Pope drops a title

[Alex Haig]

[Link to original article...] (http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2006-03-01_981469.html)

POPE DROPS A TITLE

Benedict does not want to be called Patriarch of the West

(ANSA) - Vatican City, March 1 - Pope Benedict XVI has ordered one of his nine official titles to be dropped .

In the new edition of the Vatican yearbook, the German pontiff is no longer referred to as Patriarch of the West .

He is simply Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Roman Province, Sovereign of Vatican City and Servant of the Servants of God .

According to sources in the Vatican publishing house, the move - noticed by only the most observant of Vatican-watchers - was requested by the pope himself .

It is seen as a sign of Benedict's desire to overcome the 992-year division between Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians .

It is a "sign of ecumenical sensitivity", officials said .

"In the past the patriarchate of the West was contrasted with that of the East. I think the pope wanted to remove this sort of contrast and his act is intended as a spur to ecumenical progress," said Cardinal Achille Silvestrini. "The Catholic Church does not consider itself the Church of the West," said the cardinal, who is head of the Vatican department dealing with Eastern branches of Catholicism .

Dropping the Patriarch of the West title was reportedly also considered by Benedict's predecessor, John Paul II, who made significant inroads in promoting dialogue between Orthodox Christians and the Catholic Church .

But some commentators noted that the move could backfire, saying the Orthodox Church might interpret it in a different way .

"That world is very attached to traditions and could see the papal innovation as...an indirect affirmation of himself as 'universal patriarch'," wrote Luigi Accattoli in Corriere della Sera. Usage of the term Patriarch of the West goes back some 1,466 years but, as experts note, it was only ever really used by leaders, or 'patriarchs', of the Christian Church in the east .



© Copyright ANSA. All rights reserved 2006-03-01 14:57


----------------------

Any thoughts on this? Alex

(Message edited by admin on 01 March, 2006)

[Bogdan]

perhaps I am being synical, but I see him dropping it as him saying, "There is no such thing as a patriarchial church" ..once again, perhaps too synical, but look at his list of titles. By taking out the patriarch part, he leaves no room for anyone to be his equal. At least with it in there, someone could look at it and ask, "If he is a patriarch, where are his brother patriarch's?" This way, it's just him, himself and his Vicarship. I apologize, for my harsh remarks, but this whole topic got my blood boiling. Thank you for the information Alex.

[Baroness]

"That world is very attached to traditions and could see the papal innovation as...an indirect affirmation of himself as 'universal patriarch'," wrote Luigi Accattoli in Corriere della Sera. Usage of the term Patriarch of the West goes back some 1,466 years but, as experts note, it was only ever really used by leaders, or 'patriarchs', of the Christian Church in the east."

Interesting article. Funnily enough, my first initial reaction to reading the article, was exactly the above comment ... thinking to myself, "So he drops the title, therefore in essense making himself the Pope of all nations!"

[Byron Jack Gaist]

Dear Alex,

I'm not an expert on this, but I wonder what it really means. Is it an ecumenical gesture, or a move further away from Orthodoxy? Not taking into account any of the important differences between the RC and EO, was there anything wrong with the title "Patriarch of the West" as such? If the Pope ceases to call himself this, what does this imply wrt his relationship with the EO, and with the Ecumenical Patriarch in particular? Would the Pope really see himself as simply the Bishop of Rome? What is meant by the statement of Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, "The Catholic Church does not consider itself the Church of the West"? Does it perhaps view itself as the Church of the West and the East? As an Orthodox layman, I would need to hear a direct statement from the Pope regarding what his intentions in dropping the title were, before I could decide how I feel about it.

In Christ
Byron

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

When the Pope was yet Joseph Ratzinger he pointed out the
need to disentangle the confusion between the patriarchal and primatial roles of the bishop of Rome and to break up the Latin patriarchate, replacing it with a number of ""patriarchal areas," that is, regions with an
autonomy similar to that of the ancient patriarchates, but under the direction of the episcopal conferences.

In an essay entitled "Primacy and Episcopacy," Ratzinger developed the theme at greater length:

"The image of a centralized state which the Catholic church presented right up to the council does not flow only from the Petrine office, but from its strict amalgamation with the patriarchal function which grew ever stronger in the course of history and which fell to the bishop of Rome for the whole of Latin Christendom. The uniform canon law, the uniform liturgy, the uniform appointment of bishops by the Roman centre: all these are things which are not necessarily part of the primacy but result from the close
union of the two offices. For that reason, the task to consider for the future will be to distinguish again and more clearly between the proper function of the successor of Peter and the patriarchal office and, where necessary, to create new patriarchates and to detach them from the Latin church. To embrace unity with the pope would then no longer mean being incorporated into a uniform administration, but only being inserted into a unity of faith and communion, in which the pope is acknowledged to have the power to give binding interpretations of the revelation given in Christ whose authority is accepted whenever it is given in definitive form."

After exploring the ecumenical implications of this vision, Ratzinger concluded: "Finally, in the not too distant future one could consider whether the churches of Asia and Africa, like those of the East, should not present their own forms as autonomous 'patriarchates' or 'great churches' or whatever such ecclesiae in the Ecclesia might be called in the future."

Playing the optimist, I hope that this is the beginning of a long-term plan to bring these ideas quietly into reality, without causing alarm to the "hawks" and ultramontanists in the Roman Catholic Church.

Who knows, but now the Pope is no longer Patriarch of the West we may one day see a Patriarch of Dublin, or Paris, or Madrid.

[Alex Haig]

Many thanks to you all. I read this as moving away from a rapprochement with the Orthodox Church since, as has been pointed out, the Roman Catholic Church is setting itself up as the Universal Church - in my opinion 'Patriarch of the West' is the title he should hold onto.

However, as Fr Ambrose noted, perhaps this could lead to the end of the Bishops in Western Europe having a titular See in the East (and not where they live).

With love in Christ

Alex

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev: Pope's Title "Patriarch of the West" Removed. What Does It Mean for the Orthodox?

The mass media reported that in the new edition of the "Annuario Pontificio" for 2006 the pope's title "Patriarch of the West" has been dropped. Now the official list of titles includes: "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".

Some analysts saw in this omission the desire to improve the relations with the Orthodox Church. The former prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, Cardinal Achille Silvestrini is reported to have said that the deletion was a "sign of ecumenical sensitivity" on the part of Pope Benedict. The cardinal said that in the past some people used the title to provoke negative comparisons between the claims of universal jurisdiction by the worldwide "Patriarchate of the West" and the more restricted size and jurisdiction of the traditional Orthodox patriarchates. According to the cardinal, the pope's gesture "is meant to stimulate the ecumenical journey."

However, it is not at all clear how the removal of the title could possibly ameliorate Catholic-Orthodox relations. It seems that the omission of the title "Patriarch of the West" is meant to confirm the claim to universal church jurisdiction that is reflected in the pope's other titles, and if the Orthodox reaction to the gesture will not be positive, it should not be a surprise.

In the Byzantine epoch there were four Eastern Patriarchates: of Constantinople, of Alexandria, of Antioch, and of Jerusalem. The Patriarchate of Rome was considered as "first among equal" in the diptychs up until 1054, when the ecclesiastical relations between East and West were interrupted. Thus, in the West, there was only one Patriarchate of Rome, while in the East there were four Patriarchates. The Patriarchate of the West together with the four Eastern Patriarchates constituted the so-called "pentarchy".

It is the title "bishop of Rome" that remains then most acceptable for the Orthodox Churches, since it points to the pope's role as diocesan bishop of the city of Rome. The title "archbishop and metropolitan of the Roman Province" shows that the pope's jurisdiction includes not only the city of Rome, but also the province. The title "primate of Italy" indicates that the Bishop of Rome is "first among equals" among the bishops of Italy, i.e., using Orthodox language, primate of a Local Church. With this understanding, neither of the three titles would pose any problem for the Orthodox in case of the re-establishment of the Eucharistic communion between East and West.

The model of church unity between East and West will be discussed by the Mixed Catholic-Orthodox Theological Commission that will meet after a six-year break in the fall of 2006. It is clear that this model will be hypothetic, since there remain many obstacles, both of dogmatic and of ecclesiological character, for the restoration of the full communion. However, the main obstacle to unity, according to many Orthodox theologians, is the teaching on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. It is this teaching that will be discussed in the framework of the Mixed Commission.

In this context unacceptable and even scandalous, from the Orthodox point of view, are precisely those titles that remain in the list, i.e. Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church.

According to the Orthodox teaching, Christ has no "vicar" who would govern the universal Church in his name.

The title "successor of the prince of the apostles" refers to the Roman Catholic teaching on the primacy of Peter that was passed on to the Bishop of Rome and that submitted to him the universal Church. This teaching has been criticized in Orthodox polemical literature from Byzantine time onwards.

The title "supreme pontiff" (pontifex maximus) originally belonged to the pagan emperors of Rome. It was not rejected by Emperor Constantine when he converted to Christianity. With relation to the pope of Rome the title "supreme pontiff of the Universal Church" points to the pope's universal jurisdiction which is not and will never be recognized by the Orthodox Churches. It is precisely this title that should have been dropped first, had the move been motivated by the quest for "ecumenical progress" and desire for amelioration of the Catholic-Orthodox relations.

It is to be hoped that the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity will publish an official comment on the removal of the title.

http://www.orthodoxeurope.org

[Bogdan]

I hate to say it but I must; I told you so.

~Bogdan

[Arsenios]

Alex Haig wrote:
> However, as Fr Ambrose noted, perhaps this could lead to the
> end of the Bishops in Western Europe having a titular See in
> the East (and not where they live).

I have been noticing some quiet moves in the same direction, where he seems to be establishing a new role for the bishops as regional patriarchs, empowering them as patriarchs by asking for their conciliar input on some issues.

And this now looks to be so as to separate the administrative from the Papal functions, and reduce the Papacy to a supreme authority only in matters of doctrine. I would imagine that the Papal veneration of the faithful would also be retained... I doubt that veneration of the regional patriarchs by the faithful, as they do the Pope, would as yet become an issue, if ever.

So that this matter of dropping the title is more about the internal re-structuring of the Roman Church into a more 'Eastern model', and is not specifically directed as a gesture either toward or away from reconciliation with the East.

Sigh...

Rdr. Arsenios

[Scott Pierson]

It is the title "bishop of Rome" that remains then most acceptable for the Orthodox Churches, since it points to the pope's role as diocesan bishop of the city of Rome.

Its not acceptable to me really. In order to be a Bishop one has to be Orthodox which the current "pope" is not. In order to be a patriarch of the Church you have to be in the Church first. I would perfer "Pretender to the Patriarchal throne of Rome" but I dont think he will be calling himself that any time soon lol.

[Peter Farrington]

I do agree that there is no Orthodox Patriarchate of the West, and hasn't been for a long time. But as in the thread on addressing heterodox priests, the Pope is, or was until this announcement, the Roman Catholic Patriarch of the West.

As has been said, in fact this title was the one he should have kept, since one could imagine the Patriarch of the West becoming Orthodox, but there is no prospect of an Orthodox Supreme Pontiff, or an Orthodox Vicar of Christ.

Peter