The Ambrosian rite is merely one of several liturgical rituals used by the Latin Church (one limited in its territorial extent to the Metropolitan Province of Milan); by accident of history, Milan never developed into an autonomous Church (though, like Carthage, it might have given another century or two). On the other hand, the twenty-one Eastern Catholic Churches are independent of the Church of Rome.

For that matter there was also Cardinal Sembratovich toward the end of the nineteenth century. There were strong efforts to obtain the rank of Cardinal for Metropolitan Andrew; guess which ethnic group blocked it?

Fr. Serge

hawk,

Should you remember the source, discard it. The Bishop of Rome, as with most early bishoprics - once past the stage of successors being appointed - was elected by the presbyterate of the diocese which he would serve. Ultimately, these came to be represented by the college of cardinals.

Many years,

Neil

I got a bit more than I bargained for in my original post. All great stuff and I feel I've learned a bit more about the Greek Catholic view on matters Latin.

That said, I don't believe that any future ecclesiastical reality which includes the Churches of the East, whether they were once Catholic or Orthodox, will look what we've now when it comes to Conclave. I'm hoping for a day when the Latins and the Greeks, by the power of God, are allowed to breathe a a sweet breeze into the lungs of a dying Europe. I'm hoping that it means that the faithful will speak in one voice when they elect a Successor to the Fisherman.

Why would we want to vote for the Pope? He's Pope because he is the Bishop of Rome. Rome is the First Church, the Church with Priority, the Church That Presides in Love. The primacy resides with the Church, not with the man. The man is not outside or above his Church, and to make the selection of the bishop of a local Latin Church a global matter not merely dilutes, but erases entirely the ecclesial basis of the Roman Primacy.

If you are going to do that, why does the Heir of Peter have to be the Bishop of Rome at all? Why not, in a united Church, allow any bishop anywhere to hold the primacy from his own see? Why should not the Archbishop of Constantinople, or of Moscow, or of Kyiv, or of Alexandria, be recognized as Pope, if the Conclave votes for him, and exercise his primacy from his patriarchal see?

No, the Primacy is linked to the Church of Rome, and the election of the Bishop of Rome by both right and tradition, ought to be the business of the Roman Church and no other.