The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
flintinsects, RomanPylypiv, CKW2024, Karolina, The Western Easter
6,096 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 252 guests, and 83 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
St. Sharbel Maronite Mission El Paso
by orthodoxsinner2, September 30
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,460
Posts417,208
Members6,096
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885
Member
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885
Currently they are simply refered to as 'The Primate'. That is for those countries that have one. Every Episcopal Conference has it's President. I think all they do realy is chair the meetings.

A bit of trivia. The Primates of both England and Ireland are both second in rank to the Primates of All Ireland and All England in their respective countries. It stops unseemly pushing and shoving in processions. biggrin

ICXC
NIKA

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
A
AMM Offline
Member
Member
A Offline
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Quote
As the Supreme Pontiff governs the re-united Apostolic Church, it is now incumbent for each Patriarch of the Eastern Churches (and other high-ranking Bishops) to be members of the electoral college (currently the College of Cardinals).

This scenario is an overview of the current provisions of the Latin Code of Canons and the Eastern Code of Canons.

Both Codes meld the papal system of Church governance favored by the West and the patriarchal system favored by the East.
I think that is a pretty good summary of exactly what the Orthodox are not interested in.

I can only echo Bishop Hilarion�s words that it remains a mystery how the omission of the title (which is how the Orthodox see the Pope and of course didn�t object to) does anything to forward East/West relations.

Andrew

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Member
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,133
Quote
Major Archbishop of New York and All Norhern America - how would that sound...
Not going to happen. biggrin

If "North America" ever gets a single Primate with the title of Major Archbishop, he would be Major Archbishop of Mexico City and All Northern America.

Mexico City is not only the largest Catholic jurisdiction worldwide, it is also one of the oldest in the Americas.


Shalom,
Memo

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Quote
Originally posted by Amadeus:
Be forewarned because I have a different interpretation of this Roman move.

I think no patriarchates will be erected in the Latin Church aside from maintaining for the meantime the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem and the "minor" patriarchates, the latter allowed to fade away into oblivion. The LPJ could be denominated eventually as just an Archdiocese (or merged into the Patriarchate of Jerusalem when re-union occurs).
I agree 100%

Quote
The creation/erection of "new" patriarchates solely refers to the Eastern Catholic Churches, the first of which could be the UGCC, and the Syro-Malabars and Syro-Malankaras to follow.
I agree, and I look forward to that happening, but I don't think it is the role of the pope to bring that about, at least not unilaterally. The pope is, of course, the first amoung equals of all the bishops; but the EP is the first amoung equals within the eastern lung, and hence ought to play a key role in the elevation of any church in that lung.

Just my $0.02
-Peter.

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful
Member
Grateful
Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Pope Benedict XVI�s recent dropping of the patriarchal title (�Patriarch of the West�) could be a harbinger of a reorganization of the Catholic Church into several sui juris churches united by the pope through a common faith and communion. And that, in turn, could be a steeping stone toward reunion with the Orthodox.

The key seems to be in separating the functions of episcopal patriarchy from papal primacy. A post by Eli was extremely insightful and illuminating of this. He quoted another post from another internet forum. I tracked down the source of that original post through Google. In it, a Father Ambrose quotes two statements by then Cardinal Ratzinger on this whole matter of episcopal patriarchy versus papal primacy. I am providing the entire text of that original post here because it is quite possibly crucial for understanding what Pope Benedict might be intending.


[beginning of the text of the original post]
--------------------------------------------------------

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=60633&page=2
(about the middle of the page)
June 26, 2005, 11:05 AM Fr Ambrose
Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2004
Location: Middle Earth
Posts: 9,473 Re: Nicene Creed And Apostle's Creed

Quote by itsjustdave1988:
�Pope Benedict XVI (while still Cardinal), in his letter to the Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan of Switzerland explains this problem of autocephalous Churches...
[Papal primacy of jurisdiction], the "main obstacle" to the restoration of full communion... is at the same time the main opportunity for this, because without it the Catholic Church would long ago have fallen apart into national churches and churches of this or that rite, which would make it quite impossible to gain any general view of the ecumenical landscape. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Letter to Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland, 20 Feb 2001) [ . . . ]�



That is most interesting. The Pope seems to be of two minds on this matter of ecclesiology.

Pope Benedict XVI advocates breaking up of the Church of Rome
in Favour of Orthodox Model of Ecclesiology

You can find the entire article at
http://www.georgetown.edu/centers/w...ec-6komonch.htm

Comments by Fr. Joseph Komanchak, professor CUA, and member of the North American Commission of Orthodox and Roman Catholics. ( SCOBA / NCCB) .

Joseph Ratzinger, for example, pointed out the need to disentangle the confusion between the patriarchal and primatial roles of the bishop of Rome and to break up the Latin patriarchate, replacing it with a number of "patriarchal areas," that is, regions with an autonomy similar to that of the ancient patriarchates, but under the direction of the
episcopal conferences.

In an essay entitled "Primacy and Episcopacy," Ratzinger developed the theme at greater length:

"The image of a centralized state which the Catholic church presented right up to the council does not flow only from the Petrine office, but from its strict amalgamation with the patriarchal function which grew ever stronger in the course of history and which fell to the bishop of Rome for the whole of Latin Christendom. The uniform canon law, the uniform liturgy, the uniform appointment of bishops by the Roman center: all these are things which are not necessarily part of the primacy but result from the close union of the two offices. For that reason, the task to consider for the future will be to distinguish again and more clearly between the proper function of the successor of Peter and the patriarchal office and, where necessary, to create new patriarchates and to detach them from the Latin church. To embrace unity with the pope would then no longer mean being incorporated into a uniform administration, but only being inserted into a unity of faith and communion, in which the pope is acknowledged to have the power to give binding interpretations of the revelation given in Christ whose authority is accepted whenever it is given in definitive form. "

After exploring the ecumenical implications of this vision, Ratzinger concluded:

"Finally, in the not too distant future one could consider whether the churches of Asia and Africa, like those of the East, should not present their own forms as autonomous `patriarchates' or `great churches' or whatever such ecclesiae in the Ecclesia might be called in the future."

------------------------------------------------

[end of the text of the original post]


Now here (in my conjecture) is the possible significance of the pope dropping the title "patriarch of the west." He is possibly trying to do three things.

First, he is possibly trying to separate the functions of episcopal patriarchy from papal primacy.

Second, he is possibly trying to lay the groundwork for establishing new patriarchs throughout the Catholic Church: for East Asia, for India and for other general areas of the world.

Third, he is possibly thereby trying to establish an ecclesial structure for reunion with Orthodoxy to occur. Allow me to elaborate on this third point.

The pope wrote that papal primacy is both the biggest obstacle and the biggest opportunity for real ecumenism. It is the biggest obstacle because Orthodox Christians don't believe that the pope has the authority to tell them what to do and, generally, acting like their boss. On the other hand, the Orthodox do believe that the pope is a "first among equals,� which role provides a very valuable function in uniting the Church.

How to accomplish both? How to overcome the obstacle of papal primacy yet preserve the unifying good of papal primacy ?

The answer of Pope Benedict XVI seems to be separating episcopal patriarchy from papal primacy. In other words, it seems that the pope wants to separate being Catholic from being *Roman* Catholic. There would be, in short, several sui juris Churches who are in communion with each other by being in communion with the Bishop of Rome. Hence, there would be real regional diversity within the Catholic Church in jurisdiction, organization, liturgical expression; and, there would also be unity through a common faith and communion with the Bishop of Rome.

This situation already exists within the Catholic Church with its Eastern sui juris Catholic Churches. The �Greek Catholics� (or, �Uniates�) already consist of almost twenty sui juris churches: each with their own jurisdiction, organization, liturgical and theological expression and tradition. Yet, these Churches are also in communion with each other by sharing a common faith and communion with the Bishop of Rome.

However, it seems that Pope Benedict XVI might want to further apply this paradigm to the rest of the Catholic Church. In other words, he might want to apply it to what is currently the Roman part of the Catholic Church. Hence, as the quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger states, "To embrace unity with the pope would then no longer mean being incorporated into a uniform administration, but only being inserted into a unity of faith and communion [ . . . ]" Hence as he further stated, "in the not too distant future one could consider whether the churches of Asia and Africa, like those of the East, should not present their own forms as autonomous `patriarchates' or `great churches' or whatever such ecclesiae in the Ecclesia might be called in the future."

If this is the case --and I'm just reading the "tea leaves" of an internet post-- the ramifications could be enormous in two ways.

First, it could mean a wholesale reorganization of the Catholic Church. The Roman part of the Catholic Church would be divided into several, regional sui juris Churches who are united by --and not dominated by-- a common faith and communion with the Bishop of Rome. There could be an East Asian Church, an Indian Church, a Western European Church, a Latin American Church, a North American Church, an African Church and so on. Each Church would be sui juris. Each Church would have its own jurisdiction, its administration, its own clergy, its own liturgical and even theological expression and tradition. Presiding over each Church would be its own government: its own bishop (a "patriarch"?) or �whatever such ecclesiae in the Ecclesia might be called in the future.� Each of these sui juris Churches would not be dominated by Rome; they would be united by Rome by sharing a common faith and communion. Such a change within the Catholic Church would be nothing less than revolutionary. The Bishop of Rome, for the first time in 1200 years or more, would cease trying to be a monarch over other bishops, and instead it would be trying to be a genuine �first among equals� of bishops.

Second, hence, this could be a substantial step in the direction of the Catholic Church reuniting with the Orthodox Church. As Pope Benedict XVI observed while he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, a major obstacle to restoring unity between the Orthodox and the Catholics is papal primacy. That is because the Orthodox believe that the pope is a first among equals of bishops, not a monarch of bishops. Well, if Rome chooses to treat the bishops who are already in communion with it as equals rather than as subjects, it could go a long way to proving to the Orthodox that Rome is prepared to likewise treat Orthodox bishops as equals instead of as subjects. From his quoted writings as a cardinal, it seems that Pope Benedict XVI might be endorsing this. He might intend a return of the papacy to precisely that role: a first among equals of bishops, instead of a monarch of bishops. Such a papacy would provide unity not by dominating others sui juris Churches but rather by a common faith and communion. That was role of the papacy during the first millennium of Christianity, when the Church was both Orthodox and Catholic. A reorganization of the Catholic Church along the lines of this first millennium model, therefore, could be a substantial step toward reuniting the Catholics and the Orthodox into one Church again.

Put another way: the Orthodox say that reunion with the Catholics is impossible till the Catholics return to their Orthodox roots. Well, a patriarchal reorganization of the Catholic Church --by separating episcopal patriarchy from papal primacy, by dividing the Roman part of the Catholic Church into several sui juris Churches who are united by (and not dominated by) the Bishop of Rome, by the papacy acting as a first among equals and not as a monarch, through sharing a common faith and communion -- would be a huge step by the Catholic Church in going back toward its Orthodox roots. Such a reorganization would change the Catholic Church into something that is much more like the Orthodox Church: in its ecclesiology and in its organization. And if the Catholic Church is more like the Orthodox Church, both Churches are potentially more likely to reunite with each other.

Of course, it would probably take an ecumenical council to complete the reunion of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Hence, reorganizing the Catholic Church would not be a substitute for an ecumenical council of reunion. But, it could be a substantial step toward such a council. Actions speak louder than words, and a reorganization of the Catholic Church along, in effect, Orthodox lines could be a serious and substantial first step in proving to the Orthodox that Rome is becoming ready for an ecumenical council of reunion.

Again, I'm just reading tea leaves with scraps of information from the internet and much conjecture. I could well be wrong.

Yet, if Pope Benedict XVI�s recent dropping of the patriarchal title is a harbinger of things to come, we might be seeing the first practical steps for enormous structural change within the Catholic Church. It could be the reorganization of the Catholic Church away from its model of a monarchial papacy (which it had for the last thousand years) and back to its model of a first among equals papacy (which it had during its first thousand years). For those who hope for the decentralization of the Catholic Church, and for those who yearn for reunion between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, things could become very interesting and sooner than anticipated.


-- John

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576
B
Member
Member
B Offline
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 576
All this fuss over dropping a historic title of patriarch? Why doesn't the pope do something really meaningful and do away with the created title of cardinal? Is that something the Romans invented as a substitute for the "senate"?

Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 218
M
Member
Member
M Offline
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 218
A few random comments on this thread:

1. Good post, John (Harmon 3110). It's the only explanation I've seen that makes any convincing sense of the move, and I think your interpretation is reasonable. Of course, we don't really know if it's true or not.

2. Teen/Pavel Ivanovich- I think what Teen was trying to say in his last post is that EVERYTHING the Pope does is well-thought out and that the Pope didn't do this rashly.

Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 1
Member
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225
Likes: 1
Throwing another log on the fire...it is pretty much know/felt that at least there is a American Catholic Church(Roman/Latin Rite)...a bit different and a wee distant from Rome. A interesting perspective ;

US Catholic Church
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18897

james

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 1
L
Member
Member
L Offline
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 1
Pavel,

I think you might be misunderstanding me!

First, just because everything the Pope does is well thought-out doesn't mean I agree with him on everything.

Second, I don't think I ever trash talked Pope Benedict XVI! I think he is a wonderful Pope, has done a fine job, and will continue to do so. I also don't think we've seen him in "full swing" at all yet. In fact, I think he is a vast improvement over the last!

Really, there's nothing I don't like about him. What I criticized earlier wasn't his person, as I recall.

A lot of smart people do everything well thought-out. I'm sure Roger Cardinal Mahoney thinks on the things he will do. That doesn't stop me from thinking he might be in need of an exorcism! wink

Smart people think things out, and that's just that.

Logos Teen

P.S. That's quite a nice sedia, Your Holiness!

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
M
Member
Member
M Offline
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 828
The Patriarchal structure has never been native to the West. Pope St Leo the Great forthrighly rejected the title because he (and all his successors upto Innocent III) refused to confirm the 28 Canon of Chalcedon. Recognition of the title Patriarch of the West would be logically construed as accepting that the Bishop of Constantinople was Patriarch of the North and it wasnt until the 7th century that the Popes began (irregularly) calling themselves 'Patriarch'.

Accordingly, for a ressourcement scholar like Benedict XVI who sees the Western Patristic tradition as being wholly stranged by 'current trends' some in Roman Catholic 'theology' to make efforts to revive it are unsurprising. For instance, notice the language used by Pope St Gregory the Great in Registrum Epistolarum, Book IX, Letter 59 [newadvent.org] . Even for the Archbishop of Constantinople Pope St Gregory uses the more antiquated term 'Primate' reminiscent of Nicea's canons about the Primatial Sees. That is the Latin Patristic ecclesiological concept formed around primates not patriarchs. Benedict XVI appears to be merely to be trying to re-root the Latin Church in her Traditions so as to counter balance the pseudo-spirit of Vatican II.

That being said this clearly does have Ecumenical significance. The Patriarchal structures established by Chalcedon after all have completley broken down. Reverting to the Primatial ecclesiology of the Latin Church of Pope St Gregory's day actually brings the West much closer to the autocephalous model of Eastern Orthodoxy albiet with less autonomy. Moreover, it gives room for the Latin Church to open its doors to the Traditional Anglican communion et al. Just as the ecclesiology of the early Occident allowed the Patriarchs of Aquilea and Grado to be regrafted into the body of Western Bishops. This I believe is far closer to what Benedict XVI is actually thinking...


"We love, because he first loved us"--1 John 4:19
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885
Member
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,885
Nice to see the " Primate of Canada " has been busy of late. smile

"Cardinal Marc Ouellet, Archbishop of Qu�bec and Primate of Canada issued an open letter yesterday to all Canadians regarding the need to defend marriage against radical redefinition. �As a Canadian citizen and as the Primate of Canada, I feel it is my duty to express my concern and disagreement and that of a great number of Canadians who have asked me to step forward to give public voice to their opinion about the meaning and the consequences of this proposed change,� wrote the Cardinal."

ICXC
NIKA

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 1
L
Member
Member
L Offline
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 1
For those interested, go to Interfax and see how the Bishop Hilarion of Vienna is puzzled about this move and says the MP and others may see it as highlighting the Pope's role as Supreme Pontiff, etc.

Logos Teen

Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
Grateful
Member
Grateful
Member
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,528
I think the one Church of Jesus Christ is both Orthodox and Catholic. In other words, I think that Christ's mystical Body-- is both correct and universal.

I also think the Church was (more or less) both Orthodox and Catholic for the first thousand years of Christianity, but it has become divorced within itself for the last thousand years.

And so, I think the Catholic Church needs to regain being Orthodox. I also think the Orthodox Church needs to regain being Catholic. And I think both sides need to give a little to make this happen. They need to give up not the Truth, but their pride in how they interpret the Truth.

I hope that Pope Benedict's dropping of the patriarchal title is a harbinger of that, of a return to the Church's patristic roots (Eastern and Western). I'm probably reading too much of my own hopes in this development. But, if this is somehow a harbinger of things to come, I can only hope that it will bear much fruit in the Holy Spirit toward one day reuniting this divided Church.

-- John

Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 1
L
Member
Member
L Offline
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678
Likes: 1
John,

With all due respect, I don't understand why anyone would ever say the Church is divided.

The Church is not divided; She cannot be divided. She is One.

To say that the Church is divided is, to me, to deny part of the Nicene Creed...

Logos Teen

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 94
Member
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 94

Page 6 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2024 (Forum 1998-2024). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 8.0.0