Posted on 04/01/2002 7:06:12 AM PST by marshmallow
DEFYING the painfully obvious symptoms of his decline, the Pope rallied his failing strength yesterday to denounce the “horror and despair” into which the Holy Land had plunged and call for an end to “this spiral of hatred, revenge and abuse of power”.
The 81-year-old pontiff, who may shortly have to enter hospital for a knee operation, has told close advisers that he is aware of pressure on him to step down because of his collapsing health, but said that he was refusing to do so “because Christ did not descend from the Cross”.
Summoning his formidable will power to lead Easter Mass and make his traditional Urbi et Orbi (To the City and the World) address the Pope, his face contorted in pain, pleaded for peace in the Middle East. “This is truly a great tragedy,” he said, his voice at times clear, but otherwise quavering and often slurred. “No political or religious leader can remain silent or inactive.”
An emergency medical team stood by discreetly as the Pope spoke, with an ambulance at the Vatican gates.
The Pope has had to take a back seat for most of the Holy Week celebrations, handing the celebration of Masses to senior cardinals in the race to succeed him, including Angelo Sodano, the Secretary of State, and Camillo Ruini, the Vicar of Rome.
The Pope is receiving heavy medication to counteract the debilitating effects of Parkinson’s disease, and suffers from persistent knee pain caused by arthritis. Vatican officials said that he had refused to use a special electric wheelchair delivered to the Vatican at the end of February.
Cardinal Ersilio Tonini, 87, said that he saw no shame in a “wheelchair-bound Pope”, since in earlier times Popes had often used a sedan chair when they became old and frail. Yesterday the Pope used a temporary altar in St Peter’s because he was unable to negotiate the steps leading to the main altar.
Alfredo Carfagni, a leading Rome surgeon, said that he had been contacted by the Vatican about performing knee surgery on the Pope.
The pontiff, hailed as “God’s athlete” for his sporting prowess when he was elected at the age of 58 in 1978, had emergency surgery when he was shot in the abdomen in 1981 by a Turkish gunman, and has since undergone operations for a dislocated shoulder, a broken femur and the removal of a benign tumour. Professor Carfagni, of the San Carlo di Nancy hospital near the Vatican, said that knee surgery might prove unnecessary “if there is a miracle, for which we all hope”.
Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estévez of Chile yesterday revealed that when the Pope had been asked why he “continued his mission despite the condition of his health” he had said that he had to carry on just as Christ had refused to “come down from the Cross”.
Cardinal Medina, head of the Vatican Congregation for the Divine Cult and the Sacraments, said that although no Pope had stepped down voluntarily since Celestine V at the end of the 13th century, Church canon law did provide for papal abdication “if the Pope is no longer able to carry out his functions”.
Cardinal Medina said, however, that Pope John Paul II had a “select team” to help him and they had enabled him to “preside” at Palm Sunday and Good Friday ceremonies by sitting nearby on the papal throne, On Good Friday the Pope failed for the first time in his papacy to carry the Cross even part of the way around the Stations of the Cross during the candelit Via Crucis ceremony inside the Colosseum, although he did hold the cross at the last station. He appeared exhausted yesterday after holding a three-hour Mass on Saturday night.
The Pope, who turns 82 next month, is still insisting on a full programme of foreign travel this year, with trips to Bulgaria in May and Canada and Mexico in the summer.
At the weekend he passed a new milestone as his papacy became the sixth longest. “When he spoke on Good Friday of the shadows of the evening, everyone knew he was referring to himself,” La Repubblica said.
In his message yesterday, delivered under a sunny sky to tens of thousands packed into a flower-filled St Peter’s Square, the Pope referred to the “tragic sequence of atrocities and killings which steep the Holy Land in blood . . . it is as if war has been declared on peace. Nothing is resolved through reprisals and retaliation”. He read Easter greetings in 62 languages, including Hebrew and Arabic.
A few facts for you:
(1) There are many married priests in the Catholic Church. There is a requirement, if you want to become a Catholic priest of the Latin Rite, of taking a vow of celibacy. No such requirement exists for (a) being a Catholic, (b) being a clergyman, (c) being a priest of any of the eleven non-Latin rites. Therefore to say that the Pope teaches that marriage is forbidden is ridiculous. I'm a Catholic in good standing and I'm also married. If the Pope forbids marriage, then my personal situation is impossible. But, of course, he does not.
(2) One should never twist Holy Scripture from its context. St. Paul is condemning certain groups which teach that marriage is forbidden - like the Essenes and Gnostic sects which St. Titus would confront in his work of evangelization. These groups taught that marriage was an evil thing which God despised. St. Paul correctly condemned this ridiculous attitude and so does his successor in the apostolic office, John Paul II.
(3) Just as Christ did and just as Christ's current vicar John Paul II does, St. Paul lived a life of celibacy and encouraged others to do so. St. Paul obviously could not be condemning a form of Christian witness that he himself practiced and enjoined others to practice.
(4) Becoming a Catholic priest of the Latin Rite is a freely chosen career. No one is compelled to be a priest of the Latin Rite, and therefore marriage is forbidden to no one. Every priest of the Latin Rite has made a conscious decision to follow St. Paul's admonition to "be even as I am", i.e. a celibate.
How mind-bogglingly wrong you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It was in Egypt that God first established the Passover which is THE BASIS for Christ's sacrifice on the cross and for our redemption. Christ was sacrificed on the Passover. If you go back to Exodus and read all the tiny details about how the Jews were to prepare the lamb etc, you will, for the first time understand the Theology of the Bible.
(The blood was to be put on Both sides and the top of the door -- forming a cross. Not a bone of the sacrificial lamb was to be broken -- they didn't break Jesus' bones on the cross. The Jews were to drink something sour -- Jesus was given vinegar on the cross. The hyssop branch etc.) Every tiny detail foreshadows events on the cross. Catholics know so little of the Bible. It makes me sad.
Anyways, thanks for the discussion. I've gotten great insights in the catholic mindset. It's really been fascinating and will be helpfuul to me in preaching to future catholics! Thanks!
You make the claim that John Paul II has declared that Muslims are "saved".
You provide a link to an article which purports to substantiate this claim, but it does not.
The Pope said nothing of the kind. A Jesuit theologian named Jacques Dupuis is the one making this claim and interpreting John Paul II's words in this way.
However, what you do not know is that Mr. Dupuis is a theologian whose theories have been examined by the Pope and condemned. You see, Mr. Dupuis believes that Muslims can be saved, which is untrue, and so he does his best to promote is theories by telling other untruths. One of these untruths is his claim that the Pope agrees with him.
However, in June 1999 the Vatican called Mr. Dupuis doctrinal orthodoxy into question and examined his book entitled Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism. The Vatican found that his book was lacking doctrinal accuracy with regard to "the sole and universal salvific mediation of Christ and the unicity and completeness of Christ’s revelation".
As a result, Mr. Dupuis was informed that he would no longer have the right to call himself a Catholic theologian unless he affirmed the following in writing:
1. It must be firmly believed that Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, crucified and risen, is the sole and universal mediator of salvation for all humanity.
2. It must also be firmly believed that Jesus of Nazareth, Son of Mary and only Saviour of the world, is the Son and Word of the Father. For the unity of the divine plan of salvation centred in Jesus Christ, it must also be held that the salvific action of the Word is accomplished in and through Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Son of the Father, as mediator of salvation for all humanity. It is therefore contrary to the Catholic faith not only to posit a separation between the Word and Jesus, or between the Word’s salvific activity and that of Jesus, but also to maintain that there is a salvific activity of the Word as such in his divinity, independent of the humanity of the Incarnate Word.
3. It must be firmly believed that Jesus Christ is the mediator, the fulfilment and the completeness of revelation. It is therefore contrary to the Catholic faith to maintain that revelation in Jesus Christ (or the revelation of Jesus Christ) is limited, incomplete or imperfect. Moreover, although full knowledge of divine revelation will be had only on the day of the Lord’s coming in glory, the historical revelation of Jesus Christ offers everything necessary for man’s salvation and has no need of completion by other religions."
The quote from Mr. Dupuis in the article you linked to was taken from an interview Mr. Dupuis gave in 1997. The article you link was itself written in 1999. The document above, in which Mr. Dupuis renounced his errors regarding Islam, was signed by him in November 2000.
If the Pope condemned and disciplined Dupuis for suggesting that Muslims are saved, why would he make such a blasphemous claim himself? The answer: The Pope never said this, and the closest you come to substantiating your allegation is to quote a theologian who was having a very public quarrel with the Pope at the time he made the claim.
In the interests of honesty, you should admit that the Pope has never said that Muslims are saved and acknowledge that Mr. Dupuis himself is an unreliable source.
The true Vicar of Christ. God bless you, JPII. You are deeply loved and followed by me, your humble servant and brother in Christ.
God bless John Paul II!
Where there is persecution, there is Christ's true Church. For we are part of the body and will be part of that hate and ridicule and persecution that Christ Himself had to endure. Praise be to Him Who was, Who is and Who is to come! All glory and praise and honor and blessing to Jesus the Lord.
It isn't that we don't "want" to, we simply don't think it has any religious or eschatological significance, nor do we find any convincing evidence that it's any sort of fulfillment of prophecy.
Why would you not WANT the Temple to be re-built?
Because Temple Judaism was made utterly obsolete by the Cross. That is the crystal-clear teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews. Have you read it? Do you really think that God wants the Jews to start killing sheep and goats, whose blood "can never take away sins," all over again?
That having been said, if God wants the Temple to be rebuilt, it will be rebuilt. I see no evidence that He does. The true Temple is the Church, the Body of Christ.
All of you Catholics on this thread seem deathly afraid of the Book of Revelation. Why is that?
Hardly. You seem to be deathly afraid of the very first verse of the book, because you can't admit that "must happen shortly" really means "must happen shortly". You seem very afraid of the "seven kings" verse, because you still haven't told anyone who the first six kings were, five of whom had already fallen when St. John wrote Revelation. It looks to me like you're very afraid of any view of Revelation that doesn't rubber-stamp your preconceived ideas of what the book says.
Go look in a mirror.
Ok campion. If the Book of Revelation was written about things that happened "shortly" in YOUR definition of the time frame (not God's) then tell me...
When in the 1st century did an army from the east of 200 million soldiers come to invade Israel? rev 9:16. There were not 200 million people in all the earth in John's day
When in the 1st century did two witnesses for Jesus get murdered, their bodies lay dead in the street for 3 1/2 days, and then suddenly have life return to them and they stand on their feet again while "terror struck those who saw them"? (REV 11:8-11). WHen did that happen in the 1st century? When, at the VERY HOUR this was happening, did a great earthquake destroy a tenth of Jerusalem? (rev 11:13)
If it is not God's direct will that the Temple be re-built (if the "temple" is some allegorized "Jesus's body" or somesuch as you say) then why in REV 11:1 does God tell John to measure the Temple and count all the people praying in it, but NOT the courtyard out front? (Remember the 2nd Temple was destroyed 25 years before Revelation was written.)
Keep in mind, people "allegorized" the depictions of Israel in Revelation for 18 + centuries because they never expected God to bring His Chosen People back to their land which he promised them through Abraham "forever and ever". How shocked the "allegorizers" and "spiritualizers" were on May 14th 1948!! Now, when the Temple is re-built, ALL the prophesies in Revelation will be ready to happen. Christians are happy about that becuase it means the Rapture is imminent.
IN answer to your question about the seven heads... they were seven world kingdoms, in order, Assyrian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, (Before Christ) Roman, was the 6th, and the 7th will also be the Revived Roman One-World Empire (headed by the Anti-Christ) and Roman One-World Church (headed by the False Prophet). You stated in a previous post that you believe Nero was the antichrist. Nero died in 68AD, before Revelation was even written. (95 AD)
If you respond, Campion, I must ask you to do so without resorting to the personal insults which you specialize in. This is a theological discussion, and your personal invective towards me does not illuminate.
How mind-bogglingly wrong you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Glad you finally got your mind boggled! Good to shake-up the old cobwebs once in a while...isn't it!
It was in Egypt that God first established the Passover which is THE BASIS for Christ's sacrifice on the cross and for our redemption. Christ was sacrificed on the Passover. If you go back to Exodus and read all the tiny details about how the Jews were to prepare the lamb etc, you will, for the first time understand the Theology of the Bible.
That was my point in a previous posting! Everything in the O.T. leads up to Christ. The point you are missing in your search for the dotted "i's" & crossed "t's" is that the O.T. is superceded by the "Gospels." It is the life (Sacrifice and Resurretion) of Christ that has true meaning to Catholics because it was trough Him that Israel was "reborn." We are the New Israel! Why do you disagree with that? If you disagree, you merely make a mockery of Christ's sacrifice, because the logical extension is that He died and was reborn only for a select few...not all mankind.
Who was the "them" when Christ on the Cross said "Forgive them Father, For they know not what they do?" Is God so petty in your view that you believe He was only referring to those that were physically present (and a part)at His Crucifiction? If you believe that Christ died for all mankind, then you embrace the 'Catholic' (Universal) view.
This is my problem with certain Protestants. The failure on their part to acknowledge that God is infinite in being and majesty, or that He must be confined to the role and works described in the bible... and no others.
"....Catholics know so little of the Bible. It makes me sad.
And it makes us sad that you cannot see how the works and teachings of the "Living God" (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) apply to our lives.
Anyways, thanks for the discussion. I've gotten great insights in the catholic mindset. It's really been fascinating and will be helpfuul to me in preaching to future catholics! Thanks!
Just a helpful hint: Try teaching the 'Love of Christ' and not the 'Meaning of Christ based on your interpretation.' Who knows, someday you might even become Catholic.
In other words, it's okay for you to make patronizing, insulting comments about Catholics. That's how you express your "Christian love". However, when I truthfully observe that Catholics don't have a lock on ignorance of Scripture, that's a "personal insult" and I'm supposed to shut up.
If you can't take the heat ...
When in the 1st century did an army from the east of 200 million soldiers come to invade Israel? rev 9:16. There were not 200 million people in all the earth in John's day
The "army" in question is angelic, not human, unless you are seriously going to argue that humanoid locusts riding horses with lions' heads are going to invade Israel in the near future.
When in the 1st century did two witnesses for Jesus get murdered, their bodies lay dead in the street for 3 1/2 days, and then suddenly have life return to them and they stand on their feet again while "terror struck those who saw them"? (REV 11:8-11). WHen did that happen in the 1st century? When, at the VERY HOUR this was happening, did a great earthquake destroy a tenth of Jerusalem? (rev 11:13)
The "two witnesses" are an allegory for the law and the prophets, who witness against the apostate Judaism of AD 70. If you look at the plagues they invoke -- calling down fire from heaven, turning the water to blood, etc. -- they correspond directly to those invoked by Moses and Elijah.
why in REV 11:1 does God tell John to measure the Temple and count all the people praying in it, but NOT the courtyard out front? (Remember the 2nd Temple was destroyed 25 years before Revelation was written.)
No, I don't "remember" that, because I don't believe it.
Keep in mind, people "allegorized" the depictions of Israel in Revelation for 18 + centuries because they never expected God to bring His Chosen People back to their land which he promised them through Abraham "forever and ever".
See, you hypocritically claim that I specialize in "insults," and you cavalierly throw garbage like this around. Why don't you try giving your opponents the benefit of the doubt? Maybe their view of Revelation came about because they think it's faithful to the text?!?
Now, when the Temple is re-built, ALL the prophesies in Revelation will be ready to happen. Christians are happy about that becuase it means the Rapture is imminent.
This would be the Rapture that was predicted to happen in 1988 ... or the one that was supposed to happen in 1994 ... I understand the current prediction is that it will be 40 years from 1967. When nothing happens by 2007, call me back.
IN answer to your question about the seven heads... they were seven world kingdoms, in order, Assyrian, Egyptian, Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Greek, (Before Christ) Roman, was the 6th, and the 7th will also be the Revived Roman One-World Empire (headed by the Anti-Christ) and Roman One-World Church (headed by the False Prophet).
Nothing in Revelation talks about a "Roman One-World Church". The word used to describe the whore "Mystery Babylon" is polis (city), not ekklesia (church). In fact, Rev. 11 directly explains what the "great city" was -- "that city allegorically called 'Sodom' and 'Egypt', where their Lord was crucified". That's not Rome.
And the verse specifies seven kings, not kingdoms. Why are you allegorizing this? I thought allegory was bad?
First of all, I was born and raised Catholic -- went to catholic schools all my life, was an altar boy, etc. I watched as all my family and friends and classmates melted away from the RCC. Then I read the Bible and found out who God really was. Then I began to research the RCC and saw why it has no hold over people, and is now today, a hotbed of pedophilia and homosexuality. It's because they don't teach the Bible, and instead substitute their pharisee-like man-made rules that cause people to drift away. God's word enlivens, and excites people.
Of COURSE the OT leads up to Christ. Where in the WORLD did you get the idea that I don't agree with that? (Read my post #30!!!) But the Church does NOT invalidate or superceed Israel in God's plan. It is precisely this wrong thinking that caused the Roman Catholic Church to torture and murder countless Jews during the Inquisition. It's why Pius XII did not want the Jews to have a homeland in 1943.
That's WHY GOD GAVE JOHN THE BOOK OF REVELATION!!! It's all about Israel and the Temple and Jerusalem, etc. (None of these things existed when God gave John Revelation in 95 AD) God shows us that His Chosen People Israel will again play a role in man's redemption. God will keep the covenants He made to Abraham, Moses, David and others.
Finally, I do not believe that Christ died to save the whole world, just those who ACCEPT His sacrifice. As Jesus Himself said
Mat 7:13 "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. Mat 7:14 "For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it.
per Jesus, "Many will go to hell, few will go to heaven." His precious gift is AVAILABLE and FREE to ALL who will accept it, but He looked into the future and sadly had to admit that few WILL accept it. Being baptised into some organization where you go to church once in awhile and do certain rituals and incantations will not get you to heaven. That's what the Pharisees and Saducees believed.
Anyways, you seem like a nice guy -- neither a grumpster, nor a dumpster!
When in the 1st century did two witnesses for Jesus get murdered, their bodies lay dead in the street for 3 1/2 days, and then suddenly have life return to them and they stand on their feet again while "terror struck those who saw them"? (REV 11:8-11). WHen did that happen in the 1st century? When, at the VERY HOUR this was happening, did a great earthquake destroy a tenth of Jerusalem? (rev 11:13)
You responded
The "two witnesses" are an allegory for the law and the prophets, who witness against the apostate Judaism of AD 70. If you look at the plagues they invoke -- calling down fire from heaven, turning the water to blood, etc. -- they correspond directly to those invoked by Moses and Elijah.
HUH???? This "allegory" is your own invention that does not address any of the text in Revelation that I quoted. You do not address the earthquake issue, because NO EARTHQUAKE EVER DESTROYED A TENTH OF JERUSALEM in the 1st century AD. (Or EVER, to my knowlege -- this is because it will happen in the future) The Bible says this earthquake happened AT THE EXACT HOUR that the two witnesses came back to life and "struck terror in those who saw them". You can't answer me so you just don't address the little inconvenience of the killer quake that hasn't yet happened.
Then you say you don't believe Revelation was written in 95 AD even though your own Roman Catholic Encyclopedia ADMITS IT WAS!!!!!!!!! But it's inconvenient for your belief-system so you disavow the reality of Revealtion's written date.
It's fascinating to me that Catholics want to "allegorize" away reams and reams of Bible scripture that refutes their made-up theology, but they demand world authority because of one comment Jesus made to Peter about "a rock". Oy. God bless ya and good luck campion.
Thanks for responding...Later.
No, it isn't.
You do not address the earthquake issue, because NO EARTHQUAKE EVER DESTROYED A TENTH OF JERUSALEM in the 1st century AD.
Why do you insist on interpreting things hyper-literally when they support your view, and interpreting them away completely when they don't (cf Rev. 1:1), and then have the temerity to accuse me of "not debating honestly"? Pot ... kettle ... black ...
The geopolitical earthquake called "General Titus" destroyed a lot more than a tenth of Jerusalem. 50 years later, after a second Jewish rebellion, the Romans razed Jerusalem to the ground, and replaced the ruins of the Temple with a pagan temple to Jupiter. According to your view, these earthshattering events were completely ignored by Revelation in favor of a series of events which weren't to happen for another 1900 years.
Then you say you don't believe Revelation was written in 95 AD even though your own Roman Catholic Encyclopedia ADMITS IT WAS!!!!!!!!!
You seem to not get it. Let me try one more time. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a compendium of infallible dogma. It reflects the scholarship of its day -- and that's over 80 years ago. The Church has never taught definitively that Revelation was written in 95 AD, or 35 AD, or any other year within the Apostolic age: I am free to hold to an early date of composition if I like. In fact, my teacher in this matter, Professor Scott Hahn at Franciscan U. of Steubenville, is on one of the few Catholic theology faculties that take the oath of obedience to the Holy See. If you want to claim that I'm a heretic, you need to claim that he's a heretic, and you ought to bring it to his attention, and that of his superiors. Understand?
However, the fact that the CE adheres to the late date of composition theory belies your continued subtle hints that those of us who hold to a preterist viewpoint are "covering something up" or that Catholics are "afraid" of a futurist interpretation of Revelation, or similar silliness.
But it's inconvenient for your belief-system so you disavow the reality of Revealtion's written date.
And it's inconvenient for you to admit that Rev 1:1 can't just be "allegorized" away into nothingness.
The Church did not "torture or murder" a single Jew during the Inquisition, because the Inquisition had no jurisdiction over Jews at all. Why do you misrepresent history so blatantly?
Rev 11:11 But after the three and a half days, the breath of life from God came into them, and they stood on their feet; and great fear fell upon those who were watching them....
...Rev 11:13 And in that hour there was a great earthquake, and a tenth of the city fell; seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the rest were terrified and gave glory to the God of heaven.
CAMPION'S INTERPRETATION:
The geopolitical earthquake called "General Titus" destroyed a lot more than a tenth of Jerusalem
'nuff said.
One and one-half million.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.