New Pope Benedict XVI

Joseph Ratzinger has been elected the newest of the new Popes.

More of the same please vicar? And i was hoping for Anthony Quinn!

I was excited because I thought that it was the guy who played Cliff on Cheers. Turns out I was wrong. At least they picked a really old dude so that we can go through all of this fun again 5 years from now.

Listening to some of the commentaries on the news i get the impression he'll resign in two years before he deteriorates.

I was hoping it would be Vin Diesel.

Doesn't anyone remember 'The Shoes of the Fisherman' ah we can only hope!

Gibson said:

I was hoping it would be Vin Diesel.

Click to expand...

me too

posted by me on another board, but just at home here...


first, i am not catholic... second, i am not even christian...

it is bothersome to me that so much criticism has been levelled--already--at a RELIGIOUS leader (also head of state), that belies the fact that those doing the criticizing, catholic or not, have NO clue what they are talking about... they say he is too conservative... they say abortion should be ok... they say gays should be allowed full standing in the church... they say women should be priests, and that priests should be allowed to marry...

first and foremost, catholocism is NOT anything remotely close to a democracy... second, moral relativism has no place in religion, and catholocism has been one of the very few to not cave into this temptation based on popularity/unpopularity vs. what is deemed proper, correct, and right by said religion... if you are catholic, and believe in any of the stated complaints above, you need to seriously examine yourself and choose a different religion, as you have clearly strayed far from that flock... sometimes what is right is not what is popular... the moral high ground here is crystal clear... do what is right, not what is popular... itis not the place of the catholic church to bow to public sentiment... to criticize it for doing what it is supposed to do simply shows arrogance and ignorance... to report such things is irresponsible and lazy...

Holy crap! I actually 100% agree with you on this one, cable. :jawdrop:

Hell must be REALLY cold right now, eh?

Oh yeah, and I'm not Catholic, nor very religious, but I do respect the Church's authority to govern what is in its powers.

Can someone please explain to me the appeal of abortion? I just don't get how people are up in arms pro choice. If its getting fat, most of the time they get fat anyway because the baby gets killed while inside them. If its having to push it out their vag, there are forms of abortion where they get a vacuum and suck it out of there. If it's caring for another human being, there is always adoption. The only case where I can see abortion being ok is for r@p3 victums, but there is a drug for that, I think.

Imagine being elected pope. I bet he's gonna have an awesome piss-up tonite.

Good luck to the old guy!

p.s.

Did I hear right that he's German? Are you even allowed a German Pope? What if his wife and kids didn't wanna move to Bethlehem?

(im going to hell ain't I? Well at least it's hot.)

They pick a guy that spent time in the Hitler Youth. That sounds about right...

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20050419/en_afp/vaticanpopegermany_050419220824

This guy should be called Pope Grandpa. He's the oddest/most adorable looking old person ever. They need to make him into a doll.

cableguy said:

posted by me on another board, but just at home here...


first, i am not catholic... second, i am not even christian...

it is bothersome to me that so much criticism has been levelled--already--at a RELIGIOUS leader (also head of state), that belies the fact that those doing the criticizing, catholic or not, have NO clue what they are talking about... they say he is too conservative... they say abortion should be ok... they say gays should be allowed full standing in the church... they say women should be priests, and that priests should be allowed to marry...

first and foremost, catholocism is NOT anything remotely close to a democracy... second, moral relativism has no place in religion, and catholocism has been one of the very few to not cave into this temptation based on popularity/unpopularity vs. what is deemed proper, correct, and right by said religion... if you are catholic, and believe in any of the stated complaints above, you need to seriously examine yourself and choose a different religion, as you have clearly strayed far from that flock... sometimes what is right is not what is popular... the moral high ground here is crystal clear... do what is right, not what is popular... itis not the place of the catholic church to bow to public sentiment... to criticize it for doing what it is supposed to do simply shows arrogance and ignorance... to report such things is irresponsible and lazy...

Click to expand...

So what your saying is that church doctorite should NEVER change to suit the times? That's assinine. Just to give 2 example, if no church doctorites ever changed to suit the times in which they're upheld, Jews would endorse slavery, and Christians would still stone blasphemers in public squares. Religion--to SOME degree. I agree that some the fundamentals should stay in place generally, but there HAS to be leeway--HAS to adjust to the time its set in, or it loses all purpose: that purpose being, bringing the citizenry of the era closer to whatever God the religion is based on. If you can't adjust--even slightly in some cases--to reach ALL "secular" individuals, then what's the point? Particularly in the christian/catholic church, what with the "turn the other cheek" & "thou shalt not judge" messages being so heavy throughout the scripture. Hard to follow those two particular messages while sticking so strictly to the archaic doctorites set when the church was founded.

The Catholic Church is far from being a democracy but then again so is political democracy. For one Catholicism has changed uniquely since its beginnings, the non-awareness of this shows a superficial knowledge of the history of the catholic faith. The church didn't put down a code of what is right and wrong never to be changed, if that was the case then it wouldn't have made so many compromises with paganism, Niceanism etc. There used to be a time when christian (catholic) bishops denounced science and learning as mere vanity and egotism, they could support this with chosen passages from the scriptures. Who now in the Catholic church proposes the same? Nobody. That i call yet another change. If not for passages in Leviticus, some of the above could also become compromises. And hey all you out there who own a crucifix- something about not worshipping carved images- hey it was popular with the pagans.

New Pope

Here's how I see the new Pope. I'm not Catholic, so my views will probably slant away from those of hard-core conservative Catholics.

He is older, so his reign will probably be brief, so he is just keeping the seat warm for another person. I believe that the Church needs to elect a Pope from South America or any other part of the world other than Europe. This is so they, meaning everyone other than the US and Europe, don't feel marginalized. The fastest growing area of Catholics in the world is in South America, and a representative from there would show that the Church takes them seriously. Also, this Pope was reportedly responsible for drafting some of Pope John Paul II's more conservative statements. I think that the Church is falling behind the times with its strict doctrine. A more progressive choice in the future would be best for the future of the Church.

That's just what I think, feel free to disagree.

moxdevil said:

The Catholic Church is far from being a democracy but then again so is political democracy. For one Catholicism has changed uniquely since its beginnings, the non-awareness of this shows a superficial knowledge of the history of the catholic faith. The church didn't put down a code of what is right and wrong never to be changed, if that was the case then it wouldn't have made so many compromises with paganism, Niceanism etc. There used to be a time when christian (catholic) bishops denounced science and learning as mere vanity and egotism, they could support this with chosen passages from the scriptures. Who now in the Catholic church proposes the same? Nobody. That i call yet another change. If not for passages in Leviticus, some of the above could also become compromises. And hey all you out there who own a crucifix- something about not worshipping carved images- hey it was popular with the pagans.

Click to expand...

First...just 2 things that've been buggin' me since John Paul died (nothing really to do with any of these posts, mostly due to the news...but that doesn't make it any less annoying.) A-the Vatican isn't Vatican City, Rome...it's its own country. And B-Catholocism isn't a faith or religion unto itself, it's a denomination of the Christian faith.

Now...moving on...I don't deny that there have been, in the past, some alterations in the Catholic church's way of doing things. Of course there have. But then, why such the sticking point on slight alterations in the present day church? For example--gays in the congregation. Do I think homosexuals should be priests? No, that goes against the entirety of the scripture messages, so of course that's out of the question. And if THAT were the arguement, it'd make sense to me. But seeing as the point of the church is to spread the word of God--not just to Christians, but more specifically to those who AREN'T a part of the church presently, why exclude a specific group like that? I've never heard anyone saying that ex-prostitutes, murderers, or junkies couldn't be a part of the church, yet their sins would be seen just a grevious in the eyes of God, according to scripture, so doesn't that go against the church's own doctorite just as much?

On the other hand, I DO think there are things being discussed in this regard that SHOULD be upheld by the church. Abortion being the big one. There's no reason whatsoever for the church to change it's thinking/doctorite concerning abortion, without further contradicting its own teachings.

Then there's issues that could really go either way, like women in the priesthood. I, personally, don't see the point of excluding women from the priesthood, or know of any scripture evidence saying it shouldn't be allowed, but at the same time, I don't see how not allowing women in the priesthood is harming anything, so long as the message is being spread.

It is a denomination now, it didn't start out as one. Differences of opinion such as the one's you highlight have caused it to be merely one amongst many. A catholic (orthodox) used to perceive all other denominations as heresy, donatist, arian, protestant, etc were all heresies, but the church had to compromise for political reasons therefore over time protestant is now another denomination. All part of the amazing face-lift that christianity has undergone in the last two hundred years, luvyduvy with the other faiths etc

i fear i was grossly misunderstood... i reread my post, and the only thing i might have added for clarity would have been the addition of the word "recently" or something like that regarding the catholic church and changes... actually, i believe i will allow it to stand as initially posted...

vinvent vega, EVERY german child was a member of the hitler youth... i believe the alternative may have been a bullet to the head... were you a german child in that era, you too, would have been a member.... notably, he was never a member of the nazi party... do your homework...

homosexuality is condemned in the bible... this is fact, not fancy... as such, any religion using the bible as its gospel should, to be taken seriously, use it as written...

Roman 1:26-27

For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their woman exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.

Click to expand...

there are three passages in the old testament that refer to it as "an abomination" and punishable by death... i will ignore these, as any fool can plainly see there are major differences between the old and new testaments of the bible--justice being the easy one to point out (eye for an eye vs. turn the other cheek)...

stingray, your analogies do not work, as they refer to the attitude of one religion toward another... catholics and protestants, though both christian, are definitely different... the catholic church should never change its doctrine because of political or popular pressure, as doing so would void the purpose of its existance... to be a true member of any religion, there is a list of rules that one must follow... "i dont want to because society doesnt regard that one as valid" is no excuse, and again, you should look for a different religion...

you simply cannot apply your morals and ethics to the catholic church, or any other religion, because where yours may be malleable and based on personal history, the catholic church has the bible and whatever other texts from which it draws its set of morals and ethics... as these do NOT change over time, there is no reason to change doctrine accordingly... should the answer to "what is 2+2? be changed to fit the times in which we live?? i argue that it always was equal to 4, and always will be... some things do not change with the times, and this here happens to be one of them... dont like the rules?? dont be a catholic...

another point that has been hinted at but not mentioned directly... pope benedict xvi wrote when he was a cardinal that other religions were deficient... every self respecting member of ANY religion SHOULD feel that way about ALL other religions... religion is, by and large, and regardless of type, self professed to be "the one correct belief"... this is why people go to war over religious differences..

cableguy said:

homosexuality is condemned in the bible... this is fact, not fancy... as such, any religion using the bible as its gospel should, to be taken seriously, use it as written...

Click to expand...

I never claimed otherwise. However, prostitiution, smoking, tattooing, etc etc etc, are also condemned in the bible. It also says--at several points--that God views all sin equally. So again, how is it right for the church to proclaim a gay man can't attend mass, while the priest administering the mass can go to the parking lot afterwards and have a cigarette? It's contradictions like this that make people doubt the church to begin with, and when people doubt the church, it loses its purpose.

there are three passages in the old testament that refer to it as "an abomination" and punishable by death... i will ignore these, as any fool can plainly see there are major differences between the old and new testaments of the bible--justice being the easy one to point out (eye for an eye vs. turn the other cheek)...

Click to expand...

Agreed.

stingray, your analogies do not work, as they refer to the attitude of one religion toward another... catholics and protestants, though both christian, are definitely different... the catholic church should never change its doctrine because of political or popular pressure, as doing so would void the purpose of its existance... to be a true member of any religion, there is a list of rules that one must follow... "i dont want to because society doesnt regard that one as valid" is no excuse, and again, you should look for a different religion...

Click to expand...

You misunderstand me. Or rather, the reasoning behind my argument. I could care less what the political/popular opinion is, how it effects the church, its members, or anyone else. What I'm saying is this: The church was initiated to spread the word & teachings of Christ, so that people would grow closer to Him, and thus enter the Kingdom of Heaven, correct? That being the case, how can/does the church justify some of its actions when they're blatantly contradictory to the teachings we're shown very plainly in scripture? For example, women in the priesthood. Like I said, I truly don't know what the logic is behind that doctorite, and am completely unaware of anything in scripture that lead to it....however, wasn't the first person to see Christ after his ressurection a female that was told to go forth and inform his desciples of his return? Sounds more or less the same as a priest's job, ie: spreading the word & message of Christ. Yet, despite this plain example, the church excludes women from priesthood. Why?

I understand there are rules/regulations/commandments/word of choice here with ANY religion, and that's valid & great. Every practice, regardless of what it is, needs to have guidelines...be it legal, medical, clergy, etc. But, how can such a system operate efficiently & properly, when some of those rules work against one another? And it's not even New v. Old Testament here...it's New Testement v. Church Doctorite. And considering that the Catholic Church & Papacy was designed & organized by one of Christ's desciples (Peter)--who's life was only discussed in the New Testament--that seems like a pretty drastic flaw in the system to me.