To be precise, it is required that the declaration of resignation of a pope be in correct Latin, otherwise it is invalid. If I remember correctly, that was part of Pope Celestine V's Declaration about papal abdication.

Love and loyalty to Christ is not mutually exclusive of mental illness.

Obviously I'm not qualified to diagnose and commit. But I figure I'm qualified to ramble on message boards.

Moreover - assuming he is mentally unfit somehow is more about me than it is about him. I choose the most charitable interpretation I can think of. Better that, I think, than assume he's a damned heretic, or possessed by a demon, or just run-of-the-mill nutball.

Either way, the effectiveness of my prayers for him (both on him and on myself) are (mercifully) not dependent on my accuracy.

Deleted.

Bad comparison, Francis. The Catholic Church doesn't have separation of powers in the same sense as does the government of the United States of America. Regarding supreme legislative authority: last year, when the bishop of Rome washed the feet of women and infidels, some canonists claimed that it was within his power to institute changes in the liturgy simply by introducing a novelty, without promulgating any prior legislation to the effect. This would be laughable if people weren't seriously trying to make that argument, but they are, and it's dangerous territory, IMO.

All of this makes me clearly understand why the Orthodox are only willing to accept the papacy as it functioned in the first thousand years of the church.

Jimmy Akin is a reporter.

As for Pope Michael, I am reading his Wikipedia article. If he claims that all popes since Pius XII are not legit, then from where does his group of followers gain the authority to elect him? A true anti-pope would at least have somebody with plausible claim, such as a competing group of bishops, to serve as electors. "Pope" Michael's electors, however, were all laity--including his parents.


I wouldn't even call him a legit anti-pope, if you know what I mean. I think he just wants to make a statement.

Well, yes: but the queen could theoretically declare war on some other nation on a whim by virtue of her sovereign power. But everyone (including she) knows that she would do this only if she were 'incompetent'. This is all in the realm of fantasy and would be an issue only in the case of obvious mental imbalance.

But it IS divine, and the council did not bury it.
Being divine, it did what it did under the guidance of the Holy Ghost. The problems we have experienced in its wake represent not the acts of the council itself, but the acts of men and women who rather 'invented' something called 'The Spirit of Vatican II' and who were and continue to be actually disobedient to the council.

I'm nervous to read most of the posts in this thread, but two thoughts:

1) Thanks, Adam Wood, for some levity.
2) I will definitely plan a trip to the cathedral in Phoenix if we all get free fried chicken! Seeing Col. Sanders play the organ would also be a treat!

Like this?

sssssssss
s organ s
sssssssss

I take it, then, that what you have at the moment is one of those organ simulacra?
Prayers will be offered that your wish for an organ is fulfilled!

I thought for RECTO TONO chant you need only one Pipe ... do you need Two Pipes (not to upstage the two Popes question)?

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2014/02/benedict-xvi-thinks-your-idea-is-simply-absurd/

Dude, you just created a hybrid of Latin, English and Ebonics!

madorganist February 24 Thanks
Posts: 24
Bad comparison, Francis. The Catholic Church doesn't have separation of powers in the same sense as does the government of the United States of America.

And the intrigue unfolds...

madorganist.

It seems you can't have it both ways. If what youy say about separation of powers is true, then perhaps this also means the papacy is not just a corporation from which one can 'resign' as one of it's officers, but maintains an indelible mark from God. And if one can just resign, is it beneficial to do so for the sake of the elect and the 'mass confusion' (pun intended) it leaves in its wake? What is truly going on here?

Here are some interesting and pertinent comments from Fr. Z's site under the story link that Salieri posted^^^^-[Fr. Z's comments are in brackets]

I noticed, Father, that it is your natural tendency to adopt “sacerdotal sarcasm” when you might actually be wrong. [Boy! You really got me there. Good one!] Now, Socci might not be correct on all the suggestions, but HIS view events surely is supported by the bizarre and untraditional behavior of the Bishop of Rome: refusal of the mozzetta, signs of authority, omission of the papal titles, call-me-Jorge stuff, etc. If Francis knows he is not really Pope, then he continues to act as a NGO’s CEO that he really is. [There it is... Francis knows he's not the Pope. That's it!]
Surely this whole situation is highly irregular and unheard of, and it definitely doesn’t call for dismissive relegation of it to the level of “conspiracies,” nor does it call for sarcasm. Confusion of the faithful is not a laughing matter. And there is plenty of it, not due to Socci’s articles, but to Bergoglio’s interviews.

[I think everyone should read this comment, so I'll leave it be.]

and also...

slainewe says:
26 February 2014 at 9:46 am
To be perfectly frank, what I find “simply absurd” is the very idea that a pope can “resign”. He is the Holy FATHER! Can a father resign?

If the pope is not a father, well, why do we call him this. Why not call him “president,” elect him for terms and be done with it.

Last year I had a conversation with a Bishop who was being moved from his diocese (cannot divulge his name) and to whom I expressed my exact same sentiment by saying, "Well, I am the father of the Koerber family, but who in their right mind would move a father to be head of a new and different family on a 'corporate whim'. That is ludicrous. "He responded, 'Wow, that is a VERY good analysis."

Liam:

It is not a pseudo-analysis because no one (including myself) is questioning whether Francis is pope. He presently holds the office as all have expressed (see above). You are making a supposition (the real pseudo-argument) that Francis is NOT pope by Benedict still being so. You are making that suggestion. Not any of us.

According to that article, "Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has firmly refuted speculation that he was forced to resign the papacy which, if true, would have invalidated his resignation."

The problem here are the words, "WHICH, IF TRUE would have invalidated his resignation." goes totally against what is said by

ronkrisman February 24 Thanks
Posts: 473
But, of course, the Supreme Pontiff, possessing supreme legislative authority in the Church, is not bound by and is able to change a disciplinary law of one of his predecessors.

and claimed by others, including church authorities. It can't be both ways. Which is it?

Francis

No, I am doing no such thing. Read more carefully what you wrote before.

It makes me sad that this good Holy Father, who was widely misunderstood in his papacy, is now being misunderstood by the people who owe him the most. I've never thought that any man was more honest or honorable, yet no one seems willing to believe a word he says. It's really quite sad.

.

2/28 WAS AN INSIDE JOB

I love how he has worn the same quilted white jacket since 2005.

I think he might be dead if he had stayed in office. He is an elderly man, and the job was clearly getting the best of him. I hope he has a long and joyful retirement.

The papacy is an office, not an order. The pope, whether installed/inaugurated or crowned, is not consecrated to a new order (unless he was not already a bishop). The papacy does not imprint an indelible character on his soul.