Could a married non-Latin Rite priest become Pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RaisedCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HomeschoolDad said:
It has been the practice of both Latin and Eastern rites, but there is nothing in sacramental theology (of which I am aware) that says a married man cannot validly be consecrated a bishop.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say anything about validity. Why would I mention rites when talking about validity?
 
Last edited:
Fauken said:
40.png
babochka:
Every bishop is a priest.
Click to expand...
Then why bother calling him a bishop? He’s more than just a priest. Why don’t we just call all the clergy Deacons then since they’re Deacons?
Click to expand...
I have known more than one Bishop who sees his primary identity as that of a priest. In fact, I think that a bishop’s identity as a priest is very important for him to keep in mind while exercising his duties as a bishop.

But, in our absurd scenario of the last man alive being elected to serve as Bishop of Rome, perhaps it was unknown to those who elected him that he had already been ordained Bishop because it had been done in secret. At the moment when all of the women were trying to figure out what to do about this situation, he would reveal to all that he had been secretly ordained a bishop by his predecessor, of blessed memory.
 
Last edited:
HomeschoolDad said:
I thought the question here was whether a married man may validly be consecrated a bishop.
Click to expand...
The OP made no mention of validity. And either way, I wasn’t talking about validity.
babochka said:
I have known more than one Bishop who sees his primary identity as that of a priest. In fact, I think that a bishop’s identity as a priest is very important for him to keep in mind while exercising his duties as a bishop.
Click to expand...
A bishop has the fullness of Holy Orders. I’m muting the thread. At this point it’s arguing over a gotcha.
 
Last edited:
Just for the record, there are married converts who are Latin Rite priests as well.
 
There would not be a conclave. There doesn’t have to be. Peter didn’t have one. Fabian was Chosen by a dove. The modern election of the Pope by the cardinals was not always practiced.
 
IdaCatholic said:
Elected. Such a loaded word. And not really accurate.
Click to expand...
How so? Currently, the College of Cardinals comes together in a conclave and, after some time and presumably with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, each Cardinal casts his vote. The process of voting continues until a new bishop of Rome is selected. Do you have a better word for it than “elected”?
 
Last edited:
To be elected there would have to be a choice. If there was only one possible candidate there would be no choice. It would be like standing around at sunset and having an election to see if the sun would go down. Not to mention, there are no real electors. And if the man were not ordained, no one but God would ordain.
 
There were a small number of married Popes even after, the 2nd century (see dochawk’s post further above); however, of these, about half were widowed before becoming Pope (though their children survived). Peter himself was married (no clue how long his wife lived).

But it does beg the question with respect to modern times. Could, for example say a married Ukrainian Catholic or Melkite Catholic priest theoretically be elected Pope? As someone stated further above, in theory, sure they could, but in reality, not likely.
 
If the sufficient number of cardinals choose him over everybody else then he could be elected legitimately as Pope.
 
Good point. They could always vote “no”, I guess. That would make it a referendum rather than an election, though.
 
Yes, a married cleric could be elected the Bishop of Rome.

The likelihood of this occurring is infinitesimal; such that we could say, practically speaking, would never happen.

The original requirement was simply being a baptized male, Pope St. John Paul II later added the additional requirement of possessing at least presbyteral orders.

In the early days of the Church many of the popes were actually deacons when they were elected - so they were ordained priests and bishops immediately - and upon receiving episcopal orders immediately became pope.

Deacon Christopher
 
In theory and through the current rules, yes. Is it LIKELY? Not even remotely, would be my feeling. 🙂
 
BartholomewB said:
On paper, not even that. An adult male baptized Catholic is the only formal requirement. You could be next! Have you decided on a name yet?
Click to expand...
No, I could not be the next pope because I am married. The man elected as pope may not be a bishop or even a cleric at the time of his election but he must become a bishop, i.e. the Bishop of Rome.
 
TomH1 said:
No, I could not be the next pope because I am married.
Click to expand...
Who knows, maybe they’ll make an exception in your case. Just as long as they’re quite convinced that you’re the right man for the job . Don’t give up hope!
 
dochawk said:
No, that isn’t correct.

The bishop of Rome is automatically the pope; it is not a separate office with its own requirements.

The rules for conclaves explicitly provide for the possibility of the election of a non-bishop, and call for his consecration on the spot if he accepts.

Rome is the only episcipol see for which a married man could be chosen and installed; it has its own, detailed, rules instead of those that apply to all of the other sees (and, again, it just ain’t going to happen).
Click to expand...
I am not sure whether what I initially wrote was insufficiently clear or whether I am being misunderstood.

The pope is the Bishop of Rome; therefore, he must be a bishop in the sense that whoever occupies the Chair of Peter is a bishop. That does not mean the one elected to the office must be already a bishop. Of course, a layman can be elected, but he will have to be ordained as a bishop. He cannot be the pope or exercise papal authority until his episcopal consecration.

I have read the current rules for electing a pope. I find nowhere in them the detailed rules regarding the possibility of a married man being elected as Bishop of Rome. Where in Universi Dominici gregis, De electione romani pontificis or Normas nonnullas is this provided for?
 
Not unless a previous Pope of Council allowed for married Bishops. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. Today, of the very few married Bishops in the Catholic Church (they were converts who became married bishops in the schismatic “Old Catholic Church,” none are an ordinary of a diocese. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome and hence their ordinary.
 
I tend to think even while there can be married priests from those who have converted and that’s all fine and good if approved, I think a married bishop would be viewed as scandalous because not everyone would know the back story and it might perpetuate false doctrine.

So whether this could happen or not, I find it extremely unlikely that a validly married priest would be consecrated as a Bishop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top