Who will be the next pope? Your views, please.

a reply to: 2012newstart

unnecessary comment. deleted by myself.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Maybe Trump-a-didlyumpus the First. Kind of new and avant guard huh?

Does he also own a left hand store?

(like ned flanders store, used the word left out of context)

a reply to: LABTECH767

Not being of Christian belief myself, I want to say that your post above is the kind of Christian values that I admire.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

well...besides everything else, there is a principle of separation of temporal power (kings, presidents) and the spiritual power. From the religious point of view, you cannot hold both. Thus a former bishop who ran for president in Paraguay had to resign as bishop first. Whether it is possible the vice versus process, I just don't know. As I watch Mr Trump he'd rather prefer to be president

A US cardinal to be elected pope, although nothing technically stops it, meets some historical tradition not to elect pope from the world superpower at that time. I don't know if it is still relevant in 21st century in a world so united in information, and so divided in so many other ways, with US cardinals who are rather radicals (in the good meaning) within their own country and abroad. Cardinal Dolan is the one most often mentioned as possible pope.

For non-cardinal candidates, I am thinking of two categories:

1. archbishops and bishops, who for one reason or another didn't receive the red hat although they deserve it. Having a limited number of red hats, many considerations play a role, including geopolitical ones, and not necessarily only personal characteristics.

2. Holy priests, mystics, lay men. According to the rule, every baptized man (not necessarily baptized as Catholic but any Christian) who is able to serve as a bishop (certain restrictions apply) can also be elected as bishop of Rome. If he is not a bishop at his election, he is consecrated bishop upon his election. Indeed that didn't happen for long, but it happened in the early centuries.

For the first category, there are many and worthy bishops that could be considered. For example, if a German reformist is the choice of the cardinal-electors, but for one reason or another cardinal Marx is inconvenient (even only for his family name) and because there aren't other cardinals, a German bishop may be elected. (Cardinals Muller and Woelki are rather conservative). Similarly, one may consider Brazilian or any other country's bishops who are not yet cardinals but with their views have earned the respect of the college of cardinals.

For the second category, there are mystics in our days, be they priests, deacons or lay people. I will mention some:

Irmão Eduardo Ferreira, Brazil, stigmatic and seer of Virgin Mary;
Fr. Zlatko Sudac, Croatia, priest and stigmatic;
Pedro Regis, Brazil, seer of Virgin Mary in Anguera, lay person with family;
Ivan Dragicevic, Bosnia/USA, seer of Virgin Mary in Medjugorje, lay person with family;
Jakov Colo, Bosnia, seer of Virgin Mary in Medjugorje, lay person with family...

The list can be prolonged. Sure there are other people not just the seers. I mention the seers because many Catholics already know them and follow their words more than the Sunday homilies. Not that I believe one of them will be elected, but logically out of all lay people they are the most famous ones in the church.

Pope Francis can still make a difference how his successor will be elected. Imagine he has decided to resign on August 15 for reasons of health and age...On August 14 he could approve new conclave rules. For example he may enlarge the voting rights to all metropolitan archbishops. The cardinalate doesn't date back to the time of the apostles and is not a sacrament. Pope Francis may greatly influence although not determine his successor.

From wikipedia en.wikipedia.org...
All metropolitans have the title of Archbishop, and the metropolitan see is usually referred to as an archdiocese or archeparchy, a title held not only by the 553 metropolitan sees but also by 77 other sees.

In other words, the voting right in the next conclave could be easily enlarged to at least 600+ archbishops (120 of whom are cardinals with some few exceptions of cardinals not being archbishops). That will give a much greater representation and options for election of the next pope.

A small inconvenience, the Sistine chapel will not accomodate so many sitting people who need to write down the future pope's name without being seen. St Peter's basilica may accommodate the next conclave.

Why should the pope bother to do that, if for centuries the cardinalate served well? Because now the Church is in crisis, and the sooner it finds the way out the better. A better solution doesn't mean insider of a system that doesn't work, it rather means outsider.

Francis himself was a Vatican outsider, who in 2005 before the conclave said he didn't imagine to exchange Buenos Aires with the unhealthy atmosphere in the Vatican...During the conclave (reported later by the MSM) he refused to be voted for with signs given to the other cardinals, thus clearing the way for unchallenged victory of cardinal Ratzinger Benedict. 8 years later cardinal Bergoglio accepted his personal cross. The system doesn't work though. He tried and tried hard, and couldn't break the inertia, even with his Jesuit skills. He can change at the stroke of a pen, if not the system then the rules of the election of his successor, who hopefully will find new ways and new energy to move forward.

Hopefully an honest Christian who forgets religion. Who rebukes the evil of the Catholic Church, worshipping Mary and declaring power to change the Holy Sabbath. Blasphemous beyond words.

originally posted by: Illumimasontruth
Hopefully an honest Christian who forgets religion. Who rebukes the evil of the Catholic Church, worshipping Mary and declaring power to change the Holy Sabbath. Blasphemous beyond words.

Those are just a few of the many reasons I left the CC a long time ago. Two churches we went to in recent years also turned sour based on their doctrine and you could clearly see they were not following scripture as they claimed. When someone tells me what to read and what to ignore (!!!!!) that's when I know they're on the wrong track. In my opinion religion corrupts faith.

As far as the Pope goes, the Vatican is so corrupt I doubt anyone can straighten it out. There are many reasons but covering up decades of abuse is unforgivable.

originally posted by: galaga

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: 2012newstart
You won't find much sympathy or respect for the Vatican on ATS, but that aside, I really feel it's time for Catholic church to come into the 21st century and elect a female as the next Pope. Just imagine the possibilities...

That type of logic is why the world is in the state that it's in.


Imagine only voting for someone because they have the same genitalia as you.

It was originally meant to be a joke for people who are easily offended. Seems it was effective.

originally posted by: Hushabye
I hope that this current global situation will help people see that the abrahamic traditions are just horrific constructs of control. I mean...how could anything so blatantly evil be 'good?' Death-cults worshiping a bloodgod mythology. It's absolutely horrific.

a reply to: 2012newstart

And you would have us all atheists Hushabye? What, like Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, state run controlled faiths? Blood cults?
It’s one thing to moan about blood cults but you have to offer something to replace them.

And just by the way, Jesus taught love over religion, taught love, not blood.

While no fan of the CC and having no idea who is a possible candidate it’s patently obvious priests should marry.
May attract men to the position, cut down on sex offences and introduce women into ministry

The Protestant and early or non Catholic Church has used women in leadership roles since Christ. Think non married priests really harms the catholics

Please. I love straw men. I have a whole collection. Give me more. Can you think for yourself, Polly? I mean, we're running out of crackers.

a reply to: Raggedyman

a reply to: FlyersFan

Actually, I have just finished reading a book, "The Equality Workbook: Freedom in Christ From the Oppression of Patriarchy".
Fascinating book about how the Bible was translated from Hebrew and Greek into Roman. The Romans were a patriarchal society and changed the meaning of words to keep women as lesser than them.

Women were allowed to teach men, ie: Priscilla, in the Acts of the Apostles. She taught a Jewish man, the ways of God more accurately. Acts 18:24-28.
Phoebe is a woman called by God to be a leader and Paul commended her ministry. Romans 16:1-2. The daughters of Philip prophecied. Euodia and Syntyche were in the gospel ministry. She was a deacon. "And I commend you to Phoebe our sister - being a ministrant (diakonos) of the assembly that is in Cenchrea - that ye may receive hr in the Lord, as doth become sints, and may assist her in whatever matter she may hve need of you - for she also became a leader [prostatis) of may, and of myself. Romans 16:1-2.

Just sharing that we have been lied to since the days of Romans and still are. It's been a lie since the beginning of time.

The book reviews on Amazon.ca www.amazon.ca...

originally posted by: Hushabye
Please. I love straw men. I have a whole collection. Give me more. Can you think for yourself, Polly? I mean, we're running out of crackers.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Your reply is neither clever nor witty and you havnt contended my question

Do you require replacing the “blood cults” with atheism, is that wise, they tend to turn into blood cults, maybe on a significantly more epic scale

Or is your method just to chirp tired old rhetoric with no substance?
Please don’t go quiet, it’s an honest question

a reply to: hiddeninsite

No we havnt all been lied to, the bible is written in many modern western languages.
Just that people are lazy, unconcerned and happy to be told rather than study what they want to believe.

Women were a primary purpose of the Christian Faith, christianity was spread because they were given such a large and active role in the gospel message. Not only did they carry out the gospel they also lived and applied it in a sincere and compassionate way

If you were to study God the Father, He has many many female characteristics, many more than most would admit to

a reply to: Raggedyman

We have been lied to by the church, by the organization of church led by men - not putting all men in the same basket, I am generalizing.

I agree with many of the posters, that generally speaking, religious practice in history is very perverse, to say the least. Here comes the Inquisition, burning of people, and to certain degree crusaders (as long as they were not for self defense in later years, because the Arabs have a share in that too). Certainly the conquista in lands that never belonged to Christendom.

I have many threads about End times and Petrus Romanus, about Fatima. Why should the Vatican hold secret something that allegedly concerns the whole humanity? Is it because it knows of cataclysm and prefers its interests over attempt of rescue of part of the people? It is absurd if Our Lady has indeed said the secret to be revealed in 1960, so many popes not to fulfill what they otherwise confirmed to be a real revelation from heaven. Isn't it betrayal of their office, of their service to the flock, of their oath to God?

And maybe pope Francis is the last one, just buying more time before those events to come? IDK. Anyway, with or without cataclysm, the Church of the future cannot be the same as the Church today. If it is meant to have a future. The Christian Church will have the future, but there are more than one Christian Churches. Maybe in the days before the cataclysm (if we assume such is coming) the Catholic Church should decide is it one of those Churches that continue. Because, as I remember, the Antioch Church also has succession from Peter. And Alexandria Church from Mark the disciple of Peter. So Rome is not the only one who holds the keys. Let they not assume that the words of Jesus to Peter necessarily mean ONLY today's papacy. It is good if they continue, but if they fail it will be their fault, not God's who gave them enough prophets and holy men and women to witness to the truth.

It is strange that the man who knows most secrets, the pope, is so much afraid to release them, and so to speak we have to urge him to say something, to do something, to do a reform. As if he himself doesn't really want it. If it is so, if he feels weak, and it is normal to feel weak at 83 with one only lung and with 1.3 bln people to care for, then why doesn't he just retire sooner? Everyone will understand him and will honor him for that. I mean, we have enough cross to carry everyday even without the problems of the Catholic Church. And many people decide the Catholic Church cannot be their problem anymore, cannot help them, and walk away. If the pope understands that not only his personal behavior but the behavior of thousands of bishops becomes a burden for the world, for the common catholics, he'd better do something concrete and soon. That's why he is elected, after all.

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: 2012newstart

I do not see realistic chance for the conservatives cardinal Sarah, Muller or Burke to be elected by majority cardinals.

Burke would be excellent.
Therefore ... the New World Order overlord masters in Brussels won't allow it.
And neither would the massively corrupt Vatican bank.

Burke is too power hungry and arrogant. He tried to overpower St. Stanislaus in St. Louis Diocese by closing them and combining them with a non-Polish speaking parish. He said he could do what he wanted because he had the deed to the church. Polish immigrants built the church in the early 1900's and the kept the deed. He demanded it and they said vaski fungoolski or something to that effect in Polish. He took away their Polish speaking priest so they sent to Poland for another one. They are now an independent Catholic parish who have an active, vibrant parish.

From the way things have been going lately, I wouldn't be surprised at all if Donald Trump was the next Pope.

Anthony Fauci.....a Jesuit deep state insider much like all in contention..a reply to: 2012newstart

a reply to: 2012newstartHopefully they will disband that bunch of pervert killing bunch,church was tool of Roman Empire,massacre of millions,sick bunch