A new Pope

Current issues and things in the news

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
trencacloscas
Sage
Posts: 848
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 11:21 pm

A new Pope

Post #1

Post by trencacloscas »

Today the cardinals gather for conclave to select a new Catholic pope.

What does it mean for the non-Catholics?

It's just an open question, for Catholics and non-Catholics alike, since the death of John Paul II created such unexpected expectative. I'm curious about the opinions, that's all. ;)

User avatar
Dilettante
Sage
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Spain

Post #21

Post by Dilettante »

Quote:
John Paul II actually was a philosophy graduate.


I didn´t know that, any particular field ?
He initially studied Polish philosophy, and later he earned a doctorate in philosophy from Jegellonian University in Krakow in the mid-1940s. His doctoral thesis was on "The Problems of Faith in St. John of the Cross" (a medieval Spanish mystic and poet). He also earned a doctorate in theology in 1946, I think.

Dominic Mary
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:46 pm

THE CLAIM THAT THE POPE IS NAZI IS NONSENSE AND ILLOGICAL.

Post #22

Post by Dominic Mary »

THE CLAIM THAT THE POPE IS NAZI IS NONSENSE AND ILLOGICAL.

I have been reading some of the comments regarding Pope Benedict XVI, and I must say that I absolutely shocked and offended by some of the remarks made by some of the contributors, especially Arch.

I think that the remarks that Benedict XVI is a Nazi just because he is German, conservative and old fashioned simply does not logically follow. Such cheap and banal comments are typical nowadays. It seems that anybody who is German, conservative, or old-fashioned, or a combination of these things, is regarded as a Nazi. Therefore the millions of Catholics who believe in traditional Catholic doctrines, including all the Saints in history and myself, are Nazis, if that were the case, according to Arch. Have you ever thought, Arch, that your comments might actually be racist, by stereotyping conservative and old-fashioned Europeans, especially Germans, as being Nazi?

Such remarks are therefore calumnious and have no basis in reason whatsoever, and are insulting to us Catholics and also our to Holy Father. These comments simply do not help, and they do simply do NOT prove anything. They are simply slogans, and I suspect that it is cheap ruse to try and tarnish and to stir up hatred for Catholics and the Catholic Church by falsely pretending that we must be Nazis, especially since National Socialism is perhaps the most hated ideologies in the modern liberal world.

If I was German I probably would have been flabbergasted at what you have said. As for the person who called the Pope "Panzer-kardinal" or "Ratzi", or similar names, I consider this to be extremely racist against the German people, and is the language of the scurrilous, low-class and vulgar tabloid newspapers such as the "Sun".

You claimed that such comments were just a joke, all I can say is that it is a joke in very bad taste, and a sort of joke that can create a lot of harm. So whoever you are, you should be more careful!

As for Arch, let me say one last thing, you criticize the Pope for being a defender of European civilisation, but that is because European civilisation is traditionally Catholic, and Europe has been the centre of Christendom for the greater part of the last two thousand years. Therefore it is only natural for Catholics to want to preserve their Christian heritage. There is nothing Nazi or racist about it whatsoever.

In fact one could turn the tables around and call you a racist instead, since multiculturalists like yourself are bent on destroying our European heritage. In the past Europeans were accused of being racist for trying to colonize the rest of the world and spreading their religion and culture to other nations. Therefore, it is the pits of hipocrisy that when people from other continents come to the west, and therefore endanger our own European and Christian civilisation, especially in the case of Islam who actively seeks to destroy our religion and to dominate the world, this is NOT considered to be colonialism or racism, but is considered to be quite acceptable. This is a classic example of double standards!

LONG LIVE CATHOLIC EUROPE, AND MAY GOD BLESS HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI.

Dominic Mary
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:46 pm

THE POPE´S DUTY IS TO PRESERVE REVELATION, NOT CHANGE IT!

Post #23

Post by Dominic Mary »

THE POPE´S DUTY IS TO PRESERVE REVELATION, NOT CHANGE IT!


TO DILETTANTE,


You stated:

"Ratzinger comes across as too conservative, inflexible, dogmatic, cold and cerebral. I think it is better for the church to be led by a philosophy graduate (Woytila) than by a theologian (Ratzinger)."

MY ANSWER:

Well of course you would say that, since you are not Catholic! How are you to judge who would make a good faith, if you are NOT a Catholic yourself and therefore do NOT understand the Catholic Faith? Only a true Catholic can appreciate the qualities of a good Pope!

What liberals and non-Catholics do NOT seem understand, is that one of the principles functions of the Pope is to preserve and to teach and define those doctrines which were revealed by Jesus Christ to the Church.

It is NOT the Pope´s duty to invent new doctrines in order for the Church to be popular with the modern world. The world was not created for the glory of Man as its last end, but for the Glory of God. However, the Church has the duty to serve Man by leading him to God, so that he may serve and adore Him before all things, in spirit and in truth, and hence enjoy enternal beautitude with God. It is God whom one must serve first - not Man. Also divine revelation does not come from below, it comes from above - from the Creator Himself!

Therefore if the Church were able to change doctrines to suit modern man´s tendency towards debauchery and promiscuity, it would no longer be Catholic but would be a new man-made invention. Therefore, it would no longer be the true religion, but a false and humanly invented fabrication.

User avatar
McCulloch
Site Supporter
Posts: 24063
Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 9:10 pm
Location: Toronto, ON, CA
Been thanked: 3 times

My view about the new Pope

Post #24

Post by McCulloch »

I would hope that this Pope would remain true to the teachings and traditions of the Catholic faith. I am not a Catholic. I have never been a Catholic. But I have many friends who are Catholic but do not agree with certain points of doctrine. These people, well meaning as they are, are hypocrites and enemies of freedom and truth. If you do not agree with the central tenets of your church, whichever church it is, you should jump ship. It is frustrating to know that support is going to an organization like the Catholic Church from people who really don't agree with that they are doing. A theologically conservative Pope may, I hope, dash the hopes of those who foolishly wish for the Church to "change from within".

User avatar
Corvus
Guru
Posts: 1140
Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 10:59 pm
Location: Australia

Re: THE POPE´S DUTY IS TO PRESERVE REVELATION, NOT CHANGE IT

Post #25

Post by Corvus »

Dominic Mary wrote:THE POPE´S DUTY IS TO PRESERVE REVELATION, NOT CHANGE IT!


TO DILETTANTE,


You stated:

"Ratzinger comes across as too conservative, inflexible, dogmatic, cold and cerebral. I think it is better for the church to be led by a philosophy graduate (Woytila) than by a theologian (Ratzinger)."

MY ANSWER:

Well of course you would say that, since you are not Catholic! How are you to judge who would make a good faith, if you are NOT a Catholic yourself and therefore do NOT understand the Catholic Faith? Only a true Catholic can appreciate the qualities of a good Pope!
And how are you to judge how well Dilettante can judge the qualities of a pope? Though he may be agnostic and therefore not a "true Catholic" Dilettante comes from one of the most conservative and Catholic countries in Europe and has been thoroughly immersed in a Catholic culture from a young age. I believehe knows what issues are pertinent to catholics.
What liberals and non-Catholics do NOT seem understand, is that one of the principles functions of the Pope is to preserve and to teach and define those doctrines which were revealed by Jesus Christ to the Church.

It is NOT the Pope´s duty to invent new doctrines in order for the Church to be popular with the modern world. The world was not created for the glory of Man as its last end, but for the Glory of God. However, the Church has the duty to serve Man by leading him to God, so that he may serve and adore Him before all things, in spirit and in truth, and hence enjoy enternal beautitude with God. It is God whom one must serve first - not Man. Also divine revelation does not come from below, it comes from above - from the Creator Himself!
Yes, but it's questionable whether the pope is always acting on revelation from God and not making choices based on his own conservative background. The doctrine of infallibility is extremely limited as to what is genuinely infallible and which cannot be refuted. People get quite worked up about papal infallibility even though it has only ever been used once. This should tell you that the pope is a mere man doing what he thinks is best. The only thing that is perfect and one cannot disagree with is the bible.
Therefore if the Church were able to change doctrines to suit modern man´s tendency towards debauchery and promiscuity, it would no longer be Catholic but would be a new man-made invention. Therefore, it would no longer be the true religion, but a false and humanly invented fabrication.
I don't see Dilettante suggesting that any doctrines be changed to suit some agenda of debauchery and promiscuity. And, being a married man, I don't think that sort of stuff is a big priority for him anymore - if it ever was at all.
<i>'Beauty is truth, truth beauty,—that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.'</i>
-John Keats, Ode on a Grecian Urn.

AlAyeti
Guru
Posts: 1431
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 2:03 pm

Post #26

Post by AlAyeti »

Dominic Mary and McCulloch,

Well said.

User avatar
Dilettante
Sage
Posts: 964
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Spain

Re: THE POPE´S DUTY IS TO PRESERVE REVELATION, NOT CHANGE IT

Post #27

Post by Dilettante »

Dominic Mary wrote:THE POPE´S DUTY IS TO PRESERVE REVELATION, NOT CHANGE IT!


TO DILETTANTE,

You stated:

"Ratzinger comes across as too conservative, inflexible, dogmatic, cold and cerebral. I think it is better for the church to be led by a philosophy graduate (Woytila) than by a theologian (Ratzinger)."

MY ANSWER:

Well of course you would say that, since you are not Catholic! How are you to judge who would make a good faith, if you are NOT a Catholic yourself and therefore do NOT understand the Catholic Faith? Only a true Catholic can appreciate the qualities of a good Pope!

What liberals and non-Catholics do NOT seem understand, is that one of the principles functions of the Pope is to preserve and to teach and define those doctrines which were revealed by Jesus Christ to the Church.

It is NOT the Pope´s duty to invent new doctrines in order for the Church to be popular with the modern world. The world was not created for the glory of Man as its last end, but for the Glory of God. However, the Church has the duty to serve Man by leading him to God, so that he may serve and adore Him before all things, in spirit and in truth, and hence enjoy enternal beautitude with God. It is God whom one must serve first - not Man. Also divine revelation does not come from below, it comes from above - from the Creator Himself!

Therefore if the Church were able to change doctrines to suit modern man´s tendency towards debauchery and promiscuity, it would no longer be Catholic but would be a new man-made invention. Therefore, it would no longer be the true religion, but a false and humanly invented fabrication.
First, I must thank Corvus for defending me. I think he understands where I'm coming from. My critics perhaps forget that all I said was what Ratzinger comes across as, not what he really is like. Obviously I never pretended to know his real personality (he may surprise us, since being Pope is not the same as being Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, a less pleasant function), but only pointed to the image he projects as interpreted by most people. Besides, I actually defended him against the people who tarred him with the Nazi brush. So, I don't see how I have attacked Ratzinger's faith by saying I prefer a philosopher. Philosophers can have faith too. John Paul II was a philosopher as well as a theologian.

Dominic Mary, you, however, start by trying to refute my opinion by discrediting me (poisoning the well?) and saying I'm not Catholic, even if my culture is overwhelmingly Catholic. It's true that, being agnostic, I am not a "true catholic" as you wrote. But why can't I give an opinion, especially since I do not believe I have insulted anyone? After Election day I always accept the new government, even if it's not the one I would have preferred. How is this disloyal? Many "true Catholics" have said they accepted the new Pope and trusted the Holy Spirit to guide him, even if they had initially rooted for a different candidate.

I am a happily married man and a father of two sons with whom I spend a lot of time (for me, family comes first). "Debauchery and promiscuity" have never been part of my agenda and certainly are not going to be in the future. I am generally critical of most forms of relativism (especially ethical relativism) and I defend our much-maligned Western civilization (whose values are rooted in both Judeo-Christian culture and our rich Greco-Roman heritage). I tend to support moderation in most things (I am moderately conservative--or perhaps moderately liberal, who knows?). What made you think I wanted a return to libertinism?

I never asked the Pope to "invent" new doctrines to suit me, but don't forget that new dogmas have been pronounced in the past (remember the Immaculate Conception?). That may be part of preserving revelation, I don't know (I won't go into metaphysics). It's not necessarily bad.
I have never been a Catholic. But I have many friends who are Catholic but do not agree with certain points of doctrine. These people, well meaning as they are, are hypocrites and enemies of freedom and truth. If you do not agree with the central tenets of your church, whichever church it is, you should jump ship. It is frustrating to know that support is going to an organization like the Catholic Church from people who really don't agree with that they are doing. A theologically conservative Pope may, I hope, dash the hopes of those who foolishly wish for the Church to "change from within".
I don't know those people, so I can't judge. If their disagreement is about a major point, then perhaps they should bite the bullet and become agnostics, atheists, or secular humanists. If it's about a minor point, I'm not so sure. After all, neither Lefevre nor Küng have left the Church or being expelled yet, and their differences are probably more important. Let's not forget the Catholic church has accepted some changes in the past (See Second Vatican Council, where Ratzinger was pretty active BTW). Why is it bad that the Catholic church receives support from people who are not in complete agreement with it? I, for one, don't want the Catholic church to disappear, and I contribute financially because they are doing some really good things. If an institution had to be perfect in my eyes before I could contribute, I would not be able to contribute to any!

Dominic Mary
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:46 pm

Post #28

Post by Dominic Mary »

TO DILETTANTE AND CORVUS,

First of all, I did NOT call either of you debauched or promiscuous, and I apologize if what I had said led to that impression. what I said was this:

"if the Church were able to change doctrines to suit modern man´s tendency towards debauchery and promiscuity, it would no longer be Catholic but would be a new man-made invention. Therefore, it would no longer be the true religion, but a false and humanly invented fabrication."

Therefore the debauchery and promiscuity that I was speaking of was not directed at you personally, but was intended to mean a general tendency in modern man and society.

Dominic Mary
Newbie
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 3:46 pm

Infallibility of the Pope.

Post #29

Post by Dominic Mary »

DEAR CORVUS:

In your reply to a message of mine you said:

"...it's questionable whether the pope is always acting on revelation from God and not making choices based on his own conservative background. The doctrine of infallibility is extremely limited as to what is genuinely infallible and which cannot be refuted. People get quite worked up about papal infallibility even though it has only ever been used once. This should tell you that the pope is a mere man doing what he thinks is best. The only thing that is perfect and one cannot disagree with is the bible."


My answer to you is that, first of all, the Popes have actually exercised infallibility in defining doctrine "ex cathedra" several times and not just once. Besides the Pope is also infallible when he ratifies the doctrines of a general council, and there have been twenty such councils throughout the history of the Church.

The twenty-first general council, known as the Second Vatican Council, was not infallible, since Paul VI did not ratify any of its doctrines with the note of infallibility. He declared that the said council was pastoral and not doctrinal.

As for those doctrines that have not been defined infallibly, we are bound to give our religious adherence, unless of course such doctrines were to contradict doctrines that are known to be true, as for example if they were to contradict doctrines that have already been defined infallibly.

However, to give one's religious adherence does NOT necessarily imply that one must believe in such non infallibly defined teachings with divine faith. Nevertheless, one must not question them, except in the aforementioned circumstances, since it is only right for one to obey God before man.

It is a dangerous thing for an ordinary layman to challenge and deny the teachings of the Church, since it is the duty of the bishops to teach according to mandate bestowed upon them by our Lord Jesus Christ through the Apostles, namely to teach all nations whatever our Lord had commanded them (Matthew: 28).

If this is not so, then there would be very little reason why Christ should have instituted the office of the bishop to govern and teach the Church, if we are not supposed to be subject to them. It would have been a very strange thing to do!

As for your statement that "the only thing that is perfect and one cannot disagree with is the bible," this is a rash statement which you are unable to prove. The Bible is not the only perfect thing, and neither is it the sole doctrinal authority, since Christ also established the Church and endowed her with the Apostles and Bishops to guide and teach the faithful until the consummation of the ages, as the Scriptures themselves bear witness.

God bless.

User avatar
The Persnickety Platypus
Guru
Posts: 1233
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 11:03 pm

Post #30

Post by The Persnickety Platypus »

A few questions:
the Pope is also infallible when he ratifies the doctrines of a general council
This 'infallibility', as I understand it, means that the Pope is incapable of error in expounding docrine, because he is "chosen by God". Something along those lines?

If so, can't only God be truly infallible? You would agree that Catholics are to continuously question their churches teachings for doctrinal value, right? Most Catholics however don't seem to do this. They blindly follow the teachings of the upper echlon, assuming they are Biblical.

Shouldn't people be taught to read and think for themselves? What is the need of these Bible interpreters? The Bible is free for anyone to read. I don't need anyone to examine the Bible for me. I can do that myself, and avoid the risk of a biased account.
It is a dangerous thing for an ordinary layman to challenge and deny the teachings of the Church, since it is the duty of the bishops to teach according to mandate bestowed upon them by our Lord Jesus Christ through the Apostles, namely to teach all nations whatever our Lord had commanded them (Matthew: 2.
I would think that it might be more dangerous to NOT challenge and examine the teachings of the Church. As aformentioned, how can you be sure that what the bishops teach is actually Biblical?
If this is not so, then there would be very little reason why Christ should have instituted the office of the bishop to govern and teach the Church, if we are not supposed to be subject to them. It would have been a very strange thing to do!
Just curious, where in the Bible did Jesus institute the office of the bishop?
The Bible is not the only perfect thing, and neither is it the sole doctrinal authority, since Christ also established the Church and endowed her with the Apostles and Bishops to guide and teach the faithful until the consummation of the ages, as the Scriptures themselves bear witness.
Exactly what is perfect other than the Bible?
What other doctrinal authority could there be? The apostles and bishops? Don't they recieve their instruction from the Bible as well? I sure hope they do.




I do not have a problem with Ratzinger specifically. I have a problem with the entire concept of a pope. Why all the positions of power? Why so much politics involved? Isn't that just an INVITATION for corruption?

Post Reply