by Anura Guruge
on August 24, 2022
In the end, once you get past the emotive stuff, an EX-POPE is an EX-POPE.
You can’t deny or try to hide that an ex-pope was once a pope. So, pope emeritus does not bother me — though I would prefer ex-pope since that is more ‘obvious’.
Saying ‘Emeritus Bishop of Pope’ will just add confusion.
Plus, what is the point — really.
The pope by definition is the Bishop of Rome & the Bishop of Rome by definition is the pope.
You can’t be one without being the other. So, why obfuscate. Call a spade a spade.
Again, I will stress that I think EX-POPE sounds better — especially when the ex-pope continues to use his assumed papal (i.e., regnal) name. So, to I, Ex-Pope Benedict XVI is OK. That, you will notice, is how I always refer to him these days. Ex-Pope Benedict XVI is both technicall7 & factually accurate. He was Pope Benedict XVI, now he is EX-POPE Benedict XVI. All adds up. I don’t see a need to complicate it any further.
As ex-pope he is also, by definition, ex-Bishop of Rome. That goes without saying.
That he is a bishop cannot be taken away.
As to whether he is still a cardinal is a whole different matter & something outside of this post.
Mr G,
Although it isn’t the subject of this post, I wanted to chime in on my opinion on the ex-Pope being a cardinal.
Since our only recent example is Benedict my opinion extrapolates from the way he has acted and been treated. As you point out, he continues to be referred to by his papal name. Also he continues to wear white. He continues to live in residences that are ‘not available’ to cardinals under the normal way of doing things
Most importantly, Benedict continues to set himself apart from the other prelates of the church. In the events that he has attended in the Vatican [from the images I have seen] he is always seated slightly apart from the cardinals present, and always in the “pre-eminient” spot closest to the altar.
Based on these things, it seems like an ex-Pope already enjoys presedence beyond any cardinal. And since the ex-Pope is over 80 (and we can probably reasonably expect future ex-Popes to be similarly aged) there is no incentive from the ex-Pope to try to find a way to get cardinal-elector status.
Is there any argument for the ex-Pope to be a cardinal other than that he was created one prior to becoming pope? Being created a cardinal means that you are a member of the College of Cardinals. It seems to me that there are three things that can cause a prelate to leave the College:
1. The pope can remove a cardinal. This has been done twice in recent years, so no doubt about this one.
2. Death. Once prelates are dead it is pretty clear they are no longer members of the college.
3. Being voted by the college to become pope. Certainly the sitting pope isn;’t a member.
Since there is no automatic “right of return” to the college in scenarios 1 and 2 it doesn’t seem compelling to me that scenario 3 is any different.
Anyway – interested in your thoughts as usual Mr G.
Richard Truely
Thank YOU. Some very INTERESTING observations & thoughts.
PLEASE refer to the reply I just left for ‘Mark’ above on this same post/thread.
I think per Bob Dylan that “times are a changing”. While B16 was & even Francis if he does, will be past 80, there is no guarantee that FUTURE popes who resign will be over 80.
SMILE.
Do NOT forget (one of my favorite popes) the 3 TERM BENEDICT IX (#146, 148 & 151). Down the road we COULD — in theory — even have situations that an ex-pope might be a papabile!
People have already talked about that with B16 though he is too old.
*******
I am STILL trying to work out in my head what I THINK (which in many ways means DIDDLY) as to what is right & what is wrong re. ex-Pope.
An ex-pope was a pope. These days a duly elected pope. So, they should have precedence.
We have ex-presidents & PMs.
Ex-presidents attend functions with the president.
BIG QUESTION (though I think frailty will preclude it). Will ex-B16 attend next week’s consistory? That would be telling. I need to check, IF YOU KNOW please tell me, has ex-B16 attended any formal consistories?
So, I am begging for more time to fully answer ALL you points. I don’t have them straight in MY HEAD.
********
ANOTHER question to YOU.
Bishops are expected to tender their resignation at 75 to the Pope. Right?
So, how come the Bishop of Rome does NOT tender his resignation to the Pope & sees what the pope has to say.
Seems like a double standard.
You are a bishop or you are NOT.
If you are a bishop ….
******
One thing I am fairly sure about NOW. Papal resignations will become more commonplace going forward. It will not be another 600 years. I doubt whether it will even be 60.
You thoughts, PLEASE.
Thanks.
Of course it’s typical of college professors to use the “emeritus” appellation when retiring from their jobs. And since B16 is and was, at heart, a professor, that title seems appropriate enough.
You’re probably only kidding here, but “Ex-Pope” sounds far less formal, more colloquial, almost too casual–flippant even–for the high office that was (once) held. Like saying “ex-goalie” I think.
And whether or not you particularly like the man, a respect for the office seems to demand something a tad more dignified.
Should this or some other formal title be enshrined into, say, Canon Law? I hope not. In fact I hope this whole notion of “papal resignation” will not be revisited for another 600 (or more!) years!
Thanks Mark. I was in Maine, ambling, all day. I am (as ever) glad to get YOUR feedback.
Alas, I was NOT joking re. ‘EX’! You have have noticed that I always use ‘Ex-pope B16′ when I now talk about him.
I could be WRONG, but per the 1st sentence of my post, you might be letting emotions getting in the way.
I actually looked up the FORMAL definition of ’emeritus’. Which is: “having retired but allowed to retain their title as an honor”. NOTE, ‘but ALLOWED to …’. It implies that it is NOT a RIGHT. More of a concession. ALLOWED.
YOU do KNOW (of course) that we have Bishops & Archbishop emeritus. That is THEIR TITLE.
So, if an archbishop can be emeritus … so can the Bishop of Rome.
NOT sure why you think ‘EX’ is INFORMAL>
Ex just means, as it should, PRIOR, FORMER, ONCE.
Not just goalie. Ex-wife, ex-president, ex-CEO.
The office is reflected in what goes after the ex. In this case POPE. Ex-pope.
Nothing flippant about that.
Today I heard a LOT of people, including FOX, talk about ‘FORMER President’. Would you prefer that. Former Pope. EX is THE SAME THING.
********
Even IF Francis does not RESIGN he, like Celestine V, is going to ensure that resignations carry no penalties or stigma.
“Times they are a changing”.
But, we are OK in 2022. That is as far as I am willing to bet. 2023 is a whole different ball game. SMILE. Cheers. Thanks.
Regarding, say a future pope that’s under 80 who resigns…does he get to be Cardinal again? No, IMHO his red-hat days are done once he gives up the papacy. 😀
I mean, and I don’t think there is any clarity in Canon Law or any of the motu proprios about what happens after that–so far anyway–but (again) IMHO, once a cardinal is elected pope, and he “accepts canonical election”, he permanently ceases to be cardinal. A succeeding pope would be able to “restore” that right, if he so chose, of course….but why would he want to?
Emeritus–it’s an honorific. Nothing more, nothing less. It just to my ears that “Ex-Pope”–as a formal title–sounds harsh, and a tad flippant for the gravitas of the previous job. Sure, we are talking synonyms here…but some things do sound better than others, at least subjectively. 😉
And we both agree that Emeritus Archbishop of Rome (or some variation thereof) is too much of a mouthful, really.
Now, as informal “shorthand”, like on your blog or in my emails or whatever, I have no problem at all with “ex-Pope”. I mean we both constantly use P6 or JP2 or B16 to refer to prior pontificates just because we both know what and whom we are discussing, and it’s (much) faster to type that. Ex-pope is like that. 🙂
Anyway, my two cents… 🙂
Mark,
As ever SOME interesting & delightful points.
I am SORRY but I have to run. Have an appointment with the ‘Queen’. SMILE. ‘Queen’ tribute group. The ‘place’ I volunteer. We have 900 folks attending & I am SECURITY! Sorry.
Will respond tomorrow. Had to do a quick post on the cardinal who became a cardinal THOUGH he was NOT at the consistory.
PROVED, not that it needed proving, what I said in June. You don’t have to attend the consistory.
To QUEEN.
Cheers, Anura
OK. I am back.
So, you must have seen the pics. of Francis and former pope B16 today — with the new cardinals (bar the one in hospital). The two popes looked liked two peas in a pod. Dressed identically & seated elbow to elbow. I THINK Francis had that staged. It was incongruous, BUT WE need to THINK.
I have already done a post where I (a NON-Catholic, an areligious person) said I see both sides to papal resignation.
Mark, you need to tells us why you feel so strongly (I think) about popes resigning.
I was thinking. Canon Law requires bishops to submit their resignations to the pope when they turn 75.
And the Pope is the Bishop of Rome!
So, why are ‘we’ so ‘surprised’ when papal resignations come up?
What is WRONG with a pope resigning.
I can play devil’s advocate & provocatively ask, wouldn’t it have been better for the Church IF JP2 & P12 had resigned without insisting that they could not climb down from the cross?
So, Mark, we need to establish where YOU are coming from & today is a GREAT DAY.
I see that Francis is copying MY PUBLISHED LEAD today & going on about what a great man/pope Celestine V was. Man, I was saying that years ago — in PRINT.
Why can’t a former pope (& note I am not saying ‘EX’ in deference to you) be a cardinal.
I could be WRONG, but I get the feeling that you want former popes to be ‘punished’! Yes, there was a time when they were thrown in jail — as happened to poor/good Celestine V.
Why?
They have done no wrong.
Maybe they might even have done something good.
Fear of schism isn’t the whole answer.
We have a fairly active schism as of J23 & he did NOT retire.
And whatever schism we have had re. former B16 is minor, insignificant — not even a rounding error.
******
Former popes should NOT wear white. They should look slightly different from the pope.
******
OK. This will THROW you into a LOOP & I apologize in advance. Sorry.
I have a hunch … & I started researching it late last night.
Francis VERY WELL could be ‘Peter the Roman’ — the LAST POPE!
You KNOW (& I know you do) that HE (i.e., Francis) threw out all the papal titles bar two.
I get a feeling that he is going to PUSH ‘Bishop of Rome’ & go back to where we were 1800 years ago.
A Bishop of Rome. First among equals.
Think about that.
I have started combing through F’s statements. He is using ‘BoR’ rather than pope.
OK. As ever, academic/intellectual thoughts/comments. No disrespect. PAX.
Cheers, Anura
Good point!
Enjoy the show… Always enjoyed Queen–hopefully the tribute band will do them proud!
Ah, Mark. WOW. This guy was BEYOND amazing. I will post pictures & then do a full post. I will respond to Former Pope ‘shortly’ (today). I HOPE you have seen the pictures of the TWO POPES, dressed like TWINS in WHITE, with the new cardinals. SMILE. Cheers.
What is the name of the cover band? The name of the singer?
I ask because…well, my Nashville connection: My brother-in-law’s brother-in-law manages a guy that was at one point was up to tour with Queen between the Queen + Paul Rogers phase (c. 2006) and Adam Lambert fronting the band. Very very few singers can approach Freddy Mercury’s range and ability–as we both know–but this guy could…
One Night of Queen – Garry Mullen & The Works.
https://www.facebook.com/garymullenandtheworks
https://www.garymullenandtheworks.com/bios
This guy was AMAZING. AMAZING. And remember I see, a volunteer, groups every week. More to follow. Check him out. This could be THE guy.
https://www.guruge.com/anuras-picture-of-the-day-6-others-august-27-2022-great-waters-concerts-in-the-clouds-one-night-of-queen/
Back to our discussion of Francis, papal resignations/abdications, and so on…
My opinions here, of course. As Mad Magazine used to say, “suitable for framing or wrapping fish..” 🙂
The idea of the pope as a “suffering servant [of the servants of God, to extend the metaphor I guess]” is an image that appeals to Christians as a whole, which ties all the way back to the Prophetic age in the Old Testament. That, a Christ-like disregarding of personal comfort (and laments of “old age”–hey, we all do it! 🙂 ), he’ll see the job as given through to the proverbial–and actual–end.
For these reasons, and many more, papal resignations should remain very rare.
But there are exceptions where a resignation might be warranted. And I’m not disputing whether Francis or any pope CAN resign (of course he can), it’s more a case of whether he SHOULD resign… except maybe under the most dramatic of circumstances.
And then there is the whole question of certain “whispers in the loggia” forcing a sitting pope’s hand, of people–maybe an overzealous cardinal or group of cardinals eager to get their own agenda rolling–perhaps badgering an elderly man to give it all up, etc. (which may well have happened to Celestine V anyway).
But threats of schism nowadays are the least of considerations here, I think. It would be difficult, thanks to instant media these days, to make an argument that “I never resigned–I’m still pope!” when a billion people saw the announcement live on TV or YouTube.
Now, how should this newly-minted ex-pope (ahem) behave? Should he wear the white cassock anymore? Not really important IMHO, because I don’t think anyone really thinks there are two sitting popes in the Chair of Peter now. But entertaining the notion, maybe a black cassock trimmed in white (instead of rose (bishops) or red (cardinals)) would be appropriate, or maybe blue. Should the ex-pope go back to their home diocese? Maybe, but if the sitting pope has no problem with the ex-pope staying in Vatican City, I don’t see an issue.
And again, unless the next pope wants to restore the red hat, a former pope stops being a cardinal (or at least should) at the moment he accepted election as pope.
Just my thoughts…
Mark,
As ever always GREAT to see your point of view. You always give me food for thought. Thanks. [[I will have to check, but I think the EU banned using newsprint to wrap fish. In the ol’ days you would get fish & chips, from a Chippie, wrapped in newspaper. There were folks who INSISTED that it tasted different if it was not on print!]]
As for ‘whispers in the loggia’ I have ALWAYS been an advocate of ‘Vatican Plan B’. That used to AVOID all the ‘messiness’ to do with resignations & ‘unfit’ popes. I am still NOT 100% sure re. JPI — BUT did the Vatican abandon that option post JPI. {SMILE} Sure would eliminate the need for resignations.
******
Aren’t we talking different levels of schism. We don’t have full blown ones BUT don’t we already have at least three ‘small’ splinter factions? We do have Sedevacantism & that was WITHOUT any resigntations!
******
Amused that former pope wearing exact same outfit as incumbent does NOT bother you. SMILE.
******
There is a VERY GOOD reason why former popes will want to stay at the Vatican. IMMUNITY. Just think if Trump could have that. If they leave VC police can come knocking at their door. Did YOU consider that. So, NO, former popes will stay at the Vatican.
******
But, THE CRUCIAL point. You still have not articulated your passionate opposition to why a former pope can’t carry on being a cardinal.
I feel about that, what you feel about white cassock!
Please try and explain. I really AM curious.
Thanks. This is FUN. Aren’t we lucky that we can have these types of discussions.
All the best. Cheers, Anura
“passionate opposition”? Nah, hardly that.
But the whole point of nominating a person to become a cardinal (other than “thanks for the lifelong service!” gold-watch* of making someone 80+ a cardinal) is so that that person can be a papal elector. It just seems logical (to me) that one cannot be pope and cardinal at the same time…once a cardinal is elected pope he ceases to be a cardinal. Exchanges the red for the white, as it were. And kind of like the taking on a new name (e.g., Jorge -> Francis), in a sense. A new man! 🙂
Now,, assuming he later resigns/abdicates/is deposed, a subsequent pope may re-nominate him to the College if that pope so desires. But otherwise, it’s one-and-done.
But he does not cease to be a Bishop (that’s a sacramental Holy Order in Catholicism).
Oh, yeh, good point about the legal immunity–didn’t think about that. And as pope, I believe (if I remember correctly from one of your books) he effectively has given up citizenship in his own (former) country to be the sovereign of the Vatican City State, though I imagine that could be restored somehow, post-Abdication. And on another level, if only for security reasons, it makes sense for an ex-pope to stay put in VC. Much easier to keep the ol’ bean safe there, with the Swiss Guards close at hand! And far less expensive.
* Of course I am aware that there is somewhat more to it than that–that they can sit in on consistories and so on with the cardinal-electors, wear the scarlet, be involved in the pre-conclave meetings, etc.
Mark,
SMILE. SMILE. You said: “But the whole point of nominating a person to become a cardinal (other than “thanks for the lifelong service!” gold-watch* of making someone 80+ a cardinal) is so that that person can be a papal elector”.
Do YOU want to reconsider that?
Cardinals, like the Fed. Reserve, have a DUAL mandate. Electors is just one.
They are the pope’s advisors, confidants.
Your remark about creating over-80 cardinals …
As we speak over-80 cardinals are ACTIVELY participating in the consistory.
All cardinals, irrespective of age, take an active part in the Pre-Conclave CONGREGATIONS. Last few times the these Congregations were RUN by over-80s.
Are you saying that former popes should have NO role as advisors? Does that also then apply to former presidents?
I am SURE Francis calls up former-B16 (maybe not often, BUT he most likely has).
******
I could be wrong but I get this feeling that you take AFFRONT to papal resignations EVEN if a pope does it in the best interest of the Church.
Like: “how dare you resign”!
A bit like what used to be the UK attitude to suicide.
******
Again I have no skin in the game.
To I, as you know, this is all intellectual ‘games’.
You won’t like this, BUT when Francis became pope he did NOT cease to be a Jesuit!
So, maybe rethink.
I really have no strong feelings. Just academic. SMILE.
Enjoy.
And regarding Schism…yes, there are the Sede Vacantists out there, and as individual groups they have “elected” various minor (not to say insignificant) antipopes over the last 60 years or so. But while they make an interesting–if not downright humorous–sideline, their numbers are too insignificant to constitute much of a threat to the sitting pope. Even now with a pope-emeritus.
Eh, we’ve worn out this topic. .
But I will say that it’s not like the pope DOESN’T listen to, or seek and take advice from other, non-cardinal, prelates or from the laity even. I’m just saying that it doesn’t need to be under the guise of a (renewed) red hat.
But yes, while I’ll maintain that a papal resignation is limited and in some instances beneficial to the church as a whole, I maintain that resignations should be (very) rare events.
Yep. We have worn off topic. BUT, it was good discussion.
Did you read, in Crux, (page now down), that Conservative Cardinals, at the Consistory, are saying Conclave voting should be limited JUST to Rome-based cardinals?
******
Love it.
Back to the roots.
Bishop of Rome elected by Roman prelates. I am all for it.
You have MORE sources. Please dig up some.
Thanks. Cheers.
SMILE. I hope you were seated down. I didn’t make this up. I couldn’t have. My imagination is NOT that crazy.
Anura
Very apropos in that he is 93. SMILE.
https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2022/08/conservative-cardinal-calls-for-conclaves-to-be-limited-to-rome-based-cardinals
I’ll have to check that out–I usually check out John Allen’s Crux YouTube page (updated every Tuesday). Just one cardinal (Brandmueller) seems to be calling for that.
Yes. Just Brandmuller. Great idea. I am all for it. SMILE.