it all boils done to one of the seven deadly sins - "pride"
You don't retire the Vicar of Christ on Earth for Pete's sake. It's like joining the Mafia. Only one way out.
Yer prolly right about the practical benefit of particular admonishments MA. I tend to assume of my forensic opponents at least a modicum of intellectual honesty and some sense of responsibility - an assumption not always warranted.
I do share your amusement here, though, and wouldn't bet against Asherman's probable mirth.
Back to business - yeah there is precedent, but scant precedent, for retirement from the Papacy. Its about as uncommon as outright abdication; not unheard of, but singularly notable for its rarity. Such occurances as have been noted have been characterized in the main by considerable ensuin' contentiousness and instability borderin' on chaos. It just hasn't worked out very well, and that plays heavilly in the contemporary explorations of perhaps establishin' a suitable procedure for dealin' with the statutory retirement not just of Popes but of Cardinals as well.
To try to answer Soz's querry, but prolly just confuse, I'd say the Papacy specifically IS NOT about the individual, but rather the office supercedes all personal considerations. Its sorta analogous to military hierarchy; a non-com or officer may or may not be a jerk, or even competent, but that is immaterial to the respect and recognition attendent upon the individual's rank, something which is wholly apart from the individual at question. One does not salute a superior, or return a salute to a subordinate, one salutes a superior's rank or acknowledges respect for the rank of a subordinate by returnin' that subordinate's salute. The individual personages involved have nothin' to do with it. Likewise, while an individual occupies the Papacy, it is not the individual who is the Papacy. It is the office, not the individual, which commands fealty, obedience, and respect. An individual holdin' tht office may merit similar deference, or may not; none the less, the primacy of the office is paramount. It transcends individuality, and is an entity unto itself.
I think Timber's right on that.
And was Gregory the XII the one who became a hermit? Memory fails, you know.
I know, I know, I could look it up.
Back in a bit.
Here we go -
http://www.answers.com/topic/pope-celestine-v
This reminds me of a book I used to avoid, The Celestine Prophecies.
inner peace.. did ya have to get upset just when the conversation was getting good?
now the thread might get locked..
any-who..
My question..
I agree with your
above statement Timber.
But being that I am not catholic , nor do I have a great understanding of the Catholic faith..
can you explain the WHY of the following points you made:
timberlandko wrote:
To try to answer Soz's querry, but prolly just confuse, I'd say the Papacy specifically IS NOT about the individual, but rather the office supercedes all personal considerations. ....
.. Likewise, while an individual occupies the Papacy, it is not the individual who is the Papacy. It is the office, not the individual, which commands fealty, obedience, and respect.
.
husker wrote:it all boils done to one of the seven deadly sins - "pride"
WO DEADLY SINS... that scars that crap out o me
I imagine some committee decides when, if, how ... Very political, the Vatican!
Im sure they do too.
But how does one become the pope?
are they born into the job... like an inheritance?
Catholics dont believe in multiple lives , so they wont seek out the OLD pope after he has been re-born like they do with the Dalai Llama.. but does something like that have a place in the choice for pope?
Or, does the position of the pope only happen to men with the name John Paul?
Is it like a 4 star general ? You only get it if you work your ass off, devote your entire life to it, study like a mad man .. and then get voted into place? If that is the case then anyone can be a pope right?
I was just wondering these things because, in HOW he got to be the pope may help some of us understand the reason why he can NOT retire.. ?
The Pope is elected by the cardinals. I'm sure others who are more knowledgable will give you a deeper explanation.
I just want to stick in here that the Pope is now being fed through a feeding tube. Here we go....
Quote:Vatican: Pope Getting Nutrition From Tube
March 30, 2005 8:22 AM EST
VATICAN CITY - Pope John Paul II is getting nutrition from a tube in his nose, the Vatican said Wednesday, shortly after the frail pontiff appeared at his window in St. Peter's Square and managed only a rasp when he tried to speak.
Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls said the step was taken to "improve the pope's calorie intake" and so he can recover his strength. It was unclear when the tube was inserted but it was not visible when John Paul made his appearance.
The tube is not the only source of nutrition for the pope, a Vatican official said on condition of anonymity.
Asked about reports of a possible hospitalization, the official said there were no plans at this time and any decision would be up to his doctors.
The medical report was the first issued on the pope since March 10 - three days before he was discharged from the hospital for the second time in a month.
The state
yuuuup.
But his tube isnt the same type as t.schiavo's and according to the media, there will be no comparison.
any-who.
thanks for the link timber.
Yeah, thanks Timber. That was interesting.
hmm... that sounds alot like a Knights of Columbus bingo game where more then one person wins.
So what is the Pope's job?
Is he the end all decision maker? Or is he just the "" media puppet "" for catholics?
since there is this HUGE ritual over choosing a pope, I can understand WHy he can not just retire.. but .. isnt there a point where the quality of life out weighs rules of life?
meaning..
he cant make it to prayer meetings, he can not parade in front of people like he used to. Face it, he cant do anything now. For him to go on and ATTEMPT these things will only cause him serious physical damage, deny him of MUCH needed rest, and possibly cause an unexpected death...?
He has no quality in his life at this point. Why can there not be a way for him to just sit back and relax his last few days ?
shewolfnm wrote:hmm... that sounds alot like a Knights of Columbus bingo game where more then one person wins.
Aren't the Knight of Columbus Catholic?
shewolfnm wrote:So what is the Pope's job?
Is he the end all decision maker? Or is he just the "" media puppet "" for catholics?
Both.
The pope can't do his public appearances and diplomatic meetings or write encyclicals at the moment but his most important religious function of saying "Yes" or "No" has not diminished.
As I understand it, the Pope has major authority for interpreting Catholic dogma. The current Pope has been conservative in this regard, but others have been less so. Was it Pope John XXIII who initiated the change from Latin masses to masses in the language of each culture? I'm not sure, but that's an example of how a Pope does more than participate in ceremonial events...
The Pope, while Supreme Head of The Church, may be thought of somewhat in terms of someone who simultaneously holds the positions of CEO and Chairman of the Board. He can drive policy, but really can't autonomously effect (as opposed to "affect") it. The Holy See is comprised of
The Roman Curia, chief among which are
The Roman Congregations. These bodies offer "Advice and Consent", rather in the manner of a parliamentary body, so to speak - an incredibly layered, complex parliamentary body, but not dissimilar in function and effect than the Houses of Congress. Our Congress has had a couple centuries to evolve, The Curia has been at it about 10 times longer. There's little wonder its so much more inscrutable and mysterious than our Congress.
