Right here on your own digital device . . .

It’s something this scholar wrote about in 2015. . .

I do not think that the implications of his abdication have yet been fully recognised. Not since the Council of Constance had a living pope receded from the See of Rome. In 1415, the Council deposed the ‘Pisan’ pope John XXIII, and then accepted the resignation of the ‘Roman’ pope Gregory XII on 4 July. In 1417 it deposed the ‘Avignon’ pope Clement VIII, and elected Martin V.

[Until 2013] No subsequent pope has abdicated or been deposed. Since then, the assumption that the pope is a Given whom only God can loose from his pontificate, has, surely, been one of the most potent protections of each succeeding pontiff.

After Benedict’s abdication, nothing can ever be the same again. No future pope can ever be as immovable as every pope was from Constance until Benedict. . . .

Having offered samples of custom or episode in English history, in education and politics:

Eventually, this will sink in. Eventually, popes will become as disposable as head masters and Mrs Thatcher.

And this implies a consequential loss of power; a vulnerability.

He muses on it in 2021:

I wonder if (I wouldn’t put it past him) Pope Benedict XVI realised all this.

I wonder if his abdication was his last and most masterly coup to undermine the post-Vatican II construct, against which he had so vigorously argued, of the Pope Who Can Do Anything, who is an Absolute Monarch; and to restore the Vatican I model of a strictly limited papacy with its limitations clearly and lucidly described.

His resignation, in other words, spelled the death of The Dictator, or dictatorial, Pope?

Common sense, anyone?

1. Public health is about all health outcomes, not just a single disease like Covid-19. It is important to also consider harms from public health measures. More.
2. Public health is about the long term rather than the short term. Spring Covid lockdowns simply delayed and postponed the pandemic to the fall. More.
3. Public health is about everyone. It should not be used to shift the burden of disease from the affluent to the less affluent, as thelockdowns have done. More.
4. Public health is global. Public health scientists need to consider the global impact of their recommendations. More.
5. Risks and harms cannot be completely eliminated, but they can be reduced. Elimination and zero-Covid strategies backfire, making things worse. More.
6. Public health should focus on high-risk populations. For Covid-19, many standard public health measures were never used to protect high-risk older people, leading to unnecessary deaths. More.
7. While contact tracing and isolation are critically important for some infectious diseases, it is futile and counterproductive for common infections such as influenza and Covid-19. More.
8. A case is only a case if a person is sick. Mass testing asymptomatic individuals is harmful to public health. More.
9. Public health is about trust. To gain the trust of the public, public health officials and the media must be honest and trust the public. Shaming and fear should never be used in a pandemic. More.
10. Public health scientists and officials must be honest with what is not known. For example, epidemic models should be run with the whole range of plausible input parameters. More.
11. In public health, open civilized debate is profoundly critical. Censoring, silencing and smearing leads to fear of speaking, herd thinking and distrust. More.
12. It is important for public health scientists and officials to listen to the public, who are living the public health consequences. This pandemic has proved that many non-epidemiologists understand public health better than some epidemiologists. More.

From Martin Kulldorff, Senior Scholar of Brownstone Institute, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

” . . . an opposite instinct, a Castilian love of mended clothes, simple monotonous days, and a minimum of belongings.”
— George Santayana, letter to Shohig Sherry Terzian (December 27, 1937) posted by Michael Gilleland at Laudator Temporis Acti.

. . . showing how Vatican Council II approved and encouraged what Francis shot at and missed. Sacrosanctum Concilium is the council’s near unanimously accepted final say about liturgy:

After the example of the celebrations according to 1962 Missal, and based on the teaching of the Council Fathers and the legitimate options of the present liturgical books, Adoremus [a
publication here defended by its editor] will continue to assist bishops, priests, and laity as “guardians of tradition.”

We will continue to promote the use of Latin and sacred vernacular, as do Sacrosanctum Concilium (36, 54, 101) and the tradition.

We will continue to encourage the use of Gregorian Chant and sacred polyphony, as do Sacrosanctum Concilium (116) and the tradition.

We will continue to form liturgical ministers to serve and act according to “the traditional practice of the Roman Rite,” as the [official,
since 1969] General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) directs (see GIRM, 42).

We will continue to demonstrate the need for beautiful, heavenly sacred art and architecture, as do Sacrosanctum Concilium (122) and our liturgical tradition.

We will continue to teach about legitimate, longstanding liturgical options, such as praying the Eucharistic Prayer ad orientem, as offered by the current Missal (see, for example, Order of Mass, 29, 127, 132)..

Leaving the rest of us wondering what the heck’s going on in Rome these days, and not the first time for that . . .