THE NOMINATION THREAD

[Q the Ninja]

I always wondered why the East and West have always clashed...

[Guest Eremite]

They're not clashing. They just each have different gifts and roles. It's like marriage. The wife shouldn't try to fill the roles of the husband, and the husband shouldn't try to fill the roles of the wife. The East shouldn't try to fill the roles of the west, and the west shouldn't try to fill the roles of the East.

[Aloysius]

back to my question then, is it necessary for the Pope to be patriarch of the Roman Rite, or can the jobs be separated? if a patriarch of an eastern Church became Pope, would he stay patriarch of both rites? I mean, obviously you can be patriarch of a rite and pope at the same time, if popes are always both pope and patriarch of the Roman Rite.

I mean, could an Eastern Catholic Patriarch become Pope and then appoint a new Roman Patriarch??? Is there anything that requires that both jobs be filled by the same person?

canon law hasn't dealt with this question, and it is quite an interesting question, and neither has the Church so far as I know.

oh, and the analogies to colonialism and racism are erroneous and flawed. please stay reasonable here, we're talking about the structure of the Church, it transcends any of that. first off the thing he said was nowhere near "seperate but equal" and even if it was, when working on an international stage THAT's THE WAY IT WORKS, rites are seperate but equal. that doesn't work on a national stage, if you read the supreme court majority opinion on why that was overturned, seperate but equal cannot work because it's never equal. however, rites dispersed worldwide can be seperate and equal, but that's not even what he said. the Church in Rome is the center of the Church by Divine Law, so the colonial thing is completely flawed and erroneous as well.

[Guest Eremite]

I suppose the successors to St. Peter could divorce themselves from their historical ministry to Rome and the West, and become a "neutral" Bishop, but that would take a radical restructuring of the Papacy. That would also greatly turn the Church away from the collegial path it has tried to restore, because it would give the Pope nothing to do but serve as basically Bishop of the world. His ministry as Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West gives him an immediate duty in the Church, and allows him to reserve his intervention in other Sees to the "last resort" more common in the Early Church.

[Aloysius]

hmm.. I suppose I was still considering him bishop of rome while being patriarch of the other rite, and having there be a patriarch of the Roman Rite also being in Rome... I guess that would be odd.

[Guest Eremite]

Why would he be Bishop of Rome? The Romans are not Byzantine Catholics. He would either have to move his See to some Eastern place, or just renounce all immediate sees, and focus solely on the Universal Church.

[Aloysius]

yeah I guess. I was just trying to find some way it would make a lot of sense, but it appears I made it make even less sense my way!

so it seems to me that it's not that it couldn't happen, it would just be wierd legistically.

it's almost as if he would have to become Roman or at least dual rite and then appoint a new patriarch to the rite from whence he came. that would be the only thing he could do that would make sense, but it's got no precedent

[Ash Wednesday]

Just watched the EWTN show on the Conclave. I get the sense that, when those boys go into that chapel, all bets are off.

Can I offer the official nomination and possible prediction of "Cardinal Somone-Off-The-Radar-Nobody-Ever Suspected-Because-The-Holy-Spirit-Can-Surprise-Us" ?

[argent_paladin]

The pope is Patriarch of the West by virtue of his being Bishop of Rome. They cannot be separated. I don't think it would be possible for the new Pope to also be Patriarch of another Church. It's not like unifying the title belts in boxing. But if it were, wouldn't it be cool if the Bishop of Rome as elected the Bishop of Constantinople, thus unifying east and west?
I talked to my friend, who is a Chaldean Catholic priest, and he agrees with me that it wouldn't be fitting for an Eastern Catholic be the Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West. An Eastern Catholic is required by canon law to observe his own rite. We had a Ukranian Catholic join our province and I helped regularize him, since his entry to the novitiate was technically invalid. He had to be dispensed from observing his own rite. So, the Eastern Catholic elected pope would have to either transfer rites (and thus wouldn't be Eastern anymore) or would have to be permanently dispensed from observing his rites or would have to celebrate Eastern divine liturgy rather than Latin rite mass, pray Eastern liturgy of the hours not western and be bound by Eastern Canon Law, but these would conflict with his duties as Bishop of Rome, since the Romans would be denied observing their own rites from their own bishop.
Basically, the Bishop of Rome has the obligation to provide liturgy in the Latin rite and an Eastern rite priest would be obligated to celebrate his own rite. Thus an Eastern-rite Bishop of Rome would create an incompatability and there is no elegant solution.

[Cam42]

[quote]Finally, two other questions need to be asked: (1) Is right, in the present circumstances, that there even be Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome? (2) Wouldn't it be better for the various Eastern Catholic Churches to be in communion with their historic mother Churches instead of Rome, at least until communion is restored between the East and the West?[/quote]

Move that to the debate table and let's see what others think.

Cam

[Apotheoun]

Simply by his election in the conclave, whoever is elected becomes the Bishop of Rome immediately (if he already has episcopal orders) and ceases to hold whatever See he previously occupied. This is not rocket science, and although many Latin Catholics appear to be offended by the idea of an Eastern Catholic becoming Pope (as I understood the Church's law on this topic - at least prior to the responses in this thread), it was not impossible for it to happen.

Clearly there have been non-Italian Popes, and there have also been Eastern Christian Popes in the past as well, but perhaps there shouldn't be at the present time, because the Pope acts not only as the visible head of the whole Catholic Church, and as the Patriarch of the West, but also acts as the bishop of the diocese of Rome, and it is only fair to the citizens of that place, that the Pope be someone who can relate culturally and ethnically with them, either as a true Roman or at least as an Italian.

That being said, this discussion has been interesting to witness, and there are several questions that need to be asked: first, is it proper to elect a non-Italian as Pope, since the bishop of Rome is not only the universal head of the Church, and Patriarch of the West, but is also bishop of the diocese of Rome? Should a man who is in no way culturally affiliated with the Italian diocese of Rome become head of that Church? Don't the people of Rome have a right to a bishop who is at least culturally and ethnically Italian?

Finally, two other questions need to be asked: (1) Is it right, in the present circumstances, that there even be Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome? (2) Wouldn't it be better for the various Eastern Catholic Churches to be in communion with their historic mother Churches instead of Rome, at least until communion is restored between the East and the West?

I will have to think about all of these questions, and I thank the various individuals who have posted on this topic for expressing their opinions. I had been laboring under the false idea that any Catholic male, who was baptized and confirmed, could be elected Pope (no matter how unlikely it was that a non-Cardinal would be elected). Thankfully my erroneous understanding of the Church's laws concerning qualifications for election as Roman Pontiff have been corrected by the responses within this thread.

God bless,
Todd

Christos Voskrese!

[Guest Eremite]

Having a non-Italian as Pope is not the same as having an Easterner as Pope, because even though the Pope may not be from Italy, he still shares the same rite and the same theological traditions of the Romans. His lack of Italian heritage is simply a cultural factor which isn't essential to fulfilling his ministry to the Romans. Although, obviously, Italians have historically been elected as Bishop of Rome, and there is certainly nothing wrong with this.

[quote]Wouldn't it be better for the various Eastern Catholic Churches to be in communion with their historic mother Churches instead of Rome, at least until communion is restored between the East and the West?[/quote]

The definition of orthodoxy is communion with Rome. To quote Pope Leo the Great, "nothing should ever be at odds with this head", that is, with Rome. All Catholic Churches are in communion with all the other Churches, not just Rome.

[Aloysius]

of course the Eastern Churches should be in communion with Rome! your impression was correct that any Catholic male can be elected pope, it just poses some issues when it comes to an eastern Catholic... I personally think it would be really cool and under the pontificate of an eastern I could forsee the schism ending altogether if the eastern was a good enough pontiff, there are just some issues that would have to be dealt with... there is no real precedent and we really don't know how it would work. there are easterns eligible, and we'll see if they get chosen. this is a discussion you can be sure the cardinals are going to be having, and it is a big question what the Church would do with a non Latin rite Pope... if an eastern were elected I guess it'd be up to him to figure it out.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]I could forsee the schism ending altogether if the eastern was a good enough pontiff[/quote]

I doubt it, because the Orthodox will know that the Bishopric of Rome will eventually return to the hands of a Latin Bishop, and they would still have to deal with Latin Catholicism. If there is ever to be a possibility for reunion, I don't think it will matter whether the Pope is Byzantine or Latin. I think it will require an Ecumenical Council to deal with all the issues at hand, and see if differences can't be smoothed out.

Edited April 10, 2005 by Eremite

[Aloysius]

That's what I was thinking too... a council.. I wanted like a Nicaea III or a Constantinople V.. until I realized both those places are now in Turkey

maybe a Moscow I

Perhaps if we had an eastern pope that eastern pope would call the council

anyway.. lol... back to nominations...