Skip to comments.Did Venezuela's Chavez nudge Christ to pick South American pope? (Hugo Helped Christ Pick The Pope!)
Posted on 03/13/2013 6:53:08 PM PDT by Dallas59
click here to read article
PLEASE, it was GOD, the God of the Holy Bible, the Holy Spirit who made the choice of Francis I.
When you commit to a made up religion I suppose you can make up stuff like this. You know, like the saints are the ones who they think have more influence to get things done. Im also wondering how Chavez got out of purgatory so quickly?
Then why didn't He tilt things towards the Venezuelan Cardinal, Urosa?
I wonder if they were unanimous or if that is a requirement.
Didn't he take communion, too?
That's what we're told it takes.
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.
I have no direct knowledge of anybody being in hell specifically by name, but here’s what the great John Chrysostom said relating to that concept:
Another angel with a golden censer came and stood at the altar; he was given a great quantity of incense to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar that is before the throne.
And the smoke of the incense, with the prayers of the saints, rose before God from the hand of the angel.
Hmm. Interesting. You were told, "by whom"?
1 Corinthians 11:27
Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be answerable for the Body and Blood of the Lord.
As for Chavez, I think we should all hope --- all of us --- that he repented of His sins and died in the abundant mercy of God.
We keep getting those verses in John 6 quoted at us.
So eating the flesh and blood really doesn’t do it after all?
Then there’s a problem because Jesus says that eating His flesh and drinking His blood gives eternal life. He didn’t give any exceptions. If those verses are to be taken literally, then the flesh and blood has to work, all the time.
Now the Church adds more conditions to it that Jesus never mentioned.
Perhaps the literal interpretation isn’t the correct one after all because either Jesus is wrong or the Catholic church is.
How is it really any different saying someone is in heaven for sure as opposed to being in hell for sure?
Both are making a determination of someone’s eternal destiny, without anyway of knowing the facts of the matter.
Except that it sounds nicer to say people are in heaven than that people are in hell, and nobody wants to be the bad guy, so they make the determination that keeps everyone happy.
LOL First of all the saints are all those who have accepted Christ as savior so ALL prayers are before the Father when prayed in Jesus name since the rending of the veil. Secondly you will notice that its the from the hand of the angel that the prayers rose not from the saints themselves. The Catholic meme that saints in heaven some how have better access is a man made concept not true to scripture.
Thats been my question also. If its not unanimous did the Holy Spirit tell some different than others? Rather inconsistent of the Holy Spirit it seems.
We believe what Jesus said about His Body and Blood in John 6. How could you hear those powerful words, those precious promises concerning His Body and Blood, and say anything other than Amen?
We believe what Paul said in 1 Corinthians about the unworthy reception of the Sacred Body and Blood.
We interpret Scripture with Scripture.
You do too, I betcha!
This is a little short-sighted.
My experience with reading Christian obits and respectfully attending the funerals of fellow Christians who were non-Catholic, has made me think that the non-Catholic communities practice "instant canonization": the obits refer to the deceased as having "gone to be with the Lord" and the eulogies and the hymnody, without exception, have asserted as fact that the departed brother or sister is rejoicing in his or her heavenly reward.
I would not be so obnoxious as to raise an objection on the spot.
Nevertheless, this stands in contrast with the way the Catholic Church sees it. I have never attended a Catholic funeral that lacked prayers of atonement for the sins of the deceased, intercessory prayer that God may pardon their offenses, and repeated "Lord Have Mercy"s.
As I assume you know, a person is not considered a canonized saint without two miracles, both after their death but by their intercession. These are very often healing miracles performed by God as a sign to the faithful.
I was privileged to meet Benedicta McCarthy of Boston, who was miraculously cured as a little toddler, after she had swallowed a bottle of Tylenol. Benedicta McCarthy's miracle (Link) The doctors said her liver output had dropped to zero and there was no way to save her. 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.
We don't trust in our own judgment on such a matter, which is by natural means beyond out knowing. We trust God, who graciously gives us these signs of his favor.
And though we may hope for God's meercy in the case of Chavez, I very mch doubt he will ever be canonized.
Trust me on that one.
Good morning, Cynical Bear, and LOL to you too, my dear friend. Thank you foir helping me prove my point! These are the prayers of ALL the saints, both on earth and in heaven. There is nothing in Revelation that excludes, denies, rejects, or forbids the intercession of saints in any place, in heaven or on earth. And both of us --- with all Christians--- believe in intercessory prayer.
The passage from Revelation describes the angel offering incense with the prayers of all the saints. The angel is acting as a messenger, bringing this incense and these prayers to God. That's intercession right there.
Thus we are taught by Scripture to believe in the Communion of Saints: that all the saints on earth and in heaven have the privilege of praying for each other. We have confidence in this promise we have of the mutual aid of fellow Christians, united in Christ our Lord.
Please pray for me and I will for you. Not even death would stop me!
2 Corinthians 1:11
You also join in helping us by your prayers, so that many will give thanks on our behalf for the blessing granted us through the prayers of many.
Confess your trespasses to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The effective, fervent prayer of a righteous man avails much.
You may be --- without meaning to --- narrowing down the Holy Spirit's options on this. There's no need to think He's limited to choosing only one, rather than allowing a choice among several good options.
I would hope that all the also-rans were also worthy men, any one of whom could have made a good pope.
Like most--- not all, but most --- matters which depend on human freedom (the choice of a college, of a major, of a spouse, of a job) God gives us a number of "goods" among which we are free to choose. I
Often it's a selectin process dealing with a set of rather evenly matched goods. The Holy Spirit permits this range. It's not always a contest between good and evil.
So do you talk to your relatives who have passed on also to have them pray for you? BTW, how do you know they are in heaven?
Except that I do believe the statement has been made that its the Holy Spirit who chooses the next Pope. So now you are saying that its really the Cardinals who choose but the Holy Spirit puts a list of options up for consideration?
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.
First, dear Bear, you must be suppressing a vocation to be a Canon Lawyer.
Second, yeah, that's approximately right, mutatis mutandis. The Cardinals choose. We know they do. We ask the Holy SPirit to guide them. We know He does.
If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!
People are free, of course, to choose against the Holy Spirit --- at their awful peril. We have had some morally skeevy popes. Seven or eight of them by my count, when I did some intensive reading on it as a teenager. (I wanted to grit my teeth and get all the $#@$#@$# news at once.) I'll tell ya, after the Borgias, most of 'em looked pretty good.
Yes, which is why I consider it figurative.
The eating of blood was VERY STRICTLY forbidden by God and it one of the few commands reiterated by the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, validated by the Holy Spirit. The blood is for atonement, not to be eaten. There are absolute commands by God throughout the OT regarding that.
The Passover was a symbolic meal. During that meal, the blood was poured out, NOT eaten. Peter said he never ate anything unclean (Acts 10). Jesus could not have demanded that His disciples make themselves unclean by eating blood, causing them to sin.
Besides, once Jesus blood was shed, it was gone.
It’s not the sacrificing, the suffering and dying present tense, which cleanses for sin and obtains forgiveness, but the DEATH. The FINISHING of the sacrifice.
The only payment for sin is death, not dying, not suffering, not works, not baptism, not communion, but death.
Participating in His death doesn’t cut it either. We must be crucified in Him, having died in Him, to have new life. You cannot get new life unless the old one is passed away.
I don't think you'll get any argument out of anyone on that one.
Paul was writing to those still alive here on earth. There is no indication that it meant those who had died, and there is not one command in Scripture to pray to or for those who have passed on.
Nor is there any indication they can hear us, or have the power to answer us or respond in any way.
What do you think the point was, of all that viscerally-felt, ritual prohibition of blood? It's because it was seen as presumptuously consuming the very life of an animal, as if they could drink down the source of life. The Jews were very big on the life being in the blood.
So Jesus comes and says, "Do this thing which is utterly revolting to you, shocking, scandalous, viscerally offensive, because I AM the source of Life-- my Flesh IS REAL food, my Blood IS REAL drink" --- (it's what He said, look it up) and what happened? Most of those who had followed Him, turned around and left!
What did Jesus do? Chase after them? ("Hey, come baa-a-a-ck! Don't be idiots! It's just a metaphor!")
No. He turned to his own picked men and said, "Do you want to leave, too?"
(I can imagine a materialist skeptic like, say, Richard Dawkins, at the Last Supper:
Christ: "This is My Blood."
Response: (after a tiny hesitation): "Not really."
What about *Do not eat the blood* is so hard to understand.
Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.
The Law pointed to Jesus. It was not a means by which we become saved. We are not saved by performing certain physical actions.
In John 6 Jesus says it’s the Spirit which gives life, the flesh is NO HELP AT ALL.
Eating flesh in the flesh cannot impart life. Jesus says it doesn’t work.
And after handing out the cup to pass it around, Jesus called it *the fruit of the vine*.
IOW, it was still wine.
Jesus also said *I am the door*
Did he look like this? Was He made of wood?
He said he was the bread. Did He look like this? Was He made of dough.
He said I am the light of the world. Was he made of photons?
I'll betcha He looked like a regular human being while He was walking here on the earth.
Why take the part about eating His flesh and blood literally, when it clearly violates other commands of Scripture, and yet take other statements of His found in John 6 in the very same discourse, like the one where He said He was bread, and make that figurative?
The only reason I can see is that one supports an unscriptural practice of eating blood, and the other doesn't.
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 Saviors 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.
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?
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?
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.
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...
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
Intercessory prayer is directed to God. Surely you know that!
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.
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 Gods 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.
Gods 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
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;
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...
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...
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...