Cant the Pope resign?

[Dry]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I'm just glad there won't be another Polish Pope for another few centuries

Makes me think to the joke:

Jesus appears one night in JP2's dream and allow him to ask 3 questions about the future of the church.
JP2: Tell me Lord, will one day, the priests be allowed to marry?
JC: Sleep quiet JP, not as long as you live.
JP2: And Lord, tell me, will women be allowed to become priests?
JC: Not as long as you live.
JP2: And Lord, will there ever be another Polish pope?
JC: Not as long as *I* live.

[Alexander's Horse]

Which goes back to my point about the primacy of the bishops........The Vatican likes to make people think they call the shots but actually most catholics know that isn't true at all. The local bishop is the main man in any diocese.

Roman catholicism is a much more complex animal than people think, especially outsiders.

[Q Classic]

ok, see, this is another thing. people seem to assume that because it's catholic dogma, it's rigid and unchanging.

what they fail to realize is that catholic dogma is "alive", meaning that its definition and catechism can change over time.

this is how vatican 2 could be justified, and, indeed, accepted throughout the catholic world.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
The Vatican likes to make people think they call the shots but actually most catholics know that isn't true at all. The local bishop is the main man in any diocese.

Roman catholicism is a much more complex animal than people think, especially outsiders.

Yes, but but there are still the Roman Curia cardinals, like Ratzinger, , who dont have dioceses but still get votes. Thats where a lot of the problems are, like softening the draft stand on pedophelia.

Quite fascinating. Can you give me a list of all 28 Dioceses of the late roman empire ?

Roland you shyster.

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Yes, but but there are still the Roman Curia cardinals, like Ratzinger, , who dont have dioceses but still get votes. Thats where a lot of the problems are, like softening the draft stand on pedophelia.

Quite true and this Pope has been conservative, authoritarian and a centraliser, creating an environment in which people like Ratzinger thrive.

But if you want my bet the Vatican is going to get rolled back when this Pope leaves. As I mentioned, the Bishops are the key guys and there is a lot resentment of Rome out there. They know they don't have to put up with it but the feeling is let John Paul II go out with dignity. There is also a feeling that things must change on a lot of doctrinal issues like celibacy, women priest, birth control and the like. I expect there will be change, possibly quite rapid change.

[Sloth]

Back to the original question: yes he can.
And there is a precedent:
Celestino V (1209-1296) He was Pope for 5 months in 1294.
Dante hated him for giving up and opening the door for Bonifacio VIII so he placed him in Hell.

"vidi e conobbi l'ombra di colui che fece per viltade il gran rifiuto" Inf. III, 59

There is a beautiful book on him by Ignazio Slione, "L'avventura di un povero cristiano"...but unfortunately it seems it is not translated in English...it could be a bestseller if the Pope does resign..I'm giving you a great business idea!!!

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland
"... the 28 large Roman provinces known in the late Empire as Dioceses."

Quite fascinating. Can you give me a list of all 28 Dioceses of the late roman empire ?

Roland, Here is the quote from the Cath. Encyc. It does seem true that the heads of the most important churches throughout the empire were Cardinals. This may not have been entirely aligned with the Roman dioceses, of which there were, approximately 12 IIRC. However, I do beleive the head of the church at the capital of a Roman Empire Diocese was a cardinal, at least to the extent it was under the "jurisdiction" of the Bishop of Rome.

"Until late in the Middle Ages the title of cardinal was given to prominent priests of important churches, e. g., at Constantinople, Milan, Ravenna, Naples, Sens, Trier, Magdeburg, and Cologne (cf. G. Phillips, Kirchenrecht, Ratisbon, 1845 sq., VI, 41 sqq.; P. Hinschius, "Das Kirchenrecht der Katholiken und Protestanten in Deutschland", Berlin, 1869, I, 318 sqq.). In keeping with this custom we find the term Cardinalis applied at Rome from the end of the fifth century to priests permanently attached to the (twenty-five to twenty-eight) Roman tituli, or quasi-parishes (quasi diœceses), belonging to the church of the Bishop of Rome, the pope–therefore to the Cardo ecclesia par excellence–in which tituli the Sacraments of Baptism and Penance were administered, and which were also often called tituli cardinales."

[Dan Severn]

Actually, the dark ages lasted from about 500 to 1000. In that time, there was constant strife and war amongst barbarian kingdoms. But as the second millennium rolled around, there was a shift from warlords to Monarchies. This period from 1000 to 1460 is more realistically referred to as the middle ages. THere were great advancements in art, literature, and science. War was a larger affair than it had been in hundreds of years, with the first indications of standing armies being created. But still, print was expensive, and education still the domain of the very wealthy. But the changes set in motion readied Europe for the renaissance of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.

[Heresson]

What do You mean by Constantinople?
You mean 1204-1261 period or what?

[Roland]

"This may not have been entirely aligned with the Roman dioceses..."

"... to priests permanently attached to the (twenty-five to twenty-eight) Roman tituli, or quasi-parishes (quasi di?ceses)..."

Well the dioceses there have nothing to do with the Roman Imperial dioceses, just as the cardinals of that time have little to nothing to do with the much later inistitution of the cardinal's college.

[Robert]

Ethelred: Also when they try to oppress in turn as is what happened in Europe.

the protestants did not oppress the europeans.
Under the protestants there came freedom of religions

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Q Cubed

this is how vatican 2 could be justified, and, indeed, accepted throughout the catholic world.

Would you care to tell that to many Catholics that still have a Latin mass or at least desire one? There a web sites covering this issue. I stumbled across one anyway a year or so ago. It is mostly accepted though.

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by CyberShy

Ethelred: Also when they try to oppress in turn as is what happened in Europe.

the protestants did not oppress the europeans.
Under the protestants there came freedom of religions

Historical ignorance reaches new heights!

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by CyberShy


the protestants did not oppress the europeans.
Under the protestants there came freedom of religions

You are kidding yourself on this just like you did in your errors regarding the length of the Dark Ages. Check out the Thiry Years War sometime. Check out the English Civil War.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ethelred


Would you care to tell that to many Catholics that still have a Latin mass or at least desire one? There a web sites covering this issue. I stumbled across one anyway a year or so ago. It is mostly accepted though.

eh?

vatican 2 does not prohibit latin masses. all i said was that it could be justified and accepted... i didn't say that it had to be accepted with pleasure and much rejoicing..

so what the conflict here?