(AP Photo/Riccardo De Luca)
Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto, Dean of the Roman Rota, told a conference in Spain that Cardinal Burke and the three cardinals who submitted the dubia to Pope Francis “could lose their Cardinalate” for causing “grave scandal” by making the dubia public. The Dean of the Roman Rota went on to accuse Cardinals Raymond Burke, Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller and Joachim Meisner of questioning the Holy Spirit. Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto made his astounding accusations during a conference to religious in Spain.
Archbishop Pio Vito’s indictment against the four cardinals, and other people who question Pope Francis and Amoris Laetitia, was that they not only questioned one synod of bishops on marriage and the family, but two synods, about which, “The action of the Holy Spirit can not be doubted.”.
The Dean of the Roman Rota went on to clarify that the Pope did not have to strip the four senior cardinals of their “cardinalate”, but that he could do it. He went on to confirm what many commentators have suspected that Pope Francis’ interview with Avvenire, the newspaper of the Italian bishops, was the Holy Father’s indirect response to the cardinals’ dubia:
During the conference, Pius Vito made clear to those present that the Pope did not respond directly to these four cardinals, “but indirectly told them that they only see white or black, when there are shades of color in the Church.”
The Dean of the Roman Rota, the highest canonical court responsible for marriage in the Catholic Church, went on to support Pope Francis’ innovation of allowing divorced and “remarried” to receive Holy Communion. In response to a question asking if it was better to grant divorced and civily remarried couples nullity of marriage so they can marry in the Church before they receive Holy Communion Archbishop Pio Vinto expressed preference for Pope Francis’s “reform”:
Pope Francis’ reform of the matrimonial process wants to reach more people. The percentage of people who ask for marriage annulment is very small. The Pope has said that communion is not only for good Catholics. Francisco says: how to reach the most excluded people? Under the Pope’s reform many people may ask for nullity, but others will not.
Comment
The Dean of the Roman Rota appears to be overlooking the canonical rights of the faithful, including cardinals, to make their concerns about the state of the Church known to the people of God. Can. 212 §3 sets out this solemn right and duty:
According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. (Can. 212 §3).
Cardinals Burke, Caffarra, Brandmüller and Meisner expressed due respect to Pope Francis and his “sovereign decision” not to respond to their dubia, while at the same time meeting their right and duty to communicate with the People of God. For the Dean of the Roman Rota to warn the four cardinals that they could be stripped of their cardinalate for acting in accord with the law of the Church is oppressive.
[It has been pointed out to us that Pio Vito Pinto is not an Archbishop but a Monsignor]
Catholicism Pure & Simple 
This is utterly scandalous to see Monsignor Pinto pretty much overtly threatening Schism if ambiguity “shades of color” (n.b. the blatant gay lobby symbolism here) is not encouraged and promoted.
LikeLike
god bless the four cardinals there should be many more of them concerned with francis is he really a catholic we must pray for him and offer many sacrifices for his conversion
LikeLike
Good evening, MW: This (and many, many other things these past few years) gives a fresh new spin to that old hackneyed formerly rhetorical question: Is The Pope Catholic? It surprises me, as a erstwhile Franciscan loyalist (albeit always a nervous one) that other faithful, doctrinally sound members of our species refuse to see the capitulation PF has made and continues to make to the liberal, progressive zeitgeist of our times. God save us, which He will, but this has got to be the worst crisis Catholics have faced in the modern age – far worse, I’d say, that the homosexual child abuse Long Lent that took off in the 1960s.
LikeLike
I see on another website that the delightfully named Pio Vito Pinto is a priest, but not a bishop or archbishop.
LikeLike
“Pio Vito Pinto, Dean of the Roman Rota, told a conference in Spain that Cardinal Burke and the three cardinals who submitted the dubia to Pope Francis “could lose their Cardinalate” for causing “grave scandal”
For sure: just as Pio Vito Pinto could be defrocked (okay Jab-A-Lot – laicized – if you want to get technical)) if he is a homosexual child abuser. Which outcome is more likely? I don’t know. Flip a coin.
LikeLike
I heard an interesting side-issue the other day: Cardinals do not necessarily have to have been ordained. They can be laymen (though probably not laywomen) – but bishops must have been priests first.
Is this true?
LikeLike
JH @ 21:50 yesterday asks,
Is The Pope Catholic?
Seems like many are asking that question today.
And this is interesting… Gloria TV reports:
“Last Saturday, Father Peter Hans Kolvenbach died in Beirut, Lebanon. He was the Superior General of the Jesuits from 1983 to 2008. Kolvenbach allegedly wrote to the Vatican recommending that Jorge Mario Bergoglio not be made archbishop of Buenos Aires because he was emotionally unstable and temperamentally unreliable. John Paul II promoted him anyway, believing that liberal Jesuits were unduly prejudiced against Bergoglio because he had been unsympathetic to Liberation Theology.
Bad Relationship: As the Argentinean provincial of the Jesuits, Bergoglio did not form as warm a relationship with the superior general, Peter Hans Kolvenbach, as he had with his predecessor, Pedro Arrupe. Kolvenbach even intervened to unseat Bergoglio and spurned him on his trip to Argentina in 1988. Bergoglio was exiled to Cordoba and his followers sent abroad.”
LikeLike
I heard an interesting side-issue the other day: Cardinals do not necessarily have to have been ordained. They can be laymen (though probably not laywomen) – but bishops must have been priests first.
Is this true?
No — Cardinals are by definition Clergy of the Roman Diocese (which is why they all have titular churches in the Holy See).
A Layman could be named as a Cardinal, but he would then be immediately ordained into the priesthood. It used to be that a Cardinal could be a deacon, but this was changed after Vatican II.
The possibility for a Layman to become a Bishop without first being a priest did once exist (Saint Augustine was a Layman who was directly ordained into the Episcopate), but it was removed centuries ago — with the one single exception that a Layman could still theoretically be elected Pope, and so become a Bishop without having previously been a priest, well, not for more than about five-ten minutes anyway.
LikeLike
Re this Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto character:
All types of leaders and those in positions of great power, whether they be noble men worthy of honour and respect, or tyrants and sociopaths who wish only to foist their own personal schemes on the people, will surround themselves with adoring acolytes who will defend every word they utter and every decision they make, no matter how outrageous, corrupt or bizarre these might be.
Pope Francis, as we are repeatedly seeing very forcefully today, especially in the wake of the publication of the four Cardinals’ dubia, has his fawning minions who are incapable of thinking rationally and with the eternal teachings of the Church, (sentire cum Ecclesia).
LikeLike
“Archbishop” Msgr Pio Vito Pinto he isn’t. Nor is he a more humble Bishop. In modern times the Deans of the Sacred Roman Rota have been humble monsignors, although several have been created cardinal upon retirement. On January 31, 2004, Dean Raffaello Funghini retired and was named titular Archbishop of Nova Petra for no obvious reason other than to honour him upon retirement (though he was not subsequently named cardinal). However, his successor as Dean, Msgr Antoni Stankiewicz, was himself appointed titular Bishop (not Archbishop) of Nova Petra on November 15, 2006, six months after Archbishop Funghini’s death, two years and nine and a half months after becoming Dean. Cardinal Mario Francesco Pompedda was Dean between September 11, 1993 and November 19, 1999. He was made titular Archbishop of Biscarcio on November 29, 1997 BUT this seems to have been related to his appointment as President of the Disciplinary Commission of the Roman Curia (resigned November 16, 1999)(currently headed by Bishop Giorgio Corbellini, President of the Labour Office of the Apostolic See).
Dean Emeriti and Cardinals André-Damien-Ferdinand Jullien (French) and William Theodore Heard (Scottish) were consecrated bishops on April 19, 1962, having been nominated as titular archbishops two weeks earlier (on April 4, 1962) when Good Pope John decided that all his cardinals must be of episcopal character so that the Eastern rite Patriarchs could not object to their presence at the Council. Dean Emeriti Francis James Brennan (American) and Bolesław Filipiak (Polish) were named titular archbishops upon retiral (on June 10, 1967 and May 1, 1976 respectively). Thereafter the retiring Dean has not been crated cardinal.
It will, of course, be interesting to see if Msgr Pinto is now rewarded for his efforts and for his silence when he was bypassed in the production of the motu proprio “Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus”.
LikeLike
May I apologise. I posted the comment regarding Msgr Pinto not being an Archbishop but I do not know why I came up as “catholiccommentblog” although I do have a Blog with a similar name (Roman Catholic Comment; not often enough used and I know the title sounds pretentious but I was fishing about for a name that had not been taken after I was somehow blocked out of my previous Blog when my son updated my computer to Windows 10).
LikeLike
“Archbishop” Msgr Pio Vito Pinto he isn’t.
Thank you for pointing this out, Hugh, and for the background info.
No worries about the two avatars. Just keep the comments coming.
LikeLike
…But Cardinal/Dean/Archbishop, Pinto – clearly has a nice, kind, face.
Surely that means something?
LikeLike
Er, yes Toad…. with a sort of menacing, demonic stare! Is that what you were trying to say? 😉
———-
I’ve been reading some really good comments over on Father Z’s blog. This one below reflects an identical feeling I was harbouring – that the forthrightness of Pinto’s malicious threats aimed at the four Cardinals suggests he might have been put up to this from the libs and Modernists surrounding the Pope (or maybe even the Pope himself!)
“I really doubt that this monsignor acted without an imprimatur or even goading from the Pope and/or his inner circle. The comment after all is breathtakingly provocative and is the sort of thing that, made without support from on high, could lead to a dismissal.”
LikeLike
…But Cardinal/Dean/Archbishop, Pinto – clearly has a nice, kind, face.
Surely that means something?
I think Father Hunwicke was trying to say something along those lines too, Toad 😉 :
Pio Vito Pinto
Name of the Dean of the Rota. I have warned you about him several times. He’s one of those who believe that whatever Bergoglio says is the voice of the Holy Spirit – the hypersuperueberpapalists. He’s been doing it again, in Spain, and talking about the Four Cardinals being stripped of their dignity. (I thank Professor Tighe for this information.)
Go and look at him. You can see him at EWTN News (English). Captured in the act of doing it.
I looked at the picture and asked myself:
~ is this the face of someone through whom the Holy Spirit is speaking?
~ is this the Face of Mercy?
Dead scary.
I hope that all our Partners in Ecumenical Dialogue are carefully reading about what being in Communion with a Bergoglian Papacy would really be like.
LikeLike
So apparently the Dean was mistranslated — instead, what he said was that under a different Pope, the Cardinals would have risked losing their red hats, but Pope Francis is “not like the Popes of olden times” and so he would never do anything like that …
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2016/12/important-update-dean-of-rota-pope-could-strip-four-cardinals-of-cardinalate-because-of-five-dubia/
Perhaps less scandalous, but 200% more snide …
LikeLike
In that case, perhaps it behoves the monsignor to tell us who exactly were those wicked cardinalate-stripping pontiffs? I’ve not heard of them, personally. Otherwise, I really think he needs to put a large pie in that hole.
LikeLike
I’ve not heard of them, personally
Nor I.
LikeLike
JabbaPapa states: “A Layman could be named as a Cardinal, but he would then be immediately ordained into the priesthood. It used to be that a Cardinal could be a deacon, but this was changed after Vatican II.” This is wrong on both points. Firstly, a layman cannot be named a cardinal. Although this appears to have been done in the past it actually wasn’t. For example, Albrecht of Austria, son of Emperor Maximilian II and the Infanta Maria of Spain, brother of Emperors Rudolf II and Mathias and cousin of Cardinal Andreas of Austria, was created cardinal deacon (“ex peculiari gratia” being only 17 years old) in the consistory of March 3, 1577 and (being “presbyter destinatus”) received the red hat and the title of S. Croce in Gerusalemme on February 12, 1580. In other words, there was a wee bit of legalistic jiggery pokery to get round the requirement for a person named cardinal to be in the clerical state (first tonsure at least), though not necessarily a priest. (See also Luis Antonio Jaime de Borbón y Farnesio who was created cardinal at the age of 8 years.)
The change to the requirement being that you had to be a priest came not with Vatican II but with the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law of 1917. I think that Teodolfo Cardinal Mertel (died July 11, 1899) was the last non-priest cardinal. (He it was who, as next in line, bestowed the pallium upon Pope Leo XIII at his coronation as the prot-Cardinal Deacon, Prospero Caterini, was too ill to do so.) What changed with Vatican II was that Good Pope John announced on April 5, 1962, that henceforth all cardinals had to be bishops/archbishops. his was necessary in order that the Eastern rite patriarchs could not object to their presence at the Council. Up until then it was usual for senior curial officials not to be of episcopal character. For example, Monsignori Domenico Tardini and Battista Montini, neither of whom was an archbishop (nor bishop), were respectively in charge of Extraordinary and Ordinary Affairs of the Holy See (modern day Secretary for Relations with States [Archbishop Gallagher] and Sostituto [Archbishop Becciu]). When these officials were created cardinal, it was as a Cardinal Deacon. On April 19, 1962, in the patriarchal Lateran basilica Pope John XXIII, assisted by Cardinal Giuseppe Pizzardo and by Cardinal Benedetto Aloisi Masella, consecrated s bishops the Scotsman William Theodore Heard, Dean Emeritus of the Sacred Roman Rota, and Cardinals Joaquín Anselmo María Albareda, O.S.B., Antonio Bacci, Augustin Bea, S.J., Francesco Bracci, Michael Browne, O.P., Alberto di Jorio, André Jullien, P.S.S., Arcadio María Larraona, C.M.F., Francesco Morano, Alfredo Ottaviani and Francesco Roberti.
LikeLike
GC comments that “it behoves the monsignor to tell us who exactly were those wicked cardinalate-stripping pontiffs” and avers that he has not heard of them. Neither have I, barring one. Unfortunately, it is going to take me a considerable bit to get to him.
Since Johann Grünwalder, named pseudo-cardinal by the antipope Felix V (1430-1447) at his second consistory for the naming of new cardinals on October 2, 1440, who was recognised as Bishop of Freising on January 15, 1448 (without the opposition of Heinrich von Schlick, brother of the Imperial Chancellor, Kaspar von Schlick, who had been nominated bishop of that same diocese by Pope Eugenius IV) on condition that he resign the cardinalate, there have been 27 further “dimissionary” cardinals. The next three after Grünwalder (Otón de Moncada i de Luna, Wincenty Kot z Dębna and Bartolomeo Vitelleschi) being like him cardinals of the pseudo variety we can ignore.
Of the rest, Ardicino Della Porta (iuniore) (Pope Innocent VIII, 1489), wishing to live in solitude, submitted his resignation to the Holy Father by letter dated June 2, 1492, resigning his abbacy “commendatario” of the Benedictine monastery of S. Silano de Romagnano in Novara on that same date. Although it is recorded that he was allowed by the Pope to retire to a Camaldolese monastery, it is also recorded that the other cardinals objected. He had to return to Rome and in fact participated in the conclave of 1492, which elected Pope Alexander VI, dying five months later.
The next cardinal to resign was, however, not quite such an inspiring and humble man despite his lofty antecedents. Cesare Borgia was the third natural child of Rodrigo de Borja, future Pope Alexander VI, and Vanozza de Catanei, a married woman but not married to the father. Known variously as Cardinal of S. Maria Nuova, or Cardinal of Valencia, or Cardinal Borgia he was also the Grand-nephew of Pope Callistus III and cousin of Cardinals Juan de Borja Lanzol de Romaní, el menor (1496) and Pedro Luis de Borja Lanzol de Romaní (1500). In addition, he was brother-in-law of Cardinal Amanieu d’Albret (1500). He was created cardinal deacon in the consistory of September 20, 1493, receiving the red hat and the deaconry of S. Maria Nuova three days later, on September 23, 1493. Having at least had the honesty to accept that he was not cut out for ecclesiastical life, Borgia resigned the cardinalate on August 18, 1498, with the unanimous consent of the Sacred College of Cardinals, also resigning all his bishoprics and abbeys (he had never in fact been ordained priest or bishop).
Ferdinando de’ Medici resigned the cardinalate when his brother Francesco, grand duke of Tuscany, died without successors. He ascended the throne and married to ensure the succession. Similar reasons account for the next resignation from the Sacred College. Albrecht of Austria, son of Emperor Maximilian II and the Infanta Maria of Spain, brother of Emperors Rudolf II and Mathias and cousin of Cardinal Andreas of Austria, was created cardinal deacon (“ex peculiari gratia” being only 17 years old) in the consistory of March 3, 1577 and (being “presbyter destinatus”) received the red hat and the title of S. Croce in Gerusalemme on February 12, 1580. He resigned the cardinalate and the benefices of the archdiocese of Toledo on July 31, 1598, to marry the Infanta Isabel Clara Eugenia, sister of King Felipe III of Spain. Pope Clement VIII celebrated the nuptials in Ferrara on December 17, 1598. Sadly, the marriage was fruitless.
On learning of his nomination as cardinal by Gregory XIII in the consistory of February 21, 1578, Fr Fernando de Toledo Oropesa wrote to several cardinals thanking them for their felicitations and excusing himself, stating that he did not undervalue the cardinalitial dignity but to the contrary considered it too elevated for him; on July 4, 1578, the pope accepted his decision and annulled his creation as cardinal.
In the 17th century, Maurizio di Savoia, Ferdinando Gonzaga, Camillo Francesco Maria Pamphilj, Jan Kazimierz Waza SJ, Francesco Maria de’ Medici and Rinaldo d’Este all resigned in order to marry for reasons of succession.
In the 18th century, the saintly subdeacon Gabriele Filippucci was created cardinal priest in the consistory of May 17, 1706 but he sent a memorial to Pope Clement XI humbly begging the pontiff to dispense him from accepting a dignity for which he was convinced he was totally unworthy. The document was read in consistory and it caused stupor among the cardinals and the pope, who anyways created him a cardinal and gave him some time to deliberate about the matter and then sending Fr. Francesco Maria Casini OFMCap, apostolic preacher and future cardinal, to try to induce Filippucci to accept the dignity to which he had been promoted. But all was useless. He declined the promotion and the fear and agony that the pope may command him to accept it gave him a high fever and he quickly was gravely ill. When the pope learned of the new cardinal’s condition, he thought he should not force him to accept a dignity that may cost him his life and reluctantly accepted the resignation.
Luis Antonio Jaime de Borbón y Farnesio was created cardinal at the age of 8 years, aged 27 years and conscious of his lack of religious vocation and of his strong sexual drive, he decided to submit his resignation from all his ecclesiastical posts to King Fernando VI and to Pope Benedict XIV. During the secret consistory of December 18, 1754, through Cardinal Joaquín Fernández Portocarrero acting as his procurator, he resigned the cardinalate and the administration of the sees of Toledo and Sevilla,
The resignations of Vincenzo Maria Altieri, Etienne-Charles de Loménie de Brienne and Tommaso Antici (1789) were all related to the political and war-related upheavals of their times.
In the 19th century, Marino Carafa di Belvedere resigned in order to marry for reasons of succession. Carlo Odescalchi asked Pope Gregory XVI in October of 1837 for permission to resign from all his offices in order that he might become a Jesuit. However, the pope refused. Cardinal Odescalchi greatly assisted the Roman people during the cholera epidemic of 1837-1838. He again submitted his resignation from the cardinalate and the suburbicarian see of Sabina on November 21, 1838 and this time the pope accepted in the consistory of November 30, 1838. He entered the Society of Jesus on December 6, 1838, took the religious habit at the novitiate in Verona two days later and made his religious profession on February 2, 1840. He conducted missionary activity in Northern Italy. (Incidentally, Odescalchi ordained priest Gioacchino Pecci, the future Pope Leo XIII, in his private oratory on December 31, 1837.)
Fnally, and I did say t would take a bit to get to him In the 20th century, the only cardinal to resign was the Jesuit Louis Billot. Pius XI had condemned Action Française but Billot continued to openly support it. Under pressure from the pope, Billot resigned the cardinalate on September 13, 1927. The resignation was accepted by the pope in a letter of September 21, 1927 and announced to the cardinals in the consistory of December 19, 1927.
LikeLike
The only term I can think of for someone who is more Jabba than Jabba is Super-Jabba
LikeLike
was created cardinal deacon
You are confused — the titles of “cardinal deacon”, “cardinal priest”, and “cardinal bishop” (and the old “lay cardinals”) do not refer to the degrees of priestly ministry, but to a separate hierarchy internal to the College of Cardinals. All of the Cardinal Deacons today are Bishops. Very few Cardinals who are Bishops are “Cardinal Bishops”.
Yes, originally those titles did once refer to the priestly order that the Cardinals belonged to within the Roman presbyterium. That was centuries ago. The old so-called “Lay Cardinals” were not laymen who were or who had been named as Cardinals, but rather some Cardinals who had no titular church in the Roman See.
The change to the requirement being that you had to be a priest came not with Vatican II but with the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law of 1917
You’re right, after Vatican I not Vatican II.
Firstly, a layman cannot be named a cardinal
A Pope could change the Law — a Pope as Sovereign can ignore it when it is not also a matter of Doctrine. Cardinals cannot OTOH propose names to the Pope, for elevation to the Cardinalate, of men who are not priests.
I was (somewhat clumsily) trying to make a point about the Doctrine anyway, not the present Law, but clearly I took FAR too many shortcuts — the Law can change, but the doctrinal fact that Cardinals are Roman “Clergy” cannot. And if a Pope actually were to name a layman, there’s nothing anyone could do to stop him.
The Law also requires all priests named as Cardinals to be consecrated as Bishops, but some have successfully petitioned the Roman Pontiff for a dispensation from that requirement.
Pope Leo X became a Cardinal at age 13, and received permission to wear the insignia and participate in deliberations three years later. He participated in the 1492 Conclave as a 16 year old, where he unsuccessfully participated in an attempt to prevent the election of Alexander VI.
Other such examples are abundant, particularly during the fairly corrupt period of 14th & 15th Centuries.
—
I think what you’re missing is that there is a difference between theoretical possibilities belonging to the Office of Roman Pontiff, and having in fact existed historically, and the existing material (and political) limitations preventing some of those possibilities. I responded to toad on the basis of the former rather than the latter. Which was NOT clear at all.
LikeLike
NOT clear at all.
Indeed; for those of us who aren’t very bright, and who often find ourselves hanging from the ceiling fan by the very laces which a moment before we thought we were tying, the whole business can seem a tad opaque.
LikeLike
There hasn’t been a non-priest cardinal since the 19th Century.
LikeLike
Got it.
LikeLike
Hugh McLoughlin @ December 2, 2016 at 06:58
Dear Hugh, that was a very good lesson in ex-cardinalates. As you say, there may have been one cardinalate-strippee, but the others were either resigning dodgy cardinals, unexpected heirs to thrones and such, or hermits. I do think a large pie still needs to be arranged for the monsignor’s mouth-hole.
LikeLike
JabbaPapa tells me that I am “confused” and then seeks to enlighten me by vouchsafing that ““cardinal deacon”, “cardinal priest”, and “cardinal bishop” (and the old “lay cardinals”) do not refer to the degrees of priestly ministry, but to a separate hierarchy internal to the College of Cardinals.” Frankly, this is both insulting and bollocks. These divisions mirror, and are meant to mirror, “the degrees of priestly ministry” although as has always been acknowledged creation as cardinal is NOT a form of “ordination” or “consecration” (changes in the form of the consistory introduced under Pope Benedict XVI emphasised this).
JabbaPapa’s assertion that the “old so-called “Lay Cardinals” were not laymen who were or who had been named as Cardinals, but rather some Cardinals who had no titular church in the Roman See” is, quite frankly, both absurd and bizarre. It was only when Pope Paul VI decreed that Eastern rite patriarchs need not be appointed to suburbicarian positions (or by inference titular or diaconal) that cardinals were excused from being “priests of Rome”. Moreover, his assertion that I am “right, after Vatican I not Vatican II” about the introduction of the changes is also nonsense. Had it anything to do with Vatican I it would have been done if not under Pope Pius IX then under Pope Leo XIII. It wasn’t.
We are all aware that “if a Pope actually were to name a layman (as cardinal), there’s nothing anyone could do to stop him.” Apparently. In fact, as can be readily ascertained by looking at the history of dimissionary cardinals, the Pope has never been able to accept the resignation of a cardinal without the concurrence of the Sacred College. In addition, in a secret consistory the pope must ask the Sacred College if they agree with him that such and such a priest or prelate is “worthy of the Roman purple”. I still wonder if Cardinal Keith Patrick O’Brien is entitled to enter a conclave if one should soon become necessary.
LikeLike
Frankly, this is both insulting and bollocks
So to disagree in the same manner as you have is “insulting” ? If so, then how exactly have *you* not “insulted” *me* ?
We are all aware that “if a Pope actually were to name a layman (as cardinal), there’s nothing anyone could do to stop him.”
So how, then, was I “wrong”, apart from the 1917 Code of Canon Law thing that I accepted ?
These divisions mirror, and are meant to mirror, “the degrees of priestly ministry
How exactly does this “contradict” what I wrote ?
his assertion that I am “right, after Vatican I not Vatican II” about the introduction of the changes is also nonsense
Do you have a correct grasp of the basics of chronology ? Vatican I de facto ended prior to 1917. Not “nonsense” but simple factual reality.
as can be readily ascertained by looking at the history of dimissionary cardinals, the Pope has never been able to accept the resignation of a cardinal without the concurrence of the Sacred College
Completely off-topic.
JabbaPapa’s assertion that the “old so-called “Lay Cardinals” were not laymen who were or who had been named as Cardinals, but rather some Cardinals who had no titular church in the Roman See” is, quite frankly, both absurd and bizarre
Nope.
LikeLike
Jeepers creepers, look at ex-Archbishop Pio Vito Pinto’ s peepers! A classic clinical case of corneal corruption if I ever saw one. We professionals refer to it (non-euphemistically) as the Evil Eye, as intimated (euphemistically) by Toad at 16:46 two days ago.
LikeLike
Chronology is one thing, context is another. In the context in which you were speaking, if you say that something came after Vatican II then the clear inference is that it was consequent upon things which were determined during Vatican II. If you say that something came after Vatican I ditto. There was nothing which was debated or decided at Vatican I that had anything to do with the change brought into effect by CCJ1917. As for your belief that the Pope can name a layman cardinal, I do not accept that. As I pointed out, the Pope has to ask the Sacred College gathered in secret consistory whether or not they feel, like him, that the nominee, or nominees, is, or are, “worthy of the sacred Roman purple”. If they do not assent because contrary to canon law the nominee is a layman, I for one do not know exactly what would happen because I do not know if there is any precedent. However, since the College of Cardinals is known to have refused to accept the resignation of members one would have to assume logically that they do have a right of veto and that the Pope putting the question to them is not entirely just a matter of form. Perhaps there is a canonist or church historian out there who can advise.
I look forward to reading up on these “Lay Cardinals” who had no titular church in the Roman See as soon as you let me know who they were as I know of none, excepting, of course, Nicholas Francis, Duke of Lorraine, who though created cardinal at the age of 16 or 17 never went to Rome to receive his appointment to a diaconia (eventually he was removed from the Sacred College).
LikeLike
Jabba, Ginnyfree, Roger, Hugh McL, The Raven…Spot what any four of them have in common and win a John Kehoe Bobblehead doll.
LikeLike
…Hint – a six letter adjective – when you finally wake up, geographically speaking.
LikeLike
We give up! Tell us JH
LikeLike
Burp. It’s an adjective beginning with b – as you well know – nothing to do with the Bering Strait.
LikeLike
Ah, right. Sorry, getting stupider by the day!
LikeLike
as I know of none, excepting, of course, Nicholas Francis
So how exactly is “none” equal to at least one ?
LikeLike
PS As even wikipedia knows, In response to the request of the bishops at the First Vatican Council, on 14 May 1904, with the motu proprio Arduum sane munus (“A Truly Arduous Task”), Pope Pius X set up a commission to begin reducing these diverse documents into a single code, presenting the normative portion in the form of systematic short canons shorn of the preliminary considerations (“Whereas…”) and omitting those parts that had been superseded by later developments.
LikeLike
So how exactly is “none” equal to at least one ?
Said Russell to Wittgenstein one fine morning
LikeLike
The request of the Council Fathers was that the corpus of canon law be codified NOT that the law as regards the appointment of cardinals be changed. The point about Nicholas Francis, Duke of Lorraine is that he is an exception to the rules as I know them to be but I am unsure if he belongs to the category which you seem to know of. As far as I know he did not belong to any known group of Layman cardinals who were not priest or deacon of a Roman church. Rather, of his own volition and in absence of legitimate impediment, he failed to travel to Rome to see the Pope, receive his red hat and be assigned his deaconry church. (Created cardinal but reserved “in pectore” in the consistory of January 19, 1626, this was published in the consistory of August 30, 1627; in March of 1634 the Pope declared him “in nullo e sacris ordinis constitutum” and he was both removed the roll of the Sacred College and was removed as the administrator of the Diocese of Toul (he never received any “sacred orders” and was therefore a Layman). I cannot be bothered with any more of this, Catholicism is meant to be “simple”.
LikeLike
The request of the Council Fathers was that the corpus of canon law be codified NOT that the law as regards the appointment of cardinals be changed
You keep on trying to disagree with things I never said.
any known group of Layman cardinals
There is no such thing as a “Layman cardinal” because Cardinals are by definition Roman Clergy.
OTOH :
Pope Leo X is sufficient example of laymen made Cardinals ; the last non-priest Cardinal in the 19th Century was also BTW a layman when he was elevated ; and as for what a “Lay Cardinal” was, just look it up for yourself, as I have grown tired of your attitude.
LikeLike
“Pope Leo X is sufficient example of laymen made Cardinals”: Giuseppe Melchiorre Sarto was ordained priest on September 18, 1858; ordained bishop November 16, 1884; appointed Patriarch of Venice and Cardinal Priest in the title of San Bernardo alle Terme on June 15, 1893. An example of a layman made cardinal? Shurely shome mishtake?
LikeLike
Sorry, I misread your comment as relating to Pius due to both not having been to bed and having taken considerable pain relief. But Leo X isn’t really pertinent as you are going back to a time when the law allowed children to be made cardinal in the expectation that they would enter the clerical state at a later date, part of the legal jiggery pokery I adverted to above.
LikeLike
Pingback: Sorry, But I’ve Changed My Mind About Pope Francis | TO GIVE A DEFENSE
Pingback: Sorry, But I've Changed My Mind About Pope Francis - To Give a Defense.