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

That the vast majority of popes HAVE been cardinals....

doesn't mean that they have to have been cardinals.

Actually, the majority of Popes down to the Renaissance were Archdeacons.

OT: Secret Squirrel, I totally love your icon. Rocky n' Bullwinkle vintage?

Awesome! Carry on.

Rocky n Bullwinkle? Me thinks you have confused you Saturday Morning lineup. Secret Squirrel had his own show and Morocco Mole was his sidekick.

The term Cardinal originally simply referred to "of the Diocese of Rome"... or even "Of the Metropolitan Province of Rome"... through at least the 12th century.

Marduk,

My specific reference tying the award of the cardinalate to the dignity of our Churches was in specific response to Father Stephanos' comment, which seemed to suggest that there was a connection to be had.

Many years,

Neil

The election of the bishop of Rome should be done by the Church of Rome.

Einar,

I would suggest that HH Paul VI did not intend an affront to the Eastern Churches, but I think that he lacked the perceptiveness of HH John XXIII and saw himself as honoring those so named. Notably, he did not name any others during subsequent consistories.

In that consistory of 1965, he named four Eastern or Oriental cardinals:

HB Maximos IV Saigh, MSSP, Patriarch of Antioch & All the East, of Alexandria and Jerusalem of the Melkites
HB Paul Pierre Meouchi, Patriarch of Antioch of the Maronites
HB Stefanos I Sidarouss, CM, Patriarch of Alexandria of the Copts
HB Josyf Slipyj, Major Archbishop of Lviv of the Ukrainians, all of blessed memory.

Each was the first of his line to be so named, albeit there had been a few other cardinals named previously from the ranks of Eastern and Oriental hierarchs. The three who come to mind, offhand were: HB Gabriel I Tappouni, Patriarch of Antioch of the Syrians; HB Gregory Peter XV Agajanian, Patriarch of Cilicia of the Armenians; HE Gabriel Cardinal Coussa, BAO, Titular Archbishop of Hierapolis of the Melkites and later Secretary of the Oriental Congregation, all of blessed memory.

Father Archimandrite Orestes (Karame), also of blessed memory (theologian to HB Maximos IV at Vatican II and later counsellor to HE Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), first Eparch of Newton of the Melkites) once told me that the Pope's intent to name the Maronite Patriarch as cardinal was used as leverage to convince Patriarch Maximos to accept the title. In effect, the suggestion was made that award of a cardinalate to the 'other' Antiochian patriarch might otherwise be seen as eclipsing the primatial hierarch of the Melkites. As Father Serge suggests, Father Oreste affirmed that the Patriarch afterward regretted his decision to say 'yes' and both he and his successor urged the Pope to refrain from taking such action in the future - and, as memory serves, he named no others during his reign.

Pope John Paul II, however, with the enthusiasm and zeal that he brought to so many things, was disinclined to follow that course. His thinking in this regard may well have been influenced by the fact that some Eastern and Oriental primatial hierarchs, less cognizant or caring of the historical implications, came to see the "honor" as one that somehow 'elevated' awareness of their Churches and/or contributed to their personal stature or prestige.

Many years,

Neil

I was once present at an informal encounter between a certain Papal Nuncio and one of Patriarch Maximos V's auxiliary Archbishops. The Nuncio inquired after the health of "the Cardinal of Damascus". The Archbishop replied, with a broad smile: "There is no Cardinal in Damascus". Rather pleasant.

Fr. Serge

Please don't forget the Metropolitans of Lviv, Sylvester Cardinal Sembratovych and Mihail Cardinal Lewicki

Any catholic male may be elected Pope, if I understand correctly.
Stephanos I

The person in question has to be installed as Bishop of Rome, which is an office in the Latin Church. Members of another particular Church would have to transfer to the Latin Church in order to become the Bishop of Rome, which would be awkward, to say the least.

For myself, I believe the Pope should ONLY be elected from among the clergy of the Metropolitan Province of Rome. He's Pope because he is head of the Church of Rome; he's not head of the Church of Rome because he's Pope, and the Pope is not some sort of Catholic Dalai Lama, who is "out there", somewhere, waiting to be discovered. We have detached the Petrine ministry from its ecclesial roots, and that has been, overall, a very bad thing.

If memory serves, that wasn't the case if we go back even further.

I no longer remember the source, but my foggy memory says that the bishop of Rome was initially selected by the bishops of the four "cardinal" dioceses immediately adjacent, and three cardinal priests of particularly important churches in Rome.

But I wish I could remember the source . . .


Did anyone call Pope VI's election "awkward"? I'm not old enough to remember, but it certainly qualifies as in living memory . . .

hawk

"Did anyone call Pope VI's election "awkward"? I'm not old enough to remember, but it certainly qualifies as in living memory . . ."

I am a bit confused. Since Giovanni Battista Montini was born a Roman Catholic and ordained a Roman Catholic priest, no transfer of rite (there were no particular ritual Churches at the time of his election) would be needed for his investiture.

I think hawk is refering to the fact that Pope Paul VI was Archbishop of Milan and of the Ambrosian Rite when elected, although I don't think that is the same thing as an Eastern Catholic being elected.