Posted on 02/01/2011 12:52:59 PM PST by RnMomof7
A vial containing blood drawn from Pope John Paul II shortly before he died will be installed as a relic in a Polish church soon after his beatification later this year, an official said Monday. Piotr Sionko, the spokesman for the John Paul II Center, said the vial will be encased in crystal and built into the altar of a church in the southern city of Krakow that is opening in May. The exact date of the opening is not yet known, but it should be shortly after John Paul's beatification at the Vatican on May 1........... "It was the cardinal's proposal," Sionko said. "He is of the opinion that this is the most precious relic of John Paul II and should be the focal point of the church." .........
"The idea of displaying the pope's relics has met with some reservations, even inside the Catholic Church. "The tradition of relics comes from medieval practices of teaching the Bible through images and symbols," said the Rev. Krzysztof Madel, a Jesuit priest in Nowy Sacz who has publicly questioned the usefulness of displaying John Paul's blood. "But in today's rationalized world the message should rather come through teaching about someone's life." After John Paul's death, some Polish officials said they hoped John Paul's heart would be removed from his body and returned to his homeland for burial. However, church officials dismissed any possibility of dismembering the body, saying the age had passed for that practice. Dziwisz said Friday that he has always been against dividing of the body, but that "relics have always existed and will always exist."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I thought the "saved" have already been judged and found "just".
So, are you saying that articles of clothing can “hold” a blessing?
So, what do you think of Peter Popoff? Any candor about him?
Well, if I were writing a book trying to promote a religion I would say the same thing. :)
Luke 24:37-39 narrates how Jesus approached doubt. He used evidence to dispel their doubt. And he said blessed are those who believed and did not see, but he dind't condemn those who don't. He did not condemn Thomas for his doubt. But it seems the author of Hebrews and Paul were much harsher, and much more prone to judgment, than the Lord they supposedly imitated.
And then there is Jude [1:22]..."And have mercy on some, who are doubting."
Seems to me there is no uniformity here, with Jesus and Jude showing mercy, and the "protestant" authors favoring judgment. Night and day.
It's even worse when it comes to your average Catholic's knowledge (or lack thereof) of Scripture. Even if they know something is in the Bible, they fall back on *the Church says.......*
Because they don't really know what Scripture teaches about salvation and are afraid that the Catholic church is right about them going to hell if they leave the church.
After all, who wants to risk their eternal destiny?
I havent been part of your latest War of the Words, by choice, but since your post was addressed to All I feel I should make an exception.
Just who was Jesus praying to in Matt. 6:9? Was it not to his God? as he said at John 20:17? and as Paul said at 2 Cor. 1:3?
Was Jesus praying to himself?
INDEED.
Obviously? You may wish to clean your glasses.
Truly, I wish you would stop making that claim.
Just because it's true and people don't like it?
Not last time I looked.
You wrote nothing.
Just some English, surely.
I spoke of the writing of Paul who had nothing whatsoever to do with your pagan apostate Roman catholic lodge, and died almost 300 years before it was founded.
Lodge? I know nothing of pagan apostate Roman catholic lodges. I only know of the Church that Jesus Christ founded long before Paul was converted. The Holy Spirit commissioned it before Paul was converted, as well.
The fact that you are unfamiliar with the words of Paul is telling.
Not only are we more familiar with it, we also know what it means. We don't bring brand new and novel interpretations to it each generation.
can you say *Vatican II*?
Aside form each pope doing his own thing and changing what previous popes have established.
Thank you so much for all your encouragements, dear brother in Christ!
created the Reformation.
can you say *Vatican II*?
Vatican II did not bring a brand new and novel interpretation of Scripture. Please get your facts straight.
Aside form each pope doing his own thing and changing what previous popes have established.
When was the last time that the Church changed its understanding of Scripture?
Mark, that is an unfair question. That presumes she knows what the Church's position really is. Honestly, have you ever seen any objective evidence of that? It's like asking the color blind to describe a sunset.
Mark, that is an unfair question. That presumes she knows what the Church's position really is. Honestly, have you ever seen any objective evidence of that? It's like asking the color blind to describe a sunset.
Metmom has described her religious history in some small detail, although she tails out towards the present. However, even the poorly catechized and the sneering antiCatholic ought to know when the Church last changed its understanding of Scripture. Metmom, would you like to weigh in on this?
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.