D
drno
Guest
I was wondering, can an eastern catholic bishop become a cardinal? Are there any cardinals in eastern catholic churches? If so, can they be elected pope?
Thanks!
Thanks!
- Status
F
Formosus
Guest
Yes there are lot of Cardinals that are Eastern Catholic. Patriarch Husar, Patriach Narsellah, Patriach Delly are all Eastern Catholic Cardinals. Those are only the ones I know off the top of my head.
Theoretically an Eastern Cardinal could become Pope, but I am not sure if it would be prudent unless one separated head of the Latin church from the papacy.
Theoretically an Eastern Cardinal could become Pope, but I am not sure if it would be prudent unless one separated head of the Latin church from the papacy.
S
scapularkid8
Guest
Eastern cardinals/bishops have been Pope! See Pope St. Agatho
F
Formosus
Guest
They have in the past I know. I ment today where generally if one is an Eastern Cardinal, then he is also already head of his respective sui irus church.
A
Amadeus
Guest
In a conclave, each one of the Cardinals, voting and non-voting, is eligible to be elected as the next Pope.
Whether a Cardinal is electable is another question. Electability sometimes depends on the number of “support” from the electors.
Of the 192 living Cardinals as of today, 20 October 2008, there are only 6 Eastern Catholic Cardinals thus far:
Cardinal Sfeir, 88, Patriarch of the Maronites;
Cardinal Ghattas, 88, Patriarch Emeritus of the Copts;
Cardinal Daoud, 78, Patriarch Emeritus of the Syrians;
Cardinal Delly, 81, Patriarch of the Chaldeans;
Cardinal Husar, 75, Major Archbishop of the UGCC; and
Cardinal Vithayathil, 81, Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabars.
Only 2, Cardinal Husar of the UGCC and Cardinal Daoud of the Syrians, are under 80 and can vote if a conclave is held today.
Latin Cardinal-electors number 114.
Whether a Cardinal is electable is another question. Electability sometimes depends on the number of “support” from the electors.
Of the 192 living Cardinals as of today, 20 October 2008, there are only 6 Eastern Catholic Cardinals thus far:
Cardinal Sfeir, 88, Patriarch of the Maronites;
Cardinal Ghattas, 88, Patriarch Emeritus of the Copts;
Cardinal Daoud, 78, Patriarch Emeritus of the Syrians;
Cardinal Delly, 81, Patriarch of the Chaldeans;
Cardinal Husar, 75, Major Archbishop of the UGCC; and
Cardinal Vithayathil, 81, Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabars.
Only 2, Cardinal Husar of the UGCC and Cardinal Daoud of the Syrians, are under 80 and can vote if a conclave is held today.
Latin Cardinal-electors number 114.
M
malphono
Guest
In theory, yes. In practical terms, it’s not very likely that any Eastern bishop who was named a Cardinal (I cannot bring myself to use the expression “Eastern Cardinal” since the dignity of Cardinal is itself purely Western) would be elected Pope.
Either way, though, I’m not sure that it wouldn’t be a “prudent” choice: if the person is called by the Holy Ghost (or, if one prefers, the Holy Spirit), what would make it “imprudent” to elect that person?
To echo post #12 in the thread Do Melkites and other EC Reject Latin Views of the Papacy?, the Pope wears “3 hats” (so-to-speak):
- Vicar of St Peter
- Patriarch of the West
- Bishop of Rome
So, if an Eastern bishop were elected, theoretically there should be no reason that he could not appoint a “Vicar for the West” to tend to those matters that concern only the Western Church. Hat #1 trumps hat #2 anyway, so the Pope would still be “in charge” of everything.
Of course all of this is academic, but I find it interesting to muse on nonetheless.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
Note that Pope Benedict recently abolished the title Patriarch of the West.
M
malphono
Guest
Rather like QEII having eliminated “King of France” from the royal titles a few years back. But in this case, I must say I missed it. Could you cite a source?
Thanks.
A
Amadeus
Guest
First and foremost, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome!
All the offices and titles held by the Pope are derived from his being the Bishop of Rome or, as referred to alternately, being the Roman Pontiff.
Thus, the Pope is the Vicar of Christ (not of St. Peter) because he is the successor of St. Peter, whom Christ appointed as His first vicar.
Pope Benedict XVI recently dropped the title “Patriarch of the West,” although the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, remains one of the five ancient patriarchs of the unidivided Church.
The specific reason why an Eastern Catholic Cardinal, or Bishop, can be elected, and reign, as Pope is because the Bishop of Rome becomes also the Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, i.e., East and West.
S
scapularkid8
Guest
What ramifications does this hold and what was his purpose or goal of doing so?
(I will gladly start another thread is the OP feels this is off topic to this discussion:thumbsup: )
B
bilop
Guest
Just wanted to qualify this. Elligibility is not limited to Cardinals, although only Cardinals have been elected for many, many years.
But, theoretically, the College cold elect any Catholic male as Pontiff. Practically, he would have to be unmarried, b/c he would need to be ordained as Bishop of Rome.
However, given the extraordinary situation of feeling called to elect a married layman, deacon, or priest, I guess the Cardinals could dispense with the rule of no married Bishops.
God Bless
A
Aramis
Guest
Considering that there have been married bishops in the past, it’s not out of the question. It’s ludicrously unlikely to happen, but still possible.
S
scapularkid8
Guest
The Spirit moves in very mysterious ways
I’m reminded of the Pentecost song " Spirit move when You Will, how You Will, where You Will."
A
Amadeus
Guest
The OP 's question referred only to the eligiblity of Eastern Bishops/Cardinals for election as Pope.
Of course, the laws governing the election of the Pope consider a wider “universe” of eligibility, which, theoretically, includes all unmarried Catholic males 18 years and above.
Unmarried because the Pope, upon his election, must be consecrated first a Bishop, if he is not already a Bishop, before he can assume the office of Pope. Under current East and West canons, Bishops are unmarried and celibate.
A reading of the laws governing the election of the Pope, specifically the latest, Universi Dominici Gregis, the “lower” limit of eligibility can be argued to include an ordained but unmarried priest because of the requirement that an elected Pope must be immediately ordained a Bishop before he can assume the office. If we follow the canonical provisions, a deacon should not be eligible because of the transition period preceding priestly ordination. This, in effect, also removes the eligibility of any Catholic male layman.
Historically speaking, however, the next Pope will be a Cardinal. Whether such a Cardinal will be Eastern or Latin remains to be seen.
M
malphono
Guest
Thank you for your insight.
Yes, I fully understand that all subsequent titles derive from "Bishop of Rome, as well as the fact that Rome is one of the ancient patriarchal sees. So no problem there. I have to confess that I mis-typed (and didn’t catch it in the edit) "Vicar of St Peter: I meant to say “Successor of St Peter”.
As I said in post #8 in this thread, I have not seen the abrogation of the title “Patriarch of the West” but even so, it really doesn’t mean much since that title was merely an extension of the Episcopal See of Rome.
On the other hand, I am not all that thrilled with the title “Pontifex Maximus” due to it’s purely Western (and pre-christian at that) derivation. But I will agree that an Eastern bishop could be elected and reign as “Successor to St Peter.” The rest of my musings are still the same.
B
bilop
Guest
Oh, good. Then I’m still elligible to be Pope
T
twf
Guest
Amadeus
I would also like to add that there were never 5 patriarchs in the “undivided Church”. This is a very common claim, but it could be offensive to our Oriental brothers. When the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Church separated, during the Council of Chalcedon in the 5th century, I believe that the Universal Church only recognized Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Constantinople and Jerusalem were both later recognized by the Latin and Byzantine Churches, but never by the “undivided Church”.
I would add that in practice the Pope continues to operate as the “patriarch” or head of the Latin Church sui iuris. In fact, the vast majority of his legal decisions/decrees, at any rate, are made in this capacity. Many of his homilies/audiences also concern particularly Latin issues. I understand that the Holy Father dropped the title “Patriarch of the West” simply because the term “the West” is no long accurate for the Latin Church. The Latin Church today spans the entire globe and a multitude of cultures with a wide spectrum of local traditions and customs. It is truly a “global” lung of the Catholic Church. When most Latin Catholics are not, by any modern definition, “Western”, why should we cling to this archaic Roman Imperial terminology? You will never hear Latin clerics at the Vatican refer to the “Western Church” anymore. If anything, the Pope is Patriarch of the Latins.
I would also like to add that there were never 5 patriarchs in the “undivided Church”. This is a very common claim, but it could be offensive to our Oriental brothers. When the Oriental Orthodox and the Catholic Church separated, during the Council of Chalcedon in the 5th century, I believe that the Universal Church only recognized Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. Constantinople and Jerusalem were both later recognized by the Latin and Byzantine Churches, but never by the “undivided Church”.
M
malphono
Guest
If memory serves, (and it may not at this stage of life), I think Constantinople was established as a Patriarchate in 451 at Chalcedon. I seem to think Jerusalem was too, but that"s less important since Jersusalem’s star had by then already faded in practical terms.
T
twf
Guest
That doesn’t matter. The point is that the Orientals REJECTED Chalcedon. The undivided Church thus never had 5 patriarchs. The council fathers did attempt to elevate Constantinople, but Rome refused to recognize its status until much later.
F
Formosus
Guest
That is my whole point though. Even if the other two hats are something that an Eastern Catholic Pope could perform (and with flying colors I am sure : P ) it would not really make sense to have an Eastern Catholic being the Patriarch of the Latin Church. I would imagine that the title would have to be delegated off in some fashion if an Eastern Catholic were elected to the Papacy.
- Status