Papal candidates - Short List?

[Exordium1003]

I admit, if it’s going to be a non-European, my private hope is Cardinal O’Malley.

I think having a Pope from a religious order would be a plus.

I’m with you on this one. He seems to have a clean slate.

 

[BillyT926]

Yep, not too many are longing for the days of the Borgias!

Lisa

Or Benedict IX!

 

[Exordium1003]

Yep, not too many are longing for the days of the Borgias!

Lisa

Not those of us who get Showtime.

 

[Marie5890]

A break down of the various papalibi. (sp?)
I know some people will be turn off by John Allan based on his working for the National Catholic Reporter. Getting past that bias, the man does know the Vatican and many of the people within. He knows many of these people

He does a very well balanced breakdown of these men.

youtube.com/watch?v=11w-VkEIq4w

 

[PJD1987]

A break down of the various papalibi. (sp?)
I know some people will be turn off by John Allan based on his working for the National Catholic Reporter. Getting past that bias, the man does know the Vatican and many of the people within. He knows many of these people

He does a very well balanced breakdown of these men.

youtube.com/watch?v=11w-VkEIq4w

Mr. Allen is the only one I read from the fishwrap. I agree, he is very knowledgable.

 

[LisaA]

A break down of the various papalibi. (sp?)
I know some people will be turn off by John Allan based on his working for the National Catholic Reporter. Getting past that bias, the man does know the Vatican and many of the people within. He knows many of these people

He does a very well balanced breakdown of these men.

youtube.com/watch?v=11w-VkEIq4w

Thank you so much. I’ve seen bits and pieces but it was good to have the various candidates profiled. Maybe it will not be any of the group but certainly it is interesting to learn more about the Cardinals. I went away with much better feelings about Cardinal Tagle who had made a very negative impression on me after watching one of his videos. Also confirmed my appreciation for Cardinal Timothy Dolan. Whether or not he is even in the running, I see him as such a great evangelizer, so in love with the Church that this love is infectious. We may need him more here in America than in Rome!

The more I hear, the more I realize the worldwide Church has so many different and diverse needs. Catholics in places like Nigeria or Egypt are being killed, the Church is being “out evangelized” in places where it once had a stronghold, secularism is pushing back in America and Europe particularly, the Vatican itself seems to have troubles in management, the abuse scandal never seems to go away. No wonder they call the room where they are fitted with the papal garments the room of tears.

Prayers for all of them as they go into the Conclave.

Lisa

 

[Marie5890]

The more I hear, the more I realize the worldwide Church has so many different and diverse needs. Catholics in places like Nigeria or Egypt are being killed, the Church is being “out evangelized” in places where it once had a stronghold, secularism is pushing back in America and Europe particularly, the Vatican itself seems to have troubles in management, the abuse scandal never seems to go away. No wonder they call the room where they are fitted with the papal garments the room of tears.

Prayers for all of them as they go into the Conclave.

Lisa

Lisa, that was my impression, too. Soo diverse, so many really hard core needs. SO global.

Lots of prayers for the Cardinal Electors, indeed.

 

[_Abyssinia]

A conclave cardinal’s life by the clock

Here is a translation of the College of Cardinals’ daily schedule for the conclave. All times are Central European Time with Eastern Daylight Time in parentheses.

March 12:

3:45 p.m. (10:45 a.m.) — Transfer from the Domus Sanctae Marthae to the Apostolic Palace.
4:30 p.m. (11:30 a.m.) — Procession from the Pauline Chapel to the Sistine Chapel.
4:45 p.m. (11:45 a.m.) — Oaths, meditation by Cardinal Prosper Grech, first ballot.
7:15 p.m. (2:15 p.m.) — Vespers in the Sistine Chapel.
7:30 p.m. (2:30 p.m.) — Transfer to the Domus Sanctae Marthae.
8 p.m. (3 p.m.) — Dinner.

March 13-15 or until election of a pope:

6:30-7:30 a.m. (1:30-2:30 a.m.) — Breakfast.
7:45 a.m. (2:45 a.m.) — Transfer to the Pauline Chapel.
8:15 a.m.-9:15 a.m. (3:15 a.m.-4:15 a.m.) — Mass in the Pauline Chapel.
9:30 a.m. (4:30 a.m.) — Prayer and two rounds of voting.
12:30 (7:30) — Transfer to the Domus Sanctae Marthae.
1 p.m. (8 a.m.) — Lunch.
4 p.m. (11 a.m.) — Transfer to the Apostolic Palace.
4:50 p.m. (11:50 a.m.) — Two more rounds of voting.
7:15 p.m. (2:15 p.m.) — Vespers in the Sistine Chapel.
7:30 p.m. (2:30 p.m.) — Transfer to the Domus Sanctae Marthae.
8 p.m. (3 p.m.) — Dinner.

 

[_Abyssinia]

A conclave cardinal’s life by the clock

Here is a translation of the College of Cardinals’ daily schedule for the conclave. All times are Central European Time with Eastern Daylight Time in parentheses.

March 12:

3:45 p.m. (10:45 a.m.) — Transfer from the Domus Sanctae Marthae to the Apostolic Palace.
4:30 p.m. (11:30 a.m.) — Procession from the Pauline Chapel to the Sistine Chapel.
4:45 p.m. (11:45 a.m.) — Oaths, meditation by Cardinal Prosper Grech, first ballot.
7:15 p.m. (2:15 p.m.) — Vespers in the Sistine Chapel.
7:30 p.m. (2:30 p.m.) — Transfer to the Domus Sanctae Marthae.
8 p.m. (3 p.m.) — Dinner.

March 13-15 or until election of a pope:

6:30-7:30 a.m. (1:30-2:30 a.m.) — Breakfast.
7:45 a.m. (2:45 a.m.) — Transfer to the Pauline Chapel.
8:15 a.m.-9:15 a.m. (3:15 a.m.-4:15 a.m.) — Mass in the Pauline Chapel.
9:30 a.m. (4:30 a.m.) — Prayer and two rounds of voting.
12:30 (7:30) — Transfer to the Domus Sanctae Marthae.
1 p.m. (8 a.m.) — Lunch.
4 p.m. (11 a.m.) — Transfer to the Apostolic Palace.
4:50 p.m. (11:50 a.m.) — Two more rounds of voting.
7:15 p.m. (2:15 p.m.) — Vespers in the Sistine Chapel.
7:30 p.m. (2:30 p.m.) — Transfer to the Domus Sanctae Marthae.
8 p.m. (3 p.m.) — Dinner.

 

[Marie5890]

A conclave cardinal’s life by the clock

Thanks. That is very helpful, Abyssinia.

 

[_Abyssinia]

What a pope can and cannot do: Doctrine limits new pope on changes

 

[kelvinf]

What a pope can and cannot do: Doctrine limits new pope on changes

I think there are a good number of things in that article that one could dispute especially as regards infallible teachings.

 

[Lucky7]

I think there are a good number of things in that article that one could dispute especially as regards infallible teachings.

Yeah, somethign about that article doesn’t sound accurate (and probably part of the reason why some Catholics still think teachings on things like female ordination, homosexuality, and contraception will change). Maybe someone else can refute it in more detail.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I think there are a good number of things in that article that one could dispute especially as regards infallible teachings.

I did not read the whole article before posting. It is put forward that teaching on contraception and women to the priesthood can change, but there is a lot of evidence of proof that that the ban on women from the priesthood and ban on contraception is infalliable and therefore could not be changed by any Pope

Many regard Humane Vitae as fitting the criteria for infallibility

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

socrates58.blogspot.co.uk/2007/12/1968-papal-encyclical-humanae-vitae.html

The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable

Pontifical Council for the Family, Vademecum for Confessors, Section 2, n 4

The Church’s Condemnation of Contraception Is Unchangeable and Infallible

Liberal Catholics argue that the Church should change its position on contraception. This is not possible. As Bishop Glennon P. Flavin, then bishop of Lincoln, Nebraska, explained in his pastoral letter In Obedience to Christ: A Pastoral Letter to Catholic Couples and Physicians on the Issue of Contraception,

The ban on contraception is not a disciplinary law of the Church, like abstinence of Friday, which the Church can enact and which the Church can dispense for good reasons. Rather, it is a divine law which the Church cannot change any more than it can change the law of God forbidding murder…. Because contraception is intrinsically evil, it may never be practiced for any reason.23

This teaching of the Church condemning contraception is infallible through the ordinary pontifical Magisterium of the Church, that is to say, the common and constant teaching of the Popes.24

Had the Church taught a false doctrine over the centuries, She would not be infallible. Neither would She be an adequate instrument for salvation, since She would have led the faithful to sin, to the non-observance of the natural and revealed moral law.25

As for the condemnation of contraception by Pope Paul VI in the Encyclical Humanae Vitae (1968), some theologians state that it is infallible not only by the continuity of the ordinary Magisterium but also by papal infallibility itself.26

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=6719

Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith released a statement on November 18th 1995 regarding on the ban on women from priesthood

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: Affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html

My emphases

 

[Brendan_64]

Yeah, somethign about that article doesn’t sound accurate (and probably part of the reason why some Catholics still think teachings on things like female ordination, homosexuality, and contraception will change). Maybe someone else can refute it in more detail.

The Church’s teachings on female ordination will not change. It cannot. Pope John Paul II made that clear.

As for homosexuality, the Church has no issue with homosexuals. The issue is to do with sexual acts outside of marriage, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual acts. The nature of marriage and it’s purpose means that the Church cannot accept homosexual marriage as that relationship cannot be open to the procreation of life. The Church, quite rightly, supports Civil Partnerships for homosexual couples as a means of protecting them from discrimination, financially, legal arrangements etc. The Church however cannot condone sexual relationships (of any sort) outside marriage. The Church has no more issue with homosexual couples than it does with heterosexual couples living together outside of marriage.

The Church’s teaching on contraception is also extremely unlikely to change (although not technically impossible).

The Church however is NOT going to liberalise simply because certain Catholics (mainly those who live in the West) would like it to change so that they can feel better about the secular values that they have adopted. It is also worth noting that Catholics in the West make up a minority of the Church.

The Church should not adapt itself to make its teachings closer to the values of the secular society that seeks to destroy the Church. The Church should (and will) stand firm on these issues.

The only thing I can see that might change is Church’s insistence on celibate priests. Personally I think this would be a good thing, but that’s another issue. However celibate priests does not form part of the doctrine of our Church (this issue is not about faith and morals, but is a discipline that could be changed at the stroke of a pen if the Pope wished it).

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Church’s teachings on female ordination will not change. It cannot. Pope John Paul II made that clear.

As for homosexuality, the Church has no issue with homosexuals. The issue is to do with sexual acts outside of marriage, whether they be homosexual or heterosexual acts. The nature of marriage and it’s purpose means that the Church cannot accept homosexual marriage as that relationship cannot be open to the procreation of life. The Church, quite rightly, supports Civil Partnerships for homosexual couples as a means of protecting them from discrimination, financially, legal arrangements etc. The Church however cannot condone sexual relationships (of any sort) outside marriage. The Church has no more issue with homosexual couples than it does with heterosexual couples living together outside of marriage.

The Church’s teaching on contraception is also extremely unlikely to change (although not technically impossible).

The Church however is NOT going to liberalise simply because certain Catholics (mainly those who live in the West) would like it to change so that they can feel better about the secular values that they have adopted. It is also worth noting that Catholics in the West make up a minority of the Church.

The Church should not adapt itself to make its teachings closer to the values of the secular society that seeks to destroy the Church. The Church should (and will) stand firm on these issues.

The only thing I can see that might change is Church’s insistence on celibate priests. Personally I think this would be a good thing, but that’s another issue. However celibate priests does not form part of the doctrine of our Church (this issue is not about faith and morals, but is a discipline that could be changed at the stroke of a pen if the Pope wished it).

It is technically impossible to change the teaching on contraception if the teaching is infalliable which there is evidence that it is

 

[kelvinf]

I did not read the whole article before posting. It is put forward that teaching on contraception and women to the priesthood can change, but there is a lot of evidence of proof that that the ban on women from the priesthood and ban on contraception is infalliable and therefore could not be changed by any Pope

I was 99.9% sure that you didn’t read the article you posted. Your views on these issues are more than clear. So the only reason I thought of why you posted the article was because you didn’t read it (till the end.)

 

[Brendan_64]

It is technically impossible to change the teaching on contraception if the teaching is infalliable which there is evidence that it is

Is there. I thought that the Vatican II Commission on Contraception recommended a change to the Church’s position on this, but the Pope decided against it. That would suggest to me that it is not an infallible teaching. Why set up a Commission to look at this issue and give it the power to recommend a change to this teaching if this teaching was actually infallible and couldn’t be changed?

 

[kelvinf]

Is there. I thought that the Vatican II Commission on Contraception recommended a change to the Church’s position on this, but the Pope decided against it. That would suggest to me that it is not an infallible teaching. Why set up a Commission to look at this issue and give it the power to recommend a change to this teaching if this teaching was actually infallible and couldn’t be changed?

Setting up a commission that can make a recommendation does not necessarily mean agreeing with the recommendation.

Maybe their recommendation was what led the pope to take a stand on the issue and to bury the issue.

 

[ProVobis]

Is there. I thought that the Vatican II Commission on Contraception recommended a change to the Church’s position on this, but the Pope decided against it. That would suggest to me that it is not an infallible teaching. Why set up a Commission to look at this issue and give it the power to recommend a change to this teaching if this teaching was actually infallible and couldn’t be changed?

As Paul VI assembled a team of moral theologians to examine and re-examine the matter, I was thinking the same thing. And the majority of them agreed that ABC was not immoral, or something to that effect. This doesn’t seem to be the standard cut-and-dried infallibility case.