Papal candidates - Short List?

[Vouthon]

BTW If you don’t believe in Divine Impassibility, then I have no issue with that Seriously, I can live with it

I don’t think we should derail this thread any longer or it might be closed.

I would encourage you though to post a thread on another relevant section of CAF, if you want to debate this further, and hopefully a theologian or at least one much more informed than me in this area of theology will weigh in.

I too would be happy to debate this issue on a thread solely about impassibility.

 

[BroomWagon]

I knew this passage would be used

I doubt that Augustine and Thomas Aquinas made “jumps in logic” by believing in divine impassibility, although I will accept any criticism directed towards myself and Salza as valid, not them however.

Immutability means that God is unchanging in His nature, knowledge, and existence. Emotions are mutable, changeable states. Ergo, its logically implausible.

Now you make projections. Your nature as a human being is unchangeable and immutable in that. That does not mean you can not have emotions. Very shallow.

That passage is clearly to be understood metaphorically,

So it doesn’t mean what it says??

that is how the Fathers and the scholastics understood passages denoting mood or change in God. They are for the benefit because God is infinite and incomprehensible, whereas we are finite. Genesis 6:6 shares much linguistic similarity to similar creation myth genres of the era in which a divine being creates human beings and then regrets that decision. Consider even the Greek myth of Pandora’s box, and various Near East parrallels such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. Genre is very important to take into consideration when interpreting scripture. Divine truth has been expressed in this example through a common, stock, frame narrative often used in that locality and time period by contemporary authors.

The bible itself tells us that God does not change his mind like that Genesis passage relates:

The very fact that you have taken such a passage that lends emotion to God and which if interpreted literally would conflict with other clear passages of the Bible such as the above, is significant IMHO.

Where is the dogma or doctrine of the Catholic Church defines immutable and unchanging nature to mean that nature does not have emotions? I don’t think it can be found. These are projections you are making, you are making interpretations.

Where does St. Thomas Aquinas state an unchanging nature means having no emotions?

Not in his summa theologica: sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum012.htm It’s not there.

So what you are doing is saying Immutable means lack of emotions. My nature as a man while living does not change, that does not mean there are aspects of me that can not change such as emotions.

Yes, we agree, God is unchanging. However that does mean God does not have emotion.

 

[Vouthon]

Broom,

Here is an answer to the question of whether God has “emotions” from a CAF apologist:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=569789&highlight=god+emotion

Properly speaking, God does not have “emotions.” Emotions are changeable and God does not change. Those passages of Scripture that attribute human emotions to God are attempting to help us better understand the mystery of God through anthropomorphism. However, once God the Son incarnated as the man Christ Jesus and assumed to himself a human nature, God the Son was capable as man of having and feeling emotion

I encourage you to “ask an apologist” a similar question, if you feel the need. That resource is provided by CAF in the relevant part of the forum.

I will debate it in more depth, including the points you raise above, if you create another thread. It is off-topic in this particular one.

In fact you might want to contact Michelle Arnold herself, the apologist above. She would be able to explain to you in more detail about divine impassibility, I am sure.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Catholic Church can’t change

Sorry to be a wet blanket, but the Catholic Church is not going to change its teaching on any of the fun stuff (contraception, female “ordination,” homosexuality, abortion, etc.) with the next pope.

Nor will it ever.

When news of the pope’s retirement broke, Nicholas Kristof pondered on Twitter: “At some point, the church will accept contraception and female and non-celibate priests. Could it be in the next papacy?” Countless groups issued press releases clamoring for a “progressive” pope. The Rainbow Sash Movement called for the next pope to stop emphasizing “purity.” The Women’s Ordination Conference announced it would hold vigils and raise pink smoke to raise awareness of the need for “female priests.” I can’t wait to see what Maureen Dowd will say.

So while most Catholics worldwide heard the news of the pope stepping down and gave him a giant, global air-hug, a few dissenting groups used the news to get attention by banging their pans and loudly rejecting church teaching and disrespecting the head of their faith. It was unkind.

Mr. Kristof and friends are wringing their hands about what we call “irreformable, infallible moral teachings of the ordinary magisterium.”

He might want to look that up.

In layman’s terms: What the church’s critics, especially those now giddily wondering if Pope Benedict’s successor will shake things up, just don’t seem to understand, is that church teachings on these issues are unchangeable.

Even if we entertain the human possibility of a rogue pope, the reality is such a thing is currently sociologically impossible. About half of the current College of Cardinals (the men who will select the next pope) were appointed by Blessed Pope John Paul II. The other half were put there by Pope Benedict XVI. As you can imagine, they are all orthodox, or faithful to church teaching. On everything.

While most editorial pages have spent the last eight years harping on Catholic social teaching and running hit pieces on bishops and the pope, Benedict has been filling the ranks with shepherds who will continue the church’s 2,000-plus year tradition of holding firm on the most important social issues.

And not only will the church remain orthodox with Pope Benedict’s successor, it should.

Our call to live counter-culturally is as old as the church itself. We believe in a God who lived among us, died for us, and showed us the way to live lives of courage and conviction–whatever our culture. Catholics are called, yes, to engage with the society around them, but not to adapt ourselves to the popular sentiments of our time. Instead, Catholics are called to live in radical service to our God. This includes loving our neighbor as ourselves. This also includes letting go of pleasure as the path to happiness (spoiler: it’s not). There’s nothing modern --or moderate --about that.

And besides, a quick scan of the world shows: suffering, suffering, and more suffering. Men using women for sex and leaving them to hold the bag. Children without fathers. Mothers killing their babies. The definition of marriage sold to the highest, or most aggressive, bidder.

Many are already rushing to exclaim, “Maybe we will get a pope who will respect women’s rights!”

We have a pope who respects women’s rights. A woman’s right to be born, despite a world that values women less than men. A woman’s right to preserve fertility equality with men as a part of the sexual experience. A woman’s right to be respected for the socially cheapened roles of mother and wife.

Thankfully, the next pope will defend these women’s rights as well.

The Catholic Church has an Old Man River thing going on. She just keeps rolling, she keeps on rolling along. You can stand on the shores. Or jump in. It’s your choice. But she’s not changing course. Thank God.

 

[Tampa_Dave]

I hope the conclave stays the course with the next pontiff. Another John Paul II or Benedict XVI would be nice.

 

[The_Scott]

I hope the conclave stays the course with the next pontiff. Another John Paul II or Benedict XVI would be nice.

Who would fit that profile?

 

[Exordium1003]

I really think Dolan has zero chance. I like him a lot, but the Church would catch flak from the rest of the world. A Pope from a super power. Nope. Face, the U.S. doesn’t have a really warm and fuzzy reputation. It would be a political hot potatoe from a secular standpoint.

That’s what I have been reading all over, but I really don’t get why a pope from a super power would be a big deal. Can someone help me understand this.
Sorry in advance if it has already been explained.

 

[BroomWagon]

Broom,

Here is an answer to the question of whether God has “emotions” from a CAF apologist:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=569789&highlight=god+emotion

I encourage you to “ask an apologist” a similar question, if you feel the need. That resource is provided by CAF in the relevant part of the forum.

I will debate it in more depth, including the points you raise above, if you create another thread. It is off-topic in this particular one.

In fact you might want to contact Michelle Arnold herself, the apologist above. She would be able to explain to you in more detail about divine impassibility, I am sure.

That’s okay, I feel confident no official dogma says this and if certain church documents can show this exactly, that would be satisfactory. I have it on good word, the crux of the argument to say God has no emotions is saying unchangeable means no emotions but that is a word game and human thinking. Dr. Lee at Franciscan University does not have the same argument nor answer as this Michelle Arnold which may be like John Salza’s, so this line of thought may well be something that is repeated from elsewhere and that is fine, that is what Apologetics is…

 

[BroomWagon]

BTW If you don’t believe in Divine Impassibility, then I have no issue with that Seriously, I can live with it

I don’t think we should derail this thread any longer or it might be closed.

I would encourage you though to post a thread on another relevant section of CAF, if you want to debate this further, and hopefully a theologian or at least one much more informed than me in this area of theology will weigh in.

I too would be happy to debate this issue on a thread solely about impassibility.

Yes, I will look at a thread in this, some already exist. Still, I found this bit:

Aquinas believes that it is not in the nature (the properties) of God to sympathize with the experience of pain and suffering in the same way that we do. By this I mean that God’s impassible nature is such that there is no existence of passions (desires) that a human would have.** I still contend** (and I’d like you to provide proof against this view from the Summa Theologica or Summa Contra Gentiles if you disagree) that Aquinas believed God has emotions (not passions) such as joy and love.

• saintaquinas.com/sorrow.html

A whole dedicated website.

 

[Dale_M]

That’s what I have been reading all over, but I really don’t get why a pope from a super power would be a big deal. Can someone help me understand this.

John Allen was interviewed by the author of a book which was published in 2004, which would have been while Pope John Paul II was still in office. Allen had this to say:

But the reality is that the Vatican prizes its diplomatic independence far too much to elect a superpower pope. You elect an American pope and the next day the world newspapers will immediately begin speculating that this guy is scripted by the CIA and the State Department! So I’m confident that this is not going to happen.

books.google.com/books?id=xHa03ikAEdQC&pg=PA283&lpg=PA283&dq=%22superpower+pope%22&source=bl&ots=C72oLX_GiI&sig=1cL_kdGqVaeuoUXQF4Hf0tfwi3o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f10cUercDeq3ygGFpoCABg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBzge#v=onepage&q=%22superpower%20pope%22&f=false

Allen notes that the American cardinals, as a group, are very influential because the Vatican realizes the importance of the American Catholic Church. If the American cardinals collectively rejected a certain candidate for pope, that would probably doom that person’s chances because the pope has to be able to work with the Americans.

On the other hand, Allen notes, if the American cardinals were to collectively back a certain candidate, that would probably end that person’s chances, too. Because no one wants to be be pushed around by America.

What I read, during the last papal conclave, is that there is simply a sense among the cardinals that America already has too much power in the world.

 

[BroomWagon]

John Allen was interviewed by the author of a book which was published in 2004, which would have been while Pope John Paul II was still in office. Allen had this to say:

books.google.com/books?id=xHa03ikAEdQC&pg=PA283&lpg=PA283&dq=%22superpower+pope%22&source=bl&ots=C72oLX_GiI&sig=1cL_kdGqVaeuoUXQF4Hf0tfwi3o&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f10cUercDeq3ygGFpoCABg&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBzge#v=onepage&q=%22superpower%20pope%22&f=false

Allen notes that the American cardinals, as a group, are very influential because the Vatican realizes the importance of the American Catholic Church. If the American cardinals collectively rejected a certain candidate for pope, that would probably doom that person’s chances because the pope has to be able to work with the Americans.

On the other hand, Allen notes, if the American cardinals were to collectively back a certain candidate, that would probably end that person’s chances, too. Because no one wants to be be pushed around by America.

What I read, during the last papal conclave, is that there is simply a sense among the cardinals that America already has too much power in the world.

With respect to all too, for me there has been to much turmoil in the Church in the USA too, it’s not just America being a super power… but what do I know? One of the favorites is up in Canada. He is Canadian, sounds to me like he might be French Canadian however, Cardinal Ouellet.

 

[JMJSHJ]

I’m as guilty as the next person speculating who the next Pope will be or should be or would like to be but I wonder if this conclave will test our faith with a radical?

Possible choices:

Cardinal O’Mally. For the reason of giving Ted Kennedy a public Catholic funeral. I know some people here would have a problem with that because of that event. Would you be loyal to a Pope O’Malley.

Cardinal Mahony. No explanation necessary in light of recent events.

Cardinal Schönborn - A few years ago he publicly supported Medjugorje. I don’t know if he ever recanted.

Cardinal Burke. I list him for Obama Catholics because, rest assured when he becomes Pope there will be no USCCB document that they can use to justify voting for Hilary Clinton if and when she runs in 2016 or whoever the Democrats run in 2016.

 

[Elizabeth502]

That’s what I have been reading all over, but I really don’t get why a pope from a super power would be a big deal. Can someone help me understand this.
Sorry in advance if it has already been explained.

I don’t think it has. (Maybe it has ) But I think the best explanation was on today’s Women of Grace (EWTN Radio) show. I forget his name, but he was Johnette’s guest, and he knows a ton of cardinals, though he is a lay person, I think, and is very much acquainted with the papacy and thinking in the papacy. He said that the U.S. is considered THE geo-political power (yes, we know that ), and that the Vatican insiders want the papacy not to be an extension of that power but to represent something different from that, something apolitical preferably. (Makes sense.)

This guest’s own short list was fascinating. Two of them I am really excited about. (One of those I had already read about, but not the way the guest described him.) That latter one is Ravisi, who apparently is absolutely fired up about “boring” (quoting him) preaching in the United States, by priests. He wants them all re-educated into preaching so that the faithful can exit the Mass charged up. He says that evangelization will absolutely not succeed without that, and that American Catholics will not return to the fold without that.

I love this man – not only because I love great homilies, but because I agree with him 150% that American Catholicism is hemorrhaging and is headed for the Emergency Room, where it should be right now. Now, I personally can’t complain about homilies because I tend to be very grateful about the effort priests put into them, in my region (for the most part). It’s hard to prepare them well. I do notice, however, that my gratitude for what I consider acceptable homilies does not seem to be widely shared.

I don’t know that I agree that the situation with American Catholicism is all about homilies, but I give credit to this man for noticing what is going on here, actually being concerned about it (wow), and being concerned enough to address it. I’m tired of the attitude I see in so many in this country, which is equivalent to giving up on American Catholics. I don’t find that charitable or constructive.

I’m also very thrilled about the idea of Marc Ouellet, whom I learned more about, and who knows bishops well. I think outreach to bishops is going to very key for the success of any new pope.

Try to download the program. It was really good.

 

[Stpaulscdj]

Michael Jackson

 

[Elizabeth502]

My bad, folks. I meant Ravasi, not Ravisi.

 

[Vouthon]

TBH I think that Cardinal Angelo Scola stands a good chance of being elected if (and if I recall this aright) the 28 strong bloc of Italian voters manage to unite around him at the conclave. He is archbishop of Milan, a very important see. Pope Paul VI came from that see and Scola has always stuck me as close to Pope Benedict XVI in theology, as well as having his blessing. He received the palium, remember?

Scola also is a kind of expert on Christian-Muslim relations which might be considered significant.

I think the Italians will still be highly decisive at the conclave. I read that they might find it hard to overcome divisions. If they do unite behind their man, then the American cardinals will probably be sympathetic and follow suit.

However if they fail to do so - say if some go with Ravasi and others Scola - then I think there is a good chance of a non-Italian being elected.

The only thing that might count against Scola is his age. Although 71 is by no means old in terms of papal elections, because Pope Benedict XVI is resigning on the basis of old age-related problems, I have the feeling that the cardinals will go for a much more vigrous, younger man. Therefore I think that candidates in their sixties stand the best chance. Tagle at 55 might be considered too young, and he has only been a cardinal for a few months, although stranger things have happened. John Paul II was fifty-eight after all and the new retirement precedent set by the current Pontiff has opened up the window for future popes to resign, which might make the cardinals more confident in voting for a younger candidate in the knowledge that it may not be a thirty year pontificate or such

My personal problem with Scola is that I feel he lacks charisma and charm. I don’t doubt his intellectual acumen but I’m not convinced that we don’t need a younger more people friendly figure (albeit one that is also conservative - Tagle fits the bill perfectly, I just fear he might be overlooked because of his youth and inexperience in Vatican terms given that he has just been made a cardinal).

Someone of firm resolve, impeccable orthodoxy, yet also with an openness to the world, a media-friendliness and true charisma.

 

[GWright]

or Albert Malcolm Cardinal Ranjith Patabedinge

http://www.lasalle.lk/na/uploads/malcolm_cardinal_ranjith_01.jpg

I will dance a jig, if Cardinal Ranjith is elected

 

[ProVobis]

I will dance a jig, if Cardinal Ranjith is elected

I think I’ll join you.

 

[ringil]

Would you be loyal to a Pope O’Malley…

A Catholic would be loyal to any Pope, if validly elected.

 

[_Abyssinia]

McCarrick: We’re ready for a Third World pope