I don't think Pope Frank is going to abolish the papacy, but he certainly has the power, and apparently the inclination, to tweak its scope in practice. The Orthodox brethren certainly perked up heir ears when, on his first day, Francis described himself as having been elected "Bishop of Rome" --- and didn't mention any of the other stuff. It hinted that he was going to focus on his own backyard, jurisdictionally speaking.
He also has the authority to determine how his successor will be picked. (It hasn't always been by a vote of Cardinals, of course. That was a relatively recent innovation: 1059.)
:o)
I always thought it would be neat if they said all the candidates for Pope have to be bishops (men), but all the electors (cardinals) would be women.
I wouldn’t see that happening either in a literal sense, but maybe this pope’s presiding will be marked with an unmistakable change in tone towards the remainder of Christendom. That of course he hopes Christendom will reunite, but that at the same time he respects the choice of the rest of Christendom to worship in the milieu where they are and sees them all together with his congregation (the largest single one on earth) as part of one large church. It would be a new model for the papacy rather than an abolition of the office. And one which definitely would get the evangelicals talking with Rome far more freely now that they do not perceive Rome as stating they are doomed for worshiping where they are.
I’ve got beliefs that wouldn’t rhyme with current Roman Catholic doctrine. One of them is a “Calminian” belief that holds to the permanency of a sealed salvation; this is not a testimony to our power but to the power of the Lord to line His deterministic ducks up in a row, yet mystically without robbing us of our wills. “My Father gives them to Me and nobody can snatch them out of My hand.” We don’t see all the details of how God lines up our choices with space and time and that’s fine with me; He’s God and I’m not. Anyhow you can’t fail to notice how I got a certain cynical bruin to shut up when I pulled that card out of my deck! He’s Calvinist and we agree with respect to the final phase of the life of a person who is saved and that is sufficient when we discuss it.
I am an odd case in modern Christendom. I affirm the work of Christ wherever it occurs. I take a grace view, slow to condemn, when seeking to understand what’s really going on. Some folks just pull together big conglomerations of damnation in their thoughts, like a magnet. Agh, this or that thing is the Great Whore (which actually does not appear in the bible until well into a very godless phase of history). I have never seen Roman Catholics rejoice that hey they are Roman Catholics... if this happened then I would say they have truly gone off the deep end and shucked off the Lord for a completely synthetic entity. THAT is how this Whore would act; she’d be extremely brazen because she would be powered from hell. Anyhow to me that’s like comparing a garter snake to a deadly cobra. That doesn’t mean such thoughts of damnation can’t be set straight later, but getting rid of the “damns” in a life really allows the light in. If Christ did not come to damn, leaving that to happen later when attempts to bless fail, why should we? Why should I? That’s my standpoint.
Anyhow we can agree we disagree on a lot of stuff. But I look at the work of the Lord wherever it takes place and honor it; I always accept the baby, I often detest the bath water.
God bless you.