Posted on 05/19/2006 5:51:33 PM PDT by fishtank
Do you know what happened to Full Court?
It looks like the account has been banned.
Thanks for the post, by the way.
No, I am NOT in agreement with TdVC, the book or the movie.
On a side topic, I've been hoping that someone would make a movie from almost any of Malachi Martin's books.
Hey. I've been quiet a lot lately. I just got DSL at home, so that helps a lot. I'm able to be a lot more active online.
Our church is finishing the DaVinciCode video critique series by Lee Strobel.... pretty good.
Don't look at me, I didn't do it.
But I'm sure now someone will start spreading rumors that FR is really run by Opus Dei. After all, Full Court posts pictures of cilices and disciplines ... and see what happened to her ...
Seriously: I'm sorry Full Court was banned or suspended and had nothing to do with it. But describing Opus Dei as "fleecing the flock" and blaming them for David Hanssen is unjust.
On corporal mortification: practiced by practically every great Catholic saint since ... the 2nd century, maybe? St. Paul hints that he practiced it. Mother Teresa's nuns use the cilice and discipline. All of the monks who copied all of the Bibles which preceded yours, the Benedictines who saved western civilization, used corporal mortification of one sort or another.
Only O.D. numeraries (celibate full-timers) use it, and only under the advice of their confessor. They're supposed to wear the cilice for 2 hours a day, and use the discipline only for the duration of a short vocal prayer (e.g. an "Our Father" -- maybe 20 seconds or so). It doesn't draw blood, it doesn't even produce welts or bruises; it's only supposed to sting a bit.
(Look, St. Francis of Assisi -- that notorious sicko! -- once rolled around in a thornbush to quiet his sinful urges; this is mild stuff by comparison.)
The rest of us are encouraged to practice mortification by, say, forgoing my nasty comment to Full Court a few posts back (for which I'd like to apologize), or maybe not chewing out people who cut in front of us in traffic.
As far as required weekly confession to Opus Dei priests: I strongly doubt it; there's not much point in requiring someone to go to weekly confession if they have nothing to say (it just wastes everyone's time).
Opus Dei priests are basically under orders to give people light penances (and I can speak from personal experience here); St. Josemaria said that they (the priests) should make up the difference by their own penances to teach themselves to be good mediators in persona Christi.
To sum up: Opus Dei is Catholic. It's not full of perfect people, it's full of sinners. It's not Catholic-lite, or Catholics wanting to be Protestants*, or cafeteria Catholic, or schismatic ultra-traditionalist, or a "sect," or a "secret society," or anything like that.
It's just people exploring the spirituality of plain, undiluted serious Catholicism as a path to heaven through the merits of Christ.
The people who hate the Catholic Church will hate Opus Dei.
The people who love the Catholic Church ought to love Opus Dei.
And that is as it should be.
*Both of the supernumeraries in my local region are converts from Protestantism. One started out an extreme Calvinist, then became Episcopalian; the other started out Episcopalian.
I have family members who are involved in work against Opus Dei. They are Catholic, I am not. I agree with their efforts, based on what they they have told me, which is summarized below. This is NOT a Catholic vs. Protestant issue. In that regard, I am not in agreement with Full Court on this thread. On this thread, my objections to OD were not meant to be from a Protestant perspective, since I have so many family members who oppose OD, and these family members are either Tridentine Rite or conservative Novus Ordo Catholics. So for me, this thread was not meant to involve a Reformation redux.
The vast majority of people involved with Opus Dei aren't numeraries, but supernumeraries and coöperators. (Supernumaries and coöperators aren't celibate and live their lives like ordinary Catholic Christians. I'm a wannabe coöperator. I expect that when I become a real coöperator, my wife will start reading my mail, hmm? ;-))
Second, some of the stuff you describe was common to virtually all religious orders prior to Vatican II. For example, virtually all convents or monasteries read (past tense) personal mail. Unaccompanied travel was generally not permitted for women religious; nuns always travelled in twos or threes. It was that way up until the mid 1960's, BTW.
Opus Dei teaches individuals (despite their ages) that it is acceptable and even advantageous to leave parents and loved ones out of the decision-making process because "they will not understand."
Hmm, I seem to remember some Scriptures pointing in that direction.
Look, we're talking about adults, not little kids. They're exercising a free choice to do what they're doing. What if they were entering a cloister? Then they'd never get to see their parents again except through a grille. That's again part and parcel of life as a vowed religious, which is what a numerary is.
Finally, I would take what you read on ODAN with a grain of salt. It's a website with an agenda.
People who don't like the life of a numerary and don't feel that God is calling them in that direction ... shouldn't be numeraries.
How do you figure that?
(Fullcourts Post 46: in answer to my remark re: Opus Dei )
My remark: "Or might one have reason to suspicion they perform other functions?"
Fullcourts answer: " Yeah, like fleecing the flock and turning out spies like Robert Hanssen?"
Why is it calumny? That's a little like, if someone says, "The sun rises in the east" - you call it calumny,
Do a GOOGLE on "Robert Hannsen spy Opus"
I'll give you a hint - he was Opus, his kids were in Opus schools, he was and did despicable, traitorous acts and, according to reports, had less morals than an alley cat.
Fullcourts post was hardly "calumny"
Ever heard of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy?
Do you have the slightest evidence that Opus Dei encouraged Hanssen's spying or excused it in the slightest?
How is it that O.D. is at fault for Hanssen, but gets no credit for the thousands of productive, happy people who get a lot out of the Work?
One bad Jew means all Jews are bad; one bad Opus Deista means all Opus Deistas are bad. That's the logic of bigotry, calumny and stereotype, not of reasonable discussion.
As for "fleecing the flock," that's also a calumnious accusation. Care to specify who has been "fleeced," and by whom? Care to provide evidence that that is Opus Dei's "function"?
Of course not. If someone said, "What is the Southern Baptist Conference's function?" and someone else answered "Promoting dishonest televangelists and providing treasonous Bible-toting presidents like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton" would that be calumny, in your view?
Because it would be in mine, and the two comments are exactly the same as far as their accuracy is concerned.
Actually Tyndale had 'I tame my body and bring it under subjection'.
This ofcourse had to do with self-discipline (something very lacking in Christian churches today I might add), but not bodily abuse,
Touch not, taste not, handle not; which all are to perish with the using, after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which indeed things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship and humility, and neglecting of the body not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh (Col.2:21-23).
Frankly, what is all this fuss over the Opus Dei?
We are know it is the Jesuits that are the assassination arm for the Vatican!
Which translation is right? One that was written closer to the time of the translation of the original Apostles writings or one that is translated centuries later? Why do some Protestant Bible translations agree with the Catholic Bible translation?
Frankly, what is all this fuss over the Opus Dei? We are know it is the Jesuits that are the assassination arm for the Vatican!
Oh no! You found out about the great Jesuit conspiracy too? Shh... and be very careful.. I know several and if you make me too mad, I may send them after you.;-)
Some 'Protestant' translations agree with the RCC translation because they follow the same corrupt Alexandrian text type dominated by the manuscripts Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (Aleph).
There are two streams of Bibles, one that follows the Received Text line (Erasmus, Luther, Tyndale, Geneva, King James) and then the others that go the route of the RCC and follow the Alexanderian line (Westcort/Hort, RV, ASV, NASB, NIV)
The NKJ is really an Alexandrian bible disguising itself as a King James.
Frankly, what is all this fuss over the Opus Dei? We are know it is the Jesuits that are the assassination arm for the Vatican! Oh no! You found out about the great Jesuit conspiracy too? Shh... and be very careful.. I know several and if you make me too mad, I may send them after you.;-)
I am not worried, they only go after big shots like William of Orange and King James.
Corrupt? The Catholic Bible was written centuries before any of the Protestant Bibles. I see we have a KJV Bible devotee here because I've seen this same argument from Protestants before. Let me tell you something, you better think about what you are saying. If the Bible we have was corrupt, then so is yours. The NT you read is possible because of the Catholic Church and you guys didn't change much about that. Heck! Even the original KJV had the seven books in the OT the Protestants later eliminated.
I am not worried, they only go after big shots like William of Orange and King James.
Oh but you're wrong! See, that's all part of the great Jesuit cover-up. They make you think they only go after the big shots so that they can get unsuspecting people like you. You can probably read all about it in Dan Brown's next autobiographical publication, "Confessions of a Conspiracy Theorist." Good night!
It is clear that you know very little of Bible transmission.
The Apocrypha books were never part of the Canonical OT, even Jerome would not make them part of the Vulgate.
It took Trent to do that.
As for the Catholic Bible, there was always a pure line of the Greek text, largely preserved in the Byzantine East.
When those texts became available in the West, Erasmus put them together into a Greek Text that was the pure text of the 1st century Apostles.
Those same readings were also found in other translations of the Goths and the Waldensians.
Ofcourse, the RCC killed anyone who they found with the correct translatons.
I am not worried, they only go after big shots like William of Orange and King James. Oh but you're wrong! See, that's all part of the great Jesuit cover-up. They make you think they only go after the big shots so that they can get unsuspecting people like you. You can probably read all about it in Dan Brown's next autobiographical publication, "Confessions of a Conspiracy Theorist." Good night!
So the Jesuits didn't kill William of Orange?
They didn't attempt to kill King James?
They don't believe that they can do anything to advance the cause of Rome?
Now, who are you trying to kid?
Next you will tell me the Inquisition never happened!
Let me reword this, even though Jerome put them in the Vulgate, they were not considered as Canonical and equal to the Hebrew Books in authority.
That isn't correct. Trent only reaffirmed the books that were in the Canon for centuries. What the Council addressed is that the new Protestant versions that were coming out were not official, acceptable translations.
Of course, the RCC killed anyone who they found with the correct translatons.
You've been reading too much Dan Brown or the spurious publication "Trail of Blood" that even honest Baptists will admit is a totally fabricated work of fiction.
So the Jesuits didn't kill William of Orange? They didn't attempt to kill King James? They don't believe that they can do anything to advance the cause of Rome? Now, who are you trying to kid? Next you will tell me the Inquisition never happened!
HUH??? William of Orange died of pneumonia after falling from his horse and breaking his collarbone!! I suppose you are going to tell me that the Jesuits were there and caused him to fall off his horse? Please.. where are you getting this information?
As to King James..the Jesuits didn't attempt to kill him, it was a group led by Guy Fawkes that wanted to kill him because of the mistreatment of Catholics in England at the time. The co-conspirators were "Robert Catesby, John Wright, and Thomas Winter, the originators, Christopher Wright, Robert Winter, Robert Keyes, Guy Fawkes, a soldier who had been serving in Flanders, Thomas Percy, John Grant, Sir Everard Digby, Francis Tresham, Ambrose Rookwood, and Thomas Bates."
Not a Jesuit among them. Now I have to go to because I've got to meet a client by 10 in the morning. I've wasted enough time talking to someone that is dredging up past wounds and doing so with information that is completely false.
Jerome did not accept the Apocrypha books as equal to the Canon.
Other Catholic scholars held to the same view.
It was Trent that made the Apocrypha part of the Canon.
Before that they were considered secondary works.
Of course, the RCC killed anyone who they found with the correct translatons. You've been reading too much Dan Brown or the spurious publication "Trail of Blood" that even honest Baptists will admit is a totally fabricated work of fiction.
No, that is simple history.
How many Protestants did Bloody Mary burn at the stake?
Over 300 wasn't it or is that myth also?
So the Jesuits didn't kill William of Orange? They didn't attempt to kill King James? They don't believe that they can do anything to advance the cause of Rome? Now, who are you trying to kid? Next you will tell me the Inquisition never happened! HUH??? William of Orange died of pneumonia after falling from his horse and breaking his collarbone!! I suppose you are going to tell me that the Jesuits were there and caused him to fall off his horse? Please.. where are you getting this information?
BBC info on William of Orange
That is the wrong William of Orange.
William the Silent or William of Orange (William I, prince of Orange), 1533–84, Dutch statesman, principal founder of Dutch independence. 1 Early Life A descendant of the Ottonian line of Nassau, he was born at Dillenburg, near Wiesbaden, Germany, of Protestant parents. After inheriting (1544) the holdings of the branch of the Nassau family in the Low Countries and the principality of Orange in S France, William was reared a Roman Catholic at the insistence of Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, whose favorite page he became. In 1555 he was made stadtholder of Holland, Zeeland, and Utrecht. 2
Struggles with Spain William ably served Philip II of Spain as a diplomat, particularly in the making of the Treaty of Cateau-Cambrésis (1559), but Philip’s encroachments on the liberties of the Netherlands and the introduction of the Spanish Inquisition by Cardinal Granvelle led William to turn against the king. In 1563, with the help of counts Egmont and Hoorn, he succeeded in obtaining the removal of Granvelle, but under the regency of Margaret of Parma disorders grew in the Netherlands.
3 In 1566 the party of the Gueux was organized with William’s connivance, and when Alba was sent to the Netherlands to quell the rebels, William withdrew to Germany. When he refused Alba’s summons to appear before a tribunal, his property was confiscated. William and his brother Louis of Nassau raised an army to drive the Spanish out of the Netherlands. They at first met defeat, but in 1576 the provinces of the Netherlands, taking advantage of the mutiny of the Spanish army under John of Austria, united under William’s leadership in the Pacification of Ghent for the purpose of expelling the Spanish. In 1573, chiefly for the sake of policy, William had become a Calvinist.
4 The struggle with Spain continued. The Union of Utrecht (1579) proclaimed the virtual independence of the northern provinces, of which William was the uncrowned ruler, but the victories of the Spaniards under Alessandro Farnese forced William to seek French support by offering (1580) the rule over the Netherlands to Francis, duke of Alençon and Anjou. Philip II denounced William as a traitor, and a high price was set on his head in 1581.
5 William replied with his famous Apologia, in which he not only sought to vindicate his own conduct, but hurled violent accusations at the Spanish king. In the same year the representatives of Brabant, Flanders, Utrecht, Gelderland, Holland, and Zeeland solemnly declared Philip deposed from sovereignty over those provinces. William’s support of the unpopular Francis resulted in the wane of William’s own popularity during his last years. He was assassinated at Delft by a French Catholic fanatic, while the struggle against Spain was still in a critical stage. 6 http://www.bartleby.com/65/wm/WmSil.html
As to King James..the Jesuits didn't attempt to kill him, it was a group led by Guy Fawkes that wanted to kill him because of the mistreatment of Catholics in England at the time. The co-conspirators were "Robert Catesby, John Wright, and Thomas Winter, the originators, Christopher Wright, Robert Winter, Robert Keyes, Guy Fawkes, a soldier who had been serving in Flanders, Thomas Percy, John Grant, Sir Everard Digby, Francis Tresham, Ambrose Rookwood, and Thomas Bates." Not a Jesuit among them. Now I have to go to because I've got to meet a client by 10 in the morning. I've wasted enough time talking to someone that is dredging up past wounds and doing so with information that is completely false.
The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was a desperate but failed attempt by a group of provincial English Catholics to kill King James I of England, his family, and most of the Protestant aristocracy in one attack by blowing up the Houses of Parliament during the State Opening. The conspirators had then planned to abduct the royal children, not present in Parliament, and incite a revolt in the Midlands.
The Gunpowder Plot was one of a series of unsuccessful assassination attempts against James I, and followed the Main Plot and Bye Plot of 1603. Many believe the Gunpowder Plot to have been part of the Counter-Reformation.(emphasis mine)
The aims of the conspirators are frequently compared to modern terrorists, however, their actions were not designed to merely influence government policy by evoking terror; their real aims were nothing short of a total revolution in the government of England and the installation of a Catholic monarch. (emphasis added) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot
The exercise was becoming costly and more hands were required, so Catesby drew more accomplices into the inner circle of the plot, including his servant Thomas Bates, John Wright's brother Christopher Wright, and Thomas Wintour's brother Robert Wintour. In the ensuing months, Parliament's sitting was continually delayed, allowing Fawkes to return to Flanders to get more powder to replace the powder which had begun to spoil, and Catesby to organise further support (and, some claim, to meet with Jesuit priests, including leaders of the order such as Father Henry Garnet and Father John Gerard. John Grant,(emphasis added) Sir Everard Digby, Robert Keyes, Ambrose Rookwood, and Catesby's cousin Francis Tresham were subsequently brought into the plot. Tresham was the son of Sir Thomas Tresham, one of the leading Catholics of the later Elizabethan period, and one who had suffered greatly for his faith at the hands of the government. Grant was the brother-in-law of Robert and Thomas Wintour, and Digby, Keyes and Rookwood were also disaffected members of Midland Catholic families. All but Fawkes and Bates were related either by blood or marriage.
http://www.britannia.com/history/gunpowder2.html
No, the Trail of Blood is a Baptist MYTH. There's not a historical fact to it. How many Catholics have Protestants killed? How many did Queen Elizabeth mow down? King James? Others?
That is the wrong William of Orange.
State that it's William the Silent then that you were talking about in the first place. Another publication said he was killed by a Spanish agent. Still, you haven't proven your claim that he was killed by a Jesuit!
(and, some claim, to meet with Jesuit priests, including leaders of the order such as Father Henry Garnet and Father John Gerard.
Ok.. it says some "claim" so that means it's unsubstantiated, can't be proven. You still haven't proven your assertion that Jesuits killed William the Silent or that they attempted to kill King James.
And who is talking about the Trial of Blood?
I never even mentioned that work.
Stop throwing up smoke!
That is a Jesuit tactic!
LOL!
As for killing Catholics, well how many did Elizabeth kill?
Very few in comparsion.
Likewise with King James.
Compared to Rome, Protestants were tolerant to the exteme.
That is the wrong William of Orange. State that it's William the Silent then that you were talking about in the first place. Another publication said he was killed by a Spanish agent. Still, you haven't proven your claim that he was killed by a Jesuit!
William of Orange is his name as well.
A Spanish agent?
You mean a Roman Catholic agent?
As for being killed by a Jesuit, aw come on now, you know how well those rascially Jesuits cover up their trial!
(and, some claim, to meet with Jesuit priests, including leaders of the order such as Father Henry Garnet and Father John Gerard. Ok.. it says some "claim" so that means it's unsubstantiated, can't be proven. You still haven't proven your assertion that Jesuits killed William the Silent or that they attempted to kill King James.
What I have shown is that it is historical fact that the plot was considered part of the Counter-Reformation, of which the Jesuits were the militant branch of.
Stop kidding around!
Should have edited that better:
No, the Trail of Blood is a Baptist MYTH. There's not a historical fact to it. How many Catholics have Protestants killed? How many did Queen Elizabeth mow down? King James? Others?
State that it's William the Silent then that you were talking about in the first place. Another publication said he was killed by a Spanish agent. Still, you haven't proven your claim that he was killed by a Jesuit!
From your article:
(and, some claim, to meet with Jesuit priests, including leaders of the order such as Father Henry Garnet and Father John Gerard.)
Ok.. it says some "claim" so that means it's unsubstantiated, can't be proven. You still haven't proven your assertion that Jesuits killed William the Silent or that they attempted to kill King James.
You must be getting tired because that is NOT what you originally said is it? You falsely accused the Jesuits of killing William the Silent and attempting to kill King James.
Your own words from post #112:
So the Jesuits didn't kill William of Orange? They didn't attempt to kill King James? They don't believe that they can do anything to advance the cause of Rome?
Who is kidding who and who is throwing up smokescreens?
As for being killed by a Jesuit, aw come on now, you know how well those rascially Jesuits cover up their trial!
Yeah, according to those Jack Chick publications you've been reading. Don't deny it either because I saw your admission to that on another thread. You also think all Catholics are condemned to hell because they don't believe as you do. Saw that little number on the Luther/Erasmus threads. Isn't there a rule here against religious bigotry?? Gee, there sure is.. it's right on the front of FR's homepage.
Enjoyed to talking to you until I found out you are a Jack Chick enthusiast and that you take that devil seriously. Well.. gotta run. I can only catch about 4 hours of sleep before I meet with a client. This has gone past being worth losing sleep over.
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.