| 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 ...
Your point about experts is well-taken. Also, I have serious doubts about this whole business about subliminal messages.
I don't know how old you are but I remember that during the 1970s there was a great deal of worry over the subliminal messages that could supposedly be found in the images used in TV and print ads. For example, a picture of a glass of Coke with ice cubes in it supposedly sent a message about sex to the viewer's subconscious. It was much ado about nothing and eventually the whole "controversy" fizzled.
Yes, and the fact that so few people supposedly know these juicy little secrets about the Catholic Church indicates that these bits of knowledge are not factual.
I have spent time on the threads. I have never seen anyone at all wish for the death of a catholic. I think it's wrong of you to malign Freerepublic and Freepers that way.
But as you probably know, most Protestants are not justified by faith in Baptism...We have no faith in water Baptism...We believe that Jesus died for our sins and we know we received the Spiritual Baptism when we called on Him to save us...Whereby we died, were buried and rose again, in Christ...And we are seated in Heaven...
We do not believe in the pope, or the catholic church...And as such, we are branded as infidels and heretics as well as 'anathema' by your church...And we will not receive Salvation according to your church...
No, I didn't forget you.
I have no problem sharing my faith concerning the risen savior, Jesus Christ, and the infallibility of God's word.
Go to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com
There you will find all of the information concerning the quotes which I gave and the information dealing with 1 Clement, chap 25 verses 1-5, which deal with "pope" Clement's belief in the mythical phoenix being a literal creature.
For more on this, I would also recommend the book, "The Lost Books of the Bible," William Hone, Rev. Jeremiah Jones, and Wiliam Wake, Archbishop of Canterbury.
You need to look a little closer, FC.
I'm not going to mention any Freepers specifically, but if you think there aren't people in the Protestant camp in the US who wouldn't kill Catholics if they could get away with it, you're very much mistaken.
Fact: Jack Chick and Alberto Rivera have published garbage indicating that the Vatican has a long term plan to "shoot every Bible-believing pastor" in the US "in the head" when they "take over" the US. If someone goes around saying that Catholics are out to kill them (which they aren't), doesn't it make sense to assume that they also would assert the right of self-defense, and probably pre-emptive self-defense, against such alleged plots?
Fact: "Reconstructionist" Calvinists hold that various parts of the OT law ought to be incorporated into civil law. Many of them would include the death penalty for idolatry in that list. I have personally asked Reconstructionists before if they thought that Catholics were idolaters. Of course they do. I then asked them if, in an ideal Reconstructionist state, the practice of Catholicism would be a capital offense. Their answer was that they "weren't sure".
Of course, 99% of all Protestants consider both groups to be loony. But there is that 1% out there ...
The solution to this is pretty simple. It goes like this ... "Love your enemy, pray for those who persecute you ... If anyone says he is in the light, but hates his brother, he is still in the darkness ..." etc.
Not sure what your point is. The Bible teaches Apostolic Succession, 2 Tm 2:2 for example. The most ringing defense of the dogma in the early fathers is not in 1 Clement, but in "Against Heresies" of Irenaeus of Lyons.
Regardless, no single father is considered authoritative of himself (the way scripture is), but he is a witness to the belief of the Church. The constant belief of the Church is authoritative because of Christ's promise to send the Holy Spirit to lead the Apostles and their successors "into all truth".
One also has only to look at some of the posts by followers of a certain church to see plenty of what seems to be bashing, put-downs, and belittling of me.
I finally, though, did decide to stand up for myself, which is within my right to do.
I would have loved to just have had an objective discussion concerning the film and other things, without all of the put-downs, etc, by others, but it seems that if one starts a thread which others deem even to hint negatively concerning a particular church, then that one will get clobbered and belittled for starting that thread.
I think the gays and MSM lapdogs are (and have been) attacking Catholicism any way they can, especially over the Church's stance on the "gay marriage" issue.
Sad to see WND buy in.
I was interested in citations for your anti-images quotes from Tertullian etc. I'm well aware of Pope Clement and the Phoenix.
Then that would make me a Reconstructionist Catholic?
Men are converted by God. The behavior of humans is not particularly relevant to this.
Thou hast said it. :-) But I don't think you can get me on board with a "death penalty for idolatry" platform, even if you exclude us Papists.
No it's not. It's an uneducated opinion by someone who (at best) doesn't know what the Church teaches. Let's review the quote again:
This attempt at harmonizing leaves many Anglicans, Muslims, Protestants, Wiccans, and followers of other religions in an awkward situation. Many know of the claims of the Roman Catholic Church and reject them in favor of the teachings of other groups. That would seem to eliminate any possibility for them to be saved and attain Heaven, according to the Roman Catholic Church.
In bold, we see where the opinion goes wrong: The Church never says there is "no possibility for salvation" while on Earth. No matter what anyone does, there is always a possibility for salvation. The people described in the previous sentence (of the quote) do indeed loose their salvation, but not because they are Anglicans, Muslims, Protestants, Wiccans, per se, but because they know what the Church is yet still reject it. If the members of the previous groups (Anglicans, Muslims, Protestants, Wiccans) or any other than the Catholic don't fully know what the Church is, it's still possible for them to be saved outside the faith. This is called the doctrine of invincible ignorance.
So to say that "As I understand it, your church makes the claim and takes the position that anyone who is not Catholic, who is not 'sprinkled with blessed holy water', by a 'Priest', can not be a real born again Christian...", (emphasis added) as you did in post 82, is not accurate at all.
And the Roman Catholic " Monarchists" who actually, now, in the present, state that the divine right of kings is the best way to go? I can name at least one prominent RC poster who advocates this in his "about" info.
The silly assertion that some "protestants" want to kill "catholics" and you can prove this because some firebrands talk about conspiracies is poor reasoning.
There are ridiculous people on both sides, and if you only choose to point out those on the other, it weakens your last bit of advice.
When the Church says that the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is not canonical, this means that it is not included in the canon of Scripture.
I see nothing inconsistent about giving more weight to Clement's comments on apostolic succession in paragraphs 42 and 44--something he would have direct knowlege of--and less weight to his statement about the phoenix in paragraph 25--something he did not have direct knowledge of.
Finally, I belong to the Catholic Church. "Roman" is not part of its title. Actually, it's a derogatory term added by Protestants.
"Let us consider that wonderful sign..." Would you have such a strong objection if it were translated "symbol"?
I would hope you wouldn't, but even if you did, you would merely be further exemplifying your anti-Catholic bias. You see, what Clement is saying here is that the phoenix is indeed a "sign" or a "symbol" of what resurrection is, that is, the concept of resurrection. He's not saying that Jesus' resurrection is the same as the phoenix, and indeed, there is no language in that paragraph to indicate that he believes the phoenix to be a mythical beast on par with God, Jesus or the Church.
You go on to further state that this is what Apostolic Succession is based on, the story of the phoenix. This is patently false, and easily demonstrable as such by a simple re-reading of the text (the ENTIRE epistle) in question, to see this is the case. The example of the phoenix is given in Chapter 25, but the discussion of apostolic succession doesn't occur until chapter 42! How you get that the one paragraph in chapter 25 is related to Chapter 42 (and after Chap. 42), is beyond my comprehension. Maybe you could explain that. ( this is the best one I saw at the site you provided, it's the clearest to read: 1 Clement's First Epistle)
At any rate, this claim you make about 1 Clement's teaching is, IMO, pure anti-Catholic tripe. Maybe Jack Chick would like it. e-mail him.
I thought I knew who you were talking about, but I checked his "about" page and the phrase "divine right" is not on it, so I'm at a loss for who you mean. The doctrine of "divine right" of kings was actually an English Protestant invention (James I, to be specific), not a Catholic one.
I'm not sure why you compare monarchism with advocating killing innocent people for their beliefs, so I guess I don't get your point. I don't think monarchism is ridiculous, though I don't think I agree with it.
There are ridiculous people on both sides, and if you only choose to point out those on the other, it weakens your last bit of advice.
There are certainly Catholics with ridiculous ideas. (Did you know that practically everything that ever happened that was bad was caused by the Freemasons, or maybe a conspiracy between Jews and Freemasons? No, neither did I. But there are Catholics who think that, or seem to.) I never denied it.
But FC's comment was that she had never heard of anyone who wanted to kill Catholics. I have.
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.