Came across this in an article on the BBC website:
Since the first word of the piece makes me gag, I have trouble knowing how to read the rest of it - the article has a picture of Francis Arinze next to this item - and I guess my question for debate/comment is this: “How likely is it that the next Pope to be elected will be an African/Black (be it Cardinal Arinze or anyone else)?”
Well, first she has to kill off JP II, who is surprisingly tough.
The “first” may need to be modified by “modern” since we do not necessarily have a good “racial” profile of the various earliest popes and probably can’t prove that none of the earliest African and Spanish popes were not descended from Nubians or Ethiopians brought into the Roman empire.
It is certainly not impossible. (Of course, we could also be looking at the first pope from the Far East or elsewhere, as well. The cottage industry of “predicting” the next pope–whether by “psychics” or pundits–has a notoriously poor track record. Pius XII (1938) was the last pope who was successfully predicted before his election.)
Far be it from me to question the Catholic authorities on this board, but I was under the impression that any adult Catholic male was papable (although, of course, in practice, the CoC 99.99999% of the time only selects one of their own – but if they wanted to, they could elect an outsider). Am I wrong in this?
From what I understand, the good Cardinal has been strongly considered to be in the running by those who pay attention to such things, for at least six months now.
I’m sorry, grimpixie, but as long as someone’s brought this up, I’m going to ask:
While we’ve established that any adult Catholic male is papable, I’m led to believe that the chances of any future Pope coming from outside the College of Cardinals is about the same chance as George W. Bush getting his belly-button peirced and dying his hair purple and green.
But, aside from that, what are the general guidelines that the Cardinals use in electing a Pope. You mention that Cardinal Maradiga might be too young. How old is he? And what are the guidelines for an appropriate age for a Pope? And what other considerations do the CoC take into account when electing a Pope?
Thanks for the link, grimpixie. But while that link gives excellent detail on the mechanics of how a Pope is elected, it gives little insight into what the CoC is looking for in a Pope. For example, what is it about Cardinal Arinze or Cardinal Maradiga that make them serious candidates as opposed to, say Cardinal Egan from New York (or any of the other 100+ Cardinals out there?)
I’m actually hoping that the next Pope will be an Eastern Rite Catholic. We’ve had two of them in the past. JP II has been doing a lot toward promoting better relations between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (which, in their turn, have been warming up to the Eastern Christian churches that split with the CC before 1054). I think a Byzantine Pope could actually bring about reunification, since he would be somene who understood Eastern spirituality and theology. When that happens, I’m going to give Dogface a big, wet, slopppy kiss.
That said, I think that if the next pope is another Latin Rite Catholic, an African (or Asian) would be a good choice. Someone who recognizes that there are other cultural traditions within the Church besides White Western European could go a long way toward fostering unity between the diverse peoples and liturgical traditions within the Church, while still respecting the differences between us. Prior to JP II, Eastern Rite Catholics in the US were under a lot of pressure to Latinize. The current pope helped lift a lot of that pressue, and I think a pope from a different culture would help keep that pressure off.
I find the “psychic’s” choice of words rather unfortunate, ugly even. Suggesting that it’s somehow a wise move on the part of the Catholic church to make up for the previous abuse, to elect a black Pope. This implies that the Church is making some sort of concession or compromise. It just doesn’t sound very complimentary to the prospective Pope. I don’t think I’ve ever heard JP II referred to as the “white” Pope.:rolleyes:
Not to put a damper on your enthusiasm, but even if an Eastern-rite pope were elected, I have extreme doubts that unification would happen. I’m actually starting to lean towards the perspective that says that, by this point (one thousand years after the schism), corporate unification is impossible, as the Latins have changed so much liturgically, theologically, and phronemically. I know the Eastern Catholics still largely maintain their traditional theology and practice, but the problem with intercommunion with them is that they are in communion with the Latins, which is unacceptable to the Orthodox. If yall left the Latins (as large numbers of Carpatho-Rusyn Uniates did in the early part of this century), we’d be happy to go into communion with you.
Ironically, there’s a greater chance of corporate reunion with the Oriental Orthodox, even though we’ve been separated from them 500 years longer than we have from the Catholics, simply because they have not changed their phronema; their ethos is still Orthodox, and most Eastern Orthodox would feel right at home in an Oriental parish, whereas a traditional Catholic parish, to say nothing of those whose practice has been corrupted by the reforms of Vatican II, would be completely foreign to both the Eastern Orthodox and the non-Chalcedonians.
I can see where Trent (Transubstantiation) and Vatican I (papal infallibility) would be seen as corrupting, and I am sure that a lot of other Roman pronouncements are considered to be in error, but I am curious as to just what corruption occurred as a result of Vatican II.
I get the impression that they are not actually allowed to talk about it - one of the articles I read (I forget which one now) had a quote from one cardinal on the occasion of the announcement of the consecration of another bunch of cardinals. He was asked what sort of a pope the CoC was looking for, and replied something to the effect of “You’d better ask that lot quickly because soon they won’t answer you”
Having said that, it seems to be a very political decision - the National Catholic Reporter article linked to above, although written in 1999, implies that the CoC will be inclined to “look to the future” which means looking to the third world, as this where the Catholic church is now strongest and growing. It then goes on:
This sentiment is very intriguing. How many Eastern Cardinals are there? Can Patriarchs also be elected? Who do you consider a viable candidate?
I realize that ybeayf has announced doubt on this, but I agree. I have a feeling that reunification is a lot closer than anyone thinks. Very close. Indeed, I would go so far as to state that before I die, some substantial form of unity will occur. It depends on a lot of things though. A good Pope, that could make a difference. YMMV, of course.
I would go for Latin American. We have a new generation of young, good, charismatic and energetic bishops coming in latin America. Not only would it help the region, it would be a boon to a devoutly catholic people who have until very recntly been neglected. Quite frankly, we have been waiting for this for a long, long time, and we deserve it.
Like who? forgive my ignorance; is there anyone specific you are thinking of?
[aside]
You know, a way to help lift the pressure would be to evangelize more. The Eastern catholics have traditionally been strictly ethnic, as have the Orthodox; it was the only way to really preserve themselves under the oppressions of the Caliphate, the Ottomans, and lastly the Communists.
However, the Orthodox have made remarkeable gains in recent years by abandoning that closedmindedness and embracing the spirit of St. Cyril. There is no reason the Eastern catholics cannot do the same (which, IIRC, appears to be the case in your church, where no one is actually Italo-Greek except for the preist, right?)
If you gain in numbers, and lose your ethnic face, you will get a lot more respect. Indeed, you could very well be in a better position than the latins to evangelize, especially in the US, as the biases that many people hold towards latins would not affect you as much. You might want to check this out, if you have the time. If you have not seen it already, that is.
I am not speaking of any sort of official corruption of doctrine, but rather what Catholic practice has degenerated into in many parishes in the wake of Vatican II. The council itself was no more objectionable than any other, but Catholic practice, at least in the west, just went absolutely insane afterwards.
I have noticed that Catholics tend to believe that unification with the Orthodox is a real possibility, whereas the Orthodox tend to see it as a remote possibility, assuming it ever happens. I believe this is because of the Catholic tendency to see the Catholics and the Orthodox as two lungs of one Church. The Orthodox perspective, though, is that the Catholic Church is not the Church; the Orthodox Church is the Church, period. For the Orthodox, unification would not mean the rejoining of two long-sundered parts of the Church, but the Catholics at long last repenting of their heresies and returning to the Church.
The way I see it, the following things would have to happen for unification to be a realistic possibility: the Pope giving up any claim to infallibility or universal jurisdiction; the Latins returning to a traditional form of liturgy and baptism (i.e. immersion rather than infusion); the Latins abandoning the filioque and Barlaamism (i.e. the views on grace held by Barlaam of Calabria, whom the Catholics hold to be a saint and the Orthodox to be a rank heretic); and setting forth ideas such as purgatory, the Immaculate Conception, transubstantiation, and the like as theological opinions, rather than official doctrine.
Another important point to remember is that the Orthodox individuals who are involved with ecumenical talks are very much on the fringe of Orthodoxy; they by no means represent the views of mainstream Orthodoxy, and much of what they say is happily ignored by most Orthodox. Despite the visibility of the Ecumenical Patriarch, the Russians are by far the most important force in Orthodoxy today, and they are the least likely to go along with union; indeed, in recent years they have pulled away from ecumenical activities, and are likely to do so even more in the future, as part of their attempts to reunify with the Russian Church Abroad. Even among the Greeks in recent years the excesses of ecumenical activities have been checked. I think in the next few decades you will see a gradual abandonment of ecumenism among the Orthodox, and a return to traditionalism and relative insularity.
