Aaaaah - thank you Some of us were not so fortunate

In regards to Metropolitan William's supposed submission to the Pope, I'm mixed. I am very proud and happy that the Patriarch of Rome (as my family refers to the Pope) would actually acknowledge the power of a Byzantine Catholic leader in such a way and in the presence of other high ranking Roman Catholic leaders.

However, personally, I am ok with this. I'm not sure how I feel about the other Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs. In Imperial times, there were 5 great Patriarchates, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. I'm confused how there can be Patriarchs for Russia, Serbia, etc. I see no reason why they can't be Metropolitan Archbishops on equal standing with a Patriarch and with equal authority in their sees, but I think the title Patriarch should be reserved for the original 5, but that's just me.

With that said, Metropolitan Archbishop William is not a Patriarch, if he was a Patriarch, there would be no reason at all for him to knee before the Pope and have the Pope give him vestments. With that said, I have no clue how Eastern Orthodox Bishops are enthroned. Does the Russian Orthodox Patriarch enthrone every Bishop in Russia? That seems a lot for one man to do.

But anyways, as half my family is Roman Catholic, we're loyal to the Patriarch of Rome, as he is first in honor of the old Pentarchy. Also, completely random, how come Jerusalem is the 5th in order, shouldn't the Patriarch of Jerusalem be first? I mean, the Lord did complete his mission in Jerusalem and ascend to Heaven from Jerusalem, what did Rome and Constantinople do to make them so high and mighty, well besides having the Emperor tell them they were.

The current Pope officially vacated this title.

To me, liturgically as well as ecclesiologically, it makes more sense for the Metropolitan to have received the pallium simply in his hands, as this is a well established symbolic gesture. He was vested in the omophorion on the day of his consecration, should have been vested in it receiving the pallium as an Eastern bishop, and receiving the omophorion again when he enjoys the fullness of the consecrated episcopacy is strange.

Well, actually, the style "Patriarch of the West" is the style that no longer appears in the Annuario Pontificio (since 2006). Things like that end up getting magnified in the media along the lines of "Pope Benedict renounces his role as Patriarch of the West". Not quite. He just asked that this traditional designation be minimized by no longer having it included in the annually published directory. It was done as an ecumenical gesture. It was felt that the style was an unnecessary opportunity for some to be petty, considering that the whole of the "The West" indicates a far grander scope of patriarchal jurisdiction than that possessed by any of the other patriarchs. So he decided to stop "wearing" it, so to speak.

He remains the Patriarch of Rome, regardless of the fact that that title appears nowhere in his official style (just as the title "Patriarch of Constantinople", as such, appears nowhere in the Ecumenical Patriarch's formal style).

As far as Pope Benedict's vesture on the Feast of Peter and Paul resembling that of Pio Nono, that's just a no no. Pope Benedict was wearing a modern mid-sized red and white miter and a matching full, semi-gothic cut modern chasuble, neither of which any Catholic bishop, much less the pope, would have worn in the time of Pius IX, when baroque, Roman style vestments were de rigeur. In addition to wearing baroque vestments, Pius IX would have worn the tiara, the fanon, the falda, the gauntlets, the buskins, the sandals, and other long since banished items of papal haberdashery that no pope has worn since the early 1960s.

For the East, it's more of a recognition of autocephalacy coupled with a prominent Church. As to why some autocephalous Churches are Patriarchates and others are just Archeparchies, I can't tell you.


Because the Church recognized Rome's dignity in being founded by both Peter and Paul. Alexandria and Antioch were/are next due to their Petrine heritage as well. Jerusalem was given patriarchal status in honor of her being the mother Church. Constantinople, on the other hand, was given patriarchal dignity solely on the basis of the being "New Rome" and the new Imperial City. I'm a bit archaic on this matter. I think Constantinople should be ranked last or at least after Antioch (Rome's opinion on the matter until the Middle Ages), but that's just me.

Apparently you haven't seen many signature blocks for the Ecumenical Patriarch recently. They range from "+ BARTHOLOMEW Archbishop of Constantinople-New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch" to "Bartholomew, Patriarch of Constantinople" and many other variations in between.

That's because, as I correctly stated earlier, the Pope officially suppressed that title for himself in 2006 (c.f Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity). After that time I have not heard him refer to himself as "Patriarch of Rome". It is sensible that if he no longer refers to himself in that manner officially (even if honorifically), he no longer considers himself a claimant to that title.

Diak:

"Apparently you haven't seen many signature blocks for the Ecumenical Patriarch recently."

I've never seen any, at all, actually. I've only referred to his formal style which is, according to the official website of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, "His All Holiness, BARTHOLOMEW, Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Ecumenical Patriarch."

"That's because, as I correctly stated earlier, the Pope officially suppressed that title for himself in 2006 (c.f Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity). After that time I have not heard him refer to himself as 'Patriarch of Rome'. It is sensible that if he no longer refers to himself in that manner officially (even if honorifically), he no longer considers himself a claimant to that title."

Sorry. I was only referring to your post above. But if the Pope hasn't styled himself, "Patriarch of Rome" since the dropping of "Patriarch of the West" from the style presented in the Annuario Pontificio, it's also true that he never styled himself as "Patriarch of Rome" before. "Patriarch of Rome" is more of a fact of the matter than it is an official style. It's a term that is used commonly when referring to all the various patriarchates, but it has no formality of use to it. It's somewhat like "Queen of England", insofar as that is a title that is commonly bandied about, but which, as a formal style, does not exist. The style "Patriarch of Rome" as such, to my knowledge, has never been used in the Pope's formal style.

I'm not sure what you are getting at. The Queen still definitely refers to herself as the Queen and is addressed as "Her Majesty, the Queen". Patriarch Bartholomew still uses the terms Patriarch and Constantinople in his styling and official correspondence.

The Pope, on the other hand, not only doesn't use the title "Patriarch" but went to the trouble to officially suppress that title. If an M.D. officially suppressed his title of M.D. and removed it, I think I would be hesitant to approach him for an operation.

Diak:

I'm not trying to get at anything, I was just clearing up the facts, that's all.

I didn't refer to the style "Her Majesty the Queen". I referred to the commonly used but non-existant style "Queen of England". The Queen's style is "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, &c..." and not "Queen of England".

In a similar way, some might refer to the pope as "Patriarch of Rome", but that isn't an official title that forms part of his formal style (and it never has been). He did not oppress the title "Patriarch of Rome" from his style, because it was never there to begin with. He suppressed the style "Patriarch of the West".

Patriarch Bartholomew's formal style does not include the title "Patriarch of Constantinople".

His full title is: "His Most Divine All-Holiness, the Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome and Œcumenical Patriarch".

As far as I can tell, there is a distinction between the titles "patriarch" and "archbishop". "Patriarch" is used when referring to the extent of the patriarchate, while "archbishop" (or "pope") is used when referring to the see (eg: "Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of all Africa on the Holy See of St. Mark the Apostle" for the Coptic pope). So, I'm not surprised "Patriarch of Constantinople" is not an official title.

The only thing of other criticism my family has about Rome being the first in honor in the Pentarchy, is the fact that Rome was founded by pagans, for pagans. The oldest members of my family, who were subjected to the Latinization the U.S. Roman Catholic Church enforced on us Eastern Rites, used to use that saying in the family as a slur of sorts. "How could Rome be above Constantinople? Rome was founded by pagans, while Constantinople was founded by Christians." On that same trend, Antioch I think was founded by Seleucus I Nicator of Alexander the Great's Empire, Alexandria, that one is obvious, and Jerusalem by the old Jewish Kingdoms.

Anyways, sorry, most of that is irrelevant in modern times.

All this stuff about titles aside, as an Orthodox I agree with Diak in that the presence of the Metropolitan WITHOUT his omophorion at the beginning of the ceremony was just - strange. Frankly, presenting the Metropolitan with a special 'Panagia' (jeweled pectoral cross with an icon of the Theotokas) would have been more appropriate and respectful of the Metropolitan's title and role. Such a gesture by the Pope would have spoken volumes and I suppose what he actually did do speaks volumes as well.

Is it possible that the non use of the title "Patriarch of the West" was done because the pope is seen by Roman Catholics as having "supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power" as Canons 43 of the CCEO and 331 of the CIC reads?

The canon reads in full:

"The Bishop of the Church of Rome, in whom resides the office ("munus") given in a special way by the Lord to Peter, first of the Apostles and to be transmitted to his successors, is head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ and Pastor of the entire Church on earth; therefore, in virtue of his office ("munus") he enjoys supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power ("potestas") in the Church which he can always freely exercise."

The title "Patriarch" carries with it a "jurisdiction" over a particular territory, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria or Constantinople. Even the title “Patriarch of the West” carried with it the idea of jurisdiction over the western part of the Empire.

With the dropping of the title, “Patriarch of the West” could it be that the pope is simply “deleting” a title that essentially denied the practice of the Latin Church for centuries?

When the title was dropped many Orthodox believed that it was a clear statement of belief that the Bishop of Rome has full authority and jurisdiction over the entire Church on earth. It was seen as another step backwards on the road to unity.

I do admit that it was odd indeed, but no less odd perhaps that seeing a pallium placed over an omophorion on a fully vested Eastern Catholic hierarch (see linked photos posted above of Metropolitan Jan Babjak).

The gift of a Panagia is an interesting suggestion. Perhaps the Ecumenical Patriarch could mention it next time he and Pope Benedict XVI get together.

For now, some of us might take this as at least an attempt to properly recognize an Eastern Catholic Metropolitan.

Hmm. Yeah. Well that's not the reason that was given but it's easy enough to see how one could interpret the gesture that way. I think Benedict XVI is a very honest and well-meaning pope. His Vatican's PR skills, however, are less than stellar. They frequently end up flubbing a well-meant gesture or statement so that it ends up coming across as an insult. I think the Vatican of Benedict XVI is just hopelessly inept when it comes to public relations, but I think it would be a mistake to judge the Pope's heart by Rome's gaffes.