NEW POPE

wareagle

World Traveler
Forum Member
Feb 27, 2001
5,712
40
48
47
MEMPHIS, TN
www.dunavant.com
:scared :scared

VATICAN CITY (CNN) -- White smoke rose from a Sistine Chapel chimney and bells rang Tuesday, signaling the selection of a new pope.

Thousands of people in St. Peter's Square clapped and waved flags as the smoke billowed over Vatican City.

Suspense built as the throng waited for the symbolic ringing of bells, at which point the crowd broke into a roar of jubilation.

The 115 cardinals' morning ballots were burned at about 11:50 a.m. (5:50 a.m. EDT).

After each pair of votes, the ballots were burned in a stove at the Sistine Chapel, with the white smoke in the evening announcing to observers outside that a pope has been elected.

Black smoke had come from the chimney after the two morning votes.

Chemicals are added to the ballots to turn the smoke white or black.

The cardinals taking part in the conclave to elect a successor to Pope John Paul II began their first full day of voting after holding Mass in their living quarters at 7:30 a.m.

Locked away in the Sistine Chapel, the cardinals let it be known that no candidate won their first vote Monday evening, hours after a historic religious ceremony watched around the world.

As black smoke billowed Monday from a chimney atop the Sistine Chapel, the crowd of thousands outside cheered. (Full story)

"It was very exciting," said Richard Wall, an American in the crowd. "We had some drama tonight."

At first, the smoke's color appeared gray, and some thought it may have been white. But it quickly turned black. Also, John Paul II had decreed that white smoke be accompanied by the ringing of bells, to avoid a repeat of the confusion after his election in 1978.

Monday evening's smoke was emitted shortly after 8 p.m., about 2 1/2 hours after the chapel's doors were closed, marking the beginning of the conclave.

The closing of those large wooden doors ended an hour-long ritual that the Vatican televised live for the first time ever.
 

wareagle

World Traveler
Forum Member
Feb 27, 2001
5,712
40
48
47
MEMPHIS, TN
www.dunavant.com
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany was elected the 265th pontiff today by the College of Cardinals. He was announced as tens of thousands of people cheered in St. Peter's Square. Ratzinger has chosen the name Benedict XVI, the Vatican announced. The announcement came shortly after white smoke rose from the Vatican chimney and bells rang to announce that a new pope had been selected
 

pirate fan

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2002
880
1
18
He has been known to be a hardliner, even much of Germany doesn't care for him. Many thought he had been running the Church the last few years anyhow due to Pope JP II's health issues. The fact he chose the name Benedict indicates he may be trying to tell the world he will be taking a more moderate course as the the last Pope Benedict , the XV, followed a hardline Pope and started to soften some of the Churches stands on things. Not really who I was hoping for however. I thought there were many others who could have been a better fit for our times. He already is 78 years old so they may be thinking they are just buying some time before the Church is ready to make some bigger changes.
 
Last edited:

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
I think your last statement is very true. I think he is a short term fix, and his appointment may be one of gratitude for his many years of devoted and passionate service.

I wouldn't look for any major changes to occur while he is at the helm.
 

Its Gravy

Bacon
Forum Member
Jan 18, 2001
3,712
0
0
San Antonio, Texas
another dumb move
come on this cat is 78 years old !!!
what, he will be the pope for maybe 5 years tops?

good grief
talk about a poor selection (me is 9 yrs older than reagan when reagan was elected pres) and USA questioned his age...
 
Last edited:

AR182

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 9, 2000
18,654
87
0
Scottsdale,AZ
its gravy quote:"another dumb move
come on this cat is 78 years old !!!
what, he will be the pope for maybe 5 years tops?"


i was just going to post the same thing.

very questionable move, imo.
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
IMO, it's a transitional move. This is not the first time this has happened.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Seems to me to be quite the nutjob. If I was a part of that cult, I would be offended by some of my new leaders 'views.'




German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the Vatican theologian who was elected Pope Benedict XVI, intervened in the 2004 US election campaign ordering bishops to deny communion to abortion rights supporters including presidential candidate John Kerry.

In a June 2004 letter to US bishops enunciating principles of worthiness for communion recipients, Ratzinger specified that strong and open supporters of abortion should be denied the Catholic sacrament, for being guilty of a "grave sin."

He specifically mentioned "the case of a Catholic politician consistently campaigning and voting for permissive abortion and euthanasia laws," a reference widely understood to mean Democratic candidate Kerry, a Catholic who has defended abortion rights.

The letter said a priest confronted with such a person seeking communion "must refuse to distribute it."

A footnote to the letter also condemned any Catholic who votes specifically for a candidate because the candidate holds a pro-abortion position. Such a voter "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy communion," the letter read.

The letter, which was revealed in the Italian magazine L'Espresso last year, was reportedly only sent to US Catholic bishops, who discussed it in their convocation in Denver, Colorado, in mid-June.

Sharply divided on the issue, the bishops decided to leave the decision on granting or denying communion to the individual priest. Kerry later received communion several times from sympathetic priests.

Nevertheless, in the November election, a majority of Catholic voters, who traditionally supported Democratic Party candidates, shifted their votes to Republican and eventual winner George W. Bush.
 

Blazer

ontherocks
Forum Member
Jan 4, 2003
3,201
3
0
48
Nashville
www.madjacksports.com
kosar said:
Seems to me to be quite the nutjob. If I was a part of that cult, I would be offended by some of my new leaders 'views.'

Kosar, watch the cult word man.

Without the Catholic Church our lives would be different rather or not you agree with their teachings. They do good work in the world and have contributed greatly to our society as a whole in art, music, science and socialization.

Yea, the crusades we a bad idea, I'll give you that.... but show some respect for a religion that has lasted 2000 years.
 

pirate fan

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2002
880
1
18
It is just like anything else, people have different views. There is nobody in the world that all billion Catholics would be happy with. We have to have faith that God is truly watching over the Church and offering guidance. The Church is full of humans, all of which make mistakes and sin. This is not a perfect institution, nor is anything else. While you may consider him a nutjob, I think I'll give him some time before I judge him as a good or poor Pope. I'd be willing to bet we have all done things in our youth or young adult lives that we wish we had acted differently on. It is part of growing up. Also, don't believe everything you hear or read in the media. Just as in politics, some media sources have an agenda concerning religion too.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
BobbyBlueChip said:
No different from being an American, I'm just trying to ride both these waves out.

I guess that's all we can do, chips. Although I could care less who the pope is as it doesn't affect me in the least, I was somewhat taken aback by the terms this character used to describe certain things. 'A grave sin'. 'Formal cooperation in evil.'

You would think he was describing pedophile or Cardinal Law's actions/inaction, but no, he was describing people who vote for politicians who are pro-choice. Nice.
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
Kosar, watch the cult word man.

Actually, we (Catholics) use this term to describe our own faith at times. When you marry someone who is not Catholic it is often referred to officially as "Marrying outside the cult".


In a June 2004 letter to US bishops enunciating principles of worthiness for communion recipients, Ratzinger specified that strong and open supporters of abortion should be denied the Catholic sacrament, for being guilty of a "grave sin."

I agree with this stance. Kerry was trying to play both sides of the fence on this and it bit him. The Catholic faith whole-heartedly sees abortion as murder just like any other murder. If someone openly supports abortion, then they are also openly denouncing the values of Catholicism.

I probably sound like a wacked out Bible beater on this one, but Kerry should have been called out on that and was. This is not to say that I think people who support abortions are going to hell (if it exists), but one can not be Pro-Abortion and truly a practicing Catholic, imo.

The letter said a priest confronted with such a person seeking communion "must refuse to distribute it."

The letter should have actually read "any Eucharistic Minister". As a Eucharistic Minister (a lay person who helps distribute Communion at Mass and other extending circumstances) has a duty to protect the Eucharist. This includes not offering Communion to non-Catholics (including non-practicing Catholics such as divorcees, etc.--this I am not positive on but pretty sure), not allowing a host to leave the Church without an authorized person (EM).

My brother-in-law once had to go ask someone to give Communion back after Mass because he saw him put it in his pocket.

So, all this being said, I don't think "cult" is the worst word that could be used.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
dawgball said:
I agree with this stance. Kerry was trying to play both sides of the fence on this and it bit him. The Catholic faith whole-heartedly sees abortion as murder just like any other murder. If someone openly supports abortion, then they are also openly denouncing the values of Catholicism.

I probably sound like a wacked out Bible beater on this one, but Kerry should have been called out on that and was. This is not to say that I think people who support abortions are going to hell (if it exists), but one can not be Pro-Abortion and truly a practicing Catholic, imo.

Thanks for the post, Dawg. Believe it or not, i've actually kept my comments toned down out of respect for you.

Do you feel that everything that the Vatican says is the way it has to be? I'm interested in your thoughts on this.

The reason I ask is that it seems that in general the Vatican looks down on the American Catholic Cardinals/Bishops/Priests because they are considered relativists as opposed to the fundamentalist old pope/new pope.

That the American leaders don't necessarily treat every edict generated from the Vatican as gospel and at times interpret Catholicism differently than the Vatican.

So I guess in general, my question is do you consider any Catholic who only 'sometimes' follows the word of the Pope, any less of a Catholic, or maybe not even a true Catholic at all?

Is the Vatican the last word, or is there some wiggle room in there that is allowed, whereas one could still be considered a practicing Catholic?
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
Good questions, kosar, and the answer would be different from any particular Catholic or any particular person in any organization. Since the questions were asked of me about Catholocism, I will give my feelings, right or wrong.

Catholocism, as a whole, is known for being much less lenient on bending of rules than other religions. To say that the person is not a Catholic is not the same as saying they are not a truly practicing Catholic.

DISCLAIMER: There are many things that I will say in the next few moments that could be torn apart by anyone with any motivation.

There are certain rules that are decided upon by the Vatican that I feel should be held to the letter (Abortion being one of them). I think it was posted on here in another thread about Pope JP II being out of touch with today's Catholics. I stated in that thread that I felt that was a horrible misstatement. Today's Catholics (namely Americans and this includes myself), IMO, are more out of touch with the Catholic faith than the opposite.

Just pertaining to your post about the now Pope's letter concerning Kerry, I don't feel it was radical nor out of line. Kerry was trying to use the Catholic Church as a help in his campaign when he blatantly does not believe in some of the core principles of the faith. Case in point was his terrible response to the Abortion question. He said he, personally, did not believe in abortion but believed int he rights of a woman to choose. Well, plainly put, you believe in Choice over Life.

An example of an idea that the Vatican stands by but I don't agree with is females being priests as well as priests being married. I think both should occur for the good of the Church today and certainly for the continued longevity of the Church. The selection process could be much more stringent if we opened these doors, and I believe we could have avoided the mollestation travesties of recent past or at least a majority of them.

So, long story short, there are certain principles that I feel to be a Catholic you need to stand behind the Vatican because they relate to core values. But there are ideas and rules that I feel have leeway for an individual to believe. After all, the Catholic church for me is not the end to it. My relationship with my God is the most important factor. This is why I do not ever become angry when people speak badly of my religion. I understand where hard feelings can come from towards the organization.

Whether your Jewish, Catholic, Baptist, Agnostic (which I spent many years here), or Atheist the most important factor is for you to be at peace with yourself and your belief system.

Now that I am done rambling, did that even come close to answering your question? lol
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
btw, kosar, never hold back comments on my accord. I appreciate the consideration, but good debates on here is why I come back so frequently.
 

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Thanks Dawg. Yes, of course it answers my questions and your comments are pretty much what I expected. I think that pretty much each individual of any religion takes what they want, or what they need from their faith and discard, or at the least, disagree with the rest. That's only natural.

You consider ones position on abortion an issue that is a deal killer when it comes to assessing whether somebody is truly a practicing Catholic, but have an open mind, or even disagree about other issues. Others, of course, may have an open mind on abortion but are inflexible on other issues which *they* consider a deal killer.

That's the relativism that the last pope and the new pope harshly condemn. In their minds, it's their way or no way, and the Catholic hierarchy, and hence, all practicing Catholics, in America are looked down upon because most of them look at it like you do.

Their hardline, inflexible stance makes me shudder. Obviously there has to be guidelines for any organization, but the contempt that they show and the harsh words that they have for people that don't practice, or teach, exactly the way that they want is absurd and scary.

As far as the Kerry thing goes, I understand what you're saying and it's not exactly the biggest issue that I have of him 'ordering' that nobody give him communion, although that is borderline in itself.

It's the following that is disgusting:

A footnote to the letter also condemned any Catholic who votes specifically for a candidate because the candidate holds a pro-abortion position. Such a voter "would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for holy communion,"


Now for people who try to be a good Catholic, how much guilt is served up to them here? If they vote for a pro-choice candidate, they are 'guilty of formal cooperation in evil' and are 'unworthy to take communion?' Wow. That in itself is bizarre enough, but what if they are friends with somebody who had an abortion or if their friend is pro-choice?

Most religions, to some degree, thrive on the guilt that they inflict on their parishioners, but the Vatican takes the cake and always has.
 
Bet on MyBookie
Top