|
0 members (),
323
guests, and
114
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,523
Posts417,632
Members6,176
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 16
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 16 |
My brothers and sisters, The repose of His Holiness has renewed interest in the question of what part, if any, Eastern and Oriental Catholic hierarchs should have in the election of the Pope. Opinions tend to differ between: - those who consider the matter to be one for the Western/Latin Church in view of the fact that the College of Cardinals is representative of the Holy Synod that historically would have elected the Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West, who is ex officio the Pope, and
- those who consider that the Pope's Petrine Ministry argues for the fullest participation of the Church, East and West.
The poll is set up so as to have you record agreement or disagreement with each statement. Please read carefully, as some statements might potentially break what would otherwise be a sequence of agreement or disagreement. Please vote and post any unique thoughts you might have. Voting, btw, is not limited to Eastern and Oriental Catholics. Unfortunately the polling mechanism doesn't allow the breakout of poll data by Latin, E&OC, E&OO, etc, which would be interesting, but I figure that everyone posting here has enough of an interest in the relationship of the Eastern and Western Catholic Churches to make their opinion valuable. Many years, Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 16
Global Moderator Member
|
|
Global Moderator Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 10,090 Likes: 16 |
Aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhhh, I forgot to include the question, posed to me by Martin, which prompted me to post the poll - and the poll can't be edited. The question is:
Should the presiding hierarchs of sui iuris Churches be automatic electors of the Pope, together with the Latin Cardinals, because of the Bishop of Rome's Petrine ministry?
Anyone who chooses to answer in a post, I'd be very grateful.
Many years,
Neil
"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 212
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 212 |
Originally posted by Irish Melkite:
Aaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggghhhhhhhhh, I forgot to include the question, posed to me by Martin, which prompted me to post the poll - and the poll can't be edited. The question is:
[b]Should the presiding hierarchs of sui iuris Churches be automatic electors of the Pope, together with the Latin Cardinals, because of the Bishop of Rome's Petrine ministry?
Anyone who chooses to answer in a post, I'd be very grateful.
Many years,
Neil [/b] Good morning Neil. You and I seem to be the early birds today. I disagree with the question. The election of the Roman pontiff should be (I originally wrote "is", but the current situation would contradict that) a matter for hierarchs of the Roman patriarchate. Having said that, I believe that the patriarchs, major archbishops, and sui iuris metropolitans should be able to attend at least some of the meetings of the College of Cardinals during the sede vacante so that their opinions of the qualities needed in a Roman patriarch who exercises the Petrine ministry can be known and considered. Some might view this suggestion as opening the door to a more truly synodal form of papal election - and that may come about in the future, since the Church is a dynamic rather than static institution - but I do not believe that it does. The papal electors do need to consider the qualities of a future pope in several areas, among them how the exercise of the Petrine ministry effects and is perceived by the other Churches in full communion with the Roman patriarch. Perception can be either a blessing or a curse and the one who exercises this great ministry of service must make every effort to make the perception reflect the realtiy and make certain that the reality is a blessing to all. Peace, Charles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 845
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 845 |
I agree with Charles. The Pope is the Patriarch of the West.
If we don't want Rome in our business, we should stay out of theirs.
The issue of the Petrine Ministry should come into play only where there is a serious threat to Christian unity resulting from a crisis in the Faith, e.g. a Church questioning the basic truths espoused in the Creed.
Yours,
hal
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 648
Orthodox domilsean Member
|
|
Orthodox domilsean Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 648 |
There are those who argue that the Pope is not only patriarch of the west, but also head of the Universal Church. He acts as the Vicar of Christ for the whole Church. If this is the case, then everyone should be at least eligible to be named cardinal. If Rome wants the Eastern Churches (sui iuris and otherwise) to be closer, then the Pope should name major archbishops and patriarchs as cardinals. Or perhaps not as cardinals per se, which is really a Latin rite honor like monsignior, but give them the rite to vote in the papal election by virtue of their Patriarch/Metropolitan status.
Just a thought.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 147
a sinner
|
|
a sinner
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 147 |
I'm with domilsean:
I believe that because the Pope of Rome's Petrine Ministry argues for the fullest participation of the Church universal, East and West, all presiding hierarchs of all sui iuris Churches in communion with the Church of Rome should be automatic electors of the Pope, together with the Latin cardinals.
There would be no need, then, for those presiding Eastern hierarchs to be cardinals. Eastern theologians and hierarchs not currently presiding over their respective churches, however, could be named cardinals.
Martin
Martin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
|
|
Orthodox Catholic Toddler Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,904 |
I think the selection of the bishop of Rome is a purely western affair.
They should choose their man and let us all know who it is. Eastern prelates should stay the heck out of that business.
+T+
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225 Likes: 1
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 4,225 Likes: 1 |
After reading some of the responses after voting, it might take some time to formulate a post that makes sense.
james
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 3,517 |
It appear to me (pontificating from my paper bag) that the question hinges on one's understanding of the universal ministry of the Bishop of Rome. If one considers this an extraordinary ministry, to be invoked only in case of utter need, then there is no special reason to include the Heads of the other Local Churches in the process of choosing the Bishop of Rome (leaving aside for the moment the legal fiction of the Cardinals). That is, I should think, a classic position, espoused in our time most famously by Metropolitan Elias (Zoghby) of Baalbeck. If, on the other hand, one considers the universal ministry of the Bishop of Rome to be a part of the normal ADMINISTRATION of the universal Church, then the question is altered.
In the long run, the most sensible thing to do is to return to the understanding and practice of the first millennium, which did not know the possibility of one Patriarch being involved in the election of another Patriarch save in the most extraordinary circumstances. Hence the very notion of turning an Eastern Catholic bishop into the "titular" priest or deacon of some church in the city of Rome is ridiculous. On the other hand, establishing a system which would allow a regular vote to hierarchs who have no real connection for the Church of Rome seems equally ridiculous.
Let's start a movement for the canonization of Patriarch Gregory II Joseph of Antioch.
Incognitus
|
|
|
|
|
