Abolition of the Title "Patriarch of the West"...(truncated)

OFFICIAL NOTICE Of The PAPAL COUNCIL FOR the UNIT Of the CHRISTIANS APPROXIMATELY The ABOLITION Of the TITLE "PATRIARCH Of The WEST" OF The YEARBOOK PAPAL , 22.03.2006

OFFICIAL NOTICE Of The PAPAL COUNCIL FOR the UNIT Of the CHRISTIANS APPROXIMATELY The ABOLITION Of the TITLE "PATRIARCH Of The WEST" OF The PAPAL YEARBOOK

Of The Papal Yearbook 2006 lack, in the enumeration of the titles them of the Pope, the title it "Patriarch of the West". Such absence has been commented in various ways and it demands a clarification.

Without the pretension to consider the complex historical issue it of the title of Patriarch in all its aspects, can itself be asserted from the historical point of view that the antichi Patriarchies of the East, fixed from Tan them of Costantinopoli (381) and of Chalgedon (451), was relati you to a territory enough clearly circumscribed, when the territory of the Center of Bishop of Rome remained vague. In East, the within of the system imperial ecclesiastic of Giustiniano (527-565), beside the four Patriarchies orient them (Costantinopoli, Alexandria, Antiochia and Gerusalemme), Pope was comprised like Patriarch of the West. Inversely, Rome privileged the idea of the three episcopal centers petrine: Rome, Alexandria and Antiochia. Without to use the title it of "Patriarch of the West", IV Concilio di Costantinopoli (869-70), IV Concilio of the Laterano (1215) and Concilio of Florence (1439), listed the Pope like the first one of then the five Patriarchs.

The title it of "Patriarch of the West" was used in year 642 from Pope Teodoro I. Later on rerun it only very rarely and did not have meaning clearly. Its closing happened in the XVI and XVII century, in the picture of to multiply of the titles them of the Pope; of The Papal Yearbook it it appeared for before the time in 1863.

Currently meant of the term "the West" recalls a context cultural that one does not only refer to Western Europe, but one extends from the United states until Australia and to New Zeland, differing therefore from other cultural contexts. Obviously such meant of the term "the West" does not mean to describe an ecclesiastical territory neither it can be used like definition of a patriarcale territory. If meaning applicable to the language wants to give to the term "the West" legal ecclesiale, could be only comprised in reference to Latin church. Therefore, the title it "Patriarch of the West" would describe special relation of the Bishop of Rome to this last one, and could express particular jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for the Latin Church.

Consequently, the title it "Patriarch of the West", sin from the beginning little clearly, in evolversi of the history it became obsolete and practically not more usable. It appears therefore lacking in sense to insist to drag it behind. That much more than the catholic Church with Concilio Vatican II has found for the Latin Church in the shape of the Episcopal Conferences and theirs international reunions of Episcopal Conferences, the canonical ordering adapted to the necessities today.

To omit the title it of "Patriarch of the West" does not change clearly null to the acknowledgment, a lot solemn declared from Concilio Vatican II, of the ancient patriarcali Churches (Lumen Gentium 23). Still less such abolition can want to say that it sottintende new rivendicazioni. renunciation to saying tito it wants to express an historical and theological realism and, to same time, to be the renunciation to one expected, renunciation that could be of giovamento to the ecumenico dialogue.

As noted, Rocco Palmo has provided a solid translation.

More on the Late Patriarchate

Now we know why Cardinal Kasper got called in for an audience the other day....

On 1 March -- Ash Wednesday -- a flurry of stories reported that the new edition of the Annuario Pontificio, the Vatican's statistical yearbook, did not include the title "Patriarch of the West" among the Pope's official distinctions.

As no statement was released from the Holy See at that time, widespread speculation abounded as to why the decision was made.

This morning, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity issued the following press release on the move, which it has termed a "suppression" -- i.e. "don't come lookin' 'round here for it anymore."

The Whispers translation from the original Italian:

The Annuario Pontificio 2006 is lacking, in the listing of the Pope's titles, the title "Patriarch of the West." This absence has been commented on in different ways and requires a clarification.

Without the pretext of considering the complex historical questions of the title of Patriarch in all its aspects, the historical point of view can be affirmed that the ancient Patriarchates of the East, fixed by the Councils of Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451), were related to a territory already clearly circumscribed, while the territory of the See of the Bishop of Rome remained vague. In the East, in the ambit of the imperial ecclesiastical system of Justinian (527-65), together with the four Oriental Patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem), the Pope was included as Patriarch of the West. Inversely, Rome honored the idea of the three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. [Note: the Pope spoke about these in his General Audience catechesis on 22 February, translated here.] Without using the title of "Patriarch of the West," the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-70), the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) and the Council of Florence (1439) listed the Pope as the first of the then-five Patriarchs.

The title of "Patriarch of the West" was adopted in the year 642 by Pope Theodore I. Its following uses were rare and were not clearly significant. Its flourishing came in the 16th and 17th centuries, during which time the Pope's titles multiplied; in the Annuario Pontificio it appeared for the first time in 1863.

Currently the significance of the term "the West" recalls a cultural dispute which refers not solely to Western Europe, but extends itself to the United States of America to Australia and New Zealand, which are differentiated by other cultural disputes. Obviously this significance of the term "the West" does not intend to describe an ecclesiastical territory nor is it meant to be adopted as the definition of a patriarchal territory. If it's desired to give to the area of "the West" a significance applicable to the lexicon of ecclesiastical juridics, there would only be able to be such an inclusion in reference to the Latin Church. Therefore, the title "Patriarch of the West" would describe the special relation of the Bishop of Rome to this end, and would express the particular jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome for the Latin Church.

As a result, the title "Patriarch of the West," lacking clarity from its beginning and in its evolution from history, became obsolete and practically no longer useful. It appears, therefore, deprived of sense to insist on dragging it along. This has become more the case for Catholic Church which, with the Second Vatican Council, has found in the form of the Episcopal Conferences and of the international meetings of Episcopal Conferences the canonical ordering adequate to the necessities of today.

To omit the title of "Patriarch of the West" clearly changes nothing in the recognition, so solemnly declared by the Second Vatican Council, of the ancient Patriarchal Churches (Lumen Gentium 23). Even less, this suppresion can seek to say that it understands new claims. The renunciation of the said title wishes to express a historical and theological reality and, at the same time, to be the leaving behind of a pretense, the renouncement of which could contribute to the benefit of ecumenical dialogue.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.