OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 16, 2014, 03:15:38 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The College of Cardinals  (Read 1821 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« on: October 27, 2011, 09:59:07 PM »

Every once in a while, I look into various facets of the RCC to try to figure you guys out a little more, get a better understanding, etc. My family (up until a couple generations ago) was Roman Catholic, and so I have a love for the Latin tradition. Now, being Orthodox, I'm the closest thing my family has when it comes to returning to it's roots in Rome. I treasure what few religious antiques I've been able to salvage from my family.

Most recently, I've been trying to understand the College of Cardinals. It confuses me. A lot. It's something that developed over many centuries and even recently has undergone changes in the way it functions, so it's been difficult for me to pin down exactly how it did form, what it constitutes and how it has and does today function. I have several questions, which include learning about the history and function of the College, as well as how the Orthodox view it and what would happen if unity were to occur between our churches.

What I'm really trying to wrap my mind around, I guess is really one big question. That is:

What do the "Orders" actually mean?

I understand that Cardinal Bishops have to be bishops (this includes the EC patriarchs) and are traditionally senior Curia officials. A Cardinal Bishop always serves as the Dean of the College. Then, there are Cardinal Priests. These confuse me greatly. Wikipedia gives Eugênio de Araújo Sales as an example of a "Cardinal Priest." He is the longest-serving cardinal in the College. Cardinal priests don't have to be bishops, but some are. How are you a bishop and a presbyter? I understand that "cardinal priest" is a separate title all together from the office to which a given cleric is ordained, but it turns confusing when I read the above link that tells me Cardinal Sales served as archbishop of São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro for thirty years, but in his photograph he is clearly vested as a priest, yet wearing the red of a cardinal! This is highly confusing to me. If he was a bishop, how is he now a priest? Does that mean he no longer shares in the office of the episcopacy? That can't be right. He must still be a bishop. So...why he is actually vested a priest? This seems to hint that one's ordination and their order in the College is actually connected, but still not. I'm sure you can see my frustration.

This is also seen in the order of Cardinal Deacons. the current Protodeacon of the College is Jean-Louis Tauran. He was ordained a priest in 1969, then made titular archbishop of Thelepte by Pope John Paul II in 1990, but was actually consecrated to the episcopal office a year later! How can one be a "titular bishop" while still only a priest? Then, in 2003, he was made a Cardinal Deacon, which means liturgically he wears a mitre simplex, but also a dalmatic. What? I just don't get all of this conflation of offices. Very confusing to me!

My second question has to do with possible unity between the two churches. That is:

What would have to happen with the College of Cardinals given the unity of the churches?

Of course, this is really more directed at the Orthodox readers here. Of course, as Orthodox, we would all contend that the Pope of Rome would have to lay aside his claim to universal jurisdiction of the Catholic Church and be recognized instead as the primus-inter-pares of the Church, the most honored among primates, respected amongst his brother bishops and fellow primates of autocephalous churches. This means, of course, that the Pope of Rome would have no binding authority over the bishops outside of his own jurisdiction (and, technically, within it either. Rather, the Holy Synod of the Roman Church would affirm the nomination of a diocese. The Pope could not appoint a diocesan bishop at his own will.

However, the Holy Synod of a church doesn't have to be EVERY bishop of that particular church. The Holy Synod of Russia, for example, does not include every bishop. One of the objections to the Roman Church that sometimes comes from the Orthodox is the College of Cardinals, saying that it would have to be abolished so that every bishop has a "voice." While I could see the need for reform to the College, could it not still suffice as a sort of "Holy Synod" as such? I'm not sure it's something that would have to be thrown out. Thoughts?
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2011, 11:19:07 PM »

Every once in a while, I look into various facets of the RCC to try to figure you guys out a little more, get a better understanding, etc. My family (up until a couple generations ago) was Roman Catholic, and so I have a love for the Latin tradition. Now, being Orthodox, I'm the closest thing my family has when it comes to returning to it's roots in Rome. I treasure what few religious antiques I've been able to salvage from my family.

Most recently, I've been trying to understand the College of Cardinals. It confuses me. A lot. It's something that developed over many centuries and even recently has undergone changes in the way it functions, so it's been difficult for me to pin down exactly how it did form, what it constitutes and how it has and does today function. I have several questions, which include learning about the history and function of the College, as well as how the Orthodox view it and what would happen if unity were to occur between our churches.

What I'm really trying to wrap my mind around, I guess is really one big question. That is:

What do the "Orders" actually mean?

I understand that Cardinal Bishops have to be bishops (this includes the EC patriarchs) and are traditionally senior Curia officials. A Cardinal Bishop always serves as the Dean of the College. Then, there are Cardinal Priests. These confuse me greatly. Wikipedia gives Eugênio de Araújo Sales as an example of a "Cardinal Priest." He is the longest-serving cardinal in the College. Cardinal priests don't have to be bishops, but some are. How are you a bishop and a presbyter? I understand that "cardinal priest" is a separate title all together from the office to which a given cleric is ordained, but it turns confusing when I read the above link that tells me Cardinal Sales served as archbishop of São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro for thirty years, but in his photograph he is clearly vested as a priest, yet wearing the red of a cardinal! This is highly confusing to me. If he was a bishop, how is he now a priest? Does that mean he no longer shares in the office of the episcopacy? That can't be right. He must still be a bishop. So...why he is actually vested a priest? This seems to hint that one's ordination and their order in the College is actually connected, but still not. I'm sure you can see my frustration.

This is also seen in the order of Cardinal Deacons. the current Protodeacon of the College is Jean-Louis Tauran. He was ordained a priest in 1969, then made titular archbishop of Thelepte by Pope John Paul II in 1990, but was actually consecrated to the episcopal office a year later! How can one be a "titular bishop" while still only a priest? Then, in 2003, he was made a Cardinal Deacon, which means liturgically he wears a mitre simplex, but also a dalmatic. What? I just don't get all of this conflation of offices. Very confusing to me!

It is confusing.  Look to history, as always, to simplify things.

The college is a post schism creation.  Like the Vatican's papacy.

Just as the supreme pontiff started out as the Archbishop of Rome, the college too grew out of the episcopal/clerical set up at Rome.

The "cardinal bishops" were the suffragan to the Archbishop, having their see in the suburbs of Rome.  They consecrated the new archbishop when elected, but, since the canons forbid the transfer of a bishop (a rule universally broken nowadays, and for some time), they were not eligible to become Archbishop.

The "cardinal priests" were the clergy assigned to the various Churches of Rome: incardated priest meant permanently assigned.  They were the chief candiates to succeed as archbishop, and at one point a canon was adopted at Rome (8th century, IIRC) that the new archbishop had to be selected from them.  Cardinal also came to mean "important" and hence the cardinal priests were the dean of the important parishes.

The "cardinal deacons" were originally the seven deacons (and, based on Acts, only seven: several of the Fathers note this local custom of Rome) who served with the archbishop, as he went from cathedral to cathedral. Progressively they also became candidates for election as archbishop.

Like anywere else, at the death of the archbishop, the bishops, the priests, and the deacons; the laity; and the civil authorities would gather to elect the successor.  Out of this came the conclave.

With the codification of the Ultramontanist claims of the Vatican, this set up was modified.  The cardinal bishops first became the sole electors, then including the rest of the clergy (the cardinal priests and cardinal deacons). As the Vatican required bishops of other areas at Rome (increasing less to gather in Synod, as the other Patriarchates, but to receive orders from the center), it assigned them among the cardinal priests at the churches of Rome, their "titular" church in Rome, opposed to their real see back whereever.  If they mainted episcopal duties back home, they were assigned among the deacons, to have an official attachment in Rome, but a minimum of duties in Rome. Members of the crowing Curia, the administrative body of the Vatican, also were named to the cardinal deacons so they had a specific status in the system.

So you have two systems opperating on two level: one, the local hiearchy of Archbishop, bishop, priest, deacon (but more or less in name only, which is how a bishop can be a cardinal priest or deacon), and the various hierarchies in the patriarchate of the West being plugged into that system (so bishops can be bishops at home, but of titular rank of priest and deacons, to take part in the election of the bishop of Rome-now the Supreme pontiff-which elsewhere remained a local affair.


My second question has to do with possible unity between the two churches. That is:

What would have to happen with the College of Cardinals given the unity of the churches?

Good question: Irish Melkite corrected me recently, that the "sui juris" primates are often named cardinals, but not ex officio, or something like that.  My guess is that the Vatican would want that to become ex officio. We should fight such a suggestion.

Of course, this is really more directed at the Orthodox readers here. Of course, as Orthodox, we would all contend that the Pope of Rome would have to lay aside his claim to universal jurisdiction of the Catholic Church and be recognized instead as the primus-inter-pares of the Church, the most honored among primates, respected amongst his brother bishops and fellow primates of autocephalous churches. This means, of course, that the Pope of Rome would have no binding authority over the bishops outside of his own jurisdiction (and, technically, within it either. Rather, the Holy Synod of the Roman Church would affirm the nomination of a diocese. The Pope could not appoint a diocesan bishop at his own will.

However, the Holy Synod of a church doesn't have to be EVERY bishop of that particular church. The Holy Synod of Russia, for example, does not include every bishop. One of the objections to the Roman Church that sometimes comes from the Orthodox is the College of Cardinals, saying that it would have to be abolished so that every bishop has a "voice." While I could see the need for reform to the College, could it not still suffice as a sort of "Holy Synod" as such? I'm not sure it's something that would have to be thrown out. Thoughts?
The college is a Holy Synod, although it has no ruling powers like an Orthodox one, just advisory.  If the Vatican did give up its ultramontanist claims, it would devolve back to the local Holy Synod of Rome.  The real change would be the various episcopal conferences becoming autcephalous, autonomous and depend local Holy Synods.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Irish Melkite
Information Mongeror
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite Greek-Catholic
Jurisdiction: Eparchy of Newton
Posts: 964


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2011, 02:03:53 AM »

My friend and brother, Isa, has provided an excellent overview. I might quibble with a point here and there, but it's late and I'm tired. See the linked site by a gentleman named Salvador Mirandas, who is arguably the foremost English language historian on the subject:

Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church

Many years,

Neil
Logged

"Not only is it unnecessary to adopt the customs of the Latin Rite to manifest one's Catholicism, it is an offense against the unity of the Church."

- Melkite Archbishop Joseph (Tawil), of blessed memory
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,885


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2011, 03:13:24 AM »

This is primarily based on information I read during the period of my life when I was very seriously considering conversion to Catholicism.  Some of this information may be incorrect, and I would be more than happy to be corrected if such is the case.

On the question of Orders, historically (as in, a great deal of time ago), Cardinal Bishops were always bishops.  Cardinal Priests were always priests.  Cardinal Deacons were always deacons.  As the Papacy gained in power and influence, it slowly started to become the case that nearly all Cardinals are bishops.  In fact, now, it is only elderly priests who are elevated to the College who are not ordained (and, I believe, they may choose to be if they so desire).

As for what would happen if a reunion were to occur, I have some thoughts.  Number one, the College could be eliminated.  I find this to be somewhat unlikely.  Number two, the Cardinals could continue to be bishops, but the College could be transformed into something closer to a synod, and it would then function as a synod.  Number three, the Cardinals could cease to (generally speaking) be bishops, and instead could be priests and deacons from within the diocese of Rome, who would then elect the Pope upon the last Pope's death or retirement.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2011, 03:38:42 PM »

Every once in a while, I look into various facets of the RCC to try to figure you guys out a little more, get a better understanding, etc. My family (up until a couple generations ago) was Roman Catholic, and so I have a love for the Latin tradition. Now, being Orthodox, I'm the closest thing my family has when it comes to returning to it's roots in Rome. I treasure what few religious antiques I've been able to salvage from my family.

Most recently, I've been trying to understand the College of Cardinals. It confuses me. A lot. It's something that developed over many centuries and even recently has undergone changes in the way it functions, so it's been difficult for me to pin down exactly how it did form, what it constitutes and how it has and does today function. I have several questions, which include learning about the history and function of the College, as well as how the Orthodox view it and what would happen if unity were to occur between our churches.

What I'm really trying to wrap my mind around, I guess is really one big question. That is:

What do the "Orders" actually mean?

I understand that Cardinal Bishops have to be bishops (this includes the EC patriarchs) and are traditionally senior Curia officials. A Cardinal Bishop always serves as the Dean of the College. Then, there are Cardinal Priests. These confuse me greatly. Wikipedia gives Eugênio de Araújo Sales as an example of a "Cardinal Priest." He is the longest-serving cardinal in the College. Cardinal priests don't have to be bishops, but some are. How are you a bishop and a presbyter? I understand that "cardinal priest" is a separate title all together from the office to which a given cleric is ordained, but it turns confusing when I read the above link that tells me Cardinal Sales served as archbishop of São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro for thirty years, but in his photograph he is clearly vested as a priest, yet wearing the red of a cardinal! This is highly confusing to me. If he was a bishop, how is he now a priest? Does that mean he no longer shares in the office of the episcopacy? That can't be right. He must still be a bishop. So...why he is actually vested a priest? This seems to hint that one's ordination and their order in the College is actually connected, but still not. I'm sure you can see my frustration.

This is also seen in the order of Cardinal Deacons. the current Protodeacon of the College is Jean-Louis Tauran. He was ordained a priest in 1969, then made titular archbishop of Thelepte by Pope John Paul II in 1990, but was actually consecrated to the episcopal office a year later! How can one be a "titular bishop" while still only a priest? Then, in 2003, he was made a Cardinal Deacon, which means liturgically he wears a mitre simplex, but also a dalmatic. What? I just don't get all of this conflation of offices. Very confusing to me!

It is confusing.  Look to history, as always, to simplify things.

The college is a post schism creation.  Like the Vatican's papacy.


Physician heal thyself...and look to history  Smiley

There have been cardinals since the end of the fifth century.  Not post-schism, any more than the papacy.  I expect your history on the papacy is about as good as your history on cardinals.
Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,910


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2011, 03:45:59 PM »

A cardinal, of course, is an honorary title for a member of a select group of archbishops. And the title of archbishop has been around since waaaay back when. Let's not get silly.  Roll Eyes Unless Isa didn't know that, in which case he's talking out of his hat. Doesn't he need a new hat by now?  Huh
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,068


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2011, 04:13:49 PM »

Oh, I thought this was about the World Series.
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2011, 04:52:21 PM »

On the question of Orders, historically (as in, a great deal of time ago), Cardinal Bishops were always bishops.  Cardinal Priests were always priests.  Cardinal Deacons were always deacons.  As the Papacy gained in power and influence, it slowly started to become the case that nearly all Cardinals are bishops.  In fact, now, it is only elderly priests who are elevated to the College who are not ordained (and, I believe, they may choose to be if they so desire).

In fact the opposite is true.  All those made cardinals, who are not already, are to be ordained bishops.  Only priests 80 and over named to the college may request to be dispensed from this requirement.  Avery Cardinal Dulles was one such example.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2011, 05:14:43 PM »

Oh, I thought this was about the World Series.

State bird of Ohio.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2011, 05:39:27 PM »

Every once in a while, I look into various facets of the RCC to try to figure you guys out a little more, get a better understanding, etc. My family (up until a couple generations ago) was Roman Catholic, and so I have a love for the Latin tradition. Now, being Orthodox, I'm the closest thing my family has when it comes to returning to it's roots in Rome. I treasure what few religious antiques I've been able to salvage from my family.

Most recently, I've been trying to understand the College of Cardinals. It confuses me. A lot. It's something that developed over many centuries and even recently has undergone changes in the way it functions, so it's been difficult for me to pin down exactly how it did form, what it constitutes and how it has and does today function. I have several questions, which include learning about the history and function of the College, as well as how the Orthodox view it and what would happen if unity were to occur between our churches.

What I'm really trying to wrap my mind around, I guess is really one big question. That is:

What do the "Orders" actually mean?

I understand that Cardinal Bishops have to be bishops (this includes the EC patriarchs) and are traditionally senior Curia officials. A Cardinal Bishop always serves as the Dean of the College. Then, there are Cardinal Priests. These confuse me greatly. Wikipedia gives Eugênio de Araújo Sales as an example of a "Cardinal Priest." He is the longest-serving cardinal in the College. Cardinal priests don't have to be bishops, but some are. How are you a bishop and a presbyter? I understand that "cardinal priest" is a separate title all together from the office to which a given cleric is ordained, but it turns confusing when I read the above link that tells me Cardinal Sales served as archbishop of São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro for thirty years, but in his photograph he is clearly vested as a priest, yet wearing the red of a cardinal! This is highly confusing to me. If he was a bishop, how is he now a priest? Does that mean he no longer shares in the office of the episcopacy? That can't be right. He must still be a bishop. So...why he is actually vested a priest? This seems to hint that one's ordination and their order in the College is actually connected, but still not. I'm sure you can see my frustration.

This is also seen in the order of Cardinal Deacons. the current Protodeacon of the College is Jean-Louis Tauran. He was ordained a priest in 1969, then made titular archbishop of Thelepte by Pope John Paul II in 1990, but was actually consecrated to the episcopal office a year later! How can one be a "titular bishop" while still only a priest? Then, in 2003, he was made a Cardinal Deacon, which means liturgically he wears a mitre simplex, but also a dalmatic. What? I just don't get all of this conflation of offices. Very confusing to me!

It is confusing.  Look to history, as always, to simplify things.

The college is a post schism creation.  Like the Vatican's papacy.


Physician heal thyself...and look to history  Smiley

There have been cardinals since the end of the fifth century.  Not post-schism, any more than the papacy.  I expect your history on the papacy is about as good as your history on cardinals.
anything to back that up, besides your ex cathedra pronouncement?  And just so we are clear, the evidence of the college of cardinals being pre-schism (which is what I said), and since the end of the fifth century.  Heck, I'd be humbled if you can produce evidence of the college of cardinals before the close of the first millenium.
Quote
The cardinals were, therefore, from a very early period, assistants of the pope in his liturgical functions, in the care of the poor, the administration of papal finances and possessions, and the synodal disposition of important matters. They took on a very much greater importance, however, after the decree of Nicholas II (1059), "In nomine Domini", regulating papal elections. In accordance with this document the election of the pope and the government of the Church, during the vacancy of the Apostolic See, fell more and more into their hands; they passed to them exclusively after the Decretal of Alexander III, "Licet de vitandâ", at the third Lateran Council (1179). The increasing insignificance of the "regionary" and "palatine" clergy, from the middle of the twelfth century, coupled with the disappearance of the judices palatini, tended to enlarge the share of the cardinals in the administration of papal justice and finances, also of the fiefs of the Holy See and of the States of the Church. We may add to this that after the cessation of papal journeys to the different nations of Christendom and of the Roman synods under papal presidency, the cardinals remained almost the only counsellors and legates of the popes. Henceforth their functions were equivalent to those of the "permanent synod" and the syncelli at Constantinople (Sägmüller, "Die Tätigkeit und Stellung der Kardinäle bis Papst Bonifaz VIII", Freiburg, 1896, 16 sqq., 208 sqq.; S. Keller, "Die sieben römischen Pfalzrichter im byzantinischen Zeitalter", Stuttgart, 1904).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm
Nihil Obstat. November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
beats
+Sic Maria dixit 2011.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2011, 05:55:20 PM »

A cardinal, of course, is an honorary title for a member of a select group of archbishops. And the title of archbishop has been around since waaaay back when. Let's not get silly.  Roll Eyes Unless Isa didn't know that, in which case he's talking out of his hat. Doesn't he need a new hat by now?  Huh
evidently not.

The only archbishop waaaaay back when in Rome was the archbishop a/k/a the pope now (7th century or so, the title meandering from Alexandria-upon whom it was bestowed-through Carthage to Rome).  The other half dozen or so bishops were suffragans, who consecrated the new archbishop (a similar set up was in Alexandria, but not in Constantinople, Antioch or Jerusalem).  The first diocesan bishop, let alone archbishop, to be named cardinal didn't happen until 1163, when beseiged Pope Alexander III (another pope-antipope schism over the "font of unity")  let Archbishop Konrad of Mainz keep his see, although named cardinal in the college at Rome.

Not all cardinals are bishops.

Do get your facts straight.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,882


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 10, 2012, 02:03:45 PM »

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this.  Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,910


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2012, 03:24:28 PM »

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this.  Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Uh, a Cardinal, in the Roman Catholic Church, is any of several archbishops given an honorary title which enables them, among other things, to take part in the election of the Pope.

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

That's it. Having never heard of 'cardinal deacons,' unless they're deacons who work in a Cardinal's cathedral, I don't know what you're talking about. As too often in these discussions, people can create more worries for themselves than they have to.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,885


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2012, 04:08:23 PM »

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this.  Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Uh, a Cardinal, in the Roman Catholic Church, is any of several archbishops given an honorary title which enables them, among other things, to take part in the election of the Pope.

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

That's it. Having never heard of 'cardinal deacons,' unless they're deacons who work in a Cardinal's cathedral, I don't know what you're talking about. As too often in these discussions, people can create more worries for themselves than they have to.

Actually, Cardinal Deacon is an order within the College of Cardinals.  I believe there were 30 of them a few years ago.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,882


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 10, 2012, 04:09:14 PM »

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this.  Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Uh, a Cardinal, in the Roman Catholic Church, is any of several archbishops given an honorary title which enables them, among other things, to take part in the election of the Pope.

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

That's it. Having never heard of 'cardinal deacons,' unless they're deacons who work in a Cardinal's cathedral, I don't know what you're talking about. As too often in these discussions, people can create more worries for themselves than they have to.

If you read about the College of Cardinals, it's more confusing than you make it out to be.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,885


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #15 on: November 10, 2012, 05:14:39 PM »

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this.  Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

This isn't entirely accurate, though virtually all Cardinals are bishops.  Fr. Roberto Tucci, a Jesuit priest, was created a cardinal in 2001, and Pope John Paul II gave him a dispensation from the normal requirement to be ordained to the episcopate, if you are to be created a cardinal.  There are some others who have been (or were about to turn) 80 at the time that they were to be created cardinals, who petitioned to be exempt from ordination to the episcopate, and who's petition was accepted.  I believe all such men have been Jesuits.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Netodox
Jurisdiction: OC.net
Posts: 4,149


« Reply #16 on: November 10, 2012, 05:28:22 PM »

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

Well, I guess this answers the question I've had in the back of my mind as to whether anyone outside of Kentucky actually knows/cares about UofL.
Logged

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion. - Proverbs 18:2

Delight thyself also in the Lord; and he shall give thee the desires of thine heart. - Psalm 36
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2012, 07:54:23 PM »

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this.  Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

AFAIR those 3 ranks are related only to their internal ranking and position during papal services. All cardinals (no matter "deacons" or "bishops") are higher in seniority that RC bishops who are not cardinals (including EC patriarchs). They all are allowed to wear palliums outside their respective dioceses or perform all sacraments without asking local bishops.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,730


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2012, 08:08:32 PM »

AFAIR those 3 ranks are related only to their internal ranking and position during papal services. All cardinals (no matter "deacons" or "bishops") are higher in seniority that RC bishops who are not cardinals (including EC patriarchs). They all are allowed to wear palliums outside their respective dioceses or perform all sacraments without asking local bishops.

EC Patriarchs, Major Archbishops, and Metropolitan heads of sui iuris Churches are given precedence over Cardinals.  No Latin Metropolitan may wear his pallium outside his own province. 
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,910


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2012, 08:11:34 PM »

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this.  Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Uh, a Cardinal, in the Roman Catholic Church, is any of several archbishops given an honorary title which enables them, among other things, to take part in the election of the Pope.

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

That's it. Having never heard of 'cardinal deacons,' unless they're deacons who work in a Cardinal's cathedral, I don't know what you're talking about. As too often in these discussions, people can create more worries for themselves than they have to.

If you read about the College of Cardinals, it's more confusing than you make it out to be.

No, it's not.

I don't have to read about it. I was in that church for 36 years.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Michał Kalina
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,465


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2012, 08:17:42 PM »

AFAIR those 3 ranks are related only to their internal ranking and position during papal services. All cardinals (no matter "deacons" or "bishops") are higher in seniority that RC bishops who are not cardinals (including EC patriarchs). They all are allowed to wear palliums outside their respective dioceses or perform all sacraments without asking local bishops.

EC Patriarchs, Major Archbishops, and Metropolitan heads of sui iuris Churches are given precedence over Cardinals.  No Latin Metropolitan may wear his pallium outside his own province.  

I stand corrected. They can use pastorals everywhere they want but the Polish wiki says otherwise about the precedence.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2012, 08:25:55 PM »

AFAIR those 3 ranks are related only to their internal ranking and position during papal services. All cardinals (no matter "deacons" or "bishops") are higher in seniority that RC bishops who are not cardinals (including EC patriarchs). They all are allowed to wear palliums outside their respective dioceses or perform all sacraments without asking local bishops.

EC Patriarchs, Major Archbishops, and Metropolitan heads of sui iuris Churches are given precedence over Cardinals.  No Latin Metropolitan may wear his pallium outside his own province.  

I stand corrected. They can use pastorals everywhere they want but the Polish wiki says otherwise about the precedence.
That precedence is only recently: before Vatican II a Latin cardinal outranked an eastern rite patriarch of the Vatican (there was no such thing as "sui juris") in the latter's own patriarchate.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 35,604



« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2012, 08:42:28 PM »

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this.  Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Uh, a Cardinal, in the Roman Catholic Church, is any of several archbishops given an honorary title which enables them, among other things, to take part in the election of the Pope.

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

That's it. Having never heard of 'cardinal deacons,' unless they're deacons who work in a Cardinal's cathedral, I don't know what you're talking about. As too often in these discussions, people can create more worries for themselves than they have to.

If you read about the College of Cardinals, it's more confusing than you make it out to be.

No, it's not.

I don't have to read about it. I was in that church for 36 years.
you evidently were not paying attention.

Cardinal deacons have been around for quite some time.  As long as the cardinals existed in fact.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm

And it was not until 1962 that their supreme pontiff established the norm that they also be bishops, and still, the requirement can be dispensed with (being supreme pontiff and all).  There are cardinal deacons who are not bishops today (at present 4).

We've discussed this before.
A cardinal, of course, is an honorary title for a member of a select group of archbishops. And the title of archbishop has been around since waaaay back when. Let's not get silly.  Roll Eyes Unless Isa didn't know that, in which case he's talking out of his hat. Doesn't he need a new hat by now?  Huh
evidently not.

The only archbishop waaaaay back when in Rome was the archbishop a/k/a the pope now (7th century or so, the title meandering from Alexandria-upon whom it was bestowed-through Carthage to Rome).  The other half dozen or so bishops were suffragans, who consecrated the new archbishop (a similar set up was in Alexandria, but not in Constantinople, Antioch or Jerusalem).  The first diocesan bishop, let alone archbishop, to be named cardinal didn't happen until 1163, when beseiged Pope Alexander III (another pope-antipope schism over the "font of unity")  let Archbishop Konrad of Mainz keep his see, although named cardinal in the college at Rome.

Not all cardinals are bishops.

Do get your facts straight.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,295


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2012, 09:41:18 PM »

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this.  Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Uh, a Cardinal, in the Roman Catholic Church, is any of several archbishops given an honorary title which enables them, among other things, to take part in the election of the Pope.

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

That's it. Having never heard of 'cardinal deacons,' unless they're deacons who work in a Cardinal's cathedral, I don't know what you're talking about. As too often in these discussions, people can create more worries for themselves than they have to.

If you read about the College of Cardinals, it's more confusing than you make it out to be.

No, it's not.

I don't have to read about it. I was in that church for 36 years.
you evidently were not paying attention.

Cardinal deacons have been around for quite some time.  As long as the cardinals existed in fact.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm

And it was not until 1962 that their supreme pontiff established the norm that they also be bishops, and still, the requirement can be dispensed with (being supreme pontiff and all).  There are cardinal deacons who are not bishops today (at present 4).

We've discussed this before.
A cardinal, of course, is an honorary title for a member of a select group of archbishops. And the title of archbishop has been around since waaaay back when. Let's not get silly.  Roll Eyes Unless Isa didn't know that, in which case he's talking out of his hat. Doesn't he need a new hat by now?  Huh
evidently not.

The only archbishop waaaaay back when in Rome was the archbishop a/k/a the pope now (7th century or so, the title meandering from Alexandria-upon whom it was bestowed-through Carthage to Rome).  The other half dozen or so bishops were suffragans, who consecrated the new archbishop (a similar set up was in Alexandria, but not in Constantinople, Antioch or Jerusalem).  The first diocesan bishop, let alone archbishop, to be named cardinal didn't happen until 1163, when beseiged Pope Alexander III (another pope-antipope schism over the "font of unity")  let Archbishop Konrad of Mainz keep his see, although named cardinal in the college at Rome.

Not all cardinals are bishops.

Do get your facts straight.

and also, in theory, because it is NOT tied to Holy Orders, a woman may also become a cardinal.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,885


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2012, 11:08:18 PM »

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this.  Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Uh, a Cardinal, in the Roman Catholic Church, is any of several archbishops given an honorary title which enables them, among other things, to take part in the election of the Pope.

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

That's it. Having never heard of 'cardinal deacons,' unless they're deacons who work in a Cardinal's cathedral, I don't know what you're talking about. As too often in these discussions, people can create more worries for themselves than they have to.

If you read about the College of Cardinals, it's more confusing than you make it out to be.

No, it's not.

I don't have to read about it. I was in that church for 36 years.
you evidently were not paying attention.

Cardinal deacons have been around for quite some time.  As long as the cardinals existed in fact.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm

And it was not until 1962 that their supreme pontiff established the norm that they also be bishops, and still, the requirement can be dispensed with (being supreme pontiff and all).  There are cardinal deacons who are not bishops today (at present 4).

We've discussed this before.
A cardinal, of course, is an honorary title for a member of a select group of archbishops. And the title of archbishop has been around since waaaay back when. Let's not get silly.  Roll Eyes Unless Isa didn't know that, in which case he's talking out of his hat. Doesn't he need a new hat by now?  Huh
evidently not.

The only archbishop waaaaay back when in Rome was the archbishop a/k/a the pope now (7th century or so, the title meandering from Alexandria-upon whom it was bestowed-through Carthage to Rome).  The other half dozen or so bishops were suffragans, who consecrated the new archbishop (a similar set up was in Alexandria, but not in Constantinople, Antioch or Jerusalem).  The first diocesan bishop, let alone archbishop, to be named cardinal didn't happen until 1163, when beseiged Pope Alexander III (another pope-antipope schism over the "font of unity")  let Archbishop Konrad of Mainz keep his see, although named cardinal in the college at Rome.

Not all cardinals are bishops.

Do get your facts straight.

and also, in theory, because it is NOT tied to Holy Orders, a woman may also become a cardinal.

Assuming a change in canon law (which when you have a pope is not difficult to do).
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
TheMathematician
Banished and Disgraced
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian
Posts: 1,295


Formerly known as Montalo


« Reply #25 on: November 12, 2012, 11:22:53 PM »

Sorry to resurrect this, but I also have been curious about this.  Despite having the division of "cardinal bishops," "cardinal priests," and "cardinal deacons", all Cardinals today have an episcopal power, or higher than an episcopal power?

Uh, a Cardinal, in the Roman Catholic Church, is any of several archbishops given an honorary title which enables them, among other things, to take part in the election of the Pope.

In St. Louis, it's a baseball player, in Arizona it's an NFL player and in Stanford University, it's anyone who plays for the school.

That's it. Having never heard of 'cardinal deacons,' unless they're deacons who work in a Cardinal's cathedral, I don't know what you're talking about. As too often in these discussions, people can create more worries for themselves than they have to.

If you read about the College of Cardinals, it's more confusing than you make it out to be.

No, it's not.

I don't have to read about it. I was in that church for 36 years.
you evidently were not paying attention.

Cardinal deacons have been around for quite some time.  As long as the cardinals existed in fact.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm

And it was not until 1962 that their supreme pontiff established the norm that they also be bishops, and still, the requirement can be dispensed with (being supreme pontiff and all).  There are cardinal deacons who are not bishops today (at present 4).

We've discussed this before.
A cardinal, of course, is an honorary title for a member of a select group of archbishops. And the title of archbishop has been around since waaaay back when. Let's not get silly.  Roll Eyes Unless Isa didn't know that, in which case he's talking out of his hat. Doesn't he need a new hat by now?  Huh
evidently not.

The only archbishop waaaaay back when in Rome was the archbishop a/k/a the pope now (7th century or so, the title meandering from Alexandria-upon whom it was bestowed-through Carthage to Rome).  The other half dozen or so bishops were suffragans, who consecrated the new archbishop (a similar set up was in Alexandria, but not in Constantinople, Antioch or Jerusalem).  The first diocesan bishop, let alone archbishop, to be named cardinal didn't happen until 1163, when beseiged Pope Alexander III (another pope-antipope schism over the "font of unity")  let Archbishop Konrad of Mainz keep his see, although named cardinal in the college at Rome.

Not all cardinals are bishops.

Do get your facts straight.

and also, in theory, because it is NOT tied to Holy Orders, a woman may also become a cardinal.

Assuming a change in canon law (which when you have a pope is not difficult to do).


where is the law forbidding this?
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 4,885


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #26 on: November 13, 2012, 10:58:36 AM »

From Book II, Part II, Section I, Chapter III of the Code of Canon Law:

"Can. 351 §1 Those to be promoted Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff, who are at least in the order of priesthood and are truly outstanding in doctrine, virtue, piety and prudence in practical matters; those who are not already Bishops must receive episcopal consecration."
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,068


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #27 on: October 21, 2013, 02:48:37 PM »

"A well-known Swiss religion magazine is circulating a petition for Pope Francis to begin appointing women as cardinals and has attracted signatures of a number of European theologians and women religious."
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
podkarpatska
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 7,554


SS Cyril and Methodius Church, Mercer, PA


WWW
« Reply #28 on: October 21, 2013, 02:58:49 PM »

"A well-known Swiss religion magazine is circulating a petition for Pope Francis to begin appointing women as cardinals and has attracted signatures of a number of European theologians and women religious."

Huff Post ran an over the top blog post on this last week. The author was panting so loudly in eager anticipation he or she probably choked to death on his own saliva. It was childish and absurd. To appoint a woman cardinal would cause a major schism. While the new pope is many things, I doubt he wants to go down in history as having caused the greatest fracture in the Catholic church since Luther posted his theses.
Logged
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,068


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #29 on: October 21, 2013, 03:02:31 PM »

"A well-known Swiss religion magazine is circulating a petition for Pope Francis to begin appointing women as cardinals and has attracted signatures of a number of European theologians and women religious."

Huff Post ran an over the top blog post on this last week. The author was panting so loudly in eager anticipation he or she probably choked to death on his own saliva. It was childish and absurd. To appoint a woman cardinal would cause a major schism. While the new pope is many things, I doubt he wants to go down in history as having caused the greatest fracture in the Catholic church since Luther posted his theses.
Well, he would have to change canon law first, which, as I understand it, is not impossible; though I suspect there's a greater chance of the Pope allowing women deacons than women cardinals.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2013, 03:03:22 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.153 seconds with 58 queries.