...outgoing pope, Benedict XVI, who as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was asked on Bavarian television in 1997 if the Holy Spirit is responsible for who gets elected. This was his response:I would not say so, in the sense that the Holy Spirit picks out the Pope. ... I would say that the Spirit does not exactly take control of the affair, but rather like a good educator, as it were, leaves us much space, much freedom, without entirely abandoning us. Thus the Spirit's role should be understood in a much more elastic sense, not that he dictates the candidate for whom one must vote. Probably the only assurance he offers is that the thing cannot be totally ruined.Then the clincher:There are too many contrary instances of popes the Holy Spirit obviously would not have picked!
http://ncronline.org/print/blogs/all-things-catholic/quick-course-conclave-101
But if that's the case, then where does that leave apostolic succession?
Comment has been blocked.
It seems clear to me. What specifically do you have a problem grasping?
DeleteAre you asking if there's a point to your being lost? I guess that depends on whether you got lost on purpose or accidentally.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
I appreciate your reluctance to spell out how obviously mistaken you are. It's hard to own up.
DeleteThe question at issue wasn't picking a "bad" pope but picking a "wrong" pope. If the Holy Spirit doesn't choose the next pope via the College of Cardinals, then there's nothing to protect the Cardinals from making a mistake. How does that preserve apostolic succession? It might be consistent with Orthodox apostolic succession, but not with Roman Catholic apostolic succession. If they err by choosing the wrong candidate, in what sense is he a true successor to St. Peter?
Comment has been blocked.
"Catholicism doesn't teach that every sacrament must be exactly as the spirit would have done it to be valid."
DeleteThe question at issue wasn't apostolic succession in relation to valid holy orders but papal election.
Comment has been blocked.
Because electing a pope is not a sacrament.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
Normally, a pope is already a bishop. He's chosen from a pool of bishops. Election is not ordination.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
You suffer from persistent inability to follow the argument. The question at issue is whether the pope is the successor to Peter. Mere papal candidates aren't Peter's successors. Otherwise, the conclave would be superfluous.
DeleteComment has been blocked.
Here's a hint for you then. When Roman Catholicism was the explicit frame of reference for my post, that's the context. Why is that so hard for you go figure out?
DeleteEvidently, you keep recasting the issue in terms of apostolic succession as defined in Eastern Orthodoxy, which is not dependent on the vicissitudes of the papacy or the Roman episcopate. You tacitly map that alien paradigm onto a discussion of Roman Catholicism, as if apostolic succession in Roman Catholicism is separable from Petrine succession via the papacy.
You need to acquire the critical detachment to consider an opposing position on its own terms, without constantly translating that back into your own framework.
Comment has been blocked.
Errr, in case you are new to this whole Catholic thingy, the Roman episcopate only succeeds the apostles insofar as they are in union and communion with the pope. They don't run on parallel tracks.
Delete"You don't want to separate Petrine succession from apostolic succession??"
I reject both, but I'm stating Catholic ecclesiology.
"I'm back to my original observation then that all popes and papal candidates have succession."
Papal candidates don't succeed the apostles apart from the pope. The (alleged) apostolic succession of the Roman episcopate doesn't operate independently of (alleged) Petrine succession in and through the pope. It is mediated by the papacy. A pyramidal polity. They are connected to the apostles via the pope's connection to Peter.