Could a married non-Latin Rite priest become Pope?

[steph03]

Technically, yes. In reality, not going to happen. There has been in the past married men elected to the papacy (before they received holy orders). The elected candidate must first be elevated to bishop, then to pope.

In the Eastern rite of the Catholic church, bishops are celibate.

 

[Digitnomy]

I think a married bishop would be viewed as scandalous because not everyone would know the back story and it might perpetuate false doctrine.

Falls doctrine? Can you elaborate?

 

[adamhovey1988]

I believe one of the requirements of becoming Pope is being celibate, which a married priest isn’t

 

[dochawk]

I am not sure whether what I initially wrote was insufficiently clear or whether I am being misunderstood.

It, at the lest, is not clear:

The pope is the Bishop of Rome;

And here is where the problem is: that is exactly backwards. The Pope is not the bishop of Rome, but rather the Bishop of Rom is, among other things, called the “Pope”. There is no such thing as the Pope in its own right, and separate from the nature of the Bishop of Rome.

Where in Universi Dominici gregis , De electione romani pontificis or Normas nonnullas is this provided for?

Noone stated that it was. Rather, the statement was that that see has its own rules, and that the requirement is a baptized male–which includes married baptized males.

No, I could not be the next pope because I am married.

You are facing far larger and more real barriers than that . . .



I think this thread has run its course and is now running in circles . . .

 

[TomH1]

It, at the lest, is not clear:

Nor, I am afraid, is this.

And here is where the problem is: that is exactly backwards. The Pope is not the bishop of Rome, but rather the Bishop of Rom is, among other things, called the “Pope”. There is no such thing as the Pope in its own right, and separate from the nature of the Bishop of Rome.

It appears to me that this is straying in to the realms of becoming pedantic. To clarify for the avoidance of any further doubt. I do know that in conclave the Sacred College of Cardinals elect the Bishop of Rome. By virtue of said office the Bishop of Rome is the Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, the Primate of Italy, the head of the Latin Catholic Church sui iuris (the title Patriarch of the West used to be employed) and the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church. He is called the Pope, which derives from Latin papa and that derived from Greek πάππας (pappas), which is simpler than employing all his titles.

that see has its own rules

Could you please cite them?

You are facing far larger and more real barriers than that . . .

I have no allusions of being elected as the Bishop of Rome. If I were I can assure you that I would most definitely decline.

I think this thread has run its course and is now running in circles . . .

I think it is an interesting subject. Of course, no individual is obliged to participate in the discussion, but I feel it is unnecessary to try to shut it down. All one need do is no longer participate.

 

[Dolphin]

People might think priests and thus bishops can freely marry. They may not realize that this was an extraordinary situation that had Papal approval

 

[babochka]

People might think priests and thus bishops can freely marry. They may not realize that this was an extraordinary situation that had Papal approval

If such an event were to happen, I’m pretty sure people would already have realized that they were living in extraordinary times.

 

[HeDa]

Would the wife of the non-Latin rite priest have to agree that her husband be ordained as a bishop?

 

[dochawk]

Given the whopping total of one see for which that’s even a theoretical possibility . . .

[OK, another exotic exception: in an eastern block country (Romania? Czech?) the church had to go completely underground, and married men were consecrated bishops (single men would have drawn too much scrutiny) so as to ordain more priests. It is my understanding that they set avidetheir eptscipol roles when the church could come back out.

It wouldn’t particularly surprise me if this has been done, or even continues, in red china . . .

 

[AHapka]

They can be. Just because you are married, doesn’t mean you have to have sex.

 

[Michael_Anthony]

Bishops (particularly Eastern Rite ones) don’t have to be unmarried, but they do have to be celibate, so if they are married, they must forego all sexual relations henceforth. Technically all validly baptized Catholic men are eligible for the Papacy, however both of these things have been extreemly rare for several centuries. All but a few Cardinals are Latin Rite, though this is simply a rule, and the Pope could change it if he wished (the exceptions are for example the Patriarch of Antioch). The modern rules for the papal conclave prohibit the few Eastern rite Cardinals from voting, and since it has been many centuries since a Pope who wasn’t already a Cardinal (present at the conclave) was elected, the odds of it happening anytime soon is unlikely.

 

[babochka]

Bishops (particularly Eastern Rite ones) don’t have to be unmarried, but they do have to be celibate, so if they are married, they must forego all sexual relations henceforth.

The Church defines celibacy as “the state of being unmarried”. Bishops in both the East and the West must, under current (and ancient) discipline, be both celibate and chaste.

 

[RandomGuy]

I thought any baptized Catholic man over the age of 18 can be Pope? This is how we used to get laymen selected as Popes.

 

[Salibi]

That is no longer the case. I believe it was Pope John Paul II who changed that.

 

[HeDa]

It hasn’t been changed. I have shortened the text.

Canon 332 if the one chosen is already ordained as a bishop, he is the pope from the moment he accepts it. If not ordained, he is ordained a bishop immediately.

Canon 1024 states that “A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.” (Both single and married men.)

 

[Salibi]

Oh, a misunderstanding on my part then.

@RandomGuy Apologies for the faulty information.

 

[dochawk]

Bishops (particularly Eastern Rite ones) don’t have to be unmarried,

Yes, they do–either single or widowed.

This has been the case, both east and west, since the second century.

Eastern priests can be married before ordination, and, no, they do not have to generally refrain from relations with their wives, although there are certain fasting periods.

 

[dochawk]

he elected candidate must first be elevated to bishop, then to pope.

NoooOOOOOOO!!!

Just, no.

The Bishop of Rome is NOT “elevated” to pope.

Bishops do not exist without sees.

I cannot imagine the the elected man would be consecrated to any other see than Rome–and once he were consecrated as that bishop, he would inherently be the pope.

 

[TomH1]

The modern rules for the papal conclave prohibit the few Eastern rite Cardinals from voting

Could you please cite the relevant rule?

 

[TomH1]

That is no longer the case. I believe it was Pope John Paul II who changed that.

In which document did Pope St John Paul II decree this?