"Demos II" releases letter highlighting glaring problems of Francis Pontificate

[Gandalf the Grey]

Open anonymous letter urges considerations to be made by Cardinals when discerning the next Pope.

https://newdailycompass.com/en/a-profil ... s-cardinal

[aussie_aussie_oi_oi]

Pope Francis elected 2013 Age 87
Number of Cardinal Electors as at 24 February 2024 are 129: Appointed by Francis 94 (72.9%) Benedict 27 John-Paul 8

[Doom]

Probably within the next 3-5 years. He is still active, but not in great health. When he stops traveling and starts canceling events left and right, we'll know the end is near. He is the oldest Pope since Leo XIII. The cardinals do need to start thinking about this and having private conversations about it. It is not good to discuss it in public though, bad form.

[peregrinator]

Probably within the next 3-5 years. He is still active, but not in great health. When he stops traveling and starts canceling events left and right, we'll know the end is near. He is the oldest Pope since Leo XIII. The cardinals do need to start thinking about this and having private conversations about it. It is not good to discuss it in public though, bad form.

When would the Cardinals discuss it in private?

[anawim]

Robert Royal thinks the writing style sounds like Cardinal Zen.

[Doom]

Probably within the next 3-5 years. He is still active, but not in great health. When he stops traveling and starts canceling events left and right, we'll know the end is near. He is the oldest Pope since Leo XIII. The Cardinals do need to start thinking about this and having private conversations about it. It is not good to discuss it in public though, bad form.

When would the Cardinals discuss it in private?

Since I am not a Cardinal I guess I don't know, but the general principle that you don't air your dirty laundry in public is a good one. And make no mistake, all discussion of what qualities we want in the next Pope is an implicit criticism of the current Pope, and that should not be done publicly.

[peregrinator]

all discussion of what qualities we want in the next Pope is an implicit criticism of the current Pope, and that should not be done publicly.

Why shouldn't it?

[Doom]

In the Middle Ages, it was illegal to discuss the succession of the Papacy at all, it was a civil offense because discussing the issue undermines the current Pope. Do you publicly discuss conflicts and disagreements within your family on Facebook? I bet you don't.

[peregrinator]

In the Middle Ages, it was illegal to discuss the succession of the Papacy at all, it was a civil offense because discussing the issue undermines the current Pope. Do you publicly discuss conflicts and disagreements within your family on Facebook? I bet you don't.

If I had parents who abused their authority I might have to criticize them publicly!

Where was this a civil offense? In the Papal States? I can't imagine that it would be a civil offense to "undermine the current Pope" in say France or the Holy Roman Empire.

[peregrinator]

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3033.htm#article4

To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: "Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry [Vulgate: 'Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.' Cf. 2 Timothy 4:5." It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss of Augustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects."

[Doom]

In the Middle Ages, it was illegal to discuss the succession of the Papacy at all, it was a civil offense because discussing the issue undermines the current Pope. Do you publicly discuss conflicts and disagreements within your family on Facebook? I bet you don't.

If I had parents who abused their authority I might have to criticize them publicly!

Where was this a civil offense? In the Papal States? I can't imagine that it would be a civil offense to "undermine the current Pope" in say France or the Holy Roman Empire.

It was a law in the Papal States based on a law which existed in the Roman empire concerning discussions of whom the next emperor might be.

[Stella]

Can. 1373— A person who publicly incites hatred or animosity against the Apostolic See or the Ordinary because of some act of ecclesiastical office or duty, or who provokes disobedience against them, is to be punished by interdict or other just penalties.

[aussie_aussie_oi_oi]

Pope Francis again asked an aide to read his remarks and was unable to get back onto his Popemobile, as lingering respiratory and mobility problems continue to take their toll on the 87-year-old. Francis presided over his weekly general audience, held outside for the first time this year in a chilly St. Peter's Square. But he had an aide read his catechism lesson, as he has done for the past several days."Because I still have a cold and I cannot read well," he said. Last Wednesday, Francis went to the hospital for unspecified diagnostic tests, the results of which have not been released. He has been suffering on and off this winter from what he and the Vatican have said was a cold, bouts of bronchitis and the flu.