|
|
Post by cataracts on Nov 20, 2006 0:33:38 GMT -8
The Pontifical court of Leo X was the principle center of the scientific, literary, and artistic movements of Europe. The Vatican was the rendezvous of artists, authors, philosophers and of anyone that excelled in any branch of intellectual culture. They hosted Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Michael Angelo just to name of few of the great ones.
It was in this age of truly intellectual greatness, which was presided over by the Pope that Protestantism appeared to do what? Why to set us free and reinstate the human intellect.
Protestantism at its birth appeared as a revolt against religious authority and at the same time as a protest against the principles and moral teachings of Christianity. They rebelled against reason which had been restored to its original purity by Christianity.
Take Luther's revolt against Church authority. He had rejected all external authority in matters of religion. Luther established the principle of the independance of each individual Christian. How is it that he substituted his own credo for the credo of the Catholic Church. What did Luther teach? "By original sin man has lost all strength, all power to know truth and to do good. Man's moral and religious faculties are not only weakened, but destroyed. Man has become essentially wicked. Reason, as it relates to God and to that which concerns the moral order, no longer exists. Liberty is but a word." I would be ashamed to admit that I believed this. Yet, this is what Luther taught. Luther the first of the "great" reformers.
Luther wrote a book called "The Slave Will". He openly attacks philosophy and human reason. He called these 'the works of satan'.
Luther hated the Catholic universities. Please understand that all the universities were Catholic. His hatred of the universities amounted to madness. Luther's interpretation of St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians is that faith ought to trample reason, or as he put it," strangle the beast". In his last speach at Wittemberg he says that "reason is the bride of the devil, a prostitute, an abomination, which with its wisdom we ought to tread under foot."
Calvin, Zuingle, and other leaders of the Reformation, were not as nasty as Luther concerning reason, but all the Protestant leaders agreed on two points: "Man is not free. Good works are useless to salvation." So what did they do? They denied reason and the dignity of man. They wanted to destroy the moral order of all progress and of all civilization. Good works, with them, became useless. This alone would destroy the very idea of duty, to destroy morality, to reduce man to the level of brutes.
If the nations of Europe would have bought into this 'religion' it would have been the end of civilization. Happily for Europe, public opinion, good sense, decency, ranged themselves on the side of Catholicity. Even the nations that accepted Luther and his cronies as their religious leaders, ordinarily rejected them in practice. Catholic teaching had left too great an impact on these nations by their Catholic doctrine.
It was these men who are the "Fathers of all Protestantism". Every Protestant Church in the USA can trace its roots to these early Protestant Church Fathers. For 500 years they have attacked our great, sweet Church.
Please understand, I know there are Protestant men and women that are better Christians than I am. There are probably many whose faith is heads and shoulder stronger than my own. But I have an intellect and I always use my reasoning powers to the best of my ability. If there are great Protestant Christians, than join the Catholic Church and become even greater Christians.
Cataracts
|
|
|
|
Post by tits on Nov 20, 2006 17:40:54 GMT -8
your bias.
They hosted Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Michael Angelo just to name of few of the great ones.
A questions that has plagued me since I first visited Rome and the Vatican so many years ago. da Vinci's great works commissioned by the Pope, did the Pope have any great heartburn for the depictions of Christ as the revisionist have recently argued?
One argument that really makes me want to puke is the concept that last supper is an accurate photograph of those events. Leonardo had the same sources we have to research his facts. My understanding and conjecture has created an image that bares little resemblence to that painting. For one, I have concluded that more than "the Twelve" were with Jesus in that upper room. The story in Luke of the Two disciples on the road to Emmeus recognized the Christ only after "he broke the bread". Also, the story of Acts and a few references imply that John Mark the boy was helping his mother as they gathered in her house for the passover feast. Others imply that Justus and Mathias were to have been with Christ and the disciples and the apostles from the beginning.
Acts 1:21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."
23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Anyway, I have invisioned the last supper to have maybe 18 to 20 people gathered in that crowded rooftop room. That they were louging in a semicircle and that they were sereved by the women of the house.
The point is, how in the world is that famous da Vinci painting taken to be an authenic reproduction of that famous event?
|
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Nov 20, 2006 22:53:19 GMT -8
Tittus,
Whoever told you that da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper is an authentic reproduction? This is the first time anyone has ever said this to me. I think it is rather obvious that it is impossible to be an accurate reproduction. That painting is da Vinci's rendition of what he thought the Last Supper might looked like. This is rather basic!
It's nice that you have imagined 20 people sitting around on a rooftop with women serving them food. Too bad you didn't live at the time of da Vinci. Maybe you would have changed his painting.
Cataracts
|
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Nov 21, 2006 2:32:38 GMT -8
your bias. They hosted Leonardo da Vinci, Raphael, Michael Angelo just to name of few of the great ones.
A questions that has plagued me since I first visited Rome and the Vatican so many years ago. da Vinci's great works commissioned by the Pope, did the Pope have any great heartburn for the depictions of Christ as the revisionist have recently argued? One argument that really makes me want to puke is the concept that last supper is an accurate photograph of those events. Leonardo had the same sources we have to research his facts. My understanding and conjecture has created an image that bares little resemblence to that painting. For one, I have concluded that more than "the Twelve" were with Jesus in that upper room. The story in Luke of the Two disciples on the road to Emmeus recognized the Christ only after "he broke the bread". Also, the story of Acts and a few references imply that John Mark the boy was helping his mother as they gathered in her house for the passover feast. Others imply that Justus and Mathias were to have been with Christ and the disciples and the apostles from the beginning. Acts 1:21Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, 22beginning from John's baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become a witness with us of his resurrection."
23So they proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias. 24Then they prayed, "Lord, you know everyone's heart. Show us which of these two you have chosen 25to take over this apostolic ministry, which Judas left to go where he belongs." 26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.
Anyway, I have invisioned the last supper to have maybe 18 to 20 people gathered in that crowded rooftop room. That they were louging in a semicircle and that they were sereved by the women of the house. The point is, how in the world is that famous da Vinci painting taken to be an authenic reproduction of that famous event? Tittus, I'm sorry that you think my rationale is weak, but then how does it compare to your rationale. Who are the revisionist? What do they say? My understanding and conjecture................. Created images......................................... I have concluded.....based on what? After He broke bread....................So! Imply that John Mark and a boy.............What? Others imply..........what? where?? I have envisioned........  What kind of rationale is this? Cataracts |
|
|
|
Post by tits on Nov 21, 2006 11:16:38 GMT -8
Tittus, Whoever told you that da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper is an authentic reproduction? This is the first time anyone has ever said this to me. I think it is rather obvious that it is impossible to be an accurate reproduction. That painting is da Vinci's rendition of what he thought the Last Supper might looked like. This is rather basic! It's nice that you have imagined 20 people sitting around on a rooftop with women serving them food. Too bad you didn't live at the time of da Vinci. Maybe you would have changed his painting. Cataracts to the debates. Though no one called it a photograph of the event, but many have used it as proof that Christ was married for the youthful John to the Christ's left appears to be a woman. They argue that this is proof that da Vinci had proof that the Christ was married and this is Mary Magdalene. |
|
|
|
Post by tits on Nov 21, 2006 11:38:31 GMT -8
While I can pull out a few references that are my source for these, you could also pull out a few sources for your's. In the end, it is based on two things.
How can we believe the other if we refuse to give them credence of possible truth?
Where did either of us deny Christ?
Years ago I came to see a few of Jesus' own words in a new light.
John 20: 20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
and
Mark 9: 38"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
39"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us. 41I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.
In these and a few OT stories of how God listen to the prayer of a non-Israelite have caused me to question my myopic perspective of faith and God. If you have been reading between the lines of my posts as your aspersions seem to imply, then you will see that I am searching for my way, not your way, Mike's way, Twil's way; but my way into the fellowship with Christ. The above words of Christ tells me that his Mansion is much larger than the RCC, Church of Christ, or Lutheran alone. I found one day those words of abomination in Matthew 7 and 25 against being "religious" very frightening. Cat, I have known your heart for it was once mine, I still have many friends who will not fellowship or bow a knee to praise God because there may be a non-Catholic or a Catholic in the room. But to me, Christ's words to John were against me: "what is that to you? You must follow me."
To me Cat, the enemy is not the flesh and blood, but the socially accepted concept that those of us of faith are the root of all evil. That we cannot proclaim the name of God in our courts, that we cannot proclaim the name of Christ at Christmas, that we cannot denounce homosexuality because of our faith, and many other problems shout that I, we, must be about "serving" him.
Cat, I can tell from your words that you have deep love for Christ and do serve him. May your example help to win many a wounded soul to Him. May your example help to heal the terrible wounding that our society inflicts upon many.
|
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Nov 21, 2006 23:28:19 GMT -8
Tittus, Whoever told you that da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper is an authentic reproduction? This is the first time anyone has ever said this to me. I think it is rather obvious that it is impossible to be an accurate reproduction. That painting is da Vinci's rendition of what he thought the Last Supper might looked like. This is rather basic! It's nice that you have imagined 20 people sitting around on a rooftop with women serving them food. Too bad you didn't live at the time of da Vinci. Maybe you would have changed his painting. Cataracts to the debates. Though no one called it a photograph of the event, but many have used it as proof that Christ was married for the youthful John to the Christ's left appears to be a woman. They argue that this is proof that da Vinci had proof that the Christ was married and this is Mary Magdalene. Tittus, I looked at Dan Brown's "da Vinci Code" realized that it was trash and then threw it away. Is there any other solution to this garbage? Cataracts |
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Nov 21, 2006 23:39:21 GMT -8
While I can pull out a few references that are my source for these, you could also pull out a few sources for your's. In the end, it is based on two things. How can we believe the other if we refuse to give them credence of possible truth? Where did either of us deny Christ? Years ago I came to see a few of Jesus' own words in a new light. John 20: 20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
and Mark 9: 38"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
39"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us. 41I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.
In these and a few OT stories of how God listen to the prayer of a non-Israelite have caused me to question my myopic perspective of faith and God. If you have been reading between the lines of my posts as your aspersions seem to imply, then you will see that I am searching for my way, not your way, Mike's way, Twil's way; but my way into the fellowship with Christ. The above words of Christ tells me that his Mansion is much larger than the RCC, Church of Christ, or Lutheran alone. I found one day those words of abomination in Matthew 7 and 25 against being "religious" very frightening. Cat, I have known your heart for it was once mine, I still have many friends who will not fellowship or bow a knee to praise God because there may be a non-Catholic or a Catholic in the room. But to me, Christ's words to John were against me: "what is that to you? You must follow me." To me Cat, the enemy is not the flesh and blood, but the socially accepted concept that those of us of faith are the root of all evil. That we cannot proclaim the name of God in our courts, that we cannot proclaim the name of Christ at Christmas, that we cannot denounce homosexuality because of our faith, and many other problems shout that I, we, must be about "serving" him. Cat, I can tell from your words that you have deep love for Christ and do serve him. May your example help to win many a wounded soul to Him. May your example help to heal the terrible wounding that our society inflicts upon many. Tittus, Most of the starting post on this page is using James Cardinal Gibbons as my source of information. He is an excellent sourch of information. He lived approximately 100 years ago. Based on his reputation and the many other sources I have read in the past, what I have written is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I don't mind listening to your theories. Unfortunately they are based on personalities like Dan Brown and da Vinci's paintings and who knows what else? I'm sorry, but they simply are not even close to being good enough. I think it is good that you are a Christian. Now it's your job to prove to yourself that what you believe is in fact really true. You cannot do this with any reliance on Dan Brown. You can't do it with any reliance on Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and on and on and on. To prove your faith is true, which I know it is, you must go to the Catholic Church. There is no other way of doing it. By the way, I know that I am a terrible salesman. I am more scientifically minded than anything. I sincerely doubt that I have ever converted anyone to Catholicism. But I'm doing the best I know how. Cataracts |
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Dec 6, 2006 22:26:35 GMT -8
While I can pull out a few references that are my source for these, you could also pull out a few sources for your's. In the end, it is based on two things. How can we believe the other if we refuse to give them credence of possible truth? Where did either of us deny Christ? Years ago I came to see a few of Jesus' own words in a new light. John 20: 20Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against Jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") 21When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?"
22Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." 23Because of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
and Mark 9: 38"Teacher," said John, "we saw a man driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
39"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "No one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, 40for whoever is not against us is for us. 41I tell you the truth, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to Christ will certainly not lose his reward.
In these and a few OT stories of how God listen to the prayer of a non-Israelite have caused me to question my myopic perspective of faith and God. If you have been reading between the lines of my posts as your aspersions seem to imply, then you will see that I am searching for my way, not your way, Mike's way, Twil's way; but my way into the fellowship with Christ. The above words of Christ tells me that his Mansion is much larger than the RCC, Church of Christ, or Lutheran alone. I found one day those words of abomination in Matthew 7 and 25 against being "religious" very frightening. Cat, I have known your heart for it was once mine, I still have many friends who will not fellowship or bow a knee to praise God because there may be a non-Catholic or a Catholic in the room. But to me, Christ's words to John were against me: "what is that to you? You must follow me." To me Cat, the enemy is not the flesh and blood, but the socially accepted concept that those of us of faith are the root of all evil. That we cannot proclaim the name of God in our courts, that we cannot proclaim the name of Christ at Christmas, that we cannot denounce homosexuality because of our faith, and many other problems shout that I, we, must be about "serving" him. Cat, I can tell from your words that you have deep love for Christ and do serve him. May your example help to win many a wounded soul to Him. May your example help to heal the terrible wounding that our society inflicts upon many. Tittus, After reading over your post again I realize that my response was probably not adequate. I am not intelligent enough or well read enough to figure things out for myself, along certain subjects. It's like having circuit breakers kick out in our home for no apparent reason. I would call an electrician rather than try to figure it out for myself. My home is much to valuable to leave in the hands of amateurs (myself in this case). I would want to go to the person that has the proper skills to solve this problem. I would feel more comfortable and my home wouldn't burn down. Our souls are much more valuable than our homes. This is why I depend on the Roman Catholic Church. Our Faith has been their job for 2000 years. I am an ameteur. If I want to know about God and the Truth then I will go to the people that are truly the experts. Oddly enough my understanding has increased quite a bit since I have been reading Catholic literature. I don't go to any kind of school or even to educational courses at Church. There is literally "tons" of books that range from mystical, to biographies, to encyclicals, to in depth books on a multitude of subjects. The Catholic teachings are truly monumental. Under no circumstances would I be able to grasp the subjects on my own without the aid of this literature. In the recent past, with the backing of John Paul II, the things that are in the Catholic archives is being brough out for everyone to see. Information is being put on electronic recording devices such as dvd's. These are being sold to anyone that wants them. Books that have been put out of print for many years are being republisized. My wife and I have quite a large amount of books that have been out of print for a hundred years or better. Go back to the Catholic Church. You can't lose. Cataracts |
|
|
|
Post by tits on Dec 7, 2006 14:22:05 GMT -8
Do you think those are St. Paul's remains that were recentlly discovered?
|
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Dec 7, 2006 22:29:32 GMT -8
? |
|
|
|
Post by tits on Dec 8, 2006 14:44:02 GMT -8
? ROME - Vatican archaeologists have unearthed a sarcophagus believed to contain the remains of the Apostle Paul that had been buried beneath Rome's second largest basilica. The sarcophagus, which dates back to at least A.D. 390, has been the subject of an extended excavation that began in 2002 and was completed last month, the project's head said this week. www.startribune.com/614/story/857336.htmlVatican archaeologists unearth what they think is St. Paul's tomb |
|
|
|
Post by cataracts on Dec 8, 2006 21:48:22 GMT -8
I don't know. Maybe!
|
|
