It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Pope Urged Priests to Deny Communion to John Kerry

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by they see ALL
BS...

this is not "right"...

as much as i hate church i will say this:

this would never be said by a pope...

unless he is the anti-christ




It's funny you said that.

Look what I figured out

I used american numerology A=1 B=2 C=3 and so on

New Pope

His age = 78
Benedict XVI = 78

both of these numbers can be added together 7+8 = 15, 1+5=6

So his age breaks down to 6 and chosen name Benedict XVI is 6.

Next I calculated his name, Joseph Ratzinger = 195, 1+9+5=15, 1+5=6

He has the 666 LOL




posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Ooo, but wait, there's more!

+ 596 BC King Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Temple.
+ 70 AD Caesar Nero destroyed Temple.
= 666

So the apocalypse has already happened, it's in the numbers! Yet, beyond that:

Wouldn't the BC date be negative? That would bring us to 526, which if you add the numbers together, you get unlucky number 13!

Baaaaaad news!



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Thanks for the explanation. What i mean is that Kerry was never to be president, never thought he would be president, never really ran for president. He ran against Bush (LOL) and it was all a charade. Many Democrats know that the skull and bones bobsey twins were in on this charade. Why do i think this? Because Kerry with the thousands of lawyers he had all over the country ready to "do battle" never did and backed out like a spineless jellyfish. Why? because he never was there to win the presidency in the first place.

No, I'm not crazy at all


And enough, more than enough evidence pointed to fraudulent voting (but thats another thread)




posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 09:03 PM
link   
why do people feel that a religious order should change to fit the times? i can't say that i agree with all things about the catholic chuch myself. but to change some critical doctoran would be a form of degradation to the fundimental beliefs. you should not just change your religious princibles because they are not politicaly correct. perhaps it is not that religion needs to change to fit with the times, but that society has turned towards evil themselves?

people continuasly berate the catholic church on their treatment of pediphiles. i am one of those myself. but just mabe this is why they chose to elect a "hardliner" pope. if you look into catholic teachings i do not believe that there is a clause to permit priests to commit sexual acts with miners. in fact i think that priests are supost to be celibate. celibate means NO SEX.

the chucrch covering for these preists is something that is disagreeable at best. but then from what i know about the catholic church once you confess you are forgiven, on top of that a confesser is not alowed to make known what was told in confession. now after confession the person is suppost to try not to sin anymore, well they are only human. i am not trying to excuse it by any means, just trying to understand why it happened. perhaps what they should have done is to have removed said prists to a job that left no easy way for a repeat to happen.

now i do not believe that condoms and birth controll should be taken off the market compleately, but i also feel that selling such an item should be at the discretion of those who do the selling (store owners). abstanance is after all the best form of birth controll as well as to stop std transmitance. as far as abortions go it is muder plain and simple. the only reason it should be used is if the mother will die without it, after all if the mother dies then so does the fetus. but it should only be a last resort option.

the church does have the right to take away comunion for supporting these things if it is within their belief system. call it a punishment for disobeying the word of god if you want. a sin is a sin, you can not say something is sin one day then turn around and for the sake of political correctness say it is no longer a sin. to do so would be a sin in and all of it's self.

personaly i would have to give the catholic chuch a
for sticking to their beliefs. i think that alowing preists to mary would be a good thing but i am not sure how they realy view it themselves. if it is considered a sin then oviously they can not in good concious allow it.



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 09:04 PM
link   
Well I am/was a Bush supporter so it's hard to look a gift horse in the mouth. But as a Protestant I think it's a personal decision to take communion, not something that should come from a church hierarchy, plus I don't particularly like the idea of the Vatican influencing U.S. politics. Granted, he never named Kerry by name, but he didn't need to, it was widely reported in the news at the time that the edict applied to Kerry.



[edit on 4/20/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Apr, 20 2005 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by drogo
why do people feel that a religious order should change to fit the times? i can't say that i agree with all things about the catholic chuch myself. but to change some critical doctoran would be a form of degradation to the fundimental beliefs. you should not just change your religious princibles because they are not politicaly correct.


I agree completely. People want to create a new Christianity to fit with their own ideology. Ironically, it's usually the same people who complain about Christianity being in politics who rant at Christianity not modernizing to the times. It's a double standard -- you don't get a say in what I do, but I should have a say in what you do.

As to the Catholic church covering up the child molestation stuff, true, you are forgiven if you ask, but at the same time you reap what you sow. Plus, we are to obey the laws of the land unless they go against God's law. Child molestation is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible as being good and just. They broke the law, and the lands laws covering the breaking of that law require jail time. Covering sin (molesting children) with sin (lies and deciet) is not what God wants. Ephesians 5:11-14a says,


Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them, for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light.


If the Catholic church had come out when the accusations were made/confirmed and said what happened, it would have been a blotch on their record, but people would have been happy they handled it. Instead, it has turned into a huge controversy and scandal which will haunt the Catholic church for quite a while now.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   
Why is it a sin to give a poltician who supports abortion communion but not a sin to give communion to a politician who supports the death penalty? Both are sins in the eyes of the catholic philosophy of life!



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
Why is it a sin to give a poltician who supports abortion communion but not a sin to give communion to a politician who supports the death penalty? Both are sins in the eyes of the catholic philosophy of life!


Actually they're really not as comparable as you might think. The Vatican's current position on capital punishment and other issues like the War in Iraq are just interpretations of the bible applied to today's world. Capital punishment for crimes and war are sometimes OK and endorsed scripturally, but abortion is completely taboo and completely violates the scriptures and even the Ten Commandments, the highest Biblical law.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 02:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735
The story is true. Ratzinger was instrumental in trying to galvanize Catholics against pro-choice candidates, Kerry included. He was also intruemental in the "group think" denial of the sex abuse scandals inside the church.

Me? I couldn't happier that Cardinal Ratzinger is now Pope Benedict.

The Catholic Church became an enemy of the weak and the powerless and the innocent, when they allowed so many pedophiles to infiltrate their ranks... and flourish under their protection.

As such, I support subsequent suicidal decisions made by this organization that will only serve to push American followers, and American dollars, away. I support any and all decisions made by these men to continue their descent into oblivion.

Reform will only allow the church to survive.

The election of Ratzinger, and his ascending onto the thrown, is terrible for the future of the church. But, likewise, as a critic and enemy of the church, I support their rigid decison making and adherence to archaic spiritual legislation -- if only because it further limits their ability spread and grow, and nails yet one more nail in their rotting coffin.

Refusing to evolve will lead to the Chuch's demise. Better late than never.

My thoughts exactly.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 02:30 AM
link   
What I don't understand is this: Pope John Paul was against the death penalty, silence. Against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, silence. Against abortion, now all of the sudden Ratzinger's funny hat is all in a bunch. He seems pretty selective on when to be outraged. Apparently he doesn't mind as much senseless death as John Paul.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77

Originally posted by dgtempe
Wise words junglejake, the bottom line is this story is a fake. At the very least the "tittle" is misleading.

ATS has rules about that.


The story is not a fake, it's all over the news! I've heard this report countless times today.

Here's another source: New pope intervened against Kerry in US 2004 election campaign



of one was to go back on this board, one probably could find many posts referring to this....it seemed to be big news during the campaign latched onto by the republicans. not griping about you making a new thread, just letting you know...there was alot of talk about kerry being "excommunicated by the church" and such. Weather Rapzinger (however you spell the name) intended his words to effect kerry or not, I think they did.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

there's probably more, and I don't know if any refer to the new pope by name. but well, as the head of the "inquisition" or what the inquisition has become, wouldn't it have been him to be the one who would be saying this?



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 06:45 AM
link   
"now i do not believe that condoms and birth controll should be taken off the market compleately, but i also feel that selling such an item should be at the discretion of those who do the selling (store owners). abstanance is after all the best form of birth controll as well as to stop std transmitance. as far as abortions go it is muder plain and simple. the only reason it should be used is if the mother will die without it, after all if the mother dies then so does the fetus. but it should only be a last resort option. "

------------------------------------------------------
ya, and then the store owner should be required to put a sign on the doors of his business indicating the drugs he refuses to dispense so people don't waste their time going to his store!!!

abstinance may be the best form of birth control, but it does nothing to control a women's cycle, which often times the pill is used to do this...but this doesn't seem to bother anyone. the pill is used for things other than birth control, if the pharmicists don't have enough knowledge or sense to understand this, their businesses should be shut down!!

and all you MARRIED men out there. are yous willing to refrain from sex with your wife unless you are willing to have a child? shouldn't married couples have the priviledge to control their family size. to some of us...THIS IS THE MORAL THING TO DO!!! and since it is the man who is usually the strongest, and largest, and the women who is weaker...well, without birthcontrol, it seems to me, how many children she finds herself trying to feed, cloth, and take care of is solely dependant on the willingness of her husband to refrain from sex.....good luck on that one!!!
she's the designated caretaker of the kids according to you, shouldn't she be the one to have final say as to how many kids she should have?

------------------------------------------
"as far as abortions go it is muder plain and simple. the only reason it should be used is if the mother will die without it, after all if the mother dies then so does the fetus. but it should only be a last resort option. "
------------------------------------------

so, what if it's a choice between the mother's life and the babies? you seem to indicate to me, that you would be more likely to side with the baby's life... and well, will the women have to spend months in court battles to prove that her life is in danger? what the heck, they didn't seem to have any qualms about banning late term abortions without any clause protecting the mother's life.
are you exalting the right of the fetus over the right of the mother.
I think yous may be!



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by curme
What I don't understand is this: Pope John Paul was against the death penalty, silence. Against the invasion and occupation of Iraq, silence. Against abortion, now all of the sudden Ratzinger's funny hat is all in a bunch. He seems pretty selective on when to be outraged. Apparently he doesn't mind as much senseless death as John Paul.


And quite, quite ironically this Ratzie is supposed to be the "hardline" Pope waging a war on Moral Relativism.

He's full of it apparently. From "reluctant" Hitler Youth to "accidental" advocate of a pro-death penalty, anti-welfare, pro-war candidate.

Nice works there infallible one.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by brimstone735
Refusing to evolve will lead to the Chuch's demise. Better late than never.



Absloutly it will. How dare they stand by what they believe instead of adopting San Fransisco's explanation of what is good and just in this world? How dare they follow their doctrine? Those fools!

You know, the Catholic church has been around for a couple years. A couple more, in fact, than the moral relativism ideology/theology that is so popular in Europe and America these days. There were times in the past it became popular. The Catholic church was around for those. Yet, those movements went away while the Catholic church stuck around.

My money's on the Catholic church outlasting this moral relativism, assuming they don't cater to the culture. "On this rock I will build My church." He never said on this sand, water, or wishy washy stance. Christ never really fit with the culture, but he's spurred a movement that's lasted 2,000 years, and will continue to last.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
You know, the Catholic church has been around for a couple years. A couple more, in fact, than the moral relativism ideology/theology that is so popular in Europe and America these days.


Are you under the impression man climbed out of trees, put down his club and immediately built the Roman Catholic Church? You know even us slack westerners had a little thing called philosophy a thousand years before Constatine got his Christian marketing department together, and the 100 years before the Religious Period is even CALLED the Ethical Period. Not that the eastern Buddha and Confucius didn't spread agnostic ethical codes like wildfire long before any westerner had the notion, but what a honking joke. "Moral relativism" is new huh? Well, since the RCC imposed Dark Ages I guess so.

So your money's on another Dark Ages coming to fruition? I agree your political and religious allies are trying, but we'll just have to see won't we? I guess I'm siding with the "devil" on this one. :shk:



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
the current Pope has made statements that Salvation comes
from the Catholic church. It is works oriented ...
However, Catholic doctrine says our salvation is based on good works.

Nope . Catholic Catechism - section 169
Salvation comes from God alone; but because we receive the life of faith
through the Church, she is our mother: 'We believe the Church as the
mother of our new birth, and not IN the Church as if she were the author
of our salvation." Because she is our mother, she is also our teacher in
the faith.

As far as 'good works' (see James in the bible)... The Catholic church
doesn't say that salvation comes from good works. Salvation comes
from Christ. Good works are an outword sign of salvation and a
natural expression of God's saving grace in our lives.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
But as a Protestant I think it's a personal decision to take communion,
not something that should come from a church hierarchy ...


It's the job of the shepherds to guide the flock. Scripture is VERY clear
about not going to the Lord's Table without first confessing sins. You
drink abomination upon your soul if you go to communion with mortal
sin upon your soul. Assisting or supporting abortion in any way is
mortal sin. To go to communion unrepentant of that is to bring
damnation upon yourself. This is the Catholic belief. It is the job of
the priests, bishops, and even the pope himself, to be sure that
those in their flock see the error of their ways and that they do not
make a grave matter (supporting abortion), even worse by going to
communion. (there are levels in hell ... )

Catholic Catechism section 1385 - To respond to this invitation
(communion) we must prepare ourselves for so great and so holy
a moment. St. Paul urges us to eximine our conscience. 'Whoever
therefore eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy
manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
Let a man examine himself, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.
For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and
drinks judgment upon himself." Anyone conscious of a grave sin must
receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.

John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Polosi and the rest of the 'dirty dozen'
Catholic politicians who support the murder of the pre-born are OUTSIDE
of communion with the Catholic teaching and therefore should not be
receiving communion. If they do go to communion while supporting
abortion, they bring damnation upon themselves. This is scriptural.
This is Catholic belief. If they don't believe it ... they aren't really
Catholic to begin with and shouldn't be receiving communion at all.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
Why is it a sin to give a poltician who supports abortion communion but not a sin to give communion to a politician who supports the death penalty?

The death penalty is allowed in the Catholic belief system. It is highly
discouraged - urged to use only in times of self defense and extreme
need - but it is allowed. Those who are put to death are not innocent
victims of murder. The unborn are innocent victims of murder.

*note - I do not support the death penalty except in extreme cases
when used for self defense.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Otts
I think that the new Pope - would do well to remember
that Christianity is about acceptance and forgiveness...

And it's about telling the truth even if the person doesn't want
to hear it. Christ didn't water down His teachings just to make
the people happy (see John 6). Even though people walked away
He still told the truth. If people walk away from the Catholic church
because they don't like what they hear ... so what? They can go
elsewhere. They may not hear the truth ... but they will be happy.

John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and the rest NEED to hear and understand
what it really means to be Catholic. If they won't follow the rules,
they need to get out. I'm sure there are plenty of other churches
they can go and take their money (and their beliefs) to.




[edit on 4/21/2005 by FlyersFan]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
According to Catholic doctrine taking communion is an act for those in communion with the Catholic church. ... He is actually publicly out of communion with the church, and should be denied communion, according to Catholic doctrine/Canon law.

They're still part of the Catholic church, just not in communion with it.


You are 100% on the money here junglejake. You just
got my last 'way above' vote for April. Very good understanding.
Kerry can still be in the Catholic church, he's just not in communion
with it so he can't receive communion. He can go to Mass, worship,
and hopefully LEARN .. but he shouldn't be allowed communion until
he is actually REALLY in communion with the church.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join