www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Choosing new Pope & heads of Eastern churches

Good evening Father Joe.

All cardinals have the right to wear pontifical vestments, even if they have not received episcopal ordination. Prior to 1962, none of the cardinal deacons were in episcopal orders. They were all priests. As recent as the 19th century, there were cardinal deacons who actually were deacons. In 1962, Bl. Pope John XXIII issued a motu proprio stating that in the future, all cardinals were to be bishops and he then proceeded to confer episcopal ordination on the 12 cardinal deacons who were not yet bishops. The right to wear pontifical vestments pre-dates this motu proprio of 1962.

Non-bishop cardinals are not the only prelates who have the right to pontificals. The heads of territorial prelatures and apostolic prefects also have this right. Abbots also have the right to pontificals in their own abbeys.

I hope that this is of some help.

Peace,

Charles

I understand the position of those people who might think that a Patriarch should not aspire to become Pope. Yes, of course all of the Patriarchs are equal. And true many ambitious people covet the Cardinals ring (I don't think they get that big hat anymore) and the Papal chair. It would be unseemly for a Patriarch to want the position.

Another point made was that Patriarchs should automatically be included in the conclave to elect the Pope anyway. I think that's a good idea, Major-Archbishops too.

But at the risk of sounding simply naive I think that Christian prelates are called to serve, it's the service and not some honor that's important. If the Holy Spirit wants to enrich our lives with a Pope from Eastern traditions I would hope that the proposed candidate would accept. I would be delighted to see a Patriarch of the West selected from the East!

Michael, sinner

Thank you Charles for the clarification. While I had heard of certain instances in which those who do not possess the episcopal character being awarded the right to some pontifical vestments, I was not aware of this in the case of cardinals. The most well-known of these "privileged cases" would seem to be abbots in their own abbeys or jurisdictions.

There is some precedent for this also, in the Eastern tradition. I have heard of some archimandrites being accorded episcopal decorum, such as the right to carry the pastoral staff, wear the mitre (also awarded to some secular priests), panagia and to bless with the trikerion and dikerion. The latter two privileges do not seem as common as the first two and in fact, I have heard of only one instance in which an archimandrite blessed with the candelabra and wore panagia.

I have another question/observation regarding non-episcopal prelates. In my studies, I have been unable to find a suitable definition of a "chor-bishop" as applied in the Byzantine tradition. I was of the opinion that it was not a Byzantine office. However, I am aware of this delegation among the Maronites and perhaps the Armenians. But sometimes, a person will reference this being a practice or at least a possibility in the Constantinopolitan usage. Are you or is anyone aware of the existence of "chor-bishops" in the Byzantine church (Catholic or Orthodox) and if so, what would be the function of such a prelate?

Thanks for the information. God bless you all.

Fr. Joe

I don't know abot Greek practices, but according to old Russian tradition abbots may certainly have some episcopal dignities. The wearing of the mitre and the carrying of the pastoral staff are pretty standard, but some archimandrites do, as has been said, have the right to bless with the dikirion and the trikirion and to be greeted with the ringing of bells. Furthermore, if it has been so-designated, they may tonsure readers and subdeacons for their monasteries and perform the consecrations of churches and chapels.

Tsar Alexis Mikhailovich insisted that these dignities remain when the Russian Chuch was reformed and the Old Piety trampled on in the 17th century.

We should remember that in the history of Holy Russia, monasticism was often the face of the Church that people saw as the source of authority and Tradition in such a vast land. Bishops were often seen very seldom. Subsequently abbots of monasteries became very impotrant figures. This importance was not only spiritual, as they could well be the civil governers and representatives of the Grand-Prince/Tsar in some places.

Also, before the awarding of dignities to all and sundry, there were very few archimandrites in the Russian lands. They, the real mitred abbots, were the abbots of the lavras - the largest monasteries. As such, they were very important figures, and were few and far-between.

After, the schism and the increasing secularisation of Russia such dignities began to loose their meaning as titles and those awarded them multiplied, much in the same way that almost every Greek hieromonk with a degree seems to be an archimandrite, even if he's just out of diapers.

This is why we have the ridiculous situation where solitary archimandrites have all of the episcopal trappings, but not a single monk to admire their mitres or pass them their staffs.

Spasi Khristos -
Mark, monk and sinner.

Shlomo Fr. Joe,
You stated that:

From what I know he is not a bishop, but maybe in his case the office of Chorbishop was reinstituted in the Roman Church.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Dear Friends,

The Assyrian Church has the office of "Chorepiscopus" and I once corresponded with one who showed me the breakdown of the Psalter in the Assyrian tradition.

I understood that this title is like that of an Archpriest in the Byzantine Church.

Alex

Dear Amando,

You are quite correct sir! I'm begining to think this 'Internet' thing might (just might) have some incorrect information on it.

Somebody should have Mr. Gates check into that!

God's Peace to you!

Dear Yuhannon:

You posted:



No, the Office of Chorbishop was not reinstituted to accommodate Cardinals Dulles, Tucci, and Scheffczyk.

Although the Code of Canon Law (Latin) requires that non-Bishops created as Cardinals must be consecrated into the episcopacy prior to the consistory, Fr. Avery Dulles, S.J., was granted by the Pope a personal dispensation from being consecrated first to the episcopacy prior to his receiving his red hat because of advance age. (He was already 82 when he was created Cardinal-Deacon in 2001.)

The same went for Monsignor Roberto Tucci, S.J., of Italy, who was already past 80 in 2001 when he was created a Cardinal-Deacon, and Fr.
Leo Scheffczyk of Germany, who was 81 in 2001 when he was created Cardinal-Deacon along with Cardinals Dulles and Tucci.

AmdG

It would be an internal question of the Catholic Church and, I presume, a personal question for an Eastern prelate, if they wished to serve as a Cardinal.

However, I think some of the comments made hint at maybe some Catholics have an underdeveloped understanding of the concept of a 'particular church', in the sense that it seems unappreciated that particular churches exist in other forms than what you Catholics call 'sui iuris' churches.

The Diocese of Rome is a particular church and the vast majority of papal electors are not truly faithful of the Roman diocese. The Pope is also pastor of the cathedral parish of St. John Lateran, yet only a single Cardinal is a member of that parish.

So the principle that those not of a particular church have a role in the election of the Head of that particular church is already established.

True, cardinals are given titular churches in Rome to make them 'honorary' Romans, but most of the Eastern Catholic churches also have churches in Rome.

It might also be true that an Eastern patriarch might view the cardinaliate as a lower honor than the Patriarchate. But, while respecting his decision to decline being Cardinal, I must point out that the Melkite Patriarch has a host of honors less significant than his patriarchial title including various honorary doctorates, Grand Master of the Byzantine Knights of the H.S., Patron and Honorary Chairman of several charities and foundations, Member of the French Legion of Merit, etc.

As an outside observer, it seems to me that anyway the Catholics want to elect their Pope is appropriate.

Axios

Hi:

Not according to the current law, I think. The current law specifies that the elegible candidates are the electors themselves. That is, the elected Pope should be one of their own number.

This is also a misunderstanding. The Three orders of the College of Cardinals are named after the Three Holy Orders: Bishops, Priests and Deacons.

However, this doesn't mean that the Cardinals in each of these groups in fact are (or were when elevated to the College) in that Holy Order.

Currently, a cleric must already be a Presbyter to be elevated, and to actually join the College, he must be ordained Bishop.

The three tiers of the College of Cardinals do not imply a jurisdictional hierarchy, it is just an hierarchy of honor and seniority.

If the cleric elevated to the College is already an Ordinary Bishop or Archbishop, he will enter the Order of the Cardinal Priests. If the elevation goes to the head of a dicastery of the Roman Curia, chances are he will be added to the Cardinal Deacons.

After being 10 years in the order of the Cardinal Deacons, a Cardinal can request be promoted to the order of the Cardinal Priests.

Cardinal Priests are also promoted to Cardinal Bishops when one of the six sub-urbicarian dioceses become vacant, and I think the rules of seniority apply, that is, the Cardinal priest with the longest time in the order is the one with the right to be promoted.

The six Cardinal Bishops elect among themselves the Dean and Sub-Dean of the College. The Dean receives the title to the See of Ostia, in addition to the other sub-urbicarian See he already had.

The Dean of the College is first among equals, with no real jurisdictional power over anybody else in the college.

The functions of the Dean can be performed by the Sub-Dean in the absence of the former.

Eastern Patriarchs (but not Major Archbishops or other clerics), when elevated to the College, enter automatically the Order of Cardinal Biships, however, they cannot elect nor be elected Dean or Sub-Dean of the College, and they do not receive a Sub-Urbicarian See, they keep their Patriarchal See as their title.

You see, the College of Cardinals is strictly an All-Roman body. Its function during Sede-Vacante periods is to elect the Bishop of Rome, NOT the Pope, the Pope is whoever the Bishop of Rome might be. It is only because the Universal implications of the Petrine Ministry that the College of Cardinals has been open to clergy outside the local Church of Rome.

And even then, when a cleric is elevated to the College, he receives either a Sub-Urbicarian See, a Title (parish) in Rome, or a Deaconry in Rome, effectively becoming local Roman clergy.

Eastern Patriarchs are the exception to this, and their inclusion in the College is yet another extension of its original meaning.

Shalom,
Memo.

Hi:

I am unfamiliar with the usage of Chor-Bishops in the Assyrian Church, but I think that in the Maronite Church they are a little "more" than Archpriests

An Archpriest has no additional jurisdictional powers than those of the regular presbyter.

A Maronite Chor-Bishop has some Quasi-Episcopal jurisdictional powers. I will let my Maronite brethren elaborate about this.

Shalom,
Memo.

Dear Memo:

Just some minor additions:



With the exceptions of Cardinal Dulles, Tucci and
Scheffczyk, who were granted personal dispensation by the Pope of such consecration as Bishop prior to the consistory of February 2001 because of advance age.

They remain as Priests.



Pursuant to Can. 331 of the Latin Code:

The Petrine Office, which carries with it pastorship of the universal Church, resides in the Bishop of Rome. Perhaps, it is not entirely correct to view the College of Cardinals as "strictly an all-Roman body."

And by virtue of Canon 361 (Sec. 1), the Cardinal Dean will ask the newly elected Cardinal: “Do you accept your canonical election as Supreme Pontiff?”

The moment the candidate voices his assent he becomes Pope.

AmdG

Dear Memo,

Yes, this is described at the beginning of the book "East Syrian Daily Offices."

The Assyrians have a number of priestly roles that differ from the Byzantine usage.

I'll have to educate myself on them to speak more intelligently about them . . .

Alex

Shlomo Memo,
You are correct about the Maronite (and also the Syriac and Syro-Malankar) office of Chor-Bishop. The best way to discribe them is that they were the rual bishops for the metropolitan centers. They can not ordain priests without the premission of the metropolitan, or bless the Myron.

Poosh Bashlomo,
Yuhannon

Hi:

Yes, but he becomes Pope because he was elected Bishop of Rome. The correct way to state it is that the Petrine Ministry "belongs to" the Bishop of Rome, and not the other way around.

Now, the law of the Particular Local Church of Rome is that her clergy is in charge of electing the Bishop of the City when the See becomes vacant.

That is why all Latin Cardinals receive a domicile in Rome when they are elevated to the College, they become that clergy of the City of Rome.

An exception to this rule is made for the non-Latin Patriarchs who are not made clergy of the City of Rome when elevated to Cardinals.

I am not sure I like this exception, and I can see perfectly valid reasons for an Eastern Patriarch to decline his elevation to the College.

Now, the question remains: Should the heads of Particular Churches other than the Latin Church be involved in the process to elect the Bishop of Rome, who will also be Supreme Pontiff of the Catholic Church?

My own personal inclination is that no, they should not be involved in the process of election as members of the College of Cardinals. Just as the Bishop of Rome is not a member of their particular Holy Synods.

Perhaps if th Church could devise an efficient, transparent and discrete procedure to have the heads of the non-Latin Churches validate or confirm the result of the election process conducted by the Cardinals, but it sounds too complicated and bureaucratic.

Shalom,
Memo.