Awakening the World with Truth and Creating a Better Future.
At February 10, 2013, exactly to new moon, 12:00 clock, I have been discussing with a spiritual awakened Lady profoundly living from the heart when in the background we heard the announcement on the radio, at 11:57 clock, the Vatican had announced the resignation of the German Pope Benedict XVI for the 28th in February.
Parsifal, February 11, 2013
I was surprised by this news, because as I understand a pope is in office for life.
In fact, it is already more than 700 years that a pope has resigned 'voluntarily'.
Lastly it was Celestine V in 1294, who six months after his election already resigned his post (had to).
Interestingly, his successor, Boniface VIII prevented his retreat into the monastic life, and locked him up to his death half a year later, in a castle outside of Rome.
Even then popes were not particularly Christian, but it was about power and clear away of rivals.
I wish Mr. Ratzinger or however the Pope out of duty is calling himself not the same fate of his successor.
Although I am not a Catholic, as a Christian I allow myself, leave my comment to renouncing of Benedicts papacy:
What a thought occurred to me immediately when I had heard the news, he sees a danger to himself, the Vatican, the Catholic Church or even facing the planet, which overwhelms him and he can not cope.
This is for me also in the preamble to the expression: 'I no longer have enough power for my ministry.'
This force had in the past months 'decreased in me such that I have to recognize my inability to continue performing my services of care properly,' he says in his statement.
Only, this situation, to be in the office of the Pontiff in advanced age and of poor health have been others before Benedict and they therefore have not resigned.
Why is he resigning now ?
As it must be more 'big problems' for which he has no strength.
Timeline of his resignation announcement here.
We can only speculate about what might be the real reason.
He was threatened because he did not follow the orders of certain powers ?
This power will replace him with a more obedient officer ?
Or he sees storm clouds raising and says he can not bring the the ship of the Church through the stormy surf ?
Will he make way for a younger and more vigorous person who is equal to the occasion ?
We'll see who will be the successor to how this shapes the office and what all come to pass this year.
For me Ratzinger is anyway 'only' the Bishop of Rome (he calls himself so as well), and not necessarily the 'infallible' successor of Peter.
If I accurately interpret the statements, sermons and messages from Jesus, I find in it no indication The Lord wanted to have a church.
Certainly none that has become the physical way it is.
Certainly not with such people as his representatives.
Jesus was a rebel who in his lifetime fought against an institutionalized faith and sharply criticized the sole authority of God’s word to preach or interpret exclusively by the priesthood.
That was exactly his fate and he was therefore nailed to the cross as a 'blasphemer' interestingly on a day, where executions were forbidden.
He also found no good thoughts of all this mumbo jumbo what happened in the temples.
The only time where Jesus was really angry and violent was when in the cleansing of the temple has woven a scourge of cords, so that all money changers and traders, with their sheep and cattle drove out of the temple, knock over the tables, spilled the money of the money changers (todays banxters), and cried out: 'Move this away from here, away from my father's house is not a department store.'
And he added: 'Is it written, my house shall be a house of prayer for all peoples!
'But you have made it a den of robbers.'
Most sermons Jesus anyway held in the open air and not in temples.
I do not think he would feel comfortable in today's 'church', especially not in the full pomposity and gold and is intended to show only the worldly power and wealth of the church leaders and royal despots.
The cathedrals were not built to show the greatness of God, but of the former rulers.
To see the greatness of God and to know you have to consider only the size of the universe is infinite and incomprehensible.
If you read through the Gospel of Thomas, who allegedly has still lived and written down at times of Jesus or shortly thereafter, then, Jesus says no formal church is necessary to be a Christian.
Therefore, this gospel was declared of virtually all Christian churches a heresy and banished.
But it would call into question their very existence and render superfluous.
Also, the prayers, the communication with God and the interpretation of the word of God, He clearly has 'liberalized' and made accessible for all parties.
But this contradicts the monopoly and exclusive representative right of the churches.
It was like this, up to the time of Jesus was to communicate with God or the gods exclusively reserved for the priests.
The average person could not even talk to God or gods.
Only the priests had the self-given 'ability' to communicate and then announced that they have received information or messages from God or the gods.
This right they exploit for hefty fees.
Is not very different today.
Jesus introduced a revolutionary new idea, namely, everyone can talk directly to God, it needs no translation.
In the Gospel of Luke is clearly expressed, where the 'Our Father' was introduced, according to which the followers asked Jesus how to pray.
To me it looks, as if the people at that time did not know how to pray.
It was something that was forbidden for them.
Moreover, in the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus talks about God was not in heaven, not in a house made of wood and stone, but God was everywhere, accessible to all people at all times.
This in the view of the church leaders, does not work.
It needs a translator, namely them, 'He sits in heaven' and believers must come to their house to pray.
This idea, the common people can speak directly to God without priest and temple, was then absolutely radical and extreme.
It was regarded as heresy and a dangerous threat to the power and wealth of the Sanhedrin and the Roman authorities as well.
Jesus broke this monopoly and the mandatory toll on the way to God.
He gave people access free of charge.
Therefore the priesthood hated him and wanted him to be destroyed.
Jesus lived in poverty.
There is no evidence he has ever begged for money or required money for his teaching work.
As shown above, he had a total aversion to institutionalized faith as a financial operation.
As soon as he was gone, the Christian church became a money machine and the priest wanted to be paid.
They demanded humility and poverty of their flocks, but they themselves led a good life.
Just the Catholic Church has later become one of the largest landowners and squire, all countries were conquered in the name of the Vatican and everything confiscated, which in turn led to war with the secular princes.
As said, after Jesus left the Palestine, everyone in the religion business again banished God to houses and behind closed doors, where only the priests had the key.
What Jesus preached God is everywhere and was always available for everyone could not be.
This is so much like today, information is the Internet everyone, everywhere and always accessible quasi for free.
Also want the authorities take away again, monopolize, control and make payable.
Because only monks had access to the Bible, which they themselves copied by hand and then translated in a language that the people do not understand, namely Latin.
So you could tell them everything and they were dependent on the church representatives.
This monopoly of the Church was later broken by the invention of printing by Guttenberg.
By low-budget manufacturing and duplication of the Bible and then by the translation into many languages, has the exclusive right evaded and everyone could read it.
The general accepted translation of the first line of the creed reads: 'Our Father who art in heaven ...'
Only the original Aramaic Bible shows a deliberate mistranslation of 'Our Father who art everywhere ...', which contradicts what the churches say.
Jesus was speaking Aramaic, and not Hebrew.
Also interesting is the word for God in Aramaic is Alaha or Elah or Elaha similar to Allah in Arabic.
Archaeological secured is the pre-Islamic use of 'Allah' by Christians.
What I mean by all this ?
This institution of the church is really just a worldly man-made construct and its representatives primarily represent themselves and the doctrine they have worked out appropriately.
Many who call themselves Christians are so far from the message of Jesus as the Earth to the nearest star, that is light-years.
With spirituality, that is belief in God and the associated quest for Love, truth, righteousness, peace, and recognizing how beautiful creation is, they have nothing to do.
What is now going on in the coming weeks, will be a secular drama, which is about the seizure of the Papal State.
A successor to Benedict XVI. should be certain by Easter.
'We should have a new Pope by Easter,' Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi said on Monday.
Easter Sunday falls this year on March 31.
The conclave could begin to elect the new Pontiff 15 to 20 days after the resignation, said the spokesman.
How Christian-tolerant and brotherly Benedict was what we saw on his view that the Protestants, according to Catholic doctrine is no state-church.
Other Christians are no Christians and the only Church of Christ is the Catholic Church.
I wonder what Jesus would say today ?
Again, you have made it a den of thieves ?
Your Soul Is Owned By The Vatican - Santos Bonacci
What the Church doesn't want you to know
The forged origins of the new testament
In the fourth century, the Roman Emperor Constantine united all religious factions under one composite deity, and ordered the compilation of new and old writings into a uniform collection that became the New Testament.
Click here to read only offline
Please note, you can download the large .pdf but it makes no sense as you can view only online.