If Catholic & EO unite, who can be Pope?

[Semper_Fi_1]

Just curious as to what would happen if the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox would re-unite, what would happen if an Eastern Orthodox was elected Pope? They don´t have Cardinals in the EO church do they? I know if would be unlikely, but if it happened, being the Bishop of Rome, wouldnt he have to celebrate Holy Mass in the Latin Rite? Just a thought. Hoping it happens in my lifetime, it would be a real witness to healing power of Christ.

Lee

The Pope can already celebrate the many Eastern liturgies.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

don’t you have to be a Baptized Male?

in order to be “Catholic” you need to be baptized already, yes

 

[RedSoxFan]

Pio Nonno was an obstinate bully at the Council. It was not a real council in the sense that any bishop could debate any other and collectively hammer out the “mind of the church”. Pius IX (through his operative committees and deputations) dictated everything: the agenda, who may speak, first drafts and the final rewrites. Amendment suggestions were taken in writing and handled off the floor for possible modification and consideration or rejection. The final drafts differed from the texts that were voted on.

It (Vatican I) was a rubber stamp to the bishop of Romes wishes and goals.

This is why so many of the fathers walked out. Many were afraid of being arrested and left in secret for the French lines without giving notice.

The incident of the abuse reported by the Melkite Patriarch was not unique to him, but he had sufficient independence to speak openly and publicly about it afterward. The Melkite church was enraged across the board, and the Melkites ever after opposed the cause of Pius’ canonization, it took 100 years to get him beatified over their objections.

Today, some prominent Melkite bishops (not so much in the diaspora, which is controlled by the Vatican, but the Patriarchate in Syria and Lebanon) will refer to Vatican I as a pseudo-Council, not ecumenical. Many do not feel bound to it’s decrees.

I know a lot of Roman Catholics have this idea that Melkites are just being difficult, but they had a unique inside look at the Council, sufficient independence at the time that they could not be muzzled afterward and the collective memory of an offended church community.

Michael

So would you say this is unique just to Pius IX’s time or before?

 

[Hesychios]

So would you say this is unique just to Pius IX’s time or before?

Of the Melkites attitude? No, I believe they always understood themselves to be in communion with Rome, not subordinated to it.

As far as councils go, I would think it was the extreme. Nothing like it before.

As for Pius IX, his behavior seems to have been similar at times to Bartolomeo Prignano (called Urban VI) at that later stage of his life. He was clearly well liked earlier in his career so I am not going to state that this was a fundamental element of his lifelong personality. So there have been other Popes like him, but not most Popes.

I think a consideration of the world events at the time are imprtant to understand what motivated the Council. It was beginning to look like Pio Nonno was going to be the Pope who presides over the demise of the Papal states, which were arguably over 1000 years standing, from the donation of Pipin onward, after that king crushed the Lombards. The fall of the papal States was thought to probably cripple the prestige of the Papacy, which was already suffering due to some other public relations disasters.

There was also a very real concern that a civil state might attempt to influence the office, so anything that suggested national rights and differentiation in church ecclesiology was out of favor in the Papacy of Pius IX. A new state controlling the city of Rome without a concordat in place could be a serious danger to church independence, it was felt, something like the Avignon Papacy under king Philip.

The Italian people, including the common Romans on the streets of the eternal city, were largely in favor of a united Italy. The big points of contention were if it was to be a republic, or a monarchy under the House of Savoy. The Papacy had no place in the discussions and was therefore in the way.

Republican nationalists like Garibaldi subordinated their dreams of a representative republic in a compromise with the Monarchists in order to achieve a united Italy. Much blood was shed as the Papal States opposed the annexation, and except for the mercenaries involved it was an Italian civil war.

Had it not been for the final occupation of the city by French troops the city would have fallen to the Italians. The perimeter they established around the city, became the de facto border of the rump state.

The Franco-Prussian war began, the French troops were now being recalled home, Papal conscripts were defecting, and in a panic the agenda of the Council was changed to address the Popes two most important requests:

• the designation od universal ordinary jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome in every other diocese and parish anywhere in the world, and following that…
• Infallibility of the bishop of Rome in designating dogma.
  The “inopportunists” (as the opposition was designated) were being shouted down in session and frustrated by the ‘behind the scenes’ activities at the council. They began drifting out of the city.

As soon as the two dogmas were approved by the remaining bishops and abbots in attendance, the council broke up. It never offically closed in the lifetime of anyone involved.

The Vatican pressured the remaining inopportunists individually to make formal assent to the actions of the council, most of them did in their lifetimes. This might be when the famous incident with the Patriarch occured, but I am not sure.

According to the Concordats signed between the bishops of Rome and most states across Europe, the Pope was entitled to name the bishops who would sit in authority in each diocese in those countries and their colonies, these political arrangements predated the Vatican council and had full legal force. Rome included an examination for full support of the new Papal dogmas in it’s vetting process for bishop-candidates, and the Ultramontanist program was accepted by bishops in most dioceses and religious orders by the turn of 20th century.

Michael

 

[Volodymyr]

The Pope can already celebrate the many Eastern liturgies.

Dear Semperfi:

I am not sure what you mean by this statement. “Can already” is to mean Roman Catolics are happy with present lack of unity of Christ’s churches, because bishop of Rome can pretend to be Coptic, Greek or Armenian - even re-constructing which pretend services to make them conform to Roman preferences. Dear friend, this is not union - this is like in United States during 1930’s to feel that racial relationships were good, because white-skinned actors could paint themselves black-skinned in movies. This didn’t make them black-skinned and as frequently seen on Soviet films about America, left black Americans very unhappy.

To play at being Orthodox by dressing in sakkos and omofor - does not make bishop of rome Orthodox, and is leaving Orthodox unhappy to see such pretend divine service.

If you meant else by this remark I apologize but this is how I understood remark. Internet forum discussion is so difficult to try to grasp ideas - mostly only respond with emotion and reaction. I hope I am not just too reacting - but above is how I understand your remark.