D
Duane1966
Guest
The part that I have highlighted is most likely an error on my part. It has been pointed out to me that in the first millennium that it was rare for someone to be elected pope who was already a bishop.
- Status
D
Duane1966
Guest
Why would there be confusion? The Divine Liturgy has been said at St. Peter’s Basilica before, causing no confusion.
T
ThundersnowIV
Guest
Your original statement is not true…
Canon 332 § 1 of the 1983 Code simply states that one already a bishop (nb: not necessarily a cardinal) who accepts legitimate papal election becomes pope immediately. One who is not yet a bishop (and the Church has elected several non-bishops to the papacy) can accept election, but must be immediately consecrated bishop. By implication, that would seem to require that a papabile (a) be male, and be willing (b) to be baptized, (c) ordained deacon, priest, and bishop, and (d) have the use of reason in order to accept election and, if necessary, holy orders. - In the Light of the Law
T
ThundersnowIV
Guest
Canon 332 § 1 of the 1983 Code simply states that one already a bishop (nb: not necessarily a cardinal) who accepts legitimate papal election becomes pope immediately. One who is not yet a bishop (and the Church has elected several non-bishops to the papacy) can accept election, but must be immediately consecrated bishop. By implication, that would seem to require that a papabile (a) be male, and be willing (b) to be baptized, (c) ordained deacon, priest, and bishop, and (d) have the use of reason in order to accept election and, if necessary, holy orders. - In the Light of the Law
T
ThundersnowIV
Guest
Yes they were…
Gradually then — certainly from the eighth and ninth centuries — the word becomes an official title, used henceforth only as connoting a definite rank in the hierarchy, that of the chief bishops who ruled over metropolitans as metropolitans over their suffragan bishops, being themselves subject only to the first patriarch at Rome. During these earlier centuries the name appears generally in conjunction with “archbishop”, “archbishop and patriarch”, as in the Code of Justinian (Gelzer, “Der Streit über den Titel des ökumen. Patriarchen” in “Jahrbuch für protest. Theol.”, 1887). The dispute about the title Œcumenical Patriarch in the sixth century (see JOHN THE FASTER) shows that even then the name was receiving a technical sense. Later medieval and modern developments, schisms, and the creation of titular and so-called “minor” patriarchates have produced the result that a great number of persons now claim the title; but in all cases it connotes the idea of a special rank — the highest, except among Catholics who admit the still higher papacy.
T
ThundersnowIV
Guest
T
ThundersnowIV
Guest
No…they cannot marry. They can be married before becoming priest…but once a priest they cannot marry if they were not married before becoming a priest.Could an Eastern Catholic Cardinal be a Pope? Aren’t they allowed to be married?
J
JRS_88
Guest
Just to be clear:
PaulfromIowa said this earlier in the thread.
“The Eastern Catholic (and Eastern Orthodox) Churches do ordain married men to the presbyterate/priesthood, but bishops are only chosen from among the celibate.”
K
Kielbasi
Guest
Under special circumstances, I’m sure that you are right, Eastern rite liturgies have been said at St. Peter’s in the past.
But we’re talking about ordinary circumstances here, and the faithful of the Rome diocese are Latin Rite Catholics and have the general right to have their worship in their own rite, as per Canon 214. As well it should be, there is really no benefit to the church to try and push people into eastern religious practice, especially when that isn’t their own tradition.
D
dochawk
Guest
The eastern patriarchs were not “subject” to Rome in any significant sense in the first millennium. He was first among them, and the ultimate arbiter in disputes between them, but they were not “subject”.
AMDG
hawk
D
dochawk
Guest
There has, however, been at least one exception each in the Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox in which a married priest with small children was allowed to marry for the sake of the children who needed a mother.
Also a couple or few fairly recently in which RC priests converted to Russian Orthodox and were allowed to marry as they were “wrongly” denied the right to marry. Note, though, that historically (maybe still?) the RO would not ordain unmarried men outside of the monastery.
Anyway, back t the actual point, since sometime in about the second century, the Church in both east and west stopped selecting married men as bishops not over validity but over a very practical issue: the leaving of church property to the bishop’s children.
Theoretically, a married man could be elected Pope, but in the modern day, any non-bishop is highly unlikely to be elected.
AMDG
hawk
J
jimkhong
Guest
If that’s the case, he must not just be an Italian, he must be a Roman as well.
In fact, if we really want to be authentic and faithful to the traditions handed down by the Apostles, maybe the Pope should be a (still professing) Jewish fisherman who is the Patriarch of Antioch (any Rite), but preferably one who speaks rough Greek and left his mother-in-law behind in Palestine.
OK, maybe the last bit is not mandatory. The mother-in-law could be dead by the time the candidate reaches Rome.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Why does everyone seem to leave out Peter, first patriarch of Antioch? I am not sure if he was even fluent in Latin. Only Syriac (Aramaic dialect), archaic Hebrew and some rough Greek.
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
To be really authentic it should be someone who speaks first century Aramaic, is a Jewish fisherman convert from the Palestinian region.
D
dochawk
Guest
The Pope is not the Pope because he was elected Pope, but because he was elected the Bishop of Rome.
Early bishops o Rome were often drawn from the east. For several hundred years running, the chief deacon of Rome (I forget the title) was selected with only a single exception.
There is indeed a serious argument to select the bishop of Rome not from Italy, but from the Archdiocese of Rome and from its suffragan dioceses.
AMDG
hawk
Early bishops o Rome were often drawn from the east. For several hundred years running, the chief deacon of Rome (I forget the title) was selected with only a single exception.
There is indeed a serious argument to select the bishop of Rome not from Italy, but from the Archdiocese of Rome and from its suffragan dioceses.
AMDG
hawk
J
jimkhong
Guest
Oh, no problem for a Greek Catholic Pope to say mass in Latin Rite: he just have to give himself the faculty to do so.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Ya, that gives us only two villages left in Syria.To be really authentic it should be someone who speaks first century Aramaic, is a Jewish fisherman convert from the Palestinian region.
On that point, I presume that they are safe as they are not in the centre of the fighting. Still, my prayers with them.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Yes, but that doesn’t mean that he is ordinary of two dioceses. He transfers diocese, leaving his see vacant. I am not sure if the Church allows one bishop to be ordinary for two dioceses, except in the Middle Ages.
J
jimkhong
Guest
Actually, an Eastern Catholic who becomes Pope in modern times would be a bishop and not just a priests. As I understand it, Eastern bishops are normally celibate as they are drawn from the ranks of monks.
Correct me if I am wrong.
D
dochawk
Guest
Not so much wrong, as a few centuries out of date
That used to be the norm in both East and West, even at a time the west still had married clergy as the norm (outside the monastery).
Some Orthodox churches to this day, I believe, first tonsure a non-monastic priest as a monastic before consecrating him bishop.
In practice, most eastern bishops, EC and EO, are drawn from celibate and widowed priests.
AMDG
hawk
- Status