Pope Benedict XVI

I'm surprised there isn't a thread about this on GD yet. The church didn't schock with this choice - most predicted it would be him, as most of the cardinals are very conservative, and him above all.

what do you guys think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4462077.stm

:shrug: Doesn't affect me.

I think he is 78 yo. So we should be doing this all over again pretty soon.

Not extremely surprised he was chosen. Did you know he was 1 of the 3 that wasn't elevated by Pope JP2. Pope Benny will take some time getting used to.

Sounds like the London book makers hit it on the head though.

It was definatly a joyful moment for myself. This whole thing has really stirred some religious feelings that have been dormant for a while.

I wish they would have picked one of the non-European options.

Also someone that's not so old.

I'd venture to guess that one of the main reason he was chosen is because of his age. It gives them time to review the world and the church's role in it, make small changes, and then he'll be dead and they can move onto another person who's even more of a change.

Making a small change that will probably only be around for <10 years instead of a big change that might be around for 20 years.

I honestly don't think the world wanted a huge change from JP2, and I don't think the Cardnials wanted another 20+ year Pope

Yeah, I can agree with that reasoning. Not being Catholic, I would obviously have different opinions of where I'd like to see the church go than you would.

Maybe, maybe not.

Just realize that a ~2000 year institution doesn't change overnight. Figure that JP2 had the third longest Papacy and its still only ~1.3% of the church's history.

I try to stay out of religion, personally i dont believe in a great deal of it and the fact that it's the cause of a great deal of wars and conflicts just makes me want to stay out of it even more

he is already being called a "care-taker" pope - hence his age; there were popes like that in the past, and most were pretty dormant, except for two - one was pope for 25 years, and the other revolutionized something or other.

Originally Posted by Thantos

It was definatly a joyful moment for myself. This whole thing has really stirred some religious feelings that have been dormant for a while.

thats good actually it stirred something in me as well. As you know mike, I listened to the whole thing on the radio (dammit missed it on TV by 10 mins) and I was trully happy. I'm not sure how to express it - I was just happy, literally smiling in the car when I heard the new pope speak.

I don't know much about all this, but my English teacher isn't too happy about the new pope (although he says he completely expected it). Says the new pope is way too intolerant of other religions and lifestyles, etc.

Originally Posted by JaWiB

Says the new pope is way too intolerant of other religions and lifestyles, etc.

Isn't the Pope's job to spread the belief in the Bible? Jesus specifically said that He was the only way to get to Heaven, so why should the Pope be tolerant of other beliefs? As long as the Pope follows what is in the Bible, he is just doing what he is supposed to do.

I read some about the new Pope and I agree with everything except a few 'moves' in his record:

1. Not allowing women to be ordained as ministers.
2. Calling rock music the 'vehicle of anti-religion.'
3. Refusing communion to those who he claims have committed manifest grave sin.


Rebuttals:
1. Although my denomination has held view #1 in the past, they are moving away from this. Personally I find this debate is more of a man vs. woman issue than a theological one. I find little support from a theological standpoint to keep women out of ministry. One cannot interpret the Bible w/o some type of subjective viewpoint. It would be nice if we could interpret it 100% objectively, but then I cannot even write this post and guarantee that everyone will interpret it 100% objectively. It's impossible. So I feel that this debate stems from culture more than it does theology. Yes there are evidences for women ministers in Acts and some other New Testament books. But one could also argue that Paul seems to point to men as being the leaders - but to interpret what Paul is saying does require a bit of study to understand his style and where he is coming from. I think it's sad for one to say that God cannot use a woman instead of a man. That is simply not true.


2. Music in and of itself is not an evil thing. No one style of music is better than another and it is the message behind the music that is what is important. Calling one genre the vehicle of anti-religion is ludicrous at best and far too radical for me to abide by. There are plenty of different styles of Christian music, be it rock, classical, etc, etc. You cannot say that one style or genre of music is any worse than another. I'd hoped we were past this point in our theological stances.

3. Although communion should not be taken unless one does is in fact a believer in right standing with God, it's not a good practice to refuse communion to any one group of people. When you start saying this sin is greater than that sin, you yourself are making the judgement call and not Scripture. This is a very dangerous practice and one that I would not like to see continue. Theologically there is no basis for any one man pointing out that this or that sin is greater than another and there is no precedent for any pastor, pope, leader, etc, refusing communion to any one person or group. It is a personal matter between them and God and if they take communion in an unpure state with the full knowledge that they should not, that is their decision. In my own view it is the leader's responsibility to make known the Scriptures that speak of taking communion in an unpure state, but it is not their responsibility to make the decision for the person.

I'm fairly conservative, but I also realize that as a whole the church is a failure right now. Many many people won't even dawn the door of a church because they feel judged before even reaching the welcome mat. That's not how it's supposed to be. I'd rather have every hypocrite and non-believer in the church than all believers. After all how can you reach people if everyone you are teaching and preaching to is already a believer? You can't. If the church is to be successful in the future we will have to get down off of our religous high horse and realize that it's all about caring for and loving people. If you don't love people then please do us a favor and get out of the ministry.

EDIT:

And since the rep system is disabled, if you disagree with me you cannot throw red candy at me....at least this month.

> Figure that JP2 had the third longest Papacy and its still only ~1.3% of the church's history.

Oh, I know that. Think about how much he accomplised in that time, though. I was hoping we could see someone from the "outside", so to speak, especially someone young.

> 2. Calling rock music the 'vehicle of anti-religion.'

That's a mind numbingly stupid statement, for the reasons you stated. Actually, I agree with most of the things, you said, except the part about not feeling welcome at a Catholic service. I've always felt weirder going to Protestant services. The only thing I don't like about the Catholic services are the length (funny a non-Catholic would complain about that ) and the fact that I'm not allowed to take communion at them. I can understand the stance, but I can get communion at a Methodist mass with no problems.

edit: I'm gonna be the first to point out that Ratzinger was in the Hitler Youth. I'm also going to be the first to point out I expect he had very very little say in it.