HE IS RISEN - HAPPY EASTER TO ALL!
Among all the present chaos, all the sadness, all the violence, all the confusion we now face, we may still with confidence view our future -- the event that will be in all of our futures one day -- our eternal future -- whether with or without God.
This day, Easter Sunday commemorates in the Christian world the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ. The scripture, "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved," (Romans 10:9) should give us hope for the long run -- not our transitory lives, but the eternal future promised us. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ was about hope.
Today, let us rest in that promise. Happy Easter to all!
CONSTANCE
534 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 534 of 534Christine,
The Pope is infallible only when speaking STRICTLY in matters of faith and morals.
The suppression of the Jesuits was a political move - done under political pressure - and as such, does not come under the purview of papal infallibility regardless of how the bull was worded.
Anonymous 1:31 P.M.
Re:As for the Apocrypha, not one Apocryphal book asserts divine authority (as do the law and prophets). Moreover:
Do you have any solid evidence to substantiate this? The fact that the deuterocanonical books that you call "apocrypha" were part of the Septuagint is itself proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they were inspired.
Moreover, I showed where Christ quoted the "Apocrypoha." Since Jesus is God, His quoting these books also constitutes "divine authority" for their authenticity.
If it is true that "no one apocryphal book asserts divine authority" then that simply serves as one example of the error of Sola Scriptura. No one canonical book of the Bible says they are not authentic either. It was the Church that decided which books belonged in the Bible.
http://reformation.org/jesuit-suppression-bull.html
this bull doesn't sound political. that may have been the push that got him looking at them, but what he saw and describes comes under the heading of a general kind
of civic morality as he says (my paraphrase) and he mentions doctrinal dissentions
within them as one of the many reasons he disbanded them.
I am sure you can find a copy at an RC site, NEw Advent didn't seem to have it.
far more important is that Leo III personally believed the filioque (which in those days meant double origin even if that is denied now), but refused to put in the Creed on the grounds of his lacking the authority to do so.
"Anonymous Susanna said...
Anonymous 1:18PM"
No, Susanna.
Sorry, I should have addressed it to the one who thinks she can do the job of the Holy Spirit who is God, and she is not.
That is for Mary C Erikson.
Christine, it is difficult to tell from your post whether you are agreeing with Susanna or with Anon@1.28pm regarding Jamnia. But if the latter then how come the Jews left the most "Jesus-pointing" passages in all the Hebrew scriptures intact (Isaiah's four "suffering servant" poems), and how come no Christian ever noticed this for 1900 years?
anon 2:09,
you of course would not answer the challenge of showing how you interpret Scripture by the Holy spirit, what you would just "know" a passage means. Which means you know I can probably refute it with other Scripture and even the passage's own words.
but you slipped up. you admitted some time back, that to understand something you have to bypass the physical altogether. and it wasn't that God miraculously blocked transmission of original sin, because you were already rejecting that along with everything else. yet you agree Jesus didn't have original sin.
THAT BRANDS YOU AS A GNOSTIC HERETIC. that bypass is typical of their rejection of the physical.
Paul didn't say he just knew what was what, he cited OT Scripture and used logic
calculating from that and from what Jesus said, to make his case on this and that.
Me: As for the Apocrypha, not one Apocryphal book asserts divine authority (as do the law and prophets).
Susanna: Do you have any solid evidence to substantiate this?
By "asserts divine authority" I mean that there is no "Thus saith the Lord" or "Do not behave like that, for I am Yahweh" or "The word of the Lord came to so-and-so" in the Apocrypha.
But, if you are happy with the wanton thrashing of children and with silly arithmetical errors as detailed at 1.31pm, by all means put these books in your Bible.
"Christine, it is difficult to tell from your post whether you are agreeing with Susanna or with Anon@1.28pm regarding Jamnia. But if the latter then how come the Jews left the most "Jesus-pointing" passages in all the Hebrew scriptures intact (Isaiah's four "suffering servant" poems), and how come no Christian ever noticed this for 1900 years?"
firstly, I don't see why it is difficult to see I eject the idea that Jamnia was made up later. It was NOTICED perhaps later, but not made up since the Talmud mentions it. I said that information refuted the article.
secondly, the passages targeted were the ones commonly in use by Christians to witness to Jews. Naturally they didn't bother with other passages they were too blind to see the implications of. It is those we use now.
Justin Martyr in his argument with Trypho the Jew mentions Jews modifying Scripture.
The Jewish interpretation of the suffering servant is that the suffering servant is the Jewish people, not the Messiah. At one point, because some DID notice something, it was argued there would be two Messiahs, a Messiah bar Joseph who would die and a Messiah bar David who would never die. A Resurrection didn't cross their minds, apparently.
I see you won't take heed and read and pray for understanding.
So your posts always continue to be pagan with a "remotely christian" spin upon each one.
Again,,,,,read the upper room discourse of John's Gospel and stop your many heresies.
It's plain enough if you are humble enough.
I told you where the real answer is and warned you too, you poor pompous empty heart.
I'm done.
I have read the upper room discourse. there is nothing in it that supports your take on things. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would bring the APOSTLES the people He spoke to then into all truth, which of course made them able to write the New
Testament. This is not guaranteed to each of us as individuals. you present yourself
as having Apostolic level "knowing" and therefore authority.
I do not have any heresies. and there is nothing pagan about my posts. Everything is the product of submitting reason to the Bible, of excluding such interpretations
of known facts and likely facts as would go against the Bible that's THE BIBLE not what some upstart says it means, or says it says, but what it DOES say and what it
doesn't say.
that is believing the Bible. And you got a question or a situation, you dig through everything that the Bible has to say on the matter.
Thank you, Christine, but I addressed the questions about Jamnia to Susanna and I'll wait for a cogent reply from her. As for Israel as the suffering servant, that is obviously ruled out by the fact that the servant's mission is explicitly to Israel, as Christians have long pointed out to Jews.
"Anonymous Susanna said...
Christine,
The Pope is infallible only when speaking STRICTLY in matters of faith and morals."
What kind of faith is it then that makes the pope push for climate change and all of it's social engineering?
And what kind of faith is he exhibiting in his acceptance of immoral homosexual lifestyle?
This is not a couple of trick questions, you can't have it both ways. It is ludicrous to believe that he is speaking a Biblical worldview when he is hands down promoting the globalists agenda, whose "faith and morals" are against the Christian faith .
Makes him one of them in my neck of the woods.
"What kind of faith is it then that makes the Pope push for climate change and all of it's social engineering?"
"And what kind of faith is he exhibiting in his acceptance of immoral homosexual lifestyle?"
He is exhibiting his faith, and his obedience to the Prince of this world who he serves.
anon 3:56
good point about the suffering servant and of course I don't accept the official Jewish interpretation now. That is what they view it as, and as someone who converted from Judaism to Christianity said, there is a lot in the Torah and Prophets that the typical rabbi never goes near in teaching Jews.
Constance,
Please check your email.
Rich
Blogger Christine Erikson (aka Justina) said...2:39 PM
I do not have any heresies. and there is nothing pagan about my posts. Everything is the product of submitting reason to the Bible, of excluding such interpretations
of known facts and likely facts as would go against the Bible that's THE BIBLE not what some upstart says it means, or says it says, but what it DOES say and what it
doesn't say.
aka, I have 'private reasoning' which not to be confused with 'private interpretations' or 'immaculate perceptions'!
Anonymous 2;21 PM
RE:But, if you are happy with the wanton thrashing of children and with silly arithmetical errors as detailed at 1.31pm, by all means put these books in your Bible.
I am more than happy to KEEP these books in my bible since keeping them there does not contradict my rule of faith as deleting them contradicts your SELF CONTRADICTORY "Sola Scriptura" rule.
Anonymous 4:05 P.M.
Re:This is not a couple of trick questions, you can't have it both ways. It is ludicrous to believe that he is speaking a Biblical worldview when he is hands down promoting the globalists agenda, whose "faith and morals" are against the Christian faith .
And this is not a trick answer. The whole issue of papal infallibility and what Catholics are required to believe - including what Catholics are to think of the Pope's statements about climate change - has been discussed on previous threads.
Maybe you and others "in your neck of the woods" need to pay attention......or go back and reread past threads.
In any case, YOU are the one who is trying to have it both ways given all the extra-biblical material you incorporate into your beliefs while preaching "Sola Scriptura." Moreover, since Jesus clearly said in the Bible "My kingdom is not of this world," Jesus' words alone as recorded in the Scriptures precludes such THEOLOGY FICTIONS as "the rapture" and "the millennium."
Susanna,
context. "Jesus answered: My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would certainly strive that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now my kingdom is not from hence. " douay-Rheims.
note that "but now" as in not at present, not yet, not till later.
"but NOW My Kingdom is not FROM HENCE." i.e., of this world. not now, but later it will be. the rapture or harpazo is just a quick catch up before He puts wrath on the antichrist and those who have persecuted the Church. the flaw of the millennium idea is not that it is physical but that it puts a TIME LIMIT on Christ's rule, as the Creed says, that He shall come back to judge the living and the dead and of His Kingdom there shall be no end.
1:28 P.M.
RE:Not still going on about the Council of Jamnia, Susanna? Nobody even believed it existed until the late 19th century and by the late 20th century the theory had been discredited; see
Actually, what is called the "Council of Jamnia" refers to the group of anti-Catholic rabbis formed by Johanan ben Zakkai who gathered these rabbis together in Jamnia at the pleasure of Emperor Vespasian and proceeded to re-tool the Scriptures. It was Zakkai's successor, Gamaliel, who forced the "Nazarenes" out of the synagogues.
Moreover, it is not true that "nobody even believed it ( the Jamnian School ) existed until the late 19th century," because these rabbis are alluded to by the Church Fathers - notably Irenaeus.
And do you know why the "Apocryphal" Book of Maccabees was thrown out by the Jewish Council?
Because the Council was conducted under the auspices of the Flavian Roman Emperors and they decided that that particular book, which tells of the Maccabean Revolt, might be inflammatory and incite rebellion by the Jews. So, all Protestant Bibles are lacking the Book of Maccabees, which speaks clearly of praying for the dead, because a pagan emperor pressured the Pharisees, around 40 years after the Resurrection of Christ, to exclude it. And lest anyone is still tempted to think that it was the "Roman Church" that came up with these books and that they were not written by pre-Christ Jews (an assertion actually made at "Messianic" websites), Jews in other parts of the world who didn't get news of the so-called "Council of Jamnia's" decisions still use those "extra" 7 books to this very day (research the canon used by Ethiopian Jewry).
Another bogus justification for the omission by the aforementioned rabbis for the omission of the deuterocanonical O.T. books is that Esdras "closed the canon."
For one thing, there is no evidence that he did so..... and even if he did, there is no evidence that he had the authority to do so.
But the $64,000.00 question is this: How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn't already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 -- and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have "added" them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later?
I defy any Protestant to find a Bible in existence before 1525 that looked like a modern Protestant Bible! Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice of including them!
Susanna, when your sitting in your church this morning, try to imagine Jesus, our humble Savior, sitting next to you. When the 'hail Mary full of grace' stuff etc. etc. begins, ask yourself if this stuff is cool by Him?
From: threedeafwords.com
The Roman Catholics have so much child blood on their hands (spiritual homicides) based on the huge numbers of Catholic children who have been MPD-ed by the will of Catholic priests & Jesuits that they as a people feel completely protected by HELL ITSELF from God's coming wrath.
I have not met a Roman Catholic (no matter if they claim to be atheists, which many young Catholic males claim, but this just is a cover for their soul-bondedness by sodomy to the unholy Roman Catholic Church) who, is not unusually arrogant and who think they are the only true Christian's in the world.
The Roman Church is the most successful Satanic cult in the world's history.
It is pseudo Christianity and the Devil's best idea for a rouge religion ever!
I was born into a Protestant stream but by the 1990's I abandoned all organized Protestant religions and concomitant Church going because the Jesuits-spawned idea of the ecumenical movement began.
The ecumenical movement is heresy for any true Jesus Christ's blood-bought/redeemed Christians but it is a brain child straight from Rome.
It was and still is the big wave to bring back Protestant heretics and bastards back to Rome or the Pope or the Vatican.
Susanna wrote, of the Apocrypha: "I am more than happy to KEEP these books in my bible since keeping them there does not contradict my rule of faith as deleting them contradicts your SELF CONTRADICTORY "Sola Scriptura" rule."
Sola Scriptura is a phrase, Susanna. Please define in your own words what you mean by the rule associated with it and I'll gladly respond. Until then you haven't actually said anything.
Whatever the Apocrypha don't contradict, they do contradict the laws of arithmetic and morality.
• Tobit was supposedly alive when the Assyrians invaded Israel in 722BC (Tobit 1:3), and also alive more than 200 years earlier when Jeroboam’s revolt against Jerusalem (Tobit 1:4-5) divided Israel into northern and southern kingdoms. Yet he is said to have lived less than 130 years (Tobit 14:2).
• The Letter of Jeremiah (often printed as the 6th chapter of Baruch) says (in verse 2) that the Jews would be in Babylon for seven generations, whereas Jeremiah (25:11) stated (correctly) 70 years.
• Sirach says this on bringing up children: “He who loves his son will whip him often… If you play with your child, he will grieve you; do not laugh with him, or you will have sorrow with him… give him no freedom in his youth… make his yoke heavy” (ch. 30). That is horrible and blatantly inconsistent with the loving discipline spoken of by Paul (Ephesians 6:4), or Proverbs, or Jesus’ tender talk of children in Matthew 18.
So you must reckon that either (a) God is an innumerate sadist toward children; or (b) the Apocrypha are non-canonical.
Which is it?
Susanna, my posts at 8:22 and 8:26 AM were CLEAR in showing what is meant by papal infallibility according to Roman Catholicism. I understood it clearly, so your disingenuous attempt to employ ad-homenims and provoke strawmen was untenable from the start!
The Papal Bull issued by Clement XIV banning and banishing the Jesuits forever was indeed a proclamation which fit all three of the requirements to be declared an act of papal infallibility according to RC stipulations: This EX-CATHEDRA papal bull followed the requirements to be deemed an 'infallible' judgement in accordance with RC interpretation:
1. It pertained to faith and morals.
2. It did not contradict Scripture or Divine Revelation.
3: It was intended to be held by the whole Church.
Therefore my points, which you have refused to truthfully answer, at 8:22 AM and 8:26 AM remain relevant and valid.
I regret your response. Not only was it irrelevant but it was also deceptive, unwarrantedly dismissive, rude and unchristian.
I was wrong in my view you love Jesus. You love RCism and would no doubt the Romish cult to which you belong would crucify Jesus Christ all over again if it could , were He to speak against your Harlot system (as in fact He does) as He spoke against the Pharisees and High Priests during His time on Earth!
I am a former Roman Catholic as I have said. Some of my relatives were Knights of Columbus. I am also third generation Irish, so don't throw Paisley into the mix. What he says about RCISM is often correct, his involvement however, in the troubles of the six counties was as vile as that of Gerry Adams.
As for the Liberation of Ireland not only from British rule but also from Papal rule I shout the cry: Tiochfaidh Ár Lá!
I refer you and all readers back to the posts, which you have failed to truly address, at 8:22 AM and 8:26 AM respectively.
The sooner the World is free from the Jesuit Order and Roman Catholicism which enslaved the Irish people as much as the Brits ever did (having slaughtered the true Christians there during the Dark Ages and early Middle Ages) the better!
YOU are a Protestant, Susanna! YOU protest against the True faith once delivered unto the saints with your spilling the cup of fornication which is the teachings of Roman Catholicism! You protest against the truth of Holy Scripture, blaspheme God by affording titles and powers to mere men which belong to God alone! God the Father alone is the Holy Father, The Holy Spirit alone is the Vicar of Christ, not some pompous mere man pontificating from a mixture of the Pharasaic and Roman Empire systems which crucified Him!
No mere man is ever infallible. The Holy Spirit is infallible and can speak through obedient Christians and not just one man. Moreover, it is the Holy Spirit then Who has spoken and not the man who He speaks through. To God be the glory, forever and ever, Amen!
Yes, YOU are the RC Protestant, Susanna for you rebel against even the truth of history and deny the truth of the vile and wicked past of that Romish cult to which you belong.
In this regard, Susanna, you are as Protestant as the Pharisees, Pharaoh, Caesar, the Medici popes, Thomas Murderer Moore, John Calvin the Murderer and twister of what is meant about predestination and God's sovereignty, and you are as Protestant as Luther who called James' letter a book of straw and blasphemously continued to claim a 'real presence of Jesus Christ's actual flesh and blood in the bread and wine of communion.
Methinks the lady doth PROTEST too much!
Susanna @ 8:28 AM,
I'm sorry but your answer to my 4:05 PM post was a non-answer. You are avoiding the very inconvenient inconsistent teaching of the head of your church. I just wanted to know how you felt about how problematic this is becoming for Catholics such as yourself. Catholic and Protestant leaders are very compromised these days and I know who I am not following among those of my denomination because they are walking away (actually falling away the Bible calls it) from Jesus himself. The sell out to the globalists is headed up by the pope, and the majority of what is called "christian' out there, is joining him.
I will go so far as to say, within one year from now, you and many others, will have to decide to stay or go from your churches regardless of denomination. It is a valley of decision coming up straight ahead.
We can only follow Jesus, if it really is Him that we worship.
Yes Susanna, Jesus Christ did say His Kingdom is not of this World. It is not to be found in Rome, Earthly Jerusalem, or Constantinople!
His true followers are no longer of the World either (though they be in it, they are mere sojourners and strangers). Moreover, all of them are saints and priests! They are NOT looking to Rome but to Heaven and have one High priest who is Jesus Christ Himself, not some Roman pontiff!
Roman Catholicism is the same as that of Pagan Rome where the Emperor declares himself blasphemously to be as God!
Down with Rome, down with her Jesuits, yea, down with that Romish Mystery Babylon, that Harlot Mother false church system of Rome and Constantinople! Down with Big Brother!
To God be the Glory forever and ever,
Amen!
"The Orthodox Deception Exposed!"
http://www.galatiansfour.blogspot.com.es/2016/04/the-orthodox-deception-exposed.html?m=1
This article is an exposure of the Coptic 'Orthodox' cult but is also relevant to 'Orthodoxy' in general, which like RCism is infected with Gnosticism and New Age nonsense and infected with Jesuits to the hilt!
In case this got missed earlier in the shuffle...
Orthodox Church, Branch of the Harlot :
http://galatiansfour.blogspot.com.es/2011/04/orthodox-church-branch-of-harlot.html?m=1
Correction to 2 PM post:
The young Born Again Christian man (a former Orthodox 'church' member) in the video provided in the lini given at 2 PM is exposing the Orthodox Harlot system in general. It is very informative and gentle yet direct. I strongly urge all caught in that system to click on the link at 2 PM and hear what he has to say in the video.
He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
The False Religion of Orthodoxy (Steven Anderson)
https://youtu.be/a0slVGlDECk
An excellent exposure of the Apocrypha, 11:08 AM! Sadly the religious spirit entrapping many in the lies of RCISM and Orthodoxy makes it difficult for gullible self-righteous men and women to see the truth without remaining blinded in following the treacherous paths of their cults, set out by blind men, and without much prayer, they are doomed to fall into its resulting ditch!
2 Timothy 3King James Version (KJV)
3 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was.
10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
It also brings the following passage to mind, 11:08 AM. (Did you know that many RC altars literally have the bones of dead men 'relics' entombed in them?)
Bible > KJV > Matthew 23
◄ Matthew 23 ►
King James Bible
Woes to Scribes and Pharisees
(Luke 11:37-54)
1Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, 2Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: 3All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not. 4For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. 5But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, 6And love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, 7And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. 8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 11But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.
13But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in. 14Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
16Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor! 17Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? 18And, Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is guilty. 19Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? 20Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. 21And whoso shall swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that dwelleth therein. 22And he that shall swear by heaven, sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth thereon.
Matthew 23 (kjv) continues. ..
23Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone. 24Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. 26Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness. 28Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, 30And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets. 31Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. 32Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. 33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city: 35That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. 36Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
Lament over Jerusalem
(Luke 13:31-35)
37O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! 38Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. 39For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.
"Orthodox Church, Branch of the Harlot "
the answers to most of this garbage are in the comments section of the article. broad edges of robes was a condemnation against PUBLIC dress not against liturgical dress in the Temple which the Church priestly functions continues under new priesthood (not levitical) ergo new rules.
the problem of Orthodox and RC who can barely believe that someone who is ex
one of theirs and whose experience and understanding of the faith is so alien
to theirs, is simply this: people tend to take their own experience and understanding as typical. If you don't have proper upbringing in the faith, only the externals and are essentially a NOMINAL Orthodox or RC your history and experience will be radically different from that of one who does have the right knowledge and whose dedication is to what the churches and liturgical actions and icons and so forth point to not to externals and to the whole thing as a mere social institution. you will think there is nothing else to this, and the real RC or Orthodox will assume you are a fraud.
the protestant version of this ends up in cults and atheism and false religions in droves. I read of one girl who snuck off with a neighbor to do a prayer at some buddhist or other setup over a matter, because she was never taught to pray to Jesus about some specific personal concern.
"Tobit was supposedly alive when the Assyrians invaded Israel in 722BC (Tobit 1:3), and also alive more than 200 years earlier when Jeroboam’s revolt against Jerusalem (Tobit 1:4-5) divided Israel into northern and southern kingdoms. Yet he is said to have lived less than 130 years (Tobit 14:2)."
it doesn't say the 58 plus 8 was the years of his life, but the years of his blindness. it says he lived to a great age.
"The Letter of Jeremiah (often printed as the 6th chapter of Baruch) says (in verse 2) that the Jews would be in Babylon for seven generations, whereas Jeremiah (25:11) stated (correctly) 70 years."
could be a copyist error for some term meaning 10 years that resembled the term for generations, either in Hebrew or in the Septuagint Greek.
" Sirach says this on bringing up children: “He who loves his son will whip him often… If you play with your child, he will grieve you; do not laugh with him, or you will have sorrow with him… give him no freedom in his youth… make his yoke heavy” (ch. 30). That is horrible and blatantly inconsistent with the loving discipline spoken of by Paul (Ephesians 6:4), or Proverbs, or Jesus’ tender talk of children in Matthew 18.""
the age of the "son" is not specified. the age of the "child" not specified.
a boy was counted a grown man at age 14 or so, Jesus spoke of LITTLE children.
infants, rug rats, toddlers, a bit older. "whip" is likely a lot milder than what is done for serious wrong doing to a larger person. probably a couple of smacks with a thin stick. a sneaky and headstrong youth eager to mix with evil youth around him needs controls. if they won't respect you then they can fear you and results of getting caught. no discipline, no punishment, and you get the mess we have now that corporal punishment is not allowed in schools, or even in some states in the home.
Ms Erikson wrote: "...infants, rug rats, toddlers, a bit older. "whip" is likely a lot milder than what is done for serious wrong doing to a larger person. probably a couple of smacks with a thin stick. a sneaky and headstrong youth eager to mix with evil youth around him needs controls. if they won't respect you then they can fear you and results of getting caught. no discipline, no punishment, and you get the mess we have now that corporal punishment is not allowed in schools, or even in some states in the home"
Perhaps your doting mother should not have spared the rod and spoilt the child, Mary C, maybe then you would not have grown into the intolerable unforgiving person you are, without love or natural affection even for your own sweet mother!
I think this exchange between "Constance" and "Anonymous" is very revealing, and worth repeating. I agree with Anonymous ... it is really quite shocking that Constance actually believes that the "Dalai Lama and various New Age gurus" have had more influence on the UN. Rome is leading the way for a New Age, One World Religion ... which ROME plans on leading. Obviously, Rome's propaganda campaign to "fool, if possible, event the elect" has been very effective in duping many people that profess to believe in Christ.
Constance Cumbey said @ 5:11 PM ...
“I suspect the Pope has some influence at UN, this one probably more than the last two ultimately did; HOWEVER, it is probably fair to say that the Dalai Lama and various New Age gurus had/have more influence in that venue. (e.g. Sri Chinmoy)”
Anonymous said @ 3:21 PM to Constance:
You say that the Dalai Lama and other new age gurus have more pull at the UN than the Popes, current and past.
REALLY?
Please tell me you are kidding!!
Pope John Paul addressed the UN in 1979 and 1995.
Benedict in 2008.
And Francis in 2015.
Pope John Paul received the Congressional Gold Medal (the highest honor bestowed to a civilian).
And Francis addressed Congress last year.
And SQUAT for the Dalai Lama!!
The RCC has 1.2 billion followers. I'm pretty sure there are not 1.2 billion people following the Dalai Lama.
How does anyone not call you out on this???
It's ABSOLUTELY hilarious that you would even say that.
But.... 75% or more of your followers here are RCC and the rest......well, you ignore them as if someone would dare to question you.
You don't ignore all non-RCC commentators, like the few here that always try to play Kumbaya (they know who they are) and are not interested or brave enough to speak the truth.
It's kind of strange that someone who professes to expose new age, completely misses the biggest new age lie in the history of mankind.
Well, RayB,
Are you on the side, then, of Doug Coe, the Institute of Noetic Sciences, the Dalai Lama (whom Doug Coe instructed his underlings to call "Your Holiness"). As I read my Bible, "those who worship idols worship devils" -- Sri Chinmoy, Robert Muller, Maurice Strong, and so many other of the New Agers held VAST influence at the UN. Popes were invited to speak, but clearly were not directing, to the best of my present knowledge. Sri Chinmoy and Lucis Trust folk (e.g. Robert Muller) were clearly directing.
Constance
Constance,
No, I am not "on the side" of ANYONE that is connected to advancing the New Age agenda, and that includes the Papacy. Somehow, at least in my observation, you are in denial when it comes to the part that Rome continues to play in advancing the One World Religion ... which includes numerous "New Age" types. Rome has also made a serious move towards Islam, claiming in their catechism that the Muslims worship the same God as Christians! Couple that with the recent "readings of the Koran and Islamic prayers" at the Vatican, and well, you (should) get the picture. If that a direct denial of "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me" I don't know what is.
The One World Religion will not, and cannot, succeed without diminishing and ultimately destroying Jesus Christ as Lord, and Him being the only Way to achieve salvation via "grace, through faith." On his recent North American visit, the one and ONLY time Pope Francis mentioned the name of Jesus Christ was at St. Patrick's in New York, and he did so in his infamous statement re: "Christ's FAILURE of the cross." Does that strike you even a little strange, Constance? Yet, you are concerned about the Dalai Lama, but not the Vatican?
Let's not forget that Christ warned us against men that were deceivers ... men that would come in His name, admitting that He was Christ, and yet would be "deceiving many." This is precisely what Rome is; they come in His name, present a false gospel, deny the authority of His word, and teach as "doctrines of God the commandments of men." They also have an undeniable centuries long history of political intrigue, cruelty against Bible believers, depravity, along with being obvious "lovers of money." Their vast fortune has been increased via their fraudulent system of indulgences,etc., while playing on the fears of those that have been enslaved by their clever, but false, sacramental religious system.
I sincerely hope you take this brief statement of mine to heart. I wrote it without any malice towards you. We have one life to live on this earth, for which we will give an account. I fear for anyone that stands on the side of this evil, deceptive system.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
Rom 1:29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
Rom 1:30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
Rom 1:31 Without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
The pride of ungratefulness, unrepentfulness and ungraciousness is born out of this long list.
MCE, your reknown bad behaviors, as spelled out here in this passage, are why no one can find, nor take away, one kernel of truth from within anything you post.
Constance Cumbey said... 11:18 AM
Well, RayB,
Are you on the side, then, of Doug Coe, the Institute of Noetic Sciences, the Dalai Lama (whom Doug Coe instructed his underlings to call "Your Holiness").
Dear Constance,
I have understood you to be a 'doctor' of the faith against the New Age.
Apparently I was only partially right?
When the doctor goes in to get the cancer does he leave some behind because it has a slightly different color?
Maybe it has to do with your potential disbarment should you cross a 'certain line' of inquiry, reasoning, or standing?
If you are Roman Catholic and you fear a certain anathema or two I might understand your intentional dismissal? Is there an infallible shield around that of the cancer within the Roman Catholic church? Do you see the Roman Catholic church with its self proclaimed authority impermeable to inroads of the New Age philosophy? Can the New Age belief set be assimilated into the church and 'Christianized' making it OK?
I can only guess your reasoning here, and the reason for your lack of answer. If you do not wish your blog associates to have to 'read between the lines' then a more forthcoming response would greatly be respected and highly be respected, I am sure.
So with all due respect you appear to be in a picket fence related to this question.
Thanks,
dan
Ray B,
There are other centers of power in the world besides Rome. You do not seem to take that into account.
Your evidence of papal pull at the UN is that they spoke there?? I'm not saying that the Vatican has no pull at the UN. I *am* saying that if that's the best evidence of such influence you can come up with, please do better.
All,
Let's talk about real power. In this day and age, whoever owns weapons of mass destruction has some real power. What economic system can survive a nuclear attack in the time we live? Probably none (not even a cashless one). So if you want to look at centers of power, look at those nations who would use a nuclear weapon (or biological or chemical) against an adversary.
As for agents of influence at the UN, there are certainly a lot of New Age, New Spirituality types among them. But so also has the UN been a stage for the projection of political power from anti-US nations - the Soviet Union/Russia, Red China, and all the rest, many of whom are led by despots and tyrants. Many of the UN's past and present personnel are communists. Red is the true color of the UN, not blue and white!
The Next Big Thing isn't necessarily going to be a world-wide announcement of a New Age messiah, or a "false flag" event declaring martial law. My belief is it's going to be a mushroom cloud over some Western city. Then, from the ashes of that time period (however long or short), rises something else. Maybe it's the rise of Antichrist and his system, maybe not. It certainly seems like it would be a good opportunity for it though.
There might be a small chance (as I see it) that the Antichrist system rises up *before* the next World War takes place. However, in light of the strategies being played out geopolitically, I think that will only come after a period of war against what used to be the Christian West. The moral war against the West started long ago, and has been pretty much a victory for the enemy. The last to be waged yet is the geopolitical one, and we're getting close. The moral war had to be fought first, to demoralize and fragment the West, removing our will for survival (because there's nothing good about the West worth fighting for anymore, right?) which then makes the geopolitical one easier to win.
Constance
The people you mention with influence at the UN are indeed players in advancing global initiatives that can be considered new age.
But, you always seem to be more caught up in those who have backgrounds in the eastern spiritual realm, like for instance, the Dalai Lama and Benjamin Creme, the latter is not taken seriously because he can be proven to be a nut job by anyone with novice research skills.
And you continually turn a blind eye when it comes to Rome. The very people you mention are behind praising Pope Francis for his climate change encyclical which is actually a push for global governance under the guise of.
I think Ray B is correct in saying that Jesus will need to be diminished in the push forwards and I don't think eastern spirituality and ascended masters will "reel in the whole world" into the coming of the antichrist. Just a bunch of bull to help take your eyes off of the real deception.
And to the Anon who said that just because the Pope was invited to speak at the UN that he has no influence.
Uh...... Not everybody is INVITED to speak to a general assembly that represents most of the nations on this planet.
If that's not influence, then, please tell me what is????????
3:18...
I'm the "Anon" poster you referred to....
Maybe it's the ones doing the inviting who have more influence than the speaker? Of course, they only bring in people who would agree with their agenda, right? Oh wait... What about the handful of Christian speakers who have spoken there about the plight of Christians all over the world that are being massacred by ISIS, et al? Did they have much power as speakers? No, not really. The world leaders they were addressing mostly ignored them, or used what they said as an excuse to push their one-world religion agenda. They don't really care about the plight of persecuted Christians, except in the sense that it's a "fundamental" religion that is doing the persecuting.
I guess maybe I'm nitpicking. If so, then I apologize for being so nitpicky.
The Spanish Civil War reminder of the day: They cancelled all Christian education, (Unesco's common core) They bombarded the conservatives with 'loosing your traditional life' propaganda, they provoked the conservative until they retaliated AND most important Spain became and ALL Catholic nation where no one was allowed to proselytize for Protestantism. "civil war: choose your side" T-shirts now on sale at our local walmart. I urge you to all watch every Spanish civil war video on you tube. God's law says thou shall not kill, this does not include ANY exceptions like, unless he is a Roman Catholic, unless he is a Protestant, unless he is a Marxist, unless he is a radical Muslim, ETC. ADD all ism's. This is beyond your control, just do what Jesus said, Love The Lord Your God With All of Your Heart. If God loved the Egyptians as His character would allow for, then he loves all of us. The clash is coming, stand for God, your soul depends on it.
How controlled is the voting in the USA?
http://www.denverpost.com/editorials/ci_29563108/colorado-gop-blundered-2016-presidential-caucus
Was MLK murdered because he was bringing people together for Jesus? Fear God people, it's the only way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEHrWCzk_Ow
Around 34:30 Also enjoy the Knights of Malta in their black kkk outfits. This is the roman empire forming. Hitler bombed people for Spain, maybe they were also the Basques.
Don't miss it if you can't work the link try searching this title above.
The Battle for Spain: The Spanish Civil War 1936-1939
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9RoA2Zhouw
Jesuit view of the anti Christ, is that he is to come...sounds a lot like cumbey's perspective.
http://shoebat.com/2013/06/25/vatican-as-the-harlot-of-babylon-debunked/
Shoebat is a lying jesuit shill, quite a lot like you actually, Mary C!
Whether he is shacked up in sin with an unrepentant rebellious " ex " Satanist co-fornicator as you are, Mary C, remains to be seen!
Walid Shoebat exposed for the jesuitical fraud and liar he is!
http://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com.es/2014/08/refutation-of-walid-shoebats-them.html?m=1
The Vatican and its Romish cult certainly is the Harlot! The EO cult being its daughter Harlot, just as the Russian 'Orthodox' cult is!
Actually, Walid Shoebat is shacked up in sin with an unrepentant rebellious " ex " Satanist co-fornicator : none other than that Jezabel of old, Rome the Mother of Harlots!
Maria Orsic and VRIL in connection of Knights Templar group 'Lords of the Black Stone'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuHJz-xPopU
Interestingly the Muslim must circumnavigate this stone once in their life. It is believed to be a black rock from space.
http://black.greyfalcon.us/thule.html
Lords of the Black Stone
In 1220, Templar Komtur Hubertus Koch, returning with a small party from the Crusades, passed through Mesopotamia, and near the old city of Nineveh in modern Iraq, received an apparition of the goddess Isais (first child of goddess Isis and god Set). She told him to withdraw to the Untersberg mountain, build a house there and await her next apparition.
actually that refutation article does not address Shoebat's much at all, just
keeps blathering its own position. Shoebat has a good point "If SS [sola scriptura] meant only the Bible can be used, than evangelicalism would not abound with study helps."
deal with THAT.
I have already posted Scriptural support for most of what you people reject in RC
excepting of course those points where they are wrong (papal supremacy and
Immaculate Conception of Mary) or couldn't be in the Bible because happened after
the Bible was finished being written. (in the case of the deaths of Paul and Peter,
this probably happened before John's Gospel, but would have been such common
knowledge no reference would have been needed, and the focus of the Gospel is Jesus
Christ and not His followers.)
The article refers to Tertullian supporting real presence of Christ in the
Eucharist, as an error,
BUT THE TESTIMONY OF THE EARLY CHURCH IS THE SAME.
Martyr Ignatius, died AD 107, mentioned the same and that heretics denied this and
denied the physical resurrection of Christ.
So in the lifetime of The Apostle John, the Church in Antioch and churches in other
cities taught and took this for granted. Ignatius was according to legend taught
by John himself, and this has credibility because Ignatius' life overlapped John's.
But being bishop of Antioch, he was also knowing the traditional interpretation
that came from Peter! Two Apostolic influences that say the same!
AND OF COURSE YOU SCORN,
THAT'S SCORN,
THE HOLY SCRIPTURE which shows Christ did not even hint at His words about eating
His flesh being metaphorical. Even when people were leaving Him because of this
very teaching! Surely if He didn't mean it literally, He would not have put souls
at risk by letting them keep thinking He did mean it literally, and were therefore
turning away from Him!
http://shoebat.com/2016/04/11/make-no-mistake-about-it-catholic-priests-have-the-authority-to-forgive-sins-and-to-heal-people-from-horrific-diseases/
Lots of Scripture analyzed here in detail.
Ellen G. White a false prophetess, SDA and similar sorts believe lies.
http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/white.htm
http://www.exadventist.com/portals/0/articles/Lamplighter%20July-Aug%202006.pdf
https://web.archive.org/web/20090213165005/http://ellenwhiteexposed.com/egw35.htm
her prophecies that failed, so she was a false prophet.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090123211917/http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/contras.htm
one site arguing for keeping Mosaic holy days says "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in NO WISE PASS from the law, till ALL be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. Have the heavens and the earth passed away yet? Then neither has any of God's law - says Jesus! "
but they focus on part of the statement out of context of the rest, "till heaven and earth pass," but they DO pass once fulfilled, so even if heaven and earth passed before they were fulfilled, they would still be valid.
But Christ fulfilled the Law, therefore they have passed.
http://www.truthkeepers.com/?page_id=341
http://bibleissues.org/food_laws.html
SDA teaches and adheres to the doctrine of devils that you should not eat
"unclean" meats like pork. I Tim. 4L1-5
""If SS [sola scriptura] meant only the Bible can be used, than evangelicalism would not abound with study helps."
"deal with THAT"
That's ignorant. Study help is one thing, formulating doctrines in addition to the Scripture is another, and anathema, I don't care who it is. That is what you are all about. You drag out old extrabiblical pagan heresies every chance you get.
Actually you need some study helps, specifically the study help that comes only from being yielded to the Holy Spirit, which is absolutely foreign to you. You submit to no one (but one day your knees will have to bow to the Lord Christ, not the made up version you "teach"). You are completely clueless about what God says in His word, and on your own, without the Spirit within, and need to do that kneeling and confessing this side of the grave.
Deal with that in your prayer closet and don't come out until you have a real heart change proving you've truly been helped by the Lord.
You need to shut up until you are really real about Him. The devil believes like you do-he doesn't repent either.
I used to believer your Hislop garbage, some of it, but I learned better.
I already posted BIBLE SUPPORT of most of what you call pagan inventions.
it is you that needs to repent.
It addresses Shoebat excellently , you lying unrepentant toad, Critine!
no, it doesn't. firstly, the fact that RC might have been willing to let Islam destroy Protestantism as the article says, ignores the fact that protestants were making friendly overtures to islam because of shared dislike of "idols" and of Rome.
secondly, while the writer may see megachurch creeps as irrelevant to evangelicalism they are in fact taking it over. the false dichotomies false choices Shoebat throws are not false, if considered in light of the issue of ABC and whatever Rayb's variant was. affilitation is not the only issue. HOWEVER, what is being observed now with New Agey and masonic elements in the Vatican and the popes, is not RC created and runs new age, but new age has infiltrated and taken over RC. Sort of. however, RC is worth salvaging because it has Apostolic Succession, and the protestants don't.
replacement theology has been part of Protestantism so while evangelicals support Israel, Protestantism as a whole is no more reliable for this than RC. The writer
seems to think Protestantism = evangelicalism = whatever the writer thinks it is taking him/herself as the measure of all things correct and assuming everyone in his/her preferred segment is same as him/herself.
Later on, the writer has to take the same tack Shoebat took in looking at personal behavior over affiliation, called a straw man, to answer his point that supposedly the gates of hell had overcome the church for 1500 years.
Actually this gates of hell thing is not valid period. Gates are defensive. The church on the offense would not be withstandable by hell. Jesus asked in Luke if He would find faith on the earth when He comes back, and left it an open question.
But the premise of rabid anti-Catholics is ridiculous anyway, that God would leave all in mortal sin intertwined with truth so that all would be tarnished for whatever
length of time the rabid writers want to claim.
It is also ridiculous, because the testimony of early church writers Ignatius died AD 107 that's AD ONE HUNDRED AND SEVEN, and Irenaeus and Justin Martyr some decades later, both taught by aged men who were old enough to have heard an Apostle preach and/or been taught by those who were taught by Apostles
TESTIFY THAT THE EARLY CHURCH BELIEVED THAT THE BREAD AND WINE BECOME THE REAL BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST.
that's the early church you think you are the recovery of which, but you aren't.
again the writer has to cave to the supposed straw man argument to say that real Christians may have been among those groups the writer admits were heretical.
this absurdity:
"Was Irenaeus his student so unimportant?
[He is unimportant as far as being determinative of doctrine, for as he himself stated, "They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures," referring to heretics, and upholds that "proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves." (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103312.htm) And that, "..the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, although all do not believe them." "
he is irrelevant as determining doctrine of the early church, because of things he said REGARDING THE HERETICS NOT HIMSELF OR THE CHURCHES? he even seems to preach a kind of sola scriptura in rejection he extrabiblical and flat out forged gospels of heretics "proofs of the things which are contained in the Scriptures cannot be shown except from the Scriptures themselves." !?
the writer shows a corrupt mind that can't understand what is written. The writer says Luther eventually saw Turk AND pope as antichrist, ignoring that initially Luther and Calvin were friendly to islam.
"What entity since the Roman Empire fit the description of the anti-Christ more than popes such as commanded civil authorities to torture suspected “heretics” and even possible witnesses to them, and for Catholic rules to exterminate the heretics"
BIBLE BELIEVER YET IGNORANT OF WHAT REVELATION SAYS the antichrist is an INDIVIDUAL who will have himself and his image worshipped in return for which the worshipper gets to have his symbol, name or number tattooed on him AND WITHOUT THIS CANNOT LEGALLY ENGAGE IN TRADE OF ANY KIND.
NO POPE HAS EVER EVEN TRIED THIS.
that's just for starters. Babylon the harlot is also a great city or sprawling city state of some sort, that is a major consumer whose destruction causes mourning to the sellers. whether Babylon is America or Mecca, it sure ain't Rome.
Christine, your over your one a day post now!
Go home!
Take your meds!
I agree with you, 7:36 AM, and if she's not on meds she should be! Yet, moreover, she needs spiritual deliverance but is unwilling to stop living in sin with her occult dabbling "Resident Seer" (her capitalisations, not mine) whom she abominably adores despite him being an unsaved and unrepentant "ex" (according to her...) Satanist, with whom she continues to be shacked up with out of wedlock and has a history of fornication (which, apparently, they've suspended due to his heart condition ((spiritual?)) ).
She's shamelessly promoting, as one with a seared ( or seered?) conscience her 'alternative ' lifestyle as something 'godly' because, after all, she intends to live out of God sanctioned wedlock with her co-fornicator for the rest of her life and sees that as 'ok' just as the supposed 'Christian' homosexuals do in their "committed" abominable unions!
Also, she's claimed nonsense such as 'Martians in need of salvation ' and evangelicals in the 19th Century were planning on sharing the Gospel with such ETs (lol) without one shred of evidence. Among her other nonsense of vampires, chakras, Nibiru, orange ether blobs, green nutrient alien gel, etc, etc. And who can forget her infamous 'ad' here , which Ray B, Dan and others brought to our attention? Then there is her unrepentant hatred for her own mother, laden with the bitter bile of unforgiveness, her false accusations against our regular Christian poster Paul and other Christians here, her vile and vulgar language laden with profanities, her attacking and driving away Christians such Rich in Medford and Physicist , her gnostic know-it-all attitude puffed up with pride in delusions (PhD in 5 mins from Google in any field imaginable), despite her poor grammar, ever learning but never coming to an understanding of the truth, her belonging to a legalistic OT style cult, her dissemination of Shoebat's jesuit nonsense, her denial of Rome being the Mother of Harlots , and on and on it goes: and we're supposed to take this hard-hearted unrepentant rebellious and clearly deluded reprobate, MCE, seriously?: I think not!
I'm still here! - Physicist
Glad to learn you're still here, Physicist. Although you tend not to post much nowadays, it's good to see she's not accomplished that despite her poor treatment of you.
Judging purely on Ms Erikson's accurate knowledge of physics, would you regard her as remedial?
Her usage of English grammar and punctuation certainly is.
Attention Christine (aka Justina) (aka Infowolf) ...
You might wish to consider sending them a copy of your book entitled: "The Possibility of Life on Mars." I think that might give the so-called "world's smartest human being" a head start on his nutty quest to find alien life. Maybe by reading your book, he might come to his senses ... but I doubt it. Of course, being the atheist that he is, "the world's smartest human being" Hawking is really nothing other than a fool ("the fool hath said in his heart there is no God"). Another fool on a foolish mission to find "eternal life" outside of the One and ONLY Way. Oh well, at least if he finds some type of green slime out there, he'll be able to get it "Baptized" by the like-minded, alien believing Pope.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/stephen-hawking-billionaire-team-100-million-quest-find/story?id=38331436
Excellent idea, Ray B! Perhaps her "Cities on Mars " thriller will guide Hawking further in how to build a metropolis in the next solar system. The problem being how to miniaturise folk (maybe the res seer could conjure something up) so he can laser them off into the beyond on the tiny computer chip sized spacecraft. .. perhaps he should hunt down those ever elusive cannons no doubt by which he may fire off all the atheist academics with their 'humanist manifestos' to boldly where no blind fool has gone before....
Perhaps Jesuitina could, with the help of her res. seer, inform her beloved Vatican (with the sanction of her Jesuit infested EO cult hierarchy of course!) on how to get the most out of their telescope in searching for the ever elusive green and grey aliens. . . with its infrared camera having the name Lucifer, and the chance I am sure Mike will be only too glad to help that fornicating Harlot of old!
Moreover, she may get an honorary PhD from the Physics department at Georgetown or UCA, and further offers from the History, Philosophy, Law, Theology and, last but not least, English Departments, to educate them with her esoteric knowledge of everything!
Who knows. ..
Were Hawking to help develop something as quick as Chritine's 'ad' disappeared, those spacecraft would be in the next stellar system in next to no time at all!
This video is a very reasonable examination of Roman Catholicism from a Biblical point of view. The speaker also critiques the apostate move towards Rome by so-called "protestant" denominations and their "leaders." What is interesting as well, is the fact that it is about 10 years old ... and we have seemingly fallen a long way since then.
Roman Catholicism: A Biblical Analysis
By Mike Gendron
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hn9lsoTO6dM&nohtml5=False
Physicist,
I recently read a book by Joseph Herrin, a Christian author, titled:
LUNACY & the Age of Deception
heart4god.ws/books.htm free download of above title.
In the book, the author makes a convincing argument, that all the moon landings were faked. That we did not then, and even now, do not have the technology to transport humans safely through the Van Allen Belt.
I'd like your opinion on this.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Physicist ~ moon landings were faked
I have believed them to be fake since looking at the earliest pictures NASA presented as real. Where the cross-hair lines on some of the pictures were (missing) superimposed by the lunar rover, etc. They since scrubbed those pictures, unfortunately I did not save any of them.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863-69.jpg
What is wrong with this picture?
The sun is in the background, yet there seems to be plenty of light in the near space to totally illuminate the astronaut's suit as well as the craft.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5882HR.jpg
Notice the inconsistent lighting of the lunar surface. (brighter in the center)
Click to enlarge, then scroll down to the lower portion of the picture.
Notice the moon rock shadows point toward the shadow of the astronaut's head.
Those on the left trail to the upper right and those on the right to the upper left.
This shows that they either brought additional lighting with them or the sun was real close on this shot (within 20-30 feet) Shadows should be parallel in nature if the light is from the distant sun.
You can view all photos here and see the anomalies in the shadows, near and distant lighting etc. as well as lack of distant horizon in most all pics.
http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html
One theory is at some we did get there, but some photos were faked to hide things
that were there.
the lighting features you note were duplicated in my experience one day on a sunny
sidewalk, with both sunlight AND the reflected sunlight from a glass walled
building across the street at an angle. The extra light could well be from the light colored and reflective lunar material. And then again, those could be faked
to hide something else there. A lot of photos of the moon and mars have some very artificial looking right angled (one even swastika shaped) things in them. We may not be the first there. Lunar transient phenomena have been noted as long as people
with telescopes have been looking at the moon, one of them a BLINKING light in
the at that point dark section, in the 1600s I think it was (list is in my book from a respectable site online).
Anonymous 9:13 A.M.
RE: Susanna, when your sitting in your church this morning, try to imagine Jesus, our humble Savior, sitting next to you. When the 'hail Mary full of grace' stuff etc. etc. begins, ask yourself if this stuff is cool by Him?
When you are sitting in your church, try to imagine Jesus, our humble Savior sitting next to YOU after you have badmouthed His Mother. While the words "Hail Full of grace" are not part of the Roman Catholic Sunday liturgy, they are the words of the archangel Gabriel which are recorded in the Sacred Scriptures:
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women. (Luke 1:28)
Anonymous 12:55 P.M.
Re: The Papal Bull issued by Clement XIV banning and banishing the Jesuits forever was indeed a proclamation which fit all three of the requirements to be declared an act of papal infallibility according to RC stipulations: This EX-CATHEDRA papal bull followed the requirements to be deemed an 'infallible' judgement in accordance with RC interpretation:
1. It pertained to faith and morals.
2. It did not contradict Scripture or Divine Revelation.
3: It was intended to be held by the whole Church.
_________________________________________________________
First of all, I HAVE answered your questions. It is YOU who doesn't like my answers. Your accusing me of being rude are like when former President Harry Truman was described as giving his opponents "hell".......to which he replied "all I do is to tell them the truth. They just THINK it's hell."
The Papal bull suppressing the Jesuits was not an "ex cathedra" document however much you - and Ian Paisley - might say otherwise. Moreover, a pope has the power to dispense himself from any merely HUMAN laws for the good of the Church - including merely human laws enacted by a previous pope. The only laws a pope may not dispense himself from are DIVINE LAWS in matters of faith and morals....meaning that Pope Pius VII had the authority to dispense himself by way of the Bull entitled Sollicitudo Omnium Ecclesiarum which restored the Jesuits from Pope Clement XIV's Papal Brief Dominus ac Redemptor which suppressed them.
When all is said and done, no religious order is indispensable to the Church -including the Jesuits whose right to exist depends exclusively on the Pope to begin with.
Speaking of "straw man" arguments, it is you who is trying to give the impression of "refuting" papal infallibility, by "refuting" an argument that I never advanced to begin with.....namely that all papal documents are "Ex Cathedra" pronunciamentos.
Oh, and regarding the issue of "protesting too much" YOU are the one who keeps repeating over and over again like a mantra that you are an "ex-Roman Catholic" when it is clear that you are clueless about what Roman Catholicism actually teaches.
http://heart4god.ws/index_htm_files/Dragon%20Flood.pdf
makes an excellent case for the unholy origins of America. HOWEVER, in the list of
things the Declaration of Independence states, which he dismisses as typical satanic
rebellion attitude, there are things that were legal and traditional rights of
British subjects, and the German derived king on the throne was violating these, and
also a bit nuts.
So while a satanic element existed, and exploited legitimate grievances, and brought
into the American political philosophy ideas of the enlightenment (or endarkenment
as I like to call it), there was a not entirely ungodly attitude present. In the
book of Judges we find that God repeatedly re established Israelite independence
from oppressors He brought on them because of their idolatry, by a rebellion in
some cases an assassination played a big role.
So the USA is a mixed bag of tricks in origin.
Now, there are things in the Bible that support equality, that warn of both freedom
and of absolute monarchy resulting in ruin fairly often, that support sex equality,
racial equality, and hereditary oligarchic type setups as dangerous. ANY interest ANY
amount on a loan was prohibited to Hebrews though could be done with outsiders. The Church argued that the separation between Jew and Gentile being removed, the rule
against interest should apply entirely, and canons ordered defrocking if I recall
right, to clergy who engaged in this.
When the Jews didn't keep the land Sabbath, land lie fallow every seven years, God
dragged them out under Babylonia for 70 years, as many land Sabbaths as had been
ignored. (apparently those who had as individuals done right were not dragged out.)
So God used his enemy to do His purposes, and took down Babylon later for worshipping
its own strength, and for being more vicious than God liked.
It may be that the same scenario plays out, where some commie pinko (or right winger
for that matter) though not serving God and aiming to do more than God likes and
aiming perhaps to do nothing but aggrandize him or herself, accidentally so to speak
gets work done God wants done. The Mafia were kicked out of Cuba and some bad cults
stopped there by the Castro regime. Seriously devoted Christians wouldn't abandon
Christ, and the people who already treated Him as a mere social institution and
played both sides of the fence were likely to either full on apostasize or see that
is too much and turn back to Jesus Christ under duress. (Castro only turned to the
USSR after the Mafia owned elements in the US government rejected him.)
Anonymous 2:21 P.,M.
By "asserts divine authority" I mean that there is no "Thus saith the Lord" or "Do not behave like that, for I am Yahweh" or "The word of the Lord came to so-and-so" in the Apocrypha.
But, if you are happy with the wanton thrashing of children and with silly arithmetical errors as detailed at 1.31pm, by all means put these books in your Bible.
____________________________________________
I didn't put the deuterocanonical books in the Bible. They were included by Jewish scholars long before the advent of Christ and were quoted by Our Lord in the New Testament. Since Jesus is truly God as well as truly man, this is enough of an assertion of divine authority for me - apart from the authority of the Church to decide which books belong in the Bible .
By your standard, there are many other books of the Bible - including some in the New Testament - that might also be deemed "apocryphal."
As for your complaint about the "wanton thrashing of children" there are plenty of instances in the protocanonical books of the "wanton slaughter" by the Chosen people of everyone in the places they conquered......i.e. the massacre of the Chanaanites.....
"The authors of Lincoln’s Wrath suggest that Lincoln was inspired by a vision of America as
a mighty nation that would rival Great Britain. Standing in the way of this national vision
was the very form of America’s union as a voluntary confederation of independent states."
Serious error. this is not a confederation of independent states. that was the Articles of Confederation, scrapped to make the Constitution to make "a more perfect union" than the imperfect or partial union, loose confederation that existed before, and which failed to deal with situations.
Reading the Constitution, every meaningful element of sovereignty is missing from the states. They get sops to the ego like flags, they get to have their own
congresses which is more convenient than trying to run everything from a central point anyway. To become a state, the proposed state constitution and laws had to be approved by the federal Congress. They have no control of their borders, no right to tax imports, and cannot deal with any government outside of the USA except through the federal government. there are other details I forget.
This notion of what "state's rights" adds up to, which adds up to almost nothing considering all that has already been given to the federal government by the Constitution, and the idea that the USA is loose confederation by nature and law, is the idea of the satanically rebellious patriot movement.
that said, some extreme evils such as gay marriage or persecution of Christianity might validate some degree of rebellion. And considering both sides of the Civil
War prayed to God for victory and the south, with its arrogant culture of aristocratic pretensions and endemic immorality and even at times efforts to keep slaves from reading the Bible, LOST, should tell everyone something.
also ignored at that dragon flood article, is that southern ambitions were partly influenced by British agents who sought to divide and reconquer the ex colonies, and included a massive imperialism if they had won, headed south.
Susanna,
I was not using the absence of "Thus says the Lord" etc as conclusive evidence that the Apocrypha are not Holy Scripture, simply as cumulative evidence. It is not decisive but is not a worthless point.
When God tells the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites there is a good reason, which He gives: they have become a uniquely degenerate people. Failure to kill them all led to appalling idolatry later on. Can you give any good reason why God should wish to say this about upbringing? “He who loves his son will whip him often… If you play with your child, he will grieve you; do not laugh with him, or you will have sorrow with him… give him no freedom in his youth… make his yoke heavy” (Sirach 30). In case you are thinking of saying "God's word is good enough for me", how can you reconcile these lines with the loving discipline spoken of by Paul (Ephesians 6:4), or Proverbs, or Jesus’ tender talk of children in Matthew 18?
And what about the arithmetical howlers about Tobit's age and the length of time of the Babylonian exile? Is God innumerate?
Regarding the moon landings, I have long said that it would be less difficult to go to the Moon than fake it using 1960s technology. On top of which, no insider - and there would have to have been thousands - has ever "leaked", yet it is well known that the US government leaks secrets like a sieve.
Millions of people saw those takeoffs. Where did those rockets go?
DAn, regarding the pics, I am unable to view the first for which you give a link (AS11-40-5863-69.jpg). Regarding the second (AS11-40-5882HR.jpg), isn't it just wide-angle lens distortion?
Physicist
Christine,
Thank you for fixing stuff.
The vast majority of us mortals squint to see through that 'smoky glass', but you see everything clearly.
What a blessing it is to have you posting here to fix stuff for us!!!!
If only we all had your depth of knowledge, and understanding of stuff, we could have Whirled Peas!!!!
RE:And what about the arithmetical howlers about Tobit's age and the length of time of the Babylonian exile? Is God innumerate?
_____________________________________
Catholics believe in the historicity of Tobias. Protestants have not been able to conclusively disprove its historicity. While it is true that there may be certain historical difficulties, they are due to the very imperfect condition in which the text has reached us. For example.......
•It was Theglathphalasar III who led Nephthali (2 Kings 15:29) into captivity (734 B.C.), and not, as Tobias says (1:2), Salmanasar. Yet this reading of the Vulgate, Old Latin, and Aramaic is to be corrected by the name Enemesar of AB and Aleph. The latter reading would be equivalent to the Hebrew transliteration of the Assyrian kenum sar. As the appellative sar "king", may precede or follow a personal name, kenum sar is sar kenum, that is Gargon (sarru-kenu II, B.C. 722). It can readily be that, twelve years after Theglath-phalasar III began the deportation of Israel out of Samaria, Sardon's scouts completed the work and routed some of the tribe of Nephthali from their fastnesses.
•A like solution is to be given to the difficulty that Sennacherib is said to have been the son of Salmanasar (1:18), whereas he was the son of the usurper Sargon. The Vulgate reading here, as in 1:2, should be that of AB and Aleph, to wit, Enemesar; and this stands for Sargon.
•In B, 14:15, Ninive is said to have been captured by Ahasuerus (Asoueros) and Nabuchodonosor. This is a mistake of the scribe. Aleph reads that Achiacharos took Ninive and adds that "he praised God for all He had done against the children of Ninive and Assyria". The word for Assyria is Athoureias, Hebrew asshur, Aramaic ahur: This Greek word mislead the scribe to write Lsyeros for the name of the king, Achiacharos, i.e. the Median King Cyaxares. According to Berossus, Cyaxares was, in his campaign against Ninive, allied to the Babylonian King Nabopalassar, the father of Nabuchodonosor; the scribe of V has written the name for the son for that of the father, as Nabopalassar was unknown to him.
•Rages is a Seleucid town and hence an anachronism. Not at all; it is an ancient Median town, which the Seleucids restored.
.....It is likely that the elder Tobias wrote at least that part of the original work in which he uses the first person singular, cf. 1:1-3:6, in all texts except the Vulgate and Aramaic. As the entire narrative is historical, this part is probably autobiographical. After revealing his angelic nature, Raphael bade both father and son to tell all the wonders that God had done them (Vulgate, 12:20) and to write in a book all the incidents of his stay with them (cf. same verse in AB, Aleph, Old Latin, HF, and HM). If we accept the story as fact-narrative, we naturally conclude that it was written originally during the Babylonian Exile, in the early portion of the seventh century B.C.; and that all save the last chapter was the work of the elder and younger Tobias. Almost all Protestant scholars consider the book post-Exilic. Ewald assigns it to 350 B.C.; Hgen, the bulk to 280 B.C.; Gratz, to A.D. 130; Kohut, to A.D. 226.......read entire article...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14749c.htm
______________________________________________________
Re: Can you give any good reason why God should wish to say this about upbringing? “He who loves his son will whip him often… If you play with your child, he will grieve you; do not laugh with him, or you will have sorrow with him… give him no freedom in his youth… make his yoke heavy” (Sirach 30).
___________________________
"For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." Hebrews 12:6
"Whom I love I chastise. Rev. 3:19
God's chastisements on the Chosen People were a lot more severe than merely "taking them out to the woodshed" when they misbehaved. Moreover, those who were chastised deserved to be chastised.
P.S. Anonymous 5:35 AM
The Book of Tobit (/ˈtoʊbɪt/; from the Greek: Τωβίθ Tōbith or Τωβίτ Tōbit,[1] itself from Hebrew: טובי Tobi "my good"; Book of Tobias in the Vulgate from the Greek Τωβίας Tōbias, itself from the Hebrew טוביה Tovya "Yah is good") is a book of scripture that is part of the Catholic and Orthodox biblical canon, pronounced canonical by the Council of Carthage of 397 and confirmed for Roman Catholics by the Council of Trent (1546).
The Book of Tobit is listed in the canon of the Councils of Hippo (393 AD), Carthage (397 AD), and Florence (1442), and is part of the canon of both the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox Churches, although Roman Catholics often refer to it as deuterocanonical.
Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England lists it as a book of the "Apocrypha". Protestants regard Tobit as apocryphal because it was not included in the Tanakh nor considered canonical by Judaism.
Before the 1952 discovery of Aramaic and Hebrew fragments of Tobit among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave IV at Qumran, scholars believed Tobit was not included in the Jewish canon because of late authorship, estimated to be 100 AD. Yet the Qumran fragments, which date from 100 BC to 25 AD, agree with the Greek text existing in three different recensions and evidence a much earlier origin than previously thought. These fragments evidence authorship no later than 2nd Century BC and at least contemporary to the date modern scholars ascribe to the final compilation of the Book of Daniel, which did attain canonical status.
Other scholars have postulated that Tobit was excluded from the Jewish Scriptures for a halakhic reason because Raguel, the bride's father, wrote the marriage document discussed in 7:16, instead of the bridegroom, as required by Jewish rabbinical law.
However, it could be hypothesized that some ancient Jewish rabbinic scholars considered Tobit to be historical. Midrash Bereishit Rabbah, an aggadic commentary on the Book of Genesis compiled circa 400–600 AD, includes a truncated Aramaic version of Tobit. Tobit was also considered part of the Septuagint (the Greek translation/interpretation of the Hebrew bible). In more contemporary times, a number of Jews in Israel have sought to reclaim Tobit as part of the canon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Tobit
cont...
No scholarly consensus exists on the place of composition, and "almost every region of the ancient world seems to be a candidate." A Mesopotamian origin seems logical given that the story takes place in Assyria and Persia, as does the invocation of the Persian demon "aeshma daeva," rendered "Asmodeus" by Tobit
My own reason for tending to believe that the place of the composition of the Book of Tobias may have been Persia has to do with the way the Elder Tobias risked his own life in order to follow the Mosaic Law concerning the burying of the dead in a place where Zoroastrianism was the state religion.
A Protestant objection to the Book of Tobias is that the angelology of Tobias is taken over from that of the Avesta either directly by Iranian influence or indirectly by the inroad of Syriac or Grecian folk-lore. For Raphael says: "I am the angel Raphael, one of the seven who stand before the Lord" ( 12:15 ). These seven are the Amesha Spentas of Zoroastrianism : cf. Fritzsche, "Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apocr.", II (Leipzig, 1853), 61. The answer is that the reading seven is doubtful ; it is in Aleph , AB, Old Latin, and Vulgate; it is wanting in the Greek cursive text, Syriac, and HM.
Still, admitting the reading of the Vulgate, the Amesha Spentas have infiltrated into Avestic religion from the seven Angels of Hebraistic Revelation and not vice versa.
Another Zoroastrian religious custom had to do with the way they "buried" their dead. They did not "bury" them. They ritually exposed them on "towers of silence."
Towers of Silence: Zoroastrian Architectures for the Ritual of Death
http://socks-studio.com/2012/02/09/towers-of-silence-zoroastrian-architectures-for-the-ritual-of-death/
_____________________________________________
TOWER OF SILENCE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tower_of_Silence
_____________________________________________
Death in the city: How a lack of vultures threatens Mumbai's 'Towers of Silence'
Death in the city: How a lack of vultures threatens Mumbai's 'Towers of Silence'
____________________________________________
It is to be noted that the founder of the gnostic Manichaean error was a Persian Zoroastrian "prophet" named Mani who incorporated elements of Zoroastrianism into his system.
Of Mani and his system, Eusebius wrote:
Eusebius commented as follows:
The error of the Manichees, which commenced at this time.
— In the mean time, also, that madman Manes, (Mani is of Persian or Semitic origin) as he was called, well agreeing with his name, for his demoniacal heresy, armed himself by the perversion of his reason, and at the instruction of Satan, to the destruction of many. He was a barbarian in his life, both in speech and conduct, but in his nature as one possessed and insane. Accordingly, he attempted to form himself into a Christ, and then also proclaimed himself to be the very paraclete and the Holy Spirit, and with all this was greatly puffed up with his madness. Then, as if he were Christ, he selected twelve disciples, the partners of his new religion, and after patching together false and ungodly doctrines, collected from a thousand heresies long since extinct, he swept them off like a deadly poison, from Persia, upon this part of the world. Hence the impious name of the Manichaeans spreading among many, even to the present day. Such then was the occasion of this knowledge, as it was falsely called, that sprouted up in these times. (Eusebius. The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea, Translated from the originals by Christian Frederick Cruse.1939. Ch. XXXI.)
Susanna, if you are really willing to defend this passage from Sirach as being from God
He who loves his son will whip him often… If you play with your child, he will grieve you; do not laugh with him, or you will have sorrow with him… give him no freedom in his youth… make his yoke heavy
then I thank God that I was not brought up by Catholics.
whether or not the pope who banned the Jesuits spoke ex cathedra, he proclaimed
that this was permanent and that no one including a successor could change it.
Therefore the pope who reinstated them acted in violation of that order.
"The Papal bull suppressing the Jesuits was not an "ex cathedra" document however much you - and Ian Paisley - might say otherwise."
But morals of a sort being violated by the Jesuits, quite a lecture on this was given as introduction, and doctrinal issues within them WERE referenced as the
Constance,
Did you hear or see the story about the new mural coming to Detroit? It's called "Balancing Act." Check it out.
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20160409/NEWS01/160409824/new-mural-planned-for-downtown-detroit-office-building
IMHO it's subtle, but scary !!!!
Catherine
Here's a blurb about the artists behind "Balancing Act."
http://hellyeahdetroit.com/new-mural-coming-to-detroit-15739/
Catherine
11:13 ... then I guess you are also very thankful that you weren't born during the time of the Exodus, as a Jew, one of God's chosen people. Promised a land of their own, and then had to wander in a desert for 40 years and never got to see any of it.
Man oh man, isn't it a mean God we serve?
I say that tongue-in-cheek, of course.
To spare the soul, there is no measure too mean for the body, wouldn't you agree?
Anonymous 11:13
Re:then I thank God that I was not brought up by Catholics.
Puh-lease! If more of today's spoiled brats were taken out to the woodshed more often when they misbehave, we wouldn't have so many little creeps running around like the one who killed people while driving drunk and violated the terms of his probation almost immediately after his lawyer got him off on the now infamous "affluenza defense".
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/affluenza-slammed-as-defense-for-wealthy-texas-teens-fatal-dwi-wreck/
_____________________________________________________
Anonymous 7:25 P.M.
BRAVO!
Christine, 12:46 P.M. and 1:11 P.M.
RE: whether or not the pope who banned the Jesuits spoke ex cathedra, he proclaimed
that this was permanent and that no one including a successor could change it.
Therefore the pope who reinstated them acted in violation of that order.
Again, while the Pope cannot dispense himself form the laws of God, the Pope does have the authority to dispense himself from the merely human laws and decrees issued by previous popes.
____________________________________________________________________
The purpose of the Papal brief 'Dominus ac Redemptor' was to suppress the Jesuits.
For a few years Clement XIV tried to placate the enemies of the Jesuits by treating them harshly: he refused to meet the Superior General, Lorenzo Ricci, ordered them not to receive novices, etc., to no avail. The pressure kept building up to the point that Catholic countries were threatening to break away from the Church. Clement XIV ultimately yielded "in the name of peace of the Church and to avoid of secession in Europe" and suppressed the Society of Jesus by the brief Dominus ac Redemptor on 21 July 1773.
The accusations made against the Jesuits were enumerated in the Papal brief, but the brief itself merely suppressed the Jesuits without passing judgement on them.
It is a common mistake to call 'Dominus ac Redemptor' a papal bull - it was in fact a papal brief. Pope Clement XIV downgraded it before issuing it to suppress the Society of Jesus. The difference between a bull and a brief is mainly one of solemnity. Briefs generally deal with less weighty matters and are more easily revoked. Also significantly papal briefs require fewer signatures for their promulgation. Nevertheless briefs and bulls are equally binding, and this brief's consequences were very far reaching, including the dismantling of the most influential education network in many countries. At the time of the brief there were more that 22,000 Jesuits all around the world operating nearly 700 colleges and nearly 200 seminaries. Historian Owen Chadwick describes the brief as ' the most tremendous use of power in the Church ever achieved by a Pope'. Eammon Duffy called this 'the papacy's most shameful hour' . The Jesuits were not the first order to be suppressed - eight times in the history of the Church Popes have suppressed one or more religious orders, perhaps most famously the Knights Templar in 1313.
cont...
cont...
So why was the brief ignored in Russia? The Jesuits ran a unique global education network - and so upon their suppression there was a lot of property at stake that could be alienated from the Church. To prevent unscrupulous and greedy authorities getting their hands on Jesuit property the brief of suppression would only be active when the local bishop promulgated it, presumably having arranged beforehand that any alienation of property would fall into the hands of the local church. Empress Catherine therefore ignored the brief. The governor of Mogilev ordered all copies of the brief to be collected when they arrived in Poland in September 1773. The brief itself is very long - with the central theme of safeguarding the peace of the church.......
http://www.sj2014.net/dominus-ac-redemptor-1773.html
_____________________________________
On 7 August 1814, Pope Pius VII issued the bull Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum or “The care of all churches” which ended Clement XIV’s 1773 suppression of the Society of Jesus and restored the order throughout the world.
Clement XIV had been compelled to suppress the Jesuits due to the strong feelings against them by the various governments of Europe. The Society of Jesus was seen as the most powerful and public element of the Catholic Church in the years before the French Revolution, a time in which secular governments wished to enhance their position relative to that of the papacy. The desire to confiscate Jesuit wealth also encouraged the movement toward suppression.
When the governments of Europe threatened to break away from the Catholic Church unless the Jesuits were suppressed, Clement XIV felt he had no choice but to give into their demands. However, while the Jesuits were suppressed throughout the world, the Orthodox Russian Empress Catherine II refused to permit their suppression in her domain and there the Society of Jesus would survive until their later restoration.
Pius VII read the bull publically from the Jesuit church Il Gesu in Rome showing his great support for the Society of Jesus as a key element of his opposition to the forces of revolution which had contributed to the Napoleonic Wars. The Jesuits were to become tools in the new conservative movement that spread throughout Europe. Those nations that had previously sought the end of the Jesuits had also come to see the forces of the French Revolution as a greater threat.
as you can see, a moral element is invoked and doctrine is hinted at as being an
issue within the Jesuit Order also.
""It is beyond a doubt, that among the things which contribute to the good and happiness of the Christian republic, the religious orders hold, as it were, the first place. It was for this reason that the Apostolic See, which owes its lustre and support to these orders, has not only approved, but endowed them with many exemptions, privileges, and faculties, in order that they might be so much the more excited to the cultivation of piety and religion; to the direction of the manners of the people, both by their instructions and their examples; to the preservation and confirmation of the unity of the faith among the believers. But if, at any time, any of these religious orders did not cause these abundant fruits to prosper among the Christian people, did not produce those advantages which were hoped for at their institution; if at any time they seemed disposed rather to trouble than maintain the public tranquility; the same Apostolic See, which had availed itself of its own authority to establish these orders, did not hesitate to reform them by new laws, to recall them to their primitive institution, or even totally to abolish them where it has seemed necessary.
[Here follows a long list of religious orders suppressed by different Popes, without giving them the opportunity of clearing themselves from the accusations brought against them. It then proceeds as follows:—]
"We, therefore, having these and other such examples before our eyes, examples of great weight and high authority—animated, besides, with a lively desire of walking with a safe conscience and a firm step in the deliberations of which we shall speak hereafter—have omitted no care, no pains, in order to arrive at a thorough knowledge of the origin, the progress, and the actual state of that regular order ...
[Here Clement enumerates the other Popes who had either confirmed the privileges already granted to the Society, or had explained and augmented them.]
"Notwithstanding so many and so great favours, it appears from the apostolical Constitutions, that, almost at the very moment of its institution, their arose in the bosom of this Society divers seeds of discord and dissension, not only among the companions themselves, but with other regular orders, the secular clergy, the academies; the universities, the public schools, and lastly, even with the princes of the states in which the Society was received.
"These dissensions and disputes arose sometimes concerning the nature of their vows, the time of admission to them, the power of expulsion, the right of admission to holy orders without a sufficient title, and without having taken the solemn vows, contrary to the tenor of the decrees of the Council of Trent, and of Pius V., our predecessor; sometimes concerning the absolute authority assumed by the General of the said order, and on matters relating to the good government and discipline of the order; sometimes concerning DIFFERENT POINTS OF DOCTRINE concerning their schools, or such of their exemptions and privileges as the ordinaries and other civil or ecclesiastical officers declared to be contrary to their rights and jurisdiction. In short, accusations of the greatest nature, and very detrimental to the peace and tranquility of the Christian republic, have been continually received against the said order. Hence the origin of that infinity of appeals and protests against this Society, which so many sovereigns have laid at the foot of the throne of our predecessors Paul IV., Pius V., and Sixtus V......
On the contrary, very violent disputes arose on all sides concerning the doctrine of the Society, which many represented as contrary to the orthodox faith and to sound morals......"
http://reformation.org/jesuit-suppression-bull.html
emphasis by caps mine. I couldn't find the text at a Catholic site so had to use
reformation.org
Susanna, I would not wish to be brought up by anybody who seeks to live by this passage:
He who loves his son will whip him often… If you play with your child, he will grieve you; do not laugh with him, or you will have sorrow with him… give him no freedom in his youth… make his yoke heavy (Sirach 30).
What you haven't done is acknowledge the glaring gap between this passage and the loving discipline spoken of by Paul (Ephesians 6:4), or Proverbs, or Jesus’ tender talk of children in Matthew 18. These are not different sides of the same coin but stark incompatibility. Today's out-of-control children are as they are because these scriptures were not heeded.
"The book was certainly fascinating but I recall being disturbed that almost none of Hislop's claims could really be substantiated by any reputable source, although it was certainly 'meat and drink' to the gullible. I did not entirely reject Hislop's thesis but put in on the back burner for a few years with the feeling that Hislop's points were not backed up with conclusive evidence (something which Hislop himself was apparently blind to). Basically, I came to the conclusion that outrageous accusation is not the same thing as carefully compiled and decisive evidence.
Today, of course, the book is soundly rejected because of the flawed and mostly unsubstantiated mish-mash which it is. Note, for instance, what the Wikipedia Encyclopedia says about this book,
The book has been severely criticized for its lack of evidence, and in many cases its contradiction of the existing evidence: for instance, the Roman state religion before Christianity did not worship a central Mother Goddess, and Jupiter was never called "Jupiter-Puer." Likewise, Semiramis lived centuries after Nimrod, and could neither have been his mother, nor married him. Hislop also makes unacceptable linguistic connections and fanciful word plays, e.g. the letters IHS on Catholic Holy Communion wafers are alleged to stand for Egyptian deities Isis, Horus and Seth, but in reality they are an abbreviation for Ihsous, the Latin spelling of Jesus's name in Greek (Ιησους), although popularly, they stand for the Latin Iesus Hominum Salvator meaning Jesus, Savior of Mankind (which also fits the teaching of Transubstantiation, where the wafer and wine are said to become the body and blood of Christ).” (Source: Wikipedia article, Alexander Hislop. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Hislop)
I believed that - as late as 1998 - no self-respecting evangelical would wish to touch this book; imagine my astonishment, then, when one day – circa 1998 - I found this book still for sale in a highly reputable evangelical book shop! Actually, perhaps naively, even now many still cling to every (usually erroneous) word of Hislop. ...
Here is just one brief quote from Woodrow's article to help us to note the flawed reasoning which Hislop so often used and which spread to the cults and sects:
"Some claim that round objects, such as round communion wafers, are symbols of the Sun-god. But they fail to mention that the very manna given by God was round! (Exod. 16:14). Some are ready to condemn all pillars and historical monuments as pagan. But they fail to take into account that the Lord himself appeared as a pillar of fire; and, in front of his temple, there were two large pillars (Exod. 13:21,22; 2 Chron. 3:17).” "
http://www.ukapologetics.net/1hislopbaby.html
Are we about to get another lecture from your series, Mary Erikson, on the shape of communion crackers of one of your favorite rituals?
I remember how bone-drying to the soul was that "special" revelation from the church lady....
Please spare us the blahblahblahrottenblah of your endlessly hopeless, graceless "jesus is a cracker" churchianity. Empty rattlings of an empty life.
You are a merely googled sycophant for your pagan rituals of lifeless religion.
You offer nothing of import or value. You only take up space.
Easter is such a momentous occasion for Christians. We celebrate the life of Jesus rising from the dead .
It's sad that people nowadays forget the true essence of Easter.
Easter is my 2nd most favourite holiday next to Christmas.
Η ελευθερία πονάει ~ Freedom Hurts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWNaL4_HIRc
Christine,
Re:as you can see, a moral element is invoked and doctrine is hinted at as being an issue within the Jesuit Order also.
It doesn't matter. Whatever "moral elements" were invoked in the Papal Brief of Suppression were not new ones and the purpose of the Papal brief was not to define a new dogma, but to suppress the Jesuits.
The reason why the pope had to do it was because the Pope was the one who established the Jesuits in the first place and the Jesuits were answerable exclusively and directly to the Pope. Neither the document that suppressed the Jesuits nor the document that restored them was an "Ex cathedra" pronunciamento.
The suppression and restoration of the Jesuit Order constituted a disciplinary matter and does not fall under the umbrella of infallibility.
Susanna ...
Please refer me to the passage in Scripture that establishes your "Ex cathedra" pronunciamento.
Thanks.
Anonymous 5:43 A.M.
Re:What you haven't done is acknowledge the glaring gap between this passage and the loving discipline spoken of by Paul (Ephesians 6:4), or Proverbs, or Jesus’ tender talk of children in Matthew 18. These are not different sides of the same coin but stark incompatibility. Today's out-of-control children are as they are because these scriptures were not heeded.
This is not "stark incompatibility" just because you say it is out of a strong dislike of corporal punishment. In the New Testament, moreover, "little children" implies that the children were innocent - younger than seven years old - and had not yet attained the use of reason.
Perhaps you had better go back and reread the protocanonical books of YOUR Old Testament. In the New Testament, Jesus was not above making a whip of cords for the purpose of driving the moneychangers out of the temple. Maybe if their parents had "whipped" them a little more when they willfully misbehaved as children, Jesus wouldn't have had to.
As distasteful as I find the idea of taking a child out to the woodshed, I am NOT about to judge the Old Testament by today's licentious standards. Nor do I believe that Sirach's advocation of corporal punishment invalidates the Book of Sirach or any other book of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament, Sirach is not the only book that advocates corporal punishment for wayward children who have attained the age of reason and should know better.
He who spares his rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him promptly. (Proverbs 13:24)
Chasten your son while there is hope, and do not set your heart on his destruction. Proverbs 19:18)
Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it. (Proverbs 22:6)
Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of correction will drive it far from him. (Proverbs 22:15)
Do not withhold correction from a child, for if you beat him with a rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with a rod, and deliver his soul from hell. (Proverbs 23:13–14)
The rod and rebuke give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother. (Proverbs 29:15)
Correct your son, and he will give you rest; yes, he will give delight to your soul. (Proverbs 29:17)
Secular psychology rejects that children are sinners and instead teaches that children are basically “good.” This is a false premise and it will never lead to the exercise of biblical discipline of children. Children are no different than adults when it comes to sin, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23).
Many people, including some Christians, fail to realize that one God-given aspect of biblical discipline is corporal punishment—and God tells parents to use it in disciplining their children. Of course, there are some people who have abused children with force, and all should reject this misuse of corporal punishment.
By the way, there is a non-Catholic Christian School near where I live and at the time of registration, parents have to sign an agreement allowing corporal punishment if their children seriously misbehave. I think the instrument of punishment is a paddle.
Anybody who does not see the difference between Sirach 30 about bringing children up, and Ephesians 6, Proverbs and Matthew 18, condemns only themselves. The issue is not corporal punishment, but when and why.
Sirach sounds like a man who has learned from bitter experience.
Prov. 13:24, 19:18, 22:15,23:13, 14 and 29:15 sound a lot like Sirach, and have
been misused to excuse abuse.
Lots of 6+ earthquakes recently
Upon reading Susanna's explanation of "ex cathedra, etc." I think I have finally figured out who and what has the "authority" in the Catholic church. Thanks to her, here's my understanding of it all:
First, the pope is the ultimate authority because he is the head of the church. However, his REAL ultimate authority is only when he speaks "ex cathedra," which, by the way, is like almost never. However, when speaking "ex cathedra", it is then and only then that he REALLY, REALLY has authority. However (again), the pope’s authority is “infallible” when speaking on matters of “faith and morals,” which seems like almost every day. It’s only my wild guess, but I would think the pope declaring “gays go to heaven … and atheists too” would have something to do along the lines of “faith and morals.” The pope can make all kinds of bad judgments, encyclicals, declarations (like declaring Galileo a heretic that teaches false science), but hey, he wasn't speaking "ex cathedra" so none of that counts. The pope also has authority when he just speaks of the cuff, as in saying global warming is like really, really real, but I’m not sure if belief in the theory of global warming (I mean climate change) falls under the category of “faith and morals.” (But, if it is a theory, I would have to guess it takes some “faith” to believe in it)? But then, when the pope speaks in this manner, or when he sounds like a Marxist, he really doesn't have authority because Catholics don't have to believe what he says, unless it has to do with “faith and morals” … I hope I haven't confused anyone. Then you have something called scriptural authority, but that one is probably the weakest authority because you have to rely on the pope, traditions, and another authority, the Magisterium (more on that later) to tell you WHAT to believe. Tradition is an ongoing kind of thing that evolves over time. For example, at one time it was a mortal sin to eat fish on a Friday, then "tradition" changed (maybe the Vatican got into the meat business ... I'm only guessing). But wait, eating fish on Friday is still a mortal sin because the sin, along with its “go ahead and eat that fish on Friday, and spend your eternity in Hell” penalty has never been officially rescinded. (On a personal note, I know Catholics that get wide-eyed in shocked disbelief if they ever hear someone eating meat on a Friday … they must be what’s called “good Catholics”).
The Magisterium is the big daddy (or daddies because there are a lot of them) when it comes to authority. They’re the ones (along with the pope, don’t forget him) that make all the big decisions and approve or disapprove of what goes into the official Catholic Catechism. (That’s the church statement of faith that not 1 in 10,000 Catholics ever read). For example, when it was declared in the Catholic Catechism that “Muslims worship the same God” as Christians, it was made official by the authority of the Magisterium (and the pope of course). As you can see, the Magisterium has real, REAL power because they can just make up things as they go along (sorry, I meant to say ‘change things as they go along), and Catholics are MANDATED to believe EVERYTHING they have defined regarding “faith and morals.”
I just feel so much better now that Susanna has made this “ex cathedra” etc. all so clear. I look forward to more “copy and paste” Magisterium declarations from her in order to help clear things up even more.
"the official Catholic Catechism. (That’s the church statement of faith that not 1 in 10,000 Catholics ever read). "
that figure may be exaggerated, but you got the right idea. anyone who gets confirmed has to have read it or be able to answer some questions but its like you can memorize stuff like for a quiz and forget it all later because it doesn't matter, only the social institution matters.
This, Susanna and others, is why you can have ex RC's you can't believe were ever
RCs. The current RCs like this won't even be talking about this.
I listened to a priest address al anon once, I gave some people a ride there. This guy came from an alcoholic and dysfunctional Catholic family, and he grew up feeling like he knew about grace and in theory it was infinite, but it came to him it ran out. And he had no concept of taking his problems to God, precanned prayer for occasions that's it and he was a priest, the FIRST HE EVER LEARNED TO TURN TO GOD ABOUT THINGS INCLUDING SIN I GUESS WAS IN A.A. for his alcoholism. naturally he took Jesus as his higher power. its kind of a free market of gods.
the point is, this guy was a current NOT EX priest and learned about having a relationship with God instead of going through the motions outside of the RCC.
Those who reject the deuterocanonical ("apocryphal") books - especially those deuterocanonical books which Our Lord Himself quoted ( i.e.Jn 14:23, "...If anyone love Me, he will keep My word..." Sirach 2:18. ) are the ones who "condemn only themselves."
RayB
At least when Susanna "copy/pastes" she - unlike you - provides links to her sources. And also - unlike you - she doesn't post FAKE POPE NEWS from fake versions of the Washington Post. Actually, she is the one who exposed you when you did it.
In any case, you are not doing too good in the credibility dept. - except when you are "preaching to the choir" here.
But hey.....knock yourself out!
Susanna, you promote more deceptive propaganda here than North Korea's Ministry of Truth!
Clement XIV 's Bull was Ex-Cathedra to the hilt! If you can't see that then it is YOU who doesn't properly understand RC teaching, Ms RC Protestant!
As I said, the 'lady' doth protest too much!
http://www.galatiansfour.blogspot.com.es/2016/04/orthodox-pomp-and-circumstance.html?m=1
Galatians 4
Gal 4:16 asks "Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?". This blog is to warn fellow Christians and others, about what is happening in the churches, stand against the one world religion, and promote the truth of the Bible in standing up before a myriad of last days delusions.
Friday, April 15, 2016
Orthodox Pomp and Circumstance
The vain traditions are obvious, can you imagine the apostles in the book of Acts doing any of this stuff? I sure can't. Catholicism in America actually dumbed down some of the advanced rituals and pomp and circumstance to please the Protestants during Vatican II. I went to some Latin Masses as a child, and definitely back then Catholicism was closer to Orthodoxy in the endless rituals. One gets the feeling these are gung-ho Orthodox posting these videos to show that their rituals, and dress are "fancier" then the Catholics. Don't miss the 9:00 minute mark on the second one to see the rituals of their Eucharist and the biggest golden chalice you'll ever see in your life. Warning the idolatry shown is unsettling as they worship the "bread and wine". How much silver and gold are in these places when Peter himself said, "Silver and gold I have none." The audiences look miserable being forced to stand for the rituals.
This is the reality of the churches Franklin Graham has aligned with for the promotion of the one world religion. Most evangelicals have no idea even what the Orthodox church is about or even what their rituals look like. The Orthodox church definitely has a more overt connection with Eastern Mysticism and Gnosticism.
Jesus Himself, warned of the wide borders of the dress you see right in this video. All those endless processions, and religious show-time, it's supposed to bring people in with all the mystery and pomp and circumstance but there's no truth to it all. As I was rescued from a false religious system with dead rituals, I pray more Orthodox people are too.
Matt 23:5 But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments.
Thanks RayB for the clarification. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it.
@ 7:44 PM:"The Orthodox church definitely has a more overt connection with Eastern Mysticism and Gnosticism."
No surprise then that Ms Erikson chose to join them!
The Orthodox connection to mysticism is from a different meaning of the word for us. For example, "the mystical faith of the orthodox church" or similar title of a
book is about bringing the faith practiced/experienced in the services into daily life, to keep a focus on the divine, which is part of the reason for the fasting cycle.
Fish on Friday - this is the last stage of RC drifting from its Orthodox roots which in turn derive from Second Temple Jewish disciplines like fasting twice a week through the early church. NO ANIMAL PRODUCT OF ANY KIND, NO OLIVE OIL, NO
FISH WITH A BACKBONE (sellfish okay because considered lowlife food in the early days) NO ALCOHOL and reduce food intake on Wednesdays (in mourning for the conspiracy against Christ) and on Fridays (in mourning for the suffering He went through for us). Fish on Friday therefore is not acceptable.
Ditto Lent, Apostles' Fast, Nativity Fast and Dormition (falling asleep i.e., dying of the Theotokos, or Mother of God, so called because what came out of her womb was God as well as man, Jesus didn't acquire "The Christ spirit" or get God as a "walk in" or become God sometime later) Fast.
In practice fasting rules are modified per individual ability to live like a monk for these times and not get sick. No sex during these times therefore no weddings during Lent (probably other times).
RC give up something for Lent. Orthodox in theory give up everything for Lent.
The Lenten fasting began as Holy Week only, then moved fast to forty days. PReceded by the triodion, three weeks in which you one week don't fast to remind yourself that holiness isn't just externals, like the Pharisee and Publican. then meatfare, last week you can eat meat. then cheesefare last week you can eat cheese. Then Lent. Week after Pascha or Easter end of Lent is a Bright Week (as is week after Nativity or Christmas) wherein is no fasting.
The canons however only pronounce excommunication on those who for reason other than health don't keep Wednesday, Friday and Holy Week fasts.
Lol, Erikson! (Apart from yourself and those of a similar cult persuasion to yourself) Who (are) you kidding? (!!)
Anonymous 7:06 P.M.
In spite of the fact that you don't understand "Ex Cathedra" or where it applies, I must say that your Shakespearean misapplication ( i.e. YOU are the one doing all the "protesting") IS a big improvement over Jack Chick, etc.
What pearl of wisdom are you going to share with us next? That "Ex Cathedra" is invalidated by the fact that the "chair" Peter sat in is no where to be found???
anon 7:06 and Susanna,
let's put it this way. If the pope is speaking as the current successor of St. Peter and making an official pronouncement, it is ex cathedra.
HOWEVER it is only infallible if it is about faith and morals.
faith and morals were implicitly reaffirmed in the bull shutting down the Jesuits as the reasons for doing so, but the subject of the bull was not faith or morals but an action to enforce same.
said action might have been miscalculated as to whether it would serve the intended purpose or not, so not infallible.
however, it was a permanent rule and no one was to change it. that speaks for itself, a similar remark was in the Council of Trent regarding the Latin Mass, which traditionalists and sedevacantists say is violated by doing a Mass in vernacular, but not necessarily if the Mass in Latin is also available and never prohibited.
Perhaps only a pope AND a council has the authority to make a permanent rule like regarding the Jesuits, in which case the Pope exceeded his authority in making it permanent, in which case it also means his authority is not supreme.
the pope who rescinded the order apparently exceeded his authority. the reason given seemed to be that the Jesuits now remaining were not like the ones who brought the condemnation, therefore the order was no longer valid because it involved situations no longer existing. However, the conditions could arise again if the order were allowed to be restored.
What he should have done, was ordered the remaining Jesuits to regroup under a different name, different disciplines and rules and structure, and without Ignatius Loyola and his spiritual exercises.
Christine,4:32 A.M.
Re:HOWEVER it is only infallible if it is about faith and morals.
BINGO!
Also....no anathema was attached to the Papal Brief of Suppression.
When the Pope suppressed the Jesuits he was exercising his prudential judgement for the good of the Church which was in jeopardy not only in several European countries but also in missionary territories in various parts of the world.
If the brief had been a dogma or definitive doctrinal teaching all bishops of the world would have been required to promulgate it under penalty of excommunication......but not all bishops did promulgate it.
The document is forty-five paragraphs long.
In the introductory paragraph Clement XIV gives the tone: Our Lord has come on earth as "Prince of peace". This mission of peace, transmitted to the apostles is a duty of the successors of Saint Peter, a responsibility the pope fulfils by encouraging institutions fostering peace and removing, if need be, others that impede peace. Not just if guilty, even on the broader ground of harmony and tranquillity in the Church, it may be justified to suppress a religious order.
What follows is a long section in which Clement XIV reviews the reasons which, in his judgment, are calling for the 'extinction' of the Society of Jesus.
1.A long list of charges against the Society is enumerated (but no judgment is passed on the validity of the charges).
2.He recalls that, in its history, the Society encountered severe criticism (but he remains silent on whether the criticism is justified).
3.The distress occasioned to earlier popes by clashes among Catholics with regard to Jesuit doctrine is evoked (but the Society is not explicitly blamed for that).
cont...
cont...
In a final, more technical section Clement XIV pronounces the actual sentence of suppression of the Society of Jesus. Some provisions are dictated for the implementation of the brief.
In effect, the brief suppresses the Society without condemning it.
....A second brief Gravissimis ex causis (16 August) established a commission of five cardinals entrusted with the task of informing the Jesuits and handling the many practical problems caused by the suppression. Two days later, a letter of the Cardinal president of the commission ordered all bishops of the Church to proclaim, and publish the brief in every Jesuit house, residence, or school, in the presence of the assembled community of Jesuits. This unusual approach created a good number of problems. Non-catholic countries such as Prussia and Russia forbade the bishops to promulgate the brief and ordered the Jesuits to carry on their academic activities just as if nothing had happened.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominus_ac_Redemptor
__________________________________________________________
Again, the Pope, who Roman Catholics believe answers only to God, does have the power and the authority to dispense himself from the mere human/disciplinary rulings of another pope since popes are not personally infallible. Catholics believe that it is only when the Pope is defining DOGMAS in matters of faith and morals that he is infallible. Only defined dogmas or definitive doctrinal teachings are infallible, not arguments nor any other declarations outside of definitive statements. The Brief of Suppression, while it mentioned things the Jesuits were accused of, was not a dogma or definitive doctrinal teaching.
One more thing. The Jesuits are not the only religious order in the history of the Roman Catholic Church to be suppressed by the Pope. Moreover, you cannot be faulted for thinking that perhaps the Pope should have ordered the remaining Jesuits to regroup under a different name/order - as did another Pope with the remaining Knights Templar after their suppression. But when the Knights Templar were suppressed, the Reformation had not yet occurred and there was less danger of exploitation of the situation on a grand scale by secular princes and monarchs than there was at the time of the suppression of the Jesuits.
I am sure you must know what I am talking about since this has happened to the Eastern Orthodox Church in various times and places.
The EO doesn't have orders of monasticsm. there is just monasticism, period. some monastics are also priests, called hieromonks. so there were no orders to suppress.
I don't see how a lecture on how they are undermining civil authority and have faith and morals problems does not add up to a condemnation when this lecture is given in context of and explanation for their suppression.
There have been heretical developments at times, which monastics were split in supporting or opposing. Two most recent examples of suppression like action was regarding the name worshipping heresy (which equates God's Name with God) and more
recently a monastery on Athos which was no longer commemorating the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Holy Liturgy, and was old calendarist. In both cases some military or police activity got in play.
"regarding the name worshipping heresy (which equates God's Name with God) and more"
You've done that very thing right here yourself.
And it works well with your jesus is a cracker theory too ;)
Christine,
Re:I don't see how a lecture on how they are undermining civil authority and have faith and morals problems does not add up to a condemnation when this lecture is given in context of and explanation for their suppression.
The Pope himself was not accusing the Jesuits. He was merely describing the accusations made against them by others. It does not add up to a condemnation if they were falsely accused.......which in most cases, they were......by the Bourbon cabal.
It also doesn't add up to a condemnation of an entire order if only a few Jesuits were guilty of immoral conduct. Otherwise, the Pope WOULD have condemned them if it could have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the entire order was corrupt.
A grievance common to Catholic princes was the yearly publication, on Holy Thursday, of the censures reserved to the pope; Clement abolished this custom in the first Lent of his pontificate. But there remained the ominous question of the Jesuits. The Bourbon princes, though thankful for smaller concessions, would not rest till they had obtained the great object of their machinations, the total suppression of the Society. Although persecuted in France, Spain, Sicily, and Portugal, the Jesuits had still many powerful protectors: the rulers, as well as the public conscience, protected them and their numerous establishments in the ecclesiastical electorates of Germany, in the Palatinate, Bavaria, Silesia, Poland, Switzerland, and the many countries subject to the scepter of Maria Theresa, not to mention the States of the Church and the foreign missions.
The Bourbon princes were moved in their persecution by the spirit of the times, represented in Latin countries by French irreligious philosophism, by Jansenism, Gallicanism, and Erastianism; probably also by the natural desire to receive the papal sanction for their unjust proceedings against the order, for which they stood accused at the bar of the Catholic conscience. The victim of a man's injustice often becomes the object of his hatred; thus only the conduct of Charles III, of Pombal, Tanucci, Aranda, Moniiio can be accounted for....
....After the death of Clement XIV it was rumored that he had retracted the Brief of abolition by a letter of June 29, 1774. That letter, it was said, had been entrusted to his confessor to be given to the next pope. It was published for the first time in 1789, at Zurich, in P. Ph. Wolf's "Allgemeine Geschichte der Jesuiten". Although Pius VI never protested against this statement, the authenticity of the document in question is not sufficiently established (De la Serviere). read entire article...
http://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/pope-clement-xiv
______________________________________________________
As we can see, the Bourbons of France wound up stepping on their own air hose by suppressing the Jesuits because the Jesuits would likely have proven to be powerful allies to have during the time of the French Revolution - among whose casualties was the Bourbon King Louis XVI and his wife, Marie Antoinette, daughter of the aforementioned Maria Teresa of Austria.......both guillotined.
One Mount Athos incident I am particularly thinking of is the Vatopedi Land Scandal in which Abbot Ephraim was involved and which brought down the Greek government. Putin, who is Russian Orthodox tended to side in with Abbot Ephraim who is Greek Orthodox.
con·trap·tion
kənˈtrapSH(ə)n/
noun
a machine or device that appears strange or unnecessarily complicated, and often badly made or unsafe.
Catholicism is quite the contraption.
P.S. Christine
In the Brief of Suppression, the most striking feature is the long list of allegations against the Society, with no mention of what is favorable; the tone of the brief is very adverse. On the other hand the charges are recited categorically; they are not definitely stated to have been proved. The object is to represent the order as having occasioned perpetual strife, contradiction, and trouble. For the sake of peace the Society must be suppressed. A full explanation of these and other anomalous features cannot yet be given with certainty. The chief reason for them no doubt was that the Suppression was an administrative measure, not a judicial sentence based on judicial inquiry. We see that the course chosen avoided many difficulties, especially the open contradiction of preceding popes, who had so often praised or confirmed the Society. Again, such statements were less liable to be controverted; there were different ways of interpreting the Brief which commended themselves to Zelanti and Bourbonici respectively. The last word on the subject is doubtless that of Alphonsus di Ligouri: "Poor pope! What could he do in the circumstances in which he was placed, with all the Sovereigns conspiring to demand this Suppression? As for ourselves, we much keep silence, respect the secret judgment of God, and hold ourselves in peace".
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14096a.htm
_______________________________________________________
whoever wrote all that must have been a Jesuit.
suppression IS a categorical condemnation when done for reasons of alleged misbehavior, and as for not proven define proof. an investigation was done where there is smoke there is fire. a permanent suppression that successors are forbidden
to lift is as strong a condemnation as you can ask for aside from cussing them out in the process.
I need to read this article again. It is very spiritual.
Hi guys,
Thank you so much for this wonderful article really!
If someone want to know more about can expats buy property in saudi arabia I think this is the right place for you!
Easter will always be with us.... Happy Easter.
Post a Comment