www.byzcath.org

Eastern Cardinal as Pope?

Posted By: 2lungsambassador

Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/06/14 11:18 AM

(Forgive me if this has been discussed somewhere in the past, as I am fairly new to the forum.) Does anyone think we'll ever see an Eastern/Oriental Cardinal elected Pope? And what might be the ramifications for ecumenical relations? One thing's for sure: it would challenge the media and they'd have to scramble to find "experts" to discuss that development.
Posted By: DMD

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/06/14 01:28 PM

From an Orthodox POV (only my own) I will give it a try.

Pope Francis reminded the world on the night he was elected that the first role of any Pope is to be the Bishop of Rome. Papal primacy and other other Papal powers and roles derive from that status first. Since the Church of Rome herself is a Latin Rite Church, why would one elect a Bishop of the Eastern Churches as Bishop of Rome? This would make no sense to the Orthodox and I think it would undermine the argument that each of the Eastern Churches is fully constituted 'sui juris' as any Eastern hierarch so elected would be required to assume the Latin Rite of the Church. In theory are not each of the Rites of the universal Church to be afforded equal dignity? If an Eastern Catholic Bishop were elected Pope and he failed to assume the role of a western Bishop, I also suspect he would face a resounding lack of acceptance from many western Catholics. It would present a problem that would satisfy no single constituency.
Posted By: griego catolico

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/06/14 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by 2lungsambassador
Does anyone think we'll ever see an Eastern/Oriental Cardinal elected Pope? And what might be the ramifications for ecumenical relations?


As long as Eastern Catholic bishops are being named as cardinals, there will always be that possibility.

It has been said that Armenian Catholic Catholicos Krikor Bedros XV Aghajanian had enough votes to become pope, instead of Pope Saint John XXIII.
The official website for the Armenian Catholic Church makes the claim that His Beatitude was actually elected pope at the following conclave but refused, allowing Giovanni Battista Montini to become Pope Paul VI. Link.

Since his election as UGCC Patriarch, His Beatitude Sviatoslav Shevchuk is regarded as papabile in a future conclave. He certainly has been in the forefront with his friendship with His Holiness Francis and with the situation in Ukraine. Being fluent in nine languages doesn't hurt either.
I believe he may well become our first Eastern Catholic pope of modern times.
Posted By: Lester S

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/06/14 03:29 PM

I don't think it would jive with the notion each church retains its dignity within the greater sphere of the Universal Church. If "officially" recognized as Patriarch, his beatitude Sviatoslav is in a sense Pope to His church if you really want to go with that term. Likewise, Patriarch Gregory III is the Pope of His Church(es).
Posted By: Michael_Thoma

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/06/14 03:44 PM

I don't think it would be an insurmountable "problem". In Catholic ecclesiology, a bishop is technically omniritual (to good of the church) up to his ability to properly serve the Liturgy. Since the Pope is a bishop, he is omniritual as well, although on a normal basis, concerned with the Latin Church. There have been Easterners elected Pope in the past, I don't see why it should be impossible in the future.

To the point about this affecting "sui iuris" constituency, wasn't the same example adjusted for a GOA priest to be selected bishop for ACROD? Self-governing, but not independent or isolated.
Posted By: Talon

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/06/14 03:54 PM

2lungs,

You may have just inadvertently touched off a fascinating (if informal) study on the nature of the papacy with your question. My own temptation when I first saw the question was to say, without batting an eyelash, "Oh sure. Yeah, we could see that. I would LOVE to see that, in fact."

But then DMD introduced a couple of very interesting points with his post, which led me to try to do some research. I was not as successful as I would have liked to be in terms of finding anything definitive, but here is what I suppose, based on that research...

Originally Posted by DMD

Pope Francis reminded the world on the night he was elected that the first role of any Pope is to be the Bishop of Rome. Papal primacy and other other Papal powers and roles derive from that status first.


This is true.

Quote

Since the Church of Rome herself is a Latin Rite Church, why would one elect a Bishop of the Eastern Churches as Bishop of Rome?


One would do this because said bishop is looked upon by the rest to be the best candidate among them all for president of the episcopal college.

Quote

This would make no sense to the Orthodox and I think it would undermine the argument that each of the Eastern Churches is fully constituted 'sui juris' as any Eastern hierarch so elected would be required to assume the Latin Rite of the Church. In theory are not each of the Rites of the universal Church to be afforded equal dignity? If an Eastern Catholic Bishop were elected Pope and he failed to assume the role of a western Bishop, I also suspect he would face a resounding lack of acceptance from many western Catholics. It would present a problem that would satisfy no single constituency.


Given the universal primacy of the papacy, an eastern cardinal would not have to transfer rites. As pope, he exercises jurisdiction over them all. So, in practical terms...Well...Actually, to be perfectly honest with you, in practical terms, I don't have any idea of how much of a direct role in governing the Latin diocese of Rome the pope tends to have these days. I would imagine his duties as universal patriarch take up a good portion of his time, and it's not a large one. I would guess that an auxiliary bishop takes on most of those duties, which would make the transition of an eastern bishop into the papacy that much easier. Rather than having to familiarize himself with a whole new rite and with the Latin priests and workings of the diocese, the eastern bishop would carry on pragmatically the same way all of his Latin predecessors of recent memory have...

Or at least those are my two pennies on the matter.

*shrug*
Posted By: Economos Roman V. Russo

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/06/14 04:32 PM

Ab esse ad posse valet illatio! Since there have already been numerous 'Eastern' popes (Greeks, Italo-Greeks & Syrians), I assume that it is possible! Or am I missing something here?
Posted By: Mark R

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/06/14 05:55 PM

To build upon where O.N. began, this should be a false dichotomy. Although his premises are largely correct, but his conclusions were eccentric, J. Romanides would have seen the pre-schism Latin and most of the Eastern Orthodox churches as "Roman". Would this be the case now? Maybe not.
Depending what you believe, post-schism, Rome arrogated to herself more authority, or there was a development in her polity...what have you.The same goes with the post Vat. Ii Church: adjustments were made in relations with Eastern Churches, Catholic or Orthodox...but Rome still has universal jurisdiction and such. No matter how Rome adjusts her position, because of her size and institutional breadth, she will always be the elephant in the room, to appropriate Sr. Vassa's metaphor. As far as what kind of cardinal, I guess anything is possible. Who would have thought a pope would resign?
Posted By: 2lungsambassador

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/06/14 10:44 PM

You are correct; however, I am referring to modern times, and it has been along time since an Easterner was Pope, and certainly not since the 1054 schism.
Posted By: 2lungsambassador

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/06/14 10:55 PM

Well, looking only at being able to celebrate the liturgy, we can see that Theodore of Tarsus was able to function in Canterbury, and that Ven. Fulton Sheen celebrated the Divine Liturgy. One can learn rubrics and practices. I suspect a higher hurdle might be cultural, in that I think the Eastern Churches tend to be less outward looking (not a criticism here). If the Orthodox venerate certain Popes, celebrate the Eastern-ness of some, then why could they not (somewhat of a rhetorical question) accept the reality of an Eastern Pope? Answer: it would be seen as a Trojan Horse maneuver, though I think that would be to mis-diagnose the situation. If we truly believe a papal election has something to do with the Holy Spirit then we can infer God is telling us ALL something.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/07/14 09:46 AM

Those Greeks, Syrians and Egyptians who were elected Pope had become members of the clergy of the Church of Rome years before their election. They were not elected as members of another particular Church, but as members of the Church of Rome. So, as long as any Eastern Catholic bishop is willing to comply with that criterion, I am fine with it. Let him move to Rome, becomes incardinated in the Church of Rome, and be elected as a Roman.

But, for a bishop of an Eastern Church to be elected to head the Church of Rome is just as unacceptable (indeed, nonsensical) as to allow Eastern bishops to accept the title of Cardinal in the Roman Church.
Posted By: griego catolico

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/07/14 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by StuartK

But, for a bishop of an Eastern Church to be elected to head the Church of Rome is just as unacceptable (indeed, nonsensical) as to allow Eastern bishops to accept the title of Cardinal in the Roman Church.


That has been stated before, but the reality is that Eastern bishops are being named cardinals (and accepting it) which certainly opens the door to having an Eastern Catholic pope in the future.
Posted By: theophan

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/07/14 11:59 AM

Christ is Risen!!

I think when this question is asked it assumes that the current situation in the Latin Church will be some sort of permanent model of the Church in the future.

As DMD said, from an Orthodox point of view (his own), the idea of an Eastern bishop--patriarch or metropolitan--wanting to be the Bishop of Rome brings with it all kinds of problems and misconceptions. It would be better IMHO if Eastern Catholic bishops declined the honorific of Latin cardinal in favor of restoring their own sui juris Churches and traditions.

I think that the Latin belief that the Pope will be in the same position as he is now when communion is established with the Orthdodox Churches is behind this question. And I think that Latin Catholics need to begin to think outside the box with relation to the Pope. I think that the article discussed at another place on the forum that deals with Bishop Vsevelod's comments about what might be possible from an Orthodox point of view ought to be taken seriously. Earlier we had an article that quoted Father Robert Taft, S.J., who said that the only thing we can hope for is "communion," which will not in any way exist with the current Catholic structure in place. In other words, the Pope's role as Primate of the whole Church needs to be separated from his role as Patriarch of the West and the Latin Church. The Vatican structure would be in place for that patriarchate and some other limited structure would be developed for the Primate's needs.

Each of the Churches needs to live side by side in the freedom of what being in communion and living as brethren means. As yet, that does not seem to be on the horizon of Catholic thinking.

Bob
Posted By: Lester S

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/07/14 12:43 PM

Intriguing thoughts, Bob, thanks
Posted By: DMD

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/07/14 02:34 PM

Theophan expanded on what I was thinking. The Orthodox can never envision, nor would they ever accept, the Pope of Rome exercising any form of universal jurisdiction over all of Apostolic Christendom in a future, reunited Church. Most Roman Catholics can not NOT envision such a future Pope doing anything but exercising such jurisdiction as he does currently. Therein lies the heart of the issue.

Bi-ritualism is not the issue. It is more fundamental than external ritualism - it goes to the heart of the differences between Eastern ecclesiology and Western ecclesiology.

Also, I realize that the administration of the diocese of Rome is not directed by modern popes in any real world sense. That isn't the issue either.

I suspect it is symbolic more than anything else. Eastern Catholics are caught between east and west, and comprise a relatively small piece of the larger pie that is predominately Roman Catholic and secondarily Eastern Orthodox. The election of an Eastern Catholic bishop as Pope would be confusing to Roman Catholics who rightly view the Bishop of Rome as head of their church, totally perplexing (if not enraging) even to the most unity minded of Eastern Orthodox thinkers who view primacy through a totally different lens than does the west and in the end disappointing to Eastern Catholics who would wish to see 'their' Eastern Catholic bishop preside as an Eastern Catholic pope who would not have to assume the cloak of western garb to be Pope. After all, Lumen Gentile and the regulations of Vatican 2 make it clear that your churches are of equal dignity and status to that of the Church of Rome. How could an Eastern Catholic Pope be any sort of bishop other than that which he is? Perhaps I am missing something here...

Frankly if you think Traddies are upset with Pope Francis for shedding the more traditional liturgical garb and outerwear of Pope Benedict, I can't help but think that they would gain tremendous support if a new Pope wore the attire of his office as a Bishop of an Eastern, self-ruling sister Church of equal dignity to that of Rome, rather than cloak himself with the attire of a western Catholic Bishop.

Posted By: Talon

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/07/14 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by DMD
The Orthodox can never envision, nor would they ever accept, the Pope of Rome exercising any form of universal jurisdiction over all of Apostolic Christendom in a future, reunited Church. Most Roman Catholics can not NOT envision such a future Pope doing anything but exercising such jurisdiction as he does currently. Therein lies the heart of the issue.


That's typically the black and white way the "debate" is framed, yes. In reality, I think there is a great deal more color present on both sides of the fence. While certainly a substantial task, the fact of the matter remains that, for 1,000 years, the Church was one and must return to that full unity. There are not a few us who will do whatever we need to (pray, fast, dialogue, etc.) to ensure that happens.

Will it happen next week? No. Will it be an easy process? No. But it's a critical one, and with God, all things are possible.

Quote

After all, Lumen Genti[um] and the regulations of Vatican 2 make it clear that your churches are of equal dignity and status to that of the Church of Rome. How could an Eastern Catholic Pope be any sort of bishop other than that which he is? Perhaps I am missing something here...


Sort of ironically, DMD, that's precisely the point. It's precisely because we see all the Catholic Churches as having equal dignity that the concept of an eastern bishop becoming pope is feasible in the minds of many Catholics.

This said, there is the whole issue of the primacy of the See of Rome and the fact that the "Roman" Church is western that does offer an ostensible stumbling block in this regard. For whatever it's worth to anyone (very little, I'm sure since no one here knows me from Adam), it's an issue I'm mulling over extensively and will comment further on at a later time if anything of any sort of value comes to mind. wink

In the interim...

Quote

Frankly if you think Traddies are upset with Pope Francis for shedding the more traditional liturgical garb and outerwear of Pope Benedict, I can't help but think that they would gain tremendous support if a new Pope wore the attire of his office as a Bishop of an Eastern, self-ruling sister Church of equal dignity to that of Rome, rather than cloak himself with the attire of a western Catholic Bishop.


And that would be their problem, not the problem of the rest of the Church. wink
Posted By: Pavloosh

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/07/14 05:25 PM

Prediction: Patriarch Sviatoslav Shevchuk will be in the running next election. Do not be surprised if he's elected Pope.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/07/14 06:19 PM

Dear Pavloosh,

God forbid! The UGCC needs him more than the Roman Church ever would.

Besides, the Roman Trads would consider him to be a liberal as he would want a married clergy, Communion in both Kinds, the Sacraments of Initiation given all at one to infants etc.

The liberals would consider him an abomination since he would want to bring back the weekly Psalter and longer services, possibly even "ad oriente . . ."

The Orthodox would protest vehemently against him as further proof that Rome is promoting a "pro-uniate" agenda, Balamand be damned . . .

Not to mention "His Holiness'" support for that Maydan thing . . .

Rome's biggest argument against making Svyatoslav pope would be that, if elected, the first thing he would probably want to do is approvate a UGCC patriarchate . . .

There are too many arguments against such a thing ever happening.

Nice try, though!

Alex
Posted By: Talon

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/07/14 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by 2lungsambassador
If the Orthodox venerate certain Popes, celebrate the Eastern-ness of some, then why could they not (somewhat of a rhetorical question) accept the reality of an Eastern Pope?


Because, from an ontological standpoint, this would seem to be a contradiction in terms to some.

The Catholic (and high Petrine Orthdox) claim is that the See of Rome holds pre-eminence over all others. (Not because, colloquially speaking, Rome is "cooler than everybody else" or any fool thing, but simply because it was the See of Peter, and presumably because it was the "See" of the wordly kingdom opposed to the kingdom of Christ before Christ toppled it and handed the keys to his vicar - cf. Dan. 7) The Church of Rome, the Church "belonging" directly to the Roman See is the Roman Catholic Church. The See is Latin by its very nature.

Many of us would see no problem with an eastern bishop taking the reigns as far as having universal jurisdiction over the Church goes. It's not hard for us to fathom someone, for example, going from being head of the Greek Church to being head of the universal Church.

However, doing so would seem to create a strange interpolation. The question arises, in an event of this kind, does this patriarch remain patriarch of the Greek Church as pope? If he does, to what extent does the See of Rome then matter? It looks as if the bishop of Athens or Moscow or Antioch may just as well be pope as the bishop of Rome. So much for the primacy of the Roman See.

If, on the other hand, he does not and now becomes the patriarch of the Latin Church instead...This kind of seems like "craddle robbing", for lack of a better descriptor, to many in the East.

If the whole premise of East-West ecumenical relations these days is that the western Church and eastern Churches all truly enjoy equal dignity, then what's with "yanking" an eastern bishop out of his eastern Church and transferring him to a western Church, I think is what those who object are getting at?

To which, at this point, I would probably respond by having to reference 1 Cor. 1:10-13 and Eph. 4:1-16. While the individual sui iuris Churches are all "independent" in one proper sense, they are not independent in another. As Paul notes, there is but one Christian faith, one hope, one baptism. "ONE, holy, catholic, and apostolic church."

This is to suggest that while the differences between sui iuris Churches are real and unquestionably of value, that value is limited and subordinate to the unity of the Church as a whole.

To offer a rough secular parallel, an American lieutenant who works with NATO may be asked at some point to go and take over operations at a base in Germany. (Not an American base in Germany, a German base in Germany.) Said general may think to himself, "Ugh. Move to Germany and watch over German troops? I'm not German and I don't much like German culture." But he answers the call anyway and makes the move because his American culture is not absolute, and the greater good of NATO compels him to leave it behind (not in an absolute sense, just in terms of the milieu into which he'll be inserted).

Peanut gallery??
Posted By: Pavloosh

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/07/14 11:44 PM

You'll see!
Posted By: griego catolico

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/08/14 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Pavloosh,

God forbid! The UGCC needs him more than the Roman Church ever would...Nice try, though!


Alex,

I, too, believe with Pavloosh that His Beatitude will become Pope.

Did anyone foresee Saint John Paul II becoming Pope, a non-Italian from a communist country?

Did anyone foresee an Argentine Jesuit from the New World becoming Pope in the last conclave?

Ever since he was elected patriarch of the UGCC, there is something about His Beatitude that just screams "POPE!".

He's good friends with His Holiness Francis, he has been on the religious forefront in the current situation with Ukraine, he is fluent in nine languages and he is only in his 40's.

I just think this is all preparing him for the See of Peter. Yes, he is not a Cardinal just yet, but I am sure that will change.

In light of the decades of atrocities that the UGCC has suffered for Her fidelity to the Pope of Rome during Soviet times, it seems --in my opinion--that a Ukrainian will be elected to the See of Peter...and that Ukrainian is Patriarch Svyatoslav.

If 50 years ago the Catholic Church came that close to having an Armenian Catholic Pope, then it is all the more certain that we are coming this close to a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Pope.

Just my two cents.


Posted By: Lester S

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/08/14 12:42 AM

He'd technically be pope, already. He has a sheep he shepherds, in Ukraine. I don't see why it would be advantageous for him to leave his present flock, for a flock who doesn't know him?

Posted By: Our Lady's slave

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/08/14 01:35 AM

Originally Posted by Pavloosh
Prediction: Patriarch Sviatoslav Shevchuk will be in the running next election. Do not be surprised if he's elected Pope.


Hmm - in the past I seem to remember that HB Lubomyr was also strongly tipped as well smile
Posted By: J Michael

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/08/14 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by Lester S
He'd technically be pope, already. He has a sheep he shepherds, in Ukraine. I don't see why it would be advantageous for him to leave his present flock, for a flock who doesn't know him?



And, as Pope, he'd still be shepherd of his Ukrainian flock. He'd just have a much larger flock in addition. smile I mean, the Ukrainian *CATHOLICS* wouldn't stop being Catholic, would they?

One would like to think that it's not really a matter of what's "advantageous" to a specific man who would be Pope, or to the flock he shepherds before his election, but rather what is advantageous to the Church as a whole. Or, more to the point, what should matter is if it is God's will that he be Pope.

How many Catholics have *ever* known all that much of any *new* Pope?
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/08/14 12:05 PM

What most people know of ecclesiology would fit into a thimble.
Posted By: 2lungsambassador

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/08/14 12:28 PM

Well, all I know is I am anxiously awaiting the arrival of my copy of Soloviev's "The Russian Church and the Papacy." If I understand Soloviev correctly (and I may not) he says that sobornost can only be fulfilled in communion with Peter. So, if we consider that the Russians first became Christian at Kiev, can we extrapolate a "Rus Magna" (not as Tsars/Putin do) and hope that a Ukrainian pope might fulfill some of those hopes and combine the Slavic ideals of world salvation with the catholicity of Rome?
Posted By: J Michael

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/08/14 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
What most people know of ecclesiology would fit into a thimble.


A thimble?? I'm not even sure I could define the word! I mean, really, now...six (count 'em---6) syllables!?!? Oy Vey!!! gringrin
Posted By: Athanasius The L

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/08/14 01:06 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
What most people know of ecclesiology would fit into a thimble.

That's being rather generous, in my estimation.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/08/14 03:46 PM

I admit I don't know (or care to know) much about ecclesiology. And my mother was a dressmaker/seamstress and I have her collection of thimbles on my computer desk here . . .

All I know is a thing or to about ostpolitik and the Vatican.

There is NO way that Patriarch Svyatoslav will ever be Pope (of Rome).

Pope of Alexandria - well that's something altogether different.

And, Pavloosh and Griego - I think I'm older than both of you put together.

Listen to your elder here . . .

Alex
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/08/14 06:15 PM

The Pope is the Pope first and foremost because he is the Bishop of Rome. The sooner all Catholics remember this and stop treating the Pope like the Catholic Dalai Lama, the sooner the Church will return to a healthy ecclesiology.
Posted By: Talon

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/08/14 08:11 PM

Other way around, Stuart. At least in terms of current practice. A man doesn't get to be pope by being elected or appointed bishop of Rome. He becomes the bishop of Rome by being elected pope.
Posted By: Lester S

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/09/14 01:26 AM

Originally Posted by StuartK
The Pope is the Pope first and foremost because he is the Bishop of Rome. The sooner all Catholics remember this and stop treating the Pope like the Catholic Dalai Lama, the sooner the Church will return to a healthy ecclesiology.


Agreed.
Posted By: Economos Roman V. Russo

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/09/14 07:36 AM

If you check the latest Annuario Pontificio you will find Pope Francis's title given as Bishop of Rome. You will then have to turn the page for the supplementary titles.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/09/14 10:47 AM

Moreover, since he is first and foremost the Bishop of Rome, the majority of his time should be spent ministering to the people of his diocese, a task that should not be habitually delegated to an Apostolic Vicar. This should occupy enough of his time that he will not be able to micromanage the affairs of other Churches.
Posted By: Athanasius The L

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/09/14 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by StuartK
Moreover, since he is first and foremost the Bishop of Rome, the majority of his time should be spent ministering to the people of his diocese, a task that should not be habitually delegated to an Apostolic Vicar. This should occupy enough of his time that he will not be able to micromanage the affairs of other Churches.

From your mouth to God's ear.
Posted By: DMD

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/09/14 01:31 PM

For what it is worth, the Primates of Orthodox Churches - at least the larger, historical sees, are the sitting Bishop of a particular City (i.e. the Bishop of the Moscow is the Patriarch of Russia and the Primate of the Church of Russia and so on) but in reality they are not the administering Bishop nor do they necessarily come from within the ranks of the clergy of that city or even district. The distinction between the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the primacy of the heads of the individual Orthodox Churches however, is at the heart of the schism between the east and west. While the nature of ecclesiological organization in the east and west have taken somewhat different paths over time (a rather broad understatement), I suspect that as to the historical 'Church of Rome', in any hypothetical reunion, the Orthodox majority opinioin would concede that the Pope would retain his historical authority and jurisdiction over the western Church. But, any primacy the Pope would excercise over the entire Apostolic Church outside of her own domain, any primacy beyond those borders would be in the nature of a 'primacy of honor' and defining what that entails in terms understandable to the clergy and faithful of both east and west remains the prime stumbling block to any future reunion.(We can not agree among ourselves what it means in relation to the Patriarch of Constantinople.) The Orthodox also can not figure that out in the so-called 'diaspora ' so the lack of progress as to its applicability to east and west should not be understated. (The status of western Catholics in historically Orthodox lands and of eastern Orthodox in historically western lands may be point where irreconcilable differences can not be bridged. I can not envision either 'side' granting jurisdiction to the other in such circumstances.) The Orthodox will never agree to a primacy which places the selection of Orthodox bishops in the hands of the Vatican or which requires the confirmation of any national primate by Rome so there you have it. Rome could, as have Constantinople and Moscow on numerous occasions over the recent past, refuse to recognize this or that bishop, but that would be about it. For example, the OCA exists in a canonical 'limbo', its status not universally accepted as claimed by her and the recent election of a Primate by the Slovak Orthodox Church is currently not recognized by Constantinople - but in neither case are their priests, bishops or sacraments viewed (using western terminology) as being 'illicit' or 'invalid'. It's complicated and I've gone off point as my digression has little to do with the original question.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/09/14 01:43 PM

And that means that he is a member of the Latin Church. When St Theodore of Tarsus, a Greek, became the Archbishop of Canterbury, he was obliged to accept the Latin Rite.

Alcuin was sent along with him to make sure he did . . .

Alex
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/10/14 06:06 AM

Well, this is an interesting question. Though probably for different reasons, both High Petrine and Low Petrine advocates do not attach any sort of divine prerogative for the Primacy to be invested in the bishop of Rome. It is the bishop of Rome due to Tradition. Even V1 only asserted that it is the Primacy in the universal College of bishops per se that is considered de fide, not particularly the primacy of the Bishop of Rome - the latter is due to ecclesiastical Tradition, not divine law. So can someone other than the bishop of Rome have the primacy according to the ecclesiology of Vatican 1? I daresay YES.

If a non-Latin were to be elected primate of the College, there is no divine law that dictates that he must thence become the Bishop of Rome.

This is also admittedly a very different view from what people expect to hear/read.
Posted By: 2lungsambassador

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/10/14 11:36 AM

But who are we to tell the Pope what he can/cannot do? (I'm not speaking of dogma.) Yes: the Pope IS the Bishop of Rome, but of course he is more than that. So why could he not as Bishop of Rome do what the Bishop of Rome does (minister to the parishes in his care); however, as Pope of the Universal Church (yes, I know some do not accept or are uncomfortable with that terminology) why could he not be a "bi-ritual Pope?" I think there is a danger that we become like the Pharisees (who would not accept Jesus because he did not behave according to their interpretation of the rules of the Messiah) and say, now hold on, Mr. Pope, this is not the way I read the canons. (Again: I am not speaking of dogmas.)
Posted By: Pasisozi

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/10/14 12:17 PM

If an Eastern Catholic--say, Patriarch Syiatoslav--were chosen, the secular media would doubtless say, "Non-Catholic Elected Pope!"
Posted By: DMD

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/10/14 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by 2lungsambassador
But who are we to tell the Pope what he can/cannot do? (I'm not speaking of dogma.) Yes: the Pope IS the Bishop of Rome, but of course he is more than that. So why could he not as Bishop of Rome do what the Bishop of Rome does (minister to the parishes in his care); however, as Pope of the Universal Church (yes, I know some do not accept or are uncomfortable with that terminology) why could he not be a "bi-ritual Pope?" I think there is a danger that we become like the Pharisees (who would not accept Jesus because he did not behave according to their interpretation of the rules of the Messiah) and say, now hold on, Mr. Pope, this is not the way I read the canons. (Again: I am not speaking of dogmas.)


IF a Pope could/should be 'bi-ritual', why then did Pope St. John Paul when he visited Ukraine not serve in the 'Eastern Rite';or when the Pope visits the Russicom why not come in a Klobuk and white kamilavka with a Mantia? How about when he receives Orthodox Bishops?

And pardon my Orthodox understanding, but is not the basis for the claim of universal jurisdiction and primacy over all of the Church based on the Petrine nature of the See of Rome? If it does not come from the See of Rome and the claim that St. Peter was the first Bishop of that See, on what is it based?
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/10/14 02:28 PM

Dear Passiozi,

Very good!!

Alex
Posted By: Talon

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/10/14 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by DMD

And pardon my Orthodox understanding, but is not the basis for the claim of universal jurisdiction and primacy over all of the Church based on the Petrine nature of the See of Rome? If it does not come from the See of Rome and the claim that St. Peter was the first Bishop of that See, on what is it based?


Right, DMD.

Mardukm, "Tradition" (when spelled with a capital "T") refers to elements of the faith that are "not reformable", we might say in the West. Or, in other words, they are, at least in practical terms (not necessarily technical theological ones), dogmatic. Tradition with a small "t" refers to things which can and do change over time.

The precise way that the See of Rome governs the rest of the Church can and does change from time to time, in various ways. What does not and can not change, by virtue of divine prerogative, is the fact that it's the See of Rome that's doing so.

Peace.
Posted By: 2lungsambassador

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/10/14 03:24 PM

I am not saying the Pope would HAVE to be bi-ritual, but is there some dogmatic reason he could not be?
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/10/14 10:17 PM

Wasn't Pope Sr. Telesphorus (2md century) a monk in Calabria before being elected Pope? The area was a stronghold of Greek Christianity and, assuming that Greek and Latin distinctions already existed at that early stage, it could be assumed that he was actually of the "Greek Rite."

Originally Posted by StuartK
Those Greeks, Syrians and Egyptians who were elected Pope had become members of the clergy of the Church of Rome years before their election. They were not elected as members of another particular Church, but as members of the Church of Rome. So, as long as any Eastern Catholic bishop is willing to comply with that criterion, I am fine with it. Let him move to Rome, becomes incardinated in the Church of Rome, and be elected as a Roman.

But, for a bishop of an Eastern Church to be elected to head the Church of Rome is just as unacceptable (indeed, nonsensical) as to allow Eastern bishops to accept the title of Cardinal in the Roman Church.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/10/14 11:12 PM

Originally Posted by DMD
And pardon my Orthodox understanding, but is not the basis for the claim of universal jurisdiction and primacy over all of the Church based on the Petrine nature of the See of Rome? If it does not come from the See of Rome and the claim that St. Peter was the first Bishop of that See, on what is it based?

Well, the primacy is not based on being the bishop of Rome. The primacy is, from the Catholic pov, based on Christ's promise to St. Peter. It is not because he is the bishop of Rome that a Pope holds the primacy; rather, it is because the Pope of Rome is the successor of St. Peter in the primacy.

Does that make sense?

I've never studied it in depth, but were any of the Avignon Popes valid Popes (i.e., not anti-Popes)? If so, it would seem that holding the primacy is not absolutely dependent on the See of Rome, but on being the acknowledged successor of St. Peter in the primacy of the divinely-established College of bishops.

Blessings
Posted By: Lester S

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/10/14 11:53 PM

Pope Gregory acknowledged three sees being Petrine in nature: Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, with Rome having its primacy because that's where Peter was martyred, in addition to having a seat there.
Posted By: griego catolico

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/10/14 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by DMD

IF a Pope could/should be 'bi-ritual', why then did Pope St. John Paul when he visited Ukraine not serve in the 'Eastern Rite'...

An unfair question to ask since it was obvious by the time he visited Ukraine that his health had declined significantly to prevent him from celebrating.

Saint John Paul II was the main celebrant for 3 Byzantine Divine Liturgies during his pontificate:

July 10, 1988: Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine-Ukrainian rite for the Millennium of the Baptism of Saint Vladimir. Video. (Note: It erroneously states the liturgy is from 1996.)

August 18, 1991: Divine Liturgy celebrated in the Shrine of Our Lady of Máriapócs, Hungary. Photo and article.

July 7, 1996: Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine-Ukrainian Rite on the 400th anniversary of the Union of Brest. Video.

This is not counting 3 other Divine Liturgies in which he presided.

Plus...

Feb. 8, 1986: St. John Paul II wears Syro-Malabar vestments and inaugurates the restored Holy Qurbana with beatifications during apostolic visit to India: Photo 1.
Photo 2.


Quote
...or when the Pope visits the Russicom why not come in a Klobuk and white kamilavka with a Mantia?

That's easy to answer. A Pope has never visited the Russicum.

Quote
How about when he receives Orthodox Bishops?

Considering the liturgical gifts that the Popes have received from Orthodox patriarchs, they may well have a suitable collection of liturgical vestments to begin using. Photo.

Looks like His Beatitude Gregory III has no problem gifting Popes with Byzantine liturgical vestments. Maybe he can become their official supplier: Photo.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/11/14 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by Lester S
Pope Gregory acknowledged three sees being Petrine in nature: Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, with Rome having its primacy because that's where Peter was martyred, in addition to having a seat there.

That's an interesting consideration into the matter. QUESTION: When the See of Rome is vacant, should primacy automatically devolve on the Pope of Alexandria, instead of the Cardinal Camerlengo? As a Copt, I would personally like that.:)
Posted By: Talon

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/11/14 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by DMD
And pardon my Orthodox understanding, but is not the basis for the claim of universal jurisdiction and primacy over all of the Church based on the Petrine nature of the See of Rome? If it does not come from the See of Rome and the claim that St. Peter was the first Bishop of that See, on what is it based?

Originally Posted by mardukm

Well, the primacy is not based on being the bishop of Rome. The primacy is, from the Catholic pov, based on Christ's promise to St. Peter. It is not because he is the bishop of Rome that a Pope holds the primacy; rather, it is because the Pope of Rome is the successor of St. Peter in the primacy.


It's both.

Originally Posted by mardukm

I've never studied it in depth, but were any of the Avignon Popes valid Popes (i.e., not anti-Popes)? If so, it would seem that holding the primacy is not absolutely dependent on the See of Rome, but on being the acknowledged successor of St. Peter in the primacy of the divinely-established College of bishops.


I'm no historian either, but I believe the answer to your first question is yes. However, this means nothing in regards to the See issue because, as I understand it, the popes were not in Avignon because they got tired of living in Rome and decided to up and move one day "just 'cause." They were fleeing persecution there - for a time.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/11/14 02:52 AM

Dear brother Talon,

The See of Rome is unique and accorded special honor because of it was watered with the blood of Sts. Peter and Paul, and the blood of the martyrs is the wellspring of the Church. But the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is not because he is the bishop of Rome, but because of he is the successor in the primacy of St. Peter.

I've met not a few (both Catholics and non-Catholics) who often wonder why St. Paul is not more explicitly included in V1's teaching on the primacy. That is because though St. Paul is just as important as St. Peter for establishing the Church of Rome, it is the succession of primacy itself from St. Peter himself that is the cause of the primacy, not the See of Rome.

Blessings
Posted By: Lester S

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/11/14 08:28 AM

Then explain the Petrine attribution to Alexandria, and Antioch, as well. Because, in reality, bishops are successors of Peter, too.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/11/14 10:11 AM

Dear brother Lester,

I'm not sure if this question was addressed to me (your post indicates it was a reply to 2lungs - I'm not sure how that works)

Originally Posted by Lester S
Then explain the Petrine attribution to Alexandria, and Antioch, as well. Because, in reality, bishops are successors of Peter, too.

Anyway, the Petrineness of the See of Antioch is obvious. The Petrineness of the See of Alexandria is due to the Alexandrian Tradition that St. Mark was the disciple of St. Peter and it was St. Peter who sent St. Mark to evangelize Egypt.

I do not see any evidence from the Fathers that all bishops are successors of St. Peter. I have asked for proof several times in the past from various boards, and I've never gotten an answer. I believe the bishops are the successors of the Apostles collectively, not of St. Peter alone. I think the closest proof is St. Cyprian's statement that "all bishops are as St. Peter was." St. Peter was the preeminent representative Apostle, and so as successors of the Apostles, all bishops are indeed as St. Peter was. But that is far from saying that all bishops are actually the successors of St. Peter.

In any case, I seriously believe the idea that all bishops are particularly the successors of St. Peter diminishes the importance of the divinely instituted College, as if St. Peter was the sole foundation of the Church. I believe the idea that bishops are the successors of the Apostles (as distinct from just St. Peter) is a much more orthodox and patristic understanding of the matter.

In any case, the teaching of V1 is very specific. It teaches that the bishop of Rome is the successor in St. Peter's PRIMACY. That certainly leaves open an admission that other particular bishops ordained by St. Peter share in the apostolic succession from St. Peter (in the same sense as other bishops having apostolic succession from other particular Apostles). But being the successor in the PRIMACY is a unique thing. Primacy designates an office of one. Having every bishop share in the succession of PRIMACY is antithetical to the very purpose of primacy. Even within the primatial status of Rome/Alexandria/Antioch among all other Churches, Rome itself had a particular primatial place among those three.

Blessings
Posted By: 2lungsambassador

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/11/14 01:48 PM

For what it's worth (since there have been a number of references to V1), a quote from Pope Emeritus Benedict via Fr. John Hunwicke (of the Ordinariate and his blog, Fr. Hunwicke's Mutual Enrichment): "In fact, the First Vatican Council had in no way defined the pope as an absolute monarch. On the contrary, it presented him as the guarantor of obedience to the revealed Word."
Posted By: bergschlawiner

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/11/14 04:29 PM

But for the most part "absolute monarchs" are not elected. We all know elections are always flawed and there is nothing divine about them and never was.
Posted By: Talon

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/11/14 07:26 PM

Originally Posted by mardukm


The See of Rome is unique and accorded special honor because of it was watered with the blood of Sts. Peter and Paul, and the blood of the martyrs is the wellspring of the Church. But the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is not because he is the bishop of Rome, but because of he is the successor in the primacy of St. Peter.


A distinction without a difference, brother...

http://www.legatusmagazine.org/what-is-papal-primacy/

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523

Even the Orthodox recognize the primacy of the See of Rome itself. Obviously, the difference lies in the manner in which that primacy is exercised.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/11/14 11:07 PM

Dear Talon,

Orthodoxy does not recognized the primacy of Rome since Rome has fallen into heresy re: the Filioque and other issues.

Orthodoxy today affirms the Petrine Primacy being exercised by New Rome.

You should check your facts.

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/11/14 11:08 PM

Dear Brother Marduk,

And both Sts Paul and Peter ordained bishops for the early communities at Rome.

Papal robes always have both Chief Apostles depicted on them.

Alex
Posted By: Talon

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/12/14 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Talon,

Orthodoxy does not recognized the primacy of Rome since Rome has fallen into heresy re: the Filioque and other issues.

Orthodoxy today affirms the Petrine Primacy being exercised by New Rome.

You should check your facts.

Alex


And you should probably exercise a little more grace, Alex. Do you honestly think I'm suggesting that the Orthodox recognize the primacy of the See of Rome in practice, right now?
Posted By: DMD

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/12/14 11:58 AM

I think we Orthodox recognize Rome's primacy both in historical terms as well as in any future reunited Apostolic community - but never in the same manner as the exercise of such primacy is understood by the Church of Rome in the present day.

Posted By: LatinTrad

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/12/14 01:45 PM

Hey guys,

Just wanted to comment briefly, since the Avignon papacy came up. The residence of the popes at Avignon in the 14th century actually began more by accident--it was the age and infirmity of Pope Clement V which led him to procrastinate on his intended journey to Rome, which ended up never happening. His successors lived at Avignon until 1377, but they were still bishops of Rome, not bishops of Avignon. Avignon was just a convenient place whence to telecommute; it is not by accident that this is the period in which the papal bureaucracy really matured and became professionalized. After Gregory XI returned to Rome and his successor Urban VI was elected there, it was a coalition of renegade cardinals that began the schism by electing an anti-pope, who took up residence at Avignon in 1378; this began the period of schism and confusion which endured until 1417. My only point is that the popes at Avignon did not cease to be bishops of ROME, either in their minds or in anyone else's; they were simply non-resident bishops of Rome.

DMD makes a lot of good points about how the Orthodox would view the election of an Eastern Cardinal as pope; in theory, should such an election occur, the new pope would become "Western" upon accepting his election to be the bishop of a Western see. Wasn't this the plot of a movie in the 1960s?
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/12/14 09:57 PM

Dear Talon,

I apologise for my lack of grace here.

What did you mean then? An Orthodox aquaintance of mine here actually reacted to your statement with, how shall I put it, a lot less grace than myself . . . wink

Alex
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/12/14 09:58 PM

Dear DMD,

Unlike myself, you EXUDE grace sir!

However, I've always wondered if there was a uniform view of the papacy by all Orthodox.

Alex
Posted By: DMD

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/13/14 11:20 AM

There is no uniform Orthodox point of view on many things, except the things we say we agree upon them when we say we agree upon them. The rest of the time...not so much....

The inability to get a 'straight answer' out of us has confused western theologians for centuries.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/13/14 12:48 PM

Dear brother Alex,

Having been in the Orthodox camp most of my life, I would venture the following to be views that all Orthodox share in common about the Roman papacy:
(1) The Roman Pope held the primacy in the undivided Church universal, and CAN do so in a reunited Church;
(2) His historical role included (a) having the authority to hear appeals from other Churches, (b) make decisions to settle those appeals based on the Canons, and (c) showing a pastoral care for all the Churches;
(3) For the Roman Pope to again hold such a place (and coincidentally, for reunion to occur) he must be Orthodox.

Blessings
Posted By: DMD

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/13/14 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Dear brother Alex,

Having been in the Orthodox camp most of my life, I would venture the following to be views that all Orthodox share in common about the Roman papacy:
(1) The Roman Pope held the primacy in the undivided Church universal, and CAN do so in a reunited Church;
(2) His historical role included (a) having the authority to hear appeals from other Churches, (b) make decisions to settle those appeals based on the Canons, and (c) showing a pastoral care for all the Churches;
(3) For the Roman Pope to again hold such a place (and coincidentally, for reunion to occur) he must be Orthodox.

Blessings


That would sum it up, I agree. Yet we see that even in such a limited role - one with the Patriarch of Constantinople asserts devolved upon his see subsequent to the Great Schism - many Orthodox recoil as if Satan himself had entered the room. Just go on www.orthodoxchristianity.net any time the secular press refers to the EP as the 'leader of Eastern Orthodoxy' and one will find a great deal of ill informed huffing and puffing.
Posted By: griego catolico

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/16/14 12:01 PM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
...There is NO way that Patriarch Svyatoslav will ever be Pope (of Rome)...And, Pavloosh and Griego - I think I'm older than both of you put together.

Listen to your elder here . . .

Alex


Okay. (fingers crossed behind back) wink
Posted By: DMD

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/16/14 12:25 PM

The usual 'world is falling the press called the EP the leader of the Orthodox' crowd is having a meltdown there on oc.net today.

Yawn.
Posted By: Talon

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/18/14 10:24 PM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Talon,

I apologise for my lack of grace here.

What did you mean then? An Orthodox aquaintance of mine here actually reacted to your statement with, how shall I put it, a lot less grace than myself . . . wink

Alex


Alex,

Sorry for the delay. It's been a very busy week. I accept and appreciate the apology and offer "half" an apology of my own. Re-reading what I wrote, I could see how it may have readily been misinterpreted.

The phrase "You should check your facts" just struck me the wrong way - as if you were saying, "Hey, idiot!" Which, needless to say ruffled my feathers a bit.

What I was getting at was the ideal. Conceptually speaking, "If all were still as it should be with the See of Rome (in the eyes of Orthodoxy)", one might say, the See of Rome would hold primacy over all the others, even in Orthodox eyes. As subsequent posts have illustrated, the qualifier "most (or at least many) Orthodox eyes" should probably be inserted for aforementioned reasons.

I hope that helps to clarify.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/18/14 11:30 PM

Dear Talon

OK - and I would never call anyone that, FYI.

Yes, if Rome and Orthodoxy ever reconciled, then Rome would most definitely have its Primacy restored within the united Church.

Cheers, Alex
Posted By: 2lungsambassador

Re: Eastern Cardinal as Pope? - 05/24/14 11:00 AM

I am not being flippant when I say it would be nice (as one who is Catholic and hirsute) to see a bearded pontiff. (By that I don't mean a Fr. Seraphim Rose type beard!)
© 2019 The Byzantine Forum