What if an Eastern Rite Patrirch that is a Cardinal becomes Pope

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I believe brother Malphono’s assertion is correct. This is validated by the fact that the no Pope has ever created any new territorial Patriarchates. The ecclesiastical constitution of the Pentarchy is part of invioble Sacred Tradition.

Don’t tell the Ukrainians this.

 

[malphono]

JReducation;6555312:

Young Thinker;6554979:

I simply interpret “Patriarch of the West” as inferring primacy over the former Western Roman Empire. The Pope is also Primate of Italy, for instance. There is nothing that is wrong or contradictory, in my opinion, the patriarchial title.

Since the former Holy Roman Empire no longer exists and the west is not really the west, because the Roman Church is found in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, that definition of Patriarch of the West has to change to include the entire Roman Church. This may be one reason why Pope Benedict objects to it, because it does not describe the Roman Church today. Maybe a better title would be the Roman Patriarch.

I’m just giving an opinion here, not a fact.Very well, Brother. As for the title of “Roman Patriarch,” though, the Pope is already Archbishop of the Roman Province and, of course, Bishop of Rome.

Initially, as I noted earlier, the designation “Patriarch of the West” had a valid meaning simply because it was the one patriarchate on the Western side of the Roman Imperial “divide.” FWIW, IMO the designation “Patriarch of the West” is still valid since the evangelization and expansion beyond what was originally recognized as “the West” was accomplished from that very same West.

The other four Sees in the Pentarchy are named for their seat, and “Patriarch of Rome” could have been used from the start, but it wasn’t. To invent it now would really be atraditional. It would also likely cause some bad feelings since the “West” (i.e., the Latin Church) encompasses several separate territorial Rites (Ambrosian, Braga, Mozarabic, and Lyon). Albeit that all of them are rather small, all have legitimate traditions of their own, and while they are part of the Latin Church, they have never been part of the Roman Rite.

Anyway, if the title is to be replaced or revamped, it would seem to me that “Patriarch of the Latins” would fit the bill and probably be the most accurate rendering.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Initially, as I noted earlier, the designation “Patriarch of the West” had a valid meaning simply because it was the one patriarchate on the Western side of the Roman Imperial “divide.” FWIW, IMO the designation “Patriarch of the West” is still valid since the evangelization and expansion beyond what was originally recognized as “the West” was accomplished from that very same West.

The other four Sees in the Pentarchy are named for their seat, and “Patriarch of Rome” could have been used from the start, but it wasn’t. To invent it now would really be atraditional. It would also likely cause some bad feelings since the “West” (i.e., the Latin Church) encompasses several separate territorial Rites (Ambrosian, Braga, Mozarabic, and Lyon). Albeit that all of them are rather small, all have legitimate traditions of their own, and while they are part of the Latin Church, they have never been part of the Roman Rite.

Anyway, if the title is to be replaced or revamped, it would seem to me that “Patriarch of the Latins” would fit the bill and probably be the most accurate rendering.

All right, but “Patriarch of the Latins” might be a little confusing, since there are already Latin Patriarchs(e.g. the one in Jerusalem). If I were Pope(I know how that sounds…), I would just keep the old title rather than changing it or leaving it in dormancy.

 

[JReducation]

Very well, Brother. As for the title of “Roman Patriarch,” though, the Pope is already Archbishop of the Roman Province and, of course, Bishop of Rome.

But the Diocese of Rome is one thing and the Roman Church is another. The Roman Church is one of 22 Catholic Churches. Hypothetically, he can be the Roman Patriarch, because the Diocese of Rome and the Roman Province are regions withing the Roman Church. But the Roman Church extends far beyond the diocese and the province. For example, we in the USA are not part of the Roman Province. We have our own provinces.

What was West at one time is no longer west, but westernized. The Catholics in Japan are not westerners, but they are westernized and they are part of the Roman Church. To my knowledge, there not Eastern Catholics in Japan. If there are any, they’re a minority. There are more likely to be Eastern Catholics in those parts of China that border with the the Eastern nations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Young_Thinker]

But the Diocese of Rome is one thing and the Roman Church is another. The Roman Church is one of 22 Catholic Churches. Hypothetically, he can be the Roman Patriarch, because the Diocese of Rome and the Roman Province are regions withing the Roman Church. But the Roman Church extends far beyond the diocese and the province. For example, we in the USA are not part of the Roman Province. We have our own provinces.

What was West at one time is no longer west, but westernized. The Catholics in Japan are not westerners, but they are westernized and they are part of the Roman Church. To my knowledge, there not Eastern Catholics in Japan. If there are any, they’re a minority. There are more likely to be Eastern Catholics in those parts of China that border with the the Eastern nations.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

All right.