Speculation mounts on who will be next pope

Fox News ^ | February 11, 2013 | Joshua Rhett Miller

[Alex Murphy]

“The entire College of Cardinals has been appointed by Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, therefore it’s extraordinarily unlikely that the next pope will not reflect their collective interpretation of the council, which means in worldly terms, a conservative pope,” said R.R. Reno, editor of First Things magazine and professor of theology at Creighton University, in Omaha, Neb. “So the question is whether the College of Cardinals wants another ‘professor pope’ or do they want someone to kind of deal with the Vatican bureaucracy, or a diplomat?

“I’m not a handicapper and I couldn’t begin to speculate,” he said. “But the common wisdom is these things swing like a pendulum.”

William Hill, Britain's largest bookmaker, offered odds of 3/1 against for Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze, who is 80 and was once the world's youngest bishop. Odds were set at 7/2 for Canadian Cardinal Marc Ouellet and Ghanian Cardinal Peter Turkson.

Irish bookmaker Paddy Power had the same trio as frontrunners, but made Ouellet the favorite. Britain's Ladbrokes had Turkson the leading contender.

Other possible successors include Cardinal Angelo Scola, the archbishop of Milan, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, the archbishop of Vienna and Cardinal Oscar Andres Rodriguez Maradiaga of Honduras.

Whomever is selected, Reno said, will have the initial task of providing a “strong, clear identity and purpose” internationally, particularly in Europe and throughout Latin America.

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York is a “long shot” at best, Reno said.

“It’s not clear that the rest of the church would accept American hegemony,” he said, despite the fact that Dolan backs the pope’s conservative vision.

[SNIP]

When pressed for whom he thought was the leading candidate worldwide, Bretzke selected the 71-year-old Scola, who was appointed Archbishop of Milan by Pope Benedict XVI in June 2011 after serving as Patriarch of Venice

[MeOnTheBeach]

The Pope is not a "secular leader."

No, but a king is.

[MeOnTheBeach]

Men were anointed Priest, Prophet or King, --- all of them in a sacred capacity --- as they were to do God's work offering sacrifices, teaching, and ruling God's people.

To some extent you are correct. However, there is a big difference between and king and a prophet. A prophets first and foremost responsibility is to testify of the coming Messiah. A kings is not. A prophet giving the words of God to the people is scripture. The words of a king is not.

Even though Proverbs is contained in the Bible and are wise words, they are not scripture.

[MeOnTheBeach]

As a born & bred conservative Evangelical Protestant, trained in Evangelical colleges, I find your snide, arrogant anti-Catholic rant to be offensive and displaying an ignorance of both church history and the Catholic Church.





You wanting some a diss?

[wideawake]

Really? So King David was a purely secular figure? A related question: who currently sits on David’s throne?

[Mrs. Don-o]

THis is the first time I have ever heard it said that the Book of Proverbs is not Scripture.

Scripture means, in general, "that which is written," and in a more exact sense, "that which is written and considered sacred in a faith community," in particular, "that which is written in the Bible."

I'm thinking it would be more accurate to say, "The Book of Proverbs is a part of Scripture which is not doctrinal teaching." In other words, one would be specifying that its genre is Scriptural Folk Wisdom, but not Scriptural Parable, or Moral Theology, or Science, or Mystical Theology, or Geography, or Prayer, or Prophecy, or Poetry, or Parable, or Apocalypse.

Thatr is, you have to be aware of the genre of each type of Scripture.

If that's NOT what you're saying, can you explain what you mean?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Well said, FatherofGive.

[MeOnTheBeach]

"Look at the Church in context of Scripture."

Ok, lets. :)

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven. Mat 5:14-15

"So here Christ says His Church will be visible.

umm no. That's absolutely not what He's saying. That's obviously what you want it to say, but notta. Jesus is instructing His followers to be good examples by doing good works. He's telling them to be actively engaged in doing good so that people will see them doing good. By doing good works they glorify God The Father.

This goes hand in hand with Jesus prophetic statement of "By their fruits ye shall know them." Pretty simple.

"One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism.” Eph 4:3-5

Agreed.

"The Church is to be one, not many. “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Mat 6:18

"Here Christ says his Church will not be destroyed."

No. It doesn't say that at all. A very misquoted scripture. Probably the most misquoted in the whole Bible. The "upon this rock" that Christ is referring to, is the scripture before this one.

Matt 16:15
15 He saith unto them, But whom say aye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Then he say:
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

The rock which He will build his Church will be the revealing of the divinity of Jesus Christ by His Father in Heaven by way of the Holy Ghost. Which is the subject of the whole conversation!

Which makes perfect sense. However, claiming to build His Church on a man, especially one that is going to deny Him three times, makes no sense at all.

The gates of hell will never and could never prevail against the Holy Ghost sent by God The Father. Which is what Christ is telling Peter and every single person that has ever read that passage.

Here Christ says, and Paul reaffirms, that the Church will always teach the TRUTH.

You're assuming that this means the Catholic church. Unfortunately, history and the Bible say this just isn't the case. I'll get to this in a minute.

Amos 8
12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the Lord, and shall not find it.

Amos prophesies about the death of the Messiah and the time after. No where in the world will the word of the Lord be found.

2 Timothy 1:15

15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes.

Paul saw it happen right before his eyes. At that time Asia was what is now the western side of Turkey. Ephesus was the capital.

Jesus Himself prophecied about it happening.

If God had recognized Linus as being the head of the Church He would have continued the revelations after the death of Peter. But He didn't. He went to the one whom He really recognized and that was John. And there in 70AD John received a direct revelation from God. Linus didn't.

Then it was over. Men went on to create a church on their own. Jesus commanded us to bless our enemies but the Popes throughout history have murdered, tortured, and oppressed by the millions anyone that dared contradict their religion.

Call it anti-Catholic if you want. But, documented history isn't anti anything. It's just fact. It is, what it is. Nothing more.

I see nothing in history that leads me to conclude that the Catholic church is the continuation of Christ's church.

And by your own words: Here Christ says, and Paul reaffirms, that the Church will always teach the TRUTH.

I agree. As the scripture says, "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

So when I examine the "fruits" of the Catholic church and I see 1500 years of murder, torture, corruption, and general mayhem...and today of institutional homosexuality among their priests and the church itself covering up widespread pedophilia among their priests...I don't see that as the church Jesus calls His. I know.....call me picky. :-)

So if were going to pick the new Pope, I would guess he would have to conform to the Biblical standard of a Bishop, right?

1 Timothy 3:2
2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

hmmm might be a problem. :-)

[MeOnTheBeach]

If that's NOT what you're saying, can you explain what you mean?

Yes, thank you for asking.

My meaning of scripture is the instruction given directly from God through a prophet to man.

In my meaning, it is not just what's contained within the cover, it has an exact origin and purpose.

And very importantly it is binding upon man.

So Proverbs may have wise words and no doubt good words. But they are not binding on me. I will not be held accountable for following them at the judgement. Where as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John contain the commandments of Jesus and are binding on me.

I hope I articulated my thoughts clearly.

[boatbums]

Even though Proverbs is contained in the Bible and are wise words, they are not scripture.

Who told you that??? The book of Proverbs has ALWAYS been considered Divinely inspired Holy Scripture. Every canon, Jewish or Christian, has included Proverbs along with the others as Scripture. In fact, the New Testament contains numerous direct quotations from Proverbs and even calls it "Scripture". For example:

But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble.” (James 4:6)

What is this James calls Scripture? Why:

Toward the scorners he is scornful, but to the humble he gives favor. (Proverbs 3:34)

The Apostle Peter also quotes this verse in I Peter 5:5

Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”

The writer of the book Hebrews quotes Proverbs, too:

And have you completely forgotten this word of encouragement that addresses you as a father addresses his son? It says, “My son, do not make light of the Lord’s discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and he chastens everyone he accepts as his son.” (Hebrews 12:5,6)

My son, do not despise the Lord’s discipline, and do not resent his rebuke, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, as a father the son he delights in.(Proverbs 3:11-12)

Here are some additional cross references in the New Testament to verses from Proverbs:

Romans 2:6 - Proverbs 24:12

I Peter 4:18 - Proverbs 11:31

Romans 12:20 - Proverbs 25:21-22

II Peter 2:22 - Proverbs 26:11

[Campion]

So when I examine the "fruits" of the Catholic church and I see 1500 years of murder, torture, corruption, and general mayhem..

You see what you want to see.

You don't see the church that built the whole Christian civilization of Western Europe, without which Christianity simply wouldn't have survived the Islamic onslaught, and we would be arguing today about the Koran, not the Bible.

You don't see 2000 years of saints who are universally recognized as examples of profound Christian discipleship.

You don't see theologians like Aquinas and Augustine and Leo whose teaching inspires Protestants and Catholics alike to this day.

You don't see the Church that brought Christ to nations from India to Japan to Mexico before North America settlement began.

You see what you want to see, a black legend intended to promote hatred and suspicion. You see what you want to see.

[MeOnTheBeach]

Ya know I should laugh at that. But I can't.

Honestly, when I hear -0- on the TV I want to vomit. So it's best I keep my mouth shut... it's so hard not to just hate.

[papertyger]

The guy willing to take on the Evolutionists is a liberal?

[Campion]

Boatbums, maybe we’d better first get the list of the other books that are “in the Bible” but aren’t “Scripture”

[boatbums]

Boatbums, maybe we’d better first get the list of the other books that are “in the Bible” but aren’t “Scripture”

Why? We're talking about the book of Proverbs. Do you also think it is not "Scripture"?

[papertyger]

I see no evidence for either of your statements to be true. I see just the opposite.

Based on the biblical "scholarship" evinced by your previous post, I'd question the value your inability to "see" evidence....

[dalereed]

I nominate obama!!!

It the quickest way to get rid of him I can think of!

[Revolting cat!]

Isn’t the Vatican obligated to follow the Affirmative Action Program on hiring and promotion? It is after all a Federal Law!

[MeOnTheBeach]

Who told you that??? The book of Proverbs has ALWAYS been considered Divinely inspired Holy Scripture.

Here... play with teh kittah it will make you calm.

Like I said, good words and wise words. Jesus even referred to a pagan poet once. Truth is where you find it.

Like I said to Mrs. Don-o, Proverbs is not binding on anyone's salvation. So, put what ever worth you want on the book. If you want to think of it as scripture, more power to ya. I like to read proverbs myself. Personally, I don't give it the same weight as I do the direct writings of the prophets.

[johngrace]

Excellent response.

[papertyger]

The rock which He will build his Church will be the revealing of the divinity of Jesus Christ by His Father in Heaven by way of the Holy Ghost.

Nonsense.

If you can deny not only the obvious subject change denoted by "And I say also unto thee," but a play on words so strong it even survives a change of language, you can call light, darkness, and good, evil.