Dear Mershon,
"Karl Keating is wrong. Any male Catholic can theoretically be elected as Pope. He need not be a bishop to be Pope."
But upon being elected pope, it would be necessary to consecrate him a bishop. If Pope Benedict XVI had not been Cardinal (and Archbishop) Ratzinger prior to his election, it would have been necessary to consecrate him at that time. In that he was not then consecrated, and in that, according to this line of thinking, there were no validly-consecrated bishops present to consecrate him, then he would be the elected pope, but would not have any way to become the actual Bishop of Rome.
What would be the result of that anomaly?
Would a man elected pope, but who remained unconsecrated as a bishop, continue to be the pope? If he did, what ill effects would his lack of episcopal consecration would exist?
I'd think that he would be even theoretically unable to consecrate any other bishops, or ordain priests. Are there other authorities, responsibilities, rights, prerogatives, privileges or powers that inhere to the pope because of or through his episcopal ordination?
If you have some insight, I'm asking these questions straight, and would appreciate any answers you might have.
sitetest
Any male Catholic can be elected as Pope. As usual, Karl Keating, neo-Catholic apologist, plays loose with the facts. He is wrong. Thanks for assisting in spreading his errors.
This was the only point I wast trying to make while all of you Neos bash a Catholic father with 10 children due to Karl's "investigative" journalism, which he knows nothing about.
Don't suppose he tried to interview Gerry, did he?