Papal candidates - Short List?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mh2007
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan_64 said:
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).
Click to expand...
The Church has no issue with homosexuals just as it has no issue with socialists. What it has a problem with is their false teachings and their animosity toward the Church. Lesbians are more inclined to atheism than male homosexuals, but even the believers are desperate to force the Church is say that what they do is not sinful. They make me appreciate the honesty of the whore.
 
RobbyS said:
The Church has no issue with homosexuals just as it has no issue with socialists. What it has a problem with is their false teachings and their animosity toward the Church. Lesbians are more inclined to atheism than male homosexuals, but even the believers are desperate to force the Church is say that what they do is not sinful. They make me appreciate the honesty of the whore.
Click to expand...
Yes you have to have more respect for someone who is honest about their beliefs and their actions. I was horrified by the woman who said she knew full well that getting an abortion was killing an unborn human being…but some human lives have more value than others. OTOH she is at least more honest about her beliefs than the pro aborts who turn themselves into human pretzels to pretend they aren’t killing a human being. The reality is the whole belief system advocating “reproductive rights” is that might makes it right and if you have the power, you have the authority to do what you want. The attempts by the Left to get the Church to change are all based on lies. The Truth doesn’t change, even if there is a new Pope named. They do not understand that at all.

Lisa
 
kelvinf said:
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.
Click to expand...
Setting up a commission certainly doesn’t mean being in agreement with any recommendation it may make, but the actual setting up a commission to explore the issue and make a recommendation would suggest that the issue was an issue that the Pope had the power to make a change or not. If the Pope had power to change the Church’s teaching on this (but decided against it in this case) then surely it cannot have been an infallible matter? Otherwise what would be the point of the commission? To waste time and energy discussing and making recommendations on a matter that could not be changed anyway? That wouldn’t seem to make sense.
 
RobbyS said:
The Church has no issue with homosexuals just as it has no issue with socialists. What it has a problem with is their false teachings and their animosity toward the Church.
Click to expand...
The Church does not have an issue with Socialists. Communists yes (because they deny God) but Socialists no. A great many Socialists are Christians. The Christian Socialist movement played a pivotal part in setting up the Welfare State in the UK in the 40’s and 50’s and have played an important part in the Labour movement since then.

As a matter of fact, in the UK anyway, the Church seems to be far more vocal in condemning actions of the Conservative led government and their attacks on public service and especially their reduction in social security payments to those less well off.

The Catholic Church (and the Anglican Church) in the UK anyway is certainly not a Church that supports the economic and social policies of the Right.
 
Brendan_64 said:
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?
Click to expand...
ProVobis said:
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.
Click to expand...
Original intention of the Comission was to analyse the impact of artifical birth control on the Church, to look at popultion and birth control. The intention was not to look at reforming Church teaching on artificial birth control

Some of the ideological leanings on the Comission are clear. Former member Patty Crowley has since had involement in an organisation which advocates a change to how the Church makes decisions and advocates female and married priests called Call to Action

12 of 19 members of the comsision thought Church teaching on contraception could change which shows how biased the comission was and how any other result than the majority finding contraception acceptable, unlikely
The study group, formally called the Pontifical Commission on Population, Family, and Birthrate, was actually established by Pope John XXIII on April 27, 1963, six months after the start of the Second Vatican Council. Contrary to popular belief, its purpose was not to consider whether the Church should change its teaching on contraception, but rather to assist the Holy See in preparing for an upcoming conference sponsored by the United Nations and the World Health Organization.
Click to expand...
John XXIII died 37 days later and Cardinal Giovanni Montini was elected Pope on June 21, taking the name Paul VI. The new Pope was keenly aware of the problem posed to the Church by the new secular consensus in the West on birth control. Catholics were increasingly using contraception and European theologians were beginning to challenge the received teaching in scholarly journals. He was also undecided on the question of whether the birth control pill, because it did not interfere with the performance of sexual intercourse, was a form of contraception. Advisors from all sides were pressing upon him a sense of urgency about the issue and urging him to take up the topic for consideration.
Click to expand...
The Pope agreed that the issue needed serious consideration, but thought that the Vatican Council, now in its second year, was not the proper place to undertake it. He thus decided to expand the membership of the Pontifical Commission, which he did on June 23, 1964, adding physicians, psychiatrists, demographers, sociologists, economists and married couples. Because he did not clearly specify the commission’s new mandate, its members redefined it on their own: to re-examine the content and status of the received teaching in the Catholic Church on the use of birth control.
Click to expand...
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=113242

My emphases
 
mcrow said:
By all accounts it seems that most of the people think that the next Pope will not be under 60 but more than likely between 65-75. I think that Tagle would be the youngest one by a good margin at 55.

I’m sort of excited about the idea that there’s a real chance a non-european Pope being elected. Maybe an African, American, Canadian or Asian Pope? Some years ago would have laughed at the suggestion.
Click to expand...
I am hoping for Cardinal Arinze from Africa.
 
blog.archny.org/index.php/a-few-bloopers

Cardinal Dolan’s blog titled ‘A few bloopers’

My emphases
We cardinals here in Rome – – along with all our brothers in the Sacrament of Holy Orders – – take our task of teachers of the faith very seriously.
Click to expand...
These days in the Eternal City offer us a welcome occasion to do that. I sure have enjoyed my meetings with people here, especially the journalists, who give me the chance to teach.
Click to expand...
It’s clear to me that there are quite a few misconceptions out there about the church. Let me mention a few to you.
Click to expand...
One would be that the Pope has a divine status in the Church. True, while Catholics love the Holy Father, and consider loyalty to him a virtue, we hardly consider him divine! He is the Successor of St. Peter, whom we believe Jesus appointed earthly pastor of His Church (Mt. 16). And anyone familiar with St. Peter, as shown in the New Testament, knows that he was far from divine! In fact, our first Pope was a big sinner. He denied even knowing Jesus at the very time the Lord needed his friend Peter the most.
Click to expand...
An inquirer even used the word “worshiper” when referring to us Catholics in relation to the Pope. That’s malarkey! We can only worship the one true God, not any mere mortal, no matter how revered his office may be, or we violate the first commandment.
Click to expand...
A second common misperception is that a new Pope can “change doctrine.” That, of course, is impossible. Catholicism is a revealed religion, meaning we believe that God has told us about Himself and about the meaning of life, primarily by sending us His Son as the “Word made flesh.]
Click to expand...
To preserve this truth, to “pass on” the faith to our children, is at the very essence of the Church, and the “job description” of the Pope. He cannot change the deposit of faith.
Click to expand...
Some have the impression that we are electing a man who has a “platform,” who can decide new “policies” for the Church. We are not.
Click to expand...
Yes, a new Pope can develop fresh, new strategies to better, and more effectively, teach the doctrines of the faith. In fact, this is a big part of what we call the New Evangelization: to express the timeless truths of the faith – – especially the message and mystery of the Person who called himself the Truth, Jesus – – in a timely, radiant, more compelling way.
Click to expand...
Remember the way Good Pope John explained it on the eve of the opening of the Second Vatican Council? The faith of the Church is a gift that cannot be altered, he remarked. But, the way this gift is “wrapped” can! That is always a challenge for a Pope.
Click to expand...
In other words, the how of our teaching can change; the what of it cannot.
Click to expand...
Because, as Billy Graham used to say, the aim of life is to change our lives to conform to God’s will, not to change God’s will to match ours. We let God re-create us in His image; we do not attempt to create God in our image!
Click to expand...
Finally, some tease me that we are here to elect a “new boss.” Yes, while I look forward to pledging my obedience to our new Holy Father, I also recognize that his ancient title is “servant of the servants of God.” Following Jesus, he will be elected to serve, not to be served.
Click to expand...
And, he will hardly be a “boss” who tells us what to do, but a shepherd who invites us to walk with him on a journey to eternal life in company with Jesus and His Church. As Blessed John Paul II observed, “The Church proposes, not imposes.”
Click to expand...
There you have a view of the misunderstandings.
Click to expand...
Keep us in prayer, please. Let’s hope we get home soon – – I’m running out of socks!
Click to expand...
 
Vouthon said:
God is impassible, without emotions.

Emotion denotes change. God is an unceasing, eternal act. Unchanging.

For him to experience amusement would bring him down to the human sphere and denote change within him, which as you know cannot be because God in his Essence is wholly transcendent and immutable.

Emotions are a result of changeableness. God is one eternal divine act, which in his very nature is the self-emptying love between the Three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity.
Click to expand...
God does not experience human emotion. Yet as creator, there must be something within him that is analogous to human emotion. Your position is drawn more from Greek philosophical influences than the God of the bible.
 
Catholic voices Austin Ivereigh
La Repubblica says Scherer of Sao Paolo remains the favourite of the ‘Roman’ party – the curial cardinals.
Click to expand...
twitter.com/austeni/status/311040550818156545
La Repubblica agrees that Scola will make strong show, but Italian archbishops don’t want another ‘cerebral’ pope; they like Dolan.
Click to expand...
twitter.com/austeni/status/311040361151733760
French cardinals Barbarin of Lyons & 23 of Paris said y’day that race v.open, between 6-12 candidates under active consideration.
Click to expand...
twitter.com/austeni/status/311038785720815617
John Allen says ‘consensus’ that Scola, Ouellet & Scherer will get most votes on first round. But if none can reach 77, many others in play
Click to expand...
twitter.com/austeni/status/311038208257454081
La Stampa today says Scola will get 35/40 on first ballot, Scherer 25, Ouellet 21, & some votes to O’Malley, Dolan, Ranjith and Tagle.
Click to expand...
twitter.com/austeni/status/311037858867720192

How do they know that?
 
Least said:
Sounds like he’s hoping it’s him. I don’t get a vote, but I want someone fiercely Catholic, I want someone who will invite JESUS today, wish armegeddon on me and make me think I wasn’t the only one concerned with that.

I hope the Conclave can rustle-up someone whose had their Wheaties, and can wade-off into the masses like John the Baptist with a sock with a bar of soap in it.

I want someone who, when he is GOD’s choice, I am able to tell why. Either way, I will continue to seek out GOD’s reason, not my own ‘better-choice’ for candidate.

GOD BLESS AND SAVE US ALL AND KEEP OUR FUTURE PONTIFF
Click to expand...
I’m pretty sure all the cardinals are “fiercely Catholic”. 😉
 
So if the Archbishop of Milan was to be elected as Pope, he would be known as:

Pope Scola!

I think Coke would have a heart attack!

Not trying to lighten the subject … just trying to inject some levity on Monday morning.
 
_Abyssinia said:
blog.archny.org/index.php/a-few-bloopers

Cardinal Dolan’s blog titled ‘A few bloopers’

My emphases
Click to expand...
LOVE Cardinal Dolan! He is a great communicator and whoever is elected Pope, I truly pray they can express the beauty and joy of our faith in the same manner. He speaks he Truth without equivocation but makes it understandable and appealing rather than sounding like a stern rulemaker. In truth there is freedom, but lies are so much easier to pass along!

Lisa
 
I am bumping this again now that Allen has published his final piece in the series.

John Allen has been doing a series on the “Papabile of the Day.” I have found it enjoyable just to learn a bit more about some of our cardinals. It makes me feel better knowing there are such good prelates out there. 🙂

Anyway, here is who he has profiled so far. Keep in mind that this is the National Catholic Reporter, so try to avoid looking at the comments section if you have forgotten your blood pressure medication. 😛

  1. Here are some of John Allen’s interviews with various (mostly American) cardinals leading up towards the conclave:
 
So I am still not sure what time I need to get up to witness the white smoke on Tuesday the 12th. I am on the west coast.
 
onmyknees said:
So I am still not sure what time I need to get up to witness the white smoke on Tuesday the 12th. I am on the west coast.
Click to expand...
Smoke will appear from the chimney 6:00am CT, 7:00am ET and from the 13 march, 1:00pm CT and 2:00pm ET

It is unlikely the white smoke will appear today on the first day of voting
 
_Abyssinia said:
Smoke will appear from the chimney 6:00am CT, 7:00am ET and from the 13 march, 1:00pm CT and 2:00pm ET

It is unlikely the white smoke will appear today on the first day of voting
Click to expand...
Won’t there be two burnings one in the morning (Rome time) and one in the evening? So smoke should appear once in the very early morning ET and once in the afternoon ET, or am I mistaken?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top