There's been a lot said (in the news and elsewhere) for a number of years, now, about perverse Catholic priests and what they do with children behind semi- closed doors; as well as the ritualistic, satanic reasons they have for engaging in such devious mischief. While this is a distasteful subject and one I would rather not broach, "For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret [Ephesians 5:12]," still it is a compelling subject; especially to one raised Protestant.
To begin with, I feel compelled to point out that I am catholic-- not Catholic-- and, as such, I really only understand the finer points of the Roman faith from the outside- looking- in. Notwithstanding my Protestant upbringing, I've been compelled to worship and fellowship with Catholics for some years, now, owing to the completely depraved condition of all Protestantism. The exceptions, here -- if they do indeed exist -- prove the rule to be the 'hard- and- fast' "rock of offence" it surely is.
Eleven years ago, the Lutheran church split due to the largest synod in North America being so queer as to demand out- and- proud gays and lesbians [and-- by implication-- pedophiles, of course] in their pulpits. And Marty's babies aren't the only ones. They're only the very top of the tip of the iceberg. 'The Gazette' reported 10 December, 2010: "The Presbyterian Church (USA), United Methodist Church, United Church of Christ, Episcopal Church and the American Baptist Church USA have experienced tremendous internal discord over the [queers- in- pulpit] issue."
Having said this much, I'm likewise compelled to confess my personal doubt that these "Roman" priests are anything but Protestant infiltrators, sent into the Catholic fold to condemn them with the same limp- wristed, light- loafered
Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by 'controlled opposition.' Controlled opposition is a device by which a body of people (usually a political action committee) attempts to monopolize a conversation or argument (and, thus, its fallout) by planting 'bad actors' on the side opposing their own. This works especially well when the subject matter discussed in a given debate is as distasteful as all things queer are.
By 'championing' the opposing case: the bad actor has the opportunity to make the side he or she is pretending to support look weak and beggarly-- being the first and loudest to voice opinions which the more modest adherents to the opposition point of view don't even want to talk about-- because of the bad taste such conversation leaves in their mouth.
Meanwhile, everyone on the proposing side knows John Baptist is queer. They know John Baptist's boyfriend's name is Mario. They know Mario works at Romeo's Kitchen. And they know the reason John and Jane Baptist always go to Romeo's to eat, whenever they eat out (in spite of the fact that Romeo's serves "spirits" of which John Baptist is deathly afraid) is, ironically, not because (as John Baptist is ever so fond of exclaiming from the pulpit) "The food is just to die for!"
The real reason John and Jane always eat at Romeo's is because Mario is just to die for, and even if Jane has to prey on the young men attending John's School of Divinity-- because Mario can't stand to swing from both sides any more than Johnny can-- she can always get the most insightful makeup tips from beautiful young Mario when they stop in at Romeo's. This sort of 'hammy' bad acting comforts the queers and lulls the sheeple to sleep. Why wake up and shout from the rooftops when it's Johnny's 'Job' to do so?
At any rate, this type of shenanigan is par- for- course in Protestant circles-- in my experience-- and frankly may be the reason so many Protestants poo- poo the Pope for not turning the miscreant priests over to the secular authorities. After all, if these priests are (as I suspect) Protestant infiltrators, the last thing their supporters in Protestant denominations want is for the Jesuits to get them alone in subterranean inquisition chambers and 'hammer out of them' the intelligence of who they really work for. And it's precisely because of such nefarious shenanigans that I chose to remove myself from Protestant fellowship and observances.
Now, Catholics have their own problems, and I'm not the first to admit this; but the quality of fellowship is far more commendable in Catholic circles than in the exceeding wickedness of Protestantism. Catholics don't believe in sacrificing their children to please God, like Protestants and the Jews who proseletyzed us all do. Catholics are far more family- oriented than Protestants, as a rule. There's more love and less perversion to be found in Catholic parishes than in Protestant churches. In fact, in Protestant churches, the only thing that goes for love is perversion. But Catholics have their problems, and their problems begin as far back as Calvary, at least.
I don't have a firm grip on Catholic history, but from what little I've read and heard about it: it seems to me the Roman controversy really begins at Peter being 'chosen' as the chief apostle of Christ; by what seems to me to be inference. In his gospel, Matthew records an exchange between Jesus and the apostle Peter. Jesus asks the disciples: "whom say ye that I am [Matthew 16:15]?" Peter-- more- or- less echoing every unclean spirit heard from in Matthew's gospel, previous to this exchange-- responds, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God [verse16b & c, ibid.]."
To this 'spirited' ejaculation of Peter's, Jesus says, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood [meaning: John Baptist] hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter [meaning: a stone], and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it [verses 17a - 18, ibid.]." Some say the "rock" on which the Lord promised to build his church is therefore the stone, Peter; though this is inferred.
If Peter were the "rock" upon which the Lord built his house [which is to say his church]: Jesus would have told us to 'pile on Pete,' wouldn't he? when did he do so? When did Pete ever say so? In Matthew 7:24, Jesus shatters this illusion thusly: "Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock..." Peter likewise rebuffs this notion that the "stone" is the "rock."
In his first epistle general, stone Peter writes: "Ye also [with Pete, that is], as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be ashamed [1 Peter 2:5 & 6]." Of this "corner stone," which is Jesus Christ, he proceeds to say: it is "a stone of stumbling, and a rock [!] of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed [verse 8, ibid.]." So, it is, according to Pete, disobedient to God to stumble upon Jesus and choose Pete as the rock to build on instead.
The thing about this controversy that baffles me is the-- seemingly, at least-- superstitious nature of the misunderstanding. If Our Lady is the mother of Christ; and she is the mother of the church: why is John the Divine not the apostle whose remains (or lack of remains, for that matter) are venerated under St. Peter's? Why is the basilica not called 'St. John's?' It was to the apostle John, after all, whom Jesus of Nazareth said, "Behold thy mother!" referring to the Blessed Virgin.
In attending Mass with Roman parishes; I have been exposed, a number of times, to the doctrine that our principal duty-- as the mystical Body of Christ-- is to fulfill the law and the prophets in like manner to the way Jesus did: in loving God with all we are and have; and in loving our neighbors as ourselves. This is a thing considered impossible by Protestants, and therefore dismissed as 'rubbish' by them; though scripture agrees with the Romans on this, as do I.
This, however, again leads us to the apostle John, who is the only one scripture records as ever saying: "God is love [1 John 4:8b, et. al.]." It is John, therefore, who properly identifies the currency and exchange of the sacred economy; thereby defining the proper role for the church to play in acting as the central house of banking on that exchange. At least the Romans haven't-- as Protestants have-- venerated the 'Sodom [Revelation 11:8]' that murdered our Lord: yet; and hopefully never will. This, however, is academic.
Jesus is the rock on which to build: and this because he is founded on the Rock [Deuteronomy 32:4, 18 & 31] that is love. All others are 'shifting sand [Matthew 7:26 & 27],' and will lead to perdition.
"Thou shalt have none other gods before me [Deuteronomy 5:7]: not even Jesus Christ."
No comments:
Post a Comment