What do you all think about this Papal Title?

[Harpazo]

For centuries, possibly even Millenia, the Pope of Rome has been referred to as the “Patriarch of Rome and the West.” I have heard that HH Benedict XVI wants to do away with this title. I personally think that would be a major stick in the side of relations with our Eastern Christian brethren (Eastern and Oriental Orthodox). As many of you may, or may not know, the Catholic Church in the first millenium was set up as a Pentarchy, with five Patriarchs of major Metropolitan Sees.

We know that the Pope of Rome has a certain primacy over the other Patriarchs, but I think in the past few hundred years the office has assumed too much responsibility that needs to be given back to the other Patriarchs. For example, the Patriarchs of other Churches in the Catholic Communion are limited in who they can appoint as bishops. The Maronite Patriarch of Antioch can only appoint Bishops in Lebanon and eastward, but does not have jurisdiction to appoint Bishops westward of his Church. I personally think this isn’t right. The Pope should be able to appoint Bishops for only the Latin Church.

Anyways, I don’t mean to start a whole big thing about this, but I am curious of the local Latin Catholic view on this title and what your thoughts about the Pope giving some of this power back to the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs.

Alaha minokhoun,
Andrew

 

[BennyBoy89]

As Successor of Peter, the Pope certainly has primacy, but I do agree with the concept of returning some authority to the other Patriarchs. Maybe it will help relations with our Orthodox brethren.

 

[TLMassAcolyte]

Hello,
Hmmm didn’t the Vatican remove this from the official title in the last few years. . if so can anyone offer an explanation why??

Pax

 

[Padua_Minded]

The Patriarchs have no jurisdiction except that which the Church gives them, and the Pope is the Supreme Legislator of the Church. He is empowered to dispose of any patriarch he so wishes, and is perfectly within his rights to appoint their bishops, or to devolve that authority to the individual patriarchs.Consequently the patriarchs of the schismatic orthodox churches hold purely titular offices. They are merely pretenders to their offices, they are not patriarchs in the true sense. Given the troubled history of the eastern churches and their past propensity for all sorts of schism and heresy, I think it is proper order that their autonomy should be restricted. However the exercise of papal primacy could be curtailed in the event that the Orthodox churches decide to return to the Church, however this conciliatory move would be done ad duritiam cordis (because of the hardness of their hearts), not because the subservient eastern churches have somehow acquired a new right to run their affairs independently of the Mother Church of Rome.

Furthermore the whole pentarchy concept has never been accepted by the Pope:

“In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome. It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.”
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html