The “Bolletino” is out and the Holy Father has announced a consistory for new cardinals.
Ecco i nomi dei nuovi Porporati:
1. Mons. JAMES MICHAEL HARVEY, Prefetto della Casa Pontificia, che ho in animo di nominare Arciprete della Basilica Papale di San Paolo fuori le mura;
2. Sua Beatitudine BÉCHARA BOUTROS RAÏ, Patriarca di Antiochia dei Maroniti (Libano);
3. Sua Beatitudine BASELIOS CLEEMIS THOTTUNKAL, Arcivescovo Maggiore di Trivandrum dei Siro-Malankaresi (India);
4. Mons. JOHN OLORUNFEMI ONAIYEKAN, Arcivescovo di Abuja (Nigeria); [This is a guy to keep your eye on!]
5. Mons. RUBÉN SALAZAR GÓMEZ, Arcivescovo di Bogotá (Colombia);
6. Mons. LUIS ANTONIO TAGLE, Arcivescovo di Manila (Filippine).
In note with interest that the list is very short, and that some cardinalatial sees are not represented. Los Angeles, for example, and Philadelphia will probably someday get the red hat. Philadelphia, like Detroit and St. Louis, is not what it once was in the Catholic world. London (Westminster) is not on the list. Müller is not in the list. That said, it seems that the Holy Father intended to keep this consistory small.
Loading ...
When was the last consistory at which NO Italians were named?
answered my own question: December 19, 1927.
Interesting that a Major Archbishop gets the honorific of His Beatitude.
Does it really say, “che ho in animo…”?
I’m glad that the Philipines now have a Cardinal elector, but I figured that a consistory would wait until Cardinal Husar turned 80, and the new major archbishop of the Ukrainians was named a cardinal. Shows you what I know. Interesting also that the new Patriarch of Venice was not named a cardinal. He was named patriarch shortly after the last consistory was announced, so it made sense that he was not named a cardinal at that time.
Anyone know the last time that a non-Italian was archpriest of St. Paul’s?
Interesting that the new prefect of the CDF was not named.
As an American, I selfishly first look for “my” list every time: Chaput, O’Brien, Lori, Gomez, Gregory, Farrrell, Cordileone, Vigneron, DiNoia.
Am I missing anyone (curial Americans, etc.)?
“Philadelphia, like Detroit and St. Louis, is not what it once was in the Catholic world. ”
Father, are you forgetting where the Holy Father chose to have the next World Meeting of Families?
+ Chaput doesn’t get a red hat because + Rigali is only 77.
The omission of the new CDF head is interesting.
I thought a new Prefect of the CDF getting a red hat right away was a matter of course.
It is unfortunate that Patriarchs and Major Archbishops are still being made cardinals. It is a debasement of the office of Patriarch. You are giving the Patriarch of a sui juris Church a place as a subservient to another patriarch of a different sui juris Church. If they are really serious about reunion with the Byzantine Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East they need to start thinking about these unfortunate ecclesiological messages.
Our Dear Host: “Philadelphia, like Detroit and St. Louis, is not what it once was in the Catholic world. ” & Rellis: ” I selfishly first look for “my” list every time: Chaput,…”
It is also worth noting that In regards to Philadelphia, His Eminence Cardinal Rigali is, while retired as Archbishop, still younger than 80, and thus is entitled to a conclave vote. Aside from naming Dolan a few months (if memory serves) prior to Cardinal Egan’s 80 birthday, His holiness has generally kept to the practice of not naming someone a cardinal while his predecesor would still have a vote at a conclave. In this case, we would have to wait several years, although I’d love to be wrong. As I told His Excellency in an email shortly after he was named as my archbishop, seeing him wearing a Phillies cap given him by some local high school students, I can’t wait until he wears a different red hat.
AJS, you forget that the Pope is no longer Patriarch of the West. We, the Latin Church, are now the only Church sui iuris without a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, etc.
On the whole I agree with you though – either the Patriarchs and Major Archbishops should be “automatically” included at the Cardinalatial level, or not at all. I think a step has been made in that Eastern Cardinals who are heads of Churches are no longer given titular parishes in Rome – their title is their own See.
I do think it important to have the voices of Eastern bishops in the selection of a future pope (may that day be far in the future!), so if they are not made Cardinals, they – or at least a selection of them – should be involved in a conclave.
Dear @AJS;
Along the same line, you could say that it is a debasement of the office of Bishop, to give a bishop of a local Church a place as a subservient to another bishop of a different local Church.
For while the sentence “the Patriarchs are the successors of the Apostles” may be true in a certain sense as a sentence, it is wrong as an argument. For then it must be taken into account that the Bishops are the successors of the Apostles, and that includes the Bishop of Nola in the province of Naples, or any other such diocese whose name is only known to the Annuario Pontificio (if you allow the hyperbola).
And the Pope is the one bishop who , by virtue of his specific role as local hierarch of Rome and not in addition, is set over the other bishops. It is indeed revealing to me only in the Catholic Church there has been made the attempt to focus on the local hierarch (whatever we think of it; after all, we confess to have a primate); the Eastern Orthodox, who if they have any claim would need to claim to the episcopal principle (which exists), do in fact only claim a patriarchal principle, which in unalterable law does not exist (except perhaps as to order of honors).
On the other hand, the focus on one of the Thomas Christian churches is interesting too… given, also, that India does have a patriarch (even if “only” a Latin patriarch).
AJS, I like the idea that heads of thier own churches in full communion with Rome are in the College of Cardinals and can help the Roman church. I don’t think it is belittling at all. I think it is actually quite humbling of the Roman church to have heads of these churches playing a role in selecting the Roman pontiff. I think the head of each Eastern Church should be in the College. (It might require expanding the number of electors.)
In my mind, this is like having a US presidential election, but inviting some of our closest allies to have an electoral vote (UK, Israel, Canada, Australia, etc.)
Dear @Tom Ferguson, on the other hand the Cardinal College is meant to represent the Clergy of Rome, as in voting for the new Bishop of Rome. The titular church practice means something after all. That it has been subject to exceptions (not for Major Archbishops, if I am correctly informed) has in the time met criticism (see e.g.: Reinhard Raffalt, Where does the Vatican steer to?), and though the signification of the Cardinal College as a whole has not been changed by it (exceptions prove the rule!), I’d prefer if even this were reversed.
Resemble it to the role of ambassadors, which in a Cardinal representing his diocese is anyway.
What is special about Archbishop John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan of Abuja? Does it have anything to do with his relationship with Islam?
http://www.zenit.org/article-35775?l=english
At the consistory Eastern and Oriental Patriarchs, of equal dignity with the Patriarch of Rome (he may have stopped using the title but it doesn’t change his office) are forced to say:
“I [name and surname], Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, promise and swear to be faithful henceforth and forever, while I live, to Christ and his Gospel, being constantly obedient to the Holy Roman Apostolic Church, to Blessed Peter in the person of the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, and of his canonically elected Successors; to maintain communion with the Catholic Church always, in word and deed; not to reveal to any one what is confided to me in secret, nor to divulge what may bring harm or dishonor to Holy Church; to carry out with great diligence and faithfulness those tasks to which I am called by my service to the Church, in accord with the norms of the law.
So help me Almighty God.”
It is an ecclesiological hand grenade to the cause of Christian Unity. It doesn’t matter if you are of the High Petrine or Low Petrine persuasion, this Absolutist Petrine declaration is foreign to the ancient faith of the Church and does injury to the prospects of reunion.
It is unacceptable that a supposed “Sister Church” must promise obedience to another “Sister Church.” The Orthodox (there are three Orthodox communions, not just the Byzantines) watch how Rome treats her sister Eastern and Oriental Churches. Rome continues to abuse the Eastern Catholic Churches and the Orthodox take note of that. (The Red Hat is more symbolic, the continued prohibition on married clergy in the territories of expansion, limiting the authority of the Patriarch and Holy Synod outside the patriarchal territories, etc – these are things the Orthodox see and shake their heads at.)
Also, the College of Cardinals is an evolution of the ancient practice of electing the Bishop of Rome, where the priests of Rome would choose a bishop: this is why they are given the title of Cardinal Deacon and Priest (and the invented name of Cardinal Bishop). Eastern Bishops are not members of the Roman Church, so why would they have any role in the selection of its Head Bishop? The Melkites do not invite bishops from the Latin, Maronite, Armenian, and Syriac Churches to join in the Holy Synod to elect a new patriarch. It is odd and reflects a ill-conceived conception of ecclesial communion.
eastern-RITE, of course.
AJS the Pope is the head of the Universal Church not just his own Sui Iuris Church thus it is proper that the heads of the Sui Iuris Churchs also have a say in who is to be head of the whole church and also that they agree to remain in communion and co-operate with Peter in running the church.
@AJS
I think you have some good points about the relationship between the Roman Catholic Church and various Eastern Catholic Churches. However, I disagree with your basic purpose; I don’t think the Catholic Church should be adjusting its bureaucracy just to try to make the various Orthodox communions happy. This will only lead to further confusion. It is a disrespect to the Eastern Catholic Churches. Consider the message that you’re sending to the EC Churches: “We’re going to make some important changes, but not because we want our relation with you to be healthier, but only because we’re using you as guinea pig to see if we can win over the Orthodox.” It also delivers the very damaging message that the RC Church listens to the Orthodox before it listens to the Eastern Catholics – an idea that’s already flying around out there. These are two big slaps in the face; I would guess they’re even more insulting than the “elevation to Cardinal” issue.
I agree with the changes you mention, but they should NOT be done with the primary purpose of wooing the Orthodox. Rather, the primary purpose should be to improve relations, communication, clarify roles, etc. between the existing Catholic sui iuris Churches. What the Orthodox “want” shouldn’t be nearly as important as what is proper for our relationship to the Eastern Catholics.
Time for me to write an article about the head coverings of a cardinal for the German newspapers.
Time for me to write an article about the head coverings of a cardinal for the German newspapers.
It seems that what is missing here is an understanding that, while promising obedience as a cardinal of the Roman diocese (ie, in one legal role), the patriarchs don’t promise obedience as patriarchs (another legal role). Western law allowed monarchs to be in fealty to other monarchs or even quite normal lords, for certain hereditary lands, while being completely independent for their own lands; and similar situations occasionally applied in Western lands among churchmen.
The reason cardinals promise obedience at the Conclave is so that they don’t proceed to elect a Pope and then start oppressing him, or elect a Pope and then change their mind and elect another.
It’s fascinating to me that this discussion has broken out regarding the Eastern Patriarchs and their exact place in the Catholic Church because of these elevations. Personally, this is a topic that I have thought on for a long time. Something that I’ve noticed in the Catholic Church is that one of our most glaring weak spots is the appalling lack of clarity since 1054 that we have in the Catholic Church regarding the relationship between the particular Churches that make up the Catholic Church, both in terms of their relationships one to another, and more importantly, their relationship to the Pope. Prior to the Second Vatican Council, the main problem was an appalling Latinization (and I say this without any ill will toward the Latin Tradition, which I love and wish to preserve) and a Latinizing mindset which totally blurred out the distinction between particular Churches and their Patriarchs, and sort of equated the entire Catholic Church with the Roman Church, liturgically, theologically, and juridically. The situation has improved somewhat since that time because Vatican II used its authority to establish with clarity the distinction between the particular Churches, the legitimate existence and dignity of the Patriarchate, and the fact that every sui iuris Church is equal in terms of liturgical dignity and theological worth, and all Churches deserve respect and acknowledgment in the Catholic Church. This is a wonderful step, but this issue of election to Cardinals is just one example out of many that the full systematic theology of that which was taught in Vatican II regarding the Catholic Church has yet to be fully worked out, and in my opinion, it is only second to the restoration of the Latin Liturgical heritage and the Roman Church’s ethos in terms of major areas that the Catholic Church needs to clarify immediately for the sake of the Church’s future. Thank you for your point AJS, I appreciate them. I don’t completely agree with you, in that I don’t hold it to be a negative thing to be obedient to the Pope, in terms of acknowledging and heeding his authority, even with regard to the Eastern Patriarchs. It’s written write in the Eastern Code of Canon Law that the Pope, in his role of Shepherd and Father of all Churches, has the inalienable and Christological role of being a voice for Christ in all Churches, in the entire Catholic Church. However, I do recognize and agree with your point that the language of being made a Cardinal and the oath that one takes is foriegn to the aspect of the Petrine Ministry which exists in the realm and jurisdiction of another Patriarch, who has a far greater and more lofty an honor and jurisdiction than that of a Bishop. I agree with you that making Eastern Patriarchs Cardinals in the Roman Church is silly because it’s literally a contradiction in terms; it represents the wrong mindset that “Roman Church = Total Church” that has since been necessarily clarified by the Magisterium. It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever for the Head and Father of a particular Church, sufficient in its own right as Catholic and Apostolic, to be named as a dignitary of another Church within the Catholic Communion. The problem, as others have pointed out, is that the only way the Pope is chosen is by the Cardinals. You could further say that the Pope should be elected by the Western Cardinals because of his role as Patriarch of the West, which I agree absolutely MUST be distinguished from his role as shepherd and Father of all the Churches. The whole thing, the entire relationship of the Catholic Churches among themselves and with the Pope, is a huge legal and historical mess which I don’t pretend to fully understand or claim to have any special wisdom to fix; frankly, I regard it as a scar that has persisted for a thousand years from the Great Schism. I pray and hope that the important things which Vatican II had to say with regard to the Constitution of the Church will be fully realized and clarified in the future, with the Pope’s role in his own sui iuris Church and his role in every Church clarified so as to avoid confusion and foster the unity and peace which the Petrine Ministry is supposed to foster continually.
anilwang– Thanks for the link. I’m always interested in Nigerian cardinals.
I thought the Vicar of Christ was was the head of Christendom on earth, not just a fellow traveller with other Patriarchs.
It would follow therefore that any pledge of loyalty should be made to him. The church is a monarchy, surely, not a confederation of equals. It is quite right that there is a separate structure for the Eastern Catholics (Eastern code of canon law etc), but this does not imply total independence from the Pope. This is not at all how my Maronite friends see it.
Still no cardinal’s hat for Archbishop Nichols of Westminster then. With Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor having reached the age of 80, this means that if the Pope dies any time soon England and Wales will have no vote in the election of a new Pontiff. Has ++Vincent blotted his copybook in some way? In not making him a cardinal has the Holy See expressed its disapproval of his failure to stop the Soho LGBT masses? Does England/Wales’s cardinal have to be the Archbishop of Westminster anyway? Could, say, Archbishop Longley of Birmingham be given the honour?
asperges,
As a Maronite, I know how many Maronites think, and there are a number of reasons for this that go back centuries and none of them are good. The Maronites have been without their authentic spirituality and theology for 700 years, that leads to a lot of “interesting” conclusions.
The Catholic Church (as a larger entity) has gone to great lengths in the past half century to clarify that the office of the Pope is -not- principally a monarchic institution, this is an Absolutist Petrine view and it cannot be historically corroborated. The Byzantines tend towards a Low Petrine ecclesiology and the Orientals towards a High Petrine ecclesiology but both equally repudiate the Absolute Petrine view – as should any Latin Catholic who knows anything about history. So, in short, it is absolutely wrong for a Patriarch of a Particular Church sui juris to pledge fealty and obedience to the Pope of Rome. It not only does injury to the legitimacy of the Particular Churches but debases the true role of the Papacy.
JonathanCatholic,
You raise many interesting points. I suppose there are two different ways to look at this.
[As an aside: the whole schtick of giving the “red hat” to Eastern Patriarchs is actually quite modern (1960’s) and was a bizarre attempt to give the Eastern Patriarchs a role in the process, but Paul VI realized that it didn’t come across quite well considering the other decrees and positions taken towards the Eastern Churches during and after the Council and tried to roll it back but it was continued under the tenure of John Paul II.]
When thinking of the papacy one can begin with the role of Vicar of Christ/Pope/First Among Equal/what have you. Or, you can begin with his role as Bishop of Rome, and by -that- virtue he is given the honor deserving of the Successor of Peter. If we begin there, that the Pope is principally the Bishop of Rome, and because of his role as Bishop of Rome, he is Pope – then it is quite evident that the clergy of the Roman Church should elect their Bishop. The other Churches would accept this in the spirit of communion and recognize his office just as the Bishop of Rome accepts in the spirit of communion the election of the Armenian Patriarch. The Bishop of Rome has his role that is distinct and honorable and that remains that, with no need of interference from another Particular Church.
If we insist that the Pope is principally the Vicar of Christ and only accidentally the Bishop of Rome and the Conclave should reflect the “entire” Communion of Catholic Churches since they are electing the leader of the Universal Church then why not just seat the Eastern Patriarchs at Conclave ex officio? Seat them in Conclave by virtue of the dignity of their office and let that be the end of it. Anything more muddies the waters and leads us into discussions such as these. Just my two cents. :)
Jacob Wall,
Yes, I know where you are coming from. You are preaching to the choir in many respects. The Eastern Catholic Churches should be treated with the proper dignity due to them solely because of that dignity. And – that- is why it is has become a stumbling block for the various Orthodox groups. The creation of the Eastern Catholic Churches was precisely a vehicle for corporate reunion, the Eastern Catholic Churches exist solely to be re-united with their brethren in the Orthodox communions. Many of the Eastern Catholic hierarchies have publicly said they will gladly relinquish their offices and authority to their Orthodox counterparts when reunion occurs. We are, practically speaking, laboratories of “Orthodoxy in Communion with Rome.” If Rome cannot or will not treat the Eastern Churches as they should then that does injury to the Eastern Catholics and to the Orthodox, because it becomes a failed experiment.
And as a Maronite, I would gladly relinquish our patriarchate to the Syriac Orthodox (and remain a Recension of the Syriac Church – similar to the Ruthenians) when and if union between the Catholic Communion and Syriac Orthodox Communion occurs.
JonathanCatholic,
I agree. The relationship between the Latin and Eastern Churches wrt the election of Popes is an unresolved issue mostly due to the distinction between the Pope’s role as Latin Patriarch and Universal head of the Church. Note, the Pope no longer uses the title “Patriarch of the West”, so this might be a moot point. But I think the problem is deeper, because historically each Church used to be geographic in nature but in the last few centuries (especially in the last century) this became no longer the case. Each Church occupies all areas of the world but somehow has to negotiate with the “native” bishop. This issue is particularly tense in the Eastern Orthodox, particularly in the Americas where no one Patriarchate is the “native” Patriarch and it is possible to be in bad standing in one Patriarchate and walk across the street to a more lenient Patriarchate and be in good standing.
Given this meshing together of territories, it may actually make sense for the Eastern Churches to be part of the election of the Pope. But it raises the issue of what would happen if an Eastern Catholic Pope were selected (which could happen even today). Since he’d be the Latin Patriarch, he’d have to celebrate TLM at the Vatican and govern a Church of which he has no familiarity with.
Ultimately, I think that the two roles of the Pope will need to be broken up, and I do think it will be if union with the Eastern Orthodox ever happens. The selection of an Eastern Catholic Pope would likely be the trigger for the reasons given, although negotiations with the Eastern Orthodox might lead to this also.
@AJS:
I have sympathies for your argument that sui iuris patriarchs should not become cardinals, i.e. clergy of the Roman Church.
But if your deeper reason is that you reject the absolut papal authority and iurisdiction over them, then: anathema sis!
That is a heresy, contradicting Vat. I.
And if Vat. II and the post-Vat. II teaching and praxis seems to be in favor of this heresy or in dead is, then Vat.II and the post-Vat. II doctrine and praxis must be changed and corrected (as the fsspx argue) but not the infallible teaching of Vat. I, that can not be changed
dspecht,
Just as Vatican II has to be seen through a hermeneutic of continuity so does Vatican I. You should not take the declarations of Vatican I out of context of the greater political and social unrest in Italy at the time and also within the immemorial Deposit of Faith that has determined the limits of Papal power for two millennia.
dspecht and AJS,
You are both correct to an extent. The key difficulty is the mixing of the Patriarch of the West and Head of the Church roles.
Patriarchs do have the power to appoint or dispose of bishops, and a previous council made this power explicit with the Pope. (I think in one of the Lateran Councils to deal with caesaropapism such as what’s happening with China)
This is not unheard of, even if the Eastern Orthodox where this recently happened (I believe in Greece).
So many of the powers of the Pope are simply the Patriarch of the West or have been given by an Ecumenical Council and should not cause scandal with any Eastern Orthodox. And many of these powers are neither inherent to the Papacy or Patriarchate and can be changed at any point.
Now WRT the Pope’s role as the Head of the Church, it’s clear that he does have jurisdiction over the whole Church. As the Declaration of Ravenna between the Orthodox and Catholics and history itself makes plain, the Pope is the place of final appeal on theological concerns and functions as the Protos of the Patriarches. The exact nature of his role still is a matter of dispute, I believe .because of the blurring of the Latin Patriarch/Head of the Church roles. But at least one aspect of Papal Infallibility is a direct consequence of this recognition, namely, if the Pope is the last court of appeal on theological issues, then if he made a mistake, the entire Church would fall into heresy. Matthew 16:18 promised this would never happen. The other aspect of infallibility also follows, namely the Pope cannot make an infallible declaration that causes the Church to fall into heresy and according to Matthew 16:18 this will not happen.
AJS: Thank you for addressing my remarks earlier. I know the questions of the East and its history are complex and raise many matters which are not familiar to western Catholics, but even I and am clear about what the Papacy is. So is the CCCC:
“882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.”
“For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”
Sound pretty Petrine to me.
Your strong opinions I find puzzling. No doubt they do reflect, as you say, some element of opinion within Eastern Catholicism.
Likewise the statement, “the Eastern Catholic Churches exist solely to be re-united with their brethren in the Orthodox communions” seems something of a paradox. Is this really what the universal Church thinks? Would the Maronite Patriarch back your views as you have expressed them?
@AJS
I appreciate your point, and I appreciate that you are speaking as an Eastern Catholic. However, in my personal opinion (which I don’t claim to hold any authority or weight, and which could very well be changed) I still think the Catholic Church needs to be careful in viewing the Eastern Catholics as only an experiment, or a temporary arrangement of secondary importance. You say, “the creation of the Eastern Catholic Churches was precisely a vehicle for corporate reunion, the Eastern Catholic Churches exist solely to be re-united with their brethren in the Orthodox communions.” To me this implies an experiment or temporary arrangement of secondary importance. (i.e. secondary to reunion with the Orthodox communions as a whole.) If we see the Eastern Catholics in this light (or even if Eastern Catholics see themselves in this light,) than it removes most of the importance of making the arrangement work as a permanent situation. This easily allows the hierarchy to think, “It’s not the ‘real thing,’ it’s just an experiment. If it fails, we’ll just try something else with a different group.” I think this is the very attitude that has been creating these undesirable arrangements to be made.
In my humble opinion, Eastern Catholics must be seen (by Latins and by Eastern Catholics themselves) as a permanent situation. That will compel us to find the best and most authentic arrangement. This by no means excludes the possibility and hope that the Orthodox will be reconciled at some point, but it does exclude the possibility that that the Eastern Catholics are just a dispensable “test run” that can be screwed up, thrown away and started over again since you’re not the “real thing.”
I’m sure that this idea is by no means your intention, but words and phrases like “experiment” “vehicle” or “exist solely for the purpose of reconciliation with the Orthodox” don’t sit right with me.
Does anyone know anything about Archbishop Tagle and if he has in anyway been supportive of the extraordinary form in his diocese? Does he know how to celebrate it?
I’m a Roman Rite girl who attends a Ukrainian Catholic parish, (no TLM around, and it’s the only place around me where Confession is taken seriously!) and as the previous Patriarch/Major Archbishop was a Cardinal, I’d hoped the current MAB would be, too. I do think it’s important for the Eastern Rites to have a voice in a Papal conclave, because the election of that Pope DOES affect them, too. What would be to stop a future Pope from returning to the days of forced Latinization? They don’t want that, I imagine, (and nor would I. Both rites have their beauty and the dignity of both deserve to be preserved.) It’s worth noting that, at least for the UGCC, when His Beatitude was elected, that was submitted to Rome for the Pope’s approval, (though I’m unfamiliar with Eastern Canon Law, so I don’t know to what extent this is a mere formality, admittedly.)
Next on the Pope’s TODO list: get rid of some of the ridiculous Latinization decrees that are still in effect in the US, like about married clergy. Were I an Eastern Rite male, (*shudder*,) I’d be rather annoyed that, in my Rite’s home country I could marry, but because I’m in the US, I can’t, but anyway, that’s a rant for another day =-p And yes, this paragraph’s mostly tongue-in-cheek; I imagine it’s not even on the Pope’s radar screen.
AJS:
Again, if you do not accept that the Pope has full, supreme, and universal power/iurisdiction over the whole Church and each member of it which he can always and everywhere exercise you are not Catholic but a heretic and anathema (see Vat. I).
AJS,
Ukrainian Catholic here. There are plenty of examples of vast papal authority being exercised before the Schism. One great example is the Formula of Hormisdas that was entirely accepted by the Eastern Church. What you are doing is unfortunately very common in EC circles these days. They try so hard to appease the Orthodox that they strip any significant meaning out of being in communion with Rome. But at the end of the day we either believe what the Catholic Church teaches about the Papacy or we don’t. Vatican I is clear, if you think it is wrong then why would you wish to be in communion with Rome anyway? And if Vatican I is not in error, then why try and believe something contrary to it?
dspcht,
Now, now, I think you are being more than a little uncharitable and a tad bit arrogant and presuming. Did you not read my reply? You must read Vatican I in light of the entire Deposit of Faith, not only from one time period and in only one theological language. The theological expressions of the Byzantine, Oriental, and Assyrian traditions are equally valid to the Latin (and the Latin traditon contains many expressions : Thomistic, Patristic, etc.) and can accept the terms of Vatican I in light on their particular theological frameworks. No where in any of my comments have I questioned the validity of Vatican I or the role of the papacy. You are placing words in my mouth. It saddens me that you are reading the proclamations of Vatican I with a hermeneutic of rupture rather than continuity.
You will be in for a big surprise if you think that the Latin tradition is the only valid and acceptable means of speaking about God and the Church. You must remember, of course, that the Latin Church only represents 1/23rd of the Catholic Communion. You are a minority voice in the larger Catholic tradition. ;-)
smad0142, well said.
smad0142,
This is off topic but: Vatican I is fine, if interpreted correctly, and not in an Absolutist Petrine view. I understand why people have such a hard time with viewing the declarations of this Council in the larger scheme of things because they do the same thing with the Second Vatican Council. You should interpret Vatican I in light of being a Byzantine, and I should interpret in light of a Antiochene Syriac viewpoint. The problem with Vatican I, if there is one, is that the formula was written in an entirely Latin and Scholastic theologoumena. You therefore must “unpack” the content into a vocabulary that is acceptable to all parties involved, not just Thomists, and definitely not just Latins. The same unfortunate thing occurred with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. None of the Eastern or Oriental traditions have a problem with the Mother of God being immaculate, stainless, and without sin. The problem is that the dogma was composed in a Latin schema, with no regard for the ancient and venerable traditions outside of Rome. It becomes burdensome to have to “translate” Dogma into terms that are understandable and coherent to Oriental ears.
In politikspeak we can call it Optics. The content may be perfectly fine, it is how you present it that causes problems.
jonh303, I met Abp Tagle before he became archbishop of Manilla. He was doing an appeal for his diocese that he was in charge of then. His celebration of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was not Benedictine in the least. (This was 6 or so years ago, so he may have changed). He didn’t seem open to the TLM in my conversation with him. (Of course I was new to Tradition then).
Dear @dspecht, you could throw a little less of anathemas around.
That said, I believe the nature of the Petrine ministry is quite clear. The Pope is, first and foremost and essentially, Bishop of Rome. (The Bishopric of Rome, for that matter, does not comprise “the West”. It ends at the borders to the Bishoprics of Porto-Santa Rufina et aliae.) By virtue of the primacy necessarily included in this, he is Head of the Episcopal College, and has the right to govern the Church, everywhere, in anything [I’m speaking of the “lawful authority” thing, leaving out totally the question when, where and how even lawful authority may be disobeyed], immediately, in giving orders to the bishop or via his own delegates, without need of claiming either concession by Ecumenical Council, bishop’s consent, Church practice, concession by the public power, or state of necessity; and with a charism of infallibility in dogmatic things if he wishes to use it.
The Pope needs to *respect* the crucial role of the local ordinary, but that he does as he sees fit. Nor is it necessary to include the local bishop in all matters, especially in such matters as the local ordinary is not really interested in and which can safely be conducted by the Curial apparatus (there certainly is, and is need of, bureaucracy in the Church).
Absolute Petrine view? Possibly; but I cannot see otherwise to explain some Vatican I teachings (on dogmatic level). Seeing things within context is all fine, but explaining away things is quite a different thing.
The Pope has dropped the title of Patriarch of the West; true, he fulfils in the West the roles that the Patriarchs have where they exist, but still he does need either title or “office” of Patriarch for that (the office is Bishop of Rome, anyway).
Nor can I see how the inclusion of Patriarchs into the Roman clergy is fundamentally different from the inclusion of Latin-rite diocesan bishops into the Roman clergy.
And both have for reason that, yes, the Roman Church is, also with special respect the way Church government runs these days, specially entrusted with all the Churches (Latin rite and others) (cf. the Encyclical Ecclesia in urbe), and hence it is fitting (not necessary) that they are somehow included into it. (“Holy Roman Church”, as in the oath of allegiance if you will, is the Diocese of Rome, also especially in this sense; not the Latin Rite Church!)
Said the Holy Father, in his sermon on the taking of possession of the Lateran Basilica: “As Catholics [!], we are all Romans in a sense.”
Also, being against Latinization is a good thing in principle; but there are at very least rumours that Eastern Catholics are officially disencouraged to, say, pray the Rosary, even when they would just privately like to do it. I do not think that is a good thing. (Nor would it be vice versa, if we pray the Akathistos.)
Dear @AJS, it might be very fine if the Eastern Patriarchs send a letter of Communion; but, other than the Pope to them, they cannot grant it, as if a Pope who hadn’t this granting would cease to be Pope, or any such thing.
Dear @JesusFreak84: What is this decree on marriage? I only know that, those who have changed from the Latin Rite into another must still be celibate (even if ordained after); quite justly, to prevent a rite-flight and also to avoid the impression that the Eastern Catholic clergy is somewhat second class. But what is this other decree? If it really does impose celibacy (without, I take this to mean, the free-willing consent of the virtual whole of the Eastern Catholic community), then – while it is valid, authority also means that we might disagree with a measure of it – it should be dropped, and at once.
@Simon_GNR says “Does England/Wales’s cardinal have to be the Archbishop of Westminster anyway? Could, say, Archbishop Longley of Birmingham be given the honour?”
Practically, yes. Westminster is the ArchDiocese that provides the RC counter-balance to the CofE Diocese of London. Any major event will take place either at Westminster Abbey as a Queen’s Peculiar (i.e. directly under the governance of the Sovreign and not a diocese) or St Paul’s. For national events involving the Catholic church that will necessarily involve Westminster. For that reason, and also the geographic proximity to Government, Westminster will always be seen as the most influential of the Archepiscopal sees and thus the primary one.
In the unlikely event that the “primatial see” were to shift away from Westminster then Southwark (just over the banks of the Thames) would be the next logical choice over Birmingham. That doesn’t preclude the bishops themselves being translated, but it is highly unlikely. ++Vincent is an odd one to measure as he is very left wing socially, but middle of the road liturgically (his predecessor mooted the disbandment of the choir, refused to use Latin in the liturgy unless compelled to do so, introduced girls into the serving rosta, made the life of the LMS difficult and so on) whereas ++Vincent has supported the choir, got rid of the ugly “temporary” altar that was there for nearly 30 years and returned to the high altar under the baldacchino, and accommodates the EF more than his predecessor and has done a lot to promote devotions. But in turn he has tried to water down the catholic identity of the Cardinal Vaughan school and sacked the board of governors, resisted the attempts of RC schools to convert to academies, tolerates the LGBT masses, drones on in the media about “equality” and seemed to indicate a tolerance of the idea of gay marriage (or at least was ambiguous about it).
I suspect he may have to wait another year or two to see his name on a consistory. This isn’t a major drama as he is still quite young and his predecessor has only recently turned 80. What I suspect you will see is Westminster being “hemmed in” by more traditional biushops of the lines of +Mark Davies. Eventually when you have more orthodox bishops in sufragen diocese and the 5 archdiocese become vacant in time, they will start to take the helm. ++Vincent already has a quite traditionally minded AuxBp, but I don’t see him going anywhere soon because while he is a good canon lawyer and chancellor of the diocese, he has the major flaw of being emotionally distant and is comlpetely incapable of any display of empathy (and those are the kinder words that I’ve heard clergy say about him). Worth watching are the couple of Westminster clergy currently in Rome in curial posts!
Mgr. Tagle seems to be a real liberal. Cf. also the articles and comments on Rorate.
(And also James Michael Harvey seems to be no tradtionalist at all – can anybody confirm this?!)
So brick by brick…?
(Sorry, at least after the appointments (f.e.) of Woelki (Berlin), Mueller or Roche I can not buy this anymore.)
Let me quote Anchorite from RORATE CAELI – I could hardly have summed it up better (well but I would not totally agree on the low intellectual level – at least Müller is of some higher and really “subtle” one – he thinks kantian and gadamerian.
And it is the Pope who appoints them, so I can not see the brick by brick – even if using “fanons” and things like that.)
“Tagle, Mueller, and the like are adept in making careers out of pseudotheological malarkey of a rather pedestrian level. They bring to mind Michel Foucault criticism of Derrida’s purposeful obscurantism. However, in their case it is of such low intellectual level that it can only appear insightful to products of post-Vatican II RCIA classes.
I would not be the only person to point out that every time we heard/read Bishop Fellay we have not seen even a trace of such “Bishopese” nonsense, yet EVERY word coming out of the mouth of these Cardinals (or not-yet-but-really-wish-I-were-Cardinals), whether it is Tagle, Mueller, Nichols, et al., is meaningless “filler” verbiage.
Let’s be honest, with an exception of a few Cardinals and a Pope, this hierarchy appears to be an intellectual and spiritual desert in comparison to the minds and personalities of the likes of Pius XII, Bl. Ildefonso Schuster, and W?odzimierz Ledóchowski. “
Being Italian-American I shed not one tear that no Italians were named….after reading the damage SOME of the Italians did before during and after VII i.e. Bugnini, Marini, Cardinals who voted in 1958 & 1963 conclaves, etc.
It took a German Pope to give us back the Mass in the E.F.
Love this POPE, and JPII!
Viva il Papa!
kbf: But I wasn’t suggesting moving the primatial see away from Westminster. Could not an archbishop of one of the other archdioceses be given the honour of the cardinalate without it affecting the position of the Archbishop of Westminter as the Primate of England and Wales? Was not Cardinal Wolsey (after being elevated to cardinal) Bishop of Durham and then Archbishop of York without being the Primate of All England, i.e. Archbishop of Canterbury?