Can an Eastern Rite Patriarch, theoretically, ever become Pope?

[Aramis]

It’s also been leaked by 3 different cardinals that HB Lubomyr Cardinal Hussar was nominated in the elections that resulted in HH Benedict XVI. It’s been implied he was the primary other cardinal considered.

The 20th century has been good for the Eastern Churches. Our clergy have been granted true equality, our liturgies have been returned to our bishops’ care.

 

[ConstantineTG]

It’s also been leaked by 3 different cardinals that HB Lubomyr Cardinal Hussar was nominated in the elections that resulted in HH Benedict XVI. It’s been implied he was the primary other cardinal considered.

The 20th century has been good for the Eastern Churches. Our clergy have been granted true equality, our liturgies have been returned to our bishops’ care.

I have a feeling that HB Sviatoslav will get his turn. Not so soon though, he isn’t even a Cardinal yet but he’s only 40. My guess is 15-20 years from now.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Well, there is no doctrinal hindrance I believe for a married man becoming a Bishop. The discipline was established by an Ecumenical Council, but its still not dogma that only a celibate may become Bishop. Like I said, the possibility is as close to zero as possible without being zero. The possibility is left there because we don’t know whom God will choose to lead His Church on earth.

Married men cannot be ordained as bishops. When former Anglican clergy are ordained as Catholic priests they cannot become bishops if they are married. Earlier this year a new Ordinariate was created in England for former Anglicans who were received into the Latin Catholic Church. A former Anglican bishop was ordained as a Catholic priest in January 2011 and was made Ordinary of this new ordinariate. Because he is married he cannot be ordained as a Catholic bishop. I believe that this is similar to the discipline in the Eastern Catholic churches.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

There are 3 Church laws that govern the eligibility and election of the Pope:

(1) The Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, as amended, issued by the late Bl. Pope John Paul II in 1996;

(2) the Latin Code of Canons; and

(3) the Eastern Code of Canons.

The Apostolic Constitution abrogates all previous laws governing the eligibility and election of the Pope and amends or otherwise modifies those provided by the Latin and Eastern Codes.

Based on the aforecited Apostolic Constitution, on the Codes of Canons, and on the traditions of the Roman Church, I think the following are clear:

(1) General Rule.–The Sacred College of Cardinals (from East and West), in conclave, elect the next Pope from among themselves, i.e., Cardinal electors (under 80) and non-conclave Cardinals (80 and over) are equally eligible for election.

This is inferred from Provision #53 of the AC which provides that the Roman Pontiff shall be elected from among the members of the Sacred College of Cardinals.

In effect this precludes the election of a Deacon (much less a layman, including women and minors) because of Section 1, Canon 351, of the 1983 Latin Code of Canons (and the corresponding Eastern Canon) which provides that those to be promoted Cardinals are men who are at least in the order of priesthood.

The last non-Cardinal who was elected Pope was Pope Urban VI, the then Archbishop of Acerenza (Kingdom of Naples), who was Supreme Pontiff from 1378 through his death in 1389.

(2) Exception.–The AC recognizes the remote possibility of an impasse in the election of the next Pope. In such an event, the Cardinal-electors may elect a non-member of the Sacred College, i.e., a non-Cardinal under Provision #83!

However, even under this exception, such an “outsider” must be at least a priest because, under Section 1, Canon 355, of the Latin Code (and the corresponding Eastern Canon), the newly elected Supreme Pontiff must be consecrated immediately a Bishop, if he is not already a Bishop, to exercise his office (as Pope) canonically.The immediacy of episcopal consecration as required by the Canons precludes the interim ordination of a deacon to the priesthood and the latter’s ordination to the episcopacy.

By the way, since 769 A.D. non-Cardinal clerics and the laity have been debarred from participating in the election of the Pope.

Based on the foregoing, the chances for a Deacon (much less a Catholic layman), or for a non-Cardinal for that matter, to be elected Pope are nil.

Just my opinion.

From where are you accessing Universi Dominici Gregis? The sections that you cited, ##53 and 83, are not relevant to the points you raise in the English language version of Universi Dominici Gregis on the Vatican’s web site (vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_22021996_universi-dominici-gregis_en.html accessed: 12/06/2011 at 23:27).

 

[Cecilianus]

Where is it written that only a Cardinal can become Pope? I was always taught that any Catholic male could be elected Pope, and could he be consecrated Pope after he was first ordained a Priest.

Popes are not consecrated; they become Pope as soon as they express consent to it (presuming they have already been ordained a bishop in a different diocese, which is always true in practice but not in theory - we have had non-bishops before been elected Pope). The Papacy is not a “fourth level” of Holy Orders, so there is no sort of sacramental ordination of a Pope.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Married men cannot be ordained as bishops. When former Anglican clergy are ordained as Catholic priests they cannot become bishops if they are married. Earlier this year a new Ordinariate was created in England for former Anglicans who were received into the Latin Catholic Church. A former Anglican bishop was ordained as a Catholic priest in January 2011 and was made Ordinary of this new ordinariate. Because he is married he cannot be ordained as a Catholic bishop. I believe that this is similar to the discipline in the Eastern Catholic churches.

Yes, I know that. I am just saying that it wasn’t always that way and its not something that can never be done. The Church has established that it shouldn’t be done but not as a matter of doctrine, but rather a strict tradition. Kind of like that the Eucharist can be consecrated outside of Liturgy, but the Church prohibits that by law under any and all circumstances.

 

[mardukm]

Popes are not consecrated; they become Pope as soon as they express consent to it (presuming they have already been ordained a bishop in a different diocese, which is always true in practice but not in theory - we have had non-bishops before been elected Pope). The Papacy is not a “fourth level” of Holy Orders, so there is no sort of sacramental ordination of a Pope.

Thank you, brother. The topic has never come to my mind, but this is very good to know.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[BlackCatholics]

This question applies, obviously, only to Eastern Rite Catholic patriarchs in communion with Rome and not to the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs. I’m currious because, though the title is retired, the Bishop of Rome is the Patriarch of the West, but if (let’s use Gregory III Laham, Patriarch of Antioch for example) more qualified to be the Vicor of Christ than any of his western counterparts, could he, in theory, become the next Pope? Or would the (although retired) title of Patriarch of the West prevent him from becoming the next Pope and Bishop of Rome?

I gotta stir the pot here. They already are. (While I am a Black Catholic and my chief archbishop is Benedict), I know that Yeshua set one Church. Man Split it. Consequently, the chair of St. Mark has **Pope Shenouda III **as we speak.
(Since I ain’t European heritage, I could really care less about the 1054 East excommunicating the West, and West excommunicating the East. I do know however, that when the Crusaders went to the Holy Land, they attacked and sacked Eastern Catholic (Orthodox, Byzantine, whatever you wish to call 'em) churches.
And there’s that little thing about Westerners cutting off hands of Eastern Catholic/Orthodox etc Christians, because they made the sign of the cross with two fingers, instead of how we do it.
Hopefully, all our brethren will get to know Kiril, and Bartholomew and 'dem, since the philosopher Tielhard de Chardin said the Church is involution (slowly coming back together).
We might not see it in our lifetimes, but its gonna happen. Yeshua and Mama Maryam will see to it.http://www.angelfire.com/realm/blackcatholics/images/MARYAMDEVILNIUS.jpg
Pax Christi

 

[JackQ]

They certainly could. Of course, this patriarch would have to be a cardinal first.

There’s no requirement that the man elected be a cardinal. He can even be a layman. Of course, he’d have to be ordained a bishop as he took the bishopric of Rome.

 

[JackQ]

This question applies, obviously, only to Eastern Rite Catholic patriarchs in communion with Rome and not to the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs. I’m currious because, though the title is retired, the Bishop of Rome is the Patriarch of the West, but if (let’s use Gregory III Laham, Patriarch of Antioch for example) more qualified to be the Vicor of Christ than any of his western counterparts, could he, in theory, become the next Pope? Or would the (although retired) title of Patriarch of the West prevent him from becoming the next Pope and Bishop of Rome?

Sure he can. The only requirement is that he be a Catholic man.

 

[Hesychios]

Can an Eastern Rite Patriarch, theoretically, ever become Pope?

He could, but why he should ever wish to escapes me.

 

[BlackCatholics]

The CHURCH IS UNIVERSAL, THAT’S MY POSITION AND STICKING TO IT!II don’t think I mentioned color, except my division of the Church (which liturgy is African rooted, not European rooted (liturgical dance, one of the first to have girl altar servers, Black Yeshua’s Maryams and Josephs in the statuary (spelling). It does make a difference as it was not too long ago in my lifetime that we either could not come to the Church, or had to sit in the balcony. Perhaps tafter my generation dies out it will be color blind, but the racism was so pervasive when I was coming up, I nearly became Orthodox!
My not caring was defining a small point, while I definitely do care about our ONE HOLY CATHOLIC AND APOSTOLIC CHURCH, and am gratified, when I go to Thailand, I see now A Thai Jesus, Mary and Joseph, in Korea, Korean Jesus Mary and Joseph, and Africa, Kenyan e.g. Holy Family. No more Viking Jesus’ outside of Scandanavia, praise God(something the Al Islam brethren keep hitting us over the head with).Lastly, the Western body of Christ may not be in communion, but I have discourse, every day.

Pax Christi!

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

He could, but why he should ever wish to escapes me.

Okay, so why shouldn’t he?

 

[Hesychios]

Okay, so why shouldn’t he?

They are different churches. The Patriarch of Antioch should no more wish to be the bishop of Rome than he should wish to be the Catholicos of Armenia.

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

They are different churches. The Patriarch of Antioch should no more wish to be the bishop of Rome than he should wish to be the Catholicos of Armenia.

Ok, I understand your point now!

 

[Will_S]

However, even under this exception, such an “outsider” must be at least a priest because, under Section 1, Canon 355, of the Latin Code (and the corresponding Eastern Canon), the newly elected Supreme Pontiff must be consecrated immediately a Bishop, if he is not already a Bishop, to exercise his office (as Pope) canonically.The immediacy of episcopal consecration as required by the Canons precludes the interim ordination of a deacon to the priesthood and the latter’s ordination to the episcopacy.

I don’t think there is any doctrinal problem that would prevent a layman from being ordained immediately to the episcopate.

 

[Cecilianus]

They are different churches. The Patriarch of Antioch should no more wish to be the bishop of Rome than he should wish to be the Catholicos of Armenia.

The bishop of Rome has a universal role, though. And the College of Cardinals has found it fitting to elect non-Italians to the Apostolic See - first a Pole and then a German, and the opening up of the Papacy to non-Italians has been a wonderful reform in the Church, overcoming the illusion that the Church is just an Italian institution disconnected from the rest of the world (an illusion fostered especially when the Pope was a prisoner of the Vatican). And it might happen that the best person for the seat happens to be the Ukrainian or Maronite patriarch - if so, he should obey the Holy Spirit and accept the appointment with humility.

Nobody wants to be Pope, just as nobody wants to be bishop. The Papacy is accepted out of humble obedience.

 

[Kielbasi]

Where is it written that only a Cardinal can become Pope? I was always taught that any Catholic male could be elected Pope, and could he be consecrated Pope after he was first ordained a Priest.

You are of course correct. Men who were not cardinals can certainly be elected, and have been in the past.

However, it is highly unlikely that this would happen today. The conclaves don’t want to elect someone who might turn down the office. Those who are already in the conclave are already committed to accepting.

But then, I never thought we’d see a non-Italian pope- considering the fact that the pope is the head of an Italian diocese- either when I was a youth, but that’s by the boards now.

 

[Hesychios]

The bishop of Rome has a universal role, though.

Yes, in the context of being the bishop of the city of Rome. It is not a universal episcopate of a universal diocese.

As the Metropolitan of Italia Suburbicaria he would lead a synod that included …
*Tuscia et Umbria
**Valeria
**Campania et Samnium
**Apulia et Calabria
**Sicilia
*Sardinia et Corsica

… and he would be elected by the bishops, deacons and priests of that synod.

And the College of Cardinals has found it fitting to elect non-Italians to the Apostolic See - first a Pole and then a German, and the opening up of the Papacy to non-Italians has been a wonderful reform in the Church, overcoming the illusion that the Church is just an Italian institution disconnected from the rest of the world (an illusion fostered especially when the Pope was a prisoner of the Vatican).

Actually (not that this has not been violated many times) the bishop of Rome should ideally be clergy of the See of Rome, or the synod, which would be a significant part of Italy.

There is nothing wrong with a Syrian or Ukrainian bishop of Rome, if he migrates to Italy and starts out his ecclesiastical career in that church. The early canons of the church are very clear about this. I am not saying that it wasn’t often violated or ignored, but that was supposed to be the norm or at least the ideal.

Basically the College of Cardinals is a newer structure, and in it’s role of electing the bishop of Rome it replaces the synod of the Roman Metropolia. It makes sense to restrict the voting to members of a college set apart for the purpose, but it also makes sense that the membership is essentially from the Metropolitan See and thereby mostly natives of Italy.

The expansion of the college of Cardinals beyond Italy has it’s roots in western Europolitics of bygone ages, often to please kings and emperors and sometimes to raise money.

 

[Cecilianus]

The expansion of the college of Cardinals beyond Italy has it’s roots in western Europolitics of bygone ages, often to please kings and emperors and sometimes to raise money.

But the expansion of the actual (as opposed to theoretical) eligibility of Papal candidates beyond Italy only took place after Vatican II, with roots in international politics of the contemporary age, and is done not to please any emperor or republic but to spread the Gospel more effectively.