It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Ratzinger wants to change rules of election after he resigned. Is this canonical

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 04:22 AM
Pope may change conclave rules before leaving: Vatican

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 04:28 AM
the matter is not just technical. In essence, what is the goal is to double cross the duration of the Interregnum - a period in which the cardinals themselves rule the Church. Every day a triple of 3 cardinals is selected to decide day to day church affairs. Interregnum may last from 2 weeks to 2 years as the history shows.

Ratzinger apparently wants to eliminate such a possibility. First he resigned but did not step down immediately, rather put a date and hour - Feb 28, 20:00. Then came the proposal of the speaker Lombardi that the cardinals "could be offered" to have an early election in early March, and that the rule of 2-3 weeks after papal death were "subject to interpretation"/ Now the already resigned pope but still in office, wants to change the rule of conclave literally in the last days when he is stitl a pope (but resigned officially).

To top all of that, crad. bertone is chosen to be camerlingo (the formal administrator in the interregnum), and card. Sodano to be leading the conclave. Isn't it just too much to swallow?

If tomorrow in a fast conclave resembling 2005 is elected either Bertone or another insider, will it be very canonical?

And that happens in 2013 when the people speak of transparency in politics. When scandals not little and not few rocked the Chruch, in both sexual and financial matter. Is this what we are all offered to believe as a fair election of what could be the last pope in history Petrus Romanus?

Thanks so much! One does not need to be a catholic to see something is wrong, very wrong!

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 05:19 AM

Ratzinger wants to change rules of election after he resigned. Is this canonical

1 - He hasn't broken any rules.
2 - He hasn't left office yet and can do what he wishes.
3 - The traditional 2 week waiting period to elect a new pope is out of respect for the dead. It's a mourning period for the church. The pope hasn't died and the church isn't in 'mourning' and therefore they can start the election process at any time. In fact, I'm surprised they haven't got it started already so that there can be a smooth transition without a 'popeless' timeperiod.

Originally posted by 2012newstart
crad. bertone is chosen to be camerlingo (the formal administrator in the interregnum), and card. Sodano to be leading the conclave. Isn't it just too much to swallow?

No .. it makes perfect sense. And Cardinal Bertone is the Vatican Secretary of State. That position runs the Vatican between the time a pope dies and the new one is elected. It's tradition. No problem at all ...
edit on 2/21/2013 by FlyersFan because: added second response

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 05:40 AM
"2 - He hasn't left office yet and can do what he wishes."

No he can't. Even if he is infallible for dogmas, he is fallible for the rest.

My view doesn't matter whatsoever, I am not certain whether it is lawful or not, because we witness a change of the law before our eyes. However, if the vote splits for any reason, those unhappy of the result may claim the vote is non canonical. Good luck with the so set elections! Perhaps they will make the desired pre-select cardinal the right one to rule over.

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 05:51 AM
From what it looks like - Not only was Il Papa told to step down for the good of the Church - he was also told to give the Church back to the Italians as only they know how to run it.
edit on 21-2-2013 by EequalsMC3 because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 05:59 AM
yes they know, the middle ages prove it.

Just for curiosity, you may check Wikipedia the story why the last pope resigned 5 centuries ago. There were two of them, one in Rome and one in Spain. The Roman resigned, the Spanish refused. he was named Benedict 13. Later declared antipope, and his number taken down the centuries. (otherwise, Ratzinger would be Benedict 17). Or the complicated story of power grabbing with Benedict 9 and three other popes in the course of his young but intense life , plus quite a lot sexual affairs right from the see of Peter. So much of the impeccability of a pope only because he is a pope at a certain time. He is not born pope, none of them, and none of them is sure to die as pope. They are all human. The popes sin, and when they sin they sin grossly in most cases. I just thought that Benedict 16 steps down gracefully with intention to remain in history as St Celestine 5. Seems I was wrong. Now learn he appointed his right and left hand cardinals as rulers, and now tries to fix it all for the election of successor. Even to change the rules in the last days, after he reposed the resignation. Formally he is a pope until Feb 28 yes. But is it enough? Will the cardinals-losers deem it enough? I bet this conclave will not elect a pope or if elects one, it will be contested at least by some powerful dioceses.

Why not then choose as the Alexandria patriarch is chosen - by lot?
edit on 21-2-2013 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:23 AM
There is another reason why this conclave will end indecisively. This time it is not connected to cardinals and pope.

Because if the last pope is ever elected, then should be expected the Second Coming of Jesus, as the prophecy goes. And no one can force Jesus to come back. Unless we are in the End Times, there won't be Petrus Romanus elected either. That is the logic of the prophecy.

But pope Ratzinger said he didn't believe End time prophets. Is this also ex cathedra? He said the angels didn't sing on the birth of Jesus, despite the Gospel of Luke said they sang. That the star the magi saw did not lead the magi but they were led by something else. How many things should he say to be swallowed before we understand he can sin as everyone of us, including on theological matters? HE WAS WRONG for all of that and more. But the catholics are not allowed to say the king is wrong.

Now he goes to change rules of election days before the election, after he resigned before the cardinals and before the entire world. OK he might have the right to do so according to the letter. Let see where all of that will end. It is not a good sign for the catholic church.
edit on 21-2-2013 by 2012newstart because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:27 AM
Currently the waiting period of at least 15 but not more than 20 days is law as given by John Paul II's Universi Domiici Gregis (paragraph 37). It was established not as a mourning period but rather to provide ample time for Cardinals to make their way to Rome. I don't see why it would be a problem to accelerate the process or why it wouldn't be within Ratzinger's rights to do so. With modern means of travel 15-20 days seems excessive half that I think would be sufficient.

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 06:45 AM
The cardinals are already there or they can take a plane. The question is that he restricts their period of ruling the church "Interregnum". By doing so, he actually imposes his own scheme. Guess who will be elect as a result. And we don't know all the behind scene negotiations. We are not supposed to know them. We see only what appears on the surface. And that shows something is deeply wrong.

He should step down immediately after resignation. The entire idea of giving himself 3 more weeks AFTER HE RESIGNED was to pre-arrange the conclave.

I don't know if Gregorius and Celestine gave such extended periods of time and did such changes before the respective conclaves.

Don't be surprised if something bad happens now, before or during the conclave. Arranged or not arranged. Because someone seems to act behind scene. Not necessarily Benedict himself. Someone wants some result of that conclave and will receive it. Or it is possible - no result at all and end of papacy as we know it. Until the End times and the last pope Petrus Romanus.

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 07:22 AM
reply to post by 2012newstart

I don't see how shortening the time interval before Conclave nor the three weeks between the announcement of his resignation and his actual leaving would increase his clout with the Cardinals. Although I'm sure his wishes will be considered greatly I think it's a consequence of his still being alive. The power of the College of Cardinals during sede vacante are very minimal limited to ensuring the progression of ordinary business and items which necessitate immediate action. Any decision that would have been solely left to the resigning or deceased pope is reserved for the future pope.

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 07:25 AM
Moreover, in addition to what already is said,
the primacy of the pope and especially the infallibility are issues accepted only by the Catholic church after the Great Schism 1054, and after Vatican1 for the infallibility. It is the Catholic church that is fallen from grace according to the majority of Orthodox and other Eastern Churches, not the vice versus. Much water passed since then of course. Vatican II changed much in that direction.

However, if Benedict is the second to the last pope before the Second Coming, we should have expected those issues to be settled better by now. Will the Christians meet Jesus divided during the last persecution of the Antichrist? I wonder why most Catholic preachers are speechless on these vital issues.

With the real possibility the next pope to be the last one, the current cardinals electors may have changed their views since so many centuries have passed. They could have prepared for a better and wiser election if they were given more time. Why not a month for reflection, or more? They have the right to elect anyone baptized man who can become bishop. That hasn't been done for a long time, and the last time to be done was to elect a bishop non-cardinal as pope. Why not again today? What stops the 118 wise old gentlemen to decide the best candidate who will untie the church, who will accept as equal the other descendants of the apostles - the eastern patriarchs, and who in all respect will prepare for the coming Tribulation and ultimately for the Second Coming of Jesus? Why should instead the cardinals be forced to accept in a hurry as never before in pre-set conditions a candidature most likely from the curia or in close connection with the current administration? It is a pity the catholic church goes that road of administrative choices without much real reform. The time came and passed for a real reform. Let remember the honorable electors that we are now 2013 AD.

So I suggest, because the conditions are not met for the Second Coming of Jesus, no pope will be elected either. If we are talking of real prophecies, something many people believe they are such. Even people who do not belong to the catholic church or even to the much broader Christianity.

You have a dozen of apostolic successors of the apostles if not more, with several of them having apostolic succession from the same St Peter, mostly in Antioch. That doesn't mean they are the same as the successor of Peter in the see of Rome. But the Roman hierarchy would do good to change its long stance on the issue. Indeed changed in Vatican II but not enough. I don't know if I can be more precise, the other conclusions you can build up from there. What we see is a command-administrative regime (to avoid the word totalitarian or authoritarian) instead of the much larger community of a 12-apostles brotherhood that Jesus created himself. Jesus never said to Peter: go in Rome! Never said: crown the kings in my name and rule the world until I come! Never said: rule over your brethren! Instead He said:"whoever wants to be first among you, let be servant to all". And these "ALL" are all apostolic churches today. Peter was not crowned king, he was hiding in catacombs, sharing with brethren, and he was crucified. Quite a difference, if there could be comparison at all. The current pope did one of the most honorable things to step down. Let he show it was not superficial move for unknown ends. The clock is ticking. Not only for pope Benedict but for the Roman church as well.

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 07:42 AM
March 8th?

1) He has to replicate "the days are shortened" (Matt 24:22) ie "Christ comes early". The new pope has to come earlier than expected.

Pope Benedict started on April 19, 2005. Add 7 Biblical years to get March 13th, 2012.

Then add 360 days (the Biblical "day of the lord"/ year of the lord's vengeance) to get March 8, 2013.

Not a coincidence at all.

posted on Feb, 21 2013 @ 08:23 AM

Originally posted by 2012newstart
"2 - He hasn't left office yet and can do what he wishes."
No he can't. Even if he is infallible for dogmas, he is fallible for the rest.

Dude .... having new rules for this NEW occassion isn't him being 'fallible' or 'infallible'. It's the leader of the Catholic Church setting the rules for the NEW - NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE BECAUSE OF RETIREMENT - conclave as he is allowed and as he sees fit. It's a new situation. A retirement has only happened once before and that was 600 years ago.

He is perfectly within his rights to call for a conclave before the 15 day mourning period is over ... because .. THERE IS NO MOURNING .. no one has died.

All the influence that he could possibly have with the new conclave has already happened. He 'stacked the deck' with Italian cardinals. Any other influence that you think he could have is totally imaginary on your part. He is impotent, old and sick. That is why he is retiring. He can't control the Vatican.

Common sense.

John Paul II changed the rules as he saw fit. Benedict can do the same. Unless something is set 'ex-cathedra' .. it can be changed as the church deems it needs to be.

edit on 2/21/2013 by FlyersFan because: sentence

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 05:45 AM
This isn't something which touches upon faith or morals. It's a disciplinary practice of the Church and can thus be changed.

There's really nothing big or surprising going on here.

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:49 AM
I fell asleep watching a show on the History Channel called "The Inside Story: The Vatican," and I had a dream about what might possibly take place...

The next Pope will be announced on Sunday March 10th OR Monday March 11th. It WILL BE Peteros Romanus (Peter of Rome). Now some time shortly afterwards Rome will be hit by a meteorite, possibly even the same week or month! The Vatican will be in ruins. Hundreds of thousands of people injured or killed. There was something about water and electricity in the dream but I don't know if that's relevant or not.

I keep thinking I'm missing another key point from the dream...if I remember I'll come back and post it.

Just remembered!

This next Pope will have to be careful as there will be many attempts to assassinate him by people that believe he's a false prophet. He will survive the meteorite impact, barely.
edit on 22/2/13 by Phantasm because: (no reason given)

edit on 22/2/13 by Phantasm because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:15 PM
An excellent analysis!
Politics, personalities drive the decision on who will be pope

“The most important thing is to choose well, and we'll take the time necessary to do that,” Chicago’s Cardinal Francis George told reporters Sunday, urging fellow cardinals not to rush the process.

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 01:18 PM
America has one of the finest cardinals that I know of, conservative but not fanatical in any respect. Here is another quote fromt he same source LATimes:

Whoever emerges as pope should have the skills to clean up “the mess” that is the Vatican Curia, the administrative bodies rocked by financial scandals and embarrassing leaks of sensitive documents, even from the pope’s own papers.

It seems as if I've read that analysis before writing my own posts here and elsewhere, but I have not. Thanks God other smarter people than me think the same way! The Spirit moves as he wishes to!

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 02:03 PM
reply to post by Phantasm

Seems like your dreams are imitating life around you.

posted on Feb, 23 2013 @ 05:29 AM
Why not the cardinal-electors break the taboo and elect someone not among their ranks? Actually the taboo is broken many times in history, the last time to elect a bishop from Southern Italy controlled then by Spain, to avoid election of a Roman and of someone controlled by the French king. Perhaps there are better examples, how during the martyrdom in early centuries a deacon were elected pope, only to die several days later.

Today's cardinals can well choose someone bishop, to show to the world they are open to possibilities, not selfish, and not secluded in self-sufficient schemes that ultimately some of them result in financial and other affairs. Aren't there worthy bishops? Theoretically the cardinals can elect every baptized man who can become a bishop. So what is it that stops them, and that makes them tools in schemes that go beyond their free conscious choice? Sorry about that, but Ratzinger himself was elected in 3 or 4 votes getting 2/3 and more, for only 2 days election one of the shortest in history. How if not pre arranged? Lobbies etc. Now we all get the result of choosing not to choose what is right, after 8 disastrous years for the church. Now what? Majority of EU plus USA. OK they can elect a pope even without taking into account the others. Let they elect the one that will make the change! Not necessarily one of the 119 appointed princes by JPII and Benedict himself. That may be the last attempt of the catholic church in Rome to reform itself - if the prophecies are correct.

new topics

top topics


log in