Does the pope have to be a Roman Catholic to be the pope, or can they be eastern catholic?

[Alexander_Roman]

Certainly there were Greek bishops who became Bishops of Rome in the early Church. When St Theodore of Tarsus was appointed Archbishop of Canterbury, he was obliged to receive the Roman Rite and actually had a Rome-appointed “guide” in this in the person of Bl Alcuin.

Today, with strongly defined boundaries of ecclesial particularity, there would be no reason for Rome to have look Eastward for a papal candidate.

As for the Oriental Congregation, it is one of those anachronisms that continues to survive, even though it is way past its ‘best before’ date. Ecumenically, the congregation is offensive to the East as it affirms that even with the EC Churches’s own primatial organizations, Rome must still have a bureaucratic umbrella to oversee them.

The Roman penchant for bureaucratic overkill may suit the West fine - it is, at root, the greatest form of Latinization for the East.

Alex

 

[malphono]

And Pope Paul was Ambrosian Rite . . .

Well, sort of … Giovanni Batista Montini was born and baptized into the Roman Rite, and was ordained priest and bishop in that Rite as well. When he was named Archbishop of Milan he adopted the Ambrosian Rite, and as capo rito he very quickly took up the mantle of his illustrious predecessor, Ildefenso Schuster, and became a great patron of it. When he was elected Paul VI, he ceased to be capo rito of the Ambrosian Rite, although (IIRC) he did celebrate in it publicly at least once as Pope. And he most certainly did continue to defend it. Had he not done so, it would have been destroyed.

 

[Hesychios]

xavierakx;8747563:

It’s true even today. Two examples that you can verify:

1. Cardinal Padiyara was an Oriental Catholic, became a Bishop in the Latin diocese of Ootacamund, and later became the Major Archbishop of Syro Malabar Church (equivalent of a Patriarch in a Patriarchal church).

catholic-hierarchy.org/bishop/bpadiyara.html

1. Archbishop Thomas Menamparampil is an Oriental Catholic, but Archbishop in a Latin diocese.

cbcisite.com/Guwahati%20Archdiocese.htm

There are many such examples.

Wow

I stand corrected

We all learn something new every day! And with God, all things are possible!

My brother Hescyhios, I hope this shows that we have managed to be more open within the Catholic Church on such matters, and there is a blueprint which exists today for mutual cooperation and support of the various faith traditions within the Catholic communion, irrespective of canonical bounds.

Yes, it was once true more often than not that Latin ordinaries presided over congregations of Eastern Catholics, so it’s not your imagination either. We’ve just grown beyond it (thankfully) for the most part. Indeed, in the US and elsewhere, where we have smaller communities of Eastern and Oriental Catholics, they are now being served by Eastern Catholic hierarchs where possible. By way of example, the Italo-Graeco-Albanian congregations in Nevada are being served by the Ruthenian Eparchy of the Holy Protection of Mary in Phoenix, AZ.

Blessings to you and all!

I just saw this for thre first time today, sorry for the delay.

Actually, I was a bit disappointed to see that the church is still ‘mixing it up’ like this. I don’t think it is healthy for the hierarchs of one Sui Iuris church to serve in another, at least not as long as the church is going to maintain this concept of Sui Iuris churches. I am no more comfortable with the idea that Eastern Christian bishops are serving Latin Sui Iuris particular church dioceses any more than Latin bishops serving Eastern Sui Iuris particular church dioceses.

I am not talking about the lending of clergy here, or even the liturgy, it’s really about the bishops.

 

[Vico]

I just saw this for thre first time today, sorry for the delay.

Actually, I was a bit disappointed to see that the church is still ‘mixing it up’ like this. I don’t think it is healthy for the hierarchs of one Sui Iuris church to serve in another, at least not as long as the church is going to maintain this concept of Sui Iuris churches. I am no more comfortable with the idea that Eastern Christian bishops are serving Latin Sui Iuris particular church dioceses any more than Latin bishops serving Eastern Sui Iuris particular church dioceses.

I am not talking about the lending of clergy here, or even the liturgy, it’s really about the bishops.

I want to butt in here. To not mix it up, it would be necessary to shut down the ritual Churches without bishops of their own ritual Church. Maybe you have thought of another way?

 

[ByzCathCantor]

I just saw this for thre first time today, sorry for the delay.

Actually, I was a bit disappointed to see that the church is still ‘mixing it up’ like this. I don’t think it is healthy for the hierarchs of one Sui Iuris church to serve in another, at least not as long as the church is going to maintain this concept of Sui Iuris churches. I am no more comfortable with the idea that Eastern Christian bishops are serving Latin Sui Iuris particular church dioceses any more than Latin bishops serving Eastern Sui Iuris particular church dioceses.

I am not talking about the lending of clergy here, or even the liturgy, it’s really about the bishops.

In these instances, the congregations in the given geographic area are relatively small. It was considered preferable to have an Eastern Catholic bishop assigned to shepherd these missionary Eastern Catholic parishes.