Breaking: Vatican use of “State of Palestine” started under Benedict XVI in 2012
posted at 8:41 am on May 14, 2015 by Ed Morrissey
When news broke of the Vatican’s use of “State of Palestine” in an official document this week, it occasioned the launch of numerous analyses about Pope Francis and his political leanings. Instead of being an indicator of the pontiff’s secret biases, it ended up putting the biases of the media into a clear relief. The use of that phrase — and indeed, Vatican support for Palestinian statehood — began almost three years ago, during the pontificate of that noted lefty communist-supporting Benedict XVI.
John Allen at Crux thinks the media has lost its collective memory, if not its collective mind:
The Vatican has been using the phrase “State of Palestine” in its official diplomatic verbiage since November 2012, when the General Assembly of the United Nations voted to admit the Palestinians as a non-member observer state. The Vatican has always supported Palestinian statehood, and took the position that it would follow the lead of the UN as to when to start referring to it as a fact.
It should be noted that the UN vote came during the papacy of Benedict XVI, meaning that recognition of Palestine as a state is not a new Vatican policy under Francis.
Benedict XVI hardly sat on the sidelines on the issue — and for that matter, neither was St. John Paul II:
When Pope Benedict XVI travelled to the Middle East in 2009, he pledged support for Palestinian statehood. St. John Paul II made similar statements many times, and was sufficiently fond of former PLO leader Yasser Arafat that he had a set of the Stations of the Cross made out of ivory, presented to him by Arafat as a gift, installed in a small chapel off a Vatican chamber where bishops from around the world gather in a meeting called a “synod.”
The agreement announced Wednesday further cements the relationship between the Vatican and the Palestinians, and certainly Vatican diplomats are not so naïve as to fail to recognize the political relevance of using the phrase “State of Palestinian” in an official communiqué.
However, to style that phrase as another diplomatic innovation under this maverick pontiff is excessive. At most, it’s a confirmation that the Vatican under Francis is not backing away from a position it had already taken.
Noah wrote yesterday that the document probably didn’t mean as much as critics assumed, and he was more correct than he knew. Allen notes at the beginning of his debunking article that the media hasn’t done a very good job of learning the history of the Vatican and the teachings of the Catholic Church, and are unprepared to deal with developments and put them in proper context when they occur under this highly popular pontiff. This is one of the more embarrassing examples, but we’ve seen others arise, especially during the Extraordinary Synod on the Family — which is why I wanted to be in Rome to cover it, and got lots of great insight from people like John Allen, John Thavis, and others.
It makes one wonder why these media outlets don’t just as Allen, Thavis, and others who know better. They’re pretty accessible, and friendly to boot.
The agreement yesterday fits into the Vatican’s prime interest into keeping up formal relations with the Palestinians. It extends an agreement reached in 2000 about the legal status of Catholic churches and clergy in the West Bank and Gaza. The Vatican takes protection of those Christian communities seriously, just as it has with the destruction of others in Iraq and Syria. The Christian communities in those areas are evaporating disturbingly fast, thanks to pressures from both the Palestinians and the Israelis, especially in Bethlehem where the security wall cut through Christian areas and seriously damaged their economy, which wasn’t great in the first place. The Vatican wants to sustain those communities, and the only real way to do that is to keep up ties with the Palestinians, whether the Israelis or others like it or not.
One Christian with whom I spoke at length during my most recent travel there said he understood the need for the wall, but that it should have been built outside of the cities of the West Bank rather than through them, as in Bethlehem. They also face other economic issues; Hamas and the PLO have social safety nets for Muslims, and the Israelis have them for Jews in the settlements, but the Christians have nothing of the kind. For the most part, those born in the West Bank and Gaza cannot work in or travel to Israel, not even to see their families, without insurmountable red tape. They’re isolated, falling deeper into poverty, and most of them are packing up for other parts of the world and abandoning the birthplaces of Christianity for good. It’s for these reasons that the Vatican has taken these positions — starting with John Paul II and continuing to this day. They have to work closely and remain on friendly terms with the PA in order to protect those communities and better still to preserve them.
That’s not to claim that these policies are necessarily the only correct ones or even wise in themselves, but they’re not irrational or uninformed either. And despite the media storm over the past couple of days, they’re not new and they didn’t originate with Francis.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Everytown’s latest idea: Use cop killings to push for more background checks
Done deal: Mike Huckabee is the next president, says psychic
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
It is pathetic to see Ed Morrissey constantly make excuses for the disgraceful communist Pope Francis (and constantly tell us what he “really means”).
Well said.
bluegill on May 14, 2015 at 12:15 PM
Then explain yourself and what you feel is short.
Neitherleftorright on May 14, 2015 at 12:17 PM
.
Its not ignorance. You’re being unfair to ignorance.
Its plain Hatefulness.
FlaMurph on May 14, 2015 at 12:21 PM
I always learn such interesting things in these inter-sect squabble threads.
Count to 10 on May 14, 2015 at 12:23 PM
I might be wrong, but it appeared more to me an argument on whether the Vatican, Roman Catholicism and the Pope were the one and only true church, with a few digs at Judaism.
Neitherleftorright on May 14, 2015 at 12:28 PM
Ignorance about what? Your statement is too broad to understand without context.
Neitherleftorright on May 14, 2015 at 12:29 PM
I will say this time and time again: The world doesn’t march to the American political drummer. The indigenous Christians there almost unanimously support the Palestinian cause.
EnzyteBob on May 14, 2015 at 12:29 PM
Dhimmitude has that effect.
whatcat on May 14, 2015 at 12:33 PM
Grammar note, in the minor-typo category, but it’s only fair to be even-handed in pointing them out.
“did” for “was” seems the simplest fix.
Now I’ll read the comments.
AesopFan on May 14, 2015 at 12:33 PM
Could you please cite some references to back this up? I can hardly imagine that Christians living under Hamas or the PLO would support them and their cause.
Neitherleftorright on May 14, 2015 at 12:33 PM
As I said – they live as dhimmis. They know what Muslims will do to them and they want to keep their heads attached to their bodies.
whatcat on May 14, 2015 at 12:37 PM
That can be applied to the majority of the Muslim population too. Listen to what the xenophobic Muslim leadership says or suffer the consequences.
Neitherleftorright on May 14, 2015 at 12:44 PM
While that is true, I still doubt very many Christians have come out and said what they feel one or another to the question of palestinian statehood.
Neitherleftorright on May 14, 2015 at 12:47 PM
Not getting into the debates, although I appreciate the historical and philosophical discussion. However, it is well to remember that “contention is of the devil” and serves no one but Satan.
The building estate has a lot of developers and contractors, but what matters is whether or not you give allegiance to the Landlord.
The Church of God consists of all who do His will (even unknowingly), and is not limited to the rolls of any one denomination, nor even to Christians alone.
Many who are now kept from a knowledge or belief in Christ by ignorance and the evils of mankind will acknowledge and worship Him in the resurrection.
AesopFan on May 14, 2015 at 12:54 PM
Also, I see them as nominal “Christians”, just as we have here in America and found elsewhere in the world. They just pretty much go with the flow. The ones who may have sincere faith I feel for (as I do the Israelis), in being surrounded by Islamists.
whatcat on May 14, 2015 at 12:55 PM
No, what you did was accuse Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI of being a Nazi or at least a Nazi sympathizer. That is calumny against him, and shameful, and a sin.
By 1936 membership in the Hitler Youth increased to 5.4 million before it became mandatory in 1939.
Beloved Benedict would have been 12 years old at that time.
But yes, we are products of our past, to some degree. Being a product of his past made him despise tyranny in all its forms, and fight against it. That’s why he spoke so plainly about radical Islam at Regensburg. It’s why he was so anti-Marxist and fought Marxist Liberation Theology about which he said, “Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.”
It’s why he wrote and spoke out so clearly on the tyranny of The Dictatorship of Moral Relativism.
You owe him an apology. He is a wonderful, brilliant, and deeply faithful man. You should read some of his writings. I thank God for him.
pannw on May 14, 2015 at 12:56 PM
Wikipedia has a detailed explanation, for each pope, of the relation between the vatican and “palestinians”.
No “state” that I can see yet.
Ed’s post is consistent with this.
But not this. Wikipedia reference says:
gh on May 14, 2015 at 12:58 PM
This pope and the Church is taking the side of the imperialist invading terrorist arabs against the people indigenous to Israel, the Jews.
But the Church has a history of supporting terrorism against the Jews, so no surprise.
What is interesting is reading people bend them themselves into pretzels trying to justify the support of terrorist murderers
georgealbert on May 14, 2015 at 1:06 PM
.
I’m sure God is on your side as well…..lamenting….
“Screw all those Palestinian people anyway- ain’t my peeps no more”……
FlaMurph on May 14, 2015 at 1:10 PM
Read the comments. Why should I have to repost the relevant remarks.
Akzed on May 14, 2015 at 1:12 PM
Nope, go back and read again.
I simply noted that people sometimes tend to carry some baggage from their youth. It would be the same if someone had a strong Moonie or Scientology influence in his youth. How much did Benedict carry over? We don’t know, but we cannot ignore with a wave of the hand something in the past just because it’s ugly to think about.
As to the Hitler Youth and Benedict:
“Hitler Jugend: Joseph Ratzingers claims about the Hitler Youth are not true.
Compulsory membership was first defined in 1936 and reinforced in 1939, not in 1941 as he says. Ratzinger also says that he was still too young at the time, but he was 14 in 1941 and not too young at all: between the ages of 10 and 14, membership in the Deutsche Jungvolk (a group for younger children) was mandatory. Yet there is no mention of Raztinger belonging. If he had managed to avoid the required membership in the Deutsche Jungvolk, why did he suddenly join the Hitler Youth in 1941″
That’s from the About.com site in the “Athiest” About section, it concludes: “There is absolutely no reason to think that Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, is now or has ever been secretly a Nazi.”
But to say he was “forced” (or was some kind of “profile in courage”) to do what he did is a bit of a stretch. He was, as we humans are wont to do, just looking out for number one in doing what was expected of him.
whatcat on May 14, 2015 at 1:20 PM
Yeah… that’s what I thought.
Neitherleftorright on May 14, 2015 at 1:23 PM
What exactly are you arguing?
Neitherleftorright on May 14, 2015 at 1:25 PM
Wow…you go ahead and enjoy your “Atheist about” site. I’m sure they give the Pope a fair reading. Even if the Pope got the dates and ages wrong, doesn’t change the truth of his being forced in. I guess when you are in your 70’s and 80’s you’ll remember your preteen years clearly. / Oh, and at 14 you would have stood up to the Nazis, would you? Sure you would.
SHAMEFUL… and too proud to admit you are wrong.
Pride is a sin too, just like calumny.
Dust, sandals…
pannw on May 14, 2015 at 1:31 PM
Not any better.
Schadenfreude on May 14, 2015 at 1:31 PM
Ah – the patented Dan Rather “fake but true” rationale. But, meh, whatever floats your boat.
whatcat on May 14, 2015 at 1:38 PM
Ed’s in a tough spot. He hosts on radio for Relevant Radio and if you read his dispatches from Rome, he always discloses (unlike the liberal media) that he has an in with the Vatican. His job is to spin the indefensible. Ed’s like Marie Harf or Lanny Davis in that respect. He can’t make a silk purse.
sauldalinsky on May 14, 2015 at 1:45 PM
You also thought that it was stupid for me to have to repost?
Akzed on May 14, 2015 at 1:59 PM
I think by this time Ed’s got the facepalm routine downpat. But I really do feel for Catholic folks. I remember a time when the Church was taken seriously. It was respected by most Americans, even if they weren’t big fans of it. A little before my time “Uncle Milty” had a tough go at beating Bishop Fulton Sheen in the TV ratings.
whatcat on May 14, 2015 at 2:00 PM
Actually, it is not, and that is why the Kos Kidz and the DUmmies should be linking to these kind of threads constantly.
corona79 on May 14, 2015 at 2:04 PM
You deceptive jerk. Getting a date wrong isn’t the same as making up a story. And YOU KNOW IT. So what if he remembered it being in 41 instead of 39? Does that change the fact that enrollment became mandatory and so he had to enroll? Of course not. But that doesn’t matter, does it?
Good grief…why am I arguing with someone so obviously completely intellectually dishonest? After reading your linked ‘report’, I can see you belong at the ‘atheist about’ site. They came up with a lot of pure speculation based on little to nothing too. That is such a nasty moralistic load of tripe attacking someone for what he may or may not have done (they admit they don’t even know!) as a young teen as if he should have been superman…and you just ate it up. Pathetic… But I bet you won’t give the same attention to the accounts from people who were there and actually knew them, will you?
SHAMEFUL.
pannw on May 14, 2015 at 2:11 PM
Why of course! You are after all the smartest person on the thread and it would clearly be beneath you to engage in civil dialogue with someone so stupid as I am.
You through out a dig, but wont explain. Seems childish.
Neitherleftorright on May 14, 2015 at 2:21 PM
I could be going out on a limb here, but I don’t think you and pannw are thinking along the same lines.
Neitherleftorright on May 14, 2015 at 2:22 PM
The doctrine is infallibility on all maters of faith and morals. You don’t think Cum nimis absurdum, the Syllabus of Errors or Cantate Domino address faith or morals?
That’s ludicrous. Hey, if you feel free to ignore and contradict the Popes while telling us they can be horrifically wrong on a matter of faith, why should I care what any Pope says about anything?
mankai on May 14, 2015 at 2:33 PM
Never mind. There is no reason to have an issue with you. I wrote something you had an opinion. I didn’t get it and that’s it.
I am sorry that I stooped to the level of an attack on you. It was unnecessary.
Neitherleftorright on May 14, 2015 at 2:55 PM
Dude, please forget about it, no offense meant or taken.
Akzed on May 14, 2015 at 3:59 PM
So where in there does it say anything about Peter’s successor’s or apostolic succession?
“Apostle” in the context of the New Testament means something very specific to me. There were 12 of them, each representing a tribe of Israel. Never more, never less. The idea of “apostolic succession” started with Paul, who took the mantle of “apostle” on himself despite never having traveled with Yeshua or hearing Yeshua’s teachings during the three years of his earthly ministry. The vision on the road to Damascus was nothing more than an ultimatum for Saul/Paul to stop persecuting the nascent evangelical Judaism movement founded on Yeshua’s command to “…go and make disciples of all the nations.” Most of what Paul did from there on out was outright fraud, and I place the blame for Christianity’s modern shortcomings completely and directly on Paul’s shoulders.
gryphon202 on May 14, 2015 at 4:00 PM
You shouldn’t. A pope can’t condemn you to Hell.
gryphon202 on May 14, 2015 at 4:01 PM
LOL at jabbing Paul to hurt Peter
corona79 on May 14, 2015 at 4:34 PM
All this nonsense makes me glad I’m a Protestant.
Look: This Pope, all Popes, are mortal men.
ALL men are sinners, and fall short of the Glory of God.
And so this Pope falls short of the Glory of God, as we all do.
Only the All-Wise is… well, All-Wise. Only God is God. In God we trust.
(All others pay cash.)
I have the greatest respect for John Paul the Great. Some for Pope Benedict, less for Pope Francis (at least for now). There may be an advantage to recognising a “Palestinian State”, but I’m not sure I see it at this time. I’m willing to wait for the All-Wise’s plans to ripen; and just hope there’s not too much pain or damage done before then. We’ll see.
ReggieA on May 14, 2015 at 4:55 PM
Thanks.
Neitherleftorright on May 14, 2015 at 5:07 PM
Proverbs 6:10-20
12 A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth.
13 He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers;
14 Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord.
15 Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy.
16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.
20 My son, keep thy father’s commandment, and forsake not the law of thy mother:
FlaMurph on May 14, 2015 at 5:10 PM
It matters in regard to the posed question: “If he had managed to avoid the required membership in the Deutsche Jungvolk, why did he suddenly join the Hitler Youth in 1941?”
You mean – “There is absolutely no reason to think that Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, is now or has ever been secretly a Nazi.”?
Or can you cite specific information that is incorrect?
I noted he wasn’t exactly a profile in courage. He did what most good Germans did; as Bogey said in Casablanca “I stick my neck out for *nobody*!”. Those who resisted Hitler did indeed risk their necks – and some did have it lopped off. The Ratzinger family just was not into resistance. Considering the risk, that’s understandable.
Others were well aware of dangers, but acted anyway.
By the way, you’ll have to learn to use the link box thingee better if you want people to read what you share. If nothing else, just paste the link directly into a comment and skip the link box thingee altogether,
whatcat on May 14, 2015 at 5:24 PM
.
The devil has certainly got you by the tail……
.
Do a little research into Pope Benedict- not your liberal talking point sources- and you’ll have a better understanding.
And maybe you wont be so dishonest, or rather disingenuous, when you try to ascribe Naziism to a 10 year old boy some 80 yrs ago in the darkest hour we have known.
Do you feel he had the inside info on what plans the Third Reich were up to as a child?
Or do you think he had the gift of seeing into the future and could realize the horrors Hitler and his murderers had in store?
Or do you think he should have had the 20-20 like hindsight like you have been afforded from the benefit of 80 years of history and examination?
Were you there when they……..
FlaMurph on May 14, 2015 at 6:07 PM
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/418394/meeting-ra-l-andrew-stuttaford
mankai on May 14, 2015 at 6:45 PM
Darn that Old Scratch anyway!
“liberal talking points”, lol. You’re more than welcome to point out anything that is incorrect. Go for it.
whatcat on May 14, 2015 at 7:00 PM
What do you learn?
Anti-ControI on May 14, 2015 at 7:49 PM
The Vatican stands against God’s chosen people. That’s all we need to know.
DarkCurrent on May 14, 2015 at 8:30 PM
Unless that’s all nonsense…
DarkCurrent on May 14, 2015 at 8:30 PM
This blows my mind. I’m supposed to believe in the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic church because tradition. And because 2000 years of unbroken succession or something. Great. Then why do we listen to lay pundits like Ed Morrissey give sermonettes and explain just why the pope didn’t say what he said in plain English? That doesn’t sound like a very authoritative magisterium to me.
gryphon202 on May 14, 2015 at 10:46 PM
Francis loves him some Marxists and Jew-haters…
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2015/05/red-francis-popes-embrace-of-marxists-and-jew-haters-should-concern-all-catholics/
Ed, K-LO and other RCs at conservative sites desperately trying to massage His Redness into a shining example of Reagan-like pragmatism ’cause he’s pretty much Jefferson and the Apostle Paul rolled into one awesome, conservative leader we should all adore.
mankai on May 15, 2015 at 7:14 AM
These kinds of threads are useful in flushing out the anti-Catholic bigots among us. They are too dishonest to admit what they are, just as they are too ignorant to deal rationally with the realities of the given situation, as explained very clearly by Ed.
While the greater threat these days comes from hostile secularists, it’s clear that there’s still plenty of that “ol’ time religion” at work here. You can pretend all you want that your blind hatred of Pope Francis is because “he’s a Communist” or something, but your true motivation is painfully evident.
You should be embarrassed at how quickly you allow your bigotry to fuel an apparent desire to condemn the oppressed Christians of the Holy Land. Control your animus, for once, and think about them.
cicerone on May 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM
Ed must be a masochist, lol.
C’mon, your way too emotional here.
Haters gonna hate – yes. But guess what? It OUR job to light the way for them. The enemy of Darkness is Light- and somebody has gotta let their little light in shine mode. Don’t you have empathy for those who have not found peace and love in their lives? Shaming those who “trespass” against you will only serve to encourage more division and push them away- and that’s contrary to Love Jesus has given us.
Ed is showing us the way here with his interwebs blog. Where else can someone who is searching go for such an articulated, relevant discussion that involves the facets of the Catholic Church? Let’s follow his lead and shine those lights, all of us sinners.
.
“Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
– John 20:26-29
FlaMurph on May 15, 2015 at 10:11 AM
Thank you for that. Thank you.
Lourdes on May 15, 2015 at 11:03 AM
I am curious, believe in what?
Neitherleftorright on May 15, 2015 at 11:25 AM
Except that I grew up Catholic. I have nothing against Catholicism except that it is not what it claims to be. But then again, neither is the rest of Christianity. Roman Catholics want to believe there is something special about them and there church — just like every other Christian believes. Well phooey. I made that decision for myself a long time ago and I sleep very well, thank you.
gryphon202 on May 15, 2015 at 11:27 AM
Apparently you have to believe that eating meat on Fridays is a sin and that the pope is a deep thinker.
gryphon202 on May 15, 2015 at 11:29 AM
The Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Immolate on May 15, 2015 at 11:31 AM
To receive eternal life? Any other conditions?
Neitherleftorright on May 15, 2015 at 12:52 PM
.
I’d bet you’re not really curious at this pint in your life…but when you truly are……
Believe in that following Christ, by striving to live a life filled with as much holiness as possible, it will bring the greatest possible meaning of your Life. Believe that God wants us to be immersed in Peace and Love, that which will allow us to be the very best person that God intends for us to be – Believe that we can satisfy that desire for happiness God has given us, and believe we been given the strength to reject the Materialism, Individualism and Hedonism that destroys peoples lives daily.
There’s so much to believe in- just don’t allow anyone to take that away from you- which includes yourself.
FlaMurph on May 15, 2015 at 1:03 PM
Leading Pro-Life Priest Laments “The Francis Effect”
It’s well worth reading the excerpts at that link above, and more, to listen to the full delivery by this Priest.
Just a few bits from among the excerpts (but listen to the full speech if you have time, video link at the above article link):
◾“Obedience is owed to the pope, but the pope owes obedience to the word and the apostolic tradition. We have to obey the pope, but the pope himself must obey the written word. He must obey the tradition. He must respond to the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Obedience is owed to the pope, but it is the duty of the pope to give the character of possibility to this obedience. The pope has to facilitate our obeying him, by himself being obedient to the Word of God. Pope Felix III told us, ‘an error that is not resisted is approved. A truth that is not defended is suppressed.’ So we have an obligation to resist error, and we must do everything that we can to promote the truth.”
◾“Once, we have had concerns about other popes, even St. John Paul, with the things he’s done which we felt uncomfortable about, I don’t think that…Pope Francis has done anything other than disconcert us. He has literally pulled the rug from under our feet. And so, he is the, the reason, the many reasons why we are concerned. Our Lord tells us in John’s Gospel, 15th chapter, ‘If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, and I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you; if they kept My word, they will keep yours also.’ The popes are hated, and I don’t think we had a problem with that per se. We didn’t like it. But I think that I’ll be correct in saying that we prefer our popes to be hated by the world than loved by the world. Because if he’s loved by the world, it indicates that he’s speaking the language of the world. And we know that there can be no relationship, no fellowship, between light and darkness. St. Paul tells us this.”
◾“The Church’s traditional enemies — and this is vocalized, articulated in Time Magazine, Rolling Stone, The Advocate, and so on — approve of him, he appeared on their front cover many times over the past two years. I came across a quote from someone who knew him in Argentina. ‘Apparently, he loves to be loved by all and please everyone, so one day he could make a speech on TV against abortion, and the next day, on the same television show, bless the pro-abortion feminists in the Plaza de Mayo; He can give a wonderful speech against the Masons and, a few hours later, be dining and drinking with them in the Rotary Club.’”
◾“So, how can you make a decision about a man like this, who is everybody’s friend? Our Lord tells us, ‘Nevertheless,’ this is 12th chapter of St. John’s Gospel, ‘Nevertheless, many of the authorities believed in him, [that’s in our Lord] but for fear of the pharisees they did not confess it lest they should be put out of they synagogue, for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.’ Am I making judgment? I don’t think so. I’m quoting scripture. Where the die falls, let it rest.”
◾“The Holy Father has done many controversial things, and we are concerned with the major ones, not the aberrations which come up. And the one that will go down, I suppose, to the Second Judgment, is ‘Who am I to judge.’ One of the…effects that the Holy Father does is that he takes common prejudice against Catholics, and he uses it against us. So in other words, he’s accepting what is perceived, our position to be, as if it were true. The Church does not judge persons. The Church judges actions and teachings. Even the heretics. Luther wasn’t condemned for his personal moral life. He was condemned for his teaching. His doctrine. And so with all the other heretics. Arius. It was his teaching that the Church judged. And has the authority to judge. But when the pope says, ‘Who am I to judge?’, he is giving the impression that the Church judges individuals because of who they are and…what they’re doing in their personal lives. That is for the confession.”
◾“The Code of Canon Law also tells us that we have a right to express our opinion, in Canon 212, section 3, ‘According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess,’ — and I think in this gathering…we’re showing our knowledge, the fact that we are heads of various organizations – our competence, and our prestige — we ‘have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful…’ And this is very important. We have, in other words, to go public on this.”
◾“‘Now it can be said…’ — this is written by…Melchior Cano, a famous theologian in the 16th century — ‘Now it can be said briefly that those who defend blindly and indiscriminately any judgment whatsoever of the Supreme Pontiff concerning every matter weaken the authority of the Apostolic See; they do not support it; they subvert it; they do not fortify it… . Peter has no need of our lies; he has no need of our adulation.’ In other words, we must be vigilant. We must be objective in our approach to the present crisis in the Church.”
Lourdes on May 15, 2015 at 1:39 PM
More:
◾“He complains we talk too much about abortion and contraception. Well…Do we? Again, the apostle tells us ‘convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching.’ So, we have an obligation to speak about those sins for which the punishment is eternal damnation in Hell. We’re talking about the salvation of souls. The Code of Canon Law ends, ‘the highest good is the salvation of souls.’ And this is why Christ founded His Church: for the salvation of souls.”
◾“The ‘rabbit-gate’ affair was an insult to all Catholic mothers. Those who have…risked their lives, offered their lives, and given their lives for their children, and above all, for the Gospel.”
Lourdes on May 15, 2015 at 1:42 PM
The reason I asked the question is that is what I believe. I know that Jesus said, “I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father, except through me.” I know that He said, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” And He said, ” ‘Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”
So, if f you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
That means whether Catholic or Protestant the key to salvation is belief in the Lord Jesus Christ.
No mention of a specific church, a type of baptism, speaking or not speaking in tongues, how or when you take communion in order to be saved, not a single verse.
So we are all brothers and sisters in Christ if we confess that, the doctrinal issues are, simply that, doctrinal issues that are not salvific issues.
We should rejoice and share what we know and agree as salvation not bicker and fight about the vagaries of doctrine.
I know there will be plenty who disagree with me. So be it. But I want to remain in Christ’s Love and not my so called love.
Neitherleftorright on May 15, 2015 at 2:01 PM
.
I’ve read where Ghandi was once asked about his thoughts on Christianity, and answered something like “If I had ever met a Christian, I probably would have become one.” Interesting.
So how ironic is it that Mother Teresa would give her life to the poor, sick and hungry in Ghandi’s backyard. Had Ghandi met Mother Teresa, would he have “become a Christian” as he said? Probably not.
And yet there are Christian’s who will adamantly tell you that Mother Teresa will not see the Kingdom of Heaven because she “was not born again” in her lifetime. Oh really….
.
Jesus often spoke in parables in the Gospel’s that purposely invites a desire to allow the reader to come away with a meaning that has value and relevancy to each in his own way. (But that also didn’t mean he wants 1500 different Protestant denominations making rules by which to bicker with each other and have the centuries old division from the Catholic Church. But there it is.)
Jesus is a tough act to follow, but People make that life long journey more difficult than need be.
God always knows what is in the hearts of each and every person here on Earth and there’s no questioning that- by anyone.
FlaMurph on May 15, 2015 at 5:38 PM
Good post all around, but I think it is incomplete, and potentially misleading.
I will point out that Christians are taught in the NT to separate the true gospel from false ones. Also, people who don’t want to have the discussion or who want to argue about it have serious problems, and should look inward about why they struggle to discuss the topic rationally.
Anti-ControI on May 15, 2015 at 7:45 PM
… and the silly title was never fixed.
corona79 on May 16, 2015 at 8:56 AM
Infallibility.
Arnold Yabenson on May 16, 2015 at 2:28 PM
You can’t spell Pope Francis without POS. I hope the Church survives him.
Missy on May 16, 2015 at 3:09 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2