 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
Names of the highest ecclesiastical dignitaries after thepope, and of the territory they rule.
Patriarch (Gr.patriarches; Latinpatriarcha) means the father or chief of a race (patria, a clan orfamily). The word occurs in theSeptuagint for the chiefs of the tribes (e.g.1 Chronicles 24:31;27:22,patriarchai ton phylon; cf.2 Chronicles 23:20 etc.); in theNew Testament (Hebrews 7:4) it is applied to Abraham as a version of his title "father of many nations" (Genesis 17:4), to David (Acts 2:29), and to the twelve sons of Jacob (Acts 7:8-9). This last became the special meaning of the word when used ofScriptural characters. The heads of the tribes were the "Twelve Patriarchs", though the word is used also in a more general sense for the fathers of the Old Law in general, e.g. the invocation in thelitany, "All yeholy Patriarchs and Prophets".
Names ofChristian dignitaries were in early days taken sometimes from civil life (episkopos, diakonos), sometimes borrowed from theJews (presbyteros). The namepatriarch is one of the latter class. Bishops of special dignity were called patriarchs just asdeacons were called levites, because their place corresponded by analogy to those in the Old Law. All such titles became technical terms, official titles, only gradually. At first they were used loosely as names ofhonour without any strict connotation; but in all such cases the reality existed before any special name was used. There were ecclesiastical dignitaries with all therights and prerogatives of patriarchs in the first three centuries; but the official title does not occur till later. As aChristian title ofhonour the wordpatriarch appears first as applied toPope Leo I in a letter of Theodosius II (408-50;Mansi, VI, 68). Thebishops of the Byzantinejurisdiction apply it to their chief, Acacius (471-89;Evagrius, "H.E.", III, 9). But it was still merely an honourable epithet that might be given to any venerablebishop.St. Gregory of Nazianzus says: "the elderbishops, or more rightly, the patriarchs" (Orat., xlii, 23).Socrates says that the Fathers of Constantinople I (381) "set up patriarchs", meaning apparentlymetropolitans ofprovinces (Church History V.8). As late as the fifth and sixth centuries Celidonius of Besançon and Nicetius of Lyons are still called patriarchs (Acta SS., Feb., III, 742;Gregory of Tours, "Hist. Francorum", V, xx).
Gradually then — certainly from the eighth and ninth centuries — the word becomes an official title, used henceforth only as connoting a definite rank in thehierarchy, that of the chiefbishops who ruled overmetropolitans asmetropolitans over their suffraganbishops, being themselves subject only to thefirst patriarch atRome. During these earlier centuries the name appears generally in conjunction with"archbishop", "archbishop and patriarch", as in the Code of Justinian (Gelzer, "Der Streit über den Titel des ökumen. Patriarchen" in "Jahrbuch für protest. Theol.", 1887). The dispute about the title Œcumenical Patriarch in the sixth century (seeJOHN THE FASTER) shows that even then the name was receiving a technical sense. Latermedieval and modern developments,schisms, and the creation of titular and so-called "minor" patriarchates have produced the result that a great number ofpersons now claim the title; but in all cases it connotes theidea of a special rank — the highest, except amongCatholics who admit the still higherpapacy.
Patriarchate (Greekpatriarcheia; Latinpatriarchatus) is the derived word meaning a patriarch's office,see, reign, or, most often, the territory he governs. It corresponds to episcopacy, episcopate, anddiocese in relation to abishop.
The oldest canon law admitted only threebishops as having what later ages called patriarchalrights — the Bishops ofRome, Alexandria, andAntioch. Thesuccessor of St. Peter as a matter of course held the highest place and combined in his ownperson all dignities. He was not onlybishop, butmetropolitan,primate, and patriarch;Metropolitan of theRoman Province,Primate ofItaly, and first of the patriarchs. As soon as ahierarchy was organized amongbishops, the chief authority and dignity were retained by theBishop of Rome. Thepope combines the above positions and each of them gives him a special relation to the faithful and thebishops in the territory corresponding. Aspope he is visible head of the wholeChurch; noChristian is outside his papaljurisdiction. AsBishop of Rome he is thediocesanbishop of thatdiocese only; asmetropolitan he governs theRoman Province; asprimate he governs theItalianbishops; as patriarch he rules only theWest. As patriarch theRoman pontiff has from the beginning ruled all the Western lands where Latin was once the civilized, and is still the liturgical language, where theRoman Rite is now used almost exclusively and theRoman canon law (e.g.celibacy, our rules offasting and abstinence, etc.) obtains. ToChristians in the East he issupreme pontiff, not patriarch. Hence there has always been a closer relation between Westernbishops and thepope than between him and their Eastern brethren, just as there is a still closer relation between him and the suburbanbishops of theRoman Province of which he ismetropolitan. Manylaws that we obey are not universalCatholiclaws but those of the Western patriarchate. Before theCouncil of Nicæa (325) twobishops in the East had the same patriarchal authority over large territories, those of Alexandria and Antioch. It is difficult to say exactly how they obtained this position. The organization ofprovinces undermetropolitans followed, as a matter of obvious convenience, the organization of the empire arranged byDiocletian (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 21-23). In this arrangement the most important cities in the East were Alexandria ofEgypt and Antioch ofSyria. So theBishop of Alexandria became the chief of allEgyptianbishops andmetropolitans; theBishop ofAntioch held the same place overSyria and at the same time extended his sway overAsia Minor,Greece and the rest of the East.Diocletian had divided the empire into four great prefectures. Three of these (Italy,Gaul, and Illyricum) made up theRoman patriarchate, the other, the "East" (Præfectura Orientis) had five (civil) "dioceses" — Thrace,Asia,Pontus, the Diocese of the East, andEgypt.Egypt was the Alexandrine patriarchate. The Antiochene patriarchate embraced the civil "Diocese" of the East. The other three civil divisions of Thrace,Asia, andPontus would have probably developed into separate patriarchates, but for the rise of Constantinople (ibid., 22-25). Later it became a popularidea to connect all three patriarchates with the Prince of the Apostles.St. Peter had also reigned atAntioch; he had founded theChurch of Alexandria by his disciple St. Mark. At any rate theCouncil of Nicæa in 325 recognizes the supreme place of thebishops of these three cities as an "ancient custom" (can. vi).Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are the three old patriarchates whose unique position and order were disturbed by later developments.
When pilgrims began to flock to the Holy City, theBishop ofJerusalem, the guardian of the sacred shrines, began to be considered as more than a mere suffragan of Cæsarea. TheCouncil of Nicæa (325) gave him an honorary primacy, saving, however, the metropoliticalrights of Cæsarea (can. vii). Juvenal of Jerusalem (420-58) succeeded finally, after much dispute, in changing this honorary position into a real patriarchate. TheCouncil of Chalcedon (451) cut away Palestine and Arabia (Sinai) from Antioch and of them formed the Patriarchate ofJerusalem (Sess. VII and VIII). Since that timeJerusalem has always been counted among the patriarchalsees as the smallest and last (ibid., 25-28).
But the greatest change, the one that met most opposition, was the rise of Constantinople to patriarchal rank. Because Constantine had made Byzantium "New Rome", itsbishop, once the humble suffragan ofHeraclea, thought that he should become second only, if not almost equal, to theBishop of Old Rome. For many centuries thepopes opposed thisambition, not because any one thought of disputing their first place, but because they were unwilling to change the old order of thehierarchy. In 381 the Council of Constantinople declared that: "TheBishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy ofhonour after theBishop of Rome, because it is New Rome" (can. iii). Thepopes (Damasus,Gregory the Great) refused to confirm this canon. Nevertheless Constantinople grew by favour of the emperor, whose centralizing policy found a ready help in the authority of his courtbishop. Chalcedon (451) established Constantinople as a patriarchate withjurisdiction overAsia Minor and Thrace and gave it the second place afterRome (can. xxviii).Pope Leo I (440-61) refused to admit this canon, which was made in the absence of hislegates; for centuriesRome still refused to give the second place to Constantinople. It was not until theFourth Lateran Council (1215) that the Latin Patriarch of Constantinople was allowed this place; in 1439 theCouncil of Florence gave it to the Greek patriarch. Nevertheless in the East the emperor's wish was powerful enough to obtain recognition for his patriarch; from Chalcedon we must count Constantinople as practically, if not legally, the second patriarchate (ibid., 28-47). So we have the new order of five patriarchs —Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria,Antioch,Jerusalem — that seemed, to Easterntheologians especially, an essential element of the constitution of theChurch [see (ibid., 46-47) the letter of Peter III of Antioch, c. 1054].
At the time ofCerularius'sschism (1054) the greatChurch of the empireknew practically these five patriarchs only, though "minor" patriarchates had already begun in theWest. TheEighth General Council (Constantinople IV, in 869) had solemnly affirmed their position (can. xxi). Theschism, and further distinctions that would not have existed but for it, considerably augmented the number ofbishops who claimed the title. But before the greatschism the earlierNestorian andMonophysite separations had resulted in the existence of variousheretical patriarchs. To be under a patriarch had come to be the normal, apparently necessary, condition for anyChurch. So it was natural that theseheretics when they broke from theCatholic patriarchs should sooner or later set up rivals of their own. But in most cases they have been neither consistent norlogical. Instead of being merely an honourable title for the occupants of the five chiefsees, the name patriarch was looked upon as denoting a rank of its own. So there was theidea that one might be patriarch of any place. We shall understand the confusion of thisidea if we imagine somesect setting up aPope ofLondon orNew York in opposition to thePope ofRome. TheNestorians broke away from Antioch in the fifth century. They then called theircatholicus (originally a vicar of the Antiochene pontiff), patriarch; though he has never claimed to be Patriarch ofAntioch, which alone would have given a reason for his title. Babæus (Bab-Hai, 498-503) is said to be the first who usurped the title, as Patriarch ofSeleucia and Ctesiphon (Assemani, "Bibl. Orient.", III, 427). TheCopts andJacobites have been more consistent. During the longMonophysite quarrels (fifth to seventh century) there were continually rival or alternateCatholic andMonophysite patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch. Eventually, since theMoslem conquest ofEgypt andSyria, rival lines were formed. So there is a line of Coptic patriarchs of Alexandria and of Jacobite patriarchs of Antioch as rivals to theMelchite ones. But in this case each claims to represent the old line and refuses to recognize its rivals, which is a possible position.
TheArmenianChurch has made the same mistake as theNestorians. It has now four so-called patriarchs, of which two bear titles ofsees that cannot by any rule of antiquity claim to be patriarchal at all, and the other two have not even the pretence of descent from the old lines. TheArmenianCatholicus of Etchmiadzin began to call himself a patriarch on the same basis as theNestorianprimate — simply as head of a large and, after theMonophysiteschism (Synod of Duin in 527), independentChurch. It is difficult to say at what date he assumed the title.Armenian writers call all theircatholici patriarchs, back toSt. Gregory the Illuminator (fourth cent.). Silbernagl countsNerses I (353-73?) first patriarch (Verfassung u. gegenw. Bestand, 216). But a claim to patriarchal rank could hardly have been made at a time whenArmenia was still in union with and subject to theSee of Cæsarea. TheCatholicus's title is not local; he is "Patriarch of allArmenians." In 1461 Mohammed II set up anArmenian Patriarch of Constantinople to balance the Orthodox one. A temporaryschism among theArmenians resulted in a Patriarchate of Sis, and in the seventeenth century theArmenianBishop ofJerusalem began to call himself patriarch. It is clear then how entirely theArmenians ignore what the title really means.
The next multiplication of patriarchs was produced by theCrusades. Thecrusaders naturally refused to recognize the claims of the old, nowschismatical, patriarchal lines, whose representatives moreover in most cases fled; so they set up Latin patriarchs in their place. The first Latin Patriarch ofJerusalem was Dagobert of Pisa (1099-1107); the Orthodox rival (Simon II) had fled toCyprus in 1099 and died there the same year (for the list of hissucessors seeLe Quien, III, 1241-68). It was not till 1142 that the Orthodox continued their broken line by electing Arsenios II, who like most Orthodox patriarchs at that time lived at Constantinople. At Antioch, too, thecrusaders had a scruple against two patriarchs of the same place. They took the city in 1098, but as long as the Orthodox patriarch (John IV) remained there they tried to make him aCatholic instead of appointing a rival. However, when at last he fled to Constantinople they considered the see vacant, and Bernard,Bishop of Arthesia, aFrenchman, was elected to it (the succession inLe Quien, III, 1154-84).
In 1167 Amaury II, King ofJerusalem, captured Alexandria, as did Peter I, King ofCyprus, in 1365. But both times the city was given back to theMoslems at once. Nor were there any Latin inhabitants to justify the establishment of a Latin patriarchate. On the other hand, the Orthodox patriarch, Nicholas I (c. 1210-after 1223;Le Quien, II, 490) was well disposed towards reunion, wrote friendly letters to thepope, and was invited to theFourth Lateran Council (1215). There was then a special reason for not setting up a Latin rival to him. Eventually a Latin patriarchate was established rather to complete what had been done in other cases than for any practical reason. Giles, Patriarch of Grado, aDominican, was made first Latin Patriarch ofAlexandria byClement V in 1310. An earlier Latin Athanasius seems to be mythical (Le Quien, III, 1143). For the list of Giles's line seeLe Quien (III, 1141-1151). When theFourth Crusade took Constantinople in 1204, the patriarch John X fled toNicæa with the emperor, and Thomas Morosini was made Latin patriarch to balance the Latin emperor (Le Quien, III, 793-836). It will be seen then that thecrusaders acted from their point of view correctly enough. But the result was for each see double lines that have continued ever since. The Orthodox lines went on; the Latin patriarchs ruled as long as the Latins held those lands. When thecrusaders' kingdoms came to an end they went on as titular patriarchs and have been for many centuries dignitaries of the papal court. Only the Latin Patriarch ofJerusalem was sent back in 1847 to be the head of all Latins in Palestine. By that time people were so accustomed to see different patriarchs of the same place ruling each his own "nation" that this seemed a natural proceeding.
The formation ofUniat Churches since the sixteenth century again increased the number of patriarchates. These people could no longer obey the oldschismatical lines. On the other hand each group came out of a correspondingschismaticalChurch; they were accustomed to a chief of their own rite, their own "nation" in theTurkish sense. The only course seemed to be to give to each aUniat patriarch corresponding to hisschismatical rival. Moreover, in many cases the line ofUniat patriarchs comes from a disputed succession among the schismatics, one claimant having submitted toRome and being therefore deposed by theschismatical majority. The oldest of theseUniat patriarchates is that of theMaronites. In 680 the Patriarch ofAntioch,Macarius, was deposed by theSixth General Council forMonotheletism. TheMonotheletes then grouped themselves around the hegumenos of theMaronitemonastery, John (died 707). This begins the separatedMaronite (at that time undoubtedlyMonothelete)Church. John made himself Patriarch ofAntioch for his followers, who wanted a head and were in communion with neither theJacobites nor theMelchites. At the time of thecrusades theMaronites united withRome (1182 and again in 1216). They are allowed to keep their Patriarch ofAntioch as head of their rite; but he in no way represents the old line ofSt. Peter and St. Ignatius. The next oldestUniat patriarchate is that of Babylon for the Chaldees (convertedNestorians). It began with the submission of theNestorian patriarch, John Sulaga (died 1555). There has been a complicated series of rivalries andschisms since, of which the final curious result is that the presentUniat patriarch represents the oldNestorian line, and hisNestorian rival the originallyCatholic line of Sulaga. The title of "Babylon" was not used tillPope Innocent XI conferred it in 1681. TheMelchite patriarchate dates from 1724 (Cyril VI, 1724-1759). It began again with a disputed succession to the old patriarchal See of Antioch; theMelchite occupant has quite a good claim to represent the old line. TheUniat Byzantine Sees of Alexandria andJerusalem are for the present considered as joined to that of Antioch; theMelchite patriarch uses all three titles (seeMELCHITES). TheUniatArmenians have a patriarch who resides at Constantinople, but does not take his title from that city. His line began with a disputed election to Sis, one of the secondaryArmenian patriarchates, in 1739. He is called Patriarch of Cilicia of theArmenians. In 1781 Ignatius Giarve, JacobiteBishop ofAleppo, was elected canonically Patriarch ofAntioch. He then made his submission toRome and thehereticalbishops deposed him and chose aMonophysite as patriarch. From Giarve the line ofUniat Syrian patriarchs of Antioch descends. Lastly, in 1895,Pope Leo XIII erected aUniat Coptic Patriarchate of Alexandria for the manyCopts who were at that time becomingCatholics.
This exhausts the list ofUniat patriarchs. In three cases (the Chaldees,Melchites, and Syrians) theUniat patriarch has, on purely historical grounds, at least as good a claim as hisschismatical rival, if not better, to represent the old succession. On the other hand, the existence of severalCatholic patriarchs of the same see, for instance, theMelchite, Jacobite,Maronite, and Latin titulars of Antioch, is a concession to the national feeling ofEastern Christians, or, in the case of the Latin, a relic of thecrusades that archæologically can hardly be justified.
It is curious that there is noUniat Patriarch of Constantinople. There was for a time, however brief, a new patriarchate among the Orthodox. In the sixteenth century theChurch of Russia had become a very large and flourishing branch of the Orthodox communion. The Russian Government then thought the time had come to break its dependence on Constantinople. In 1589 the Tsar Feodor I (1581-98) made the Metropolitan See ofMoscow into an independent patriarchate. In 1591 the other patriarchs in synod confirmed his arrangement and gaveMoscow the fifth place, belowJerusalem. Orthodox theologians were delighted that the sacred pentarchy, the classical order of five patriarchs, was thus restored; they said thatGod had raised upMoscow to replace fallenRome. But theirjoy did not last long. Only ten Russian patriarchs reigned. In 1700 the last of these,Adria, died. Peter the Great did not allow asuccessor to be elected and in 1721 replaced the patriarchate by the Holy Directing Synod that now rules the Russian Church. But many Russians who resent the present tyranny of State over Church in their country hope for a restoration of the national patriarchate as the first step towards better things.
There remain only the so-called "minor" patriarchates in theWest. At various times certain Westernsees, too, have been called patriarchal. But there is a fundamental difference between these and any Eastern patriarchate. Namely, thepope is Patriarch of theWest; all Westernbishops of whatever rank are subject not only to his papal but also to his patriarchaljurisdiction. But a real patriarch cannot be subject to another patriarch; no patriarch can have another under his patriarchaljurisdiction, just as adiocesan ordinary cannot have another ordinary in hisdiocese. Eastern patriarchs claim independence of any other patriarch as such; theCatholics obey thepope aspope, the Orthodox recognize the civil headship of Constantinople, theArmenians a certain primacy ofhonour in theircatholicus. But in every case the essence of a patriarch's dignity is that he has no other patriarch over himas patriarch. On the other hand, these Western minor patriarchs have never been supposed to be exempt from theRoman patriarchate. They have never had fragments cut away fromRome to make patriarchates for them, as for instanceJerusalem was formed of a fragment detached from Antioch.
Indeed, none of them has ever had any patriarchate at all. It may be said that the origin of the title in theWest was an imitation of the East. But legally the situation was totally different. The Western patriarchates have never been more than mere titles conveying nojurisdiction at all. The earliest of them wasAquileia in Illyricum. It was an important city in the first centuries; the see claimed to have been founded by St. Mark. During the rule of theGoths inItaly (fifth to sixth centuries) theBishop ofAquileia was called patriarch, though the name was certainly not used in any technical sense. It is one more example of the looser meaning by which any venerablebishop might be so called in earlier times. However, theBishop ofAquileia began to use his complimentary title in a more definite sense. Though Illyricum undoubtedly belonged legally to the Roman Patriarchate, it was long a fruitful source of dispute with the East (Orth. Eastern Church, 44-45); Aquileia on the frontier thought itself entitled to some kind of independence of eitherRome or Constantinople. At first thepopes resolutely refused to acknowledge this new claim in any form. Then came the quarrel of theThree Chapters.
When, however,Pope Vigilius had yielded to the second Council of Constantinople (553), a number of NorthItalianbishops went into formalschism, led by Macedonius of Aquileia (539-56). From this time the Bishops of Aquileia call themselves patriarchs, as heads of aschismatical party, till 700.Paulinus of Aquileia (557-71) moved his see to Grado, a small island opposite Aquileia, keeping, however, the old title. This line ofbishops in Grado becameCatholics about 606; theirschismatical suffragans then restored the old see at Aquileia as aschismatical patriarchate. Thepopes seem to have allowed or tolerated the same title for the Bishops of Aquileia-Grado. TheSynod at Aquileia in 700 put an end to theschism finally.
From that time, however, there were two lines of so-called patriarchs, those of Aquileia and of Grado (where thebishop now kept the title of Grado only). Neither had more than metropoliticaljurisdiction. Both these titles are now merged in that of the Patriarch ofVenice. TheSee of Venice absorbed Grado in the fifteenth century. The city of Aquileia was overthrown by an earthquake in 1348, but the line of patriarchs continued atUdine. It came thus entirely in the power of theVenetian Republic; the patriarch was always aVenetian. EventuallyBenedict XIV, in 1751, changed the title to that of Patriarch ofVenice.
The discovery of America added a vast territory to theChurch, over which it seemed natural that a patriarch should reign. In 1520Leo X created a "Patriarchate of the West Indies" among theSpanishclergy. In 1572Pius V joined this rank to the office of chiefchaplain of the Spanish army. But in this case, too, the dignity is purely titular. In 1644Innocent X gave the patriarch somejurisdiction, but expressly in his quality ofchaplain only. He has no income as patriarch and is often alsobishop of a Spanish diocese. In 1716Clement XI, in answer to a petition of King John, who, in return for help in fightingTurks, wanted a patriarch like the King ofSpain, erected a titular Patriarchate ofLisbon at the king'schapel. The city was divided between thejurisdiction of theArchbishop ofLisbon and the new patriarch. In 1740Benedict XIV joined thearchbishopric to the patriarchate. The Patriarch ofLisbon has certain privileges ofhonour that make his court an imitation of that of thepope. His chapter has three orders like those of theCollege of Cardinals; he himself is always made acardinal at the first consistory after hispreconization and he uses atiara (without the keys) over his arms, but he has no more than metropoliticaljurisdiction over seven suffragans. Lastly,Leo XIII, in 1886, as a counterpoise to the Patriarchate of the West Indies, erected a titular Patriarchate of the East Indies attached to the See of Goa.
At various times other Westernbishops have been called patriarchs. In theMiddle Ages those of Lyons,Bourges,Canterbury, Toledo,Pisa were occasionally so called. But there was never any legal claim to these merely complimentary titles.
We give first a complete list of allpersons who now bear the title.
Thepope as Patriarch of theWest (this is the commonest form; "Patriarch of Rome", or "Latin Patriarch" also occur) rules all WesternEurope fromPoland to Illyricum (the Balkan Peninsula), Africa west ofEgypt, all other lands (America, Australia) colonized from these lands and all Western (Latin) missionaries and dwellers in the East. In other words, his patriarchaljurisdiction extends over all who use the Western (Roman, Ambrosian, Mozarabic) rites and over the Byzantine Uniats inItaly,Corsica, andSicily. As patriarch he may hold patriarchal synods and he frequently makeslaws (such as rituallaws and our form ofclerical celibacy) for the Western patriarchate alone.
TheUniatCatholic patriarchs are as follows:
These rule over all members of their rite, except that theArmenian has nojurisdiction inAustria or the Crimea, where theArmenian Bishops ofLemberg and Artwin are exempt, being immediately subject to theHoly See.
Of the Latin patriarchs only one hasjurisdiction: the Latin Patriarch ofJerusalem (over all Latins in Palestine andCyprus). All the others are titular, namely: the Latin Patriarchs of Constantinople,Antioch andJerusalem, ornaments of the papal court atRome; the "minor" Patriarchs ofVenice,Lisbon, the West Indies, the East Indies. It should be noted that the modernRoman lists (e.g. the "Gerarchia Cattolica") ignore the difference between those who havejurisdiction and the titular patriarchs and count all who bear the title of one of the old patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria,Antioch,Jerusalem) as major, all others (including Babylon and Cilicia) as minor.
Non-Catholics who bear the title now are the Orthodox Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria,Antioch,Jerusalem; theNestorian patriarch at Kuchanis (his title is now "Catholicus and Patriarch of the East"); the Coptic Patriarch ofAlexandria; the. Jacobite Patriarch ofAntioch; fourArmenian patriarchs, the "Catholicus and Patriarch of allArmenians" at Etchmiadzin and those of Constantinople, Sis, andJerusalem. Therights, dignity, andduties of patriarchs form part of the canon law of eachChurch. They are not the same in all cases. As a general principle it may be said that the fundamental notion is that a patriarch has the same authority over hismetropolitans as they have over their suffraganbishops. Moreover, a patriarch is not himself subject to another patriarch, or rather he is not subject to any one's patriarchaljurisdiction. But there is here a difference betweenCatholics and the others. AllCatholics, including patriarchs, obey the supreme (papal) authority of theRoman pontiff; further we must except from our consideration the merely titular patriarchs who have no authority at all. In the case of theEastern Churches the general principle is that a patriarch is subject to no living authority save that of a possible general council. But here again we must except theArmenians. Theircatholicus had for many centuries authority over all hisChurch very like that of thepope. It is diminished now; but still one can hardly say that the other patriarchs are quite independent of him. He alone may summonnational synods. The (Armenian) Patriarch of Constantinople has now usurped most of hisrights in theTurkish Empire. One of these two ordains allbishops. The Patriarch of Sis may not evenconsecratechrism, but is supplied from Etchmiadzin. A somewhat similar case is that of the Orthodox. Since theTurkish conquest the Œcumenical Patriarch has been the civil head of all the Orthodox in theTurkish Empire. He has continually tried and still to a great extent tries to turn his civil headship into supreme ecclesiastical authority, to be in short an Orthodoxpope. His attempts are always indignantly rejected by the other patriarchs and the nationalChurches, but not always successfully. Meanwhile he has kept at least one sign of authority. He aloneconsecrateschrism for all Orthodoxbishops, except for those ofRussia and Rumania.
In the East the general principle is that the patriarch ordains allbishops in his own territory. This is a very old sign of authority in those countries. He is elected by hismetropolitans or (permanent) synod,ordained, as a rule, by his own suffragans, makeslaws and has certainrights of confirming or deposing hisbishops, generally in conjunction with his synod, and may summon patriarchal (temporary) synods. The question of the deposition of patriarchs among the non-Catholics is difficult. Among the Orthodox they have been and are constantly deposed by theirmetropolitans or synod. They nearly always refuse to acknowledge their deposition and a struggle follows in which Constantinople always tries to interfere. Eventually the Turk settles it, generally in favour of deposition, since he gets a largebribe for the new patriarch'sberat. The specialrights andduties of the patriarchs of the variousEastern Churches are given in Silbernagl (infra).
In theCatholicChurch sinceEugene IV (1431-47)cardinals have precedence over patriarchs.Uniat patriarchs are elected by a synod of all thebishops of the patriarchate and confirmed by theHoly See. They must send a profession of Faith to thepope and receive thepallium from him. Theirrights are summed up by a Constitution ofBenedict XIV ("Apostolica", 14 Feb., 1742), namely: to summon and preside at patriarchal synods (whose acts must be confirmed atRome), to ordain allbishops of their territory andconsecratechrism, to send theomophorion to theirmetropolitans, receiveappeals made against the judgments of these, and receivetithes of all episcopal income; in synod they may depose theirbishops. They bear their patriarchal cross not only throughout their own territory, but, by a special concession, everywhere except atRome. All have a permanent representative atRome. They must visit all theirdioceses every third year and may not resign without thepope's consent. TheBull "Reversurus" ofPius IX (1867) made furtherlaws first for theArmenian patriarch; then with modifications it has been extended to other Uniats. The precedence among patriarchs is determined by the rank of their see, according to the old order of the five patriarchates, followed by Cilicia, then Babylon. Between several titulars of the same see but of different rites the order is that of the date of theirpreconization.
The titular Latin patriarchs have only certain ceremonial prerogatives. TheRomanpatriarchia are fivebasilicas, one thepope's own cathedral, the others churches at which the other patriarchs officiated if they came toRome, near which they dwelt. The papalpatriarchium was originally the "Domus Pudentiana"; since the earlyMiddle Ages it is the Basilica of Saint Saviour at the Lateran (St. John Lateran). The others are, or were,St. Peter for Constantinople, St. Paul Without the Walls for Alexandria, St. Mary Major for Antioch, St. Lawrence forJerusalem. These are now only titles and memories.
LE QUIEN,Oriens christianus (Paris, 1740); BINGHAM,Origines ecclesiasticæ, I (London, 1708-22), 232 sq.; LÜBECK,Reichseinteilung u. kirchliche Hierarchie des Orients bis zum Ausgang des vierten Jahrhunderts (Münster, 1900); HINSCHIUS,System des katholischen Kirchenrechts, I (1869); KATTENBUSCH,Lehrbuch der vergleichenden Konfessionskunde, I (Freiburg, 1892); SILBERNAGL,Verfassung und gegenwärtiger Bestand sämtlicher Kirchen des Orients (Ratisbon, 1904); FORTESCUE,The Orthodox Eastern Church (London, 1907), i.
APA citation.Fortescue, A.(1911).Patriarch and Patriarchate. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm
MLA citation.Fortescue, Adrian."Patriarch and Patriarchate."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 11.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1911.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Douglas J. Potter.Dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.