“After the Arab Spring, we will have the Vatican Spring.”
#31
(06-16-2012, 03:01 PM)jonbhorton Wrote: I was thinking Swiss Cake Roles, but that's only because they're delicious and neutral.

I LOVE those things!  Since they're from the cartel, I guess they're kosher.
Reply
#32
With respect to the East Jerusalem "recognition," I am outraged that the Vatican would do that, though unsurprised. However, the problem is deeper than that (as usual), insofar as the Vatican should not recognize the State of Israel in the first place. I remember reading about Merry Cardinal del Val and Pope St. Pius X confronted with Jewish aspirations for a nation-state and them responding charitably but firmly that the Church could never endorse such a thing. We need a Pope St. Pius X and a Cardinal del Val for so many reasons.
Reply
#33
(06-17-2012, 01:26 AM)MRose Wrote: With respect to the East Jerusalem "recognition," I am outraged that the Vatican would do that, though unsurprised. However, the problem is deeper than that (as usual), insofar as the Vatican should not recognize the State of Israel in the first place. I remember reading about Merry Cardinal del Val and Pope St. Pius X confronted with Jewish aspirations for a nation-state and them responding charitably but firmly that the Church could never endorse such a thing. We need a Pope St. Pius X and a Cardinal del Val for so many reasons.

Non possumus.
Reply
#34
(06-17-2012, 04:52 AM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(06-17-2012, 01:26 AM)MRose Wrote: With respect to the East Jerusalem "recognition," I am outraged that the Vatican would do that, though unsurprised. However, the problem is deeper than that (as usual), insofar as the Vatican should not recognize the State of Israel in the first place. I remember reading about Merry Cardinal del Val and Pope St. Pius X confronted with Jewish aspirations for a nation-state and them responding charitably but firmly that the Church could never endorse such a thing. We need a Pope St. Pius X and a Cardinal del Val for so many reasons.

Non possumus.

Why?
Reply
#35
(06-17-2012, 01:26 AM)MRose Wrote: With respect to the East Jerusalem "recognition," I am outraged that the Vatican would do that, though unsurprised. However, the problem is deeper than that (as usual), insofar as the Vatican should not recognize the State of Israel in the first place. I remember reading about Merry Cardinal del Val and Pope St. Pius X confronted with Jewish aspirations for a nation-state and them responding charitably but firmly that the Church could never endorse such a thing. We need a Pope St. Pius X and a Cardinal del Val for so many reasons.

Thanks for the great post (aside from those trying to derail the thread).  Perhaps this is what the Holy Father meant when he referred to something like this, ¨they are forcing my will.¨

05/13/2009 12:30
VATICAN-PALESTINE
Palestinians have a right to a homeland, but must reject terrorism, says Pope
http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=15231&size=A

Bethlehem (AsiaNews) –  The Pope supports the right of the Palestinian people to have a “sovereign homeland

and Cardinal Tauron telling them to ¨tear down that wall¨ in Feb. 2012 
20/07/2011 13.24.53

¨Break down walls in the Holy Land¨----http://www.radiovaticana.org/EN1/Articolo.asp?c=505751
snip....¨The Holy See is outspoken as regards this issue – this morning I was referring to Pope Benedict XVI’s speech at Tel Aviv airport in May 2009 at the end of his pilgrimage...¨

Who or what caused this reversal in the Vatican´s policy?

Reply
#36
(06-12-2012, 10:18 PM)Don Quixote Wrote: Vatican, Israel to sign economic agreement
PTI

Jun 11, 2012, 08.00PM IST


JERUSALEM: The Vatican is about to "indirectly recognize" Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem, seen by many Palestinians as the future capital of their independent state, a media report today on Monday.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes....an-concern

I noticed that this article is from The Times of India.  This is so hard to believe I almost need to read it directly from the Vatican to believe it.  I tried to search for it on the Vatican web site but couldn't find it.  This is basically saying, okay times up.
Reply
#37
When I read this comment I LOL'ed:
Quote: Sami Qureshi (mutrah)
12 Jun, 2012 02:42 AM
At last Israelis got opportunity to penetrate into the treasures that the Vatican had collected by destroying the SOLOMON Empire and continued the massacres of the Jews in Europe and elsewhere throughout centuries, while Israelis have now gone mad to take revenge, if they could. The institution of Popeship is already taking its last breaths.

I think his life was turned into a movie:
[Image: 20080731_simple-jack.jpg?w=300&h=300]
Reply
#38
(06-17-2012, 01:26 AM)MRose Wrote: With respect to the East Jerusalem "recognition," I am outraged that the Vatican would do that, though unsurprised. However, the problem is deeper than that (as usual), insofar as the Vatican should not recognize the State of Israel in the first place. I remember reading about Merry Cardinal del Val and Pope St. Pius X confronted with Jewish aspirations for a nation-state and them responding charitably but firmly that the Church could never endorse such a thing. We need a Pope St. Pius X and a Cardinal del Val for so many reasons.

Yeah I read that a delagation of Zionists met Pope Pius X and asked if he would support the creation and recognition of an Israeli state and he said "By all means as soon as your people recognize and support Christ."
Reply
#39
(06-18-2012, 12:38 AM)mikemac Wrote:
(06-12-2012, 10:18 PM)Don Quixote Wrote: Vatican, Israel to sign economic agreement
PTI

Jun 11, 2012, 08.00PM IST


JERUSALEM: The Vatican is about to "indirectly recognize" Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem, seen by many Palestinians as the future capital of their independent state, a media report today on Monday.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes....an-concern

I noticed that this article is from The Times of India.  This is so hard to believe I almost need to read it directly from the Vatican to believe it.  I tried to search for it on the Vatican web site but couldn't find it.  This is basically saying, okay times up.

I found the full article here.
http://www.infowars.com/vatican-and-isra...agreement/
Quote:The term “Israeli law” without any kind of codicil or restriction, is a dangerous precedent and implies recognition of the annexation of East Jerusalem and Israeli civil rule over areas of the West Bank (where a number of the sites on Schedule 1 are located), the lawyer was quoted as saying.

A well informed source quoted by the daily rejected the interpretation saying that the agreement contains no geographical reference to any institution it mentions and there are no negotiations underway over the status of institutions in East Jerusalem.

He said that the agreement recognises that “the Vatican has some obligations but [also] some immunities because of the special character of the Church and religion”.

A Foreign Ministry official, not familiar with the draft, said that the Vatican’s position is clear and is known to the ministry and has not changed – “The Vatican does not recognise Israeli sovereignty beyond the Green Line”.

The secretary general of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, Ekemeleddin Ihsanoglu, is said to have written a letter to Archbishop Dominque Mamberti, who is the secretary for relations with states of the Holy See.

The archbishop reportedly answered in early May that “the eventual agreement will not represent a change in the position of the Holy See”.

“The Church, with particular attention to fiscal questions, is asking the State of Israel to treat her institutions in a fair manner, wherever the State of Israel exercised its authority de facto without taking into consideration or determining whether it does so as a sovereign state or as an occupying state, thus without entering into the political aspect of the question,” Mamberti wrote.

He said that the Church remains “extraneous to all merely temporal or political conflicts…Unless the contending parties or the international institutions make concordant appeal to its mission of peace”.

The response has only increased the concerns of local Christians denominations over what they see as erosion of the Church’s position.

A number of Palestinian Christians have complained that the Church and the spiritual authority of the Vatican should have taken into consideration the special situation of Christians under Israeli occupation, and it has not done so, the report said.

As a state the Vatican is obligated to international law, and it did not take this into account in formulating the accord with Israel, they said.

The draft to be discussed over the next few days has undergone changes since January 2012, but Palestinian sources believe that these changes are not dramatic.

It looks like a false alarm I think.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)