More on “Patriarch of the West”

More on “Patriarch of the West” March 12, 2006

Discussion on the Pope’s dropping the title “Patriarch of the West” continues; check out the links on this piece from This Side of Glory — and, lifted from the comments on my previous post, here’s John’s take:

I think it is likely that the decision to drop the title has more to do with [Pope] Benedict’s long held and publicly stated conviction in his many writings, that the Western Church is excessively centralized. That it was wrong for Rome to subsume and by increments absorb or suppress the many ancient local rites of the west and effectively force them to adopt the Roman Rite. He has also made it clear that it would be much healthier (in his view) if the West got back to a point where local (perhaps national) churches were semi autonomous within the framework of the One Church. In other words I think he is looking to set the ground work for the creation of something close to what exists in the East. A sort of western arrangement of largely self governing churches united by the shared faith and sacramental communion with the Roman See. But at the same time an arrangement where Rome would be much less involved in running local churches or dictating their customs and rites. It is entirely possible that we may one day have multiple patriarchs in the west with Rome being acknowledged as holding the first place of honor. This could also lead to turning local or national bishops’ conferences into Synods, with broad authority to govern their own local churches and appoint their own bishops. Of course for conservative Catholics this may be a source of great concern, given the leanings of some Latin Hierachs. I also sometimes think that Orthodox Christians need to remind ourselves that once in a while the Roman Church may do something that is essentially internal.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!