CE9

[MrGordon]

Rit, i don't think you really said anything, did you?

[JACkory]

I'm no expert on Catholicism, but I think that one of the reasons celibacy is required of priests is the nature of the priesthood itself. The priest is conferred with being the representative of Christ in such a literal manner that for him to be married (and therefore sexually involved with his wife) would spoil the whole thing. Kinda like using a hot dog bun for a eucharist wafer, I guess.
Actually, I've read of a service that, because of a mistake on the part of the person responsible for preparing communion, actually did use hot dog buns.
Of course that would NEVER happen in a Catholic church. They are pretty strict and dogmatic (not that I find anything wrong with that...).


Though I am a Protestant Calvinist, nevertheless I sincerely wish to express my heartfelt sympathies to the faithful in the Catholic Church and would like to unite with them in their hour of mourning for the Pontiff, John Paul II. If ever there was an example of grace, dignity, compassion and integrity, it was this Pope.

[chrisfan]

I'm stuck on the hot dog bun now. I realize that there are specifics in the Catholic church about what can be used for communion - I just heard about a case where a little girl is being denied communion because she is allergic to wheat, and the Catholic church refuses to allow rice-based bread for her to take communion.

But I had always believed that the reason that bread was used by Christ is that it was something that His followers ate daily, and therefore would have a daily rememberance of Him. Actually, my church uses hot dog buns (or hamburger buns) for one communion each year on purpose. For world communion Sunday, we do a presentation of a variety of breads, each representing different groups of people around the world. One of those groups is children, and hot dog buns are used to represent them.

[chrisfan]

Okay Gordon, so you're saying that faith only exsists as faith in yourself? That there can be no faith in God, because God cannot be proven to exsist? Isn't that kind of the point of the word FAITH? It takes FAITH to believe in God, because you can't prove with concrete evidence that He is there, but you know that it's true anyway.

[Kensterberg]

Celibacy didn't become a requirement for the priesthood until (I believe) the Renaissence (don't remember which century, sorry). The abuses of power by priests (esp. by Bishops and Cardinals, who ruled large parts of Europe as de facto monarchy, with the accompanying indulgences) led to an eventual reforming of the order. Much of the rules of the modern Catholic clergy are a reaction/response to the church's mistakes of the middle ages, etc. I'm pretty sure that these problems ran into the 1500's, but again, I'm not positive about this.

But celibacy was not a requirement for priests prior to this time, nor is it a requirement in any of the Protestant sects. Not sure about the Eastern Orthodox church. Anyone know?

[ken]

Peace be to the Pope and the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

As a liberal with a very strong Catholic background (what with being raised Catholic, in Catholic school, all my life), I am glad to see the Pope go. God knows how long he has suffered with one illness or another and carried the burdens he has needed to carry. Even as I did not agree with a majority of his politics, the man was a clear force for good on this planet, and we cannot have too many of those.

Will be glued to the TV to see how the choosing of the new Pope goes down...

[ken]

In the Eastern Orthodox Church, married men may be ordained deacons or priests, but may not be ordained bishops, and may not marry after ordination.

Celibacy is required of Catholic priests because, simplistically, a priest's full attention must be focused on the Church. As the Church considers the duties of a husband and father to be full time all consuming jobs, a priest may not be married as he will not be able to carry on any of his duties to the full degree.

[stratman19]

Here's a link I found regarding celibacy and the Catholic church. It's just a timeline and brief history.

www.futurechurch.org/fpm/history.htm

[chrisfan]

I think it's kind of cool that on a subject such as this, so many people can all come together to work through the facts and experiences that each of us has to work through questions together. Here's another question I've been wondering about the pope. Obviously, Pope John Paul II did not grow up with the name John Paul. Did he become John Paul II at the time he became pope? Who determines what name the pope will be given? Does every pope get a pope name?

[rockkid]

I have a bible that lists all 264 of them. From year 67 to the late John Paul II.
I believe the elected usually pick their own from prior popes or saints.



List of those in contention at………….. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4136355/?GT1=6428

[Kensterberg]

Yeah, John Paul II named himself after his predecessor, who only served for a very brief time. He, in turn, picked his name from the two prior Popes, I believe.

I think that's where he got his name from, anyway. Good lord, it's been like twenty-four or twenty-five years! And I'm not a Catholic, and working from memory with this.

And John Paul's given name is a Polish one, which I can neither spell nor pronounce. ;D

[rockkid]

Karol Wojtyla

[maarts]

That's him. Indeed, Pope John Paul II named himself after his predecessor.

As far as the excitement goes in regards to the voting in of a new pope, don't hold your breath. It can be a laborious process and even though it would make more interesting TV than the voting off out of Survivor, it's all done in secret.

All the eligible cadrinals are locked away in 'conclave', as it is called. This procedure stems from 1243, when the congregation of cardinals took more than a year and a half to elect a new pope. To speed up the process, the Senate and the population of Rome locked the cardinals up. After 1271 they even put the cardinals on a diet of water and bread- all to but make sure that a new pope-elect would be ordained in the utmost of speed. The pope who was elected in that year, Gregorius X formalised this practice.

Since it sometimes still took about a months before a new pope was elected in conclave, new rules were made. Since 1831 the maximum amount of time a conclave can be held it 4 days. When Pope John Paul II was elected, it only took 24 hours.

The reason for the lengthy election procedures is the fact that the pope-elect has to gather two thirds of all votes. Since there's quite a few candidates, it's almost a process of elimination.

Conclave starts 15 to 20 days after a pope dies. All eligible cardinals under the age of 80 gather together (117 in this case), swear an oath never to reveal whatever happens inside the chambers and celebrate mass. Voting happens twice in the morning and twice in the afternoon via ballot papers, which will be burned after every voting held. When concensus is reached, the protodeacon will appear on the balcony of the Vatican to pronounce the 'Habemus Papam' - we have a pope. The waiting faithful before that will have seen the 'white smoke' appear first, as a sign that agreement has reached and a new Holy Father as been appointed.

Pope John Paul II has made a few changes in the voting system which, again, allows the election of a new Pope to be swifter- If after 30 voting rounds no candidate has gathered a two-thirds majority, a simple majority-vote will suffice to see the winning candidate take the post. Also he has moved the cardinals from the Spartan-like Apostilic Palace to the more comfortable Domus Santae Marthae, which has 108 suites and 23 bedrooms, all with bath....


Interestingly enough I heard the story that the first notice of the Pope's death went out via e-mail. You never know, the news of a new Pope might be SMS-ed out nowadays.

[Dr. Drum]

Good to see the expressions of affection and respect for John Paul II on this board. Particularly – since his politics and moral vision so often had such a strong Leftist cast, diametrically opposing current Republican policies in many regards – from from those of you on the American right.

www.juancole.com/2005/04/other-pope-john-paul-ii-was-complex.html

[pissin2]

Gordon makes more sense than I've ever see anyone make on here.