Eastern Catholic papabili

  • Thread starter Thread starter Crescentinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
godisgood77 said:
Originally Posted by UncleBill
The Bishop of the See of Rome should be a Roman Catholic. Should we make a Roman Catholic Bishop of Antioch?
Click to expand...
Good question. I certainly cannot see any reason why a Roman-Rite bishop need be elected.

In fact, Giovanni Battista Montini (Pope Paul VI) was a Latin Catholic bishop, but not a Roman-Rite bishop. (He was Ambrosian-Rite.)
Click to expand...
 
godisgood77 said:
Do you instead mean a Latin Rite Catholic?
Click to expand...
The Latin Church has many liturgical rites. One of the liturgical rites is the Roman Rite.

Latin (Western) Liturgical Rites

Actively celebrated:
Roman Rite, whose historical forms are usually classified as follows
Pre-Tridentine Mass (the various pre-1570 forms)
Tridentine Mass (1570-1970 and still authorized in circumstances indicated in the document Summorum Pontificum as an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite)
Mass of Paul VI (1970–present)
Anglican Use (restricted to formerly Anglican congregations)
Ambrosian Rite (Milan, Italy and neighbouring areas)
Aquileian Rite (defunct: northeastern Italy)
Rite of Braga (Braga, Portugal)
Mozarabic Rite (Toledo and Salamanca, Spain)

Defunct or rarely celebrated:
Durham Rite (defunct: Durham, England)
Gallican Rite (defunct: Gaul, i.e., France)
Celtic Rite (defunct: British Isles)
Sarum Rite (defunct: England)
Catholic Order Rites (generally defunct)
Benedictine Rite
Carmelite Rite
Carthusian Rite
Cistercian Rite
Dominican Rite
Franciscan Rite
Friars Minor Capuchin Rite
Premonstratensian Rite
Servite Rite
 
Amadeus said:
No, there are only 2 Eastern Patriarchs: the Patriarch of the Copts and the Patriarch of the Maronites.

The other 2 are the Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malabars and the Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malankaras.

All 4 were made Cardinals and, being under 80 years old, are participating in the conclave.

Under Church law, the College of Cardinals has the sole authority to elect the Pope.

So, it is not weird at all that Major Archbishop Shevchuk of the Ukrainians (canonically cannot be referred to as “Patriarch”) is not in Rome for the conclave simply because he has not been made a cardinal. Parenthetically, Major Archbishop Emeritus Lubomyr Cardinal Husar could have represented the Ukrainians in this conclave had he not turn 80 on February 26, 2013, two days before the retirement date of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.)
Click to expand...
Pretty sure there are more than two Patriarchs… The patriarchs of the Eastern Rite Catholic churches are:
The Coptic Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria
The Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and all the East
The Melkite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, of Alexandria, and of Jerusalem
The Maronite Patriarch of Antioch and all the East
The Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon
The Armenian Catholic Catholicos-Patriarch of Cilicia

Patriarchs outrank cardinals. After all Patriarchs are the heads of Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris; they have jurisdiction over their church; and, their immediate “boss” is the Pope. While on the other hand cardinal is just a personal honorary title and confers no jurisdiction. Cardinals have the role of electing the Pope. I do not see why a Patriach would vote to elect that head of the Latin Church.

From another thread awhile back, but I think it says it all…
Ultimately, Eastern Catholic Patriarchs need not be Cardinals as the role of the Cardinalate is to elect a Pope in the first instance. And since the Pope is the head of the Particular Latin Catholic Church - what does that have to do with the EC Churches?

Why should the EC Churches have a hand in electing the head of another Particular Church? We wouldn’t want the Pope to be part of a synod to elect a new patriarch.

The EC Churches recognize the papal primacy as Particular Churches united to him and so to the Latin Church.

EC Patriarchs/Primates should always be treated as heads of Particular Churches and so they rank at the top as such. They should insist on their distinctiveness in this regard and emphasize that Cardinals are a rank within the Latin Church.

That would put an end to the Cardinal/Patriarch precedence issue. As heads of their Particular Churches, EC Patriarchs would be treated as being on a par with the head of the Latin Particular Church, even though he is “first among equals.”

Patriarch Lubomyr, upon his becoming a Cardinal, took off his Cardinal’s ring and placed it in his pocket . .
 
Zekariya said:
The Latin Church has many liturgical rites. One of the liturgical rites is the Roman Rite.

Latin (Western) Liturgical Rites

Actively celebrated:
Roman Rite, whose historical forms are usually classified as follows
Pre-Tridentine Mass (the various pre-1570 forms)
Tridentine Mass (1570-1970 and still authorized in circumstances indicated in the document Summorum Pontificum as an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite)
Mass of Paul VI (1970–present)
Anglican Use (restricted to formerly Anglican congregations)
Ambrosian Rite (Milan, Italy and neighbouring areas)
Aquileian Rite (defunct: northeastern Italy)
Rite of Braga (Braga, Portugal)
Mozarabic Rite (Toledo and Salamanca, Spain)

Defunct or rarely celebrated:
Durham Rite (defunct: Durham, England)
Gallican Rite (defunct: Gaul, i.e., France)
Celtic Rite (defunct: British Isles)
Sarum Rite (defunct: England)
Catholic Order Rites (generally defunct)
Benedictine Rite
Carmelite Rite
Carthusian Rite
Cistercian Rite
Dominican Rite
Franciscan Rite
Friars Minor Capuchin Rite
Premonstratensian Rite
Servite Rite
Click to expand...
Thanks… so saying “from one of the Latin or Western Rites” would be appropriate, yes?
 
godisgood77 said:
Pretty sure there are more than two Patriarchs… The patriarchs of the Eastern Rite Catholic churches are:
The Coptic Catholic Patriarch of Alexandria
The Syrian Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and all the East
The Melkite Catholic Patriarch of Antioch and all the East, of Alexandria, and of Jerusalem
The Maronite Patriarch of Antioch and all the East
The Chaldean Patriarch of Babylon
The Armenian Catholic Catholicos-Patriarch of Cilicia

Patriarchs outrank cardinals. After all Patriarchs are the heads of Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris; they have jurisdiction over their church; and, their immediate “boss” is the Pope. While on the other hand cardinal is just a personal honorary title and confers no jurisdiction. Cardinals have the role of electing the Pope. I do not see why a Patriach would vote to elect that head of the Latin Church.

From another thread awhile back, but I think it says it all…
Ultimately, Eastern Catholic Patriarchs need not be Cardinals as the role of the Cardinalate is to elect a Pope in the first instance. And since the Pope is the head of the Particular Latin Catholic Church - what does that have to do with the EC Churches?

Why should the EC Churches have a hand in electing the head of another Particular Church? We wouldn’t want the Pope to be part of a synod to elect a new patriarch.

The EC Churches recognize the papal primacy as Particular Churches united to him and so to the Latin Church.

EC Patriarchs/Primates should always be treated as heads of Particular Churches and so they rank at the top as such. They should insist on their distinctiveness in this regard and emphasize that Cardinals are a rank within the Latin Church.

That would put an end to the Cardinal/Patriarch precedence issue. As heads of their Particular Churches, EC Patriarchs would be treated as being on a par with the head of the Latin Particular Church, even though he is “first among equals.”

Patriarch Lubomyr, upon his becoming a Cardinal, took off his Cardinal’s ring and placed it in his pocket . .
Click to expand...
I think everyone (or almost everyone) on this board knows that there are 6 Patriarchates from the Eastern Churches (as you enumerated) that are in union with the Church of Rome, to form the Catholic communion of Churches. Unfortunately, the UGCC is not one of them since, canonically,she is still classified as a Major Archbishopric.

The specific question raised was why the absence of Major Archbishop Shevchuk in this conclave? And the answer is simply because he is not a member of the College of Cardinals, which is endowed by current Church law(s) as the sole elector of the Pope.

Why do the Eastern Catholic Churches (i.e., those that have cardinals) participate in the election of the Pope? Because the Pope is the Universal Pastor and Supreme Pontiff of the (universal) Catholic Church.

Needless to say, Cardinal Husar participated in the conclave that elected Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in 2005. If he had the guts, as you seem to imply, he should have recused himself from participating in that conclave or he should have surrendered his Cardinal’s ring then, or do it now, if he finds being a Cardinal is derogatory to his self-esteem or to the UGCC.
 
Zekariya said:
The Latin Church has many liturgical rites. One of the liturgical rites is the Roman Rite.

Latin (Western) Liturgical Rites

Actively celebrated:
Roman Rite, whose historical forms are usually classified as follows
Pre-Tridentine Mass (the various pre-1570 forms)
Tridentine Mass (1570-1970 and still authorized in circumstances indicated in the document Summorum Pontificum as an extraordinary form of the Roman Rite)
Mass of Paul VI (1970–present)
Anglican Use (restricted to formerly Anglican congregations) Rite (Milan, Italy and neighbouring areas)
Aquileian Rite (defunct: northeastern Italy)
Rite of Braga (Braga, Portugal)
Mozarabic Rite (Toledo and Salamanca, Spain)

Defunct or rarely celebrated:
Durham Rite (defunct: Durham, England)
Gallican Rite (defunct: Gaul, i.e., France)
Celtic Rite (defunct: British Isles)
Sarum Rite (defunct: England)
Catholic Order Rites (generally defunct)
Benedictine Rite
Carmelite Rite
Carthusian Rite
Cistercian Rite
Dominican Rite
Franciscan Rite
Friars Minor Capuchin Rite
Premonstratensian Rite
Servite Rite
Click to expand...
Nice list!
 
I changed my information to reflect that I am a convert, a Catholic and one of the Roman Rite (which makes me a part of the Latin Catholic Church, by definition I would say). It is good to be precise, specially at conclave time.

As for the issue of Patriarchs of sui juris churches and the cardinal-ate, I wholly agree with some posters above that it seems obvious the cardinals should basically all come from the Latin Church, although not necessarily be of the Roman Rite. Other than having a seat of honor as being Patriarchs like the bishop of Rome is to the Latin Church, the eastern Patriarchs really appear to have no interest in being considered as future pontiff since they are already Patriarchs. What would be the sense of that? Even so, their participation is a good thing insofar as they may have some insight on what the Roman pontiff’s qualities should be vis-a-vis the other Eastern Rite Churches in communion with the Apostolic See. Or we could have Mitch Pacwa, SJ or someone like him selected, who is bi-ritual and could celebrate masses in different liturgical rites. That would be something.
 
shawnbm said:
Or we could have Mitch Pacwa, SJ or someone like him selected, who is bi-ritual and could celebrate masses in different liturgical rites. That would be something.
Click to expand...
:eek:
You should buy a lottery ticket. How did you know it would be a multi-ritual Jesuit?:clapping:
 
From Byzcath.org:
Patriarch Sviatoslav Shevchuk:
risu.org.ua - "I would first like to say that the newly elected Pope Francis was mentored by one of our priests, Stepan Chmil who is now buried in the basilica of St. Sophia in Rome. Today’s Pope, during his time as a student of the Salesian school, awoke many hours before his classmates to concelebrate at our Divine Liturgy with Fr. Stepan. He knows our Tradition very well, as well as our Liturgy.

The last time I had an opportunity to see him was as I was preparing to leave Argentina for Ukraine. I asked him to bear witness to the process of beatifying Fr. Stepan Chmil, to which, he gladly agreed. The Holy Father very well knows not only of our Church, but also our liturgy, our rites, and our spirituality.

Apart from this, Pope Francis, as archbishop of Buenos Aires, was assigned as ordinary for Eastern Catholics, specifically those who at the time did not have members of their own hierarchy. Our Eparchy in Argentina is, let’s say, suffragan to the Archbishop’s seat of Buenos Aires. In this way, Cardinal Bergoglio, always took care of our Church in Argentina; and as a young bishop, I took my first steps in episcopal ministry under his watchful eyes and help. Because of this, I am positive that the Holy Father will be a great help to our Church, and I expect that great things await our Church with this Pope.

In regards to the personality of the new Holy Father - he is an incredibly modest person. For example, as archbishop of Buenos Aires, he never relied on his own automobile, rather relying on public transportation, always in simple clothing. He mostly stands out in his enormous care for the less-fortunate, visiting the most impoverished neighborhoods. He is a person, I would say, of great pastoral foundation.

As a Jesuit, Pope Francis is an incredibly deep intellectual. I can attest to the fact that his homilies are quite short, sometimes no longer than five or six sentences, but he manages to fill them with such deep meaning, always leaving the faithful in silent contemplation upwards of five-to-seven minutes". (Translation by Julian Hayda)
Click to expand...
 
From a certain point of view, we do indeed have an eastern catholic pope.:eek:👍
 
At this point in time, it seems to me that this thread should be closed. There are, for better or worse, no “papabili” at the moment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top