Why do cardinals get to elect the Pope?

[brewer]

They often wait decades for this thrill of mental masturbation. Who in their right mind would take that away?

[Brian37]

Um no, it was more to the point that the Pope was the top dog over the kings. It was not a real separation of Church and state. The kings under the Church always had to be anointed by the Church. It was still a form of theocracy.

You need to read up on this a bit more.

Real secular separation didn't take hold until the age enlightenment. Even after that, even after the founders, there have been constant attempts to interject religion into common law. The Church did not come up with the concept of common law. 

This has nothing to do with the topic.

"Secular" to the theist back then meant, merely means anyone who does not ascribe to their specific sect. "Secular" in the modern world means neutral, neither for or against.

Both of these definitions of secular are wrong.

Even with England, the only reason the Queen cant become a dictator is because long ago the parliament beheaded a king.

This has nothing to do with the topic.

But it still remains in antiquity the real power was religion. Royalty back then, saw itself as under the favor of divine power.

But we aren't talking about antiquity.  What is wrong with you?

The queen today has to ask permission to enter one of the chambers. I forgot which one. 

Commons.  But that has nothing to do with the topic.

Certainly you can find individual rulers whom persecuted religious dissent, but ultimately long term, royal families in antiquity saw their powers as being divinely anointed.

Why antiquity again?

It still has no reflection on modern western pluralism.

What does this have to do with the election of Popes?

Boru

"Secular" as defined by the religious, you''d be right.

"Secular" in the objective root you'd be wrong.

"Sect" literally is the same prefix as "section".  Just like a pie graph, has different sized sections. 

The kingships of antiquity were not "secular" but "sectarian". It is why even today, there is an uneasy truce between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. despite a more secular England today. Even Europe in the middle ages was full of different kingships whom ascribed to different sects of Christianity, not just Italy under the Vatican. In the middle ages, the different sects of Christianity fought each other in much the same way today we still see Sunnis and Shiites fight in the middle east. One can only argue certain ruling families were less violent than others. But all of them regardless based their success on God guiding them.

"Secular" today, does not mean  anti religion, but pro neutrality, pro equality, pro common law. At the same time unfortunately "secular" still means godless to the fundamentalists right wing. 

It is the same misunderstanding of modern Cuba or even North Korea. Cuba is not a godless society, it is a majority Catholic. And even North Korea is sectarian. It has it's own worship of party and ancestors and is hardly neutral in politics.

"Sectarian" means a section of a population. "Secular" means neutral. The founders envisioned a secular nation, not a nation that favored one religion over another.

[The Grand Nudger]

They often wait decades for this thrill of mental masturbation. Who in their right mind would take that away?

IKR, think of what they'd be up to otherwise.  Locking them all into a room and away from children for a few days is worth it.

Brian, all that the term was used to refer to was the difference between the leader of a country and the officials of the church. Yes, the church was very powerful, in it's own way (sometimes)..and it was precisely because of this that earthly despots who were not popes sought to leverage the institutions weight for their own aims. The church was parasitic, itself, sure..always has been...but it was also the case that a bunch of assholes were making a bad thing worse. As you've gone to lengths to point out, the secular authorities of the time weren't exactly operating on the notion of secularism we have in the present. Think of it like this, one group of assholes was concerned that another group of assholes had too much influence in their shared assholing market...and, I'm sure, some of them were very fine people.

[Brian37]

They often wait decades for this thrill of mental masturbation. Who in their right mind would take that away?

IKR, think of what they'd be up to otherwise.  Locking them all into a room and away from children for a few days is worth it.

Brian, all that the term was used to refer to was the difference between the leader of a country and the officials of the church.  Yes, the church was very powerful, in it's own way (sometimes)..and it was precisely because of this that earthly despots who were not popes sought to leverage the institutions weight for their own aims.  The church was parasitic, itself, sure..always has been...but it was also the case that a bunch of assholes were making a bad thing worse.  As you've gone to lengths to point out, the secular authorities of the time weren't exactly operating on the notion of secularism we have in the present.  Think of it like this, one group of assholes was concerned that another group of assholes had too much influence in their shared assholing market...and, I'm sure, some of them were very fine people.

I got it.

Look I am not beyond admitting there have always been religious individuals, and even individual rulers whom had good intent. I am saying long term, throughout the world, most humans view their societies and politics through a religious bent, a more sectarian bent. 

I am saying our modern world, at least the pluralism in the west, came about in spite of religion, not because of it.

The further back in time you go, the more literal humans took their holy writings. England's Royal family today is not anything close to the superstitious literalists as when the first kings came about in England and Europe. 

Even on an individual level. You cant view Malala's interpretation of the Koran as being the same as how other Muslims like Bin Laden view that same book. But both Saudi Arabia and Iran view their respective politics through a religious lens. America is certainly far more secular, but even today, you can't get a Baptist Trump voting evangelical to agree with a Obama voting black Baptist.

In antiquity it wasn't just that the church was powerful, it was seen by the majority as being the guiding principle of the local rulers. It wasn't always the case that the clergy had absolute power, but more in that more often than not, a ruling family saw their power as being handed down to them through a religious agent.

Even today, outside the age of kings, it is also why a pro sports star will point to the sky after making a score. It is the human false perception that your good fortune has a magic source.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You need to read up on this a bit more.


This has nothing to do with the topic.


Both of these definitions of secular are wrong.


This has nothing to do with the topic.


But we aren't talking about antiquity.  What is wrong with you?



Commons.  But that has nothing to do with the topic.


Why antiquity again?


What does this have to do with the election of Popes?

Boru

"Secular" as defined by the religious, you''d be right.

"Secular" in the objective root you'd be wrong.

"Sect" literally is the same prefix as "section".  Just like a pie graph, has different sized sections. 

The kingships of antiquity were not "secular" but "sectarian". It is why even today, there is an uneasy truce between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. despite a more secular England today. Even Europe in the middle ages was full of different kingships whom ascribed to different sects of Christianity, not just Italy under the Vatican. In the middle ages, the different sects of Christianity fought each other in much the same way today we still see Sunnis and Shiites fight in the middle east. One can only argue certain ruling families were less violent than others. But all of them regardless based their success on God guiding them.

"Secular" today, does not mean  anti religion, but pro neutrality, pro equality, pro common law. At the same time unfortunately "secular" still means godless to the fundamentalists right wing. 

It is the same misunderstanding of modern Cuba or even North Korea. Cuba is not a godless society, it is a majority Catholic. And even North Korea is sectarian. It has it's own worship of party and ancestors and is hardly neutral in politics.

"Sectarian" means a section of a population. "Secular" means neutral. The founders envisioned a secular nation, not a nation that favored one religion over another.

I don't need you - of all people - to lecture me on the meaning of 'sectarian'.

Stop trying to obscure your crass mistake and look up the meaning of 'secular'.  It means 'worldly' as opposed to 'religious'.  It does not and never has meant 'neutral' or 'pro equality' or 'pro common law'.  The fact that the overwhelming majority of secularists support these ideals doesn't change the meaning of 'secular'.

The next time a right wing fundamentalist tells you that secular means 'godless', have the balls to tell him, 'You're more right than you know.'

Boru

[Yonadav]

What's so special about cardinals than other Catholics? Are they better Christians/ Catholics than others Catholics? How can they be better?

Why can't few Catholic women get together at a restaurant and decide who will be the Pope? And if they did what would make their Pope less valid than one chosen by cardinals?

Start a religion and choose your leader however you want to, blackface.

[Brian37]

"Secular" as defined by the religious, you''d be right.

"Secular" in the objective root you'd be wrong.

"Sect" literally is the same prefix as "section".  Just like a pie graph, has different sized sections. 

The kingships of antiquity were not "secular" but "sectarian". It is why even today, there is an uneasy truce between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland. despite a more secular England today. Even Europe in the middle ages was full of different kingships whom ascribed to different sects of Christianity, not just Italy under the Vatican. In the middle ages, the different sects of Christianity fought each other in much the same way today we still see Sunnis and Shiites fight in the middle east. One can only argue certain ruling families were less violent than others. But all of them regardless based their success on God guiding them.

"Secular" today, does not mean  anti religion, but pro neutrality, pro equality, pro common law. At the same time unfortunately "secular" still means godless to the fundamentalists right wing. 

It is the same misunderstanding of modern Cuba or even North Korea. Cuba is not a godless society, it is a majority Catholic. And even North Korea is sectarian. It has it's own worship of party and ancestors and is hardly neutral in politics.

"Sectarian" means a section of a population. "Secular" means neutral. The founders envisioned a secular nation, not a nation that favored one religion over another.

I don't need you - of all people - to lecture me on the meaning of 'sectarian'.

Stop trying to obscure your crass mistake and look up the meaning of 'secular'.  It means 'worldly' as opposed to 'religious'.  It does not and never has meant 'neutral' or 'pro equality' or 'pro common law'.  The fact that the overwhelming majority of secularists support these ideals doesn't change the meaning of 'secular'.

The next time a right wing fundamentalist tells you that secular means 'godless', have the balls to tell him, 'You're more right than you know.'

Boru

Sect, is the prefix  of "section".

Our founders never intended a social pecking order putting one religious sect over another. Thus they wrote the first Amendment and "no religious test" in our oath of office.

Sunni is a SECTION of Islam. Shiite is a SECTION of Islam. Catholic is a section of Christianity. Baptist is a section of Christianity. 

"Secular" as defined by the assholes who started the cold war scare, means "godless". It has been wrongfully vilified and twisted to the modern meaning the religious right still tries to scare people with.

It does not wash knowing that the former Soviet Union was ALWAYS and still is Russia today, a Russian Orthodox Christian majority. Cuba again, also has never lacked religion. It has always been a Catholic majority.

Hitler too, ruled over German Christians who put him in office. 

All of those are examples of SECTARIAN VIEWS.

"Secular" means neutral, pro equality. "Secular" does not mean a call to ban religion. It merely means not to set up social pecking orders mandated by government.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I don't need you - of all people - to lecture me on the meaning of 'sectarian'.

Stop trying to obscure your crass mistake and look up the meaning of 'secular'.  It means 'worldly' as opposed to 'religious'.  It does not and never has meant 'neutral' or 'pro equality' or 'pro common law'.  The fact that the overwhelming majority of secularists support these ideals doesn't change the meaning of 'secular'.

The next time a right wing fundamentalist tells you that secular means 'godless', have the balls to tell him, 'You're more right than you know.'

Boru

Sect, is the prefix  of "section".

Our founders never intended a social pecking order putting one religious sect over another. Thus they wrote the first Amendment and "no religious test" in our oath of office.

Sunni is a SECTION of Islam. Shiite is a SECTION of Islam. Catholic is a section of Christianity. Baptist is a section of Christianity. 

"Secular" as defined by the assholes who started the cold war scare, means "godless". It has been wrongfully vilified and twisted to the modern meaning the religious right still tries to scare people with.

It does not wash knowing that the former Soviet Union was ALWAYS and still is Russia today, a Russian Orthodox Christian majority. Cuba again, also has never lacked religion. It has always been a Catholic majority.

Hitler too, ruled over German Christians who put him in office. 

All of those are examples of SECTARIAN VIEWS.

"Secular" means neutral, pro equality. "Secular" does not mean a call to ban religion. It merely means not to set up social pecking orders mandated by government.

The word 'sect' has nothing to do with the word 'secular'.  Why do you keep bringing this up?

You clearly don't want to look up the word 'secular', so I'll do the assignment for you:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/secular

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dict...sh/secular

Now, stop embarrassing yourself.  Secular doesn't mean 'neutral'.

Boru

[chimp3]

Cardinals easily fall in line. Crows ask too many questions.

[Pat Mustard]

What's so special about cardinals than other Catholics? Are they better Christians/ Catholics than others Catholics? How can they be better?

Why can't few Catholic women get together at a restaurant and decide who will be the Pope? And if they did what would make their Pope less valid than one chosen by cardinals?

Because when the people of Rome elected the pope, the wrong kind of person got elected (i.e. actual holy men or *gasp* women) and when the nobles of Rome elected the pope too few of the bribes went to the clergy.