The Resignation of Patriarchs and Popes

Only a few days ago, it seemed impossible that a Pope would resign.  Then, in the words of  the dean of the College of Cardinals, the world was struck by a “lightening bolt in clear skies” when Benedict XVI announced his abdication as Bishop of Rome and Head of the Universal Church. Since February 11 we have all been reflecting on the significance of the papal decision.  And no doubt Eastern Catholics will be reflecting on it from their own unique perspective, as Orthodox Christians in full ecclesial communion with the Roman Pontiff.

Pope Benedict’s gesture is only possible, and perhaps only warranted, in the our day and age. No Pope has stepped down for six-hundred years and, until the late twentieth century, bishops only resigned in extraordinary circumstances. When a bishop was no longer fit to govern his diocese, a coadjutor was appointed to govern while the bishop officially retained his headship.

Then came the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) and the sweeping reforms that followed.  Of these reforms was the introduction of mandatory retirement for all pastors of souls and for church officials. Bishops and priests were required to submit their resignations upon reaching the age of seventy five.  In 1970 Pope Paul VI extended this law to cardinals who, nonetheless, were permitted to continue to take part in the College of Cardinals until the age of eighty years, at which time they automatically ceased to be decision-making members of the Roman Curia.  Yet the head of the Universal Church, the Pope, was not subjected to this legislation (indeed the Roman Pontiff is the lawgiver).

Mandatory retirement caused controversy within church circles. Some protested, some complained, some grumbled under their breath, while others accepted retirement willingly and even gladly.  Over the years, once bishops had submitted their resignations, the Pope sometimes chose to extend their governance beyond the retirement age, until a suitable replacement could be found.  At the end of the twentieth century, Pope John Paul II mitigated his predecessor’s law somewhat, allowing cardinals the over-eighty to take part in initial conclave discussions, up to but not including the closed voting in the Sistine Chapel.

In the Eastern Catholic Churches the introduction of mandatory retirement for bishops caused not a little controversy. Some argued that such a reform did not suit the traditions nor theological sensibilities of the East. An key issue concerned the Fathers and Heads of Eastern Catholic Churches, such as patriarchs and major-archbishops.  Many argued that, like the Pope, heads of their Particular Churches (sui iuris), should not be subject to mandatory retirement. 

In the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church Cardinal Yosyf Slipyj strongly opposed such reforms and would not retire at eighty.  Two other Ukrainian bishops followed his example: Neil Savaryn of Edmonton and Isydor Boretsky of Toronto.  In the case of the two Ukrainian Canadian bishops, the Apostolic See appointed administrators to effectively replace them.  In Slipyj’s case, however, Pope John Paul II convoked the Synod of Ukrainian Bishops to elect a coadjutor and future successor, while Slipyj continued to head the Church until his death in 1984.

Part of the retirement issue was resolved in 1990 when John Paul II promulgated the Code of Canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches.  While requiring all Eastern Catholic priests and bishops to submit their resignations, the Eastern Code did not make a similar stipulation regarding patriarchs and major-archbishops. Neither does it stipulate what measures should be taken when the Head of the Particular Church reaches the point where he is unable to effectively govern. 

Both Slipyj and his successor Myroslav-Ivan Lubachivsky became very frail at the end of their mandates. While their spiritual headship was preserved, the important question arose as to who was to govern in their stead.  To resolve such questions the Apostolic See appointed administrators. The Synod of Ukrainian Bishops selected Bishop Lubomyr Husar as locum tenens and, upon Lubachivsky’s death in in 2001, it chose Husar as Major-Archbishop. Within hours of confirming the election, Pope John Paul conferred the cardinatial dignity upon Husar, making him a member of the de facto Senate of the Universal Church.

Over the centuries, not a single one of the Ukrainian cardinals (Isydor of Kyiv +1463, Mykhaylo Levytsky +1858, Sylvestr Sembratovych +1898) attended a conclave. In 1978 Slipyj was excluded due to age and, thus, in 2005 Lubomyr Husar became the first Ukrainian cardinal to cast his vote in a papal election. However, by that time, he had already lost his eyesight and had to recite the oaths from memory, which eventually led Husar to ponder if he could continue to effectively lead the Ukrainian Church. 

Although not required to resign, Patriarch Lubomyr could certainly do so voluntarily. In 2011 confered with Pope Benedict before making his decision to step down. And since then two other Eastern Patriarchs have followed Husar’s example and retired due to age and infirmity.  Perhaps Benedict XVI considered these resignations in making his own decision to abdicate.

In 2011, the Synod of Ukrainian Hierarchs selected a very young and energetic successor to Husar, Sviatoslav Shevchuk. Immediately after his election, Major-Archbishop (Patriarch) Sviatoslav traveled to Rome to manifest ecclesial communion with the Roman Pontiff.  It was very telling to witness the Universal Pontiff addressing this young man as “Your Beatitude”, and to hear the new Head of our Church call the Bishop of Rome “Most Holy Father.”

Once again, in 2013 no Ukrainian cardinal will be able to take part in the impending conclave. Cardinal Husar turns eighty only a few days before, and the retired Latin Archbishop of Lviv, Cardinal Marian Jaworski, exceeded the age-limit in 2006.

While all Catholics feel a great loss at the abdication of their Universal Father, Ukrainian Catholics still look forward to the day when, God willing, Pope Benedict’s successor will call upon Patriarch Sviatoslav to join the universal Senate, becoming perhaps the youngest member of the College of Cardinals.

Evolutio:  Despite the absence of Ukrainians within the electoral college, the new Pope's white cassock might be sewn by two women from Lviv who, for in recent years, have been working for the papal taylor Annibale Gammarelli.

The Title of "Excellency" for Bishops

Throughout the ages, Catholic clergy have been styled by various titles.  The most common title is Reverendus.  In addition to the superlative degree thereof (Reverendissimus), clerical dignitaries also were styled with various secular titles such as Dominus (Lordship), Illustrissimus, and Amplitudinis (Grandeur).  Into the twentieth century, bishops continued to be addressed as Most Reverend and Illustrious Lordship, while, in the English speaking world, archbishops were  addressed, in the style of dukes, Your Grace.  Cardinals were and are styled Eminence after the highest officials of the Byzantine court, and the Pope is called Sanctitas (Holiness) or Beatissimus Pater (Most Blessed or Holy Father).

The title of Excellency is secular in origin and began to be given to civil officials such as ambassadors in the eighteenth century.  Thus apostolic nuncios (papal ambassadors) and other dignitaries of the papal court acquired the title Excellentia with the addition of Reverendissima to distinguish it from secular excellencies. Diocesan bishops began to acquire the title with greater frequency in the nineteenth century.  For example, Metropolitan Sheptytsky, who held various state offices in the Austrian Imperial system, was addressed as Excellency inside Austria but as Illustrissimus ac Reverendissimus Dominus by the Roman Curia or Amplitudo Vestra/Votre Grandeur by other clergy.

With the fall of the continental empires  at the end of the First World War, noble titles lost the universal legal force they once possessed and their use began to wane somewhat in civic circles.  The ambassadorial title of Excellency began to be attributed to bishops with greater frequency.  The solemn concordats concluded between the Apostolic See and new European regimes had force of law in both civil and ecclesiastical spheres, and granted state recognition to the Catholic Church and its structures.  Thus, following the conclusion of  the 1925 concordat with Poland, the Roman Curia began to address Polish bishops with the title of Excellency as opposed to Lordship.  Throughout the British Empire, however, the ducal style of Grace for archbishops and Lordship for bishops was recognized in civil law for Anglican hierarchs, the lords spiritual, each of which was a parliamentary peer of the realm. The same titles were used out of courtesy for Catholic bishops of the Empire.

Following the conclusion of the Concordat with Italy and the Lateran Treaty, the Holy See gained international legal recognition.  The Pope, as spiritual and temporal sovereign, was thus able to grant an internationally recognized legal title to all Catholic bishops throughout the world.  In the audience given to the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Ceremonial on 11 December 1930, Pope Pius XI decreed that, henceforth, the title of Excellentia Reverendissima (Most Reverend Excellency) was to be used to style both Latin and Oriental patriarchs, apostolic nuncios, archbishops and bishops, and certain  dignitaries of the Roman Curia.  The decree enacting this decision was issued by the Prefect, Cardinal Gennaro Granito Pignatelli di Belmonte on 31 December 1930 and was subsequently published in the Osservatore Romano issue of 24 January and on page 22 of the 1931 Acta Apostolicae Sedis.

Immediately, the problem of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs arose.  As spiritual heads of their Churches they had been styled Beatitude in order to raise them above other metropolitans and bishops.  Since the mainstream Catholic theology and canon law did not yet understand the concept of Particular Churches, many Roman curialists considered the title Beatitude to be abusive, and proper only to the Roman Pontiff because it had been addressed by St. Jerome to Pope St. Damasus in 384.  Such was the tenure of the previous decree of the Ceremonial Dicastery (June 1893) and was the verdict of an article in the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913.

It appears, however, that the Vatican Congregation for the Oriental Church(es) had not been consulted on the matter.  Regarding the new title of Excellency, Monsignor Amletto Cicogniani, assessor of the Oriental, sent a formal thank you to Ceremonial on 22 January 1931.  Nevertheless, only two months later, the dicastery’s head, Cardinal Luigi Sincero, brought the matter to the attention of the Pope in an audience of 14 March.  He explained that the Cardinals of the Ceremonial Congregation had ignored the preparatory studies for the codification of Oriental Canon Law which had recommended that patriarchs retain a title distinct from bishops.  Perhaps not wanting to provoke further conflicts in the other curial departments, the  Pope ordered that, henceforth, the Oriental Congregation address Eastern Catholic patriarchs as Beatitude so that “in this way, this qualification would be introduced without issuing, for the moment, a special decree.”

In January 1938, papal secretary of state Cardinal Pacelli consulted the Oriental Congregation regarding letters to be sent to the Melchite Patriarch. The drafts in question had been addressed to “His Excellency”, at which Sincero’s successor, Cardinal Eugène Tisserant, remarked: “Why withold the title Beatitude for the Melchite Patriarch?  Is it someone from the Secreteriat of State?”  Pacelli, upon becoming Pope Pius XII, would  correct this oversight definitively for with his motu proprio Cleri Sanctitati in 1957, he finally granted the title Beatitude to Eastern Catholic patriarchs by full force of the law (canon 273, 10).