Patriarch of the West and Subsidiarity in the Church
I have been interested in subsidiarity and the Church for some time. As an Eastern Catholic (a uniate) I think Patriarch of the West is not an outdated or obsolete thing.
Patriarch of the West and Subsidiarity in the Church
By Dominic V. Cassella
Last week, with the release of the 2024 edition of the Vatican yearbook, Pope Francis revived an old title without explanation. The title in question is “Patriarch of the West,” which hasn’t been used for almost 20 years. In 2006, Pope Benedict XVI removed the title from his official list, claiming it was imprecise and historically obsolete.
Perhaps, surprising to Pope Benedict, many Orthodox were disappointed with the removal as it was one of the few titles they approved of for the Papacy. But is it a title for the papacy? And, was Benedict XVI right to remove the title, or was Pope Francis right to restore it?
My thesis is that the title Patriarch of the West reflects an essential part of papal jurisdiction, i.e, subsidiarity, and Pope Francis is right to restore it.
To understand what I mean, let’s look at the history of the papacy and reconsider jurisdiction. It may be the case that being the Bishop of Rome is not being the Patriarch of the West or the Pope of the Universal Church; rather, these are three distinct offices traditionally held by one man.
When Jesus Christ established his Church, he placed Peter as its foundation. [Matthew 16:18-19 RSV].
At the institution of the Church and from the start of the proclamation of the Good News, Peter was not yet a bishop of Rome. In fact, tradition maintains that Peter was the first bishop of Antioch, later Corinth, and lastly Rome. As the bishop of Antioch, his successor was Bishop Evodius and, then, the famous early Church Father, Ignatius of Antioch.
Peter also is said to have ordained Mark the Evangelist, who went to Alexandria and established the Church there.
So, at first glance, being the Bishop of Rome cannot be intrinsic to possessing papal authority since Peter was not the bishop of Rome for the first several years (something St. Robert Bellarmine also argues for in book ii, ch xii, On the Roman Pontiff).
Likewise, the jurisdictional system of Patriarchates is something that develops as a logical consequence of the authority given to Peter and the Apostles to govern Christ’s Church. The ancient pentarchy of Patriarchs included Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
As a Patriarch, one has jurisdiction over a body of bishops, priests, and laity in a particular region—although, in modern times, rather than strictly regional, the Patriarchate’s jurisdictional authority has been extended to wherever a certain rite is practiced. (A practice that needs an evaluation of its own.) Nevertheless, as Patriarchs, they possessed jurisdiction proper to the Patriarchy in addition to jurisdiction and authority proper to their bishopric.
Whatever papal jurisdiction entails, it is not the same jurisdiction proper to a bishop or a Patriarch. Instead, the presence of these titles—bishop of Rome, Patriarch of the West, and Pontifex Maximus of the Universal Church (Pope)—can be viewed as distinct offices possessed by an individual man. At this moment in time, Pope Francis is the man who holds these three distinct offices. Perhaps sometimes, we can divide his actions as being done according to one of these three offices—sometimes acting as the Bishop of Rome, at other times as Patriarch of the West.
With debates surrounding Papal jurisdiction, the resurgence of the title “Patriarch of the West” can be received as a recognition of the fact that the principle of subsidiarity—an essential principle of Catholic Social Teaching—might equally apply to the reality of the Church’s political hierarchy.
As Pope Pius XII taught in Quadragesimo anno (79), “It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise and industry.” Why would the Church be exempt from this fundamental principle?
Indeed, Vatican I tells us that the episcopal and immediate jurisdictional power of the Pontiff is how the “Church of Christ becomes one flock.” And yet, this immediate power by no means “detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction.”
There is an excellent biblical example of subsidiarity in the Old Testament. In Exodus 18:17-24, Moses' father-in-law recognizes that Moses is the man in charge. But, governing so many people is impractical, and so Moses, at the advice of Jethro, chooses able men from all the people and places them men over the people as rulers of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties, and of tens—subsidiarity in action. This principle of subsidiarity at work in the Old Covenant prefigures the model of how Christ would establish the Church of His people in the New Covenant.
As St. Macarius of Egypt points out in homily 26.23, "In the Old Testament, Moses and Aaron, when they held the priesthood, had much to suffer. Caiaphas, when he occupied their seat, himself persecuted and condemned the Lord; yet the Lord, in respect for the priesthood, suffered him to execute the office. The prophets, likewise, were persecuted by their own nation. Peter was the successor of Moses, entrusted with Christ’s new church and with the true priesthood." (see also Matthew 23:1-12)
But what would this subsidiarity look like? Maybe we can say that, on the basis of subsidiarity, the Pope does not have the authority to meddle with the Byzantine Rite since the development of Byzantine practice can be accomplished by the “enterprise and industry” of its Metropolitans and Patriarchs. In fact, such an interference might even be a violation of the very immediate jurisdiction proper to the Pope in the first place. And, if this is true, would the same apply to whether or not local bishops can determine what liturgies can be celebrated in their dioceses, no matter the Patriarchate they are under?
In essence, whether or not Pope Francis sees it this way, the revival of the title "Patriarch of the West'' can be understood as an acknowledgment of subsidiarity within the Church, advocating for more localized governance and autonomy among its different sui iuris Churches. This approach not only respects the Church's historical and cultural diversity but also aligns with a scriptural and doctrinal precedent for decentralized leadership. Is this what it means to be a synodal Church?