Realist,
I can not believe that you base your salvation on an article from wikipedia and not the Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scriptures.
Matt. 16:18 is not the only verse as you claim. From the Catholic.com tracts that you pretended to you read.
It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papa...
Also read Isaiah 22:21-22 to see context for the authority of the key holder.
You ignore Pope Clement's epistle (A.D. 80) and the writings of Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 110).
http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_P...
You ignore all the evidence that goes against what you have infallibly defined as the truth. You obviously believe that Christ gave you the gift of infallibility but not His vicar.
Christ gave us an example of obedience you should spend the season of Lent contemplating His example.
What you do not realize is that the Church will survive you and everyone like you as she has done for 2000 years. May God have mercy on your soul and mine.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

"I don't know if any of the patriarchs of any Orthodox Churches use the title "Patriarch of the East." I suppose that "Patriarch of the West" is imprecise, as compared to "Patriarch of Rome", "Patriarch of Constantinople", "Patriarch of "Alexandria", etc."
The full list of titles of the (Orthodox) Patriarch of Antioch is as follows (anyone please correct me if I am wrong...):
Patriarch of the city of Antioch, of Cilicia, Syria, Iberia, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and the entire East, Father of Fathers, Pastor of Pastors, Bishop of Bishops, the Thirteenth of The Holy Apostles.
His Beatitude Gregory III (the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch) has all of the above, plus the titles of Alexandria (Patriarch of Alexandria, the Pentapolis, Ethiopia, and of all of Egypt and Ecumenical Judge) and of Jerusalem.
Personally I wanted to see one of the Pope's titles as "Patriarch of Rome and all the West", which would "rhyme" with the titles of the other two (original) patriarchates.
Just my thoughts...

Realist
It seems you have a problem with white males, I think as a white male we have contributed much to society, actually if it was not for white males who invented the computer you are using to bash white males we would not have the luxury of hearing your gripes about the Catholic church

Believing that somebody with a church office (say, a priest, bishop, or Pope) must be personally holy to make his office handed down from Christ efficacious -- waaaal, that's what we call a Big Honking Heresy. Christ's power can use even the most scummy nogoodnik as an instrumentality.
Believing that Jesus was only resurrected "spiritually" and not in the body -- that's an even BIGGER Honking Heresy. If Jesus was not resurrected in the body, then He doesn't offer us true eternal life in the body.
Which He promised. A lot.
(You are allowed to argue about the nature of the new glorified bodies which Jesus got and which we will get. But New and Improved Bodies are still bodies -- they are more real things, not mere "spiritual" non-things. God invented matter and bodies. He likes them, and is not ashamed to use them.)

Jason,
Actually, the Primacy of Rome has only been a major theme since "Pope" Damusus I. (366 to 383 CE)
"Damasus was the first bishop of Rome to invoke the "Petrine text" (Matthew 16:18) in terms that sought to establish a serious theological and scriptural foundation on which the primacy of the Roman church could be based. From Damasus onwards, there is a marked increase in the volume and importance of claims of authority and primacy from the Roman bishops, claims reinforced by the FORGED correspondence with Jerome."
http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Pope_Damasus_...
And as one of the "elite" corps, he was NOT a shining ROCK for us "pew peasants".

...what the elite, elderly, generally-white males have been dictating as truth for the last 2,000 years in order to keep us "pew peasants" from knowing all the facts and to keep themselves, popes, bishops, kings, queens and dictators in power.
Thank you for acknowledging that the Church has taught the primacy of Rome as "truth for the last 2,000 years".

SurRealist-
You should read the New Testament. It is a short book and gets quickly to many vexing questions we all have.
At least you admit that you reject the defining historical doctrine of Christianity.
See, folks, Realist believes that Jesus "lives on" in the hearts of his disciples in exactly the same way that Elvis "lives on" in the hearts of his fans.
In the interest of truthfulness, he should drop the title of "Catholic".
You know, if I visited a blog of Harley-Davidson enthusiasts and repeatedly dropped anti-Harley comments into the combox, smeared Harley owners, chatted up the superior qualities of foreign motorcycles, and generally needled those on the site, that would be irritating enough... but to then make the nonsensical claim that among them all, I was the TRUE Harley enthusiast... that would be a bit nuts.
What they might call cognitive dissonance.

"Here is a post from the Orthodox site Monarchos
When the Pope was yet Joseph Ratzinger he pointed out the
need to disentangle the confusion between the patriarchal and primatial roles of the bishop of Rome and to break up the Latin patriarchate, replacing it with a number of ""patriarchal areas," that is, regions with an
autonomy similar to that of the ancient patriarchates, but under the direction of the episcopal conferences.
In an essay entitled "Primacy and Episcopacy," Ratzinger developed the theme at greater length:
"The image of a centralized state which the Catholic church presented right up to the council does not flow only from the Petrine office, but from its strict amalgamation with the patriarchal function which grew ever stronger in the course of history and which fell to the bishop of Rome for the whole of Latin Christendom. The uniform canon law, the uniform liturgy, the uniform appointment of bishops by the Roman centre: all these are things which are not necessarily part of the primacy but result from the close
union of the two offices. For that reason, the task to consider for the future will be to distinguish again and more clearly between the proper function of the successor of Peter and the patriarchal office and, where necessary, to create new patriarchates and to detach them from the Latin church. To embrace unity with the pope would then no longer mean being incorporated into a uniform administration, but only being inserted into a unity of faith and communion, in which the pope is acknowledged to have the power to give binding interpretations of the revelation given in Christ whose authority is accepted whenever it is given in definitive form."
After exploring the ecumenical implications of this vision, Ratzinger concluded: "Finally, in the not too distant future one could consider whether the churches of Asia and Africa, like those of the East, should not present their own forms as autonomous 'patriarchates' or 'great churches' or whatever such ecclesiae in the Ecclesia might be called in the future."
Playing the optimist, I hope that this is the beginning of a long-term plan to bring these ideas quietly into reality, without causing alarm to the "hawks" and ultramontanists in the Roman Catholic Church.
Who knows, but now the Pope is no longer Patriarch of the West we may one day see a Patriarch of Dublin, or Paris, or Madrid."
The person who posted this called himself Hieromonk Ambrose.
Susan Peterson

Oh, "contrare"!!
I have a problem with the physical Resurrection as do many Christian to include some Catholic biblical historians. I do believe in the Spritual Resurrection which is the key element and which even most "Jesus Seminarians" believe in. ( See Crossan's Who is Jesus for his analyses. It is a short book and gets quickly to many vexing questions we all have.)
With respect to ST. MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR, POPE ST. LEO THE GREAT, ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM and DAMUSUS I, they fit the mold of "What the Church teaches"- i.e. what the elite, elderly, generally-white males have been dictating as truth for the last 2,000 years in order to keep us "pew peasants" from knowing all the facts and to keep themselves, popes, bishops, kings, queens and dictators in power.
And some non-Catholic Encyclopedia facts about the last guy, Damusus I :
"Matthew 16:18 was discovered to apply to the papacy by Damasus I who had over a hundred of his rival's supporter's killed to gain the bishopric of Rome. It is after this time that the phrase from Matthew is more and more centered on Rome. The bishops of Rome committed many crimes. The biggest one was to ascribe their malfeasance to the Holy Spirit. Still is.”
See http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Pope_Damasus_...

Just for fun, I've created a reader poll where people can vote on their favorite (still used) Papal title:
http://www.americanpapist.com/poll.php

I know I have a tendency of getting a little to defensive(ie offensive with improper understandings) about things. I would like to thank everyone here for being patient and not letting things get out of hand and keeping things civil.

Benedict can't bind future Popes on a matter of discipline such as this. A future Pope could theoretically ressurrect the title, just as they could ressurrect the tiara. Benedict himself ressurrected the older form of the Pallium, for example.

I don't understand two things:
1. Who is our Patriarch (Latin Rite)? The Pope still is, even if he doesn't use the title.
2. Has Bennedict XVI personally given up on the title/role, or was is stripped from future Popes?

For what it's worth, here's a few relevant witnesses from before the schism:
ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM
Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first [Peter] who was ordained a teacher. He [Peter] did not say: 'We are sufficient.' So far was he beyond all vain glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and in regard that prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers that they were called, nor those not elected to make a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced. But things are not done in that fashion now; nay, quite the contrary. For observe they were a hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body; with good right, as [Peter] having been put in charge of them; for to him Christ had said: 'And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.' (St. John Chrysostom, 4th Century)
POPE ST. LEO THE GREAT
The connction of the whole body makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful; and this connection requires the unanimity indeed of the whole body, but it especially demands harmony among the priests. And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honourable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself, but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head. Let not him then who knows he has been set over certain others take it ill that some one has been set over him, but let him himself render the obedience which he demands of them; and as he does not wish to bear a heavy load of baggage, so let him not dare to place on another's shoulders a weight that is insupportable. (Pope St. Leo the Great, 5th Century)
ST. MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR
Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world. For with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him. (St. Maximus the Confessor, 7th Century)

Of course it was a "later development", just like every scripture passage he doesn't like. LOL!

Inocencio,
I checked your reference and it simply reinforces the singularity of the Rock commentary.
As per Damusus I,(not one of the shining Rocks?)
"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it(Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]). "
Something as important as making Peter the Rock should have been noted in all the Gospels. It was not, making it quite likely that it was a later embellishment.
One could make a stronger case for team leadership but that is not was done typically in the days of emperors, pharaohs, kings and queens. It might be good to return to team leadership, preferably an elected, non-gender team with term and age limits.

The word "pontiff" comes from the Latin "pontifex" which means "bridge-maker."

A) In thinking about the comments regarding that he should drop 'Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church' instead, has anybody considered how that statement is rendered in other languages, especially Latin? Maybe it doesn't sound as grandiose and haughty as it does in English.
B) I guess this makes the Catholic Encyclopedia a little bit more out of date. :)

Realist,
The Pope's Papacy/Rock appears to rely on only one biblical passage, i.e. Matthew 16:18
You are showing your ignorance/denial of Sacred Scripture and Tradition again.
Here is a link from the Catholic Answers library:
http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp
At least try to understand why and what the Church Teaches about the Primacy of the Pope before seeking out "experts" who deny the authority of the Pope.
The least a Catholic, since you claim to be one, can do is actually learn their faith. And Lent is a perfect time for coming to a better understanding of what the Church teaches.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

So it would be better if we just omitted Matthew 16:18 from our Bibles? ;-) Obviously, the teaching of the papacy is grounded on much more than this one Scripture passage. But even if it weren't, does that make Matthew 16:18 any less true?

The Pope's Papacy/Rock appears to rely on only one biblical passage, i.e. Matthew 16:18. This singularity is troublesome especially since it has resulted in putting such power until death in the hands of one individual who on many occasions was not what you might call a good Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Roman Province, Sovereign of Vatican City and Servant of the Servants of God.
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb073.html

I think he should replace it with Patriarch of the World. Or Patriarch of the Earth. Now that sounds cool.

I don't understand this move. It seems to me that it will hurt ecumenism with the East, not help it. The Pope's role as Patriarch of the West is a legitimate one, and one that is consistent with the Eastern model of the hierarchy. And saying that he is the Patriarch of the West does not take away from his role as universal pastor any more than his role as Bishop of Rome does. The Pope has three areas of authority, with each exercised in a different fashion:
over the diocese of Rome (Bishop of Rome)
over the Latin-Rite Church (Patriarch of the West)
over the universal Church (Supreme Pontiff)
The first two are roles that are recognized in both East and West (and even the third has a certain level of acceptance in the East, if understood a certain way), so I don't know how it helps ecumenical relations to drop one of them.
But I guess that's why I'm not Pope. :)

To use the title with binding precision, the Pope is our Patriarch as Latin Catholics (or Roman Catholics) because he is the Patriarch of Rome. "Patriarch of the West" is not as precise.

Luke, the Pope's title is "Vicar of Jesus Christ," not "Vicar of Peter." He is the Successor to Peter as the representative (i.e., vicar) of Jesus Christ.
Michelle,
Whereas "Vicar of Peter" is not one of his official nine (now eight) titles, it is appropriate to call the Pope "Vicar of Peter". In fact, this title is used liturgically, as was seen last year when JPII died.

Does that mean that the Pope is no longer our patriarch? Who is our Patriarch then (if we are Western) if not the Holy *Father*. *Patri*arch, Father...huh?
And how was this a source of divison? My understanding is that the Pope has been considered the Patriarch of the West since before the great schism.
At least he didn't eliminate the important titles...like Supreme Pontiff, Vicar of Christ, and Servant of the Servant of God.

(Matrona) That's exactly what St. Peter had in mind when he founded the See of Antioch and then went on to Rome, right? :)
I am a young latin rite Catholic and do not know much about Eastern Orthodox churches, but I was under the impression that deference was given to the See of Constatinople, not Antioch. Do you have any early written sources to verify that was what St. Peter had in mind when he founded the See of Antioch?

"I hope that someday the titles are reduced to two: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Peter."
Luke, the Pope's title is "Vicar of Jesus Christ," not "Vicar of Peter." He is the Successor to Peter as the representative (i.e., vicar) of Jesus Christ.

I don't know if any of the patriarchs of any Orthodox Churches use the title "Patriarch of the East." I suppose that "Patriarch of the West" is imprecise, as compared to "Patriarch of Rome", "Patriarch of Constantinople", "Patriarch of "Alexandria", etc.
I would be interested in knowing if Pope Benedict considered using "Patriarch of Rome" instead of "Patriarch of the West."

My understanding of the issue, which I'm quite confident in saying is vastly inferior to Pope Benedict's, is that the Orthodox's primary objection is that the Bishop of Rome would have dominion over other bishoprics. There are parts of current Western practice that are reformable (at least in the opinion of then Cardinal Ratzinger) that would ease fears over reunion such as returning to the provinces the selection of bishops. The Orthodox will have to accept, and many appear willing, that the teachings of the Bishop of Rome need to be given deference without being binding.

There HAS to be more to this story than has come out so far. What is out there to date either makes no sense, or the sense it makes, makes no point. I'm like, whoa, what's up with THAT?

Honestly, I initially thought that this story was a piece of satire because of the way it is written. I think it's the word "simply" in the following sentence that got me:
"He is simply Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Metropolitan Archbishop of the Roman Province, Sovereign of Vatican City and Servant of the Servants of God." (emphasis mine) That's quite a long list of very important-sounding titles to follow the word "simply". :-)
I agree with the first commenter above -- wouldn't the title "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church" (and "Vicar of Jesus Christ" too) be much more of an obstacle to unity than "Patriarch of the West"?
Please understand though that I am a Catholic, and I believe in the legitimacy of all of these titles for the pope. Also, I'm not advocating that any of them be dropped. It's just that I don't really see the big deal about dropping "Patriarch of the West" as long as he is keeping titles like "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church".

(Tim J) Certainly in a sense we are all "equal brothers" (and sisters) in serving the Lord, but the there can be no office equal to the Papacy.

I'm not sure I agree, Tim, at least not entirely.
The Petrine office is obviously unique, but when we speak of the Pope as, e.g., the "bishop of Rome," we indicate a sense in which his episcopal office is the same as that of every other bishop in the world, all of whom hold their authority directly from Jesus Christ.
"Patriarch of the West" likewise points to a sense in which the Apostolic See is indeed parallel to the other patriarchates of the East, whose primates are sometimes even called "popes."
FWIW, "Patriarch of the West" is one of the titles of the Bishop of Rome that I would have thought most harmonious to Orthodox sensibilities. Dropping titles I can understand, but why this particular one? Count me among the puzzled as well.

(Tim J)"Patriarch of the West" implies division, where "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church" speaks of unity.

Hm. Does "Patriarch of Constantinope" and "Patriarch of Antioch" imply division? It seems plausible to me to argue that "Patriarch of the West" is a fraternal or collegial title, where "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church" is an exclusive and unique title. Granted, the Pope must insist on the exclusive and unique aspects of his office, but where is the ecumenical value in dropping a fraternal or collegial title? Why doesn't that only give that much more emphasis to the part that's the stumbling-block?
FWIW, in principle, I would have no immovable objection to Matrona's jocular suggestion about dropping the title "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church." Obviously there is something articulated by this title that would have to be preserved in any adequate formulation, but if this can be done in a way that better expresses the nature of the Petrine office for both East and West, I would be open to that.
What is the nature of the Petrine office? There are formulations on the Western side that have historically been considered unacceptable by many in the East, and formulations on the Eastern side that have historically been insufficient by many in the West.
How far it may be possible to get past the obstacles of these historic formulations and articulate a common vision for a reunited Church -- one maintaining continuity with the Petrine office intended by Jesus Christ, understood in a way that can be accepted by both East and West (or rather, by more on both sides than is presently the case) -- is one of the great issues facing ecumenical discussion.
Alas, diplomatic tap-dancing rather than ecumenical dialogue currently consumes the greater part of our leaders' energies in their dealings with one another. God have mercy on us. We have not tried ecumenical dialogue and failed, we have held press conferences and played social one-up-manship.

(Matrona) That's exactly what St. Peter had in mind when he founded the See of Antioch and then went on to Rome, right? :)

And yet, Matrona, even in the spectrum of Orthodox thought you will find traction for the belief that the Bishop of Rome is in a unique sense the successor to Peter.

I hope that someday the titles are reduced to two: Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Peter.

Tim J said: 'Matrona, I know that was a toungue-in-cheek suggestion, but "Patriarch of the West" implies division, where "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church" speaks of unity.'
Not exactly. While we Orthodox would call "Patriarch of the West" an incorrect descriptor of the pope *currently* (since he isn't Orthodox :) ), it *is* reflective of Orthodox ecclesiology with relation to that position *historically*.
(In case I stated that too ambiguously, please know that we do NOT consider any Roman pope since the schism to be a patriarch of the west or any such thing.)
"Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church," on the other hand, is a title to which we cannot assent; we believe it is contrary to the faith once delivered and to apostolic Tradition, yada yada yada, you know the drill.
Tim J said: 'That the Eastern Church is apostolic in its origins, no one would argue, I think, but not all apostles are equal. Even if each of the Twelve had founded a church, they would all need to recognize the unique Petrine authority.'
That's exactly what St. Peter had in mind when he founded the See of Antioch and then went on to Rome, right? :)

"we're are equal brothers in serving the Lord"
This is a nice sentiment, but not accurate. Certainly in a sense we are all "equal brothers" (and sisters) in serving the Lord, but the there can be no office equal to the Papacy.
Matrona, I know that was a toungue-in-cheek suggestion, but "Patriarch of the West" implies division, where "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church" speaks of unity.
That the Eastern Church is apostolic in its origins, no one would argue, I think, but not all apostles are equal. Even if each of the Twelve had founded a church, they would all need to recognize the unique Petrine authority.

All I know is that JP2's favorite title was "Servant of the Servants of God".
I wonder which of the titles is Benedict's favorite?

I guess I must be missing something. I would think that if he described himself as Patriarch of the West, first and foremost, that he would be saying to the Eastern Patriarchs, "we're are equal brothers in serving the Lord".

Just for the record, as an Orthodox Christian, I think that if Pope Benedict wanted to "overcome the 992-year division between Roman Catholics and Orthodox Christians," he would have done much better to drop "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church," instead. :D