Francis’s soul went before the Just Judge at about 07:35 this morning, Easter Monday.
The vast majority of the Catholic world accepted readily that Francis was the legitimate Successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ. Others questioned whether he was legitimate either because of the odd way that Pope Benedict resigned, because of certain machinations by power-broker cardinals before the 2013 conclave, or because of Francis’ subsequent actions. It is mainly to these “others” that I address this, because, within these different groups, there could be doubts about how a College of Cardinals created by such a figure (i.e., not really the Pope) could ever elect a new Pope.
The way I see the question, much hinges on whether the office of Vicar of Christ and Bishop of Rome are inextricably united or not. At the time of Vatican I there was some debate. The majority of theologians thought they were bound together because Peter shed his blood in Rome, which sort of sealed the deal. Other theologians held that the two, Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ, were indeed separable. In fact, Peter was Vicar of Christ before he was bishop of anywhere. He lead the Church of Antioch and then left, taking Vicar of Christ with him. Had he left Rome for elsewhere, ditto. But he didn’t. Still, it is good question.
The proceedings of the modern conclave point to the codification in the rite that the one who is Bishop of Rome is the head of the College of Bishops, which could be another way of saying Vicar of Christ. I’d have to check the wording again.
UPDATE: I checked Universi dominici gregis:
88. After his acceptance, the person elected, if he has already received episcopal ordination, is immediately Bishop of the Church of Rome, true Pope and Head of the College of Bishops. He thus acquires and can exercise full and supreme power over the universal Church.
One thing is clear, however. Since Benedict’s abdication, even if he was right about being able to divide the papacy into a contemplative and an active role (which it seems he was trying to do… a doubtful enterprise) even if Benedict did retain that charism of being Vicar of Christ he certainly did not retain the role of Bishop of Rome (active).
As an aside, remember how Francis never called himself Vicar of Christ and only Bishop of Rome and even dropped Vicar of Christ as one of his formal titles?
There wasn’t much of a question about Francis having his person firmly seated in that Bishop of Rome chair which – pace some – really does make a difference. His authority as Bishop of Rome (at least) was hardly to be questioned. Moreover, his juridical acts would … should… could… be made firm by the Church herself in an Ecclesia supplet way, that is, the Church herself supplying the legitimacy of the act in cases of doubt. I’m not talking about his theological teaching on faith and morals. I’m talking about his juridical acts. I’m not an expert on Ecclesia supplet, but I’m pretty sure I’m right about this.
Here’s my point. If were to hold that there was something wrong with the papacy of Francis, that there was something defective in his election or his subsequent teaching, we can still be confident that, in his role as Bishop of Rome (leaving aside the Vicar of Christ dichotomy) he legitimately appointed clergy for the Diocese of Rome. Cardinals are clergy of the Diocese of Rome. That’s their origin. That’s why every cardinal has a titular church in the Diocese of Rome. That’s why they wear the Roman style biretta (without a pom). That’s why the College is divided into three orders, Bishops, Priests and Deacons… because in the ancient Roman Church the early parishes, tituli, were entrusted to deacons and priests and the outlying ring around Rome was entrusted to bishops.
Bottom line. Again, even if we admit that there was something strange about Francis’ tenure, it seems certain that he legitimately appointed a College of Cardinals.
It is precisely the task of this College to elect a new Bishop of Rome… who, by virtue of being Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter and, therefore, the Vicar of Christ, head of the Apostolic College.
Loading ...
Pingback: Pope Francis, Requiescat In Pace | BIG PULPIT
So with Francis, we now have 3 popes in a row that die during an octave. What are the odds? JPII died during the Saturday of the Easter Octave of 2005. B16 died during the Saturday of the Christmas Octave of 2022. And now Francis, except that it’s the Monday of the Easter Octave of 2025, which happens to be a Holy Year, and of course, that is assuming that his papacy was valid at all.
God keep his soul.
Pingback: Pope Francis Died Last Night | Aliens in This World
Lent plus Holy Week plus Easter is a pretty big load on old guys, so a fair number of priest saints have died during Lent or the variously-dated Octaves of Easter.
There seem to be an unusual number of popes who have died in April, from the earliest times onward. So that goes with my theory. (Although some of those guys were martyred, which goes with the idea that it’s also a matter of Providence.)
I’m not going to look up Easter dates, though, because a lot of those early Easter dates weren’t necessarily calculated the same way as today. If somebody else wants to figure it out, I’d be happy to see it.
The argument that the resignation of BXVI was invalid contradicts the authority of the pope himself.
robtbrown :
The argument that the resignation of BXVI was invalid contradicts the authority of the pope himself.
Quite.
This was a horrible Pontificate, but not an “invalid” one.
As to the man himself, now he in most desperate need of our prayers, as we all shall be in such circumstance as will come to us all.
I seem to recall that some popes who have died (some, not all) kept a sealed letter on who they wanted to be their successor.
If this has happened in the past, even if it was 300 years ago, none of us know at this time if Pope Francis did this. If Pope Francis did do this (I don’t remember if this procedure has occured a few times in history) I could see the conclave lasting a very short time.
robtbrown :
“The argument that the resignation of BXVI was invalid contradicts the authority of the pope himself.”
I disagree. There are limits to what a pope can and cannot do. The argument is that Pope Benedict attempted to bifurcate the papacy, retaining part for himself and allowing someone else to be elected to the “active” role. If that action of redefining the papcy is not within the power of the pope, then B XVI made a substantial error and he did not resign in reality.
@kurtmasur
There are 16 of 365 days in the year within the Christmas or Easter octave. Probably a fair assumption that death is as likely for an 88-year-old man on any given day, though perhaps worth noting that both octaves fall within what was historically called “flu season” pre-COVID, and death rates are materially higher during flu season, especially for the elderly.
So maybe call it 4.4% (pure 16/365 days) to 8.8% (doubled to account for flu season) chance of a Pope dieing within one of the octaves.
That results in on the conservative end the chances being 1 in ~1,450 and more aggressively 1 in ~11,750.
I am a health actuary, so life contingency tables are not my forte, but that’s probably a pretty a good ballpark estimate.
(which it seems he was trying to do… a doubtful enterprise)
Pardon me, but no, and obviously no. Pope Benedict very clearly intended to abdicate the Papacy (which since St. Peter’s death is inseparable from the Roman episcopate, pace some theologians, but even they know that at the very least an explicit Papal decree would be needed to sever them) fully and entirely, and afterwards fulfil the rather unprecedented rôle of a Pope Emeritus.
He was still called “Pope”, but that is a) in its origin a “mere” honorific and b) mirrors the practice of other sovereigns: Juan Carlos is still called “king”, etc. He was not The Pope, just as little as King Juan Carlos is now King of Spain, or as little as Pope Alexander I, bishop of Alexandria, who then legally bore that title because Pope Siricus had not yet restricted it to Rome.
All the rest is just his secretary using perhaps too flowery language for what a Pope Emeritus happens to pass his time with.
Imrahil: You’ve put your foot wrong in several places in your response, above.
1) The “dubious enterprise” to which I referred was NOT his abdication (which was also dubious because it probably wasn’t truly necessary for his health), it was his notion about dividing the papacy into a contemplative and an active dimension.
2) Pope is not the same as King. The office or institution of the Pope evolved especially after the 5th c. and Leo I. As you indicate there are other “Popes” even today, but their status is different in that none of them are also heads of state.
3) The secretary didn’t write or read the Latin statement. Yes, however, I think that copia verborum was applied and I think that that was a VERY bad idea for such a document. There is too much ambiguity about the meaning the words munus, officium, ministerium. Such a document should in no way permit the slightest – not even the slightest – doubt about intent. I think Ratzinger/Benedict knew full well that the terms were somewhat (that’s the problem) interchangeable but much depended on the context. He thought about it for a long time, as he said. There is no way he didn’t also, over a long time, research. Hence, I’d posit with 90% certainty that he knew about now-Card. (and papabile) Peter Erdo’s study of the three terms written some years before the abdication. The study was in Latin, which would leave 99% of pundits dogpaddling for their lives, if not oblivious to the danger of the sharks in the water. Benedict could have read it with perfect comprehension, especially with some focus.
This is a reaction to Father Z’s correction of Imrahil. I have been trying to teach myself Latin for about 30 years now. It seems to me that it is a pleasant past time, but I don’t know if I will ever be able to read easily the second volume of Scanlon and Scanlon which includes a lot of philosophical texts and canon law.
Here is the main problem: There are too many technical terms and phrases as well as idioms and I am guessing that these terms have different meanings in Imperial Latin, Classical Latin and Church Latin. This is why the decline in the use of Latin in Catholic schools as well as Greek, in my opinion is a disaster. One way to see this is by comparing the clarity of classical scholars (i.e. those who teach Greek and Latin) such as the late Father Hunwicke (sp?) who championed the work of Christine Mohrmann. Also Janet Smith I believe was a classicist. I urge everyone to read Christine Mohrmann’s lectures on Ecclesiastical Latin. And of course Father Z often explains in detail the meanings of specific phrases in the collects.