Didn't see this posted yet. He was taken to Rome's Gemelli Hospital on Friday for a respiratory infection, per the official Vatican News outlet.

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-02/pope-francis-bronchitis-gemelli-hospital-bruni-statement-health.html

Prayers for recovery

SoulSlaveAG2005 said:

---

Prayers for recovery

---

Amen.

BREAKING:

The Vatican announces that Pope Francis condition has worsened and that it’s now a "polymicrobial respiratory tract infection.”

Tests from recent days show "a complex clinical picture” that will require an extended stay at the hospital in Rome for the 88-year-old Pope pic.twitter.com/ZKJpTzZJC7

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) February 17, 2025

That's scary, especially for someone his age and health.
I hope and pray he recovers and know that God is with him, either way. Ave Maria.

This happens on the protestant side with large churches, but always kind of interesting that these older ministry leaders don't officially turn the reigns over sooner than they do. Often times significant health issues late in life basically forces their hand. I wish there would be more intentional succession planning and execution.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This happens on the protestant side with large churches, but always kind of interesting that these older ministry leaders don't officially turn the reigns over sooner than they do. Often times significant health issues late in life basically forces their hand. I wish there would be more intentional succession planning and execution.

---

Protestant churches could turn the reins over but not the Catholic Church…they have the whole process where they are closed up in a room with the black and white smoke until God selects the next pope (if I got it right…)

I doubt there will be another Pope. It's going to be interesting.

As in you don't think there will be another pope after Francis?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

This happens on the protestant side with large churches, but always kind of interesting that these older ministry leaders don't officially turn the reigns over sooner than they do. Often times significant health issues late in life basically forces their hand. I wish there would be more intentional succession planning and execution.

---

General Jack D. Ripper said:

---

I doubt there will be another Pope. It's going to be interesting.

---

This is a really odd prediction. Are you predicting Christ returning upon Francis's death?

Psych said:

---

General Jack D. Ripper said:

---

I doubt there will be another Pope. It's going to be interesting.

---

This is a really odd prediction. Are you predicting Christ returning upon Francis's death?

---

No. I'm just thinking there's a wide division between the conservative church and the leftist church. Will they be able to reach an agreement?

General Jack D. Ripper said:

---

Psych said:

---

General Jack D. Ripper said:

---

I doubt there will be another Pope. It's going to be interesting.

---

This is a really odd prediction. Are you predicting Christ returning upon Francis's death?

---

No. I'm just thinking there's a wide division between the conservative church and the leftist church. Will they be able to reach an agreement?

---

Yes

The Cardinals select the Pope and Francis has stacked the College

As of 03/01 there are 134 electors, Francis appointed about (I think) 110 of them

There's not gonna be gridlock, and it's pretty much a certainty which way this is going to go

The fact that new priests have trended conservative is inconsequential. They don't select Cardinals and they don't elect the Pope

Captain Pablo said:

---

Yes

The Cardinals select the Pope and Francis has stacked the College

As of 03/01 there are 134 electors, Francis appointed about (I think) 110 of them

There's not gonna be gridlock, and it's pretty much a certainty which way this is going to go

The fact that new priests have trended conservative is inconsequential. They don't select Cardinals and they don't elect the Pope

---

I don't think it matters, especially if you believe that the Holy Spirit will guide the church to where it needs to be. Pope John Paul II appointed 231 Cardinals and I think most would agree that most were conservative in their leanings. Nonetheless, we still got Pope Francis. This will go back and forth according to God's will.

I was recently moved by JD Vance's remarks at the National Catholic Breakfast and he brought up Pope Francis. He read part of the Homily Pope Francis gave to an empty St Peter's Square, in the rain, at the onset of the Covid pandemic. I had never heard that before but it was a powerful message at a very difficult time. I don't pretend to know God's will but if He thinks we need Pope Francis for some reason at this time in history, then that is good enough for me.

As was pointed out, almost every cardinal in the last conclave was selected by St. Pope JP II or Pope Benedict, both very conservative popes.

The Holy Spirit will choose who Mother Church needs because he promised the gates of Hell will not prevail against Her.

He remains needing high flow o2 during the day and BiPAP at night. Considered stable but this is not going to be great long-term for him.

fc2112 said:

---

As was pointed out, almost every cardinal in the last conclave was selected by St. Pope JP II or Pope Benedict, both very conservative popes.

The Holy Spirit will choose who Mother Church needs because he promised the gates of Hell will not prevail against Her.

---

I struggle with that

Not with the Holy Spirit's ability

But with the objectively terrible Popes of the past. I struggle with the notion that they were carrying out God's will in furtherance of the good of the Church, with God's approval

EDIT - No, I am not lumping Francis in with the bad Popes

I never thought of JP2 as a "conservative" nor "progressive" but rather a solid theologian that was the right Pope for our time. I credit his 1993 encyclical, Veritatis Splendor for the start of my search. Highly recommend this for a better understanding of how man determines what is moral truth.

See below taken from Pablo's link, which in my view applies not just to the Catholic Church, but to many Christian faiths. Some may feel Christian faiths have been overly responsive to the systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine by progressive ideas. Are these faiths altering traditional moral doctrine or merely accepting those individuals who subscribe to the progressive ideas?

certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine which, in the present circumstances, risk being distorted or denied. In fact, a new situation has come about within the Christian community itself, which has experienced the spread of numerous doubts and objections of a human and psychological, social and cultural, religious and even properly theological nature, with regard to the Church's moral teachings. It is no longer a matter of limited and occasional dissent, but of an overall and systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine, on the basis of certain anthropological and ethical presuppositions. At the root of these presuppositions is the more or less obvious influence of currents of thought which end by detaching human freedom from its essential and constitutive relationship to truth. Thus the traditional doctrine regarding the natural law, and the universality and the permanent validity of its precepts, is rejected; certain of the Church's moral teachings are found simply unacceptable;

TAM85 said:

---

See below taken from Pablo's link, which in my view applies not just to the Catholic Church, but to many Christian faiths. Some may feel Christian faiths have been overly responsive to the systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine by progressive ideas. Are these faiths altering traditional moral doctrine or merely accepting those individuals who subscribe to the progressive ideas?

certain fundamental truths of Catholic doctrine which, in the present circumstances, risk being distorted or denied. In fact, a new situation has come about within the Christian community itself, which has experienced the spread of numerous doubts and objections of a human and psychological, social and cultural, religious and even properly theological nature, with regard to the Church's moral teachings. It is no longer a matter of limited and occasional dissent, but of an overall and systematic calling into question of traditional moral doctrine, on the basis of certain anthropological and ethical presuppositions. At the root of these presuppositions is the more or less obvious influence of currents of thought which end by detaching human freedom from its essential and constitutive relationship to truth. Thus the traditional doctrine regarding the natural law, and the universality and the permanent validity of its precepts, is rejected; certain of the Church's moral teachings are found simply unacceptable;

---

The Church has not been over responsive to liberals.

She's been under responsive.

See Germany

I don't have an opinion concerning your liberal comment, but blessing those in same sex marriages is accepting of a progressive idea.

TAM85 said:

---

I don't have an opinion concerning your liberal comment, but blessing those in same sex marriages is accepting of a progressive idea.

---

Well yeah

TAM85 said:

---

I don't have an opinion concerning your liberal comment, but blessing those in same sex marriages is accepting of a progressive idea.

---

I think people should be blessed no matter their spiritual situation.

The issue is that some equate an individual blessing for more than it is intended. This was an awkward attempt to split hairs in my opinion. It said you can bless people, but immediately clarified what it is not blessing, namely a same sex "marriage"- which appears to be just the opposite.

If I were a gay Catholic man civilly "married", I would see right through the charade.

Nothing has changed.

Oh I don't think it is about liberals vs. traditionalist. It's about truth.

PabloSerna said:

---

TAM85 said:

---

I don't have an opinion concerning your liberal comment, but blessing those in same sex marriages is accepting of a progressive idea.

---

I think people should be blessed no matter their spiritual situation.

The issue is that some equate an individual blessing for more than it is intended. This was an awkward attempt to split hairs in my opinion. It said you can bless people, but immediately clarified what it is not blessing, namely a same sex "marriage"- which appears to be just the opposite.

If I were a gay Catholic man civilly "married", I would see right through the charade.

Nothing has changed.

---

But that's never how it works in the modern world. The media and certain liberal groups would push this for acceptance of a clearly sinful act.

PabloSerna said:

---

Oh I don't think it is about liberals vs. traditionalist. It's about truth.

---

yeah, as you see/twist it

PabloSerna said:

---

TAM85 said:

---

I don't have an opinion concerning your liberal comment, but blessing those in same sex marriages is accepting of a progressive idea.

---

I think people should be blessed no matter their spiritual situation.

The issue is that some equate an individual blessing for more than it is intended. This was an awkward attempt to split hairs in my opinion. It said you can bless people, but immediately clarified what it is not blessing, namely a same sex "marriage"- which appears to be just the opposite.

If I were a gay Catholic man civilly "married", I would see right through the charade.

Nothing has changed.

---

I think the "hair splitting" was over whether this was a blessing for individuals or couples.

If for individuals, then nothing changes. Then why emphasize "couples" or "relationships" in the proclamation?

If for couples, then yeah, there's splainin' to do

In the end, yes it was Francis' typical vague, needle-threading, confusing word salad that the Vatican had to come behind with another word salad to try to clear it up. It's been happening since Francis has been Pope

For once we appear to agree.

PabloSerna said:

---

For once we appear to agree.

---

Fair enough

Captain Pablo said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

Oh I don't think it is about liberals vs. traditionalist. It's about truth.

---

yeah, as you see/twist it

---

Huh?

Maybe our definition of "traditional moral teachings" are different? I understand that to mean what we know as revealed to the Church through the public revelation that ended with the death of the last Apostle. Since then, I can't think of anything that has changed. What has been reformed is our understanding and witness (explanation) of this truth to the world.

This understanding is our doctrine of divine truth. We understand some things now more clearly than before. Take the doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception.

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2025-03/pope-stable-condition-x-ray-confirms-improvements-recent-days.html

Still on high flow oxygen and still requiring BiPAP at night. Signs of improvement on x-rays.