HA, eft! You cheered me up this morning. Who are the papabili, or to paraphrase Fr. Hunwicke, who's running for Mr. Urbi et Orbi?

You even inspired a "pome."

How do you cope
When life's a soap
And your pope
Dims all hope?

Don't get a rope.
Don't do dope.
Don't sit and mope.

Hey, can we elope
With another pope?

The answer's "Nope",
you silly dope.
Don't slide down
That slipp'ry slope.

papabile

*cone of silence DOWN*

Well i had not imagined other than the one above,
but I think you are right, we do need to realise there might be others.
Hate to be caught under prepared, but gosh, there are so many in the College.

Mr UeO list thoughts ...

M.
He has previously published encyclicals
that are followed by head scratching and dubiums.
He has a proposer already campaigning.

AW.
I like his image-assisted directness, but I am allergic to the image.

BY.
Has advantage of youth, so would mean a long tenure.
But the CROOKED BOWTIE slight (no CB score copy to me) remains.

MJ.
No way because of the numerous pending recto tono court matters.

RD.
I dont know. People already say The Pope.
The transition could be smooth for some,
but think of the Gloria and the Creed stumblings that still happen four years later.

Something i must do is compile my "view with suspicion" list.
It must start with anyone involved in the FRENZIED incident.

*cone of silence UP*

Hey Julie, I have no idea about papabile.
Did you see that huge shipment of boxes that was delivered earlier?
I think the Portable Cone Of Silence (PCOS) rollout is happening today.
Woohoo!

CW.
He might be good at moving forward the East West unity.

That thought has crossed my mind. The Orthodox say they would accept the papacy as it existed during the first 1,000 years of Christianity. In other words, before it became a Medieval/Renaissance monarchy.

Excellent work on the thumbnail sketches, EFT!

I was just thinking the other day that the name of His Eminence Vingt-Trois is like a Get Smart character.

Chief: What do we know about Cardinal 23?
Max: Would you believe he's not a KAOS agent after all?
99: Oh, Max.

The article is correct. Doctrine is off-the-table for discussion. That is fixed and can not be changed. Also, anyone looking for unity of thought in Orthodoxy is looking in the wrong place. The non-doctrinal items can vary from patriarchate to patriarchate.

Quite frankly, dear Fr. Ron, I don't know where to start, but perhaps I'll start with the difference between "development" and "reversal" of doctrine.

John Henry Newman, in his essay on the development of Christian doctrine shows us that when there is a development of doctrine, there is no contradiction with what came before, but rather, a development is nothing more than a deeper insight and more complete explanation without in any way contradicting what came before.

This is what Pope Benedict referred to over and over again as the "hermeneutic of continuity". What Fr. Ruff is trying to pass off in this article is the "hermeneutic of rupture." If you have read Dignitatis humanae, I'm sure you're careful enough to realize that DH says in the very first part of the document that it in no way contradicts what came before, and in fact reasserts it.

Now to the Pope's Oct. 17 discourse: If you want, I'll be more than happy to take a trip down memory lane with you to the Councils of the Church and also through Denziger to show you that the Pope's authority is clearly enumerated in Catholic dogma and cannot be changed in any essential way.

The Pope has the fullness of power, but he does not have absolute power, so he has absolutely zero power to change what Christ ordained. The first Vatican Council taught that the Pope cannot invent new doctrine, and his role consists in being the guardian of the deposit of Faith which he has no power to alter, so the Pope does not have the authority to change the dogmatic Constitution of the Church.

So, if anyone who wants to go down this road and claim that dogma and the Constitution of the Church may change, you're going to have to show us all where the Church has taught that, and what its "roots" in divine revelation are (which essential references were missing from the Pope's discourse, by the way.)

The Pope has no more power to make new dogma than he does to dissolve even one valid marriage. Nothing has changed in Catholic dogma or the Church's Constitution, nor can it, and I might add, there's quite an irony in what is being attempted here:

If the implications in the article are true---that Vatican II reversed the doctrine of the Church in matters pertaining to religious liberty---then what you are really saying is that Arbp. Lefebrve was right, because he too believed that Vatican II contradicted the Church's previous teaching on this subject.

Here's my question: are you asserting that Arbp. Lefebrve and the SSPX are correct that the Church's doctrine on religious liberty was contradicted by Vatican II?

If you are in agreement with the SSPX on their essential doctrinal critique of Vatican II, perhaps we can take up a collection for a first-class ticket for you to fly to Econe and announce the stunning news that Fr. Ruff et al. believe that SSPX and Archbishop Lefebrve were correct on Vatican II all along. Imagine that. That's a game-changer.

Wow, I was ridin' high in April, shot down in May.
So CW surged ahead by having a platform.
I have one too! FREE STUFF. Free stuff for me. Free fiddlebacks for everyone. And, I WILL live in the Pontifical Palace.

@CharlesW: Your most recent response and several of the comments you made on the topic of "worst innovation of the past sixty years" point to the fact that many folks in and out of the Church - no matter where they are on the progressive-reactionary spectrum - do not accept authority. It's a cultural thing by now.

In the Church liberals like Andrew Greeley pointed to Humanae vitae as the origin of the diminution of papal authority. It may have been - for liberals. But the questioning of authority today is not reserved to liberals - as is demonstrated by many comments on this Forum. All authority - civil and ecclesiastical - is questioned, by just about everyone, it seems.

In the Church liberals like Andrew Greeley pointed to Humanae vitae as the origin of the diminution of papal authority.

I never had any problems with that document. My issues with Paul VI center around him doing a bad job of running the Church. He was administratively incompetent, a waffler, and I think, essentially confused about the requirements of his office.

I agree on the lack of respect for authority. Granted, some in authority don't seem deserving of it.

60 years ago, we didn't question the authority of our parents to the extent we do now. Greater access to information has caused us to question received wisdom. 60 years ago, how would a Catholic layman learn enough about the liturgy to criticize reforms? Those who knew enough were those who learned from those who knew more. Today, everyone with internet access can be an armchair liturgist, or history teacher or climate scientist.

*PCOS*

Hey Julie, did you see Oprah ?
Wow.
M was on as a guest.
He was talking about liturgy and stuff.
And then Oprah was standing up and shouting
and everybody was jumping up and down and cheering and applauding
and the only part that was distinguishable to me
(due to no cable, no internet, just cell unlimited data for my feed)
was "Free fiddlebacks for everyone."
Those show helpers were wheeling out clothes racks of them,
and dollies stacked with boxes of latin books,
and i dont know what all else
(due to cell phone tiny screen).
We might need to prioritise the list of EF chapels
so the most needy are the early recipients of this largesse!

When things calmed down,
they started talking about the pontifical palace,
and how it should be used for its intended purpose,
and things like that.

M is becomming quite likeable dont you think?
Good times ahead with this choice!

Did you see the presser?
I think it had a couple of Oprah and M soundbites.

@Blaise: you appear not to understand what a "ratum" marriage is in canon 1141. It's a marriage contracted by a man and woman, both of whom are baptized.

If a marriage is non-sacramental (non ratum) because one or both parties is/are not baptized, the Roman Pontiff does have the power to dissolve such a marriage, even if it is consummated.

@johnmann: The Roman Pontiff also quite regularly dissolves sacramental (ratum) marriages which have not been consummated.

No disrespect, Father, but I have read the canons and understand perfectly that a "ratum" marriage is a marriage between two baptized people, and I have cited canon 1142 which provides the means by which such a marriage may be dissolved. The person I quoted stated that any sacramental marriages could not be dissolved, which I understand to be a marriage between two baptized Christians. I have quoted the proper canons which state the conditions in which they could (namely that the marriage is not consummated). Please do not accuse me of ignorance when I have cited my sources.

Please do not accuse me of ignorance when I have cited my sources.

@Blaise: I wrote that "you appear not to understand what a 'ratum' marriage is in canon 1141." My misunderstanding arose from the fact that you quoted canons 1141 and 1142 after the erroneous statement, "No power to dissolve sacramental marriage. The pope can dissolve non-sacramental but valid marriages." Without your providing any additional commentary, I mistakenly took it that you were using the two canons to support the erroneous statement. My bad, but it was not as bad as you took it to be.

Give your blessing, Father,

Understood, no more quarrels then from my side.

Everyone else:

What is the new business, now that Administrator....err.....Pope Melo is back in town? :)

Melo, I think he is trying to undermine your candidacy. The dark horse emerges. LOL.

Synod was planned Oct 4 -- 25 so I thought six more days.
I do not know.
The USCCB website is confusing.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/2014-2015-synods-of-bishops-on-the-family.cfm

This Forum Discussion began
Considering the ancient maxim that lex credendi legem orandi statuat, do you think delegating to bishops' conferences [...] will have an effect on liturgy and sacred music?

So, when the Synod is over, we can better speculate on the implications.

Aha! It appears that my feeble stab-in-the-dark guess a few days ago was correct: Roberto de Mattei concurs that the proposition that a Pope can use the power of his office to abrogate that office is a fallacy and violates the principle of non-contradiction:

Decentralization not only damages the Roman Primacy, but also denies the principle of non- contradiction, that: “A thing cannot be A and not A at the same time and in the same sense, be what it is and not be what it is .” It is only on basis of this primary, logical and metaphysical principle that we are able to use our reason and grasp the reality which surrounds us.

Out of sheer curiosity, I'm wondering if CharlesW can answer a question of mine: Will the Eastern Catholics grant a second marriage following a divorce, as the Orthodox do, or do they follow the Roman discipline on this?

Out of sheer curiosity, I'm wondering if CharlesW can answer a question of mine: Will the Eastern Catholics grant a second marriage following a divorce, as the Orthodox do, or do they follow the Roman discipline on this?

I wish it were that clear. Jurisdictions outside the U.S. tend to go their own way more than U.S. eparchies do. For example, they were ordaining married men when bishops in the U.S. would not do so. My suspicion is that eastern Catholic practice is not different than Roman in the U.S. I have had no reason to check on this so I am not sure.

De Mattei overstated his case there.

Non-contradiction is the first tautology, the "hello, is this thing on, testing, testing" of thought. It's Aristotle's Cogito, that's why he defined it: I think, therefore I see that non-contradiction is true. You can't think it's false. If you try to deny it you are just gah gah do go ba ba dada ba da.

But it's perfectly coherent for an office to make its last official act be its own disestablishment. Happens all the time. The Pope surely doesn’t have the power to do it, but if he tried, it wouldn't be a logical contradiction: it just wouldn't work.

I don't see the spiritual value in the speculations. If and when there is actual legislation would be the time to consider it. Anxiety is not of God, and stoking it does no service to God. (However, in a consumerist economic culture, we become deeply acculturated to stoking anxiety, because anxiety is what makes us consume (be it things or ideas or entertainment) to dampen the worry - but only for a bit - and we can readily rationalize ways to keep on doing it. My favorite quick example of this dynamic in action outside the religious realm are the nearly daily stories on morning TV news about health and obesity and what not - and then punctuated by ads for processed foods of divers sorts - the conjunction of the two is not inadvertent but deliberate. The stories stoke anxiety, and the ads promise something that can provide momentary relief from said anxiety, even if it's on a lag, it's the placing of the seed of the idea that's important.)

I don't quite agree with Andrew on the principle of non-contradiction, but that's a dispute about the philosophy of logic involving subtle matters that we need not pursue here...

I do agree that there is nothing incoherent about an official dissolving his own office. I also agree with Julie that such an act is qualitatively of a sort different from carrying out the ministry of that office. Nor is it always the case that the inhabitant of an office even has the authority to dissolve that office. But there's nothing incoherent about it.

Thanks for your advice, but I'm actually not feeling anxious at all. I'm not panicking in the least. I have put my trust in Our Lady and Our Lord, and I have whole-hearted faith in the indefectibility of the Church. I know the Church will survive; I'm just trying to figure out with the help of the very knowledgeable people here what is going on and what might be coming down the pike, and I won't apologize for that.

We all have different temperaments and different callings, and everyone deals with trouble in a different way. I function best when I know what's coming and can prepare myself mentally and spiritually for it and be ready to deal with it when it hits. Others run and hide or ignore it, and maybe that's good for their souls, and I'm not about to knock that in the least because maybe they're called to do other things at other stages.

It's just like when you see the clouds get dark and the sky starts to turn yellow around the edges and little whispy funnel clouds start forming on the horizon. That's when I turn on the radio and call my neighbors and start getting my tornado supplies ready so I can grab everyone and run into the basement if need be. This is the same type of scenario. If you aren't looking out the window or watching the sky, you'll never know there's a cyclone headed straight for your house until it's too late.

For the Pope to talk about inverting the pyramid (or whatever the metaphor is) is unsurprising, since one of his titles is "Servus servorum Dei".