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 previous 1-5051-100101-150151-156 next last
To: grumpster-dumpster; Risky Schemer
Sorry. But I know too many folks who turned their back on Christ and left His Church over such lies, including close friends and relatives (most recently my kid sister.) I wish I could just sit back and laugh. These lies must be refuted.

[Saint?] Torquemada, First Grand Inquisitor of Spain, pray for us! ;-)

(Can't you just here that song from Mel Brooks' "History of the World Part I", you know the one that went...

"The Inquisition, here we go, the Iquisition's don't you know? Cause the Inquisition's here, and its here to staaaaayy!"

51 posted on 04/01/2002 11:19:53 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
Take heart Brian. Many of us who walked away are treading back.
52 posted on 04/01/2002 11:23:26 AM PST by katnip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Risky Schemer
;-)


53 posted on 04/01/2002 11:24:47 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: katnip
Thanks Katnip. Its just hard being the only one of five children still practicing the faith. Two siblings are now agnostic, one is attending a fundie church with her husband, and one is just a typical Sunday Catholic for whom the faith means little.

But I just got a wonderful Freepmail last nighht. I don't think the author would mind if I shared it anonimously:

From ***** | 2002-03-31 18:14:05 replied

Dr. Brian,
Last night I was finally confirmed into the True Faith. I believe, with all my heart, the Holy Spirit used the words of your postings to bring me back into Christ's Church. You and your beautiful family are always in my prayers. Hope all of you had a blessed Easter.

In His Love,
*****

God's Will is always done, despite the devil's best attempts to thwart it.

54 posted on 04/01/2002 11:34:35 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: berned
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"

You don't know what you're talking about. Israel -- the Northern Kingdom -- utterly ceased to exist after its conquest by the Assyrians in 722 BC. The Israelites who weren't simply killed were forcibly dispersed and the few who remained were intermarried with pagans. They were the origin of the Samaritans, who were considered to be half-breed apostates by the priests in Jerusalem. According to at least some of the Rabbis, the Samaritans "have no place in the world to come".

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.

I made no such assertion. God is in complete control. Your ideas about what God is doing are completely unfounded in any correct exegesis of Scripture.

The Book of Revelation was written in 95 AD

Prove it. The book itself says it describes things which must shortly take place.

John prophesies that the anti-christ will proclaim himself "god" in this very temple built on the Temple Mount.

And where does John say that?

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

I'll watch, all right. It won't happen. It won't even begin to happen.

55 posted on 04/01/2002 11:36:35 AM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
Sorry. But I know too many folks who turned their back on Christ and left His Church over such lies, including close friends and relatives (most recently my kid sister.)

Well, your sister (and friends & relations) will have my prayers that she returns to the faith. I do know you are passionate in your defense of the faith... and I realize the lies must be countered with the truth. Please do not think I'm asking you to "chill-out," I'm asking you to look upon this mission as something joyful...Thank the Lord He has seen fit to give you this calling! Pace yourself, and do not become angry. Fight the lies with the tools God has given you (and they are many).

It's my sincere (and humble) belief the way to fight the lies is with humor and compassion (note: I did not say 'tolerance.') Let's let Jesus be our guide in this crusade...He challenged the lies, rebuked when needed, and sought to educate... He did not become angry with those in need of His Salvation.

May His peace be upon you. :o)

56 posted on 04/01/2002 11:41:24 AM PST by grumpster-dumpster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Campion
You don't know what you're talking about. Israel -- the Northern Kingdom -- utterly ceased to exist after its conquest by the Assyrians in 722 BC

Who then was Paul talking to when he said

Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:

Your hair-splitting "depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-Israel-Is" :-) is a fruitless clintonian effort to win an argument, instead of harkening to the word of God.

The Book of Revelation was written in 95 AD Prove it. The book itself says it describes things which must shortly take place.

You've got to be kidding. 99 % of all Bible scholarship says 95 AD. Here's one of many thousand of examples:

Time and place of writing. --The date of the Revelation is given by the great majority of critics as A.D. 95-97. Irenaeus says: "It (i.e. the Revelation) was seen no very long time ago, but almost in our own generation, at the close of Domitian’s reign. Eusebius also records that, in the persecution under Domitian, John the apostle and evangelist was banished to the Island Patmos for his testimony of the divine word. There is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place, and the style in which the messages to the Seven Churches are delivered rather suggests the notion that the book was written in Patmos.

Now watch, as the Temple gets rebuilt against all odds. I'll watch, all right. It won't happen. It won't even begin to happen.

O ye of little faith. God actually tells John (in Revelation) to MEASURE the coming Temple!!

Rev 11:1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. Rev 11:2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty [and] two months.

Amazingly, the courtyard which "has been given over to the gentiles" is where the DOME OF THE ROCK stands today!!!

57 posted on 04/01/2002 11:58:06 AM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: berned
Who then was Paul talking to when he said
Act 2:22 Ye men of Israel

All of Israel: all twelve tribes. And it was Peter, not Paul. Paul's conversion isn't until Acts 9.

Your hair-splitting "depends-on-what-the-meaning-of-Israel-Is" :-) is a fruitless clintonian effort to win an argument, instead of harkening to the word of God.

I hearken to the Word of God just fine, I just don't hearken to your distortion of it.

You've got to be kidding. 99 % of all Bible scholarship says 95 AD.

Placing the word of men above the word of God? I repeat: the book itself says that it describes things that must shortly take place. "Shortly" means "shortly," not "2000 years from now". Incidentally, when Daniel was given his prophetic revelation of the Messiah's coming, God told him to seal the book up, because it was for a distant time. Since when is 2000 years "shortly" and 500 years "a distant time"?

Oh, and St. Irenaeus merely says that that St. John was exiled to Patmos during the reign of Domitian. That does not mean that he was not exiled to Patmos at any point before that time.

O ye of little faith. God actually tells John (in Revelation) to MEASURE the coming Temple!!

That's the old temple, not the new one. It was destroyed in AD 70.

Amazingly, the courtyard which "has been given over to the gentiles" is where the DOME OF THE ROCK stands today!!!

Wrong again. Amazing how far off you are. The Dome of the Rock stands on the eben shetiyah, the foundation stone, which is where the Holy of Holies stood. I believe Josephus describes this stone in some detail.

58 posted on 04/01/2002 12:40:18 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Campion
I will pray for you Campion. This thread has been enlightening to me regarding the mindset of Roman catholics.

I've noticed (in this thread and previous ones) that it's imperitive for RC's on these threads to disbelieve that Revelation was written in 95 AD. As if the earth shaking plagues and mark of the beast and such happened in the 1st century but never got reported or something. You are willing to go against virtually all Bible scholarship to cling to the idea that Revelation does not speak of distant future events. It's interesting. Here's a CATHOLIC ENCYlOPEDIA which also places it after the destruction of Jerusalem & the Temple.

It makes me think that simply by accepting the overwhelming concensus of scholarship that Revelation was written 95AD would make many of your RCC beliefs crash and burn.

59 posted on 04/01/2002 1:14:42 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: berned
I will pray for you Campion. This thread has been enlightening to me regarding the mindset of Roman catholics.

Yeah, I'll pray for you too, because I think you need to see that Scripture is about realities that go quite a bit deeper than the current headlines out of the Middle East. You remind me of the Jews of Jesus' time, who thought he was a political leader who would fight a war to get the Romans out of Palestine. God is more profound than that by far.

I've noticed (in this thread and previous ones) that it's imperitive for RC's on these threads to disbelieve that Revelation was written in 95 AD.

Nonsense. The Church has never authoritatively said one way or another. However, what it is imperative for Catholics to believe is that your dispensationalist point of view is false and must be rejected. Specifically, the New Israel is the Church of Christ, not any political entity in the Middle East. Paul says so very clearly in Romans 11.

However, there's a significant community of Bible scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, who hold to some form of the preterist view of Revelation, which argues that the primary fulfillment of Revelation occurred in 70 AD. (Some Protestants hold to the "full preterist" view, which denies a future Second Coming of Christ, but Catholics aren't allowed to hold that.) Have you never heard of David Chilton? Here's a good page run by Protestant preterists presenting the case against dispensationalism.

As if the earth shaking plagues and mark of the beast and such happened in the 1st century but never got reported or something.

You're kidding, right? You've never heard of Josephus' Jewish Wars? Did you know that it was considered an almost indispensible aid to Scripture interpretation by your Calvinist spiritual ancestors not 200 years ago?

You are willing to go against virtually all Bible scholarship to cling to the idea that Revelation does not speak of distant future events.

No, only futurist Bible scholarship, and then only to deny that Revelation speaks only of distant future events.

It makes me think that simply by accepting the overwhelming concensus of scholarship that Revelation was written 95AD would make many of your RCC beliefs crash and burn.

So the words of men not one of whom were actually there are supposed to make me doubt the clear, God-breathed words of Holy Scripture? Not on your life!

60 posted on 04/01/2002 1:39:11 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Campion
So the words of men not one of whom were actually there are supposed to make me doubt the clear, God-breathed words of Holy Scripture? Not on your life!

So by WHOSE WORDS do you cling to your misbelief that Revelation was written BEFORE the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple? Whose scholarship do you accept in order to believe that? By whose words do you believe that the following...

Rev 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Rev 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number [is] Six hundred threescore [and] six.

...all these mind-blowing events happened between the years 32 AD and 70 AD??????

In any event, as I said, it's been a fascinating insight into the Roman Catholic mind. I know Campion, that it is terribly important for you to "win" this argument. So, as Bill O'Reilly always says...

I'll give you the last word...

61 posted on 04/01/2002 2:01:00 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: berned
It's terribly important for me to see that you embrace the truth, which is not what you're attacking at the moment with your anti-Catholic slams. Whether I "win" any "arguments" is irrelevant.

As far as those earth-shattering events:
Rev 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

You've heard of emperor worship, right? Most of the early Christian martyrs were killed specifically because they wouldn't engage in it.

Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:

I believe you'll find something very much like that was enforced by the Romans, however, that may be merely metaphor for emperor-worship.

Rev 13:18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number [is] Six hundred threescore [and] six.

"Caesar Nero" in Hebrew letters gives exactly the required number.

You know, don't you, that after Titus' legions conquered the Temple precincts in AD 70, their first act was to set up their regimental standards in the court of the Gentiles and sacrifice to them? But I want you to have the last word, so perhaps you can explain this verse:

Rev 17:9 "Here is the mind which has wisdom: The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits. 10There are also seven kings. Five have fallen, one is, and the other has not yet come. And when he comes, he must continue a short time.

What or who are the seven kings upon which the woman sits, five of whom had fallen before John wrote this verse, one of whom was reigning as he wrote the verse, and one who would be yet to come?

62 posted on 04/01/2002 2:20:32 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Campion
What or who are the seven kings upon which the woman sits, five of whom had fallen before John wrote this verse, one of whom was reigning as he wrote the verse, and one who would be yet to come?

The revived ROMAN empire led by the antichrist is the one to come. (With a False Prophet leading a bogus One-World Religion, also of ROMAN origin)

Now you answer ME a question...

When -- in the 1st century -- did the Romans cause an IMAGE to speak? By what technology?

When did the 1st century Romans (or whoever) "cause fire to come down from heaven in the sight of men"??? (Rev 13: 13)

When did Nero (from your example) cause all humans on the earth to have a mark on their hand or forehead without which NO ONE could buy or sell?

63 posted on 04/01/2002 2:41:45 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Also, why did you not answer my question from the previous note? By WHOSE SCHOLARSHIP do you believe Revelation was written before 70 AD?
64 posted on 04/01/2002 2:44:00 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: grumpster-dumpster; proud2bRC
God Bless you both.

Reading what you two so eloquently state, not only on this thread but many others I've "lurked" on, lets me know it was the right decision to come back to the Catholic Church.

65 posted on 04/01/2002 2:45:20 PM PST by dansangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: dansangel
Thank you very much. Welcome back to the "Wall of Faith" (from one who has recently returned himself).
66 posted on 04/01/2002 2:49:37 PM PST by grumpster-dumpster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: grumpster-dumpster
Thank-you!

Recently come back? I never would have known! Your eloquence on Catholic facts belies that.

My "leave of absence" spanned 25 years. I'm trying to get back up to speed on dogma.

Take care.

67 posted on 04/01/2002 3:06:17 PM PST by dansangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: dansangel
Yup. Gone for 30+ years... I'm in the same boat as you trying to get back up to speed! ...Still having trouble with the "Hail Holy Queen" (Glad the "Fatima" prayer is optional!) LOL!

Blessings to you!

68 posted on 04/01/2002 3:11:03 PM PST by grumpster-dumpster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: phil1750
He is a man following the will of the Lord. I agree..God Bless him.
69 posted on 04/01/2002 3:16:25 PM PST by Mfkmmof4
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: berned
The revived ROMAN empire led by the antichrist is the one to come. (With a False Prophet leading a bogus One-World Religion, also of ROMAN origin)

Okay, you answered one-seventh of the question. Who are the other six?

Now you answer ME a question...

Well, you didn't answer mine. It seems hardly fair.

When -- in the 1st century -- did the Romans cause an IMAGE to speak? By what technology?

They had magicians in the ancient world, too. You'll recall Moses met some in Pharaoh's court.

Actually, this undermines your interpretation a good deal more than it does mine. Has it not occurred to you that making an image speak is not much of an accomplishment these days, and most people would react to it, not with awe, but with amusement? I mean, if you want an "image that speaks," you can buy various kinds down at Toys 'R' Us for very reasonable prices, but I wouldn't expect anyone to fall down in idolatrous worship before them.

By WHOSE SCHOLARSHIP do you believe Revelation was written before 70 AD?

Chilton, for one. But there are many sources that argue that. I gave you the link above, why don't you check it for yourself. The obvious question in any case is that, since Rev 1:1 says it concerns "things that must shortly take place," if it doesn't concern the events of AD 70, what else can it possibly be referring to?

I think it's odd that you take verses about images speaking to be absolutely literal to the extent that you are asking what "technology was used," but you take Rev 1:1 to be so non-literal that you make it absolutely meaningless. "These events must shortly take place, sometime with in the next 2500 years or so." Uh-huh.

70 posted on 04/01/2002 3:17:20 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: grumpster-dumpster
LOL....my weakness is remembering the prayer to St. Michael....all of the rest came flooding back like getting back on a bicycle!

Be Blessed!

71 posted on 04/01/2002 3:25:21 PM PST by dansangel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Campion
I gave you the link above, why don't you check it for yourself.

I gave you a link to a CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA that freely admits Revelation was written in 95 AD.

here, I'll give it to you again.

72 posted on 04/01/2002 3:25:31 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Risky Schemer
Noooooobody expexts the inquisition!!!. Our weapon is fear and surprise, ah our TWO weapons are fear, suprise and an almost fanatical devotion to the pope, our Three weapons.... i'll just come in again...
73 posted on 04/01/2002 3:53:25 PM PST by Celtic Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: dansangel
Welcome home Dan!

The number of reverts and converts, just here mong Freepers, can be extrapolated out into the culture at large, to point out a number so staggering that it must have the anti-Catholic folks in a tizzy.

They just cannot comprehend why all their ranting, insults, and proof texts do not win them converts, but drive folks home to Rome. But it does. Repeatedly.

74 posted on 04/01/2002 3:55:10 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: berned
Thanks for the link! Most informative article. Especially this (from the Interpretation):

It would be alike wearisome and useless to enumerate even the more prominent applications made of the Apocalypse. Racial hatred and religious rancour have at all times found in its vision much suitable and gratifying matter. Such persons as Mohammed, the Pope, Napoleon, etc., have in turn been identified with the beast and the harlot. To the "reformers" particularly the Apocalypse was an inexhaustible quarry where to dig for invectives that they might hurl then against the Roman hierarchy. The seven hills of Rome, the scarlet robes of the cardinals, and the unfortunate abuses of the papal court made the application easy and tempting. Owing to the patient and strenuous research of scholars, the interpretation of the Apocalypse has been transferred to a field free from the odium theologicum. But then the meaning of the Seer is determined by the rules of common exegesis. Apart from the resurrection, the millennium, and the plagues preceding the final consummation, they see in his visions references to the leading events of his time. Their method of interpretation may be called historic as compared with the theological and political application of former ages. The key to the mysteries of the book they find in 17:8-14. For thus says the Seer: "Let here the mind that hath understanding give heed".

I (for one) will concede Revelations could have been written about 95 A.D. Thank God the Catholic Church saved the references for us!

75 posted on 04/01/2002 4:03:30 PM PST by grumpster-dumpster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: paul544
When God deems we need new leadership, we will get it.
76 posted on 04/01/2002 4:06:10 PM PST by It's me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
AMEN!!
77 posted on 04/01/2002 4:08:27 PM PST by It's me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Palladin
Why isn't this thread in the RELIGION section? It seems to me that you (moderators) established that area for these never-ending Protestant-Catholic warfare threads.
78 posted on 04/01/2002 4:10:32 PM PST by Palladin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: grumpster-dumpster
I (for one) will concede Revelations could have been written about 95 A.D. Thank God the Catholic Church saved the references for us!

Wonderful!! Then you will no doubt conceed, that when Revelation talks about Israel and the Temple etc. it is prophesying the future, (Since Israel and the Temple were destroyed in 70 AD 25 years before Revelation was written.)

Therefor, I hope you will agree that it was GOD, not puny mortal men at the UN, that brought Israel back to the land in 1948, so that the prophesies in Revelationcould be fulfilled (which is the will of God).

How curious then, that Pius XII did NOT want this to happen! (See my note #18, with link to the story). Since the Catholic Encyclopedia admits Revelation was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and Revelation prophesies about a literal, physical Israel, restored to their ancient homeland, WHICH GOD GAVE TO THEM FOREVER AND EVER

Gen 13:14 And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward:

Gen 13:15 For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.

Then my question is, if the pope is of God, why did Pius XII not want God to keep His word to His chosen people, Israel?

79 posted on 04/01/2002 4:25:41 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: dansangel
I agree. I returned to the Church in 1977. It was the smartest thing I ever did in my life, and I've never been sorry for a moment.
80 posted on 04/01/2002 4:38:43 PM PST by redhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
No I really do think he should retire-so does God
81 posted on 04/01/2002 4:44:08 PM PST by Governor StrangeReno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2sheep
see 81
82 posted on 04/01/2002 4:45:04 PM PST by Governor StrangeReno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
Thank you for your patience in dealing with this. I really, REALLY admire not only your educated responses, but your kindness.

I have a question: Berned said: "Now watch, as the Temple gets rebuilt against all odds."

Am I correct in assuming that Jesus Christ is the Third Temple? ("Tear down this Temple, and in three days I will rebuild it?") If that is the case, then wouldn't the FINAL Sacrifice have been made on the Cross, and wouldn't that, by extrapolation, mean that the building in Jerusalem is not only not necessary, but that it will NOT to be rebuilt in God's plan?

83 posted on 04/01/2002 4:47:34 PM PST by redhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Governor StrangeReno
Interesting post in 81! This is also a fascinating aspect to JPII's "take" on Christianity:

Read how Pope JPII says Muslims are "saved" because they believe in one God!!!

This is especially amazing because the Koran SPECIFICALLY TEACHES that Jesus DID NOT EVEN DIE ON THE CROSS!!! Here is the verse, straight out of the Koran:

The Women [4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Jesus) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

If you don't believe that Christ died on the Cross, you have no remission of sins and can't go to heaven. But Pope JPII says Muslims who are taught in the Koran to DISBELIEVE the Crucifixion, are "saved"??????????

84 posted on 04/01/2002 4:57:34 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

Comment #85 Removed by Moderator

To: proud2bRC
This Holy Week I was amazed to see so much hate hurled at Catholics on FR. It was why I joined up. Some of you know I am leaving the Episcopal Church and looking for a home. After this Triduum of reading on FR I am much closer to the Roman Catholic Church than ever before. The attacks on the Catholic Church from some posters have seemed demonic to me -- even though they quote the bible at length. I want to thank each Catholic freeper who has reached out to me with kindness and encouragement. And I thank you all for the posts on FR that I have read for some time now, long before becoming a member. You all are a living testimony to what is true and loving about Jesus' Church, and you are like a living online catechism class. I have learned and am learning alot. Although I was raised as an Anglo-Catholic Episcopalian with rosary in hand -- I am overjoyed to find the fulness of what was only hinted at in my childhood. God bless you all.
86 posted on 04/01/2002 5:05:11 PM PST by OxfordMovement
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: proud2bRC
The number of reverts and converts, just here mong Freepers, can be extrapolated out into the culture at large, to point out a number so staggering that it must have the anti-Catholic folks in a tizzy. They just cannot comprehend why all their ranting, insults, and proof texts do not win them converts, but drive folks home to Rome. But it does. Repeatedly.

Your post, and #'s 86, 80, 74, 68, 65 and others reminds me of the times in 1998, when the worse the revelations that came out about Clinton... the HIGHER his popularity ratings went. (That certainly had the "anti-clinton" folks in a tizzy.) :-)

What you seem to miss, is that nowhere in my posts, (or other Bible believing Protestants) do we ever "bash" Jesus, the Cross, The Holy Spirit, The Father, or The Resurrection.

Just Rome.

87 posted on 04/01/2002 5:20:02 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

Comment #88 Removed by Moderator

To: berned
I'll bet you played a mean game of Hop-Scotch when you were a kid!

Then you will no doubt conceed, that when Revelation talks about Israel and the Temple etc. it is prophesying the future, (Since Israel and the Temple were destroyed in 70 AD 25 years before Revelation was written.)
I concede no such thing. You must explain to me very carefully why there were a whole host of prophets before Christ... but only one (John) after Christ. Did Jesus forget to tell us something when he was here? Why have there been no further prophets? Was John really a prophet or was he an inspired man?

Therefore, I hope you will agree that it was GOD, not puny mortal men at the UN, that brought Israel back to the land in 1948, so that the prophesies in Revelationcould be fulfilled (which is the will of God).

I do not agree. Was it God? Or was it men who (perhaps thinking it may be Gods will) decided to establish physical Israel. Your argument also takes us onto new ground... If God, did indeed willfully establish Physical Israel, then we must also conclude that God willfully established the Nazi party of Germany as agents of the Holocost, and thus the "rebirth" of Israel. And where in the bible do you find God willfully creating anything evil such as the Nazi's?

How curious then, that Pius XII did NOT want this to happen! (See my note #18, with link to the story).
See my Post #23.

Since the Catholic Encyclopedia admits Revelation was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, and Revelation prophesies about a literal, physical Israel, restored to their ancient homeland, WHICH GOD GAVE TO THEM FOREVER AND EVER
The history of the Jews is one of a stiff-necked people who have determined to go their own way. Witness that even after being freed from the slavery of Egypt by the miricles of God...they still built a "golden idol." God gave them a "physical Israel" His name was Jesus. And He will rule forever and ever.

P.S.: Sorry it took so long to get back to you. The system moderator switched this thread to the religion section while I was in mid post...messed-up my system and it's taken this long to get back to you with a reply.

89 posted on 04/01/2002 5:59:35 PM PST by grumpster-dumpster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: grumpster-dumpster, redhead
You must explain to me very carefully why there were a whole host of prophets before Christ... but only one (John) after Christ. Did Jesus forget to tell us something when he was here? Why have there been no further prophets? Was John really a prophet or was he an inspired man?

Why was there need for 23 books after the Gospels? Because that was God's plan. Prophet or inspired man?? Clearly a prophet. Revelation starts out with 7 letters to churches DIRECTLY from Jesus. This is the established pattern of prophets. God speaks to man... man writes down God's words for us. Also..

Rev 4:1 After these things I (John) looked, and behold, a door standing open in heaven, and the first voice which I had heard, like the sound of a trumpet speaking with me, said, "Come up here, and I will show you what must take place after these things."

That's pretty much the essence of prophesy.

And where in the bible do you find God willfully creating anything evil such as the Nazi's?

Let's see... the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Romans... God definitely used the Nazis to re-birth Israel. God is Sovereign over EVERYTHING.

." God gave them a "physical Israel" His name was Jesus. And He will rule forever and ever.

This is a willful misreading of Genesis on your part. re-read my post. God tells Abraham he will give him the LAND to his seed forever. The LAND. Literal.

Great questions, by the way. Now I have a question for you and redhead... I am wildly curious...

Why do you guys not WANT God to give the Jews their ancestral homeland? Why would you not WANT the Temple to be re-built? I'm having a hard time understanding why you both seem so resistant/afraid of these things happening. Why?? If indeed, the Jews are back in their land (which they are) and their Temple is re-built (which I'm certain it will be) what skin off your noses would that be? Just curious. All of you Catholics on this thread seem deathly afraid of the Book of Revelation. Why is that?

Thanks!

90 posted on 04/01/2002 6:20:42 PM PST by berned
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: berned
Why was there need for 23 books ....This is the established pattern of prophets. God speaks to man... man writes down God's words for us.
OK...why was it necessary to "take-out" books of the bible in the KJV? Does God also erase through man?

And where in the bible do you find God willfully creating anything evil such as the Nazi's? ...
Let's see... the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the Romans... God definitely used the Nazis to re-birth Israel. God is Sovereign over EVERYTHING.
I think your missing the point. God did not create the Egyptians, etc. specifically to fulfill a prophesy. Why should He? He had the power to establish an Israel that would never have become slaves. All of the Old Testament leads to one act: The Sacrifice of Christ and His Ressurrection for a people (us) who can never repay such love in kind! The rest is just semantics.

" God gave them a "physical Israel" His name was Jesus. And He will rule forever and ever."
This is a willful misreading of Genesis on your part. re-read my post. God tells Abraham he will give him the LAND to his seed forever. The LAND. Literal.
And since Abraham is the father of many nations... why give the land to those who do not believe in His Son?

Why do you guys not WANT God to give the Jews their ancestral homeland?
I don't care if the Jewish people get their ancient homeland. That's never been my point.

Why would you not WANT the Temple to be re-built?
Again! The "Temple" has been rebuilt in the person of Jesus Christ. If the Israelis choose to destroy the mosque on the site and rebuild a "building" ...that's their affair.

I'm having a hard time understanding why you both seem so resistant/afraid of these things happening. Why?? If indeed, the Jews are back in their land (which they are) and their Temple is re-built (which I'm certain it will be) what skin off your noses would that be?
Well I think I answered that...but again, all they will be doing is constructing a building, the Temple has already been built!

All of you Catholics on this thread seem deathly afraid of the Book of Revelation. Why is that?
I seriously doubt that we are afraid... Jesus the Christ has already promised us His divine kingdom. What more do we need?

It has been an interesting discussion...I'll give it that. Thank you for bringing me closer to my Catholic faith.

91 posted on 04/01/2002 6:58:10 PM PST by grumpster-dumpster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: berned
"Why do you guys not WANT God to give the Jews their ancestral homeland?"

Did either of us say we didn't WANT the Jews to live in their ancestral homeland? I strongly support their right to live there.

"Why would you not WANT the Temple to be re-built?"

Did either of us say we didn't WANT the temple to be rebuilt? I merely wondered something that had been on my mind for some time.

"I'm having a hard time understanding why you both seem so resistant/afraid of these things happening."

I can't answer for any other poster regarding this. I believe I answered this above. I was just WONDERING.

"If indeed, the Jews are back in their land (which they are) and their Temple is re-built (which I'm certain it will be) what skin off your noses would that be? Just curious. All of you Catholics on this thread seem deathly afraid of the Book of Revelation. Why is that?"

What?? I beg your pardon? I am not going to ask you any questions because I don't want to pursue this any further. You have come here and HIJACKED another Catholic thread, and I suppose you have cut another notch on your belt and polished your fingernails on your chest for this accomplishment. I can't speak for any of the other posters on this thread, but I will tell you this: I am not AFRAID of the Book of Revelation, any more than I'm AFRAID of Psalms or James. Get real.

92 posted on 04/01/2002 7:03:56 PM PST by redhead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: marshmallow
I know most of us already pray for the pope but anyone who sees this post please say a Hail Mary just for him.

And then I'd like to ask everyone to say one for all the freepers who bash Catholicism.

93 posted on 04/01/2002 7:13:47 PM PST by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tiki
Sane words tiki...Very sane!
I'm shutting down for the night...but I'll follow your advice before bed!

Blessings and take care!

94 posted on 04/01/2002 7:25:50 PM PST by grumpster-dumpster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: tiki
I said a Hail Mary for the Holy Father. Perhaps an entire 15 decade Rosary for the RC Bashers would be more appropriate?

roachie- received Sacraments of Initiation Sat. Nite.

95 posted on 04/01/2002 7:30:35 PM PST by roachie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Oh, I guess that silly rule that priests can't marry is just my imagination.
96 posted on 04/01/2002 7:48:15 PM PST by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: grumpster-dumpster
"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."

I have to admit, this prot got a good chuckle out of this one! Thanks for the post....it was hilarious...:)

97 posted on 04/01/2002 7:50:01 PM PST by rwfromkansas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dansangel
Well from reading this thread I would recommend that you learn the St. Michael prayer fast and pray it often. We need all the help we can get! :-}
98 posted on 04/01/2002 7:53:41 PM PST by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: OxfordMovement
seemed demonic to me

Some of them certainly are scary they are so filled with hatred!

As a convert myself I invite you to come on over. You won't be sorry.

99 posted on 04/01/2002 7:57:30 PM PST by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: roachie
Congratulations! I'm sure it was a very special night.

This was my 2 year anniversary.

100 posted on 04/01/2002 8:02:20 PM PST by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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