Question on the Pope for Eastern Catholics

[Vico]

Yes, a press release was issued. Yet the Orthodox are still scratching their heads.

In fairness, does this press release reveal anything about the decision? who made it? why?

Other than supporting a premise suggested within, namely that the term is, at best, ambiguous and obsolete, does this press release really reveal anything about the decision?

The post is truly appreciated and does add to the completeness of this discussion in many respects, but in the eyes of many, this statement simply does not explain the decision nor the current position of Rome as to the patriarchial equivalency (or lack thereof) of Rome to other Patriarchial Sees of the Apostolic Faith.

I continue to receive comments from our Orthodox brothers and sisters, who see this as a setback in the ecumenical dialogue. I’m sure we can all understand their logic, to a large extent.

So the issue is that some do not understand this sentence:

“The waiver of that title is meant to express a historical and theological realism, and at the same time, be the relinquishment of a claim, a waiver that may be of benefit to ecumenical dialogue.”

 

[ByzCathCantor]

So the issue is that some do not understand this sentence:

“The waiver of that title is meant to express a historical and theological realism, and at the same time, be the relinquishment of a claim, a waiver that may be of benefit to ecumenical dialogue.”

It would have been helpful perhaps to have explained why Rome believed it would have been helpful to ecumenical dialogue.

To the Orthodox, if the Pope is not also a Patriarch, then he must be something greater than a Patriarch, and thus the concern that has resulted from this action.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Don’t get me wrong - the title “Patriarch of the West” is logically outmoded in many respects. The Orthodox themselves struggle with the fact that territorial boundaries can no longer confine Patriarchial Sees.

And yes, the Catholic Church (the Latin Catholic Church, that is) has expanded to the point where it covers vitually ever possible geographic region on earth (at least the inhabited ones). So, the simple East/West division, a viewpoint of the ancient world, is no longer applicable.

Personally, I have no real opinion on this action. I do believe the Church was well-intended, but perhaps could have consulted with the Orthodox world beforehand.

I do pray for the success of ecumenical dialogue, and it is a shame that this, which the Latin Church has put forth as a gesture in favor of ecumenism, has actually become a point of concern.

As I mentioned earlier, even after several years, I still hear about this one from well-spirited Orthodox friends.

 

[twf]

ByzCathCantor:
I still feel, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, that some of these concerns stem from an implied attempt at Hellenization of the Latin Church…we hear countless cries against Latinizations, but the reverse is OK? The office of patriarch does not have the same meaning in the Latin tradition as it does in the East and did not develop in the same way - the title has only been used occasionally, and inconsistently, by the popes down through the ages. It is enough to agree that the Pope of Rome has a relationship with the Latin Church that is parallel to that of the patriarchs in the East with their respective churches. Is the pope something greater than a bishop? No - but he does have a unique role among the bishops - greater than that of any other individual bishop. The Latin tradition has used the title patriarch from time to time, but we’ve never really known what to do with it…I would contend that it is not really our title - it is something that we grudingly accepted from the East after Byzantium imposed the construct of the pentarchy. Who canonically holds the title patriarch in the Latin Church? A handful of bishops who are really just metropolitans with prestigious sees (Jerusalem, Goa, Venice, Lisbon). These are not patriarchs in the Eastern sense of the term.

If the Orthodox are concerned, they should look at how the Catholic Church operates today. It is evident that the Pope is the primate of the Latin Church and that his relationship with the Latins is quite distinct from his relationship with the Patriarchal Eastern Churches. Among the Armenians there are also multiple patriarchs who are subordinate to the Catholicos…this is more comparable to the relationship between the Pope and the Latin patriarchs. Is this also a stumbling block for the Orthodox? The Byzantine tradition has a distinct understanding of the title that may not be universal to all traditions.

 

[Vico]

It would have been helpful perhaps to have explained why Rome believed it would have been helpful to ecumenical dialogue.

To the Orthodox, if the Pope is not also a Patriarch, then he must be something greater than a Patriarch, and thus the concern that has resulted from this action.

It was given: “the term “West” does not intend to describe an ecclesiastical territory nor it can be used as a definition of a patriarchal territory.”

So you see that “The waiver of that title [Patriarch of the West] is meant to express a historical and theological realism, and at the same time, be the relinquishment of a claim [of an ecclesiastical territory or patriarchal territory], a waiver voluntary surrender of a known right] that may be of benefit to ecumenical dialogue.”

 

[Alexander_Roman]

In the UGCC, we used to refer to the Pope as “our” but many parishes no longer say this following a series of discussion papers that led to the conclusion that we are in communion with the Pope but that he has limited oversight over our Church and does not belong to our Particular Church’s immediate hierarchy.

There is also an ongoing debate on why we continue to commemorate the pope a total of four times during the Divine Liturgy (but yet shorten or entirely eliminate entire ektenias because the whole thing is just too long . . .). Also, why we continue to apply the title of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to the Pope of Rome when the latter himself does not recognize that title . . . “the Most Holy Ecumenical Pontiff etc.” In Roman publications, only “Holy Father the Pope” is used.

We really should go back to the usage of our ancestors who commemorated the pope only once in the Divine Liturgy (and this was initially done ONLY by the Primate during HIS Divine Liturgy, but be that as it may).

Alex

 

[ConstantineTG]

In the UGCC, we used to refer to the Pope as “our” but many parishes no longer say this following a series of discussion papers that led to the conclusion that we are in communion with the Pope but that he has limited oversight over our Church and does not belong to our Particular Church’s immediate hierarchy.

There is also an ongoing debate on why we continue to commemorate the pope a total of four times during the Divine Liturgy (but yet shorten or entirely eliminate entire ektenias because the whole thing is just too long . . .). Also, why we continue to apply the title of the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople to the Pope of Rome when the latter himself does not recognize that title . . . “the Most Holy Ecumenical Pontiff etc.” In Roman publications, only “Holy Father the Pope” is used.

We really should go back to the usage of our ancestors who commemorated the pope only once in the Divine Liturgy (and this was initially done ONLY by the Primate during HIS Divine Liturgy, but be that as it may).

Alex

Alex, in our older books it seems we just translated from the Orthodox use and put the Pope in place of where the Ecumenical Patriarch would have been commemorated. But some of the newer translations, such as the Anthology, says “Universal Pontiff” rather than “Holy Ecumenical Pontiff”. Some parishes just use the older books, or that there haven’t been updates to some of them. I know our books for non-Divine Liturgy services (Vespers, Matins, Compline, etc.) would use “Ecumenical Pontiff” but our Divine Liturgy books which are newer says “Universal Pontiff”.

 

[Hesychios]

Alex, in our older books it seems we just translated from the Orthodox use and put the Pope in place of where the Ecumenical Patriarch would have been commemorated. But some of the newer translations, such as the Anthology, says “Universal Pontiff” rather than “Holy Ecumenical Pontiff”. Some parishes just use the older books, or that there haven’t been updates to some of them. I know our books for non-Divine Liturgy services (Vespers, Matins, Compline, etc.) would use “Ecumenical Pontiff” but our Divine Liturgy books which are newer says “Universal Pontiff”.

Alex is quite correct to point out that normally, among the eastern Catholics of the first millennium, the Pope of Rome would not be commemorated in the parish at all, it was only in the cathedral of the equivalent Patriarch (Hagia Sophia for Constantinople, and the Patriarchal cathedrals in Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch as well – not in the parishes).

The Pope also commemorated his counterparts in a like manner during liturgy, although I have to wonder if this is still done in Rome by the Pope on behalf of Eastern Catholic Patriarchs.

 

[twf]

Alex is quite correct to point out that normally, among the eastern Catholics of the first millennium, the Pope of Rome would not be commemorated in the parish at all, it was only in the cathedral of the equivalent Patriarch (Hagia Sophia for Constantinople, and the Patriarchal cathedrals in Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch as well – not in the parishes).

The Pope also commemorated his counterparts in a like manner during liturgy, although I have to wonder if this is still done in Rome by the Pope on behalf of Eastern Catholic Patriarchs.

For what its worth, all Catholic bishops are generically commemorated at every mass…

I am not an Eastern Catholic, but given the current reality in which the majority of Eastern Christians are not in full communion with Rome, I feel that commemorating the Pope during the liturgy is a beautiful expression of that communion… if the time comes when all the Orthodox are in full communion with Rome, it may be a moot point. Though of course this is a matter for the ECCs to decide amongst themselves…