|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:
Skip to comments.'Satanic' Art In Catholic Church Exposed
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 ...
While the early church wasn't against art in and of itself, there are no scriptural references within the New Testament (The New Covenant which all Christians have been given to live by) which allow giving reverence to what the images and art supposedly represent, or the art or images themselves.
Here are some quotes from some pre-Nicene church fathers:
1.) "It is with a different kind of spell that art deludes you...It leads you to pay religious honor and worship to images and pictures." (Clement of Alexandria, c. 195 AD)
2.) "The Law itself exhibits justice. It teaches wisdom by abstinence from visible images and by inviting us to the Maker and Father of the universe." (Clement of Alexandria, c. 195 AD)
3.) "Works of art cannot be sacred and divine." (Clement of Alexandria, c. 195 AD)
4.) "In a word, if we refuse our homage to statues and frigid images....does it not merit praise instead of penalty that we have rejected what we have come to see is error?" (Tertullian, c. 197 AD)
5.) "We know that the names of the dead are nothing, as are their images. But when images are set up, we know well enough, too, who carry on their wicked work under thses names. We know who exult in the homage rendered to images. We know who pretend to be divine. It is none other than accursed spirits." (Tertullian, c. 197 AD)
6.) "Demons have their abode in the images of the dead." (Tertullian, c. 197 AD)
7.) "How could [Peter] have known Moses and Elijah except in the spirit? People could not have had their images, statues or likenesses. For the Law forbad that." (Tertullian, c. 207 AD)
8.) "Without a doubt, there is no religion wherever there is an image. For religion consists of divine things, and there is nothing divine except in heavenly things. So it follows that images are without religion. For there can be nothing heavenly in something that is made from the earth." (Lactantius, c. 304-313 AD)
"It has been sufficiently shown...how vain it is to form images." (Arnobius, c. 305 AD)
"Rape of the Soul"
Would the RCC be in this predicament(imbedded things within the artworks) - as the article contends - if they had long ago decided not to put such an apparent emphasis on so-called sacred art and sacred images?
I think that anytime you have artists working or being commissioned, you will find artists subverting the message of their own pieces, which no one is supposed to notice.
Embedded imagery really doesn't "work" in terms of making people do things against their will, which is why it's not used to sell Keebler cookies.
Should I burn Grandma's photo?
This thread should bring out all the right thinking Christians to tell us how evil the Church is.
Care to elaborate?
I mean that there is a strong contingent on FR that I think would be happy to see Catholics treated the way the the Afghans are treating that Christian convert.
Anti-Catholicism seems to be one of the most common themes on FR lately.
On Jan. 22, 1998, when [Pope Benedict XVI] was still a cardinal and the grand Inquisitor (yes!) of the Roman Catholic Church, he declared that their archives (4,500 large volumes) indicate a death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church for being heretics. And likely two-thirds of the original volumes are lost .
Nothing like blood libel to get the boys in the white sheets all excited.
>>This thread should bring out all the right thinking Christians to tell us how evil the Church is<<
And I bet they are the same ones that see the big M in "The Last Supper"
Or maybe the OP is Martin Sheen.
>>On Jan. 22, 1998, when [Pope Benedict XVI] was still a cardinal and the grand Inquisitor (yes!) of the Roman Catholic Church, he declared that their archives (4,500 large volumes) indicate a death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church for being heretics. And likely two-thirds of the original volumes are lost
Guess who's off my bookmarks.
>>Nothing like blood libel to get the boys in the white sheets all excited.<<
I forgot that the KKK was Anti-Catholic! Bet those that come onto the Catholic threads and beat on us are real proud to be of like mind with them.
That was an editorial? Do you have a link? I can see it being some ignorant person's post, but I didn't think things had gotten that bad over there so soon. Thanks for bringing it to our notice.
As for your "image" thesis, it's absolute nonsense. This stuff is propagated by the deliberately obtuse or willfully mischievous.
Do you perhaps have a photo in your wallet of a spouse or a parent or a child? What is the purpose of that photo? Is it to supplant and take the place of the real thing? Or is it a reminder of that loved one and to make him or her more present to you? Is your wife jealous of the photo which you keep of her in your wallet? The very idea is laughable, isn't it?
Even in the secular sphere, we build statues of men who've accomplished what we consider to be great things. The Lincoln Memorial sits in pride of place up there in DC, for example. The dollar bill has Washington's face on it. And so on.
It's no different in the spiritual sphere. Jesus was a man. He walked this earth. As did his Blessed Mother and the Apostles. We remember them with love in their images.
Ironically of course, the things which truly turn us away from God are not built of plaster or glass. They're in our heart. Materialism, avarice, jealousy, love of money, lust, fornication etc etc.
It pains me to have to write this stuff, it's so self-evident but there may be someone wandering through this thread who is helped by it.
Hmmmmm. I wonder what Dr. Freud would think about Mr. Calace's ability to discern these images?
"Rape of the Soul": Seeking to dispel the cigar theory
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar," Sigmund Freud once noted.
But the creators of a new documentary, "Rape of the Soul," see phalluses everywhere especially in religious paintings, even one that was revered by St. Francis.
Michael A. Calace directed, wrote, produced and stars in the film. He spots subliminal sexual imagery hidden in other paintings, along with demonic trees, "morphed smirking devils" and a fire-breathing dragon that stands on Jesus' shoulder. Sometimes you see what he's talking about; much of the time you don't.
Unfortunately, he never justifies the creation of a 2-hour-and-20-minute movie on the subject.
The mixture of talking heads and still photographs quickly grows monotonous; only the paintings offer some visual relief. Calace's script may suggest the form of a mystery, but it comes across as a presumptuous sermon filmed, according to narrator Robert Swan, "to heal the many that have suffered from such uninvited violation."
Along the way, Calace and others also discuss Nazi propaganda, predatory priests, child pornography, mass hypnosis, the suspect publications of the Oregon Catholic Press and "the scandals exposed by Silver Sword International" (Calace's production company).
John Hartl, Special to The Seattle Times
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company
I looked into the backgrounds of the "experts" used in the film:
1) Robert Swan, an actor -- he's no expert.
2) Michael A. Calace, performer/inventor/now movie maker -- responsible for the film, and not really an expert.
3) Dr. Wilson Bryan Key -- an expert, at least at being an alarmist: http://www.uiowa.edu/~commstud/adclass/craig/clamplate.htm
4) Dr. Stanley Monteith -- is an MD, talk show host, he's no expert on this topic.
5) Dr. Marc Oster -- psychologist, professor. An expert at what other than psychology?
6) Dr. Judith Reisman -- now here is the first "expert" I have actually heard of from the group of six. Reisman really is an expert. She has a PhD in mass communications, has done extensive studies on pornography and ripped Alfred Kinsey a new one. She is not Catholic, but Jewish by the way.
With only one expert on the stated topic, one nut, and four wannabees, I am not holding my breath to see this film.
And when even their writers won't put their names to an article. well...
I gave up on worldnetdaily a long time ago.
This is only one of several attempts on their part to attack the Church.
If a perverted artist snuck some penises into a painting that just makes him a perverted artist.
I am so sick of conspiracy theories.
Definitely Catholic bashing.
Excellent research, thanks.
How gullible are some of you? Do you believe everything that you see in the movies or read on the internet? Thanks to this movie, which has not been proven to have any basis in fact, anti-Catholic Protestants and disaffected Catholics now have another opportunity to bash the Catholic Church.
The NT may not say anything about art, but the fullness of revelation is not found in Scripture alone but in Scripture and Tradition.
Nice try Protestants.
Some Mormons have the same complaint as do some Scientologists as do some Protestants as do some Jewish posters as do some preterists as do some atheists and so on.
We will not allow the assembly to be disturbed on devotional threads and those which are like church services such as the daily mass readings.
But threads like this one are a town square or liberty tree, so every poster is free to argue the subject at hand. As long as the statements are not personal attacks of another poster, obscene, hateful, anti-Semitic or racist - issues can be raised for the next guy to knock down, like piñatas.
This thread (so far) is a great example of how assertions may be made and countered for the edification and amusement of the general forum.
The posters here both by what they say and how they say it are living testimonies of their own confessions. I would that all posters, when suffering ridicule and contempt for what or Whom they believe, would approach the town square as an opportunity.
The posters here both by what they say and how they say it are living testimonies of their own confessions. I would that all posters, when suffering ridicule and contempt for what or Whom they believe, would approach the town square as an opportunity. 29 posted on 03/26/2006 10:16:08 AM MST by Religion Moderator
Bless you. b'shem Y'shua
Very anointed words indeed.
"..."Artists from DaVinci to Botticelli have imbedded subliminal images..."
Just in time for the DaVinci Code movie.
Funny, I have a wonderful reproduction of The Birth of Venus on my bedroom wall. Have loved that painting from childhood.
It's the clamshell, and the colors, not the nude which btw was Bocticelli's mistress, Simonetta, that are wonderous. Not to mention his technique.
All this embedded "Satanic" nonsense sounds like Savonarola burning art in the public square. ~Or a bunch of neo-Cromwells.
It will just add more hype to a movie that lends itself to the worst blasphemy.
Seemingly ludicrous assertions should be questioned regardless of the asserter's affiliation.
I think that that is an equally plausible theory to the theory that the makers of the documentary "Rape of the Soul" are presenting.
I believe that further inquiry into this topic is good. Right?
What is wrong with delving further into this subject to see what it leads to?
Nice attempt to muddy the waters, but you really are comparing apples to oranges. Not surprising, though.
If you would have bothered to look at all of the quotes(and there are others), you would see that the early church fathers (including Tertullian) had no problem with art in and of itself. This agrees with those who lived in the Apostolic Age.
What they had a problem was, was giving reverence to art and images, or what the art and images represented.
You have it totally backward. Look at modern Catholic Churches and they are lacking in the imagery while the Church of Old was packed full of them. Now which one do you thing was the bigger problem.
I am sure you don't need me to help cure that bit of wonder.
That was not my intent at all. But if certain ones which you allude to wish to avail themselves in such a manner as you have described, then I guess that that is something which they will have to decide for themselves.
Regardless, that was not my intent with this thread.
The church is evil? Hardly. The RCC, the EO, and all the various sects of Christendom are open to improvement.
bump with no comment
Are Muslims the only ones who are against art and images (Or what they represent) being reverenced?
Are you, in effect, calling the 1.) Early Church Fathers, 2.) those who lived during the Apostolic Age, and 3.) Apostles themeselves Muslims?
There are many non-Muslims alive today who also side with 1-3 on this issue.
Don't forget that either.
That is Ad Hominem cloaked within a Straw-Man argument.
You can do better than that. Right?
I seriosuly doubt that anyone on FR wishes to treat Catholics the same way that the Afghans are treating the Christian convert.
I am hardly anti-Catholic, though I do disagree with them on some things.
Calling another person Anti-Catholic when they are far from it is theatrics, Ad Hominem, and dull and boring rhetoric.
More Ad Hominem cloaked in a straw-man argument...
And using guilty by association too to link some who may disagree with art/images being reverenced with those who somehow see the big "M"?
Surely you can do better than that.
Ad Hominem now against WND?
Wow, you guys are really pulling out all the stops.
Please argue objectively, concretely and factually-based.
Logical fallacies not wanted.
Linking WND with the KKK, are you?
I sure hope not.
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, though I believe something a little more substantive that that would be helpful to back up your assertion.
>>The posters here both by what they say and how they say it are living testimonies of their own confessions. I would that all posters, when suffering ridicule and contempt for what or Whom they believe, would approach the town square as an opportunity.<<
I don't mean to seem contrary here but when posters come onto a thread with the words Mary, Pope or Rosary in the title and are slamming Catholic beliefs in the first few posts, that is insult. The people who continually do this are not looking for a discussion, they are looking to condemn.
If it happened on a thread with the words Tallit, Shiva or Moses in the title, it would be call Anti-Semitic.
And your opinion concerning WND is pure Ad Hominem.
As for the rest of that 'comparing apples to oranges argument' of yours, I said earlier that those who lived during the Apostolic Age as well as the Early Church Fathers, weren't opposed to art in and of itself - so they wouldn't be opposed to someone having pictures in their wallet of loved ones.
If you would have bothered look at all of the ECF quotes that I gave, you would have saw that they were against giving reverence to art and images or giving reverence to what the art and images supposedly represented.
To quote them in a nutshell: art and images cannot be sacred and divine, one should abstain from paying reverence to religious art and images/what religious art and images represent, religious images are nothing, it is vain to form religious images.
Hopefully you are learning a thing or two. I am trying to be patient with everyone here.
That is what I say. I think it is ok to investigate and see if this is credible. We should be willing to at least investigate this more fully and take it as far as we can.
If it all eventually turns out to be bunk, then we will know. If not, then we will have possibly enlightened ourselves.
It seems that some on here, as you can see, apparently don't want this to be investigated at all.
Why do you think that would be?
And evangelicals might likewise say your profile page moniker "Official Anti-Catholic troll hunter" is likewise condemning and insulting to them.
I will not protect a thread just because it has "Joseph Smith" or "Pope" or "Mary" or "L. Ron Hubbard" in the header. It must be clearly a church thread, a chapel or devotional for the assembly to be protected on my watch.
If witnessing is the intent of a thread, IMHO the posters should realize that seekers are drawn to open discussions and rigorous debates - not choir rooms - and they will pay as much attention to the demeanor of the poster as they will to the substance of the post.
An Appeal To Authority?
Is the Seattle Times Company, or John Hartl somehow the ultimate authority to dispel all or any notions about this film or what the film asserts?
I don't see how they possibly could be.
Nor am I saying that the documentary is the end-all on this subject.
More investiugtion may be needed.
Please humor us all by keeping an open mind on this.
What exactly, in your opinion, would one need to be to be fully qualified to produce a film as well as get the ball rolling?
I believe that Dr. Reisman, and three other Dr's, is enough to get the ball rolling.
I love Catholicism by what it leant me in coming to Judaism. Though it would seem more difficult for one relatively unschooled in Catholic theology to see it for so many of the pantywaste clergy fluttering therein.