Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: ultima ratio
To treat something sacred with contempt

That's what I would think a desecration is. But the Hindu's, according to our intrepid Mr. Vennari, displayed the utmost respect, putting face paint on to make the journey and removing their shoes (see picture) as little jeremiah suggested would be a sign of reverence. They did not desecrate anything because they did not treat anything as not sacred.

154 posted on 06/30/2004 10:11:10 PM PDT by St.Chuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies ]


To: St.Chuck
"They did not desecrate anything because they did not treat anything as not sacred."

Except of course their thinking. If they failed to exhibit faith alone in Christ alone, then they desecrated the only temple that really matters, namely the body of a believer which is designed to be indwelled by the Holy Spirit providing a temple for the Shekinah Glory of the Son of God.

157 posted on 06/30/2004 10:16:44 PM PDT by Cvengr (;^))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies ]

To: St.Chuck

It is not the Hindus who are showing contempt in this case, it is the Bishop and his cohorts--and those in Rome who allow this. The first commandment says, "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me." The commandment means what it says. The men who encouraged this are heretics, violating an essential dogma of faith. This would include the Pope, if he allowed this knowingly, so we are getting into very dangerous and possibly traumatizing territory for millions of Catholics. But JPII has been showing his hand for years--nobody ever noticed much before. This time it's apparent--he is not orthodox and never was.


160 posted on 06/30/2004 10:24:01 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies ]

To: St.Chuck
They did not desecrate anything because they did not treat anything as not sacred.

Now THERE'S a stretch--an extremely UN-Catholic stretch.
172 posted on 06/30/2004 10:59:32 PM PDT by broadsword (Liberalism is the societal AIDS virus that thwarts our national defense.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies ]

To: St.Chuck

"That's what I would think a desecration is. But the Hindu's, according to our intrepid Mr. Vennari, displayed the utmost respect, putting face paint on to make the journey and removing their shoes (see picture) as little jeremiah suggested would be a sign of reverence. They did not desecrate anything because they did not treat anything as not sacred."

The fault here does not lie with the Hindus - I'm sure they acted in well-intentioned ignorance of the scandal that would be given to Catholics by the breaking of the First Commandment at a Christian altar.

Desecration = profanation from the Latin profanum - pro (before, or outside of) fanum (the temple).

Applies to treating what is Holy with irreverence i.e. taking what belongs to the temple out of it, or taking what does not belong to the temple into it.

If you also would care to read your Bible, you will see that the worship of foreign gods in the temple of Yahweh is always seen as a desecration, profanation or abomination.

It leads to the temple being ichabod or ikabod - the kabod (pronounced kavod, meaning Glory of God or Holy Spirit) leaving the temple. (i'kabod - "i" in Hebrew meaning same as our prefix "a" or "an" such as in aseptic compared to septic).

That the bishop and rector of Fatima have not only permitted but encouraged the worship of demons (cf. Psalm 95/96, For all the gods of the gentiles are demons), they have encouraged the desecration of the temple of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - the temple they are ordained to guard and keep.

They have become whores of Babylon.


176 posted on 07/01/2004 3:15:02 AM PDT by Tantumergo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson