Sic Transit Gloria Mundi

Unfortunately I was unable to see the Papal inauguration of Pope Francis on television this morning, and had to rely on internet reports. It was clear from these that His Holiness has raised hopes and expectations in his home continent amongst the faithful who were present in St Peter's Square.

This evening a friend of eminently traditionalist sympathies was saying that he thought this morning's ceremonial was in several ways a distinct improvement on that in 2005. He cited the presence of a crucifix over th Papal throne, and the free-standing statute of the Virgin and Child by the altar, the canopy over the altar and the six large candlesticks flanking the crucifix there, which also had its own, seventh light. 

I assume that these are in part a result of the revision of the rite by Pope Benedict XVI before he stepped aside, and which was reported on the Vatican webite during the vacancy. It was this which restored the homage of the Cardinals - though as with the homage of the Peers at the English Coronation it is reduced to representitives of each degree rather than all the Sacred College. The New Liturgical Movement has Ceremonial Details of Today's Mass of Inauguration on its site.

I must, of course, admit, that I would rather we had had the traditional Coronation of the Pope, and will always recall the impact of watching on television that of Pope Paul VI in 1963.

One thing which surprises me for not being retained in the modified Inauguration, as opposed to Coronation, rite is the ceremony with a Franciscan holding up on three occasions a piece of burning  flax or tow with the salutory admonition as it flared up and extinguished itself to the new Pope of "Pater Sancte, Sic transit gloria mundi." I would have thought that might appeal particularly to Pope Francis. 

The same friend to whom I was talking this evening was last week full of despondency over the impression that was getting about as to the new Pope's liturgical and ceremonial style - be it the absence of the mozetta at his appearance on the balcony of St Peter's following his election, the choice of his own black shoes rather than the traditional red ones worn by Pope Benedict, or the omission of the Papal fanon, which the former Pope had reassumed, today. I must admit to being inclined to agree and we are aware that we are not alone at the moment in fearing that we may be seeing a rolling back of liturgical points which, whilst they may seem small things to others, we see as having a profound significance for the office of the Papacy, and as having been prudently used by Pope Benedict.  

Such fears, whether justified or not, are not assuaged by reports such as this one by the veteran BBC Rome correspondent David Willey (though I often sense his understanding of the Vatican and the Church is less than perfect) which can be seen at Break with past. 

The reaction against such reports is interesting - as in a blog post from Laurence England in Brighton, a blogger noted for his sympathy for the poor and homeless, which you can read here.

That point made, it is also important to stress that as Catholics we feel loyalty to the Pope and to his office, and respect and look to his spiritual leadership and teaching example - as, for example, I wrote the other day Pope Francis may well be the leader to recall the developed economies to a sense of responsibility and morality. It is rather on these lines that Fr Julian Large C.O., Provost of the London Oratory, has written an excellent piece which can be read here.

Addendum - Thursday

Further to what I wrote above on  Tuesday evening I would draw attention to a very thoughtful posting on his blog by Fr Blake about the nature and perception of Papal authority in the modern world. His point about the risks for the Church of relying on the perceived celebrity of a Pontiff  has  concerned me as an idea since the conclaves of 1978.His post can be read at Larger than life Popes?  

Reactions to Pope Francis

Pope Francis preaches at Mass in the Sistine Chapel.

Image: Reuters/Vatican CTV/ITV.

In the 48 hours since his election as Pope was announced there have been formal congratulations to Pope Francis, much comment on what his election means or portends, theories as to the style and tone of his papacy, studies of how the bloc of reformers and that of curialists cancelled one another out in the Conclave leading to his emergence as the surprise (to the outside world at least ) choice, even an interview with his girlfriend of more than half a century ago.

Much of the comment has been very positive in the press and online as well as on television. A friend has pointed out to me two favourable assessments which lay stress on the Pope's Jesuit formation which can be read here. One is by George Weigel, well known as an interpreter of Pope John Paul II, the other from Fr Fessio SJ, the founder of Ignatius Press and very much a voice of the pontificate of Pope Benedict XVI.

 
In both his homily at the Mass Pro Ecclesia in the Sistine Chapel and in his address to the College of Cardinals the new Pope paid tribute to the work of his predecessor, and this all points to continuity of approach.

The speed of the Conclave and the choice of a cardinal few expected has contributed to the slight feeling of unreality and uncertainty; as Fr Blake pointed out with customary sagacity on his blog, this partly arises from the circumstances of the abdication of Pope Benedict - we have not mourned him as might normally be expected for abeloved Pope before the election of his successor.

There have also been critical, even hostile, voices. This included the post, and its further expansion, on Rorate Coeli about the way in which Summorum Pontificum was implemented in the diocese of Buenos Aires under Cardinal Bergoglio. That said a  friend pointed out that in his early days as pontiff Pope Benedict was also attacked for not doing more for the traditionalist cause by bloggers.

On Thursday evening one friend was very put out by what he had seen of the Mass celebrated by the new Pope in the Sistine Chapel. He saw it as undoing, a rolling back, of all of Pope Benedict's renewal of customary liturgical practice, with, as he saw it, polyester vestments and just two candles at one corner of the forward altar. This sounded very worrying I must admit, but I looked online at photographs and video and found that my friend must have been genuinely mistaken in some of what he had seen. Certainly there was a forward altar, as there had been in 2005, but the lay out was as encouraged by Pope Benedict and the vestments ones I had seen him photographed wearing.I do rather doubt if they are polyester.

The 'Benedictine' arrangement of the altar

Image:myfoxphilly

There has also been raking over the past in respect of the Pope's actions in Argentina in the years of military rule before 1982. This I gather comes from a particular radical journal, and is inevitable for any public figure from a country with as unsettled a political history as has Argentina.

The British press has found a particular local difficulty for His Holiness in respect of this country, and tat lies in anumber of statements he has made in relatively recent years about the Argentine claim to the Falklands when he has spoken at requiems for the dead of the 1982 war. That he is a patriot for his own native country should not be cause of criticism, but in terms of relations with the United Kingdom they are unfortunate. They are words which have become hostages to fortune, and will not help with alrge section of the British public. Time will, predictably, tell on that issue...

And that is just the first two days of the Pontificate...

Habemus Papam

The first intimation we had at the Oxford Oratory last night of the elction of a new Pope was the appearance of Br Oliver in the sanctuary at the side of Fr Anton who had just finished giving communion at the 6pm Mass. Following their hurried discussion Fr Anton told us "Habemus Papam", but that he knew no more than that. We marked the occasion with the rapid distribution of hymn books and the singing of the Te Deum.

The congregation scattered in search of news - in my case to an Internet cafe where I tuned in to the BBC News 24 site. I missed the actual announcement by Cardinal Tauran of the new Pope's identity, picking that up from the running band of headlines at the bottom of the screen.

Like many people I was surprised, thinking that the conclave would select a man of say 68 to 72 in age, and therefore I thought Cardinal Bergoglio too old to be a likely candidate - and in that I was far from alone. I did remember him as someone prominent in the speculation about the 2005 Conclave, and the reports that during that Conclave he gathered support, whereupon he indicated his support for Cardinal Ratzinger. Few reporters mentioned him this time, which bears out what I posted about Vaticanologists a few days ago, although John Thavis appears to have picked up indications of support, which can be read here, as had, from what he said on television, other people in Romeitself, such as Mgr Roderick Strange.

 

Pope Francis 

Image: ocregister

Recently I was told an interpretation of the two Conclaves of 1978. in the first the Cardinals sought a  Bishop of Rome who would preside in collegial charity over the wider Church, and believed they had found one in Pope John Paul I. In the second election of that year they sought a candidate with a wider appeal and remt, and found him in  Pope John Paul II. Last night I was reminded of that in so far as the new Pope addressed his words very much to the diocese of Rome, yet much of the commentary on him focussed on his Latin American origin and the universality of the Church as expressed in his election. I wondered if the Conclave believes it has found a combination of the two models in their choice.

He has a number of firsts on his Papal curriculem vitae- the first Pope to take the name Francis, the first Jesuit Pope, the first non European since Pope Gregory III, who reigned from 731-741, the first American, the first Argentinian and the first religious since 1846.

There has been some discussion as to which St Francis he alludes in his choice of name. I assume with others taht it is il poverello of  Assisi, but there are also those great Jesuit saints, Francis Xavier and Francis Borja.

St Francis of Assisi is a much more complex and intimidating figure than the media and popular perception might think, so they may be in for a surprise.

Which brings me to the prophecies of  St Malachy - we have heard less of them this Conclave, probably because, as they stand, and whenever compiled, this Pope is supposed to be the last Pope, and to be the Angelic Pope of  Joachimite expectations - and those revolved around the hopes and ideas raised by St Francis of Assisi, the propoganda of Olivi and others, and the expectations of the Spiritual Franciscans, notably in respect of Apostolic poverty. This of course became focussed upon Pope Celestine V in 1294 and on the aftermath of his abdication. We shall perhaps see if anything like this manifests itself in coming months and years.

A Christian critique of world in its current mess may well be what we need, and Pope Francius may well be the figure to provide it. It will be good for the Church, and a blessing, if he can build on the foundations reinforced by Pope Benedict. I found apost on the internet from 2005 which gives a series of quotations from the then Cardinal Bergoglio which gives an insight into some of his ideas, and which can be read here.  

The surprise generated by this choice suggests that once again the Holy Spirit has moved as He wills, and not as we might expect  or predict.

Let us keep Pope Francis in our prayers and trust he will lead us in the right way.

A future Pope on the Holy Spirit and the Conclave

Lest anyone forget amid all the media and online listing of Papal candidates, theologically speaking, the Holy Spirit has a vital role to play in the process of the Conclave. Selecting the new Pope is not just a matter of building an electoral base, as may have occurred in the past, but is also seen as a Divine guidance for the Body of Christ.

Pope Benedict XVI addressed this matter in 1997 during an interview with Bavarian television, whilst he was still Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Prefect of the CDF. This was the year after Pope John Paul published his codification of papal electoral procedures. The comments were reprinted in the book Conclave by the Vatican journalist  John Allen, on pp 135-8.

The Cardinal said that the Holy Spirit does not actually choose the new Pope since "there are too many contrary instances of Popes the Holy Spirit would obviously not have picked." The Pope Emeritus has, I think, a nicely nuanced sense of the history of the Church, which is evident in many of his books and articles.

He went on to say "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."

The future Pope continued: "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."

Conclave statistics

The Zenit news service has produced an article with statistics from the Vatican information service about Papal Conclaves since the eighteenth century which may be of interest to readers. I have edited it slightly:

In the entire history of the Church, the longest papal election - taking place in Viterbo, Italy in 1268 following the death of Clement IV and ending with the election of Gregory X - lasted for over two years. It was as a result of this instance that the modern papal Conclave was instituted.

In modern history, the longest Conclave was that of 1740. It lasted from 18 February until 17 August, 181 days. Fifty-one cardinals participated in the final ballot, four cardinals having died during the proceedings.

In 1758, the Conclave that elected Clement XIII lasted from 15 May until 6 July, 53 days. Forty-five cardinals participated, but one was absent at the final ballot, having left the Conclave because of illness.

In 1769, Clement XIV was elected after 94 days, from 15 February until 19 May. Forty-six cardinals participated in the vote.

Beginning in 1774, the Conclave that elected Pius VI lasted 133 days, from 5 October of that year until 15 February 1775. Forty-six cardinals entered in the Conclave but two of them died during the proceedings.

The Conclave that elected Pius VII took place in Valencia, Spain, since Rome was under occupation by Napoleon’s troops. It lasted from 1 December 1799 until 14 March 1800, 105 days. It was the last Conclave held outside of Rome and 34 cardinals participated.

In 1823, Leo XII was elected after 27 days, 2 September until 28 September, and 49 cardinals participated.

In 1829, the Conclave that elected Pius VIII lasted 36 days, 24 February until 31 March, and 50 cardinals participated.

At the Conclave that began in 1831, the last cardinal not to be bishop was elected Pope, Gregory XVI. The Conclave that elected him lasted 51 days, from 14 December 1830 until 2 February of the following year and 45 cardinals participated.

“Short” Conclaves began to take place from 1846, with the election of Blessed Pius IX. Fifty cardinals elected him Pope in a conclave lasting three days, from 14 to 16 June of that year.

After the longest papal reign, which lasted more than thirty years, the following Conclave also lasted three days, from 18 to 20 February in 1878. Sixty-one cardinals participated in the vote to elect Leo XIII. It is interesting to note that, as his reign was the third longest in Papal history, lasting over 25 years, only four of the cardinals that elected him participated in another Conclave. Another interesting fact from this Conclave is that the first American to be created a cardinal, Cardinal John McCloskey, Archbishop of New York, would have been the first non-European to take part in a papal election but he arrived too late to participate. That honour was to go to Cardinal James Gibbons, archbishop of Baltimore, Maryland at the next Conclave.

In 1903 St. Pius X was elected Pope by 64 cardinals in a Conclave that lasted five days, from 31 July until 4 August, and had 7 ballots. It was the last time that the “Jus Exclusivae” (“right of exclusion” or right to veto a candidate for the papacy claimed by the Catholic monarchs of Europe) was exercised. The Italian Cardinal Mariano Rampolla was vetoed by Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary. After his election, St. Pius X abolished the right of heads of state to exercise a veto.

In 1914, the Conclave that elected Benedict XV lasted four days, from 31 August until 3 September. The 57 participating cardinals had 10 ballots. Three North American Cardinals were locked out of the Sistine Chapel, having arrived too late to enter but it was the first time that a Latin American Cardinal participated, Cardinal Joaquim Arcoverde de Albuquerque Cavalcanti, Archbishop of Sao Sebastiao do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

In 1922, during the Conclave that elected Pius XI, 53 cardinals held 7 ballots over five days, from 2 to 6 February. Two American and one Canadian cardinal were again left out of the Conclave for having arrived too late. After his election, Pius XI established a period of 15 days from the beginning of the Sede Vacante to entering into Conclave in order to allow cardinals enough time to travel to Rome.

In the 1939 Conclave that elected Pius XII, the first patriarch of an Eastern rite participated in the election: His Beatitude Mar Ignatius Gabriel I Tappouni, patriarch of Antioch and all the East of the Syrians. It was the first to which a cardinal travelled by air, in this case the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon. The Conclave, the shortest of the twentieth century, lasted just two days, from 1 to 2 March. The 62 cardinals held 3 ballots.

In the Conclave of 1958 that elected Blessed John XXIII, cardinals from China, India, and Africa participated for the first time. The Conclave lasted four days, from 25 to 28 October and the 51 cardinals held 11 ballots.

In 1963, the Conclave lasted three days, from 19 to 21 June. The 80 cardinals elected Paul VI after 11 ballots.

In 1978, the Conclave that elected John Paul I was the first in which cardinals over the age of 80 did not participate. The Conclave lasted two days, 25 to 26 August. The 111 Cardinal electors held four ballots.

In the second Conclave celebrated that year - the reign of John Paul I lasting just 33 days, resulting in the most recent “Year of Three Popes” - Blessed John Paul II was elected by the same 111 Cardinal electors after eight ballots held over three days 14 to 16 October.

In 2005, Benedict XVI was elected Pope in the fourth ballot of the Conclave that lasted two days, from 18 to 19 April. The largest number of Cardinal electors ever took part in that election: 115.

The Conclave that begins today will be the first one since 1829 to be held during Lent. Once again 115 Cardinal electors will participate.

The Conclave

On the eve of the papal Conclave I am posting a piece adapted from an article by Edward Pentin on the Zenit website, to which I have added some further reflection and points of my own.

Some of the earliest papal elections are filled with political power struggles and interference that would be a hallmark of many later conclaves. In 687, after clashes between local clergy, the army, and a conniving archdeacon of Rome, electors simply plucked a priest called Sergius from the midst of the people, sent him to the Imperial palace where he was acknowledged as Pope, and then hurried to the Lateran where he was consecrated pontiff. Surprisingly, given the arbitrary nature of the choice, Pope Sergius I went on to become an accomplished Successor of Peter.

A similar unceremonious election took place in 731 when, during the burial of Pope Gregory II, a priest was again seized, this time from the funeral procession, and rushed off to the Lateran where he was made Pope Gregory III by popular acclamation. As Papal elections were often compromised by outside forces, in particular lay interference, a number of subsequent attempts were made to restrict the voters to clergy and bishops. After electors rigged his election, Pope Stephen III held a synod in 769 to try to ensure that only cardinal priests and deacons were allowed to be electors (until then they were leading clergy, army officers, their troops and leading citizens).

By the ninth century, attempts were made to limit interference in papal elections from Emperors and magnates of the Holy Roman Empire which, owing to the close relationship between the faith and temporal power, when Emperors could, and did, appoint or impose a Pope, had made the process an even greater hot-bed of corruption and skulduggery. Indeed it was the Imperal appointment of Pope Leo IX which paved the way for reform in the mid-eleventh century

As part of this the first major reform of Ppapal elections was in 1059, when Pope Nicholas II issued the decree Nomine Domine – In the name of the Lord. This decreed that Popes were to be elected by cardinal bishops alone. The rest of the cardinals would then be asked to give their assent and after that, the clergy and laity of Rome. The intention was to remove papal elections from the control of noble Roman families such as the Crescentii and Tusculani, and the vagaries of the Roman crowd. As Peter Damian, the reforming Benedictine of that time, wrote: Cardinal bishops do the electing, other clergy give their assent and the people are able to give their applause.

However this did not resolve the problem and unseemly power struggles would continue, leading occasionally to antipopes – those chosen by a rival faction or a rival power in the person of the Emperor who did  not the legitimately elected pontiff.

Pope Nicholas II's successor, Pope Alexander II, faced a rival in the person of Cadalus, the bishop of Parma, who was put forward by German powers because he would be more sympathetic to the Imperial cause. Cadalus was never installed as Pope Honorius II, and simply went back to being the bishop of Parma once efforts to have him installed were exhausted, although he never abandoned his claim to the papacy. The same threat was faced by Pope Gregory VII who was forced to flee from Rome, dying in exile.

In 1130 the cardinals met in two seperate groups in Rome and elected both Pope Innovent II and Pope Anacletus II - the latter has been adjudged the antipope by history, but the matter took a decade to resolve.

Conclaves – which means "with key" indicating that they were secured from outside influence by enforced isolation – came into being in 1179 and the Third Lateran Council of the great canon lawyer Pope Alexander III - who had himself faced an Imperial sponsored antipope. In order to avoid dissension in future papal elections, Pope Alexander introduced the rule that any new Pope had to have a two thirds majority. All cardinals were to vote, not just cardinal bishops. This remained the rule  until Pope Pius XII, who then made it two-thirds plus one - so that the successful candidate did not secure the Holy See on his own vote. Pope John Paul II reduced it back to two thirds, with a simple majority after 34 votes. Pope Benedict XVI made further changes to the process in 2007, reinstating the two thirds rule, but introduced a run-off vote after 34 unsuccessful voting rounds whereby everyone but the two leading candidates are eliminated. The first of the two to reach the necessary two thirds is then elected.

The Alexandine reforms only partially worked, and divisions and deadlock would continue. In 1261, the cardinals were deeply divided, and eventually looked outside their own and plumped for a non-cardinal – Jacques Pantaleon, the Patriarch of Jerusalem. He would undoubtedly have been surprised: Pantaleon just happened to be visiting the papal curia on diocesan business at the time.
    

Arguably the most bizarre conclave took place in 1271. The Holy See had papacy had been vacant since 1268 and cardinals were struggling to decide on a Pope for a year and a half because of the influence and interference of external powers. Reflecting the frustration many felt, Raniero Gatti, 'Captain of the people', locked the cardinals up in the Papal palace, had the roof taken off, restricted their diet, and surrounded the palace with soldiers. Some cardinals were taken ill as they were left exposed to the elements.

Such protracted conclaves led Pope Gregory X to issue the decree Ubi periculum – 'Where there is danger' - in 1274. Among the rules, he ordered that all future conclaves take place in the city where the Pope died, wait ten days for all the Cardinals to arrive, and that all Cardinals live in common in one room with no partition or curtain. They also had to be completely locked in - no one was allowed to enter, communicate with them, nor they with anyone else. Moreover, after three days without an election, they were allowed only one dish at lunch and supper, then after five days, given only bread, wine and water until they elected a Pope. A number of provisos existed when cardinals were taken ill or needed to attend to urgent business.

Ubi periculum was soon to be temporarily rescinded and protracted conclaves would return. The one following the death of Pope Nicholas IV in 1292 was particularly divided between the factions in the Roman nobility, the Orsini and Colonna families. After nearly two years of deadlock, in 1294 a frustrated King Charles II of Naples drew up a list of his own. After that was rejected, he called on an elderly and holy hermit he knew, Pietro del Morrone, and got him to write a letter upbraiding the Cardinals for their dilatoriness. The Dean of the College of Cardinals read out the letter and said he would vote for Morrone to be Pope. The rest of the college followed suit, leading Morrone to be dragged to Rome and made Pope Celestine V.

As Pope, he reinstated Pope Gregory X's decree. But elderly, ill, and as far as he was concerned, unable to govern as Pope, Celestine resigned from the papacy in that same year of 1294 (Pope Benedict XVI has a devotion to Celestine and left his enthronement pallium on his remains  in 2009). He was succeeded by Pope Boniface VIII who incorporated Ubi periculum into the canon law of the Church in the Liber Sext of the Corpus Juris.

If by the Avignon period the Conclave had become established and legislated for it did not prevent othe rproblems, such as a two year delay in electing after the death of Pope Clement V in 1314; the election of Pope John XXII is recounted in Maurice Druon's splendid saga of the origins of the Hundred Years War.

The return to Rome of Pope Gregory XI in 1376 and his death in 1378 led to th diastrous events of the next election. The Cardinals, surrounded and in danger of invasion by the Roman mob demanding a Roman, or at least an Italian pope, elected Bartolomeo Prignano, Archbishop of Bari, a curial official they thought they could control. This was the last time anon-cardinal was elected - as Pope Urban VI he was in no way tractable and the Cardinals gradually withdrew from Rome, met again, pleaded that they had acted under duress in electing him and elected Cardinal Robert of Geneva as Pope Clement VII. Thus began the Great Schism.

It ended in 1417 with the election during the Council of Constance of Pope Martin V. On this one occasion the Cardinals were joined as electors by representitives of the five "Nations" which made up the Council in the wool warehose by the lake at Constance which can still be seen.

More Conclaves have included those of the Renaissance, with stories, which may well be fanciful, of Cardinals being bribed by successful candidates for their votes. Between 1590 and 1592, there were no less than four conclaves in 18 months.

In 1740 the conclave would last six months, during which four of the 68 cardinals died. The conclave of 1769 witnessed an unprecedented event with the visit of the Holy Roman Emperor Joseph II and his brother Grand Duke Leopold of Tuscany who arrived incognito in Rome on March 6 and were allowed to enter the conclave. The Emperor stayed there two weeks, freely debating with the electors. Fortunately, he did not press them but only expressed the wish for the election of a Pope who would be able to carry out his duties with the proper respect for the secular rulers. A further lengthy conclave took place from October 1774 to February 1775, leading to the election of Pope Pius VI.

Conclave procedures have changed considerably since then, as have the fortunes of the Papacy. After the death in captivity of Pope Pius in 1799 his successor, Pope Pius VII was elected and crowned in Venice in 1800. Following the loss of Papal control of Rome in 1870 Disraeli offered Malta to the Cardinals as a place for the conclave of 1878, but it was held in the Vatican, as have been all subsequent ones.

Two methods of choosing a Pope – by inspiration (cardinals nominate a candidate and greeted with unanimous acclaim) and compromise (choice is made by a mediating committee) – have long since been dropped and were formally abolished by Pope John Paul II in 1996, and only scrutiny, that is by secret ballot, requiring the now customary two thirds majority, remains. 

In the 1970s, Pope Paul VI introduced the age limit of 80 for electors, and 120 as the maximum number of voting cardinals. Blessed Pope John Paul II, meanwhile, in his 1996 decree ordered that conclaves must always take place in the Sistine Chapel. Previous Popes recommended the chapel, but earlier conclaves have been held in a variety of churches in Rome and other cities. Both in 2007 and on the eve of his abdication Pope Benedict XVI introduced further adjustments to the procedures; the most recent can be seen in  'Motu Proprio' Apostolic Letter Regarding the Election of the Roman Pontiff .

The Conclave which commences tomorrow will be the 75th in the life of the Church – historians date the first as taking place in 1295 when Pope Boniface VIII inserted Pope Gregory X's decree into canon law.

Praying for a new Supreme pontiff

Image: Transalpine Redemptorists blog