Posted on 10/12/2007 11:41:08 AM PDT by xzins
Don't you get it?
That is WHY the Vatican did this today, on this date.
Sheesh, man, at least try to connect the dots!
Shhhh...good job! Stick to the company line...
In your own post, #36, you are the one who says, “IF this is a real story...”
I repeated that it was carried on a number of outlets.
This is getting eerie, Sav.
correction
In your own post, #35, you are the one who says, “IF this is a real story...”
I repeated that it was carried on a number of outlets.
This is getting eerie, Sav.
I suppose the next thing the Vatican will do is admit that there actually were more than 4 Apostles....
L
Peter, Paul, & Mary
3
(The answer, my friend......)
Paul was an apostle, so that makes at least 5...
Liberals still practice this kind of lying. It’s called “projection.” Accuse your enemies of your own crimes (or sins) and they can’t then credibly bring out the truth against you. It’s where the “they all do it” defense came from.
Wow how many times have we witness this charade be practiced!
Maybe someday enough will read “The Secret of the Zodiac” it has nothing to do with Zodiac as one would think, it has to do with opposition whom we have always been shadow boxing!
Every thing the media and the left political leaders are doing can be read in this book and why!
Only it was explain so clearly in a 1930 novel!
I see Amazon has it for sale but I know where you can get copies for $5 dollars. What a rip off for Amazon.
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Zodiac-1930-Julian-Sterne/dp/1417979445
We have to identify our enemy before the public understands who and what we are fighting!
Today because of the lack of history in many ways the public is clueless and can not maintain attention because they can not relate to the fact that they are in an awful situation in the struggle for civilization.
That is WHY the Vatican did this today, on this date.
Sheesh, man, at least try to connect the dots!
um, that was my point. Try reading the post.
Sorry if that wasn't clear.
>If you bothered to check at all you would know that it was the French king and not the Church that attacked the Templars. Although Pope Clement’s succumbing to the pressure of King Phillip to disband the Templars may not be commendable, to transfer the crimes of the French king to the Church is not honest.
So are we still looking for the Papal Bull of Protest against the French King? Oh, thats right, the Pope who could send thousands of Crusaders off to the Holy Land, who could get the Holy Roman Emperor on his knees in a hair shirt, is just fretting on his throne.
Please look at this in rational way. The French King pretty much seized (at least) a few hundred million dollars of the Churches assets and tortured and killed members of a Church holy order and the Pope just sat by idly? If this was not done with the Popes okay the Pope should have put the French king under threat of excommunication immediately. But in order to whitewash the church from its sin of collusion you have the pope just sitting there helpless to stop what you yourself call the crimes of the French king?
Or are you saying that the Pope allowed this to happen over serious sins of the templars, much of which were overblown confessions of racked men looking for an end to the torture?
Yes, lets be honest, the Pope had his hand in this mess, and probably gold was exchanged for his silence.
Except you were being serious, and I was being sarcastic.
"The pope, irresolute and harrassed, finally adopted a middle course: he decreed the dissolution, not the condemnation of the order, and not by penal sentence, but by an Apostolic Decree (Bull of 22 March, 1312)."
It was a sad end to a once proud order.
I remembered a joke & was saving it for the next meeting of neeners, but alas, was overcome by listlessness & forgot it again.
You don't know your history very well. Pope Clement was a wholly-owned, bought-and-paid-for rubber-stamp stooge of King Phillip, as any Catholic historian will tell you. Why do you think they call this period (which began with Clement, and ended shortly before Luther's birth) the "Babylonian Captivity of the Church"?
Of course he never taught any heresy (dogmatically or otherwise), but if you're looking for someone to stand up courageously against Phillip, Clement isn't your man. His predecessor, Boniface VIII, did that, and paid for it dearly. But in the long view of history (at least for Catholics), Boniface is the good guy.
That’s a sad, sad story.
Do not golightly into that dark night.
Sir Edgbert, knight of the realm, was hurrying home on a cold, dark, wet night when, suddenly, his horse suffered a major coronary and died on the spot. All Sir Edgbert could do was collect up what belongings he could and tramp onwards.
After staggering for a spell, he decides that he must get alternative transport. Accordingly, he heads for the nearest building which, as luck would have it, is a small farm. He strides up to the door, bangs on it and shouts ‘A horse! A horse!. I must have a horse!”.
The door opens to reveal a young girl. She looks at Sir Edgbert and says, “Your pardon, good night but my father and brothers are returning from the village on the other side of the forest and will not be back before noon tomorrow. They are riding all our horses”.
Sir Edgbert is saddened by this and says “But I must return home immediately. Have you any idea where I may accuire alternative transportation?”.
The young girl says “I know of no other horses hereabouts, but sometimes my brothers ride our Great Dane dog when the need arises. Would use of that help?”
Sir Edgbert is desperate and says “If I must, I must. Show me the animal”. The young girl leads the way around to the back of the farmhouse to a stable. She dissapears inside and returns leading and enormous dogs which is quite of a size for riding. Unfortunately, the dog has seen better days. It’s coat is threadbare, it’s legs are spindly and it seems to be breathing labouriously.
Sir Edgbert looks at the young girl and says, “Surely, you wouldn’t send a knight out on a dog like this?”
LOL! I was worried for a minute where this was going. :)
What was Camelot famous for ?
It’s knight life !
When were King Arthur’s army too tired to fight ?
When they had lots of sleepless knights
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.