C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Rome refused to accept that. They want them to sign without amendments.
- Status
T
twf
Guest
That’s not true. The official document promulgated by the council includes this clause. Also, we shouldn’t confuse the views of the pope of the time (who was reluctant) with the views of more recent popes.
M
malphono
Guest
T
twf
Guest
This account has been disputed but true or not a lot of equally unpleasant tactics were used by emperors and patriarchs at previous councils. The Spirit works through the Church despite the fallen nature of her members. Regardless, this is hardly the position of recent pontiffs.
P
Peter_J
Guest
That’s a pretty extreme version of the story.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I’m sure St. Nicholas has an interesting story to tellWell at least at early councils when the Fathers got into a match of fistycuffs it was on relatively even ground.
B
ByzCathCantor
Guest
Outstanding point. We cannot lose sight of the fact that progress has been made, via the leadership and support of several Pontiffs of the modern era. We’re still trying to put round pegs in square holes, but it seems as if some in Rome are beginning to realize that we really need some round holes, instead.
I do believe that an Eastern Catholic Patriarch should be eligible to vote in Conclave ex officio, but until such time as we can look beyond the past, accepting the honararium of the red hat is the easiest way to grant inclusion in a manner that makes sense from the Latin perspective. That hopefully leads to the recognition that “something ain’t right …”. A few months ago, for example, Metropolitan William of the Ruthenians was bestowed with an Omophor instead of a Latin-style Pallium. While it seemed a bit strange seeing a “half-vested” EC archbishop beforehand in procession, it’s a start …
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
LOL you beat me to it; I was about to say, “like when St. Nicholas punched out Arius?”I’m sure St. Nicholas has an interesting story to tell
R
Richca
Guest
The Eastern Catholic Churches already recognize that the Pope has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary authority in the Church, which he can always freely exercise. So what’s the big deal that they swear obedience to the Church of Rome and the Roman Pontiff on becoming a cardinal?
It seems to me that to be elected a cardinal is an honor. I would venture to say that the two new cardinals coming from two of the Eastern Catholic Churches view it as an honor too.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
I think the problem lies in the fact that it is as the nominal clergy of Rome that they swear this obedience. Of course there is a sense in which they are subject to the pope, but they are not subject to him the way the actual Roman clergy are. They are bishops, and they are the pope’s brothers.
So there’s a lot of symbolic tension between their status as eastern patriarchs and as nominal clergy of the Church of Rome. Priests are subject to their bishop in a manner different from the way bishops are subject to the pope. It’s not a pyramid or a chain of command; it’s more complicated than that.
But here you have bishops - patriarchs, no less - taking upon themselves, at least nominally, the same manner of submission to the pope as that required by the presbyters of Rome. That is symbolically messy, and inappropriate. I’m not saying it’s the worst thing in the world, or that it’s something to freak out about; it’s not.
But the fullness of the symbolism of what a cardinal is, is in serious tension with an eastern patriarch’s status, rights, and duties.
Sure, but we must avoid the mistake of thinking that it’s somehow an elevation or a promotion. As others explained, the college of cardinals is symbolically/nominally the clergy of the Church of Rome, which makes sense since the ancient practice was for the Roman clergy to elect the pope.
But it visibly dilutes the ecclesiastical reality of a patriarch’s office if symbolically becoming a Roman clergyman is seen as some kind of promotion. It’s not.
Y
yawsep1569
Guest
I think the problem lies in the fact that it is as the nominal clergy of Rome that they swear this obedience. Of course there is a sense in which they are subject to the pope, but they are not subject to him the way the actual Roman clergy are. They are bishops, and they are the pope’s brothers.
So there’s a lot of symbolic tension between their status as eastern patriarchs and as nominal clergy of the Church of Rome. Priests are subject to their bishop in a manner different from the way bishops are subject to the pope. It’s not a pyramid or a chain of command; it’s more complicated than that.
But here you have bishops - patriarchs, no less - taking upon themselves, at least nominally, the same manner of submission to the pope as that required by the presbyters of Rome. That is symbolically messy, and inappropriate. I’m not saying it’s the worst thing in the world, or that it’s something to freak out about; it’s not.
But the fullness of the symbolism of what a cardinal is, is in serious tension with an eastern patriarch’s status, rights, and duties.
Sure, but we must avoid the mistake of thinking that it’s somehow an elevation or a promotion. As others explained, the college of cardinals is symbolically/nominally the clergy of the Church of Rome, which makes sense since the ancient practice was for the Roman clergy to elect the pope.
But it visibly dilutes the ecclesiastical reality of a patriarch’s office if symbolically becoming a Roman clergyman is seen as some kind of promotion. It’s not.
C
choliks
Guest
I’m just wondering what goes on in the minds and hearts of the EC patriarchs and metropolitans when they are elevated to the college of cardinals. Is it the same sad sentiment as most of those who posted here? Or do they feel honored, humbled and joyful? If they feel the latter, why the discrepancy?
V
Vico
Guest
According to Giga-Catholic: “The title of Cardinal, while symbolic of high honour, does not signify any extension of the powers of the holy orders. By the 1815 Congress of Vienna, all Cardinals have the rank and privileges equal to princes of royal birth; hence they are also known as the Princes of the Church.”
If not liked, why would the honor be accepted?
Cardinal-Patriarchs:
Patriarch-emeritus Nasrallah Pierre Sfeir (Maronite)
Patriarch Emmanuel III Delly (Chaldean)
Patriarch Antonios Naguib (Coptic)
Patriarch Béchara Pierre Raï (Maronite)
Cardinal-Priests:
Major Archbishop George Alencherry (Syro-Malabar)
Major Archbishop Lucian Muresan (Romanian)
Major Archbishop Isaac Cleemis Thottunkal (Syro-Malankara)
C
choliks
Guest
I understand that. But a lot of the posters here seem to be disappointed.
C
choliks
Guest
I think this answered one of my questions…
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16048
catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=16048
V
Vico
Guest
Before the 1990 CCEO, cardinals has precedence over the Patriarchs, even in their own territory (reiterated in 1957), even non-bishop cardinals. CCEO Canon 58 now has:
Patriarchs of Eastern Churches precede all bishops of any degree everywhere in the world, with due regard for special norms of precedence established by the Roman Pontiff.
But a Patriarch being a cardinal is perceived by some as inappropriate because it is an enrollment in another patriarchate, seen as a lower dignity. Yet others like the idea of them being in the conclave.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well as far as I’m aware, the only primates who ever refuse (or even seriously consider refusing) the red hat are the heads of the UGCC and the Melkite Church.
M
malphono
Guest
Funny you mention the Melkites again. I was very recently told by a normally very reliable source that the story wherein it is said that both Maximos V & Gregory III declined the “red hat” is not true. The story was, supposedly, contrived and disseminated to save face, i.e. to white-wash the fact that neither was ever offered the “red hat” at all, or so it was told to me.
NB: Please don’t anyone jump down my throat over this. It’s what I was told and frankly I’m taking it with a grain of salt. IOW I’m not sure I believe it, despite the usually excellent source.
- Status