The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Regf2, SomeInquirer, Wee Shuggie, Bodhi Zaffa, anaxios2022
5,881 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (Fr. Deacon Lance), 355 guests, and 41 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,285
Members5,881
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 844
*Sigh* I love Eastern Hierarchy anymore... Not like it was in the days where the Latin Hierarchy was followed by some parishes and eparchies back about 15 - 20 years ago.

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Utroque
Quote
Bishop Hefele learned the hard way who is boss.

"It is true that I stood on the side of the opposition. But thereby I made use of my right; for the question was proposed for discussion. However, once the decision had been made, to tarry in the opposition party would have been inconsistent with my whole past. I would have set my own infallibility in the place of the infallibility the Church." [From a discourse of Bishop Reiser at the burial of Bishop Hefele (Rottenburg, 1893), p. 11]

Who to speak better of himself than he?
Someone free to speak.

Quote
Archbishop Scherr, of Munich, was a personal friend of Dr. Döllinger, and was at first one of the opponents of the dogma of infallibility. At the railway station of Munich, as he was starting to attend the Vatican Council, he assured Dr. Döllinger that in 'he event (which the archbishop thought improbable) of the dogma being proposed in the Council, it should have his determined opposition. For a time the archbishop took his place among the minority of the Council, but he yielded at last, and excommunicated Dr. Döllinger for not following his example. Yet I never heard Dr. Döllinger speak bitterly of him. On the contrary, he made excuses for him urged that he had acted under pressure from Rome; pleaded that he had more piety than strength of character; and declared that he was bound to act as he did, or resign his see. To illustrate the archbishop's esprit exalté", which subordinated his judgment to his religious emotions, Dr. Döllinger one day told me the following anecdote, on the authority of Archbishop Scherr himself. When the archbishop received information from Rome that he was to be presented with the archiepiscopal pallium on a given day, he immediately began to prepare himself for this great honor by devoting the interval to retirement and religious exercises. The pallium is generally, but not invariably, made by the nuns of one of the Roman convents from the wool of lambs kept on purpose — a fact which added to the honor of the gift. On the stated day, the archbishop's servant announced the arrival of the messenger with the pall. The archbishop expected a special envoy from the Vatican and a formal investiture sanctified by the papal benediction, instead of which there walked into his presence a Jewish banker with a bundle under his arm, out of which he presently produced the pall with a bill for £200. Keenly as Dr. Döllinger entered into the humor of the story, he really told it as an illustration of the archbishop's simplicity of character, and by way of excusing his conduct in excommunicating himself. "To him," he said, " the dogma presents no insuperable difficulty, and he cannot understand why it should present any to me. He bows to authority, and cannot see that authority has no more to do with historical facts than it has to do with mathematical facts." He was always prone to make excuses for the bishops who accepted the dogma of infallibility—even for those who had been among its most prominent opponents at the Vatican Council. He showed me once a letter from one of the latter, in which the writer—a distinguished prelate — declared that he was in sad perplexity. He had proclaimed the dogma, he said, while still remaining in the same mind in which he had opposed it at the Council. "But what could I do?" he asked. "Can one be in the Church and be out of communion with the pope? Yet can it be right to proclaim what one does not believe? Such is my dilemma, and it has made me so unhappy that I have thought of resigning my see. On reflection, I nave chosen what I consider the safest course." "Allowance must be made for these men," said Dr. Döllinger. "Habit is second nature, and their mental attitude has been so invariably that of unquestioning obedience to papal authority, that when they have to choose between that authority and allegiance to what they believe to be historical truth, their second nature asserts itself and they yield."

On a subsequent occasion, I asked Dr. Döllinger if he thought the Bishop of Rottenourg (Dr. Hefele) would end by accepting the dogma. The case was in one way a crucial one. As an authority on the historical bearings of the question, Hefele was the best equipped man at the Council. His masterly "History of the Councils " is accepted as the standard authority on all hands. Not only did he oppose the dogma at the Vatican Council, but during the sitting of the Council he published, through the Neapolitan press, a pamphlet against it, basing his opposition on the example of Honorius as a test case. Perrone, the great theologian of the Roman College, and a strong Infallibilist, has laid it down in his standard work on "Dogmatic Theology," that if only one pope can be proved to have given, ex cathedra, a heterodox decision on faith or morals, the whole doctrine collapses. Hefele accordingly took the case of Honorius, and proved that this pope had been condemned as a heretic by popes and oecumenical councils. Pennachi, professor of church history in Rome, replied to Hefele, and Hefele returned to the charge in a rejoinder so powerful that he was left master of the field. If therefore Hefele, so honest as well as so able and learned, accepted the dogma, it was not likely that any other bishop of the minority would hold out. "He must yield," said Dr. Döllinger said to me, three months after the prorogation of the Vatican Council, "or resign his see. His quinquennial faculties have expired and the pope refuses to renew them until Hefele accepts the decree. At this moment there are nineteen couples of rank in his diocese who cannot get married because they are within the forbidden degrees, and Hefele cannot grant them dispensations." "But since he denies the pope's infallibility," I asked, "why does he not himself grant the necessary dispensations?" "My friend," replied Döllinger, "you forget that the members of the Church of Rome have been brought up in the belief that a dispensation is not valid without these papal faculties, and a marriage under any other dispensation would not be acknowledged in society." The event proved that Döllinger was right. The quinquennial faculties are a tremendous power in the hands of the pope. They are, in fact, papal licenses, renewed every five years, which enable the bishops to exercise extraordinary episcopal functions that ordinarily belong to the pope, such as the power of absolving from heresy, schism, apostasy, secret crime (except murder), from vows, obligations of fasting, prohibition of marriage within the prohibited degrees, and also the power to permit the reading of prohibited books. It is obvious that the extinction of the quinquennial faculties in a diocese means the paralysis in a short time of its ordinary administration. It amounts to a sort of modified interdict. And so Dr. Hefele soon discovered. The dogma was proclaimed in the Vatican Council on the 18th of July, 1870, and on the 10th of the following April Hefele submitted. But he was too honest to let it be inferred that his submission was due to any change of conviction. He deemed it his duty to submit in spite of his convictions, because "the peace and unity of the Church is so great a good that great and heavy personal sacrifices may be made for it." Bishop Strossmayer held out longest of all; but he yielded at last, so far as to allow the dogma to be published in the official gazette of his diocese during his absence in Rome. Nevertheless, he remained to the last on the most friendly terms with Dr. Döllinger, and it was to a letter from Dr. Döllinger that I was indebted for a most interesting visit to Bishop Strossmayer in Croatia in 1876.

To some able and honest minds Dr. Döllinger's attitude on the question of infallibility is a puzzle. His refusal to accept the dogma, while he submitted meekly to an excommunication which he believed to be unjust, seems to them an inconsistency. This view is put forward in an interesting article on Dr. Döllinger in the Spectator of last January 18, and, as it is a view which is probably held by many, I quote the gist of the article before I try to show what Dr. Döllinger's point of view really was: —

There was something very English in Dr. Döllinger's illogical pertinacity in holding his own position on points of detail, in spite of the inconsistency of that position on points of detail with the logic of his general creed. He was, in fact, more tenacious of what his historical learning had taught him, than he was of the a priori position which he had previously assumed — namely, that a true Church must be infallible, and that his Church was actually infallible. No one had taught this more distinctly than Dr. Döllinger. Yet first he found one erroneous drift in the practical teaching of his Church, then he found another, and then when at last his Church formally declared that the true providential guarantee of her infallibility extended only to the Papal definition of any dogma touching faith and morals promulgated with a view to teach the Church, he ignored that decree, though it was sanctioned by one of the most unanimous as well as one of the most numerously attended of her Councils, and preferred to submit to excommunication rather than to profess his acceptance of it. And then later he came, we believe, to declare that he was no more bound by the decrees of the Council of Trent than be was by the decrees of the Council of the Vatican. None the less he always submitted to the disciplinary authority of the Church, even after he had renounced virtually her dogmatic authority. He never celebrated mass nor assumed any of the functions of a priest after his excommunication. In other words, he obeyed the Church in matters in which no one had ever claimed for her that she could not err, after he had ceased to obey htr in matters in which he had formerly taught that she could not err, and in which, so far as we know, he had only in his latter years taught that she could err by explicitly rejecting the decrees of one or two General Councils. . . . When she said to him, "Don't celebrate mass any more," he seems to have regarded himself as more bound to obey her than when she said to him, "Believe what I teil you."

Dr. Döllinger would not have accepted this as an accurate statement of his position. He would have denied that the dogma of infallibility "was sanctioned by one of the most unanimous" of the Church's Councils, and would have pointed to the protest of more than eighty of the most learned and influential bishops in the Roman communion, whose subsequent submission he would have discounted for reasons already indicated. And he would have been greatly surprised to be told that it was as easy to obey the command, "Believe what I tell you," as the command " Don't celebrate mass any more." I remember a pregnant remark of Cardinal Newman's to myself at the time of Dr. Döllinger's excommunication, of which be disapproved, though accepting the dogma himself. "There are some," he said, " who think that it is as easy to believe as to obey; that is to say, they do not understand what faith really means." To obey the sentence of excommunication was in no sense a moral difficulty to Dr. Döllinger. He believed it unjust and therefore invalid, and he considered himself under no obligation in foro conscienticae to obey it. He did not believe that it cut him off from membership with the Church of Rome; and he once resented in a letter to me an expression which implied that he had ceased to be a member of the Roman Communion. He submitted to the sentence of excommunication as a matter of discipline, a cross which he was providentially ordained to bear. It involved nothing more serious than personal sacrifice — submission to a wrong arbitrarily inflicted by an authority to which obedience was due where conscience did not forbid. "Believe what I tell you" was a very different command, and could only be obeyed when the intellect could conscientiously accept the proposition. To bid him believe not only as an article of faith but as an historical fact what he firmly believed to be an historical fiction was to him an outrage on his intellectual integrity. For let it be remembered that the Vatican decree defines the dogma of papal infallibility not merely as part of the contents of divine revelation, but, in addition, as a fact of history "received from the beginning of the Christian faith." It challenged the ordeal of historical criticism, and made thus an appeal to enlightened reason not less than to faith. To demand belief in a proposition that lies beyond the compass of the human understanding is one thing. It is quite another matter to demand belief in a statement the truth or falsehood of which is purely a matter of historical evidence. If Dr. Döllinger had been asked to believe, on pain of excommunication, that Charles I beheaded Oliver Cromwell, the able writer in the Spectator would readily understand how easy submission to an unjust excommunication would have been in comparison with obedience to such a command. But to Dr. Döllinger's mind the proposition that Charles I. beheaded Oliver Cromwell would not be a bit more preposterous, not a bit more in the teeth of historical evidence, than the proposition that "from the beginning of the Christian faith," it was an accepted article of the creed of Christendom that when the Roman pontiff speaks to the Church ex cathedrd on faith or morals, his utterances are infallible, and "are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church." He was firmly convinced of the contradictory of that proposition, and while he remained of that mind how could he have honestly professed his acceptance of the dogma? The appeal was not to his faith, but to his reason. It was, as he said himself, like asking him to believe that two and two make five.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Eg...le%20Vatican%20infallibility&f=false

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 706
Likes: 8
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 706
Likes: 8
Quote
Someone free to speak.

Like you, the good Anglican divine, Dr. Malcolm MacColl, had the usual anti-papal ax to grind. He and Dr. Dollinger were comrades in arms. Free to speak, but with their own inflated biases. I still think Bishop Hefele's simple statement is more eloquent, humble and true as befits a man of learning and humble faith. It seems to me he came to the realization that the dogma of Papal Infallibility had much more to do with the Church than with the person of the pope, just as the cardinalate has come to mean much more for the universal Church than its Roman origins could ever had envisioned. I speak, of course, as an Orthodox Catholic in union with Rome. smile

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
It seems to me he came to the realization that the dogma of Papal Infallibility had much more to do with the Church than with the person of the pope.

I think that this needs to be fleshed out more between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Common ground could be found. If we move away from the idea that the Pope (as a person) is infallible to the idea that the Church is infallible and the Pope acts as a spokesmen for the Church when she, the bride and body of Christ, is speaking infallibly. One Orthodox theologian speaks to this point very succinctly.From David Bentley Hart's The Myth of Schism:

Quote
As regards the doctrine of papal infallibility, and especially the claim that the definition of dogma by the pope proceeds ex sese et non ex consensu ecclesiae, two comments seem worth making. The first is that, taking the doctrine again in its most minimal form, the claim of infallibility is inoffensive: if indeed the Holy Spirit speaks to the mind of the church, and the church promulgates infallible doctrine, and the successor of Peter enjoys the privilege of enunciating doctrine, then whenever he speaks ex cathedra of course he speaks infallibly; this is almost a tautology. It is the question, obviously, of how one gets to that point that is all the object of our contention. As for the claim that it is not reached ex consensu, the only real question is whether this is a prior or a posterior condition. That is to say, what does it imply regarding the authority of councils, or other patriarchates, or tradition? Obviously Rome denies that the pontiff could generate doctrine out of personal whim. And, after all, clearly it is true that no doctrine could possibly follow from the consensus of the church, if for no other reason than that the church is not democracy, and truth is not something upon which we vote. That said, I do not wish to conjure this issue away, and I would that the definition had never been pronounced; but this I can say: it is not clear to me that, as formulated, the doctrine destines us to perpetual division. It can, I suspect, be integrated into a fully developed teaching regarding conciliarity, one that can accommodate a certain magisterial privilege that is unique, but not isolated from the charisms of episcopal collegiality.

Last edited by Nelson Chase; 11/26/12 07:04 PM.
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 706
Likes: 8
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 706
Likes: 8
Quote
I think that this needs to be fleshed out more between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. Common ground could be found. If we move away from the idea that the Pope (as a person) is infallible to the idea that the Church is infallible and the Pope acts as a spokesmen for the Church when she, the bride and body of Christ, is speaking infallibly.

I fully agree. I like what David Bentley Hart has to write. Thanks for the post.

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Utroque
Quote
Someone free to speak.
Like you, the good Anglican divine, Dr. Malcolm MacColl, had the usual anti-papal ax to grind.
Cutting through obfuscation to the quick often requires a good, sharp ax.
Originally Posted by Utroque
He and Dr. Dollinger were comrades in arms. Free to speak, but with their own inflated biases.
And that differentiates them from the author of "Pastor Aeternus" how?

Originally Posted by Utroque
I still think Bishop Hefele's simple statement is more eloquent, humble and true as befits a man of learning and humble faith.

A broken man, whose magnus opus had to be radically revised in the midst of its creation so that its beginning would lead to its determined-in mid course-end.

Originally Posted by Utroque
It seems to me he came to the realization that the dogma of Papal Infallibility had much more to do with the Church than with the person of the pope
Rationalization often is employed in deafening the loudness of cognitive dissonance.

Pastor Aeternus says otherwise:
Quote
...we shall proscribe and condemn the contrary errors which are so harmful to the Lord's flock...of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the Church, and that it was through the Church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.... whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church...the Roman Pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole Church...The sentence of the Apostolic See (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecumenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman Pontiff...
Originally Posted by Utroque
just as the cardinalate has come to mean much more for the universal Church than its Roman origins could ever had envisioned. I speak, of course, as an Orthodox Catholic in union with Rome. smile
I, of course, speak as an Orthodox in communion with the Catholic Church, including Rome.
http://www.mitropolia.eu/uploads/image/episcopul-siluan/preasfintitul-siluan-02_300x525px.jpg

According to the "Pastor Aeternus" and his codex canonum ecclesiarum orientalium, he can abolish Major Archbishop Shevchuk and his "patriarchate," and the latter would have no recourse. Except that pursued by Met. St. Peter Movila of Kiev.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 706
Likes: 8
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 706
Likes: 8
Quote
According to the "Pastor Aeternus" and his codex canonum ecclesiarum orientalium, he can abolish Major Archbishop Shevchuk and his "patriarchate," and the latter would have no recourse. Except that pursued by Met. St. Peter Movila of Kiev.

Aw, he wouldn't do that, and I feel certain that if you would speak to the good Major Archbishop Shevchuk he would express sentiments toward Rome and her bishop very much as my own. And I,m sure he,s no "toad". It seems the Moscow Patriarchia has exerted a little pressure of its own throughout its history when it has survived the whims of the Tzar.

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Originally Posted by Utroque
Quote
According to the "Pastor Aeternus" and his codex canonum ecclesiarum orientalium, he can abolish Major Archbishop Shevchuk and his "patriarchate," and the latter would have no recourse. Except that pursued by Met. St. Peter Movila of Kiev.

Aw, he wouldn't do that
The history of the Vatican-Warsaw Concordat of 1925 says otherwise, not only in its treatment of Met. Sheptytski and his flock, but his coreligionists of Latin Lithuania as well. In fact, his Latin Pole masters would learn the same lesson after September 1, 1939.

Originally Posted by Utroque
and I feel certain that if you would speak to the good Major Archbishop Shevchuk he would express sentiments toward Rome and her bishop very much as my own.
Shared delusions constitute mass hysteria, not corroborated fact.
Originally Posted by Utroque
And I,m sure he,s no "toad".
Neither was Met. Sheptytski. Didn't prevent him from being stomped on.
Originally Posted by Utroque
It seems the Moscow Patriarchia has exerted a little pressure of its own throughout its history when it has survived the whims of the Tzar.
Only fair: the Tsardom survived the whims of the Patriachate of Philaret, who also prevented Sigismund III Vasa from imposing his whims on the Orthodox Rus'.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 706
Likes: 8
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 706
Likes: 8
Quote
Shared delusions constitute mass hysteria, not corroborated fact.

So you're saying the sentiments shared by the learned Greek Catholic prelate and millions of Catholics throughout the world are a delusion and not corroborated fact?

Quote
Neither was Met. Sheptytski. Didn't prevent him from being stomped on.

Did the Church of Rome do the stomping, or was it a Polish government and toady Polish prelates fearful of Ukrainian nationalism?

Quote
Only fair: the Tsardom survived the whims of the Patriachate of Philaret, who also prevented Sigismund III Vasa from imposing his whims on the Orthodox Rus'.

Aren't you glad we've passed beyond all this church/state messiness with Concordats and all? Hope we've all learned our lessons. Like the kids say, "Get over it!"

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Quote
Originally Posted by Utroque
[quote]Shared delusions constitute mass hysteria, not corroborated fact.

So you're saying the sentiments shared by the learned Greek Catholic prelate and millions of Catholics throughout the world are a delusion and not corroborated fact?
how one feels about a fact doesn't change it. Millions of Muslims are incensed by Jesus being proclaimed as Lord.

I just take Pastor Aeternus at its word and its "supreme pontiff" record.

Originally Posted by Utroque
Quote
Neither was Met. Sheptytski. Didn't prevent him from being stomped on.

Did the Church of Rome do the stomping, or was it a Polish government and toady Polish prelates fearful of Ukrainian nationalism?
Since it confined him to Galicia, tore his parishes from him and placed them under its Latin ordinaries, ripped his Lemko diocese from him and placed it directly under itself, brushed him aside to make way for Bp. Michel d'Herbigny to act as its personal agent, withdrew its approval of the Ruthenian rite in favor of the "New Union"...it was a prime example of the Vatican version of "symphonia."
Originally Posted by Utroque
Quote
Only fair: the Tsardom survived the whims of the Patriachate of Philaret, who also prevented Sigismund III Vasa from imposing his whims on the Orthodox Rus'.

Aren't you glad we've passed beyond all this church/state messiness with Concordats and all? Hope we've all learned our lessons. Like the kids say, "Get over it!"
We don't have Concordats, and I'd be indifferent if ya'll got over yours. Which you haven't: the present Polish one was signed in 1993 and went into effect 1998.

As for messiness, I do believe here in the US a case load is making its way up to SCOTUS as we speak.

As for myself, I have no problem with State churches.

And yes, we've learned our lesson:"Fool me once..." and "Always read the fine print."

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 5
G
Member
Offline
Member
G
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 5
Originally Posted by StuartK
And Vladyka Sviatoslav is the Patriarch. As Father Taft said, simply return all mail addressed to Major Archbishop So-and-So marked "Addresee Unknown", until Rome accepts the truth on the ground.

With Patriarch-emeritus Husar turning 80 in February 2013, it's quite probable that Vladyka Sviatoslav will be named a cardinal at the next consistory. I doubt very much he would turn it down.
He's already mentioned as papabile. His relatively young age, his proficiency of nine languages, and other qualities could lead him to becoming the first Eastern Catholic Pope of modern times.
With the suffering and persecution that the UGCC went through for her loyalty to the See of St. Peter, it would not surprise me-and I'm sure many others-if Vladyka Sviatoslav were to become Pope.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 706
Likes: 8
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 706
Likes: 8
Quote
how one feels about a fact doesn't change it. Millions of Muslims are incensed by Jesus being proclaimed as Lord.

I like to think that my feelings are informed by facts, and they are. Obviously you feel the same. I guess it all depends on our hermaneutic, doesn't it? Those of us who feel differently about Pastor Aeternus are not Muslims, but proclaim the same Lord Jesus and share the same Apostolic roots and Catholic Tradition.

Quote
Since it confined him to Galicia

That's a little more canonical territory than Soviet Russia and the collaborating Moscow Patriarchia granted the Uniates, isn't it?

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,586
Likes: 1
O
Member
Offline
Member
O
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 6,586
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by griego catolico
With Patriarch-emeritus Husar turning 80 in February 2013, it's quite probable that Vladyka Sviatoslav will be named a cardinal at the next consistory. I doubt very much he would turn it down.
He's already mentioned as papabile. His relatively young age, his proficiency of nine languages, and other qualities could lead him to becoming the first Eastern Catholic Pope of modern times.
With the suffering and persecution that the UGCC went through for her loyalty to the See of St. Peter, it would not surprise me-and I'm sure many others-if Vladyka Sviatoslav were to become Pope.

Please correct me if I'm wrong , but I had always understood that you cannot have 2 Cardinals from the same See at the same time, even if one is 80 and therefore unable to vote in a Conclave.

Last edited by Our Lady's slave; 11/27/12 11:08 PM.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,964
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,964
Originally Posted by Our Lady's slave
Please correct me if I'm wrong , but I had always understood that you cannot have 2 Cardinals from the same See at the same time, even if one is 80 and therefore unable to vote in a Conclave.

Here in Washington, DC Cardinal Wuerl is the Archbishop, but retired Cardinals Theodore McCarrick and William Baum are still living.

Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 57
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 57
Originally Posted by Two Lungs
Originally Posted by Our Lady's slave
Please correct me if I'm wrong , but I had always understood that you cannot have 2 Cardinals from the same See at the same time, even if one is 80 and therefore unable to vote in a Conclave.

Here in Washington, DC Cardinal Wuerl is the Archbishop, but retired Cardinals Theodore McCarrick and William Baum are still living.

Not necessarily The See of Detroit has two cardinals now, one is over 80 the other one can vote till 2014 I believe. Both were voting members during Benedict's conclave. It has been rumored that the current Archbishop will get his red hat when one dies or the second turns 80.

LM

Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Father Anthony 

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5