Time for the Pope to step down

[Amazing Rando]

I just read that for the first time ever, he was unable to participate in the Ash Wednesday service. I think that this latest hospitalization was that last straw- barring a miraculous recovery, his health can only go down hill. It's time for him to resign before the cardinals have to vote to take the power away from him. He just can't run the church in the condition he's in.

[furay]

No offense, but I don't think you are qualified to make such a judgement, seeing as how you are not Roman Catholic. I know I for one would pay no heed if a RC suggested that the Ecumenical Patriarch should step down. Its really not our place as non Roman Catholics to stick our noses (for lack of a better phrase) in their business.

I just read that for the first time ever, he was unable to participate in the Ash Wednesday service. I think that this latest hospitalization was that last straw- barring a miraculous recovery, his health can only go down hill. It's time for him to resign before the cardinals have to vote to take the power away from him. He just can't run the church in the condition he's in.

[KyleX0rz]

I always thought popes dont step down...i agree with you he does...need to, but unless the cardinals kick the pope out arent they in there till death?

[Xavier]

To be fair, I think Rando is only offering his opinion as an observer. It is one that I share with him. The Pope isn't able to fulfill his duties anymore.

That said, Furay is also correct. It is an internal issue for the RCC and we can only really comment with narrow intentions.

Final, a more general question: CAN the pope resign? It would seem to me that church theology on the subject would fall against such a contengency. The same would go for the Cardinals giving a vote of "no confidence". What are the contengencies for a "failing Pope"?

Yours,
Xavier

[Constantine]

Final, a more general question: CAN the pope resign? It would seem to me that church theology on the subject would fall against such a contengency. The same would go for the Cardinals giving a vote of "no confidence". What are the contengencies for a "failing Pope"?

To my knowledge there are no contengencies because it hasn't been a problem in the past 2,000 years.

I understand that to non-Catholics the issue might be difficult to understand. We view the Pope as direct successor to Peter as the head of Christ's Church and more or less put there by God.

We believe that no matter the personal condition of a Pope, be he a jerk or a saint or healthy or sick, that he will not falter in leading the Church because he is the Vicar of Christ guided by the Holy Spirit until Jesus returns. It is a completely alien idea to suggest that the Pope resign or be removed. Infact it is almost a disturbing suggestion as Papal authority is of utmost importance in Catholic theological Doctrine. It is what makes us Roman Catholic.

So for non-Catholic observers it will be very difficult to understand it from a RC viewpoint.

I for one say that the day Pope John Paul II is unable to lead the Church is the day God will call him home.

Simple as that.

[Xavier]

I for one say that the day Pope John Paul II is unable to lead the Church is the day God will call him home.

Simple as that.

Exactly... This is why I find myself between Rando and Furay. I understand the Catholic position (given Catholic dogma [for lack of a better word]) and I understand the Protestant position (given their dogma [pragmatic though it may be]).

Yours,
Xavier

PS: I used to the word "dogma" because its a belief not necessarily dealing with an aspect of Theology (proper anyway).

[Tercel]

No offense, but I don't think you are qualified to make such a judgement, seeing as how you are not Roman Catholic. I know I for one would pay no heed if a RC suggested that the Ecumenical Patriarch should step down. Its really not our place as non Roman Catholics to stick our noses (for lack of a better phrase) in their business.

Surely it is appropriate to judge arguments on their merits rather than on the denomination of the people making them? I think your position is totally beyond reason.

[Solly]

Report: Dateline Rome, Ad 64.

Reports of Peter's [see - news - websites - Paul] imminent demise at the hands of the Roman authorities have lead to calls for him to step down now as head of the church, so that a clear and untroubled transition might be made to the next administration [see - News -websites - Linus]. However, no comment has been forthcoming from the Colosseum jails.

IMHO, Popes are called of God [in principle], just like ministers, and don't retire, they die in harness.

[Amazing Rando]

Still, with the great amount of respect I have for the current pope's awesome work around the world, I think he ought to step aside. If he becomes unable to celebrate mass, for example, or begins to suffer (as plenty of old people do) from dementia in the near future, what's the church to do?

[George Murphy]

I think some points are being missed here.

1st, is it appropriate for non-RCs to comment on this issue? It depends on who they are. Obviously the opinions of an atheist or vehement anti-RC obviously should carry no weight. But it seems to me that those of Christians who respect the role of the bishop of Rome, grant him a primacy of honor if not of jurisdiction & hope & pray for reunion ought to be of some significance.

2d, it isn't true that a non-RC Christian can't have a good understanding of the theology & polity of the RCC, any more than its impossible for an RC theologian to have a good understanding of, say, the Reformed or Orthodox traditions. One of the benefits of Vatican II & the ecumenical movement is that we don't live, work & study in isolation from Christians of other communions anymore. (At least some of us don't.) Whether or not we have the same feelings about the pope is another matter.

3d, an important question is whether claims made for the papacy - primacy of honor, primacy of jurisdiction, infallibility, or whatever - are made about the Pope as the bishop of Rome or as an individual. I.e., do they refer to the office or are they personal charisms? If the former then it is possible for Pope
to resign. He would still be a bishop but would not be the bishop of Rome - like any elderly priest who has resigned from the jurisdiction of a diocese. OTOH if those things are personal charisms then he can't resign. But it seems to me that that is a rather questionable position to take. It would mean that the pope held an office different from that of the episcopate and would spell the end of any ideas that the pope is "first among equals" (if indeed that was ever a realistic claim in modern times).

4th, there is precedent for a pope to resign. Celestine V (late 13th century) did so, & in fact the article on him in The Saints (Guild Press, 1958) says that this was "not an unprecedented step." How RC canonists deal with that I don't know.

Shalom,
George

[spl_cadet]

1. The pope can resign. Several have done it before (one did it two or three times if I remember correctly).
2. There's no reason for the pope to resign. Popes get sick and die, it's part of the process.
3. The pope won't resign. As he pointed out, "Christ did not come down off the cross."

Besides, the bookies in Vegas need some lead time to set up the odds

[George Murphy]

2. There's no reason for the pope to resign. Popes get sick and die, it's part of the process.

As for any other pastor, being unable to carry out the duties of the office is reason to resign.

3. The pope won't resign. As he pointed out, "Christ did not come down off the cross."

He won't but that's a poor argument for not doing so. If it were valid then it would apply to other RC bishops as well. Unless I'm mistaken they're now required to retire at some point.[/QUOTE]Shalom,
George

[spl_cadet]

As for any other pastor, being unable to carry out the duties of the office is reason to resign.

He isn't just a pastor (on a large scale). He's also a monarch. Furthermore, it would interfere with the ability of the next pope to discipline the Church if he were still around.

He won't but that's a poor argument for not doing so. If it were valid then it would apply to other RC bishops as well. Unless I'm mistaken they're now required to retire at some point.

Yes, because the pope ordered them to (by inserting into canon law) offer their resignation at 75. He doesn't need to accept it however.

[George Murphy]

He isn't just a pastor (on a large scale). He's also a monarch. Furthermore, it would interfere with the ability of the next pope to discipline the Church if he were still around.

The notion that he's a monarch is of course one of the more problematic papal claims but that's a subject for another thread. Even granting that, monarchs can abdicate. & as we've already noted, there is precedent for a pope's resignation.

As I pointed out earlier, the fundamental theological question here is whether distinctively papal powers (whatever they may be understood to be) are associated with the office or with the person. I think that taking the latter view is very questionable. It would mean that even if a pope became demonstrably insane he could not be removed and would retain the same authority.

Yes, because the pope ordered them to (by inserting into canon law) offer their resignation at 75. He doesn't need to accept it however.

Thus the principle has been established that a bishop should be prepared to resign at that age. Don't you think that if any ordinary diocesan bishop at age 75 were in the state of health that John Paul now has that his resignation would be accepted?

Shalom,
George

[spl_cadet]

The notion that he's a monarch is of course one of the more problematic papal claims but that's a subject for another thread.

How? As head of the Vatican City, he is a monarch and leader of the world's smallest nation. We have an ambassador to the Vatican City, it really isn't questioned at all.

Thus the principle has been established that a bishop should be prepared to resign at that age. Don't you think that if any ordinary diocesan bishop at age 75 were in the state of health that John Paul now has that his resignation would be accepted?

Of course. However, JPII is in a better position than we are to know what he should and shouldn't do. Besides, he'll almost certainly be dead within the next six months, and there's nothing that the Holy See should require him for in the meantime. There's a reason for beaurocracy (hate that word, can never spell it right).