If the Pope is universal, shouldn't all rites be used?

[NoWings]

I hope my question comes across clearly. What I mean is, since he’s the Universal Bishop and holds Universal Jurisdiction (according to mainstream thinking, even if wrong), shouldn’t all rites be represented in the Vatican? Why does the Pope use the Roman rite if he’s the Bishop of Bishops? Why not alternate with Eastern and Coptic and Chaldean liturgies since he’s supposed to represent the Catholic Church as a whole?

If a Greek Patriarch was elected somehow (it happened in early centuries, yeah?), should they continue using their own rite as opposed to the Roman since the Chair of Peter is not specifically Roman?

Sorry if that sounds ignorant.

 

[Rolltide]

I hope my question comes across clearly. What I mean is, since he’s the Universal Bishop and holds Universal Jurisdiction (according to mainstream thinking, even if wrong), shouldn’t all rites be represented in the Vatican? Why does the Pope use the Roman rite if he’s the Bishop of Bishops? Why not alternate with Eastern and Coptic and Chaldean liturgies since he’s supposed to represent the Catholic Church as a whole?

If a Greek Patriarch was elected somehow (it happened in early centuries, yeah?), should they continue using their own rite as opposed to the Roman since the Chair of Peter is not specifically Roman?

Sorry if that sounds ignorant.

Because he’s still the Bishop of Rome, which is of the Latin rite. He still has to perform the ordinary services for his diocese. Now, that said, the pope is the ONLY priest with the facilities to say ANY rite he chooses. Pope John Paul II said at least a couple of Ukrainian Catholic Divine Liturgies and a Mozarabic Mass at the Vatican. That’s all I know about, but it’s probable that he said more as well. Popes don’t usually say the other rites because they’re also not generally trained in the other rites, and it takes a fair amount of effort to learn them so that they can be said passably. That’s time that most popes don’t have.

 

[Belloc_Fan]

I hope my question comes across clearly. What I mean is, since he’s the Universal Bishop and holds Universal Jurisdiction (according to mainstream thinking, even if wrong), shouldn’t all rites be represented in the Vatican? Why does the Pope use the Roman rite if he’s the Bishop of Bishops? Why not alternate with Eastern and Coptic and Chaldean liturgies since he’s supposed to represent the Catholic Church as a whole?

If a Greek Patriarch was elected somehow (it happened in early centuries, yeah?), should they continue using their own rite as opposed to the Roman since the Chair of Peter is not specifically Roman?

Sorry if that sounds ignorant.

He’s the Patriarch of the West, so the head of the Latin Rite. Other Patriarchs are the heads of the various other rites. So, for example, Patriarch Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir is the Patriarch of the Maronite Church, so he celebrates Eucharistic Liturgies in the style of the Maronite Antiochene Liturgy. There’s no doctrinal dissent, Patriarch Sfeir is in full communion with the Pope, etc., they both enjoy the same universal Church, but they both celebrate according to their particular church. Does that make sense?

 

[FidesSpesCarita]

I hope my question comes across clearly. What I mean is, since he’s the Universal Bishop and holds Universal Jurisdiction (according to mainstream thinking, even if wrong), shouldn’t all rites be represented in the Vatican? Why does the Pope use the Roman rite if he’s the Bishop of Bishops? Why not alternate with Eastern and Coptic and Chaldean liturgies since he’s supposed to represent the Catholic Church as a whole?

If a Greek Patriarch was elected somehow (it happened in early centuries, yeah?), should they continue using their own rite as opposed to the Roman since the Chair of Peter is not specifically Roman?

Sorry if that sounds ignorant.

To be somewhat terse, because the horse comes before the cart, not the other way round.

We follow the Pope. The Catholic Church is Universal, and we must follow Her, not expect Her to change with every whim of the masses.

FSC

 

[jc-servant]

the op is not talking about a “whim of the masses” like turning a mass in the latin rite into a clown mass. it is a reasonable query to wonder why the Holy Father is usually seen using the latin rite’s liturgy. the other rites are not lesser rites simply because more western catholics belong to the latin rite. maronite and others are still celebrating a beautiful and very reverent ancient liturgy.

 

[LilyM]

Firstly, as has been pointed out, it’s not a matter of Benedict just whipping out some slightly different-looking vestments and a new prayer book every other day and off he can go celebrating a Maronite or Syro-Malankara or Chaldean liturgy. They are all unique and all take a good deal of time to learn.

No priest that I have ever heard of has ever been able to celebrated in more than three different liturgical rites (it’s called being triritual) for precisely this reason.

 

[NoWings]

He’s the Patriarch of the West, so the head of the Latin Rite. Other Patriarchs are the heads of the various other rites. So, for example, Patriarch Mar Nasrallah Boutros Sfeir is the Patriarch of the Maronite Church, so he celebrates Eucharistic Liturgies in the style of the Maronite Antiochene Liturgy. There’s no doctrinal dissent, Patriarch Sfeir is in full communion with the Pope, etc., they both enjoy the same universal Church, but they both celebrate according to their particular church. Does that make sense?

I thought Patriarch of the West was dropped.

I know they celebrate in their particular church.

When I think of Universal, I think “represents the entire Church”. What I don’t get is why the Pope restricts himself to one rite. If he’s universal, then he’s all rites, isn’t he? He’s representative of the whole Church, so he should represent the whole Church, yeah?

It’s hard for me to get across, because canonical jurisdictions aren’t my strong point.

Again, if a Greek patriarch was elected Pope, would he celebrate the Roman or his own rite? Would he write encyclicals filled with eastern theology, or have to switch to the Western view?

If one stays with the Western view, how can the Eastern Churches be represented at the highest tier in the Church? How will anyone ever know of the Church’s other lung?

 

[NoWings]

Perhaps “rite” is the wrong word to use. Perhaps “traditions” would be better.

I don’t understand why the Pope is Roman. It’s strange to me that the highest authority in the Church is just one rite and one tradition. It doesn’t sound very universal, unless universal simply means “do what I say.”

 

[LilyM]

Perhaps “rite” is the wrong word to use. Perhaps “traditions” would be better.

I don’t understand why the Pope is Roman. It’s strange to me that the highest authority in the Church is just one rite and one tradition. It doesn’t sound very universal, unless universal simply means “do what I say.”

That ‘just one rite’ represents a huge percentage of Catholics though, for one thing. For another, what you’re suggesting is a bit like saying ‘shouldn’t Obama become white for one day in two, and shouldn’t he become a woman for one day in two - how can he possibly lead or represent whites or women otherwise?’

Benedict is what he is, and he was chosen as is, on that understanding - by the Eastern cardinals as well as the Latin. He was chosen by them as their leader, and acknowledged by all the Patriarchs and other Eastern leaders as duly chosen.

By the way I believe all or most of them are actually sui juris churches so that rites is incorrect.

 

[NoWings]

That ‘just one rite’ represents a huge percentage of Catholics though, for one thing. For another, what you’re suggesting is a bit like saying ‘shouldn’t Obama become white for one day in two, and shouldn’t he become a woman for one day in two - how can he possibly lead or represent whites or women otherwise?’

Benedict is what he is, and he was chosen as is, on that understanding - by the Eastern cardinals as well as the Latin. He was chosen by them as their leader, and acknowledged by all the Patriarchs and other Eastern leaders as duly chosen.

By the way I believe all or most of them are actually sui juris churches so that rites is incorrect.

Well, like I said, jurisdictional boundaries and canonical limitations aren’t my strong point.

Your Obama metaphor doesn’t hold up well in this discussion. This isn’t about the Pope’s skin color, and Obama doesn’t represent “women’s tradition” or “white’s tradition”, whatever those may mean. Obama also isn’t infallible and can be trumped by Congress. Obama doesn’t issue ex cathedra statements and doesn’t have the backing of the Holy Spirit. He’ll also has the possibility of being defeated next election cycle and his term will be complete after the second re-election. Last, Obama represents secular law and policies. The Pope represents theological mysteries, some of which are supposedly immutable.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I would love to see Pope Benedict publicly celebrate in each of the liturgies of the Church, including the Extraordinary Form, Mozarabic, and Ambrosian rites.

I understand that beloved John Paul the Great publicly celebrated the Armenian liturgy–in Armenian!

 

[Rolltide]

I thought Patriarch of the West was dropped.

It was.

When I think of Universal, I think “represents the entire Church”. What I don’t get is why the Pope restricts himself to one rite. If he’s universal, then he’s all rites, isn’t he? He’s representative of the whole Church, so he should represent the whole Church, yeah?

He IS all rites, and he DOES represent the whole church. Just because he has the faculties for saying all of the rites doesn’t mean he has the knowledge to do it proficiently, however. It can take months to learn how to say just one form!

It’s hard for me to get across, because canonical jurisdictions aren’t my strong point.

Again, if a Greek patriarch was elected Pope, would he celebrate the Roman or his own rite?

He would indeed have to switch and celebrate (primarily) in the Roman rite.

What you are forgetting is that above all other jobs, the pope’s FIRST duty is as Bishop of Rome. In addition to being the head of the Church Universal, he is an ordinary bishop, just like the Bishop of Baltimore, or St. Paul, or Birmingham. As such, he is obligated to say Mass for the people of his diocese in the Roman rite, since the Diocese of Rome is a Western, Latin rite diocese. He even has his own cathedral as any ordinary bishop would have, and it’s NOT the Vatican, it’s St. John Lateran in Rome, where he’s obligated to say Mass from time to time. Likewise, in the incredibly unlikely circumstance that an Eastern Catholic priest was made, say, Bishop of Milan, he’d have to celebrate primarily in the Ambrosian Rite, since that rite is specially preserved in that diocese. Now, as the Bishop of Rome, the pope can celebrate any form he likes privately, or when he travels outside of the diocese. He can also occasionally say different rites within the diocese and within the Vatican.

Also keep in mind that it would be exceptionally unusual for an Eastern Catholic to be elected pope. It’s not necessarily that they would feel uncomfortable leading the Catholic Church, it’s that many don’t feel it’s their place to be presiding over a Western diocese.

Would he write encyclicals filled with eastern theology, or have to switch to the Western view?

He could do whatever he wanted, he’d be the pope. He’d probably do some of both, I’d imagine.

If one stays with the Western view, how can the Eastern Churches be represented at the highest tier in the Church? How will anyone ever know of the Church’s other lung?

Well, they’re represented by cardinals, patriarchs, metropolitans, and so on. Other rites are indeed occasionally said. Previous popes HAVE written about Eastern theology.

 

[thunderballs75]

He is the Bishop of Rome also, so he uses the Roman Rite. On top of that, he won’t use the Extraordinary Form either, because he is trying to be the best Bishop of Rome he can be at the same time as being universal pastor.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Pope Benedict celebrate the EF regularly, but privately.

Previously Popes have celebrated or concelebrated numerous Eastern liturgies.

The question is - why does the Pope have to publicly celebrate any liturgy for it to be “equal” with the rest???

Whether or not the Pope celebrates a particular Liturgical rite or not is not any criteria of its validity, authenticity, or worth. If the Pope does do so, we appreciate it and are very proud that he did so, but if he doesn’t - this is no way diminishes the Catholicity and Apostolicity of it.

 

[mardukm]

What you are forgetting is that above all other jobs, the pope’s FIRST duty is as Bishop of Rome. In addition to being the head of the Church Universal, he is an ordinary bishop, just like the Bishop of Baltimore, or St. Paul, or Birmingham. As such, he is obligated to say Mass for the people of his diocese in the Roman rite, since the Diocese of Rome is a Western, Latin rite diocese. He even has his own cathedral as any ordinary bishop would have, and it’s NOT the Vatican, it’s St. John Lateran in Rome, where he’s obligated to say Mass from time to time.

:bowdown:

For a Latin Catholic, you have a very refreshing understanding of the role of the bishop of Rome. A lot of Latins I have come across think that the bishop of Rome’s primary role is to be the micromanager of the universal Church. It’s sometimes hard for me to get across (to Catholic and non-Catholic alike) the fact that the office of the papacy exercises an EXTRAORDINARY function in the Church. The bishop of Rome simply does not go around daily looking for opportunities to butt into the affairs of other Churches. He’s got enough on his plate being Patriarch of the Latins, the largest particular Church in the world.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[bpbasilphx]

…

The question is - why does the Pope have to publicly celebrate any liturgy for it to be “equal” with the rest???

Whether or not the Pope celebrates a particular Liturgical rite or not is not any criteria of its validity, authenticity, or worth. If the Pope does do so, we appreciate it and are very proud that he did so, but if he doesn’t - this is no way diminishes the Catholicity and Apostolicity of it.

Oh, I agree that all the liturgical rites are equal.

I’d just like to see the Pope do so publicly, that’s all.

 

[David_Eckel]

No Wings,
Really a great question, and I’m sorry to see that someone was uncharitable in their reply. I don’t have anything of substance to offer that hasn’t already been said, but on a spiritual level I would encourage you to develop the practice of adding these questions to your prayer. My experience has been that our Lord has a way of answering questions that no human arguments can equal, and I would love to have you encounter G-d in this way.
Agape,
David

 

[Ghoti]

Also keep in mind that it would be exceptionally unusual for an Eastern Catholic to be elected pope. It’s not necessarily that they would feel uncomfortable leading the Catholic Church, it’s that many don’t feel it’s their place to be presiding over a Western diocese.

Almost happened once, though. Krikor Bedros Aghajanian was Patriarch Catholicos of Cilicia as well as a cardinal during the 1958 conclave; according to Bl. John XXIII himself, Aghajanian was at one point the leading candidate for the papacy.

An Armenian Bishop of Rome…now that would have been something.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

An Armenian Bishop of Rome…now that would have been something.

Indeed…the ceremonial and liturgical possibilities alone would have been amazing.

I don’t understand why the Pope couldn’t annually concelebrate the Divine Liturgy on, say, the feast of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. I would think it would do wonders for genuine dialogue with the Orthodox, and I don’t see what all the animosity is about on the part of the EO. If Bartholomew or Kirill wanted to celebrate a Pontifical High Mass, would we Latins even care? No. It would be seen as a great gesture that confirms the fact that, despite the ceremonial differences, we’re all one family.

 

[kalel76]

Indeed…the ceremonial and liturgical possibilities alone would have been amazing.

I don’t understand why the Pope couldn’t annually concelebrate the Divine Liturgy on, say, the feast of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. I would think it would do wonders for genuine dialogue with the Orthodox, and I don’t see what all the animosity is about on the part of the EO. If Bartholomew or Kirill wanted to celebrate a Pontifical High Mass, would we Latins even care? No. It would be seen as a great gesture that confirms the fact that, despite the ceremonial differences, we’re all one family.

I agree that gestures such as this would be helpful to ecumenical dialogue, but it wouldn’t address the heart of the Catholic/EO issue: the proper role of the Bishop of Rome, and the proper exercise in his authority. To be honest, I’m surprised there has been no ecumenical council called to settle this issue alone. If there was one, let me know.