And like the Pope, she’s a quitter…
I’m astonished it’s the first time in 600 years. I’m doubly astonished that this guy, conservative as he is, would go against a tradition that well established.
Symbolically, it’s weak, too: he should be more “Christ-Like” (or more like Peter) and die in the service of the church.
But, more seriously, it’s a job, man, and if he can’t do it, stepping down is the right thing. Otherwise, he becomes a figurehead, and people around him are doing the real work. It prolongs the succession crisis; it leads to people doing more jockeying for prominence.
Still, I guess it’s better than relying on assassination, as in the death of John Paul the First. 
Perhaps you didn’t mean it to be, but no one can objectively read this:
And not see a attempt to find some sort of “gotcha” for religious people. This is not rocket surgery, that a pope out of office is no longer a pope. That God didn’t decree Popes to be “popes for life” and that a person who is too old to perform the tasks of his job should step down and let someone else do it. The pope is not Jesus.
Would anyone notice the difference?
I wonder if this is a clue to what went on during the period of the last Pope’s lengthy decline. Ratzinger would then have been close to the action. Did he see a great deal of unseemly jockeying? A power vacuum that risked becoming dysfunctional because there is no Regency process available may have made him think twice about imposing it again, even though he was the beneficiary the last time.
Nitpick: Just an inaugural mass. Papal coronations went out with the papal tiara.
He would remain a bishop, right? The papacy is an office that one can resign, but consecration as a bishop leaves an indelible mark on the soul or some such?
And it doesn’t necessarily mean it’ll be in two months exactly – depends on how long it takes them to pick a new Pope. (I think the record is two years!)
Now, I’m confused (and I was raised a Catholic). If Jesus is present in the Host as you enter the church, what happens during the transubstantiation? I thought the host turned into the substance of Jesus during the Mass (and the bell gets rung so nobody misses the miracle occurring before their eyes). Prior to that, I thought that Jesus was only present in the sense that he’s always present everywhere.
It’s customary to keep (“reserve”) consecrated hosts - i.e., hosts consecrated at masses already celebrated) in the tabernacle behind the altar. The original purpose was to have consecrated hosts available so that the sacrament of communion could be administered to the sick and dying, etc, but in time a practice arose of venerating the consecrated hosts, and of occasionally displaying them for this purpose.
Whatever the reason, when you enter a Catholic church there are typically consecrated hosts reserved in the tabernacle, which is usually behind the altar, and a small red lamp burning nearby to remind you of this fact. The hosts were conscrated at a mass already held. The unconsecrated hosts kept avaiable for future masses are kept in a cupboard somewhere, and are of no particular importance.
Yup, he’ll still be a bishop. Some sources have suggested he’ll still be a cardinal; I’m not sure that he will, but at a minimum he will still be a bishop (bishop emeritus of Rome, to be precise, and archbishop emeritus of Munich). Of course it’s possible that the next pope will (re)appoint him as a cardinal, but he willl not need to be reappointed or returned to the bishopric. He’s not leaving it.
CNN (I know…) says he’ll be styled Cardinal Ratzinger.
Personally, while I have no love for the man (or maybe because of that), I’d say this is a good thing, and probably something more Popes should have done in the recent past.
Precisely correct.
But, this time they have more lead-time – they can get everything ready for the Conclave before the See is even vacant. Conceivably, they could get the election done in two weeks. (By canon law, I believe, there must be an interregnum of at least two weeks.)
Nitpick: the apostolic succession (selection of popes and bishops) is handled by the Holy Ghost, not God. Well, it’s still sort of God.
See, that might have been a gotcha if I didn’t know about the infallibility thing with the ex-cathedra decrees, but I didn’t. I thought everything he did was divinely inspired, from the holy shit he takes, to the choices he makes shampoo. Ignorance fought. You, my friend, are very paranoid.
I don’t see this aversion to “gotcha” questions. I have no idea if this question was a “gotcha” or not – who cares? If the questions exposes a logical inconsistency, then that must be admitted; if (as here) the presumed inconsistency rests on incorrect assumptions, then those incorrect assumptions should be identified and corrected. In short: who cares if it’s a gotcha or not? Why not simply answer it, as was done here?
(This is more a reply to John Mace…)
Eschew personal commentary like this, please.
Not “sort of” - according to Christian teaching, the Holy Spirit is God. “Neither confounding the Persons nor dividing the substance.”
Regards,
Shodan
Some Christian teaching.