Thread: Purgatory: What do Popes do? Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000940
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
Serious question.

On a simple, practical level, pyramidal hierarchies have to have peaks with one lone CEO-type person at the apex (or whatever we call the top of a pyramid).

With religious bodies, though, it's generally claimed that that top position is actually held by a non-corporeal entity -- God or Christ or who-have-you, and that everybody, bottom to top, actually answers to said entity.

As we are now awaiting the announcement of a new Pope (and another has just resigned, but will apparently be sharing a secretary with his replacement), I'm curious as to what these figures in whom the faithful invest so much respect and even veneration actually do.

Do they set institutional policy? Control exchequers? Manage the churchy equivalent of VPs on a day-to-day basis?

Or is the job description more like that of a contemporary constitutional monarch's -- mostly to serve as a symbol and to perform primarily ceremonial functions?

And if the latter, how and by whom are those practical administrative necessities attended to?

[ 18. June 2013, 13:32: Message edited by: Gwai ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
I know this isn't exactly the topic of the OP, but the conclave is on the front page of the Boston Globe today, and I can't help but to wonder why the pope is a matter of such intense interest in a world where religion is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and when even Roman Catholics feel perfectly at liberty to ignore papal and scriptural authority.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Seems pretty obvious to me. More than a billion people are Catholic. I'm interested, despite not being Catholic, because of the influence the Catholic Church wields.
 
Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :
 
The impression I have is that the Pope is somewhere a ruling monarch and a reigning monarch. He is certainly not simply a figurehead, as he has various specific duties such as appointing cardinals. I believe he and his staff are in some sense the ultimate authority on Roman Catholic doctrine, the "Supreme Court", on might say. (
The lives of individuals may be much more affected by bishops, archbishops and cardinals.)

I am sure there will be more precise answers.
 
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :
 
Indeed, RuthW!
And for a fair whack of western history Catholicism WAS Christianity. (Or vice versa)

[ 10. March 2013, 19:29: Message edited by: Galilit ]
 
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :
 
The popes role is as CEO of a large, international organisation. However, the nature of the organisation means that he also has to provide spiritual support and guidance to the church as well as ensure that the administrative processes happen.

And, just like any such organisation, he does a small part of this himself, and has all sorts of others to help, support and advise him. However, the pope is different because his spiritual leadership and his administrative or practical leadership are united. In one sense, the organisation of the church is part of his spiritual leadership too.

I guess it will differ between different popes, but he could do almost nothing or do a whole lot. But there are certain aspects that he needs to do.

Oh yes, he is also the head of a sovereign state. So he has certain responsibilities from that, however this is mostly incorporated into his role as head of a religious organisation.

Finally, he has to get the coffees in on the last Thursday in the month. That is his place on the rota.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
I heard John Thavis, whose book The Vatican Diaries was published just as BVXI resigned, interviewed recently. As a CEO, the pope is remarkably hands-off--he doesn't hold regular meetings with senior staff or even get noticeably involved in administration, so far as anyone can tell (at least no pope during Thavis's time on the Vatican beat has). My impression is that he's less like a CEO than like a chairman of the board (the quaint, anachronistic charade of statehood aside).
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Thinking comparatively - how is his role similar and different to that of the Dali Lama ?
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
CEO doesn't fit - the Catholic Church isn't closely enough controlled to feel like a corporation.

President of a federation is more like it.
 
Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :
 
The modern papacy had added a "star" role: all those international visits where the faithful gather to see The Pope, attend a Mass/rally and generally be in the Pope's presence and hear a sermon/speech. It's a significant part of the modern papacy and it cannot be delegated easily.

It's a recent phenomenon but an important one.
 
Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
The Pope is all of the above; he is also the only one who can pronounce dogma ex cathedra. Since Vatican I this has only happened the once when when HH proclaimed the Queenship of Mary in 1950. This was hardly a new concept; he took something widely believed and formalised it into dogma.
 
Posted by Timothy the Obscure (# 292) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
CEO doesn't fit - the Catholic Church isn't closely enough controlled to feel like a corporation.

President of a federation is more like it.
A federation of what? The RCC most nearly resembles a very large (and poorly governed) non-profit organization, with many subsidiary programs that operate semi-autonomously. The Pope's role, like a Chairman of the Board, is to set policy and oversee the appointment of top-level managers.

The Vatican possesses virtually none of the attributes of a modern state (and the Vatican is not coterminous with the RCC anyway), so likening it to a state and the Pope to a president (or a prime minister or even a monarch) is really misleading.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
CEO doesn't fit - the Catholic Church isn't closely enough controlled to feel like a corporation.

President of a federation is more like it.
A federation of what?
I had in mind a federation of voluntary organisation, but

quote:
The RCC most nearly resembles a very large (and poorly governed) non-profit organization, with many subsidiary programs that operate semi-autonomously. The Pope's role, like a Chairman of the Board, is to set policy and oversee the appointment of top-level managers.
Is a much better analogy. Saving that he only gets to appoint about half if the top-level managers of these semi-autonomous programmes (the Bishops of Dioceses), the remainder (religious superiors) being directly or indirectly elected by the workers within those programmes.

quote:
The Vatican possesses virtually none of the attributes of a modern state (and the Vatican is not coterminous with the RCC anyway), so likening it to a state and the Pope to a president (or a prime minister or even a monarch) is really misleading.
Quite and for exactly the same reason likening to a corporation doesn't work either.
 
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
If the Conclave hasn't selected a new pope by Easter, will there be Major Consequences of any sort?

I realize they'll probably pick someone by then, if only because they're under pressure, and the Church would seem on track if there's a pope to celebrate Easter, and they're getting sick of each other's company.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
To abbreviate a list with a lot more explanations, the pope can:
Some of this might need minor rewriting due to the intervening hundred years, but basically the above is still the case...
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Indeed, RuthW!
And for a fair whack of western history Catholicism WAS Christianity. (Or vice versa)
Only in its own opinion.
 
Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Indeed, RuthW!
And for a fair whack of western history Catholicism WAS Christianity. (Or vice versa)
Only in its own opinion.
This may be its own thread, but this is actually quite interesting to think about. We tend to frame things linearly by looking at only orthodox churches: One Big Church then RC/EO then Reformation!

But there was heterogeneity for the first few centuries, between catholic and Gnostic parties, everywhere. From the third to fifth centuries you had Novatianists and Donatists in schism from the Catholic Church. The Germanic kingdoms of the fourth through eighth centuries were Arian. The Cathars flourished from the 11th to 13th centuries, the Hussites in the 15th, and of course the Reformation came along in the 16th.

So it may only be safe to say that for the eighth to eleventh centuries, Catholicism WAS Christianity in the West...
 
Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
One could equally ask the question : What do pastors do ? 'Pastoring' includes a number of activities,all of which should be at the service of the community.
The pope would claim to be the universal pastor,one of whose titles is 'Servant of the servants of God. Service,however does not necessarily mean that one is a doormat for others to wipe their feet on.Sometimes a servant has to act as a master also.
Are doctors attracted to the study of medicine because of the opportunity of service to the community ? Is the salary, the power and the prestige also attractive ?
Do politicians enter public service to be of use to others or also for the power and prestige,as well as the salary ?
The Petrine ministry of the popes is based on the words of Christ whose followers the popes,along with other Christians,claim to be :'Feed my lambs, feed my sheep !'
Of course the popes,throughout the ages have had their imperfections,as indeed have most other Christians,but they attempt,in their own way to fulfil that command of Christ and in that task they have the assurance of Christ that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
@Hawk, the Catholic Church (baring a handful of Lollards in the UK and a few thousand Waldensians and Hussites over on the continent) effectively WAS Christianity in the West in the middle-ages.

The existence of anything else that could be called Christianity in any way, shape or form is only your opinion.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Hawk, the Catholic Church (baring a handful of Lollards in the UK and a few thousand Waldensians and Hussites over on the continent) effectively WAS Christianity in the West in the middle-ages.
Actually there were really quite a lot of Hussites. Easily a majority of the popul;ation of Bohemia, and a few of them leaking out into neighbouring countries.

On the other hand that was only fort the last hundred years or so of the Miuddle Ages, and you coudl really look on it as the start of the Reformation. Ss its still true to say that before the Reformation pretty much everyone in Western Europe was a Roman Catholic - its jsut the Reformation started early in Prague.
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
To abbreviate a list with a lot more explanations, the pope can:
Some of this might need minor rewriting due to the intervening hundred years, but basically the above is still the case...
Wow. That's quite the job description. TBH, it sounds like a job for someone considerably younger than the fellas who generally get elected. For the sake of human energy, if for no other reason.

Looking over the list of popes posted somewhere on the Ship, it seems that the church did elect a few middle-aged men in the past (though what we call middle-aged now might have seemed older when lifespans were generally a bit shorter).

I wonder if that's a consideration for the current conclave?
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
My understanding has always been that there were a handful of church leaders who were considered equal in power/influence/prestige with the Rome-based pope, and progressively the Roman one claimed precedence. Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople. With the progressions with the Islam invasions, the only one left was Rome, and then there was the final split 350 years later. It has always struck me that the west part of the Roman Empire had only Rome, while the eastern, Greek part had all of the rest. The Roman-Orthodox split merely confirmed the ethnic and linguistic foundation. This might be a little of a gloss, but it does explain much.

From the outside, the Pope appears to try to oversee and organize a diverse group of people who are trying to follow the various forms of Christianity, and he tries to create unity. It is the popes of history who have failed to incorporate the forms and ways of many groups who might have been accommodated. Some of this is political, e.g., failure to respond to England's Henry VIII, or Luther, in ways that met them somewhere other than with excommunication, armies and threats. This hinges on the unfortunate historical papal wish to be rulers of kingdoms as well as spiritual leaders.

No doubt a group of rather old men (cardinals) would tend to conserve and uphold traditions with resulting change rather incremental and slow. From a western Canadian perspective - we disregard class structure, history, titles and authority in general - the RC church and pope come across as a distant monolith with little practical importance. About as important as the queen, though maybe she's more important as she is featured on much of our money.

The hearkening back to Vatican II seems to tell us that another generation of cardinals who have no memory of that nearly 50 year old reform is required before some of the promise of that could progress further, particularly about women and historical sexism. Meanwhile, it is rather clear that RC families seem to disregard inconvenient RC teachings seeing as they have about the same number of children as non.
 
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Hawk, the Catholic Church (baring a handful of Lollards in the UK and a few thousand Waldensians and Hussites over on the continent) effectively WAS Christianity in the West in the middle-ages.

The existence of anything else that could be called Christianity in any way, shape or form is only your opinion.
Yebbut, for most of the high Middle Ages there were two competing papacies. I've often wondered whether there might be more mileage than has been recognised in the idea that the Papacy was less of a threat to other powerful people when there were two of them.

Then, to resolve the scandal, there was the Conciliar movement. That would have diffused ecclesiastical power collegially. However, the popes immediately following managed to outwit that. If they hadn't been so determined to re-centralise power, the situation might have been messier but the Reformation either might not have happened in quite the same way or a less rigidly run western church could have accommodated it and benefitted from it without fragmenting.
 
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Its jsut the Reformation started early in Prague.
That was certainly the Czech view when I lived in that part of the world. On the other hand, some Czechs thought that since Hus was heavily influenced by Wycliffe, the Reformation started in Oxford.
 
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Galilit:
Indeed, RuthW!
And for a fair whack of western history Catholicism WAS Christianity. (Or vice versa)
Only in its own opinion.
This may be its own thread, but this is actually quite interesting to think about. We tend to frame things linearly by looking at only orthodox churches: One Big Church then RC/EO then Reformation!

But there was heterogeneity for the first few centuries, between catholic and Gnostic parties, everywhere. From the third to fifth centuries you had Novatianists and Donatists in schism from the Catholic Church. The Germanic kingdoms of the fourth through eighth centuries were Arian. The Cathars flourished from the 11th to 13th centuries, the Hussites in the 15th, and of course the Reformation came along in the 16th.

So it may only be safe to say that for the eighth to eleventh centuries, Catholicism WAS Christianity in the West...
It depends what you define as Catholicism, and what you define as Christianity of course. But if you take the broad view that anyone who beleived in, and followed Jesus as the Son of God and Saviour, whatever they understood those concepts to mean, was a 'Christian'. And you take 'Catholic' to mean obedience to the authority, liturgy and dogma as prescribed by Rome, then there were multiple communities of wildly differing beliefs and practices within Christianity that weren't Catholic from the beginning, until the present day.

The Montanists were prominent from the 2nd century to the 6th century, starting in Asia Minor, but rapidly spreading into Africa and Gaul.

Marcion founded a large ecclesiastical organisation with his own wealth, which lasted from the 2nd century to the 5th.

And the Valentinians split from the Catholic church after Valentinius was passed over for the post of Bishop of Rome, his Church lasting from the 2nd century to the 4th century,

And its western offshoot, the Marcosians also became a seperate faith in its own right until the 4th century.

Arianism then sprang up in the 4th century and was an incredibly powerful religion to what became decided as the Catholic/Orthodox faith until the 7th century.

In terms of the 8th to 11th centuries, it does appear that the Catholic Church had managed to effectively repress any heterodoxy in its territories for this brief period while it wrestled with its relationship with its Eastern brothers and finally schismed fully away from them.

We do have the Paulicans, starting in the 8th cenutry in Armenia, with 200,000 Paulicians transplanted into Bulgaria in the 10th century, who survived as an independent Church until they were assimiliated into the Catholic Church in 1650. We also have the Bogomils starting in the 10th century in Bulgaria. Bulgaria might not be considered part of the Western Church at the time though.
 
Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
@Hawk, the Catholic Church (baring a handful of Lollards in the UK and a few thousand Waldensians and Hussites over on the continent) effectively WAS Christianity in the West in the middle-ages.

The existence of anything else that could be called Christianity in any way, shape or form is only your opinion.
Yebbut, for most of the high Middle Ages there were two competing papacies. I've often wondered whether there might be more mileage than has been recognised in the idea that the Papacy was less of a threat to other powerful people when there were two of them.

Then, to
Are you talking of the Western Schism (3 Popes et al?). That was only from 1378-1415. Hardly "most of the High Middle ages"
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I know this isn't exactly the topic of the OP, but the conclave is on the front page of the Boston Globe today, and I can't help but to wonder why the pope is a matter of such intense interest...
...in Boston.

It's Boston, Zach82, Catholic Boston. Of course, it's going to be all over the front page of the Boston Globe.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I know this isn't exactly the topic of the OP, but the conclave is on the front page of the Boston Globe today, and I can't help but to wonder why the pope is a matter of such intense interest...
...in Boston.

It's Boston, Zach82, Catholic Boston. Of course, it's going to be all over the front page of the Boston Globe.
I suppose caring about the next pope is much more fun and far easier, from a culturally-Catholic point of view, than actually going to mass or obeying the teachings of the Church.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I know this isn't exactly the topic of the OP, but the conclave is on the front page of the Boston Globe today, and I can't help but to wonder why the pope is a matter of such intense interest...
...in Boston.

It's Boston, Zach82, Catholic Boston. Of course, it's going to be all over the front page of the Boston Globe.
I suppose caring about the next pope is much more fun and far easier, from a culturally-Catholic point of view, than actually going to mass or obeying the teachings of the Church.
[Ultra confused] ? ?
I fail to see where one's level of interest in who the next pope will be is a direct indicator of the level of rigor or laxity of one's religious practice
 
Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
And, in response to Zach, this in a city where, not too long ago, there were coin boxes on the downtown streets where the faithful could pick up a copy of the archdiocesan rag, The Pilot.

[ 13. March 2013, 02:45: Message edited by: The Silent Acolyte ]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I know this isn't exactly the topic of the OP, but the conclave is on the front page of the Boston Globe today, and I can't help but to wonder why the pope is a matter of such intense interest...
...in Boston.

It's Boston, Zach82, Catholic Boston. Of course, it's going to be all over the front page of the Boston Globe.
I suppose caring about the next pope is much more fun and far easier, from a culturally-Catholic point of view, than actually going to mass or obeying the teachings of the Church.
[Ultra confused] ? ?
I fail to see where one's level of interest in who the next pope will be is a direct indicator of the level of rigor or laxity of one's religious practice
This.

Zach, I've got to say that that's a new low of anti-Catholic nastiness.
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
Oh, honestly. I only supposed that it was to practicing Roman Catholics that the pope is most directly relevant, and to most other people it is a matter of little more than idle curiosity. I meant absolutely nothing malicious by it, and I am sincerely bewildered that anyone would think I did.

[ 13. March 2013, 04:33: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Okay, it might not be malice but just tone deafness.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh, honestly. I only supposed that it was to practicing Roman Catholics that the pope is most directly relevant, and to most other people it is a matter of little more than idle curiosity. I meant absolutely nothing malicious by it, and I am sincerely bewildered that anyone would think I did.
Liberal Catholics tend to have a wish list about what the next pope should and should not do which is at least as long as that of traditional / conservative Catholics. The pope is a signifier, and on occasion realiser, of what faithfulness means in Catholic theory and practice, hence of great interest to all that have any serious opinion about that. Truly cultural Catholics, whose relationship to Catholicism is not impeded by any actual religion, see in the pope the very symbol of their cultural association. To ask why they care about the pope is to wonder why the English care about a Queen stripped of political power. If you don't care about the pope at all, then arguably you are not Catholic in any sense of the word. (In fact, arguably you are not orthodox if you do not care about the pope at all. The Orthodox certainly do, if only in the negative concerning current RC arrangements.)

[ 13. March 2013, 08:25: Message edited by: IngoB ]
 
Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Okay, it might not be malice but just tone deafness.
I suppose that's what's going to pass as an apology.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Liberal Catholics tend to have a wish list...
Oh, I care insofar as I sincerely wish a good pope is chosen, have really made specific prayers about it, and will be happy for my Roman Catholic friends when one is chosen.

I fully admit my original question was a silly one with a little reflection. But, just by way of showing where my question was coming from, India has about a billion people, but its elections hardly get as much air-time as the papacy is getting right now. Which seemed odd to me.

[ 13. March 2013, 13:03: Message edited by: Zach82 ]
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
American press are notorious for their poor world coverage. Might be why you don't see much on India.

As to the papal coverage, it is the royalty thing, in part. The craz....erm, unusual selection ceremony, the connection with antiquity, politics, religion, pretty costume, etc. Usually includes a death as well. Has nearly every ingredient of a popular news story, reporters and editors would be sacked for not covering it.


really, we need a papal paternity scandal to round out the whole thing.
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Oh, honestly. I only supposed that it was to practicing Roman Catholics that the pope is most directly relevant, and to most other people it is a matter of little more than idle curiosity. I meant absolutely nothing malicious by it, and I am sincerely bewildered that anyone would think I did.
Liberal Catholics tend to have a wish list about what the next pope should and should not do which is at least as long as that of traditional / conservative Catholics. The pope is a signifier, and on occasion realiser, of what faithfulness means in Catholic theory and practice, hence of great interest to all that have any serious opinion about that. Truly cultural Catholics, whose relationship to Catholicism is not impeded by any actual religion, see in the pope the very symbol of their cultural association. To ask why they care about the pope is to wonder why the English care about a Queen stripped of political power. If you don't care about the pope at all, then arguably you are not Catholic in any sense of the word. (In fact, arguably you are not orthodox if you do not care about the pope at all. The Orthodox certainly do, if only in the negative concerning current RC arrangements.)
I certainly have no "wish list", but what caught my eye and my heart was the refreshing lack of tat firstly and the desire for the people to pray with him and for him.

And the windows on the loggia swung open and a healthy breeze came in.
 
Posted by Percy B (# 17238) on :
 
My answer to the opening question, while not targeted at any individual pope, would be, somewhat tongue in cheek:

The Pope has too much power centred on one individual, he is one of the last European dictators, ruling the church in a dictatorial, don't argue with me, fashion.
 
Posted by Mrs Shrew (# 8635) on :
 
Really showing my ignorance here, but it was mentioned at work and I had no idea - does the Pope get paid? Also do the cardinals?

I see the figurehead importance and appreciate it but I really have no idea about the day to day logistics of the papacy and would be interested to know more if anyone can share, or recommend a source of information?
 
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ronald Binge:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Liberal Catholics tend to have a wish list about what the next pope should and should not do which is at least as long as that of traditional / conservative Catholics. The pope is a signifier, and on occasion realiser, of what faithfulness means in Catholic theory and practice, hence of great interest to all that have any serious opinion about that. Truly cultural Catholics, whose relationship to Catholicism is not impeded by any actual religion, see in the pope the very symbol of their cultural association. To ask why they care about the pope is to wonder why the English care about a Queen stripped of political power. If you don't care about the pope at all, then arguably you are not Catholic in any sense of the word. (In fact, arguably you are not orthodox if you do not care about the pope at all. The Orthodox certainly do, if only in the negative concerning current RC arrangements.)
I certainly have no "wish list", but what caught my eye and my heart was the refreshing lack of tat firstly and the desire for the people to pray with him and for him.

And the windows on the loggia swung open and a healthy breeze came in.
Yes. I do have a wish list but it's quite a short one. I particularly liked the "brothers and sisters" bit of his introduction. He could so easily have said "Bless you my children" or some such remark, but no, he treated us like adults. And referring to the cardinals as "brothers" was a nice touch. I liked Benedict, but to me he always came across as a theologian first and foremost and despite his obvious warmth and pleasure in his visit to England, he did seem a bit remote.

I think Francis' combination of Jesuit and Franciscan qualities is going to make for quite an interesting papal reign. It will probably not be without controversy but this pope strikes me as genuinely attempting to live the Gospel in a way we haven't seen for quite a long time. He may turn out to be the best thing that's happened to the church in a very long time. Early indications are that he's going to be quite popular - I'm hoping that he might revitalize the church.

Early days and first impressions, but I know I feel more inspired and relieved and have a grateful feeling that the church is in safe hands.
 
Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
On a simple, practical level, pyramidal hierarchies have to have peaks with one lone CEO-type person at the apex (or whatever we call the top of a pyramid).
It is an apex. But whydoes there have to be oen person on it? Why should churches (or companies or clubs or countries or anything else) reproduce the historical accident of early modern absoolute monarchy?
 
Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge:
On a simple, practical level, pyramidal hierarchies have to have peaks with one lone CEO-type person at the apex (or whatever we call the top of a pyramid).
It is an apex. But whydoes there have to be oen person on it? Why should churches (or companies or clubs or countries or anything else) reproduce the historical accident of early modern absoolute monarchy?
You got me: I dunno. I suppose they don't 'have' to, but that is what usually happens.
 
Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mrs Shrew:
Really showing my ignorance here, but it was mentioned at work and I had no idea - does the Pope get paid? Also do the cardinals?

I see the figurehead importance and appreciate it but I really have no idea about the day to day logistics of the papacy and would be interested to know more if anyone can share, or recommend a source of information?
Re the Pope, it seems to be a full-time position, and he doesn't have to moonlight at a 2nd job, and yet he doesn't have to worry about where his next meal is coming from. But whether or not he gets an actually pay cheque, i don't know. I don't think he's very often, if ever, in situations where he has to whip out his wallet to pay for something.
 
Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
[QUOTE] I particularly liked the "brothers and sisters" bit of his introduction. He could so easily have said "Bless you my children" or some such remark, but no, he treated us like adults. And referring to the cardinals as "brothers" was a nice touch. I liked Benedict, but to me he always came across as a theologian first and foremost and despite his obvious warmth and pleasure in his visit to England, he did seem a bit remote.
Ariel, Benedict's first words in 2005 were
quote:
Dear brothers and sisters, after the great Pope John Paul II, the Cardinals have elected me, a simple, humble labourer in the vineyard of the Lord. The fact that the Lord knows how to work and to act even with insufficient instruments comforts me, and above all I entrust myself to your prayers. In the joy of the Risen Lord, confident of his unfailing help, let us move forward. The Lord will help us, and Mary, His Most Holy Mother, will be on our side. Thank you.

 
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I fully admit my original question was a silly one with a little reflection. But, just by way of showing where my question was coming from, India has about a billion people, but its elections hardly get as much air-time as the papacy is getting right now. Which seemed odd to me.
Most of India's billion people are concentrated in.....India. Catholicism's 1 billion+ people are spread throughout the world. 1 in 4 U.S. residents is Catholic. Catholicism lies at the heart of Western Civilization (art, music, architecture, philosophy, etc.). Of course the papacy is going to get more air-time than India's elections.
 
Posted by Try (# 4951) on :
 
The Pope clearly has access to the vast wealth of the Vatican, but I too wonder if he's paid a salary or stipend in the conventional sense, or just has his expenses paid for him.

Of course, the wealth of the Vatican is mostly tied up in art, architecture, and real estate, most of which can't be sold for sentimental or theological reasons.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
The Pope clearly has access to the vast wealth of the Vatican, but I too wonder if he's paid a salary or stipend in the conventional sense, or just has his expenses paid for him.

Of course, the wealth of the Vatican is mostly tied up in art, architecture, and real estate, most of which can't be sold for sentimental or
theological reasons.
'Theological reasons'? I cannot think of a valid reason which would prevent some items being sold to pay, for instance, for food for the poor. Could you explain, please?
 
Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 
So Francis paid his hotel bill. Will he continue to carry a credit card? Does he have to reconcile his bank statements himself or is there a special cardinal of accounting for that? Maybe he could endorse AMEX and get a discount on all Catholic clergy service charges?

Amex. I never leave the Vatican without it!"
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Try:
The Pope clearly has access to the vast wealth of the Vatican, but I too wonder if he's paid a salary or stipend in the conventional sense, or just has his expenses paid for him.

Of course, the wealth of the Vatican is mostly tied up in art, architecture, and real estate, most of which can't be sold for sentimental or
theological reasons.
'Theological reasons'? I cannot think of a valid reason which would prevent some items being sold to pay, for instance, for food for the poor. Could you explain, please?
Well for a start, they wouldn't sell holy relics - and Iam absolutely sure people would buy them if they were offered for sale. I am also sure that I agree that selling human remains without consent should not be permitted.
 
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :
 
According to this source (and I remember this happening), Pope Paul VI instructed that his papal tiara be sold and the money donated to the poor. It was acquired by St. Patrick's Cathedral through the efforts of Francis Cardinal Spellman, Archbishop of New York, and kept there for some time. I seem to remember that the arrangement was to be that admission would be charged to see it, and those proceeds would be donated to charity. Whether or not that actually happened, I don't know. Today, according to the linked source, it is permanently displayed in the crypt of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, DC.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SusanDoris:
[qb] Well for a start, they wouldn't sell holy relics - and Iam absolutely sure people would buy them if they were offered for sale. I am also sure that I agree that selling human remains without consent should not be permitted.
Thank you. I think nowadays, too, that anyone gullible enough to buy something purporting to be a genuine ancient relic really would need to 'get a life'! [Smile]
I was thinking more in terms of the massive quantities of precious metals etc; however, it sounds as if it is quite possible that other branches of the RC Church might well raise the money...ah, well! And the world continues to muddle along....
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
'Theological reasons'? I cannot think of a valid reason which would prevent some items being sold to pay, for instance, for food for the poor. Could you explain, please?
Who would pay a good price for them, other than some filthy-rich person (most likely Chinese these days) who would probably acquire them as trophies of his wealth and as an investment, i.e. hoping that the value would rise? And with no obligation ever to show it to the public?

The public loses again.
 
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :
 
I'm impressed that he is used to cooking his own meals and wonder how much he will continue to do so.

Sometime I hope that (with the help of someone used to writing on the subject) he will give us a little book or at least article, perhaps entitled something like "Refueling for Busy Bachelors on a Budget." Refueling is probably not the right word-- too inhumane an analogy, and machines don't give thanks for their fuel, whereas a wise bishop would know the importance of thanksgiving. This is the niche that needs to be filled: humble, practical, no-nonsense food chosen and prepared efficiently but with enough competence and flair as to invite the diner to give thanks for it (which my own attempts don't always do).

If Pope John II sang for us on recordings, then Francis can write a cookbook. After all, he did grow up in an Italian family.
 
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
The public loses again.
Yes; sad, but true.
 
Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :
 
Of interest to this thread.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0