Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Frail Pope Says He Will Serve To The End 'Like Jesus'.
The Times (UK) ^ | 4/1/02 | Richard Owen

Posted on 04/01/2002 7:06:12 AM PST by marshmallow

DEFYING the painfully obvious symptoms of his decline, the Pope rallied his failing strength yesterday to denounce the “horror and despair” into which the Holy Land had plunged and call for an end to “this spiral of hatred, revenge and abuse of power”.

The 81-year-old pontiff, who may shortly have to enter hospital for a knee operation, has told close advisers that he is aware of pressure on him to step down because of his collapsing health, but said that he was refusing to do so “because Christ did not descend from the Cross”.

Summoning his formidable will power to lead Easter Mass and make his traditional Urbi et Orbi (To the City and the World) address the Pope, his face contorted in pain, pleaded for peace in the Middle East. “This is truly a great tragedy,” he said, his voice at times clear, but otherwise quavering and often slurred. “No political or religious leader can remain silent or inactive.”

An emergency medical team stood by discreetly as the Pope spoke, with an ambulance at the Vatican gates.

The Pope has had to take a back seat for most of the Holy Week celebrations, handing the celebration of Masses to senior cardinals in the race to succeed him, including Angelo Sodano, the Secretary of State, and Camillo Ruini, the Vicar of Rome.

The Pope is receiving heavy medication to counteract the debilitating effects of Parkinson’s disease, and suffers from persistent knee pain caused by arthritis. Vatican officials said that he had refused to use a special electric wheelchair delivered to the Vatican at the end of February.

Cardinal Ersilio Tonini, 87, said that he saw no shame in a “wheelchair-bound Pope”, since in earlier times Popes had often used a sedan chair when they became old and frail. Yesterday the Pope used a temporary altar in St Peter’s because he was unable to negotiate the steps leading to the main altar.

Alfredo Carfagni, a leading Rome surgeon, said that he had been contacted by the Vatican about performing knee surgery on the Pope.

The pontiff, hailed as “God’s athlete” for his sporting prowess when he was elected at the age of 58 in 1978, had emergency surgery when he was shot in the abdomen in 1981 by a Turkish gunman, and has since undergone operations for a dislocated shoulder, a broken femur and the removal of a benign tumour. Professor Carfagni, of the San Carlo di Nancy hospital near the Vatican, said that knee surgery might prove unnecessary “if there is a miracle, for which we all hope”.

Cardinal Jorge Arturo Medina Estévez of Chile yesterday revealed that when the Pope had been asked why he “continued his mission despite the condition of his health” he had said that he had to carry on just as Christ had refused to “come down from the Cross”.

Cardinal Medina, head of the Vatican Congregation for the Divine Cult and the Sacraments, said that although no Pope had stepped down voluntarily since Celestine V at the end of the 13th century, Church canon law did provide for papal abdication “if the Pope is no longer able to carry out his functions”.

Cardinal Medina said, however, that Pope John Paul II had a “select team” to help him and they had enabled him to “preside” at Palm Sunday and Good Friday ceremonies by sitting nearby on the papal throne, On Good Friday the Pope failed for the first time in his papacy to carry the Cross even part of the way around the Stations of the Cross during the candelit Via Crucis ceremony inside the Colosseum, although he did hold the cross at the last station. He appeared exhausted yesterday after holding a three-hour Mass on Saturday night.

The Pope, who turns 82 next month, is still insisting on a full programme of foreign travel this year, with trips to Bulgaria in May and Canada and Mexico in the summer.

At the weekend he passed a new milestone as his papacy became the sixth longest. “When he spoke on Good Friday of the shadows of the evening, everyone knew he was referring to himself,” La Repubblica said.

In his message yesterday, delivered under a sunny sky to tens of thousands packed into a flower-filled St Peter’s Square, the Pope referred to the “tragic sequence of atrocities and killings which steep the Holy Land in blood . . . it is as if war has been declared on peace. Nothing is resolved through reprisals and retaliation”. He read Easter greetings in 62 languages, including Hebrew and Arabic.


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last
God bless him.
1 posted on 04/01/2002 7:06:12 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
God and not the dissenters will punch out the time clock for JPII. The 'flames and dames' who co-opted Vatican II have done enough damage.
2 posted on 04/01/2002 7:11:46 AM PST by ex-snook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
May God continue to bless John Paul
3 posted on 04/01/2002 7:15:40 AM PST by phil1750
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: marshmallow
Don't we all go TO THE END and don't we all carry our crosses just like Jesus?
5 posted on 04/01/2002 7:23:43 AM PST by Right to be Wrong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: berned
You're a one trick pony.
6 posted on 04/01/2002 7:40:57 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: berned
paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons

Good summary of the reformation and what it did to Christianity. Thanks.

God HAS Blessed and will continue to Bless His Servant JPII, regardless of the detractors within and without.

7 posted on 04/01/2002 7:45:42 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: johniegrad
y' beat me to it.

He must have that little snippet of code constantly ready for just such an emergency.

9 posted on 04/01/2002 8:04:17 AM PST by Mr. Thorne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: berned
Hmmm . . . the Pope neither forbids marriage nor advocates abstention from foods.

Not sure where you're getting this nonsense from . . .

10 posted on 04/01/2002 8:07:29 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
He's a basher from way back. Doesn't really have anything worthwhile to say. Kind of a waste of time.
11 posted on 04/01/2002 8:09:38 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow;dansangel
Thanks for the Post and yes GOD BLESS HIM!!!!!!
12 posted on 04/01/2002 8:22:04 AM PST by .45MAN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo
And Jesus went in the company of prostitutes, publicans, and tax collectors. What's your point?
13 posted on 04/01/2002 8:26:39 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
As an aside, isn't it interesting how the folks leading the cheers for abdication (on the grounds that papal incapacity puts too much power into the hands of the unsupervised Curia) are the same ones who decry a monarchical papacy and call for more collegiality?

Sometimes you just gotta laigh.

14 posted on 04/01/2002 8:30:29 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
Here's a good trivia question: If John Paul II now has the sixth-longest papacy (23 years, 5 months so far) - which Popes had longer reigns?

Leo XIII's papacy (1878-1903) lasted 25 years 5 months.

Bl. Pope Pius IX's papacy (1846-1878) was 31 years 7 months.

Pius VII's papacy lasted 23 years 5 months (1800-1823), so I assume he's the one the Holy Father just surpassed.

Pius VI's papacy lasted 24 years 5 months (1775-1799).

Adrian I's papacy (772-795) lasted 23 years 10 months. I guess he's fifth?

Pope St. Peter's papacy was approximately 34 or 35 years (32/33 - 66/67).

So, tentatively:

1. St. Peter

2. Bl. Pius IX

3. Leo XIII

4. Pius VI

5. Adrian I

6. John Paul II

15 posted on 04/01/2002 8:34:20 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: berned
by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron ,

Tell us who has seared your conscience, Berned, so that we might avoid them.

16 posted on 04/01/2002 8:40:40 AM PST by Petronski
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fitzcarraldo
Let's hope our illustrious president George W. Bush never has to shake hands with Arafat, eh?

What else could it mean but that the US was now firmly on the side of the suicide bombers, right?

17 posted on 04/01/2002 8:41:20 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Eze 37:11 Then He (God) said to me, "Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel; behold, they say, 'Our bones are dried up and our hope has perished. We are completely cut off.'

Eze 37:12 "Therefore prophesy and say to them, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I will open your graves and cause you to come up out of your graves, My people ; and I will bring you into the land of Israel.

Eze 37:13 "Then you will know that I am the LORD, when I have opened your graves and caused you to come up out of your graves, My people .

Pius XII's letter to Roosevelt urging AGAINST God's re-creation of Israel as a Nation

18 posted on 04/01/2002 8:47:02 AM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: berned
ROFL. It's not enough that they pulled your previous post. Here you are again. If you work hard enough at it, maybe you can get yourself banned.
19 posted on 04/01/2002 9:18:55 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: johniegrad
banned for quoting The Bible, or banned for quoting a news story?
20 posted on 04/01/2002 9:24:01 AM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: berned
First of all, the letter is woefully mistranslated. Nazione ebraica does not mean "Hebrew Race". It means "Jewish people". The author of the article you link to, who obviously has an ENORMOUS axe to grind, uses loaded English words to translate unobjectionable Italian words.

Second, Bl. Pope Pius XII feared that a massive influx of European Jewry into Israel would destabilize the political situation in the Holy Land. He was asked his opinion and he offered it. He did not "urge" President Roosevelt against the foundation of the State of Israel. If he did, where is the strong, remonstrating language that would entail? The ironically named Eli Wohlgelernter could only come up with one mild caveat expressed by the Pontiff.

Third: has history proved Pius wrong? Is the current situation in the Middle East a stable or humane one for any party?

Fourth: the State of Israel was not established by God. It was established by Israeli political activists, many of whom did not believe in God and were ardent Communists. I doubt any State which offers abortion on demand is "created by God" instead of sinful men.

21 posted on 04/01/2002 9:26:10 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: berned
You insinuate much, berned. But the truthfulness of your insinuations has been measured and found wanting.

You didn't quote the Bible - you twisted in out of its natural context in order to insult someone. You didn't quote a "news story", you quoted a smidgen of propaganda which contains (a) lies and (b) hyperbole - not facts.

22 posted on 04/01/2002 9:29:26 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: berned
From your link: (Bold-mine)
"It is true that at one time Palestine was inhabited by the Hebrew Race, but there is no axiom in history to substantiate the necessity of' a People returning to a country they left nineteen centuries before," the letter reads.

"If a 'Hebrew Home' is desired, it would not be too difficult to find a more fitting territory, than Palestine. With an increase in the Jewish population there, grave, new international problem s would arise."

Doesn't sound like he was saying anything against a 'Jewish State' ...just pointed out there was no historical precedent for it and was giving a warning of potential trouble.

Thank goodness he was wrong about the troubles! */sarcasm*

23 posted on 04/01/2002 9:31:54 AM PST by grumpster-dumpster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Fourth: the State of Israel was not established by God. It was established by Israeli political activists

Is this actually your testimony to those who may be seeking Jesus who are reading this thread?

24 posted on 04/01/2002 9:32:43 AM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

Comment #25 Removed by Moderator

To: Right to be Wrong
But is it better to leave the church without a strong leader when it most needs one? At a time when church may try to help find some kind of peace in the middle east, or helping recover a little face from recent priestly wrongdoings, or reaffirm its strict anti-abortion position to get Catholics voting conservative again, the church is in need of new leadership.
26 posted on 04/01/2002 9:46:32 AM PST by paul544
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: berned
My testimony to those who seek Jesus is simply this:

Christ was crucified and died of His own free will so that we might have life and have it more abundantly.

As Christ himself has taught us, it is a vain generation that seeks for a sign. The belief that the establishment of the secular and socialist republic of Israel is actually a God-ordained fulfillment of prophecy is a similarly vain "seeking" which the Risen Lord warned us against.

God will fulfill the words of His prophets in His own due time - no one who accepts that Christ is Lord needs to accept the dubious thesis that Ariel Sharon is a messenger of God's will.

If a fellow Christian's faith is so weak that he needs to believe that the modern State of Israel is a necessary condition of God's Kingdom, I will not begrudge him the crutch that he requires. But he has no reason to require it of me.

"For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope" Romans 8:24.

27 posted on 04/01/2002 9:52:28 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: berned
banned for quoting The Bible, or banned for quoting a news story?

Obviously I don't know since I can't pull posts or ban anyone. You could try asking the correct person why your post was pulled. The last time I looked that was the Monitor.

28 posted on 04/01/2002 9:56:50 AM PST by johniegrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: paul544
The Church has not had a strong administrator in almost a century.

The damage an abdication may do to the papal office could forestall the election of a good housecleaner even longer. We can't just blindly assume that the next Pope will inevitably be another Gregory VII (but we can pray).

29 posted on 04/01/2002 9:56:51 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
We know of Jesus and believe in Him from the record of His life and teachings recorded in The Bible. Jesus repeatedly (in His own day) told those to believe in Him because of the Old Testament prophesies that were fulfilled in His life.

Ezekiel was among the many prophets Jesus quoted to legitimize His Ministry. Without the prophesies in the OT being fulfilled in Jesus life, we would have no grounds to believe He is our Saviour.

God spoke to Ezekiel in regards to the reforming of Israel from the dry bones (of the Holocaust). For you to say that God did not re-create Israel, His Nation, His Chosen People, but that modern-day Israel is the creation of mere men, is blasphemy of the worst order imaginable.

30 posted on 04/01/2002 10:03:41 AM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Be_Ye_Glad
No, I was just trying to point out how silly it is to make such statements as those of Berned on a forum like this, i.e., "Oh yeah, well you guys believe a doctrine of demons, so there!"

What purpose does it serve Catholic bashers like Berned to come onto a Catholic thread and tell Catholics we believe a doctrine of demons? How exactly do we respond to such lies and demonic deceptions? How long do we have to put up with such crap from folks who claim to have a personal relationship with Christ?

And why do you folks whine so much when we return only one such barb for every hundred you bigots hurl at us?

I'm fed up. I'm not going to stay silent. I am a soldier for Christ in His Church Militant. Time is too short to tolerate such lies any longer. Eternal salvation of souls hangs in the balance. I will not turn the other cheek as fools such as Berned try to rob folks of the True Faith with their lies and deceptions.

If the Truth offends you, that is a problem between you and Christ.

I'm not called to be successful, I'm only called to be faithful. If I share the True Gospel with you with patience and charity, I have nothing to be sorry for if you reject it. I have been faithful.

31 posted on 04/01/2002 10:19:00 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: berned
I know of Jesus through His Church, which preserved God's Word for me and handed it down from generation to generation. My bishop is a living link with the Apostles. I learned to cherish the Bible as a young adult due to the Church that ministered to me from my infancy.

You know of Jesus through God's Word as found in Scripture, the inerrant testimony of His Truth as revealed by Him to His servants.

Despite our divergent paths to Christ, we both revere the Holy Scriptures as an infallible source of knowledge about Christ and His saving work.

You cite Ezekiel as a source for prophecy of Christ's coming. We are in full agreement there.

you also cite Ezekiel as justifying Zionism as a political undertaking, specifically 37:11-13 of his prophecy. I understand the meaning of this passage not as a symbolic "rising from the grave" of Israel as a political entity, but as foretelling the physical resurrection of the sons and daughters of Israel which will take place when the lord comes in His glory at the end of the age.

Alternately, a preterist Christian might interpret these words to mean the events of Matthew 27: 52-53.

Ezekiel might very well have been foretelling all three events: the political resurrection of Israel in the XXth century, the participation of Israel in the general resurrection on the Day of Judgment, and the reawakening of Jewish saints at the time of the Crucifixion.

We should avoid a too facile or an immediately gratifying interpretation of any Scriptural pericope.

32 posted on 04/01/2002 10:21:21 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: berned
I just re-read your post #27, shaking my head in amazement. re your words:

If a fellow Christian's faith is so weak that he needs to believe that the modern State of Israel is a necessary condition of God's Kingdom, I will not begrudge him the crutch that he requires. But he has no reason to require it of me.

I say to you, brother, in all sincerity... to characterize God's Holy Word as "a crutch" is something I strongly urge you to be extremely circumspect before doing. I urge you to think 70 times before cavalierly doing that.

33 posted on 04/01/2002 10:22:52 AM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: berned
"God's re-creation of Israel as a Nation"

You don't know the difference between God and the United Nations? Also, Zionism started out as an explicitly atheist and socialistic movement. Didn't know that either, I'd guess, did you?

34 posted on 04/01/2002 10:26:14 AM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: berned;wideawake
Forgive me for replying to a post not directed specifically at me, but I do have questions.
berned, you write: God spoke to Ezekiel in regards to the reforming of Israel from the dry bones (of the Holocaust). For you to say that God did not re-create Israel, His Nation, His Chosen People, but that modern-day Israel is the creation of mere men, is blasphemy of the worst order imaginable.

Where is your proof that it was indeed 'The Holocaust' that God was referring to?
How do you reconcile the above statement with Christ Jesus' own statement that "(He) came not to destroy the prophesies...but fulfill them?" Doesn't the New Testament actually indicate that "Christianity" is indeed (and of itself) the reforming of Israel?

35 posted on 04/01/2002 10:30:27 AM PST by grumpster-dumpster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: berned
God spoke to Ezekiel in regards to the reforming of Israel from the dry bones (of the Holocaust).

This is where you need to be careful. The Old Testament is nothing if not the story of Israel's perpetual wandering from God's love and reunion with Him after various travails and punishments, including exile and captivity. You have applied Ezekiel's words to the latter day Holocaust. I would say that you are standing on precarious ground with this statement and you need to be very careful with your Biblical interpretation.

For you to say that God did not re-create Israel, His Nation, His Chosen People, but that modern-day Israel is the creation of mere men, is blasphemy of the worst order imaginable.

No it's not blasphemy. In fact, it is you who is in danger of wandering into the mistake of the Jews of Jesus' time. Remember that it was precisely this earthly kingdom that they were expecting Jesus to create. They were expecting a Messiah who would evict the Romans and restore the kingdom to Israel. This was not part of Jesus'plan, as we now know.

God's relationship with the Jewish people was never intended to create a worldly kingdom. His covenant with them had its fulfillment in the sending of the promised Messiah. Jesus is that fulfillment.

36 posted on 04/01/2002 10:34:23 AM PST by marshmallow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Campion
You don't know the difference between God and the United Nations?

Is it your testimony today, before all who read this, (many of whom may be seeking Jesus) that the UNITED NATIONS has more say-so over the events in Israel than God does? Are you actually saying that?

Psa 2:1

Why are the nations in an uproar And the peoples devising a vain thing ?

Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth take their stand And the rulers take counsel together Against the LORD and against His Anointed, saying,

Psa 2:3 "Let us tear their fetters apart And cast away their cords from us!"

Psa 2:4 He who sits in the heavens laughs, The Lord scoffs at them.

Psa 2:5 Then He will speak to them in His anger And terrify them in His fury, saying,

Psa 2:6 "But as for Me, I have installed My King Upon Zion, My holy mountain."

37 posted on 04/01/2002 10:35:08 AM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: berned
God spoke to Ezekiel in regards to the reforming of Israel from the dry bones (of the Holocaust). For you to say that God did not re-create Israel, His Nation, His Chosen People, but that modern-day Israel is the creation of mere men, is blasphemy of the worst order imaginable.

Let me get this straight. Ezekiel wrote prophecies that referred to events, not of his own day, but of a time 2700 years in the future. One of his prophecies referred, not to the resurrection of the dead at the end of time, but of the reformation of Israel after the Holocaust. It is therefore blasphemous to assert that a nation founded by secularist, socialist Jews with the assistance of the secularist, internationalist UN at the close of World War II is anything but a divinely ordained fulfillment of prophecy.

Do I have it right? Are you looking for an eisegesis award or something?

Maybe this will help. "Israel," to Ezekiel, refers to the "Northern Kingdom," home of the Ten Lost Tribes. None of those tribes had anything to do with the foundation of the nation called "Israel" in 1948. Israel is a "Jewish state" (by its own description of itself) and the Ten Tribes were Israelites, but not Jews. Ezekiel's prophecy concerns the restoration of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the Holocaust or with the Zionist state called "Israel".

You really ought to study the Bible with people who know something about the Bible.

38 posted on 04/01/2002 10:39:10 AM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
"I'm fed up. I'm not going to stay silent. I am a soldier for Christ in His Church Militant. ..."

Good for you! But I beg you friend, don't get too worked up about it! LOL!

We both know that the "Bashers" cannot hurt us or shake our faith... so let's have some fun with it! These folks will never understand that they cannot use the Word of Christ against us! (I'm just amazed some of them can actually brush their teeth in the morning without first looking up the biblical reference directing them to do so.)

Thank you for your "Defense of the Faith!"

39 posted on 04/01/2002 10:45:30 AM PST by grumpster-dumpster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
It will take some research, but I'm pretty certain I can produce a historical citation of a decision by which Pius XII overruled the recommendation of Archbishop Roncalli (at the time nuncio in Istanbul) against allowing a shipload of Jewish refugees to be allowed to disembark in Palestine.

As for the supposed letter of Cicognani to Taylor (setting aside the not-trivial protocol question of why an Apostolic Delegate stationed in Washington would communicate with President Roosevelt's personal Representative accedited to the Pope), even a casual scholar of Pope Pacelli notes the date of this supposed letter: June 22, 1943. This supposedly anti-semitic letter is dated precisely one week before the encyclical MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI (Encyclical of Pope Pius XII "On the Mystical Body of Christ"), on June 29, 1943. In this encyclical the Pope dwells at some length on the constitution of the Church, both visible and invisible, and comments -- pointedly, and not for the first time -- on the unity of mankind:

We trust that Our exposition of the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ will be acceptable and useful to those also who are without the fold of the Church, not only because their good will towards the Church seems to grow from day to day, but also because, while before their eyes nation rises up against nation, kingdom against kingdom and discord is sown everywhere together with the seeds of envy and hatred, if they turn their gaze to the Church, if they contemplate her divinely-given unity -- by which all men of every race are united to Christ in the bond of brotherhood they will be forced to admire this fellowship in charity, and with the guidance and assistance of divine grace will long to share in the same union and charity...

Our Savior shed His Blood precisely in order that He might reconcile men to God through the Cross, and might constrain them to unite in one Body, however widely they may differ in nationality and race. True love of the Church, therefore, requires not only that we should be mutually solicitous one for another as members of the same Body, rejoicing in the glory of the other members and sharing in their suffering, but likewise that we should recognize in other men, although they are not yet joined to us in the Body of the Church, our brothers in Christ according to the flesh, called, together with us, to the same eternal salvation...Let us however, while we look with sorrow on the disastrous consequences of this teaching, follow our peaceful King who taught us to love not only those who are of a different nation or race, but even our enemies...We extol with him the length, and the breadth, and the height, and the depth of the charity of Christ, [188] which neither diversity of race or customs can diminish, nor the trackless wastes of the ocean weaken, nor wars, whether just or unjust, destroy.

By way of reply, it should be noted that less than one month after the date of the June 22 letter, the Allies bombed Rome in a 2-hour raid of 250 bombers, virtually destroying the ancient basilica of San Lorenzo and killing 2,000 civilians.

40 posted on 04/01/2002 10:47:46 AM PST by Romulus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: berned
Is it your testimony today, before all who read this, (many of whom may be seeking Jesus) that the UNITED NATIONS has more say-so over the events in Israel than God does? Are you actually saying that?

No. Are you actually so clueless that you think there's no difference in historical context between Ezekiel and the front page of today's USAToday?

Hal Lindsey is not my Pope. The post-1948 nation of Israel has no religious significance whatsoever. Deal with it. At the rate the (secular) Jews in Israel are aborting and contracepting themselves out of existence, they themselves will end their Zionist experiment in less than 50 years; the cold realities of demographics prove that. Then where will your exegetical novelty be?

Incidentally, the Church is the new Israel. That was the constant teaching of all Christian thinkers up until 1820.

41 posted on 04/01/2002 10:49:28 AM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: grumpster-dumpster; berned
Grumpster contributes an important consideration: the Christian Church is the spiritual Israel just as the Jewish people are the physical Israel.

Yet another interpretation might be that the "dry bones" are a reference to the desiccation of Jewish spiritual life under the Pharisees, whom Christ referred to as "whited sepulchres . . . within full of dead men's bones". There is no necessary connection with the Holocaust. The resuscitation of Israel could have been accomplished by the establishment of the New Jerusalem - the Christian Church, called by St. Augustine "the City of God".

This conversation is becoming more interesting and hopefully, more fruitful.

42 posted on 04/01/2002 10:51:38 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: berned
I think reliance upon one personal interpretation of the Scripture can be a crutch - reliance upon the Scripture itself can never be.

But you are correct: I spoke uncharitably and I apologize. What I said was not constructive.

43 posted on 04/01/2002 10:54:00 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
I'm fed up. I'm not going to stay silent. I am a soldier for Christ in His Church Militant. Time is too short to tolerate such lies any longer. Eternal salvation of souls hangs in the balance. I will not turn the other cheek as fools such as Berned try to rob folks of the True Faith with their lies and deceptions.

Yikes . . . I wasn't expecting the Inquisition!

44 posted on 04/01/2002 10:55:35 AM PST by Risky Schemer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
the Jewish people are the physical Israel.

One twelfth of the physical Israel, or maybe one sixth (since Judea was populated by the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and part of Levi).

Scott Hahn points out that, when St. Paul says in Romans that "the Gospel will be preached to the Gentiles, and thus all Israel will be saved" he means precisely that "all Israel" is irreparably mingled with the Gentiles, and so it is precisely be bringing the Gentiles into the Church that "all Israel" is reunited as the one People of God.

45 posted on 04/01/2002 10:56:00 AM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: berned
Which king rules from Mount Zion now, berned?

The State of Israel is not necessarily synonymous with a God-anointed monarchy.

I would submit that only Christ is King now, and He only is King of Israel.

46 posted on 04/01/2002 10:58:20 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Campion, berned
Campion brings another interesting point into the discussion. Ezekiel does draw a distinction in his prophecy between the "house of Judah" and the "house of Israel" and emphasizes again and again the sunderedness of the two halves of God's people.

At that point in history, as Ezekiel wrote from the exile of Juda in Babylon, the house of Israel or what we call the "lost tribes" were scattered among the nations.

47 posted on 04/01/2002 11:05:04 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
"This conversation is becoming more interesting and hopefully, more fruitful."

I agree! Thank you for the complement in your reply.

48 posted on 04/01/2002 11:08:53 AM PST by grumpster-dumpster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Your interpretation of Ezekiel is patently wrong. Israel went into captivity on several occasions, and a remnant was brought back, but never was Israel "cut off" (a Biblical term always meaning "murdered" -- as in the Holocaust) and then brought back "out of their graves" except in 1948.

see Daniel's prophesy of the Messiah Dan 9:26 And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for himself (the Crucifixion) : and the people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary;(Jerusalem & the Temple) and the end thereof [shall be] with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.

To say that mere men did their will regarding Israel while God stood idly by watching, is beyond the bounds of contempt for God's Sovereignty.

The Book of Revelation was written in 95 AD, after Jerusalem was burned to the ground, along with the Temple. John prophesies that the anti-christ will proclaim himself "god" in this very temple built on the Temple Mount. For this to happen, God first, obviously, had to restore Israel to it's homeland. (Over the objections of Pius XII.)

For many centuries, people "allegorized" Revelation, saying that the Israel spoken of by John was a "spiritual Israel" or somesuch, because they did not believe God had the power to restore Israel PHYSICALLY to their ancient homeland WHICH GOD PROMISED TO THEM FOREVER AND EVER.

Now watch, as the Temple gets rebuilt against all odds.

49 posted on 04/01/2002 11:09:05 AM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Romulus
Yes, Mr. Wohlgelernter would do well to ignore the historical context of his little article.

I notice that he ignores Mr. Roosevelt's earlier lack of hospitality to Jewish refugees.

And the fact that such a tiny snippet of this letter was quoted is as suspicious as the lack of description of the circumstances of the exchange.

The Allies' destruction of important Catholic sites (San Lorenzo, Monte Cassino, etc.) seems to have been more wanton than strategic. There were many Dresdens in miniature.

50 posted on 04/01/2002 11:17:55 AM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson