Click to ENLARGE. News stories from ‘Google News‘.
Basically, what Cardinal Parolin & I are both saying is that it is unlikely that the Next Pope, even if he is NOT a ‘Francis II‘ (e.g., American Burke), will overturn ALL the reforms enacted by Francis. The best that might happen is that he might AGAIN (a la Benedict XVI) relax the barriers to celebrating the Latin Mass. I am sure the other reforms will remain on the books due to the respect that new popes pay to their predecessors. This has to do with the decorum exercised by modern popes. Quickly overturning prior reforms look undignified. And that is the rub.
IF the Next Pope is a traditionalist he is unlikely to have too much time. A non-Francis II will only get enough votes if he is seen as a compromise, caretaker pope — not likely to hang around for much more than 7 to 8 years. While that may sound like a lot, that probably isn’t enough leeway to OVERTURN Francis’ reforms without making Francis look real bad.
IF a Francis II is elected, the whole issue is moot. I have a feeling that Francis will hold another cardinal creating consistory in August or September this year & create 20 to 22 cardinal electors. IF he does that (& Parolin might already know of the pope’s plans) it is GAME OVER. The Next Pope will be Francis II — possibly even Tagle!
So, that is the lay of the land. If the next pope is NOT a Francis II we might see some slack cut on Latin Mass. But, that will be about it. But, as ever, I could be wrong.
Click to ENLARGE. Base news stories from ‘Google News‘.Click to ENLARGE. From MY magic Excel spreadsheet.
For the last few months I have been advocating that Francis really should hold another cardinal creating consistory to CEMENT HIS legacy as the pope who modernized the Catholic Church and brought it, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century (albeit with no concessions to transgender folks).
Neither camp, i.e., the reformists (i.e., Francis‘ acolytes) nor the traditionalists (i.e., those led by U.S. Cardinal Raymond Leo Burke) have sufficient votes to gain the 67% supre-majority needed to get a new pope. The Francis camp is short by AT LEAST 10. That, on paper, he created the 73% of the current slate of electors means diddly. They are NOT all going to vote for ‘Franic II’.
Francis needs to create AT LEAST 22 young, radical REFORMISTS. This is his LAST CHANCE to make a difference. Make sure the Church is RE-FORMED.
Francis has held an August consistory. He should do it AGAIN. Create 22 (or more) electors. Then he could rest knowing he has done his job.
Click to ENLARGE. From ‘Google News‘. Original at the ‘America Magazine‘.
I cracked up laughing when I saw this. Being appointed a nuncio isn’t always a good thing. It all depends on what COUNTRY you are assigned.
No guarantee that Ganswein will be sent to any SWANKY posts such as the U.S., France, Australia, or even Japan. China wouldn’t be too bad either. But, the pope could also send him to a war zone, a country in economic despair or outer-mongolia.
Basically what the pope has done is yank Ganswein out of the COMFORT of being in Germany. Now, as a nuncio, he can send him to Ukraine, Zambia or Nicaragua. Ganswein is NOT going to be happy.
Just a few days ago I wrote (in my latest book) that one of the most effective punishments that a pope can deal a cardinal is to make him ‘Nuncio to Outer Mongolia‘. And then, this, today. LoL.
Francis, in his dotage, is cranky. Aren’t people calling him vindictive?
In his recent spate of interviews he made clear that Ganswein was a thorn in his side. So, now he is going to settle scores.
What we have to now watch for is WHERE will be send Ganswein.
Click to ENLARGE. The 8 who will age out next — till end of 2024.
Two cardinal electors, BOTH Francis creations, will age-out by April 20, 2024 — one (from Laos) on April 8 & the other (from Spain) on April 19.
So, this is what the elector demographics will look like as of April 20, 2024.
Then we don’t have any aging out till June 8, 2024.
That the two who aged out are Francis creations means that only 72.4% of the electorate was created by Francis. That is NOT enough to ensure that the next pope will be a Francis acolyte. He needs to hold another cardinal creating consistory SOON.
Just a note. A very few cardinals have died of late (& those mostly non-electors). Keep that in mind since this will change the demographics & I will, of course, update the numbers.
Click to ENLARGE. Base news stories from ‘Google News‘.
IF I prayed, this is what I would pray for. That God would take better care of his faithful Catholic clerics — starting with the pope.
Yes, yes — I know all about ‘Free Will’ (or ‘Free Williy‘ as I call it) & how God does not micro-manage.
But, come on. He is said to know all. So, he had to know this was about to happen.
Poor priest. Doing the GLORY of GOD and then this.
And we have the poor, crippled pope. God should be nicer to the pope. He is an old man. Cut him some slack. Don’t make him a cripple. Give him non-stop HICCUPS as was the case with WWII pope Pius XII. I could live with the pope hiccuping as he spoke. Better than seeing him hunched in a wheelchair.
Click to ENLARGE. Story on left from ‘AP‘, the other from ‘NCR‘. Find them on ‘Google‘.
Much of the ‘Pope Francis‘ news for the last 72-hours have been taken up with these conclave disclosures and whether he violated conclave secrecy. All to do with some interviews he did and his new book.
First and foremost, he did NOT violate conclave secrecy. I can assure you of that.
Popes can divulge what happened in conclave. They are the only ones that can do so — legitimately. Plus, a pope, within the Vatican, is ABOVE ALL LAWS! So, you can’t break any Church laws IF you are pope.
But, it goes further. conclaves, as of 1996, have been governed by an Apostolic Constitution known as ‘Universi Dominici Gregis‘ (UDG) — & some amendments to it. USG is THE LAW when it comes to conclaves.
UDG Clause 71 permits, explicitly, for a pope to permit the EXACT voting that took place within the conclave. That is the law.
Other popes, including ‘Good Pope’ John XXIII, have talked about what happened at their conclaves.
So, on the secrecy count, Francis is OK.
As for the 2005, Francis has basically CONFIRMED, word for word, the ‘Saint Gallen Group‘ account of their machinations. Wow. So we no longer need to skeptical as to whether they were being truthful. THEY WERE. Wow. Bravo.
But, now Francis, as ever, goes ROGUE.
He says he would have REFUSED the papacy, in 2005, if he got the votes.
That would have been NAUGHTY. He would have been SPURNING the law! He wasn’t pope at that juncture. He was still just another cardinal. Not above the law. He needed to obey the laws.
UDG Clause 86 states: “I also ask the one who is elected not to refuse, for fear of its weight, the office to which he has been called, but to submit humbly to the design of the divine will.”
But, Francis says he would have refused. Very arrogant of him.
Plus, I do NOT believe him for a minute! His ego would NOT have permitted him to REFUSE. He would have jumped in with both feet.
Per the Saint Gallen Group account, Francis (then Bergoglio), asked his peers to STOP voting for him. Very different. He had not got close to being elected. So, that is that.
NOW COMES THE PART WHERE FRANCIS IS BEING DISINGENUOUS.
He is doing this because he, prior to becoming, pope MIGHT have violated the laws, TWICE — both in 2005 & 2013.
This would make his 2013 election illegitimate!
So, he is not going to risk that.
What is he lying about.
Per the Gallen Group, post 2005, Francis knew ALL ABOUT THEM! So, he knew they were trying to get him elected. For Francis to have been a part of this is ILLEGAL. He is actually an antipope!
So, Francis says he had NO IDEA what the group was doing in 2013. Poppycock.
He confirms, word for word, what happened in 2005, and then has the gall to say he didn’t know anything about what they were doing in 2013.
Francis, like his buddy Trump, is dealing in ALTERNATE FACTS.
Francis should be deemed an antipope — an illegitimate pope.
Click to ENLARGE. News story snippets from ‘Google News‘ (today).
I am a news junkie. I check ‘Google News‘ & the U.K. ‘Daily Mail’, multiple times a day, to see what is new. These two stories came up, kind of back-to-back, on Google.
WOW.
Not sure whether to believe the first. But, the SECOND is verifiable (by others (of course)) and as such must have (at a minimum) a modicum of truth.
