Did Venezuela's Chavez nudge Christ to pick South American pope? (Hugo Helped Christ Pick The Pope!)

Yahoo ^ | 3/13/2013 | Yahoo News

[Dallas59]

CARACAS (Reuters) - Late Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez may have had a hand in Christ's decision to opt for a Latin American pope, acting President Nicolas Maduro said on Wednesday.

"We know that our commander ascended to the heights and is face-to-face with Christ," Maduro said at a Caracas book fair. "Something influenced the choice of a South American pope, someone new arrived at Christ's side and said to him: 'Well, it seems to us South America's time has come.'"

Jorge Mario Bergoglio of Argentina was elected in a surprise choice to be the new leader of the Roman Catholic Church on Wednesday, the first non-European pope in nearly 1,300 years.

[BillyBoy]

Shame on Chavez's ghost for lobbying the Catholic Church to pick a Cardinal from another country instead of Venezuela's own Cardinal. Why the vote of no-confidence in Cardinal Urosa? What did he do to make you shun him, Hugo? Tsk, tsk.

[Mrs. Don-o]

The case for eating flesh and drinking blood isn't even helped by saying "It's symbolic." Symbolic of what?

Look at Psalm 27:1-2, Isaiah 9:18-20, Isaiah 49:26, Micah 3:3, and Revelation 17:6-16: "eating flesh and drinking blood" was symbolic for persecuting or attacking somebody.

So Jesus' listeners knew he wasn't speaking symbolically because He wouldn't have commanded them to persecute Him.

And no disciple decided to leave Him when He said "I am the door" or "I am the vine." They didn't spout nonsense like "You're not made of wood" or "You don't have any leaves." But they DID decide to leave Him when He said (about six times) "eat My Flesh and drink My Blood", "My flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink." [John 6:55]"

His listeners, both those who left and those who stayed, knew this was no mere literary metaphor.

The same with all early Christians. The great Protestant historian of the early Church J. N. D. (John) Kelly, writes: "Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines.

It as all of them. If you can find me one Christian (not Jews or Muslims: someone who believes Jesus is the Word made Flesh) in the first 500 years AD that denied or refuted the Savior's Body and Blood in the Eucharist, I will be dumbfounded. But go ahead, try.

One cannot understand this with an unaided, unspiritual mind; "the flesh" (your fleshly mind) does not avail to understand that HIS flesh is our saving food. He did not preach that "HIS" flesh is of no avail; that would deny His Incarnation, deny the Eucharistic doctrine of John 6, and deny the power of His bodily Passion, Death, and Resurrection. He cautions us against relying on "the" flesh, that is, our own fleshly minds.

HIS flesh, as He says, gives life.

[Zionist Conspirator]

So how come it’s okay for Chavez to be a chrstian? Where are all the “christophobes” who can’t stand for a redneck to believe anything?

[metmom]

HIS flesh, as He says, gives life.

John 6:63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.

Jesus says the Spirit gives life, the flesh is NO HELP AT ALL.

So, which one is correct?

Or did Jesus contradict Himself?

[metmom]

The case for eating flesh and drinking blood isn't even helped by saying "It's symbolic." Symbolic of what?

Symbolic of His scourging and death and resurrection.

Eating and drinking proclaims the Lord's death until He comes; it proclaims His death and second coming.

1 Corinthians 11:26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes.

Paul didn't say participate in it, or reenact it, but rather proclaim it.

[Iscool]

She recovered through the intercession of St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein, 1891-1942), a Jewish-Catholic martyr of Auschwitz who was subsequently canonized a saint.

I don't believe it for a second...And of course it's impossible for any Catholic to prove such a thing...

More than likely there was some uncle or a family friend somewhere who was fervently praying directly to God thru Jesus just as the bible tells Christians to do...

[Iscool]

Nevertheless, if (hypothetically) she were a damned soul, my prayers were not wasted. No prayer is ever wasted. God hears every prayer, even the unspoken ones. Surely you know that.

I do not believe God listens to prayers to other people, dead or alive...I do not believe God listens to prayers to Allah or any statues or idols...

God listens to prayers to God...

[fatima]

:)

[Iscool]

What did Jesus do? Chase after them? ("Hey, come baa-a-a-ck! Don't be idiots! It's just a metaphor!")

I don't understand why Catholics continuously throw that out there when Jesus already told anyone who is willing to read the scriptures why he didn't call them back...And it had absolutely nothing to do with whether what he said was literal or a metaphor...

[metmom]

The very fact that Jesus was telling them to do something so contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture was enough to tell them that it was a metaphor.

[metmom]

She recovered through the intercession of St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross (Edith Stein, 1891-1942), a Jewish-Catholic martyr of Auschwitz who was subsequently canonized a saint.

There's no way to prove that.

I realize that that alone will not stop people from believing what they want, but it cannot be proved decisively.

Scripture gives us the protocol for prayer for healing.

James 5:14-15 14 Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 And the prayer of faith will save the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

[Mrs. Don-o]

He said "the" flesh, not "HIS" flesh.

As I'm sure you know, "flesh" is used in several different senses in Scripture. The Gospel of John (ch. 1) begins with "the Word was made Flesh, and dwelt amongst us." Jesus explains in John 6 that the bread which He offers "is My Flesh for the life of the world."

Jesus' Flesh is Sacred because of what the Incarnation actually is: the Second Person of the Trinity, the Word, taking on a true human nature for our sake. Everything about Him is sacred: His sacred Heart, His sacred Head, His sacred Body, His sacred Blood. His sacred humanity.

This avails EVERYTHING.

"Flesh" in another, quite distinct sense means mere fallen humanity, weakened as it is by sin, and not suffused with the power of the Divine. "Flesh" in this usage means not only the carnal body, but also the carnal mind: frail, unenlightened, an intellect stultified by a merely materialist outlook.

"The Spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Christ is not talking about HIS flesh availing nothing. If that were true, then the Incarnation would be pointless. The whole of John 6 would be a meaningless meander ("I'm giving you my flesh which avails nothing?" "Eat this flesh because it avails nothing?)" His Passion, Suffering, and Death would be pointless. His Resurrection, even, would be not a miracle, but a monstrosity: the resuscitation of a corpse. Zombie-Christ.

But that whole line of thought is idiocy. Our salvation is real because the real Christ--- Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity --- has accomplished it. He, Himself: God in the Flesh.

[Mrs. Don-o]

But if you insist that the flesh avails nothing in the case of Christ, then you are insisting that His Incarnated Flesh, His Eucharistic Flesh, His suffering, dying and buried Flesh, His resurrected Flesh, avails nothing. This is completely incoherent.

St. Paul says that they who eat this bread [the Eucharistic bread] and drink of this cup unworthily, shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of Our Lord. He tells us clearly: this is what it really is. Check out all the translations you want,1 Corinthians 11:27 (Multiple Versions), the truth of it is unavoidable.

Yes of course, we proclaim Him: by eating His Body and drinking His Blood, we proclaim His death and resurrection until He comes again.

Those who do not discern the Lord's Body --- that this is really His Flesh --- eat and drink unworthily; they eat and drink condemnation on themselves. 1 Corinthians 11:29 (Multiple versions.)

It is what it is.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Jesus addressed just this sort of situation when He referred to a earlier healing:

Luke 4:27
"There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.”

There were many lepers in Israel, but Elisha just healed one. And why? Because Almighty God knew, in His eternal wisdom, what kind of powerful and effective sign it would be: displaying His favor in just that particular case.

But why did Naaman ask for healing from Elisha? Why didn't Naaman go to God directly? Well, he evidently thought that Elisha was a powerful intercessor. And in fact, after Naaman's cure, he correctly saw it is a "sign" both that Elisha IS a prophet, and that there IS a true God in Israel: "THE" true God, since there is no other.

Did God not know that Benedicta McCarthy's parents and the rest of the family were engaged in intercessory prayers together with a powerful intercessor, Edith Stein (Sister Teresa Benedicta)? Did He not know that if He granted this miraculous healing, it would be seen as a "sign," both that Edith Stein (Sister Teresa) IS a saint in heaven, and that God hears and honors her intercessory prayers?

How is it that these miracles keep happening which confirm that a holy soul is indeed in heaven? Does God not know that His favor is invoked, in connection with an intercessor-saint?

God apparently goes ahead and provides the miracle, knowing --- intending-- that this will be a sign that, as He said in His Word, "The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective" (James 5:16) -- even if that prayer comes from an intercessor who is already in heaven.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Intercessory prayer is directed to God. Surely you know that!

[daniel1212]

Funny how just last week we heard that Chavez died in the bosom of the Catholic Church, being given a funeral mass presided over by a cardinal, and this week Catholics are saying that he's in Hell, unforgiven. Well, one major RC apologist believes that even atheists can be saved: “It’s also possible for a person to die in God’s friendship even if the person didn’t consciously know God during life. Someone could, through no fault of their own, be unaware of God or not have ever been given sufficient evidence that they concluded God is true, through no fault of their own, and if they otherwise cooperated with his grace, then God won’t hold their ignorance of him against them. So, it’s possible for an atheist to be saved, it’s still through Jesus Christ and through God’s grace, but they can still die not knowing God and still be on their way to heaven as long as they otherwise cooperated with his grace.” http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2013/03/jimmy-akin-on-why-atheist-may-be-in.html

Boniface 8, among others, would disagree than even Prots can be saved, while Akins seems to presume that cooperating with God's grace does not lead to an actual revelation of Christ by which one may trust in Him to save them, as a damned + destitute sinner. Which Acts 10 is one example of.

For it is certain that they cannot be saved by their works, and if souls hypothetically could be saved without even hearing the gospel, they would at least have to forsake their vain gods and faith and trust in the mercy of God in Christ who has somehow been revealed to them.

[Alex Murphy]

Well, one major RC apologist believes that even atheists can be saved: “It’s also possible for a person to die in God’s friendship even if the person didn’t consciously know God during life. Someone could, through no fault of their own, be unaware of God or not have ever been given sufficient evidence that they concluded God is true, through no fault of their own, and if they otherwise cooperated with his grace, then God won’t hold their ignorance of him against them. So, it’s possible for an atheist to be saved, it’s still through Jesus Christ and through God’s grace, but they can still die not knowing God and still be on their way to heaven as long as they otherwise cooperated with his grace"

I'll see your "major RC apologist" and raise you a full-on cardinal:

Who, then, can be saved?

Catholics can be saved if they believe the Word of God as taught by the Church and if they obey the commandments.
Other Christians can be saved if they submit their lives to Christ and join the community where they think he wills to be found.
Jews can be saved if they look forward in hope to the Messiah and try to ascertain whether God’s promise has been fulfilled.
Adherents of other religions can be saved if, with the help of grace, they sincerely seek God and strive to do his will.
Even atheists can be saved if they worship God under some other name and place their lives at the service of truth and justice.

God’s saving grace, channeled through Christ the one Mediator, leaves no one unassisted. But that same grace brings obligations to all who receive it. They must not receive the grace of God in vain. Much will be demanded of those to whom much is given.
-- concluding paragraph (formatting mine), from the thread Who Can Be Saved?
article by Cardinal Avery Dulles

[Iscool]

But if you insist that the flesh avails nothing in the case of Christ, then you are insisting that His Incarnated Flesh, His Eucharistic Flesh, His suffering, dying and buried Flesh, His resurrected Flesh, avails nothing. This is completely incoherent.

Not to me...There was nothing special about Jesus' flesh...Jesus became one of us...He was not born with a 'Godly' flesh...That's why Mary was involved...So Jesus could have a weak, fragile, human flesh that was susceptible to pain, suffering and decay...

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth;

QUICKENETH
ζωοποιέω
zōopoieō
dzo-op-oy-eh'-o
From the same as G2226 and G4160; to (re-) vitalize (literally or figuratively): - make alive, give life, quicken.

the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Yes, Jesus was speaking of himself...And Jesus was speaking of all in the flesh...

Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

It is the Spirit that raises people to heaven...Eating flesh can not possibly do it...And you can not get the Spirit of God to live in you and you in him by eating anyone's flesh...

Joh 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.

It may be literal but it is not physical...It's spiritual...And you can't turn physical into spiritual...What goes into your stomach does not transfer into your soul...It's a heart issue...A belief issue...It's a spiritual consumption of the spirit of God...

Under your apparent understanding, anyone who has ever eaten the wafer handed out by a priest is going to heaven...Ain't gonna happen...

[Iscool]

Those who do not discern the Lord's Body --- that this is really His Flesh --- eat and drink unworthily; they eat and drink condemnation on themselves. 1 Corinthians 11:29 (Multiple versions.)

Nope...That part you added does not belong there...

Discerning His Body is connected to accepting the reason you are attending communion in the first place...Remember in Corinthians where the people were criticized for showing up just for the free food...

We are to participate in this practice not only to remember Jesus' Body, but to connect the tearing of the bread (which incidentally no one does now days) with his limbs being ripped apart and are to drink of the cup to remember that his blood was shed (for us) thus, discerning the Lord's Body...

And if one participates in this communion just because he's hungry, or because it's the religious thing to do when it's supposed to be a commemoration of Jesus, you ultimately will at some time be in big trouble...

[daniel1212]

Well, that was quite an example of the magisterium eliminating confusion (though i sympathize with the attempts to be precise) . Now about worshiping the same God as Muslims...