By Fr. Raymond J. de Souza.

But first a note: Who will be the next pope? What challenges will he face? Look for 'The Conclave Crew' (Raymond Arroyo, Robert Royal, and Fr. Gerald E. Murray) on the Arroyo Grande podcast. Check your email for each new episode as it's released. Here's Episode #1: The Real Factors Shaping the Next Pope.

Now for today's column...

The Gospel reading for the funeral Mass of Pope Francis, as it was for St. John Paul II in 2005, is sometimes called the "restoration of Peter." (John 21) After the triplex denial of Holy Thursday, Peter is subjected to a triplex enquiry, both an interrogation and an absolution, and then the mission: Feed my lambs. Tend my sheep. Follow me.

Now that the late Holy Father has been laid to rest, the College of Cardinals turns its attention to what the Church needs from the next successor of St. Peter. What is needed in a restoration of the Petrine office, in need of some rehabilitation after twelve years of downgrading.

Pope Francis, to the laudations of the world, presented a "simplified" papal office. Consider the widespread acclaim that his "humble" tomb at St. Mary Major carried only the inscription "Franciscus." That was important enough to the late Holy Father that he stipulated it in his final testament, a curious document that primarily dealt with the logistical disposal of his mortal remains rather than the affairs of his immortal soul.

The last papal tomb of any grandeur was that of Pope Pius XI, who died in 1939. Of the six popes between Pius XI and Francis, all had rather simple tombs when originally buried in the crypt of St. Peter's. Three were above ground (Pius XII, John XXIII, John Paul I) and three below ground (Paul VI, John Paul II, Benedict XVI).

The inscriptions were almost identical: Regnal Name PP Roman Numeral. So, Pius PP XII, Ioannes PP XXIII, Benedictus PP XVI. John Paul II's original tombstone included the dates of his reign, which was singular.

So why did Francis specify what was the usual practice? He evidently did not want the "PP," postnominal letters that indicate pope or pontifex. He avoided the use of it in his papal signature as well.

The naked "Franciscus" is neither humble nor vain, neither formal nor informal, neither simple nor grand. It is a deliberate diminution of the Petrine office. Hence, the need for a restoration.

In his January 2025 autobiography, in the valedictory pages toward the end, Pope Francis recalls how he thought about his office from the beginning.

This is the papacy: service. The pope's personal title that I like most is Servus servorum Dei. Whoever serves everyone, who serves for everyone. Two months after my election, when I received the proofs of the Pontifical Yearbook, I sent back the first page containing titles attributed to the pope: vicar of Jesus Christ, successor of the prince of the Apostles, sovereign, patriarch. . . .Away with it all: simply Bishop of Rome. The rest was put back on the second page. That was how I presented myself from the first day, and only because it's the truth. The other are real titles, added by history and by theologians, and with reasons too, but precisely because the pope was, and is, Bishop of Rome."

That is incorrect. That Pope Francis would be so mistaken at the beginning was remarkable enough; that he would remain so to the end is astonishing.

Chronologically, Bishop of Rome is subsequent to Vicar of Jesus Christ. In John 21, Peter is not the Bishop of Rome. Yet he is already the "Prince of the Apostles." And that he is "Vicar of Christ" is soon made clear in the first pages of the Acts of the Apostles. As Vicar of Christ, Peter would go first to Antioch - the first see of the Vicar of Christ - and then afterwards to Rome. History and canon law have made the titles Bishop of Rome and Vicar of Christ into a single Petrine office, but it is simply wrong to subordinate the latter to the former.

As for the characterization of titles "added by history and theologians," the fa...