P
PJM
Guest
Hi,
Is there a list of INDULTS granted from 1965 end of Vataican II to the present time?
God Bless,
Pat
Is there a list of INDULTS granted from 1965 end of Vataican II to the present time?
God Bless,
Pat
No.Hi,
Is there a list of INDULTS granted from 1965 end of Vataican II to the present time?
God Bless,
Pat
Actually, that’s no an indult. An indult is a dispensation from the norm. The Latin Church has a long tradition of cardinals who are not bishops. They have never been in the majority, but they have been part of the tradition. It was only in the code of 1983 that Pope Paul VI inserted that cardinals be selected from among the bishops and that they must have a doctorate degree or its equivalent. However, Pope Benedict does not follow this rule. He recently named two cardinals who are not bishops. No one is really sure by Bl. John Paul left it the new rule in the code, since he disregarded it on a number of occasions.No.
Anyway, indults for anything? When the Pope appoints a non-bishop Cardinal, for instance, that constitutes an indult.
Um, right. That’s what makes it an indult.It was only in the code of 1983 that Pope Paul VI inserted that cardinals be selected from among the bishops and that they must have a doctorate degree or its equivalent. However, Pope Benedict does not follow this rule.
This is precisely why it’s not an indult. Because no permission is necessary since only the pope can name the cardinals and the pope cannot give himself permission nor does he need to ask for permission to ignore Canon Law. An indult would be if there was an actual permission. Indult comes from the word “indulgence”, which in Latin means, to indulge. Popes cannot indulge themselves, since they are above the law.Um, right. That’s what makes it an indult.The law states that when people are made cardinal, “those who are not yet bishops must receive episcopal consecration,” but permission to deviate from that requirement is occasionally given.
Whether that is right depends, I suppose, on whether one views the situation from the point of view of the cardinal (who is dispensed from the obligation of being consecrated a bishop) or that of the Holy Father (who “dispenses himself” from the prohibition on appointing non-episcopal cardinals). I suspect that the parties involved view it in the first way (for it is the cardinal-designate who initiates a request for an exemption, which the pope could choose to deny), but perhaps you are right to think that the canonical reality is otherwise.This is precisely why it’s not an indult. Because no permission is necessary since only the pope can name the cardinals and the pope cannot give himself permission nor does he need to ask for permission to ignore Canon Law. An indult would be if there was an actual permission. Indult comes from the word “indulgence”, which in Latin means, to indulge. Popes cannot indulge themselves, since they are above the law.
The way that the law is written speaks about the requirement for the title of cardinal. It does not speak to the person receiving the office. Therefore, according to canonical tradition, the law can only be applied to the person who has the power to create cardinals. That would be the pope. The cardinal designate, need not request an exemption, because the pope knows that he’s not a bishop.Whether that is right depends, I suppose, on whether one views the situation from the point of view of the cardinal (who is dispensed from the obligation of being consecrated a bishop) or that of the Holy Father (who “dispenses himself” from the prohibition on appointing non-episcopal cardinals). I suspect that the parties involved view it in the first way (for it is the cardinal-designate who initiates a request for an exemption, which the pope could choose to deny), but perhaps you are right to think that the canonical reality is otherwise.
The way that the law is written speaks about the requirement for the title of cardinal. It does not speak to the person receiving the office. Therefore, according to canonical tradition, the law can only be applied to the person who has the power to create cardinals. That would be the pope. The cardinal designate, need not request an exemption, because the pope knows that he’s not a bishop.Whether that is right depends, I suppose, on whether one views the situation from the point of view of the cardinal (who is dispensed from the obligation of being consecrated a bishop) or that of the Holy Father (who “dispenses himself” from the prohibition on appointing non-episcopal cardinals). I suspect that the parties involved view it in the first way (for it is the cardinal-designate who initiates a request for an exemption, which the pope could choose to deny), but perhaps you are right to think that the canonical reality is otherwise.