Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum: Habemus Papam
- Thread starter Spy-[ITA]
- Start date
dextorboot
Spaceman
I almost cried today listening to everything on the radio (I was at work). Finally hit me that John Paul II is gone. Don't know much about Pope Benedict, but from what I've heard/read about him so far, I like him.
I'd also like to say "thank you" to everyone here who's wishing us well with our new Pope. Some how, it means more than I ever thought it would. So thanks again.
I'd also like to say "thank you" to everyone here who's wishing us well with our new Pope. Some how, it means more than I ever thought it would. So thanks again.
ChrisReid
Super Soaker Collector / Administrator
Joker057 said:
Wha? I don't think that makes sense at all. I started to type out a few lines about how this person could easily be pope for five, ten or fifteen years.. and Cardinals can't even vote after they reach age 80, but I'll just say your reasoning is silly and leave it at that.
I wanted Hummes.
criticalmass
Vice Admiral
For just a secound, I thought this would become the "continuity vs. new ideas" discussion again - funny how things relate to each other if you don't watch closely.
I like what the pope said for his first words of greeting: That he is humbled being chosen as a tool, and that god works with imperfect tools all the time. Good statement to show that he's not going to set himself up as the high and mighty, but that he knows he'll need a bit of patience and understanding, too.
It's hard to imagine what'll happen - in his old job as head of the faith congregation, it was his main duty to draw a line and to be as literally conservative as possible. But being the pope brings some changes of the rules - now there's more weight on diplomacy, global structures, politics and a vision for the future. Let's see where he goes.
I like what the pope said for his first words of greeting: That he is humbled being chosen as a tool, and that god works with imperfect tools all the time. Good statement to show that he's not going to set himself up as the high and mighty, but that he knows he'll need a bit of patience and understanding, too.
It's hard to imagine what'll happen - in his old job as head of the faith congregation, it was his main duty to draw a line and to be as literally conservative as possible. But being the pope brings some changes of the rules - now there's more weight on diplomacy, global structures, politics and a vision for the future. Let's see where he goes.
Maj.Striker
Swabbie
Banned
Wow, so many things I'd like to comment on but since the majority is completely off topic I'd better restrict my comments to the new pope. I'm not a Catholic myself (I'm of one of the many derivatives of the Protestant movement 
). However, I'm very much interested in the Catholic church as it holds some very important significance for me. I believe the Roman Catholic church is a very important movement to watch. Let's be honest, the Catholic church has some problems right now. A recent poll showed that nearly two thirds of its populace said they would choose their own answer to difficult moral questions rather than trust the new pope. I see Ratzinger as a "caretaker," merely holding the reins to transition to a new, younger, more charismatic pope. (By Charismatic I don't necessarily mean liberal). I do think that within 5-10 years there will be another pope that will work to restoring the strength of the Roman Catholic Church and continuing to reach out to the Eastern Orthodox, Protestant OffShoots and the Jewish community. (JPII opened so many doors in that respect).
Very interesting to watch...
). However, I'm very much interested in the Catholic church as it holds some very important significance for me. I believe the Roman Catholic church is a very important movement to watch. Let's be honest, the Catholic church has some problems right now. A recent poll showed that nearly two thirds of its populace said they would choose their own answer to difficult moral questions rather than trust the new pope. I see Ratzinger as a "caretaker," merely holding the reins to transition to a new, younger, more charismatic pope. (By Charismatic I don't necessarily mean liberal). I do think that within 5-10 years there will be another pope that will work to restoring the strength of the Roman Catholic Church and continuing to reach out to the Eastern Orthodox, Protestant OffShoots and the Jewish community. (JPII opened so many doors in that respect). Very interesting to watch...
Without question.
A professor I had in college wrote a best-selling novel some years back about a character who goes from being a Korean war hero, to eventually becoming Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, to ultimately becoming Pope. (Yeah, quite a ride!) As I recall, the theme was in part to highlight a shared aim between the military, law, and religion–as three of the more formative “pillars” of the modern world and in general as “offshoots” of human nature–in imposing, creating, or craving a “community” of common belief.
I guess the perennial questions are: is that “game” (always) worth the “candle(s)”, and does it ever promise to end?
A professor I had in college wrote a best-selling novel some years back about a character who goes from being a Korean war hero, to eventually becoming Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, to ultimately becoming Pope. (Yeah, quite a ride!) As I recall, the theme was in part to highlight a shared aim between the military, law, and religion–as three of the more formative “pillars” of the modern world and in general as “offshoots” of human nature–in imposing, creating, or craving a “community” of common belief.
I guess the perennial questions are: is that “game” (always) worth the “candle(s)”, and does it ever promise to end?
criticalmass
Vice Admiral
Don't you tell me Walt Murphy was your professor? Gosh, those were the times.
Anyway- as much as Striker's vision may be valid, I'm collecting more and more articles about western culture's shift towards conservatism. Right now the theory is that ethics, religion and values are the new look&feel of socialist tendencies, acting up against the postmodernism and liberalism spawned by capitalism. If this is true, the pope (any pope, not just young Ben XVI here) can become the most influential person in the world.
Isn't political theory crazy?
Anyway- as much as Striker's vision may be valid, I'm collecting more and more articles about western culture's shift towards conservatism. Right now the theory is that ethics, religion and values are the new look&feel of socialist tendencies, acting up against the postmodernism and liberalism spawned by capitalism. If this is true, the pope (any pope, not just young Ben XVI here) can become the most influential person in the world.
Isn't political theory crazy?
What I'm thinking:
It's hard not to think of JPII as Pope still. I think it can fairly be said by a lot of Catholics, especially those under 30 like me, that he was...Well, like a grandfather for a lot of us. We might disagree on an awful lot, but he's still family, and he's still our grandfather.
Losing him feels like that, too...It's going to take time to think of Benedict XVI when I think of the Pope.
Now, regarding Benedict...
He will probably reign for 5-8 years, then there'll be another conclave after his passing. Assuming all hell doesn't break loose in the meantime, at that point the Cardinals will have figured out where they want the Church to go next.
It's not as dramatic as people are saying (such as Andrew Sullivan). Yes, Benedict is conservative. However, that's applying a label that doesn't really apply within the Church. Within the wider world, all of the Cardinals are conservatives, because Catholic doctrine has become conservative, and they believe in the doctrines of the Church.
He's not the enforcer Darth Vader that he may have appeared in his previous post. That post (the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) demands that you be an enforcer hardass. As it's responsible for the doctrine of the Church and slapping those priests and theologians who err on that, that's rather the purpose of the job.
At the same point, North Americans and Europeans should not expect that their particular concerns will matter a damn. The Third World makes up a large proportion of Catholics these days; the Church is withering in Europe, and it's not doing much better in North America. Finally, for the most part, much of their requests violate centuries if not millennia of settled Catholic doctrine, and many in Africa and Latin America would be bitterly opposed to any change on those issues, besides.
That said, he's not (and never was) a Nazi, either. I actually think we may see some gains on ecumenical matters and inter-religious matters in this Pontificate. We certainly won't see any reversals made by the Church. Re the Orthodox: There's a knotty problem. I would say the Catholic Church has decent relations with Constantinople. Greece...No idea. Russia...Alexy II has been anything but friendly, and that's going to stop things. Regarding the other Orthodox churches, I have no idea. Generally, though? Don't expect union anytime soon, but I can see gains being made. There was a big emphasis under JP2 on "breathing with both lungs" (drawing from both Western and Eastern tradition), which I expect will continue.
In short: Benedict XVI seems to have no mandate to really change course, but rather to keep things on course for now.
Then again, who knows.
That said: Thanks to everybody for the good wishes. This is...a strange time for Catholics, including myself. I think we have a good Pope elected, but mostly I'll wait and see.
It's hard not to think of JPII as Pope still. I think it can fairly be said by a lot of Catholics, especially those under 30 like me, that he was...Well, like a grandfather for a lot of us. We might disagree on an awful lot, but he's still family, and he's still our grandfather.
Losing him feels like that, too...It's going to take time to think of Benedict XVI when I think of the Pope.
Now, regarding Benedict...
He will probably reign for 5-8 years, then there'll be another conclave after his passing. Assuming all hell doesn't break loose in the meantime, at that point the Cardinals will have figured out where they want the Church to go next.
It's not as dramatic as people are saying (such as Andrew Sullivan). Yes, Benedict is conservative. However, that's applying a label that doesn't really apply within the Church. Within the wider world, all of the Cardinals are conservatives, because Catholic doctrine has become conservative, and they believe in the doctrines of the Church.
He's not the enforcer Darth Vader that he may have appeared in his previous post. That post (the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) demands that you be an enforcer hardass. As it's responsible for the doctrine of the Church and slapping those priests and theologians who err on that, that's rather the purpose of the job.
At the same point, North Americans and Europeans should not expect that their particular concerns will matter a damn. The Third World makes up a large proportion of Catholics these days; the Church is withering in Europe, and it's not doing much better in North America. Finally, for the most part, much of their requests violate centuries if not millennia of settled Catholic doctrine, and many in Africa and Latin America would be bitterly opposed to any change on those issues, besides.
That said, he's not (and never was) a Nazi, either. I actually think we may see some gains on ecumenical matters and inter-religious matters in this Pontificate. We certainly won't see any reversals made by the Church. Re the Orthodox: There's a knotty problem. I would say the Catholic Church has decent relations with Constantinople. Greece...No idea. Russia...Alexy II has been anything but friendly, and that's going to stop things. Regarding the other Orthodox churches, I have no idea. Generally, though? Don't expect union anytime soon, but I can see gains being made. There was a big emphasis under JP2 on "breathing with both lungs" (drawing from both Western and Eastern tradition), which I expect will continue.
In short: Benedict XVI seems to have no mandate to really change course, but rather to keep things on course for now.
Then again, who knows.
That said: Thanks to everybody for the good wishes. This is...a strange time for Catholics, including myself. I think we have a good Pope elected, but mostly I'll wait and see.
Maj.Striker
Swabbie
Banned
I agree with him on some level, free capitalism has in many ways spawned movements of liberalism and postmodernism...with the advantages and disadvantages of both. Capitalism allows for freedom...perhaps too much freedom since I have come to the conclusion that no system is perfect. I'm a fan of capitalism since it does inspire personal productivity but the drawbacks to capitalism are serious and damaging. Socialism is actually the perfect system (and since we are discussing somewhat religious aspects, Socialism has strong roots in both the old and new testament of the Bible). However, Socialism is not perfect in reality due to corruption in human nature that breaks the system. Ah, but I digress.
To the devoted Catholics on this board I want to pose a question and please understand this is not asked in any type of malice or wrongful intent but I want to gauge your response. My understanding is that the Pope (according to the Roman Catholic doctrine) is infallible. Do you believe that? Secondly, if you do then if this pope does indeed decide to take a strong conservative stand on moral issues (I'm not saying he will, just asking) would you support his stand as he is infallible?
To the devoted Catholics on this board I want to pose a question and please understand this is not asked in any type of malice or wrongful intent but I want to gauge your response. My understanding is that the Pope (according to the Roman Catholic doctrine) is infallible. Do you believe that? Secondly, if you do then if this pope does indeed decide to take a strong conservative stand on moral issues (I'm not saying he will, just asking) would you support his stand as he is infallible?
Atekimogus
Spaceman
Well to my understanding the papal infallible mainly states that the pope just has the last word in his church, I wouldnt go that far to say he is always right by definition but as the big boss of the organization his word is law. (To some degree every boss of an enterprise thinks he/she is infallible
)
Another statement from an wikipedia entry:
The Orthodox Church has a related but less clear-cut doctrine, Infallibility of the Church. This means that the Holy Spirit will not allow the whole Church to fall into Error, but leaves open the question of how this will be brought about in any specific case.
Sounds pretty similar, only less specific.....
)Another statement from an wikipedia entry:
The Orthodox Church has a related but less clear-cut doctrine, Infallibility of the Church. This means that the Holy Spirit will not allow the whole Church to fall into Error, but leaves open the question of how this will be brought about in any specific case.
Sounds pretty similar, only less specific.....
Quarto
Unknown Enemy
Your understanding is incorrect - but this is not surprising, as even most Catholics don't understand this (I myself only found out exactly how it works recently; this is one of those issues that people so often hear nonsense about, that it doesn't even occur to them there may be a reasonable explanation). The dogma of Papal infallibility is a very, very narrow one - it applies only and exclusively to situations where the Pope must consider a significant problem of the faith (it has to be related to the scriptures) and it is his intention to come up with the final and definitive answer to resolve the debate. Thus far, in all of Catholic history, there has been two - two - situations where Papal infallibility was induced, outside of announcements about the canonisation of saints.Maj.Striker said:
I get the impression that many people think Papal infallibility means that if, at 20:00, you ask the Pope what the time is, and he tells you it's 19:42, then you as a Catholic must believe it is in fact 19:42. But it doesn't work that way. Remember, Catholicism is a religion that openly argues that none of us are perfect - we are all equal (the Pope included), because we are all flawed.
As for the rest of this thread... those of you who feel slighted or amused by my comments about Protestantism are more than welcome to PM me about it - I don't want to debate it here, because I don't think a public debate like that could possibly end well. All I'll say here is that I stand by my words - Protestant churches have no power or influence whatsoever. This is proven by your participation in this thread. You are interested enough in our Pope to join in the discussion. We do not even know how and whom you elect to head your church(es). You care what our Pope has to say. We don't even know when/where/what your pastors/reverends/vicars speak.
Maj.Striker said:
Post-modernism was spawned by relativism/humanism. If there is no higher standard prohibiting, say, stealing, why is stealing wrong? Because a majority thinks so? Well then, I'll get enough people together, and I'll change the law. After all, there is no higher moral standard. Moral standards don't exist. They're a construct of organized religion to control people.
He brings up the idea that capitalism spawned post modernism, and that religion spawned both ethics, socialism, and values. While religion has definitely spawned ethics and values, it did not spawn socialsim. Rather, it made use of it in a limited fashion when the times suited its use.
If Marx said that "Religion is the opiate of the masses", I don't think he thought it spawned socialism. Hitler, a socialist/fascist, wasn't too fond of religion either. Both believed that rules were something to be made and changed at will. Both believed in a governmental style that borrowed from socialism, and both hated/disaproved of religion (in general)
criticalmass
Vice Admiral
Porthos said:
Pipe, if you must know. Black Luxury blend, but very very rarely now. On other matters:
Sheesh, I didn't want to drop the bomb on this thread, so I'll try to clear up the mess as quick as possible. So:
I summarized a very long and complex debate about tendencies in political systems into a two-line sentence, with a very vague set of half defined terms - all in order to give a little sideways jab at Striker's argument about the tendency towards more liberal (for lack of a better term) values. Boys & girls at home, don't do that!
So okay. To explain - I actually said that captalism spawned liberalism/humanism/relativism and a whole bunch of others. That's a gross simplification, but you proved the main argument yourself - the capitalist maxim of amassing the highest amount of *stuff* to gain influence works in the material as well as in the immaterial, e.g. moral/ethical sphere. You own the networks, you promote what gets on MTV, you take a massive influence on morals.
BUT: I never said that religion spawned socialism. Re-read: "...the theory is that ethics, religion and values are the new look&feel of socialist tendencies..." Meaning: Socialism in all its theoretical glory as political ideology has failed, but people liked the "good" parts, like welfare, pensions, public insurance, education, unemployment pay, and so on.
To regain part of that *counter-culture* which lost against capitalism (or free-market economy, sounds so much nicer), people are searching how to emulate - and may find it in the teachings of Christianity, which talks about stuff like "care for the weak", "giving is better than taking", "go into the world and teach" etc. etc. So we have tendencies somewhat comparable to the "socialist" student movements in the 1969s and 70s, who used the Socialism tag to promote better learning conditions, free love, dope, and self-expression but never really wanted to turn over their chequebooks to the workers in the streets. What became of them: If you look at Europe today, there's many a party calling itself socialist - but which only follow the "social values" part, not the "worker unite and take over the factories" one.
AND - As I said, it's theory. You can see it working in small towns in the midwest, and you can disprove it in large city neighborhoods. Or vice versa. You have to let it work long enogh before you can define it as reality, or as failed.
It's weird that even theories seem to obey the laws of the free market.
Maj.Striker
Swabbie
Banned
Quarto, good answer...well thought out and obviously very logical. I'm pretty sure I didn't express my question as good as I should have however, because I didn't mean to imply that the pope is at all times in all manners infallible. I meant to imply that in important doctrinal manners the teaching is that the Pope is infallible. So to pick an issue, say birth control or whatever the case may be, if the Pope continues the RC's stance that birth control is a sin...would you regardless of your personal feelings on the matter adhere to the pope's decision? The reason I'm asking this is because the friends that I talk to here in Iowa who are "devout" Roman Catholics either say that the teaching is outdated and doesn't apply to them or that its just wrong. My thoughts would be that the Pope's decision on a doctrinal issue would be under the infallibility doctrine and that they, if they truly consider themselves Catholics, would accept his decision. Make sense?