A murit papa Ioan Paul al-II-lea

[INDIANUL]

vedeti la tv in direct sau daca nu aveti tv vedeti ca yahoo are "live from vatican"

edit:Dumnezeu sa-l odihneasca.(azi noapte am fugit la tv si nu am mai avut timp sa pun si asta).

[elfstone]

Dumnezeu sa-l ierte si Dumnezeu sa ne ierte pe noi toti.

Catolici sau nu, credinciosi sau nu, cu totii, in noaptea asta, ar trebui, poate, sa ne rugam sau - spuneti cum vreti - sa meditam...

[tapirul]

Dumnezeu sa il odihneasca

[Furnika]

Dumnezeu sa il odihneasca.
Guvernul a hotarat ca vineri sa fie zi de doliu national. Papa Ioan Paul II a fost o personalitate, e adevarat a ajutat la caderea comunismului samd dar decizia mi se pare nejustificata.

[INDIANUL]

Din cate am auzit va fi numit:Papa Ioan Paul al-II-lea Cel Mare

[INDIANUL]

site-ul vaticanului:
www.vatican.va  

http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm  (din site)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/xxv_pontificate/en/anno_2005_en.html      (din site)

[elfstone]

http://www.vaticaninexile.com/ :)

Taci ca mai e (cel putin) unul: http://www.truecatholic.org/

[tapirul]

giiz. Io zic sa facem un poll pe forumul asta al nostru si sa dedcuem ca adevaratul papa e ÎPS Patriarhul Teoctist.

[doina]

giiz. Io zic sa facem un poll pe forumul asta al nostru si sa dedcuem ca adevaratul papa e ÎPS Patriarhul Teoctist.

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:  :lol:

[Qvadratus]

Se pare fie ca lumea actuala duce mare  lipsa de repere, fie ca politicienii sunt in deficit momentade idei pe care sa le vire pe gitul "boboarelor"si, de aici atitea chestii sforaitoare....

[elfstone]

Pe mine ma doare in continuare ignoranta celor de la CNN, BBC si Euronews. Inteleg: Papa Ioan Paul al II-lea a facut niste gesturi semnificative pe calea reducerii vrajmasiei dintre credinta crestina, pe de-o parte si celealte religii, pe de alta parte. Ast e una. Pe de alta parte, incepand cu o parte dintre rezultatele de la  Vatican II si continuand, inclusiv cu faptele lui Ioan Paul al II-lea, se contureaza o cu totul alta poveste ce tine de stradania de a repara Marea Schisma. Asta este o a doua poveste si in aceasta poveste apare ideea refacerii comuniunii Bisericilor. Ce spune CNN et al. de trei ori pe ora? Ca Papa ar fi vrut o comuniune intre Bisericile monoteiste (i.e. Crestina si Iudaica - si din cand in cand, cam de doua ori pe zi Islamica)... Zau daca inteleg. Intre timp nici macar o mentiune pricajita despre existenta Bisericilor Ortodoxe. Nici macar o mentiune despre vizita la Bucuresti. Nici macar o mentiune despre vorbele spuse de atatea ori de Papa despre dorinta lui arzatoare de reunifica Bisericile. Si nici macar o vorbulita despre fapta din 2004 (aia cu moastele date inapoi). De ce?

Alta poveste ar fi cea a Testamentului. Am citit (am incercat sa citesc) varianta italiana publicata deocamdata de Vatican si ceva nu se leaga. Prea complicate forumlarile despre "Conationali" si multele clarificari ulterioare. Mai ales ca eu nu gasesc fraza originala la care fac referire unele dintre clarificari. Anyway, sper sa fie o problema tehnica  :?

[elfstone]

In alta ordine de idei sunt tare bucuros ca astazi am ajuns si eu sa scrijelesc in Cartea de la Nuntiatura. In primul rand sunt bucuros pentru ca am vazut Nuntiatura si am simtit atmosfera ciudata, diferita, napamantana a acelui loc. Chiar n-as fi crezut... Eu de obicei sunt tare nesimtit la faze de-astea, dar din momentul in care am trecut pe poarta, am avut impresia ca ma aflu, de-a binelea, in alta parte... Nu prea pot sa explic in cuvinte: lumina, aerul, linistea... M-a impresionat pana si maicuta care ne-a condus (avea o fata pentru care producatorii reclame la cosmetice ar licita nebuneste). In fine, nu ma bag sa discut arhitectura si ambientul interior, dar si astea au meritat (chit ca mi-am dat peste cap toata ziua).

Dumnezeu sa-l odihneasca.

[cnicu]

Am citit un articol in The Economist despre Papa si cum a condus Biserica Catolica. Mi-a placut si l-am pus mai jos:

The legacy of a pope who changed history


WHATEVER future generations may say about Pope John Paul II, who died on Saturday April 2nd, aged 84, they will look back with amazement on the moment when, for the first time in 500 years, a Christian bishop was in the vanguard of world history. That was in June 1979, barely nine months after the Polish prelate's surprise call to the Vatican, following the untimely death of Pope John Paul I. On a return visit to his homeland, the new pope was bathed in an outpouring of popular devotion that amazed almost everybody, from Warsaw's dissidents to an appalled Soviet Politburo. Millions of Poles turned out to sing, weep and pray with the man they knew as Karol Wojtyla, archbishop of the university town of Krakow. From then on, the Soviet communists began losing their grip on their East European vassals, and the end of the Iron Curtain was in sight. Stalin's mocking question—“How many [military] divisions has the pope?”—had received its answer.

What John Paul managed then was to neutralise, at a stroke, the tyrant's most important weapon, fear. For the remaining quarter-century of his papacy, he reaffirmed his message: “Be not afraid”. But by the end of his reign, the world had in many ways become an even more terrifying place, and fewer people thought the Catholic church had all the answers. Frightening as the cold war was, the next pope may be required to wrestle with an even larger and more intractable army of demons: mass terrorism, the risk of a “civilisational” conflict between Islam and the West, and the wars and disease that have already ravaged Africa.

John Paul's successor should, in theory, have the advantage of taking over a relatively coherent and unitary organisation, after a quarter-century in which Vatican authority over the world's 400,000 or so Catholic priests, and their combined flock of about one billion people, has steadily been reasserted. The senior ranks of the Vatican bureaucracy include a broader range of nationalities than ever but on John Paul II's watch there was little tolerance of dissent from his conservative views.

This reaffirmation of Roman power has come at a cost. It has not solved, and may well have exacerbated, the problem posed by the utter diversity of church life at the grass-roots, from wealthy Boston suburbs to African war zones. A papacy which began by invoking “people power” against tyranny often seemed to be imposing, from a great height, a rigid set of principles on believers whose everyday experience it barely understood. Partly for that reason, the moral influence of the Catholic church slumped in some of its old strongholds, from Malta to Poland.

In the slums of the developing world, from Mexico City to Lagos, the number of Catholics continues, at least on paper, to grow. But in Latin America, especially, the Roman church has been losing out to Protestant evangelicals in recruiting the truly faithful—those who worship regularly and contribute to the church coffers. Though the Brazilian Catholic church still asserts its mission to tend to the poor, it is fast-growing evangelical groups like the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God that have been the bravest in dodging the drug gangs' bullets and spreading the Word to the wretched inhabitants of the lawless favelas.

A black or Latino pope? Or another Italian?
One obvious way to seek to reverse the Catholic church's decline in the developing world would be for the conclave of cardinals which appoints a successor to choose one of their Latino or African brethren as the next pope. If so, the leading contenders might include Cardinals Cláudio Hummes of Brazil, Oscar Andrés Rodríguez Maradiaga of Honduras or Francis Arinze of Nigeria. Cardinals seeking to safeguard John Paul's conservative legacy—eg, the refusal to accept married, female or openly gay priests and continued opposition to contraception—might support Joseph Ratzinger, the stern German cardinal who heads the Vatican's doctrinal watchdog.

However, John Paul II was the first non-Italian pope in 455 years and there is at least an even chance that the church will revert to tradition and select one of Italy's cardinals to succeed the Polish pontiff. Front-runners include Angelo Sodano, who is already the “deputy pope”, or Vatican secretary of state; and Dionigi Tettamanzi, currently the Archbishop of Milan. Campaigning for the papacy is strictly forbidden, though there is bound to be much whispering in the cloisters about the strengths, weaknesses and policies of the various candidates. Two things seem certain: that this time, unlike on some past occasions, there is no clear front-runner; and that the new pope would have to be an exceptionally strong personality if he wanted to take the church in a new direction, given the elderly and conservative cardinals that John Paul has bequeathed him.



The church is desperate to avoid a generalised confrontation between Islam and the Christian West


For the next pope, relations with Islam, both in the developing world and the European heartland of the Christian faith, will be high on the list of concerns. Senior church figures are deeply worried about the welfare of Christians in parts of the world where they coexist uneasily, and at times violently, with Muslims: Nigeria, Sudan, Indonesia, even Iraq. The church as a whole is desperate to avoid a generalised confrontation between Islam and the Christian West. That has prompted the Vatican to distance itself sharply from American policy in the Middle East, while reaching out where possible to moderate Muslims. These delicate calculations are a long way from the early days of John Paul's papacy, when the Vatican and America were aligned in defence of Polish freedom.

Whatever its diplomatic difficulties, the Catholic church remains a unique global community. It is both a small sovereign state with an impressive diplomatic service, and a transnational non-government organisation that makes every other NGO seem puny. Yet ever since the triumph of democracy in eastern Europe, the church has often appeared to the secular world to be slipping behind the train of history. In a world where freedom of choice, and therefore moral relativism, are very much in fashion, the Vatican's efforts to impose unity in its own ranks have seemed heavy-handed.

There may, perhaps, have been good doctrinal reasons why the church felt it must bar controversial leftist theologians like Leonardo Boff of Brazil and Sri Lanka's Tissa Balasuriya from speaking in its name. But in a world which expects to discover truth through open-ended discussion, the treatment of these turbulent priests made them into popular heroes. And in an era where sexual freedom and “reproductive rights” are widely acknowledged, the Vatican's adherence to a rigid line over contraception, homosexuality and the new challenges of bio-ethics has appeared unimaginative and uncharitable.

Nowhere is this more shocking than in the church's attitude towards the use of condoms in the developing world. For years, its opposition to condoms has pitched it against the sensible family-planning campaigns of the United Nations and the World Health Organisation. More recently, its attempts to deny that condoms help prevent the transmission of HIV/AIDS have jeopardised the lives of some of its most devoted members, the congregations of sub-Saharan Africa. Only very recently have a few senior figures in the church conceded that condoms may have a role in fighting disease.

As if this instance of moral blindness were not enough, the English-speaking Catholic countries, in particular, have been shaken to the core by allegations of child abuse by clergymen and cover-ups by their bishops. The proportion of erring priests is far lower than the eager press would have it. But both to victims of abuse and to people who observe church affairs from outside, the spate of disclosures has mocked the Vatican's claim to be a fount of moral authority and have made it harder to see why the church insists on restricting the priesthood to celibate males.



Faith as choice
These scandals probably accelerated one of the most important social changes that occurred, paradoxically enough, during John Paul's high-profile papacy. There is no longer any industrial society—not even Ireland, not even Poland—where attendance at a Catholic church is a socially-imposed norm. These days, people who go to mass do so as a conscious choice in a world that offers a bewildering variety of religious and philosophical options.

Defenders of John Paul's papacy would argue that he responded in the right way to this inexorable trend: instead of watering down the faith, he upheld the fundamentals of Christian teaching, in the belief that a significant minority, at least, would be drawn to the light if it burned brightly. That does appear to be true. There is no other frail octogenarian figure in the world who could gather an enthusiastic crowd of more than 2m youngsters from the world over, as John Paul did in 2000.



London's Catholic churches are filled no longer by Irish immigrants but by pious merchant bankers, Croatian hotel workers and Filipina nurses


The fall and rise of the Roman faith's appeal is well exemplified by the Catholic community in England, a vigorous minority in one of Europe's most secular societies. Religious practice has fallen in traditionally Catholic places, but there are countervailing trends. London's churches are no longer peopled by Irish immigrants, but they seem tolerably full of pious merchant bankers, hotel workers from Croatia, and Filipina nurses.

In such a cosmopolitan world, those who still adhere to the Roman Catholic faith have come to it from a bewildering variety of routes. Perhaps for that reason, John Paul never managed—since the triumph of his campaign against communism—to rally such a broad constituency for any of his favoured causes. In part that is because his ideology was, from a secular viewpoint, such an unusual mixture. He counselled western states against the use of military power and denounced unbridled capitalism, but remained profoundly conservative on all questions of morality and the family.

In America, the political right approved his opposition to abortion and homosexuality, but squirmed or pretended not to notice when he condemned the death penalty or the bombing of Belgrade and Baghdad. Among the America-bashers of western Europe, the pope ought to have won a sympathetic hearing when he called for a tempering of market forces—by stressing the dignity of labour, the legitimacy of trade unions and the idea that property ownership implies duties as well as rights. But few of Europe's believers in a gentler capitalism had much liking for John Paul's social conservatism. This may account for one of the Vatican's more surprising diplomatic setbacks: its failure to influence the social policy of the European Union's new constitution.



Seeking truth, or stating it?
In a shrinking planet, where religious faiths cannot remain hermetically sealed from one another, John Paul certainly took bold steps to heal the historic wounds between the Christian world and Islam and Judaism; but dark skies over the Middle East limited his role as a peacemaker. By establishing diplomatic ties with Israel and apologising for the church's record of anti-Semitism, he went a significant way—albeit not as far as some critics would have liked—towards mending fences between Christians and Jews.

But these are not easy times for inter-faith dialogue. Think of the incident which marred the pope's visit to Syria in 2001, where the pope broke new ground by entering a mosque to pray at the tomb of John the Baptist. President Bashar Assad used the papal visit to make comments that were not merely anti-Israel but anti-Semitic. Jews then demanded to know why the pontiff had listened politely.

If John Paul had ever hired an American political consultant, he might have been told that the final years of his papacy were a period of lost or fumbled opportunities. But this pope was not, or at least not primarily, a political leader: he saw his mission in the light of eternity. For the pope himself, his big legacies to the church lay in actions beyond the secular media's ken.

One was the publication of his encyclical, “Veritatis Splendor”—“The Splendour of the Truth”—which voiced ideas about knowledge and reality that were sharply at odds with modern fashion. As the title suggests, this document is a rejection of the notion that truth is merely in the eye of the (human) beholder: the greatest truths are eternal ones, and they are discovered by a combination of God's own revelation and the human mind's honest and free but, above all, prayerful inquiry. Old-fashioned as these ideas might appear to others, they represent, in Catholic terms, a softening of traditional doctrines, like Augustine's pessimistic view of human potential. Pope John Paul not only saw human nature as redeemable; he also recognised as God-given and noble the thirst for wisdom.



Intellectuals and peasants
Apart from reasserting the church's intellectual tradition, what else would John Paul consider important about his legacy? On the face of things, the other leitmotif of his papacy was quite different—he reaffirmed the veneration of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which many people associate with piety of the folksiest kind.

Biographers with a Freudian bent often attributed the pope's love of Mary to his own travails, including the early death of his mother. Whatever the psychological background, it is clear that his re-emphasis on Mary was not an intellectual impulse, but a personal one. When he escaped assassination in 1981, he went to offer thanks at Fátima, the place in Portugal where Mary is said to have appeared in 1917 to a group of children and made a series of enigmatic prophecies. John Paul's reverence for the Virgin of Fátima, and the Marian shrine of Lourdes, which he visited last year, is one example of his attachment to popular piety. Others include a wave of canonisations: 482 people were recognised as saints during his papacy, more than the total for the previous five centuries.

Surviving an assassin's bullet in 1981

By reaching out simultaneously to intellectuals and peasants, John Paul seemed to be struggling with the recurring challenge of all universal religions: the need to balance the intellectual and mystical, the rational and the intuitive. Both strands are powerful in his native Poland—and stronger still in Russia, where, in tsarist times, intellectuals would consult simple monastic sages. So, in theory at least, the pope's penchant for mixing the mystical with the cerebral should have brought him closer to the eastern Orthodox world, which sees that synthesis as one of its greatest gifts. The pope said the Christian world must breathe with two lungs: the logic of the Latin west and the subtlety of the Greek east.

In practice, this remains difficult. The pope's outreach to the Orthodox world came at a time when the Christian east had become more defensive. The Moscow Patriarchate reacted furiously to his appointment of Catholic bishops with responsibility for Russian territory. The pope got a chilly reception when he invited himself to Greece, despite enjoying warm personal relations with the Orthodox world's most senior prelate, Patriarch Bartholomew.



The bully pulpit
Oddly enough, Cardinal Wojtyla was not seen as a conservative by the cardinals who elected him. They were expecting him to implement the changes in Catholic thinking and practice decreed by the second Vatican Council, which assembled in 1962. These included a decision to embrace, rather than shy away from, the modern world, including technology. Even more revolutionary was the council's desire to decentralise authority: instead of stressing the pope's infallibility, it said the “body of the faithful”, from bishops to believers, were guardians of the faith.

In these terms, how did John Paul fare? His papacy was, in a narrowly defined sense, thoroughly modern: he exploited air travel and electronics to become a global media star like no other religious leader. But there were few signs of the decentralisation promised in the 1960s—and plenty of moves in the opposite direction. Doctrinal discipline was imposed with great firmness in Latin America. John Paul made clear from the start his opposition to “liberation theology” as proclaimed, for example, by the political left in Nicaragua—a reading of the Christian message that placed more emphasis on social justice and redistribution, and less on spirituality in the traditional sense.



John Paul saw himself as accountable to God. How he fared by that measure is something no mortal can judge


Could the pope have allowed greater freedom of thought and debate within the church? There was, perhaps, a fundamental contradiction in the mandate which he received in 1978. He could either fulfill the decisions of the second Vatican Council and allow the church to become a looser and more quarrelsome organisation; or he could impose ideological unity, at the risk of seeming like a bully.

He veered towards the latter course, but in doing so may have undermined the papacy's authority in the eyes of the world. If, for example, the Catholic church's teaching on sexual behaviour had plainly been the outcome of a deep reflection from its grass roots (female as well as male, in poor countries as well as rich) it would have carried great moral power, even among those who disagreed. But its views commanded less authority when they seemed to originate from a small number of powerful (and unmarried) men.

On the other hand, Pope John Paul would not have been true to his own deepest beliefs if he had been concerned, first and foremost, with how things seemed in the eyes of the world. He regarded himself as accountable to God; and how he fared by that measure is not something that any human being, whether believer or atheist, may presume to judge.

[manolo]

mersi, cnicu, pentru acest articol. mare diferenta fata de ce poti citi in ziarele romanesti si vedea la posturile TV romanesti.

hmmm, azi am fost extrem de trist. acum aproape o luna eram la Vatican, in piaza San Pietro, atunci cu abia cateva sute de oameni, astazi neincapatoare... speram sa il vad pe Papa la slujba traditionala de duminica Angelus... nu am putut, deoarece era in spital. Ieri, prietenii mei din Torino si Genova mi-au scris ca au fost la Roma o zi, pentru a-l vedea pe Papa pentru prima si ultima oara. Au asteptat 11 ore la coada, au dormit in gara si s-au intors din Roma in niste trenuri pustii... toata lumea mergea in directia opusa.

citeam si ce scria elf mai sus. am fost si eu la biserica catolica de langa mine, de aici din Iasi. era ora 18, era plina, cum a fost in toate zilele, din ce vedeam cand treceam pe langa ea.

Odihneasca-se in pace!

Voi mai reveni poate cu o discutie despre experienta mea spirituala in Italia si contactul cu catolicismul si catolici la ei acasa.

[manolo]

hmm, poate ca exista sperante pentru repararea Marii Schisme... macar in sufletele noastre.

Un articol extraordinar, scris de un inalt prelat al BOR

http://www.expres.ro/social/?news_id=183584

Omul chemat de Dumnezeu la o lucrare grandioasa


Calinic, Episcop al Argesului si Muscelului
Sambata, 09 Aprilie 2005

Cind ai prilejul sa scrii despre un lider spiritual cum a fost, este si va ramine Papa Ioan Paul al II-lea, lucrurile se limpezesc de-a dreptul.
Dupa cite imi amintesc, era prin anul 1966 cind, preot paroh fiind la Tioltiur, in inima Transilvaniei, ascultam noaptea la Europa Libera despre praznuirea unui mileniu de crestinism in Polonia. Am urmarit intreg programul care a tinut mai multe zile, mai ales cu manifestari grandioase, in orasele mari ale Poloniei.
Autoritatile comuniste s-au opus dupa cit le-au tinut puterile. Crestinii catolici polonezi s-au manifestat - ca unul - cu o forta spirituala uriasa, aratind lumii si limpezind ce inseamna credinta in Dumnezeu. Cardinalul Poloniei Visinski avea restrictii de circulatie cu masina si peste tot prin Varsovia. Am auzit cum polonezii treceau pe umeri masina peste locurile de restrictii, spre uimirea organelor politienesti. Drept sa spun, eram entuziasmat peste masura si nu puteam comunica bucuria mare ce incercam de teama sa nu fiu spus ca ascult posturi straine.
Numele care se repeta mereu la radio atunci era cel al Arhiepiscopului de Cracovia, Karol Wojtyla! Asadar, mileniul de crestinism sarbatorit avea sa propulseze spre zarile lumii numele celui care, peste un deceniu, avea sa devina capul Bisericii Romano-Catolice. El a fost atunci inima si sufletul praznuirii crestine intr-o tara pustiita de comunism si ateism, ca si Romania.
Asa l-am cunoscut pe curajosul si inimosul slujitor al lui Hristos, un adevarat atlet al credintei zilelor noastre.
Dupa triumful praznuirii mileniului crestin polonez, atunci cind s-a pus problema alegerii unui nou Papa, Biserica Romano-Catolica si-a indreptat privirile spre Cardinalul Karol Wojtyla, neuitind puterea de marturisitor al credintei catolice, chiar daca nu era italian, ci un slav din rasaritul Europei. Stia Conclavul sa aleaga!
M-as bucura ca Papa Ioan Paul al II-lea sa fi lasat un jurnal, precum i-a fost si lucrarea. Acolo, daca ar fi, s-ar gasi scrisa durerea lui, dar si a noastra, ca in Constitutia Uniunii Europene nu se pomeneste cuvintul Dumnezeu si nici cuvintul crestin, Roma si episcopul ei aflindu-se chiar in inima Europei crestine de mii de ani. Dar consolarea ar cadea, si pe drept cuvint, ca roua pe cimpul inverzit, cuvintul lui Dumnezeu si mai ales lucrarea Lui sa fie in inimile si in viata noastra si nu pe filele unei constitutii facute de oameni si trecatoare ca ziua de ieri.
S-ar mai gasi scris acolo ca lumea s-a indepartat de iubirea de Dumnezeu si de respectul cuvenit fiecarei zidiri. Tot acolo am gasi scris despre bucuria plecarii Sfintilor Ioan Gura de Aur si Grigore de Nazianz de la Roma la Constantinopol, de unde au fost rapiti de un amar de secole. Asa a gindit pentru a se indrepta caile strimbe si a se apropia cu sinceritate de ortodoxie. O dorea cu faptele, si nu numai cu vorbele.
N-ar lipsi, poate, din jurnal nici dorinta si sfaturile date Bisericii Greco-Catolice de a avea pace cu Biserica Ortodoxa si de a nu se ravasi in suparare si ura pentru zidirile care trec si nici pe ura confesionala, noi fiind o Biserica din aceeasi radacina apostolica a Domnului Iisus Hristos.
Mai dind citeva file, am putea citi bucuria Papei ca a putut birui indaratnicia politica si catolicii cubanezi au putut praznui Pastele si Craciunul ca toti crestinii din lume.
Prin mai 1999, am gasi spre exemplu in presupusul jurnal citeva fraze de inima despre primirea exceptionala in Biserica Ortodoxa Romana, de crestinii minunati pastoriti de Patriarhul Teoctist, intiiul patriarh apostolic care a avut bucuria de a impartasi bucurie! Mi-a spus fostul premier Petre Roman ca a stat 30 de minute cu Papa Ioan Paul al II-lea si aproape tot timpul si-a amintit cu vadita emotie despre cea mai frumoasa si sincera primire din viata lui avuta in Romania.
Putem crede aceasta! A vorbit despre Andrei, despre o biserica apostolica sora, despre Gradina Maicii Domnului, despre sfintii romani, despre Eliade, Staniloae, Eminescu, Steinhardt, monahul de la Rohia, despre martiriul Bisericii. Discursurile si le-a citit in limba romana cu o intonatie aparte. Parca le-a citit cu inima, cu sufletul. Si asa a fost. Cind l-a intrebat presedintele Emil Constantinescu de ce nu a folosit limba franceza pentru limba romana, ca are aceeasi radacina, si a folosit limba poloneza, a spus ca a folosit limba poloneza pentru ca este limba de inima, de suflet, limba materna si a dorit sa fie cit mai aproape de duhul limbii romane.
Era spre apusul vietii pamintesti! Totul era limpede. Avea in fata apropiata trecere spre tara de peste veac.
Pe o alta fila a jurnalului ar putea fi scris ca nu s-a facut pace in Irlanda multa vreme; ca anglicanii nu se intorc acasa; ca vechii catolici stau mai departe, ca Biserica Luterana este asteptata ca fiul plecat de acasa. Iar mai incolo, citeva fraze subliniate: comisiile interteologice ortodoxo-romano-catolice n-au mai lucrat cu sirguinta din cauza vremurilor tulburi, pentru viitoarea unire a Bisericilor lui Hristos!
A fost si el un biet om chemat de Dumnezeu la o lucrare grandioasa. N-a putut face tot ceea ce a gindit si dorit pentru Biserica lui Hristos. A lasat insa un drum deschis, drumul pacii, al dialogului, al concilierii si iubirii crestine. A dorit sa se surpe toate zidurile si conceptiile care separa pe bietii oameni.

Papii care au iubit Romania

Cit despre noi, putem spune ca doar doi Papi au iubit Romania cu dragoste aprinsa: Sixt al IV-lea, pe vremea lui Stefan cel Mare, si Ioan Paul al II-lea, in timpul pastoriei Patriarhului Teoctist.
L-am vazut si disperat de durere! De Paste n-a mai putut grai in limbile lumii Invierea lui Hristos, cum facea adesea... In semn de suprema durere si-a cuprins fata intre palme, asa cum face mama la prunci. Venise vremea sa se adune in sinele sau pentru a se intilni cu Iisus Domnul!
Vizitele pastorale ale Papei Ioan Paul al II-lea vor ramine unice in viata Bisericii Romano-Catolice. Aici poate fi numit cel Mare, cu adevarat. Cit despre unitatea credintei in Iisus Hristos, pentru care trebuie sa ne ostenim toti, este inca mult de lucru. El a plecat catre Domnul nemultumit. Unitatea credintei ramine o speranta si o datorie si pentru viitorul Papa. Mai mult, ramine o responsabilitate pentru fiecare dintre noi de a ne osteni sa ne reconvertim la Hristos, sa incepem in fiecare zi o viata noua, curata, responsabila si plina de bucuria Invierii!

[doina]

Am citit recent un articol destul de interesant. (E din National Review, deci punct de vedere cam "neocon".)

The Rearguard Pope
One man vs. a posthuman tsunami.

by John Derbyshire

  I am not a Roman Catholic. In fact, I was raised in the old English tradition to think of the Roman Church as a sinister continental conspiracy — hatchet-faced Jesuits in purple robes, lurking in dark corridors, muttering subversion in Latin — to deprive honest Englishmen of their liberties. A few years’ acquaintance with the world showed me the absurdity of all that. Philip II of Spain has been dead for a very long time, and the great enemies of liberty in our own age have all been atheists. Hitler once declared his wish to hang the pope in full pontificals from a gibbet in St. Peter’s Square. Stalin sneered at the pontiff for not having any divisions. I don’t know what Mao Tse-tung, Ho Chi Minh, Kim Il Sung, and Pol Pot said about the Holy Father, but I feel sure it was not very respectful. Well, whatever side those guys are on, I want to be on the other side. Long live the papacy!

   And John Paul II was, as conservative obituarists of every persuasion have noted gratefully, one of the key figures in the fall of Russian Communism and its East European empire. With Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan — they all came to power within a year or two of each other — he helped to rally the forces of civilization against our enemies. Vigorous, handsome, plain-spoken, clear in his convictions, and obviously afraid of nothing terrestrial at all, John Paul II shone like a lighthouse through the fog of fear, doubt, and defeatism that had shrouded the West and its values through the 1970s.

  It is therefore sad to reflect that the quarter century of his papacy was a terrible disaster for the Roman Catholic Church. Regular attendance at Mass* all over the traditionally Catholic world dropped like a stone all through John Paul II’s papacy. Everywhere in the great Catholic bastions of southern Europe — Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal — the story is the same. In France, “eldest daughter of the Church,” the only argument is whether regular Mass attendance today is just above, or just below, ten percent. In Ireland — Ireland! — the numbers declined steadily from the 90 percent of 1973 to 60 percent in 1996, since when they have fallen off a cliff, to 48 percent in 2001 and heading south. A hundred years ago the U.S. Church imported priests from Ireland; now Ireland imports them from Nigeria.

  And then of course there have been the scandals and the exposés, with their dire effects not only on the image of the priesthood, but on Church finances. Twenty-seven years ago, when John Paul II ascended the papal throne, the natural reaction of a Roman Catholic on hearing that a young man had been ordained would have been: “His parents must be so proud!” Nowadays it is more likely to be: “Oh, I didn’t know he was gay.” And the most elementary duty of the Catholic laity, the making of more little Catholics, is now widely neglected: The old Catholic nations of Europe have the lowest birthrates in recorded history.

  The debate among devout Catholics about this calamity, so far as I can follow it, is not very enlightening. Conservatives blame it all on the reforms of the Vatican II Council (1962-5); liberals blame it on John Paul II himself, saying that his firm traditionalist approach to core doctrines turned off the more open-minded Catholic laity. Both surely know in their hearts that the real culprit is the irresistible appeal of secular hedonism to healthy, busy, well-educated populations. We live, as never before in human history, in a garden of delights, with something new to distract and delight us every day. None of that is enough to turn the heads of those who are truly, constitutionally devout; but not many human beings are, nor ever have been, that committed to their faith. And so the flock wanders away to the rides, the prize booths, and the freak shows.

  That’s how it is in the wealthy, comfortable nations of Europe and the Anglosphere, in any case. I have been hearing for 30 years — since at least Paul Johnson’s History of Christianity came out in 1976 — that hope for regeneration of the Church is to be sought in the third world. Is it?

  Contemplating some of my more devout Catholic friends, with their sober middle-class styles of worship, their comprehensive knowledge of fifth-century theological squabbles, their gloomy, comfortable old churches, their Teach Yourself Latin CDs, and then seeing TV clips of some huge African congregation joyfully swaying and ululating together in their gaudy new cathedral, I quietly ask myself: Is that really what you want? Paul Johnson:

  Many of these religions or cults are associated with the desire for land, and reflect the traditional native leadership of priest-kings. In fact they are tribal churches. They are characterized by sacramental vomiting, water rituals, and speaking with tongues, such as (a very common formula):

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Hhayi, hhayi, hhayi, hhayi,

Sorry Jesus Sorry Jesus Sorry Jesus

Spy spy spy, Naughty boy, Naughty boy

Nhayi hhayi hhayi — Halleluja, hallelujah,

Amen

  Well, at least we shan’t have to learn Latin. All this talk about the third world coming in to redress the balance of the first strikes me as irrelevant, anyway. Either the third world continues to languish in poverty, corruption, and disease, in which case we shall all do our best to continue ignoring it, expiating our mild guilt with a cash donation now and then, or else it will become stable, healthy, and prosperous, in which case the delights of hedonistic secularism will likely have the same effect on spirituality down there as they are having up here.

  Conservatives are not supposed to believe that human beings are the helpless instruments of blind Historical Forces. We are supposed to be the people who celebrate humanity in all its knotty and unpredictable variety, and in the power of the individual human will to transform the world. Did not John Paul II himself challenge, and help defeat, those who claimed the mandate of History? Yes, but that only adds a gloss of irony to his larger failure.

  Looking back across the past few decades, it’s hard not to think that post-industrial modernism is headed all one way, everywhere it has taken a firm grip. Pleasure-giving gadgets and drugs are ever cheaper and more accessible. The distresses of life, especially physical sickness and pain, are gradually being pushed to the margins. As scientists probe deeper into the human genome, the human nervous system, and the biology of human social arrangements, that divine spark of person-hood that we all feel to be the essence of ourselves is being chased along narrower and darker passageways of the brain and the tribal folkways. Happiness itself, it seems, is genetic. And all this is headed…where?

  We all know the answer to that one. It is headed to Brave New World. Our flesh is supposed to creep when our adversary in argument plays the Brave New World card. Brave New World! Empty and soulless! Eeeek!

  This gravely underestimates the power of Aldous Huxley’s tremendous novel, which he sat down to begin writing just 74 years ago this month. The issue posed by the novel, as every thoughtful commentator (Francis Fukuyama and Leon Kass, to name two) has pointed out, is: What exactly is objectionable about the world of Year 632 After Ford? As Kass says, the dehumanized people of that world don’t know they are dehumanized, and wouldn’t care if they knew. They are happy; and if they feel any momentary unhappiness, a pharmacological remedy is ready to hand. If being human means enduring sorrow, pain, grief envy, loss, accidie, loneliness, and humiliation, why on earth should anyone be expected to prefer a “fully human” life over a dehumanized one?

  Most people won’t. So far as it makes any sense to predict the future, it seems to me highly probable that the world of 50 or 100 years from now will bear a close resemblance to Huxley’s dystopia — a world without pain, grief, sickness or war, but also without family, religion, sacrifice, or nobility of spirit. It’s not what I want, personally, and it’s not what Huxley wanted either (he was a religious man, though ofa singular type). It’s what most people want, though; so if this darn democracy stuff keeps spreading, it’s what we shall get, for sure. If we don’t bring it upon ourselves, we shall import it from less ethically fastidious nations.

  In that context, the late pope will be seen — assuming anyone bothers to study history any more — as a rearguard fighter, a man who stood up for human values before they were swept away by the posthuman tsunami. There is great nobility in that, but it is a tragic nobility, the stiff-necked nobility of the hopeless reactionary. You might say that John Paul II (who, you do not need to tell me, would have pounced gleefully on that word “hopeless”) stood athwart History crying “Stop!” Alas, what is coming down History Turnpike is a convoy of 18-wheel rigs moving fast, and loaded up full with the stuff that got Doctor Faustus in trouble — knowledge, pleasure, power. They ain’t going to stop for anyone. Homo fuge!

[Furnika]

:sleeping:

[INDIANUL]

prin octombrie papa paul cel mare(papa ioan paul al-II-lea)se zice ca va fi sanctificat.

[elfstone]

Whoaa... asa repede?! Cam repede!... Nu imi dau seama cat de curand ar putea fi intreprinsa beatificarea, dar imi vine greu sa cred ca se poate ajunge la canonizare cu asa mare graba :?

Follow up: Beatification and Canonization si The Process of Becoming a Saint. Am mai auzit pe la TV ceva despre "sanctificarea" prin aclamare publica, dar nu stiu exact daca mai exista metoda in codurile de astazi (help!) si, mai ales, nu cred ca, prin aclamare, se putea canoniza un sfant pentru Biserica Universala.

In fine, stirea asta mi se pare, insa, de prost gust. Era greu sa gasesti ceva care sa umbreasca de-adevarat momentul, dar uite ca au reusit :( Nu stiu ce vina are omul ala, dar chiar nu cred ca era cazul (1) sa fie transplantat la Roma si (2) sa fie scos la inaintare in acest context. Nu stiu cum sa zic... e ca "destituirea prin promovare" de la noi. Daca a gresit, iertarea crestineasca este aplicabila, dar nu cred ca e fireasca "iertarea institutionala"... Daca nu a gresit, atunci prea bine, dar poate ca un pic de discretie nu i-ar fi stricat in zilele astea. In definitiv, un prelat catolic, mai mult ca sigur, manifesta o smerenie iesita din comun, deci nu avea cum sa ii fie ranit orgoliul daca era tinut pe bara... Zic si eu, nu dau cu parul.

[INDIANUL]

stirea a fost mai veche iar eu nu am mai intrat asa ca sper sa nu gresesc cand zic de ea:spuneau ca in mod normal ar dura 5 ani dar ca noul papa ar putea grabii procesul;il gasira pe un tip in scaun care zice ca nus ce minune s-a intamplat cu el.

[manolo]

se pare ca lista de "miracole" realizate de Papa Ioan Paul al II-lea e mult mai mare.

Spunea cineva aici de sanctificare/beatificarea prin aclamatie publica. Trebuie spus ca inclusiv pentru alegerea unui papa se poate aplica aceasta metoda. Cel putin asa era in vechile reguli. Nu stiu daca Papa nu a modificat aceasta prevedere atunci cand a modificat regulile.

[Furnika]

Habemus Papam. Ce e ala un Papa de tranzitie, anyway?
ww.ratzingerfanclub.com/Biography.html
http://ratzingerpapa.splinder.com/

[plure]

Cica pentru ca are 78 de ani, de aia e de tranzitie, conform TV olandeze "ne asteptam sa nu traiasca ingrozitor de mult"....

[INDIANUL]

da 78 de ani si probleme cardiace :)
ce nu a spus furnika:ratzinger si-a ales numele de papa Benedict al-XVI-lea.

[lucisandor]

Sint multumit ca a iesit un conservator, unul care refuza, vorba corespondentului BBC, catolicismul de supermarket, adica iti iei ce iti place, refuzi ce nu iti place. Sper sa nu mai faca vreun cardinal din SUA, pina nu termina de violat copii si de asililat ideile moderne, poate car trebui chiar excomunicati vreo doi.
Adica cum, acum 2000 de ani era ok ca femeile sa fie imparatese, dar nu si popi, iar acum nu mai e? Miine poimiine mai vedeti vreo prostie de film cu Erin Prostovici si unii or sa inceapa sa creada ca Isus era gamer.

[lucisandor]

This sexual difference is something that man, as a biological being, can never get rid of, something that marks man in the deepest center of his being. Yet it is regarded as a totally irrelevant triviality, as a constraint arising from historically fabricated “roles,” and is therefore consigned to the “purely biological realm,” which has nothing to do with man as such. Accordingly, this “purely biological” dimension is treated as a thing that man can manipulate at will because it lies beyond the scope of what counts as human and spiritual (so much so, that man can freely manipulate the coming into being of life itself). This treatment of “biology” as a mere thing is accordingly regarded as a liberation, for it enables man to leave bios behind, use it freely, and to be completely independent of it in every other respect, that is, to be simply a “human being” who is neither male nor female. But in reality man thereby strikes a blow against his deepest being. He holds himself in contempt, because the truth is that he is human only insofar as he is bodily, only insofar as he is man or woman. When man reduces this fundamental determination of his being to a despicable trifle that can be treated as a thing, he himself becomes a trifle and a thing, and his “liberation” turns out to be his degradation to an object of production. Whenever biology is subtracted from humanity, humanity itself is negated. Thus, the question of the legitimacy of maleness as such and of femaleness as such has high stakes: Nothing less than the reality of the creature.

Since the biological determinateness of humanity is least possible to hide in motherhood, an emancipation that negates bios is a particular aggression against the woman. It is the denial of her right to be a woman.

Citez din Ratzinger

[magdutz]

au zis la radio (europa fm) ca noul papa a fost membru al organizatiei "tineretul hitlerist" !!!??? :shock:

[Furnika]

Si e inca verde moshu.

[lucisandor]

Tu poate esti mai tinara si mai esti si victima a unei propagande (dezincriminanta pentru stalinism-iliescism), dar recunosc.. si eu am fost membru al unei organizatii periculoase, "pionierii", ca sa nu mai zic de alde Tapiru si Cerbu care au fost membri ai organizatiei "tineretul comunist". Crezi ca puteai sa refuzi carnetul de utecist fara a te spinzura, a te interna la manastire sau a-ti distruge tot viitorul?

[Furnika]

Poate e vorba de vestitul Hitlerjungen, un fel de organizatie de cercetasi; spre deosebire de noi, pionerii, in Hitlerjungen            nu avea acces orice picioman ci se facea o selectie in functie de diverse aptitudini si ochi albastri. Era o mandrie sa fii in Hitlerjungen iar pentru un kinder de 14 ani cati avea Ratzinger in 41 nu cred ca a fost o optiune pur politika. Ma gandeam ca gasesc si ei ceva serios gen o amanta (amant) secreta sau ca a fost hippie sau ca a inhalat marijuana direct din cadelnita in tinerete. Ori ca i-a placut sa se imbrace in fuste rosii si de aia a ajuns cardinal etc.

[A CERB]

da, bre, dar daka te kalifikai acording to kriteria kum pana mea puteai sa refuzi onoarea? i say give him a break!

[tapirul]

oricat l-as ului pe cerbu, si eu sunt de acord cu un papa conservator.

PS io am fost si comandant de grupa, asa ca nu stiu ce o sa patesc daca ajung papa....

[doina]

:lol: Tapir! Comandant de grupa! Si acum tin minte cum ma batea mama la cap ca "de ce pe tine nu te-a pus comandanta de grupa si a pus-o pe...cutare colega X; asa esti tu mereu, nu te bagi in fata, tot timpul altii ies in evidenta!", etc. :lol:

[A CERB]

bre, eu am fost komandant de detasament. mi-am dat demisia in klasa a cincea, devenise pliktisitor.

[laurad]

si ce te dai mare?

[A CERB]

de kontrol

[Qvadratus]

Bey, ia vedetz ka ieu am fost Komandant de unitate ! Sa va adresatz ku respekt de akum inkolo kind vorbitz ku mine !

[Furnika]

Eu am fost responsabilul cu burgiele la orele de atelier; asta nu inseamna ca ma laud si ca incerc sa va complexez. Am facut 900 de posturi.  :banana: