The Chase for The Papacy begins!!!!!

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

The Chase for the Papacy begins today, Within the next few days a new pope will emerge the victor of this battle royale! Ratzinger, I think will take the cup this conclave. He's been pretty consistent the past few weeks, specially with a great finish at the papal funeral.

[Celeval]

$100 on (Field)

[Passacaglia]

I'm more curious about which wacky name the new Pope will choose for himself.

[Fonzie]

Originally Posted by Passacaglia

I'm more curious about which wacky name the new Pope will choose for himself.

I'm rooting for the twist on the traditional name: something like "John Paul Ringo George" would be nice.

[terpkristin]

If Ratzinger becomes the next pope, I may seriously consider finding a new religion. I understand why the church is conservative (though my home church is one of the most liberal churches in one of the most liberal diosceses), but Ratzinger becoming pope would pull it even farther to the right, and I'm not ready to believe that's in the best interests for the church...

/tk

[sovereignstar]

I think they should put this shit on UPN and have Tyra Banks and a couple of gay guys pick the next pope.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I hope who ever is the next pope that he will be fair and balanced. He does seem a bit ight wing but there's a chance someone else can be pope.

[st.cronin]

I would suggest that instead of another right winger that the cardinals think about a solid blueliner, or even a young goalie prospect.

[Celeval]

I'm praying for someone with some of what John Paul had in terms of the ability to be a uniter instead of a divider, to borrow a rather corny phrase to begin with. For someone who has only known one pope, everything I've read about JP2 implies that one of his biggest legacies will be the improved relationships between Catholicism and the other major religions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

While I don't really have a dog in this fight, I sure found myself somebody to root for after seeing this in today's headlines.


Ratzinger ticked off the threats facing the church and the next pontiff: sects and ideologies like Marxism, liberalism, atheism and agnosticism, collectivism, and what he called "radical individualism" and "vague religious mysticism."

He also singled out relativism - the ideology that there are no absolute truths.

"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the church, is often labeled today as a fundamentalism," he said. "Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and 'swept along by every wind of teaching,' looks like the only attitude acceptable to today's standards.

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires," he told cardinals, bishops and others gathered in St. Peter's Basilica for the solemn Mass before the conclave.

[st.cronin]

Relativism is one of the worst ideas ever, just a total perversion of philosophy.

[Marmel]

Is Ratzinger the former Nazi? Or is that a different candidate?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marmel

Is Ratzinger the former Nazi? Or is that a different candidate?

According to his biography ...
As a seminarian, he was briefly enrolled in the Hitler Youth in the early 1940s, though he was never a member of the Nazi party. In 1943 he was conscripted into an antiaircraft unit guarding a BMW plant outside Munich. Later Ratzinger was sent to Austria's border with Hungary to erect tank traps. After being shipped back to Bavaria, he deserted. When the war ended, he was an American prisoner of war.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

According to his biography ...
As a seminarian, he was briefly enrolled in the Hitler Youth in the early 1940s, though he was never a member of the Nazi party. In 1943 he was conscripted into an antiaircraft unit guarding a BMW plant outside Munich. Later Ratzinger was sent to Austria's border with Hungary to erect tank traps. After being shipped back to Bavaria, he deserted. When the war ended, he was an American prisoner of war.

I heard he guarded a concentration camp.

[terpkristin]

My biggest problem with Ratzinger is his "politics" and because of those, I view him as a divider, not a uniter. The church needs a uniter. The prime example of this I've been telling people is the entire mess of when the girl was allergic to wheat gluten and the church wanted to give her a rice wafter instead, he emphatically said that was not allowed and thus this girl cannot receive Holy Communion. Now my take on the ordeal is that this is a symbolic event, and if there is a demonstrated need, this girl should be allowed to have a rice wafer. Would Jesus have not allowed somebody to follow him because he or she couldn't eat wheat gluten? Of course not. Thus Christ's representative on Earth should not say different. But of course Ratzinger...

There is a litany of other things about him that bug me, but this is the easiest case to describe. Then again, I'm a liberal Catholic. So I'm sure there are others out there who will disagree with me.

/tk

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Are there any info on if he saw action or not? Any medals he earned/ battles he fought in? I think it's dafe to say he is the 2nd and last WW2 Vet to be a pope.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one's own ego and one's own desires," he told cardinals, bishops and others gathered in St. Peter's Basilica for the solemn Mass before the conclave.[/i]

One problem there Razy, True faith must be fully accepted with as much complete knowledge of the alternatives as possible. Its the deal we got, in the Christian faith, when we opened our eyes in orginal sin in Eden. Blind faith may be the only true way of having faith, but accepting faith blindly is often no way of accepting faith at all. Thats often going on just desire by itself.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

One problem there Razy, True faith must be fully accepted with as much complete knowledge of the alternatives as possible. Its the deal we got, in the Christian faith, when we opened our eyes in orginal sin in Eden. Blind faith may be the only true way of having faith, but accepting faith blindly is often no way of accepting faith at all. Thats often going on just desire by itself.

Now maybe it just isn't in the quote & that's from something else he said, but I don't see anything in the snippet that prevents examination & study, only that you either "is or you ain't" when it comes right down to it.

[riz]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I would suggest that instead of another right winger that the cardinals think about a solid blueliner, or even a young goalie prospect.

Hmm...have you been playing EHM lately ?

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by riz

Hmm...have you been playing EHM lately ?

Guilty as charged!

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Now maybe it just isn't in the quote & that's from something else he said, but I don't see anything in the snippet that prevents examination & study, only that you either "is or you ain't" when it comes right down to it.

Its a little bit of his quotes there and a little bit of his quotes in general. What I liked about JPII is that he realized that the journey to faith, and faith in line with that of the Catholic Church specifically, is going to be different for different people. That there is a difference between how one can/must accept faith and the actuality of having faith. Its why, even though he understandably was stubborn to the ways of the church, JPII was understanding of ways of learning and exploring religion and spirituality. I don't see that openness of learning and exploring religion and sprituality with Ratzinger. And addressing his specific quote, he should and must realize that many people who attend religious services and strictly adhere to religious teachings don't have real and full faith in their religion. Many do, but many don't. And relativism, as with all mindsets that can lead to learning, can play a role in finding that true faith. For example, the Catholic in me would rather someone without true faith who blindly follows catholic teachings without spiritual reason or true faith break those bonds, and become more open, and then maybe find true faith through exploration. It doesn't seem like to me that Ratzi is too open to that sort of thing, which is a shame. Again I just think JPII was great because he understood that not all spiritual journeys could or would take place hand in hand with the church or its establishments.

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

I laugh at all the Conservative or Liberal talk. Lets just hope he is "Catholic". American Catholics think their agenda's of woman priests or a married priest hood are going to change. Heres a newsflash, we will never see woman priests as this Tradition (capital T) was instituted by Christ himself. As far as the priest shortage, vocations in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe are flourishing. 50-100 years ago we were sending priests to serve these areas along with Ireland and other western European countries. Now the opposite is happening. Look at our country where we have an orthodox bishop, these dioceses and seminaries a great list of seminarians. Then look at the dioceses, bishops and seminaries that have fallen into the heresy of modernism. You will see seminaries that are closed our very few potential priests. So the shortage is not due to celibacy, as with the scandals, it is due to teaching truth.

I have my own personal hopes for the next Holy Father but like all other Catholics who truly embrace all of the Churches Teachings, we can only pray that our Cardinals ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and do Gods Will not their own.

As for the people threaten to leave because of a Cardinal like Ratzinger becoming the next pontiff, I think the term Cafeteria Catholic fits you pretty well and I am sure the Lutherans and Anglicans would love to have you. We of course would all pray that you come back one day and embrace the Fullness of the Church.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Originally Posted by Bea-Arthurs Hip

I laugh at all the Conservative or Liberal talk. Lets just hope he is "Catholic". American Catholics think their agenda's of woman priests or a married priest hood are going to change. Heres a newsflash, we will never see woman priests as this Tradition (capital T) was instituted by Christ himself. As far as the priest shortage, vocations in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe are flourishing. 50-100 years ago we were sending priests to serve these areas along with Ireland and other western European countries. Now the opposite is happening. Look at our country where we have an orthodox bishop, these dioceses and seminaries a great list of seminarians. Then look at the dioceses, bishops and seminaries that have fallen into the heresy of modernism. You will see seminaries that are closed our very few potential priests. So the shortage is not due to celibacy, as with the scandals, it is due to teaching truth.

I have my own personal hopes for the next Holy Father but like all other Catholics who truly embrace all of the Churches Teachings, we can only pray that our Cardinals ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and do Gods Will not their own.

As for the people threaten to leave because of a Cardinal like Ratzinger becoming the next pontiff, I think the term Cafeteria Catholic fits you pretty well and I am sure the Lutherans and Anglicans would love to have you. We of course would all pray that you come back one day and embrace the Fullness of the Church.

Amen Brother.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Bea-Arthurs Hip

I laugh at all the Conservative or Liberal talk. Lets just hope he is "Catholic". American Catholics think their agenda's of woman priests or a married priest hood are going to change. Heres a newsflash, we will never see woman priests as this Tradition (capital T) was instituted by Christ himself. As far as the priest shortage, vocations in Africa, Latin America and Eastern Europe are flourishing. 50-100 years ago we were sending priests to serve these areas along with Ireland and other western European countries. Now the opposite is happening. Look at our country where we have an orthodox bishop, these dioceses and seminaries a great list of seminarians. Then look at the dioceses, bishops and seminaries that have fallen into the heresy of modernism. You will see seminaries that are closed our very few potential priests. So the shortage is not due to celibacy, as with the scandals, it is due to teaching truth.

I have my own personal hopes for the next Holy Father but like all other Catholics who truly embrace all of the Churches Teachings, we can only pray that our Cardinals ask for the guidance of the Holy Spirit and do Gods Will not their own.

As for the people threaten to leave because of a Cardinal like Ratzinger becoming the next pontiff, I think the term Cafeteria Catholic fits you pretty well and I am sure the Lutherans and Anglicans would love to have you. We of course would all pray that you come back one day and embrace the Fullness of the Church.

I agree with some to most of this. It is important to remember, though, that we must always be on guard against strict adherence to the Church at the expense of following the way of God as shown to us by Christ. The figure at the head of our Church is, frankly, kind of an annoying one to have from the perspective of Church leadership. His rejection of the Sadducees and Pharisees indicates that simply following the rules and traditions established by the Church heirarchy is not only not good enough--it's downright wrong. We must always be on watch for falling into the easy trap that it is enough to follow Church teaching. Christ seems to demand more than that.

I am not advocating, of course, turning over the money changing tables at the Vatican every time the Church takes a position with which you disagree. God demands many things of us, and, personally, I don't think that one can run away from those things by changing religion every time a new challenge arises. I am, however, advocating the idea that if the Church is actually serious about following Christ, it must be willing to listen to the Holy Spirit and be willing to follow that Spirit--even if it means rejecting Rules and Tradition that are incompatable with that Spirit.

(And, in all this debate about homosexuality and gender issues, no one seems to address what I consider to be the aspect of the Church that I would change in a heartbeat. Jesus gave of himself to all mankind. And we decide that only people who beleive what we beleive can take the Eucharist? Wow. If anything causes me to ever leave the Church, that will be it. Dudes kissing is like dust in the wind. The salvation of all mankind? That's a shade more intense.)

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

I agree with some to most of this. It is important to remember, though, that we must always be on guard against strict adherence to the Church at the expense of following the way of God as shown to us by Christ. The figure at the head of our Church is, frankly, kind of an annoying one to have from the perspective of Church leadership. His rejection of the Sadducees and Pharisees indicates that simply following the rules and traditions established by the Church heirarchy is not only not good enough--it's downright wrong. We must always be on watch for falling into the easy trap that it is enough to follow Church teaching. Christ seems to demand more than that.

Christ rejected the sadducees and pharisees due to their doctrine. The Church teaches the doctrine of the New Covenant , the Doctrine of Christ.
Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all the truth" . That mandate and that promise guarantee the Church will never fall away from his teachings , even if individual Catholics might.

As to Church teaching on homosexuals . The Church does not teach that if you have same sex attractions you cant receive the Eucharist. That is untrue . What the Church teaches is that anyone who is in a state of mortal sin can not receive . So if a hetrosexual male is living and having sex with his female girlfriend, he is in the same boat as a gay man doing the same with his male boyfriend. Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law same as hetrosexuals who are not open to the option of life in regards to abortion and contraception.

[albionmoonlight]

1 quick correction. You misread my parenthetical. The Church says that only baptized Catholics (and some Orthodox) can receive the Eucharist. That's what I have a problem with. Christ gave of himself to all mankind. It's not up to us to limit that. The point about homosexuality had nothing to do with that. I should have been more clear.

[finkenst]

Originally Posted by terpkristin

My biggest problem with Ratzinger is his "politics" and because of those, I view him as a divider, not a uniter. The church needs a uniter. The prime example of this I've been telling people is the entire mess of when the girl was allergic to wheat gluten and the church wanted to give her a rice wafter instead, he emphatically said that was not allowed and thus this girl cannot receive Holy Communion. Now my take on the ordeal is that this is a symbolic event, and if there is a demonstrated need, this girl should be allowed to have a rice wafer. Would Jesus have not allowed somebody to follow him because he or she couldn't eat wheat gluten? Of course not. Thus Christ's representative on Earth should not say different. But of course Ratzinger...

There is a litany of other things about him that bug me, but this is the easiest case to describe. Then again, I'm a liberal Catholic. So I'm sure there are others out there who will disagree with me.

/tk

aha.. I remember that story as well ... side-bar: Ratzinger violated the church's own teaching if he said the girl cannot receive valid communion with Christ by the wine only /side-bar ... and while i was looking up some other catholic stuff ran across some references:

Originally Posted by cuf.org

The bishops recognize that Communion under both species is not always possible or desirable. Communion under both species is only allowed when “the faithful have been well instructed and there is no danger of the profanation of the Sacrament or that the rite would be difficult to carry out on account of the number of participants or for some other reason” (GIRM, no. 283, as cited in Norms, no. 24). In additions, the norms point out that the bishop or pastor may limit the distribution of Communion under both species in order to “avoid obscuring the role of the priest and the deacon as the ordinary ministers of Holy Communion” (Norms, no. 24).

The Church teaches that a person who receives under either species has received the entire Christ—body, blood, soul, and divinity. The Church also teaches that the decision to receive under both species belongs to the individual communicant, and not the minister (Norms, no. 46, GIRM, no. 284). However, the practice of receiving under both species is warmly encouraged, and reverence should be shown to the Holy Eucharist under both species.

or

Originally Posted by usccb.org

Christ Himself Is Present in the Eucharistic Species


8. Christ is "truly, really, and substantially contained" ⁽¹⁸⁾ in Holy Communion. His presence is not momentary nor simply signified, but wholly and permanently real under each of the consecrated species of bread and wine. ⁽¹⁹⁾

9. The Council of Trent teaches that "the true body and blood of our Lord, together with his soul and divinity, exist under the species of bread and wine. His body exists under the species of bread and his blood under the species of wine, according to the import of his words." ⁽²⁰⁾

10. The Church also teaches and believes that "immediately after the consecration the true body of our Lord and his true blood exist along with his soul and divinity under the form of bread and wine. The body is present under the form of bread and the blood under the form of wine, by virtue of the words [of Christ]. The same body, however, is under the form of wine and the blood under the form of bread, and the soul under either form, by virtue of the natural link and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, who has now risen from the dead and will die no more, are mutually united." ⁽²¹⁾

11. Since, however, by reason of the sign value, sharing in both eucharistic species reflects more fully the sacred realities that the Liturgy signifies, the Church in her wisdom has made provisions in recent years so that more frequent eucharistic participation from both the sacred host and the chalice of salvation might be made possible for the laity in the Latin Church.

So apparently if you receive only the Precious Blood that you have made a valid Sacrament.

With respect to the rice wafer instead of the wheat, it is also spelled out that the host shall be of wheat.

Here we go with a reference:

Originally Posted by rcab.org

And, a host without some amount of gluten present is not considered valid matter for the eucharist.

and

Originally Posted by rcab.org

It is possible that those with this disorder may still not agree that receiving this host would be a safe practice for them. It always remains possible for them to receive only from the cup. Our theology teaches us that we receive in one element of the Eucharist what we receive wholly and completely in the other. In either species of the Eucharist we receive the whole Christ, in his Body and Blood, soul and divinity. As a further precaution it might be advisable to set aside a cup for the exclusive use of those with celiac disease so that there is a diminished chance of contamination with gluten from others who receive both the host and from the cup. Other practical liturgical issues will need to be attended to when permission is received. It is not possible to address those concerns here; rather when permission is received guidelines will be sent on how best to handle the situation.

The use of low-gluten hosts and the use of mustum are restricted to individuals who have a medical need and have been granted permission to use them. Furthermore, the use of mustum is reserved to those who are incapable of receiving a host and cannot receive alcohol. Therefore, the use of low-gluten hosts and mustum by individuals without permission is not allowed.

So the rice-host was an invalid material for the Eucharist.

Now, all you non-catholics know far more than you probably wanted to.

I love the internet.


--tf

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

1 quick correction. You misread my parenthetical. The Church says that only baptized Catholics (and some Orthodox) can receive the Eucharist. That's what I have a problem with. Christ gave of himself to all mankind. It's not up to us to limit that. The point about homosexuality had nothing to do with that. I should have been more clear.

Ok, understand now.

I will take it that you are not Catholic. Partaking of the Eucharist is among the highest signs of Christian unity: "Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread" (1st Corinth. 10:17). For this reason, it is normally impossible for non-Catholic Christians to receive Holy Communion, for to do so would be to proclaim a unity to exist that, regrettably, does not.
Another reason that many non-Catholics may not ordinarily receive Communion is for their own protection, since many reject the doctrine of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Scripture warns that it is very dangerous for one not believing in the Real Presence to receive Communion: "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself. That is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died" (1 Cor. 11:29–30).

Dont want to start a scripture quoting battle, but in regards to the Eucharist and it being the foundation of Our faith, I want to make clear that the Church does not exclude anyone. But rather calls all to the fullness of the Faith and to its Sacraments.

Thanks Albion for the freindly trade of thoughts. It is easy to get off the track and defensive.

[Bea-Arthurs Hip]

Ratzinger violated the church's own teaching if he said the girl cannot receive valid communion with Christ by the wine

Where did Cardinal Ratzinger say this?

[finkenst]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

1 quick correction. You misread my parenthetical. The Church says that only baptized Catholics (and some Orthodox) can receive the Eucharist. That's what I have a problem with. Christ gave of himself to all mankind. It's not up to us to limit that. The point about homosexuality had nothing to do with that. I should have been more clear.

This isn't quite correct.

As I understand it (as a cradle Catholic), any Christian baptism is valid to the (Roman) Catholic Church. Baptist, Methodist, etc, are all good.

It goes with what the Hip said...

I like this discussion.

[finkenst]

Originally Posted by Bea-Arthurs Hip

Where did Cardinal Ratzinger say this?

I'm going by terpkristin's post.

i thought someone said that the wine alone was not a valid commission of the sacrament of communion.

[Izulde]

I'm hoping Arinze is elected the next Pope myself.

Ratzinger I don't think will be elected. He seems more the power behind the mitre type.

[finkenst]

i must be on drugs or something... or it has been 5 months..

Originally Posted by some reliable news source, hopefully

The diocese has told Haley’s mother that the girl can receive a low-gluten wafer, or just drink wine at Communion, but that anything without gluten does not qualify. Pelly-Waldman rejected the offer, saying her child could be harmed by even a small amount of the substance.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by finkenst

As I understand it (as a cradle Catholic), any Christian baptism is valid to the (Roman) Catholic Church. Baptist, Methodist, etc, are all good.

Right - someone originally baptized in a Christian yet non-Catholic denomination does not have to be 're-baptized' in Catholicism in order to go through the various rites and receive First Holy Communion.

[finkenst]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Right - someone originally baptized in a Christian yet non-Catholic denomination does not have to be 're-baptized' in Catholicism in order to go through the various rites and receive First Holy Communion.

yeah... as I understand it, for adults to come to the church, if they are baptized "only" receive the sacraments of Confirmation and Communion...

Now, having said that, the catechumens also renew their baptismal vows during the Easter Vigil, as does everyone else.

[Celeval]

Originally Posted by Bea-Arthurs Hip

I laugh at all the Conservative or Liberal talk. Lets just hope he is "Catholic". American Catholics think their agenda's of woman priests or a married priest hood are going to change. Heres a newsflash, we will never see woman priests as this Tradition (capital T) was instituted by Christ himself.

Perhaps. But conservative and liberal doesn't necessarily apply only to long-standing institutions such as those two. JP2 was very liberal in some senses in the way that he brought the teachings of the Church worldwide more than possibly any pope other than the one (name escapes me) who instituted Vatican II - simply by his travel and his attitude and relationship with other denominations and religions. Still Catholic, still liberal - these are not necessarily at odds.

[finkenst]

Originally Posted by Celeval

Perhaps. But conservative and liberal doesn't necessarily apply only to long-standing institutions such as those two. JP2 was very liberal in some senses in the way that he brought the teachings of the Church worldwide more than possibly any pope other than the one (name escapes me) who instituted Vatican II - simply by his travel and his attitude and relationship with other denominations and religions. Still Catholic, still liberal - these are not necessarily at odds.

Pope John XXIII started the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI continued it after John XXIII's death.

[Raven Hawk]

One point to be made is that this is not just a Catholic thing. The Pope is the leader of Christianity throughout the world. There are many protestants that are hanging on the edge of their seats waiting to see who is elected Pope, as well. Regardless of your denomination, if you're Christian, you've got something at stake here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Raven Hawk

The Pope is the leader of Christianity throughout the world.

Umm ... huh?

I find it interesting in a 3rd party observer sense, but that's about it. I respect the late Pope a great deal for his commitment to his beliefs, his refusal to play the whole PC game with his spirituality, and even for some of his political influence. But as a "leader of Christianity"? Sorry, he doesn't even register on my scale at all.

[finkenst]

Originally Posted by Raven Hawk

One point to be made is that this is not just a Catholic thing. The Pope is the leader of Christianity throughout the world. There are many protestants that are hanging on the edge of their seats waiting to see who is elected Pope, as well. Regardless of your denomination, if you're Christian, you've got something at stake here.

I think i agree with just your lst sentence.

I'm sure that the Patriarch of Constantinople would be surprised to hear this. The Pope is the leader of the Catholic Church. The Pope may be the most well-known Christian in the world, for what that's worth.

[Raven Hawk]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Umm ... huh?

I find it interesting in a 3rd party observer sense, but that's about it. I respect the late Pope a great deal for his commitment to his beliefs, his refusal to play the whole PC game with his spirituality, and even for some of his political influence. But as a "leader of Christianity"? Sorry, he doesn't even register on my scale at all.

Not one other sect of Christianity has a figure as influential as the Pope. Perhaps "leader" was the wrong term to use, since the other denominations don't "follow" him. My point is more that when the rest of the world religions look at Christianity, they see the pope as the figurehead. Therefore, like it or not, the Pope has a bearing on the lives of all Christians.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Raven Hawk

... when the rest of the world religions look at Christianity, they see the pope as the figurehead.

Okay, that works for me, or at the very worst, it doesn't bother me.

[Ben E Lou]

Are all of the discussions at the conclave in Latin, or are there translators present?

[Ben E Lou]

Radio just cut in. White smoke?

[Ben E Lou]

ROFLMBAO!!!!!

From MSNBC....

MSNBC TV

Smoke cam:
Free live video
Click here to watch






Smoke cam???????

[terpkristin]

They got white smoke?!?
Black smoke signifies that they voted and could not reach the proper amount of votes to elect a new pope.

White smoke means that there is a new pope.

They burn the ballots after each vote, and add an additive indicates the color. It's how the world first finds that there is a pope (or not).

/tk

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by terpkristin

They got white smoke?!?
Black smoke signifies that they voted and could not reach the proper amount of votes to elect a new pope.

White smoke means that there is a new pope.

They burn the ballots after each vote, and add an additive indicates the color. It's how the world first finds that there is a pope (or not).

/tk

Right, but there's some confusion as to whether this is initial smoke that will turn black, or real white smoke. Of course it is white smoke. Remember it well when they cut into NFL games for John Paul I and John Paul II.

[terpkristin]

We have a new Pope.
The bell is tolling.
The smoke was indeed white.

/tk

[Ben E Lou]

Yup. Smokecam is showing 'em rockin' the bells. (with apologies to LL...)

[sooner333]

as Fox News has at the bottom of the screen "We Have A Pope!"