Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum: Habemus Papam

[Porthos]

Quarto, good answer...well thought out and obviously very logical. I'm pretty sure I didn't express my question as good as I should have however, because I didn't mean to imply that the pope is at all times in all manners infallible. I meant to imply that in important doctrinal manners the teaching is that the Pope is infallible. So to pick an issue, say birth control or whatever the case may be, if the Pope continues the RC's stance that birth control is a sin...would you regardless of your personal feelings on the matter adhere to the pope's decision? The reason I'm asking this is because the friends that I talk to here in Iowa who are "devout" Roman Catholics either say that the teaching is outdated and doesn't apply to them or that its just wrong. My thoughts would be that the Pope's decision on a doctrinal issue would be under the infallibility doctrine and that they, if they truly consider themselves Catholics, would accept his decision. Make sense?

So what happens when one pope disagrees with another?

Edit: A question, not an argument

 

[Porthos]

Pipe, if you must know. Black Luxury blend, but very very rarely now. On other matters:

Lol


Ahh, ok. I agree with the part about keeping the good points of socialism, and leaving the bad. Spot on. I was kind of wondering what the earlier sentence meant, hence the smoking reference. Now I know. (What you smoke, and what you meant.)

Yeah, oversimplifications are fun.

Anyhoo . . . . I found this article regarding the conservativeness of the pope: http://www.lileks.com/bleats/archive/05/0405/042005.html

 

[Quarto]

So to pick an issue, say birth control or whatever the case may be, if the Pope continues the RC's stance that birth control is a sin...would you regardless of your personal feelings on the matter adhere to the pope's decision?

When the Pope says this, he is essentially saying that this, in his opinion, is the point of view of the Bible. Keyword here is 'opinion' - he is not saying that this is the absolute truth, although there are certainly good reasons to believe that the Pope knows what he's talkiing about. So, as a general rule, a Catholic would do well to believe him, because he certainly is the best qualified to judge what is and isn't wrong.

The reason I'm asking this is because the friends that I talk to here in Iowa who are "devout" Roman Catholics either say that the teaching is outdated and doesn't apply to them or that its just wrong. My thoughts would be that the Pope's decision on a doctrinal issue would be under the infallibility doctrine and that they, if they truly consider themselves Catholics, would accept his decision. Make sense?

I certainly would expect people who truly consider themselves Catholics to accept the Pope's decision, unless they can come up with a very convincing reason as to why the Pope is wrong - and when I say very convincing, I mean along the lines of a 20,000 word essay with lots of references and a solid bibliography . This has nothing to do with the infallibility doctrine, however. It's simply that, in the matters of morality, the likelihood of the Pope being wrong is much lower than the likelihood of me being wrong, especially since the Pope usually doesn't simply say that something's wrong, but rather goes on to explain exactly why it's wrong.

 

[Nemesis]

Don't you tell me Walt Murphy was your professor? Gosh, those were the times.

An incredible workaholic. (His Marine crewcut was an icon.) The story goes he slept only 4 hours a night, got up at 4:00 in the morning to start writing, then attended to his classes, returned to his research and writing, and usually didn’t get back home until after 11:00 at night to have supper with his wife.

As for the rest of this thread... those of you who feel slighted or amused by my comments about Protestantism are more than welcome to PM me about it . . .

No need, just imagine laughter.

All I'll say here is that I stand by my words - Protestant churches have no power or influence whatsoever.

Quarto speaks! (You sure you’re not a little confused about your own influence?)

This is proven by your participation in this thread. You are interested enough in our Pope to join in the discussion.

Well, I can’t pretend to speak for others, but I posted, apart from commenting on some trivial tomfoolery, to extend my best wishes to Catholics on this board, out of respect for their religion. And your suggestion that I and others did so out of some religious vacuum in our lives is a sad example of the opposite sentiment.

We do not even know how and whom you elect to head your church(es).

Another proclamation? I think you’re having an identity crisis.

You care what our Pope has to say.

Well, I care about what a lot of people have to say, starting with my two-year-old nephew; it’s called “living in the world”.

We don't even know when/where/what your pastors/reverends/vicars speak.

If true, more’s the pity. And I’d wager there are more than a few Catholics who would agree with me, and are worried the new Pope may prove to be too close-minded in that regard.

 

[Maj.Striker]

Pope Benedict has already declared he wishes to follow in JP2's footsteps and continue to reach out and extend an arm of fellowship to the protestant offshoots as well as the Jewish and (probably) Muslim cultures. That being said, I'm more than willing to admit that there is no other religious leader on the world scene today that has more world attention and influence than the office of the Pope. I don't anticipate this to change for quite some time, I expect the office of the pope to continue to increase in influence and have an increased role in world politics as a type of intermedary. Its in accordance with my own humble religion.

 

[Nemesis]

. . .I'm more than willing to admit that there is no other religious leader on the world scene today that has more world attention and influence than the office of the Pope.

Both Elvis and Santa Claus want to have a word with you.

I would agree, but I’m not sure that’s much different from generally commenting the sky is blue when what specifically matters to us each day is what’s going on outside our particular windows. (Not to mention that many of us might prefer the sky to be more of a constant rainbow and are working on ways to bring that about.)

. . . I expect the office of the pope to continue to increase in influence and have an increased role in world politics as a type of intermedary.

Again, I’m not sure you can generalize in a meaningful way. For example, do you expect to see the world increasingly disapprove of contraception? Of equal opportunities for women?

And how much or how often could the Church be trusted to serve as an intermediary where it comes “saddled” with a fairly well-established and long-advocated agenda of its own?

 

[Maj.Striker]

Ok, perhaps I should explain a little bit where I'm coming from. When I said that the pope is the most influential religious leader in the world today I was trying to say that I agreed with Quarto about how the world recognizes the influence of the Pope as opposed to other leaders of nominal religions. I wasn't trying to make a point other than to agree with his own assessment.

Furthermore, when I said I expect to see the office of the papacy increase in political influence and worldwide affairs I stated that to show that if you considered the past 500 years (really prior to John Paul II) the Pope were reclusive...rarely leaving the Vatican. Their influence was minimal at best as compared to their previous positions of influence. There were instances here and there but for the most part, kings and nations did as they pleased and the Pope didn't have the influence or the authority to control them. (Hell, even in Italy the Pope lost his throne). Now, I'm saying the office of the pope (most recently through John Paul II) has gained strong international recognition. It is gradually being restored to be a "player" in world politics.

Finally, you seem to be uneasy with "generic" statements so I'll try to be more specific. I expect the next Pope (possibly Benedict XVI but it seems unlikely) to champion the rights of Palestinans in Israel. I expect the pope to be the only person to establish some sort of meaningful peace in the middle east. Is that specific enough?

 

[Quarto]

Quarto speaks! (You sure you’re not a little confused about your own influence?)

Only confused about why my (lack of) influence would matter when it comes to stating simple facts .

Well, I can’t pretend to speak for others, but I posted, apart from commenting on some trivial tomfoolery, to extend my best wishes to Catholics on this board, out of respect for their religion. And your suggestion that I and others did so out of some religious vacuum in our lives is a sad example of the opposite sentiment.

Hehe, not as sad as the fact that you feel the need to twist my words around when replying to my post. I never suggested there's any kind of religious vacuum in your lives (although, playing along with the weird pseudo-psychoanalytic response I got from you, I could suggest that you seem to think there is such a vacuum in your life ). What I said is that the Protestants, as a group have no influence in the world. This doesn't mean that Protestants have no life, or are experiencing any kind of religious vacuum. It simply means that the nature of the Protestant movement is such that it can never exert any influence, because nobody represents it. There's nobody out there that can say, with any kind of authority, that this or that is the position of the Protestant church - and in fact, if anybody was to try, he'd be immediately denounced by other Protestants.

This has led to an amusing paradox - in theory, the Protestants have the weight of the world's most important country to support them... in practice, the president of the country in question seems to spend more time on his relations with the Catholic Church than on the rest of the world's religions taken together. He may not always (or even usually) obey, but he listens to the Pope - which is certainly more than any Protestant church leader has achieved in this regard.

And how much or how often could the Church be trusted to serve as an intermediary where it comes “saddled” with a fairly well-established and long-advocated agenda of its own?

How much or how often can the United States, European Union, China, the UN, or <insert any other singificant organisation here> be trusted to serve as an intermediary, when they all come saddled with their own agenda (which in many cases is neither well-established nor long-advocated but rather poorly-thought-out, ad-hoc, and sometimes even hidden, because such is the nature of democracies, where the agenda changes with every election)? It's funny how none of this seems to bother people in any other aspect of life, but when it comes to the Catholic Church... they can't be trusted, man, they have an agenda!

Personally, I would think that an organisation whose clearly-stated goals have remained unchanged for the past two thousand years would qualify as the most reliable and trustworthy intermediary of all, because they're open about it.

 

[Porthos]

nominal religions.

Woohoo! I'm nominal now!

 

[Porthos]

This has led to an amusing paradox - in theory, the Protestants have the weight of the world's most important country to support them...

We aren't specifically supported. "All men are created equal . . ." and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . ." Granted, this has been a mostly protestant nation in the past, but the government has never only supported the protestants. Rather, it has allowed/supported all religions. Although, the way the ACLU is going, it won't be very long before being a Christian is an offense in and of itself.

in practice, the president of the country in question seems to spend more time on his relations with the Catholic Church than on the rest of the world's religions taken together. He may not always (or even usually) obey, but he listens to the Pope - which is certainly more than any Protestant church leader has achieved in this regard.

When a world leader goes to see the pope or calls him, everybody knows about it. There's pomp and circumstance, press everywhere, etc. When you go to your pastor, few know about it. If you've read my country's press, you'd think Bush was a right-wing ultra conservative zealot - which he isn't - , precisely because he DOES speak with his pastor on a regular basis.

But what then? Is Christianity some kind of competition to see which sect is listened to more often? Is it a popularity contest? To see which sect owns more land, money, or has more power to wield in the world? Or rather, is it about spreading the Gospel that Christ came to earth as a man, sacrificed himself to spare us from the penalty of sin (death/separation from God), and came back to life to prove his victory over death?

 

[Spy-[ITA]]

WOW!!!!!
everything was born from "welcome benedetto XVI"

 

[Porthos]

Religion in mixed company.

 

[BigsWickDagger]

It simply means that the nature of the Protestant movement is such that it can never exert any influence, because nobody represents it. There's nobody out there that can say, with any kind of authority, that this or that is the position of the Protestant church - and in fact, if anybody was to try, he'd be immediately denounced by other Protestants.

Political influence? Not so- ask any Liberal Democrat in the US who he or she "blames" for the re-election of GWB- the most often answer given is the "Religious Right," meaning Conservative Protestants- Christians.

Protestantism is not represented/united by a single individual because, unlike Catholicism, such an arrangement isn't a part of its philosophy- hence the probable denunciation to which you referred. However, it isn't necessary either. Protestant ideology is such that there is a tremendous amount of overlap between the core principles and beliefs of Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. Those commonalities, more often than not, have a unified way of expressing themselves at the ballot box.

 

[Eder]

Is Christianity some kind of competition to see which sect is listened to more often?

No, but Quarto didn't say "Pope WINS!!"... he said the catholic roman church gets more press coverage than any other religious group.

 

[Nemesis]

When I said that the pope is the most influential religious leader in the world today I was trying to say . . . how the world recognizes the influence of the Pope as opposed to other leaders of nominal religions.

Well, people around the world tend to be familiar with Catholicism (marvelous history, artifacts galore), they readily recognize the Pope (wonderful ceremony, cult of personality), and they understand he has the ear of at least a billion other people in the world (great PR).

But when you speak of recognizing the Pope’s “influence”, it sounds like you’re confusing worldly power with worldwide publicity. And when you speak of “nominal religions”, it further sounds like you’re confusing the significance of a religion with the number of people who either follow it or have heard of it. But when 120,000 people in a single state can determine who the next President of the United States is, a so-called nominal religion can potentially decide the fate of the world.

More to the point, the telling influence of religion, like politics, is individual and local, not worldly. When a religion is followed by just one person and is otherwise unknown, it is still influential, and potentially powerful, because who can say what that one faithful person will be inspired to go on to do?

Now, I'm saying the office of the pope (most recently through John Paul II) has gained strong international recognition. It is gradually being restored to be a "player" in world politics.

Religion has always been a “player” or factor. But if you’re suggesting the Pope could become a “king maker”, effectively dictating here and there around the world who attains secular authority, all we’re going to end up with is the undermining of democracy and another Dark Ages.

I expect the next Pope (possibly Benedict XVI but it seems unlikely) to champion the rights of Palestinans in Israel. I expect the pope to be the only person to establish some sort of meaningful peace in the middle east. Is that specific enough?

Yes, but still a little confusing, because in the first sentence the Pope is an advocate, and in the second sentence apparently an intermediary (as you stated in your prior post). The two things are different. In any event, it would be sensational to see the Catholic Church boldly intervene to resolve a long-standing religious, political, and moral conflict among Jews, Christians, and Muslims.

But do you really think that’s going to happen? You see no “problem with this picture”?

I never suggested there's any kind of religious vacuum in your lives . . . What I said is that the Protestants, as a group have no influence in the world.

And you then went on to state: “This is proven by your participation in this thread. You are interested enough in our Pope to join in the discussion.” You thus very clearly equate your thesis of “no influence” with our interest in participating in this thread about another religion that in contrast, as you argue, does have influence. Hard to see how all of that works out as respect for us and our choice of religious faith.

This doesn't mean that Protestants have no life, or are experiencing any kind of religious vacuum. It simply means that the nature of the Protestant movement is such that it can never exert any influence, because nobody represents it. There's nobody out there that can say, with any kind of authority, that this or that is the position of the Protestant church . . .

As you probably can tell from my above replies, I find your conception of what counts as religious influence to be mistaken. (And you don’t seem to have a very good grasp of Protestantism either.)

. . .in theory, the Protestants have the weight of the world's most important country to support them... in practice, the president of the country in question seems to spend more time on his relations with the Catholic Church than on the rest of the world's religions taken together. He may not always (or even usually) obey, but he listens to the Pope - which is certainly more than any Protestant church leader has achieved in this regard.

Boy, are you ever in the dark about the Bush Administration. See what happens when you confuse real power and influence with bald publicity and photo-ops?

How much or how often can the United States, European Union, China, the UN, or <insert any other singificant organisation here> be trusted to serve as an intermediary, when they all come saddled with their own agenda (which in many cases is neither well-established nor long-advocated but rather poorly-thought-out, ad-hoc, and sometimes even hidden, because such is the nature of democracies, where the agenda changes with every election)?

But that’s the point–the agenda bends to other dynamics, persuasions, and/or needs. It’s probably true that no intermediary can easily if ever claim absolute neutrality, but that’s not the measure of mediation, is it?

It's funny how none of this seems to bother people in any other aspect of life, but when it comes to the Catholic Church... they can't be trusted, man, they have an agenda!

No, rather an “unbending” one.

Personally, I would think that an organisation whose clearly-stated goals have remained unchanged for the past two thousand years would qualify as the most reliable and trustworthy intermediary of all, because they're open about it.

In other words, close-minded about it.

 

[Maj.Striker]

Well, Nemesis, I have to say this...I am, above all, a Christian. So my views and opinions on the affairs of this world are interpreted in the light of what I understand from the Bible. Do I see obstacles to the Pope stepping in and negotiating a meaningful settlement in the middle east? You bet I do. The Arabs and Jews (Yes, and Christians) have been fighting for thousands of years. That kind of animosity is not easily set aside. However, I also look and see that Cardinal Arinzi (I'm pretty sure that isn't the correct spelling, someone please correct me) has made incredible strides in opening relations with the moslim culture. Concurrently, JPII cultivated strong ties with the Jewish community and has become more endeared to them than probably any other "goyim" in history. (Jerusalem Post has a great story on that). I see this as the beginning steps...as it were.

But I do feel a peace will happen...because that's the way I understand it according to the Bible. When it speaks of "Peace and safety...a land of unwalled villages." I see that as applying to Jerusalem.

Ok, I'm sorry for inflicting my post upon you...I was just fascinated by the discussion and wanted to be involved. I hope I didn't offend anyone by what I said, I'm merely relating my own personal feelings on certain matters...take it for what it is.

 

[Nemesis]

I take it well! I find religion and the philosophy of religion to be fascinating too, and I certainly join you in your hope for a peaceful resolution in the Middle East, and for a greater “feeling out” of the common ground among religions.

 

[vindicator]

This is a pretty touchy subject for me. I usually make stupid comments. I shall try and avoid such things in this post. First, can someone explain why this is so important? I am not so familiar with what the pope does, or why it seemed everyone in the universe, was on pins and needles over who got picked?(alot of catholics were concerned in my community.) What's with the conservitive and liberal titles as well, isn't he just going to follow the bible?

-Rance-

 

[Quarto]

Ok. I don't want to respond to individual posts, because that's gonna result in another one of those huge posts that consist in 90% of what somebody else already said. So...

It seems there is indeed some confusion about what the Pope's influence is. Are we confusing worldly power with worldwide publicity? This is a bizarre suggestion, really. The Pope is the head of state for several square kilometres of land in the middle of Rome. I don't think anyone seriously thinks he's got enough worldly power to qualify as being influential in that regard. And secondly... in the context of a religious figure, it's incredibly weird and nonsensical to suggest that worldwide publicity is something different to worldwide influence. Come on - if your job is to tell people what's right and wrong, then your power is determined by your publicity.

...And that's been my point all along - what makes the Pope so important is that people listen when he speaks. That's why he's in a league of his own, when compared to Protestant church leaders. Not because they're somehow morally or religiously inferior, but because when they speak, they don't get across. This is the result of the structure (or lack of it) of the Protestant church(es) - in the absence of any sort of unifying structure, there is nobody among the Protestants that can claim to speak for everyone. You may respond that this is not necessarily a bad thing - but history has shown that any group of people, no matter how large, is just a bunch of powerless individuals if they have no common structure.

Another thing to consider - when people speak about how successful the previous Pope was in the "dialogue" between religions, they seem to overlook one small detail: that was all publicity. I'm not saying this to disparage the Pope's efforts, quite the opposite - but it really was just a whole lot of empty words and gestures. This is another mark of the Pope's influence - because he represents a billion people, he can change the way a billion Muslims regard his followers simply by making a conciliatory but ultimately empty gesture. Tell me, what Protestant preacher would have enough authority to even try initiating a dialogue with Islam?

Finally, note that publicity has a way of taking a life of its own. Photo-ops can produce incredible results (which is one reason why the Russian Orthodox Church has never agreed to a Papal visit to Russia). Pope John Paul II was already dead, two weeks ago, when he single-handedly managed to push back the atheisation of France by several decades. Just a week earlier, the French were happily wallowing in their secularism... and suddenly there's a French minister telling French mayors that they should go to church and pray for the Pope. Living in the US, you may not realise what a storm that caused in France... and all because the French government didn't want to appear insensitive.

All that, that's examples of the Pope's power and influence - examples of what no Protestant church leader (with the exception of Martin Luther, of course) has ever had (nor tried to obtain, mind you).

None of this is supposed to be offensive. I'm neither criticising you as individuals, nor the Protestants as a group - I'm merely stating facts. If you're reading any kind of lack of respect in my posts, you're either missing my point, or simply looking for an excuse to be offended. I completely fail to see how anyone (that means you, Nemesis ) might think that I'm trying to offend the Protestants when I say the Pope's power makes him as interesting to the Protestants as to the Catholics.

 

[BigsWickDagger]

.....in the absence of any sort of unifying structure, there is nobody among the Protestants that can claim to speak for everyone. You may respond that this is not necessarily a bad thing - but history has shown that any group of people, no matter how large, is just a bunch of powerless individuals if they have no common structure.

But there is a unifying or common structure- the Church. No, it isn't a human being, and no one person speaks for all Protestants. But that does not make them powerless individuals. In fact, I'd argue quite the opposite- when they act collectively (see my last post for an example close to home) they can wield an enormous amount of influence.

Part of the nature of Protestant dogma: Man doesn't need or require the aid/assistance/instruction of an intermediary/superior/leader to speak with God, to show him right from wrong, to confess his sins, or to seek redemption. Man can do this as an individual with guidance from God. Accordingly, there is no equivalent of the Catholic hierarchy in the Protestant religion. It is not necessary, it certainly isn’t desired, and it would not be tolerated.

Non-Catholics do see the Pope as representing the public face of Catholicism- the guy, as directed by God, who sets the agenda of the Church and generally speaks for all Catholics when it comes to outlining the Church’s position on a given issue. That is the chief reason why he engenders interest from Protestants. Want to know where Catholics stand on an issue? Well, what did the Pope say? Yes, I am painting with broad strokes, but accurate ones nonetheless. Protestants don’t have such a system in place, but again I maintain they are far from a voiceless, powerless people.