|
0 members (),
190
guests, and
19
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,295
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
The position of the Melkites, at any rate, is that they do not want to take part in the Papal election, nor do they want the Papacy to be involved in the election of the Patriarch.
Fr. Serge Gotta love the Melkites.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 637
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 637 |
Yep, I agree. I am however, in favour of the Eastern patriarchs being observers at papal elections and vice-versa. Who becomes the head of the Church is none of our business, and shouldn't be theirs when we choose ours as well.
However, this doesn't seem to stop here. What do we say about churches headed by Major Archbishops rather than Patriarchs? A lot of us are aware that Major Archbishops and Patriarchs basically play the same role and do the same stuff albeit different titles. But whats in a name? Should Major Archbishops become cardinals then? A thought to ponder.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,084 Likes: 12
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,084 Likes: 12 |
The election of the bishop of Rome is a matter that concerns only the Church of Rome. That said, after he assumes office he should seek communion with the heads of the self-governing Eastern Churches. Correct! We do not invite the Roman Pontiff, nor the Patriarchs of the other Catholic Churches, to participate in electing the Patriarchs of our respective Churches. Why then should our Patriarchs participate, as Cardinals, in the election of the Roman Pontiff? Many years, Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 5,264 |
The position of the Melkites, at any rate, is that they do not want to take part in the Papal election, nor do they want the Papacy to be involved in the election of the Patriarch. Fr. Serge, I can see the reasonableness of this position for both Papal and Patriarchal elections. God bless, Gordo
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131 |
The election of the bishop of Rome is a matter that concerns only the Church of Rome. That said, after he assumes office he should seek communion with the heads of the self-governing Eastern Churches. Correct! We do not invite the Roman Pontiff, nor the Patriarchs of the other Catholic Churches, to participate in electing the Patriarchs of our respective Churches. Why then should our Patriarchs participate, as Cardinals, in the election of the Roman Pontiff? Many years, Neil On the face of it, if Rome is seen as "just another patriarch" I suppose that this is reasonable enough. What then those of us without patriarchs are to do is perhaps a new-thread starter. But if you are inclined to believe (which I know, not all Catholics here are, this debate has been had) that the papacy entails perogatives above and beyond just being a regional patriarch, it makes sense that representitives from the whole of the Church participate. For more pragmatic parties who are inclined to see Rome as just another Patriarchate, but one which oversteps its bounds... Well there is something to the thinking "if he is going to wrongly push us around, we should at least have a hand in who it is doing the pushing!" Again, days-long debates aren't so much an interest here (its been done). Just putting out a point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 943 |
Except that the Pope of Rome is NO LONGER a Patriarch of the West. So what now?
SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3 |
So either the West has no Patriarch or someone's replaced him?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131 |
Or no one needs to have a Patriarch.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3 |
I am not sure I understand that remark.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131 |
Or perhaps patriarchates and having a patriarch is something that is not needed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3 |
If that is the way the Church is thinking (and I don't think that She is), then why do we have them in the Church?
Perhaps we technically don't need Synods, arch-priests, archdeacons, servers, a choir, readers, or much of the non-fundamentals - but these things provide some order in the temporal matters.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131 |
The point you make after the question you ask handily answers the question you ask.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,658 Likes: 3 |
The title "Patriarch of the West" is one that is Traditionally given to the Bishop of Rome, whether he likes it or not.. now one or another Pope may choose not to emphasis that role, but that doesn't mean any other Church need "play along". It seems to me (and most Easterners) that the Pope of Rome is almost always to be regarded as Patriarch of the West in relation to themselves and their Church hierarchy (extraordinary circumstances excluded from this discussion)...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,084 Likes: 12
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,084 Likes: 12 |
The title "Patriarch of the West" is one that is Traditionally given to the Bishop of Rome, whether he likes it or not.. now one or another Pope may choose not to emphasis that role, but that doesn't mean any other Church need "play along". It seems to me (and most Easterners) that the Pope of Rome is almost always to be regarded as Patriarch of the West in relation to themselves and their Church hierarchy (extraordinary circumstances excluded from this discussion)... Well said, my brother Many years, Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,131 |
The title "Patriarch of the West" is one that is Traditionally given to the Bishop of Rome, whether he likes it or not.. now one or another Pope may choose not to emphasis that role, but that doesn't mean any other Church need "play along". It seems to me (and most Easterners) that the Pope of Rome is almost always to be regarded as Patriarch of the West in relation to themselves and their Church hierarchy (extraordinary circumstances excluded from this discussion)... Before getting too far into the semantics of it, I guess it would be safe to say there are (minimally) two schools of thought here on the nature of the papacy. In one school (of which I am a student) Petrine ministry is intimately tied to the successor of St. Peter who serves as bishop of Rome. For us papacy ≠ patriarchate, though the pope may be styled a patriarch. In this school of thought, this distinctive ministry on the head of the apostles is instituted by Christ and pre-dates the creation of the notion of patriarchates which we see as a later though laudible development. I am willing to readily concede that this view or understanding is not shared by all. It is simply my hope that calmly stating that there is a difference of opinion and that this debate is by no means "settled" to all parties satisfaction can be a good starting point for understanding why some of us may feel it is not universally accepted to state: The election of the bishop of Rome is a matter that concerns only the Church of Rome. That said, after he assumes office he should seek communion with the heads of the self-governing Eastern Churches. or Correct! We do not invite the Roman Pontiff, nor the Patriarchs of the other Catholic Churches, to participate in electing the Patriarchs of our respective Churches. Why then should our Patriarchs participate, as Cardinals, in the election of the Roman Pontiff? and believe the question definatively settled. Again, I am not trying to be polemic or a provacateur. At the same time I hope this dicussion can be had without reference to my party being (pejoratively) "Latinized" as though this thinking is mere defect in being influenced by parties (obviously) in error.
|
|
|
|
|
