Posted on 07/14/2015 5:15:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Last week the Marxist quasi-dictator of Bolivia, Evo Morales, presented Pope Francis with a gift — a carved wooden hammer-and-sickle cross on which the figure of Christ is crucified.
The Vatican announced that the pope had not been informed in advance about the gift. And some commentators said that photos of the pope and Morales show that the pope was actually offended. That was a false — probably wishful — interpretation. The pope himself later announced that he was keeping the hammer-and-sickle crucifix and taking it home, saying, “I understand this work. For me it wasn’t an offense.”
And “Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi . . . said he personally wasn’t offended by Morales’ gift” (the Guardian).
The pope’s acceptance of Morales’s gift — along with his attacks on capitalism during his Latin American tour — further confirms one of the most troubling moral developments of our time: The Roman Catholic Church is currently led by a man whose social, political, and economic views have been shaped by leftism more than by any other religious or moral system.
It also reconfirms what is probably the single most important development one needs to understand in order to make sense of the contemporary world: The most dynamic religion of the past hundred years has been leftism, not Christianity, not Islam, not any other traditional religion. Indeed, regarding traditional religions, leftism has influenced them — particularly Christianity and Judaism — far more than they have influenced the Left. Mainstream Protestant Christianity, much of Catholicism (especially in Latin America, where Pope Francis lived his whole life before becoming pope), and most of non-Orthodox Judaism have become essentially liberal/Left movements with religious (and in the case of Judaism, ethnic) identity.
In terms of evil committed, what is the difference between the hammer and sickle and the swastika? Would the pope receive, let alone keep, a Fascist, racist, or Nazi sculpture with a crucified Christ on it? Of course not. Yet the hammer and sickle represents more human suffering than all of them combined. The number of people enslaved and murdered under the hammer and sickle dwarfs the number of people enslaved and murdered by any other doctrine in history.
To make things worse, Pope Francis received this gift from a man (Morales) wearing a picture of Che Guevara on his jacket. Is that, too, not worthy of condemnation by the Vatican? Che Guevara devoted his life to undermining human liberty, and to killing innocents in the name of Communism.
The only institutions that can resist the left-wing takeover of contemporary life are religious ones. When they fail, upon which institutions can we depend? What if, in a visit to an American museum, American artist Andres Serrano had presented Pope Francis with a gift — his work of art, Piss Christ — that features a crucifix in a jar of Serrano’s urine?
Would the pope have accepted it? Would he have brought it home?
There could not have been a gift that more accurately represents this pope’s value system than Christ crucified on a hammer and sickle. First, in a literal sense, that is exactly what Communists have done wherever they have assumed power — crucified Christ by working to violently destroy Christianity and murder Christians. Second, in a figurative sense, the gift represents the mélange of Christianity and Marxism, precisely what much of the Church — again, especially in Latin America, and especially in the person of this pope — stands for.
My heart breaks for the millions of Catholics who feel that their beloved Church is being led over a moral and religious cliff by a leftist pope and innumerable other leftists among cardinals, bishops, and parish priests.
Though I am not a Catholic, my heart breaks too. The only institutions that can resist the left-wing takeover of contemporary life are religious ones. When they fail, upon which institutions can we depend?
Tragically, we cannot turn to the contemporary Catholic Church. When the pope keeps a hammer-and-sickle crucifix; when the pope declares free-market capitalism, the one economic system that has lifted masses of people out of poverty, to be largely evil (“the dung of the devil”); when Cuba’s Cardinal Jaime Ortega declares that there are no political prisoners in Cuba; and when the pope issues an encyclical on global warming while the oldest Christian communities in the world are exterminated, it is clear that while one can still turn to individual Catholic priests and lay leaders for moral guidance, one cannot turn to the Church and its pope for moral guidance. On the contrary. One must fight back.
— Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host and columnist. His book, The Ten Commandments: Still the Best Moral Code, was published by Regnery. He is the founder of Prager University and may be contacted at dennisprager.com.
Apparently, unlike your denomination, there’s is no discussion about theology. My religion takes its cue from the Talmudic tradition of intellectual argument, discussion and resolution. And the end result? It is God and the Holy Ghost who speaks through the priest. That is the tradition I was taught and what I answer to. I do not take Communion from lay people - a heresy. Something your religion would probably know something about I would imagine.
That is odd. When I was growing up, we went to many churches where the guitar was the only music. I even attended two which had guitars, organ, accordion and one had drums. Everyone loved God’s music. Now I go to a church which has a full orchestra. Why would anyone hate a church for having different kinds of music?
I brought up the battlefield scenario because it was relevant. What world do you live in in which a dying soldier cannot be given Holy Communion? It does not have to be accompanied by a High Mass, you know. A small packet of consecrated Hosts, administered quickly was often done.
-— Why would anyone hate a church for having different kinds of music? -—
Is some music better than other music? If there is a good and better, there must be a best.
If the Church is “the pillar and foundation of truth,” then what It has to say regarding sacred music must be listened too.
I’m no expert on the subject, but there sure is a bunch of banal worship music out there, even in Catholic churches.
The Holy Spirit is who keeps and protects believers, not some denominational organization which is corrupt from the inside out.
But I am not talking about the “imperfect” church...I’m talking about corruption, heresy, blatant disregard for the Bible - and even overly and angrily legalistic and rules driven, or prosperity gospel churches. All of these are far more than just “imperfect.”
Meanwhile, a lot of small groups and other gatherings - not “churches” per se - are popping up. Also a lot of smaller churches...meeting in gas stations and so on...with pastors who do not require the church to support them financially...the “bi vocational” ministry...all of these are neither lone wolf pursuits nor the organized church.
Catholicism - the religion of control freaks.
Honestly, preferences in style of worship music are just that. Preferences.
Or does the Catholic magisterium think it has an in on what kind of music God likes or approves of?
My statement was a generality. I addressed no specific issue.
I will expand a bit in saying the Protestant insistence of treating Scripture as a book of laws rather than treating the Church as an organic entity is well represented in your challenge.
>>The Holy Spirit is who keeps and protects believers, not some denominational organization which is corrupt from the inside out.
Yes, he does. He protects those whom he chooses to protect. The rest will drift towards the apostate churches that tells them what they want to hear. The ones who hear the HS will go to places where the work of the Lord is present. It may be a denominational church or it may not be. You can’t rule a church out because it belongs to an organization and you can’t assume that a non-denom has any holiness.
I gave a loose quote of a canon of trent ... apparently one that you did not know ...and you responded
No, it doesn’t. Why do you try to rewrite St. Augustine? What gives you permission to do that?
And so I gave a direct quote of the canon...to which I get this gibberish reply
Apparently, unlike your denomination, there’s is no discussion about theology. My religion takes its cue from the Talmudic tradition of intellectual argument, discussion and resolution. And the end result? It is God and the Holy Ghost who speaks through the priest. That is the tradition I was taught and what I answer to. I do not take Communion from lay people - a heresy. Something your religion would probably know something about I would imagine.
No response to the canon...I guess because you do not have one..
You use Catholic theology and its intellectual arguments like a weapon. Why should I respond to you at all?
No, He protects all who are His.
Any born again believer has the Holy Spirit abiding in him and he belongs to God. The Holy Spirit WILL protect him and keep him until the end. None of those who belong to God will be lost.
The ones who drift away, were dabblers only and never belonged to God in the first place.
I’m not ruling out any church that is part of a denomination and I don’t presume that non-denoms have holiness.
Organizations don’t have holiness. People do by the Holy Spirit living in them.
I assume all this bombast is to say you LIKE Simon and Garfunkel during your services? Or the immortal “Michael, Row the Boat Ashore”? I prefer silence during the Mass. Contemplative, mystical and inner-oriented. Lovely.
I like the guitars in church. 😂😀😃
And so the deflection goes from the abusive molesting priests who are allowed to serve communion when laity in mortal sin is forbidden to take it, to styles of worship.
Variety is the spice of life.
I wonder who has the in on what kind of music God likes, and how they know.
Amen!
>>But I am not talking about the “imperfect” church...I’m talking about corruption, heresy, blatant disregard for the Bible - and even overly and angrily legalistic and rules driven, or prosperity gospel churches. All of these are far more than just “imperfect.”
That’s not what I meant by “imperfect”. I meant the ones where people say, “I’d sure like to go to that church, but they baptize babies (or don’t do communion the way I like it, etc).
>>He protects all who are His.
I agree, and he chooses who that is. The rest are those dabblers that you speak of. We can’t help it. Without his intervention, we are hopeless sinners.
I get what you’re saying, but I was not referring to that at all. That’s been going on for many decades. A lot of what I’m talking about is much newer than that, and much more important.
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.