Questions about the Consistory and Can Non-Latin rite Cardinals become Pope?

[Micael]

While watching the Consitory of Newly Created Cardinals on EWTN this AM I made a couple of observations for which I was intregued why Raymond Arroyo or his guest made no commentary:

Why do some cardinals not wear the red robe as well as a slightly different red hat. (are they Eastern Catholics?) And btw can non-roman rite cardinals become Pope… has there ever been a non-Roman rite Pope?

Also, there were some Bishops that appear in typical Orthodox dress (all beared in black from head to foot). Were they visiting invitees. And is this a further signal of closer relations with the Orthodox separated brethren.

Thank you very much,

Micael

 

[JB]

Micael:

… has there ever been a non-Roman rite Pope?..

Well, Peter and his immediate successors were Bishops of Rome, so by definition whatever Rite the were practicing could be spoken of as being the Roman Rite, i.e., the Rite that was practiced in Rome at that time. It should be kept in mind, however, that forms may not have permanently set, either in Rome or elsewhere, for some time though, making the distinction between the Roman Rite and Eastern Rites (or Northern, Southern, or other Western Rites) a non-issue for some time. Centuries, perhaps.

 

[Micael]

“making the distinction between the Roman Rite and Eastern Rites (or Northern, Southern, or other Western Rites) a non-issue for some time. Centuries, perhaps.”

JB,

I’m not sure you understood what I was taliking about. Norther/Southern rite? What’s that? Also, you mean to tell me that you think rites are a non-issue?? I believe you are not very well informed on the issue. That is the precise part of the problem that created the schism of 1054 when the “Greeks” (Orthodox) left the Church. Actually , I believe Pope Benedict just recently rid the papacy from the title of patriarch of the West (or something like that) which had been a Papal title for 1300 years. This in the name of eccumenism between East and West.

Trust me its certainly not a “non-issue” for even among those in the East which are in Communion with Rome I am sure they are very proud of their histories an particular anticient ritual related froms of worship.

 

[JB]

Micael:

…I’m not sure you understood what I was taliking about…

You were asking if there had ever been a non-Roman Rite Pope.

Micael:

…Norther/Southern rite? What’s that?..

Nothing, today, but in early Church history there may have been numerous other liturgical forms which might be understood as Rites or proto-Rites besides those which we eventually came to recognize as the Roman Rite and the current Eastern Rites, depending on how you view the development of these Rites. These other forms may have died out or been absorbed into one or more Rites existing today. The process continues to this day by inculturation.

Micael:

…Also, you mean to tell me that you think rites are a non-issue??..

No, I said that when considering a time when the differention between various Rites as they exist today had not yet occurred, defining the Rite practiced at that time as either Roman or Eastern may be a non-issue.

Micael:

…I believe you are not very well informed on the issue…

I think I am reasonably well informed. While I have not done graduate level work in this area I have done considerable reading and have taken classes covering this field, among other things.

Micael:

…That is the precise part of the problem that created the schism of 1054 when the “Greeks” (Orthodox) left the Church. Actually , I believe Pope Benedict just recently rid the papacy from the title of patriarch of the West (or something like that) which had been a Papal title for 1300 years. This in the name of eccumenism between East and West…

I do not know what precise part of the problem, or even what problem at all to which you are referring. In any case, what does this have to do with the question of whether there has ever been a non-Roman Rite Pope?

Micael:

…Trust me its certainly not a “non-issue” for even among those in the East which are in Communion with Rome I am sure they are very proud of their histories an particular anticient ritual related froms of worship.

It is not a non-issue that early Liturgical forms begining from Apostolic times developed over time into the Rites that we recognize today, and that these Rites presently differentiate in certain respects from each other where previously said differentiation may not yet have existed? Why should this be controversial? And why should this prevent Catholics of any Rite today from cherishing their Liturgical Traditions?

 

[Lazerlike42]

Has anybody actually answered the question?

 

[JB]

Lazerlike42:

Has anybody actually answered the question?

I think that I did: If at the time St Peter and his immediate successors were Popes that the Rite we know today as the Roman Rite had not yet developed, then it may not be inaccurate to consider that these early Popes were not Roman Rite as we understand this Rite today.

 

[Lazerlike42]

JB.:

I think that I did: If at the time St Peter and his immediate successors were Popes that the Rite we know today as the Roman Rite had not yet developed, then it may not be inaccurate to consider that these early Popes were not Roman Rite as we understand this Rite today.

What about the question as to whether a non-Roman riter could be elected pope?

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Micael:

While watching the Consitory of Newly Created Cardinals on EWTN this AM I made a couple of observations for which I was intregued why Raymond Arroyo or his guest made no commentary:

Why do some cardinals not wear the red robe as well as a slightly different red hat. (are they Eastern Catholics?) And btw can non-roman rite cardinals become Pope… has there ever been a non-Roman rite Pope?

Also, there were some Bishops that appear in typical Orthodox dress (all beared in black from head to foot). Were they visiting invitees. And is this a further signal of closer relations with the Orthodox separated brethren.

Thank you very much,

Micael

Yes there are Eastern Catholic Cardinals.

Yes an Eastern Cardinal can be elected Pope.

They may have been invited Orthodox guests.

 

[JimG]

Any Catholic man in good standing with the Church could be elected Pope.

 

[Micael]

Br. Rich SFO:

Yes there are Eastern Catholic Cardinals.

Yes an Eastern Cardinal can be elected Pope.

They may have been invited Orthodox guests.

Ok, Brother.

Finally someone answered part of the question. So it potentially IS possible that a non-Roman rite Catholic can become Pope. Great! However, for all practical purposes is he not at a great disadvantage relative to the others, in general, just because he is not “Roman”. Is it safe to say this?

Lastly, has there EVER been a non-Latin Rite Pope (of course, after the rite had been well established.)?

Thanks

 

[mtr01]

Micael:

Ok, Brother.

Finally someone answered part of the question. So it potentially IS possible that a non-Roman rite Catholic can become Pope. Great! However, for all practical purposes is he not at a great disadvantage relative to the others, in general, just because he is not “Roman”. Is it safe to say this?

Stepping in, I would say yes, it would be a disadvantage. Your question also brings up another interesting question: since the Pope is also the Bishop of Rome, would an Eastern Rite Cardinal have to switch Rites (or at least become bi-Ritual) in order to become Pope? I would imagine the answer to be yes.

Micael:

Lastly, has there EVER been a non-Latin Rite Pope (of course, after the rite had been well established.)?

Thanks

Not to my knowledge.

 

[JB]

Micael:

… it potentially IS possible that a non-Roman rite Catholic can become Pope. Great! However, for all practical purposes is he not at a great disadvantage relative to the others, in general, just because he is not “Roman”. Is it safe to say this?..

How do you mean, at a disadvantage as a candidate in a conclave? I don’t know, as I don’t know all the criteria the Cardinals consider when deciding their votes. At a disadvantage as Pope should he be elected and accept election? Again, I don’t know, but I can’t imagine why he should be. He would have the same personal and institutional resources available to him as would a Latin-Rite Pope.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

mtr01:

Stepping in, I would say yes, it would be a disadvantage. Your question also brings up another interesting question: since the Pope is also the Bishop of Rome, would an Eastern Rite Cardinal have to switch Rites (or at least become bi-Ritual) in order to become Pope? I would imagine the answer to be yes.

Not to my knowledge.

No, because the Pope is able to celebrate Mass/Divine Liturgy in any Rite. He is not only “Bi-Ritual” but “Multi-Ritual” in a sense. With Benedict dropping the “Patriarch of the West” It opens this possibility up even more.

 

[Micael]

JB.:

How do you mean, at a disadvantage as a candidate in a conclave? I don’t know, as I don’t know all the criteria the Cardinals consider when deciding their votes. At a disadvantage as Pope should he be elected and accept election? Again, I don’t know, but I can’t imagine why he should be. He would have the same personal and institutional resources available to him as would a Latin-Rite Pope.

I say he would be at a disadvantage because Eastern Cathlolics would be a minority within the college of Cardinals and in the conclave he would really have to be someone special to stand out among all the other “traditional” candidates.

However, should there be an Eastern church Pontif, I could only imagine it would probably remove thousands of years of antimostity among Catholics and Orthodox. Having a Bzyantine Catholic as a Pope would potentially unify ALL Byzantines(Orthodox throwing out nationalistic connections) and hopefully reunifing themselves with the Byzantine church and thus reunifying themselves in communion with the mother Church…ending an nearly thousand year schism.

PS: Could clergy switch or belong to more than one rite as Mtr01 suggested?

 

[Roman_Army]

JB:

Technically, any rite that is practiced and approved by the Roman Pontiff in Rome is considered the Roman Rite. Of course, the liturgy changes over time. So, the St. Peter’s liturgy is part of the Roman Rite.

 

[Roman_Army]

I assume that if a non-Roman rite Cardinal is chosen as Pope, he is to adopt the Roman Rite as his own, since canonically a Bishop must give up control over his former See in order to be in charge of another. I believe there was a Greek Pope once, I don’t remember who though. I’ll keep you posted if I find any info.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

While it is true that the pope can celebrate any rite he wishes he is still a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church.

So if an Eastern Catholic became pope he would automatically become a member of the Latin Catholic Church.

This is because the pope is the bishop of Rome and the diocese of Rome is a diocease of the Latin Catholic Church.

As for those cardinals wearing the red hats but not the robes are Eastern Catholic cardinals. There is a very small number of them. I believe the Maronite wears the Latin cardinal dress though.

Also, any baptized male Catholic can be elected pope, Church membership does not matter.

 

[batteddy]

So if an Eastern Catholic became pope he would automatically become a member of the Latin Catholic Church.

Not merely a member, but its supreme head!

Upon election as Pope, besides being the leader of the entire Church, he is Pastor of St. John Lateran’s, Bishop of Rome, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy, and Head of the Latin Catholic Church (though since the dropping of the title “patriarch of the west”, what to call this specific office is still up in the air)

 

[JB]

Roman_Army:

…Technically, any rite that is practiced and approved by the Roman Pontiff in Rome is considered the Roman Rite. Of course, the liturgy changes over time. So, the St. Peter’s liturgy is part of the Roman Rite.

Correct, but my point was not that St. Peter’s and his immediate successors’ Liturgies were not Roman Rite, but that the Roman Rite itself may not have been sufficiently differentiated from other historical Rites or proto-Rites at that time to make such a distinction of Rites meaningful.

Thus St Peter might just as validly be considered the first Syrian Rite Catholic Pope (he was, after all, the first Bishop of Antioch before he was the first Bishop of Rome, although still head of the whole Church through the authority of the Keys entrusted to him by Jesus), or any other Catholic Rite that has since developed from and through Apostolic Tradition.

 

[Amadeus]

Based on nationality alone, there have been 26 Popes, besides St. Peter, from the “East” before the Great Schism in “1054”: 14 Greeks, 8 Syrians, 3 Africans, and 1 Palestinian.

I think it is safe to assume that these Eastern Popes were not of the Roman Rite.

Based on the current composition of the College of Cardinals, there are only 5 Eastern Rite Cardinals:

HB Daoud, retired Patriarch of the Syrians;
HB Sfeir, Patriarch of the Maronites;
HB Ghattas, Patriarch of the Copts;
MAbp. Husar of the Greek Catholic Ukrainians; and
MAbp. Vithayathil of the Syro-Malabars.

The respective Patriarchs of the Armenians, Chaldeans, and Melkites are not Cardinals or, as some say, refused to be created Cardinals.

As members of the College, any of the Eastern Rite Cardinals can be elected as Pope (even those over 80) but those over 80, like HB Sfeir and HB Ghattas, cannot join the conclave with the Cardinal electors.

The Patriarchs from the East belong to the “Order of Bishops” in the College of Cardinals, while Cardinal Husar and Cardinal Vithayathil belong to the “Order of Priests.” Recently, the Eastern Patriarchs have been referred to as “Cardinal-Patriarchs” but still remain in the Order of Bishops.

The Cardinals in the “Order of Bishops” elect, from among themselves, the Dean and Vice Dean of the College of Cardinals. Presently, the Cardinal-Patriarchs have no right to elect the Dean and Vice Dean. The power is reserved to the 6 Cardinal-Bishops of the Latin Rite.