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.
Obviously, the poster could not adequately define "infallibility" and I was trying to help my separated brethren in this regard.
Aww yes, that infallibility is a tricky thing. :)
BigMack
Not really. Some folks tend to confuse "infallibility" (In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals) with "impeccability" (not capable of sinning or liable to sin: free from fault or blame )
That's when it gets tricky ;-)
I never hit the abuse button on you, Brian. You're too entertaining.
Never been a mod. Couldn't post if I was a mod, and I'd rather post.
And I have ZERO pull around here. Ask Jim.
And the thugs on this thread just cannot understand why the Pope might not be impressed by the damnable American capitalist culture of death hypocrites."
Had you forgotten the "sarcasm" tags, or are you merely just another well-placed member of Dennis Kucinich's own cuckoo's nest??
BTW -- Your post qualifies as one of the Top Ten Five Three imbecilic posts I have seen since 1999. And I say that with ALL due respect....
You are CORRECT in your assessment of "killing and torturing 40 million" (abortion) -- however, "capitalism" has NOTHING whatsoever to do with your allegory of the Pope's being "impressed by the damnable American capitalist culture of death hypocrites."
The Pope is more interested in power -- retaining what power the Vatican holds, and then increasing it some by trying to be all things to ALL peoples (religiously speaking).
And then again, just when does the Catholic Church begin divvying up it's vast fortune and holdings to tend to the sick and the impoverished? Or tending to and sponsoring the spreading of the "Good News", instead of the all too trite and obvious universal mantra of "peace."
The answer's NOT very encouraging.
Huh? Every student of church history knows that auto-da-fe (Portuguese, I believe, for "act of faith") primarily refers to burning at the stake. Toss the Encyclopedia Britannica, please!
...over the weak tea of the deformed trend of the week clubs.
I knew you couldn't get through a post without these little insults. If I were as hypersensitive as some of the folk on this thread, I'd be whining about Protestant-bashing. That's okay though -- I've been known to toss around a snide remark or two as well. Yes, I have called you a bellower but I bet I'm not the only one!
It is good that those who feel that they must reject Christ's own Church...
I haven't rejected Christ's own church at all. What I reject is extra-Biblical teachings that have no foundation in the scriptures or in early church history. It was simony, clergy corruption, and the selling of indulgences which the Reformers rejected, not Martin Luther wanting to marry. In your favor, the worst of these things were cleaned up after Luther's time (and some on this thread will deny that they ever happened) but there still exists the extra-Biblical teachings.
Jesus did not have kind things to say about the Jewish leaders of His day for substituting their own "oral traditions" for scriptures. Read a good history of the early church, such as the works of Alfred Edersheim (Sketches of Jewish Social Life, for, example), and you'll see how frighteningly similar the claims of the Jewish leadership of Jesus' time are to the claims of the Catholic church today. In addition to scripture, they had their own oral tradition supposedly handed down from Moses that they and only they could interpret and enforce. Sound familiar? If Jesus was displeased at the Jewish leaders for their extra-Scriptural traditions and claims of infallibility, then what makes you think that He is pleased with the Catholic church for doing exactly the same thing?
Jesus and His followers constantly appealed to scripture as the ultimate source of God's truth. Note that the phrase, “It is written,” appears approximately 92 times in the New Testament, depending on the translation. Jesus appealed to scripture as the final authority when He disputed with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7. 10). He chided the religious leaders with such phrases as “have you not read?” (Matt. 12:3; 12:5; 19:4; 21:16; 42; 22:31), “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), and “is it not written in your law?” (John 10:34; Luke 10:25). Jesus shows the consequences of failing to follow scripture by saying, “You err, not knowing the Scriptures...” Not once did He ever tell anyone that they misunderstood traditions. Paul wrote that we are “not to go beyond what is written,” (1 Cor.4:6) for a very good reason.
Are traditions to be totally rejected then? The answer, you might be surprised to hear, is that they are to be rejected only if they conflict with the Bible. The very word "canon" means a measuring stick. The earliest Church Fathers recognized that scriptures were the final arbiter with questions of theology (I can provide you with tons of quotes if you wish).
How about the private interpretation of scripture? You might be surprised that I reject this to a certain extent, too. Scripture passages have to be interpreted in light of the entire body of scripture or false doctrines will arise -- anything from the Immaculate Conception to the "Name it and Claim it" lunacy. You'll no doubt point out how Peter wrote that “No prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation” (2 Pt. 1:20) but if you'll break out your Greek commentaries and read the passage as a whole, you'll see that Peter is really saying that prophecies come from God and not from the private impulse of the prophet's mind.
In summary, the Bible was not written so that some secretive Magisterium could interpret it for us. It was written so that all could hear the word of God. John wrote, “these things I write to you” (1 John.1:4) and “these things I have written to you who believe.” (1 John.5:13). He didn't mention the Magisterium at all.
...the deform ... has developed a very jaundiced view as to Mary, denying doctrines like the Immaculate Conception of Mary and the Assumption of Mary and the perpetual virginity of Mary and, as to the last, engage in legendary feats of YOPIOS gymnastics to deny Mary her due.
First of all, I would have to say that you're right: Protestants have over-compensated for the Catholic obsession with Mary by paying less attention to her than is due.
Second, I would have to ask you what is Mary's due? She was a Godly woman who was the vehicle for the greatest gift ever given us, but that is no reason to offer her "hyperdulia" or to pray to her. Is there ever an instance in the Bible of someone praying to anyone besides God? No, there isn't. The closest we come is when Saul seeks the advice of the dead Samuel, and God labeled that as a sin.
What about doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, and the Assumption of Mary? Despite what Father Flanagan might have told you back in CCC, all of these beliefs were not held by the early church. This despite the claim of Trent for "the unanimous consent of the Fathers."
As one example, the Immaculate Conception of Mary (or sinless nature, take your choice) was denied not by just one or two of the church fathers, but by a whole herd of them! I'll be glad to provide you linked citations but, trust me, you won't like what you see. As for the Assumption of Mary, even Ludwig Ott (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, page 210) admits that belief in this "tradition" didn't appear until nearly the 7th century. I own this book, by the way, and have found it very enlightening.
Once you cut yourself loose from the anchor of scripture, there's no telling where you'll drift.
As my Irish grandmother often observed: Misery loves company. You cannot advance adequate reasons for Catholics to to join you.
Who's miserable? My salvation is assured by what Jesus did once and for all on the cross. I don't have to sit around worrying that I might have some unconfessed sin before I die and have to spend millions of years in Purgatory (another unscriptural invention) or, even worse, lose my salvation altogether.
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified (Rom.8:29,30).
Being confident of this, that he who began a good work in you will carry it on to completion until the day of Christ Jesus (Phil.1:6).
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one can snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand (John 10:27-29).
He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor.1:8).
The message of these verses is plain. I have the joy of knowing that I go directly to be with Jesus when I die and that I'm not responsible for maintaining my salvation. God alone is responsible for my salvation and He has promised that no one, not even Satan, can snatch us out of His hand.
I've no doubt of your salvation but you're missing out on some of the joy that God has for you here on earth.
Bear in mind where you got the Bible that Luther shortened as to its Old Testament and vilified as to its New Testament in part (the Epistle of James, Revelation, etc.)
Sorry, but this is very erroneous history.
Celebrate the good that you will acknowledge among Catholics as we acknowledge the good to be found among you.
I do -- you guys were spot on the abortion issue before most Protestants even considered that it could be a problem. We had some catching up to do but I would say that we've done rather well following your model. I've marched with Catholics at abortion "clinics," contributed to Catholic causes, attended many a mass and, oddly enough, even had an investment account with Catholic Life (I think that's what it was called) about 10 years ago.
Catholics seem to often be better connected with family than Protestants (perhaps that's a cultural trait rather than a religious trait though). On the other hand, I doubt that the divorce rate among either Catholics or Protestants differs much from secular America though.
I've cringed at some of the comments made by Protestants on this and other threads (and I trashed Calvin rather seriously) but would argue that, in general, devout Protestants have a much better understanding of the scriptures than Catholics. I don't want to be mean or name names (this is the conciliatory part of my post, after all) but I have to say that, with the exception of sinkspur, the Catholics on this and similar threads have an abysmal knowledge of scripture and of church history. It's just, well, bad. I'll leave it at that.
My hope is that you'll get through the stumbling blocks of bad doctrine that the Catholic church has put in your way and that you'll have a clearer view of Christ himself.
If I'm wrong I'll buy you and CAtholic Family Association a round of drinks in heaven -- after you get out of Purgatory of course. If I'm right then you owe me two beers and an angel feather.
I didn't do it either. I was actually beginning to like you as the evening wore on last night. We disagree on much but you're a sharper tack than most here, both Protestant and Catholic.Getting back to the subject, the pope's comments were scary. A close read clearly shows that what he wants is a stronger UN or a replacement body to keep the US from defending itself. I would gladly slam Billy Graham if he were foolish enough to have said the same thing.
Though I admire PJII for several things, he is far too fond of Islamic extremists and I don't trust him on this issue.
Thanks Mike, the feeling is mutual. You actually took a unique apologetics tack here, one I hadn't seen played before, regarding infallably defined scriptures. Its rare indeed to see something new in these old debates. Well met. I'll get back to you on that (if I don't get booted first.)
Getting back to the subject, the pope's comments were scary.
Not if you understand his remarks as those of a man 100% committed to Christ and Christ's smallest and most defenseless. Call it naive? That's OK by me. We're all fools for Christ if we put Him before all else. Call it a power grab or attempt to get back at the USA? Only a fool with no understandiong whatsoever of the Pope, or worse yet, a fool with an anti-Catholic agenda, would make such an assinine mistake.
A close read clearly shows that what he wants is a stronger UN or a replacement body to keep the US from defending itself.
A close read reveals neither. A close read reveals exactly that which I just outlined above.
Yes, I'm talking about abortion.
Muslim terrorists killed 3000 on 9/11.
Domestic terrorists killed 4000 every day before 9/11, on 9/11, and since 9/11.
Yet this country obsesses over the 3000 killed on 9/11 with not a word or worry over the several million killed since 9/11 by our own "legal" domestic terrorists in the abortion mills. This is not to mention our export of coercive population control tied to international loans, our export of porn and the homosexual agenda.
Our collective hypocrisy will damn us, not Muslim extremism.
And this fact is not lost on the Pope.
Maybe, just maybe he's a bit nervous with a country murdering 40 million of its own with no remorse being the sole force behind the current world order.
O, me name is Torquemada.
I'm the leader of the band.
Although, we're few in numbers,
We're feared throughout the land.
We tortures Moors and Atheists
And kicks them when they fall,
But when we works on heretics,
We works the best of all.
O, the rack goes "creak",
And the thumbscrews squeak,
And the Whips all flail away.
The Jesuit slams the iron maiden shut,
While I kneels in the corner to pray.
The auto-da-fe is God's chosen way
To purge sin from the land!
Another soul to heaven from Torquemada's and!
Refrain:
Yadadada, dadadadada
Yadadada, dadadada
Yadadada, dadadadada!
Another soul to heaven from Torquemada's Band!
ENJOY!
Oh, I forgot to mention, that I have found the same to be true about protestants having in reality an abysmal knowledge of scripture and (unrevised) history. So the feeling here is mutual. We both think that when our oppoenent comes to a different conclusion than our own that their knowledge is faulty.
God will have the last Word on this debate.
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.