Am I a bad person because I don't obsess over everything the Pope says or does?

Yes.

You should be banned.

I have long since given up thinking I must have, much less express, an opinion on everything he says and does.

-----------------------> Thataway, etc.

Also, count me in the club of not obsessing over everything PF says or does.

I try to pretend he doesn't exist, it's the only way to keep my sanity.

What's the point of a Pope, serious question, what's the point of the Catholic Church having a Pope, any Pope, nowadays, if past teachings cannot be changed, and Catholics like Doom can just pretend he doesn't exist, and when Francis dies and there's a new Pope, the same Catholics or different Catholics can equally pretend he doesn't exist. So what's the point of a Pope nowadays?

I think this was how the Church was before modern communication media.

Do you imagine that Francis is the first Pope ever to be unpopular or widely criticized?

Of course, he is the first. Whoops...you weren't asking me.

But DD raises some interesting points.

If she did, I'm not aware of it. The fact of the matter is that Papal-centric Catholicism is a very recent invention and is a byproduct of the modern media age. For the vast majority of the history of the Church, the Pope was completely irrelevant to the lives of most Catholics, the vast majority of whom probably couldn't even name him, and somehow everything was fine.

Over-generalizations like this cause me to raise my virtual, and actual, eyebrows. And bring into question the credence of other statements, which I had held, hitherto, meritorious.

Prove me wrong, prove to me that in a society in which it took 6 months or more for news of the election of a new Pope to reach even a place as close to Italy as Greece, by which time the new pope was often already dead, that the common people, would have known or cared what the Pope's name was. Could something like the legend of Pope Joan have become so widely believed, even within the Vatican itself, for more than 400 years in a society in which the common people knew a lot about the Papacy?


It was not until the middle of the nineteenth century, uncoincidentally, right about the time that the modern mass media developed, that ordinary Catholics in Europe developed an interest in the person of the Pope and started doing stuff like hanging a picture of the Pope in their homes or buying papal memorabilia like Papal collector's plates.

Nope. You made the assertion; you prove it right. Along with your other assertions. I would expect a statistical analysis, based upon specific citations -- say of statistically significant polls taken, oh, every decade, asking the Pope's name of Catholics in the years from 1000-1800. I await, expectantly.

HST, you argument has merit and deserves consideration. And, prima facie, seems to have a logical force. It is the off-the-cuff nature of your universal assertions that, IMHO, bring skepticism to other, otherwise, worthwhile thoughts.

This exchange has caused me to wonder .... how many Popes should we expect if they "often" died within six months. I assumed that half plus one would die within six months and the average life span of such would be three months -- basic statistical approximations with limited data.

Given that there were 255 Popes between Pope 1 (Peter), beginning in 30/33 AD, and Pope 255 (Blessed Pius IX), in the middle of the 19th Century, we are looking at a span of 1,813 years (1846-33). This give us an average Pope span of 7.1 years.

But if the Pope "often" died within six months, then 127.5 Popes died on an average of three months -- and our quick dying Popes only account for 31.9 years of the Papacy. That leaves us with 127.5 Popes accounting for the other 1,781.1 years, an average Papal reign of 14 years. Fair enough.

A cursory exam of a derivative document of the Annuario Pontificio, showed me that very few died within even a year of ascending (and many less within 6 months [although one anti-Pope died the day he was selected]) and that a large majority were in the chair for over four years. Ten to 15-year reigns were not uncommon. (No, I did not do an exhaustive analysis ... you can if you want to)

So, I feel it is fair, with minimal effort, to debunk a claim that Popes died so quickly that the vast number of Catholics, from 33 to 1850, based upon the logic that Popes often died within six months of ascendency, did not know their names. I hold that most, even the vast majority of Popes, held their office for several years ... probably 5 or so. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Quibble away with my methodology, but I won't engage in its defense nor expand it. Unless I made an math error. You could propose an alternative and I'll give it due consideration.

BTW, I plagiarized the thought that there should be many more Popes if they were dying off in six month increments. Yes, where are all those unaccounted for Popes?

Whether most Catholics now don't know the Pope's name, I couldn't say, but I find it plausible in times past. Likewise, six months is probably hyperbole, but under a decade would not be. Doom often speaks somewhat hyperbolically.

Exactly.

The pope, any pope, has never been able to change past teachings once those teachings have been made definitive, and I suggest that most of the hot-button issues of the present day have long since been made definitive by morally unanimous consent.

When Doom says that he pretends that Pope Francis doesn't exist ... I do not want to put words into his mouth, but he could reasonably be saying that he goes about his day to day spiritual life without concern for what Pope Francis has said in his latest audience or whatever. The Pope continues to have his universal jurisdiction over the Church, so that, for example, if Doom's diocese were to be given a new bishop, he would presumably accept that. It's just that his faith would be (as it should be) focused on the Holy Trinity and the worship of Jesus Christ, and not on Pope Francis's day-to-day activities.

Doom, you have said a lot about long ago Popes, and I haven't noticed anything I would disagree with. But none of what you said answers my question: what's the point of a Pope (nowadays) ?

Appointments (bishops, etc) jump to my mind.