Papal Elections

[garysibio]

With the news about Benedict XVI resigning and the papal conclave starting, I’ve been doing a little digging in the history of the popes. It’s no surprise that, although we have been blessed with good, holy men in recent centuries, that has not always been the case. Some men became pope by buying the office or being placed there by a secular ruler. Fortunately, that sort of thing has long since stopped.

Here’s my problem. We like to think that the cardinals are led by the Holy Spirit to select the man that God wants in the job. The problem is that the process seems more fitting to the selection of a Chicago alderman. If they cardinals are truly in tune with the Holy Spirit and they are electing the man He wants, why do they have to vote multiple times? You’d think they’d pick him on the first vote and it would be almost unanimous, if not completely so.

How do we explain this to non-Catholics when they ask?

 

[LilyM]

Our Cardinals and Popes have been no better nor worse, on average, than the 12 Jesus picked. You wouldn’t expect God incarnate to choose Judas as one of the 12 - but He did.

Point is we’re all sinners and none worthy, regardless of personal virtue, of being chosen by God or man to be Pope. But we can trust that even the worst scoundrel will, once he gets his butt on the Chair of Peter, at least be prevented by the HS from teaching error in faith or morals.

 

[garysibio]

Our Cardinals and Popes have been no better nor worse, on average, than the 12 Jesus picked. You wouldn’t expect God incarnate to choose Judas as one of the 12 - but He did.

Are you saying that Jesus was taken by surprise by Judas’ betrayal? I don’t believe that.

Point is we’re all sinners and none worthy, regardless of personal virtue, of being chosen by God or man to be Pope. But we can trust that even the worst scoundrel will, once he gets his butt on the Chair of Peter, at least be prevented by the HS from teaching error in faith or morals.

My comment/question was about the process of election, not the people who have occupied the chair.

 

[adf417]

With the news about Benedict XVI resigning and the papal conclave starting, I’ve been doing a little digging in the history of the popes. It’s no surprise that, although we have been blessed with good, holy men in recent centuries, that has not always been the case. Some men became pope by buying the office or being placed there by a secular ruler. Fortunately, that sort of thing has long since stopped.

Here’s my problem. We like to think that the cardinals are led by the Holy Spirit to select the man that God wants in the job. The problem is that the process seems more fitting to the selection of a Chicago alderman. If they cardinals are truly in tune with the Holy Spirit and they are electing the man He wants, why do they have to vote multiple times? You’d think they’d pick him on the first vote and it would be almost unanimous, if not completely so.

How do we explain this to non-Catholics when they ask?

They are “guided” not “mandated” by the Holy Spirit and all men choose to not follow God at points in our lives. You are correct – it should only take one vote and it should be unanimous. But they are human and humans can be prideful or stubborn so I thank God we have a “college” of cardinals instead of just one or two.

 

[garysibio]

They are “guided” not “mandated” by the Holy Spirit and all men choose to not follow God at points in our lives. You are correct – it should only take one vote and it should be unanimous. But they are human and humans can be prideful or stubborn so I thank God we have a “college” of cardinals instead of just one or two.

You did an excellent job of restating the problem but I’m not speak sure we want to address the issue with non-Catholics by saying that some of the princes of the church can’t seem to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.

 

[bmonk]

Perhaps it is better explained that the Holy Spirit guides them as a College, and so it may take time for them to come to that spiritual unity in which the Spirit can speak and be heard.

 

[latingirl]

You did an excellent job of restating the problem but I’m not speak sure we want to address the issue with non-Catholics by saying that some of the princes of the church can’t seem to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Kind of ironic considering how Non-Catholics can’t even come to agreement on how to baptize someone or what church leadership is. If they apply their own logic to themselves, they can’t follow the leading of the Holy Spirit either.

 

[garysibio]

Perhaps it is better explained that the Holy Spirit guides them as a College, and so it may take time for them to come to that spiritual unity in which the Spirit can speak and be heard.

Interesting idea.

 

[garysibio]

Kind of ironic considering how Non-Catholics can’t even come to agreement on how to baptize someone or what church leadership is. If they apply their own logic to themselves, they can’t follow the leading of the Holy Spirit either.

 

[adf417]

You did an excellent job of restating the problem but I’m not speak sure we want to address the issue with non-Catholics by saying that some of the princes of the church can’t seem to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Hi Gary, what you are implying is we should not reveal any results of the conclave until they are at a complete 100% agreement. Otherwise isn’t anything short of 100% revealing we have “some” princes of the church not following the Holy Spirit? If anyone expects this, then I would say they are not being realistic from the perspective of sin. The Holy Spirit doesn’t work that way as LilyM pointed out above.

Peace!!!

 

[LilyM]

Are you saying that Jesus was taken by surprise by Judas’ betrayal? I don’t believe that.

Not at all, but we from a human point of view would hardly expect that Jesus, knowing what Judas would do, would still choose him as an Apostle.

My comment/question was about the process of election, not the people who have occupied the chair.

It’s all relevant. The cardinal electors are not, nor do they need to be, infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit to choose a perfect candidate. Rather the candidate chosen, once installed as Pope, IS infallibly guided by the Spirit to teach truly in his official teachings on matters of faith and morals.

 

[garysibio]

Hi Gary, what you are implying is we should not reveal any results of the conclave until they are at a complete 100% agreement. Otherwise isn’t anything short of 100% revealing we have “some” princes of the church not following the Holy Spirit? If anyone expects this, then I would say they are not being realistic from the perspective of sin. The Holy Spirit doesn’t work that way as LilyM pointed out above.

Peace!!!

Well, I wasn’t trying to imply anything. I wouldn’t necessarily expect 100% agreement since I can understand a couple of the cardinals being in the flesh. (Can you tell I used to be an Evangelical?) I would hope that at least 95% would be listening to the Holy Spirit.

I sometimes wonder if, when we say “The Holy Spirit doesn’t work that way” if we aren’t rationalizing a little.

 

[garysibio]

Not at all, but we from a human point of view would hardly expect that Jesus, knowing what Judas would do, would still choose him as an Apostle.

Why not? Jesus knew He had to die. He knew Judas played a role in that.

It’s all relevant. The cardinal electors are not, nor do they need to be, infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit to choose a perfect candidate. Rather the candidate chosen, once installed as Pope, IS infallibly guided by the Spirit to teach truly in his official teachings on matters of faith and morals.

I understand that the church would still be protected from erroneous doctrine if a bad pope were to be elected but an evil pope would still damage the church by bringing scandal on it.

 

[latingirl]

I personally don’t think the Church would be able to handle a bad pope at this time. I sincerely hope and pray that the next pope will be firm, strong and assertive, not compromising with modernism and not afraid to condemn dissenters. Maybe another like Pius X? (and no I’m not SSPX)

 

[garysibio]

I personally don’t think the Church would be able to handle a bad pope at this time. I sincerely hope and pray that the next pope will be firm, strong and assertive, not compromising with modernism and not afraid to condemn dissenters. Maybe another like Pius X? (and no I’m not SSPX)

I don’t think there’s any chance that we’d get a bad pope.

 

[LilyM]

Why not? Jesus knew He had to die. He knew Judas played a role in that.

Judas didn’t have to be an Apostle to play his role in His death. It’s not like only the twelve knew where He was going to be that night - the owner of the house where He had the last supper certainly knew, people living in or near the Garden of Gethsemane would’ve seen and heard them as well (they were singing, remember). Judas could have done his job being one of them too, no?

Point is, Jesus had a reason for Judas being one of the 12 in particular. He also had a reason for each and every one of those bad Popes. Maybe they were to weed the faint-hearted out from among the faithful, as his teaching in John 6 which scared away so many was to weed out the faint-hearted from among His initial followers. It’s a possibility.

I understand that the church would still be protected from erroneous doctrine if a bad pope were to be elected but an evil pope would still damage the church by bringing scandal on it.

I’m sure Judas’ betrayal caused scandal and did damage, as did Peter’s denial and Paul’s history of persecuting Christians before he became one. They were chosen regardless, and Peter and Paul were great instruments of God regardless.

 

[Michael_Allen]

Hi Gary,

I’m not so sure the Holy Spirit is always followed by the Cardinals (or by the Pope; teaching is as much about example as it is about words, IMO) but I know that I can pray they all follow where the Spirit leads.

 

[adf417]

Well, I wasn’t trying to imply anything. I wouldn’t necessarily expect 100% agreement since I can understand a couple of the cardinals being in the flesh. (Can you tell I used to be an Evangelical?) I would hope that at least 95% would be listening to the Holy Spirit. .

Although I think we can pray for 100% agreement as this would be a beautiful thing.

I sometimes wonder if, when we say “The Holy Spirit doesn’t work that way” if we aren’t rationalizing a little.

Sure. We might should use the phrase “The Holy Spirit doesn’t have to work that way”

 

[adf417]

Point is, Jesus had a reason for Judas being one of the 12 in particular. He also had a reason for each and every one of those bad Popes. Maybe they were to weed the faint-hearted out from among the faithful, as his teaching in John 6 which scared away so many was to weed out the faint-hearted from among His initial followers. It’s a possibility.

Correct and I think some people put Martin Luther in this category also. Luther was stressed in his decision to stand up against the papacy. We all know he didn’t want division and some argue orthodox (at least in the beliefs against catholic practices). A friend of mine told me once he thought Luther was the “sacrificial monk” or maybe I read it somewhere. I think there is some truth to this.

 

[brb3]

What was the morning’s smoke …White or black ?