Joseph Ratzinger

[Noel's angel]

RATZINGER ROCKS!

[conservativecatholic]

[quote name='Noel's angel' date='Apr 16 2005, 03:45 PM'] RATZINGER ROCKS! [/quote]
You can say that again!

I can't believe the Conclave commences on Monday!

He is definately in my prayers!

[argent_paladin]

Not sure if this is good news or bad...
[quote]CONCLAVE [Michael Novak]
UPI reporter with excellent German connections wrote on Friday that Cardinal Ratzinger now has at least 60 votes of the 77 needed for the required two-thirds vote, and more than half of all votes. This reporter has a very good record for accurate Vatican reporting cites a very high opinion of Ratzinger among Protestant theologians in Germany, in contrast to views of Ratzinger in the Western secular press. UPI:

    In truth, though, this soft-spoken Bavarian, who was consecrated priest at age 24, "is not so much doctrinaire as he is committed to the truth and sound doctrine," a leading Protestant theologian told United Press International Friday.
    "He is arguably the Catholic Church's finest theologian, in addition to being a very humble and deeply religious man.
    "If he is to be the next pontiff, we may expect extraordinary surprises of him," said this scholar who knows Ratzinger well but asked to remain anonymous.
    One surprise may pertain to ecumenism and especially Eucharistic fellowship, Vatican observers said. While Ratzinger played an important role in the drafting of the papal encyclical "Ecclesia de Eucharistia" (Church of the Eucharist), which generally rules out intercommunion between Catholics and Protestants, he is known to have made some remarkable exceptions to this rule himself.
    At the funeral Mass for John Paul II, Ratzinger communed the Rev. Roger Schutz, a Swiss Protestant pastor and founder of the Taizé ecumenical community in France.
    A German Lutheran theologian well known to the cardinal told UPI that he, too, received the sacrament from his hands.

[/quote]

[Noel's angel]

i wouldn't listen to that. Iremember the night before the Pope died some 'very good sources who are hardly ever wrong' said that the Pope had died. That turned out to be false.

The man who goes in Pope comes out Cardinal-thats what they say

[Myles Domini]

[quote]Not sure if this is good news or bad...

QUOTE 
CONCLAVE [Michael Novak]
UPI reporter with excellent German connections wrote on Friday that Cardinal Ratzinger now has at least 60 votes of the 77 needed for the required two-thirds vote, and more than half of all votes. This reporter has a very good record for accurate Vatican reporting cites a very high opinion of Ratzinger among Protestant theologians in Germany, in contrast to views of Ratzinger in the Western secular press. UPI:

    In truth, though, this soft-spoken Bavarian, who was consecrated priest at age 24, "is not so much doctrinaire as he is committed to the truth and sound doctrine," a leading Protestant theologian told United Press International Friday.
    "He is arguably the Catholic Church's finest theologian, in addition to being a very humble and deeply religious man.
    "If he is to be the next pontiff, we may expect extraordinary surprises of him," said this scholar who knows Ratzinger well but asked to remain anonymous.
    One surprise may pertain to ecumenism and especially Eucharistic fellowship, Vatican observers said. While Ratzinger played an important role in the drafting of the papal encyclical "Ecclesia de Eucharistia" (Church of the Eucharist), which generally rules out intercommunion between Catholics and Protestants, he is known to have made some remarkable exceptions to this rule himself.
    At the funeral Mass for John Paul II, Ratzinger communed the Rev. Roger Schutz, a Swiss Protestant pastor and founder of the Taizé ecumenical community in France.
    A German Lutheran theologian well known to the cardinal told UPI that he, too, received the sacrament from his hands.


[/quote]

Well the world saw Brother Roger commune. He was wheeled up for it infront of the entire Piazza but I dismissed it initially because I thought Brother Roger was a Catholic. Now, if it is true that he is not a Catholic then--for the first time--I would have to question the Cardinal's logic. Indeed, it is because I know His Eminence to have such a deep respect for the Church's apostolic traditions that I find it hard to believe Novak's report (in spite of his reputation as a reporter). [i]If[/i] the case is that Brother Roger is not a Catholic then His Eminence has not broken laws he has fought for years to uphold [b]but[/b] he also done it in front of a TV audience of millions the world over--and in front of the Bishops of both the Catholic and Orthodox world. I really cant bring myself to believe that Ratzinger would do this and if it is the case that he has I'd like him to explain why.

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

[quote name='Myles' date='Apr 17 2005, 07:03 PM']
Well the world saw Brother Roger commune. He was wheeled up for it infront of the entire Piazza but I dismissed it initially because I thought Brother Roger was a Catholic. Now, if it is true that he is not a Catholic then--for the first time--I would have to question the Cardinal's logic. Indeed, it is because I know His Eminence to have such a deep respect for the Church's apostolic traditions that I find it hard to believe Novak's report (in spite of his reputation as a reporter). [i]If[/i] the case is that Brother Roger is not a Catholic then His Eminence has not broken laws he has fought for years to uphold [b]but[/b] he also done it in front of a TV audience of millions the world over--and in front of the Bishops of both the Catholic and Orthodox world. I really cant bring myself to believe that Ratzinger would do this and if it is the case that he has I'd like him to explain why. [/quote]
It seems likely to me he didn't know who this guy was.

[timsj]

[quote name='Myles' date='Apr 17 2005, 06:03 PM']
Well the world saw Brother Roger commune. He was wheeled up for it infront of the entire Piazza but I dismissed it initially because I thought Brother Roger was a Catholic. Now, if it is true that he is not a Catholic then--for the first time--I would have to question the Cardinal's logic. Indeed, it is because I know His Eminence to have such a deep respect for the Church's apostolic traditions that I find it hard to believe Novak's report (in spite of his reputation as a reporter). [i]If[/i] the case is that Brother Roger is not a Catholic then His Eminence has not broken laws he has fought for years to uphold [b]but[/b] he also done it in front of a TV audience of millions the world over--and in front of the Bishops of both the Catholic and Orthodox world. I really cant bring myself to believe that Ratzinger would do this and if it is the case that he has I'd like him to explain why. [/quote]
It is widely known here in Europe tha Brother Roger is not a Catholic. His astonishingly succesful Taize community was built in the ashes of a torn apart France, at the end of World War Two. The monastic Community is a parable of reconciliation, regularly attracting thousands of young people. It is in the context of this reconciliation, in a France that was occupied by Germany and divided, that the community has been given a special status. It counts amongst its members both Catholic Priests and Protestant Brothers. It offers Eucharistic Hospitality to all who come, this is tolerated if not officially sanctioned by the Church. Rumours, allege that Roger wanted to become a Catholic but the Pope dissuaded him because he was doing such a unique job for ecumenism. Roger has recieved recent popes for official visits in Taize, and was himself a participant in Vatican II.

Inspite of all these connections, Catholic teaching on intercommunion clearly states a limited number of exceptions where Catholics can offer Eucharist Hospitality to Protestants. These include special occasions of joy or sorrow, (such as family funerals or weddings), with permission if the local ordinary. So I suggest you wait till you read these until you start questioning the Cardinal's logic!

A recent book has suggested that Tony Blair recieved communion of the late Pope in his visit to the Vatican two years ago. It was precisely the fuss that was caused by Blair recieving communion regularly with his Catholic Family that lead to the Bishops of England and Wales producing an excellent teaching document on the Eucharist with the norms for intercommunion listed in the back. If you want to google it, it is called One Bread one Body.

Dare I suggest you may want to consider informing yourself a bit more before questioning one of the most conservative cardinlas logic.

[Myles Domini]

[quote]Dare I suggest you may want to consider informing yourself a bit more before questioning one of the most conservative cardinlas logic.[/quote]

I might well just do that its just Canon 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon law makes it quite clear that non-Catholics cannot recieve the Blessed Sacrament. In a toss up between law and norms I thought the Canons always came out on top.

On the flipside if His Eminence believed there was some grave reason why Brother Roger should commune then that would not violate the canon and that's all good. I'm one of the Cardinal's biggest fans and thus I'll trust his judgement if according to his prudent judgement article 4 of Canon 844 applied to Brother Roger at the Pope's funeral mass

Edited April 18, 2005 by Myles

[timsj]

[quote name='Myles' date='Apr 18 2005, 09:30 AM']
I might well just do that its just Canon 844 of the 1983 Code of Canon law makes it quite clear that non-Catholics cannot recieve the Blessed Sacrament. In a toss up between law and norms I thought the Canons always came out on top.

On the flipside if His Eminence believed there was some grave reason why Brother Roger should commune then that would not violate the canon and that's all good. I'm one of the Cardinal's biggest fans and thus I'll trust his judgement if according to his prudent judgement article 4 of Canon 844 applied to Brother Roger at the Pope's funeral mass [/quote]
Thankyou for taking my rather curt suggestion in such a good spirit Myles

However I think it is probably worth going to the trouble of reminding you that is misleading to interpret cannon 844 in such a way.... I have taken the trouble of pasting below.

[i]Can. 844 §1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to catholic members of Christ's faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from catholic ministers, [b]except as provided in §2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2.[/b]

§2 Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it, and provided the danger of error or indifferentism is avoided, Christ's faithful for whom it is physically or morally impossible to approach a catholic minister, may lawfully receive the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick from non-Catholic ministers in whose Churches these sacraments are valid.

§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of penance, the Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the eastern Churches not in full communion with the catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned.

§4 If there is a danger of death or if, in the judgment of the diocesan Bishop or of the Episcopal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need, catholic ministers may lawfully administer these same sacraments to other Christians not in full communion with the catholic Church, who cannot approach a minister of their own community and who spontaneously ask for them, provided that they demonstrate the catholic faith in respect of these sacraments and are properly disposed.

§5 In respect of the cases dealt with in §2, 3 and 4, the diocesan Bishop or the Episcopal Conference is not to issue general norms except after consultation with the competent authority, at least at the local level, of the non-Catholic Church or community concerned. [/i]

I do this not to be pedantic, but because I strongly feel that where Eucharistic Hospitality can be practiced it should be. Note that it fairly straightforward for members of the Orthodox Churches to recieve communion. It si misleading to say
that the norms override the canon law. As norms are always based on a correct and non-partial interpretation.

Our divide church is a scandal, and everytime we exclude someone injustly from communion we increase that scandal, and the brokeness of the body of Christ.

[Myles Domini]

[quote]Thankyou for taking my rather curt suggestion in such a good spirit Myles [/quote]

No problem dude, what good is the gospel if not lived? (I have to remind myself that every time I end up in the Confessional--which is [b]a lot[/b])

[quote]Our divide church is a scandal, and everytime we exclude someone injustly from communion we increase that scandal, and the brokeness of the body of Christ. [/quote]

I am aware that our divide is not ideal but we must remember that the gospels record Jesus as saying he came with a sword to cause divison. Whilst he may have wanted unity he was not willing to compromise for it. The Eucharist is not the sign of unity, the Eucharist is unity. The Eucharist is not the sign of our covenant, the Eucharist is our covenant. It is our pasch the sacrificial meal that allows us to be part of the covenant we have with God and to continue in that covenant. It is not something we should use at the batering table of ecumenical discussion. Giving the Eucharist to non-Catholics does not do justice to the Eucharist or to them. To eat the Eucharist without discernment of what it is for instance most certainly is to drink judgement upon oneself and not to treasure it jealously like Orthodox Jews treasure the pascha of the Old Covenant shows a lack of love for God. Principally our responsibility is not to our neighbour but to God and if we love God we will love our neighbour and not allow them or ourselves to end up in the Corinthian predicament.

The body and blood, soul and divinity of Christ Jesus is not something to be used at our whims. This doesnt make Protestants bad people or unworthy of the sacrament, nobody is saying that. What I am saying is that by nature of what the sacrament we shouldnt use it as a tool to further discussion. That is an offence against God and violates the dignity of his person in using Him as a means to an end, rather than realising that the Eucharist is the end. Cardinal Ratzinger himself has stated in his work numerous times that the liturgy does not belong to us but to God. I love the Cardinal, I think he's a great man and that his shy mild-manner is warped and twisted by his enemies in the press. Yet, in spite of this, if he or anybody else acts in a way that I think is not completely kosher concerning the body of the Lord then I will have no qualms in voicing my dissaproval. I trust that Ratzinger had good reasons for permitting Brother Roger to commune and so I'll leave it at that. However, in general, as someone who's family are majority Protestant I will reaffirm my stance that intercommunion en general is wrong. Indeed, I even stopped my own Mother from recieving the body of the Lord at the good Friday liturgy. Not because I dont love her, but because though she was baptised as a child she did not have her holy communion--because my Grandma is a practicing methodist--nor has she been confirmed. It would not be right to Jesus or to her for her to recieve Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament without adequate preparation.

[jrndveritatis]

[font="Times"][b]Long Live Pope Benedict XVI!![/b][/font]

[phatcatholic]

RATZINGER IS THE POPE!!!!

BENEDICT XVI!!!!!

VIVA LA PAPA!!!!!!!!!

[keighters]

whooooo hooooo


WE HAVE A NEW POPE!!!

[Myles Domini]

After a day of rain the sun cuts through the clouds in Rome and I blaze Palestrina's gloria from the Missa Pape Marcelli from my speakers!!

[Specter]

[quote name='dUSt' date='Apr 14 2005, 10:29 PM'] Ratzinger would be an awesome pope. [/quote]
Perhaps a restructuring of this sentence is in order.

Ratzinger IS an awesome Pope.

[jgirl]

[b]PRAISE GOD FOR GIVING US BENEDICT XVI!!!!!![/b]

[Cam42]

[quote name='argent_paladin' date='Apr 10 2005, 03:29 AM'] And it is difficult to tell how Ratzinger would behave as pope. Surely it would be quite different than as prefect of the CDF. The former requires warmth, flexibility, diplomacy and love. The latter reqires firmness, clarity and force. If Wojtyla had been prefect of the CDF, he would have acted very differently. And remember, Ratzinger did everything with the approval of the Pope. So, we don' t really know what a Ratzinger papacy would be like. He would have his own CDF to enforce doctrine, the bad cop to his good cop. [/quote]
We get to find out now, argent_paladin!!!!!!

[Noel's angel]

I am so happy, but of course I knew the Church would be in safe hands. Pope Benedict XVI, God bless you!!!!

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Apr 19 2005, 12:05 PM'] VIVA LA PAPA!!!!!!!!! [/quote]
Long live the potato??

[Myles Domini]

MC JUST this IS the TIME for GATES OF HELL. BOOM TUNE!! YEAH!!!

The prince of this world is dead

Long live the KING :jesus: