What if Eastern Catholic Cardinal becomes the next Pope? Eastern Orthodox view

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mannyfit75
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mannyfit75

Guest
What if the next Pope is an Eastern Catholic Church, let’s say from Iraq. Do you think this would bring unity closer. What are the pros and cons on this issue?
 
Mannyfit75 said:
What if the next Pope is an Eastern Catholic Church, let’s say from Iraq. Do you think this would bring unity closer. What are the pros and cons on this issue?
Click to expand...
I can only think of the Pros involved. Why should there be any Cons, unless you have the few pockets of the ultra Orthodox community that will cry foul and once more claim the Catholic Church of proselytizing their faithful.
 
Hesychios said:
It would be irrelevant.
Click to expand...
I agree. It seems to me that most Orthodox do not really consider the Eastern Rite Catholics closer to them than to Rome. Some seem to call them traitors and heretics. Others just don’t consider them at all.

Either way, it will not move anyone on the major issues that divide us.

Now, there would be several major pros to this. First, it would call attention to the other Rites in union with Rome. In the specific case you mention, it would focus the world on the plight of Iraqii Catholics and on Christians in the Muslim held lands in general.
 
Well the instant they would become pope they would have to cease to be Eastern Catholic. The pope is the bishop of Rome which is Latin Rite. He is now forcedto be the western church. There can be no such thing as an Eastern Pope. … 😛 leave Antioch out of this, Im talking about the Romans.
 
Polaris said:
Well the instant they would become pope they would have to cease to be Eastern Catholic. The pope is the bishop of Rome which is Latin Rite. He is now forcedto be the western church. There can be no such thing as an Eastern Pope. … 😛 leave Antioch out of this, Im talking about the Romans.
Click to expand...
All titles and roles of the Pope are derived from his being the Bishop of Rome.

One such derivative titles of the Pope is as the Supreme Pontiff of the (universal) Catholic Church, East and West. Thus, the Pope, even if elected as an Eastern Catholic Cardinal, becomes “omni-ritual,” he is neither exclusively a Latin nor tied to any one of the Rites followed by the Eastern Catholic Churches.

Under canon laws of the Catholic Church (as a communion of Eastern and Western Churhces sui juris), the Pope once elected and qualified becomes her Universal Pastor.
 
Polaris said:
Well the instant they would become pope they would have to cease to be Eastern Catholic. The pope is the bishop of Rome which is Latin Rite. He is now forcedto be the western church. There can be no such thing as an Eastern Pope. … 😛 leave Antioch out of this, Im talking about the Romans.
Click to expand...
There have been African Popes in the past and Africa is Eastern, so I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
 
StMarina303ad said:
There have been African Popes in the past and Africa is Eastern, so I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
Click to expand...
I think he meant that the office of Supreme Pontiff is by definition a Roman office–therefore, men from the East chosen for the office wouldn’t be “Eastern Popes”, they would be Roman Popes, who just happen to hail from the East. I hope that makes sense 🙂
 
Those African Popes were Latin speaking Bishops. They were not Eastern.
 
Volodymyr_988 said:
Those African Popes were Latin speaking Bishops. They were not Eastern.
Click to expand...
The Patriarch of all of Africa is the Patriarch of Alexandria which is an Eastern Church founded by St. Mark the Apostle.

The official language of the Roman Empire going all the way back to the Apostle (and for at least 200 years before he was born) was Greek, not Latin. The locals spoke Coptic up to the invasion of Islam after about the 700’s which was then became Arabic.

Again, just don’t think you guys know what you’re talking about.
 
StMarina303ad said:
The Patriarch of all of Africa is the Patriarch of Alexandria which is an Eastern Church founded by St. Mark the Apostle.

The official language of the Roman Empire going all the way back to the Apostle (and for at least 200 years before he was born) was Greek, not Latin. The locals spoke Coptic up to the invasion of Islam after about the 700’s which was then became Arabic.

Again, just don’t think you guys know what you’re talking about.
Click to expand...
Africa at that time, was heavily influenced by Roman culture and language. Catholics used to celebrate Mass in Greek until Victor I of Africa (Eastern Catholic) became Pope. He then changed the Mass from Greek to Latin since it was the vernacular language during his time. It must be understood that Latin didn’t become the universal language of the Church until the late 4th century.
 
There can be no such thing as an Eastern Pope.

**There were Syrian and Greek popes during this same period as African popes. You cannot say that they had Latin cultural influence.

Plenty of visitors from Western Europe during this era wrote with alarm how these popes would turn to attendants “and say things in a language we could not understand.”

Patriarch Lubomyr of the Ukrainians was quite prominent at the last conclave and was considered papabile.

Of course, if an Eastern Catholic hierarch were elected to the Papacy, doubtless (as I’ve said before) the secular media would get it all wrong and say, “Non-Catholic elected pope!”**
 
cathopologist said:
Africa at that time, was heavily influenced by Roman culture and language. Catholics used to celebrate Mass in Greek until Victor I of Africa (Eastern Catholic) became Pope. He then changed the Mass from Greek to Latin since it was the vernacular language during his time. It must be understood that Latin didn’t become the universal language of the Church until the late 4th century.
Click to expand...
The Official Language of the Roman Empire was Greek. Alexandria was a part of the Roman Empire.

Latin became the Language used by the Roman part of the Church around the 700’s which is why the rest of the Church was not able to communicate with it well since no one was fluent in both Languages from either side when in the 900’s the Roman Church began claiming universal jurisdiction for the first time - by the 900’s Greek wasn’t known to the West.
 
StMarina303ad said:
when in the 900’s the Roman Church began claiming universal jurisdiction for the first time
Click to expand...
Marina, that simply is not true. Shoot, Pope St. Nicholas I claimed it in the 800s 🙂 You can go back further than that as well. St. Leo I explicitly claimed it as well as did St. Damasus I and St. Gelasius I. And we can find it claimed implicitly in the actions of other Pontiffs and the fact they often had vicars even in the East.

Maybe it was claimed more vociferously in the 900s, but that may be because it was being more flagrantly violated in that time.
 
StMarina303ad said:
The Official Language of the Roman Empire was Greek. Alexandria was a part of the Roman Empire.
Click to expand...
Correct.
StMarina303ad said:
Latin became the Language used by the Roman part of the Church around the 700’s which is why the rest of the Church was not able to communicate with it well since no one was fluent in both Languages from either side when in the 900’s the Roman Church began claiming universal jurisdiction for the first time - by the 900’s Greek wasn’t known to the West.
Click to expand...
Actually, Latin was not just a language but also an ecclesiastical language of the Church. As i mentioned, it was the African pope Victor I who changed the Mass in Greek to Latin. He was also the first Christian writer who wrote in Latin.

The evolutionary process of replacing Greek with Latin was unavoidable as more and more Christians in the Greek-speaking world started adopting the use of Latin because they felt it was more accurate for Church use, as St Augustine once said, “Among all translations the Itala is to be preferred, for its language is most accurate, and its expression the clearest”.

So in actuality, Latin use actually began during Pope Victor I’s reign - circa 189 A.D and not circa 900 A.D as you claimed.
 
All the same I think this would raise an interesting situation. It is true that he would become the bishop of Rome. But what if his identity as an Eastern rite Catholc were very clear? His masses might quite often be Eastern rite masses, his vestments the traditional vestments of an Eastern rtite bishop, and his spirituality and so his writings clearly reflect on the spirituality of Eastern Christians, which differs much from Western Catholic spirituality. Or would there be some necessity for him to dress as as a Latin rite bishop, for example. I don’t see that in particular being so.
I don’ know if this could help implement Christian unity. Perhaps it would, since then Latin rite Catholics (of which I am one) would no longer so often be so abysmally ignorant of the reality and richness of Eastern Christianity.
 
Mannyfit75 said:
What if the next Pope is an Eastern Catholic Church, let’s say from Iraq. Do you think this would bring unity closer. What are the pros and cons on this issue?
Click to expand...
Why would you elect someone who is not a member of your Church to be the primate of your Church?

IC XC

NI KA
 
It seems to me that some people on this thread are using the term Eastern Catholic to mean Eastern Orthodox. This is not correct. Eastern Catholics are in union with Rome. EO are not.
 
his vestments the traditional vestments of an Eastern rtite bishop, … Or would there be some necessity for him to dress as as a Latin rite bishop, for example. I don’t see that in particular being so.

**Did anyone see the movie SHOES OF THE FISHERMAN?

After being elected to the papacy, as Kyril I, he never wore a white simar, but a white Russian cassock, occasionally with a white riassa. And he would sometimes wear a three-barred cross, and somtimes a panaghia (encolpion).**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top