 |
|
|
|
 Pope Benedict XVI arrives for the Consistory where he will appoint 22 new cardinals on February 18, 2012.
February 18th, 2012
10:51 AM ET
Pope appoints 22 new cardinalsBy the CNN Wire Staff Rome (CNN) - Pope Benedict appointed 22 new cardinals at the Vatican on Saturday, with his choices for the lofty role likely to influence who will be appointed as the next pontiff. The Vatican named the new cardinals last month, but they were officially inducted by the pontiff in a special ceremony at St. Peter's Basilica. Among those to be elevated to the College of Cardinals are New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, cementing his standing as the top Catholic in the United States, and Archbishop Edwin F. O'Brien of Baltimore. Others include Archbishop Thomas Collins, from Toronto, as well as the Bishop of Hong Kong, John Tong Hon, and Major Archbishop George Alencherry from India Senior clerics from Germany, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic, Romania and Brazil are also represented, as well as several from Italy. The College of Cardinals was established in 1150. Its main role is to advise the current Pope and pick his successor. FULL STORY
« Previous entryWhy cardinal-to-be Timothy Dolan matters
|
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
M5s71x osoruptzamaf
If you want to credit my Shame oucacnt (I assume it is a liability oucacnt) then please put a corresponding debit in Social Justice. I have a hard time feeling shame for my (overly) gentle jibes at the poor use of the vast fortunes of the church. I suppose they do let a bit out now and again for anti-contraception campaigns in the AIDS-afflicted third world or to defend pedophile priests. Let me go get my sackcloth and ashes.
make it Pope appoints 23 ... after the one decided his oath to the pope wouldnt keep him out of jail for protecting ped preists
"General Audience: Mary in the Public Life of Jesus" as found in the March 12, 1997 edition of the Vatican Information Service. Here the antichrist, the pope, purposely misinterprets scripture:
the Blessed Virgin was among the people at the moment that her Son gave her "great praise, showing a much higher bond with Her," when he said: "My Mother and my brethren are those who hear the Word of God and do it." [note that "Her" and "Mother" are capitalized]
You may say, what's wrong with the above statement? Much. Though he does not give the Bible reference, the pope is referring to Matthew 12:46-50 (story also found in Mark and Luke). Jesus is talking to the people and Mary and His half-brothers are trying to interrupt so that they can speak with Jesus. Finally somebody says to Jesus, "Thy mother and brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee."
Then Jesus said, "Who is my mother? and who are my bretheren?" Then He stretched forth His hand TOWARD HIS DISCIPLES (not Mary and His half-brothers) and said, "Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother."
What Matthew in 12:46-50 forgot to mention:
JC's family and friends had it right 2000 years ago ( Mark 3: 21 "And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself.")
Said passage is one of the few judged to be authentic by most contemporary NT scholars. e.g. See Professor Ludemann's conclusion in his book, Jesus After 2000 Years, p. 24 and p. 694.
Actually, Jesus was a bit "touched". After all he thought he spoke to Satan, thought he changed water into wine, thought he raised Lazarus from the dead etc. In today's world, said Jesus would be declared legally insane.
Or did P, M, M, L and J simply make him into a first century magic-man via their epistles and gospels of semi-fiction? Most contemporary NT experts after thorough analyses of all the scriptures go with the latter magic-man conclusion with J's gospel being mostly fiction.
Obviously, today's followers of Paul et al's "magic-man" are also a bit on the odd side believing in all the Christian mumbo jumbo about bodies resurrecting, and exorcisms, and miracles, and "magic-man atonement, and infallible, old, European/Utah white men, and 24/7 body/blood sacrifices followed by consumption of said sacrifices. Yummy!!!!
So why do we really care what a first century CE, illiterate, long-dead, preacher/magic man would do or say?