M
Maximian
Guest
I think the answer is yes, since technically you don’t even have to be a priest to be a Cardinal. But any other views?
What would happen if a Cardinal joined the SSPX? Would he still be able to vote in the next Conclave?
- Status
M
Maximian
Guest
I think the word “bunch” is quite offensive to describe an organisation with which the Holy See is in constant dialogue.
It is also inaccurate to call them separatists, given that in every vestry they display a portrait of Pope Francis and pray for him in every Mass.
That they are disobedient to the Holy See is clear; they justify this on the grounds that they are nonetheless obedient to the magisterium.
Now, you may disagree and you will be in good company if you do. But please, avoid this kind of contemptuous language.
It is also inaccurate to call them separatists, given that in every vestry they display a portrait of Pope Francis and pray for him in every Mass.
That they are disobedient to the Holy See is clear; they justify this on the grounds that they are nonetheless obedient to the magisterium.
Now, you may disagree and you will be in good company if you do. But please, avoid this kind of contemptuous language.
A
AlNg
Guest
My guess is yes he would be able to do so as long as his motivation was to express a love for the Tridentine Mass and the Gregorian chant. However, if he was going to go around making speeches about how there were never any gas chambers and the holocaust was a lie or about why slavery is just fine and has never been condemned by the Catholic Church and why Catholics should reject the New Mass etc., etc., then i would guess that he might face resistance if he tried to vote in a conclave.
M
Maximian
Guest
It’s not your opinion but your choice of language
M
Maximian
Guest
Are any cardinals doing that?
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
No, but there is a certain bishop, who has been expelled from the SSPX for precisely this reason (and is no longer active as a bishop for the same reason). But of course enemies of the SSPX ignore that and still try to use him to tarnish the entire organisation.
Last edited:
B
Bernoulli
Guest
As long as the Pope would not have removed the cardinal from that position, he would be eligible to vote.
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
Can the pope remove cardinals. I thought he could only create them.
Do you know any examples of popes removing cardinals?
A
AlNg
Guest
i have not heard of that, however, I did hear of a former SSPX bishop who did so. I believe he was expelled from the SSPX as the SSPX certainly does not teach so. He was also against women wearing pants.
I did read though that there are some in the SSPX who say that slavery is not against the natural law? But there is some question as to what they mean by slavery.
Last edited:
B
Bernoulli
Guest
Cardinals are not a matter of divine law, so naturally the Pope can remove them.
B
Bithynian
Guest
Canon 351 § 1 requires that a man must at least be a priest before being eligible for the cardinalate.
Theodore McCarrick was dismissed from the cardinalate when he laicised.
But insofar as I know, I’m unaware of any cardinals being dismissed from the cardinalate whilst still retaining their espicopate (that is, still remaining a bishop). As with McCarrick, usually their dismissal from ecclesiastical office is the result of an exceptionally grave offence that warrants laicisation, and this results in the dismissal from both the cardinalate, the episcopate and the presbyterate.
M
Maximian
Guest
There is a tendency to confuse the SSPX with people who go to SSPX Masses. I don’t know why this is; if People go to a Franciscan mass they don’t get called Franciscans or get quoted as if they were spokesmen for the Franciscan order.
M
Maximian
Guest
Thank you, I stand corrected. However I don’t think that was always the case?
C
commenter
Guest
Up till about a century ago you didn’t have to be a priest to become a cardinal. But you had to be at least in Minor Orders, or a kind of cleric. So on effect this limited the cardinalate to males.Bithynian:
Thank you, I stand corrected. However I don’t think that was always the case?
Later the Minor Orders were made part of transition to priesthood, so you couldn’t linger for the rest of your life. After V2 Pope Paul eliminated them as “Orders” in the Latin Rite.
I think for a while in the 20th century you had to be a bishop. But then they dropped that, so it could be bestowed as an honor to a few elderly theologians (e.g. Cardinal Dulles).
M
Maximian
Guest
Cardinal Mazarin was an example
C
commenter
Guest
True.
It is fair to differentiate
- Laity who visit SSPX Masses, perhaps they like the liturgy and music, but still have some connection to a parish and diocese…
- Laity who only attend SSPX, who like the liturgy and music but have no recent connection to any parish or diocese. People from this group do quote SSPX friendly websites, they obviously have thought and prayed about many of the same issues the leaders often address and vigorously defend the organization.
It’s possible some grew up in the chapel, have never belonged to a parish, graduated from SSPX schools
perhaps people shouldn’t make this distinction - we are all Catholics - but you can see why they tend to.
Last edited:
O
OrbisNonSufficit
Guest
Technically speaking, Pope can go around this law… because canon law does not bind the Pope. Why would Pope do that is beyond me, but I would like to point out that if Pope made random street boy a Cardinal, nobody would be able to oppose that.Bithynian:
Thank you, I stand corrected. However I don’t think that was always the case?
Yeah this was mostly done to prevent someone needing episcopal ordination before he becomes Pope. As Popes are almost always former Cardinals, they are already Bishops. In this way, if Cardinal gets elected he does not need to wait until he is ordained Bishop until he assumes Papacy. Nowadays only Priests made Cardinals are supposedly ones who are not eligible to participate in the Conclave afaik (but I might be wrong on this one).
Does the SSPX do this? If so, who is saying it? There was an issue with one of their non-canonical bishops proposing views of the Holocaust that challenged the conventional wisdom, but he is no longer in the SSPX.
There have been many different kinds of “slavery” in history. Chattel slavery and a perpetual claim on the ownership of the person and their descendants — add to this that these slaves are clearly distinguishable by race — is clearly immoral and I question whether the Church ever condoned this. (That is one time I would become one of those “sources, please” people.) People throughout history have made various arrangements by which their labor was bound to another party for a time — indentured servants and the like. Even today, college students who take on massive debt to fund their education, debt that (with rare exceptions) cannot be discharged by bankruptcy, are basically indentured servants. This is why higher education has become a big business, and everybody and their neighbor is now getting master’s degrees — it’s driven by marketing. (I have two, neither was expensive, both were from well-regarded, accredited universities. Back in the day, you could do this.)
- Status