Swimpy wrote:I think the cardinals made a big mistake. How will this choice improve the shrinking numbers in churches around the world?
By being doctrinaire and pigheaded, I suppose. In Germany, the mushy protestant churches lose more members than the more absolutist catholic church. In South America, the progressive catholic church loses members to born again evangelical churches imported from the United States. I think believers
expect a church to stick to their ideological guns, whether they like it or not. When they start compromising, they lose the respect of the community.
Wunner how long it'll be before someone - Italian, most likely - comes up with the pun-ish sobriqet "Papa Ratzi". Doubt it'll take long.
Oh, and re "Ratzi the Nazi" - as alluded earlier, by POM, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) - Ratzinger was enrolled into the Hitler Youth when membership became mandatory. I imagine those playin' that particular card will not note he shortly after mandatory, strictly formatic and procedural enrollment was granted a dispensation and discharge on the basis of his religious beliefs. Toward the end of the war, he was concripted, but served no combat time. He himself never joined the Nazi Party, and in fact both he and his father were staunchly anti-Nazi/Anti-Hitler (in so far as one could be in the Germany of the time and manage to avoid imprisonment or worse), much to the Ratzinger family's inconvenience.
Thomas -- Interesting insight. Had an African been elected, unless the man was very much an elitist, the Church would have been headed by a man who was a first hand witness to the clash of east and west, the fall out of colonialism and the other problems Africa is wrestling with. I would like to think he would have been more human and humane than I suppose Ratzinger to be.
On the bright side: they didn't pick Bernard Law.
old europe wrote:kickycan wrote:I think it's perfect. This should keep Christianity, and hopefully all organized religions, headed slowly but surely into the dustbin of history.
aaawww, kicky! That was mean!
Really? I thought it was rather hopeful, actually.
timberlandko wrote:Wunner how long it'll be before someone - Italian, most likely - comes up with the pun-ish sobriqet "Papa Ratzi". Doubt it'll take long.
.
You were beaten to it some 3-4 hours ago.
http://foot.ie/forums/showthread.php?t=24253&page=2&pp=20 (2nd post down)
Nevertheless, I most likely don't want to see all organized religions headed into the dustbin of history.
I mean, I'm not sure what you mean by "organized religions" vs. unorganized religions, for example.
But think of the Dalai Lama. Dustbin of history? Nah.....
I liked the Church of John XXIII. When my son and his wife were in college and Florida and had trouble paying their electric bill, Catholic Charities was very helpful to them and gave them a great deal of support on many levels, despite the fact that neither one was Catholic.
I did not like the Church that emerged soon after the death of John XXIII, with a rise of fundamentalism and people speaking in tongues. I didn't like the Church that turned its back on European Jewry.
Whether Catholic or not, I find too many so-called religious people to be hypocrites. The more conservative the holder of the religious beliefs, the bigger the secret sins.
gav wrote:timberlandko wrote:Wunner how long it'll be before someone - Italian, most likely - comes up with the pun-ish sobriqet "Papa Ratzi". Doubt it'll take long.
.
You were beaten to it some 3-4 hours ago.
I was, huh? Thanks. Not surprised at all. Was unaware of the scoop. Figured it was inevitable, though.
<sigh> Oh, well.
Maybe next time we'll get a Pope that won't condemn gay marriage, divorce, and the possibility of human cloning.
plainoldme wrote:I liked the Church of John XXIII. When my son and his wife were in college and Florida and had trouble paying their electric bill, Catholic Charities was very helpful to them and gave them a great deal of support on many levels, despite the fact that neither one was Catholic.
I worked for a while (too long) in the "charity industry." I was an employee of a family shelter. Every agency out there, from the Salvation Army on down, was out to get all they could for the least effort and expenditure. The sterling exceptions to that rule were most (although not all) of the local churches, but especially Catholic Social Services, and Lutheran Social Services. No religionist I, my inclination is to despise and distrust the religionist. But unlike so many charities, these two were truly charitable, and sought no financial support from any of the organizations which referred to them or used their services; and unlike so many other psalm-singing churches who handed out turkey and ham at Thanksgiving and Christmas, their activities were not self-promotional, and took place every day of the year.
So, what is he...Benedict the 16th?
Anybody have any spare knowledge about any of the Benedicts?
Go back a few pages, girl . . .
Thanks. I knew you'd know!
(I'll read back, but from what I just read on a Catholic site, the Benedicts were a morbid bunch.)
My take is that the choice of that particular name - and Popes do not choose their Papal names cavalierly - points to a sense on Ratzinger's part of a need for a steady, firm, unwaverin', conservative hand at the tiller as The Curch negotiates troubled waters - a helmsman to steer the true course. The true course as he sees it, of course. I anticipate we will see an Iron Hand in an Iron Glove. Popular or not, Benedict XVI certainly will be no populist, and will be forcefull and unambiguous. He will be difficult to dismiss, and impossible to ignore.
I'm trying to get why fbaezer says the choice was deliberate--which I know it always is--there is some affinity to the guy, whose Papal moniker you're choosing--but why specifically for Ratzi?
I know Ratzi and JPII were close buds, and JPII was a little fixated on Mary--and Benedict XV was, as well--but there were 15 Benedicts--and 9-12 or something were practically ignored, one (the 13th, I think) was excommunicated...or some such inglorious fate...
So, some big brain please divulge why you think Ratzi chose Benedict, por favor.
The Mary thing?
He's going to knock himself out being a humanitarian?
?
Was he (Benny 15) super conservative?
Does this mean he connects with just the last Benedict, or all of them, or could it honor any of them...?
Inquiring minds, ya know.
And he looked so healthy, too.
Did anyone watch the proceedings on TV? I did and was shocked at how badly the crowd took it. Less than one of every ten people were raising their hands in joy -- many weren't even applauding, but instead, they looked shell-shocked and a little angry.
I think the world has taken another mistake in its turning.
I never was impressed with the notion that ostensibly celibate old men know what is best for the rest of us, so for my part, the choice makes little difference, other than the extent to which it either enheartens or dismays Catholics.
I was hoping that a pope from Africa would bring attention to that continent and maybe make some real changes. <shrug> I haven't been inside my parish church for more'n ten years, but I'd told myself I'd make the big sacrifice and go to a celebratory mass for a Nigerian pope.
<shrug> Obviously, the church doesn't need me.
Further clarification on my thoughts on the choice of the name Benedict; I believe the reference is not so much to any particular one, or even group, of previous Pope Benedicts, but rather directly to St. Benedict, 6th Century traditionalist and founder of the monastic order which bears his name. St Benedict, in his Orders, wrote:
It beseemeth the abbot to be ever doing some good for his brethren rather than to be presiding over them. He must, therefore, be learned in the law of God, that he may know whence to bring forth things new and old; he must be chaste, sober, and merciful, ever preferring mercy to justice, that he himself may obtain mercy. Let him hate sin and love the brethren. And even in his corrections, let him act with prudence, and not go too far, lest while he seeketh too eagerly to scrape off the rust, the vessel be broken. Let him keep his own frailty ever before his eyes, and remember that the bruised reed must not be broken. And by this we do not mean that he should suffer vices to grow up; but that prudently and with charity he should cut them off, in the way he shall see best for each, as we have already said; and let him study rather to be loved than feared. Let him not be violent nor over anxious, not exacting nor obstinate, not jealous nor prone to suspicion, or else he will never be at rest. In all his commands, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be prudent and considerate. In the works which he imposeth let him be discreet and moderate, bearing in mind the discretion of holy Jacob, when he said: 'If I cause my flocks to be overdriven, they will all perish in one day'. Taking, then, such testimonies as are borne by these and the like words to discretion, the mother of virtues, let him so temper all things, that the strong may have something to strive after, and the weak nothing at which to take alarm.
There can be no doubt Benedict XVI sees himself as The Abbot, and The Church as his monastery. "Back to basics" will be the rule of his reign.
Timber--
That's the best explanation I've seen. CNN did say it likely went back to the first Benedict--and yes, as you said, it beeseemeth <tee> back to the basics.
The monastery thing.
What I don't quite understand, is if the Popes are just trying to maintain what is written in the Bible, and some Catholics don't like it--why don't they find a church that they agree with instead of trying to change the one that teaches stuff they don't believe.
