Rorate Caeli

Consistory announcement - 24 New Cardinals

Roman Curia:

Angelo Amato (Saints), Fortunato Baldelli (Apostolic Penitentiary), Raymond Leo Burke (Signatura), Velasio de Paolis (Economic Affairs), Francesco Monterisi (Archpriest of Saint Paul), Kurt Koch (Christian Unity), Gianfranco Ravasi (Culture), Paolo Sardi (Pro-Patron, Order of Malta), Robert Sarah (Cor Unum), Mauro Piacenza (Clergy).

Residential Archbishops:

Antonios Naguib, Alexandria (Egypt); Paolo Romeo, Palermo (Italy); Reinhard Marx, Munich and Freising (Germany); Kazimierz Nycz, Warsaw (Poland); Donald William Wuerl, Washington (USA); Laurent Monsengwo Pasinya, Kinshasa (Congo): Medardo Joseph Mazombwe, Lusaka (Zambia); Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patanbendige Don, Colombo (Sri Lanka); Raul Eduardo Vela Chiriboga, Quito (Ecuador); Raymundo Damasceno Assis, Aparecida (Brazil).

Over 80 (without voting rights):

Elio Sgreccia (Italy), José Manuel Estepa Llaurens (Spain), Walter Brandmuller (Germany), Domenico Bartolucci (Italy - pictured above with the Holy Father).

62 comments:

  1. Anonymous10:24 AM

    The good guys!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous10:33 AM

    Chiriboga is a real surprise. The Pope just retired him as Archbishop of Quito, Ecuador, and he's nearly 77 years old.

    No Cardinal Dolan? I guess N.Y.C. is not the capital of the world, as Americans imagine it to be.

    Mauro Piacenza: Wow! That's fast. He's only taken over from the Bolshevik from Brazil, Hummes, about a fortnight ago. No waiting time? Koch is also a recent appointee.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  3. OK Burke and Ranjit, but Marx? Romeo? RAVASI? Give me a break!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Where are the red hats for the four Bishops of the Society of St. Pius X?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wuerl a cardinal?!

    He did not lift a finger against pro-abort Catholic politicians!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous12:23 PM

    Cheers for Piacenza and the great Domenico Bartolucci!!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous12:24 PM

    Too bad Archbishop Luigi de Magistris didn't get it.....but I'm happy neither did Dolan : )

    ReplyDelete
  8. Very happy to see Archbishops Burke and Ranjith receive the red hat!
    Unfortunately, they are joined by persons extremely hostile to the traditional faith, above all Marx, Wuerl and Ravasi...

    ReplyDelete
  9. PKTP: "No Cardinal Dolan?"

    Well, Egan is not yet 80, and it is not customary to name a new residential archbishop as cardinal when the retired one is still of voting age. I suspect that's all there is to it - not least because this brings the total of voting age cardinals to 121 as it is.

    I am very pleased to see Burke, Piacenza and Ranjith get red hats. These men are as sympathetic to tradition (and outspoken about it) as anyone in the college now - indeed, more so - and they have suffered for it. A few other choices I am somewhat less happy about.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Con ton1:44 PM

    Please remember that the "red hat" has often had a good effect on liberal bishops. I think especially of Cardinal O'Brien of Edinburgh. Some of those bad guys listed here may improve as a result of closer collaboration with His Holiness.

    ReplyDelete
  11. J. G. Ratkaj2:08 PM

    Great to see His Holiness promoting many italians to the cardinalate!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Curious2:16 PM

    OK - Will someone please break this down for me into 3 categories - Good, Bad, and Don't Know

    I'll go ahead and put Burke and Ranjith in the 'good' category, and Wuerl in the bad; but I have no idea on the others. Some of their names are familiar but I am just not sure. If I recall correctly, I think Marx is bad.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous2:21 PM

    Dear Conton

    Yours is the first I have heard proposing the red hat as a sort of conversion tool for quasi-heretical pro-aborts.

    An interesting theory though sadly it did little for the likes of Mahoney, Weakland and the sodomite from South Africa.

    I love the Holy Father. I am dismayed that every time these rounds occur we always get quite a number of wolves thrown into the mix and I don't get it.

    Why not defrock them, and elevate as many holy and traditional men as you can? Certainly there are 121 such men in the clergy throughout the world that one need not compromise with the devil's seed.

    Very happy to hear that SE Asia has a holy cardinal though. I'll take that with some gratitude.

    Neophyte.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Neophyte:

    Sri Lanka is not in SE Asia. It is in South Asia, which is a very different world.

    Weakland is not and has never been a Cardinal.

    The "sodomite from South Africa" (I think you're referring to Msgr. Cawcutt) isn't a cardinal either.

    Try being a bit more accurate with the things you say, will you?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous2:43 PM

    Br. Anthony:

    A red hat for a holocaust denier? Ridiculous.

    ReplyDelete
  16. We should also be clear that if this new consistory is a mixed bag, it's on the whole of better quality than JPII or Paul VI consistories I can think of.

    Even the ones we think least of here - Wuerl, or Ravasi, for example - are not quite in Daneels or Mahoney territory. They are indifferent to liturgy, and largely ineffectual teachers; but they also are not the proactive exponents of dissent that so many of the cardinals of the Vatican II era have been. And of course it's hard to imagine a Ranjith or a Burke getting a red hat twenty or forty years ago.

    Obviously, we all could wish for better. But it seems that restoration is going to be a long and drawn out affair, and that this pontiff is reluctant to fight episcopal political battles when he feels he can avoid them.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Athelstane:

    121 only for thirteen days. The next elector to turn eighty does so on December 3.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous3:15 PM

    Why is Marx so bad? I heard he was an improvement over some other Germans.

    Even if Romeo is bad, he's in his 70's.

    Everyone knows about Ravasi though....the last of the Paul VI/JP II Piero Marini crowd.

    Dolan missed out. No loss. He's a disgrace. I caught some pictures of him attending a 4th of July festivity in N.Y. City in a t-shirt and slacks.....absolutely crude. He'd make a good drinking buddy at some bar....but not a Prince of the Church!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous3:32 PM

    Amidst some wonderful appointments, a very bad one: Marx of Munich.
    His treatment, first of the Abbot of Ettal, and then of Bishop Mixa of Augsburg, ought to have disqualified him for at least a decade, if not forever.
    The man is an ambitious and ruthless bully, and a neo-conservative to boot. How disheartening for fair-minded people, in Bavaria especially.

    ReplyDelete
  20. thomas tucker3:38 PM

    Furthermore, it is calumny to call any of these men "pro-aborts."

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Everyone knows about Ravasi though....the last of the Paul VI/JP II Piero Marini crowd."

    I never cease to be amazed at the amount of wishful thinking that gets expressed in the comboxes here and in other blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  22. One wonders what the Holy Father uses as criteria for the "red hat" with ostensibly bad candidates or wolves mixed in with the good? Does he really have the sole authority to do this or are there other factors at play - i.e., politics and the like.

    And, with utter disregard for the bishops of the FSSPX who have fought the battle for Tradition for over 20 years one has a right to wonder what is really going on here? You take two bishops Wuerl and Fellay and tell me they are both of the same quality. You've got to be kidding. Of course, Fellay was not even mentioned and that is the point! Yes, I know, he doesn't have canonical status -- what a joke!

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Cardinalabili" who didn't get red hats:

    RESIDENTIAL ARCHBISHOPS:

    1) Thomas Collins, Toronto
    2) Giuseppe Betori, Florence
    3) Allen Vigneron, Detroit (some would say that Detroit's time as a red hat see has now passed)
    4) Braulio Rodriguez of Toledo
    5) Peter Okada, Tokyo


    CURIAL HEADS:

    1) Antonio Veglio, Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerants
    2) Zygmunt Zimowski, Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Health Workers
    3) Francesco Coccopalmerio, Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts
    4) Salvatore "Rino" Fisichella, Pontifical Council for the Promotion of the New Evangelization (which presently exists only on paper).


    I'm not including Dolan of NYC, O'Brien of Baltimore, Leonard of Malines-Brussels, Nosiglia of Turin, Duka of Prague, Salazar Gomez of Bogota, Asenjo Pelegrina of Seville, Tempesta of Rio de Janeiro, Nichols of Westminster, Pontier of Marseille, Eijk of Utrecht and Tong of Hong Kong in the list since their predecessors (all cardinals) haven't reached the age of 80.

    Some are calling for the octogenarians Abp. Luigi De Magistris and Fr. Candido Pozo SJ (a renowned Spanish Mariologist) to be named cardinals within the next 2 years.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'm puzzled by the appointment of Mazombwe, whose elevation almost no one expected. He is 79 and will lose his status as a cardinal elector by September next year.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The bishops of the SSPX have about as much likelihood of becoming Cardinals as the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. In both cases, the excommunications may have been rescinded, and the sacraments are valid. Nevertheless, schism remains.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous4:31 PM

    What makes Marx esp. bad is that he's only 57 years old. He becomes the youngest cardinal in the Sacred College, younger even than Erdo. He'll be in the College for the next 23 years.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous4:34 PM

    Mr. Palad:

    Me too. I suspect it has something to do with the fact that the OTHER emeritus archbishop there happens to be . . . [drum roll] Milingo. It might be a way to point away from Milingo. If you're an emeritus archbishop and you're NOT Milingo, you're a cardinal!

    Just kidding a bit but it might have something to do with that.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous4:37 PM

    Collins of Toronto was not elevated. Odd. Toronto is just about the most important city on the planet earth, and it always goes with a red hat. He'll have to wait for the next conclave, I guess. Perhaps he should have been more accomodating to the F.S.S.P.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Anonymous4:40 PM

    No Cardinal Williamson? I was hoping that he'd be the new President of the Pontifical Council for Interrreligious Dialogue. Then he could destroy that body from the inside out.

    Oh well.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Blogger JonoShea1 said...

    The bishops of the SSPX have about as much likelihood of becoming Cardinals as the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. In both cases, the excommunications may have been rescinded, and the sacraments are valid. Nevertheless, schism remains.

    Would you please give us your rationale for claiming the FSSPX bishops are in schism since that is not what Cardinal Hoyos, previous Head of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, has said? Is schism a matter of unquestioned obedience with you and does it override the concept of rightful obedience which has been with us from day one? How do you interpret canon 1323, sub para 4, of canon law as it applies to the consecrations of the SSPX bishops? Do you have any indication that canonical jurisprudence in terms of a trial and verdict has been reached with the SSPX bishops or are you just blowing smoke as bloggers are wont to do?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Another surprising appointment is that of Estepa Llaurens, whose name didn't even appear in any prospective lists of cardinals.

    A bit of research indicates that this prelate -- the former military archbishop of Spain -- was a member of the committee of bishops that edited the drafts the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church, and led the committee that drafted the current edition of the General Directory for Catechesis.

    ReplyDelete
  32. The Vatican -- Pope Benedict XVI named Raymond Burke, the former Archbishop of St. Louis as one of two Americans who will become cardinals in the Catholic Church. The pontiff said yes to the pro-life leader who has repeatedly said no to pro-abortion politicians receiving the sacrament of communion. http://LifeNews.com/nat6780.html

    The other prelate named for a red hat, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington, D.C., has stated that he would not deny Holy Communion to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of the most notoriously pro-abortion "Catholic" politicians in the U.S., because he says historically "the Church just didn't use Communion" as a "weapon."

    In an interview published in a Politics Daily article today, Bishop Wuerl said he disagreed with refraining from giving communion to manifestly pro-abortion politicians, which was equated with "Communion wielded as a weapon." "That's the new way now to make your point," said Wuerl.
    http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09050613.html

    So, at the same time he offers the "red hat" to Archbishop Wuerl who is not even in the same league as Raymond Burke and who has not enforced the policy of refusing communion to pro-abort politicians in the archdiocese of Washington, DC. Diabolic disorientation anyone?

    ReplyDelete
  33. In the case of Patriarch Antionios of the Coptic Catholic Church, this is a DEmotion.

    And he's not just an archbishop but a patriarch of an Eastern sui juris church, which actually takes precedence over a Latin cardinal.

    As far as the four irregularly consecrated bishops of the SSPX, let's get them in regular communion with the Roman Church, first.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous5:32 PM

    RE: SSPX and red hats

    As a rule of thumb, I think the Pope only offers red-hats to those likely to accept them. At this point, I don't think any of the SSPX bishops would do so.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Anonymous5:37 PM

    "OK - Will someone please break this down for me into 3 categories - Good, Bad, and Don't Know"

    In summary:

    FRIENDLY TO TRADITION:

    1) Burke
    2) Ranjith
    3) Bartolucci
    4) Piacenza
    5) Koch
    6) De Paolis


    "CONSERVATIVE" BUT UNSYMPATHETIC TO TRADITIONALISTS

    1) Amato
    2) Nycz (has obstructed the application of Summorum Pontificum in his Archdiocese)

    MORE OR LESS LIBERAL:

    1) Ravasi
    2) Romeo (enemy of the TLM in Palermo)
    3) Sardi
    4) Monterisi
    5) Marx
    6) Wuerl
    7) Baldelli

    DON'T KNOW:

    The rest of them

    For those who can read Italian, there's this article:

    http://blog.messainlatino.it/2010/10/whos-who-dei-nuovi-cardinali.html

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous5:59 PM

    Jack:

    What have you been smoking? Eastern-Rite Patriarchs are not superior to Latin-Rite Cardinals no matter how long their beards are. In the Catholic Church, Cardinals take precedence over all patriarchs, archbishops, and bishops. Within the College, there are the three degrees and the special place accorded Eastern patriarchs who are cardinals.

    Naguib has been promoted, not demooted. This is bad because he is one of the most liberal Eastern-Rite patriarchs, recently suggesting that the Eastern liturgies should be 'updated'. However, he is about 76 years old, so he will lose his vote in the College in four years.

    It has now become standard that patriarchs don't retire, so he'll keep the cardinalatial honour and rule on as patriarch, deo volente, after 2014.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous6:02 PM

    Mr. Haley is right, of course. Rome has been saying for some time now that, while the 1988 consecrations constituted a schismatic act, it was not one adequate to create a formal schism. Of course, some Soceity priests might be material schismatics but I doubt it. If you want to find material schismatics, you need to look to the Novus Ordo disorder.

    Nevertheless, to suggest that irregular bishops would be considerd for elevation to the Sacred College can only be considered to be a joke. Superiors of religious socieites such as the Oratorians are not normally elevated to the College.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous6:09 PM

    Mr. Haley:

    I don't think that elevation to the Sacred College mainly has to do with the niceties of prelates' positions on abortion (unless they are out-and-out for it as a good). Mind you, Fisichella didn't get the red hat but then it was his duty to get abortion teaching right, given his position.

    Most of the new cardinals simply come from sees that normally send their men to the College. So it would be more important to ask who promoted so-and-so to the positon of Archbishop of, say, Belo Horizonte. Once Vingt-Trois got Paris, it was virtually assured that he would get a red hat. John Paul II put him in Paris, so Benedict XVI was almost obliged to elevate him to the College, although he dragged his feet in doing so.

    I'm not arguing that the Pope has no choice but, in many cases, archbishops in certain sees will get the red hat unless they have strayed way off the page. They need only avoid recommending the wearing of the condom to get the expected promotion.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Anonymous6:15 PM

    Jack, you are every bit right. Let me add this: the Patriarch of Alexandria is the successor of Saint Mark. So, being made a vicar of a parish of Rome is more of a demotion than a promotion, as you pointed out.

    ReplyDelete
  40. As far as the four irregularly consecrated bishops of the SSPX, let's get them in regular communion with the Roman Church, first.

    So, now we have a new term "regular communion" instead of "full communion". Why continue to blast the FSSPX bishops for their "supposed crimes" when those with "canonical status and faculties" are an embarrassment to the Catholic Faith? McBrien, Gravel, Schönborn, Hunthausen, Mahony, Gumbleton, et all - they're all fine but the SSPX, they need to be "regularized" eh? What a crock!

    Name me one article of Faith which the SSPX cbishops have denied; name me one thing in terms of liturgy, practice and belief that they practice that is not in accord with what Holy Mother Church has always held, taught and professed to be true from apostolic times. It can't be done except to rant and rave about how they are disobedient because they refuse to drink the Vatican II Kool-Aid concocted by the Modernists. They're even trying to find some common ground in the discussions with Rome and yet suffer the ignominy of false characterizations in many a blog while they do so.

    ReplyDelete
  41. No Cardinal Dolan? I guess N.Y.C. is not the capital of the world, as Americans imagine it to be.

    It's not Americans who imagine that -- it's supporters of the United Nations, which is most regrettably headquartered in New York, who imagine it to be the "capital of the world."

    Anyway, I've been told that it is customary that when an archiepiscopal see that normally gets a cardinalate already has a cardinal of voting age for a papal conclave (in this case, Cardinal Egan), even if that cardinal is retired, the new archbishop doesn't usually get a cardinal's hat until the retired archbishop is no longer of voting age.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous6:57 PM

    Jack said:
    "As far as the four irregularly consecrated bishops of the SSPX, let's get them in regular communion with the Roman Church, first."

    Do you mean the same Roman Church that Wuerl is "in regular communion" with? That particular prelate is apparently not only "in regular communion", but favored as well. A dizzying notion indeed, and, of course, there lies the crucial question at its raw, naked core.

    ReplyDelete
  43. It is difficult for some people to accept that some stories or events, like this one, don't have anything at all to do with the SSPX.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Louis E.7:34 PM

    Since Ad purpuratorum patrum in 1965,the Cardinal-Patriarchs of Oriental Rites have not been made "vicars of parishes in Rome".They are ranked below the Suburbicarian bishops and ahead of the Cardinal-Priests.Most of them do not retire but some do...in any event the age-75 retirement rule is a canon of the Latin and not the Oriental church.
    Cardinal Sfeir of the Maronites was only made a Cardinal after his retired predecessor died.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Mr. Perkins,

    I agree that it would not be "normal" for the Pope to elevate the SSPX bishops to the cardinalate but it sure would upset the modernists' apple-cart of SSPX-directed mischaracterizations and venom. As for it being only considered to be a joke, I say the joke would only be on the modernists. But, you're right of course, His Holiness would not in his wildest dreams ever envision doing such a thing. And that is really a sad state of affairs in our Church today.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Mr. Perkins is correct, I think: Most of these appointments are derived mainly from the positions of the holders rather than the preference of the Pope. It is customary for the Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura and for the Archbishop of Washington - in the absence of an cardinal archbishop emeritus of voting age - to get a red hat. It would indeed be quite a surprise if they did not.

    Obviously this is not true of "honorary" appointments, such as that of Brandmuller or Bartolucci. Aside from these, I think that the hand of the Pope can be best seen in "closer" calls: Ranjith for example, since Columbo does not have a history of producing red hats. Alternatively, the absence of a red hat for Diarmuid Martin in Dublin is suggestive - the post has not always had a red hat, but often enough now that the omission is a little surprising. Chiriboga is another such case where the Pope seems to have exercised greater discretion.

    A Pope could decide to radically buck these traditions to aggressively reshape the college; but he'd have a mighty tumult on his hands if he did so. This Pope seems unwilling to trigger such a fight.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous8:51 PM

    People need to ease off of Abp. Wuerl. He oversees the most left-wing diocese in the United States and fixing the manure pile that his predecessor left probably lies beyond human capacity. The Archbishop certainly cannot be held to account for a lack of charisma and teaching ability, although it raises the question of why he was given such high office in the first place. Despite Abp. Wuerl's deplorable position on pro-abortion politicians, the archdiocese has five regular TLMs, a 50% increase in vocations, and will be opening a new seminary next year.

    ReplyDelete
  48. \\Jack said:
    "As far as the four irregularly consecrated bishops of the SSPX, let's get them in regular communion with the Roman Church, first."

    Do you mean the same Roman Church that Wuerl is "in regular communion" with?\\

    Anonymous, would you prefer my saying, "Cardinals have to be Catholic first"?

    To everyone here, regardless of their brands of churchmanship and ecclesiatical opinions, becoming a bishop, cardinal, or pope is NOT determined by popular vote of the laity.

    Deal.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Adamz8:59 PM

    "Once Vingt-Trois got Paris... Benedict XVI was almost obliged to elevate him to the College, although he dragged his feet in doing so."

    This is patently untrue, as far as the dragging of feet is concerned. Cardinal Lustiger was 79 years old at the time of the first cardinalitial consistory of the present pontificate (March 2006). Vingt-Trois was immediately elevated to the sacred college at the following consistory (November 2007).

    As to foot dragging, Francis Bourne was elected to the see of Westminster in 1903 but he was not elevated to the sacred college until 1911, having been passed over at no less than four consistories (1903, 1905 and twice in 1907).

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous10:41 PM

    If Abp. Wuerl won't deny Holy Communion to Nancy Pelosi, then the person Abp. Wuerl really needs to deny Communion to is Abp. Wuerl.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonymous11:31 PM

    Yes, I think this board is being too hard on Wuerl.

    He came to my school a few years ago, and really pushed Confession to about 500 kids in his homily. He didn't cut corners.

    He also allowed the Pontifical TLM last March at the National Basilica in DC; some bishops would have blocked it totally.

    We need much prayer and sacrifice for these men.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Mr. Haley:

    It is the SSPX itself that has indicated that it will not accept canonical regularization until the doctrinal issues between itself and the Vatican have been clarified. If Fellay is made a cardinal, I'm 100% sure that Fellay would gently but firmly turned down the offer, as it would indicate that canonical regularization is occuring even before the doctrinal questions have been resolved. Needless to say, only priests and prelates who are "in good standing" under canon law can be made cardinals.

    ReplyDelete
  53. There is a thread over on Angelqueen on a article by Brain McCall, a Remnant journalist to the effect that the Pope believes the SSPX is in the Church de facto but cannot render that ruling publicly or de jure because of the modernist wolves within the hierarchy. This based on remarks made by Bishop Fellay to Mr. McCall and which are to be included in the next issue of the Remnant. Apparently, the issue of collegiality has made the Church ungovernable and the Holy Father and Bishop Fellay have agreed to the status quo of de facto recognition only.

    The link to the Angelqueen thread is http://angelqueen.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=34323 for those interested. I mention it here because it does seem plausible and it may very well have been the reason for some of the questionable "red hat" nominations. In a nutshell it means that Pope Benedict XVI recognizes the supplied jurisdiction claim of the FSSPX but cannot by himself cause the collegial bishops to do the same de jure.

    My take on this - He is the Vicar of Christ and can do what is Just and Right regardless of the wolves snapping at his heels. But that is easy for me to say as I am not in his position. So, we must continue to pray that Our Lord will find a solution that does not cause another crisis of NO bishops leaving the Church due to regularization of the FSSPX.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous2:15 AM

    Anon 23:31,

    Wuerl came to your school a few years ago? Wow.

    I lived under his rule in Pittsburgh from 1988 to 2006. This board is NOT being too hard on him.

    ReplyDelete
  55. \\It is the SSPX itself that has indicated that it will not accept canonical regularization until the doctrinal issues between itself and the Vatican have been clarified.\\

    Sounds to me like the tail trying to wag the dog.

    What happened to the consistent teaching of the Church for all faithful Catholics to be in loving communion with the Pope and accept his judgements?

    Or does the SSPX consider themselves the judges of the Pope and Holy See?

    BTW--I'm not a fan of Nancy Pelosi or the pro-death faction, but on a canonical level, can Abp. Wuerl deny Communion to her if her official domicile is in California and not Washington, DC?

    What would the canons say about a bishop, in effect, excommunicating someone not of his flock?

    Exhorting her not to present herself for Communion would be something else.

    (I'm not a canonist. I don't know.)

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anonymous5:10 AM

    Anon. writes:

    Jack, you are every bit right. Let me add this: the Patriarch of Alexandria is the successor of Saint Mark. So, being made a vicar of a parish of Rome is more of a demotion than a promotion, as you pointed out.



    No, Jack is dead wrong. Naguib was not removed from his patriarchate to be demoted into a parish in Rome; rather, the one position was added to the other. Not a demotion, therefore.

    As to the other matter, all the bishops are successors of the apostles. The cardinals rank above all the Eastern-Rite Patriarchs because they are the council of the Pope. Of course, a patriarch can be both patriach *and* cardinal.

    When a patriarch takes a red hat, he becomes 'Your Eminence'. He does not use the lower prenominal, Your Beatitude.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anonymous5:22 AM

    Louis E. is right but that is not the only point mentioned by Jack. Jack was asserting, I think, that a Patriarch who is not a cardinal outranks a cardinal of any division, since a patriarch of Alexandria is a successor of St. Mark.

    This is poppycock. As Successor of St. Peter, the Pope has the authority to create a group of bishops (all of whom are successors of the apostles geneerally) and rank them above the successor of St. Mark. That is what the popes have done in the cardinals.

    Christ created the College of Bishops in the College of the Apostles and then made St. Peter the head of the College. St. Peter's authority is limited only by the end for which it was created. Period.

    So a patriarch who is not a cardinal always ranks under a cardinal of any rank, even a cardinal who is not a bishop or not even a cleric.

    P.K.T.P.

    ReplyDelete
  58. " Nevertheless, schism remains"

    what a supercilious comment! Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Castrillon-Hoyos to name but two concerned authorities would not agree.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Which appointee on the list is a traditional Cardinal who says only the Traditional Latin Mass?

    ReplyDelete
  60. "Which appointee on the list is a traditional Cardinal who says only the Traditional Latin Mass?"

    Bartolucci.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Anonymous9:58 AM

    To be honored by vile men is a dishonorable thing. If the Pope really is a modernist scalawag then there is be no reason to seek honors from his hand. Then why is it that some of you, who have nothing good to say about the Pope and the Church outside the SSPX, are so angry that no red hats have come the SSPX's way? It is irrational. Aside from the improbability of red hats being offered to and being accepted by the SSPX bishops at this point in time, it is also illogical.

    DefensorFidei

    ReplyDelete