Mor,

Thank you for your kind words.

My point as to naturalized citizens was just that one need not be personally eligable for an office to cast a vote in an election to that office.

In the early Church, the popes were elected by the Christian people of Rome, men and women, lay and clergy. Therefore, women were electors.

K.

Dear Kurt,

Yes, you are right.

However, one could extend your argument with respect to the way in which all bishops were once elected by the entire Church, laity of both genders included.

This is what the original "Axios" meant, the response of the people re: the worthiness of the candidate.

Today, this is symbolic. But it used to be more than symbolic and without that sung "Axios" by the people, a person could not become a bishop or priest.

You are such an interesting person, Kurt - who is your Namesaint?

God bless,

Alex

I'm not so sure. I suppose that it is possible, although any real theological/ecclesiological implications for this proposal are beyond my meager competence. I can, however, comment upon practical matters of taking such a step as this. How would this serve the Church in its mission, other than a sop to placate feminists? Would this help in maintaining orthodoxy or merely fragment the Roman Church at least even further? This would no doubt embolden advocates of ordaining women to the priesthood and could cause serious confusion among the laity. Regardless of the lack of sacramental charism a cardinal's cap carries, it has been invested with such by appearances at least in the minds of most of the laity. Most Roman Catholics are blissfully ignorant that one need not be a bishop to be made a cardinal (let alone be ordained at all, up until about a century ago). I believe this is why deaconesses in the Roman Church, while acknowledged as being theologically sound, have not been revived for remarkably similar reasons.

Let us not forget that the Roman Catholic Church has only begun to revive the diaconate in the last 20-30 years, with mixed results. Most RCs to this day do not understand this vocation, viewing it as merely a "step below" the priesthood ("priest, junior grade" I suppose). We have yet to fully integrate the revived diaconate and bring it fully to the consciousness of most laymen, so I hesitate to think what this proposal might do as well to add to the confusion.

Quote:

They may vote for a Pope but that doesn't mean that they would vote for a woman Pope (Pope Joan II? - just kidding . . .), or that canon law would allow them to do so.

Canon Law expressly forbids restricting cardinals from voting for whom they desire to. Any deals cut before Conclaves, promises made, etc., are null and void. One need not be ordained to be elected pope, nor do I think that Canon Law expressly restricts the papacy to males alone. I could be wrong on this however.

Pax Christi,
John

Interesting, thank you. I believe in the past this was not always so, i.e. laymen could and were appointed as cardinals also.

Pax Christi,
John

I have to question this. While it is possible as being true, I would like to know the historical evidence in support of that. Given the patriarchal societies of the time that the early Church operated in, I don't believe assuming that women also voted is necessarily warranted.

Pax Christi,
John

Jim,
I read that article too, however I think it is mistaken. I watched the consistory on EWTN and remember that when Cardinal Dulles was receiving his red hat the commentator made mention of the fact that he would be allowed to remain a priest. This makes sense considering Cardinal Dulles is over 80 and ineligible to be a papal elector. Perhaps the commentator was mistaken.

In Christ,
Lance, deacon-candidate

Dear Kurt,

OK, now I understand your point about the voting. But I'd like to echo John's request for the historical evidence to support women as papal electors in the early church. He raises a valid point IMO, and it's too interesting to let go with just a few brief words. Thanks, Kurt! God bless.

Now, John, I had my response mentally compased and then you gave your self away, my friend.

You ask: "How would this serve the Church in its mission, other than a sop to placate feminists?". And how does the restriction serve except as a sop to woman-haters?

You ask: "This ..could cause serious confusion among the laity." As might Byzantine married priests. Might the answer be eduate the laity?

But then you ponder that women might not have been papal electors because of the patriarchy of the times. While it appears that wealthy women of social standing did in fact vote, your concession that patriarchy (which JP2 calls a sin) and not orthodoxy would have been the barrier, frees us from having to worry about history. Thre we have it!

K.

Dear Ignatius,

"Where ever Two or more of you are gathered In My Name there I will be in the midst of you." Holy Marriage is indeed one of the Holy Mysteries.

A Holy and Blessed Lent to all
John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

I remember in a Canon Law course that my professor pronounced that anyone could be a cardinal. There were Cardinal-bishops, Cardinal-priests and even Cardinal-Deacons (even when there were no permanent deacons) as well as Cardinal-laymen, although such a beast had not been nominated in several hundred years.

Thus, we can confirm the fact that if the Cardinals are the ones who have the right to elect the Pope of Rome ( as opposed to the clergy/laity of the Latium community), then anybody who is a Cardinal has the honor of being locked-up in the Sistine Chapel. This, of course, does not automatically include the supreme hierarchs of the 'affiliated' Eastern Churches unless they are designated Cardinals.

What would be wrong with calling ALL the bishops of the Rome-affiliated Churches to a conclave of electors? Obviously, there would be no way to 'control' who might be elected and this would cause cardiac events among the bureaucrats.. Lord knows, there might even be one of them Africans elected Pope, or one of them Asians. Yikes. Even a bishop of the Eastern Churches could be elected. O LORD!! WHAT DO WE DO NOW?!?!?!

Is it OK to rattle Roman bureaucratic cages?

Blessings!

Lance: I agree, all three of them are 80 and up, so the question of Episcopacy is moot anyway - these being more a title of honor than a title of position?? - (but titles certainly earned and deserved). The fact pertaining to this post is that all of them came from the priesthood and not the laity. Thus based on the current codes, all cardinals will "come up through the priestly ranks" (and the Florida vote won't enter into the equation). God Bless, Jim

Dr. John - Do you mean "Eliminate" the Electoral College (Of Cardinals)?? That would surely mean lots of black smoke spewing from that chimney - (probably have to re-clean Michaelangelo's ceiling after that vote is over). Jim

>In Russia, people sometimes covered their icons with cloth in their bedrooms as they felt sexual acts in front of them was disrespectful.<

And they say Catholics are repressed sexually! Although I don't know where they get this idea. Probably from all of the Catholic families with ten or more children.


Of course Catholicism does not teach ‘have as many children as you physically can, regardless of the health or other consequences’.

As for the issue of legit, married sex in front of icons, of course sex is good and holy. But it may be a matter of what’s right in the right place at the right time. Just like one wouldn’t bring a roast-beef sandwich into the altar and chow down, even though eating is a good thing created by God, so the icon-coverers may be reverent and not mentally unhealthy about sex.

Serge

<a href="http://oldworldrus.com">Old World Rus’</a>

Dear Serge,

You are right. I (not Ignatius) raised the issue of the icon covers.

I did so simply to illustrate the profound respect Eastern Christians have for holy things.

After spending years with Roman Catholics in school, I must say that, in general, they don't have the same high level of overt respect for holy things that is to be found among the Orthodox.

The Orthodox reverent mannerisms with respect to holy objects is truly inspiring.

Alex

>>>In Russia, people sometimes covered their icons with cloth in their bedrooms as they felt sexual acts in front of them was disrespectful.<<<

>>And they say Catholics are repressed sexually! Although I don't know where they get this idea. Probably from all of the Catholic families with ten or more children.<<

Rusnak said:
>Of course Catholicism does not teach ‘have as many children as you physically can, regardless of the health or other consequences’.<

Never said it did. This is a different topic, albeit related. Please note that my above comment was some what tongue in cheek. Well, maybe tongue not IN cheek as can be seen by my

Here I'll try it again



>As for the issue of legit, married sex in front of icons, of course sex is good and holy. But it may be a matter of what’s right in the right place at the right time. Just like one wouldn’t bring a roast-beef sandwich into the altar and chow down, even though eating is a good thing<

I agree with you. However, the marriage bed IS the proper place for the marital act. If the couple in question has a problem with engaging in the marital embrace in front of their icons they should remember that we are ALWAYS surrounded by an invisible cloud of witnesses, to say nothing of our guardian angels. Frankly, it seems to me that the saints and angels would rejoice to see a married couple engage in an act of self-giving love (especially considering the dominant attitude of sex-for-recreation seen today).

The fact is that renewal of the marriage covenant is perfectly suitable to be done in front of icons, crucifixes, etc. considering it is a holy gift from God.

The Alex said:
>After spending years with Roman Catholics in school, I must say that, in general, they don't have the same high level of overt respect for holy things that is to be found among the Orthodox.
The Orthodox reverent mannerisms with respect to holy objects is truly inspiring.<

While the Orthodox reverence for holy object IS in fact inspiring I think we run in very different circles when it comes to Catholics. Most of the Catholics I know are very reverential to things such as crucifixes, icons, statues, etc. One priest I know regularly kisses the things I have him bless for me. Of course it is also very nice to see many Catholics make the sign of the cross whenever they pass by a Catholic (or Orthodox) church.

There are Catholics that I know who are not reverent towards holy objects, nor for that matter, the Eucharistic species. But these same people would be hard pressed to tell you why they even SHOULD be reverent towards such things so I consider them to be in a seperate class.