Just when we thought it couldn't/wouldn't get much worse, it has. It is not taking long for major denominations to start caving in on millennia of established moral and religious principles.
 |
| From Huffington Post July 2, 2015 |
 |
| From Washington Post July 1, 2015 |
They call it "love" and "tolerance". I call it apostasy that is harmful to both "gays and straights." Are they really preparing their congregations for eternity? Or for eternal damnation?
It clearly is not an easy time to be a true committed Christian who takes God at his unchanging word. Perhaps they have changed the warning of Revelation 14 to reflect an angel flying overhead preaching the "everchanging gospel" rather than the "everlasting gospel".
How much worse can it get. I suspect we shall rapidly find out.
Stay tuned!
CONSTANCE
389 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 389 of 389anon 8:23
what is it with you? I guess I am too old fashioned. on the blog proper
has nothing to do with proper vs. improper but the blog itself. This is
what I get for being able to read at age 2 and reading things ranging from
middle ages in modern English to 1800s uncorrected and early 20th century
starting in my teens. forgive me for not remembering how things change.
much of what is worthwhile reading is older and as you go forward in time
less and less is wroth reading though sometimes some are.
the blog proper then is that front page, where she and only she can put
anything. that is HER blog. this is HER blog's comments section she
shares with us and occasionally deletes things she doesn't like for content
or presentation.
I follow Eastern Orthodoxy. I found it the same way some evangelicals found
it back in the late 1980s I think it was, by taking the bible and second
century church writers seriously and not ignoring things. that and some other
issues like experience with Holy Water.
Many Orthodox would consider me too traditionalist. traditionalists would
consider me too comfortable with "world orthodoxy" and its godless innovations
like pews (which are too close packed for my taste and prevent prostration),
and willingness to question such Patristic ideas as that Adam and Eve did not
have densely physical bodies, an innovation they accepted from Origen who
was later anathematized but not before some of his ideas were in the writings
of saints who were not anathematized.
I do not post anonymously. And frankly I think some anonymice are pretending
to be distinct people thought not all. I suspect that one anonymous posts here
with a name, but when wants to get explosive posts anonymously. but that doesn't
matter really.
Anon@3:58 p.m.
Good observations. I have EO friends, and Christine is one mixed bag.
"There is a dispute as to whether it should have the preeminence in north America because the Russians were the first to bring Christianity of any kind to north America. Rivalling this is an interpretation of Chalcedon canon 28, which aside from what I've quoted stipulates that the lands of the barbarians that do not as of that canon's time have a patriarch are under the authority of Constantinople, which means the Ecumenical Patriarch or Greek ORthodox jurisdiction claims the primary jurisdiction over all the new world, because we classify as barbarians."
Yes, EO has no magisterium, so National Bishops constantly fight for primacy, to be the first among equals.
"Yes, EO has no magisterium, so National Bishops constantly fight for primacy, to be the first among equals. "
our magisterium is the same that RC started with. the testimony of Bible Creed
Councils and noteworthy Church fathers. We do not develop more doctrine.
The bishops in this case are NOT fighting to be first among equals, but over who
has the authority to make decisions in a specific geography. the decisions at
issue would be approval of selected bishops and consecration of them, approval or
disapproval of some local practices, how economia vs. strictness is applied, etc.
and how much we are to be friendly with the RC and miaphysites and so forth.
whether local congregations who are old calendar are allowed to continue with this.
and who gets mentioned and prayed for among the authorities in the Holy Liturgy.
Now I understand you better. You are impressed by your own intellectual abilities as you see them, to the exclusion of understanding the intellectual abilities of others. As they say the hardest thing is to know yourself. So much is going on in your head at one time that you think your head is Intellectual Central. Everything that goes in your head must come out for the benefit of others in your opinion. There is no self-analysis of how you combine the ideas that enter your head. Einstein, Michelangelo, Rembrandt, Moses, Constance, perhaps Jesus himself and for sure all of the religious scholars of all time have never reached the level you think you are now at in your opinion. No other point of view is worthy of the words "You may be right." That the possibility that you are unable to express yourself clearly never enters your understanding of yourself. Not understanding you is always the fault of the listener. What others might want to discuss is seen by you as a request for your valued opinion. Any idea that might be new to you is discarded as something that has not reached your mind because of its lack of importance.
There is no doubt that tons of ideas have entered your mind. There is a truism about academicians that goes they know more and more about less and less because truth comes from taking tons of information and distilling it down to what is accurate. You take tons of information from others and pride yourself on coming to your own conclusions, never separating the accurate from the inaccurate before reaching your own conclusions. In your mind because you know it it is true.
It would be good if you thought before you wrote.
anon 3:58
""The Church both guards and interprets the Bible. The Old Testament is preparatory to Christ’s arrival while the New Testament testifies about him and his church. Although the Bible is very important, it has not operated in isolation because it does not contain the fullness of revelation. In answer to Protestants who abide by sola scriptura (only scripture), the Greek Orthodox Church would remind them that the church wrote and preserved the scriptures, not the other way around. What has been handed down over the millennia includes, besides scripture, the Eucharist (one of the sacraments—of more, see below), hymns, icons, and other active elements, such as councils and creeds, of a living, breathing church....."
while this is the line of talk now, the fact is that in St. Basil the Great's day
what was handed down unwritten was a VERY short list according to St. Basil the
Great.
NO DOCTRINE OF ORTHODOXY IS CONTRARY TO THE BIBLE. Everything a protestant might
find odd, are things that one way or another expresses the Bible and is largely
a copy of the Jewish Temple Liturgy which the Apostles and early converts were
familiar with and naturally continued with changes to fit Christianity. For instance
instead of the Torah Scroll being paraded through the center of the synagogue and
kissed it is the Gospels that are paraded through the Church and kissed.
icons have been found, though they don't resemble the Byzantine style, in third
century churches, and yes, you will find iconoclastic sentiments from those times
also, Eusebius expressed these in a letter or two. It didn't boil up into a dangerous
movement until an emperor decided to back this many centuries later.
To say that the church wrote the Bible is absurd on the face of it, and no one
would say such a near blasphemy before they had to deal with protestants who strip
the Bible to bare essentials and attack holy things.
when pressed on it, in debate, an Orthodox priest will admit that what is meant by
"the church wrote the bible" is that the Apostles wrote the New Testament and approved
the rest of it, and the Apostles of course are part of the church.
ahem. they are part but a foundational part, not the main body of it. Jesus is the
chief cornerstone.
the oral tradition of Apostolic teaching some who taught others, did not last more
than 20 or more years, when it was frozen in the Gospels and various letters which
continued to be written later and Revelation at the last.
The Scriptures without Calvinism and hislopian slop job theology and history played
a very big role in bringing me to Orthodoxy.
An Ecumenical Council (the fifth I think) filled with bishops who were steeped
in Scripture and knew the interpretations and history of them, condemned Origen
and Evagrius Ponticus. Origen had great influence on the Cappadocian Fathers,
St. Gregory of Nyssa was one of them. All the foregoing were dead. St. Gregory
did not promulgate Origen's error much, and was famous for his great works in
defending the Holy Trinity and other truth. Evagrius wrote a nearly system
theory type analysis of how vice and virtue operate. Evagrius was a great influence
in monasticism, but he had a gnostic tendency. So did Origen. the premise in both
cases is the evil or at least undesirability of material creation, which God
declared good.
getting around this, Origen argued that the heavenly bodies were once more ethereal
but stopped contemplating God and become densely physical as we see them now.
This was one of the laundry list of things he was condemned for. Another was the
apokatastasis or his misinterpretation of the term in the NT, which in his case
added up to what we call universalism now. St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote The Philokalia
of Origen or appreciation of the beauty of Origen, in which he lauded precisely
the doctrines later condemned. of these only the apokatastasis seemed to leak into
some modern Orthodox thought. And one other thing. St. John Chrysostom also fell
for this one.
That Adam and Eve did not have densely physical bodies until they fell, and the
coats of skins that God gave them (the word in Hebrew is tunic, hardly a full
body covering) were the densely physical bodies we have now.
The identical idea regarding heavenly bodies was condemned, and if it doesn't fly
with them it doesn't fly with us. Epiphanius in the Panarion mentions this false
teaching by Origen regarding Adam and Eve as "nonsense," so it was no part of
Orthodox traditional teaching in his time.
But even now you will find this notion cropping up, even in Fr. Seraphim Rose's
otherwise excellent writing Genesis and Early Man (I think that's the right
title). Others have said the same thing. I ran into from a ROCOR priest I first
studied under, and though I didn't know the history then I knew it had to be
wrong because it smacked of Gnosticism. Later doing the research, I found that
my Bible orientation and anti gnostic orientation was correct on this, because
the Ecumenical Council condemned such ideas and the Panarion called it "nonsense."
But the damage proliferated through the error of a couple of great Fathers.
An Orthodox priest was quoted by someone online as saying "the Fathers have to
be read with caution."
@ 7:45 PM
That you cannot seem to simply cease and desist, and have to try to constantly prove some-in effect pointless-point just to be heard, must be something neurotic.
Are you in treatment?
If not, you should seek it.
You know, Cristine, you have neglected the topic of Mars for a while now.
It's been too long since your last update.
Why are you holding out on us this way?
11:15
instead of your tiresome efforts to dismiss anyone who disagrees with you as
insane, why don't you just look at the facts cited and check on them for
yourself?
or else, why not stop firing off all kinds of challenges and inuendos and so
forth. If explanations bother you so much, why draw them out?
anon 11:24
I know your remark is not serious. however in case anyone dropping by is curious,
I haven't anything more to say. I think however this bit of information got into
my collection after I had said anything about that.
PhD student at CERN figures Martian atmosphere is denser than NASA thinks and
blames dust and other issues on the landers' equipment for this.
http://marscorrect.com/cgi/wp/ all his published research is linked on that page.
Hillsong Worship 'Pastor' Now Leading Followers To Rome
www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=33942
herd animal effect. lemmings. peer group, not even classical
peer group pressure (nagging) but following like a fad.
"For instance, in March 2013, the company published a study that looked at the factors that predicted support for marriage equality on Facebook. The research looked at what might influence a user changing their or her profile photo to the red equals sign. They found that, people with more friends changing their profile photo to a red equals sign were more likely to go through with the change to their profile picture." http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?p=33810
for those who think I don't know anything about Judaism
"Israel’s Religious Services Minister David Azoulay said Tuesday that he does not consider Reform Jews to be Jewish, and urged them to turn to Orthodox Judaism. "
http://www.timesofisrael.com/religious-services-minister-reform-jews-have-lost-their-way/?utm_source=The+Times+of+Israel+Daily+Edition&utm_campaign=049c4fb17b-2015_07_07&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_adb46cec92-049c4fb17b-55063001
also I recommend Adam Wouk's This Is My God to get a better picture than
you get as typical outsider on the one hand or as Jew with the limited
picture handed by whatever one sect you are in.
Christine 6:17 P.M.
Re: RC traditionalists do not consider us to have salvation.
By that statement, you show your own flawed understanding of Roman Catholicism. RC radical traditionalists - especially some who have Feeneyite leanings - are not in full loyal communion with the Pope.....because the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that Eastern Orthodox do not have salvation.
Salvation is found in Jesus/Yahshua.
It is not found in any religious institution.
Unless the religious institution presents the gospel in a straight forward way.
anon 12:49
RC radical traditionalists who are not in full loyal communion with the pope,
are adhereing to the ex cathedra statements of previous popes regarding EO
as per this matter, aside from anything else.
now either the previous popes were in error, or the present popes are in
error on this matter.
which is it?
you say neither is possible. well there it is in your face. you need to get
back to the drawing board.
meanwhile your traditionalists include people (sedevacantists) who deny the
present pope, indeed any after whatshisname the one before John XXIII, are
in fact valid popes.
"In Brennan Manning’s book The Signature of Jesus, he said that “the first step in faith is to stop thinking about God at the time of prayer” (p. 212). Then the next step, he says, is to choose a sacred word and “repeat the sacred word [or phrase] inwardly, slowly, and often” (p. 218)."
http://www.lighthousetrailsresearch.com/blog/?p=17638
to pray without thinking about God? this isn't prayer. this isn't about God.
this is false.
Anonymous said...
"Salvation is found in Jesus/Yahshua.
It is not found in any religious institution.
Unless the religious institution presents the gospel in a straight forward way."
you contradict yourself. it is not the religious institution per se, whether
it presents the gospel or not, that gives salvation, it is Jesus and the gospel
of Jesus.
You can be in any religious institution, incl. ones that please you, and ones
that don't like EO, and not be in relationship with Jesus because you are not
believing or obeying but just following a social custom you need to do to be
acceptable to your peer group or something like that.
St. Paul says the church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, i.e., the
housing of the truth, it being built of living stones (the believers), and
historical fact, it is Orthodoxy that preserved and copied the Bible and passed
it and its message on before any sect developed out of it. the first heresies were
obviously denying Christ the later ones less obviously. But while the Apostles
(foundation stones of the church) not "the church" (assorted members retelling
legends as best as they could remember and educated bishops and priests scribbling
them down as remembered from someone who had them from 10 removes from the
events) wrote the NT, the church definitely preserved and passed it on.
What is wrong with some of you who argue with Christine?
That means you are actually reading her posts. And very few read her posts, except those who argue with her.
I haven't read her posts in the last 2 years. Nothing to read.
Although it is getting much harder and longer to scroll past her posts as she accounts for over 1/3 of all posts on almost every thread.
I'd account for a lot less if people weren't coming up with stupid answers,
very few are attempts at sensible discussion, some even repeat crap I refuted
months or years ago. maybe they aren't the same ones who posted those and
are new here. A few of them in their hatred flat out lie and misrepresent
what I've said, though thank God these seem to have quit.
effort to force rural people off the land
https://www.intellihub.com/wilderness-corridors-agenda-21-under-a-new-name/
Christine 1:16 P.M.
Re:"RC radical traditionalists who are not in full loyal communion with the pope,
are adhereing to the ex cathedra statements of previous popes regarding EO
as per this matter, aside from anything else."
No they are not. And if they are, what "ex cathedra" statements are you talking about?
If you are talking about "excommunications" of the past, then NEWS FLASH!!! Popes are not infallible when making excommunications, or any disciplinary judgment, because they are limited by the information they have on the individual or situation in question. They are only infallible in making doctrinal pronouncements ex cathedra.
This is why the mutual excommunications between Pope Leo IX and Patriarch MichaelI Cerularius were able to be reversed.
If radical RC Traditionalists are not in communion with the PRESENT pope, they are in schism and not in full loyal communion with the Roman Catholic Church - however many "past" popes they claim to be obeying.
As a Roman Catholic you don't get to pick and choose which popes you will obey.
The followers of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre have no more right to appeal to their personal interpretation of "apostolic traditions" over and against the authority of the Pope than Martin Luther and his followers had the right to appeal to their personal interpretation of Scripture over and against the authority of the Pope.
anon 3:19
"Re:"RC radical traditionalists who are not in full loyal communion with the pope,
are adhereing to the ex cathedra statements of previous popes regarding EO
as per this matter, aside from anything else."
No they are not. And if they are, what "ex cathedra" statements are you talking about"
these for instance:
" Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. THEREFORE, IF THE GREEKS or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' " http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm UNAM SANCTAM
Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302
"It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church's sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church."
the "Greeks" are specified as schismatic elsewhere in these documents of the Council
of Florence, "the above-mentioned schism of the Greeks and the eastern church, which had lasted for almost five hundred years to the great harm of the whole Christian people"
cont.
the alleged unanimous agreement is a lie St. Mark of Ephesus alone refused to sign
on and the Latin claim they do not mean two origins or two spirations but that they
mean by the filioque that the Holy Spirit has His subsistence in the Son like He
does in The Father is really saying the same thing as saying He proceeds doubly from The Father and The Son. notice unless it is said elsewhere they don't claim
The Son has His subsistence in the Holy Spirit same as in The Father so that they
subsist in each other as well as in The Father.
"The Greeks asserted that when they claim that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, they do not intend to exclude the Son; but because it seemed to them that the Latins assert that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son as from two principles and two spirations, they refrained from saying that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. The Latins asserted that they say the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son not with the intention of excluding the Father from being the source and principle of all deity, that is of the Son and of the holy Spirit, nor to imply that the Son does not receive from the Father, because the holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, nor that they posit two principles or two spirations; but they assert that there is only one principle and a single spiration of the holy Spirit, as they have asserted hitherto. Since, then, one and the same meaning resulted from all this, they unanimously agreed and consented to the following holy and God-pleasing union, in the same sense and with one mind.
In the name of the holy Trinity, Father, Son and holy Spirit, we define, with the approval of this holy universal council of Florence, that the following truth of faith shall be believed and accepted by all Christians and thus shall all profess it: that the holy Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son, and has his essence and his subsistent being from the Father together with the Son, and proceeds from both eternally as from one principle and a single spiration. We declare that when holy doctors and fathers say that the holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, this bears the sense that thereby also the Son should be signified, according to the Greeks indeed as cause, and according to the Latins as principle of the subsistence of the holy Spirit, just like the Father."
making it two spirations or one is not much difference, you still got double
origin and double cause even if you say there isn't so this is talking out of
both sides of the mouth. proceeding from both eternally AS FROM one principle and
a single spiration, is hardly different from two principles and two spirations.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM
the concept of authority in RC and EO is rather different. EO people are not bound
by a council automatically, it has to be accepted as ecumenical and heretical or
other error may cause it to be consider a "robber council" as a couple of them
in the past were, incl. I think one that bore the name of Ephesus, but was replaced
by the Council of Ephesus we speak of, and the iconoclast council replaced by
Nicea II and Trullo.
"As a Roman Catholic you don't get to pick and choose which popes you will obey."
true, but the issue is, is he the pope in reality or not? you people speak
of "the great schism" referring not to AD 1054 but to an event much later when
there were THREE claimants to the papacy all consecrated and ruling from different
cities. I think Catherine of Siena had a hand in correcting this mess.
As far as any follower of any of these popes theirs was the real pope and the others
were antipopes.
the sedevacantists (vacant chair) claim that the popes after Pius XII I think it
was, are false popes. this also ruins all consecrations they did and all ordinations
done by those, so that absent finding a priest with an Apostolic Succession that
bypasses such and goes back to the last real pope, you get no valid sacraments.
get that?
these people are not picking and choosing which popes to obey. They deny a valid
pope has existed in the first place since the one before John XXIII.
the reasons are twofold. the Siri Hypothesis is that one Cardinal siri was elected
pope, and yes I read a copy online of the news article, the white smoke came then
followed by black after a while, because Siri had rejected this.
but Siri did this under a secret threat that was passed to him illicitly of course
but the agents of this conspiracy were among the College of Cardinals themselves.
Siri's refusal then was NOT valid according to some point of canon law. So he was
the real pope, and the one elected finally instead of him, John XXIII was not valid
but an antipope.
the other argument is that you can't be a pope and be a heretic, and you don't have
to pronounce heresy ex cathedra to be a heretic pope, private and non ex cathedra
statements and actions, and membership in the freemasons or similar condemned
groups, when this was automatic excommunication de facto whether publicly known
tried and condemned or not, makes the person not valid to be pope. Even if elected
by the fraud of hiding the invalidity.
So you see, they are not picking and choosing.
They are adhering to whatever they can of the last valid pope as they see it,
and denying that the popes you are used to are popes and deny the validity of
Vatican II, one argument there also being that Trent I think it was said that
the Latin Mass cannot be eliminated or changed. Which Vatican II did, it allowed
non Latin Masses to be said, and the translations don't always quite match the
Latin.
I am going by memory of discussions online at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/malachimartin (as distinct from malachimartinetc).
and some web pages. and some emails. this was in AD 2007 through 2008 maybe
2006. you can search the archives of the egroup and research sedevacantism online
for yourself.
you will see that your accusation is mistaken. they are not picking and choosing
popes, but applying some points of canon law to decide there are no popes and
almost no legitimate priests or bishops ergo almost no church and no sacraments
incl. and especially no Eucharist left, except for them, the remnant true church.
and this remnant is itself a tad fragmented.
note on that one flock and one shepherd quote from the Bible in
Unam Sanctum, obviously the one shepherd is Jesus Christ Himself,
not Peter or anyone else. If it were the latter then it would not
be one shepherd, but many successively, or at best one shepherd
at a time, but not permanently, and during the transition between
popes when the chair is vacant (sedevacant, basis of the term
"sedevacantist") there would be NO shepherd, which BTW if true
would mean there is no church during the transition stage, so
the church phases in and out of existence. This is hardly the
picture you get from Jesus' words.
Why does Constance allow the takeover of the comments section? It may be vanity on her part, pushing others who come for more information on the New Age movement to see her as the most knowledgeable opponent of the New Age movement. The picture used with this blog shows a much younger Constance, one she uses to portray herself. Not realistic. That others use the same tactic does not take away from the manipulation being used on others. Is there some kind of dividing line between what is acceptable manipulation and what isn't.
It may be an attempt to provide Christine an outlet for her overwhelming need to validate herself. I see a parallel in the work of counseling social workers who allow a client to go by the hour on and on for years, hoping the client will come by themselves to a clearer understanding of their own weaknesses. Usually the client runs out of money before that happens.
We all have to make choices in life about what to do. Does one become a whistleblower or protect one's own job. Do you save the family cat before calling in a fire. Is stealing a pencil from work OK because the boss is rich and will never know it? Is supporting a corrupt ACORN alright because of their presented goal of doing good for others. Dos helping an individual take precedence over exposing a danger to the community. The questions can go on and on, and most of them aren't covered in the law books. No easy answers. I'm still looking for other sites where New Age is discussed among researchers. Any one know of such sites?
"As a Roman Catholic you don't get to pick and choose which popes you will obey."
What about the head of the Church--- Christ Jesus the Lord. Since He is head over the popes in His supremacy, and is King of Kings and Lord of Lords--- ALL allegiance goes to Him first, not to some pope, priest, pastor, or bishop.
Jesus is my Lord and master.
When I read what Catholics write in their comments here, they talk more about what the pope and church fathers says than the LORD Jesus Christ.
Why is that? That has always caused me to question who their allegiance is to first of all. Is it to the Pope or the Christ Jesus the Lord?
To me, it's always a dead give away, whether a Catholic or Protestant, if all they talk about is what their pastor or the pope says. They are still living under the Old Covenant and not the New Covenant.
The pope didn't die for you.
The pastor didn't die for you.
Neither one is able to give you the Holy Spirit.
I came out of dead religion, the same kind of dead religion Paul the Apostle talked about in Galatians and have never looked back.
I came out of a system of rules--- trying hard to gain God's favor and was on a treadmill of performance based religion. I looked good on the outside but was miserable deep within.
I was a good pharisee until one day the Holy Spirit said to me the same thing Jesus said to the pharisees,
"Here you are scouring through the Scriptures, and the church fathers documents hoping that you will find eternal life among a pile of scrolls and papers. What you don’t seem to understand is that the Scriptures point to Me.
Here I am with you, and still you reject the truth contained in the law and prophets by refusing to come to Me so that you can have life.
I realized I didn't want to come to Christ. It was a matter of my will. I only wanted to read the church fathers of my denomination instead of humbling myself and coming to Christ.
Jesus says, "Come to Me, all who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest."
I finally came to my senses in 1990 from being so burdened down with all the rules I was to follow. I didn't have a love relationship with the Father--- I kept all the rules out of fear of punishment. What a lie I believed.
"So stand strong for our freedom! The Anointed One freed us so we wouldn’t spend one more day under the yoke of slavery, trapped under the law."
Today I strand strong for the freedom I have in Christ Jesus my LORD!
Constance, do you support everything Christine writes? Do you agree with her that everything she writes has a connection to the New Age movement?
How do you see Christine's very long commentaries on religious establishment questions which have left many researchers on the New Age movement in the dust? It may be that you are in touch with researchers on the New Age movement who read your blog but are not bothered by the comments section. If so, please let us know their opinions of what is going on.
Anonymous 4:46 is a space taker of Christine's kind of discussion group. A very solid researcher of the New Age movement recently said he hasn't bothered to come to this site in the last year. No question, you can move away from whatever was in the past to a new awareness. The only question I might have is why do you tease by posting as your main commentary some kind of connection to the New Age movemenet.
Anonymous 5:01 PM
The only question I might have is why do you tease by posting as your main commentary some kind of connection to the New Age movemenet.
Now, I'm confused about your question.
This is the first time I've be accused of being connected to the New Age movement. That's quite an accusation seeing you don't know me. There's a difference between thinking you know someone and actually knowing someone personally.
Cindy Warner
Cindy Warner, that comment was directed not to you but to Constance. She posts as her lead article something connected to the New Age movement every once in a while. Of course I don't know you. I have no idea who you are or the extent of your knowledge of the New Age movement. I only know you are in dialogue with Christine and keep Christine going.
Christine,
Could you please tell us about the filioque again?
You haven't belabored that hair splitting point here in over two days and I've almost forgotten some of your most salient
highlights which stress and strain over the two or three words that...what was it?...has to do with a fine point about how God
sends the Holy Spirit, and that millions of people have it wrong, but not you, you have it right and none of these stupid people here seem able to understand it, remember? Yeah, the filioque, because I have no doubt that if some person wandered into this website and they began to read your abundance of words on the subject that that person would immediately be filled with light and join the Eastern Orthodox church, which isn't perfect but is, according to your years of research, the best choice.
Also, could you possibly also write a quick thousand words or so about Chakras and how even Hindus don't understand them,
but you do, etc?
Because I read somewhere a long time ago, I can't remember where, that the people you mentioned on Mars had nine chakras and that two of them were like telepathic antennas and that shortly before they all died on Mars, probably from overuse of chem trails, that some of their chakras may have become corrupted and actually turned against them.
But what do you think, Christine Justine Mary Infowolf Mary?
Anonymous 5:43 PM
Thanks for clearing the first part up.
The second part is totally wrong. You evidently didn't read what I wrote the other day. I've decided to collapse the comments so I don't have to read Christine's comments.
Also, I've been on many forums and this is one of the rudest to date--- because how some treat new people who come here to dialogue. It's sad.
I respect Constance and appreciate her giving everyone the privilege to comment even though this is her blog.
Cindy Warner
Christine has 666 chakras. They are all wide open, and spinning counter clockwise. They emit a strange kind of dark light.
A lot of this goes back years to when seminaries accepted large numbers of gay students (20 to 30 percent).
It took awhile for the Vatican to try to intervene for Catholic seminaries, and the reform is still ongoing, but the presence of a high number of gays training to be ministers in other religions never got much notice.
One result, of course, was that the more orthodox believers were pressured to leave for greener pastures.
Voila: a large number of gays in the administrations of these churches, setting the agendas.
Indeed, the election of the first gay bishop,, like the nomination of president Obama, was not a grass roots thing but essentially a takeover by a small aggressive group.
Constance: Christine/Justie has again taken over the forum to bash Catholics and other to disagree with her.
The problem? all the discussions are off topic.
Please consider banning her and maybe even banning "anonymous" comments.
You have intelligent people here, but trying to wade through these constant bickerings makes it hard for the rest of us.
Defining Marriage
Abraham Lincoln was fond of asking, "If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?" "Five," his audience would invariably answer. "No," he'd politely respond, "the correct answer is four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg.
Like Lincoln's associates, many of our fellow citizens—including many Christians—appear to fall for the notion that changing a definition causes a change in essence.
A prime example is the attempt to change the definition of marriage to include same-sex unions. Simply calling such relationships "gay marriages," many believe, will actually make them marriages. Such reasoning, however, is as flawed as thinking that changing tail to leg changes the function of the appendage.
The rest of the article is just as entertaining as the first two paragraphs.
Cindy Warner
Boinky,
Years ago, when I predicted that ordaining women priests would lead to the acceptance of gay marriage, orthodox Anglicans, called me crazy.
If the Episcopal church can argue that Jesus being male is of no significance, then they can argue that marriage being between a man and a woman is also of no significance.
Gender theory is anti-science. Male/female are not social constructs.
Anon.4:46 P.M.
RE:"What about the head of the Church--- Christ Jesus the Lord. Since He is head over the popes in His supremacy, and is King of Kings and Lord of Lords--- ALL allegiance goes to Him first, not to some pope, priest, pastor, or bishop."
All I have to do is to quote the Scriptures to you:
"Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” Luke 10:16
You are correct in saying that Jesus is Head of the Church and head over all the Popes. All my allegiance - my first allegiance - goes to Jesus as well. I obey the Pope only out of obedience to Jesus.
Catholics believe that while Jesus is the invisible head of the Church, the Pope is the visible head of the Church. Catholics believe that the authority of the Pope and bishops in communion with the pope is a delegated authority - delegated by Jesus for the purpose of preserving intact and handing on the faith transmitted directly by Him to the Apostles and as a living symbol of the unity of Christianity.
Therefore when we talk about what the pope and church fathers say we are talking about what the LORD Jesus Christ revealed to them.
I am not saying this with any intention of being disrespectful of your beliefs or anyone else's.
By the way, there was a time when I didn't have a love relationship with the Father-either. I kept all the rules out of fear of punishment.
It was a great grace when I learned the truth that God doesn't SEND anyone to hell. People who go to hell go because they CHOOSE to go there. They die in the unrepented evil choice that they have freely made. All God does is to withdraw His grace - which they have refused anyway - and leave them to their own devices - which is hell.
C.S. Lewis once said that when we die, those who are to be saved are the ones who will say to God "Thy will be done." While those who are damned are those to whom God will say "Thy will be done." As C.S. Lewis put it so succinctly, Hell is simply "Getting one's own way"......forever.
The late Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once wrote that if God were to somehow declare a divine amnesty, round up all the damned and herd them all into Heaven, this would be a great cruelty on the part of God......because Heaven for the damned would be a greater hell than Hell! This is because the damned hate God and don't want to be anywhere near Him.
It is no great honor to God if we keep all of his rules merely out of fear of punishment. But since God is not "proud" he even accepts servile fear as a motivation for our obedience. The right kind of fear - the holy type of fear is filial fear - the fear of sons and daughters - which is rooted in the love of God and consists in the fear of offending Someone (God) we love above all things and who is good and worthy of all our love.
C.S. Lewis once wrote that in the end, all will be found to have served God. But it is given to us to choose whether that service will be as sons and daughters - or as tools.
I don't doubt that we both desire to serve God as the former.
Anonymous 8:38 PM
What a refreshing comment.
Cindy Warner
The Pope is not a temporal leader. Non-Catholics do not accept the authority of the Papacy. In addition, Catholics are not a majority of the world's population, and yet, as was the case with both John Paul II and Benedict XVI, Pope Francis is constantly in the news.
What is the reason for this obsession with the Papacy and the Catholic Church?
MODERN SANHEDRIN WANTS TO TRY POPE FRANCIS?
http://www.wnd.com/2015/07/pope-francis-to-be-tried-by-modern-sanhedrin/
Cathy,
The reason they want to try him is interesting to say the least.
Cindy Warner
Religion wont take us anywhere...only Jesus Christ who is the way. Lord Jesus come quickly...
Cathy,
The upcoming Synod has said, gay unions are off the table. Kasper admits that his other views have had no papal endorsement either.
Yet, the media spin, on "Who I am to Judge" continues.
It's almost as if Pope Francis is being set up.
Archbishop Hector Aguer of La Plata, Argentina noted the media’s lies when it comes to the Church, saying:
“We not talking about isolated incidents,” he said, but rather a series of simultaneous events that bear the “markings of a conspiracy.” —Catholic News Agency, Apr. 12, 2006
Anonymous at 10:37,
Before the last Synod, there was an uproar from pundits proclaiming that Pope Francis was going to cave in to current secular fads. There seems to be a well-orchestrated plot afoot, to portray Pope Francis as a progressive who will apostatize. Instead of wasting time hoping for the impossible, dreamers need to come to grips with the fact that a battle with Jesus Christ is a losing battle.
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm
[18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Cathy,
The dreamers are banking on Apostate Bishops in the West, but forget that they will be challenged by Bishops in the global South, East European Bishops, and orthodox Bishops in the West.
Ok. So what about the Pope meeting with the prosperity preachers last year?
He's setting a good example?
Yea right. They've really changed their ways.
Catholics with blinders as usual.
Anon@ 12:49 p.m.
The connection was made by Tony Palmer, who was a childhood friend of Pope Francis. Pope Francis has never endorsed the prosperity Gospel, and you know that.
Do you only talk to people you agree with?
Jimmy Carter Endorses Gay Marriage:
HuffPost Live’s Marc Lamont Hill asked Carter on Tuesday whether he believes Jesus would approve of gay marriage, and Carter said he does.
“I believe Jesus would. I don’t have any verse in scripture. … I believe Jesus would approve gay marriage, but that’s just my own personal belief. I think Jesus would encourage any love affair if it was honest and sincere and was not damaging to anyone else, and I don’t see that gay marriage damages anyone else,” he said.
http://tinyurl.com/pqoqs9n
Dave in CA
Jimmy Carter has not read either Matthew, Mark, or Luke, where Jesus says, marriage is between a man and a woman.
"I don’t see that gay marriage damages anyone else"
It deprives a child of a mother and a father. It makes differences between men and women not relevant. Other qualities are not unique to just marriage.
anon 12:49
"Do you only talk to people you agree with?" I think you hit the nail
on the head on that one. typical of a lot of people here.
anon 1:28
this is what you get when "love" is over emphasized and "compassion" is
sympathy for pain even when it comes from disordered priorities not getting
validated.
in Greek there are three or four words that are all translated "love" in
English. forgive me if I get spelling wrong, but here goes.
storge (stor gee) is family affection for someone you are related to
eros usually about "erotic" love but can mean love because something about
the object of affection is attractive, like among those you feel storge for
you might feel more attachment and prioritize more because the person is
beautiful and feel less for the ugly. love for a beautiful animal or artwork
would be in this category, the strong positive reaction to a beautiful
stranger, even if there is nothing "erotic" though it could become this.
agape (a gap ay) is a more disinterested kind of love, you don't get or
expect anything out of it. there is no relationship they don't necessarily
care about you. they are there and you have compassion that ranges from
strong pity and caring to a kind of impersonal this-human-or -animnal-is
-suffering-give-it-food-or-medicine and then you go your own way and forget
about it after helping the creature. you do not have a sense of they owe
you, and any sense of "owing" or "ought" is related to what you owe to
God, or just "this is what a decent person should do, help the ones who
are in pain or danger."
phileo (fil ay o) is the kind of love you feel for someone because they
love you sort of like friendship.
these can all mix together. There is I think a fifth word, I am not sure
what it is or what it refers to.
St. Paul warns against "inordinate affection" and "inordinate" according
to Strong's Concordance can range in meaning from excessive to disordered
in some way including an inappropriate object of either affection at all
or of the kind of affection shown. For instance, an inordinate storge
would have you side with your family when they are wrong, simply because
they are relatives, against someone they harmed and therefore refuse to
testify for the victim against the victimizers because the latter are your
family. (when you should in fact perhaps repudiate them altogether if they
are bad enough.)
homosexual "love" is a classic kind of "inordinate" in that it is an
inappropriate object. simple homosexual lust without attachment to the
individual would be inappropriate eros, but could also come from phileo
that grows with a dash of eros into an inappropriate kind of phileo
that is (a) sexual and (b) inappropriate object of such feeling.
now, agape is going to be concerned for what is good for the creature,
instead of mewling sentimentality over their feelings that are twisted.
is the creature despondent and contemplating suicide over failure to
achieve worldly power and ambition? the appropriate thing to do would
be to remind them that this is not a good thing to seek and encourage
them to lose their pain by losing their obsession with this goal.
IS THE CREATURE MOANING OVER AN INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE INCESTUOUS,
BESTALIST OR HOMOSEXUAL LOVE ATTACHMENT? helping them get on with their
desires and feel okay about them is NOT showing them love because this
alienates them more from God, and love for them would be shown by
encouraging them away from what alienates them from God.
but blind sympathy and scattergun sentimentality over all "feeling"
incl. for instance it is so sad some beautiful person we all enjoyed
is dead (because an animal killed him for trying to have sex with
it) would be inappropriate, rather shock at what he'd tried to do,
none of this "he's in a better place now" garbage more like, well,
good riddance and pray for his soul.
anon 1:42
I think all the arguments about "institution of marriage" and whether a same
sex couple can raise a child right or not miss the issue.
homosexual acts are abnormal and abominable in and of themselves, on a par
with murder, adultery, worse than theft, all the things most recognize as
sin or evil, even the atheists usually agree with a lot of sins as being
evil if only because they would be inconvenient to them.
this is something that politically correct and excessively compassionate
feeling and thought doesn't like to deal with.
homosexual marriage is giving an official validation and acceptance.
in terms of the legal rights inheritance from a spouse, access to information
and visitation when a partner is in a hospital, these are things that any
non sexual partnership could have by signing some papers to make arrangements
that have nothing to do with sexual actions or any kind of feeling at all.
first, homosexual acts were illegal. then, they were tolerated by being
decriminalized, but with a negative eyebrow raised attitude to them, that
stuff promoting this or people into this was not to be around children for
instance, or in circumstances where they can be a bad influence. the issue
was, less that they might molest or seduce a child outright as that they
might corrupt the child's values which of course years later might make
them amenable to advances by someone other than the homosexual in question.
all that has been eroded, steadily the sense of abnormality is gone, and
all social and legal penalties removed. the media gives us a drumbeat of
such people. I read an article about someone in some state refused admission
to the bar (being licensed as an attorney) years ago , because he was gay.
Now, in that state "good character" was one of the qualifications, and he
was suing (I don't know the outcome) because gay is not illegal, so he was
doing nothing illegal. What seemed to have not crossed his mind or a lot
of other people's mind, is that homosexuality is NOT in the category of
"good character." or didn't used to be.
single parents have raised children of either sex for hundreds of years,
the "unique" contributions of a mother vary from culture to culture, and
insofar as they are too coddling are weakening and corruptive anyway, the
"unique " contributions of a father vary from culture to culture, and
insofar as they ridicule and repress compassion and kindness and exalt
violence and domination and equate the sex act with this, are also corruptive.
correcting what is wrong in both sexes and having a single standard is not
"androgyny" it is getting back to prefall quality, after all, we have as
Christians ONE standard for BOTH sexes, a man, Jesus Christ.
single parents can have opposite sex relatives and friends help with the kid.
one could argue that a lesbian couple could have male gay friends provide
the father image for their kid.
HOMOSEXUAL ACTS ARE IN AND OF THEMSELVES ABOMINABLE. Homosexual marriage is
about homosexual acts. that is the real issue.
Cathy, thank you for posting the WND message. I would have missed it. Now it is spread on Facebook, giving many the opportunity to think it over from different points of view. That's what sharing research is about. An opinion doesn't have to come up with every fact.
The Homosexual Movement Is The Most Hateful And Most Vile Group In All Of The Western World By Theodore Shoebat
I don't agree with everything on the site above but the documented facts about the homosexual movement should be read by everyone in my opinion.
I couldn't read it all at once, it's to disturbing.
Also, the discussion on God's kind of love is very important in view of same sex marriage and the kind of love homosexuals have for one another.
Cindy Warner
I have talked with you, Cristine, and I disagree with you about 90% of the time.
It is futile to engage with you.
It all quickly turns to your mistaken notions, that you can read my mind and background, know my motivations and beliefs, when you truly do not, as you begin picking apart and mincing words to create as much dissention as possible. Even when I have happened to agree with you on that rare occasion, you still carry on in that fashion. That is why discussion degrades so fast whenever you elbow, knee and bite and devour your way into topics here.
We can see your "obedience" to Christ in your aggression toward others.
By the way, true compassion hates sinning and lying, but is not unloving while expressing such. You are very lacking in compassion. That is the psuedo-pharisee in you. Want just one example?
"I AM THE ONLY ONE HERE DOING A GOOD JOB EXCEPT CONSTANCE."
Just one of the many examples of how you browbeat and put down others continually.
Be honest, you do need the prayer closet to privately confess these wrong-hearted words and ways....and you should not come out of it again until you agree with God that your behavior is bad---badly misrepresenting Christ. It is not unloving that I tell you this. If humble you will see I'm doing you a favor. Others have had to tell me to my face at times, when I have misrepresented the Lord, and you're not better (or worse) than me.
anon 4:31
"Just one of the many examples of how you browbeat and put down others continually."
I don't browbeat anyone. if you can't take your ideas and misapplication of
Scripture being refuted (and I can't tell who is who among the anons so take
"you" as plural if necessary and referring to your observation of my responses
to others as well) and consider it "browbeating" when answered, instead of
someone's pronouncements being bowed down to, yours or others, that is your problem.
sounds like a pride issue you need to pray about.
as for picking apart and speculating, there are usually reasons for patterns
people show in words (spoken or written), tone of voice and face expression in
reaction to things (which I can't see here) and behavior in general. I might call
it wrong having not realized there might be a motive or agenda or something that
was triggered.
Since I can't know who I am dealing with among anonymice, I can't really speak to
that. but the "you don't know me" routine I have seen played by criminal
subculture types in response to questioning their motives when these were getting
obvious. either self deception or a game is involved. After someone has blathered
long enough you can spot stuff about them.
Anonymous 1:42 P.M.
Re: "I don’t see that gay marriage damages anyone else"
It deprives a child of a mother and a father. It makes differences between men and women not relevant. Other qualities are not unique to just marriage.
Not only that, it also deforms the biblical image of man (male and female) "made in the image and likeness of God."
It is in the complementarity of marriage (between a man and a woman) and the family ( man woman child ) that MAN serves as living icon of the Holy Trinity. The family images in flesh what God is in Spirit.
The Family as the Icon of the Holy Trinity
by Mark Shea 03/14/2015
....The nature of the Trinity and the nature of the family are then primordially linked in some unthinkable way. When we are baptized, we are called by name into the life of the Blessed Trinity. But it is our mothers and fathers who are called to teach us our names, not just with word but with their very being. Fathers and mothers are great high priests who stand in the place of God in a way no Pope or bishop could ever hope to do. Families--those great roystering messes of praise and poop, panic and pleasure--give flesh to the vision of the Trinity in the lovely, painful and beautiful expression of real human beings living out the gospel under grace. They are icons, windows on to a miracle. In their faces, we see the first face of Christ we will ever meet. By them, we are enrolled in the primal school of charity. Under their fumbling caresses and awkward disciplines, we are introduced to the touch of God's own hand. From them, we learn our names and discover that we are not Wards of the State, Slaves of the Corporation or Rugged Individuals but sons and daughters called into the life of the Blessed Trinity with a name we can honor, a home we can love and an eternity we can rejoice in...(read entire article).
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/mark-shea/the-family-as-the-icon-of-the-holy-trinity
EVERYONE'S (i.e. "gays" atheists, secularists, liberal evangelicals and all other religious but lost apostates)absolute favorite "pope" has recently (again ... like for about the 15th. time) called for a "new ecological and economic global order" so that the "world's wealth and resources" will be shared with all (by using kindly FORCE, no doubt). I wonder if he plans on "sharing the wealth" of the Vatican Bank, along with maybe a sell-off the Vatican's holdings in HUNDREDS of corporations, and maybe even selling their $Trillions in real estate holdings, etc., etc.?? I wonder too who exactly the "pope" has in mind to head up this New World Order dictatorship? Could it be that entity that the whole world looks to with such "deep respect" ... the Papacy itself?
Keep denying your behavior then, Cristine. I, and others, sadly, have come to expect it because it is you who won't be refuted.
Your denial is how we know that you refuse to engage truthfully with people. That is how you can always walk away in your mind justified. I do not understand someone who does not at the very least question themselves about how they are addressing others. You keep up the blame toward others as though you cannot possible be found mistaken. thta is pretty unhealthy thinking. You answer to God for that, not me, or anyone for that matter that is why "anonymous" makes no difference whatsoever......but by your fruits we know you......
Is not good. I honestly tried to tell you.
This is enough "talk" with you. Yep, futile once again. Done, just done.
RayB,
The problem is you associate Christianity with being a political conservative, as much as liberal Christians associate it with being a political liberal.
Do you seriously think Jesus would fit into our narrow political definitions.
You can win a Republican election, but still lose the culture. Christians have lost the culture war. The question is where do we go from here?
More important than Christine, where has shared research on the New Age movement moved forward? Christine is merely an obvious block. More is going on than appears on the surface.
To Anonymous @ 6:18 PM ....
You assume an awful lot from my post. I don't associate Christianity with any POLITICAL entity, but if pressed, I would have to say that a despotic, one world dictatorship (which is exactly what it would be ... knowing what Scripture has to say about human nature), would not be what Christians would want to "associate" with. You see, despotic dictatorships have a rather poor track record when it comes to using force. The force they use tends to get a little carried away, as in an awful lot of people end up getting shot in the back of the head while staring into the grave they just dug for themselves. The "pope" should know that a global government can only work if brutal, unyielding force is used to make those independent thinker types comply ... I suspect he fully knows this. Then again, I'm sure he does, the RCC has had plenty of practice in forcing people to comply against their wishes.
As far as your "Jesus fitting into our narrow political definitions" I'm not sure what point you are attempting to make. But, being that He is the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords ... and one day, "the government shall be upon His shoulders, and of the increase of his government there shall be no end" that is slightly higher than some "political definition" ... wouldn't you agree? The ONLY "global" government that WILL work is the one ruled in RIGHTEOUSNESS by the King of Kings. I'm looking forward to that one, not the one the "pope" is attempting to help create. Which one are you looking forward to?
RayB,
Helping the poor does not equal a global dictatorship. You are reading more than what has been written.
And Globalists are going to clash with the Pope on issues like abortion, gay marriage, de-population etc. Major goals of the New Age.
To Anonymous ...
"Helping the poor" is always the STATED goal of despots. Their idea of "helping the poor" is to, by force, TAKE from the haves and give to the have nots. Of course, they never allow the taking of their own money ... it's always someone elses. Again, when the papacy begins to divest of their own Vatican Bank, their global real estate holdings, sell off their interests that they have in literally hundreds of corporations, along with their priceless art, etc., etc. ... I might take the Vatican's desire to "help the poor" a little more seriously.
By the way, this "pope" is not the first to call for a global government ... John Paul II along with Benedict did so on numerous occasions. The Vatican is very much a big player on the globalist scene, and they have proven in the past their willingness to "work" with despots ... Hitler and Mussolini are just two examples; both signed agreements with the Vatican.
Furthermore Pope Francis has called for a de-centralization of the church, has blasted Bishops for extravagant lifestyles, and building fancy buildings, instead of using the money for other things.
But, he cannot force them to do anything, because he is NOT a dictator.
But, he certainly is shaking up the ENTIRE church.
"Of course, they never allow the taking of their own money ... it's always someone elses. Again, when the papacy begins to divest of their own Vatican Bank, their global real estate holdings, sell off their interests that they have in literally hundreds of corporations, along with their priceless art, etc., etc. ... I might take the Vatican's desire to "help the poor" a little more seriously."
Really, the world's largest charitable organization, feeds clothes, and shelters, educates, more people than anybody else, and it's still not enough for you.
How much do you give away or do for others?
How many schools, orphanages, old age homes, hospitals, soup kitchens have you started?
When you start doing this, I will take you seriously.
RayB,
Would you commit your entire life to serve the poor, like countless Catholic priests and nuns have done?
Would you take vows of poverty, live in a community, and share everything you have?
Let me know, when you are ready, and I will sign you up.
Stock Markets Meltdown
www.tedmontgomery.com/remarks.html
July 8th post
I thought that helping the poor is a fundamental tenet of Christianity rather than the doctrine of despots? In fact, the Catholic Church is well known for its charitable outreach across the four corners of the globe.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/almoner-konrad-krajewski-27019/
Pope Francis has appointed as his new Almoner a Polish priest, working in the Vatican, who regularly gives food to the poor and needy on the streets of Rome
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P8F.HTM
VI. Love For the Poor
2443 God blesses those who come to the aid of the poor and rebukes those who turn away from them: "Give to him who begs from you, do not refuse him who would borrow from you"; "you received without pay, give without pay."231 It is by what they have done for the poor that Jesus Christ will recognize his chosen ones.232 When "the poor have the good news preached to them," it is the sign of Christ's presence.233
2444 "The Church's love for the poor . . . is a part of her constant tradition." This love is inspired by the Gospel of the Beatitudes, of the poverty of Jesus, and of his concern for the poor.234 Love for the poor is even one of the motives for the duty of working so as to "be able to give to those in need."235 It extends not only to material poverty but also to the many forms of cultural and religious poverty.236
An Insane Obama Says That ISIS Will Be Defeated With "Better Ideas And Not Guns"
www.nowtheendbegins.com/blog/?P=33978
All major denominations give to the poor, and we will always have the poor with us. At least until Christ reigns.
Anon@8:10 p.m.
Catholics are not attacking any other denomination. I am aware of the work Protestant groups do.
"but the "you don't know me" routine I have seen played by criminal
subculture types in response to questioning their motives "
So now I'm a criminal.
Nice.
You are very keen at provocation.
Nah. Not gonna take your bait.
9:08
its not a provocation bait its a rebuke and a discrediting of that kind of talk.
Judging by some of the comments posted, it appears the "pope" has quite a bit of support for his call for an "ecological & economic global order." Being that the Vatican supports a One World Government, it just has to be for "helping the poor" and nothing else ... right?
Karl Marx proposed the exact same thing and sold his "economic" system to the gullable people back in his day. Look how well that all turned out.
A fine example of fallacious ad hominem reasoning:
Anonymous said @ 7:54 PM ...
RayB,
Would you commit your entire life to serve the poor, like countless Catholic priests and nuns have done?
Would you take vows of poverty, live in a community, and share everything you have?
Let me know, when you are ready, and I will sign you up.
Anonymous ...
You wouldn't have been trained by the Jesuits by any chance, were you? Ad hominem is a specialty of Jesuit tactics.
RayB
you DO NOT KNOW what ad hominem is. if he had said, "RayB you have bad breath
and were involved in a burglary according to common knowledge" that would be an
attack on you which had NO bearing on what you had to say.
That was not an ad hominem attack, that was a challenge to put up or shut up.
To recognize that Roman Catholicism is not just "the Vatican" "the pope" or the
"Jesuits" all the popular bogeymen (and yeah, sometimes these are legitimate
bogeymen) but a huge spectrum of things that have nothing to do with your
concerns about a totalitarian one world order, regardless if some of the groups
within Catholicism have gotten into some heresy or gullilbility or perversion.
So, if you are going to bitch about people who express concern for the poor, where
is your concern? sure helping the poor, making humanity happier, perfecting
humanity were lines of talk from illuminati of Adam Weishapt to now probably
earlier.
the problem is that these were not what the speakers were after, but destruction
of everything that stood in the way of their personal or class (as rulers over all
being trained to manipulate the public in their secret organizations) ambitions.
Cathy said @ 8:06 PM ...
I thought that helping the poor is a fundamental tenet of Christianity rather than the doctrine of despots?
"Helping the poor" is a choice for the INDIVIDUAL to make. What your "pope" is proposing is a GLOBAL GOVERNMENT that will ultimately use FORCE to TAKE from the haves and give to the have nots.
Your "pope" is also proposing Global government to ENFORCE restrictions on the wealthier nations, all based on the LIE of Climate Change (used to be called Global Warming until the climate cooled). This fraud is being used by the global elite (of which your "pope" is a membber in good standing) in order obtain control over individual and national liberties. That is precisely why Global Government is correctly referred to as "despotic."
Christine, that's not a clear answer. That's an evasion. If you can't clearly make your thoughts known, try again. This is not a guess again puzzle where one is to try to interpret the speaker. It's not on me to try and figure you out. Try again. What made you comment as you did about "hated each other's guts".
RayB said
""Helping the poor" is a choice for the INDIVIDUAL to make. What your "pope" is proposing is a GLOBAL GOVERNMENT that will ultimately use FORCE to TAKE from the haves and give to the have nots."
the real problem is not that. the real problem is the other kinds of direction
that force might take us. study up on Agenda 21. The real problem is the
corporate subsidies.
now as for INDIVIDUAL choice, THAT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE. helping the poor is
MANDATORY.
Deut. 12:17-21 the third year tithe was to go to support the Levites and the
poor, the tenth of your profit or other production, whether you wanted to do
so or not. you were expected to make a public accounting to the authorities.
And if you didn't, you can figure you would get flogged because you were
an example that if many followed in such slackness would bring the wrath of
God down on the nation.
Matt. 25:31-46 those who did not help the poor, especially those who were
believers in Jesus, "shall go away into everlasting punishment."
does that sound like "individual choice?" that sounds mandatory to me. Like
mandatory means there is a penalty if you don't do it.
Anon 9:58
"Christine, that's not a clear answer. That's an evasion. If you can't clearly make your thoughts known, try again. This is not a guess again puzzle where one is to try to interpret the speaker. It's not on me to try and figure you out. Try again. What made you comment as you did about "hated each other's guts". "
I really can't tell if you are malicious, and hoping I won't answer so that
others here who don't remember or don't want to check, will get the wrong idea.
or if you really really have an impediment.
the context was, you said or implied that Constance loving me meant that she cut
me slack she wouldn't give others, and that also if I didn't love her back (and
I cringe at the word "love" for various reasons) that meant I had control in the
relationship.
you accused me of "damning with faint praise" when I said she was one of my
favorite people. For me, that is a very strong statement of liking someone. and
at the time I explained that I am uncomfortable with the word "love," but for the
benefit of all here I did say that I love Constance.
you raised scenarios of unequal and biased relationship based on unequal affection.
I responded that it wasn't like that, and that EVEN IF there was no love between
us but hatred, it had no bearing on anything here much.
you kept probing for a clear hierarchy of authority. Obviously you think in rather
limited terms.
Now, I am going to try to comply with her recent request of limiting myself to THREE
posts a day, if I recall that correctly.
it is a little difficult, because the time that shows on a post doesn't resemble the
time it is here, and not reliably a two hour difference either in the past. This may
have to do with what servers this cycles through before hitting.
And if you can't figure out that even if we hated each other's guts is about covering
all possible scenarios and not about some hidden (and non existent) "reality,"
then I pity you.
I explained that the authority was this: her front page she absolutely controls,
"authority" isn't the issue its power and its all hers. On her comments page, she
exercizes authority with the power of deleting when she wants to do so and has
done so, some of my posts and someone else's. On her turf, which is her comments
page, there is power of anyone, so long as she allows them that power, to post.
And it being her turf I try to respect it being her turf whether she runs it on
a tight leash or a long leash. Some people insist on starting stuff that can't be
left alone too long or it will stick in someone's mind.
And those who keep reminding me of her request to limit my posts to one a day
never take note of the similar (and disregarded) request to limit Christine
bashing posts to one a day also.
Christine said @ 9:59 PM
"now as for INDIVIDUAL choice, THAT IS NOT IN THE BIBLE. helping the poor is
MANDATORY."
Does that mean that you support One World Government (totalitarianism) ... to "help the poor" because, as you say ... it is "MANDATORY" ?? The CONTEXT I was referring to is exactly that ... "helping the poor" by the FORCE of Global Government. And yes, it remains an INDIVIDUAL choice as to how one gives to charity, etc. "God loves a chearful giver ..." doesn't sound like the forboding threat that you make it out to be.
Ray B,
You call me a Jesuit, because I simply told you what the church does to help the poor. Talk about an ad-hominem attack.
You have provided no evidence for the call to use force, to help the poor. Just assumptions.
Globalization, as a priori, is neither good nor bad. It will be what people make of it.
Do not be afraid! Open, open all doors to Christ. Open borders of countries, economic and political systems… —Pope John Paul II: A Life in Pictures, p. 172
It can be a Christian based ethic or a godless pagan one.
The church proposes the former, the world proposes the latter.
"at the time I explained that I am uncomfortable with the word "love," "
Love is the Bible's theme. No wonder you struggle with really grasping biblically sound spiritual truths.
Your mother hatred and general disregard (actual disrespect) of others is the huge block keeping you from the truth of real forgivenness in Christ that would free you to be loved, and in turn, loving.
You are telling on yourself.
Is this the place to do that?
Anonymous said @ 10:34 PM ...
"Do not be afraid! Open, open all doors to Christ. Open borders of countries, economic and political systems… —Pope John Paul II: A Life in Pictures, p. 172
"
Question: did John Paul II "open the borders" and "doors" of the Vatican for anyone and everyone to just wonder in and take up residence?
As far as the One World Government, it will NOT be a "Christian" one in any way, shape or form. It will be what the global elite have been dreaming of; a totalitarian global authority in which global population will be severely reduced and the sovereignty of nations will be gone, along with all of our individual freedoms. If you doubt this, I suggest you do some research. The Bible warns of the One World Government under the rule of Satan and the Anti-Christ ... anyone even remotely promoting a Global Government is in league with them.
Again Christine, double talk from you. Maybe someone can answer my question on your behalf. You don't appear to be bound by the simple rules of English communication. Are you just a free spirit bound by nothing others use to communicate? If others can't understand you it's because they follow communication boundaries which you tend to ignore in your anything goes style.
RayB,
We have two competing visions here. One of Christ and the other of the Anti-Christ.
Indeed, the Catechism teaches:
The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection…
Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.
The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth.
The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. —Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 677, 675
RayB said...
Cathy said @ 8:06 PM ...
I thought that helping the poor is a fundamental tenet of Christianity rather than the doctrine of despots?
"Helping the poor" is a choice for the INDIVIDUAL to make. What your "pope" is proposing is a GLOBAL GOVERNMENT that will ultimately use FORCE to TAKE from the haves and give to the have nots.
Your "pope" is also proposing Global government to ENFORCE restrictions on the wealthier nations,..."
Ray B, the Pope is not a temporal leader and the Catholic Church does not rule the world. I am not aware of any Pontiff proposing the type of economic order that you describe, and neither does the Catholic Church's social teaching.
http://distributistreview.com/mag/test-2/
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a1.htm
The Pope also wants to set up a Palestinian State. Not sure who gave this authority to the Vatican. I think RayB has made some very valid points about this Pope who looks like wolf in sheep's clothing. His true intentions will be clear at the UN in September. We should just agree to disagree until then because it will become very clear.
Wish Malachi Martin was alive to comment.
I wonder if that bumper sticker WWJD, (What Would Jesus Do) is on the Pope Mobile?
I kind of doubt that it is.
Would Jesus go before the kingdoms of this world to press for a Palestinian State????
NEVER!!!!
Would Jesus go before the UN to speak on Climate Change????
Of course not! The kingdoms of this world are NOT the kingdoms of our Lord! They NEVER will be until He returns!!!
Would Jesus meet with all the religious leaders of this world for oneness? Even pagans, Muslims, and worse????
NOT!!!!
Correct me if I'm wrong. I believe the Pope was seen kissing the Koran?
I don't really see Jesus doing that!!!! Not a religious text that says to kill the infidel. But hey, that's what the Catholics have done in their past. So why not?
When the Pope opens his mouth to speak, what comes out almost never sounds like anything Jesus would say!!!
So you Catholics here can see our concern!
Yes, we will wait until the Pope speaks at the UN in September. Then we will see clearly his intentions.
But,,,, Craig and Physicist were waiting to see what the Pope had to say on Climate Change. Have we heard much from them on that????
So no, it will matter little what the Pope has to say before the UN. The faithful will go on adoring him.
"God loves a chearful giver ..." doesn't sound like the forboding threat that you make it out to be."
remember what Christ said about those who didn't help the poor, especially those
who were believers, when they could?
Jesus said they "SHALL GO AWAY INTO EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT." Matt. 25:46
explain how this doesn't make poor relief mandatory. context is Matt. 25:31-46. Notice these address Him as Lord. But that doesn't keep them out of hellfire.
This excerpt is for the naive person who made an excuse for the Pope's meeting with these false teachers. Yea it's all laid at the feet of Palmer right? Unbelievable!!
We are galloping toward a one-world melding of religions, and the ramifications are staggering. Pope Francis has now sent a video message to Word of Faith father Kenneth Copeland, urging a reconciliation between Catholics and Charismatics.
“The Catholic and Charismatic Renewal is the hope of the Church,” exclaims Anglican Episcopal Bishop Tony Palmer, before a group of cheering followers at the Kenneth Copeland Ministries. (Palmer was killed in an accident shortly after this story was published) Palmer said those words are from the Vatican. Before playing the video message from Pope Francis to Kenneth Copeland, Palmer told the crowd, “When my wife saw that she could be Catholic, and Charismatic, and Evangelical, and Pentecostal, and it was absolutely accepted in the Catholic Church, she said that she would like to reconnect her roots with the Catholic culture. So she did.”
The crowd cheered, as he continued, “Brothers and sisters, Luther’s protest is over. Is yours?”
Even Kenneth Copeland finds this development incredible: Said Copeland, “Heaven is thrilled over this…You know what is so thrilling to me? When we went into the ministry 47 years ago, this was impossible.”
How can this impossibility be? Could the ears of those once aware of the evils of ecumenicism suddenly be sealing shut? What is even more gobsmackingly painful is the reaction from evangelicals, who seem quite thrilled with this unholy alliance.
Also to the Anon who made excuses for the Pope via Tony Palmer that said:
"Do you only talk to those you agree with?"
I have a few questions for you.
Would you invite Charles Manson to your home for an elaborate luncheon because your childhood friend set it up?
Or Dahmer?
Or Saddam Hussein?
Or Madoff?
Or any other UNREPENTANT criminal or murderer?
This analogy is not overblown as the sins of these WOF preachers who are snakes having acquired enormous wealth by PERVERTING the Word of God, are going to receive as great a punishment as any UNREPENTANT criminal or murderer.
For the record, I have a form letter on Kenneth Copeland Evangelistic Association, Inc. letterhead, in which Copeland espouses the ‘Jesus died spiritually’ heresy. This fact had been well-publicized by various apologists over the years, and Copeland never publically repented or corrected this teaching (he received if from Kenneth E. Hagin, Sr., who received it from E. W. Kenyon). Following is the relevant portion of the letter dated March 12, 1979 [if anyone wants a copy, contact me on my blog]. Bold is added for emphasis, italics are in place of Hagin’s underscore, CAPS in original:
“For God to get His man back, He had to redeem him. He had to break the connection between Satan and man; so He retaliated against Satan with His Word immediately after Adam’s high treason (Gen. 3:15). To supply the needs of man until the redeemer could come, God made covenant with Abraham. Abraham was allowed to live in the blessings until Jesus, the spotless Son of God, would come and pour out His blood (Gen. 17; Gal. 3:16-17). Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. Abraham had to live perfect and upright before God to live in these blessings. Since he was not a righteous man, there was no way he could; so God mad a way of escape with the blood of bulls and goats. This blood could only atone (cover). (Read Hebrews chapters 9 & 10.)
“The Word, that God had spoken, became flesh and dwelt among men (Jn. 1:14). His name is Jesus. God made Him a body so that He could live in this earth. He walked as a man in this earth, fulfilling and living perfectly under the Abrahamic Covenant. Second Corinthians 5:21 says, ‘For He (God) hath made Him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him.’ Jesus had never committed sin – He became sin for us. Since He was made to be sin, He had to pay the penalty for sin. He had to die spiritually, which took Him into the regions of the damned, before He could redeem us. Read Isaiah 53 and you will see that it pleased God to lay upon Him all of our punishment – sin, sickness, poverty, etc. He bore them all. The price for that sin was death. This was a great mystery to Satan; for had he known it he would have never crucified the Lord of Glory (I Cor. 2:7-8).
[cont.]
[cont.]
“Jesus went into hell to free mankind from the penalty of Adam’s high treason. Isaiah 53:9 says, ‘And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death. . .” The Hebrew word used for ‘death’ here literally means ‘death.’ Jesus died two deaths. He died physically and He died spiritually. When Jesus was made to be sin; He was separated from God. This is the reason while hanging on the cross, Jesus cried with a loud voice, ‘My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken Me?’ He had finished the Abrahamic Covenant by becoming the last sacrifice to ever be offered. When His blood poured out, it did not atone, IT DID AWAY WITH THE HANDWRITING OF THE ORDINANCES THAT WERE AGAINST US (Col. 2:14). Jesus spent three horrible days and nights in the bowels of this earth getting back for you and me our rights with God (Mt. 12:40).
“In Acts chapter 2, Peter preached how Jesus’ soul was not left in hell. He stated that David seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ that His soul was not left in hell neither did His flesh see corruption (Acts 2:31). Peter preached how God had loosed Jesus from the pain of death because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. Jesus had to be loosed from the pains of death because He had gone down where the punishment for sin was. Through the faith of the operation of God, He was raised from the dead.
“…Jesus was the first born from the dead (Col. 1:18). Jesus was the first man to be reborn under the new covenant…”
The quoted portion “[t]hrough the faith of the operation of God…” illustrates the entire basis upon which the heretical ‘Word of Faith’ movement rests. God himself needed to use an external force by his own faith. In another context, Copeland declares that God used ‘the force of his faith’ in the creation account. The bottom line is that the root of this doctrine is occultic; it’s witchcraft.
For those who wish to defend Pope Francis’ actions as some sort of evangelistic outreach, the following pro-Catholic source (but anti-Vatican II) asserts the contrary, at least with respect to Tony Palmer who apparently facilitated the meeting between the Pope and Copeland and the latter’s cohorts:
http://www.novusordowatch.org/wire/palmer-not-convert-buried.htm
This is addressed to all of you but especially the Catholics on the blog. Listen to the second half of this talk ( first half is good too). Two Catholics discuss the problems of the Pope's involvement in the Global warming, world economy question.
http://www.trunews.com/wednesday-july-8-2015-bill-holter-lord-monckton-marc-morano/
Clearly, these two Catholics have problems with this Pope's actions.
I'm pretty sure the Pope doesn't have the authority to make a Palestinian state happen, so let's tone down the paranoia. He can voice his opinion, though. If the Pope had this level of authority, Notre Dame would never get penalty calls and always win the National Championship (in football). Any of us voicing our discontent with the Pope would be thrown in prison, which hasn't happened. Because, he just doesn't have the dictatorial powers people here have claimed. Shame on people who wish to turn him into some Bogey Man. Of course, if hired goons from the Catholic Church come to your door and break your kneecaps, then maybe your paranoia has some validity. Since he's most likely not a Mafia boss, this probably won't happen.
Calling for people to take better care of the world God gave us is not the same as calling for people to worship it. If you have a dog, you take care of it. Doesn't mean you worship it. If you take care of your home, doesn't mean you worship it. However, we can't really fix our physical environment without fixing our spiritual environment which comes through faith in Jesus Christ. We must put spiritual matters first. I don't really follow the Pope, except through what's reported through the media. I suspect the Pope would most likely agree that spiritual matters are more important than worrying about global warming, cooling, or whatever the climate is doing now.
It's okay for people to disagree with the Pope on his opinions. The Pope, after all, is human and is capable of error. One day he'll go on to perfection, but not while living on this Earth. Doesn't mean he's a monster. That guy who heads ISIS. He's a monster.
Vatican Radio Posts, Then Removes Photo of Lesbian Kiss
http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/07/08/vatican-radio-posts-then-removes-photo-of-lesbian-kiss/
I thought this was interesting.
Cindy Warner
Regardging the recent USSC ruling in favor of the abomination called "gay marriage."
Do you recall the "pope" stating that "gays that do good go to heaven, who am I to judge?" (He also claimed the same for atheists!) His public statement got huge play in the world's secular media, in fact, a "gay" magazine was so excited they even named the "pope" their Man of the Year. Here's something a little deeper to ponder about this whole charade, and that is, what about the TIMING of the pope's statement?? Do you find it interesting that with the high profile US Supreme Court ruling coming up (at that time ... a few months prior to ruling) that the pope would make such a RADICAL statement about not "judging" gays ... in spite of what the Scriptures clearly state ? Maybe this was not an attempt to influence the USSC ruling ... maybe it was to placate the well known rampant homosexuality inside the Vatican and the global RC churches? Nevertheless, the TIMING was very strange!
A little deeper yet ... the New World Order (i.e. One World Totalitarian Government) MUST destroy all influences of BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY in order to succeed and this is precisely what the global gay agenda is really all about. The "gays" are just being used as pawns in a global chess match, just as Climate Change is also being used to usher in a global authority. This is all a con game people, and the "pope" and the Vatican are big time players in this!
Wake up before it is too late ... our freedoms are at stake. They are planning global slavery ... and it gets worse from there !
There is a difference between concern about the Pope actions and outright hysteria, displayed by some on this blog.
One can also disagree with Kenneth Copland, but to compare him to Mass Murderers is also over the top.
It's hateful and anti-Christian.
Jesus loved his enemies, and prayed for them.
To those who disagree with Pope Francis, why shouldn't the Palestinians have a state?
http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2011/01/catholic-church-is-israel.html
The Catholic Church is Israel.
"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And whosoever shall follow this rule, peace on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God." - (Galatians 6:15-16) Here St. Paul tells his readers that in Christ neither circumcision (Jewish law) nor uncircumcision (Gentile custom) matters. What matters are those who follow the gospel, and those who follow the gospel are the "Israel of God." It is absolutely essential that Christians (not just Catholics) fully understand this. We, the Church, are the "Israel of God." We are Israel. We are the spiritual remnant of ancient Israel, expanded and multiplied, to encompass the whole world. This was (and is) God's plan of salvation. It has not changed. For in the Church, it matters not whether you are Jew or Gentile. What matters is that you are in full-communion with that one Jew who unites us together. I'm speaking of the Jewish rabbi who is both Messiah and King - Jesus of Nazareth. "In fact, from the beginning of his ministry, the Lord Jesus instituted the Twelve as 'the seeds of the new Israel and the beginning of the sacred hierarchy.'" - (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 877)
Cathy,
Pope Francis has no authority to establish a Palestinian State, anymore than he can establish any other state.
The people here are ascribing powers to him, that he does not have.
They give him too much credit.
When did any Catholic Pontiff including Pope Francis, ever endorse a global dictatorship or population reduction?
HUMANITY IS NOT A PLAGUE: ANALYSIS OF LAUDATO SI
http://www.aleteia.org/en/society/article/humanity-is-not-a-plague-laudato-si-rejects-population-control-5258478536884224
THE UN VS THE VATICAN
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/17673-un-vs-vatican
RayB,
Guess the Advocate and YOU both skipped Pope Francis multiple times speaking out against gay marriage and gender ideology.
But, who cares about facts, when you are into conspiracy.
Craig,
that excellent post shows how subtly the WOF heretics weave lies with truth, and
use the Bible but REDEFINE meanings.
redefinition: faith is the substance etc. is a popular line from the Bible always
taken out of context. Its context is what follows. a list of people who by their
faith accomplished many things none of which involved getting rich, all of which
involved taking action based on their belief in God.
what is substance? Elizabethan English used it to mean foundation. the SUBstrate
a building has its STANCE on.
Language changed, and we think of substance as the material something is built on,
so now faith as substance becomes something like ectoplasm or a force projected.
faith, I read years and years ago, has two Greek words we translate as one word.
one used mostly in the Gospels by Jesus means "turning TO" opposite of repent which
is "turning FROM." the word Paul uses means belief that affects action.
So God, says the WOF, did things by His accomplishing stuff material He projects
to get it done. something like an amoeba or some other critter sending out a tendril
that eventually the entire critter shifts along to the point the tendril hit. Or
a tentacle of an octopus.
H. P. Lovecraft as theologian. erg.
The second problem is this Jesus-went-to-hell thing. the verses they will cite
such as Peter are the basis for the "harrowing of hell," the concept Jesus raided
the realms of the dead. On the Cross just before He died, Jesus said "it is
finished," there was no more payment or anything like that to do anymore suffering
on HIs part.
So what did He do in hell/hades (which includes b oth the paradisiacal part that
may later have been transferred to heaven, and a hot nasty place the rich man
went to who ignored Lazarus)?
Jesus CRIPPLED THE DEVIL. Jesus basically kicked the devil's ass. That is a totally
different thing from suffering in hell.
Cathy,
Because it's God's land and he says he will enter into judgment with those who divide it. Read the prophet Joel.
There's a lot of other historical information that we could get into, but God's Word should be good enough for all of us.
Anonymous at 12:13 p.m.,
The Catholic Church rejects dispensationalism.
http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/colson_eschatology_jun06.asp
Finally, through Fundamentalist and conservative Evangelical political activity, dispensationalist ideas and interests have had a significant influence on U.S. foreign policy towards Israel and the Middle East, and on how many of these Christians view world events and political situations. Many Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians are staunch allies of Israel for theological, rather than political reasons.
Two People of God, or Just One?
While Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, and other popular dispensationalists teach that God has two people -- the Church and Israel -- the Catholic Church asserts that God has always had only one people, or family, throughout history.
Craig,
NovousOrdowatch is not pro-Catholic. It's a Sedevacantist group that has broken away from the church.
Regular Latin Mass Catholics, do not think that Novous Ordo is an invalid Mass.
Craig,
From the Catholic perspective there are flaws in Protestant teaching in general, never mind x, y,z group.
This however does not mean that we cannot find common ground or be courteous to each other.
Cathy,
I reject dispensationalism also. but you don't need that or the pre trib rapture
lie, to take a pro Israel stance. The issue of title to real estate is not the
same issue as membership in the Kingdom of Heaven. Read also all of Romans chapter 11 especially verses 7,8,11, 12, 16-29 and notice verse 1.
the prophecies of Zechariah and Ezekiel point to them being brought back into their
land in state of uncleanness that is cleansed LATER, and to them being there, with
the classic separation of sexes type worship of the Orthodox Jews when Jesus comes
back.
"Palestine" never existed. "Palestinians" are an artificial creation by Nazi
inspired elements such as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, a relative of Arafat's, and
the "Palestinian" land the ISraelis took was JORDANIAN land. there never was
a Palestine the Romans named Jewish land that as an irritant to them. It means
land of the Philistines.
Cathy,
those sedevacantist groups, which deny the present pope or any since
John XXIII's predecessor are in fact popes they are all antipopes,
and traditionalists who still adhere to the present papacy, but are
anti Vatican II, are often a good source for reprints of papal
encyclicals from the Middle Ages and a bit later, which stipulate
things you are not used to as Catholic teaching about several things.
Christine, Pope Benedict XVI on the rights of Palestinians for their own homeland.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/world-news/detail/articolo/francesco-terra-santa-34274/
Right from his first speech, the Pope’s message in very clear: “the Holy See supports the right of your people to a sovereign Palestinian homeland in the land of your forefathers, secure and at peace with its neighbours, within internationally recognized borders.” He explained that “a just and peaceful coexistence among the peoples of the Middle East can only be achieved through a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect.” He asked “the international community to bring its influence to bear in favour of a solution” tot he conflict, earnest hope that the serious concerns involving security in Israel and the Palestinian Territories will soon be allayed sufficiently to allow greater freedom of movement, especially with regard to contact between family members and access to the holy places.”
It is REALLY ridiculous to hear some of you say that the pope "can't create a Palestinian State."
Are you serious?
Of course he can't create by himself nor does he have the proper authority.
But a religious figure of his ENORMOUS stature and POPULARITY (not a good thing or a compliment) inserting his opinion on one of the most hotly contested political issues between two peoples since 1947 is irresponsible and inflammatory.
What about the climate agenda issue?
For the last several years there has been talk of a need for a governing global body to enforce laws enacted to protect the environment.
This effort has not been realized yet, but, what a perfect way to slickly build a recognized body with global power that is really something much more than on the surface. I believe it was discussed at length on this blog 3-4 years ago. Back then, most of the regulars here including Constance spoke out against the evils that such a body could present.
The fact that he has lent his voice to the cause may unify world leaders and be the very thing that brings this to fruition.
He doesn't have the authority to create the body itself.
But he sure has created a major buzz with his Gaia laced encylical with the world just gushing over his involvement.
He has definitely jumped into bed with the powers that be who orchestrated this junk. This is again proven by his scheduled appearance to speak at the UN in September.
Let me guess:
He's teaching us to be "good stewards of the earth."
Anonymous said...
What about the climate agenda issue?...
But he sure has created a major buzz with his Gaia laced encylical with the world just gushing over his involvement.
Where in the encyclical Laudato Si does Pope Francis mention Gaia or espouse earth-worship?
http://catholicexchange.com/the-deep-theological-vision-behind-the-popes-encyclical
The pope begins with the dignity of the human person, recalling that man and woman were made in the image and likeness of God as stated in Genesis 1:26. This fact is the foundation of the Christian teaching on the inviolable dignity of each person, which Francis repeats in Laudato Si.
But there is a sense in which all of creation—not just man—reflects the goodness of God, Francis writes. He invokes St. Thomas Aquinas who makes this point in seeking to explain why there are so many different created things:...
Francis is quick to clarify that this is not to put other creatures on the ‘same level’ as human beings (paragraph 90). But it also means that we cannot treat the rest of the earth and its creatures as mere objects for our dominion (82)...
This doesn’t mean, of course that the ‘finite things of this world are really divine,’ Francis says.
To Anonymous @ 2:55 PM ....
EXCELLENT post. I agree 100% !
Cathy,
People into conspiracy are not interested in facts. You can quote the document over and over again, and they will still accuse it of saying things it does not say.
Anonymous at 6:09 p.m.,
Pope Francis and Protestants.
http://jonathanmerritt.religionnews.com/2013/12/02/why-evangelicals-love-pope-francis-raymond-arroyo/
Pope accepts gift of "Communist Crucifix" from Communist party leader ... global Communism is directly responsible for the murders and death of over 100 MILLION innocent people. Amazing !
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20150709/lt--pope-communist_crucifix-f025b21fae.html
Anon: 4:48AM
RE:Would you invite Charles Manson to your home for an elaborate luncheon because your childhood friend set it up?
As I recall the Pharisees condemned Christ for supping with sinners.
"…10Then it happened that as Jesus was reclining at the table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and were dining with Jesus and His disciples. 11When the Pharisees saw this, they said to His disciples, "Why is your Teacher eating with the tax collectors and sinners?" 12But when Jesus heard this, He said, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick."…Matthew 9:10-12
commie crucifix - maybe a symbol of repentance?
Christ ate with sinners so would hang out with Manson - classic example of what you get when you take one little concept out of context and run with it.
These people were interested in Christ, His message, and moving towards
repentance. Manson would only be out to manipulate, and Christ didn't need
more than one of that kind in His entourage (Judas), and would see right through
it in a heartbeat. If Manson HAD been sincerely interested that would be another
matter.
But Christ was visiting their homes, not having them over to mingle with
trusting children and impressionable teenagers like the scenario you paint
sounds like, not to mention size up the place to come back later and do
something.
stewardship of the earth sounds like a cover for Gaiaism but it isn 't.
remember what God put Adam in the garden to do? Tend it and keep it.
Dominion over everything isn't supposed to be destructive but constructive.
It would seem our nature is to be superintendants over nature, under God.
Sort of a cross between a farming type gardner and a forest ranger.
Genesis 2:15, clarifying Gen. 1:28 note "be fruitful and multiply" isn't so
much an order as an empowering fiat granting them capability to be
fruitful and multiply. Like "let there be light" made it happen. Now, you can
argue from some points in Scripture that God made things for man. yes, to
some extent, but many animals are of no use to man.
Colossians 1:16b clarifies that actually all things were made for Jesus
Christ the Word of God before His Incarnation: "...all things were
created by Him, and for Him:"
Rev. 11:18b the wrath of God has come, "...and shouldest destroy them
which destroy the earth."
Hmmmm. Exactly how does all the preceding agree with the way we've destructively handled things?
Cathy said,
"People into conspiracy are not interested in facts. You can quote the document over and over again, and they will still accuse it of saying things it does not say."
true. but you don't get what they are on about. Firstly, the SAME phenomenon you note
regarding the detractors, is ALSO true of the new age/globalist/etc. who propose to gain from it.
Secondly, the quick message from a summary and the word "environment" triggers ideas in many
that they should support globalism and new age. Consider the sloppy treatment of Vat 2 to
make very weird experiments. Vat 2 didn't say nuns could be heretical and support various evils,
but that's what happened because its loose wording made it possible to misapply. "the spirit
of Vatican II."
Anonymous 11:10 AM to RayB
Re:Guess the Advocate and YOU both skipped Pope Francis multiple times speaking out against gay marriage and gender ideology.
But, who cares about facts, when you are into conspiracy.
*************************************
Ray B's "popes" include the apostate Charles Chiniquy whom he has cited in a previous thread along with Chiniquy's mendacious book "Fifty Years in the Church of Rome" which is redolent of the anti-Catholic "Maria Monk" tale.
Chiniquy's disciples include the infamous Jack Chick whose anti-Catholic comic books likewise appeal "itching ears" with tales of Catholic perfidy
Charles Chiniquy was taken to task by his bishop for his immoral lifestyle which he continued even after he left the Roman Catholic Church and became a Presbyterian minister.
The following biography is by a Fundamentalist Protestant who is roundly critical anti-Catholic bigots and their publications:
*******************************
FUNDAMENTALISM
The sad anti-Catholic career of
PASTOR CHARLES CHINIQUY, 1809-1900
By Francis Lester
A Reader writes:
A friend of mine recently decided to quit the Church and now attends a protestant group.
She has been influenced, among other things, by a book called 'Fifty years in the Church of Rome: the conversion of a priest' by Charles Chiniquy. It was written in 1886, but recently re-issued by Chick Publications in paper-back format.
I know very little about Father Chiniquy except one brief mention in one of Dr Rumble's books - where a very different story is hinted at.
Do you have access to any further information on this man?
THE 'brief mention in one of Dr Rumble's books' to which our reader refers was in response to a correspondent who wrote: 'Pastor Chiniquy was a priest who said that he left the Church because she was too intolerant.'
To this, Dr Rumble replied as follows: '(Pastor Chiniquy) did not leave the Church voluntarily but was expelled from it in 1851 by the Bishop of Montreal because the Church could not tolerate his immorality. He pretended repentance, promised to behave himself and persuaded another Catholic Bishop to accept his services. But in 1856 he was again expelled for immorality. If Pastor Chiniquy is your only argument against the moral theology of the Catholic Church there is nothing wrong with that theology. I think it was Dean Swift who gently remarke4 "I wish when the Pope weeds his garden he wouldn't throw the weeds over the fence into our grounds".' (Radio Replies, I, 1082; see also II, 1286-1288)
The writings of Charles Chiniquy are still being quoted with approval in anti-Catholic publications like Loraine Boettner's Roman Catholicism, and reprinted by 'evangelical' and 'bible' publications like the one referred to by our reader. Like twentieth century 'religious' dung beetles, these true 'Calathumphians' never tire of raking over the garbage pits of history......read entire article.....
http://jloughnan.tripod.com/chiniquyp.htm
Chiniquy's complaint of church intolerance reminds me of step one of
the following satire, "How To Start A Cult."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNs_R1bT9I0
To Anonymous @ 11:37 AM ...
Complete, absolute fabrication as to Charles Chiniquay being "expelled" from the RCC. Chiniquay began to seriously read the Bible and was, by the GRACE of God, converted to the true Biblical saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. While a priest, Chiniquay attempted repeatedly to expose the debauchery that he personally witnessed amongst the priests and nuns ... to no avail. He voluntarily left Catholicism, and in typical form, the "church" attempted to assassinate his character for doing so.
As far as Loraine Boettner's "Roman Catholicism" ... this is a book Catholics hate with a passion. Why? Because it is an in depth analysis of what Roman Catholicism actually teaches as dogma and doctrine, with DIRECT quotes from RCC/Vatican sanctioned written positions. Boettner then compares these dogmas and doctrines with Holy Scripture.
What is sad, and I have known virtually hundreds of Roman Catholics in my lifetime, almost none really know what their church actually teaches. Not only that, they have almost no knowledge whatsoever as to what the Bible actually teaches (asside from occasional out of context references). Rather, they are stuck in a life of fear and superstition that enslaves them (Christ came to set the captives free) into a system of endless works in an attempt to be "good enough" to ultimately make it to heaven. The Bible clearly teaches that this is the way to spiritual death because "by the WORKS of the law, NO FLESH SHALL BE JUSTIFIED."
If you doubt the word enslavement, look up the seemingly endless list of "Mortal Sins" that, if not "confessed along with subsequent attendance of Mass" and what happens to the individual. In most cases, they are lost in hell eternally, and if not that, they get to look forward to an undetermined amount of time in the fires of Purgatory. Jesus suffered, shed His blood and died for the payment of sins and said "it is finished" ... RCC, however, declares at the foot of the cross "no it isn't finished ... we have Purgatory." A very effective RCC invention that has absolutely no basis in Scripture whatsoever!
I suggest you pick up a copy of Boettner's Roman Catholicism and read it for yourself and see what your church actually teaches as opposed to what the Scriptures state. Light should never fear supposed darkness, for light will always expose darkness for what it is.
RayB
"by the WORKS of the law, NO FLESH SHALL BE JUSTIFIED." like most who rattle
that off, you got it out of context. like the out of context references you
complain RC does.
the works of the law are circumcision, food laws, Sabbath keeping and holy days.
Jesus Himself warns the believers will be judged and some punished. Go look
these things up for yourself, read through Matthew's Gospel and you will find
them. RC may have it wrong in some ways and purgatory may be just a section of
hell, but you aren't much better.
"I suggest you pick up a copy of Boettner's Roman Catholicism and read it for yourself and see what your church actually teaches as opposed to what the Scriptures state."
I can read the Catechism of the Catholic church to figure out what the church actually teaches, as opposed to Boettner's Catechism.
And I suggest you do the same.
"Complete, absolute fabrication as to Charles Chiniquay being "expelled" from the RCC"
This is documented fact, not fabrication. Your tales are fabrication.
Christine ...
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8,9
"Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour; That being justified by his grace; we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." Titus 3:5-7
A true Christian shows his faith as evidenced by his works, but WORKS is never a justification for salvation. First, a person must be regenerated through the new birth, then "works" is an illustration (although God does not judge as men judges, for he looketh upon the heart) of that saving faith. Look up more "evidence" of what is a Christian vs one that isn't by reading Galatians 5:19-26.
By the way, what Biblical reference do you have to support your assertion that "purgatory may be just a section of hell" ??
RayB,
We are saved by faith in Jesus, but not by faith ALONE. In Matthew 19:16-19, Jesus himself said to a rich young man who had asked him what he needed to do to have eternal life:
… If you would enter life, keep the commandments… You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.
Or, how about Matthew 12:36-37? Here, Jesus says:
I tell you, on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word they utter; for by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.
That sounds like there is more to this justification thing than faith alone.
Once saved, always saved is not biblical.
Dear 1:06 PM...
But who can keep the commandments perfectly enough to be saved???
Only Jesus.
Jesus said that to him to point out that he was falling short in keeping the commandments and falling short means the only way to overcome to shortfall is to have Jesus' Righteousness not our own. Our own is considered filthy rags before God!
Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Isa 64:7 And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself to take hold of thee: for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast consumed us, because of our iniquities.
This is what the run-of-the-mill-just a common everyday sinner is. No lesser or higher degrees of sinning--just sin itself has separated us from the Father. How desperately we need Jesus!!! If we could fix ourselves He would not have needed to die and pay that shortfall.
And that is a real shortfall alright. Be honest, this is all of us no matter to what degree we sin! Stand yourself next to Jesus and compare yourself to His perfection and you (like myself) can see how filthy we truly are. (we compare ourselves to other people, then our pride may tell us we are not so bad..or we may think someone better....but when we {any of us no matter who-even the most righteous person we know} are compared to Jesus....that should help any of us draw the right conclusion). That is what was happening right there that day with this rich young ruler and Jesus. He made the mistake to think less of Jesus and too much of himself. That is what sinners do. And begs the question each of us should be asking ourselves as individuals. People are born self-centered. The man turned from Jesus and left instead of follow Him. Leave ourselves and the world behind in that sense to follow Jesus - becoming Jesus centered - becoming saved by our simple faith in HIM....and remade as we follow in His footsteps. The rich young ruler wanted to hold on to his covetous ways (money meant more to him than God or he would have followed). We all have our favorite way to sin. See Isaiah 53: 5-6. So Jesus paid for it all.
No way we can come close to His Righteousness. No way, no how, never. We must place ourselves solely into His nail-scarred hands to have this.
Heb 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
How simple and straight-forward. We must not add or take from this extremely important understanding presented from the word of God.
That is what the rich young ruler chose not to do.
He chose to walk away from Grace and Mercy for the things of this life instead.
Anon@3:41 p.m.
We do not disagree. RayB just does not understand Catholicism.
RayB DOES UNDERSTAND Catholicism.
As I've posted before, I am a former catholic of 30+ years. Catholic school my whole life. Altar boy from grades 2 through 8.
Lived it. Practiced it. Defended it vehemently.
Until one day I started reading the bible for myself from cover to cover. As I read through it, I was like-
"Hey that's not what I was taught in school."
"Hey that's not what I was taught in church."
And this was an "old school" church that had been around for over 75 years when I began school in 1973.
The funny thing is, I was never approached by anyone trying to convert me. Never spoke to a Protestant who was talking trash about the church.
You know what changed my mind about leaving the church I had grown up with?
Just reading the Word, by myself with no outside interference. That's all it took to show me the truth.
You have a few here who like to refer to "church fathers" and will usually refer to people who disagree as "not understanding" Catholicism" or, my case, I must have been a "bad catholic."
Wrong! I was about as good and faithful a catholic as anybody. Including Susanna and our new catholic doctrine champion Cathy.
So, RayB, you do understand Catholicism very well.
anon 12:53
whether Chiniquy left on his own or was kicked out - are you going by his word
alone? Maybe there are records of this sort of thing somewhere? I haven't read
his book but I note what Dean Swift said, so it would support the kickout version.
"I think it was Dean Swift who gently remarked "I wish when the Pope weeds his garden he wouldn't throw the weeds over the fence into our grounds".' (Radio Replies, I, 1082; see also II, 1286-1288)" that's a Swift cite you can look for.
RayB
"By the way, what Biblical reference do you have to support your assertion that "purgatory may be just a section of hell" ??"
there is no direct biblical proof of purgatory as a separate place like RC has it,
and no Church Father basis for it as if a tradition from The Apostles existed. It
has a point of origin post schism I think in the western church. EO never had this
and to this day rejects it. Only RC which is inclined to invent, has such a notion. Therefore I don't believe it.
there are a few things in the NT that RC uses as proof of it, but would better
apply to the Last Judgement, or if afterlife before that would have to be in hell.
Therefore, if it exists, it is not separate from hell.
Now if I understand this correctly, this is regarding sins done after baptism
and not repented of and quit from and absolved preferably with a penance (which
doesn't seem to consist of anything but saying some prayers you should say
anyway). This would fall in the category of stuff Jesus would bring to judgement
when He comes back if not settled before that. There is ALSO THE ISSUE OF SIN
THAT YOU REMEMBER WITH PLEASURE, OR OTHERWISE SLIP INTO OR STATES OF MIND THAT
ARE GODLESS. Constant repentance is a good state to stay in.
Anon@4:29 p.m.
I read the Bible everyday and still disagree with you.
Christine,
Purgatory is closer to the EO concept of theosis. There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven.
BTW, Eastern Catholics do not have to accept a particular understanding of purgatory.
"The Treaty of Brest," which was formally accepted by Pope Clement VIII, does not require to accept the Western understanding of Purgatory.
Article V of the Treaty of Brest states "We shall not debate about purgatory..." implying that both sides can agree to disagree on the specifics of what the West calls "Purgatory."
Ray B 12:23
You are absolutely wrong about apostate Charles Chiniquy!!! He was BOOTED OUT of the Catholic Church for his filthy immoral lifestyle which he continued even after he became a Presbyterian pastor. BOTH Catholic and Protestant clergymen have attested to this. You, on the other hand, have little other proof that Chiniquy wasn't booted out of the Catholic Church than Chiniquy's own anti-Catholic screed.
In fact Chiniquy has been called an "anti-Catholic screedist."
As it is, the minute you cited Chiniquy as your "fact-filled" source, I had YOUR number!!!
I am also familiar with Chiniquy's more well-known disciples like professional anti-Catholic Loraine Boettner who, along with his "magnum opus" ROMAN CATHOLICISM, is an embarrassment to many good Bible-believing Protestants who would be almost as ashamed to cite Boettner and/or his writings as they would be to cite the writings of Alexander Hyslop. Both are an embarrassment to Protestantism.
Far from obsessively hating Boettner and/or his book, most Catholics and non-Catholic Christians I know simply laugh at them.
In fact, my own favorite little "Boettnerism" is the following:
"When he writes about the definition of papal infallibility, Boettner says that a pope speaks infallibly only "when he is speaking ex cathedra, that is, seated in the papal chair." He then points out that what is venerated as Peter’s chair in St. Peter’s Basilica may be only a thousand years old, implying that since Peter’s actual chair is not present, there is no place for the pope to sit, and thus, by the Church’s own principles, the pope cannot make any infallible pronouncements."
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-anti-catholic-bible
**************************************************
What else is there to do but laugh at profound theological erudition such as this?
THE ANTI-CATHOLIC BIBLE
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-anti-catholic-bible
The following is priceless.....
THE “ANTI-CATHOLIC’S BIBLE” REFUTED By Cyril of Ephesus
January 13, 2015 by Cyril of Ephesus
No anti-Catholics worth their salt should use this much discredited book (Boettner's ROMAN CATHOLICISM) as reference to attack the Church. (COE)
http://www.splendorofthechurch.com.ph/2015/01/13/the-anti-catholics-bible-refuted-by-cyril-of-ephesus/
___________________________________________________________
That means YOU, RayB!
Anon. 4:29 P.M.
RE: "Wrong! I was about as good and faithful a catholic as anybody......
"The lady doth protest too much methinks."
"Purgatory is closer to the EO concept of theosis. There is a place of transition/transformation for those en-route to Heaven."
there isn't the slightest resemblance. theosis is essentially sanctification in
protestant lingo a progressive (ongoing) by effort recovery of the damaged human
nature warped in the Fall. This goes on during life, mostly.
what you are thinking of is "tollhouses." This is disputed in Orthodoxy only
thanks to modernist incursions. The idea is, that if you die weighed down with
sin, the demons or "dark ones" can come and grab you, and you may get help from
angels especially if you call for help to Jesus. Though a later vision that
formalized and structured these in a way resembling layers of hell in Dante, but
rather layers in the air (the devil is called "the prince of the power of the air"
in the NT) on the way to heaven, the original concept was more amorphous.
a person who lives their life focused on Jesus and for HIs sake avoiding sin and
doing good has little if anything to fear. But someone who is not like this might
have a serious problem. How long they would stay in the hands of the demons is
another matter. prayers for the dead are about this, just in case.
Christine,
The Eastern Orthodox would not celebrate Divine Liturgies for the dead, and offer numerous prayers on their behalf, if they did not subscribe to a stage of purification after death.
You just contradicted yourself with the last statement about prayers for the dead.
anon 8:45,
you did not understand what I wrote. I said that the tollhouse guards socalled
who are demons may sieze those who are not adequately pure, and that MOST of
theosis is done in this life.
there is no contradiction. The point is, RC sees purgatory as a temporary place
separate from hell, while EO sees the potential problem being that you might be
seized and tormented and there are only two afterlife pre resurrection situations.
heaven or hell (the latter having degrees of unpleasantness), and these torments
do not necessary purify you in themselves, though they might cause you to rethink
a lot.
personally I see the real danger is for those who are unbelievers or believers but
who live like undbelievers and treat last rites (RC) or prayers for the dead (EO) as
a get out of jail free card. I said somewhere that the prayers for the dead are
not magic formula that bind God to save the dead, but requests that He may consider
granting.
so for RC purgatory is temporary, without any reference to the sinner actually
repenting of the sin, and for EO the issue is what I call "the escapability of hell."
modern EO don't pray for non Orthodox dead, but St. PErpetua prayed for her dead
unbelieving brother she dreamed was in hell, so apparently the early church prayed
for everyone dead.
Christine,
No one is saved in hell.
Christ refers to the sinner who "will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matt. 12:32), suggesting that one can be freed after death of the consequences of one’s sins.
Similarly, Paul tells us that, when we are judged, each man’s work will be tried. And what happens if a righteous man’s work fails the test? "He will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:15).
Now this loss, this penalty, can’t refer to consignment to hell, since no one is saved there; and heaven can’t be meant, since there is no purification there.
this sounds like the Last Judgement not the personal judgement that protestants
focus on. It is also precisely the best verse for supporting purgatory.
Christ's reference mentions forgiveness in this age which is prior last judgement
and age to come which is after that. so not relevant to this discussion really.
St. Paul's prayer for Onesiphorus speaks of him past tense and of his family, then
asks that the Lord have mercy on him ON THAT DAY. this is the same idea as the
Maccabbeans who made sin offering for dead warriors of theirs they found secretly
wore pagan talismans under their clothing, that God have mercy on them on the Day
of Judgement. This seems to be a taken for granted kind of thing.
Christine Erikson's "theology" is uniquely her own. She should write her own bible then. She carves up the the Word of God to suit herself.
Just start from scratch and write your own, MCE.
That would be the honest thing to do.
10:16 the same could be said for most of the protestant writers and with
more accuracy from Luther and especially Calvin and Zwingli to now.
Anonymous @ 4:29 PM said:
"Just reading the Word, by myself with no outside interference. That's all it took to show me the truth."
Anonymous:
Your's was a very edifying post to read. I was reminded of this verse when I read your statement above:
"I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation." Psalm 119:99
Also ... "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
God Bless you Brother!
Yes 11:05 AM.
Amen.
It was the power of God's word - not church - that showed me my need to repent and put my sole trust in Jesus Alone to be saved, based only on what He has spoken - has promised - the Spirit of God enabled me to come by faith to the cross and thereafter walk in newness of life. And what a journey I am on since that day. Church is wonderful, just plain and simple church, but it did not save me.
I am not making this up as I go, God has a plan for my life and what He has chosen for me is far better than what I would choose apart from Him (left to my own devises). It is a path of surrender, and I am so grateful for it.
am not yet who I want to be in Jesus Christ, but praise God I am not who I once was...
Chrisitne @ 10:26 AM
So you approve of your own DIY style but hate theirs?
Wrong is wrong wherever you find it. That is God's standard------much higher than a human standard could possibly be.
That is God's book, and not for humans to create their own theology from.
That goes immediately into breaking commandments in Exodus 20: 1-5, right off the top breaking them and the set up to break them all.
Jesus kept the whole law, never broke it anywhere, ever.
We sure need Him in our stead.
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-at-mass-we-are-not-christian-without-the-chur
Pope at Mass: We are not Christian without the Church
(Vatican Radio) There is no such thing as a Christian without the Church, a Christian who walks alone, because Jesus inserted himself into the journey of His people...
Beginning with the first reading of the day, Pope Francis said that when they proclaimed Jesus the apostles did not begin with Him, but the history of the people. In fact " Jesus does not make sense without this history" because He "is the end of this story, [the end] towards which this story goes, towards which it walks". So "you cannot understand a Christian outside of the people of God. The Christian is not a monad", but "belongs to a people: the Church. A Christian without a church is something purely idealistic, it is not real".
anon 12:26
Bible alone moved me towards Orthodoxy. Elisha's bones bringing a dead man back
to life validates miracle working relics for starters.
I don't have a DIY style I just take the Bible as a whole not bits and pieces.
ORthodoxy fit better than anything else.
to you icons and incense and facing east because Christ said His Second Coming
will be real obvious like the light begins from the east and shines to the west
may be distractions for you, in which case don't bother. To me they are
Christocentric.
but don't complain about "church fathers" when you as a protestant got your own
church fathers, whose word you take as to what the Bible means and doesn't mean
and read it through their blinders. If a man trained by a man trained by the Apostle John can support the literal transformation of the Eucharist the real
presence, something Luther didn't deny, then that is the correct interpretation
of Jesus' words.
you focus on salvation as a one time thing, but then separate sanctification
from it when these are all a part. Have you read Christ's warnings about the
Last Judgement regarding believers who call Him Lord but don't act like He's Lord?
Cathy,
all well and good but define your terms. Jesus said those who are not against
us are for us, and to the pagans the Apostles would have had to begin with Jesus
and the invisible True God like Paul did in Acts on the Areopagus (mars hill) in
Athens.
if you believe in Him and adhere to Him then you are part of His life so as
someone put it the boundaries of the church are somewhat indistinct.
I am 12:13 PM. If directed at me, Cathy, here is my answer:
I am a christian who attends church and serve there faithfully because the church is His Body, but church did not save me, unlike what many teach and profess. Then I was baptized after I was cleansed in the Blood of Jesus in that moment of my salvation.
Jesus did that---with no help from me, or an institution/organization, pastor or priest, and with no help whatsoever from saints or even His mother.
Jesus alone wears the scars that prove my/your salvation was extremely costly----to Himself.
All I did was provide the sinner, He provided the Savior. That was my "by faith" part. He did The Work!
Submit to Christ in repentance and faith and be saved is all the Gospel is...perfectly complete. You go live out the sanctified works that honor His name after that.
Christine,
Scripture alone led Scott Hahn to the Catholic church.
anon 1:08
while the focus on "church" is overstated, consider this.
how did you hear about Jesus? the Bible? someone preserved it someone
got it to you or put one where you found it. From someone talking to
you? or both?
when you were baptized, who did it, yourself or another? who baptized
him or her back to the Apostles?
the is a community but community consists of individuals but those
individuals' relationship has a historic track back in time and space
to the Apostles and to Jesus Himself.
Anon@1:08 p.m.
I am glad that you have found your peace in Christ. But using it to attack others, is not very Christian. It points to be being insecure.
The true catholic (small "c") church is the universal body of believers that have been BORN AGAIN by God's Spirit, through His grace and mercy. Being a member of ANY church here on earth does not make one a true Christian. Christ clearly declares: "Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God."
Man in his "natural" fallen, sinful state CANNOT understand, nor can he see that which is the truth as found in God's Word, as Paul wrote to the Corinthians:
"The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit, for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, for they are spiritually discerned."
This is precisely why so many "religious" people argue with, refuse to read and do not bow to the authority of the Sword of the Spirit (God's Word) ... because they have not been BORN AGAIN with the WRITER of God's Word ... the Holy Spirit.
If you sense this is true for you, humbly ask God to open your heart and mind to the TRUTH ... and then begin to read God's Word. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."
anon 1:17 said,
"Scripture alone led Scott Hahn to the Catholic church."
Scott Hahn has to take the next step and go Orthodox. If he
reads the Bible more carefully he will see that what was given
PEter when he alone understood Who Christ is, was given later
to all the Apostles once they understood Who Christ is.
Irenaeus points to ALL the churches that were founded by Apostles,
then says FOR SIMPLICITY he would focus on the Roman church which
he was nearest to.
The Immaculate conception is something that can't be defended
from Scripture, the address the angel gave her "highly favored"
would be relevant to her selection to be the mother of the Messiah.
The Assumption is harmless whether true or false, and while Marian
dogmas are supposed to point to Jesus, they tend in practice to
do the opposite, which is perhaps why when iconography got formalized
she is always depicted pointing to Jesus, or sitting with Him on
her lap as the foremost, or looking at Him in the one where she is
holding Him and He is touching her face.
I am sure Scott Hahn had a lot of help from RC interpreters and
after all it is the only church closely rooted in Apostolic tradition
but going beyond it, that he would have access to. Orthodoxy is rare
and probably never on his radar though I haven't read or listened to
everything he ever said.
now, if you are a protestant and are protesting this Bible only
thing, you just went against your sola scriptura doctrine. If RC
then I suggest you study as in READ cover to cover or at least
entire gospels at one sitting more.
yes, relics and blessed objects and Holy WAter are validated helps
and blessings from God, and Apostolic Succession is indicated in
that bit in Romans where Paul talks about establishing them.
(Which also shows Peter wasn't there to do that.)
But Rome adopted the scholastic rationalistic approach and leaves
nothing to mystery that is beyond finite understanding.
the way they do theology is different. they start essence then
attibutes (static) then persons, we start persons, actions aka energies
(dynamic) and end with discussing essence. Since God announces Himself
as a Person and starts the Bible with Himself (in the beginning God....)
and then goes to action (created the Heavens and the Earth)this
sounds like a more correct way to do theology (the Orthodox way).
Orthodoxy is not necessarily represented adequately by typical laity
or typical writers influenced by modernism and somewhat by romanism
and sometimes even heretical mysticism you need to work on earlier
writings and practices and those that reflect them now, keeping an
eye out for residual Origenism.
I forgot to add (and don't dare delete and rewrite or might be accused of
something I didn't write as happened b efore) that the whole liturgical
style of worship is validated in the Book of Revelation where you see
this in Heaven.
The Mass was derived from The Holy Liturgy which derived with minimal
alterations from the Temple and Synagogue liturgy. we even have the crowns
at marriage that Jews use in their marriage ceremonies, parade the Gospels
and kiss them like the Torah Scroll is paraded and kissed in the synagogue
worship. Candles are a form of lamp and lamps were in the Temple as ordered
by God Himself.
Ray B 11:05 and 12:13
So why don't you just shut up and READ your Bibles instead of merely deploying them in the service of your own agenda which includes gratuitously trashing other people's Christian beliefs - whether Catholic or non-Catholic Christians?????
There is a story about how Mahatma Ghandi almost became a Christian. Gandhi later declared, "I'd be a Christian if it were not for the Christians!"
He added:""I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ" ~ Mahatma Gandhi
So don't give us this twaddle about how much you "LOVE" Jesus at the same time you are trashing the beliefs of others - whether Catholic or non-Catholic Christians because Jesus Himself censured the Apostles for doing just such a thing in the Gospels.
38John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." 39But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. Mark 9:38-39
If you LOVE Jesus as you claim to, then you might want to HEAR what he says and act accordingly.
Anon. 1:20 P.M. to 1:08 P.M.
Re:"I am glad that you have found your peace in Christ. But using it to attack others, is not very Christian. It points to be being insecure."
EXACTLY!!!
If Anon.1:08 P.M. is at peace with what he has done, then good for him. I am sure that everyone here - including Catholics - joins me in wishing him well. However, his obsession with trashing the Catholic Church tells me that he is NOT at peace with the choice he has made. I also suspect that his choice was not based on his having "seen the light" in terms of some dogmatic epiphany......but we won't go there.
When all is said and done, I am at peace with being a Catholic, but I don't have to go around trashing the beliefs of non-Catholic Christians in order to validate my own beliefs. That Anon. 1:08 P.M. apparently DOES have to speaks volumes.
anon 2:01
while I agree with the other critique of the RC bashers, I am uncomfortable
with this one. A determination to fight something he or she sees as evil,
as deceiving people to the endangerment of their souls, is not a certain sign
of insecurity (other than fear that their "lies") will dominate around him or
her or take down people he or she cares about or resentment that such "lies"
still hold some captive. Many Catholic bashers think there is little or no
hope for the members of the RCC to find salvation.
The exact same critique has been leveled at me for witnessing for JEsus to
non Christians and pseudo Christians online. And it would certainly be something
that previous centuries could have leveled against Christian missionaries if the
anti missionaries had known the argument.
1:20 PM,
That was only an explanation and not directed to anyone but an open, to anyone statement. The only reason I mentioned Cathy was to let her see I had an answer to her comeback directly about church and myself, and went on in general, to address what I have some understanding about..
If people want to look for what they consider personal jabs I suppose they will always find them.
Christine,
Preaching non-stop like a car salesman trying to sell someone a product is annoying. It makes people want to run when they see Christians like that. I would rather, these people put their faith in action.
"Pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world."
James 1:27
Defend or explain, what you believe all you want folks, and let the chips fall.
So what if there is disagreement? Why be so touchy about it? The Lord will be here shortly to straighten it all out.
Jesus alone is the One we answer to right? Nobody else. He is the Somebody we should be thinking on making the rest of all of us, past or present a nobody. Jesus humbled Himself though he was the King. In love he stooped down and took on flesh and went to the cross and was raised in power for who?...us nobodys.....
Be a nobody.
Come out from among them and be ye separate....2 Corinthians 6:14-18
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-27872551
Christine,
Re:"while I agree with the other critique of the RC bashers, I am uncomfortable
with this one. A determination to fight something he or she sees as evil,
as deceiving people to the endangerment of their souls, is not a certain sign
of insecurity (other than fear that their "lies") will dominate around him or
her or take down people he or she cares about or resentment that such "lies"
still hold some captive. Many Catholic bashers think there is little or no
hope for the members of the RCC to find salvation."
You have got to be kidding!!!
As far as I am concerned, what the bashers are doing is a sin and a scandal! Moreover, I wouldn't want any part of a so-called "Christianity" that has to go around trashing the beliefs of others in order to validate its own beliefs or to compensate for its own moral bankruptcy! So if these creatures think they are attracting me to their so-called "Christianity," they had better rethink their evangelization strategy.
That you would join in on the Catholic bashing when Roman Catholics have not been trashing Eastern Orthodox beliefs - or even challenging them except to defend themselves against false accusations - speaks volumes about your own insecurity as well.
Lest you put your own soul in danger, perhaps you might also want to heed the words of Mark 9:38-39 and worry about your own soul instead of presuming to assess the "danger" of souls of other Christians.
************************************
"38John said to Him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us." 39But Jesus said, "Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. Mark 9:38-39"
"So what if there is disagreement? Why be so touchy about it? The Lord will be here shortly to straighten it all out."
Agreed. So why even go there? You don't care what I think, I don't care what you think, makes no difference what people think, how about that?
People are people, but God is God.
You worry too much 5:48 PM.
"That you would join in on the Catholic bashing when Roman Catholics have not been trashing Eastern Orthodox beliefs - or even challenging them except to defend themselves against false accusations - speaks volumes about your own insecurity as well."
you have no concept of fighting for truth do you? you have no concept of
determination to find, and defend and promote truth as in real facts, do you?
it is all about subjective issues of insecurity and whatnot.
I don't Catholic bash I tell them when they are wrong - and tell prots the same -
and the basis I have for this is the Bible and history and statements that they
tend to warp or ignore parts of when they draw on them.
the prots doing this stuff however attack things that are true and have less
information and less understanding or dot connecting of things in the Bible than
the EO and RC does on these shared points of truth.
It isn't about you it isn't about me.
can you understand that?
TRUTH IS WHATEVER IS TRUE EVEN IF I NEVER WAS BORN. its validity does NOT lie
in whether I feel "secure" or not. its validity does not lie in anything but
being factual the problem is the DUTY is to determine WHAT it is.
this is probably more than you can comprehend.
let me give you an example. your truth that you are secure in is that the bridge
is not out. my truth based on having seen it after checking a report from someone
else and noting the specs on it that it can't take the kind of vehicles on it, is
that it is partly fragmented and will not handle your SUV.
I tell you and everyone don't get on that bridge.
you dismiss me as insecure or I would be happy to keep my truth to myself and do
as I please and let others alone.
you may say that these are not analogous. but that is only because you do not
understand that the issues ARE AS REAL AND AS DEADLY AS THAT HYPOTHETICAL BRIDGE.
if you did understand that, you wouldn't speak as you do.
now, the issues are not quite as deadly as RC trads, EO trads, and prot Classics/trads
see it, because these all involve a focus on Jesus but there is more lack in prot
and more deviation in RC than in EO. THAT was why I chose EO.
the idea that someone arguing for a position reflects insecurity is ludicrous,
ignorant and foolish.
Anon. 5:59
If it were merely "disagreement" I wouldn't be touchy about it at all.
But it is bullying and bashing and the reason why I care is because of other Catholics who post here, not you. I DON'T care what you think.
As for your "Why even go there?" jive the Catholics didn't "go there" first on this blog. They were here posting information and minding their own business when suddenly their beliefs were being trashed.
So why are you "going there" by sticking your nose where it doesn't belong?
anon 6:33
why are you sticking your nose in where it doesn't belong? this being a public
forum anyone has the right to say anything about or to anyone else the blog
administrator will put up with, and to be answered back to.
anon 5:59 was trying to do what you say you are doing, defending people from
bullying and trying to defuse the situation and restore peace. But you seem to
be more concerned with establishing yourself as the champion of courtesy and
righteousness. (maybe that stuff about insecurity was Freudian projection on your
part if you are the same one who said that?)
I notice you talk about "belief" being trashed. If a belief is wrong it needs to
be challenged. a "belief" is either true or partly true or not true at all.
"a so-called "Christianity" that has to go around trashing the beliefs of others in order to validate its own beliefs or to compensate for its own moral bankruptcy! "
ah so subjectivist. one does not validate ones beliefs or whatever by trashing
others, one is certain in one's beliefs then goes out to save the rest of humanity
from their errors.
one can of course be certain of a false belief. And from the perspective of many
protestants here this is a protestant internet geography, and RC has no business
here, and if you think extensive citations from others that effectively defend
typical RC positions, so the poster doesn't have to be seen as doing that, just
quoting others, do not have a defensive, rebukive (?) or evangelizing purpose you
are an idiot. after a while it is clearly an effort to teach the rest of us here.
and some of us can actually refute all this.
and some here are rude, true. but if you want to see aggressive trashing of beliefs
AND OF PERSONS, go look at RC conduct when they had the power to get the civil
authorities to make laws that made any deviation illegal. Now, some people I would
agree were a good idea to exterminate, anti Trinitarians and albigensians. though
this risks making martyrs out of them. but extremely cruel and exterminative
conduct on far less serious matters was normative for RC or civil authorities at RC
behest, until the past few centuries. PROTESTANTS DID THE SAME WHEN THEY HAD
THE POWER.
Christine,
You have not saved anybody Catholic or Protestant here, or converted them to EO beliefs.
Christine
Re: ....you have no concept of fighting for truth do you? you have no concept of
determination to find, and defend and promote truth as in real facts, do you?
it is all about subjective issues of insecurity and whatnot.
Just by your comment you demonstrate that YOU have no concept of fighting for the truth. You demonstrate how little YOU know about the Roman Catholic Church. You demonstrate that you don't know much more about the Eastern Orthodox Church either, for that matter. And forget about Church history.
Enough to say that you do not represent true Eastern Orthodoxy and are merely a bigoted Protestant disguised as an "Eastern Orthodox" who seems to be having a conniption fit over the fact that the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox are not at each other's throats but instead are getting closer and closer and may very well reunite.
I guess that blows your whole bigoted incoherent "broken bridge" diatribe, doesn't it?
******************************
Re: "the idea that someone arguing for a position reflects insecurity is ludicrous,
ignorant and foolish."
That you would equate Catholic bashing and Pope-bashing with "arguing for a position" is what is ludicrous, ignorant and foolish. Catholic bashing and Pope-bashing is not "arguing for a position." It is behaving like a hate-filled bigot who cannot come up with anything better with which to defend his/her position.
Keep talking, Chrisitne. I am getting more and more "converted" by the minute. LOL
Christine,
Re: "one can of course be certain of a false belief. And from the perspective of many protestants here this is a protestant internet geography, and RC has no business here,"
Constance has never said that it is from her perspective that this is a Protestant internet geography, and RC has no business here.
I would sure like to hear from Constance on this because if it is her stand that "RC has no business here," then she certainly wouldn't have to tell me twice.
And by that same standard, EO has no business here either. Are you admitting to still being a Protestant then, Christine?????
anon 7:26
why when I try to show you what other people think to help you see from their
perspective, you falsely accuse me and/or make out that I said something I did
not?
I never said it IS protestant turf merely that some protestants here (to judge
by the behavior of Frank and others in times past towards Jews and Catholics)
THINK of it this way.
Nor do I admit to being a protestant. Why don't you read some protestant writers
and see how they constantly refer to the Bible not their own supposed inspiration
or authority or infallibility, THEN READ THE EARLY CHURCH FATHERS PREFERABLY FROM
THE EAST, AND NOTICE HOW THEY DO THE SAME ONLY MORE SO.
" Catholic bashing and Pope-bashing is not "arguing for a position." It is behaving like a hate-filled bigot who cannot come up with anything better with which to defend his/her position."
while a few people here have engaged in bashing and hate I think I only once
approached anger at the absurdities.
PROVING YOUR POSITION IS AMBIGUOUS AT BEST WRONG AT WORST FROM BIBLICAL AND MORE
SO FROM HISTORICAL PROOF IS NOT BASHING YOU. This might destroy what you hold
dear, but that is your problem. the bible is EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY and second and
third century writers are testimony to what the early church rec eived from
the Apostles.
the bible was preserved by roman BUTPRIMARILY BYZANTINE sources later protestant
sources. you don't need to believe in any branch of Christianity as THE link to
Christ to accept Jesus Christ on the basis of the Bible and early church, then
remake the wheel and see where it gets you.
early church writers do not support either RC or prot positions unambiguously.
you are going to end up, IF HONEST, in a very EO similar position.
"While the Pope rails against the "efficiencies" and cold-heartedness of technocracy, he recommends running straight into the arms of Technocracy, which is the very heart of Climate-Change, Sustainable Development and Agenda 21. (For a full discussion of Technocracy and its relationship to these topics, please refer to Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation by this writer)
This is most clearly seen in this statement from Paragraph 111: "Liberation from the dominant technocratic paradigm does in fact happen sometimes, for example, when cooperatives of small producers adopt less polluting means of production, and opt for a non-consumerist model of life, recreation and community."
Pope Francis' chief science advisor, who is largely responsible for the crafting of this Encyclical, is Hans Schellnhuber, who is a pantheist (a form of atheism). Schellinhuber believes in Gaia, or Mother Earth, as being a living, self-aware and self-regulating organism to which man is responsible. This is a polar opposite position of the traditional Catholic belief that God gave the earth to man for his sustenance and enjoyment.
If it was indeed Schellnhuber who introduced the concepts of technocracy and technocratic paradigm into the Encyclical, then he has done the Pope a great disservice, painting him to be ignorant of history and ignorant of the current nature of Sustainable Development."
http://www.technocracyrising.com/pope_francis_speaks_technocracy?utm_campaign=encyclical1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=technocracy
the Green agenda is part of technocracy, but it is the nice kindly false face the more obviously destructive
side of technocracy is rejected probably as a ploy by Schellnhuber.
Pope Francis does not endorse abortion, population reduction, carbon trading, or a dictatorial world government with an earth-worshipping one world religion.
http://vaticaninsider.lastampa.it/en/the-vatican/detail/articolo/enciclica-ecologia-41815/
Following the “green thread” of the environmental crisis, the Pope launches a tenacious global criticism of the development model that is pushing the world towards the cliff of self-destruction. And suggests possible remedies
http://www.news.va/en/news/encyclical-laudato-si-on-the-care-of-our-common-ho
Encyclical 'Laudato Si': on the Care of our Common Home'
Cathy,12:01AM
Re:"Following the “green thread” of the environmental crisis, the Pope launches a tenacious global criticism of the development model that is pushing the world towards the cliff of self-destruction. And suggests possible remedies"
Right you are, Cathy.......the Pope SUGGESTS possible remedies. He does not dictate them.
Also...encyclicals are usually addressed to Catholic clergy and lay people, but the documents can have a wider influence. Francis clearly framed "Laudatio Si" to have a very broad reach. He extensively quotes Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew I, the spiritual leader of the world's Orthodox Christians, who is known as the "green patriarch" for urging believers to make conservation an integral part of their faith.
In fact, right up front, the pope quotes His All-Holiness, Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, and we know that a representative of Patriarch Bartholomew was part of the launch of the Encyclical which Pope Francis addressed to “every living person on the planet”.
At the end of the encyclical, Francis included two new prayers for creation: one for Christians and another for non-Christians.
******************************
Patriarch Bartholomew on Laudatio Si
http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/topic/137782-patriarch-bartholomew-on-laudato-si/
*************
What Pope Francis REALLY Says In His New Encylical: 8 Themes of Laudato Si
June 18, 2015 By Marcel
http://www.aggiecatholicblog.org/2015/06/what-pope-francis-really-says-in-his-new-encylical-8-themes-of-laudato-si/
Gay Marriage—Nothing New Under the Sun
This article above was written in 2012.
"Gay marriage and homosexuality were part of the moral landscape faced by the first Christians in Ancient Rome."
I agree with Wiker, "We can see, then, that Christians face nothing new in regard to the push for gay marriage. In fact, it is something quite old, and represents a return to the pagan views of sexuality that dominated the Roman Empire into which Christianity was born."
Cindy Warner
I hesitated posting this article, but it's needful to be informed about "The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality."
Last week I heard of a Doctor being fired from a hospital for telling a gay man the health risks of homosexuality.
"Anal intercourse has been linked to a host of bacterial and parasitical sexually transmitted diseases, including AIDS...
Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is "almost universal" among homosexuals. According to the homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade: "A San Francisco study of Gay and bisexual men revealed that HPV infection was almost universal among HIV-positive men, and that 60 percent of HIV-negative men carried HPV."
HPV can lead to anal cancer. At the recent Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health, Dr. Andrew Grulich announced that "most instances of anal cancer are caused by a cancer-causing strain of HPV through receptive anal intercourse. HPV infects over 90 percent of HIV-positive gay men and 65 percent of HIV-negative gay men, according to a number of recent studies..."
Hepatitis A potentially fatal liver disease that increases the risk of liver cancer.
Hepatitis A: The Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report published by the CDC reports: "Outbreaks of hepatitis A among men who have sex with men are a recurring problem in many large cities in the industrialized world."
Hepatitis B: This is a serious disease caused by a virus that attacks the liver. The virus, which is called hepatitis B virus (HBV), can cause lifelong infection, cirrhosis (scarring) of the liver, liver cancer, liver failure, and death. Each year in the United States, more than 200,000 people of all ages contract hepatitis B and close to 5,000 die of sickness caused by AIDS. The CDC reports that MSM (Men having Sex with Men) are at increased risk for hepatitis B...
Gonorrhea: A CDC report documents "significant increases during 1994 to 1997 in rectal gonorrhea . . . among MSM..." In 1999 the CDC released data showing that male rectal gonorrhea is increasing among homosexuals amidst an overall decline in national gonorrhea rates. The report attributed the increase to a larger percentage of homosexuals engaging in unsafe sexual behavior.
The incidence of throat Gonorrhea is strongly associated with homosexual behavior. The Canadian Medical Association Journal found that "gonorrhea was associated with urethral discharge... and homosexuality (3.7 times higher than the rate among heterosexuals)." Similarly, a study in the Journal of Clinical Pathology found that homosexual men had a much higher prevalence of pharyngeal (throat) gonorrhea--15.2 percent compared with 4.1 percent for heterosexual men...
The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality, con't.
Syphilis: A venereal disease that, if left untreated, can spread throughout the body over time, causing serious heart abnormalities, mental disorders, blindness, and death... According to the CDC, "transmission of the organism occurs during vaginal, anal, or oral sex." In addition, the Archives of Internal Medicine found that homosexuals acquired syphilis at a rate ten times that of heterosexuals.
The CDC reports that those who contract syphilis face potentially deadly health consequences: "It is now known that the genital sores caused by syphilis in adults also make it easier to transmit and acquire HIV infection sexually. There is a two to five fold increased risk of acquiring HIV infection when syphilis is present..."
Gay Bowel Syndrome (GBS): The Journal of the American Medical Association refers to GBS problems such as proctitis, proctocolitis, and enteritis as "sexually transmitted gastrointestinal syndromes." Many of the bacterial and protozoa pathogens that cause GBS are found in feces and transmitted to the digestive system: According to the pro-homosexual text Anal Pleasure and Health, "[s]exual activities provide many opportunities for tiny amounts of contaminated feces to find their way into the mouth of a sexual partner... The most direct route is oral-anal contact."
Proctitis and Proctocolitis are inflammations of the rectum and colon that cause pain, bloody rectal discharge and rectal spasms. Proctitis is associated with STDs such as gonorrhea, chlamydia, herpes, and syphilis that are widespread among homosexuals...
HIV/AIDS Among Homosexuals. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is responsible for causing AIDS, for which there exists no cure.
Homosexual men are the largest risk category. The CDC reports that homosexuals comprise the single largest exposure category of the more than 600,000 males with AIDS in the United States. As of December 1999, "men who have sex with men" and "men who have sex with men and inject drugs" together accounted for 64 percent of the cumulative total of male AIDS cases...
A paper delivered at the Fourth International AIDS Malignancy Conference at the National Institutes of Health reported that homosexual men with HIV have "a 37-fold increase in anal cancer, a 4-fold increase in Hodgkin's disease (cancer of the lymph nodes), a 2.7-fold increase in cancer of the testicles, and a 2.5 fold increase in lip cancer..."
The Negative Health Effects of Homosexuality, Con't.
Homosexuals with STDs Are at an Increased Risk for HIV Infection. Studies of MSM (Men having Sex with Men) treated in STD clinics show rates of infection as high as 36 percent in major cities.
A CDC study attributed the high infection rate to having high numbers of anonymous sex partners: "[S]yphilis, gonorrhea, and chlamydia apparently have been introduced into a population of MSM who have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid and extensive transmission of STDs." The CDC report concluded: "Persons with STDs, including genital ulcer disease and nonulcerative STD, have a twofold to fivefold increased risk for HIV infection."
Anal Cancer: Homosexuals are at increased risk for this rare type of cancer, which is potentially fatal if the anal-rectal tumors metastasize to other bodily organs.
Dr. Joel Palefsky, a leading expert in the field of anal cancer, reports that while the incidence of anal cancer in the United States is only 0.9/100,000, that number soars to 35/100,000 for homosexuals. That rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive, which, according to Dr. Palefsky, is "roughly ten times higher than the current rate of cervical cancer..."
Lesbians are at Risk through Sex with MSM: The homosexual newspaper The Washington Blade, citing a 1998 study in the Journal of Infectious Diseases, reported that "the study's data confirmed previous scientific observations that most women who have sex with women also have had sex with men..." Lesbians have more male sex partners that their heterosexual counterparts.
A study of sexually transmitted disease among lesbians reviewed in The Washington Blade notes: "Behavioral research also demonstrates that a woman's sexual identity is not an accurate predictor of behavior, with a large proportion of 'lesbian' women reporting sex with (often high risk) men."
The study found that "the median number of lifetime male sexual partners was significantly greater for WSW (women who have sex with women) than controls (twelve partners versus six). WSW were significantly more likely to report more than fifty lifetime male sexual partners..."
"Exclusive" Lesbian Relationships Also at Risk. The assumption that lesbians involved in exclusive sexual relationships are at reduced risk for sexual disease is false. The journal Sexually Transmitted Infections concludes: "The risk behavior profile of exclusive WSW was similar to all WSW." One reason for this is because lesbians "were significantly more likely to report past sexual contact with a homosexual or bisexual man and sexual contact with an IDU (intravenous drug user)."
The article above goes on to discuss the greater prevalence of violence, mental health problems, and suicide among homosexuals. It also mentions that homosexual men have a shorter life expectancy than their heterosexual counterparts. In one major Canadian city, a study revealed that homosexual males have a life expectancy 8 to 20 years below that of heterosexual males.
All of these facts demonstrate the truth of the apostle Paul’s words, “women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”
As a friend says, "Even having fallen under the curse of sin, the creation favors behavior that Yahweh has declared to be righteous and holy. Sinful behavior increases sickness and leads to early death. Homosexuality violates the natural order of the creation.
I forgot to give credit to the person who wrote the article above--- his name is Joseph Herrin.
Cindy Warner
Is Homosexuality a Health Risk?
Read the 25 page report here:
http://downloads.frc.org/EF/EF08L44.pdf
Sorry if I am off topic - just thought this was interesting. Barbara Marx Hubbard to speak at LCWR conference in St. Louis to review Vatican's doctrinal assessment. See link here.
http://www.catholicsentinel.org/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=34&ArticleID=18918
Karen
Thanks Karen.
Post a Comment