Why do cardinals get to elect the Pope?

[Fake Messiah]

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?

[Brian37]

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?

I hate the word "elect" in regards to any religious club. This is not a public election like we have outside religion. It is an appointment, not a real election where the public has a say. It is more like a boardroom in business where the chairpeople select a CEO. That is not the same as the general public voting for a city council member, state Governor or federal congressperson. 

Religion of all labels worldwide stem from an age of patriarchal mentality. There are no female Imams in Iran, or female Dali Lamas in Buddhism.

Fortunately for western society, despite the historical sexist roots of antiquity, at least outside religion, women have been able to gain more rights. Women gained rights in spite of religion, not because of it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because they traditionally commanded economically and demographically important chunks of the body of the faith. Ultimately, the same reason that the pope, the man they elect, is the bishop of rome. Politics.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

The tradition dates to the Middle Ages.  Historically, ALL the Catholics of a given area would get to vote for local priests, deacons, bishops and so on.  Sometime in the 11th century, it was decided that the best way to keep secular influences out of the church matters would be to restrict voting for Pope to the cardinals.  The idea was to prevent emperors, kings, and other assorted nasties from controlling the church by influencing the election (didn't work).

And, Brian, it IS an election, whether you're uncomfortable with the term or not. Throughout human history, the majority of elections have never been open to the general public.

Boru

[Brian37]

The tradition dates to the Middle Ages.  Historically, ALL the Catholics of a given area would get to vote for local priests, deacons, bishops and so on.  Sometime in the 11th century, it was decided that the best way to keep secular influences out of the church matters would be to restrict voting for Pope to the cardinals.  The idea was to prevent emperors, kings, and other assorted nasties from controlling the church by influencing the election (didn't work).

And, Brian, it IS an election, whether you're uncomfortable with the term or not.

Boru

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.

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. 

"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.

Even with England, the only reason the Queen cant become a dictator is because long ago the parliament beheaded a king. But it still remains in antiquity the real power was religion. Royalty back then, saw itself as under the favor of divine power. The queen today has to ask permission to enter one of the chambers. I forgot which one. 

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.

It still has no reflection on modern western pluralism.

[The Valkyrie]

Because if it was up to us there would be fewer kiddie fiddlers in high office.

[The Grand Nudger]

Popes certainly wished for this to be so, that they were the undisputed "top dog"....but they kept getting rolled by kings throughout history.  Yes, the anointing was politically useful to them, pageantry provides legitimacy....but what a king would then do with that legitimacy was another thing entirely.  Yes, during that time many kings believed themselves to be appointed by god, but they didn't stop believing so when their interests and actions ran counter to those of rome.  Popes often found themselves begging the fuckers for money (or depending on a specific ruler as a patron to get into the funny hat club in the first place.)

Attempts to reform this incestuous relationship, as unfruitful as they ended up being, were still attempts at reformation. When Boru employed the term secular he wasn't referring to modern western pluralism or anything like that, only that in the relationship between the leader of a faith and the leader of a country, the latter is the secular authority.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

[The Grand Nudger]

-finishing up my thought above...you have to give the funny hat club credit on this one because it was absolutely the case that secular authorities represented an erosion of the church on practical and ideological grounds.  They never managed to get rid of the problem because the corruption was also calling from inside the house, and for the secular rulers of the time, a good position within the church was a great place to house their siblings (potential rivals for their authority) and if those people thn rose through the ranks they would gain the very position of power that the church had manufactured to limit those family's influence...only, now, the power was increased because fewer people could dilute the vote.

(I'm being very general and brief, above, as well as covering a wide breadth of time and change inside and outside of the church)

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

-finishing up my thought above...you have to give the funny hat club credit on this one because it was absolutely the case that secular authorities represented an erosion of the church on practical and ideological grounds.  They never managed to get rid of the problem because the corruption was also calling from inside the house, and for the secular rulers of the time, a good position within the church was a great place to house their siblings (potential rivals for their authority) and if those people thn rose through the ranks they would gain the very position of power that the church had manufactured to limit those family's influence...only, now, the power was increased because fewer people could dilute the vote.

In a minute, Brian37 will be along to tell you that's not true because of Oliver Cromwell.

Boru