This is vague enough to be true–or not. Aside from a very few locations (and the numbers are seriously diminished from the early 1970s to the point of virtual disappearance) I can think of no “insane” “practice.” This sounds like the sort of generalized rhetoric frequently issued by the Pius X crowd (or the heresiarch, Lefebvre).
Why should we give a damn what colour the Pope may be? Skin colour is only relevant to racists.
Perhaps I spoke a bit too harshly; I know there are Catholic churches that try to have a traditional liturgy within the confines of the novus ordo. However, there are still plenty of parishes that are bare of any sort of meaningful religious art, use rock-style music in their liturgies (complete with electric guitars and a drum set), and have armies of eucharistic ministers distributing white zinfandel in ordinary wine glasses. In any case, the novus ordo rite is completely unacceptable to the Eastern Orthodox, even if celebrated in a traditional manner. We’re still having a hard time dealing with the more liberal Orthodox churches who have introduced pews; accepting a liturgy that was formed by committee in the '60s is right out. The Tridentine rite, although not completely Orthodox, is much more acceptable; it has apostolic origins and hundreds of years of organic development behind it, even if how it was celebrated in the years leading up to Vatican II (with the low mass predominating and the hours all but abolished in parish use) wasn’t any more Orthodox than the folk-style novus ordo masses are.
Also, minor nitpick: I thought that Lefebvre was schismatic, not heretical. Did he ever formally repudiate the authority of the Pope?
In his case, he was both heretical and schismatic. His complete break (favoring the schismatic nomenclature) came when he began ordaining bishops.
If you are claiming that the presence of a particular mode of music or the absence of specific art makes a liturgy an “insane practice,” I certainly hope that you can demonstrate that every worship place of the second century had all the appropriate ikons and that you are currently limiting all musical expression to the modes (and lack of instruments) extant in the same period. 
While that is true, it is also naive. Who gets elected Pope and where he is from matters a great deal. IMHO, a modern day African Pope would send shockwaves through the Roman Catholic Church and throughout the world.
For instance, I happen to know several black Americans who go to Baptist churches who automatically dismiss anything the Pope says about any topic, be it the Iraq war, priestly celibacy, abortion or even the weather. (“It he’s infallible, why doesn’t he go to Las Vegas. Ha Ha!”) It would be interesting to see my Baptist friends’ reactions to an African Pope.
Should make for a lively celebration when they perform the Zarian Right for the coronation of the first black Pope.
I wouldn’t put it in those words, but essentially, yes, I would say that music in a secular style (whether it be rock music or the orchestral masses of the classical period) has no place in a Christian liturgy, and likewise, secular art has no place in church. I realize that there are many rites in Christendom that exhibit a wide variation, but they all have one thing in common: they are the product of organic development from the apostolic period. IMHO, it should be obvious that there is a big difference between different styles of chant, even if they are accompanied by organ or cymbals, and the contemporary music that is popular in many Catholic churches today. For the Orthodox, at least, theology and praxis cannot be separated. Corrupt theology leads to corrupt praxis (see low church Protestantism), and vice-versa (see the appalling lack of belief in the Real Presence among young Catholics in the US).
Heh. This has been a bone of contention in the Catholic Church since, oh, the 12th century or so. Plus ca change…
That being said, folk masses are an abomination and the “Wedding Song” a cardinal sin. God needs to get smiting on that last one sharpish.
I am afraid that, to me, the only thing that is obvious is that when any tradition freezes in time, its later adherents come to believe that it was “always this way.” The music found in the Orthodox Liturgy was, at one point, the “popular” mode adopted for religious celebration.
I suspect that we are not going to agree on this topic and that this hijack has run long enough. Thanks for the explanation.
I suspect you are correct. 
Back to the main topic of this thread, what are the chances of Ratzinger being elected? Related to that, how likely is it that at some point in the near future (especially if an extremely conservative Pope is elected) there will be a formal schism between the ultra-liberals and those who are more conservative?
Ratfinker? shudder
Better they exhume old Josemaria Escriva himself and install him. At least a dead pope would do less damage, regardless of his personal conservatism in life…
Next to nothing. Ratzinger is too controversial, he has too many enemies in the Curia, he’s too closely linked to the current Pope, and he wants to retire.
This doesn’t mean he won’t be influential in the Conclave, though. If he has a lot of enemies, he has a lot of friends too. He’s also the most notable cardinal in the “traditionalist” faction, So he should have influence.
nani, I don’t really have anyone in mind as far as an Eastern Rite Pope would be concerned. You don’t have to be a cardinal, or a patriarch, that matter, to be elected Pope, although there does seem to be a strong tendency for Popes to be drawn from the College of Cardinals.
I’m sure that there are a number of metropolitan archbishops who might fit the bill, though.
OK, I do have someone in mind. Archbishop Joseph Raya. Sweet, sweet guy. I’ve met him. Trouble is, he’s getting close to ninety now, so I don’t know how long his reign would be.
I would give Ratzinger a slim to none chance. He is too conservative, to reactionary, and too undiplomatic. His place is where he is right now. I think both he and the rest of the CoC understand that. However, the Junior Cardinal of Germany is a possible candidate, he is more liberal than Ratzinger and a good guy.
As to any further schisms, I doubt it. there are minor ones in many countries, but a major schism is unlikely, especially considering that the CoC is almost entirely made up of John Paul II appointees. The leadership change from conservative to liberal is taking place slowly, gradually, and relatively evenly, so I do not see any major changes. Then again, who in 1053 was predicting anything like what happened the following year?
Yeah, that’s true However, I thought I had heard recently of JP II appointing 2 new eastern cardinals, so I was wondering how much weight in the CoC Easterners held and if they differed in any way from western red-hats. As to the Patriarchs, I was wondering whether they could vote or not, although now that I think about it, they aren’t in the CoC, are they? I wonder why not.
That being said, this guy, Cardinal Lubomyr Husar of Ukraine, has gained my support as the Eastern candidate. What do you think of him?
An interesting article from USA Today:
[Quote]
Four papabili on everyone’s list:[ul][li] Cardinal Francis Arinze, former archbishop of Onitsha, Nigeria. He holds key posts in the Vatican and turns 71 on Nov. 1. A familiar face to American Catholics, he has made frequent trips to the USA and has been papabili for years. Church historian Matthew Bunson describes him as a veteran pastor highly ranked with the Curia, a noted author and a conservative on liturgy. He is respected for interreligious dialogue efforts. And “he plays a mean game of tennis.”[] Cardinal Oscar Andrés Rodriguez Maradiaga, 60, archbishop of Tegucigalpa, Honduras. Bunson says he is “dynamic,” has three doctorates and is “one of the brightest theologians in the church.” He’s popular, too: When he was installed in 2001, Hondurans chanted, “John Paul III! John Paul III!” But Reese says Rodriguez may lose votes for his defense of Boston Cardinal Bernard Law, who resigned during the height of the church’s sexual abuse scandal.[] Cardinal Dionigi Tettamanzi, 69, archbishop of Milan. “A brilliant prelate, he is one of the church’s best moral theologians, who is also a talented shepherd,” Bunson says. “He caused a major stir by seeming to encourage the demonstrations in Italy against the WTO (World Trade Organization).” Even so, Bunson says, “John Paul gave him a major vote of confidence,” by moving him from Genoa to Milan, a prime church post.Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, 58, archbishop of Vienna. He is the general editor of the updated Catechism of the Catholic Church. In speaking out on poverty and AIDS in Africa recently, he said, “The world, the human family cannot let a continent die.” Bunson calls him “among the most articulate” of conservative cardinals.[/ul][/li][/quote]
And another from the National Catholic Recorder looking at the politics behind the election:
[quote]
The College of Cardinals was already divided into four currents:[ul][li]The Border Patrol: Doctrinal conservatives worried about secularization, relativism and the loss of Catholic identity; []The Reform Party: Doctrinal moderates seeking to continue the reforms of the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) on issues such as decentralization, ecumenism and the role of the laity; []The Social Justice Party: Cardinals concerned with issues outside the church, such as debt relief, HIV/AIDS, the environment, capital punishment, war and peace, and globalization; and The Integralists: Cultural conservatives who want church teaching written into the civil law, especially on issues such as abortion, divorce and homosexuality. [/ul]The Oct. 21 appointments were spread across all four categories, no one of which commands the two-thirds majority it takes to elect a pope.[/li][/quote]
Grim
Oops - link for the NCR article omitted in error
Grim
grim, there’s a fascinating book on the two papal elections of 1978 which you might find of interest: The Making of the Popes 1978 by Andrew Greeley. Greeley is a Roman Catholic priest, but also a sociologist/journalist. He approached the two elections like secular elections he had covered, doing a lot of interviews, getting cardinals to dish, and so on. He put together a computer simulation to try to predict the elections, as well as a papal job description for what he thought the cardinals were looking for.
The irony is that he didn’t have faith in his own work. The job description describes a “smiling pastor” that could have been a personal description of Albino Luciani, and his computer simulation ranked Luciani quite high, but Greeley and his colleagues said to themselves, “The curia’s only looking for one of their own.” Then, after Luciani became JPI and died, Greeley updated his data and ran the computer simulation again, for the next election. The computer ranked one Karol Wojtyla at the top of the list. Greeley and colleagues this time said to themselves, “The College won’t elect a non-Italian.”
Greeley’s book also has an appendix with accounts of the balloting in most of the 20th century papal elections, notwithstanding the canonical prohibition on cardinals revealing what went on in the conclave. The human impulse to gossip, I guess…
The Pope said (although I’m unable to find the link right now) in 1999 that his succesor had not been made cardinal yet. So, if his prophetic skills are good, his succesor will be a cardinal from the last consistories.
This Pope has been “killed” by “seers” for the last ten years, eventually they’ll get it right.
As to the “black” Pope, he needn’t be “black” in the skin-colour way. His “blackness” is a reflection of his evil. BTW
This link http://www.newadvent.org/docs/jp02ud.htm gives the official rules for the election.