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

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I was just wondering. Would he become Patriarch of the Western Church as well as retain his status as the Patriarch of one of the Eastern Churches? Or would a separate Patriarch of the Western Church be appointed?

I hope this is the right sub forum I posted in

He would move to Rome and become Pope. They would have to find a new Patriarch for the See he is leaving vacant. Just like if a Cardinal from New York were to be elected.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

No, he would stop being Patriarch of the Eastern Church and their synod would have to elect a new one.

He would become Patriarch of the Western Church as this office along with the offices of Bishop of Rome and Pope go together.

Traditionally “He would become Patriarch of the Western Church as this office along with the offices of Bishop of Rome and Pope go together.” However not always. Pope Benedict XVI decided not to take the title Patriarch of the West.

 

[Young_Thinker]

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.

Thank you for your reply. Yes, there have been Levantine Popes in the past(against, I am not emphasizing nationality or ethnicity), but, at that time, there was not much of a distinction between Eastern and Western Catholicism. In addition, the Eastern Rite Church did not become aligned with Rome until around the 16th century.

 

[malphono]

Thank you for your reply. Yes, there have been Levantine Popes in the past(against, I am not emphasizing nationality or ethnicity), but, at that time, there was not much of a distinction between Eastern and Western Catholicism.

Again, not exactly. There was definitely a major difference in liturgical and theological expression between East and West, at that time and before.

In addition, the Eastern Rite Church did not become aligned with Rome until around the 16th century.

What you are referring to is “re-alignment”: until the Great Schism there was no separation between the West and the Byzantine East. (The West and most of the Orient were separated earlier, but that doesn’t come into play here.)

 

[Young_Thinker]

Again, not exactly. There was definitely a major difference in liturgical and theological expression between East and West, at that time and before.

What you are referring to is “re-alignment”: until the Great Schism there was no separation between the West and the Byzantine East. (The West and most of the Orient were separated earlier, but that doesn’t come into play here.)

All, right, but I still feel that the circumstances are not as simple as they may seem.

 

[Digitonomy]

To go beyond that would seem to amount to a Western version of autocephaly, and I highly doubt such a thing would ever be considered.

Joseph Ratzinger proposed the idea of a separate patriarch for various regions, such as Africa, many years ago. He changed his mind as time went on, but the idea is still floating about. I don’t think it would be so much a matter of autocephaly, but as a bigger version of the national conferences of bishops, with a bit more authority. Thus there would be coherent rules on things like inculturation, depending on the region.

 

[Digitonomy]

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.

The Catholic Encyclopedia says Gregory III was the son of a Syrian, but do we know he was a Syrian bishop? Rather than a Roman bishop of Syrian ancestry? Considering the account that he was elected by popular acclaim in Rome, I have to wonder to what extent he was an Eastern cleric.

 

[malphono]

Joseph Ratzinger proposed the idea of a separate patriarch for various regions, such as Africa, many years ago. He changed his mind as time went on, but the idea is still floating about. I don’t think it would be so much a matter of autocephaly, but as a bigger version of the national conferences of bishops, with a bit more authority. Thus there would be coherent rules on things like inculturation, depending on the region.

It seems to me that it would have to be either a Western version of autocephaly or the re-invigoration of the traditional Primatial Sees. The old practice of the Primatial See and its prerogatives is itself a bigger version of the national episcopal conferences, but one that is grounded in tradition rather than in post-conciliar “collegiality” (or whatever they want to call it.) To introduce the idea of “national patriarchates” would be absolutely the equivalent of autocephaly. The biggest difference is in the concept of “patriarchate” and that’s likely why he (thankfully) “changed his mind” on the issue.

As an aside, I find it funny how the post-conciliar mindset was instrumental in putting the final nails in the coffin of the prerogatives of Primatial Sees, yet it was that same mindset that went hog-wild over “national conferences” and their ever-expanding reach.

 

[malphono]

The Catholic Encyclopedia says Gregory III was the son of a Syrian, but do we know he was a Syrian bishop? Rather than a Roman bishop of Syrian ancestry? Considering the account that he was elected by popular acclaim in Rome, I have to wonder to what extent he was an Eastern cleric.

Unless I’m mistaken, he came from Syria which would have meant that he was not a Latin bishop.

In any case, there was a string of Greek and Syrian bishops on the throne, and I can only think that it was the “Imperial hand” at work. The local Romans wouldn’t have known any of them from a hole in the ground, much less elected them to be their bishop.

 

[mardukm]

Unless I’m mistaken, he came from Syria which would have meant that he was not a Latin bishop.

In any case, there was a string of Greek and Syrian bishops on the throne, and I can only think that it was the “Imperial hand” at work. The local Romans wouldn’t have known any of them from a hole in the ground, much less elected them to be their bishop.

St. Gregory III was a Syrian priest. That he was actually from the Eastern part of the empire is demonstrated by the fact that Emperor Leo III immediately granted approval for his popular election, hoping that this Pope would be more amenable to his policies.

The “imperial hand” was not directly involved in the election of this Pope. Pope St. Gregory II, the previous pope, had succeeded in diminishing the Emperor’s authority in ecclesiastical matters.

Like his non-Latin predecessors in the papacy, St. Gregory III fulfilled the functions of his office admirably. Emperor Leo III hoped to gain a political patsy, but instead got a strong defender of the Faith.

I find it interesting that no Eastern/Oriental bishop of Rome ever gave a thought of diminishing the papal claims. I can only attribute that to the fact that the High Petrine view was (and always has been) the accepted norm of the Church, the correct balance between the Absolutist and Low Petrine extremes.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

St. Gregory III was a Syrian priest. That he was actually from the Eastern part of the empire is demonstrated by the fact that Emperor Leo III immediately granted approval for his popular election, hoping that this Pope would be more amenable to his policies.

The “imperial hand” was not directly involved in the election of this Pope. Pope St. Gregory II, the previous pope, had succeeded in diminishing the Emperor’s authority in ecclesiastical matters.

Like his non-Latin predecessors in the papacy, St. Gregory III fulfilled the functions of his office admirably. Emperor Leo III hoped to gain a political patsy, but instead got a strong defender of the Faith.

I didn’t mean that the “Imperial hand” was directly involved with him specifically. But it seems that the “long arm of the Empire” was there anyway, trying to manipulate things “behind the scenes” as-it-were. Of course it’s all the better that the Emperor got trumped!

I find it interesting that no Eastern/Oriental bishop of Rome ever gave a thought of diminishing the papal claims. I can only attribute that to the fact that the High Petrine view was (and always has been) the accepted norm of the Church, the correct balance between the Absolutist and Low Petrine extremes.

Yes, that is the bottom line. And yes, we are on exactly the same page here!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

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.

Pope Zacharias was the last Byzantine Pope (741 - 752).

 

[malphono]

Pope Zacharias was the last Byzantine Pope (741 - 752).

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Thanks for the clarification.

No problem.

I think we are a little over due for a pope from the East.

 

[JReducation]

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.

There are several popes who came from the Eastern Churches. The confusion is that the pope is also the Bishop of Rome. Rome is Roman (what else can I call it). So the pope has become Latin Rite.

As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent a pope from celebrating the Divine Liturgy in an Easern rite.

But you see why the pope becomes a Roman rite priest? It’s because of the diocese for which he is the Ordinary. There is one thing that you cannot separate, the pope from the Bishop of Rome. They go hand in hand. The pope does not cease to be a bishop. Every bishop must have a See.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Digitonomy]

There is one thing that you cannot separate, the pope from the Bishop of Rome. They go hand in hand. The pope does not cease to be a bishop. Every bishop must have a See.Fraternally,Br. JR, OSF

If you claim that Peter was not truly pope until he became Bishop of Rome, then I suppose that is true. I tend to think that he was pope even as Bishop of Antioch. If he chose he could have moved on to another see after Rome, and so could any succeeding pontiff. Not likely to happen, but there’s what’s likely, and there’s what’s theoretically possible.

 

[JReducation]

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.

To go beyond that would seem to amount to a Western version of autocephaly, and I highly doubt such a thing would ever be considered. The concept causes enough trouble in the Byzantine East that one would not expect it to be brought into the West. Further, the concept does not even exist in the Orient.

What perhaps could happen, though, is the re-invigoration of the concept of “Primatial Sees” but even that would be rather meaningless without a return to the ancient custom of bishops actually electing a Primate from among their number and having the election ratified by Rome, rather than having the Primate appointed by directly by Rome as is currently the case.

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.

Any “new paradigm” would, of course, have to address the issue of “Petrine Primacy” which is a somewhat thorny subject. It’s also totally off-topic for this thread (and even this particular forum as a whole) so I won’t go there.

I see where you’re coming from on this. But as John Paul said about the Council of Florence and “salvation outside the Church”. The decrees of a council bind a pope on dogma, not an implementation. The issue in question here is not a dogmatic issue. It’s an admnistrative one. The question on the table is “Who runs what?” Regardless of how it was set up by a previous council, it is not binding on any pope who chooses to change it, because it’s not a dogma. Only dogmas are binding on popes. Rules, procedures, disciplines, structures and interpertations are not binding.

There is the possibility of electing the patriarchs and the Holy See confirming the election. This happens in the Eastern Catholic Churches. They elect their patriarchs. The Holy Father does ot appoint them. He confirms the election. In theory this can be done using the primatial sees.

I don’t have any inside information on this. I’m speculating as much as the rest of you. But I do know this. Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict and Cardinal Levada are not historical or canonical dummies. If the pope says that no loner wishes to be called the Patriarch of the West, he has something in mind. He would not dump this title, just because he does not like it. John Paul was already on this track when he sat down to dialogue with the Orthodox.

The rest of us will just have to sit back, get some popcorn and watch the show. We have no voice in the matter. As my superior always says to our brothers, “When I want an opinion, I’ll ask him instead of you.” LOL He’s a wonderful man, really. But he governs with an iorn hand.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Young_Thinker]

There are several popes who came from the Eastern Churches. The confusion is that the pope is also the Bishop of Rome. Rome is Roman (what else can I call it). So the pope has become Latin Rite.

As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent a pope from celebrating the Divine Liturgy in an Easern rite.

But you see why the pope becomes a Roman rite priest? It’s because of the diocese for which he is the Ordinary. There is one thing that you cannot separate, the pope from the Bishop of Rome. They go hand in hand. The pope does not cease to be a bishop. Every bishop must have a See.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Indeed.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Joseph Ratzinger proposed the idea of a separate patriarch for various regions, such as Africa, many years ago. He changed his mind as time went on, but the idea is still floating about. I don’t think it would be so much a matter of autocephaly, but as a bigger version of the national conferences of bishops, with a bit more authority. Thus there would be coherent rules on things like inculturation, depending on the region.

More autocephaly would be a very bad idea in my opinion. The Church needs to exercise more centralized power, in my opinion, not less. Not to mention that I have always disliked devolution(e.g. Scotland and Wales became self-governing in 1999).

 

[JReducation]

If you claim that Peter was not truly pope until he became Bishop of Rome, then I suppose that is true. I tend to think that he was pope even as Bishop of Antioch. If he chose he could have moved on to another see after Rome, and so could any succeeding pontiff. Not likely to happen, but there’s what’s likely, and there’s what’s theoretically possible.

I see what you’re saying. The answer to this is that the pope is the bishop of the diocese in which he resides. Sine the papacy is in Rome, the pope is the Bishop of Rome. If the papacy were moved to NYC, then the Pope would be the bishop of that see.

Does that help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF