Popewatch II
NOTE: There is to be no speculation about the date at which the pope dies.
This thread is simply meant to explore the possible replacements, likely or unlikely corrections in church dogma, and or failings of the Pope given that the current Pope is in dire health. Of course, we all hope he pulls through long enough for stem cell research to cure his Parkinsons.
Anywhoo, segovas and I were just discussing how Osama and the Pope compared in total complicit deaths...
This thread is simply meant to explore the possible replacements, likely or unlikely corrections in church dogma, and or failings of the Pope given that the current Pope is in dire health. Of course, we all hope he pulls through long enough for stem cell research to cure his Parkinsons.
Anywhoo, segovas and I were just discussing how Osama and the Pope compared in total complicit deaths...
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Can we speculate on when a new Pope will be elected?
I can't remember the process. Don't the cardinals all convene the moment after he dies and lock themselves in a room until the holy spirit tells them which one to pick?
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
I can't remember the process. Don't the cardinals all convene the moment after he dies and lock themselves in a room until the holy spirit tells them which one to pick?
I think that's exactly what they do. No further complication than that.
Originally posted by Scott
I heard it's all one big gay sex orgy in there. The first guy that can't get it up no more is Pope.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Can we speculate on when a new Pope will be elected?
I bet a new pope gets elected in 2 weeks.
or something like that. i'm not catholic.
the next pope may come from the 3rd world, including africa, also when pope paul was chosen he was on no ones short list. the ones the list in the news media won't be it. so what ever cnn says, scratch them off. when the smoke is white they have a new pope. The pope is probably a mac person this way he can stay in these forums. probably has a snow iMac special edition.
the next pope will probably be young so he can have a long papacy like paul.
how about chosing a pope from china now that would have impact
what region would have the biggest impact on those things the pope holds dear....hmmmmmm he probably may even suggest his own successor...hmmmmm
so maybe that should be the question, from europe, africa, south america or china, tradional or "make a statement" don't you think he has some say in this, that's an interesting concept.
And yes, they burn something to indicate to the people in the Vatican square whether or not they've finished the election. For more about it, watch the movie "The Shoes of the Fisherman" with Anthony Quinn.
Originally posted by segovius
In fact it is without much doubt already a done deal. We could probably work it out - here's my take:
Damn Segovius! You follow the Cardinal stats in the sports page or something?
If you want to know more just go to www.catholic.com
Originally posted by Teddy
Hey guys. I was just going to say that a dogma or Church teaching such as contraception can not be changed because it is believed by Catholics to be from the Deposit of Faith. In other words the teaching is from Jesus Christ himself thus it can not change. There are practices in the Church that can be debated such as Priestly celibacy but a Church teaching on Faith and Morals can not change.
Hmmm, so there's zero interpretation involved, huh? I guess Jesus must have explicitly stated that the birth control pill is wrong. That's particularly surprising since the guy who invented the birth control pill was a Catholic trying to perfect the rythm method (allowed by catholics). If someone had just pointed out that the forbidance against a birth control pill is spelled out quite clearly in the bible I guess he could have saved the trouble. Lucky for the world he was unaware of this.
Having trouble typing now, keys sticky with sarcasm...
If you want more on the Catholic teaching of birth control and why they have held it for 2000 years go here: http://www.catholic.com/library/morality_ethics.asp
Anyways I am really enjoying this conversation in all honesty so thank you and talk to you soon. God Bless
Originally posted by Teddy
actually artificial birth control has been in use for a long time like before the time of Christ so it wasn't a Catholic who invented it.
The birth control pill used today was, indeed, invented (or co-invented) by a Catholic for the purpose of perfecting the rythm method. If I remember right it took some period of review by the Pope, eight years I think, before rejecting it so I don't think it was a cut and dried decision.
When Onan spilled his seed while having sex in the old testament God killed him. Anyways something does not have to be specifically stated in the Bible for it to be a Church teaching(The word trinity and purgatory are not in the bible)
Ahh, the kind and merciful God. But back on track... Genesis is in the bible and yet the Pope accepted the validity of evolution (thankfully), so it would seem that the Pope even trumps the bible. Also, I remember that the church had to come up with all sorts of contrivances to explain why other old testament rules (not weaving two cloths together, handling pig skin, selling your daughter into slavery) don't really mean what they say. So I find it quite hard to believe that the Pope couldn't over-rule the anti-contraception dictate. Is there some sort of impeachment clause if he does?
BTW, I see little in the referenced links to address this.
If you want to know more about what the Church teaches on this issue you should get or find a Catechism of the Catholic Church. It will tell you everything you want to know about the Churches teaching and why.
I have to go to breakfast
Teddy
Originally posted by Teddy
Not everything in the Bible is to be taken literally. Jesus gave us the Church for the interpratation of Sacred Scripture. That is why in 2 Tim 3:15 it says that "The Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth" Anyways the Catholic Church has held there position on contraception for 2000 years and it theologically can not change
That is one good quality of the Catholic church, that they do not pretend to interpret the bible literally, but it does lead to the inevitable conclusion that interpretation is left with us falliable human beings. So it is completely possible that a Pope, or the church if you like, can re-interpret even thousand year old beliefs. I'm not sure when the prohibitions against weaving two types of cloth, or handling pig skin were overturned, but I suspect they were honored for a good length of time. Certainly, the genesis story was supported for thousands of years. Galileo eventually caused the church to change their mind on several points of interpretation. So why then can't they do so on contraception?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Teddy
[B] I understand a Catholic invented the pill but that doesn't legitimize it. A lot of Catholics do crazy things and don't do what there Church teaches them. That doesn't mean the Church holds what they do as teaching or correct. [/url]
His pursuit of the pill as a perfection of the rythm method certainly suggests that there is enough ambiguity about the subject. That and the fact that it took the church a considerable amount of time to rule on the matter.
If you want to know more about what the Church teaches on this issue you should get or find a Catechism of the Catholic Church. It will tell you everything you want to know about the Churches teaching and why.
Having been in the Catholic church I think I'm pretty familiar with the arguments, but none of them address my questions. I trust that you can or at least will try.
I realize they may get lost in conversation so maybe I can be more direct.
1. Are there or are there not long held beliefs that the Catholic church has changed it's opinion on?
2. If a new Pope and/or church council he appoints reinterprets scripture to allow for conception and he so decrees, what exactly would prevent him from enacting this? Would he be impeached?
P.S. I'm glad your enjoying the conversation, I enjoy a good, productive discussion myself.
Infallibility and Error in the Church
Catholics are called upon to accept the Church?s magisterium or teaching authority. They do because they are aware of the guidance of the Holy Spirit promised to the apostles by Jesus at the Last Supper (Jn. 14:16-17; 15:26-27; 16:13-14) and also that Jesus promised to remain with his apostles to the end of time (Matt. 28:20). Catholics also accept the teaching of the magisterium because they remember that Jesus speaks through his apostles (Luke 10:16).
They should be aware that not every utterance of the magisterium is of the same dignity or solemnity nor is every teaching guaranteed to be error-free. The Church has three levels of solemnity in its teaching: (1) extraordinary and infallible; (2) ordinary and infallible; and (3) ordinary and fallible.
The extraordinary magisterium refers to the rare occasions that the Church defines a doctrine as belonging to revelation or so intimately connected to it as to require belief in it to protect revelation. An example is the teaching that Jesus is both God and man (Council of Nicea 325). The basis of the belief is faith in God who can neither deceive nor be deceived. The Church in this instance is not the basis of belief but only the indispensable condition of belief. The divine guarantees for guidance of the Church are such in these cases that the statements are absolutely without error. Otherwise they could jeopardize eternal salvation. Once a doctrine is defined it is irrevocable but not necessarily exhaustive. The teaching will never be changed, but one should not think that the Church?s definition plumbs the depths of the teaching. A person who would deliberately deny a defined doctrine would be labeled a heretic.
The ordinary teaching of the Church is that which goes on daily with no thought of making a solemn definition. Examples of this sort of teaching are the immortality of the soul and the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary before that doctrine was defined November 1, 1950. The Second Vatican Council says that teaching of bishops world-wide can be infallible if the bishops are united to the Holy Father and one another, they teach something about faith and morals to be held definitively, and they agree on a particular teaching. Such teachings must also be believed with divine faith. Teachings of this second category are irreformable and irrevocable, but like defined doctrine, they can receive a better formulation or better arguments can be found for them. They do not allow of an opinion that contradicts them. The person who denies this kind of teaching would also be guilty of heresy.
The ordinary magisterium of the Church that is fallible is that which is proposed as safe and prudent but not necessarily for general belief or without the wish to engage the Church?s authority fully. Examples of such teachings are the prohibitions of artificial insemination, surrogate motherhood, "test-tube" babies. Catholics must believe that this teaching is true until there is clear evidence that it is false. The faith required here is religious submission which is distinct from divine faith but a prolongation of it (CCC #892). In divine faith we believe something because God says that it is so; in religious faith we believe it because the Church, the pillar and the ground of truth (I Tim. 3:15), says it is so. Such teaching is presented as the most trustworthy and best in view of present knowledge. The teaching is reformable because it could be in error and has been in error in the past, e.g., the condemnation of Galileo and certain past replies of the Roman congregations on the interpretation of scripture. Persons who deny this kind of teaching are either withholding assent or dissenting privately or publicly. Unless the ordinary Catholic is an expert in the field involved he or she must accept the teaching. Experts may withhold assent or dissent privately by submitting their reasoning to the magisterium, which has the ultimate authority.
Why are these three categories of teaching important to know? One reason is that when the Church has taught error in the past it was in the third category. I do not want to give the impression that the Church has been mostly wrong in this area; it has been overwhelmingly correct. It is important to realize that the errors have not been in the area of defined teaching or ordinary teaching that is infallible. A second reason for being aware of the distinction is that there are currently theologians who seem to hold that anything not formally defined is subject to revision, even long-held teachings of the Church condemning abortion, fornication, contraception, etc. A very strong case can be made that these teachings belong to the second category, ordinary and infallible, and therefore do not allow a contradictory opinion. How is the ordinary Catholic to know to which category a particular teaching of the Church belongs? Why not join an adult religious education program to find out?
I hope this helps.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
That is one good quality of the Catholic church, that they do not pretend to interpret the bible literally, but it does lead to the inevitable conclusion that interpretation is left with us falliable human beings. So it is completely possible that a Pope, or the church if you like, can re-interpret even thousand year old beliefs. I'm not sure when the prohibitions against weaving two types of cloth, or handling pig skin were overturned, but I suspect they were honored for a good length of time. Certainly, the genesis story was supported for thousands of years. Galileo eventually caused the church to change their mind on several points of interpretation. So why then can't they do so on contraception?
Having been in the Catholic church I think I'm pretty familiar with the arguments, but none of them address my questions. I trust that you can or at least will try.
I realize they may get lost in conversation so maybe I can be more direct.
1. Are there or are there not long held beliefs that the Catholic church has changed it's opinion on?
2. If a new Pope and/or church council he appoints reinterprets scripture to allow for conception and he so decrees, what exactly would prevent him from enacting this? Would he be impeached?
P.S. I'm glad your enjoying the conversation, I enjoy a good, productive discussion myself.
Yes!
The number #1 most drastic change was the Constantinian Shift, which made Christianity legal and eventually led to making it the only legal religion in the Roman Empire. To be short, the entire nature of the Church changed from an assembly of believers to something with believers and nonbelievers- hence the creation of monasticism. So basically, things like the Christian tradition of non-violence went out the window with the Crusades and soldiers who were Christian. I mean, that's really drastic- contradictory I would say!