0 members (),
252
guests, and
83
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,460
Posts417,208
Members6,096
|
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,186 |
Patriarch of the West was a good title. It would have meant more if "Supreme Pontif" had been dropped.
CDL
BTW We are inviting all inactive members to a special gathering on March 26. I'm composing the letter today and the invitation will doubtless be sent out next week. I'm making myself available for call backs. I thought that you'd like to know.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
I don't really see how this is ecumenically helpful. I mean, there aren't any Orthodox patriarchs contesting for being called the Patriarch of the West, so what was the problem?
I also find it striking that a 1500 year old tradition would be dropped just like that.
Anyway, this won't stop the Pope being called Patriarch of the West in popular usage.
All in all I don't think it's a huge deal. I think the most interesting part about it is the abandonment of another centuries-old tradition. That's the part I don't get.
Logos Teen
|
1 member likes this:
Krysostomos |
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10
Moderator Member
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 10,994 Likes: 10 |
I can't say that I think this is a good thing for ecumenical relations, atleast from my viewpoint.
In Christ, Alice
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Has anyone ever heard of any EO's complain about the Pope's usage of this title?
Logos Teen
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
I just read a review of Cardinal Kasper's latest book saying the Pope should emphasize the office of Patriarch of the West. I don't understand this move at all. Has anyone ever heard of any EO's complain about the Pope's usage of this title? No, the problem is it has been a forgotten title. Andrew
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,010 Likes: 1 |
Technically, the Pope was and is not the ONLY Patriarch of the West--there are Patriarchs of Venice, Lisbon, etc. Perhaps lessening this notion of the Pope as THE Patriarch of the West will lead to some decentralization in Roman church governance. However, titles aren't always literal: the Patriarch of Alexandria was/is titled the "Judge of the Universe" or something like that. Dave
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411
Member
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,411 |
Technically, the Pope was and is not the ONLY Patriarch of the West--there are Patriarchs of Venice, Lisbon, etc. I believe there is only one Pariarch of the West. Primate is something different. Perhaps lessening this notion of the Pope as THE Patriarch of the West will lead to some decentralization in Roman church governance. By deemphasizing the role of the Pope as the overseer of the western church and focusing on his claims over the entire church? Symbolic or not, the change reflects a type of centralization the Orthodox do not accept. I do not understand this move. Andrew
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 249
Member
|
Member
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 249 |
From the link... He is simply Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Roman Province, Sovereign of Vatican City and Servant of the Servants of God. Given this list of titles, when he now speaks for example of the Western discipline of priestly celebacy, which title does he speak from... which "hat" does he wear? How can he now not include those sui iuris Churches who do not share in this discipline?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24
Moderator Member
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,337 Likes: 24 |
Patrirach of the West implies the Pope is the only patriarch in the West, which is true enough, the remaining titulars not withstanding. While still a cardinal, Pope Benedict suggested that regional patriarchates be set up in the Latin Church in order to facilitate decentralization. Perhaps this is a first step towards that as well?
It still seems stange though. If he does not want the Papacy to be perceived as for the West only why not renounce the Primate of Italy title also so the Papacy is not perceived as for Italy only? It would have been better to drop the title of Supreme Pontiff if he wanted to reach out to the Orthodox. The Orthodox perceive him as Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West, and this does not interfere with his ecumenical primacy from their point of view. I think next year Patriarch of the West will be back.
Fr. Deacon Lance
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
Originally posted by Chtec: Technically, the Pope was and is not the ONLY Patriarch of the West--there are Patriarchs of Venice, Lisbon, etc.
Perhaps lessening this notion of the Pope as THE Patriarch of the West will lead to some decentralization in Roman church governance.
However, titles aren't always literal: the Patriarch of Alexandria was/is titled the "Judge of the Universe" or something like that.
Dave One of those titular Patriarchs is the "Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem". I think that getting rid of that title would do more good ecumenically.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431 |
Originally posted by Deacon Lance: I think next year Patriarch of the West will be back. You're probably right. I could understand if he were to replace it with "Patriarch of the Latin Church" (which is more precise); but just getting rid of it I don't get (join the club, I guess ) Peter
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,402 Likes: 37
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,402 Likes: 37 |
Dear Friends,
The point is IF this move by the Pope was done as an ecumenical gesture toward the Orthodox (and we don't know that beyond what the journalist who wrote the article is suggesting), then we will have to see how the Orthodox respond.
I don't think it will make any difference to the Orthodox, if anything, it might lead to interpreting the role of the Pope as becoming MORE centralized than less over the entire Church.
But this is IF it was done with the Orthodox in mind.
And IF it was, it is to be hoped that the bureaucrats at the Vatican consulted with the Orthodox beforehand.
Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688
Moderator Member
|
Moderator Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,688 |
ANSA quotes Achille Cardinal Silvestrini who is identified as "head of the Vatican department dealing with Eastern branches of Catholicism." Aside from other issues, Cardinal Silvestrini retired as Prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches in 2000.
Perhaps there is even more in this article that is inaccuate.
Why not be styled "Patriarch of Rome"?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 351 |
Dear Friends:
With all due respect to His Holiness, the change does seem ridiculous.
In the article they state that the title was only formally introduced in 1870.
I find that hard to believe.
I agree with Deacon John, it would have been better if he changed the title to Patriarch of Rome.
Doesn't Alexandria style it's head "Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria"?
Maybe it's all an oversight or maybe they are just testing the waters for something else.
defreitas
|
|
|
|
|