Categories
Uncategorized

THE CHURCH HAD – AND SHOULD HAVE LAY CARDINALS.

A lay cardinal was a cardinal in the College of Cardinals of the Catholic Church who was a lay person, that is, who had never have been given major orders through ordination as a deacon, priest, or bishop.

Properly speaking these cardinals were not laymen, since they were all given what was called first tonsure, which at that time made them clerics and no longer laymen.[1] They were also given minor orders, which were no obstacle to marrying or to living in a marriage previously contracted. The freedom to marry and to live in marriage is likely the reason that cardinals who were not in major orders were popularly, though inaccurately, referred to as lay cardinals.[citation needed]

Examples

Ferdinando I de’ Medici was a lay cardinal for twenty-six years. Even after he succeeded his brother Francesco I de’ Medici as Grand Duke of Tuscany in 1587, he nevertheless remained a cardinal until he married Christina of Lorraine two years later.

Francisco Gómez de Sandoval, 1st Duke of Lerma was created cardinal by Pope Paul V on March 26, 1618,[2] a title that protected him from prosecution, after he was banished from power on October 4, 1618.

Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand of Austria was a lay cardinal for about 20 years from 1620 (about age 10) to his death in 1641.

Marino Carafa di Belvedere was created a cardinal in the consistory of 1801 by Pope Pius VII on the condition that he take major orders. In 1807 he resigned the cardinalate without receiving major orders to marry to produce an heir and maintain the line of descent for his family. He married Marianna Gaetani dell’Aquila d’Aragona and he became prince of Acquaviva.

Teodolfo Mertel, a lawyer and layman, was named cardinal by Pope Pius IX in 1858. He was not a lay cardinal for long, as he received ordination to the diaconate the same year. When he died in 1899 he was the last non-priest cardinal.[4] (Giacomo Antonelli, who died in 1876 as Pius IX’s Cardinal Secretary of State, remained a deacon when named cardinal in 1847.)

In 1968 Pope Paul VI proposed appointing the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain a lay cardinal, but Maritain refused the honour.

Confusion concerning the title of “cardinal”

It is perhaps commonplace to think that the title of “cardinal” is the next order after “bishop” to which a man may be ordained, as “bishop” comes after “priest” and “priest” after “deacon”.

In fact, however, the position of cardinal is not an order to which one can be ordained; rather, a cardinal is simply an elector of the pope and the title is an honorific office in the Church independent of the priesthood.

The original “cardinals” in the first Christian centuries were friends and counsellors of the Bishop of Rome. Some were ordained deacons or priests and some were not. In those days of persecution these men took on the duty of standing at the door of the house where the service and the subsequent agapē feast was being celebrated. They admitted or rejected people hoping to attend the Sacred Liturgy. They also kept watch for soldiers or informers who might interrupt the gathering. Since the word for “hinge” in Latin is cardo they became known as ‘hingemen” – cardinals.[citation needed] Soon many bishops called their advisors “cardinals” but, in time, the pope decreed that only the advisors of the Bishop of Rome could be known by the title “cardinal”.

Changes in canon law

The 1917 Code of Canon Law decreed that from then on only those who were priests or bishops could be chosen as cardinals,[6] thus officially closing the historical period in which some cardinals could be clergy who had only received first tonsure and minor orders.

The same rule is repeated in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, which adds that those who are not already bishops are to receive episcopal ordination.[7] Any priest who has been nominated for the cardinalate may ask for dispensation from the obligation to be ordained to the episcopacy before being created Cardinal, but in practice it is usually Jesuits who ask for and are granted this dispensation.

For example, the dispensation was requested by the theologian Avery Dulles upon being named cardinal by Pope John Paul II in 2001 who granted it.

Subsequently invited to a meeting of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) in 2002, Cardinal Dulles at one point asked for recognition to speak to the bishops from the floor. His quip that he was there “under false pretenses” was greeted by much laughter.

The same dispensation was granted to Roberto Tucci, another esteemed theologian from the Society of Jesus: he was created cardinal in the consistory of 21 February 2001 by Pope John Paul II, whom Tucci had also successfully petitioned not to be ordained to the episcopacy.

With the motu proprio Ministeria quaedam of 15 August 1972 Pope Paul VI ended the conferral of first tonsure and laid down that entry into the clerical state would instead be by ordination as deacon.

PAT SAYS

Power and the abuse of power, is at the heart of the present corruption / sexual crisis in the RCC.

The cure for this is to spread authority and power more widely – widely enough to include the laity at every level.

Lay Catholics, men and women, with gifts and talents, should be admitted to the college of cardinals, vote for the pope and sit on Roman congregations.

Lay people should exercise real power also as diocesan conductors and parish councillors, and not be just “yes” men and women for bishops and PPs.

All the areas of expertise, medicine, psychology, accountancy etc have gifts to bring to the church.

Popes, bishops and pp’s should have their spending approved by properly instituted financial bodies.

79 replies on “THE CHURCH HAD – AND SHOULD HAVE LAY CARDINALS.”

Because there were no Bishops of Rome in the time of Jesus. If Peter ever got to Rome, and it’s a big if, in the 60s of the first century there was no monarchical episcopate there. At most, there was a loose scattering of communities. The first monarchical Bishop in Rome is considered by many authorities to be Victor (188 A.D.).

Like

6.37

Your reply does not answer my question. To describe the second of my statements at 12.19 as ‘adolescent,’ simply because it made no mention of the episcopate is a non sequitur: I referred to priesthood, not to episcopacy.

You probably know that the scriptural premises for the doctrine of papal primacy are at the Gospel of Matthew 16:18 through 19, and at the Gospel of John 21: 15 through 17.

Matthew’s gospel in particular is referred to for this purpose: ‘I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church…I will give you keys of the kingdom of heaven…’ . Though the second of these statements expresses futurity in relation to the primacy of Simon Peter among the Apostles, the first expresses the simple present, indicating the contemporary reality of this status for Simon Peter.

In Roman Catholic teaching and tradition, the events of Pentecost mark the institution of the Church, along with the inauguration of the priesthood and the episcopacy. However, Jesus’ establishment of Simon Peter’s primary role among the Apostles, as shown in Matthew and John (and before Pentecost), clearly demonstrate that ordination to either was not a stipulation, any more than it was for the celebration of the Eucharist.

Like

Not so.
The scriptural evidence for the inauguration of the church, priesthood and episcopate is not unanimous.
While Luke, for his own schema’s integrity posits the beginning of the church at Pentecost and in Jerusalem, John’s inauguration of the priestly role in what would become the sacramental action of the forgiveness os sins is placed in the appearance of the risen Lord on Easter Sunday evening. Similarly, the Synoptic tradition place the priestly mandate to preside at the Eucharist in the command of Jesus at the Last Supper to ‘do this in memory of me’.

A ‘lay pope’ is currently a theological, sacramental and canonical anomaly. By definition, ‘pope’ means ‘bishop.’ In Catholic history snd theology, exclusively ‘bishop of Rome,’ but not so in Orthodoxy.

Your initial post was adolescent in not recognising that ecclesial developments happened for a wide variety of reasons, only one of which is whatever the historical Jesus may, or may not have stipulated.

Like

9.12
On the contrary, quite so. There is, of course, no unanimity on this, just as there is none on other biblical issues. But there IS broad agreement (and it is traditional) that the Church was instituted/inaugurated at Pentecost, like the priesthood and the episcopate. You know this as well as I.
Your statement about John and the Synoptics is eisegetical, not objective: neither gospel itself does as you suggest.
You are still missing my point about a lay pope. What you claim about the papacy and the ill juxtaposition of a lay pope has absolutely nothing to do with my post at 12.19. Read it again, slowly. It refers to JESUS’ not making any stipulations about the papacy, NOT to what developed later in ecclesiology.
Your last paragraph emhasises your obtuseness: I was not remotely concerned at 12.19 with ‘ecclesial developments’ here; I was aware of them (which is the very reason I posted at 12.19), but they were not relevant to my remark on Jesus.
Christ is the source of all truth. Where ‘ecclesial developments’ contradict his truth, they are totally irrelevant. There was no adolesence in my second statement, just common sense.

Like

Some days ago you made it clear you hadn’t reached First Divinity moral theology, and the elementary differentiation between fundamental moral and special moral (e.g. justice, truth, sexuality etc.) were unknown to you.
Once again, your latest contribution, such as it is, displays a parallel elementary lack of awareness of fundamental systematic theology, and, in particular, the theology of revelation.
God, actually, is the source of revelation, the pinnacle of which is Jesus. The ‘ecclesia’ is what Vatican II calls the People of God. The establishment and development of this phenomenon after the time of Jesus falls within the remit of ongoing revelation, with which, you naïvely, brashly and as an adolescent would do, declare, for all the world to hear, that you are not ‘remotely concerned.’
There is neither broad agreement, nor is it traditional, as even an elementary grasp of current developments in historical-Jesus studies would make clear, that the Church was inaugurated at Pentecost.
My advice to you: comment all you like, with your characteristic vulgarity, on contemporary issues, but steer clear of biblical and theological topics.

Like

At 10:52 p.m.
The separate yet related developments of NT concepts of ‘presbuteros,’ ‘hiereus,’ ‘episkopos,’ and ‘diakonos,’ are all the subject of on-going study, about which there is not a great deal of consensus. It’s not safe to claim that the priesthood and episcopate were inaugurated at Pentecost.
Currently, Evening Mass of the Lord’s supper, and not Pentecost, is the location of the church’s liturgical celebration of the institution of the priesthood.

Like

1.01

There is an attempt to rewrite the hitherto broadly accepted timeline of these matters, since placing the institution of priesthood, and the rest, at the Last Supper rather than at the traditionally accepted locus, Pentecost, avoids the awkward fact that likely many more than The Twelve were present (including women) on this occasion, and that priesthood was conferred on these, too. This revision is not theological scholarship, but political maneuvering. After all, Pope JPII’s official prohibition, in 1994, of the possibility of ever ordaining women to the priesthood would look far less a divinely authoritative instruction, and more the irascible reaction of an ill-tempered mysogynist.

Even if (for argument’s sake), you are right, Jesus’ instruction ‘Do this in memory…’ is not exclusionary: he does not say that it applies only to The Twelve.

Through history, clergy have attempted, and succeeded, in monopolising Jesus’ words and charisms, even to the point of airbrushing out of salvation history, the seminal role of women in it.

Like

I’m afraid the issue of women’s ordination, as you raise it here is a red herring.

The audience of the command, literally, ‘Do this in/for my memorial.’ is not the issue. The timing/location is. Nor is it correct to claim that there ever was a broadly accepted consensus that the inauguration of the priesthood may be located at Pentecost. If you know of evidence to the contrary, please provide the authorities here.

Like

4.46
‘I’m afraid the issue of women’s ordination, as you raise it here is a red herring.’
Thank you for proving a fundamental point of mine. And all in one sentence.😅

Like

By the way, were you schooled in the Vat II document, ‘Lumen Gentium’, you would know that the Catholic Church teaches that the Church was ‘established in this last age of the world and made manifest in the outpouring of the Spirit…’ This outpouring is traditionally accepted as the event at Pentecost, though John’s gospel places its taking place in a room in which the disciples were hiding through fear.
The point is that the Church did not exist in quintessential form until it was empowered by the Spirit; therefore it did not exist at all.

Like

At 6:11
1. The definitive Latin text of LG clarifies that it was the manifestation of the church, rather than its constitution which was accomplished by the outpouring of the Spirit. Therefore, your conclusion collapses at the outset.
2. Your last paragraph, beginning with an isolated ‘The point is…’ is a non-sequitur.
3. The defective link in your logic is to conflate the inauguration, in your own term, of ‘the priesthood and episcopate,’ and the beginning of the church.
4. The red herring of the role of women, as if that were the point at issue is clearly such, given that it is difficult to argue, if the Last Supper was a Passover Meal, that women (and children, who, of course, played a ritual role in asking the four appointed questions) were not present. It is logical to assume that women and children too were the object of Jesus’ command to ‘do this in memory of me.’
5 Your conspiracy theory is another instance of adolescent brashness.

Like

7.49

The manifestation here is clearly the appearance of the church (assembly) in a highly radicalised, and hitherto unrecognised form. Why? Logically, because the church did not previously exist in this way. Which means that the institution of the church occurred upon, and only upon, empowerment by the Holy Spirit. Your repeated failure to understand such simple reasoning is curious, to say the least.

As regards my last paragraph at 6.11, my point is not isolated (much less a non sequitur), but is clearly related to my first paragraph; in fact, it makes explicit what is implied by the first: that the church quintessentially did not exist until there was empowerment by the Holy Spirit. It was only after this event that the missionary mandate commissioned by Christ could begin in earnest.

I never said that children were present at the Last Supper.

And Jesus’ command ‘Do this in memory…’. is clearly not for children, but for those capable of understanding its spiritual import. Your lapse of common sense here (and not the first) intellectually beggars your argument, and makes you, personally, look rather foolish.

Like

For ‘clearly,’ read ‘I haven’t a shred of evidence, And I’m out of my depth in this subject, but that won’t stop me from claiming that theological black is theological white and biblical white is biblical black.’

Your forays into biblical and theological studies, on the one hand, where you display a struggling O-level grasp of these subjects and, on the other, your vulgarity of expression, vileness of theme and viciousness of tenor make for a living anomaly.

Like

9.06

No; for ‘clearly’ read the ‘New Testament’: all the evidence you require is there. But you won’t see it if you refuse to open your eyes.

As for O- level…whatever. You’re showing your age. Your reference to this type of long-dead examination is as, well, as dated as your personal ecclesiology.

This isn’t the first time we have duelled here, and I doubt it will be the last, such as your obduracy: your stubborn, juvenile lust to embarrass me. The embarrassment is yours, however, since you must be in your fifties or sixties. How immature is that?

If only your intellect and learning didn’t lag so far behind your borderline, pathological fixation with me, you might make an opponent worthy of my talents.

Like

The difference is:
1. You’re an amateur. Even the elementary divisions of fundamental theology, moral theology and biblical studies are unknown to you.
2. Whatever knowledge you picked up was gained from meeting scholars returning from school and not in formal education.
3. Because your foundering grasp of theology is accompanied by words of the vilest and most vulgar and vicious kind, your theological position, such as it is, is that of a sterile dilettante and of one lacking integrity.
4. No self-respecting student of theology, would indulge in a war of words of the kind referred to or expect anything (s)he wrote to be taken seriously.
5. Only by abandoning your current pseudonym and adopting another, thereby dissociating yourself from the sins and errors of your past postings here could you expect to be accorded civilityg in discussion.

Like

The types you get on parish councils are not encouraging. The Cardinal Infant Ferdinand of Austria is cited as an example of a lay Cardinal. He was also Archbishop of Toledo for twenty-one years from the age of ten 1619 – 1641 which makes one wonder what use he was to the diocese or to the wider Church, as he was either just a kid or fighting wars in what is now Belgium for most of the time. So much for the reforms of Trent: the Church then as now provided opportunities for personal and social advancement.

Like

Fernando (Cardinal Infante), as his soubriquet suggests, was the son of the King of Spain (Philip III). He wasn’t actually Archbishop of Toledo, merely administrator, from age 10.

Like

Which means that the primatial see of Spain was effectively sede vacante for 21 years to provide a sinecure for a ten year old child. Given this was at the height of the Counter Reformation the question had to be asked how the doubts of the Reformers had been addressed. I am not confused incidentally by the significance of the title Infant, but don’t see how your history lesson corrects the impression of outrageous nepotism and absent bishops, which Trent had supposedly addressed.

Like

Primatial has little significance – merely a Residual historical arrangement. Most countries don’t have a primatial see.

I’m sure you are familiar with phenomenon of a benefice being held by one person, frequently a lay person, (e.g. a rector), and the responsibility being carried out by a vicar. (Hence the ubiquity of the latter role in England).

If it’s the age that you are marvelling at, the great Chatles Borromeo was Archbishop of Milan at 21 three years before the close of Trent.

Like

A great post, Pat.
Yes. There definitely should be lay-cardinals; and some of them should be married men and women.
But it’s likely there’d be a lot less funny business if the Papacy also returned to employing lay diplomats, lay administrators and lay canon lawyers.
I can’t find much on the internet but the all-ordained administration of the Vatican/Holy See is comparatively recent.
It was Paul VI and John XXIII that completed the purge.
In 1929 it was a lay canon lawyer who negotiated the Lateran Treaty.
And during the Nazi occupation of Rome, 1943-1944, it was the Black Nobility, the Roman aristocratic families associated with the Papacy, who protected the City State and its enclaves from the SS and Gestapo.

Like

The lay people who would be acceptable to the leaders of the Church today would be the worst kind and good luck with their psychological assessments

Like

I am genuinely surprised at your thoughts here, Pat. I would have thought that including laypeople in dysfunctional structures would just spread the dysfunction! To spread the power and authority wider surely cardinals could be got rid of and different ways for electing the bishop of Rome?

Like

The hierarchy has been talking about this for nearly 10 years already but some of the decisions in the meantime are counterintuitive even when opportunities arise. Clergy will never fully support it as it affects their current career path.

Like

Dermo is ever the analyst, long on diagnosing problems but short on solutions. He says decisions aren’t easy for an elderly bishop, thereby giving himself a get out of jail card.

Dermo’s reign: wasted years.

Like

Any word on Tullamore? The lay people of that parish should certainly be lay Cardinals! They gave ‘Tullamore Parish’ a right seeing to over Christmas. Has the author been found?

Like

Think there’s been more than enough words from Tullamore Parish. Let them keep their thoughts to themselves going forward.

Like

I wonder whether that is actually true. A retired lay person who doesn’t need hassle may be one way of deflecting opprobrium. However. The PP bears ultimately responsibility for what was published. That is the line which the generation of the current PP would have received in Second Divinity moral theology, when there was little scope for students to respond to the party line, and even less to disagree with it.

Like

You’re the only person who’s saying that! And keeps saying it!!! Where has it be written officially?

Like

Why hasn’t the Vicar General based in the priest’s house in Tullamore issued a statement to say it’s not any of the priests ??

Like

I don’t buy that. I’m very surprised that the current PP let that out, he’s smarter than that!

Like

Ps: any statement issued by Bishop Deenihan? 2019 began in Meath with a TD being refused communion and ended with a buzzard outburst in Tullamore. Bishop Deenihan’s first year in Meath. Has he control?

Like

Does Tullamore Parish know where the missing priests in Meath are? It seems to know everything else. There are at least 2 priests who were priests in parishes in the most recent past and they appear to be missing from the diocesan website now vis their parishes. Oddly enough it’s one of the only diocesan websites in the country where you cannot click a button and see a list of clergy, which makes it difficult to know who is gone and who is still there.

Like

A cynic might think that’s the point of keeping the site as it is and Meath are in no hurry to update it.

Like

He didn’t lose anything because of this blog, don’t be totally ridiculous and don’t kid yourself. Do you not realise what a total fool you sound and such a fool statement you’ve made.

Like

Talking of Cardinals. Anybody know what is happening in Scotland? Glasgow or Edinburgh? All gone quiet. Inspector Taggart might know?

Like

Hello Fr. I don’t know that one, but I can say that time is running out for big +Phil who is 69 next week and although his health is better thank God, he has really has stepped back. Nice man though. +Leo on the other hand is 58, but wants back to Rome asap and I am told that Big Frank has agreed for that to happen in 2020. He is not popular at all by laity or clergy and was good to fill a gap after the previous incumbent, but time to move on. Unfortunately bar a couple of Parishes, the Church is Scotland is dying. Creating a Cardinal will not fix it. People criticise the gay Priests on here, but tell you something – if it wasn’t for the gays in Scotland we would have no Priests!

Like

You are full of bull as per usual inspector fake fraud. We are still looking for your much awaited photo evidence from Lourdes almost one year ago. Cut the crap because you are such a phoney and the plebs on here are falling for your guff yet again. Sad individual and idiot

Like

They’ll keep the gay bars going as well, even with Fatso McKeever of Catholic Truth Scotland reporting them, you just can’t keep them away.

Like

All this talk about giving “lay” people the roles of being Cardinals, Bishops, Priests, Deaonnesses etc….is only adding multiple layers of clericalism. The present clericalism is slowly dying a death and I’m not sure that recreating the same portfolios as of the present will actually make a radical difference. If we believe that real change comes from the lower ranks within any institution or at grass roots level, then we must trust that the Spirit of God will move us in the right direction. I have great respect for the presence of small Christian communities (as of the early Church model) who seek to live the gospel of Christ. I believe we should recognise all who are gifted within our parishes and allow them to be formed spiritually, theologically, prayerfully, liturgically and in a waynthatvresponds to the obvious needs of their own community. If the Oratory is meant to be a prototype of such an ideal, why hasn’t its model inspired a national movement? How many “lay” people (in all honesty) are in positions of meaningful roles as Priests, Bishops and Deaconnesses? I’m beginning to think that Pat is very good at diagnosing but scarce on actual, realisable, fruitful and meaningful renewal. While he may offer a forum for valid criticisms, we need more than the soundbytes as in today’s “Pat says” column! In the meantime I will give my all to building up, along with parishioners, the community to which I now belong and where I work. The work of true renewal in Christ is an on-going process and requires imaginative, visionary and creative reflection and prayer. This is something that is within our reach, not moreclayers of bureaucracy and clericalism. (Incidentally, let it be noted – the “laity” are very territorial too.)

Like

8.05

Don’t you realise that clericalism equals elitism? Elitism is possible, by definition, if something is confined to the few.

To open up these roles to every one of God’s children would reduce the clerical elite to a commonality, and clericalism to nothing.

Be prepered to experience the clergy defend its closed shop.

Like

8 32: Magna, that’s the point I’m making: we need as a Church to get rid of elitism titles. I have no difficulty with a debate about redefining the meaning of priesthood. My challenge is to find a relevant, meaningful role in an ever changing landscape. It’s not always easy to be visionary.

Like

Totally agree about inspector. Promised all sorts but came to nothing. Bullshitter. Biggest gay himself but projects it on to fellow Glaswegian clergy. Fixated by ‘big Phil’ as he keeps mentioning him and we know Inspector has a big axe to grind.

Like

I don’t. I really like the Archbishop. He isn’t the problem. PS Why to you think I’m gay? If I was, so what?

Like

8.04pm. I am no idiot. Quite the opposite. Time will tell. Unfortunately I cannot publish said evidence yet for two reasons. One – an ongoing legal matter, two – one of the Priests who contacted me met with me in person in October and I said I wouldn’t at his express request. He wasn’t in a good place and got help. He is in a much better place now. That’s all I can say. Sorry if you have been waiting for these. I’m sure you will pray for them as I will.

Like

Yet more bullshit. Why leave it all this time to explain. Avoid this inspector everyone as I’m tempted to publish his real identity. A disgruntled drunk Scottish Cleric. He keeps promising this and that.

Like

Thanks McTaggart. Explains it. Nice to have you back. Ignore the trouble makers and thick people on here. Plenty of them.

Like

Bishop Pat it sounds to me that you should go to Scotland and investigate these alleged goings on and the phoney inspector. You have visited other dioceses before if I recall. Did you not go to Shrewsbury last time?

Like

His explanation is hollow. Where are the photographs from Lourdes as someone said earlier? We have waited one year. Taking the piss like you Jim.

Like

Don’t think lay cardinals would make a bit of difference as they would be hand picked by the anti Christ mob who run the place atm. Realistically they will never cede power to mere mortals like lay people.

Like

A lot of this is playing around with pieces on a chessboard and has nothing to do with the Gospel message. Let them play at scouts and guides. Where are the people and where are the leaders who’s job it is to feed the sheep and not just ponce about in gamarellis hi

Like

These wee Scotties are all full of c**p and liars. Mc’ Taggart was caught out last year using different names and one of them was Jim. Funny that.

Like

Indeed I was not. Anyone can type any name in. I am the real Taggart. The one and only. I know the truth. God bless.

Like

10: 40 “If only your intellect and learning didn’t lag so far behind your borderline pathological fixation with me, you might make an opponent worthy of my talents.” You give a bad impression of yourself with these words, Magna. I’m sorry to see it.

Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s