F
frommi
Guest
Abp Levada (no surprise there) and Abp O’Malley (kind of surprising).
Consistory is March 24th
Consistory is March 24th
- Status
W
WanderAimlessly
Guest
Actually, neither is. Boston usually has a Cardinal.
PF
F
frommi
Guest
Boston’s Cardinal is still alive and of voting age in the form of Cardinal Law. Naming O’Malley is a surprise for that reason only. He was skipped over in the last consistory for similar reasons.
A
Amadeus
Guest
I think what is surprising was for the Archbishop of Boston NOT to have been named earlier by Pope John Paul II. And the reason being that the late Pope was too sickly to have called a consistory in 2005, 2 years after the last consistory in 2003.
Boston is a metropolitan archdiocese which normally and traditionally calls for its Archbishop to be named a Cardinal. After the resignation of Cardinal Law, his successor, Abp. O’Malley, was expected to be named also a Cardinal. All metropolitan archdioceses in the U.S., and throughout the world, are headed by a Cardinal. This explains the elevation of the Archbishops of Manila, Caracas, Seoul, Krakow, etc. Abp. O’Malley was “skipped” in 2003 perhaps because he was not yet the Archbishop of Boston (I think he was appointed Boston’s Archbishop AFTER(?) the 2003 consistory) or perhaps because there were already “too many” U.S Cardinals?
In the same vein, a Prefect of a curial dicastery normally and traditionally is a Cardinal. As Prefect of the CDF, a “major” department of the Roman Curia, Archbishop Levada was a shoo-in to be created a Cardinal at the next consistory after his appointment by Pope Benedict to succeed him in that capacity.
To my mind, the “surprise,” although a very pleasant one, is the elevation of Hongkong’s “mere” Bishop, Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, S.D.B., to the Cardinalate. This speaks volume as the appointment re-emphazises the importance of the Catholic Church in China and Rome’s support for the persecuted and long-suffering Chinese Catholics.
Boston is a metropolitan archdiocese which normally and traditionally calls for its Archbishop to be named a Cardinal. After the resignation of Cardinal Law, his successor, Abp. O’Malley, was expected to be named also a Cardinal. All metropolitan archdioceses in the U.S., and throughout the world, are headed by a Cardinal. This explains the elevation of the Archbishops of Manila, Caracas, Seoul, Krakow, etc. Abp. O’Malley was “skipped” in 2003 perhaps because he was not yet the Archbishop of Boston (I think he was appointed Boston’s Archbishop AFTER(?) the 2003 consistory) or perhaps because there were already “too many” U.S Cardinals?
In the same vein, a Prefect of a curial dicastery normally and traditionally is a Cardinal. As Prefect of the CDF, a “major” department of the Roman Curia, Archbishop Levada was a shoo-in to be created a Cardinal at the next consistory after his appointment by Pope Benedict to succeed him in that capacity.
To my mind, the “surprise,” although a very pleasant one, is the elevation of Hongkong’s “mere” Bishop, Joseph Zen Ze-kiun, S.D.B., to the Cardinalate. This speaks volume as the appointment re-emphazises the importance of the Catholic Church in China and Rome’s support for the persecuted and long-suffering Chinese Catholics.
F
frommi
Guest
All metropolitan sees are not headed by cardinals…St. Louis, Portland…there’s a long list of archdioceses that don’t have cardinals
A
Amadeus
Guest
Frommi:
I said “normally and traditionally.”
Metropolitan Archdioceses are headed by Metropolitan Archbishops and the “ordinary” Archdioceses are headed by “ordinary” Archbishops. These latter Archbishops are not given the “pallium” by the Pope, only the Metropolitan Archbishops.
“Normally and traditionally,” Metropolitan Archbishops are created Cardinals.
Are you certain that St. Louis is a Metropolitan Archdiocese like New York, Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles? Or, is St. Louis just an Archdiocese, like Denver and New Orleans, for now?
I said “normally and traditionally.”
Metropolitan Archdioceses are headed by Metropolitan Archbishops and the “ordinary” Archdioceses are headed by “ordinary” Archbishops. These latter Archbishops are not given the “pallium” by the Pope, only the Metropolitan Archbishops.
“Normally and traditionally,” Metropolitan Archbishops are created Cardinals.
Are you certain that St. Louis is a Metropolitan Archdiocese like New York, Boston, Chicago, and Los Angeles? Or, is St. Louis just an Archdiocese, like Denver and New Orleans, for now?
A
Amadeus
Guest
Now, this is “surprising!”
The Archdiocese of St. Louis IS a Metropolitan See! Abp. Raymond L. Burke IS, therefore, a Metropolitan Archbishop.
The Archdiocese has had 2 Cardinals in the past as her Archbishop: Cardinal Glennon and Cardinal Ritter.
Perhaps, two U.S. new Cardinals (Abp. Levada of the CDF and Abp. O’Malley of the Boston Archdiocese) was considered “too many” for the region of North America (now 20 Cardinals).
And the Pope opted for the “bigger” Boston Archdiocese over the St. Louis Archdiocese.
The Archdiocese of St. Louis IS a Metropolitan See! Abp. Raymond L. Burke IS, therefore, a Metropolitan Archbishop.
The Archdiocese has had 2 Cardinals in the past as her Archbishop: Cardinal Glennon and Cardinal Ritter.
Perhaps, two U.S. new Cardinals (Abp. Levada of the CDF and Abp. O’Malley of the Boston Archdiocese) was considered “too many” for the region of North America (now 20 Cardinals).
And the Pope opted for the “bigger” Boston Archdiocese over the St. Louis Archdiocese.
F
frommi
Guest
All archbishops are metropolitans who receive the pallium…Milwaukee, Denver, St. Louis, Dubuque, Galveston-Houston…
Becoming a cardinal is a personal honor given to a prelate. It has nothing to do with their office in the church (nominally). You remain a cardinal even when you are no longer the archbishop of your local church. If JPII had resigned the papacy, he would have still been a member of the college of cardinals and eligible to vote for his successor (provided he was under the age of 80)
A
Amadeus
Guest
Frommi:
I disagree slightly with your statement that:
A cardinal is a senior ecclesiastical official in the Catholic Church. It is the highest **hierarchical dignity ** in the Catholic Church, ranking just below the Pope.
As a body, the College of Cardinals governs the Catholic Church during the interregnum.
Many of the Cardinals are tasked to assist the Pope in the discharge of his “Petrine Ministry” in the universal Church. Some become the Pope’s “alter egos” in the Curia.
As Pope Benedict XVI aptly observed, the Cardinals:
I disagree slightly with your statement that:
It’s more than this.
A cardinal is a senior ecclesiastical official in the Catholic Church. It is the highest **hierarchical dignity ** in the Catholic Church, ranking just below the Pope.
As a body, the College of Cardinals governs the Catholic Church during the interregnum.
Many of the Cardinals are tasked to assist the Pope in the discharge of his “Petrine Ministry” in the universal Church. Some become the Pope’s “alter egos” in the Curia.
As Pope Benedict XVI aptly observed, the Cardinals:
It’s more than honorific. A prelate’s elevation to the Cardinalate carries with it awesome duties and responsiblities.
F
frommi
Guest
It’s still a personal honor, I’m not trying to minimize the importance of being a cardinal…but it’s not a rank of holy orders…it’s not deacon, priest, bishop, cardinal, pope.
A man is designated cardinal as a personal honor to him by the pope.
A
Amadeus
Guest
We are not talking about the hierarchy of orders involving the 3 levels of the diaconate, presbytery, and the episcopate.
In addition to the above classification of the ordained clergy, we have a defined and distinct hierarchical dignities (ranks) in the Catholic Church.
It so happens that Cardinals rank highest in the hierarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, next only to the Pope.
Yes, the Pope may be giving his “personal” honor to a prelate being elevated to the cardinalate but it is really the entire Church that is bestowing such honor for being “. . . truly outstanding in doctrine, virtue, piety, and prudence in practical matters; . . .” (cf. Canon 350, Code of Canons.) And upon the publication of their creation in a consistory specifically called for the purpose, the Cardinals are bound by the obligations and enjoy the rights defined by Church law(s).
The bestowal of the rank and title of Cardinal is not merely honorific. Such bestowal carries with it rights and obligations.
In addition to the above classification of the ordained clergy, we have a defined and distinct hierarchical dignities (ranks) in the Catholic Church.
It so happens that Cardinals rank highest in the hierarchical constitution of the Catholic Church, next only to the Pope.
Yes, the Pope may be giving his “personal” honor to a prelate being elevated to the cardinalate but it is really the entire Church that is bestowing such honor for being “. . . truly outstanding in doctrine, virtue, piety, and prudence in practical matters; . . .” (cf. Canon 350, Code of Canons.) And upon the publication of their creation in a consistory specifically called for the purpose, the Cardinals are bound by the obligations and enjoy the rights defined by Church law(s).
The bestowal of the rank and title of Cardinal is not merely honorific. Such bestowal carries with it rights and obligations.
F
frommi
Guest
I don’t disagree at all. All I was saying is that Cardinal is a personal honor in this sense…
If a man becomes a cardinal he never ‘retires’ from those responsibilities. He is always a cardinal…it’s an honor given to him that never goes away as the result of retirement or whatever.
It’s different than even being the Pope because the pope is the pope by virtue of his appointment as Bishop of Rome.
Kind of a fun semantical discussion.
A
Amadeus
Guest
Perhaps I am misunderstanding the meaning of an “honorific title.”
But the rank and title of “Cardinal,” at least in the modern sense and according to our extant Code of Canons and to other Church laws, is NOT merely honorific. It carries specifically defined duties.
Let’s take the case of (now) His Eminence, Cardinal O’Malley of Boston. In addition to his duties as the Metropolitan Archbishop of Boston, he is now, among others:
(1) a member of the College of Cardinals, whose eligible members like him have the right and the obligation to elect the successor of the Supreme Pontiff;
(2) obliged to participate in the congregations (ordinary or extraordinay) of the Sacred College for the continuing governance of the Church during the interregnum (period between Pope’s death and the lawful election of his successor); and
(3) on call to provide advice and counsel to the Pope, individually or in collegial fashion during ordinary and extraordinary consistories of the College of Cardinals.
But the rank and title of “Cardinal,” at least in the modern sense and according to our extant Code of Canons and to other Church laws, is NOT merely honorific. It carries specifically defined duties.
Let’s take the case of (now) His Eminence, Cardinal O’Malley of Boston. In addition to his duties as the Metropolitan Archbishop of Boston, he is now, among others:
(1) a member of the College of Cardinals, whose eligible members like him have the right and the obligation to elect the successor of the Supreme Pontiff;
(2) obliged to participate in the congregations (ordinary or extraordinay) of the Sacred College for the continuing governance of the Church during the interregnum (period between Pope’s death and the lawful election of his successor); and
(3) on call to provide advice and counsel to the Pope, individually or in collegial fashion during ordinary and extraordinary consistories of the College of Cardinals.
F
frommi
Guest
Actually…Cardinal O’Malley isn’t any such thing yet…he’s a cardinal designate at best…but until the consistory he has none of the honors or regalia associated with the whole cardinal thing.
And yes, Cardinals have specific duties…but these men are ‘created’ cardinals and they remain cardinals…they don’t retire. That’s what makes it a ‘personal’ honor.
A
Amadeus
Guest
I know that Abp. O’Malley would not be a Cardinal officially unless and until his creation as a “Cardinal” today by Pope Benedict XVI is publicized in the scheduled consistory of the College of Cardinals on March 24, 2006, as required by Church law(s).
He is a Cardinal-designate as of now but, unless a catastrophic event intervenes, he is, to my mind, already “His Eminence!”
A bishop/priest elevated to the Cardinalate remains a Cardinal for life, unless he resigns or is “degraded” by the Pope.
I agree in your definition that the rank and title of “Cardinal” is “personal,” for it actually is; but it is not merely honorific as borne out by the tradition and practice in the Catholic Church. Church laws grant and impose rights and obligations upon the recipients of the “Red Hat!”
This exercise is only to re-emphasize the rank and importance of our Cardinals, who represent only a chosen few among the world’s Catholic prelates. By tradition and practice, any one of them is the next Pope.
He is a Cardinal-designate as of now but, unless a catastrophic event intervenes, he is, to my mind, already “His Eminence!”
A bishop/priest elevated to the Cardinalate remains a Cardinal for life, unless he resigns or is “degraded” by the Pope.
I agree in your definition that the rank and title of “Cardinal” is “personal,” for it actually is; but it is not merely honorific as borne out by the tradition and practice in the Catholic Church. Church laws grant and impose rights and obligations upon the recipients of the “Red Hat!”
This exercise is only to re-emphasize the rank and importance of our Cardinals, who represent only a chosen few among the world’s Catholic prelates. By tradition and practice, any one of them is the next Pope.
F
frommi
Guest
I honestly don’t think you can resign or be kicked out of the college of cardinals…but I’d never thought about it.
And it’s by tradition…not practice that any cardinal could be the next pope…heck, even I’m eligible to be the next pope.
I
iserve
Guest
Archbishop O"Malley is given far more credit than he deserves, both in Boston and elsewhere. Those in the employ of the Catholic Church would not be too quick to jump on his bandwagon: he financially decimated Fall River, and now, Boston, with his “generous” payouts to victims of priest sexual abusers and the closing of diocesan properties. This puts the “generosity” right on the backs of the good people who were hoodwinked by both the abusers and those sent to “clean up” the mess. This fact has been completely unheralded by this supposedly humble archbishop, while I have yet to hear him deny his own part as the hero. The true heros of this situation were the long suffering people of the RCAB and the good and holy priests who continued to minister to them when the bottom fell out. Meanwhile, this bishop has been abrasive and insensitive towards the folks who will now have to tolerate him for the rest of his earthly life, unless they are fortunate enough to have to send him on to “clean up” somewhere else!
Sorry, no victory parties to be had around here, just one more insult in the long, sad decline of all that the Catholic Church once stood for in these parts. A red hat is the last thing that was needed here, but then, I wouldn’t have expected that anyone in charge would have a clue about such things. I know what I’ll be thinking when he passes in his new red finery, sure makes me see red!
Sorry, no victory parties to be had around here, just one more insult in the long, sad decline of all that the Catholic Church once stood for in these parts. A red hat is the last thing that was needed here, but then, I wouldn’t have expected that anyone in charge would have a clue about such things. I know what I’ll be thinking when he passes in his new red finery, sure makes me see red!
J
John_Higgins
Guest
There’s at least 1 who resigned in the past hundred years or so, let me find him and I’ll post it.
John
H
Hildebrand
Guest
Boston’s archbishop, O’Malley, is not a cardinal. Cardinal Law is a “Cardinal Priest of Santa Susanna” and Archbishop emeritus of Boston.
Milan had an archbishop emeritus and an archbishop voting in the conclave of 2005.
This is not completely out of the ordinary.
(Latin rite cardinals are made titular bishops, priests, or deacons of the Metropolitan See of Rome. Cardinal Bishops are usually titular bishops of one of the Suburbicarian Sees. Cardinal Priests and Cardinal Deacons are usually titular priests/deacons of a parish in the Metropolitan See of Rome.)
- Status