So, what if, someday, there were a vacant chair?

[claymcdermott]

Not now, obviously. But, supposing when Pope Francis quits.

Let’s imagine an unlikely scenario in which the college of cardinals - for whatever reason - find they cannot agree on the next bishop of Rome.
Let’s say this goes on for a while, but with things going on as normal in his absence, everyone just kinda gets used to there being no pope, and the cardinals do have to get home to their own episcopates.

What would happen? I mean, my bet is, nothing. Everything could theoretically be kinda fine in the absence of a pope. All those who do the real running of the Vatican would run the Vatican. Why do we assume that whoever would be chosen to be the Roman patriarch would really help with any of those functions more than he would get in the way, especially since he would almost certainly be chosen without too much regard for actual qualification?

We need a pope to speak infallibly? We have had a lot of that haven’t we? What more do you need him to pronounce? What are the odds this next guy would? The Church as a whole does 99.999999% of its teaching without him you know.

We need a pope to appoint bishops? Not theologically necessarily. The pope didn’t always have final say on bishops. The pope is more or less a rubber stamp for the local episcopacy anyway (shocker, but he doesn’t know every single anonymous priest on planet Earth who might get made third auxilary bishop of the diocese of Alaska).

Main Question: Would the world really be worse for it if we went without a pope for a decade?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Not now, obviously. But, supposing when Pope Francis quits.

Let’s imagine an unlikely scenario in which the college of cardinals - for whatever reason - find they cannot agree on the next bishop of Rome.
Let’s say this goes on for a while, but with things going on as normal in his absence, everyone just kinda gets used to there being no pope, and the cardinals do have to get home to their own episcopates.

What would happen? I mean, my bet is, nothing. Everything could theoretically be kinda fine in the absence of a pope. All those who do the real running of the Vatican would run the Vatican. Why do we assume that whoever would be chosen to be the Roman patriarch would really help with any of those functions more than he would get in the way, especially since he would almost certainly be chosen without too much regard for actual qualification?

We need a pope to speak infallibly? We have had a lot of that haven’t we? What more do you need him to pronounce? What are the odds this next guy would? The Church as a whole does 99.999999% of its teaching without him you know.

We need a pope to appoint bishops? Not theologically necessarily. The pope didn’t always have final say on bishops. The pope is more or less a rubber stamp for the local episcopacy anyway (shocker, but he doesn’t know every single anonymous priest on planet Earth who might get made third auxilary bishop of the diocese of Alaska).

Main Question: Would the world really be worse for it if we went without a pope for a decade?

First off, this has happened before in history where the interregnum period has extended for even years.
Secondly I wonder why you say “not now” about Francis. He has given indication that he will not be Pope long. Could be tomorrow, could be 10 years from now.

Secondly, your understanding of the office of the Bishop of Rome is odd. Coule you elaborate on why you say the things you do?

 

[meherdmann]

Not now, obviously. But, supposing when Pope Francis quits.

Let’s imagine an unlikely scenario in which the college of cardinals - for whatever reason - find they cannot agree on the next bishop of Rome.
Let’s say this goes on for a while, but with things going on as normal in his absence, everyone just kinda gets used to there being no pope, and the cardinals do have to get home to their own episcopates.

What would happen? I mean, my bet is, nothing. Everything could theoretically be kinda fine in the absence of a pope. All those who do the real running of the Vatican would run the Vatican. Why do we assume that whoever would be chosen to be the Roman patriarch would really help with any of those functions more than he would get in the way, especially since he would almost certainly be chosen without too much regard for actual qualification?

We need a pope to speak infallibly? We have had a lot of that haven’t we? What more do you need him to pronounce? What are the odds this next guy would? The Church as a whole does 99.999999% of its teaching without him you know.

We need a pope to appoint bishops? Not theologically necessarily. The pope didn’t always have final say on bishops. The pope is more or less a rubber stamp for the local episcopacy anyway (shocker, but he doesn’t know every single anonymous priest on planet Earth who might get made third auxilary bishop of the diocese of Alaska).

Main Question: Would the world really be worse for it if we went without a pope for a decade?

The Papacy helps to guard against disagreements/territory disputes between the bishops. Having the Pope is vital to the unity to the Church. Also, without a Pope, the Diocese of Rome would be without a leader…

 

[eddie_too]

since Jesus established the papacy, I am not going to worry about someone questioning the Lord’s wisdom.

let us weight two things. first, someone speculates about the need for a pope. this person is not someone given orders by God, nor is this person someone who has earned the respect of holy men and women or of scholars. second, Jesus establishes the papacy.

what weight should we give to each thing?

 

[porthos11]

Not going to happen because I’m going to fly to Rome and barricade the kitchens (and the bathrooms) and actually lock the Conclave (literally lock it) and ensure the Cardinals either elect a Pope or starve.

 

[Mary_Estelle]

Not going to happen because I’m going to fly to Rome and barricade the kitchens (and the bathrooms) and actually lock the Conclave (literally lock it) and ensure the Cardinals either elect a Pope or starve.

That should work!

 

[Lormar]

Do you all know who Fr. Vincent Serpa is? He is a Dominican priest who is a CA staff apologist.

I once wrote to him about an error that is gaining in popularity on CAF: it is that the man in the Chair of Peter is handpicked by either Our Lord or the Holy Spirit. Please read his response:

Hi,

The only protection that the Church teaches regarding the leadership of the Church is that the Holy Spirit will protect the Church teaching error regarding faith and morals. It does not teach that the Holy Spirit chooses the pope. That is left to the cardinals. This is why they pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit. History shows us that we have had some popes who were poor leaders and morally corrupt.

Fr. VS

 

[Trident_H]

Not now, obviously. But, supposing when Pope Francis quits.

Let’s imagine an unlikely scenario in which the college of cardinals - for whatever reason - find they cannot agree on the next bishop of Rome.
Let’s say this goes on for a while, but with things going on as normal in his absence, everyone just kinda gets used to there being no pope, and the cardinals do have to get home to their own episcopates.

What would happen? I mean, my bet is, nothing. Everything could theoretically be kinda fine in the absence of a pope. All those who do the real running of the Vatican would run the Vatican. Why do we assume that whoever would be chosen to be the Roman patriarch would really help with any of those functions more than he would get in the way, especially since he would almost certainly be chosen without too much regard for actual qualification?

We need a pope to speak infallibly? We have had a lot of that haven’t we? What more do you need him to pronounce? What are the odds this next guy would? The Church as a whole does 99.999999% of its teaching without him you know.

We need a pope to appoint bishops? Not theologically necessarily. The pope didn’t always have final say on bishops. The pope is more or less a rubber stamp for the local episcopacy anyway (shocker, but he doesn’t know every single anonymous priest on planet Earth who might get made third auxilary bishop of the diocese of Alaska).

Main Question: Would the world really be worse for it if we went without a pope for a decade?

I don’t know. I kind of think that without the Pope we would all just go off in tangents. I mean it’s bad enough as it is. At least there is some guy who talks for the whole church in times of crisis. I would be more afraid of the beaurocracy that would take over. Then things would really grind to a halt.

 

[porthos11]

Do you all know who Fr. Vincent Serpa is? He is a Dominican priest who is a CA staff apologist.

I once wrote to him about an error that is gaining in popularity on CAF: it is that the man in the Chair of Peter is handpicked by either Our Lord or the Holy Spirit. Please read his response:

Yes, Fr. Serpa’s answer is correct, and I see too much of the “the Holy Spirit chooses the Pope” opinions around these places.

That is not the case. The election of the Pope is a purely human event. Yes, the Holy Spirit offers his help especially if the Cardinals are humble enough to respond to his movement. But he does not hand-pick the next man to be Pope. Nothing but the will of the Cardinals carries the day. This makes the election of the Pope as subject to campaigning, debating, and, God forbid, simony and corruption as any political exercise.

The elections of such stellar examples as Alexander VI should put to rest any illusion that the Holy Spirit picks the Pope. All we can be assured of is that the Pope, be he saint or scoundel, will never teach error in his capacity as Pope. The flip side is that he could pretty much end up teaching nothing at all, and that would be a pretty pathetic example of a Pope.

God willing, our next Pope will be in the calibre of Benedict XVI.

 

[Lormar]

Yes, Fr. Serpa’s answer is correct, and I see too much of the “the Holy Spirit chooses the Pope” opinions around these places.

That is not the case. The election of the Pope is a purely human event. Yes, the Holy Spirit offers his help especially if the Cardinals are humble enough to respond to his movement. But he does not hand-pick the next man to be Pope. Nothing but the will of the Cardinals carries the day. This makes the election of the Pope as subject to campaigning, debating, and, God forbid, simony and corruption as any political exercise.

The elections of such stellar examples as Alexander VI should put to rest any illusion that the Holy Spirit picks the Pope. All we can be assured of is that the Pope, be he saint or scoundel, will never teach error in his capacity as Pope. The flip side is that he could pretty much end up teaching nothing at all, and that would be a pretty pathetic example of a Pope.

God willing, our next Pope will be in the calibre of Benedict XVI.

From your lips to God’s ears!

 

[eddie_too]

I am unsure what is meant by the phrase “the Holy Spirit picks the pope”.

does it mean the Holy Spirit taps the cardinals on the shoulder, or what?

as for notoriously sinful or incompetent popes in the RCC’s history, how do we know whether or not God’s will would have been better served if someone else had been selected?

I believe that God hears and answers our prayers. believing that, it seems perfectly acceptable to believe that God hears the prayers of those cardinals who are seeking His guidance and provides it to them.

without question each cardinal exercises his own judgment when casting a ballot. hopefully, that judgment is guided by the Holy Spirit and, more concretely, is what the cardinal believes is best for the Church.

I completely believe that the Holy Spirit is fundamentally involved in every conclave, but I remain unsure what people mean when they use the phrase “the Holy Spirit selects the pope”. I am sure the Holy Spirit does not fill out any ballots, nor does the Holy Spirit send an angel to fill out the ballots, although He could send an angel to the conclave.

since the happenings of the conclave remain private, we never learn how the Holy Spirit interacted with any particular conclave.

my advice, do not develop theology that limits God, including God’s interactions with a conclave.

 

[Boy_Wonder]

Pointless and silly conjecture. Stop worrying. Have faith. Peter’s boat will never sink.

 

[GEddie]

The longest there has **not **been a pope was three years (1268 to 1271).

I doubt very much that a “hung conclave” of this kind would be permitted to go on anything like that long now.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Rolltide]

I seem to recall the last time the cardinals failed to elect a pope for an extended period of time (during the Middle Ages), the local Roman townspeople eventually barricaded them in the deliberation hall and ripped the roof off the building, exposing them to the elements and denying them most food except water. A pope was selected relatively quickly thereafter!

 

[ProVobis]

I don’t know. I kind of think that without the Pope we would all just go off in tangents. I mean it’s bad enough as it is. At least there is some guy who talks for the whole church in times of crisis. I would be more afraid of the beaurocracy that would take over. Then things would really grind to a halt.

Should the Pope change the rules and choose his successor?

 

[ToeInTheWater]

The elections of such stellar examples as Alexander VI should put to rest any illusion that the Holy Spirit picks the Pope. All we can be assured of is that the Pope, be he saint or scoundel, will never teach error in his capacity as Pope. The flip side is that he could pretty much end up teaching nothing at all, and that would be a pretty pathetic example of a Pope.

I read either on CAF or on another Catholic site, that one “bad Pope” actually dropped dead, the night before he planned to actually declare something heretical out of the Chair of Peter. I don’t recall the name of the Pope or any details. Anyone have a source for this, or is it just a “pious legend”?

Though I guess it’s also possible the Pope was actually assassinated by a human, and I assume this wouldn’t be “God’s will” because of the whole “ends don’t justify the means” idea.

 

[Trident_H]

Should the Pope change the rules and choose his successor?

Well that’s a good question. But no, I think that might lock the church into some kind of mess. I mean human nature and stuff right? So wouldn’t the pope get surrounded by a bunch of fawning sycophants? And then what? The same type of pope for the rest of time? What if it starts with the wrong one? I don’t know.

 

[claymcdermott]

Well, see, does the papacy help guard against territory disputes, meherdman?

Intra-church issues about where the borders of dioceses are in Nigeria, or questions about the UK’s Bishopric of the Forces’ relative jurisdiction with Maronite Rite Eparchy of Cyprus on the British territory of Akrotiri and Dhekelia - I doubt the pope personally makes any of those decisions. Bureaucracy already runs the show, Trident H.

And, Trident H, would we all go off on tangents? Would there be unsolvable doctrinal disputes worse than we have now?

Popes have made clear in the last fifty years what is and what isn’t heresy, but academicians and dissidents of all stripes continue to say that they can be orthodox on these issues and still dissent. So does the average American Catholic, “I can do/think ‘X’ and still be a good Catholic.” Plus, popes prevent disagreements between bishops? They disagree all the time already, and good popes have always been reserved. Popes, especially the current one, don’t seem to be resolving these issues.

Also, quite honestly, doesn’t the current pope cause a ton of confusion, which you could see not happening in his absence? All of your arguments for why we need a pope all the time seem to be defeated by the fact the current pope is accomplishing the opposite. NOT saying he is bad, but he doesn’t exactly keep the Church focused.

And the diocese of Rome has plenty of bishops whether its chair is filled or not; they’d be fine.

 

[claymcdermott]

The point of my “pointless and silly” thought experiment is this:

I want to illustrate that (1) the Church goes on no matter what (2), that the Church isn’t one ethnically Italian guy in a big hat, especially since all the bishops have authority in their whole, and (3) don’t we put too much importance on the papacy? I think we do.

We have reached a point where any criticism of the pope, or the structure of the contemporary papacy is met with an almost scary reaction on him being God’s Chosen One in some quarters. He’s not. He’s the guy we’re stuck with, and I pray he does well, because the fisherman’s ring on the right hands is a powerful tool of evangelization and teaching and even possibly diplomacy - and in the wrong hands it is a disaster. A lot of people are apparently convinced that for any given period of time, a bad pope is better than a long interregnum; I would say: no. Our need for one strong man to come unify us is not so great that it does not matter whether the strong man is good or bad. So often Catholics argue, “It is better to be Catholic, because we are united.” No, it is better to be Catholic, because we are united in Christ.

We should keep in mind, while a good pope is a blessing, if we had no pope for a while, it would not end us, because we are bigger than one man.

 

[commenter]

We already know what would happen to Christianity without a pope. Look at Protestantism. Even they are not totally without a pope, since the Catholic pope is a visible sign for them, too, influencing some more than others. But without the direct ministry of the pope here is what you find:

*some groups, still orthodox, like the LCMS, Anglican continuum, and others; but they are influenced indirectly by the pope;

• Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, snake handling cults, the whole range of unusual groups refuting each other; all claiming to be scriptural
• Mainline Christianity, which has become handcuffed to the secular culture, specifically the media