Female Cardinals?

[DameAgnes]

Interesting 

 

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2013/10/18/a-female-cardinal-not-a-new-idea-really/

[Not The Philosopher]

I think the question should be framed less as a matter of "should we have women cardinals" but rather, "should we have lay cardinals" (which would of course include women).

[Basilisa Marie]

I like the idea of female cardinals (surprise surprise), but yeah, it'd require an exception to the normal rule that cardinals are also bishops.  Though I'd wish people (including Cardinal Dolan) would stop floating the idea that JPII asked Blessed Theresa of Calcutta to be a cardinal.  It's almost certainly not true.  

 

Lay cardinals wouldn't necessarily include women. A Catholic layman could be elected pope, but not a laywoman.  But lay cardinals IS the greater discussion here.  

[GeorgiiMichael]

I actually kinda hope Pope Francis does make a female cardinal because I'd love to see the accusations of heresy from the likes of the SSPX and sedevacantist groups.

[KnightofChrist]

I actually kinda hope Pope Francis does make a female cardinal because I'd love to see the accusations of heresy from the likes of the SSPX and sedevacantist groups.

 

It may also cause some of the Eastern rite churches to end unity and rejoin the Orthodox, and put a dagger in the heart of true ecumenism with the Orthodox as well.

 

Be careful of what you hope for.

[Lil Red]

i don't read articles that aren't posted with some sort of commentary besides a one-word commentary. 

[4588686]

It may also cause some of the Eastern rite churches to end unity and rejoin the Orthodox, and put a dagger in the heart of true ecumenism with the Orthodox as well.

 

Be careful of what you hope for.

Why would it do that?  There's nothing in Tradition or Scripture that prohibits women being involved in electing the Pope.  You're saying that the Church should sanction sexism so that some sexists don't get upset with women folks having any sort of substantive role in the Church.  

[GeorgiiMichael]

Why would it do that?  There's nothing in Tradition or Scripture that prohibits women being involved in electing the Pope.  You're saying that the Church should sanction sexism so that some sexists don't get upset with women folks having any sort of substantive role in the Church.  

Precisely, the role of cardinal is not inherently clerical. So why would a female in the college of cardinals be an issue? So long as said female was obedient to Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium, there shouldn't be an issue.

 

The only role cardinals play in the Church is to elect the pope and wear lots of red. Faithful laity (women included) can do that just as well as priests and bishops.

[KnightofChrist]

Why would it do that?  There's nothing in Tradition or Scripture that prohibits women being involved in electing the Pope.  You're saying that the Church should sanction sexism so that some sexists don't get upset with women folks having any sort of substantive role in the Church.  

 

It has nothing to do with sexism. There is no real solid bases of it from Tradition, it would a novelty a break from Tradition.

[4588686]

It has nothing to do with sexism. There is no real solid bases of it from Tradition, it would a novelty a break from Tradition.

 

 

The office of Cardinal is not in Tradition.  

[GeorgiiMichael]

The office of Cardinal is a tradition but it isn't Tradition. It's not like our dogmas on Mary that have been believed from the very beginning of the Church. It's only been about for this last half of the life of the Church. It's a post-schism addition, even. Any issue that Orthodox/Eastern Catholics might have with a change would be totally unfounded.

[4588686]

The office of Cardinal is a tradition but it isn't Tradition. It's not like our dogmas on Mary that have been believed from the very beginning of the Church. It's only been about for this last half of the life of the Church. It's a post-schism addition, even. Any issue that Orthodox/Eastern Catholics might have with a change would be totally unfounded.

 

 

Stop taking what I say and presenting it in a more thoughtful and well informed way.  

[GeorgiiMichael]

Stop taking what I say and presenting it in a more thoughtful and well informed way.  

k

[KnightofChrist]

The office of Cardinal is a tradition but it isn't Tradition. It's not like our dogmas on Mary that have been believed from the very beginning of the Church. It's only been about for this last half of the life of the Church. It's a post-schism addition, even. Any issue that Orthodox/Eastern Catholics might have with a change would be totally unfounded.

 

Big T or little t it would still be a sudden rupture of continuity. Half the life of the Church is still half the life of the Church. The longer the Church keeps and honors a tradition the more deeply it becomes part of the identity of the Church. If it is done it will cause conflict and confusion in the Church. For example how far does just brushing aside little t tradition go? Has it been dogmatically defined that the Pope must be a male, thus being Tradition? If that not the case could one also argue that a female cardinal could become the Pope?

 

As for the Church in the East and the Orthodox, I do think it would damage our relationship with them. I recall when the Anglicans first ordained women and made some bishops. It caused a break in relations with the Orthodox. Now of course you may argue that this is different a Cardinal does not have to be a bishop or a priest. But even when laymen were made Cardinals they were made clerics when they became Cardinals. This would break with the tradition that all Cardinals have been clerics.

 

My point to you was that other groups of Catholics, even faithful Catholics would be worried, confuse and upset about this rupture. Not just our fellow Catholics who attend SSPX chapels or our separated brethren known as sedevacantists.

[Basilisa Marie]

Big T or little t it would still be a sudden rupture of continuity. Half the life of the Church is still half the life of the Church. The longer the Church keeps and honors a tradition the more deeply it becomes part of the identity of the Church. If it is done it will cause conflict and confusion in the Church. For example how far does just brushing aside little t tradition go? Has it been dogmatically defined that the Pope must be a male, thus being Tradition? If that not the case could one also argue that a female cardinal could become the Pope?

 

As for the Church in the East and the Orthodox, I do think it would damage our relationship with them. I recall when the Anglicans first ordained women and made some bishops. It caused a break in relations with the Orthodox. Now of course you may argue that this is different a Cardinal does not have to be a bishop or a priest. But even when laymen were made Cardinals they were made clerics when they became Cardinals. This would break with the tradition that all Cardinals have been clerics.

 

My point to you was that other groups of Catholics, even faithful Catholics would be worried, confuse and upset about this rupture. Not just our fellow Catholics who attend SSPX chapels or our separated brethren known as sedevacantists.

 

Someone needs to sort out their priorities.  

 

You know what was also a "sudden rupture of continuity" of little t tradition? The Novus Ordo.  The establishment of active religious orders.  Allowing religious freedom.  All sorts of "little t" traditions have changed.  Believing otherwise is to be ignorant of Church history, and we really shouldn't be promoting the idea that it's always bad for little t traditions to change.  Holding traditions to the same level  as Traditions is wrong. The male priesthood is a Tradition. Cardinals are a tradition.  

 

Yes, it may be "troubling" to some Catholics, but plenty of things are troubling to some Catholics, and turned out just fine.