Apparently, the pope is willing to shed the title of “Western Patriarch” in the interest of appeasing the Orthodox. Notice the problem? Yep, So did I.

My priest, Fr. Elias, sent out an e-mail with this article from Bp. Hillarion of Viena entitled “Pope’s Title “Patriarch of the West” Removed. What Does It Mean for the Orthodox?”

The mass media reported that in the new edition of the “Annuario Pontificio” for 2006 the pope’s title “Patriarch of the West” has been dropped. Now the official list of titles includes: “bishop of Rome, vicar of Jesus Christ, successor of the prince of the apostles, supreme pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, archbishop and metropolitan of the Roman Province, sovereign of the State of the Vatican City, servant of the servants of God”.

Some analysts saw in this omission the desire to improve the relations with the Orthodox Church. The former prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, Cardinal Achille Silvestrini is reported to have said that the deletion was a “sign of ecumenical sensitivity” on the part of Pope Benedict.

I’m hoping that there’s something that got left out somehow, because this is just too obvious for words: ‘Patriarch of the West’ isn’t the title we would’ve had a problem with.

Or, as Bp. Hilarion puts it (a little more calmly):

… it is not at all clear how the removal of the title could possibly ameliorate Catholic-Orthodox relations. It seems that the omission of the title “Patriarch of the West” is meant to confirm the claim to universal church jurisdiction that is reflected in the pope’s other titles, and if the Orthodox reaction to the gesture will not be positive, it should not be a surprise.

The pope will still be addressed as “supreme pontiff of the Universal Church” (”Big-guy honcho in charge of everything everywhere”), but we’re supposed to be pleased that he’s dropping the title “Patriarch of the West” (”Historically-accurately-named head of Euro stuff”)? That’s like telling us that we would be expected to subscribe to original sin and the immaculate conception, but it’d be okay to keep the red Easter eggs and you’re welcome.

So the attempts to bridge the Great Schism with a couple 2×4’s goes on. We don’t understand each other, we’ve grown apart for a millennium or so, the Roman Catholic Church thinks we’re a smarter but poorer stepbrother and we think they’re a kooky rich uncle that you can’t trust around your daughter. Or your son. Or your cat. But it’s okay. We’ll have a meeting or two and straighten it all out:

The model of church unity between East and West will be discussed by the Mixed Catholic-Orthodox Theological Commission that will meet after a six-year break in the fall of 2006. It is clear that this model will be hypothetic, since there remain many obstacles, both of dogmatic and of ecclesiological character, for the restoration of the full communion. However, the main obstacle to unity, according to many Orthodox theologians, is the teaching on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. It is this teaching that will be discussed in the framework of the Mixed Commission.

It would be a glorious thing to see the East and West come back together in my lifetime. (Think of the baseball games we could have.) But it doesn’t seem that there’s a real interest in the East — in fact, the Archbishop of Athens got a bomb threat when he announced he was visiting the Vatican. And it doesn’t seem like there’s the slightest hint of a spirit of real compromise in the West. It seems that we’ll be welcomed with open arms just as soon as we stop being Orthodox and start being Catholic.

Not to mention the fact that The Pope Formerly Known as the Patriarch of the West is a little out of touch about the scope of the problem, at least to judge from this quote from an interview:

But drawing nearer to each other in communion, in the common experience of the life of faith, is the way to recognize one another as children of God and disciples of Christ. … Having this experience is fundamental, and it seems to me, perhaps, that the conviction of some, of a segment of the monks of Athos, [?!] against ecumenism, is due in part to the fact that this experience is missing …

It’s been a good day. The pope shed a title, and I picked one up, because apparently I and a lot of other Orthodox laity I know are now a Tiny Little Division of the Monks of Athos.

I’m making a t-shirt.

Follow-up
I re-read this and decided I’m doing my typical smarty-pants thing, and I’d like to correct that. I really would love to see the East and West Churches re-unite, but my cynicism comes from observing that we can’t even agree on the minutiae, like when to celebrate Easter/Pascha. And the fear I have is that high-ranking clergy with an eye more to the administrative issues would think that they could will a union into existence without dealing with the very real schism that still exists. Right now, the Catholics seem like the ones who are making more of an effort at this, but then gestures like this name-dropping thing make me wonder if they really know who we are. If they don’t and still want to re-unite, I think we are right to be leery of whether they mean to just think of us as new Catholics.