How would you feel about an Eastern Catholic Pontiff?
#11
-It would be fine.  That man would obviously have to be "bi-ritual" though he'd need no faculties, being the facutly-giver himself, of course. 

I don't think there's any obligation for priests to celebrate daily, but it is highly encouraged in recent centuries.  However, that does not mean a bishop or especially the pope would celebrate publically daily.

AFAIK the Popes of recent centures, given the complexity of the papal ceremonies, would celebrate a few times a year only.  Other times they might do a papal low Mass, and most often a private Mass.  Is this right?

Reply
#12
JPII assisted at an outdoor Byzantine rite in the last few years of his pontificate (he basically witnessed it and was acknowledged with certain bows etc.)  But I remember watching it on EWTN and the Byzantine priest giving descriptions was horrified at the abuse especially at the distribution of the Eucharist.  There was some kind of pantomime outdoor play incorporated into it with characters in costumes etc.

EWTN quickly absolved JPII as having any knowledge of it and that some unnamed person was responsible. 

Reply
#13
I humbly think that Holy Mother Church first needs to get her house in order before we can joyfully celebrate the election of an Eastern bishop or archbishop to the papacy.  We desperately need a traditional Thomist bishop to become Supreme Pontiff so that he can clean up the ambiguities found in magisterial documents over the last several decades; he must also allow St. Thomas' doctrine to reign once again in the seminaries, as he did before Vatican II.  Once that's done, then I'd be more comfortable with an Eastern bishop being elected to the papacy.
Reply
#14
I think it would be great. And the irony is that I think a Pontiff from one of the Byzantine churches would actually be more amenable to tradition in the west.
Reply
#15
(02-13-2012, 04:00 AM)moneil Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 03:00 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 02:58 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote: I would be perfectly okay with it. A Catholic is a Catholic. He probably would have a hard time, since he would have to say the Latin Rite Mass everyday.

I don't think the Pope has any obligation to celebrate Mass every day or even every week, technically. But I know what you mean. When he does celebrate Mass, it would be unseemly to not use the Roman Rite when in Rome itself.

I believe there were a few early pontiffs from the Eastern Church, but that was back in the "triple digit" era.  Though the Pope is Patriarch of the West (that title has been supressed http://www.catholic.org/international/in...p?id=19144) and Bishop of the Latin Rite Diocese of Rome he is above all Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church and he could legitimately come from any of Her "rites" I would think.

There is a provision for a priest to hold "bi-ritual faculties" (we've had a couple of those in my diocese) and I would suppose that is what would happen here.  When functioning officially as the Latin Rite Bishop of Rome he would use the Roman Missal and Sacramentary.  As Supreme Pontiff he could, in my opinion, legitametly use any of the approved liturgical rites of the Universal Church, which might offer excellent opportunities for the "teachable moment".  A public papal celebration of The Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom would be an awe-some change from recent public Masses according to the 1969 missal, and might avoid the "ecclesiastical politicts" that may arise from use of the 1962 missal (which could irritate both N.O.'s and rad-trads, as neither of those seem to like the '62).

Certain Pontifical ceremonies (beatifications, canonizations, elevation of Cardinals, etc.) would in essence be "Latin Rite" but those are really ceremonies of the Universal Church.

For his routine private and semi-public celebration of the Hours and the Liturgy I see no reason why he couldn't use his "native rite" if he chose.
  John Paul II celebrated the Divine Liturgy during his visit to the Ukraine.
Reply
#16
A Pope from the East would re-awake the Filioque controversy.
Reply
#17
(02-13-2012, 01:15 PM)Northstar Wrote: A Pope from the East would re-awake the Filioque controversy.

Why do you say that?  I think he would probably not change anything.  Many Eastern Catholic churches just don't say it, some do, but they all agree it's legitimate for the Latin Rite to use it.
Reply
#18
I have thought about this more than once. I think it is necessary for the West. I I suspect if the Consecration occurs before it is too late, the next Pope will be Russian Orthodox Catholic. What has happened with the split is the rational side is the west, and the mystical side is the east. The Church is both. You know the old joke the Orthodox put a veil over it, incense it, and call it a Mystery, well, we need that.  Reason a very limited and flawed tool, has led us to this point. St. Thomas Aquinas' valuable work by it 's very action eventually led to Nature being falsely explained by reason, as if God's world was divorced from Him. We can see it clearly today in everything. It appears to me we need to return to more fear and trembling of God.


tim
Reply
#19
(02-13-2012, 01:18 PM)newyorkcatholic Wrote:
(02-13-2012, 01:15 PM)Northstar Wrote: A Pope from the East would re-awake the Filioque controversy.

Why do you say that?  I think he would probably not change anything.  Many Eastern Catholic churches just don't say it, some do, but they all agree it's legitimate for the Latin Rite to use it.

The refusal to use the filioque is another manifestation of the spiritual disease that infests these churches.
Reply
#20
(02-13-2012, 04:10 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: As long as he were genuinely a Catholic, there would be no problem.
As opposed to genuinely Mormon?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)