Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

New Pope

  1. Apr 19, 2005 #1

    Clausius2

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    New Pope!!

    Just now we don't know who is he, but the white smoke has flown!!.

    I bet he is going to be Ratzinger. Who knows? Maybe I win.

    Just a new to let you know.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 19, 2005 #2

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict the 16th
     
  4. Apr 19, 2005 #3
    All hail clausius...
     
  5. Apr 19, 2005 #4

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    He has always struck me as a slimy fish.
     
  6. Apr 19, 2005 #5

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    "As the white smoke rose, the assembled crowd in St. Peter's Square burst into cheers and applause."

    AHAHHAHAH

    AHAH.. OHH.. AHAHAHHAHAH. primates
     
  7. Apr 19, 2005 #6

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Grr...I hate news coverage here! He's speaking to the crowd and our local news stations are translating by speaking over his voice, so I can't hear either the pope or translator. Just use subtitles!!! :grumpy:
     
  8. Apr 19, 2005 #7

    JasonRox

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Are you all Catholic?
     
  9. Apr 19, 2005 #8

    Clausius2

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I won!! I deserve an award!!.

    To say the truth, it was clear it was going to be Ratzinger if the election process was as short as it has been.

    I don't like this guy. He is too serious. And too old by the way (78).
     
  10. Apr 19, 2005 #9

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'll give him another 7 years or so, then we'll be debating on whos gonna be next pope again
     
  11. Apr 19, 2005 #10

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I am rather surprised they chose Ratzinger; although he has probably been the most dominant cardinal in John Paul's time, his views are, if anything, even more reactionary and controversial than John Paul's.

    I think that his great age became a decisive factor here; some of those skeptical to him voted for him all the same, since they judged he can't be remain pope for many years to come.

    If their realistic choices had narrowed down to a choice between a younger arch-conservative cardinal (like the Nigerian) and Ratzinger, they would go for Ratzinger.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2005
  12. Apr 19, 2005 #11
    What kind of games are they playing if they voted in a guy hoping he'll die soon?!? I don't get it? You're saying better an old (nearly dead) conservative than a young one? How about strapping on a set and voting in a more progressive person?!?

    The Catholic church is weird.
     
  13. Apr 19, 2005 #12
    I wonder how John Ratzenburger feels about this...

    [tex]i[/tex]

    The Rev
     
  14. Apr 19, 2005 #13

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    their actions are diverging, no matter what they do their time is numbered. "the end" is indeed coming - for them, for their structure, for their ideology.
     
  15. Apr 19, 2005 #14

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    And what if they doubt they'll get enough support for the progressive?
    If they are to have any chance of personal advancement under the new pope, then they should show their loyalty early on in his papacy, preferably before..
     
  16. Apr 19, 2005 #15
    a) They didn't try very hard. Four votes in 2 days?

    b) I guess I didn't realize the choice should be based on chances for personal advancement. :uhh:
     
  17. Apr 19, 2005 #16

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    It's called politics.
     
  18. Apr 19, 2005 #17

    Clausius2

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I think he has been elected for being a heavy personality in church. As Arildno has said, he has had a lot of responsability during J.PaulII mandacy.

    In addition to that, elector cardinals seemed not to feel like to spend a lot of time in this stuff. Maybe they had things to do in their homes....
     
  19. Apr 19, 2005 #18
    I guess this election should be a big priority on cardinals schedules, as long sa it takes. If your guess is true, it wont be an impressive thing to know. Specially if chosing the new Pope is one of the most important descions cardinals have to made in thier lifes for the church and thier own people...
     
  20. Apr 19, 2005 #19

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I saw a report on yesterday explaining how the conclave originated. Apparently, way back, somewhere like the 15th century (I didn't listen hard enough to catch the century), it took 3 YEARS to choose a pope. The local villagers in the city where the cardinals were meeting were furious. So, they first decided to lock them into the church until they decided to give them more incentive to speed up the process. That's where the name conclave comes from con clave, with a key. It seems that wasn't quite enough to prod them along, and it wasn't until the villagers tore the roof off the church and only fed the cardinals bread and water that they finally chose a new pope within a few days. I thought it was a great story. :rofl:

    I was surprised they decided quite this quickly, but didn't expect this to take forever. John Paul II was ill for a long time, so it's not like he just died suddenly with nobody expecting it. The cardinals have had years to think about who they might want to elect.

    I'm not going to discuss my opinions about their choice though, because that would get into a religious discussion inappropriate for this forum. (Hint hint. :wink:)
     
  21. Apr 19, 2005 #20
    A quick question:
    How many of you that are calling for change in the church are actually catholic?
    If you are not, why do you care?
    Personally, I believe that the church should remain the way that it has been for thousands of years, because that's the way it should be, its tradition. You want to change it?, become a pope. If you are catholic and don't like the way it is, then leave and do you own thing. The reason that priests aren't married is because Jesus wasn't. I know that i will catch heat from you Dan Brown types, but I have read the Da Vinci Code, and it had a great plot, but Jesus wasn't married. Sure, he could have been, but he wasn't. If he was, i would have no problim with married priests. Besides, Priests need to be devoted to God, not wives. I don't hear any priests that want to get married, if they wanted to they would not be priests. Also, i would have no problim with female priests if jesus was a female, but he wasn't. Priests take the place of Jesus, they concecrate the eucharist and only they can do that, because they took 'holy orders' from jesus.

    I do hope you understand.

    Fibonacci
     
  22. Apr 19, 2005 #21

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    If we held to tradition we would still be washing clothes by hand. I think that issues such as euthanasia, anti-conceptives and stem cell research concern us all. But I think it is fine that the pope wears traditional clothing and that he traditionally speaks to the people during Easter :wink:
     
  23. Apr 19, 2005 #22

    mrjeffy321

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Along the sames line,
    the church cannot (not will not, but cannot) change its position on certain things, because it really isnt up to them. they are mearly recognizing the "truth", and give us the official unchanging opinion on things. the church is big on tracing its power all the way back (2000 years), its they way they did it back in the begining [and you know who told them how to do it then dont you], therefore you cant change it just because of the age we currently live in.

    that is the argument from a rather respectable religion teacher I know.
     
  24. Apr 19, 2005 #23
    When i mean 'tradition' i mean things at the core of the core of the church. If the church would change its view on darwinism, it would not change anything about the church as a whole("Pope JP II even said that it did not conflict with the churches teachings), but if the church allowed priests to marry, female priests, or any other radical changes like that, the church would not be the same, it would almost be a totally new sect of christianity. There is nothing wrong with changing the church, but the church cannot change in ways that radical, or it would die (as in almost everyone would leave it and make a new church that is conservitave, unless you want it to change. believe it or not, many people like the church the way that it is and don't want it to change.)
     
  25. Apr 19, 2005 #24

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Priests not allowed to marry? No female priests?

    What would change, why wouldn't it be the same? If it would change it means that the footing of the people is not very strong when it is influenced by such factors, in my opinion.

    Does that mean that females should not be allowed to have careers, or just not religious careers? Does that mean that females should not be allowed to become president either?
     
  26. Apr 19, 2005 #25

    cronxeh

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    that whole thing is so inconsistant, illogical, and simply dumb, that my mere replying to the subject adds some value to it
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook