Vatican removes title 'patriarch of the West' after pope's name

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ace86
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ace86

Guest
Pope Benedict has removed the title ‘Patriarch of the West’ from his long list of titles. How interesting.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601225.htm

“Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, retired prefect of the Congregation for Eastern Churches, told the Italian news agency ANSA that the deletion was a “sign of ecumenical sensitivity” on the part of Pope Benedict.”.

I hope his decision helps toward reunification.
 
I don’t see how it helps with reunification. “Patriarch of the West” would have been his title regardless of the schism as the other Holy Sees fell within the Eastern Empire.

To remove it seems to imply that he is not *just *patriarch of the West.
 
There’s something about this that’s kind of neat. I can’t quite put my finger on it.

But, I really enjoy the way this Pope has moved himself out of the spotlight and is focusing on his office as one of teacher and moderator of the word.
 
Well, maybe he’ll replace it with something like ‘Patriarch of the Earth’. 😃
 
40.png
mike182d:
I don’t see how it helps with reunification. “Patriarch of the West” would have been his title regardless of the schism as the other Holy Sees fell within the Eastern Empire.

To remove it seems to imply that he is not *just *patriarch of the West.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t a proper papal title, it has no doctrinal foundation. That’s all. He’s not trying to be patriarch of the world. The orthodox churches have patriarchs…the latin rite church does not.
 
40.png
frommi:
It wasn’t a proper papal title, it has no doctrinal foundation. That’s all. He’s not trying to be patriarch of the world. The orthodox churches have patriarchs…the latin rite church does not.
Click to expand...
But there was a Patriarch of Rome, just like there was for Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Antioch. I think maybe it got absorbed into the title Bishop of Rome.
 
40.png
frommi:
It wasn’t a proper papal title, it has no doctrinal foundation. That’s all.
Click to expand...
Oh, I did not know that. I assumed that because the Pope made an effort to remove it that it was something established requiring his authority to remove.
He’s not trying to be patriarch of the world. The orthodox churches have patriarchs…the latin rite church does not.
Click to expand...
I do not necessarily think that’s true. The Catholic Church has always had patriarchs - Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, etc. However, after the Schism, the Patriarch in Rome was the only Patriarch the West had left. That’s probably where the title came from; an inference deduced from the historical development of the Church.
 
The title dates back to 450, when it was used in a letter to Leo the Great from the Byzantine emperor Theodosius II.

It really developed from the byzantine way of looking…it’s never been a Latin thing.
 
I find it odd that he dropped it. Is he denying the Latin Rite, or the Roman Catholic Church sui juris (as opposed to the whole Catholic Church)?

The Pope is successively higher levels of authority. He is pastor of St. John Lateran, Bishop of Rome, Archbishop Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy, Patriarch of the Latin Rite, and Pope of the Universal Church.

The Church is subdivided, parish, diocese, province, nation, sui juris church or “rite”, and then the universal Church.

The Pope, besides being Pope, also has the role of Patriarch regarding the Latin Rite. In his role as bishop he administers in a special way the diocese of rome. And in his role as Patriarch, he makes certain directive, disciplinary and liturgical, that apply to only Latin Rite Catholics, not other rites whose own Patriarchs (or equivalent chief hierarchs) have those powers.

I dont know why he dropped the title from the yearbook (which doesnt mean it is officially totally dropped), the title serves to show that the Latin Church is, as a ritual sui juris church, equal to the other sui juris churches. its not like the latin rite is the “norm” and the other rites are exceptions or offshoots…

I think this, from another thread, is an interesting thought:
That a traditionalist such as Papa Ratzinger has removed a title in use for nearly 1,500 years is certainly significant. I wonder, though, whether this might have less to do with gestures toward the Orthodox than with a fascinating thought that the current Pope expressed some time back, about the possibility of breaking up the immense region that is now, more or less, the “Western Patriarchate” and according patriarchal status to churches in Asia and Africa. If this is the intention, then we’ll probably see the old title reformed into something like Patriarch of Rome or Patriarch of the Latins. Such a move would also alleviate some of the tensions arising from the desire to “inculturate” faith and worship, on the one hand, and to remain faithful to the Roman Rite, on the other. The inculturated liturgy in those places could become the standard liturgical Rite for a particular Patriarchate, rather than a localized tinkering with the universal Rite of Rome.
Click to expand...
Could be. The Latin Patriarchate is perhaps disproportionally huge compared to the Eastern Rites. Maybe it could be broken up into some more localized rites…
 
40.png
mike182d:
I don’t see how it helps with reunification. “Patriarch of the West” would have been his title regardless of the schism as the other Holy Sees fell within the Eastern Empire.

To remove it seems to imply that he is not *just *patriarch of the West.
Click to expand...
But even without the title he is still the head of the Latin Rite, no?
I’ve thought that it might be a good step to separate the office of Patriarch of the Latin Rite from the Papacy.
 
I can understand why the Pope would want to shed the title. When there were five patriarchs (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Rome), only one of those patriarchs, the Patriarch of Rome, was in the western part of the Roman Empire: thus “Patriarch of the West.” But the title seems to imply that the four patriarchs of the easter part of the Roman Empire remain patriarchs of a larger church comprising Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy (which was true when the title was first used but is more problematic after the 12th century) and are equal in status with the Pope.
 
I don’t think he removed the fact that he is a ‘patriarch’ I just think he removed the fact that he is ‘patriarch of the west’. As someone pointed out, this is a matter of development of the Church. Clearly currently, the West is not just latin as it was then when the title was produced. So I think it is a gesture of clarity. He is still patriarch of Rome, I am sure, and obviously of the latin-rite.

I think it is okay…
 
Is it possible that this has something to do with the Traditional Anglicans who are trying to join up with Rome? Maybe they’re getting ready to give them uniate status, which would mean they had their own Patriarch and therefore the Pope would no longer be the sole Patriarch of the west. I know, pretty farfetched, but I’m just thinking out loud.
 
PadraigPearce said:
Is it possible that this has something to do with the Traditional Anglicans who are trying to join up with Rome? Maybe they’re getting ready to give them uniate status, which would mean they had their own Patriarch and therefore the Pope would no longer be the sole Patriarch of the west. I know, pretty farfetched, but I’m just thinking out loud.
Click to expand...
Here I thought Father Ambrose was allowed to come back 😛 This is an old thread too, but all the indications so far is that they will not be allowed to have an Anglican rite.
 
frommi said:
The orthodox churches have patriarchs…the latin rite church does not.
Click to expand...
Well, that’s not exactly true. The original Catholic Church had 5 Patriarchs. After the Schism 4 went one way and 1 (Rome) went another. We say they left us, they say we left them. However, the Catholic Church as consturcted until 1054 did have 5 Patriarchs. And even today, the Latin Church has a Patriarch of Jerusalem, though its merely an honorary title and does not contain the “authority” that a true Patriarch would have.
 
The Philadelphia priest said Franciscan Father Adriano Garuti, a former official at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and a professor at the Pontifical Lateran University, had written that if the pope is referred to as one of the Christian patriarchs it downplays his universal authority.
Click to expand...
I found this part interesting.
 
Don’t take this to the bank, but I’m thinking that this may alsbo be about liturgy.

After the Motu Proprio there have been serious questions about the Extraordinary Form in the ecclesial provinces in Asia, Afria and South America. When I say serious questions, I’m speaking about bishops asking whether they must celebrate the EF in areas where it has a negative cultural conotation, due to colonialism and abuses by the wealthy European Catholics who settled in those regions. The EF is often associated with them and with a social system that is often very threatening to people. Even today, many regions colonized by Europe feel very threatened by European and now by American culture. These cultures are closely associated with the Tridentine Liturgy.

As another poster has pointed out, this may be a move toward creating smaller patriarchates. If we were to create them, then each patriarch would also have a certain degree of liturgical freedom. This would calm some of the anxieties of the Asians, Africans and South Americans. We’re not speaking here of the descendants of the Europeans, but the indigenous Catholics.

Just a thought.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF 🙂
 
Praise be to God!
If this is truly a step towards reunification then we are blessed to be witnesses to such history. We would be so much better off as one big Christian family again 😉 I await the day!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top