Billy Graham: Pope Was 'Evangelist'

"...It was my privilege to meet with him at the Vatican on various occasions, and I will always remember his personal warmth to me and his deep interest in our ministry. In his own way, he saw himself as an evangelist, traveling far more than any other Pope to rally the faithful and call non-believers to commitment. He was convinced that the complex problems of our world are ultimately moral and spiritual in nature, and only Christ can set us free from the shackles of sin and greed and violence. His courage and perseverance in the face of advancing age and illness were an inspiration to millions - including me..."

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/4/2/185720.shtml


-----------------

Was he really ? I didn't know

They have appropriated all of Christianity, snatched the concept of "moral values," kidnapped Christ himself for political gain, and confiscated the Bible for their purposes.

What would stop them from hijacking the Catholic Pope himself?

Shameless.

PS: this is the same Graham who claims only born-again fundies would go to heaven. In his neon-Calvinist puritanical view of religion, the Pope is not really "Christian," as I've been told by countless fundie ignoramuses.

They're all rushing to wear the button.

They are so shameless, they would steal Christ off the cross and go back for the nails.

to redefine the Pope in their image.

:eyes:

I had the misfortune of working for a Graham (of THE Billy Graham family) in NC in a sales position and this SOB would do or say any damn thing to make a sale. He was a total repuke former frat boy that had a bible behind the counter and thought there was nothing wrong with telling any sort of lie to part folks with their money. I had to eventually leave that job, which was just an $8.00/hr. sales job, because it was either that or lose all my integrity or self respect. he would tell us to charge stuff to people's credit cards and not tell them, that they would never notice.

:puke:

... are belong to us.

:rofl:

Exactly! Billy Graham is setting us up the bomb.

Graham is heading for a differt set of gates, too!

fuckers... and that is what will be on our tvs tonight. No Father Andrew Greeleys please.....:banghead:

he had a much kinder heart than most evangelists I've met, who'll tell you, at the drop of a hat, that you're going to hell if you don't get born again or something like that.

I don't think Catholics say that you are going to hell if you aren't Christian. Evangelists do.

and the fundies haven't forgiven him.

Catholics have an in between Heaven and Hell - Purgatory. It's not Heaven, but it's not Hell either. Teaching is that people who lead good lives but don't believe in Jesus Christ, aren't going to Hell.

I'm going to set up some sort of living will that during my funeral, the bishops get up and name the names I've listed and follow that by saying, "Don't try to cast me in with your lot, you cheap political/spiritual hoods. Now bring on the dancers!"

TlalocW

e·van·gel·ist P Pronunciation Key (-vnj-lst)
n.
often Evangelist Any one of the authors of the four New Testament gospel books: Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.
One who practices evangelism, especially a Protestant preacher or missionary.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


evangelist

n 1: a preacher of the Christian gospel 2: (when capitalized) any of the spiritual leaders who are assumed to be authors of the Gospels in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University


evangelist

a "publisher of glad tidings;" a missionary preacher of the gospel (Eph. 4:11).
This title is applied to Philip (Acts 21:8), who appears to have gone from city to city preaching the word (8:4, 40). Judging from the case of Philip, evangelists had neither the authority of an apostle, nor the gift of prophecy, nor the responsibility of pastoral supervision over a portion of the flock.

They were itinerant preachers, having it as their special function to carry the gospel to places where it was previously unknown. The writers of the four Gospels are known as the Evangelists.

Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary

uhhhh.... I don't think so, Billy :eyes:

"a preacher of the Christian gospel"

Did he not preach, or did he preach another gospel?

He did more outreach for Catholicism than most popes, I think.

In the US, out the evangelists go, and they aren't happy until you have "accepted JC as your PERSONAL savior" and then you join their club. In fact, that is their first duty...at least that's how it was explained to me by a very annoying evangelical chaplain. And the Bible is the WORD...even if it makes no sense, and was written centuries after the facts described.

Catholicism is built around the sacraments--the mass is a reenactment of the life of Christ, a passion play, as it were. The mass is an exercise for the faithful, not for the curious. When the gospels are preached, they are preached to the larger choir of people already IN their club. While they are a part of the faith, they are not the central part--the sacraments are--and going around and aggressively preaching to the uncoverted is not the central feature, either. And that Personal Jesus thing is just way off, from the Catholic perspective. However, having said that, they do manage to add to their flock by doing mission work--but it isn't in the instruction manual as a mandate.

No matter what club you join, they want your money.

One of the glories of a non-prescriptivist approach to language.

A lot of evangelists are overbearing; but when push comes to shove, the main point is evangelizing (= attempt to convert), not actually converting.

The mass is for the converted (and so are most Falwell gatherings). But the pope went to a lot of countries, made a lot of trips, and did a lot of either burnish (or smear, depending on your point of view) the reputation of the Catholic Church.

the Grahams are a good cop/bad cop act, the old fart is Mr Respectable while the boy is the fire eater, probably spewing the old Antichrist/Whore of Babylon act as I type.

But he would send "family members." The old man is pretty honest for an evangelist. His son is a creep.

Go read some of his statements.

Hardly a good man by any means.

The equal of fartwell and robertson - assholes all.

I personally think he spoke very well of the Pope. I'm sure he knows quite well what he is talking about when he refers to "shackles of sin and greed and violence." I believe he is referring to the Bush* Administration here especially since Liberals are more known for pacifism instead of violence. Jesus was a Liberal and Billy Graham knows that if Falwall and Robertson do not.

...having heard those Nixon tapes of him playing second fiddle and agreeing with all of Nixon's vile remarks. A boot licking coward, at best. He should be ASHAMED of himself. I always thought he was a blowdried phony, when I heard that tape, I realized he was far worse than that--he was actually HATEFUL. Oh, the bitter irony!! And his apple of a kid didn't fall far from that vicious tree...

He's also STUPID. You'd think a religious leader would at least learn the basic tenets of competing faiths. Catholicisms roots are in the sacraments, it is NOT, and never has been, an "evangelical" faith. Totally different approach.

... or else you are intentionally misrepresenting what Graham said about the Pope. He never said Catholicism is an "evangelical" faith. I'm pretty sure he knows the difference; you apparently don't know what the word "evangelist" means. And for the other poster above, yes, we know that Catholicism predates Protestantism by aabout 1500 years. Both comments are rooted in a basic misunderstanding of the meaning of "evangelist."

Protestants have no copyright on the term evangelist, and it is not defined by "fundie TV preachers." The term comes from the Greek word for "good news," the same word translated as "gospel." Thus an evangelist is one who spreads the gospel or good news. John Paul did that as much as anyone in the history of Catholicism, and I think he would have considered himself an evangelist and been proud of the title.

Bake

...with his attitude towards JEWS, as expressed in his remarks on the Nixon tapes. Claiming that "he didn't remember" saying it ain't an excuse. We know what he is made of--he recorded his real views for posterity. Sick man, cozying up to Jesus while hating, hating, hating....

I've never said BG was perfect. Flawed, just like every other great man, including John Paul II.

But then if you're going to be consistent, you'd better apply the same standard to Senator Byrd, whose comments were recorded for all posterity also.

But you won't do that, will you. I didn't think so. And I suspect you have about as much hate in you as you perceive in BG.

Bake

From the link in 32, below: Graham, now 83, apologized for the remarks last Friday -- though he qualified it by saying he didn't recall saying such things.

How can you denounce, when you don't even REMEMBER? Just another day at the races, I guess!

So easy for you to canonize him when you've never been a target of the hate he spreads.

And please, don't tell me how "gentle" he is, either.

What a joke.

Byrd KNOWS what he said. He ADMITS he said it. He ADMITS he was hateful, he admits he belonged to hate groups, and has apologized (more than once, in fact) and asked for forgiveness.

Graham didn't even REMEMBER saying what he said. And his apology was along the lines of: IF he had caused offense... IF???

Seeing as one acknowledges, and the other minimizes, I can hardly see any consistency between them. One owns up, the other brushes away.

Why do you bring up Byrd? He's not my senator--or was he just a handy old white Democrat with racist background to use as a distraction because facts can be pesky things? The subject was Graham, not Byrd. Has Byrd said anything about the Pope AND Graham, to interject himself into this discourse?

He's not a great man--he's a bigoted schmuck.

By their words we shall know them.

Bring on the $$$$$$$

America.

difference, except he's smoother.

:rofl:

blatant generalizations, and disregard of facts.

Bake

Catholocism was around WAAAAY before protestant evangelism.

You may be right about Franklin, but you are dead wrong about Billy. You may disagree with his beliefs (and mine), but you are dead wrong about his character. For example, Billy has not gotten rich off the tithes of his followers. He operates exclusively from the auspices of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, from which he has never taken more than a modest salary, if any at all. He lives not in a palace but in a modest home. He has never attempted to build any theme parks. You'll NEVER hear about any kind of sexual impropriety with Billy, because there hasn't been any and won't be any.

His message, very much like John Paul's, has been one of forgiveness and reconciliation. He may have been "fire and brimstone" in his youth, but for the 40 years that I've heard him, he's been a gentle soul. I met Billy Graham some years ago. He had then, and I'm sure still does today, a charisma that appealed/appeals to persons of all faiths -- not just the fundies -- as well as to persons of no faith.

Further, I don't think he was trying to appropriate the Pope. If he were, as some have suggested above, a wingnut fundie, he would condemn the Pope and the entire Cahtolic Church to a fiery hell. He did not. He praised him, sincerely. Why do you have a problem with that?

I suspect that those who have criticized him so harshly have never actually heard him preach or given him a fair listening. In other words, this is just more Christian-bashing.

Bake

He is a humble, gentle soul and a wonderful example of what it means to live a Christian life.

Go read his statements - his hateful, bigoted statements - which are more plentiful as he gets older.

He is a hateful bigoted evil asshole.

Far from being a "good person".

http://www.jewishsf.com/bk020308/us02.shtml


... the evangelist urged President Nixon to fight the Jews' alleged domination of America's media.

"This stranglehold has got to be broken or this country's going down the drain," Graham says on the tapes...

....Another troublesome element on the tapes is when Nixon apparently coaxes Graham to say things the president can't.

"You believe that?" Nixon asks Graham of his allegations of Jewish media domination.

"Yes, sir," Graham says.

"Oh boy, so do I," Nixon says. "I can't ever say that, but I believe it."

"No," Graham replies, "but if you get elected a second time, then we might be able to do something."

Later in the conversation, Nixon brings up the subject of Jewish influence in Hollywood.

"A lot of Jews are great friends of mine," Graham says. "They swarm around me and are friendly to me, because they know that I am friendly to Israel and so forth. But they don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country, and I have no power and no way to handle them."

Nixon responds, "You must not let them know."

BTW, I know one of the rabbis quoted in this article--the only thing that I can say against him is that he is way too damn nice, and gets walked on as a result.

Graham is an opportunistic toady, at BEST. At worst, he is intolerant to the point of evil.

In the "40 years" you heard him he advocated blowing up the dams and drowning and /or starving to death hundreds of thousands of Cambodians. He's spewed hate-filled language against the Jews. YOU are deluded. Graham is scum.

Whether it was Graham excoriating Jews in the presence of Nixon or the Pope denigrating gays and lesbians before the world, between these two men evil was propagated. These men have done harm to humanity.

That is not to say no good works issued from their lives. It has and did. But the good has blinded you to the bad, from which you are insulated by trite banalities such as "this is just more Christian-bashing." In the spirit of leading an examined life, as opposed to one spent hiding behind slogans, you might ask yourself: what good is a position based on half-truths?

you know the one who was so adamantly anti-semitic? He has made his life by cultivating and enriching his reputation, by associating with the rich, the powerful and famous.

That is not unusual amongst evangelical Christians. In fact we could make a case that it is the goal.

in the world's oldest corporation. Plain and simple.

If it was not so intended, then why say it at all?

Is it OK to tell Polack jokes here now?

Bake

He was old.
He was Polish.
He was a bureaucrat.
It's pretty simple.

They wish!:evilfrown:

Look at all the clowns jumping someone else's train.

And if you knew what that word meant, you'd know it's true. See above: "evangelist" means "one who proclaims good news." In other words (in a technical sense), the gospel (or "evangelion," Greek for "good news" and commonly translated "gospel"). John Paul would WELCOME that title. It does NOT mean "idiot TV preacher with bad hair," contrary to popular belief on DU.

Bake

As correct as you are, the denotation of the word "evangelist" has little relevance here. We are referencing what it means in its current usage.

a very conservative CEO of an antiquated organization whose real
purpose under St. Constantine from the 3rd Century onward was to control the sheep of the world, collect their
monies, and exterminate all of the wolves.

I didn't think it was possible, but there it is.

Some of you would do well to invest in a dictionary, since you apparently don't know what the word evangelist means. Here's a clue: evangel refers to the Gospels.

Accordingly, an evangelist is someone who preaches the Gospel. It doesn't necessarily mean that one does faith healing on teevee or owns a theme park. It doesn't mean that one is even an evangelical or fundamentalist. It has nothing to do with one's political beliefs. It simply means one who preaches the Gospel.

By any reasonable standard the Pope, who preached the Gospel in something like 115 countries, is an evangelist.

If you feel like working up a nice rage, there's plenty of justified reasons in the world. Getting upset over this is just ignorant.

It's like DU has rabies or something. And everything we see fit to run roughshod over and be reckless about is more reason for the opposition to paint us as a bunch of flat-out liars.

and not in a good way. I remember when DUers tended to be smarter than Freepers, and when you could learn a lot here. Now it's all just spitting bile and kneejerk, either/or thinking, and there really does seem to be this weird compulsion here to validate all the Republican propaganda points against us.

It is like a massive, really bad, shared temper tantum. And I don't think it is putting us in a good position for the next couple of elections either.

To me it looks like a bunch of newcomers, or people who were less active before, have chased out a lot of the reasonable people by inundating the place with self-centered rants. I think that maybe some of the more rational people have found more useful ways of spending their activism hours, or at least gotten apathetic about hanging around here so much.

Lots of kneejerk thinking, crapping on everything right and left, hate hate hate, etc. I can remember when we used to have conversations here above the level of drunken fratboys, but those days are apparently past.

"The mission of Christ the Redeemer, which is entrusted to the Church, is still very far from completion. As the second millennium after Christ's coming draws to an end, an overall view of the human race shows that this mission is still only beginning and that we must commit ourselves wholeheartedly to its service. It is the Spirit who impels us to proclaim the great works of God: "For if I preach the Gospel, that gives me no ground for boasting. For necessity is laid upon me. Woe to me if I do not preach the Gospel!" (1 Cor 9: 16).

In the name of the whole Church, I sense an urgent duty to repeat this cry of St. Paul. From the beginning of my Pontificate I have chosen to travel to the ends of the earth in order to show this missionary concern. My direct contact with peoples who do not know Christ has convinced me even more of the urgency of missionary activity, a subject to which I am devoting the present encyclical. "

This is the beginning of JP2's 1990 encyclical "Redemptoris Missio". Here is the beginning of his 1995 encyclical "Evangelium Vitae".

"The Gospel of life is at the heart of Jesus' message. Lovingly received day after day by the Church, it is to be preached with dauntless fidelity as "good news" to the people of every age and culture."

So did JP2 think of himself as an evangelist, bringing the "good news" of Christ to the world? You decide.

What the American anti-Semite saw in the Polish homophobe is easy to appreciate: he saw a fellow CEO. Another bigwig of Supernaturalism, Inc., yet one more proponent of divine authority somehow always to be interpreted by harsh, rigid, conservative white men who go about selling tickets on Sunday.

And in each man we find much the same capricious use of this power, always in God's name and damn the human consequences: so there's the Pope forbidding contraception to his poorest societies of followers, or reviling gays and lesbians, or telling women to take a back seat in their own faith while those with dicks hand out the wafers and listen to the confessions (and, er, mind the altar boys).

And there's Graham, fresh on the heels of the US invasion of Iraq, praying away to his Shock & Awe God in brutally occupied Iraq. Previously he had damned Islam as a "wicked" religion--just the thing to say when you want to get your followers to swallow a crusade. Thirty years earlier he was telling Nixon how much he loathed Jews, who "swarm around me...but they don't know how I really feel about what they're doing to this country, and I have no power and no way to handle them." And little more than a decade earlier, in the Red Scare era, there he is grandstanding for the anti-Communist crusade, thanking God for men like McCarthy.

Coke or Pepsi: both rot your teeth.

Yes, I know, the good stuff--like Graham's advocacy of civil rights or the Pope's opposition to war. Let's not leave out the good. Yes, if religion were capable of more of that, and did less of leading the faithful to obey and confess and love selectively and hate just as passionately and march when the rulers demand, it wouldn't be such a bloody pain in mankind's ass. What Diderot said in the 18th century about kings and priests is still true today.

I Remember Nixon's 1972 Inauguration.

With Billy Graham, Col Sanders and Bob Hope sitting next to each other in back of the BIG LIAR.

justify their earthly power over the many. I wasn't familiar with the Diderot quote so I looked it up:

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest."

Oh, yeah.

Look, you don't have to a agree with his beliefs, but the guy is an incredibly wonderful person. He's not terribly political (like his son is) anyway, so why are you bashing him. He's not Jerry Falwell. He's a truly good-hearted person who wants the best for everyone. You know, the only time he was overtly political is during the civil rights movement, and he was on the good side.

Billy Graham always struck me as being fairly benign. Franklin's the one who has made a variety of anti-everyone statements. I heard him being interviewed abt JPII and he took 30 seconds before he responded, and then started babbling abt theological differences, something I heard no other cleric bring up. So, my assumption is that he is in the 'only my kind go to heaven boat'. I never got that sense from Billy Grahan, not that I ever heard him speak much.

http://www.counterpunch.org/alexgraham.html

When Billy Graham Planned
To Kill One Million People

By Alexander Cockburn

There's a piquant contrast in the press coverage across the decades of Billy Graham's various private dealings with Nixon, as displayed on the tapes gradually released from the National Archive or disclosed from Nixon's papers. I'll come shortly to the recent flap over Graham and Nixon's closet palaverings about the Jews, but first let's visit another interaction between the great evangelist and his commander in chief Back in April, l989 a Graham memo to Nixon was made public. It took the form of a secret letter from Graham, dated April 15, 1969, drafted after Graham met in Bangkok with missionaries from Vietnam. These men of God said that if the peace talks in Paris were to fail, Nixon should step up the war and bomb the dikes. Such an act, Graham wrote excitedly, "could overnight destroy the economy of North Vietnam".

Graham lent his imprimatur to this recommendation. Thus the preacher was advocating a policy to the US Commander in Chief that on Nixon's own estimate would have killed a million people. The German high commissioner in occupied Holland, Seyss-Inquart, was sentenced to death at Nuremberg for breaching dikes in Holland in World War Two. (His execution did not deter the USAF from destroying the Toksan dam in North Korea, in 1953, thus deliberately wrecking the system that irrigated 75 per cent of North Korea's rice farms.)

<more>