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

Other way around, Stuart. At least in terms of current practice. A man doesn't get to be pope by being elected or appointed bishop of Rome. He becomes the bishop of Rome by being elected pope.

Agreed.

If you check the latest Annuario Pontificio you will find Pope Francis's title given as Bishop of Rome. You will then have to turn the page for the supplementary titles.

Moreover, since he is first and foremost the Bishop of Rome, the majority of his time should be spent ministering to the people of his diocese, a task that should not be habitually delegated to an Apostolic Vicar. This should occupy enough of his time that he will not be able to micromanage the affairs of other Churches.

From your mouth to God's ear.

For what it is worth, the Primates of Orthodox Churches - at least the larger, historical sees, are the sitting Bishop of a particular City (i.e. the Bishop of the Moscow is the Patriarch of Russia and the Primate of the Church of Russia and so on) but in reality they are not the administering Bishop nor do they necessarily come from within the ranks of the clergy of that city or even district. The distinction between the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the primacy of the heads of the individual Orthodox Churches however, is at the heart of the schism between the east and west. While the nature of ecclesiological organization in the east and west have taken somewhat different paths over time (a rather broad understatement), I suspect that as to the historical 'Church of Rome', in any hypothetical reunion, the Orthodox majority opinioin would concede that the Pope would retain his historical authority and jurisdiction over the western Church. But, any primacy the Pope would excercise over the entire Apostolic Church outside of her own domain, any primacy beyond those borders would be in the nature of a 'primacy of honor' and defining what that entails in terms understandable to the clergy and faithful of both east and west remains the prime stumbling block to any future reunion.(We can not agree among ourselves what it means in relation to the Patriarch of Constantinople.) The Orthodox also can not figure that out in the so-called 'diaspora ' so the lack of progress as to its applicability to east and west should not be understated. (The status of western Catholics in historically Orthodox lands and of eastern Orthodox in historically western lands may be point where irreconcilable differences can not be bridged. I can not envision either 'side' granting jurisdiction to the other in such circumstances.) The Orthodox will never agree to a primacy which places the selection of Orthodox bishops in the hands of the Vatican or which requires the confirmation of any national primate by Rome so there you have it. Rome could, as have Constantinople and Moscow on numerous occasions over the recent past, refuse to recognize this or that bishop, but that would be about it. For example, the OCA exists in a canonical 'limbo', its status not universally accepted as claimed by her and the recent election of a Primate by the Slovak Orthodox Church is currently not recognized by Constantinople - but in neither case are their priests, bishops or sacraments viewed (using western terminology) as being 'illicit' or 'invalid'. It's complicated and I've gone off point as my digression has little to do with the original question.

And that means that he is a member of the Latin Church. When St Theodore of Tarsus, a Greek, became the Archbishop of Canterbury, he was obliged to accept the Latin Rite.

Alcuin was sent along with him to make sure he did . . .

Alex

Well, this is an interesting question. Though probably for different reasons, both High Petrine and Low Petrine advocates do not attach any sort of divine prerogative for the Primacy to be invested in the bishop of Rome. It is the bishop of Rome due to Tradition. Even V1 only asserted that it is the Primacy in the universal College of bishops per se that is considered de fide, not particularly the primacy of the Bishop of Rome - the latter is due to ecclesiastical Tradition, not divine law. So can someone other than the bishop of Rome have the primacy according to the ecclesiology of Vatican 1? I daresay YES.

If a non-Latin were to be elected primate of the College, there is no divine law that dictates that he must thence become the Bishop of Rome.

This is also admittedly a very different view from what people expect to hear/read.

But who are we to tell the Pope what he can/cannot do? (I'm not speaking of dogma.) Yes: the Pope IS the Bishop of Rome, but of course he is more than that. So why could he not as Bishop of Rome do what the Bishop of Rome does (minister to the parishes in his care); however, as Pope of the Universal Church (yes, I know some do not accept or are uncomfortable with that terminology) why could he not be a "bi-ritual Pope?" I think there is a danger that we become like the Pharisees (who would not accept Jesus because he did not behave according to their interpretation of the rules of the Messiah) and say, now hold on, Mr. Pope, this is not the way I read the canons. (Again: I am not speaking of dogmas.)

If an Eastern Catholic--say, Patriarch Syiatoslav--were chosen, the secular media would doubtless say, "Non-Catholic Elected Pope!"

IF a Pope could/should be 'bi-ritual', why then did Pope St. John Paul when he visited Ukraine not serve in the 'Eastern Rite';or when the Pope visits the Russicom why not come in a Klobuk and white kamilavka with a Mantia? How about when he receives Orthodox Bishops?

And pardon my Orthodox understanding, but is not the basis for the claim of universal jurisdiction and primacy over all of the Church based on the Petrine nature of the See of Rome? If it does not come from the See of Rome and the claim that St. Peter was the first Bishop of that See, on what is it based?

Dear Passiozi,

Very good!!

Alex

Right, DMD.

Mardukm, "Tradition" (when spelled with a capital "T") refers to elements of the faith that are "not reformable", we might say in the West. Or, in other words, they are, at least in practical terms (not necessarily technical theological ones), dogmatic. Tradition with a small "t" refers to things which can and do change over time.

The precise way that the See of Rome governs the rest of the Church can and does change from time to time, in various ways. What does not and can not change, by virtue of divine prerogative, is the fact that it's the See of Rome that's doing so.

Peace.

I am not saying the Pope would HAVE to be bi-ritual, but is there some dogmatic reason he could not be?

Wasn't Pope Sr. Telesphorus (2md century) a monk in Calabria before being elected Pope? The area was a stronghold of Greek Christianity and, assuming that Greek and Latin distinctions already existed at that early stage, it could be assumed that he was actually of the "Greek Rite."