lechat said:
damn didn't know retirement was an option although i'll admit i am a bit naive on the traditions of the catholic church. any catlicks want to fill us in on anything important?
brief research shows that the popes role as presented in Matthew Ch 16 is to build heaven's kingdom on earth so that the churches actions here on earth will reflect their reward in heaven. the pope is elected by what is basically a bunch of church elders
Matthew 16:18-19 is
very open to interpretation. (Note that this is where's Peter's "name" comes from; before, he was Simon, son of John. This is prolly why Popes take new names, but I'm no 100% sure on that.)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Catholic dogma holds that Jesus is saying Peter is the rock on which the (Catholic) Church will be built, the keys symbolize Peter's authority, and anything that Peter allows/forbids will have already been that way in Heaven. From this, we get the doctrine of papal infallibility and the idea that the Catholic Church is the only "true" Church, as the popes trace their line back to Peter. (It's also worth noting that Catholic dogma holds that the author of Matthew was the actual apostle, though it's since been accepted that it was written around 90 AD. Also worth noting that "hell" is a relatively modern concept, and the second half of 16:18 has nothing to do with evil or sin or whatever if removed from later Catholic writings. The word is "hades" in the original Greek and is just meant to say the Church will not die out.)
A competing interpretation, held by many Gnostic churches that existed before the Romans legitimized the Catholic Church and branded all the rest "heretics," claims that Jesus was saying he
himself is the rock on which the Church will be built. (The grammar of this makes more sense in the Greek; the KJV was written like 1500 years later and hews to the Catholic view despite being a "Protestant" work, and translation is always an imprecise art anyway.) The keys don't symbolize authority, but the knowledge required to enter it, and the allow/forbid thing is a bit more... inflexible, I guess. Not so much "You know what's up w/ Heaven, so you can allow things you know we allow" as "You best not try to allow things we disallow." This is why, for instance, Catholic dogma holds that forgiveness for sins can only be gained through priests, whereas Gnostics would directly commune with God. (All these ideas were championed by myriad "heretical" sects after the Gnostics were wiped out and eventually survived via the Reformation.)
Anyway, tl;dr version: Kinda. It's complicated.
an annoyed writer said:
Huh. Thought he had to die to give up that position. not that I care, I'm an atheist, and they don't like me much either. Wonder if the new guy will incite any positive change of any sort. I'm not counting on it, but the thought of it occurring is a nice one to entertain.
Anything could happen... the Church is (obv) very secretive about this sorta thing. Common wisdom about Benedict, though, is that he was elected to be a "transitional" pope (in other words, keeping the seat warm.) JP II had a rather long reign and had a
huge impact on Church policy. After a quarter century of him, it was very unlikely they'd elect a liberal: it'd just be too much change too fast to have someone so different from JP right after he'd died, considering how conservative he was and how well-liked he was by Catholics. Hence Benny, a relatively boring guy with pretty similar stances to his predecessor.
To play the armchair cardinal... it's entirely possible they'll just elect another European conservative and stay the course, though the only reason to do that would be fear of change or as a compromise candidate. Their current path is just not sustainable; they're too far behind the times.
"Compromise" because there are essentially two forward-looking paths they could take.
One: Elect a liberal pope and reform some of their outdated doctrines in an attempt to win back lapsed Catholics in Europe/US/Canada. Legitimize contraception, allow women into the priesthood, tone down the anti-LGBT stuff, accept reasonable science such as evolution and stem cell research, push for more interfaith initiatives. They wouldn't go as far as most of us would like, but it'd be a start.
Two: Elect a Latin American (or African, but that seems less likely) pope, go ultra-conservative, and focus on those regions (and possibly East Asia) to the exclusion of others. South American Catholics alone outnumber Europeans 1.5:1, and their numbers are waxing while Europe's are waning.
Or they could do something completely different, who knows.
Edit: Plus there's the prophecy that says the next pope will destroy Rome... so there's
that...
