Why is the Patriarch of the Latin Catholics the Pope?

[jesusmademe]

What is the reason for having the Patriarch of the Latin Catholics as the Pope? Also, the Latin part of the Church never left like eg the Byzantine part did. People left but not the Patriarchs as in many of the Eastern parts of the Church.
We talk about Eastern Catholics as being in union with Rome. Why not just have a Byzantine patriarch as the Pope? But for some reason God chose Rome as the center.

 

[twf]

You’re asking why the Bishop of Rome has primacy? Because St. Peter was martyred in Rome and left his office of primacy to the bishop of that particular (local) church.

 

[GospelOfMatthew]

”And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” -Matthew 16:18

 

[jesusmademe]

No mentioning of Rome in that text

 

[GospelOfMatthew]

I don’t believe the location matters, the papacy moved to Avignon at one point. What matters is not the location but rather the succession of Peter, Pope Francis can be traced back to Peter through Apostolic Succession

 

[jesusmademe]

So it happebed this way because of the Roman empire?

 

[jesusmademe]

I know that but why does the Pope have to be a Latin Catholic? The Church seems very Latin centered. The Latin Patriarchs never left to found the Roman Orthodox Church or something like that. What is so special about the Latin part of the Church?
The world in general is very West focused if you know what I mean.
Even in the Church the center is in the West.

 

[TomH1]

The head of the Latin Church was not made the head of the entire Church. Christ appointed the Holy Apostle Peter as the first head on earth of the Church (cf. Matt. 16:18-19). Peter finally established his see at Rome. Rome therefore acquired the primacy partly because it was Peter’s see and partly because it was the capital of the Roman Empire*, but mainly the former. As the Church developed various sui iuris churches developed. They were not in existence from the beginning. As this development happened the See of Rome acquired the status of one of the patriarchates and jumping a lot of centuries we arrive at today’s situation where the Pope is both the Head of the Universal Church and the Patriarch of the Latin Catholic Church sui iuris.

*At the time, effectively the known world.

 

[commenter]

I know that but why does the Pope have to be a Latin Catholic? The Church seems very Latin centered.

An Eastern Catholic bishop, or Eastern priest capable of becoming a bishop, could be elected pope. He would still be Eastern, though he would serve as Latin bishop of Rome; a bi ritual bishop. Eastern Catholic cardinals and patriarchs are at the conclaves.

Popes formerly had the title of “Patriarch of the West”, but Pope Benedict dropped it.

 

[Londoner]

Latin Catholics make up almost 99 percent of the Catholic Church, so it’s hardly surprising that the head of the Church should be a Latin Catholic. Furthermore, apart from the Maronites, Eastern Catholics only began to appear around the middle of the 16th century, since which time there have been about 45 popes. Statistically, it would be surprising if there had yet been an Eastern pope.

PS. Perhaps more relevant is to ask why for such a long time the head of the universal Church was invariably Italian.

 

[phil19034]

I know that but why does the Pope have to be a Latin Catholic? The Church seems very Latin centered. The Latin Patriarchs never left to found the Roman Orthodox Church or something like that. What is so special about the Latin part of the Church?
The world in general is very West focused if you know what I mean.
Even in the Church the center is in the West.

We have had Eastern Popes before.

A Byzantine Cardinal or Coptic Cardinal CAN be elected Pope.

He would simply become the Bishop of Rome.

BTW - Pope Benedict XVI dropped the title Patriarch of the West because of your very argument.

 

[phil19034]

PS. Perhaps more relevant is to ask why for such a long time the head of the universal Church was invariably Italian.

Perhaps you were being facetious, but this is actually a pretty simple question to answer.

No airplanes and no telecommunications.

While we had Cardinals from many different places for centuries, the Curia was historical Roman because it wasn’t practical to select priests from all over the world to be Curia officials. There was no easy way to vet them and no easy way for them to commute to/from Rome.

 

[Londoner]

I agree that that explains why so many popes have been Italian, but I don’t think it entirely explains why every pope between 1523 and 1978 was Italian.

Prior to 1523 there had been popes from France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, England, and the Netherlands (I am using modern country names and also excluding earlier popes from when the Roman/Byzantine empires were still extant). Travel and communication were surely more difficult before 1523 than after. Admittedly, many of the French popes were from the period when the papacy was based in France.

Also, people did travel and communicate throughout Europe. For example, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth elected a number of kings from outside of Poland-Lithuania, including France, Hungary, Sweden, and Germany. The royal houses of Europe also used to arrange marriages across the entire continent. Indeed, the royal houses of Europe sometimes actually exported a branch of a royal dynasty to a fairly remote corner of the continent which lacked a suitable indigenous royal family, e.g. as was the case in Romania and Greece.

Although the Roman curia was of course dominated by Italians for much of its history, there were always cardinals from all over the world (until recently, most from Europe) to be found in Rome.

And why did it take until 1978 for a non-Italian to be elected? One cannot blame transport and communications beyond, say, the middle of the 19th century.

Of course, there are reasons, and the simple practical fact of the papacy being based in Rome is one of them, but I am also sure that cultural and political factors come into it too.

 

[tafan2]

It’s all about location. The Bishop of Rome is the head of the Church. The Avignon pipes were not bishops of Avignon, they were Bishops if Rome, who scandalously abandoned their diocese. Pipe Francis can trace his succession to Peter through one office: Bishop of Rome.

 

[tafan2]

The long string of Italian Pope’s was due to historical factors (The Avignon Papacy and the the Reformation) and then continual political upheaval throughout Europe. It was simply always seen as “safer” to have an Italian as Pope. By the time the mid 20th century came, it lastest 3 more elections out of pure momentum.

 

[GordonP]

A couple of reasons. First is that the majority of cardinals were Italian themselves, so the pool of papabiles was overwhelming Italian to begin with. Since one of the major role of cardinals was to administer high church positions based in Rome, it is hardly surprising that those recruited for the cadinalate were much more likely to already be in or near Rome, which meant that they were overwhelmingly Italian to begin with.

Politics also played a big role in Papal elections. A lot of the tension in papal conclaves was due to political divisions among the cardinals according to politics, with some favoring France, and others Spain, primarily. I think the decision to stick with Italian pontiffs had a lot to do with neutralizing those conflicts and preventing another situation like the Avignon Papacy and the Sack of Rome.

A third factor was that Papal temporal power steadily diminished, so it became less important for France or Spain to have it’s own man on the throne. An Italian was an acceptable compromise.

Later, it just became a habit, a matter of momentum, which was largely self-sustaining. Even cardinals from outside Italy just didn’t think about seriously considering a non-Italian as pope. It just didn’t enter their heads. It was simply not an “obvious” option, no matter how obvious it appears to us in hindsight.

This momentum finally broke down in 1978.

 

[phil19034]

I agree that that explains why so many popes have been Italian, but I don’t think it entirely explains why every pope between 1523 and 1978 was Italian.

Prior to 1523 there had been popes from France, Germany, Spain, Portugal, England, and the Netherlands (I am using modern country names and also excluding earlier popes from when the Roman/Byzantine empires were still extant). Travel and communication were surely more difficult before 1523 than after. Admittedly, many of the French popes were from the period when the papacy was based in France.

Also, people did travel and communicate throughout Europe. For example, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth elected a number of kings from outside of Poland-Lithuania, including France, Hungary, Sweden, and Germany. The royal houses of Europe also used to arrange marriages across the entire continent. Indeed, the royal houses of Europe sometimes actually exported a branch of a royal dynasty to a fairly remote corner of the continent which lacked a suitable indigenous royal family, e.g. as was the case in Romania and Greece.

Although the Roman curia was of course dominated by Italians for much of its history, there were always cardinals from all over the world (until recently, most from Europe) to be found in Rome.

And why did it take until 1978 for a non-Italian to be elected? One cannot blame transport and communications beyond, say, the middle of the 19th century.

Of course, there are reasons, and the simple practical fact of the papacy being based in Rome is one of them, but I am also sure that cultural and political factors come into it too.

What happened was the number of Cardinal-Deacons was increased as the size of Curia increased. The majority of Cardinal-Deacons have always been Italians in the Roman Curia until recently.

Today, of the ~24 of the 43 living Italian Cardinals were first appointed as a Cardinal Deacon (and many other were still members of the Roman Curia before being appointed an Archbishop or Archpriest.

And today 17 of the 34 (50%) current Cardinal-Deacons are all Italians (and that 34 number includes the 6 non-Italians who were all appointed Cardinal Deacon after turning 80 years old). If you subtract the honorary Cardinals, 17 of 28 (60%) of these Cardinal-Deacons are Italian - and they are all Curia members. And this does NOT include all of the Italian Curia who have been Cardinals for more than 10 years are are not Cardinal-Priests.

Finally, let’s remember, the Roman Curia is the diocesan curia for the Diocese of Rome. Every diocese has its own Curia and the vast majority of each Curia is made up of locals. Very rarely, do you have a Bishop bring people from outside the Diocese to serve in his Curia.

So (whether we like it or not) it’s the same here.

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

Plus after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, the only other Christian community of significance that was able to take leadership was in Rome.

 

[dochawk]

What is the reason for having the Patriarch of the Latin Catholics as the Pope?

There isn’t, because it’s not the case.

The bishop of Rome is “the Pope” because he is the bishop of Rome. It has absolutely nothing to do with being the western patriarch.

Also, the Latin part of the Church never left like eg the Byzantine part did.

Well, that assumes the entire discussion, and contracts the teaching of the RCC . . .

We talk about Eastern Catholics as being in union with Rome. Why not just have a Byzantine patriarch as the Pope?

There are eastern Patriarchs, but none are the bishop of Rome.

The very way you ask assumes conclusions about all of the involved issues . . .

So it happebed this way because of the Roman empire?

That almost certainly has something to do with Peter going there.

The primacy has NOTHING to do with Rome, and EVERYTHING to do with Peter . . .

I know that but why does the Pope have to be a Latin Catholic?

He doesn’t. However, regardless of where he are from, the Bishop of Rome is also the latin Patriarch.

PS. Perhaps more relevant is to ask why for such a long time the head of the universal Church was invariably Italian.

Why was the bishop of Rome typically from the Roman region??? That’s not too hard to answer . . . a more interesting question is why it’s acceptable to pull men from around the world to be the bishop of Rome . .

hawk

 

[HomeschoolDad]

So it happebed this way because of the Roman empire?

So if Peter had been martyred and died as bishop of Antioch (for instance), would all successors to the Antiochian see, to the present day, then be the Pope and the successor of St Peter?

It’s interesting to speculate how that would have played out — possibly no Eastern schism? Rome as simply another patriarchate, or the only Western patriarchate?