If we try to envision the consequences of these problems, we could have a new kind of Sedevacantism. I mean, a layman can be elected Pope, but to be actually a Pope he needs to be a Bishop, right? I imagine that some traditional theologian has adressed this issue.
So, if Benedict XVI was only a Priest (his espiscopacy comes from the new rite), and Francis is a layman (both his priesthood and episcopacy comes from the new rites), then, John Paul II was the last Pope.
While a layman can be elected pope, he cannot FULLY function as Pope unless and until he's consecrated a Bishop. In a sense, he becomes Pope as soon as he accepts the election, although that's debatable if he's not even a cleric. In any case, a cleric can in fact exercise certain aspects of papal authority, but Teaching Authority certainly requires valid episcopal orders, since only Bishops can be part of the
Ecclesia Docens. Now, theologians held that if a non-bishop were elected and for some reason he refused episcopal consecration, that would be construed by the Church as a tacit resignation, since that virtually contains the intent not to function as Pope, for which one must be Bishop of Rome. But this would not be a case of active refusal. So I think the end result would be something similar to the distinctions made by sedeprivationism or sedeimpoundism (Father Chazal), where such as one could exercise some papal authority (making appointments, etc.) but would be bereft of teaching authority.
This also dovetails interestingly with the Siri theory. If that theory is true (and I am convinced that it is), the subsequent papal elections would not be legitimate through the death of Cardinal Siri. That timeframe would include the last pre-V2 ordained bishop in the "papal" line, Karol Wojtyla. So, by the time the first pope-elect is not impeded by Siri holding office, we have the first new-Rite-consecrated "bishop" (Ratzinger), so then he doesn't have the requisite episcopal orders to exercise papal teaching authority, and of course the same holds for Bergolgio and then some, as it's questionable whether he's even a valid priest. Bergoglio was "ordained" in December 1969, after the New Rite of Ordination had been introduced [... unless for some reason his bishop was slow to adopt and still used the old Rite].
Topic: Traditional Powers of the Priesthood absent in novus ordo ordinations (Read 10376 times)