Eastern Catholics and papal elections

[twf]

I understand your point, especially since the college of Cardinals was something of a restriction of the voting members of the local synod to a smaller select group (which makes some sense when the local church is growing). But then the naming or foreigners to the college was something of a sea change in ecclesiological thinking.

One can’t be a member of two synods at the same time. It can be argued (I’m not asserting this at present, but I am suggesting the possibility) that it is as wrong as holding multiple Sees.

I can see your reasoning. I think in the end the decision should be with the Eastern primates…

In terms of the Latin synod - can you imagine the politics (let’s be realistic here) and logistics of trying to get all 2000+ ordinaries of the Latin Church to participate in papal elections? Or if you want to include all bishops of the Latin Church you’re going to be pushing 4000… restricting it to the cardinals, who in theory as the senior bishops represent their brethren, seems to make sense.

 

[Cavaradossi]

If the Pope will have any type of authority and influence over the Eastern Churches, then surely the Eastern Patriarchs/Major Archbishops should have a vote in.

But that wasn’t how it happened in the Church in the first millennium. Popes were elected and the patriarchs of the East had no say (other than entering into administrative schism, which did occur occasionally). To say it should be that way is an admission that the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church has changed.

 

[Hesychios]

I can see your reasoning. I think in the end the decision should be with the Eastern primates…

In terms of the Latin synod - can you imagine the politics (let’s be realistic here) and logistics of trying to get all 2000+ ordinaries of the Latin Church to participate in papal elections? Or if you want to include all bishops of the Latin Church you’re going to be pushing 4000… restricting it to the cardinals, who in theory as the senior bishops represent their brethren, seems to make sense.

I agree with your reasoning about using a ‘college’ for the election, especially for a case such as you describe.

Cardinal derives from ‘hinge’, and anyone the bishop depends upon might be referred to in that way, these men were considered the key figures in the local church so I can see why the ‘vote’ would be restricted to them eventually. The term Cardinal as applied to churchmen is much older than the college of electors itself.

However, just so you understand where I am coming from, the proper synod for Rome is the city plus Suburbicarian Italy, not the entire western collection of churches.

If you see that there are some Eastern Catholic prelates who hold a similar position as I have expressed, you can see that there is something to the concerns. But anyway, this is a matter for Roman Catholics and the various Eastern Catholics to sort out for themselves, I have shared my opinion and now am going to bow out of the discussion.

 

[Hesychios]

If the Pope will have any type of authority and influence over the Eastern Churches, then surely the Eastern Patriarchs/Major Archbishops should have a vote in.

I agree with Cavaradossi’s comment.

 

[Hesychios]

I can see your reasoning. I think in the end the decision should be with the Eastern primates…

In terms of the Latin synod - can you imagine the politics (let’s be realistic here) and logistics of trying to get all 2000+ ordinaries of the Latin Church to participate in papal elections? Or if you want to include all bishops of the Latin Church you’re going to be pushing 4000… restricting it to the cardinals, who in theory as the senior bishops represent their brethren, seems to make sense.

I agree with your reasoning about using a ‘college’ for the election, especially for a case such as you describe.

However, just so you understand where I am coming from, the proper synod for Rome is the city plus Suburbicarian Italy, not the entire western collection of churches.

If one see that there are some Eastern Catholic prelates who hold a similar position as I have expressed, you can see that there must be something to the ecclesiological concerns beyond the ranting of a few Orthodox.

 

[sasg]

But that wasn’t how it happened in the Church in the first millennium. Popes were elected and the patriarchs of the East had no say (other than entering into administrative schism, which did occur occasionally). To say it should be that way is an admission that the ecclesiology of the Catholic Church has changed.

I don’t think it matters how it happened in the first millennium; the Roman Church must have authority to decide how to elect its own head. And the Church must have the ability to change that method of election as circumstances require. The western church today is a lot different from the church of the first millennium and especially of the first few centuries.

I don’t think any eastern Patriarchs or Bishops have a right to participate in Papal elections by virtue of their being in communion with him–since the Primacy is not conditional on any method of election. But if the Roman Church decides that, for spiritual, practical, or other reasons, it would better serve the electoral process and the entire Catholic Church to include Eastern Catholics in the process, that would seem to be within its authority.

 

[Vico]

I don’t think it matters how it happened in the first millennium; the Roman Church must have authority to decide how to elect its own head. And the Church must have the ability to change that method of election as circumstances require. The western church today is a lot different from the church of the first millennium and especially of the first few centuries.

I don’t think any eastern Patriarchs or Bishops have a right to participate in Papal elections by virtue of their being in communion with him–since the Primacy is not conditional on any method of election. But if the Roman Church decides that, for spiritual, practical, or other reasons, it would better serve the electoral process and the entire Catholic Church to include Eastern Catholics in the process, that would seem to be within its authority.

An important note is that The Roman Curia is not exclusively Latin; some Dicastries are compenent for the easten Catholic Churches and some for the Latin Cathoic Church, and some for both.

 

[Diakonia]

the cardinals, who in theory as the senior bishops represent their brethren, seems to make sense.

It may but not for that reason… ‘Cardinal’ is an honorific - it is not a seniority of episcopacy; in fact, some few Cardinals are not bishops.

 

[Formosus]

I too agree that we need to get out of the business of electing the Roman church’s head. Or at the very least, the Patriarchal churches (and “Major Archepiscopal”) ones should. Our Synod can request communion with the new Bishop of Rome upon his election, there is no need for us to pick who he is.

Likewise, the Congregation for Eastern Churches should be abolished and Rome should give us full autonomy (perhaps its too much to ask to be considered autocephalus churches ). We are united with the Pope, we recognize his primacy but we are our own churches and should be considered as such.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I don’t think it matters how it happened in the first millennium; the Roman Church must have authority to decide how to elect its own head. And the Church must have the ability to change that method of election as circumstances require. The western church today is a lot different from the church of the first millennium and especially of the first few centuries.

I don’t think any eastern Patriarchs or Bishops have a right to participate in Papal elections by virtue of their being in communion with him–since the Primacy is not conditional on any method of election. But if the Roman Church decides that, for spiritual, practical, or other reasons, it would better serve the electoral process and the entire Catholic Church to include Eastern Catholics in the process, that would seem to be within its authority.

I just don’t know if I can agree. I think the idea that somebody outside of a particular metropolis, archdiocese or patriarchate voting on the internal affairs of that synod (i.e., voting for the primate) would be an unthinkable structure to the Church Fathers. Either we must admit that they were in error for not having the election of the pope draw votes from the Church universal, or we must admit that the present relationship of the Latin Church to the united Eastern Churches within the Catholic fold is different from how the patriarchates related to the Latin Church back in the first millennium (I’m sure some of the Eastern Catholics here might agree with the second statement).

That is the crux of the issue here. The primates of the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches are given titles like patriarch, yet they do not seem to actually have the status of a fully autocephalous patriarchate within the Catholic Church, hence why some Eastern prelates might have found the idea of becoming a cardinal inappropriate (as mentioned earlier in this thread). I just cannot see how the idea of the Eastern Catholic Churches being Churches of equal dignity to the Latin Church within the modern Catholic Church (as a holistic entity) is compatible with the idea of Eastern bishops being able to vote for the Pope.

 

[sasg]

I just don’t know if I can agree. I think the idea that somebody outside of a particular metropolis, archdiocese or patriarchate voting on the internal affairs of that synod (i.e., voting for the primate) would be an unthinkable structure to the Church Fathers. Either we must admit that they were in error for not having the election of the pope draw votes from the Church universal, or we must admit that the present relationship of the Latin Church to the united Eastern Churches within the Catholic fold is different from how the patriarchates related to the Latin Church back in the first millennium (I’m sure some of the Eastern Catholics here might agree with the second statement).

That is the crux of the issue here. The primates of the autonomous Eastern Catholic Churches are given titles like patriarch, yet they do not seem to actually have the status of a fully autocephalous patriarchate within the Catholic Church, hence why some Eastern prelates might have found the idea of becoming a cardinal inappropriate (as mentioned earlier in this thread). I just cannot see how the idea of the Eastern Catholic Churches being Churches of equal dignity to the Latin Church within the modern Catholic Church (as a holistic entity) is compatible with the idea of Eastern bishops being able to vote for the Pope.

I guess I don’t understand why the Roman Church asking for advice from a Patriarch on whom to elect Pope would undermine the dignity of either Church. If anything I could understand the impression that the dignity of the Roman Church is being reduced because people may assume that the Patriarch’s (name removed by moderator)ut is required to legitimize a Papal election (which I think we both agree it is not), but this is merely a matter of impression/misunderstanding, not a real diminution of dignity.