POPE SAID TO BE APPROACHING HIS 'LAST DAYS'...

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by I Am Blessed 24, Oct 3, 2003.

  1. I Am Blessed 24

    I Am Blessed 24
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    44,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Austrian Cardinal Says Pope Nearing Death
    Reuters
    Thursday, October 2, 2003; 1:39 PM
    By Crispian Balmer

    [​IMG]

    VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - A senior European cardinal said on Thursday Pope John Paul was nearing death -- the latest top churchman to ring alarm bells about the state of the 83-year old pontiff's health.

    Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn made his comments on the same day the pope's private secretary was trying to play down concerns about the pope's evident frailty.

    Pope John Paul, who suffers from Parkinson's Disease and can no longer walk without help, has appeared weaker than normal in recent public appearances and has struggled to speak at times.

    THE REST OF THE STORY
     
  2. Jude

    Jude
    Expand Collapse
    <img src=/scott3.jpg>

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2001
    Messages:
    2,680
    Likes Received:
    0
    He has served his Church well. I would hope that the next Pope would call the Roman Catholic Church to even greater purity and faithfulness, and, see that the time has come to allow married priests and bishops. I would also hope that he would work hard for unity with the Orthodox and Anglican churches...
     
  3. dumbox1

    dumbox1
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    I'm of two minds about this latest spate of stories. On the one hand, Pope John Paul is 83 years old, has a number of health problems, and obviously isn't going to live forever. On the other hand, these latest stories seem to be taking rather inoccuous comments and blowing them out of proportion.

    I pray that God will grant him a continued long life and more fruitful works of faith, and ease his suffering.
     
  4. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Jude,

    I am certainly unaware of the length of study you have committed to the area of priestly celibacy in the history of the Church, but if you are interested in advancing your knowledge in this area, I would suggest The Theology of Priestly Celibacy by Stanley Jaki for a more extensive study and The Case For Clerical Celibacy by Cardinal Stickler for a pithy review. Celibacy among the ministers of the Church holds - contrary to public, uninformed opinion - extensive theological (i.e., Biblical) and historical foundation, far more than enough to have won this mind over to its support and defense.
     
  5. Dan Stiles

    Dan Stiles
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2002
    Messages:
    632
    Likes Received:
    0
    That's right! Just look to the man who is commonly referred to as the "First Pope," Peter. He was celebate.... oh, ... uh,... wait a minute... no... uh, he had a mother-in-law didn't he? ... so he must have had a wi... well... never mind... :D
    (please accept it in good humor, Carson; that's the spirit in which it was given.)
     
  6. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dan,

    Thanks for the humor. ;)

    Who denies that Peter was married? I certainly don't deny that. I also don't deny that it is certainly possible that Peter may very well have committed himself to continence within the context of this same marriage even though this is not necessary. Ministerial celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. However, it has profound theological and Biblical foundations, which makes it a fruitful and proper discipline for the Christian minister.

    "Amen, I say to you, there is no one who has given up house or wife ... for the sake of the kingdom of God who will not receive back an overabundant return in this present age and eternal life in the age to come" (Luke 18:29).

    Guess whose question prompted this answer of Jesus?
     
  7. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The Bible never promotes divorce and Paul states clearly that if anyone has a wife already they should remain in that condition. In fact he insists that one that is married IS to divert his attention to some extent - to that God-given relationship.

    Christ's point about a wife is better understood to mean one who has the option of getting married and chooses not to for the sake of the Gospel. It is not a reference to physical-divorce or to mental-divorce.

    As for the Pope appearing frail - he has appeared frail for about a decade. Whether God has determined that this is his final hour or not - I hope that he fares well. Religious leaders like Billy Graham and Pope John Paul cary a lot of influence and have a wide ministry. They all need special direction from the Holy Spirit.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  8. Ray Berrian

    Ray Berrian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Messages:
    5,178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob Ryan,

    You said something to the effect that Billy Graham and Pope John Paul need the continued guidance of the Holy Spirit. I heartily agree with you. But then we too, are the light of the world and need His strength and guidance. We have a testimony to bear as we pass through this land.

    A brother,
    Ray
     
  9. Yelsew

    Yelsew
    Expand Collapse
    Guest

    On Topic, "It is appointed unto man once to die, then the judgment." Popes are not exempt from this any more than they are exempt from any of God's workings and law.

    The only condition that circumvents Judgment is Believing in Jesus. Jesus said (to wit), "Whosoever believeth in Him is not Judged, but whosever believeth not is condemned already by their unbelief. "

    He also said that "whosoever believeth in him Shall not die but have eternal life. But we all must pass through the gate of death, to get to eternal life." (paraphrased)
     
  10. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    That is quite an oxymoron you have set forth here for one who defends the position that the celibacy of the priesthood is simply a discipline. Let's see, you use the term The Theology of Priestly Celibacy, the name of book that you recommend. "The theology of celibacy." Theology stictly speaking is the study of God, or the study of the doctrines of God. So in essence you are suggesting that we read about the doctrines of priestly celibacy. Thelogy infers teaching and doctrine, not discipline. Could it be that the Catholic Church wants to call the celbacy of the priesthood a discipline rather than a doctrine, just to avoid the plain teaching of the Bible:

    1Tim.4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
    2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
    3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

    The Word of God uses plainness of speech. "Forbidding to marry," or a celbibate priesthood is a doctrine of demons.
    DHK
     
  11. WPutnam

    WPutnam
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2122.jpg>

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2001
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is quite an oxymoron you have set forth here for one who defends the position that the celibacy of the priesthood is simply a discipline. Let's see, you use the term The Theology of Priestly Celibacy, the name of book that you recommend. "The theology of celibacy." Theology stictly speaking is the study of God, or the study of the doctrines of God. So in essence you are suggesting that we read about the doctrines of priestly celibacy. Thelogy infers teaching and doctrine, not discipline. Could it be that the Catholic Church wants to call the celbacy of the priesthood a discipline rather than a doctrine, just to avoid the plain teaching of the Bible:

    1Tim.4:1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
    2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
    3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

    The Word of God uses plainness of speech. "Forbidding to marry," or a celbibate priesthood is a doctrine of demons.
    DHK
    </font>[/QUOTE]Unfortunately, anti-Catholics all too often see these words and jump to a conclusion that agrees with a pre-conceived notion that is total nonsense!

    Do you have any idea at all, DHK, who Paul was speaking of in scripture piece you quoted? Do you realize that there was a pagan cult at the time who practiced this completely, that marriage was forbidden, period? (One wonders how they expected to perpetuate if they were unable to reproduce?)

    Do you see the Catholic prohibiting marriage, DHK? I'm married and a Catholic in good standing! And in fact, Matrimony is one of the seven sacraments of the Church!

    It is a discipline imposed upon those who wish to follow Jesus in the mission as originally given to the apostles, and recommended by both Christ and Paul - celibacy. Also, remember tha that the Eastern Rite community, which is "in union with Rome," has a (gulp!) MARRIED PRIESTHOOD!

    Do I have to tatoo this on your forehead so that you will understand what I am saying here?

    Also, in case you are interested, the quote you give is also applied, by those who think the holy Spirit resides on their shoulders and whispers such truth into their ears, that goes against the discipline of abstanance for certain foods, such as the eating of meat on Friday.

    But by golly, we can eat all the meat we want on Saturday and the rest of the week!

    Incredible! Simply incredible!

    God bless,

    PAX

    Bill+†+


    I will entrust to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
    Whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound in heaven;
    whatsoever you declare loosed on earth, shall be loosed in
    heaven.

    Matthew, chapter 16 verse 19
     
  12. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    You are right to some degree. There were such sects that completely forbade the practice of marriage, and there are still some pagan religions like that today. That's not the issue that Paul was addressing. Why should he? Marriage was a holy institution among Jews and Christians alike. There was no reason within the realm of Christianity for Timothy to be afraid of a sect cropping up that would forbid marriage totally. It would die out anyway. But there was a danger of a teaching that was similar would raise its ugly face--something Paul calls a doctrine of demons.

    Now let's look at it strictly from an RC point of view, and not get off on any rabbit tralis such as the Latin rites. Even the pope himself stresses that priests need to be celibate. Also we agree that the church believes that marriage is a sacred institution, as you mentioned it is one of your seven sacraments.

    Just as total abstinence from marriage would be impossible for any sect to carry out, so would total abstinence from all food be impossible to carry out. This is not what Paul was talking about.

    In reference to food, any person has a choice to choose the foods they want to eat, even the diet they want to keep. They can choose to be a vegetarian if they wish. There is nothing wrong with that. God has given us a free will. However, when that free will is taken away by the church, and the church decrees that I must be a vegetarian, or I must abstain from certain foods, then it becomes a doctrine of demons. No church has the right to do that. As far as I know the SDA's (at the least the one's I have met) follow such a rule, by the decree of their church). Their liberty on such a matter is taken away by the doctrine of "abstaining from foods," a doctrine of demons.

    Concerning "forbidding to marry," Paul is not talking about all marriages, he is speaking of certian groups within the church. Marriage is a choice. I am married. It was my choice. I am also in the ministry. No one forced me to get married; it was my choice. There is a lady in our church apporaching 90 who is still single. It was her decision to remain single. No one forced her. The decision was hers. But when the church puts out a decree that a certain group of people (priests, nuns, etc) remain celibate, i.e., they "forbid to marry," then that is a doctrine of demons. This is as clear as day and night. The Roman Catholic church is guilty of this. The pope himself is very strong on the celibacy of the priesthood.
    DHK

    [ October 05, 2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]
     
  13. Carson Weber

    Carson Weber
    Expand Collapse
    <img src="http://www.boerne.com/temp/bb_pic2.jpg">

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    3,079
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi DHK,

    You'll earn an audience when you first listen to those you address.
     
  14. WPutnam

    WPutnam
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2122.jpg>

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2001
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hummmm, that got me to thinking:

    Could I have explained it any better? Why is it that DHK immediately attaches what Paul says to the Church, then in it's infancy, never considered the need for celibacy, perhaps, that being an immerging need later on?

    Also, is it a "rabbit trail" that if this is indeed, speaking of the Church, Paul is now speaking against it?

    Have at him, Carson. Maybe you could explain it better to him then I can...

    God bless,

    PAX

    Bill+†+


    Regina Angelorum, ora pro nobis!
     
  15. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    First, I am not being anit-Catholic (believe it or not), I am anti-any religion that falls into this category of either forbidding to marry or abstaining from certain from certain foods by church decree. There are many churches that do so. This is not just by historical progression, it happened in Timothy's day as well, else Paul would not have addressed the issue. It is not my preconceived notion. Your church (the RCC) and the SDA make two could examples because they are well know in these areas.

    Yes I do, although I forge the exact name of the rlgion that existed back then. We have the same tye of thing that exists today in the religion of Jainism:
    From Josh McDowell's "Handbook of Today's Religions"

    How much is Jainism a threat to Christianity? Almost nil. So likewise were these other pagan cults that advocated complete celibacy for everyone. No Christian or Jew believed in that. That was not a threat. Think of it. How attractive would Jainism be to you? Put in that light it doesn't make much sense does it? That wasn't the problem that Paul was addressing. What did Paul write concerning the requirements of a pastor?

    1Tim.3:1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
    2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

    Context is everything isn't it. This is just one chapter before the one that we are discussing.
    What does this verse (verse two) mean? It obviously does not teach celibacy; if anything it teaches the opposite, and one could make a very strong case for the position that every man in the ministry must be married, a totally opposite position than the Catholic Church takes. Obviously marriage is sacred and important in the ministry. This verse has one of three meanings:
    1. The pastor MUST be married--a possibility.
    2. The pastor cannot be divorced and remarried.
    3. The pastor cannot be polygamous.

    I strongly believe that both #2 and #3 are wrong, and that Paul was probably referring to #2, that a pastor cannot be divorced and remarried. I believe that the Bible teaches that a remarried person in God's sight is still married to his first wife. God does not recognize divorce. But that is another topic for another thread. To put it another way God demands a very high standard for those that are to lead his flock.
    Whatever interpretation you take, marriage is encouraged, not frowned upon for the "clergy."

    Absolutely I see the Catholic Church prohibiting marriage among their own priests. Let's keep to the topic at hand.

    As strongly as I can put it: That is a lie out of Hell. Peter was married. So don't tell me that lie.
    Jesus healed "Peter's wifes' mother. We have no evidence that any of the Apostles remained single for that matter. Even Paul himself was married. His wife died earlier on, and he was left a widower. He had to be married for before he was saved he was a member of the Sanhedrin. One of the qualifications of which was marriage. The "Eastern Rite," is just another red herring. We are speakng of the RCC proper. The pope advocated celibacy, and I think you know that very well.
    As for the mission of Christ, you are off on another rabbit trail. "Christ came not be ministered unto but to minister and to give his life a ransom for many, not for a wife. He did not come from the glories of Heaven to this earth for the purpose of marriage. He was God incarnate, and came for the express purpose of dying for our sin. To even suggest that marriage was one of his purposes smacks of blasphemy.
    Paul disciplined himself to run the race. There is no discipline when the church imposes church celibacy, only a doctrine imposed by the church.

    Are you the antichrist? [​IMG]

    That is simply a modern-day application. Paul spent all of Romans 14, 1Cor. 8,9, and 10 dealing with the subject of meat offered to idols. There are also examples of it given in the Book of Acts. We have much information on this subject. The problem was twofold. There were many Christians who came from a Jewish background that wanted to adhere to the Jewish diet. If they did out of personal choice it would be alright. But some of these Judaizers went farther and tried to impose their beliefs of the church. It was dealt with in Acts 15. The Gentile believers did not have to adhere to the law concerning such things. Paul says in Rom.14 concerning a vegetarian: "But he that eateth herbs is weak.." He says in 1Tim.4, that God has created all things to be good. There is nothint that is unclean. For a church to force dietary laws on their congregation in this day and age of grace is a doctrine of demons. It is wrong. Christ has fullfilled the law. We are no longer under the law.

    Yes you can. That never was much of an issue with me. It was more of a joke among the Catholics I knew. No one really took that "rule" seriously anyway.
    DHK
     
  16. WPutnam

    WPutnam
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/2122.jpg>

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2001
    Messages:
    985
    Likes Received:
    0
    DHK replied, where I last said (in italics):

    Unfortunately, anti-Catholics all too often see these words and jump to a conclusion that agrees with a pre-conceived notion that is total nonsense!

    In timothy's time, where was the "Church," DHK? In it's infancy, of course! And who were those early Christians? Most likely converts from the very pagan religion Paul is speaking about, does does that make sense?

    From those early times, with Peter being married, and no doubt others of the early clergy as well, the Church, in her infancy, imposed no restrictions on marriage at all! Therefore, what religion is Paul speaking about? No other then the pagan religions that practiced it! So what Paul speaks of cannot apply to the Church (which later on acquired the additional title of "Catholic" circa AD 100)

    I last said:

    Do you have any idea at all, DHK, who Paul was speaking of in the scripture piece you quoted? Do you realize that there was a pagan cult at the time who practiced this completely, that marriage was forbidden, period? (One wonders how they expected to perpetuate if they were unable to reproduce?)

    </font>[/QUOTE]There were a few of them, and I have not looked up myself, but here is a link on Jainism:

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08269b.htm

    And since is is pre-Christian, it may have been the one Paul was speaking about to Timothy.

    I notice that we have "put to bed," therefore, that Paul was not speaking of the Catholic Church, right? [​IMG]

    But then you continue:

    This may surprise you, but I agree with much of what you are saying here! Paul is not prohibiting marriage, but that when one is married, and then is ordained to the clergy and then his wife dies, he cannot remarry! You see, most of the candidates for the clergy came from married men, whereas today, we have a system whereby those who study for the priesthood do so while they are still unmarried and must remain so when they are ordained. That is a canon law for the Latin/Roman/Western Rite only, not for many of the oriental/Eastern Rites that are "in union with Rome" and by all means, Catholics in good standing!

    In the times of Paul, and the Church during apostolic times, I would agree that a married clergy existed throughout the Church, beginning with Peter. Celibacy was only a recommendation by Christ and by Paul. It was later, in the Western Church, that celibacy was imposed by canon law. You may dispute the authority for the Church to do that, but we can discuss that later…

    I last said:

    Do you see the Catholic prohibiting marriage, DHK? I'm married and a Catholic in good standing! And in fact, Matrimony is one of the seven sacraments of the Church!

    DHK, the requirement for a celibate priesthood is a discipline for the clergy only not a prohibition! I know of one laicized priest (allowed to leave the priesthood and get married) who is a Catholic in good standing, now married with 7 Children! He is an expert in scripture as has a wonderful website:

    http://www.totustuus.com/about.htm

    I last said:

    It is a discipline imposed upon those who wish to follow Jesus in the mission as originally given to the apostles, and recommended by both Christ and Paul - celibacy. Also, remember tha that the Eastern Rite community, which is "in union with Rome," has a (gulp!) MARRIED PRIESTHOOD!

    What lie, John? Methinks you strike out too soon without studying what I said. Is it a lie that Christ and Paul recommended celibacy? Do I deny that Peter was married? Where is the lie, John?

    Where does it say Paul was married? But even so, if indeed he was once married but now unmarried (a widower), as an apostle, he then is indeed, the "husband of one wife" just like he said to Timothy! [​IMG]

    Were His apostles taught to be "Christ-like"? Was He not the perfect model for what they were to at least attempt to be? And when an unmarried priest, deacon or brother goes out into the mission fields, does he not do so without the encumbrance of a wife do so with the greatest of economy of the mission? He is not concerned with the affairs of his wife and family but of the affairs of God alone.

    Again, not a doctrine but a discipline! Applicable only to the Western Church (Some Oriential church impose it as well, I understand) whereas, the Oriential/Eastern Church has a married priesthood!

    But I said that already…

    Do I have to tattoo this on your forehead so that you will understand what I am saying here?

    ROTFLOL! [​IMG]

    I was trying to be humorous! [​IMG]

    I am glad you did not take that offensively, John!

    I last said:

    Also, in case you are interested, the quote you give is also applied, by those who think the holy Spirit resides on their shoulders and whispers such truth into their ears, that goes against the discipline of abstinence for certain foods, such as the eating of meat on Friday.

    OK, good for you! I am glad you are not quoting this in opposition to the discipline that was a "modern-day application" by the Catholic Church. [​IMG]

    I last said:

    But by golly, we can eat all the meat we want on Saturday and the rest of the week!

    Well, please count this Catholic as taking this discipline very serious! And believe it or not, most of the Catholics I associated with do so as well. And yes, we do have lax Catholics that ignored it, just as we have lukewarm Christians who are similarly lax in other Christian communities.

    God bless,

    PAX

    Bill+†+


    Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!
     

Share This Page

Loading...