Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Pope Francis I
you may or may not have heard that they just elected a new pope.
that's this dude.
he's most well-known for very strongly opposing the legalization of gay marriage in his home country of Argentinia.
*sigh*
Comments
Here we go again...
Every single cardinal is against that. Nonetheless, by the standards of the Catholic Church, and indeed by the standards of the Conclave, the guy's a reformist. One of the very small reformist minority that stood against a conservative/ultraconservative majority.
Si I must say, I'm quite stunned. Not only was the Conclave very quick, especially seeing as everybody had said it had been called so surprisingly and there has been no clear favourite, it also ended in quite a surprising result. As I've said, there has been a clear conservative/ultraconservative majority in the Conclave, or so everybody assumed, just not a necessary 2/3 majority for them to elect a candidate of their liking outright. And now, a reformist has been elected! How did this happen?
I mean, the guy goes so far and breaks with centuries of tradition already by choosing a new papal name (well okay, John Paul I also already kinda did, but only by combining two old names). And then Francis of Assisi! There is no more radical reformist saint in Catholic history. Doesn't mean the new pope will be, but the symbolism is already quite amazing.
Of course, might be the age. Since he's aged 76, it's possible the Conclave assumed he'll just be a temporary solution (i.e., will die in a few years). But of course that already had been the assumed logic behind Ratzinger's election, and that didn't quite work out. Though it would be a bit worrying if in the next decades we see a string of conclaves only electing old Cardinals to be pope because they can't agree on a "permanent" candidate. Then again, I'm probably just speculating here.
(and yes, this post is mostly cross-posted from BTL)
A humble working class Pope has been chosen.
So apparently this guy came in 2nd last time, or so rumour goes. So that's another possible, speculative explanation for his election besides the age: It might be due to an inter-Conclave compromise pact between the factions. The Reformists are a minority, yes, but they could block every Conclave by preventing a 2/3 majority to form. So maybe the compromise was "We back your candidate this election (Ratzinger), you'll back our candidate next election (Bergoglio)" and the conservatives actually honoured that agreement. Again, just speculation, though. However, if it's true and if this 'pact' extends to future conclaves as well, then we might already speculate that the next pope after Bergoglio will be a conservative again...
> not Peter II.
Welp.
I can't help but imagine that the thought of giving the finger to apocalyptic conspiracy crazies must've played some role in the decision on the new pope's name. Not only is it not a repeat after ol' St. Peter (which would be hilariously hubristic in any case), it's not a repeat period.
I would imagine Bergoglio being a bit above such considerations. Still, what an awesome opportunity at trolling missed! Imagine how the crazies would've freaked if he had indeed called himself Peter II!
Don't worry, the wackos will find a way to make him fit into the prophecy.
Concerning name of the new pope, it has been pointed out that Francis is the name both of St. Francis of Assisi (the new pope is considered to be concerned with the poor and downtrodden), and St. Francis Xavier (the founder of the Jesuit order, which the new pope belongs to).
Oh this is priceless: So not only has Maduro, the acting President of Venezuela, accused the USA of having infected Chavez with cancer, no, now he also has apparently claimed that Chavez had something to do with the first appointment of a Latin American to the papal office:
"We know that our late Commandante has ascended to those heights [heaven], is face to face with Christ. Something influenced the decision for a South American Pope, a new hand came and Christ said: It is the hour of South America. So it seems."
Shine on, Maduro, you crazy diamond!
I'm not a fan, but I guess it's a step up from Ratzinger.
I'd say it's more a step sideways than anything else.
as an ex-Catholic I am continually ashamed of my former Church.
I'm glad they didn't elect the one guy though, who was apparently very staunchly anti-Muslim.
On the one hand, Bergoglio is pretty socially conservative... but not by Conclave standards; on the other, his actions indicate a very strong concern for the poor and a rejection of the conventional papal pomp, which is more than welcome in my book.
Why are people acting surprised about this? He's the Pope. The leaders of a socially-conservative religion picked him to run it. Were people expecting the Pope to go "eh, I don't really have any problem with gay marriage" or something?
Anyway, my take on him is that he's about the best guy for the job that we were actually going to get.
I am fine with him actually. At least he is not Emperor Palpatine
^^ I'm not. That's why I said "...but not by Conclave standards."
Yeah, fair enough. I was mostly reacting to Lazuli.
OK.
I'm not surprised--I was raised Catholic after all--I'm just annoyed. There's a difference.
What would happen if all the cardinals plus the pope died at the same time (say a gay orgy happened in front of them and shocked their old hearts into giving up)?
Bishops would promote themselves as a provisional measure, there'd be a power struggle, and life would go on. Pretty much the same thing that would happen in the disappearance of top-ranking officials in any other setup.
He looks kind of like Woody Allen.
Probably about as creepy as Woody Allen too.
"Hey baby, you make my Allen Woody!"
The lowest ranking is probably the unordained. The Church would probably break into separate parishes led by those who step up to serve as clergy in absence of the real deal. With time it would probably coalesce into a number of bigger regional Churches which may or may not later unify and recreate the initial organisation. But what could cause such an event would be so speculative I'm not sure if it's worthy of discussion.
There would be a massive worldwide investigation into why all these people were removed.
The Ecomonist's take on His Holiness.
Pope Francis has warned the Catholic Church would become "a compassionate NGO" without spiritual renewal.
There would be a very significant theological issue at work if you remove all Cardinals, or all bishops: The apostolic succession. Bishops are not just offices, they have in them according to Catholic Theology the holy spirit that was passed down from Jesus to their apostles (primarily Petrus of course), and from them to various bishops in all the world, and from them to the next bishops and so on. Thus, the Catholic Church claims an uninterrupted spiritual succession directly from Jesus.
Now, I'm not entirely sure, but I think that purely theologically bishops can ordain other bishops, they're just told not to for organizational reasons. So the apostolic succession could survive the removal of all Cardinals and the Pope. But the removal of all bishops would break the apostolic succession, and without it, what's the sense anymore of the Catholic Church? That IS why they see themselves as the only true church. Not so much because of doctrinal correctness, but because of this apostolic succession. Without it, there'd be no purpose to the Catholic Church, so theologically, too, it couldn't survive the removal of all bishops.