Eastern-rite Pope?

[Wandile]

The Pope first and foremost is the Bishop of Rome. He is not a universal bishop who as a result has jurisdiction in Rome. Rather, he is the Bishop of Rome who has universal jurisdiction due to his primacy. As Bishop of Rome he is rightly a Latin bishop of a Latin diocese. Its is only proper that he be a Latin. In history there have been a few popes of eastern heritage but once made Pope, they celebrated the Roman mass and were roman in everything but their heritage.

Theoretically any bishop can be a bishop of any place. However it is only appropriate that a Melkite be Melkite patriarch rather than a Latin.

 

[wynd]

The Pope first and foremost is the Bishop of Rome. He is not a universal bishop who as a result has jurisdiction in Rome. Rather, he is the Bishop of Rome who has universal jurisdiction due to his primacy. As Bishop of Rome he is rightly a Latin bishop of a Latin diocese. Its is only proper that he be a Latin. In history there have been a few popes of eastern heritage but once made Pope, they celebrated the Roman mass and were roman in everything but their heritage.

Theoretically any bishop can be a bishop of any place. However it is only appropriate that a Melkite be Melkite patriarch rather than a Latin.

Obviously I don’t agree with the Roman papal dogmas, but this is the most sensible explanation and fits most with traditional ecclesiology.

 

[Micosil]

The Pope first and foremost is the Bishop of Rome. He is not a universal bishop who as a result has jurisdiction in Rome. Rather, he is the Bishop of Rome who has universal jurisdiction due to his primacy. As Bishop of Rome he is rightly a Latin bishop of a Latin diocese. Its is only proper that he be a Latin. In history there have been a few popes of eastern heritage but once made Pope, they celebrated the Roman mass and were roman in everything but their heritage.

Theoretically any bishop can be a bishop of any place. However it is only appropriate that a Melkite be Melkite patriarch rather than a Latin.

Then why do Papal conclaves even have non-Latin cardinals who can vote or be voted for?

 

[Wandile]

Then why do Papal conclaves even have non-Latin cardinals who can vote or be voted for?

Ask the modern popes why eastern bishops and patriarchs are being made cardinals.

 

[Micosil]

Ask the modern popes why eastern bishops and patriarchs are being made cardinals.

And do you think it’s a bad thing that Eastern rite bishops are elevated to the cardinalate?

As far as I know, the Catholic Church is the Universal Church (it’s what “Catholic” means ), what difference does it make what rite they belong to as long as they’re in full communion?

 

[JurisPrudens]

Among his other duties, the pope is the bishop of Rome and head of the Latin church. It wouldn’t make sense to have a non-Latin bishop as pope.

In Russia the latin bishop of Novosibirsk is also the ordinary of Greek rite catholics, and he puts on Greek vestments, if needed. There is no problem with that.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

And do you think it’s a bad thing that Eastern rite bishops are elevated to the cardinalate?

As far as I know, the Catholic Church is the Universal Church (it’s what “Catholic” means ), what difference does it make what rite they belong to as long as they’re in full communion?

emphasis mine

You have to bear in mind that were are not talking about hierarchs (bishops) who merely practice a different liturgical rite, but are leaders of sui juris churches in communiion with Rome.

There are at least two schools of thought on this. The first (current), that it is fitting and proper in the context of the Catholic Communion to elevate Eastern & Oriental Catholic bishops as Cardinals. In this way, they also have a voice in selecting a Pope and participating in the Curia.

The second is that it offends the ecclesiology of the Church, as the Curia is unique to the Latin Church alone. It has been suggested that perhaps the Primates (Patriarchs, Major Archbishops and Metropolitan Archbishops) be permitted to vote in conclave without having to become Cardinals.

 

[Vico]

emphasis mine

You have to bear in mind that were are not talking about hierarchs (bishops) who merely practice a different liturgical rite, but are leaders of sui juris churches in communiion with Rome.

There are at least two schools of thought on this. The first (current), that it is fitting and proper in the context of the Catholic Communion to elevate Eastern & Oriental Catholic bishops as Cardinals. In this way, they also have a voice in selecting a Pope and participating in the Curia.

The second is that it offends the ecclesiology of the Church, as the Curia is unique to the Latin Church alone. It has been suggested that perhaps the Primates (Patriarchs, Major Archbishops and Metropolitan Archbishops) be permitted to vote in conclave without having to become Cardinals.

The Curia is not unique to the Latins. The Congregations either are for all sui iuris Catholic Churches, or some are for only for Latin or Oriental.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

The Curia is not unique to the Latins. The Congregations either are for all sui iuris Catholic Churches, or some are for only for Latin or Oriental.

Functionally today, you are of course correct. That said, the Curia originated in the Latin Church, and the involvement of Eastern hierarchs in Curial offices and functions is a relatively modern development. My post was a bit “shorthand”, but I’m sure you know the range of views on this subject, both among the Eastern and Oriental Catholics and their Orthodox counterparts.

 

[Peter_J]

In Russia the latin bishop of Novosibirsk is also the ordinary of Greek rite catholics, and he puts on Greek vestments, if needed. There is no problem with that.

I agree that is not, necessarily, a problem in view of circumstances. Likewise in Orthodoxy it is not, necessarily, a problem for WROs (Western-Rite Orthodox) to be part of the Antiochian Orthodox Church.