No, he would stop being Patriarch of the Eastern Church and their synod would have to elect a new one.
Really, why?
Because he becomes the Bishop of Rome. The Holy See is not going to move to the new Pope’s old patrichal see.
He just dropped the title, he is still Patriarch of the Latin Church whether he acknowledges the title or not.
Doesn’t that only mean that he doesn’t want to be referred to as that tiltle. But he still is the Patriarch of the West because he controls the disciplines and practices in the Western Church.
pop me on the head someone. dahh. Not thinking I guess.
This gives me goose bumps all over. I feel excited just reading this…very hopeful.The Pope himself has not clarified this. There are two arguments out there. One is that he does not want to use the title, but he continues to hold the office.
The other is that he is hoping to subdivide the Roman Church into different patriarchies. Personally, I have no idea how this would work.
The only thing that he did make clear is that he is hoping for a reunificatioin with the Orthodox where there is a different definition of the papacy, which will allow the Orthodox to reunite with their Eastern Catholic counterparts and retain their autonomy at the same time. Ven. John Paul II had also spoken about a redefinition of the papacy that would allow the Eastern Churches to reunite with the Orthodox and retain autonomy. This came up when Pope Benedict dropped the title of Patriarch of the West. My guess is that they may be moving toward a new paradigm where there is a Patriarch of the West, but it would not be the pope. This way, all of the patriarchs would be equal and they are in communion with each other through the Successor of Peter. It would work, because Patriarchs do not have to be popes and popes do not have to be patriarchs. This just happened to evolve this way. Don’t take that to the bank. That’s just my guess.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Therefore the Pope would not belong to any specific Rite which would not make any Rite/Patriarchy seem superior to anotherThe Pope himself has not clarified this. There are two arguments out there. One is that he does not want to use the title, but he continues to hold the office.
The other is that he is hoping to subdivide the Roman Church into different patriarchies. Personally, I have no idea how this would work.
The only thing that he did make clear is that he is hoping for a reunificatioin with the Orthodox where there is a different definition of the papacy, which will allow the Orthodox to reunite with their Eastern Catholic counterparts and retain their autonomy at the same time. Ven. John Paul II had also spoken about a redefinition of the papacy that would allow the Eastern Churches to reunite with the Orthodox and retain autonomy. This came up when Pope Benedict dropped the title of Patriarch of the West. My guess is that they may be moving toward a new paradigm where there is a Patriarch of the West, but it would not be the pope. This way, all of the patriarchs would be equal and they are in communion with each other through the Successor of Peter. It would work, because Patriarchs do not have to be popes and popes do not have to be patriarchs. This just happened to evolve this way. Don’t take that to the bank. That’s just my guess.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
He is SOOOO smart. A great plan if it can be put into place. Definately something we should all be praying for–that hearts are softened to allow for this reunification.The Pope himself has not clarified this. There are two arguments out there. One is that he does not want to use the title, but he continues to hold the office.
The other is that he is hoping to subdivide the Roman Church into different patriarchies. Personally, I have no idea how this would work.
The only thing that he did make clear is that he is hoping for a reunificatioin with the Orthodox where there is a different definition of the papacy, which will allow the Orthodox to reunite with their Eastern Catholic counterparts and retain their autonomy at the same time. Ven. John Paul II had also spoken about a redefinition of the papacy that would allow the Eastern Churches to reunite with the Orthodox and retain autonomy. This came up when Pope Benedict dropped the title of Patriarch of the West. My guess is that they may be moving toward a new paradigm where there is a Patriarch of the West, but it would not be the pope. This way, all of the patriarchs would be equal and they are in communion with each other through the Successor of Peter. It would work, because Patriarchs do not have to be popes and popes do not have to be patriarchs. This just happened to evolve this way. Don’t take that to the bank. That’s just my guess.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
Not too long ago, it seemed just as impossible to have a non-Italian pope.
Yes, I remember those days. And then in my generation a new trend began. I’m hoping that one day in our future history we’ll see a pope chosen from the eastern church. This division has gone on long enough.
Yes, but there was a precedent for non-Italian Pontiffs(of which there have been many, though they have been a clear minority); there is none is for Eastern Catholics, whose practices, etc. are often very different from those of Latin Rite Catholics.
I don’t know how much leeway even PP Benedict XVI has on the matter: while the actual title “Patriarch” (and thus its derivative “Patriarchate”) came into use only with Justinian and the Quinisext Countil (aka Council in Trullo), it was the Council of Nicea that first acknowledged the jurisdiction of the 3 Petrine Sees. The First Council of Constantinople went a bit further and acknowledged also Constantinople (“New Rome”) and Jerusalem, thus giving us the Pentarchy.
The title of “Patriarch” as used in several Sees of the Latin Church (I’m not sure if any survive beyond Venice and Lisbon) is strictly honorary.
As alluded to above, the bishops of the 5 Sees (the Pentarchy) are Patriarchs ex-officio. I do not see that a person other than the actual Bishop of Rome could be named (or even elected) “Patriarch of the West” without the act itself being in direct violation of the early Councils.
Not exactly: in the early centuries there were a number of Greek and Syrian bishops elected to the position of bishop of Rome. I seem to think the last was Gregory III (731 AD) but I could be mistaken.