Bush Meets Pope This Sabbath

[Woody]

What do you think about Bush meeting with the Pope this Sabbath?

[David Koot]

It sounds consistent with the direction things have been going since the early '80's. Headed down the road to make an image to the beast. Praise God! May it all happen soon! The previous pope clearly stated the position of the Vatican, in 1984:

"Precisely because we are defenseless, we have a special right

to influence those who wield the sword of authority. For it is well known that in the field of political action, as elsewhere, not everything is accomplished by the sword. We come before those in authority as spokesmen for the moral order."

Maranatha!

[David Koot]

Oops, I forgot one sentence in that quote from the pope. Here is how it should read:

"Precisely because we are defenseless,

we have a special right to influence those

who wield the sword of authority.

For it is well known that in the field of political action

as elsewhere, not everything is accomplished by the sword.

There are deeper reasons, and stronger laws,

to which men, nations and governments are subject.

We come before those in authority

as spokesmen for the moral order."

The pope said those words as he was getting ready to leave Ireland and come to America, to meet with the president of the United States.

[Robert]

The Papacy hasn't changed one bit. What has changed is that it doesn't have the power of the state to enforce its evil deeds.

Why in the world is Bush, who claims Christianity, visiting with a man who claims that believers must go through him to get to Christ? What utter legalism.

[olger]

Quote:

The Papacy hasn't changed one bit. What has changed is that it doesn't have the power of the state to enforce its evil deeds.

Full agreement (scary, I know).

`og

[David Koot]

It's called politics!! He meets with many people of different religious persuasions.

Not as two heads of state meeting. That is the issue.

[Neil D]

Quote:

Not as two heads of state meeting. That is the issue.

What? Throw that past me again....

The pope is a person who has a large following and he guides and is guided by advisors.

The President is a person who leads a country where he sees the best interests are...Oops, Bush a leader!Ha!...now there's an oxymoron. Nevertheless, the president is a leader who must go to those heads of state who weld influence over thier constitutients.

Do you think Bush go to the Pope and askes him what he needs to do to sucessufully accomplish the Papacy's desires? That strikes me as a conspiracy theory...I don't think this is an accurate picture from the bible...

What if the base desires of the US and the Papacy were such that they fulfilled the prophecys of the bible? Kinda different slant than conspiracy theorys...It would reveal human nature more than surmisings where there were a religon actually conspiring to overthrow the bible.

[skyblue888]

Don't forget that the Pope is a head of state. The Vatican is a country in itself and the Pope is the head of that country. That is why many countries have sent ambassadors to the Vatican in Rome. The U.S. did not have an ambassador at the Vatican until president Reagan sent one. So when the Pope meets with a head of state like Bush, he is meeting with his peer. At the Vatican, church and state are united. The papacy will not rest until all the countries on the globe follow her example. This will not happen until the U.S. takes the initiative. Then all the other countries will follow suit. It is only in this way that the papacy will regain her supremacy. In 1798 the papacy lost her temporal power. The time is coming when she will regain that power and then persecution will raise its ugly head again! I do believe that the papacy working in unisson with apostate protestantism (union of church and state in the U.S.) is the king of the north mentioned in Daniel 11:40-45.

[Woody]

If every city had a head of state then perhaps they also could meet with Bush. Just because a church or city has a head of state does not mean that it is worthy of meeting with Bush. Thinking the Vatican is a "country" is a joke. It is just a sly way to insure that the US has only one recognized religion which is the Catholic Church.

[skyblue888]

If every city had a head of state then perhaps they also could meet with Bush. Just because a church or city has a head of state does not mean that it is worthy of meeting with Bush. Thinking the Vatican is a "country" is a joke. It is just a sly way to insure that the US has only one recognized religion which is the Catholic Church.

The Vatican is not only a city, it is a state! Look it up in the Dictionary or any encyclopedia. The Vatican: An independent state within the city of Rome, established in 1929. It is ruled by the Pope; the authority and government of the Pope.

It has its own army and it had its own money too until they adopted the Euro, is that not right?

ps. Here is what I found through Google:

The Papal States, State(s) of the Church or Pontifical States (in Italian Stato Ecclesiastico, Stato della Chiesa, Stati della Chiesa or Stati Pontificii) was one of the major historical states of Italy before the Italian peninsula was unified in 1861 by the kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia (after which the Papal States, in less territorially extensive form, continued to exist until 1870). The Papal States comprised those territories over which the Pope was the ruler in a civil as well as a spiritual sense before 1870. This governing power is commonly called the temporal power of the Pope, as opposed to his ecclestiastical primacy.

The plural Papal States is usually preferred; the singular Papal State (equally correct since it was not a mere personal union) is rather used for the modern remnant, the Vatican City, which is an enclave within Italy's national capital, Rome, officially founded in 1929, again allowing the Holy See the full diplomatic and practical benefits of sovereignty.

[Neil D]

Don't forget that the Pope is a head of state. The Vatican is a country in itself and the Pope is the head of that country. That is why many countries have sent ambassadors to the Vatican in Rome. The U.S. did not have an ambassador at the Vatican until president Reagan sent one.

[skyblue888]

If the Pope was not a head of state just like Bush is, could he send ambassadors to other heads of state and would other countries send ambassadors to the Vatican as they have?

[Woody]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

If every city had a head of state then perhaps they also could meet with Bush. Just because a church or city has a head of state does not mean that it is worthy of meeting with Bush. Thinking the Vatican is a "country" is a joke. It is just a sly way to insure that the US has only one recognized religion which is the Catholic Church.

The Vatican is not only a city, it is a state! Look it up in the Dictionary or any encyclopedia. The Vatican: An independent state within the city of Rome, established in 1929. It is ruled by the Pope; the authority and government of the Pope.

It has its own army and it had its own money too until they adopted the Euro, is that not right?

ps. Here is what I found through Google:

The Papal States, State(s) of the Church or Pontifical States (in Italian Stato Ecclesiastico, Stato della Chiesa, Stati della Chiesa or Stati Pontificii) was one of the major historical states of Italy before the Italian peninsula was unified in 1861 by the kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia (after which the Papal States, in less territorially extensive form, continued to exist until 1870). The Papal States comprised those territories over which the Pope was the ruler in a civil as well as a spiritual sense before 1870. This governing power is commonly called the temporal power of the Pope, as opposed to his ecclestiastical primacy.

The plural Papal States is usually preferred; the singular Papal State (equally correct since it was not a mere personal union) is rather used for the modern remnant, the Vatican City, which is an enclave within Italy's national capital, Rome, officially founded in 1929, again allowing the Holy See the full diplomatic and practical benefits of sovereignty.

I've been well aware of this for many years. But my comment still stands .... It is a joke. Just because they are allowed to do this doesn't mean that it is right. For many years the US did not recognize this attempt by the Vatican. It wasn't until Reagan that the US acknowledged the Vatican.

[skyblue888]

It is acknowledged now by the U.S. It has been acknowledged by other countries before the U.S. did, haven't it? It certainly was not a joke to any of these countries. I don't think the U.S. considered it a joke either. What is the proof of that?

[jasd]

So very Xtian...

"There are deeper reasons, and stronger laws,

to which men, nations and governments are subject.

We come before those in authority

as spokesmen for the moral order."

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:

Was he not also sent before a Governor also? and an Emperor?

[Clio]

If every city had a head of state then perhaps they also could meet with Bush. Just because a church or city has a head of state does not mean that it is worthy of meeting with Bush. Thinking the Vatican is a "country" is a joke. It is just a sly way to insure that the US has only one recognized religion which is the Catholic Church.

[skyblue888]

Originally Posted By: Redwood

If every city had a head of state then perhaps they also could meet with Bush. Just because a church or city has a head of state does not mean that it is worthy of meeting with Bush. Thinking the Vatican is a "country" is a joke. It is just a sly way to insure that the US has only one recognized religion which is the Catholic Church.

You are incorrect in this statement Redwood. When Reagan sent an ambassador to the Vatican, and recognized it as a "sovereign state with all the rights and appurtenances thereto, including the right to field a military, sit on UN councils and in all other ways conduct sovereign business", thinking of the Vatican as a country ceased to be a "joke".

Quote:

In July 1983, Senator Lugar, a Methodist, introduced in the Senate a bill identical to Zablocki’s. Lugar said at the time, "The Vatican is a sensitive focus of international relations. It is also a sovereign state, and with John Paul’s courage and character, a powerful force for decency in the world."[64]

On September 22, 1983, the Lugar Bill passed the Senate by a unanimous vote. While the bill did not actually establish an embassy per se—a power reserved to the President—it passed with none of the rancorous, emotionally charged religious debate that characterized the Mark Clark appointment 40 years previously. In fact, the Congressional Record reveals that there were laudatory remarks from lawmakers on both sides of the Senate aisle.

The US & the Holy See by Ambassador Jim Nicholson

Thanks so much Clio. :)