If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Weekly Standard)   OK, Pope coming out now   (weeklystandard.com) divider line 62
    More: Misc, Twitter, Sistine Chapel, Catholic News Service, pope, Brazilian Cardinal Odilo Scherer, Cardinal Gianfranco Ravasi  
•       •       •

15249 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Feb 2013 at 10:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



62 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-18 01:21:03 AM

Lsherm: maram500: On a more serious note...

How is this a surprise to anyone? In conclave, the College of Cardinals has not access to communications of any kind, and even human contact with people outside the conclave is severely limited (to, if memory serves, a servant--traditionally, anyway). Hell, when the popes enter the conclave, essentially everything on their person is confiscated--including mobile phones.

So the cardinals not having access to Twitter comes as no surprise. How could they get on Twitter without so much as a mobile phone?

When they chose Benedict the Washington Post had a story about security measures for the conclave, and one of them was adding velvet curtains and a false wall behind each window because the European press were using laser-based sound recorders to try and figure out what was going on inside the room (sound vibration could be picked up by measuring small variances in the windows).

So yeah, this is beyond expected.  I doubt anyone is carrying in an iPad, either.


I totally missed the laser mic bit from the last conclave. I'd really like to know why everyone is so damn interested--it's not like the Church of Rome will all of a sudden come out and declare that homosexuals are the bestest, most moral people in the world or some other equally-ludicrous move.

/Would you really want to know where a Cardinal would stick an iPad to sneak it into conclave?
//In da poper, likely
///Hah
 
2013-02-18 01:25:28 AM

cptjeff: The key is that in a system that honors the rule of law, the law can be imposed against the sovereign. As funny as it is to think about now with the despicable and unaccountable behavior of the church leadership, the Catholic Church pioneered that one.


2 Samuel, 12:1-14.

Jews got there so far ahead of the Church, they lapped its sorry ass

.

cptjeff: As funny as it is to think about now with the despicable and unaccountable behavior of the church leadership, the Catholic Church pioneered that one.


You realize you just undercut the ever-living hell out of your argument.  I can't think of a single sitting Pope who bowed to the dictates of canon law if it did not suit his whim.  Lots who ignored it with merry abandon, a couple who changed it to legitimize their personal kinks - but not one who said "Okay, you got me. Fair cop."*

Also, I don't exactly look to a poli-sci guy for my history.  When I was in grad school (for history, natch), we sneered at those guys, because they were wonderful at molding facts to fit theories, and not the other way around, like you are supposed to.  So, as the history guy (married to the history gal), who teaches history to college kids, I would kindly ask you to present a historian as your proof - because my wife is still agog, and she kinda scares me like that.

* Or, however you say that in Latin
 
2013-02-18 01:50:40 AM

phalamir: When I was in grad school (for history, natch), we sneered at those guys, because they were wonderful at molding facts to fit theories, and not the other way around, like you are supposed to.


Historians do the exact same thing. To claim that you don't is simply lying. Now shut up and read the book, I've pretty much cribbed this straight from Fukuyama, but in a much diminished form. I'm not going to go point by point on fark on a subject one of the better theorists of our time spent a substantial portion of a 585 page book on.
 
2013-02-18 03:01:52 AM

clipperbox: OK, Pope coming out now

[thelostclassics.com image 850x531]


This is not a dream.  You are receiving this broadcast in order to alter the events you are seeing.
 
2013-02-18 03:13:49 AM

King Something: POPE THREAD


im 12 years old and what is this
 
2013-02-18 03:23:02 AM

cptjeff: one of the better theorists of our time


You mean the farker who proclaimed that we can never change from a world of liberal democracies, because they were too super-special to ever fall?  That half-wit?  Let a historian explain something to you: "we can never fall from these gaudy heights" is the most consistently disproven theories in history.  I don't think you can go much more than a century without someone proclaiming the New Golden Age For All Time, and then watch it all collapse upon the dumb-ass within his lifetime.  I want to biatch-slap the farker simply for that; you do not tell Fate to kiss your ass, because She is the meanest of mean biatches.  Theorist = So far from a clue as to constitute living in a separate universe

cptjeff: Historians do the exact same thing. To claim that you don't is simply lying


Oh, baby; tell us where the bad man touched you.  Because serious historians will tell you about the facts that dispute their thesis* (often in excruciating detail; for instance, Hew Macleod's book on Sikhism spent more time discussing the the stuff that cast doubts on his thesis than the stuff that helped him).  You are confusing "have an argument to make"(historian) with "here's my theory, let not the facts stand in its way" (poli-sci theorist).  He's a classicist (who range from pretty decent to "Oh, God, why did they not kill you at your defense"), who then went into poli-sci (the "discipline" that really needs to understand reality abhors a neat, tidy theory in the same way nature abhors a vacuum).  I might give him the benefit of the doubt for the classics work, but then he pulls the "end of history" crap, which is a nice theory, but only works if you ignore much of history, where nothing is eternal.

And it still doesn't matter, because Hammurabi and the Jews beat the Church to 'the leader is bound by the law" well before the Church did; and the Church never seems to have actually followed it, anyway (the Church is the Platonic Ideal of "Do as I say, but God Damn it, don't expect me to even pay it believable lip-service").  Justinian beat the Church to a set of laws transcending one ruler, empire, and even culture with the CJC (from the Romans, even).  The Church was not the omnipresent unifying organization in the Middle Ages - hell, it had to glom onto a psychotic German (Charlesmagne) to even spread itself throughout part of Western Europe, and still took about 500 more years to chase the pagans out of Europe.  By the time it did roll out a coherent canon, you are basically at Magna Carta (which held English kings to way more stringent a standard than the Popes copped to - and the MC was pretty weak sauce).

And have you ever looked around your basic Western city?  Even the ones with massive cathedrals have way more Roman temples in them, in the form of banks, government buildings, and (and this is the fun part) churches.  When we want a building to scream "I am a cultural touchstone", we do not reach for Gothic arches, flying buttresses  or stained glass.  No, we slap out-of-context Greek columns on it  - which is to say Roman, since they never really did get the artistic reasoning behind what the Greeks were doing. Oh, and if you are wondering why I focused upon Gothic architecture, it is because the stuff before that was Romanesque; as in, the Church looked to Roman secular architecture as its inspiration, because even it realized that was what was important.  The basilica was a Roman secular public space that the Church blindly aped, because it realized that Rome was what bound people, not it.  Jesus didn't speak Latin, none of the Old nor New Testaments were written in Latin.  But the Church clings to Latin as its operating language, because Rome stands Eternal, and the Church realizes it is just renting the space.  Hell, Rome isn't even that important to the Abrahamic faiths.  Jerusalem has more right to Christianity than Rome, but where does the Church sit?  In the seat of power of the Empire, because it wants to claim the Roman imperium by a contact high.  Charlemagne was not crowned Emperor of the Christians, but Emperor of the Romans.  Otto founded the Holy Roman Empire.  London rose as Roman city.  Constantinople was Nova Roma.  At least four different cultures claimed to be the Third Roman Empire (and the British Empire so obviously wanted to, it must have made their teeth hurt), but the Second Jerusalem only is famous for hanging some witches.  The West pines for Rome like a 12 year old girl pines for A Bieber - many pine for Rome like those 12 year old's grandmothers pined for Elvis.  But how many cry out for the Pope to rule central Italy as its liege-lord?  Shakespeare wrote of Caesar, but not the Church.  The US holds to the (Roman) Eagle as its symbol, not the cross.  It's laws explicitly reject Church doctrine as central, yet couch its legal terms in the Latin of the Empire.  Rome is the cultural bedrock of the West; the Church can only sit in gaped-mouth awe and hope to let a little glory rub off on it.

* Do you realize how many times I had to change my thesis just for my Masters work, because the damn facts would not play nice?  Man, if I could have just chunked the inconvient stuff, I could have saved at least 30 pages, and 2 ulcers
 
2013-02-18 04:20:43 AM
Read the damn book if you really care that much. Right now you're frothing at the mouth about an idea that you don't understand and I'm not explaining well.


phalamir: cptjeff: one of the better theorists of our time

You mean the farker who proclaimed that we can never change from a world of liberal democracies, because they were too super-special to ever fall?  That half-wit?  Let a historian explain something to you: "we can never fall from these gaudy heights" is the most consistently disproven theories in history.  I don't think you can go much more than a century without someone proclaiming the New Golden Age For All Time, and then watch it all collapse upon the dumb-ass within his lifetime.  I want to biatch-slap the farker simply for that; you do not tell Fate to kiss your ass, because She is the meanest of mean biatches.  Theorist = So far from a clue as to constitute living in a separate universe


Have any stable liberal democracies failed yet? No? Oh, you mean to say that a bunch of other fairly previously secure looking states have collapsed in favor of newer, more democratic regimes? Yeah, that's kind of his thesis, though that's only ancillary to this book.

Of course, the vitriol makes you seem to be incredibly closed minded, so it's probably fairly pointless to even bother posting this.
 
2013-02-18 04:59:01 AM

cptjeff: Eh... Rome was interesting, but I would actually argue in favor of the Catholic Church. They system of canon law they developed laid the base for the supremacy of law rather than the supremacy of the king.


Uh, the foundation of canon law is Roman law, in which the republican legislatures -known as the Curia- had supremacy over the law, including the right to elect a dictator, who eventually became an emperor (Imperator) and turned the Curia into an advisory body.

The body of cardinals who advise the Pope?  They're called.... The Curia.

And of course "Pope" is just short for "Pontifix Maximus", which is what the head priest in Rome was called.  The position of Pope is a conflation of the P. Max. and Imperator.  This is intentional.
 
2013-02-18 06:59:40 AM
Regarding the idea that the Catholic Church created western culture.Personally I wouldn't give it sole credit, but I think it deserves at least partial credit.

The Roman Catholic church as we now know it is the modern remnant of the State Church of the Roman Empire, after Christianization (which started the Empire on the road to ruin, along with brain damage and madness from the lead poisoning from their plumbing).

When the Empire fell, the Church was the only institution of the Empire to survive.  To the ends of the known (at the time) world, that was what was left to preserve the culture of the Roman Empire. . .which basically meant preserving the use of Latin, some tiny remnants of Imperial government, and some sense of continuity.

After the crowning of Charlemagne by the Pope, the precedent was set, the Pope was a Kingmaker, and the de-facto Emperor of the former Empire (and Europe) in that he chose the Kings and they (theoretically) reported to him.  His temporal power was circumscibed, but at least in theory it was vast. . .like many Emperors.  This power over Kings in the Christian world was basically unchallenged until Henry VIII decided to make an issue of it, with the direct power of the Church already under attack from the existing Protestant movement.

With the Papal States and the Pope having direct rule of the Italian penninsula around Rome from shortly after the fall of the Empire to the 1870's, the Pope could be seen as the most direct continuation of the Roman Empire (with the College of Cardinals as the continuation of the Roman Senate).  With the Pope the elected sovereign ruler of (a portion of) Rome, the concept of him being the remnant of the Roman Emperor still stands.

(I've only got a B.A. in History, so I'm no professional historian, but religious history and theology is an interest of mine)
 
2013-02-18 09:28:19 AM
In other news:  Why the fark do we still need a pope?
 
2013-02-18 12:16:21 PM
Pope Benedict XVI Chooses His Twitter Account

John Stewart's new one-man off Broadway show starring John Stewart as the Pope

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-27-2012/in-failable

//classic
 
2013-02-18 05:35:19 PM

cptjeff: Read the damn book if you really care that much. Right now you're frothing at the mouth about an idea that you don't understand and I'm not explaining well.


phalamir: cptjeff: one of the better theorists of our time

You mean the farker who proclaimed that we can never change from a world of liberal democracies, because they were too super-special to ever fall?  That half-wit?  Let a historian explain something to you: "we can never fall from these gaudy heights" is the most consistently disproven theories in history.  I don't think you can go much more than a century without someone proclaiming the New Golden Age For All Time, and then watch it all collapse upon the dumb-ass within his lifetime.  I want to biatch-slap the farker simply for that; you do not tell Fate to kiss your ass, because She is the meanest of mean biatches.  Theorist = So far from a clue as to constitute living in a separate universe


Have any stable liberal democracies failed yet? No? Oh, you mean to say that a bunch of other fairly previously secure looking states have collapsed in favor of newer, more democratic regimes? Yeah, that's kind of his thesis, though that's only ancillary to this book.

Of course, the vitriol makes you seem to be incredibly closed minded, so it's probably fairly pointless to even bother posting this.


If it matters, I'm enjoying the argument.  I think you're both making interesting points.
 
Displayed 12 of 62 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report