Speculating on Patriarchs

[HagiaSophia]

Canonist JD Peters speculates on what new Patriarchs might mean for the church.

:,But the reductio ad obscuritatem that befell the western patriarchates (which were originally associated with their strategic locations as the New World was discovered) might have been a consequence of the fact that, when the pope himself is the patriarch in the west, what matters who else might have such a title? But therein lies the point: the pope no longer is the Patriarch of the West.

Might this development over time (admittedly, likely measured in centuries) allow for a redevelopment of a functioning patriarchate system in the West? Perhaps Lisbon’s day or Venice’s has passed, but what about, say, Mexico City? or Chicago? or Manila? or even (let’s really dream) Hong Kong? For that matter, might some currently quiescent primatial sees begin to exercise once again a real leadership role in their nations or regions?"

canonlaw.info/blog.html

 

[jbuck919]

I think that the traditional title of “patriarch” is very charming but does not need to be extended beyond the scope of its already current illogic. Both the Patriarch of Ireland (the Archbishop of Dublin) and the Patriarch of All Ireland (the Archbishop of, excuse me, Armagh? Who ever heard of that?) seem not to be in the forthcoming consistory of cardinals. Kindly correct me if I’m wrong, as I often am, but one way or the other there is an obvious inconsitency here (I am tempted to say an obvious inconsistory). Let the ancient titles stand, for they are befittingly majestic, but let’s not add any more.

 

[jbuck919]

jbuck919:

I think that the traditional title of “patriarch” is very charming but does not need to be extended beyond the scope of its already current illogic. Both the Patriarch of Ireland (the Archbishop of Dublin) and the Patriarch of All Ireland (the Archbishop of, excuse me, Armagh? Who ever heard of that?) seem not to be in the forthcoming consistory of cardinals. Kindly correct me if I’m wrong, as I often am, but one way or the other there is an inconsistency here (I am tempted to say an obvious inconsistory). Let the ancient titles stand, for they are befittingly majestic, but let’s not add any more.

 

[batteddy]

The Pope may not use the title “Patriarch of the West” anymore, but he still holds the position of (or at least analogous to) Patriarch over the Latin Rite, meaning that although he is Pope over the whole Church, he is specially the leader of the Latin Rite, specially the Primate of Italy, especially the Archbishop of the Roman Metropolitan area, Bishop of Rome, and Pastor of St. John Lateran the Mother Church…

Now, could we possibly see the old ceremonial latin patriarchates (or some new ones) revived and actually turned into actual functional patriarchates like in the east? That would involved splitting the Latin Rite chuch into many different rites and letting patriarchs head them…and then perhaps each of those rites would have several churches sui juris within them led by various hierarchs, with the most precedential church within each Rite being led by a patriarch…

Do we really want to cause that fragmentation? Perhaps. The “west” is a pretty big area, and perhaps we should let liturgy and discipline be more incultured and local like it is in the “East”…and have a smaller area be tied to the Latin traditions of Rome…I dont know…

 

[introibo]

jbuck919:

I think that the traditional title of “patriarch” is very charming but does not need to be extended beyond the scope of its already current illogic. Both the Patriarch of Ireland (the Archbishop of Dublin) and the Patriarch of All Ireland (the Archbishop of, excuse me, Armagh? Who ever heard of that?) seem not to be in the forthcoming consistory of cardinals. Kindly correct me if I’m wrong, as I often am, but one way or the other there is an obvious inconsitency here (I am tempted to say an obvious inconsistory). Let the ancient titles stand, for they are befittingly majestic, but let’s not add any more.

I think the term for the individuals you mentioned is “Primate,” not “Patriarch”. Where Patriarch is an ecclesiastical rank like Archbishop, I believe that “Primate” is an entirely honorific title given to the bishop of the oldest see in a country: the figurehead of that country’s episcopate.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

I don’t think the Church needs to be fragmented. Maybe for Asia, or Africa or other more distinct cultures, but definately not for Europe/America.

I, personally, am more of a fan of ultramontanism. A strong pope keeps the Church in line more than bishop’s conferences or “National Churches” like they proposed in the past.

 

[jbuck919]

introibo:

I think the term for the individuals you mentioned is “Primate,” not “Patriarch”. Where Patriarch is an ecclesiastical rank like Archbishop, I believe that “Primate” is an entirely honorific title given to the bishop of the oldest see in a country: the figurehead of that country’s episcopate.

Yes, a complete thinko on my part.

I do not believe the pope should have given up that title, but he is the pope not I, so it is done.

 

[BillyT92679]

ComradeAndrei:

I don’t think the Church needs to be fragmented. Maybe for Asia, or Africa or other more distinct cultures, but definately not for Europe/America.

I, personally, am more of a fan of ultramontanism. A strong pope keeps the Church in line more than bishop’s conferences or “National Churches” like they proposed in the past.

Ultramontanism is very useful, but it’s hard to say it’s what Our Lord had in mind. There is St. Matthew 18 for a reason. Bishops aren’t just regional branch managers of the Church, but true Successors to the Apostles themselves (cf Catholicism For Dummies). Many of them need to run the Church better than they do, but they do have a Divine Charism to be the head of the Particular Church.

 

[ComradeAndrei]

Ultramontanism is very useful, but it’s hard to say it’s what Our Lord had in mind. There is St. Matthew 18 for a reason. Bishops aren’t just regional branch managers of the Church, but true Successors to the Apostles themselves (cf Catholicism For Dummies). Many of them need to run the Church better than they do, but they do have a Divine Charism to be the head of the Particular Church.

Yes, indeed they have a Divine Charism to to the head of a Diocese or Archdiocese, but that doesn’t mean that the Pope (and their brother bishops for that matter) shouldn’t call the lax and heterodox ones to account.

Also, as the Pope has the charism of infallibility and is the supreme head of the Universal Church, he does have degrees of authority over the bishops, archbishops, and patriarchs. I think collegiality is a good thing, but too much is bad. Likewise, the supreme authority of the Pope is a good thing-but I’m not advocating the Pope deciding on every bit of minutiae in every single diocese around the world.