Can an Eastern Catholic become Pope?

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

I just finished reading the book, and I ordered the movie. Lakota was from the Ruthenian Rite.

Well, if its in the book. It definitely does not come across clearly in the movie. But the movie is still worth watching.

I’ll be anxiously waiting to hear your review on the comparison between the book and the movie.

 

[Marina14]

Hello,

I hope this isn’t in the wrong section, if it is, I’m sorry and it can be moved.

My question is, can an Eastern Catholic become Pope? To me, I think he should be able to, but seeing as how I don’t know the ins and outs of canon law, I ask this question.

Have there ever been any Eastern Catholic Popes throughout our 2000 year history?

Thanks in advance.

Pace e Bene
Andrew

Of course. There were plenty of Eastern Christian Popes - just look at Church history.

 

[jj2011]

I just finished reading the book, and I ordered the movie. Lakota was from the Ruthenian Rite.

The rumor is that the movie was based on the real life Cardinal Slipyj, who (as opposed to Casaroli’s Ostpolitik) supported the consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady of Fatima. Seems to me Cardinal Slipyj might have made a pretty good pope.

 

[rcwhiteh]

Yes, an Eastern rite Catholic could become pope. But, the moment he was elected he’d suddenly be a member of the Roman rite. He’d have to be, as one of the roles of the pope is the Bishop of the Roman rite diocese of Rome. His duties include celebrating masses and other liturgical events in the Roman rite. As the worldwide head of the Roman rite, he’d be a member of it, even if he was an Eastern rite Catholic before his election.

I think I want to see some official statement from Canon Law about that. I can’t imagine your statement being accurate.

Of course, if you provide such conclusive proof, I won’t argue further.

 

[Kielbasi]

I think I want to see some official statement from Canon Law about that. I can’t imagine your statement being accurate.

Of course, if you provide such conclusive proof, I won’t argue further.

How about from the Catholic Encyclopedia?

The Pope

(Ecclesiastical Latin papa from Greek papas, a variant of pappas father, in classical Latin pappas – Juvenal, “Satires” 6:633).
The title pope, once used with far greater latitude (see below, section V), is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome, who, in virtue of his position as successor of St. Peter, is the chief pastor of the whole Church, the Vicar of Christ upon earth. Besides the bishopric of the Roman Diocese, certain other dignities are held by the pope as well as the supreme and universal pastorate: he is Archbishop of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy and the adjacent islands, and sole Patriarch of the Western Church.

Would you not agree that the diocese and province of Rome, as well as the Western Church are Latin Rite?

I don’t know if that’s conclusive enough , and if someone wants to disagree that is fine as well.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

How about from the Catholic Encyclopedia?

The title pope

Note that Pope Benedict has abolished the title Patriarch of the Western Church.

 

[rcwhiteh]

I don’t know if that’s conclusive enough , and if someone wants to disagree that is fine as well.

Not for me, I’m afraid; too many Catholic sources - even the Catholic Encyclopedia - seem to believe that the Roman Rite is the be-all and end-all of Catholicism and completely snub the Eastern Rites.

So, until someone shows me something authoritative and explicit that addresses that particular issue, I will not believe that an Eastern Rite bishop, elevated to the See of Peter, automatically becomes omniritual.

 

[peary]

Not for me, I’m afraid; too many Catholic sources - even the Catholic Encyclopedia - seem to believe that the Roman Rite is the be-all and end-all of Catholicism and completely snub the Eastern Rites.

So, until someone shows me something authoritative and explicit that addresses that particular issue, I will not believe that an Eastern Rite bishop, elevated to the See of Peter, automatically becomes omniritual.

**You can always ask one of the apologetics people in the forum for an answer to this. I’m sure one of them would know. **

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Note that one of the major deficiencies of the Catholic Encyclopedia, written about a century ago, is its lack of understanding of the Eastern Churches.

 

[Irish_Melkite]

Not for me, I’m afraid; too many Catholic sources - even the Catholic Encyclopedia - seem to believe that the Roman Rite is the be-all and end-all of Catholicism and completely snub the Eastern Rites.

So, until someone shows me something authoritative and explicit that addresses that particular issue, I will not believe that an Eastern Rite bishop, elevated to the See of Peter, automatically becomes omniritual.

RC,

Your own first paragraph, if nothing else, answers the point in your second.

Furthermore, as the ultimate authority by which bi-ritual faculties are granted (albeit now, by grant of delegation, an authority ordinarily resident in the ordinaries involved), one must have that which one might grant. To do otherwise would fail as impossibile.

**You can always ask one of the apologetics people in the forum for an answer to this. I’m sure one of them would know. **

Not likely, as answers to queries involving matters of Eastern Christianity get short shrift and, generally, marginal answers when it comes to being complete and/or accurate.

Many years,

Neil

 

[peary]

Originally Posted by peary

You can always ask one of the apologetics people in the forum for an answer to this. I’m sure one of them would know.

Not likely.

Many years,

Neil

**God forbid you should receive a str8 answer. THEN what would you do in here? **

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Brendan,

But Bishops are true heirs of the Apostles. Can one really imagine Thomas needing Andrew’s ‘permission’ to say the Divine Liturgy using rubics and texts that Andrew devised? Or Bartholmew? or Matthew?

No, they may say the Liturgy in any valid, published form.

I think you forget a difference between an Apostle and a bishop - a difference that refutes your point of view. Apostles were itinerant, while bishops are meant to be attached to a certain locality, obligated to tend his local flock. This is not merely the canonical obligation of a bishop, it is the divinely established order. A bishop is attached to a specific See in a locale with its own language and T/traditions, which is reflectd in its Liturgy - and he can ONLY be attached to that specific See. Conclusively, the only faculty a particular bishop normatively possesses for the celebration of a Liturgy is in his own particular rite… .

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother rcwhiteh,

Not for me, I’m afraid; too many Catholic sources - even the Catholic Encyclopedia - seem to believe that the Roman Rite is the be-all and end-all of Catholicism and completely snub the Eastern Rites.

So, until someone shows me something authoritative and explicit that addresses that particular issue, I will not believe that an Eastern Rite bishop, elevated to the See of Peter, automatically becomes omniritual.

The Pope is dogmatically the only bishop who has the plenitude of the apostolic prerogatives. Brother Brendan was correct insofar as the fact that the Apostles would have been omni-ritual if such a distinctive term existed back then. The Pope by virtue of his office has inherited that prerogative.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Furthermore, as the ultimate authority by which bi-ritual faculties are granted (albeit now, by grant of delegation, an authority ordinarily resident in the ordinaries involved), one must have that which one might grant. To do otherwise would fail as impossibile.

I just want to note for our readers that in canon law, a prerogatives delegated to an Ordinary (i.e., a bishop), unless otherwise stated, resides in the OFFICE of the ordinary, and is thus inherited by the successor to the office. As brother Neil has rightly noted, the delegated authority becomes inherent or ordinary for the Ordinary involved, as well as his successors.

Now, to be specific, the delegated prerogative is the ability to GRANT bi-ritual faculties, it is NOT to possess those faculties themselves. Thus, as has already been stated, individual bishops are not ordinarly bi-ritual. However, they do have the authority to grant bi-ritual faculties by virtue of a past delegation by the Pope who alone has the plenitude of the apostolic prerogatives.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ignatius]

Any Catholic male can become Pope? Is that true?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Any Catholic male can become Pope? Is that true?

Anyone who is eligible for priestly ordination can become Pope!

 

[Amadeus]

Hello,

Anyone who is eligible for priestly ordination can become Pope!

Can you expound on this, with citations, if possible?

One of our CA apologists has another idea and I have mine, too!

 

[Aramis]

Can you expound on this, with citations, if possible?

One of our CA apologists has another idea and I have mine, too!

Can. 355
§1 It belongs to the Cardinal Dean to ordain the elected Roman Pontiff a Bishop, if he is not already ordained. If the Dean is prevented from doing so, the same right belongs to the sub-Dean or, if he is prevented, to the senior Cardinal of the episcopal order.

This clearly establishes only that the individual need not yet be a bishop. The electoral process is not detailed in the main of canon law.

The special elections laws delineate the specifics, and vary more than main canon law. I don’t know where they are on-line.

Now, I will point out that it says “if not already ordained.” not “if not already ordained a bishop.” It does imply any eligible to be ordained could be made pope.

In general, however, one can not be ordained a bishop without 5 years as a priest, plus a doctorate in a church related field or equivalent knowledge & experience. That is a relatively new requirement.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . .
In general, however, one can not be ordained a bishop without 5 years as a priest, plus a doctorate in a church related field or equivalent knowledge & experience. That is a relatively new requirement.

It was different in the earlier days. Note that Ambrose was only a catechumen when elected bishop. He had to be baptized before they could ordain him.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Can you expound on this, with citations, if possible?

One of our CA apologists has another idea and I have mine, too!

It’s just as I said. Anyone eligible for ordination can be elected Pope. Obviously, since women can’t be ordained, they can’t be elected Pope. That leaves only men. If a man has an impediment to ordination (see canons 1040 - 1049) then they may not be elected Pope.

Just because a person isn’t ordained yet doesn’t mean that they can’t be elected Pope. As canon 332 states:

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance.** If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.**

In fact, there has on at least one occasion been a layman elected as Pope. But the fact is that today, it is highly unlikely that anyone who is not a Cardinal at the conclave will be elected Pope (but not for any theological reasons).