St. Gregory I? nndb.com/people/109/000094824/The process can be sped up. I can’t remember which pope it was, but there was a monk elected pope. He was not a cleric. He was ordained deacon, a few days later a priest, and a few days later a bishop. Then he crowned pope. I believe he resigned shortly thereafter too. I wish I could recall who that was. He’s one of those popes that’s not very famous. But I believe that he’s a canonized saint. Anyone remember?
Why would we have to have either one? Besides, women cannot be ordained to the priesthood because it is against doctrine.
No, St. Gregory I, the Great, was Pope for 14 years until his death. That scenario better describes the situation of St. Celestine V, who reigned in 1294 and was the immediate predecessor of Boniface VIII. By the way, I love nndb.com!
I believe the ‘priestess’ was a typo, meant to be ‘priest-less’: a parish without a priest.
All right.
I think it may have been John XIX.The process can be sped up. I can’t remember which pope it was, but there was a monk elected pope. He was not a cleric. He was ordained deacon, a few days later a priest, and a few days later a bishop. Then he crowned pope. I believe he resigned shortly thereafter too. I wish I could recall who that was. He’s one of those popes that’s not very famous. But I believe that he’s a canonized saint. Anyone remember?
Not since either the first or second Ecumenical Council.
Why do you feel sorry for him? There have been hundreds of cardinals who were not clerics, many were not even deacons. But they could elect the pope. They were princess of the Church, with a lot of authority over the clergy and the laity alike. I believe that the last non-cleric cardinal lived into the 20th century.
Also the important thing to remember, that many people are unaware of, is that the Cardinal is not part of Holy Orders. It is an administrative office. A Cardinal is not higher than an archbishop unless he is assigned to a Congregation that is over that archbishop.Why do you feel sorry for him? There have been hundreds of cardinals who were not clerics, many were not even deacons. But they could elect the pope. They were princess of the Church, with a lot of authority over the clergy and the laity alike. I believe that the last non-cleric cardinal lived into the 20th century.
Maybe it’s my Franciscan tradition coming through. We don’t put the stress on the priesthood. We place it on the consecrated life. Our founder was not a priest. Most of our superiors have not been priests. The for us, the priesthood is accidental. Many of the monastic communities follow the same principle. The priesthood is accidental. To us, the idea of a cardinal, a monk or a friar who does not celebrate the sacraments is not something to feel sorry about. It’s not their calling to be priests. However, it is the role of a cardinal to run the Church, not celebrate the sacraments. That’s accidental to the function of the cardinal.
When I was a student in Rome, I found it very interesting, because there are many cardinals who work at the Vatican. But you rarely see them doing the typical priestly work. They do celebrate mass and they are very visible in big celebrations. But they are usually very low key people and very focussed on their administrative duties.
I don’t think that a layman or deacon who is a cardinal will feel disappointed. They’re too busy to feel disappointed.
Today, it is true, that most (not all) cardinals are bishops. Usually, the Jesuit cardinals are not bishops. The Jesuits have a rule against it. They have to go through special permissions to become bishops.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I know, Brother. Thank you for your response. It is just that people like Cardinal Consalvi were nothing more than politicians. They had no communal life and were completely powerless without their administrative positions. Other than by attending Mass, they probably had little if any spiritual life. I guess that being nothing but a bureaucrat with a nice robe is just not my cup of coffee.Why do you feel sorry for him? There have been hundreds of cardinals who were not clerics, many were not even deacons. But they could elect the pope. They were princess of the Church, with a lot of authority over the clergy and the laity alike. I believe that the last non-cleric cardinal lived into the 20th century.
Maybe it’s my Franciscan tradition coming through. We don’t put the stress on the priesthood. We place it on the consecrated life. Our founder was not a priest. Most of our superiors have not been priests. The for us, the priesthood is accidental. Many of the monastic communities follow the same principle. The priesthood is accidental. To us, the idea of a cardinal, a monk or a friar who does not celebrate the sacraments is not something to feel sorry about. It’s not their calling to be priests. However, it is the role of a cardinal to run the Church, not celebrate the sacraments. That’s accidental to the function of the cardinal.
When I was a student in Rome, I found it very interesting, because there are many cardinals who work at the Vatican. But you rarely see them doing the typical priestly work. They do celebrate mass and they are very visible in big celebrations. But they are usually very low key people and very focussed on their administrative duties.
I don’t think that a layman or deacon who is a cardinal will feel disappointed. They’re too busy to feel disappointed.
Today, it is true, that most (not all) cardinals are bishops. Usually, the Jesuit cardinals are not bishops. The Jesuits have a rule against it. They have to go through special permissions to become bishops.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
I did not know that. So someone in a situation like that of Bld. J.H. Newman would still be bound by obedience to his local bishop or religious superior?
Yes he would still be bound by obedience to his superior but I do not believe that the superior can order him to vote a certain way in a conclave.
Why only consecrated religious who are not in orders? Why not open it up to anyone?
Thank you, Br. David.
God bless you for your explanation.The reason why he is still referred to as Father is because he has a right to the title until one of two things happen:
a. He is dismissed from the clerical state
or
b. He requests a dispensation.
Father Cutie is still a priest, albeit an excommunicated one.
It is up to the diocesan bishop to request a dismissal. Bishops have different approaches to this. Some like to wait and see if the person has a change of heart and some proceed very quickly. The law says that when the crime involves a minor, there is no waiting. The dismissal process should begin immediately. That is not the case here.
The theological fact is that even when a pirest is dismissed or is dispensed, the ontological change is not reversed. He reamins a priest forever.
Laicization is a rather ambiguous term more often used in English than in any other language. The truth is that once a man is ordained a deacon, he is no longer a layman and can never be a layman again. He can live as a layman, either voluntarilly, if he requests as dispensation or involuntarilly if he is dismissed.
But the truth of the matter is that he continues to celebrate the sacraments validly, if he chooses to do so. However, it would be illicit for him to do so, except in a life and death situation. Any priest, can validly grant absolution to a person in danger of death, even if he has been excommunicated. In those cases, the Church supplies faculties.
In Fr. Cutie’s case, his proper title remains, Father.
That being said, we do call many priests Father, even though they are not in communion with us. All Eastern Orthodox priests, not Orthodox/Oriental Catholics, but the rest of the Orthodox, are called Father. We do call their leaders by such titles as: Your Holiness, Your Beatitude and there are a few other such titles of resepct. Even though they are not in communion with us, they retain apostolic succession. Unless the ordination is invalid, there is Apostolic Succession and they are real priests.
We must alwasy be careful not to allow our personal feelings about someone or an event color the beliefs of the Church.
I hope that helps.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Cuti%C3%A9
Your first question confused me. I WAS asking why the Church doesn’t offer the position of Cardinal to ordered religious. It seems to me that someone who has lived a life of public service to the Church in a religious order for decades can be just as easily vetted for suitability to the office as a priest or bishop.
Yes the current rule is that one must be a bishop to be a cardinal. There are at least 12 religious among the voting cardinals as listed on the Vatican’s website.
As for laity, there are many lay people who work at the Vatican and on the Curia. Some of the heads of the sub-committees are lay people, at least one is a woman.