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

[m134e5]

The Cardinal’s vestments are of the Latin Rite- the tradition of Cardinals is largely a Western one. The Eastern Cardinals would wear their Eastern vestments.

Theoretically, any baptized man could become Pope. It would not make sense for someone from an Eastern Rite to become Bishop of a Latin Rite diocese. Eastern Christian spirituality, liturgy, and many other things are different than the West. While the “Patriarch of the West” title has been dropped, the uniquene relationship of the Bishop of Rome to the Latin Rite still exists. The Latin Rite comes from Rome. It would make no sense for Rome’s Bishop to be of a different Rite. He would have to adopt the Latin Tradition- celebrate Mass in St. Peters in Latin, etc. There are so many historical considerations to be made, among many things, that I don’t see an Eastern Catholic becoming Pope anytime soon.

 

[Amadeus]

Theoretically, any baptized male Catholic may be elected Pope.

However, current laws on the election and, therefore, the eligibility and qualifications, of the Pope set this romantic notion clearly aside.

The 1996 Apostolic Constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, in conjunction with the Codes of Canons (East and West) limit the papabili to male persons possessing the qualifications for solemn ordination as a bishop. Thus, at the minimum these “persons” refer to celibate priests who, among other things, are at least 35 years of age and have been ordained as priests for at least 5 years. (Cf. Nos. 87 thru 92, UDG and Canon 378 of the Latin Code.)

(N.B. The requirement for celibacy should be underscored because East and West ordain only celibate priests into the episcopacy, and Church laws require that the Pope-elect must be forthwith be ordained as a bishop, if he was not yet a bishop, for him to exercise canonically the authority and powers of the Bishop of Rome and as Supreme Pontiff.)

Realistically speaking, only Cardinals have the spitting chance to be elected as Pope by virtue of No. 53 of the UDG, and there is a chance, even remotely, for an Eastern Cardinal to be elected Pope by being a member of the College of Cardinals.

By the way, the Pope is elected as Bishop of Rome to be the chief hierarch of the Latin Church and from it emanates his role as Supreme Pontiff, the universal pastor of the Catholic Church (East and West). As someone said before, the Pope becomes “multi-ritual.” He can celebrate any liturgy!

 

[JW10631]

If so desired a Cardinal Archbishop of one of the Eastern Catholic Churches could be elected to the Papacy. There are presumed to be a few who supported Cardinal Husar of the Ukranian Greek Catholic Church to the Papacy. such was reported by the National Catholic Reporter’s John Allen. Husar has dismissed this as a fallacy.

Should an Eastern Cardinal (or equivalent) be elected to the Papacy, he would become the Bishop of Rome and as such, a Bishop in and of the Latin Church.

A cardinal from one of the Churches of the Byzantine tradition would be frowned upon by much of the Eastern Orthodox hierarchy. Many of them don’t
like the existence of the Byzantine Catholic Churches.

In theory, the bishops of the Byzantine Churches should be dressed as their Eastern Orthodox brothers.

 

[arch_angelorum]

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.

The Eastern (Orthodox) Christians didn’t leave the church. Actually Cardinal Humbert came all the way from Old Rome in Italy to New Rome (ie. Constantinople) and placed the bull of excommunication on the altar of Agia Sofia’s cathedral (Agia Sofia meaning Holy Wisdom). The Patriarch of Constantinople returned the excommunication and there we go: schism.

Btw, 1054 is just the set date of the schism. However, even then, Catholics and Orthodox used to commune in each others churches up until about the mid 1400’s.

There were Latin Rite monasteries on Mt. Athos ( a monastic republic in Eastern Orthodox Greece) and also in southern Italy, which was part of the Eastern Byzantine empire at the time, the people there used to be under the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople and used the Byzantine Rite. However, gradually, Latin Rite monasteries in Greece and Constantinople stopped existing, and likewise, the Calabrians and Sicilians eventually became part of the See of Rome rather than Constantinople and started using the Latin Roman Rite.

FWIW, Greeks up until recently (and still do at times) call themselves “Romios” or belonging to Romiosyni which means “Romans” since Emperor Constantine transferred the capital of the Roman Empire to the East to Constantinople, thus calling it “New Rome”. Thus the Roman Empire did not fall in the early Middle Ages, the Roman Empire as a whole fell in 1453 when the Turks took over the City of Constantinople and the entire empire.

I love both the Eastern and Western Rites and do not think either or is better or more acceptable for worship.