T
tuopaolo
Guest
Yeah I think some people mistakenly think it’s 75 due to the age of submitting one’s retirement being 75, I believe.
- Status
T
TNT
Guest
HildeBrand. I was in error on Post 19.
John Paul II has tossed out over 800 years of tradition and will allow the next pope to be elected by an absolute majority of the college of cardinals rather than by a two-thirds majority. This is the most radical change in the process of electing popes since 1970 when Paul VI took the vote away from cardinals who had turned 80 years of age.
According to the 1179 decree of Alexander III, the election of the pope required a two-thirds majority of the college of cardinals, a law that remained in force until Pius XII made it two-thirds plus one in 1945. Pius XII added the extra vote to eliminate the cumbersome process then in place to make sure that a cardinal did not vote for himself.
In his apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, **John Paul states that two-thirds of the votes of the cardinal electors present are required to elect the pope. If the number of cardinals present is not equally divisible by three, one additional vote is required. Thus John Paul, unlike earlier popes, does not appear to be worried about a cardinal voting for himself.
More importantly, if after three days of voting (with as many as two ballots in the morning and two in the afternoon), no one receives a two-thirds vote, the voting is suspended for one day of prayer and discussion. This is followed by another seven ballots and another day of prayer and discussion. If after two additional sets of seven ballots the cardinals still have not elected someone by a two-thirds vote, an absolute majority of the cardinals can vote to change the rules to allow the election of the pope by a absolute majority. (An absolute majority is more than half of the electors).**
What this change means is that if an absolute majority votes for a particular candidate on the very first vote of the conclave, there is no incentive for them to compromise. All they need to do is hold tough through the requisite series of ballots until they will be permitted to change the rules and elect their candidate.
This is a radical departure from church tradition that encouraged compromise and consensus in the selection of popes. In the past, just over a third of the cardinals could stop the election of a particular candidate who they found objectionable. This forced the majority to compromise with the minority in finding a candidate who was acceptable to two-thirds of the cardinals.
The authors of the new rules appear to believe that the church, or at least the college of cardinals, is a democracy where the majority should rule. For American political scientists the change is reminiscent of a similar change in the rules governing Democratic Party conventions, which before 1936 required a two-thirds vote of the delegates to nominate a presidential candidate.
*Universi Dominici Gregis *does not explain why this revolutionary change was made. Perhaps it was feared that now that the cardinal electors will have decent living quarters in Domus Sanctae Marthae, as opposed to cubicles in the Apostolic Palace, there is less incentive for them to elect a pope and go home. Changing the rules reduces the likelihood of a long conclave.
Divisions within the college of cardinals have sometimes made it difficult for a candidate to obtain a two-thirds majority vote. In the thirteenth century the papacy was vacant for a year and a half before the election of Innocent IV and for three and a half years before the installation of Gregory X. In recent times, especially since the fall of the papal states, conclaves have been shorter. The last conclave to go more than four days was in 1831. It lasted 54 days.
The practical consequences of the change in the election rules is significant. If a conservative majority holds the college of cardinals, it is now much more likely that they will elect a hard-line, authoritarian conservative rather than a pastoral conservative. Likewise, if a liberal majority holds the college, it is now more likely that they will elect a hard-line liberal rather than a pragmatic progressive.
John Paul II has tossed out over 800 years of tradition and will allow the next pope to be elected by an absolute majority of the college of cardinals rather than by a two-thirds majority. This is the most radical change in the process of electing popes since 1970 when Paul VI took the vote away from cardinals who had turned 80 years of age.
According to the 1179 decree of Alexander III, the election of the pope required a two-thirds majority of the college of cardinals, a law that remained in force until Pius XII made it two-thirds plus one in 1945. Pius XII added the extra vote to eliminate the cumbersome process then in place to make sure that a cardinal did not vote for himself.
In his apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, **John Paul states that two-thirds of the votes of the cardinal electors present are required to elect the pope. If the number of cardinals present is not equally divisible by three, one additional vote is required. Thus John Paul, unlike earlier popes, does not appear to be worried about a cardinal voting for himself.
More importantly, if after three days of voting (with as many as two ballots in the morning and two in the afternoon), no one receives a two-thirds vote, the voting is suspended for one day of prayer and discussion. This is followed by another seven ballots and another day of prayer and discussion. If after two additional sets of seven ballots the cardinals still have not elected someone by a two-thirds vote, an absolute majority of the cardinals can vote to change the rules to allow the election of the pope by a absolute majority. (An absolute majority is more than half of the electors).**
What this change means is that if an absolute majority votes for a particular candidate on the very first vote of the conclave, there is no incentive for them to compromise. All they need to do is hold tough through the requisite series of ballots until they will be permitted to change the rules and elect their candidate.
This is a radical departure from church tradition that encouraged compromise and consensus in the selection of popes. In the past, just over a third of the cardinals could stop the election of a particular candidate who they found objectionable. This forced the majority to compromise with the minority in finding a candidate who was acceptable to two-thirds of the cardinals.
The authors of the new rules appear to believe that the church, or at least the college of cardinals, is a democracy where the majority should rule. For American political scientists the change is reminiscent of a similar change in the rules governing Democratic Party conventions, which before 1936 required a two-thirds vote of the delegates to nominate a presidential candidate.
*Universi Dominici Gregis *does not explain why this revolutionary change was made. Perhaps it was feared that now that the cardinal electors will have decent living quarters in Domus Sanctae Marthae, as opposed to cubicles in the Apostolic Palace, there is less incentive for them to elect a pope and go home. Changing the rules reduces the likelihood of a long conclave.
Divisions within the college of cardinals have sometimes made it difficult for a candidate to obtain a two-thirds majority vote. In the thirteenth century the papacy was vacant for a year and a half before the election of Innocent IV and for three and a half years before the installation of Gregory X. In recent times, especially since the fall of the papal states, conclaves have been shorter. The last conclave to go more than four days was in 1831. It lasted 54 days.
The practical consequences of the change in the election rules is significant. If a conservative majority holds the college of cardinals, it is now much more likely that they will elect a hard-line, authoritarian conservative rather than a pastoral conservative. Likewise, if a liberal majority holds the college, it is now more likely that they will elect a hard-line liberal rather than a pragmatic progressive.
M
mkamoski
Guest
Deus Solus:
The Church, (the Mystical Body of Christ), can never be split.
Human structures are falliable, especially inasmuch as humans turn from God’s Grace.
If we, members of the Church (everyone in it) does the will of God, then the Church will probably be fine.
So, you see, it is up to us.
That said, I say it is VERY unlikely that a split would happen any time soon.
We have been blessed thus far with the excellent guidance and example of our current Pope. When God calls him onward, we should pray that we are so lucky to find such a worthy person to assume the office.
HTH.
May the peace of Christ, Lord and Savior, be with you,
–Mark
D–
The Church, (the Mystical Body of Christ), can never be split.
Human structures are falliable, especially inasmuch as humans turn from God’s Grace.
If we, members of the Church (everyone in it) does the will of God, then the Church will probably be fine.
So, you see, it is up to us.
That said, I say it is VERY unlikely that a split would happen any time soon.
We have been blessed thus far with the excellent guidance and example of our current Pope. When God calls him onward, we should pray that we are so lucky to find such a worthy person to assume the office.
HTH.
May the peace of Christ, Lord and Savior, be with you,
–Mark
D
dumspirospero
Guest
Good…so that means Ratzinger will be there and possibly get elected…God Forbid anything happen to JPII…I think Ratzinger would probably be the best and most competent person for his successor.
JKirkLVNV:
T
TNT
Guest
I’d be happy if the next pope still believes in God, the Exclusivity of the Catholic Faith, uses that hated phrase “Catholic Church” instead of the “people of god” (whatever that means), in public and that Hell is not empty. Oh, and only kisses babies!
I realize that I’m hard to please, but if yur asking, ask for it all!
And, if that happens, a lot of this Forum will die from slience on “papal behavior”.
Ok, 1 last thing…give us sheep Encyclicals that we can understand before the 12th reading and without 10 years of “theological” interpretation and debate!
May God Bless JPII and give him a restful final era. It appears that he is utterly heartbroken that he cannot speak to the Faithful, far greater than any pain.
It is interesting that the Church has been in agony and near exile for 40 years (the final signing of VATII) as of 2005…December 8…
H
Hildebrand
Guest
Oops, looks like according to that source - a max of 33 votes (not 30 vote) for the 2/3 voting.
3 days of max 4 votes per day = 12
3 days of max 7 votes per day = 21
12+21 = 33
T
TNT
Guest
Whew! That’s a lot possible “smoke” up the chimney
I forget the color,
Oops. Here it is:
H
Hildebrand
Guest
black = noWhew! That’s a lot possible “smoke” up the chimney
I forget the color, white for NO, gray for Yea?
white = yea
catholic-pages.com/pope/election.asp
T
TNT
Guest
You sure have a fast draw pardner.
A
adstrinity
Guest
There’s a saying, though, “He walks in expecting to become the Pope, leaves a cardinal”…or something along those lines.
You know what? Maybe it’s because I’ve never been through this before combined with my naivety, but, I’m not worried about who the next Pope will be. God promised his Church that the truth shall reside with her always & so shall it be. God will give the Church what she needs WHEN she needs it. Now, I’m not saying that the Latin Mass in EVERY Catholic church at least once every Sunday wouldn’t be nice, BUT, we know that who ever IS elected, will either do the will of God, or, not make any decisions regarding faith & morals. We’ve had a 2,000 year run and so far, so good (says the one who’s been Catholic since 2002.
)
You know what? Maybe it’s because I’ve never been through this before combined with my naivety, but, I’m not worried about who the next Pope will be. God promised his Church that the truth shall reside with her always & so shall it be. God will give the Church what she needs WHEN she needs it. Now, I’m not saying that the Latin Mass in EVERY Catholic church at least once every Sunday wouldn’t be nice, BUT, we know that who ever IS elected, will either do the will of God, or, not make any decisions regarding faith & morals. We’ve had a 2,000 year run and so far, so good (says the one who’s been Catholic since 2002.
)
T
TNT
Guest
You got that just right. I just hope he gives the Church a little rest in peace before I die. I’d like to see what that’s like…Oh. and do some burning at the stake…it’s been toooo long. Even the Prot. don’t do it any more… WHAT’S HAPPENED TO TRADITION?There’s a saying, though, “He walks in expecting to become the Pope, leaves a cardinal”…or something along those lines.
You know what? Maybe it’s because I’ve never been through this before combined with my naivety, but, I’m not worried about who the next Pope will be. God promised his Church that the truth shall reside with her always & so shall it be. God will give the Church what she needs WHEN she needs it. Now, I’m not saying that the Latin Mass in EVERY Catholic church at least once every Sunday wouldn’t be nice, BUT, we know that who ever IS elected, will either do the will of God, or, not make any decisions regarding faith & morals. We’ve had a 2,000 year run and so far, so good (says the one who’s been Catholic since 2002.
S
serendipity
Guest
What is the rationale for having a cut-off age for those who can vote on the Pope’s successor, but no maximum age requirement to mandate retirement for the Pope? It seems like a double standard.
T
TNT
Guest
Cardinals or bishops could and did frequently retire from “active” duty throughout the ages. No such thing for a Pope. There might have been 1 or 2 out of 267. (I know 1 quit shortly after election, and went into seclusion because he decided he was unworthy.) But they are there til death, normally. It would seem that a retired pope would have to watch his successor make some changes about which he disagreed. Couldn’t you see the sheep, the bishops, and now the public press trying to get a “pope’s” OPINION on how the Pope-present is behaving, teaching, personality, blah blah…undue influence, blah blah. Sending him “wish YOU were still Pope”, blah, blah.
NOT a good idea!
C
Catholic_Dude
Guest
I have a question about canonized popes. I looked on a list and the last one was StPius X in 1914, and before that St Pius V in 1572. So what makes a pope a Saint?
It looks like almost the first 50 were saints, and then it was every few, but in the last 1000 years it hasnt been that many?
It looks like almost the first 50 were saints, and then it was every few, but in the last 1000 years it hasnt been that many?
T
Thal59
Guest
- Bells will ring all over the world.
- Papal embalmers will prepare the body for possible future veneration, should the deceased Pope be declared a saint at a later date.
- The Papal apartment will be sealed.
- The Papal signet ring will be scored and shattered. (To insure that no false documents are attributed to the deceased Pope.)
- The body will lay in state at the Sistine Chapel adorned in full Pontifical raiment and mitre, flanked by white candles, lying under Michaelangelo’s fresco of the last day.
- Masses will be said for him, and he will be granted nine absolutions.
- His body will be placed in three caskets; one of cedar, one of lead, and one of pine.
- The Conclave of Cardinals will go through the election process stated by the previous replies above.
- Upon election, the faithful gathered at St. Peter’s square will be told… “We have a Pope.”
- The new Pope will appear at the balcony and bless the faithful.
Thal59
T
TNT
Guest
Catholic Dude:
Most of the Saint Popes were defacto canonized by Martyrdom. There are very few by Tribunal, as at least 2 certifiable miracles were required. Really hard to come by. I’ve only done 1 miracle myself, and I can tell you, IT’S TOUGH!
4
4_marks
Guest
Deus Solus:
The Atlantic Monthly | October 2002
The Next Christianity
http://www.theatlantic.com/images/1pt.gif
We stand at a historical turning point, the author argues—one that is as epochal for the Christian world as the original Reformation. Around the globe Christianity is growing and mutating in ways that observers in the West tend not to see. Tumultuous conflicts within Christianity will leave a mark deeper than Islam’s on the century ahead by Philip Jenkins
**… **
Ever since the sexual-abuse crisis erupted in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church in the mid-1980s, with allegations of child molestation by priests, commentators have regularly compared the problems faced by the Church to those it faced in Europe at the start of the sixteenth century, on the eve of the Protestant Reformation—problems that included sexual laxity and financial malfeasance among the clergy, and clerical contempt for the interests of the laity. Calls for change have become increasingly urgent since January, when revelations of widespread sexual misconduct and grossly negligent responses to it emerged prominently in the Boston archdiocese. Similar, if less dramatic, problems have been brought to light in New Orleans, Providence, Palm Beach, Omaha, and many other dioceses. The reform agendas now under discussion within the U.S. hierarchy involve ideas about increased lay participation in governance—ideas of the sort heard when Martin Luther confronted the Roman Catholic orthodoxy of his day. They also include such ideas as admitting women to the priesthood and permitting priests to marry.
Explicit analogies to the Reformation have become commonplace not only among commentators but also among anticlerical activists, among victims’ groups, and, significantly, among ordinary lay believers. One representative expert on sexual misconduct, much quoted, is Richard Sipe, a former monk who worked at the sexual-disorders clinic at Johns Hopkins University and is now a psychotherapist based in California. Over the years Sipe has spoken regularly of “a new Reformation.” “We are at 1515,” he has written, “between when Martin Luther went to Rome in 1510 and 1517 when he nailed his 95 theses on the door in Wittenberg.” That act can reasonably be seen as the symbolic starting point of the Reformation, when a united Christendom was rent asunder.
Certainly. Consider the following article from the Atlantic Monthly.
The Atlantic Monthly | October 2002
The Next Christianity
http://www.theatlantic.com/images/1pt.gif
We stand at a historical turning point, the author argues—one that is as epochal for the Christian world as the original Reformation. Around the globe Christianity is growing and mutating in ways that observers in the West tend not to see. Tumultuous conflicts within Christianity will leave a mark deeper than Islam’s on the century ahead by Philip Jenkins
**… **
Ever since the sexual-abuse crisis erupted in the U.S. Roman Catholic Church in the mid-1980s, with allegations of child molestation by priests, commentators have regularly compared the problems faced by the Church to those it faced in Europe at the start of the sixteenth century, on the eve of the Protestant Reformation—problems that included sexual laxity and financial malfeasance among the clergy, and clerical contempt for the interests of the laity. Calls for change have become increasingly urgent since January, when revelations of widespread sexual misconduct and grossly negligent responses to it emerged prominently in the Boston archdiocese. Similar, if less dramatic, problems have been brought to light in New Orleans, Providence, Palm Beach, Omaha, and many other dioceses. The reform agendas now under discussion within the U.S. hierarchy involve ideas about increased lay participation in governance—ideas of the sort heard when Martin Luther confronted the Roman Catholic orthodoxy of his day. They also include such ideas as admitting women to the priesthood and permitting priests to marry.
Explicit analogies to the Reformation have become commonplace not only among commentators but also among anticlerical activists, among victims’ groups, and, significantly, among ordinary lay believers. One representative expert on sexual misconduct, much quoted, is Richard Sipe, a former monk who worked at the sexual-disorders clinic at Johns Hopkins University and is now a psychotherapist based in California. Over the years Sipe has spoken regularly of “a new Reformation.” “We are at 1515,” he has written, “between when Martin Luther went to Rome in 1510 and 1517 when he nailed his 95 theses on the door in Wittenberg.” That act can reasonably be seen as the symbolic starting point of the Reformation, when a united Christendom was rent asunder.
J
John_19_59
Guest
I think the Italians have a saying which goes ‘Morto un Papa se ne fa un altro!’ “The Pope is dead, lets make another one” - they’re quite experienced at it.
The Pope hopefully goes to his eternal rest and the mission of the Church carries on.
Pray for the Pope, Lord have mercy on him.
The Pope hopefully goes to his eternal rest and the mission of the Church carries on.
Pray for the Pope, Lord have mercy on him.
F
Franze
Guest
We have to pray for the next one, is necessary
D
Dredgemate
Guest
Don’t get your hopes up, have you ever heard the saying “A cardinal can walk into the conclave the future Pope, and walk out a cardinal”?
- Status