Can there be an Eastern Catholic pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Milestone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There was a Pope Constantine who was the son of the Patriarch of Constantinople but I think he was baptised and ordained in the Latin Rite.

Pope John VI was born in Ephesus and so I presume Byzantine Rite and was pope while Rome was under Byzantine rule. So likely he remained Byzantine all the way through?

People Theodorus was born in Jerusalem, son of the bishop. So, I presume he is Byzantine Rite. He was already a priest when he fled Jerusalem when the Muslims conquered. So, I presume ordained under Byzantine Rite.

Anyone can put me right?
 
Difficult to say with Pope Theodore, he was definitely Greek by blood, but might have been following the Syriac Rite. It wasn’t - I believe - fully Byzantinized by Constantinople in the non-Oriental Sees of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria until much later.
 
SyroMalankara said:
Difficult to say with Pope Theodore, he was definitely Greek by blood, but might have been following the Syriac Rite. It wasn’t - I believe - fully Byzantinized by Constantinople in the non-Oriental Sees of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria until much later.
Click to expand...
Not so sure about that. This would have been after the Chalcedonian schism with the OO but before the schism with the Byzantine. Definitely before any Syriac reunion. So, more likely to be from the Melkite Byzantine party of the Emperor as they would be the only Syrian Catholic-Orthodox still in communion with Rome. Likely to speak Syriac but almost definitely Hellenised liturgy.
 
jimkhong said:
Not so sure about that. This would have been after the Chalcedonian schism with the OO but before the schism with the Byzantine. Definitely before any Syriac reunion. So, more likely to be from the Melkite Byzantine party of the Emperor as they would be the only Syrian Catholic-Orthodox still in communion with Rome. Likely to speak Syriac but almost definitely Hellenised liturgy.
Click to expand...
Hellenised yes, but not necessarily the Constantinopolitan Liturgy. The Syriac-Malankara Orthodox/Catholic liturgy certainly has similarity to some Greek liturgical elements.

melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/the-melkites
"Between 960 and 1085 A.D. much of the imperial style of Constantinople became a part of the Melkite ritual. "

stpeterslist.com/7796/6-things-you-should-know-about-the-melkite-catholic-church/
“Unlike the Constantinopolitan Church, the Church of Antioch never really adapted much imperial ritual into its early liturgy – preferring instead to retain more Rabbinic and Syrian traditions”
 
SyroMalankara said:
Hellenised yes, but not necessarily the Constantinopolitan Liturgy. The Syriac-Malankara Orthodox/Catholic liturgy certainly has similarity to some Greek liturgical elements.

melkite.org/faith/faith-worship/the-melkites
"Between 960 and 1085 A.D. much of the imperial style of Constantinople became a part of the Melkite ritual. "

stpeterslist.com/7796/6-things-you-should-know-about-the-melkite-catholic-church/
“Unlike the Constantinopolitan Church, the Church of Antioch never really adapted much imperial ritual into its early liturgy – preferring instead to retain more Rabbinic and Syrian traditions”
Click to expand...
Noted.

To me the liturgies of the EO Church in the Arab countries as well as the Melkite Church are really extension of Constantinople. The EO patriarchs were appointed from Constantinople after the Chalcedonian schism and so were Hellenised and Byzantine. Also, Melkite means the King’s party (Arab Malik=king), referring to the imposition by the Emperor which gives a political shading to the opposition to the appointments from Constantinople.

Syriac, East and West, as well as Alexandria clearly had their own liturgies which can differ structurally with the Byzantines. The political cleavage as well as falling under Islamic rule deepened the differences I guess.

Let’s pray the EO-OO discussions bear fruit. Also the succession issue be sorted out between Assyrians and Chaldeans. The declining church in the Middle East cannot afford to be divided in the face of a new wave of Islamisation and oppression. More so when everyone agreed that there is no difference in doctrines. This split has caused enough problems in history as it is. If Mohammad had met a united church free from doctrinal conflicts during his mercantile travels, the history of the world may have been different. If a united Christian Church had channelled its energies into its vibrancy instead of schism, it may be better prepared to face Muslim conquests or retained the faith under conquest as Spain did.
 
Seeing as how there are cardinals that belong to the eastern rites, I don’t see why not. And if i’m not mistaken, it’s almost happened a couple of times.
 
Tarpeian_Rock said:
And I think it would be wonderful for the Church if it happened. **Conceivably we would gain a new appreciation for mystery and the work of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to the rationalism which has dominated the West. **A pope from the East might also bring an interesting perspective on the married priesthood.
Click to expand...
Amen to that, especially the bolded part.
Amen.
 
Vonsalza said:
The Byzantine Papacy, 1500 some-odd years ago?

Referring to that?
Click to expand...
Byzantine Papacy does not necessarily mean the popes were Byzantine. Just that they were confirmed by the Byzantine Emperor (or whatever procedures they had at that time) when Rome was ruled from Constantinople.

Having said that there were popes that seem to be Byzantine Rite from the sketchy info that Vatican provides.
 
wynd said:
Why would it? We are happy to have western bishops lead the western church, it just makes sense.
Click to expand...
I think the point being made is that the Catholic Church is not only western. We have millions of Eastern Catholics. The Pope is not only the leader of the western rites, he is the leader of the eastern rites of the Catholic Church. Perhaps it’s time a eastern Catholic cardinal was Pope.
 
SAVINGRACE said:
I think the point being made is that the Catholic Church is not only western. We have millions of Eastern Catholics. The Pope is not only the leader of the western rites, he is the leader of the eastern rites of the Catholic Church. Perhaps it’s time a eastern Catholic cardinal was Pope.
Click to expand...
And a western bishop patriarch of Antioch.

Honestly I think a western bishop should be pope as the pope is first and foremost the Roman bishop…actually it should be an Italian ideally. The only time it shouldn’t be a western italian bishop is if maybe another non- italian or eastern bishop is best suited for the job.
 
The Pope is more than just the head of the whole church.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth.

Besides the bishopric of the Roman Diocese, certain other dignities are held by the pope as well as the supreme and universal pastorate: he is Archbishop of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy and the adjacent islands, and sole Patriarch of the Western Church. "

The incumbent pope, whomever it is, has particular duties and responsibilities to the Latin Rite and to Italian Catholics that he does not have to Eastern Catholics
 
Yes but he is first and foremost the **Roman Bishop **. Then he is head of the Latin Church and then head of the Universal Church. His first duty is to be the bishop of Rome, an archdiocese of the Latin Church…

It’s not about the latins being greater, it’s about respecting the fact that the Pope is a western bishop. It’s only right that awesterner becomes the Roman bishop.

Its like us westerners pressing for an eastern see. It’s better that an Easterner be bishop of an eastern see.

How often does the Pope deal with eastern affairs in his day- to- day work? Hardly if ever. It’s the Latin Church that he deals with 24/7.
 
Wandile said:
Yes but he is first and foremost the **Roman Bishop **. Then he is head of the Latin Church and then head of the Universal Church. His first duty is to be the bishop of Rome, an archdiocese of the Latin Church…

It’s not about the latins being greater, it’s about respecting the fact that the Pope is a western bishop. It’s only right that awesterner becomes the Roman bishop.

Its like us westerners pressing for an eastern see. It’s better that an Easterner be bishop of an eastern see.

How often does the Pope deal with eastern affairs in his day- to- day work? Hardly if ever. It’s the Latin Church that he deals with 24/7.
Click to expand...
No he is the Bishop of Rome not the Roman Bishop and he receives the responsibility of that title and diocese after being elected Pope. The day-to-day processes are irrelevant and can be handled after the fact. The rule is any Cardinal in the Catholic Church can become the Pope, that includes Eastern bishops because they are part of the Church.

Doesn’t have to be an Italian Pope either, we have had Benedict and JPII. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top