A notable change was made recently in the 2024 Pontifical Yearbook: the restoration of the papal title “Patriarch of the West”. Titles serve as significant markers of the roles individuals perform or the offices they hold. This title was previously removed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2006. It is important to mention that the category of “historic titles” itself is a recent addition, introduced in the 2020 edition of the Pontifical Yearbook. The introduction of this section, especially the placement of “Vicario di Gesù Cristo” (Vicar of Christ) at the top of the list of historic titles, sparked more controversy than the section itself.
This raises questions: Does this signify a diminishment of the papacy as an institution, or does it reflect a modernization attempt, a willingness to adapt the papacy to contemporary society, or an effort to downplay the theological or doctrinal significance embedded in each of the pontiff’s historic titles? The reintroduction of the “Patriarch of the West” among the historical titles might suggest a modernization of the papacy, or more accurately, the contemporary evolution of the papal office and an ecumenical openness.
The decision by Benedict XVI in 2006 to remove the title “Patriarch of the West” was elaborated on in a statement dated March 22, 2006, which argued that the deletion was justified based on decisions made at various Church’s councils:
… it can be stated from a historical point of view that the ancient Patriarchates of the East, established by the Councils of Constantinople (381) and Chalcedon (451), were related to a clearly circumscribed territory, while the territory of the See of the Bishop of Rome remained vague. In the East, within the imperial ecclesiastical system of Justinian (527–565), alongside the four Eastern Patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem), the Pope was included as Patriarch of the West. Conversely, Rome favored the idea of the three Petrine episcopal sees: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Without using the title “Patriarch of the West”, the Fourth Council of Constantinople (869–70), the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215), and the Council of Florence (1439), listed the Pope as the first among the then five Patriarchs.
The statement clarifies that the title “Patriarch of the West” was first introduced in 642 A.D. by Pope Theodore I. According to the March 22, 2006 statement, the term “West” is vague and:
… evokes a cultural context that does not refer only to Western Europe but extends from the United States of America to Australia and New Zealand, thus differentiating it from other cultural contexts. Obviously, such a meaning of the term ‘West’ does not intend to describe an ecclesiastical territory, nor can it be used as the definition of a patriarchal territory. If one wants to give the term ‘West’ a meaning applicable to ecclesiastical legal language, it could only be understood in reference to the Latin Church. Therefore, the title ‘Patriarch of the West’ would describe the special relationship of the Bishop of Rome to the latter and could express the particular jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome over the Latin Church.
Moreover, “West” does not encompass the Eastern Catholic or Oriental Catholic Churches, which are located not only in the traditionally recognized “West” but also in the Middle East, North Africa, Eastern-Central Europe, and other regions. Despite its vagueness and lack of precision, the title “Patriarch of the West” first appeared in the 1863 Pontifical Yearbook. The March 22, 2006, official statement argued that the title had become obsolete and had practically fallen into disuse, which was why it was removed from the 2006 yearbook.
Pope Benedict XVI’s decision to remove the title “Patriarch of the West” was met with surprise and astonishment in both the Western and Orthodox Christian worlds. This decision was particularly unexpected as it came from a pope who was a staunch defender of the Christian West and who had chosen the name “Benedict,” evoking the revered figure of the great ‘patriarch of western monasticism’ and patron of his pontificate. Ecumenical sensitivities were cited among the reasons for the deletion.
Pope Benedict was likely influenced by Fr. Adriano Garuti O.F.M., who in 1990 published a book titled Il Papa Patriarca d’Occidente? Studio Storico Dottrinale (The Pope, Patriarch of the West? A Historical Doctrinal Study). Garuti, who had worked for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for two decades, argued that the title lacked a historical or doctrinal foundation and that its deletion would foster unity with the Orthodox. Garuti’s analysis found it challenging to reconcile the title “Patriarch of the West” with the universal primacy of the pope, viewing these concepts as opposed or exclusive to each other. In other words, Garuti’s argument was that the Bishop of Rome cannot hold both titles simultaneously.
Garuti also mentioned that Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev had explicitly stated that it would be best for Benedict XVI to remove titles dealing with papal primacy, which he described as “scandalous.” According to Hilarion, Christian unity between Catholics and Orthodox could only be achieved if the primacy of the bishop of Rome was understood as it was in the first millennium—as ‘primus inter pares’ among the primates of the local churches. Therefore, all pontifical titles indicating universal jurisdiction should be sacrificed to achieve Christian unity. However, the Orthodox reaction to the 2006 cancellation of the “Patriarch of the West” title was not positive. The Communique from Phanar on June 8, 2006, expresses the Orthodox Church’s disappointment with the cancellation:
At this point it is of extreme importance to the Orthodox Church that Pope Benedict, while having rejected the title ‘Patriarch of the West’, retained the titles ‘Vicar of Christ’ and ‘Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church’. These titles create serious difficulties to the Orthodox, given the fact that they are perceived as implying a universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome over the entire Church, which is something the Orthodox have never accepted. By retaining these titles and discarding the ‘Patriarch of the West’ the term and concept of ‘sister Churches’ between the Roman-Catholic and Orthodox Church becomes hard to use.
Is Pope Francis reinstating the title of “Patriarch of the West” to return to the ecclesiology of Sister Churches, with an aim to foster unity in Christ, especially given the urgent need for action amidst the ongoing wars in Ukraine and Gaza? In the 2024 Pontifical Yearbook, Pope Francis has re-instituted this ancient title, which I believe is for the same reasons that Pope Benedict XVI removed it in 2006— to strengthen ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox, particularly in the context of the current conflicts. In the 2013 Apostolic Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium Pope Francis reaffirmed his:
… duty, as the Bishop of Rome, to be open to suggestions which can help make the exercise of my ministry more faithful to the meaning which Jesus Christ wished to give it and to the present needs of evangelization.
Pope Francis’ predecessor, Pope John Paul II, linked the primacy of the Bishop of Rome to Christian unity, a theme he explores in the 1995 encyclical Ut Unum Sint. In this document, John Paul II delves into the connection between primacy and unity, further encouraging their study and application. He emphasizes his immediate responsibility and expresses openness to new interpretations of the primacy, stating:
I am convinced that I have a particular responsibility in this regard, above all in acknowledging the ecumenical aspirations of the majority of the Christian Communities and in heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation.( Ut Unum Sint , 95)
It seems that by reintroducing the title, Pope Francis is advancing John Paul II’s mission of exploring new ways to exercise primacy. He does not shy away from what he previously referred to as “a conversion of the papacy” (Evangelii Gaudium 32). By referring to the “conversion of the Papacy,” Pope Francis emphasizes a return to the ultimate source of primacy—Jesus Christ—and to evangelization. This reorientation towards the original sources and the current needs of evangelization likely influenced his decision to reinstate the previously cancelled title “Patriarch of the West.” Francis’s understanding of the title suggests that his role as pope is to be shared with the Eastern Patriarchs, each working within their own synods and traditions. In the case of Rome, this tradition is Roman, while in the Eastern Catholic Churches, it adheres to their respective customs. According to the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the Roman Pontiff holds supreme power in the Catholic Church; he is a Vicar of Christ and the Pastor of the entire Church, among other titles (can. 43).
In conclusion, as the Church looks forward to the Jubilee year 2025, the 1700th anniversary of the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, and Christians worldwide celebrating Easter together in 2025—mirroring the early, undivided Church—there are compelling ecumenical reasons for reintroducing the title “Patriarch of the West.”
For all the reasons explained above, the reinstatement of the title “Patriarch of the West” has been a welcome development. It represents a call for humble dialogue with and within the Pentarchy—the ancient patriarchates tracing their origins back to apostolic times.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
Or else maybe he just thinks it sounds good.
If Francis wants the title of Patriarch of the West, shouldn’t the other patriarchs be afforded the same status as the Vatican at the United Nations?
No The Pope is the HEAD OF STATE, a physical geographic entity, they are not. I believe they ARE represented as heads of religious bodies in another category.
If Francis aspires to parity with the other patriarchs, then he ought to dismantle this sham of a State called the Vatican. It is no more a political/cultural entity than any of the Eastern churches. And when it comes to geography, there are college campuses which are likely larger than is the Vatican. The church needs to end its laughable identity as a State that receives ambassadors from other temporal agencies. Let’s restore the purpose of the Church in the world.
Do any of them claim to be the sovereign heads of states?
No, and neither should our Catholic Church. We are in the world but not of this world. Let’s stop presenting otherwise.
The Pope is just that, the Pope, the Vicar of Christ as, “The Pope, visible head of the Church on earth, acting for and in the place of Christ. The cardinals, bishops, are shepherds, something that seems to have been forgotten. Need to stop thinking of them as royalty. They need to stop dressing as royalty and wearing funny hats. Dressed like this, they look unapproachable. In fifth grade, at the time of confirmation (way back in/think 1943 or 1944), I refused to kiss the bishop’s ring. Asked why. I said because he was not royalty; he was a shepherd. Nun was furious; priest smiled.
He can take whatever title he wants, the Orthodox have more sense than to sign on to a heretical piece like Fiducia supplicans and will have nothing to do with it … or us … thanks to the “Patriarch of the West.” Whatever crumbs he is throwing out to “promote unity” are blown away by his ravaging of our faith.
Wisely, the East will never be enticed as long as FS remains.
And to be honest, he doesn’t deserve to be called Patriarch of the West.
“and Russia will spread her errors…”
First thought, the denial of The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque), is also anti Papacy, while denying that Christ’s Church Is One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic, Through The Unity Of The Holy Ghost (Filioque).
The “filioque” controversy long predated the USSR/Modern Russia etc
Admittedly, I get lost when it comes to an appreciation of the meaning of the titles used by popes. I simply do not have enough historical knowledge to understand the significance of each. However, I do possess an appreciation for the way things are done. It would be different if Pope Francis was bringing back a title that was abandoned hundreds of years ago, but that is not what he has done. He has directly reversed the action of his immediate predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Francis has also directly worked at cross-purposes with the teachings and actions Saint Pope John Paul II. I am thinking specifically of the Pontifical Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family created in 1981.
The pact of Umar,implemented in 637 AD as stipluations and control over ‘Dhimmis’ in conquered lands – as the clue to make sense of the need for the Primacy of the Papacy as well as the ongoing divisive issue of Filioque- precious and Holy Spirit inspired since Arianism with its fear and disdain for The Incarnation , Passion / The Cross was going to become virulent , effects of which are still with us very much ! The pact was entered into through local ‘councils’ , then spreading around , thus the argument that Filioque cannot be accepted as being from a local council alone seems rather mute ! The customs that came into The East – esp. those that seem to contradict the Latin Church – we may not know how much of same is from the above pact – unless for supernatural revelation as in the case of House of The Virgin at Ephesus where Bl.Mother spent her last days , the Church of Dormition in Jerusalem that was traditionally claimed as the place that The Orthodox took over , with the help of the ruling powers from the Franciscans who had built it !
The wisdom and humility to have heeded the Pope on the filioque, to help undo the effects of the pacts – God alone would know how much could have been avoided !
The Dogmas -that continue to bless us from The Church – the Immaculate Conception and Assumption – may our gratitude for all such as readiness to heed Holy Father in all important matters help us with more Light of Most Holy Trinity operating as One as The Divine Will , to free us from effects of rebellion of the human/ self will , its errors and darknesss !
The concern and grief over the ideological colonisation over every culture seen as an evil fruit from The West – ? reason that the Holy Father has chosen to take the reins in his hands, knowing well how to let the hands of The Mother and St.Joseph be there too to hold them , to let The Spirit overshadow where it needs to be as well depicted in that prophetic image above ; the child like glee – in the freedom in The Spirit in the good will to bring all back to The Father ! Glory be !
About the Filioque, it is of Medieval origin and not from the time of 4th-century Arius. Added initially in response to smoldering Arianism in Spain, with the encouragement of 9th-century Charlemagne, and then accepted into the Creed in A.D. 1014 by the pope, for the liturgy in Rome and for the universal Church. The Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381) mentions the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father but not yet explicitly also and equally from the Son.
Your linkage of Arianism/Filioque in the West with the “pact” of Umar in peripheral Arabia is a bit strained. Although, yes, in the 7th-century Byzantine domain the early heresies of Monophysitism and Nestorianism (both derivatives of Arianism) likely misinformed and influenced the very eclectic Muhammad in his substitution of his Qur’an, dictated in Arabic as “the word made book,” for the Incarnation of Jesus Christ as truly “the Word made flesh” (John 1:14).
As for the not-mentioned second House of the Virgin, at Loredo (as well as mentioned house in Ephesus), by one account it was not so much flown intact to Italy by angels, as it was transported brick-by-brick (a valued relic) by the de Angelo family—later mistranslated as “angels.”
On your concluding remarks, the consternation today is not whether Pope Francis “as chosen to take the reins in his hands,” but rather the pattern of ambiguity over which reins he has chosen.
Or, maybe reinstating the title “Patriarch of the West” is simply a card-trick effort to undo the damage of grab-bag synodality?
A “style” which—while intended partly to harmonize the Catholic Church more with the Orthodox Churches of the East—has been upended by Fiducia Supplican’s blessing of “irregular” and especially homosexual couples, as “couples”…
Fiducia Supplicans = Facile Synodalism? This synodal capstone has been openly rejected by all of the Orthodox Churches.
An outside and patriarchal rejection in addition to rejection within the internal “hierarchical communion” of the worldwide Catholic Church: all of continental Africa, Poland, Hungary, Ukraine, Peru, Kazakhstan, and parts of Argentina, France and Spain, and other national bishops’ conferences, and the former Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (now demoted to a dicastery which is further split in half—the disciplinary silo divorced from the doctrinal).
Or, more simply, was the title added simply because it was deleted by former Pope Benedict XVI of obscured memory? The article ponders well, but does not ponder enough.
“Simply a card-trick effort to undo the damage of grab-bag synodality?”. And perhaps his never waste a crisis moment. Another opportunity to diminish the papacy toward globalized religion? His favoring Moscow Patriarch Kirill seems the lining up of his big ducks. Remember Abu Dahbi.
And what is more, he refused to wear the papal tiara quipping ‘the carnival is over’. He also deemphasizes his authority [perhaps only on paper because you’ve got to hold the power to pull it off] by signing off on documents as Holy Father or Bishop of Rome rather than Supreme Pontiff. At the Synod he casts himself as an onlooker. Sounds intriguing and it is. But as you say Fiducia bit back, the Orthodox East and Islam don’t seem enchanted by His Holiness’ overtures.
I think it was a surrender flag after he set ecumenism back a couple of centuries…I can hear him now, “eh, East? Who needs it?”.
It would have been a more honest and shorter title had they just listed the postal codes wholly behind his regime.
This sounds like a cover for someone setting up a dichotomy after someone else before him attempted to divert any dichotomy setting in accidentally or being set up deliberately. How wrong that dichotomy would be, then becomes an even worse wrong with a cover. Imagine if in the ensuing duration of the dichotomy they speak of “being prophetic” and then later they declare the “proof of the prophecy” but ignoring the period of dichotomy and the life of cover. The Oooohs! & the Aaaahs!
Fr Garuti OFM was never prefect of the Congregation; he was ‘capo ufficio della sezione dottrinale’ (chief of the office for doctrine) there.
I am reminded of a quote by H L Mencken regarding the title of “Archbishop.” “Archbishop is an ecclesiastical rank of such exalted status, that Christ himself did not attain.”
Only and until Faith and Reason are married can we expect offspring. The baby’s name will be TRUTH. If that’s surprises you, my advice would be to pray over the matter. AMEN
Unity in Christ? Francis would have to convert to Christianity as a starting point.