BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

Pope John Paul II is now dead.

  
  

Page: 1234(5)678

 
 
Papess
17:36 / 09.04.05
Ganesh, I think it is a lot simpler than you are making it. The Catholic church is the Catholic church and very Christian, with staunch Christian values, (no matter how hypocritical they may seem). If the Pope chosen was to go against all that the Catholic has preached all these years then it no longer is the Catholic church anymore.

Let's put it this way....If the Klu Klux Klan started accepting members that were black, asian, jewish, then you no longer have the KKK anymore, do you?

My point is, the Catholic church is a prejudice institution due to the fundementals of it's doctrine. One cannot expect anything different from it, or else you no longer have Catholicism. Just as if Judaism were to begin proselytizing and taking anyone into their religion, regardless of birthright, it wouldn't be Judaism anymore. You don't have to like the Pope or Catholic doctrine, but it is what it is, and that is what makes it what it is, otherwise, it would be something else.

As for the outright lies about condoms, (And let me say here that I heard the bit about the HIV virus being able to penetrate condoms LONG before the Pope ever mentioned it. About 1988, actually.), what the Pope and the Catholic church are actually pushing for is ABSTINENCE. This is not an attempt at removing contraception if one considers that abstinenece is the favoured form of contraception in the Catholic church. The scare tactic was quite ignorant and obviously backfired, though.

However, with all that said, not allowing women/girls who have been raped get abortions, is beyond my comprehension.
 
 
Saint Keggers
18:02 / 09.04.05
>Insert Monty Python Dead Parrot sketch here<
 
 
Ganesh
21:31 / 09.04.05
My point is, the Catholic church is a prejudice institution due to the fundementals of it's doctrine. One cannot expect anything different from it, or else you no longer have Catholicism.

Is it just me, or are people utterly ignoring/disregarding the point I (and others) have already repeated three or four times in response to this point? You don't have to scroll that far back; I think it's in pretty much every page of this thread so far. Y'know, the stuff about different Popes having taken a different tack within the position, liberal or hardline, introducing reform or rolling it back?

Are people not understanding this, or not accepting it, or what?

As for the outright lies about condoms, (And let me say here that I heard the bit about the HIV virus being able to penetrate condoms LONG before the Pope ever mentioned it.

That's completely irrelevant. For years, the urban myth has existed that one can contract HIV from toilet seats - but, if senior members of the Catholic church claimed this was true, the fact that it's an old rumour would not diminish the sheer irresponsibility of officially adopting such a line.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:45 / 09.04.05
And you talking about John Paul II as if he were a simple product of that background with no autonomy whatsoever, ignoring the possibility that other individuals in his position - with similar backgrounds to John Paul II - could, and have, acted differently.

No, what I'm trying to say is that he became a Pope in an institution that he was happy with, with a set of beliefs that he was completely invested in, in a faith that doesn't want to bend to the realities of this world. You can rock the rules of a faith, plenty of people have been radical but the vast majority of people having worked their way up an institution like the Catholic church are unlikely to do so and more to the point, if you really believe in the strictures of Catholicism (especially Polish Catholicism), than the worst that you can do is claim that the rules against contraception can be bent. I'm not arguing that he was a good man or an interesting one. I'm arguing that his flaws are bigger than his flaws, that to focus on him primarily is to ignore an irrationality that stretches far further than him. I'm trying to point out that he was the best Pope for Catholicism, the worst for the world.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
21:51 / 09.04.05
And I don't have a problem with anyone attacking him but I think it's irresponsible to talk about him alone as a bad man because he was a product of Catholicism and all of those people mourning him at the vatican believed he was a good Pope. They have as much responsibility towards those Africans as he did because they are prepared to idolise him and ignore the fatal decisions that Catholicism has dictated. That makes the problem one of religion and not simply the problem of his guidance.
 
 
Ganesh
21:53 / 09.04.05
No, what I'm trying to say is that he became a Pope in an institution that he was happy with, with a set of beliefs that he was completely invested in, in a faith that doesn't want to bend to the realities of this world. You can rock the rules of a faith, plenty of people have been radical but the vast majority of people having worked their way up an institution like the Catholic church are unlikely to do so and more to the point, if you really believe in the strictures of Catholicism (especially Polish Catholicism), than the worst that you can do is claim that the rules against contraception can be bent.

And, like anyone who works their way up through an institution, they retain the option of changing that institution. I accept that the majority are unlikely to do so, but some have - and John Paul II could have done as a minority of his (presumably more humanitarian) predecessors did.

When it comes to criticising him, it's not an either/or situation: one can - and should - outline the specific faults and failures of this Pope while acknowledging that yes, many of those faults are enshrined within orthodox Catholicism generally. It's not like I have a finite pool of blame...
 
 
Brigade du jour
21:56 / 09.04.05
Can I just say (in a fit of ugly threadrot) that I think 'A Finite Pool Of Blame' would be a great title for a book.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
22:14 / 09.04.05
But they were probably elected as more humanitarian Popes- in some ways he was humanitarian, though admittedly I retain the opinion that he was... self absorbed.
 
 
sleazenation
08:49 / 10.04.05
Priest who covered up sexual abuse of children by priests chosen to lead a Mass for Pope John Paul II.

.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
09:31 / 10.04.05
If the Pope chosen was to go against all that the Catholic has preached all these years then it no longer is the Catholic church anymore.

But that argument would only hold water if Jesus had set up the Church in the year 0033 and it had existed unchanged ever since, just as he planned it. The fact is a bunch of other men got together long after that and began constructing the Papacy, which has evolved unceasingly ever since.

It has responded to local and global politics and has expressed the prejudices of the times. In the past, homosexuals married with the blessing of the Church. Women ministered in the early Church. The Church taught that slavery was biblically endorsed.

All sorts of things have changed because individuals within the Church refused to accept long standing shibboleths. Otherwise Rodrigo Borgia and John Paul II would have had identical policies and would have run the Church in identical ways.

JPII was a man who made choices. His choices affected the lives of millions of people. There's a lot of sentimental twaddle deluging us just now about some of the ways he affected people positively. I think that is not a balance for the ways in which his decisions affected people adversely.
 
 
Papess
14:28 / 10.04.05
In the past, homosexuals married with the blessing of the Church. Women ministered in the early Church. The Church taught that slavery was biblically endorsed.

...

Otherwise Rodrigo Borgia and John Paul II would have had identical policies and would have run the Church in identical ways.

So basically, the Catholic church has become increasingly rigid and prejudice, and the Pope no longer has ultimate authority. Right. Or were you saying Xoc, that you like the way The Borgia family ran the early Papacy and Catholic church?
 
 
Lurid Archive
15:05 / 10.04.05
This is becoming increasingly pointless and repetitive but...

There are a couple of fallacies at work here.

Firstly, just because a person is part - or in fact the head - of an organisation with a particular set of values, this does not make them immune from criticism. I'm not sure how to explain this point, given it seems so obvious to me. People have a certain amount of autonomy and being part of an organisation with certain requirements doesn't nullify personal responsibility. Especially when that person has the power to enact change.

Imagine someone stealing sweeties from kids. Now imagine that they start a club whose purpose is to promote kiddie sweetie stealing. It doesn't become a good thing. Stealing sweeties = bad, even if you have a piece of paper saying that you are the boss of lolipop snatching.

Secondly, and I feel myself becoming sympathetically hoarse here, the Pope was not a blank slate inacting the will of the disembodied catholic church. He made decisions. Reflect on that, decisions. These made a difference. All those people who have said that he was a great guy believe this. Thats why he gets credit, because he had an effect. I haven't read anything that praises JP2 purely on the grounds that he was the Pope. And thats because they are praising the man. So, on that same basis, one can criticise the man.

To put it another way, Strix, aren't you outraged (outraged, I say) that people are making a big deal out of the kindness and humanity of JP2. After all, he was the Pope and that was what he was paid for, right?
 
 
Papess
15:19 / 10.04.05
Why would I be outraged about anything? I don't support the Catholic church or it's ideals. I think it is a dinosaur saddle up with the Pope, who is just a man who is influenced by money and power and prestige, not to mention his peers. I just don't expect much else out of the Catholic church.

I don't think it needs to be reformed, however. I think it needs to be removed.
 
 
Ganesh
15:42 / 10.04.05
If nothing else, Strix, you're doing an outrageously good job of consistently missing the point.
 
 
Lurid Archive
17:18 / 10.04.05
I don't know why I thought you would be outraged, Strix. Its been a hard weekend and I think someone may have dripped hot wax directly onto my brain.

But how about the rest of my post?
 
 
---
17:42 / 10.04.05
I thought this would get deep. C'mon barbeloids, these things always go in circles and never end!

But you already know that don't you?
 
 
Papess
18:11 / 10.04.05
I think you are missing my point Ganesh, but thank you for your citicism.

Why would anyone think I, specifically, should be outraged because JP2 is being praised for doing his job? Most people are, especially if it meets the standards of their peers and superiors.

Why would anyone try and draw any comparison between Alexander VI and John Paul II is beyond me. However, I do understand that both you and Xoc are saying that JP2 could have taken a broader stance on issues, a more open and tolerant position....I just don't think that was possible and other people seem to think that too.

He was chosen by the Catholic church, and only by a 178 Cardinals. This hardly gives the global catholic parishoners a voice. So he was chosen by a few select catholic, essentially for the benefit of a few select catholic. That is the way the church works, and why I don't agree with it. It has the foundations of corruption built into it.

I can't blame JP2 because he believed in it, because was actually a servant to the College of Cardinals...a puppet, a point that public can focus their outrage on when the rest of the cardinals make unpopular decisions and hide behind the Pope and the devotion that millions of followers have towards JP2, someone whom they feel so personally connected to. Probably why the Pope needs such a big hat.

Seriously though, the Pope is just a sacrificial lamb. He couldn't have taken a stand against anything if the rest of the college wasn't behind him. Why just hate him? Hate all of it. If the College of Cardinals doesn't approve of a a potential pope's agenda, he doesn't get to become pope. It is all preordained, so to speak. I think you are giving him too much credit. However, we could just go back to the Borgia days and give the Pope a whole lot more authority to whatever his own personal agenda is. I am not sure what would be worse, but I do know that at least JP2 is not the only one with blood on their hands in this case.

Do you get my point Ganesh? That the whole entire Catholic church is corrupt and I'd never expect much else from it but lies, prejudice and perversion? I can't understand why you or anyone would! I am not endorsing their policies, definately not. I also have barely mentioned the so-called "good things" JP2 has done because I think it is irrellevant. I am certainly not outraged about it when it is mentioned though, because that is what people do when other people fulfill their expectations, and he did.

But YES, he was just doing his job. Which, was being a good figurehead and making an appearance for the church, much like Dubya does for the Republicans. Part of that was pushing the agenda of 178 cardinals, whom he sold his soul to for the honour and prestige of being the Pope.

So, I have now reduced any pope in modern times to about as significant as a man-puppet. How can I feel any outrage toward that? My outrage is with the entire catholic institution and how it manipulates the world with their hidden agendas by feeding on faith of the poor and deluded masses, while leading us all into the slaughterhouse.

Any change that the Catholic church makes is for it's own benefit. Even if, and I repeat, even if that change is to allow gay marriages, lesbian popes and contraception and a brothel on every street corner. It would all just be a part of the catholic agenda and they would chose the appropriate pope to bring through the new policies. At this moment in time though, support for homosexuals and gay marriages doesn't serve them well. Now, that is what makes the foundations of the Catholic church, IMO.

I personally, would rather see the Catholic church purged and liquidated rather than reformed. The idea that anyone is throned as "God" or "Jesus Christ" above anyone else is just inviting corruption and abuse.

River's Gonna Rise
by David & David

God Ain't In His Heaven
Something Ain't Right
I Hear Church Bells Ringing
In The Middle Of The Night
They're Dragging A Man By His Insides
Through The Broad Daylight
Thieves Have Their Season Sure
But It's Getting On Midnight
And The River's Gonna Rise
It's Gonna Rise
There'll Be Dancing In The Street
When The River Done Rise
Cold Wind Is Blowing
Flags Flapping Much Too Slow
The Monkey Men Sell Paradise
To The Girls From Tupelo
Black Shirted Boys In The Badlands
Play Machine Gun Rodeo
The Downtown Missions Packed Too Tight
With Folks That Got Nowhere To Go
But The River's Gonna Rise
It's Gonna Rise
And There'll Be Dancing In The Street
When The River Done Rise
God Ain't In His Heaven
Something Ain't Right
The Tv Newsman Smiles And Says
The Curfew Starts Tonight
They're Killing A Man From The Inside
In The Broad Daylight
While The Propped Up Puppet Wags His Head
And Watches All The Proud Things Die
But The River's Gonna Rise
 
 
Ganesh
19:08 / 10.04.05
Do you get my point Ganesh? That the whole entire Catholic church is corrupt and I'd never expect much else from it but lies, prejudice and perversion?

Yes, I get your point. I get your point because it's pretty much the same point as has been made by several posters since this thread began: essentially, the Catholic church has always been this way; individual Popes are mere puppets who cannot deviate from doctrine; within this context, it is pointless criticising John Paul II.

Reading back through the thread, however, it has been repeatedly pointed out that this is an oversimplication: there have been trends and variations within Catholicism, individual Popes are not simply interchangeable figureheads, but do have a certain amount of latitude in terms of emphasising or playing down certain elements of official doctrine (Vatican 2 being the most recent example), and, compared with previous incumbents, John Paul II has been notable for returning to a particularly conservative tack, where he might conceivably have been less hardline.

So yes, it is lies and prejudice, but within that blanket descriptor, there are different shades of lies 'n' prejudice and - given that it's rather unlikely that the institution will dissolve itself overnight - it is perfectly valid to criticise the late Pope in terms of his individual failings (as I see them) rather than simply dismissing them as, "well, it's all just Catholicism".
 
 
Papess
20:03 / 10.04.05
John Paul II has been notable for returning to a particularly conservative tack, where he might conceivably have been less hardline

Exactly why he was probably chosen. The College of Cardinals could have chosen someone else, but it didn't suit their agenda to do so. You think they didn't know what position JP2 took on the issues that concerned them?

You can criticize him all you want, Ganesh. I just found it distasteful that people would do so in an obituary thread and dump all of the issues of Catholicism on JP2's head while simultaneously displaying the kind of intolerance that they accuse the deceased Pope John Paul II of having.
 
 
Ganesh
20:26 / 10.04.05
Exactly why he was probably chosen. The College of Cardinals could have chosen someone else, but it didn't suit their agenda to do so. You think they didn't know what position JP2 took on the issues that concerned them?

So... Popes having no individuality and behaving in ways utterly predictable to the College of Cardinals, presumably the Vatican 2 reforms (and other examples of 'liberalising' within the church) took place through some sort of independent spontaneous mutation? Riiight.

You can criticize him all you want, Ganesh. I just found it distasteful that people would do so in an obituary thread and dump all of the issues of Catholicism on JP2's head while simultaneously displaying the kind of intolerance that they accuse the deceased Pope John Paul II of having.

And you can find it all as distasteful as you want - but, frankly, I think you have a fucked-up sense of what is and isn't distasteful. I'm not sure how well you know Barbelith, but we generally don't do uncritically-eulogistic obituary threads. The fact that someone is dead does not put them beyond criticism for those deeds for which they were responsible - as head of Catholicism for the last twentywhatever years, and as an individual who, whatever you choose to believe, did have some influence over the institution he personified.

I'll point out also that my kind of "intolerance" consists of posting angry criticism to an Internet message-board, directed largely at the particular individual who labelled me "disordered" and my relationship "evil". My own "intolerance" differs also from John Paul II's in that it has not, to my knowledge, resulted in the needless deaths of millions.

I'll therefore continue speaking ill of the dead old fucker.
 
 
Brigade du jour
21:11 / 10.04.05
And he looked like a baby. An ugly baby.
 
 
ibis the being
21:12 / 10.04.05
It has responded to local and global politics and has expressed the prejudices of the times. In the past, homosexuals married with the blessing of the Church. Women ministered in the early Church. The Church taught that slavery was biblically endorsed.

Church-sanctioned slavery is a particularly good example of the point Ganesh is making. There are Bible verses, particularly in Exodus, that seem pretty incontrovertibly to endorse slavery as part of the natural, Godly way of things. It's easy to imagine how at one time not too long ago Catholics would have made the argument that without slavery it's just not Catholicism.

There seems to be some assumption floating about that contraception as sin is some kind of absolute fundamental of Catholicism - but while it may be ancient and embedded, I hardly think it's bedrock. The fundamentals of Catholicism (as I understand it) center around faith in Jesus Christ, confession of sin, and participation in a series of religious rites including baptism, confirmation, communion, etc. All else is doctrine, and doctrine evolves. If it didn't, women would still be sitting at the back of the church.

I'm troubled by the notion that you can't take an individual - particularly a cultural or religious leader - to task for backwards or immoral actions merely because s/he is a member of that society. This, it seems to me, is cultural relativism at its worst, its most dangerous. Certainly it's dangerous when you're dealing with a leader, with a culture, as influential as the Pope/Catholicism. To use an oft-cited example, what about cultures where female genital mutilation is practiced? Do we let them off the hook because that's just the way they've always done it? Do we excuse the individual priests or tribal leaders responsible while critiquing the tradition only in theory? I really hope the answers would be 'no' for everyone here.
 
 
Lurid Archive
21:28 / 10.04.05
I just found it distasteful that people would do so in an obituary thread and dump all of the issues of Catholicism on JP2's head while simultaneously displaying the kind of intolerance that they accuse the deceased Pope John Paul II of having.

Intolerance??!?? No way you can say that about me, man. I'll have you know that some of my best friends are catholic. And if I'm talking to someone, and I found out that they are catholic, I am totally cool about it. Obviously, I wouldn't fuck a catholic cause the no condoms thing means they aren't as...clean, as I'd like. But they are still alright in my book.
 
 
Papess
22:09 / 10.04.05
So... Popes having no individuality and behaving in ways utterly predictable to the College of Cardinals, presumably the Vatican 2 reforms (and other examples of 'liberalising' within the church) took place through some sort of independent spontaneous mutation? Riiight.

Don't try to argue my point with nonsense. It took place through consensus.

I'm not sure how well you know Barbelith, but we generally don't do uncritically-eulogistic obituary threads.

Oh, well that must make it a good thing then, you know, because the rest of Barbelith does it.

I'll point out also that my kind of "intolerance" consists of posting angry criticism to an Internet message-board, directed largely at the particular individual who labelled me "disordered" and my relationship "evil".

Yes, it was all about you Ganesh. I'll tell you something I did learn from Barbelith; that personalizing an issue doesn't allow for a clear debate. The man didn't insult you personally, anymore than he insulted me personally because I am unbaptised prostitute and going to hell in his opinion. I just choose not to take it personally.
You think you are the only person he condemned to hell because of their chosen lifestyle?

It's easy to imagine how at one time not too long ago Catholics would have made the argument that without slavery it's just not Catholicism.

I would like to retract that argument because it is not substantial and really isn't where my intent is. I would rather stick with the point that the Catholic church has it's own agenda, and will do anything to proffer their agenda. They are not going to put someone in power who will upset that. When it becomes in their best interest to put a homosexual Pope in the Vatican, they will do so.

I'm troubled by the notion that you can't take an individual - particularly a cultural or religious leader - to task for backwards or immoral actions merely because s/he is a member of that society.

Maybe I should blame Tom then that a moderator here has called me evil, just because Tom is a leader of sorts in the Barbelith culture? Or maybe I should blame him for the lack of respect and tolerence that is displayed here sometimes?

I don't disagree with you on the immoral nature of the Catholic church's policy and actions, it just seems completely short-sighted to focus on the Pope while 178 cardinals hide behind him and even with the Pope's death these policies and doctrines won't change.

There seems to be a misconception that I am in support of the Catholic church. I am not. I just don't think that one can put all the blame on the Pope, or any one individual for propagating lies or prejudism. The Catholic church is full of them, as that is what has always made the Catholic church what it is. It is a power-driven institution and I do not condone it's policies, but it's a little fruitless to be flogging a dead horse to get the Catholic church to move it's wagon.
 
 
bio k9
22:47 / 10.04.05
I thought about scanning this last week but couldn't be bothered. I just remembered it was online too.

From the cover of our local weekly:
  
 
Ganesh
22:54 / 10.04.05
Don't try to argue my point with nonsense. It took place through consensus.

Don't make a point that's at least part-constructed from nonsense, then. You appear to be claiming that, while the behaviour of individual Popes is so unvarying and predictable (even over decades of Papal rule) that they're akin to helpless "meat-puppets" unable to impose even the slightest jot of personal influence over the institution they personify - yet the Cardinals' consensus somehow mystically alters over time, thus explaining Vatican 2, and all the other historical instances in which Popes have apparently ruled in a less conservative manner than Pope John II.

So... you seem to be claiming that the Cardinals who select the Pope are capable of independent thought/influence, but the Pope himself is not. Not only does this make me wonder whether the Pope undergoes some sort of lobotomy at the hands of his selectors, but also causes me to marvel at his Cardinals' ability to accurately foresee the behaviour of one human being over a twenty-year span.

Oh, well that must make it a good thing then, you know, because the rest of Barbelith does it.

Nahh, you're wrong. While there may well exist extremely reverent "Someone I Really Liked Is Dead" threads, there's absolutely no general expectation that the newly-dead are somehow immune from legitimate criticism.

Yes, it was all about you Ganesh. I'll tell you something I did learn from Barbelith; that personalizing an issue doesn't allow for a clear debate. The man didn't insult you personally, anymore than he insulted me personally because I am unbaptised prostitute and going to hell in his opinion. I just choose not to take it personally.
You think you are the only person he condemned to hell because of their chosen lifestyle?

Of course I don't; you miss my point again. You made the claim that, in being snarkily critical of the Pope, I was displaying the same kind of "intolerance". I merely pointed out the ways in which his lack of tolerance differed from my own. Let me spell them out for you:

a) the Pope made sweepingly damning generalisations about entire subgroups of the global population, of which sexually-active homosexuals are but one example; by contrast, my own "intolerance" takes the form of specific criticism of John Paul II, and the ways in which he used his influence over the Catholic church,

b) the Pope's "intolerance" is rather more damning than my own: I think he was a nasty bigot; he thinks gay people in relationships are "evil",

and

c) the consequences of the Pope's "intolerance" are a tad wider-ranging than the consequences of mine.

I don't think anyone's got you tagged as a passionate supporter of Catholicism, Strix. It's more that you're resolutely (and rather dismissively) advancing a peculiarly overstated "meat-puppet" argument in the face of considerable past evidence of non-generic Papal decision-making, while, weirdly focussing your distaste on critics of John Paul II merely because he happens to be dead.
 
 
Ganesh
23:00 / 10.04.05
I don't disagree with you on the immoral nature of the Catholic church's policy and actions, it just seems completely short-sighted to focus on the Pope while 178 cardinals hide behind him and even with the Pope's death these policies and doctrines won't change.

It's perfectly possible to focus one's ire on both John Paul II and the Catholic church more generally. In disagreeing with your assertion that the policies and doctrines of the Catholic church are utterly immutable and cannot change (because, historically, they have changed), I doubt anyone is under any illusion that the institution itself is corrupt to the core. Expressing anger at the particular actions of an individual Pope doesn't automatically mean excusing the institution he heads.
 
 
---
23:48 / 10.04.05
Oh for fucks sake, is it really worth wasting your energy on?

He was in charge of a fascist system that no longer even acknowledges the Goddess. Who gives a fuck.
 
 
Ganesh
02:13 / 11.04.05
Is anything on an Internet message-board really worth wasting your energy on?

(For fuck's sake, etc.)
 
 
---
02:38 / 11.04.05
Sorry, the Vatican is a red rag to me that's all, and I don't see why decent people like yourselves should go around and around in circles for those pricks.

Whatever though, I'm not sure if anything is worth discussing anymore, I guess that's why I hardly post here nowadays.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
05:29 / 12.04.05
A longish article by an Irish Catholic on why the Pope was a bastard. If it's true it gives any number of new reasons to hate him.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
06:43 / 12.04.05
I'm not sure if anything is worth discussing anymore

Oh I dunno, JF, I was rather enjoying Dr G and Strix's discussion - the Catholic church is what it is, after all, ie extremely uncompromising, and if that's not worth discussing in considered detail, everyone may as well go home and self-pleasure with a fistful of maggots, damnit.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
19:47 / 12.04.05
Like good Tackle Shop Boys...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:49 / 12.04.05
Yes, I'd just like to pop up and say how much I've been enjoying (probably the wrong word- finding interest in, maybe) this thread. (Especially since I stopped posting to it. Well, except for now, obviously.)

Whether it's WORTH arguin over is another argument entirely, but I for one have been getting a lot of out the debate.
 
 
Gus
23:45 / 12.04.05
Grant wrote:
By the way, according to St. Malachy, there are now two popes left before the End Times -- the "Glory of the Olives" and "Peter the Roman."

Wanna bet the new guy lasts in office only seven years?

Actually, the little apocalyptic story of Peter the Roman was not part of St-Malachy's prophecy. It was added later and first appears in an 1820 publication. This is why it constitutes a small paragraph and not the 3 or 4 words quip typical of the rest of the text. The prophecy attributed to Malachy (but made public 400 years after his death)lists only 111 popes. as far as it is concerned, "Gloria Olivae" is the last pope. It is an open-ended finish, however, and not the endtimes scenario presented by Peter the Roman.
 
  

Page: 1234(5)678

 
  
Add Your Reply