www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Implications of an Oriental Pope

The numerous threads about the possibility of a Pope being elected from the East by the conclave have got me thinking. Although admittedly I believe its highly unlikely that the next Pope will be from the Greek Church, I also know as Gabriel said to Our Lady 'nothing is impossible to God', and thus I want to pose the hypothetical question: What exactly do you think he'll do? Ok, ok, I understand that that's a pretty broad query but I am genuinely curious to hear the thoughts of the board.

As a Roman Catholic naturally this question is especially important to me since the Bishop of Rome is not only the successor of St Peter and thus keyholder to David's house, but also my direct jurdistictional head as Western Patriarch. My personal sentiments are that if an Eastern hierarch were elected to the throne of Peter it would not neccessarily be a bad thing. Pope John Paul the Great began an effort to make the Church Universal breathe on both lungs and an Eastern Pope might help the Church.

However, part of me believes that an Eastern Pope would not do too much as Western Patriarch--at least not to the Roman Catholic Church--for fear or upsetting the Latins or being seen to intefere with our traditions. I think trepidation over the charge of 'Hellenization' would prevent him from doing anything out of the ordinary and he might just end up as another name on the list of Popes.

Your thoughts?

Actually another Eastern Hiearch was "THIS CLOSE" to be elected a pope back in th e 60's. They happened to choose Paul VI (or was it John XXIII)? Maybe the forum members can enlighten us?

I wasn't even born then! LOL

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

Perhaps an Eastern Pope would be very healthy for the Latin Church. I believe he would encourage a collegiate government for the Church.

I do not think there would be any danger of Hellenization, inasmuch as an Eastern Catholic has truly felt the imposition of any latinization within his Church; on the contrary I believe he would encourage the Latins not to lose their traditions and even to study more deeply their own traditions.

Just my humblest opinion here.

Bernardo
Unworthy Cantor

You comment has put me to thinking. What I write below are my thoughts and should not be considered a - correction of you.

While it is true that John Pal was �the great� � how could his office have been - more - collegiate?

Vatican I (under John) and Vatican II (under Paul) were very collegiate - even to the point of inviting Orthodox to attend. Now if a certain portion of the church (and a lesser portion as far as members) does not come when invited - are they - being collegiate??

The entire focus of John Paul (notice the names) was the implementation of Vatican I and II - in a proper way. Certainly John did not call the meeting of Vatican I out of his own head but has received enough opinions that such a thing should happen - that he also felt it needed to modernize the church according to the needs of the flock in the modern world.

Vatican I and II were as collegiate as those in the church wanted it to be - and from then on out (John, Paul, and John-Paul) acted more as servants to the implementation of its collective mind.

Can the Church be - democratic - no, not really, never was and never will be - not without giving up entirely it unity as One Holy and Catholic Church - which unity is by hairballs structure.

While that structure is entirely via independent voluntary cooperation (and so some churches may refuse to cooperate while yet remaining still part of the entire one-ness of the church) if the position of Peter is removed - then we no longer have One Church composed of several independent church - we have - several independent churches - instead.

Full unity among the churches must reside in one - office. Having a unity of theology or doctrine or belief - is one thing - but full unity must be carried down to the human level.

If we resurrect in spirit (mind) but there is never a fullness to our human nature of a resurrection of body also - can the resurrection of our spirit and mind alone - be a - full - resurrection? No - because that leaves out a portion of our humanity.

And so the Church (One Holy Catholic) can not be said to be One Church - without the human office of one human head.

No one can say that the Lutheran, Episcopal, Baptist, Pentecostal - is One Church. That oneness does not exist in one office. These are instead - several churches. Several heads of equal status. They may share one belief - or several beliefs in common - but

The difficult (and unworkable part) for a democratic church is - the power or authority resides with - who?

If all the majority of a particular church agree to some stance - yet the majority of its rank and file disagree and agree on another stance? Which democratic body - counts? The bishops or the laity?

And then if the laity are divided - which body counts - the majority? And it that majority splits in opinion - which position of that church is now the democratic majority? And what we have is the cell like division of the Protestant churches which Evangelical edges split of and create new sidewalk churches each week.

Anyways .. I do believe that collegiancy rests with those who either decided to practice it or not. Those who refuse to participate in it - may say that refuse because there is a lack of collegiancy - but it is they who bring about that very - lack - and that lack remains isolated to themselves.

Anyway - this is just my thoughts� but it seems simple to me and a thing that should not be complicated - that those who refuse to be collegiant - are those who are not collegiant. A is A and B is B.

Thank you for this muse - it is not meant to be a correction of you own comments and thoughts.

The collegiancy of Vatican I and II (I witnessed in my own lifetime) was collegiant by all them who wanted collegiancy - and the Popes involed and following - have really just made it thier personal task to carry out the collective mind of that collegiancy.

-ray

I've discussed my private little idea with several people at CUA, Catholics and Orthodox. Everyone is amused at it, although we all know it would not happen. In many respects it is an amusing what if:

The choice for the next Pope should be: Patriarch Bartholomew, of Constantinople. Combine Old Rome and New Rome into one see (combination of Sees have been known to happen before), thereby freeing the Greeks from Turkey while opening up the unity among the churches.

One of my friends says I should present a paper on it this summer at the Orientale Lumen Conference (he is OCA, deacon, PhD in liturgical studies) and said the Orthodox would not know what to do if that happened. He said it would be even more interesting if offered to Patriarch Alexei (he might also be more willing to take it if it were offered.)

Even if this is all wishful thinking, I do think something along these lines, thinking "beyond the box" will ultimately be the means by which some reunion could be had.

> ... Vatican I (under John) and Vatican II
> (under Paul) were very collegiate - even ...

Ray, You are confused.
Vatican I (1869-1870)was under Pius IX.
Vatican II (1963-1965)was called by John XXIII and concluded under Paul VI

Photius

That is one fireworks display I wouldn't miss if possible. When you give that paper, it will be an electric moment when the responses are volleyed forth.
It wouldn't hurt to see some of the Latinisations in the Latin church done away with. The Latin church for centuries has been infected by a Carthaginian legalism that could be well replaced by the philosophical understanding of the East. A big example of Carthaginian legalism is the thing about penance, three Hail Marys, four Our Fathers, ad ridiculum. It may be apocryphal, but isn't there a "Big Book of Sins and Penance" for Latin priests for them to lick their thumb and hurriedly page through so the proper number of prayers, genuflections, ejaculations, etc.can be assigned for the temporal satisfaction for each sin? Yes, it is patently silly.
I remember talking with a Latin priest about how terrible sin is, what a particular sin does to the relationship between the individual and God, and the individual and to others.He had a rather vapid look on his face, and then told me the penance for that sin is such and such and so and so, no depth to this man at all.
Bring on the East!
Much Love,
Jonn

I find this to be extremely offensive. It is one thing - and an admirable, appropriate thing - to do away with Latinisations in the EASTERN Rites - that is only right and proper and was encouraged by our late great Pope.

But it is also right and proper for the Latin Rite to retain its own practices - which include ALL those practices which you sneer at and insult in your post.

We should speak with respect of each others' practices and rituals - and with charity of each other's failings. Just because you're on the Internet doesn't make it okay.

Theist Gal posted:

> ... But it is also right and proper for the
> Latin Rite to retain its own practices - which
> include ALL those practices which you sneer at
> and insult in your post.

> We should speak with respect of each others'
> practices and rituals - and with charity ...

Amen! Even though I've only seen Latin Rite Masses for weddings and funerals and don't have any personal appreciation for that rite, I do know it has an ancient and venerable history, its customs are decended from those of ancient martyrs and Church Fathers, and it is simply wrong to insult a tradtion used to worship the true God.

Photius, Lector

Jonn,

I found your comment about Latinizations of the Latin Church to be particularly obnoxious, and I'm a Byzantine Catholic.

Sam

No. I regularly receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation at various Latin parishes. Each priest gives whatever penance he sees fit. Some of them seem to give the same penance to everybody - my husband and I both always get 2 Hail Mary's and 2 Our Fathers at one parish, and a full decade of Hail Mary's at another.

One priest did try to tailor it to your sins. If your confession entailed a lot of problems in your marital relationship, the penance was to spend time in prayer asking God to show you how to be a better spouse. If your confession mostly had to do with sins against God and not your fellow man, the penance was to spend time in prayer asking God to draw you closer to Him and make you a better Christian. Etc.

Tammy

Where else would one expect to find Latinizations, but in the Latin rite? If you mean do away with some of their excess legalism, I might agree with you there. But I am Byzantine and don't get involved with what the Latin Rite does internally, except to the degree necessary to be an organist in one of their churches. Now if they start extending their legalism eastward, then that's another matter. Wars have been started over less.

Back to the topic:

I suspect that he would keep the Latin Rite Church pretty much as it is. I suspect that he would encourage Eastern Rite Churches to more fully rediscover and express their heritage. I think he would bring --by virtue of his origin -- a substantial amount of attention to the Eastern Rite Churches and their liturgy and their spirituality, which would be a good thing. However, I wonder if he might --again, because of his background-- exacerbate bad feelings that already exist among some Orthodox towards the Catholic Church and vice versa. I especially think that could be true if the he were of the Ukrainian Catholic Church; the Russian Orthodox Patriarch might feel affronted. Overall, however, I think it would be positive if an Eastern Bishop were elected Pope. However, the next pope is the Holy Spirit's decision (if the cardinals let Him act).

--John

To thiose who were offended, I truly apologize. However, I must stand by my position on empty legalism that follows the letter, but denies the spirit. Granted, there are younger, more thoughtful Latin priests who exhibit a spiritual and intellectual depth that I find pleasing, and indeed hopeful when it comes to such matters as the Sacrament of Reconciliation. But is it truly a part of any heritage, Latin, or otherwise, when faith becomes an institution where Sacraments are doled out with the impersonalism of a vending machine? The whole question of an Eastern Pope is pretty much a pipe dream, it would be great if it happened, but again, we are just having a collective pipe dream. If there was to be an Eastern Pope, perhaps, just perhaps, there would be a renewal in the Latin part of Holy Mother Church, that could really be a life giving and saving revival, and a breath of fresh reinvigorating air that she may need. That is why I say, dump the legalism, and get a breath of fresh air from the other ( Eastern)lung that Pope John Paul ll (eternal rest) called for.
Much Love,
Jonn

I would like to say that I am thankful to the Byzantines and Orientals who defended the Roman Church on this thread. I did not begin this topic to argue with anybody nor do I respond now with that intention in mind. I began this thread to listen to the views of others and I suppose I got what I asked for. John has answered me with his opinion, honestly and truthfully, and in doing so he has replied in a mode that suits my initial inquiry. If his tone seems disrespectful then maybe we are being hyper sensitive. I understand your concerns Theist gal but internet or no internet we are free beings and can act accordingly.

Thus, I hope nobody will condemn me if in the exercise of my freedom I am at all offensive to anybody in the way I reply to some of what John has said.

I have, over the past few months, been truly considering changing rite from the Latin to the Greek. I was indeed, over the past weekend thinking of making the trip across London to the Ukranian Apostolic Exarchate Cathedral and attending the Divine Liturgy. However, I've always had the sense that I am simply too Latin--inspite of my afro-carribean ethnicity--to do so and I think John has confirmed this.

I might be spectacularly impressed by St Athanasius' exposition of how the Divine Logos mediates between man and God, I might be stunned to amazement by St Basil, held in awe by the eloquence of St Gregory the Theologian and delighted by the wit and boldness of St John Chrysostom. I may be thoroughly impressed by St Maximus the Confessor and I may be blown away by the depth of St Theodore the Studite's exposition on the veneration of Icons. But I am far too Latin.

In me there is too much Augustinianism, too much legalism, too much Roman earhliness. I dont have it in me to rise above the black and white uniquely Greek Aristotelian derived scholasticism of the Latin Church. If I am following a mystical path its that of men like St Francis de Sales than that of St Moses the Black. I am more systematised, more organised. For me things have to have a label and fit into nice theological cateogries. I now understand that I have far more in common with St Thomas Aquinas than with St Anthony of the desert (in spite the latter being my chosen confirmation/chrismation patron).

I love the Eastern Church, I love Eastern Christianity but its become clear lately that I just dont fit in with you guys--and not just on this thread. Elsewhere some Roman Catholics on this board have complained of increased anti-Latin feeling since the Pope's repose and I have watched it without comment up until now. I agree that the Roman Catholic Church is perhaps overly jurdistictional with y'all and has in the past abused both the Orthodox and the Eastern Catholics but is that any reason to remind us of that anytime we try to speak about the situation now?

ByzanTN once said that the Roman Catholic Church is like the 300 pound gorilla in our communion and he's right. But is that any reason to think that you can say what you like about Latins and it be ok, simply because we have a larger membership and the policy of our Bishops isnt always correct. Just because there are more of us that doesnt mean we should bare the brunt of your discontent in silent apology for all our past sins. Yes, we know you were Latinised and we're sorry but beyond that there's not much we can do.

I am not offended by John or anybody else and I dont want anybody apologies from anyone, indeed if I get flamed I dont mind either. I am glad that undercurrent of anti-Carolingian feeling has managed to break through my starry eyed vision of Eastern Catholicism and made me see I am better off where I am.

Even after all...