Coincidence???
^__^
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 03/28/2006 7:00:32 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
No thanks. |
Posted on 03/25/2006 11:29:40 PM PST by Laissez-faire capitalist
Could the Roman Catholic Church's sex abuse crisis be tied to embedded Satanic and occult imagery in its artwork - some of it hundred's of years old?
That is the seemingly incredible thesis of a new documentary, "Rape of the Soul," made not by anti-Catholic bigots, but by devout followers of the Church.
Rape of the Soul is in theatrical release in major cities, including New York and Los Angeles.
The documentary explores the prevalent use of satanic, sexual, and occult and anti-Catholic images in historical and contemporary religious artwork. The film also discusses the acceptance of the artwork at the highest and most trusted levels of the Catholic Church...
..."Artists from DaVinci to Botticelli have imbedded subliminal images into their art for centuries, said Calace...In this case we found penises on crucifixes, anarchy symbols, swastikas, demonic faces and in modern works even the word 'sex' encrypted into the images.
The works in question include modern artists' work currently on the covers of missalettes and hymnals that at this very moment sit in the pews of churches throughout the U.S. and on children's teaching aids."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
"The article didn't bash the catholic church"
Oh no ...not at all.
This wasn't meant at all to paint the Church in a bad light by associating what may or may not be be in works of art as being part of some secret knowledge of the Church.
"It wouldn't hurt to take this matter as far as one can to see if it indeed is just a conspiracy theory.
If it is ultimately determined to be a conspiracy theory, then so be it.
Better to fully investigate with an open mind - and potentially find out something - than to just dimiss and bury this."
If I didn't have more important things to do with my time than get hot and bothered everytime WND thinks they need to publicize rubbish like this, then I might "keep an open mind." Then again...I might find the time to "keep an open mind" about alien abductions too....but I do have better things to do, so I'm filing this in the BIG YAWN category.
I have read that Pope Pius VI called monarchy the "best form of government". Is that accurate?
The doctrine of "divine right" of kings was actually an English Protestant invention (James I, to be specific), not a Catholic one.
In addition, the concept of Mandate of Heaven required that the In the western world it came to be associated with Roman Catholicism I believe your scholarship is faulty; to wit:
Blessed are You, O L-rd our G-d, King of the Universe
This concept was also found in the Aryan and Egyptian traditions.
Unlike the Chinese concept of the Mandate of Heaven which
legitimized the overthrow of an oppressive or incompetent monarch,
a European king could not lose the Divine Right by misrule,
at least according to most authors. Thomas Aquinas accepted
the overthrow of a king and even regicide when the laws of the king
are untenably unjust, however, and towards the end of the Middle Ages
many philosophers such as Nicholas of Cusa and Francisco Suarez
propounded similar theories.
emperor properly carry out the proper rituals, consult his ministers,
and made it extremely difficult to undo any acts carried out by an ancestor.
Japanese imperial theory based the legitimacy of the Emperor of Japan
on his descent from Amaterasu, however unlike the European case, this
divinity did not usually translate into political power, unless the Emperor
had (as Emperor Meiji did) the military might to back up his claim.
and other Christian faiths in the Reformation period.
The notion of divine right of kings was certainly in existence in the medieval period.
I'm not familiar with the citation. It certainly isn't the dogmatic teaching of the church. Popes can have private opinions that aren't binding on the faithful, and can teach in ways that are not binding on all Catholics for all times to come.
Obviously, heaven is a monarchy, and so is the church. But the monarch in heaven is God (who is perfect), and the monarch in the church is a representative monarch whose powers in the spiritual realm are actually rather limited and whose powers in the temporal realm are absolute, but only over a country the size of a city park and a few hundred subjects. It's not clear that either heaven or the church are an ideal, or only, model for a civil polity.
Switzerland has been a republic since the middle ages, and has been majority-Catholic the entire time, and the Church has never had much of a problem with that, nor has she had any problem with getting the Pope's own bodyguards from that republican nation.
From your citation:
Thomas Aquinas accepted the overthrow of a king and even regicide when the laws of the king are untenably unjust, however, and towards the end of the Middle Ages many philosophers such as Nicholas of Cusa and Francisco Suarez propounded similar theories.
This affirms what I said.
In general, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, BTW. It's written by volunteers who may or may not have any scholarly credentials, and may or may not have any axes to grind concerning their subject matter.
I would think that the Popes thought that they had the "Divine Right of Kings"
b'shem Y'shua
as they could do no wrong and when they condemned people who disagreed with them to death.
You know, I like Abraham Lincoln as much as any other midwestern boy, but I'm not going to take him as my authority on matters of religion.
It is NOT a Christian form of government as there is no Jew nor Greek, nor Free nor slave in the world for Christians.
That's a complete misuse of Scripture out of context, because the point in context has to do with the fact that there is no separation or distinction between people before God, especially WRT their status as Jews or Gentiles.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and render unto God that which is God's" seems to cover most questions about the relationship of the church and state.
You put up a nice "holier than thou," act, friend, but when push comes to shove you always resort to cheap shots and untruths, like the one underlined above.
Innocent III ?
b'shem Y'shua
I told you, because it's completely subjective. Unless you have some kind of actual written proof, it's worthless.
Or maybe I'm in on the conspiracy. Yeah, that's it!
Thank you. At least somebody else here gets it.
The methodology is garbage, period. Garbage in, garbage out.
I can find "satanic images" in any Dr. Seuss book.
"If I were to have hard evidence that subliminal messages were embedded in artwork"
What would you consider "hard evidence?"
And he hasn't got much further in Logic 101. I mentioned Occam
s razor, which tends to come up when one is faced with a conspiracy claim based on subjective methodology, and he told me he prefers Gillette!
More than you have.
Innocent III ?
What about him?
Don't assume that everyone who objects to this propaganda is a Catholic. Or even Christian. That would be inaccurate.
Are you Church of Christ?
Coincidence???
^__^
Funny stuff. The other day I was called a Church of Christ member because I was defending them against charges of being a cult. I'm also regularly misbranded an atheist on the Evo threads. I've also been called a Zionist on threads where I've defended Israel.
And now I'm a Catholic covering up a conspiracy.
My head is spinning!
(For the record, I'm a deist who follows Theravada Buddhist moral precepts, which anyone has yet to ever accuse me of.)
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.