www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Choosing new Pope & heads of Eastern churches

Dear Friends,

That the Petrine Office resides in the Bishop of Rome is a doctrine of the Latin Church.

The Eastern Churches see Peter in the entire Episcopate with a hierarchy of patriarchates of a "first among equals" quality during an Ecumenical Council especially.

When Nestorius declared Mary to be "Mother of Christ," it is a fact that the laity who heard this began to clamour and shout, "Theotokos! Theotokos!" and this before anyone condemned Nestorius.

The laity at that point were exercising their own infallibility which preceded that of the Church hierarchs.

Alex

While what you say is true, according to Canon 331, I think that with Canon 333, it is correct to have the heads of other paticular chuches involved in the election of the Pope.

You go on to say....

I believe this to be false, not all the clergy are involved in electing the Bishop of Rome, only cardinals. Or do you claim that there are no priests in the Diocese of Rome, just cardinals?

David

Dear David,

I like to leave Canons alone.

I find that if I don't, I become "Canon fodder."

Alex

Now, the question remains: Should the heads of Particular Churches other than the Latin Church be involved in the process to elect the Bishop of Rome, who will also be Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church?

My own personal inclination is that no, they should not be involved in the process of election as members of the College of Cardinals. Just as the Bishop of Rome is not a member of their particular Holy Synods.

Of course, such a statement implies that the Bishop of Rome, who is also Patriarch of the West and Supreme Pontiff, has no power over the other Particular Churches. Such is false, and one need go no farther than Can. 333 �1 which David cited.

In theory, I see no problem with not allowing members of other Particular Churches to vote in what is essentially an internal matter of the Church of Rome. But one must first of all contend with the fact that the Pope has power over the whole Catholic Church, including those other Particular Churches. Secondly, if the clergy of Rome are supposed to be doing the electing, why do the Cardinals vote? The vast majority are not Romans or Roman clergy, being bishops of dioceses around the world; they are only technically Roman clergy by having title to suburbicarian sees, titular parishes, or deaconries. If you want to get really particular, it should be the auxiliary bishops, the priests, and the deacons of the Diocese of Rome who do the electing. But that isn't the case in reality.

Since the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs, upon being elected, have to send a document (a synodikon?) to Rome requesting ecclesial communion (I'm not up to date on the details, but I'm sure someone will shed light on this), I think that Eastern Catholic Patriarchs (and perhaps Major Archbishops and Metropolitans too, if they are subject to the same rule) should receive such a document from a new Pope upon his election. This would allow the Patriarchs their say in the matter (and I'm assume that the Pope of Rome can, even if it's not always done, reject a patriarchal election by refusing this request, forcing the Synod to try again), since they could reject such communion with a candidate they did not approve of, and force another election.

Dear Qathuliqa,

How does the Pope have "power over" the Eastern Catholic patriarchates?

As Pospishil states in his "Orientalium Ecclesiarum," Rome affirms that anything it has to say about church government, canonical or liturgical discipline applies ONLY to the Latin Church and not to the Eastern Patriarchates in communion with Rome.

If someone will cite again the Melkite example we have been discussing on another thread, we have seen that Rome's relationship to other Churches in communion with it is NO DIFFERENT than that of the EP to other Byzantine Churches who recognize it as Byzantine Orthodoxy's "First among Equals."

I think excommunicating another patriarch is a solid indication of power, don't you?

And I'd hate to be an Esphigmenite monk right about now . . .

But the Eastern Catholic patriarchs have more to fear from their synods than from the Pope.

They have no reason to participate in an election of a Pope.

I think that if they do, they pay a dear tribute to Rome the price of which is precisely the problem you raise.

Our Patriarch put his Cardinal's ring into his pocket. I think all Eastern Patriarchs should do that and maintain that healthy distance from Roman bureaucracy, even to the point of refusing the Cardinal's hat when it is offered to them as did Met. Andrew Sheptytsky in Ukraine.

Alex

But the Eastern Catholic patriarchs have more to fear from their synods than from the Pope.

Dear Alex,

I omitted most of this post because, as I said in another thread, I agree with you. But I wonder why you say that EC patriarchs have more to fear from their synods than from Rome? I don't doubt you, I just wonder what you mean.

They have no reason to participate in an election of a Pope.

Then Rome has no reason to "interfere" in the internal affairs of Eastern Catholic Churches, whether or not they have "Patriarchal" status. Yet, this happens, granted it happens more with the major archiepiscopal and metropolitan Churches than with the patriarchal churches. Hence, it is my opinion that you could justify their desire for a place at a conclave.

Our Patriarch put his Cardinal's ring into his pocket. I think all Eastern Patriarchs should do that and maintain that healthy distance from Roman bureaucracy, even to the point of refusing the Cardinal's hat when it is offered to them as did Met. Andrew Sheptytsky in Ukraine.

Your Metropolitan Andrew had the right idea, in my opinion. No offence, but it's one thing to accept the Cardinal's ring and then put it in your pocket, as if you were ashamed of it but not too ashamed to accept it; it's another thing to reject it entirely.

Alex,
You said;

But then you go on to ask Phil;

Well the answer is in the canons.

Look to Can. 333 �1

David

Dear David,

It would really help your situation (as you describe it) if you were firmly on someone's side you know . . .

As I've told the Catholicos (who is busy studying and doesn't need to be bothered by either of us right now), those Canons you cite present only a part of the picture.

The Pope has affirmed that he shares the powers of government with the Eastern Patriarchs and this has obtained consistently.

Can you provide one instance where a Pope imposed something not pertaining to faith and morals on an Eastern Patriarch?

Again, speak in a low voice so as not to bother Mor Ephrem.

Alex

Hi:

I never said is was not correct. I just stated that is was my opinion that it might be unwise to do so.

Now, the fact of the matter is that Eastern clerics do have a say if they are members of the College of Cardinals, and in the case of the Eastern Patriarchs, they do not become Roman Clergy when elevated.

I wouldn't do it that way, but that is the way the Church doesn't, and that is enough for me. The day the Lord wants my opinions to rule the Church, He will make me Pope. Meanwhile, I accept the Church's authority.

No, I just stated that this duty was for the clergy of the local Church of Rome. I didn't say that all Clerics in Rome are to be involved.

Sans the irregularity of the Eastern Patriarchs, the College of Cardinals is composed of Clergymen of the local Church of Rome (that is why Cardinales receive Sub-Urbicarian Dioceses, Titles or Deaconries in Rome), so my statement stands: The clergy of this Church is in charge of electing their own Bishop and in doing so, electing the Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church.

Shalom,
Memo.

Hi:

The Catholic Church has defined this as Dogma. That the Pope has this power is not subject to further debate. Of course, time and again, H.H. John Paul II has invited all Christians to help him find creative and positive ways to exercise this power for the good of all the Particular Churches.

Well, legally they are clergy of Rome, even if in addition to that, they are Ordinaries of other Dioceses.

All the Patriarchs, and indeed all the hiearchs of all Catholic Dioceses have the "option" to break communion with Rome if they find a Papal election unacceptable. But that doesn't make the election itself invalid.

In the same way, if the Pope refuses to recognize an newly elected Eastern Patriarch, the legal procedure would be to break communion with that Particular Church, hoping that its Synod will depose the Patriarch and elect a new one to restore unity with Rome.

Of course this is all theoretical, and it is very unlikely to happen in our age, when we have instant global communications.

Shalom,
Memo.

I find it interesting that the Eastern Catholic Church that found a certain papal election to be undesirable "has the option" of breaking communion with Rome, while the election stands; meanwhile Rome, if it found a certain Eastern Catholic patriarchal election to be wanting, could break communion with that Church, "hoping that its Synod will depose the Patriarch and elect a new one to restore unity with Rome". Why are the situations not equal if the Churches are? Or am I not fully understanding your point here?

Actually, it does seem to be equal. Each autonmously elects it head. If the other body finds the Head unorthodox, communion is broken until the unorthodox body returns to orthodox (as understood by the two parties).

Axios

Hi:

Perhaps you are not, because both situations are quite analogous. Both elections would still be valid. Communion between the Churches would be restored when both their heads find each other acceptable.

If an Eastern Patriarchal Church finds a Papal election unacceptable and breaks communion with Rome, What would it take to restore communion? At least one of:

1. A new Pope.
2. A new Patriarch of the Eastern Church.
3. A radical change of mind of the Pope, the Patriarch of the Eastern Church or both.

If it is a newly-elected Eastern Patriarch the one who is unacceptable to Rome, wouldn't it take exactly the same to solve the situation?

The real difference is that if the College of Cardinals believe they conducted a valid and lawful election, it would be very difficult to depose a Pope.

Deposing an Eastern Patriarch is not that difficult and that is the reason for my choice of words.

Shalom,
Memo.