Next Pope Predictions

[Miss Shelby]

Maybe I'm being overly sensitive (actually it's a probablity) but all of this talk about who will succeed Pope John Paul seems akin to discussing who will get grandma's china after she dies.

Michelle

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Maybe I'm being overly sensitive (actually it's a probablity) but all of this talk about who will succeed Pope John Paul seems akin to discussing who will get grandma's china after she dies.

Michelle

Its not "her china" though. But really, I think we all expressed that its a hard thing to think about.

 

[Wolseley]

I also admire Cardinal Arinze, as I do Cardinal Ratzinger; but keep in mind that both of them are no longer young. In any event, it is up to the Holy Spirirt, and we can be sure that whoever the next Pope is, it will be His choice, not ours.

Higgaion, please restrict your comments to serious discussion. We take the topic of the Bishop of Rome very seriously, and comments such as those above are not appreciated.

 

[ps139]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed that he gets the nod from the Holy Spirit.

In any event, it is up to the Holy Spirirt, and we can be sure that whoever the next Pope is, it will be His choice, not ours.

I normally don't like to split hairs, but isn't the election of a pope a human decision? I do believe God has a hand in it, but not in the same way as He guides Magisterial teaching. What I am saying is that the Holy Spirit can be, and has been (historically) ignored in this decision of the cardinals.

 

[Wolseley]

I normally don't like to split hairs, but isn't the election of a pope a human decision? I do believe God has a hand in it, but not in the same way as He guides Magisterial teaching. What I am saying is that the Holy Spirit can be, and has been (historically) ignored in this decision of the cardinals.

Examples?

 

[ps139]

Examples?

Well, any bad pope would be an example. Any pope who may have been elected for more political reasons than religious, anyone who clearly should not have been a pope.

 

[nyj]

Well, any bad pope would be an example. Any pope who may have been elected for more political reasons than religious, anyone who clearly should not have been a pope.

Perhaps God gave the Catholic Church those Popes for a reason. Afterall, He did pick Judas (knowing what the end result would be) to be amongst His beloved twelve apostles.

 

[Wolseley]

Yeah, but even at that, there may have been reasons the Holy Spirit had behind those elections that we don't know about, too.

Pope Alexander VI was by anybody's standard, a very immoral and licentious man; but he never taught heresy (and neither has any other Pope), but if one of the other cardinals had been elected, perhaps the Church could have been plunged into an all-out European war, or perhaps he might have promoted heresy, or something else of extremely bad import, and that's why the Holy Spirit prompted the election of Alexander VI.

See what I'm saying?

 

[ps139]

Yeah, but even at that, there may have been reasons the Holy Spirit had behind those elections that we don't know about, too.

Pope Alexander VI was by anybody's standard, a very immoral and licentious man; but her never taught heresy (nad neither has any other Pope), but if one of the other cardinals had been elected, perhaps the Church could have been plunged into an all-out European war, or perhpas he might have promoted heresy, or something else of extremely bad import, and that's why the Holy Spirit prompted the election of Alexander VI.

See what I'm saying?

Yes I do, except for the hypothetical situation of a pope promoting heresy.
And I gather that you are saying that the Holy Spirit prompts the elections of all of the popes - that who is pope is there for a reason, that God basically put him there - even if he is immoral/licentious.
While of course it is possibe, I do not think it is a statement we can regard as truth.

We can say that the Magesterium teaches infallibly.
But we cannot say that the cardinals elect the pope infallibly - i.e. that the pope elected is the right one for the job. If the Holy Spirit prompts the cardinals they can always ignore Him.

 

[Michelina]

We can say that the Magesterium teaches infallibly.
But we cannot say that the cardinals elect the pope infallibly - i.e. that the pope elected is the right one for the job. If the Holy Spirit prompts the cardinals, they can always ignore Him.

The Church has never taught that Conclaves are infallible.

Bad popes have done great harm to the Church. The 'Babylonian Captivity', i.e. the Avignon Papacy, allowed many abuses to become the norm. By the 16th century, the sinecure system was so bad that when the saintly Dominican St. Pius V started to introduce reforms, he met great resistance - which diminished the impact of the Counter-Reformation. If the abuses allowed by Popes had Not been allowed, the Protestant Deformation might not have happened or might not have affected as many people.

With regard to the more general question, ps139, you mention Fr. Christopher of the CDF, who is now Christopher Cardinal Schoenborn, Archbishop of Vienna. He is the most 'papabile' candidate, acc. to some Vatican insiders I know. Not only did he work hand in hand with Pope John Paul the Great on the CCC, he has also served the Church on a wide variety of Commisions. By appointing him to such a wide variety of Commissions, the Pope has sent a message to the Cardinals. His appointment to a major See (Vienna) as archbishop, is also a signal -considering that Schoenborn's only experience was Curial.

Schoenborn is also known for his personal piety and spirituality and his Dominican background provides him with the intellectual and spiritual balance any leader needs.

And Schoenborn is younger than any of the papabili being considered by the Cardinals, I think. I think age will be a major factor in the decision.

 

[nyj]

I think age will be a major factor in the decision.

Possibly, but I heard that if it were, it would be towards a move of one of "quicker turnover" which would mean older popes rather than younger.

 

[Michelina]

Perhaps God gave the Catholic Church those Popes for a reason. Afterall, He did pick Judas (knowing what the end result would be) to be amongst His beloved twelve apostles.

Tom, I don't think that this is a fair analogy because it involves an exercise of Divine Sovereignty concerning a necessary event, our redemption. God could have redeemed us less bloodily (Aquinas: cujus una stilla solvum facere, totum mundum quit ab omni scelere - a drop of blood would have have been sufficient - e.g. circumcision?) but He sovereignly chose to manifest His INFINITE Love thru the crucufixion.

But God never positively wills Evil. He allows it because His plan would be meaningless if we were not free. Please don't think that the semiticisms of the OT imply that He does.

What I think we can say (with Wolesly, if I understand him) is that God can bring good effects out of any situation, even sin.

God did not force Judas to sin. He knew the future in this regard, but He didn't cause it.

 

[Michelina]

???

 

[nyj]

Tom, I don't think that this is a fair analogy because it involves an excersize of Divine Sovereignty concerning a necessary event, our redemption.

I don't see how what I said is not a fair analogy especially when you end with saying:

He knew the future in this regard, but He didn't cause it.

How is this situation not the same as placing a potentially corrupt person into the Chair of Peter?

 

[Michelina]

Possibly, but I heard that if it were, it would be towards a move of one of "quicker turnover" which would mean older popes rather than younger.

Yes, this reflects the whining of many liberals who regret the long pontificate of Pope John Paul. Liberals hate long pontificates because it gives the pope time to gradually introduce reforms, esp. thru episcopal and cardinalatial appts.

Liberals didn't want Montini when Pius XII died. So they gave us Pope John XXIII who gave us the much-needed Council. They wanted an older Pope who would do nothing. A slight miscalculation on their part!

BTW, the Pacelli-Montini relationship was very similar to the JP-Schoenborn relationship. Montini was sent to Milan, after a purely Curial career, for that diocesan experience most people feel is necessary for a modern Pope. Montini would have been named a Cardinal at the next Conclave, but PiusXII died suddenly. So sure were the insiders that Montini would be elected despite his not being a Cardinal, that Alitalia had a small jet on standby on the runway in Milan, when Roncalli was elected - to everyone's amazement.

 

[Michelina]

Me: I don't think that this is a fair analogy because it involves an exercise of Divine Sovereignty concerning a necessary event, our redemption.

nyj: I don't see how what I said is not a fair analogy especially when you end with saying:

Me: He knew the future in this regard, but He didn't cause it.

nyj: How is this situation not the same as placing(michelina's emphasis) a potentially corrupt person into the Chair of Peter?

Me: because it involves an exercise of Divine Sovereignty concerning a necessary event, our redemption

I really don't want to get into a discussion of Free Will. But I would say that God doesn't inspire evil or cause it. God has absolutely no direct relationship to anything Evil. This is impossible. But God can bring good out of evil, freely done by any creature, including Judas and worldly cardinals who are not responsive to His will.

The Church has never taught that Conclaves are infallible. I think that you are not saying that God controls human decisions but that He is able to bring good out of evil.

But, mentioning Judas and Our Lord's foreknowledge of certain things, raised a very intricate Christological problem which I have addressed a few times in this Forum.