|
|
Post by pim on Mar 13, 2013 15:12:11 GMT 10
Cyberspace is all a-twitter with this new and latest obsession. It seems that news organisations (the tabloids are the worst!) who normally couldn't care less about the Catholic Church unless it's to do with kiddie fiddling are all agog with the question: who will be the next Pope? Or Pontiff? It doesn't matter that most of these illiterate journos are clueless about the meaning of "pontiff" - in fact the word is of pagan origin and is derived from the Latin pontifex = bridge builder. Let them chew on that one! - but they love to throw the word around. So "pontiff" it is! So ... if you're obsessed about who the next "pontiff" is going to be, if you go onto one of several sites that let you know instantly if the smoke screens tell you whether it's "Habemus Papam" or not ... I guess that makes you a "pontificator"  |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 13, 2013 15:34:03 GMT 10
I'd have thought an agnostic wouldn't give a tinker's cuss about it either? I do in a big picture sense. I think the Catholic Church is an important part of the global scene and that what's going on in Rome right now matters. The Catholic Church has influenced and shaped the world down through the ages - both for good and evil. I don't share the cynicism and the sneering that you get from members on the board - whether it's the obsessive ideological mantras from Matt or the radical chic counter culture phony "cool" shallow pretend atheism that you get from KTJ. It's true that the Catholic Church is in deep crisis over the issue of child sexual abuse. I've regularly posted on this and have called it the most profound moral and spiritual crisis to hit the Catholic Church since the Reformation of 500 years ago. I stand by that characterisation. I know about the Protestant Reformation and I'm aware of the depth of the crisis of that period in history for Christianity and indeed for Western Civilisation. No Protestant Refomation, no modern Western nation state as we understand the term. No western intellectual tradition. No scientific revolution that gave us the modern world. So when I say that the current spiritual and moral crisis in Catholicism over the issue of child abuse is as big as the Protestant Reformation, I do so in full understanding of the significance of that comparison. I see no contradiction or conflict between that perspective and my being an agnostic. In fact an atheist could also view it in the same light. Is there a problem? |
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 13, 2013 15:37:26 GMT 10
I like this one.. These are the contenders www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-12/next-pope-top-10-contenders/4567312This one is the best looking, healthy and happiest one of the contenders and The French Canadian man looks fairly Pope Like too...  Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn Austrian, aged 68 However... this one is equally appealing looking too... Cardinal Peter Turkson Ghanaian, aged 65  This one is downright scary and having wonky eyes like this ...he probably suffers insanity. Cardinal Peter Erdo Hungarian, aged 60  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2013 15:49:17 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 13, 2013 15:53:24 GMT 10
I do have a view that the Catholic Church is just as capable of being a force for good as it has been a force for evil. What makes the election of a new Pope important is that on that choice hangs the direction that the church will take under a new pontificate. The most urgent issue is that of the abuse of children by the clergy and the culture of cover up. It's going to require leadership. The stench emanating from the Vatican Curia and its byzantine bureaucracy over these cover ups makes the Augean Stables smell pleasantly perfumed. Read up on how Hercules cleaned out the Augean Stables and you get an idea of the scale of the task. Will the geriatric that these cardinals end up electing have the energy and commitment to do what needs to be done? What does "TU ES PETRUS" mean if the Pope is helpless to effect the changes that are needed?
There's also the issue of divorce, priestly celibacy and women in the priesthood. Not to mention other issues. But they can wait. If the cardinals end up appointing someone who is as courageous a reformer as John XXIII, and he actually does something about the scourge of child abuse, then that will be enough for one pontificate.
Regarding the other reforms - the one about married priests is, I feel, germane to child sexual abuse. Maybe they'll find that they can't really deal with child sexual abuse until they open up the whole question of gender and marriage within the Catholic Church. Maybe the issue of child sexual abuse isn't something that can be dealt with as a stand alone issue but is connected with everything else.
I did say, didn't I, that as a crisis this issue of child sexual abuse is as big as the Protestant Reformation of 500 years ago!
Don't expect that an African Pope or a South American Pope is going to lead the Catholic Church into a spurt of reform like John XIII. These are very conservative societies with rigid views on gender and sex. A European Pope would be better from that point of view ...
|
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 13, 2013 16:41:05 GMT 10
I do have a view that the Catholic Church is just as capable of being a force for good as it has been a force for evil. What makes the election of a new Pope important is that on that choice hangs the direction that the church will take under a new pontificate. The most urgent issue is that of the abuse of children by the clergy and the culture of cover up. It's going to require leadership. The stench emanating from the Vatican Curia and its byzantine bureaucracy over these cover ups makes the Augean Stables smell pleasantly perfumed. Read up on how Hercules cleaned out the Augean Stables and you get an idea of the scale of the task. Will the geriatric that these cardinals end up electing have the energy and commitment to do what needs to be done? What does "TU ES PETRUS" mean if the Pope is helpless to effect the changes that are needed? There's also the issue of divorce, priestly celibacy and women in the priesthood. Not to mention other issues. But they can wait. If the cardinals end up appointing someone who is as courageous a reformer as John XXIII, and he actually does something about the scourge of child abuse, then that will be enough for one pontificate. Regarding the other reforms - the one about married priests is, I feel, germane to child sexual abuse. Maybe they'll find that they can't really deal with child sexual abuse until they open up the whole question of gender and marriage within the Catholic Church. Maybe the issue of child sexual abuse isn't something that can be dealt with as a stand alone issue but is connected with everything else. I did say, didn't I, that as a crisis this issue of child sexual abuse is as big as the Protestant Reformation of 500 years ago! Don't expect that an African Pope or a South American Pope is going to lead the Catholic Church into a spurt of reform like John XIII. These are very conservative societies with rigid views on gender and sex. A European Pope would be better from that point of view ... My brother married in the Catholic Church because he married a Catholic woman and she insisted on it. They divorced two children later. She wanted to remarry and my brother was dragged up to the Church to sign something so their marriage was annulled or something.... I'm not all that sure what he was talking about a couple of weeks ago when he relayed the story to me.. I half expect the Black dude to win since Africa is now a stronghold for the growth in Catholicism. I put him in 3rd... My trifecta would be... 1st place - Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn Austrian, aged 68 2nd Place - Cardinal Marc Ouellet French Canadian, aged 68 3rd Place - Cardinal Peter Turkson Ghanaian, aged 65 Since it's been years and years that an Italian has had the job... I put them in 4th Place... I don't think we'll get the places tho.. we'll only find out the winner so it's all speculation. Women can serve in the Church unless a man is about... then they cannot. That probably won't change. The best thing a new pope could do would be to lift a ban on condoms. That would should be their first reform. People would readily accept that I think. |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 13, 2013 16:44:10 GMT 10
Splendid, Caskur! I dub thee Board Pontificator! Take a bow! |
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 13, 2013 16:48:48 GMT 10
It doesn't matter that most of these illiterate journos are clueless about the meaning of "pontiff" - in fact the word is of pagan origin and is derived from the Latin pontifex = bridge builder. Let them chew on that one! - but they love to throw the word around. So "pontiff" it is! Well, then the use of Pontiff would be correct since he represents the bridge between the sinning masses and God. Like Aaron was with the Ancient Israelites. That is how I interpret it. |
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 13, 2013 16:51:21 GMT 10
Splendid, Caskur! I dub thee Board Pontificator! Take a bow! you know, I once witnessed to a Bishop who lived at the Vatican with Pope John Paul... did you know John Paul actually used to ask after to me... that is a true story... The connection was through the Buhagiar family East Fremantle. |
|
|
|
Post by Salem on Mar 13, 2013 18:47:31 GMT 10
As long as its not Pell. A fellow victim and friend of dad's reported to Pell that he was molested when he was 8 years old. Want to know Pell's response? It will sicken you.... He told the man he must have done something to lead the Brother on.
An 8 year old boy. He was suggestive and lead the Brother on. An 8 year old boy. An 8 year old boy would think about leading on a Brother? What does it say about an adult's mind that they think an eight year old child 'lead on' an adult? How does one come at that conclusion?
I kid you not. Its true. What sort of sick f**k would even THINK to suggest such a thing about an 8 year boy. It says a lot about what a sick truly warped and messed up psyche he has.
|
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 13, 2013 19:22:00 GMT 10
As long as its not Pell. A fellow victim and friend of dad's reported to Pell that he was molested when he was 8 years old. Want to know Pell's response? It will sicken you.... He told the man he must have done something to lead the Brother on. An 8 year old boy. He was suggestive and lead the Brother on. An 8 year old boy. An 8 year old boy would think about leading on a Brother? What does it say about an adult's mind that they think an eight year old child 'lead on' an adult? How does one come at that conclusion? I kid you not. Its true. What sort of sick f**k would even THINK to suggest such a thing about an 8 year boy. It says a lot about what a sick truly warped and messed up psyche he has. Yes. They always blame victims. No person should leave their children alone with single men... and all parents need to tell their children about ANYONE touching them without permission is not on and they should report it straight away!. Fair enough you can't stand Pell. |
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 14, 2013 4:15:55 GMT 10
They have a Pope... white smoke!!
|
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 14, 2013 5:34:44 GMT 10
Don't expect that an African Pope or a South American Pope is going to lead the Catholic Church into a spurt of reform like John XIII. These are very conservative societies with rigid views on gender and sex. A European Pope would be better from that point of view ... Well, I lost my trifecta and it looks like you did too....lol We have an Argentinian Pope. |
|
|
|
Post by jody on Mar 14, 2013 6:23:23 GMT 10
yes another "elderly" man who will lose his marbles within 10 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by fat on Mar 14, 2013 6:48:24 GMT 10
Pim - would the word 'pontoon' be a remnant of 'pontifex'?
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 14, 2013 9:26:59 GMT 10
Fat, both are ultimately derived from the Latin word for "bridge".
There are 5 declensions of noun in Latin. In other words five different sets of endings that they can take. So it's five "classes" of noun, if you like. The Latin word for "bridge" belongs to what we call the "3rd declension" and we refer to it by two words - one is when it's in the nominative ("pons") and the other is when it's in the genitive - or possessive ("pontis"). So any Latin dictionary will give "bridge" as "pons, pontis". For some reason I can't fathom, all the languages that are directly descended from Latin, such as Italian, French and Spanish, form nouns derived from 3rd declension Latin nouns from the Latin genitive form. So the French for "bridge" is "le pont", in Spanish it's "el puente" and in Italian it's "il ponte". All of them masculine because it was masculine in Latin.
So "pontoon" is derived from Latin, but only indirectly since it's come to English via French. But "pontifex" is a Latin loan word.
I think what Caskur said about the image of "pontifex" being the bridge between the sinning masses and God is insightful and probably spot on. The chief priest in pagan Rome used to be called "Pontifex Maximus" and he would be the one to officiate at the sacrifice on official occasions when some poor animal would be slaughtered. Julius Caesar was a "Pontifex Maximus" among all his other titles. I know that the Pope inherited that title as Christianity became the only show in town.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 14, 2013 11:10:40 GMT 10
Just reflecting a little more on Caskur's "pontifex" point about bridges between sinners and God, isn't that what the Protestant Reformers of the 1500s "protested" about? Wasn't it Martin Luther who argued for the "priesthood of all believers" and that by getting rid of the whole panoply of popes, cardinals, bishops and priests you'd return to a purer and simpler earlier form of Christianity? That by setting up a paradigm in which a human being calls himself a "bridge" between humans and God what you've in fact done is construct a very powerful bureaucracy - God Inc - that becomes self-serving and corrupt. Just look at the magnificence of St Peter's Basilica - all financed by the sale of indulgences hundreds of years ago by either the Medici or the Borgia popes whose leitmotiv was "God has been pleased to grant the papacy into our hands. Let us now enjoy it!"
The party continues ...
|
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 14, 2013 15:43:46 GMT 10
Each baptised Christian is supposedly a minister of God. The mediator between themselves and God is Jesus Christ. When they offer a prayer to God, they do it through Jesus or in Jesus name and he is the equivalent of Aaron in the old Mosaic system offering their prayers to God. However, the Catholics think Jesus is God hence the Pope is the mediator. Then you start getting into that trinity thingy which isn’t founded in the Bible at all.. But anyway …
Those early Christians knew that too and so Martin Luther probably actually read the Bible parts and understood them. Martin Luther was the one who worked out that the Archangel Michael in the Bible book of Revelation is in fact Jesus Christ. Archangel means Chief angel…. But he isn’t Almighty God. That is the difference between the Catholic religion and the Protestant religions but these days, no one can tell them all apart really.
Throughout mankind’s journey from Adam until now there have always been a remnant on earth. Actual people who are pure and faithful when most of us aren’t.
This new pope… This one is very special. This one is a Jesuit. I was reading up about them before I crashed this morning. I think this is going to be a new era for the Catholics followers… ie good works!!
|
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 14, 2013 16:40:09 GMT 10
Last night during the early hours of the morning I was watching channel ABC 24 after I got off the computer and thought I would go to bed and I saw this very weird looking man so stuck around and kept watching. I felt like something was about to happen and sure enough, I got to see the white smoke and stayed up far longer than I intended... I grabbed my camera and took a picture... this man had a real caricature face. Have a look at his nose and heavy brow, ... this is one of the most unique schnozz I have ever seen... I took plenty of pictures last night but this one will do.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2013 10:24:30 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 16, 2013 5:08:56 GMT 10
Well, then the use of Pontiff would be correct since he represents the bridge between the sinning masses and God. Actually, that was Jesus. "No man cometh to the Father but by me" John 14:6 Might be my protestant inclinations, but to me the Pope is nothing more than a glorified priest. |
|
|
|
Post by fat on Mar 16, 2013 7:04:18 GMT 10
Then again - if he is 'glorified' that makes him something special.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 16, 2013 8:23:27 GMT 10
He's special to Roman Catholics.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 16, 2013 9:46:17 GMT 10
Dib, I can't hang around to discuss this with you today but I thought I'd leave you with a c & p I got from an article by a certain Rev. Prof. Dr Francis Nigel Lee who is something called a "Professor of Systematic Theology" at a Presbyterian Theological College in Brisbane. It seems that Martin Luther was very strident in his condemnation of the Pope - not just any individual Pope but the institution of the Papacy. For Luther, your suggestion that the Pope was merely a "glorified priest" would have been monstrous. He lived, as the article points out, at a time when Western Christianity was dominated by the most obscene corruption in the Papacy under the Medicis and the Borgias, and Eastern Christianity was being progressively being swallowed up by the Muslim Turks. Luther's time was also the time of the Fall of Constantinople so it did seem to people alive at the time that Armageddon was at hand. Bad as the Turks were, and full of menace as was their expansion through Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary and the Balkans - ultimately right up to Vienna which they unsuccessfully besieged, Luther identifies the Pope as a worse enemy than the Muslims: www.dr-fnlee.org/docs/loiatp/loiatp.pdfLuther on Pagan Rome and the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire in Daniel chapter two. In the Biblical Book of Daniel, Luther saw both Islam and the Papacy predicted. In his 1530 Preface to the Book of Daniel, on the subject of the four successive segments in the image of a man seen by King Nebuchadnezzar in his dream, Luther first of all makes the following remarks. "The first kingdom [viz. the head of the image] is that of the Assyrians or Babylonians; the second [viz. the shoulders], that of the Medes and Persians; the third [viz. the waist], that of Alexander the Great and the Greeks; the fourth [viz. the legs of the image], that of the Romans. Everyone agrees on this view and interpretation. Subsequent events and the histories, prove it conclusively.... "Daniel has most to say about the Roman Empire," explains Luther. "At the end [2:41-45], where the iron legs begin to divide into the toes of the feet, Daniel points out three things about the Roman Empire. "The first is that the toes are divided, although they retain their origin in the iron feet. Just as in the human body the toes separate while projecting from yet belonging to the foot -- so also was the Roman Empire split as Spain, France...and other parts [after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the fifth century A.D.].... Nevertheless, it has continued to grow.... Yet this has occurred in such a way that its nature as iron was retained. For the Empire still has its estates, offices, laws, and statutes -- as of old.... "The second thing [Daniel here points out, is] that these divided toes are dissimilar -- partly iron and partly clay.... Now it is mighty; now weak. This too has come to pass. Often there have been numerous brave emperors like Charlemagne [768-814 A.D.], the three Ottos [936-1002 A.D.], and others -- who were unconquerable.... This is said, however, in order that we might know that the Roman Empire is to be the last, and that no one will be able to destroy it save Christ alone and His Kingdom. Therefore, even though many monarchs may have risen...and the Turks may rage...and even though all such enemies may perhaps win an occasional battle - they are still unable to conquer... Up until now, experience -- with respect to both the Popes themselves and the kings -- has borne this out. "The mountain from which the stone is cut without human hands [2:45]..., signifies the whole Jewish people from whom Christ sprang. He is their flesh and blood, but has been torn from them and has come among the Gentiles. Among the Gentiles, He has become a Lord in all the World -- in all four of these kingdoms [to which Daniel refers] -- and will so remain!" Luther on Islam and the Papacy as the two legs of the image in Daniel chapter two Christ, the Stone in Daniel chapter two, at His Resurrection shattered the Pagan Roman Empire -- in principle. Ephesians 1:20f & 4:8-10, and Colossians 2:12-15. Then, from A.D. 600 onward, that shattered Roman Empire divided into two legs -- as predicted in Daniel’s explanation of the dream of Nebuchadnezzar. The left leg became the Western Roman Empire, under the Papacy in Rome. The right leg, the Eastern Roman Empire, with its capital Constantinople, later succumbed to Islam -- under the Turk Mohammed II.and his awesome armies in 1453.“The Turk and the Pope,” explained Luther, “do not differ at all in the form of religion; they vary only in words and ceremonies. For the Turk observes his and Moses’ ceremonies; yet the Pope, partly Christian ceremonies and partly such as were born of his own brain.... “Just as the Turk violates the washings of Moses, so the Pope [too] does violence to Baptism and the Sacrament [of the Eucharist]. And just as the former does not stay with Moses, so the latter does not stay purely with Christ.” Rev. Dr. Martin Luther continues: “The Pope, with his followers, commits a greater sin than the Turk and all the Heathen.... The Turk.forces no one to deny Christ and to adhere to his [own Islamic] faith.... Though he rages most intensely by murdering Christians in the body -- he, after all, does nothing by this but fill heaven with saints.... “The Pope does not want to be either enemy or Turk... He [the Pope] fills hell with nothing but ‘Christians’.... This is committing real spiritual murder, and is every bit as bad as the teaching and blasphemy of Mohammed and the Turks. But whenever men do not allow him [the Pope] to practice this infernal diabolical seduction -- he adopts the way of the Turk, and commits bodily murder too.... “The Turk is an avowed enemy of Christ[ianity]. But the Pope is not. He is a secret enemy and persecutor, a false friend. For this reason, he is all the worse!” |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 16, 2013 14:10:00 GMT 10
Don't think that just because I am protestant, that I am going to defend Luther, pim.
I don't agree with a lot he believed, either.
|
|
