Why do we have Western prelates named as "patriarchs" (a title reserved for heads of Apostolic Eastern Churches)?
Venice, Jerusalem of the Latins, Goa and the East Indies, Lisbon, the West Indies (in a vacant a since 1963) are all honorific titles and not jurisdictional ones. The title means nothing.
Since His Holiness greatly restricted the conferring of the honorific title "monsignor" for priests why not do away with the fictional honorific title "patriarch" for the above mentioned Sees?
for once, you have a based take, Bisbee my friend. Francis or a future pope should utterly do away with Latin patriarchates, and should also tell the Eastern Catholics to fight it out over who gets to be the patriarch of Antioch (3 patriarchs is ridiculous). maybe they should just cede it to their Coptic or Eastern Orthodox counterpart.
Personally I love the accidents of history. Over 2000 years you are going to accumulate some weird stuff, and the patriarchies delight me. In fact if I were the next pope I might create a few more. Maybe the Patriarchy of Buenas Aires, that sounds good. The Patriarchy of San Diego. That kind of thing.
But they would not have patriarchal authority or jurisdiction, the titles would be fiction honorifics. According to all acknowledged experts in this area of ecclesiology the only true Patriarchate in the West is “of Rome.”
If you just want to give out meaningless honorifics your suggestion might make sense.
But according to Scriptural and Apostolic Tradition the greatest and most realistic title for the head of a local (or regional) hierarch is simply “bishop.”
An Archbishop in the West has few real responsibilities over his suffragans, it was more a title given to a bishop of a large city and nothing else.
I was referring to the fictional “patriarchs” of the Western Church, not the existing, living Apostolic Churches of the East.
Since we have three different Eastern Churches with different patrimonies using the title “of Antioch” I am not sure “fighting it out” is the most practical solution.
By “cede” do you mean the title “of Antioch” or that those Eastern Churches now in communion with Rome should re-enter communion with their original mother Orthodox Churches?
Of course, the Maronite Syriac Church has no parallel mother Church to reunite with.
The Syriac Catholic Church, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and the Maronite Syriac Church all call their Father and Head “Patriarch.”
None want to give up the title “of Antioch” because they all have roots In the Apostolic foundations of the Church in that city.
To my knowledge the Patriarch of Coptic Catholic Church does not claim the title “of Antioch” but “of Alexandria” since that Church has it’s foundation in the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.
"fighting it out" was a joke. they should not all claim to be patriarch of the same city, that's the point. if there can only be one bishop of Rome, then there can only be one patriarch of Antioch. not one from the Melkite Church, one from the Syriac Church, one from the Maronite Church. of course no one "wants" to give up their historical title, but in the interests of an ecclesiology that reflects reality, and in the pursuit of a united Church, it is necessary for each to be willing to take the lowest place. yes, we should all re-enter communion with each other.
It is a bit perplexing how someone who is seemingly so unpopular with the locals can advance to where he is now, but then again it appears to be the case that for advancement in the Church today he only really has to impress a select few people.
I've heard the joke about someone cantankerous: "God love him, cause no one else will" but never realized til now it had an application for ecclesiastical appointments, lol.
"...several priests, from young and more conservative-leaning to older and more liberal, and none seemed enthused with the prospect of having Aguiar as their shepherd, citing his lack of pastoral experience – in 22 years he served only two one-year stints as parish priest ... "
There seems to be a huge potential problem here and in other places where unknowns with little experience as bishops or parish priests are suddenly promoted to high profile vacant sees. These choices start without any support either from their priests, the laity or from their fellow bishops. They start out as "Pope Francis' guy," with a strike against them because, since nobody knows why they got the office coming out of nowhere, they are always going to be held in suspicion. It's human nature, people will think: "what's wrong with this guy that he got so "lucky"?"(and this suspicion goes beyond the ideological suspicion that some might have)
In other words, all these important sees will be held by men who are weak. At least they start out weak.
This weird strategy preserves the power base of the center (ie Pope Francis) by weakening other "power bases" (high profile episcopal offices) either by promoting underqualified men or by undermining the high profile sees by promoting lower level bishops to cardinal. Since there is chaos in the periphery, the center is unassailable. I hope this isn't the strategy, if it is it is a very shortsighted strategy. If the next pope is a weak person it could lead to great chaos in the Latin rite.
It is, in that it assumes a level of obedience to the superior's will that isn't normal in the "regular" church but is normal among religious and the Jesuits in particular. The obedience of religious allows things in the superior such as inconsistency and sudden changes in focus because the goal of the obedience is the virtue of obedience itself and not so much the object of the obedience. Notably this approach to obedience instills in the superior an optimistic view of the power of simply telling people what to do without explaining why.
I should add that on the positive side, this strategy could be seen as something that could break up an "old boys club" among the hierarchy, and possible corruption which can ensure from that sort of situation.
Benh: Insightful comments here. I think the same could be said of the new cardinal of Madrid, Cobo (57), who jumped over two-dozen more experienced and more qualified bishops in Spain to be named archbishop of arguably one of three most important sees in Europe. Then, Cobo was named a Cardinal just one day after his election. Although quite radical in his younger priesthood days, he sounds like a good and holy man who has great interest in serving the poor, but being advocate for the poor without the requisite managerial experience and training is not necessarily the best option for leadership for a major archdiocese like Madrid. Right after he was appointed AB of Madrid, he claimed he wants to “reposition the Church” for a changing society, which strikes me as an odd thing to say as a first salvo. I thought the Church was the Rock and we, the faithful need to "reposition ourselves" to be converted. (It's these sorts of riddle-like "Pope Francis" statements that drive me batty.) In any event, while there is perhaps some truth in wanting to correct some modalities of how the church evangelizes and operates, these statements tend to confuse the laity and perhaps even the clergy.
The Holy Father seems insistent to want to take down what he feels is the opposing more traditional "power structures" in the church, by replacing major dicastery offices and dioceses with like-minded social justice warriors, progressives, and outsiders. This is his game plan, if there is one. Pope Francis (SJ) perceives himself as an outsider, a prophet, and a loner. He is clearly choosing the same type of men for these major sees and offices. It's going to be a interesting next ten years.
"Right after he was appointed AB of Madrid, he claimed he wants to “reposition the Church” for a changing society, which strikes me as an odd thing to say as a first salvo."
Yes, and he isn't wrong about this; the Church has been slowly "repositioning" in a very painful way since the even before the French Revolution and all the other conflicts which have change the position of Church and State beyond anything that would be conceivable to a medieval person.
But the obvious question is: Why would we think that YOU are the person to guide this "repositioning?" Why would we assume that YOU have this unique vision? Why would such a thing "work" at all when so many repositionings have happened over the past 50 year with little good fruit?
I think you allude to this: our society is in a state of constant change both socially and economically, why can't the Church be the place where the important things don't change because they are true? Amidst change, there is a hunger for non-change.
Anyway the Church won't be "repositioned" by management or tinkering but by God working through saints and holiness like always.
So Aguiar says “We don’t want to convert these young people to Jesus Christ,” and then faults those who take him at his word for taking him at his word: "If people only hear what they want to hear, then what can I do?” Not content with spewing double-talk, he proceeds to mischaracterize the concerns of those who wonder why a prelate charged with bringing Christ to youth and youth to Christ at an international gathering would say such a thing, claiming they view WYD "as an event to try and convert everyone who happens to come along.” No surprise Francis is keen on elevating a fellow leftist who has mastered his mentor's penchant for speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
If we as the laity want to set a good example for those who look to us to lead the way in virtue (such as bishops and cardinals) then before we set pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard, we ought to ask the Holy Spirit to inspire us and to fill our hearts with charity so that our words will bring others closer to God. I am reminded by hearing your concerns that I often forget to do this.
No one is perplexed by that sentence. And his follow-up confirms he is not being read the wrong way. And its disapppointing he obviously doesnt see anything wrong with what he said.
The first thing any "youth" will do, upon being invited to World Youth Day, is Google it.
"World Youth Day is an event for young people organized by the Catholic Church that was initiated by Pope John Paul II in 1985."
So anyone attending this event knows exactly what they're getting into. Meaning they've already received the call of the Holy Spirit and are responding to it by saying yes to attending an explicitly Catholic event.
How can people who have already responded to the call of the Holy Spirt recognize the imperative of salvation in encountering the Living Christ when they encounter a bishop who sets a precedent of such a tepid proclamation of Faith?
People are not misunderstanding the bishop. They're tired of demure prelates playing coy with The Faith and downplaying the urgency of Christ's Salvation. It reeks of what Pope Benedict warned against; the tyranny of relativism. Its the type of concession one would expect from those priests who've allowed their role to be reduced to a social worker and who mistake the Church's presence in the world as merely political. It's a demoralizing surrender of what Pope St. John Paul II called for young people; to live a courageously heroic faith.
This response demonstrates a lack of awareness that the world has become overtly hostile to Catholics. No one is inspired by "I'm ok. You're ok". We're inspired by unapologetic courage.
2 Timothy 4
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.
For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth . . .
Oh my. No matter how it meant it, it came across horribly. World Youth Day is about encounter, yes, but that encounter should lead to conversion--to accepting Jesus Christ and becoming better Catholics, not just thinking about their "projects".
Having owned a small farm in Portugal for some 33 years prior to 2019 I have read many articles in newspapers and elsewhere. Frequently particularly on political issues and sometimes on religious issues the writer gives the case for something and then the case against and you are left wondering what he really thinks. This makes for a peaceful life in contrast to Spain where everything is black or white. Perhaps this is akin to Peronism of which Pope Francis is fond.
Yikes. Lord, protect your flock from politician shepherds.
Why do we have Western prelates named as "patriarchs" (a title reserved for heads of Apostolic Eastern Churches)?
Venice, Jerusalem of the Latins, Goa and the East Indies, Lisbon, the West Indies (in a vacant a since 1963) are all honorific titles and not jurisdictional ones. The title means nothing.
Since His Holiness greatly restricted the conferring of the honorific title "monsignor" for priests why not do away with the fictional honorific title "patriarch" for the above mentioned Sees?
"Vacant" not "vegan" regarding the West Indies
for once, you have a based take, Bisbee my friend. Francis or a future pope should utterly do away with Latin patriarchates, and should also tell the Eastern Catholics to fight it out over who gets to be the patriarch of Antioch (3 patriarchs is ridiculous). maybe they should just cede it to their Coptic or Eastern Orthodox counterpart.
Personally I love the accidents of history. Over 2000 years you are going to accumulate some weird stuff, and the patriarchies delight me. In fact if I were the next pope I might create a few more. Maybe the Patriarchy of Buenas Aires, that sounds good. The Patriarchy of San Diego. That kind of thing.
But they would not have patriarchal authority or jurisdiction, the titles would be fiction honorifics. According to all acknowledged experts in this area of ecclesiology the only true Patriarchate in the West is “of Rome.”
If you just want to give out meaningless honorifics your suggestion might make sense.
But according to Scriptural and Apostolic Tradition the greatest and most realistic title for the head of a local (or regional) hierarch is simply “bishop.”
An Archbishop in the West has few real responsibilities over his suffragans, it was more a title given to a bishop of a large city and nothing else.
Thank you.
Again, though, I have to disagree with you.
I was referring to the fictional “patriarchs” of the Western Church, not the existing, living Apostolic Churches of the East.
Since we have three different Eastern Churches with different patrimonies using the title “of Antioch” I am not sure “fighting it out” is the most practical solution.
By “cede” do you mean the title “of Antioch” or that those Eastern Churches now in communion with Rome should re-enter communion with their original mother Orthodox Churches?
Of course, the Maronite Syriac Church has no parallel mother Church to reunite with.
The Syriac Catholic Church, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and the Maronite Syriac Church all call their Father and Head “Patriarch.”
None want to give up the title “of Antioch” because they all have roots In the Apostolic foundations of the Church in that city.
To my knowledge the Patriarch of Coptic Catholic Church does not claim the title “of Antioch” but “of Alexandria” since that Church has it’s foundation in the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.
"fighting it out" was a joke. they should not all claim to be patriarch of the same city, that's the point. if there can only be one bishop of Rome, then there can only be one patriarch of Antioch. not one from the Melkite Church, one from the Syriac Church, one from the Maronite Church. of course no one "wants" to give up their historical title, but in the interests of an ecclesiology that reflects reality, and in the pursuit of a united Church, it is necessary for each to be willing to take the lowest place. yes, we should all re-enter communion with each other.
We need more politicians in cassocks.
Not that this man is anything like McCarrick, (and I say the emphatically) but he too was a great politician and kingmaker who once wore a cassock.
How about some orthodox pastors instead?
Rome can appoint plenty of lay politicians/diplomats to work as nuncios and apostolic delegates.
Thanks for the nice balanced article.
It is a bit perplexing how someone who is seemingly so unpopular with the locals can advance to where he is now, but then again it appears to be the case that for advancement in the Church today he only really has to impress a select few people.
That is my concern as well. A man so unpopular with local clergy made a cardinal is certainly a concern.
And made a Cardinal in such a strange way, while an auxiliary bishop.
This article is not well balanced. Its purpose is to become part of the political process and influence the bishop’s future.
I've heard the joke about someone cantankerous: "God love him, cause no one else will" but never realized til now it had an application for ecclesiastical appointments, lol.
So the Pope fast-tracked a guy who is not liked by the clergy and is described as shallow and not spiritual. What could go wrong?
Red hat for a brown nose. At least nobody will fall for the “Francis wants priests to smell off the sheep” nonsense again.
"...several priests, from young and more conservative-leaning to older and more liberal, and none seemed enthused with the prospect of having Aguiar as their shepherd, citing his lack of pastoral experience – in 22 years he served only two one-year stints as parish priest ... "
There seems to be a huge potential problem here and in other places where unknowns with little experience as bishops or parish priests are suddenly promoted to high profile vacant sees. These choices start without any support either from their priests, the laity or from their fellow bishops. They start out as "Pope Francis' guy," with a strike against them because, since nobody knows why they got the office coming out of nowhere, they are always going to be held in suspicion. It's human nature, people will think: "what's wrong with this guy that he got so "lucky"?"(and this suspicion goes beyond the ideological suspicion that some might have)
In other words, all these important sees will be held by men who are weak. At least they start out weak.
This weird strategy preserves the power base of the center (ie Pope Francis) by weakening other "power bases" (high profile episcopal offices) either by promoting underqualified men or by undermining the high profile sees by promoting lower level bishops to cardinal. Since there is chaos in the periphery, the center is unassailable. I hope this isn't the strategy, if it is it is a very shortsighted strategy. If the next pope is a weak person it could lead to great chaos in the Latin rite.
It is a very Jesuitical strategy.
It is, in that it assumes a level of obedience to the superior's will that isn't normal in the "regular" church but is normal among religious and the Jesuits in particular. The obedience of religious allows things in the superior such as inconsistency and sudden changes in focus because the goal of the obedience is the virtue of obedience itself and not so much the object of the obedience. Notably this approach to obedience instills in the superior an optimistic view of the power of simply telling people what to do without explaining why.
I should add that on the positive side, this strategy could be seen as something that could break up an "old boys club" among the hierarchy, and possible corruption which can ensure from that sort of situation.
Benh: Insightful comments here. I think the same could be said of the new cardinal of Madrid, Cobo (57), who jumped over two-dozen more experienced and more qualified bishops in Spain to be named archbishop of arguably one of three most important sees in Europe. Then, Cobo was named a Cardinal just one day after his election. Although quite radical in his younger priesthood days, he sounds like a good and holy man who has great interest in serving the poor, but being advocate for the poor without the requisite managerial experience and training is not necessarily the best option for leadership for a major archdiocese like Madrid. Right after he was appointed AB of Madrid, he claimed he wants to “reposition the Church” for a changing society, which strikes me as an odd thing to say as a first salvo. I thought the Church was the Rock and we, the faithful need to "reposition ourselves" to be converted. (It's these sorts of riddle-like "Pope Francis" statements that drive me batty.) In any event, while there is perhaps some truth in wanting to correct some modalities of how the church evangelizes and operates, these statements tend to confuse the laity and perhaps even the clergy.
The Holy Father seems insistent to want to take down what he feels is the opposing more traditional "power structures" in the church, by replacing major dicastery offices and dioceses with like-minded social justice warriors, progressives, and outsiders. This is his game plan, if there is one. Pope Francis (SJ) perceives himself as an outsider, a prophet, and a loner. He is clearly choosing the same type of men for these major sees and offices. It's going to be a interesting next ten years.
"Right after he was appointed AB of Madrid, he claimed he wants to “reposition the Church” for a changing society, which strikes me as an odd thing to say as a first salvo."
Yes, and he isn't wrong about this; the Church has been slowly "repositioning" in a very painful way since the even before the French Revolution and all the other conflicts which have change the position of Church and State beyond anything that would be conceivable to a medieval person.
But the obvious question is: Why would we think that YOU are the person to guide this "repositioning?" Why would we assume that YOU have this unique vision? Why would such a thing "work" at all when so many repositionings have happened over the past 50 year with little good fruit?
I think you allude to this: our society is in a state of constant change both socially and economically, why can't the Church be the place where the important things don't change because they are true? Amidst change, there is a hunger for non-change.
Anyway the Church won't be "repositioned" by management or tinkering but by God working through saints and holiness like always.
So Aguiar says “We don’t want to convert these young people to Jesus Christ,” and then faults those who take him at his word for taking him at his word: "If people only hear what they want to hear, then what can I do?” Not content with spewing double-talk, he proceeds to mischaracterize the concerns of those who wonder why a prelate charged with bringing Christ to youth and youth to Christ at an international gathering would say such a thing, claiming they view WYD "as an event to try and convert everyone who happens to come along.” No surprise Francis is keen on elevating a fellow leftist who has mastered his mentor's penchant for speaking out of both sides of his mouth.
If we as the laity want to set a good example for those who look to us to lead the way in virtue (such as bishops and cardinals) then before we set pen to paper, or fingers to keyboard, we ought to ask the Holy Spirit to inspire us and to fill our hearts with charity so that our words will bring others closer to God. I am reminded by hearing your concerns that I often forget to do this.
No one is perplexed by that sentence. And his follow-up confirms he is not being read the wrong way. And its disapppointing he obviously doesnt see anything wrong with what he said.
The first thing any "youth" will do, upon being invited to World Youth Day, is Google it.
"World Youth Day is an event for young people organized by the Catholic Church that was initiated by Pope John Paul II in 1985."
So anyone attending this event knows exactly what they're getting into. Meaning they've already received the call of the Holy Spirit and are responding to it by saying yes to attending an explicitly Catholic event.
How can people who have already responded to the call of the Holy Spirt recognize the imperative of salvation in encountering the Living Christ when they encounter a bishop who sets a precedent of such a tepid proclamation of Faith?
People are not misunderstanding the bishop. They're tired of demure prelates playing coy with The Faith and downplaying the urgency of Christ's Salvation. It reeks of what Pope Benedict warned against; the tyranny of relativism. Its the type of concession one would expect from those priests who've allowed their role to be reduced to a social worker and who mistake the Church's presence in the world as merely political. It's a demoralizing surrender of what Pope St. John Paul II called for young people; to live a courageously heroic faith.
This response demonstrates a lack of awareness that the world has become overtly hostile to Catholics. No one is inspired by "I'm ok. You're ok". We're inspired by unapologetic courage.
2 Timothy 4
I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingly power: proclaim the word; be persistent whether it is convenient or inconvenient; convince, reprimand, encourage through all patience and teaching.
For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth . . .
Oh my. No matter how it meant it, it came across horribly. World Youth Day is about encounter, yes, but that encounter should lead to conversion--to accepting Jesus Christ and becoming better Catholics, not just thinking about their "projects".
Ai ai ai.
Having owned a small farm in Portugal for some 33 years prior to 2019 I have read many articles in newspapers and elsewhere. Frequently particularly on political issues and sometimes on religious issues the writer gives the case for something and then the case against and you are left wondering what he really thinks. This makes for a peaceful life in contrast to Spain where everything is black or white. Perhaps this is akin to Peronism of which Pope Francis is fond.
Notable words on WYD from... a bishop:
https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/barron/world-youth-day-and-converting-everyone-to-christ/
May God bless Bishop Barron for his response to the Aguiar debacle: https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/barron/world-youth-day-and-converting-everyone-to-christ/