The "right" pope?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cheddarsox
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

cheddarsox

Guest
I was listening to EWTN radio the other day and on one of the call in shows a discussion came up that brought this question to mind.

They were discussing the liturgy and how glad they were to have “this” pope, because he is bringing back a more reverent liturgy.

While I understand, in purely human terms, being pleased that the person in authority is doing things the way a person prefers, I was wondering theologically about this.

When a pope is chosen, is that considered to be divinely inspired? That God wants THAT person at THAT time to lead his church?

If so, then is it OK to have an attitude of “Thank God we have THIS one, putting things back the way they should be”?

Also, if a previous pope or pope approved of previous liturgies, in this case the Novus Ordo Mass, communion in the hand,doesn’t that mean they are OK, just as OK as another form? Or is it right to believe that form was lesser and now a new pope is setting it right?

The discussion was sounding more like politics than religion in the sense that people supported a particular leader, who holds the beliefs they hold on a particular issue, rather than accepting that the pope is a divinely inspired leader of God’s church and that if the pope approves it, that is what God wants for His people at that time.
 
**I don’t know the direct and best answer to this, but obviously the cardinals spend a lot of time in prayer. God would assist them on who to choose. **

Now I have not studied this at all. I just know cardinals elect the pope.
 
There is a tension between God’s soverreignty and man’s free will. A pope can make bad decisions, but God is sovereign to ensure that none of those bad decisions would total destroy the Church. Jesus promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against His Church. He did not promise that the gates of hell would have absolutely no influence on the Church.
 
**A pope can make bad decisions, but God is sovereign to ensure that none of those bad decisions would total destroy the Church. **

I was going to say that infallibility does not prevent a pope from making a bad pastoral or prudential decision, but you put it better.
 
cheddarsox said:
I was listening to EWTN radio the other day and on one of the call in shows a discussion came up that brought this question to mind.

They were discussing the liturgy and how glad they were to have “this” pope, because he is bringing back a more reverent liturgy.

While I understand, in purely human terms, being pleased that the person in authority is doing things the way a person prefers, I was wondering theologically about this.

When a pope is chosen, is that considered to be divinely inspired? That God wants THAT person at THAT time to lead his church?

If so, then is it OK to have an attitude of “Thank God we have THIS one, putting things back the way they should be”?

Also, if a previous pope or pope approved of previous liturgies, in this case the Novus Ordo Mass, communion in the hand,doesn’t that mean they are OK, just as OK as another form? Or is it right to believe that form was lesser and now a new pope is setting it right?

The discussion was sounding more like politics than religion in the sense that people supported a particular leader, who holds the beliefs they hold on a particular issue, rather than accepting that the pope is a divinely inspired leader of God’s church and that if the pope approves it, that is what God wants for His people at that time.
Click to expand...
It depends on what theologian you get your opinion from. Curran, McBrien, Kung, etc. all believe that the choosing of a pope is a political process and nothing more. Whoever the Church ends up with ‘we’ hope that they will be guided by the Holy Spirit during their tenure. Other, more orthodox theologians believe that the whole process is guided by the Holy Spirit from the very moment a conclave begins and that guidance continues throughout a pope’s pontificate. More contemporary liberal theologians point to the election of ‘bad’ popes in history to reveal the political agenda within the Church. Contemporary traditional theologians point to the fact that even with the election of ‘bad’ popes, the Church’s teachings on Faith and morals were never compromised. So, it sounds as if it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other.
 
cheddarsox said:
I was listening to EWTN radio the other day and on one of the call in shows a discussion came up that brought this question to mind.

They were discussing the liturgy and how glad they were to have “this” pope, because he is bringing back a more reverent liturgy.

While I understand, in purely human terms, being pleased that the person in authority is doing things the way a person prefers, I was wondering theologically about this.

When a pope is chosen, is that considered to be divinely inspired? That God wants THAT person at THAT time to lead his church?

If so, then is it OK to have an attitude of “Thank God we have THIS one, putting things back the way they should be”?

Also, if a previous pope or pope approved of previous liturgies, in this case the Novus Ordo Mass, communion in the hand,doesn’t that mean they are OK, just as OK as another form? Or is it right to believe that form was lesser and now a new pope is setting it right?

The discussion was sounding more like politics than religion in the sense that people supported a particular leader, who holds the beliefs they hold on a particular issue, rather than accepting that the pope is a divinely inspired leader of God’s church and that if the pope approves it, that is what God wants for His people at that time.
Click to expand...
Actually, Pope Benedict addressed this before he became Pope. He pointed out that cardinals have chosen Popes based on all sorts of flawed human motives in the past, and there’s no reason to think that the Holy Spirit overrides these considerations. Obviously any Pope who is elected is providentially permitted to have that office. But I don’t think that your Church teaches that the cardinals are divinely inspired, or that the Pope is divinely inspired. The Pope is protected from solemnly teaching error as truth from the Chair of St. Peter. As far as I know, that’s as far as it goes.

Catholics of course (and I would argue that all Christians do as well, to some degree) owe the Pope respect and obedience because of his office. But that doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit ensured that the perfect person would be in that office at that particular time.

This is one of the places where the traditionalists are just being sensible, orthodox, and, well, traditional!

I welcome correction from the Catholics on the board.

Edwin
 
cheddarsox said:
I was listening to EWTN radio the other day and on one of the call in shows a discussion came up that brought this question to mind.

They were discussing the liturgy and how glad they were to have “this” pope, because he is bringing back a more reverent liturgy.

While I understand, in purely human terms, being pleased that the person in authority is doing things the way a person prefers, I was wondering theologically about this.

When a pope is chosen, is that considered to be divinely inspired? That God wants THAT person at THAT time to lead his church?

If so, then is it OK to have an attitude of “Thank God we have THIS one, putting things back the way they should be”?

Also, if a previous pope or pope approved of previous liturgies, in this case the Novus Ordo Mass, communion in the hand,doesn’t that mean they are OK, just as OK as another form? Or is it right to believe that form was lesser and now a new pope is setting it right?

The discussion was sounding more like politics than religion in the sense that people supported a particular leader, who holds the beliefs they hold on a particular issue, rather than accepting that the pope is a divinely inspired leader of God’s church and that if the pope approves it, that is what God wants for His people at that time.
Click to expand...
Actually, Pope Benedict addressed this before he became Pope. He pointed out that cardinals have chosen Popes based on all sorts of flawed human motives in the past, and there’s no reason to think that the Holy Spirit overrides these considerations. Obviously any Pope who is elected is providentially permitted to have that office. But I don’t think that the Catholic Church teaches that the cardinals are divinely inspired, or that the Pope is divinely inspired. The Pope is protected from solemnly teaching error as truth from the Chair of St. Peter. As far as I know, that’s as far as it goes.

Catholics of course (and I would argue that all Christians do as well, to some degree) owe the Pope respect and obedience because of his office. But that doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit ensured that the perfect person would be in that office at that particular time.

This is one of the places where the traditionalists are just being sensible, orthodox, and, well, traditional!

I welcome correction from the Catholics on the board.

Edwin
 
Contarini said:
Actually, Pope Benedict addressed this before he became Pope. He pointed out that cardinals have chosen Popes based on all sorts of flawed human motives in the past, and there’s no reason to think that the Holy Spirit overrides these considerations. Obviously any Pope who is elected is providentially permitted to have that office. But I don’t think that the Catholic Church teaches that the cardinals are divinely inspired, or that the Pope is divinely inspired. The Pope is protected from solemnly teaching error as truth from the Chair of St. Peter. As far as I know, that’s as far as it goes.

Catholics of course (and I would argue that all Christians do as well, to some degree) owe the Pope respect and obedience because of his office. But that doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit ensured that the perfect person would be in that office at that particular time.

This is one of the places where the traditionalists are just being sensible, orthodox, and, well, traditional!

I welcome correction from the Catholics on the board.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Please see my response in post # 5. Thanks!
 
Contarini said:
Actually, Pope Benedict addressed this before he became Pope. He pointed out that cardinals have chosen Popes based on all sorts of flawed human motives in the past, and there’s no reason to think that the Holy Spirit overrides these considerations. Obviously any Pope who is elected is providentially permitted to have that office. But I don’t think that your Church teaches that the cardinals are divinely inspired, or that the Pope is divinely inspired. The Pope is protected from solemnly teaching error as truth from the Chair of St. Peter. As far as I know, that’s as far as it goes.

Catholics of course (and I would argue that all Christians do as well, to some degree) owe the Pope respect and obedience because of his office. But that doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit ensured that the perfect person would be in that office at that particular time.

This is one of the places where the traditionalists are just being sensible, orthodox, and, well, traditional!

I welcome correction from the Catholics on the board.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Edwin strikes again…Tsssssssssss…👍

Nothing to correct, buddy. Very well put!

SK
 
peary said:
It depends on what theologian you get your opinion from. Curran, McBrien, Kung, etc. all believe that the choosing of a pope is a political process and nothing more. Whoever the Church ends up with ‘we’ hope that they will be guided by the Holy Spirit during their tenure. Other, more orthodox theologians believe that the whole process is guided by the Holy Spirit from the very moment a conclave begins and that guidance continues throughout a pope’s pontificate. More contemporary liberal theologians point to the election of ‘bad’ popes in history to reveal the political agenda within the Church. Contemporary traditional theologians point to the fact that even with the election of ‘bad’ popes, the Church’s teachings on Faith and morals were never compromised. So, it sounds as if it’s six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Click to expand...
As I read the OP, I am seeing a very reasonable and straightforward question: Is the choosing of a new pope essentially an “infallible” process?

The answer to the question is no. It isn’t. To the extent that the Cardinals pray about their decision and seek God’s will, the Holy Spirit will guide them in their choice. To the extent that they do not, He won’t and, in the worst case scenarios, we end up with some pretty shameful characters in office, seen a few times in the Church’s distant past.

Those shady characters not being able to alter the Church’s dogma is a separate issue.

SK
 
Contarini said:
Do you not think that Joseph Ratzinger was orthodox before his election?

Edwin
Click to expand...
**Ratzinger was part of the group of young theologians involved in Vatican II who were looked upon as “with it” and somewhat ‘radical’. Yet, if you read the Vatican II documents, they are, for the most part, orthodox in intent but they clarified areas of concern that were left unclarified by Vatican I.

What I find interesting is that Ratzinger, now our pope, is implementing what Vatican II required of the Church and the world now **sees him as conservative and too orthodox. Yet, he is right on target with the Council.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top