Pope Talks Of A Woman Pope

[Stone holm]

Okay is this real?

 

http://diversitychronicle.wordpress.com/2013/12/05/pope-francis-condemns-racism-and-declares-that-all-religions-are-true-at-historic-third-vatican-council/

 

If this is a true report, which I have been known to fall for hoaxes from time to time,  having a hard time imagining that the conservative Cardinals aren't having some hard times getting their minds around this, not so much the condemnation of racism, but the reference to a woman pope and the attack on orthodoxy.  Can the Catholics chime in on what is going on?  Is this actually what he said, or is it taken out of context?

[Buzzard]

Not only that blog post, but the other articles on the site drip with sarcasm. I'm beyond sure this blog is either a joke or the product of a fevered mind. Of course, the fact that no Third Vatican Council has been taking place is a big clue as well. 

[Stone holm]

Not only that blog post, but the other articles on the site drip with sarcasm. I'm beyond sure this blog is either a joke or the product of a fevered mind. Of course, the fact that no Third Vatican Council has been taking place is a big clue as well. 

 

Thanks that seemed a bit over the top, but wasn't sure

[Stone holm]

Hm? 

 

http://www.ignitumtoday.com/2013/12/29/why-satire-is-funny-debunking-pope-francis-condemns-racism-and-declares-that-all-religions-are-true-at-historic-third-vatican-council/

 

so it is a hoax?

[ChristKnight]

Of course it's a hoax/satire.  There is no Third Vatican Council, nor have any Cardinals left and/or become Sedevacantists. 

[thesometimesaint]

Interestingly

 

Pope Joan was a legendary female Pope who allegedly reigned for a few years some time during the Middle Ages. The story first appeared in 13th-century chronicles^, and was subsequently spread and embellished throughout Europe. It was widely believed for centuries, though modern religious scholars consider it fictitious, perhaps deriving from historicized folklore regarding Roman monuments or from Anti-Papal satire.

Edited January 2, 2014 by thesometimesaint

[why me]

It is a hoax but not that far off. A little while back there was a report that the pope was thinking of appointing a woman cardinal:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10425000/Female-cardinals-Could-the-Pope-be-about-to-humiliate-the-Church-of-England.html

 

But then we have this:

 

http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=53058

 

I believe that the OP link was a play on what was reported in November.

Edited January 3, 2014 by why me

[3DOP]

"Can the Catholics chime in on what is going on?"

 

I can only speculate and I don't seem to pay as much attention to him as you do anyway, stone holm. My attention has never really been riveted on any current pope of my lifetime.

 

Never before now has every off-hand comment of a pope been so widely reported. Every morning you come to expect something new and shocking. It does seem like this pope is indifferent to the fact that his private opinions are making it appear to people who don't understand the limits of papal authority, that he can single-handedly deliver the Catholic Church over to ways that conflict with Catholic Tradition. As I have tried to explain before, any current pope, whoever and whenever it might be, has the obligation to hand on what he has received. Some have done so less successfully than others. Because of the cumulative authority of all of the popes, I am much more interested in the papacy as a whole than I could be of any single pope, whether dead or alive, who is alleged to be singular. To be singular is to be historically irrelevant and theologically impotent. I have a few favorite popes throughout history. But they are favorites because in some special way, they restored something that seemed to be slipping away from what Catholic Tradition had continuously practised or taught.

 

I pray with complete faith that the early expectations many people have of this pope will be a disappointment to them whose false hopes are that he can revolutionize the Catholic Church. Indeed, I have good reasons to hope that Pope Francis may become a "favorite".  

 

Sincerely,

 

3DOP 

Edited January 3, 2014 by 3DOP

[Stone holm]

Interestingly

 

Pope Joan was a legendary female Pope who allegedly reigned for a few years some time during the Middle Ages. The story first appeared in 13th-century chronicles^, and was subsequently spread and embellished throughout Europe. It was widely believed for centuries, though modern religious scholars consider it fictitious, perhaps deriving from historicized folklore regarding Roman monuments or from Anti-Papal satire.

When I visited the Vatican forty some years ago they had a bunch of mummified Popes on display, did they lose Pope Joan's body or something?

[Yirgacheffe]

"Can the Catholics chime in on what is going on?"

 

I can only speculate and I don't seem to pay as much attention to him as you do anyway, stone holm. My attention has never really been riveted on any current pope of my lifetime.

 

Never before now has every off-hand comment of a pope been so widely reported. Every morning you come to expect something new and shocking. It does seem like this pope is indifferent to the fact that his private opinions are making it appear to people who don't understand the limits of papal authority, that he can single-handedly deliver the Catholic Church over to ways that conflict with Catholic Tradition. As I have tried to explain before, any current pope, whoever and whenever it might be, has the obligation to hand on what he has received. Some have done so less successfully than others. Because of the cumulative authority of all of the popes, I am much more interested in the papacy as a whole than I could be of any single pope, whether dead or alive, who is alleged to be singular. To be singular is to be historically irrelevant and theologically impotent. I have a few favorite popes throughout history. But they are favorites because in some special way, they restored something that seemed to be slipping away from what Catholic Tradition had continuously practised or taught.

 

I pray with complete faith that the early expectations many people have of this pope will be a disappointment to them whose false hopes are that he can revolutionize the Catholic Church. Indeed, I have good reasons to hope that Pope Francis may become a "favorite".  

 

Sincerely,

 

3DOP 

Though I don't remember the events in Eastern Europe at that time all that well, my parents had the news on in the evenings so what I remember was just sort of absorbed unnoticed.  It strikes me that Pope John was singular on many levels at that time but not in the least historically irrelevant.  I haven't a clue as to whether he was theologically impotent though.  

[Yirgacheffe]

When I visited the Vatican forty some years ago they had a bunch of mummified Popes on display, did they lose Pope Joan's body or something?

That's weird or I don't know maybe creepy or just icky.  If I were to go I'd try and skip that part.

[Stone holm]

That's weird or I don't know maybe creepy or just icky.  If I were to go I'd try and skip that part.

 

Well, I thought some of the glass caskets a bit different, was glad I hadn't eaten right before I went ... one thing I do remember, was the Piete was sitting in a corner covered with dust and not looking like much, about a year or so later I saw it on display under special lighting and all cleaned up at the NY World's Fair -- it was amazing and looked like Mary was breathing.  I don't know how they display those works now, but it wasn't very well displayed at the Vatican at the time -- but you could get in to see the Sistine Chapel.

[thesometimesaint]

When I visited the Vatican forty some years ago they had a bunch of mummified Popes on display, did they lose Pope Joan's body or something?

 

I don't know. But one Pope remains were dug up and excommunicated twice.

[The Nehor]

I don't know. But one Pope remains were dug up and excommunicated twice.

 

Fun and all but I really think someone need to become the next Anti-Pope to shake things up a bit.

[thesometimesaint]

Fun and all but I really think someone need to become the next Anti-Pope to shake things up a bit.

 

That it would.

[3DOP]

Though I don't remember the events in Eastern Europe at that time all that well, my parents had the news on in the evenings so what I remember was just sort of absorbed unnoticed.  It strikes me that Pope John was singular on many levels at that time but not in the least historically irrelevant.  I haven't a clue as to whether he was theologically impotent though.  

 

Hi Yirgacheffe. I hope you are well.

 

The Pope John who opened the Second Vatican Council is undoubtedly the pope to which you are referring. I have read his autobiography, The Journal of a Soul. If you are saying he was dogmatically singular, I could not agree. 

 

There have been twenty-three Pope Johns however. The twenty-second was tried for heresy and repented on his death bed, abandoning a particular "singularity" having to do with a unique belief he had expressed regarding the particular judgment and general judgment.

 

Maybe the expression "singular" is problematic. Of course I understand that all popes have different temperament, birthplace, background, intellect, and so forth. All the popes are individuals and singular, as you said, "on many levels". To the extent that a pope, like John XXII, attempts to teach novelty in a way that separates him from his fellows, he will lose his influence. Nobody follows the teaching of John XXII.

 

I am at a loss as to what your reference to Eastern Europe means. I would be happy to hear an explanation if you think it is important.

 

Thanks,

 

Rory 

Edited January 4, 2014 by 3DOP

[Stone holm]

Hi Yirgacheffe. I hope you are well.

 

The Pope John who opened the Second Vatican Council is undoubtedly the pope to which you are referring. I have read his autobiography, The Journal of a Soul. If you are saying he was dogmatically singular, I could not agree. 

 

There have been twenty-three Pope Johns however. The twenty-second was tried for heresy and repented on his death bed, abandoning a particular "singularity" having to do with a unique belief he had expressed regarding the particular judgment and general judgment.

 

Maybe the expression "singular" is problematic. Of course I understand that all popes have different temperament, birthplace, background, intellect, and so forth. All the popes are individuals and singular, as you said, "on many levels". To the extent that a pope, like John XXII, attempts to teach novelty in a way that separates him from his fellows, he will lose his influence. Nobody follows the teaching of John XXII.

 

I am at a loss as to what your reference to Eastern Europe means. I would be happy to hear an explanation if you think it is important.

 

Thanks,

 

Rory

Why the fascination with the Papal names John and Paul, it makes it confusing for non Catholics?

[rpn]

In September this pope excommunicated an australian priest for advocating for ordaining women.  

 

What the pope has discussed is that priest duties and administrative duties are not the same, and there is considerable discussion that he will appoint a women to a high administrative post in the vatican administration.

[Yirgacheffe]

Hi Yirgacheffe. I hope you are well.

 

The Pope John who opened the Second Vatican Council is undoubtedly the pope to which you are referring. I have read his autobiography, The Journal of a Soul. If you are saying he was dogmatically singular, I could not agree. 

 

There have been twenty-three Pope Johns however. The twenty-second was tried for heresy and repented on his death bed, abandoning a particular "singularity" having to do with a unique belief he had expressed regarding the particular judgment and general judgment.

 

Maybe the expression "singular" is problematic. Of course I understand that all popes have different temperament, birthplace, background, intellect, and so forth. All the popes are individuals and singular, as you said, "on many levels". To the extent that a pope, like John XXII, attempts to teach novelty in a way that separates him from his fellows, he will lose his influence. Nobody follows the teaching of John XXII.

 

I am at a loss as to what your reference to Eastern Europe means. I would be happy to hear an explanation if you think it is important.

 

Thanks,

 

Rory 

I meant Pope John Paul II (it's bad to type when you should be sleeping) not saying I've anything of importance just want to clear up confusion.  I'm am annoyed by this thread though, I find it offensive to imply that Francis is a publicity hound just as much as it is to imply that Monson is a corporate ceo.  I tend toward the thought that both Francis and Monson (and other "big" church figures) have a view of their respective churches that encompasses the whole not that of the individual or even nation and that they believe they are inspired/called to lead it a certain way because of this view.  I believe they are thoughtful devout men who prayerfully approach the leadership of their churches, not upsetting apple carts willy nilly because of personal quirks, but because they see their churches at large and truly believe the are doing what needs to be done.

 

And on one of your points well I just don't get it, though the press has commented on his dress being different, he is still wearing stuff that is decidedly different than what men wear.  Every picture I've seen him in he still looks like a pope, no jean and birkenstocks

[Yirgacheffe]

Why the fascination with the Papal names John and Paul, it makes it confusing for non Catholics?

Same with kings, it makes Jeopardy so much more difficult.

[3DOP]

I meant Pope John Paul II (it's bad to type when you should be sleeping) not saying I've anything of importance just want to clear up confusion.  I'm am annoyed by this thread though, I find it offensive to imply that Francis is a publicity hound just as much as it is to imply that Monson is a corporate ceo.  I tend toward the thought that both Francis and Monson (and other "big" church figures) have a view of their respective churches that encompasses the whole not that of the individual or even nation and that they believe they are inspired/called to lead it a certain way because of this view.  I believe they are thoughtful devout men who prayerfully approach the leadership of their churches, not upsetting apple carts willy nilly because of personal quirks, but because they see their churches at large and truly believe the are doing what needs to be done.

 

And on one of your points well I just don't get it, though the press has commented on his dress being different, he is still wearing stuff that is decidedly different than what men wear.  Every picture I've seen him in he still looks like a pope, no jean and birkenstocks

 

 

Yirgacheffe, hi again.

 

Your mentioning of Eastern Europe is now understood in respect to our Polish pope and how his election and long papacy affected, it would seem, the erosion of Soviet political power over his native Poland, and all of the former Warsaw Pact countries.

 

You bolded one of my points. Let me try to explain why I wrote what I did. I had expressed my interest in the papacy as a whole, a unit spanning almost two thousand years. I am speaking of a potent influence that will endure as a lasting heritage for the next two thousand years. The title of this thread is Pope Talks of a Woman Pope. With such ridiculous speculation I can go two directions. 1) I can try to demonstrate that the pope did not mean this, nor say it. 2) I can explain why even if it should be true that a sitting pope would mean and say that a woman can fill his office, why it would be unimportant.

 

I chose the second path and not the first because by doing so I can show why I would have interior peace as a Catholic even while disagreeing with my pope about a particular teaching. It is not impossible for a pope to have heretical beliefs as did John XXII. Of course there is a flurry of interest in the present when a pope voices a belief that cannot be supported by Catholics. This thing about John XXII raised a furor in the 14th Century I am sure. But there it was confined and today nobody even thinks about it even though it was only about 700 years ago. I doubt that he has been doing so, but if Pope Francis is lobbying for a female pope, nobody will remember it by 3014. For those who believe in Pope Joan, its total denial by Catholics only emphasizes how never in the history of the papacy has any pope, not even the alleged Pope Joan, expressed speculation about female priests, female bishops, or female bishops of Rome. If this pope is doing that, he is going against two thousand years of continuous opposition, and he could not win. The singular teachings of any pope will be forgotten in the future (historical irrelevance), and frustrated by papal powerlessness in the present (theological impotence).

 

Many Catholics and almost all non-Catholics have a hyper-inflated view of the authority of any particular pope. This is what needs to be combated with vigor if all people would understand the nuances of papal authority accurately. "Hyper-papalism", if you will, leads to the completely unCatholic view that whatever a present pope may say can set the Church in a new direction. I know what the Catholic Church teaches about the pope. I accept that popes can be infallible on rare occasions as explained at the First Vatican Council. But there have been perhaps only two occasions of this since the dogma was defined in 1870. Most people say there has been but one! The teaching on the Assumption of Mary, infallibly defined in 1950 by Pius XII was in through conformity with the Catholic faith. It was not in the least controversial. Churches had names like "Assumption Chapel". For centuries, the fourth glorious mystery of the Holy Rosary had been the Assumption of Mary. Even so, Pius XII consulted all the bishops of the world prior to his announcement and the bishops were resoundingly in favor of its definition. Pius XII will never be forgotten for affirming a truth that had begun to be attacked by naysayers from outside the Church. Compare that with "Pope Talks of a Woman Pope", and perhaps it will be clearer why I might think that Francis would be powerless to impose such a preposterous idea, even in the unlikely event that he should wish to.

 

I am not speaking for Catholic classmates at public school or the random fellow employee who claims to having been raised Catholic, but doesn't have a clue about the history of the Church. A lot of people who even go to Mass are capable of thinking any crazy idea is okay. Catholics who care and know their faith would never, ever be fooled by the pope if he "...talks of a woman pope". Having cut himself off from Catholic Tradition, such a pope would find that the power of the papacy is non-existent to fabricate theological novelties. Of course, Catholics who know their faith would not be so shaken as to doubt that this could be a true pope. The other problem with having this hyper-inflated view of particular popes, as I alluded to above, is that it can lead to two errors. The first is what has been discussed at this board, from those who believe that a pope can overturn or revolutionize Catholic teaching. The second, but equally grievous error, is that it leads to doubting that a "revolutionary pope" could really be the true pope. But many saints and Catholic theologians have speculated on questions of obedience to popes with non-Catholic ideas. These speculations presuppose the truth upon which I insist. Faithful Catholics and thoughtful non-Catholics should not get overly excited about a pope with questionable teaching. The power of the papacy is preservational and not revolutionary. Revolutionary ideas are doomed to the scrapheap of history, even if proposed by the highest office in the Catholic Church.

 

If I had chosen to prove that Francis did not mean to say that there could be a woman pope, people could still get the impression that it would be a matter of the gravest impact if he really did. They might still think there could be a woman pope. Anyway, for the record, I seriously doubt that Francis is floating the idea of female popes.

Edited January 4, 2014 by 3DOP

[thesometimesaint]

I find the whole idea of Christianity revolutionary. The revolution from tired old ideas of pagan Rome and Jewish traditions.

[3DOP]

I find the whole idea of Christianity revolutionary. The revolution from tired old ideas of pagan Rome and Jewish traditions.

 

I see what you mean sometimesaint. I see continuity with Jewish tradition too, not so much with pagan Rome. In any case, I see what you mean, but even if I did not take note of important connections with Jewish tradition, I could not take your understanding of "the whole idea of Christianity" as a justification for continuous questioning and overthrow of previously held beliefs and practices. Continuous revolution does not seem to necessarily follow from "the whole idea of Christianity [as] revolutionary" if we are only speaking of how Christianity began.

 

But perhaps I misunderstood. Are you arguing that doctrine and practice is always fluid in the true Church? If that were true, it only means that the Catholic Church is false because it is a model that the Catholic Church has always rejected. I am not arguing that the Catholic Church is true at the moment. I am only saying what the Catholic Church has always taught.

Edited January 4, 2014 by 3DOP

[thesometimesaint]

I think the revolution is within the heart of everyone trying to become truly Christian. We're out to revolutionize the world one person at a time, starting with ourselves.

 

I don't believe any church always has been or always be correct in every idea ever put forth by any of its members, including its leadership. We haven't yet arrived at the unity of faith as the Bible requires.There is but one perfect person whom ever walked this earth, and we aren't him. I find lots to admire in the RCC faith, and its members are some of the best people I know. However I do disagree with some of Theology espoused by the RCC.

[3DOP]

I think the revolution is within the heart of everyone trying to become truly Christian. We're out to revolutionize the world one person at a time, starting with ourselves.

 

I don't believe any church always has been or always be correct in every idea ever put forth by any of its members, including its leadership. We haven't yet arrived at the unity of faith as the Bible requires.There is but one perfect person whom ever walked this earth, and we aren't him. I find lots to admire in the RCC faith, and its members are some of the best people I know. However I do disagree with some of Theology espoused by the RCC.

 

Air transportation has revolutionized travel (changing). Does it follow that the principles of flight are therefore revolutionary (changing)?  I would suggest that if the principles of flight were undependable because they changed, it would never revolutionize anything because people wouldn't be willing to fly that way.

 

I am not against "revolutionizing the world one person at a time". But the only thing in common with that way of describing conversion to the Gospel, and my pointing out that "revolutionary doctrine and practices" are doomed to failure in the Catholic Church is the word "revolution".

 

To believe that the Gospel revolutionizes (changes) a soul both interiorly and outwardly has nothing to do with whether the Gospel itself should also be revolutionary (changing). I would suggest that where the person denies immutable truths connected to his religion, whether Christian or not, the less likely it is that his religion will exercise a revolutionary change in that soul.

 

3DOP