Does the Pope need to be a bishop? + 2 more questions

[Aelred_Minor]

In the past the rank of Cardinal was given to even non-ordained men. Theoretically it means a woman can be a Cardinal.

Unless I am quite mistaken this is not really correct, or at least it’s misleading. While some Cardinals had not received Holy Orders, they nevertheless had received at least one of the Minor Orders. They had had first tonsure and so were clerics, not laypeople, though the term “lay cardinal” was sometimes illogically used for them.

A Cardinal is, theoretically, a member of the clergy of Rome, and so I think it is inappropriate to suggest a woman could be made one.

Today there is a rule that says only bishops can be made Cardinals.

This is true, but dispensations can be granted to make non-bishops cardinals, and since both the elevation of a man to Cardinal and the dispensations are the prerogative of the Pope, in practice the Pope can make non-bishops Cardinals whenever he wants. For example, this was the case for the recently deceased American theologian Cardinal Avery Dulles, a priest who was never ordained a bishop.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Unless I am quite mistaken this is not really correct, or at least it’s misleading. While some Cardinals had not received Holy Orders, they nevertheless had received at least one of the Minor Orders. They had had first tonsure and so were clerics, not laypeople, though the term “lay cardinal” was sometimes illogically used for them.

A Cardinal is, theoretically, a member of the clergy of Rome, and so I think it is inappropriate to suggest a woman could be made one.

Then ordaine her a deaconess then.

This is true, but dispensations can be granted to make non-bishops cardinals, and since both the elevation of a man to Cardinal and the dispensations are the prerogative of the Pope, in practice the Pope can make non-bishops Cardinals whenever he wants. For example, this was the case for the recently deceased American theologian Cardinal Avery Dulles, a priest who was never ordained a bishop.

Was he a cardinal before the rule was set? I know it is pretty recent that the rule was set. They didn’t kick out all the non-bishop Cardinals because of the new rule.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Then ordaine her a deaconess then.

Would a deaconess be considered a cleric? It’s hard to imagine them receiving tonsure, though it may be they disappeared before first tonsure and the sharp layman-cleric definition really developed. In any case deaconesses are now ancient history, and more recently the clerical state has been reduced, at least in the mainstream life of the Latin rite Church, to deacons, priests, and bishops. I don’t see a return of the Minor Orders (though I would like this) much less deaconesses (which would be exceedingly imprudent to restore in the current cultural climate) in the foreseeable future.

Was he a cardinal before the rule was set? I know it is pretty recent that the rule was set. They didn’t kick out all the non-bishop Cardinals because of the new rule.

No. The new rule took effect, unless there was an earlier, short-lived rule that preceded it that I don’t know of, with the new Code of Canon Law in 1983. Cardinal Dulles was made a Cardinal in 2001, according to the omniscient internet.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Would a deaconess be considered a cleric? It’s hard to imagine them receiving tonsure, though it may be they disappeared before first tonsure and the sharp layman-cleric definition really developed. In any case deaconesses are now ancient history, and more recently the clerical state has been reduced, at least in the mainstream life of the Latin rite Church, to deacons, priests, and bishops. I don’t see a return of the Minor Orders (though I would like this) much less deaconesses (which would be exceedingly imprudent to restore in the current cultural climate) in the foreseeable future.

Well, we are also unlikely to see laymen as Cardinals. We’re talking hypothetically and applied to the past.

No. The new rule took effect, unless there was an earlier, short-lived rule that preceded it that I don’t know of, with the new Code of Canon Law in 1983. Cardinal Dulles was made a Cardinal in 2001, according to the omniscient internet.

Ah, Google, you know everything!

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Not sure what anti-pope means… Why are they Saints?

I was going to address this before but forgot.

An anti-Pope is someone who falsely claims to be Pope. A more specific definition would be someone invalidly elected Pope by a body that at least has some plausible pretext of legitimacy. Historically the one was usually the other, but some recent people like the so-called Pope Michael claim to be Pope but were never elected at anything resembling a real conclave.

Anyway, St. Hippolytus was the first anti-Pope and the only one to be called a saint. Despite his schism earlier in life he later gave up his claim on the Papacy and was reconciled with the Church, and later was martyred. This explains why he can be venerated in the Catholic Church.

 

[MarkThompson]

Unless I am quite mistaken this is not really correct, or at least it’s misleading. While some Cardinals had not received Holy Orders, they nevertheless had received at least one of the Minor Orders. They had had first tonsure and so were clerics, not laypeople, though the term “lay cardinal” was sometimes illogically used for them.

A Cardinal is, theoretically, a member of the clergy of Rome, and so I think it is inappropriate to suggest a woman could be made one.

Since the cardinalate is purely a human-instituted administrative office within the Church, nothing prevents the Pope from doing, well, just about anything he likes with it. One can of course quibble over whether admitting true laymen or even women to the college would necessarily represent a change in the nature of the institution, whether it would be breaking from the historical tradition that considers them the leaders of the Roman clergy (as it was a historical break from tradition when non-Roman-clergymen were made cardinals), or whether it would just be like having the first woman astronaut or black president. Either way, it is clearly within the power of the Pope, who by the way could just abolish the whole college tomorrow if he felt so inclined.

Was he a cardinal before the rule was set? I know it is pretty recent that the rule was set. They didn’t kick out all the non-bishop Cardinals because of the new rule.

Several of people, mostly Jesuits, have received a waiver of the requirement for episcopal consecration. It’s not that big a deal. I believe the most recent was Cardinal Bartolucci (not a Jesuit) two years ago.

 

[choliks]

Since the cardinalate is purely a human-instituted administrative office within the Church, nothing prevents the Pope from doing, well, just about anything he likes with it. One can of course quibble over whether admitting true laymen or even women to the college would necessarily represent a change in the nature of the institution, whether it would be breaking from the historical tradition that considers them the leaders of the Roman clergy (as it was a historical break from tradition when non-Roman-clergymen were made cardinals), or whether it would just be like having the first woman astronaut or black president. Either way, it is clearly within the power of the Pope, who by the way could just abolish the whole college tomorrow if he felt so inclined.

**
Several of people, mostly Jesuits, ** have received a waiver of the requirement for episcopal consecration. It’s not that big a deal. I believe the most recent was Cardinal Bartolucci (not a Jesuit) two years ago.

Most famous among them were Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ and Cardinal Henri De Lubac, SJ.

 

[Megan7]

Benedict V (964)
John XIII (965-72)
Benedict VI (973-74)
Benedict VII (974-83) Benedict and John XIV were opposed by Boniface VII, antipope (974; 984-985)
John XIV (983-84)
John XV (985-96)
Gregory V (996-99) Opposed by John XVI, antipope (997-998)
Sylvester II (999-1003)
John XVII (1003)
John XVIII (1003-09)
Sergius IV (1009-12)
Benedict VIII (1012-24) Opposed by Gregory, antipope (1012)
John XIX (1024-32)
Benedict IX (1032-45) He appears on this list three separate times, because he was twice deposed and restored
Sylvester III (1045) Considered by some to be an antipope
Benedict IX (1045)
Gregory VI (1045-46)
Clement II (1046-47)
Benedict IX (1047-48)
Damasus II (1048)
St. Leo IX (1049-54)
Victor II (1055-57)
Stephen X (1057-58)
Nicholas II (1058-61) Opposed by Benedict X, antipope (1058)
Alexander II (1061-73) Opposed by Honorius II, antipope (1061-1072)
St. Gregory VII (1073-85) Gregory and the following three popes were opposed by Guibert (“Clement III”), antipope (1080-1100)
Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
Paschal II (1099-1118) Opposed by Theodoric (1100), Aleric (1102) and Maginulf (“Sylvester IV”, 1105-1111), antipopes (1100)
Gelasius II (1118-19) Opposed by Burdin (“Gregory VIII”), antipope (1118)
Callistus II (1119-24)
Honorius II (1124-30) Opposed by Celestine II, antipope (1124)
Innocent II (1130-43) Opposed by Anacletus II (1130-1138) and Gregory Conti (“Victor IV”) (1138), antipopes (1138)
Celestine II (1143-44)
Lucius II (1144-45)
Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
Anastasius IV (1153-54)
Adrian IV (1154-59)
Alexander III (1159-81) Opposed by Octavius (“Victor IV”) (1159-1164), Pascal III (1165-1168), Callistus III (1168-1177) and Innocent III (1178-1180), antipopes
Lucius III (1181-85)
Urban III (1185-87)
Gregory VIII (1187)
Clement III (1187-91)
Celestine III (1191-98)
Innocent III (1198-1216)
Honorius III (1216-27)
Gregory IX (1227-41)
Celestine IV (1241)
Innocent IV (1243-54)
Alexander IV (1254-61)
Urban IV (1261-64)
Clement IV (1265-68)
Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (1276)
Adrian V (1276)
John XXI (1276-77)
Nicholas III (1277-80)
Martin IV (1281-85)
Honorius IV (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (1294)
Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
Clement V (1305-14)
John XXII (1316-34) Opposed by Nicholas V, antipope (1328-1330)
Benedict XII (1334-42)
Clement VI (1342-52)
Innocent VI (1352-62)
Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
Gregory XI (1370-78)
Urban VI (1378-89) Opposed by Robert of Geneva (“Clement VII”), antipope (1378-1394)
Boniface IX (1389-1404) Opposed by Robert of Geneva (“Clement VII”) (1378-1394), Pedro de Luna (“Benedict XIII”) (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa (“John XXIII”) (1400-1415), antipopes
Innocent VII (1404-06) Opposed by Pedro de Luna (“Benedict XIII”) (1394-1417) and Baldassare Cossa (“John XXIII”) (1400-1415), antipopes
Gregory XII (1406-15) Opposed by Pedro de Luna (“Benedict XIII”) (1394-1417), Baldassare Cossa (“John XXIII”) (1400-1415), and Pietro Philarghi (“Alexander V”) (1409-1410), antipopes
Martin V (1417-31)
Eugene IV (1431-47) Opposed by Amadeus of Savoy (“Felix V”), antipope (1439-1449)
Nicholas V (1447-55)
Callistus III (1455-58)
Pius II (1458-64)
Paul II (1464-71)
Sixtus IV (1471-84)
Innocent VIII (1484-92)
Alexander VI (1492-1503)
Pius III (1503)
Julius II (1503-13)
Leo X (1513-21)
Adrian VI (1522-23)
Clement VII (1523-34)
Paul III (1534-49)
Julius III (1550-55)
Marcellus II (1555)
Paul IV (1555-59)
Pius IV (1559-65)
St. Pius V (1566-72)
Gregory XIII (1572-85)
Sixtus V (1585-90)
Urban VII (1590)
Gregory XIV (1590-91)
Innocent IX (1591)
Clement VIII (1592-1605)
Leo XI (1605)
Paul V (1605-21)
Gregory XV (1621-23)
Urban VIII (1623-44)
Innocent X (1644-55)
Alexander VII (1655-67)
Clement IX (1667-69)
Clement X (1670-76)
Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
Alexander VIII (1689-91)
Innocent XII (1691-1700)
Clement XI (1700-21)
Innocent XIII (1721-24)
Benedict XIII (1724-30)
Clement XII (1730-40)
Benedict XIV (1740-58)
Clement XIII (1758-69)
Clement XIV (1769-74)
Pius VI (1775-99)
Pius VII (1800-23)
Leo XII (1823-29)
Pius VIII (1829-30)
Gregory XVI (1831-46)
Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
Leo XIII (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (1903-14)
Benedict XV (1914-22) Biographies of Benedict XV and his successors will be added at a later date
Pius XI (1922-39)
Pius XII (1939-58)
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
John Paul II (1978-2005)
Benedict XVI (2005—)

 

[bilop]

Since JPII, the Pope can only be selected from the College of Cardinals, IIRC.

I don’t think a Pope can bind the future conclave in that way. Just like he can not bind future Popes in matters of discipline. Of course every Pope is bound by doctrine, but that comes from God.

For example, if a Pope were to decree that no married men in any Sui Juris Church could be ordained, ever again, a future Pope could reverse him.

God Bless

 

[MarkThompson]

I don’t think a Pope can bind the future conclave in that way. Just like he can not bind future Popes in matters of discipline. Of course every Pope is bound by doctrine, but that comes from God.

For example, if a Pope were to decree that no married men in any Sui Juris Church could be ordained, ever again, a future Pope could reverse him.

God Bless

In any case, Luigi Daniele did not “R[emember] C[orrectly]”; there is no such provision in the regulations enacted by JPII. Any baptized Catholic male may be elected Pope.

 

[malphono]

I don’t think a Pope can bind the future conclave in that way. Just like he can not bind future Popes in matters of discipline.

Well, yes he can. It’s really the same thing as a matter of discipline. A Pope certainly may set rules for the next Conclave (and obviously this has been done). Now, the new Pontiff elected in that Conclave may change those rules as he chooses (and this has also been done). When a Conclave is summoned, it means there is no reigning Pontiff, so whatever rules may have been established (or left in place) by the last Pontiff stand. IOW, long story short, the rules established by one Pontiff can only be changed by another.

 

[benjohnson]

Any baptized Catholic male may be elected Pope.

That fits history - Leo X wasn’t even an ordained priest before being elected Pope.