Slappo Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Hypothetical: What happens if a pope lives a very long time (like Bl. John Paul II) and chooses to not name a single cardinal during his papacy. By the time he dies all of the cardinals elect are beyond the voting age or deceased. I guess two scenarios: One is all living cardinals are beyond the voting age, two is that no cardinals are still alive. How would the Church elect the next pope? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Maybe they'd call all the archbishops. Of course it would be difficult to keep the bureaucracy running without cardinals young enough to do lots of paperwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thy Geekdom Come Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 As I'm no expert in canon law, this is just a guess, but I think the canon law would be circumvented by the fact that there is no obligation where there is no means of keeping the obligation, i.e., if there are no cardinals, there is no way to have a licit conclave, so the conclave falls by the wayside and the election follows some different, more ancient tradition. There would probably be anti-popes and schisms following, with no clear indication of who was the real pope. As I recall, even some saints were confused during the Great Western Schism. St. Bernard wrote a letter praising the Pisan anti-pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Canon Laws concerning the conclaves simply states that the Cardinals are the college of electors. The conclaves themselves are currently regulated by Universi Dominici Gregis, put forward by JPII and modified by BXVI. If a future pontiff decided to move away from naming individuals to the college of Cardinals, odds are he would also modify the regulations for a conclave to ensure a clear method to electing his successor. If he were not to do that, perhaps we would default on previous tradition and the election would be left to either the bishops or the clergy of Rome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Well, there haven't always been cardinals. In like the year 1000 electing the pope was the duty of the clergy of Rome and a couple of bishops. So I'd guess either all the bishops would get together like for an ecumenical council, or the principle clergy of Rome would elect the Pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Well, there haven't always been cardinals. In like the year 1000 electing the pope was the duty of the clergy of Rome and a couple of bishops. So I'd guess either all the bishops would get together like for an ecumenical council, or the principle clergy of Rome would elect the Pope. An ecumenical council would not make sense though, since the Eastern Churches do not rightly have a say in the choosing of the Patriarch of the West. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 An ecumenical council would not make sense though, since the Eastern Churches do not rightly have a say in the choosing of the Patriarch of the West. What I meant was "like" an ecumenical council where all the bishops get together. It wasn't a perfect analogy. :hehe2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 What I meant was "like" an ecumenical council where all the bishops get together. It wasn't a perfect analogy. :hehe2: So a local synod then? :hehe: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) So a local synod then? :hehe: No, I meant everyone. Except the Easterns, obviously. :) Edited January 13, 2014 by Basilisa Marie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatholicCid Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Well, there haven't always been cardinals. In like the year 1000 electing the pope was the duty of the clergy of Rome and a couple of bishops. So I'd guess either all the bishops would get together like for an ecumenical council, or the principle clergy of Rome would elect the Pope. As a few interesting side notes, there are actually 3 types of cardinals: Cardinal-Bishops, Cardinal-Priests, and Cardinal-Deacons. These distinctions in office do not represent a differing degree in Holy Orders (Cardinal-Deacons are still generally Bishops), but in the prominence of the titular Church to which the cardinal is named. Each cardinal is given a church within or just outside of Rome which he is "in charge" of. In this way, the current function of cardinals (introduced in 1059) holds to the tradition that the local clergy of Rome elect the Pope. Holding titular Churches within Rome, the Cardinals are, in some sense, the local clergy. Each of the differing types of Cardinals generally hold some function during the conclave as well. For example, the Cardinal to announce the new Pontiff is generally the longest appointed Cardinal-Deacon. Also, Eastern Catholic Cardinals do not hold titular churches, given that they are generally already patriarchs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheresaThoma Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 I find all this very interesting. You learn something new every day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 No, I meant everyone. Except the Easterns, obviously. :) Do we not call a synod of the Latin Church a local synod? I thought local implied the opposite of a general synod, which would include the East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basilisa Marie Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Do we not call a synod of the Latin Church a local synod? I thought local implied the opposite of a general synod, which would include the East. I don't know, maybe. I'm terrible when it comes to ecclesiological terminology. :hehe2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeorgiiMichael Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 If the pope lived so long that all the cardinals were dead (and new papal election rules weren't put into place), then there would probably be a synod, with all the Western Rite bishops and the Eastern Rite bishops in communion with Rome (seeing as the Pope has jurisdiction over all of them, it's only right that they have a say too, and the Western bishops would still have an overwhelming majority, seeing as the Pope is their church's patriarch.) If there were still cardinals who were alive and active, just older than the canonical age to participate in the conclave, then they would probably vote themselves, making sure whoever they elected made it his first order of business to appoint a TON of Cardinals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mortify ii Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 The Apostolic way was for the Pope to elect his successor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now