Pope Benedict XVI 'to resign'

[godisgood77]

What? I love the Pope Benedict. Let’s hope and pray his successor will be as holy and orthodox as him if true. The Church really can’t use a weak or liberal Pope right now.

Can you give me a sense of what you mean by ‘orthodox’ in your statements…the definition of orthodox is adhering to what is commonly accepted. I hear people use this word constantly, but I’m not sure that they know what the word means.

Thanks,

 

[embear]

“Orthodox” when referring to Christianity most often means conforming to the Christian faith as established by the early Church.

 

[godisgood77]

“Orthodox” when referring to Christianity most often means conforming to the Christian faith as established by the early Church.

…Still confused as to the intent of the person who originally posted, but thanks for the response. In most cases when I see/hear it used, it seems like it is a way to say that one is more Catholic than another. Not sure if this is the case here…

For Catholics, orthodox really means that you adhere and follow the teachings of Mother Church at any time. Saying one is orthodox Catholic is redundant.

 

[godisgood77]

…Still confused as to the intent of the person who originally posted, but thanks for the response. In most cases when I see/hear it used, it seems like it is a way to say that one is more Catholic than another. Not sure if this is the case here…

For Catholics, orthodox really means that you adhere to and follow the teachings of Mother Church …at any time. Saying one is orthodox Catholic is redundant.

 

[jwinch2]

ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/i-want-my-pope-back

A timely article which sums up my own feelings on the matter rather well. Intellectually, I understand and even support Pope Benedict’s decision. Emotionally and spiritually, I do not want to see him go. I came into the Church while Pope Benedict was Pontiff, and I am going to miss him a great deal.

ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/the-atheists-pope#When:2013-02-13%2011:03:01

This second article explains much of the reason why I love him so much. I was trying to explain this last night at our parish Mardi Gras celebration. One of our close friends was talking about how he never connected with Pope Benedict in the way that he did Blessed John Paul II. I explained that I connected with Pope Benedict through his writing and his pastoral and fatherly approach to guiding the Church. I’m not sure I did a good job of explaining my reasons. 5 years ago, if I was not an atheist, I was darn close. As such, this article is timely to me also.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Special Report “All Star” Panel on the Pope with Kathryn Lopez

The Legacy of Pope Benedict XVI: A commentary by Fr. Barron

 

[Michael_Mayo]

I think the Pope is setting a good example. Let someone with the energy take over and become Pope Emeritus, giving up the administrative burdens and focusing on the spiritual gifts.

 

[pnewton]

One could argue about that is a sin of omission; if it’s not the “whole truth” then it is dishonest.

A sin of omission is one fails to do a charitable deed that one should do, not when one does not give information that is no one’s business to the news media.

 

[PazzoGrande]

A sin of omission is one fails to do a charitable deed that one should do, not when one does not give information that is no one’s business to the news media.

No, a sin of omission is “failure to do something one can and ought to do.”

newadvent.org/cathen/11251b.htm

The article implies that it’s when one is negligent, but it doesn’t specify to charitable acts only.

Did you notice that I said in a previous post, “I don’t disagree that the Vatican has their reasons for keeping things private”? I’m sure they do.

I’m just looking at the present circumstances and events from the past and it’s giving me reason to doubt that it’s the whole truth. Simple as that.

My point still stands.

 

[ProVobis]

No, a sin of omission is “failure to do something one can and ought to do.”

Seems as if “ought to do” is somewhat vague here. How much does the public really need to know? And does it require that information as soon as it’s known? Just because you want to know everything doesn’t mean they “ought” to disclose it. Does it involve you to make some kind of life-saving decision based on that information? I don’t think so.

 

[BroomWagon]

Seems as if “ought to do” is somewhat vague here. How much does the public really need to know? And does it require that information as soon as it’s known? Just because you want to know everything doesn’t mean they “ought” to disclose it. Does it involve you to make some kind of life-saving decision based on that information? I don’t think so.

Sounds like we have a bit of confusion with omission, per the way one might willfully conceal or omit some detail about their life which is not positive, a drunk driving arrest or something vs. this “sin of omission”, I don’t think we would be at a point of it being a sin at least in all likelihood but it’s not some very important point to me. We have to remember too what serves the church best.

 

[PazzoGrande]

Seems as if “ought to do” is somewhat vague here. How much does the public really need to know? And does it require that information as soon as it’s known? Just because you want to know everything doesn’t mean they “ought” to disclose it. Does it involve you to make some kind of life-saving decision based on that information? I don’t think so.

Never said that I did. Again, I said, I’m sure they have their reasons for doing so.

Seriously folks, I said something, you guys misread it, I explained myself and displayed that what I said was fair, then it gets nitpicked perhaps because some people don’t like losing arguments. At least read what was written more critically.

 

[kelvinf]

I would bet $$ that somebody who cheated TWICE did not intend to be faithful when they exchanged vowels. Cheating once may just be a result of human weakness, which we are all suseptible to…Cheating twice is usually the result of somebody thinking there is nothing wrong with it. And that person cannot enter into a valid marriage according to the Church.

Hmmm, if all Catholics were to think this way, we would ultimately have to redefine marriage to be only valid when certain grave sins are not committed more than once. Or to define an invalid marriage as one that involves infedility more than once.

People break promises and vows. That does not by itself make the promise or the vow invalid.

A canonically valid marriage cannot be declared invalid because someone fails in his or her commitment.

 

[masondoggy]

Hmmm, if all Catholics were to think this way, we would ultimately have to redefine marriage to be only valid when certain grave sins are not committed more than once. Or to define an invalid marriage as a one that involves infedility more than once.

People break promises and vows. That does not by itself make the promise or the vow invalid.

A canonically valid marriage cannot be declared invalid because someone fails in his or her commitment.

You completely misread what I wrote. I never said adultery = annulment.

Anyway, this isn’t the thread to debate it and is completely off topic. The poster that is concerned about not being able to receive Communion needs to see his priest. I hope that he will take that step.

I’m leaving it at that.

 

[Tigg]

“Orthodox” when referring to Christianity most often means conforming to the Christian faith as established by the early Church.

Please clarify what you are trying to say. At best, this is only a half answer and it would be easy to assume you are stating the Church today does not hold the same teachings as the early Church.

 

[GWright]

New Pope should not condemn contraception, says cardinal

telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/the-pope/9864370/New-Pope-should-not-condemn-contraception-says-cardinal.html

(Retired) Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor is a deeply misguided man. He is part of the moderism which has so damaged the Church. Its my opinion that he only got a red hat because “England Expects” their top Catholic to be a Cardinal, for prestige reasons.

(England does not have an active Cardinal currently, but Scotland does, and this drives certain people green with envy. Ho ho ho!)

He personifies the traditional problems with the Bishops of England. UK Catholic Journalists call them “The Magic circle”. Their are known for their desire for a quiet life, their desire to avoid confrontation, their cosy-ness with Anglicans and their terrible habit of equivocation. Scandalously, when Pope Benedict was elected in 2005, his only comment to the press was “Our man was not elected”. Fortunately, recent appointments have been of a much higher and orthodox standard - Bishop Mark Davies etc.

(Murphy-O’Connor is reputed to have privately expressed shock and disgust at Davies becoming a Bishop. One of the first things Davies did on becoming a Bishop, was hand over a defunct parish in his diocese to ICKSP, a traditional order, to hold latin masses in. The inaugrual mass drew 1,100 people - approx 3 times the number expected - and there was a magnificent press picture of Davies at the mass, boldly wearing a huge traditonal mitre. What a guy!)

Dr Edward C Green - a globally acknowledged expert on public health, (who has had posts at many universities, including Harvard), - has long since stated that the empirical evidence regarding HIV/STD transmission fully supports Catholic sexual morality.

Despite this, the lies that Catholic teaching causes deaths in Africa continue. It is a sad day when a non-Catholic academic can be relied upon to defend the faith more than a Cardinal can. That this Cardinal should undermine moral Catholic teachings - even gently - which are supported by empircal evidence is a disgrace.

His successor as Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, is no real improvement over him. Fortunately, he has been repeatedly snubbed for a Red Hat.

Fortunately, at 80, Old Cormac is too old to vote! However, he wasted no time in announcing he was going to Rome, to try to influence the vote.

Heres hoping Cormac comes back with egg on his face, yet again.

 

[PazzoGrande]

Personally, I’d like to see a full transcript of the Cardinal’s interview.

The media – **ESPECIALLY **the British one – often insanely twists and misconstrues things that churchmen said and seem to take delight in making them look stupid.

We all remember how they disgracefully spouted out allegations that Joseph Ratzinger had Nazi sympathies, without any care or concern for journalistic integrity or truth. I’ve been paying attention to their media coverage of the Vatican for years and they constantly outdo themselves in disgracefully dishonest reporting.

And strap on your seatbelts, we’re going to see a lot more of that unfair rubbish over the next month at least.

 

[GWright]

The article, a small snippet, in the context of what the Cardinal says, points to focusing on the positive things rather than “condemning this or that.” I don’t think he means the Church’s policy toward contraception should be overhauled; but I may be wrong.

Hiya,

Knowing this particular retired Cardinal, as I do, I am sure thats exactly what he meant.

If he doesnt think the stance should change, why even mention it at all?

 

[BroomWagon]

You have mainstream media but to tell one the truth, you have enough friendly sources in the media and internet now, one doesn’t have to turn on some networks, the usual suspects, you may not find trustworthy to begin with.

 

[LegoGE1947]

I think the Pope is setting a good example. Let someone with the energy take over and become Pope Emeritus, giving up the administrative burdens and focusing on the spiritual gifts.

Pope is also setting a good example for some politicians who have been in office “forever” and should retire.