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

[JReducation]

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).

We have to be careful in our desire to see more centralized power. Remember, the Catholic Church is made up of 22 Churches, not the Roman Catholic Church. The pope is the Pontiff of all 22 Churches, but the 21 Eastern Churches have autonomy. Once upon a time they were called Uniat Churches. But that was dropped, because it made them sound subordinate to Rome, as if they were appendages. They were simply left as the Oriental Churches or the Eastern Churches.

As long as they are fully apostolic Churches, they are autonomous. They submit to the pope on matters of dogma. But everything else that is internal to them, is decided by their leadership according to their customs and laws. Even in the Roman Catholic Church we have apostolic Churches. In fact, the Pope was at one this weekend. Malta is an Aposotic See. It has both Roman and Eastern Catholic bishops and these bishops function autonomously from each other.

We cannot go for a fully centralized government when the Roman Church is only one of 22. We are the largest of the 22, but not the only one. To centralize more than we are now would cause another schism with the East. Let’s not even go there. It could even cause a schism in the Roman Church, because we do have apostolic Churches within the Roman Church. Even though they are members of the Roman Church, they claim apostolic succession to other apostles who are not Peter. The Church respects that heritage.

Let’s not mess with what’s not broken.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

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 also have been Popes elected from the Eastern Churches. Pope John Paul II celebrated the Divine Liturgy in several Eastern Rites, The Pope has universal jurisdiction and can celebrate Liturgy in any Catholic Rite.

 

[Young_Thinker]

There also have been Popes elected from the Eastern Churches.

Very well.

 

[Young_Thinker]

We have to be careful in our desire to see more centralized power. Remember, the Catholic Church is made up of 22 Churches, not the Roman Catholic Church. The pope is the Pontiff of all 22 Churches, but the 21 Eastern Churches have autonomy. Once upon a time they were called Uniat Churches. But that was dropped, because it made them sound subordinate to Rome, as if they were appendages. They were simply left as the Oriental Churches or the Eastern Churches.

As long as they are fully apostolic Churches, they are autonomous. They submit to the pope on matters of dogma. But everything else that is internal to them, is decided by their leadership according to their customs and laws. Even in the Roman Catholic Church we have apostolic Churches. In fact, the Pope was at one this weekend. Malta is an Aposotic See. It has both Roman and Eastern Catholic bishops and these bishops function autonomously from each other.

We cannot go for a fully centralized government when the Roman Church is only one of 22. We are the largest of the 22, but not the only one. To centralize more than we are now would cause another schism with the East. Let’s not even go there. It could even cause a schism in the Roman Church, because we do have apostolic Churches within the Roman Church. Even though they are members of the Roman Church, they claim apostolic succession to other apostles who are not Peter. The Church respects that heritage.

Let’s not mess with what’s not broken.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

All right, Brother, but I was emphasizing the Latin Church’s government(I probably should have been more clear).

 

[JReducation]

All right, Brother, but I was emphasizing the Latin Church’s government(I probably should have been more clear).

Yes, but even within the Latin Church there are autonomous Churches, such as Malta. They are autonomous because they are apostolic. They were founded by Paul. Antioch is also apsotolic, founded by Peter. They too are Roman Catholic. There are several other Roman Catholic Churches that cannot be drawn into a centralized system. They would explode, if we tried to do that to them.

I can’t imagine what the Latin rite Maltese would say if we asked them to follow all of our rules or the Lebonese. They would explode, because they’re very proud of their apostolic heritage. They were founded by the apostles, most of us have apostolic succession, but we were not founded by the apostles, such as the American dioceses. To them Latin Rite Catholics who do not come from an apostolic Church are like adopted children. " We should be thanking them for letting us in." That’s the mindset of many of the Apostolic Churches. You don’t mess with them. The organization of the Church is very interesting.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Digitonomy]

I see what you’re saying. The answer to this is that the pope is the bishop of the diocese in which he resides. Since 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.

I’m still not sure I agree. The papacy was in Avignon for awhile,
but the pope was still the Bishop of Rome. I see no problem with the pope being bishop of some vacant titular see in the North African desert if he chose. In fact, one can imagine that happening if somehow Rome became uninhabitable, the pope might continue as its titular bishop.

 

[JReducation]

I’m still not sure I agree. The papacy was in Avignon for awhile,
but the pope was still the Bishop of Rome. I see no problem with the pope being bishop of some vacant titular see in the North African desert if he chose. In fact, one can imagine that happening if somehow Rome became uninhabitable, the pope might continue as its titular bishop.

There are two important points that you’re bringing up here. First the Avignon point. The papacy was not moved to Avignon. The pope was driven into exile. Therefore, the seat of the papacy was still Rome and his diocese was still Rome. If the pope had abdicated the See of Rome, then Rome would have been a diocese without a bishop. Because the sitting pope was invalid. Therefore, he could not be the local bishop. A local bishop has to be appointed by the pope.

The second point is an interesting one too. Can the pope be a titular bishop? The answer is no. The pope must be the Ordinary of Rome. If he had a titular see, then someone else would have to be the Bishop of Rome. Here is the problem. The pope resides in the diocese of Rome. If he is not the Ordinary of Rome, that would make him subject to the local Ordinary. The Supreme Pontiff cannot be subject to anyone. Why not? Because he is the successor of Peter, Vicar of Christ and the only person in the Church who is above the law. How can he be obedient to the Bishop of Rome, if he is the Law-Giver? Church laws do not apply to popes. If a pope were in someone else’s diocese, he would have to follow the laws of that diocese. How can he change those laws, if he’s not the bishop of that diocese? You can’t overrule your superior. The pope then has to be the highest ranking bishop in that diocese where the Chair of Peter is established. Actually, the doctrine says that the pope is the highest ranking bishop no matter where he goes. If he goes to NYC, he outranks the archbishop and he can do whatever he wants while he’s there. The pope does not need faculties granted to him. He is the law giver. He gives himself faculties.

We can keep going around in circles here. To avoid that circular conflict. The pope must be the bishop of the diocese where the seat of the papacy finds itself.

As I always say, if it’s not broken, don’t fix it, unless you can make it better.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Digitonomy]

If he is not the Ordinary of Rome, that would make him subject to the local Ordinary. The Supreme Pontiff cannot be subject to anyone. Why not? Because he is the successor of Peter, Vicar of Christ and the only person in the Church who is above the law. How can he be obedient to the Bishop of Rome, if he is the Law-Giver? Church laws do not apply to popes. If a pope were in someone else’s diocese, he would have to follow the laws of that diocese. How can he change those laws, if he’s not the bishop of that diocese? You can’t overrule your superior. The pope then has to be the highest ranking bishop in that diocese where the Chair of Peter is established. Actually, the doctrine says that the pope is the highest ranking bishop no matter where he goes. If he goes to NYC, he outranks the archbishop and he can do whatever he wants while he’s there. The pope does not need faculties granted to him. He is the law giver. He gives himself faculties.

You have neatly presented a problem, and solved it.:tiphat: I stand by my contention that the pope can be bishop of wherever he chooses, and since he outranks everyone, it doesn’t matter whose diocese he’s in.

I would also point out that in the reality of what the pope does, he need not be bishop of anything. Pretty much all of his duties to his diocese are run by someone else. It is rather in our theory of what the pope is that it’s important that he be first among equals with brother bishops.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Yes, but even within the Latin Church there are autonomous Churches, such as Malta. They are autonomous because they are apostolic. They were founded by Paul. Antioch is also apsotolic, founded by Peter. They too are Roman Catholic. There are several other Roman Catholic Churches that cannot be drawn into a centralized system. They would explode, if we tried to do that to them.

I can’t imagine what the Latin rite Maltese would say if we asked them to follow all of our rules or the Lebonese. They would explode, because they’re very proud of their apostolic heritage. They were founded by the apostles, most of us have apostolic succession, but we were not founded by the apostles, such as the American dioceses. To them Latin Rite Catholics who do not come from an apostolic Church are like adopted children. " We should be thanking them for letting us in." That’s the mindset of many of the Apostolic Churches. You don’t mess with them. The organization of the Church is very interesting.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I see.

 

[malphono]

Yes, but even within the Latin Church there are autonomous Churches, such as Malta. They are autonomous because they are apostolic. They were founded by Paul.

I could be wrong here, but I think there are only two Churches (other than Rome) in the West that can lay legitimate claim to being called “Apostolic” in origin: Malta (S Paul) and Aquileia (S Mark). The remainder are in the East with one (Seleucia-Ctesiphon, founded by S Thomas) beyond the boundaries of the Roman Empire.

Antioch is also apsotolic, founded by Peter. They too are Roman Catholic.

Yes, Antioch (as well as Alexandria) are, along with Rome, ancient Petrine Sees, Antioch founded by S Peter himself and Alexandria by S Mark. Neither is “Roman” Catholic, irrespective of whether they are in communion with Rome or not. Jerusalem traces itself back to S James the Greater, and Constantinople (the last one in the Pentarchy) claims to have been founded by S Andrew.

There are several other Roman Catholic Churches that cannot be drawn into a centralized system.

I’m curious about this: which ones did you have in mind?

 

[malphono]

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.

I’m not sure I agree here. The Pentarchy was acknowledged by Conciliar action, and it really wasn’t exactly a matter of simply “administration” or “who runs what” or anything of the sort. The Sees of the Pentarchy have more to do with Apostolic Tradition. This is not quite a matter of a discipline (and particularly not one of a purely Western Council such as Florence).

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.

Yes, that true, at least in theory. There have, however, been violations of this by Rome, but that’s accidental to this thread.

In theory this can be done using the primatial sees.

That is exactly what was done in the past. Take England, for example. The Archbishop of Canterbury was Primate, and was elected by by the English bishops, with the election ultimately recognized by Rome.

There was then and, it seems to me, is now no need to create artificial “patriarchates” along national lines (to encompass the so-called “national episcopal conferences” to give them “teeth” or whatever). That falls into exactly the “Slavic pattern” (see below) of autocephaly, and I daresay such would be an unmitigated disaster.

Perhaps I oversimplified the idea of autocephaly in my earlier post. There are really two paradigms of it, which I will call the Constantinoplitan and the Slavic. The former, is relatively analogous to the Western traditional idea of “Primatial Sees” although it does go a bit beyond that. But none of the autocephalous Churches in this paradigm uses the term “patriarchate” (the best example is Cyprus, which was the first Church recognized – by the Council of Ephesus – as being autocephalous and all are (theoretically at least) under the omophor of Constantinople. The latter paradigm, however, is a very different story. It is the “national church” concept taken to the n-th degree. Essentially it’s the “national episcopal conference” with fangs (not just teeth), and potentially venomous fangs at that.

And as I mentioned earlier, the concept of autocephaly based on national bounds is alien to the Orient. The closest equivalent is the Catholicosate, but that idea is “national” (and that only in part) merely by happenstance of history and geography.

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.

Whether he wishes to use the title or not, it’s there for the taking. Whether he has “something in mind” in spurning its use is another matter. But if so it’s certainly not for the purpose of any oecumenical dialogue with the EO. The Orthodox still hold to the idea of the Pentarchy (well, at least they do in theory). Most likely, the non-use of the title has more to do with the concept of “universality” (in that the Latin Church has spread far beyond the ancient definition of “The West”) than anything else.

Well, so much for my :twocents:

 

[JReducation]

You have neatly presented a problem, and solved it.:tiphat: I stand by my contention that the pope can be bishop of wherever he chooses, and since he outranks everyone, it doesn’t matter whose diocese he’s in.

I would also point out that in the reality of what the pope does, he need not be bishop of anything. Pretty much all of his duties to his diocese are run by someone else. It is rather in our theory of what the pope is that it’s important that he be first among equals with brother bishops.

Not really, because there is an unbroken Petrine Tradition that the pope has always been the Ordinary of the diocese in which he resides.

It also creates a serious problem if the pope were not the Ordinary of Rome. While it is true that he outranks every Ordinary in the world, it is also true that the other Ordinaries are autonomous. If the pope were to live within the diocese of Rome and someone else were the Ordinary, it would create a conflict of interest, when does the pope intevene and when does he mind his own business?

It creates an unnecessary and unprecedented situation.

As to the administration of the Diocese of Rome, that has really varied from pope to pope. Because of the years when the pope was a “prisoner of the Vatican” the Archdiocese of Rome was practically run by an auxiliary bishop who serves as the vicar.

Since the reign of John Paul II, the pope has had a much more hands on approach to the Archdiocese of Rome. No one is ordained without his permission. No one can set up a house or Church in the diocese without his permission. All assignment of pastors must be approved by him. At least one mass during the high holy days at St. John Lateran must be reserved for him to celebrate. I believe that Pope Benedict has now moved the Good Friday or Holy Thursday services to St. John Lateran. I can’t remember which one. The seminary curriculum must be approved by him. The day to day affairs are still handled by the vicar, but the major decisions have reverted back to the pope, since John Paul became pope. He insisted on running the diocese.

There was an interesting case. Mother Teresa asked for a house in the Archdiocese of Rome. Apparently the Vicar took his time about it. He gave the permission, but did not provide the house in a timely fashion. When Mother Teresa visited the Vatican she compalined to the pope. Pope John Paul promised to take care of it, but forgot.

Two years later Mother Teresa was coming back to Rome and Pope John Paul remembered about the house. He called the Vicar and asked about it. The Vicar responded that he had been working on it, but couldn’t find an appropriate place.

The Pope was distressed. He called in the Secretary of State for the Vatican and ordered that one of the buildings on St. Peter’s Square be vacated and immediately be equipped per Mother’s instructions. His comment was, “I don’t want to be her target when she comes to see me.” I thought this was a riot. This was actually written by his secretary and Mother’s secretary too. The Missionaries of Charity are one of the only two religious communities that have a house inside of Vatican City, because there was no place for them in the Archdiocese of Rome. It’s a riot. Actually, the other community are the Capuchin-Franciscans. But they got a house, not because there was no place in the Archdiocese. They have many houses in the Archdiocese. They got it because they were favored by Pope Leon XIII who was a Secular Franciscan and he wanted the Capuchins close by for their holiness and their austerity. He made them part of the Papal staff and gave them a house incide the City.

If the pope were not the Bishop of Rome, doing these things would cause some resentment between him and the local bishop. Even though he is the sumpreme authority, no one likes to have others go over their heads. That’s probably one of the many reasons why the tradition has never been broken.

That all being said, the pope can never be the first among equals. This was one of the causes of the split between east and west. Equals would mean equal authority and first would meen that he is the bishop of the primary see. The pope cannot share his authority, because the pontificate was given only to Peter, not to the other apostles. Among the Apostles, Peter was not the first among equals. He was the Pontiff. Even Paul acknowledges this during the Council of Jerusalem. He presents his argumetn in favor of the Gentiles for Peter rather than go on his way and do his thing without Peter’s knowledge or approval. In his conversion he also submits to Peter and to receiving from Peter the Good News, even though Christ had already knocked him off his horse. And he follows Peter to Rome, but never competes with Peter for authority.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[malphono]

As to the administration of the Diocese of Rome, that has really varied from pope to pope. Because of the years when the pope was a “prisoner of the Vatican” the Archdiocese of Rome was practically run by an auxiliary bishop who serves as the vicar.

Actually, Rome is not an Archdiocese. It’s simply the Diocese of Rome. Also, the day-to-day operation of the Diocese of Rome is still entrusted to the Vicar for Rome (but I don’t know off-hand who currently holds that position).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother JReducation,

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.

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.

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.

To be precise, the Pope does not confirm a patriarchal election. Confirmation is a specific canonical act wherein a bishop’s status is validated by his superior. Bishops are confirmed by their Metropolitan. Metropolitans are confirmed by their Major Archbishop, Catholicos or Patriarch, heads of Major Archepiscopal Churches are confirmed by the Pope. But Patriarchs are not confirmed by the Pope. Though the Pope by divine right is the head bishop of the Patriarchs, they are all equal by Sacred Canon. What occurs is that the newly elected Patriarch sends a letter requesting ecclesiastical communion from the Pope; the Pope replies affirming communion as brothers.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Malphono,

Whether he wishes to use the title or not, it’s there for the taking. Whether he has “something in mind” in spurning its use is another matter. But if so it’s certainly not for the purpose of any oecumenical dialogue with the EO. The Orthodox still hold to the idea of the Pentarchy (well, at least they do in theory). Most likely, the non-use of the title has more to do with the concept of “universality” (in that the Latin Church has spread far beyond the ancient definition of “The West”) than anything else.

I’ve read the rationale is because “the West” is not synonymous with “Latin.” I suppose it could be interpreted as you suggest, but I’ve always understood it to mean that the “West” is no longer purely Latin, but includes a diaspora of Eastern and Oriental Christians.

Blessings

 

[malphono]

I’ve read the rationale is because “the West” is not synonymous with “Latin.” I suppose it could be interpreted as you suggest, but I’ve always understood it to mean that the “West” is no longer purely Latin, but includes a diaspora of Eastern and Oriental Christians.

I don’t remember where I read about the territorial thing, but it struck me as a most plausible theory.

Rome has always taken the position that lands beyond the “divide” were its jurisdiction. Let’s look at India, which is perhaps the best example. From what I gather, India is now considered “Latin territory” despite the fact that tradition says it was first evangelized by S Thomas and was certainly beyond the Roman Imperial East-West divide (as was Seleucia-Ctesiphon and the rest of the Persian Empire), but India was even east of the Persian Empire. There was never a question of the “Oriental character” of the Thomas Christians, and yet when Rome began missionary activity there, it was strictly confined to the Latin Church.

Sub-Saharan Africa and the Far East would also fit, at least insofar as they were “outside” the Roman Imperial “divide” too, but of course there we do not have an “overlap” with the ancient East.

 

[Young_Thinker]

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.

 

[JReducation]

Dear brother JReducation,

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.

These are just my two cents, because I don’t have an inside track on this. The fact that both Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict have thrown this possibility on the table in their dialogue with the Orthodox Churches would suggest that this is possible. It may not be probable. Both these men are top notch theologians and know what a pope can or cannot do. This actually makes sense from a canonical perspective. The pope is bound to faith and morals as revealed through revelation, sacred tradition and the magiserium. Outside of that, he is bound to little else. To question would be whether such an action violates faith and morals. Obviously it’s not possible if it is a violation of faith and morals.

To be precise, the Pope does not confirm a patriarchal election. Confirmation is a specific canonical act wherein a bishop’s status is validated by his superior. Bishops are confirmed by their Metropolitan. Metropolitans are confirmed by their Major Archbishop, Catholicos or Patriarch, heads of Major Archepiscopal Churches are confirmed by the Pope. But Patriarchs are not confirmed by the Pope. Though the Pope by divine right is the head bishop of the Patriarchs, they are all equal by Sacred Canon. What occurs is that the newly elected Patriarch sends a letter requesting ecclesiastical communion from the Pope; the Pope replies affirming communion as brothers.

Blessings,
Marduk

I defer to your explanation, because I’m not well educated in Oriental Law. I had a few weeks of it in the seminary and then we moved on. Everything that we studied was regarding sacraments.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

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.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Young_Thinker]

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.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

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.