(OT) The New Pope

[Brad Ferguson]

Interesting choice. Never had a Francis, never had a pope from outside
Europe. Far, far removed from the banking scandal. 76 is rather old,
but he looks to be in good shape. They say he came in second the last
time, but I don't know how they know that.

Looked nervous when he came out onto that balcony. When they went in
close, it looked to me (at least in HD) that he'd just shaved.

Really interesting that they picked a Jesuit. Usually they're scared
of Jesuits, and they bind them with special vows and things. Back
when, the top Jesuit was called "The Black Pope."

[J.D. Baldwin]

In the previous article, Brad Ferguson <Brad Ferguson> wrote:
> Really interesting that they picked a Jesuit. Usually they're
> scared of Jesuits, and they bind them with special vows and things.
> Back when, the top Jesuit was called "The Black Pope."

I had no idea from which continent the new pope would be, what color
he would be, whether he'd be generally conservative or liberal ... but
one thing I was positive of, he wouldn't be a Jesuit. This is the most
shocking thing of all to me, by far.
--
_+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am
_|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also
\ / bal...@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer
***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------

[R H Draney]

J.D. Baldwin filted:

>
>
>In the previous article, Brad Ferguson <Brad Ferguson> wrote:
>> Really interesting that they picked a Jesuit. Usually they're
>> scared of Jesuits, and they bind them with special vows and things.
>> Back when, the top Jesuit was called "The Black Pope."
>
>I had no idea from which continent the new pope would be, what color
>he would be, whether he'd be generally conservative or liberal ... but
>one thing I was positive of, he wouldn't be a Jesuit. This is the most
>shocking thing of all to me, by far.

We could have had a replay of the old joke about one of the Cardinals bursting
into the conclave with good news/bad news....

The good news: he just got a direct telephone call from God Himself.
The bad news: He's calling from Salt Lake City.

....r


--
Me? Sarcastic?
Yeah, right.

[Louis Epstein]

News <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>
> "R H Draney" <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:khr1a...@drn.newsguy.com...

> Was the big loser, Mittens [Romney] one of them?
>

Mitt's cousin Marion George Romney (born in 1897) died a heartbeat away
from the LDS Church Presidency.While the retired Pope was months older
than the current boy-wonder LDS President,the new Pope is years younger
than either the current Church President or any of the seven men next
in line to succeed.

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

[That Derek]

Musings from The Papal's Court:


Pope Adrian IV, who reigned 1154 to 1159, was an Englishman (I don't know what number he was).

The old joke was that the pope's phone number was "Et cum Spiritu tuo" which is a Latin expression used in the Holy Mass meaning "And with your spirit." So as to make the joke work, this response is pronounced "ET- koom- SPEER= ee- TWO- two- oh."

So now it's "Francis the Talking Pope." Had I been elected. I would have deliberately chosen a name that had only been used once such as Linus, Zephirinus, or Fabian. This would have meant that Church historians would have had to go through all the histories needing to place a Roman numeral one after the name of the earlier un-enumerated pope.

When John Paul the First was elevated in 1978, he (Albino Luciani) wanted to honour the two previous popes, viz. John XXIII and Paul VI, and came up with the papal name "John Paul." Problem was that for the 28 days he was pope, headline writers were referring to him as "John Paul I." Saying "the First" was unnecessary as there had yet to be a "Second."

Thus, it's "Pope Francis" NOT "Pope Francis the First."

South America, take it away!

[Kris Baker]

"Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message
news:khr5o3$brl$1...@reader2.panix.com...

They never resign. There are rumors that the current President
(Monson) has Alzheimers, as did Ezra Taft Benson, Kimball and others.

Kris

[Scott Brady]

On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 7:31:57 PM UTC-5, That Derek wrote:

> Thus, it's "Pope Francis" NOT "Pope Francis the First."

Let alone "Frankie the Ace."

[Louis Epstein]

As long as there's a Counselor who can apologize for the rest of the
First Presidency not being there,all goes on...

[Louis Epstein]

I think he was actually ANNOUNCED as John Paul I to make clear
that he wasn't John XXIV or Paul VII.

> Thus, it's "Pope Francis" NOT "Pope Francis the First."

And no compound-name ambiguity to make a "First" helpful.

> South America, take it away!

[Brian]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 22:12:16 +0000 (UTC),
INVALID...@example.com.invalid (J.D. Baldwin) wrote:


>I had no idea from which continent the new pope would be, what color
>he would be, whether he'd be generally conservative or liberal ... but
>one thing I was positive of, he wouldn't be a Jesuit. This is the most
>shocking thing of all to me, by far.

It was a surprise.

[Brian]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:31:57 -0700 (PDT), That Derek
<that...@yahoo.com> wrote:


>When John Paul the First was elevated in 1978, he (Albino Luciani) wanted to honour the two previous popes, viz. John XXIII and Paul VI, and came up with the papal name "John Paul." Problem was that for the 28 days he was pope, headline writers were referring to him as "John Paul I." Saying "the First" was unnecessary as there had yet to be a "Second."

And unfortunately it wasn't long until there was a II.

[Kris Baker]

"Louis Epstein" <l...@main.put.com> wrote in message

news:khr87d$ock$1...@reader2.panix.com...

.....in what we call the Chu(R)i$latu(R)e.

Kris

[David Uri]

On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 17:31:57 -0700 (PDT), That Derek
<that...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Pope Adrian IV, who reigned 1154 to 1159, was an Englishman (I don't know what number he was).

It's about time there was another English Pope.
Pontifex from Pontefract?

Regards,
--
David Uri.
Please visit my town - http://allezblancs.miniville.fr
Every visitor increases the population by one.
Email: davidu...@bigfoot.com (remove VEST to reply)
Facebook: http://profile.to/daviduri

[Brad Ferguson]

In article <khqtk0$b6s$1...@reader2.panix.com>, J.D. Baldwin

<INVALID...@example.com.invalid> wrote:

> In the previous article, Brad Ferguson <Brad Ferguson> wrote:
> > Really interesting that they picked a Jesuit. Usually they're
> > scared of Jesuits, and they bind them with special vows and things.
> > Back when, the top Jesuit was called "The Black Pope."
>
> I had no idea from which continent the new pope would be, what color
> he would be, whether he'd be generally conservative or liberal ... but
> one thing I was positive of, he wouldn't be a Jesuit. This is the most
> shocking thing of all to me, by far.

I was on the phone with my friend at the AP when they came trotting out
with the new pope. There was a lot of understandable confusion because
the audio from the announcement didn't come through, and CNN fumbled
for about a minute as they dredged up some details. As soon as they
mentioned that Francis was a Jesuit, I told my friend, "That's the
money line here. This just does't happen." To me, it's more
surprising than Benedict's abdication. If you know anything about
church history, it's enormous. Even in Paul VI's time,

It's also interesting that they've picked a second interim pope in a
row. They wound up picking a 76-yr-old Argentinian of Italian heritage
-- the essence of a backroom compromise.

While the reporting has (with some justice) been all about Bergoglio's
selection of the name Francis as a tribute to the world's poor, I think
it's also a bow to St. Francis Xavier, the most important student of
Society of Jesus founder St. Ignatius Loyola and probably the
best-known Catholic missionary to Asia.

[cathyc...@aol.com]

2nd interim pope in a row? The average papacy is 8.5 years. Benedict reigned 8, Francis probably will as well. How's that interim? It's the historical average. 4-5 years might be considered interim.

John 23 was interim and look what he did in 5 years.

[cathyc...@aol.com]

The Jesuits are not what they were in the 60s and 70s. JP2 broke them, cleaned them up, and installed his own man. These are not the Jesuits we remember.

It will end up making no difference in this papacy.

[R H Draney]

Brian filted:

A few years later, another corner of the world went through fifteen months of
Yuri Andropov followed by thirteen of Konstantin Chernenko....r

[Bill Schenley]

> Looked nervous when he came out onto that balcony.  When they went in
> close, it looked to me (at least in HD) that he'd just shaved.

As soon as I read *Argentina*, I knew he was going to be called on the
"Dirty War" - "The Disappeared."

Argentina's RC church is *very* conservative.

[Brad Ferguson]

In article <925f2e39-a81c-43a8...@googlegroups.com>,

<cathyc...@aol.com> wrote:

> 2nd interim pope in a row? The average papacy is 8.5 years. Benedict reigned
> 8, Francis probably will as well. How's that interim? It's the historical
> average. 4-5 years might be considered interim.

They expected Benedict would last only those four to five years. They
couldn't have known he'd go a little longer. Note that they followed
John XXIII with Paul VI, and followed JP1 with the much younger and
vital JP2, who was clearly a long-haul choice.

> John 23 was interim and look what he did in 5 years.

His successor pretty much undid it all in less time.

[That Derek]

The founder of the Society of Jesus/Jesuits, St. Ignatius of Loyola, was a Basque.

It turns out that during the Spanish Civil War, General Francisco Franco (still dead) was all too willing to test out armaments given him by his pal Hitler by using them to bomb the hell out of the Basque stronghold city of Guernica (later commemorated in a Picasso painting).

When I had heard about this, I remarked "You mean Franco was trying to put all his Basques in one exit?"

Too bad this is, effectively, a joke about genocide.

[cathyc...@aol.com]

Seriously, you need to read your history. Paul VI was likely the most "liberal" pope one is ever likely to have, relatively speaking. He advanced Vatican 2 further than John 23 could have imagined. He didn't "undo" anything.

The problem is the secular world has always misunderstood Vatican 2. It never went far enough for liberals and went too far for conservatives. No one ended up happy.

As one canon lawyer put it, there is no liberal or conservative when it comes to church doctrine, there is only orthodoxy and error. That's what the media and the secular world doesn't understand.

[Captain Armstrong]

>
> They never resign. There are rumors that the current President
> (Monson) has Alzheimers, as did Ezra Taft Benson, Kimball and others.
>
> Kris

They last longer because they get laid well and often. It gets rid of
bad humors that age a person.

[Louis Epstein]

News <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>
> "R H Draney" <dado...@spamcop.net> wrote in message

> news:khrhk...@drn.newsguy.com...

> Andropov scared the crap out of me back then, when I was young and
> naive, still believing much of the [U.S.] government's propaganda.
> Wasn't he a former KGB head, same as Putin?

Andropov was a former KGB head,Putin never rose to the top of the agency.

[BobF]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2013 02:15:19 +0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
<l...@main.put.com> shouted from the highest rooftop:

>News <m...@sb.net> wrote:

<SNIP>

>>
>> Andropov scared the crap out of me back then, when I was young and
>> naive, still believing much of the [U.S.] government's propaganda.
>> Wasn't he a former KGB head, same as Putin?
>
>Andropov was a former KGB head,Putin never rose to the top of the agency.

But still a thug.

--

"It's not that I'm afraid to die. I just don't want to be there when it happens." - Woody Allen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wax-up and drop-in of Surfing's Golden Years: <http://www.surfwriter.net>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Brad Ferguson]

In article <ki5tbn$686$2...@reader2.panix.com>, Louis Epstein

There was plenty of reason to be scared of Andropov. It's naive to
think otherwise.

I know that the Pope Francis vs. Pope Francis I is going to become a
"thing," like arguing about when the decade began and other nonsense.
Here's a solution: See what the Huffington Post does about it, and then
do the opposite. This approach has never failed me.

[Louis Epstein]

News <m...@sb.net> wrote:
>
> "Brad Ferguson" <thir...@frXOXed.net> wrote in message
> news:170320132234114677%thir...@frXOXed.net...

> If there is no other Pope Francis, then there is no need to call him
> Pope Francis 1.
> And every new decade begins on Jan. 1 of the year that has an
> ending-digit of '1', because there was no '0' year between 1 BC and 1 AD.

While every CENTURY begins with a year ending in 1,
in common parlance only decades that begin with years ending in 0,
defined by their preceding digits,are referred to,with almost no
attention paid to "the Xth decade of the Yth century",which would
begin with years ending in 1.
The 1990s decade=1990-1999 but
The 10th decade of the 20th century=1991-2000


> Contrary to what some people say, that isn't nonsense.
> Maybe 'trivial' (or 'trivia') is a better terminology to use.
> Not believing what the New York Times (ditto, The Washington Post) says
> is "the whole and correct news story" usually is a good choice.
> LOL

[Brad Ferguson]

In article <kia3d2$l7r$1...@reader2.panix.com>, Louis Epstein

<l...@main.put.com> wrote:

> While every CENTURY begins with a year ending in 1,

Yes, as long as we're talking about the 18th, the 19th, etc. A century
can be any 100-year period.

> in common parlance only decades that begin with years ending in 0,
> defined by their preceding digits,are referred to,with almost no
> attention paid to "the Xth decade of the Yth century",which would
> begin with years ending in 1.

Exactly. This is why the bit about the decade having begin in 2011 is
nonsense. We all talk about the 21st century, of course, but no one
ever refers to the 201st decade.

> The 1990s decade=1990-1999 but
> The 10th decade of the 20th century=1991-2000

Similarly, the 1900s = 1900-1999 but the 20th century = 1901-2000.
Although they are 98% congruent, they are two different things.

[Brad Ferguson]

In article <TsadnTWtka3zMNTM...@earthlink.com>, News
<m...@sb.net> wrote:

> x-no-archive: yes
>
> "David Carson" <da...@neosoft.com> wrote in message
> news:fq5hk890mtch6nh53...@4ax.com...

> > On Tue, 19 Mar 2013 16:22:59 +0000 (UTC), Louis Epstein
> > <l...@main.put.com> wrote:
> >
> >>While every CENTURY begins with a year ending in 1,
> >

> > Only the ordinal-named centuries, e.g. 19th, 20th, 21st, have this
> > requirement. Any period of 100 years is a century, regardless of when
> > it starts.
>
> Technically, you are correct,


Oh, God, I can't believe this is happening. I'm out of here.

[cathyc...@aol.com]

It's like referring to your wife as your first wife when you've only been married once or calling someone senior when there's no junior. It's redundant to refer to him as Francis 1st when there is no other. The numbers only exist to differentiate people of the same name.

[R H Draney]

cathyc...@aol.com filted:
>
>It's like referring to your wife as your first wife when you've only been m=
>arried once or calling someone senior when there's no junior. It's redundan=
>t to refer to him as Francis 1st when there is no other. The numbers only e=

>xist to differentiate people of the same name.

Some people will take the trouble to correct you when you refer to something
being the "First Annual" whatever, saying that it can't be annual until you've
at least scheduled the second one....

These people need to get a life....r

[cathyc...@aol.com]

At least they have a chance of getting a life. Those say First Annual are already lifeless.