Click to ENLARGE. News story snippets from ‘Google News‘.
Never mind what Jesus would say.
I am more interested in what John Paul II or John XXIII would have said. Or even ‘Paul VI’, ‘John Paul I’ or ‘Benedict XV’ (not XVI).
I am nonplussed.
Yes, in May of last year some had started to worry that he might become “Putin’s Pope”.
I have often said that Francis is very like Trump!
There are a couple of ‘S’ words that readily spring to my mind as I sit here stewing about Francis and this stupid statement. One of these ‘S’ words is SENILE.
You could easily call John Paul II the ASTUTE POPE. He was that.
The exposed text says, and it is ‘Pope Francis’ speaking: “I have prayed for time to stop wars, to save the planet, to welcome all the refugees, to restore justice and renew the Church. But God, perhaps …”
WOW. WOW. WOW.
“But God, perhaps …”
This cartoon strip which is ULTRA FRANCIS FRIENDLY is admitting that Pope Francis’ prayers …
Well, I have SAID it BEFORE — about how Francis needs to STOP PRAYING. I have said it more forcefully.
I really don’t KNOW. That is why I am asking. Maybe it says so in the Bible? OOOPs! My mistake. Popes are NOT mentioned in the Bible. Oh?
The recent work I have been doing about popes got me THINKING (which is something I just can’t stop doing).
God & St. Peter between them must have SOME CRITERIA as to what is RIGHT and what is WRONG.
Yes? No?
Let’s, for the sake of it, take the blessing of same sex couple?
Where does God stand on that? He must have a position. Where does St. Peter stand on that?
The traditionalist are opposed to that and many other things. Are THEY RIGHT? Is God on their side. What about St. Peter.
From what I know, (THOUGH, I, OF COURSE, don’t believe in heaven (and SURE don’t won’t to be stuck there for eternity), St. Peter is the arbitrator. Plus, popes are his special envoys.
Just asking. Let me know. Are there any OFFICIAL Church teachings as to popes and heaven.
I know of AT LEAST two popes who deserve to be in heaven. AND PLEASE, don’t start talking about SAINTS. Men create popes as Saints! Not God. God, & St. Peter, are not bound by what men do, even popes … especially the ones that they might not let into heaven.
The ONLY two popes I can be sure of. My FAVORITE pope of ALL TIME — Saint Celestine V. Now that was a POPE. He was a MAN. He was a true Saint. My next Saint John XXIII.
Pope’s are NOT allowed to — though obviously they are a law onto themselves (not answerable to any earthly authority) — signify their preference as to who they would like to see as their successor. And to be fair, Francis is NOT doing that. He is not signaling WHO he would like to see elected as the Next Pope.
What he is however doing, cutely & cleverly is BLATANTLY advocating what type of successor he is rooting for — i.e., a pope that will carry on his recent zeal for doubling down on most of the ‘Vatican II‘ reforms (e.g., curtailing the ‘old’ Latin Mass‘).
‘John XXIII‘, the Good Pope, is, of course, best known for convoking & opening Vatican II.
So, anyone who takes the name ‘John’ would, one has to assume, be a fan of John XXIII & thus also his greatest achievement, Vatican II.
You can’t blame Francis. It is reasonable for a pope to wish that his successor will continue his work & Francis of late has been obsessed by Vatican II.
John XXIII, of course (as it should have been), lucked out. His successor, Paul VI, was as committed to Vatican II as he had been, if not more so. Paul VI was elected, by a conclave that was very partial to the deceased pope, because of his commitment to Vatican II.
So now with his John XXIV ‘jokes’ this is the message that Francis is sending: ‘I want the next pope to be one who, like me, is a true devotee of the Vatican II reforms’.
Former Pope Benedict XVI does NOT look well. He also looks totally ‘disoriented’ & at a loss. Yes, I know he is old, BUT I, for one, would rather NOT remember him as such. He, as was very plain (& even by his admissions in his youth), was very vain & put such emphasis on his appearance. Oh, Dear! I feel bad for him.
[Just a few days ago I watched the excellent movie ‘Parkland‘ which deals with President JFK’s assignation & what happened over the next 3 days. In is is a very powerful scene of ‘Abraham Zapruder‘ reluctantly selling the FAMOUS ‘Zapruder film‘ to ‘Life’ magazine. Zapruder insists that the ‘kill shot’ (as it is referred) not be published. He begs that JFK was such a DIGNIFIED man & publishing ‘the shot’ would ROB him of that dignity. SEE VIDEO clip below.] I feel the same way about this video (stunt). It robs the former pope of what was his former dignity.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4FzgqjlrVY
I do NOT think this was a good publicity move. Images from this meeting should NOT have been made public. I wonder IF Ex-Pope Benedict XVI full appreciates that they were. He truly & utterly looks lost.
Let me make a few pithy points:
1) It is good that he resigned when he did (though it was a tad premature). It is unlikely he could have been pope in this frail state. [It is interesting that My Queen is 96 but appears to be in better shape.]
2) Francis appears to be trying hard to emulate GOOD POPE John XXIII when it comes to size. WOW. He has put on weight. Wonder if anyone has told him that he could helps his knees if he lost 100 pounds!
3) I did NOT think that this was in anyway inspirational. Kind of explains why Catholicism is in dire straights in Europe. What kind of image is this for YOUNG folks. A Church led by old men.
4) I will REFRAIN from making any comments about Georg Gänswein (the ‘person’ standing behind the former pope).
OK. That is enough. I wish this had NOT come up as a SUGGESTION for viewing by YouTube. That is the only reason I saw it. I was NOT looking for it.
Oh. One BIG ‘P.S.’
Who is ‘Benedict XVI’ that ‘EWTN’ refers to? Is ‘EWTN’ that STUPID? There is NO Benedict XVI. There is a FORMER Benedict XVI. He sure is NOT Benedict XVI now. If he was, then Francis would be an ANTI-POPE. Is that what EWTN is trying to suggest? Maybe they are. In that case that is very CUTE & clever.
Click to ENLARGE & read here. From a rather good novel re. mid-20th century popes.Click to ENLARGE. From ‘Google News’. Click to ENLARGE. From one of my magic Papal Excels.
Well, there are enough Catholics, particularly in the U.S., that already think that Pope Francis is mad. So, part should not be a problem. The real question is does he, for all his swaggering bravado, have the chutzpah to make such a monumental call.
He should. It has been 60 years since the start of Vatican II.
The average gap between the Ecumenical Councils is 81 years — BUT that is grossly distorted by a FEW extremely long gaps, e.g., 324 & 254. As you can see from the 3rd image there were times when councils were held on a more frequent basis.
It also used to be the case that Councils were held to clarify, confirm & consolidate decisions made by a prior Council.
Francis’ of late, as the 2nd image demonstrates, is obsessed by Vatican II.
Convoking a Vatican III to ratify the pope’s desires would be a great idea.
There is, however, one PROBLEM. A Vatican III, especially given the growing discord within the Church, might go totally OFF THE RAILS!
Rather than building upon what was agreed upon at II the III MIGHT decide to discard some of the Vatican II thinking.
Intriguing?
But, wouldn’t it be worthwhile, especially now?
So, many diverse issues confronting the Church. So, why not get all the prelates together, again, & get them to have a candid soul-searching followed by some VOTES to see what the consensus is. It is possible that there is NO consensus, on anything, but the voting alone would be telling.
Yes, it would be a COSTLY, labor-intensive & complicated affair.
Folks will claim the Vatican no longer has the money to organize a Council — which this time around might be attended by upwards of 4,000 prelates. But, the Catholic Church still is the richest institution in the known solar system. Sell a few dozen items tucked away in the numerous basements & we will be all set. Or maybe a just a few of the real estate in London & Rome.
More to the point is whether today’s (reorganized) curia has the expertise & WILL to pull off a Vatican III. If you know your Vatican history you will know that ‘John XXIII‘ was blessed with a cadre of exceptional lieutenants who worked miracles to make Vatican II a reality. Does Francis have similar? Many will say ‘NO’.
This will be a MAJOR coup for Francis. It will be his crowning glory. He will forever be the pope that convoked Vatican III. Without that Francis legacy will be that of a spluttering papacy.
There is a chance that Francis will not be around when the Council starts. That is NOT a problem. But, him CONVOKING it will also GREATLY INFLUENCE the next conclave! That too is NOT a bad idea.
Paul VI (1963 — 1978) introduced the 80-year aging out rule for cardinals in 1970 — to take effect as of January 1, 1971. It was a totally arbitrary move & it was well recognized, from the start, as being a blatant move by the (sometimes canny) pope to exclude traditionalist cardinals from the next conclave — to increase the chances that another ‘liberal’ would be elected.
In 1970 there had been NO pope who have lived beyond 85-years in 67-years. So, 80 looked like a decent retirement age for cardinals.
However, since 1970, we have had 3 popes IN A ROW who have reigned after turning 84. The last two popes were still popes when they turned 85.
So, cardinals must retire (due to their perceived aging) at 80, but popes can breeze on past 85? That seems unfair.
Starting with John XXIII, in 1958, popes have claimed that the Church must keep up with modern times & trends.
That was John XXIII’s rationale for exceeding the prior 70 max limit for the College of Cardinals. There were more Catholics around the world & as such there should be more cardinals to represent them.
Well, since 1970 longevity, especially among the pampered prelates, have increased. More and more are living well into their 80s. How many over 90s have we seen of late. So, isn’t it time the 80 year cutoff was reexamined — especially now as the current pope inches towards his 86th birthday?
Click to ENLARGE & read here. From page 96 of my ‘The Conclave‘ book.Click to ENLARGE & read here. From page 153 of my ‘The Conclave‘ book.
I have been very adamant for a very long time that no more than 120 electors will be able to participate in a conclave without a new edict from the pope overriding Paul VI’s 1973 edict and the prevailing papal constitution, viz. Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG).
After a lot of thinking I have now come to the conclusion that I could have been wrong!
Why?
John XXIII, in 1958, did NOT issue an edict saying he was overriding Sixtus V longstanding 70 max cardinal limit. He just went ahead and created more than 70. Yes, things were more fluid those days. The prevailing constitution did not mention any limits as to how many cardinals could attend a conclave.
So, on John XXIII’s death, in 1963, 80 cardinals participated in the conclave. That was 10 above Sixtus V’s 70 limit.
I think the same can happen now.
The pope has spoken.
If there are more than 120 electors at the next conclave, ALL of them will probably be allowed to attend & vote — irrespective of the 120 limit in UDG!
Click to ENLARGE. From my magic cardinal elector spreadsheet.
Click to ENLARGE. From the same magic cardinal elector spreadsheet as above.
11 cardinal electors would have turned 80 & thus ‘aged out’ by this time next year.
Barring deaths, this would drop the cardinal elector count, now at 119, to 108. NO problem with that. Plenty enough cardinals to elect a pope. I always like to remind folks that the conclave that elected GOOD POPE John XXIII only consisted of 51 cardinals. So, 108 is more than enough.
The reason to have another — most likely his very LAST — cardinal-creating consistory would be to let Francis get a few more of his picks into the conclave.
If the conclave happens post February 2023 Francis could have 77 of his electors attending. This could account for around 64% of the electors. Still SHORT of the 66% majority required to elect a new pope, but awfully close.
November consistories are popular. Francis had already had 2 November consistories. So, it would not be incongruous. Plus, he likes to go above the 120 limit. This time, however, (barring deaths) he will only be 2 above the limit — until February.
This makes a lot of sense.
The only question is whether the pope will have the will & energy to hold one — assuming he is still pope.
