Pope John Paul II as Cardinal
#11
(01-25-2012, 01:55 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 12:02 AM)Tapatio Wrote: I was reading his bio and it's just a jump from cardinal to pope. But nothing in between.

While there are exceptions, that's usually the way it happens, from a major See as Cardinal to Pope. Off hand, I can't think of the last Curial Cardinal elected Pope.
I know this. But i am referring to his office as a Cardinal. What was his "duty"? as it were. (i.e. secretary general of liturgy, like Arinze is right now.)
Cardinal Burke is Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.
What was Cardinal Wojtyła' s office?
Reply
#12
(01-25-2012, 02:45 AM)Tapatio Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 01:55 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 12:02 AM)Tapatio Wrote: I was reading his bio and it's just a jump from cardinal to pope. But nothing in between.

While there are exceptions, that's usually the way it happens, from a major See as Cardinal to Pope. Off hand, I can't think of the last Curial Cardinal elected Pope.
I know this. But i am referring to his office as a Cardinal. What was his "duty"? as it were. (i.e. secretary general of liturgy, like Arinze is right now.)
Cardinal Burke is Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.
What was Cardinal Wojtyła' s office?

He was not a curial Cardinal. His duty was being Archbishop of Krakow.
Reply
#13
(01-25-2012, 02:50 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 02:45 AM)Tapatio Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 01:55 AM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 12:02 AM)Tapatio Wrote: I was reading his bio and it's just a jump from cardinal to pope. But nothing in between.

While there are exceptions, that's usually the way it happens, from a major See as Cardinal to Pope. Off hand, I can't think of the last Curial Cardinal elected Pope.
I know this. But i am referring to his office as a Cardinal. What was his "duty"? as it were. (i.e. secretary general of liturgy, like Arinze is right now.)
Cardinal Burke is Prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura.
What was Cardinal Wojtyła' s office?

He was not a curial Cardinal. His duty was being Archbishop of Krakow.
My bad. Got it! Thanks Jovan.
Reply
#14
(01-25-2012, 12:16 AM)JayneK Wrote: I always wondered why Paul VI went against the commission.  It was not typical for him.

Here's a good article on why:

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

and here is the book summary and review (of a book by a peritus of Vatican II) mentioned in the first sentence of the article:
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html#II

The arguments here seem pretty air-tight to me. I've never seen anyone even attempt to answer them....

Reply
#15
(01-25-2012, 02:04 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 01:55 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: Off hand, I can't think of the last Curial Cardinal elected Pope.

Benedict XVI and Pius XII?

I hadn't forgotten Benedict XVI since he had already been mentioned as a Curial Cardinal, but somehow Pius XII slipped my mind.
Reply
#16
(01-25-2012, 02:35 AM)moneil Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 02:04 AM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 01:55 AM)jovan66102 Wrote: Off hand, I can't think of the last Curial Cardinal elected Pope.

Benedict XVI and Pius XII?


John XIII was Patriarch of Venice (1953 - 1959) when he was elected Pope.  He had served in the Vatican Diplomatic Corps before that.

Paul VI was Archbishop of Milan (1954 - 1963) when elected Pope.  He had served in the Vatican Diplomatic Corps and in the Secretariate of State before that.
And the Archbishop of Milan is ALWAYS made a Cardinal.

Except this time.

Pius XII's feelings about Giovanni Montini (Paul VI) are pretty clear here - he didn't want Montini voting in any conclaves, so he refused him a red hat.
One of John XXIII's first moves as Pope was to give Montini a promotion to Cardinal.
I don't exactly know what happened with the Pacelli/Montini relationship in the mid-50's, but Montini must have done something to upset PP-12.
Reply
#17
(01-25-2012, 07:26 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 12:16 AM)JayneK Wrote: I always wondered why Paul VI went against the commission.  It was not typical for him.

Here's a good article on why:

http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

and here is the book summary and review (of a book by a peritus of Vatican II) mentioned in the first sentence of the article:
http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt12.html#II

The arguments here seem pretty air-tight to me. I've never seen anyone even attempt to answer them....

That is a great article.  It is very encouraging to know that this is an example of God's guidance of His Church.
Reply
#18
(01-25-2012, 02:35 AM)moneil Wrote: John XIII was Patriarch of Venice (1953 - 1959) when he was elected Pope.  He had served in the Vatican Diplomatic Corps before that.

Paul VI was Archbishop of Milan (1954 - 1963) when elected Pope.  He had served in the Vatican Diplomatic Corps and in the Secretariate of State before that.

But neither was a Curial Cardinal, as Pius and Benedict were.
Reply
#19
(01-25-2012, 02:47 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 02:35 AM)moneil Wrote: John XIII was Patriarch of Venice (1953 - 1959) when he was elected Pope.  He had served in the Vatican Diplomatic Corps before that.

Paul VI was Archbishop of Milan (1954 - 1963) when elected Pope.  He had served in the Vatican Diplomatic Corps and in the Secretariate of State before that.

But neither was a Curial Cardinal, as Pius and Benedict were.

I think that was Moneil's point. 
Reply
#20
(01-25-2012, 03:03 PM)Someone1776 Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 02:47 PM)jovan66102 Wrote:
(01-25-2012, 02:35 AM)moneil Wrote: John XIII was Patriarch of Venice (1953 - 1959) when he was elected Pope.  He had served in the Vatican Diplomatic Corps before that.

Paul VI was Archbishop of Milan (1954 - 1963) when elected Pope.  He had served in the Vatican Diplomatic Corps and in the Secretariate of State before that.

But neither was a Curial Cardinal, as Pius and Benedict were.

I think that was Moneil's point. 

Oops! My bad!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)