Pope Benedict resigns / Bergoglio is Pope Francis I

[Alyekra]

Personally, Colbert or Bono would be my suggestions.

Well, technically any Catholic man can be Pope, right? :p

Technically no. They must be of the age of reason, catholic, male, not in a state of heresy and cannot be suspected of buying and/or selling of indulgences. If these are met, than yes they are a candidate for the Papacy.

Wait, are indulgences bad now?

Forgive my ignorance of Catholic Theology. From my POV it's the string theory of theologies.

[Greed and Death]

Technically no. They must be of the age of reason, catholic, male, not in a state of heresy and cannot be suspected of buying and/or selling of indulgences. If these are met, than yes they are a candidate for the Papacy.

Wait, are indulgences bad now?

Forgive my ignorance of Catholic Theology. From my POV it's the string theory of theologies.

Counter reformation they got rid of indulgences.

[Alyekra]

Wait, are indulgences bad now?

Forgive my ignorance of Catholic Theology. From my POV it's the string theory of theologies.

Counter reformation they got rid of indulgences.

Oh, that's good. Thank ye.

[The Archregimancy]

True, but if that many people are betting on Peter, they deserve to lose their money; and if the 'next Pope' betting odds are driven by similarly ill-informed speculation, then those odds are more reliable.

i believe you meant "aren't more reliable".

Indeed I mean "are no more reliable"; thank you, and I've edited accordingly.

so our Archiness, can you find some under valued names on the list?

If you mean likely next regnal name, all you really need to know is what I wrote earlier in the thread:

Other than the two John Pauls, John XXIII, and Paul VI, every Pope since Innocent X in the mid 17th century has been an Innocent, Alexander, Clement, Benedict, Leo, or Pius.

On post-17th-century precedent, the chances of the next Pope taking a name other than Innocent, Benedict, Pius, Clement, or Leo, with Alexander, John, Paul, or John Paul as outside bets, are probably slim to none. Certainly Peter and Patrick (also in Paddy Power's top 10) are non-starters

If you mean the actual identity of the cardinal likely to be the next Pope, if I did bet, I might put an outside bet on the Argentinean (whose name escapes me for the moment) - but this conclave seems wide open, and I'm in no particular position to judge.

[Samuraikoku]

If you mean the actual identity of the cardinal likely to be the next Pope, if I did bet, I might put an outside bet on the Argentinean (whose name escapes me for the moment) - but this conclave seems wide open, and I'm in no particular position to judge.

Bergoglio?

That would cause Cristina Kirchner cancer.

[The Archregimancy]

If you mean the actual identity of the cardinal likely to be the next Pope, if I did bet, I might put an outside bet on the Argentinean (whose name escapes me for the moment) - but this conclave seems wide open, and I'm in no particular position to judge.

Bergoglio?

That would cause Cristina Kirchner cancer.

No - Leonardo Sandri (looked it up).

In so far as I have any logic, it's because A) Sandri has Italian parents, so might appeal to the Italians if they can't elect their own, B) at 69 is the right sort of age, C) as Substitute for General Affairs held the third most important position in the Vatican bureaucracy, and D) as prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, possibly has geographical appeal well outside of his own region (though I think the Maronite and Catholic Copt Cardinal-Patriarchs are the only Eastern Rite cardinals with a vote in the conclave; the others are too old).

And isn't one left of centre South American president being given cancer by the enemies of the homeland enough for one year?

[Samuraikoku]

Bergoglio?

That would cause Cristina Kirchner cancer.

No - Leonardo Sandri (looked it up).

In so far as I have any logic, it's because A) Sandri has Italian parents, so might appeal to the Italians if they can't elect their own, B) at 69 is the right sort of age, C) as Substitute for General Affairs held the third most important position in the Vatican bureaucracy, and D) as prefect of the Congregation for the Oriental Churches, possibly has geographical appeal well outside of his own region (though I think the Maronite and Catholic Copt Cardinal-Patriarchs are the only Eastern Rite cardinals with a vote in the conclave; the others are too old).

And isn't one left of centre South American president being given cancer by the enemies of the homeland enough for one year?

They forgot about us, we didn't blip on the radar.

And no, this is not in any way an active desire for Cristina Kirchner or anyone else to get cancer.

I initially thought Cardinal Bergoglio, being the most public church figure here nowadays.

[Serrland]

i believe you meant "aren't more reliable".

Indeed I mean "are no more reliable"; thank you, and I've edited accordingly.

so our Archiness, can you find some under valued names on the list?

If you mean likely next regnal name, all you really need to know is what I wrote earlier in the thread:

Other than the two John Pauls, John XXIII, and Paul VI, every Pope since Innocent X in the mid 17th century has been an Innocent, Alexander, Clement, Benedict, Leo, or Pius.

On post-17th-century precedent, the chances of the next Pope taking a name other than Innocent, Benedict, Pius, Clement, or Leo, with Alexander, John, Paul, or John Paul as outside bets, are probably slim to none. Certainly Peter and Patrick (also in Paddy Power's top 10) are non-starters

If you mean the actual identity of the cardinal likely to be the next Pope, if I did bet, I might put an outside bet on the Argentinean (whose name escapes me for the moment) - but this conclave seems wide open, and I'm in no particular position to judge.

We're a few centuries overdue gor another Gregory, perhaps. Or the first Maximos (a lovely way to honor Maximos IV, Patriarch of Antioch, our finest Patriarch in the past century). But that is just wishful thinking

[Ethel mermania]

i believe you meant "aren't more reliable".

Indeed I mean "are no more reliable"; thank you, and I've edited accordingly.

so our Archiness, can you find some under valued names on the list?

If you mean likely next regnal name, all you really need to know is what I wrote earlier in the thread:

Other than the two John Pauls, John XXIII, and Paul VI, every Pope since Innocent X in the mid 17th century has been an Innocent, Alexander, Clement, Benedict, Leo, or Pius.

On post-17th-century precedent, the chances of the next Pope taking a name other than Innocent, Benedict, Pius, Clement, or Leo, with Alexander, John, Paul, or John Paul as outside bets, are probably slim to none. Certainly Peter and Patrick (also in Paddy Power's top 10) are non-starters

If you mean the actual identity of the cardinal likely to be the next Pope, if I did bet, I might put an outside bet on the Argentinean (whose name escapes me for the moment) - but this conclave seems wide open, and I'm in no particular position to judge.

the name i think is an easier bet to make, so that is what i was asking.

thank you, our "jimmy the greek" of the papal sweepstakes.

[The Archregimancy]

I initially thought Cardinal Bergoglio, being the most public church figure here nowadays.

Bergoglio may be more prominent in Argentina, but Sandri is far more prominent within the Vatican bureaucracy.

[Empire of Vlissingen]

the next Pope will be christian that is all i know.

[Neo Mitanni]

What's Petrus Romanus at?

Petrus Romanus isn't a name a pope would take. If the next pope were to take this name he'd be Peter II. "Petrus Romanus" literally means "Peter the Roman" - Romanus is a title. And the name Peter is not favourable, many do not think a pope would take the name Peter. I'd be surprised if Benedict XVI's successor took on this name.

I have a hard time visualizing any new Pope thinking he was worthy to take the name of the first Pope.

[Ifreann]

the next Pope will be christian that is all i know.

I wouldn't count on it.

[Neo Mitanni]

Wait, are indulgences bad now?

Forgive my ignorance of Catholic Theology. From my POV it's the string theory of theologies.

Counter reformation they got rid of indulgences.

No, they did not get rid of indulgences. They got rid of selling indulgences, which never should have been allowed in the first place.

Indulgences are explained here:

http://www.catholic.org/prayers/indulgc.php

[The Archregimancy]

We're a few centuries overdue gor another Gregory, perhaps. Or the first Maximos (a lovely way to honor Maximos IV, Patriarch of Antioch, our finest Patriarch in the past century). But that is just wishful thinking

I doubt "Maximos" would work; latinising the name, we'd have Pontifex Maximus Maximus....

[Neo Mitanni]

Personally, this Catholic hopes for a theologically and liturgically traditionalist, non-European cardinal (African or South American would be my choices). I also hope he takes the name Urban IX.

Urban Nine, that sounds like a rapper

Check it!

I’m the brand new Pope, my name is Urban
I wear a mitre, don’t wear no turban!
I’m Peter’s successor, the one and only
My Church is Catholic, and my See is Holy!

[Ifreann]

We're a few centuries overdue gor another Gregory, perhaps. Or the first Maximos (a lovely way to honor Maximos IV, Patriarch of Antioch, our finest Patriarch in the past century). But that is just wishful thinking

I doubt "Maximos" would work; latinising the name, we'd have Pontifex Maximus Maximus....

I would be 100% okay with this.

[Angleter]

We're a few centuries overdue gor another Gregory, perhaps. Or the first Maximos (a lovely way to honor Maximos IV, Patriarch of Antioch, our finest Patriarch in the past century). But that is just wishful thinking

We had a Gregory XVI in the 19th century. It would be a nice choice, though (although Gregory XVI's record leaves quite a lot to be desired, to say the least). Meanwhile, I'm really warming to Cardinal Sandri after this interview. He seems to have his priorities straight.

In other news, only two Cardinal Electors are left to turn up (Nycz of Warsaw, who'll arrive today, and Pham Minh Man of Ho Chi Minh City, set to arrive tomorrow), and the Survivors' Network of those Abused by Priests have basically blacklisted at least half of the list of papabili, although they really really really don't want Cardinal Dolan. Their list and explanations in brief (explanations are all alleged by them - their links don't work, annoyingly, and I haven't the time to fly around the Internet verifying and falsifying; when I mention 'reportedly' or 'allegedly', that's them saying it; and ones I don't consider papabili are in italics):

Rivera - criticised media for 'over-reporting' on paedophile priests, claimed no 'documented' clerical paedophilia cases in Mexico, covered some up.
Maradiaga - called US media anti-Catholic, opposes bishops turning sex abuse cases over to police.
Dolan - paid off abusive priests to leave clergy, refused to take proper action against abusive priest, criticised victim in abuse case on his website.
Scola - claimed media allegations against Benedict were an 'iniquitous humiliation', didn't apologise in homily on sex abuse crisis.
Pell - claimed media had 'smeared' Church, tried to secure court file where victim claimed Pell saw them accusing a priest, opposes Royal Commission into abuse.
Duka - claimed only 10% of accusations against priests proven, claimed media reports on Irish abuse an attempt to get Church out of education/upbringing of kids.
Bertone - doesn't believe bishop should have to report priest who tells him he's been accused of abuse, blames gay priests for paedophile scandal.
Wuerl - refused to take action against two abusive priests, refused to name proven/admitted/'credibly accused' abusive priests online (which 30 US bishops have).
Ouellet - gave homily on abuse but 'reportedly' refused to meet victims, believes Church's response to scandal a model, 'allegedly' brokered quiet O'Brien resignation.
O'Malley - lax practice in dealing with abuse accusations, cleared far more priests than most dioceses, acted slow against an abusive priest, late to post names online.
Sandri - worked under Angelo Sodano (who opposed investigation of Marcial Maciel), read out (but did not write) letter in '04 praising Maciel, Vatican insider.
Turkson - what he said to Amanpour.

Also anyone in the Curia in general.

Five of them aren't really papabili (six if you discount Dolan too), and I think four of their criticisms of the six serious candidates (Scola, Ouellet, Sandri, Turkson) strike me as a bit tenuous. Ouellet has met abuse victims on at least one occasion and says the Church can do more for them (and the Telegraph story is still not gathering pace), Sandri working under Sodano doesn't mean he was with Sodano all the way, criticising the media within reason shouldn't be a no-no, and I wouldn't automatically denounce Scola for not apologising in the homily given possible circumstances, and I shan't go into Turkson's comments to Amanpour since there's already a thread for that. Nonetheless, it turns me further off Bertone and gives me doubts about Maradiaga.

[Place of Interest]

This made my day:
http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/65912_167509990065418_102425933_n.jpg

[Oneracon]

This made my day:
http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/65912_167509990065418_102425933_n.jpg

Damned secular media

[Franklin Delano Bluth]

the next Pope will be christian that is all i know.

No, he...ehh, never mind.

[Xathranaar]

Pious. Return of a classic.

Sixtus. He'd be Sixtus VI and who doesn't want to be callrd Sixth the Sixth?

Yeah, because having multiple 6s in your title would in no way have negative implications for a pope.

[Disserbia]

This made my day:
http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/65912_167509990065418_102425933_n.jpg

[Serrland]

We're a few centuries overdue gor another Gregory, perhaps. Or the first Maximos (a lovely way to honor Maximos IV, Patriarch of Antioch, our finest Patriarch in the past century). But that is just wishful thinking

I doubt "Maximos" would work; latinising the name, we'd have Pontifex Maximus Maximus....

P-Double-M - a ready made tabloid nickname!

[Cill Airne]

Technically no. They must be of the age of reason, catholic, male, not in a state of heresy and cannot be suspected of buying and/or selling of indulgences. If these are met, than yes they are a candidate for the Papacy.

Wait, are indulgences bad now?

Forgive my ignorance of Catholic Theology. From my POV it's the string theory of theologies.

The Catholic Church has never allowed the buying and selling of indulgences. They have always been against the Churches teachings. Despite this in the mediaeval ages it was a common abuse and many individuals in the Church sold them.

The Council of Trent (1545–1563), a major part of the Counter-Reformation, dealt largely with indulgences and other financial abuses occurring in the Church at the time. Although the church never allowed it, Pope Leo X (1513–1522) had campaigned to make indulgences permissible (which gave Martin Luther more motivation to call the church out on it) - and so the Council of Trent ensured that the churches stance on it was black-and-white.

Pope Paul VI reiterated and added a few new reforms to the Church's official stance on indulgences in 1967.