Posted on 03/26/2012 1:38:33 PM PDT by NYer
Edit: A definition from Wikipedia is useful here: Blasphemy is irreverence towards religious or holy persons or things.[1] Some countries have laws to punish blasphemy,[2] while others have laws to give recourse to those who are offended by blasphemy.
[Fell's Point, Baltimore, MD] There was a show called "Cheers" on television years ago. It was bawdy and vulgar yet there were some borders it was not safe to pass in the early 80s when the show first aired. It depicted a homey place, reminiscent of an unpretentious neighborhood bar with a hint of old world ambiance and Boston charm. The heavy wooden furniture and the bar spoke of permanence, elegance, and that favorite piety of secular artists, human dignity. It was not always clear who the show's buffoons were, but you knew them when you saw them, and sometimes, it was a comedic mailman who could be the most noble in the simplicity of his fears. Some other writer said something about irony being lost on a society which had no shame. That's why we'd like to wield a metaphorical hammer. Perhaps there are others who can put a better finish on the details of what we will tell.
|
| Satirical painting: priest displeased with Nun? |
All we can say is that sometimes evil is really mundane and some of us don't realize that we're not only bufoons needlessly offending people's religious sensibilities, but far worse than that, we're offending God. Even the name of the bar, a pun on the Blessed Mother's name seems calculated to be offensive.
 |
| Would you like some candy? |
We're not talking about this place, but it's not far from Boston, but it boasts a similar unmistakable charm you'd expect in New England with friendly folks.
One of the features of the bar, and there are many, is its unmistakable Catholic ambiance. It's called, Ale Mary's and is located in Fell's point Maryland. One can just smell the faint aroma of the ocean as you think about it. The food is inexpensive, but if you're Catholic you might find it too expensive for the peace of your conscience to see the sacramental elements of your religion appear for the sake of decoration in peculiarly deliberate ways.
 |
| Chalices Used for Holy Sacrifice Being Abused by Patrons |
It's not surprising, but it's not acceptable either that chalices which are used in Catholic Mass for the consecration of wine which becomes the blood of Christ, are used by patrons to drink (and get drunk from). They're made of precious metals, sometimes jewels, but their use in such a secular setting is strange and unsettling. No less than the inexplicable painting of a priest with a stole, looking aghast or in surprise at a nun who has her back to him.
The most disturbing thing in the restaurant is the monstrance which is behind the bar used as decoration. The monstrance is large ornate disk, often resembling the sun, which is surmounted in a long stand with a heavy base. It contains a crystal compartment at the center of the disk where a consecrated communion Host can be placed inside and it allows the priest to elevate the entire object by the stand for the veneration of the Sacrament it contains. Seeing this monstrance here in this bar, covered with mardigras beads and a mustached smiley face where the Host would normally be is a little bit like finding family heirlooms in the hands of people who not only use them for purposes for which they were never intended, but use them in disrespectful ways.
 |
| Mustached Smiley Face Seems Particularly Malevolent |
We found out about this recently and the individual who sent this to us wrote an e-mail complaining about the display of these religious items and even offered to purchase them. Far from being treated with the respect she deserved, her concerns were met with derision.
Despite the bar owner claiming that no one cared about this clearly blasphemous display of religious artifacts, he asked her to remove an entry she made under the bar at a public site allowing comment on establishments.
As he berated our friend, the proprietor insisted as an argument to justify his sacrilege and disrespect for Catholic sacramentals, that there were even Bishops and priests who thought that his blasphemous inclusion of religious articles was comical and that there was nothing wrong with this display.
Apparently, there's some truth to what he says, because Catholic clergy, including senior, does frequent this place.
We'll be praying a Rosary in reparation for having seen this blasphemy. Hopefully, the proprietor can be persuaded to part with these items before word of this affects his business either spiritually or financially.
Give them a call:
Corner of Fleet & Washington Sts.
Fell's Point
Baltimore, MD.
21231
410-276-2044
Sorry, Jews spoke Hebrew, although they had enriched the language with a few Aram words for which Hebrew had no equivalent.
Let me know when you acquire a masoretic scroll in Aram. Only a complete fool would believe that a 70 year stay in Babylon would change the Language of God’s people.
.
>> “Are you saying that the high priest could be only a dwarf, midget or small child?” <<
we went through that foolish misdirection earlier, and it wasn’t worth a laugh then, nor is it now. Not even worth a brown star.
Wrong. Most Jews at the time of Christ spoke Greek. The ones around the Holy Land mostly spoke Aramaic. The only Hebrew was by the priestly class.
Let me know when you acquire a masoretic scroll in Aram. Only a complete fool would believe that a 70 year stay in Babylon would change the Language of God’s people.
A more completely warped view of history than I was formerly led to believe.
And how did you handle it? By not handling it? The Ark was a small box.
Nobody except God entered it. Any particular reason you don't want to admit it?
Do you not realize that the ark was in its own “Holy of Holies,” a small room that had to be filled with smoke, when the shekina was present?
Is every catholic that ignorant? (yes, of course)
.
The oldest extant Hebrew manuscripts of the Gospels date to the 11th and 12th centuries. If you have any proof that Matthew, Mark, Luke or John wrote first in Henrew I would love to see it.
For the record, Aram is not a language. It is a region located in modern day Syria.
Logic has to prevail. Hebrew is the language given by God for his people. Everything of importance in God's word is measured in Jerusalem, and can be stated accurately only in his given language. The twelve tribes of Israel are the key to all end time associations and events.
Aram are a people, and Aram is also their language.
This confetti cannon of catholic error and confusion has become very tiring to the believers here, and it is time to educate the catholics in the ways of Christs true followers.
If you are one of his, you will soon be beckoned by his angels to come out of Babylon, and join his convocation.
I’m not sure what your position regarding the Eucharist is, but I detect hostility to the constant Tradition of Christ’s Church. If you will not listen to the Church...
From St. Paul through to the early Church Fathers to today, Catholics have seen the Eucharist the same way.
______________________________________________________________________________
Paul Confirms This
Paul wrote to the Corinthians: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” (1 Cor. 10:16). So when we receive Communion, we actually participate in the body and blood of Christ, not just eat symbols of them. Paul also said, “Therefore whoever eats the bread and drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. . . . For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself” (1 Cor. 11:27, 29). “To answer for the body and blood” of someone meant to be guilty of a crime as serious as homicide. How could eating mere bread and wine “unworthily” be so serious? Paul’s comment makes sense only if the bread and wine became the real body and blood of Christ.
What Did the First Christians Say?
Anti-Catholics also claim the early Church took this chapter symbolically. Is that so? Let’s see what some early Christians thought, keeping in mind that we can learn much about how Scripture should be interpreted by examining the writings of early Christians.
Ignatius of Antioch, who had been a disciple of the apostle John and who wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans about A.D. 110, said, referring to “those who hold heterodox opinions,” that “they abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in his goodness, raised up again” (6:2, 7:1).
Forty years later, Justin Martyr, wrote, “Not as common bread or common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished, . . . is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus” (First Apology 66:1–20).
Origen, in a homily written about A.D. 244, attested to belief in the Real Presence. “I wish to admonish you with examples from your religion. You are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries, so you know how, when you have received the Body of the Lord, you reverently exercise every care lest a particle of it fall and lest anything of the consecrated gift perish. You account yourselves guilty, and rightly do you so believe, if any of it be lost through negligence” (Homilies on Exodus 13:3).
Cyril of Jerusalem, in a catechetical lecture presented in the mid-300s, said, “Do not, therefore, regard the bread and wine as simply that, for they are, according to the Master’s declaration, the body and blood of Christ. Even though the senses suggest to you the other, let faith make you firm. Do not judge in this matter by taste, but be fully assured by faith, not doubting that you have been deemed worthy
of the body and blood of Christ” (Catechetical Discourses: Mystagogic 4:22:9).
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/christ-in-the-eucharist
Do you not realize that you posted that the high priest entered the Ark, not any room? Is every antiCatholic in his cups that ignorant? Yes, of course.
Reality check.
Hebrew is the language given by God for his people. Everything of importance in God's word is measured in Jerusalem, and can be stated accurately only in his given language. The twelve tribes of Israel are the key to all end time associations and events.
Random phrases do not reality make.
Aram are a people, and Aram is also their language.
Neither do vain repetitions.
This confetti cannon of catholic error and confusion has become very tiring to the believers here, and it is time to educate the catholics in the ways of Christs true followers.
By your own admission, you are not even Christian. What education would you have we Christians learn?
If you are one of his, you will soon be beckoned by his angels to come out of Babylon, and join his convocation.
Put your analyst on danger money, baby.
Nice try but no cigar...So you 'interpret' it to mean something other than what it says...Now you can justify yourself...
Problem with your own definition is a three or four year old would have a rough time on only mother's milk for a couple of days...
No, I do not have enough hubris to believe that I can interpret it. I defer to those early Christians who heard the Word from those no less than one generation after the life and ministry of Jesus. The bottom line is that the Didache does not prohibit infant baptism as you attempted to interpret it for us.
Peace be to you.
Wrong!
By my own admission, I am very Christian, unfortunately you clearly are not, and have no respect for God’s word, or his things.
“entered TO the Ark”
(not into, as deranged demon posessed catholics see)
What you insist on calling “the church” is a herd of very lost men that have absolutely no knowledge, nor relationship with Jesus Christ.
Your “church” was created in the 4th century by the pharisees that had been displaced from Israel by the Roman army in 70 AD. That is why said “church” defies God’s word, and follows man made “traditions” as the pharisees always have.
The worship of Ishtar in the guise of Mary is another characteristic of the pharisees of Judea.
.
Must be some pretty heavy indoctrination, started at a young age, to make someone that amazingly naive.
-—Your “church” was created in the 4th century by the pharisees that had been displaced from Israel by the Roman army in 70 AD. That is why said “church” defies God’s word, and follows man made “traditions” as the pharisees always have.——
Can you find any historical evidence for Christians following your doctrines prior to Luther?
Yes, in the epistles of Paul; it is an exact fit.
Quid est veritas? That is the question that is written in the hearts of everyone.
If one looks inward for the answer they will never find it. That is particularly true of those who begin with their truth, that the Church instutited by Christ is evil, and then read Scripture and history to prove themselves correct.
We know that lies and discord are not fruits of the Holy Spirit so those trapped in this deceit need our prayers.
Bless ya, NL - there’s wisdom and clearly inspiration in your words. I know I’d be better off to scorn less and pity more - prayer is a very good answer in a case like this.
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.