I think the supposed tension that this piece fears still rests on a notion of a cardinal as having 'more power' than a 'mere' bishop, and that that could be an upset to the dynamics of synodality as a living reality in Ukrainian Church.
The question could be considered the other way around: what effect (if any) did giving red hats to +Slipyj, +Lubachivsky, and +Husar have on the operation of the UGCC Synod? What effect does +Shevchuk's passing over have (or does not have) on the same? Yes, each of these Cardinals were 'first amongst equals' in their Church (by virtue of their particular office) but equals (by their share in the episcopal ministry). Does having a red hat actually effect the internal dynamics of the UGCC?
I wonder if the analysis here comes from a too 'Western' perspective, with the way that the College has been seen (and operated in fact) for centuries now: a kind of ambitious game of promotion: the Church is a corporate structure (in a pejorative sense) where you want to get ahead from your regional manager job (Local Ordinary) to a VP position (Cardinals) so you have the ear of the CEO (Pope). It seems that Vatican II has firmly answered about that style of ecclesiology, and has affirmed the more ancient idea of the communion amongst bishops (which does not preclude certain rights of certain offices).
I'm speculating here a bit, but I think what we are seeing in Francis' approach to the College of Cardinals is a practice reception of that ecclesiology, as pertains to the actual governance structure of the Church on its 'highest,' most universal level. It doesn't matter, in some sense, if it is an obscure auxiliary bishop from El Salvador or the rookie UGCC bishop away from Ukrainian home territory: they share in the common office of episcopacy (?). Could the College of Cardinals be thought of as the UGCC-style Synod of the whole Church?
I could not agree with you more. If Francis seems to be promoting anything it is that the office of Cardinal is not an upgrade in the corporate structure, but a call to assist the Universal Pastor in his work by advice, information and special assignments.
Two additional points -- I think the question of which singular person the Pope calls when he has a concern regarding the UGCC is a false question. I expect and certainly hope he hears from a variety of voices, such as the Oriental Congregation, the Head of the UGCC, some bishops, some laypersons, some male or female monastics, academics, etc. as well as from a very good translator.
Second, even before Francis' new vision of the office, there was considerable opinion within the Eastern churches that the Heads of Eastern churches should not seek or even accept the Red Hat (and some Melkite patriarchs have declined the offer), based on the autonomy of the eastern churches and that the dignity of the patriarchal office is not inferior to the office of Cardinal.
Yes, the question of the "appropriateness" of having Eastern patriarchs as Cardinals (who are, at least, technically members of the Roman Church) is a bit foreign to Eastern ecclesiology.
Yes, these cardinatial appointments allow a small Eastern voice in conclaves but have little to do with Tradition of the Eastern Catholic.
Churches.
If the Eastern Churches are so "valued" by Rome why not just add the Eastern Catholic patriarchs to those voting in conclaves?
This respects their position and authority as fathers and heads of their respective Churches. It allows more Eastern voices to choose the Vicar of Peter for the whole catholic Church.
That's a suggestion I wrote on an earlier Pillar post. The heads of each sui iuris church should be electors during a conclave since the Pope has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary authority over those churches according to the Canons of the Eastern Churches. It would seem fair that they would have a voice in the election of their head.
The UGCC and general Eastern style (both Catholic and Orthodox) is foreign to the current concept of "synodality" active in Rome today. Borrowing and distorting an Eastern word does not a canonical synod make.
I would be interested in the Pillar's analysis of the appointment's implications for the Latin Church in Australia, given we're without a Cardinal for I think the first time since 1946. I know Sydney's among great company in that - Paris, LA, Milan, Lisbon... - but for the whole country to be without feels unusual. Bishop Bychok seems great but won't exactly be an Australian voice in the college (or in a conclave); the bloke has been here four years and isn't exactly a household name - though perhaps that may change!
This is another sign that Vatican does not respect the integrity or the patrimony of the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome.
The appointment of this worthy bishop ignores the hierarchical structure of the Eastern Churches and could cause issues with the authentic synodical structures found in most Eastern Catholic Churches.
I think this is a major insult from Pope Francis to the Ukrainian Church and leaves Bishop Bychok in a very difficult situation, both among the bishops of Ukraine and of Australia, because this will not elevate his status anywhere, but only leave resentment towards him from his brother bishops (even if they personally like him), like giving the league MVP award to the weakest player on the weakest team (Bishop Bychok may be a wonderful prelate, but he has the smallest diocese both in Australia and the Ukrainian Catholic Church). It is amazing that Pope Francis so openly acts like a spoiled child who will go against any other person who does not give him what he wants, to the point that he would insult the largest Catholic Church outside the Roman Catholic Church (not to mention insulting the African Church by having 3 White African Cardinals, like he does not trust black bishops). The Pope made this choice because, by not naming Archbishop Shevchuk as cardinal, he had no other choice in the Ukrainian Church. Shevchuk not only is Major Archbishop, he is also in charge of the Ukrainian capital Kiev and the lands Putin says are Russian territory. If any of the other Ukrainian archbishops in Ukraine was named Cardinal, that would be in Western Ukraine to which Russia has no claims. That would be a coup for Russia, as Putin would claim that even Pope Francis acknowledges that Eastern Ukraine is not Ukrainian. Pope Francis could have named one of the Ukrainian bishops in the U.S. or Canada, but all of them except one bishop were born in Canada or the U.S., so they would be considered more of a North American Cardinal then a Ukrainian one. What is even worse for Bishop Bychok is that he has little chance of advancing, as Pope Francis cannot name him to any post within the Ukrainian Catholic Church because bishops there are elected by the synod of that Church. He could only name him to a position within the Roman curia, but I think Pope Francis cares less who Bishop Bychok is, because his main goal was to stick it to Archbishop Shevchuk like a kid being happy that another kid he hated did not make it on the school football team.
This was His Beatitude Sviatoslav's reaction to Bishop Bychok's elevation to the cardinalate:
"Naming new cardinals is a personal and sovereign right of a pope. By nominating someone as a cardinal, he invites that person to become his assistant.
I received this news with great joy. We always rejoice when our bishops grow. Bishop Mykola is one of the younger bishops of our Church, and we are only happy that the Pope has noticed him. This signifies that our Church is nominating new candidates for the episcopal order with great dignity and responsibility, representing the best of the Catholic episcopate in the world.
Our Church rejoices because it will gain another bishop who, apart from the Head of the Church, will competently appeal to the Pope and defend our Church and the people of Ukraine. Today, our episcopate, convened in the UGCC Synod of Bishops and comprised of bishops from around the world, is more united than ever. We have shown this through various crises that have emerged since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, and we speak with one heart and one voice to Pope Francis, to the Catholic Church in the world, and to the international community. To have another such speaker with the possibilities of cardinal dignity, also in Australia, is not only a significant benefit for the UGCC, but also a wonderful grace of God for our nation and state."
Just pointing out that Melbourne’s Ukrainian bishop is not technically “Australian” - he isn’t (as far as I am aware) yet a naturalised citizen. That means Francis still hasn’t given Australia its own cardinal.
QFE: "Bychok’s appointment also indicates that Archbishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney is unlikely to become a cardinal in this pontificate, despite his leadership of Australia’s largest diocese, his own pastoral initiatives, and the broad support he enjoys among the Australian episcopate."
'Nuff said. I'm sure Bishop Bychok is a good man, but Archbishop Anthony Fischer is a well-known moral theologian who would DEFINITELY not be supportive of Pope Francis' apparent support of a "paradigm shift" in the Church's moral doctrine, as evidenced by the destruction of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
As with the choice of the insignificant McElroy over the highly significant Gomez in California, such a pick seems aimed towards preventing the ascendance to the Cardinalate of those who would definitely not be of the Spirit of Francis, regardless of their worthiness. More Machievellian politics, stacking the deck with "weak cards" to make it more likely that the damage done by this Pontificate cannot be easily reversed? I find it increasingly difficult to not interpret Francis' every action through such a lens.
I think the supposed tension that this piece fears still rests on a notion of a cardinal as having 'more power' than a 'mere' bishop, and that that could be an upset to the dynamics of synodality as a living reality in Ukrainian Church.
The question could be considered the other way around: what effect (if any) did giving red hats to +Slipyj, +Lubachivsky, and +Husar have on the operation of the UGCC Synod? What effect does +Shevchuk's passing over have (or does not have) on the same? Yes, each of these Cardinals were 'first amongst equals' in their Church (by virtue of their particular office) but equals (by their share in the episcopal ministry). Does having a red hat actually effect the internal dynamics of the UGCC?
I wonder if the analysis here comes from a too 'Western' perspective, with the way that the College has been seen (and operated in fact) for centuries now: a kind of ambitious game of promotion: the Church is a corporate structure (in a pejorative sense) where you want to get ahead from your regional manager job (Local Ordinary) to a VP position (Cardinals) so you have the ear of the CEO (Pope). It seems that Vatican II has firmly answered about that style of ecclesiology, and has affirmed the more ancient idea of the communion amongst bishops (which does not preclude certain rights of certain offices).
I'm speculating here a bit, but I think what we are seeing in Francis' approach to the College of Cardinals is a practice reception of that ecclesiology, as pertains to the actual governance structure of the Church on its 'highest,' most universal level. It doesn't matter, in some sense, if it is an obscure auxiliary bishop from El Salvador or the rookie UGCC bishop away from Ukrainian home territory: they share in the common office of episcopacy (?). Could the College of Cardinals be thought of as the UGCC-style Synod of the whole Church?
I could not agree with you more. If Francis seems to be promoting anything it is that the office of Cardinal is not an upgrade in the corporate structure, but a call to assist the Universal Pastor in his work by advice, information and special assignments.
Two additional points -- I think the question of which singular person the Pope calls when he has a concern regarding the UGCC is a false question. I expect and certainly hope he hears from a variety of voices, such as the Oriental Congregation, the Head of the UGCC, some bishops, some laypersons, some male or female monastics, academics, etc. as well as from a very good translator.
Second, even before Francis' new vision of the office, there was considerable opinion within the Eastern churches that the Heads of Eastern churches should not seek or even accept the Red Hat (and some Melkite patriarchs have declined the offer), based on the autonomy of the eastern churches and that the dignity of the patriarchal office is not inferior to the office of Cardinal.
Yes, the question of the "appropriateness" of having Eastern patriarchs as Cardinals (who are, at least, technically members of the Roman Church) is a bit foreign to Eastern ecclesiology.
Yes, these cardinatial appointments allow a small Eastern voice in conclaves but have little to do with Tradition of the Eastern Catholic.
Churches.
If the Eastern Churches are so "valued" by Rome why not just add the Eastern Catholic patriarchs to those voting in conclaves?
This respects their position and authority as fathers and heads of their respective Churches. It allows more Eastern voices to choose the Vicar of Peter for the whole catholic Church.
Here I totally agree. Make the Patriarchs papal electors.
That's a suggestion I wrote on an earlier Pillar post. The heads of each sui iuris church should be electors during a conclave since the Pope has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary authority over those churches according to the Canons of the Eastern Churches. It would seem fair that they would have a voice in the election of their head.
The UGCC and general Eastern style (both Catholic and Orthodox) is foreign to the current concept of "synodality" active in Rome today. Borrowing and distorting an Eastern word does not a canonical synod make.
I'm not sure about that. Look at the Armenian Apostolic Church.
I would be interested in the Pillar's analysis of the appointment's implications for the Latin Church in Australia, given we're without a Cardinal for I think the first time since 1946. I know Sydney's among great company in that - Paris, LA, Milan, Lisbon... - but for the whole country to be without feels unusual. Bishop Bychok seems great but won't exactly be an Australian voice in the college (or in a conclave); the bloke has been here four years and isn't exactly a household name - though perhaps that may change!
This is another sign that Vatican does not respect the integrity or the patrimony of the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome.
The appointment of this worthy bishop ignores the hierarchical structure of the Eastern Churches and could cause issues with the authentic synodical structures found in most Eastern Catholic Churches.
Make a mess, Holy Father, make a mess.
I think this is a major insult from Pope Francis to the Ukrainian Church and leaves Bishop Bychok in a very difficult situation, both among the bishops of Ukraine and of Australia, because this will not elevate his status anywhere, but only leave resentment towards him from his brother bishops (even if they personally like him), like giving the league MVP award to the weakest player on the weakest team (Bishop Bychok may be a wonderful prelate, but he has the smallest diocese both in Australia and the Ukrainian Catholic Church). It is amazing that Pope Francis so openly acts like a spoiled child who will go against any other person who does not give him what he wants, to the point that he would insult the largest Catholic Church outside the Roman Catholic Church (not to mention insulting the African Church by having 3 White African Cardinals, like he does not trust black bishops). The Pope made this choice because, by not naming Archbishop Shevchuk as cardinal, he had no other choice in the Ukrainian Church. Shevchuk not only is Major Archbishop, he is also in charge of the Ukrainian capital Kiev and the lands Putin says are Russian territory. If any of the other Ukrainian archbishops in Ukraine was named Cardinal, that would be in Western Ukraine to which Russia has no claims. That would be a coup for Russia, as Putin would claim that even Pope Francis acknowledges that Eastern Ukraine is not Ukrainian. Pope Francis could have named one of the Ukrainian bishops in the U.S. or Canada, but all of them except one bishop were born in Canada or the U.S., so they would be considered more of a North American Cardinal then a Ukrainian one. What is even worse for Bishop Bychok is that he has little chance of advancing, as Pope Francis cannot name him to any post within the Ukrainian Catholic Church because bishops there are elected by the synod of that Church. He could only name him to a position within the Roman curia, but I think Pope Francis cares less who Bishop Bychok is, because his main goal was to stick it to Archbishop Shevchuk like a kid being happy that another kid he hated did not make it on the school football team.
I think you are reading a lot into this appointment without evidence.
This was His Beatitude Sviatoslav's reaction to Bishop Bychok's elevation to the cardinalate:
"Naming new cardinals is a personal and sovereign right of a pope. By nominating someone as a cardinal, he invites that person to become his assistant.
I received this news with great joy. We always rejoice when our bishops grow. Bishop Mykola is one of the younger bishops of our Church, and we are only happy that the Pope has noticed him. This signifies that our Church is nominating new candidates for the episcopal order with great dignity and responsibility, representing the best of the Catholic episcopate in the world.
Our Church rejoices because it will gain another bishop who, apart from the Head of the Church, will competently appeal to the Pope and defend our Church and the people of Ukraine. Today, our episcopate, convened in the UGCC Synod of Bishops and comprised of bishops from around the world, is more united than ever. We have shown this through various crises that have emerged since the beginning of the full-scale invasion, and we speak with one heart and one voice to Pope Francis, to the Catholic Church in the world, and to the international community. To have another such speaker with the possibilities of cardinal dignity, also in Australia, is not only a significant benefit for the UGCC, but also a wonderful grace of God for our nation and state."
https://ugcc.ua/en/data/i-share-in-his-joy-today-his-beatitude-sviatoslav-on-bishop-mykola-bychoks-elevation-to-cardinal-1233/
Just pointing out that Melbourne’s Ukrainian bishop is not technically “Australian” - he isn’t (as far as I am aware) yet a naturalised citizen. That means Francis still hasn’t given Australia its own cardinal.
QFE: "Bychok’s appointment also indicates that Archbishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney is unlikely to become a cardinal in this pontificate, despite his leadership of Australia’s largest diocese, his own pastoral initiatives, and the broad support he enjoys among the Australian episcopate."
'Nuff said. I'm sure Bishop Bychok is a good man, but Archbishop Anthony Fischer is a well-known moral theologian who would DEFINITELY not be supportive of Pope Francis' apparent support of a "paradigm shift" in the Church's moral doctrine, as evidenced by the destruction of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
As with the choice of the insignificant McElroy over the highly significant Gomez in California, such a pick seems aimed towards preventing the ascendance to the Cardinalate of those who would definitely not be of the Spirit of Francis, regardless of their worthiness. More Machievellian politics, stacking the deck with "weak cards" to make it more likely that the damage done by this Pontificate cannot be easily reversed? I find it increasingly difficult to not interpret Francis' every action through such a lens.
I can but wonder if Archbishop Fishers greatest impediment to gaining a Red Hat is the fact that it would require a Jesuit to promote a Dominican.