Why is the pope so special??

[thewiz]

I think if you read some of the books that have been written on modern day popes you'll find that many had no desire to take up the task. I remember Karol Wotija (John Paul II) saying how he prayed that he would NOT be selected and that as he was fitted with the official symbols of the office he was anything but elated. It is also what probably killed John Paul I as the weight and breadth of the office was simply too much for his weak heart.

The pope's greatest title is actually "Bishop of Rome." He is the greatest of equals meaning that his office is Bishop but that in a large group, someone has to lead. The others in the group (College of Cardinals) have chosen him to be the speaker for the group and to make sure that everyone speaks with a common language. Yes, he has some perks, but he also carries the responsibility of all the souls entrusted to his care....I guess if I was going to stand before God and have that checked on my list, I might cry a little myself!

He is the successor to Peter who was not Christ. Christ had to have someone lead the group of followers he was leaving. The keys that Peter is given in Scripture symbolized that person receiving a leadership role. Peter was equal to the other apostles but when it came time to lead the meeting, Peter took that role. He was not Christ nor did he ever claim to be. He tried to carry out the message that Christ had left.

When controversy arose in the early church, Paul went to Jeruselem and met with the apostles (remember Paul was a convert not an apostle). Who was mentioned as leading? Peter.

So Benedict is the successor to Peter, chosen by his equals with guidance from the Holy Spirit to speak for them and be the leader with the responsibilities and duties of running the world-wide church, but remains equal to them. When he speaks, he speaks with the authority granted to him.

He does have a cool place in Rome though!

 

[lukylok]

Le pape est mort
Un nouveau pape est appelé à regner
Araignée, quel drôle de nom !
Pourquoi pas libellule ou papillon ?


Jacques Prévert famous french poet

For those of you who understand french....

 

[irydion]

also forgot to mention around 400AD the church was split in two, there were then effectively 2 popes, 1 in rome for the western roman empire, 1 in constaninople (istanbul) for the eastern roman empire (byzantine). That split is still there as theres the pope in rome for catholics, and the patriarch in istanbul for the orthodox christians, most of eastern europe, the balkans, greece, russia, armenia etc are orthodox, not catholic. whereas some of western europe is catholic, except probaby only the uk, the queen is defender of the faith here. which forms part of her official title. Her Most Excellent Majesty Queen Elizabeth the 2nd, of Great Britain, northern ireland and commonwealth states, Defender of the Faith. to giver her, her official title.

OMG what a load of uh, not true.

1) there aren't two popes. There used to be 3 great patriarchates in Roman Empire (Rome, Alexandria, Antioch), later 5 (added Jerusalem and Constantinople). To cut long story short, these were the most important bishops of the world, with their own spheres of influence. They were chosen because these were the most important cities of the empire, and some of the oldest christian centres. Also, they claimed being established by the apostles, though Rome's claim to St Peter is, uh, disputable, because while he did establish the christianity in Rome, and he died there, he was bishop of Antioch and there is no early proof he was regarded the bishop of Rome.

Anyway, Rome grew in power, because:
- it was teh capital
- there weren't other strong christian communities in the west, while the east of the empire had 4 patriarchates, at least 2 more cities aspiring to the patriarchal status (Ephesus, Caesarea Maritima), many archbishoprics (except for Alexandrian patriarchate)
- Roman bishops preached that the passage of the Evangelia saying "You are the rock I will build my kingdom on" (or whatever) refered to St Peter and his successors - the bishops of Rome, while the east claimed that these words refered to St Peter and his successors - all bishops, or all clergy.

It was obvious for everyone in the antiquity the pope is the first of bishops, but for the east he was just first of patriarchs, and for the west he was more and more than that.

As the Constantinople was built, and it became the capital, the bishops of it forged claim that it was St Andrew the apostle who was the first bishop of it, and claimed equal rights with bishop of Old Rome, as they were the bishops of New Rome. This was recognised by eastern synodes, but not by the pope. Still, pope was considered the first of patriarchs, and the patriarch of C-ple the second of them.

As the eastern patriarchates drowned in the arian, nestorian, and monophysite controversies, the role of the pope grew, as the west of empire was not influenced by the greek philosophy, was therefore not prone to heresies of that sort, and in general pope served as the judge in the quarrels between other patriarchates.

It's de facto Alexandria that was the strongest patriarchate but Rome, and there was an Alexandrian - Roman alliance versus Constantinople, which was often under the influence of Antioch. But as Alexandria and Egypt became almost clearly monophysite, and as Antioch became torned into different factions, and later, as Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were taken by muslims, de facto only Rome and Constantinople were left as the leaders of the free church.

Again, each time the emperor had problems with patriarch of Constantinople, he could nicely turn to the pope in order to depose them.


the differences between the east and the west grew, because the west resigned of greek language in favour of latin at some point.

Apart from that, during the iconoclasm controversy in Byzantium, the popes sided with the icons. Result - their properties in southern Italy confiscated, Greece and southern Italy as well as western balkans transphered to the patriarchate of Co-ple (yes, greece was originally "catholic" in meaning that they belonged to roman patriarchate), but pope is almost a ruler of central italian byzantine posessions.
later on pope turns to Franks, Papal States established.

Also, once there was a well-studied man named Photius. The patriarch of C-ple Ignatius
was deposed and Photius took his place. But Ignatius turned to pope for help. A long battle ensued, during which a quarrel over missionary teritories in eastern europe and the case of Filioque arose. Now filioque means "and son" in latin. There were two views about the origins of Holy Spirit, both ancient. One was that it came from the Father, and the other that it came from both father and the son. Photius accused pope of heresy, as pope prefered the "and from the son" addition. There were some other minor conflict areas as well. This was the first big east-west battle in the church, but that was overcomen.

The pope frowned upon the use of term "ecumenic patriarch" by the patriarch of Constantinople, because it usurped his role as the first of patriarchs.
--> 1054 "great schism", which was just another temporary conflict.
The real schism came with the crusades, and especially the IV one. Still, pope is nominally the first of patriarchs also for the orthodox.

But the patriarch of Alexandria used the title "pope" as well.

Current Benedict did make one important move - he resigned of the ancient "Patriarch of the West" title, which is emphasising papal universal rule, and was very badly perceived by the orthodox.

2) There are more protestant countries than UK...
In fact these days catholicism is the biggest denomination in UK thanks to atheism.
traditionally protestant countries include:
- Iceland
-Norway
-Sweden
-Finland
-Denmark
-Estonia
-Latvia (but, again, nowdays there are more catholics than protestants)
-Netherlands (but, again, nowdays there are probably more catholics than protestants)
-northern germany
-Switzerland is halfly protestant

3) Armenia is monophysite, not orthodox.

 

[irydion]

Pius XII (1939-1958 )was a hardliner who refused to speak out against the atrocities committed by Hitler during WWII. he pretty much ignored the horrors of the Holocaust.

He was publically praised for his help to Jews during the war for two decades, until a communist magazine accused him of cooperation with nazis and this label sticked to him.
Golda Meir was among the ones that praised him a lot. Rabbi of Rome converted to catholicism and took him as his godfather as a sign of gratitude for his role in saving the Jews.

He did not speak openly - why would he. The previous pope condemned nazizm already, and open condemnation of nazizm would result in, among other not-so-good stuff, death to all the Jews being hidden in catholic monasteries, and there were quite some of them.

 

[Jory]

Uh, then who makes the unforms for the Swiss Guard today?

Yes. Totally agree.

Tourist, most of the Guards are plain clothed

 

[irydion]

I also love a man who knows his Byzantine history.

why thank You

 

[Críostóir]

He isn't.

I'm a Pope myself.

And my friend Susan is a Mome.

 

[AsianDream]

This answer is from a somewhat/somehow practissing roman catholic: The pope is NOT special in any way, he is just a man who burp, fart and scratch his nuts like the rest of us...

Also the Papacy has a very lurid history for those that are interested see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church.

Suffice it say that many Popes have not been very nice people. though of the modern ones only Pope Pius XII (known as "Hitler's Pope") has any substantive evidence against him of wrong doing.

 

[LATNMUSCL]

I'm a Roman Catholic, Baptized, Confirmated, and educated in a Catholic school the first 6 years of my formative years, and I do not know why the Pope is so special. Aside from Jesus and several of His Apostles, I've never given any importance to anyone politically inducted into an office representing the Almighty by virtue of popularity. The pope has never been the "be all to end all" to me. I don't need him to speak to GOD! I can taik to GOD whenever I want and HE/SHE/IT will hear me.






















eHe is NOT! We all know that he (the position on that offce) did not proect the lives of six million people

 

[FrodoTX]

The Pope as the head of the Catholic Church is mostly about peace and love....so anyone can respect him for that. As to the religious teachings, as an ex-Catholic, dont agree. But at least we can all agree to him as a symbol of peace and love. (and you gotta love those Prada shoes of his)

 

[FrodoTX]

Can I add more? I saw John Paul II in person, very charismatic...kinda like the Obama of religion...you just had to love this guy...the new Pope, no charisma, so most non-Catholics have no connection to him.

 

[Críostóir]

The Pope as the head of the Catholic Church is mostly about peace and love....so anyone can respect him for that. As to the religious teachings, as an ex-Catholic, dont agree. But at least we can all agree to him as a symbol of peace and love. (emphasis added)

I beg to differ. He is a symbol of hate and conflict to me. I hated him for 20 years as Cardinal Rat, because he was the one who pushed the Church's antigay agenda as hard as it got pushed, and protected it against the perspectives of such dangerous heretics as Matthew Fox. He wrote the encyclical condoning queer-bashing,* for example.

I see no reason to stop hating him now that he's traded his red zucchetto for a white one. He's just Pope Rat instead of Cardinal Rat, that's all.

And he's gone out of his way to antagonize the Moslem community, when his not-great-but-clearly-better predecessor had been building bridges to them. He's maintained deniability (at least to some within the Church), but he's too smart to do something so stupid unintentionally.

You may disagree with what I've said here, but in any case it is clear that we cannot "all agree" that he's a symbol of peace and love, because I, for one (and I'm not alone), think he's Darth Sidious in white.

_____
*Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (i.e. the Inquisition), of which Cardinal Rat was the head, 1986. Read section 10, which has two paragraphs: one that "deplores" violence against gays, and one that smugly asserts that we deserve it for claiming that we're not sick and deserve civil rights. Fucking twisted hypocritical shit.

 

[Críostóir]

Can I add more? I saw John Paul II in person, very charismatic...kinda like the Obama of religion...you just had to love this guy...the new Pope, no charisma, so most non-Catholics have no connection to him.

Old Pope: Misguided but charming.

New Pope: Charmless and consciously, deliberately evil.

 

[FrodoTX]

OK, I hear you...so how do you compare him to the Islamic gurus (whatever they are called) who use their religion to promote terrorism??

 

[Críostóir]

OK, I hear you...so how do you compare him to the Islamic gurus (whatever they are called) who use their religion to promote terrorism??

He promotes a hundred million small terrorisms; the few Islamic radicals who promote terrorism plan and finance a much smaller number of much larger attacks. But they are not mainstream in Islam, whereas he IS mainstream in Christianity.

('Guru' is a Hindi word meaning "teacher." It's not a term used within Islam as such, though a Moslem I know uses it to mean a music instructor (among other things).)

 

[2boyzukuk]

And then lets add the popes refusal to accept that condoms are and effective barrier to hiv not just birth control so in not allowing the faithful to use them without fear of divine punishment the last 2 popes have condemned millions of people around the world to an early death which as far as i can see makes them very evil murderers who should be held to task.

 

[irydion]

This is hypocrisy...
The church doesn't condemn them to death. Au contraire.
The church doesn't say to them: "fuck around with everybody without condoms", but that:

1) Sex should be done only in marriage
2) Sex should be done for procreation mostly
-->Sex shouldn't be done with condoms.

It's a full packet. If someone choses just one of these options, and gets aids, he shouldn't blame the church.

You may dislike Ratzinger, but he is not solely responsible for stance on gays. Sorry, but that's the biblical tradition and it can't be changed easily.

These milions of small terrorism is an idiotism. People call terrorism everything they don't like these days.

 

[longinus]

Exactly, Irydion.

The Church's stance on condoms has solely to do with heterosexual sex in a marital context. It has nothing whatsoever to do with non-marital sex or gay sex, both of which the Church defines as sinful and unacceptable. So, whether you have non-marital sex with a condom or without a condom, the Church officially doesn't really give a fig. It just doesn't want its married couples to use barrier methods of contraception.

Now, arguably, the Church should officially give a fig. It could say, for instance, "We don't endorse this kind of sex, but given that people both in the Church and outside the Church will continue to do it no matter what we say, we have no problem with handing out condoms in order to stop the spread of disease and reduce the number of abortions."

Ditto on Pope Benedict XVI. I'm actually a big fan of his, though I don't agree with him on every topic. It's ridiculous to somehow single him out as some great enemy of gay people, when he's merely holding the line on what has been the traditional Christian teaching.

Actually, gay Catholics have made great strides since Ratzinger's been active in the Church. Since the 1970's the Church has taken a more moderate position (compared with, say, traditional Christian homophobic attitudes and the relentless persecution of homosexuals in ancient, medieval and early modern times). For the first time in church history, gay people have been recognized as persons with dignity, and homosexual orientation has been recognized as something that is given (the Church doesn't speculate on the ) and morally neutral (that is, no one is immoral simply because he or she has this orientation).

However, the Church still has a long way to go in recognizing that this orientation is not "disordered" (different, though, from immoral) and that same-sex genital acts are not always gravely evil or sinful. I believe that the Church will change its tune on these things (as is happening in other Christian Churches, such as in parts of the Anglican Communion). Probably not in my lifetime, of course ...

 

[irydion]

I must sadly notice that the stance of the RCC on gays has deteriorated lately. In the catechismus of some years ago, it was mostly about blah blah, lets all love gays and accept them, having such feelings is not bad, but activities are.

Now, however, compulsory tests are supposed to check if candidates for priests do not have by any chance "deep-rooted homosexual tendences", and while it is not exactly sad such people shall be banned from entering seminaries, it is what the church wants.

Sadly, it comes partly from linking homosexualism with paedophilia, as the clergymen point out that most people molested by priests were young boys. Of course, these were altar boys, and they were molested because they were, uh, available. So gays, or at least gay paedophiles, may have a bit higher temptations here. But, in general, I think it's evil to exclude gays because of that. It may reinforce a stereotype that gays are pedos.

It comes also from the fact that in seminary, there are only men... so gays may have bigger temptations...

But, again, the same church should mesure libido of all priest candidates and disalow clergy for the most horny or whatever.

 

[longinus]

Well, I agree with you there, Irydion. Lately the Church has become a lot more ridiculous on the topic of gays in the priesthood. I'm all for getting rid of pedophiles in the priesthood, obviously, but the scapegoating of gay men for this evil is absolutely unconscionable. And then there's also the Church meddling in the whole Proposition 8 thing. Sigh ...