a fanciful, poetical Illustration of Harun Al-Rashid from the Thousand and One Nights - supposedly Charlemagne and this the most famous of the Abbasid Caliphs exchanged letters, clocks, and elephants and the key to the holy sepulchre (which must have nettled the Romans to no end had they known)

I’m definitely a little under the weather here today – metaphorically and literally – it must be the beginning of Fall, it’s freezing here – and I’m still thinking through mud, so forgive any lack of cogency and a tendency to wander for extended periods off-topic.

We continue, as we usually do, with the next 10 pages of Gibbon in this, the Grab-bag chapter 49 – a little of everything Western, tangentially Roman (city of Rome), marginally Eastern Roman (the Eastern Empire). We are introduced to the Holy Roman Empire and to the Papacy – as the two (Popes and Western emperors) discover each other, to their mutual benefit and discomfiture.

On the way, we glance briefly at one of the high points of Arab culture – Harun Al-Rashid, Abbasid Caliph, and very, very briefly look at the beginning of the Invasions of the Norsemen, the last great movements of the Migration of Peoples in Northern Europe.

Gibbon, being a good Prostestant, goes out of his way to demonstrate just HOW CORRUPT the Papacy had become in the 900′s and 1000′s after it had broken away from Constantinople – we follow him into the details of John XII’s papacy.

On to… the Sons of Charlemagne…

Photo of the ruins of Castle of Canossa in the Romagna, the place the German Emperor Henry IV in 1077 was forced to walk to in penance to the Pope - a kind of sweet revenge by the Papacy for a century of subservience to German Emperors

Winner of many civil wars within his own family - Louis the Pious, contemporary depiction from 826 as a miles Christi (soldier of Christ), with a poem of Rabanus Maurus overlaid - from WIKI

Traditional portrait of John XII - that it CANNOT LOOK AT ALL LIKE JOHN XII is I guess beside the point (John was 27 when he died, he was made Pope at 19)- perhaps that is why its good to know the truth about such ivory-towered, be-pedestal-ed personages such as Popes -

The influence of two sister prostitutes, Marozia and Theodora, was founded on their wealth and beauty, their political and amorous intrigues: the most strenuous of their lovers were rewarded with the Roman mitre, and their reign may have suggested to the darker ages the fable of a female pope.

The bastard son, the grandson, and the great-grandson of Marozia, a rare genealogy, were seated in the chair of St. Peter, and it was at the age of nineteen years that the second of these became the head of the Latin church. His youth and manhood were of a suitable complexion; and the nations of pilgrims could bear testimony to the charges that were urged against him in a Roman synod, and in the presence of Otho the Great. As John XII. had renounced the dress and decencies of his profession, the soldier may not perhaps be dishonoured by the wine which he drank, the blood that he spilt, the flames that he kindled, or the licentious pursuits of gaming and hunting. His open simony might be the consequence of distress; and his blasphemous invocation of Jupiter and Venus, if it be true, could not possibly be serious.

But we read, with some surprise, that the worthy grandson of Marozia lived in public adultery with the matrons of Rome; that the Lateran palace was turned into a school for prostitution, and that his rapes of virgins and widows had deterred the female pilgrims from visiting the tomb of St. Peter, lest, in the devout act, they should be violated by his successor. The Protestants have dwelt with malicious pleasure on these characters of Antichrist; but to a philosophic eye, the vices of the clergy are far less dangerous than their virtues.

(DEF III, vol.5, ch.49, pp.138-139)

The vices of the clergy are far less dangerous than their virtues? A little Protestant proselytizing strategy for Catholic countries? It sounds like we’re overhearing a comment of the Republican National Committee discussing a strong Democratic candidate.

and what’s more (just to show that Gibbon isn’t entirely out there on the fringe) here’s what WIKI says about John XII:

Pope John XII (c. 937 – May 14, 964), born Octavianus, was Pope from December 16, 955, to May 14, 964. The son of Alberic II, Patrician of Rome (932–954), and his stepsister Alda of Vienne, he was a seventh generation descendant of Charlemagne on his mother’s side.
Before his death, Alberic administered an oath to the Roman nobles in St. Peter’s, that on the next vacancy of the papal chair his only son, Octavianus, should be elected pope. He succeeded his father as Patrician of Rome in 954, at only seventeen years of age. After the death of the reigning pontiff, Agapetus II, Octavanius, then eighteen years of age, was actually chosen his successor on 16 December, 955. His adoption of the apostolic name of John XII was the third example of taking a regnal name upon elevation to the papal chair, the first being John II (533–535) and the second John III. Pope John XII was depicted as a coarse, immoral man in the writings which remain about his papacy, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general disgrace.

An account is given in Patrologia Latina of the charges leveled against him:
Then, rising up, the cardinal priest Peter testified that he himself had seen John XII celebrate Mass without taking communion. John, bishop of Narni, and John, a cardinal deacon, professed that they themselves saw that a deacon had been ordained in a horse stable, but were unsure of the time. Benedict, cardinal deacon, with other co-deacons and priests, said they knew that he had been paid for ordaining bishops, specifically that he had ordained a ten-year-old bishop in the city of Todi… They testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father’s concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse. They said that he had gone hunting publicly; that he had blinded his confessor Benedict, and thereafter Benedict had died; that he had killed John, cardinal subdeacon, after castrating him; and that he had set fires, girded on a sword, and put on a helmet and cuirass. All, clerics as well as laymen, declared that he had toasted to the devil with wine. They said when playing at dice, he invoked Jupiter, Venus and other demons. They even said he did not celebrate Matins and the canonical hours nor did he make the sign of the cross.

Enemies defeated him in battle and occupied lands that belonged to the popes. In order to protect himself against the intrigues in Rome and the power of Berengar II of Italy (950–963), John made a deal with Otto I, king of the Germans. He pledged allegiance to Otto and crowned him emperor of the Holy Roman Empire on February 2, 962. In return, Otto promised to recognize only John as pope. Ten days later, the pope and emperor ratified the Diploma Ottonianum, under which the emperor became the guarantor of the independence of the papal states. This was the first effective guarantee of such protection since the Carolingian Empire. After Otto left Rome and reconquered the Papal States from Berengar, however, John became fearful of the emperor’s power and sent envoys to the Magyars and the Byzantine Empire to form a league against Otto. His intrigues were discovered by Otto I, who, after defeating and imprisoning Berengar II, returned to Rome. Otto I subsequently summoned a council which deposed John XII, who was in hiding in the mountains of Campania, and elected Pope Leo VIII (963–965) in his stead.

An attempt at a revolt was made by the inhabitants of Rome even before Otto I left the city. Upon his departure, John XII returned at the head of a formidable company of friends and retainers, thus causing Leo VIII to seek safety in immediate flight. The Emperor determined to make an effort in support of Leo VIII, but before he reached the city John XII had died.

Pope Benedict V (964) soon succeeded him but was successfully deposed by Leo VIII.
Onofrio Panvinio, in the revised edition of Bartolomeo Platina’s book about the popes, added an elaborate note indicating that the legend of Pope Joan may be based on a mistress of John XII: Panvinius, in a note to Platina’s account of pope Joan, suggests that the licentiousness of John XII, who, among his numerous mistresses, had one called Joan, who exercised the chief influence at Rome during his pontificate, may have given rise to the story of “pope Joan

(from John XII, WIKI)

Researching our friend Pope John XII, I found this interesting list of “Sexually Active Popes” – which seems a little provocative to say the least – but I guess there’s a list for everything – who knew?

The 897 'cadaver synod' involving Formosus (#112), the first cardinal bishop to be elected pope

Two recent lists at Anura Guruge’s popes and papacy.

Cardinal bishops elected pope (as of 769) — posted August 23, 2010.
Click << here >>

Cardinal deacons elected pope (as of 769) — posted August 18, 2010.
Click << here >>

Are you familiar with the 897 ‘cadaver synod’ involving the dead body of Pope Formosus (#112), the first cardinal bishop to be elected pope? The cardinal bishop post talks about Formosus.

Enjoy.

On May 10, 2010, just over a month ago, I started questioning WHETHER Clement XII’s (#247) January 10, 1731 constitution, Pastorale officium, had been changed post 1913-1914 because if it had not, I could not see how Cardinal Re was deemed to have precedence over Cardinal Arinze.

In the English translation of Pastorale officium it said that in the case of Cardinal Bishops their precedence would be based upon their original date of episcopal consecration.

Once you discounted the Dean and Sub-Dean, Cardinal Re would not have had precedence over Cardinal Arinze per this criteria. This is what was driving me nuts. I live for facts.

So by all means check all my posts. I was very consistent. I kept on asking … did the 1731 rule get changed and if so WHEN? This post, of June 6, 2010, will give you context. PLEASE check all the links. I have NOTHING to hide. I kept on saying … this doesn’t make sense. Tell me what the rules are.

People told me that the 1731 rules got changed in 1917 (Code of Canon Law), 1961, 1962 and 1983 (Code of Canon Law).

I kept of saying I couldn’t find the papal edict. HELP ME!

Somebody, who should have known better, told me to FORGET 1731 because it was an OBSCURE law!

I hit the roof. The 1731 rulings set the basis for all the precedence rules that apply to the College of Cardinals.

But last night, viz. Friday, June 11, 2010, after 48 hours of frantic two-and-fro emailing with a new collaborator in Turin, Italy, we now have an answer.

Mr. Andrea Mondello, http://avemundi.host-ed.net/, PLEASE take a bow. You are a hero. A credit to Italy. THANK YOU, Andrea.

Andrea Mondello who solved the 1731 puzzle

Andrea and I had been communicating via e-mail on papacy-related issues for a couple of weeks. To begin with he sought anonymity. Anybody who has dealt with me knows that I always honor and obey their wishes. Andrea, understood, that I was getting increasingly frustrated with this 1731 ruling issue — especially the lack of ANY HELP from the Church. Thursday night he asked me for details so that he could look into it in Latin. [I have never claimed to even marginally proficient in Latin. Sinhalese was my mother tongue. Now I only speak two languages: reasonably good English with an heavy accent, and extremely foul English, with an ease that baffles most given my usual demeanor, in the rare occasions when I pretend to be angry.]

***********

The English translation of the 1731 Constitution is in error.

What is stated in the 1913 (English) Catholic Encyclopedia, at http://newadvent.org/cathen/03333b.htm, is WRONG!

New Advent, 1731 ruling, screen shot, June 12, 2010. Translation is in error.

—-
This translation, which is wrong, is reproduced in Salvador Miranda’s ‘ The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church‘ Web site, http://www2.fiu.edu/~mirandas/guide-xviii.htm (as of July 12, 2010):

Salvador Miranda's 'The Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church,' screen shot on June 12, 2010 ... referencing the 1731 ruling

[[ Salvador will rush to update this. So, do a right-click, 'Page Info'. If what you see is different and the update date is post June 12, 2010, Dear Salvador, has updated the page. ]]

*********

What Andrea found was that the translation is wrong. The Latin does not, in anyway, talk about ‘episcopal consecration.’!

What it does say is that seniority within the order of Cardinal Bishops is based on when one became a Cardinal Bishop.

That makes sense. But it is DIFFERENT to the precedence rules for Cardinals Priests and Deacons. It is NOT when one became a cardinal, it is when one became a Cardinal Bishop.

Per that, Cardinal Re does have precedence over Cardinal Arinze … but NOT if the pope-elect is not a bishop and as such has to be consecrated. That might be Cardinal Martins! The oldest. Yes, we have a translation error here too.

I still have to check Cardinal Villot’s credentials. << please read >> I have yet to locate the announcement on Dec. 12, 1974 which elevated Baggio, Samorè and Villot to that of Cardinal Bishops on the same day. Yes, of the three Villot was the first to be created a cardinal. So that would be the logical tie-breaker — but it would be interesting to see the order in which the name were listed in the Dec. 12, 1974 announcement.

*********

So, I am finally cool. I understand. Thanks to Andrea I got the facts I was seeking.

1731 NEVER did get changed. I am GLAD. I couldn’t find anything that said that it got changed. That was my problem.

So 1731 still rules, but the English translation is wrong.

*********

The Catholic Encyclopedia entry with this WRONG translation has been there for 96 years!

I am the first to have agitated about it. WOW. I feel special.

I know Salvador’s entry has been there for at least 3 years. I learned off the ‘incorrect’ ruling from his Web site.

So all these years. Nobody spotted these errors. Nobody questioned. Just like two years ago, when I first argued that I really can’t find any proof that St. Gregory I the Great (#64) was a Benedictine. There were folks who were very upset with me. I kept on saying … give me proof. With this 1731 rule it was the same. I knew that something was wrong. Andrea solved the mystery.

Thank YOU. Here is a fragment of Andrea’s e-mail FINALLY nailing this issue.

Andrea's pivotal June 11, 2010 email NAILING this issue. Thank YOU.

Hope this is all clear.

To summarize.

Clement XII’s 1731 precedence rules continue to be the basis for precedence within the College.

The English translation WAS WRONG.

The rules for Cardinal Bishops are different.

It is NOT when you first became a cardinal but when you became a Cardinal Bishop.

But, in the absence of the Dean and Sub-Dean, it is the OLDEST cardinal bishop, as opposed to the most senior, that gets to consecrate a pope-elect who is not a bishop. [But, we have a debate on this right now. OLDEST too might be a bad translation! It might be senior ...]

Anura Guruge

Please read the linked post. Anura Guruge

I still can’t find any reference as to whether the 1731 precedence rules for cardinal bishops got changed at some point post-1913. I have faxed and emailed the Vatican. The head of the Vatican Library gave me the fax number for Archbishop Manuel Monteiro de Castro, Secretary to the College of Cardinals, and told me to ask him. I did over two weeks ago. I contacted the Holy See Permanent Delegation to the U.N. in New York. I solicited help from two other archbishops. NOTHING.

So, as ever, I have a theory. Maybe I have unearthed a can of worms. MAYBE, the folks had forgotten about the 1731 rule as it applied to cardinal bishops. Lets face it. I have found enough folks who claim to be experts on papal and cardinal stuff that did not know of it. One tried to brush it off as ‘the obscure 1731 ruling.’ Very amusing. That obscure 1731 ruling was what set ALL rules of precedence vis-à-vis the College of Cardinals. So it can’t be that obscure. So my current theory. The 1731 rule was possibly never changed! Hey, it is MY THEORY. Prove me wrong.

Just in case you are new to this please start by reading this post … and the links referenced therein.

SO LET US REVISIT 1978
The August 1978 conclave, that elected John Paul I (#264), is of particular interest because it was the first instance where both the Dean and Sub-Dean could not participate in a conclave because they were beyond the 80 year cut-off that came into play as of January 1, 1971. The same was true at the October 1978 conclave, but I am willing to believe and concede that whatever took place in the first conclave got repeated at this conclave since the cast of characters was 98% the same. [Both the Dean, the now pope, and the Sub-Dean, Cardinal Angelo Sodano attended the 2005 conclave.]

Until I started to question the precedence issue, it had been taken as a given that the chain-smoking, French Cardinal, Jean-Marie Villot, the Camerlengo and the Secretary of State to the deceased Pope, i.e., Paul VI (#263), had deputized for the Dean (and Sub-Dean). Yes, I myself, state this in my book — because I went by what I had found in other sources. But since I have started question the precedence issue I have emails to prove that the so called definitive lists on who attended the 1978 conclaves might be in doubt!

Given conclave secrecy what do we ACTUALLY know as to who deputized as Dean at the August 1978 conclave.

We actually know very little. Go look. Hardly anybody mentions the Dean or Sub-Dean, or that they had to be deputized, in the context of this conclave.

In this post I enumerate all the duties of the Dean (or his deputy) during a a conclave.

Start looking. All we know, and the original source here appears to be Andrew M. Greely in his 1979 ‘The Making Of the Popes 1978,’ is that Villot is SUPPOSED to have asked Albino Luciani whether he accepts his canonical election as the Supreme Pontiff. Yes, this is a defining task of the Dean. But, do we REALLY know that it was Villot who asked the question? This quote appears in a section of the book which is in bold, italic. Those sections are supposed to be ‘best guess’ conjecture.

So we have two key possibilities:

1/ Greely, who is far from infallible, got it wrong. He assumed that it is the Camerlengo who asks that question. Easy enough ‘confusion.’ Definitely sounds like a task that would be done by the Camerlengo.
–
2/ Villot, in all the excitement, overstepped his mark. Possible.

OK, MAYBE IT WAS VILLOT
To check this out I compiled this table of the four suburbicarian see cardinal bishops that did attend the August 1978 conclave.

Three of the cardinal were appointed cardinal bishops on the same day, viz. December 12, 1974.

But, notice that Villot was the first among those four to be made a cardinal. So he, from pure ‘straight-line’ seniority, had been a cardinal longer than the other three.

Now, per the 1731 precedence rules, ‘straight-line’ seniority is what determines seniority for cardinal priests and cardinal deacons, even once a deacon uses jus optionis to become a cardinal priest.

So … following 1961-1962 did the 1731 precedence for cardinal bishops get changed so that ‘straight-line’ seniority applies across the board. When you are appointed cardinal determines precedence even if you are elevated to a higher order.

SO NOW LET US LOOK AT THE CURRENT FOUR CARDINAL BISHOPS
So I compiled a similar table for the current suburbicarian see cardinal bishops — under 80.

Draw your own conclusions.

If we go by the 1731 rule it is Cardinal Arinze.

If we go by the first to be made a cardinal, it is again Cardinal Arinze.

If we go by the oldest (per the 1983 Code of Canon Law reference) it would be Cardinal Martins.

Cardinal Re only gets the nod, IF the rule was changed to say, first to be made a cardinal bishop.

So … that is where we are.

Thank. All the best. Enjoy.

This is a follow up to my May 14, 2010 posting
‘Precedence Among Cardinal Bishops‘.
Please read that to get the relevant background and context.

Please also read this post on College of Cardinals preferment rules.

IF the precedence rules for Cardinal Bishops did change so that their seniority too (bar that of the Dean and Sub-Dean) would be based on when they were created (as has always been the case for Cardinal Priests and Cardinal Deacons), as opposed to their original episcopal consecration, then it had to have happened post 1961-1962.

In 1961 and then 1962 John XXIII (#262) made two far-reaching rulings that changed the fundamental character of the College. Following those changes it makes sense, if the rules of precedence for Cardinal Bishops were changed, though, as yet, I have not been able to find a papal edict spelling out this change.

UNORDAINED, VERY YOUNG CARDINAL DEACONS
Prior to the promulgation of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, men who were not in Holy Orders could still be created cardinals, but they could only be Cardinal Deacons.

During the Renaissance and into the 19th century it was not unusual to have young, worldly, unordained Cardinal Deacons, typically with aristocratic connections.

Don Luis Antonio Jaime de Borbón y Farnesio, the youngest son of King Philip V of Spain, was created a Cardinal Deacon on December 19, 1735, at the express behest of his father, by Clement XII (#247) – the same pope that instituted the 1731 precedence rule for Cardinal Bishops. Cardinal Borbón y Farnesio was all of 8 years old! [A year earlier, when he was 7, the pope, succumbing to imperial coercion, had given Luis Antonio power over the Archdiocese of Toledo (Spain).]

Leo X (#218), Giovanni di Lorenzo de’ Medici, the second son of the famed Florentine Lorenzo ‘il Magnifico’ de’ Medici was created a Cardinal Deacon, at the age of 13, by Innocent VIII (#214), in March 1489 – though the pope waited until the cardinal was 16 before disclosing of his creation. [This was prior to in pectore creations coming to be 1536.]

JUS OPTIONIS PREFEREMENT RULES
In the early 13th century, about 150 years after the College was instituted, jus optionis (right of option) came to be. Per jus optionis, whenever a cardinalate was vacant, the most senior of the cardinals residing in or around Rome could opt for that title. In the case of cardinal bishops, they could, per this scheme, opt for one (and only one) transfer of bishopric during their lifetime – albeit with Ostia always reserved for the Dean. Cardinal priests and cardinal deacons could use this option either within their order or, more significantly, to opt for a title in a higher order. Per this scheme, the senior most Cardinal Deacon could ask to be made a Cardinal Bishop.

In 1586 Sixtus V (#228), who did much to reform the College and the curia, enacted a constitution that stated that one needed to be at least twenty-two years old in order to be created a cardinal deacon and, moreover, be prepared to be ordained within a year of their creation.

[With this ruling Sixtus might have been trying to atone for the appointment of his fourteen year old grand-nephew who as far as can be seen was never ordained, though he went on to become a Cardinal Bishop per the jus optionis preferment rules.]

Upon being ordained, a cardinal deacon would be re-assigned as a cardinal priest (with a new title) – but only when a new cardinal deacon was created to back fill the resulting vacancy. Sixtus V also updated the jus optionis preferment rules were to state that cardinal deacons must have ten years of tenure before they could request a vacant suburbicarian see [i.e., be a cardinal bishop]. However, the Cardinal Protodeacon [i.e., the earliest created], provided that he was thirty years or older, could opt for a suburbicarian see if it became vacant for a third time since his creation. The Sixtus rulings were embodied into the 1917 Canon Law.

CLEMENT XII, IN 1731, WAS TRYING TO COPE WITH JUS OPTIONIS
You could now see what Clement XII was trying to achieve with his 1731 precedence ruling.

He was basically trying to give seniority to career clerics. Hence, the emphasis on original episcopal consecration. This makes a lot of sense given the jus optionis.

In 1961, John XXIII (#262) with his Ad Suburbicarias Dioeceses motu proprio overrode jus optionis. John decreed that the senior most cardinal priest or deacon no longer had the right to opt for a vacant suburbicarian see [i.e., to seek promotion to be a cardinal bishop]. Henceforth, the filling of a vacant suburbicarian see would be a prerogative of the pope, who could do so by creating a new cardinal or by promoting any of the existing cardinals, irrespective of their seniority. Ad Suburbicarias Dioeceses is a relatively succinct motu proprio and there appears to be no mention that the 1731 precedence rule was changed.

In 1962, via another motu proprio John required that all cardinals receive episcopal consecration unless an explicit exemption is granted by the pope, typically on the grounds of age. So, as of 1962, the concerns that must have prompted Clement XII to issue his precedence ruling were no longer applicable. So it would have been appropriate to have the precedence for Cardinal Bishops be the same as that for Cardinal Priests and Cardinal Deacons; i.e., seniority as of creation.

The problem is that we can’t find the necessary papal edict.

Five Related Articles: 1. Over 80 Rule 2. Dean may be excluded
3. Camerlengo and The Major Penitentiary
4. The Next Conclave — Those That Will Officiate
5. Follow-up to Precedence Among Cardinal Bishops
6. College of Cardinals, the jus optionis preferment rules

This all has to do with precedence within the College of Cardinals, particularly come a conclave, and you should please refer to the above 4 articles for more background and context.

The Dean of the College of Cardinals and the Sub-Dean of the College, both of who have to be Cardinal Bishops, are the two most senior members of the College, by definition.

On February 24, 1965, Pope Paul VI (#263) with motu proprio, Sacro Cardinalium Consilio, decreed that seniority would no longer be the basis for who would be the Dean and Sub-Dean of the College of Cardinals when these posts became vacant (though this long standing tradition had been incorporated into the 1917 Code of Canon Law). Instead, when a new Dean or Sub-Dean was required, the cardinals bishops would elect one from among their ranks – independent of seniority, albeit subject to the person elected being approved by the pope.

[What motivated Paul to make this change is unknown. It was a full 5 years prior to his momentous Ingravescentem aetatem motu proprio, that deemed that starting January 1, 1971, cardinals over the age of eighty would not be eligible to participate in a conclave and thus be papal electors. By making it possible for the Dean and the Sub-Dean not to be the oldest, this change made it possible that the Dean and Sub-Dean had a shot at attending a conclave -- as was the case when the then Dean, Cardinal Ratzinger [now, Pope Benedict XVI (#266), attended as a 78 year old. However, the Dean nor the Sub-Dean could attend either of the 1978 conclaves since they were both over 80.]

This posting is all about the precedence among the 4 other Cardinal Bishops — since the one with most precedence will deputize for the Dean and Sub-Dean if both of them are precluded from participating in a conclave — which is the case right now, since both incumbents are over 80. Please refer to article #4 in the list at the top.

Per another Paul VI 1965 motu proprio, this one, Ad Purpuratorum Patrum, on February 11, it had been established that the Oriental Rites Patriarchs, would always be classed as Cardinal Bishops, but would be ranked below the Cardinal Bishops who had title to a suburbicarian see.

So far, so good. Right? But, this where it starts getting complicated and, alack, messy.

However, there was a January 10, 1731 constitution by Pope Clement XII (#247), Pastorale officium, that said DIFFERENT when it came to Cardinal Bishops. In its §5 it said that in the case of Cardinal Bishops their precedence would be based upon their original date of episcopal consecration.

In the Latin it goes as: ‘Quod vero attinet ad alteram controversiam, aliàs circa ipsum decanatum excitatam, num scilicet in eius assecutione cardinalis anterior in ordine episcopali, sed posterior in cardinalatu, praeferendus esset cardinali posteriori in ordine episcopali, sed anteriori in cardinalatu, declarationem a Benedicto praedecessore in litteris suis praefatis desuper editam tenore praesentium approbantes, pro maiori illius firmitate ac potiori cautelb, iterum statuimus, antiquitatem inter episcopos cardinales in dictâ Curiâ praesentes non esse metiendam sive ducendam a tempore suae promotionis ad cardinalatus honorem, sed a tempore eorum ingressus in ordinem episcopalem, itaut decanatus eiusdem sacri collegii ad antiquiorem in ordine episcopali, tametsi posteriorem in cardinalatu, pervenire debeat, et qui prius alicui ex dictis sex ecclesiis suburbicariis praefectus fuerit, praeferatur in assecutione decanatus huiusmodi alteri, qui ante ipsum ad cardinalatus dignitatem promotus fuisset.’

The 1913-1914 Catholic Encyclopedia, which didn’t get much wrong, now available online at www.newadevent.com, confirms this precedence for the Cardinal Bishops. You can find it in the last paragraph here, and you will see that it clearly reference the 1731 constitution — including §5.

Thus, we know, incontrovertibly, that the 1731 precedence ruling applied, at a minimum, between 1731 and 1913.

At the time Clement XII would have sought this rule of precedence for Cardinal Bishops, you did not have to be a priest, let alone a bishop to be made a Cardinal Deacon. Then, per the preferment rules of that time cardinal deacons could, using jus optionis, seek to become Cardinal Bishops after ten years — of if you were the senior most Cardinal Deacon, the third time a suburbicarian see became available during his tenure as a cardinal.

If you look at Web sites that lists cardinals, particularly in the context of conclaves, between 1731 and 1913, you will discover, to your dismay, that they do NOT reflect the Cardinal Bishop precedence rule. So much for veracity. No excuses. No caveats. We know, for a fact, that the 1731 rule applied up to 1913. So, if people didn’t pay heed to it … they GOOFED. Simple as that.

So far, so good? Get it? 1731 precedence for Cardinal Bishops applied, without exception till at least 1913 since the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia quotes the rule without ambiguity.

It is unlikely to have been changed by the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Nothing had changed between 1731 and 1917 when it came to Cardinal Bishops to motivate such a change, though the 1917 Law required that all cardinals be priests, at a minimum.

It was in 1962 that John XXIII (#262) issued a motu proprio requiring that all cardinals be consecrated as bishops — unless an explicit dispensation was provided by the pope.

But, in 1961, John XXIII made another major change. This time to the jus optionis rules related to preferment. The senior most Cardinal Priest nor Cardinal Deacon could no longer seek elevation to be a Cardinal Bishop. The pope had total prerogative as to how he filled a vacant a suburbicarian see. He could create a new Cardinal Bishop or elevate an existing cardinal. However, the motu proprio, Ad suburbicarias dioeceses, that implemented this change does not mention that the rules of precedence were changed. But, as of these two 1961-1962 it would make sense if precedence for Cardinal Bishops were aligned with those for the other cardinals.

Yes, after this juncture it would make sense if the 1731 ruling was annulled and Cardinal Bishops, like the other cardinals, enjoyed precedence based on simple seniority as to when they were created.

BUT, we can’t find any papal edicts stating this.

My friend, Salvador Miranda, who runs the incomparable ‘Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church,‘ made this annotation to reflect what is going on.

Mr. Miranda is using the Annuario Pontificio as to why he no longer reflects the 1731 rule. [But, the 1731 rule is a lso not reflected between 1731 and 1913 ... let alone 2006.]

The Annuario Pontificio, as far as I know,is NOT a Vatican publication. They can’t change the rules. Actually neither can the Vatican per se. Precedence can only be changed by a pope.

There is a LOT of confusion here.

What I am doing is giving YOU all the facts … as I can find.

In my limited experience, Rome might be good at many things, but competence isn’t one of them. < smile, smile > Just go check their College of Cardinal statistics. If they can’t get those right, I can envisage that they could also have overlooked the 1731 rule.

Basically, this ongoing. I have no axe to grind. I am only interested in accuracy, veracity and credibility. IF you can help, PLEASE do so.

Many thanks.

Please also read this May 15, 2010 Follow-Up Article.