White smoke and St Peter's Square bells tolling, but they haven't announced his name yet.

Sounds gone again on all my freeview channels, so I don't know who it is either!

Oh, it's Ratzinger - I just heard it on Richard and Judy lol

I think Channel 4 missed out here. We could have had 10 weeks in the Vatican with cameras 24/7, they could have nominated who they wanted out of the Conclave until there was just one left.


"I'm a Catholic .... make me the Pope" .... Ant and Dec could present ....


wait - how do I copyright this idea before it gets pinched!!

I was listening to this in the car on the way home wishing I'd paid more attention in latin class! I felt really emotional when the cardinal announced Habemus papam. Great scenes from St. Peter's sqaure.

I hope he learnt something useful from his time in the Hitler Youth Movement.

I hope he learnt something useful from his time in the Hitler Youth Movement.

gulp! is this true?

mind we all do daft things when we are young! :bored:

My younger brother's middle name is Benedict, not sure what number tho.

I hope he learnt something useful from his time in the Hitler Youth Movement.

Didn't he do a runner?

Is this a coincidence, or are the Pontiffs following the Papal Prophesies to the letter I wonder?

If this one doesn't last too long, and the next one is called Peter....find somewhere good to hide!

Censor, I was intrigued by your post having never heard of the papal prophesies, and have just been googling.

Wow, very interesting reading.
I'm hiding under the stairs.

Is this a coincidence, or are the Pontiffs following the Papal Prophesies to the letter I wonder?

If this one doesn't last too long, and the next one is called Peter....find somewhere good to hide!

I've just been reading about this..Peter the Anti Christ.

Maybe I could ask my brother to step in not only is his middle name Benedict but his first name is John....there you go. Pope John Benedict bretheren of Cat.

The way I heard the news breaking made me think - why bother then??

I heard, 'they have just announced that there is a new Pope, it is not expected to be a long Papalsy [sp?], and he was once a member of Hitler Youth'!!

Now admittedly his connections with the Hitler Youth movement have been explained satisfactorily, but what is the point of electing a Pope who is only expected to live another 3 or 4 years??

Can I just say, he scares me. He has a scarey face, so unlike the cuddly, smiley lovely man John Paul was - this new chap is very scarey. Although really this is none of my business.

Can I just say, he scares me. He has a scarey face, so unlike the cuddly, smiley lovely man John Paul was - this new chap is very scarey. Although really this is none of my business.


I thought that too Flip. His eyes look very scary to me also.

I sat and watched this breaking news with interest as I was too young to really care the last time around. I expected to feel something, so I examined my feelings as I observed him coming out and speaking, and I felt nothing, zilch. :blink:

Off to google papal prophesies now. Save room under the stairs for me please. :laugh:

Can someone post a link where I can read about papal prophesies as I am at work and don't really have the time to google - thanks :D

Here Ils, this is the one I read
papal prophesies (http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/scripts/malachy.html)

Papal prophecies (http://www.crystalinks.com/papalprophecies.html)

Here you go ils. :)

Ooh Tigger yours is much better than mine, thanks for that.

This is spooky stuff and very interesting to read, but personally I'd take with a pinch of salt.

There are so many prophecies about these things. Malachi's prophecies / Nostradamus's prophecies.........But they are all so vague that they could be interpreted to "fit" almost any event or scenario.

Besides, Malachi's prophecy seems wrong. It says that this Pope will come from the Benedictine Order, and he doesn't. He's a member of the Fanciscan Order, so the only link is his chosen Papal name.

What's interesting though is that there is apparently a lot of similarity between the various Papal Prophecies, and that the Vatican itself has only two spaces left in which to place the names of future Popes (one of the free spaces having just been taken by Benedict XVI)...... :ohmy:

****Cue spooky music****

I don't think I would like to be in the next Pope's shoes. For instance, he is an antichrist. Now how would that work? He will be voted in and how would he be viewed by the rest of the Cardinals, church etc. And will he call himself Peter? That's if I am understanding this all correctly, not knowing much about the Catholic religion at all.

And this poor guy who is the new pope, he's already got his days numbered apparently, and it ain't going to be very long.

This is very interesting to me, and I am really looking forward to seeing how this will pan out in the future.

Thanks girls :hug:

I will give them a read, if and when I get a quiet moment, or when I get home!

I don't think I would like to be in the next Pope's shoes. For instance, he is an antichrist. Now how would that work? He will be voted in and how would he be viewed by the rest of the Cardinals, church etc. And will he call himself Peter? That's if I am understanding this all correctly, not knowing much about the Catholic religion at all.

And this poor guy who is the new pope, he's already got his days numbered apparently, and it ain't going to be very long.

This is very interesting to me, and I am really looking forward to seeing how this will pan out in the future.

LMAO - so am I. But really, that's what makes these prophecies so ridiculous! Everyone knows about them, so therefore there is the power to change them.

I mean, according to the complete prohecy, this the next Pope is supposed to be called Peter (or Petrus) and he is supposed to be Satan. He will be universally adored and will command the world leaders (and consquently the world) for the 7 years in which he reigns. Chaos will result, at which point Jesus will return to earth for the 2nd coming to sort out the whole mess. And maybe the world will end too, because various other prophecies state that's what is supposed to happen when Jesus returns.

But really, If this Pope has a short reign, would the next Pope really call himself Peter? He has the choice - so why would he choose a name which would make many people believe he was fulfilling a prophecy that makes him Satan?????? If he was Satan, he'd be giving the game away by calling himself Peter and he'd find it quite hard to control the world and everything if no-one actually trusted him. :laugh: If he wasn't Satan, then having a name which made a lot of people think that he was would surely shake the foundations of the Catholic Church, rather than strengthen them.

Frankly, if the next Pope calls himself Peter or Petrus, then he would display an appalling lack of judgement and should really consider an alternative career choice.

But of course if he doesn't call himself Peter, that would put the kybosh on the whole prophecy thing.

Frankly, if the next Pope calls himself Peter or Petrus, then he would display an appalling lack of judgement and should really consider an alternative career choice.

But of course if he doesn't call himself Peter, that would put the kybosh on the whole prophecy thing.

Oh god karen this made me hoot!! :laugh:

I wonder, and haven't read the prophesies yet, does the Catholic religion beleive in them, do they follow them, and why did he call himself Benedict?? I bet he made his mind up whilst he was a Cardinal in preparation!! Funny if he bucked the trend and called himself Darren!!!

What about Pope Chav, in keeping with the times :laugh:

Frankly, if the next Pope calls himself Peter or Petrus, then he would display an appalling lack of judgement and should really consider an alternative career choice.



What if his Christian name is Peter :huh:
What if all the front runners for next Pope are called Peter? Or have Peter as a middle or confirmation name

The solution is obvious, allow women to become catholic priests and vote the next pope a popette.

The solution is obvious, allow women to become catholic priests and vote the next pope a popette.
I like you style Floops..... :laugh:

Brenda the First


See, it's got a ring to it

I wonder, and haven't read the prophesies yet, does the Catholic religion beleive in them, do they follow them, and why did he call himself Benedict??

I don't know if the Catholic Church officially regards these prophesies as "gospel" (so to speak), but the Church is in a bit of an awkward position with them. The bloke that made the Prophecies - Malachi -was a former Pope from about the 11th century or something, so they don't actually diss what he said. But neither do they come right out and state that the Anti-Christ will be the next Pope after Benedict.....

As to whether they actually follow them - who knows? It does seem strange that the order of Popes names is the same as Malachi's prediction, so it could be that they are actually trying to fulfill the prophecy. After all, according to the prophecy, after 7 years of Anti-Christ rule comes the 2nd Coming of Christ, so they might keen to chivvy that bit along......

What if his Christian name is Peter :huh:
What if all the front runners for next Pope are called Peter? Or have Peter as a middle or confirmation name

Well, the Pope always takes a new name for Papacy, so if his actual name was Peter, chances are it would be changed to "Innocent" or "Pious" or something. He wouldn't be Pope Peter.

But I get your point in that if Peter was his real name, it could fulfil the prophecy whilst simultaneously pulling the wool over people's eyes.

But really, after all this prophecying, people are just gonna be expecting the Anti-Christ. I'd pretty much guarantee that his Christian name would not be secret for long.

I think Channel 4 missed out here. We could have had 10 weeks in the Vatican with cameras 24/7, they could have nominated who they wanted out of the Conclave until there was just one left.


"I'm a Catholic .... make me the Pope" .... Ant and Dec could present ....


wait - how do I copyright this idea before it gets pinched!!

I like this!! How about Pope Idol next time (this one doesn't look as if he'll last long).

They could have themed weeks - like The Spanish Inquisition. Simon Cowell could have a field day "You have just invented a new form of torture." (although that could be a plus point)

The solution is obvious, allow women to become catholic priests and vote the next pope a popette.Called "Petra".

Unless they change the rules completely and make George Dubbya the next pope and call him Pete, I don't see how the next pope CAN be the antichrist.

PETER THE ROMAN - This final Pope will likely be Satan, taking the form of a man named Peter who will gain a worldwide allegiance and adoration.

Aww, it is nice to hear that the Lord of Darkness will finally get a job. It must be really disheartening for him never being able to get a proper job. There are not many jobs out there for fallen angels with no academic qualifications and a rather dodgy past. :laugh:

Does anyone know the correct origins of the Catholic Church. I've read that Catholics believe that Peter was the first pope. What leads this belief? Because I think I have read somewhere else that the Catholic Church started a while later in Rome. Could someone clarify this please?

An excellent starting point would be the >Wikipedia entry< (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Church) on the history of the RC church, Tiggs. The church does claim Peter as the first pope - but of course Peter himself made no such claim.

Jesus said of Peter, "on this rock will I build the church", and I think that's perhaps where the RC beliefs about popes and the church's foundation start. But any Christian church can claim a heritage traced back to Paul and beyond, not just the RC church.

Thanks for that Blink. I scanned through it quickly and will go in more detail later. It looks like an interesting read.

Whilst scanning I came across the Nicene Creed. What do Catholics believe God is? Do they believe he has a body or not? Also do they believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, or is God in mortal form on earth?

Sorry for going off topic it's got my curiosity going.

Thanks for that Blink. I scanned through it quickly and will go in more detail later. It looks like an interesting read.

Whilst scanning I came across the Nicene Creed. What do Catholics believe God is? Do they believe he has a body or not? Also do they believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, or is God in mortal form on earth?

Sorry for going off topic it's got my curiosity going.

Tiggs, catholics believe that JC was the some of god made flesh. God, to catholics, doesn't have a body as we would understand, it's more of a spiritual being.

What do Catholics believe God is?Ask a simple question, why don't you Tiggs?!!! :laugh:

As you know there are many different "doctrines of God" across the Christian community. Most orthodox Christian doctrines indicate that God does not have a body ("the Lord is spirit" - John 4:24), but that Jesus, part of the Trinity, and both fully God and fully human, did have a body. Doctrines of the Trinity are complex and often confusing, but that's the position in a nutshell.

Also do they believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God, or is God in mortal form on earth?They believe that Jesus was simultaneously God and human, as well as being the Son of God. The best way of understanding this is I think in terms of authority. Although Jesus was God (see John 1:1), God the Father had ultimate authority. That is, God the Father is the part of the Trinity that has ultimate decision-making powers.

These concepts exist in an area in which it is impossibly to reason. They involve spiritual, rather than physical matters, and do not conform to physical laws. (i.e. a pip cannot both be part of an apple and itself BE an apple, but Jesus can be both God, and part of God ("the godhead".)

There are of course many other views on the divinity (or otherwise) of Jesus, of which you are aware, but the generally accepted view is that the orthodox view is easiest to support in scripture.

Perhaps the easiest way of thinking of it it that Jesus is the physical representation of God; the Holy Spirit is the spiritual representation, and "God" is something else that we don't fully understand, mainly because he is infinite and we only have finite minds. That's the common Catholic (and Protestant) view.

Wow!

I would love to delve into this further and have a discussion on it, as there are a lot of scriptural accounts that both support and contradict those views. But............. I hesitate as it would turn into a lengthy and maybe tedious debate for those not interested.

I dunno Tiggs - if you can frame your question in a way that's relevant to the thread, I'm sure there are plenty of people willing to chuck their oars in! :laugh: (eg Should the Pope believe in the Trinity/transubstantiation/free lovin'?)

OK from what I understand just having scammed that website, is that the Catholic church and many other Christian denominations all support the Nicene Creed. (I don't).

If Jesus is the physical representation of God, then why did God talk to Jesus? Basically it's saying that God is talking and praying to himself .

And what does the Pope think? :laugh: (Just to keep it on topic of course)

If Jesus is the physical representation of God, then why did God talk to Jesus? Basically it's saying that God is talking and praying to himself .

Its complicated Tiggs and relies on a belief in the Holy Trinity.

Catholics believe that God is 3 "beings" in 1: God the Father, God the Son & God the Holy Ghost. To understand it, you need to stop thinking of the 3 "beings" as being separate from each other. Rather they are 3 parts of the same whole.

God the Father is the Creator. God the Son is Jesus. Jesus is not the physical representation of God the Father - he is God the Son, and his physical being as man is/was the "Word made Flesh" - the word of God personified. But Jesus is not separate from God. He is "of one being with the Father".

I don't know if that makes it at all clearer. I barely understand it myself to be honest.

What a complicated view to take. :blink:

What a complicated view to take. :blink:

Well, yeah it is! But to be honest, I thought ALL Christians were taught the same. As far as I know, CoE takes a similar view, but that's probably because the CoE is just a b@stardisation of the Catholic faith by Henry VIII.

I was brought up Catholic, and it just goes to show really how little I know about other Christian Religions and their beliefs.

So, what do you believe then Tigger? Do you believe in the Holy Trinity? Or do you believe that there are 3 separate beings: God the Father (Creator), God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit (who does something else). And do you think of these beings as people, or as something more ethereal?

I'm genuinely interested to know, because this is the first time in my life I have ever been aware of the fact that other Christians don't believe in the 3 in 1 concept of God. I kid you not!

This is my belief.

I believe that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. Jesus Christ, being the Son of God, has a body of flesh and bones. The Holy Spirit being a personage of Spirit.

The three together make up the Godhead, but are three distinct separate beings, but being one in purpose.

Does that make sense?

This is my belief.

I believe that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. Jesus Christ, being the Son of God, has a body of flesh and bones. The Holy Spirit being a personage of Spirit.

The three together make up the Godhead, but are three distinct separate beings, but being one in purpose.

Does that make sense?

Well yeah, sort of. Its still complicated though.

To tell the truth, if I'm reading it rightm its not massively different from what I described as being the Catholic view. But I'm no expert in the Catholic view - what I aid earlier was just my interpretation. I may have got it wrong and/or explained it badly.

Chances are, Catholics may believe the same as you. I can't see much difference between the twi viewpoints thougfh.

Well catholics (to my knowledge) believe that god made man in his image, so I guess he must have a coporeal body, although they don't teach that heaven is a physical place, so it's all a bit muddled to me too.

I know I am probably alone in this but whenever I hear the title 'Pope' I always chuckle as I instantly think or Robin Williams in Good Morning Vietnam and his shpill about Vatican products where you can purchase a 'Pope on a rope' soap......sorry I know...bad taste but I can't help myself...I am scarred for life! :sad:

The Trinity is a difficult concept to understand, and to some extent is extrapolated from Jewish and Christian scriptures. Interestingly, LDS writings seem to have been more explicit on the point:

The Testimony of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon
"And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen."
2 Nephi 31:21
"And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen."
This is the earliest LDS position incidentally - circa 1830-1840. I understand that the thinking has been revised subsequently. The additions to Doctrine & Covenants (have I got that name right?) in 1843 or thereabouts, included the teaching that God had a physical form. There is a complication between LDS doctrines and Protestant/Catholic doctrines, in that all have used the term "the Trinity", but meant different things by it at different times.

Protestant and Catholic Trinty doctrine depends on scriptures like the following:

Colossians 2:9 "For in Christ all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form"

John 14:7-10 "'7. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.' 8. Philip said, Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us. 9. Jesus answered: Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? 10. Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work."

Isaiah 43:10-11 "10. You are my witnesses, declares the LORD [this is how "Jehovah/Yahweh" is rendered in the NIV translation], and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god [this is "elohim" in the Hebrew] was formed, nor will there be one after me. 11. I, even I, am the LORD, and apart from me there is no saviour."

Isaiah 44:6 "6. This is what the LORD [Jehovah/Yahweh] says— Israel's King and Redeemer, the LORD Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God [elohim] ."

I could go on with lots of similar scriptures, but that would probably become a little (more!) tedious. Suffice it to say that when taking the Jewish/Christian scriptures as a whole, the doctrine of the Trinity emerges thus:

The Trinity is God, and consists of three persons, all of whom are also God. They are united in purpose and substance and they are all eternal, equal, and almighty. The three persons of the Trinity reflect different functions of Godhood.

There's a good scriptural summary and analysis (from an Evangelical Christian perspective,) >here< (http://www.carm.org/doctrine/trinity.htm) if anyone wishes to research that view any further.

In short, when taking the Old & New Testaments alone, the common Protestant/Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is the doctrine which I believe has the most support. BUT, these are hard concepts to grasp or understand fully - how can mortal finite man know the nature of immortal infinite God? This perhaps explains why there is a wide range of views across the world's many religions.

On topic, the new Pope, being described as "conservative" will for certain hold the orthodox view.

Just to address a specific question of Tiggs' - "If Jesus is the physical representation of God, then why did God talk to Jesus? Basically it's saying that God is talking and praying to himself ." There is no difficulty in this suggestion really. I suspect that all living humans have at one time or another held an "internal monologue" - and many people speak aloud to themselves. Since we assume that God is not mad, we can accept that should he enter into a discourse with himself, this is not motivated by insanity, but by something else. For example, in praying (eg the Lord's Prayer) we know that Jesus was modelling prayer for his disciples. In asking "that this cup be taken from me" [meaning, to be spared the cross], Jesus was submitting to God the Father's function (authority) so that Jesus could perform his function (submitting and being God's active agent on the earth).

Incidentally, God "talks to himself" as early Genesis 1:26, way before Jesus walked the earth, incarnated: "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image...'" This neatly leads us to Floopy's good point about humans being "made in the image of God". And so they were: God gave humans a spirit, the ability to reason and to have relationships, etc, etc. There is no reason to assume that Genesis 1:26-27 is referring specifically to a physical image - man is much more than a purely physical being.

Incidentally, God "talks to himself" as early Genesis 1:26, way before Jesus walked the earth, incarnated: "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image...'" This neatly leads us to Floopy's good point about humans being "made in the image of God". And so they were: God gave humans a spirit, the ability to reason and to have relationships, etc, etc. There is no reason to assume that Genesis 1:26-27 is referring specifically to a physical image - man is much more than a purely physical being.

See here I would add in that my belief is that Jesus Christ and God formed the creation together. And I say this on the belief that Christ existed in a premortal world together with God. Another story altogether...........

Concerning the LDS writings, it does state that in the Book of Mormon, but Joseph Smith prior to this was teaching about God the Father having a body previous to the Doctrine and Covenants being produced. In fact, this was one of Joseph Smith's first teachings.

The Trinity is God, and consists of three persons, all of whom are also God. They are united in purpose and substance and they are all eternal, equal, and almighty. The three persons of the Trinity reflect different functions of Godhood.

I agree with this mostly apart from the phrase 'and substance'. Yes I think they are united purpose and they are eternal, equal in the fact that Christ will inherit all that God has' and almighty. But I do believe that they are all separate personages.

Wonder what the Pope thinks of that? (Ignore this last statement, just keeping it on topic :bag: )

Gosh I am more confused than I was before. I am not sure that my faith goes so deep and so historical. Not that I beleive that I am any less than a Christian - it is just it is often way too complicated and fractional to understand deeply.

Joseph Smith prior to this was teaching about God the Father having a body previous to the Doctrine and Covenants being produced. In fact, this was one of Joseph Smith's first teachings.The difficulty that Protestants and Catholics would typically have with this is that it appears to contradict their scripture. (Likewise the suggestion that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not one in substance.) Protestant and Catholic theologians tend to avoid basing doctrine on post-scriptural revelation. I think this is a significant way in which the LDS church differs.

Gosh I am more confused than I was before.Sorry Flip. To be honest I think they the majority of Christians manage to avoid thinking about such things, whilst remaining true to their faith. I have always have a habit of asking, "Why?" though, and I am not satisfied with believing something simply because "we've always believed it". I don't believe in traditionalism for the sake of it. Hence I have previously questioned this idea of the Trinity, in order to gain a better understanding of the concept.

But it is still a veiled concept, and I do agree that some (but not all) of the scriptures which point towards the Trinity could be interpreted in a very different way. If one were to take only a section of the bible as authoritative, one could draw a different conclusion. I think for Protestant/Christian groups, the scriptures needs to be considered as a whole.

In some senses this leaves me slightly envious of the LDS church, who have more explicit teaching on many doctrines, and that teaching is considered authoritative. (Not sure that would be enough for me, mind you - too inquisitive. :) )

Forgive me if I am misunderstanding you Blinky, but the LDS church does believe that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one God in purpose. They are all members of the Godhead. But they are three distinct separate persons. So personally, I don't see any contradiction on those scriptures.

Yes, I understand your view. It's just that when you take all of the scriptures together that talk about the nature and character of God, Jesus & the Holy Spirit, it becomes harder (in my view) to support a non-trinitarian view. e.g.:

Hebrews 1:3 "The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being..."
Colosians 1:15 "He is the image of the invisible God..."
Colosians 2:9 "For in Christ all the fulness of the Deity dwells in bodily form." (divinity = Greek "theoths" = divine nature or essence)
John 14:9 "He who has seen me has seen the Father."
John 17:21 "That all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you."
John 20:28: "Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God.'"
Titus 2:13: "…the glorious appearing of our Great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ."

Having said that, Tiggs, because this is something which is inferred rather than stated explicitly, I don't think it would be right for me to assert my beliefs too arrogantly... To a certain extent, we don't know - and can't know. How can a human fully understand what it is to be God? That said, I guess the old metaphor of ice, steam, water works for me. Three manifestations of one substance.

I don't suppose God is too bothered about whether we get this one "right" - otherwise he would have spoken more clearly on the subject.

HOLY TRINITY =
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit =
1 to the POWER of 3 =
1 X 1 X 1 = 1