Its amazing that in 2013 anyone who has really done their homework can promote or subscribe to the kind of nonsense featured in this essay - even pretending that it is some kind of timeless or universal "wisdom".

Never mind that the entire "catholic" shebang is based on wall to wall lies, as this essay points out.
http://www.dabase.org/up-5-1.htm
Saint Jesus of Galilee was not in any sense a Christian, he was always and only a Hellenic Jew.
This is what Jesus taught and demonstrated while he was alive.
http://www.dabase.org/up-5-3.htm

Another view

http://www.theonion.com/articles/resigning-pope-no-longer-has-strength-to-lead-chur,31248/

Yes - all of the usual "conservative" catholic propaganda hacks are in full flight, spewing out countless thousands of words about how "great" Ratzinger was, and how enduring his legacy will be.

But what if his legacy is entirely toxic?
Which it is.
Such should be obviously so to anyone if they really do their home-work.
A good place to start would be the book that was reviewed on this site recently - The Pope's War on the Church by Mastthew Fox. Also The Power & The Glory - The Dark Heart of John Paul II's (and Ratzinger's) Vatican by David Yallop
As a counter to all of the now-time "aint-he-wonderful" propaganda I would recommend the essay on the Religion Dispatches website by Elizabeth Drescher titled Benedict's Painful Legacy

While there has been a great amount of speculation in modern times about who would be the next pope, many Catholics are watching closely the next conclave for they believe that whoever succeeds Pope Benedict XIV will be “The Last Pope.”
St. Malachy lived in 12th century Ireland. What St. Malachy is more known for is the so-called Prophecy of the Popes, which is attributed to him. The prophecy is a list of 112 short phrases that supposedly describe each of the Roman Catholic popes beginning with Pope Celestine II (elected in 1143) and concluding with the successor of Benedict XVI.
This last pope is described in the prophecy as “Peter the Roman,” whose reign as pope will see the destruction of the city of Rome. The prophecy did not hold much interest among Catholics up until the mid-20th century because it seemed as if it would be a long time before the world would see the election of “The Last Pope.”
Interest in the Prophecy of the Popes increased as John Paul II’s health declined and Vatican watchers were shocked when Joseph Ratsinger, a cardinal of advanced age, was unexpectedly elected Pope Benedict XVI.
According to the Malachy Prophecy, whoever succeeded Benedict would be the Last Pope. “In the final persecution of the Holy Roman Church there will reign Peter the Roman, who will feed his flock amid many tribulations, after which the seven-hilled city will be destroyed and the dreadful Judge will judge the people.
Proponents of the prophecy say that it is interesting that at least one pope had a similar mystical vision to the “Last Pope” part of the prophecy. During a papal audience in 1909, Pope Pius X claimed he had a vision of the pope leaving Rome, and in leaving the Vatican, he will have to “walk over the dead bodies of his priests.”

What Does the Bible Say?
While many may hold the Prophecy of Malachy to be true, there is a far more authoritative source to tell us what is coming in the end times. Revelation 4:1 introduces a section of Scripture that detail “things which must be hereafter.” What follows are prophecies of the end times. We have not yet reached the Tribulation, the revelation of the Antichrist, or other end-time events. What we do see is a preparation for those events.
Jesus said that the last days would be preceded by several things: many false Christs would come, deceiving many; we would “hear of wars and rumors of wars”; and, there would be an increase in “famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in diverse places. All these are the beginning of sorrows” (Matthew 24:5–8).

Today’s news is full of false religions, warfare, and natural disasters. We know that events of the tribulation period will include all that Jesus predicted (Revelation 6:1–8); the events of today are only a prelude for greater trials ahead. Paul warned that the last days would bring a marked increase in false teaching. “In later times, some will abandon the faith, and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons” (1 Timothy 4:1). The last days are described as “perilous times” because of the increasingly evil character of man and people who actively “oppose the truth” (2 Timothy 3:1–9 and 2 Thessalonians 2:3).

The return of Christ is always presented in Scripture as a great motivation to action, not as a reason to cease from action. In 1 Corinthians 15:58, Paul sums up his teaching of the return of Christ by saying, “Be steadfast, unmovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord...” (ISV) In 1 Thessalonians 5:6, Paul concludes a lesson on Christ’s coming with these words: “Therefore, let’s not fall asleep like others do, but let’s stay awake and be sober.”

…Are we slowly acknowledging the ever increasing evidence suggesting that nothing changes in Catholicism except the Pope?

What hide this author displays to state that there was only one church from 1 to 1000AD.

Bull! Show us the evidence!

One minute spent on Wikipedia turned up the following "Both branches of Orthodox Christianity, together with what is now the Roman Catholic Church, were united and single until the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, after which they were divided..."

Only a fool would ignore the eastern orthodox religions in a discussion of early Christianity, and this accounts nothing for unrecorded and small scale schisms which no doubt occurred during the first 100 years of the church and have been repeated frequently to the present day over matters as insignificant as Latin masses or as substantial as those on Martin Luthor's list, or even which city would be the papal seat (Avignon, France or Rome, Italy, each with their own Pope).

As to whether those who are not Roman Catholics give a fig for the retirement of their CEO, there is scant evidence of that either, beyond the usual factually askew and anti-science storytelling which fills our news and current affairs programs. I, for one, take news items about the Pope or any pope as an invitation to change channels.

Gypsy:

...Carl Jung warned of the dangers in becoming a professional dream interpreter. Dreams are personally tailored phenomena, deeply attached to the subconscious with meanings to be unraveled only by the dreamer:

...Likewise with religion and Biblical interpretations. What matters in life is that ultimately nothing matters: Stop worrying!

There is indeed much to dislike in this piece of flummery.

"... there could be no greater surprise than the news that Pope Benedict XVI will step down from the Papacy on 28 February"

Oh, I don't know. How about "Pope Benedict insists that all paedophile priests should be immediately prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and with the unequivocal backing of every member of the Roman Catholic Church".

That would have been a far greater surprise, don't you think?

And this is the most superb piece of tap-dancing imaginable:

"While it is acknowledged that about eight Pope's across the last 2000 years have lived morally or politically corrupt lives on a personal level, no Pope has ever, in his office as Pope, contradicted the teaching of the Christian faith."

"About eight?" That in itself is an admission that there could have been many more, that were just a little more discreet with their peccadillos.

But for goodness' sake - "no Pope has ever, in his office as Pope, contradicted the teaching of the Christian faith".

This is, presumably, "one of the eight"...

http://www.nndb.com/people/159/000092880/

And this one too?

http://one-evil.org/content/people_15c_john_xxiii.html

If these gentlemen's lifestyles do not "contradict the teachings of the church", then I hate to think what would.

Hey Daffy, loved the "dabase" links - they were almost as funny as the Onion article...

They are meant to be humour, right?

This article regurgitates lots of RC propaganda masquerading as historical facts, but some points really can’t be left unchallenged.

JohnBennets hand Pericles have already pointed out the absurdity of some claims.

I want to take issue with this point:

“The Pope cannot decide however to ordain women as priests, because most simply, Jesus did not do that and the Pope would be going beyond his mandate.”

Look at your bible, and you’ll see Jesus didn’t ordain any priests, male or female. Or deacons, or bishops, or pastors – let alone a pope. These things arose in the early church, but not during Jesus’ lifetime. Indeed, the priests and religious leaders conspired with the Roman political authorities to have Jesus killed.

Jesus did select a group of special followers around him, but this included women. Women, not men, were the first witnesses to the resurrection. The early church included women as leaders. Many theologians regard Mary as the first and most exemplary disciple.

If the pope were to follow Jesus’ example he would have no hierarchy of priests and bishops but a collection of followers, male and female, committed to service, healing and evangelism. At which point, I might become a catholic.

Yes, speaking of the "exemplary lives" of most of the poops why not google The Criminal History of the Papacy by Tony Bushby.
Or the sex lives of the poops.

I don't see the next Pope being the last (short of an untimely 'meteoric/asteroidal' world-ending holocaust), though I wonder if his papacy ('his' under current arrangements, but who knows what the eventual future may hold) could possibly herald in a new era, with a concerted effort to bring the Church into more realistic 21st century expectations.

There are problems with 'celibacy', for example, and I have no idea if Peter, or any other of the Disciples, male or female, were celibate (before or after being 'called'), married, unmarried, or with any intentions to marry. Other Christian churches don't demand celibacy, and many, or most, recommend (if not actually mandate) marriage - if only to maintain a closer and more realistic relationship with and understanding of the lives of their 'flock'. Marriage is also a fairly good mechanism to avert or limit 'temptation', and potential for 'error' - and one would hope could severely limit, or hopefully altogether eliminate, gross misconduct, including pedophilia and adultery amongst the clergy. Wives may also act as monitors of 'good faith' observance - an inbuilt 'check' and 'steerage' monitor. (Gay priests? Could be exempted from marriage, with conditions and appropriate oversight?)

I also have to question whether there is sufficient justification for a ban on female priests, or on contraception. Certainly it would appear that the 'featured' original Disciples were male, but one needs to place this in context of the 'times' - where the Hebrew church of the time (and notably to this very day) had virtually everything under the control of 'men'. With men at the forefront, any new 'faith' movement featuring women in any prominent role(s) would have been given short shrift.

Contraception: Perhaps there is cause to have reservation regarding 'chemical' methods (interfering with the sanctity of the body), but condoms? Surely an untimely or unwanted pregnancy (and due regard for the 'life' of every foetus) is sufficient justification for allowing, if not promoting the judicious use of, condoms? (Abstinence, or 'timing' are such 'frail' alternatives in current world circumstances.)

Time to review some dated 'prescriptions'?

Hi Saltpetre

Peter was indeed married, according to the synoptic gospels – or at least, he had a mother in law! (Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38). According to Paul, all the original apostles had wives, though Paul did not (1 Corinthians 9:5)

You’re right that the position of women in the 1st century was very different to what it is today. Despite this, there is evidence that the early church was unusually open to female participation for its time. Many women were included in Jesus’ entourage and are widely accepted as disciples (Luke 8:1-3), while in Romans 16:7 Paul numbers Junias among the apostles, and in 1 Corinthians Phoebe and Prisca are listed as church leaders.

It didn’t take long for a male hierarchy to emerge that restored women to a place of subjugation. But this was not what Jesus taught, or how he or the early church behaved.

Rhian:

...Always standing just that fraction outside the square! But if you wish to proceed down this path, where is the historical evidence which supports the existence of Christ: There is none! His past existence is based on an “assumption of truth” from Biblical records, and is called “faith”.

...Christianity could be classified as “self-invented”. Part of the formulation of the inventive process is its ability to use the inventive “formula” to structure with authority, a hierarchy suitable to guide the process of invention into the future; thus the one Catholic Church and its Pope! (An invention)!

...There are many periods in history where the “invented authority" of the Catholic Church was challenged as the supreme Christian authority, but all have failed, (So far)!

Salpetre and Rhian,

You do know that nuns have always played important roles in the church and they do have autonomous power, especially in education and serving the sick and needy. They are strong women. They are all over the world in small villages and cities and they're not doing the missionary thing, but quietly doing God's work. They also had co-ed monasteries in Ireland once.

Constance is grasping at very thin straws when he (I presume male, given the content) compares the work of nuns with the male dominated heirarchy and control systems of the Catholic Church - or, for that matter, pretty much any church. I am aware that times are slowly changing in the western world, but there is a long way to go to achieve either secular or religious gender fairness.

Relegating women to the caring and sharing professions of health and education and then pointing to this as though it is a sign of emancipation is simplistic, inadequate and just plain wrong. Even within these professions it is not unusual too see many ladies in subordinate roles and few in charge.

In football terms, Constance just scored an own goal.

Were the men on top in Constance's Irish co-ed (nice euphamism, here) monasteries?

'The Pope cannot decide however to ordain women as priests, because most simply, Jesus did not do that and the Pope would be going beyond his mandate.'

Since Catholic doctrine makes the Pope utterly infallible, and decrees that absolute submission to his authority is a requirement for valid membership of the Catholic Church, this is simply weaselly waffle. He can do what he damn well pleases, and explain afterwards if necessary that God has given him new instructions, or told him that his predecessors were wrong. Ratzinger's failure to make the reforms that any decent compassionate person could see were necessary and desirable have got nothing to do with the limitations on his power, and everything to do with the flaws in his character.

Jesus of course was always and only a Jew, as were all of his disciples and the people that he associated with while he was alive.
Therefore following the "logic" about the presumed exclusive identity, whether cultural/religious or sex/gender, of those in his "ministry", the poop should have always been a Jew.

Electing a new Pope is not going to be an easy
task. Think about it:

The Church artificially
limits its choice to men who have to be celibate,
ordained as Cardinals for a set
number of years, and preferably be less than 65 years
of age. They also need at least a modicum of
spirituality, intelligence, and human talent, and must
be basically acceptable amongst their peers. They
should also never have publicly disagreed with
papal teaching, or said or done anything radical, or
upset too many people, have no medical or psychological
problems, nor be in any intimate relationship that
causes scandal, and have reasonable leadership skills,
common sense, and good judgement.

It remains to be seen where the Church is going to find enough
suitable and talented men from such a restricted pool to
lead its Church.

Interesting times ahead.

diver dan

I accept that there is no independent contemporary historical record of Jesus’ existence, but there is lots of evidence that a movement arose shortly after the period of his reported death based on his reported life and teaching. That this movement was based on an actual historical figure is the most logical explanation for this phenomenon. Jesus’ probable historicity is widely accepted by historians of other faiths and none. Whether Jesus was in fact all the things the bible and church claim is of course a different question, and does touch on issues of faith.

My point was really that the bible and its account of the example of the disciples as reported in the New Testament does not support Catholic tradition on the position of women or on marriage of clergy.

Christianity can perhaps be described as self-invented, but only in the same way that, say, Australia or psychology are self-invented.

Constance
I have great respect for nuns and the work they do, but they cannot be priests and they cannot be pope (well with one exception, but that’s another story)

Pericles,

Yes, humans regardless of what position they hold are ultimately fallible creatures. That is, no institution is every perfect.
Can’t you be more philosophical? I see those few evil popes in history as part of the whole stage of human drama. Ie.the Catholic Church is like a paradigm of the diversity of human nature and no group is ever immune. You do believe in good and evil, don’t you? There will always be forces you have to fight against.

Rhian & JohnBennetts,

“If the pope were to follow Jesus’ example he would have no hierarchy of priests and bishops but a collection of followers, male and female, committed to service, healing and evangelism. At which point, I might become a catholic.” Why do you have a fixation with male hierarchy? Look at what’s happening to the Anglican church. It looks like they are becoming more and more divided, are they not. The Pope has now even made special arrangements for those fleeing the Anglican church because some Anglicans have become so sick of the BS of the whole equality obsession which has become ridiculous.

With my experience in the workplace, I say please do not put these neurotic females in the church hierarchy as it would be disastrous. After all, Jesus was a male, can you please leave it at that. He had is male disciples and he also had the support of Mary and Mary Magdalen. And we still have the many female patron saints - they were not disregarded, they were highly respected by men and all, and adored.

Mother Theresa was considered a spiritual partner to Pope John Paul 2nd - and so are the more low-profile Catholic nuns. Isn’t that good enough? Why is it always these days, the Me Me Me factor - I want the power rantings by deluded women. The nuns are their own autonomous directors all over the world, working with humility without the need for power obsessions. It is this whole power seeking thing which is ruining the world.

The feminists have got it all wrong and they have only ended up betraying females to the detriment of society. They have only ended up corporate careerist slaves.

...In support of “Constance” above; although Bob Katter does not have the authority of Jesus, he nails the point well for gender equality outcomes of many women duped by its superficial charm:

(Hansard 14th Feb 13).
#...I reflect greatly upon my generation, who were told that women should have careers, not children. So, within 10 years, we become a vanishing race. Those women of my vintage are very old and very lonely. Their careers have left a very bitter taste in their mouth. They have no-one to love; they have no-one to love them…#

...Rhian :
To attack the RC Church on the credibility of its authority is to attack the soft underbelly of Christianity en-total: Immediately its defence is its faith based assumptions. You simply believe or you do not! That is its strong point. Without the childish belief in its infallibility, entry to heaven is impossible, (Jesus).

That was exactly the point I was making, Constance.

>>Pericles, Yes, humans regardless of what position they hold are ultimately fallible creatures. That is, no institution is every perfect.<<

I was comparing and contrasting this self-evident proposition of yours, with the words of the author of the article...

"...no Pope has ever, in his office as Pope, contradicted the teaching of the Christian faith"

I then provided a couple of well-known examples, where God's vicar had contradicted the teaching of the Christian faith in virtually every aspect of his lifestyle.

>>Can’t you be more philosophical? I see those few evil popes in history as part of the whole stage of human drama.<<

Absolutely. Spot on. Quite. Totally agree. In fact, I can quite easily see those evil popes as perfect examples of what happens to human beings when they find themselves able to wield enormous political and emotional power over their fellow man. As you say, they are no more than "part of the whole stage of human drama".

But again, I take leave to dispute that this behaviour can be consistent with the teaching of the Christian faith, as the author claims.

"...no Pope has ever, in his office as Pope, contradicted the teaching of the Christian faith"

Unless the contents of the Roman Catholic church are entirely different to those described on the packaging.

>>You do believe in good and evil, don’t you? There will always be forces you have to fight against.<<

Well, ummm... yes.

But isn't it the Church's job to fight against it too? Actually doing something concrete, like supporting the prosecution of the paedophile priests in its midst, instead of just wringing its hands on a balcony in Rome...?

"...no Pope has ever, in his office as Pope, contradicted the teaching of the Christian faith"

Is a beautifully constructed sentence…

It is self evidently true because, ipso facto, the teaching of the Christian (Catholic) faith is defined by the Pope, in his office, to be what ever he says it is.

Isn't this papal bull?

>>"...no Pope has ever, in his office as Pope, contradicted the teaching of the Christian faith”<<

This indeed is a very clumsy formulation, and WmTrevor is essentially right when he says that it is self evidently true. What are and what not doctrines of the Catholic Church is decided - roughly speaking - by Ecumenical Councils and the Pope when he speaks “ex cathedra” (e.g. Benedict XVI published three books on Jesus, where he explicitly said that he was writing as a scholar and not as a Pope “ex cathedra”). For instance, there is an ongoing theological dispute behind the scenes - that I don’t claim to understand - whether Paul VI in his “anti-contraception” encyclical Humanae Vitae did or did not speak "ex-cathedra".

So what the author apparently wanted to say was that no Pope TAUGHT against accepted teachings of the Church. This is very different from LIVING against not only the Catholic teachings but the very basic Christian (and human) moral principles. Perhaps not unlike the difference between ACTING as a pedophile (or COVERING other pedophiles) and BOASTING about sexual harassment of minors (c.f. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5422#148086). The Church is innocent of the latter although obviously not of the former.