Pope in dramatic appeal to avert war

Yahoo News (Reuters) ^ | 9-23-01 | Philip Pullella

[Iowegian]

Pope John Paul has issued a dramatic appeal that the world not be allowed to slide into war following attacks on the United States and urged against a deepening of religious divisions.

"With all my heart I beg God to keep the world in peace," the Pope said on Sunday at the end of a mass for some 50,000 people on the first full day of his visit to Kazakhstan, a Central Asian republic which may be caught up in an eventual regional crisis.

"We must not let what happened lead to a deepening of divisions. Religion must never be used as a reason for conflict," he said, referring to tensions with some parts of the Islamic world following the attacks in New York and Washington.(snip)

NEGOTIATIONS, NOT WAR

On arrival in Kazakhstan on Saturday, Pope John Paul said all controversies between nations must be resolved by negotiations and dialogue, not force of arms.

The Pope, who aides say is losing sleep over the possibility of war, celebrated a mass that began with a stiff wind blowing in from Siberia over the flat steppes and ended in sunshine.

[George W. Bush]

Pray for John Paul II

Can I pray for him to become a Baptist, dignan3? ; )

wideawake, like I said, the pope's opinion didn't bother me much one way or the other and I was more interested in some of the other comments made. Maybe it's time to let the thread die. It probably didn't merit quite this much discussion to begin with. I generally save my disagreements with Rome for serious doctrinal isues or claims I find inflated. Like the "one billion served" business.

[RnMomof7]

You've used this "one billion" thing before as though it proves something. Maybe the pope should hang a sign outside of every RC church that says "Over one billion served".

I think American RC's like to use this fraudulent little statistic to overcome their minority status here in the States.

Actually, I was being quite generous when I allowed for even two hundred million faithful. Why don't you tell me, sinkspur, just what percentage of American RC's are actually obedient to church law and doctrine. Let's just use birth control and abortion statistics alone and leave aside the many other indicators which show how obedient American RC's are to Rome and your pope.

Personally, I doubt that even 1 in 10 American RC's is obedient in even this matter let alone many others. Care to correct me?

The fact GWB is that actually a very small percentage of the "baptized"are "faithful"

In my immediate family tree..out of 26 adult baptized Catholics only 4 are "practicing Catholics".......one is unchurched (for 20 years,but would still call herself a Catholic) a couple unchuched that would never call themselves Catholics.We have a few Presbyterians,a couple Charasmatics,a few Baptists..and some Wesleyans

I do not believe that Rome has any clue just how many Catholics there are in the world......

There are lots of "social" Catholics..and lots that have left and will NEVER return..

So to give those numbers to impress is actually to mislead!

[wideawake]

Well, GWB, I'm a little sick and tired of people who profess to be suspicious of the lamestream media:

(1) Taking the lamestream media's paraphrase (not even selective quotation! paraphrase!) of the Pope's public statements as faithful, verbatim accounts of everything he said on a particular occasion.

(2) Using that unreliable source's paraphrase as a stick with which to beat Catholics. Example: I don't know how many times the media has quoted two sentences or so from a half-hour sermon delivered at St. Peter's. As soon as these sentences are quoted, someone with an axe to grind posts them with a comment like: "See he doesn't even mention Jesus! He completely ignores Scripture!" when in the actual sermon he has spoken abundantly of the teaching and the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus and quoted the Scriptures voluminously.

(3) Whenever this twisting and misrepresentation is pointed out, the antiCatholic posters who reveled in the lie never do the Christian thing and apologize for their slander and falsehood. They simply say stuff like: "Oh, is that what he really said? Well, who cares what he says anyway?" Well, they seemed to care quite a bit what he said before the truth of what he actually said became known. It only becomes inconsequential when it turns out not to be an antiCatholic weapon.

What some have said about the Pope on this thread is actually false, slanderous and uncharitable. But instead of owning up to the fact that they have gratuitously slandered a man who has never done anything to them and who, in point of fact, prays for them every day - they pretend that they've done nothing wrong and nothing worth apologizing for.

What a shining witness is exampled in their conduct.

[conservonator]

Why do you Calvinists feel the need to flag each other when posting on these forums? My guess is that like all neo-Christians, you’re sole claim to theological validity is ultimately dependant on the invalidity of the One True Faith. So you must feel that there is safety in numbers, when you are stumped or called to the carpet for your heretical beliefs, you can always crawl to your corner and slap Urial's or GWB's or some other Calvinists hand in you tag team battle against Christ's Church.

As far as your lame reference to Revelations 17: 1-6, how many times do you and other neo-Christians need to go to that well to know its dry? I mean really, with all you knowledge of the Bible I would think that you could come up with something other than the tired old Whore of Babylon thing. But in case you some how missed it go Here for some insight.

You need a new hobby, try duck hunting; it’s quite invigorating.

[wideawake]

For your information, RnMomof7, the Church's census of the faithful is not based on baptisms performed but on parish membership.

The parish rolls are amended on (I believe) a biennial basis.

Apostates like yourself are not "kept on the books" as you would like to imagine.

This does not mean that every communicant is a devout or obedient Catholic, but it does mean that they do participate in the life of the Church to a significant extent.

The fact which sinkspur was attempting to drive home was that the Pope has a number of concerns, as a pastor of an enormous and widespread flock, which smaller groups and localized sects are not aware of.

For example, there are 30,000 Catholics living in and around Baghdad - constituting roughly half of the (repressed, discriminated against and frightened) Christian population of Iraq. Pastor Jenkins of the local independent Baptist congregation in Terre Haute may shout for the carpet bombing of Baghdad because he is ignorant of the fact that there are any Christians in Baghdad or because they do not adhere to his particular sect's theological principles.

But the Pope knows that there are Catholic, Orthodox, Monophysite and Evangelical communities trapped inside Iraq, that they are already oppressed by the Muslim majority there, that they have no say in how their country is run. He feels for them as members of his flock as surely as he feels for the thousands of Catholics (including members of my parish) who were murdered at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

If there were a mission of the Church of the Nazarene in Kabul with hundreds or thousands of your coreligionists trapped in the clutches of the Taliban, you might not be eager to see them indiscriminately killed along with their oppressors. One is reminded of Abraham's plea for the righteous living in Sodom.

In any event, our President and the Pope are of one voice - that justice requires the rooting out of the terrorists and their destruction, not the Clintonian expedient of randomly bombing targets in order to get cheap applause. The Pope firmly endorses our President's just resolve in this matter. Both George W. Bush and the Pope know that raining death on the Christians of Cairo, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and the West Bank is not the answer.

[George W. Bush]

What some have said about the Pope on this thread is actually false, slanderous and uncharitable. But instead of owning up to the fact that they have gratuitously slandered a man who has never done anything to them and who, in point of fact, prays for them every day - they pretend that they've done nothing wrong and nothing worth apologizing for.

I didn't read all of it so I won't dispute that. As I said, the pope's views didn't amount to much anyway.

It is actually offensive for the pope to pray for us non-Romanists in the way that he does. I would think you would know that. I don't mind if an RC of my acquaintance should happen to pray for me personally. But the pope has motives and claims in his prayers that I reject absolutely. And I won't apologize for saying it.

[ballina]

I am not in court, in case you haven't noticed.

But you do represent yourself as a lawyer, so for the sake of the profession, please act with some decorum.

For you to deride Pope John Paul II, the Vicar of Christ on earth, and the most important moral leader in the world today, by calling him "Popey," reveals in you, either an arrogance, or a silliness, which diminishes your stature. Do try to develop some self-discipline. It will serve you well, both in and out of the courtroom.

[the_doc]

Why do you Calvinists feel the need to flag each other when posting on these forums?

I don't have interest in getting further embroiled in these controversies with RCs, but I am aware that others might. As I indicated earlier, discussions of Romanism are a strictly minor interest on my part.

I am more concerned about the apostasies of today's Protestants.

(On the other hand, I would point out that Revelations 17:1-6 does fit Romanism as drunk on the blood of literally millions of martyrs.)

[Woodkirk]

The Pope is just being ecumenical ----

[Iowegian]

For you to deride Pope John Paul II, the Vicar of Christ on earth...

See my post #33.

[ballina]

See my post 33

Come on, you know better than that.

Simply put, "Vicar" is a term which means "one who acts in the person of another." After the Ascension, Peter represented Christ as Head of the Church. The successor of Peter, the visible Head of the Church is, therefore, called the Vicar of Christ because he is the representative on earth of Christ, the invisible Head.

Christ's words to Peter (Matt. 16: 18,19) constituted a permanent office in His perpetual Church. That office was to be filled by whoever succeeded Peter as Bishop of Rome which was the official bishopric of Peter up to the time of his death.

As proof that Peter's office passed to his successor, and not to the other Apostles after his death, we have the facts of history.

Unless the primacy of authority were conferred on the Pope by Christ Himself, we may be sure that the bishops and other prelates of early Christianity never would have submitted themselves to it.

[Iowegian]

Thanks for the spin from the Vatican PR dept. I'll stick with Scripture, there's no vicar or Popes mentioned in the Bible. It's all fabricated to convince the weak-minded sheep for a power grab. You shouldn't lead them astray.

[roughrider]

I voluntarily joined the Roman Catholic Church when I was twenty years old, and attending a Calvinist college. They were scandalized, but put up with it. I joined the Roman Catholic Church because the Protestant denominations had been thoroughly compromised by liberalism, and remain so today. You may not like what the Pope reportedly said, even though he in no way ruled out military action. You Protestants have your own messes to clean up in the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, and PC thinking is running rampant in many denominations.

[ballina]

It's all fabricated to convince the weak-minded sheep for a power grab. You shouldn't lead them astray.

My friend, you are listening to the bleating of the wolf. Pray for discernment.

God bless you.

Ballina

[George W. Bush]

You may not like what the Pope reportedly said, even though he in no way ruled out military action. You Protestants have your own messes to clean up in the National Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches, and PC thinking is running rampant in many denominations. I never said I didn't like what your pope said.

As far as your NCC and WCC remarks, I am not associated in any way associated with them and will never support their unsciprutal and ungodly agenda. It is actually Rome who pushes all this unscriptural ecumenism and tries through deception to draw Christians into her fold by ruses like Evangelicals and Catholics Together (ECT and ECT II). I completely repudiate such false "unity".

I am not responsible for all Protestants. You seem to have forgotten that Protestants are not a unified group and never have been. Baptists like me reject the very notion of any authority higher than that of the local church and the authority of its brethren.

[roughrider]

I'm glad that you don't support the PC nonsense of the NCC and WCC. What those two groups support has nothing to do with ecumenism, which I do not much like, either. The lack of some semblance of unity among the Protestants, on matters of theological substance, such as abortion, has not aided the cause in ridding society of that abomination. There are Protestants in the trenches with Roman Catholics fighting the culture war, which is why I don't like it when we attack each other. We should save theological disputes for after the immediate danger has been overcome.

[roughrider]

I'm glad that you don't support the PC nonsense of the NCC and WCC. What those two groups support has nothing to do with ecumenism, which I do not much like, either. The lack of some semblance of unity among the Protestants, on matters of theological substance, such as abortion, has not aided the cause in ridding society of that abomination. There are Protestants in the trenches with Roman Catholics fighting the culture war, which is why I don't like it when we attack each other. We should save theological disputes for after the immediate danger has been overcome.

[conservonator]

(On the other hand, I would point out that Revelations 17:1-6 does fit Romanism as drunk on the blood of literally millions of martyrs.)

You could, but you and ever other neo-Christian with an ax to grind would still be wrong.

[George W. Bush]

There are Protestants in the trenches with Roman Catholics fighting the culture war, which is why I don't like it when we attack each other. We should save theological disputes for after the immediate danger has been overcome.

My doctrinal differences with Rome don't prevent me from working with RC activists in political matters. We have a well-defined line of cooperation. I should hope no one is so fragile in their faith that some good-natured sparring over doctrine should be problematic. Even if it is occasionally heated. Sometimes we clear up misconceptions we have about one another. Of course, we non-Romans have it easier because we all oppose you. You have to oppose a veritable alphabet soup of non-RC's. However, I would think that the distinctives of Baptists and Presbyterians and others would not be too difficult for any of you to understand.

Let me illustrate. I see a comparison here, between us, on the matter of how we approach Christ. As you approach the cross, standing between you and Christ is your priest and your pope here on earth. In heaven Mary stands between you and Jesus. There are three that stand between you and your saviour. A Baptist kneels alone, alone with His sheperd and knows His love and His correction directly. For you, there are always intermediates. We Baptists would say that our Lord desires you to abandon intermediates, that that was in fact His entire purpose in establishing the New Covenant in His blood. He wants you for His own. We believe that He is there, waiting at His cross for you to come to Him. But He wants for you to come to Him alone, without a pope or priest standing between here on earth or Mary to stand between in Heaven. He wants you for Himself, to be your Sheperd, to guide you as His own lamb, a member of His flock. He wants you, and you alone, to come to His cross and follow Him from that cross to your own grave and then to eternal life with Him in the presence of the Father.

We Baptists generally are outspoken on the church of Rome, often harsher than is warranted. Perhaps it is because we are almost the exact opposite of Rome in every way. We are not Protestants. We went a step further than the Protestants to re-capture the purest reading of scripture and practice of Christian faith. I do not always take the harsh view toward Rome that other non-Romans do. I see in the historical accounts how many of Rome's doctrines began as small or relatively harmless solutions to temporal problems. Those needs are long gone but the doctrines remain and have expanded. And they were never strictly scriptural to begin with, at least by the plain reading of Baptist scholars.

Give it some thought. Quite honestly, I wouldn't tell you to quit the church of Rome. I would urge you to claim Christ in the way that we Baptists do but only if you feel that spiritual urge and calling from Christ. If you should ever choose another church, I would want you to do so only because you knew that you were led by God Himself to do that, not because someone trashed the church of Rome to you.

FRegards.

[Proud2BAmerican]

http://www.ywam.org/books/wce.htm

----

Go read this Web page. I believe I've told you before that the statistic is quoted in the World Christian Encyclopedia, published by Oxford University Press. Now who feels stupid?