What If There Are No Cardinals Of Voting Age When A Pope Dies?

[Nihil Obstat]

If the pope lived so long that all the cardinals were dead (and new papal election rules weren't put into place), then there would probably be a synod, with all the Western Rite bishops and the Eastern Rite bishops in communion with Rome (seeing as the Pope has jurisdiction over all of them, it's only right that they have a say too, and the Western bishops would still have an overwhelming majority, seeing as the Pope is their church's patriarch.) If there were still cardinals who were alive and active, just older than the canonical age to participate in the conclave, then they would probably vote themselves, making sure whoever they elected made it his first order of business to appoint a TON of Cardinals.

:hmmm:  It is not right that Eastern Christians have a say over the Western Patriarch. Eastern Churches have Eastern patriarchs which are decided by Eastern rules. They are meant to be distinct and as autonomous as is reasonably possible. It would not be desirable either for Rome to pick their patriarchs, nor for they to help pick ours.

[GeorgiiMichael]

:hmmm:  It is not right that Eastern Christians have a say over the Western Patriarch. Eastern Churches have Eastern patriarchs which are decided by Eastern rules. They are meant to be distinct and as autonomous as is reasonably possible. It would not be desirable either for Rome to pick their patriarchs, nor for they to help pick ours.

Then why are there Eastern Rite Cardinals?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

No, I meant everyone. Except the Easterns, obviously. :)

 

 

I think the word may be ecclesial. :) ecclesial holy roman catholic branches all around the world, ecumenical all other the holy roman catholic church plus other christian churches. I'm unsure, this is a guess.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

If the pope lived so long that all the cardinals were dead (and new papal election rules weren't put into place), then there would probably be a synod, with all the Western Rite bishops and the Eastern Rite bishops in communion with Rome (seeing as the Pope has jurisdiction over all of them, it's only right that they have a say too, and the Western bishops would still have an overwhelming majority, seeing as the Pope is their church's patriarch.) If there were still cardinals who were alive and active, just older than the canonical age to participate in the conclave, then they would probably vote themselves, making sure whoever they elected made it his first order of business to appoint a TON of Cardinals.

 

 

East west :( or plain old Catholic :)

[Nihil Obstat]

Then why are there Eastern Rite Cardinals?

The cardinalate is unrelated to the patriarchy. From an ecumenical point of view, a patriarch outranks a cardinal. 

[GeorgiiMichael]

The cardinalate is unrelated to the patriarchy. From an ecumenical point of view, a patriarch outranks a cardinal.

But every cardinal of voting age gets to vote for the pope in the conclave. So therefore, there are Eastern bishops who vote for the pope. The Eastern Cardinals:Western Cardinal ratio is roughly the same proportion as the Eastern:Western Catholic ratio. Same with the Eastern:Western Bishop ratio. So if some pope didn't appoint Cardinals, and didn't change the papal selection rubrics, then it stands to reason that in our current Church, the Western Bishops would invite their Eastern Catholic brothers to join them in selecting the Pope. It's possible that they wouldn't, but it seems unlikely to me.

[Nihil Obstat]

But every cardinal of voting age gets to vote for the pope in the conclave. So therefore, there are Eastern bishops who vote for the pope. The Eastern Cardinals:Western Cardinal ratio is roughly the same proportion as the Eastern:Western Catholic ratio. Same with the Eastern:Western Bishop ratio. So if some pope didn't appoint Cardinals, and didn't change the papal selection rubrics, then it stands to reason that in our current Church, the Western Bishops would invite their Eastern Catholic brothers to join them in selecting the Pope. It's possible that they wouldn't, but it seems unlikely to me.

It is a minor anomaly, and probably a gesture of respect, but from a strictly autonomous view of ecclesiology it makes no sense for Eastern hierarchs to have a part in picking a different church's patriarch. Further complicated by the fact that the Orthodox constitute true Churches, which are painfully separated at the moment. The phenomenon of having an eastern Catholic church in parallel with an Orthodox church is far from the ideal. The uniate churches exist more by necessity, not because it is good or us to have more than one Greek or Russian or Ukrainian church.

[Basilisa Marie]

Hey Nihil, why not just make a post explaining everything yourself, instead of replying to all of us and showing how wrong we are point by point.  :hehe2:

[An Historian]

Cardinals are all Roman clergy.  They belong to the Diocese of Rome.  Thisis why they can elect the Roman Pontiff, because it falls to the local clergy of Rome to elect the Bishop of Rome.  If the Pope died without any eligible cardinals to hold a conclave, and if he has not appointed his successor,  then the local clergy of Rome would be the go-to people.  A synod of bishops would be an offense and affront against the local Church of Rome.

 

Then why are there Eastern Rite Cardinals?

 

Because it's an empty platitude.  I find it distasteful.  But to be fair I consider it distasteful to have cardinals non-resident in Rome.  I also can barely bring myself to tolerate non-Italian cardinals.  Tis life.

 

But to reiterate... the world's bishops, East or West, have absolutely no say in the election of the Supreme Pontiff.  This right is exclusive to the local Church of Rome.

[Nihil Obstat]

Hey Nihil, why not just make a post explaining everything yourself, instead of replying to all of us and showing how wrong we are point by point.  :hehe2:

:idontknow: No need to be snarky about it.

[Basilisa Marie]

:idontknow: No need to be snarky about it.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be mean. Just ribbing ya, man. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Ok.

[GeorgiiMichael]

Cardinals are all Roman clergy.  They belong to the Diocese of Rome.  Thisis why they can elect the Roman Pontiff, because it falls to the local clergy of Rome to elect the Bishop of Rome.  If the Pope died without any eligible cardinals to hold a conclave, and if he has not appointed his successor,  then the local clergy of Rome would be the go-to people.  A synod of bishops would be an offense and affront against the local Church of Rome.
 
 
Because it's an empty platitude.  I find it distasteful.  But to be fair I consider it distasteful to have cardinals non-resident in Rome.  I also can barely bring myself to tolerate non-Italian cardinals.  Tis life.
 
But to reiterate... the world's bishops, East or West, have absolutely no say in the election of the Supreme Pontiff.  This right is exclusive to the local Church of Rome.

Thank goodness no one put you in charge.

[Nihil Obstat]

Thank goodness no one put you in charge.

Good thing you have no say in Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism. :) The Christian East has a long memory, and those memories are frequently marred by Latin imperialism. They would probably be very suspicious of this sort of ecclesiology. :)

[An Historian]

Thank goodness no one put you in charge.

 

Excuse me?  Even today the largest single block of Cardinals are Italians.  Historically this has been the case as well.  The Roman Curia is guess what?  Mostly composed of Italians.

 

The Pope is the Pope because he is the Bishop of Rome.  He has universal jurisdiction because he the Bishop of Rome.  He is the head of the local and particular Church of Rome (the diocese of Rome).  He is the ordinary of the people of his diocese.   He belongs to them in a way much more intimate than he will ever belong to us.  How would you feel if for talking's sake a German with absolutely no ability to speak Spanish was given the See of Granada?  That would not be very pastoral would it?  I think the good people of Granada would have cause to be disgruntled by such a decision.  And incidentally the local Church of Rome is the only Church that is indefectible.

 

And it falls to the Roman clergy to elect their bishop wherever the Bishop of Rome doesn't appoint his successor.  The Cardinals are Roman clergy.  That is why they are all incardinated in the diocese of Rome and belong to local Roman churches.  What is so wrong with believing Roman clergy should be, well, Roman?

 

Like they have always historically been for the most part.

 

It's very much like absentee landlords.  Archbishop Nicholas of Westminster is being given the red hat.  He'll belong to the diocese of Rome.  He's be a cleric of the local Church of Rome.  And he'll be off gallivanting in London.   So not only do I believe Roman clergy should be Roman I also firmly believe they should at the very least be resident in Rome.  It does a disservice to the flock of Rome that their clergy are everywhere else but in their own diocese.

Edited January 15, 2014 by An Historian