Posted on 02/03/2005 7:10:07 AM PST by Servant of the 9
Future popes will be required to retire at a fixed age, according to secret plans being discussed because of the recurring health woes of John Paul II, it was reported today. Senior Roman Catholic Church sources said cardinals who will select the next pontiff have discussed the need to choose a successor who is open to a retirement age, most likely 80. They said the cardinals want to avoid a repeat of recent years in which John Paul's ailments forced him to turn decision-making over to a small group of senior aides, The Times of London reported. The creation of a retirement age would end a tradition that has lasted 2,000 years — that a pope serves until death. Disclosure of the secret plan comes as officials said John Paul II's health had stabilized following his emergency hospitalization. The 84-year-old pontiff will remain at a Rome hospital for "a few more days," mainly as a precaution against complications, such as pneumonia, the Vatican said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
excuse the spelling mishap (their, not "they're")
Allow me to clarify that - this was their condition when called to the priesthood - as CLERGYMEN. They weren't selling real estate. They were ministers or pastors or vicars or what-have-you. That's the key. They had already committed a portion of their lives to Christian evangelization.
Not gonna happen. The pope isn't bound by any conditions the cardinals set, and even if he agrees with it at his election, he is perfectly free to change his mind. There's nothing that can "make" him retire. He can retire or not retire when he pleases, and nothing can enforce a retirement age. He can't be impeached or deposed.
Changing 2000 years of tradition because of convenience is just so ... wrong.
wasn't there one Pope who was barely an adult who became a sexual degenerate?
(I am series- I swear I hear such a story once- does anyone know if it is true?)
If Christ had not seen the need for his own sacrifice, he would not have willingly stayed on the cross until he died (hence, he never DID "step down"). The Pope was not implying that Christ was dead, merely referring to his own need to fulfill his duty in light of Christ's ultimate fulfillment of duty.
And, IMO, doing so in a humorous manner.
I would agree with that in that God who is outside of time and dimensions. But, there is no biblical foundation for an eternal sacrifice. The results of that sacrfice, yes, but not the sacrifice. Here are a few reasons why:
First, His sacrifice had to perfectly satisfy every last detail in all of the 5 Levitical sacrifices (not to mention the Red Heiffer). He is the Word made flesh, so every minute detail had to be completed on the cross. One of the requirements for the sacrifices is that they were to be burnt and the ashes carried outside the camp. Others talk about the kidneys and a lobe of the liver had to be removed. Others talk about different parts being presented after the fat has been taken off. Others talk about the sins having to be "transferred" to the animal before its death. If this moment is "eternal" - which moment? Is it the transferrence while the animal is alive, is it before the parts (not the head) are washed? Is it the removal of the kidneys and liver? And those are only a few details.
These all can't take place at the same "moment" if that "moment" is not defined by time. By His definition of the sacrifices, He dictates demands a timeline. And that means it must be (must have been) within creation and not suspended somewhere outside of creation. And, there are no "moments" outside of time - there can't be an "eternal moment" because time and so, moments don't occur if time does not exist. It seems to be to be an oxymoron at best.
But, scripture itself shows this to have occured, once and for all. The tenses of the verbs used show this to be the case and elimates what you are trying to say.
A quick rundown on the tenses:
(A) - aorist gives a sense of punctiliar or simple action that is NOT continuous action.
(P)Present refers to continuous action which depending on the mood or form can mean continous action in the past, present, or future.PP) Perfect particple which indicates a one time action in the past that has continual results.
Heb 1:3 who being(P) the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding(P) all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged(A) our sins, sat down (A) at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
This shows He is continually being and upholding, but one time action of purged and sat down.
10:12 But this Man, after He had offered (A) one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 from that time waiting (P) till His enemies are made (A)His footstool.
See the use of both aorist and present here - He SAT down, but is now waiting.. 12:2 looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was (P) set before Him endured (A) the cross, despising (A)the shame, and has sat down (A) at the right hand of the throne of God.
Again, here we see the different tenses being used.
Mark 16:19 So then, after the Lord had spoken (A) to them, He was received (A) up into heaven, and sat down (A) down at the right hand of God.
1 John 4: 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses (P) that Jesus Christ has come (PP) in the flesh is (P) of God.
Here, the fact that He came in the flesh is a one time occurence but with continual results.
Therefore, unless you can show why these uses of tenses, the details in the sacrifice, etc can support your theory, then it appears that the Word refutes what you are trying to say.
He seemed to be implying that God is still on the cross. He isn't. He is Risen!! :)
SSPX is somewhat larger but still quite small. It too is quite eccentric but the illicit consecration of bishops is an instance of grand theft ecclesiastical and tends to be noticed.
In the case of the SSPX, we may confidently add that SSPX despises and reviles JP II personally for excommunicating their disobedient bishops and condemning their movement as the schism that it clearly is. Nothing new there. That theme has played out with each passing schism and heresy throughout the history of the Church. Many of the schisms and heresies have continued to pose dishonestly as Catholic despite their individual and collective apostasies.
Eventually, whatever his "followers" today may say, Leonard Feeney, SJ, repudiated his own work and returned to Roman Catholicism (his entire movement would have been a gross irony if he had not). His "followers" are not bright enough to actually follow him back to Rome. They still just don't get it.
Traditionalists within Catholicism are generally describable as those who favor the old over the new. They cannot be blamed for that since the new tends to be low rent and the old tends to be magnificent. However, elevating taste over substance, rejecting the popes provided through the intervention of the Holy Ghost, and rejecting many of the actual traditions of the Church does not make one a traditionalist.
To be a traditionalist, one ought NOT to reject such traditions as:
"Roma locuta. Causa finita."
"Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia."
To be a Roman Catholic traditionalist, one really ought to be a Roman Catholic and not a schismatic or excommunicatus AND one really ought to be in communion with the Holy See and with one's diocesan ordinary, NOT with excommunicated bishops. That there are diocesan ordinaries who leave much to be desired is also nothing new. There have been bad bishops since Judas. The Church was still the Church promised to us by Jesus Christ who also promised to remain with it all days until the end of the world.
Even from their schism-warped point of view, the pseudo-trads must be smoking something other than tobacco if they would claim that John Paul I, the former Alberto Cardinal Luciani of Venice, was not "orthodox."
I may have been in error in classing you a non-Catholic. You may know better than I unless you are in schism. I was responding to the phrase: "Even the Vatican" in reference to the bad idea of married priests in the Roman rite. Assuming that you are Catholic, as you say, and not schismatic, my apology.
As to the "slap in the face," see the parable of the workers and the vineyard which seems right on point and argues to the contrary. No one changed the conditions under which the unmarried priests were ordained. The Church is not a court of equity.
As to the "slap in the face," see the parable of the workers and the vineyard which seems right on point and argues to the contrary. No one changed the conditions under which the unmarried priests were ordained. The Church is not a court of equity.
Your take is the same as mine--and this is a typical Leftie Leak, where they attempt to set the direction of the next Papacy before it begins.
Follows the model used by Rembert Weakland, who attempted to set the direction of his successor with some silly oooh-la-la "goodbye" letter he sent to the Milwaukee priests.
Thanks for your thoughts and prayers for JPII.
...I have a few Mormon friends, too--whom I respect.
Adultery is a very grave sin, and the subject of the 8th Commandment. Homosexuality- the desires themselves are not sin, they are disorder. It is acting upon them - the homosexual act- that is sinful.
Very well said. Alot of folks have trouble grasping the concept that God is "outside" time and space.
At first I just latched onto a portion of what you said, in retrospect after consulting the CCC I think you may be mistaken in your description.
God is of course outside time, but the Crucifiction, Resurrection and Ascension were specific things that happened at a specific time, not eternally.
-PJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.