This is not strictly speaking news from the Christian East, but I think it is worth mentioning all the same.

As predicted by commentators, the Pope has today appointed Cardinal Angelo Scola, 69, as the new Archbishop of Milan. Cardinal Scola has been Patriarch of Venice since 2002 and a Cardinal since 2003. He participated in the Conclave that elected Pope Benedict XVI in 2005.

The Archdiocese of Milan is famous for its Ambrosian Rite and Ambrosian chant, both distinct from the Roman Rite and Gregorian chant. The Ambrosian Rite shows some Eastern influence: for example deacons wear the stole outside the dalmatic, and Mass is not celebrated on Fridays during Lent.

Milan is also a huge diocese, with a population of 5.3 million, out of which 4.8 million are Catholics, served by 2,870 priests. As such it is the largest diocese in Europe, and after Rome, perhaps the most important one. By way of comparison, the archdiocese of Los Angeles has 4.6 million Catholics served by 1,144 priests and the archdiocese of New York has 2.6 million Catholics served by 1,783 priests.

Cardinal Scola follows in the footsteps of Saint Ambrose, Saint Charles Borromeo, Pope Pius XI and Pope Paul VI, all of whom served as archbishops of Milan. If he is quick, he can still make it to Rome to receive his new pallium from Pope Benedict XVI in St. Peter's Basilica tomorrow.

Now we can let the titular Patriarchate of Venice lapse into desuetude. How odd if Pope Benedict dropped the title of the functional Patriarchate of the West, but allowed the purely honorific Patriarchate of Venice to continue.

At the next available vacancy, let us hope that His Holiness also takes the opportunity to suppress the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

The honor and dignity of the Patriarchal office demands that those who bear the title also have the authority and responsibility that go with it. Hence there is no place in today's Church for titular patriarchs; those offices are revenants of a past--and failed--ecclesiology and should not be continued into the third millennium.

The archbishop of Venice can use the title of "Patriarch" because the diocese of Venice has been formed from the Patriarchate of Grado, founded on 557 AD.
Of course in the VI century the Patriarchate of Grado was truly important and not at all honorific. Then 15 centuries has passed, but the title itself remained.

So surely the Patriarchate of Venice has more history of some "last arrived" patriarchates, as the one of Moscow (more that 1000 years later), for not to speak about some Patriarchates which exist only from a fews year as the Patriarchate of Romania...

In this field the Catholic Church is by far more conservative than the Orthodox, the title of Patriarch is granted only to who was at least 800 years of history...

I didn't post this news to start a debate about the title of patriarch, but I guess I should have seen it coming

Different Churches have different usages. Why can't we just accept this simple fact?

If you want an example of this, just look at the Armenian Apostolic Patriarchates of Jerusalem and Constantinople.

So, again, why can't we just accept that different Churches have different usages?

About Jerusalem: I dont know truly which Patriarchate, Latin or Greek, has more right to claim to be the "true Patriachate of Jerusalem". Probably none of the two.
Both don't use the language of the True Church of James (which was Hebraic, nor Greek nor Latin), both don't have any direct historical succession (the IV century Greek bishop was imposed from Constantinople and overlapped with the existing Judeo-Christian community), both don't use the liturgy of Jerusalem, being the Byzantine rite a later importation from Constantinople, the original rite of Jerusalem was more similar to the Syriac rite. The only difference is that now the Latin Patriarch is native from Jerusalem, while the Greek one, as all his predecessors, is imported from Greece.

Ok, I dont want to persuade, but I want only to underline that discussions as "who can bear the true title of Patriarch" are simply useless.

And the present bishop of Rome is "imported" from Germany.

It is not the person of a bishop that establishes legitimacy (ecclesial or patriarchal), but the fact that the Church he heads has an ancient foundation, while also being recognized as a primatial Church by the other patriarchal Churches.

If you want to learn more about Cardinal Scola (instead of endlessly debating ecclesiastical titles), please read the commentary by Sandro Magister (available in English here). Among other things, I am interested in the journal he founded, Oasis, which aims to promote a peaceful and truthful encounter between Christians and Muslims and which is published in a number of languages including Arabic. It is clear from Sandro Magister's presentation that Cardinal Scola is an important intellectual force. As Archbishop of Milan he will now have a very big pulpit for his ideas, which also now clearly have the sign of approval of Pope Benedict XVI.

Well the bishop of Rome can be born in Germany (but most were Italians), but the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem SHALL be Greek: not a little difference. The fact that the (Arabic) faithfuls of a Patriarchate cannot elect one of them as own Patriarch, and this from centuries, surely affects the legitimacy.

But we are off-topic and my will was only to demonstrate the irrelevance of statements such as "my patriarchate is more authentic than your"

PS About Scola (I'm from Milan) I say only that "he is a ciellino"

antv,

I very much appreciate your commentary.

Alexis

I am curious, will Cardinal Scola still be referred to as a Patriarch even though he is now titular bishop of Milan? Surely the title will not be stripped from him...

I believe that when an archbishop moves to a diocese (as opposed to archdiocese), he maintains the title of Archbishop, I imagine this would be a parrallel case, no?

Filipe

The Cardinal is to be the Archbishop of Milan. This is the largest diocese in the country. There is nothing titular about being this city's Archbishop. He will have over 3000 priests in his service.

Filipe, that's an interesting thought.

However, when this happens, it is always explicitly mentioned in the official announcement, for example: Since there were no similar words in the announcement of his new appointment, Cardinal Scola does not get to keep the title of patriarch.

Pavel, I think that in Portuguese "titular" means the actual holder of an office. (Quite the opposite, in fact, of the meaning of titular bishop in English.)

"Pavel, I think that in Portuguese "titular" means the actual holder of an office"
Quite right. Sorry about the confusion.

So in purely hierarchical terms, one could say that Cardinal Scola was "demoted"...

Yes, but in actual terms it's a promotion. Also, Cardinal Scola is a native of the archdiocese of Milan, so he is really going home. It is also a vindication, because he was not accepted for ordination by the then-Archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Giovanni Colombo, who was sceptical about the young Scola's involvement in the movement "Comunione e Liberazione." Instead he was ordained a priest of the diocese of Teramo in Abruzzo in central Italy. It is worth noting that Pope Benedict XVI thinks very highly of the "Comunione e Liberazione" movement.

Cardinal Scola, the son of a socialist truck driver who impressed on him the importance of education, holds doctorates in philosophy (Catholic University, Milan) and theology (University of Fribourg, Switzerland). He met then-Professor Ratzinger back in 1971 and became involved in "Communio," a theological journal which was founded by Hans Urs von Balthasar, Henri de Lubac, Joseph Ratzinger and others.

In other words, Pope Benedict XVI has known Cardinal Scola for 40 years and they are of a similar theological outlook. By appointing Scola to Milan, the Pope has clearly demonstrated his appreciation for the Cardinal. For what it's worth, if there were a conclave now, Cardinal Scola would probably be at the top of everyone's lists of papabili. More importantly, Cardinal Scola's voice is likely to have an even greater impact on both the Italian Church and the universal Church in the years to come.

And this is why I think this appointment is an important news story.