Conclave and a New Pope

[podkarpatska]

With the papal election this week, I thought a discussion on the general topic based on news reports might be of interest. Not Orthodox/Catholic discussion, just the news aspect.

Here is an interesting quote on the conclave process from a Georgetown U. Church history professor:

"The conclave is a process that dates to the Middle Ages. Until the 11th century, the process of picking popes was “a mess and inconsistent,” said Georgetown University history professor the Rev. David Collins. The popes were picked by various combinations of the clergy in Rome and the generation population. At that time, popes served as the head of Christianity in Western Europe and as the bishop of Rome. The city was governed by several prominent families, and the pope would come from one of those families."  http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/papal-conclave-has-tight-structure-uncertain-length/2013/03/11/044128a4-8a5c-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html

[genesisone]

There was an interesting and IMO very sensible column carried in many Canadian papers today. The writer, Michael Coren, shows the differences between what the media are saying and what life is actually like in RC parishes.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/03/08/church-not-in-a-state-most-canadian-journalists-comments-on-roman-catholic-church-are-off-the-mark

[choy]

With the papal election this week, I thought a discussion on the general topic based on news reports might be of interest. Not Orthodox/Catholic discussion, just the news aspect.

Here is an interesting quote on the conclave process from a Georgetown U. Church history professor:

"The conclave is a process that dates to the Middle Ages. Until the 11th century, the process of picking popes was “a mess and inconsistent,” said Georgetown University history professor the Rev. David Collins. The popes were picked by various combinations of the clergy in Rome and the generation population. At that time, popes served as the head of Christianity in Western Europe and as the bishop of Rome. The city was governed by several prominent families, and the pope would come from one of those families."  http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/papal-conclave-has-tight-structure-uncertain-length/2013/03/11/044128a4-8a5c-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html

Not many RCs would admit to this

[Papist]

With the papal election this week, I thought a discussion on the general topic based on news reports might be of interest. Not Orthodox/Catholic discussion, just the news aspect.

Here is an interesting quote on the conclave process from a Georgetown U. Church history professor:

"The conclave is a process that dates to the Middle Ages. Until the 11th century, the process of picking popes was “a mess and inconsistent,” said Georgetown University history professor the Rev. David Collins. The popes were picked by various combinations of the clergy in Rome and the generation population. At that time, popes served as the head of Christianity in Western Europe and as the bishop of Rome. The city was governed by several prominent families, and the pope would come from one of those families."  http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/papal-conclave-has-tight-structure-uncertain-length/2013/03/11/044128a4-8a5c-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html

Not many RCs would admit to this

Are you sure of that?

[Deacon Lance]

With the papal election this week, I thought a discussion on the general topic based on news reports might be of interest. Not Orthodox/Catholic discussion, just the news aspect.

Here is an interesting quote on the conclave process from a Georgetown U. Church history professor:

"The conclave is a process that dates to the Middle Ages. Until the 11th century, the process of picking popes was “a mess and inconsistent,” said Georgetown University history professor the Rev. David Collins. The popes were picked by various combinations of the clergy in Rome and the generation population. At that time, popes served as the head of Christianity in Western Europe and as the bishop of Rome. The city was governed by several prominent families, and the pope would come from one of those families."  http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/papal-conclave-has-tight-structure-uncertain-length/2013/03/11/044128a4-8a5c-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html

Not many RCs would admit to this

Rather they are ignorant of this. 

[ialmisry]

With the papal election this week, I thought a discussion on the general topic based on news reports might be of interest. Not Orthodox/Catholic discussion, just the news aspect.

Here is an interesting quote on the conclave process from a Georgetown U. Church history professor:

"The conclave is a process that dates to the Middle Ages. Until the 11th century, the process of picking popes was “a mess and inconsistent,” said Georgetown University history professor the Rev. David Collins. The popes were picked by various combinations of the clergy in Rome and the generation population. At that time, popes served as the head of Christianity in Western Europe and as the bishop of Rome. The city was governed by several prominent families, and the pope would come from one of those families."  http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/papal-conclave-has-tight-structure-uncertain-length/2013/03/11/044128a4-8a5c-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html

Not many RCs would admit to this

Rather they are ignorant of this. 

Yes, I dare say most people-whether in the Vatican's flock or outside it-don't know that the present system isn't even a thousand years old.  Though, mystique and all, the Vatican isn't troubled by this misconception, but it will readily admit to this.

If they elect a non-Italian, the Italian monopoly is pretty much over.  And all the names I've been seeing are non-Italians.

[podkarpatska]

With the papal election this week, I thought a discussion on the general topic based on news reports might be of interest. Not Orthodox/Catholic discussion, just the news aspect.

Here is an interesting quote on the conclave process from a Georgetown U. Church history professor:

"The conclave is a process that dates to the Middle Ages. Until the 11th century, the process of picking popes was “a mess and inconsistent,” said Georgetown University history professor the Rev. David Collins. The popes were picked by various combinations of the clergy in Rome and the generation population. At that time, popes served as the head of Christianity in Western Europe and as the bishop of Rome. The city was governed by several prominent families, and the pope would come from one of those families."  http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/papal-conclave-has-tight-structure-uncertain-length/2013/03/11/044128a4-8a5c-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html

Not many RCs would admit to this

Rather they are ignorant of this. 

Yes, I dare say most people-whether in the Vatican's flock or outside it-don't know that the present system isn't even a thousand years old.  Though, mystique and all, the Vatican isn't troubled by this misconception, but it will readily admit to this.

If they elect a non-Italian, the Italian monopoly is pretty much over.  And all the names I've been seeing are non-Italians.

In fairness to our Roman brothers and sisters, it is not as if the methodologies used to select the Patriarchs  of the Eastern Empire in Constantinople were a paradigm of fairness or consistency. 

[ialmisry]

With the papal election this week, I thought a discussion on the general topic based on news reports might be of interest. Not Orthodox/Catholic discussion, just the news aspect.

Here is an interesting quote on the conclave process from a Georgetown U. Church history professor:

"The conclave is a process that dates to the Middle Ages. Until the 11th century, the process of picking popes was “a mess and inconsistent,” said Georgetown University history professor the Rev. David Collins. The popes were picked by various combinations of the clergy in Rome and the generation population. At that time, popes served as the head of Christianity in Western Europe and as the bishop of Rome. The city was governed by several prominent families, and the pope would come from one of those families."  http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/papal-conclave-has-tight-structure-uncertain-length/2013/03/11/044128a4-8a5c-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html

Not many RCs would admit to this

Rather they are ignorant of this. 

Yes, I dare say most people-whether in the Vatican's flock or outside it-don't know that the present system isn't even a thousand years old.  Though, mystique and all, the Vatican isn't troubled by this misconception, but it will readily admit to this.

If they elect a non-Italian, the Italian monopoly is pretty much over.  And all the names I've been seeing are non-Italians.

In fairness to our Roman brothers and sisters, it is not as if the methodologies used to select the Patriarchs  of the Eastern Empire in Constantinople were a paradigm of fairness or consistency. 

But to be fair, we don't have the fanfare either.  We've had a slew of new elections, and how much attention did people pay to it. I mean here the Orthodox, even in the Church concerned.

I make no comment (at least not here) on how fair or consistent the Vatican's rules are.  They are what they are.

[Deacon Lance]

No Orthodox Patriarch is spiritual father of 1 billion +.  If the Pope had the flock of a single nation or a few million souls I doubt there would be much fanfare.

[Deacon Lance]

If they elect a non-Italian, the Italian monopoly is pretty much over.  And all the names I've been seeing are non-Italians.

I have the feeling no Italian will be elected for a very long time.  They are seen as part of the problem.

[Maria]

What are the chances that African Cardinal Peter Turkson will be elected?

[LBK]

No Orthodox Patriarch is spiritual father of 1 billion +.  If the Pope had the flock of a single nation or a few million souls I doubt there would be much fanfare.

Irrelevant. Orthodoxy isn't about being popular or mighty. It's about defending and proclaiming the truth.

[podkarpatska]

"Letting Go WHY BENEDICT'S RESIGNATION MATTERS"  an article by Orthodox priest, Fr.John Harvey in Commonweal magazine.

"The humility of his decision to give up power is, and this really does matter. It will affect future papacies, all to the good. There is something of kenosis in giving up any power you could hold on to, and God bless Benedict for doing this. I hope it spells the beginning of a rethinking of the nature of papal power. Lord Acton went to Rome during the First Vatican Council to lobby against the idea of papal infallibility, and his oft-quoted line “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” was a reference to the papacy. I believe Benedict’s resignation was a genuinely selfless act, done for the good of all."  http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/letting-go

[Maria]

No Orthodox Patriarch is spiritual father of 1 billion +.  If the Pope had the flock of a single nation or a few million souls I doubt there would be much fanfare.

Irrelevant. Orthodoxy isn't about being popular or mighty. It's about defending and proclaiming the truth.

Amen.

Would that the Vatican would elect a truly "Orthodox" pope who would proclaim the truth as Christ taught the Apostles!

However, I am not holding my breath as things have actually changed for the worse since 1054 A.D. with the proclamation of Papal Infallibility and Supremacy at Vatican I in 1870. It would take a miracle to overcome this stumbling block.

[podkarpatska]

No Orthodox Patriarch is spiritual father of 1 billion +.  If the Pope had the flock of a single nation or a few million souls I doubt there would be much fanfare.

Irrelevant. Orthodoxy isn't about being popular or mighty. It's about defending and proclaiming the truth.

Come on kids, cut it out. My point was simple. Patriarchal selection and deposition has historically been as flawed as that of the Roman popes. For example, look up Emperor Romanus I and his choice of his fourth son, 16 year old Theophylact, for the Patriarchal throne to succeed the aged once deposed and  twice enthroned Nicholas Mysticus. Poor Theophylact was castrated first so that he would not be unduly distracted from his churchly duties - something that perhaps should have been considered for Alexander Sixtus by the Curia.

This isn't a criticism of the current Patriarch, but come on, as an example, the current Patriarch of the "Third Rome" certainly projects a sense of power, fancy vestiture and media savvy as well as any Pope could hope for.

[LBK]

No Orthodox Patriarch is spiritual father of 1 billion +.  If the Pope had the flock of a single nation or a few million souls I doubt there would be much fanfare.

Irrelevant. Orthodoxy isn't about being popular or mighty. It's about defending and proclaiming the truth.

Come on kids, cut it out. My point was simple. Patriarchal selection and deposition has historically been as flawed as that of the Roman popes. For example, look up Emperor Romanus I and his choice of his fourth son, 16 year old Theophylact, for the Patriarchal throne to succeed the aged once deposed and  twice enthroned Nicholas Mysticus. Poor Theophylact was castrated first so that he would not be unduly distracted from his churchly duties - something that perhaps should have been considered for Alexander Sixtus by the Curia.

This isn't a criticism of the current Patriarch, but come on, as an example, the current Patriarch of the "Third Rome" certainly projects a sense of power, fancy vestiture and media savvy as well as any Pope could hope for.

My dear Podkarpatska, I was merely responding to Deacon Lance's rather boastful post, which equates numbers with a church's importance. 

[davinpa]

I think the point of Deacon Lance is that the Pope is viewed differently by his flock from the way an orthodox Patriarch is viewed by his own flock.

[davinpa]

As boastful as it is, in the secular world, number DOES equate importance.

[choy]

With the papal election this week, I thought a discussion on the general topic based on news reports might be of interest. Not Orthodox/Catholic discussion, just the news aspect.

Here is an interesting quote on the conclave process from a Georgetown U. Church history professor:

"The conclave is a process that dates to the Middle Ages. Until the 11th century, the process of picking popes was “a mess and inconsistent,” said Georgetown University history professor the Rev. David Collins. The popes were picked by various combinations of the clergy in Rome and the generation population. At that time, popes served as the head of Christianity in Western Europe and as the bishop of Rome. The city was governed by several prominent families, and the pope would come from one of those families."  http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/papal-conclave-has-tight-structure-uncertain-length/2013/03/11/044128a4-8a5c-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html

Not many RCs would admit to this

Are you sure of that?

Yes.  At least those who are the "internet apologist" types.  They seem to always want to paint a rosy picture of Church history where the Roman Catholics never do anything wrong, everything is organized, you know, the sun is always shining at the Vatican.

[Maria]

No Orthodox Patriarch is spiritual father of 1 billion +.  If the Pope had the flock of a single nation or a few million souls I doubt there would be much fanfare.

Irrelevant. Orthodoxy isn't about being popular or mighty. It's about defending and proclaiming the truth.

Come on kids, cut it out. My point was simple. Patriarchal selection and deposition has historically been as flawed as that of the Roman popes. For example, look up Emperor Romanus I and his choice of his fourth son, 16 year old Theophylact, for the Patriarchal throne to succeed the aged once deposed and  twice enthroned Nicholas Mysticus. Poor Theophylact was castrated first so that he would not be unduly distracted from his churchly duties - something that perhaps should have been considered for Alexander Sixtus by the Curia.

This isn't a criticism of the current Patriarch, but come on, as an example, the current Patriarch of the "Third Rome" certainly projects a sense of power, fancy vestiture and media savvy as well as any Pope could hope for.

Perhaps all the RC unmarried deacons, priests, bishops, and cardinals should have been castrated so they would not be "distracted from" their "churchly duties."









 

[Maria]

With the papal election this week, I thought a discussion on the general topic based on news reports might be of interest. Not Orthodox/Catholic discussion, just the news aspect.

Here is an interesting quote on the conclave process from a Georgetown U. Church history professor:

"The conclave is a process that dates to the Middle Ages. Until the 11th century, the process of picking popes was “a mess and inconsistent,” said Georgetown University history professor the Rev. David Collins. The popes were picked by various combinations of the clergy in Rome and the generation population. At that time, popes served as the head of Christianity in Western Europe and as the bishop of Rome. The city was governed by several prominent families, and the pope would come from one of those families."  http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/papal-conclave-has-tight-structure-uncertain-length/2013/03/11/044128a4-8a5c-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html

Not many RCs would admit to this

Are you sure of that?

Yes.  At least those who are the "internet apologist" types.  They seem to always want to paint a rosy picture of Church history where the Roman Catholics never do anything wrong, everything is organized, you know, the sun is always shining at the Vatican.

And when the lightning strikes at Vatican I and at Pope Benedict XVI's resignation, that lightning was a sign of Divine Approbation.      

[LBK]

As boastful as it is, in the secular world, number DOES equate importance.

We are called to be in the world, but not of this world. Therefore, we should not be concerned with what the secular world thinks about this matter.

[Nephi]

My dear Podkarpatska, I was merely responding to Deacon Lance's rather boastful post, which equates numbers with a church's importance. 

It didn't come across as boasting to me, nor equating numbers with importance, since he was only talking about fanfare. I'd be inclined to think there might be more fanfare (not that it's really that important) around an Orthodox Patriarch's election if he were the pastor of a billion individuals around the world.

[TheMathematician]

As boastful as it is, in the secular world, number DOES equate importance.

We are called to be in the world, but not of this world. Therefore, we should not be concerned with what the secular world thinks about this matter.

While you are right, of course, the point of, or least how I read it, of Deacon Lances point is exactly iChat,the secular importance and fanfare, and we don't have that because our church isn't as big numerically.

[Basil 320]

Mark Steyn, substituting for Rush Limbaugh today, predicted Cardinal Marc Ouellet, former Archbishop of Quebec, current head of the Congregation of Bishops, will be the next pope.

[choy]

Mark Steyn, substituting for Rush Limbaugh today, predicted Cardinal Marc Ouellet, former Archbishop of Quebec, current head of the Congregation of Bishops, will be the next pope.

GO CANADA!!!


Wait, he's Quebecois.

Boooooo!!! :p

[Papist]

If they elect a non-Italian, the Italian monopoly is pretty much over.  And all the names I've been seeing are non-Italians.

I have the feeling no Italian will be elected for a very long time.  They are seen as part of the problem.

I'm rooting for Cardinal Scola. I think he would continue Pope Benedict's reform of the reform.

[ialmisry]

No Orthodox Patriarch is spiritual father of 1 billion +.  If the Pope had the flock of a single nation or a few million souls I doubt there would be much fanfare.

Don't know about that. I expect that the selection of the next Dalai Lama will be a media event.

[ialmisry]

As boastful as it is, in the secular world, number DOES equate importance.

We are called to be in the world, but not of this world. Therefore, we should not be concerned with what the secular world thinks about this matter.

While you are right, of course, the point of, or least how I read it, of Deacon Lances point is exactly iChat,the secular importance and fanfare, and we don't have that because our church isn't as big numerically.

Not dependent on the numbers: the coronation of the next British monarch will get a lot of fan fare, although it will be a constitutional monarch of less than a hundred million, largely because we also speak English.  I doubt that the conclave is as big news in Greece as it is here.

Fact is, other than the enthronement, or consecration, there isn't a lot of ceremony with the succession of the Orthodox Patriarchs, nor has there ever been.  Even when we outnumbered the Vatican's flock.

[ialmisry]

Mark Steyn, substituting for Rush Limbaugh today, predicted Cardinal Marc Ouellet, former Archbishop of Quebec, current head of the Congregation of Bishops, will be the next pope.

He's Anglican though. Steyn that is.

[Monk Vasyl]

If they elect a non-Italian, the Italian monopoly is pretty much over.  And all the names I've been seeing are non-Italians.

I have the feeling no Italian will be elected for a very long time.  They are seen as part of the problem.

I'm rooting for Cardinal Scola. I think he would continue Pope Benedict's reform of the reform.

They need someone who can reform the Curia.  It sometimes seems that the Curia really is the one running the Catholic church.

[John Larocque]

It is odd to assert - except perhaps to Orthodox ears - that the modern papacy is only 1,000 years old. The system was set in place by Pope Gregory VII, picking up where Cardinal Humbert left off. Rome denied that civilian leaders should have any say in who leads the church, from local bishops (the lay investiture controversy / simony) all the way to the pope himself.

[podkarpatska]

Sigh. My point was not related to size, media attention or who "does it better." Rather I thought it might remind us that neither Church has a claim to an unblemished past which should remind us that humility and introspection are to be preferred over idle boasts. Too much to hope for online?

[Adela]

They need someone who can reform the Curia.  It sometimes seems that the Curia really is the one running the Catholic church.

Or maybe it's also run by some nuns who know how to get things done.  Like this one:
http://pulitzercenter.org/reporting/vatican-jason-berry-mother-tekla-most-powerful-woman-in-rome

[Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)]

No Orthodox Patriarch is spiritual father of 1 billion +.  If the Pope had the flock of a single nation or a few million souls I doubt there would be much fanfare.

Irrelevant. Orthodoxy isn't about being popular or mighty. It's about defending and proclaiming the truth.

I agree with others that Deacon Lance's observation was spot on regarding the media attention.

[J Michael]

Mark Steyn, substituting for Rush Limbaugh today, predicted Cardinal Marc Ouellet, former Archbishop of Quebec, current head of the Congregation of Bishops, will be the next pope.

He's Anglican though. Steyn that is.

So what?

[ialmisry]

It is odd to assert - except perhaps to Orthodox ears - that the modern papacy is only 1,000 years old. The system was set in place by Pope Gregory VII, picking up where Cardinal Humbert left off. Rome denied that civilian leaders should have any say in who leads the church, from local bishops (the lay investiture controversy / simony) all the way to the pope himself.

Yes, it was 1017-1274 when the Vatican's papacy was codified into more or less what we know today.  Not a lot of time when you think of it. The Sistine Chapel has been fixed as the site of conclave only since 1846.  Secular veto/confirmation was done away with only in 1904.

[J Michael]

No Orthodox Patriarch is spiritual father of 1 billion +.  If the Pope had the flock of a single nation or a few million souls I doubt there would be much fanfare.

Irrelevant. Orthodoxy isn't about being popular or mighty. It's about defending and proclaiming the truth.

Come on kids, cut it out. My point was simple. Patriarchal selection and deposition has historically been as flawed as that of the Roman popes. For example, look up Emperor Romanus I and his choice of his fourth son, 16 year old Theophylact, for the Patriarchal throne to succeed the aged once deposed and  twice enthroned Nicholas Mysticus. Poor Theophylact was castrated first so that he would not be unduly distracted from his churchly duties - something that perhaps should have been considered for Alexander Sixtus by the Curia.

This isn't a criticism of the current Patriarch, but come on, as an example, the current Patriarch of the "Third Rome" certainly projects a sense of power, fancy vestiture and media savvy as well as any Pope could hope for.

Perhaps all the RC unmarried deacons, priests, bishops, and cardinals should have been castrated so they would not be "distracted from" their "churchly duties."









 

Really??  Not quite sure how to interpret the rolling eyes emoticon--are you joking in what you say, or are you serious?

[ialmisry]

Mark Steyn, substituting for Rush Limbaugh today, predicted Cardinal Marc Ouellet, former Archbishop of Quebec, current head of the Congregation of Bishops, will be the next pope.

He's Anglican though. Steyn that is.

So what?

So I doubt he has any particular insight, given that he rejected his Vatican baptism by confirming it in the Anglican ecclesial community.

[John Larocque]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investiture_Controversy

The crisis began when a group within the church, members of the Gregorian Reform, decided to rebel against the rule of simony by forcefully taking the power of investiture from the ruling secular power, i.e. the Holy Roman Emperor and placing that power wholly within control of the Church. The Gregorian reformers knew this would not be possible so long as the emperor maintained the ability to appoint the pope, so their first step was to forcibly gain the papacy from the control of the emperor.

This is what happened in the Latin West after it wrested itself free from the era of the Byzantine Papacy, where the Roman Emperor nominated the popes for several centuries. Pope Martin the Confessor was one of the few popes crowned without Imperial consent. The Byzantine Papacy began after Justinian deposed Silverius, the son of Pope Hormisdas. The Holy Roman Empire, created in part by Rome, more or less assumed the same role as the Byzantine Emperors.

http://orthodoxengland.org.uk/ortpopes.htm

St. Hormisdas (+ 523), from Italy and father of St. Silverius (see below), he helped end the monophysite schism. Feast: 6 August.

St. Silverius (+ 537), he was exiled to Asia Minor as a result of political intrigues. He later died in exile from starvation and various hardships and injustices. He was venerated as a martyr for Orthodoxy. He was succeeded by five popes who are not saints. Feast: 20 June.

Silverius was actually still alive when the emperor installed Pope Vigilius. Curiously, Silverius never shows up on lists of popes who have abdicated, nor does Vigilius show up on lists of lists of anti-popes, despite the overlap between the two reigns.

[J Michael]

Mark Steyn, substituting for Rush Limbaugh today, predicted Cardinal Marc Ouellet, former Archbishop of Quebec, current head of the Congregation of Bishops, will be the next pope.

He's Anglican though. Steyn that is.

So what?

So I doubt he has any particular insight, given that he rejected his Vatican baptism by confirming it in the Anglican ecclesial community.

Okay, so you doubt it.  You do not, however, know it, and neither do I.  *Anybody* can make any kind of prediction they like, with or without "particular insight".  What ecclesial community one belongs to doesn't, in and of itself, limit or delimit the amount of insight one has about this matter.  How much or how little insight any given person has about this issue will *only* be shown when the new Pope is elected and we find out who he is.

[Benjamin the Red]

If you're looking for some decent video coverage of the Conclave, EWTN has a live stream.

[J Michael]

If you're looking for some decent video coverage of the Conclave, EWTN has a live stream.

Thanks!

[Papist]

With the papal election this week, I thought a discussion on the general topic based on news reports might be of interest. Not Orthodox/Catholic discussion, just the news aspect.

Here is an interesting quote on the conclave process from a Georgetown U. Church history professor:

"The conclave is a process that dates to the Middle Ages. Until the 11th century, the process of picking popes was “a mess and inconsistent,” said Georgetown University history professor the Rev. David Collins. The popes were picked by various combinations of the clergy in Rome and the generation population. At that time, popes served as the head of Christianity in Western Europe and as the bishop of Rome. The city was governed by several prominent families, and the pope would come from one of those families."  http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/papal-conclave-has-tight-structure-uncertain-length/2013/03/11/044128a4-8a5c-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html

Not many RCs would admit to this

Are you sure of that?

Yes.  At least those who are the "internet apologist" types.  They seem to always want to paint a rosy picture of Church history where the Roman Catholics never do anything wrong, everything is organized, you know, the sun is always shining at the Vatican.

I've never met these people. Most Catholics I know realize full-well that Church has some dark chapters in her history. We are going though such a chapter now with the sex abuse crisis.

[J Michael]

With the papal election this week, I thought a discussion on the general topic based on news reports might be of interest. Not Orthodox/Catholic discussion, just the news aspect.

Here is an interesting quote on the conclave process from a Georgetown U. Church history professor:

"The conclave is a process that dates to the Middle Ages. Until the 11th century, the process of picking popes was “a mess and inconsistent,” said Georgetown University history professor the Rev. David Collins. The popes were picked by various combinations of the clergy in Rome and the generation population. At that time, popes served as the head of Christianity in Western Europe and as the bishop of Rome. The city was governed by several prominent families, and the pope would come from one of those families."  http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/papal-conclave-has-tight-structure-uncertain-length/2013/03/11/044128a4-8a5c-11e2-8d72-dc76641cb8d4_story.html

Not many RCs would admit to this

Are you sure of that?

Yes.  At least those who are the "internet apologist" types.  They seem to always want to paint a rosy picture of Church history where the Roman Catholics never do anything wrong, everything is organized, you know, the sun is always shining at the Vatican.

I've never met these people. Most Catholics I know realize full-well that Church has some dark chapters in her history. We are going though such a chapter now with the sex abuse crisis.

I have to say that I haven't met these people either.  I have met, however, a number of people, on the internet and in person, who love nothing more than to criticize, degrade, and belittle the Catholic Church, seeing no good in her whatsoever, always ready to jump on the slightest fault or perceived fault.  For some it seems almost a raison d'etre.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: minasoliman) > Topic: Conclave and a New Pope