Posted on 01/01/2004 5:55:35 AM PST by HAL9000
VATICAN CITY, Jan 1 (Reuters) - The world needs a "new international order" to solve its conflicts and ensure peace, Pope John Paul said in his New Year's Day address on Thursday.The ghosts of 2003 -- when the United States invaded Iraq without United Nations approval -- dominated the pope's first speech of 2004.
"More than ever we need a new international order which draws on the experience and results of the United Nations," the 83-year-old pontiff said at a mass in St Peter's Basilica.
"An order which is capable of finding adequate solutions to today's problems, based on the dignity of human beings, on integrating all society, on solidarity between rich and poor countries, on the sharing of resources and the extraordinary results of scientific and technological progress," he added.
Speaking at Christendom's largest church, the pope urged people not to lose hope of finding peace in the Holy Land, which the Vatican feels is vital to winning the war on terror.
"The land in which Jesus was born sadly continues to live in a dramatic condition. And in other parts of the world sparks of violence and conflict have not been extinguished either. But we need to persevere and not bow to the temptation of losing hope."
Turning to Africa, the pope paid tribute to his Burundi ambassador, Michael Courtney, killed on Monday in an ambush the army has blamed on rebels who have refused to join a peace process to end a 10-year conflict.
"(He) was tragically killed...while he was going about his mission of promoting dialogue and reconciliation. We pray for him and hope his example and sacrifice will bear the fruits of peace in Burundi and the world," the pope said.
The leader of the world's one billion Catholics, who suffers from Parkinson's disease that makes it difficult for him to talk, seemed alert and read all of his homily in a clear voice.
But it is unclear what 2004 holds for him. For the first time since his election in 1978, the pope enters the new year with no firm plans for travel, although there have been some invitations.
He was particularly weak on his last foreign trip, a visit to Slovakia in September, when aides had to read most of his addresses for him.
It worked when we declared our sovereignty from Great Britian and King George, it's time we did the same to the UN.
I did read the text, thank you very much. So what if he's calling for a "new" world body? I don't want ANY world body with the power to interfere with sovereign nations, which is exactly what any such body would attempt to do. I don't want ANY world body to dictate any more "sharing" of resources between rich and poor. And on and on.
MM
Indeed! You've spammed yet another Catholic thread with a post that is, thankfully, so damn long no one will ever read it. (Of course, if they scroll down to the screen name, no one will read it regardless.)
Time will tell.
And then we can compare the 2000 year old interpretation of those scriptures to YourOwnPersonalInterpretationOfScripture
Matthew 16:18 for starters. It all goes down hill from there. Peter is not the rock. The belief that Jesus is the Son of the Living God is the rock. Because if Peter is the rock in verse 18, why is he Satan in verse 23. And no I did not call him Satan, Jesus did that. Five verses after He called him the rock.
Your turn: 3 questions
Catholicism: the other sacred teachings.
We obviously have differing interpretations of Matthew 16:18.
I say yours is wrong. You say mine is wrong. Prove it, infallibly, that mine is wrong and yours is correct.
Matthew 16:18 ;-)
Could he be talking about a "new order" under the "Kingship of Jesus Christ"? I do reall him asking us to pray the rosary for the conversion of Islam.
Christians comprise one sixth of the world's population. That is probably more than either of the present contenders (Communists or Fabian Socialists) for world hegenomy have.
But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."
Do you even know what "infallible" means to the Catholic Church? If so, please define it so we are not arguing apples and oranges.
Why does the Catholic Church need to add to scripture?
The Church simply does NOT add to scripture.
But Why do you believe in sola scriptura and YOPIOS when neither are scriptural?
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.