New Pope is Jorge Hario Bergoglio of the America's

[I-10east]

History has been made again...JK

www.theonion.com/video/pope-francis-resigns,31660/

[Fallen Buckeye]

Cheshire Cat, you bring up a lot of topics, and I will try to address them. If I miss something, please forgive me. I had a feeling you might have had some experience with Catholicism, but I'm afraid you really missed out as a child the real beauty of the Church. Where you see a boring Latin monologue performed by a guy talking to wall, I see a priest together with the congregation presenting the one sacrifice of the Body and Blood of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ  to God the Father in the Holy Spirit. Where you see an arbitrary collection of accounts, I see the living Word of God. Where you see a discontinuous confederation of Catholics, I see one body in Christ.

Actually, that seems like a good starting point. We are members of the body of Christ because we are baptized and not because we are perfect. So, yes, all those people you mention can be validly Catholic without being completely orthodox, but when it comes to the Church's teaching it is not a matter of popular opinion. Christ is the King. He is the head, and he challenges to live up to standard that most of us fall short of (myself especially included). So those examples you give of how the Church has changed her teaching or doctrine really are cases of individual people disagreeing with the Church. I will concede that I may have chose my words poorly when I said I would offer a "Catholic pov," but like I said I'm only a man!

Now I agree with some of what you say about God and disagree with  parts as well. I agree that God is infinite and that He is not just some old man with a long white beard and a book of judgment. I agree that God reveals aspects of himself in his creation, too, especially in man. I would also agree that  God's law is written in our hearts and is knowable by reason. That is the whole basis for the natural law (which could also be used to back marriage between one man and one woman). I think you are seriously overlooking the effect of sin though. Sin separates us from God and clouds our judgment. We have a tendency to sin, and so I don't think you can say there is nothing separating us from God.

Just like a child, we need guidance, and, like a family, we need each other. Our parents do not give us rules and punish us for nothing. They want us to grow and keep us from behaviors that will ultimately harm us. In the same way the Church professes truths that challenge us, but that are ordered to our good. If we are condemned, we are only being allowed to experience what have chosen for ourselves. You see, Jesus has come to save us, and that is truly good news. Now I do believe that we are only accountable according to our response to whatever degree of knowledge of God we are given, but I reject this notion of differing moralities relative to our own definitions. What happens when differing definitions of right and wrong don't match up?

[Pinky]

A couple thoughts from a Catholic pov:

• Undoubtedly the church as an institution needs some reform, but that's no reason to reject the Church and all her treasures as a whole. You have to remember that all of the Church from the pope on down are made up of fallible human beings. So while her constant teaching is protected from corruption (that's where papal infallibility comes into play) her members are not. According to the teaching of the Church even the pope is subject to same flaws of human nature like poor judgement and sin.
• Like I said, the Church has a constant teaching that stretches back 2,000 years on which she draws for guidance. Right and wrong does not change according to the whims of the present generation. "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried." Just because it is hard to understand or live by does not make it wrong.
• The Church teaches us to love everyone and that all people are called to live a chaste life as appropriate to their vocation (e.g.; priest, single, married, etc.). So, yes, we are all called to love people including homosexuals and not to judge them for their homosexual tendencies. However, we cannot uphold the homosexual act just like we cannot uphold a straight person engaging in fornication or a married person engaging in adultery because they are all sins that violate the sanctity of marriage. People cannot marry someone of the same sex by the very definition of what a marriage is according to the constant teaching of the Church: the union of one man and one woman ordered to the creation of new life.We can love the sinner and hate the sin. In fact, I have many gay and lesbian friends, and although we disagree on this issue we get along great. People are so much more than just their sexual orientation.
• Also, I think it's important to note that the pope and the bishops and priests are not the whole Church. It's catholic, or universal, and it encompasses all the baptized people of God throughout the world and throughout time. The pope cannot suddenly change doctrine of Church. Again, there is a constant teaching of the Church stretching back to Christ which the pope relates and at times clarifies. So it does not make sense to think of the Church and her inner workings in the same way we think of most politics. The new pope cannot come in and throw 2,000 years of sacred Tradition out the window. At most, he can change of a few of the disciplines of the church (for instance, something like whether we receive Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand).

I would challenge anyone who has any animosity towards the Catholic church to put aside their prejudices for a moment and do some earnest investigation into what the Church actually believes. I think they would find a well reasoned treasure of wisdom and truth. If you have an honest question I would love see if I could answer it or at least point you to a source that could. God bless you all.

Irony Check-  How do you reconcile referring to the church as "she" given that women are specifically excluded from both the ministry and leadership? 

[jaxnative]

Fallen Buckeye,  I compliment and thank you for your comments.  I also love the mystery of the Mass as it brings our Lord to the human/spiritual plane which Jesus Christ intended.  It is offered for the whole Church but very personal at the same time. 
Your comment on moral relativism is particularly significent in our present day and time as this has led to many intrinsic evils as now being acceptable.  This also leads man to believe there is no higher power than himself and we can look to the recent historical record of the 20th century to see some of the results.
Thanks again.

[Adam W]

A couple thoughts from a Catholic pov:

• Undoubtedly the church as an institution needs some reform, but that's no reason to reject the Church and all her treasures as a whole. You have to remember that all of the Church from the pope on down are made up of fallible human beings. So while her constant teaching is protected from corruption (that's where papal infallibility comes into play) her members are not. According to the teaching of the Church even the pope is subject to same flaws of human nature like poor judgement and sin.
• Like I said, the Church has a constant teaching that stretches back 2,000 years on which she draws for guidance. Right and wrong does not change according to the whims of the present generation. "The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult and left untried." Just because it is hard to understand or live by does not make it wrong.
• The Church teaches us to love everyone and that all people are called to live a chaste life as appropriate to their vocation (e.g.; priest, single, married, etc.). So, yes, we are all called to love people including homosexuals and not to judge them for their homosexual tendencies. However, we cannot uphold the homosexual act just like we cannot uphold a straight person engaging in fornication or a married person engaging in adultery because they are all sins that violate the sanctity of marriage. People cannot marry someone of the same sex by the very definition of what a marriage is according to the constant teaching of the Church: the union of one man and one woman ordered to the creation of new life.We can love the sinner and hate the sin. In fact, I have many gay and lesbian friends, and although we disagree on this issue we get along great. People are so much more than just their sexual orientation.
• Also, I think it's important to note that the pope and the bishops and priests are not the whole Church. It's catholic, or universal, and it encompasses all the baptized people of God throughout the world and throughout time. The pope cannot suddenly change doctrine of Church. Again, there is a constant teaching of the Church stretching back to Christ which the pope relates and at times clarifies. So it does not make sense to think of the Church and her inner workings in the same way we think of most politics. The new pope cannot come in and throw 2,000 years of sacred Tradition out the window. At most, he can change of a few of the disciplines of the church (for instance, something like whether we receive Holy Communion on the tongue or in the hand).

I would challenge anyone who has any animosity towards the Catholic church to put aside their prejudices for a moment and do some earnest investigation into what the Church actually believes. I think they would find a well reasoned treasure of wisdom and truth. If you have an honest question I would love see if I could answer it or at least point you to a source that could. God bless you all.

As a former Roman Catholic (I was confirmed, I was an altar boy, I attended mass every Sunday and holy day of obligation up until I was 22 and I attended CCD until I was 18), I would like to make a couple of replies to your post:

While I agree that the Church and its people are two separate things, that is a tired argument and it only goes so far. The Pope and the Church leadership are the people that millions of people look to for guidance. So they may be flawed, but if people depend on them for their opinions and their opinions are flawed, bigoted, hateful, etc, then there's a real problem there. Or if they do things like try to stop people from using condoms, resulting in an increase in the spread of HIV, then I have an issue with the Church. The Church is both the teaching and the institution. If it is going to lecture people on morals, it has to take responsibility for its own morality.

I can't argue about whether or not the Church's teachings are right or wrong. I think it's all BS. But then, I don't believe in god. If you want to live your life by the teachings if the Church, that's perfectly fine by me. But as mentioned in the paragraph above, the Church does have moral and ethical responsibilities, and many of its teachings are not 2000 years old.

The Pope most certainly can change Church doctrine. It has happened numerous times before. And he doesn't even have to speak ex cathedra to do it. He can issue a Papal bull.

[Starbuck]

An interesting, fair and objective discussion except for this little tidbit. 

"But the Bible itself as it is now recognized (The New Testament) was originally put together for a single reason and that was to unify what was the Church of England under the Catholic Church.  It was a mechanism to unify a group of people under one doctrine for political reasons.  That is the truth behind the fact that a handful of gospels were chosen at the same time discarding any that did not fit the specifications of this new belief system under the King of England."

Actually what is known as the New Testament, generally in its present form, was compiled in Greek and its components universally agreed to (according to Iranaeous) by the end of the 2nd century before many of the spurious "gospels" later found buried in Egypt had even been drafted. These consisted of the three synoptic gospels that seem to be taken from and edited for local appeal from the same original oral sources (referred to as "Q") plus John (in use in Syria).

Since the south end of the British Isle ("Albion") was at this time still a province of Rome and the Battle of Doerham was not to be fought until 577 I'm not sure  what involvement you think that the "King of England" might have had in the process.

[Cheshire Cat]

Cheshire Cat, you bring up a lot of topics, and I will try to address them. If I miss something, please forgive me. I had a feeling you might have had some experience with Catholicism, but I'm afraid you really missed out as a child the real beauty of the Church. Where you see a boring Latin monologue performed by a guy talking to wall, I see a priest together with the congregation presenting the one sacrifice of the Body and Blood of our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ  to God the Father in the Holy Spirit. Where you see an arbitrary collection of accounts, I see the living Word of God. Where you see a discontinuous confederation of Catholics, I see one body in Christ.

Actually, that seems like a good starting point. We are members of the body of Christ because we are baptized and not because we are perfect. So, yes, all those people you mention can be validly Catholic without being completely orthodox, but when it comes to the Church's teaching it is not a matter of popular opinion. Christ is the King. He is the head, and he challenges to live up to standard that most of us fall short of (myself especially included). So those examples you give of how the Church has changed her teaching or doctrine really are cases of individual people disagreeing with the Church. I will concede that I may have chose my words poorly when I said I would offer a "Catholic pov," but like I said I'm only a man!

Now I agree with some of what you say about God and disagree with  parts as well. I agree that God is infinite and that He is not just some old man with a long white beard and a book of judgment. I agree that God reveals aspects of himself in his creation, too, especially in man. I would also agree that  God's law is written in our hearts and is knowable by reason. That is the whole basis for the natural law (which could also be used to back marriage between one man and one woman). I think you are seriously overlooking the effect of sin though. Sin separates us from God and clouds our judgment. We have a tendency to sin, and so I don't think you can say there is nothing separating us from God.

Just like a child, we need guidance, and, like a family, we need each other. Our parents do not give us rules and punish us for nothing. They want us to grow and keep us from behaviors that will ultimately harm us. In the same way the Church professes truths that challenge us, but that are ordered to our good. If we are condemned, we are only being allowed to experience what have chosen for ourselves. You see, Jesus has come to save us, and that is truly good news. Now I do believe that we are only accountable according to our response to whatever degree of knowledge of God we are given, but I reject this notion of differing moralities relative to our own definitions. What happens when differing definitions of right and wrong don't match up?

Let me begin by saying that it is your view that I missed out on something connected to the church.  Let me assure you that I did not.  The difference between your experience and mine is that you found something you needed and resonated with.  I did not. That does not mean I don't believe that the experience of the Catholic church or other religious institutions is not of great value to others.  I understand that it is.   I think the difference is that you believe what the institution of a "man made" organization has indoctrinated you to believe and frankly I am fine with that.  The problem as I see it is that it is folly to measure another persons beliefs or experiences by your own.  Everyone's experience is valid albeit different.

You and the church want to make Jesus your king and I also understand those who feel that way.  But the fact of the matter is, when you step outside a single doctrine belief into a place of experiencing the many other doctrines and spiritual beliefs there are in the world, it is possible to understand that Christ for you is king but for others in this world he is a man and prophet who came with a message, which is one I view as positive.  However this does not lessen the spiritual connection or beliefs about "creation and the creator" that others may hold.  You chose to believe and have faith in the doctrine of the Catholic church because it is what you resonate with.  Others have different feelings and different views of faith and theirs are just as valid in their own experience and view.  This is also the case for agnostics or non believers.

To really get into understanding what I am trying to share would take years.     Simply put I respect the right of every person to embrace belief or non belief as they see fit.  The difference between us may be that I am not intent upon winning anyone over to my views on creation or the mysteries of life.  Most religious organizations, including the Catholic church insist that their people evangelize in order to win conversions to a specific religious belief when the truth of the matter is that belief will not change the essence of the universe, just how we view it and that is decidedly different for different people.  Organized religion has done good for some people and absolutely devastated others.  It is the devastation and dependence that organized religion is the basis for that clearly shows it is a creation of man.

The truth of the matter is there is no separation between humanity and creation.  No church, doctrine or institution is a replacement for the truth of the creator, but rather a mechanism needed by some to direct their lives and help them formulate their spiritual beliefs.  But they are all creations of mankind developed in order to impart their own view and interpretation of what it is to be part of creation, most of them using fear as the lever to impart that message.  I know no organization or doctrine stands between me and all that is and the personal path to enlightenment is an individual one to be respected and not imposed on others.

So, I believe your gentle attempts here are to enlighten some to the beauty of the Church as you see it and come with good intentions.  I accept that as your intent but say with respect that there is a certain arrogance that comes from some believers that cause them to think that their view of what is real is superior to that of others.  The reality is that it is not.  It is simply one view and one belief.  I have no argument with those who think they are right, as they will not move from their stance.  It is a fruitless endeavor and is not my place to convince them to abandon their own perceptions.  I can only say that a persons path in life is theirs to walk and if what the Catholic church or other religious organizations have to offer is of benefit to them, so be it.  For those who do not need "to be parented" by a religious institution that is as it should be as well.  I don't need to be parented in this way and do not think that makes me superior to others, it just makes me who I am. 

[Cheshire Cat]

Starbuck, I have also heard and read of that lineage for the bible.  Many believe that it was first written and compiled in Greek, later transcribed into other languages and sent round the world.  However as it is with the document itself, there is not way to prove it was or not. I tend to agree that the first recognized origin is the Greek translation.  There is however historic documentation as well for what transpired under the King of England which was a shift from the beliefs held at the time by the church of England to those of Catholicism which it had persecuted prior to that time.  Having said all of that the truth is that we may never know exactly how the bible became what it is today other than the fact that it has undergone tremendous change over time to the point that one testament became the old and another the new. 

I am glad the discussion has retained a civil tone because from my point of view it is not about changing others minds but rather about opening them to other views to accept or reject as they will.

[Cheshire Cat]

Oh goodness Stephen, I am going to need more coffee in order to respond.  Much of what you say I agree with, it is just our ways of imparting our views are often one of semantics as opposed to different views.  Given that reality we could likely talk in circles for hours on this topic.  Let me just say this and I know I am repeating myself but, your view is valid to your experience and belief as mine is to me and each other person who posts on this is to them.

I think discussions about religion are the most difficult to walk through because for most individuals their religion or spiritual beliefs are the core of their identity.  I am not want to strike at the core of their beliefs in any way.  For me, much of what I express regarding religious beliefs is often more abstract than scientific and I honestly agree about the difficulty of "scientific measures" when it comes to this topic.

As far as the Catholic church is concerned discussion takes us well into the areas of "faith and beliefs" which I think we can agree there is no scientific measure for.  So in essence much of what is expressed will fall well outside of scientific measure.  I will confess however that my experience with the mole kings of New York is seriously lacking.  lol

[Adam W]

I also think it's funny that, when electing the first non-European Pope, they essentially elected an Italian. Talk about playing it safe 

[Cheshire Cat]

Stephen,

I agree with what you are saying.  lol  You just formulate your views in words that best get across your way of thinking while I use different words and approach.  In essence, we are saying the same thing about beliefs and the great mystery that is life.  As far as the mole king, well I will take your word for it.  lol  I know little about this king.

Adam,
They did in fact end up with an Italian Pope on the fifth vote.  Hard to say what the first four votes said. 

[Fallen Buckeye]

So much to comment on, but so little time:

@ pinky - One image of the Church is as the bride of Christ to reflect her closeness to Christ. Just as a bride becomes one flesh with her husband, so the Church is united to Christ. The feminine form is unrelated to church hierarchy; and the Church that all have an important role to play. Our most revered saint, the Blessed Mother, is a woman, after all. If you look at it from the lens of what is important to the world (power, money, etc.) then your view of the Church is going to be skewed.

As for the other comments, I'll have to get back to those when I have more time.

[Tacachale]

An interesting, fair and objective discussion except for this little tidbit. 

"But the Bible itself as it is now recognized (The New Testament) was originally put together for a single reason and that was to unify what was the Church of England under the Catholic Church.  It was a mechanism to unify a group of people under one doctrine for political reasons.  That is the truth behind the fact that a handful of gospels were chosen at the same time discarding any that did not fit the specifications of this new belief system under the King of England."

Actually what is known as the New Testament, generally in its present form, was compiled in Greek and its components universally agreed to (according to Iranaeous) by the end of the 2nd century before many of the spurious "gospels" later found buried in Egypt had even been drafted. These consisted of the three synoptic gospels that seem to be taken from and edited for local appeal from the same original oral sources (referred to as "Q") plus John (in use in Syria).

Since the south end of the British Isle ("Albion") was at this time still a province of Rome and the Battle of Doerham was not to be fought until 577 I'm not sure  what involvement you think that the "King of England" might have had in the process.

Starbuck, I have also heard and read of that lineage for the bible.  Many believe that it was first written and complied in Greek, later transcribed into other languages and sent round the world.  However as it is with the document itself, there is not way to prove it was or not. I tend to agree that the first recognized origin is the Greek translation.  There is however historic documentation as well for what transpired under the King of England which was a shift from the beliefs held at the time by the church of England to those of Catholicism which it had persecuted prior to that time.  Having said all of that the truth is that we may never know exactly how the bible became what it is today other than the fact that it has undergone tremendous change over time to the point that one testament became the old and another the new. 

I am glad the discussion has retained a civil tone because from my point of view it is not about changing others minds but rather about opening them to other views to accept or reject as they will.

I want to weigh in on these comments. Starbuck is right. There's no dispute that the books of the New Testament were originally written in Greek. In the early days there was no established canon, just a number of books circulating accepted as sacred by Christians of various stripes. In addition to the books of the New Testament there were other writings, many of them specific to particular sects regarded by the proto-orthodox as heretical.

By 200 AD, the proto-orthodox (the group that became modern Christianity) had a largely agreed-upon canon that was the same as the present New Testament with some relatively minor exceptions. Specifically, Revelation and several minor epistles were disputed, as were five other books that were eventually rejected. The earliest surviving list of proto-orthodox canon is the Muratorian Fragment of around 170 AD; this is almost the same as the current New Testament with some of those exceptions. The remaining disputes were hammered out in the Ecumenical Councils during the 4th century. It's probable that the proto-orthodox Church Fathers were motivated to establish an agreed-upon canon by the spread of the other sects, which they regarded as dangerous heresies. After this point, the Greek Bible was translated into Syriac and Latin, and spread far and wide essentially in its present form.

England had nothing to do with it. In fact, there was no "England" at the time. Southern Britain was inhabited by the native Britons (ie, the ancestors of the modern Welsh) and was a province of Rome. The Anglo-Saxon settlement and conquest of Britain began in the 5th century; they were Germanic pagans. For hundreds of years there were actually several Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, there was no one "King of England" until the 10th century. The Anglo-Saxons were converted to Christianity beginning with a mission from Pope Gregory the Great in 596; by this time the New Testament was well established.

[Cheshire Cat]

Thanks for weighing in with your information Tachcahle.  I won't argue it as I have heard this lineage of the Bible before, seen the documentation and there is no need to dispute it.  My point was and is that the new Testament portions of the Bible as we know it has morphed and changed overtime.  It has been translated and re-translated into numerous languages.  It is a collection of writings that are believed to have been transcribed anywhere from decades after the death of Jesus to centuries depending on who is telling the story.  No one disputes that what was transcribed was a collation of writings (gospels) attributed to different writers as given through their memory of words and events.  This fact alone necessitates  the words and writings of this document be taken as accurate and literal on faith, not reason. The works are a compilation of stories, parables, histories and memories of human beings, men (by choice), written decades and centuries after the actual events occurred.  Men who like all human beings are at times weak of character and mind and clearly had an agenda which was tell their story as they remembered it or wished it to be told.  To base one's everlasting soul upon the words of a handful of men, declared saints by other men, as translated by the doctrine of a church institution, then as interpreted by more men, ie priests is something I am not prepared to do.  In the case of Catholicism, men added a variety of other rituals, rules, sins and punishments to their doctrine which they demand all followers agree to and obey, lest they be locked out from heaven or burn in hell.  Fear manipulation at it's worst and nothing that I can begin to associate with a God who was said to create humans through love. 

It is well known by the students of theology that there are many more writings (gospels) that were discarded over the ages because they did not fit with the formation of the ideology being promoted through the Christian Bible. There were Gnostic writings that were thrown out because they did not match the message the churches of old were telling.

The Bible is written from the viewpoint of men and as such the writings reflect ideas, prejudice and feelings towards women representative of the time in which the writings were compiled.  For instance, there were writings recorded of Mary Magdalene that were discarded because they did not fit the storyline chosen for the new Testament.  She would later be portrayed by men as a prostitute because it was Paul they wanted to take center stage in telling Christs story.  Centuries upon centuries later the Catholic church would say that it was not true Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. She was in fact a devout woman and supporter of Jesus and his teaching.  The aim of course was to devalue her roll and closeness to a man they would later say was the son of God.  Yet, it was perfectly acceptable that a Judas or doubting Thomas both men would be revered as apostles of Christ.  It's a ridiculous and very transparent agenda.

The Catholic church maintains its attitude of male superiority over female at all levels, relegating the role of females consistently to help mate and often second to men. As Fallen Buckeye stated, the church is viewed as the bride of Christ by many.  The same place is relegated to women in the role of nun's, as brides of Christ whose value is measured by association to Jesus. Never is the woman portrayed as equal with one grand exception which is an expression of Catholic faith as practiced in Mexico which places equal reverence on Christ and his mother, Our Lady of Guadalupe.  It was this reverence for the mother of Christ that kept the church of Rome from recognizing the millions upon millions of devout Catholics in that country until the later half of the last century.  Again, the issue of male superiority in the eyes of men.

Move on to Adam and Eve and the rib story, an amazing fantasy, told and retold in various ways over the eons. It has the creation of woman second to man and from his rib.  In some biblical writings we hear Adam had another wife before Eve named Lilith who of course was an evil woman and expelled from the garden.  We are now expected to believe that Adam lost one evil woman (she had to be evil. lol) to be replaced by a temptress named Eve formed of his rib again.  This often told myth pervades today's beliefs in many Christian religions as it places women in a lesser roll.  I think the new Pope will find himself in a world where some of the old standards and stories behind the Catholic religion will need to be revisited and perhaps discarded if in fact the church expects itself to stand the test of time.     


The following is a link that shows some of the many different "versions" of the Bible:
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm

[Cheshire Cat]

This is what I was referencing earlier.  Over 450 Versions of the Bible in English since the 7th century and churches expect people to believe that the bible is accurate and to be taken literally, but more importantly one should stake the entirety of the spiritual beliefs on the current version a particular church supports.

Partial translations of the Bible into languages of the English people can be traced back to the end of the 7th century, including translations into Old English and Middle English. More than 450 versions have been created over time.

And regarding the comment of the Bible translation in England, this is what I was referring to:

Although John Wycliffe is often credited with the first translation of the Bible into English, there were, in fact, many translations of large parts of the Bible centuries before Wycliffe's work. The English Bible was first translated from the Latin Vulgate into Old English by a few select monks and scholars.[citation needed] Such translations were generally in the form of prose or as interlinear glosses (literal translations above the Latin words). Very few complete translations existed during that time.Rather, most of the books of the Bible existed separately[citation needed] and were read as individual texts.Thus, the sense of the Bible as history that often exists today did not exist at that time. Instead, a more allegorical rendering of the Bible was more common[citation needed] and translations of the Bible often included the writer’s own commentary on passages in addition to the literal translation.

Toward the end of the 7th century, the Venerable Bede began a translation of scripture into Old English (also called Anglo-Saxon). Aldhelm (c. 639â€"709) translated the complete Book of Psalms and large portions of other scriptures into Old English

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_translations_of_the_Bible