To: SoldierDad
Eh. Close enough. Sloppy math. Seems to me it’d be a better idea to elect a Pope who was in his prime.
SnakeDoc
113 posted on
03/13/2013 1:08:12 PM PDT by
SnakeDoctor
("I've shot people I like more for less." -- Raylan Givens)
To: SnakeDoctor
Eh. Close enough. Sloppy math. Seems to me itd be a better idea to elect a Pope who was in his prime. SnakeDoc all of the Cardinals who know anything are up in age.
To: SnakeDoctor
How much difference can two years make at that age???
Perhaps someone who at least is in their mid to late 50's or 60's seems reasonable.
158 posted on
03/13/2013 1:37:48 PM PDT by
SoldierDad
(Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)
To: SnakeDoctor
Eh. Close enough. Sloppy math. Seems to me itd be a better idea to elect a Pope who was in his prime.
It's been my observation that the Papacy is not an entry-level job. Popes are generally chosen from the ranks of Cardinals, each of whom has spent a lifetime in the process of becoming a Cardinal. Cardinals under the age of 60 are pretty rare, although I understand there's one or two. There just aren't that many 35-year old Catholic males who have worked their way up from priest to Monsignior to Bishop to Archbishop to Cardinal. And in this day and age, if you ain't a Cardinal, you ain't got no chance of becoming the Pontiff, although technically, any Catholic male can conceivably serve as Pope.
Besides, this new Pope looks to be in pretty good shape for a man of 76. I'm not going to worry too much that they didn't elect somebody with no gray hair to the Papacy.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson