Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Mobius on March 13, 2013, 01:44:12 pm
-
White smoke coming out from the chimney pretty much everyone here was looking at.
I don't really care about the Vatican, but the guy who's been chosen is going to have a serious influence over religious countries and their laws. Homosexuality, abortion, and various other things... we'll see.
-
I'd like to see a non-Caucasian pope for a change...
-
i want a satanist pope
-
*Lorric looks into the future and changes his mind about getting involved*
-
Interesting, an Argentinian! "Franciscus"... the first, I guess - there was none listed on Wikipedia yet.
-
First original name in quite a long time I think?
-
First original name in quite a long time I think?
Actually, the short-lived John Paul I chose an original name, albeit a combination of two multiple-use names.
-
**** this. More than a 100 men to choose from, and they just HAD to choose Bergoglio.
-
76, not really expecting a long term apparently.
-
That's what the common thought was about Benedict too, and he wound up serving for a few more years than most expected, so you never know.
-
**** this. More than a 100 men to choose from, and they just HAD to choose Bergoglio.
If you know something the rest of us don't, share with the class.
I'm happier with this choice than I would have been with a European. I don't expect the orthodoxy to change very much but they found somebody who actually will enforce it, rather than just the First World Problems parts of it. Y'know, social justice, house the homeless, clothe the needy, heal the sick.
Naming yourself after Saint Francis is a pretty powerful statement that you are here to change the way the Church is run. The Curia desperately needs its collective ass kicked, so here's hoping.
-
Franciscus I! Bergoglio's choice proves that my first name is the best ever. :lol:
On a side note, my Facebook newsfeed is literally stormed by news and comments according to which Bergoglio used harsh words to define homosexuality, and more importantly, he was apparently involved in some bad things carried out by the Argentinian dictatorship decades ago. Not a good sign.
-
**** this. More than a 100 men to choose from, and they just HAD to choose Bergoglio.
If you know something the rest of us don't, share with the class.
I'm happier with this choice than I would have been with a European. I don't expect the orthodoxy to change very much but they found somebody who actually will enforce it, rather than just the First World Problems parts of it. Y'know, social justice, house the homeless, clothe the needy, heal the sick.
Naming yourself after Saint Francis is a pretty powerful statement that you are here to change the way the Church is run. The Curia desperately needs its collective ass kicked, so here's hoping.
He's against same-sex marriage. He's been accused by many of collaborating with illegal actions and human right abuses during the last dictatorship. He's a very influential political figure against the current Argentine administration (and I like my state as separated from the church as possible). And he's very, very militant about all of this. And I don't like him. I don't like him at all.
-
Hang on a sec. A pope who failed to stand up to a harsh dictatorship?
That's unpossible!
-
He's against same-sex marriage.
You're assuming that there was an option which was for same-sex marriage here.
He's been accused by many of collaborating with illegal actions and human right abuses during the last dictatorship.
Without proof, presumably. Since, you know, he's not been arrested or fired. (And the next Hitler's Pope reference gets somebody beaten because what the hell was the Church supposed to do about Hitler anyways? Denouncing him just gets everybody shot, you work on the down low or you you don't work at all.)
He's a very influential political figure against the current Argentine administration (and I like my state as separated from the church as possible).
That strikes me as a good thing since very few people outside the country are fond of your current administration, so what's bad for you is good for the rest of us I guess.
He's also the guy who refused the perks of being Archbishop and rode the bus, and has a reputation for being against creature comforts of rank and believes in the mission of the Church to do all the sorts of things like feed the hungry and house the homeless and justice for all that have been kind of neglected in the arguments over gay marriage and Vatican Two and stuff like that.
-
Time will tell if he'll be any good. He won't have it easy, that's for sure, but I hope he brings some much needed change to the Church.
-
Oh nous an Argentinian Pope!
Now if the world burns it's gonna be all us :S
On the bright side, at least some Argentinians get broadband connection to God.
-
Oh nous an Argentinian Pope!
Now if the world burns it's gonna be all us :S
On the bright side, at least some Argentinians get broadband connection to God.
Can we leech off your spiritual bandwidth then? :p
-
Careful, the Angels don't like it when you use it for Porn.
-
That strikes me as a good thing since very few people outside the country are fond of your current administration, so what's bad for you is good for the rest of us I guess.
Oh! I see. This is just another of your "let's bash on Argentina because I've something personal against this guy" posts. We've been over this already. And here I was thinking about giving you a second chance. Disregarding you again.
-
Oh! I see. This is just another of your "let's bash on Argentina because I've something personal against this guy" posts. We've been over this already. And here I was thinking about giving you a second chance. Disregarding you again.
Look, I know it's hard, but not everything that has to do with your country is about you. (Unless you're secretly the current head of state of Argentina, in which case I have to ask what you're doing here.) People think that suppression of the independent press is bad no matter the context; that's pretty much how the West works, has been for generations. We like self-determination too, so most of us end up having issues with the whole foreign policy thing.
And I really don't give a **** about you, until you decide to post stuff like this as if you have some pipeline into my deepest darkest motivations and wish to illuminate the magical conspiracy to suppress your views that actually exists...solely inside your head.
-
Oh, come on! You know I support this administration and you're always picking on me because of it. Moreover, some things are prone to be taken as an insult (my vote doesn't matter? (thread about voting systems) I'm arrogant? (Falklands/Malvinas thread) I go around reporting your posts? (Falklands/Malvinas thread, and I've never, EVER, done that to anyone) I'm too dumb to handle the English language? (thread about drug trafficking) Give me a break.)
As for the rest (especially the free press part, which I've already dealt with, albeit slightly and without going into detail, in that thread about China where I was told I'm not supposed to think), I've already told you I'm not going to discuss it with you, remember? Because sometimes I elaborate some posts for hours and hours just for you to disregard them and later act as if you had answered them, remember? And I happen to value my time, OK?
Moreover, does it bothers you so much if I don't want to discuss with you? You insulted me many times in the past, and I don't like you. Get over it and stop dragging it around everywhere I go. The rest of this board doesn't want to know about our grievances.
And that's all as far as I care. I'm stepping down now to let everyone else have their debate in peace.
EDIT: Minor fixes and typos.
-
yep it's an Argentinian pope. I guess criticisms about him right now are reserved solely for his countrymen and fundamentalist protestant Americans :P
-
I don't care who the Pope is or where he's from as long as he gets the rest of the Church to acknowledge they've ****ed up with the handling of their abusive priests and that they have things to talk about and do besides say gay marriage is wrong.
-
yep it's an Argentinian pope. I guess criticisms about him right now are reserved solely for his countrymen and fundamentalist protestant Americans :P
Oh, no! Please feel free to criticize him all you want. He's the Pope, after all. :lol:
-
You won't rage if this humble gringo pokes fun at his Argentininess?
-
You won't rage if this humble gringo pokes fun at his Argentininess?
It's one thing to poke a little fun, it's another thing to constantly make broad unfounded statements, insult, deride, and bully someone.
Besides, I REALLY dislike Bergoglio. Go ahead, amuse me. :p
-
I'll break the taboo and double post (just this once) because I've an amusing thing to post.
According to an old and discredited prophecy, there was a list of all the popes that would come until the end of times. The list actually consisted of a series of short, prophetic phrases that would reveal some distinctive traits about the various Popes to come.
This list is nowadays widely believed to be a forgery, and that is the official position of the catholic church AFAIK. That still doesn't stop people from trying to read something into them, because we all like to play divination every now and then. Each time a Pope assumes, people try to get some clues as to whom will he be and what will he do once in power.
Of course, being the forgery it is, most of the prophecies aren't exactly right, to say the least. But every now and then, one of them results unnervingly accurate. For instance, Pope Benedict XVI's prophecy said "Gloria olivae" (the glory of the olive). Benedict XVI earned himself a reputation of being a man dedicated to peace (amongst many other not-so-nice things he earned as a reputation).
So, what's the catch of the story? Well, it just so happens to be that Benedict XVI was the second to last in the list. The last in the list, a Pope the prophecy tells scary things about, has been known popularly for many years as "the Black Pope". And for many years, people have been seeing the Black Pope pretty much everywhere (Obama being an example).
Now, Bergoglio has an interesting peculiarity. Apart from all that's been said so far, he's a Jesuit. Jesuits are the only catholic order that wears black. Interesting, isn't it?
Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes) you can read all the prophecies (including the one about the last Pope). It's worth noting, most prophecies have to be stretched quite a bit to believe them. Moreover, there ARE disagreements about this list being complete anyway. However, it does make an interesting horror story to tell. Especially before bedtime.
Here's the prophecy about the current Pope, and you can read in the previous link about the name discrepancy.
"Petrus Romanus, qui paſcet oues in multis tribulationibus: quibus tranſactis ciuitas ſepticollis diruetur, & Iudex tremẽdus iudicabit populum ſuum. Finis."
Translation:
"Peter the Roman, who will pasture his sheep in many tribulations, and when these things are finished, the city of seven hills [i.e. Rome] will be destroyed, and the dreadful judge will judge his people. The End."
Sleep well... ;)
-
Personally, I think all prophecies are accurate in "hindsight".
-
Can't you just get scared? I did my best, you know. :(
:p
-
Yeah. I don't think the world's gonna end after this pontificate. Though do I hope we're in for some drastic change that could be interpreted as the end of the world as we know it (and start of a new one). I wouldn't want Rome to be destroyed though.
-
(Stupid) People will riot and burn down Rome. Self-fulfilling prophecy.
-
nuke the entire site fro orbit, its the only way to be sure.
sorry couldn't resist.
-
nuke the entire site fro orbit, its the only way to be sure.
Which one? Rome? Or the Vatican City? :confused: :p
Edit: Errr... I mean... just the Vatican City? Or the whole Rome?
-
Jesuits are the only catholic order that wears black.
I suspect the Benedictines and Dominicans would disagree. :p
-
With Nuke, everywhere. :p
-
Jesuits are the only catholic order that wears black.
I suspect the Benedictines and Dominicans would disagree. :p
I've come to the conclusion you guys just can't let a horror story be. Don't you go to the cinema every now and then?
Still, Jesuit Pope = Black Pope = World doomed. Now you get scared. Please? :p
-
With Nuke, everywhere. :p
you know that nuclear artillery piece? build a gatling gun with like 8 of those.
-
nuke the entire site fro orbit, its the only way to be sure.
sorry couldn't resist.
This prompted me to look up murdered popes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_murdered_popes
There's a lot of "allegedly". No nukings though, could be an interesting addition
-
nuke the entire site fro orbit, its the only way to be sure.
Which one? Rome? Or the Vatican City? :confused: :p
Edit: Errr... I mean... just the Vatican City? Or the whole Rome?
whatever. it might or not obliterate all seven hills. :P
-
nuke the entire site fro orbit, its the only way to be sure.
Which one? Rome? Or the Vatican City? :confused: :p
Edit: Errr... I mean... just the Vatican City? Or the whole Rome?
Nerve gas would be better. There a lot of cool artwork and architecture in the Vatican. No sense in letting it be lost to future generations. :p
-
All of this talk about how the Pope selection is terrible news for the gays and for the Argentinian government (really el magnifico, I'm getting tired of your tirades on the subject, but shouldn't you be pleased the guy you dislike is going out of your country?), and for the paedophilia problems and so on.
And no word for the problem regarding women in the church and how they are completely discriminated?
Come on guys, this is the perfect thread to start another feminist war, let's not waste the opportunity :lol:
-
nuke the entire site fro orbit, its the only way to be sure.
Which one? Rome? Or the Vatican City? :confused: :p
Edit: Errr... I mean... just the Vatican City? Or the whole Rome?
Nerve gas would be better. There a lot of cool artwork and architecture in the Vatican. No sense in letting it be lost to future generations. :p
I concur
Problem will come down to who gets to control it all though. Nerve gassing it is one thing, keeping it from becoming ruined is another
-
All hail Pope Frank!
Also, first non-European pope since 731. That's... pretty long. Obvious why, but still.
-
Now I know why the name Bergoglio sounds familiar: he was second during the previous conclave and posed a serious threat to Ratzinger's election until some of his supporters decided it was better to vote for the German.
Well, at least according to the anonym cardinal who monitored the previous conclave and wrote all results of the votes on papers.
-
The Catholic Church will either change with the times or preach itself right out of existence. This guy seems to actually get some of that. We'll see what he does. Not every Pope does what they are expected to do. The hypocrisy in the Catholic Church in general on wealth would be a good place to start. He can't do much on same-sex marriage, contraception, abortion, etc but who knows, maybe this fellow will indeed shake things up and consider female clergy, or allowing priests to marry. This whole 'forced celibacy' thing was always a myth in the past anyway, and now has led to a huge crisis in sexual abuse. Time to be rid of it.
Alas, the era of Darth Pope jokes is coming to an end, though.
-
The Catholic Church will either change with the times or preach itself right out of existence. This guy seems to actually get some of that.
Does he now? Nor do I think that it will "either change with the times or preach itself right out of existence". Its conservatism is probably what keeps it afloat right now.
but who knows, maybe this fellow will indeed shake things up and consider female clergy, or allowing priests to marry.
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHAHAHHAHA F ABbafasbdvs grgrgrnanahagagnegw bllaaaaaaaahhhhgggg
-
Thank god he's not from the US.
... He can't do much on same-sex marriage, contraception, abortion, etc but who knows,
He might not be able to change the positions the church holds, but he could drop them off the list of things to rage against and focus the church's time and money on poverty and medicine and education.
Doubt it will happen anymore than female clergy or allowing married priests, but I think it's a bit closer to the realm of possibility.
-
He said horrible things about homosexuals, I don't think he will do much unless he changes his mind on the subject.
-
He said horrible things about homosexuals, I don't think he will do much unless he changes his mind on the subject.
Well, how powerful is Martini's* faction of the church? (I know he's dead) I was under the impression his views were a godsend to (at least) the American Catholic left, but pretty much 'that's nice, shut up now' among the church powerful. Without them having power, I don't think there is going to be much hope of ever getting a pope that hasn't said horrible things about homosexuals.
* He wrote (in) a book supporting civil unions, advocated the church change with the times, etc.
-
Mobius, no matter who became the new Pope, the only thing he could have done would be to not talk about homosexuals and concentrate on other matters. There is no way whatsoever for someone who even approaches a moderate position to these issues to be elected to Popehood, or to the Cardinal level for that matter.
-
Mobius, no matter who became the new Pope, the only thing he could have done would be to not talk about homosexuals and concentrate on other matters. There is no way whatsoever for someone who even approaches a moderate position to these issues to be elected to Popehood, or to the Cardinal level for that matter.
Which is a real shame. Why is the common trend that of clinging to antiquated ideals? Seems pointless
-
Well, to use modern marketing speak, the current RCC leadership is concentrating on the core identity of their brand. They assume that by going too far in appealing to the values of the current pop culture, they'll lose those followers they still have.
Also, there's the little thing of papal infallibility, and centuries of church theology preaching those core values. The roman catholic church is one of the very few institutions that have lasted 1500 years and are still somewhat recognizably the same thing; I suppose that's something to consider.
-
Well, to use modern marketing speak, the current RCC leadership is concentrating on the core identity of their brand. They assume that by going too far in appealing to the values of the current pop culture, they'll lose those followers they still have.
Also, there's the little thing of papal infallibility, and centuries of church theology preaching those core values. The roman catholic church is one of the very few institutions that have lasted 1500 years and are still somewhat recognizably the same thing; I suppose that's something to consider.
Well they don't kill people or run Europe anymore. That's a pretty significant change.
-
Methods have changed somewhat, influence has shrunk, but the core principles and ideas remained the same. You could look at the Church in 15th century and you'll instantly be able to tell it's the Church. The same can be said for a very few other organizations, most of them very niche (mostly very old, very traditional brotherhoods).
-
Mobius, no matter who became the new Pope, the only thing he could have done would be to not talk about homosexuals and concentrate on other matters. There is no way whatsoever for someone who even approaches a moderate position to these issues to be elected to Popehood, or to the Cardinal level for that matter.
Which is a real shame. Why is the common trend that of clinging to antiquated ideals? Seems pointless
This is the Catholic Church. Clinging to antiquated ideals is the entire point.
-
That's right, even if they conflict with even more antiquated ideals. :P
wealth for one.
-
Look people you are just expecting too much. The Catholic Church is an institution that excommunicates you if you dare to divorce! And of course you can't "remarry" anyone else.
Let that simple fact sink in.
You really expect such an institution to start accepting gays, married priests and women priests and so on when they are so backwards in things we as a secular society have long past reached a consensus?
-
This guy apparently was involved in the 'dirty war' in South America that led to the destruction of Argentina's economy.. http://www.businessinsider.com/pope-francis-has-links-to-dirty-war-2013-3?
I'm curious what the implications of this is, what others think of it or if it's even fair to link the guy to it since the waters of history are often muddied.
-
married priests
Actually, quite a few branches of the catholic church have married priests. They just can't advance to the rank of bishop. Doesn't change a lot 'bout your point though.
-
Also, there's the little thing of papal infallibility,
Which has to be invoked. The only time it has been was when they invented it. There have been more infallible statements via church councils, really.
-
Look people you are just expecting too much. The Catholic Church is an institution that excommunicates you if you dare to divorce! And of course you can't "remarry" anyone else.
Not really. It's perfectly possible to divorce and remarry while remaining in the Catholic Church. Granted, it's a loophole exploit, but it's an open secret that it's done that way.
-
I usually don't get involved in these discussions, but as a practicing Catholic, I'm just going to offer some clarification on the Church's view on a couple of the things that have been mentioned.
The Catholic Church is an institution that excommunicates you if you dare to divorce!
Without meaning to be rude, this is just plain wrong. Excommunication in the Catholic Church is barring someone from full membership in the Church; the primary consequence is usually suspension from the Eucharist. No such thing happens if you get a divorce. You remain a full member, nothing is withheld from you, you're just divorced. My auntie divorced from her alcoholic husband about a decade ago, and she can still attend all Church services etc. Excommunication is reserved for serious offences against the Church; divorce is not an offence against it.
It's perfectly possible to divorce and remarry while remaining in the Catholic Church. Granted, it's a loophole exploit, but it's an open secret that it's done that way.
Remarriage is permitted if the marriage is annulled - there's a difference between annulment and divorce, and annulment in the Church is only granted under specific circumstances. If you are only divorced, you cannot remarry in the Church.
And that's all. Carry on. :)
-
I'm sort of in two minds about this Pope. As a non-Catholic I can't really comment on his stances regarding homosexuality or condoms because I would imagine that in the Catholic church it would be difficult to get a broader support without those viewpoints.
He does come across as someone who intends to bring the Church back onto course with regards to its' own compass however, the Catholic Church needs a period where they stop, as it were, complaining about the splinters in their brothers' eyes.
-
Remarriage is permitted if the marriage is annulled - there's a difference between annulment and divorce, and annulment in the Church is only granted under specific circumstances. If you are only divorced, you cannot remarry in the Church.
You're right, should have elaborated (I wasn't aware that there's actual divorce option besides the exploit). That's the exploit I was talking about. IIRC, annulment can be granted if one party "doesn't fulfill marital duties" or something like that. Anyway, it's so vaguely defined that it can and is used in most cases when people simply want to divorce.
-
Remarriage is permitted if the marriage is annulled - there's a difference between annulment and divorce, and annulment in the Church is only granted under specific circumstances. If you are only divorced, you cannot remarry in the Church.
You're right, should have elaborated (I wasn't aware that there's actual divorce option besides the exploit). That's the exploit I was talking about. IIRC, annulment can be granted if one party "doesn't fulfill marital duties" or something like that. Anyway, it's so vaguely defined that it can and is used in most cases when people simply want to divorce.
I hope you don't mind if I respond to this, just for the sake of clarification. :)
Annulment isn't quite so vaguely defined; you can actually find a comprehensive list of reasons it could be granted even on Wikipedia. This article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment_%28Catholic_Church%29) in particular, if you'd like to do some further reading :). The basic premise of annulment is that it is a decision (which has to be administered by an ecclesiastical tribunal, so it isn't taken lightly) that the bond of marriage never existed; that it was void at its inception. As the article says, it is not a dissolution of an existing marriage. Again, you can find the specific reasons this conclusion may be reached in the article I linked above, but let me give an example: when the auntie I mentioned in my previous post married her husband, they were both happy, and both intended the marriage to be lifelong etc. When he descended into alcoholism a few years later and started abusing her, my auntie got a divorce, but she would not have been eligible for annulment because when they married they fully intended to carry out all the requirements of marriage (and the sacrament was contracted validly). Now if he had, for example, been abusing her before they got married and pressured her into marrying him even though she didn't want to, then the marriage could be declared null. I hope that makes the difference between the two clearer. :)
Now, whilst I'm sure that people have and will use the intricacies of annulment to obtain it when they should be getting a divorce, I hope I've demonstrated that the Church does not intend for the two to overlap (and it certainly isn't an "exploit" merely in place to allow people to remarry), and as I mentioned, couples applying for annulment in the Church have to present their case to an ecclesiastical tribunal, which will judge whether the bond of marriage existed at some point or whether the marriage was invalid to start with.
I hope this has been helpful. :)
-
The Catholic Church is an institution that excommunicates you if you dare to divorce!
Without meaning to be rude, this is just plain wrong. Excommunication in the Catholic Church is barring someone from full membership in the Church; the primary consequence is usually suspension from the Eucharist. No such thing happens if you get a divorce. You remain a full member, nothing is withheld from you, you're just divorced.
I stand corrected.
-
Divorce vs annulment.
So then, if your aunt wants to remarry now, is she just SOL or what?
-
Divorced people are still allowed to take part in the Eucharist rite unless they're involved in a new relationship.
Once they get married a second time, Eucharist is off-limits for them.
-
Divorce vs annulment.
So then, if your aunt wants to remarry now, is she just SOL or what?
Nope. She just can't get married in a Catholic church with a Catholic service. She can still get a marriage license and get married anywhere else by anyone else who's licensed to marry people.
Given the bull**** the Catholic Church regularly puts non-Catholics through when a Catholic plans to marry one, a lot of Catholics don't even get married in their Church anymore. My parents (Dad - Irish Catholic; Mom - Irish Protestant) ended up get married in a Protestant Church; not because mom has anything against the Catholic Church specifically, but more because it was going to be an absolute pain in the ass.
Traditions like this is why the Catholic Church is bleeding membership to evangelical churches the world over. They're sending themselves into irrelevance at an unprecedented pace.
I know there's this historical argument that the Church has been around for 1500ish years and that's because of tradition, but most students of history will tell you that has far more to do with the isolation of certain pockets of populations, lack of widespread education (which the Church actually controlled), the Church's control over knowledge in general pre-Enlightenment, and their direct role in the everyday lives of most of humanity. Globalization, widespread public secular education, and the emergence of science as a discipline and rationalism generally have vastly undermined the Church's control over people's everyday lives. Really, the only reason the Church remained as strong as it did through the Medieval period was their suppression of science and jealously-guarded control over knowledge. The Enlightenment changed all that, and the Church has been in a downward spiral toward niche irrelevance ever since. By far the majority of today's Catholics do not strictly follow Church teachings; they pick and choose what works for them.
Looking even at the erosion in the last 150 years, unless the Church is willing to change I think they're going to push the Church further out of the daily lives of its followers. I know they think that they can stay the course and society will change, but there's a fundamental flaw with that reasoning - science is removing people's need to use faith to interpret the world around them. There will always be a role for religion, I suspect, but it's not the role the Church leadership wants it to have. In short, unless they begin a process of realignment of Church teachings with the way people learn and know about their world today, they're pushing themselves into a decline it won't recover from.
Islam will eventually go the same way. Religious influence over daily life diminishes as a population increases their education and, consequently, their standard of living. When people lose the widespread, generalized fear of early and meaningless death, religion tends to lose its grip on them. Let's face it - the only two real forced holds religion has on people is a monopoly over general knowledge and education, and a monopoly over spiritual life after death. When they lose grip on education/knowledge, people gain knowledge of the world around them. While that spiritual life role can still exist, it's a lot harder to motivate the same levels of fear in spirituality that you otherwise can when the people you are preaching to are as educated and capable of sharing ideas as you are.