|
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.
-page 12 |
I don't know if it was already mentioned, but a friend linked an old interview with a pope biograph:
http://www.n-tv.de/leute/buecher/Dieser-Papst-wird-zuruecktreten-article6032061.html
It's German, from 16. April 2012 (!) and this guy is telling us, that the pope will resign if he thinks that he is too weak to go on with his "job"! It seems, that he (Benedict) didn't like how his predecessor Johannes Paul II. still worked while he was so sick in the end and he wouldn't do that!
Just for the "fun" facts!
|
Good for the world, popes should disapear along with their church.
Im sorry for the believers but the catholic church has always been a calamity slowing down the progress and with all the crimes it has comitted it s hard to believe it still exists.
Narrow minded people, dirty money, manipulators, im sure he resigned because of internal pressures just like it has always been etc...
Religions with so much power over the people should just die.
You can take a good exemple of that power with the manifest against gay wedding, the biggest meeting of the fifty last yr (s in france because the rotten catholic core doesnt want gays to marry.
User was temp banned for this post.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 12 2013 01:58 Zandar wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 01:44 Golden Ghost wrote:On February 12 2013 01:16 Zandar wrote:On February 12 2013 01:13 koreasilver wrote:On February 12 2013 00:43 Zandar wrote:On February 12 2013 00:36 koreasilver wrote:On February 12 2013 00:27 ZeromuS wrote: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. It'll be an interesting election! Just reading a bit about the Vatican II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_CouncilSo 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?
True and the fact that of the 118 cardinals eligable to vote in the upcoming election there are 62 from Europe and 56 from the rest of the world could mean you are correct in your assumptions. I personally though am not going to place a bet on it.
|
On February 12 2013 01:06 Kogan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 00:54 xwoGworwaTsx wrote: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.
I am in no way is intending this to be a discussion, but rather just to offset the skewed view you are presenting, Catholic teaching isn't to tell those people to continue having unrestricted/uncontrolled/rape sex while telling them that use of condom isn't bad. But it is to teach them that unrestricted/uncontrolled/rape sex is bad period, with or without condoms.
Catholic's ban on condom is getting such a distorted publicity because it's not about condom in the first place at all. It is about having responsible sex, which addresses the issue of HIV and other STD way beyond what condom can do. (and fyi, condom doesn't completely eliminate the risk of STD - STD can still be transmitted through oral sex and through other bodily fluids other than semen/vaginal mucus)
Let's stop wrongly discriminating on the current pope for which he shouldn't be blamed for.
|
On February 12 2013 02:05 Golden Ghost wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 01:58 Zandar wrote:On February 12 2013 01:44 Golden Ghost wrote:On February 12 2013 01:16 Zandar wrote:On February 12 2013 01:13 koreasilver wrote:On February 12 2013 00:43 Zandar wrote:On February 12 2013 00:36 koreasilver wrote:On February 12 2013 00:27 ZeromuS wrote: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. It'll be an interesting election! Just reading a bit about the Vatican II. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Vatican_CouncilSo 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? True and the fact that of the 118 cardinals eligable to vote in the upcoming election there are 62 from Europe and 56 from the rest of the world could mean you are correct in your assumptions. I personally though am not going to place a bet on it.
Maybe you are right. The youngest cardinal is 54 but the majority was born way before world war 2, if you look at it like that not much change can be expected indeed.
|
On February 12 2013 01:59 Skilledblob wrote:
catholic church cannot change and will not change. Actually it must not change in order to uphold their dogmas.
Surely; therefore Aquinas, Counter-Reformation, and Vatican II.
|
Black Pope pls.
Although there is a chance that a certain hispanic named Pedro is in the running (not kidding here)
|
|
|
On February 12 2013 01:33 Grovbolle wrote:
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
Difficult because the ballots are supposed to be secret (the only official communication is made once a pope is elected).
5 names have leaked during the last conclave (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_conclave,_2005):
- Cardinal Ratzinger (Benedict XVI)
- Cardinal Martini (Milan, died august 2012 - described as progressist)
- Cardinal Ruini (Sant'Agnese - described as conservative. Born 1931, he is over 80, so cannot be a candidate this time )
- Cardinal Bergoglio (Argentine- described as conservative. Born 1936, he is 77 and may give it a try )
No doubt we will have a new list in the next few weeks.
|
This is so unexpected and unusual, that i doubt it was 100% voluntary.
|
On February 12 2013 02:08 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 01:59 Skilledblob wrote:
catholic church cannot change and will not change. Actually it must not change in order to uphold their dogmas. Surely; therefore Aquinas, Counter-Reformation, and Vatican II.
that's reinterpretation of old texts not change. And that's pretty much the only thing the catholics can do. Reinterpret old texts
|
reinterpretation is just a fancy word for change. They will twist the texts to mean whatever it has to in order for them to maintain their stature.
|
On February 12 2013 02:32 Skilledblob wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2013 02:08 koreasilver wrote:On February 12 2013 01:59 Skilledblob wrote:
catholic church cannot change and will not change. Actually it must not change in order to uphold their dogmas. Surely; therefore Aquinas, Counter-Reformation, and Vatican II. that's reinterpretation of old texts not change. And that's pretty much the only thing the catholics can do. Reinterpret old texts
Which is why Aquinas' writing was banned as heretical, right? Of course now, after his canonization in the church and to the history of Westernt thought, we would look at Aquinas as an orthodox theologian but during his time the "new" Aristotelian thought that was imported from the Islamic thinkers was considered heretical and opposite to the orthodox neo-Platonism that was picked up Christians since the very beginning. The same stupid shit happened with the phenomenology of Karl Rahner that was condemned by Pius XII and the same with JPII, who had his thesis rejected by his supervisor because it was too phenomenological instead of being in line with the neo-Scholastic orthodoxy.
I hear this stupid "must not change" nonsense when it comes to Christian thought all the bloody time and it's always utterly and completely inane. Doctrinal orthodoxy is not allied with liberalism or conservatism in any way.
|
On February 12 2013 02:15 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
Black Pope pls.
Although there is a chance that a certain hispanic named Pedro is in the running (not kidding here)
A black pope would be 100% awesome. It would be hillarious to watch the reaction of all the critics of anything he does and says being called racist.
|
I guess alot of people really care about whose running the most corrupt and immoral organization in the existence of the world.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 11 2013 23:21 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On February 11 2013 23:19 SupLilSon wrote:On February 11 2013 22:45 scFoX wrote:
I'm sad to see him go. Contrary to what many atheists are saying in this thread, he is one of the most learned and profound people I've ever seen. Sure, he's not as glamorous as John Paul II, but he makes it up in brain power. I hope stepping down from office will improve his health. Really? Wasn't this Pope a former Hitler Youth? He also said some pretty ignorant stuff throughout his course as Pope imo. As a non-Christian, John Paul seemed like a much more attractive Pope than Benedict and actually demanded some respect because of this demeanor, words and actions.. yeah because the alternative to joining the hitler jugen was...?
Maybe it wasn't his own volition which made him join. But still, as a non-Christian I thought that John Paul was an amazing representative for the Vatican and even if you disagreed with almost everything the Church stands for he was still an incredibly likable and charismatic individual. My opinion is simply that the Pope isnt really renowned for "brain power". He's a figure head, he's a symbol, a political item, not a thinker. It doesnt really matter if it was his choice or not, the fact is he was a Hitler Youth.
|
Well it doesn't matter, they will just take in some other horrible human who will ruin millions of peoples life.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
On February 12 2013 02:58 baba1 wrote:
Worst pope ever!
While not a good one, he's far from the worst ever. Hell, my namesake was worse than Benedict XVI and he doesn't even get in the bottom 10.
|
I honestly don't know much about Catholicism, but do the majority of believers actually still listen to and follow the word of the pope? With all the stuff about not using condoms and openly defending pedophiles that's happened, it's pretty hard to believe. It's a shame that the figureheads of such a large religion have historically been lacking in both common sense and moral integrity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
