www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West An Eastern Pope?

Jose,

Since Wikipedia articles can be written by anyone who can fingers to keyboards and edited equally as easy, it's always best not to rely on them as a primary source.

Many years,

Neil

Yuhannon,

I don't see why you think that a Pope from an Oriental versus Eastern Catholic Church would be any more acceptable to the Eastern Orthodox. JP is, I think, correct - a Pope elected from the hierarchs of any of our Churches would be seen by the Orthodox as a greater barrier to unity than would ever be the case for a Latin Pope.

Many years,

Neil

Mike,

Actually, it's closer to two dozen by the reckoning of some sources:

From Africa:

Victor
Miltiades
Gelasies

From Greece or of Greek ancestry:

Cletus
Telesphorus
Hyginus
Eleutherius
Anterus
Sixtus II
Eusebius
Zosimus
Theodore I
Agatho
Leo II
John VI
John VII
Zacharias

From Syria or of Syrian ancestry:

Evaristus
Anicetus
John V
Sergius I
Sisinnius
Constantine I
Gregory III

Many years,

Neil

Interestingly enough, Halychanyn, I was wondering the same thing, as to Patriarchs being equal to the Pope, as distinguished from Cardinals, which we know are subservient. I was under the impression that a Metropolitan was equivalent to a Cardinal, correct me if I am wrong. I was wondering that if Patriarchates were created for each of the non Latin churches, whether we would have a situation of the Pope being Primus Inter Pares, that is, first among equals, and thus undoing the First Vatican Council. Could we possibly have a Counciliar Church, rather than an infallible Papacy type of church polity to define faith and morals?
And what of the Orthodox, how would they feel about, say a Patriarch for Russian Catholics (as a Russian Catholic, you can see that would intrigue me), while there is also a Russian Orthodox Patriarch. I guess we know the answer to that question, but nevertheless...........
Much Love,
Jonn

Shlomo Neil,

Your post is a little confusing to me. You state: "I don't see why you think that a Pope from an Oriental versus Eastern Catholic Church would be any more acceptable to the Eastern Orthodox." All the hierarchs that I pointed out are Eastern Catholic.

Further, I was asking why they would be unacceptable since the do not come from a Byzantine Tradition. To me it seems to bring up again Byzantine arrogance that somehow only their Tradition is truely a Christian one and the rest of us are some how heretics.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Dear Jonn:

Great minds think alike.

The question re: proper role of the Roman Patriarch is almost as old as the Church itself and one can be assured that the debate/discussion will continue.

If memory serves, a conference was held toward the end of JPII's Pontificate wherein big-C Catholic and big-O Orthodox scholars met in the Vatican to discuss this very issue.

I think we in the East are much more open to the "First Among Equals" model because, quite frankly, we were not as influenced by the imperial system of government practiced by the Roman Empire, remnants of which are seen in the Latin Rite church to this day.

Examples: the Curia, the white-red-purple color scheme and the desire to legislate everything.

Yours,

hal

Yuhannon,

I thing we're speaking past one another because of one of my idiosyncracies (which I find increase in number as I grow older ). Specifically, I have taken, of late, to making a distinction between Eastern and Oriental Catholics, mirroring that made among the Orthodox as to Eastern (Byzantine) and Oriental (Non-Chalcedonian) Orthodox (leaving aside the Assyrians, whom they ordinarily class separately, their counterpart Chaldeans). (Following my logic, such as it is, your own Church would fall into the Oriental category, by reason of its shared heritage with the Syriacs and other Antiochenes).

In my experience, many of our Eastern Orthodox brethren consider themselves further removed from the Oriental Orthodox than do Catholics; I was presupposing that they would extend this thinking to Catholics whose origins were from that Communion. Perhaps not, but I continue to believe that the general aversion - more especially noticeable among Orthodox of the Byzantine Slav versus the Byzantine Greek tradition - to the "Uniate" Churches would decide the day in such circumstances.

Hope I've made sense.

Many years,

Neil

Shlomo Neil,
Thank you, you have cleared that up for me. As to my other point, how then will the Eastern Orthodox respond to the idea if a Maronite or Italo-Albanian-Greek Catholic were elected? Neither Church have ever been in heresy?

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Gotta say Hal, I disagree with you here. The difference between the Imperial influences on the Latin and Greek Churches merely reflects the differences between the West and East Roman Empires. Both lungs were profoundly influenced by the Romans/Rhomaions in the same way. Only the way things were done in New Rome began to distinctly differ from the way things were done in Old Rome (particularly during the reign of Heraclius were he ditched the title Imperator, formally ditched Latin and became 'Basileus').

Moreover, what does the 'first amongst equals' model mean? I am asking this openly and honestly in light of what(little) I know of Church History. So as to see how you are using and interpreting this term.

Yes, I should have distingusihed between Old Rome and New Rome. Point well taken.

Just don't anyone get me started on Third Rome.

The "first among equals" model means (to me at least) that the Patriarch of Rome recognizes the autocephaly of Rome's Sister Churches and does not interfere with their governance.

Yours,

hal

Yuhannon,

Of course, to the minds of the Orthodox, both have been continuously in heresy from 1054 or thereabouts, since they have retained communion with Rome .

I honestly don't know. There is particular respect among the Orthodox for the Italo-Albanian-Greeks, traceable in large measure to the perceived liturgical purity maintained at Grottaferrata - could that translate into a higher measure of acceptance for a Pope elected from that Church. Hard to say.

Equally difficult to know how they'd react to a Pope elected from the Maronites. In my experience, there isn't the interaction between your Church and the Orthodox, for the lack of any counterpart, that there is among the other Churches that call Antioch home. That could be for the better or the worse. I don't know the answer. Perhaps one of our Orthodox brethren would offer some thoughts.

Many years,

Neil

ps - On the other hand, maybe I do. With all due respect, there is an oftimes expressed pride on the part of the Maronites in never having been separated. I'm not at all convinced that it would sit well with the Orthodox.

Christ is risen!
Indeed, He is risen!

Regarding an Eastern Pope, please look at the story on this page, from the 7th of this month. Threw me for a punch at first, but.... could this be the mysterious unnamed Cardinal?


http://www.conciliarpress.com/blog/

Thank you.

In Christ,

Mike

"Get a life" is my interpretation of these very wise comments made by the very kind UGCC Patriach Lubomyr (Husar).

Please see link for more information:

UGCC Patriarch Lubomyr (Husar) comments concerning Papal pundits [risu.org.ua]

Maybe he is a board member .

I.F.

Dear Friends,

First of all, my hat goes off to Photius - who did NOT give back as good as he got from Hal above.

While my sympathies are with Hal, I admire anyone who will refuse to engage in a potentially nasty argument and backs away from it. May I learn to imitate Photius in this respect one day and I congratulate him!

Patriarch Lubomyr knows Latin, ancient Greek and Slavonic, as well as Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, English, Italian and French.

(I know because he is related to my wife's family and his niece lives here in Toronto.)

The issue of whether an Eastern Catholic Pope would be a source of problems for Orthodoxy is an interesting one.

Historically, there have been excellent relations between Russian Catholics and Orthodox, as we know.

I doubt that a Melkite Pope would ruffle Russian or Greek ecclesial fringes.

But, as Herbigny said, the pope is first and foremost the Patriarch of the Particular Latin Church.

The earlier Popes who were Greek and African (and one Dalmatian) belonged to an era where the liturgical traditions weren't all that estranged from one another, I would hazard to say.

When St Theodore of Tarsus, a Greek, was chosen to be Archbishop of Canterbury by the Pope of Rome, Theodore had to accept the Latin Rite (and was taught in it for some time under Roman tutelage). In addition, just to make sure he didn't try to Hellenize the Angles in England, the pope sent St Adrian, a Latin cleric, to be with St Theodore . . . just to make sure . . .

St Theodore's age is called the "Golden Age" of the English Church and he had the Churches of his day painted over with vibrantly coloured icons.

Puritans later white-washed these icons over. But the white-wash is now dissolving and the icons underneath are coming out - with the help of some modern artistry too.

I think the world is particular watching the continent from which the new Pope will come from - the liturgical heritage is something it really doesn't know enough about (Byzantine Forum et al. ) or thinks little about.

Alex

A recent feature Opinion-Editorial (April 10, 2005) by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times has suggested that the next Pope will permit priests to marry. See the following article:

Let Fathers be Fathers; NYTimes April 10, 2005 [nytimes.com]

IMHO, the Roman Catholic's core base membership is in Europe and North America. Without these wealthy parts of the church, the rest of the world is going to fall to Muslims and/or Christian sects. A Byzantine Patriach turned Roman Pope would be the best candidate for rapid change on this issue. The tradition that a Roman Pope must also be the Patriarch of the Western Church can be modified and/or changed IF the board members (Cardinals) permit this to happen.

I.F.