www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Byzantine Pope?

Thank you, Fr. Deacon John, for the clarification.

May the Lord bless your day.

Mary Jo

I would disagree with elements of this, since I believe that first and foremost the Pope is the successor of St Peter. I will qualify what I say here by saying, I believe that Rome could've fallen into the hands of any Apostle but it is by Providence that St Peter ended up making it his eventual residence. Being Bishop of Rome only has relevance to the Church Universal because of Peter and in this I agree with Alex. The only thing that seperates the Pope from the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem is that it is the See where Peter left his keys. Moreover, I agree with Alex again, that the only thing that unites Rome to the East is those keys. We can see from Patristic history that for the most part unless the exercise of those keys was neccessary the Pope's did not involve themselves in the concerns of the other Primatal Sees and Patriarchate's. There was no need. In addition it is true that the Cardinals of the Catholic Church are merely honoured clerics of the local Church of Rome, which is why they can appoint the Roman Bishop.

St Peter was both Bishop of Rome and Prime Minister over David's house (cf. Isa 22:19-25 and Matt 16:13-20). Because of this the two offices have been combined but they work in slightly different spheres. The former is always active within the Western Patriarchate, the latter is only active in certain unique circumstances. This makes it difficult to decide whether or not Eastern clergy should be made cardinals. My personal sentiments are that its more loyal to the patristic model not to have Eastern Catholic clerics made Cardinals. Nonetheless, there are those who I think could make a fair case of saying that since in extraordinary circumstances Rome is the point of reference and both calls and confirms Ecumenical Councils the Eastern Churches should have a say in who holds this office? Perhaps, one might even say that that to an extent amongst the reasons for the estrangement of the Latin and Greek Churches is the fact that the East began to have less and less say over who became the man to mitigate in their disputes when need arose.

The Imperial nod might have been a formality but it was an important one. It gave witness to the Eastern lung that there was a place for them in consultation at the very least. In a sense it strengthened ties between East-West because it reminded both sides they were part of one body. I'd equate it to standing up. The head is always seperate from the chest. However, when you're laying down often the chin touches the collarbone. When you stand up though the more concious the head becomes of itself and the less it becomes of the body. In our current era without an Emperor at Constantinople maybe there is need for some variety of consultation with the East over who exactly gets to be Pope? I mean we can no longer hark back to the Ante-Nicene era and say well the Latins did it alone then, let them do it alone now. Too much has happened since then, too much distrust has been sown.

Indeed, the 5 Patriarchy's should function as was canonically envisioned and as it was before the advent and Islam, the schism etc. But at the same time given the very nature of the keys I think it would be helpful to have some sort of Eastern input in Papal elections. Just to ensure we dont become estranged from each other and so that the East can trust that the one who is first amongst them will not simply have Latin concerns in mind. Perhaps if we dont have Eastern Cardinals an Orthodox delegation from the Ecumenical Patriarchate might visit Rome at Papal elections etc?

Many have speculated that Cardinal Husar
could be the next Pope.

Check this site out:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2089815/

The Patriarchs of the East are at the same time equal different from the Patriarch of the West.
They are equal because they rule particular churches, that is the same status the Patriarch Gregorios III has before the Melkite Church the Pope John Paul II has before the Roman Church, and they are different because the Pope is Pontiff of the Catholic Church as a whole, he is Pontiff of Catholic Church and Patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church.

Dear Ray,

The problem with a "Pope Lubomyr" is the possibility of a schism in the Anglo-world on account of an inability to pronounce his name properly - for one.

They would have to squint to see an outline of his face that seems buried in his beard - number two.

The Latin Catholics would complain that their new "Papa" keeps crossing himself the wrong way and shaping his hand as if he is about to pinch his eye-brows . . .

Then when the Latin Catholics tuned in for Midnight Papal Christmas Mass, there would be a message in many languages telling people to stay tuned for another 13 days . . .sorry . . .

There would be unrest at the prospect of the new Ukie Pope wanting to impose Church Slavonic on Rome's religious universities rather than Latin - but that would be O.K., the students could get away with writing their exams in Ukrainian, if Slavonic were too much . . .

Then when all these Latin seminarians presented themselves to "His Holiness Husar" he would ask them where their wives were - out shopping, perhaps? And if they didn't have wives, why aren't they in monastic robes?

If he asked any of them about the greatest theologians in the Church, he would wonder why no one mentioned Gregory, Basil or Maximos?

And all those with beards would get ten extra marks on their oral exams . . .

And just picture the surprise on the faces of all the Latin bishops concelebrating with Papa Lubo when he turns and asks them why they forgot to bring the spoon and the sponge - and that bread was "really in the oven much too long . . ."

Do people who write articles like that even know what an Eastern Church looks like?

Alex

Dear Nelson,

The Pope is the first Patriarch to be sure.

When Pope John VIII met with Patriarch Photios way back when, the Pope arranged the thrones to be of equal height to indicate that they were equal.

Pope John Paul II ALSO arranged the thrones to be on the same even keel when he met with His All-Holiness, Patriarch Bartholomew.

So "first among equals in the entire Church" is the ancient role of the Pope.

He's like a good hockey coach. When things get rough on the ice, he can call a foul and assign a penalty.

Alex

Well you can always count on Alex for comedy but I was hoping for you to continue my ecclessiology discussion doc.

On this issue though, once more I do think that perhaps having a Greek Catholic Pope might not be for the best and that the people writing these things are obviously not Christian.

Trying to reduce the factors for someone's election to their race, as a young black man, makes me laugh. Because if black people were that concerned about the colour of the Pope there wouldnt be 120 million converts in Africa alone.

These people need a 'clue'. People convert to Christianity because its true . Not for racial motives. If they did, hardly anybody would follow our faith because God incarnate is a Jew.

In reflection though, maybe having an Orthodox delegation from Constantinople sit in observation of the conclave might be a better way to get the Eastern nod for who gets to be Peter's successor.

PS) Only in term of ordinary powers

I've been hesitant in asking this question as sometimes I do question Papal jurisdiction et al.

Is the Bishop of Rome / Patriarch of the West / Supreme Pontiff given the title Primus inter pares solely because of Apostolic Succession to St Peter and that Peter was head of the Apostles.
Or is it because Rome was the Centre of the Roman Empire.
I've heard arguments both ways.
Why is it that we give the Pope this title ?
Such a simple question but I'm sure explanations can be complicated.

Brad

Dear Myles,

We agree that the East need not concern itself about who is elected Pope of Rome - that is "inside ball" for the Vatican.

The Vatican has nothing to worry about - it has a quarter-back who is infallible . . .

And "ordinary power" for many Eastern Catholics today is invoked whenever the Vatican steps on EC toes - in that case, ordinary power relates to the Vatican's ability to go jump in the lake.

Alex

Dear Myles:

Sorry, no kibitzing allowed! :p

Amado

"Frankly, it would be best for all the Eastern Primates and Patriarchs to follow the Armenian lead (and that of Met. Andrey Sheptytsky) and refuse to be nominated as Cardinals."

"In this vein, I personally think that Eastern Rite hierarchs should have a positive view on the Cardinalate."


It was Patriarch Maximos VI of the Melkites who first declined the cardinalate, primarily at the behest of Archbishop Elias. Although I think the Roman registers still record him as one. Several Armenian patriarchs have been cardinals, however.

Patriarch Maximos gave quite an outstanding intervention at Vatican II calling for the abolition of the Curia and College of Cardinal and the creation of a permanent Synod in Rome with representatives from all national Latin Churches and autonomous Eastern Churches who would vote for the Bishop of Rome.

No matter how you slice it the cardinalate is not an ecclesiastical honor equal to the patriarchate, in spite of the diplomatic status it carries. The cardinalate in history and its symbolic ranking makes one a suffragan bishop of the Roman Province or a priest or deacon of the Roman Archdiocese. Imagine an Eastern Patriarch making a Latin Metropolitan an honorary archpriest in his Church, it would be silly. One does not honor another by giving him a title lower than the one he already possesses.

If it is felt that Eastern representation is needed than as Patriarch Maximos suggetsed give them voting rights without making them cardinals. Although many Eastern bishops would probably even disagree with this maintaining that the pope should simply send letters of communion to the patriarchs once elected.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Fr. Deacon, perhaps you are referring to Maximos IV Saigh? There are only V Maximos (Hakim being the last).

Hi all,

Perhaps we could rethink this idea that the Eastern Catholics are in communion with the Pope only as Supreme or Universal Pontiff.

Isn't Communion a relationship between persons?

If you are in Communion with the Pope then your person is in Communion with the person of the Pope and within your Church and ours, he still is the Bishop of Rome, the Metropolitan of the Roman Province, the Primate of Italy and the Patriarch of the Latin Church.

If none of those titles mean much (legally) to your Church, that's fine, but *he* remains all those things, and you are in Communion with *him*, aren't you?

For instance, although the Pope is my Patriarch, he is not my Metropolitan. Could I say I am not in Communion with him as Metropolitan of the Roman Provice?

Nonsense! The Pope is the Metropolitan of the Roman Provice, and I am in Communion with him as such and as the manythings he also is.

Am I misunderstanding?

Shalom,
Memo

Dear Memo,

You are misunderstanding.

When the Pope of Rome issues an order that Communion in the hand is allowed, for example, then he does this as Patriarch of the West and this has NOTHING whatever to do with Catholics of the Eastern Churches.

For one thing, many of us could NOT have Communion in the hand, for obvious reasons.

The Pope as Universal Pontiff would NOT issue a general command like that to all the EC churches since that is "ultra vires" his jurisdiction and role - it is about the internal discipline of the Latin Church only.

Interestingly, the Pope can act in any one of his nine roles without any of them impacting the other.

For example, when he beatified the married couple, he did so for the City of Rome - something he could do as Pope, but also as Bishop of Rome and Metropolitan of the Roman Province and Primate of Italy.

Alex

Hi,

That may be, but I still see no reason to say that you are in Communion with him only as Supreme Pontiff.

You are under his jurisdiction of Supreme Pontiff and only under that level/title.

With that, of course, I agree.

But Communion and jurisdiction are two different beasts, aren't they?

Shalom,
Memo