answersLogoWhite

0

AllQ&AStudy Guides
Best answer

Pope Benedict is head of the Catholic Church. However he is also head of all of the other Rites/Churches which are in Union with Rome (The Uniates). So he is head of the following "Churches":

Armenian Catholic Church

Byzantine Catholic Church

Chaldean Catholic Church (East Syrian)

Coptic Catholic Church

Ethiopian Catholic Church

Maronite Church

Melkite Catholic Church

Roman Catholic Church

Romanian Catholic Church

Russian Catholic Church

Ruthenian Catholic Church

Syro-Malabar Catholic Church

Ukrania Catholic Church

West Syrian Catholic Church

Each of these have different "Rites" or ceremonies which are carried out. And they are all under their own separate patriarch(s). The pope is both head and patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church or the Western Rite.

For a list of "Who's Who" and who isn't in union with Rome etc read this:

http://www.archdiocesesantafe.org/Offices/Ecumenical/ChurchList.pdf

This answer is:
Related answers

Pope Benedict is head of the Catholic Church. However he is also head of all of the other Rites/Churches which are in Union with Rome (The Uniates). So he is head of the following "Churches":

Armenian Catholic Church

Byzantine Catholic Church

Chaldean Catholic Church (East Syrian)

Coptic Catholic Church

Ethiopian Catholic Church

Maronite Church

Melkite Catholic Church

Roman Catholic Church

Romanian Catholic Church

Russian Catholic Church

Ruthenian Catholic Church

Syro-Malabar Catholic Church

Ukrania Catholic Church

West Syrian Catholic Church

Each of these have different "Rites" or ceremonies which are carried out. And they are all under their own separate patriarch(s). The pope is both head and patriarch of the Roman Catholic Church or the Western Rite.

For a list of "Who's Who" and who isn't in union with Rome etc read this:

http://www.archdiocesesantafe.org/Offices/Ecumenical/ChurchList.pdf

View page

Archbishop SERGEY (Arkadi Dimitrievich Korolev) of Kazan & Chistopol 18 Jan 1881-18 Dec 1952 Born into a religious family in the Moscow region; attended Bethany Theological Seminary at the Troitse-Sergiev Lavra; after finishing, attended the Moscow Theological Academy, graduating in 1905. On 7 Jun 1907, he was tonsured a monk by Bishop Evlogy of Kholm (Vasily Semenovich Georgievsky, 10 Apr 1868-8 Aug 1946, later Metropolitan of Western Europe for both the Constantinople and Moscow Patriarchates), and given the name Sergey. He entered the Yablochinsky Monastery in the Kholm Diocese. 1908 he was ordained a hieromonk. Yablochinsky Monastery had a missionary program, especially for the Uniates in this area, and Father Sergey labored as a missionary. In 1914 he was elevated to Archimandrite, and named assistant Abbot of the Monastery. The same year, the Monastery was evacuated because it was near the front of the fighting between the Russian Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In 1920 he was consecrated to the Episcopate as Bishop of Belsk, which as a result of the outcome of WWI, was within the borders of the new state of Poland. In 1922 Bishop Sergey was arrested for his opposition to the planned Autocephaly of the Orthodox Church in Poland. He finally was deported from Poland, and went to Czechoslovakia, where he was assigned Bishop of Prague by Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky) of Western Europe of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia. As a Vicar of Metropolitan Evlogy, Bishop Sergey followed him into schism from the ROCOR in 1927. Following WWII, Bishop Sergey followed Met. Evlogy into the Moscow Patriarchate (Evlogy had submitted to the Patriarchate of Constantinople after leaving ROCOR). After Evlogy's death in 1946, his successor, Metropolitan Vladimir (Vyacheslav Mikhailovich Tikhonitsky, 22 Mar/4 Apr 1873-5/18 Dec 1959) took the Diocese back into the Patriarchate of Constantinople, a decision that Bishop Sergey disagreed with. Bishop Sergey stayed under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, which was easy to do in Prague, since the Moscow Patriarchate was the only jurisdiction that could be legally adhered to. 17 Apr 1946, the MP elevated Bishop Sergey to Archbishop, and 7 Jun 1946 assigned him as Archbishop of Vienna of the Western European Diocese. In October of 1946, he was named Exarch of the Central European District of the MP. From 8 to 18 Jul 1948, he participated in the celebrations for the 500th Anniversary of the Autocephaly of the Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow. On 16 Nov 1948 he was named Archbishop of Berlin and Germany, and on 20 Sep 1950, Archbishop of Kazan and Chistopol. In Kazan, he always walked to the Cathedral, taking different ways, He would engage obviously poor people in conversation, enter into their houses, and, learning of their situations, would leave sums of money in their house when he left. He left over 20 written works on various aspects of Holy Orthodoxy. Vladika Sergey reposed in the Lord on 18 Dec 1952 in Kazan.

View page

The difficulty about term "catholic" (universal) is that since 1054 and especially 1517 each Church [denomination] takes pleasure in calling the other Churches "heretics"

The term "Roman" is the "rite" celebrated in the Catholic church located in Rome (Western Church). There are different "rites" (uniates) in union with the west. [ie: Ukranian [rite] Catholic; Byzantine [rite] Catholic; Rutheniane [rite] Catholic. The rite indicates the type of liturgy the churches use to celebrate Mass.

The word Catholic designates a denomination. ie: Roman Catholic

The word catholic means "universal"

Prior to the schism of 1054 there was only one catholic Church. After the schism the church divided into what is now called the Roman Catholic Church (the Western Church) and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

After the Reformation of 1517 The word Catholic was looked upon as a denominational title as Luther's Church did, and still claims to be catholic. Most other denominations hold the same position.

The CATHOLIC ANSWER:

The term "Roman Catholic" is historically a distinction created by non-Catholic Christians -- around the time of the Protestant Reformation in the 15th Century AD -- who view themselves as catholic (small "c"). The Catholic Church, however, does not now, nor has She ever, identified Herself as "Roman Catholic" because such a distinction would be technically false. The term: "Roman Catholic" implies that the Latin/Western Rite of The Catholic Church constitutes The Catholic Church/community when in fact the Catholic Church includes several other Rites/sects as well, i.e., Eastern Rite, Byzantine Rite, Maronite and several others. The Latin/Western Rite, however, is, by far, the largest Rite/sect within The Catholic Church. All Catholic Church Rites agree on all matters of faith & morals. They differ, primarily and essentially, in their cultural practices. In addition, the term "Roman Catholic" implies, or may imply, falsely that Rome Italy or the Italian Government somehow has authority over the Catholic Church when in fact, it does not.

For an extensively documented and authoritative Catholic explanation of the term: "Roman Catholic", please see: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm For an extensively documented & authoritative Catholic explanation of the term "catholic" please see: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03449a.htm

Historical background/semi-brief overview:

Rome is merely the physical location of the teaching authority of The Catholic Church (which includes pope/Bishop of Rome and magisterium). And, Rome Italy (now specifically Vatican City) has been the physical and/or authoritative location of the pope & magesterium for pretty much the past 2000 years. In part, Rome was selected as the "seat of authority" in The Catholic Church because both St. Peter & St. Paul were martyred in Rome and I believe it was on the same day. St. Peter's remains -- along with the remains of many other popes -- are enshrined directly below the alter in St. Peter's Bacillica in Vatican City which is located inside Rome, Italy. Vatican City, however, is it's own "nation-state" -- separate from the nation-state of Italy. St. Paul's remains are enshrined below the alter of St. Paul's Outside the Wall Basillica in Rome. Analogy: Rome is to The Catholic Church what Washington DC is to the US.

When Christianity was born, in the 1st Century AD, Rome Italy was also the "seat of authority" of the entire secular Roman Empire until the Roman Emperor Constantine moved that "seat of authority" (Roman Govt) to Constantinople (modern-day Turkey). Until approximately the mid-1400s AD, it would be known as the Byzantine Empire.

In part, Rome was chosen as the location of the visible "central authority" (location of the visible CEO -- Peter & his successor Bishops of Rome) of the Catholic Church as an act of Christian defiance directed at the secular, and Pagan, Roman Empire. We Christians were going to go "toe to toe" with Pagan Rome and fight, spiritually, in order to "win" souls for Christ, increasing His flock the world over. If that meant dying for The Faith, so be it. . .and it definitely did mean dying for Christ frequently.

The Roman Emperor Constantine moved the "seat of government" the Roman Empire to Constantinople because Rome (the western empire) was besieged by constant invasion, civil war, plague, etc. beginning in the mid to late 200s AD/CE. Constantine's decision was practical. ANALOGY: After the British burned Washington DC to the ground in 1812+/-, the US Govt considered moving the nation's capital to Philadelphia (and some other places). Ultimately we did not do that. Constantine did.

Over time, many of the Eastern Bishops of the Catholic Church -- 1st defined as the Catholic Church in the 100s AD -- decided that their authority was essentially superior to the Bishop of Rome (the pope). Many, though not all, of the Eastern Catholic Bishops broke with the Catholic Church around 1054 AD and are today The Eastern Orthodox Church (which includes, among others, the Russian Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox, etc.) Those Eastern Catholic Bishops who refused to break with The Catholic Church remain today as the Eastern Rite Catholics. The Orthodox, however, continued to hold and I believe still hold, theologically, that "the bishop of Rome is 1st among equals." Efforts to reunite the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are ongoing and hopeful.

The Bishop of Rome (pope) is elected by, and from, the "College of Cardinals" who are bishops of the Catholic Church from every nation of the world. It is the pope (Bishop of Rome) who decides which bishops, from every nation of the world, will be admitted to the College of Cardinals and who, among priests world-wide will become Bishops of the Catholic Church. The pope receives the recommendations for Bishop from the Church in each nation, i.e., the Church in Spain will offer recommendations as to who, among its priests is "worthy" of elevation to the bishopric. ANALOGY: The President of the United States selects appellate and US Supreme Court judges/justices when there is a vacancy. Likewise, the pope selects Catholic Bishops. The President usually receives help in that decision through recommendations from various state congressional & senatorial representatives but ultimately the final choice belongs to the US President. There is then an investigation into the "worthiness" of that lawyer or judge to be elevated to the status of Appellate or SCOTUS justice. The President makes his decision and offers his selection for acceptance by the US Senate. How priests become bishops in the Catholic Church is analogous -- and really quite similar -- to our own US process of selecting lawyers to become justices of our appellate courts & the US Supreme Court. If making a comparative analogy, Cardinals = SCOTUS justices; bishops = appellate justices. Cardinals & Bishops of The Catholic Church, like US appellate & SCOTUS justices, are only elected/elevated to the College of Cardinals -- who elects the pope from it's members -- when there is a vacancy. Like US appellate & SCOTUS justices, Catholic Church bishops and cardinals serve for life.

The position of the Bishop of Rome (pope translated:"papa") in the Catholic Church is a singularly distinctive position. The Catholic Church asserts, definitively, that the position of Bishop of Rome is the only lawful successor of St. Peter (the first Bishop of Rome and 1st pope) and that that singularly distinctive and authoritative position was instituted directly by Christ himself when he declared to the Apostle Peter, in front of all the apostles: "I give you, Peter, the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, etc." Catholics believe that the Apostles and the early Christian Church understood, clearly, what Jesus meant which is why there exists an unbroken line of "popes" (Bishops of Rome) from Peter to the present. Non-Catholic Christians, however, would refute this contention/assertion. In my opinion, as a Catholic, they do not do as persuasively as the Catholic Church does. ANALOGY: In today's language, one might compare the Pope to a CEO -- Chief Executive Officer. Jesus Christ remains the Chairman of the Board -- the head of his Church on earth. But the Church must still be "administered" in the world/on the earth in order to function and survive.

Being chosen/elected Bishop of Rome (pope/papa) for at least the 1st 200 years of Christianity was often a death sentence. The Romans would seek out, and kill, many popes and bishops during those centuries. It did require great courage to accept that position -- pope/Bishop of Rome. Historical evidence from Roman records (Roman secular Govt) demonstrates that the Romans recognized the Bishop of Rome to be the "leader"/CEO of the Catholic-Christian Church. In one account -- Roman historian Sutonius I think -- the Romans commented, in frustration, that dealing with the Christian leader was a never-ending problem. As soon as we would dispose of one, another would stand up and take his place. For EXAMPLE: when Peter was martyred in Rome in 67 AD, Linus took his place. When Linus died in 76 AD, Cletus would take his place. When Cletus was martyred in 88 ad, Clement would become pope, and on and on. The papacy is as old as the Apostle Peter and the historical record does proves that. It is only the list of successors to Peter (the Bishops of Rome/popes) that were specifically recorded, in detail, for the sake of the historical record of authority in The Catholic Church. This record of papal succession is similar to the Gospel lists of ancestry demonstrating that, and how, Jesus was a direct descendent of David. The Catholic Church, for whatever reason, also chose to record the list of succession of all popes/Bishops of Rome beginning with St. Peter, to whom Jesus Himself gave the "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven." Some non-Catholic Christian Churches, ie., the Orthodox and Anglican, maintain their own lists of succession.

The final question is: Who, if anyone, has the Divine Authority to reject, outright, the singularly distinctive -- and historically recorded/asserted -- position of the Bishop of Rome/the pope? The Catholic Church would assert that none do. Other Christian churches, i.e., the Orthodox and the Anglican Churches, would assert that they do. The ultimate answer to that question is beyond my pay-grade.

View page
Featured study guide
📓
See all Study Guides
✍️
Create a Study Guide
Search results