651–660 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wait till you see how long Cardinal Pizzaballa who was viewed as the most likely Italian contender for the Papacy, has spent in the Holy Land and not Italy.
> Cardinal Pizzaballa Not going to lie, I had to check that this was a real name (it is)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For what it’s worth, I was just reading that Leo wasn’t seen as “completely” American due to his many years in Peru — he’s even a citizen. Take that as you will.
[flagged]
What would you call Americans? United Statesians?
There are two countries called the United States in North America, there's the United States of Mexico, and the United States of America. People from the United States of Mexico are called Mexicans, and people from the United States of America are called Americans.
And what about people from the continent of North America? There's called North Americans, just like people from South America are called South Americans.
Prior to Francis, the last pope we had from a religious order (as opposed to a career diocesan) was Gregory XVI in 1831. Now we've had two religious popes in a row --- Francis, a Jesuit, and then Leo, an Augustinian.
> Now we've had two religious popes in a row Aren't they all religious? That seems like a mandatory part of being a pope.
Religious in this context means "of a religious order" instead of "diocesan". Not the general sense of the word "believes in religion" or similar.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
John-Paul II chose his immediate predecessor’s name, and he had combined those of his two most recent predecessors. The three most recent popes are the longest run of Popes with none choosing the name (counting JPI as choosing both of two recent predecessos) of a recent (one, two, or three back) predecessor since the 1500s.
Yes, it of course happens, but when it does it is usually a signal that the new pope intends to continue with the vision of his predecessor. (John Paul II is also something of an anomaly, because John Paul I died barely a month into his papacy and so didn't have time to put in place any real agenda. John Paul II was more commemorating John Paul I the man.)
It happens far more often than otherwise; you've reversed rule and exception.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If he's on the same positions as Pope Francis but he's American, then this is a great move by the Catholic Church. Many Americans will naturally root for "their" Pope, and this will lead them away from the positions of Trump and the Evangelicals.
I doubt so, Christian Republicans conveniently ignore the parts of the Bible that directly contradict their ideology. How else could J.D. Vance consider himself a Catholic when his actions so directly go against the teachings of Christ? More generally, I think religion doesn't really inform your political views. It can certainly reinforce them post-hoc, but it certainly isn't the basis of one's morality.
Could you provide some good exemplar backed by scripture please? Preferably not cherry picked lines that tacitly support your earthly ideology, please.
I just like that he was a math major.
He was a substitute science teacher at St. Rita, on the South Side (when we were in 8th grade in Catholic school on the South Side, Rita is one of the high schools that came and pitched to us; Marist and Carmel were the two big draws for boys, McCauley for girls). Can you imagine how weird it would be to have a high school science teacher that went on to become pope ?
Prior to Francis, the last pope we had from a religious order (as opposed to a career diocesan) was Gregory XVI in 1831. Now we've had two religious popes in a row --- Francis, a Jesuit, and then Leo, an Augustinian.
> Now we've had two religious popes in a row Aren't they all religious? That seems like a mandatory part of being a pope.
The pope is not a subject that typically interests me, but I must admit that I find announcing a decision with changing smoke color rather delightful. I wonder how long ago that started.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>to my fellow local USsians. I think you illustrated why the concept exists. USA actually has "America" in its name, unlike others - hence 'Americans' and not 'USsians'.
Well, in that case could we call them Statians or Unitians?