Posted on 02/23/2005 3:25:35 PM PST by dangus
The Pope is widely reported to have suggested in 2003 that he had not yet elevated his successor. Shortly thereafter, he convened a consistory and elevated 30 new Cardinals. Here are the stars of that group.
Tarcisio Bartone, 70, Abp. Of Genoa, Italy:
Served as Sec. of the Doctrine of the Faith, under Joseph Ratzinger, 1995-2002.
Dean of the Faculty of Canon Law of Pontifical Salesian University, Rome, 1979-1985.
Has represented JPII in dealings with Fatima, drawing ire from Fatima conspiractists who consider that he has contradicted himself.
Juilo Herranz, 75
President of Interpretation of Legislative Texts, the highest authority on Canon Law in the curia under the Pope, 1994-present.
Member of Opus Dei.
Peter Erdo, 52, Abp. Of Budapest, Hungary
He could weather a long papacy by another pick, and still be young to be the subsequent Pope. (Would that make him Peter the Roman? ;^) )
Served as Dean and Rector of the Theological academy.
Francisco Marchisano, 74, Arch-priest of the Basilica of St. Peter in Rome, Italy
Won indult for tridentine masses.
President of Pontifical Commissions on Cultural Heritage of the Church, 1993-2004
President of Pontifical Commissions on Sacred Archaeology, 1991-2004.
Renato Martino, 72
President of the Pontifical Council on Peace and Justice, Roman Curia, 2002-present.
Permanent Observer of the United Nations, 1986-2002.
Has some stupid things regarding the war in Iraq, such as lamenting how Saddam Hussein was humiliated by having pictures of his dental inspection shown, but he’s actually far less anti-American and pro-France than his predecessors. Not that that isn’t easy. Very outspoken against cloning, condoms as a means to fighting AIDS, and abortion; and in favor of traditional families and genetically modified foods. Sharply criticized EU commissioners over the Buttiglione affair, calling it a new and anti-Catholic “inquisition.” Apostate fishwrap, NCReporter considers him one of a handful of “moderates,” comparing him to Mahoney, Lehmann, and Kasper.
Anthony Olubumni Okogie, 67, Abp. of Lagos, Nigeria
Staunch opponent of using condoms to fight the spread of AIDS.
Offered to exchange places with a woman sentenced to die for adultery.
Former Army chaplain.
Marc Ouelette, 59 of Quebec, Canada
Secretary of Christian Unity Council, 2001-present
Fluent in five languages.
Famous for strictly adhering to Catholic teaching on moral (and all other) issues, his selection to head heterodox diocese caused an uproar. Urges young people to practice chastity, reception of sacraments, prayer and self-control.
George Pell, 62, Abp. Of Sydney, Australia
Energetically conservative
President of Vox Clara, responsible for making English liturgical translations more faithful to the Latin.
Headed for professional football (Australian?) before deciding to join seminary.
Justin Rigali, 69, Abp. Of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
President of Pontifical Ecclesiastical College, Rome, 1985-1989
Secretary of Bishops, Roman Curia, 1989-1994.
Outspoken politically, insisting pro-choice politicians be denied communion, but without the negative press that his successor in St. Louis, Abp. Burke, and Bp Sheridan drew.
Required parishes offer Eucharistic adoration.
Member of Vox Clara, a Vatican commission appointed to ensure that ICEL's translations are faithful to the Latin original.
Angelo Scola, 63, Abp. And Patriarch Of Venice, Italy
Rector of the Pontifical Lateran University, 1995-2002
President of the John Paul II Institute on Marriage and the Family, 1995-2002
Peter Turkson, 55, Abp. Of Cape Coast, Ghana
Considered very charismatic (small “c”).
A couple uglies:
Ennio Antonelli, 66, Abp. Of Florence, Italy
Raving anti-American lunatic, who ordered Florence to toll its bells in mourning for U.S. war atrocities in Iraq. No concern shown for the victims of Hussein’s terror.
Philippe Barbarin, 53, of Lyons, France.
Staunch advocate of immigrants, read: Islamofascists in France. “This nomination is geared toward the election of the future pope.” From news reports, a Vatican biographical sketches (http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/documentazione/documents/cardinali_biografie/cardinali_aa_index_elettori_biografie_en.html#List%20of%20Cardinals%20in%20alphabetical%20order), catholic-hierarchy.org
Cardinal Pell: His Controversies [ A PLUS ]
The area in which Pell has received most publicity has been that of Catholic attitudes to sexuality, and particularly homosexuality. "Christian teaching on sexuality is only one part of the Ten Commandments, of the virtues and vices, but it is essential for human wellbeing and especially for the proper flourishing of marriages and families, for the continuity of the human race," Pell said upon becoming Archbishop of Sydney. "Any genuine religion has two important moral tasks; firstly, to present norms and ideals, goals for our striving; and secondly, to offer aids for our weakness, forgiveness and healing for every wrong doer and sinner who repents and seeks forgiveness."
Pell has been outspoken on pre-marital sex, abortion and contraception, as well as subjects such as euthanasia and drug use. He supports the Pope's view that issues such as clerical celibacy and the ordination of women cannot be discussed within the Church. His most controversial act as Archbishop of Sydney has been refusing the sacraments to known or self-declared homosexuals. "Anybody who is sinning seriously should not go to communion," he said in 2001. "So a gay person who has repented, or a gay person who is not active, is more than welcome to communion." Activists of the Rainbow Sash movement of self-declared gay and lesbian Catholics have conducted a running battle with Pell, appearing at St Mary's Cathedral, Sydney wearing rainbow sashes and requesting the sacraments, which Pell has steadfastly refused. In a city which hosts the annual Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras and has become one of the world's great gay cultural centres, this has ensured Pell continuous and mostly hostile media attention.
Pell's dermination to enforce Catholic orthodoxy has made him many enemies within his own Church. "He stands for the kind of Catholicism that we saw in the Middle Ages," said Chris Sidoti, a progressive Catholic and formerly Australia's Human Rights Commissioiner. "He is totally centred around the hierarchy, and dismissive of alternative views." Pell's defenders say that his positions are fully in line with those of the Pope and of Catholic teaching, and that it is his critics who are deviating from the Catholic view of the world. They also defend Pell against the charge that Pell is an extreme political conservative. They point out that he has condemned what he calls the "callousness" of unrestrained capitalism, has criticised the conservative government of John Howard for its hard-line policy of rejecting asylum seekers, and supported the 1999 referendum on whether Australia should become a republic.
All Cardinals proposed can be looked up here:
http://en.wikipedia.org
Thanks for the list.
What a sterling recommendation, Mr. Sidoti. Thank you.
Ten to one says Sidoti is a poofter.
Just for my education, but isn't it believed that the Pope is chosen by God?
One assumes, and the Church fervently prays, that God watches over that process, just like he watches over everything else that happens.
My point is, if the Pope is appointed by God, couldn't a person rest easy in that fact, and not worry about the decision. I would also say that if the Pope is blessed with the gift of infallibility, you would have to assume God must "watch" over the process. Or is it possible for a Pope to be appointed and make an ex cathedra pronouncement, but not be the Pope selected by God?
Take it easy on me here. I'm asking questions because I don't know the answers.
I dunno. Which people? We, or the Cardinal electors? I'd hope the Cardinal electors would pray and think long and hard about it. As for us, we can pray about it, too, but it's not really in our hands to decide.
I think we err when we ... bifurcate what God does from what we do. Trust completely in God to do the right thing, then try as hard as you can to do the right thing. Or as someone (Padre Pio? Mother Teresa?) said, "Pray as if everything depended on God. Work as if everything depended on you."
Or is it possible for a Pope to be appointed and make an ex cathedra pronouncement, but not be the Pope selected by God?
If he's validly elected, he's really the Pope. Some people have speculated on whether a Pope who formally taught heresy would thereby cease to be the Pope (because he'd cease to be a Catholic), but that's speculation.
Well, I guess my question boils down to kind of a chicken or the egg scenario. Does God grant the gift of infallibility to the man humans select, or does He grant that gift to the man He has already selected. The emphasis within the Catholic church on the direct lineage of all Popes to Peter, implies that all Popes carry a seal of approval greater than the title of Pope. If Popes are merely elected by men, their lineage would be no more significant than that of American Presidents. Would God allow Cardinals to vote for a man who is unworthy? And if He did, how would anyone know?
>> Just for my education, but isn't it believed that the Pope is chosen by God? <<
Aw, Geez, Pop. Me and the guys were only havin' a little fun.
No, seriously; that's quite true, but it isn't like they cast lots to pick the Pope. But no, this sorta speculation would be totally unbefitting a Cardinal to do.
>> My point is, if the Pope is appointed by God, couldn't a person rest easy in that fact, and not worry about the decision. <<
Oh, I'm not worried. I also calculated who was going to get what seeds in the NCAA Basketball tournament.
>> I would also say that if the Pope is blessed with the gift of infallibility, you would have to assume God must "watch" over the process. <<
Well, part of how infallibility works is that it isn't the mere opinion of the Pope, but a statement on the eternal teachings of the magisterium. But, yes, you are correct. The Catholic Church does teach that the Holy Spirit does actively intervene to protect the throne of St. Peter from error.
>>Or is it possible for a Pope to be appointed and make an ex cathedra pronouncement, but not be the Pope selected by God? <<
Anti-Popes have occurred. But they have not made false proclamation either, to my knowledge, and they have almost always been concurrent with real Popes. (Mind you, there are gaps between real Popes, due to the lack of a succession clause... it takes time to pick a new one.)
I'm not sure whether an anti-Pope COULD be the only Pope, and be otherwise validly appointed. I do know that Hitler weighed plans to kill the Pope and install his own in what he would call the Holy Roman Empire of Germany. BUt the invalidity of his appointment would be fairly obvious.
Thanks, but no, a few Cardinals one author likes may be found there. And they are all from prior consistories, having been cited as papabili for considerable time. One could call the article dated.
I didn't mean to assert that the 2003 consistory contained the next Pope. It's quite possible the next one will. And it's quite possible the Pope was guessing wrong in what he said; he was certainly not proclaiming it as a fact. (In fact, the Wikipedia article says he was joking... I hadn't heard that said of his comment before.)
... and most of the links are inactive or ask someone else to provide information.
To plainly answer your question. No. The Pope is not chosen by God. The Pope is the bishop of Rome. However he is elected. When he is bishop of Rome he has the office of the Papacy.
The Conclave is designed (in principle) to provide a safe system for protecting the election from Political Machinations. This has had varied success.
It is God's permissive will which allows a man to become Pope.
The Cardinal electors are supposed to pray for enlightenment and they select a man who they think or hope that God will be happy with. When the elected individual says, "I accept" He is instantly the Pope. The Cardinal electors have no power to change their vote or "recall" him in any way. He is the bishop of Rome, no one can remove him.
Thanks. Your answers were very informative.
Did God select the woman I married and give us the graces of matrimony, or did He let me select her and then give us those graces?
You see, it's a kind of meaningless question. If God numbers the very hairs on your head and not a sparrow falls to the ground without His knowledge and permission, then of course He is ultimately in control. Nothing happens without at least His permission (if He doesn't actively cause it).
Would God allow Cardinals to vote for a man who is unworthy?
Of course. Plenty of "unworthy" men have been elected Pope. (Alexander VI, call your office) They were still Popes ... they were just bad Popes.
And if He did, how would anyone know?
Anyone who is elected is elected with God's permission. (Reflect that God can easily prevent someone's election by any of a thousand ways; if necessary, even by ensuring that he is not among the living when the election is held.) If he turns out to be a bad Pope, then God let the Cardinals elect someone unworthy.
The emphasis within the Catholic church on the direct lineage of all Popes to Peter, implies that all Popes carry a seal of approval greater than the title of Pope.
Not sure what you mean by this. All bishops are successors of the Apostles; the Pope is the successor to the Apostle appointed by Christ to head the infant Church.
If Popes are merely elected by men, their lineage would be no more significant than that of American Presidents.
No American President, or ruler of any other nation, has ever been chosen without at least God's permission.
Having said all that, Dangus has answered my original question with an answer that makes perfect sense. His statement here..."Oh, I'm not worried. I also calculated who was going to get what seeds in the NCAA Basketball tournament." is one I can understand, and gives me the proper perspective for which the article at the start of this thread was offered.
That isn't quite true. Anyone who is an authentic prophet "speaks for God". Infallibility does not guarantee that the Pope is an authentic prophet, so it doesn't really mean that the Pope "speaks for God".
What it means, strictly speaking, is that the Pope is preserved from solemnly teaching heresy (to "solemnly teach" something implies that he binds the whole Church to believe it). It tells you nothing about what the Pope will teach, only about what he won't teach.
"Speaking for God" is closer to the gift of inspiration. That's the gift that a true prophet would have, but we aren't guaranteed to have any true prophets since public revelation is closed.
It's correct to say that the Pope acts in Christ's stead in governing the Church -- that's why he's the "Vicar of Christ". Whether everything he does is what Christ would have done, though ... that's not guaranteed, it's something he has to answer for at his particular judgement.
Therefore, I think it is illogical for someone who believes the Pope is a direct successor of Peter to have any concern about which Pope succeeds the current Pope.
As I said, having concern about something doesn't equate to a lack of trust in Divine providence. God gives us the leaders we deserve. Part of deserving a good leader is asking God to provide a good leader. That seems fairly simple.
"The Pope is widely reported to have suggested in 2003 that he had not yet elevated his successor."
“This nomination is geared toward the election of the future pope.”
I would like to know the source of these two quotes and of the information contained therein.
Do you have direct sources for these two quotes or are they your personal interpretation?
Papal infallibility and worthiness is conferred AFTER a man is made Pope. So any eligible man may be voted as Pope, whether he is worthy or not.
Any pronouncements made thereafter will be deemed infallible:
"Whoever hears you hears Me."
"Whatever is bound on Earth is bound in Heaven, whatever is loosed on Earth is Loosed in Heaven."
Since Jesus said it, we are bound by it. We don't have to like it, but we can be assured that it is true, and that the Holy Ghost will guide Christs vicar.
My OPINION is that the choice of the Pope may be guided by the Holy Ghost but is not forced by Him. We all know that not everybody hears Him, and Jesus made no promises of the selection, only that He would honor the results.
"Therefore, I think it is illogical for someone who believes the Pope is a direct successor of Peter to have any concern about which Pope succeeds the current Pope."
The Holy Ghost is involved through the Cardinals in the selection of the Pope. This goes directly to God's allowing will or His positive will. There is no protection that it will be a good or prudent choice, but we hope it will be. There is no protection of infallibility. Remember, infallibility is a negative protection against error anyway.
It is in God's hands whether the selection proves to be good for the Church or not. Not every Pope has been a good one. But God allows certain things sometimes for a reason. He respects man's (even good or evil cardinals') free will.
That's not correct. The Pope is perfectly capable of teaching something without the charism of infallibility being involved. Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I) sets forth the conditions for an infallible Papal teaching.
"progressive"
I've been hating that word for a while now.......
Honorius' blunder was in writing a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople which said that it was okay to teach the Monothelite heresy. He then wrote some subsequent letters which retracted his earlier permission.
The 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia has a long article on the subject, which is impossible to accurate summarize, but here's a brief snippet:
It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned. But he was not condemned as a Monothelite, nor was Sergius. And it would be harsh to regard him as a "private heretic", for he admittedly had excellent intentions.
If he were a heretic in fact, but not in intention, he would not cease to be Pope, because (as the article says) "he died in Catholic communion".
Which one is most likely to be a covert liberal?
Is that papabile or papaphile?
Beats me.
I'm hoping at least one of them has what it takes to make the starting rotation and win 20+ games.
History can be explained away in any number of ways. We can only rely on the written record from the Council. A sitting Pope was a heretic!
The "science" of Apologetics now comes into play.
Unlikely that it would apply, since he wasn't binding the whole Church to a profession of (heretical) dogma. Saying something "may be taught" isn't a definition; even "should be taught" isn't a definition. "Must be taught" would be a definition, but only if it were addressed to the whole Church (a private letter to a bishop wouldn't do it), but that's evidently not what Honorius' heterodox letter said.
Suffice to say Honorius was not convicted for a thought crime.
Of course! What I meant was that infallibility doesn't kick in until a man is Pope, and even then certainly not everything he says is infallible.
I think Protestants, and many Catholics, misunderstand infallibility. It does not mean that the Pope will never make a mistake. It's just that even if a 'mistake' were made speaking ex-cathedra, that that pronouncement would be honored in Heaven - therefore, infalible.
My immediate source for both quotes was a Wikipedia article on Cardinals in the last consistory. That's not a great source, but I had read both quotes in the news when the consitory happened. I really only used the Wikipedia article to confirm the accuracy of my own memory.
Honorius, under duress, permitted, through a private letter (which admittedly did have public reprecussions), a heresy to be taught. I would suggest comparing that to the very careful constructions that Pope John Paul II has used to assert the certainty of his condemnation of abortion.
Lest the Papal correction of the council be misunderstood as a distinction without a difference, PERMITTING something to be taught is hardly the same thing as PROCLAIMING something as an eternal truth. There is a huge difference between saying, "As the highest worldly authority, I assert that This is the eternal truth of the Catholic Church" and saying "This is not necessarily false."
The council, having its findings rejected by the Pope, was not valid on that issue. The Pope did not err; he corrected the council by clarifying that while the prior Pope was morally wrong to permit evil, he did not commit heresy by establishing the truth of what was false. Where di you infer from anything tha I said that the Pope was wrong to have done so?
For a relatively balanced article on the matter:
St. Agatho died before the conclusion of the council. The new pope, Leo II had naturally no difficulty in giving to the decrees of the council the formal confirmation which the council asked from him, according to custom. The words about Honorius in his letter of confirmation, by which the council gets its ecumenical rank, are necessarily more important than the decree of the council itself: "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius,...and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted."
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MODERN CONTROVERSIES ON THE SUBJECT
The condemnation of Pope Honorius was retained in the lessons of the Breviary for 28 June (St. Leo II until the eighteenth century.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA - Pope Honorius I
I grant you can find conflicting interpretations of the role of Pope Leo II in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
That's the beauty of the whole thing. You can sift through it, throw out what you don't like, and accept as absoloute truth that which pleases you.
The fact is, Honorius was Honorius was convicted of heresy and heresy is not a thought crime.
This thread seems timely. Who looks good? Bertone, Ouellet, Pell? Marchisano preached a fine sermon this week.
That really narrows it down.
Ping me when the white smoke appears.
Pell and Ouellet are a bit too young. Bertone's just the right age. Also he’s a protegé of Ratzinger, who may decide to back him. Also, he's supposed to be "good with young people." And best of all, he's Italian. I'm interested in this guy.
A couple of months ago when John Paul II was in hospital, I sat down and carefully studied the list of Cardinal Electors.
All I have to say about that exercise is that if the Holy Spirit was talking to me, He spoke really softly.
I like Scola, but I'd rather avoid another Italian. On paper, Rigali looked good. I don't buy this "no American could be elected Pope" nonsense. I think they'll go with the best guy . But I wasn't impressed by Rigali in Rome.
Hey, if we can't get Lustiger, we can still get Cardinal Gustaaf Joos. 'Cuz you know, anti-Catholic conspiracists love blaming it on da Joos. (Antisemitism and anticatholicism go hand in hand, usually.)
We'll save Peter Erdo to be Peter the Roman.
Pass on Lustiger. Anyway, he's too old.
>> I like Scola, but I'd rather avoid another Italian. <<
Uh, nothing personal... I'm picking up the vibe you might be Italian?
Only by sentiment and affection, not by blood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.