News   Dec 06, 2023
 796     3 
News   Dec 06, 2023
 469     0 
News   Dec 06, 2023
 2.7K     1 

Pope Benedict XVI: Last Pope Prophecies

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
24,075
Reaction score
14,745
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
Saint Malachy (1094 - November 2, 1148) was the Archbishop of Armagh, Northern Ireland, had visions of the last 112 Popes. See this link for the list. Pope Benedict XVI is listed as Gloria olivae or "glory of the olive", the 111th pope. The 112th, and last, is listed as Petrus Romanus.

54c2d4c746958e410559a6f4773a.jpeg


Because of the current scandal in the Roman Catholic Church concerning sexual abuse reports spreading through the church, I am thinking that it is only the first crack with more news and changes coming.

See this article from the Star:

Pope won’t be intimidated by ‘petty gossip’

March 28, 2010

Philip Pullella

VATICAN CITY—Pope Benedict, facing one of the gravest crises of his pontificate as a sexual abuse scandal sweeps the Church, indicated on Sunday that his faith would give him the courage not to be intimidated by critics.

The 82-year-old pontiff led tens of thousands of people in a sunny St. Peter’s Square in a Palm Sunday service at the start of Holy Week events commemorating the last days in Jesus’s life.

While he did not directly mention the scandal involving sexual abuse of children by priests, parts of his sermon could be applicable to the crisis he and the Roman Catholic Church are facing.

The pontiff said faith in God helps lead one “towards the courage of not allowing oneself to be intimidated by the petty gossip of dominant opinion.â€

He also spoke of how man can sometimes “fall to the lowest, vulgar levels†and “sink into the swamp of sin and dishonesty.â€

One prayer read at the Mass asked God to help “the young and those who work to educate and protect them,†which Vatican Radio said was intended to “sum up the feelings of the Church at this difficult time when it confronts the plague of pedophilia.â€

As the scandal has convulsed the Church in the United States and Europe, the Vatican has gone on the offensive, attacking the media for what it called an “ignoble attempt†to smear Pope Benedict and his top advisers “at any costâ€.

In London, the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, told the BBC: “The Pope won’t resign. Frankly, there’s no strong reason for him to do so. In fact it’s the other way around: he is the one above all else in Rome who has tackled these things head on.â€

On Saturday, the Vatican’s chief spokesman acknowledged that the Church’s response to cases of sexual abuse by priests is crucial to its credibility and it must “acknowledge and make amends for†even decades-old cases.

CREDIBILITY AT STAKE

“The nature of this issue is bound to attract media attention and the way the Church responds is crucial for its moral credibility,†the Vatican’s chief spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, said on Vatican Radio.

Although the cases cited happened long ago, “even decades ago, acknowledging them and making amends to the victims is the price for re-establishing justice and looking to the future with renewed vigour, humility and confidence,†Lombardi said.

Sunday marked the start of a hectic week during which the Pope presides over seven major events leading up to Easter.

But while Catholics around the world commemorate Christ’s passion, the 1.1 billion member Church is reeling from media reports on abuse that have led to the pope’s doorstep.

The Vatican has denied any cover-up in the abuse of 200 deaf boys in the United States by Reverend Lawrence Murphy from the 1950s to the 1960s, after the New York Times reported he was not defrocked although the case was made known to the Vatican and to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, then the Church’s top doctrinal official, now Pope Benedict.

The Vatican also said that the pope, while archbishop of Munich in 1980, was not involved in the decision by a subordinate to allow a priest who had been transferred there to undergo therapy for sexual abuse to return later to pastoral duties.

The European epicentre of the scandal is Ireland, where two bishops have resigned over their handling of abuse cases years ago. Three others have offered their resignation and there have been calls for the head of the Irish Church, Cardinal Sean Brady, to step down.

In Geneva, Swiss President Doris Leuthard called for a central register of pedophile priests to prevent them from having further contact with children.

Supporters of Pope Benedict point to his action against the charismatic head of the priestly order The Legion of Christ, Father Marcial Maciel, after evidence emerged in 2006 confirming earlier allegations that he had abused young seminarians.
 
This institution is rotten to the core. One can only hope that Catholics of conscience will insist that the Church stop harbouring and protecting child rapists.
 
Man, I hope that this is the beginning of the end of this fraudulent institution. At the very least, I don't think governments should be supporting this church or any other religion for that matter. They shouldn't be tax exempt and we shouldn't be financing religious education. If they want to run schools, let them pay for it or let parents who want their kids to be in a religious school to pay for private Catholic/Muslim/your_religion_here schools.

As for the Pope himself, he's considered a head of state so he'll never be prosecuted for his complicit role.
 
They have to bite the bullet and allow priests to marry. The other four ancient Patriarchates allow married priests, and they're not burdened with endless pedophile scandals.

And of course no pope will ever admit responsibility. They have to protect that doctrine invented out of thin air known as papal infallibility.
 
Religion in marriage seems to be only a recent addition. It is very hard to be able to establish a true date on the first marriages, although the Old Testament in the Bible does mention a little about marriage as it was considered a family and household affair.
The oldest male relative was the caretaker of the girls, and the prospective husband would ask the father for the girl, after first bringing him gifts to win his approval. The mother was dominated by the father and had no choice in the matter. The father would transfer the “ownership” of the daughter to the prospective husband in public, as they showed that he approved this transfer and that the groom had the father’s approval. After this transfer, the bride and groom ate a meal together with the families, and then the groom took the bride home. In the Old Testament of the Bible there is no mention of a formal exchange of vows or of a preacher or priest being present at this union.
In the time of the Roman Empire (17 B.C. – A.D. 476) the lower classes that became Christians later had common law or free marriages. The father would deliver the bride and the agreement of the two was called a consensus to wed. Then eventually as Christianity spread, the church interpreted a “free” marriage as a conscience marriage. This agreement meant that each partner was to keep the marriage vows and the marriage intact. In other words, the wedding reception was the real wedding because it showed off the newly married couple to the public.
There were Romans who were very wealthy who would sign documents consisting of listing property rights and letting all know that they wanted this union to be legalized and not to be thought of as a common law marriage. Thus this began the official recording of marriages as we do today. Roman men could dissolve the marriage any time, as it was a male privilege, not one accorded to females.
In A.D. 527-565, during the rein of Justinian, lawyers drew up laws called the Justinian Code, and this was a regulation of their daily life, including marriage. Up until the time of the Justinian Code, just saying you were married was enough.
Until the ninth century, marriages were not church involved. Up until the twelfth century, there were blessings and prayers during a mass, and the couple may offer their own prayers. Eventually, local priests would ask that an agreement be made in their presence. Don't forget that the person, after the fall of Rome, who was able to read and write was usually the clergy. This local custom had then made religion a part of the wedding ceremony, because the clergy were the ones who would write up the marriage contract.
English weddings in the thirteenth century, among the upper classes, became religious events, but the church only blessed the marriage, and was not a required commitment.
In disagreements, proof that a couple was married maybe required. If they were wealthy, the written contract could be retrieved. Witnesses to the public agreement could be brought forward. The best proof would be the children produced through the consummation of the marriage, hopefully they look like both of the parents.
In 1563, the Council of Trent made up marriage rules to counter the Reformation by the Protestants, and as a new source of funds. There had to banns of marriage or announcements 3 Sundays or Holy Days before, it had to be celebrated at a Catholic church by a priest and before two witnesses, the children had to be bought up Catholic, and all five names written down and signed in a register that would be checked by church officials (known today as the Holy Office or Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but was called in the past The Inquisition). The use of the register also helped the Church to control celibacy, as before the Council of Trent, 50% of the clergy were married in spite of the rules requiring celibacy. By the eighteenth century, the wedding had become a religious event in all countries of Europe. Other non-Catholic religions and civil authorities had copied the registry aspects.
In North America, the customs of the old countries were followed. There were some who only wanted a civil ceremony and not a religious ceremony, but a registry is used as a third party apparatus. It is the third party in marriage that has different requirements for the other two parties. There are currently disagreements on what marriage is, but one thing for sure, history shows that religion was a latecomer in marriage.
 
They have to bite the bullet and allow priests to marry. The other four ancient Patriarchates allow married priests, and they're not burdened with endless pedophile scandals.

And of course no pope will ever admit responsibility. They have to protect that doctrine invented out of thin air known as papal infallibility.

And women priests.
 
They have to bite the bullet and allow priests to marry. The other four ancient Patriarchates allow married priests, and they're not burdened with endless pedophile scandals.

And of course no pope will ever admit responsibility. They have to protect that doctrine invented out of thin air known as papal infallibility.

Papal infallibility came about officially because Pope Pius IX convened the First Vatican Council in 1869, where he forced the bishops to decreed papal infallibility, and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary. During his reign, he lost the Papal States to the new Italy, reducing his secular control to Vatican City. After starting out as a liberal, Pius IX turned conservative.
 
Things are getting curiouser and curiouser.

Can the Pope be charged as a criminal?
Lawyers debate whether U.K. courts can arrest visiting pontiff on 'universal jurisdiction' warrant

From The Star article:

Can the Pope be charged as a criminal?

April 05, 2010

Paisley Dodds

LONDON–Protests are growing against Pope Benedict XVI's planned trip this fall to Britain, where the legal world is debating whether the Vatican's implicit statehood could shield the Pope from potential prosecution related to sex crimes by pedophile priests.

More than 10,000 people have signed an online petition to Prime Minister Gordon Brown opposing the Pope's four-day visit to England and Scotland in September.

The campaign has gained momentum as more Catholic sex- abuse scandals shake Europe.

Although Benedict has not been accused of any crime, senior British lawyers are now examining whether the Pope should have immunity as a head of state and whether he could be prosecuted under the principle of universal jurisdiction for an alleged systematic cover-up of sexual abuses by priests.

Universal jurisdiction – a concept in international law – allows judges to issue warrants for nearly any visitor accused of grievous crimes, no matter where they live. British judges have been more open to the concept than those elsewhere.

Lawyers are divided over the immunity issue. Some argue the Vatican isn't a true state, while others note it has national relations with about 170 countries, including Britain.

David Crane, former chief prosecutor at the Sierra Leone war crimes tribunal, said it would be difficult to implicate the Pope in anything criminal.

"It's a fascinating kind of academic, theoretical discussion," said Crane, who prosecuted Sierra Leone's Charles Taylor when he was still a sitting head of state. "At this point, there's no liability at all."

But Geoffrey Robertson, who as a UN appeals judge delivered key decisions on the illegality of conscripting child soldiers and the invalidity of amnesties for war crimes, believes it could be time to challenge the immunity of the Pope – and Britain could be the place.

"Unlike in the United States, where the judges commonly uphold what the executive says, the British courts don't accept these things at face value," Robertson said on Saturday.

Lawyers question whether an alleged systematic cover-up could be considered a crime against humanity – a charge usually reserved for the International Criminal Court – and whether it could be pursued under universal jurisdiction.

"My guess is the weight of opinion would allow the Pope to enjoy immunity," said Hurst Hannum, of Tufts University. "It's not automatically clear that the Holy See is a state, although it's treated as one for almost every purpose."

Spain and Britain jointly pioneered the universal jurisdiction concept when, in 1998, Britain executed a Spanish arrest warrant for former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet on torture claims. He was under house arrest in London until ruled unfit to stand trial in 2000.
 
Woman is ordained as Catholic priest in Canada

From ca.news.yahoo.com:

Despite a Vatican ban and threats to excommunicate her, a sixth Canadian woman was ordained as a Roman Catholic priest Saturday, an official with a group supporting women in the priesthood said.

The group Roman Catholic Womenpriests ordained Linda Spear, a retired teacher from Quebec, in an Anglican church in Sutton, Quebec, eastern Canada.

According to Bridget Mary Meehan, who was ordained as a bishop in 2006 in the United States, Roman Catholic Womenpriests was founded shortly after 2000 and has grown swiftly.

The first seven women priests were ordained on a boat in the Danube in 2002 and since then another 80 women have become priests in the United States as well as about 20 others around the world, Meehan told AFP by phone.

Spear is the first Quebecer but the sixth Canadian woman to become a Catholic priest this way. She was symbolically ordained by US bishop Andrea Johnson. Spear can celebrate the sacraments such as marriage but they will not be recognized by the Vatican, which limits the priesthood to men.

"We are not leaving the church, we are leading it into living Jesus's example of Gospel equality. Jesus called men and women to be disciples," Meehan said.

"We are disobeying an unjust church law that prohibits women's ordination and is rooted in discrimination," she explained. Spear could be excommunicated; Meehan already has been.
 
Could there be anything more irrelevant to the modern world than the catholic church?

Lets just stop paying attention and elect responsible governments who can find better uses for our tax dollars. Of course the situation in the US is quite scary and Canada actually seems to be following that trend...
 
Could there be anything more irrelevant to the modern world than the catholic church?

how can you be so obtuse? if not for the existence of the catholic church, nun porn would become obsolete and irrelevant. i bet a godless heathen such as yourself is waiting for that day. you'll celebrate in the streets holding your video cassettes of militant atheist porn featuring charles darwin having sex with a monkey dressed as karl marx!

;)
 
Who watches porn on video cassettes anymore?
 
Could there be anything more irrelevant to the modern world than the catholic church?

Lets just stop paying attention and elect responsible governments who can find better uses for our tax dollars. Of course the situation in the US is quite scary and Canada actually seems to be following that trend...

They have a pretty awesome museum at the Vatican though.
 

Top