I read in today’s Post that only those cardinals who are under 80 years of age are allowed to vote for the new pope? As a result, nearly all of the cardinals who are able to participate are ones that were named by John Paul II himself. Why the age restriction?
Also, on a personal note, I hope the new pontiff takes a jazzy name. John Paul III just doesn’t have the drawing power that the RCC needs at this time.
You’re right. It should be Pope George Ringo. Spread out the props, you know what I’m sayin’?
I was always partial to the idea of Pope Corky I
Doesn’t “Pope Balthisar I” have a nice ring to it?
C’mon. Pope George Ringo. It’d increase his eventual chances of being Beatle-fied.
The Vatican has pushing bishops and cardinals to retire at IIRC age 75. Letting the cardinals vote for five years after that seems more than fair.
You answered your own question.
Rock on Pope Diddy
Uh, no. The age restriction was put in place by Paul VI, in 1970. Cite
I’ve read elsewhere that 114 of the current 117 Cardinals were named by JP2 anyway, his reign having been the third longest in papal history - so what if 3 of them sit out?
I heard on Chicago news radio on Saturday that they’re thinking of retiring the “John Paul” name, with the late Pope given the honorific “Pope John Paul the Great.”
Regarding papal names, there is a thread on its own covering that topic.
It seems that John Paul II appointed 114 of the 117 cardinals who are going to elect his successor, and this is partly due to the age restriction you name. It was decreed by Paul VI. in his 1975 constitution Romano Pontifici Eligendo, but the statute does not give reasons for the restriction. Maybe it was simply motivated by the fact that the 20th century has seen an enormous rise in the number of cardinals, especially outside Europe; but since a specified limit (120) should not be exceeded, it was necessary to exclude some of them from the vote, and age was decided to be the crucial criterion. I don’t think it has to do with fears about cardinals of more than 80 years being less capable of making a decision as important as a papal election, but you never know.
AFAIK the honorific “the Great” is not bestowed upon anyone by any central authority, no matter if it’s king, emperor, or pope. It’s a decision made by history, so to speak: If history thinks a person was important enough to bear this title, probably the greatest honour available for a human being, the name will start to be used and finally catches on (or not). I remember reading that the German emperor Wilhelm I. was referred to as “the Great” by his contemporaries, but in this case the phrase did not catch on, and he continues to simply be Wilhelm I.
Aside from Peter, I’ve never heard that the names of any previous popes were off-limits. Pope St. Gregory I (590-604) is called “Gregory the Great,” but there have been 15 other popes named Gregory subsequently.
I’d like to see a revival of some of the good ol’ pope names that have sat unused for centuries. There’ve been too many Johns, Pauls, and Piuses of late. I’m really hoping for a Pope Cletus II.
Pope Eye? Ron, Pope Eel? Pope Uhrnichel?
Schnitte, you are absolutely correct about “The Great” being the judgement of history. If JPII is eventually considered “The Great”, it won’t happen for a couple of hundred years.
But, the idea isn’t completely off the wall, as it would have been for, say, Paul VI.
I’m just relaying what I heard. Also, in the Sun Times, it was reported that the written eulogy to PJPII referred to him as “John Paul the Great,” although the oral eulogy dispensed with the “Great” moniker.
I believe I read Vatican City has at least a holding cell, until they can hand the perp over to Italian authorities.
And some of those clown-like costumes are concealing automatic rifles. Don’t mess with the Swiss Guards.