2 New Cardinals to come from Eastern Churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter choliks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ConstantineTG: You have taken my posts completely out of context and tried to twist what I myself said. Please reread them. There are a number of Eastern Catholic Churches that are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, google it.
You said that the Eastern Churches accepted the Popes “leadership”.

No, I said the Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. Not all of the Eastern Churches are in full communion with the Pope.
If you look at the history of Vatican I, the Melkite Bishops refused to sign-off on Pastor Aeternus as it was (and is) written. So to say that Eastern Catholic Churches simply accept this as a teaching of Jesus is a misconception.
 
Yay, the pope likes the Maronite and Malankara Churches! Too bad for the other Eastern Churches lol.

An interesting point to note - (please correct me if I am wrong)
Mor Bechara Boutros will not have any titular titles as he is a Patriach; but Mor Baselios Cleemis will be given a titular title within Rome (probably an archpriest, as that is what Mar George Alenchery got) as he is not a “Patriarch” but only a mere Major-Archbishop.

If the cardinals represent the clergy of Rome, how does it make any sense for the Patriarchs (the Eastern ones) to not receive any titular titles? And how does it justify excluding the Major-Archbishops from this? As a result, Major-Archbishops and other non-patriarchal heads of sui juris churches will be preceded by priests and other bishops when made cardinals. (Of course we understand precedence is not about the personal honor but the recognition of the office/title). All of this points to a very ill-conceived ecclesiology. A lot of work remains to be done…
The cardinals have no pastoral jurisdiction tied to their cardinal function in the Church.

Chapter III. The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church

Can. 349 The cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute a special college which provides for the election of the Roman Pontiff according to the norm of special law. The cardinals assist the Roman Pontiff either collegially when they are convoked to deal with questions of major importance, or individually when they help the Roman Pontiff through the various offices they perform, especially in the daily care of the universal Church.

Can. 350 §1. The college of cardinals is divided into three orders: the episcopal order, to which belong cardinals to whom the Roman Pontiff assigns title of a suburbicarian church and Eastern patriarchs who have been brought into the college of cardinals; the presbyteral order and the diaconal order.
§2. The Roman Pontiff assigns each of the cardinals of the presbyteral or diaconal orders his own title or diaconia in Rome.
§3. Eastern patriarchs who have been made members of the college of cardinals have their own patriarchal see as a title.
§4. The cardinal dean holds as his title the Diocese of Ostia together with the other church he already has as a title.
§5. Through a choice made in consistory and approved by the Supreme Pontiff and with priority of order and promotion observed, cardinals from the presbyteral order can transfer to another title, and cardinals from the diaconal order to another diaconia and if they have been in the diaconal order for ten full years, even to the presbyteral order.
§6. A cardinal transferring through choice from the diaconal order to the presbyteral order takes precedence over all those cardinal presbyters who were brought into the cardinalate after him.

Can. 351 §1. The Roman Pontiff freely selects men to be promoted as cardinals, who have been ordained at least into the order of the presbyterate and are especially outstanding in doctrine, morals, piety, and prudence in action; those who are not yet bishops must receive episcopal consecration.
§2. Cardinals are created by a decree of the Roman Pontiff which is made public in the presence of the college of cardinals. From the moment of the announcement they are bound by the duties and possess the rights defined by law.
§3. When the Roman Pontiff has announced the selection of a person to the dignity of cardinal but reserves the name of the person in pectore, the one promoted is not bound in the meantime by any of the duties of cardinals nor does he possess any of their rights. After the Roman Pontiff has made his name public, however, he is bound by the same duties and possesses the same rights; he possesses the right of precedence, though, from the day of reservation in pectore.

Can. 353 §1. The cardinals especially assist the supreme pastor of the Church through collegial action in consistories in which they are gathered by order of the Roman Pontiff who presides. Consistories are either ordinary or extraordinary.
§2. For an ordinary consistory, all the cardinals, at least those present in Rome, are called together to be consulted concerning certain grave matters which occur rather frequently or to carry out certain very solemn acts.
§3. For an extraordinary consistory, which is celebrated when particular needs of the Church or the treatment of more grave affairs suggests it, all the cardinals are called together.
§4. Only the ordinary consistory in which some solemnities are celebrated can be public, that is, when prelates, representatives of civil societies, and others who have been invited to it are admitted in addition to the cardinals.

Can. 357 §1. The cardinals who have been assigned title to a suburbicarian church or a church in Rome are to promote the good of these dioceses or churches by counsel and patronage after they have taken possession of them. Nevertheless, they possess no power of governance over them nor are they to intervene in any way in those matters which pertain to the administration of their goods, their discipline, or the service of the churches.
§2. In those matters which pertain to their own person, cardinals living outside of Rome and outside their own diocese are exempt from the power of governance of the bishop of the diocese in which they are residing.

Can. 358 A cardinal to whom the Roman Pontiff entrusts the function of representing him in some solemn celebration or among some group of persons as a legates a latere, that is, as his alter ego, as well as one to whom the Roman Pontiff entrusts the fulfillment of a certain pastoral function as his special envoy (missus specialis) has competence only over those things which the Roman Pontiff commits to him.
 
But surely, this reasoning is somewhat flawed?

Because the underlying principle of reasoning you advocate is the following:-

"If I am ruled over by someone, I must have right to elect him"

But such a proposition seems false, even in Orthodox thinking. The faithful of both church’s are ruled over by Bishops and Patriarchs. The faithful do not get a say. Similarly, the faithful of the Roman church are ruled over by the Pope. The faithful do not get a say.

So I think it is correct to say that representation is not necessary. The Pope is elected by those in the Roman church. The other church give assent to the Pope because he is the head of all the church’s.

After all, the election process is not suppossed to be a representation of opinions of those being ruled. It is suppossed to simply bring about the will of the Holy Spirit. So if you truly believe in the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the process, there is no need to ask for such a right to represent the other church’s.
I’m not talking about the laity voting, I’m talking about our Patriarch voting. In the Orthodox Church, a synod of bishops will elect their leader. If the Pope is the leader of all, then all Churches must be represetned.
 
That depends on to whom “you” refers. I have no desire to rule the Eastern churches. Indubitably there are some westerners who do. If you want to touch on that it may be appropriate to ask how these churches came to be “ruled” by Rome. I’m not a historian but I understand the various Eastern and Oriental churches came back to Roman rule. In that sense haven’t they opted for Roman rule?
Hmmm … if wonder if we couldn’t have this conversation without injecting extra polemics (e.g. saying that they “came back”).
 
Yep, it’s a nightmare alright and one that is actually of rather recent vintage. Until the 1960s, the joke (more of an insult, really, but one that the recipients seem not to notice since they clamor for the “honor” … go figure) of offering a “red hat” to a Patriarch was unknown.
Interesting. Did the practice of offering it to Major Archbishops arise around that same time, or when?
 
Well, let’s say it this way. Whether it’s the real clergy of Rome, or the artificial clergy of Rome (Cardinals), it’s still an election. The fact that there is an election at all rings of a certain amount of democracy.

As for the electors, I’ll go one better and say that IMHO the clergy of every diocese should elect their own bishop, with the election to be recognized by the Metropolitan. And the bishops of an ecclesiastical province should elect their own Metropolitan with the election to be recognized by the Primate. And the Metropolitan Archbishops should elect their own Primate, with the election recognized by Rome.
By Rome? Shouldn’t that last part say “by their Patriarch/Catholicos (which would be the pope only in the case of Latin metropolitans”)?
The way it was done in the 1st Millennium. Of course none of that will never happen again. 🤷
 
By Rome? Shouldn’t that last part say “by their Patriarch/Catholicos (which would be the pope only in the case of Latin metropolitans”)?
Yes, that’s so. I suppose I should have been clearer, and did a double-listing, one for the West and the other for the East and Orient. Oh well … :o
 
Interesting. Did the practice of offering it to Major Archbishops arise around that same time, or when?
I believe so. The late Josyf Slipyj comes to mind, when he was (publicly, at least) given a “red hat” in 1965 (I think it was).
 
Yes, that’s so. I suppose I should have been clearer, and did a double-listing, one for the West and the other for the East and Orient. Oh well … :o
My fault. I think I read your post too fast and missed a line of it.
I believe so. The late Josyf Slipyj comes to mind, when he was (publicly, at least) given a “red hat” in 1965 (I think it was).
Interesting, thanks. 🙂
 
I don’t think there is an Eastern Church that openly accepts the Pope having Ordinary jurisdiction in their territories.
As I said above, all the Eastern Catholic Churches in full communion with the Holy See accept the Bishop of Rome as being the successor of Peter and head of the Church.
Nice to see that we have both extremes going for us here – all of the Eastern Catholic Churches (in communion with Rome, although that seems a little redundant to me) accept it … or is it that none of them do? 😉
 
In the case of the Eastern heads of Churches, this recognition by the Holy Father would not be an “elevation”, more an lateral honor. .
It is actually not even a lateral honor. A Patriarch of a sui Juris Church has rank of precedence above a Cardinal.

For a Patriarch who has been entered into the College of Cardinals, it adds no additional honor (in the hierarchical sense) but simply confreres the ability to directly assist in the election of the Pope of Rome.

For a Metropolitan Archbishop, it does add a slight level of honor as a Cardinal carries certain additional privileges.
 
I’m not talking about the laity voting, I’m talking about our Patriarch voting. In the Orthodox Church, a synod of bishops will elect their leader. If the Pope is the leader of all, then all Churches must be represetned.
But I am directly opposing your implicit position i.e. that everyone who is represented MUST have a say on who becomes the Pope.

But the Papacy election process is not based on representation of opinions. It is considered to be the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In this sense, regardless of whether or not the Patriarchs were involved in the election process is reflective of whether or not you must give assent to the authority.

So at some point in time in the future, when and if God has decreed by Divine Providence that the Patriarchs be involved in the election process for the Holy Spirit to work through, it will happen. But until then, you cannot use the lack of say by the patriarchs on the election of the Pope as grounds for complaint.
 
May I ask –

What is the rationale for claiming that being named a Cardinal is a sign of subjugation? I know that in the first millenium, cardinals were basically papal servants, but in the second millenium, they developed into counsellors and electors.

I can understand an objection based on the first millenium conception of a cardinal, but what is so objectionable about the second-millenium development?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
May I ask –

What is the rationale for claiming that being named a Cardinal is a sign of subjugation? I know that in the first millenium, cardinals were basically papal servants, but in the second millenium, they developed into counsellors and electors.

I can understand an objection based on the first millenium conception of a cardinal, but what is so objectionable about the second-millenium development?

Blessings,
Marduk
I wouldn’t say “being named a Cardinal is a sign of subjugation”, but I do believe it is inappropriate for a Patriarch to be named a Cardinal.
 
The Bishop of Rome, i.e., the Pope, is the head of not only the Latin Church but the entire Catholic Church throughout the world including the Catholic eastern churches and rites that are under his authority. Consequently, it makes perfect sense to me to elect bishops or patriarchs from these catholic eastern churches to be cardinals. This is a sign of the universality of the Catholic Church throughout the world. The cardinals not only elect a new pope but also help the pope in the administration of the Church throughout the world as well as promoting the Catholic faith throughout the world.
I have no issue with Eastern and Oriental hierarchs being made cardinals. I think many Eastern and Oriental Catholics believe that it is inappropriate for their bishops to accept what is a Latin honorary title.
 
It’s been leaked by several cardinals that Cardinal Major-Archbishop “Patriarch” Hussar had been seriously considered in the last conclave.
That is merely rumour. I, personally, never take notice of rumours of what allegedly took place in conclaves. Many would argue that Joseph Ratzinger was the only candidate. I think we should leave the Holy Spirit to work in whatever ways He chooses to work.

It would appear that we are not in accord about whether the Eastern and Oriental hierarchs need to be involved the election of the Bishop of Rome.
 
Otherwise, election would be solely from the Metropolitan See and its direct suffragans, not from the whole of the Church.
I cannot understand this line of reasoning. I think the Bishop of Rome is elected. This Bishop of Rome is then, simultaneously the Metrpolitan of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy, head of the Latin Catholic Church, and head of the entire Catholic Church. I do not doubt that many people see the election of a Pope and the vast majority of Catholics are probably ignorant of the Pope’s other offices.
 
Hmmm … if wonder if we couldn’t have this conversation without injecting extra polemics (e.g. saying that they “came back”).
It was not meant to be polemical. It was just a turn of phrase. The thrust of this thread is not the history of the Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches. If you will, in addition to the negative criticism, please suggest the more appropriate verb to denote the process by which Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches elected to be in communion with the Latin Catholic Church.
 
May I ask –

What is the rationale for claiming that being named a Cardinal is a sign of subjugation? I know that in the first millenium, cardinals were basically papal servants, but in the second millenium, they developed into counsellors and electors.

I can understand an objection based on the first millenium conception of a cardinal, but what is so objectionable about the second-millenium development?

Blessings,
Marduk
Upon reception of the biretta the new Cardinal promises fealty and obedience to the Roman Church. I think that amounts to subjugation.
I [name and surname], Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, promise and swear to be faithful henceforth and forever, while I live, to Christ and his Gospel, being constantly obedient to the Holy Roman Apostolic Church, to Blessed Peter in the person of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, and of his canonically elected Successors; to maintain communion with the Catholic Church always, in word and deed; not to reveal to any one what is confided to me in secret, nor to divulge what may bring harm or dishonor to Holy Church; to carry out with great diligence and faithfulness those tasks to which I am called by my service to the Church, in accord with the norms of the law.
So help me Almighty God.
 
Upon reception of the biretta the new Cardinal promises fealty and obedience to the Roman Church. I think that amounts to subjugation.
Subjugation is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, if one is not subjected to at least God in this life, he probably won’t get to heaven. The fall of the entire human race was brought about because Adam and Eve didn’t want to be subjected to God. We are all subjected to God. As Christians, we are subjected to Christ as Christ was subjected to the Father. As catholics, we are subjected to the Pope and bishops. As children, we are subjected to our parents. As citizens, we are subjected to the laws of the state. At work, we are subjected to our boss.

“Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall” (Proverbs 16:18).

" God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble" (James 4:6).

The 3rd step of St Benedict’s 12 steps of humility:
The third step of humility is to submit oneself out of love of God to whatever obedience under a superior may require; it is the example of the Lord himself that we follow in this: He was made obedient even unto death.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top