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

"Abolished" is really a loose word to use in this regard, because the way the Papacy has worked in the past 200 years, is that any Pope can simply ignore or bend the laws and regulations enacted by his predecessors (at least, those that do not involve anything doctrinal, or anything pertaining to faith and morals). For example, the "only 120 cardinal-electors" rule established by Paul VI was routinely disregarded by John Paul II, although Pope Benedict XVI has signified his intention to observe it (which puts him in a bind, because there are so many "Cardinalabili" right now -- nine in the Curia Romana alone, plus the new pro-patron of the Knights of Malta and many new archbishops of traditionally "red hat" sees appointed in the last 3 years -- and only eight available slots in the "120" by the end of this year).

Paul VI is known to have offered a red hat to the lay philosopher Jacques Maritain who, however, refused it.

It should be noted that cardinal-laymen have been, since about 1600 AD, inelligible to vote in conclave anyway.

To actually abolish the option would require an ecumenical council; only such a council binds later popes.

I don't understand why people feel that the papacy, a position in the Catholic Church that potentially can affect their own Eastern/Oriental primatial Church, cannot (and should not) have the vote of Eastern/Oriental primates (patriarchs/metropolitans).

Why not look at it as a vote for the papacy, instead of a vote for the Patriarch of the Latins?

Someone noted earlier that the Pope dispensing of the title "Patriarch of the West" meant that he was claiming to be Patriarch of the whole Church. I don't think that the Pope has ever given the reason for that (other than that the title is not ancient, to begin with, and that it is outdated), but many Latins point out that the title "Patriarch of the Latins" is still maintained.

Finally, it should be pointed out that the title is only offered, but may be rejected.

Someone mentioned earlier an Eastern Patriarch who was offered the title, and was pressured into accepting to his detriment. Can the person who mentioned that explain the circumstances a bit more, as well as explain how it was detrimental to the Patriarch?

Thanks

Blessings

Well is there not room for change and developement to give Eastern Churches the dignity of being not rites but sister churches in the universal Church?
Stephanos I

At the conclusion of Vatican II, Pope Paul VI coerced Patriarch Maximos IV of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and All the East - very much against the Patriarch's own wish. The outrage in the Patriarchate was very hard to deal with; people (including the hierarchs of the Synod) were absolutely infuriated. Several of the hierarchs threatened to resign; Metropolitan Elias (Zobhby) of holy memory actually did resign, and it took all the Patriarch's considerable powers of persuasion to convince Metropolitan Elias to accept a fresh appointment to his position.

If that sort of ungodly shaking of an inoffensive Church which had done nothing to provoke such treatment is not "detrimental", I don't know what would be. The Patriarch issued firm instructions to the effect that his title was not to be changed, neither in the diptychs nor in publications, and that his manner of dress and vesture would not be changed either.

To sum it up in a nutshell: a journalist asked the Patriarch if he should now be styled as "His Eminence" instead of "His Beatitude". The Patriarch smiled, and replied that "I have always understood that it is better to be blessed than to be eminent!"

Fr. Serge

Aramis,

Again, not so. Teodolfo Mertel, to whom I made reference in an earlier post as the last "lay Cardinal", participated as an elector in the conclave of 1878, which elected Pope Leo XIII.

Pietro Vidoni participated as an elector in the conclave which elected Pope Leo XII in 1829, albeit he had never been admitted to orders beyond the subdiaconate (which was typical of the lay Cardinals, so-called). Stanislao Sanseverino was another such elector in that conclave; he also was never ordained beyond the sub-diaconate.

Giuseppe Albani who, at that same conclave, delivered the veto of Emperor Francis I of Austria against the election of one cardinal, was likewise a lay Cardinal at that time - having then been one for almost a quarter century. It was only subsequent to that conclave that his dispensation from sacred orders was abrogated and he was ordained - to the diaconate only, I believe.

There are myriad others scattered through the two centuries beyond that which you cite.

Many years,

Neil

AP,

Whether Pope Paul VI offered a red hat to Maritain or not is speculative; it cannot be said to be "known". Miranda, the principal chronicler of the cardinalate does not reference it at all, although he does acknowledge others to whom such offers were made but declined - including one non-lay theologian offered it by Paul VI.

Many years,

Neil

Since the decisions of an ecumenical council themselves require approbation by the pope and a pope cannot bind his succesors in office except as to matters decreed as of faith and morals, this theory appears to have little ground on which to stand.

Many years,

Neil

Bless, Father,

If our Churches can only derive the dignity of being recognized as such, rather than as mere Rites, from having our primatial hierarchs be "awarded" the red hat - signifying status within an honorific body that symbolically represents the historic electorate of the Latin Church in Rome - then our Churches no longer can be considered to be "Sisters". The clear implication would be that those so "honored" are - effectively - members of the clerical body that is constituted for the principal purpose once exercised by the clergy of the diocese of Rome.

Many years,

Neil

Dear Father Serge. I ask for your blessing.

I am rather disturbed about this and I am wondering if Rome has really changed its attitude from the bad old days when it regarded the Eastern Catholic Churches as red headed step children. Frankly I can understand why a friend of mine who is Greek Orthodox does not want to see unity with the Catholic Church.

In Christ:
Einar

Dear brother Neil,

I don't understand your connection of the cardinalate with the diginity of an Eastern or Oriental Catholic Church. Seems to be a leap.

If I understand it correctly, only Cardinals are papabile. It seems the red hat has nothing to do with the dignity of a sui juris Church, but rather, the perception of a Pope that a particular person has the right qualities to eventually be Pope.

Blessings

Uh, you may want to recheck your rules for the election of a pontiff. Your statement is incorrect. All that giving of the red hat does is make that person an elector for the pontificate, provided they have not passed the mandatory age limit of 80.

Our Secret Squirrel is again correct. Nothing prevents the Cardinals from electing a Pope who is not himself a Cardinal.

Fr. Serge

Dear Secret Squirrel,

I didn't say that ONLY papabile can be elected Pope. But "papabile" is defined as a Cardinal who has a chance to be elected Pope - there have been non-Papabile who have been elected Pope. In any case, I stand by my original statement that the red hat has nothing to do with the dignity of a sui juris Church, but rather that a Pope views that person to have some exemplary qualities to eventually be Pope.

Blessings