www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West An Eastern Pope?

I've been following the TV coverage quite closely. One of the priests interviewed on TV suggested that the next pope may well be a Roman Catholic bishop from Russia. THAT would be an event!

The context was the pope's origin as an expression of the Church's current needs. And so they were asking: are the needs of the Church best filled by a pope's Latin American background? Or African background? And then someone suggested Russia.

Watching the TV coverage, it amazes me that at no previous point in history has mankind experienced the spiritual unity and ecumenism which has been brought forth by John Paul's passing. The Muslim reaction is for me particularly amazing.

And that relates to several prophecies that have been discussed in recent days - predictions that these events herald the end of time.

Stojgniev

... giving new (or perhaps the REAL) meaning to the RC prayer for the "conversion of Russia."

Yours,

hal

Originally posted by Halychanyn:

> BTW, the seminary at the UGCC Eparchy in
> Stamford holds classes primarily in English,
> not in Latin (although I believe Latin is part
> of the coursework).

His studies in Rome, I meant. My apologies for my ambiguity.

> Would not His Beatitude have to also be
> well-versed in Greek based upon his academic
> studies?

I suspect so, but I don't know. Greek is the original liturgical language of the Byzantine Rite and everything in Slavonic is translated from the Greek, excepting a few services to Slavic saints. And, traditionally, Russian (including Ukrainian) bishops' liturgies are at least partially in Greek, a remnant of when Kiev was part of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the bishops were usually Greek.

Photius, Reader


hal [/QB][/QUOTE]

Photius:

Thank you for stating the obvious. It is a pleasue to be educated by someone who: (1) includes Ukrainians with Russians depiste recent history clearly demonstrating the opposite; and, (2) belongs to a Church that denies the right of the UGCC to exist.

Oh, and according to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Ukraine is still part of his jurisdiction, not Moscow's.

Разом нас багато! Нас не подолати!

hal

Originally posted by Herbigny:

> ... The Pope is the Patriarch of the Latin
> ...Eastern Clerics are not supposed to accept
> ecclesial honours etc. in other Catholic Churches
> (and presumably, ecclesial positions)...

Pope Pius XI belonged to the Ambrosian Rite when he was elected pope; he assumed the Roman Rite by virtue of being the Bishop of Rome.

Pope John Paul I was Patriarch of Venice (although that is not a sui juris Church) when he was elected Pope.

The pope is, by definition, the Bishop of Rome. When someone who is already a bishop is elected Pope of Rome (which is usual nowadays, although a presbyter was elected pope in the 19th century) then he is transferred to the See of Rome. I would imagine that, just as many other hypothetical occurrences that could happen in a conclave, that the rules of the conclave supersede everything else in Canon Law. Perhaps someone who has studied Canon Law can comment.

Photius, Reader

Dear Posters,

I am curious about so many things. One poster said that a presbyter not bishop was elected pope in the 19th century. Who was that, and how did that happen?

Stojgniev said that many prophecies have been thrown around these past days. Now that really makes me curious, can he please tell me a few. Isn't the next Pope supposed to be the last before Peter? John Bosco had a vision of this Pope, and said that during the next one there will be a 'convulsion' of some sort.

Zenovia

dear Reader Photius:

Good points all.

You raise interesting points.

I'm not sure how the various Western Rites at this point in the Church's history fit into its Canon Law, but as far as I know at this moment there is only 1 Latin autonomous Catholic Church, so whether the hierarch be from Milan or Venice, they are members of the Latin Church, no?

I believe that one can function in various rites (bi-tri-etc. ritualism), but one can only belong to one Autonomous Church at any time.

And as I have speculated, even if we had a "Shoes of the Fisherman" scenario, the hierarch in question would no longer be Eastern, but would have become a member of the Latin Church.

Seems to me that the Latin Church probably has enough of its own good candidates for its own Patriarchate without importing from an Eastern Autonomous Catholic Church (and importing with him one of the Eastern phronemas); just as an Eastern Autonomous Catholic Church should have its Patriarchs from its own ranks and with its own particular phronema.

Of course this does not mean that the Patriarch of the Latin Church should not have a good understanding of and respect for Eastern Churches; but this goes for all the Patriarches, e.g. the Pope of Alexandria should have a good understanding of and respect for the Latin Church and its particular dynamic and phronema.

Vichnaya yomu Pam'yat!
&
Khrystos Voskres!

Herb

Zenovia asked:


> One poster said that a presbyter not bishop
> was elected pope in the 19th century. Who was
> that, and how did that happen?

That was Pope Gregory XVI, elected on 2 February 1831 (after 64 days of conclave).

Photius:

Pope Gregory XVI was not merely a member of the presbytery when he was elected Pope in 1831.

Prior to his election to the papacy, he was created Cardinal in 1825 after having been appointed Abbot on two different occasions by the reigning Popes then.

In the Latin Church, an Abbot normally has the same rights and privileges as a diocesan bishop.

Amado

I would be delighted if a Metropolitan rather than a Cardinal found himself elevated to the Throne of St. Peter (who, by the way was not a European, but someone from the Middle East). It would be a relief to see a new tradition established (with the late Pope John Paul ll, eternal rest, as the precedent)that would end the stranglehold of Italian cardinals on Holy Mother Church. Let it not be forgotten that it was Italian Cardinals who shoved the dogma of Papal Infallibility down the throat of the Roman Catholic Church with its farcical First Vatican Council. Don't get me wrong, I have no dislike of Italians, I have two half brothers named Esposito, I just don't to see one country dominate the Church.To have an Eastern prelate as Pope would tell the Latins that we are not red headed freckle faced stepchildren (and that we ain't) for the azymites to feel that they can tell us that we aren't Catholic enough. It would freak the canonical Orthodox and catch them off guard, and in their state of astonishment, they may even initiate talks of reconciliation.The Italian Cardinal club would continue to lose its grip on the Church, and who knows, we can undo that infallibility garbage that has been hanging around our necks like an albatross for over 130 years, and enter into real talks with Constantinople, Utrecht, Canterbury, and points east. Ah, yes, what a dream.
Much Love,
Jonn

Jonn:

I respectfully disagree. In the Moscow Patriarchate's statement on the occasion of the Pope's death, the word "Uniatism" is mentioned with all of its negative and derogatory connotations.

To be blunt, electing an Easterner would p*** off the MP something awful.

Although personally I think that's a good thing, the Ostpolitik of the Vatican apparatura tends to suggest that they think differently.

Yours,

hal

Please correct me if I got this wrong, but I heard the other day that only 20% of the current cardinals are Italian. JPII has really internationalized the college and the Italians no longer have a majority.

Amado,
I realize Pope Gregory XVI was a cardinal when he was elected pope, and that he was a distinguished monastic, and so on.

But he was not a bishop when elected pope, and so had to be consecrated bishop in order to become the pope.

He was the last pope who was not a bishop until after his papal election.

BTW, in the Orthodox Church, many abbots have the rights and privileges of a diocesan bishop; monasteries with such an abbot are called "stavropegial" and the abbot of such an institution is and archimandrite (although, nowadays, most archimandrites have that title honorarily; but honorary archimandrites don't have jurisdictions in which they can exercise eparchal prerogatives).

Such an abbot can perform cheirthesia (ordains readers and sub-deacons; makes archdeacons, abbots, et cetera), consecrates churches, and determines, even, who is to be ordained in their monastery, although a bishop must be invited to perform the cheirotonia.

Photius


---- Originally posted by Amadeus:

Pope Gregory XVI was not merely a member of the presbytery when he was elected Pope in 1831.

Prior to his election to the papacy, he was created Cardinal in 1825 after having been appointed Abbot on two different occasions by the reigning Popes then.

In the Latin Church, an Abbot normally has the same rights and privileges as a diocesan bishop.

Amado

Charles:

By continent, Europe has 58 (46 Western and 12 Eastern) Cardinal electors, or almost 50% of the 117 conclave-bound, with Italy conrtibuting 20 Cardinals. (Italy might have 20% of the 183 Cardinals, though.)

Latin America, 21 electors (18%);
North America, 14 (12%), the U.S. contributing 11;
Africa, 11 (9%);
Asia, 11 (9%); and
Oceania, 2 (1.7%).

The Cardinal electors come from 53 countries.

Amado

Who are the Eastern cardinals? Are any of them over 80 years old?