Enter your email address to receive updates by email:

subscribe in a reader like my facebook page follow me on twitter Image Map
Podcast Message Line: 512-222-3389
Logos Catholic Bible Software

« In The Mail | Main | Motu Proprio 777? »

June 26, 2007

Comments

Brian Day

Jimmy,
I'm glad you have the time to get back to blogging.
Father Z's blog (www.wdtprs.com/blog) has some great comments in the comboxes from those who are fairly well versed in Latin.

Personally, I think it is a good move by B16. Now on to the "real" MP. :-)
The latest rumor is 6-July.

Anita Moore OPL

Well, I guess that's another roadblock for certain cardinals (who shall remain nameless) who I've always feared might make it onto the Throne of Peter.

StubbleSpark

Jimmy, shame on you for that misleading title.

I nearly cried out loud like a Spanish soccer announcer.

MOOOOOOOOOTUUUUUUUUUUU!!!

andre

Christians all over the world should be asking:

1. Is the Papacy biblical?
2. Was this system really established in Peter, the one who denied Jesus?
3. If so, why didn't the early church recognize Peter as their sole leader? Wasn't Paul a lot more prominent than him, writing far more on theology than Peter?
4. Why does the CChurch consider the Pope infallible? (See Vatican 2 documents).
5. Historically, why has the Pope been viewed as God by Catholics, the Vicar of Christ on Earth?
6. How does the Papacy fit in the writings of Paul?
7. What is the Pope doing to end the secrecy and law of silence in the abuse of children by Priests all over the world? (See documentary Deliver us From Evil)

Matthew 15:8-9:
"These people draw near to me with their mouths,
And honour me with their lips;
But their heart is far from me.
In vain do they worship me;
Their teachings are just rules made by men.'

bill912

It has been pointed out to Andre that Catholics do not believe the pope is God, nor have we ever believed that. Facts are irrelevant to him. He is here merely to bash Catholicism. In other words, he has proven himself to be a troll.

"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor."

Tim J.

Jimmy, you wag... you rapscallion...

You had me going, too.

Layne

Andre,

Question 5 is irrelevent as Catholics have never believed the Pope is God. And the premise of Question 3 is dubious, QUANTITY of writing has nothing to do with leadership (our president writes virtually nothing, but is still the unquestioned leader).

As to the other questions. You would do well to answer them for yourself. Informed Catholics the world over already have.

Tim J.

And, Andre, you're right... people SHOULD be asking those questions... and they should be getting the right answers;

"1. Is the Papacy biblical?"

Yes.

"2. Was this system really established in Peter, the one who denied Jesus?"

Yes.

"3. If so, why didn't the early church recognize Peter as their sole leader?"

They did, though not "sole" leader. I don't know ANY organization with a "sole leader", unless you count places like North Korea. Paul recognized the authority of the Church in Jerusalem and went out with their approval. Most importantly, Jesus gave Peter - and no other Apostle - the Keys to the Kingdom. Then there was that incident of Jesus changing Simon's name to "Rock" and declaring He would build His Church on that rock.

"Wasn't Paul a lot more prominent than him, writing far more on theology than Peter?"

I don't know that Paul WAS "more prominent". I do know it doesn't matter. Certainly more of his written work made it into the canon, and so he is more prominent TO US... Paul was a scholar, Peter was a fisherman. So? "Who wrote more theology?" doesn't really come into it. Authority goes where Jesus puts it, not to the most famous or prolific.

"4. Why does the CChurch consider the Pope infallible? (See Vatican 2 documents)."

Short answer; because Jesus set it up that way. He can't have his Church teaching falsehood or just relying on the changing opinions of men. That's Protestantism.

"5. Historically, why has the Pope been viewed as God by Catholics, the Vicar of Christ on Earth?"

He never HAS been viewed as God by Catholics. Not even close. Look up the word "vicar". The fact that you asked the question just indicates ENORMOUS ignorance of the subject you are trying to discuss.

"6. How does the Papacy fit in the writings of Paul?"

Very nicely.

"7. What is the Pope doing to end the secrecy and law of silence in the abuse of children by Priests all over the world?"

I don't know... and this touches on the subject of Papal authority HOW exactly? Do you know how many SDA ministers have been sexual abusers? How many instances of abuse have been covered up? Take the beam from your own eye...

Brian

Very interesting. Probably good, as well. After all, the Church has undergone long periods in the past between popes. It's probably best to encourage the most prayerful, united papal elections.

As to the questions all Christians should be asking (and SURELY not with leading intent) :)

Of course the papacy is Biblical, if you mean, found in and defensible from the Bible. You may not agree with a Catholic's interpretations of the Bible verses in question...but they are there, and they are rather explicit.

If the papacy wasn't founded in Peter (what does him denying Jesus have to do with it? Jesus knew it would happen, and prayed that he would confirm his brethren nonetheless), then the church fathers were all hoodwinked, because they counted the succession of what we now call the Popes, the bishops of Rome, starting with Peter.

The Early Church didn't regard Peter as sole leader because he wasn't. As Tim said, every organization has multiple leaders...but it did acknowledge that Peter, and the bishops who came after him, were the first of bishops, the preeminent apostles. Paul may have more books in the Bible attested to him, but so what? Maybe he was more learned, maybe he was wiser...does God always chose the wisest and most learned men to lead? Or does He take shepherds and fishermen and farmers and children and raise them to positions which glorify HIM, showing that it is GOD who leads, through the simple, not the wisdom of men which sustains us? "I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones."

Again, as was said...we consider him infallible...because he is. And he is because of the solemn promises of God. Furthermore, what does Vatican II have to do with this? The pronouncement of papal infallibility was made by the first Vatican council. While the second also confirmed the principle of collegiality, it never did away with the primacy (and infallible charism) of the Pope...it confirmed it again and again.

Historically, why has Mothra been worshiped as a God by tiny people on a Pacific island? Oh wait...sorry...that's complete fiction. Hmm...kind of like your assertion.

The writings of Paul? What makes them more important than the writings of James, or John, or Moses? I was under the impression that ALL scripture was inspired by God, and all was true and relevant to our lives. I'll avoid the obvious cliche of stealing from one person to give to another. :)

And finally, I don't have an answer to your last question. I'd be willing to bet he's doing something, though the first authorities in such cases, I think, are the local bishops. Furthermore, I'm no expert on the problem, but I was under the impression that these actions have been taking place overwhelmingly in English speaking cultures and nations, rather than being "all over the world". You'll have to come up with better arguments than citing an overextended documentary with a clear bias if you want to somehow tie this in with a Pope, or the office of Pope in general.

bill bannon

Andre
But Peter killed Ananias and Sapphira like Moses killed Dathan and Abiram (by word and by power of God) making him the second Moses vis a vis the people of God so perhaps you're not all that keen on the Bible after all.
I wish the Popes would stop writing... and would "pope" more. Aquinas (also like Paul) wrote more brilliantly than any Pope ever excepting infallible writings like the IC....and you're not following Aquinas who was a Bible phrase quoter like no other.
If there is a San Francisco parish enabling gay sin, a Pope should not be writing a book.....but should be "poping".... closing it down if the local authority does not. Five years from now the same crap will be going on at the same place in Cali since the pro choice pols disgrace has been going on since the 1980's with Cuomo's speech and Ferraro's similar actions back then. Since no one "poped" them, there's now over 40 of such pro choice Catholic pols. John Paul was writing books.
Closing the San Francisco parish would be "poping" par excellance and it's not being done because our Popes are writing and involved in too much ceremony scheduling. Peter would have closed that sucker in San Francisco down in a heart beat....because he wasn't theologizing when Ananias made his move. I don't want Popes writing books (Christopher Hitchens is 4 or 5 places ahead of the Pope this week on the NY Times bestseller list). I want them "poping."

Brian Walden (formerly just Brian)

Bill, writing books and "Poping" aren't mutually exclusive. The Pope can do both, and I hope you don't think his book has no or even small value. I'd like see bishops find their spines as much as everyone, but isn't dealing with individual parishes the job of the diocesean bishop. It seems to us like it would be so easy for the Pope to just run in and fix everything on the local level, but I think doing that would would hurt his ability to guide the whole Church. It looks like Benedict is setting up the framework for a long term renewal of the Church by getting back to basics, I'm extremely wary to criticize him for not doing enough at this point.

mt

Benedict not write books? Heaven forbid! His Jesus book is the best I have ever read outside of Scripture; "Truth and Tolerance" blows every book of its type out of the water, not to mention all the nonsense written by cultural anthropologists on the subject; his Creation book should be required reading for all Catholics; his Regensburg speech coupled with all the other things he has written on faith and reason say to me that one day this man will be a Doctor of the Church....

As for Andre's silly questions, Jimmy has a long, long, LONG post that answers everything about Peter and the papacy and everything else that Protestants get so very wrong: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/Why_Be_Catholic.htm

Read that before you drag up the same old tired cliches that have been answered before. These are not teachings "made by men" but by the Holy Spirit.

Still looking for CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL Biblical answers to my "SILLY" questions. Looks like I'll be waiting for a long time because Catholics are unable to prove what they believe in using the Bible only.

bill912

We don't use "the Bible only", because that doctrine is unbiblical.

FACT: there's nothing in the Bible or in the history of the first century christianity that puts Peter as a leader and substitute of Christ. I'd like to see evidence of that.

Your ignorance of Greek is apalling. Christ called Peter cephas which is a little insignificant pebble, and referred to HIMSELF as the ROCK. Moments later Peter was used by the devil and was rebuked by Jesus. The only analogy between Peter and Popes is that they can say a lot of good things about Jesus: "You're the son of God" then turn around and serve the Devil "This will never happen to you Lord!"

Leo

I'm avoiding trollbait. Maybe links to full answers would be appropriate.

Returning to the question of voting.
I too am unsure, although my instinct is for 2/3.

The advantages of 2/3 are collegiality/unity and the reduced risk of abuse, or allegations of abuse, by a cardinal or cardinals. We live in a conspiratoral climate, with higher standards expected of the church. God forbid an antipope crisis.

The possible downsides of 2/3 are protracted elections (without a human leader perhaps in a time of crisis) and 'less able' compromise candidates being elected. But this is what was initially thought of John XXIII...

We have to believe the Holy Spirit is involved in all this somehow, although humans have a responsibility to do our work in this synergy.

For the Record: Ratzinger was so deeply involved in the cover up of the sexual abuse of children (that continues to happen all over the world) that Bush had to grant him immunity from prosecution. That's just the result of another false doctrine, foreign to the Bible that priests can't marry. The urges are so incontrollable that they use innocent children to satisfy themselves. Watch the documentary Deliver Us From Evil and you will know...

bill912

You are continuing to put your ignorance on display. Do you really think that the Church has never had to answer your charges? Read some Catholic documents to find out what the Church actually teaches and why, then, even if you still disagree, you will atleast know what you are talking about. Right now, you are like a man who thinks he knows all about Jews because he read a book about "The History of the Jewish People" written by a Nazi.

How does the infallibility fit here??


CHICAGO SUN TIMES - Lawyers for Pope Benedict XVI have asked President Bush to declare the pontiff immune from liability in a lawsuit that accuses him of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys by a seminarian in Texas, court records show. The Vatican's embassy in Washington sent a diplomatic memo to the State Department on May 20 requesting the U.S. government grant the pope immunity because he is a head of state, according to a May 26 motion submitted by the pope's lawyers in U.S. District Court for the Southern Division of Texas in Houston.

Joseph Ratzinger is named as a defendant in the civil lawsuit. Now Benedict XVI, he's accused of conspiring with the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston to cover up the abuse during the mid-1990s. In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Gerry Keener, said Tuesday that the pope is considered a head of state and automatically has diplomatic immunity.

bill912

I give up on the troll. He is immune to anything that does not conform to his prejudices. I shanll no longer assume his good faith, or try to confuse him with facts.

For the Record: Ratzinger was so deeply involved in the cover up of the sexual abuse of children (that continues to happen all over the world) that Bush had to grant him immunity from prosecution. That's just the result of another false doctrine, foreign to the Bible that priests can't marry. The urges are so incontrollable that they use innocent children to satisfy themselves. Watch the documentary Deliver Us From Evil and you will know...

FACT: there's nothing in the Bible or in the history of the first century christianity that puts Peter as a leader and substitute of Christ. I'd like to see evidence of that.

Your ignorance of Greek is apalling. Christ called Peter cephas which is a little insignificant pebble, and referred to HIMSELF as the ROCK. Moments later Peter was used by the devil and was rebuked by Jesus. The only analogy between Peter and Popes is that they can say a lot of good things about Jesus: "You're the son of God" then turn around and serve the Devil "This will never happen to you Lord!"

bill912

I think the troll is Hobby-Horsing. Time for a warning, perhaps?

Barbara

I think the troll is Hobby-Horsing. Time for a warning, perhaps?

"Off with his head" ~ the Queen of Hearts ;)

JoAnna

Mr. Anonymous Troll:

Please see DA RULZ of Jimmy's blog, item #21:

21. Commenters in the combox are to use either their real name or a (non-offensive, non-spiteful) handle that distinguishes them from others when posting comments. They are not to post comments while leaving the "Name" field blank. It's rude to expect people to interact with you and give them no way to refer to you.

Also, your comments have been rebutted several times by several different posters, so the burden of proof is now on you to offer evidence to the contrary.

SLowboy

a Pope should not be writing a book.....but should be "poping".... closing it down if the local authority does not.

The Pope is NOT a CEO. He is the Father(...adopted, for my troll) of a family. He has Bishops who have near equal athority within their jurisdictions. If he started micromanaging the WORLDWIDE Church he would not have time to breath. Instead he preaches the Gospel to the world -and- the bishops. Sometimes he takes the bishops aside and talks to them. He lacks the athority to fire them because they muffed a parish closing or because, in turn, they are (excessively?) patient with a rouge priest.

mt

One last time, troll: Jimmy has answered ALL you questions, from the "little pebble" to whether the Bible is the only word of God, to knowledge of Greek texts, etc.; at:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/Why_Be_Catholic.htm. You clearly have not read it.

So Joanna is right - the burden of proof has shifted.

As for the utter nonsense about the sex abuse scandal, the suit against Benedict has ZERO to do with facts and EVERYTHING to do with overreaching lawyers. This is an attempt at theft of church property that would put Henry VIII to shame. The facts as reported in the noncatholic press are that there is more abuse among protestant denominations AND in public schools, but no deep, centralized pockets to sue.

As for celibacy - seeing all the abuse in protestant churches and public schools, it is a shame that protestant ministers and schoolteachers cannot marry.....oh, wait.....

bill bannon

Brian and mt
I disagree. If local Bishops are not cleaning up a mess (sex abuse-5 decades/gay parishes-?? years/pro choice pols-over 2 decades), it is the Pope's job to clean it up. We are the only group on earth that seems to think the CEO..the ruler...the top man... has no reponsibility for decades long local disasters even if there is clear evidence that local leaders are doing nothing. No wonder people think we see the Pope as God...we have absolutely no sense of his having any responsibilities for disasters on his watch. Truman said..."the buck stops here"...at the top. We have it stopping at the sleeping bishop level with the Pope as perfectly free to be an author while there are local disasters that he should be doing something about. I'm sorry...that's dysfunctional management. Paul resisted Peter to his face in Galatians and we have no one resisting Peter to his face because we've made a pact to blame bishops for everything with the Pope scot free from needing to do a thing even if bishops fail for decades. The troll is a whack job but there are reasonable Protestants that might well wonder if we have made the Pope a god by never holding him responsible for anything....sex abuse or pro choice pols or gay parishes. Let writers write...scultors sculpt.....and let Popes...pope. Peter only wrote two epistles. Thank God. He knew he should be administrating. John Paul loved the stage during college so what did he do when he became Pope? He traveled 17% of the time to stage after stage while a mess continued to fester and then broke out in the open not the first time it ever did....but once again...with 5 large dioceses going bankrupt. Result....he is called the great.
Mindboggling.

andre

mt your link to the document is bogus, provide reliable sources please... quite typical....

Pat

Andre,
The link is good. I just read it. Also, check out Acts 15 for Peter's position on the gentiles. Sounds like the vicar of Christ here on earth to me.

Jimmy Akin

ANDRE: THIS IS YOUR RULE 1 WARNING.

KEEP IT POLITE OR VAMOOSE.

ANONYMOUS TROLL: THIS IS ALSO YOUR RULE 1 AND RULE 21 WARNING.

GET A NAME AND GET POLITE OR GET LOST.

ANDRE AND ANONYOUS TROLL: THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD IS B16'S NEW MOTU PROPRIO, NOT THE BASIS OF THE PAPACY. STAY ON TOPIC.

andre

I found it Pat, and the arguments are really weak. Is that the best he can do? It's interesting that passage is not quoted by Paul not once. Furthermore, we do not find any reference in the NT to Peter as the head of the Church. This is one the mysteries of the RCC...

You cannot create a credible discussion if all you do high-five each other on the same old, unbiblical arguments and personal opinions. What does the Biblical evidence suggest on Peter as a leader? Nothing. He was a preacher and writer, that's all. Paul confronted him on one occasion. He had the opportunity to subject to Peter but on the contrary, he confronted him with his errors.

Brian Walden

This might help with the link: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/Why_Be_Catholic.htm

SDG

Andre: Did you see our host's notice immediately before your own?

Brian Walden

Andre, Here's a list compiled by Dave Armstrong of New Testament quotes in support of Peter's primacy: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html

Tim Brandenburg

Andre,

Please read the following documents and get back to us:

http://www.catholic.com/library/scripture_tradition.asp

http://www.catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

These will dispell any misconceptions you have about catholic doctrine on the subjects of the Pope, Papal infallibility, apostolic succession, and sola scriptura.

There is no way we can converse in such a limited forum unless you understand true catholic doctrine, not just the propaganda spewed out by hate groups like Jack Chick.

Since you are here, I am assuming you are interested in the Catholic faith. I know the beginning of a Protestant's faith journey to the Catholic Church is difficult (I made it myself, and it took YEARS), so I am praying that your heart will be softened so you can at listen with an open mind.

I also recommend a book by Mark Shea titled "By What Authority - An Evangelical Discovers Catholic Tradition." This is probably your best starting point.

In Christ,
Tim

andre

JIm, I'm not the one adding derogatory adjectives to people in the forum, such as troll, whack, strawman and even homossexual....

Brian Day

andre,

You may find this book helpful in your (re)search: Jesus, Peter and the Keys
Good stuff.

Esau

JIm, I'm not the one adding derogatory adjectives to people in the forum, such as troll, whack, strawman and even homossexual....

Andre,
Did you not even read or comprehend Brian's (rather excellent) explanation on the other thread?

Nobody called you a homosexual -- that was something your own mind constructed on its own.

This also just goes to show the IMPORTANCE OF CONTEXT and how taking quotes OUT OF CONTEXT can distort the truth.

By the way, a 'strawman' is a fallacy, not an insult.

You have operated on several fallacies.

Your arguments rest on a caricature of Catholicism; not what Catholicism is really all about!

Anybody can defeat a weakened, distorted version of their opponent's arguments/beliefs; this just goes to show just how desparate and weak the one relying on such distortions really is!

Ann Margaret Lewis

No, Andrew, you're just trolling. Which is an offense here. Please stop.

Esau

When I mentioned Brian in my post above, I meant Brian Walden, NOT Brian Day (no offense, Mr. Day).

Victor Hartanto

I can't wait for The Motu Proprio y'all have been waiting for, but this one is also GREAT! At least the dissidents and "reformers" would have to think harder to try and crack the Faith =D

Concerning the poster who 'represents' non-Catholic Christians 'all over the world', I would just have a quote to give

"To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible", I believe its by St. Thomas Aquinas

I used to be quite an anti-Catholicism protestant before I started studying protestant reformation and finding out how screwed it really was, now I'm a happy Catholic ;)

Silas

Gah! That troll has ruined what could've been a fascinating discussion about papal elections. Can we please ban him, wipe out all off-topic comments, and get back to discussing the MP? Or if that's too draconian, could someone please start a new thread just for real motu proprio discussions (which, if hijacked, carries the penalty of banning and/or legal action)?

bill912

I'm with Silas.

Esau

Gah! That troll has ruined what could've been a fascinating discussion about papal elections. Can we please ban him, wipe out all off-topic comments, and get back to discussing the MP? Or if that's too draconian, could someone please start a new thread just for real motu proprio discussions (which, if hijacked, carries the penalty of banning and/or legal action)?


Yes, I agree.

Can we please wipe out those troll comments?

To leave them out there without providing an answer might make an uninformed visitor think that there is actually some truth in what these trolls are saying, when really, people here are just avoiding further engaging in something off-topic.

Brian Walden

A little more on track... Given today's times relativistic and anti-religious times, does the return to the 2/3 majority increase or decrease the chances of electing the right type of pope to lead the Church (feel free to define what the right type of pope for these times is)?

paul zummo

Yeah, so how about that Motu Proprio?

I forget which blog brought this up - myabe it was the Curt Jester - but it's possible that Benedict himself would not have been elected had the 2/3 rule been place, the reason being that once Cardinals realized he would get a majority, they simply voted for him just so there would be some sense of collegiality. But had the 2/3 rule been in place for the whole time, then those who opposed him would have stood their ground.

What say you?

Esau

increase or decrease the chances of electing the right type of pope to lead the Church

That depends --

Do you believe that selection of a Pope is led by the Holy Spirit or not?

I believe that JP II was the right man to lead the Church during the time he reigned as Pope.

Likewise, I believe B16 is the right man to lead the Church during our time.

Personally, I believe the Holy Spirit is wise in His choices.

Brian Walden

Personally, I believe the Holy Spirit is wise in His choices.

Esau, along those lines and Paul's comments I was wondering if the Holy Spirit moved JPII to change the rule to open the door for Benedict and now has moved Benedict to change it back for the election of the next pope (which hopefully won't be for a long time).

But, for the sake of discussion. Everyone has what they think is the right prototype for pope. I was just wondering how people thought the rule change would affect their man's chances of getting the seat.

Esau

Brian,

The rule change was perhaps one that is necessary in order to prepare the election of the man who will succeed B16 as led by the Holy Spirit.

Although, like you, I hope B16 reigns for a greater period of time -- God willing.

May God give him the strength and the health.

Inocencio

Catholic World News has the following story.
Motu proprio coming July 7

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Eric

That innovation was introduced, no doubt, because of concerns John Paul II had about the amount of polarization in the Church and the difficulties this might conceivably create in getting to the required supermajority.

I think we should be cautious in assuming the reasons for the decisions of either John Paul or Benedict. John Paul Never gave a reason for the simple majority provision. All we know is that John Paul thought it would be a good idea and hat Benedict -- PERHAPS due to his experience in the last conclave -- feels it does not work out as intended.

One other point in regard to the working of the Holy Spirit in the conclave. We most certainly believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in the conclave. That does not mean, however, that the one elected is chosen by God. The Holy Spirit most likely does not have a single candidate in mind. It is entirely likely that the will of God could have been satisfied by the cardinals selecting one of any number of candidates. The election of a pope is not a miracle.

There have been bad popes elected in the past, when the cardinals chose not to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit. The holy Spirit was at work, but was not listened to. Now before you get all worked up, I am NOT saying this about Benedict. I am sure the Holy Spirit is just fine with him.

Esau

There have been bad popes elected in the past, when the cardinals chose not to follow the promptings of the Holy Spirit. The holy Spirit was at work, but was not listened to.


Eric,
EXCELLENT explanation on this matter!

JoAnna

I will cheer loudly if the Latin Mass Motu Proprio comes out on 07-07-07 (which, incidentally, is also the 7th anniversary of my first date with my husband!).

paul zummo

That MP date is also the date of my Goddaughter's baptism. Neat.

Inocencio

It is also the feast of Pope Blessed Benedict XI at least at Rome and in the Dominican Order.

Sure hope the story is accurate. I cannot wait to read the document.

Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J

Brian Day

Esau,

Hey, no problem. I hope Mr. Walden is not insulted by the confusion. :)

Brian Walden

Not at all. I started using my last name to help avoid confusion. I'm not the only Brian here.

http://catholicismrevealed.blogspot.com/

Matthew Kelley

http://www.kath.net/detail.php?id=17154

thought you may be interested in this....

John

Well at least this is one reversal of JPII's papacy that B16 has made, and I dont agree with Jimmy's statment defending the reason for JPII's changing of the centuries old rule as simply as being:

"That innovation was introduced, no doubt, because of concerns John Paul II had about the amount of polarization in the Church and the difficulties this might conceivably create in getting to the required supermajority.

But B16 apparently feels that getting the buy-in of more than half of the cardinals is more important. "

Sorry Jimmy-I dont think JPII was thinking of polarization within the church, he just wanted to change everything from day one when he himself was elected, he himself refused to go along with many of the centuries old traditions which are well documented

If the Cardinals cant come to a 66% majority on who should be the next Pope, then is there really infallibility and the holy spirit behind this election, and what does this say about the other 49% of the cardinals (as JPII changed the election to a simple majority) who did not vote for the elected Pope. Was the holy spirit not within them????

Just my simple thoughts, thank you B16. Now when are you going to get to the Mass?

John

As reported on CNA, the Moto Proprio we all have been waiting for due on July 7th

Way to go B16!


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=9745

Brian Day

"http://catholicismrevealed.blogspot.com/" is andre's blog.

Lauren

Can't Jimmy just delete those posts? They are completely off topic & irrational. Plus they don't follow Da Rulz :)

By the way, courtesy of the Papa Ratzinger Forum:

Andrea Tornielli in Il Giornale-

"The document passed almost in secret, but it raised a lot of criticism. The author of the text was the canonist Pompedda, who died a few months ago. The document that he wrote for John Paul also increased the role of the Deputy Secretary of State and the pontifical ceremonial master in the Conclave proceedings.

The cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the CDF, was not too pleased either. The document had been written and published without his office being notified.

During the consistory in 2001, many cardinals raised the question and requested for a change. Above all, the German-speaking cardinals (with Ratzinger among them) and some Latin Americans. But they were told by the Pope and his secretary of state that they could not change something after only 5 years."

FRBP

I just have to comment on the the papacy bashing from anon and andre because it made me laugh in one post. Anon castigates us for our utter lack of understanding of greek and then gives us the example of Cephas. Hey Anon...Cephas is a aramiac word! I assume you mean the petros/petra (which is Greek)argument which is handily dismissed in that petros (pebble) and petra (rock) have gender as do most foriegn languages. Petra is feminine, and if one was to use the word to nickname a man, it would have to be masculinized. However, cephas, in aramiac is 'rock', not pebble. Just FYI. Please do not lecture on languauge and knowledge of foriegn languages and procede to show an profound lack on any knowledge. PLease find womething more profound that Jack Chick for your argumentations. Although the irony was funny.

On the topic at hand, I have heard from friends in Rome that this MP was to keep compromise candidates from being drawn up. Either way, though, I would assume the Holy Spirit would get His way.

A Simple Sinner

"On the topic at hand, I have heard from friends in Rome that this MP was to keep compromise candidates from being drawn up. Either way, though, I would assume the Holy Spirit would get His way."

Certainly the Spirit will get His way. Perhaps this is more about those that participate in the process than he would will be next selected.

Well what do I mean? I am no Vatican wag, but rumours abound about highly placed Vatican leaders (mostly cardinals) who seem to be, well, dragging their feet a little on issues of importance to B16. JUST SPECULATION, but perhaps this experience has infuenced B16 to see to it that after the next conclave, the cardinals have been moved to be more fully supportive of the next Pontiff from the "git-go".

Or think of the conclave as the time they get to better warm up to whom the Spirit chooses through them.

I fully believe that had this system been in place when JP2 reposed in the Lord, we would have gotten the same result - but perhaps the Cardinals would have been better able and suited to grasp what they were truly instruments of.

The comments to this entry are closed.

January 2012

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31