Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum: Habemus Papam

[Mjr. Whoopass]

I'm interested in what the Pope says because he's a Christian who God has put in an important place. Likewise, God has put Billy Graham and other non-Catholic Christians in an important place and many Catholics care about what they say, and would feel free to post about them. Of course, for either of these cases- it doesn't mean you agree with them on every point or that they're excellent at representing Christ's Church, as for instance God allowed certain Pharisees to be the religious leaders knowing they wouldn't recognize Jesus as the Messiah and condemn him to Pontius Pilot to be crucified in order to fulfill the numerous Messianic prophesies from their Tanakh (aka Old Testament). Jesus still cared about what these leaders were saying and doing as is evidenced by his numerous comments which showed he opposed many of their interpretations. Rather than ridiculing other sects for caring about Christians of certain denominations it's my opinion that we should welcome their interest as long as they don't contradict the scriptures. I'm confident that if there are two opposing views, and both Christians genuinely pray humbly to God about it in a spirit of love, a genuine desire for the truth, and a reliance on the Bible, the differences will be resolved to God's satisfaction- and no bitterness should be between them if they both ask humbly in the spirit of love, and a genuine thirst for the truth. Since we seem to have various Christians of different views, I would advise this type of genuine prayer before posting (as well as during and after if you're so inclined) if any Christians here haven't been doing so already.

 

[Delance]

Welcome Pope Bennedict XVI. A great choice that displayed the unity of the Catholic Church. May his pontificate be blessed.

He's a brilliant theologian and probably will continue to guard the faith against the winds of relativism, and continue the work of John Paul II.

It's not all about quantity, but also quality. Whatever you're a catholic or not, it should make sense that the faith catholics hold as eternal Truth can't be "modernized".

And Quartro, those were some interesting points. But I think protestants probably won't agree with them.

 

[Nemesis]

. . .if your job is to tell people what's right and wrong, then your power is determined by your publicity.

No, your power is determined by the fact of your persuasion. Publicity is certainly a great vehicle and opportunity for that, but also equally for the opposite, including exposure of ignorance or worse. For example, the initial sentiment of the Vatican, voiced by then Cardinal Ratzinger, was that the seriousness of the priest sex-abuse scandal in the U.S. was being exaggerated by the media–hardly a shining moment for a reputed moral authority.

...And that's been my point all along - what makes the Pope so important is that people listen when he speaks.

Which counts for little if that’s all they do, when they do. But you also make it sound like when the Pope speaks, human society is suddenly transformed into a homogenous whole. I’ll try my analogy again: any world leader is like “the blue sky”, which is wonderful for him/her, but people’s thinking and behavior are still gong to be mostly determined by reference to “the local weather”. So yes, the Pope’s voice carries more or less equally around the better part of the world, but does his resulting influence? Does it for any purported world leader? Hardly.

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.

No, all churches “get across”; they just do so on different levels, from the global pulpit to the regional pulpit to the local pulpit. (Just ask Bill Gates.)

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.

I think we all understand and appreciate the “strengths” of any centralized authority, but you seem to imply there are no advantages inherent to a decentralized authority, which is obviously false. All the same, if you insist that Protestant churches must point to some all-encompassing, global “structure” before you will deign to recognize them as standing on the same footing with the Pope’s potential for influence, then I’ll accommodate you: it’s the Internet. The Internet embodies the Protestant ideal, and if you don’t see that, then there’s not a lot you do see (if you catch my drift).

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.

Did you read this through a few times before posting it? Just what sort of “influence” is on display here? The Pope as con artist? Also, don’t “suckers” tend to catch on after a while?

Tell me, what Protestant preacher would have enough authority to even try initiating a dialogue with Islam?

No, the dialog most desired by a given Protestant preacher is with the leaders of local mosques. (You just don’t understand Protestantism, do you? Do the terms “top-down” and “bottom-up” ring any bells?)

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.

France’s atheisation? Pushed back? For several decades? And single-handedly? By a dead man!? Wow! Now that is impressive! Impressive spin, that is, which only underscores how publicity alone is no guarantor of influence.

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.

You sure you didn’t get taken in by someone’s empty gesture?

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).

And yet, Protestant churches do wield significant power and influence. It’s such a puzzle for you, looking out from on high, that your only resort is apparently denial.

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. . . .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.

You started by asserting that Protestant churches have no influence or power, and then said that the participation of non-Catholics in this thread proved your assertion. And now you’re asserting that Protestants are the equal of Catholics in terms of being interested in–which readily translates into paying attention to–the Pope. I don’t think I’m the only one who’s been wondering if you’re taking us on a “ride”. But taking you at your word that you believe you’ve been “merely stating facts”, which is to say not making any argument at all, I guess we should just see it as a flight of fancy on your part and forget about it.

 

[Mjr. Whoopass]

There certainly are merits to a hierarchal structure as is evidenced by the Bible containing Moses, Joshua, and other church leaders. However, there are certainly examples in even the old testament where the authorities on earth didn't represent God's will as much as true worshipers of him who were chosen by him to become prophets. The "church" (temple) authorities of these times had a few of these true prophets killed. The early church had 12 disciples who didn't always agree on matters. Jesus did claim that Peter was the Rock on whom he'd build his church, but we still read in Paul's letters that the two had differences, and that Paul corrected Peter on at least one occasion.

Those in Christ are all parts of the body of Christ, and Jesus said that we can tell who his true followers are by how they love one another. It's this love and recognition of Jesus as the true authority of the Church (NOT Billy Graham, the Pope, etc.) due to his being the only perfectly righteous man to ever live that forms a cohesive, effective, and influential bond with each other, whether or not someone is regarded as having power in this world.

Asking if we should label ourselves "Catholic", "Protestant", etc. to me sounds like asking Jesus if he would label himself "Pharisee", "Sadducee", etc. Jesus didn't take his stance based upon a particular sects teachings, but rather on what was written in the scriptures along with a faith and love for God proven among other things by a naturally inclined obedience out of love to the law of Moses.

We listen to anyone in power whether Christian or not, but to follow what they say is a completely different matter. To follow them should require primarily that what they say is in line with God's word. If what your claiming for the church isn't biblical, I don't care if you're Billy Graham, the Pope, or any other recognized or influential leader. This is more important than any honors bestowed by men. To paraphrase the Old Testament: let not a wise man boast in his wisdom, or a mighty man boast in his might, but rather let him boast that he knows the Lord. I hope and pray that this new Pope is someone who knows and loves the Lord. I hope that he uses his influence to further God's kingdom, to bring salt and light to the earth, and to save souls.

 

[TC]

Just a point, it helps readability quite a bit if you break up your text a bit more. You should always seperate large blocks of text into a few paragraphs, for this reason.

 

[Mjr. Whoopass]

Just a point, it helps readability quite a bit if you break up your text a bit more. You should always seperate large blocks of text into a few paragraphs, for this reason.

Thank you, that's good advice. I went back to the post and edited it by breaking it into paragraphs. I agree that it helped the readability alot by doing that.

 

[Quarto]

I’ll try my analogy again: any world leader is like “the blue sky”, which is wonderful for him/her, but people’s thinking and behavior are still gong to be mostly determined by reference to “the local weather”. So yes, the Pope’s voice carries more or less equally around the better part of the world, but does his resulting influence?

Funny you'd be telling this to someone from Poland. I can assure you that yes, the Pope's voice carries more or less equally around the better part of the world. The Pope's voice doesn't merely overthrow communism in Poland or put an end to liberation theology in Latin America. The Pope's voice is the reason why I could travel to the craziest, wildest place in Latin America, and have something in common with the people there. "You're from Poland? The Pope's from Poland!" is a phrase far too many Polish people have reported hearing - whether they were trying to book into a hotel, or trying to get a gang of robbers to let them go, the Pope was the key. Now, of course, that's not ground-shaking stuff... but you wanna try telling me the Pope had no influence over these people? Maybe it's you that fails to understand Catholicism - for Catholics, the Pope is "the local weather", a phenomenon further strengthened by the fact that any message from the Pope is echoed down the church hierarchy to the very bottom.

Did you read this through a few times before posting it? Just what sort of “influence” is on display here? The Pope as con artist? Also, don’t “suckers” tend to catch on after a while?

Wow, you're really something. You somehow manage to twist "even an empty gesture [meaning: unbacked by deeds] by the Pope has significant impact" into "The Pope is a con artist". See what I wrote above. The Pope's empty gesture was hugely influential, because it is a signal. It tells Catholics that they should be talking with Muslims, and it tells the Muslims that the Catholics are willing to talk to them. Effectively, what he has done is told both the Catholics and the Muslims that they should do more than merely desire dialogue.

it’s the Internet. The Internet embodies the Protestant ideal, and if you don’t see that, then there’s not a lot you do see (if you catch my drift).

Interesting analogy. I kinda see what you mean, but allow me to twist your analogy around a bit.

If it wasn't for search engines, the Internet would be a mountain of crap with a few diamonds hidden somewhere within. And that's where the Pope comes in useful - when people search for "the opinion of a billion Catholics worldwide", he is the engine they use to find what they're looking for. The Protestant church, unfortunately, does not come equipped with a search engine.

You see, here's the great, hilarious irony of this discussion - it is true, like so many Catholics, I know very little about the Protestant church. It is easy for Protestants to find out about the Catholic Church. But for a Catholic, to find out about the Protestant church? Where do I look? Which church should I be looking at? As odd as this may sound, my ignorance is my point . I'll be darned if I know what the Protestant stance on, say, abortion, is - I'll be darned, because all I know is that there is no Protestant stance, with some Protestants saying one thing, and some saying another (but which Protestants are saying what? Beats me). And how can you influence me, if I don't know what you're saying?

I never tried to claim (which, as it sometimes seems, may be the impression you're under) that the message we Catholics have for the world is better or more important than what the Protestants have to say (indeed, it is for the most part the same message...). All I've ever said is that, thanks to the Pope, we are able to get this message across - while you're stuck here telling me how good it is that the Protestants can't get their message across, because it means that they can all have their own individual message.


In any case, while you've failed to persuade me even in the slightest (since I'm in denial and all that ), I can say one thing that you will agree with - it was utterly stupid of me to start and continue this discussion. I say this, ironically, having just written another reply, and already regretting that I am going to post it, as it won't bring about any results... such are the joys of bottom-up dialogue between religions, I guess .

I won't reply any further, but I will gladly read whatever you have to say in reply.

 

[Delance]

The Pope's voice doesn't merely overthrow communism in Poland or put an end to liberation theology in Latin America.

It's still around, unfortunately. But the Pope did a wonderful job to counter materialism and marxism here, and his influce can't be denied.

The Pope's voice is the reason why I could travel to the craziest, wildest place in Latin America, and have something in common with the people there.

You still can, by being a Catholic. The other day I read some letter on BBC from a Sri Lankan Catholic on Australia about Catholic Ortodoxy. Well, that's really great.

for Catholics, the Pope is "the local weather", a phenomenon further strengthened by the fact that any message from the Pope is echoed down the church hierarchy to the very bottom.

And some times, like here, even directly so, bypassing the hierarchy. The Pope comes first, before the local bishops. If the people know the Pope feels strongly about something, they will have a harder time persuading them to another view.

 

[Nemesis]

... but you wanna try telling me the Pope had no influence over these people?

I didn’t say, and would never say, the Pope has no power or influence. (That was your thing about Protestant churches, which is false.) I only said the Pope’s influence is not equal around the world, which is true.

. . .for Catholics, the Pope is "the local weather", a phenomenon further strengthened by the fact that any message from the Pope is echoed down the church hierarchy to the very bottom.

I would agree he’s an important part of their “local scene”. But I was also referring to people in general and so the Pope’s influence in general, which widely varies around the world, and often across the street.

You somehow manage to twist "even an empty gesture [meaning: unbacked by deeds] by the Pope has significant impact" into "The Pope is a con artist".

Houston, we have a problem. I did misunderstand you, because that’s not how “empty gesture” is defined in my neck of the woods, where “empty” is taken to be vain, and so an “act” that will not–and in the worst case, is not sincere and is not intended to–achieve its stated goal. In sum, I read you to be saying that the suggested dialog was but publicity, and so form without substance, and so a kind of con, which you endorsed.

As I said the other day in another thread, English is fun.

I cheer the former Pope’s efforts and hope Pope Benedict XVI continues them.

Interesting analogy. I kinda see what you mean . . .

The Eagle has landed.

But for a Catholic, to find out about the Protestant church? Where do I look?

Oh, easy. Any of the more prominent churches will do, but since you’re Catholic, I suggest the Catholic Church, which like most of the major churches keeps careful tabs on the doctrinal and policy “landscape”.

As odd as this may sound, my ignorance is my point. I'll be darned if I know what the Protestant stance on, say, abortion, is - I'll be darned, because all I know is that there is no Protestant stance, with some Protestants saying one thing, and some saying another (but which Protestants are saying what? Beats me).

Nah, I find it hard to believe that’s your point. Largely because I could say the same about several aspects of Catholic doctrine. Sure, superficially I know the Church opposes abortion, but I couldn’t pretend to know all the theological points or arguments on which it bases its position. Same for its positions on celibacy, contraception, homosexuality, the role of women, and the death penalty. Nor could I relate the essential “sticking points” that separate so-called liberal and conservative theologians in the Church. But no doubt all of that would be easy enough to learn, if I wanted to. And the same applies to you with respect to whichever Protestant church or churches you’re interested in. Just like the Catholic Church, the major ones have their formal, publicized “takes” on the world as well as their internal–also often publicized–disputes.

And how can you influence me, if I don't know what you're saying?

Well, the short answer is: stop wondering and find out. And by all means, use the Web (said the spider to the fly).

But if you want a little longer (though still quite general) answer: it’s not so much what “we” or anyone else says, but what you say. Protestantism is about believing you have the will and intelligence to discern the truths about life, the universe, and everything. And when a person sets out to do that, and comes to some conclusions, he will readily enough find others who have come to the same conclusions, and then he will find his church (which will help inspire still more conclusions).

Bottom line: the whole point is to engage and influence yourself. Personally, I don’t know of any better definition for “living” as applied to a human being.

All I've ever said is that, thanks to the Pope, we are able to get this message across - while you're stuck here telling me how good it is that the Protestants can't get their message across, because it means that they can all have their own individual message.

First, I said they do get their message across. Second, ain’t democracy grand?

. . .already regretting that I am going to post it, as it won't bring about any results... such are the joys of bottom-up dialogue between religions, I guess.

Oh, I don’t know about that. Looks like we agreed on a few things. And at the very least, I’ve had your ear and you’ve had mine. The Pope would approve.

 

[Maj.Striker]

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.

Quarto, I think there is no doubt that the office of the Pope was created with the intention of having influence and power over the governments of this world. After all this is the official designation of his power so if it's a bizaare suggestion then it is one that the Roman Catholic Church put forth, not protestants or myself.

#18. "As to papal authority, the Pope is as it were God on earth, Sole sovereign of all the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having a plentitude of unbroken power, entrusted by the omnipotent God to govern the earthly and heavenly kingdoms."

(#18. "Deveniendo ad Papae auctoritatem, Papa est quasi Deus in terra unicaus Christifidelium princeps, regum omnium rex maximus, plenitudinem potestatis continens, cui terreni simul, ac coelestis imperii gubernacula ab omnipotenti Deo credita sunt.")

Granted that implied authority and influence has greatly waned in the past centuries but it has been boosted significantly during the time of JP2.

 

[Quarto]

Pah, I know I said I wouldn't reply any further, but this doesn't count, since I'm not going to continue the debate, but rather try to give Maj.Striker an answer .

Quarto, I think there is no doubt that the office of the Pope was created with the intention of having influence and power over the governments of this world. After all this is the official designation of his power so if it's a bizaare suggestion then it is one that the Roman Catholic Church put forth, not protestants or myself.

I'm not a theologist (so I reserve the right to be wrong ), but I would say the keywords here are the Pope is as it were God on earth. His authority is derived from God, which means that he cannot interfere with the gift of free will. So, the Pope only has authority over those who willingly accept it (....though this is a very fuzzy thing - the communists in Poland certainly didn't accept his authority, but they eventually had to accept him at least as an equal because he had authority over Polish society).

In any case, the Pope's relationship with secular rulers isn't really defined in just one place, as this is something that has evolved over two thousand years. However, the most important aspects of it were explained by Jesus himself, who insisted that a) His kingdom is not of this Earth, and b) ...well, remember that comment of his about giving to God what belongs to God, and to the Emperor what belongs to the Emperor? This was basically an acknowledgment that matters of this world are dealt with by the rulers of this world.

So, the Church has always advocated equality (of sorts) between the Pope and the Emperor... but, as that quote you posted indicates, the Church considers the Pope to be... euh, more equal, by virtue of being the representative of a far greater ruler. It's a case of the Pope, on the one hand, having to respect people's free will, and on the other hand, having both the priviledge and the duty of ensuring that the free will of Christians is respected, which means intervening in any situation where Christians for some reason are being prevented from living the way they should. Even in such situations, the Pope's authority is indirect - rather than overruling a secular government, all he can do is tell people that in the eyes of God, it's acceptable for them to disobey that government in a particular matter (or in all matters, in extreme cases). Thankfully, Pope Benedict XVI has already provided an example of how this works. And, of course, there's the added detail that if the secular ruler is himself a Catholic, he cannot very well disregard the Pope's advice (but this is exactly why the Pope is limited to intervening in matters of faith - to give a secular Catholic ruler instructions/advice on worldly matters that don't affect faith would be to abuse the dualist structure of power).