www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Cardinals and Patriarchs

This is a spinoff question from a topic in the RDL forum:

Are patriarchs in the Greek Catholic Churches also cardinals when it comes to being admitted into Conclave to elect a new pope?

Not necessarily. Some patriarchs are not cardinals and are, therefore, not admitted to conclaves.

Patriarch Lubomyr voted in the conclave which elected Pope Benedict XVI - and got up from a hospital bed to cast that vote. It was the first time in history that any Ukrainian Greek-Catholic hierarch had the opportunity to vote in the conclave, and Patriarch Lubomyr felt it was his duty to his Church not to let the moment be lost, regardless of medical considerations.

Fr. Serge

It seems odd that patriarchs are not by default allowed to vote in Conclave given that they oversee the ancient seats of Christianity.

Oh and thanks Theophan and Abouna for replying!

As a former member of the BCC I was always "torn" on this issue. On one hand, shouldn't the eastern catholic churches have "a say" in the election of the new pope? On the other hand, let the western church choose their own "head bishop"?

Why would an Eastern prelate have a say in the election of the Bishop of Rome?

Should we then send a few cardinals to elect the next Patriarch of Constantinople (after a possible reunion)?

While I have the utmost respect for the Eastern prelates who are also cardinals of the Roman Church, I admire those who have felt they do not need to become clergy of the Church of Rome to fullfil their duties as head bishops of their own Churches Sui Iuris.

Shalom,
Memo

I didn't understand a vote in Conclave as synonymous with membership in the Latin Church.

It's like if the Orthodox of a region assemble to elect a new patriarch, they aren't becoming the clergy of another church. They are merely exercising the model given in Acts, when the Apostles elected a successor to take the place of Judas.

Since the Pope of Rome is the pastor of the universal Church, it's conceivable (per the 1968 movie The Shoes of the Fisherman) that an Eastern Catholic could be elected Pope. Something to think about. The Latins aren't "stealing" as it were an Eastern brother.

I'm not sure how Conclave became identified with just the Latin Church since cardinals from every rite and sui iuris church have voted in these in recent decades.

OTOH, I understand that in the patristic period, patriarchs were elected regionally, with the Pope occasionally recognizing an election, but not himself voting in it.

It depends entirely on the ecclesiastical perception of the papacy.

If it is, as a 4th century Assyrian Bishop taught, "to patriarchs as patriarchs are to bishops," then it should be elected by the primates and patriarchs from amongst their number... Let us call this the "Sole Archpatriarchal" model.

If instead, it's solely primacy of the latin church, as several councils would leave us to believe, then no, the east should have no say at all, for the Synod of the Roman Church should elect its primate, be he patriarch or archpatriarch.

The truth is somewhat more complex. Papal electors were not always all even clerics; originally, cardinal simply meant "of the Province of Rome," and all clerics in the province had vote!

Slowly, Rome has been spreading the vote further from Rome, but also raising it to a select few. Oriental Patriarchs are supposed to become cardinals, tho' the enrollment is not automatic, it is in addition to "normal cardinalate sees" since Patriarchs "elevated" to cardinal-patriarch use their patriarchal see as their cardinalate see.

Which brings up a notable quibble... technically, all cardinals except cardinal-patriarchs are bishops of two sees; a notably uncanonical situation.

I would not be surprised to see a change in law in the next century or two to grant all primates of Metropolitan and Major Archiepiscopal Churches Sui Iuris cardinalate status with their primatial see as their cardinalate see. Note also: the Patriarchs who are not also cardinals have either expressed a desire to not be so named (as one Melkite patriarch), or have retired patriarchs holding the patriarchal see as their cardinalate see, so until their death, the Cardinalate see does not pass, even tho' the patriarchal see.

I think the Roman Church alone should elect its patriarch.

I too, am torn on this issue. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, therefore should be elected by "Roman" Catholics but at the same time, the Pope chose to drop the title Patriarch of the West, therefore affirming his primacy over the entire Church.

I don't really understand the election a Successor to St. Peter as being a a "Roman" or "Latin" thing. It's the universal Church which should speak as one voice in union with the Holy Spirit. Maybe I'm naive, but I view the papacy as the senior brother whose voice should strengthen the faithful, no matter their rite or their particular church. In this respect, I would hope that all of the Orthodox Churches would have a say when the ballots are cast for some future Pope of Rome.

To me it is a very "Roman" thing, because the Pope is the bishop of Rome, he isn't my bishop or patriarch. The Roman Patriarchate should govern its own affairs without interference from the other sui juris Catholic Churches.

BTW nice avatar . . . it's a little small, but aesthetically pleasing nonetheless.

I quite agree that the Roman Church alone should elect its own Patriarch, and that the Eastern Churches should elect their hierarchs without interference from Rome.

Patriarch Maximos IV, under tremendous pressure from Pope Paul VI, accepted the rank of Cardinal and lived to regret it.

Fr. Serge

I fall more into the archpatriarchal camp, and feel that the Pope should be elected by the latin patriarchs and the eastern primates, plus perhaps a similar number of electors appointed by the prior pope.

I doubt that will hppen, but, hey, I can hope! (It would take a council...)