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
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at sg.news.yahoo.com ...
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.
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.