Posted on 04/21/2003 1:33:09 AM PDT by kattracks
The Pope sent a coded rebuke to Washington yesterday when he urged Iraqis to take charge of rebuilding their country while working closely with the international community.In the Vatican's diplomatic lexicon, the phrase "international community" normally refers to the UN. Before the conflict started, Pope John Paul II vigorously opposed the US-led assault and advocated resolution of the crisis in the UN general assembly.
"With the support of the international community," the 82-year-old pontiff declared in his 25th Easter message, "may the Iraqi people become the protagonists of their collective rebuilding of their country." The speech appeared aimed at putting pressure on Washington and London to involve the UN more closely in political reconstruction in Iraq and to speed up the handover to civilian rule.
In the months before the fighting, the Pope conducted a series of high-profile diplomatic initiatives, sending envoys to George Bush and Saddam Hussein and holding talks with Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, and with Tony Blair.
More recently, the Vatican has offered to help coordinate humanitarian aid through its embassy and dioceses.
Easter Sunday sermons from other Christian leaders also examined the war in Iraq, with the Archbishop of York, Dr David Hope, calling on the international community to join forces to build the country's civil and democratic society.
He said: "Quite frankly, despite all the promises ... how things currently are in Kabul and Afghanistan post-war does not bode well as to how things might be in Baghdad and Iraq."
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said in his homily that the desire to cling on to comfortable ways of thinking had characterised the moral debate over the conflict in Iraq.
The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, leader of Roman Catholics in England and Wales, urged the faithful to pray for all victims of the conflict.
1.Jesus did not found his church on Peter.
2. The Bread and Fruit of the Vine is the representation of the body and blood, no the actual thing itself. Dont be ridiculous.
3. The RCC is nothing more than a pitiful shadow of the true church, a testimony to the depths of apostasy of which man is capable.
4. The RCC teaches so many things contradictory to scripture that it isn't even feasible for me to sit here and debate you one by one.
When replying to my initial posting, your friend BlackElk called me and another FReeper liars and anti-Catholic in the first damn sentence. And he's been whining non-stop for three damn days. If people disagree with my posts, fine. But it's utter BS for someone to tag you as being a liar and anti-Catholic and then wanting you to provide link after link proving you're not. When all he did when I provided links was challenge one of the two links I provided and went off on another damn tangent INSTEAD of applying it to debate my post.
It's no damn different from someone calling you a wife-beater and then saying . . . "Okay, pal, prove you're not." There is absolutely NOTHING I could or can provide him that'll convince him to get off his high-horse. He started this debate from the attack mode and nothing's changed.
I challenge you just as I challenged him. Find my initial post and YOU DOCUMENT where anything I said was a lie or anti-Catholic. His problem was it had the word "Pope" in it and he got his jock-strap in a knot and cut off the oxygen to his brain.
Another FReeper, Cap'n Crunch, wanted to discuss the same things but he was a helluva lot more diplomatic and he convinced me "the news media" is taking the Pope's comments out of context. How is any reader of a reputable article supposed to know that? But Cap'n Crunch made sense and he didn't sling wild and reckless and unfair accusations. He truly wanted to discuss things. I learned some things from him and I hope he did from me -- which is the way it should be.
There is no discussing squat with BlackElk. He's got his mind made up and, frankly, I don't care what he thinks after three days of BS. When a man starts out a discussion by calling you a liar and an "anti-anything," there's not much room for honest discourse.
Check my original post . . . it's only three damn sentences. Then decide for yourself. If not, bite me, you have no idea what you're talking about.
BlackElk says he represents the Roman Catholic Church -- which to my non-Roman Cathlic ears is a bit uppity and funny as hell -- and I am the enemy. Then you say I'm a "waste of bandwidth" without even knowing what you're talking about. If you're Roman Catholic as well, I hope to God the starting team is better stewards of your faith than you two are because you scrubs are judgmental as hell and I suspect neither of you "represent the REAL Roman Catholic Church" . . . regardless of BlackElk's high-browed claims.
But you're both funny. I'll give you that.
And I agree about the 2nd Ammendment.
Many faithful have griped about what the successor to Peter does and has done, but that doesn't mean that they are in schism. My greater argument is with the bishops of American and what they have failed to do. It's as though America is their own private see to do with as they see fit without any meddling from Rome.
Bible truth vs. Unbiblical lies
I believe I can make an assertion without claiming be infallible. (unlike some others, apparently). The fact that people have differing views on what the bible means, does not mean that the Bible is wrong or contradictory, or that it doesn't teach certain doctrines. It means someone is right and someone is wrong. I believe I can claim that you are wrong without claiming that I am perfect.
It's a free country, you can claim any thing you want. The problem is this; your trusting your salvation to your interpretation of scripture, is "close enough" going to cut it?
(unlike some others, apparently).
Apparently..
The fact that people have differing views on what the bible means, does not mean that the Bible is wrong or contradictory,
No, it just means that your the conclusions drawn by those reading scripture are wrong or contradictory. Scripture is the infallible word of God. Your and my interpretation is subject to error.
or that it doesn't teach certain doctrines.
Like what?
It means someone is right and someone is wrong.
Again, are you prepared to trust your salvation to your interpretation
believe I can claim that you are wrong without claiming that I am perfect.
True! But perfect or not, how can you know if your interpretation is on target, relative to the thousands of contradictory interpretations our there?
or that it doesn't teach certain doctrines. Like what? Like...
Papal infallibility
the Perpetual Virginity
Transsubstantiation
Infant Baptism
Other men serving as your priest
Mary as Mediator
etc etc ad nauseum.
Christ's church? or the Roman Catholic church? Two different entities. Anyway, since you asked, let us look at the context. And in order to do it we must go back a few verses. Was Jesus or was he not speaking of the Lord's Supper?
v26-27 Jesus knows the people followed him to get something to eat. He tells them to work for the meat which does not perish. Meat? Hey, I thought we were talking about bread?? Well, the point is "that which provides nourishment."
v28 the people ask what they should do. Note they didn't say what they should eat. They understood him (at THAT point) to be talking about doing the works of God. Clear evidence they understood him at that point as speaking of working the works of God
v29 Jesus replies that they must believe on Him whom God sent
v30-31 They ask him for a sign that he is from God and pull up as an example that Moses gave them manna in the wilderness.
v32 Jesus corrects them in saying that it was not Moses, but God which gave them that manna
v33. Jesus then draws a comparison using their own example, that just as God sent the manna to sustain Israel, the Son of Man sustains mankind, and gives us life. Note: so far we have no mention of the Lord's supper or "Holy Communion".
v34 This is where they really get tripped up. They are expecting more manna-style feeding. This is why they said "evermore" give us this bread. Manna at one point ended, but these Jews wanted whatever bread they thought Jesus was talking about to last forever.
v35 Jesus says that he is the bread of life. That is, he is God's gift to us, that sustains us. Notice he says the words "cometh" and "believeth", and no mention or even anything that would remotely lead you to communion.
v36-42 Jesus continues teaching about the bread of life. Notice that he has not yet said anything about eating his flesh, yet in verse 42 is where the Jews are first offended at his teaching. They can't understand how he can be the bread of life. They are looking for a physical bread to eat, and it is plain that Jesus is in no wise talking about a physical bread at all, whether at a communion table or otherwise. It's called a metaphor if you care to hear it.
v43-47 Jesus goes into more teaching about coming to him, being taught of God, etc.
v48 Reasserts that he is the Bread of Life
v49 Jesus makes a comparison - notice that the people who ate the physical bread are now dead.
v50-52 Now he speaks of his death on the cross as being that which will be the source of life for the world. Now the Jews are really stuck on that physical bread, just as the Catholics are stuck on the very same teachings of Jesus today. It is not physical bread or communion that Jesus refers to. It is not the context of the passage.
v53-54 Jesus teaches that we need to make his teachings a part of our life. This is what the metaphor boils down to. We must pattern our lifes, our actions, after him.
55-56 He is saying here that the true source for life eternal is Himself and no other.
v57-58 Jesus even goes to the trouble of drawing a contrast between the physical and spiritual bread. IE this is not bread that you can physically eat.
v59 He taught these things in Capernaum
v60 Some disciples fell away and said "This is a hard saying. Who can hear (understand) it? Lots of people are still doing this today
So there you have it. It's all about context. Jesus was not teaching anything about transsubstantiation in this passage. If he was, the apostles would have understood it, at the very least after the Day of Pentecost, and would have taught it to the church. They did not teach it to the church. Were they wrong?
Like I said in my original post....Dark Ages.
Oh yes, about that guarranteed free from error...another convenient but clueless counter - "we can't be wrong because we can't be wrong"
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.