www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology A Question to Roman Catholic Theologians/Students of Theology:

Hello,

In theory, yes, as it has been said. In practice, however, we haven't had a lay cardinal in centuries, if we ever had one, which I am not even sure.

Current Canon Law requires the order of the presbiterate to be created a Cardinal, and prescribes episcopal ordination upon creation. The Pope has dispensed the episcopal ordination to some elderly cardinals who have requested not to be ordained bishops.

Current Canon Law also requires the Pope to be elected from amongst the Cardinal electors, and therefore, the possibility of a lay candidate is all but impossible.

This happned in the past, but it is extremely unlikely to happen with the current legislation.

Shalom,
Memo.

Mike et al:

Under the current particular law promulgated by Pope John Paul II a man must be in orders and, preferably, a bishop at election. Election may no longer be by acclamation. This would, in effect, eliminate the election of a lay person. Historically, a lay person has only twice been elected to the papacy -- the early Church liked deacons and then, later, priests and bishops.

Edward, deacon and sinner

I think the last secretary of war of the Papal States was a lay cardinal. His name escapes me.

Bill Carpatho

1493 the infamous Italian duke, Cesare Borgia was named a cardinal even though he was not a cleric.

Humbly,
+Father Archimandrite Gregory

Ah the Borgias.........

A serious question though. It was mentioned before that the Curia has finally recognised that Patriarchal Rank is higher than that of the Cardinalate (have I made up a word?). How have they done this? Presumebly, this is only attributed to the Eastern Patriarchs, not the western ones. I remember a story from Vatican II where one Patriarch addressed his fellow patriarchs first before the Cardinals...any idea who it was?

Anton

Dear Friends:

The Apostolic Constitution "Universi Dominici Gregis" issued by His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, in 1996 is the current law on the election of the Supreme Pontiff.

It abrogates all laws pertaining to this matter and it amends or modifies related provisions in the Codes of Canons (for East and West).

Based on the aforecited Apostolic Constitution and on the traditions of the Roman Church, I think the following are clear:

(1) General Rule.--The Sacred College of Cardinals, in conclave, elect the next Pope from among themselves, i.e., Cardinal electors (under 80) and non-conclave Cardinals (80 and over) are equally eligible for election.

This is inferred from Provision #53 of the AC which provides that the Supreme Pontiff shall be elected from among the members of the Sacred College of Cardinals. (Cf. text of "Oath" sworn to by each Cardinal-elector.)

This in effect precludes the election of a layman, much less a "7-year old male Catholic!" as suggested previously by Mike C., because of Canon 351, Section 1 of the 1983 Latin Code of Canons (and the corresponding Eastern Canon) which provides that those to be promoted Cardinals are men who are at least in the order of priesthood.

The last non-Cardinal who was elected Pope was Pope Urban VI, the then Archbishop of Acerenza (Kingdom of Naples), who was Supreme Pontiff from 1378 through his death in 1389.

(2) Exception.--The AC recognizes the remote possibility of an impasse in the elections of the next Pope. In such an event, the Cardinal-electors may elect a non-member of the Sacred College,i.e., a non-Cardinal under Provision #83!

However, even under this exception, such an
"outsider" must be at least a priest because under Canon 355, Section 1, of the Latin Code, the newly elected Supreme Pontiff must be consecrated a Bishop, if he is not already a Bishop, to canonically exercise his office.

By the way, since 769 A.D. non-Cardinal clerics and the laity have been debarred from participating in the election of the Pope.

As I have said in another thread before, the chances for a Catholic layman to be elected as Pope are none.

AmdG

Anton,

To answer your question: in meetings where Patriarchs and Cardinals are present, the Patriarchs get a better seat (higher up). The Patriarch in question was the Melkite Patriarch, Maximos.

With regard to patriarchs, there is only one in the West, the pope. All others who have that title hold it as an honorific (the Patriarch of Venice, for example, is the Cardinal Archbishop of the city, and the honorific title comes from the historical fact of the city being the see of the Ambrosian Rite).

Edward, deacon and sinner

But isn't the historical see of the Ambrosian Rite- Milan?

ByzantineLearner:

You got me! For some reason (let's be generous and call it old age) I wrote Venice instead of Milan. That's precisely where it should be. The city of Venice acquired a "patriarch" due to a schism and, eventually, merged two metropolitan sees whose bishop's had decided that they were now patriarchs.

BTW, Milan does not have a patriarchal see associated with it.

The remaining Latin patriarchies with jurisdiction are Rome and Jerusalem. Lisbon also has an honorific patriarchy.

Edward, aging deacon and, possibly a sinner (I forget)

Fr. Archimandrite Gregory,

After a little research those cardinals who receive a dispensation to remain priests do have the same priveleges as cardinals in the episcopate as regards academic and choir dress. Thay also receive the cardinal's ring and are allowed the pectoral cross, a privlege extended to non-episcopal cardinals by Pope St. Pius X. However, as regards liturgical vesture and accessories: mitre, dalmatic, crosier, I can find nothing that would allow these to a non-episcopal cardinal. Pope Paul VI reformed and simplified the pontificals and greatly restricted their use among those without episcopal ordination to abbots and priests with jurisdiction: territorial prelates, vicars apostolic, prefects apsotolic, and administrators apostolic. The various non-episcopal Papal and Curial officials, Protonotaries Apostolic and Canons that once had use of them were no longer allowed these.

Fr. Deacon Lance

Dear Father Deacon,

Many thanks! Further point: how do the 7 Cardinal-Bishops of Rome fit into all this? I am sure I have seen hierarchical lists where there come before anyone else?

Cheers
Anton

Cardinal Bishops are those Cardinals who are Titular Bishops of the Suburbicarian Sees of Rome; specifically:

(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.]

and,

Any Oriental Patriarchs, Major or Minor, who are also Cardinals. [Sometimes referred to as Cardinal Patriarchs, although no such title formally exists.]

In procession, etc., Cardinal-Bishops have precedence of honor over Cardinal-Priests and Cardinal-Deacons.

Many years,

Neil

Neil...

Have a pint or two of Guinness on me!

Dear Neil:

I think AntonI's query, to which I join in asking, is: who takes precedence, Cardinals or Eastern Patriarchs?

(1) During Consistories (Ordinary or Extraordinary):

I would venture to say that the Cardinals who could take precedence over the Eastern Patriarchs are those members of the Order of Cardinal-Bishops in the Sacred College of Cardinals.

Currently, the Order of Cardinal-Bishops is composed of 6 Latin Cardinals and 3 Eastern Patriarchs. The Cardinals in this Order, who are the most senior in rank, were all previously called Cardinal-Bishops (whether Latin Cardinal or Eastern Patriarch). Although recently as you noted, the Eastern Patriarchs have been alternatively referred to as Cardinal-Patriarchs.

In the election of the Dean of the Sacred College, only the Latin Cardinal-Bishops, by law(?) and by tradition, participate in the process. Thus, at least within the College, the Latin Cardinal-Bishops wield "more power" than the Cartdinal-Patriarchs.

Personally, I have not seen a footage of the hierarchical procession during consistories where all or a majority of the Cardinals are present. I would surmise though that the Dean, at the very least, takes procedence over the Cardinal-Patriarchs.

(2) During Pontifical Mass (Divine Liturgy)

If the celebration of the Mass or Divine Liturgy occurs during a consistory (Ordinary or Extraordinary), I think the hierarchical order of precedence follows #(1) above.

If such Mass or Divine Liturgy is celebrated on the occasion of a patriarchal visit by the Patriarch of a sui juris Church, whether such Patriarch is a member of the Sacred College or not, (or of any Orthodox Patriarch), the Patriarch of that Church takes precedence over all others.

What do you think?

AmdG

Scotus,
Since the revision of the Code of Canon Law in 1983 any priest has universal faculties unless inhibited by his local ordinary from doing so.
Stephanos I