2 New Cardinals to come from Eastern Churches

[ConstantineTG]

I’ll try to respond to this within the confines of my abilities. The Bishop of Rome is the head of the Latin (or if you prefer Roman) Catholic Church. Therefore, he should be elected by the Latin (Roman) Church. IMHO the ideal would be the clergy of the diocese of Rome doing this. The practice is that those who have titular churches in Rome do the electing. It is then that the Bishop of Rome is also the head of all the Catholic churches.

It is okay if the Pope is merely the head of the Roman Church. Thing is, he claims to have jurisdiction in our Churches. As malphono said, its like taxation withour representation. You want to rule us, we want to be part of the process in getting to decide who rules.

As an aside, I’d be interested as to what happens in the Orthodox Churches. Who elects the Ecumenical Patriarch? I do understand his position is different because he does not hold a position in the Orthodox churches that is even remotely analogous to the Roman Pope.

Every Patriarch or Primate or whatever they call their chief bishop is elected by the synod of their own Church. And as you stated, it is a different scenario. The Ecumenical Patriarch does not have jurisdiction in any other Church other than his own, so the other Churches don’t really need to have a say in his election. The Pope of Rome has a say in Eastern Catholic Churches, thus it is only natural and fair that we get representation in his election.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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. The way it was done in the 1st Millennium. Of course none of that will never happen again.

Well, the Cardinals are really a mini-synod. Given the number of RC bishops around the world, you can’t do a general synod to elect a new Pope. So an honor is given to those selected to be part of that.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It really should be reciprocal - let the Latins elect their own patriarch, then have him confirmed by the patriarchs of all the Eastern churchs, the same way our patriarch is chosen by the UGCC synod then ‘confirmed’ by the Latins…

Hey, a girl can dream right?

Why do we need to confirm, we can always break communion if we want to

 

[JEyton]

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.

I don’t think elections equal democracy. They have them in China but that’s not a democratic country. In terms of democracy I meant the Church isn’t a democratic entity as opposed to saying the process was democratic.

I know I’m not putting my POV across well. What I’m trying to say is that the Latin Church elects its patriarch. It is then their patriarch who heads up all of the whole Catholic churches. So the Latins should elect the head of their Church. It’s then their head who presides over the entire Church. Am I making sense?

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. The way it was done in the 1st Millennium. Of course none of that will never happen again.

We can dream. Like you say we’re not going to go back to that better model of ecclesiology.

 

[JEyton]

You want to rule us, we want to be part of the process in getting to decide who rules.

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?

 

[malphono]

Well, the Cardinals are really a mini-synod. Given the number of RC bishops around the world, you can’t do a general synod to elect a new Pope. So an honor is given to those selected to be part of that.

I wouldn’t call it a “synod” mini or otherwise. The election is supposed to be for Bishop of Rome in the first place. The electors are (currently) the College of Cardinals (at least those who haven’t passed the age of exclusion), and each Cardinal has a titular church in Rome. From that, we can say that the election is indeed done by the “clergy of Rome” albeit that the vast majority have nothing in practice to do with the Diocese of Rome. Hence my coining the term “artificial” clergy of Rome.

 

[ConstantineTG]

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?

Of course I meant the Pope.

Some of the Churches returned to union with Rome prior to Pastor Aeternus. Even the Melkites strongly affirm that they never accepted Pastor Aeternus as is. It is a complex discussion really, as it is not purely theological. There is a lot of political issues at play here as well.

 

[malphono]

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?

Not exactly. None “came back” to Roman rule since none was ever under Roman rule in the first place. It’s supposed to be “communion with Rome” not subjugation to, and rule by, Rome.

 

[JEyton]

Not exactly. None “came back” to Roman rule since none was ever under Roman rule in the first place. It’s supposed to be “communion with Rome” not subjugation to, and rule by, Rome.

Rome has always made claim to supreme jurisdiction. Whether that’s right or wrong is probably a topic for another thread. Can it be said that any church coming into communion with Rome was not aware of that? When they chose communion with Rome I wonder if they ought to have known that Rome would rule rather than act as a sister church.

 

[Richca]

I fail to understand why the primates of Eastern and Oriental Catholic churches should be involved in the election of the Bishop of Rome. Shouldn’t the Latin Church elect its head?

Should Eastern and Oriental Catholic bishops be made cardinals? I don’t know. It is a Latin honorary title. Perhaps they should politely decline red hats. It’s for Eastern and Oriental Catholics to decide if they feel this is appropriate for their hierarchs.

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.

 

[Richca]

Originally Posted by malphono
Not exactly. None “came back” to Roman rule since none was ever under Roman rule in the first place. It’s supposed to be “communion with Rome” not subjugation to, and rule by, Rome.

Rome has always made claim to supreme jurisdiction. Whether that’s right or wrong is probably a topic for another thread. Can it be said that any church coming into communion with Rome was not aware of that? When they chose communion with Rome I wonder if they ought to have known that Rome would rule rather than act as a sister church.

That the Bishop of Rome, i.e., the pope, is the head of the Church of Christ throughout the world is not the case of a power grab but it is the case of the teaching of Christ. Jesus made Peter the head of the apostles as when he said "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. The tradition of the Catholic Church bears witness to this teaching. The catholic eastern churches that are in communion with Rome simply accept this teaching of Jesus.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That the Bishop of Rome, i.e., the pope, is the head of the Church of Christ throughout the world is not the case of a power grab but it is the case of the teaching of Christ. Jesus made Peter the head of the apostles as when he said "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. The tradition of the Catholic Church bears witness to this teaching. The catholic eastern churches that are in communion with Rome simply accept this teaching of Jesus.

There are a lot of misconceptions in this post and history proves it.

 

[Richca]

Originally Posted by Richca
That the Bishop of Rome, i.e., the pope, is the head of the Church of Christ throughout the world is not the case of a power grab but it is the case of the teaching of Christ. Jesus made Peter the head of the apostles as when he said "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. The tradition of the Catholic Church bears witness to this teaching. The catholic eastern churches that are in communion with Rome simply accept this teaching of Jesus.

There are a lot of misconceptions in this post and history proves it.

ConstantineTG:
Apparently, the catholic eastern churches that are in communion with Rome do not have any misconceptions. So I do not understand what you are saying?

 

[ConstantineTG]

ConstantineTG:
Apparently, the catholic eastern churches that are in communion with Rome do not have any misconceptions. So I do not understand what you are saying?

You said that the Eastern Churches accepted the Popes “leadership”. 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. Each Church has its own story and opinion on the matter. I don’t think there is an Eastern Church that openly accepts the Pope having Ordinary jurisdiction in their territories.

Being head of the Aposltes and being head of the Church are two different things, mind you

 

[yawsep1569]

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…

 

[Thomas48]

It would be interesting if in the near future and Eastern Catholic Pope was elected, this is possible of course no? I’ve also heard that in the early days of the Church many popes were in fact Eastern Catholic.

 

[Eufrosnia]

It is okay if the Pope is merely the head of the Roman Church. Thing is, he claims to have jurisdiction in our Churches. As malphono said, its like taxation withour representation. You want to rule us, we want to be part of the process in getting to decide who rules.

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.

 

[Aramis]

I understand your POV. I think the Latins should elect the Bishop of Rome because he’s their head. IMHO it should be the clergy of Rome who elect their Bishop. But, that’s another tale for another time. It’s the Bishop of Rome who is then head of the rest of the Catholic communion. As the Church is not a democracy I am not sure we should have representation from all the churches in conclave. That’s just may take on the situation. On a practical note I am not sure the presence of patriarchs et al would have a significant impact on who was elected.

If they are not there, they can not be heard in the Conclave. If they are not cardinals, they are not in the Conclave.

It’s been leaked by several cardinals that Cardinal Major-Archbishop “Patriarch” Hussar had been seriously considered in the last conclave.

Non-Cardinals stand almost no chance of being elected.

The Pope, in his role of “primus inter pares” is effectively archpatriarch. It is thus quite appropriate to grant the East a say.

 

[choliks]

I think the question of the difference between the roles of Pope and Bishop of Rome come into play here, i.e. “Are they electing a Pope or a Bishop of Rome?”

 

[Aramis]

I think the question of the difference between the roles of Pope and Bishop of Rome come into play here, i.e. “Are they electing a Pope or a Bishop of Rome?”

That was settled centuries ago - the first time they elected an African bishop. A Pope…

Otherwise, election would be solely from the Metropolitan See and its direct suffragans, not from the whole of the Church.