Posted on 01/18/2012 3:19:15 PM PST by NYer
.- Pope Benedict XVI said today that achieving Christian unity requires more than “cordiality and cooperation” and that it must be accompanied by interior conversion.
“Faith in Christ and interior conversion, both individual and communal, must constantly accompany our prayer for Christian unity,” said the Pope to over 8,000 pilgrims gathered in the Vatican’s Paul VI Audience Hall on Jan. 18.
The Pope’s comments mark the start of the 2012 Week of Prayer for Christian Unity that runs until Jan. 25. It will be observed by over 300 Christian churches and ecclesial communities around the globe.
The Pope asked for “the Lord in a particular way to strengthen the faith of all Christians, to change our hearts and to enable us to bear united witness to the Gospel.”
In this way, he said, they “will contribute to the new evangelization and respond ever more fully to the spiritual hunger of the men and women of our time.”
The Pope explained that the concept of a week of prayer for Christian unity was initiated in 1908 by Paul Wattson, an Episcopalian minister from Maryland. One year later, he became a Catholic and was subsequently ordained to the priesthood.
Pope Benedict recalled how the initiative was supported by his predecessors Pope St. Pius X and Pope Benedict XV. It was then “developed and perfected” in the 1930s by the Frenchman Abbé Paul Couturier, who promoted prayer “for the unity of the Church as Christ wishes and according to the means he wills.”
The mandate for the week of prayer, the Pope underscored, comes from the wish of Christ himself at the Last Supper “that they may all be one.” He observed that this mission was given a particular impetus by the Second Vatican Council (1962-65) but added that “the unity we strive for cannot result merely from our own efforts.” Rather, “it is a gift we receive and must constantly invoke from on high.”
The theme for 2012 Week of Prayer – “All shall be changed by the victory of Jesus Christ our Lord” – was crafted by the Polish Ecumenical Council. Pope Benedict said it reflects “their own experience as a nation,” which stayed faithful to Christ “in the midst of trials and upheavals,” including years of occupation by the Nazis and later the Communists.
The Pope tied the victory the Polish people experienced over their oppressors to overcoming the disunity that marks Christians.
He said that the “unity for which we pray requires inner conversion, both shared and individual,” and it cannot be “limited to cordiality and cooperation.” Instead, Christians must accept “all the elements of unity which God has conserved for us.”
Ecumenism, the Pope stated, is not an optional extra for Catholics but is “the responsibility of the entire Church and of all the baptized.” Christians, he said, must make praying for unity an “integral part” of their prayer life, “especially when people from different traditions come together to work for victory in Christ over sin, evil, injustice and the violation of human dignity.”
Pope Benedict then touched on the lack of unity in the Christian community, which he said “hinders the effective announcement of the Gospel and endangers our credibility.” Evangelizing formerly Christian countries and spreading the Gospel to new places will be “more fruitful if all Christians together announce the truth of the Gospel and Jesus Christ, and give a joint response to the spiritual thirst of our times,” he explained.
The Pope concluded his comments with the hope that this year’s Week of Prayer for Christian Unity will lead to “increased shared witness, solidarity and collaboration among Christians, in expectation of that glorious day when together we will all be able to celebrate the Sacraments and profess the faith transmitted by the Apostles.”
The general audience finished with Pope Benedict addressing pilgrims in various languages, including greeting a group of men and women from the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, before leading the crowd in the Our Father and imparting his apostolic blessing.
I believe I’ve told you this twice already so what you just said is an untruth already but here goes again.
In Matthew 16 Jesus is talking to all of the Apostles. They were all asked the question of who they thought He was. Though Peter was the one who answered for the group Jesus was talking to them all. When Peter said that they believed He was “Christ the Son of the Living God” Jesus replied and said that it was not flesh and blood that had revealed that to Peter but that it was “my Father which is in heaven”. He then says to Peter “and thou art Peter”, acknowledging that He knew who Peter was just as Peter knew who Jesus was. Then Jesus, referring back to “my Father which is in heaven”, says, “upon this rock I will build my church”.
Do I also have to re-post all the verses from both the Old and the New Testament on who the Rock really is?
If someone else is too lazy to be bothered looking up something they claim I said, why should I waste my time?
If someone accuses me of something and proof is not forthcoming, I consider the accusation an example of bearing false witness and the the debate ceded.
It’s not a tacit admission of anything.
I believe at this point the best and only response is to leave it as *Put up or shut up.* cause I ain’t going there any more.
End of story.
Nonsense. My grandfather and father both used a two legged stool to milk cows. Some even used a one legged stool. Even that Catholics can’t get right or even figure out evidently.
You don’t believe the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of scripture?
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
If they didn’t have them how could they “search the scriptures daily”? Seems they not only were expected to have them but to also search them daily.
Your comments would be appropriate to be aimed at catholics, but not at Christians.
Buy a Bible soon.
Expected from antiCatholics, in spite of everything that I and other Catholics have posted. I have repeatedly posted that I believe that the Holy Spirit inspired the men who wrote Scripture. Why would you insinuate otherwise?
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
If they didn’t have them how could they “search the scriptures daily”? Seems they not only were expected to have them but to also search them daily.
Why were they noble? Because they received the word of God? Or because they searched the Old Testament daily? The Pharisees and Sadducees searched the Old Testament daily. Jesus did not refer to them as noble.
No, I will stand by my quotes from Jesus - and in context. We are instructed to love God with all our heart and soul and strength, and our neighbour as ourself. We are instructed to believe in Jesus. Directly. All men. These are steps 1 and 2. How many believers over the centuries could not read? More than could, if you do the numbers.
But, like Islam, the Reformation teaches the religion of the book, and not the belief in God. Both you and e-s have just posted to that effect. It is not belief that matters, it is not faith in God, but in your own personal concoction of words, phrases and unrelated snippets of Scripture which amounts to your own theology.
Christianity is not as much about the book as it is about faith in Christ. St. Luke painted (wrote) the first icon - of Mary. Did he write it before his Gospel?
Or will we Catholics be instructed yet again that the gospel is not the Gospels?
No doubt.
Doesn't apply to those who declare their own salvation.
Since I post far more Scripture in defense of my positions, that is rather odd statement to make.
However, you further the argument that the Reformation was about the religion of the book and not belief in God.
So you don’t believe that the Holy Spirit inspired those writers to write the books of the New Testament? If they hadn’t recorded the words of Jesus and the things they were taught under the guidance of the Holy Spirit we wouldn’t have known. Disregard the written word all you want but it’s the word of God preserved for us by the Holy Spirit.
Your vile accusations against Luke are without merit.
Luke never painted any idols.
.
>> “How many believers over the centuries could not read? More than could, if you do the numbers” <<
.
Since you have no knowledge of who was a believer, I’ll disregard that absurd comment. Catholics largely are illiterate, and they are discouraged from reading the word of God anyway, so its unlikely that many of them have been believers. Christians, on the other hand tend to be literate and read and memorize the word.
Exhibit your ignorance all you want. The one leg of the stool with the two legs of the man made a three legged stool. You see, if man has within himself the promise of God he doesn’t need the other two legs of the Catholic Church to hold him up. He needs just one strong support of God.
So you don’t believe that the Holy Spirit inspired those writers to write the books of the New Testament?
I and every other Catholic believe that He did. Shall we dispense with these stupid accusations now? They don't add to your argument.
If they hadn’t recorded the words of Jesus and the things they were taught under the guidance of the Holy Spirit we wouldn’t have known.
Who recorded the words of Jesus? Names and dates, please.
Disregard the written word all you want but it’s the word of God preserved for us by the Holy Spirit.
I take Scripture very seriously. It is the children of the Reformation that I take lightly. You guys disregard the direct instructions of Jesus and prefer your own imaginings. The pinnacle of God's revelation to man is the Incarnation of His Son. Not whatever you scrape from under your toenails after a shower each day.
I parade it daily for the amusement of the unlettered and the arrogant.
The one leg of the stool with the two legs of the man made a three legged stool.
I will resist the temptation to make anatomical jokes at your expense. The mods might take umbrage.
You see, if man has within himself the promise of God he doesn’t need the other two legs of the Catholic Church to hold him up. He needs just one strong support of God.
You guys keep showing us that you don't need God. You are the masters of God, creating Him in your own image and declaring your own salvation.
NO because your contention that it’s “just a book” would surely indicate that you don’t give the Holy Spirit credit.
Interesting reading skills. I never said Luke painted idols. I said that he wrote the first icon - of Mary. Kinda gets you right there, doesn't it?
>> “How many believers over the centuries could not read? More than could, if you do the numbers” <<
. Since you have no knowledge of who was a believer, I’ll disregard that absurd comment. Catholics largely are illiterate, and they are discouraged from reading the word of God anyway, so its unlikely that many of them have been believers. Christians, on the other hand tend to be literate and read and memorize the word.
Sheer ignorance of the history of the world. Until the sixteenth century, with the invention of the printing press, less than 5 percent of any culture could read. And even now, how many people in this world are literate?
Or are you now arguing that only literates who read the Bible are believers? Where in the Bible does it say that you must read Scripture? Don't both with the Berean quote - you guys always get that out of context. Do you have any other?
NO because your contention that it’s “just a book” would surely indicate that you don’t give the Holy Spirit credit.
I never said that it's just a book. Why are you misquoting me yet again? Shall I assume that since you are losing the debate, you have to resort to misquoting me and replying to the misquotes, rather than quoting me accurately and having to defend your rather tenuous position?
Were you not so ignorant of the word of God, you would know that all the early Christians read Paul’s letters, and the OT scriptures.
Illiteracy came largely when the pagan Romans subsumed Christianity, and created the “catholic” church in the 4th century.
You are boneachingly wrong once again. Your American public school education is showing through yet again.
https://www.evidenceforchristianity.org/index.php?option=com_custom_content&task=view&id=4172 says that:
With the assumption that the rural population was around 70% (with 0% literacy), 20% of urban population (with 1-5% literacy), and 10% of highly urban population (with 2-15% literacy), the total population literacy is still very low. Thus, it is no exaggeration to say that the total literacy rate in the Land of Israel at that time (of Jews only, of course), was probably less than 3%.
And the Jewish culture had the highest rate of literacy of any surrounding culture. Ot are you still claiming that one must read the Bible to be saved? Where does it say that in the Bible. Where does it say that all the early Christians read Paul's letter and the OT scripture? Why do you exclude the Gospels and the rest of the NT?
Wouldn't have anything to do with the novelties of your religion, would it?
Really, so now you are saying that Jesus didn’t give the name Rock to Peter?
Or are you saying that Jesus gave that name to all the Apostles?
NO? When He said to Peter, YOU ARE ROCK, He was really speaking to Peter’s revelation and not to Peter.
As I said, no way to rationally explain it away.
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.