Y
- Status
D
dcointin
Guest
Is it possible for an Eastern bishop who is also a cardinal to be elected Pope?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Yes
In fact, he doesn’t even have to be a Cardinal, he doesn’t even have to be a Bishop
D
dcointin
Guest
Oh wow I had no idea! So the cardinals can elect anyone they wish, provided of course that he’s a Catholic in good standing?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Yes. The Holy Spirit will inspire the Cardinals to vote whom God has chosen to lead the Church on earth. That person may be a priest, could even be a lay person I believe. Although the likelihood is very low but the Church is open to that possibility. If a non-Bishop is elected Pope, he will be ordained immediately to become a Bishop.
D
dcointin
Guest
It would be very interesting to see an Eastern Catholic become Pope, I can’t imagine the ramifications it might have for both the Sui Uris churches and the ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox. I can’t imagine a stronger signal that Rome embraces Eastern Christianity. 
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I believe the Patriarch would also have to switch to become a Roman Rite Bishop in the process because the Pope also is the Patriarch of the Roman Church (although the title is not used, he still exercises the same power) and the diocesan Bishop of the Diocese of Rome and Metropolitan of Rome and Italy.It would be very interesting to see an Eastern Catholic become Pope, I can’t imagine the ramifications it might have for both the Sui Uris churches and the ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox. I can’t imagine a stronger signal that Rome embraces Eastern Christianity.
Although given who he is the focus would still shift to the Eastern Churches. Besides, while the Pope is the titular head of the Diocese of Rome and the Metropolitan of Rome and Italy, someone in his office is the one who actually performs the duties in his name. The issue now is being the Patriarch of the Roman Church. Because they removed the title from the Pope, I believe the function is now inherent with the Pope and cannot be separated from the Pope. Although still, the Roman Curia under the Pope can fulfill most if not all of that function and the Pope would just sign off.
Its a complicated issue really. The possibility is there but the likelihood is really low at this point.
M
malphono
Guest
Interesting it might be, but I doubt it’s even worth thinking about. Why? 'cuz IMHO it just ain’t gonna happen.It would be very interesting to see an Eastern Catholic become Pope, I can’t imagine the ramifications it might have for both the Sui Uris churches and the ecumenical dialogue with the Orthodox. I can’t imagine a stronger signal that Rome embraces Eastern Christianity.
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
It’s the same with the Orthodox. Any Orthodox, including laymen; and so long as they meet the canonical requirements, can be elected to the episcopacy, including primatial sees.
In Christ
Joe
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Well, some of the early Popes were Greek and Pope Paul VI (and one other) were of the Ambrosian, Milanese Rite (not of the Roman Rite).
Even if an Eastern Catholic were elected Roman Pontiff, he would have to perform most of his liturgical functions in the Latin Rite anyway . . .
Alex
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
True, but still the Eastern Churches would be more in his mind and heart than any of the Popes.
L
Little_Boy_Lost
Guest
Just sharing this from one of the monks from Holy Resurrection Monastery.
**
Reflections on the Synod on the Middle East**
By Hieromonk Maximos
Cardinal Mahony’s speech to this synod has been posted here on the website of St. Andrew’s Russian Greek-Catholic Church. Well worth reading.
I am more and more convinced that we need to stop thinking about the East-West division as a theological issue with practical consequences. It’s far more a practical problem, a canonical problem, although it certainly has theological consequences. This means that the actual experience of churches living together is much more significant than is often acknowledged by a more academic approach to ecumenism. Cardinal Mahony’s intervention is, in fact, an important acknowledgment that living together is not as easy as the standard party line would often have it. (For an example of said “party line” I cite Pope Benedict’s praise of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in his remarks at the opening of the synod. The Vatican stands behind its documents! Don’t get me wrong, there’s much to praise in the CCEO. But it remains only one contribution, and a very imperfect contribution at that, toward resolving the practical problems of living together in a vast and diverse communion of churches.)
Cardinal Mahony points out several issues that simply will not go away, because they arise from the sheer disparity of size, influence and internal circumstances of the various churches that share the same geographical area. How do we handle the fact that one Church has all the schools, and this acts as a magnet drawing families away from their own communities? What about the difference in practice with respect to the Chrismation and Communion of infants? Whose voice speaks for the whole Catholic Communion with respect to relations with other religious groups, including our Jewish and Islamic neighbors? And, of course, the list could be extended to even more significant issues, especially if we project forward to a possible re-union with the Orthodox Churches. Think divorce and remarriage; think contraception; think attitudes to liturgy and asceticism.
This synod may turn out to have been really important for the whole problem of East-West relations, of which the ecumenical outreach to the Orthodox is only one aspect (though, admittedly the most important). The synod drew together the experience of actual, not theoretical, lived communion. And not everything it reveals is pretty. Cardinal Mahony’s speech was great. But some things said by others were, well frankly jaw-dropping. Of course there was plenty to be said about the limited jurisdiction allowed to patriarchs and synods of particular churches, appointment of bishops and the discipline of married clergy. All very relevant. But the most amazing thing that I’ve read was Coptic Catholic Bishop Kyrillos William who actually asked Latin-rite missionaries in his country to refrain from using Arabic in the celebration of the Mass. In other words, stop proselytizing our people! Surely, if this can be held up as a significant issue inside the Catholic Church, it should at least make us ask ourselves to what extent we too easily dismiss this accusation when it is made by Russian Orthodox.
Authentic ecumenism is not about politely trying to change each other’s minds. It is, or it should be, about trying to discover, and then speak, the truth with ever greater precision and depth. Hence, ecumenism is not just something the Church does; it constitutes an aspect of her very being. This is what makes the synod such a significant ecumenical event. It has been a real striving after truth. The fact that the pope and the Roman Church have invited this discussion, and are apparently listening to it with real charity and openness, gives me a great deal of hope. But what will be the practical outcome? That’s the real ecumenical question.
**
Reflections on the Synod on the Middle East**
By Hieromonk Maximos
Cardinal Mahony’s speech to this synod has been posted here on the website of St. Andrew’s Russian Greek-Catholic Church. Well worth reading.
I am more and more convinced that we need to stop thinking about the East-West division as a theological issue with practical consequences. It’s far more a practical problem, a canonical problem, although it certainly has theological consequences. This means that the actual experience of churches living together is much more significant than is often acknowledged by a more academic approach to ecumenism. Cardinal Mahony’s intervention is, in fact, an important acknowledgment that living together is not as easy as the standard party line would often have it. (For an example of said “party line” I cite Pope Benedict’s praise of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches in his remarks at the opening of the synod. The Vatican stands behind its documents! Don’t get me wrong, there’s much to praise in the CCEO. But it remains only one contribution, and a very imperfect contribution at that, toward resolving the practical problems of living together in a vast and diverse communion of churches.)
Cardinal Mahony points out several issues that simply will not go away, because they arise from the sheer disparity of size, influence and internal circumstances of the various churches that share the same geographical area. How do we handle the fact that one Church has all the schools, and this acts as a magnet drawing families away from their own communities? What about the difference in practice with respect to the Chrismation and Communion of infants? Whose voice speaks for the whole Catholic Communion with respect to relations with other religious groups, including our Jewish and Islamic neighbors? And, of course, the list could be extended to even more significant issues, especially if we project forward to a possible re-union with the Orthodox Churches. Think divorce and remarriage; think contraception; think attitudes to liturgy and asceticism.
This synod may turn out to have been really important for the whole problem of East-West relations, of which the ecumenical outreach to the Orthodox is only one aspect (though, admittedly the most important). The synod drew together the experience of actual, not theoretical, lived communion. And not everything it reveals is pretty. Cardinal Mahony’s speech was great. But some things said by others were, well frankly jaw-dropping. Of course there was plenty to be said about the limited jurisdiction allowed to patriarchs and synods of particular churches, appointment of bishops and the discipline of married clergy. All very relevant. But the most amazing thing that I’ve read was Coptic Catholic Bishop Kyrillos William who actually asked Latin-rite missionaries in his country to refrain from using Arabic in the celebration of the Mass. In other words, stop proselytizing our people! Surely, if this can be held up as a significant issue inside the Catholic Church, it should at least make us ask ourselves to what extent we too easily dismiss this accusation when it is made by Russian Orthodox.
Authentic ecumenism is not about politely trying to change each other’s minds. It is, or it should be, about trying to discover, and then speak, the truth with ever greater precision and depth. Hence, ecumenism is not just something the Church does; it constitutes an aspect of her very being. This is what makes the synod such a significant ecumenical event. It has been a real striving after truth. The fact that the pope and the Roman Church have invited this discussion, and are apparently listening to it with real charity and openness, gives me a great deal of hope. But what will be the practical outcome? That’s the real ecumenical question.
M
malphono
Guest
Yes, there were a number of Greek and Syrian Bishops of Rome, but it hasn’t happened in some 12 centuries. For all the talk, I really don’t think it’s going to happen again any time soon. Personally, I don’t much care one way or the other.
As for Paul VI, well …he wasn’t exactly of the Ambrosian Rite. Yes, he had been Archbishop of Milan and therefore was, ex officio, the Capo Rito of the Ambrosian Rite. He assimilated into it quite well, and even as Pope, he was instrumental in preserving it. OTOH, though, he was originally from Piedmont and was ordained in the Roman Rite.
Even though the title “Patriarch of the West” is currently in disuse, it is de facto encompassed in the Bishop of Rome.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I wonder though how bishops change sui juris Church and Rite. Is there any formal process or they just say, “okay, your a Roman Bishop now and Pope”
A
Aramis
Guest
Not really a formal process… Just the appointment to take the appropriate diocese/eparchy, and in a few historic cases (ABp. Elko), being forbidden to practice the rite they originated in.
P
Pakesh
Guest
Hello all!
I have a question and a comment.
I was startled by Archbishop Butros’s statements concerning the Jews and the whole two-state solution. I am not here to debate about Judaism, but my question concerns if this is his opinion, or does it hold authority coming from a Synod? In other words, what level of authority does a synod have in this situation?
Thanks, and God Bless
Pakesh
I have a question and a comment.
I was startled by Archbishop Butros’s statements concerning the Jews and the whole two-state solution. I am not here to debate about Judaism, but my question concerns if this is his opinion, or does it hold authority coming from a Synod? In other words, what level of authority does a synod have in this situation?
Thanks, and God Bless
Pakesh
H
Hesychios
Guest
I think you are referring to this …
“We Christians cannot speak of the ‘promised land’ as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people,” said Archbishop Cyril Bustros, a native of Lebanon who is currently a Melkite Greek Catholic bishop in Newton, Mass.
“This promise was nullified by Christ,” Bustros said at a Vatican press conference marking the end of a two-week session of the Synod of Bishops. “There is no longer a chosen people – all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people.”
I don’t know how official the remarks are, but I agree with the sense of it for the most part.
M
malphono
Guest
Shouldn’t that be Abp Bustros?
M
malphono
Guest
I was also thinking it had to be that statement. Whether it was official or not (whatever “official” means), I don’t know either, but I don’'t think it much matters. From what was actually reported said, I, too, agree in general with the sense in **Christian ** terms, (not in political terms). That said, though, I have a feeling that there may things hidden “between the lines” with which I would not agree (I rarely agree with the Melkites, and even more rarely with the Antiochian Orthodox, but neither has a bearin on this thread).
P
Pakesh
Guest
Thanks for the responses Malphono and Hesychios! I am sorry for misspelling the Archbishop’s name:blush: I was trying to wonder what authoritative weight the statement had behind it, i.e. just an opinion, or a stance of the Catholic Church. But, I see there is a new thread starting on this, so I will head over there. Again, thanks for the replies.
God Bless, Pakesh
God Bless, Pakesh
- Status