Benedict XVI

Remove all ads!

That would have been interesting: Pope Jack I

 

hehe

 

Was Father Ted a Catholic?

 

Trust HB. lol

 

Yeah well I think the Vatican has more than enough of money to pay for the pope's luxuries. I'm sure he gets good food atleast.

Am I the only one who is surprised by the name he chose? I would have expected him to take John Paul III as his papal name out of respect for John Paul II.

 

Yeah, but each Pope must respect the one before him, but they can't all take the name of the previous one, otherwise we'd up to Pope Peter CCLVI

I reckon they should just keep their christian names. Jesus didn't change his name part way through his life, so the Pope shouldn't have to either.

 

What's all this talk about chevalier? Does he not like Germans or something?

 

Let's keep this discussion respectful and suitable for the Alley.

chev is our resident Theologian and Catholic Apologist.

HB...the Pope is not the "descendant" of Jesus, rather the "descendent" of Saint Peter...who's name was changed by Jesus in a very poignant and dramatic way when he charged him to take care of his flock.

 

Sorry, I just thought it was a shame that he had to change the name that his mother and father gave him.

 

I'm personally glad they chose a conservative pope. I think Benedict XVI will make a fine Pope. The ongoing theme here seems to be the church needs to change. Thats just wishfull thinking. Your not supposed to change the church to fit your life. Your supposed to change your life to fit the church. Your can no more be a half christian than you can dig half a hole!

 

DHB is right. What good is religeon if you no longer follow the teachings of God? The Bible even states that the Lord doesn't change. Therefore if the Lord was against Homosexuality in the Old Testament, then what right does anyone have to change that in 2005? I'm happy that a conservative was selected. With the growing trend towards sin in the world, we need tireless crusaders for righteousness to try to make the case for morality.

 

I agree. I don't think that the rules for a religion should change just because a new person has been voted to be in charge. This is not like a democratic government, it's a religion so the rules are the rules and should not be tampered with.

 

I am both surprised and not surprised if that is possible. Ratzinger was a favorite but at the same time favorites often don't often make it. I think Ratzinger would be a good transitional pope. They would have chosen a younger cardinal otherwise. I think the cardinals need time to examine the a 26-year papacy and its impact on the world and the Church itself before they look for a longer term pope who would best suit the current times. Ratzinger is definitely a conservative and will continue in the direction of John Paul II, in the meantime.

I would like also to address some comments on the Church's slowness to change. I admit that some are overdue but since Vatican II and John Paul II's papacy, several changes and apologies have been made. The Church is just being extra careful because the ramifications of the changes may last for decades or even centuries to come. The Church is a very old institution and has not survived by kowtowing to what is fashionable. That is what I think Ratzinger was saying about relativism. The church is closely watching sensitive issues but may not make a change until it is sure that these issues aren't only a passing thing. I guess an issue for the past 25 years for us may be long but short for a 2000 year old insitution.

 

It's not like the Catholic Church has not changed its doctrines before you know.

The Church can preach against homosexuality and sin as long as it does not breach any national law for all I care but there are other issues with the Catholic Church that I see old fashioned and just plain damaging to the society.

 

The pope right now is the worst you can have, trust me. His conservative style is long past our current lifestyle. Damn, just look at his face. He's the devil's incarnate. When he was Munchen's Archbishop, he was devilish like hell! The german's don't give a damn because they're Roman oxthodox. The Belgium candidate wouldh've been good, as will a select few of others. Bad luck. I pretty much guessed it would be Ratsinger anywayz. Meh...

 

Why is it that everybody from the low countries, Scandanavia and Germany who I have talked to online have given the impression that he is on the way to becoming the Antichrist? I'm not particularly keen on him myself, but some of the responses I've seen have been borderline hysterical. It's particularly ridiculous when you consider how marginal the Catholic Church is in those countries.

I would have thought Germans in particular would have likely had a mixture of ambivalence and quiet pride at his election.

 

Actually, I prefer a conservative pope to any progressive one who goes whoring out the church by allowing such thing as condoms, homosexuality and what sin have you.

 

I have to wonder if Rome is trying to force a schism with the more liberal entities with the church. Choosing someone known as "the enforcer" as Pope? Did they learn nothing from the Crusades? As for change within the church...that's up to Catholics, I guess.

This surprises me:

Substituting "God" for "the church" in the sentences above sums up my feelings on the matter. I'm not about to let any institution, even one that's as old as the RCC, dictate what kind of relationship I'm supposed to have with God. That's between me and God.

 

The doctrine has not changed. The way of teaching it, perhaps even addressing it may have changed, but not the substance. The Church doesn't teach evil what used to be good or good what used to be evil. Individual churchmen might have dissented - knowingly or not - but it's not like the doctrine can, let alone should, be adjusted to passing trends.

One basic mistake that people who want changes tend to make is to presume that "controversial" things like homosexual acts, contraception, abortion, euthanasia or stem cell research (this is a list and it doesn't imply that all these things are the same), are new things. But they are not. They have always be around and they are even older than the Church in the historical sense (i.e. counting from Christ's birth). They have always been addressed and there are specific fragments even in the New Testament or even in the Old, treating on exactly those subjects. Nothing has been "invented" by the Catholic Church. Contrary, those Christian churches which allow abortion, homosexual unions, ordination of women etc have done a lot of "inventing" and the Anglican Church is one such example. Some of those Churches run into contradictions and, paradoxically, earn the whole Christianity (including even the more orthodox denominations) a bad name for tampering with the Bible to suit their current needs.

But, as DHB said, religion is not supposed to cater to your needs. You are supposed to cater to your religion. There is no point having a religion otherwise. If we rule that whatever it pleases us to do is morally right and proper, then we may as well rule that we are saved regardlessly of our deeds (which some non-Catholic Christian denominations believe but Luther himself didn't) or even regardlessly of what we believe (religious relativism). If we adhere to the view that all religions, all views and opinions and all moral philosophies are equally good, then it makes no particular sense to belong to a specified denomination.

There are people who want to call themselves Catholic but have no particular interest in living the religion. So why bother?

Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, is one such pope who won't take BS from people and will give a serious reality check to all new ideas. It doesn't mean that he's conservative for the sole sake of it - after all, he even used to be considered a liberal and some people still so consider him now. But he doesn't share the belief that change is good just because it's change.

If one feels that his faith is becoming mundane and boring, there obviously needs to be done something else than redesigning the faith to suit his fancy and give him some new entertainment. It means exactly what it does, that his faith is becoming mundane. It's like rekindling romance in a lukewarm relationship: reshaping your man or woman from fancy pedicure to a new haircut won't do the job. You need to find the solution in yourself for that's where the problem starts and ends.

One thing Pope Benedict seems to believe is that change of itself is not good per se. Change is neutral on its own, it can be used for the good or for the bad. What people need to realise is that change is not the goal but only the means of achieving it. Change for its own sake is pointless. Religion, in general, is about salvation. This religion, in particular, is about love, not about change.

Meeting people's expectations is not a concern. If we change the Church to allow them gay marriages and abortion, will it be the same Church. If the Church were to rewrite its doctrine to accommodate masses, would it still be the same Church? If the Church redefined religious dogma to please people, would it still lead to salvation? Abandoning the dogma to draw more people to the church would be pointless because we wouldn't be giving them salvation but only a feeling of belonging to a community and nothing more. So drawing the people would be pointless because we wouldn't be giving them that which is sought in a religion, which is salvation.

What do people think, that if the clerics redefined the dogma and morals, it would be binding on God? But maybe the Church errs in interpreting God's will? But that's exactly what God said in the Scripture, that some things are licit and some others are not. So is the Scripture and the whole religion false, or is God Himself wrong? If the religion is false, why stick to the Church? If God is wrong, why worship this god?

In truth, when people say that the Church should adjust to the values and trends of the present times, they mean that God should adjust to men's desires and cater to their whims. That God should serve men and not the other way round. In truth, we do believe in a god that came on the earth to serve his people (notice the washing of the feet of the Apostles on the Last Supper), up to the point of dying for them, but this serving was not about affirming whatever choice people make and telling them they are free to do whatever gives them pleasure. That the Church does not and cannot do.

Jesus came to serve. Saint Peter came to serve. Pope John Paul came to serve and Pope Benedict came to serve, calling himself a simple and humble worker in the vinyard of the Lord ("after the great pope John Paul II, the lords cardinals elected me, a simple and humble worker in the vinyard of the Lord" was the first thing he said on the balcony after his election). But this service doesn't rely on telling people that they can lie with men like with women in spite of what God ordered in the Law, that they can sleep with whomever they want despite the Law and the epistles and that the fifth doesn't include children and old people because that's what they want to hear. He can't and won't do that. No Pope will ever do that and all such hopes are in vain.

 

I suppose I'll be poking the flame with a stick now but I think I find this a bit odd.

So I guess I would get the pope's blessing if I go and whack off the heads of a few "muslim dogs" and convert those who do not resist to the true faith with the tip of the sword? As you said that which was good is still good, right?

Like it or not the Catholic Church and its doctrines has changed and will change given the time. You can call them "different methods for teaching the same substance" if that makes you feel any better though. Eventually when the Church finds itself too much adrift from the public opinion it will change because it has to change in order to continue its existance. The life of people their moral code and their ethics do not circulate around just religion anymore.

Other than that I pretty much agree with what Rally said. It's not about the Church it's all about God.