Thursday, April 21, 2005

More on the new pope (incomplete)

Right now I am trying to find out information on the new pope(which I have to give thanks to Phil and Some Catholic Blogs for the Catholic blog links). I can say that it has been interesting searching through the web about Pope Benedict XVI. For instance, the ongoing conflicting views of the 'liberal' and 'conservative' Catholics.

I have to say that I agree with Anastasia's post. For one, it is ridiculous to expect someone of more liberal standing to be chosen as pope. I think it would take away from the beauty of the church; it would degrade its tradition. I don't think that 'conservative' being associated with any holy leader should ever be seen as a bad thing. Isn't the whole idea of the church to maintain a community of those faithful to God, and to bring more to salvation? If Catholicism were to change with the fickle trend of every generation I think there would be an overall loss of respect for its authority on faith and religion. There would be no reason for the church.

I liked Fr. Rob Johansen's response:

"Given Cardinal Ratzinger's reputation, we soon can also expect to see a stream of complaints from those for whom he will be too 'conservative' and 'traditional'. Of course, to call a Pope 'conservative' is no pejorative, as the Pope's whole office and charge is to conserve the Tradition, the Deposit of Faith."

I have seen complaints of the new pope. Some having him associated with Nazi Germany and others writing about his opposition to feminism. I have only been able to read one article of his, 'RELATIVISM: THE CENTRAL PROBLEM FOR FAITH TODAY'....

Okay, I don't mean to end the post like this, but I got distracted while writing it earlier today and now I'm not in the right mind set to finish. I'll try to write more on it tommarow:)

6 comments:

Jim Buggz said...

"I think it would take away from the beauty of the church; it would degrade its tradition. I don't think that 'conservative' being associated with any holy leader should ever be seen as a bad thing. Isn't the whole idea of the church to maintain a community of those faithful to God, and to bring more to salvation?"

Though seemingly sincere, I think this view of the purpose of the church is simplistically utopian. I think the Christian church has done plenty under the banners of tradition and conservatism to tarnish its reputation moreso than any "fickle trend." The Inquisition, the Crusades, the blind eye to the holocaust, and more recently the abuse of power and lack of responsibility for molesting altar boys are just a few among additional examples of the disreputable behavior of the church and its hierarchy. Martin Luther's reformation was viewed as a fickle trend, but its much needed reforms gave the church a better reputation than its corrupt past. I hope I didn't come-off as too abrasive, I just wanted to add some more insight. Thanks.

el said...

I don't get offended easily and I'm still very tired so bare with me here.

My veiw on the church's purpose is "simplistically utopian"...

Well, I can say that I am already very aware of the Catholic church's history. I am also realistic in the sense that I know that the church is a human institution that is not immune to human error, but that still does nothing to show why maintaining the tradition of the church is a bad thing. The Catholic Church has maintained through history with a strong following(with a conservative banner), and I believe that it isn't because people dig such things as killing Jews and molesting children. Those instances are from human imperfections and not error with the laws of the church (As you've mentioned too, the church has made changes when NEEDED).

Anyway, please let me know what you think the more "realistic" purpose of the church is then. And thanks for stopping by:)

Jim Buggz said...

LOL, well put. Ok then, if I folow your point on human error, then the church itself as an institution based upon the infallible is subject to human error. Much like interpretatinos of the Bible, the edited versions we own, and vatican law are also subject to human error. Therefore what we perceive as the divine or are taught to believe as the proper path to the divine, and keeping the faith of the divine is also subject to human error and therefore should also be questioned. Everything comes through a filter. I can agree with that.
I also agree the church should make changes when NEEDED, such as in regards to procedures when dealing with representatives of the church who betray and victimize their followers. I think sticking to a "conservative" stance and avoiding change in codified procedures would be perpetuating a dangerous trend, just as changing for every "fickle trend" would be the same.
But I will take your advice and check out the other posts u mentioned. Thanks :) TTYL

el said...

I will respond to this one with my next post, or after I post my latest sketch:)

el said...

Yeah, it might still be my next post... but that will be after the semester is over(unless I have another last minute procrastination phase... which I never discount knowing me).

Jim Buggz said...

LOL, np. I know what its like towards the end of the semster. I'll be a grad student soon, too. I took a year of procrastination time after I graduated last June.
Good Luck with school!
TTYL