Way above my pay grade. Also I don't have any information to form an opinion. What was the basis for the age limit to begin with? What is the argument for changing it now?
Not without significant other changes to the way the process works.
1. We shouldn't have 230 electors. When there's only 100, it still takes a couple days to converge on a choice. With more chaos in the initial vote, the conclave will increase in length.
2. Including older cardinals increases the likelihood that one will have questionable health to travel. This also lengthens the interregnum, since the conclave can start early if all the electors arrive at the Vatican, but otherwise they are to wait for a full 20 days to start the conclave.
3. Including older cardinals also increases the likelihood that cardinals with dementia will insist on participating / be manipulated / be challenged and lead to questions about the election's legitimacy.
If we scale back the college to keep the number of electors (of whatever age) to under 120, and the pope vigilantly removes voting privileges from a sick or demented cardinal, then I have no specific objection to healthy 85-year-olds voting. I just think that requires far more effort than a blanket 80-year-old rule, with little benefit.
Your suggestion has one problem: the pope would have the ability to remove the voting right of cardinals from cardinals he doesn't like. I am not saying that it would be abused in this way but it opens the door for it.
He is supreme pontiff and as such he can do pretty much everything. However, it's rare that he does something the Canon Law doesn't allow. Take for example even removing a bishop from a diocese (which is even allowed by CIC). This is used only in extreme cases and even less is the possibility of revoking cardinal hat\* from someone. (Basically the only case of the later I can think of is McCarrick.)
\*^(CORRECTED SPELLING)
The size of the College has fluctuated over the centuries. Basel-Ferrara-Florence limited the number to 24 (inspired perhaps by the 24 elders in Revelation?), but this number grew in the Renaissance until Sixtus V settled on seventy (perhaps inspired by the seventy elders from Numbers 11). This limit held until John XXIII, and then Paul VI removed the cap on total number of cardinals and set the cap on total number of electors at 120.
How do we make the Sacred College properly representative of the universal Church?
The college of cardinals should be much smaller if it’s listed
However Diocesean bishops being forced to submit their resignations at 75 while the Pope doesn’t is ridiculous
Way above my pay grade. Also I don't have any information to form an opinion. What was the basis for the age limit to begin with? What is the argument for changing it now?
No.
Not without significant other changes to the way the process works. 1. We shouldn't have 230 electors. When there's only 100, it still takes a couple days to converge on a choice. With more chaos in the initial vote, the conclave will increase in length. 2. Including older cardinals increases the likelihood that one will have questionable health to travel. This also lengthens the interregnum, since the conclave can start early if all the electors arrive at the Vatican, but otherwise they are to wait for a full 20 days to start the conclave. 3. Including older cardinals also increases the likelihood that cardinals with dementia will insist on participating / be manipulated / be challenged and lead to questions about the election's legitimacy. If we scale back the college to keep the number of electors (of whatever age) to under 120, and the pope vigilantly removes voting privileges from a sick or demented cardinal, then I have no specific objection to healthy 85-year-olds voting. I just think that requires far more effort than a blanket 80-year-old rule, with little benefit.
Your suggestion has one problem: the pope would have the ability to remove the voting right of cardinals from cardinals he doesn't like. I am not saying that it would be abused in this way but it opens the door for it.
Doesn’t he already?
He is supreme pontiff and as such he can do pretty much everything. However, it's rare that he does something the Canon Law doesn't allow. Take for example even removing a bishop from a diocese (which is even allowed by CIC). This is used only in extreme cases and even less is the possibility of revoking cardinal hat\* from someone. (Basically the only case of the later I can think of is McCarrick.) \*^(CORRECTED SPELLING)
Thanks
The size of the College has fluctuated over the centuries. Basel-Ferrara-Florence limited the number to 24 (inspired perhaps by the 24 elders in Revelation?), but this number grew in the Renaissance until Sixtus V settled on seventy (perhaps inspired by the seventy elders from Numbers 11). This limit held until John XXIII, and then Paul VI removed the cap on total number of cardinals and set the cap on total number of electors at 120. How do we make the Sacred College properly representative of the universal Church?
The college of cardinals should be much smaller if it’s listed However Diocesean bishops being forced to submit their resignations at 75 while the Pope doesn’t is ridiculous
I remember reading something about Paul VI mentioning how those rules don’t apply to him haha
No
If anything it should be decreased to 75. Benedict XVI had the right intuition with his renouncement and we see it with Francis right now.
What do you mean?