Benedict XVI

Remove all ads!

What Morgoroth just said....

I have a very good friend who is very catholic and her husband is as well. They go to church every sunday and teach their young daughter about god and prayer. She is in her early 20's and her husband is just a few years older.

I also know that after dating her husband-to-be for about six months they had sex. She knew he was the right man for her and that they would share the rest of their lives together. Several years after marriage and with one child and a few medical problems they also practice birth control.

I think that my friend and her husband are not unique in their experiences of deviating from strict catholic rules. They are good people and they both love god.

The world is changing and if the catholic church continues to fight against it then it will be their loss.

One more thing - and this is a completely personal opinion without much logic attached - From the first moment I saw and read about the new pope I got a feeling in my gut that there is something wrong about him. I don't like him at all.

 

Dragonfly - how much does it matter if you don't like the new pope? He can still set doctrine and say prayers and all that. If the cardinals voted for him, then he must be the right man for the job. Unless people don't have faith in the cardinals' ability to make the right decision. If so, that's a bigger problem entirely.

 

I can respect criticism of the Roman Catholic Church and the pope but let's make it sensible.

Why, because you are a scholastic or an expert on popes?

See the other posts about change.

You have met the devil and he looks like Benedict? I didn't know looks was a criterion for being a pope.

The Germans in St. Peter's Square or Bavaria might disagree. Also, either you are Roman Catholic or not. Orthodox is different. You cannot be both.

You have met these people and have deemed them worthy? Perhaps because you are Belgian? Sadly, the Catholic population in Belgium has been declining and some of its youth do not go to Mass on Sundays.


I believe Ratzinger was chosen because he is conservative. He will basically maintain John Paul II's stances on issues. He was also chosen because he was 78. He will have a fairly short papacy, mainly to give time for the Roman Catholic Church to consolidate its gains and decide what direction it needs to go.

All in all, Benedict XVI should be judged as Benedict XVI not as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger. The papacy changes the man who wears the mantle of the pope. Let us wait and see.

 

What does that mean exactly?

 

John Paul II rejuvenated the Roman Catholic Church by bringing the papacy to the people. Aside from his wonderful qualities as a man, he gave a face to the usual faceless bureaucracy of the Vatican leadership. Catholics felt wanted, loved, important.

He also has strengthened ties with other religions and countries. He was a man of love and peace. And he showed it too. He was just about the only world leader who was consistent to his word. He didn't flip flop to please everyone. He did it for 26 years. Some leaders contradict themselves in the same sentence. But he gained the respect of practically everyone, everywhere.

When he passed away, all paid tribute to him. People were openly weeping. I have not seen that reaction for any one man. He was everyone's pope not just the Church's. He brought a new spring. The cardinals could not afford to be hasty and lose all that John Paul II had worked for.

 

Benedict XVI? But don't we already have a pope? Ooohhh...

Anyway, this new guy, Ratzinger--good German name, by the way--used to be head of the Office for the Defence of the Faith (or something like that) which until a very few years ago was called The Office of the Inquisition. So the new pope is also--or used to be--The Grand Inquisitor. It's the dawn of an old day, as Dostoevsky might say.

If he lives to be 98, it's no less than the Church of Rome would deserve for selecting him, although I suppose their expectation is that he'll die soon, by which time they hope the infighting over the Church's future direction will be finished. Hope the new pope doesn't have too much of a XVI'th century influence on that.

EDIT: Incidentally, the last "temporary" pope, elected to serve a few years while the church digested the reign of Pius XII, was John XXIII, who opened the church in ways no one expected, ways his successors have mostly been busy closing down.

[ April 22, 2005, 01:30: Message edited by: Cernak ]

 

http://popepalpatine.ytmnd.com/

 

Isn't the choosing of the new Pope inspired by God? If so everyone should accept the decision, rather than question whether he is the right person for the job.

 

Tassadar, I think I agree. If you don't like the pope, that means you don't like the inspiration the cardinals got from God. Or you think the cardinals ignored that inspiration.

 

Really people ... what's the big deal? He's going to keep things the same as they've been for the last 28 years or so - it seems to have worked quite well so far - the Church is still running and is in general accord with the scriptures that are supposed to govern it. What is it that you want to happen, have the Pope go 'Oh, and by the way, what we have believed for the last 2000 years because God told us it is total absolute bull****'?

When the Church starts ignoring what it is supposedly there to preach, it is hardly a credible organisation to trust with your immortal soul...

 

Being protestant to me the cardinals were not inspired by God, since the pope is a church politician and a priest, and not much more.

Yeah it has worked really well. Apart from it splitting up twice, political murder of a few popes,corruption of the Church, a few "antipopes", a handful of crusades, inquisition and persecution. Discounting those unfortunate unique events the catholic church has worked fine.

They have done it before haven't they? Or are you telling me that you (assuming you're a Catholic now) still believe the world to be flat?

I won't pretend to hide my dislike towards the current form of the Catholic Church. It has improved a lot during the years and the Church will continue to improve. Unfortunately people like Razinger will severly slow down this development. There is a conservative and liberal side of the Catholic Church and I hope and believe that in the end the liberal side will win.

 

What about Catholic morals?

So, if she knew she had a lifetime to spend with him, why was it impossible to wait six months? Finding out about sexual compatibility?

The same God who said, "He that hath my commandments and keepeth them; he it is that loveth me."?

Teaching that Leviticus doesn't really mean to say "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination." hardly qualifies as "different methods for teaching the same substance". Likewise, prohibitions against fornication are spelt out in the Bible.


9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: Neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers:

10 Nor the effeminate nor liers with mankind nor thieves nor covetous nor drunkards nor railers nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God.

It isn't Cardinal Ratzinger. It's Saint Paul (1 Corinthians). Recognise?

The Church is not about public opinion. Public opinion lasts how long until it changes? Twenty years? The Church has lasted twenty centuries.

Why bother with religion if it's not good anymore? There are many clubs around.

I know Protestants who believe otherwise, but that's besides the point. What you need to realise is that while you believe the choice wasn't inspired, Catholics and especially the cardinals can't be expected to believe the same.

It's the common mistake that non-religious people make when addressing religion: from their point of view, the priests have made up the whole religion, including the Bible, so they may as well rewrite it to suit people's current fancy. The problem is that priests obviously don't share the belief that they made it all up and are free to change it.

Come on, you aren't blaming the Reformation on the Catholic Church, are you? We can discuss Luther's reasons, but it's not like he was the Pope and Leo X the dissenting theologian.

Show me where the Catholic doctrine has ever maintained that the earth is flat.

What point still believing in a religion you have the power to redesign to make things allowed? You may as well establish that Baptism gets you saved and the whole thing is done at this point.

 

No-one believed the Earth was flat. The Victorians made that up.

 

The Church is not about public opinion, true. It's about the public opinion of those who are members in that Church. The south american branch of the Catholic Church has allready stepped away quite far away from the central rulership in the Vatican. Will the Catholic Church sooner see another split than change its doctirnes? Eventually a liberal pope will come and he will change the Church. I'm not talking about gay marriage or female priesthood about abortion I might be talking in some extent but only in the political not in the moral way. I'm more talking about cancers within the Church such as Opus Dei which to me resembles a Catholic KGB more than anything. More than anything I'm talking about Church Politics. Perhaps it's wrong to call it Catholic Doctrine since you interprented it as the moral doctrine of the Church so I'll henceworh call it the political doctrine of the Catholic Church.

I'll skip the quotes from the Bible since I think I made my point clear. There is a grave difference between believing and preacing about something. My dislike for the Catholic Church does not come from them preaching against gay marriage or preaching against abortion. I however dislike the way their influence currently. The doctrine of a religion is not supposed to be an national law. Especially when we live in multicultural societies.

My relationship with God is between me and him as I said. Not agreeing with all the doctrines of the Church certainly does not prevent me from being part of that religion? Besides, just because I would believe homosexuality is wrong it doesen't mean that I would cut my friendship with a lifelong friend when he comes out of the closet or that I'd try to cure his "disease" or something similar.

And I know Catholics who believe otherwise so I guess we're even on this, and no I don't expect them to do the same and neither did I state that out.

You do know that people can worship God without believing every word written in the bible a book which was written by mortal men? I don't think priests made up religion and allthough I would not exactly call myself religious I still call myself a Christian.

Depends. I think the Catholic Church caused it to itself. Or do you think that no corruption and depravity existed within the papal rule back then? The immorality of the Catholic Church gave the spark to the Reformation which burst into flames by various political and religious reasons. I do think I understand why you think otherwise but that's something to be discussed in another thread or in PM.

Doctrine? I doubt I need to show a doctrine. You can answer me this though. Galileo Galilei was brought to Rome and tortured for his (correct) beliefs. Galileo Galilei and especially his protectors being significant men (I believe the pope that time even wrote a personal letter to the Medici who ruled florence then about Galileo's fate) so the pope was surely aware of this. I'm not sure if it was a doctrine but then again I never said it was. My point is that the Catholic Church claimed such claims to be blasphemy back then. I'm not sure if you could call it official doctrine, but something they said was a lie for years was proven true by Columbus&company. My point though is that something which they claim is wrong/lie/whatever now might be right/true/whatever tomorrow.

Because I believe in change. With time the Catholic Church has changed. I'm not sure if you agree but that's how I see it and I'm sure there are many Catholics who agree with me. One particular comes into my mind. She was a woman from Germany who went to Rome and each day after the death of John Paul II he went somewhere on the street and yelled out three times "I want a female pope". Unfortunately she and many others were disappointed when a male pope (big surprise) was elected. There are Catholics who see that the Church has changed with time and wish it change once more. You and many others think otherwise. You must however agree that there are different views among people there were different views even amongst the cardinals, some have even openly expressed disappointment when a conservative European pope was elected. The conservative vs. liberals within the Catholic Church will create quite a schism within the Church in the future decades and centuries. Unfortunately that will be a long process and I will probably not live to see its outcome. The election of Razinger has probably ensured a conservative pope for the Catholic Church for my lifetime. Something I consider a bit unfortunate, but being a protestant it won't rock my world too much.

EDIT: It took me an hour to write this and I should be asleep. Are you happy now Chev!?

[ April 23, 2005, 01:31: Message edited by: Morgoroth ]

 

The Catholic church is not the same as it was when Jesus Chirst came to earth. Jesus had twelve apostles. Where ate the twelve apostles to the Pope?

When Jesus Christ was Baptized, he was baptised by imersion in the River Jordan. I've heard that Baptism is no longer performed by immersion in the Catholic church today...

When did they start telling Priests that they couldn't marry?

I'm happy with the election of Cardinal Ratzinger to the position of Pope Benedict the XVI. If you start to change the church too much, it will lose it's power. If it starts to waver on moral issues like homosexuality, fornication and abortion, then why is it there?

 

Morgoroth is right, chevalier. About Galileo´s theory about the world not being flat, I mean. 4 or 5 years ago (I think) the recently deceased pope removed the ban from Galileo´s teachings. IIRC, the Church actually had a doctrine stating that these theories were herecy (or blasphemy, I always confuse those words).
To put it bluntly, 4 or 5 years ago the Catholic Church publicly and officially admitted that the Earth wasn´t flat. Of course they must have known before that. Right? Right?!?
I´m just kidding, of course they knew, not trying to bash Catholics here. Besides, neither Galileo nor the Catholic Church is right, the Earth is shaped like an eclipse.
But then again, this is a perfect example about a thread going off-topic. As a non-Catholic, I don´t really have an opinion about Ratziger being the new Pope. Still, John Paul II served the people well, and not just Catholics. Many people around the world were sad when he died.

 

I think you have to agree on the definition of the term, "doctrine ." It may be causing confusion.

I think you mean, ellipse. Actually it's an oblate spheroid, bulges at the equator and flat at the poles.

 

So the Church made up/believed the bit about the world being flat, which is not a part of what they are trying to uphold (the scriptures). It really doesn't matter so much if they go back on that one - because the Bible doesn't say 'The world if flat, and anyone who doesn't think so should be stabbed to death with a pointy stick'.

And even then moral stances are a lot different from ... er: 'the world is flat' kind of stances. They say that morally being gay is wrong - there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove that. The world being flat doesn't enter here - it is something proveable or disproveable.

I am not Catholic - I am not even Christian - but I think that the Church should stand its ground on issues that are a clearly stated part of their faith, and not sway to public opinion in order to stay 'relevant' to modern society. It's like a rock band that changes its style to become commercial - they're called sellouts. If the Church changes its style to keep the masses happy, then they sell out.

 

I like the analogy. It makes your point easy to understand.