What if a layman was consecrated a bishop but was not yet a priest?

[Memaw]

Actually the canon does mention it. It specifically says “Pontiff”. Only a bishop can be the Pontiff. This goes back to Peter. Peter was the Pontifex (bridge builder). The Bridge Builder is to teach, govern and sanctify the universal Church. Only a bishop can teach, govern and sanctify. And only the Bishop of Rome can teach, govern and sanctify the universal Church.

You can be elected, which makes you the “pope elect” for lack of a better term. But until you’re ordained, you’re not the Pontiff.

Wherever you read this the writer is seriously mistaken. As I said above, to the best of my knowledge, there have been two non-clerics elected to the papacy. They were not laymen in the strict sense of the term, because they were consecrated religious. They are canonically lay, but not part of the laity. They were ordained following the election. There may have been others in the early Church that I may not know about. I know that Innocent and Celestine were both ordained bishops with the fullness of the priesthood.

Let’s not confuse things here. A cardinal has nothing to do with Holy Orders. The cardinal is a prince of the Church. The pope can elevate any man to be a cardinal. We have had many cardinals who were laymen, deacons and priests, not to be confused with the Cardinal Deacon and the Cardinal Priest. Those are different ranks.

Carinal is a rank, not part of the sacrament of Holy Orders.

It is not true that the pope MUST be elected by the cardinals. That’s a later development, but it is not doctrine or moral law.

For the first 400 years of the Church’s history, give or take a few decades, the pope was elected by the Diocese or Rome, not by cardinals from around the world. The conclave with cardinals as we know it today is a much later development. This can be changed at any time the pope. Every pope has the authority to dictate the process for the election of his successor and by whom.

I should like to mention one important fact about the Code of Canon Law of 1917, because there seems to be a great attachment to the Code of 1917 in Traddom. The Code of 1917 was the first time that Canon Law was organized as we know it today. But it was not meant to be binding for all time. In fact, we have had laws promulgated by previous popes that that had a much longer lifespan than the Code of 1917. The Code of 1917 was replaced in 1983. It’s lifespan was only 66 years. That’s not a very long time given the age of the Church. The current code is already halfway there.

I mention this, because people in Traddom often refer to it as the alpha and the omega of Church law, which was not the case at all. The Church has had law since the first century. It simply gets codified in 1917. Therefore, the Code of 1917 become very famous because it was a novelty in Church history. Rather than having many laws floating around, as of 1917, we have it systematized. It served as the template for future versions of the law. It was never the mind of the Church that it be static and remain as it was forever. Law evolves.

This is important in understanding how a pope is elected, because the election is governed by law. However, the office is governed by revelation. While there can be many ways of electing a pope, the office can only be occupied by a validly ordained bishop as revealed in the Gospels. The law cannot change that part.

PS. Fabian was a Catholic. Only a Catholic can be pope, not just any Christian. There are many Christians, but they are not eligible because they’re not Catholic, even if they are validly and licitly ordained bishops as is the case with the Orthodox and the Old Catholics.

Like I said before, the past is the past. How it is done today is the Pope is elected by the eligible Cardinals and they are all ordained Bishops. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Picky_Picky]

Like I said before, the past is the past. How it is done today is the Pope is elected by the eligible Cardinals and they are all ordained Bishops. God Bless, Memaw

As to the cardinals, are you simply ignoring the point about Bartolucci, or do you maintain he is a bishop? And wasn’t Avery Dulles a cardinal but not a bishop?

 

[Russ_of_Tokyo]

PS. Fabian was a Catholic. Only a Catholic can be pope, not just any Christian. There are many Christians, but they are not eligible because they’re not Catholic, even if they are validly and licitly ordained bishops as is the case with the Orthodox and the Old Catholics.

Fabian was born around 200 A.D. Christians were Christians back then.

Ignatius of Antioch did make reference to the Catholic Church" in a letter some time before this, but there was no need to use the “Catholic” label to distinguish oneself from Protestants or Eastern Orthodox or Old Catholics at that time; one would be hard pressed to find any…

 

[Memaw]

As to the cardinals, are you simply ignoring the point about Bartolucci, or do you maintain he is a bishop? And wasn’t Avery Dulles a cardinal but not a bishop?

Bartolucci was born 5/17/1917, ordained a priest on 12/23/1939 and made a Cardinal on 11/20/2010. To old to be in the Conclave so would never be elected a Pope. God Bless. Memaw

 

[aemcpa]

Bartolucci was born 5/17/1917, ordained a priest on 12/23/1939 and made a Cardinal on 11/20/2010. To old to be in the Conclave so would never be elected a Pope. God Bless. Memaw

You don’t need to be an elector to be elected.

 

[aemcpa]

As to the cardinals, are you simply ignoring the point about Bartolucci, or do you maintain he is a bishop? And wasn’t Avery Dulles a cardinal but not a bishop?

Yes, Dulles was also a cardinal but not a bishop.

 

[Memaw]

You don’t need to be an elector to be elected.

Like I said before, tell that to the Cardinals going into the Conclave.
Cardinal Avery Dullas S.J. was ordained a priest in 19 56 made a Cardinal in 2001, to old to be in the Conclave also. God Bless, Memaw

 

[aemcpa]

Like I said before, tell that to the Cardinals going into the Conclave.
Cardinal Avery Dullas S.J. was ordained a priest in 19 56 made a Cardinal in 2001, to old to be in the Conclave also. God Bless, Memaw

The Cardinals ARE told that before going into every conclave.

 

[Memaw]

As to the cardinals, are you simply ignoring the point about Bartolucci, or do you maintain he is a bishop? And wasn’t Avery Dulles a cardinal but not a bishop?

They were never in a Conclave.

 

[aemcpa]

They were never in a Conclave.

So what? It’s proof that the Pope isn’t bound by the law and can make a man a Cardinal even if he is not a bishop and does not become a bishop. Current practice is one thing, what is allowed is another, what is possible is yet a third.

 

[Memaw]

So what? It’s proof that the Pope isn’t bound by the law and can make a man a Cardinal even if he is not a bishop and does not become a bishop. Current practice is one thing, what is allowed is another, what is possible is yet a third.

You can carry this out as far as you like, but the real point is that only ordained Cardinals are allowed to participate in a Conclave now. So why drag this out and out and out??? Leave the past to God’s justice, the present to His Mercy and the future to His Divine Providence. It IS His Church, He is still in charge! God Bless, Memaw.