www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Archbishop Pezzi Says Catholic-Orthodox Reunion Could Come Soon

Marduk,

I don't think Fr. Ambrose's statement is based on that assumption at all. He is merely expressing an accurate Orthodox perspective on the role of the Pope of Rome. The link between the office of the Pope and the See of Rome is undeniable: the Pope cannot be the Pope without being first the Bishop of Rome, and the uniqueness of his office--however that may be understood--cannot be separated from it (as compared, for example, with the office of President of the USCCB). In other words, the Pope is the first bishop only because Rome is the first church.


Then why do we always call him "the Pope of Rome," and never "our Pope?"


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Dear brother Epiphanius,

I know the person who is Pope is also the Patriarch of the Latins, but the two offices need to be distinguished, don't you think? If one does not dinstinguish the two offices, then that provides fodder for those who think Latinizations are acceptable in the Eastern and Oriental Churches. The Pope has very often been the lone defense of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic Churches against Latinization, even before the 20th century. Obviously, the office of the papacy is different from the office of the Latin Patriarch (or the office of the Roman bishop, for that matter).

Our Canons call him the Roman Pontiff. I don't know about anyone else, but in everyday language, I just call him the Pope. When the OO and CC reunite, I will, as a Copt, at that point be more distinguishing in my reference to the bishop of Rome, as "the Pope of Rome."

Humbly,
Marduk

P.S I didn't know you were a Deacon! Forgive me for any disrespect by presuming to be able to "bless" you in my previous posts.

I am getting lost here. I understood that the Pope abolished his office as Patriarch of the Latins about 4 years ago? Has he re-established the office?

Bless, Father,

You are correct - although the role was styled Patriarch of the West, as I recollect - not completely sure about the timeframe, but your estimate sounds about right to me. I think that marduk, as many others, is still thinking in those terms and I suppose, in some respects, it's difficult not to do so.

Many years,

Neil

Deleted

Here's a great article from CNS on the matter: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0601225.htm

The removal of the title "Patriarch of the West" does not negate the fact that the Pope is still objectively the Patriarch of the Latin Church.

I especially like the last paragraph in the article:
Maintaining a distinction between the pope's role as head of the universal church and as a patriarch, Msgr. Magee said, could be seen as protecting and opening up "the rightful place of other particular churches within catholicity."

So is it something like the situation with Cardinal Husar who is objectively Patriarch of the Ukraine but does not use the title so as not to offend the Orthodox?

Dearest Father Ambrose,

I don't think the comparison is appropriate. That HB Husar does not take the title seems to be purely out of ecclesiastical prudence. In the Pope's case, there is a potential relevance in praxis. The fact is, "the West" is no longer composed merely of Latins (though it is still by far the majority). So giving up the title will, as the article states, "protect and open up" the non-Latin Patriarchal prerogatives and perhaps even its boundaries.

Perhaps it will (hopefully) also have the effect of influencing both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches to move away from the idea of territorial jurisdiction. The article mentions that the West, after the schism, began to look at the episcopate in juridical terms, instead of sacramental terms. Actually, the EO are just as guilty of this juridical mentality. Hopefully, everyone will take the Pope's lead on the matter, and our hierarchs (both Catholic and Orthodox) will begin to look at the episcopate less in terms of "jurisdiction," and more in terms of "servanthood" or "solicitude."

Humbly,
Marduk

Gentlemen: as far as I know, Pope Benedict has never explained why he ordered the deletion of the patriarchal title. The only explanation that has been tendered is the communique from the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity [zenit.org]. Not too much should be made of this move, one way or the other.

I honestly do not know what you all are arguing about now. It appears to have become a debate between canon lawyers.

The Pope may have renounced the title, but I imagine there would be some annoyance if an Orthodox Patriarch of Rome were to be elevated. Interestingly, the EP's Russian exarchate in Western Europe has been claiming that the EP is "locum tenens" of the vacant See of Rome (and Western Europe) in their legal battles with the MP.

Dearest Father Kimel,

Don't worry. We are not arguing. We are only exchanging information.

Humbly,
Marduk

Fascinatng. Any more info, Embatl'd?

[quote=Hieromonk Ambrose][quote=Embatl'dSeraphim]The Pope may have renounced the title, but I imagine there would be some annoyance if an Orthodox Patriarch of Rome were to be elevated. Interestingly, the EP's Russian exarchate in Western Europe has been claiming that the EP is "locum tenens" of the vacant See of Rome (and Western Europe) in their legal battles with the MP. [/quote]
Fascinatng. Any more info, Embatl'd? [/quote]

The relevant court decision is [url=http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1250.html]here[/url]. I don't think the claim can really be taken seriously, since the EP has no intention of actually filling the See.

Blimey! It just gets more fascinating! The claims seems to be that the Diocese of Rome is vacant...

So much for ecumenical relations!