32 replies to this topic

[Grey14]

Leave Britney alone!, on 09 March 2013 - 10:45 PM, said:

The last time a pope was elected who was not a cardinal first was in 1379.

You have to be a cardinal first, you can speak rules, I will speak custom, in the middle a truth will reveal itself. Laity have no chance in hell to be elected is the bottom line.

And yet the last time a Pope resigned was 1415. 2 months ago if anyone said the current pope is going to resign everyone would have said yeah right like that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening. So you may not want to be so hard set in what you think is going to happen because at this point anything has a chance of occuring.

[The world needs you]

Grey14, on 12 March 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

And yet the last time a Pope resigned was 1415. 2 months ago if anyone said the current pope is going to resign everyone would have said yeah right like that has a snowballs chance in hell of happening. So you may not want to be so hard set in what you think is going to happen because at this point anything has a chance of occuring.

Well we can be certain this time it won't be a lay person unless they can meet at minimum the following requirements:

Quote

Any serious papal candidate has to be prayerful, theologically sound and fluent in Italian, the language of the Vatican and of Rome, which is, after all, the pope’s own diocese.

Several cardinals have also said that the next pope must have had experience as bishop of a diocese. That description would exclude some cardinals who have served most of their years in the Curia and those with little pastoral experience, like Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi, the erudite Italian whom Benedict gave the honor of preaching at the Vatican’s recent Lenten retreat.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl, archbishop of Washington, said in an interview, “Being a shepherd of a local church, I think, would be a very important factor if you’re going to be engaged in this idea of renewing the church spiritually.”

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Beany, on 12 March 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

I think it's important to recognize both the feminine and male divine; I don't care to see one made supreme over the other, but would love to see more balance. Women are as capable of carrying out sacred duties as men are, I think most of us recognize that; however some of us would yield our own common sense and fairness to church authority and accept that because it is tradition it should not change. And who benefits from that, and who loses?

Oh I agree, women always had very important role in pagan religion. I think that reason why in Christaintity they have been repressed is to put distance between Christianity and Paganism, also weird sexual problems od some early Christians. I was thinking about the greatest Pagan burial so far found in the North, the Oseberg ship, and it was burial of a queen, and or a High Priestess, a Pope of "Odinism"...