Thursday, October 28, 2010

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is Europe in a mess because "Javier retired" or did Javier retire because Europe was in a mess?

UPDATE:  QUOTE OF THE WEEK:  
"Secondly, the ECLJ wants to recall that the concept of “defamation of religions” is incompatible with Human Rights. More than that, that concept is a threat to Human Rights, in particular to the rights of religious minorities.
"To accept the use of the concept of “defamation of religions” would give an international legality to repressive laws working against religious minorities, such as the laws against proselytism and blasphemy. We should not forget that in many countries, the simple public expression of the content of a minority religion, most of the times Christianity, can be considered as an offense, a “defamation” of the State’s official religion. Thus, to accept the concept of “defamation of religions” would in fact, reinforce, straighten, the arsenal of repressive laws directed against religious minorities.
As a conclusion, it should be greater respect for religious freedom, as provided by the existing international law. Only respect of religious freedom can effectively help to combat the growing “bipolarization” of the world."  From Presentation to UN Human Rights Council by European Centre for Law and Justice

The above quote and the current post below may seem unrelated, but with all the push by the Alliance of Civilizations, The European Union, the World Economic Forum and others for a type of "New World Religion" where everybody in effect bows down to everybody else's god, it was refreshing to see that others recognize the dangers inherent in this type of forced syncretism and are boldly and eloquently pointing them out.
Constance
Nothing seems to have gone that well for the European Union since Javier Solana "retired" or maybe "laid low" in December 2009.  Things haven't been going all that great on this side of the Atlantic either and the global governance crowd is making real hay over both.  This is what a hard hitting editorial in THE GUARDIAN (United Kingdom) said today:


Europe is in a mess. The European Union is in trouble. Today's summit in Brussels is unlikely to do much to help. David Cameron, like his fellow leaders, can only hope to limit the damage: and even as he does so he can hear the ghoulish sound of Tory Euroscepticism rising from the grave.
The summit faces trouble from three directions. The first is the enfeebled condition of many European governments. To pick the news almost at random, this week the Romanian government narrowly survived a confidence vote; talks on the Portuguese budget collapsed and President Sarkozy was battling (successfully) to pass his pension reforms. Ireland is preparing for another round of spending cuts; Belgium hardly exists at all. These are not promising times for effective deal-making between strong leaders.
Second, the European Union is in the middle of an indulgent institutional upheaval. The Lisbon treaty was necessary, but some of its consequences were not. Lady Ashton, Europe's new foreign minister, announced the other day that she will spend £10.5m a year on new offices; the European parliament has voted for a 6% increase in EU spending next year, including a 4.5% rise in administration costs. At a time when most EU governments are cutting their domestic budgets, such things are provocative – and British Tories have been duly provoked. Yesterday Lord Tebbit warned Mr Cameron that he risked a "Vichy-style surrender" if he agreed to a budget rise. Last week 37 Tory backbenchers voted against one. The coalition provides some ballast: Mr Cameron is playing a more co-operative role at the summit than he ever could have done as a purely Tory prime minister. But his freedom is limited: even conceding a 2.9% increase in the EU budget will bring him trouble in his party at home.
Third, and most serious, is the European Union's response to economic crisis. Germany, with a growing economy and unemployment now below 3 million for the first time in 18 years, fears being dragged down by its EU partners. Germans bailed out Greece and stabilised the eurozone. Now the German government wants to overhaul the rules to prevent future budgetary implosion. But the existing rules were not the reason Greece went bust and Ireland overspent. Changing them – which could require a controversial reopening of European treaties – is a distraction.
Britain is still hoping to secure a freeze in the EU budget – which would be a success for Mr Cameron. He could tolerate the more probable 2% rise. But these things are trifles compared to Europe's search for economic growth. That is the challenge the EU is facing – and failing.

I can't irreverently wonder if things are going badly because Javier picked up his marbles and went home? OR, did he pick up his marbles and go home because he saw the trouble coming and wanted others to take the blame for it?  $64 question!!!

Well, I wonder if anybody is going to come to rescue the "European Project"?   I suspect I know somebody who'd like to, provided, however, he isn't already too, too busy with the CRISIS=OPPORTUNITY global government, whoops, GOVERNANCE, front.  Wonder how the cell phones are going between Strobe Talbott, George Soros, Lord Malloch-Brown, Maurice Strong, and Javier Solana?
If only I were a mouse in that corner?  

Stay tuned!

CONSTANCE

428 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   401 – 428 of 428
Anonymous said...

"Oh no they don't! You ask a crowd of Catholics coming out of church one by one whether they are priests, no qualification, and see what they reply..."

Your point is what. The Catholic church does not tell them not to learn or to read the the Catechism. I know because I choose to learn. If they choose not to learn, don't blame the church.

Anonymous said...

"Whatever else it means, it certainly implies that they MAY marry. Roman Catholic dogma says that they may not, in contradiction with scripture."

Priestly celibacy is not Roman Catholic dogma. It's a discipline, which means it can be changed, unlike a dogma which cannot. I however, trust the Church's judgement in this matter. It was the church that produced the Bible. The Bible did not produce the church.

Anonymous said...

Anon @8.44pm

I said:
Oh no they don't! You ask a crowd of Catholics coming out of church one by one whether they are priests, no qualification, and see what they reply..."

You replied:
Your point is what?

I respond:
To correct you. You said that Catholics know that they are priests.

You also said:
The Catholic church does not tell them not to learn or to read the the Catechism. I know because I choose to learn. If they choose not to learn, don't blame the church.

I respond:
You don't think that the way this is taught (or not taught) by the church is at all responsible...?

Anonymous said...

Anon @ 8:34 p.m.

I will also agree that since the liberal spirit of Vatican 2, we have had poor teachings, which has made ignorant Catholics, canon fodder for Protestant missionaries.

Catholics convert to Protestanism because they do not know their faith. Protestants convert to Catholicism because they know Christianity.

Anonymous said...

Anon @8.48pm

"Priestly celibacy is... a discipline, which means it can be changed."

Good. Why not change it to permit episkopoi to have chidren, as St Paul clearly affirms? That means marriage, of course.

"It was the church that produced the Bible. The Bible did not produce the church."

It was not the church's job to write the Bible. It was the church's job to recognise which of the writings were divinely inspired. Having done that, it is the church's responsibility to conform to them.

Anonymous said...

"Good. Why not change it to permit episkopoi to have chidren, as St Paul clearly affirms? That means marriage, of course."

It will change when the church decides so. There's nothing in the Bible that says there is a right to marry.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous to 8:50 p.m. Anonymous

YOU ARE SO RIGHT!

Anonymous said...

To: Anon 9.08pm

The "right to marry" is the default, and St Paul speaks cheeerfully of the children of episkopoi, so the right is affirmed in scripture.

Anonymous said...

I question whether Roman Catholicism was the church in Europe by the Middle Ages. Look closely at mediaeval Europe and you will find small groups of Christians who wished to meet peacably outside Roman authority to worship Jesus Christ in their own way and pray to him in their own words. These included the Lollards in England and the Waldensians in northern Italy. They were were persecuted and burned by Rome as heretics. The New Testament says that the church will be persecuted by the world for its faith, it will be peaceful, it will be a small minority, it will not be rigidly hierarchical. So, by the criteria of the scriptures accepted by (among others) Rome itself, these small groups WERE the church, whereas Catholicism had mutated into becoming 'the world'. In deciding who was the church we must use scripture's own criteria, not Rome's or those of church historians who see only politicised hierarchies.

There was nothing heretical about the Lollards and the Waldensians, was there? The Albigensians had some weird views on the relation between matter and spirit but they were commmitted to the Lord Jesus Christ as the only divine son of the universal creator God Jehovah. Their views on matter and spirit were used by Rome to commit mass murder against them. I ask you which is more heretical: odd philosophical opinions, or execution rather than excommunication as a way of dealing with religious dissent? (Prayers to Mary don't help either.) Look at the Sala Reale in the vestibule of the Sistine Chapel and you will see scenes commissioned by Gregory XIII from the artist Vasari that actually celebrate a later massacre. Should they not be painted over?

Today things are better, and I know many Catholics who know and love the Lord Jesus Christ. I also know that many protestants go to church and don't. The church is simply the collective of those who know and love Him. But Catholics must acknowledge their own history.

Constance Cumbey said...

I don't know as much about the Waldensians and the Lollards, but there is no mistaking that the Albigensians had a deeply occult religion -- one that divided Christ and borrowed from Eastern religions.

Constance

Anonymous said...

Hi Constance

The Albigensians were noticed for living more moral lives than the surrounding Catholics. They believed that Jesus Christ was divine, the only son of the creator God Jehovah, and died on the cross and was resurrected. Next to that, what is a certain battiness about the relation betweeen matter and spirit? In their encounter with Catholicism, I ask you which is more heretical: odd philosophical opinions about matter, or execution rather than excommunication as a way of dealing with religious dissent and disguised goddess-worship in prayer to Mary?

In what sense is their belief 'occult', please?

Anonymous said...

PS As I recall, we have only one document from the Albigensians summarising their beliefs (found quite recently, I think). Everything else is what the Catholics who killed them said about them.

Anonymous said...

"No sermons are more Christian than theirs, and their morals are pure" - Bernard of Clairvaux, prominent Catholic, on the Albigensians.

Anonymous said...

While the Assumption is mentioned in the literature that was condemned, the condemnation itself had nothing to do with the Assumption. Belief in the Assumption existed prior to the literature - especially in the East.

Your objection confuses the Transitus "literature" with the Assumption teaching. The mistake is suggesting the Assumption itself was ever condemned, even if some of the Transitus literature was. A true belief can be contained in non-canonical or apocryphal material (e.g. the NT book of Jude quotes the apocryphal Book of Enoch).

As a reminder for sola scriptura (Scripture alone) believers, the 27-book New Testament canon itself wasn't recognized by the Catholic Church until the late fourth century as well (first with St. Athanasius, 367 AD, then later Councils of Hippo/Carthage in 393/397/419 AD, and Popes Boniface I and Innocent I confirmed this same canon).

As for the Transitus literature, it was not the real source for belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in the first place, as some Protestants claim - but it was the first express written witness in the West.

There is a single Transitus writing which was labeled "apocryphus" by (supposedly) "Pope Gelasius" in the late fifth century. The "Pope Gelasian Decree" or Decretum Gelasianum de Libris Recipiendis et non Recipiendis is online.

Read it for yourself. Is the Assumption of Mary itself anywhere condemned, rejected, or declared heretical in this writing? The answer is NO. What we have here is a delineation of the OT and NT canonical books from the apocryphal books, such as....

the Itinerary in the name of Peter the apostle, which is called the nine books of the holy Clement -- apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Andrew -- apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Thomas -- apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Peter -- apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Philip -- apocryphal
And so on.... Also there is indeed one named "the book which is called the Assumption of holy Mary -- apocryphus"

Again, the Assumption itself is not condemned, only the book with that particular title is labeled "apocryphus." The doctrine of the Assumption is nowhere mentioned. The Gelasian decree has nothing to do with Mariology or the Assumption. It simply concerns the list of correct canonical vs. non-canonical writings received by the Church, with various heretics condemned at the end.

http://www.ntcanon.org/Decretum_
Gelasianum.shtml

http://www.tertullian.org/decretum
_eng.htm

By the way, the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura.

And where in the Bible does it explicitly say that the Petrine charism was not to continue in history or that there was to be no apostolic succession?

For all intents and purposes, as a result of private interpretation which goes tandem with sola Scriptura, every sola Scriptura believer is his own "pope." But as another commenter asked on more than one occasion, where there two different and contradictory interpretations why should anyone beleive that one interpretation is truer than any other?

If there is only one Holy Spirit, why are there thousands of Protestant denominations each claiming to be "Holy Spirit- inspired?"

If the Bible is the only authority, why would anyone need preachers, pastors,
"Christian authors" and other extra Biblical sources to "explain" what various passages in the Bible mean?

There are also plenty of Protestant concordances around. Why would anyone even need a concordance?

So if you want to play 20 questions about what appear to be "contradictions" in Roman Catholicism, you might wish to first address the far more glaring contradictions in certain elements of Protestantism.

Anonymous said...

While the Assumption is mentioned in the literature that was condemned, the condemnation itself had nothing to do with the Assumption. Belief in the Assumption existed prior to the literature - especially in the East.

Your objection confuses the Transitus "literature" with the Assumption teaching. The mistake is suggesting the Assumption itself was ever condemned, even if some of the Transitus literature was. A true belief can be contained in non-canonical or apocryphal material (e.g. the NT book of Jude quotes the apocryphal Book of Enoch).

As a reminder for sola scriptura (Scripture alone) believers, the 27-book New Testament canon itself wasn't recognized by the Catholic Church until the late fourth century as well (first with St. Athanasius, 367 AD, then later Councils of Hippo/Carthage in 393/397/419 AD, and Popes Boniface I and Innocent I confirmed this same canon).

cont....

Anonymous said...

cont...

As for the Transitus literature, it was not the real source for belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in the first place, as some Protestants claim - but it was the first express written witness in the West.

There is a single Transitus writing which was labeled "apocryphus" by (supposedly) "Pope Gelasius" in the late fifth century. The "Pope Gelasian Decree" or Decretum Gelasianum de Libris Recipiendis et non Recipiendis is online.

Read it for yourself. Is the Assumption of Mary itself anywhere condemned, rejected, or declared heretical in this writing? The answer is NO. What we have here is a delineation of the OT and NT canonical books from the apocryphal books, such as....

the Itinerary in the name of Peter the apostle, which is called the nine books of the holy Clement -- apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Andrew -- apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Thomas -- apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Peter -- apocryphal
the Acts in the name of the apostle Philip -- apocryphal
And so on.... Also there is indeed one named "the book which is called the Assumption of holy Mary -- apocryphus"

Again, the Assumption itself is not condemned, only the book with that particular title is labeled "apocryphus." The doctrine of the Assumption is nowhere mentioned. The Gelasian decree has nothing to do with Mariology or the Assumption. It simply concerns the list of correct canonical vs. non-canonical writings received by the Church, with various heretics condemned at the end.

http://www.ntcanon.org/Decretum_
Gelasianum.shtml

http://www.tertullian.org/decretum
_eng.htm

By the way, the Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura.

And where in the Bible does it explicitly say that the Petrine charism was not to continue in history or that there was to be no apostolic succession?

For all intents and purposes, as a result of private interpretation which goes tandem with sola Scriptura, every sola Scriptura believer is his own "pope." But as another commenter asked on more than one occasion, where there two different and contradictory interpretations why should anyone beleive that one interpretation is truer than any other?

If there is only one Holy Spirit, why are there thousands of Protestant denominations each claiming to be "Holy Spirit- inspired?"

If the Bible is the only authority, why would anyone need preachers, pastors,
"Christian authors" and other extra Biblical sources to "explain" what various passages in the Bible mean?

There are also plenty of Protestant concordances around. Why would anyone even need a concordance?

So if you want to play 20 questions about what appear to be "contradictions" in Roman Catholicism, you might wish to first address the far more glaring contradictions in certain elements of Protestantism.

Susanna said...

While atrocities were committed on all sides during the Albigensian crusade, the Albigensian Crusade began when the Albigensians murdered the papal legate.

"Albigensian" was simply another name for Manichaeans. they believed that "matter is evil" and advocated abortion and suicide - especially a ritual suicide known as the "endura."

During the occult revival of the 19th century the Albigensian "church" was revived by Jules Doinel who received "revelations" at seances he attended at the home of Lady Caithness who was a friend of Madame Helena Blavatsky.

The following article is not by any bigoted Catholic author....but by a "bishop" of the so-called Gnostic Catholic church.

http://www.gnostique.net/ecclesia/EG.htm

By the way, whenever certain Freemasons wax philosophical, they wax Manichaean.

Anonymous said...

To: Anon @12.06pm

From: the one who has mentioned Mary's direct assumption and Gelasius

I'm not one of the Sola Scriptura defenders here. I take the view that all authority in heaven and on earth resides with the Lord Jesus Christ, because I trust him and these words of his are reported at the end of Matthew's gospel, which I believe. The church's task was to recognise the word of God and then heed it. Thankfully, Catholic, Orthodox and protestant agree on the NT canon as the word of God. (I regard those councils as simply rubberstamping an established understanding of what the canon was among the great majority of believers. Dissenters made a disproportionate amount of noise.) I worry about some Catholics who seem to take the attitude "we, the church, wrote the Bible, so we have authority over it."

There is disagreement over at least some of the Catholic dogmas that cannot be derived from scripture. I restrict myself on this blog to pointing out Catholic things that are inconsistent with scripture. If Catholics want to defend them then we can have a brother-to-brother debate, which I welcome.

Peter was first to name Jesus as Messiah, who immediately replied “you are Peter [Petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build my church,” promising Peter the keys of God’s kingdom (Matthew 16:13-19). Petra means a loose rock cut from the strata; Peter himself used the image to call Christians living stones being built into Jesus’ church, quoting the Old Testament to show *Jesus* is the cornerstone (1 Peter 2:4-8). Peter was simply the first stone of many to be laid. Paul makes the distinction clear in Ephesians 2:19-22. Comparison with Matthew (18:18) and John (20:23) shows that the keys and promises were for all the disciples.

As for the apostolic succession, it is enough for me that every Christian today (Roman Catholic, Orthodox or protestant) has picked up the faith from another Christian, in an unbroken succession running back to the apostles and thence to Christ. Catholics are concerned with a succession of episkopoi (although the word has reversed in meaning, as the NT describes many episkopoi per congregation); I am concerned with a succession of believers.

That condemnation of named heretics at the end of Gelasius' list actually says: These [the authors of the books on the list] and the like, Simon Magus, etc etc..., are not merely rejected but excluded from the Roman Catholic and Apostolic chcurch and with its authors and the adherent of its authors to be damned in the inextricable shackles of anathema forever.

That's pretty strong, and it would be extraordinary if it did not apply to the core thesis of "Liber qui apellat ur Transitus, id est Assumptio Sanctae Mariae". Its core thesis can be inferred from its title. So Gelasius is obviously calling the direct assumption heretical.

You say the Transitus literature was not the real source for belief in the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin in the first place. What was? Epiphanius, who lived neear the Holy Land, speculated on something like it in 377AD but specifically said that nobody knew.

Anonymous said...

Susanna: Wikipedia tells me that the papal legate was murdered after a confrontation with the local ruler, who was not an Albigensian but regarded them as good citizens of his land. (One might infer that the legate was threaening violence.) Unless you have a more reliable source, it is not accurate to say that the Albigensians murdered the legate.

They deserve to be read in their own words, not the words of those who exterminated them. Arch-Catholic Bernard of Clairvaux nevertheless said of the heretics in that part of the world (in his sermon no.65):

If you question the heretic about his faith, nothing is more Christian; if about his daily converse, nothing more blameless; and what he says he proves by his actions ... As regards his life and conduct, he cheats no one, pushes ahead of no one, does violence to no one. Moreover, his cheeks are pale with fasting; he does not eat the bread of idleness; he labours with his hands and thus makes his living.

This quote replaces my earlier (10.30am) quote from Bernard, which I now believe was a summary of it by someone else.

"During the occult revival of the 19th century the Albigensian "church" was revived by Jules Doinel who received "revelations" at seances he attended at the home of Lady Caithness who was a friend of Madame Helena Blavatsky."

I don't mean to be rude, but So what?

Susanna said...

Anonymous 1:42 PM

Albigenses

The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition | 2008 | The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. Copyright 2008 Columbia University Press. (Hide copyright information) Copyright

Albigenses [Lat.,=people of Albi, one of their centers], religious sect of S France in the Middle Ages.

Beliefs and Practices

Officially known as heretics, they were actually Cathari , Provençal adherents of a doctrine similar to the Manichaean dualistic system of material evil and spiritual good (see Manichaeism ; Bogomils ). They held the coexistence of these two principles, represented by God and the Evil One, light and dark, the soul and the body, the next life and this life, peace and war, and the like. They believed that Jesus only seemed to have a human body.

The Albigenses were extremely ascetic, abstaining from flesh in all its forms, including milk and cheese. They comprised two classes, believers and Perfect, the former much more numerous, making up a catechumenate not bound by the stricter rules observed by the Perfect. The Perfect were those who had received the sacrament of consolamentum, a kind of laying on of hands. The Albigenses held their clergy in high regard. An occasional practice was suicide, preferably by starvation; for if this life is essentially evil, its end is to be hastened.

They had enthusiasm for proselytizing and preached vigorously. This fact partly accounted for their success, for at that time preaching was unknown in ordinary parish life. In the practice of asceticism as well, the contrast between local clergy and the Albigenses was helpful to the new sect.

History

Early Years

Albigensianism appeared in the 12th cent. and soon had powerful protectors. Local bishops were ineffectual in dealing with the problem, and the pope sent St. Bernard of Clairvaux and other Cistercians to preach in Languedoc, the center of the movement. In 1167 the Albigenses held a council of their own at Toulouse. Pope Innocent III attacked the problem anew, and his action in sending (1205) St. Dominic to lead a band of poor preaching friars into the Albigensian cities was decisive. These missionaries were hampered by the war that soon broke out.

The Albigensian Crusade

In 1208 the papal legate, a Cistercian, Peter de Castelnau, was murdered, probably by an aid of Raymond VI of Toulouse, one of the chief Albigensian nobles. The pope proclaimed (1208) the Albigensian Crusade. From the first, political interests in the war overshadowed others; behind Simon de Montfort , the Catholic leader, was France, and behind Raymond was Peter II of Aragón, irreproachably Catholic. Innocent attempted to make peace, but the prize of S France was tempting, and the crusaders continued to ransack the entire region.

In 1213 at Muret, Montfort was victor and Peter was killed. The war went on, with the son of Philip II (later Louis VIII) as one of the leaders. Simon's death in 1218 robbed him of victory and left his less competent son to continue the fight. Raymond's son, Raymond VII, joined the war, which was finally terminated with an honorable capitulation by Raymond. By the Peace of Paris (1229), Louis IX acquired the county of Toulouse. The religious result of the crusade was negligible.

In 1233, Pope Gregory IX established a system of legal investigation in Albigensian centers and put it into the hands of the Dominicans; this was the birth of the medieval Inquisition . After 100 years of the Inquisition, of tireless preaching by the friars, and of careful reform of the clergy, Albigensianism was dead.

Bibliography

See S. Runciman, The Medieval Manichee (1947, repr. 1961); R. Rose, Albigen Papers (3d ed. 1979); S. O'Shea, The Perfect Heresy (2000).

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/
Albigenses.aspx

Susanna said...

P.S.

Anonymous 1:42 PM

Re:I don't mean to be rude, but So what?

LOL - YOU LOSE!

Anonymous said...

Susanna,

In whose eyes?

Mediaeval people are not responsible for what a bunch of
people centuries later believe that they believe...

Anonymous said...

Susanna,

I hadn't known of "endura"; thank you. Here is from a website about the mediaeval Cathars/Albigensians:

Since Catholics regarded suicide as a great sin, they seem to have made the most of one of their two charges that were genuine, villifying those who practised it. (The other was using contraception). Many Catholic works, even modern ones, make out that suicide was a routine and frequent practise. In fact there is no evidence that suicide was more common among Cathars than it was, or still is, among Catholics. The only known difference was the level of acceptance in the two communities.

And quite right too, in my view. If somebody is in so much inner pain that they feel the need to give back their life to God, who are we to judge? The Law of Moses is a comprehensive God-given legal system and it does not say that people who attempt suicide and fail should be cut off from Israel, or likewise for relatives of those who succeed.

Anonymous said...

nvm monica... i just watched that vid you suggested and the man exposing monica's obvious blasphemies is an apostate too....

Susanna said...

Anonymous 1:42 P.M.

I totally misunderstood you and I apologize.

In answer to your legitimate query.....

The reason why Jules Doinel and his "church" matter is because it is part and parcel of what the late Carrie Tomko and I came to regard as part of the "right wing" of the New Age Movement.

In the 19th-century, there was a kind of schism in H.P. Blavatsky's Theosophical Society when Papus ( Gerard Encausse ) left it to found his own Theosophical Society based on Western esotericism......as opposed to Blavatsky's Theosophical Society which laid greater emphasis on Eastern esotericism.

Jules Doinel - a Grand Orient Freemason and practicing spiritist - was an associate of Papus (Gerard Encausse) and even made him a "bishop" in his neo-Albigensian/ gnostic "Church of the Paraclete." ( One of Doinel's titles was "primate of the Albigensians.")


The First Homily - 'On the Holy Gnosis'
- Jules Stany DOINEL

To the Church of the Paraclete.

http://www.gnostique.net/documents
/homelie1.htm
__________________

JULES DOINEL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jules
_Doinel
___________________

GERARD ENCAUSSE (PAPUS)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3
%A9rard_Encausse
___________________

Doinel's church and a few other gnostic groups were eventually consolidated together under one organiation led by Jean Bricaud which came to be known as the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica. it is still in operation and serves as the "ecclesiastical" arm of the infamous O.T.O. whose members included Aleister Crowley.

ORDO TEMPLI ORIENTIS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordo_
Templi_Orientis
________________________________

ECCLESIA GNOSTICA CATHOLICA
Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica (E.G.C.), or the Gnostic Catholic Church, is the ecclesiastical arm of Ordo Templi Orientis (O.T.O.), an international fraternal initiatory organization devoted to promulgating the Law of Thelema. Thelema is a philosophical, mystical and religious system elaborated by Aleister Crowley, and based on The Book of the Law. The word Catholic denotes the universality of doctrine and not a Christian or Roman Catholic belief set.....read entire article....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eccle
sia_Gnostica_Catholica
________________________________

One of the biggest sites dealing with the history of the Ordo Templi Orientis and the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica is the one hosted by Peter R. Koenig entitled....

THE ORDO TEMPLI ORIENTIS PHENOMENA

http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/
hallo.htm

Susanna said...

P.S.

JEAN BRICAUD

Jean (or Joanny) Bricaud (February 11, 1881, Neuville-sur-Ain, Ain – February 24, 1934), also known as Tau Jean II, was a French student of the occult and esoteric matters. Bricaud was heavily involved in the French neo-Gnostic movement. He was consecrated a Gnostic bishop on July 21, 1913 by bishop Louis-Marie-François Giraud.[1] He was the Patriarch of the l'Église Gnostique Universelle (French for "Universal Gnostic Church") and a central figure in the various lines of the apostolic succession of subsequent Gnostic Churches, as well as a spiritual heir of Jules Doinel (Valentinus II). From 1916 he was head of the L'Ordre Martiniste.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_
Bricaud

See also...

http://weblog.bergersen.net/terje/
archives/000812.html

Many of the "priests" and "bishops" of the Ecclesia Gnostica Catholica had the audacity to seek ordinations and consecrations from schismatic communions that still had what the Roman Catholic Church regarded as valid Holy Orders.

Such "priests" and "bishops" were validly but illicitly ordained. This is what articles are talking about when they describe certain gnostic priests and bishops as being "in the apostolic succession."

Anonymous said...

From: Anon@1.42pm

To: Susanna

No problem, and blessings in the Lord Jesus Christ.

jeje said...

ed hardy
polo pas chère
kate spade outlet
cheap nhl jerseys
true religion outlet store
cheap nike shoes
coach outlet store online
pandora
adidas outlet store
polo ralph lauren outlet

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 428 of 428   Newer› Newest»