The Next Pope?

[etoile noir]

Originally Posted by Ederico Figallo

I wonder what Episcopalians, Lutherans, and Eastern Rite Catholics have to do with it. I'm not sure on the latter, but none of them are Roman Catholics and unless they infiltrated the Roman Catholic Church with their ideas then they have nothing to do with the Church's degeneration of its traditions.

we are talking of Pope John Paul II. he not only embraced ecumenism, he even embraced jews, moslems ...... he travelled practically everywhere and accepted everyone. how can you wonder what any creed has to do with JP II?

Relations with other religions

Pope John Paul II travelled extensively and came into contact with many divergent faiths. However, he ceaselessly attempted to find common ground, whether it be doctrinal or dogmatic. He made history with his establishment of contacts with Israel, praying at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. He was also the first Roman Catholic Pope to pray in an Islamic mosque. The Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism visited with Pope John Paul II eight times, more than any other single dignitary. The Pope and the Dalai Lama often shared similar views and understood similar plights, both coming from peoples who have suffered under communism. (Both the Pope and the Dalai Lama are the only two prominent international figures to carry the title of "His Holiness.")

read more on the Pope's relations with other denominations here

[Faísca]

Originally Posted by etoile noir

we are talking of Pope John Paul II. he not only embraced ecumenism, he even embraced jews, moslems ...... he travelled practically everywhere and accepted everyone. how can you wonder what any creed has to do with JP II?

I thought this was about the Pope -- be it past present or future.

Even though JP II was an extraordinary person, I wouldn't praise so much his deeds as Pope, as he wasn't all that good Pope, taking into account the Pope is supposed to be the head of the Catholic Church, and not any others.

Relations with other religions

Pope John Paul II travelled extensively and came into contact with many divergent faiths. However, he ceaselessly attempted to find common ground, whether it be doctrinal or dogmatic. He made history with his establishment of contacts with Israel, praying at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. He was also the first Roman Catholic Pope to pray in an Islamic mosque. The Dalai Lama, the spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism visited with Pope John Paul II eight times, more than any other single dignitary. The Pope and the Dalai Lama often shared similar views and understood similar plights, both coming from peoples who have suffered under communism. (Both the Pope and the Dalai Lama are the only two prominent international figures to carry the title of "His Holiness.")

read more on the Pope's relations with other denominations here

I don't mind the Pope sharing similar views with anyone, or even diverging ones. But praying in a mosque, taking into account his position reaches the levels of blasphemy, in my opinion.

[etoile noir]

Originally Posted by Johannes de León

I thought this was about the Pope -- be it past present or future.

Even though JP II was an extraordinary person, I wouldn't praise so much his deeds as Pope, as he wasn't all that good Pope, taking into account the Pope is supposed to be the head of the Catholic Church, and not any others.

Indeed we are talking about the pope, whoever he may be. However do you truly believe that after what John Paul II has done, the next pope will be able to "undo"? do you not think that he has now set a precedent, and that the next pope will have to continue with the trend that this long papacy has started?

He has apologised to jews. would the next pope say, no, the RC church did nothing wrong and the apology was uncalled for?

He apologised to Galilei, would anyone retract that apology?

In 2000, he asked forgiveness for the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and shown contempt for their cultures and religious traditions

He even apologised to "every woman" for the Church's stance against women's rights and for the historical denigration of women.

the list is endless!

I don't mind the Pope sharing similar views with anyone, or even diverging ones. But praying in a mosque, taking into account his position reaches the levels of blasphemy, in my opinion.

on this i agree with you completely.

However since this Topic is about who the next pope will be, i honestly feel that the deeds of Pope JP II will continue to have repercussions throughout the next papacy and probably beyond.

[Ederico]

Originally Posted by etoile noir

we are talking of Pope John Paul II. he not only embraced ecumenism, he even embraced jews, moslems ...... he travelled practically everywhere and accepted everyone. how can you wonder what any creed has to do with JP II?

I wonder by what reasoning you conclude that this is specifically about Pope John Paul II. "We" does not apply to myself and perhaps it is just part of your imagination.

The article you posted was not specifically about Pope John Paul II but rather about his successor, therefore at most we are talking about Pope John Paul II's successor and not about Pope John Paul II himself.

Moreover I have to notice the fact that I did not even mention directly or indirectly any non-Roman Catholic Christian denomination but once again this is a product of your mind which appears to be lacking basic comprehensive skills in relation to my posts at this moment in time.

I explained myself. However not only did you not understand what I stated, or do not want to understand, or do not want to admit to understand, you provided a post which has no relation to mine. Now I do hope that that was not meant exclusively as a reply to myself but was intended as a generalised post which happened to quote myself. If it is not the case of it being the latter, then I believe you either have provided a case of faulty reasoning or you are basing your replies yourself on ideas which are not mine but which you credit wrongly to myself.

I was commenting on the article's comments to which you throwed an unsubstantiated accusation in my regard in relation to insensitiveness in relation to other denominations which is emphatically false. You either fail to read accordingly or you do not want to, especially since I replied to you attempting to resolve the misunderstanding.

I notice that you did not tackle my reply but rather created a post that has no relation to the discussion, being it not related to my words. If there is a relation you fail to substantiate it.

Since you seem to want to discuss Pope John Paul II, which I was not discussing, I reply by confirming my opinion as being on the lines of Johannes de León which i quote:

"Even though JP II was an extraordinary person, I wouldn't praise so much his deeds as Pope, as he wasn't all that good Pope, taking into account the Pope is supposed to be the head of the Catholic Church, and not any others.

I don't mind the Pope sharing similar views with anyone, or even diverging ones. But praying in a mosque, taking into account his position reaches the levels of blasphemy, in my opinion."

Now I suggest you reread my posts and reread your replies to check where the coherency is on your part.

[Faísca]

Originally Posted by etoile noir

Indeed we are talking about the pope, whoever he may be. However do you truly believe that after what John Paul II has done, the next pope will be able to "undo"? do you not think that he has now set a precedent, and that the next pope will have to continue with the trend that this long papacy has started?

Yes, I do believe a Pope would be able to undo what he has done incorrectly.

He has apologised to jews. would the next pope say, no, the RC church did nothing wrong and the apology was uncalled for?

He apologised to Galilei, would anyone retract that apology?

In 2000, he asked forgiveness for the sins of Catholics throughout the ages for violating the rights of ethnic groups and peoples, and shown contempt for their cultures and religious traditions

He even apologised to "every woman" for the Church's stance against women's rights and for the historical denigration of women.

the list is endless!

Actually he had no right to apologize for anything. Want an example? I do not imagine a king of ours who fought in the Reconquista apologizing to the moors, for all the things he had done to them. Or liking the Pope to do so.

What is done is done. And I, as many others, have no problem admiting when the Curch does or did wrong, but starting with apologies for things that happened centuries before is quite another story.

By doing this he is discrediting millions and millions of Catholics who gave their lives to defend the Catholic Church and Faith.

on this i agree with you completely.

However since this Topic is about who the next pope will be, i honestly feel that the deeds of Pope JP II will continue to have repercussions throughout the next papacy and probably beyond.

I do believe cardinal Ratzinger, which is the one I'm praying to be the next Pope out of the suggested cardinals, will do something regarding the wrong deeds of the previous Popes, and, hopefully, even Vatican II.

[etoile noir]

Originally Posted by Ederico Figallo

I explained myself. However not only did you not understand what I stated, or do not want to understand, or do not want to admit to understand, you provided a post which has no relation to mine. Now I do hope that that was not meant exclusively as a reply to myself but was intended as a generalised post which happened to quote myself. If it is not the case of it being the latter, then I believe you either have provided a case of faulty reasoning or you are basing your replies yourself on ideas which are not mine but which you credit wrongly to myself.

you explained yourself in a most unsatisfactory manner. in fact, reading the above i conclude that the more you write, the less coherent you become.

I was commenting on the article's comments to which you throwed an unsubstantiated accusation in my regard in relation to insensitiveness in relation to other denominations which is emphatically false. You either fail to read accordingly or you do not want to, especially since I replied to you attempting to resolve the misunderstanding.

i throwed no allegations, however if my post was construed as such, then i apologise.

I notice that you did not tackle my reply but rather created a post that has no relation to the discussion, being it not related to my words. If there is a relation you fail to substantiate it.

again, excuse me for assuming that a forum was a place for discussion. apparently in your case, it is either "agree with me" or "disagree and i shall accuse you of defamation".

Since you seem to want to discuss Pope John Paul II, which I was not discussing, I reply by confirming my opinion as being on the lines of Johannes de León which i quote: "Even though JP II was an extraordinary person, I wouldn't praise so much his deeds as Pope, as he wasn't all that good Pope, taking into account the Pope is supposed to be the head of the Catholic Church, and not any others. I don't mind the Pope sharing similar views with anyone, or even diverging ones. But praying in a mosque, taking into account his position reaches the levels of blasphemy, in my opinion."

Now I suggest you reread my posts and reread your replies to check where the coherency is on your part.

I shall discuss the pope, but not in this reply. it is all too warbled for proper discussion.

As to your advice to me to "reread my posts and reread your replies", I went beyond that, and even gave you more time to re-read your own posts, maybe you wish to clarify. However since no other reply was forthcoming from your good self, then i can only assume that this is the best you can come up with, both in terms of argument, and in terminology.

[etoile noir]

Originally Posted by Johannes de León

Yes, I do believe a Pope would be able to undo what he has done incorrectly.

I hope you are right in your assumption Johannes, however i have my doubts. Pope JP II, throughout his very long papacy, went beyond the normal "reforms" associated with most popes, he "tossed out over 800 years of tradition" in more ways than one.

"Revolution in Papal Elections
By Thomas J. Reese, S.J., senior fellow at the Woodstock Theological Center
America, April 13, 1996 Copyright © 1996 by America Press All rights reserved

John Paul II has tossed out over 800 years of tradition and will allow the next pope to be elected by an absolute majority of the college of cardinals rather than by a two-thirds majority. This is the most radical change in the process of electing popes since 1970 when Paul VI took the vote away from cardinals who had turned 80 years of age.

According to the 1179 decree of Alexander III, the election of the pope required a two-thirds majority of the college of cardinals, a law that remained in force until Pius XII made it two-thirds plus one in 1945. Pius XII added the extra vote to eliminate the cumbersome process then in place to make sure that a cardinal did not vote for himself.

In his apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis, John Paul states that two-thirds of the votes of the cardinal electors present are required to elect the pope. If the number of cardinals present is not equally divisible by three, one additional vote is required. Thus John Paul, unlike earlier popes, does not appear to be worried about a cardinal voting for himself.

This is a radical departure from church tradition that encouraged compromise and consensus in the selection of popes. In the past, just over a third of the cardinals could stop the election of a particular candidate who they found objectionable. This forced the majority to compromise with the minority in finding a candidate who was acceptable to two-thirds of the cardinals.

The authors of the new rules appear to believe that the church, or at least the college of cardinals, is a democracy where the majority should rule.
The practical consequences of the change in the election rules is significant. If a conservative majority holds the college of cardinals, it is now much more likely that they will elect a hard-line, authoritarian conservative rather than a pastoral conservative. Likewise, if a liberal majority holds the college, it is now more likely that they will elect a hard-line liberal rather than a pragmatic progressive.
Liberal Catholics who hoped for change in the next papacy are probably going to be disappointed. The change in election rules means that liberal Catholics may find John Paul's successor even less to their liking than John Paul himself. As today they now look back fondly on the days of Paul VI, they may in the future look back fondly on the days of John Paul II."


Possible / Probable future pope - source

Papabile (plural: Papabili) is an unofficial Italian term first coined by Vaticanologists and now used internationally in many languages to describe cardinals of whom it is thought likely or possible that they will be elected pope. A convenient English translation would be "popeable" or "one worthy of the position of pope".
Among the papabili cardinals who were elected pope are Eugenio Cardinal Pacelli (Pius XII) and Giovanni Cardinal Montini (Paul VI). Being seen as papabile, however, is no guarantee of election, and is sometimes seen as a handicap. Giuseppe Cardinal Siri was widely expected to be elected pope in the 1958 conclave. Instead Angelo Cardinal Roncalli, an utterly unexpected choice, was elected and became Pope John XXIII. Similarly Giovanni Cardinal Benelli was widely expected to be elected pope in both the August and October 1978 conclaves. In fact he was defeated in both (narrowly the second time). In August, another candidate few saw as papabile, Albino Cardinal Luciani, was elected and became Pope John Paul I. This has led to a wry saying among Vaticanologists, "He who enters the conclave as pope, leaves it as a cardinal."

As the cardinals age, the "list" of papabili changes as well. For instance Carlo Cardinal Martini was thought to be papabile a few years ago, but now he has given up his see (Milan) upon reaching 75 years of age. As a result, few cite him as papabile today. A few years ago, Pope John Paul II joked about the papabili, "The man who will succeed me as pope hasn't yet been made a cardinal."

Who is Eligible to Vote? source
A papal conclave is the process by which the College of Cardinals selects a new pope. It will be the first papal election subject to the rules set out in the Universi Dominici Gregis, a 1996 apostolic constitution. At the death of John Paul II on April 2, 2005, there were 117 Cardinals under the age of 80. The late pope created another cardinal secretly (in pectore) in 2003, but his age and identity were never been made public: as John Paul never revealed the name of his in pectore cardinal before he died, either verbally or in any of his written statements, the in pectore cardinalate expired on April 2.

Universi Domenici Gregis provides that, breaking with tradition, the Cardinals will not be locked in the Sistine Chapel throughout this conclave; however, while lodged elsewhere in the Vatican while not in session, they will not have access to television, radio, or telephone during the election process.

All but three of the electors were appointed by John Paul II. It was Pope Paul VI who decreed in 1971 that Cardinals aged over 80 as of the start of the conclave could no longer vote in papal elections, a rule modified by John Paul II in 1996 to specify Cardinals aged over 80 when the Papacy falls vacant. Paul VI also limited the maximum number of cardinal electors to 120, though John Paul II disregarded this limit when elevating cardinals. There are currently 183 cardinals in all (not counting the in pectore cardinal), all but 14 appointed by John Paul II.

Actually he had no right to apologize for anything. Want an example? I do not imagine a king of ours who fought in the Reconquista apologizing to the moors, for all the things he had done to them. Or liking the Pope to do so.
What is done is done. And I, as many others, have no problem admiting when the Curch does or did wrong, but starting with apologies for things that happened centuries before is quite another story.
By doing this he is discrediting millions and millions of Catholics who gave their lives to defend the Catholic Church and Faith.

Whether he had a right to apologise or not is not for us to decide. We can express opinions, and in this case i agree with you, however when the apologies were made, they were not made by an ordinary man speaking of his own accord, but by the Pope, speaking on behalf of all Roman Catholics.

The RC faith is based on faith and obedience. Roman Catholics see the Pope as the human representative of Jesus on earth, with a line of predecessors dating back to the first Pope, St. Peter - the "rock" upon which Jesus built His Church. Therefore a Roman Catholic is essentially barred from truly criticising the Pope, or his actions.

I do believe cardinal Ratzinger, which is the one I'm praying to be the next Pope out of the suggested cardinals, will do something regarding the wrong deeds of the previous Popes, and, hopefully, even Vatican II.

Cardinal Ratzinger is indeed a fine Cardinal, and does possess the capabilities you mentioned above. However I very much doubt he will be given the possibility to do so. During his papacy, JP II was a very determined man and made sure that his wishes, and the changes he brought about, would not only be observed due to respect, but also through the changes he made during his papacy.

Cardinal Tattamanzi is another likely candidate, who in my opinion, would restore the papacy to pre JP II times, however, like Ratzinger, i think he will be pushed aside in favour of some other cardinal who will carry on what JP II has started.

At this stage, I think Catholics can only hope that at least, the papacy would go back to "Rome".

We can only wait and see. And pray.

[Cristoforo]

He apologised to Galilei, would anyone retract that apology?

I did not know he apologised for the Galileo affair too. This increases my respect towards John Paul II.

For the rest, the Catholics are right in saying that this Pope should be their Pope not the world-religions Pope but John Paul II, as I commented somewhere else, seemed to be quite "secular" in his approach to world politics prefering diplomacy and pragmatism to the faith. He surely was an excellent diplomat emphasing on common points and keeping off the spotlight, the rest.

Ratzinger seems to be the favourite. I would surely follow what he does if he becomes Pope and affirms his anti-Turkey in the EU position but for the rest there does not seem to be much choice.

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by etoile noir

The RC faith is based on faith and obedience. Roman Catholics see the Pope as the human representative of Jesus on earth, with a line of predecessors dating back to the first Pope, St. Peter - the "rock" upon which Jesus built His Church. Therefore a Roman Catholic is essentially barred from truly criticising the Pope, or his actions.

No, this is not correct.
We are not obliged to keep silent nor to allow ourselves to be led astray.
St Cyprian did not hesitate to call Pope St Stephen II a public sinner and a heretic. St Athanasius was not afraid to defy his Pope and most of the bishops when he saw them ready to compromise with Arianism. even St Paul defied St Peter "to his face" in the Bible. Thus if the Pope is not acting according to the Faith, then there is certainly a historical basis for speaking up against it. Even Pope Adrian confirmed that there were most certainly heretical Popes in the past. We must understand the limits of Papal Infallibility or else we are likely to mistake Blind Obedience for True Obedience.

[etoile noir]

Originally Posted by Cristoforo

I did not know he apologised for the Galileo affair too. This increases my respect towards John Paul II.

For the rest, the Catholics are right in saying that this Pope should be their Pope not the world-religions Pope but John Paul II, as I commented somewhere else, seemed to be quite "secular" in his approach to world politics prefering diplomacy and pragmatism to the faith. He surely was an excellent diplomat emphasing on common points and keeping off the spotlight, the rest.

Ratzinger seems to be the favourite. I would surely follow what he does if he becomes Pope and affirms his anti-Turkey in the EU position but for the rest there does not seem to be much choice.

here is the Galileo apology:
In 1992, 359 years after the Galileo trial, Pope John Paul II issued an apology, lifting the edict of Inquisition against Galileo: "Galileo sensed in his scientific research the presence of the Creator who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions." After the release of this report, the Pope said further that "... Galileo, a sincere believer, showed himself to be more perceptive in this regard [the relation of scientific and Biblical truths] than the theologians who opposed him."

[etoile noir]

Originally Posted by Milesian

No, this is not correct.
We are not obliged to keep silent nor to allow ourselves to be led astray.
St Cyprian did not hesitate to call Pope St Stephen II a public sinner and a heretic. St Athanasius was not afraid to defy his Pope and most of the bishops when he saw them ready to compromise with Arianism. even St Paul defied St Peter "to his face" in the Bible. Thus if the Pope is not acting according to the Faith, then there is certainly a historical basis for speaking up against it. Even Pope Adrian confirmed that there were most certainly heretical Popes in the past. We must understand the limits of Papal Infallibility or else we are likely to mistake Blind Obedience for True Obedience.

All of the above is correct, however may i draw your attention to a more recent episode of a Theologian not agreeing with his superiors, and the outcome. I speak of course, of Hans Kung, justly renowned for his encyclopaedic knowledge and many erudite publications, for which he has received world wide recognition, and this is shown most clearly in the number of honours he has received from the academic world.

Kung is also known for his clashes with the Roman Catholic authorities. The Vatican's Sacred Congregation, having warned him about his writing and teaching in 1975, revoked his right to teach in the Roman Catholic faculty at the University of Munster in 1979. The controversy quietened down when Kung was allowed to continue teaching in a secular position.

read more here

[Milesian]

Unfortuately, the link doesn't work.
If memory serves me correct, isn't Kung a modernist?

Sure, for every St Athansius there is a Luther.
Thus we must be very careful when we dissent. One good way is to see if your opinions conform to the traditional teaching of the Church and particularly those things which are Ex Cathedra or De Fide.

Luther was wrong not simply because he disobeyed the Pope, but because he went against central and core tenets of Catholicism.
If however it seems that the current hierarchy are the ones in danger of apostacising then that is certainly possible. Our resistance to wayward prelates must be in accord with a devotion to the Faith and not borne out of arrogance or a wish to change things to suit ourselves

[Ederico]

Originally Posted by Milesian

No, this is not correct.
We are not obliged to keep silent nor to allow ourselves to be led astray.
St Cyprian did not hesitate to call Pope St Stephen II a public sinner and a heretic. St Athanasius was not afraid to defy his Pope and most of the bishops when he saw them ready to compromise with Arianism. even St Paul defied St Peter "to his face" in the Bible. Thus if the Pope is not acting according to the Faith, then there is certainly a historical basis for speaking up against it. Even Pope Adrian confirmed that there were most certainly heretical Popes in the past. We must understand the limits of Papal Infallibility or else we are likely to mistake Blind Obedience for True Obedience.

The question of Papal Infallibility holds many common misconceptions held by many people who in general discuss Catholicism from the outside and tend to oversimplify things. I had some material on the question, but unfortunately it was in Italian, therefore, no good for most of the members here.

One most also remember that St. Peter was human and he erred as well, therefore being the successor of St. Peter is not a guarantee for infallibility, if there is any such guarantee. I might be wrong on this, I do not claim infallibility for myself.

Some Vatican material (preferably pre-VCII), and Traditionalist material, if not also Sedevacantist, could explain the question accordingly. I'll try to find something in English.