IF we had a female Pope, what would her title be?

[PetraG]

A non ordained person is not an ineligible candidate according to the Canon 332 you posted above. Perhaps you read that somewhere else.

Where are you going with this? It has been definitely held that a woman cannot be ordained. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, an office that can only be occupied by someone who is ordained to the episcopacy. It does not matter a whit whether or not an ineligible person could get the votes that would have been necessary to be elected Supreme Pontiff. An ineligible candidate, even if elected, cannot hold the office, and by “ineligible” I mean someone ineligible to be made a bishop.

By clarifying that the impossibility of ordaining women is a definitive teaching of the Church–and he did not make up the truth of this, but only clarified it for the doubtful–Pope St. John Paul II also clarified the impossibility of any woman becoming an actual successor to the Chair of St. Peter, rather than an imposter.

An imposter, well, there are no boundaries on that. The true Pope, however, cannot be a woman.

I am simply interested in the legislation.

I don’t think that is a crime.

It is in fact quite interesting that the eligible candidate pool is wide…maybe so the HS can do his/her work.

It is time to accept that the Holy Spirit was at work in the election of Pope St. John Paul II of blessed memory, who assured the faithful that the question had always been a settled question rather than an open one.

 

[Gorgias]

Valid Pope-elects are still Popes even if they may not yet be able to exercise any power.

So women can indeed be Popes so far as I can see .

So this impossible topic wasn’t such a waste of time afterall.

But, how do you get around the statement that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome? (Not “also is”, which might allow for a person to be one but not the other, but the strong assertion that this is the definition: the pope is the bishop of Rome.)

After all, that’s something that a woman cannot be.

I learnt something I never knew…unless you can find a more appropriate Canon.

That would be Can. 1024, right? (“A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.”)

 

[PetraG]

That would be Can. 1024, right? (“A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.”)

And by “validly” it is meant “at all.” Invalid is not the same as illicit. To be invalid is have had a null result, not to have wrongly sneaked in a forbidden result.

In other words, an imposter Pope who was someone ineligible to be ordained would not be a case of “naughty, naughty, you became Pope against the rules” but “all this time, we have had no Pope at all…”

 

[BlackFriar]

Where are you going with this? It has been definitely held that a woman cannot be ordained.

Good for you.
Why are you wasting your time with this fantasy thread then and getting all het up.
Those of us here able to fantasise are enjoying ourselves. This can only end in tears for you if you take the topic and yourself so seriously.
Lighten up or turn off the tracking I suggest .

 

[BlackFriar]

But, how do you get around the statement that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome?

I don’t need to.
The above Canon clearly says an unordained layperson can be elected.
However he has no power until made bishop.
Therefore it is possible to be Pope but not Bishop of Rome.

That would be Can. 1024, right? (“A baptized male alone receives sacred ordination validly.”)

It doesn’t say anything about lack of ordination denying eligibility for being elected Pope from what I can see.

 

[gcshapero]

Her title would be fraud.

But really, the Church has no authority to ordain women to the priesthood.

 

[PetraG]

Good for you.

Why are you wasting your time with this fantasy thread then and getting all het up.

Those of us here able to fantasise are enjoying ourselves. This can only end in tears for you if you take the topic and yourself so seriously.

Lighten up or turn off the tracking I suggest .

I will admit that books and movies with a premise that is impossible on its face drive me a little nuts. I need a little help in the “suspension of disbelief” department, no fooling.

Besides, there are those baptised in the Church who take the issue very seriously. The Pope didn’t write a clarification that was never needed before out of thin air. There are people who really ask this question in all seriousness and do not accept the definitive answer.

But yes, I can leave you be!

 

[BlackFriar]

It might be many things but the title “Pope” cannot be fraud if validly elected - which is quite possible for the unordained as the Canon states.

 

[gcshapero]

It was a tongue-in-cheek answer. This is more so regarding women’s ordination.

 

[PetraG]

It might be many things but the title “Pope” cannot be fraud if validly elected - which is quite possible for the unordained as the Canon states.

I thought you were sticking to having fun, not trying to make actual arguments as if you can’t get it through your head that someone ineligible to become Pope cannot be validly elected and wouldn’t have to concern herself with how to style herself.

Since all the womenpriests talk about Pope Joan and since those who believe there are no offices that both sexes cannot attain prefer “flight attendant” to “stewardess” and “actor” for those who act regardless of sex, I think they’d go with “Pope.” She wouldn’t actually be the Pope, but that is what they’d call her.

The people who fled the church she was “leading” in order to remain with the Church would be ones calling her things like Popessa and Popette and Popita and and Popachachitaburrita who knows what else. (I think she would not be amused.)

I’m voting for Popachachitaburrita, myself. If you’re going to break ground, go for it. May as well hang for a sheep as for a lamb.

 

[BlackFriar]

I thought you were sticking to having fun, not trying to make actual arguments

Why cannot both be done at the same time?

if you can’t get it through your head that someone ineligible to become Pope cannot be validly elected

You are getting a bit serious with the ad hominem there.
If you go back to the origin of this point you will see the poster was attempting to demonstrate by logical propositions that women cannot be made Pope. Indeed it seems they can. Even without being bishop of Rome - both legally and logically. Reality is a different matter and clearly not the subject of this fantastical thread . Hence it hasn’t got thru my head yet, thought that was obvious…except to the serious perhaps.

 

[CRM_Brother]

As to the OP. There kinda-sorta already is a term for a female pope. Historically, if a pope’s mother (or mistress in some cases) was still alive when the man became pope, she would usually accompany him after his coronation, run the papal household and take over certain papal duties concerning the governance of the Papal States. This has only happened a few times during the Renaissance and the familial wars during the Saeculum Obscurum period in the early to mid 10th century. The term for this “female pope” was la papama.

 

[LilyM]

PetraG:

I thought you were sticking to having fun, not trying to make actual arguments

Why cannot both be done at the same time?

if you can’t get it through your head that someone ineligible to become Pope cannot be validly elected

You are getting a bit serious with the ad hominem there.
If you go back to the origin of this point you will see the poster was attempting to demonstrate by logical propositions that women cannot be made Pope. Indeed it seems they can. Even without being bishop of Rome - both legally and logically. Reality is a different matter and clearly not the subject of this fantastical thread . Hence it hasn’t got thru my head yet, thought that was obvious…except to the serious perhaps.

Reminds me of the filmmaker Michael Moore attempting to get a ficus plant elected to Congress back in the day. As his stunt was highly publicised and took place in an extremely “safe” Congressional district (from memory only one human candidate was running) the plant actually gained more votes from disaffected voters than the human(s).

All those votes did not, of course, make the plant “eligible” in the sense of being able to take office. The plant was never, because it could never be, eligible to become a Congressman (Congressplant?). There is more to being a Congressperson, clearly, than simply being the sentient lifeform which garners the most votes. And the seat was not, of course, declared vacant - the human candidate, the only one able to take office, was declared duly elected as that district’s representative in Congress.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

Does a lay person have to get ordained after he gets elected pope?

 

[BlackFriar]

Excellent story.
Remind me of Caligula who attempted similar with making his horse a Consul to demonstrate what he thought of the Senate.

But as the Canon above makes clear, electing a Pope has different laws.
Lack of ordination does not make one ineligible for election as Pope.
It does mean one cannot be made Bishop of Rome or assume power until ordination takes place.

 

[BlackFriar]

Does a lay person have to get ordained after he gets elected pope?

Just read the canon quoted above for yourself.
Its perfectly clear what the situation is.

 

[LilyM]

Excellent story.
Remind me of Caligula who attempted similar with making his horse a Consul to demonstrate what he thought of the Senate.

But as the Canon above makes clear, electing a Pope has different laws.
Lack of ordination does not make one ineligible for election as Pope.
It does mean one cannot be made Bishop of Rome or assume power until ordination takes place.

But there’s a difference between someone on the one hand who may need to meet a few extra requirements in order to take office, which requirements are specified in the relevant canon, and someone on the other hand who is ontologically incapable of ever jumping the hurdles required.

Even a married layman can be dispensed from the requirement for celibacy and ordained to the priesthood. No lay woman could ever be dispensed from the requirement to be male.

 

[BlackFriar]

I am simply observing that your rules re eligibility for Congress are not the same for election of a Pope.

One can be Pope without being Bishop of Rome (that doesn’t only apply to women).
That was also denied above.

My small point was originally made as a matter of showing the flaw in somebody else’s alleged “logic”.

 

[LilyM]

I am simply observing that your rules re eligibility for Congress are not the same for election of a Pope.

One can be Pope without being Bishop of Rome (that doesn’t only apply to women).
That was also denied above.

My small point was originally made as a matter of showing the flaw in somebody else’s alleged “logic”.

It seems that canon law does indeed decree that ONLY the Bishop of Rome CAN be Pope (the Pope being a title synonymous with and inseparable from the successor of St Peter and Vicar of Christ etc etc).

“Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.”

Further, Canon 332 which you quoted earlier speaks of LEGITIMATE election. In what sense is an election legitimate when the elected is someone who is by their very nature definitively incapable, under any set of circumstances, at any point in their lives, of actually holding the position to which they are supposedly elected?

As an analogy - remember all the debate over Obama’s birth certificate? That was important, because of course a US President must be born a US citizen. That was a characteristic which was determined at Obama’s birth and unchangeable thereafter.

If that birth certificate had shown he was not born a citizen, even if it had come to light well after the votes were cast, then it matters not how many people wrote his name on their ballot papers, his election itself would have been held to be illegitimate. That is why some birthers continued their campaign even after his election, because the legitimacy of his election did not depend only on how the votes were cast on election day.

 

[BlackFriar]

Further, Canon 332 which you quoted earlier speaks of LEGITIMATE election.

Have you found Canons which enunciate that lack of holy orders invalidates such an election?

I don’t see that as possible given the Canon expressly mentions the possibility that Orders is lacking in the validly elected Pope and states: “A person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.”

BTW I didn’t originally source the Canon, Petra did.