The 25th anniversary of John Paul II's papacy (no spam)

[Macleod1701]

Well I just see the whole institutiion as outdated and archaic, then again I think that about most religion. I just really don't undertsand why millions of people want to live their lives under the rules set down by at best a veritble corpse and all the cronies that follow him about in weird clothing. How can he justify (or they I mean the religious world in general) telling people how to live their lives?

C'mon Fable your very clever judging from your posts that I've read if anyone can help me understand you can. (Probably told you that my sister is a wicca so woo yay you)

[fable]

I think an answer to that question is best left to a Roman Catholic. I don't have an insider's view. But I do know that the pope is regarded as god's vicar on earth and the "keeper of the keys," as well as the spiritual leader of humanity. He is fallible, except when he speaks ex cathedra. His desire to stay on the papal throne can be viewed as his own personal choice, and I'm sure every Catholic has their own opinion of that.

As for the "weird clothing," it's all symbolic, every bit of it, just a bit more formal and colorful than you're used to. Some religions are simply more into visual symbol than others, and that kind of heavy symbolism used to be the standard, too. I've seen some Wiccan getups that would also make you role your eyes! Though I personally favor simple black robes, unless I'm with a group that practices skyclad worship. -But nude worship, too, can be viewed as a form of reaction against the rich splendor of Roman Catholic vestments and surroundings. It's all just what works for you.

[C Elegans]

Since the current pope is ultra conservative, much more so than several of his predecessors, and he values religious dogma before human life as I describe above, I hope he will die or retire now so another, hopefully less fanatic and more humanistic pope will be installed.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by C Elegans Since the current pope is ultra conservative, much more so than several of his predecessors, and he values religious dogma before human life as I describe above, I hope he will die or retire now so another, hopefully less fanatic and more humanistic pope will be installed.

Mellowing out, @CE? I suspect the College of Cardinals would say "traditional" instead of "fanatical," and "rebel" instead of "humanistic." Unfortunately, since the pope has had the opportunity to select nearly every member of the College during his administration, the chances of getting a less doctrinaire successor are slim to non-existent. More likely they will want a young, vigorous man, charismatic and forceful, but as unwilling to budge as John Paul II.

In a way, and strictly from my personal perspective, this is good. It means more Roman Catholics will have to perform some true self-examination and determine whether they can follow the Vatican, or perhaps move to another, less rigidly hierarchal faith--perhaps Anglican/Episcopal, which has become mired in controversy from the opposite of the fence. The Anglicans have certainly taken steps to involve themselves positively in cultural crisis, such as the efforts to free Iran-held American hostages back in the 1970s and 1980s. By contrast, the Vatican has spent all its diplomatic efforts trying to scuttle attempts by world organizations to cope with over-population through the distribution of condoms, accurate sex information, and even accurate information about AIDS. (Who can forget the RCC bishop that claimed in public AIDS was spread by the use of condoms?)

[Macleod1701]

Well religious figures have made some extremely strange claims over the years. Earth being the centre of the universe was a big slip up for them, and don't get me started on when they claimed it was flat, (was that the vatican that claimed that)?
Then you have the typical rubbish they spout like 'gay people are evil' and 'beauty marks are the devils sign'.....wait that was whitch hunters. What a load of tripe they speak

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Macleod1701 Well religious figures have made some extremely strange claims over the years. Earth being the centre of the universe was a big slip up for them, and don't get me started on when they claimed it was flat, (was that the vatican that claimed that)?

I've never seen any reputable source from the Late Egyptian dynasties onward that ever felt the earth was flat. The Egyptians proved it wasn't, and that information disseminated fairly quickly. Unfortunately, the culture was structured in such a way that they couldn't advance beyond their truly remarkable beginnings in astronomy, chemistry, biology, and medicine.

The Vatican never claimed the earth was the center of the universe. What they did was argue that both the old Ptolemaic Theory (with all the planets in the solar system revolving around the sun) and a Copernican Theory (in which at least most of the planets revolved directly around the sun) could be reconciled. Galileo, loud-mouthed, smug idiot that he was, decided to ridicule the pope of the day, a very liberal-minded scholar, and in a document that was circulated throughout all the universities and courts of Europe. Naturally, the Vatican firmed up its position, and tossed Galileo in jail. Hell, if you'd read what Galileo wrote on that occasion and many, earlier ones, you'd want to do something unpleasant to him, too. The man stole the ideas of others without giving credit, cringed obsequiously when he wanted favors, ignored those who helped him when they were down and out, laughed condescendingly at anything he disagreed with, etc.

I'm no great fan of the Vatican, but Galileo was a 14-karat jerk.

[Luis Antonio]

Once, a few years ago, I told my grandmother that the pope should have already been replaced, I mean, he should have given up. He should continue to work and help the church in other places where he could be far more usefull than into the leading position. My grandmother told me to get out of her house and finde shelter somewhere else, with shouts of "it is God who decides when he is going to leave". Our relationship has never been the same after that, but I dont really miss it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CE I think the very idea of the pope is a relic.

That is my point too. The idea of a nominated voice of God in the earth is kinda strange for my ears, and sounds a lot like politics stuff. Anyway, politics is what has ever made the church evolve or unenvolve (evolve backwards, sorry for my english) in many aspects.
I question myself every now and then why not accept the changes that the society needs? Of course, here we would be entering in the minefield of protected sex, priest marriage, nuns marriage and the belief in the bible. Aint the pope resilience to leave his place another sign of the corrosion of the church as an social support entity or even a money gathering enterprise?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fable Unfortunately, his sudden death brought the program crashing down, and the conservative cardinals who had chosen him, retreated from following up with another revolutionary.

You see, for the Cardinals or whomever really directs the church, the better thing is to avoid changes. A transparent church means letting people see through the trash and deaths the church has caused, and seeing the intolerance they preached through their expansion route in Europe, Asia adn - in a very deeply social range closer to me - in the killing of indians and their beliefs. I dont see every order in the catholic church as bad, I dont see them backstabbing people, but they have destroyed cultures without care for anything. This is a strong truth, in my opinion, and thats why such an uproar happens when they see that a pure native comunity is being harassed by priests or evangelists (the RCC is no longer making expansion work with the "savage" indians at the same rate of the past, but there are a few evangelist chuches, all of them born from the same credo, that try to save the indians all the time, killing cultural factors that could somehow contribute in a better portrait of humankind). So no change in the internal factors help them hide many many dirt things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mcleod I just really don't undertsand why millions of people want to live their lives under the rules set down by at best a veritble corpse and all the cronies that follow him about in weird clothing.

I agree with you that this is a very bad marketing move for the church. A new pope would help the RCC to extend its influency optimally. And also it would increase the respect for the one in the lead position, since it is no longer a "rotting person" (sorry, not my intention to offend anyone).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fable I suspect the College of Cardinals would say "traditional" instead of "fanatical," and "rebel" instead of "humanistic."

Yes, it is just like the president choosing the entire team to govern his country, a dictatorial thing, in the end. And they are the voice of god, so you cant really say they are wrong without being heretic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mcleod Then you have the typical rubbish they spout like 'gay people are evil' and 'beauty marks are the devils sign'.....wait that was whitch hunters.

Sometimes the absolute truths are easier to understand. People often prefer to make their judgement be guided, cause thinking is a bit hard - you will agree with me, Macleod. So, a simplistic religion, that encourage a slave form of life and a chain of power - you're poor because god wishes it, you are rich because god wishes it, so bow down to the priest and await for his greatness to bless you with better conditions on the heavens. Its all about acceptance and intolerance, and "To love each other as I loved you all" means to me that we must accept each other as they are, even though sometimes it is hard.

[Macleod1701]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable I've never seen any reputable source from the Late Egyptian dynasties onward that ever felt the earth was flat. The Egyptians proved it wasn't, and that information disseminated fairly quickly. Unfortunately, the culture was structured in such a way that they couldn't advance beyond their truly remarkable beginnings in astronomy, chemistry, biology, and medicine. The Vatican never claimed the earth was the center of the universe. What they did was argue that both the old Ptolemaic Theory (with all the planets in the solar system revolving around the sun) and a Copernican Theory (in which at least most of the planets revolved directly around the sun) could be reconciled. Galileo, loud-mouthed, smug idiot that he was, decided to ridicule the pope of the day, a very liberal-minded scholar, and in a document that was circulated throughout all the universities and courts of Europe. Naturally, the Vatican firmed up its position, and tossed Galileo in jail. Hell, if you'd read what Galileo wrote on that occasion and many, earlier ones, you'd want to do something unpleasant to him, too. The man stole the ideas of others without giving credit, cringed obsequiously when he wanted favors, ignored those who helped him when they were down and out, laughed condescendingly at anything he disagreed with, etc. I'm no great fan of the Vatican, but Galileo was a 14-karat jerk.

Hmmm I was sure I was at least partly right but I bow to your superior knowledge (you cheeky devil). I knew the egyptians, persians and arabs had already proven the earth to be round but I thought that the christian church refuted that. Oh well wont be the last time I'm wrong lol

[jopperm2]

I'm not Catholic either, in fact I'm going stright to heck according to an old Pope cuz I'm a Mason. I do however see the need to not turn the Papacy into any more of a political position than it already is. I think John Paul wants to cling to his throne because as Luis grandmother put it "it is God who decides." I don't think he will leave voluntarily unless he feels God has decided he should.

Also, he may be very conservative in some respects, but didn't he apologize for the crusades and inquisition as well as proclaiming evolution part of God's plan? I could be way off here, but I thought I read that somewhere.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jopperm2 Also, he may be very conservative in some respects, but didn't he apologize for the crusades and inquisition as well as proclaiming evolution part of God's plan? I could be way off here, but I thought I read that somewhere.

As I recall, John Paul II apologized for the effects of the Inquisition, not the Inquisition, itself--not quite the same thing. In any case, the Vatican didn't have much influence on the Inquisition, which was directly under control of Spanish Dominicans; and it was actually a moderating force at the time in the witch/sorcerer hunts of Europe. (It was not a moderating force at home, however, where it was used to root out "heresies" among converted Jews and Muslims who had become Christians; but this was also Spanish government policy, under the "sainted" Ferdinand and Isabella, who believed in cultural/religious genocide.) Typically, the Inquisition held its prisoners suspected of witchcraft, etc, for a few months, checked for possession and dark arts through simple questioning, waited for public hysteria to blow over, then let the suspects go. More problems occurred when the secular authorities got hold of suspects, first.

There was never an apology (to my knowledge) offered for the Crusades. The Vatican would still like to control Jerusalem. I don't recall any comments from the pope about evolution.

These aren't important issues, in any case. It's easy to apologize for something done by somebody else 500 years ago. Look to what the Vatican does now. I think it is largely a force promulgating deception and harm because of its positions on AIDS, contraception, and the privilege of religion to secrecy in education--with what effects, the RCC has seen in massive payouts this past few years.

[jopperm2]

Thanks for the clarification on the Inquisition. Not exactly the same thing.
I think I remember somehthing about the crusades and evoltion(that's the big one for the church IMO) . Also, I remembered this last night I think he acknowledged the Big Bang Theory as correct. That's not a real big thing though as no one knows what caused such an event. It's easy to Christianize it.

I have a problem with the whole AIDS thing too. I can't blame them for discouraging condom use as that is their belief, but I don't agree with lying to the people. It would have been better to simply say Sex and bodily fluids like Blood cause AIDS and leave it at that. Not exactly the truth but a much better message.

I do think the RCC still wants Jerulelem as you said, but I think they were more apologizing for the genocidal implications of crusading.

[fable]

The pope's received the last rites. He's making a flurry of important, high-ranking appointments, no doubt to shore up the already huge arch-conservative platform that he's espoused over the years--if not, why make all these moves at the last moment? For better or worse, this pope has had the time, influence and will to dramatically shape the RCC. His is the third-longest tenure in papal history.

Anyone want to make a guess on what type of person will be elected, next? My thoughts are that a younger, more vigorous man in the same mold will be chosen.

[Rob-hin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fable Anyone want to make a guess on what type of person will be elected, next? My thoughts are that a younger, more vigorous man in the same mold will be chosen.

When you say younger, how young do you mean? Naturally, everyone is young compared to you o babylonian god, , but young is relative. My guess would be a man of 65 years old, an average of past elections. It's an old men's club after all.

Naturally, he too will be conservative. The church isn't know for it's changes through the years.

[Sytze]

I’m not sure age will play that an important role in the next election. Rather, the place where he comes from will be a decisive factor. Also, I do not think a young cardinal has a great chance of getting elected. The church is kind of reluctant to have a young pope who holds on for more than a quarter of a century.

I believe there are several cardinals who are possible contenders for becoming the next pope. Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga (1942), from Latin America, is a possible contender. An increasing number of cardinals come from this region, so this increases his chances. However, since he’s only 62, the church might object to his young age. The second and third contenders are Dionigi Tettamanzi (1934), who leads in Milan the biggest bishopric of Europe, and Giovanni Battista Re (1934). I think these two are the greatest contenders for the next election. They have an acceptable age, both originate from Italy and have a good reputation.
There are, of course, more cardinals up for the position, but I unfortunately do not know their names. I know there’s a black cardinal, who’s goal –should he be appointed- is to ‘recruit’ a lot of believers in Africa. If he would be chosen, he would be the first black pope, at least, I think so. Another region is Asia. The church its popularity is rising explosively in that continent and a pope who originates from that region would more than likely increase the RCC following.

[ik911]

A black pope. That's interesting. It would make the Church less discriminating than America, but his goal is not good IMHO. I don't like the idea of spreading Christianity in Africa because the African people are a lot more 'sexually active', spreading AIDS much faster without the condoms. (presuming he isn't going to break with that 'tradition'.)