Stunning

American Thinker ^ | Oct 30, 2010 | Michael Geer

[Rashputin]

Stunning Michael Geer

The Vatican has called for Israel to end its occupation of "Arab lands," noting that all of what we define currently as Israel is "Arab land."

That the Bible must not be used to justify either their ‘occupation' nor their ‘injustices' against Palestinians.

"The Holy Scriptures cannot be used to justify the return of Jews to Israel and the displacement of the Palestinians, to justify the occupation by Israel of Palestinian lands," Monsignor Cyril Salim Bustros, Greek Melkite archbishop of Our Lady of the Annunciation in Boston, Massachusetts, and president of the "Commission for the Message," said at Saturday's Vatican press conference.

"We Christians cannot speak of the ‘promised land' as an exclusive right for a privileged Jewish people. This promise was nullified by Christ. There is no longer a chosen people - all men and women of all countries have become the chosen people."

You've just been witness to a significant event in the End Times unfolding, amigo. The Vatican stating that Israel is "no longer a chosen people".

The Vatican has just nullified the Bible, and elevated Replacement Theology in full public view.

This is .... stunning.

[Rashputin]

"Writing the headline to make it appear otherwise is either total ignorance or incompetence." Or the deliberate stirring of division within the body, a specific sort of division that is encouraged by an awful lot of anti-Christian folks as well as a number of Christians. One of the things the left in this country fears most is Catholics and Protestants cooperating on those things they have in common like being pro-life and anti-euthanasia.

[Publius6961]

Archbishop Bustros is a fully Roman Catholic archbishop. He served as the designated spokesman for a synod called by the Pope. His statement was given in Rome to describe the meaning of the official conclusion of the synod.

Anybody remotely disposed to take this idiot's assertions as fact should research the issue independently.
As a lifelong catholic with a Catholic education, I have no desire to waste any more time here responding to a herd of perverts, and their bash Israel and the Catholic church BS.

[The Theophilus]

Since Abraham never did ... just this fact ALONE means the fulfillment is still future.

Fact?

Joshua 21:43-45 "So the Lord gave to Israel all the land of which He had sworn to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and dwelt in it. The Lord gave them rest all around, according to all that He had sworn to their fathers. And not a man of all their enemies stood against them; the Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand. Not a word failed of any good thing which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel. All came to pass."

Care to amend that claim? Or are the false prophets of Premillennial Dysfunctionalism correct and the Scriptures wrong? There is more to the Bible than just a few selected passages from Daniel, Ezekiel and Revelation

[The Theophilus]

Replacement Theology is perfectly logical to this Reformed protestant

Q: But who is being replaced?

A: No one.

It seems that the Futurists prefer to see the Church divided rather than recognize that God's plan of Redemption was to extend His Election to the Gentiles after Pentacost. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call this NT economy "Realized Israel" because the Promise made to Abraham was to be fully realized by the grafting in of the Gentiles.

[Lil Flower]

**Sorry Pope, sir. You need to review the Scriptures**

Read the article again, please. The Pope didn’t say that.

[mas cerveza por favor]

As a lifelong catholic with a Catholic education, I have no desire to waste any more time here responding to a herd of perverts, and their bash Israel and the Catholic church BS.

Becoming deep-fried in the spirit of Vatican II does not result in knowledge of Catholic doctrine. Did your life experience elevate you above the rank of archbishop? High officials can certainly make mistakes, but it is customary to employ a citation when disputing them. That was only a rhetorical suggestion it is obvious that you cannot.

[Lexinom]

There is much warning in those words. We can almost feel Paul's deep and soulful yearning for the souls of his brethren, can't we? We can feel it ourselves for Jews everywhere today.

We must exercise care in our hermeneutic and let scripture interpret scripture.

In Revelation 7:9: "After this I looked and there before me was a great multitude that no one could count, from every nation, tribe, people and language, standing before the throne and in front of the Lamb. They were wearing white robes and were holding palm branches in their hands."

Israel is included in the qualification "every nation, tribe, people, and language."

Elsewhere, in John 15:5 we read these words: "I am the vine, ye the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing."

Vine. Branches. Strikingly similar imagery to Romans 11. Jesus does not qualify "he." On the contrary, "Whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." (Revelation 22:17). Whosover! That means YOU and ME!

Will all Israel - literally, every man, woman, and child of Jewish descent - be saved? Well, other scriptures answer that question. You know the answer. Ezekial 18 comes to mind: "The soul who sins will die", with the context being their trust in lineage rather than accountability for their own actions.

Will Israel - a large number of Jews - be saved last? Very possibly.

The notion, though, that Israel, who as a people, as God's earthly temple, continue to this day in a role designated as special and unique as the cocoon for the earthly coming of our Savior does not pass muster with either reason or Scripture.

[mas cerveza por favor]

The synod refered to has no connectin whatsoever to the Catholic Church --- or the Pope.

Where do you come from? How can you post like an authority on a topic over which you have NO knowledge? Prove that Archbishop Bustros is not a Roman Catholic archbishop of the Melkite Greek Rite. Prove that his synod held in Rome was called by somebody other than the Pope.

[Lexinom]

I consider that Christians are part of "Realized Israel".

How does God want us to live? By the Law.

Can the Law save us? In no wise.

What purpose does the Law serve? To illuminate our sinfulness and great need, to restrain evil, and to reveal what is pleasing to God so that we know how to conduct ourselves in a manner pleasing to Him.

Is the ceremonial law binding? No; it is fulfilled in Christ.

We are spiritual Israel, "Realized Israel", and only impoverish ourselves by ignoring or discounting the relevance to us of the first 39 books of the canon of Scripture. Jews, Christians - people of every tribe, nation, and tongue - are part of Zion if they confess Christ with the mouth and (genuinely) believe in their heart that God raised Him from the dead.

[boatbums]

My mind inquires, too. I have read many threads and posts on the RF concerning the unity of "The Church" and how doctrine is determined by a consensus patrium and conclusions reached by a magesterium and then made "law" by the approval of the Pope, who is deemed infallible. When past Popes have their dogmas overturned or they themselves are declared heretics, or when archbishops, bishops and priests go "off on their own" and make dogmatic statements that the higher ups have to then explain or retract, it calls into question the whole unity of the faith/infallible in matters of faith and morals part seem squishy.

We know from history that not many council declarations were ever unanimous in full agreement with the decisions stated. Is there a sort of "critical mass (pun intended)" that happens first - a certain percentage of agreement - before a statement, dogma, doctrine, etc. can be declared unanimous? It doesn't appear to me to be that way. And that's why I see the danger in declaring infallible knowledge over things that are extra-biblical. Opinions are opinions, agreed, but to make dogmatic statements on behalf of governing authorities without their approval sure confuses the issues.

[boatbums]

It is misleading to keep repeating this promise while covering up the requirement for a reciprocating faithfulness that is unfulfilled by Jews outside the Church.

It is not misleading at all. God made a covenant with Israel that is an everlasting covenant. We know that after the millennial reign of Christ on this earth that he then will create a new heaven and a new earth:

Revelation 21:1-3
1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.

This new earth - the Holy City New Jerusalem - will be for Israel to fulfill his everlasting promise;

Isaiah 66:22
22 "As the new heavens and the new earth that I make will endure before me," declares the LORD, "so will your name and descendants endure.

[Iscool]

FWIW, the "land promise" was fulfilled in the days of Joshua, David and Solomon. Other than the demonstrated foolishness of the Darbyites, I can't see why you are looking for an encore, particularly since your personal definition of Israel hasn't bothered to keep their end of the deal up for the last two millennia.

There's another millennia to go...So you can't see why God is preparing an encore either...I can't help what you can't see...

Amo 9:14 And I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them. Amo 9:15 And I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land which I have given them, saith the LORD thy God.

Did Amos forget to tell you that this promise would end in 70 A.D.???

Fact is, Amos 9:15 took place in 1948 A.D....And it will reach fulfillment in the coming thousand years after Jesus the Deliverer again shows up...

Rom 11:26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

Or are you suggesting this happened already also???

[higgmeister]

Synod for the Middle East: a Message to the People of God

Approved at the end of the synod assemblies, the text (presented here in full) is rich in ideas: the sad political situation in the Middle East, and the fatigue of Churches, emigration and the Diaspora, the desire to build a society with Jews and Muslims based on full equality of citizens, condemnation of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and anti-Christianity, the appeal to the UN and the international community to ensure peace in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, in Lebanon, in Iraq.

It is interesting that the statements of the Monsignor Archbishop Bustros of the Greek Melkite faith were not in the approved document from the Vatican, although the statements regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are there.

It sounds as if this final joint communique referred to in the original article may have been from a few secularist minded prelates that attempted to spin the outcome of the conference.

This is a different take on the story and also describes the participants.

Middle East Christians are told to embrace secularist drive

Catholic bishops in the Middle East have called for Christians in the region to be advocates of separating faith and politics

[Iscool]

Good questions. Whatever happened to the Pope being Christ’s representative on earth? Seems to me he should have it together a little better than he appears to, with these rogue speakers going off all willy-nilly, usurping his authority and appearing to NOT be able to keep their pie-holes shut.

And then there is never a rebuttal by the Head Cheese...Isn't it odd that the pope, who is head of state at those few city blocks they call a state or country, allows it's national newspaper to publish opinions that are completely contrary to the national constitution and never rebutted by it's president???

[Iscool]

OK, folks, in this instance, it’s like when your kid says something he cooked up himself, and then passes it off as something that “dad said”. No, dad did not say any such thing.

How do you know when the 'dad' doesn't deny the kid was telling the truth???

[Iscool]

As a lifelong catholic with a Catholic education, I have no desire to waste any more time here responding to a herd of perverts, and their bash Israel and the Catholic church BS.

Well come back again, when you can't stay so long...But bring along the words that your pope condemned this bishop for making statements that are contrary to what the pope believes and the church teaches...

[Iscool]

It seems that the Futurists prefer to see the Church divided rather than recognize that God's plan of Redemption was to extend His Election to the Gentiles after Pentacost. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call this NT economy "Realized Israel" because the Promise made to Abraham was to be fully realized by the grafting in of the Gentiles.

Or, you could believe God and accept that the Gentiles were offered an adoption to make Israel jealous...

And that when the church is gone, Israel will respond to that jealousy and turn to Jesus where and when the promises of the land inheritance and physical Kingdom will be fulfilled...

[Rashputin]

Rosen responded, "The comments of Archbishop Bustros reflect either shocking ignorance or insubordination in relation to the Catholic Church's teaching on Jews and Judaism flowing from the Vatican II declaration Nostra Aetate. That declaration affirms the eternal covenant between God and the Jewish People, which is inextricably bound up with the Land of Israel. We urge the Vatican to issue a clear repudiation of Archbishop Bustros's outrageous and regressive comments."

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=xprnw.20101024.DC87523&show_article=1

If your actually interested, a simple search will turn up a lot more including the fact that the loudmouth in question made his statement because he didn't agree with the written statement that would be issued and therefore wanted to make his point while the written statement was being passed out and before people read it.

He is direct contradiction to both Vatican II and the Pope himself. Just like the radicals who run their mouths here in the US about how it's OK to be a Cafeteria Catholic and pick and choose what you agree with, he thinks he can pick and choose what he agrees with. Regards

[Rashputin]

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=8067&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed:+CatholicWorldNewsFeatureStories+%28Catholic+World+News+%28on+CatholicCulture.org%29%29

I have no idea how to make sure the above link works, but there's the Vatican denouncing what he said and saying that he spoke only for himself. The Vatican is a state but often people assume that anything said at a meeting there is direct from the Pope and the Church. Not so. This guy has his own fish to fry and one of them is that he's ticked about Ratzinger ticking off Muslims.

Regards

[EternalVigilance]

Paul said God wasn’t done with the children of Israel, that His covenant with his brethren according to the flesh still stands, and will be fulfilled.

And the fierce overriding demonic hatred we still see demonstrated every day in this world for them tends to confirm it.

I, for one, believe him.