L’Osservatore Romano recently published Pope Benedict’s birthday greetings to the schismatic Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I. The successor of Peter prays in his letter that the Lord will sustain the Patriarch with his strength and grace as he carries out his exalted ministry of Pastor, Preacher of the Gospel and Teacher of spiritual life.
The Pope’s words presuppose that the sacrament of Order has perdured in Constantinople. Through his sacramental consecration as a bishop, Bartholomew has received the high priestly character whereby a bishop is rendered an apt subject to receive a canonical mission in teaching, ruling and sanctifying the Church. Not only that, the Pope also addresses him as Archbishop of Constantinople and Patriarch, just as Pope Eugene IV in the fifteenth century treated the holder of the See as Patriarch when he invited him and all the schismatic bishops to sit at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, where the Greeks would come to agreement with the Latins and co-define the Filioque and papal primacy. In other words, even though the de facto Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople since Cerularius’s schism have not been in communion with the successor of Peter, the successors of Peter have generally been willing to accept their elections, even as they hoped for their return to the unity of the Church. Thus the schismatic Patriarchs accepted to a certain extent by the Pope can be considered as having a “colored” but true title to the See of Constantinople.
However Leo XIII taught in the Encyclical Satis Cognitum, “[b]ishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.” Bartholomew is no different from his Greek predecessors since the Middle Ages in rejecting the authority of the successor of Peter over the whole Church. That is to say, he adheres to the schism of his predecessors and has been known over the years to come out with particularly strong statements of his positions against Catholic doctrine.
Taking account of the ongoing schismatic attitude of the Patriarchs, while pleading for their return to unity, Leo XIII and various predecessors over the centuries also provided for the spiritual needs of Oriental populations willing to return. When Leo XIII re-established the Patriarchal Church of Alexandria of the Copts by naming a Catholic Patriarch (see Apostolic Letter on the Patriarchate of Alexandria of the Copts), he addressed himself to all Copts as follows: “We . . . from the plenitude of apostolic power restore the Catholic Patriarchate of Alexandria and establish it for the Copts. . . . . To us it is most desired that the dissenting Copts look upon the Catholic Hierarchy in truth before God; that is to say the hierarchy which on account of communion with the Chair of Peter and his successors alone can legitimately restore the Church founded by Mark, and alone is heir of the entire memory, whatever has been faithfully handed on to the Alexandrian Patriarchate from those ancient forbears.”
Pope Benedict XVI would thus have the power to name a Catholic Patriarch of Constantinople if he so chose. And in fact, his predecessor Pope Innocent III did precisely that. One must note the terrible fact that this was in the wake of the Crusaders taking sides in a dynastic dispute in Constantinople on their way to the Holy Land and their crimes of sacking and pillaging, condemned strongly by Innocent himself. But it was in the hope of unifying the Greek Church with the See of Peter that Pope Innocent named the Venetian Tommaso Morosini Patriarch of Constantinople, while allowing the Greeks to continue to celebrate the Greek liturgy if they so wished. As a result, the Greeks who in 1207 proclaimed Michael IV Autorianos Patriarch of Constantinople committed a schismatic act, enthroning a bishop against the will of the Pope. This was more schismatic than the act of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who in 1988 specifically stated that his bishops would have no ordinary jurisdiction. Innocent remained intransigent in his choice of Patriarch of Constantinople; when asked to recognize the Greek claimant in 1215 he refused, and for decades the legimitate, papally-recognized Patriarch of Constantinople was a Latin named by the Pope, until the Popes finally stopped naming them, while the schismatic Greeks of course continued with their line which continues to the present day.
Since the Popes had long stopped naming Patriarchs of Constantinople, it was natural for Eugene IV in the fifteenth century to not only accept the occupation of the See by the Greek Patriarch, but even to invite him to sit at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, with a brief reunion as the happy result. After the rapid breakdown of the unity established by that Council, the Popes nevertheless continued to tacitly accept the results of the elections of the Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople, despite their schism. All that was required was acceptance of the full doctrine of the Church as taught by the successor of Peter, and acceptance of his authority, and the unity of the Church would be reestablished between Rome and Constantinople. This was summarized in 1848 (In Suprema Petri, January 6) by Blessed Pius IX as follows: “Listen, then, to our words, all of you in the Eastern and neighboring areas who . . . by no means are in communion with the Holy Roman Church, and especially You who are consecrated to sacred functions among them or preside over the rest because you are conspicuous by your superior ecclesiastical dignity . . . . [I]t is Our fixed resolve to take the same approach that Our predecessors, both of more recent and earlier ages, often took toward the sacred Ministers, Priests, and Prelates who come back to Catholic Unity from those Nations; namely to preserve their rank and dignity; and then to make use of their effort, no less than of the rest of the Eastern Catholic Clergy to protect and spread among their people the cult of the Catholic religion.”
Thus in a hermeneutic of continuity we can say that if God were to fully grant the prayer of Pope Benedict XVI for blessings on Bartholomew’s episcopal ministrations, then the current occupant of the Throne of Constantinople would profess the faith of all the ecumenical councils and Popes and as a consequence continue his ministrations with full, ordinary power of jurisdiction in communion with the Church.
The Pope’s words presuppose that the sacrament of Order has perdured in Constantinople. Through his sacramental consecration as a bishop, Bartholomew has received the high priestly character whereby a bishop is rendered an apt subject to receive a canonical mission in teaching, ruling and sanctifying the Church. Not only that, the Pope also addresses him as Archbishop of Constantinople and Patriarch, just as Pope Eugene IV in the fifteenth century treated the holder of the See as Patriarch when he invited him and all the schismatic bishops to sit at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, where the Greeks would come to agreement with the Latins and co-define the Filioque and papal primacy. In other words, even though the de facto Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople since Cerularius’s schism have not been in communion with the successor of Peter, the successors of Peter have generally been willing to accept their elections, even as they hoped for their return to the unity of the Church. Thus the schismatic Patriarchs accepted to a certain extent by the Pope can be considered as having a “colored” but true title to the See of Constantinople.
However Leo XIII taught in the Encyclical Satis Cognitum, “[b]ishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.” Bartholomew is no different from his Greek predecessors since the Middle Ages in rejecting the authority of the successor of Peter over the whole Church. That is to say, he adheres to the schism of his predecessors and has been known over the years to come out with particularly strong statements of his positions against Catholic doctrine.
Taking account of the ongoing schismatic attitude of the Patriarchs, while pleading for their return to unity, Leo XIII and various predecessors over the centuries also provided for the spiritual needs of Oriental populations willing to return. When Leo XIII re-established the Patriarchal Church of Alexandria of the Copts by naming a Catholic Patriarch (see Apostolic Letter on the Patriarchate of Alexandria of the Copts), he addressed himself to all Copts as follows: “We . . . from the plenitude of apostolic power restore the Catholic Patriarchate of Alexandria and establish it for the Copts. . . . . To us it is most desired that the dissenting Copts look upon the Catholic Hierarchy in truth before God; that is to say the hierarchy which on account of communion with the Chair of Peter and his successors alone can legitimately restore the Church founded by Mark, and alone is heir of the entire memory, whatever has been faithfully handed on to the Alexandrian Patriarchate from those ancient forbears.”
Pope Benedict XVI would thus have the power to name a Catholic Patriarch of Constantinople if he so chose. And in fact, his predecessor Pope Innocent III did precisely that. One must note the terrible fact that this was in the wake of the Crusaders taking sides in a dynastic dispute in Constantinople on their way to the Holy Land and their crimes of sacking and pillaging, condemned strongly by Innocent himself. But it was in the hope of unifying the Greek Church with the See of Peter that Pope Innocent named the Venetian Tommaso Morosini Patriarch of Constantinople, while allowing the Greeks to continue to celebrate the Greek liturgy if they so wished. As a result, the Greeks who in 1207 proclaimed Michael IV Autorianos Patriarch of Constantinople committed a schismatic act, enthroning a bishop against the will of the Pope. This was more schismatic than the act of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who in 1988 specifically stated that his bishops would have no ordinary jurisdiction. Innocent remained intransigent in his choice of Patriarch of Constantinople; when asked to recognize the Greek claimant in 1215 he refused, and for decades the legimitate, papally-recognized Patriarch of Constantinople was a Latin named by the Pope, until the Popes finally stopped naming them, while the schismatic Greeks of course continued with their line which continues to the present day.
Since the Popes had long stopped naming Patriarchs of Constantinople, it was natural for Eugene IV in the fifteenth century to not only accept the occupation of the See by the Greek Patriarch, but even to invite him to sit at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, with a brief reunion as the happy result. After the rapid breakdown of the unity established by that Council, the Popes nevertheless continued to tacitly accept the results of the elections of the Greek Patriarchs of Constantinople, despite their schism. All that was required was acceptance of the full doctrine of the Church as taught by the successor of Peter, and acceptance of his authority, and the unity of the Church would be reestablished between Rome and Constantinople. This was summarized in 1848 (In Suprema Petri, January 6) by Blessed Pius IX as follows: “Listen, then, to our words, all of you in the Eastern and neighboring areas who . . . by no means are in communion with the Holy Roman Church, and especially You who are consecrated to sacred functions among them or preside over the rest because you are conspicuous by your superior ecclesiastical dignity . . . . [I]t is Our fixed resolve to take the same approach that Our predecessors, both of more recent and earlier ages, often took toward the sacred Ministers, Priests, and Prelates who come back to Catholic Unity from those Nations; namely to preserve their rank and dignity; and then to make use of their effort, no less than of the rest of the Eastern Catholic Clergy to protect and spread among their people the cult of the Catholic religion.”
Thus in a hermeneutic of continuity we can say that if God were to fully grant the prayer of Pope Benedict XVI for blessings on Bartholomew’s episcopal ministrations, then the current occupant of the Throne of Constantinople would profess the faith of all the ecumenical councils and Popes and as a consequence continue his ministrations with full, ordinary power of jurisdiction in communion with the Church.
