[ April 19, 2005, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This is big news - it means they selected a pope with a 2/3 majority. At some point, with no decision, the requirement for selection would have been reduced to simple majority.
Dagonee Edit: removed the very confusing "before" in the first sentence. No wonder some of you were confused.
[ April 19, 2005, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
Is it my imagination, or does that article not say who it is?
Dag -- I have absolutely no idea what you said with that post. Could you clarify for me a bit?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
It doesn't say. And neither does the CNN article.
And I second Porter's confusion regarding Dag's post... o_O
Posted by xnera (Member # 187) on :
Thanks for the link. Someone on my LiveJournal friends list said we had a new pope, but didn't include a link, and I couldn't find one on Google News. Wish the link had more info, though.
Posted by TrapperKeeper (Member # 7680) on :
I hope the runner up doesnt demand a recount. j/k
Posted by Heffaji (Member # 3669) on :
I think he meant that because they voted for a Pope this quickly, it didn't come to the point where they MUST choose a Pope, which would employ a simple majority rather then the initial 2/3rds.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I guess the new Pope will be appearing shortly on the balcony. We don't know who it is yet.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Sorry. Historically, 2/3 of the cardinals have to agree for a pope to be selected. Pope John Paul II changed the rules for selecting the next pope. If, no candidate received 2/3 of the vote after a certain number of ballots, the requirement was to drop to simple majority.
I'm happy they could make a decision based on the greater consensus rather than letting it get to the simple majority point.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
At this point in time, a new pope required a 2/3 majority for election.
Had it gone on long enough without a 2/3 majority, the requirement would have decreased (to a simple majority, iirc).
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
AJ
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
The Washington Post also has a live feed.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:There is no word on the new pope's identity or what name he will choose, which the Vatican has indicated will be announced 45 minutes after his election.
I'm going to predict Ratzinger with the new name of John Paul III. Just a guess though. I was hoping for a John XIV, but that was a bit much to expect.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
It's Cardinal Ratzinger.
[ April 19, 2005, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
Benedict the 16th. Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
Pope Benidict XVI
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
hmm, the new Pope is 78.
Posted by Heffaji (Member # 3669) on :
Does anyone else think he looks a little bit like the Emperor from Star Wars? Probably not, but I can't strike the physical resemblance from my mind.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Kind of acts like him, too, minus the lightning, from what I hear.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Anyone knows what were the names of the previous popes? How many John's, John Paul's or whatever other names were out there? And I wonder what consists a proper name for a pope?
Posted by urbanX (Member # 1450) on :
As long as he doesn't suddenly start wearing a hooded robe we should be OK.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Nice, Tom.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
You're just jealous, Tom Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
I second Dag. Must you inject your venom into every religious conversation? This is (and should be) a happy day for all Catholics. There will be plenty of time for criticism later.
edit: oh, and he does look a bit like Emporer Palpatine
[ April 19, 2005, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Brian J. Hill ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Its just a little sad that such a conservative Pope has been elected, well at least if you ask me. I'm a rather liberal Catholic, which I suppose still makes me pretty conservative Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The likelihood is that Ratzinger is envisioned as a transitional pope, due to his age.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Could someone elaborate on the significance of the choice of name? I mean, I know what Benedict means, but who were the last few holders of the name?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Am I the only one who is bothered by Wikipedia billing itself as "the free encyclopedia?"
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
quote:The crowd responded by chanting "Benedict! Benedict!"
Why didn't they pick a younger one? If John Paul II was 84.. and this guy's ALREADY 78..
[ April 19, 2005, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: Tater ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
While I think that Tom was way out of line, this isn't exactly a happy day for all Catholics. Ratzinger's a hard-core conservative who has been even more authoritarian and curialist than John Paul II. I think that there are many Catholics who aren't going to be happy with this choice.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
edit: in response to wikipedia question
Yes?
Remember that free has two meanings in the context wikipedia exists within, and they likely intend both.
[ April 19, 2005, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
First an unenthusiastic member of the Hitler Youth, and now Pope. o_O He's come a long way.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why didn't they pick a younger one? If John Paul II was 84.. and this guy's ALREADY 78.
I'm guessing it's because he won't make a lot of changes and this gives more time for the Church to consider it's direction after JPII.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
John Paul had a relatively very long transformative pontificate. It's customary to choose a transitional following a reign like that. All of the top contenders were old men. Benedict XVI is unlikely to make many changes in the way the Church has been going before he dies, so there's time to consider who the next pope should be and what comes next for the Church in an atmosphere of relative stability.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Remember that free has two meanings in the context wikipedia exists within, and they likely intend both.
I'm starting another thread about this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, sorry, but I'm just a bit disappointed that the Cardinals felt that the best resolution to the many intellectual disagreements facing the church was to appoint the Grand Inquisitor to look into them.
Speaking as somebody employed by a liberal Catholic institution, there's as much gritting of teeth as celebration visible in the hallways at the moment.
In fact, compared to the liberal Catholics I've already heard discussing this decision not ten feet away, my comment was remarkably civil. Out of respect for Dag, I will not quote here what his fellow Catholics -- including, at the moment, a Dominican nun -- are saying about the choice.
[ April 19, 2005, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :
quote:First an unenthusiastic member of the Hitler Youth, and now Pope. o_O
That is just about as meaningful as saying "First a boy scout, and now Pope."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Hey, somebody gets elected Pope who was a Boy Scout, you can bet the Boy Scouts are going to be all over that. Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Well, you know every German who was alive during WWII really wanted to be a Nazi and rule the world at Hitler's side... Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
quote: Could someone elaborate on the significance of the choice of name? I mean, I know what Benedict means, but who were the last few holders of the name?
Benedict XV was pope during the first world war. I don't know very much about him but have heard him refered to as a man of peace. You can find the text of his published encyclicals here The Holy Father but sadly the biography has not yet been posted.
I think it is a good choice myself because it sidesteps all the political implications of say John Paul III, John XXIV, or say Pius XIII.
[ April 19, 2005, 01:29 PM: Message edited by: Miriya ]
Posted by dawnmaria (Member # 4142) on :
It just made me a little sad to see someone other then John Paul II step out onto the balcony. Even though I didn't always agree with his stands, he was the only Pope I ever knew. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I just want to point out that my reply was NOT intended to say that membership in the Hitler Youth said something particularly meaningful about any particular German's personality, given the circumstances, but rather to observe -- humorously, I hoped -- that the Boy Scouts would in fact make a big deal out of a Pope's Boy Scout membership. Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
*wishes she could overhear Tom's Dominican nun* I have several Catholic friends that I don't think are going to be terribly happy either.
AJ
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
I wasn't saying that all Catholics are happy with this particular choice. I was saying that I'm under the impression that the choosing of a new pope is a generally happy occasion, much like a wedding is happy even if you think the groom is a neanderthal.
Grumbling just seems out of place. Kinda like turning funerals into political rallies (e.g. Terri Shiavo, Ronald Reagan.) Of course, I'm not a Catholic so I don't presume to speak for any or all of them.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I'm not catholic...
I don't understand how there could be dissension over the new pope, though, among catholics. Don't they believe that the pope is actually chosen by God? If he stands as the Earthly representative of God, and they really believe that, then how could they question his appointment?
I don't get it.
Is it that they think he was incorrectly chosen? Like the council ignored God?
I just want to understand the catholic perspective. Personally, I don't believe in any of it. But we're not talking about ME.
-Katarain
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:compared to the liberal Catholics I've already heard discussing this decision not ten feet away, my comment was remarkably civil
Tom, did you really mean to imply that rudeness is a liberal trait? I mean when someone suggests that you are being so and your response is "well all the liberals within earshot are doing it..."
I'm just asking...
*polishes halo and looks innocent*
Edit to add: For clarity, I am just pulling your chain, Tom... please don't feel you have to defend yourself from this...
[ April 19, 2005, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
No, no, it's "etiquette relativism."
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
As a Benedictine nun myself, I have to say that there are a lot of Catholics who are disappointed in this election. I think a lot of people were hoping for someone a little more forward looking with maybe a little more pluralistic view of the world. We (that is, my community and I) are at least inspired by the fact that he chooses to call himself Benedict which gives us some hope. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
quote:First an unenthusiastic member of the Hitler Youth, and now Pope.
I don't understand this comment. Was it an attempt to draw parallels with fascism? If so, it might also be worth noting that Ratzinger deserted the German army.
I also think it rather significant that the cardinals, who represent world-wide Catholicism, were so quick to choose such an obviously "conservative" man as Pope. To me, it seems as a continuity of John Paul II's legacy and a pretty good indicator of the values that global Catholicism stands for. I respect the decision immensely.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What's interesting to me is that the pope was another European white guy. I am NOT saying tht the cardinals are racist by any means, but given the decline of religion in Europe, particularly west Europe where Germany is, it's interesting that the cardinals didn't go ahead and embrace someone who would be more ethnically representative of the world's Catholics, both now and in the future. Maybe the cardinals are color blind and they just chose the right man for the job....
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
Rats. I guess that this means that purchasing one of these would be a little late.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Never mind. Dumb question.
[ April 19, 2005, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
katdog, you're a benedictine nun? seriously?
I also know plenty of folks, myself included, who are NOT happy about the choice of the new pope.
AJ, could you email me what that Dominican nun said? I can only imagine what the Dominican nun professor I had in college is saying right now. And my friend the former Jesuit, and half of the Benedictine monks that I know...
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:that the cardinals, who represent world-wide Catholicism
That's actually one of the controversial issues that's facing the church right now, in more ways than one. From one perspective, there's the issue of the increasing role the laity have been playing in the Church, administratively, during the worship services, and even doctrinally. The late Pope and the current one have been trying to discourage and forbid this.
Also, there's the issue of whether the Church is best represented as an organization ruled by the central Roman Curate and Pope or whether the people in the different diocese should be trusted to run things. Again, the late and current pope agreed that the centralized model was the way to go.
Not suprisingly, this has not been well received by many Catholics, especially those in America.
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
Yeah, seriously, I really am a Benedictine. I can tell you that most here are, not necessarily mad at the decision, but a lot of sisters are very disappointed in the church leaders. He will certainly follow the views of our JPII. I think a number of people were hoping that the church would look to leadership outside of the traditional white European spectrum, but we have to trust (or try to) that the cardinals elected the man who is most able to serve at this time.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:First an unenthusiastic member of the Hitler Youth, and now Pope.
Meaning, I suppose, that the 50+ years of his life in the middle were inconsequential?
I don't know enough about the man and his beliefs to comment knowledgeably on his ability to be a good pope, nor am I Catholic, but common sense would suggest that unless he ever gave the hint later on in life that being in Hitler Youth was fun and he missed it, continually bringing it up is pretty weak.
[ April 19, 2005, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
quote:Not suprisingly, this has not been well received by many Catholics, especially those in America.
You use the word "many" here, and others in the thread have used "a lot of the Catholics I know" as an indicator. I'd really be interested to find out what these numbers really are. Even if every Catholic in America is of one opinion, I don't think that qualifies as a majority of the church, does it?
In my church, we are asked to sustain (give a sustaining vote to) the new prophets. It would be cool to see what the support would be, worldwide, if the Roman Catholic church did the same thing.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
So many issues are coming up now that we went over in my Church course in college. Wow. Who knew that I'd need that info later.
katdog, the reason I ask is because I went to a Benedictine college and still love the Benedictine tradition. And still have monks whom I count as good friends.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
mack, it was TomDavidson that was talking to Benedictine nuns, not me. (I'm not adverse to talking to Beneditcine nuns, I've liked the one I've met, but they aren't going to pop up on a regular basis in my lab at work.) I have no idea what she said. You'll have to ask Tom.
AJ
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
So, Tom...
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
No, no, Tom was talking (or at least listening) to a Dominican nun.
I haven’t taken the time to check this myself, but a friend of mine who used to work in the Vatican claims that (almost?) every long-serving pope in history has been followed by the election of an older cardinal who agreed strongly with the deceased pope. Radical change comes with the next election.
Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
quote:I haven’t taken the time to check this myself, but a friend of mine who used to work in the Vatican claims that (almost?) every long-serving pope in history has been followed by the election of an older cardinal who agreed strongly with the deceased pope. Radical change comes with the next election.
That's certainly a common occurance in history but God or the church (however you want to look at it) works in mysterious ways. John XIII was 77 at the time of his election to the papacy and expected to be a "transitional" pope and then he called the Second Vatican Council. Vatican II certainly introduced radical change to the church's traditions (small t traditions).
[ April 19, 2005, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: Miriya ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I mixed my Dominicans and my Benedictines. My apologies. I'm not Catholic and while I'm vaguely aware that the different orders have different focuses I have no idea what they are.
AJ
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Dominicans and Benedictines have one pretty big differents--Dominicans (if I remember correctly) go to where their work is. Benedictines take a vow of stability and tend to stay put.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I just want to know how the Popes pick their names and why..... *knows too little about the papacy*
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Would it be snarky if I wished more religious leaders (or, for that matter, political leaders) would take a vow of stability?
[ April 19, 2005, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Synth
They have this hat and they get classified.
msquared
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
quote:I just want to know how the Popes pick their names and why.....
It would be cool to compare this to why rappers choose their monikers, too. Same thoughts go into it? NPR had a bit on the Benedict name...first is the obvious (the founder of the Benedictine order) and the second was that guy who did some outreach to non-Catholics to bring more into the fold. I think. It was during a car ride so it is vague.
It is more of an ironic name if his history is any indication. He was pretty hard on the more liberal leaning orders in the church, which will upset a good number of women who really were hoping for more of a role in future Church leadership. I don't see him reaching out nearly as much as JPII did, either.
People hoping for the Church to make any radical change are going to have to wait a bit, sadly. Which is too bad, because the very issue Benedict seems to think is most important is the declining membership in the church...which is probably due to the static nature of Church doctrines and traditions that haven't really left the Dark Ages (literally, which is really sad).
Sure, it might not be MOST Catholics who are upset with Benedict's choosing...but there are a fair amount and one would think that the ones that would be most upset are already gone to other faiths that do have an eye on the present.
Posted by fil (Member # 5079) on :
One other thing. Didn't Benedict hail from the branch of the Church called the Holy Inquisition?
No one expects the Holy Inquisition.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:The likelihood is that Ratzinger is envisioned as a transitional pope, due to his age.
I put this elsewhere, but just to repeat. President Hinkley (president of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) is 95. This pope may have 20 years yet.
I am always confused that some people seem to find the quality of keeping close to the church's teachings an undesirable quality in a pope or a religion.
It reminds of people who campaign for this or that thing to stop being a sin. No one is stopping you from living as you want - isn't it nice to have a standard?
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
But Katie, sins are from the Dark Ages!
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Benedict the second seemed very cool. This article said he cared about the poor.
not if the standards are too tight and restrictive... I reckon it depends.
[ April 19, 2005, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Synesthesia ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Yes, but it's also a living church, not one that stopped in the dark ages.
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
And I think you could draw a thousand different conclusions from that statement, Mack. I'm sure there are those who would say that John Paul II's stand against communism was an example of just that, and at the same time have no problem with his hard line on contraception. There are also those who would insist that any church that won't let women be priests is not a "living church."
I've just never understood the point of view of someone who wants to be a Catholic, yet doesn't believe that God directs the church and that the Pope speaks His will. Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
I actually just had a pretty long conversation with Taalcon about that...I DO want to discuss it, but I'm brain dead at the moment. Just wanted to let you know I'm not brushing you off or anything. In part, I think there's a difference in understanding between that the LDS prophet is and what the pope is.
Posted by Susie Derkins (Member # 7718) on :
That's probably where my lack of understanding is coming from, then. Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
quote:I've just never understood the point of view of someone who wants to be a Catholic, yet doesn't believe that God directs the church and that the Pope speaks His will.
I completely agree. Not to say that the pope cannot make mistakes. He is human. Many errors have been made in the name of the Catholic church, however my understanding has always been that Catholics believe that with the guidance of God errors will be corrected and a part of this process is the presumed divinely inspired selection of each new pope.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:I am always confused that some people seem to find the quality of keeping close to the church's teachings an undesirable quality in a pope or a religion.
It reminds of people who campaign for this or that thing to stop being a sin. No one is stopping you from living as you want - isn't it nice to have a standard?
It's not really about trying to change what is a "sin," but rather about trying to get a church hierarchy to recognize that there have been cultural shifts over the last few centuries.
LSDers have a mechanism for this, yes? At one time it was a "sin" for blacks to engage in certain temple rituals. Times changed, and the church changed with them.
Some catholics simply think it is time for the institutional church to change.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I've just never understood the point of view of someone who wants to be a Catholic, yet doesn't believe that God directs the church and that the Pope speaks His will
This is really kind of a cop out, I think. A statement along the lines of 'Shut up and like it.' that ignores the reality of how most human beings work and ignores the concerns of the particular person voicing their concern over a change. When things are happening that someone doesn't like in their religion, they are going to voice dissatisfaction with that change. For them to not say anything about changes in a church which they, most likely, care a lot about , would be inhuman and uncaring. I would hope that if the pope of the Catholic church or the president of the Mormon church had ideas which members found to be against what they considered to be ethical, they wouldn't just shrug and blindly follow those ideas or leave the church altogether to struggle on its own. Maybe some would, though. Maybe some members are just blindly obedient robots with no feelings about their church. But I would hope they would be in the minority, because blind obedience does no favors for any organization. I hope they would say something and be concerned.
There have been discussions about this kind of thing before on this board and my understanding is that there aren't *that* many things that Catholics are absolutely beholden to believe in and do. It's perfectly o.k. to debate many things within the church. The pope rarely speaks for God in such a way that members *must* not question what he is saying. So, this belief that the 'pope speaks his will' is, as far as I know, something that is a vast over generalization to the point of meaninglessness in this instance. Dagonee and other Catholics, please correct me if I am wrong.
Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
quote:There have been discussions about this kind of thing before on this board and my understanding is that there aren't *that* many things that Catholics are absolutely beholden to believe in and do. It's perfectly o.k. to debate many things within the church. The pope rarely speaks for God in such a way that members *must* not question what he is saying. So, this belief that the 'pope speaks his will' is, as far as I know, something that is a vast over generalization to the point of meaninglessness in this instance. Dagonee and other Catholics, please correct me if I am wrong.
I believe you are refering to "papal infallibility". You are quite right that this does not apply to everything the pope says or does. Papal infallibility only applies to statements made by the pope "ex cathedra". This is seldom used. Someone (Dagonee?) correct me if I'm wrong but I think the last time it was invoked was by Pius XII in the 1950s.
Catholics do however hold to the belief that the church is preserved from error in disseminating the truth contained in divine revelation which encompasses the scriptures and Sacred Tradition.
Posted by Miriya (Member # 7822) on :
quote: When things are happening that someone doesn't like in their religion, they are going to voice dissatisfaction with that change. For them to not say anything about changes in a church which they, most likely, care a lot about , would be inhuman and uncaring. I would hope that if the pope of the Catholic church or the president of the Mormon church had ideas which members found to be against what they considered to be ethical, they wouldn't just shrug and blindly follow those ideas or leave the church altogether to struggle on its own. Maybe some would, though. Maybe some members are just blindly obedient robots with no feelings about their church. But I would hope they would be in the minority, because blind obedience does no favors for any organization. I hope they would say something and be concerned.
I agree that believers of all stripes should question their own and their church's teachings. I also think that believers who truly feel a particular practice of their church is in error should work within the church to correct that. I again concur that blind faith helps no one. For instance if someone within the church hierarchy wanted to start up the inquisition again, one would hope Catholics around the world would object and they could back up their objections by showing that such a thing would be rather inconsistent with the doctrines of the church.
I think what Susie was getting at in her post was that if Catholics believe that the new pope is selected through divine inspiration then they should overlook it if they dislike the man personally. If they don't believe that the selection of the pope is divinely inspired and that the church is protected from grevious error then that's a pretty fundamental problem.
I keep rereading this post and can't quite get it right... someone poke a hole in it so I can get it figure out a better way to put.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
There are many current issues confronting the catholic church that require a living view of the Gospel of Christ.
For example: The church is facing a shortage of Priests. How will the church deal with this problem? Some options include a greater reliance on lay ministers, allowing priests to marry (celebacy is one of the key factors that deters entry into the priesthoo), ordaining women to the priesthood and possibly many others. Currently, the church has been relying on the first option but the problem is still becoming critical. In the next decade something will have to be done to address this problem.
There are many other challenges that the church faces such as the AIDS panademic, sex scandals, globalization, poverty and declining membership in South America.
Addressing these problems isn't really a question about compromising standards. It is about finding a meaningful way to approach modern problems within the context of Christianity.
The Catholic church has managed to survive this long because its core teaching have intrinsic worth. They are applicable in a wide variety of circumstances and times. Challenges like the church faces today have always arisen. They cause Christians everywhere to contemplate what parts of the tradition are truly essential and what parts can be cast off. At times the Catholic church has done this well, at times they have waited far too long. For example, the Catholic Church only recently exonerated Galileo, admitting that the sun does not revolve around the earth.
I think that the concern of many Catholics, is that the Church may do a repeat on Galileo and wait a few hundred years too long to cast off inessential and faulty traditions. Given the problems that the Catholic Church and the world are facing -- failing to act now could have devastating consequences.
[ April 20, 2005, 06:45 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
Is "transitional pope" an official Church term? Because if it were me up there in the conclave, I think I might be offended by that.
"Congratulations, Cardinal. We have chosen you to be the next Holy Father. Of course you understand, because your predecessor lived such a long time, and you're so old anyway, you aren't a real pope. We need you as a placeholder to give us time to decide where we actually want to go next. But still, congratulations, really."
Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
quote:For example, the Catholic Church only recently exonerated Galileo, admitting that the earth does not revolve around the sun.
I think you may want to re-phrase that.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oooh, I'm not qualified by any means but I want to tell you about St Benedict and his impact, because I just wrote a medieval history exam and if I don't find a practical use for my knowledge...
(If I'm wrong on any counts, please feel free to contest)
Anyway, St Benedict of Nursia, Italy is most well known for the Rule of St Benedict, which he wrote in 535. This was a detailed set of Rules detailing the ideals for monastic life. The strongest impressions I get from the bits of the Rule that I read was that of Obedience and Humility.
So, although this rule was around for the next four hundred years, it's mostly associated with the Cluniac order which was founded in 910 by William of Aquitaine. Later, this order I believe became to be known as the Benedictine Order.
However, as such things go, people became unhappy with the way this traditional order was doing things and in what I think was the Gregorian Reform in the 11th century, the Carthusian and Cistercian orders were created, both again following the Rule of St Benedict.
Since monasticsm had a huge impact on Medieval life, the original Benedict was/is a pretty important person.
(Ah, I knew there would be a place to use all this knowledge!)
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
It is my understanding that the Congregation of Cluny is a segment within the Benedictine Order, not a predecessor to it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The survey found that more than eight in 10 Catholics broadly supported the selection of former German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to replace Pope John Paul II.
Nearly as many, 73 percent, said they were "enthusiastic" about the new pontiff, though only one in four said they were strongly enthusiastic about the choice.
...
Half say they want the church to adhere to traditional values and policies, while almost exactly the same proportion believe the church must change its policies to reflect modern lifestyles and beliefs.
....Slightly more than half, 52 percent, believe the Catholic Church is out of touch with American Catholics, while 44 percent disagree.
Eight in 10 expect him to maintain traditional church policies while only one in six believe he will change policies and modernize the church...
American Catholics say the church's top priority should be to deal with sexual abuse by priests.
Seven in 10 opposed denying communion to politicians who support legal abortion...
Slightly more than half, 53 percent, said they would want their son to become a priest while 41 percent disagreed.
I tried to extract just the raw numbers and leave as much of the commentary out as possible.
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
quote:"At a certain point, I prayed to God 'please don't do this to me,"' he recalled. "Evidently, this time He didn't listen to me."
Well, that's great.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why? It doesn't mean he'll do the job badly, but that he didn't aspire to it. That's a good thing.
Posted by katdog42 (Member # 4773) on :
Many people say that if you want to be the pope than you shouldn't be pope. That is, if most people who wish for the role have some sort of power problem and agenda to push. Many cardinals, from what I understand, go into the conclave hoping that it's not going to be them, because it is a HUGE responsibility with tremendous pressure and lifetime commitment to serve. You can't just resign when you get tired (though if you become seriously ill, they say it's possible). Though I'd love to give the pope a few suggestions, I would certainly never want to be the pope.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Neither would I. My wife would kill me.
ps. When will the press stop calling him Ratzinger and start calling him Benedict XVI? Were they waiting for an official ceremony, or did they just like the wat Ratzinger sounded?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Thanks for those numbers, Dag. That helps me look at the issue more clearly.
I don't think we've really heard your opinion too much on the issue. What do you think of Benedict?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
quote:"At a certain point, I prayed to God 'please don't do this to me,"' he recalled. "Evidently, this time He didn't listen to me."
I was talking about this with a former hatracker the other night. I spoke about how usually, the people who never want the office, get the office, because only unbalanced people would covet such responsibility, such as the election of an abbot.
The fact that Benedict didn't WANT the job makes me feel better about his election, actually.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I like the selection, for two reasons. First, I think he will allow the Church time to reflect on the massive changes wrought by Pope John Paul II, and on what he wouldn't change. Second, I think the Pope Benedict's obvious doctrinal credentials will give him the credibility to seriously look at issues affecting the Church without creating fears of improper doctrinal shifts.
Posted by dh (Member # 6929) on :
The more I read about Benedict XVI, the more I like him. I think I'm going to be an even bigger Benedict fan than I was a John Paul fan. And I'm not even Catholic.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I was doing some reading about the conclave. Theoretically, what happens in the Sistine Chapel is supposed to stay in the Sistine Chapel, but, despite this, the voting for every election in the modern era has been known in great detail. Apparently, the first vote was a for some minor candidates and an almost even split between then Cardinal Ratzinger and Carlo Cardinal Martini, a Jesuit and the standard bearer for the progressive side of the hierarchy.
According to the reports I read, Benedict's election followed a face to face between he and Cardinal Martini in which they came to an unknown informal agreement. On the next vote, most of the people who were voting for Martini (included Martini himself) switched their vote to Benedict.
I thought this was really interesting.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Keep Martini's name in mind during the next conclave.
Posted by Ele (Member # 708) on :
LSDers? Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Man, having a progressive Jesuit would be awesome.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Martini was considered a prime choice for Pope about 10 years ago. He's 78 now himself and is in pretty poor health. I imagine the deal was more considering moderating Benedict's anti-collegial authoritarianism than about Martini having the next shot.
As I've said, although perhaps not here, there's a big difference between being the Head Inquisitor and Pope. I think the people who are throwing out disaster predictions aren't giving Benedict a proper chance. There are plenty of people, Catholics and otherwise, who would have wanted someone else (a John XXIV being the top of the list) and are disappointed by what even choosing Benedict represents, but he's not the Lord of the Dark Side some have made him out to be. Plus, there are plenty of moderating influences that come into play when someone becomes Pope.
---
On a completely different note, people talk about Catholics having to believe that the Pope was chosen by God and that he has to be the right choice. I don't know any sophisticated Catholics who believe that is true. I'd argue that the only way to believe that it to be pretty ignorant of the history of the Church and the Papacy. For example, when I was looking around at the historical Benedicts, I turned out Benedict IX, whom even the Catholic apologist version I linked makes out ot be a pretty darn poor choice and one that illustrates that the papacy was at times held as a prize, not as something bestowed by God.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
mack, He's written some (to me) very cool stuff too, especially in areas that (if I remember rightly) really trouble you. For example, I came across some of his "How the heck can you say that tradition is against having women at least in the deconate when this was a hallmark of the early Church that continued for a pretty significant time?"
---
Oh well, there will be a Pope that actually likes Vatican II (and women) at some point.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I love the fact that Catholics have so many different views on what should and shouldn't be in their church and they rarely vote as a bloc. It says a lot of good things about the Catholic church and about Catholics, I think.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Squick--yeah, it'll happen soon.
Stormy--how so?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It indicates to me that Catholics, the powers that be within the Catholic church, aren't afraid of thinking about things, and having differing viewpoints within the church (up to a point, I'm sure). It tells me most of all that there isn't a large push for ideological conformity within the church. Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I really want a Pope Francis.
I like St Francis. Like what he stands for. Assissi's a pretty nice town too.
Posted by digging_holes (Member # 6237) on :
Vote Marc Ouellet for Pope in Vatican Conclave 20[insert final two digits of year of conclave here]! Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Martini was considered a prime choice for Pope about 10 years ago. He's 78 now himself and is in pretty poor health. I imagine the deal was more considering moderating Benedict's anti-collegial authoritarianism than about Martini having the next shot.
Thanks for the info. I was lazy and didn't look him up.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
j/k
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)