Hip-Hip...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQgl5LCc-qk
Typical papal reign is about 10 years or so. We have been spoiled by the 26 years of John Paul II, third longest running pope. I expect this to be a once a decade or so deal.
Then again, when this happened 7 years ago I had money on Benny 16 being dead in 5 years.
Interesting to hear he's a Jesuit. Other than than that, I don't want to hear any more about it through the media.
Joe Gearin wrote: With all of the troubles the church is facing it would have been nice to see a younger Pope. Someone with the energy to really change the culture of the papacy. Maybe someone who would spend the church's money on helping the poor and needy, as opposed to celebrating the church itself. Someone with the courage and vitality to really take on the established leaders who have contributed to the epidemic of pedophilia. The Catholic church is in need of someone who can restore trust and faith. It's a tall order for any man.....especially an old man.
FYI, this is a guy who, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires, decided to live in an apartment rather than the bishop's mansion. He also took the bus rather than be driven around, as was befitting his station. Yesterday, rather than take the papal limo back, he rode in the bus with the rest of the Cardinals.
Then, there's this:
In reply to scardeal:
He really does sound like he is going to be good.
The only "dirt" found on him is, how do I say this without sounding like a bad joke, his hard line anti-gay stance.
neon4891 wrote: In reply to scardeal: He really does sound like he is going to be good. The only "dirt" found on him is, how do I say this without sounding like a bad joke, his hard line anti-gay stance.
Or that foot fetish photo just above there... I mean... I'm sure it was a serious and touching moment but you know the 4Chan guys are using that for all kinds of hilarity right now.
neon4891 wrote: The only "dirt" found on him is, how do I say this without sounding like a bad joke, his hard line anti-gay stance.
If by anti-gay, you mean opposed to homosexual activity, marriage, etc. then he's professing unity with the Catholic Church. The Church cannot up and change what it teaches about the nature of man, just because it is not popular. To do so would discredit any claims to authority or inerrancy. Honestly, I would have to defect to Eastern Orthodoxy if that were to happen. It would be the last bastion of hope for Christianity.
If you mean hateful and spiteful, then I'd be very surprised to see such a thing.
scardeal wrote:neon4891 wrote: The only "dirt" found on him is, how do I say this without sounding like a bad joke, his hard line anti-gay stance.If by anti-gay, you mean opposed to homosexual activity, marriage, etc. then he's professing unity with the Catholic Church. The Church cannot up and change what it teaches about the nature of man, just because it is not popular. To do so would discredit any claims to authority or inerrancy. Honestly, I would have to defect to Eastern Orthodoxy if that were to happen. It would be the last bastion of hope for Christianity.
No it wouldn't. And yes, the church can up and change what it teaches. It won't, but it could do it.
One of the biggest issues that I have with the church: on the gay-front, I still have not heard a good answer from my priest, or any Catholic, why the Catholic church should have a say in whether this country should allow gay marriage. My ancestors on my mothers side can be traced directly back to the Mayflower and to Lord Baltimore's Catholics. They came to this land for religious freedom, and now the church is trying to impose religion upon the state. I have a serious problem with that.
In reply to scardeal:
I mean no hate or ill will on the matter. As I understand it, his stance on it is more like "turning it up to 11" rather than just "business as usual"
scardeal wrote: The Church cannot up and change what it teaches about the nature of man, just because it is not popular.
That is what the church used to say about astronomy until Galileo worked out the details of Copernicus's heliocentrism theory using one of them fancy telescopes.
After the inquisition forced him to recant and remain imprisoned for heresy for the remainder of his life... then fiddling about for a couple decades... they got to rethinking it once it was obvious they couldn't make it go away.
Most of these issues are not nearly as big a mistake as not being the center of the universe. I think they could make some amendments. It isn't like credibility is a strong suit anyway.
Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:scardeal wrote: The Church cannot up and change what it teaches about the nature of man, just because it is not popular.That is what the church used to say about astronomy until Galileo worked out the details of Copernicus's heliocentrism theory using one of them fancy telescopes.
Actually, the Church only claims to be infallible in terms of faith and morals, not in terms of science. Galileo's problem was that he started telling people how to interpret the Bible in light of his observations and theories.
So, no, the Church hasn't changed its stand on anything infallibly taught.
mtn wrote: One of the biggest issues that I have with the church: on the gay-front, I still have not heard a good answer from my priest, or any Catholic, why the Catholic church should have a say in whether this country should allow gay marriage. My ancestors on my mothers side can be traced directly back to the Mayflower and to Lord Baltimore's Catholics. They came to this land for religious freedom, and now the church is trying to impose religion upon the state. I have a serious problem with that.
I think their issue with it is this, they(and many other religions) don't want gay marriage to become a recognized right of the people, as then that would open them up to lawsuits claiming discrimination when they refused people on the grounds of their faith and belief. I doubt we shall ever see them change their stance on the issue, so my advice for those offended by it is to just not pay attention to them.
scardeal wrote: So, no, the Church hasn't changed its stand on anything infallibly taught.
Do you suppose once homosexuality is shown to be determined by compounds that activate DNA being sensitive to hormones in the womb that suddenly they will have to re-determine what is "infallible" about their teachings?
I bet they know the clock is ticking... but they will wait until it's common knowledge before they stop ostracizing gays because once it's common knowledge - there won't be as much backlash. Smart. But evil.
scardeal wrote:Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:Actually, the Church only claims to be infallible in terms of faith and morals, not in terms of science. Galileo's problem was that he started telling people how to interpret the Bible in light of his observations and theories. So, no, the Church hasn't changed its stand on anything infallibly taught.scardeal wrote: The Church cannot up and change what it teaches about the nature of man, just because it is not popular.That is what the church used to say about astronomy until Galileo worked out the details of Copernicus's heliocentrism theory using one of them fancy telescopes.
But now we're at the fact/idea/theory/whatever that sexual preference would fall under science rather than faith and morals.
You'll need to log in to post.