new pope soon--white smoke..EDIT Germany's Ratzinger is new pope

[Dah-Dee]

.... and more on pope names:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's in a pope's name? Maybe an outlook

Selection may signal a more liberal or conservative approach, observers say.

By Daniela Petroff

Associated Press

VATICAN CITY -- As soon as he says "yes" to being pope, the new head of the Roman Catholic Church will make his first major decision: choose a new name.

The new pope will be free to pick from any of his 264 predecessors, use his own first name or come up with something new. Vatican-watchers will read the choice like tea leaves offering clues to the spirit of the new papacy.

"If he chooses the name Pius XIII, it is a clear signal that he didn't like Vatican II and wants to move the church backwards," said the Rev. Thomas Reese, editor of the Jesuit weekly magazine America, referring to the conservative stance of Pope Pius XII, who died in 1958.

Taking the name John XXIV would signify "a desire to continue the Second Vatican Council," Reese said. Pius XII's successor, John XXIII, called the international gathering of prelates from 1962-65, which was credited with modernizing the church through its liberalizing reforms.

According to conclave ritual, the new pope gives his name to the cardinals while they are still gathered in the Sistine Chapel. The name is then revealed to the world in the "Habemus papam" ("We have a pope") announcement from the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica shortly before the new pontiff appears to give his first blessing.

In the early church, most popes kept their own names, which accounts for such archaic appellations as Adeodatus, Formosus, Hyginus and Anastasius Bibliothecarius.

In the 20th century, three popes took the name Pius, one Benedict, one Paul, and one John. In 1978, Albino Luciani combined John and Paul to become the first John Paul in papal history. In deference to Luciani, who died after only 33 days in office, his successor became John Paul II, who died April 2.

Choosing a new name as pontiff did not become a tradition until 996, when Bruno, the first German pope, became known as Gregory V. Named after a pagan god, the 6th-century priest Mercury changed his name to John II as pope.

The most popular name has been John. Twenty-three popes have taken the name of Jesus' most beloved apostle, followed by 16 Gregories, 15 Benedicts and 13 Leos.

Benedict, from the Latin for "blessing," is one of a number of papal names of holy origin such as Clement ("mercy"), Innocent ("hopeful" as well as "innocent") and Pius ("pious").

The next pope could choose the name John Paul III, thus embracing the formidable legacy of his predecessor.

Such a choice would signal the new pope is committed to continuing John Paul II's legacy, but would also show he was responding to the "huge affection of people around the world for John Paul II," Reese said.

The name no pontiff has presumed to choose is that of Peter the Apostle, the first pope.

Although the pope is also known as the "successor of Peter," no one wants to put himself on the same level as the man who, according to church teaching, Christ himself put at the head of his flock.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050419/NEWS06/504190446/1012

[gbear]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

there is no "brand" of catholisism. It is what it is.

We should expect a Pope that holds to the tenets of his religion to be elected.

This isnt politics, it's the election of a church leader.

You think? You think we in the U.S. pracitce Catholisism the same as it's practiced everywhere else? For that matter do you think a church in DC handles every question of faith the same way one in Boston does?

From my experience, there are many brands of catholisism. There is the brand tought from the Vatican in todays time period, which is only one brand if you think back to the pre-Vatican II time period or even further back, to say the crusades. Then there is the Catholic Church as it exists in most homes throughout the US.

What's more, I think a case can be made that there are two main brands of the Catholic Church in todays U.S. There is the dogmatic Church where the Bible and by extension the Vatican are the source of goodness/faith/knowledge for a large portion of the US. There is also the social institution of the Church here in the U.S. I would argue the second institution is atleast as strong and powerful as the first here in the U.S. The social instution is the interpersonal relationships that are formed by the people who identify their common bond as being Catholic. This second group tends to fall more into the ala cart Catholisism. If you ran a poll today, how many Catholics in the U.S. would say they use birth control and don't think it's wrong to do so? If you ran a poll asking about end of life decisions, how many would agree with the Vatican's teachings? Are they not Catholics?

I'm not saying either side is wrong or right. I'm simply pointing out that there does in fact appear at least 2 distinct brands of Catholisism in the U.S. at this point in time, the all or nothing croud and the ala cart croud. Do you assert that there is no more liberal brand of Catholisism being practiced here in the U.S.?

I understand the contention that the Pope has to come from the all or nothing croud. It's all that exists in the upper parts of the church from which the new pope was to be elected, and there is no room for waffling if you want to present strong moral codes. That being said, theway it is presented does a lot for the perception of an institution. There is such a thing as picking battles, and my feel is that a stict orthodoxy may drive off some of the second "brand" here in the U.S.

Maybe this is all the ramblings of a guy on 4 hours sleep though...so I reserve the right to disavow this in the future.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Bufford

I don't know about a Pope who's almost 80 already.

Its not my religion so I won't judge. I thought it was the perfect time for a 3rd world Pope.

why?

[GrimReefa]

This is an unmitigated disaster for the Catholic Church. It's march to irrelevance continues...

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by GrimReefa

This is an unmitigated disaster for the Catholic Church. It's march to irrelevance continues...

Yeah, those millions upon millions of people are definitely irrelevant.:doh:

[Dah-Dee]

One last article on names (sorry, seemed interesting):

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What's in a name?

by Paul McLachlan

[2 April 2005, as Pope John Paul II appears to be slipping away.]

When Albino Luciano was elected Pope in August 1978, he took the name "John Paul I". That was an odd and unprecedented choice for two reasons: first, there had never been a Pope before who took two names; and second, there had never been a Pope before who, choosing a novel name, added "the First" to it. That is usually added by history once a second Pope honours the first by taking his name.

He took the name "John Paul" because he wanted his Papacy to continue the good work done by both his immediate predecessors. Many saw Pope John XXIII and Pope Paul VI as quite different Popes. Certainly, they were different in many ways. Pope John Paul I perhaps did not want to show a preference for one or the other's style of leadership, so chose to emulate and honour them both.

Pope John Paul I died after only a month as Pope and Karol Wojtyla, from Poland, was elected in his stead. Cardinal Wojtyla chose to take the name "John Paul II". With the first John Paul having so little time to make any mark on the papacy, it was perhaps a sign of respect to his short memory, as well as agreement with his reasons for taking the two names.

But, what of the Pope who will succeed John Paul II?

Will he be John Paul III? There will be a strong incentive to want to demonstrate a willingness to continue in the same vein as this Pope. But, perhaps because it has been such a long papacy, there will also be an equally strong incentive to embark on a new path, and to demonstrate that intention immediately by choosing a different name as Pope. As is clear from the successive elections of Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI, the Cardinals are not averse to replacing an outgoing Pope with a man who is quite his opposite in many ways.

Assuming the new Pope chooses a name from a past Pope rather than using a novel one, what might the choices suggest about his view of the direction his papacy might take?

Pope John XXIII chose John, after a long line of Popes called Pius (broken by a Leo and a Benedict). John had not been used for hundreds of years, since John XXII (except by an anti-Pope!). It was a surprise choice, but given the stark difference between Pius XII and John XXIII, it is perhaps not surprising that he chose not to take Pius.

Paul VI, too, chose a name of one of the Apostles.

Given the greater emphasis on the Gospels in the post-Conciliar church, perhaps another Apostle's name might be appropriate, or even John or Paul. Enough time may now have passed that it would not seem partisan to choose either John or Paul rather than both.

Becoming John XXIV might indicate a desire to further reform the Church, to involve the Bishops more in decision-making (although that might would play to the myth of John XXIII's papacy rather than the reality). Becoming Paul VII might indicate a desire to continue the Church's strong moral stances, while being open to the world and to further change within the Church.

Becoming Pius XIII would suggest a return to tradition, and perhaps even the unwinding of some of the more radical changes that have occurred since Vatican II. A greater emphasis on things like Latin and Gregorian Chant in the liturgy, on absolute truth and grace and sacraments.

Becoming Leo XIV might suggest a desire to be ferocious in defending the Church (a Lion!) and a desire to transform the world, rather than bend to it. (Leo XIII is the source of much of the Church's modern teaching on the structure of society and the Church's relationship with nations.)

A Gregory might want to restore many of the Church's lost treasures: its beautiful liturgy and music.

Or perhaps a merciful Clement? a holy Benedict? a hopeful Innocent?

The one name we can be certain he will not choose is Peter.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Link: http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/name.asp

[Kilmer17]

They purposefully chose an older Pope as a transition from JPII. It would be near IMPOSSIBLE for a young Pope to come in and try to live in the shadow of JPII (eg-Doug DeCinces post Brooks era).

So they elect an older Pope they know wont be around for decades. It also allows him to make some nasty decisions that need to be addressed without ruinging a longterm rule.

[Fatty P For The Pulitzer]

Originally posted by GrimReefa

This is an unmitigated disaster for the Catholic Church. It's march to irrelevance continues...

Right, because they didn't elect someone that GrimReefa approves of? They decided it was better to pick the best person to lead the 1 billion plus Catholics. :doh:

[TheKurp]

Originally posted by Bufford

I thought it was the perfect time for a 3rd world Pope.

Precisely. Not to mention it would have done wonders for weakening the influence of radical Islamists and help to bring Muslims and Christians closer.

[SkinsRback04]

There is Roman Catholicism and there is 'American' Catholicism. Since Vatican II the schism has grown. American Catholics are largely Cafeteria Catholics and irrelevant to issues of Faith and Morals as they aspire to have none.

Americans still practicing Roman Catholicism are a different matter.

Anyone who thinks that the Thirld World is desirous of Liberation Theology is a fool. Socialism is a pernicious evil which the Church opposes from a Doctrinal view. Only idiots mistake 'Love thy Neighbor" concepts as proofs of Socialism veritae.

[@DCGoldPants]

Originally posted by Kilmer17

They purposefully chose an older Pope as a transition from JPII. It would be near IMPOSSIBLE for a young Pope to come in and try to live in the shadow of JPII (eg-Doug DeCinces post Brooks era).

So they elect an older Pope they know wont be around for decades. It also allows him to make some nasty decisions that need to be addressed without ruinging a longterm rule.

hadn't thought of that.

I was thinking about the talk on American Cable News about the divisions between American Catholics and Europeans. I guess they aren't worried about that yet.

[ntotoro]

Originally posted by TheKurp

Precisely. Not to mention it would have done wonders for weakening the influence of radical Islamists and help to bring Muslims and Christians closer.

No. Islamists would still hate everyone who doesn't subscribe to their Wahhabist point-of-view. Doesn't matter the religion, ethnicity, country-of-origin or whatever. That idealogy lives to spread itself either covertly (CAIR) or by the sword (9/11).

Nick

[riggins44]

Do the Catholics here think they elected a 78 year old, knowing

he won't lead as long as Pope John Paul II, to make it easier

to make a modern or more liberal transition in the future?

I thought the Nigerian was a favorite, but maybe the church

wasn't ready for a non-European Pope.

[SnyderShrugged]

Originally posted by Fatty P For The Pulitzer

Right, because they didn't elect someone that GrimReefa approves of? They decided it was better to pick the best person to lead the 1 billion plus Catholics. :doh:

:laugh: :laugh:

You gotta love the sheer arrogance of those who think that "their way" is best for everyone.

A man is elected to represent billions of Catholics and his choosing is chastised because he lives the Catholic beliefs to the letter.

[ntotoro]

Originally posted by GrimReefa

This is an unmitigated disaster for the Catholic Church. It's march to irrelevance continues...

Ehh... ?

Not for nothing, but a Pope's job is to maintain the conservative ideals of the Church, not just turn it into a giant popularity contest. What the Church says and what practitioners do in their own daily lives can often differ, even if the practitioner doesn't admit it publicly. A conservative Pope won't turn people away, especially since the last one was pretty conservative himself.

This Pope will have a thankless job. It's be relatively short, he won't make everyone happy and has some difficult things to deal with. Not abortion or gay marriage. Those are simply "no," but handling the molestation issues. I don't think JPII had the literal physical strength to deal with that.

Nick

[Kilmer17]

That's exactly why they did it.

Look for a 3rd world Pope when Ratz.... leaves. And remember, a Pope doesnt have to pass away for there to be a new Pope. This one could be there for a year or two if he so chooses.

[ntotoro]

Originally posted by riggins44

Do the Catholics here think they elected a 78 year old, knowing

he won't lead as long as Pope John Paul II, to make it easier

to make a modern or more liberal transition in the future?

I thought the Nigerian was a favorite, but maybe the church

wasn't ready for a non-European Pope.

I was baptized Eastern Orthodox, but most people will tell you it's the same thing. Just different hats...

It's not so much that this Pope is old as it is JPII was oddly young. The Cardinals don't necessarily want someone to serve as long as JPII did. It's definately not to make the Church more liberal, because all the Cardinals except one were appointed by JPII and share his idealogy. Benedict XVI, in particular, is very conservative.

The Nigerian was never the favorite. Ratzinger has been. Maybe the US press reported on the Nigerian to strum up a story of a non-white, non-European Pope, but Ratzinger has been the favorite all-along since before JPII's actual death.

Nick

[zoony]

Originally posted by GrimReefa

This is an unmitigated disaster for the Catholic Church. It's march to irrelevance continues...

several hundred years ago a certain english king said the same thing.

[GrimReefa]

Originally posted by Fatty P For The Pulitzer

Right, because they didn't elect someone that GrimReefa approves of? They decided it was better to pick the best person to lead the 1 billion plus Catholics. :doh:

Why? I'll tell you why.

Because values change. Today's liberal is tommorow's moderate. Today's moderate is tommorow's conservative. Today's conservative is tommorow's bigot.

Values change. That's the simple fact of life. Conservatives hate it, but it happens. That's why, when Trent Lott says, "if Strom Thurmond was elected President, we wouldn't be having all of these problems", he is forced BY HIS OWN PARTY to resign as Senate Majority Leader.

This move will alieante many, many more people than it will encourage. Nobody under the age of 60 has any reason to believe the Catholic Church has anything for them. The current positions on birth control, women's role within (and, by extension, outside of) the Church, homosexuality, abortion, stem cell research, etc, etc, etc, is a joke, right out of the stone age. Hey, wanna take a stab at what country has the lowest birth rate in the World? Give you a clue, it begins with "I", ends in "-taly", and if Tony Soprano were a real person, that's where his ancestors would have come from.

Think they're not having sex in Italy? Or do you think they're going against pontiff orders?

At best, Catholics world-wide will view the papacy as simply a group of old men whose values are out-of-touch with reality and will practice their own brand of Catholicism, as they have been doing for years. Not all Catholics, but a healthy chunk. At worst, they will be completely turned off by the new Pope and leave the Church altogether.

The Catholic Church faces declining membership, declining participation within that membership, and they're having an absolute hell of a time trying to find youths willing to swear a vow of chasitity for their entire lives to enter the clergy. They can address these problems head on, or they can ignore them and stay the course (which is what I meant by march towards irrelavance). They chose the latter. The problems the Church is facing will only get worse as the reign of Benedict continues.

This is the latest in a series of self-inflicted wounds for the Catholic Church.

[DjTj]

Originally posted by GrimReefa

This is an unmitigated disaster for the Catholic Church. It's march to irrelevance continues...

Although what goes on in the Vatican is more and more irrelevant to American culture and politics (cf. John Kerry), the Catholic Church is increasingly important to the Third World.

I wouldn't write them off just yet...

[Fatty P For The Pulitzer]

Originally posted by skin-n-vegas

:laugh: :laugh:

You gotta love the sheer arrogance of those who think that "their way" is best for everyone.

A man is elected to represent billions of Catholics and his choosing is chastised because he lives the Catholic beliefs to the letter.

I get fired up by the non-Catholics who could care less about Catholicism or religion in general, but wanting my spiritual leader to throw 2000 years of tradition down the drain to join the progressive movement. They're never going to elect someone who will "liberalize" the Church in order to accept progressives, they're going to elect someone to confront the progressives and teach them our way of life. The pope has no political power over anyone, so I'm not sure why non-believers are upset with this.

[Dah-Dee]

I saw somewhere where Pope Benedict XVI is the oldest newly-elected Pope in 275 years. Wow. Looks like that "transitional" pontiff thing carried the day.

[GrimReefa]

Originally posted by zoony

several hundred years ago a certain english king said the same thing.

And since there hasn't been another Crusades since the Reformation, I'd say that King was right.

[ntotoro]

Originally posted by GrimReefa

Hey, wanna take a stab at what country has the lowest birth rate in the World? Give you a clue, it begins with "I", ends in "-taly", and if Tony Soprano were a real person, that's where his ancestors would have come from.

You picked a very poor example. While Vatican City is geographically within the boundaries of Italia, the country itself is very secular. What people do with their own time is what they do, regardless what the Church says. No one has ever been excommunicated for using a condom. The problem is not the Church, but with progressive secularists in the US who don't like anything that makes them think twice about doing something that someone else may consider to be morally reprehensible.

The Church has been conservative and always will be. This isn't something new. You throw around terms such as bigot, but it seems you're less-tolerant than you even want the Church to be, simply because there are people in this world who don't agree with you.

Nick

[zoony]

Originally posted by DjTj

Although what goes on in the Vatican is more and more irrelevant to American culture and politics (cf. John Kerry)

Is that your opinion based on your heritage and culture, or is that a fact?

I'd bet a Catholic would argue with you.

By the way... heard about the immigrant problem from south of the border that exists here in the US? Know what religion dominates in Mexico?

Funny that you erupted in another thread about 'asking an Asian if you want to know about Asians', but you offer up your secular opinion rather freely here... and claim to speak as if you have your finger on the pulse of American Culture and Politics...

*edit*

and yikes... I just re-read and it came off harsher than intended... it's hard to type with a certain tone of voice. No intention of offending/insulting, just sayin'...