Pope Resigns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Come on. The man is almost 86 years old. He had submitted his request to retire THREE times before he had been elevated to the Papal Throne (bishops can retired after the age of 75 and he was elected pope at 78). In fact he is the oldest man to be elected to the Papacy since the 18th century (5th oldest ever out of 265 popes). In fact, only 3 popes ever have been older than he is now.. He has lasted 8 years in office and has had several age-related health issues from his mid-70's on, so he's been suffering health problems for at least 10 years. He's tired and wants to retire. Just as with any major occupation, the stress of high offices can magnify and exacerbate existing health issues. It doesn't have to be anything as extreme as Alzheimer's.

And yet the Cardinals, the people who should know him best and are aware of all of this, are expressing shock. No one saw it coming despite knowing all of this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You cite a 2010 article as impetus for today's press release? Come on folks, the language was very specific that "strength of mind and body" are necessary to adequately fulfill the responsibilities of Petrine ministry. His health has been in steady decline. I applaud what must have been a difficult decision to step down when it became obvious he could no longer properly fulfill his responsibilities as head of the Church.

When did a pope ever let them stop them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on. The man is almost 86 years old. He had submitted his request to retire THREE times before he had been elevated to the Papal Throne (bishops can retired after the age of 75 and he was elected pope at 78). In fact he is the oldest man to be elected to the Papacy since the 18th century (5th oldest ever out of 265 popes). In fact, only 3 popes ever have been older than he is now.. He has lasted 8 years in office and has had several age-related health issues from his mid-70's on, so he's been suffering health problems for at least 10 years. He's tired and wants to retire. Just as with any major occupation, the stress of high offices can magnify and exacerbate existing health issues. It doesn't have to be anything as extreme as Alzheimer's.

Sure! It's the most common thing in the world. After all, the last time it happened was over half a millennium ago during a multi-Pope power-struggle. Nothing to see here!

And yet the Cardinals, the people who should know him best and are aware of all of this, are expressing shock. No one saw it coming despite knowing all of this.

Yeah, because the significant majority of all prior Popes died before they reached the age he is now. That's why it hasn't happened in centuries. You realize that the three Popes who were older than Ratzinger is now died in 1878, 1730 and 1670. So it's been more than 230 years since there was even a Pope that is older than Benedict. How many people do you know that are 86 years old and still working in a very high stress, full-time (e.g. 7x24) job. Why can't the man retire and let a younger man with better stamina handle the job? He's more than done his duty.

As for the cardinals, it's surprising to them because Pope Benedict has been somewhat close-mouthed to them about his decision. Small wonder considering that the cardinals previously declined his three requests to retire. They now have a moving walkway down the aisle in St Peters to take him the 100 yards to the altar for services. He often has to walk with a cane. Over the last several years, he's had to cancel and greatly decrease his travels because of his physical health. He's had to shorten and sometimes cancel audiences because his physical health and stamina haven't bee up to it. His brother relayed to the media that Pope Benedict's personal physican recommended that he decrease his physical activity including his travels and he has been considering stepping down for months in part because he's having so much trouble walking and just needs to rest. Do they really want to have a Pope in absentia? The Pope is doing what is best for his Papacy by letting a new man, who has the energy and strength for the office take over. We should all laud his humility.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, because the significant majority of all prior Popes died before they reached the age he is now. That's why it hasn't happened in centuries. You realize that the three Popes who were older than Ratzinger is now died in 1878, 1730 and 1670. So it's been more than 230 years since there was even a Pope that is older than Benedict. How many people do you know that are 86 years old and still working in a very high stress, full-time (e.g. 7x24) job. Why can't the man retire and let a younger man with better stamina handle the job? He's more than done his duty.

As for the cardinals, it's surprising to them because Pope Benedict has been somewhat close-mouthed to them about his decision. Small wonder considering that the cardinals previously declined his three requests to retire. They now have a moving walkway down the aisle in St Peters to take him the 100 yards to the altar for services. He often has to walk with a cane. Over the last several years, he's had to cancel and greatly decrease his travels because of his physical health. He's had to shorten and sometimes cancel audiences because his physical health and stamina haven't bee up to it. His brother relayed to the media that Pope Benedict's personal physican recommended that he decrease his physical activity including his travels and he has been considering stepping down for months in part because he's having so much trouble walking and just needs to rest. Do they really want to have a Pope in absentia? The Pope is doing what is best for his Papacy by letting a new man, who has the energy and strength for the office take over. We should all laud his humility.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

I'm afraid history's not going to judge Benedict well:

Almost every week, I go and debate with spokesmen of religious faith. Invariably and without exception, they inform me that without a belief in supernatural authority I would have no basis for my morality. Yet here is an ancient Christian church that deals in awful certainties when it comes to outright condemnation of sins like divorce, abortion, contraception, and homosexuality between consenting adults. For these offenses there is no forgiveness, and moral absolutism is invoked. Yet let the subject be the rape and torture of defenseless children, and at once every kind of wiggle room and excuse-making is invoked. What can one say of a church that finds so much latitude for a crime so ghastly that no morally normal person can even think of it without shuddering?

It???s interesting, too, that the same church did its best to hide the rape and torture from the secular authorities, even forcing child victims (as in the disgusting case of Cardinal Sean Brady, the spiritual chieftain of the Catholics of Ireland) to sign secrecy oaths that prevented them from testifying against their rapists and torturers. Why were they so afraid of secular justice? Did they think it would be less indifferent and pliable than private priestly investigations? In that case, what is left of the shabby half-baked argument that people can???t understand elementary morality without a divine warrant?

(http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/11/hitch-and-ratzinger/)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Come on. The man is almost 86 years old. He had submitted his request to retire THREE times before he had been elevated to the Papal Throne (bishops can retired after the age of 75 and he was elected pope at 78). In fact he is the oldest man to be elected to the Papacy since the 18th century (5th oldest ever out of 265 popes). In fact, only 3 popes ever have been older than he is now.. He has lasted 8 years in office and has had several age-related health issues from his mid-70's on, so he's been suffering health problems for at least 10 years. He's tired and wants to retire. Just as with any major occupation, the stress of high offices can magnify and exacerbate existing health issues. It doesn't have to be anything as extreme as Alzheimer's.

Sure! It's the most common thing in the world. After all, the last time it happened was over half a millennium ago during a multi-Pope power-struggle. Nothing to see here!

And yet the Cardinals, the people who should know him best and are aware of all of this, are expressing shock. No one saw it coming despite knowing all of this.

Yeah, because the significant majority of all prior Popes died before they reached the age he is now. That's why it hasn't happened in centuries. You realize that the three Popes who were older than Ratzinger is now died in 1878, 1730 and 1670. So it's been more than 230 years since there was even a Pope that is older than Benedict. How many people do you know that are 86 years old and still working in a very high stress, full-time (e.g. 7x24) job. Why can't the man retire and let a younger man with better stamina handle the job? He's more than done his duty.

As for the cardinals, it's surprising to them because Pope Benedict has been somewhat close-mouthed to them about his decision. Small wonder considering that the cardinals previously declined his three requests to retire. They now have a moving walkway down the aisle in St Peters to take him the 100 yards to the altar for services. He often has to walk with a cane. Over the last several years, he's had to cancel and greatly decrease his travels because of his physical health. He's had to shorten and sometimes cancel audiences because his physical health and stamina haven't bee up to it. His brother relayed to the media that Pope Benedict's personal physican recommended that he decrease his physical activity including his travels and he has been considering stepping down for months in part because he's having so much trouble walking and just needs to rest. Do they really want to have a Pope in absentia? The Pope is doing what is best for his Papacy by letting a new man, who has the energy and strength for the office take over. We should all laud his humility.

As a former Catholic, hearing the word "humility" is like nails on a chalkboard. There is nothing humble about this pope. There are a few phrases that are accepted without criticism, merely because they are said so very often.

For the record, this man who three times asked to be retired willingly threw his hat in the ring when his opportunity came up. Do you think he was dragged from his dream of leisure because God spoke to him in a dream? And when he accepted the job despite his advanced age and health issues, he was described as having.... humility. Please, anyone who falls for his "please Lord take this cup from me... but OK if you insist I will be Pope" schtick is just a rube. When you get elected pope, it is because you want to be pope. Apparently he wanted to do it despite age and health issues, not exactly doing what's best for the Church.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I always thought he looked like the emperor in star wars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, because the significant majority of all prior Popes died before they reached the age he is now. That's why it hasn't happened in centuries. You realize that the three Popes who were older than Ratzinger is now died in 1878, 1730 and 1670. So it's been more than 230 years since there was even a Pope that is older than Benedict. How many people do you know that are 86 years old and still working in a very high stress, full-time (e.g. 7x24) job. Why can't the man retire and let a younger man with better stamina handle the job? He's more than done his duty.
...

1878 was 135 years ago, no?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, because the significant majority of all prior Popes died before they reached the age he is now. That's why it hasn't happened in centuries. You realize that the three Popes who were older than Ratzinger is now died in 1878, 1730 and 1670. So it's been more than 230 years since there was even a Pope that is older than Benedict. How many people do you know that are 86 years old and still working in a very high stress, full-time (e.g. 7x24) job. Why can't the man retire and let a younger man with better stamina handle the job? He's more than done his duty.
...

1878 was 135 years ago, no?

Yes, sorry, typo.

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, because the significant majority of all prior Popes died before they reached the age he is now. That's why it hasn't happened in centuries. You realize that the three Popes who were older than Ratzinger is now died in 1878, 1730 and 1670. So it's been more than 230 years since there was even a Pope that is older than Benedict. How many people do you know that are 86 years old and still working in a very high stress, full-time (e.g. 7x24) job. Why can't the man retire and let a younger man with better stamina handle the job? He's more than done his duty.
...

1878 was 135 years ago, no?

Why did the man become pope? It's not like the math suddenly became obvious.

[Anonymous]

Calm down people. Pope is christs representative on earth. He can never make a mistake or be wrong when he is in office. To question him is herecy.

[Anonymous]

Calm down people. Pope is christs representative on earth. He can never make a mistake or be wrong when he is in office. To question him is herecy.

I assume you intend to be funny, but nonetheless you are wrong. Most people do not understand the issue of infallibility and speak out of ignorance. The Pope can make a mistake as a man and Pope's most certainly make mistakes. However, the Church's position is that a Pope is infallible when "ex cathedra" which means literally "in the chair" (i.e., in the seat of Peter) and limited to issues of doctrine concerning faith or morals. The Church does not teach that a Pope is infallible in everything that he says: official invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare. Pope Benedict's decision to step down is not subject to "infallibility." While many of the comments have been rude, insensitive and obnoxious, they are not heresy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Calm down people. Pope is christs representative on earth. He can never make a mistake or be wrong when he is in office. To question him is herecy.

I assume you intend to be funny, but nonetheless you are wrong. Most people do not understand the issue of infallibility and speak out of ignorance. The Pope can make a mistake as a man and Pope's most certainly make mistakes. However, the Church's position is that a Pope is infallible when "ex cathedra" which means literally "in the chair" (i.e., in the seat of Peter) and limited to issues of doctrine concerning faith or morals. The Church does not teach that a Pope is infallible in everything that he says: official invocation of papal infallibility is extremely rare. Pope Benedict's decision to step down is not subject to "infallibility." While many of the comments have been rude, insensitive and obnoxious, they are not heresy.

Yes, but you are not telling the whole truth. Ex Cathedra pronouncements are fairly rare, but the Pope still holds out many positions to be unerring. Humanae Vitae is a good example, where the church declares its indisputable competence in the discernment of natural law. In Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, JPII: "I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

What practical difference is there between a statement which is officially declared Ex Cathedra, and one in which the Church declares that it is definitive and binding on all of its fold? None.

[Anonymous]

Infallibility