Can an eastern rite bishop become the pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter alice24
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tis_Bearself said:
I like Burke, considering that he is a traditionalist, but if we are going to put a traditionalist in the Pope seat then it should probably be Cardinal Sarah.
Click to expand...
Just a note: In some countries having cardinal Burke rising to patriarch or president of the bishops conference would be unthinkable because those nominations have to be “tacitly” endorsed by the ruling government and the traditionalist line of discourse would cause discomfort both politically and ecclesiastically - hence, socially.
 
Last edited:
Wandile said:
I’m pretty sure this is a mistake because this is not true at all. The last Eastern Pope was over a millennium ago and most eastern popes were romans already or living in Italy celebrating in the latin tradition.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about Eastern? 🙂

I’m talking about Pope Paul VI, who was Ambrosian Rite at the time he was elected . . .

hawk
 
It is one of the western rites that survives. Use of “latin rite” on it seems to vary.

It is principally the Archdiocese of Milan, St. Ambrose’s see of long ago. He is often credited with authoring the rite, although there is apparently no evidence of this.

hawk
 
phil19034 said:
They would be right behind the last Cardinal.
Click to expand...
That depends upon which order of precedence is used for the particular event.

In others, the heads of the sui juris churches are a “higher” rank than the cardinals.

hawk
 
dochawk said:
40.png
phil19034:
They would be right behind the last Cardinal.
Click to expand...
That depends upon which order of precedence is used for the particular event.

In others, the heads of the sui juris churches are a “higher” rank than the cardinals.

hawk
Click to expand...
Interesting.

I know that any Patriarch who is also a Cardinal is considered equivalent to a Cardinal-Bishop.
 
phil19034 said:
40.png
dochawk:
40.png
phil19034:
They would be right behind the last Cardinal.
Click to expand...
That depends upon which order of precedence is used for the particular event.

In others, the heads of the sui juris churches are a “higher” rank than the cardinals.

hawk
Click to expand...
Interesting.

I know that any Patriarch who is also a Cardinal is considered equivalent to a Cardinal-Bishop.
Click to expand...
On second look… Looks like they are the last of the Cardinals.
 
Last edited:
🤷‍♂️

I don’t think many of them care anymore about the exact order.

I’ve seen processions where Cardinals and bishops didn’t 100% come out in the exact order that they are supposed to.
 
Eastern-rite Cardinals are rare for two indirectly related reasons. The first is that historically speaking, Cardinals represent the nominal heads of principle churches in the city of Rome. They were close advisors to the Latin Patriarch (the Pope), and elected the Pope on behalf of the Latin clergy.

Many Eastern Catholics recognize another as their Patriarch, who is himself in communion and obedient to the Pope. It is thus awkward, in a formal sense, to appointment an Eastern Catholic bishop as Cardinal, as he would then be an advisor to the Pope, and his Patriarch. I believe this is partially mitigated by appointing the Patriarchs themselves as Cardinals. Their personal position as head of an Eastern Church outranks therir position as Cardinal, but they are thus permitted to participate in the Papal conclave.

The lessor reason there are few is that there are 100 times fewer Eastern Catholics than Latin Catholics (13 Million, compared to 1.3 Billion). There representation will always be limited by this proportion, irrespective of difficulties of conflicting ranks within multiple ritual churches.
 
Last edited:
Not me. I think that as long as the US is a geopolitical superpower, it would be a bad idea. Also, to many of us Catholic Americans already tend to think what goes on here is all important in the Church relative to the rest of the world. I certainly do not see that it would affect vocations.
 
tafan2 said:
Not me. I think that as long as the US is a geopolitical superpower, it would be a bad idea
Click to expand...
There have been other popes from the geopolitical superpowers of their day. France was a leading power in the 14th Century when the French Avignon popes reigned. Alexander VI was a Spanish pope when Spain was a major power. And of course, many of the early popes were from the Roman Empire, the major power of its time.
 
I am not sure history tells us much in this case. Early Church was largely confined to the Roman Empire. If the history of French Pope’s tells us much, it’s not good.
 
Last edited:
A shame…
And we expect the Orthodox to consider reconciliation?
 
Last edited:
Btw, Philadelphia is the only city that has ever had two Archbishops - Latin and Ukrainian Greek Catholic.
 
Yes, he can.

Unlikely such a man would be elected.

Not long ago bishops could be bi-ritual. The Pope could change that canon any time.

The larger issue is that at the point of accepting his election he becomes the Patriarch of the West, and would no longer be the bishop/patriarch of his current jurisdiction.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen used to celebrate the Divine Liturgy regularly.

Deacon Christopher
 
If you could speculate, what would an “Easternized”-style Pontificate be like? For instance, what Eastern traditions could be introduced to the masses?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top