www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papal Authority & the Cardinalate in regard to Eastern Hierarchs

We almost had an Armenian Catholic pope from the conclave of 1958, so I will not be surprised at all if we have a Ukrainian Catholic pope from a future conclave.

The Pope of Rome should be from the Church of Rome. Beyond that, he should be selected from the clergy of the Metropolitan Province of Rome. Otherwise, you're just turning the Pope into some sort of Catholic Dalai Lama. I'm surprised nobody has thought through the ecclesiological implications picking popes out of thin air.

I could just see it now. An Eastern pope? As he walked to the window vested in Eastern vestments to give his first blessing, half the crowd would faint, the other half would think the church is now Orthodox!

What no one has commented on is that the new Maronite patriarch was not appointed a cardinal this time.

Relatedly, I just noticed this news blurb:

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=12892

In the last paragraph, it notes that a journalist who covers the Vatican and has a track record of accuracy for predicing these appointments, had him on his guess list.

Patriarch Emeritus Nasrallah Boutros Cardinal Sfeir is still around. It is pretty rare for the current holder of a see to be made cardinal while an emeritus is still alive, although it did happen in New York this time.

Well, I don't believe His Beatitude will have to worry about being elevated to the cardinalate any time soon, if ever. He has been patriarch for eleven years and yet other EC patriarchs in less time have been given the red hat...or in this case, the red klobuk.

My personal opinion is that the "Zoghby Initiative" pretty much ended the expectation of any Melkite bishop who signed it from becoming a cardinal.

Well, then, good for the Melkites. Though remember, Patriarch Maximos V turned down his red beanie, and Patriarch Gregorios indicated he wasn't interested. After protesting so long and so loudly that Patriarchs have precedence over Cardinals, it would be inconsistent to accept the honor. After all, where would one stand--with one's brother Patriarchs? Or down with the red rabble?

Perhaps for you and some others who are constructing their desired ecclesiology it's just an assumption. Don't jump to false conclusions. The statement by Fr. Deacon Lance is an accurate description of Catholic ecclesiology and I would expect that Patriarch Gregorios would readily embrace it. Properly understood it nullifies the strawman objection:
Ecclesiological praxis has moved on in a similar way both east and west. If one understands "sister churches" in the Catholic sense, which in its basic meaning is also the theology of, for instance, Met. John Zizioulas, then once selection of a bishop from other than within the particular church itself is granted, there is no theological reason not to allow selection from any of the "sister churches."

I think he'd want to be with the Patriarchal "rabble" [sic].

How many make a rabble? There are, I think, five or six de jure Patriarchs, but there are something like 190 living Cardinals. Moreover, Cardinals are appointed, Patriarchs are elected. Cardinals do nothing but talk; Patriarchs have real jobs.

While it's clear that strongly divergent views exist here, I would think that under current circumstances, given that we are Catholic (those of us who are), both the respect of title and the opportunity to have a say in the appointment of a new Pontiff would be genuinely appreciated by the faithful and our hierarchs. Not a renunciation of that which perhaps should be, but a step towards it.

Historically, we Eastern Catholics have struggled to be true to our Orthodox roots and be faithful to our Catholic allegience, largely without the support and understanding of either side - we don't need to rehash the history we all know all too well. But the environment has clearly changed and, although not perfect, it would seem that we are in a better position to enjoy the best of both worlds sometime in the not to distant future if prayer and persistence continue. Ecumenical dialogue is significantly progressing. Meanwhile, we are clearly encouraged by Rome to return to our roots (sometimes more forcefully than we accept and accomplish on our own accord).

IMHO - "equal but separate" has been tried in other contexts - it is not sustainable. Who knows, if a path to lasting unity is found, maybe the College of Cardinals no longer exists and the Pope is elected by the Patriarchs. Much has yet to be discussed and resolved, but it clearly must be a priority for both sides. If anyone caught the 60 Minutes interview of Patriarch Bartholomew, you would easily have been saddened by the state of the Church in the very cradle of the Byzantine tradition and for the seat of the Ecumenical Patriarchate. It has been submitted that unity would not only fulfill the wish of our Lord, that we all be one, but would be instrumental in preserving the Apostolic Churches throughout the world, particular were the Churches suffer in the Middle East.

Just some thoughts, with prayers for open hearts and minds ...

It only takes one armed with inaccuracies and insults.

The authority of the Pope is ecclesial, not personal. It is the Church of Rome which has priority, and the primacy of the Bishop of Rome derives from his position as head of that Church. The faithful of the Church of Rome--that is, of the Metropolitan Province of Rome--have a right to a full-time bishop. The Pope's first responsibility is that of Bishop of Rome, the only sacramental ministry he holds. Everything else is an honorific, whether it be Patriarch of the West or Pope. Once you lose the ecclesial roots of the Petrine Ministry, you really have turned the Pope into the Catholic Dalai Lama. I'm surprised nobody else sees this.

I do see it and agree in part, but your conclusion comes out wrong because you have based it on, as stated, erroneous or conflicting statements.

The Pope is pope because he is the bishop of Rome, bishop of the church of Rome, i.e. the diocese of Rome. The church of Rome in this context is NOT "the Metropolitan Province of Rome." In a discussion of fundamental ecclesiology, which I distinguish as theological rather than canonical in nature, there is no need to refer to metropolia or patriarchies: there is the (particular or local, if you will) church as a Eucharistic community gathered around its one bishop. These are the many churches, the "sister" churches. But there is also The One Church that is the "Church of churches" to use the words of J. M. R. Tillard. The fractal analogy you used is a good one, the precise and exact one is the term catholic.

I would argue (elaborating on the theology of Zizioulas) that all charisms in the Church are personal. The church is holy because persons are holy and, in particular, the person of Christ. There is not some sort of ether of holiness that permeates the church and in which its members function. Person [hypostasis (ὑπόστᾰσις), as in The Holy Three] is then the ultimate ontological entity. And being pope is not ontological -- one can resign from being pope. The One Church, however, is ontological -- the spouse of Christ. And for Catholic ecclesiology, that The One Church is clearly established on the person of Peter (personal but not ontological). This is not just an "honorific" but the pronouncement of Christ as attested to by scripture (and here I'm just stating Catholic ecclesiology; there are other interpretations of course). Catholic ecclesiology has always (thank God) held the Petrine ministry to be of divine not human intent because, if the latter, then it would be dispensable or open to human remolding.

The pope as "the Catholic Dalai Lama" is an unfortunate consequence of looking to The One Church, which is proper, but not also seeing it as "of churches." The Church is not a pyramid with the Pope at the top. Nor is it several pyramids each with a Patriarch at the top, vying for which one is the (ironically) nth Rome; nor several such pyramids acknowledging that one has a slight distinction allowing the others to concede to it some sort of status as primus.

I see the One Church in Catholic theology as more of a circle than a pyramid: A circle with a unique center (the church of Rome and its bishop) that is also one of the points of the circle that has a readily identifiable boundary based on churches in communion with the center; a less recognizable boundary of churches not in communion with the center; an even less rigid boundary embracing the baptized in ecclesial communities or not; and even beyond, no matter how obscure the boundary becomes for us -- because it is "God our Savior, who desires all men to be save and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (RSV 1Tim 2:3-5) And we are His Body, His Spouse, the Church.