This video was very insightful. I never knew there was such a hierarchical structure present in the Church. I always thought that since every Sui iuris church has equal power and dignity in the Church, their Sees too are equal, except for the Roman See, for obvious reasons. Thank you for such a concise video. You just earned a new subscriber. By the way, I'm a Syro Malabar Catholic.
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.
So it’s a bit complicated. The 1911 Catholic Encylopedia has an article on it but it’s outdated because of revisions made by St Paul VI and then the 1990 Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches
“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.”
in power possibly, but not in precedence, and even the Cardinal Secretary of State has often been the junior of the Prefect of the Dicastery (previously congregation) for the doctrine of the Faith.
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.
@@twofoolsforchrist I have a funny feeling there is a weirdness here, they do normally proceed but at least when the cardinals are together as a body the Dean does go last (which is first in precedence) I also did look at some videos of Masses which had the eastern patriarchs further away from the pope than a few other cardinals. So there may well be a special norm of precedence that puts some others ahead of the eastern patriarchs in precedence.
@@carus6280 I think the canon allows for that though. The due regard for special norms of precedence would account for the preeminence of the dean of the college of Cardinals in meetings with Cardinals, especially at a conclave where he would receive the canonical authority to convoke the election. He has preeminence as a Cardinal and in that context where Eastern Patriarchs are also Cardinals and acting in that capacity then yes, the dean would have a preeminence. But this hierarchy was established at Nicea, defending by Leo the Great and eventually even the ratification of Canon 28 of Chalcedon at Second Lyons (kinda unfortunate if you ask me) has never been revoked and has only been further instantiated in canon law in 1990. If an ecumenical council was held today, the eastern patriarchs would have precedence in seating before the cardinals. But in the context of the Cardinals meeting, with some Eastern Patriarchs also "wearing another hat" as Cardinal, then the internal Cardinal rankings would take precednce in that context.
Pope was first among equals nothing more, nothing less. Also Vatican I took place many centuries after the Great Schism. In order of a council to be Ecumenical it needs the 5 Patriarchs. Antioch was founded by Saint Peter and Paul. This does not mean that Antioch is a super-patriarchate above all.
@@kori4580 , the Bishops of Jerusalem succeed St. James the Just. However, the leader of the Twelve Apostles was clearly St. Peter. He was the one who clearly held primacy among the Apostles. The Bishops of Rome are the ones who directly succeeded him after his death, hence, as was recognized since the Patristic Era, the Church of Rome and its bishop held primacy within the Church. This primacy was further strengthened by the fact that the Bishops of Rome succeed not only St. Peter but St. Paul as well. Of course, one may dispute whether this primacy was one of honor or hegemony as has been the debate among Catholics and Orthodox but undisputedly, Rome held the primacy and Jerusalem never claimed it.
What a stupid question. It does not matter. Only the Pope has power. It does not matter who is No2 or No3. It's also like some questions appearing on the internet asking who is the Pope married to?
Return to the one Holy catholic Apostolic Church of the Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical council's decision Ever since 1054 the West and the Pope have fallen into heresy
This video was very insightful. I never knew there was such a hierarchical structure present in the Church. I always thought that since every Sui iuris church has equal power and dignity in the Church, their Sees too are equal, except for the Roman See, for obvious reasons.
Thank you for such a concise video. You just earned a new subscriber.
By the way, I'm a Syro Malabar Catholic.
Truly interesting
The Dean of the College of Cardinals
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.
What's the source/protocol list for all of this? I'm interested in looking further into it
So it’s a bit complicated. The 1911 Catholic Encylopedia has an article on it but it’s outdated because of revisions made by St Paul VI and then the 1990 Code of Canon Law for the Eastern Churches
well that would obviously be the bishop of Constanti- oh yeah... Probably the bishop of Engla- I mean the bishop of Jerus- man screw this 🤦
The second highest Bishop after
the Pope is the Cardinal
Secretary of State.
“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.”
in power possibly, but not in precedence, and even the Cardinal Secretary of State has often been the junior of the Prefect of the Dicastery (previously congregation) for the doctrine of the Faith.
Has to be the Dean of the College.
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.
@@twofoolsforchrist I have a funny feeling there is a weirdness here, they do normally proceed but at least when the cardinals are together as a body the Dean does go last (which is first in precedence) I also did look at some videos of Masses which had the eastern patriarchs further away from the pope than a few other cardinals. So there may well be a special norm of precedence that puts some others ahead of the eastern patriarchs in precedence.
@@carus6280 I think the canon allows for that though. The due regard for special norms of precedence would account for the preeminence of the dean of the college of Cardinals in meetings with Cardinals, especially at a conclave where he would receive the canonical authority to convoke the election. He has preeminence as a Cardinal and in that context where Eastern Patriarchs are also Cardinals and acting in that capacity then yes, the dean would have a preeminence. But this hierarchy was established at Nicea, defending by Leo the Great and eventually even the ratification of Canon 28 of Chalcedon at Second Lyons (kinda unfortunate if you ask me) has never been revoked and has only been further instantiated in canon law in 1990.
If an ecumenical council was held today, the eastern patriarchs would have precedence in seating before the cardinals. But in the context of the Cardinals meeting, with some Eastern Patriarchs also "wearing another hat" as Cardinal, then the internal Cardinal rankings would take precednce in that context.
That would be the vice-pope, i.e. the pope in charge of vice.
Pope was first among equals nothing more, nothing less. Also Vatican I took place many centuries after the Great Schism. In order of a council to be Ecumenical it needs the 5 Patriarchs. Antioch was founded by Saint Peter and Paul. This does not mean that Antioch is a super-patriarchate above all.
Demons draw straws.
The bishop of Jerusalem is the true head of the church, not the bishop of Rome
That’s not what the Church Fathers teach
@ the church father Hegesippus did and it’s also stated in the Acts of the Apostles.
The Bishop of Jerusalem has never claimed primacy over the Church.
@@justiniand6a788 the bishop of Jerusalem existed before there was even a church in Rome, Antioch or Alexandria so clearly it did hold primacy
@@kori4580 , the Bishops of Jerusalem succeed St. James the Just. However, the leader of the Twelve Apostles was clearly St. Peter. He was the one who clearly held primacy among the Apostles. The Bishops of Rome are the ones who directly succeeded him after his death, hence, as was recognized since the Patristic Era, the Church of Rome and its bishop held primacy within the Church. This primacy was further strengthened by the fact that the Bishops of Rome succeed not only St. Peter but St. Paul as well. Of course, one may dispute whether this primacy was one of honor or hegemony as has been the debate among Catholics and Orthodox but undisputedly, Rome held the primacy and Jerusalem never claimed it.
What a stupid question. It does not matter. Only the Pope has power. It does not matter who is No2 or No3.
It's also like some questions appearing on the internet asking who is the Pope married to?
It’s not a stupid question because the church has it prescribed in its sacred canons
Patriarch of Istambul 😂
If one reads history, the Roman Catholic are the screw ups alienizing the east then the German monk so yeah 😂
Return to the one Holy catholic Apostolic Church of the Holy Fathers and the Ecumenical council's decision
Ever since 1054 the West and the Pope have fallen into heresy
Hard cope. The pride of the east caused the schism with the Petrine authority from the Gospel