new Pope!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
ZeroDude said:
If Ratzinger does any good, I'm certain he will try his best to rid the church of paedophile priests with his "no bullshit tolerated" approach ]


Again, one can always hope....
 
Ft. Worth Frog said:
If the Church appears to fall apart quickly under Ratzinger, would you maybe believe the prophesy more, Melon? Just curious. It appears that the prophecy was writtten a couple of centuries after the man who supposedly had these revelations had died. I have to admit it would freak me out a little if things started lining up according to his prophecies:huh: I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I mean, it is definitely a matter of "wait and see." I don't know what I think about the "prophesies." In general, I'm fairly dismissive of apocalypticism, as it has been a general pattern since the rise of the first millennium (A.D. 1000). Funny enough, people were saying that that would be the end of the world too. I don't know why God would choose a nice round number necessarily to come back.

And the prophesies aren't exactly "clear" either. On one hand, they talk about the "destruction" of the Church; on the other, they talk of how this "evil Pope" will unite 2/3 of Christianity together, presumed to be under a false doctrine, of course. And, of course, a separate "Antichrist" is supposed to be very friendly with this Pope. All in a matter of 444 days starting today.

Like I said, I'm familiar with the texts of these prophesies, but I don't necessarily believe them. Well, now we'll be able to see if they were correct, and if they are, now is a very good time to be an independent thinker, so you don't end up in the 2/3 majority mired in false doctrine.

The ambiguous "antichrist" is said to be a very charismatic and likeable individual, who will try and "raise the Earth to the Heavens" on his own. Then God, supposedly, is to get mad and "plunge it into Hell," and this is where the idea of "the end" happens. But it is more of a "purification" of the Earth, as they seem to imply that life on Earth goes on after the "purification."

Still, how preposterous much of this sounds, does it not?

Melon
 
Last edited:
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars said:
One must admit he is ultra-conservative..

On 23rd of January 1984 there was an article by Ratzinger in the Peruan magazine Oiga. With the accusation that Christianity would be disintegrated by Marxism, he took a stance against liberation theology, namely against Hugo Assmann, Gustavo Gutiérrez, Jon Sobrino and Ignácio Ellacuria. If any reason, this would be the reason for me to leave the Catholic church.

JPII was also publically against liberation theology, as well.

Melon
 
melon said:



The ambiguous "antichrist" is said to be a very charismatic and likeable individual, who will try and "raise the Earth to the Heavens" on his own. ."


Bono:wink:

This isn't preposterous at all , of course you have to be more metaphoric with it, but I guess I should leave this train of thought for now as it's slightly of topic
 
WinnieThePoo said:
during my sleep i had a dream this night , that pope will be elected today

i was an atheist , now i don't know :(

We all don't know imo even when we think we know........

I like to apply this to everyone no matter who they are, what faith they follow or whatever circumstance they arised from
 
AcrobatMan said:


anyone who supports

- secularism
- liberalism
- modernism
- accomodation of atheism
- freedom of choices

and such stuff.

No, this sounds like Pope Pius IX's "Syllabus of Errors", which thank God is no longer used. This was a product of Vatican I, held in 1870 and never formally dissolved. Where are we headed now? That's what everyone wants to know.
 
Not at all surprising

Disappointing, but somehow I still hold out hope that things can change. In my twisted way of thinking, the Pope isn't God or Jesus, so everything's still fine in that regard as far as I'm concerned. I understand and accept people who feel differently about that.

I pray to and answer to God and Jesus, not to the Pope. That doesn't mean I condone such a traditional, conservative, in many ways backwards and bigoted way of thinking.

I've seen many traditional Catholics, including priests, change their opinions about certain issues - so it is possible. Giving up hope for me is giving up one of the basic things my faith means to me.
 
MrsSpringsteen said:

I pray to and answer to God and Jesus, not to the Pope. That doesn't mean I condone such a traditional, conservative, in many ways backwards and bigoted way of thinking.

I decided some time ago that if I return to Christianity, it would be as a Protestant (though I'm not sure which Church - probably one of the more 'liberal' one). The decision by the Cardinals to elect a seeming conservative doesn't change my viewpoint one way or the other, but had they elected a seeming liberal I wouldn't have been rushing back to mass either.
 
financeguy said:


I decided some time ago that if I return to Christianity, it would be as a Protestant (though I'm not sure which Church - probably one of the more 'liberal' one). The decision by the Cardinals to elect a seeming conservative doesn't change my viewpoint one way or the other, but had they elected a seeming liberal I wouldn't have been rushing back to mass either.

I don't believe if you want to return to Christianity you have to join a church, it should be within yourself whether you deem yourself a Christian or not, just my two cents/ pence
 
What can I say? The church needs a progressive Pope who could allow it to modernize and advance into the new millenium, but instead they chose a guy who at best will have the church stand still and at worst will lead it in taking steps backwards. I'm no Christian(I'm of no religion), I've never believed in God, but this upsets me none the less. There's some document that Ratzinger wrote where he said 'other religions are deficient' or something to that effect. WTF? What right does he have to say things like that? I mean, just a simple, myopic, closed-minded, ignorant statement like that is enough to make me detest the guy, and I never even heard his name before yesterday. I never felt strongly either way about JPII, but I did admire his willingness to reach out somewhat to other religions, in the way that he stressed the importance of faith in general. You Christians/Catholics should be concerned about this guy steering your church backwards.

As a sidenote, I'd just like to say that the Pope's uniform creeps me out. The hats in particular. Actually, the little round one worn most of the time doesn't creep me out, I just find it funny. It looks like something an eight year old would wear. The one that really creeps the hell out of me is the really tall crown-like one worn less often. I don't know why, but it just creeps me out. That is all.
 
namkcuR said:
There's some document that Ratzinger wrote where he said 'other religions are deficient' or something to that effect. WTF? What right does he have to say things like that?

Realistically, every Pope since the very first one has believed that other religions are deficient. Anyone who didn't believe that, would never be made Pope.
 
Ratzo is Pope?


midnightcowboy_big_001.jpg
 
I knew they would pick a conservative pope, and I thought he would be European. I was right, as it turns out. Pope John Paul II chose virtually all of the Cardinals, and they are mostly conservative. There wasn't a snowball's chance in Hell of a liberal getting elected. The liberal/conservative disputes will continue with a passion.
 
financeguy said:


Realistically, every Pope since the very first one has believed that other religions are deficient. Anyone who didn't believe that, would never be made Pope.

Indeed. If I remember correctly, even JPII got in trouble for saying some such. Do you have a date on the Ratzinger article? The push to bring the gap between the Catholic church and other religions came in the second half of JPII's papacy, which also may account for the difference.
 
Actually, Pope John Paul II was the first pope to even visit a synagogue, the first pope to visit a mosque, the first pope to visit Islamic countries (Turkey, Azerbajan, Syria, and others), as well as other non-Christian countries like India and Japan. At one point he was even blessed in a traditional pagan rite in Africa. So he did reach out to people of other faiths and cultures. We'll see how Benedict XVI, as we must call him now, will do the same. I expect he will. This is all so strange, a new Pope.
 
Last edited:
MrsSpringsteen said:
Disappointing, but somehow I still hold out hope that things can change. In my twisted way of thinking, the Pope isn't God or Jesus, so everything's still fine in that regard as far as I'm concerned. I understand and accept people who feel differently about that.

I pray to and answer to God and Jesus, not to the Pope. That doesn't mean I condone such a traditional, conservative, in many ways backwards and bigoted way of thinking.

The only way I have remained a Catholic is to separate the politics of the Church from my faith in God.
 
In the end, there are things there are things I don't agree with the Catholic church on as a Christian, so it doesn't mean much to me. Still, you want a good guy in there because of how much power he has.

I'm just going to wait and see how the guy does. He was a personal, long-time friend of PJP's and his personal theologian, so maybe he won't be too bad. :shrug:
 
I said in another thread yesterday that I wouldn't be surprised it was Ratzinger. As it turns out, it is Ratzinger, and I am not surprised. I am surprised how quickly a new Pope got elected though.

I don't like the idea much of him being pope.He certainly was not my choice. I really don't have that type of compliance that some Catholics have-"Well, if it's God's will."
 
Expected. Not a fan of what I know of him, but as my mother always told me, "what does your faith have to do with who the Pope is?"
 
anitram said:
Expected. Not a fan of what I know of him, but as my mother always told me, "what does your faith have to do with who the Pope is?"

Isn't one of the basic tenants of Roman Catholicism that the Pope is essentially infallible?
 
I'll ponder that tenet tonight when I take my birth control pill.

Seriously? If we started a discussion of all tenets that millions of Catholics ignore, we could be here for a looooooong while.

The Pope plays no role in my day to day life whatsoever.
 
One part of the "prophesy" of St. Malachy has indeed appeared to happen.

"Just for historical note, the Benedictine order said that this Pope, the second to last Pope until the end of the world, according to St. Malachy, would belong to their order."

Cardinal Ratzinger is not a Benedictine, but it is no coincidence that he has chosen the name, "Benedict XVI." A theologian has suggested that Ratzinger's choice of that name has nothing to do with Benedict XV, but, instead, to do with Pope St. Benedict I, the conservative founder of the Benedictine order, who was concerned with a "corrupt world" and restoring "traditional values" to fight it. Ratzinger has a very similar mindset, so it would be very unlikely that he would be similar to the more moderate, Benedict XV.

In other words, "Benedict XVI" will probably choose a theology similar to the founder of the Benedictine order, essentially making that "prophesy" true.

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:
Isn't one of the basic tenants of Roman Catholicism that the Pope is essentially infallible?

Technically only when he makes "ex cathedra" statements, which has only been made three times over the past 2000 years.

However, some believe that the Pope is infallible on all issues of faith and morals, which was not an "ex cathedra" proclamation. Regardless, I think that's just more Vatican arrogance spewing forth. They sometimes forget that they are human beings like the rest of us.

Melon
 
Back
Top Bottom