As a completely non-heraldic aside, when did the usage change from "John Cardinal Doe" to "Cardinal John Doe"? When I was a kid living outside Boston, we’d hear Richard Cardinal Cushing praying the rosary on the radio—every morning, it seems in retrospect—and I can’t imagine that it would have been the same coming from Cardinal Richard Cushing.
Joseph McMillan;97558 wrote:
As a completely non-heraldic aside, when did the usage change from "John Cardinal Doe" to "Cardinal John Doe"? When I was a kid living outside Boston, we’d hear Richard Cardinal Cushing praying the rosary on the radio—every morning, it seems in retrospect—and I can’t imagine that it would have been the same coming from Cardinal Richard Cushing.
I believe the the correct usage is still "John Cardinal Doe". If I’m not mistaken, this form comes from Latin, somehow.
steven harris;97557 wrote:
I might respectfully question the characterization of something that physically exists and that has actually been carried by a pope as “a complete invention” – no disrespect intended, of course.
The one used in that photo by John Paul II is the one that was made for Pope Leo XIII. Until it was made as a gift for him it existed in art only (i.e. paintings and statuary). A single barred cross for bishops and a double barred cross for archbishops have been widely used throughout centuries. This triple barred thing is a relatively modern invention after the rise of a very ultramontanist ceasaro-papism to try to give the papacy "one up" on everyone else. There has never as in not ever been a time when anyone has taken it seriously as a "papal" symbol.
I once saw a horse that had been surgically altered to have a single horn growing out of his head. Does that mean unicorns are real? This triple barred cross only "exists" because someone knowing that it had been used artistically decided to make one.
Joseph McMillan;97558 wrote:
As a completely non-heraldic aside, when did the usage change from "John Cardinal Doe" to "Cardinal John Doe"? When I was a kid living outside Boston, we’d hear Richard Cardinal Cushing praying the rosary on the radio—every morning, it seems in retrospect—and I can’t imagine that it would have been the same coming from Cardinal Richard Cushing.
I think it’s just a recent English language thing and not a formal change. Likely just the language leveling itself to treat all titles the same… President John Smith, Judge John Smith, Major John Smith, Bishop John Smith, etc.
Joseph McMillan;97558 wrote:
As a completely non-heraldic aside, when did the usage change from "John Cardinal Doe" to "Cardinal John Doe"? When I was a kid living outside Boston, we’d hear Richard Cardinal Cushing praying the rosary on the radio—every morning, it seems in retrospect—and I can’t imagine that it would have been the same coming from Cardinal Richard Cushing.
Technically speaking the correct form is still to place the word cardinal between the Christian and surnames of a cardinal. However, the modern media decided they didn’t like that and began using Cardinal John Doe in the same manner that you would say Bishop John Doe.
When the name of the new pope is announced you’ll hear the tradition formula, "Eminentissimum ac Reverendissimum Dominum, Dominum N. Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem N." (The Most Eminent and Most Reverend Lord, Lord N. Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church N.)
The correct practice of saying John Cardinal Doe is really an abbreviation of calling him John, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church Doe. This comes from a time, actually, before surnames were common and cardinals would simply have been addressed as Giovanni, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church of Ostia (or from wherever they hailed). Later, when surnames became common it was tacked on to the end of the title instead of mentioning where he was from.
But, like most things these days, the media ruined it.
Is there anything to prevent the present pope becoming simple monk - if he should choose to do so?
gselvester;97562 wrote:
But, like most things these days, the media ruined it.
Well, I don’t know. Personally I find tacking the last name at the end kind of awkward, correct or not. So I’d say from an non-traditional religious view, the media "fixed" it. 
Dcgb7f;97561 wrote:
I think it’s just a recent English language thing and not a formal change. Likely just the language leveling itself to treat all titles the same… President John Smith, Judge John Smith, Major John Smith, Bishop John Smith, etc.
No doubt. It’s like a linguistic version of Gresham’s law: bad usage drives out good.
arriano;97566 wrote:
Well, I don’t know. Personally I find tacking the last name at the end kind of awkward, correct or not. So I’d say from an non-traditional religious view, the media "fixed" it.
Well, we get to decide what our people are called, not CNN or the NY Times. So, the media can go bite us. It’s just like President Wilson. He was uncomfortable addressing Cardinal Gibbons as "Your Eminence" so he kept calling him "Mr. Gibbons". What a jerk!
gselvester;97570 wrote:
It’s just like President Wilson. He was uncomfortable addressing Cardinal Gibbons as "Your Eminence" so he kept calling him "Mr. Gibbons". What a jerk!
Father,
With due respect, President Wilson was a staunch Presbyterian churchman. Though you may interpret his actions as those of a "jerk", I wonder if you are being a bit uncharitable. Perhaps this was a matter of principle for the President, rather than a conscious attempt to be "jerk-like". I don’t mean to imply that his actions were not offensive to Cardinal Gibbons, rather that they were not necessarily intended to give offense. In my mind this is a good practical test as to whether one is a jerk…
David
I seem to recall reading that theEnglish monarch wasn’t thrilled by the Quaker habit of addressing him in a neutral rather than hierarchical form—which reflected a basic tenant of their religious belief that all men were equal before God. No intent to dis the King, however he may have taken it. In that regard (though in almost noting else) compatible with the Presbyterian view of things.
On the other hand, the letters addressd to the new Archbishop of the Military Archdiocese—i.e. the head of the Catholic chaplains n the US military,from (among others) then-President Bush and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, were addressed to "Your Eminence." (from the edition of the magazine of that archdiocese at the time of the installation of their new Archbishop Broglio)
Michael F. McCartney;97576 wrote:
On the other hand, the letters addressd to the new Archbishop of the Military Archdiocese—i.e. the head of the Catholic chaplains n the US military,from (among others) then-President Bush and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, were addressed to "Your Eminence." (from the edition of the magazine of that archdiocese at the time of the installation of their new Archbishop Broglio)
then they were just plain wrong - as an archbishop, Broglio is "Your Excellency" not "Your Eminence" (a style that has been restricted to Cardinals since Urban VIII)
I was reading this site and I was wondering about its accuracy
http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0077.html
steven harris;97578 wrote:
then they were just plain wrong - as an archbishop, Broglio is "Your Excellency" not "Your Eminence" (a style that has been restricted to Cardinals since Urban VIII)
Not "Mr. Archbishop"?
steven harris;97578 wrote:
then they were just plain wrong - as an archbishop, Broglio is "Your Excellency" not "Your Eminence" (a style that has been restricted to Cardinals since Urban VIII)
"Both an Archbishop and a Bishop would be greeted as "Your Excellency" or "Your Grace" (very British). For example, one would greet Bishop Loverde as "Your Excellency." In writing to him you would address the letter, "The Most Reverend Paul S. Loverde, Bishop of Arlington," with the salutation, "Your Excellency."
from article http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0077.html