Talk:Order of precedence in the Catholic Church

Untitled

Why isn't the Patriarch of Alexandria of the Coptic Catholic Church included? And I'm pretty sure the Melkite Patriarch takes precedence over the other Patriarchs of Antioch as he also holds the personal titles of "Alexandria and Jerusalem". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.181.49.83 (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

According to Eastern Catholic Canon Law, and one of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils (either 2 or 3 I think) not counting Bishop of Rome (pope, who is technically not a patriarch but bishop/pope of rome) the patriarchal goes as follows:Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem

The pope is very much a patriarch, of the entire Latin Catholic Church, and according to both the Council of Chalcedon and the Quinisext Council, it ranks first among the others (three, then five). Protoclete (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

So since us Catholics dont have a Patriarch of Constantinople I guess the list would be as follows

Coptic Patriarch Alexandria

Patriarch of Antioch for Maronties(because they have always been in communion w/ Rome)

Patriarch of Antioch for Syriacs (1662 communion re-established)

Patriarch of Antioch for Greek Catholics/Melkites (1720s communion re-established)

Patriarch of Babylonia (The Chaldeans)

Patriarch of Cilicia (The Armenians)

Funny thing is none of the "Patriarchs of Antioch" both Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox live in Antioch and have not for over 1,000 years. I hear modern Antioch (located in Turkey) is a pretty dirty and dangerous place. I would myself put the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem in there but I'm sure there is some legalistic reason not too.

The Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem has no jurisdiction beyond his own diocese. Like the other titular patriarchs, he is just a diocesan bishop (not even necessarily an archbishop). The Patriarchs of the autonomous churches have jurisdiction over all other bishops in their church, including metropolitans. Protoclete (talk) 01:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

that is my guess at least Tobri (talk) 04:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Added the Coptic patriarch, just an innocent oversight. The same Councils you cite establishing the order do put the patriarchate of Rome first, before the other four.Even though the Annuario Pontifico has dropped the "Patriarch of the West" from the pope's titles, he is is still the Patriarch of Rome, de facto. The Latin patriarch of Jerusalem is listed with the others who are only titular patriarchs, rather than presiding bishops of sui iuris churches, that's the main difference. Thanks for the additions!Protoclete (talk) 00:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect to the Patriarchs of Antioch, CCEO 59 makes it clear that their relative precedence is determined by the order in which the actual current Patriarchs were promoted to the Patriarchal dignity. So there is no single order of precedence for the various Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch in the abstract, but only particular orders of particular actual Patriarchs of Antioch. LacrimosaDiesIlla (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Doubtable positions

May I please ask some questions as to where this order of precedence has been set forth? I list some precedences that I personnally doubt:

• the precedence of (reigning) patriarchs before cardinals. I would order reigning patriarchs who have not been nominated cardinal bishops either after cardinal bishops and before cardinal priests, or even after cardinals at all. (Which one of these, I'm not sure.) Even after they are promoted cardinal bishops, they take their place still after the Roman cardinal bishops (though it could be argued that at least this precedence is only within the College of Cardinals).
  • I'd have to look for the citations, but this was raised in session at Vatican II and various venues since. Cardinals are an office [Cardinal is mot an office but a dignity] of the Latin (Roman) Church, subordinate to the patriarch of that church. Patriarchs are the heads of a sui iuris church. It is an open discussion, you will find some authoritative sources leaning toward the priority of the college of cardinals, but others leaning toward the priority of the patriarchs. Ecclesiologically, it makes sense that the head of an autonomous church rank above the subordinates of another autonomous church. (Military analogy, the Commandant of the Marine Corps does not rank below the Army's 1-stars, even though the Army is bigger) - But United Eastern Churches (Catholic Churches of the East) have agreed in the supremacy of the Roman Pope, so they are not autonomous like Orthodox Churches. Further there is no official precedence between Christian denominations!
• the precedence of major archbishops and primates before titular patriarchs. I'm not sure about the major archbishops, but I would most certainly put any patriarch before any primate. He does not have the higher title of patriarch for no reason, even if it is titular.
  • Major archbishops are equivalent to a "real" patriarch in function, if not with the same historical precedence. Most titular patriarchs are just diocesan bishops or archbishops with some historical reason for the title, sometimes purely political, non-ecclesiastical (Patriarch of Venice dates from the time that was an independant nation, for example).Protoclete (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• the notion that presidents of national bishop conferences enjoy the same honors as primates. Maybe they have specific honors, but I'd put them just directly over the archbishops.
• that a archbishop coadjutor precedes a diocesan archbishop. I'd put it the other way round until the coadjutor finally does inherit the archdiocese. Archdiocesan auxiliaries don't have any precedence at all, and a coadjutor is something like a chief auxiliary until he inherits the diocese.
  • It is already this way: a diocesan (arch)bishop preceeds a coadjutor.Protoclete (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• the order within the "normal" bishops. It says "1. diocesan 2. coadjutor 3. titular 4. auxiliary". As I don't even know what titular is meant to mean (Roman curia?) if auxiliary is mentioned specifically, I'd rather say "1. diocesan, and Roman Curia bishops 2. archbishop coadjutors (see above why mentioned here) 3. other coadjutors 4. auxiliary".
  • By law and Tradition, a bishop can only be a bishop of a diocese. There are theologically no floating bishops. Practically, however, there are many (auxiliaries, curial staff, diplomats). They are given the "title" of a suppressed diocese, so they are technically bishops of a diocese, but one that does not actually exist anymore. That is why they rank below "real" bishops.BUt, as you point out, it is superfluous to have both titular and auxiliary listed.
• 1. Abbot, 2. Abbot nullius: This is simply not logical.
  • Why not? It is the same as a diocesan bishop taking precedence over a titular bishop. A "real" abbot precedes an "honorary" abbot, no? Protoclete (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • no, actually. Though the title is deceptive an Abbot Nullius is actually a full Abbot, not a titular one, with additional geographic responsibilities as though he were the ordinary of a diocese or ordinariate beyond the community of the Abbey. So, an Abbot Nullius is "ranked" higher than an Abbot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.227.111.12 (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• The precedence of a permanent deacon before a priest assistant, and the precedence of a pastoral assistant before a transitional deacon is doubtable in my opinion.
  • this is also in dispute, like the Cardinals vs. Patriarchs question. In early Rome, deacons outranked priests. In Eastern churches, the archdeacon (read: vicar general) outranks all clergy but the diocesan bishop. There is less clarity at this level than at the top of the list, so i had to employ some interpretation following the pattern: An ordinary outranks a titular, "real" over "honorary", permanent over transitional, full appointment over assistant, etc. Protoclete (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

--84.154.43.58 (talk) 11:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it that within the College of Cardinals, the highest rank is Cardinal Bishop (of suburbicarian see title); immediately after them are Cardinal Patriarchs (Patriarchs who have been made Cardinals), who are also of Cardinal Bishop rank but not holding a Roman title. Then the Cardinal Priests and the Cardinal Deacons. Carlm0404 (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Redundant?

Doesn't this page duplicate Catholic Church hierarchy? That page is more extensive. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That page actually started as a simple list of the order of precedence, and got expanded. The purpose, as i understand it, is for this page to deal with the order of precedence and do so simply, and that page to discuss "hierarchy" - granted this is based on that, but they are not synonomous. 93.42.66.220 (talk) 10:55, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Question

Would something like this be better on the page?

1. The Pope (Benedict XVI)
2. The Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria (Antonios Naguib)
3. The Melkite Greek Patriarch of Antioch (Gregory III)
4. The Maronite Patriarch of Antioch (Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir, elevated 1986)
5. The Syriac Patriarch of Antioch (Ignatius Joseph III, elevated 2009)
6. The Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon (Emmanuel III)
7. The Patriarch of Cilicia (Nerses Bedros XIX)
8. The Dean of the College of Cardinals (Cardinal Sodano)
9. The Vice-Dean of the College of Cardinals (Cardinal Etchegaray)
10. Other Cardinal-Bishops by date of elevation (see College of Cardinals)

14. The Protopriest (Cardinal Sales)
15. Other Cardinal-Priests by date of elevation, and then listiing in their consistory (see College of Cardinals)

161. The Protodeacon (Cardinal Cacciavillan)
162. Other Cardinal-Deacons by date of elevation, and then listing in their consistory (see College of Cardinals)

189. The Major Archbishop of Trivandrum (Catholicos Cleemis)
190. The Major Archbishop of Făgăraş and Alba Iulia (Lucian Mureşan)
191. and so on

,

Anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.140.62 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Abbot

Can it really be the case that "normal" abbots have a higher rank or precedence than heads of certain particular churches, such as apostolic vicars or prefects? An abbot nullius is the head of a particular church (a territorial abbey), but most abbots are not. My knowledge of this subject is very poor, but if someone could verify (or falsify!) the position of abbots in the list, I would be most grateful. Hanno (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete?

While some parts of the article seem logical but are devoid of sources, others are highly questionable and devoid of sources. Wikipedia is not for original research, even if the research were correct. The article should be deleted. Esoglou (talk) 11:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Original research

I would suggest deleting every article that Wikipedia has since you cannot have any articles without doing any research, be it original or not. Unfortunately, all that would be left is a useless main page and a blot of mustard. 50.32.119.94 (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Code of Canons of Eastern Churches

I know the previous edit reflected the situations as they stood in 1911, but the more recent changes should be reflected where references can be found, on the basis of new law superseding the older law. Using the 1911 list unamended also raises the problem of the fact that the concept of the Major Archbishops did not exist back in 1911.

Given the Canon 58 of the CCEO, it appears the Patriarchs of the Eastern Churches take precedence over all other Bishops (though not made explicit, obviously excepting the Pope), "with due regard for special norms of precedence established by the Roman Pontiff". I understand that there have been centuries-long debate about the issue of precedence between the Eastern Patriarchs and the Cardinals and that in 1957, "Cleri Sanctitati" defined the position of Patriarchs after the Cardinals (I haven't been able to find the document in its original form, only references to it) but whatever "Cleri Sanctitati" defined were superseded by the more recent CCEO. Now as far as I am aware, no special norm of precedence has been established after the enactment of CCEO, and I believe an Eastern Patriarch would have precedence over any Cardinal in general, though I will be happy to be corrected.

Assuming the above point, the Canon 59.4 of the CCEO state that among the Patriarchs of the same title but presiding over the different Patriarchates (currently apply to three Patriarchs of Antioch), the precedence goes to the one who was elevated to the Patriarchal dignity first. Preconisation may have applied in 1911 but there is now more recent, rather clear-cut revision of the rule on the matter, which I believe we should incorporate. Given this, I would argue that the Maronite Catholic Patriarch do not always have precedence over the Syrian Catholic Patriarch; in fact, under the canon 59.4 of the CCEO, the Syrian Catholic Patriarch personally precede the current Maronite Catholic Patriarch. The Melkite Catholic Patriarch, given his ad honorem title of Alexandria should probably rank higher than the other two Patriarchs of Antioch, though below the "substantive" Coptic Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria, under the canon 59.2 of the CCEO.

Now, the previous edit placed the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem above the Eastern Patriarchs of Babylonia and Cilicia, probably under the argument that the Patriarchs of the Pentarchy precede over the Patriarchs of other Sees. However, the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem is not referred to in the canon 58, which gave the Eastern Patriarchs the precedence over all other Bishops (except the Pope) in the Catholic Church. Also, given the canon 59.1 states that the "Patriarchs of Eastern Churches, even if some are of later times, are all equal by reason of patriarchal dignity with due regard for the precedence of honor among them", it can be argued that the Eastern Patriarchs of Babylonia and Cilicia should be considered alongside those of Alexandria and Antioch as a single group for the purpose of precedence, with no consideration in general for any to come in between the members of that group in the Order of Precedence. It is akin to the idea that while the members of the College of Cardinals have Order of Precedence of members within the College, no one outside the College can come between individual members in the Order of Precedence as the College forms a single block for the purpose of Precedence.

With the Eastern Catholic Patriarch preceding the Cardinals under the canon 58, I would like to turn to the matter of the position of Cardinals, Latin Patriarchs and Major Archbishops. Between Major Archbishops and Latin Patriarchs, I cannot find a conclusive canon in the CCEO. There are two canons that may be somewhat ambiguous. The canon 152 state that the regulations pertaining to the Patriarchs also pertain to the Major Archbishops unless explicitly stated otherwise or when evident otherwise from the nature of the matter. However the canon 154 provides more direct reference to the issue, stating that the Major Archbishops would have precedence "immediately after patriarchs". The omission of "Eastern" may have been deliberate to avoid the issue of precedence between the Latin Patriarchs and the Major Archbishops, though it must be noted that the word “Patriarch” without other qualifications has been used in several other canons of the CCEO. While the CCEO does not clearly address the matter of the precedence of the Major Archbishops and the Latin Patriarchs, I just find it strange that any Patriarch, Eastern or Latin, would yield precedence to a Major Archbishop when it's recognised that the Patriarch is more prestigious title. This view can be supported by interpreting the canon 154 literally and taking the reference to "Patriarchs" in that canon to include all Catholic prelates of any rite with Patriarchal title. Thus I agree with the current arrangement of placing the Major Archbishops after the Latin Patriarchs.

Regarding the Cardinals, I understand that they preceded Latin Patriarchs from about 1439 when Pope Eugene IV wrote "Non mediocri". As the CCEO pertain to Eastern Catholic Churches, whatever precedence conferred upon the Eastern Patriarchs by the Canon 58 of the CCEO does not apply to the Latin Patriarchs. I am not aware of any contrary declaration regarding the issue of the precedence between the Latin Patriarchs and the Cardinals after 1439 (please inform me if there are) and agree that Cardinals should precede Latin Patriarchs.

Thus I propose the following list of the Order of Precedence up to the Major Archbishops:

The Pope

The Eastern Patriarchs

Alexandria

Coptic

Melkite of Antioch, of Alexandria and Jerusalem Ad honorem

Antioch, by order of elevation to the Patriarchate. Currently:

Syrian

Maronite

Babylonia

Cilicia

Cardinals

Cardinal Bishops

Cardinal Priests

Cardinal Deacons

Latin Patriarchs

Jerusalem

Venice

West Indies

Lisbon

East Indies

Major Archbishops

Kiev-Galicia

Ernakulam-Angamaly

Trivandrum

Făgăraş and Alba Julia

Let me know what you think about this. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it is original research. It may be right. Or it may be wrong. In particular, the argument about the relative precedence of patriarchs and cardinals, at least cardinal bishops, is particularly weak, given that the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches explicitly allows for unspecified "special norms of precedence established by the Roman Pontiff". The Annuario Pontificio lists cardinals "according to their order and precedence" giving first place to those who belong to the order of bishops and, within that order, putting "Patriarchal Cardinals of Eastern Rite" after the six traditional cardinal bishops. It gives no indication of the order of precedence between cardinals of any of the three orders and patriarchs who are not cardinals. Whether the above original research is right or wrong, I think it has no place in Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I have used the relevant canons of the CCEO as references for the changes I made. I'm sure you will agree that the CCEO is a relevant and reliable source on the matter, as long as we do not make unreasonable assumptions not stated by the canons. I would be grateful if you can remind me which aspect of the edit I made to the article (not the discussion topic here) qualifies as original research.

I already discussed the issue of the phrase ""with due regard for special norms of precedence established by the Roman Pontiff" of the canon 58 in relations to the precedence of the Eastern Patriarchs and the Cardinals. I am aware that as far as the internal precedence goes the Dean of the College of Cardinals and other Cardinal-Bishops of the Suburbicarian Sees outrank the Cardinal-Patriarch of the Eastern Churches, but that does not mean that particular precedence is applicable outside the College of Cardinals. It also raises the issue of the Eastern Patriarchs who are not appointed the Cardinals, as you rightly acknowledged. Thus, in the absence of the "special norms of precedence" established by the Pope, preferably after the publication of the CCEO, I believe we will have to go with what we have and assume that the Eastern Patriarchs precede the Cardinals in general Precedence, outside the College of Cardinals. I say preferably after the publication of the CCEO as the validity of any list from before that date may be challenged under the principle that new law overrides the old law.

I am not saying that the list that give the Eastern Patriarchs higher precedence than the Cardinals are right or wrong, but that none of us seem to have a definite list of general precedence between the Cardinals and the Eastern Patriarchs (outside the College of Cardinals) so should refer to the Canon 58. In case you're wondering, I am not an Eastern Catholic so have no vested interest in this issue. If you have a definite document that shows that the Cardinals (whether only the Cardinal-Bishops or the entire college) outrank the Eastern Patriarchs in general and in most or all circumstances, I would be more than happy to accommodate that. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not questioning the order of precedence of Eastern patriarchs among themselves. It is the presentation of their relationship with others that is the result of, at best, original research.

The regulations in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches "omnes et solas Ecclesias orientales catholicas respiciunt, nisi, relationes cum Ecclesia latina quod attinet, aliud expresse statuitur", as the Code's very first canon states. Applying its canons more widely is original research.

Putting in Wikipedia an unsourced indication that Eastern patriarchs have higher precedence than cardinals is, at best, original research. Even if it is right but remains unsourced, it is original research.

The present Code of Canon Law (Latin Church) says nothing whatever about precedence. The 1917 Code of Canon Law went into great detail, giving rules both general (canon 106) and particular (canons 233, 236, 237, 239, 269, 280, 347, 370, 408, 450, 478, 491, 701, 1455), many (at least) of which are still acted upon. Canon 239 §1, 21 says cardinals (who even now are not all bishops and at that time priests formed a higher proportion of the college of cardinals than now) have the privilege of "praecedendi omnibus Praelatis etiam Patriarchis, imo ipsis Legatis Pontificiis, nisi Legatus sit Cardinalis in proprio territorio residens". And canon 269 §2 said that apostolic nuncios and delegates, even if they are not bishops, have precedence over all ordinaries except cardinals: "Licet forte charactere episcopali careant, praecedunt tamen omnibus Ordinariis qui non sint cardinalitia dignitate insigniti." If someone were to insert these rules without citing a source that says they are still valid, that would be, at best, original research. Likewise, treating them as no longer valid, without citing a source that says they are not, is, at best, original research.

There is much else also in this article that is based on no reliable source and so must be classified as, at best, original research. Esoglou (talk) 09:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me about the canon 1 of the CCEO. However while I know you are not asserting such thing, I would question the applicability of the 1917 or 1983 Codes of Canon Laws, as the first canon in the respective documents also say the similar thing about the applicability of the codes to the Latin Church. While the 1917 code has the remainder that translate (to the best of my knowledge) to the effect that the canons apply to the Eastern Churches in the matters that by its nature also affect the Eastern Churches (similar to the canon 1 of the CCEO), one can argue that the provisions are overridden by the 1983 code, especially with the canon 6.1.1 of the 1983 code. In any case there's nothing about the Eastern Patriarchs in the 1917 canons you quoted so given the canon 1 of the 1917 code, it can be argued that the Patriarch in the canon 239.1.21 refer to the Latin Patriarchs.

Thus I figured that, given the apparent lack of relevant provisions in the presently enforced 1983 CCL (I am not aware of any; please inform me if there is any), the provisions of canon 58 of the CCEO should be given some credit unless there's the evidence that "special norms of precedence" has been established after the CCEO. Given the wording of canon 58 ("Patriarchs of Eastern Churches precede all bishops of any degree everywhere in the world"), one can argue that this is among the instances that the CCEO affect the Latin Church as well. You may consider that an original research...but given the canon 58 of the CCEO appears to be the only canon whose current validity is uncontested (it can be argued that the relevant provisions of the 1917 CCL have been abrogated by the 1983 code's canons 1 and 6.1.1), we have to refer to it somewhere in formulating the precedence list. Incidentally if the original research in this article is at a dangerous level, deleting this page may be an option, but that's a discussion for another day. In the meantime as the CCEO canons 1 and 58 make a good (perhaps not perfect) case for the precedence of the Eastern Patriarchs over the Cardinals, the question should be whether there are contrary provisions in the 1983 CCL (not that that would invalidate the provisions of the CCEO in itself) or the "special norms of precedence" published after the CCEO. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 08:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches obliges nobody but members of the Eastern Catholic Churches. It says so explicitly. Nobody else is affected by its rules concerning the honorary precedence (honoris praecedentia) of Eastern patriarchs over all Eastern bishops of whatever rank, unless the Pope makes special norms for them (canon 58), that of the Eastern patriarchal sees and individual Eastern patriarchs in relation to each other (canon 59), with the exception that in a church for faithful of his own particular Eastern Church, any Eastern patriarch has precedence over all other Eastern patriarchs, even those who would otherwise have precedence over him (canon 60), that of the administrator of an Eastern patriarchal church over all bishops of his own particular Eastern Church, except in a synod held to elect a patriarch (canon 130), that of an Eastern metropolitan actually governing a province of a patriarchal Eastern Church over all Eastern titular metropolitans (canon 136), that of Eastern major archbishops (the only major archbishops that there are) coming ""'immediately" (and so without any intermediate group such as Eastern cardinals) after Eastern patriarchs (canon 154). The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches says nothing about the precedence of Eastern patriarchs, major archbishops, or governing metropolitans of a patriarchal Church in relation to cardinals, any more than it says anything about precedence between them and kings, presidents and princes.

The Code of Canon Law says nothing whatever about honorary precedence, and so, since 1983, general precedence is for Latin Catholics not a matter of written canon law, but of customs considered to be in some sense binding. These customs are observed in the Eastern Catholic Churches also. For instance, metropolitans are given precedence over non-metropolitan bishops, bishops over priests, priests over deacons, lay religious over non-religious laity, although the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches lays down no rules about these matters, while the 1917 Code of Canon Law did. Not only among patriarchs, but also among other bishops, there are diversities of rank in both East and West that have an effect on precedence between them because of custom, not because of anything in either code of canon law. And there are customary rules also about precedence among priests etc. The only part of the article that is sourced is that about Eastern patriarchs and major archbishops among themselves and in relation to other Eastern bishops. Everything else in the article, whether concerning Latins or Easterners of the present time, is unsourced and almost certainly in some points mistaken original research. Esoglou (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You are forgetting that the applicability of the CCEO is somewhat wider than the 1983 CCL, as the CCEO canon 1 states that the CCEO only applies to the Eastern Churches "unless, with regard to relations with the Latin Church, it is expressly stated otherwise." while the 1983 CCL has no such residual clause about its applicability to the Eastern Churches. I concede that the wording of the canon 58 is left somewhat ambiguous and that there’s no direct reference to the Latin Church in that canon, but the matter of "all bishops of any degree everywhere in the world" appears to be one meriting some consideration. I would like to hear your opinion about why this particular canon specify "Eastern" patriarchs without specifying "Eastern" bishops, contrary to what you wrote. The absence of word "Eastern" when describing "all bishops of any degree everywhere in the world" at least implies that the canon 58 implicates all Catholic bishops of the world, regardless of the rites. You can still argue that the canon 58 does not explicitly state the applicability of the canon to the Latin Church, but given the lack of contrary canon in the 1983 CCL or other general regulations, the position of the Eastern Church on this matter appears to be at least stronger than what you are arguing, though not unassailable. You stated that the matter of precedence for the Latin Church is now a matter of customs rather than written canon law; but it is questionable whether the unwritten custom (which in a sprinkle of possible original research, you labelled as being binding in some sense) would trump the written Canon with at least possible applicability over both Latin and Eastern Churches. I am not challenging the applicability of these customs where they exist but question whether these unwritten customs can develop as to override a valid written canon.

I would like to point out that by inserting "Eastern" where they do not appear in the canons (most particularly in the canon 58) you yourself conducted original research into the applicability of the canons into this matter. While the context of many of the canons you cited make it obvious they apply only to Eastern Churches, the canons 58 and 154 leave some rooms for its applicability, with the absence of word "Eastern", especially with the references to "all bishops of any degree everywhere in the world" (canon 58).

I have to say I have learned a lot about this aspect of the canon law from the present discussion with you and I sincerely thank you for that. I hope you understand that the points of objections I have raised against your positions are derived from my wish to find the logically sound interpretation of the canons. Given that you deem much of the material written in the article to be original research and as you don't seem to base your argument on the 1917 CCL but on matter of unwritten customs, I would be grateful to hear your opinion about what should be done to the list in the article, in the absence of incontestable document of precedence pertaining to the whole Catholic Church. Sydneyphoenix (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

May I say expressly what I hope has in no way been doubted: that I have the highest regard for and warmest appreciation of the correctness and courtesy of your participation in this discussion. It is for each of us to present the point of view held at any given moment, a point of view open to change in the light of observations made in its regard.

I think that expressly adding "Eastern" in this discussion page is not only justified but, in view of the way these canons have been seen as applying also to non-Eastern Catholics, even necessary. Canon 1 says the canons of the Eastern code concern all the Eastern Catholic Churches and only the Eastern Catholic Church unless otherwise expressly laid down with regard to relations with the Latin Church. If nothing is said expressly, the canons do not concern the Latin Church. Canons 37, 41, 207, 322 expressly deal with relations with the Latin Church; but you have rightly noted that canon 58, concerning the precedence of Eastern patriarchs over bishops of whatever rank "without prejudice to special norms on precedence laid down by the Roman Pontiff", says nothing expressly of relations with the Latin Church. So, in accordance with canon 1, what canon 58 says of "all bishops of whatever rank" concerns only Eastern Catholic Churches.

I would observe also that, even if canon 58 had made no mention of norms issued by the Roman Pontiff, it would still say nothing about precedence between an Eastern patriarch and a non-bishop cardinal, Eastern or Western, and, as you know, precedence among cardinals - I was wrong in saying, as I think I did, that the Code of Canon Law says nothing whatever of "precedence" - is not affected by whether a cardinal is a bishop or a presbyter, but only by "order" (in the sense of cardinal bishops, with Eastern patriarchs coming after the six traditional cardinal bishops, cardinal priests, and cardinal deacons) and date of promotion (with an exception for the dean and assistant dean). The Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches says nothing about the precedence of cardinals, but certainly excludes placing them between Eastern patriarchs and major archbishops, since it says the latter follow the former "immediately". Esoglou (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Please use secondary source as per WP, there for any use of Canon law as a source is not allowable. Just making statements that "x" statement is a fact is not exceptable here, Sydneyphoenix. Any further reversal will result in reporting you for edit warring. Spshu (talk) 19:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved  — Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Order of precedence in the Catholic Church → Order of precedence in the Holy See – As a matter of the Papal court, isn't this arguably more formally related to the Holy See) Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose it is also the standard order of precedence that is followed in terms of how clerics process in during liturgies, seating arrangements at synods and councils, and a whole host of other things that aren't related to the Holy See. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Major Archbishops rank ahead of Cardinals.

According to Canon 154 Canon 154 of the CCEO, Major Archbishops immediately after the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs. That is either the Major Archbishops are ahead of the Cardinals or the Cardinals are ahead of the Patriarchs.

• Major archbishops hold the precedence of honor immediately after patriarchs according to the order in which the Church over which they preside was erected as a major archiepiscopal Church. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Prince and Grand Master of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta

In the article List of grand masters of the Knights Hospitaller it is stated that "On March 20, 1607, Pope Paul V granted the Grand Master the style of His Eminence and precedence at the Court of Rome immediately after the cardinals." As a prince of the Church, the SMOM Grand Master should also have been included in the ranks of the Catholic Church right after the Cardinals. However, I could not find such in the order of precedence list. Could someone explain why not? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Metropolitans of Eastern Churches

As it is agreed that Eastern Patriarchs and Major Archbishops take precedence before the Cardinals, where do the Metropolitans of the five other synodal churches fall in the order of precedence? It is not clear from the context. Of course, I am talking about the Ruthenian, the Slovakian, the Hungarian, the Ethiopian and the Eritrean Churches. Thanks in advanced. Coquidragon (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)