As the Conclave grows closer, the mutability, during the last century or so, of the rules governing conclaves acquires more and more interest.
Since Pius XII, it has become almost the custom for each incoming pope to alter the rules bequeathed to him by his predecessor. The reason why this has rarely appeared to matter very much has been that those rules that have most tempted so many pontiffs to make changes [see Wikipaedia], mostly concern the means to be taken to secure a result at the end of a contentious conclave in which normal procedures have failed to deliver, er, the Bacon of a necessary two-thirds majority.
And the desire of Cardinal Electors to enable a decorous succession has apparently led them to decide fairly soon into a conclave that, since X is pretty clearly going to get his majority eventually, it looks better if it's given to him sooner rather than after a long agony.
But there was a problem when Benedict XVI followed S John Paul II. The way matters stood then was that, if a two-thirds majority were not secured after the normal rules had been followed right to their very end, a new procedure then took over which could result in the next pope being elected on a simple majority.
You see, suppose candidate X had got an overall majority, but which was a majority which fell short of being two-thirds.
What comes next?
All that the majority cardinals supporting X then needed to do was to sit back and pick their noses and just wait until this conclave reached the stage when the move had formally to be made to a simple majority. Then their man would slide comfortably in to the sedes stercoraria.
This breached the established principle that a pope needed a two-thirds majority ... a principle ancient enough to have acquired auctoritas. Moreover, a pope incapable of securing office except as the result of this extreme procedure would hardly be embarking upon his pontificate with his own auctoritas entirely intact. People would say "He only got in by ... ... ".
So Benedict XVI restored the principle that a two-thirds majority would, after all, always be necessary.
That is where we are now.
16 comments:
Dear Father. I still think Franics will name his successor because he does not trust the Cardinals he created
I have this fantasy that Francis dies in some spectacular way and that everybody acclaims that Benedict XVI has always remained Pope. All being followed by a massive purge of the corrupt.
I can at least hope that he outlives the man from Argentina.
That is my prayer too.
You and I (and many of my acquaintnces) share the same fantasy!
"Come now, you who say, 'Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and get gain'; whereas you do not know about tomorrow. What is your life? For you are a mist that appears for a little time and then vanishes. Instead you ought to say, 'If the Lord wills, we shall live and we shall do this or that.'"
It baffles me how so many Catholics don't get this and seem to be worried that God is helpless against human scheming. Pope Francis might not be alive tomorrow morning. The same goes for all of us. If God granted Balaam the free will to INTEND to say some evil thing, but also placed an angel in his way to strike him down first, do you think He could not do the same with a Pope, should He so choose?
It is likewise amazing that so many "Catholics" spend more time hoping that the Pope will die than hoping he will repent.
If history is any guide, creating Cardinals doesn't guarantee anything. Most are locals concerns with their local issues, not the preoccupations (which revolve around trying to reanimate the comatose spirit of V2) of Pope Francis and his crew, plus 'eaten bread is soon forgotten.' If only somehow Pope Emeritus Benedict could de-resign and restore dignity to the Papal Office.
Wishing, worse yet, praying for death, instead praying that a sinner should turn form sin and live is a sin. I am no fan of the current Bishop of Rome. But wishing or praying for his death and the extreme fantasy of B16 once again ascending to the Chair is wrong and ridiculous.
I, as so many of my acquaintances, believe that he is beyond repentance. For he seems much too ivolved with very dark powers...
There should be line of succession for Papacy and seniormost Cardinal should be Pope. That way no Pope will do great damage to Church and faithful.
The result of next conclave will be very hard to predict for many reasons, one of them being that PF has avoided working consistories (as opposed to ceremonial consistories with limited participation); this year's, I understand, was the first since 2015. The result is that many of the cardinals, especially the newer ones, barely know each other - which will make for a very uncertain election. Imagine you are a cardinal: 'Can I be confident of what Cardinal X really thinks or stands for?'
If their Eminences can't choose a candidate who has a two-thirds majority, so be it. Let the See of Peter remain vacant for a while. No pope might be better than a PF-clone.
I would be very hesitant about declaring PF or anyone as "beyond repentance". After all we have many examples of someone "beyond repentance" who repented, starting with the Thief on the Cross.
It has been said that Pope Francis was envious of John XXIII writing Pacem In Terris,and that he has set to work on what might become his defining work. It will be called Pazzi In Testa.
D. Von Hildebrand once wrote it would have been off point for people to pray for Hitler's repentance, say, around 1941 or so. Some things, dear friends, are set, but what is not set is the Divine Will and its omniscience.
Of course, I don't mean to say God is changeable. He is infinitely perfect, pure act. Which means of course in the end it will be as he wills. Praise Him!
Post a Comment