A new Cardinal with Black dress instead of Red

[malphono]

Thanks for the info, brother Malphono!

Always a pleasure.

I think that’s gotta change. I don’t believe any Eastern or Oriental Cardinal should be prelates of the Roman Church.

True but the fact is that the title itself is of the Roman Church. As I’ve mentioned several times before, there was a plan in place in the waning years of Paul VI’s reign to have Patriarchs and Catholicoi (including that Roman invention called “Major-Archbishops”) sit in Conclave ex-officio. That plan, (one of the very few things I find positive from that particular Papal reign), quickly died with the passing of Paul VI. The “insider information” I’ve been given is that the plan’s demise was due in major part to the objections of the East & Orient (!), something about being given the title “Cardinal” making them appear more “Catholic” …

 

[rfournier103]

My question is this: How many non-Latin/Roman Rite Catholics have ever been made a Cardinal? My understanding is that this is extremely rare, if it has ever occured before. Also, is this a first step in a major unification between rites; or is Benedict XVI making an overture to the Eastern Churches?

 

[PazzoGrande]

My question is this: How many non-Latin/Roman Rite Catholics have ever been made a Cardinal? My understanding is that this is extremely rare, if it has ever occured before. Also, is this a first step in a major unification between rites; or is Benedict XVI making an overture to the Eastern Churches?

If it’s rare, it would only be because there aren’t as many Eastern Catholics as Latins so naturally the pool to pick from is smaller. That being said, Benedict XVI isn’t by any means the first to create Eastern cardinals.

For example, Cardinal Slypyj, a Ukrainian who died in the 1980s, was the inspiration for Anthony Quinn’s character in Shoes of the Fisherman. John Paul II named Eastern Cardinals, and so did Paul VI.

I don’t know who appointed the first or how many there have been, but it isn’t new. It’s really delightful to see though

 

[bilop]

In any case, you need to be a Bishop to finally be Pope but not a Cardinal. So when Gregory XVI was elected, he had to be made a bishop before he was officially Pope.

Technically, you need only to be ordainable as bishop to be selected. In theory, the Conclave could select a priest, or even a laymen, as long as he was unmarried, and could be ordained Bishop of Rome.

Also, there can be lay Cardinals. The last one was in the mid-19th century, IIRC.

God Bless

 

[april32010]

i have been looking for video of the ceremony, one of our parochial vicars was there .

 

[choliks]

Urban VI in late 1300s wasn’t a Cardinal and was the most recent.

The first I think was Celestine V (can someone confirm this?) also in the 1300s. He was a monk in his 80s and quit soon after. Funnily enough, Dante supposedly placed him in hell in his works for resigning, yet the reality was that he was a saint.

The last time a non-cardinal got votes in a conclave was supposedly the then-Archbishop Montini of Milan. He wasn’t elected in that conclave which gave us John XXIII, though John made him a Cardinal and Montini was the frontrunner and winner in the following Conclave and became Paul VI.

The last time a non-bishop cardinal was elected was Gregory XVI in the 19th century. Today though Cardinals are required to be bishops unless the Pope dispenses them of the obligation, which happens with older Cardinals who seem to mainly be Jesuits for some reason.

In any case, you need to be a Bishop to finally be Pope but not a Cardinal. So when Gregory XVI was elected, he had to be made a bishop before he was officially Pope.

Because Jesuits make a promise not to pursue ecclesiastical dignities and promotion in the hierarchy of the Church.

 

[malphono]

My question is this: How many non-Latin/Roman Rite Catholics have ever been made a Cardinal? My understanding is that this is extremely rare, if it has ever occured before. Also, is this a first step in a major unification between rites; or is Benedict XVI making an overture to the Eastern Churches?

If it’s rare, it would only be because there aren’t as many Eastern Catholics as Latins so naturally the pool to pick from is smaller. That being said, Benedict XVI isn’t by any means the first to create Eastern cardinals.

For example, Cardinal Slypyj, a Ukrainian who died in the 1980s, was the inspiration for Anthony Quinn’s character in Shoes of the Fisherman. John Paul II named Eastern Cardinals, and so did Paul VI.

I don’t know who appointed the first or how many there have been, but it isn’t new. It’s really delightful to see though

There haven’t been all that many. The current trend started in 1965 when the Maronite, Melkite, Coptic Patriarchs were named to the College. Josyf Slypyj had been named Cardinal in pectore in 1949 and that was publicly formalized in 1965. Prior to that, there was, of course, the Armenian Catholicos Gregory Peter XV Agagianian named Cardinal-Priest in 1946 and the Syriac Patriarch, Igantios Gabriel Tappouni who was named Cardinal-Priest in 1935. There may have been one or two others prior to 1965 but if so I can’t call them to memory.

 

[PazzoGrande]

Because Jesuits make a promise not to pursue ecclesiastical dignities and promotion in the hierarchy of the Church.

That’s interesting. It raises two questions though:

#1 Cardinals are superior to Bishops, so isn’t accepting a Cardinalate while declining the Episcopate a logical fallacy because being a Cardinal is even higher?
#2 How come some Jesuits out there still accepted the Episcopate? The Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires is a Jesuit, for example. Is it up to each Jesuit’s interpretation of his promise whether or not he could accept an episcopate or not, or is it something a superior would have to dispense of?

Or of course in any case the obligation to obedience to the Holy Father could be reason enough for them to take on the task.

It’s fascinating.

 

[PazzoGrande]

Also, there can be lay Cardinals. The last one was in the mid-19th century, IIRC.

Yep, but that was outlawed in the 1917 Code and was reiterated in the 1983 Code. So canonically there can’t be anymore.

 

[mardukm]

There haven’t been all that many. The current trend started in 1965 when the Maronite, Melkite, Coptic Patriarchs were named to the College. Josyf Slypyj had been named Cardinal in pectore in 1949 and that was publicly formalized in 1965. Prior to that, there was, of course, the Armenian Catholicos Gregory Peter XV Agagianian named Cardinal-Priest in 1946 and the Syriac Patriarch, Igantios Gabriel Tappouni who was named Cardinal-Priest in 1935. There may have been one or two others prior to 1965

Brother, you are a fathomless well of knowledge!:tiphat:

but if so I can’t call them to memory.

Geez Louise! How old are you?!!

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[malphono]

bilop;10063261:

Also, there can be lay Cardinals. The last one was in the mid-19th century, IIRC.

Yep, but that was outlawed in the 1917 Code and was reiterated in the 1983 Code. So canonically there can’t be anymore.

Well … I suppose that depends. The practice may have been abrogated in Canon Law, but the lawgiver is not actually subject to the law. Ergo, if the Roman Pontiff wanted to bestow the honor on a non-cleric, he could, in effect, dispense himself from the law.

 

[bilop]

Yep, but that was outlawed in the 1917 Code and was reiterated in the 1983 Code. So canonically there can’t be anymore.

The Pope is free to change that if he wished to name a lay Cardinal.

God Bless

Edit: Coke to Malphono

 

[malphono]

Brother, you are a fathomless well of knowledge!:tiphat:

Not really, but thank you anyway.

Geez Louise! How old are you?!!

I’m not going there, but if I did you might be surprised. Or not.

 

[yawsep1569]

That’s interesting. It raises two questions though:

#1 Cardinals are superior to Bishops, so isn’t accepting a Cardinalate while declining the Episcopate a logical fallacy because being a Cardinal is even higher?

I’m not sure that this is true, or even if it is possible for it to be true. In my eyes, the cardinalate is a completely different category than the episcopate. If one insisted on comparing them, I would have to maintain the episcopate is far superior rather than the other way around (as odd as the comparison remains).

 

[mardukm]

#1 Cardinals are superior to Bishops, so isn’t accepting a Cardinalate while declining the Episcopate a logical fallacy because being a Cardinal is even higher?

I thought Cardinals were only higher in honor, not jurisdiction - and even then, only within the Latin Church (which explains why even non-Latin Patriarchs will rank lower than Latin bishops), not within the Church universal.

From what I read, bishops are higher than cardinals in one sense - cardinals don’t have judicial jurisdictional powers.

Don’t know much about cardinals, so I’m open to correction.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[PazzoGrande]

From what I read, bishops are higher than cardinals in one sense - cardinals don’t have judicial jurisdictional powers.

Yeah actually a Cardinal has zero jurisdiction unless if he’s a Bishop of something or in a dicastery where his duties are only an extension of the Pope’s.

That being said, the Pope, Cardinals and Metropolitan Archbishops (only within their Provinces) are the only ones not under the jurisdiction of a local Bishop. That would suggest that Cardinals are superior to Bishops, I’d think.

 

[LumenGent]

Yeah actually a Cardinal has zero jurisdiction unless if he’s a Bishop of something or in a dicastery where his duties are only an extension of the Pope’s.

That being said, the Pope, Cardinals and Metropolitan Archbishops (only within their Provinces) are the only ones not under the jurisdiction of a local Bishop. That would suggest that Cardinals are superior to Bishops, I’d think.

There are Cardinals that are not Metropolitan Archbishops, the Bishop of the Diocese of Mainz Germany is proof of that, ergo, not being subject to a local Bishop is not a sign of superiority. Local Bishops aren’t subject to the Metropolitan Archbishop either.

The Cardinalate is an honorific of the Latin Church. If it confers any “superiority”, it allows the person to elect the Pope, but that also has some limitations as it only concerns Cardinals under 80.

 

[choliks]

That’s interesting. It raises two questions though:

#1 Cardinals are superior to Bishops, so isn’t accepting a Cardinalate while declining the Episcopate a logical fallacy because being a Cardinal is even higher?
#2 How come some Jesuits out there still accepted the Episcopate? The Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires is a Jesuit, for example. Is it up to each Jesuit’s interpretation of his promise whether or not he could accept an episcopate or not, or is it something a superior would have to dispense of?

Or of course in any case the obligation to obedience to the Holy Father could be reason enough for them to take on the task.

It’s fascinating.

I’ll try answer this briefly. Please pardon the short derailment.

1. The raising to the episcopate can be dispensed by the Pope. Cardinal Herni de Lubac is a good example of this. When Pope Paul VI offered to make de Lubac a Cardinal, the Jesuit theologian showed reluctance as he thought that making him a bishop is an abuse of an apostolic office. He would later relent when Pope John Paul II made him a Cardinal but dispensed of the requirement to be raised to the episcopate.
2. The superior in this case is the Holy Father, and obedience to him is the reason. I think it is also important to note, that the promise is not part of the solemn vows.

This is the promise:
Consitutions:

I will never strive or ambition, not even indirectly, to be chosen or promoted to any prelacy or dignity in or outside the Society; and I will do my best never to consent to my election unless I am forced to do so by obedience to him who can order me under penalty of sin

Now back to regular programming.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother PazzoGrande,

After some more reading, I found an indication that Cardinals are not superior to bishops. In the old Catholic Encyclopedia in the article on Cardinals, it states that a Cardinal can choose a confessor from anywhere, but the permission of the local bishop must be obtained. If a Cardinal was truly superior to a bishop, such permission would not be required.

I think the proper understanding is that only within the context and protocols of the College of Cardinals can we find a “confusion” of the normal order of the Church hierarchy. But outside of that context, a Cardinal would not be superior to a bishop (unless the Cardinal was himself a bishop that was jurisdictionally superior, such as a Metropolitan). Even granting that this “confusion” of hierarchical order extends outside the context of the College of Cardinals, it would only apply to the order within the Latin Catholic Church, not the Church universal.

Again, I’m open to correction on this.

Blessings,
Marduk

That being said, the Pope, Cardinals and Metropolitan Archbishops (only within their Provinces) are the only ones not under the jurisdiction of a local Bishop. That would suggest that Cardinals are superior to Bishops, I’d think.

 

[twf]

Dear brother PazzoGrande,

After some more reading, I found an indication that Cardinals are not superior to bishops. In the old Catholic Encyclopedia in the article on Cardinals, it states that a Cardinal can choose a confessor from anywhere, but the permission of the local bishop must be obtained. If a Cardinal was truly superior to a bishop, such permission would not be required.

I think the proper understanding is that only within the context and protocols of the College of Cardinals can we find a “confusion” of the normal order of the Church hierarchy. But outside of that context, a Cardinal would not be superior to a bishop (unless the Cardinal was himself a bishop that was jurisdictionally superior, such as a Metropolitan). Even granting that this “confusion” of hierarchical order extends outside the context of the College of Cardinals, it would only apply to the order within the Latin Catholic Church, not the Church universal.

Again, I’m open to correction on this.

Blessings,
Marduk

I think you are correct in as far as jurisdiction goes. A cardinal has no inherent jurisdiction as a cardinal; rather, he exercises jurisdiction as the head of a Roman dicastery or a the ordinary of a particular church. A cardinal ranks above other bishops in honor as he is given a special vocation as an advisor of the pope in his petrine ministry and as an elector of the pope’s successor. The average layman thinks of cardinals as a class above bishops, but in terms of jurisdiction this is only so because the vast majority are either heads of dicasteries or metropolitans.