prerogatives, titles, and all power that are based on the sacred
canons or usages, which not unreasonable circumstances may support.” (Loc.
cit., p. 651)
d.
Finally, here are more general and still more solemn promises:
Pope
Benedict XV, in his famous “Demandatam” of December 24, 1743, wrote:
“For the rest, we desire that all rights and privileges and the free exercise
of your jurisdiction remain intact for your Brotherhood.” (Loc. cit. Vol.III,
p. 130)
The
great Pope Leo XIII wrote in the motu proprio “Auspicia rerum” of
March 19, 1896: “For nobody can deny, inasmuch as it is fitting and wholly in
order, that the patriarchal dignity does not lack among Catholics any of those
supports and distinctions which it enjoys abundantly among the dissidents.” (Acta
S. Sedis, T. 28 (1895-1896), p. 586)
More
clearly still, in his apostolic letter “Praeclara gratulationis” of
June 20, 1894, the same Leo XIII addressed the Eastern Churches in these terms:
“Nor is there any reason that you should hesitate in that thereby [because of
the union] we or our successors would detract anything from your rights, your
patriarchal privileges, or the liturgical usage of any Church.” (Ibid., T. 26
(1893-4), p. 709)
It
is certainly the heartfelt wish of the Holy See of Rome to honor its solemn
promises. The greatest of the rights and privileges that the pope promised the
Eastern patriarchs they would maintain is precisely the right to occupy in the
Catholic Church the rank that the ecumenical councils and the authentic
tradition of the Church assigned to them, namely, the first rank after the Roman
pontiff. To relegate these patriarchs to the 100th place cannot constitute the
maintenance of their rights and privileges, as solemnly promised by the popes at
the time of the union and after the union.
This
assumes extraordinary gravity the moment that the Holy See of Rome once again is
proposing union to the Orthodox Churches, guaranteeing, on the condition of
unity of faith and government, the safeguarding of their own liturgy and
discipline. How could the Orthodox Churches not be tempted to mistrust when they
see that the guarantees so solemnly given by the pope to the Eastern patriarchs
who are in union have not been respected?
5.
The reason of the apostolate for union
This
consideration brings us to the definitive and conclusive reason why the Catholic
Church owes it to itself to respect the rank that the Eastern patriarchs
traditionally hold in the hierarchy. This reason is precisely the supreme
interest of Christian unity.
Indeed,
if the Eastern Catholic patriarchs claim for their apostolic sees the first
ranks after the Roman pontiff, it is not out of vanity or out of a desire for
vainglory.
Nor
is it out of concern for antiquated ideas.
It
is solely because the humiliating and in their view unjust position in which
they are placed by the Catholic hierarchy constitutes an insurmountable obstacle
to rapprochement and then to union with the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
In
Orthodoxy, whatever the real and current importance of the patriarchal sees, the
patriarchs continue to represent a summit in the hierarchy. They are the heads
of Churches. Even a Patriarch of Moscow bows and kisses the hands of the
patriarchs of the ancient apostolic Sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch,
and Jerusalem, regardless of the number of their faithful. These patriarchs know
and proclaim that they are the highest dignitaries of the Church after the Roman
pontiff. How can we speak to them of union if we do not recognize for them today
what Pope Eugene IV recognized for their predecessors at the Council of
Florence?
If
the Orthodox patriarchs are thinking of reuniting some day with the Roman
Church, it can only be in order to reoccupy in Catholicism the place that was
theirs before the schism. But if they notice that this place is being refused
them, and that in the event of reunion they are to be relegated after all the
cardinals, or if—worse still—this place is promised to them but afterwards
refused, there is little hope that the dialogue that has begun will culminate in
union.
For
all these reasons, and especially the last-mentioned, it seems to us that the
supreme interest of the Church demands that the rank that authentic ecclesial
tradition has assigned to the Eastern patriarchs and which the popes have
promised be indeed maintained.
Part
Three – Response to the Objections
1.
It will be objected: This is a question of vanity and of human prestige.
-
Not at all. Certainly, questions of precedence are very paltry, especially on
the part of the disciples of the One who said: “The first among you must be
the servant of all.” But the honor given to the hierarchs in the Church is not
addressed to their individual persons but to their ministry, to Christ, and to
the Apostles whom they represent. In this case, the privileged rank claimed by
the Eastern patriarchs is, as we have seen, a recognition of the apostolicity of
their sees and a debt of gratitude toward these first centers of the spread of
Christianity. Besides, why would the patriarchs who claim their traditional
rights be at fault, and not those who contest those rights so as to pass ahead
of them? In any case, Patriarch Maximos IV has declared more than once that if
it depended only on him, no one would snatch the last place in the Church from
him, but that only the supreme interests of the respect for tradition and for
Christian unity made him consider it his duty to claim the rank that is due to
patriarchal dignity.
2.
The following objection will also be made: Today the cardinals are universal
auxiliaries of the pope, whereas the sphere of the patriarch’s ministry is
limited to their flocks.
-
Even if the patriarchs were not in any way auxiliaries of the pope, that would
not be a reason for depriving them of the rank assigned to them by the
ecumenical councils and the authentic tradition of the Church. The councils and
the Fathers knew what they were doing.
Besides,
we have seen through the testimony of the Roman popes themselves that, in a
sound ecclesiology, the patriarchs were to be considered as the foremost
auxiliaries of the pope, his innate auxiliaries.
The
patriarchs are even more than auxiliaries of the pope; they are his brothers,
incumbents like him—naturally without prejudice to his universal primacy—of
the great apostolic sees of Christendom.
When
addressing the cardinals, the pope says: “my son;” when he addresses the
bishops, and especially the patriarchs, he says: “my brother.” The cardinals
are freely created by the pope, and, as cardinals, are in no sense successors of
the Apostles. The patriarchs are elected by the bishops of their Church and are,
by the loftiest right, successors of the Apostles.
Compared
with the nobility of apostolicity and the importance of the patriarchal ministry
which participates secondarily in the universal solicitude of Peter’s
successor, the claims of the cardinals to precedence cannot be supported unless
the patriarchates are in fact treated as simply honorary titles. In that case,
it would be understood that the patriarchs would not appear to be more important
than the cardinals. But this is a distorted notion of the patriarchates,
popularized by a certain self-interested ecclesiology that has no links to the
authentic tradition of the Fathers.
3.
Yet another objection is that the privileged rank of the patriarchs is a matter
of simple ecclesiastical discipline decreed by the ecumenical councils. Now,
what an ecumenical council has done can be abrogated by the pope or by another
ecumenical council.
R.
That is correct. Indeed no one claims that the rank of the patriarchs as
established by tradition is immutable or of divine right. However, the fact that
this rank can be changed is one thing, and that it should be
changed is something else. Now, from what we have seen, no ecumenical council or
pope has until now expressly given precedence to the cardinals over the
patriarchs of the East. It is as if the matter were settled and not subject to
possible contestation. It is our opinion, on the contrary, that so many and so
serious decisions of the first ecumenical councils should be discussed at
length, and then should be abrogated only if the supreme interest of the Church
demands it, and then by an explicit contrary decision emanating from an
ecumenical council or from the pope by virtue of his supreme power. It is not
fitting that in such a serious matter the Eastern patriarchs should continue to
be faced with a fait accompli, as happened at the last Vatican Council, and as
we foresee will happen at the forthcoming council.
4.
Another objection will be that the privileged rank of the Eastern patriarchs was
founded on an actual importance that they no longer have today, whereas the
cardinals are constantly gaining greater importance in the Church.
R.
It is correct that the patriarchates no longer have in the Church the importance
that they once had as true capitals of the Christian world. However, first of
all, influence, wealth and numbers are not the only criteria of rank in the
Church. Rome may some day be only a little town, or even disappear. It will
nonetheless remain the Holy See of Rome and the head of all the Churches. In
fact, as of now several dioceses in the world are already more “important”
than Rome. Is this a reason to diminish its leadership?
Admittedly
Rome holds primacy in the Church by immutable divine right, but this example is
cited here only to show that the rank of a see does not necessarily coincide
with its real and current importance.
Besides,
does anyone believe that the subvicariate dioceses of Rome are so very much more
important than the other sees of Christianity that it is necessary to raise
their incumbents to the rank of cardinals?
How
many dignitaries there are in the Roman Curia who have almost no importance
today and who nonetheless continue to receive precedence over bishops of larger
and more important dioceses of the Christian world!
If
there is any community in the world that respects traditions relating to
precedence, it is certainly the Roman community. Why, then, must the Eastern
patriarchs be the only ones who can no longer maintain their traditional rank?
Finally,
resorting to reductio ad absurdum, if we say that the Eastern patriarchs
must give up their traditional rank because their actual importance has declined
and that of the cardinals is increasing, we logically have to place them not
only after the cardinals but even after all the bishops whose dioceses are more
“important” than those of the patriarchs.
If
numbers, wealth, and membership were all that counted in the church, the Eastern
patriarchates would count for nothing. But in Christ’s Church there is room
for superior values: apostolicity, tradition, the initial Christian expansion,
the proclamation of the Word, Christian unity. According to these values,
infinitely more important than the former, the Eastern patriarchs still
represent what deserves the greatest respect in Christ’s Church after the
Roman papacy. These are values that do not pass away, and, thanks to them, the
Eastern patriarchs have lost none of their true importance.
5.
Finally, the objection is made that when the “true” patriarchs of the East,
namely the Orthodox patriarchs, agree to think about union, it will naturally be
necessary to recognize the eminent place they occupied before the schism. But
the Eastern patriarchs presently in union are new creations of the Holy See,
which therefore grants them the rank and powers that it deems appropriate.
-
This concept, which denies the Eastern Catholic patriarchs the right to be
considered the legitimate successors of their predecessors in their respective
sees, is the new weapon that the “latinists” have used against the Catholics
of the Eastern rites. Unfortunately for them, this concept, while it can, if
necessary, be accepted by the Orthodox separated from Rome, is incomprehensible
for Catholics and absolutely contrary to the concept of the supreme pontiffs
themselves.
Since
we cannot cite the countless pontifical texts supporting our view, we shall be
content to reproduce those that concern our own Patriarchate of Antioch, whose
incumbent Cyril VI Tanas officially proclaimed union with Rome in 1724. When the
papal legate enthroned him on April 25, 1730, he proclaimed him “legitimate
Greek Patriarch of Antioch.” (Mansi, Vol. 46, col. 189) Pope Benedict XIV, in
his allocution in the consistory of February 3, 1744, recognized Cyril VI as the
true and only incumbent of the Orthodox See of Antioch, and said of his
dissident rival Sylvester that “he invaded the patriarchal see,” and
declared of the Melkites that in them “the venerable remnants of the Church of
Antioch, formerly buried, are brought back to life” (Ibid., col. 340).[3]
In
his letter of February 29, 1744, addressed to the same Patriarch Cyril, Benedict
XIV expressed himself in this way: “While we consider that illustrious
Antiochian Church of the Greeks, for a long time separated from the Roman See by
a calamitous schism and ruled by patriarchs infected with that blemish, now it
is at last committed to your brotherhood, in the safeguarding of a legitimate
pastor.” (Ibid. col. 341) And the pope continued, rejoicing that it was
henceforth possible once again to introduce the name of the Patriarch of Antioch
into the diptychs of the Roman Church.
From
all of this, it is clear that, for the popes, the Melkite Greek Catholic
Patriarchate is the legitimate continuation of the successors to the See of
Antioch. Therefore the same rights and privileges are due to its patriarchs as
to his ancient predecessors.
Other
objections can be found. It will be easy to answer them as well. The heart of
the problem comes down to this: should the Catholic Church of our time purely
and simply ratify the special development of the Latin West from which the
cardinalate sprang, or should it harmonize in its heart the more recent
institutions of the West with the more ancient institutions of the East? In
other words, is Catholicism a broadened and conquering Latinism, or is it a
divine, supra-regional, supra-national institution in which the traditions of
the East and those of the West have equal inherent rights?
The
problem of the rank of the Eastern patriarchs in the Catholic Church is not a
question of vainglorious precedence. It postulates a return to more apostolic
and hence more authentic ecclesiological concepts.
We know the outcome of all these discussions. By order of Pope Paul VI, the patriarchs, including the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, were placed beginning on Monday, October 14, 1963, on a platform set apart, to the right, facing the cardinals, as had been the case in Florence. History will some day relate the exhausting labors of Patriarch Maximos, with the help of his episcopate, to have this change accepted. On October 15, 1963, the patriarch wrote to Pope Paul VI to thank him for it.
For
an Amelioration of the Conciliar Schema
The
Eastern Commission had submitted to the session of January 1962 of the Central
Commission the draft of a schema “On the Eastern Patriarchs.” Since the
patriarch did not expect to take part personally in that session, he sent from
Damascus on December 21, 1961, a few notes intended to improve the contents of
the draft:
This
schema is of the greatest importance for the future of the union of Churches.
The rights claimed in it for the Eastern Catholic patriarchs refer not to their
humble persons but to their mission. Depending on the way that the Catholic
Church treats these Eastern Catholic patriarchs, Orthodoxy will reach
conclusions as to how its patriarchs will be treated in the Catholic Church the
day that union can be achieved.
On
this matter, here are a few criticisms to be made to the preamble, as well as to
the expository portion of the document:
1.
The preamble, intended in principle to introduce and justify the rights
recognized for the patriarchs in the following section, seems rather to aim at
minimizing these rights, as if it were feared that they might be an infringement
on those of the supreme pontiff. Not only do the rights of the patriarchs not
encroach upon those of the supreme pontiff, they confirm them. “My honor is in
the honor of my brothers” are the words of Pope St. Leo. In addition, the
wording of this preamble seems to need reworking.
a.
“Episcopi quoque, Apostolorum successores, ex divino iure, mediante tamen
Romano Pontifice, plena pollent potestate ... (Also the bishops, successors
of the Apostles by divine right, although with the mediation of the Roman
pontiff, are endowed with full power...).
This
intervention or “mediation” by the Roman pontiff in the transmission of the
divine right to the bishops seems to us contrary to the tradition of the Church.
I fear lest it invite confusion and lest certain individuals might wish to give
it a meaning that it does not have, for example, the meaning that all power in
the Church emanates directly and exclusively from the Roman pontiff.
b.
“Si autem.. prae oculis iura habeantur, quae saeculorum decursu tacite vel
expresse a suprema auctoritate concessa sunt ...” (If, however,...those
rights should be held up to view which in the course of the centuries have been
tacitly or expressly conceded by the supreme authority...)
This
phrase also invites ambiguity. The patriarchal institution has not always and
exclusively depended on a tacit or explicit concession by the supreme pontiff.
It was also created by the ecumenical councils, as No. II of the proposed schema
acknowledges: “quippe qui amplissima potestate, a Romano Pontifice vel a
Concilio Oecumenico data seu agnita...” (who indeed [have] the fullest
power, given or acknowledged by the Roman pontiff or by an ecumenical
council...) Now, an ecumenical council, even though it requires the confirmation
of the pope, is not one and the same authority with him. The expression
“supreme authority” designates in canon law the Roman pontiff as well as the
ecumenical council. It would be wise to avoid ambiguity by clarifying the
thought.
c.
The same ambiguity occurs a little farther on where the patriarch is said to
have a supra-episcopal power “ex participatione pontificiae potestatis”
(by participation in the pontifical power). In one sense, it is true to say that
the patriarchs, as heads of particular churches, participate in some manner in
the universal solicitude of the Roman pontiff. But does this also mean that all
supra-episcopal power, whether metropolitan, primatial, or patriarchal, is
necessarily an emanation or a delegation of the supreme power of the supreme
pontiff?
The
author of the preamble seems to wish to glide toward a theory that is not in any
way defined—and which it is not advisable to define or even to encourage
defining today. According to this theory, all power in the Church would be a
delegation or an emanation of the power of the supreme pontiff.
2.
The expository portion of the document seems to me to be well drafted, and I
approve it except for the following points:
a.
It is abnormal and prejudicial to the work of Christian unity that the
patriarchal sees of the East be occupied by Latins, even those that are simply
honorary. Thus Article IX proposes that the titular Latin patriarchates be
eliminated, but it illogically makes an exception for the Latin Patriarchate of
Jerusalem, whose continuance it recommends. We would say that on the contrary it
is the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem that must above all be eliminated.
This
patriarchate of Jerusalem, founded by the Crusaders in 1099 in accordance with
the mentality of that time, disappeared after their domination ended in 1273. It
was not restored as a residential see until 1847 by Pope Pius IX. Since then and
contrary to the explicit and repeatedly expressed will of the supreme pontiffs,
this patriarchate has made every effort to latinize Eastern Christians, whether
Orthodox or Catholic. This has constituted a painful denial of the pope’s
declarations promising the Eastern Christians who returned to unity that they
would not have to become latinized. Our own patriarchate has explained at length
its point of view on this question in a brochure entitled: Catholicisme ou
Latinisme? A propos du Patriarcat latin de Jerusalem (Harissa, Lebanon,
1961) [Catholicism or Latinism? Concerning the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem].
We ask that it be referred to for fuller information on this subject.
b.
Given the mission of each Eastern Catholic Church, it appears difficult to
reduce the patriarchal sees within the same territory to only one, just as it is
difficult and harmful to limit the rites to one. The fact that there may be two
or three Catholic incumbents occupying the same patriarchal see is a historical
reality that cannot easily be avoided at this time. It is better to accept it as
it is, to organize it, and to try to make the best of it, considering it as a
division of labor rather than as a dispersion of energies. The disadvantages of
this situation can be diminished if there is a sincere collaboration among
patriarchs. This depends on the persons involved rather than on the institution
itself. In any case, this phenomenon exists especially in the See of Antioch. On
the other hand, in Jerusalem, where there had always been a single Catholic
patriarch, the Holy See doubled the hierarchy by restoring the Latin
patriarchate of Jerusalem. So we see this division of authority is not always
the fault of the Eastern Churches. I therefore completely reject this article X
as premature, unrealizable and harmful.
c.
Article XI cannot be accepted, and it is not in the best interests of the
Catholic Church that it be accepted. If it is clearly understood what a
patriarch is in the Eastern Catholic Church, it cannot be wished or allowed that
he become a cardinal, even if this is merely an honorary title. It is not
necessary to make the patriarchal institution an appendage in order to honor it.
It is a sufficient dignity in itself in the Catholic Church. It must retain this
dignity the way that it has been defined over the centuries.
d.
In itself, Article XII is contrary to ecclesial tradition, namely, that the
patriarchs of the East not participate in the election of the Roman pontiff.
However, since this tradition has been changed in the direction of greater
centralization, to the point that the Roman pontiff now intervenes in the
confirmation of the patriarchs, and even very often in their election or
nomination, another innovation can be accepted, namely, that the Eastern
patriarchs participate in the election of the Roman pontiff. On the other hand,
if, as Article XIII provides, the Eastern patriarchs are considered to be
superior in rank to the cardinals, it is normal that they should also be the
first to participate in the election of the Common Father of the Church. In this
sense, I approve Article XII.
e.
Article XIII proposes three drafts relating to the precedence of the patriarchs.
Only the first draft, which maintains for the patriarchs the first rank in the
Church after the pope, seems to us to conform to the decisions of the ecumenical
councils and, of course, to the best interests of union. I reject the other two
drafts, and I would like to see a decision made in this direction at the very
opening of the Council, so that the presence of the Eastern Catholic patriarchs
may not turn out to be disadvantageous to the work of union in this council,
which is intended to be a prelude to union.
The
Patriarchate and the Cardinalate; Latin Patriarchs of the East
I
The Patriarchate and the Cardinalate
The
patriarchate and the cardinalate are two institutions of different orders. A
patriarch is the head of a particular Church, and generally the incumbent of an
apostolic see. According to the decisions of the ecumenical councils, the Bishop
of Rome, in addition to his universal primacy in the Church, is also considered
to be the Patriarch of the West, the first of the five classical patriarchs of
ancient times. After the pope, considered as Patriarch of the West, next in
order of priority come the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch,
and Jerusalem. Later on, other so-called minor patriarchates were constituted in
the East, and purely honorary patriarchs were constituted in the West.
As
for the cardinals, they were originally the immediate auxiliaries of the pope in
his office as Bishop of Rome (the cardinal-priests and the cardinal-deacons), or
in his office as Metropolitan of the Roman Province and as patriarch of the West
(the suburban cardinal-bishops).
When
the East and the West were still united, no one could have imagined that these
immediate auxiliaries of the Roman pontiff could eclipse the incumbents of the
other patriarchal sees of the East.
Then,
little by little, cardinals increased in rank in the hierarchy, until even the
primates of the Western Church were relegated to the background. But this rise
of the cardinalate occurred at the moment when the West and the East were
divided.
When
partial reunions were achieved between the Roman Church and the majority of the
Eastern Churches, the question arose as to the relations of priority between the
Catholic patriarchs of the East and the cardinals who had meanwhile been
promoted to the pinnacle of the hierarchy of the West.
A
twofold question arises here: first, which of the patriarchs or cardinals are to
have priority in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church; second, whether it is
fitting that the Eastern patriarchs be named cardinals through the free choice
of the supreme pontiff.
As
to the first question, namely the order of precedence between the patriarchs of
the East and the cardinals, the Commission of the Eastern Churches answered by
voting by a majority in favor of the honorific priority of the Eastern
patriarchs. I ask the venerable members of this commission to ratify in this
manner this schema that has been presented to us. It is not a question of
personal pride or human prestige. If it were simply a matter of our humble
person, we would on the contrary see to it that no one would snatch the lowest
place in the Church from us. But Orthodoxy is listening intently. The Holy
Father wishes to prepare in this council the paths toward Christian unity. If
the Orthodox patriarchs of the East should desire union today we should be able
to show them that the Catholic Church continues to reserve for them the place
that is rightly theirs through the decision of the ecumenical councils and
through the explicit promises of the popes. Besides, it is not normal that the
cardinals, who are the auxiliaries and sons of the pope, should proceed ahead of
the patriarchs, who are his brothers in the apostolic sees.
As
to the second question, namely, whether it is fitting that the patriarchs of the
East become cardinals, I believe, contrary to Article XI of the schema proposed
to us, that we must answer in the negative. In fact, if we really understand
what a patriarch is in the Catholic Church, we must not, in my humble opinion,
either wish or permit that he be made a cardinal. One must not wish it, since by
the very fact that he is a patriarch he possesses an eminent rank in the
Catholic Church, as we have said earlier. Nor must we permit it, for it is
unthinkable that a patriarch should become a deacon, a priest, or even a
suffragan bishop of the Roman Church. Even if these titles are purely honorary
and do not correspond with reality, it remains abnormal that a patriarch, the
head of a Church, should become a member of the clergy of another Church.
However,
there is nothing to prevent a priest or a simple bishop of the Eastern Church
from becoming a cardinal, as did Bessarion and Isidore of Kiev.
There
is a trend in the Catholic Church today which tends to reaffirm the institution
of the patriarchate. Now, the best way to do this is still to respect the
meaning of the patriarchate in the East, to safeguard its authentic place, and
to recognize its legitimate rights.
In
achieving this, we should not consider the number of faithful subject to each of
the patriarchal sees or the influence of their respective Churches. The criteria
of numbers and influence are neither the only nor the most important ones in the
Catholic Church. If they were, then the Archbishop of New York, or Paris, or
Malines (in Belgium) would precede all the suburban bishops who govern much less
important dioceses.
In
reality, we know that the Christian Church owes a debt of gratitude to these
great Eastern sees that spread the Gospel to Asia, Africa, and even to Europe,
and we owe a debt of respect toward the sees founded by the Apostles. That is
the origin of the rights and privileges of the great patriarchs of the East.
II
The Latin Patriarchates of Eastern Sees
Today
in the Latin Church of the West there is a double series of patriarchs: the
Latin patriarchs of Western sees, such as Venice, Lisbon, and Goa, and the Latin
patriarchs of Eastern sees, such as Constantinople, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
Concerning
the Latin patriarchs of the Western sees (Venice, Lisbon, Goa), I have nothing
to say.
As
for the Latin patriarchs who occupy the Eastern sees, I must distinguish between
the sees that are purely titular, such as Constantinople and Antioch, and the
see of Jerusalem, which was once again made a residential see in 1847.
In
itself, it is abnormal and prejudicial to the work for the union of the Churches
for the Eastern patriarchal sees to be held by Latin titulars. In fact, these
Latin patriarchates were created at the time of the Crusades on behalf of the
political-religious domination of the Franks in the East. In particular, the
survival of a Latin patriarchate in Constantinople is felt very painfully by our
Orthodox brethren who cannot forget the excesses of the Fourth Crusade. Besides,
the Holy See of Rome seems to wish to prepare for the pure and simple
elimination of these titles, since it has been leaving these sees without
titulars for some years now. I therefore believe that the elimination of these
honorary Latin patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch does not present any
great difficulty.
On
the contrary, the schema that is presented to us seeks to make an exception, in
Part 2 of Article IX, for the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, so that in this very
Eastern see a Latin incumbent is maintained, who is not merely honorary but
residential, as he is today.
At
this point, I earnestly beg the venerable members of this Commission not to
consider what I have to say as a personal matter. I have here beside me His
Beatitude Archbishop Gori, the worthy and greatly-revered incumbent of this
Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, whose post I would ask to be cancelled,
naturally in the manner and at the moment that the Holy See of Rome deems
advisable. His Beatitude Archbishop Gori, the incumbent of the see, is our
colleague and our friend. What will be said of the see does not in any way
concern his dear person, whom we love and respect because of his dignity and his
remarkable qualities. Nor does it concern our own poor person, who already has
one foot in the grave. What is at stake here is a lofty question of principle
that affects to the highest degree the existence of the Catholic Church in the
Holy Land.
I
deem before God, therefore, that it is illogical and harmful to the best
interests of the Catholic Church and to the progress of union to make an
exception in favor of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem. This Latin
patriarchate of the most venerable see, that of Jerusalem, must be abolished.
The Patriarchate of Jerusalem must be Catholic, but not Latin. It must remain an
Eastern see.
The
Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem was created by the Crusaders in 1099, on behalf
of Frankish domination in Palestine. It was attuned to the mentality of that
period, according to which a Latin hierarchy was needed to correspond with Latin
domination. In fact, when the Latin-Frankish domination ceased in 1273, with the
fall of St. Jean d’Acre into the hands of Muslims, the Latin Patriarchate of
Jerusalem ceased to exist. It became a purely honorary title until 1847, the
date on which Pope Pius IX, for political-religious reasons that it would take
too long to explain here, deemed it good to restore it as a residential see.
Since
then, and contrary to the express will of the supreme pontiffs, the Latin
Patriarchate of Jerusalem has latinized Eastern Christians, both Orthodox and
Catholic, instead of letting them remain in their Eastern rite.
The
presence of this Latin patriarchate in Jerusalem cannot please the Eastern
Christians, since it reminds them of Frankish domination and the exile of their
own patriarchs. Whatever one makes of it, it is still a foreign patriarchate. In
our own time, we Catholics must not be the last ones to open our eyes. What is
happening at the present time in the Afro-Asiatic countries is such that we can
understand that it is good for the Catholic Church to be represented everywhere
not only by a local hierarchy but also by a local rite, especially if this rite
is of the greatest antiquity and answers to the spirit and needs of the people
for whom it was created. Today all the peoples of the world are gaining their
independence. Must the Church be the last, for human reasons, to share this
history lesson?
Finally,
the latinization of the East, undertaken by the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem,
constitutes a painful repudiation of the explicit declarations of the popes, who
promised the Eastern Christians who return to unity that they will not be
latinized.
If
the Eastern Christians can be Catholic without being Latin Catholics, I ask:
why, then, maintain in the East, in the middle of the twentieth century and in a
Muslim land, a Western patriarchate that can survive only by latinizing at the
expense of the Eastern Church?
For
all these reasons, I owe it to my conscience and to my fidelity to Christ to ask
for one of two things: either that this Latin patriarchate not be an exception
to the general plan that is proposed to us to eliminate all the Latin patriarchs
of the East, or that this question not be dealt with by the council but be left
to the judgement of the Holy Father, who, through the grace given him, will see
what appropriate steps should be taken according to the variable needs of the
times. In the last analysis, this is a purely administrative matter that
ecumenical councils are not in the habit of handling.
Besides,
what I ask for is the elimination of the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem as a patriarchate,
and not the elimination of the Latin rite or the Latin community in the Holy
Land. The East offers hospitality to everybody. Far more, I hope that the Latin
presence in the Holy Land may be more vital and stronger still, without the
necessity of clothing the person who governs this Latin community in the Holy
Land with the patriarchal dignity. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem is an Eastern
patriarchate, and I believe that it must remain Eastern.
Final
Declarations on the Patriarchate
In
the end, the Eastern commission decided not to present a distinct schema “On
the Eastern Patriarchs.” The subject was to be treated in a few paragraphs
within the schema “On the Eastern Catholic Churches.” Patriarch Maximos IV,
in his intervention at the Council on October 15, 1964, expressed his views on
the matter:
In
its disciplinary proposals the present schema “On the Eastern Churches”
constitutes, generally speaking, a certain progress, for which we wish to
congratulate the Eastern Commission that prepared it.
Unfortunately,
we cannot say the same about what in the schema stems from a more doctrinal or
more ecumenical vision of the problems.
Thus,
for example, the preamble praises the Catholic Church for always having had the
highest esteem for the institutions of Eastern Christianity. In doing so, it
sets up the Catholic Church, which extends this praise, as opposite to or as
distinct from the Eastern Churches which are the objects of this praise. This
leads to the belief either that the Catholic Church is identical with the Latin
Church, which is not correct, or else that the Eastern Churches are not in
essence in the Catholic Church, which is equally incorrect.
And
yet of all the chapters in the present schema the weakest is without doubt the
one devoted to patriarchs (Nos. 7-11). This chapter, as it has been presented to
us, is inadmissible. It defies history and in no sense prepares for the future.
In
dealing with the most venerable institution of the hierarchy after the Roman
primacy, the schema has succeeded only in giving definitions that are academic
and also incomplete, while expressing platonic hopes, most often repeating
recent canonical texts, as if Vatican II had not been called to take a few steps
forward but had to be content with the imposed status quo.
Four
important comments need to be made:
1.
It is false to present the patriarchate as an institution just for the East. It
is a universal institution of the Catholic Church that is proud to have at its
head the veritable successor of Peter in the Roman See. The foremost patriarch
of the Catholic Church is the Bishop of Rome, as the ecumenical councils have
declared so many times, as it appears in the official titles of the pope in the
“Annuario Pontifico,” as is confirmed by the very name of this
“patriarchal” basilica of Saint Peter where we are assembled. We are also
reminded by the name of the residence of the Bishop of Rome, the Lateran Palace,
perpetuated in archives and in stone: “Patriarchium.” As successor of
Peter in his universal primacy over the whole Church and as Bishop of Rome, the
pope is also Patriarch of the West. Patristic tradition and the ecumenical
councils have always considered him to be such, without ever believing that this
could be detrimental to his primacy. Why would the pope, who does not feel
diminished by reason of the fact that he is the Bishop of Rome and as such the
equal of the bishops, feel diminished by reason of the fact that he is also
patriarch of the West, and on that level the colleague of the Eastern
patriarchs? Today we have gone too far in forgetting the concept of the
“Patriarchate of the West” and replaced it by the institution of a few
honorary titles. This last-named institution must disappear in order to make way
for the true concept of the patriarchate, a concept that is absolutely necessary
for a serene dialogue with Orthodoxy. Why deny these facts, as if that could
wipe them out of history?
2.
The patriarchate is not an anonymous institution. The councils that the schema
cites have recognized this dignity as applying to certain designated sees that
they cited by name, for specific reasons peculiar to those sees. Now, these sees
should be cited once again, even if the list needs to be complemented by the
names of other patriarchal sees that have been created more recently. It is not
permissible to speak of the Eastern patriarchs without citing even once, for
example, the Holy See of Rome or the Ecumenical See of Constantinople, whose
incumbent represents, above and beyond any consideration of numbers or temporal
influence, the leading dignitary of the Orthodox Church, recognized and honored
as such by His Holiness Pope Paul VI. As far as the drafters of the schema are
concerned, it would seem that the historic encounter between His Holiness Pope
Paul VI and His Holiness Patriarch Athenagoras I means nothing at all.
3.
If we wish to be faithful to history, which is as it were the action of the Holy
Spirit in the Church, we must not forget that the incumbents of the patriarchal
sees were intimately linked to the universal solicitude for the whole Church
entrusted to Peter and his successors. The popes and the Eastern patriarchs
were, during the period of union, the peaks of the universal episcopate. Almost
as soon as he was elected, the Bishop of Rome would send his profession of faith
to the four Eastern patriarchs. And the latter, as soon as they were enthroned,
did the same exclusively among themselves and with the Bishop of Rome. And so a
patriarchal college was constituted in the Church, or as we would say today, a
“summit” of universal solicitude, through which, while safeguarding the
inalienable and personal rights of the successor of Peter, was brought about the
visible collegial communion of all the episcopate. Their exchange of
“irenical” letters (the name in use in Orthodoxy) would be proof enough of
this, without mentioning the exchange of the pallium, sent by the patriarchs to
the pope as well as by the pope to the patriarchs, and the commemoration by each
of the patriarchs of the Bishop of Rome and of the other patriarchs.
It
is certainly up to the supreme authority in the Church to renew or rejuvenate
these forms of ancient ecclesial communion. But the principle on which they were
founded must not be passed over in silence if we wish to offer our Orthodox
brothers a rough draft of the charter of union.
4.
Finally, the patriarchate is not merely an honorary dignity. Its dignity can
only be the external expression of its actual importance. Besides, we must not
heap honors and precedence on the Eastern patriarchs, only to treat them
afterwards as subordinates whose authority is limited in its smallest details by
infinite obligatory recourse, both in advance and afterwards, to the offices of
the Roman Curia. While leaving untouched the prerogatives of the successor of
Peter, each patriarch, with his Holy Synod, must under ordinary conditions be
the ultimate recourse for all the business of his patriarchate. It is this
internal canonical autonomy that saved the Eastern Christian Churches from all
sorts of vicissitudes over the course of history. It could be an interesting
formula to envision for other ecclesial groups that find themselves in
exceptional situations. It could also serve as the basis for union between the
Catholic Church and other Churches, in the West as well as in the East.
Venerable
Fathers, when we speak of the East, we must not think only of those who humbly
represent it today within the bosom of Roman Catholicism. We must reserve a
place for those who are absent. We must not have a closed circuit of Catholicism
in a dynamic and conquering Latinity on the one hand and a rather weak and
absorbed fragment of the East on the other. We must leave the circuit open. Let
us make Catholicism faithful to its solemn affirmations, to its definition of
“catholic” in the sense of universal. Let us make it great, not for our
humble persons and communities in blessed communion with Rome, but so that our
original Churches can recognize themselves in it when it has been enlarged, in
fact as well as legally, through the accomplishment of love, to universal
dimensions.
Patriarch
-Cardinal
What
Patriarch Maximos dreaded—being made a Cardinal—was to happen to him. It was
the greatest trial of his life. Taken by surprise by events, the butt of
misunderstanding, the patriarch gave the ultimate proof of his faith: he placed
his trust in the pope. Summing up and repeating in part the different
declarations through which he sought to legitimize his attitude, the patriarch
on March 14, 1965, in the Cathedral of Beirut, gave an important discourse “on
his acceptance and of the dignity of the cardinalate.” The discourse
represented the ultimate evolution of his thinking. We are publishing an
extensive part of it:
Most
beloved sons:
You
have chosen, in the person of your revered Pastor, our brother Archbishop Philip
Nabaa, to invite us to celebrate before you a solemn Liturgy on the occasion of
our return from Rome where the supreme pontiff His Holiness Paul VI has just
given the Eastern Church a greater global radiance by conferring the cardinalate
on some of its patriarchs, with full respect for the dignity of the Eastern
Church, its particular mission, and its ancient traditions.
We
for our part would like to profit from this happy occasion to explain to you,
with the clarity and frankness that is our custom, this question whose true
nature has escaped certain persons, for it is not without difficulties, given
the historical, canonical, and theological implications which have given rise to
differing interpretations.
Yes,
for valid reasons, we have now accepted the dignity of the cardinalate, just as
for valid reasons we had in the past excused ourselves from receiving it. In
acting in this way we have not deviated from the course which, with God’s
grace, we have always tried to follow.
Here
are a few clarifications:
I.
The reasons that formerly motivated the refusal can be summed up in a few words:
patriarchal dignity in the East, especially the dignity of the apostolic sees,
constitutes a peak above which there is only the papal primacy which extends to
the entire Church, both East and West. As for the dignity of the cardinalate,
from its origins it has been an institution of the particular Church of Rome.
Organized during the Middle Ages, it evolved over the centuries, but it never
ceased being a Western dignity whose incumbents were considered as counselors or
auxiliaries of the pope in the central administration. We likewise know that
according to the decisions of the ecumenical councils, in particular the first
seven, equally recognized by the East and the West, there are five apostolic
patriarchates in the universal Church: Rome, which holds primacy in the entire
Church, a primacy that the Eastern Church recognizes as much as Western Church,
even though they do not agree as to the extent or scope of this primacy, then
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and finally Jerusalem.
Therefore,
since the patriarchal institution constitutes a peak in the East, surpassed only
by the papacy, and since on the other hand the cardinalate is, in the
patriarchate of the West, an accessory dignity and of more recent institution,
it is not normal for the dignity of the cardinalate to be conferred as an
indication of promotion to someone who already possesses through the
patriarchate the highest dignity. For a patriarch, the very fact of receiving
this dignity as a promotion constitutes an incompatibility with the discipline
of the Eastern Church.
That
is the truth that, for years and even before the present the Second Vatican
Council, we have worked and continue to work to propagate, in order to make it
known to the Christian West where the idea of the patriarchate has almost
vanished. In fact, the only existing patriarchate in the West is the
patriarchate of Rome. Now, this Roman patriarchate has somehow been merged with
the papacy. It has become so completely identified with it that its distinctive
signs are no longer discernible, and it has become, so to speak, simply a title.
Moreover, for many, if not the majority, that pointing out that the pope is also
the Patriarch of the West arouses astonishment, if it is not considered an
offense against the Holy See of Rome and a diminution of its rank. But is it
possible to open a dialogue with a view to union with our Orthodox brothers if
the authentic rights of the patriarchates recognized by the ecumenical councils
are not restored to them? Now, these authentic rights require that the
patriarchal sees succeed one another in rank without intermediaries, according
to the established order of precedence: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch, and Jerusalem.
For
these many reasons, we have maintained that the cardinalate, as it has existed
in the Latin Church, was not appropriate for an Eastern patriarch.
II.
As for the reasons that now justify the acceptance of this dignity, they may be
summed up in the following considerations:
1.
The role of the cardinalate, under the impetus of His Holiness Pope Paul VI, is
manifestly evolving. It is being transformed from being a local and Western
institution into a worldwide and catholic institution embracing both the East
and the West. Today the cardinalate has in fact become a senate of the entire
Catholic Church.
In order to emphasize this transformation and avoid any confusion, we have chosen not to use the expression “Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church,” but to say simply “Cardinal of the Holy Church.” In th