Posted on 02/28/2013 6:46:49 AM PST by fatima
Watch live-on now. http://www.ewtn.com/multimedia/live_player.asp
For all Catholics in all the rites.
Pope's brother gives interview on Papal resignation
Cardinal Wuerl describes spiritual experience of conclave (and work of the Holy Spirit)
Cardinal says next Pope likely to be young (interesting insight into how a pope is chosen)
Cardinal Arinze: Pope's resignation was a 'surprise, like thunder'
French archbishop criticizes Papal decision to resign
Pope announced canonisation of 800 martyrs slaughtered by Muslim troops
FATHER BARRON TO REPORT ON PAPAL ABDICATION (NBC & MSNBC)
Some distinctly non-canonical musings on the status of an ex-pope
Benedict’s Men: U.S. Vocations Strengthen During His Eight-Year Papacy
Pope has 'cleaned up the episcopate,' nuncio says
Benedict XVI's Final General Audience
Pope confident God will guide Church in days ahead (150,000 fill St. Peter's Square)
Pope Recalls "Joy" Of Papacy, And Difficulties
The Papacy and the 'Gay Mafia'
Pope Benedict's new name revealed
Pope Benedict chooses his new wardrobe
Call Me the Optimist – A Meditation on Recent Reports of Crisis and Conclave
Young, new Philippine cardinal has extensive international ties
Cardinal Keith O’Brien resigns, will not go to conclave
Benedict XVI’s new Motu Proprio about the Conclave (date regulations officially changed)
The 'strictest' secrecy: a look at how conclaves work
Pope will change rule for conclave date tomorrow [today]
Pope Benedict says he is not 'abandoning the Church' (tens of thousands fill square)
Communiqué of the Secretariat of State on the upcoming Conclave
Ratzinger's forgotten prophesy (sic) on the future of the Church
Homosexual Network at the Vatican, Yes; Reason for the Pope's Resignation, No
Castel Gandolfo prepares to receive first retired Pope
Vatican slams media for trying to influence papal vote
In Defense of the Papacy: 9 Reasons True Christians Follow the Pope
The Church Doesn't Need a Revolution
The Reason Benedict Resigned [Catholic Caucus]
At B16's Window, A Big "Thank You"... While Behind the Walls, The "Showcase" Begins
Prayers for Our Holy Father Benedict XVI and the Papal Conclave
Pope still extremely Catholic (A look at how media cover Catholicism [and the Pope])
Conclave to silence at least nine tweeting cardinals
Pope Benedict's resignation and the mystery of the missing encyclical
Benedict, Dawkins, and the Fullness of Reason
Benedict XVI: Vatican II as I saw it
Benedict’s renunciation and the wolves within the church
The Left Lobbies for a Liberal Successor to Benedict (and here is why)
Pope Benedict's Future Residence
SCOTT HAHN: Pope Benedict had a profound effect on this former Presbyterian minister
Is the Next Pope the One From John Bosco’s Dream? (Patrick Madrid offers an intriguing twist)
"Re-Elect Pope Benedict" - “Eight more years!”
Who can be elected pope?
The Legacy of Pope Benedict XVI: A commentary by Fr. Barron
More details on papal resignation, conclave (Vatican Press Office)
Church doesn't bend, but endures
Who Will Take Up the Keys of Peter (This is a MUST READ!)
Conclave & The Media: The Silly Season
Cardinal Bertone's Farewell Address to the Holy Father
"Thank You – Let Us Return to Prayer": For the Last Time, The Pope Leaves the Altar
"Today, We Begin A New Journey" – Liturgically Speaking, B16's Last Word
Vatican releases schedule for Pope's final days
Benedict XVI: Reason’s Revolutionary
Some Interesting Tidbits From Today’s Vatican press conference
Pope Decided to Resign After Cuba Trip, Vatican Advisor Says
Pope Says He's Resigning for the 'Good of Church'
Watch for the Anti-Catholics To Weigh in on the Papal Succession
The challenge Pope Benedict has left for his successor—and for ordinary Catholics
Historian Notes Precedents for Papal Resignation
US Will Have Unprecedented Voice In Electing New Pope
Pope Benedict’s Resignation and St. Corbinian’s Bear
Pope Benedict XVI’s Musical Legacy
Benedict announces resignation and lightning strikes
DHS's curiosity piqued over Pope Benedict XVI's retirement and Catholic Prophecy
Prayers for Pope Benedict XVI
Pope Benedict's Devotion to Saint Celestine Signaled His Resignation from the Papacy
Cardinal Sodano to Pope Benedict: “We have heard you with a sense of loss and almost disbelief”
Pope's resignation invokes sadness, gratitude from US bishops
Pope cites waning strength as reason for resignation
Report: Brother Says Pope Was Considering Resignation for Months
Some Notes About the Upcoming Conclave
An Evangelical Looks at Pope Benedict XVI
Pope Benedict’s Resignation in Historical Context
Virtually unprecedented: papal resignation throughout history
Pope Benedict XVI:a papal timeline
"I declare that I renounce the ministry of Bishop of Rome" [Full Text]
Pope Benedict's Address on Resignation of the See of Rome
POPE BENEDICT XVI WILL RESIGN AT THE END OF THIS MONTH, VATICAN PRESS OFFICE TELLS FOX NEWS
Thanks for the correction Salvation... :)
Tears the legs out? No, that would be Mormonism that gets it's legs, uh, torn out.
Meeting face-to-face with God? None have directly, not with the Father, the Creator, yet those of the time period of Christ were able to speak with Jesus (God the Son) directly.
Before that time;<.br> Even Moses was hid in the cleft of the rock. Not any rock, either, but the rock.
It is written that Moses saw only the back (hinder parts). Not face to face. Yet he was a true prophet. Whoosh, the Mormonic theory (of having to talk "face-to-face") just went bye-bye! Should I go on?
If we are speaking of communing with the Spirit in the tent of meeting...there is still no "face". Unless the pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night, be the face (it isn't).
Did Samuel see God and speak to him face-to-face? Did Elijah? No, but Eljah did converse with the Lord, as did other lessor prophets all while never speaking "face-to-face".
John the Baptist saw and spoke to Christ face-to-face, that we can know. But yet he leapt with joy upon his first meeting with Him, recognizing the One even as he himself was still in his own mother's womb, and Jesus himself hidden in the womb of Mary, not much more the size than could fit and be hidden in a man's hand...
Howcouldthat meeting be called face to face, when either of them were yet born? They certainloy did not see one another with their 'natural eyes', such as the sort one most typically uses while taking a Dept. of Motor Vehicles "eye exam".
Those present during the time of Jesus when he walked upon this earth were able to see the Messiah...yet when the Christ told them "if you have seen me, you have seen the Father", who is it that thinks that be in regard to facial characteristic? It is understood He did not mean that himselfin the form of the only begotten Son of God, was "physically" identical. For God is a Spirit...
Isn't the meaning more as towards all that Jesus did and said, how those both revealed the spirit of the Law, and the letter, fulfilling also all the teachings as to the nature of the Creator Himself, as personified in the Son?
If it was all about God the Father having once been a man himself, and having walked upon the earth, long before Adam, along with all the rest of the Joseph Smith distortions...why hide it for 18 centuries, waiting for some treasure hunter in upState NY to find the "lost" pieces? not only does that not compute, but at juncture after juncture Joseph Smith theology, a.k.a Mormonism, brings interpretation straight from the flesh, with little to no understanding of the Spirit. There is no anointing on him. He was a false prophet, of the worst sort, corrupting everything he touched or spoke about.
But you keep arguing for Smith's theology on this forum, just taking pains to hide it.
Put the Joey Smith fantasies to bed. It was Smith that came up with the plan, that the only way a woman could be "exhalted" to the "Celestial" (that Celestial appearing suspiciously like Swedonborgian "Celestial" --- obviously Joey borrowed that) was to be wed to a Temple approved good Mormon man.
Isn't that right? SHOW me, from Mormonic official sources, where I'm going wrong in this.
I can show in part where Joey ended up getting it wrong, simply enough by pointing towards Genesis and the Creation story.
Mankind...Created in God's image, not "begotten" as the Only Son, Jesus was. Yet Mormon theology has "gods" having physical sex yet birthing "spirits" that they send to earth to be born. That makes us "spirit children" according to Mormonism, correct?
That defies that were are creations of God. We are not born of Him until born again of the spirit, and the waters. John 3:3
Smith couldn't figure out what it meant, or couldn't understand, if he had ever encountered true Spirit led teachings that he listened to, or heard tell of in his youth...so he "figured out" how things could be pieced together to appear to fit by way of one cunning lie or set of lies after another. Should we bring them here, quoting them? I know just the folks to ping, if you'd like.
Then, according to Mormonism, if one is a good enough "temple Mormon" "doing all they can do" without fail, they themselves can become exhalted, be Assumed to Heaven, (possibly under the power of their own righteousness?). IF they live as Super Duper Pharisees, and "obey God's laws", to the utmost letter, which "laws" are much amended and redefined by Joey and Co., compared to that found more plainly in the Word.
It's either that, or even when it's not much redefined, it's still thoroughly putting all it's adherents back under the law. Do you know what the Apostle Paul spoke of concerning that sort of thing? Everyone should know. Quote it from the Pauline Epistles. Read them and weep...with joy!
Then show or quote from the BoM, the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrines & Discourse, etc., so we can contrast and compare. One has the indelible stamping of the Spirit...the other set of writings...trying to fake it linguistically, borrowing from LAW all the while. Now the letter of the Law, does what? It Kills, does it not?
Where is the Spirit which brings life, in Joseph Smith teachings? It's all "letter"...and then some!
If we can learn anything from the Jews and their experience under the law, it is that none can perfectly keep it.
Why add to that? Who in their right mind think they would be able to "keep the law" well enough to satisfy the law? It cannot be done!
The giving of the law, was not for the purpose of establishing a rule book for us to follow to "become exhalted", risen ourselves up to a "Celestial" sphere, becoming little "g" gods ourselves, continuing the marriages entered into in this realm (even getting our own planets to Lord over!!) with the children produced by the continued physical maritial relations themselves being "spirit children" which will be sent back to earth to be born in earthly flesh.
How am I doing? Describing Mormonisms properly...? If not, then prove otherwise, and by all means be specific.
Further, in the Hebrew creation story,male & female created He them (in His own image).
Nowhere is it later shown that a woman's very salvation (in the Lord's own eyes) be dependent upon the righteousness (or lack of righteousness) of a man. Although in this world, one's worldly fate can indeed be intricately woven in with that of one's mate. Ahab comes to mind here...well intentioned (sort-of), a king of Israel, but weak and overwhelmed by the false spirituality, the witchcraft even, of Jezebel.
It is far easier of course for us to see something of the opposite, with woman more generally either enjoying the good graces practiced by a husband, or suffering for the lack, in this world. Yet we see nowhere in the scripture, that a woman will be punished in the hereafter for the sins of her husband, or that God will turn away from a woman forever for the failings of her mate.
The "temple Mormon" theology is just so much fleshly reasoning towards scripture, straining at this or that to make it fit within Smith's alleged "restoration", ignoring all else which either disputes it, or doesn't fit.
If you are going to push the theology, get naked with the attempt. Joey would approve, dearie...
But you do not know the Catholic Church, or are you a Catholic?
Spoke "face-to-face". Not exactly. In fact, that statement is so far off the mark, it is everything but a full blown lie.
I just touched upon that in my last note to you. Why ignore it?
And here we thought it was founded upon the revelation... leaving it built upon that (face-to-face?) communication you seem to be so lathered up about? But the revelation was given by way of Spirit.
Built upon the recognition by Peter of what the Spirit of the Lord was illuminating within himself perhaps? For Christ said of that occurrence, that "flesh and blood did not reveal it" as opposed to otherwise possibly noting that flesh and blood did not tell it to Peter.
It may not have been, need not have been, most likely was not revealed in the form of "words", for the Spirit of the Lord can speak both direct words (speaking in the language the listener can understand) or show by revelation God's own thought or thoughts, without using words. I know this from personal experience, as do many others.
He chooses what He communicates to whom, when & where, limited to what the Lord would have us know (what He chooses to say) and in His mercy, as to what we need to know. The scriptures back me up on this, though I'm relying not singularly upon them, but upon them after the same has been put to the test... field tested and approved. Add my confirmation to all those (too numerous to count) that have gone before me.
Did Moses see God? Did Samuel? The thesis "...spoke face to face with head of His people. With out fail" breaks down extremely rapidly under examination due to the "face-to-face" inclusion.
How about Jonah? Jonah held two-way conversations with the Lord, not face-to-face, but by Spirit, for he recounts no visions. Are we to need assume that Jonah experienced or saw a "vision", just to keep him on the bus? He already went overboard, was quite literally tossed over already. Let's not insist we see his "vision" bus token or transfer, nor assume that such is required.
It has not been established that "face-to-face" or "in the course of also having a waking vision" be required. Would you care to try? So far...all we've gotten is some strident demand that such as "face-to-face" be necessary, but without defining more precisely what you mean by that. Why should anyone accept your own say-so concerning such?
Who taught this strange idea to you? Wait....I think I know. BWA-HAA_HAA!
Are you saying no one has had that sort of conversation since the time of Christ (or should we say John, shortly or some years, at least within John's natural lifetime, his having continued some years after the time Christ be physically present)?
Or are we stuck with the "face-to-face" business, where there must be a "vision" associated with the communication?
Who in your estimation has had that sort of conversation by way of Spirit since then? Or are still in some way insisting that "visions" be involved? No one, until...18 centuries later? Wasn't that what you said previously concerning it? 18 centuries...ok, that was on another thread, yet hmmm, who oh who can we find in the 19th century who claimed to have spoken with God face-to-face?
Joseph Smith? and then his successors, right?
What's this "...This isn't hyperbole, this is real. This isn't nit picking...it went on for nearly 2000 years."
That was directly following a link you posted which leads to some page concerning the Inquisition. The Inquisition did not go on for "nearly 2000 years". Try about 700 years. Read Llorente's book about it maybe? It's about as first hand as it gets, written by one whom was once of the office itself, in compilation of what was found concerning it, much of it the Vatican library, in the early 1800's.
Or perhaps you meant something else concerning "nearly 2000 years"?
"It may not have been, need not have been, most likely was not revealed in the form of "words", for the Spirit of the Lord can speak both direct words (speaking in the language the listener can understand) or show by revelation God's own thought or thoughts, without using words. I know this from personal experience, as do many others."
JOHN 14:
25 “I have said these things to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Advocate,[i] the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you."
Amen!! Brother!! Amen!!
Thank you, you are quite gracious, johngrace.
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.