The triple crown was deprecated some time ago, but perhaps this scholar was the first to serve as the bishop of Rome and not be thought of as a king, or some sort of spiritual emperor, or political authority over empires. You could see that in the expressions of the curial officers, and in the conflicts in the media. And the reaction to the death was different. More that of a co-worker and a good person than a spiritual commander. So, political questions of succession aside, the question might be whether such an authority can be transmitted in the current political world. What meaning would it have for a second scholar and minister to take the office, without the political strength from the halo of a crown. Is the catholic form inherently aligned with kingship? The early bishops of Rome wouldn't have thought so, but as the church expanded though the world, it came into itself, brought into the fullness of existence by the peoples it came to encompass. (Hans Kung's history traces these doctrinal shifts clearly.) So, and this does resonate with the current global politics, the question might be for the species at large: how magic do we need our authorities to be? The impulse towards the old ways of sovereignty is a form of recollection; the secular world, contrastingly, is creating authorities without a history, without recollection, and lit only by the flickering thoughts of the television: all things new (and as a result, is susceptible to revanchist waves of populist fervour for old authoritarian forms). Perhaps there is a form of recollection that impels us to the new.