Pope Ratzinger Retires page 2

50 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

“I don’t want to be closer in communication to the all powerful indecipherable creator of everything.”

Whoah, what? Is that a direct quote? What is the source of that? That’s a pretty crazy thing for the pope to say.

Nope, just characterizing the absurdity of being the only person in the world who can understand exactly what God wants, and suddenly no longer wanting that ability for some odd reason. It’s like someone who can stop all starvation in the world throwing the talisman that gives them this power into the ocean for any reason at all, and then trying to convince a starving person it was good for everyone. The implications of a Pope have far more weight and is why people are so batshit about him, and we really need to pay attention to these dangerous ideas in our world.

 
Flag Post
Nope, just characterizing the absurdity of being the only person in the world who can understand exactly what God wants, and suddenly no longer wanting that ability for some odd reason. It’s like someone who can stop all starvation in the world throwing the talisman that gives them this power into the ocean for any reason at all, and then trying to convince a starving person it was good for everyone. The implications of a Pope have far more weight and is why people are so batshit about him, and we really need to pay attention to these dangerous ideas in our world.

It’s amusing how little you know about Catholicism and the role of the Pope, yet try to come off as a theologian.

 
Flag Post

The pope is a fool who is losing influence… I mean the papal position itself is. Btw an interesting fact catholic factions from across Europe led by the pope have more than likely killed more people than al queda and the Taliban together during the purely religious wars aka the crusades. I say Catholics have a bigger history of terrorism.

 
Flag Post

I never claimed to understand the role of the pope, or even represent my understanding of the pope here, nor do I characterize myself as a “theologian.” That said, I do know that the pope knows the infallible word of God as presumed by 3 or 4 lines of the bible by Peter, and that this is an otherworldly gift of translation. I also know that in reality the pope is little more than a political figurehead of the religious monarchy that is Catholicism. If you want to talk details, we can do that, but don’t mistake my understanding of anything based on a few offhand comments regarding your superheroes’ cannon.

 
Flag Post

“Don’t let the 500-pound solid gold door hit you on the way out.”

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

“I don’t want to be closer in communication to the all powerful indecipherable creator of everything.”

Whoah, what? Is that a direct quote? What is the source of that? That’s a pretty crazy thing for the pope to say.

Nope, just characterizing the absurdity of being the only person in the world who can understand exactly what God wants, and suddenly no longer wanting that ability for some odd reason. It’s like someone who can stop all starvation in the world throwing the talisman that gives them this power into the ocean for any reason at all, and then trying to convince a starving person it was good for everyone. The implications of a Pope have far more weight and is why people are so batshit about him, and we really need to pay attention to these dangerous ideas in our world.

Using your analogy, wouldn’t you WANT that person to throw the talisman away if it meant it were to be immediately picked up by someone else who could use it better? Wouldn’t it be selfish of that person to keep it if they could no longer put it to its best use?

But of course, the statement that the Pope is “the only person in the world who can understand exactly what God wants” isn’t true in the first place. He’s certainly in a good position to know, since he’s been through a lot more religious education than most of us, has access to all the previous writings of previous Popes and can likely read them in their original language, etc.

Infallibility is rarely used. Has the current Pope even invoked it?

 
Flag Post

So wait, a person has to evoke the fact that they can be infallible? The pope waves his arms around and a bigger, megazord pope appears and he jumps in and has the ability to hear the unfiltered word of God only when he so pleases? What kind of a world do Catholics seriously live in? Invoked infallibility? Seriously?

Mirror mirror on the wall…-

 
Flag Post
So wait, a person has to evoke the fact that they can be infallible? The pope waves his arms around and a bigger, megazord pope appears and he jumps in and has the ability to hear the unfiltered word of God only when he so pleases? What kind of a world do Catholics seriously live in? Invoked infallibility? Seriously?

Still trying to claim to understand Catholicism while failing miserably. Still adorable.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TheBSG:

So wait, a person has to evoke the fact that they can be infallible? The pope waves his arms around and a bigger, megazord pope appears and he jumps in and has the ability to hear the unfiltered word of God only when he so pleases? What kind of a world do Catholics seriously live in? Invoked infallibility? Seriously?

Mirror mirror on the wall…-

Perhaps you misunderstand the way I was using the word “invoke”. The definition I was using was “To appeal to or cite as authority” and not “To call forth by incantation : conjure”.

From Wikipedia:

“For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must be a decision of the supreme teaching authority of the Church (pope or College of Bishops); it must concern a doctrine of faith or morals; it must bind the universal Church; and it must be proposed as something to be held firmly and immutably. The terminology of a definitive decree will usually make clear that this last condition is fulfilled, as through a formula such as “By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine . . . to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful”, or through an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church."

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Wraymond:

Who gives a dam I never even knew who the pope was lol

The epitome of the stereotypical American general ignorance, you are.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by JaumeBG:
Originally posted by Wraymond:

Who gives a dam I never even knew who the pope was lol

The epitome of the stereotypical American general ignorance, you are.
I don’t see how being ignorant towards religious positions that would only waste my time is general ignorance. Feel free to explain.
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Wraymond:
Originally posted by JaumeBG:
Originally posted by Wraymond:

Who gives a dam I never even knew who the pope was lol

The epitome of the stereotypical American general ignorance, you are.
I don’t see how being ignorant towards religious positions that would only waste my time is general ignorance. Feel free to explain.

The pope has a huge influence on the way quite a lot of people think. If you have any interest in what is going on in the world it’s probably a good idea to inform yourself a bit about those topics. Helps a lot in understanding debates about topics like abortion and general issues of morality in politics and so on.

 
Flag Post

Knowing the popes name will not help me understand anything but his name. I pay attention to things happening in the world and read the news every day.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Wraymond:

Knowing the popes name will not help me understand anything but his name. I pay attention to things happening in the world and read the news every day.

Soon there will be a different pope that will probably do things differently. Knowing the name of one pope will help you to categorise him correctly. “Ratzinger… Oh! That was that super-conservative guy, who lived in the wrong century and avoided the problems in his church like the devil avoids holy water.”
If you don’t care who the president is you might end up looking at Obama the same way you looked at Bush. Now that would be embarrassing. If you only know the office someone holds you might understand how a system works, but only if you know something about the person holding that office you will be able to find out why something is happening.

 
Flag Post

obama!!!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
So wait, a person has to evoke the fact that they can be infallible? The pope waves his arms around and a bigger, megazord pope appears and he jumps in and has the ability to hear the unfiltered word of God only when he so pleases? What kind of a world do Catholics seriously live in? Invoked infallibility? Seriously?

Still trying to claim to understand Catholicism while failing miserably. Still adorable.

Hey, ivory tower, why don’t you come down here and say that to my face? Please tell me where I’ve failed while critically perceiving the backwards logic of reading extremely deeply into the most offhand lines of an ancient text and then developing a political monarchy around it? In this discussion, we might get a chance to drill down to precisely how batshit silly Catholicism is.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ceasar:
Originally posted by TheBSG:

So wait, a person has to evoke the fact that they can be infallible? The pope waves his arms around and a bigger, megazord pope appears and he jumps in and has the ability to hear the unfiltered word of God only when he so pleases? What kind of a world do Catholics seriously live in? Invoked infallibility? Seriously?

Mirror mirror on the wall…-

Perhaps you misunderstand the way I was using the word “invoke”. The definition I was using was “To appeal to or cite as authority” and not “To call forth by incantation : conjure”.

From Wikipedia:

“For a teaching by a pope or ecumenical council to be recognized as infallible, the teaching must be a decision of the supreme teaching authority of the Church (pope or College of Bishops); it must concern a doctrine of faith or morals; it must bind the universal Church; and it must be proposed as something to be held firmly and immutably. The terminology of a definitive decree will usually make clear that this last condition is fulfilled, as through a formula such as “By the authority of Our Lord Jesus Christ and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, We declare, pronounce and define the doctrine . . . to be revealed by God and as such to be firmly and immutably held by all the faithful”, or through an accompanying anathema stating that anyone who deliberately dissents is outside the Catholic Church."

Absolutely nothing about that offends my perception of a guy speaking on behalf of God with some granted authority that would be astoundingly silly to refuse if it were an actual real thing. If you really had the better judgement than others, according to the conscious creator of the universe, the only way you’d refuse that is if it was too much for your mortal brain to handle, and I sincerely doubt the minor difference between 75 and 81 or however long Ratman has been in power is not an adequate measurement of failing cosmic resilience. On the other hand when a president is just getting too old to decide how to run his country, it would make sense he’d resign.

The whole point I was making is that it’s a little bit absurd that cosmic authority is something you opt into and out of, despite being something innate and selected by that cosmic authority. It’s like pulling Excalibur from the stone and then handing it to someone else and saying they’re the new chosen one.

Edit: Every time I characterize a catholic’s beliefs as absurd as they sound, they always repeat what I said back to me but in arrogant, elevated language. The whole church is a system of posturing in order to claim authority over the lives of others. Religions are good and all, but in actual practice, it’s giving up your own sense of understanding in favor of someone’s prescribed “clarity.” I don’t even believe the Bible is the active word of God, but if it is, I don’t at all see any validation in its lines for the human political construct that is the catholic church.

 
Flag Post
Hey, ivory tower, why don’t you come down here and say that to my face?

Sure.

In this discussion, we might get a chance to drill down to precisely how batshit silly Catholicism is

Yeah…. no. It’s pretty clear it’s going to be damn near impossible to have a conversation with someone who is not only completely wrong, but completely arrogant about it as well. Pretty much every post you’ve written has been dripping with disdain for Catholicism and the Vatican. What is the point in arguing with you?

You think my religion is batshit silly (even though you clearly know so little about it, but I digress). That’s fine, but don’t expect me to waste my energy trying to argue with someone who will never see eye to eye with me on this issue, let alone being civil about it.

 
Flag Post

That’s the thing about fallacies. Just because I’m potentially making them doesn’t actually mean you have a clear indication of what I do or don’t know, nor does it mean my actual disdain for your beliefs isn’t validated. If I’ve characterized your beliefs incorrectly and maliciously, please explain how I’m wrong instead of stomping your feet and whining that I’m not nice about it. I am more than capable of admitting I don’t know something, like when I didn’t know that the pope could declare authority and didn’t have it all of the time: That still didn’t indicate to me that it made any more sense than it did before. I am not saying I know more than enough to concisely judge the entire church: But absolutely everything I do know points towards complete and utter silliness. Do you have an iota of succinct logic that isn’t self referential? I know you don’t because then there wouldn’t be any question whether Pope is the unfettered voice of God or not.

What about the bible describes any of the made up things that validate the pope? I know exactly what lines you’re going to cite, and I know exactly what historians of every single color call those lines but catholics: Grossly misunderstood. Of all the religions, catholicism is the one, in my mind, that has the most burden of proof. I get most Christian’s readings of the bible, but the organization, affiliations, and authorities implied by the catholic church, from my perspective, are rendered from entirely new cloth. The only belief that I think bears more responsibility is Smith’s Christian fanfic Mormonism, and that’s a belief I know much less about than the catholicism I grew up around.

 
Flag Post

What most catholics do now is say “See, you think he speaks for God. He doesn’t, he’s just the head of our church.” but then he makes a decree and everyone in the church talks about the grace and brilliance of those decrees in relation to God. Maybe the claims in those wordy self-proclaimed statements of authority aren’t saying “I am the unfettered voice of God.” but that’s exactly what it is practically experienced by all of his followers as.

In reality, a bunch of old privileged people with very little perspective on the world use the faith of religion to instate themselves as leaders of other mortals, somewhat directly opposite of Jesus’ thesis regarding churches and faith. The very decree that catholics claim grants papal authority, to me, is suggesting that all individuals contain that papal authority. Jesus literally says that the church is in us, that the temple and worship is internal and not something mandated. Leave it to humans to think that means the one dude he was talking to should get to be a spiritual leader, authorized by God himself.

I could absolutely be more cordial, but I’ve kind of lost that for these forums, and I’m not in the best mood lately. I do know I’d be saying the exact same things in far more eloquent terms though. Catholicism is more clearly made up than most religions, and 90% of it is an attempt to control others for political and financial power. This is both self evident in the claims and practices, as well as in the historical activities of the Church, and I challenge you to provide a piece of evidence that contradicts this claim, because I’m more than willing to admit where I’m wrong.

 
Flag Post
Just because I’m potentially making them doesn’t actually mean you have a clear indication of what I do or don’t know, nor does it mean my actual disdain for your beliefs isn’t validated.

In my opinion, your disdain for my beliefs will never be validated.

If I’ve characterized your beliefs incorrectly and maliciously, please explain how I’m wrong instead of stomping your feet and whining that I’m not nice about it.

Not whining – just stating it’s a waste of time. If you want to be a complete asshat towards Catholicism, I don’t really care. Just don’t expect me to carry on a conversation about religion with you.

Do you have an iota of succinct logic that isn’t self referential? I know you don’t because then there wouldn’t be any question whether Pope is the unfettered voice of God or not.

So I can’t claim to know what you know, but you can make claims about what I know. Brilliant.

What about the bible describes any of the made up things that validate the pope? I know exactly what lines you’re going to cite, and I know exactly what historians of every single color call those lines but catholics: Grossly misunderstood.
Jesus literally says that the church is in us, that the temple and worship is internal and not something mandated.

So when Scripture appears to contradict you, it’s grossly misunderstood. But when Scripture appears to agree with you, its fully understood. It’s quite the system you’ve worked out.

In reality, a bunch of old privileged people with very little perspective on the world use the faith of religion to instate themselves as leaders of other mortals, somewhat directly opposite of Jesus’ thesis regarding churches and faith.

So John Paul II had very little perspective on the world. That really is quite the argument that someone who grew up in Poland during Nazi Germany lacks perspective. I guess not everyone can be as worldly as you clearly are.

 
Flag Post

1. Yes actually, I can claim to know what you know because I’ve studied your books and not a single catholic I’ve ever talked to has presented a new piece of evidence that convincingly describes what authority people afford the pope. I am so dismissive and unperturbed by your empty claims about my understanding your religion because every attempt to understand it has yielded identical results. We could go through the whole swing of things, but I already know what lines from the bible you’ll cite, and I already know what historians say about those lines. If you have something you know I haven’t heard before, since you claimed to know what I know, I’d love to hear it.

2. That’s the whole point: reading words written by goat herders several thousands of years ago and suggesting authority of any kind from it is absurd. If the argument is “read these lines, that’s what it means.” then I get to read the lines and read them how I please too. The subjective claims that the pope has some kind of authority over all of the teachings of Jesus Christ’s church are, I would argue, directly opposite Jesus’ other claims. When you’re using faith and uncertainty as grounds for believing something, you’re the one who’s introducing entirely fallacious representations of those claims, not myself. I’m following the logic, and if I cannot possibly read it the way I have, then it should stand to reason why you read it entirely differently. If you want to get into specific histories and meanings of words that have been translated to English, we can get into that. I assumed you’ve already mined those arguments with people and “agreed to disagree.” so that’s where I was sitting with you already.

 
Flag Post

So John Paul II had very little perspective on the world. That really is quite the argument that someone who grew up in Poland during Nazi Germany lacks perspective. I guess not everyone can be as worldly as you clearly are.

To be fair Pope John Paul II is like the super hero of popes, and likely the only reason Catholicism will even still be around for a couple generations. That said, he remains perhaps the most iconoclastic, anti-catholic (not to say, anti-christian) pope they’ve ever had.

Furthermore, the world extends a lot past nazi germany, poland and world war 2. Splash in the pan of the idealogical, cultural war that the Catholic church has been engaged in for thousands of years. Now, I would insist that PJP2 was worldly, but it was something he cultivated and embraced not had handed to him upon a silver platter. I feel in many ways his transgressions against previous traditional mainstays are too immediate to be appreciated. Interfaith respect and communication most notably.

Now BSG I can’t say I am a believer in the theological justification of the roman catholic church. Besides the whole, atheist, bit. But! In the contemporary environment papal infallibility is something, in my experience and those I know at least, that the Church has distanced itself from. It has quite a history, and has been many things at many points, but now represents little more then the Pope’s authority over the church he heads.

Consider also that the official use of the official infallibility has only even been used twice. Both in regards to Mary being considered Holy.

Things get stranger when you consider the Magisterium’s edicts which are proposed to be “irreformable” and “definitive”. The conclave of Cardinal’s and their decisions remain of far greater authority, both temporal and round logic theological. It is they who sanctioned the notion of Papal Infallibility to begin with, are required for the “vatican” councils, and who elect the popes.

 
Flag Post
Yes actually, I can claim to know what you know because I’ve studied your books and not a single catholic I’ve ever talked to has presented a new piece of evidence that convincingly describes what authority people afford the pope. I am so dismissive and unperturbed by your empty claims about my understanding your religion because every attempt to understand it has yielded identical results. We could go through the whole swing of things, but I already know what lines from the bible you’ll cite, and I already know what historians say about those lines. If you have something you know I haven’t heard before, since you claimed to know what I know, I’d love to hear it.

Fair enough, you know your stuff. When you make overly simplistic claims about doctrine, it gave me the impression that you knew very little and were looking to incite. I was wrong, my apologies.

I assumed you’ve already mined those arguments with people and “agreed to disagree.” so that’s where I was sitting with you already.

That’s another reason why I wasn’t terribly interested in getting off my ivory tower, so to speak. Heady religious discussions usually end in an agree to disagree statement as, generally speaking, both sides view the arguments of the other as being illogical.


To be fair Pope John Paul II is like the super hero of popes, and likely the only reason Catholicism will even still be around for a couple generations. That said, he remains perhaps the most iconoclastic, anti-catholic (not to say, anti-christian) pope they’ve ever had.

Well, yeah, that’s why I used him. He was an amazing man and the starkest example of the Church having a global perspective off the top of my head. I think while Benedict may be seen as a failure by many, I would submit he was doomed to fail from the start. No one was going to succeed John Paul and be as powerful, influential, well-spoken, and really flat out brilliant.

It would be really good if we have a non-European Pope; Cardinal Turkson I find especially intriguing although it appears his chances, at least according to the press, are waning.

 
Flag Post

My family really tuned into this. I couldn’t understand why – they’re at best, nominal Catholics. Growing up as one, I can’t remember a single instance where they actually referenced the pope (any pope) in regards to a specific religious belief, or give the impression that the pope was an authority figure they had to listen to. Nor did they keep track of papal bulls or anything like that. In fact, despite going through Catholic schooling, I can only think of a couple people, hardcore catholics both (one’s now a nun, the other a thomist) who showed any interest in that; it wasn’t taught or discussed during religious studies classes; the pope might as well have not existed for all the impact he had in my life, or any of my catholic friends.

All that’s to say that making a big deal out of ratzinger’s departure on theological grounds seems pretty ridiculous, particularly coming from an atheist who’s main interest in religion threads is picking fights with theists. The only reason my family paid attention to this story, as well as most other catholics I know, is the same reason non-Catholics paid attention to it: because it’s newsworthy. This isn’t the eighteenth century, when Locke was worried that Catholics might have dual loyalty problems; it’s not even the early twentieth century when the Cardinals were hammering out Vatican I and dissing secularism. I’d suggest that for most (western) catholics, the pope is just the representative of the Church, just like the queen is for the commonwealth; his ‘magisterial power’ is ceremonial. So one quits, another comes in. Meh.