www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Eastern Catholic Cardinals

I am going to deal with two comments here.

Hal,
So your answer for one percieved abuse, that of Rome over-steping its authority with regard to our Churches should be remedied by another?

Can you really state a recent case where Rome over-stepped its authority?

As for representation, the Church is not a demoracy and all a cardinal does is cast a vote for who will be pope. I would say that our couple of cardinals is nothing but an attempt to appease us as their small number really means that their votes do not mean that much.

And to your comment on the recognition of a Patriarchate, I am guessing you mean the UGCC. As there are three other Patriarchates out there in the Eastern Churches, how will another change anything?

Amado,
This is also how I used to think, but I have changed.

As the Pope is not just Universal Pastor, he is also Bishop of Rome and Patriarch of the West.

If he was only the Universal Pastor then I could agree with you, but why should the Bishop of Rome be picked by men that are not of that Church?

Why should the Patriarch of the West be picked by Patriarchs of other Churches?

If we do this, then why not let the Cardinals, or just the Patriarchs, have a vote in the Patriarchs of other Churches?


David, the Byzantine Catholic

In their capacity as papal electors, the Cardinals only "represent" the remaining clergy and faithful of the Archdiocese of Rome, regardless of what positions they in fact hold. That the Archbishop of New York is normally a Cardinal does not mean that he represents the Archdiocese of New York in a papal election. He has no shred of an obligation to consult anybody, or take cognizance of what anybody wants (neither in the Archdiocese of New York nor in the Archdiocese of Rome, for that matter). The whole system of the electoral conclave is a bit esoteric.
It would not be at all difficult to think of a list of cases in my own lifetime when the Holy See has overstepped the bounds of its presumable primatial authority, by acting as though the Holy Father were a universal Patriarch, and as though every "monsignore" in the Vatican were the Pope's alter ego. But I won't provide that list (since it would sidetrack the discussion even further); everyone is free to make his own list as he chooses! Incognitus

Dear David:

I'm not sure what you are saying when you say "one abuse for another." Is allowing non-Latin Rite bishops to participate in the election of the Pope an "abuse?" I'm not sure.

I gather than you agree with the Admin that our Eastern Bishops should NOT be permitted to be Papal Electors as they are members of a sui juris Church. In support of this argument, you say that Rome's alleged abuses of its power vis a vis the Ukrainian (and other) churches is poppycock.

Well, my friend, read my post and you will see that I mention the whole bit about the "traditional territories" concept. Both Ukie and Ruthenian bishops in North America, for example are appointed by the Pope, not by our own Synods. The recent appointments to Toronto, Chicago, Winnipeg and Philadelphia are a case and point.

I won't even start with what the Vatican has done with the Ukrainian Eparchy of Peremyshel'-Mukachevo (parts of which are politically in Poland).

By the same token, Rome would never, ever allow His Beatitude Lubomyr to have the final say with regard to Latin Rite bishops in Ukraine, would it?

This notwithstanding, even if our Churches were truly sui juris, there are certain situations(albeit very very very rare and serious crisis) wherein the Patriarch of Rome, in his capacity as Universal pastor, may need to act as a mediator. Once again, should not the Eastern Patriarchs have a say in who gets elected to that post from this point of view?

The fact that there would be a relative few of them as compared to the red-clad hordes of the Latin Cardinals would be indicative of the fact that the Pope should indeed very rarely become involved in the workings of the Eastern Churches.

Yours,

hal

Dear Amado,

Just a couple of clarifications regarding cardinals. Newly created curial cardinals are named cardinal deacons. This has been the practice at least since the reign of Paul VI. After ten years in the order of deacons, a cardinal deacon may "opt" into the order of priests.

The Code of Canon Law prescribes that priests who are created cardinals are to be ordained bishops. However, in this pontificate, until this consistory, every priest who was created a cardinal requested and received a dispensation from episcopal ordination. Three of the four priests created this time did not request a dispensation. Thus, Gustaaf Joos received episcopal ordination on Oct. 11th, Stanislaw Nagy, SCJ, on Oct. 13th, and Georges Cottier, OP, on Oct. 20th. Tomas Spidlik,SJ, requested and received a dispensation from episcopal ordination.

At this time, in addtion to Cardinal Spidlik, three other cardinals are not bishops: Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ; Cardinal Roberto Tucci, SJ; and Cardinal Leo Scheffczyk.

Have a good evening.

Peace,

Charles

Was Cardinal Max Thurian ever ordained a Bishop?

Good evening.

Max Thurian was never created a cardinal.

Peace,

Charles

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Halychanyn:

Also, although I guess it is still proper to refer to His Beatitidue Patriarch Lubomyr as the Matropolitan Archbishop of Lviv, I think once he moves to his rightful seat of Kyiv that should change.

Halychanyn:

The info regarding His Beauditude Lubomyr was taken from info from the consistry.
Second, I only went back less than 20 years for my earlier post, but going back farther, the Ukrainians, Armenians, Maronites, Melkites, Syrians , all have had Bishops or Patriarchs elevated to Cardinal at various times in the last 100+ years.

Dear Hal,
What are you talking about? What Eparchy? and in what sense Ukrainian?

Originally posted by Amado Guerrero:

"... Majority of the Cardinals are within the Order of Cardinal-Priests and the newer Cardinals (with the possible exception of Curial Cardinals) are usually in the Order of Cardinal-Deacons."

Originally posted by Charles Bransom:

"Just a couple of clarifications regarding cardinals. Newly created curial cardinals are named cardinal deacons. This has been the practice at least since the reign of Paul VI. After ten years in the order of deacons, a cardinal deacon may "opt" into the order of priests."

Actually,

1. Cardinal Bishops -

A. The Cardinals who are Titular Bishops of Suburbicarian Sees of Rome. Specifically, the 6 Cardinal Bishops are:

(1) Titular Bishop of the Suburbicarian See of Albano;
(2)Titular Bishop of the Suburbicarian See of Frascati;
(3)Titular Bishop of the Suburbicarian See of Palestrina;
(4)Titular Bishop of the Suburbicarian See of Porto-Santa Rufina;
(5)Titular Bishop of the Suburbicarian See of Sabina-Poggio Mirteto
(6)Titular Bishop of the Suburbicarian See of Velletri-Segni

[The Dean of the Sacred College of Cardinals is elected by the Cardinal Bishops from among themselves; formerly, the most senior Cardinal Bishop became Dean, ipso facto; that was changed, in 1965, to require election to the office. The Dean also becomes, ex officio , Titular Bishop of the Suburbicarian See of Ostia, in addition to whichever other Suburbicarian See (1 thru 6 above which he holds.]

B. Any Oriental Patriarchs, Major or Minor, Eastern or Latin, who are Cardinals. Sometimes referred to as Cardinal Patriarchs, although no such title formally exists.

2. Cardinal Priests

Those Cardinals who head Arch-Episcopal (or, more rarely, Episcopal) Sees geographically situated outside the Province of Rome.

3. Cardinal Deacons

Those Cardinals who hold offices in the Curia, (other than the six Curial officials noted above who are styled "Cardinal Bishop").

Many years,

Neil

Dear Neil,

Please refer to my previous post noted above. Once a cardinal deacon has been in that office for 10 years, he "opts" or transfers to a presbyteral title. (Code of Canon Law, Can. 350, para.6). For example, Cardinal Achille Silvestrini was created cardinal in 1988. On January 9, 1999 he opted for the order of priests. He was still an active curial cardinal. Cardinal deacons opt for the presbyteral order at the first consistory after their 10th anniversary as cardinals. Cardinal Angelo Felici also opted for the presbyteral order on the same date as did Cardinal Eduardo Martinez Somalo.

One additional note: when a cardinal who is a residential bishop is named to a position in the Roman Curia, he retains the presbyteral rank, e.g., Cardinal Edmund Casimir Szoka who was created a cardinal priest in 1988 and was transferred to a curial position in 1990.

I highly recommend Salvador Miranda`s site, "The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church". It is the finest site devoted to the College of Cardinals and has all of the pertinent documentation relating to the College. The url is:

http://www.fiu.edu/~mirandas/cardinals.htm

Peace,

Charles

In full agreement with the late Patriarch on both counts.

In IC XC
Samer

Hi,

Good! I really don't see why a head of a Church Sui Iuris would be interested in a position among the clergy of another Church, or why should he be involved in the election of her Bishop.

Maybe what we need is to be very precise in distinguishing those dicasteries of the Roman Curia that have to do with the administration and governance of the Latin Church from those that have to do with the pastoral care of the Universal Church.

The College of Cardinals can still be in charge of the Conclave, and of the Patriarchal Roman Curia, and then maybe a new collegial body needs to be created, one that perhaps would include the heads (or a legate) from every Sui Iuris Church, and which would take care of the Universal Roman Curia.

Don't hold your breath, though.


Shalom,
Memo.

Slava Isusu Chrystu!

thanks to you all... from what you've posted i got alot of info on the views of Eastern Catholics to cardinals of the Roman Curia.

thanks again...
eumir

Learner wrote:

"Anthony Cardinal Padiyara, Archbishop Emiritus of Ernakulam-Angamaly, India (Syro-Malabarese) elevated to Cardinal in 1988, Died in 2000. Reading his background, He could have been a Latin Rite Bishop appointed to a Eastern see."

Padiyara was a Syro-Malabar by birth who canonically translated to the Latin Rite when he entered the seminary and was ordained in that Rite in 1945. He canonically reverted to the Syro-Malabar Rite in 1970 at the time of his elevation to the Metropolitan See of Changanacherry of the Syro-Malabars and remained of that Rite until his death.

Charles,

I stand corrected. Thanks for the url. I know Miranda's site and used to have a link to it on one of my webpages, but misplaced it somewhere along the way.

Many years,

Neil