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.
No. Are you actually so clueless that you think there's no difference in historical context between Ezekiel and the front page of today's USAToday?
Hal Lindsey is not my Pope. The post-1948 nation of Israel has no religious significance whatsoever. Deal with it. At the rate the (secular) Jews in Israel are aborting and contracepting themselves out of existence, they themselves will end their Zionist experiment in less than 50 years; the cold realities of demographics prove that. Then where will your exegetical novelty be?
Incidentally, the Church is the new Israel. That was the constant teaching of all Christian thinkers up until 1820.
Yet another interpretation might be that the "dry bones" are a reference to the desiccation of Jewish spiritual life under the Pharisees, whom Christ referred to as "whited sepulchres . . . within full of dead men's bones". There is no necessary connection with the Holocaust. The resuscitation of Israel could have been accomplished by the establishment of the New Jerusalem - the Christian Church, called by St. Augustine "the City of God".
This conversation is becoming more interesting and hopefully, more fruitful.
But you are correct: I spoke uncharitably and I apologize. What I said was not constructive.
Yikes . . . I wasn't expecting the Inquisition!
One twelfth of the physical Israel, or maybe one sixth (since Judea was populated by the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and part of Levi).
Scott Hahn points out that, when St. Paul says in Romans that "the Gospel will be preached to the Gentiles, and thus all Israel will be saved" he means precisely that "all Israel" is irreparably mingled with the Gentiles, and so it is precisely be bringing the Gentiles into the Church that "all Israel" is reunited as the one People of God.
The State of Israel is not necessarily synonymous with a God-anointed monarchy.
I would submit that only Christ is King now, and He only is King of Israel.
At that point in history, as Ezekiel wrote from the exile of Juda in Babylon, the house of Israel or what we call the "lost tribes" were scattered among the nations.
I agree! Thank you for the complement in your reply.
see Daniel's prophesy of the Messiah Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself (the Crucifixion) : and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;(Jerusalem & the Temple) and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
To say that mere men did their will regarding Israel while God stood idly by watching, is beyond the bounds of contempt for God's Sovereignty.
The Book of Revelation was written in 95 AD, after Jerusalem was burned to the ground, along with the Temple. John prophesies that the anti-christ will proclaim himself "god" in this very temple built on the Temple Mount. For this to happen, God first, obviously, had to restore Israel to it's homeland. (Over the objections of Pius XII.)
For many centuries, people "allegorized" Revelation, saying that the Israel spoken of by John was a "spiritual Israel" or somesuch, because they did not believe God had the power to restore Israel PHYSICALLY to their ancient homeland WHICH GOD PROMISED TO THEM FOREVER AND EVER.
Now watch, as the Temple gets rebuilt against all odds.
I notice that he ignores Mr. Roosevelt's earlier lack of hospitality to Jewish refugees.
And the fact that such a tiny snippet of this letter was quoted is as suspicious as the lack of description of the circumstances of the exchange.
The Allies' destruction of important Catholic sites (San Lorenzo, Monte Cassino, etc.) seems to have been more wanton than strategic. There were many Dresdens in miniature.
[Saint?] Torquemada, First Grand Inquisitor of Spain, pray for us! ;-)
(Can't you just here that song from Mel Brooks' "History of the World Part I", you know the one that went...
"The Inquisition, here we go, the Iquisition's don't you know? Cause the Inquisition's here, and its here to staaaaayy!"
But I just got a wonderful Freepmail last nighht. I don't think the author would mind if I shared it anonimously:
From ***** | 2002-03-31 18:14:05 replied
Dr. Brian,
Last night I was finally confirmed into the True Faith. I believe, with all my heart, the Holy Spirit used the words of your postings to bring me back into Christ's Church. You and your beautiful family are always in my prayers. Hope all of you had a blessed Easter.
In His Love,
*****
God's Will is always done, despite the devil's best attempts to thwart it.
You don't know what you're talking about. Israel -- the Northern Kingdom -- utterly ceased to exist after its conquest by the Assyrians in 722 BC. The Israelites who weren't simply killed were forcibly dispersed and the few who remained were intermarried with pagans. They were the origin of the Samaritans, who were considered to be half-breed apostates by the priests in Jerusalem. According to at least some of the Rabbis, the Samaritans "have no place in the world to come".
To say that mere men did their will regarding Israel while God stood idly by watching, is beyond the bounds of contempt for God's Sovereignty.
I made no such assertion. God is in complete control. Your ideas about what God is doing are completely unfounded in any correct exegesis of Scripture.
The Book of Revelation was written in 95 AD
Prove it. The book itself says it describes things which must shortly take place.
John prophesies that the anti-christ will proclaim himself "god" in this very temple built on the Temple Mount.
And where does John say that?
Now watch, as the Temple gets rebuilt against all odds.
I'll watch, all right. It won't happen. It won't even begin to happen.
Well, your sister (and friends & relations) will have my prayers that she returns to the faith. I do know you are passionate in your defense of the faith... and I realize the lies must be countered with the truth. Please do not think I'm asking you to "chill-out," I'm asking you to look upon this mission as something joyful...Thank the Lord He has seen fit to give you this calling! Pace yourself, and do not become angry. Fight the lies with the tools God has given you (and they are many).
It's my sincere (and humble) belief the way to fight the lies is with humor and compassion (note: I did not say 'tolerance.') Let's let Jesus be our guide in this crusade...He challenged the lies, rebuked when needed, and sought to educate... He did not become angry with those in need of His Salvation.
May His peace be upon you. :o)
Who then was Paul talking to when he said
Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
Your hair-splitting "depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-Israel-Is" :-) is a fruitless clintonian effort to win an argument, instead of harkening to the word of God.
The Book of Revelation was written in 95 AD Prove it. The book itself says it describes things which must shortly take place.
You've got to be kidding. 99 % of all Bible scholarship says 95 AD. Here's one of many thousand of examples:
Time and place of writing. --The date of the Revelation is given by the great majority of critics as A.D. 95-97. Irenaeus says: "It (i.e. the Revelation) was seen no very long time ago, but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian’s reign. Eusebius also records that, in the persecution under Domitian, John the apostle and evangelist was banished to the Island Patmos for his testimony of the divine word. There is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place, and the style in which the messages to the Seven Churches are delivered rather suggests the notion that the book was written in Patmos.
Now watch, as the Temple gets rebuilt against all odds. I'll watch, all right. It won't happen. It won't even begin to happen.
O ye of little faith. God actually tells John (in Revelation) to MEASURE the coming Temple!!
Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty [and] two months.
Amazingly, the courtyard which "has been given over to the gentiles" is where the DOME OF THE ROCK stands today!!!
All of Israel: all twelve tribes. And it was Peter, not Paul. Paul's conversion isn't until Acts 9.
Your hair-splitting "depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-Israel-Is" :-) is a fruitless clintonian effort to win an argument, instead of harkening to the word of God.
I hearken to the Word of God just fine, I just don't hearken to your distortion of it.
You've got to be kidding. 99 % of all Bible scholarship says 95 AD.
Placing the word of men above the word of God? I repeat: the book itself says that it describes things that must shortly take place. "Shortly" means "shortly," not "2000 years from now". Incidentally, when Daniel was given his prophetic revelation of the Messiah's coming, God told him to seal the book up, because it was for a distant time. Since when is 2000 years "shortly" and 500 years "a distant time"?
Oh, and St. Irenaeus merely says that that St. John was exiled to Patmos during the reign of Domitian. That does not mean that he was not exiled to Patmos at any point before that time.
O ye of little faith. God actually tells John (in Revelation) to MEASURE the coming Temple!!
That's the old temple, not the new one. It was destroyed in AD 70.
Amazingly, the courtyard which "has been given over to the gentiles" is where the DOME OF THE ROCK stands today!!!
Wrong again. Amazing how far off you are. The Dome of the Rock stands on the eben shetiyah, the foundation stone, which is where the Holy of Holies stood. I believe Josephus describes this stone in some detail.
I've noticed (in this thread and previous ones) that it's imperitive for RC's on these threads to disbelieve that Revelation was written in 95 AD. As if the earth shaking plagues and mark of the beast and such happened in the 1st century but never got reported or something. You are willing to go against virtually all Bible scholarship to cling to the idea that Revelation does not speak of distant future events. It's interesting. Here's a CATHOLIC ENCYlOPEDIA which also places it after the destruction of Jerusalem & the Temple.
It makes me think that simply by accepting the overwhelming concensus of scholarship that Revelation was written 95AD would make many of your RCC beliefs crash and burn.
Yeah, I'll pray for you too, because I think you need to see that Scripture is about realities that go quite a bit deeper than the current headlines out of the Middle East. You remind me of the Jews of Jesus' time, who thought he was a political leader who would fight a war to get the Romans out of Palestine. God is more profound than that by far.
I've noticed (in this thread and previous ones) that it's imperitive for RC's on these threads to disbelieve that Revelation was written in 95 AD.
Nonsense. The Church has never authoritatively said one way or another. However, what it is imperative for Catholics to believe is that your dispensationalist point of view is false and must be rejected. Specifically, the New Israel is the Church of Christ, not any political entity in the Middle East. Paul says so very clearly in Romans 11.
However, there's a significant community of Bible scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, who hold to some form of the preterist view of Revelation, which argues that the primary fulfillment of Revelation occurred in 70 AD. (Some Protestants hold to the "full preterist" view, which denies a future Second Coming of Christ, but Catholics aren't allowed to hold that.) Have you never heard of David Chilton? Here's a good page run by Protestant preterists presenting the case against dispensationalism.
As if the earth shaking plagues and mark of the beast and such happened in the 1st century but never got reported or something.
You're kidding, right? You've never heard of Josephus' Jewish Wars? Did you know that it was considered an almost indispensible aid to Scripture interpretation by your Calvinist spiritual ancestors not 200 years ago?
You are willing to go against virtually all Bible scholarship to cling to the idea that Revelation does not speak of distant future events.
No, only futurist Bible scholarship, and then only to deny that Revelation speaks only of distant future events.
It makes me think that simply by accepting the overwhelming concensus of scholarship that Revelation was written 95AD would make many of your RCC beliefs crash and burn.
So the words of men not one of whom were actually there are supposed to make me doubt the clear, God-breathed words of Holy Scripture? Not on your life!
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.