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.
Well, here we go, the NPR flagship WNYC and the Circus of St. John the Divine, both in New York, will observe the ancient Sol Invictus (Feast of the Inconquerable Sun), which historically proceeded the week-long Saturnalia. The following from the WNYC site:
Thursday, December 21, 8:00-10:00pm on 93.9FM
Paul Winter Consort Winter Solstice
Before the Christian era, special rituals were enacted to ensure that the sun's light would return after the long winter. For this year's 21st annual Winter Solstice, Paul Winter and company celebrate the return of the sun and the lengthening of the days at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine. The space is transformed into an unearthly primordial darkness, until the world's largest tam-tam gong (reprazentin' for the sun) ascends. Brazilian vocalist Luciana Souza is the special guest for an evening of music for this non-denominational celebration. Also taking the stage are Armenian percussionist/vocalist Arto Tuncboyaciyan, Uillean piper Davy Spillane along with other members of Paul Winter's Earth Band.
Though it is unknown at this time whether a vomitarium will be set up inside the rectory of the Circus of St. John the Divine, it is rumored that representatives of Planned Parenthood will be available during the festivities to perform abortions in the vestry of the cathedral. < /sarcasm >
Before any of the whack jobs show up, I think I should point out that St. John's is Episcopal, and not Catholic.
THIS is as good as it gets on this forum, and thanks to the professionally weird nutjobs from the upper east side, we never lack for entertainment, do we? YEEHAW!
THIS is as good as it gets on this forum, and thanks to the professionally weird nutjobs from the upper east side, we never lack for entertainment, do we? YEEHAW!
THIS is as good as it gets on this forum, and thanks to the professionally weird nutjobs from the upper east side, we never lack for entertainment, do we? YEEHAW!
THIS is as good as it gets on this forum, and thanks to the professionally weird nutjobs from the upper east side, we never lack for entertainment, do we? YEEHAW!
THIS is as good as it gets on this forum, and thanks to the professionally-weird nutjobs from the upper east side, we never lack for entertainment, do we? YEEHAW!
Before any of the whack jobs show up, I think I should point out that St. John's is Episcopal, and not Catholic.
I figured most everyone had heard of the infamous Circus :-)
I say,put some mushrooms and ergot in the sacrament.
Let them REALLY experience the old gods!
As an ordained minister of the "Church of the Future" inc.
I can tell you,we want you to know the full truth of the universe,
no second hand,hand me down religion here.
Say,is that a cherub in your pocket,or are you just glad to see me?
Have another "Sacred" Wafer?
You too can become Epoptes!
Drink the Kykeon and join us.
"For no where else is there greater disparity between seeing and hearing." Aristides the Rhetor.
Dude, the Cathedral of St. John the Divine is on the Upper West Side/Morningside Heights, NOT the East Side.
And, like the Statue of Liberty, it is one of those places the locals rarely visit.
The Episcopal Church has been lost to Christianity for some time now.
Too bad. This church has a magnificent pipe organ.
Episcopal....Catholic. Really, what's the difference?
Both believe in "Free Will". Both support earthly kings instead of King Jesus. Both think Calvinists are of the devil. The only difference is location: London or Rome.
LOL!!
I hear Nina Totenberg will provide running commentary of the entrance and sacrifice of the vestal virgins.
Thank You!!!!!! Ohhhhh Thank You!!!!!
Dude, the Cathedral of St. John the Divine is on the Upper West Side/Morningside Heights, NOT the East Side.
That's right, situated not too far from Riverside Circus.
Hear the bells,
hear the bells,
It's the pagans at Riverside,
carilloning . . . .
Episcopal....Catholic. Really, what's the difference?
Good point. One major similarity they both have is that you cannot fit all of the members of either respective religion in a phone booth.
You may think the "bad blood" betwen the two of us is predestined, but I believe as intelligent individuals we can choose to make it not so.
The Christmas pagent was undoubtedly cancelled due to lack of a virgin and wise men.
Ring a ding,
hear them ring,
Soon it will be
Sol Invictus . . . .
Sir, I believe you may be right :-)
Re: your reductive argument as to the alleged interchangeability of Roman Catholicism and Episcopalianism: there is the little problem that Jesus himself chose Peter as the rock upon which his church would be built, and that the Pope is the direct successor of Peter. Please don't try and distort this fact by by referring to the Greek translation of the text, as is common practice among those who wish to avoid the fact that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, in which language "kephos" is "rock".
As a Roman Catholic, I don't think Calvinists are "of hell." What a bizarre and hateful insinuation.
Hold it!
"...the world's largest tam-tam gong..."
I, for one, am now interested!
I just finished reading a book about the alleged relic from the Cross now in a church in Rome, The Quest for the True Cross, by Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew D'Ancona. The book makes a persuasive case that this relic may in fact be authentic.
What is relevant here, however, is that the cult of Sol Invictus makes a prominent appearance in the book. When Constantine made his first steps towards official recognition of Christianity, he introduced symbols which could also be interpreted as connected with the cult of Sol Invictus. So Sol Invictus was in a sense the last stage of Greco-Roman paganism before the victory of Christianity. And now we appear to be moving in the reverse direction.
The new edition of the Oxford Classical Dictionary has this to say about the cult of Sol Invictus:
Much later [than the Roman Republican cult of Sol] and certainly foreign was the worship of deus Sol Invictus (the invincible Sun-god), to give him his most characteristic title. Eastern sun-gods had been making their way in the west, helped no doubt by the current identification of Apollo with Helios (e.g., Hor. Carm. Saec. 9), for some time; but the first attempt to make the Sun's the chief worship was that of Elagabalus (AD 218-22) (SHA Heliogab. 6. 7 and 17. 8), who introduced the god of Emesa, whose priest and, apparently, incarnation he was, El Gabal. Elagabalus's excesses and consequent unpopularity and assassination checked the cult, but Aurelian (270-5) reintroduced a similar worship, also oriental; he was himself the child of a priestess of the Sun (see SHA Aurel. 5. 5 and 35. 3). This remained the chief imperial and official worship until Christianity displaced it, although the cult of the older gods, especially Jupiter, did not cease, but rather the new one was in some sort parallel to it, the Sun's clergy being called pontifices Solis (cf. pontifex), a significant name which was part of a policy of Romanizing the oriental god. Sol had a magnificent temple on the campus Agrippae, see Richardson, Topogr. Dict. Anc. Rome, 363ff. Its dedication day (natalis) was 25 December.
The Christmas pagent was undoubtedly cancelled due to lack of a virgin and wise men.
They could borrow Britney Spears from the Church of England to use as their "virgin".
Well, since you brought it up (this is supposed to be a fun thread), the title Pontifex Maximus ("high priest") was transferred to Julius Caesar by the Etruscan high priest in the first century B.C. (or B.C.E. for the politically correct). Pontifex Maximus appears, along with other titles, at the opening of Caesarian proclamations written by Julius, Augustus, Tiberias, et al. Thus, whence the devolvement of the title on the Bishop of Rome?
...YOU don't think Calvinists are "of hell"...????
Please explain the edicts of the Council of Trent, then. Your Roman Catholic church has condemned all Reformers to eternal damnation (hell). It is called "anathema". Look it up in a dictionary.
These edicts have never been annulled by your Bishop of Rome.
And if you do not subscribe to these edicts, then how do you explain your personal refusal to follow the dictates of the "teaching authority" of your Church?
Are you in rebellion against your Vicar of St. Peter?
Please, inform yourself before you go on.
Sorry I only criticize North American Churchanity Groups, i.e the Moromns, Seven Day Adventist, Jehovah Witnesses, Faith Fellowship, The World Church of Whats his name.
I am just thankful that this time it was NOT something stupid done by a Catholic Church. But wait a couple of days I am sure one of our guy's will out do himself.
I just finished reading a book about the alleged relic from the Cross now in a church in Rome, The Quest for the True Cross, by Carsten Peter Thiede and Matthew D'Ancona. The book makes a persuasive case that this relic may in fact be authentic.
I have heard of this relic, but have not read much on it. But, don't forget, if you took all the relics of St. Theresa that currently exist, there'd be bone enough for a few dozen of her :-)
What is relevant here, however, is that the cult of Sol Invictus makes a prominent appearance in the book. When Constantine made his first steps towards official recognition of Christianity, he introduced symbols which could also be interpreted as connected with the cult of Sol Invictus. So Sol Invictus was in a sense the last stage of Greco-Roman paganism before the victory of Christianity. And now we appear to be moving in the reverse direction.
Extremely interesting, do you know what were the symbols? (I have never before heard of this.)
Oh, just give Andrew Greeley a few minutes, he'll come up with somethin' :-)
A sun figure labeled "SOL INVICTUS" appeared on Constantinian coins. However, this figure could also be identified with the Christian God, or at least so it has been argued. Here's the crucial paragraph in the Thiede-D'Ancona book:
In 311, Constantine hailed the sun as his tutelary, portraying the sun on his coins as his unconquerable ally, Sol Invictus. This cosmic arrangement between Emperor and solar god survived on Constantine's coinage long after the Battle of Milvian Bridge, in contrast to the classical pagan gods who had largely disappeared by 317. It has been argued that solar religion offered an attractive staging post to the Roman aristocracy on the road between paganism and Christianity, and it is certainly true that Jesus was often called Sol Iustitiae or depicted in statuary in a form closely resembling the god Sol.
But can any "relic of the true cross" have its provenance authenticated back to Jerusalem, c. 30 A.D.?
If every splinter claimed to be genuine were combined, you'd have a cross the size of the Empire State Building--including the Zeppelin mast.
Allegedly Episcopal Church. This particular facility is strange for a Church. The top of it contains all sorts of satelite dishes and cell tower communications. It is one of the more visible items sited by a lot of the conspiracy theorists.
I'm a Catholic, and I've never heard that we consider Calvinists of the devil. Where'd you get that silly idea?
the Pope is the direct successor of Peter.
Peter was Polish?
Read the book. There is writing on the label that makes it difficult to believe that it is a later forgery.
"...that silly idea..."
Please see my post #25.
If it were only "silly" I don't think I would be so strident.
I will assume you are just poorly informed like so many of your co-religionists I encounter on Free Republic.
Nevertheless, Merry Christmas. Cheers.
In 311, Constantine hailed the sun as his tutelary, portraying the sun on his coins as his unconquerable ally, Sol Invictus. This cosmic arrangement between Emperor and solar god survived on Constantine's coinage long after the Battle of Milvian Bridge, in contrast to the classical pagan gods who had largely disappeared by 317.
Most interesting -- especially because it was before the battle at Milvan Bridge, which battle made Constantine undisputed Emperor, that Constantine is said to have seen the vision of the cross in the sky while hearing a voice of deity, "By this sign, conquer." He ordered his soldiers to paint crosses on their shields the morning of the battle.
It has been argued that solar religion offered an attractive staging post to the Roman aristocracy on the road between paganism and Christianity, and it is certainly true that Jesus was often called Sol Iustitiae or depicted in statuary in a form closely resembling the god Sol.
So the possibility is that for Constantine, Jesus Christ was a convenient persona in which to transplant his favored deity Sol, and that Constantine remained a pagan.
Tangentially, how do you think the symbol of Sol may or may not relate to the Celtic Cross?
There actually was a study done of this (I can't find the details at the moment, though), and they determined that if all the splinters that have been claimed to be of the True Cross were put back together, it would create a cross only 1/3 of the size of the original. If I find the details, I'll let you know.
You are only too kind to give this kind of publicity to the great Cathedral of St. John the
Divine. From my experience in New Yawk your efforts seem very similar to that esteemed
sage Al Goldstein, who has similar themes in his public service messages.
For those of you out in flyover country, know that the Cathedral of St. John is the largest cathedral church in the western hemisphere. Begun more than 80 years ago, it is
still not finished, and not expected to be finished for another hundred years. It is indeed situated on the Upper West Side, just west of Morningside Park (where no person of non- color ventures), and just south of St. Luke's Hospital.
It was begun in the period when there were still a few WASPs left in New Yawk. The oldWASP Episcopalian churches of lower Manhattan - Trinity, St. Thomas, and one whose name escapes me - the exclusive domain of J.P. Morgan himself in days of yore as distinction- have larger congregations than the Cathedral Church of St. John, which, like Riverside, has been forced to "outreach".
The Cathedral design is faux-Gothic inside and out. St. Thomas on Fifth Avenue, in contrast, is much more aesthetically pleasing, has a large active congregation, a wonderful choir with built-in choir school - check out their numerous recordings -, and is very High Church. Higher than anything the Catholics have had since Vatican II, Latin Mass, visits from English Church poo-bahs, the works.
As rightfully intimated here, the Cathedral itself has gone completely multicultural
and PC. It is a kind of Anglican death-wish, if you will. If you go inside, you will find grottoes and chapels celebrating the blood of Rigoberto Menchu, Sol Invictus, and all manner of Third World pagan countercultural heroes.
There is one chapel inside St. John the Divine which everyone should see, however, and that is the Chapel of St. Michael, dedicated to soldiers, sailors, and policemen. There is a winged, armed statue of St. Michael there....and I often visited, dropping over from St. Luke's Hospital on lunch break, during the trial of the Persian Gulf War. Not much company there usually I am sorry to say....
The Cathedral is a favorite venue for PC pseudo-Christian politicians. My wife and I had the pleasure of walking out on Jesse Jackson during one of his rhyming rants there; I believe the occasion was his displeasure at the prospect of blacks suffering disproportionate losses in the Gulf War due to their disproportionate representation in the Army or somesuch.
Anyway, it sounds mildly stimulating to hear of the worship of Sol Invictus and Baal and the Serpent Goddess and you name it at the Cathedral. Jolly good show, what? Only in New Yawk......
Now how can an aggressive Calvinist celebrate Christmas? Didn't you see aristeides's post above:
Sol had a magnificent temple on the campus Agrippae, see Richardson, Topogr. Dict. Anc. Rome, 363ff. Its dedication day (natalis) was 25 December.
You got some splainin' to do, bro :-)
How can an aggressive Calvinist celebrate Christmas?
That's easy. My seven children.
Hey, did they ever build the proposed arboretum up in the gallery / roof space of the cathedral? I figured it would be for tree worship and such.
You are right indeed, there are a multitude of trees in pots way up there on the parapets- awaiting a modern day Quasimodo for execution upon the hapless New Yawkers below......
Oh, and by the way, it would help if you would look up "anathema" in an ecclesiastical dictionary, preferably a Catholic one so that it would give you the proper definition relative to what was meant at the Council.
It means EXCOMMUNICATION, not "eternal damnation (hell)."
Please, inform yourself before you go on.
Technical call: a greek lexicon is required: anathema maranatha written by Paul means "accursed at the return (of the Lord)." Now that's a pretty severe apostolic formula.
You are right indeed, there are a multitude of trees in pots way up there on the parapets- awaiting a modern day Quasimodo for execution upon the hapless New Yawkers below......
LOL!! By the way, did you ever notice the walking bridge between Trinity and the New York Stock Exchange? I always figured it was built for floor brokers in time of need: "Oh omnipotent one, please stretch forth your hand to lift up this diving stock . . . ."
I see you are a busy man :-)
Yes, the root is such. But that's not the context in which it is used by the Church. From the "Catholic Almanac:" A Greek word with the root meaning of accursed or separated and the adapted meaning of excommunication, used in church documents, especially the canons of ecumenical councils."
Yes, the root is such. But that's not the context in which it is used by the Church.
Doesn't surprise me. After all, that dope Paul was only an apostle. Who needs the New Testament when you have the Magesterium, anyway?
I guess it depends on what the meaning of "accursed" is.
Please forgive me if I don't accept the definition of the day of whoever occupies the Vatican "power chair".
The larger point is the SPIRIT of these foul edicts. They have not been renounced, have they? Hmmmm. Why not?
And my wording was "of hell" not "of the devil". But I won't quibble over your confusion.
the walking bridge between Trinity and the New York Stock Exchange
Yep, seems J.P. Morgan used to schlep on over to ole Trinity often daytimes, when he wasn't at his (virtually private) Episcopal Church further uptown. I kinda like the way Trinity is encased in all those skyscrapers - a pleasant anachronism. George Washington's church during his stay in New Yawk in the War for American Independence BTW....
Hold it! "...the world's largest tam-tam gong..." I, for one, am now interested!
...and maybe even a dimpled gong; a swinging gong; a dangling gong; and a hanging gong?
Puhleeze. Are you telling me that you've never heard of any words, ecclesiastical or secular, that have more than one meaning? Or whose meanings have changed or modified over time? Or are used to convey different meanings at different times? (Also, words do not always convey the meanings ascribed to their roots.)
This could be any word. It has nothing to do with Paul. It has nothing to do with the Bible. This has to do with a word used differently at different times in different places (Bible v. Church documents). It has one meaning in the Bible and a second meaning for Church documents and Church councils. The way it's used in Church documents and councils doesn't invalidate the meaning of that word in the Bible, no more than the meaning of that word in the Bible invalidates the meaning of that word in the Church documents.
As I said before, one should use the proper resources related to the question. If you're questioning the way it's used by Catholics, use a Catholic dictionary to see how and why we are using it that way. Don't box yourself in by using only a lexicon. It won't explain everything necessary to understand the word's usage.
Yep, seems J.P. Morgan used to schlep on over to ole Trinity often daytimes, when he wasn't at his (virtually private) Episcopal Church further uptown.
Interesting, I didn't know that.
I kinda like the way Trinity is encased in all those skyscrapers - a pleasant anachronism.
It is definitely a remarkable New York space.
George Washington's church during his stay in New Yawk in the War for American Independence BTW....
He didn't get to stay too long, though . . .
George Washington's church during his stay in New Yawk in the War for American Independence BTW....
His pew is at St. Paul's Chapel.
Jacob Burckhardt thought that Constantine was, as you suggest, a phony Christian who remained a pagan at heart. It's been years since I studied the matter myself, but, when I did examine the historical evidence, my own conclusion was that Constantine was as much of a Christian as you could expect an untutored military man to become.
Tangentially, how do you think the symbol of Sol may or may not relate to the Celtic Cross?
I'm Irish, and I have to admit I've never considered that there might be some connection between Sol and the Celtic Cross. I suppose it's possible that the circle on Celtic Crosses is supposed to represent the sun, or is somehow descended from representations of it. I just don't know enough about the artistic motifs and early Irish art to be able to have a considered opinion.
Puhleeze. Are you telling me that you've never heard of any words, ecclesiastical or secular, that have more than one meaning?
Well, it all depends on what the meaning of "meaning" is.
It has one meaning in the Bible and a second meaning for Church documents and Church councils.
Of course!!
Episcopal....Catholic. Really, what's the difference?
Door color. Episcopalians are 'red-door' Catholics.
See post 52 of mine below. It applies to your comments, too.
Also, many terrible wrongs have been done to the Catholic Church by those with liberal agendas who claim to be acting according to the "Spirit" of Vatican II. So, don't give me that "Spirit" of council stuff. "Spirit" can be whatever you imagine it to be, according to your own agenda. We don't go by the "spirit" of a council or document, we go by what it literally says (like the Constituiton of the U.S. should be followed). For example, we would never find a "right to privacy" in the Constitution, any more than we would find something that didn't exist in the Council of Trent like you have.
If you won't listen to the truth (and I would think you wouldn't be on FR unless you sought the truth), you can live out your anger without any help. If you claim to interpret a Council document a certain way, which is not the way the writers of the document meant it, what can be said? You're off in the ozone on your own and refuse to come back because of the way you insist on interpreting it for your own agenda. Sorry, you can claim all you want that the Catholic Church believes in certain things or means certain things, but that doesn't make you right.
And you are wrong. You're the one poorly informed, because it fits your agenda. How convenient to be so ignorant of the facts, and then refuse to believe them whey they're explained by those who actually live the faith you "misinterpret" day in and day out.
Also, it's not the definition of the day, and it's not the definition of who sits in the "power chair." The Holy Father does not make up every definition of everything. He has better things to attend to.
"Red Door" Catholics. LOL !
I suppose it's possible that the circle on Celtic Crosses is supposed to represent the sun, or is somehow descended from representations of it. I just don't know enough about the artistic motifs and early Irish art to be able to have a considered opinion.
I recall reading somewhere that the Celtic Cross supposedly represented the transition from Sun worship to Christianity. I can't say for sure, not being very familiar with the history, but I suppose an amalgamation of Sol and Christ is also a possibility.
Okay. Lift your head up, shoulders back, take a deep breath. Read every word (I know you can do this):
WHY - HAVE - THESE - EDICTS - NOT - BEEN - RENOUNCED ?
Maybe you don't understand the potential usage of dictionaries. Might want to pick one up and look through the definitions of words to see how many different, even nuanced, meanings a word can have. Do you deny this? If you do, you are disingenuous. If you don't, you know I'm right.
The two meanings are never mixed together. They are always separate: the documents, and the Bible. I could understand your problem if they were combined somehow, but the different meanings are always used in different places at different times, and are not substitutes for each other.
So get a grip: the word anathema has two official meanings in the Church. Live with it. Deal with it.
Because it's true -- non-believers have been excommunicated.
Just what part of "excommunicated" don't you understand?
The two meanings are never mixed together. They are always separate: the documents, and the Bible.
The problem with use of "anathema" interchangeably with "excommunication" is that the words mean two different things, are supposed to mean two different things, and should mean two different things. "Anathema" means "accursed" while "excommunication" means "out of communion" (cast out, if you will). "Anathema" occurs in the New Testament, while "excommunication" does not (but the Paulian phrase "cast such an one out" reflects the meaning and intent of "excommunication"). In the Canons of the First Council of Nice, both words are used, separately and distinctly, not interchangeably. One may recover from excommunication (repent and return to the fold); one does not recover from anathema, hence the severity of "anathema maranatha." The genuine meaning of "anathema" is diluted when used interchangeably with "excommunication" -- and as First Nice demonstrates, the two words have not always been used interchangeably.
I cannot answer for the purported relics of the Cross in the West. (There was a joke current at the time of the Crusades:
Q: Why are there no cedars in Lebanon?
A: Because every Frank in Christendom has a piece of the True Cross.
However, those relics of the Cross maintained by the Holy Orthodox Church all trace their provenance to the Cross found on Golgotha by St. Helen the Empress. That Cross became for a while an important symbol of the Christian Empire, and was briefly captured by the Persians. The Emperor Heraclitus led a successful campaign to recapture it (and stablize the eastern frontier)--incidentally for the tarnishers of Christianity, this is the only example of an offensive war with an even partly religious justification ever lauched by Eastern Christians. The Cross was then divided into small relics for safe-keeping.
I was blessed to be able to venerate one of these last year at a nearby Orthodox Church here in Kansas. They (the ones in Orthodox hands) are very few, and very small, save a few larger pieces maintained at Mt. Athos.
Subdeacon David
St. Mary Magdalene Orthodox Mission
Some great church you're running.
Why didn't the Vatican "ex-communicate" Adolph Hitler? Wasn't he a "disbeliever?"
Anathema means accursed. Accursed means eternally damned.
You Catholics are scary wordsmiths.
On January 13, 1547, at the Council of Trent, Session VI, the "Canons on Justification" were issued. Among these edicts is the following sentence:
....If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, let him be anathema."
Now, unless you are prepared to tell me that your Vatican organization has renounced this Canon 9 from the Council of Trent, I am standing firm in my original statement that Reformers are smart to be very suspicious of all Roman Catholics because you have assigned us by the power of the Vatican to eternal damnatin (i.e. hell).
See for yourself:
Council of Trent - Canon 9 on Justification
If you have any integrity, you will now admit you have been mistaken.
Sincerely, Aggressive Calvinist
Please see above, post #67, and feel free to follow the link.
I believe in "justification by faith alone" (as do most Protestants; certainly all Calvinists).
Your Church of Rome has issued an edict declaring that I am "Anathema".
"anathema" means accursed, which means to send to eternal damnation. (that is: cursed to hell.)
Therefore, my statement stands: The Roman Catholic Church considers Calvinists "of hell"; eternally damned.
How can Reformers reconicle with Romanists when such vile pronouncements have never been renounced? How can Protestants trust the siren songs of fraternal ecumenism?
Show me where I have misrepresented the official Vatican position. And if you cannot, have the decency to admit I am right. Sincerely, Aggressive Calvinist
In reply to post 49- Have the Calvinist revoked their renunciation of the Catholic Church?
Apostolic succession and the Real Presence of Christ in the eucharist; these are the main dfferences between the Catholic Church and all PROTESTant churches.
Why haven't your Calvinist Protests been renounced?
Actually the Church does not have to excommunicate everyone who decides to go their own way. They effectively excommunicate themselves.
Read the Letter of St James, "faith without works is dead." That about says it on this subject. I agree, all who have left the Church are in danger of death and all who contend that they have faith and need no works are anathema. Prove me wrong.
But all you have to do is repent and return to the Church that Jesus started; which is so lovingly protrayed in everyone's New Testament.
Read the Letter of St James, "faith without works is dead." That about says it on this subject. I agree, all who have left the Church are in danger of death and all who contend that they have faith and need no works are anathema. Prove me wrong.
But all you have to do is repent and return to the Church that Jesus started; which is so lovingly protrayed in everyone's New Testament.
Now, unless you are prepared to tell me that your Vatican organization has renounced this Canon 9 from the Council of Trent, I am standing firm in my original statement that Reformers are smart to be very suspicious of all Roman Catholics because you have assigned us by the power of the Vatican to eternal damnatin (i.e. hell).
It's not Roman Catholic persons per se, but rather the Church of Rome and its systematic dogma that is questioned, yes? (Frankly, many of that church have never heard of the Council of Trent.)
How can you reconcile? Easy, cease your protests and come back to the true Church. How many churches are we supposed to have anyway? I agree with the Church in that it is the Church that Jesus started. Did Calvin die on the cross for me? It was the protestants who left the Church, banded together against the Church, started ther own chuches, and now you have the gall to demand that they be forgiven before they repent. If that is the kind of confession that you believe in then it is false. Just when did Christ's promise to the Church get cancelled?
In Texas we call'em Anglo catholics.
Have the Calvinist revoked their renunciation of the Catholic Church?
The Puritan and Reformed churches have not renounced the stated disagreements with various teachings of the Roman Catholic church -- just as the Roman Catholic church has not renounced its disagreements with the teachings of the Puritan and Reformed churches.
Read the Letter of St James, "faith without works is dead."
Conversely, works cannot be done (are unacceptable) without faith. Which comes first, the works or the faith?
The reformers stated that nothing one did could save them. Likewise since we have 'no free will', according to them works were not necessary. Luther wanted to 'throw Jimmy n the furnace' because St. James in his letter said that works without faith were dead. Luther was wrong, Calvin was wrong and their churches are fading away. Goodbye.
Goodbye.
Okay, well, I was going to follow up with, "What is the greatest work?" but I can see you have other things to do.
Yep, seems J.P. Morgan used to schlep on over to ole Trinity often
Somehow the idea of the über-WASP schlepping anywhere seems highly improbable to me.
Merry Christmas!
"Queen Elizabeth will shlep along 95 pieces of baggage on her trip here."
-- P. Sann, NY Post, 9/29/57. Quoted in Leo Rosten, The Joys of Yiddish.
See me and raise me, eh? At least P. Sann understands that schlep is transitive. Merry Christmas to you too.
And a very merry Christmas to you.
Rosten also gives an intransitive example: "I understand, madam," said the clerk, "but still -- why shlep?" Since the sentence is uttered by an Englishman, perhaps it's meant to illustrate bad Yiddish usage.
The gollowing is taken from the Catholic Encyclopaedia's article on Anathema:
At an early date the Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. All the councils, from the Council of Nicća to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: "If any one says . . . let him be anathema". Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two.. This distinction is found in the earliest Decretals, in the chapter Cum non ab homine. In the same chapter, the tenth of Decretals II, tit. i, Celestine III (1191-98), speaking of the measures it is necessary to take in proceeding against a cleric guilty of theft, homocide, perjury, or other crimes, says: "If, after having been deposed from office, he is incorrigible, he should first he excommunicated; but if he perseveres in his contumacy he should be stricken with the sword of anathema; but if plunging to the depths of the abyss, he reaches the point where he despises these penalties, he should he given over to the secular arm." At a late period, Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication.
Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. A formula for this ceremony was drawn up by Pope Zachary (741-52) in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii. The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope. In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words:"Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment." Whereupon all the assistants respond: "Fiat, fiat, fiat." The pontiff and the twelve priests then cast to the ground the lighted candles they have been carrying, and notice is sent in writing to the priests and neighbouring bishops of the name of the one who has been excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication, in order that they may have no communication with him. Although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, he can still, and is even bound to repent. The Pontifical gives the form for absolving him and reconciling him with the Church. The promulgation of the anathema with such solemnity is well calculated to strike terror to the criminal and bring him to a state of repentance, especially if the Church adds to it the ceremony of the Maranatha.
In the Western Church, Maranatha has become a very solemn formula as anathema, by which the criminal is excommunicated, abandoned to the judgment of God, and rejected from the bosom of the Church until the coming of the Lord... Still the anathema maranatha is a censure from which the criminal may be absolved; although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, the Church, in virtue of the Power of the Keys, can receive him once more into the communion of the faithful. More than that, it is with this purpose in view that she takes such rigorous measures against him, in order that by the mortification of his body his soul may be saved on the last day. The Church, animated by the spirit of God, does not wish the death of the sinner, but rather that he be converted and live. This explains why the most severe and terrifying formulas of excommunication, containing all the rigours of the Maranatha have, as a rule, clauses like this: Unless he becomes repentant, or gives satisfaction, or is corrected.
From this excerpt, it is clear that the Church's sentence of anathema does not damn a soul to hell.
The gollowing is taken from the Catholic Encyclopaedia's article on Anathema:
At an early date the Church adopted the word anathema to signify the exclusion of a sinner from the society of the faithful; but the anathema was pronounced chiefly against heretics. All the councils, from the Council of Nicća to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: "If any one says . . . let him be anathema". Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two.. This distinction is found in the earliest Decretals, in the chapter Cum non ab homine. In the same chapter, the tenth of Decretals II, tit. i, Celestine III (1191-98), speaking of the measures it is necessary to take in proceeding against a cleric guilty of theft, homocide, perjury, or other crimes, says: "If, after having been deposed from office, he is incorrigible, he should first he excommunicated; but if he perseveres in his contumacy he should be stricken with the sword of anathema; but if plunging to the depths of the abyss, he reaches the point where he despises these penalties, he should he given over to the secular arm." At a late period, Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication.
Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity. A formula for this ceremony was drawn up by Pope Zachary (741-52) in the chapter Debent duodecim sacerdotes, Cause xi, quest. iii. The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope. In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles. He takes his seat in front of the altar or in some other suitable place, amid pronounces the formula of anathema which ends with these words:"Wherefore in the name of God the All-powerful, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, of the Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and of all the saints, in virtue of the power which has been given us of binding and loosing in Heaven and on earth, we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment." Whereupon all the assistants respond: "Fiat, fiat, fiat." The pontiff and the twelve priests then cast to the ground the lighted candles they have been carrying, and notice is sent in writing to the priests and neighbouring bishops of the name of the one who has been excommunicated and the cause of his excommunication, in order that they may have no communication with him. Although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, he can still, and is even bound to repent. The Pontifical gives the form for absolving him and reconciling him with the Church. The promulgation of the anathema with such solemnity is well calculated to strike terror to the criminal and bring him to a state of repentance, especially if the Church adds to it the ceremony of the Maranatha.
In the Western Church, Maranatha has become a very solemn formula as anathema, by which the criminal is excommunicated, abandoned to the judgment of God, and rejected from the bosom of the Church until the coming of the Lord... Still the anathema maranatha is a censure from which the criminal may be absolved; although he is delivered to Satan and his angels, the Church, in virtue of the Power of the Keys, can receive him once more into the communion of the faithful. More than that, it is with this purpose in view that she takes such rigorous measures against him, in order that by the mortification of his body his soul may be saved on the last day. The Church, animated by the spirit of God, does not wish the death of the sinner, but rather that he be converted and live. This explains why the most severe and terrifying formulas of excommunication, containing all the rigours of the Maranatha have, as a rule, clauses like this: Unless he becomes repentant, or gives satisfaction, or is corrected.
From this excerpt, it is clear that the Church's sentence of anathema does not damn a soul to hell.
Romulus copied a document, which among other things (if I read it correctly) said that the heretic is delivered to Satan and his angels. That sure sounds like "hell" to me;
But Romulus also copied this:
".....In passing this sentence, the pontiff is vested in amice, stole, and a violet cope, wearing his mitre, and assisted by twelve priests clad in their surplices and holding lighted candles...." yada, yada, yada
Man, this is a lot of ritual. Where in the Bible do you get this?
At a late period, Gregory IX (1227-41), bk. V, tit. xxxix, ch. lix, Si quem, distinguishes minor excommunication, or that implying exclusion only from the sacraments, from major excommunication, implying exclusion from the society of the faithful. He declares that it is major excommunication which is meant in all texts in which mention is made of excommunication. Since that time there has been no difference between major excommunication and anathema, except the greater or less degree of ceremony in pronouncing the sentence of excommunication.
This portion seems to demonstrate what I had noted above with respect to the Canons of the First Council of Nice; that is, excommunication and anathema historically were not considered identical. Though Pope Gregory IX later states that these are equivalent, the statement occurs 900+ years after First Nice.
Well, how come the Vatican never thought it important to ex-communicate Adolph Hitler?
More characteristic sheisen from the Blue Zone.
You have it exactly backwards. According to the Catholic Encyclopaedia, there was no material distinction between excommunication and anathema at the time of Nicaea I. Here's the relevant passage:
All the councils, from the Council of Nicća to that of the Vatican, have worded their dogmatic canons: "If any one says . . . let him be anathema". Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two.
Part of the problem may be that you don't seem to appreciate the distinction between minor and major excommunication. Minor excommunication - exclusion from the sacraments -- is the sort most often referred to. Major excommunication takes the separation to a higher level, and it is this that is meant by the modern sense of anathema
"minor ex-communication"...."major excommunication"...
You're missing the point.
The Vatican SHOULD have ex-communicated Adolph Hitler.
Had none of those luminescent minds read Mein Kampf?
Pacelli should have delivered up the entire National Socialist regime to SATAN AND HIS ANGELS !
The apologists for the Vatican have no trouble defending countless anathemas against the Reformers. But when it comes to real trouble-makers like the Nazis Party, they equivocate.
The Vatican SHOULD have ex-communicated Adolph Hitler.
Did Hitler claim to be a Catholic? The Catholic Church doesn't excommunicate non-Catholics. They have essentially excommunicated themselves. Just as Luther did when he renounced the teachings of the Church in favor of his own.
Further, this whole Calvinist notion of predestination IMHO is just another way to avoid personal responsibility for our actions. "Free will" means exactly that. God has given us the choice to follow him or not.(See Adam and Eve). If we choose to sin we are responsible for our choice and the consequences we recieve. Why would God predestine (i.e, set our fate in stone) some of us to sin or Hell and then send his son to be our Savior? God wants the love and worship of those who have freely chosen to give it. Only then is it real.
Well, exactly, and it is the Episcopal Church which seems determined to move as far away from the Bible and actual Christianity as it can.
We are reminded of the practices at the National Cathedral in Washington (Cathedral Church of St. Peter and St. Paul)during the "New Prayer Book" controversy in the 1980's, during which the Dean would allow Shintoists and every other non-Christian sect to hold services there (the more anti-Christian the better) while putting his foot down completly on the hundreds of thousands of devotees of the magnificent old 1928 Book of Common Prayer who wanted to have services. While kind and hospitable to any who abhorred Christ he was determined to bar and hurt any who actually did believe and wished to express their belief through that magnificently written ritual which had served the faithful for many years. These prelates are certainly teaching these awful Christians a lesson.
I thought it was, that if all the alleged splinters of the Holy Cross were put together, it would fill up several Home Depots!
Sol Invictus is a nickname of the Roman God Mithras, a direct knock-off of the Persian Sun God Mithra.
BTW, it has nothing directly to do with Saturnalia either, only that they all fall on/around the Winter Solstice.
1. If Hitler "ex-communicated" himself, what is the point of all these anathemas in the first place? Just let the heathen go free; No, the Vatican will never be able to explain giving the National Socialists a pass.
2. If you are sincerely interested in exploring "predestination" (which I doubt) instead of throwing every cliche, knee-jerk, half-baked thought-grenade you've ever heard from the secular world; If you want to inform yourself and grow out of your prejudices, then:
Come on over here. (if you bring an open mind and some egg nog)
What Every Thinking Christian needs to Know about Predestination
3. And Merry Christmas. Cheers
Just another example of your tax dollars at work...end gov't funding for PBS/NPR now...
Paul Winter's Earth Band
Earth band? They're playing rocks and rills instead of instruments? I spent a summer once with Paul Winter and a group of about 30 others in Big Sur in my weird years. Winter was among the weirdest, and I see that he has not recovered. But I like his music anyway.
I wonder whether the cathedral is also celebrating Christmas. Or will they have a PC "holiday" service on Dec 25?
A couple of years ago, I wrote a short history of the origin of the Sol Invictus cult during the reign of Emperor Elagabulus for an ancient numismatic Internet list. Emperor Elagabulus was rather, uhm...er... "different", to say the least.
**********************************
"Baal" was the name given to Phoenician-Syrian sky and sun gods. The word meant "lord" or "master". Originally, each town in Phoenicia had it's own baal. The Baal of Emesa in Syria was also called Sol Invictus El Gabal, Sol Invictus Elagabal, El Gabal or Elagabalus.
During this time in the Roman Empire, the gods of one part of the Empire would be identified with gods from other parts of the Empire. The worship of Sol Invictus was of Syrian origin. However, the identification with Apollo and the Greek sun god Helios helped the westward spread of the worship of Eastern sun gods. The spread of the Sol Invictus cult in the Empire led to the decline of the original Roman sun god, Sol Indiges.
Sol Invictus was also identified with, but not the same as, Mithras. Mithras was a god of light and truth of Indo-Iranian origin whose cult promised immortality, was restricted to men and was popular with well-to-do Roman merchants and soldiers throughout the Empire. Early Christian writers recorded that this cult practiced a form of baptism and a ceremonial meal and complained that the cult was stealing Christian ideas. Mithratic art shows Sol kneeling before Mithras, sharing a sacred meal and ascending to heaven with him in a chariot. In some inscriptions, the two are linked and addressed as Sol invictus Mithras.
At Emesa, the priesthood of Sol Invictus Elagabal was hereditary and Julia Domna, the wife of Emperor Septimius Severus, was born into to that family of hereditary priests. After the death of Caracalla and Julia Domna, Julia Maesa, the sister of Domna, schemed and succeeded in having her grandson, Varius Avitus Bassianus, replace Macrinus as Emperor. At the time, Bassianus was the 14 year old hereditary priest of Sol Invictus Elagabal and he probably considered himself to be the reincarnated god El Gabal.
The new Emperor was almost totally preoccupied with his religious duties ( not to mention sex) and, for a short period made "deus invictus Sol Elagabulus" the chief diety of Rome.
At the temple of Emesa, there was a sacred conical black Stone (baetyl), presumably a meteorite, which was associated with the phallus of El Gabal himself and which was the focal point of the faith. The new Emperor had the stone transported to Rome. The god's bird was an eagle (as with Jupiter). Unlike the dignified rituals of traditional Roman religion and the solemn, private and male-only rituals of Mithraism popular with Roman officers and wealthy merchants, the rites of El Gabal were public, very ostentatious and included women, dancing, flutes, cymbals, glittering costumes, and animal sacrifices galore. At Rome, Senators were forced to sit and witness the daily spectacles conducted by the Emperor and high government officials dressed in the garish costumes were forced to participate in the ceremonies. Although popular with the lower classes, the more conservative Romans considered all this very "foreign", "undignified" and "un-Roman".
Elagabulus had two temples built to his god, the first one on the Palatine and the other in the outskirts of Rome. At the Palatine temple, the Emperor enshrined the sacred Stone of Emesa along with the Carthaginian goddess Dea Caelestis as it's "bride". Dea Caelestis had been popularized by Septimius Severus who was of North African origin. Once a year, a midsummer religious procession was held during which the Stone of Emesa, shaded by parasols and accompanied by an eagle was carried on a gold and gem encrusted chariot led by Elagabulus walking backwards in reverence. These are the processions commemorated on some of his coins.
Eventually, the Roman soldiers revolted against their peculiar young Emperor. Elagabulus was murdered, stuffed down a sewer and ended up "sleeping with the fishes" at the bottom of the Tiber. However, the influence of the various Sol Invictus cults still lives on. Following the old adage, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em", between 354 and 360 A.D., the Christian Church changed the date of celebration of Christ's birth from the day of Epiphany on January 6 to December 25 (midwinter solstice in the Julian calender) which was still being gleefully celebrated by the population as the birthday of Sol Invictus.
Thanks for the info. I'm wondering about the meaning of "El Gabal." The only Semitic language I ever studied seriously was Hebrew, and that many years ago. "El" I believe is the root for "god" that we also see in Hebrew "Elohim." But what is "Gabal"? I see no "sun" there. "Sun" in Hebrew is "shemesh." Could it be "the master"? Is "Ga-" the definite article that in Hebrew is "ha-"? In that case, "-bal" would be the "Baal" root you mention.
Thanks for the info. I'm wondering about the meaning of "El Gabal." The only Semitic language I ever studied seriously was Hebrew, and that many years ago.
The following footnote was written by Edward Gibbon in his opus “The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”:
This name is derived by the learned from two Syriac words, Ela a God, and Gabal, to form, the forming or plastic God, a proper, and even a happy epithet for the Sun. Wotton's History of Rome, p. 378.
Whack job checking in to thank you for your kindness to strangers. (Do you help folks across the street in the Big Apple as well?)
The Vatican SHOULD have ex-communicated Adolph Hitler.
Thanks for the bump.
What don't you understand about the fact that excommunicating Hitler means about as much as excommunicating YOU?
The Catholic Church is not some flippin' political body that likes to "send messages". It's a City of God co-existant with the City of Man where the entire cosmos has MEANING. To excommunicate Hitler would have cheapened excommunication by reducing it to some sort of public censure. That's not what it's about. It's a serious thing ... to practicing Catholics, ONLY.
Just an aside that has nothing to do with this thread ... MAN, you weren't kidding about the Espicopal Church's being largely homosexual after all, it seems. Thought of you the other day.
Here's an off-the-wall thought: Do you think Copernicus was influenced by Sol Invictus when he postulated helio-centricy? Just curious.
Only if they've had too much to drink.
Do you think Copernicus was influenced by Sol Invictus when he postulated helio-centricy?
Nyah ... just reality.
Higher than anything the Catholics have had since Vatican II, Latin Mass, visits from English Church poo-bahs, the works.
Poobahs?
There's only one Presence that interests me ... to be found at all Masses, whether chant, full organ or strumming guitars.
No offense intended, and I do know what you mean. It is similar in the Anglican Church. Probably not so much emphasis is laid on Transubstantiation, though. "Poo-bahs" = visiting English prelates, with their elaborate aristocratic hierarchy. One must be born upper class in England to become of high rank in the Anglican Church there it seems. For poo-bahs, they were good chaps as I recall, and gave a jolly good sermon. Right regular blokes doncha know.
Hate to point this out. I know how invested you are with your historical fantasies. Copernicus was condemned by the Vatican in 1543 when he came out with his "reality" of helio-centricity.
But then, as we all know, the Vatican condemns today what it validates tomorrow. So much for Tradition.
LOL!
Our new pastor is a former Anglican (ordained at Oxford I think although he's not English). Our Choir Director's delighted, of course (the old Irish Monsignor was a big fan but only said the Latin Mass, didn't sing it, really.)
I'll admit this post-Vatican II Catholic was slackjawed in the loft the first time he said the Latin Mass (along with a phalanx of the seminarians he teaches at Notre Dame who served). It was breathtaking ... so solemn and holy and beautiful I had tears in my eyes most of the Mass.
A far cry from clown Masses, liturgical dancers, folks who no longer genuflect and those who schlep up the aisle with their hands in their jeans pockets to receive Communion. Truly diabolical what many have accomplished by their "liturgical reform" and changing up the words in hymns.
Well, you're glossing a bit and forgetting also, I think, that Copernicus was a priest.
Before Protestants took Ockham's razor to man's mind and forever split Faith and Reason, the world -- the Catholic Cosmos -- was more coherent in its connectedness. You may deride their plodding a bit but like any good scientist or mathematician, they took their time in finding true or false a theory.
I think it's also important that you understand the bookishness of Medieval Man. Everything had its place and science (as practiced by Catholic priests like Copernicus) had not yet begun to uncover the truths that would revamp entirely the medieval model on which Dante's Divine Comedy, for instance, was based.
Essential truths would not change, however, and for all the fuss made over Galileo (who was indeed unjustly dogged by Jesuits who were more afraid of his particle theory than planetary proofs) it was not (and IS NOT) the Catholic Church who has a problem with Science. That fell to the "sola Scriptura" crowd who stamped their foot and split in half like Rumpelstiltkin as they left the Church but only paved the way for the subsequent rebellion of the Enlightenment which was the abandoning ENTIRELY of Scripture and running off into the sunset that is modernism with "Sola Reason".
Many Episcopal parishes around this country are going over to the Roman Catholic Church. The parish priests are disturbed by all the PC in the American Episcopal Church (witness this thread). There are very few parishes as High Church as St. Thomas on Fifth Avenue. The Cathedral here in Seattle for example is very trendy, comparable to St. John the Divine in New Yawk or Grace Cathedral in San Francisco. I have never seen anything like St. Thomas elsewhere in the United States. That's why I mostly go to the Catholic Church out here.
Many other parishes are converting to the new denomination called the Anglo- Catholic Church - dedicated to the old traditions.
They should name that denomination after C.S. Lewis ... =)
Even given the perversions of and assaults by modernists bent on destroying all faiths from within, it's still not so surprising it's taken so long to mend bonds The New Millionaires took such pains to draw and quarter.
Best regards, Sathergate.
My dear Askel5: I agree that the secular humanists saw a hole in the line of scrimmage opened up by the Protestants, and have been running madly down the field ever since.
We, as Calvinists, have been trying to fix this. (May I mix metaphors and say that we have been trying to fix the hole in the dam).
But you Catholics certainly haven't been giving us any help getting the ball back. It seems all you guys do is stand back and point fingers at the Protestants, instead of joining us to retrieve the football.
I am being glib, of course. Actually, the Reformation was completely on-target against the murdering corruptions of the Church.
But I admit that the Disbelievers saw an opening, and took it.
It's like that time when I took Romulus (remember him) seriously and identified our common enemy as those who denied The Trinity. He has been silent ever since.
Sometimes I think you Catholics are frivilous fools.
By the way, if the liturgy is so horrid since VCII, and the Pope has absolute authority, why the heck doesn't he re-institute the Latin Mass (smells & bells), and to hell with anybody who stands in his way?
Or, does he like the vulgarizations, too.??
why the heck doesn't he re-institute the Latin Mass
What he's done is allow the RETURN of the Latin Rite which many took upon themselves to BAN. (Like a bishop in Florida has banned adoration of the Blessed Sacrament in his diocese.) The cool thing is that a Catholic who gets no help from his priest can go up the line ... to bishop, archbishop, cardinal, Pope ... and generally get relief for a pastor or bishop who's freewheeling outside the bounds of Canon Law and official Church teaching. The reason it's taken so long (and sometimes still is tough) to get the Latin Mass re-established is because -- as in the secular revolution -- the gramscians within the Church did their best to 'touch' key people and infiltrate the seminaries and most conservative orders. (Look what happened to the once glorious Jesuits, for example. They're practically a plague in the Church with the exception of priests like Kenneth Baker or Francis Canavan.)
It's again your problem with the Church's condemning Copernicus until it could reconcile his ideas with Enduring Truth. (The same process by which any new theory is tested against ALL manner of established truths to date.)
The Church wasn't quite prepared for the unleashing of the revolution and was rocked by the warfare at Vatican II and over Humanae Vitae, the rebellion of religious, the Winnipeg Statement and the insidious winning over of the American hierarchy by operators like Saul Alinsky and the CHD whose diocesan minions and ex-priests and religious sucked the life out of parishes they politicized.
If the revolution was not put down as quickly as many CAtholics -- or you -- might have liked, it may be that the Catholic Church (as the most universal and powerful -- for its cohesion -- organized religion on the planet) had long been a primary target of infiltration and was riddled with those whose intent it was to destroy her from within.
It's also possible the faithful Church leadership was keenly aware of the same truth inherent in the strategies of her mortal enemies. To wit:
Radical nuns are a GREAT example (when they aren't being total bullheaded bravado-drunk dykes) of being "victims" of the patriarchy. These were the elements at work within the Church ... to some extent, the Church too had to avoid making martyrs out of radicals.We must avoid converting to martyrs the church leaders of counter-revolutionary activities. The line of action against the church is to instruct, educate, persuade, convince and, little by little, awaken and develop fully the political consciousness of Christians, then their participation in political activities ... Through our activities we should undertake the dialectical struggle in the bosom of religion ... Progressively, we will replace teh religious elements with marxist elements.Ideological Aggresssion (1984; New York Circus [read: revolution] Publications, Ltd.)
Courtesy of The Soviet Analyst (Vo. 26, Nos. 8-9, p. 9)
You see ... each and every soul is important to the Church. We can't assume that some are just Reprobates and wouldn't be saved anyway. It's vital that we not risk losing innocents swayed by the silver tongues and drama of rebellious, utopian and angry anti-authoritarians who were kicked out of the Church before it was possible they might still apprehend their grave error in reason and correct themselves.
(I'll admit this last bit is one reason I'm sort of bemused sometimes by the way Protestants will rant on and on about their "fallen reason" =)
It's possible that the Catholic Church won't help you close the gap (with your manmade System's assorted stop-gap rationales) because it is unduly influenced by your diatribes and believes you could not possible be interested in "teamwork" of any kind. Or, it may be that you are in many respects the Absolute Worst of Protestantism and the Absolute Worst of Paganism to boot.
We can continue that discussion on my "Calvin" thread if you like. It will save folks the trouble of having to link to it for citing purposes as I borrow Belloc's very succinctly worded arguments to keep my posts pithy.
the gramscians within the Church did their best to 'touch' key people and infiltrate the seminaries and most conservative orders
Meaning, by the way, that not only had the Latin Mass become "politically incorrect" you couldn't find a young priest that knew how to say it!
As my Mom used to say - "Singing is Praying twice."
Man ... just Who's side ARE you on?
Good NIGHT!
Please see my post #67 above. It remains unanswered.
Whenever Roman Catholics are "bettered" in debate, they slink away, hoping nobody notices they've vanished, like the lies they came in with.
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |