Pope Benedict XVI Resigning as Pope!!

[milanessa]

Well...that is not entirely true.
He is against using the word "marriage" to describe the procedure and ceremony. But he is perfectly fine with "civil union" instead.
A few years before the legalization of gay marriage here in Argentina (which he was against) the city of Buenos Aires legalized the civil union, which was essentially the same, only excluding the right to inheritance between the newly united couples (because that could only be changed by the federal government), and he did not oppose it, he was actually in favor of it and took quite a beating from the catholic right wing because of it.

So he is against equal marriage, right?

[Skittl1321]

From what I can tell, like pope John Paul I he took "the first" as part of his name. No waiting for a second. This surprised me as it seems the opposite of humble, as he is described. It is like implying that someone will honor you by taking the name the second. I'm sure that wasn't his intention, but its how I see it ,

I say it closer to jez oo whit, but the z isn't really hard.

[Ziggy]

Well...that is not entirely true.
He is against using the word "marriage" to describe the procedure and ceremony. But he is perfectly fine with "civil union" instead.
A few years before the legalization of gay marriage here in Argentina (which he was against) the city of Buenos Aires legalized the civil union, which was essentially the same, only excluding the right to inheritance between the newly united couples (because that could only be changed by the federal government), and he did not oppose it, he was actually in favor of it and took quite a beating from the catholic right wing because of it.

Wow, that's actually quite amazing. I guess he's probably going have to become more hardline now but I am really impressed by this!

[michiruwater]

Father Drinan was a friend of my father's (and delivered a eulogy at my father's memorial service).

He told me once that he felt abortion was a moral issue and it wasn't the place of the state to dictate morality.

That's a paraphrase, since the conversation happened decades ago, but it made an impression on me.

So, I'm reading Catholicism for Dummies right now, because I was raised an Atheist, have never read the Bible, and mostly understand squat about it, and just last night the part I read specifically said that the Pope is infallible in terms of teaching/guarding matters faith and morality to Catholics. He's not infallible when it comes to history, politics, etc., but morality is one of the two important matters in which he is supposed to be infallible and is in charge of, so to speak. So I find this interesting.

If the book is wrong, though, feel free to tell me.

[PDilemma]

So, I'm reading Catholicism for Dummies right now, because I was raised an Atheist, have never read the Bible, and mostly understand squat about it, and just last night the part I read specifically said that the Pope is infallible in terms of teaching/guarding matters faith and morality to Catholics. He's not infallible when it comes to history, politics, etc., but morality is one of the two important matters in which he is supposed to be infallible and is in charge of, so to speak. So I find this interesting.

If the book is wrong, though, feel free to tell me.

He is only infallible when he chooses to specifically issue an infallible statement of doctrine. He is not infallible when he picks out his shoes or decides how to cook his eggs for breakfast or even when he speaks or writes on a matter of faith, morality or doctrine without invoking infallibility. Invoking it is called speaking "ex cathedra" literally "from the throne/chair". It is actually rare for popes to do so at all.

[michiruwater]

The book made it sound like he is infallible in those two subjects no matter what. It said that Catholics believe that if a Pope ever attempts to say something regarding faith or morality that is not in line with God's wishes then God will in some way prevent it from happening, even if it means striking down the Pope.

[D&Sfan4ever]

So he is against equal marriage, right?

I am not sure of what that means.
He is against the use of the word "marriage" to describe the legal binding, something to do with the religious meaning of the word in itself.
He is against "gay adoption" because he thinks that it is a form of child discrimination (which, thankfully, almost everybody in the country thinks is idiotic)

[Ziggy]

So he is against equal marriage, right?

Marriage is sacred, don't ya know?

[PDilemma]

The book made it sound like he is infallible in those two subjects no matter what. It said that Catholics believe that if a Pope ever attempts to say something regarding faith or morality that is not in line with God's wishes then God will in some way prevent it from happening, even if it means striking down the Pope.

That is the way it is commonly misunderstood. Just last Friday, I had a nasty (and non-Catholic) relative on my case about the pope infallibly declaring we can't eat meat on Fridays during Lent and how silly I am to believe such things. Except that lenten abstinences are practices not dogmas or doctrines and are not infallible teachings at all. In fact, they can differ from place to place.

The last pope to issue an infallible or ex cathedra doctrine was Pius XII in 1950. Matters of morality and most matters of doctrine are typically the result of consensus of the magisterium rather than by popes alone.

Here is an informative article about the matter: http://www.uscatholic.org/church/201...ible-teachings

[michiruwater]

Thank you! This whole subject makes me feel like... well, a dummy

[Angelskates]

IceAlisa - I say jez-you-it. No idea if that's right, but that's how everyone I know says it!

[IceAlisa]

IceAlisa - I say jez-you-it. No idea if that's right, but that's how everyone I know says it!

Thanks! That's sort of how I say it. All these TV anchors have me confused.

[oleada]

So I have a couple of questions:

(1) I understand that it is not done to say "Pope Francis I" now. We'd have to wait until he dies and until there is a Francis II. Is that correct?

Yes, this is correct. He is just Pope Francis.

[Vagabond]

Not to mention in general popes from specific orders were always avoided.

Sometimes, bek, I wonder where you get your information and whether you just make things up to make it sound like you know what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ligious_orders

34 popes have been members of religious orders. These have included:

Benedictines (17):-
Gregory I, Boniface IV, Adeodatus II, Leo IV, John IX, Leo VII, Stephen IX, Gregory VII, Victor III, Urban II, Paschal II, Gelasius II, Celestine V, Clement VI, Urban V, Pius VII
and including Camaldolese (1):-
Gregory XVI
Augustinians (6):-
Eugene IV
and including Canons Regular (5):-
Honorius II, Innocent II, Lucius II, Gregory VIII, Adrian IV
Dominicans (4):-
Innocent V, Benedict XI, Pius V, Benedict XIII
Franciscans (4):-
Nicholas IV, Sixtus IV
and including Conventual Franciscans (2):-
Sixtus V, Clement XIV
Cistercians (2):-
Eugene III, Benedict XII
Jesuits (1):-
Francis

When you consider that there weren't any Catholic religious orders to speak of until the Early Middle Ages, it turns out that about a sixth of all Popes during the pertinent time period did belong to religious orders, including four out of the last twenty popes (over the course of two centuries) before the accession of the new pope. That's hardly avoidance.

[bek]

Sometimes, bek, I wonder where you get your information and whether you just make things up to make it sound like you know what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ligious_orders



When you consider that there weren't any Catholic religious orders to speak of until the Early Middle Ages, it turns out that about a sixth of all Popes during the pertinent time period did belong to religious orders, including four out of the last twenty popes (over the course of two centuries) before the accession of the new pope. That's hardly avoidance.

I generally go with what I read. Today I looked up the whole Adam thing and I actually was shocked to read must be a descendant in that sense source was wrong. I had read in terms of articles I read that generally popes aren't from orders. And here's the thing Vagabond, I am not sure what your saying here proofs me wrong.

16% is a small percentage-its not even a quarter. Nobody's saying Popes don't come from orders; however, mots popes don't.

And here's the thing a lot of those orders you are mentioning and I haven't had a chance to look them up, a lot of them are a lot older than the Jesuits-centuries older.

There are some things that I do feel more knowledgeable about I'm not the most knowledgeable on the church's position on science although I know I can believe in evolution, the Saints, or orders of Popes.

[michiruwater]

The Benedictines were formed in 529, and are the oldest of the listed Religious Orders from Vagabond's post.

[Vagabond]

bek, if you don't understand the difference between "generally" and "always," there's not much point in responding to your last post except to say en parlant de mots, il faut épeler les mots correctement. (Pardon my French.)

[bek]

bek, if you don't understand the difference between "generally" and "always," there's not much point in responding to your last post except to say en parlant de mots, il faut épeler les mots correctement. (Pardon my French.)

I am not sure why I worded that way. I know I said "always avoided" however I meant avoided in the sense of something not preferred. In general and I was hearing this a lot, the conclave tended to steer away from members of orders. However I wasn't actually trying to make the claim that people from orders NEVER happened...

In terms of infallible we believe the Church teaching and not just the pope is infallible on faith and morals. However, the Church also has to declare it infallible. Not everything the pope says even in regards to faith and morals is infallible because there are issues that the Church is actually praying about, contemplating it. Declaring something infallibly also puts in the Church in the position of having to keep it.

One thing I liked about Pope Benedict is in his series Jesus of Nazareth he stated nothing in her is infallible, feel free to criticize etc...

I am glad Pope Francis is from the developing world and has knowledge of all the issues there. And that he's a Cardinal too who turned away from the Palace etc, in an area where so many had nothing.

I am not one of those who thinks the Church should for example sell all of its art. Does the Pieta truly belong in someone's private collection? And I would imagine too that if the Church attempted to sell of such things, the Italian government would well very quickly step in..There is a balance.

I am hopeful though that this new Pope will lead to Romero's canonization and the embrace of Romero's message. Romero was not a liberation theologian in the sense that he was only concerned with the material world. He actually condemned both Marxism and facism. He though was a man who called deeply for social justice, and of course such things got him killed and enemies throughout the world including the Church.

I think Romero hasn't been embraced as a Saint (partly because the Church understandably doesn't want Che Guevera along with a Catholic Saint together on a poster... But I have no doubt 100 years from now Romero will be a saint, and 500 years from now he may be considered as influential as a Francis...

(It still shocks me that there's even a question of Romero being considered not a Martyr. Anyone would would kill someone during the Sacrifice of the Mass (kill at all but during the Mass) is showing hatred of the faith.

[sammyf]

Sometimes, bek, I wonder where you get your information and whether you just make things up to make it sound like you know what you're talking about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ligious_orders

When you consider that there weren't any Catholic religious orders to speak of until the Early Middle Ages, it turns out that about a sixth of all Popes during the pertinent time period did belong to religious orders, including four out of the last twenty popes (over the course of two centuries) before the accession of the new pope. That's hardly avoidance.

Bek said popes from specific orders were avoided, not all orders. Jesuits promise

I will never strive or ambition, not even indirectly, to be chosen or promoted to any prelacy or dignity in or outside the Society; and I will do my best never to consent to my election unless I am forced to do so by obedience to him who can order me under penalty of sin (Constitutions S.J., Part X, N°6 [817]).

Jesuits are not even supposed to become bishops. So having one become a pope is very unusual, he had to have some sort of exception. Other orders don't necessarily have the same restriction.

[oleada]

I hope this is true and Pope Francis is really cleaning house:

New Pope bans Cardinal Law from church, reports British tabloid

Italian media is reporting that Boston's disgraced former archbishop, Cardinal Bernard Law, 81, is being banished from his cushy residence in Rome by Pope Francis, according to the British tabloid The Daily Mail.

I'm cautiously optimistic.