I saw and recognized the shade of him
who due to cowardice made the great refusal.
—Inferno III, 59–60
The resignation of Pope Celestine was a disaster for the Church, paving the way for the unscrupulous and inept Boniface VIII, whose defeat and capture by Philip the Fair of France led to the Babylonian Captivity of the Church. Whether the Pope intends to resign is for the future to tell us, but the sense of a pontificate ending is in the air in Rome.
Those who hate the Church have historically attacked her centralized authority. Another Papal resignation would only further erode what little respect the office has left following the scourge of this reigning pontiff. Which, arguably, has been a part of the Sankt Gallen plan all along.
Who is to stop a Pope from resigning? If this were to happen we will then have not one but two living former Popes.
I’m not certain Pope Benedict truly resigned.
He won’t resign.
His life expectancy is shy of six years. Benedict’s is shy of three years.
Another Papal resignation would only further erode what little respect the office has left following the scourge of this reigning pontiff.
I don’t think it would have a significant effect. What’s ruined the teaching authority of the office is the detritus of the council exacerbated by this pope’s airline magisterium. Will take centuries to repair.
I remember when John Paul II took his name, I thought that he probably had to do that out of a sense of respect for his immediate predecessor, but that the idea of two names would probably end there. I think that Francis could resign without it reinforcing the idea of papal resignations down the road. I’m not predicting he will though. If he’s maybe a little bit spiteful in temperament, it’d be hard for him to keep quiet during the next papacy the way Benedict has. Then again, if he’s a wee bit self-centered, he might not have noticed Benedict’s silence or assumed that no one would actually be questioning him.
(Bad last sentence: should be Francis assuming that no one such as Benedict would think differently than himself. I could add that Francis may also be assuming that his successor would honor all his decisions and approach.)
There needs to be three popes. A “triumvirate”.
In 1978 Joseph Ratzinger wrote a book in German called “Dienst an der Einheit”. He wrote the following (English translations); “Peterson had broken off his analysis at this point; now it was taken up and continued into a new analogical thought, the basic idea being that the We of God must correspond to ecclesiastical agency according to the We model. This general, multi-faceted approach has occasionally been advanced to the point that according to it, the exercise of primacy by a single man, the pope in Rome, actually follows an Arian model.
According to the triune nature of God, the church must be led by a triumvirate, whose three occupants together are the pope. It was not lacking in resourceful speculation, which (somewhat following Solovyov’s story of the Antichrist) found that, in this way, a Roman Catholic, an Orthodox and a Christian from the Reformation confessions together could form the Pope-Troika.
Thus, directly from theology, the concept of God, the complimentary close of ecumenism, seemed to have squared the circle, through which the papacy, the chief annoyance of non-Catholic Christendom, must become the definitive vehicle for the unity of all Christians.”
Like other people in the past, they tell us their intentions.
“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).
One Pope. One leader.
.Jorge Bergoglio can resign his false claim to be the pope of the Roman Catholic Church. That’s it.
Elaine, two days ago Don posted about St. Optatus, “foe of the Donatists”. I had always thought of Donatism as a heresy, but apparently it’s properly considered a schism. The English translation of St. Optatus’ “Against the Donatists” contains this in its preface:
“Heresies come and go. They are essentially ephemeral, according to some transitory fashion of mental speculation. And in fact history proves that the limit of their duration is hardly known to last four centuries. Often indeed they pass into all but complete oblivion. Thus it comes about that a long and sometimes weary discussion concerning a heresy which has perhaps long since vanished from the midst of men is apt to lose much of its actuality. But the Church dies not, and in every age excuses are found by the rebellious for their rebellion against her supreme authority. The argument against heresy is necessarily specialised and multiform; the argument against schism is very simple and admits of no substantial variation in its presentment.
“Consequently, it never ceases to be of deep interest to follow the reasoning that has been employed by the champions of the Catholic Church, at any period of her history, on behalf of her exclusive and peremptory claim upon the spiritual allegiance of mankind. Whenever this is in discussion, there is no drowsy stirring of dead bones, but an issue which is ever-living and therefore in a certain sense ever-new. Now, upon this subject Optatus is perfectly explicit. Again and again he lays it down that there is but one true Church of Christ, that she is not merely local, but is scattered all over the world, her chief rulers bound together by formal bonds and proofs of union, each with his fellow, and above all with the Bishop of Rome, Peter’s successor.”
I will believe it when I see it.