www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Papal Authority & the Cardinalate in regard to Eastern Hierarchs

Well, it could be that nobody sees it this way because it's not quite what the Catholic Church teaches or believes. The person who is chosen to be the Bishop of Rome is chosen to be the direct successor of St Peter as head of the Apostolic College of Bishops. It is both ecclesial and personal. St Peter ended his unique ministry in Rome with martyrdom there, and it seems that the Church understood and accepted that the Bishop of Rome would be his successor in that Petrine ministry - visible head of the universal Church. Rome persecuted the Christians there. I doubt they had any devotion to Rome as a political entity. St Maximos makes it clear that the Church of Rome's authority comes from a more heavenly source. I suppose if St Peter's ministry as head of the Church had ended in Antioch, the Bishop of Antioch would have been chosen to assume that role, but history knows no alternatives, as they say. The Bishop of Rome has two ministries, as it were, one to the diocese over which he presides as bishop (in which sense he is Inter Pares) and the other over the Church universal. He is not a "Dalai Lama", but exercises the unique Petrine ministry always in union with the bishops of the world who are in union with him. The Popes in my lifetime, at least, seem to have taken their responsibilities as Bishop of Rome quite seriously and seem to have attended to the needs of the faithful there quite adequately. Historically, the Petrine ministry has taken on a Latin look primarily because east and west have been separated or divorced from one another for a very long time. Should there be a reconciliation, especially with twenty-first or second century communications technology,I am quite sure many Roman institutions, like the cardinalate and the Curia would take on radically different looks, and might even fade into distant memories like the Crusades and warrior popes. I personally find Stuart's point of view quite myopic.

Well, it may not be what the Catholic Church teaches, but it is the truth, which is a problem for the Church not for me.

Do you not see that it is rather that the Church of Rome derives her priority or presidence from the fact that her bishop is the successor of St Peter in his unique ministry to preside in the Apostolic College; not the other way around?

Ratzinger himself made this argument, more or less, in the early 70s, asking why it was that the cardinalatial title, a creation of the Latin local Church in the second millennium for its own particular needs, came to be seen as trumping the patriarchate, an office of the ancient Church accorded great gravity. I have a suspicion that if this office were not tied to electing the pope of Rome, who has become such an important and powerful figure, no Eastern Catholic would be interested in accepting the red hat. It would then be seen for what it is: a trumped up version of being made a "monsignor"--nothing more.

See, Adam understands: if there is to be real Christian unity, then something has to be done to return the Papacy to its roots within the Church of Rome (which, when Irenaeus described Rome as the Church That Presides in Love, referred to the Diocese of Rome).

I doubt very much that the diocesan structure, as we know it, had evolved very much by the time St Iranaeus was writing c.180. In any event, the Church of Rome was singled out by him not because of the Imperial importance of Rome, but because of her many martyrs (witnesses), the clarity of her faith, and because St Peter presided there in the person of her bishop. Yes, I would like to see the cardinalate abolished. It probably has no place in a united Church, although in this day and age it has taken on kind of a universal aspect. I agree with new member, Debora, that the inclusion of eastern Catholic prelates, Patriarch or not, expresses the universality of the Church. I know there have been Greek popes, but have any of the Patriarchs of Constantinople been Italian?

Fr Deacon Lance-

It's not so rare as you might think...

In the Latin Church, the creation of Cardinals for a particular Archepiscopal See, probably has more to due whether or not the retiring/retired Cardinal-Archbishop is still a Cardinal-Elector.

Archbishop Anthony Bevilacqua was created Cardinal, when Cardinal Krol was still alive. Consider also the case of Archbishop Justin Rigali. Prior to Archbishop Rigali's installation in Philadelphia on October 7, 2003, it was announced on September 28 that he would be elevated to the College of Cardinals. Archbishops Bevilacqua and Rigali where given the red hat, when there respective predecessors turned 80. Same has happened in Los Angeles. Archbishops Timothy Manning and Roger Mahony were made cardinals in the consistories around the time their respective predecessors lost or would lose the right to be electors due to age. (Though in the case of Cardinal McIntyre, age 83 when retired, he lost his right to vote in conclave due to a change in the law in 1970, Pope Paul VI's motu proprio Ingravescentem Aetatem, and Archbishop Timothy Manning was created Cardinal in the very next consistory, March 5, 1973.) Edward Cardinal Egan, emeritus of New York, will be 80 in April of this year. As a result, Archbishop Dolan becomes a Cardinal in this consistory. In the Consistory of 2010, Archbishop Wuerl became a Cardinal; Cardinal McCarrick reached the age of 80 in 2010.

If this holds true (and I perceive that it does), Archbishop Jose Gomez of Los Angeles probably will not be made Cardinal until a consistory around 2016, when Cardinal Mahony loses his right as Cardinal-Elector.

I know this is off topic, but I wanted to shed some perspective on this.

I believe you are right Fr Deacon John. Strange then that Patriarch Bechara Boutros was not made cardinal given that Patriarch Nasrallah Boutros is no longer an elector.

Apparently that stumped at least one noted pundit, as well:

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=12892

I'm always amused when a Catholic thinks that the Church is not infallible but that they are.

I think the Church is infallible. Just not on this and other secular matters.

Where's the cafeteria? It was you who referred to this as ecclesial.

Integrism is not a useful or attractive characteristic, whether manifested in a Catholic or an Orthodox.

In general, I'm a monarchist. I think the office has quite a lot more importance than the man, and constantly trying to find a great man to fill a great office is a bit of a fool's errand. This season of American presidential primaries demonstrates the point. That said, if we must swim in these wretched democracies, there's no sense limiting the possible candidates to the careerists. You might as well have the patriarchs as electors and candidates for the papacy. The alternative is to exchange the grand and massive responsibility of the Holy See for a true adherence to the fine Catholic principle of subsidiarity (under which nobody would much care day to day who was filling those red shoes). Anyway nobody's really planning on doing that.

I am. I want people to remember that, first and foremost, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and most of his day-to-day responsibility should be looking after the spiritual well-being of his flock, which today is routinely and habitually shunted to an apostolic administrator. I don't know about you, but I think Rome and its environs are entitled to, and greatly need a full-time bishop.

Second, the Bishop of Rome is the Patriarch of the Western Church, which once upon a time basically meant everything from North Cape to Gibraltar and from Ireland to the Nieman, but which today, because of an accident of history, means basically any place where the Western Church has displaced or subordinated the indigenous Christian Churches. The only way to retrieve the balance that allowed even a semblance of unity in the first millennium must be breaking up an unacceptable power bloc by devolving authority to regional Churches. Transforming the national and regional episcopal councils into real synods is the logical first step, the appointment of real (not titular) patriarchs the logical conclusion.

Third, the Patriarch of the West is also the Pope, but that is the very least of his roles and responsibilities, and he should pick up that hat only in pursuance of the objectives of the Petrine Ministry, to strengthen the brethren in faith and unity. There is an interesting canon in the CCEO that requires all Eastern Catholic Patriarchs to maintain distinct chancery offices and staffs for their episcopal and patriarchal roles. In a classic case of do as I say, not as I do, the Papacy has exempted itself from this requirement (and indeed, exempted itself from any real exercise of patriarchal oversight of the Latin Church by combining it into its papal responsibilities. But one can easily see how, by separating the two, one could at a stroke emasculate the overweening pride of the Curia by limiting most of its responsibilities to the Latin Church, while providing the Pope with a very small pontifical chancery would, of necessity, require the Pope to carefully choose when he wishes to exercise his authority of Pope, hopefully only to those situations that do affect faith an unity, and which cannot be resolved on a local or regional level.