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

[claymcdermott]

So, I know that you are not saying you believe that the only thing keeping Catholicism from descending into a snake cult, is the presence of Pope Francis. I would disagree with that. Also, I think the LCMS would disagree that the Catholic bishop of Rome is what keeps them from falling apart.

Moreover, the CDF would continue to police parishes that had snake cult stuff going on, even during an interregnum. The CDF does not disappear every time a pope dies, and the pope does not get involved in the vast bulk of the CDF’s action. In fact, the CDF doesn’t even do most of the policing. In America, the USCCB (if an individual bishop lets it go) condemns most heretical things it sees coming out of its territory without any recourse to the Vatican.

Besides, I am not saying let’s abolish the papacy. I am saying, let’s be aware that even in a long interregnum, Catholics would not go crazy and start eating fire over the course of 10 years.

Also, unity does not guarantee accuracy. If the church is unified by a single heretic or a scandalous man, that is way way worse than a church unified by a massive global structure with a common God and internal culture which goes back 2000 years with clear lines of authority, even in the absence of a single visible head, i.e. the bishop of Rome. So, if you were a cardinal elector, and your options were stall or elect a heretic, I would recommend you stall.

 

[myway]

That is a good question. The longest conclave took 2 years and 9 months.

 

[commenter]

So, I know that you are not saying you believe that the only thing keeping Catholicism from descending into a snake cult, is the presence of Pope Francis.

Actually I am saying that the papacy is the only thing that keeps Catholicism from descending into a snake cult. Consider the recent actions of the pope-less mainline churches (abortion, marriage; only God (or Satan) knows what they will do next). Snake cults.

the LCMS would disagree that the Catholic bishop of Rome is what keeps them from falling apart.

I didn’t say that exactly. For a minority of Protestants, trying hard to maintain orthodoxy, the living Magisterium is a kind of template for orthodoxy in 2015. For them, it’s one more lighthouse, not their only guide.

Moreover, the CDF would continue…

The CDF is an imperfect instrument of the papacy. Other Protestant churches had something like a CDF, almost always ineffective, because they didn’t have the papacy to oversee and back it up.

Christ could have said to his followers in general that they were the rock, upon which he would build His Church. He could have said it when feeding the 5000, or at the Sermon on the Mount, or other occasions. But he didn’t do that. What did He do?

 

[GEddie]

It doesn’t really matter whether a less-than-exemplary Pope is better or worse than a prolonged interregnum; the point is that the modern Church would no longer allow the prolonged interregnum to occur. Full stop.

It’s like asking what would happen if the USA were without a President, or Britain without a monarch, for years. The systems won’t allow such.

The Church has more slack built into it, because it began in a time when communication lines were years long. But if an indefinite interregnum was unacceptable in 1271, it is even more so now.

ICXC NIKA

 

[eddie_too]

there are several problems with the pope deciding to choose his own successor.

first, the current pope could die before making that choice. then the Church would be left without a process for selecting his successor.

second, once the pope is gone, he has no authority on earth. since his successor could not become pope until the current pope resigned or died, there would be no mechanism that would ensure his choice would be honored.

the current system of cardinal electors was developed over the centuries because other options were less workable (I suspect).

 

[Sarcelle]

If I remember right, weren’t there two popes at one time? Two competing popes? One in France and the other in Rome?

The Church still managed to thrive in spite of human shenanigans. The Divine Bridegroom will never abandon His Bride.

 

[GEddie]

If I remember right, weren’t there two popes at one time? Two competing popes? One in France and the other in Rome?

The Church still managed to thrive in spite of human shenanigans. The Divine Bridegroom will never abandon His Bride.

There were not two (or later 3) popes; there was dispute as to who was pope. Big difference.

The Papacy had been moved to France for seventy years. When it returned to the Vatican, the cardinals based in France refused to give up the power. The fun began at that point.

There can no more be two popes than a body can have two heads.

ICXC NIKA

 

[claymcdermott]

Well, commenter, then we have a very real disagreement. I think the very fact that globally, Protestantism seems to not accept abortion and gay marriage is pretty telling.

Plus, the fact Protestants went over 400 years (and the Orthodox are on year, what 800?) before any of them even accepted contraception in anything but extreme cases might indicate that the pope is not the sole guarantor of orthodoxy and in his absence the whole church dies. Plus, okay, so LCMS has some ecumenism (I won’t call Catholicism a lighthouse for them); do you think that in the event of a long interregnum they would fall apart? If not, then present-day we have a church that stays together and relatively orthodox without the pope.

We have a lot of bishops, not just one. Magisterial hierarchy does not die with the pope, which seems to be your contention.

And, look, I believe that there needs to be a final expression of orthodoxy at which point we can say, “okay, the buck stops here,” and I am grateful for Christ’s gift of papal infallibility, but that last resort, as important as it may be at some points in history, is not the only thing keeping the Church together, and it does not sum up Catholic Christianity. And if you think we would fall apart without it if we went without it for ten years, then you are being ahistorical, since we have had crises, and survived.

 

[claymcdermott]

And GEddie, I know it would never happen. I just think the thought experiment might illustrate what exactly is the role of the pope in your mind.

If you see Catholicism turning into a snake cult in ten years of his absence, than you have a certain view.

If you see the institutional structure falling apart, then you have a certain view.

If you see us getting on for a while, but nor forever, without him, well, then you have a certain view of who the pope is and what he is for.

Eastern rite Catholics, I am interested in your opinions.

PS Toe in the water, I think you are thinking about Sixtus V, friend or Bellarmine. Poor guy. I like to think of his death (which you know, old guy) being timed well, rather than God going, “Shoot! I had better kill this guy before he really messes this whole thing up!”

 

[GEddie]

I’m gonna google Sixtus V.

OK, to play the game:

No, I don’t think we’d become a snake cult.

To my mind, **Pope : church **as head : body.

A headless human body doesn’t become a cat, it decomposes.

The organizational structure (as set up in interregnal mode) would not fall apart, it would become meaningless. Although a dead skeleton maintains its structure and shape, it supports nothing of importance.

One-hundred years after the “Hung Conclave” was dismissed, the RCC would have devolved into dozens of continental bodies, analogous to Orthodoxy, but, due to physical distance and cultural divergence, farther apart in praxis and teaching than the Protestant faith bodies.

By 150 years, they’d be expending more effort trying to get along than the RCC does now in dialogue with other faiths. They’d continue to send pilgrims to Rome, and representatives to the now archaic Vatican organization, but mostly out of nostalgia.

And Islam would inherit the earth, because as Saint Peter’s boss said, A house divided cannot stand.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[ProVobis]

If I remember right, weren’t there two popes at one time?

FWIW, at one time the Roman Empire was ruled by two consuls. And it actually thrived, although there was more to it than that. It seemed to change substantially when the people decided on one Caesar to rule it. But don’t take this as making a point, just sayin…

 

[Michael_Francis]

Closed pending review by moderator Thomas Casey.