www.byzcath.org Forums News & Events Church News Pope drops "Patriarch of the West" title

My personal take is that everyone is attributing more significance to this than it deserves.

The essence of papal authority remains unchanged, whether or not the pope uses the title "Patriarch of the West."

And, as some have noted, it might be back next year. It is really not a big deal at all.

Dear Father Deacon John,

So you've noticed inaccuracies in journalists' articles too?

I'm happy it's not just me!

But we leave out Tim Cuprisin who is a gem of a journalist!!

A Holy Lent to you all!

Alex

If this article is accurate, which I doubt, maybe His Holiness is about to name some new Western Patriarchs?

Hi,


Why the Latin Catholic Patriarch of Jerusalem is so problematic?

There is a Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem as well and nobody is complaining about him.

Both hierarchies are equally alien (or not) to the Holy Land.

Shalom,
Memo

While the Patriarch of Lisbon remains a titular Patriarchate now, it was once meant for jurisdiction in Lisbon and everything West, i.e. the Americas.

The titular "Patriarch of Venice" (after the sack of "Aquileia" its Patriarchate was split between "Venice" and the Island Patriarchate of "Grado" both of which received Aquileia's survivors and wealth) was retired toward the end of the 20th century. Soon after, the Pat. of Constantinople moved the diocesan see for the his Italian Metropolitanate from Napoli (Naples) to Venezia (Venice), never being the one to miss a good bargain on a vacant, unused patriarchate.

"Patriarch of the West" implies everything else up to the Pacific. It also implies that there is/are Patriarch(s) of the East.

Perhaps dropping "Patriarch of the West" is to imply once again that the Pope of Rome is Patriarch of East and West, North and South. To wit: 1871 and the proclamation of infallibility.

I hope that I'm wrong, but that's how it looks from Philadelphia.

In Christ,
Andrew

Hi,

The problem with "Patriarch of the West" is that it is misleading.

The Latin Church is not a Patriarchal Church modeled like the Eastern Churches of Patriarchal "rank".

The Latin Church doesn't have a Holy Synod over which a Patriarch of the West or a Patriarch of the Latin Church might preside.

And of course, neither the canonical head of the Latin Church nor any of her bishops is elected or has his election approved by any such body.

In addition to that, we do have the Titular Patriarch problem, which was already discussed.

If the Latin Church is to be divided into several Sui Iuris Churches, then we need to find a clear way to express the model of governance of each one of these and their relationship with the Apostolic See of Rome.

I would venture to say that what seems most fair to me is that these theoretical new Sui Iuris Churches would be co-equal to the current Eastern Sui Iuris Churches and therefore "The West" would no longer be almost identical to "The Latin Church" and therefore the role of the Pope in these theoretical new entities will ONLY be that of Supreme Pastor and not that of Canonical Head.

And I think this could advance the cause of ecumenism, because one of the good reasons for the fear the Orthodox have about an eventual reunion with Rome that they will merely be absorbed into the Latin-dominated Catholic Church is the sheer size of the Latin Church compared with all of her Sister Churches, Catholic or otherwise.

Breaking up the Latin Church could help level the play field, so to speak.

Shalom,
Memo

Interesting idea. Like most other posters, I was initally confused (and still am, to a degree) by the removal of the patriarchal title, but it makes sense in the above context.

God bless,

Chris

While the Eastern Levant is no longer an area where Greek language or culture is prevalent, it remains a fact that the Orthodox Patriarchate traces to the apostles and not the Crusades. That is a significant difference. So I don't see on what basis one would "complain" about the Orthodox Patriarch, especially given the fact that His Beatitude Theophilus has made efforts to better align the see with his flock.

I don�t think there is a fear of being absorbed in to the Latin Church. I think the real issue is with the idea of the Papacy as a super bishopric with jurisdiction over the entire church. Like I said, this move makes no sense to me.

Andrew

[QUOTE]Originally posted by defreitas:


In the article they state that the title was only formally introduced in 1870.



1870? mmm. my historical sense is tingling. that was the same year as Vatican l, where the dogma of Papal Infallibility was defined. any connection?
Much Love,
Jonn

Dear Memo,

Actually, I like your line of reasoning here!

If other Patriarchates in the West (I'm thinking primarily of an Anglican patriarchate possibly, no?) are to be set up, then dropping the "Patriarch of the West" thingy would make room for them.

That opens up some real ecumenical possibilities - although I still don't see what it all has to do with us Easterners . . .

Alex

Using my example from the first page of this thread, would this move not prohibit Benedict XVI from making any pronouncement relative to the discipline of priestly celebacy (just one example)?

As Patriarch of the West his pronouncements vis a vis this topic are/were valid, as they apply to the specific sui iuris Church of the West; lacking this specific title and given the titles that remain, it would seem to me that his words on this particular discipline would apply to a) the Diocese of Rome only (if he said them while wearing his Bishop/Metropolitan Archbishop of Rome "hat"); b) Italy herself (while wearing his Primate of Italy "hat"); c) Vatican City (while under the Soverign of Vatican City "hat") or d) ALL Catholic faithful (presumably including the sui iuris Eastern Churches in communion with Rome) while under the "hat" that goes with any of the remaining titles.

Obviously, pronouncements relative to priestly celebacy while under the titles associated with a, b or c are nonsense, given the limited scope that these titles are associated with; d, on the other hand, is too broad, as any of these remaining titles encompass ALL Catholics, including us Easterners.

Am I reading too much into this?

Al (a pilgrim)

Using my example from the first page of this thread, would this move not prohibit Benedict XVI from making any pronouncement relative to the discipline of priestly celebacy (just one example)?

As Patriarch of the West his pronouncements vis a vis this topic are/were valid, as they apply to the specific sui iuris Church of the West; lacking this specific title and given the titles that remain, it would seem to me that his words on this particular discipline would apply to: a) the Diocese of Rome only (if he said them while wearing his Bishop/Metropolitan Archbishop of Rome "hat"); b) Italy herself (while wearing his Primate of Italy "hat"); c) Vatican City (while under the Soverign of Vatican City "hat") or d) ALL Catholic faithful (presumably including the sui iuris Eastern Churches in communion with Rome) while under the "hat" that goes with any of the remaining titles.

Obviously, pronouncements relative to priestly celebacy while under the titles associated with a, b or c are nonsense, given the limited scope that these titles are associated with; d, on the other hand, appears to be too broad, as any of these remaining titles encompass ALL Catholics, including us Easterners.

Am I reading too much into this?

Al (a pilgrim)

A similar but different report of the same news and I suspect a wee bit more informative than the origianal article.

"Pope drops a traditional papal title


Pope Benedict XVI has renounced one of the traditional titles of the Roman Pontiff by dropping the title "Patriarch of the West."

Catholic World News reports that the new 2006 edition of the Annuario Pontificio, the official Vatican yearbook, carries 8 other traditional titles for the Pope, but does not include the "Patriarch of the West" designation that appeared in previous editions. The first ceremonial copy of the Annuario was presented to Pope Benedict on 18 February 2006; the volume will not go on sale to the public until mid-March.

The Pope is now identified in the Annuario as: "Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, Servant of the Servants of God."

Pope Benedict, who reportedly made the decision himself to drop the title, evidently wished to eliminate any notion that the Holy See represents the Church of "the West," and is therefore separate from the Eastern tradition.

The designation "Patriarch of the West," which traditionally appeared in that list of titles just before "Primate of Italy," has rarely been employed since the Great Schism of 1054, which separated the Orthodox churches from the Holy See.

It was introduced into papal nomenclature in 1870, at the time of the First Vatican Council. Pope Benedict chose to remove the title at a time when discussions with the Orthodox churches have centred on the issue of papal primacy.

The Holy Father wishes to emphasise the service that the Bishop of Rome performs for the entire Christian community, as the focus of unity in the universal Church."

From Cathnews.

ICXC
NIKA

Naaahh! You got it all wrong!

The title "Patriarch of the West" was dropped because it ran into disuse!

The Pope has jurisdiction over the entire globe and, consequently, he might assume the more appropriate title of "Patriarch of the World," aka the Supreme Pontiff! :p

Amado

P.S. Al, don't you worry about the "imposition" of clerical celibacy on the Eastern Churches. The Pope will always limit its application to the Latin Rite Church, or so I hope

Andrew:

just to clarify...

The Patriarchate of the West Indies was established in 1524 for the Spanish colonial missions in the Americas.The Patriarchate of Lisbon was erected in 1716 by Clement XI in answer to a request by the King of Portugal (apparently King john of Portugal wanted a patriarch like the King of Spain :rolleyes: ).

Not tied to an episcopal see, the title "Patriarch of the West Indies" was given to the bishop serving as the chaplain to the Spanish Army. The Patriarchate of the West Indies has been vacant since 1963. Since Spain no longer has colonies in the Americas, it makes no sense for the title to exist.