This is an extract from his first homily:

When we walk without the Cross, when we build without the Cross, and when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord. We are worldly, we are bishops, priests, cardinals, Popes, but not disciples of the Lord.

I would like that all of us, after these days of grace, might have the courage - the courage - to walk in the presence of the Lord, with the Cross of the Lord: to build the Church on the Blood of the Lord, which is shed on the Cross, and to profess the one glory, Christ Crucified. In this way, the Church will go forward.

The whole homily can be read here:
http://en.radiovaticana.va/articolo.asp?c=673526

An interessting thing is that this new Pope has strong bounds to the charismatic movement as they themselves testify to here:
http://iccrs.org/en/index.php/blog/comments/habemus_papam_franciscum

This article could also be of interest:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/march-web-only/luis-palau-pope-francis-drinks-mate-evangelicals-bergoglio.html

i.chuka:

So in essence the baptism of our Lord Jesus Christ @Jordan washes away His Sins abi? Or the thief @the cross came down went to a river and cleanses himself before going back to the cross to die shei?

Jesus recieved the baptism of John and that baptism didnt wash away sins, neither was it the purpose, as is clear from Acts 19:1-7

1And it came to pass, that, while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul having passed through the upper coasts came to Ephesus: and finding certain disciples,

2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.

3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said, Unto John's baptism.

4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.

5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

7 And all the men were about twelve.

It is quite clear from this that the baptism is necessary

How would it affect the catholic Church if a man of African origin should be elected Pope?

For example Cardinal Turkson from Ghana, Two years ago, at the Rimini Meeting, he won everybody over with his communicative ability and charisma.
Certain sectors of the ecclesiastical hierarchy have reservations about the "young" Church of the african continent; it is feared that the Cardinals may be surrounded by ethnic clans and unclear situations.

Joseph Ratzinger didn't think so when, as Cardinal in 2004, he told a German tv: "We are ready for a black Pope". And during his travels, he defined Africa as the "spiritual lung of the world". In short: a viable hypothesis.

Also it has been said that it is now time for africa to evangelize europé, just as europé once evangelized africa.


How would such an event affect the Church in africa? How would it affect other christian denominations or even muslims?

Any thoughts?

According to the Ghanaian Cardinal, Peter Turkson, Arinze can not be chosen, read this and listen to the interwiew

http://www.voanews.com/content/election-of-new-pope-not-political-says-ghana-cardinal/1603123.html

do we need troubles?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loFDn94oZJ0

frosbel: 1. Calling the Priests "Father" is forbidden

FACT: Catholics are taught to call their priest, "Father", as a religious title of respect. Christians in the first century never called their leaders, "father". This first happened hundreds of years later.

What you are saying is not correct:

Matt. 23:9 - Jesus says, "call no man father." But Protestants use this verse in an attempt to prove that it is wrong for Catholics to call priests "father." This is an example of "eisegesis" (imposing one's views upon a passage) as opposed to "exegesis" (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). In this verse, Jesus was discouraging His followers from elevating the scribes and Pharisees to the titles of “fathers” and “rabbis” because they were hypocrites. Jesus warns us not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father.

Matt. 23:8 – in this teaching, Jesus also says not to call anyone teacher or rabbi as well. But don’t Protestants call their teachers “teacher?” What about this commandment of Jesus? When Protestants say “call no man father,” they must also argue that we cannot call any man teacher either.

Judges 17:10; 18:19 - priesthood and fatherhood have always been identified together. Fatherhood literally means "communicating one's nature," and just as biological fathers communicate their nature to their children, so do spiritual fathers communicate the nature of God to us, their children, through (hopefully) teaching and example.

Eph. 3:14-15 - every family in heaven and on earth is named from the "Father." We are fathers in the Father.

Acts 7:2; 22:1,1 John 2:13 - elders of the Church are called "fathers." Therefore, we should ask the question, "Why don't Protestants call their pastors "father?"

1 Cor. 4:15 - Paul writes, "I became your father in Christ Jesus."

1 Cor. 4:17 - Paul calls Bishop Timothy a beloved and faithful "child" in the Lord.

2 Cor. 12:14 - Paul describes his role as parent over his "children" the Corinthians.

Phil. 2:22 - Paul calls Timothy's service to him as a son serves a "father."

1 Thess. 2:11- Paul compares the Church elders' ministry to the people like a father with his children.

1 Tim. 1:2,18; 2 Tim. 1:2-3 - Paul calls Timothy his true "child" in the faith and his son.

Titus 1:4 - Paul calls Titus his true "child" in a common faith. Priests are our spiritual fathers in the family of God.

Philemon 10 - Paul says he has become the "father" of Onesimus.

Heb. 12:7,9 - emphasizes our earthly "fathers." But these are not just biological but also spiritual (the priests of the Church).

1 Peter 5:13 - Peter refers to himself as father by calling Mark his "son."

1 John 2:1,13,14 - John calls the elders of the Church "fathers."

1 John 2:1,18,28; 3:18; 5:21; 3 John 4 - John calls members of the Church "children."

Since Paul was a pharisee he was surely aware of Jesus even before the crucifiction, but since the San Hedrin had already decided to kill Jesus somehow, there was no need for Paul to do anything at that time.

Hi i just want someone to answer me this question, why did king James feel the need to omit 5 books from the original bible? and is this not in clear violation of Johns warning at the end of the original codex litanum. 18 This is my solemn attestation to all who hear the prophecies in this book: if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him every plague mentioned in the book;

19 if anyone cuts anything out of the prophecies in this book, God will cut off his share of the tree of life and of the holy city, which are described in the book.

This passage can not refer to the whole bible as it was not compiled as we know it today and must therefore only refer to the book of revelation.

In the same way 2 Tim 3:16 can not refer to the NT as it didnt exist at the time, more likely it refers to the Septuagint and therefore it is obvious that Luther threw out 7 inspired books from the scripture.

This is a link about the origin of the bible, very interessting, i highly recommend everybody to partake of it.

http://www.alabamacatholicresources.com/Bible.html

The truth is that all images are not acctually images of Christ or Mary since nobody knows what they looked like.

In european churches Christ will have a very european resemblance, likewise in african churches he usually have a very african look especially in the ethiopian orthodox churches.

In asian churches he looks very asian and none of theese customs to impicture christ as your own people has ever been condemned by the Catholic Church, rather it is a way to identify oneself with the Saviour and is therefore encouraged by the Church.