www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Greek Catholic Cardinals?

for the sake of being eastern and true to the see they represent, and not just a "cardinal" advisor to the Bishop of Rome, i dont think eastern patriarchs should be cardinals, although it has its advantages, mainly at one time protection from extreme islamic and communist regimes in the east, it should not be a position for the eastern patriarch, and then again, a patriarch does not have to accept this title either.

Indeed, if the Patriarchs didn't want to be Cardinals all they have to do is say no. As a Latin I don't really care either way. On the one hand I can see how it could be "insulting" to have a Patriarch put on the level of Cardinal, but on the other hand I could see it being insulting to have a Patriarch denied such role as well. It's a knife that cuts both ways.

While Rome is certainly the seat of the Latin Church, it's also the seat of the Papacy, and the Papacy belongs to all Catholics regardless of Church. If the Cardinal College could become more of a Catholic thing, and less of a Roman thing, it might not be so bad. Make a clear distinction between the Cardinal College and the day to day running of the Latin Church in Rome, and elevate more Eastern bishops to the College. Or you could take it the other way and make the Cardinal College purely Latin, but change the regulations on how the Bishop of Rome is elected.

Of course you could always go a third way and keep the Easterners out of the College and keep the election process as is, but like I said it's a voluntary position and the Patriarchs seem to have willingly accepted. I view it more as a changing face of the Cardinal College than anything, and since it's been in continual development since its creation, so I see no reason it can't become a Catholic thing as opposed to a Latin thing.

Just my two cents!

God bless!

Well, I was thinking of it like this:

The Cardinals elect the Pope. Are they electing 1. the Bishop of Rome, 2. the Patriarch of the West, or 3. the Supreme Pontiff?

If it's 1 or 2, then the current practice is good.

However, if it's 3 (and it is), then it's an instance of a sort of "taxation without representation" now, isn't it? Only Cardinals can vote but yet all of us have to agree/support their decision, and listen to the Pontiff they elect. So even if we have 2 Eastern bishops or whatever as Cardinals, other heirarchs have no say. Metropolitan BASIL heads a sui juris Church, but has no say at all in who is Pope, but still has to obey what the Pope says. Obedience issues aside, it just doesn't seem right.

Maybe if it was the College of Cardinals plus all heads of the other (Catholic) Churches voting, it would be more representative.

Dear Domilsean:

Under the Codes (East and West) and under Universi Dominici Gregis, the "special law" on the qualifications and election of the Pope, the College of Cardinals is designated as the "sole elector" of the "Bishop of Rome," who, upon acceptance of his election, acquires also the title "Roman Pontiff."

The Pope is NOT elected as "Patriarch of the West" nor as "Supreme Pontiff."

Because we, Catholics, believe that Peter was chosen personally by Our Lord Jesus Christ to lead His Church in His physical "absence," the Pope, as Peter's successor, becomes the Pastor of the universal Church or "Supreme Pontiff." St. Peter was, to us, historically or otherwise, the first Bishop of Rome.

Additionally, we believe that this "figure" and "office" were ordained to exercise the "Petrine Ministry," which was rendered unique and solely belonging to the chief hierarch of the Roman See.

The East thinks otherwise.

Now, since the College of Cardinals is, by canon law, the sole elector of the Pope, who is the Universal Pastor, it stands to reason to widen and expand its membership. The Latin Church has now achieved an "international" representation in the College, although far from ideal, with Cardinals from all corners of the globe.

Meanwhile, the Eastern Churches have only 5 Cardinals in representation, with Cardinals Sfeir of the Maronites and Cardinal Ghattas of the Copts becoming non-eletors by canon law, being over 80 years old.

Reckoning by raw numbers, the current East/West representation in the College should be "fair" enough as there are more than a billion Latins and only around 20 million Eastern Catholics.

But if we were to gauge the representation against the number of Churches in the Catholic Communion, the East should have more, right? I agree, if only to assure that the election of the Pope is "more universal."

As a side note, the Patriarch of the Armenians, the Chaldeans, and the Melkites have been offered the Cardinalate at various times in the past but "declined," particularly by the Melkites. I don't know if at the next consistroy to be called by Pope Benedict XVI the three Patriarchs would be given the red hat, although, to my mind, the Chaldean Patriarch is "too young" to be a Cardinal.

If the Chaldean Patriarch is created a Cardinal, then the Major Archbishop of the Syro-Malankars should be in, likewise. I am not sure if Metrolopitan Archbishop Basil Schott of the Ruthenians is due; but if either the Metroplitan of the Romanians or of the Ethiopians/Eritreans goes, so does Archp. Schott.

Amado

I've said it before and I'll say it again: red caps for RCs only.

Σώσον, Κύριε, καί διαφύλαξον η�άς από τών Βασιλιάνικων τάξεων!

Dear Kobzar - surely you don't mean that the rest of us must carry our own luggage!

Incognitus

Suppose there's a full unity between Catholic and Orthodox, I would still feel that Patriarch of Constantinople and all the Patriarch should have voting input of a new Supreme Pontiff.

What a great way for all the Eastern Bishops to make sure there's a healthy balance between Western and Eastern Churches PLUS appoint a Roman Bishop who is sympathetic to the Eastern Churches.

What a healthy influence it would be for Eastern Bishops!

SPDundas
Deaf Byzantine

You know, I think I'm understanding more the Eastern Catholic stance of being against having Eastern Cardinals, if it's understood in the context of definate recognition of Petrine Primacy.

When it's understood, as it certainly seems to be by the Eastern Patriarchs who have refused the red hat, that the Bishop of Rome is also a partaker of the Petrine Office by virtue of being Bishop of Rome, then there really is no need for Eastern input on who should be Bishop of Rome. They have enough faith, and ample evidence supplied by 2000 years, that the Petrine Office does not err in matters of Faith and Morals, as promised by Christ, and they are perfectly comfortable with that. To them it doesn't matter if the Petrine Office is filled by vote or dice-rolling, they have faith in God's promise and the mission of Peter.

After all, the Petrine Office did not err in Faith for 1900 years without Eastern input in the election, why confuse things now? By having Eastern Cardinals it can be seen as (erroneously) lending credence to a kind of universal jurisdiction over the other Patriarchs, when in fact the Petrine Office is supposed to be a "court of final appeal". The Eastern Catholics do not deny this right and role of the Pope, and in fact have demanded it at countless times both before and after the Schism/Reunion. They are often more adamant about this role than even some Latins, who of late have expressed a very unhealthy dissidence in some quarters against the Petrine Office.

In other words, let the Latins decide the holder of the Petrine Office, the Bishop of Rome, by vote, coin flip, drawing lots, or Iron-Man competition; it doesn't matter in the least. The Petrine Office is protected and ordained by God, not mortal politics. Why confuse the two?

Peace and God bless!

This is a really good discussion, and I would like to toss something out there. The distinction between East and West did not exist in the same way when St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and because of this we should be open to the Eastern Churches having a vote for the Bishop of Rome. Seperation of Latin and "Eastern" were practically an accident resulting from distance as well as being split some by Islam, if I remember form my lessons wirh Fr. Sal "Byzantine Priest" The Eastern PAtriarchs helped the Bishop of Rome appoint his Bishops and vice versa, so that the Bishops elected were truley appointed by the Patriarchs. Unfortunalty the Great Schism effected all our mentalities by artificially creating a East verse West sphere of Jursidictional influence, when originally there wasn't one. The differences had more to do with how the Church expressed her spirituality and celebrated her liturgy, and less to do with how she ran. I'm not saying that I think we should do away with Eastern and Latin Bishops and allow one to preside over East and West because the US proved in the 20th Century that doesnt work. However the East and the West worked hand in hand for a very very long time and we shouldn't forget that, and when not if we figure out a more equitable way of working our jurisdictional issues out we are going to be hell for Satan to deal with. (Bad pun intended)


Yours in Christ,
Chris Johnson

Wohw said the horse, the cart goes behind me!
LOL

"The Eastern PAtriarchs helped the Bishop of Rome appoint his Bishops and vice versa, so that the Bishops elected were truley appointed by the Patriarchs."

With my apologies to Chris, this assertion closely approximates absolute nonsense.

Incognitus

From what I have read over the years about the reasons that the College of Cardinals was expanded and made more international, the thought was that it would allow for a broader range of opinion and experience to be brought to the Pope in his governing the universal Church.

I don't think there was ever any idea that it would serve to be a negative move.

If I'm not mistaken, the College of Cardinals was overwhelmingly Italian until relatively recently. And I would hazard a guess that after--and in the spirit--of Vatican II Rome realized that there was a lot of talent and a lot to be gained by bringing that talent and the viewpoints to be gained together for the benefit of the universal Church.

The recent Synod of Bishops is a related example. Though it is not a meeting of the College of Cardinals, it brought together viewpoints from around the world to bear on a very timely and necessary topic. Similarly, the College allows the Pope to have advice from men scattered around the globe and from different sui juris Churches. Call the College a fraternity, if you will. We all tend to want to take advice from people we have come to know through a common bond because that bond gives us reason to trust.

BOB