Pope Drops Title of "Patriarch Of The West'! Still claims 'Vicar Of Christ'!

[Orthodoc]

http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2006-03-01_981469.html




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 L
uigi 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 .

=========

One has to ask how this can be a sign of 'ecumenical sensitivity' to we
Orthodox?  He is still reconginzed as 'Patriarch of the West' by Orthodoxy.  It's
the other self proclaimed titles that are a problem with us.

Orthodoc

[Elisha]

One has to ask how this can be a sign of 'ecumenical sensitivity' to we
Orthodox?  He is still reconginzed as 'Patriarch of the West' by Orthodoxy.  It's
the other self proclaimed titles that are a problem with us.

Orthodoc

Exactly.  Rather silly, this new action of Rome's.

[Fr. George]

I would agree with you both; dropping the title is an insult to the ecclesial tradition of the Church, besides lending itself to the interpretation (regardless of if it is right or wrong) that he is trying harder to not pidgeon-hole himself in the west but rather spread his wings over the whole world.

[James2]

Perhaps it was dropped because "the West" is a rather ambiguous term in today's world, whereas in the first millennium "the West" was more clearly defined.  A more accurate title today would be Patriarch of the Latin Church.

[Armando]

Am I the only one who thinks the glass is half-full?
Come on people!!

[Asteriktos]

When the Pope releases his grip on the multitudes of bishops in South America and North America (among other places), and lets them act as though they truly are equals, at that point I will be willing to concede that the Pope is taking steps in the right direction. Until then, he is still de facto the Patriarch of the West in RC ecclesiology, whether he retains the title or not.

[JoeS]

http://ansa.it/main/notizie/awnplus/english/news/2006-03-01_981469.html

=========

One has to ask how this can be a sign of 'ecumenical sensitivity' to we
Orthodox?  He is still reconginzed as 'Patriarch of the West' by Orthodoxy.  It's
the other self proclaimed titles that are a problem with us.

Orthodoc

The problem is that the title "Patriarch of the west" conotes a recognition of the Patriarchs of the east, and the Roman Catholic church is not going to pull itself back from its Supreme position to a position on par with the eastern Patriarchs.  To be the Patriarch of the west is a step down for the Pope not a step up.  And since the RCC considers herself leader of ALL churches this title restricting her to just the west dosnt quite fit anyway.  

[Fr. George]

The problem is that the title "Patriarch of the west" conotes a recognition of the Patriarchs of the east, and the Roman Catholic church is not going to pull itself back from its Supreme position to a position on par with the eastern Patriarchs.  To be the Patriarch of the west is a step down for the Pope not a step up.  And since the RCC considers herself leader of ALL churches this title restricting her to just the west dosnt quite fit anyway.  

This is exactly what I've been thinking - that they make a move that they can publicize as being friendly to the Orthodox, but in reality is just another posturing move that allows them to claim more consolidation than what they are due.

[Philokalia]

Am I the only one who thinks the glass is half-full?
Come on people!!

It looks like it doesn't it?

You can see more at http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=18891

Theologians and ecumenists contacted by Catholic News Service in Rome said the ecumenical impact of the removal of the "patriarch of the West" title would depend on the Vatican's reason for deleting it.

Cardinal Achille Silvestrini, retired prefect of the Congregation for Eastern Churches, told the Italian news agency ANSA 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.

"It seems to me the pope wanted to eliminate this type of comparison and that his gesture is meant to stimulate the ecumenical journey," Cardinal Silvestrini said.

Other experts, however, warned that the deletion could provoke concern if it is seen as the Vatican saying patriarchal authority is meaningless when the pope has universal authority over the church.

Msgr. Michael K. Magee, a priest of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia who presented his doctoral thesis on "The Patriarchal Institution in the Catholic Church" Feb. 20 at Rome's Pontifical Gregorian University, said "patriarch" was first used to refer to church leaders by the Byzantine emperors in the fifth century.

The popes and the Vatican did not use the title at least until the eighth century, he said.

In the same way that the pope, as bishop of Rome, shares some of the characteristics of other bishops, Msgr. Magee said, the pope as patriarch of the West — or, more specifically, of the Latin-rite church — shares certain characteristics of the Eastern patriarchs, whose direct jurisdiction extends beyond just one diocese to include a ritual family.

Presenting his dissertation, Msgr. Magee said that already in the 1960s the former Father Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, had identified a need to draw a distinction between the pope's roles as pastor of the universal church and as patriarch of the Latin-rite Catholic Church.

[Krysostomos]

Well, one orthodox wrote on a Finnish forum, that from the traditional eastern point of view, the pope is and stays as the patriach of west - what ever tittle he uses himself.
For me as a eastern minded (roman)catholic the pope is simply the bishop of Rome and patriach of all the west.And he really should be servus servorum Dei...

[Asteriktos]

The Pope was considered "Patriarch of the West" when "the west" was a much smaller geographical area, and was first given the term when the west was a much less sophistcated (and much more rural) area. Saying that the Pope has domain over Peru, Mexico, etc. because he was traditionally "Patriarch of the West" makes no more sense than saying that the Patriarch of Antioch has jurisdiction over Christians in India, Japan, etc. since he has the title "Patriarch of All the East". The pentarchy and the ideas that came of it (e.g., Rome takes care of the west) is an outdated system of administration anyway, and should be done away with in favor or a more beneficial, and more orthodox, system of government, in which each local geographical area (Diocese if you like) is considered (in practice and not just in tehory) fully sufficient and Catholic, but still a part of the body as a whole.

[Ntinos]

He is still reconginzed as 'Patriarch of the West' by Orthodoxy.

He is?  

[Fr. George]

He is?  

He is the Patriarch of the West in schism; this is why we haven't set up a "rival" Patriarch of the West: because we respect the ancient see, and the hope that we may be reconciled with them.  (Plus, not having any sizeable flock in Italy doesn't help.)

[Ntinos]

We've got an Archdiocese.  

[davidgv]

 I have heard that a union or a "false union" between Rome and Constantinople is already a done deal, there just waiting for the right time to announce it officially.
I'm afraid it will be in November when the Pope visits Constantinople. I read on another forum (a catholic forum) that the Pope wants to set up his own Patriarchs of the west in Europe, Asia, Africa, and North America. The Pope will be above the Patriarchs (of course), I read that was a done deal too, the idea being to mimic the Eastern Orthodox Church, and make the idea of a union seem not so bad. I'm guessing after this supposed union all patriarchs east and west will be under the Pope.

[FrChris]

I have heard that a union or a "false union" between Rome and Constantinople is already a done deal, there just waiting for the right time to announce it officially.
I'm afraid it will be in November when the Pope visits Constantinople. I read on another forum (a catholic forum) that the Pope wants to set up his own Patriarchs of the west in Europe, Asia, Africa, and North America. The Pope will be above the Patriarchs (of course), I read that was a done deal too, the idea being to mimic the Eastern Orthodox Church, and make the idea of a union seem not so bad. I'm guessing after this supposed union all patriarchs east and west will be under the Pope.

So...want to refer us to any sources for these rumors?

Or are we just expected to trust you on this, your first post?

[Fr. George]

I have heard that a union or a "false union" between Rome and Constantinople is already a done deal, there just waiting for the right time to announce it officially.
I'm afraid it will be in November when the Pope visits Constantinople. I read on another forum (a catholic forum) that the Pope wants to set up his own Patriarchs of the west in Europe, Asia, Africa, and North America. The Pope will be above the Patriarchs (of course), I read that was a done deal too, the idea being to mimic the Eastern Orthodox Church, and make the idea of a union seem not so bad. I'm guessing after this supposed union all patriarchs east and west will be under the Pope.

Not to stomp on the parade, but I don't see any way that this is happening.  First of all, here at school we would probably (not definitely, but whatever) would have heard about it - there are a few profs here who communicate with the EP regularly, and Greeks are bad at keeping secrets (we knew about the problems between the EP and Athens over Thessaloniki two years ago about 2 days before things hit the fan in public).  Second, the EP wouldn't do something like that without the other Patriarchs - as much as he is villainized here, he does actually count on the support of the other Patriarchs (at least Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Serbia, in the foremost) and Autocephalous Archbishops (especially Athens and Cyprus).

[Armando]

I have heard the same stuff. Of course I seriously doubt it's true
but I've heard it from somehow reliable sources. Only time will tell.

[davidgv]

 I am not saying I want a union. The monks here in the United States have told my Godfather  that a "false union" is coming and it will create great confusion for both churches, mainly the Orthodox Church. I don't really have any other sources that. I am looking for the Catholic forum source I read a couple of days ago, when I find it I will post it. I'm not proclaiming what will happen, I'm just asking if anyone has heard or read anything similar.

[Fr. George]

Oh, I've heard monks and pious laypeople who think the false union will come or is imminent.  My response was solely on the factual level - there has been no indication that their prediction is coming true yet.

[Ntinos]

I heard from another site that the Pope will unite his church with the Orthodox, and the papal Church will suffer a great schizm afterwards, from the catholics that do not want to unite. However, I do not seem to remember the site. (not that it matters, really...)
Armando, could you reveal your sources?

What would be the christian approach to follow after such a union?

[Fr. George]

It all depends on the foundation of the union - if there is a coming around and a doctrinal agreement (i.e. the catholics taking on the full orthodox doctrine, vice-versa, or something in between) then there would be a different approach than say a union that "allows" each church to maintain the different doctrines without imposing on the other.

[Armando]

My sources are my uncle who is a priestmonk in Northern Greece and
my aunt who is a nun (all are Greek orthodox). I could always talk to
the Archbishop of Crete (guess what?! he's my uncle... I am ONE, BAD,
BLACK, SHEEP in the family tree!!) Also, some books I read regarding
Blessed Paisios of Agio Oros. Paisios talked of a false union and
my uncle said that he fears that the talks for union will have to do
with under the table agreements. Perhaps the return of relics
of St John Chrysostom, St Andrew etc. could have something to do with
that. Then again, it could be just the Vatican's good will.

[Armando]

The union I see is like this: Each church respects the other's differences
(they will blame culture for it). They will be in Union and the Pope will
have full authority upon the Western Church and any Eastern that
wishes to be under the jurisdiction of the Pope. The filioque will stay,
so will the azymes and only in co-cellebrations the Catholics will have to
go with the Eastern Rite. You get the idea...

Of course this will cause many schisms (some monasteries, that's all.)
and the union will be based on ignoring the problem and acting like
it's not there.

[davidgv]

 Armando,
    That definitely sounds like a "false union". Did Elder Piaisios go into any detail about a union. It seems lately, from reading articles in general, that there really pushing for a union, almost as if there is a deadline.

 Ntinos,
  Your website that you post, the one with all the prophecies, has a good one with an interview with Elder Joseph on Mt. Athos. I reread it and it sounds like he is saying that after Russia invades Turkey, the Vatican will compel NATO to go to war with Russia to stop a "Orthodox Union". I don't know if the Pope would forfeit his Supremacy for the Orthodox Church. Although, it would fit with St. Malchy's prophecies being "Glory of the Olive" as the possible last Pope. Also you said in an old post about Putin wanting to create an "Orthodox Bow"
anything new on that?
 

[Νεκτάριος]

Ah, all the pleasures of being in Greece without even leaving home!  We still haven't talked about the role of Jews in all of this yet, so this thread has a long way to go.  

test

[Yiannis]

The union I see is like this: Each church respects the other's differences
(they will blame culture for it). They will be in Union and the Pope will
have full authority upon the Western Church and any Eastern that
wishes to be under the jurisdiction of the Pope. The filioque will stay,
so will the azymes and only in co-cellebrations the Catholics will have to
go with the Eastern Rite. You get the idea...

Of course this will cause many schisms (some monasteries, that's all.)
and the union will be based on ignoring the problem and acting like
it's not there.

Dear Armando, it seems that you and your idolized "Vicarii Christi" dream often of that pseudo-"church" you describe. Well, I understand you, this is normal since hallucinations and phaeonomena of spiritual delusion have been flourishing in R/Catholic environments since quite a lot of centuries. Keep on boy, you could even wake up one day with some stigmata on your hands.

[Yiannis]

I have heard that a union or a "false union" between Rome and Constantinople is already a done deal, there just waiting for the right time to announce it officially.
I'm afraid it will be in November when the Pope visits Constantinople.

I think you exaggerate. The visit of the Pope to Constantinople will be just another ecumenistic show. The patriarch of Constantinople would never dare to sign such a union because he would be left with almost no flock!!! He's not that irresponsible or silly. Furthermore, I don't think Bartholomew is really a unionist. At least, he's much less unionist than Athenagoras.

[Matthew777]

Rather silly, this new action of Rome's.

I agree with you, Yoda. (Or should I say, "Agree with you, I do?")

Peace.  

[Yiannis]

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8325.msg110573#msg110573 date=1141857283]
Ah, all the pleasures of being in Greece without even leaving home!  We still haven't talked about the role of Jews in all of this yet, so this thread has a long way to go. ÂÂ
[/quote]
Well, it is not true that all these stories about prophecies etc. truly represent the spiritual environment in the parishes of the Church of Greece or in Greece in general. This is a stereotype that has nothing to do with the reality here.

[Νεκτάριος]

Well, it is not true that all these stories about prophecies etc. truly represent the spiritual environment in the parishes of the Church of Greece or in Greece in general. This is a stereotype that has nothing to do with the reality here.

Unfortunately they are rampant in even the strongest centers of monasticism in Greece.  For many they aren't center stage, but I was honestly shoched at how widely things such as the protocols and the most ridiculous conspiracy theories were accepted.  

[Yiannis]

[quote author=Νεκτάριος link=topic=8325.msg111080#msg111080 date=1142130620]
Unfortunately they are rampant in even the strongest centers of monasticism in Greece.  For many they aren't center stage, but I was honestly shoched at how widely things such as the protocols and the most ridiculous conspiracy theories were accepted. ÂÂ
[/quote]
Well, for sure they are not rampant and, anyway, they are not the focus of the monastic life. Well, if you visit a monastery searching for people who in a certain way believe in conspiracy theories (and it always depends on how and in which degree someone believes in them), you'll certainly find them. So, you will find what you're looking for. If you hear from a not-well educated monk - whom you will have probably asked on purpose about this - if he believes that all the Jews plot against Christianity and you hear yes, it will be unfair to conclude that concpiracy theories is almost a focus of the Church life in Greece.

[Νεκτάριος]

I didn't say that it is the focus of life of the Church of Greece.  While I think level of education is a factor, I have even met people with university degrees still believing in the most wild things.  Of course, it would be wrong to say all monastics in Greece, or all Greeks, buy into the most wild conspiracy theories - but the rate is much higher than in a Western nation.  

[Victor]

Traditional Titles Held
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
Patriarch of the West

EWTN
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.

<snip>

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 centered on the issue of papal primacy.

http://www.ewtn.com/

Hope that helps.

~Victor

[dantxny]

A friend sent me this on the Pope so maybe it'll help.  Still, though, I'm confused about his reasoning and imho it seems to go with the philosophy of Vatican II.  However, I've always found that very contradictory as the Romans are hoping to get greater bishop influence and be more like the orignial Church, but also want to strenghten the papacy.  I don'y know about you, but it sounds as though they're trying to have there cake and eat it too.

---------------------------------------------------CLARIFICATION ON PAPAL TITLE OF "PATRIARCH OF THE WEST"

 

VATICAN CITY, MAR 22, 2006 (VIS) - In the wake of media comments concerning one of the Pope's titles - that of "Patriarch of the West" - which did not appear among the list of papal titles at the beginning of this year's edition of the "Annuario Pontificio" (pontifical yearbook), the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity has issued a communique clarifying the reasons for the omission.

 

  "From a historical perspective," the communique reads, "the ancient Patriarchates of the East, defined by the Councils of Constantinople (381) and of Chalcedon (451), covered a fairly clearly demarcated territory. At the same time, the territory of the see of the Bishop of Rome remained somewhat vague. In the East, under the ecclesiastical imperial system of Justinian (527-565), alongside the four Eastern Patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), the Pope was included as the Patriarch of the West. Rome, on the other hand, favored the idea of the three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Without using the title 'Patriarch of the West,' the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870), the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) and the Council of Florence (1439), listed the Pope as the first of the then five Patriarchs.

 

  "The title 'Patriarch of the West' was adopted in the year 642 by Pope Theodore. Thereafter it appeared only occasionally and did not have a clear meaning. It flourished in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, in the context of a general increase in the Pope's titles, and appeared for the first time in the 'Annuario Pontificio' in 1863."

 

  The term 'West' currently refers to a cultural context not limited only to Western Europe but including North America, Australia and New Zealand, thus differentiating itself from other cultural contexts, says the communique. "If we wished to give the term 'West' a meaning applicable to ecclesiastical juridical language, it could be understood only in reference to the Latin Church." In this way, the title "Patriarch of the West," would describe the Bishop of Rome's special relationship with the Latin Church, and his special jurisdiction over her.

 

  "The title 'Patriarch of the West,' never very clear, over history has become obsolete and practically unusable. It seems pointless, then, to insist on maintaining it. Even more so now that the Catholic Church, with Vatican Council II, has found, in the form of episcopal conferences and their international meetings, the canonical structure best suited to the needs of the Latin Church today."

 

  The communique concludes: "Abandoning the title of 'Patriarch of the West' clearly does not alter in any way the recognition of the ancient patriarchal Churches, so solemnly declared by Vatican Council II. ... The renouncement of this title aims to express a historical and theological reality, and at the same time, ... could prove useful to ecumenical dialogue."

CON-UC/PATRIARCH OF THE WEST/...                                   VIS 060322 (480)

[Fr. George]

"In the wake of media comments" - this is interesting.  Has the media in Rome been making a deal out of this?  I know what our reaction has been here on the site, but has it really been much of a hulabaloo outside of the 'net and Orthodox circles?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Pope Drops Title of "Patriarch Of The West'! Still claims 'Vicar Of Christ'!