Pope Benedict XVI Resigning as Pope!!

[Lorac]

Breaking news on the BBC news channel saying Pope Benedict XVI will resign from the post on February 28th this year!! Hasn't been done in centuries apparently

All papers/webpages just have it as breaking news but no further details so far.

[Garden Kitty]

CNN is also saying he'll step down on Feb 28th

[ChelleC]

Here's the BBC's article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21411304

[Frau Muller]

This is amazing. Not since the Middle Ages has this happened.

I wonder what's behind it? I hope that he goes back to Bavaria and writes the Great Tell-All Book!

[Ziggy]

Thank god! (sic!)

Worst pope ever.

I was sure that there was no way, we could get an even more conservative, backward, dangerous idiot than John Paul II but they've decided to choose the only candidate who has fit that bill.

In a way it was a good decision I guess because it meant speeding up the catholic church's move into total irrelevance.

[Lorac]

This is amazing. Not since the Middle Ages has this happened.

I wonder what's behind it? I hope that he goes back to Bavaria and writes the Great Tell-All Book!

It appears he believes he is too old and weak in body to continue with the office. He has apparently been told not to take any more transatlantic flights and feels he cannot represent the papacy as he feels it should be.

I just wonder how a successor can rule effectively with an ex-pope still living. I would guess Pope Benedict will go into seclusion of some form.

Personally I hope a younger more progressive Pope is elected that will help move the Church into the 21st century as it is still rather conservative and orthodox and needs to get more in-tune with the populous - especially the younger generation.

[bek]

Personally I hope a younger more progressive Pope is elected that will help move the Church into the 21st century as it is still rather conservative and orthodox and needs to get more in-tune with the populous - especially the younger generation.

I'm not sure why the Church should change orthodoxy...Yes some of our positions may not be popular but the Church shouldn't take positions just because they are popular. Its not like the Churches that are making deals with the Culture are gaining all kinds of membership in and of themselves. The areas where Anglicanism for example is growing is the more Conservative areas... The areas where they are compromising with the Culture, they are losing church attendance. The more conservative Protestant churches are growing the less conservative ones aren't.

Catholicism's biggest strength and why it has survived for as long as it has and become as big has it has is because of its understanding of Revelation and the strong belief that Scripture and Tradition are equal. And I'm talking about Tradition I'm talking about faith and morals. The idea that the Catholic faith is a revealed faith that has been passed down through generations. And the concept that Truth doesn't change. We may grow in our understanding but the fundamentals of truth don't.

It is this understanding that allows us to be as large as we are and also has far less splits in our end. Because there's a documented agreed way that we are going to handle our problems. How beliefs should be are also less subject to interpertations. While Protestants may argue about when baptism should be done, nature of faith/works, and eternal security. Protestants are going to continue arguing and continuing splitting over these issues and things like it, and whatever new doctrines people come up with for evermore. Catholics just say what has the Church traditionally taught on said subject and the answer is finished. We had our Church council discussed this and the matter is settled forevermore. If you can't understand why this works so well for Catholicism even if a lot of cradles don't like it....Once again why should all this time Catholicism be Protestant. If Protestants are happy with the splitting and doing things that way and frankly a more post modern approach well good for them.

We start changing our Orthodoxy and this fundamental standing we will start having as many break offs as the Protestants have.. Why should we change fundamentally the way they are. If people want a more "modern form of Chrisitanity, there are plenty of Protestant branches too choose from.

.And as mentioned its not shown it would increase church attendance etc (although that's not a reason to do so)...People don't necessarily truly practice a faith, they may say they are the faith, but they don't truly practice one just because the faith tells them everything they want to hear.

[Ziggy]

It appears he believes he is too old and weak in body to continue with the office. He has apparently been told not to take any more transatlantic flights and feels he cannot represent the papacy as he feels it should be.

It's interesting given that for a substantial part of John Paul II's reign he was suffering from a number of physical and neurological issues and was nothing more than a puppet who was barely able to speak. Seems they've decided to go another route this time.

I just wonder how a successor can rule effectively with an ex-pope still living. I would guess Pope Benedict will go into seclusion of some form.

He will probably live a secluded life in some monastery, I would guess?

Personally I hope a younger more progressive Pope is elected that will help move the Church into the 21st century as it is still rather conservative and orthodox and needs to get more in-tune with the populous - especially the younger generation.

Sooner the hell will freeze over.

And would this necessarily be a good thing for Catholicism?

As Bek said, their strength lies in tradition.

I had this conversation with this super religious guy and he said that the Catholic church is not a supermarket. It should not try to be likeable by everybody. In a way it's good if people leave because the ones left are the ones who really believe and it's more productive to focus on them.

[bek]

And would this necessarily be a good thing for Catholicism?

As Bek said, their strength lies in tradition.

I had this conversation with this super religious guy and he said that the Catholic church is not a supermarket. It should not try to be likeable by everybody. In a way it's good if people leave because the ones left are the ones who really believe and it's more productive to focus on them.

See the thing is not that I don't care about those people, and I do think we should try to reach them. But I don't think Catholicism should change what it fundamentally is. A lot of the Catholics who want the Church to "change" aren't the ones who show up to mass every weekend. And I somehow doubt the Church changes they are going to start somehow showing up.

And in fact I think when these people start truly looking for a faith that speaks to their lives they aren't necessarily going to want something that just tells them what they want to hear. And at the end of the day we get rid of Tradition, you leave Church teaching subject to the whims of corrupt leadership

[gkelly]

I had this conversation with this super religious guy and he said that the Catholic church is not a supermarket. It should not try to be likeable by everybody. In a way it's good if people leave because the ones left are the ones who really believe and it's more productive to focus on them.

Then maybe they should use a different adjective to describe themselves other than "catholic" (=universal, general, comprehensive)

[skipaway]

I wonder what's behind it? I hope that he goes back to Bavaria and writes the Great Tell-All Book!

It's what happens when you join Twitter. The end of all.

[Skittl1321]

A lot of the Catholics who want the Church to "change" aren't the ones who show up to mass every weekend.

I don't show up to mass every weekend anymore because the church is stuck in a time and belief system that I can no longer be a part of. There are still parts of Catholicism that I greatly identify with, and that has prevented me from changing religions, but unless the church changes, I won't be there. When/if the church changes, I'll take my place back in the pew. I'm not expecting that to be anytime soon.

[sk8er1964]

I don't show up to mass every weekend anymore because the church is stuck in a time and belief system that I can no longer be a part of. There are still parts of Catholicism that I greatly identify with, and that has prevented me from changing religions, but unless the church changes, I won't be there. When/if the church changes, I'll take my place back in the pew. I'm not expecting that to be anytime soon.

^^This.

I am for a less conservative pope this time around, but not holding my breath.

[Lara]

^^This.

I am for a less conservative pope this time around, but not holding my breath.

Same here. But fingers crossed anyway.

[taf2002]

And at the end of the day we get rid of Tradition, you leave Church teaching subject to the whims of corrupt leadership

Are you kidding us? Yes, let's look at the tradition. The auto-de-fe was part of the tradition. The raping of the Americas was a part. The corrupt Popes all throughout history was a part. The lip service to the vow of celibacy has always been tradition. The promotion to pope of a man who was a huge part of covering up widespread pedophelia was no surprise to those who know the tradition.

I am a religious person who respects other people's beliefs, so I can respect the various Catholics I have known who sincerely believe in the Church's tenents. Sadly the higher the leaders of the Church become, the less they seem to adhere to those teachings. Though this is common among many other religions. But don't tout the Church's traditions & worry about changes leading to corrupt leadership when one of the most evil person in our lifetime steps down from a position he had no business having in the first place & when much of the leadership is already corrupt.

[cruisin]

I don't know that the church should necessarily change doctrine. However, there are some things that, maybe, should change. For example: why should Priests remain unmarried and celibate? That began in 1123. Prior to that they were allowed to marry. There is a lot of speculation on the reason. Whether it is because Christ was unmarried, and this makes Priests more like Christ. Or did it have more to do with land and monetary ownership and the church losing that when sons did not go into the family business and inherited the father's (Priest's) estate? Maybe a combination of both. But, is that an area where the church could change? Would it fix some serious issues?

[danceronice]

What WOULD prompt me to really leave (and probably find the most rigid Orthodox or High Anglican church I would) would be substantial liberalization. The world does not need more relaxed standards. The last thing I want are women priests (I can't even work for secular female bosses because they're too process and emotion-oriented instead of results and rationality oriented) and idiotic kum-bay-ya-ing instead of order. The job of a Church is not to pat you on the head, give you a cookie, and tell you to do whatever feels good because if it feels good, it must be right and moral. You want that, join the Satanist church (which is NOT, I might add, about "worshiping Satan", more like hedonism as a religious calling, and I actually respect them more than most liberal Protestant denominations. At least their theology is honest.)

But I think this is a good thing because apparently he is too ill to travel and does not want another situation like with John Paul II, with a very sick Pope lingering for years, basically unable to function. Word on the radio was he'll retire to a monastery. And the new rules require the next Pope chosen be under a maximum age.

[danceronice]

I don't know that the church should necessarily change doctrine. However, there are some things that, maybe, should change. For example: why should Priests remain unmarried and celibate? That began in 1123. Prior to that they were allowed to marry. There is a lot of speculation on the reason. Whether it is because Christ was unmarried, and this makes Priests more like Christ. Or did it have more to do with land and monetary ownership and the church losing that when sons did not go into the family business and inherited the father's (Priest's) estate? Maybe a combination of both. But, is that an area where the church could change? Would it fix some serious issues?

They do allow Anglican and Orthodox convert priests to remain married, though not to remarry if their spouse dies, so I'm not sure it would be a HUGE change. I don't know how much of a help that would be--the younger priests these days tend to be more hardcore orthodox than the older ones already. And I think the reasoning was inheritance and preventing losing Church resources to supporting a family, which is obviously not as much an issue under modern law. (And of course nepotism.)

[Ziggy]

I don't know that the church should necessarily change doctrine. However, there are some things that, maybe, should change. For example: why should Priests remain unmarried and celibate? That began in 1123. Prior to that they were allowed to marry. There is a lot of speculation on the reason. Whether it is because Christ was unmarried, and this makes Priests more like Christ. Or did it have more to do with land and monetary ownership and the church losing that when sons did not go into the family business and inherited the father's (Priest's) estate? Maybe a combination of both. But, is that an area where the church could change? Would it fix some serious issues?

That happened because of inheritance and church losing estate, I think.

[skipaway]

First and foremost, I'd love to see changes with regards to birth control.