Alright, enough religious debate. If you want to talk about Pope Benedict and what he specifically did or didn't do, go ahead. But no more general discussion on the merits or ills of the Catholic church or their history.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: Not really surprising, to be honest. When Ratzinger was elected everyone knew that he wouldn't sit on the Papal seat for too long as he was already quite old at the time. The impression I got was that it was a rather purposeful selection by the conclave as JPII reigned for an incredibly long time.
Now, what would be interesting after Benedict XVI's resignation is that Benedict and JPII are both from the same generation of Catholics. Although their philosophical leanings were different, they both were both involved in Vatican II when they were younger and they lived alongside Karl Rahner. As they aren't going to elect someone of Benedict's generation as the new pope, we will see something different now. I really dislike the things that Benedict had done during his time as pope and I think most of his reversing of Vatican II and JPII's work was a mistake. Hopefully we won't see a continuing conservative turn with the future pope.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Pope Benedict basically undid a lot of Vatican II over the past several years. It remains to be seen if this return to orthodoxy/conservativism continues with the new pope. If the state of the Church in the US is any indicator, I think it will continue, and it's not a direction that I like.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: Not really surprising, to be honest. When Ratzinger was elected everyone knew that he wouldn't sit on the Papal seat for too long as he was already quite old at the time. The impression I got was that it was a rather purposeful selection by the conclave as JPII reigned for an incredibly long time.
Now, what would be interesting after Benedict XVI's resignation is that Benedict and JPII are both from the same generation of Catholics. Although their philosophical leanings were different, they both were both involved in Vatican II when they were younger and they lived alongside Karl Rahner. As they aren't going to elect someone of Benedict's generation as the new pope, we will see something different now. I really dislike the things that Benedict had done during his time as pope and I think most of his reversing of Vatican II and JPII's work was a mistake. Hopefully we won't see a continuing conservative turn with the future pope.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Well I think the new pope could of course do so if he wants. Now the question is, why would the conclave elect somebody who is likely to plan another council?
Yeah I know. But people keep saying they won't change and stay conservative. But the Second Vatican Council counters that argument.
Society has changed a lot since the 1960's and the church has many problems. The conclave is not blind. Some change wouldn't hurt them I think. And conservative believers will keep believing anyway won't they.
I'm getting a rough understanding of what Vatican II was and what it addressed, but can someone explain to me what the significance of it actually was, and how it relates to Benedict's resignation?
On February 12 2013 00:45 Kogan wrote: good move, he sucked :O
User was warned for this post
Please I want to know other than the general hate on religion and catholicism, why do you think did Pope Benedict suck?
i dont hate religion or catholicism ! but a pope who travels to africa to tell the people there that its bad to use condoms... and i think this was just his most known mistake...he was ultraconservative and in my eyes he failed to show critics of catholicism that it could be something good, that the old religion can keep up with the "new" time.
On February 12 2013 01:03 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm getting a rough understanding of what Vatican II was and what it addressed, but can someone explain to me what the significance of it actually was, and how it relates to Benedict's resignation?
Well his resignations means there will be a new pope soon, and a lot of people will hope he will "modernise" the catholic church. And I think the 2nd vatican council is generally being accepted as the most "modern" thing any pope did recently ("recently" in the sense of 2000 years of catholic church), therefore it will be brought up a lot.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: Not really surprising, to be honest. When Ratzinger was elected everyone knew that he wouldn't sit on the Papal seat for too long as he was already quite old at the time. The impression I got was that it was a rather purposeful selection by the conclave as JPII reigned for an incredibly long time.
Now, what would be interesting after Benedict XVI's resignation is that Benedict and JPII are both from the same generation of Catholics. Although their philosophical leanings were different, they both were both involved in Vatican II when they were younger and they lived alongside Karl Rahner. As they aren't going to elect someone of Benedict's generation as the new pope, we will see something different now. I really dislike the things that Benedict had done during his time as pope and I think most of his reversing of Vatican II and JPII's work was a mistake. Hopefully we won't see a continuing conservative turn with the future pope.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Vatican II wasn't something that was taken lightly. It was an absolutely tremendous reform that shook the foundations in such a way that there are still many conservatives within the Catholic church that disagree with many of the reforms, if not reject the fruits of the council outright. It hasn't even been a full century since the end of Vatican II and the Catholics still are dealing with the implications of it. And you're assuming that the Catholic church as a whole want another fundamental reform. You're not just talking about the relationship of the Church with the world in a political way. The impetus for Vatican II wasn't just to address social and political themes. It was a fundamental restructuring of what can be accepted philosophically and theologically. It was a breakthrough for Rahner and all the new phenomenologist Catholics to make their philosophical methods to be acceptable against the classic Aristotelian-Thomistic orthodoxy that prevailed within the Catholic church at the time, and for such new philosophical methods to be allowed in the doing of theology. Rahner and Vatican II opened up the way for movements like liberation theology even though the Papacy has consistently been hostile to it.
Vatican II was such a fundamental reform that the church is still, in a way, trying to understand it and come to grips with it. Thinking about a Vatican III is just kinda silly when Vatican II is still such a big question. The only reason, I think, that Vatican II even occurred after such a short time since Vatican I is that Vatican I was left incomplete. The climate of the times was also ripe for something like Vatican II after the horrors of the two World Wars. If you look back into Catholic history the last time there was a reform of similar caliber to Vatican II was the Catholic Reformation, which was largely in response to the Protestant Reformation, that began with the Council of Trent. This was all the way back in the 16-17th century.
On February 12 2013 01:03 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm getting a rough understanding of what Vatican II was and what it addressed, but can someone explain to me what the significance of it actually was, and how it relates to Benedict's resignation?
It doesn't relate with Benedict's resignation. Benedict's resignation is both due to his old age and also due to the toll of all the Catholic scandals. There was an interview with Benedict not too long ago that showed that he was very weary and stressed. I only mentioned Vatican II and JPII as Benedict's resignation will be the end of the Papal rule of that particular generation of Catholic intellectual and political figures.
On February 12 2013 01:03 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm getting a rough understanding of what Vatican II was and what it addressed, but can someone explain to me what the significance of it actually was, and how it relates to Benedict's resignation?
An important change was that from that point onwards the language used in the church was changed from Latin to the native language in a country so people good better understand what was going on.
As far as I know there is no direct relation to the resignation of Benedict.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: Not really surprising, to be honest. When Ratzinger was elected everyone knew that he wouldn't sit on the Papal seat for too long as he was already quite old at the time. The impression I got was that it was a rather purposeful selection by the conclave as JPII reigned for an incredibly long time.
Now, what would be interesting after Benedict XVI's resignation is that Benedict and JPII are both from the same generation of Catholics. Although their philosophical leanings were different, they both were both involved in Vatican II when they were younger and they lived alongside Karl Rahner. As they aren't going to elect someone of Benedict's generation as the new pope, we will see something different now. I really dislike the things that Benedict had done during his time as pope and I think most of his reversing of Vatican II and JPII's work was a mistake. Hopefully we won't see a continuing conservative turn with the future pope.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Vatican II wasn't something that was taken lightly. It was an absolutely tremendous reform that shook the foundations in such a way that there are still many conservatives within the Catholic church that disagree with many of the reforms, if not reject the fruits of the council outright. It hasn't even been a full century since the end of Vatican II and the Catholics still are dealing with the implications of it. And you're assuming that the Catholic church as a whole want another fundamental reform. You're not just talking about the relationship of the Church with the world in a political way. An impetus for Vatican II wasn't just to address social and political themes. It was a fundamental restructuring of what can be accepted philosophically and theologically. It was a breakthrough for Rahner and all the new phenomenologist Catholics to make their philosophical methods to be acceptable against the classic Aristotelian-Thomistic orthodoxy that prevailed within the Catholic church at the time, and for such new philosophical methods to be allowed in the doing of theology. Rahner and Vatican II opened up the way for movements like liberation theology even though the Papacy has consistently been hostile to it.
Vatican II was such a fundamental reform that the church is still, in a way, trying to understand it and come to grips with it. Thinking about a Vatican III is just kinda silly when Vatican II is still such a big question. The only reason, I think, that Vatican II even occurred after such a short time since Vatican I is that Vatican I was left incomplete. The climate of the times was also ripe for something like Vatican II after the horrors of the two World Wars. If you look back into Catholic history the last time there was a reform of similar caliber to Vatican II was the Catholic Reformation, that was largely in response to the Protestant Reformation, that began with the Council of Trent. This was all the way back at the 16-17th century.
Well who knows, for all we know there could have been an internal struggle which caused Benedictus to leave. Losing so much ground in the richest countries in the world can't be something they want to continue? They are tearing down church after church here in Europe.
On February 12 2013 01:03 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm getting a rough understanding of what Vatican II was and what it addressed, but can someone explain to me what the significance of it actually was, and how it relates to Benedict's resignation?
Catholic Mass was not conducted in any language but Latin, and the priest never faced the congregation. Only the priest was allowed to do anything and nobody really understood whether they had any part in what was going on.
Vatican II acknowledged that the Jews were not responsible for Christ's death and that they actually have a valid covenant with God, and Catholics were finally allowed to set foot in other places of worship.
Basically, the Catholic Church was seriously creepy before Vatican II.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: Not really surprising, to be honest. When Ratzinger was elected everyone knew that he wouldn't sit on the Papal seat for too long as he was already quite old at the time. The impression I got was that it was a rather purposeful selection by the conclave as JPII reigned for an incredibly long time.
Now, what would be interesting after Benedict XVI's resignation is that Benedict and JPII are both from the same generation of Catholics. Although their philosophical leanings were different, they both were both involved in Vatican II when they were younger and they lived alongside Karl Rahner. As they aren't going to elect someone of Benedict's generation as the new pope, we will see something different now. I really dislike the things that Benedict had done during his time as pope and I think most of his reversing of Vatican II and JPII's work was a mistake. Hopefully we won't see a continuing conservative turn with the future pope.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Well I think the new pope could of course do so if he wants. Now the question is, why would the conclave elect somebody who is likely to plan another council?
Yeah I know. But people keep saying they won't change and stay conservative. But the Second Vatican Council counters that argument.
Society has changed a lot since the 1960's and the church has many problems. The conclave is not blind. Some change wouldn't hurt them I think. And conservative believers will keep believing anyway won't they.
I am excited, not because I know much about Catholicism, nor do I know that much about American Elections but I was still going OBAMA, OBAMA whenever it came up in the news.
Just hoping we will have a few candidates/possible candidates so I can pick a favorite and root for them :D
I was drunk this weekend and ending up putting a bunch of paper towels on myself and started calling myself the dubstep pope and blessing people while we danced.
Now this happens.....
Sign me up to be the next pope, I knew there was a reason for everything
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: Not really surprising, to be honest. When Ratzinger was elected everyone knew that he wouldn't sit on the Papal seat for too long as he was already quite old at the time. The impression I got was that it was a rather purposeful selection by the conclave as JPII reigned for an incredibly long time.
Now, what would be interesting after Benedict XVI's resignation is that Benedict and JPII are both from the same generation of Catholics. Although their philosophical leanings were different, they both were both involved in Vatican II when they were younger and they lived alongside Karl Rahner. As they aren't going to elect someone of Benedict's generation as the new pope, we will see something different now. I really dislike the things that Benedict had done during his time as pope and I think most of his reversing of Vatican II and JPII's work was a mistake. Hopefully we won't see a continuing conservative turn with the future pope.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Well I think the new pope could of course do so if he wants. Now the question is, why would the conclave elect somebody who is likely to plan another council?
Yeah I know. But people keep saying they won't change and stay conservative. But the Second Vatican Council counters that argument.
Society has changed a lot since the 1960's and the church has many problems. The conclave is not blind. Some change wouldn't hurt them I think. And conservative believers will keep believing anyway won't they.
Well, they can split off like the Pius brothers.
Maybe. But if the most hardcore conservatives split off and the church under a new pope becomes more in line with todays society and wins the less fundamentalistic christians back that might be worth it. Because fundamentalists are usually a small fraction in any religion.
On February 12 2013 01:03 [UoN]Sentinel wrote: I'm getting a rough understanding of what Vatican II was and what it addressed, but can someone explain to me what the significance of it actually was, and how it relates to Benedict's resignation?
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: Not really surprising, to be honest. When Ratzinger was elected everyone knew that he wouldn't sit on the Papal seat for too long as he was already quite old at the time. The impression I got was that it was a rather purposeful selection by the conclave as JPII reigned for an incredibly long time.
Now, what would be interesting after Benedict XVI's resignation is that Benedict and JPII are both from the same generation of Catholics. Although their philosophical leanings were different, they both were both involved in Vatican II when they were younger and they lived alongside Karl Rahner. As they aren't going to elect someone of Benedict's generation as the new pope, we will see something different now. I really dislike the things that Benedict had done during his time as pope and I think most of his reversing of Vatican II and JPII's work was a mistake. Hopefully we won't see a continuing conservative turn with the future pope.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Vatican II wasn't something that was taken lightly. It was an absolutely tremendous reform that shook the foundations in such a way that there are still many conservatives within the Catholic church that disagree with many of the reforms, if not reject the fruits of the council outright. It hasn't even been a full century since the end of Vatican II and the Catholics still are dealing with the implications of it. And you're assuming that the Catholic church as a whole want another fundamental reform. You're not just talking about the relationship of the Church with the world in a political way. An impetus for Vatican II wasn't just to address social and political themes. It was a fundamental restructuring of what can be accepted philosophically and theologically. It was a breakthrough for Rahner and all the new phenomenologist Catholics to make their philosophical methods to be acceptable against the classic Aristotelian-Thomistic orthodoxy that prevailed within the Catholic church at the time, and for such new philosophical methods to be allowed in the doing of theology. Rahner and Vatican II opened up the way for movements like liberation theology even though the Papacy has consistently been hostile to it.
Vatican II was such a fundamental reform that the church is still, in a way, trying to understand it and come to grips with it. Thinking about a Vatican III is just kinda silly when Vatican II is still such a big question. The only reason, I think, that Vatican II even occurred after such a short time since Vatican I is that Vatican I was left incomplete. The climate of the times was also ripe for something like Vatican II after the horrors of the two World Wars. If you look back into Catholic history the last time there was a reform of similar caliber to Vatican II was the Catholic Reformation, that was largely in response to the Protestant Reformation, that began with the Council of Trent. This was all the way back at the 16-17th century.
Well who knows, for all we know there could have been an internal struggle which caused Benedictus to leave. Losing so much ground in the richest countries in the world can't be something they want to continue? They are tearing down church after church here in Europe.
Although it is said Benedictus was indeed tired of the internal struggles and political games that were being played in the Vatican and you make a valid point about Christianity in Europe there also is a tendency to dismantle the church in countries like the Netherlands and tighten the reigns again untill you remain with a core of "true" conservative believers. Our current Archbishop (and cardinal as of February 2012) in the Netherlands (Eijk) has said on several occasions (will look for the references) that he rather has a small congregation of true believers as a large more progressive congregation. This indicates imo that the Catholic church is looking for a more tightly controlled form of religion instead of loosening and adapting to modern society.
There are also several indications that an African or South-American cardinal will be chosen as the new pope. In general the doctrine of the church on these continents is more conservative as in western Europe so that also doesn´t lead me to believe we will get a more progressive pope anytime soon.
EDIT: Also for those people wondering how many cardinals there are and who is eligable to vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_of_Cardinals & http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/College_van_Kardinalen The second link is in dutch but has imo a more clearly lay out list and some usefull statistics near the bottom (that are probably understandable even if you don´t speak dutch) on for example which continents the cardinals are from.
On February 12 2013 00:22 koreasilver wrote: Not really surprising, to be honest. When Ratzinger was elected everyone knew that he wouldn't sit on the Papal seat for too long as he was already quite old at the time. The impression I got was that it was a rather purposeful selection by the conclave as JPII reigned for an incredibly long time.
Now, what would be interesting after Benedict XVI's resignation is that Benedict and JPII are both from the same generation of Catholics. Although their philosophical leanings were different, they both were both involved in Vatican II when they were younger and they lived alongside Karl Rahner. As they aren't going to elect someone of Benedict's generation as the new pope, we will see something different now. I really dislike the things that Benedict had done during his time as pope and I think most of his reversing of Vatican II and JPII's work was a mistake. Hopefully we won't see a continuing conservative turn with the future pope.
Yeah I agree, a more liberal leaning Pope to bring the Church into the new millenium would probably be the best thing possible. Addressing issues of HIV aids in Africa for the catholics there and policies on condoms etc would probably be best. Who knows, maybe just maybe women can get a little more "powerful" positions in the church? I would love to see female priests but I think that might be a little ways off yet the way the church works
I wouldn't really hold my breath for women clergy in the Catholic church. It's telling that even one of the more historically "progressive" popes like JPII (he was the phenomenologist pope for heaven's sake!) was vehemently against it along with condoms, etc. Even JPII was very heavy-handed and rather not generous with the South American liberation theologians as well, which was tragic. But even so, the Catholic church has gone through an incredible amount of reform with Vatican II which JPII did continue on, and even with Benedict's conservatism and counter-reforms, the Catholic church has changed so much that it would be impossible to return to something like the pre-Vatican II times. I'm not a Catholic and I don't know much about the upcoming generation of Catholic political and intellectual figures, so it would be interesting to see what happens. I mean, it could very well be that the new generation of political figureheads are counter-progressives, but the Catholic church has always had various internal tension with different philosophical, theological, and political leanings.
So what's keeping a potential new pope from declaring a Third Vatican Council? If a reason for the former ones was reform to changing times, it seems one could be helpful now, both for the church and the world?
Vatican II wasn't something that was taken lightly. It was an absolutely tremendous reform that shook the foundations in such a way that there are still many conservatives within the Catholic church that disagree with many of the reforms, if not reject the fruits of the council outright. It hasn't even been a full century since the end of Vatican II and the Catholics still are dealing with the implications of it. And you're assuming that the Catholic church as a whole want another fundamental reform. You're not just talking about the relationship of the Church with the world in a political way. An impetus for Vatican II wasn't just to address social and political themes. It was a fundamental restructuring of what can be accepted philosophically and theologically. It was a breakthrough for Rahner and all the new phenomenologist Catholics to make their philosophical methods to be acceptable against the classic Aristotelian-Thomistic orthodoxy that prevailed within the Catholic church at the time, and for such new philosophical methods to be allowed in the doing of theology. Rahner and Vatican II opened up the way for movements like liberation theology even though the Papacy has consistently been hostile to it.
Vatican II was such a fundamental reform that the church is still, in a way, trying to understand it and come to grips with it. Thinking about a Vatican III is just kinda silly when Vatican II is still such a big question. The only reason, I think, that Vatican II even occurred after such a short time since Vatican I is that Vatican I was left incomplete. The climate of the times was also ripe for something like Vatican II after the horrors of the two World Wars. If you look back into Catholic history the last time there was a reform of similar caliber to Vatican II was the Catholic Reformation, that was largely in response to the Protestant Reformation, that began with the Council of Trent. This was all the way back at the 16-17th century.
Well who knows, for all we know there could have been an internal struggle which caused Benedictus to leave. Losing so much ground in the richest countries in the world can't be something they want to continue? They are tearing down church after church here in Europe.
Although it is said Benedictus was indeed tired of the internal struggles and political games that were being played in the Vatican and you make a valid point about Christianity in Europe there also is a tendency to dismantle the church in countries like the Netherlands and tighten the reigns again untill you remain with a core of "true" conservative believers. Our current Archbishop (and cardinal as of February 2012) in the Netherlands (Eijk) has said on several occasions (will look for the references) that he rather has a small congregation of true believers as a large more progressive congregation. This indicates imo that the Catholic church is looking for a more tightly controlled form of religion instead of loosening and adapting to modern society.
There are also several indications that an African or South-American cardinal will be chosen as the new pope. In general the doctrine of the church on these continents is more conservative as in western Europe so that also doesn´t lead me to believe we will get a more progressive pope anytime soon.
Cardinal Eijk is one of the more conservative ones though. And call me cynical, but I think money is also important. Not for the true believers, but for the organisation. Do you think the people who run the financial part of the vatican would prefer Africa instead of the western countries?
EPT
