M
MaroniteRosary
Guest
Since we are in communion with the pope, does that mean he is also our pope or is he only the bishop of Rome?
If so is that why we have Patriarchs?
If so is that why we have Patriarchs?
- Status
D
dcointin
Guest
I’ll leave a more throrough answer for other Catholics to give you, but yes, he is the pope of all Catholics.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
The Holy Father is the successor of Peter, recognized as the first among equals (his brother bishops) entrusted to lead our one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Not all Eastern Catholics have a Patriarch in their hierarchy. Irrespective, we look to the Pope as a spiritual and moral leader for all Catholics and the one to whom the communion of Churches is primarily and especially (yet not exclusively) entrusted.
As Eastern Catholics, we most particularly expect the fervent support of the Pontiff in promoting the equality of dignity and the preservation of the unique traditions of the Eastern Catholic Churches. We also look to him to actively seek unity of faith with our Orthodox brothers and sisters and all Apostolic Churches, in fulfillment of Christ’s desire that we “all be as one”.
Not all Eastern Catholics have a Patriarch in their hierarchy. Irrespective, we look to the Pope as a spiritual and moral leader for all Catholics and the one to whom the communion of Churches is primarily and especially (yet not exclusively) entrusted.
As Eastern Catholics, we most particularly expect the fervent support of the Pontiff in promoting the equality of dignity and the preservation of the unique traditions of the Eastern Catholic Churches. We also look to him to actively seek unity of faith with our Orthodox brothers and sisters and all Apostolic Churches, in fulfillment of Christ’s desire that we “all be as one”.
M
MrPip
Guest
M
MarkThompson
Guest
The Holy Father is an “equal” with other bishops as regards the sacramental character of their episcopate, but, as the First Vatican Ecumenical Council decreed, “the Roman Pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles, true vicar of Christ, head of the whole Church and father and teacher of all Christian people,” and therefore “by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church.” The pope is superior in authority to any other bishop or patriarch, because
th[e] jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.
. . .
So, then, if anyone says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the Church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the Churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.
Hopefully that gives the OP a clearer picture of how the hierarchy works. We are not Anglicans, after all.
J
Jim_Dandy
Guest
The Pope has eight titles:
1- Bishop of Rome
2- Vicar of Jesus Christ
**3- Successor of the Chief of the Apostles **
4- Supreme pontiff of the Universal Church
5- Patriarch of the West
(There are seven patriarchs, i.e., " fathers" of sees that trace their origin directly to one or more apostles.)
6- The primate of Italy
7- Archibishop and metropolitan of the Roman Province
8- Sovereign of the Vatican State
1- Bishop of Rome
2- Vicar of Jesus Christ
**3- Successor of the Chief of the Apostles **
4- Supreme pontiff of the Universal Church
5- Patriarch of the West
(There are seven patriarchs, i.e., " fathers" of sees that trace their origin directly to one or more apostles.)
6- The primate of Italy
7- Archibishop and metropolitan of the Roman Province
8- Sovereign of the Vatican State
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Not really. He stopped using the title, but in principle he still is. It just ties the role of Patriarch of the West now more closely to being the Pope. By removing the distinction, there is no mistake that one who is Pope is always the Patriarch of the Latin Church.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Your explanation is reasonable, but the Church should really offer one. The Orthodox are still scratching their heads.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Curiously, I have yet to see Liturgical text which refers to him as “Supreme Pontiff” in the East. Usually its “Universal Pontiff” or “Ecumenical Pontiff” on some older translations. I’m interested to hear from other jurisdictions how he is commemorated during the Liturgies.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
This is actually a good thing for the East from a certain perspective. It just says that the Pope isn’t really a position by itself above the Patriarchs but rather his primacy is a dignity of being Bishop of Rome (rather than by occupying a position of Pope).
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
The litanies in the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil currently in Ruthenian usage have the following language:
“we pray for our holy father (Name), Pope of Rome”
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
I understand and agree, yet know that many of our Orthodox brothers and sisters took this as a step backward in ecumenical dialogue. We ECs can see it as a step forward, together with other developments.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
The most important part is the dialogue process where we make them understand the whys of everything we do on our side. Hopefully both sides remain charitable and listen intently to what the other is saying.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Meaning? Was it suggested that we were? Those of us who pray fervently for the unity of the Apostolic Churches tend to be a bit more cautious in providing explanatory comments on the papacy, realizing it is a crucial (if not the primary) impediment to such reunion. That does not mean the teaching of the Church is disputed - it simply means charity and diplomacy are exercised when approaching this subject, especially in a forum frequented by many learned and faithful Orthodox Christians.
Please also bear in mind that the OP is, in fact, a [Maronite] Catholic.
V
Vico
Guest
Keep in mind what was said by the Catholic Church regarding number 5 “Patriarch of the West”:
Currently, the meaning of the term “West” refers to a cultural context that refers not only to Western Europe, but extends to the United States of America to Australia, and New Zealand, thus differing from other cultural contexts. Obviously, this meaning of the term “West” does not intend to describe an ecclesiastical territory nor it can be used as a definition of a patriarchal territory. Therefore, the title “Patriarch of the West” would describe the Bishop of Rome’s special relationship with it and could express the particular jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for the Latin Church.
T
twf
Guest
The “West” is a particular cultural construct - as described above. The Latin Church, in recent centuries, has become truly universal in the sense that it is deeply entrenched in virtually every nation on the planent and is not in any sense limited to “the West” as the term is generally used and understood today. The Vatican felt, I think, that the title “Patriarch of the West” was misleading given the current reality. The Pope remains, for all intents and purposes, the Patriarch of the Latin Church. Keep in mind that the title Patriarch of the West has not been consistently used by Rome - it was always more of the East’s title for the Pope than the Pope’s title for himself…the West never developed a fully fleshed out patriarchal ecclesiology as the East did. I feel that to insist that the Pope use this title is to impose a Hellenization on the Latin Church - just as inappropriate as imposing Latinizations on the West.
M
MrPip
Guest
And probably will be for some time, actually. And, good luck “making” them “understand the whys of everything we do…”, as ConstantineTG wrote. Much less ever accept it–:banghead::banghead::banghead:. Not that we should not, in love and charity, try, but…:banghead:
(And in case anyone thinks otherwise, I mean no disrespect to our Orthodox brothers and sisters–none at all!)
In Christ,
Jeff
V
Vico
Guest
Press Release About The Abolition Of The Title
“Patriarch of the West” from The 2006 Pontifical Yearbook
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_general-docs.htm
In The 2006 Pontifical Yearbook the title “Patriarch of the West” is missing from the enumeration of the Pope’s titles. This absence has been commented on in different ways and requires clarification.
Without presuming to consider the complex historical question of the title of patriarch in all its aspects, it can be said from the historical point of view that the ancient patriarchs of the East, established by the Councils of Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451), were related to a fairly clearly defined territory, where the territory of the See of the Bishop of Rome remained vague. In the East, under the ecclesiastical imperial system of Justinian (527-565), in addition to the four Eastern Patriarchs (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), the Pope was included as the Patriarch of the West. Conversely, Rome favors the idea of the three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Without using the title “Patriarch of the West,” the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-70), the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1439), listed the Pope as the first of the then five Patriarchs.
The title “Patriarch of the West” was used in the year 642 by Pope Theodore I. Thereafter, it only used rarely and did not have a clear meaning. Its heyday came in the sixteenth and seventeenth century, under the multiplication of the Pope’s titles, it appeared in The Pontifical Yearbook for the first time in 1863.
Currently, the meaning of the term “West” refers to a cultural context that refers not only to Western Europe, but extends to the United States of America to Australia, and New Zealand, thus differing from other cultural contexts. Obviously, this meaning of the term “West” does not intend to describe an ecclesiastical territory nor it can be used as a definition of a patriarchal territory. If you want to give to the term ‘West’ a meaning applicable to ecclesiastical juridical language, it could only be understood with reference to the Latin Church. Therefore, the title “Patriarch of the West” would describe the Bishop of Rome’s special relationship with it and could express the particular jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for the Latin Church.
Consequently, the title “Patriarch of the West” from the outset is unclear, and with the evolution of history became obsolete and practically unusable. All the more so, since the Catholic Church from Vatican II founded for the Latin Church in the form of episcopal conferences and their international meetings of bishops’ conferences, the canons targeted to the needs of today.
Omitting the title of “Patriarch of the West” clearly does not change anything in the recognition, so solemnly declared by Vatican Council II, of the ancient patriarchal Churches (Lumen Gentium 23). Still less can this suppression mean that it implies new demands. 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.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
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.
- Status