Could the Papacy switch rites?

[Pope_Noah_I]

Suppose an Eastern Catholic prelate, such as the Major-Archbishop of the UGCC or Catholicos of the Syro-Malankara Church, was elected Bishop of Rome, Could they decree that all papal liturgies during their reign would follow the Syriac or Slavic-Byzantine uses, or are they obligated to practice to Roman Rite?

 

[Vico]

Suppose an Eastern Catholic prelate, such as the Major-Archbishop of the UGCC or Catholicos of the Syro-Malankara Church, was elected Bishop of Rome, Could they decree that all papal liturgies during their reign would follow the Syriac or Slavic-Byzantine uses, or are they obligated to practice to Roman Rite?

He would have to become the head of the Latin Church because of the multiple roles that the Pope has:

Pope, Primacy over the Catholic Church (Latin papa), the See of Peter
Authority over the Latin Church and Latin Patriarchs
Primate of Italy
Metropolitan Archbishop of the Province of Rome

The pope has the power to do such a thing, like an indult of adaptation.

 

[WetCatechumen]

It’s happened before.

I don’t know that they stopped using the Roman Rite, though.

 

[Vico]

It’s happened before.

I don’t know that they stopped using the Roman Rite, though.

The Roman rite appears to have come from Antioch (Liturgy of Saint James) and the Byzantine form developed from the fourth century, also from Antioch (Liturgy of Saint James).

Those Eastern Popes were before a standard Roman sacramentary was established. Charlemagne requested of Pope Hadrian I, in 783 A.D., that a Roman Sacramentary be established to replace the various Gallacian (Franco-Germanic) versions, and later it was supplemented by Benedict of Aniane (d. 821 A.D.), with (suprise!) Gelasian rites.

 

[LoyalViews]

He would have to become the head of the Latin Church because of the multiple roles that the Pope has:

Pope, Primacy over the Catholic Church (Latin papa), the See of Peter
Authority over the Latin Church and Latin Patriarchs
Primate of Italy
Metropolitan Archbishop of the Province of Rome

The pope has the power to do such a thing, like an indult of adaptation.

The Pope does have the power, but not only does the pope has primacy of the Latin Church, but also over the Eastern Church, for they are both sui iuris churches of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. He also has authority of the Eastern Patriarchs, just as equally as he does over the Latin Patriarches. The Pope has UNIVERSAL authority over the Church.

Or by Eastern Church do your mean the Orthodox church?

 

[Vico]

The Pope does have the power, but not only does the pope has primacy of the Latin Church, but also over the Eastern Church, for they are both sui iuris churches of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. He also has authority of the Eastern Patriarchs, just as equally as he does over the Latin Patriarches. The Pope has UNIVERSAL authority over the Church.

Or by Eastern Church do your mean the Orthodox church?

Universal authority is covered in the first item listed:

Pope, Primacy over the Catholic Church (Latin papa), the See of Peter

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

Well, its not really a question of jurisdiction, just liturgical praxis. The Pope could, theoretically, function as the head of the Latin Church while practicing the Syriac rite. The papacy isn’t bound to any single liturgical use, I guess.

 

[LoyalViews]

Well, its not really a question of jurisdiction, just liturgical praxis. The Pope could, theoretically, function as the head of the Latin Church while practicing the Syriac rite. The papacy isn’t bound to any single liturgical use, I guess.

Sorry, but that was a TOTAL misunderstanding on my part

Universal authority is covered in the first item listed:

Pope, Primacy over the Catholic Church (Latin papa), the See of Peter

100% correct.

 

[Vico]

…

Just two offices exist with preminent ordinary, proper power of governance:

1 Bishop of Rome *
2 Diocesan/Eparchial Bishop (and equivalents)

• The Bishop of Rome is the ordinary of the Universal Church (executive, legislative, and judicial)

 

[Wesley7]

I do know that the Bishop of Rome is in conciliar authority. The other stuff is a bit complicated ~

. .

 

[Vico]

I do know that the Bishop of Rome is in conciliar authority. The other stuff is a bit complicated ~

. .

It is.

Ordinary power, which is not delegated, but exists by divine ordinance, is the moral right of the Pope or bishops to teach and govern because of their office.

In ordinary jurisdiction (the right to exercise official and public authority in some capacity) the bishop has the right to exercise authority over a territory, because of his office, the Pope over the entire Church, because of his office, and in the internal forum by the pastor over the members of his parish, because of his office. And this may be delegated.

 

[Wesley7]

It is.

Ordinary power, which is not delegated, but exists by divine ordinance, is the moral right of the Pope or bishops to teach and govern because of their office.

In ordinary jurisdiction (the right to exercise official and public authority in some capacity) the bishop has the right to exercise authority over a territory, because of his office, the Pope over the entire Church, because of his office, and in the internal forum by the pastor over the members of his parish, because of his office. And this may be delegated.

Hey, your signature is pretty cool.

 

[TP2]

Actually there have been recent Popes who did belong to different “Rites” other than Latin. For example, Paul VI belonged to the Ambrosian Rite.

 

[malphono]

Actually there have been recent Popes who did belong to different “Rites” other than Latin. For example, Paul VI belonged to the Ambrosian Rite.

Well, this is one of those “yes, but …” things.

(1) The Archbishop of Milan is ex officio Capo Rito of the Ambrosian Rite; historically, most (though not all) have been “native sons” of the Ambrosian Rite. Paul VI was one of the “not all” in the foregoing sentence: he was Roman Rite from Piedmont and the only reason he was involved at all with the Ambrosian Rite is that he was named Archbishop of Milan. The same is actually true of his great predecessor in that office, Bl Ildefenso Schuster, who was Roman Rite (and a Benedictine) from Rome. It’s interesting to note that despite their non-Ambrosian background, both took the position of Capo Rito very seriously. For example, one of the few positive things I will credit Paul VI for is his post-conciliar personal intervention to halt his successor’s attempt to totally suppress the Ambrosian Rite.

(2) Keep in mind that the Ambrosian Rite is one of the few remaining “territorial Rites” and so its use outside the ancient ecclesiastical Province of Milan is very limited. Remember, too, that it is a Rite of the Latin Church and not a Church sui juris on its own.

(3) While it is within the purview of a Roman Pontiff to use any Rite he pleases, I don’t recall, (and can find no reference to), any public celebration by Paul VI in the Ambrosian. If he physically visited Milan during his pontificate, (and I don’t know if he did), he would likely have used it then. He may, of course, also have used it privately on occasion.

 

[TP2]

Well, this is one of those “yes, but …” things.

(1) The Archbishop of Milan is ex officio Capo Rito of the Ambrosian Rite; historically, most (though not all) have been “native sons” of the Ambrosian Rite. Paul VI was one of the “not all” in the foregoing sentence: he was Roman Rite from Piedmont and the only reason he was involved at all with the Ambrosian Rite is that he was named Archbishop of Milan. The same is actually true of his great predecessor in that office, Bl Ildefenso Schuster, who was Roman Rite (and a Benedictine) from Rome. It’s interesting to note that despite their non-Ambrosian background, both took the position of Capo Rito very seriously. For example, one of the few positive things I will credit Paul VI for is his post-conciliar personal intervention to halt his successor’s attempt to totally suppress the Ambrosian Rite.

(2) Keep in mind that the Ambrosian Rite is one of the few remaining “territorial Rites” and so its use outside the ancient ecclesiastical Province of Milan is very limited. Remember, too, that it is a Rite of the Latin Church and not a Church sui juris on its own.

(3) While it is within the purview of a Roman Pontiff to use any Rite he pleases, I don’t recall, (and can find no reference to), any public celebration by Paul VI in the Ambrosian. If he physically visited Milan during his pontificate, (and I don’t know if he did), he would likely have used it then. He may, of course, also have used it privately on occasion.

Very true. I am not aware of the specifics. All I do know is that Paul VI did on occasion use the Ambrosian Rite. Where and when, I don’t recal. I would have to do some research.

 

[SWAT20]

I read one time that since the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff, he has the authority to celebrate the Eucharist in whatever liturgy he chooses when in private, but in public he must celebrate the Roman rite.

 

[malphono]

I read one time that since the Pope is the Supreme Pontiff, he has the authority to celebrate the Eucharist in whatever liturgy he chooses when in private, but in public he must celebrate the Roman rite.

No, not true. The Pope is technically the only person who is omni-ritual. That means he may celebrate in any Rite he so chooses. It’s rare that any Pope celebrates in other than the Roman Rite, (I believe PP Pius XI once publicly celebrated according to the Byzantine Rite – Italo-Greek usage, if I recall correctly – and that may have been the last), but it is theoretically possible.

 

[SWAT20]

I know that John Paul II celebrated a liturgy with the Bulgarian Orthodox Patriarch in 2002 – I would assume that that liturgy was Byzantine…

 

[malphono]

I know that John Paul II celebrated a liturgy with the Bulgarian Orthodox Patriarch in 2002 – I would assume that that liturgy was Byzantine…

They certainly did not concelebrate a Eucharistic Divine Liturgy in any Rite.

 

[ag_vn]

I know that John Paul II celebrated a liturgy with the Bulgarian Orthodox Patriarch in 2002 – I would assume that that liturgy was Byzantine…

Well, I am absolutely sure that Pope John Paul II did not celebrate a liturgy with Patriarch Maxim during his visit in Bulgaria in 2002.