Pope Francis set to name new cardinals to reflect his vision of the Catholic Church

[canis73]

Within the US, it seems both Baltimore and Detroit archbishops are strong candidates. Same for Montreal and Quebec, in Canada.

blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2014/01/07/pope-francis-set-to-name-new-cardinals-to-reflect-his-vision-of-the-catholic-church/

This link is to an argentinean newspaper (the one the Pope still reads on a daily basis). It´s in spanish but I wanted to post it since it is where I found the info on the possible candidates.

lanacion.com.ar/1654726-el-papa-designara-a-sus-primeros-cardenales

 

[robwar]

I would love to Archbishop Vigeron become Cardinal, he is a wonderful Bishop and thanks for sharing!

 

[YoungTradCath]

I figured Detroit was struck from the list of Cardinalatial Sees finally, since the Church is doing so poorly there (I think). IE, St. Louis 2.0.

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[janeway529]

I think smart money would probably bet Archbishop Jose Palma of Cebu, Philippines being a possible candidate, since Philippines only has one cardinal elector since the two previous cardinals are both already over 80.

 

[Brendan]

I figured Detroit was struck from the list of Cardinalatial Sees finally, since the Church is doing so poorly there (I think). IE, St. Louis 2.0.

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.

I would say that we are doing as well here, Church wise, as we have under the other Cardinals. Probably more so if you look at vocations.

Just because the City is bankrupt doesn’t mean that the Church here is in a bad state.

 

[canis73]

I think smart money would probably bet Archbishop Jose Palma of Cebu, Philippines being a possible candidate, since Philippines only has one cardinal elector since the two previous cardinals are both already over 80.

I agree. I would also like to see a chinese cardinal, given the challenges the Church faces in that country, but that would involve some serious diplomacy. I don´t think there´s one at the moment. Am I wrong?

 

[robwar]

I figured Detroit was struck from the list of Cardinalatial Sees finally, since the Church is doing so poorly there (I think). IE, St. Louis 2.0.

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.

You are totaly wrong. Detroit currently doesn’t have a because the previous one retired. Detroit being a major archdioces has always had one. Archbishop Vigeron has only been there since Cardinal Maida retired in 2009. Sacred Heart Major Seminary is doing very well. You don’t live here and don’t know what is even going on so please don’t make these ignorant statements about a locality you know nothing about.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

I figured Detroit was struck from the list of Cardinalatial Sees finally, since the Church is doing so poorly there (I think). IE, St. Louis 2.0.

Somebody correct me if I’m wrong.

Well, you’ve received strong objections to Detroit, now let me voice some strong objections to you dumping on St. Louis. What exactly is bad about the Church in St. Louis? It was my understanding that the Church is doing very well there. I’ve heard from people who live there, on this forum call St. Louis the “American Rome”. Or something to that effect anyways.

So… do explain yourself. I’m listening.

Also, while we’re on the subject, I must offer my highest praise to His Eminence, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke. Now there is a soldier for Christ, and no mistake.

 

[YoungTradCath]

You are totaly wrong. Detroit currently doesn’t have a because the previous one retired. Detroit being a major archdioces has always had one. Archbishop Vigeron has only been there since Cardinal Maida retired in 2009. Sacred Heart Major Seminary is doing very well. You don’t live here and don’t know what is even going on so please don’t make these ignorant statements about a locality you know nothing about.

Well okay then, I thought I had made it crystal clear that I could be wrong. There are two clear and unambiguous instances of disclaimer in my post, I figured that was more than enough.

My comments about doing poorly are informed about what I know about parish closings and restructurings in Detroit. I’m sorry if there were other interpretations and I just want to make it clear that that is what I mean.

Well, you’ve received strong objections to Detroit, now let me voice some strong objections to you dumping on St. Louis. What exactly is bad about the Church in St. Louis? It was my understanding that the Church is doing very well there. I’ve heard from people who live there, on this forum call St. Louis the “American Rome”. Or something to that effect anyways.

So… do explain yourself. I’m listening.

Also, while we’re on the subject, I must offer my highest praise to His Eminence, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke. Now there is a soldier for Christ, and no mistake.

I’m not dumping on anything, and I don’t think there’s anything “bad” about the Archdiocese of St. Louis; my statements have nothing to do with “good” or “bad.” However, it was once and is no longer a Cardinalatial See. These things shift around. St. Louis once had cardinals, and does no longer. Now, Galveston-Houston has their first cardinal ever. I was under the impression that this followed the fault lines of growth of the various dioceses in the US.

I stand by what I say. Archdioceses honored with cardinal archbishops change. St. Louis once had them, but not anymore (since 1979). I speculated that Detroit might be the same–ie Cardinal Maida the last cardinal archbishop of Detroit–and I think this is (generally) tied to the major centers of growth of the Church in the US. But again, maybe Abp. Vigneron will become a cardinal. Great! All the better. I don’t see what is bad about speculating on that. It makes no value judgements at all, unless these are inferred. I hereby declare that that should not be inferred from my posts here.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

I’m not dumping on anything, and I don’t think there’s anything “bad” about the Archdiocese of St. Louis; my statements have nothing to do with “good” or “bad.” However, it was once and is no longer a Cardinalatial See. These things shift around. St. Louis once had cardinals, and does no longer. Now, Galveston-Houston has their first cardinal ever. I was under the impression that this followed the fault lines of growth of the various dioceses in the US.

I stand by what I say. Archdioceses honored with cardinal archbishops change. St. Louis once had them, but not anymore (since 1979). I speculated that Detroit might be the same–ie Cardinal Maida the last cardinal archbishop of Detroit–and I think this is (generally) tied to the major centers of growth of the Church in the US. But again, maybe Abp. Vigneron will become a cardinal. Great! All the better. I don’t see what is bad about speculating on that. It makes no value judgements at all, unless these are inferred. I hereby declare that that should not be inferred from my posts here.

Very well. I didn’t know what you meant by “[St. Louis 2.0]”, but using that to describe Detroit certainly had negative implications for what I thought you meant.

I’m sorry I made those implications.

I’m also really at a loss for these “Cardinaliate Sees”… I mean, St. Louis has His Eminence, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke… just because he’s in the Curia and not assigned as the Archbishop doesn’t mean that in Rome’s eyes, or in St. Louis’ eyes, that St. Louis doesn’t have a Cardinal.

I mean, we’re not Italy over here. If an American prelate gets into the Curia, that doesn’t mean they cease being American, or representing where they’re from. Most of the articles I’ve read about His Eminence, Leo Raymond Cardinal Burke have mentioned that he’s from St. Louis.

 

[RC_Sojourner]

Anyways, my only contribution to the speculation of a mere consistory (as opposed to a conclave), is this: catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/12/17/archbishop-nichols-appointed-to-congregation-for-bishops/

Because Archbishop Vincent Nichols has been appointed to the Congregation for Bishops, many Vatican observers are saying that he is now a shoe in to be made a Cardinal.

Of course, if you know anything about the Archbishop… [The Archbishop of LONDON, that is…], you’ll know that Pope Emeritus Benedict never promoted him to be a Cardinal, and many people often mentioned that, in articles I read about him.

Anyways, just google “Soho Masses”. There used to be this pro-gay Masses said in Soho… wherever that is in London. And, Archbishop Vincent Nichols finally put a stop to it after decades. It was widely seen as the Vatican forcing his hand. IE: He wanted to be Cardinal, and the Vatican said: close those Soho Masses or it will never happen… and he did.

Now don’t go jumping on my case… this whole thread is speculation. So, there you have mine.
[And I am glad, obviously that the Soho Masses are dead… but I don’t think Archbishop Nichols was behind it, I think the Vatican told him to, and he listened].

 

[robwar]

Well okay then, I thought I had made it crystal clear that I could be wrong. There are two clear and unambiguous instances of disclaimer in my post, I figured that was more than enough.

My comments about doing poorly are informed about what I know about parish closings and restructurings in Detroit. I’m sorry if there were other interpretations and

I stand by what I say. Archdioceses honored with cardinal archbishops change. St. Louis once had them, but not anymore (since 1979). I speculated that Detroit might be the same–ie Cardinal Maida the last cardinal archbishop of Detroit–and I think this is (generally) tied to the major centers of growth of the Church in the US. But again, maybe Abp. Vigneron will become a cardinal. Great! All the better. I don’t see what is bad about speculating on that. It makes no value judgements at all, unless these are inferred. I hereby declare that that should not be inferred from my posts here.

For one thing, the more recent restructuring, clustering of churches in the Archdioces of Detroit were more in the older subdivisions of Detroit, and very few of them were actually in the city since that had already been done. The archdiocese covers a hugh area in southeast Michigan which includes 7 counties and a majority of the Catholics living in MI.
Others areas of the country have had restructuring and clustering of their churches and they have mostly happen again in older cities where the population has shifted and Catholic families moved out more north or west. The areas that have had in general populations growth, those Catholic Churches have done quite well. My suggestion to you is that if you really don’t know or don’t live in an area then don’t make statements even if you qualify them because they are offensive and inaccurate.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Very well. I didn’t know what you meant by “[St. Louis 2.0]”, but using that to describe Detroit certainly had negative implications for what I thought you meant.

I’m sorry I made those implications.

I’m also really at a loss for these “Cardinaliate Sees”… I mean, St. Louis has His Eminence, Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke… just because he’s in the Curia and not assigned as the Archbishop doesn’t mean that in Rome’s eyes, or in St. Louis’ eyes, that St. Louis doesn’t have a Cardinal.

I mean, we’re not Italy over here. If an American prelate gets into the Curia, that doesn’t mean they cease being American, or representing where they’re from. Most of the articles I’ve read about His Eminence, Leo Raymond Cardinal Burke have mentioned that he’s from St. Louis.

A cardinalatial See is just a diocese whose bishop is a cardinal. St. Louis’s archbishops were, for several decades, all made cardinals, but that archdiocese hasn’t had cardinal archbishops now since 1979. Usually, most dioceses whose bishops become cardinals, it’s a sort of matter of course kind of thing… until it isn’t.

So nobody is surprised when the archbishop of New York becomes a cardinal. Or the abps. of Chicago, Los Angeles, Cologne, Paris, etc.

Many dioceses have had almost non-interrupted lines of cardinal archbishops for centuries.

But every once in a while, for whatever reason, a diocese loses that status. St. Louis once had cardinal archbishops, but they haven’t had one in 35-ish years now. That happens sometimes. For probably whatever reason, popes just stop making the bishops of some dioceses that had been cardinals, cardinals. (Ugh grammar!)

 

[davidc2]

The actual list is now available in a new thread