Who Will Be the New Pope After White Smoke?

[Clausius2]

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.

 

[Moonbear]

Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict the 16th

 

[Bladibla]

All hail clausius...

 

[arildno]

He has always struck me as a slimy fish.

 

[cronxeh]

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

AHAHHAHAH

AHAH.. OHH.. AHAHAHHAHAH. primates

 

[Moonbear]

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!

 

[JasonRox]

Are you all Catholic?

 

[Clausius2]

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).

 

[cronxeh]

I'll give him another 7 years or so, then we'll be debating on whos going to be next pope again

 

[arildno]

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.

 

[infidel]

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.

 

[The Rev]

I wonder how John Ratzenburger feels about this...

i

The Rev

 

[cronxeh]

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.

 

[arildno]

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.

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..

 

[infidel]

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..

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.

 

[arildno]

I guess I didn't realize the choice should be based on chances for personal advancement.

It's called politics.

 

[Clausius2]

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...

 

[Moses]

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...

I guess this election should be a big priority on cardinals schedules, as long sa it takes. If your guess is true, it won't be an impressive thing to know. Specially if chosing the new Pope is one of the most important descions cardinals have to made in their lifes for the church and their own people...

 

[Moonbear]

I guess this election should be a big priority on cardinals schedules, as long sa it takes. If your guess is true, it won't be an impressive thing to know. Specially if chosing the new Pope is one of the most important descions cardinals have to made in their lifes for the church and their own people...

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.

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. )

 

[1123581321]

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

 

[Monique]

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.

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

 

[mrjeffy321]

Along the sames line,
the church cannot (not will not, but cannot) change its position on certain things, because it really isn't 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 beginning [and you know who told them how to do it then don't you], therefore you can't change it just because of the age we currently live in.

that is the argument from a rather respectable religion teacher I know.

 

[1123581321]

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

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.)

 

[Monique]

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?

 

[cronxeh]

that whole thing is so inconsistant, illogical, and simply dumb, that my mere replying to the subject adds some value to it

 

[stoned]

common man ! i know it looks silly, but catholic church is not as conservative as the other religions namely islam and juadaism.
islam is just cruel to women and stuck in time, judaism is simply idiotic.
the only one major religion which is better then above mentioned is buddhism.

 

[Evo]

Let's refrain from posting opinions about different religions.

 

[cronxeh]

do you not see the point at all?

it doesn't matter how many sheep each religion has in its domain.

 

[SOS2008]

Why does this seem similar to seeing what country/city the next Olympics will be held in? Well maybe the Africans and Latin Americans will have better luck next time.

 

[mrjeffy321]

it doesn't matter how many sheep each religion has in its domain.

"Boy, everyone is stupid except me."
-- Homer Simpson, ``Homer the Heretic''

not to be taken out of context, Homer referring to everyone else at church while he sits comfortably inside.

 

[cronxeh]

well if god exists he must really feel dumb, as his own creation laughs at him

 

[Moses]

common man ! i know it looks silly, but catholic church is not as conservative as the other religions namely islam and juadaism.
islam is just cruel to women and stuck in time, judaism is simply idiotic.
the only one major religion which is better then above mentioned is buddhism.

Islam cruel to women ?!

LOL, the least i can say is your statement is simply REJECTED without a proof. Same thing apply to ur statement about Juadaism regardless if i agree with your statements or no [ i will not start to discuess wether statement without proof is idiotic or not...i chose not to]

And btw, to me Buddhism appeard more as philosophy, not as religion. Its just a feel, no need for me to show proof for it

 

[Moses]

well if god exists he must really feel dumb, as his own creation laughs at him

I won't feel dumb if a stupid guy is luaghing at me without a reason, i may ignore, and if i am sure i can get him later, then LOL!

Edit: if instead of "is", the first "is" in the first line. Edited becuase of typo.

 

[stoned]

truth is painfull

 

[Moses]

hahaha, is truth painfull to you? To me personally its not.

To be honest, i never get stoned, who knows may be it will be painfull to me in that situation [However, i guess i never will]

 

[cronxeh]

you don't even know what truth is, or how to obtain it, let alone whether it would be painful

indeed, god does suck. its creation is trully a pointless blob of empty space linked by energy

 

[stoned]

you don't even know what truth is

enlighten me please !

 

[cronxeh]

i don't know what the truth is. if i knew, i won't be camping the forums seeking for it, would i?

now you claim to not be swayed by the truth in any way. what if you could imagine your state of mind as an undamped system where there is no vibration going on. now the truth is introduced and you are either feeling good (+ vibration), or you are disturbed by it (- vibration). This would be the indication of truth. Have you ever experienced truth?

If truth is to be of any effect on you, it surely would play an effect on other people. So statistically, if you introduced the truth to a large group of people, they would all react the same more or less. The least squares method would establish that there would be a correlation between the effects of the truth on all people, since by composition and intellectual texture people are alike.

 

[Moses]

Thanks cronxeh for explaining you idea including some examples and arguments. I do appreciate your effort

Your idea of the (+) and (-) is similar as if we can say if a person find the truth he will be enlightened or "finding the light" and the opposite which could be called "going astray".

I am TOTALLY agreeing with you abuot the last statemnt, that truth, is it presented as what is it, aka truth as presented to poeple as truth [i know its kinda saying simple issue, but its a part of the flow] all will percive it more or less the same, very almost the same. However, it will vary how they will react to it, all may agree it is "the right" issue, but some may be arrogant and don't want to accept it. Others may have it mixed with some propganda and thus judging truth based on propaganda about it will most likely lead to inaccurate conclusion. Others may have an error while doing the judging process even they got correct informations about the truth...etc

a Very bottom line in this issue is to me, personally, having a faith in teuth not based on logic is not valid, at least to me. I think any faith done by mind shuold be questioned by mind.

 

[Moses]

indeed, god does suck. its creation is trully a pointless blob of empty space linked by energy

Mmmm...i am sure Universe-Master does not suck. I am sure this description about Universe-Master creations is kind of reductionism.

 

[Bladibla]

I won't feel dumb if a stupid guy is luaghing at me without a reason, i may ignore, and if i am sure i can get him later, then LOL!

Edit: if instead of "is", the first "is" in the first line. Edited becuase of typo.

So God will get us back will he? Not the most caring of things is he?

And even if god exists, i can be sure we can just ignore 'it'. I mean, what kind of God gives tsunamis to its creation?

 

[Monique]

So God will get us back will he? Not the most caring of things is he?

And even if god exists, i can be sure we can just ignore 'it'. I mean, what kind of God gives tsunamis to its creation?

We don't support discussions on the existence of a God or his actions at physicsforums, so I suggest to get back to the topic.

 

[marlon]

Nuntio vobis gaudium magnum: Habemus Papam

Here is another question : how much does the pope make a month ?

marlon

 

[arildno]

Here is another question : how much does the pope make a month ?

marlon

I would assume he doesn't have any fixed salary at all.

 

[dextercioby]

They elected a Nazi Pope.Ain't that CUTE...?

Daniel.

 

[arildno]

They elected a Nazi Pope.Ain't that CUTE...?

Daniel.

Eeh, I wouldn't call a guy who was conscripted to Hitler-Jugend at the age of 14 should be termed a Nazi.

 

[dextercioby]

His education in school was entirely made under Nazism...

Daniel.

P.S.He would have gotten the chance to shoot Commies & Yanks,if the war hadn't ended when it did...

 

[so-crates]

I don't blame Ratzinger for his actions or lack thereof during WWII, just like I don't blame a lot of Americans in their participation in the Vietnam War despite strong moral objections. He was fairly young (turned 18 in 1945) and he got away when the opportunity presented itself. Consider what you would have done had you been in that situation. It is tempting to say 'I would have resisted, despite the extreme risk' but when push comes to shove, it is not so easy.

 

[arildno]

His education in school was entirely made under Nazism...

Was that his fault?
The one redeeming feature I find with Ratzinger is that he has been clear and open about his upbringing, and equally clear in his rejection of that thought-system.
(This is what I've heard is a big part in his autobiography; since I don't find the lives of clerics exceptionally interesting at the outset, I haven't bothered to read it myself)

He would have gotten the chance to shoot Commies & Yanks,if the war hadn't ended when it did...

I couldn't care less about that facet. War is an ugly business.

 

[so-crates]

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

Diocesan (local) priests were allowed to marry in the early church. St. Peter(the first pope) was married. The Church started enforcing celibacy in the late middle ages to prevent a lot of politics, corruption and nepotism. If a priest has a family, he will often be divided between the interests of his family and the interests of the Church. You see this a lot in protestant circles, where the position is used to gain personal wealth and the father will 'hand over' the ministry to his son, etc.. Although the Greek and Russian Orthodox churches don't seem to have a big problem with that - and they allow their priests to marry although they have to do so before joining the priesthood and cannot remarry if their wife passes away before them, much as Deacons in the Catholic church. Order priests (Jesuits, Franciscans, Dominicans, etc.) have never been allowed to marry.

The celibacy of the priesthood is not going to be changed under Ratzinger. In theory, it could be changed without a gross violation of tradition (it is discipline and not doctrine/dogma) The same does not hold true for women in the clergy - this has always been a fundamental doctrine of the church.