NationStates Jolt Archive

Though I pray daily for His Holiness to remain in good health, we will be coronating a new Pope in the not too distant future.

I was wondering, what kind of Pope would you like to see take over from His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, and what would you like to see him do?

I personally want a non-white Pope either one from Latin America, the Philippines or that Nigerian Cardinal person. I would also like to see a relatively young Pope be nominated.

With regards to direction of the Church I want him to be traditional on some things (i.e: reintroduction of Latin Mass) and very progressive on other things (i.e: womens ordination).

What about you?

I'd like to see a Jewish lesbian as the next pope.

I'd like to see a Jewish lesbian as the next pope.

If you can't be serious please don't even bother replying!

*puts on big silly pope hat*

Ok I'll be serious now. :D

*puts on big silly pope hat*

Ok I'll be serious now. :D

:roll:

How this forum has changed! People disrespecting me, I doubt you even know who I am.

Don't worry CE i still remember who you are !

We old school nations do not get the respect we deserve :rolleyes:

Anyway, not that i have much say being Jewish, i think it would be interesting to see a much younger pope.

It's ok, Catholic Europe. I know who you are!

Anywho, I'd definetly like to see a young, able pope, mabey someone who breaks the white sterotype. I expect we'll be getting one soon; unfortunately i dont think that Pope John Paul II has much time left. I'll be eager to see who the necto Pope will be.

I'd like to see a Black Female Lesbian single-mother Pope.

And I am being serious.

Oh ... and for those who want a young Pope .... Popes don't usually start out being 110 years old, you know.

I'd like to see a Black Female Lesbian single-mother Pope.
You left out "athiest" dude

:roll:

How this forum has changed! People disrespecting me, I doubt you even know who I am.

If I did why would that change anything? *shrugs*

You left out "athiest" dude


Nah ... that would be for President of the US ... the Pope can go ahead and believe in the great Sky Magician if she likes.

Oh ... and a Pope with a sense of humour would be nice ... cuz obviously those who follow him don't have one.

Yes ... a silly Pope would be refreshing.

I have a good friend who's atheist and he's determined to become Pope one day

I would also like to see a relatively young Pope


It's so great you said that because my friend Matt really wants to be the next Pope. However, he is a suburban white kid so he doesn't fit your other criteria, and he wants to get rid of the Latin (which I totally DON'T understand because Latin is the coolest!!). I think he would make a great Pope; he plans to completely revamp the Catholic Church!!!

So I say, "MATT FOR POPE!!!"

Though I pray daily for His Holiness to remain in good health, we will be coronating a new Pope in the not too distant future.
I really don't have any preferences, but the next Pope is suppose to be the last one, according to the "Our Lady of Fatima" prophecies, right?

It's bound to be said at some point, so I'll do it first:

Vote Kerry for Pope!

On a more serious note, I'd like to see a more liberal pope. One who preaches goodwill to all, rather than goodwill to all except those who disagree with the church.

While it'd be nice, it's unlikely to occur. When was the last time there was a relatively young, non-white pope? Ever? That's a serious question, I'm not up on the papal studies.

Given a choice in the matter, I'll agree with people. A sense of humour is an absolute must at this point. The Church wants to up its popularity, it needs to update its image a bit. Putting a geriatric curmudgeon on the Tele isn't the way to draw in new people.

I do vote in favor of returning to the latin mass, though. Without the bible-thumping crowd, there doesn't seem to be very many people left in learning it, so teachers are becoming more scarce as well.

Hi. Like the subject says, I am not Catholic, but, to answer the original question...

I think that it would be cool to have a non-white Pope. I think that it would be a good example of how God loves all creatures that He made. Not that, having a white or caucasian Pope says otherwise, but I am sure that you all catch my drift.

What are the Fatima Prophecies? Aren't those related to Islam? Just going by the name Fatima (1st Daughter of Muhammad) Would like to learn as much as possible.

I think the next Pope should be more concerned with social justice issues and liberation theology. I think Jesus would approve.

If not, at least a sense of humour.

I think the Catholic Church has been hurt by the fact that JPII has been pope for over 25 years.

Now, don't get me wrong, JPII did a lot of good as pope, but he's old, and stale now.

We need a pope whose thinking is progressive, open, and certainly not nearly as rigid as currently is in regard to dogma.

A "young" pope will never happen. He's gonna be at least 60, if not older. I think the College of Cardinals won't want to see another 25 year papacy.

Just my $.02. I could be wrong, and probably am.

:roll:

How this forum has changed! People disrespecting me, I doubt you even know who I am.

Silly CE, no one ever respected you!

Anyway, I'd like to see the person best fit for the job. I'd rather the person get nominated because he is the best choice than because of his race or nation of origin.

Our Lady of Fatima refers to the city where she appeared - Fatima, Portugal. If you need to know why a city in Portugal is named after a daughter of Mohammad, thank the Moors who took over the pennisula in around the turn of the first millenium.

As for the next Pope, as much as it would be good to see a young non-Italian take take over, I am willing to bet that the Cardinals will vote in a 70 some-year-old Italian. In case you don't realise it, JPII has been Pope since 1978 and currently is third on the list of the longest reigning Popes. (That's 3rd out of 256.) His beliefs are quite conservative compared to the world now, and as much as I support him, his stuborness has probably caused its fair share of problems among the faithful.

I would bet that the next Pope will not be as conservative, but older than JPII when he was elected. I don't think the Cardinals like having Popes around for 30 years at a time. They tend to favour the tradition less than 10.

P.S. And a sense of humour would be nice too

If you like reading about the end times and future Popes, read this page http://jpdawson.com/lastpope.html

That the next Pope will not be anybody radical. JP2 has stacked the deck in the College of Cardinals, and it is likely that they will pick someone to carry out along the slow reform track he has set.

My predictions:

* The new Pope will be at LEAST 10 years older than JP2 was when he was made Pope. I think the Church may well have come to the opinion that turnover in the position every now and then would be a good thing.

* That said, I give 3:4 odds that the next Pope will be an Italian. The Church has had 25 years of the "non standard" Pope, and I suspect that they've had quite enough change for a little while.

* I give outside odds 1:8, each that the next Pope will be Irish or French. The idea here would be to aid in the peace process in Eire or to combat growing secularism in Western Europe for the latter.

I don't give Africa or Asia much of a chance, too radical too soon.
South America *might* get it, if there is a candidate that is agreeable to all, but it's a long shot.
There will be a Pope on the moon before an American or Aussie gets it.

I really don't have any preferences, but the next Pope is suppose to be the last one, according to the "Our Lady of Fatima" prophecies, right?Well, if that's true, then I suggest that leaving the office "open" for several thousand years might be a good idea.

The Catholic Church actually made a stride into a new group of people as pope. His Holiness John Paul II is Polish; once named Karol Wojya (Sp). He is the first Slavic Pope in the history of the Papacy. I believe if a Slav can become pope, than perhaps a non-white pope may be next. But, any pope white or not, should be open, and willing to meet Catholics of all corners of the globe, not sit in the Vatican like some past popes.

I really don't have any preferences, but the next Pope is suppose to be the last one, according to the "Our Lady of Fatima" prophecies, right?
Also according to the prophecy of St Malachi IIRC too.

Also according to the prophecy of St Malachi IIRC too.
Slight mistake. The next one will be the penultimate Pope.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.asp

Though I pray daily for His Holiness to remain in good health, we will be coronating a new Pope in the not too distant future.

I was wondering, what kind of Pope would you like to see take over from His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, and what would you like to see him do?

I personally want a non-white Pope either one from Latin America, the Philippines or that Nigerian Cardinal person. I would also like to see a relatively young Pope be nominated.

With regards to direction of the Church I want him to be traditional on some things (i.e: reintroduction of Latin Mass) and very progressive on other things (i.e: womens ordination).

What about you?
How about John Paul the III, or the LXVII

I'm not well-read on papal studies, but the impression that His Holiness leaves on me is the impression of a man who has tried hard to reach out to people, a man with a deep love and concern for the youth of the world*, a man who seeks to heal the wounds of past conflicts. I get the feeling that he's going to be hard to replace and harder to live up to.

* Those seeking to make jokes about the recent priest abuse scandals need not reply.

As for Church policy, my opinions (for however little they count) are as follows:

I'm not sure what the reasons are against female ordination; I'm not well-read on the subject (shame on me, I'm Catholic, I should know). Current policy against female ordination should be reconsidered.

I'm in agreement with current Church standing against abortion. We do not know when a soul is bound to human form, thus, to avoid killing what might be a person, terminations of fertilized eggs (or any later prenatal form) ought to be avoided. For those who do not share the faith, this argument can be reorganized on a natural law basis that doesn't assume the existence of a soul: The rights of people ought to be protected, and a person comes into being sometime between fertilization and birth. We don't know where that point-of-transition from non-person to person is, but the time of fertilization is the limit of zero probability; after fertilization, the chance of a fetus being a person goes up with time.

Latin masses should be optional, but not mandatory. Of what benefit is the Word of God if you cannot understand it?

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

I really don't have any preferences, but the next Pope is suppose to be the last one, according to the "Our Lady of Fatima" prophecies, right?


My Lutheran church has been talking about that for a couple years now. I'm not sure what this means, but they say some sort of reference to the first Pope, Peter, and that this new Pope will have something in relation to him.

I also believe the Pope is supposed to come from the former Soviet Union, or Eastern Europe.

Here's an article from the New Internationalist, issue 327 about the most likely candidate for the Popeship:).

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger
He is Pope John Paul II’s sidekick, his confidante and his enforcer. But when the fading Polish prelate meets his maker in the not-too-distant future, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger may also be next in line to become the world’s top Roman Catholic, the corporal representative of God’s word on Earth. And that should give us all pause, Catholics and non-Catholics alike.

Currently the suave, white-haired German Cardinal runs the Church’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This august organization is occasionally referred to as the Holy Office but it is perhaps best known by an older name – the Inquisition. You history buffs will remember the Inquisition: those Catholic zealots who in the Middle Ages couldn’t abide apostates and doubters of the One True Faith. They perfected the use of thumbscrews and the rack to force Jews, Muslims and other dissenters to adopt the Vatican’s more ‘accurate’ understanding of Christianity.

Though he may be next in line for St Peter’s throne, Joe Ratzinger is no spring chicken. He was born in Bavaria in 1927 so is only six years younger than John Paul II. However, he shows few signs of slowing down. He has been the Vatican’s top doctrinal officer since 1981 and is a recondite intellectual, fluent in four languages. His intellectual searching began as a seminarian in Nazi Germany where he rounded out the experience with a brief fling in the Hitler Youth, though he was never a member of the Nazi Party. He was later conscripted into the German Army from which he eventually deserted before ending the war as an American POW.

After completing his doctorate on St Augustine in 1953 he made the rounds as a professor of ‘systematic theology’ before ascending to the position of Archbishop of Munich in 1977. From there John Paul II invited him to Rome, where he took up residence in 1981.

Once settled he was quick to make a mark with his old-fashioned dogmatism and conservative values. He was particularly upset by what he saw as destructive, liberalizing influences unleashed at the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). These ‘wild excesses’ extended to the introduction of a non-Latin Mass after Vatican II which Ratzinger characterized as a ‘tragic breach’ in tradition. But the Cardinal’s discomfort with modern life and yearning for the good old days also extended to the social realm, especially into the areas of gay rights and women.

In 1986 Ratzinger issued a letter to the Catholic Bishops in which he wrote that homosexuality was a ‘tendency’ towards an ‘intrinsic moral evil’. A few years later, in 1992, he rejected the notion of human rights for gays, stressing that their civil liberties could be ‘legitimately limited’. He followed up by remarking that ‘neither the church nor society should be surprised’ if ‘irrational and violent reactions increase’ when gays demand civil rights. Not a man to mince his words, Ratzinger urgently set to work to ferret out gay-sensitive clergy.

The good Cardinal also extended the Papal principle of ‘infallibility’ by declaring that the ordination of women was impossible because John Paul II said it was so. Ditto for the use of the word ‘priest’ by the Anglican Church: not on, said Joe, because Leo XIII in 1896 said it wasn’t allowed.

The Cardinal is also not happy mixing religion and politics – at least not the kind of politics which suggests the Church has an obligation to assist the poor in their fight for justice. So he set out to muzzle outspoken ‘liberation’ theologians including Brazil’s charismatic Leonardo Boff. He also replaced the now-deceased Archbishop of Recife, Dom Helder Camara, with Monsignor José Cardosa – a conservative right-winger – and warned the ex-Bishop of Chiapas in Mexico, Samuel Ruiz, to preach the Gospel ‘in its integrity without Marxist interpretations’.

As if that weren’t enough, the ever-busy Cardinal has used his privileged take on the Truth to set back inter-faith tolerance and religious pluralism a few decades. In 1997 Ratzinger annoyed Buddhists by calling their religion an ‘autoerotic spirituality’ that offers ‘transcendence without imposing concrete religious obligations’. And Hinduism, he said, offers ‘false hope’; it guarantees ‘purification’ based on a ‘morally cruel’ concept of reincarnation resembling ‘a continuous circle of hell’. The Cardinal predicted Buddhism would replace Marxism as the Catholic Church’s main enemy this century.

So keep your eyes on those chimney pots when the contest for the next Pope begins. If Joe Ratzinger gets the nod progressive voices inside the Catholic Church will have an even harder time being heard. And it could happen. As Ratzinger himself has said: ‘No-one expected the present Pope to be elected either.’


Kind of scary, considering the (unjustified) amount of power the Pope generally has in political matters (besides the influence amongst Catholics themselves).

As for Church policy, my opinions (for however little they count) are as follows:

I'm not sure what the reasons are against female ordination; I'm not well-read on the subject (shame on me, I'm Catholic, I should know). Current policy against female ordination should be reconsidered.

The thing is. In church reform, Tradition tends to carry as much weight as scripture and more then practical reform on occasion. So, for the Catholic church, a valid reason not to allow Female ordination is that the Church has never done, despite the fact the fact that it would help emensely with the 'vocations shortage.'

Latin masses should be optional, but not mandatory. Of what benefit is the Word of God if you cannot understand it?

I agree with this. Even though I'm no longer a Catholic, I still find the Tredentine Mass beautiful and I think the Church should make more of an effort keeping this tradition.

So he set out to muzzle outspoken ‘liberation’ theologians including Brazil’s charismatic Leonardo Boff.

Shame about that, Boff being silenced, from what I understand he was doing quite well too. Of course, I heard that from sources sympathetic to the Jesuits.

Slight mistake. The next one will be the penultimate Pope.

http://www.catholic-pages.com/grabbag/malachy.asp
The program I was watching on the Science channel said that, according to prophecy, the next Pope would be the last one and then St. Peter would return and be the Pope before the time of troubles.

I find it fascinating that the ancient Myan calendar and the I Ching also run out in about 2012; the prohecies of Edgar Cayce and Nostradamus also allegedly contain references to "major cataclysims" at about that time. What's coming? Why all these things pointing at the year 2012?

My Lutheran church has been talking about that for a couple years now. I'm not sure what this means, but they say some sort of reference to the first Pope, Peter, and that this new Pope will have something in relation to him.
.
Do you mean this?:

In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oues in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis ciuitas septicollis diruetur, & Iudex tremêdus iudicabit populum suum. Finis

In extreme persecution, the seat of the Holy Roman Church will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed the sheep through many tribulations, at the term of which the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge his people. The End

That was the prophecy of the last pope.

The Prophecy for the one before him though (the one after JP II) is "Gloria olivae" ["Pride of the Olives" I think. Do we have any Latin scholars?]

The program I was watching on the Science channel said that, according to prophecy, the next Pope would be the last one and then St. Peter would return and be the Pope before the time of troubles.

I find it fascinating that the ancient Myan calendar and the I Ching also run out in about 2012; the prohecies of Edgar Cayce and Nostradamus also allegedly contain references to "major cataclysims" at about that time. What's coming? Why all these things pointing at the year 2012?
When ID Cards are introduced in Britain :eek: It is the end of days.

Don't know who to blame now, the Mayans, I Ching, The Catholic Church or David Blunkett.

Also, I wouldn't take Nostradamus too seriously, Some of his Quantrains have been applied to completely different circumstances.

When ID Cards are introduced in Britain :eek: It is the end of days.

Don't know who to blame now, the Mayans, I Ching, The Catholic Church or David Blunkett.

Also, I wouldn't take Nostradamus too seriously, Some of his Quantrains have been applied to completely different circumstances.
I agree about Nostradamus, or for that matter about any one of the "prophetic sources" listed in my post, but ALL of them? Why all of them? Why 2012? What, if anything, does it all mean?

Well, if the world will end in 2012, the next pope will probably die young.

I live in the Archdiocese of Washington and last Sunday, Cardinal McCarrick came in unexpectedly and did the mass. It was pretty cool. He gave out the communion too. He's 74 though, so he's probally too old to be the next pope. He does meet the unwritten rule in that he speaks English, French, German, Italian and Spanish though.

Do you mean this?:

In persecutione extrema S.R.E. sedebit Petrus Romanus, qui pascet oues in multis tribulationibus: quibus transactis ciuitas septicollis diruetur, & Iudex tremêdus iudicabit populum suum. Finis

In extreme persecution, the seat of the Holy Roman Church will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed the sheep through many tribulations, at the term of which the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge his people. The End

That was the prophecy of the last pope.

The Prophecy for the one before him though (the one after JP II) is "Gloria olivae" ["Pride of the Olives" I think. Do we have any Latin scholars?]


Yes, that's what I meant. That's for clarifying that. I couldn't exactly remember what it was about. ^.^

Ratzinger likes to be the power behind the throne.

The next Pope will be whatever social conservative (maintain the disastrous chastity rule, no marriage for priests, no women as priests, no birth control yadda yadda) he endorses.

As for Church policy, my opinions (for however little they count) are as follows:

I'm not sure what the reasons are against female ordination; I'm not well-read on the subject (shame on me, I'm Catholic, I should know). Current policy against female ordination should be reconsidered.

I'm in agreement with current Church standing against abortion. We do not know when a soul is bound to human form, thus, to avoid killing what might be a person, terminations of fertilized eggs (or any later prenatal form) ought to be avoided. For those who do not share the faith, this argument can be reorganized on a natural law basis that doesn't assume the existence of a soul: The rights of people ought to be protected, and a person comes into being sometime between fertilization and birth. We don't know where that point-of-transition from non-person to person is, but the time of fertilization is the limit of zero probability; after fertilization, the chance of a fetus being a person goes up with time.

Latin masses should be optional, but not mandatory. Of what benefit is the Word of God if you cannot understand it?

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
"Think about it for a moment."

"Catholic" means universal. Latin was once a universal language- in Europe and the Middle East- but it is now merely a curiousity and should be abandoned. Failure to do so betrays an Italian ascendency that is cultural but in no way religious.

My friend was anti abortion until his daughter was abandonded by her lover and left with an unwanted fetus. It is harder when it hits close to home.

Priests are supposed to be men because Jesus and his disciples were men. That of course ignores these disciples: Mary, Martha, Joanna, Samantha, Priscilla, Nympha, Lydia, and many more. The Council of Nicea buried the memory of these disciples but the reality of their devotion can still be seen for those who have eyes to see.

So it's just a conservative social bias which has outlived its original non-religious purpose.

As has the vow of chastity.

I think the next pope should be a computer nerd and create leet mass.

I think the next pope should be a computer nerd and create leet mass.
ph34r teh L0rd!!!!!!!!111!!!one...

J35u5 pwns u

:eek:

I can see it now

*waves* Hiya, Catholic Europe! Long time no see.

I think you ought to know me well enough by now to know that I have absolutely no intention of being serious. You ought to know by now that it isn't a sign of disrespect.

What would I like to see in a new pope? I want the new Pope to be a Rolling Stones fan. Really! I want a pope that has every Stones album on cd.

Any other worldly hobby would do. The Pope is a man. He is a bridge between worldliness and godliness. As such, I would like to see a pope that doesn't shy away from either. He doesn't have to pick up prostitutes when nobody is looking, but if he showed some... humanity, I'd relate to him better.

More importantly, maybe he'd relate to US better too.

Spicy foods. I want a pope that likes really spicy foods.

The next Pope will be Jean-Paul III!

:roll:

How this forum has changed! People disrespecting me, I doubt you even know who I am.

You're the pro-life, anti-stemcell, pro-childmolester. Of course I know who you are.

I just looked at your name. "Catholic." Which can be translated into "hypocrit."

Quakers rule!

Personally, I would like a conservative pope. BAN ALTAR GIRLS!
I wish the next pope would also make each parish have equal amounts of the old latin mass and the new vernacular mass. For ex. 3 new mass= 3 old mass.
I also would want him to crack down on the wimpy, liberal bishops.

I do love the current pope, and think he will beocme St. John Paul the Great 50-150 years after death.

You're the pro-life, anti-stemcell, pro-childmolester. Of course I know who you are.

I just looked at your name. "Catholic." Which can be translated into "hypocrit."


Riiiight :rolleyes:

Because everyone knows that Catholics are simply unthinking drones.

Fuck off troll.

Though I pray daily for His Holiness to remain in good health, we will be coronating a new Pope in the not too distant future.

I was wondering, what kind of Pope would you like to see take over from His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, and what would you like to see him do?

I personally want a non-white Pope either one from Latin America, the Philippines or that Nigerian Cardinal person. I would also like to see a relatively young Pope be nominated.

With regards to direction of the Church I want him to be traditional on some things (i.e: reintroduction of Latin Mass) and very progressive on other things (i.e: womens ordination).

What about you?
a Nigerian lesbian would be the best nomination, in my opinion, because it would help the Church to come face to face with the groups it abuses most (Africans, women, gays).

Personally, I would like a conservative pope. BAN ALTAR GIRLS!
I wish the next pope would also make each parish have equal amounts of the old latin mass and the new vernacular mass. For ex. 3 new mass= 3 old mass.
I also would want him to
I presume that by extention, you think the Vatican should also ban ban 'wimpy, liberal' priests?

Even if it doesn't, it will still make a bad situation (low amount of vocations worse).

Same with Altar servers. If you ban girls, then in some parishes, the priest will have no Altarserver. Or do you think it is better to preserve tradition over practicality?

:sniper: :mp5: i think that we should have a world war 3 right now and see who would win. no groups like the Allies and axis. just fend for yourselves

:sniper: :mp5: i think that we should have a world war 3 right now and see who would win. no groups like the Allies and axis. just fend for yourselves :gundge: :headbang:

The next Pope will be Jean-Paul III!
no i think it should be you :D :)

I am also not Catholic but I was wondering what anybody would think about an Opus Dei Pope. John Paul made Escriva a saint so I was just wondering?

I am also not Catholic but I was wondering what anybody would think about an Opus Dei Pope. John Paul made Escriva a saint so I was just wondering?
*shudders*

Opus Dei is one of the parts of Catholicism that I have a real problem, and if one is elected then I might agree he will be the last one.

As a Catholic, I do pray that His Holiness can enjoy good health and, when the time comes, to die peacefully. He has been great for the Church and the world.
However, it is time for change. I don't care what color the pope is, so long as he isn't European. The Italians have had the papal throne for far too long, and the rest of Europe is, well, very secular. Obviously, the author of this thread is European and a devout Catholic, but many are not. I don't want those iinfluences at the top.
As for issues, I want a young, progressive pope that is in tune with his times. I want him to reaffirm the sanctity of life and marraige, but I want him to keep the changes of Vatican II, and ordain women as preistesses. Married men and women wouldn't be a bad idea. After all, the only reason they can't marry is because of a mideival law meant to prevent dynasties in the church (which are nearly impossible today). A good compromise, if one is needed, is to allow no married priest/priestess to become a bishop.
Finally, I want the pope to admit that he isn't infalliable. He is human, and the rules of the Vatican change. We went from the Inquisition to an anti death penalty stance, which I find to be one of the starkest changes. This pope needs to admit that his job is more of an administrator that issues guidelines, and not a person who claims to act on behalf of our Lord, Jesus Christ. No man can do that.

I am also not Catholic but I was wondering what anybody would think about an Opus Dei Pope. John Paul made Escriva a saint so I was just wondering?
Don't know too much about them, other than that they are awefully distorted in The Da Vinci Code. But they are one of the more conservative groups in the Church. You can't expect one billion members to go in lockstep on every issue.

Well, as for me, I wish furvently for the collapse of the whole corrupt Roman Church. Hopefully there won't be another Pope and God's word will be allowed to spread without the opposition of Romanism.

I have alot of Catholic friends and have no problem with Catholics, just I don't like the Church heirarchy and doctrines to say the very least.

As for JPII, I don't like it when anyone dies.

I really don't have any preferences, but the next Pope is suppose to be the last one, according to the "Our Lady of Fatima" prophecies, right?
The girls at Fatima sound drugged to me, and the Vatican will hate to admit it. The prophecies are "secret", and released long after they come "true". If you ask me, the apparitions at Lourdes or Megigorie (sp?) are more accurate. I've even heard that some American Catholics claime to see her in some valley in Tenessee. It's probably far more accurate than Fatima.

I don't care what color the pope is, so long as he isn't European. The Italians have had the papal throne for far too long, and the rest of Europe is, well, very secular. ....

As for issues, I want a young, progressive pope that is in tune with his times. I want him to reaffirm the sanctity of life and marraige, but I want him to keep the changes of Vatican II, and ordain women as preistesses. Married men and women wouldn't be a bad idea. ....

Finally, I want the pope to admit that he isn't infalliable. He is human, and the rules of the Vatican change. We went from the Inquisition to an anti death penalty stance, which I find to be one of the starkest changes. This pope needs to admit that his job is more of an administrator that issues guidelines, and not a person who claims to act on behalf of our Lord, Jesus Christ. No man can do that.
What about an Irish pope? That would be great. Sure, countries can be secular but priests obviously are not secular. Everything else you say I agree with entirely. If the Pope did all these things, and one more, I'd start going to mass again. The one additional thing is step off and stop bothering secular authorities about matters entirely based on faith. Realize that many governments do not make laws based on dogma, so condemning them for allowing civil marriages between same sex couples is only going to create divisions, which isn't at all something the church should do. Catholics already know what the church says, but leave non-Catholics alone about the faith.

Oh, and the stance on contraception could stand to change, but we can all just keep going to confession if need be.

What about an Irish pope? That would be great. Sure, countries can be secular but priests obviously are not secular. Everything else you say I agree with entirely. If the Pope did all these things, and one more, I'd start going to mass again. The one additional thing is step off and stop bothering secular authorities about matters entirely based on faith. Realize that many governments do not make laws based on dogma, so condemning them for allowing civil marriages between same sex couples is only going to create divisions, which isn't at all something the church should do. Catholics already know what the church says, but leave non-Catholics alone about the faith.
I do agree about secular nations. The Vatican as a political force is long dead. We must welcome the Vatican as a purely moral force. They must be a lighthouse of morality in a secular world, but they don't have to shove it down anyone's throat. Some people are naturally attracted to moral lifestyles.
Oh, and the stance on contraception could stand to change, but we can all just keep going to confession if need be.
That I also agree with. Sure, life from conception is sacred, but isn't contraception supposed to work before that happens? I think the reason why the Vatican opposes it is mostly because, as they see it, it promotes extramartial sex. I do find that wrong, however.

Don't know too much about them, other than that they are awefully distorted in The Da Vinci Code. But they are one of the more conservative groups in the Church. You can't expect one billion members to go in lockstep on every issue.

I was thinking more along the lines of what they did for Spain's economy under Franco. They took a Nationalized economy and gave the world some of the fastest growing (GNP and PCI) increases it had ever seen. I was just wondering how the work ethic in Opus would translate into Papel authority. Would the Church become more energized?

First and foremost, we need a non-European Pope. It was fine originally, but it would be nice if the Church acknowledged those of us on the "outside." Also, I believe he should remain staunchly pro-life, and anti-gay marriage, but should allow female priests and should drop the "no marriage" law. I believe Latin Mass should be encouraged, but only if provided alongside Latin lessons. (Latin is a beautiful language.) The Church needs to drop its foolish anti-death penalty and anti-war beliefs. The Pope must realize that evil must be battled in this world, and he/she has to stand with an increasingly devout America/Africa/Australia, rather than an unfaithful Europe. Generally, a more proactive Pope, one who resembled John Paul II (May God Bless his soul) in his earlier days, when he fought Communism. This Pope must face Islamic extremists and secular socialists from the outside, and corruption from within.
My suggestions for Pope: (I'm serious) Mel Gibson, George W. Bush, (We'll have to convert him) or Bill O'Reilly.

I was thinking more along the lines of what they did for Spain's economy under Franco. They took a Nationalized economy and gave the world some of the fastest growing (GNP and PCI) increases it had ever seen. I was just wondering how the work ethic in Opus would translate into Papel authority. Would the Church become more energized?
Oh, sorry. I thought you were alluding to some of the worse parts. And I think that an Opus Dei pope would merely be a shot in the arm: a great adrenaline boost at first, but then sorta fades into a dull pain. Besides, it'd loose membership in the developed nations, such as Europe and the US. Then it may merely be no more than a third world church.

Oh, sorry. I thought you were alluding to some of the worse parts. And I think that an Opus Dei pope would merely be a shot in the arm: a great adrenaline boost at first, but then sorta fades into a dull pain. Besides, it'd loose membership in the developed nations, such as Europe and the US. Then it may merely be no more than a third world church.

Why would it lose anymore members from developed nations than it is doing now? The growth for almost all churchs is in the Third World, why do you think Islam is spreading there so fast?

Naturally, I wish His Holiness could stay with us longer, but I accept (as I'm certain he himself does) that God's plan for him is nearing an end.

I have no major preferences for a new Pope other than those CE has already expressed. I do hope that the Church will change the doctrine involving contraception, but I understand that they don't want to essentially be approving promiscuity and pre-marital sex. I would also like to see more women ordained as clergy (whether or not as priestesses), but I would not like to see priests (or priestesses) allowed to marry. With all the work that must be done by clergy, there is little time to treat a spouse as the beloved person that they are.

"Catholic" means universal. Latin was once a universal language- in Europe and the Middle East- but it is now merely a curiousity and should be abandoned. Failure to do so betrays an Italian ascendency that is cultural but in no way religious.

My friend was anti abortion until his daughter was abandonded by her lover and left with an unwanted fetus. It is harder when it hits close to home.

Priests are supposed to be men because Jesus and his disciples were men. That of course ignores these disciples: Mary, Martha, Joanna, Samantha, Priscilla, Nympha, Lydia, and many more. The Council of Nicea buried the memory of these disciples but the reality of their devotion can still be seen for those who have eyes to see.

So it's just a conservative social bias which has outlived its original non-religious purpose.

As has the vow of chastity.
I disagree with much of your statement, but I want to address one point. "Latin was once a universal language- in Europe and the Middle East- but it is now merely a curiousity and should be abandoned." Latin is NOT a mere curiosity. It is the root language from which a large proportion of the Romantic languages are derived. It is used in law, medicine, science, and species classification, to name just a few. For most scholarly studies, Latin is a MUST. Knowing what the Latin roots mean can help in learning other Romantic languages that use the same root.
Plus, I enjoy and participate in classical choral music, in which much of the sacred music is in Latin, taken from the Catholic Mass. It is a beautiful language, IMHO.

Why would it lose anymore members from developed nations than it is doing now? The growth for almost all churchs is in the Third World, why do you think Islam is spreading there so fast?
Because those in developed nations lead the church in non-spiritual matters, like accounting. We also need that base if the Vatican hopes to recieve any substantial donations for its churches.
Now that you mention it, however, it is growing in one developing nation, and that is China. In spite of Beijing's restrictions on Catholicism, it is growing like a weed at rates not seen since the missionaries arrived there in the 18th century. Beijing will probably relax its anti-Catholic attitude, and by then, Chinese Catholicism, indeed Christianity in general, will explode.

*shudders*

Opus Dei is one of the parts of Catholicism that I have a real problem, and if one is elected then I might agree he will be the last one.
Yeah - Opus Dei gives Catholics (like a bunch of my friends) a bad name

The Church needs to drop its foolish anti-death penalty and anti-war beliefs.
So by "foolish" you mean "follows the commandments". Okay. Thou shalt not kill, anyone? Why not accept same sex marriage and encourage sex outside of marriage while we're at it. If that commandment's up for grabs, why not the rest?

My suggestions for Pope: (I'm serious) Mel Gibson, George W. Bush, (We'll have to convert him) or Bill O'Reilly.
Are any of these men priests? Degree in theology? But they should be interpretting church doctrine instead of any one of a long list of cardinals and bishops? Silly.

So by "foolish" you mean "follows the commandments". Okay. Thou shalt not kill, anyone?
Actually, the translation that is closer to the original is "Thou shalt not murder".

Yeah - Opus Dei gives Catholics (like a bunch of my friends) a bad name

Why? I know a lot of the propaganda on both sides but why is there so much bad feelings about this group?

Actually, the translation that is closer to the original is "Thou shalt not murder".
OKay, Murder it is.
Quick definitions (Murder)
noun: unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being
verb: kill intentionally and with premeditation (Example: "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered")

Now, if there's a complaint that "Murder" only refers to the unlawful actions, and thus my point is foolish in respect to a death penalty, it couldn't be applied to abortion either, because that is legal. In fact, because law is so subject to change, the "unlawful" part is entirely irrelevant. Therefore, we may as well leave it at "kill intentionally and with pre-meditation", which you must include capital punishment and pre-emptive strikes in the definition of. (War's alright if it's in self defence, of course. The church wouldn't argue with that).

Why? I know a lot of the propaganda on both sides but why is there so much bad feelings about this group?
Assuming you know the propaganda (like the cilice and the disapline), I will not bore you with the details.

Largely because they come across as fanatics. Bent on following teachings and practises which are outdated and even dangerous. They also suppress intellectual endevour, and generally have a holier than thou attitute to Non-OP Catholics [trust me on the last point, we live opposite an Opus Dei house]

I live in the Archdiocese of Washington and last Sunday, Cardinal McCarrick came in unexpectedly and did the mass. It was pretty cool. He gave out the communion too. He's 74 though, so he's probally too old to be the next pope. He does meet the unwritten rule in that he speaks English, French, German, Italian and Spanish though.
He was Archbishop of Newark, NJ before he became Cardinal in Washington, DC.

He was my Archbishop. He was fair, and pleasant to deal with.

Our Archbishop now is very conservative, threatened excommunication if you voted for Kerry (wonder what I have to do now, go to confession?), and, IMO, is out of touch with his flock.

OKay, Murder it is.
Quick definitions (Murder)
noun: unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being
verb: kill intentionally and with premeditation (Example: "The mafia boss ordered his enemies murdered")

Now, if there's a complaint that "Murder" only refers to the unlawful actions, and thus my point is foolish in respect to a death penalty, it couldn't be applied to abortion either, because that is legal. In fact, because law is so subject to change, the "unlawful" part is entirely irrelevant. Therefore, we may as well leave it at "kill intentionally and with pre-meditation", which you must include capital punishment and pre-emptive strikes in the definition of. (War's alright if it's in self defence, of course. The church wouldn't argue with that).
It could be argued that preemptive strikes and capital punishment are acts of self-defense: preemptive strike defending against a future attack, and capital punishment protecting society against any possibility of another future crime by the offender.

It's definitely time fr a change.

I'd like a pope that endorses the use of a nice chianti at church ceremonies instead. :)

It's definitely time fr a change.

I'd like a pope that endorses the use of a nice chianti at church ceremonies instead. :)
To show my American imperialist pig side, I'd prefer he chose to use a full-bodied cabernet. :)

It could be argued that preemptive strikes and capital punishment are acts of self-defense: preemptive strike defending against a future attack, and capital punishment protecting society against any possibility of another future crime by the offender.
Pre-emptive strike is iffy at best, I agree. Case by case basis would be a preferred approach. If the actual threat is uncertain, there is no reasonable justification.

As for Capital puishment, there are certainly other ways to ensure a man does not repeat his crime without murdering him. Also, there is no certainty that he will commit further crimes, so to murder him for what he may do in the future is unjustifiable. Capital punishment is not proven as an effective deterence, and revenge is not justified by religion.

The program I was watching on the Science channel said that, according to prophecy, the next Pope would be the last one and then St. Peter would return and be the Pope before the time of troubles.

I find it fascinating that the ancient Myan calendar and the I Ching also run out in about 2012; the prohecies of Edgar Cayce and Nostradamus also allegedly contain references to "major cataclysims" at about that time. What's coming? Why all these things pointing at the year 2012?

I, the great seer that I am, will now relate to you what will happen, up until the year 2012.

Conspiracy theories will increase exponentially. We have our fair share now, but this is just a shadow of what will come.

The Earth will revolve on it's axis around the sun... 8 more times...

Apart from this, it's all a blur... I need more opium to see clearly...

/sarcasm

Pre-emptive strike is iffy at best, I agree. Case by case basis would be a preferred approach. If the actual threat is uncertain, there is no reasonable justification.

As for Capital puishment, there are certainly other ways to ensure a man does not repeat his crime without murdering him. Also, there is no certainty that he will commit further crimes, so to murder him for what he may do in the future is unjustifiable. Capital punishment is not proven as an effective deterence, and revenge is not justified by religion.
There is no way to know with an absolute surety that a man would not repeat his crime - he could escape, or kill other prisoners, etc. You are right that there is no way of knowing if he will commit further crimes, but you do know he has committed one already. I also don't know that I agree that capital punishment is an act of revenge. Some would say it is an act of justice, a consequence of a misdeed.

There is no way to know with an absolute surety that a man would not repeat his crime - he could escape, or kill other prisoners, etc.
There is no way to be sure ANY given person will not kill another. Now, if you keep a prisoner seperated from all other prisoners, and he has as little contact with others has possible, chances are very favourable that he will not have an opportunity to kill again. Anyway, there's something to be said for turning the other cheek and giving second chances. After all, you can't make up for your sins if you're dead.

Regardless of practicality, the fact is that killing with premeditation and intent is a sin, as far as the church is concerned. Now, governments and individuals may commit sins because they feel they need to, but they cannot write them off as virtuous because they (the sins) were necessary. If you sin to prevent a sin from being committed, you have still sinned, even if it was necessary to prevent the second sin. I'm not concerning myself with what governments will do or should do, but the stance the church ought to take. Remind the Right that murder is still a sin, and if they still think it's necessary, that's between them and God. As I've already said, the church isn't meant to decide what the law ought to be, but judge what is sinful.

Regardless of practicality, the fact is that killing with premeditation and intent is a sin, as far as the church is concerned.
You still have not proven that point, so you cannot state that it is a fact.


As I've already said, the church isn't meant to decide what the law ought to be, but judge what is sinful.
You have not proven this point either, merely stated an opinion as fact.

You still have not proven that point, so you cannot state that it is a fact.

You have not proven this point either, merely stated an opinion as fact.
You can't prove your opinion as fact either. An opinion is a belief. Everyone has their own. Some people have clearly stated theirs.

a Nigerian lesbian would be the best nomination, in my opinion, because it would help the Church to come face to face with the groups it abuses most (Africans, women, gays).
This can't happen, because there are no women or gay cardinals (or bishops). I'm not sure about Nigerian or African cardinals. I'm not sure if there are any. The church doesn't abuse women or africans though. As for gays/lesbians, the church is just stating their opinion.

This can't happen, because there are no women or gay cardinals (or bishops). I'm not sure about Nigerian or African cardinals. I'm not sure if there are any. The church doesn't abuse women or africans though. As for gays/lesbians, the church is just stating their opinion.

There is an African cardinal. Actually, he has a pretty good shot at becoming Pope, last time I checked.

You need to remember that the Vatican is very close to africa, in fact, I think electing, say, an egyptian as the next Pope would actually be less of a streach, geographically speaking, than electing JPII was.

If I did why would that change anything? *shrugs*

You wouldn't say things like you did.

and he wants to get rid of the Latin

Latin has been got rid off....unfortunately.

religion is just bad. Just think a bit on the world if there were no such thing as "religion". :headbang:

religion is just bad. Just think a bit on the world if there were no such thing as "religion". :headbang:

something else would replace it.

The next pope?

I hope he'll be someone who sit on his seat and just do nothing but visit charities and do Mother Theresa stuff. And the occasional weekly mass in Vatican.

Rather than last time, giving Hitler his blessing...;)

I have faith that the next Pope will be a man of God. I know he will help Catholics to practice their form of Christianity. Pope John Paul II has helped the world.

As for me, I believe the Catholic Church should welcome Protestants and all other Christians. I have heard that some Catholic priests do not give Communion to anyone who is not from their church.

Jesus wants all people to accept Him as their Savior, and efforts that come between God and His forgiveness of humans is not wise.

I am Protestant. So, I am unsure of these tales about Catholic practices. They are Christians, though, and therefore I am sure God will understand and forgive any errors in their ways.

The next pope?

I hope he'll be someone who sit on his seat and just do nothing but visit charities and do Mother Theresa stuff. And the occasional weekly mass in Vatican.

Rather than last time, giving Hitler his blessing...;)

What do you mean, "last time"?? JP2 was a partisan AGAINST the Nazis in Poland!

List of Popes since WW2:
Pius XII (1939-58)
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
John Paul II (1978—)

Now, if you're talking about Pius the 12th... that's 4 Popes ago.
However:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

Pius did NOT give a blessing to Hitler, EVER. The agreement was between the Vatican and the Government of Germany (1933!, Hitler is not yet Chancellor).
It lists the rights and privledges of the Church in Germany.
THE TREATY IS STILL VALID AND IS IN USE TODAY!

Between the German Concordat's signing in 1933 and 1939, Pope Pius XI made three dozen formal complaints to the Nazi government, all of which were in reality drafted by Pacelli. The strongest condemnation of Hitler's ideology and ecclesiastical policy was the Encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, issued in 1937.
(Note: Pacelli = the future Pius XII)

For more on Pius the 12th:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII

Now, if you're talking about the STATED NEUTRALITY of the Vatican in WW2, do you also condemn it's STATED NEUTRALITY in every other war since the fall of the Papal States?
That's right: the Vatican has never taken a side in the Crimean War, Boer War, WW1, WW2, Korean War, Vietnam War, Falkland War, Gulf War 1, or Gulf War 2. Or any other conflict.

:roll:

How this forum has changed! People disrespecting me, I doubt you even know who I am.

You are a bible-thumping computer geek that thinks that by posting thousands of times you somehow become superior to others.

Open your eyes and get a life, whackjob.

as a catholic atheist im not too concerned about the religious politics involved in choosing the next pope. im neither up on the issues nor particularily worried about their impact on my life.

in my opinion the biggest problem with the church (in the US at least) is the shortage of priests. this shortage has lead to the worst problems now facing the church.

1) the closing of churches. how many people have stopped attending church because their local parish has had to be closed? it has ripped the heart out of many small communities around the country who now have mass in their local church only a few times a year if ever.

2) the sheltering of abusive priests. if there were an abundance of priests, the various bishops and cardinals wouldnt be faced with the dilemma of having to remove a working priest from the system that then leaves some parish short one priest. there are no replacements. if that priest is removed, there is no one to say the mass. (not that this is the whole reason for sheltering abusers but it has to be a factor)

sure, WE look in disbelief that anyone would keep a child molestor in a job that puts him in contact with children. (personally i would have it be mandatory that if a complaint comes against a priest, his superior would report it immediately to the police to investigate.) but sometimes a bishop is put in a really hard spot. surely the aggressive prosecution of alleged abuse can result in even more closed churches.

3) bringing 3rd world priests to the US to fill vacancies. sure this is great for US. we get some terriffic priests. but how can it really be good for the countries they came from where they NEED this kind of dynamic presence? doesnt it hurt the churches outreach in africa and india?

SO, i would hope that the next pope would take some steps to increase the number of priests born and trained in the US. there are a few good suggestions floating around any one of which would go a long way to changing things

1) the most obvious is to allow priests to marry. the insistance on unmarried priests just doesnt work any more. young men are no longer willing to deny themselves a family life in order to fulfill their vocations. this is giving the church a disproportional number of gay, pedophillic, and extremely conservative priests. (there are currently a handful of married priests in the church already. they are former episcopal priests who were married when they converted to the catholic church.)

2) allow the ordination of women. doubling up on the number of people willing to forgo the joys of a family would fill all the vacant spots. ive never found the justifications of disallowing female priests very convincing anyway.

3) run the priesthood like the military. meaning that instead of it being a lifelong committment where you have to get a special dispensation from the pope to get out of your vows, a priest would have a .....10 year initial commitment with 5 year re-enlistments. this would allow a young man with a vocation to have both a chance to serve the church AND a chance for a family life after he is done with it.

as a catholic atheist.

As a male woman...

Seriously. You can't be a catholic atheist.

as a catholic atheist im not too concerned about the religious politics involved in choosing the next pope. im neither up on the issues nor particularily worried about their impact on my life.

in my opinion the biggest problem with the church (in the US at least) is the shortage of priests. this shortage has lead to the worst problems now facing the church.

1) the closing of churches. how many people have stopped attending church because their local parish has had to be closed? it has ripped the heart out of many small communities around the country who now have mass in their local church only a few times a year if ever.

2) the sheltering of abusive priests. if there were an abundance of priests, the various bishops and cardinals wouldnt be faced with the dilemma of having to remove a working priest from the system that then leaves some parish short one priest. there are no replacements. if that priest is removed, there is no one to say the mass. (not that this is the whole reason for sheltering abusers but it has to be a factor)

sure, WE look in disbelief that anyone would keep a child molestor in a job that puts him in contact with children. (personally i would have it be mandatory that if a complaint comes against a priest, his superior would report it immediately to the police to investigate.) but sometimes a bishop is put in a really hard spot. surely the aggressive prosecution of alleged abuse can result in even more closed churches.

3) bringing 3rd world priests to the US to fill vacancies. sure this is great for US. we get some terriffic priests. but how can it really be good for the countries they came from where they NEED this kind of dynamic presence? doesnt it hurt the churches outreach in africa and india?

SO, i would hope that the next pope would take some steps to increase the number of priests born and trained in the US. there are a few good suggestions floating around any one of which would go a long way to changing things

1) the most obvious is to allow priests to marry. the insistance on unmarried priests just doesnt work any more. young men are no longer willing to deny themselves a family life in order to fulfill their vocations. this is giving the church a disproportional number of gay, pedophillic, and extremely conservative priests. (there are currently a handful of married priests in the church already. they are former episcopal priests who were married when they converted to the catholic church.)

2) allow the ordination of women. doubling up on the number of people willing to forgo the joys of a family would fill all the vacant spots. ive never found the justifications of disallowing female priests very convincing anyway.

3) run the priesthood like the military. meaning that instead of it being a lifelong committment where you have to get a special dispensation from the pope to get out of your vows, a priest would have a .....10 year initial commitment with 5 year re-enlistments. this would allow a young man with a vocation to have both a chance to serve the church AND a chance for a family life after he is done with it.

Don't worry, there will never be a lack of priests as long as young alter boys are there. :)

But you are wrong on "lack of priests" as the main concern. The main concern is the dieing out of christianity/catholics. The problem is that you guys are "trained" to hate sex, that anything sexual is bad. Because of this, during the past several generations, christianity has been hit with a negative population growth. That's pretty alarming since the rest of the world has a positive population growth. You guys are killing yourself off without knowing it.

And that's why the Pope just issued a "sex guide" and how catholics should have sex more often. Catholics are just so so crazy . . .

And don't forget, according to the Pope, it's now a sin if you refuse to have sex. LMAO, and obviously, the Pope now has to show you guys how its done.

As a male woman...

Seriously. You can't be a catholic atheist.


I suppose you could have catholic ethics and still be an atheist.

Sort of like being a jewish atheist. I know a couple of those.

I'm an atheist who was raised in the catholic tradition and I still put value upon confession as a source of absolution, albeit not absolution by god.

I genuinely have no respect for somone who refuses to confess their wrongs.
Lack of confession is one reason that i detest the new protestant mainstream, the 'non denominationals' and all that garbage.

I'm an atheist who was raised in the catholic tradition and I still put value upon confession as a source of absolution, albeit not absolution by god.

I genuinely have no respect for somone who refuses to confess their wrongs.
Lack of confession is one reason that i detest the new protestant mainstream, the 'non denominationals' and all that garbage.

That's pretty cool, I'd have to say you could confess your wrongs, but you don't have to confess them to anyone other than to your own concept of God. Failing that, you could confess them to yourself.

I don't think the act of confession itself merits much importance, in any event. God, should you believe in such things, is in constant low-level contact with everything, as everything in spacetime is God anyway, including you. And me. And the computer I'm writing this message on. We're just an event in spacetime. Anything else is egocentrism.

Znort!

I am Protestant. So, I am unsure of these tales about Catholic practices. They are Christians, though, and therefore I am sure God will understand and forgive any errors in their ways.

Such arrogrance....and yet, he doesn't seem to realise that his Church split from us, not the other way round!

You are a bible-thumping computer geek that thinks that by posting thousands of times you somehow become superior to others.

Open your eyes and get a life, whackjob.

I am not a 'bible-thumper'....I've never read the Bible. Secondly, if I'm this bad you must be awful to be cussing me, init! Thirdly, it was a joke!!!

I personally want a non-white Pope either one from Latin America, the Philippines or that Nigerian Cardinal person. I would also like to see a relatively young Pope be nominated.

With regards to direction of the Church I want him to be traditional on some things (i.e: reintroduction of Latin Mass) and very progressive on other things (i.e: womens ordination).

What about you?


For once Jamie I COMPLETELY agree with you.
non-white
young
bring back latin mass
let women in

I am not a 'bible-thumper'....I've never read the Bible. Secondly, if I'm this bad you must be awful to be cussing me, init! Thirdly, it was a joke!!!

Shame on you! Your the most relgious nation! While I - a complete aithiest on NS and RL - know the bible inside out and back to front! But then was it not Shakespearw who said “The Devil can cite Scripture for his own purpose.”?

Shame on you! Your the most relgious nation! While I - a complete aithiest on NS and RL - know the bible inside out and back to front! But then was it not Shakespearw who said “The Devil can cite Scripture for his own purpose.”?

If you know the Bible should know that that quotation is derived from the Bible;)

PS: Catholics aren't encouraged to read the Bible.

Seriously. You can't be a catholic atheist.
You don't need to believe in God to be a good Catholic.

In fact you may find as you go out the world tha there are many Catholic Atheists. For many (my self included) being a Catholic or being a brought up a Catholic plays a major part of the individuals identity. No idea why. But when the Catholic Church gets you, it gets you for life </jk>

Though I pray daily for His Holiness to remain in good health, we will be coronating a new Pope in the not too distant future.

I was wondering, what kind of Pope would you like to see take over from His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, and what would you like to see him do?

I personally want a non-white Pope either one from Latin America, the Philippines or that Nigerian Cardinal person. I would also like to see a relatively young Pope be nominated.

With regards to direction of the Church I want him to be traditional on some things (i.e: reintroduction of Latin Mass) and very progressive on other things (i.e: womens ordination).

What about you?

There was a guy called Cardinal Sin in the Phillipines who was very popular. Pope Sin I? :p

There was a guy called Cardinal Sin in the Phillipines who was very popular. Pope Sin I? :p
Cardinals generally change their name when they become Pope.

Me !!! ^_^

For once Jamie I COMPLETELY agree with you.
non-white
young
bring back latin mass
let women in

Wow...that's quite amazing! Though, I'm very interestes as to why you want the Mass in Latin and not the vernacular. I thought you would be anti-latin Mass.

Cardinals generally change their name when they become Pope.

Yes, they've been doing that for like over a 1,000 years.

Yes, they've been doing that for like over a 1,000 years.
However there are exceptions, eg. Adrian IV [?] (of Utrecht).

However it is only there first name that changes. But I hope Cardinal Sin remains a Cardinal, Pope Sin doesn't sound as funny

However there are exceptions, eg. Adrian IV [?] (of Utrecht).

Wasn't he the only English Pope?

However it is only there first name that changes. But I hope Cardinal Sin remains a Cardinal, Pope Sin doesn't sound as funny

Well, I don't no much about him so....

Wasn't he the only English Pope?

That was Adrian I iirc. Adrian IV was Dutch or Burgundian in the historical context (hence 'of Utrecht')

That was Adrian I iirc. Adrian IV was Dutch or Burgundian in the historical context (hence 'of Utrecht')

Oh, okay.

Oh, okay.
And i thought my A-Level ChurchHistory module would be useless :D

And i thought my A-Level ChurchHistory module would be useless :D

Wow, you did A-Level Church history?! How'd you manage to do that?

We Need BATTLE POPE!

Wow, you did A-Level Church history?! How'd you manage to do that?
No, one of the modules in my History course was on Church History (Around the Reformation and Counter[/Catholic] Reformation, I forget what the module title was though).

The latin mass is proof that the catholic chruch is a temporal organisation and has no regard for the the emperical...

The Catholic chruch needs a younger liberal pontif if its going to grow in the west... if it wants to hold itself together it should elect a Nigerian or Latin American cardinal who believes in burning homosexuals and returning women to the home.

The latin mass is proof that the catholic chruch is a temporal organisation and has no regard for the the emperical...

We got rid of Latin masses decades ago.

I'm aware of that... I went through 15 or so years of catholic education... I'm well placed to know :)

My point was theres afew posts here that refer to it fondly... while I was saying that the latin mass was a prime example of the Chruch following its Silver Key rather than the Gold Key...

The Catholic chruch needs a younger liberal pontif if its going to grow in the west... if it wants to hold itself together it should elect a Nigerian or Latin American cardinal who believes in burning homosexuals and returning women to the home.

I would say that that is quite a good analogy.

My point was theres afew posts here that refer to it fondly... while I was saying that the latin mass was a prime example of the Chruch following its Silver Key rather than the Gold Key...

How is that?